The discussion continues regarding gun control and there are lots of arguments that are coming from the pro gun folk that need to be addressed and lots of fallacies or at least misleading ideas being promulgated from those who are for gun control. Here are a few of the issues as I see them.
1. Violent crime has decreased in the US over the past few decades including the murder rate. Indeed, our rates of violent crime in the US are lower than many of the nations that are raised up as examples by the gun control folk. At the same time, our gun violence rate is significantly higher than all of those places.
2. Assault weapons represent a very small percentage of guns used in murders. They are disproportionately used in mass violence, but that too represents a very, very small percentage of gun deaths. While 26 were killed at the Sandy Hook school, some 700 have died by guns, almost all one at a time and the vast majority by handguns, since then.
3. A significant proportion of gun deaths occur in gang violence.
4. The rates of violent crime are higher in large cities with large populations of folk living in poverty.
5. The number of guns in a given area is directly proportional to the number of gun deaths. Whether this is a direct correlation or coincidence is debatable. For example, the south has one of the higher rates of gun ownership and of gun deaths. It also has a poverty rate that is higher than many other areas of the country.
6. All of the statistics are clear, owning a gun makes one more likely to die from a gun than not having one and those statistics are consistent everywhere. If we look at #1 again, that explains why in England there is a significantly higher violent crime rate, a lower murder rate, and an amazingly lower rate of death by gun.
7. We live in a violent society, but other cultures are violent as well. Video game playing is higher in Denmark, for example, where the rate of death by gun is extremely low. Ditto in Japan. Again, if we look at #1, England has a higher rate of violent crime, but much lower rate of death by gun.
8. We have significant problems with mental health care and with poverty in our country that directly impact violent behavior although often in ways that are counter-intuitive when one watches the news or listens to talk radio. For example, the mentally ill are more likely to be victims than perpetrators of violence. The same is true of the poor.
9. Gun ownership is going down. Still, the myth of redemptive violence is prevalent in our culture and we still have a love affair with guns that borders on idolatry.
10. There are significant differences in how to understand the 2nd Amendment.
11. There are literally millions of guns already out there.
Some implications of all of that...
1. Banning assault rifles and high capacity magazines will not lower the rate of death by gun significantly. It will lessen the possibility of mass murders, but they are extremely rare.
2. For gun control to make a dent in the raw numbers, handguns must be included in any regulations and some kind of buy back would be required to begin to lower the number of guns in the general population. Many possible laws, for example how guns must be stored, would be virtually impossible to enforce.
3. There are clearly other cultural issues like mental health care and poverty which must be addressed in order to change the level of violence, but the removal of guns from the equation cannot be dismissed as a way of lowering the level of violence.
4. Education is required to begin to dispel the myths that owning guns = protection or having more handguns in the general population lowers the incidence of violence. These ideas are widely held and clearly not true according to any of the objective studies.
5. Any gun control changes that will have a significant impact will involve conflict and serious discussion regarding the meaning of the 2nd Amendment.
What do I think?
I think all assault rifles and high capacity magazines should be banned. Currently owned weapons of this sort would be subject to a government buy-back and destroyed. Any found afterwards would be confiscated and destroyed and the owners face a substantial fine. Collectors owning such weapons would have to have them modified to be non-functional and inspected. Armor piercing ammunition would also be banned. I think concealed carry permits should be available only under the most extreme cases. Nobody should be able to purchase any gun without significant background checks, education, and licensing both for the owner and for the weapon. Nobody under age 18 would be allowed to own or use a gun for any purpose including hunting or target shooting. Ammunition would be tracked. By law, all guns must be stored in locked cabinets and ammunition must be stored separately and also locked. Stand your ground laws would all be repealed. A public service announcement campaign would begin, telling the truth regarding the statistics of gun violence. I think that would be a start.
Showing posts with label guns. Show all posts
Showing posts with label guns. Show all posts
Friday, January 11, 2013
Monday, December 17, 2012
the discussion
OK, so folk actually seem to be beginning to have the discussion about guns that is WAAAAYYYY overdue.
Here's the problem... many are beginning with misinformation. The NRA has done their job well.
Here are a couple of untruths that they have floated out there and are clearly just not true.
"People need to have guns in their homes to be safe from home invasions." Every study, let me say that again, every study has shown that households that own guns are significantly more likely to have a family member die of gun violence than homes without guns. There are lots of other factors including age, gender, number of people in the household, and type of gun but the bottom line is always true, if you have guns in your home, someone in your household is more likely to die of a gunshot than if you do not.
"If more people were armed, then someone could have stopped the shooter." See the above. Add the statistics that consistently show show that the more guns in an area, the more gun deaths. States that have higher gun ownership have higher numbers of shootings. Conversely, states with stronger gun laws and/or lower gun ownership have fewer homicides or suicides by gun. Again, the stats all show that more guns means less safety, not more. Please think about this further. If teachers came to school with guns, eventually a child would get access to one and we would see a tragedy. Even under the best of circumstances where police returned fire in August at the Empire State Building, by-standers were hit by fragments of bullets shot by trained police officers. Imagine if 15 by-standers had pulled out their guns and began firing. How many innocent by-standers would have been shot then? Think also of the states where there are stand your ground laws. An individual feels threatened, whether justified or not, and instead of retreating, pulls out a gun and shoots. Someone dies. Without the gun, the individual retreats. Finally think of those places in the world where virtually everyone is armed - Somalia, Afghanistan, you get the picture. Is that really the kind of place we want to emulate?
"If guns were illegal, only criminals would have guns." Of course, the statement is not true. Law enforcement personnel would still have guns. Military would still have guns. And if guns were outlawed, production stopped, and those extant confiscated and destroyed, eventually even criminals wouldn't have guns. That is obviously not going to happen, but fewer guns would mean fewer available for criminals too. More importantly, the implication here is that somehow having a gun makes an individual less likely to be a victim of a crime. It just is not accurate.
"The real problem is people, not guns. If the crazies didn't have guns, they'd still kill people in some other way." There is a degree of truth in this... but only a degree. Violence still happens without guns, but it is pretty difficult to kill 27 people with a knife or a baseball bat before someone is able to stop you. Yes, we must address a culture of violence and even more importantly, we must address issues of mental illness. In the meantime, lets remove the tools of violence.
"We need guns to be able to stand up and revolt against tyrants at home." This argument is the one that actually runs closest to the 2nd Amendment, but it is also the most ridiculous one. Are we really expected to believe that untrained individuals could mount a revolt using the kinds of guns that are in circulation against a military like the US has? Look at the difficulty Syria is having against a third rate military with third rate equipment and imagine sending civilians against helicopter gun ships, jets, missiles, tanks, armed drones, and the best trained, most well equipped, military in the world. This statement betrays such a profound lack of trust in the American system that I don't know quite how to even address that part. I trust the system. I trust the checks and balances. I trust the American people to not allow things to get so far that a revolution is necessary.
Now we can have a real discussion about guns. They make some people feel safe. Is that a good reason to sacrifice our children? As of my writing this, there have been over 94,000 people shot in the US this year. Is that a price we want to pay for a feeling of security, especially one that is not borne out by any of the facts? Some people like to hunt or target shoot. Fine, what kinds of weapons and ammunition are necessary for those sports? And what are reasonable restrictions regarding those weapons and ammo? Doesn't it make sense that the regulations are at least as stringent as for driving - a class, a written and practical test, a license that must be periodically renewed, age requirements for gun use, registration of all guns, periodic inspections of all guns, safety regulations regarding gun design that is strictly enforced... Some folk appreciate the artistry in some guns and like to collect objects of beauty. OK, then for collectors, maybe no ammo? There is the 2nd amendment. Yes, there is, but what does it reasonably mean in our society today? When it was written, a musket shot one ball and then had to be reloaded, taking up to a minute per shot for an experienced musketeer and significantly longer for a person who was not an expert. The weapons were also extremely inaccurate. We just aren't talking about the same thing here, so how does the amendment apply?
Let's do away with the NRA lies and have a real discussion.
Here's the problem... many are beginning with misinformation. The NRA has done their job well.
Here are a couple of untruths that they have floated out there and are clearly just not true.
"People need to have guns in their homes to be safe from home invasions." Every study, let me say that again, every study has shown that households that own guns are significantly more likely to have a family member die of gun violence than homes without guns. There are lots of other factors including age, gender, number of people in the household, and type of gun but the bottom line is always true, if you have guns in your home, someone in your household is more likely to die of a gunshot than if you do not.
"If more people were armed, then someone could have stopped the shooter." See the above. Add the statistics that consistently show show that the more guns in an area, the more gun deaths. States that have higher gun ownership have higher numbers of shootings. Conversely, states with stronger gun laws and/or lower gun ownership have fewer homicides or suicides by gun. Again, the stats all show that more guns means less safety, not more. Please think about this further. If teachers came to school with guns, eventually a child would get access to one and we would see a tragedy. Even under the best of circumstances where police returned fire in August at the Empire State Building, by-standers were hit by fragments of bullets shot by trained police officers. Imagine if 15 by-standers had pulled out their guns and began firing. How many innocent by-standers would have been shot then? Think also of the states where there are stand your ground laws. An individual feels threatened, whether justified or not, and instead of retreating, pulls out a gun and shoots. Someone dies. Without the gun, the individual retreats. Finally think of those places in the world where virtually everyone is armed - Somalia, Afghanistan, you get the picture. Is that really the kind of place we want to emulate?
"If guns were illegal, only criminals would have guns." Of course, the statement is not true. Law enforcement personnel would still have guns. Military would still have guns. And if guns were outlawed, production stopped, and those extant confiscated and destroyed, eventually even criminals wouldn't have guns. That is obviously not going to happen, but fewer guns would mean fewer available for criminals too. More importantly, the implication here is that somehow having a gun makes an individual less likely to be a victim of a crime. It just is not accurate.
"The real problem is people, not guns. If the crazies didn't have guns, they'd still kill people in some other way." There is a degree of truth in this... but only a degree. Violence still happens without guns, but it is pretty difficult to kill 27 people with a knife or a baseball bat before someone is able to stop you. Yes, we must address a culture of violence and even more importantly, we must address issues of mental illness. In the meantime, lets remove the tools of violence.
"We need guns to be able to stand up and revolt against tyrants at home." This argument is the one that actually runs closest to the 2nd Amendment, but it is also the most ridiculous one. Are we really expected to believe that untrained individuals could mount a revolt using the kinds of guns that are in circulation against a military like the US has? Look at the difficulty Syria is having against a third rate military with third rate equipment and imagine sending civilians against helicopter gun ships, jets, missiles, tanks, armed drones, and the best trained, most well equipped, military in the world. This statement betrays such a profound lack of trust in the American system that I don't know quite how to even address that part. I trust the system. I trust the checks and balances. I trust the American people to not allow things to get so far that a revolution is necessary.
Now we can have a real discussion about guns. They make some people feel safe. Is that a good reason to sacrifice our children? As of my writing this, there have been over 94,000 people shot in the US this year. Is that a price we want to pay for a feeling of security, especially one that is not borne out by any of the facts? Some people like to hunt or target shoot. Fine, what kinds of weapons and ammunition are necessary for those sports? And what are reasonable restrictions regarding those weapons and ammo? Doesn't it make sense that the regulations are at least as stringent as for driving - a class, a written and practical test, a license that must be periodically renewed, age requirements for gun use, registration of all guns, periodic inspections of all guns, safety regulations regarding gun design that is strictly enforced... Some folk appreciate the artistry in some guns and like to collect objects of beauty. OK, then for collectors, maybe no ammo? There is the 2nd amendment. Yes, there is, but what does it reasonably mean in our society today? When it was written, a musket shot one ball and then had to be reloaded, taking up to a minute per shot for an experienced musketeer and significantly longer for a person who was not an expert. The weapons were also extremely inaccurate. We just aren't talking about the same thing here, so how does the amendment apply?
Let's do away with the NRA lies and have a real discussion.
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
what now?
It didn't take more than a few hours before the blaming began. In the best cases, it quickly turned to serious analysis - what could have been done differently or how do we keep it from happening again.
In what strikes me as the most bizarre line of reasoning, I have heard and read a couple of folk argue that it was restrictive gun laws that caused this. If every student at Virginia Tech had been carrying a handgun, no crazy could get away with killing 32 people.
While that may be true, the number of deaths both purposeful and accidental would be much, much higher. Think of the places in the world where virtually everyone has a gun (Iraq for one). Does that make people safer? Remember the Wild Wild West where people carried guns and became laws unto themselves. Imagine the next weekend frat blow out only this time, put guns in the hands of all of the guys, drunk way past good judgment and filled with testosterone.
Yes, people kill people, but it is a lot easier with a Glock 9 than with one's bare hands. And once the trigger is pulled, there is no turning back.
But what about the law? The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence gives Virginia a C- for its gun laws (ahead of 32 states that get D's or F's). Cho showed a state driver's license and a checkbook with the same address on it along with an immigration card. The gun shops did an instant background check were the police verified that he was not convicted of a felony, involved in a domestic restraining order, convicted of a domestic misdemeanor, or had a dishonorable discharge from the military. When he passed these criteria, he purchased one handgun in a 30 day period and ammo and walked out. He was not checked for mental illness, other serious misdemeanors which may even have involved use of a gun, or even if he was on a terrorist watch list. The guns he purchased were semi-automatic with clips between 10 & 15 bullets. So he could shoot at least 20 times, as fast as he could move his finger, reload in a second or two and begin again. The guns themselves are not designed for hunting deer or rabbits but are good only for shooting at targets... or people.
The second amendment says,
It is an interesting amendment. It is conditional. The reason that people have the right to bear arms is to form a "well regulated militia." What does owning a semi-automatic handgun have to do with a well regulated militia?
I have no problems with hunters or even target shooters. In either case, the guns involved are very different from those used solely against people. Assault rifles, automatic pistols, and semi-automatic pistols should be outlawed. They are not used in hunting and they are not necessary for target shooting. Waiting periods should be put in place for all purchases. Ammunition should be regulated. The size of clips should be regulated. We must end this love affair with weapons whose only real purpose is to kill people.
In what strikes me as the most bizarre line of reasoning, I have heard and read a couple of folk argue that it was restrictive gun laws that caused this. If every student at Virginia Tech had been carrying a handgun, no crazy could get away with killing 32 people.
While that may be true, the number of deaths both purposeful and accidental would be much, much higher. Think of the places in the world where virtually everyone has a gun (Iraq for one). Does that make people safer? Remember the Wild Wild West where people carried guns and became laws unto themselves. Imagine the next weekend frat blow out only this time, put guns in the hands of all of the guys, drunk way past good judgment and filled with testosterone.
Yes, people kill people, but it is a lot easier with a Glock 9 than with one's bare hands. And once the trigger is pulled, there is no turning back.
But what about the law? The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence gives Virginia a C- for its gun laws (ahead of 32 states that get D's or F's). Cho showed a state driver's license and a checkbook with the same address on it along with an immigration card. The gun shops did an instant background check were the police verified that he was not convicted of a felony, involved in a domestic restraining order, convicted of a domestic misdemeanor, or had a dishonorable discharge from the military. When he passed these criteria, he purchased one handgun in a 30 day period and ammo and walked out. He was not checked for mental illness, other serious misdemeanors which may even have involved use of a gun, or even if he was on a terrorist watch list. The guns he purchased were semi-automatic with clips between 10 & 15 bullets. So he could shoot at least 20 times, as fast as he could move his finger, reload in a second or two and begin again. The guns themselves are not designed for hunting deer or rabbits but are good only for shooting at targets... or people.
The second amendment says,
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed
It is an interesting amendment. It is conditional. The reason that people have the right to bear arms is to form a "well regulated militia." What does owning a semi-automatic handgun have to do with a well regulated militia?
I have no problems with hunters or even target shooters. In either case, the guns involved are very different from those used solely against people. Assault rifles, automatic pistols, and semi-automatic pistols should be outlawed. They are not used in hunting and they are not necessary for target shooting. Waiting periods should be put in place for all purchases. Ammunition should be regulated. The size of clips should be regulated. We must end this love affair with weapons whose only real purpose is to kill people.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
