Can Biden succeed where other presidents have failed when it comes to gun reform?

Though the aim of disarming the citizens of the United States is famously futile, and thus rarely pursued, it is wrong to think that the country is so devoted to its personal ownership of weapons of destruction that no restriction or regulation is possible. The second amendment, passed in the 18th century and long before anything like the modern assault rifle was even a plausible invention, famously protects the right to bear arms, and would require a lengthy process of constitutional change to alter it, let alone abolish it. Similarly, any piece of ambitious legislation that is deemed consistent with the second amendment would require some 60 (of 100) senators to give it support, in order to prevent it being filibustered, or talked out of time.

So it is difficult, but it is not impossible, to “do something” about general gun misuse, as part of wider crime, accidents and suicides. Sadly, new gun regulations often need a high profile traumatic massacre to push them towards the force of law, and so it is now with two bills that fortunately carry bipartisan support. Already this year there have been six mass shootings (the FBI defines a “mass shooting” as any incident in which at least four people are murdered with a gun) as well as various smaller incidents, leaving 154 dead and 488 wounded. As a consequence, certain loopholes in the background check will be closed. It is modest, and demonstrates once again how difficult reform is, even with some tragedies in recent memory, and even with newly elected President Biden’s passionate advocacy.

Read more:

Indeed the last time there was a serious restriction on the availability of new assault weaponry was in 1994, and it was passed when Mr Biden was in Congress. A number of mass shooting incidents, including one in California where 34 children and a teacher were shot, helped change the mood, and the election of a Democrat to the White House, Bill Clinton, added some executive authority to the campaign. As a result the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act 1994 narrowly passed the Senate and became law. It clamped down on new automatic “assault” weapons and those fitted with large capacity magazines, which common sense indicates makes any given killing that much more deadly than, say, an old-fashioned shotgun or six shooter. Studies suggest evidence about the law’s effect are “mixed”, though it cannot have done much harm.

The 1994 law’s main weakness was its built-in obsolescence, with a sunset clause for review in 2004. By then George W Bush was in the White House, the mood had changed again, and memories had faded.

Taking something of a cue from the Trump administration, Joe Biden now plans to limit access to such deadly weaponry via executive order rather than appealing to Congress, still less attempting to change the constitution. Although the National Rifle Association is having financial troubles, the gun lobby remains powerful, and can always deploy the argument that Donald Trump adopted – that if teachers were all armed then gun shootings in schools would soon end.

At any rate, Mr Biden has ordered the following:

Mr Biden also plans to table less controversial (and easier to pass) proposals to Congress to prevent the unstable getting their hands on guns – thus helping to frustrate the stereotypical case of a loner taking out their resentments on random members of the public or students.

Even if all of these new laws stick, the fact remains that gaining access to a formidable new or secondhand armoury is ridiculously easy for American citizens, law-abiding or otherwise. It is difficult for those in other nations, and even a close neighbour such as Canada, to comprehend the attachment to firearms and their place in American culture, but it is obvious and enduring. There are well over 300 million firearms in private hands in America, and they are not about to be turned into ploughshares. In short, Joe Biden won’t stop the killings.