There's no place like CounterPunch, it's just that simple. And as the radical space within the "alternative media"(whatever that means) landscape continues to shrink, sanctuaries such as CounterPunch become all the more crucial for our political, intellectual, and moral survival. Add to that the fact that CounterPunch won't inundate you with ads and corporate propaganda. So it should be clear why CounterPunch needs your support: so it can keep doing what it's been doing for nearly 25 years. As CP Editor, Jeffrey St. Clair, succinctly explained, "We lure you in, and then punch you in the kidneys." Pleasant and true though that may be, the hard-working CP staff is more than just a few grunts greasing the gears of the status quo.
So come on, be a pal, make a tax deductible donation to CounterPunch today to support our annual fund drive, if you have already donated we thank you! If you haven't, do it because you want to. Do it because you know what CounterPunch is worth. Do it because CounterPunch needs you. Every dollar is tax-deductible. (PayPal accepted)
With an average of three mass shootings per year in the US since the Columbine High School massacre in Littleton, CO in April of 1999—and five mass shootings in the first nine months of 2013 alone—many are justifiably concerned and frustrated. Mainstream politicians dither, debating how best to treat the symptoms of the problem without overly upsetting the arms manufacturers who fund their campaigns. Increased background checks and bans on certain types of weapons are discussed, but little concrete action is taken and few Americans believe that the limited palette of solutions considered by Congress would do much to staunch the bloodshed.
After all, the manufacture of new assault weapons was temporarily banned by federal law from 1994 to 2004, but it’s not clear this had any impact on reducing gun violence. The National Rifle Association reliably rails against any gun control legislation, ostensibly out of reverence for the Second Amendment, but more likely out of fealty to their corporate funders. Still, it is not always true that the enemy of my enemy is my friend—or in this case, that new laws to restrict access to firearms would effectively address the symptoms, let alone get to the root of the problem.
And what is the root of the problem? In a word: poverty, alienation and a culture of violence, the example for which is set by our so-called leaders. As Martin Luther King Jr. explained, poverty is violence. Exploitation and injustice are violence perpetrated by those at the top against those at the bottom.
People who are happy, healthy, loved, well-educated and constructively employed rarely become mass shooters. Moreover, individuals tend to be influenced by the example set by those in positions of power. What happens in the corporate and government suites sets the tone for what occurs in the streets. In our current culture of endless war, imperial aggression, public officials turning a blind eye to Wall Street and other corporate crime, rock star status for the super-rich and callous disregard for the working poor, the message filtering down is very different than would be the case if peace, justice and solidarity were the hallmarks of our domestic and foreign policy.
With this in mind, here are five steps we can take right now to make gun violence a thing of the past.
1. Free, Single-Payer Medicare for All
Improving health care may be one of the best ways to reduce urban violence, as a community nursing program begun in 1970 demonstrated. If we’re serious about ending mass shootings, we should expand Medicare to cover everyone, from cradle to grave, with no premiums, no deductibles and no copays. Include complete coverage for preventative care and all necessary medical, dental and optical care. Treat health care as a right rather than a privilege. Remove the for-profit insurance companies completely from the mix. Instead, let health and wellbeing steer our national health policy.
Populations with single-payer health care systems—like Canada, Japan, Switzerland, France and Cuba—are healthier than the US.
But far more benefit is derived from a single-payer system than improved physical health. There is also a huge reduction in personal anxiety and financial stress. There would no longer be any need for individuals to worry about health care costs. And significantly, a comprehensive national health plan would completely separate health care eligibility from work. If you can’t find a job, or you get laid off, or you have to go on strike, you’re still fully covered.
What about Obamacare (aka Romneycare, aka the Heritage Foundation Plan.) Does this move us toward the single-payer ideal? Absolutely not. Like Obama himself, Obamacare is a wolf in sheep’s clothing. It is designed to guarantee mega profits to the insurance industry while it leaves 30 million without access to health care, and large premiums, copays, deductibles and out-of-pocket expenses for the rest. Obama himself, in a speech to the American Medical Association, assured all concerned that his health plan was no Trojan horse for single payer.
Right wing ideologues oppose Obamacare for the wrong reasons—because they oppose any national policy that offers even a pretense of benefiting working people. Moreover, in the current political landscape, where the Democratic and Republican parties fall over each other in their obsequiousness to corporate power while staking their reputations on the perception that they are ideologically distinct from one another, if the right were to have embraced Obama’s phony health care solution it would likely have been the kiss of death for the plan. Are those on the extreme right wily enough to see that feigning condemnation of their own Heritage Foundation plan when it was branded as Obamacare was the best way to ensure its adoption? Who knows? In any case, we are again reminded that the enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend.
2. Free Quality Education for All
There is a strong correlation between crime and education. Better educated youth and adults are less likely to be involved in violent crime.
As a step toward eliminating gun violence, we should better fund public elementary and high school education, reduce class sizes and increase teacher pay to attract the best and the brightest.
University education should also be free and available to all. Is this practical? Absolutely. Note that university education is currently free in Estonia, Norway, Finland, Argentina and Cuba, Brazil and Sri Lanka, among others. Undergraduate tuition in France is less than 200 Euros per year. The University of California system was tuition-free up until 1970.
3. Guarantee Jobs for All
A publication of the International Monetary Fund suggests that, “Lack of employment opportunities may trigger violence and juvenile delinquency.” According to Daniel Webster, professor and co-director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research, “One of the strongest correlates for homicide is ‘concentrated disadvantage,’ where everyone living in an area is poor and unemployed.”
To really address gun violence, we must guarantee everyone the right to a good job, at union scale wages. Is this feasible? Absolutely. In the first place, there is much work that needs to be done repairing aging infrastructure; building additional schools and health care facilities; constructing local, regional and national mass transit networks; and retrofitting the economy to run on sustainable energy. But even if every single useful job were covered, it would still be possible to guarantee jobs for all.
American labor productivity has increased tremendously since the eight-hour day was mandated for the printing trades in 1905 and for most other workers by 1937. As the chart below shows, productivity per capita of US workers has increased over 5,000% since 1929 ($45,551 vs. $851.) By 2009, every man, woman and child was producing 64 times more value per year, on average, than their counterparts at the time of the New Deal ($45,551 vs. $713.)
So the solution to joblessness is simple: reduce the work week to thirty hours with no reduction in pay. This would spread all of the available work around, while allowing working people to share in the monumental productivity gains that their labor has wrought. Ironically, a change of this type might create such a demand for labor that we would have to encourage immigration from Mexico and elsewhere to fill all of the available jobs.
4. Slash the War Budget
The violence we see at home is a reflection of the violence our government exports. A government that spends more on killing than the next ten largest military budgets in the world combined, that props upmurderous dictators and violently suppresses popular rebellion—all in order to shore up corporate profits—has no moral standing to address violence at home.
Bring all the troops home now. Use the trillions spent on the Pentagon, the CIA and the NSA to fund health care, education and other needed social programs. Retool factories and retrain workers involved in war production to build mass transit and other socially useful things.
What about terrorist threats? Would these changes leave us vulnerable to foreigners who might want to do us harm? Quite the contrary. So much of the animus towards the US is blowback from our government’s military and profit-centric foreign policy. Besides, more Americans die annually from traffic accidents or intestinal illnesses than from terrorism.
In his 1967 speech at Riverside Church, MLK cited our own government as “the greatest purveyor of violence in the world”. If we want to be serious about addressing gun violence at the grass roots, we can’t ignore the policy and culture of violence that is promoted at the highest levels.
5. Abolish the “War on Drugs”
This one should be obvious. Regardless of anyone’s view on the personal drug use, it’s abundantly clear that modern drug prohibition has been no more effective than was alcohol prohibition in the 1920s. And just as earlier prohibition spawned the likes of Al Capone, the modern “war on drugs” has contributed significantly to urban violence, with the FBI reporting an average of 490 drug-related murders per year between 2007 and 2011. Add to this a pattern of discriminatory enforcement and the unequal impact the “war on drugs” has had on the poor and people of color and it’s abundantly clear that, to really address urban violence, the phony war on drugs has got to go.
Treat drug addiction as an illness, not a crime. And, with guaranteed jobs, educational opportunities and health care for all, no one would be compelled by economic necessity to enter the drug trade.
Now consider this: Drugs that have long been illegal are still widely available on the street. Shouldn’t this give us pause when considering whether legal prohibition of firearms would actually make them unavailable?
* * *
So there you have it; a plan which, if implemented, would drastically reduce gun violence while improving everyone’s quality of life in countless other ways. There is nothing rhetorical or tongue-in-cheek about this solution. Some will argue that this plan is not practical, but this confuses what is practical with what is easy. Sure, there’s bound to be resistance to this solution by those who have a vested interest in the status quo. By comparison, passing additional laws to regulate the personal use of firearms might seem easier to accomplish. Trouble is, the passage of such laws would be unlikely to lead to an enduring solution.
In the end, a solution that really works is infinitely more practical than any quick fix which does not truly address the underlying problem. A difficult reality is far more practical than the most appealing illusion.
Bruce Lesnick is a long-time political activist who lives and writes in Washington State. He blogs at open.salon.com and is an occasional contributor to Counterpunch. He can be reached at email@example.com.