The connection between gun violence and legal gun ownership is anything but clear. And it is being argued vociferously around the country. What is clear, however, is that the time for an open and reasoned discussion on the subject is long overdue. Not the screaming epithets or pep rallies, but quiet, logical debate on a very controversial subject.
But it is not happening yet. The conversation today if rife with name-calling (“gun grabbers” and “gun nuts”) and the pep rally atmosphere, such as we saw at the President’s State of the Union Address, creates an atmosphere that is anything but civil and thoughtful. It brings out the passion on both sides and polarizes the sides until discussion is all but impossible. The subject of gun control today is awash with numbers, with each side focusing on the numbers that support its position:
- in 2010, according to the Center for Disease Control, there were 4.8 murders by gunshot per 100,000 population, representing one third of gunshot deaths that year. Most of the others were suicides, with only 4% resulting from accidental shootings. (Contrast this to the figure for 1980, when the rate peaked at 10.2 per 100,000.)
- 1,774 or more gun deaths in America since the Newtown massacre of children and teachers in Connecticut, according to Slate.
- in a January 2013 Gallup poll, only 38% of the respondents reported they were dissatisfied and wanted stronger laws, while 48% were satisfied with current gun laws, and 5% thought they should be loosened.
- A Quinnipiac University survey reported that in New Jersey, “92% of respondents support expanding background checks to all gun sales”. CNN reported this, but neglected to mention that only New Jersey residents had been polled, suggesting that it had been a national poll. They did, however, mention that “a majority of households with guns opposed a renewed ban on semi-automatic weapons, while the full survey showed 56% of respondents backed the provision”. The poll also found that 46% of the respondents believe the NRA better reflects their views on guns, compared to 43% for Obama.
The old saw that numbers don’t lie may be true, but it depends on which numbers you look at, and whose numbers they are. Both the left and the right repeat the figures that support their positions, giving the average American very little guidance on an issue of extreme importance to the future of America. The principle that the right of every American to keep and bear arms “shall not be infringed” is enshrined in America’s Constitution. The challenges presented by those who favor stronger gun control laws that limit what weapons can be owned by a citizen signal an assault on the Constitution itself. If successful, they will lead down a slippery slope as the nation loses its Constitution, bit by bit.
Towards the end of his State of the Union Message earlier this week, President Obama created a pep rally-like atmosphere when, with increasing volume, he shouted “they deserve a vote”, referring to the victims of recent shootings. His performance did little to turn down the volume on what should be a quiet and serious discussion about real solutions to a very real problem.
There are three key issues that rise immediately to the top of the list in any discussion of gun violence. The first is whether more restrictions on gun owners will, in fact, reduce gun violence. Chicago, the President’s home town, and one with some of the strictest gun laws in the country, is also the murder capital of the country.
The second question is whether the targeting of certain types of guns will help in reducing gun violence. Among the guns most often discussed in this context is the AR-15 rifle, which is often cited as the weapon used in the Newtown, Connecticut elementary school shooting, when every indication is that the shooter, Adam Lanza, used two handguns, not an AR-15, which was later found in the trunk a car parked in the school lot, that was purported to be the one he used. In fact, the AR-15 is less powerful than some of the rifles which the bill currently in Congress allows (because they are popular with hunters). What is most puzzling, is that the features most frequently demonized in the gun control efforts – such as shrouds (which protect the user from burning his hands on the hot barrel), and flash suppressors (which keep the flare of the gunfire from blinding the shooter) - do not affect the operation of the weapon, but make the gun “look dangerous” (see comparison in photo).
After 9/11, Washington went into a state of frenetic “anti-terrorism” activity. Congress passed a huge, 352-page “Patriot Act” that no one in Congress had the time to read. The Bill, which was passed, after only a few weeks of hearings and far too little debate, and was signed into law by President George W. Bush on October 26, 2001, just seven weeks after the 9/11 attacks.
The TSA was quickly ‘stood up’ and began to focus all their efforts on finding bombs in the luggage and on the persons of all air travelers. Instead of looking for the bomber (a practice that the Israelis have turned into an art form), they looked for the bomb, considering all travelers guilty until proven otherwise. The selection of certain long guns as too dangerous to be in the hands of civilians is equally disturbing. In real life, only 5% of all crimes committed with guns in the US are committed with long guns. The weapon of choice for most gun violence is the handgun.
According to the FBI in 2011, there were 12,664 homicides in the US, of which 8,583 were committed by gun fire. Of these, 72% were committed with handguns and only 14% were committed by rifles or shotguns. Yet these long guns are the ones being most closely targeted by the legislation now under consideration by Congress.
Which leads us to the third issue, that many of the homicides committed in the US are by criminals using illegal firearms. Unfortunately, the number of gun-related crimes committed by criminals using illegal handguns is not reported by the FBI, and the statistics that might demonstrate this are difficult to find. Few reliable statistics on illegal sale and use of firearms by criminals are available. What is clear is that a great number of illegal guns are ‘on the street’ and are used in criminal, gang, and drug-related crimes that result in murder. The fact that these statistics are unavailable to the average American does not help to clarify the choices that we now face. What is clear, however, that whatever the numbers might be, stricter gun control laws will not control the sale and use of guns by criminals, who by definition, will not obey them anyway.
A well-known study by Ludwig and Cook, evaluated the impact of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (the gun control law that followed the assassination attempt on President Ronald Reagan in which Jim Brady, the President’s press secretary was critically wounded). They concluded that the law did not affect homicide and suicide rates.
With all the studies and reports, and with all the rhetoric now filling the airways and the Internet, the questions remain unanswered:
How will new ‘gun control’ laws protect our children in ‘gun-free zones?
How will fewer guns in the hands of law-abiding Americans protect a young mother facing a home invasion?
How will stricter laws that control non-criminal gun purchases keep guns out of the hands of criminals who don’t buy them through legal channels:?
The discussion is just beginning, and it’s time to get serious. No pep rallies, no campaigning, just serious, thoughtful, and productive discussion on the real issues that don’t trash our Constitution and keep Americans safe.