Book’s ‘Common Thread’ Addressing Gun Violence Makes No Sense

I’m not a fan of the whole “public health” approach to so-called gun violence. It’s not that I don’t think there’s some benefit to some aspects of the approach. There is. Especially when so much of the violence we see in our cities is retaliatory in nature. You hurt someone, and their friends seek you out to hurt you, only prompting your friends to hunt them down, and so on. Nipping that in the bud is part of that public health approach, and I wholeheartedly approve of that.

It won’t make violence go away, especially as it focuses too much on gun violence versus, say, knife violence or any other form of violent crime, but it’s a good start that could make a serious dent in the issue.

But the problem I see is that too many people want to use this public health approach to justify legislation, which seems to be part of what’s in a new book looking at the problem. That seems pretty clear considering what the author says about one incident in particular, but he also shows himself to be a functional moron by doing so.

On its surface, the central argument in Jonathan Metzl’s most recent book is a surprising one and a departure from his previous books and public statements. One of those books, “Dying of Whiteness,” made a strong case for why gun violence needs to be treated as a public health crisis. 

In “What We’ve Become: Living and Dying in a Country of Arms,” Metzl doesn’t say the public health approach to gun violence is wrong. Rather, he said it can’t work as the sole solution. 

A “prevention-based model alone cannot adequately conceptualize or meaningfully address the larger issues posed by guns,” he writes. 

The “public health model” for reporting on firearm violence began to gain traction in the early 1990s as researchers and policymakers sought to find ways beyond “gun control” to reduce the number of gun deaths each year in the U.S. One year ago, the Surgeon General issued an advisory, declaring firearm violence a public health crisis — rescinded by the current administration.

Metzl, who talked about his book at HJ25 in Los Angeles, said the role of politics, identity, racism and power need to be a part of a more effective prevention model. 

He never said stronger gun laws and public health policy doesn’t work. But he does make a strong case for why the messaging around those solutions isn’t working and is failing to reach gun owners. 

Metzl also offers solutions to broaden the public health prevention framework to be more effective at preventing gun violence and regulating firearm ownership. 

Public carry 

The thru-line of Metzl’s book is a mass shooting at a Waffle House outside of Nashville in 2018. [Shooter’s name redacted], a white man from Illinois, fatally shot four young people of color and injured four others with an assault-style rifle inside the restaurant. 

While there were many contributing factors to that deadly moment, Metzl said Reinking’s right to carry guns in red-state America was a major part of why he carried out the shooting. 

One of the main issues Metzl focuses on is unregulated public carry of guns, which he said should not be seen as inevitable. 

Well…that “thru-line” is the most idiotic thing I think I’ve read today, and for someone whose job involves wading through a lot of stupid, that’s saying something.

This is a man who killed four people inside of a Waffle House. Yes, he went to a pro-gun state to do it, but does anyone think that he couldn’t have done the exact same thing in Illinois? I mean, we just saw a similar enough attack take place in the heart of Manhattan, for crying out loud. There’s no open carry allowed there. So-called assault weapons are heavily restricted throughout the state. There are prohibitions against every single thing the shooter did, up to and including shooting people.

The choice of this particular target is one that makes it easy for Metzl to make this claim, but it requires us to ignore everything else we know about massacres of this type. Most take place in gun-free zones. They often take place in states with strict gun control laws.

When someone is intent on killing others, they’re not exactly going to be dissuaded by carry laws.

For example, Florida has seen a number of high-profile massacres in recent years, from Parkland to Jacksonville, and guess what Florida doesn’t permit? Open carry. 

“But they can still carry guns,” someone might chirp, which is true. Florida doesn’t prohibit people from carrying guns. It’s gone from shall-issue concealed carry to permitless concealed carry. But open carry is still a no-go, which it seems Metzl is particularly bothered by.

Let’s also remember that the killer in that incident was initially found incompetent to stand trial. In other words, his mental issues were severe enough that had anyone in his family tried, they might well have gotten him adjudicated as “mentally defective,” and this prohibited him from owning guns.

They didn’t.

That’s the law as it stands, though, and while Metzl is pretending that there is some unregulated right to carry guns in public–there isn’t if for no other reason than gun-free zones exist–and that’s the issue, the truth is that laws were in place that could have stopped that shooting cold. Funny how often that comes into play, isn’t it?

This entire thread makes no sense as a basis for anything. A man from an anti-gun state, with profound mental health issues that almost allowed him to walk following a massacre, travels somewhere else with a gun that is prohibited in most anti-gun states, and kills people, and the problem is all because the other state didn’t have laws prohibiting the least of his activities that day?

Absolutely moronic.

Seriously, arguments like this should land you in court to get your gun rights revoked because you’re “mentally defective.”

Editor’s Note: Help us push back against idiotic attacks on our Second Amendment rights. 

Make the smart move to join Bearing Arms VIP and use the promo code FIGHT to take 60% off your membership.