We Can't Change People, But We Can Control Access to Guns

Why is gun control essential?  Because people are people; many suffer and lash out, some become violent. We can't control people's psychology and what they do or say.  But we can control the availability of weapons that enable them to kill and injure.

The tragedy in Orlando raises many questions, the most basic being whether there is any end or limit to man’s inhumanity to man.  And with this term, I’m not just referring to horrific acts of mass violence such as the Orlando shootings but also the violence that occurs every day, whether randomly inflicted on strangers or directed at someone the perpetrator has a grudge against.  Based on the evidence we see or hear on almost a daily basis, one has to say, no.

Although in posts I have set forth a way to end this epidemic of inhumanity … to make people humane again … it is not a very practical expectation (see “Creating a Safer World for Our Children.”).  No, we must take it as fact that there really is no end or limit to man’s inhumanity to man.

If we can’t stop people from being inhumane, then our only option if we want to end the suffering caused by these acts of inhumanity is to control the tools they use to inflict harm.  (For the purpose of this post, I’m going to limit the discussion to acts of inhumanity that involve physical violence.  The cruel psychological violence that people inflict on each other on a daily basis is also inhumane - see the above referenced post - but that's another matter.)

When we look at the statistics, we see that in the United States guns are the weapon of choice in physically violent acts:  67.7 percent of all murders, 41.3 percent of robberies and 21.2 percent of aggravated assaults were conducted with guns.  Each year more than 30,000 people are killed by firearms in the US (about 1/3 are murders, the rest suicides), compared to less than 200 in Canada and the countries of Europe.

Without any question, if we want to end the suffering caused by all this violence we must get rid of the guns that are so readily available.  But what to do about the opposing claim of gun rights and the newly-Supreme-Court-declared 2nd Amendment individual right to bear arms?

People definitely have the right to guns used for hunting and self-defense.  Until recent times that meant a traditional rifle for hunting and some type of pistol for self-defense.  People were able to hunt very successfully with their rifles … if anything it was more of a pure sport … and people were able to defend themselves.

The newer type of automatic guns and assault weapons that are available, with large capacity clips, have added absolutely nothing to the ability to hunt or to defend oneself.  It may give a hunter a bigger charge to be handling these newer guns, but that’s no reason to make them available given the harm that they can inflict.  And automatic pistols have not been shown to be more effective for self-defense that a regular pistol.  It just gives the person a psychological feeling of greater safety.

So, I would argue that given that we cannot change man’s inhumanity to man, all automatic weapons, whether guns or rifles, should be taken off the general market.  They should only be available to the military, police, and others who need such high-powered weapons in the performance of their responsibilities.

Regular guns and rifles should continue to be available to the general public as they are now, with of course appropriate background checks, etc.  All loopholes should be closed.  No one should be able to by a firearm without the required background check.

I know that one cannot expect to stop gun violence by taking all but regular rifles and pistols off the general market, even with effective background checks.  People can still turn violent and those firearms can still be used to great effect in ways other than hunting and self-defense.  But given the place of guns in American culture … the United States is not England or other countries where gun ownership is rare and traditionally strictly controlled … that’s the most that we can expect our government and people to accommodate for the greater good.

But the fact that gun control measures will not eliminate firearm violence is no argument against taking those steps.  Fewer deaths and injuries, especially from these mass shootings, is better than things continuing unchanged.

The NRA says that guns don’t kill people, people kill people.  And while that’s undeniably true … the core problem is the inhumanity of man … it is also true that without automatic weapons fewer people would be killed or suffer grievous injury.

An Open Letter to Gun Owners

Let me start by saying that this is not about taking away your rights to hunt or defend your family.  This is not about in any way infringing on your legitimate rights to own guns and use them.  What this is solely about is trying to stop the epidemic of gun violence against innocent people that is plaguing our nation, causing untold grief to tens of thousands of families each year.

Gun violence is not limited to the mass shootings that get national attention.  While such events are horrific, a far greater problem exists impacting large numbers of innocent Americans.  In 2010, for example, guns took the lives of 31,076 Americans.  Roughly 20,000 of these were suicides; the rest were intentional homicides.  Only 5% were accidental shootings. In addition, 73,505 Americans were treated in hospital emergency departments for non-fatal gunshot wounds in 2010. 

Recently, I learned of a particularly moving example of gun violence.  A young man who was severely sight-disabled went outside with his guide dog to try and see a comet that was passing in the night sky.  While he was outside, a man leaving a neighboring unit after an argument with his girlfriend shot someone on the stairs.  Upon hearing the shot, the young man started to hurry back to his apartment.  Before he could get back inside, the distraught gunman shot him in the back and killed him.  He died on his kitchen floor, his guide dog howling beside him.

In the face of all of this unnecessary loss of innocent life and family grief,  how can you be against reasonable efforts aimed to lessen gun violence while not infringing on your legitimate right to own firearms for hunting and self-defense?  

Let’s look at the NRA’s arguments and your fears.  The NRA’s main arguments boil down to this:  No measure reducing access to guns is acceptable because any such measure is a first step by the government and gun opponents to ultimately removing guns from private possession.

This is patently nonsense.  There isn’t a politician alive, nor any but a small fringe of the gun control advocacy community, that wants to do anything more than control access to guns for the reasons I’ve stated without disturbing legitimate ownership and use for hunting and self-defense.

If this is the case, then why, you may ask, does the NRA, an organization you trust, take such a broad position?  The answer is that the NRA, which began as an organization of sportsmen, hunters, and gun collectors, has morphed into the prime spokesman and defender of the gun industry.  

Why?  More than half of the NRA’s funding now comes from the gun industry, rather than from the dues of its members.  And because the NRA can say that it speaks for gun owners ... a broad-based group of Americans ... it is the NRA who is front and center after each gun incident and in lobbying Congress, rather than the trade association of the gun industry.  And the gun industry is, not surprisingly, against any form of regulations that reduces sales and impacts their profits.

That is why the NRA is against a ban on assault-weapons.  These types of rifles and guns are not used by hunters or in self-defense.  But they are a major revenue source for the gun industry.

That is why the NRA is against a ban on magazines holding large numbers (100) of bullets.  Again, such magazines are not used by hunters or in self-defense.

That is why the NRA is against mandating background checks in all sales and improving the nature of the checks.  These would in no way hinder the purchase by hunters or your average home-owner, but it would dampen sales to criminals and mentally ill people who should not have guns, thereby decreasing sales and impacting profits.

That is why the NRA responded to the Newtown, CT massacre by saying that all schools should have armed guards.  This would require a huge increase in the sale of firearms to local government and thus benefit the industry’s profits.

Every position the NRA takes is in support of the gun industry, NOT in support of the sportsmen, hunters, and gun collectors who they claim to speak for.  But it is you, the NRA members, who have taken the public relations hit for being unreasonable on this subject, not the gun industry.

The time has come for gun owners to realize that they have been used and manipulated by the NRA and the gun industry for its own purposes.  You must speak clearly and loudly that you do not support the NRA’s positions and you are in favor of reasonable measures that reduce gun violence while protecting your legitimate right to own and use firearms for hunting, sport, and self-defense.

Gun violence can never be eliminated because, as the NRA is fond of saying, “people do kill people.”  People who legitimately own guns will on occasion end up using them in a way other than intended.  But the extent of violence can be greatly reduced through reasonable, effective laws.

Please support the modest gun control measures that are before Congress.  Call your Congressman today.

The Right to Life v the Right to Own Guns

The cornerstone of our democracy, of our constitution and its Bill of Rights, is the principle stated in the Declaration of Independence that “all men are created equal and are endowed with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness ...  That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men.”  The Bill of Rights, including the 2nd Amendment’s right to bear arms, stems from this combination of the right to life and liberty and the government’s responsibility to create a system where that is reasonably possible.

If you asked most people what is one of the most important ingredients in leading a happy life, they would say being secure ... whether it’s secure in ones job, ones financial situation, or ones relationships, or being able to go to the theater or send your children to school without worrying whether you/they will be massacred.  The government can’t do much about job security or your financial situation and nothing regarding your relationships.  But physical security is one area where the government has a clear responsibility and ability.  Whether it’s the local police force or the national defense, an acknowledged primary role of government is to insure that people can go about their lives without worrying for their physical safety.

What happens when one right, here the right to physical security, bumps into another right, here the right to bear arms?  The courts have been clear that none of the Bill of Rights is absolute ... not even the right of free speech.  If the government has a compelling reason, such as protecting large numbers of people from harm, it can regulate these rights so long as it does so in the least restrictive manner.

Let’s assume for the sake of argument that the latest Supreme Court decision that the 2nd Amendment gives individuals a constitutional right to bear arms is indeed the correct interpretation.  (I say let’s assume because that decision was the first time in the court’s history that it interpreted the amendment in that way.} As already stated, that does not mean that the government cannot restrict that right if it has a compelling interest and the opinion explicitly acknowledges this, giving several examples of existing or possible regulatory restrictions.  The implication is that even the current conservative majority on the Court would find that protecting the safety of the general populace is a compelling interest.

What are the statistics on gun deaths?  In 2010, guns took the lives of 31,076 Americans in homicides, suicides and unintentional shootings.  In addition, 73,505 Americans were treated in hospital emergency departments for non-fatal gunshot wounds in 2010. Firearms were the third-leading cause of injury-related deaths nationwide in 2010, following poisoning and motor vehicle accidents. Between 1955 and 1975, the Vietnam War killed over 58,000 American soldiers – less than the number of civilians killed with guns in the U.S. in an average two-year period. In the first seven years of the U.S.-Iraq War, over 4,400 American soldiers were killed. Almost as many civilians are killed with guns in the U.S., however, every seven weeks.

Clearly, guns deaths and injury are a very serious national safety and health problem.  While the massacres that have occurred in schools, shopping centers, or movie theaters grab the headlines, the volume of deaths caused by individual shootings is far greater. Given that the option of eliminating guns from the marketplace is not a realistic option, how can the government proceed in the least restrictive way, meeting its responsibility regarding public and individual safety while respecting the rights of people to own guns?

I would ask two questions.  What types of guns are not needed for either hunting or self-defense?  How best keep guns out of the hands of those who should not own them ... criminals and the mentally ill?  If the government were able to address these two issues successfully, the problem of gun violence in the United States would be greatly reduced.

The first question is easy to answer.  AK-47s and other assault rifles and semi-automatic pistols and rifles are not tools needed for hunting or self-defense.  These are weapons for murdering large numbers of people.  Yes, rifles like the AR-15 that was used in the recent Connecticut school massacre are rifles favored by many hunters and gun enthusiasts, but a semi-automatic rifle just isn’t necessary for hunting.  Sales to the public should be banned.  Sales to authorized agencies, such as the police, should be direct purchase from the manufacturer, rather than through a wholesaler, to eliminate a potential source of illegal sales.  

The second question is more difficult to answer, but there is a logical series of actions.  The first is that no firearm or ammunition sale, regardless whether at a store or at a gun show should be made without a thorough background check.  Second the data base accessed in searches needs to be improved.  Third, the penalties for the sale of guns and ammunition illegally, that is without following mandated procedures, should be severe.  The combination of these actions would not stop the flow of guns into the wrong hands, but it should greatly restrict it and sharply reduce the number of such incidents.  And they would do so without impacting the legitimate rights of citizens to own a gun or rifle for hunting or self-defense.

There is no rational reason why gun control and gun rights should be at cross-purposes.  No one who wants a firearm for a legitimate reason has anything to fear from the types of regulations I’ve suggested.  It is only the hysteria fostered by the National Rifle Association which is heavily funded by firearms manufacturers that has caused this seemingly loosing battle in Congress over gun control. It is firearms manufacturers who fear the impact of gun control on their lucrative sales, so much so that Remington has threatened to move from its birthplace in New York State if the state proceeds to enact gun control legislation.

The time is past due for the President and Senators and Congressmen from both parties to come together to enact reasonable legislation that protects the right of average American citizens to live a life free of the fear of them or their children being gunned down in a massacre.  Protect the legitimate rights of citizens to own guns for self-defense and hunting, but control the rest.  Let not the 20 children in Newtown, CT die in vain.