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.