Richard Martinez is getting people talking about sensible gun laws, but don't get your hopes up
By E.B. | WASHINGTON, DC
“DO YOU know what the ‘Hunger Games’ movies are about?” Rush Limbaugh asked his listeners earlier this week. “It’s teenagers killing other teenagers.” Elliot Rodger, the disturbed 22-year-old who went on a shooting rampage last week in California, using three semiautomatic handguns guns he bought legally, was surely no stranger to the thrilling books and Hollywood franchise. His father, Peter Rodger, worked on the films. Indeed, while “everybody on the left” is using the murders to “advance their political agenda, in this case to get rid of the Second Amendment”, Mr Limbaugh smells another smoking gun. “Why not blame Hollywood movies here?”
The debate over the roots of America’s gun violence is sadly predictable. A big, tragic event ensures everyone takes their places and rattles off memorised lines. On one side are the folks who complain (rather convincingly, mind) that America has far too many guns and not enough measures to keep them out of the wrong hands. On the other are those who say the problem isn’t guns but what’s rotting in American culture: fraying families, neglected churches, violent video games, bullying social media and mistreated mental illness. The two sides don’t need to talk to each other, and soon they will go quiet again. Gun violence has claimed more than 4,350 lives since January 1st (and killed or injured 475 children), a fact that is as mundane as it is grim.
There was a time after the shootings in Newtown in 2012 when it seemed like an actual conversation was taking place. Americans began weighing the government’s obligation to protect the rights of gun owners against its duty to protect the lives of its citizens, particularly the very young. Though many legislators were reluctant to introduce new restrictions, most seemed to recognise the merits of tightening the ones that already exist, such as more thorough background checks for gun buyers, with better screening for those with mental illness. But within a year, the push for reform went slack. The National Rifle Association drew fire; politicians cowered; and many Americans soldiered on, chastened, disillusioned and resigned. (For an autopsy of what happened—and a case for why gun control is doomed—read this excellent piece from Lexington.) Americans are learning to live with gun massacres.
Yet the gun-control cause has a potently tragic new recruit. “We don’t have to live like this,” declared Richard Martinez on May 24th, the day after Rodger murdered his 20-year-old son, Christopher. “Too many have died. We should say to ourselves, not one more.” In a searing 80-second speech (which is worth watching), his face flushed, eyes wet with grief, he lambasted “craven, irresponsible politicians, and the NRA” for enabling his son’s death. “They talk about gun rights; what about Chris’s right to live?”
Mr Martinez has vowed to fight for more responsible gun laws. He is a powerful spokesman. As a military police officer in the army before becoming a criminal-defense lawyer, he says he understands guns. “I have friends who are in the NRA. I grew up on a farm. I hunted. I killed animals,” Mr Martinez told the Washington Post. “But assault rifles and semiautomatic weapons? There is no need for those except in war.” He has said he will meet the parents of the boy who killed his son. “If I can meet and find common ground with (dad Peter Rodger), why the f--- can’t the Democrats and Republicans in Congress do the same?”
Recognising the narrow window for action to address gun violence, California lawmakers have moved quickly. Legislation has been proposed that would delay gun permits for those whose family and friends complain to police about a possible mental disorder (as Elliot Rodger’s parents did). Law-enforcement officials could seek an order from a judge to keep such people from buying or owning a gun. This is sensible, though some have already voiced concerns that this would limit the civil liberties of the mentally disabled. Others have trouble imagining it will be signed by Jerry Brown, California’s governor, who has vetoed gun-control legislation in the past. On Saturday Tim Donelly, a Republican state assemblyman who hopes to become California's next governor, campaigned door-to-door in Santa Ana in a cap showing his support for the NRA. “I don’t believe there’s any place for partisan politics or political agendas in the aftermath of that tragedy,” he said.
In the meantime, federal legislators have been mum on the subject. On Friday Jay Carney, the president’s outgoing press secretary, offered more lame excuses for government inaction (though there is plenty that the president can do unilaterally, as Adam Gopnik writes here). All of this makes it a little too easy to envisage the day—next week? Next month?—when Richard Martinez’s son is no longer a cause célèbre but a statistic.
