Much of the nation is still in shock
and and anguish after the horrific slaughter of school children in
Connecticut. What is an incomprehensible act is made worse by the
lack of an answer to “why” and the lack of a target for anger
since the perpetrator committed suicide and the enabler, his mother,
was also killed by him.
A political reaction was also
predictable as elected officials sought to demonstrate their genuine
outrage as well as their instinct to use the tragedy for political
gain. Long standing gun control groups have seized the moment and
joined in. The result has been a rash of demands to “do something”.
But the public safety issue surrounding gun ownership is so
complicated that knee jerk demands lack a focus on reality and those
offered so far are more likely to complicate legal gun ownership than
to deter criminal acts.
To justify a renewed effort at gun
control, advocates often cite statistics to demonstrate what
Elizabeth Rosenthal said in her recent commentary in the New York
Times i.e. that in the U.S. there is a “widespread expansion of gun
violence.” Commonly, it is shown that in “industrialized”
countries the U.S. has a higher rate of homicides than those mostly
in Western Europe. While this is true, it is also true that in some
of our closest neighbors in Latin America and the Caribbean the
homicide rate is significantly higher.
The U.S. homicide rate per hundred
thousand people annually is 5.0 (2011).
Honduras: 91.6
El Salvador: 69.1
Jamaica: 40.9
Guatemala: 38.5
Columbia: 31.4
The difference is largely the result of
cultural differences which also explain much of the difference
between the U.S. and Western Europe. Weapons in civilian hands
played a vital role in the exploration and development of North
America centuries after European populations were stabilized into
peasant/ruler relationships. The last battle of the Indian wars in
the West ended just some 114 years ago in 1898 and a hunting culture
continues to exist in rural areas across the nation but especially in
Western states.
This doesn't explain a high level of
homicide but it does explain the high level of gun ownership in the
U.S. compared to Western Europe and its spill over into criminal
hands, in addition to the high level of commitment exhibited by gun
rights advocates, the vast majority of whom are law abiding citizens.
The major issue for gun control
advocates is availability of weapons which makes it easy for
individuals with criminal intent to carry out their crimes. The
first reaction after the recent theater shooting in Aurora, Colorado
and then the school shootings in Connecticut was to call for a ban on
the sale of a particular type of weapon that was used in both
instances, the so-called “assault rife”. This is a rifle
designed to look like a military weapon but unlike its military
counterpart, it is semi-automatic. The focus on its use, besides the
ominous but incorrect sounding name, is its ability to accept large
magazines containing up to 30 rounds.
Since these weapons are collector and
hobbyist items not commonly used for hunting, they appear to be an
easy target for gun control and indeed a federal ban on the
manufacture or sale of “assault rifles” was in effect from 1994
to 2004. Now they are the foremost feature of the newly energized
gun control movement.
Currently the suggestions being offered
besides a renewed ban on the manufacture and sale of assault rifles
offer little that would seem to deter the kind mass killings that
have stimulated the effort.
Former Arizona Congresswoman, Gabrielle
Giffords who was the victim of a mass shooting in 2011, and her
husband, former astronaut, Mark Kelly, have announced the formation
of an advocacy group called Americans for Responsible Solutions to
raise money and “spur a national conversation about gun violence”.
The conversation has been going on for decades and has mostly taken
the form of acrimonious debate, with little compromise.
New York Governor, Andrew Cuomo, a
probable Democrat presidential candidate in 2016, has proposed a gun
control agenda for the state of New York that has been described as
the most restrictive in the nation if it is passed by the New York
legislature. The measure would include: a redefinition of “assault
rifles” to include more models and more features; and limiting
detachable ammunition magazines to 7 rounds from the current limit of
ten 10. Cuomo would also require background checks for the sale of
ammunition, as well as weapons.
President Obama has appointed Vice
President Biden to put together a “task force” to make
recommendations for gun control legislation on the federal level and
for areas for non-legislative executive action. The task force
recommendations, which are soon to be delivered will offer these
ideas:
Ban assault weapons. Ban high capacity
ammunition magazines. “Tighten” background checks on those
seeking to purchase a gun. Make gun trafficking a felony. Have the
Department of Justice prosecute people who falsify background check
forms. Order federal agencies to send data on individuals in their
files to the National Gun Background Check Database.
While some of these initiatives make
sense, especially in the area of background checks and the underlying
motive to reduce the availability of weapons for criminals and the
mentally ill, most inevitably butt up against reality.
As in the failed war on drugs, the
problem is driven by issues of supply and demand. There are an
estimated 270 million firearms in private possession in the U.S. An
estimated 40% of weapons purchases are not required to conform to
current law. These are private sales between individuals and at the
huge number of gun shows whose sellers are not licensed vendors.
While assault rifles can be more
dangerous in terms of shots fired without reloading, most gun related
crimes involve hand guns. Studies have shown that the 1994-2004
federal ban on assault rifles had no effect on the incidence of gun
violence or lethality.
With respect to mass killings, a study
(Mark Follman et. al. “Mother Jones” of the 62 incidents
)(arbitrarily defined) that occurred in the 30 year period between
1982-2012 revealed the following :
Forty-nine (79%) of the assailants
obtained their weapons legally. Some assailants used multiple weapons
totally 142 in all. Of these weapons, 88(62%) were handguns and
only 35 (25%) were assault rifles; 19 (13%)were shotguns.
The study reports that the “majority
of the assailants were mentally ill. This seems to be intuitively
confirmed by the simple fact that 42 of the 62 (68%) committed
suicide before they could be apprehended. It could be argued that all
the perpetrators who chose anonymous victims as well as those they
knew in some cases were acting out of severe irrational anger and
thus mentally ill in some degree.
Thus while the political focus in the
wake of the Aurora, CO theater shooting and the terrible school
shooting in Connecticut is on background checks and assault rifles,
the facts indicate that while strengthening laws in these areas has
the most public support, and might help reduce possession of these
weapons and others among the identifiable criminal population but
would probably not have much effect of the incidence of mass
killings, which almost totally involve persons with no criminal
history who up until the time they commit these type of killings are
leading what most would describe as “normal” lives.
Indeed, the history of these killings
indicates a mental health issue as opposed to a prior criminal motive
or history. Gun control advocates argue that it is the availability
of guns that makes these incidents possible but the political
realities of the issue make the restriction of weapons available to
persons with no documented mental health or criminal issues
problematic.
So in summary, the proposed legislation
at both the state and federal level appears to look like the
following;
Mandatory background checks for “all
gun purchasers”. Presumably this is aimed at gun shows. The
impracticality of what amounts to a collection of private sales and
trades in temporary venues is immense. Background checks could take
days and some proposals include “waiting periods”. Gun shows
typically only last two or three days and even if that problem could
be overcome with some kind of instant electronic check, their short
term, number, and geographical distribution make enforcement
impossible.
“Establish a national database to
track weapons.” A practical impossibility for anything but new
sales by licensed dealers considering the millions of guns already
in private hands. Also this has the appearance of universal
registration which arouses the specter of confiscation in the minds
of gun owners, libertarians and gun rights groups and thus is so
controversial as to be politically impossible. How this would track
guns past their original owners if purchased at a licensed dealer or
deter crime, especially mass killing has not been explained.
“Strengthen mental health programs”.
Unless this would include some way to identify individuals with
mental issues and document them in data bases available to federal
law enforcement authorities there would be no interface with the
background check process. Medical privacy laws would seem to
present a major obstacle in this respect.
Renewed assault weapons bans and
restrictions on large capacity external magazines at both the state
and federal level. This has highest probability of success but as
has been pointed out, hand guns are used in most crimes involving
guns, including mass killings. Also, millions of assault rifles and
large magazines are already in private hands.
With 270 million guns in private hands
in the U.S, there will always be a private market including a
criminal (street) market. European/Australian type bans would have
practical and politically impossible issues. As always, some gun
control advocates are proposing extremely difficult and just plain
extreme restrictions.
A background check on sales of
ammunition is one of these. Gun owners typically buy guns much less
frequently than ammunition which is an enormous market conducted by a
large variety of outlets from convenience stores to big retailers
like Walmart. It would present huge problems on both ends of the
system.
There is even an internet petition
circulating demanding the that the Second Amendment be repealed. The
Second Amendment is the fire wall for gun rights groups and is the
major obstacle to legislation intended to restrict gun ownership.
The political realities in the nation make such an effort impossible
and even less restrictive legislation very difficult.
Amending the Constitution takes a 2/3
affirmative vote in both houses of Congress and concurrence in 3/4
(38) of state's legislatures. Currently 40 of the 50 states have
“unrestricted concealed carry” laws, allowing citizens to carry
firearms with a permit which has few restrictions. Four states
require no permit at all. Twenty-four states have “open carry”
laws which allow those with permits in most cases, to carry holstered
weapons openly. Thus it is clear that these same legislatures are
not likely to be amenable to highly restrictive gun laws let alone,
Second Amendment repeal.
The recent senseless slaughter of
innocent young people and children is indeed horrific and the nation
wide emotional and political response is to be expected. Of course
it would it be a good thing if somehow guns were not as available to
these troubled individuals as well as criminals, gang members and
prospective terrorists. However, accomplishing this without
targeting the vast majority of gun owners who are law abiding
hunters, collectors, and sports shooters is a complex problem. The
United States is not England or even Canada. Gun ownership is built
into our history and culture. Additionally and unfortunately, the
problems of inner city decay and the existence of hundreds of
thousands of gang members make our murder and gun violence statistics
high. But these are social issues which, as long as they exist, like
mental health issues, will defy efforts to reduce violence within the
context of our history and Constitution.
No comments:
Post a Comment