Opinion | Ban weapons of war — or get out of politics

Opinion editor’s note: Strib Voices publishes a mix of guest commentaries online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.

•••

On the day of a mass shooting in America, tradition holds that we are not to speak in specifics.

On the day of a mass shooting in America, our politicians are to express only their rage and sorrow to the cameras.

Some of them will meet with shattered families. It has to be one of the worst days of the job.

Today, however, we are in the days after a mass shooting in America. The candlelit memorials have been held. The rage and sorrow have been shown to the cameras. The politicians have met with families.

We have done all the things that we do on the day of a mass shooting in America that have done nothing to stop it from happening again. We have done all the things that we do on the day of a mass shooting in America that have kept America exactly as it is.

Different sick and confused persons will surely go into that same digital cave tomorrow, and some of them will buy their own weapons of war. We can try to find them before they hurt us again, or “harden” every place we and our children gather, but chances are we will fail.

You can take that to the bank.

So the real question we face in these days after a mass shooting in Minnesota is fairly specific: Why do we let anyone but the military buy weapons of war? Because without weapons of war, you cannot do this kind of harm. We are the only country that’s too cowed by its gun-collecting bullies to know that.

In these days after a mass shooting in Minnesota, let us at least name the parties who stand in the way of that change.

We can put our past failure to stop the sale of these weapons at the door of the Minnesota Gun Caucus. Last year it worked to stop a package of bills that would have banned high-capacity magazines and assault rifles in the state. This year it opposes a new effort to ban the same weapons.

“Both of these are relatively cheap, range ammunition,” Minnesota Gun Caucus Political Director Rob Doar explained, “... they have poor soft target performance.”

“Performance.” For bullets.

“The idea of a military-style weapon evokes a lot of emotion in people,” as Doar told Minnesota Reformer last year, “but when you look at it from an empirical standpoint, the data doesn’t really justify targeting them.”

As if it is someone besides the gun lobby that bases its demands on emotion.

But this is the game. Tell us to stay complacent, and tell us our solution is lacking from an empirical standpoint. Bravo, Minnesota Gun Caucus. We keep playing your game.

I will take that second possibility. We routinely change law to improve our chances of surviving far less.

In these days after a mass shooting in Minnesota we can put the failure to reduce the likelihood of these killings at the door of “centrist” Democrats who would not support the 2024 bill. Political reporting identified Democrats from Hermantown, Moorhead and Afton as all opposed. We can and should ask them to consider that maybe their constituents are just wrong.

In the days after a mass shooting in Minnesota we can put our failure to do something about these killings at the door of the entire GOP legislative caucus. It is categorically uninterested in prohibiting the sale of weapons of war in Minnesota, though the majority of the state wishes otherwise.

In the days after a mass shooting in Minnesota we can reject any more talk in generalities about guns. The mayor of Minneapolis was on MSNBC early in the crisis on Wednesday doing just that. We have too many of them, he said. You can buy as many as you want, he said. Even if you have problems in the head.

All true. All valid. And yet it was hard to tell in these early hours if he was opposed to the number of guns in America, the weapons of war in America, or their availability to disturbed people. Yes, he had a terrible day. But this was the part that I couldn’t understand: “I’m a mayor,” he said. “I fill potholes ... I’m not an expert on every statutory section of gun law throughout the country.”

“We need a statewide and federal ban on assault weapons,” he finally said on Thursday, finding his way to the specifics of needed change at a City Hall news conference. “We need a statewide and federal ban on high-capacity magazines. There is no reason that someone should be able to reel off 30 shots before they even have to reload.”

Amen.

Let’s demand the same from every office holder who tries to get by on less. We can stop with the generalities and platitudes. We can ban the sale and transfer of these weapons. We can start buying them back from people who regret owning them. The legislation is HF 2449/SF 1596.

All of you.

Get it done, or get out of politics.