Oregon Shooting Teaches India the Need to Curb Gun Culture

US needs to introduce some calibrated measures to deal with the drastic fallout of gun culture, writes RK Raghavan.

The shocking massacre at a Roseburg (Oregon) community college last week in which a lone individual opened fire to take 10 innocent lives is a stark reminder that the US government, both Federal and State, are clueless about why such madness repeats itself so often, and how its frequency can be arrested with some certainty.

The Columbine (1999), Virginia Tech (2007) and Newton (2012) shootings, all inside campuses, are so etched in popular memory that Roseburg serves to convince administrators, not merely in the US, but across the world, that when it comes to controlling guns they are utterly helpless and incompetent. All these attacks were directed at young boys and girls. The perpetrators had a record of instability but managed to get firearms without any major difficulty.

The Roseburg attack has to be taken seriously because it demonstrated the ease with which mass murders could be committed inside campuses, where security is usually lax. Such dangerous knowledge is bound to have a profound impact on those with mental illnesses.

At the Heart of the Matter

Such individuals fall across a wide spectrum and are usually looking for the first opportunity to unleash their suppressed emotions and give vent to their grievances against the rest of the community. And we know how the details of any criminal activity spreads across nations like wild fire. Crime is no longer indigenous, and is often exported with bewildering speed. This is why there is a case for international sharing of experiences by law enforcement agencies.

Two principal issues are raised by incidents of the Roseburg kind – effectiveness of existing gun laws and the specific vulnerability of campuses. Both are relevant to most countries, including India.

Fight Against the Pro-Gun Lobby

Each incoming US President resolves to tighten availability of firearms. But ultimately, when he leaves office, he has little to show on the effective handling of the gun menace. The pro-gun lobby, in the form of the National Rifle Association (NRA), is an awesome entity, politically and financially. The question is, does it have the might to take on a popularly elected President?

The answer unfortunately is ‘yes’. President Obama’s reluctance to take a firm stand against the NRA has not been forgotten. An already messy situation is compounded by the judiciary, whose interpretation of the US Constitution’s provision relating to the Second Amendment – right to bear arms – has been far too liberal to permit a total ban on firearms anywhere in the country, especially federal enclaves.

An example was the ruling by a federal court in Washington DC a few years ago, and its subsequent upholding by the Supreme Court, which ruled out a total ban on the possession of hand guns at homes in the District of Columbia. ‘Restrictions’ yes; ‘ban’ no, is the current legal position in the US. This has thereafter degenerated into a ridiculous debate on whether a gun can be carried by a citizen openly or under concealment!

Deadly Gun Culture

• Roseburg shows administrators are helpless and incompetent when it comes to controlling guns
• Each incoming US President resolves to control availability of guns, very few stick to their promises
• The problem is compounded by the judiciary’s liberal interpretation of provisions related to firearms

• In India, unlicensed firearms are easily available to criminals and their ilk

Protecting Campuses

The Brady law which, in 1993, imposed an initial mandatory background check on every prospective gun buyer (subsequently watered down to an optional check) has been only moderately helpful. If a name does not inadvertently figure in the database as one with an adverse record, or there is a delay in getting such information, the sale of firearms can go ahead, sometimes with disastrous consequences.

The second critical issue raised by the Roseburg incident is with regard to lax security on campuses. I quizzed Professor Jack Greene, my former teacher at Temple University, Philadelphia and an eminent authority in policing, on this important subject. Jack is now at the Northeastern University in Boston. He says that in a free society, protecting every place is next to impossible.

Campuses, like movie theatres or malls, have open access, and their protection comes from a tacit understanding that people will not do harmful things there.

He believes that India is at par with the US in this gigantic task. Specifically about the US, he says, “The problem here is guns, and not campuses.”

Preventing Another Roseburg-like Incident

This leaves us with the conclusion that there is only so much that we can do. Jack lists new measures like trained students who look for evidence of emotional problems in their fellow students. These volunteers have access to living quarters and provide security services such as walking students from classes to hostels.

Increased lighting and emergency boxes are other measures which have somewhat enhanced campus security. Checking of backpacks and installation of metal detectors are also not unknown. But Jack feels that additional arming of campuses will be “contradictory to the setting and purpose of higher education, where open learning is stressed upon.” One cannot get a more perceptive analysis from an outstanding academic who has spent over thirty years in the field.

Lessons for India

What does all this mean for India? I will identify the need for greater attention to mental health in offices and educational institutions. Training student monitors to keep an eye on those revealing abnormal behaviour within campuses is another measure that could give the whole community, and especially parents of students, a sense of security.

Gun licensing in India is, on paper, very strict. Not every applicant gets it. But I know how perfunctory field checks by the local police are. If there has been no major disaster here, it is more due to chance than by design. Also, how does one explain the rapid rise in the number of murders using firearms, the majority of which are unlicensed?

If the US problem is one of misuse of licensed weapons, ours is one where unlicensed firearms are easily available to criminals and their ilk. As the age profile of those going to educational institutions goes up, the possibility of guns becoming available in such centres increases. This is a real danger. There is no evidence that the state governments are conscious of this. Increasing politicisation of education, through college elections conducted on party lines, aggravates the danger. Is anyone in the establishment listening?

(The writer is a former CBI Director.)