Reporter's Notebook

The Certainty of More Shootings
Show Description +

James Fallows leads an ongoing discussion with readers on the inevitability (or otherwise) of mass shootings in the U.S. To join in, drop us a note: hello@theatlantic.com.

Show None Newer Notes

Is This Finally the Time for Gun Reform?

Now that the immediate crisis in Orlando has passed and the long process of recovery continues, it’s worth revisiting our long and sadly ongoing discussion thread on mass shootings. In the most recent installments from January, an Australian reader noted the dramatic gun-control measures that the Australia government imposed following the the 1996 Port Arthur massacre—one of the deadliest in world history, killing 35, but now surpassed by the body count of 50 in Orlando. Australia subsequently banned automatic and semi-automatic rifles and pump-action shotguns, and a compulsory “National Firearms Buyback Scheme” got 600,000 such guns out of private hands.

Several readers scrutinized our reader’s Australia-U.S. comparison, and even the Australian reader himself listed several reasons why similar reforms would be next to impossible in the U.S. However, this next Australian reader, emailing this week, argues that Americans could still follow the lead of Australians without going to the extreme of bans and buyback schemes:

The reasons why mass shootings have been limited in Australia are not just related to the 1990s buyback of semi-auto weapons. There are a lot of more practical steps that keep guns off the street and out of the hands of criminals and psychopaths.

For instance, anyone who wants to keep guns in their home must have a police-approved gun safe, which must be fixed in place with approved mounting bolts so that it cannot be removed. Guns are required to be locked in the safe at all times when not actually in use and ammunition must be stored separately. And I’m not talking about an old school locker with the key on top; there are detailed specifications for gun safes to prevent them being broken into, and it is an offence to leave the keys lying around the house where they can be found by an intruder. Police routinely check shooters’ safes for compliance.

Last Wednesday, several days after the massacre in Orlando, a reader wrote:

I think Notes is the best place to vent my frustration. Dear Media:

Please stop publishing pictures of the Pulse shooter. Whether or not martyrdom was part of his mindset, constantly referring to him by name and publishing his picture creates infamy where there should be none. Relentlessly publishing photos of the shooter (even worse, selfies), he becomes more important than the victims. It iconifies him, and if he did indeed do this act in the name of Allah, it reinforces him as a martyr by giving him more of an identity than the victims. I think he deserves to be stripped of an identity.

On that count, the homepage of The New York Times did a commendable job:

Here’s a novel thought from a reader: “Perhaps we could name the perpetrators of mass shootings in a manner similar to the naming of hurricanes. Instead of names, real or made-up, we could use a series of number/letter combinations to refer to the gunmen.”

Another reader, Jamie, has also been frustrated with media coverage of the Pulse shooter:

Given the resurgence in public interest in the phenomenon of mass shootings following the tragic events in Orlando, there’s one factor that seems to be overlooked—specifically, how the modern media landscape inspires copycat killers. The Atlantic has previously ran several excellent articles on the subject, including “Are Mass Shootings Contagious?” and “The Media Needs to Stop Inspiring Copycat Murders. Here’s How.

I am personally of the opinion that this is the single most persuasive explanation for the increase in mass shootings.