Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4A— Wednesday, March 7, 2018

Emma Chang
Joel Danilewitz

Samantha Goldstein

Elena Hubbell
Emily Huhman
Tara Jayaram

Jeremy Kaplan

Sarah Khan

Lucas Maiman

Magdalena Mihaylova

Ellery Rosenzweig

Jason Rowland

Anu Roy-Chaudhury

Alex Satola
Ali Safawi

 Ashley Zhang

A beginner’s guide to effective gun control

More than just a wall

I

n the wake of the latest horrific 
tragedy of the mass shooting 
variety, our nation’s leaders 

seemed to engage in the same 
song and dance they do every time 
something like this happens.

Take Senate Majority Leader 

Mitch 
McConnell, 
R-Ky., 
for 

example. After the unspeakable 
shooting at Sandy Hook, where 20 
children between the ages of six and 
seven were murdered, the Majority 
Leader said the following: “I invite 
everyone to lift their hearts in prayer 
for the victims and their families and 
to unite around the hope that there 
will soon come a day when parents 
no longer fear this kind of violence in 
our nation again.” At the same time, 
Sen. McConnell blocked all bills on 
gun reform from making it to the 
floor.

Similarly, 
after 
the 
Pulse 

nightclub massacre, Sen. McConnell 
held a moment of silence, and then 
proceeded to silence all debate 
on gun reform. Finally, after last 
month’s shooting at Stoneman 
Douglas High School where 17 high 
school students were murdered in 
one of the deadliest school shootings 
in the world, you can probably guess 
the extent of Sen. McConnell’s 
action. If you had guessed thoughts, 
prayers and a moment of silence, 
then you were unfortunately dead 
on.

One of the reasons these 

politicians, mostly representing the 
Republican Party, have gotten away 
with this kind of reaction is because 
of a dedicated “smoke and mirror” 
campaign. These so-called leaders 
almost seem to follow a shared 
playbook when a mass shooting 
occurs. In the 24 hours after the 
event, they offer their thoughts and 
prayers, hold moments of silence 
and seem to genuinely grieve for 
the families. After that period of 
time passes, they condemn anyone 
who spoke out in favor of more gun 
control for politicizing the tragedy, 
effectively politicizing the event 
themselves.

For example, almost exactly 24 

hours after the atrocity at Stoneman 
Douglas High School, Ted Cruz 
levied the following charge at 
Democrats on national television: 
“The reaction of Democrats to any 
tragedy is to try to politicize it.” 
Then, as sadness turns to anger 
throughout 
the 
country, 
these 

politicians start a mass information 
campaign, pointing their fingers 

at any and all actors who are not 
part of the gun industry, including 
themselves. 
Republican 
leaders 

blamed the police, the FBI, the 
school’s administration and even 
the students in Parkland, Fla. 
To a certain extent, they weren’t 
wrong. The FBI had received tips 
about the shooter even though it is 
legally murky what they could have 
done. Furthermore, police did not 
swiftly enter the building, which 
could have potentially limited the 
number of casualties. However, 
blaming teachers and students 
for not reporting the shooter was 
ludicrous. It’s a tactic I know well 
as a former high school debater — 
throw out as many arguments as 
possible and hope that one sticks. 
Except, in this case, the goal isn’t to 
win tournaments as much as save 
people’s lives.

Curiously, one argument these 

politicians never seemed to land 
on is more effective gun control. 
They claim if everything else went 
perfectly, a crazy person would never 
be able to have a gun and use it at a 
school. They claim it’s not a problem 
with the laws themselves, but the 
execution of the laws that exist. They 
claim we’ve done everything we can. 
But, we empirically have not. Just 
a cursory glance at gun laws in our 
country and across the world shows 
gun reform can and has saved lives. 
To make it easier for them, because 
I understand a certain leader of ours 
prefers bullet points, I will list just 
a few of these policies with a brief 
description of each:

1. Assault rifle ban: The United 

States banned assault rifles between 
1994 and 2004. There was a marked 
decrease in gun massacre incidents 
as a result and an increase after it 
was allowed to lapse. In Australia, 
an assault rifle ban and gun buyback 
program has saved an estimated 200 

lives per year.

2. Background checks: Boston 

University found that universal 
background checks and ammunition 
background checks significantly 
decreased 
gun 
mortality 
by 

comparing states that have those 
laws to states that don’t.

3. Gun violence restraining 

order: In recent mass shootings, 
there have often been red flags 
associated with the shooter. For 
example, various people close to 
the Stoneman Douglas High School 
shooter were aware that he posed 
a threat but had no legal resource. 
In cases such as these, individuals 
should be able to petition the court to 
confiscate a weapon from someone 
the court deems as a danger to 
oneself or others.

4. Bump stock ban: Bump 

stocks are gun modifications that 
allow semi-automatic weapons to 
operate similarly to fully automatic 
weapons. Bump stocks often come 
with 60 to 100-round magazines. A 
ban on these devices could limit the 
carnage a gun can bring.

5. Gun licenses: Federal law 

does not mandate that people acquire 
a gun license before purchasing a 
gun, and there is no process of gun 
registration. One study found that 
if such a law were to be enacted, 
projected mortality could be reduced 
by 84 percent.

6. Thoughts/prayers: To date, 

no scientific research has shown this 
particular method to be effective 
in preventing the death of innocent 
individuals.

I am not sure any of these 

reforms will work. While there 
seems to be real evidence that they 
can save lives, no one can be sure 
what effect they will have on the gun 
violence that plagues our country. 
But that’s exactly my argument; 
conservative leaders cannot claim to 
have tried everything without giving 
firearm reform a chance. We owe it to 
the people of Parkland, Fla., Orlando, 
Las Vegas, Newtown, Conn. and too 
many others to halt the shedding of 
innocent blood. Moreover, we owe it 
to the next town that has to face the 
inestimable pain of burying loved 
ones if we don’t do everything in 
our power to never have to utter the 
words “thoughts and prayers” under 
these circumstances again.

Rishabh Kewalramani can be 

reached at rkew@umich.edu.

RISHABH KEWALRAMANI | COLUMN

REBECCA SCHAENZEL | OP-ED

“

Borders 
are 
an 

obstacle 
to 
unity, 
to 

humanity really,” Chico 

MacMurtrie exclaimed during 
his presentation of his Border 
Crosser robots. Do borders 
just continue to reinforce a 
tendency toward isolationism 
and separate us from one 
another? Borders might isolate 
us from a true immersion 
into 
multiculturalism, 
but 

what poses a real obstacle 
to humanity is a wall, a 
fortification of a nation.

A strong push for a border 

separating Mexico and the 
United 
States 
once 
more 

moves into the spotlight with 
President Trump’s proposal 
on the DACA debate that he 
would grant citizenship to 
the 1.8 million immigrants in 
exchange for $25 billion in 
funding for his border.

The “security” of a wall was 

one of his campaign promises, 
but the thing with walls is 
they merely function as a 
filter. It deters those who seek 
a better life for themselves 
and their family, but not those 
adversaries who pose a threat 
to the nation, as they will find 
a way to circumvent a wall. As 
Jack Anderson said, “Security 
cannot depend on the hope 
that a fortification will not 
fail. Eventually, and always, 
walls fail us.”

Walls are a failed concept 

as they only offer a temporary 
relief to a problem that lies 
much deeper and needs to be 
addressed with policy reforms 

instead of physical separation. 
Walls 
are 
not 
permanent 

solutions, as evidenced by 
those that have been erected 
in the past. As Cicero decried, 
seeking justification in past 
practices is flawed in the most 
basic sense that not everything 
found in law is just, even if 
measured 
against 
history. 

The logic to keep “others” 
out once before led the U.S. 
to protect its nationhood and 
sovereignty on the basis of 
prejudicial 
exclusion 
with 

the Chinese Exclusion Act of 
1882. What is most damaging 
about this type of approach 
to immigration control is the 
delay it causes to sustainable 
immigration reform.

It is time to rethink the 

way we view borders. A wall 
will not instill unity, but 
rather perpetuate a divide, 
especially if it is brought 
about by coercion or somehow 
forcing Mexico to pay for 
it. International treaties or 
agreements 
signed 
under 

threats or coercion are not only 

invalid, as stated by Article 
52 of the Vienna Convention, 
but can also reproduce neo-
imperial relations that will 
only strain alliances among 
the global community. While 
borders should certainly exist 
as 
jurisdictional 
measures, 

a wall will form a barrier to 
human 
movement 
and 
all 

under the excuse of protecting 
one’s sovereignty.

There 
are 
additional 

consequences 
to 
be 

considered when building a 
wall such as the caging effect, 
a positive correlation between 
increased border enforcement 
and unauthorized migrants 
settling permanently instead 
of traveling back and forth 
in fear of apprehension. By 
dividing geographical space, 
we inherently separate what 
makes us human: a sense of 
community and togetherness. 
Regulation is warranted, but 
by falling back on the idea of 
imposing a barrier between 
you 
and 
the 
enemy 
we 

continue to feed into a flawed 
way of thinking.

Some 
might 
look 
at 

“them,” the Mexicans, as the 
threat, but maybe one day, 
future generations will look 
back at this moment in time 
and look at the ones erecting 
walls as a threat to unity 
and what it means to be part 
of a community, a global 
community.

Rebecca Schaenzel is an LSA 

Junior.

Conservative 
leaders cannot 
claim to have 

tried everything 
without giving 
firearm reform a 

chance.

F

rom 
1963—1973 
the 

“Northeast 
state” 
of 

Nigeria 
experienced 

one of the largest population 
growths in recorded history. In 
that decade, the population grew 
by 49 percent (in comparison 
the U.S. grew around 12 percent 
and China by 26 percent during 
the same period).

Or at least that’s what the 

1973 Nigerian census said. 
This data was later announced 
to be grossly inaccurate and 
the 
Nigerian 
government 

was forced to declare the 
1973 census null and void 
amid a scandal of “deliberate 
falsification of data to gain 
economic, political, and/or 
ethnic advantage.”

Contrary to popular belief, 

censuses are far from neutral. 
Though they are supposed to 
be an accurate representation 
of the population and societal 
metrics 
(unemployment, 

birth rate, marriage rate), 
they are often subject to “data 
politicization,” 
a 
process 

by which government data 
is manipulated to pursue a 
political goal.

While it is true that there 

are many flaws with censuses 
(see 
gerrymandering 
and 

episode six of the first season 
of “The West Wing”), data 
politicization is a deliberate 
action 
that 
is 
used 
to 

underrepresent, misrepresent 
or altogether make a particular 
population invisible.

A prime example is the 

American census. According 
to Becky Pettit, professor of 
sociology from the University 
of Texas at Austin, “there 
have been different periods 
of American history where 
different 
subgroups 
of 

the population have been 
uncounted, 
undercounted, 

under enumerated, missing, 
invisible.” Pettit points to 
the fact that since 1942, the 
U.S. census has been based 
on a survey of household 
information. 
“We’ve 
been 

conducting 
the 
survey 

effectively the same way to 
gauge the health and well-

being, economic skills and 
capacities of the American 
population 
since 
1942 
… 

(Which) 
categorically 

exclude people who aren’t 
living in households.” Pettit 
identifies 
the 
massive 

incarcerated 
population 
of 

the U.S. as a group that is 
particularly 
affected. 
She 

details, “By 2015 almost ¾ 
of one percent of Americans 
were incarcerated in prisons 
or jails … Approximately 2.2 
million Americans.” In other 
words, 
almost 
all 
national 

surveys render the incarcerated 
population invisible. 

However, the effects of 

census 
politicization 
are 

not 
confined 
to 
America. 

Take the issue of Rohingya 
identification in the 2014 
Myanmar 
census 
for 

example. 
The 
Myanmar 

government claims that the 
Rohingya are illegal Bengali 
immigrants. 
Contrastingly, 

the Rohingya see themselves 
as an indigenous population. 
According to reports, “In 
a 
last-minute 
decision, 

the 
Myanmar 
government 

announced that it would not 
allow members of the Muslim 
minority in Rakhine State to 
self-report their ethnicity to 
enumerators as ‘Rohingya.’” 
Though certainly not a direct 
causation, this erasure of 
Rohingya 
identity 
on 
the 

census was fundamental in 
the events that led to the 2017 
massacre of the Rohingya 
population. 
By 
making 

the 
Rohingya 
population 

“invisible” on paper and not 
providing any sort of official 

estimate 
of 
population 

size, it was much easier for 
Myanmar’s 
government 

to carry out a series of 
massacres that led to the 
deaths of more than 1,000 and 
the displacement of 300,000 
Rohingya as of September 1, 
2017. 

Finally, take a look at the 

case of the data collected 
in 1997 by the Palestinian 
Authority’s 
Bureau 
of 

Statistics. 
According 
to 

numerous scholars, including 
Yoram Ettinger and Caroline 
Glick, the population of Arabs 
living 
in 
the 
Palestinian 

territories has been greatly 
inflated.

In 
particular, 
Ettinger 

identifies 
almost 
400,000 

Palestinians 
living 
abroad, 

300,000 Jerusalem Arabs with 
dual ID cards who have been 
double 
counted 
by 
Israelis 

and 
Palestinians, 
and 
an 

overexaggerated Arab birth rate. 
This, among other disparities, 
contributes to a total of almost 
1.15 million “invisible” Arabs 
who aren’t counted in the census. 

The importance of this 

apparent 
miscalculation 

cannot be overstated. This 
existence or absence of 1.15 
million Arabs can very well 
determine which group (Jews 
or Arabs) will be the majority 
demographic in the land.

On a final note, censuses 

are not inherently a bad 
thing. 
They 
are 
still 
an 

important 
tool 
to 
create 

an accurate measure of a 
population for governmental 
policies. So next time you get 
a government survey in the 
mail there’s no need to burn 
it or put on your tinfoil hat. 
Instead, do your research and 
identify how the census is 
taken and which groups are 
likely to be misrepresented. 
Who knows, you may find 
that you too are a victim of 
the census’s vanishing act.

Want to be invisible? Try a census

ALEX HARRIS | OP-ED

Alex Harris is an LSA Junior.

DAYTON HARE

Managing Editor

420 Maynard St. 

Ann Arbor, MI 48109

 tothedaily@michigandaily.com

Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan since 1890.

ALEXA ST. JOHN

Editor in Chief
 ANU ROY-CHAUDHURY AND 

ASHLEY ZHANG
Editorial Page Editors

Unsigned editorials reflect the official position of the Daily’s Editorial Board. 

All other signed articles and illustrations represent solely the views of their authors.

EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS

SARAH NEFF | CONTACT AT SANE@UMICH.EDU. 

Contrary to 

popular belief, 
censuses are far 

from neutral.

CONTRIBUTE TO THE CONVERSATION

Readers are encouraged to submit letters to the editor and op-eds. 
Letters should be fewer than 300 words while op-eds should be 550 
to 850 words. Send the writer’s full name and University affiliation to 

tothedaily@michigandaily.com.

Walls are a failed 
concept as they 

only offer a 

temporary relief 
to a problem that 
lies much deeper.

