A Lack of Control.

After the unspeakable tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary, many Americans finally got the conversation on gun control they’d been waiting for. For a while, it seemed like it would never happen. As the last few years rolled by, the dark list of high-profile shootings kept stacking up. And every time, the call for tighter restrictions on guns was met with deafening silence from law-makers.

Now, the silence has been broken. Shortly after the slaughter, ideas for curbing gun violence were being openly discussed on Capitol Hill, from closing the “gun show loophole,” to banning high-capacity magazines for semi-automatic weapons. Yesterday, president Obama gave a speech endorsing a set of policies that would put many of these restrictions in place. Even some Republicans have squirmed out of the grip of the gun lobby to offer support.

For some, this is a hopeful moment in the wake of tragedy. But I’m not so sure.

None of the proposed policies are bad in and of themselves. They might do a little good, and they certainly wouldn’t destroy legitimate gun-ownership in this country. If you’re looking for someone to call for a revolt against the gun-snatching tyranny of Obama, look elsewhere.

There’s only one thing that bothers me: any new regulations on guns are highly unlikely to prevent the horrific mass shootings that inspired them in the first place. Support the regulations, if you like. Just don’t pretend that the president’s signature can stop tragedies like Sandy Hook from occurring.

I don’t doubt that laws can create positive changes in society. But public policy is most effective when it targets a broad problem. Changes in laws, and their enforcement, can alter general patterns of behavior in a population for the better. In recent memory, massive policy overhauls in cities like New York have helped to radically reduce crime rates. But in the case of mass shootings, policy-makers are setting out to combat what are still rare, highly individualized events. In the overall landscape of crime in America, these massacres are unusual exceptions, not the rule. Which makes it a lot harder for new rules to put an end to them.

Mass shootings are well-publicized, so it makes sense that Americans feel like they’re facing an “epidemic of violence.” This is true, in the sense that every murdered child is one too many. But from a purely statistical point of view, things are more complicated. Murder rates across the country have been dropping for decades. It’s likely that the America your children inhabit today is far safer than the one you or your parents grew up in.

Seen in this context, mass shootings aren’t a sign of a violent culture spinning out of control. Instead, they’re strange outliers that mask a long-term trend of declining violence. In raw numbers, mass shooters make up a microscopic slice of the violent criminals who take innocent lives every year. And the monsters behind most mass shootings aren’t your garden-variety murderers. They tend to have few or no past offenses, and come from middle-class, white families. Many acquire their weapons through legal means. Mass shooters also tend to be highly intelligent, and plan their massacres over long periods of time.

To prevent another Sandy Hook in any given year, a new gun law would have to change the behavior of fewer than a dozen extremely determined individuals in a country of 300 million. Needless to say, that’s an extremely narrow problem for a broad set of regulations to solve.

I don’t want to be a cynic when it comes to protecting our nation’s children. However, it’s important to recognize that there are limits to what our laws can save us from. Even if that’s something we’d rather not see.

After all, no one wants to face the nagging thought that we might just be helpless. That we might just have to accept the risk that terrible things can happen to us, or our children.

Which is strange, considering that we do this all the time.

Every second of every day, your life is at risk. There are an infinite number of opportunities for others to commit acts of violence against you. There are thousands of little things that could go wrong, with fatal results. You’re far more likely to die in a car accident than at the barrel of a gun, but that probably doesn’t stop you from stepping behind the wheel every morning.

If new restrictions on firearms are passed, I hope that some lives are saved as a result. Even one fewer murder would be a cause for celebration. But I’m also aware that we live in a broken world, where tragedy can always come when you least expect it. If you want to find something that can give you hope for a future without violence, legislation isn't the place to look for it.