*
Jeff is a friend from my military days. He posted a thought-provoking blog today that led to one of the best (rational, logical, sober) conversations on Facebook that I've seen on the topic of guns since things have started getting more heated in the media. I've asked for and received Jeff's permission to re-post the post in its entirety. Thanks Jeff!
Link to Original: Wild Thinking - A Sane(?) Look at Guns.
"A sane(?) look at guns
Everyone seems to have an opinion on gun control. There are extremists
on both sides of the gun-ownership debate that feel very strongly about
their position, while the vast majority are somewhere in the middle.
They may lean towards one side or the other, but perhaps not comfortable
with taking a position. Personally, I think that hidden beneath the
scare tactics used by both sides, there are elements of truth. Those
elements are valid and need to be addressed, but how? This isn't a
scholarly article, so I'm not going to cite sources, just try to come to
some sort of understanding about potential ways to go forward.
First, we can address the concerns of those that favor gun control.
Events like the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in 2012, the Fort
Hood shooting in 2009, the Tucson shooting of 2011, the Columbine High
School shooting of 1999, the Virginia Tech shooting of 2007, and the
Batman shooting of 2012, all show the risks of firearms in the hands of
those that wish to use them to create mass casualties. There are also
the daily shootings throughout the country where firearms are used to
kill.
In a recent year, the Center for Disease Control found that there were
11,493 firearm homicides, which equates to roughly 31.5 killings each
day. In addition, there were 18,735 suicides using firearms, which is a
little over 51 per day. That matches a recent story which stated that
there were approximately 85 shooting deaths each day, and 53 of those
are suicides. In this case, I'm going to disregard the suicides and
concentrate on the homicides. For the sake of simplicity, I'll go with
the higher number of 32 unwanted shooting deaths per day.
The mass casualty shootings and the homicide shootings have a couple of
things in common, but the one that really jumps out at me is the
preference for handguns by the shooters. Most of the mass casualty
shootings were accomplished either primarily or exclusively with
handguns. About 67% of homicides are accomplished with firearms, and
handguns are used in a significant majority of those events. To me, this
means that the focus of any sort of gun control regulation should be on
handguns, since shotguns and rifles together are used in homicides less
frequently than knives.
In my mind, there is a legitimate concern about the frequent use of
handguns in homicides. Is there a way to decrease that threat without
violating the 2nd amendment rights of the people?
I think part of the process will be to identify risk factors to go along
with those homicides. We know that those in heavily urban counties are
twice as likely to be shot as those in very rural areas. We know that
per-capita, the most likely places to be involuntarily killed by a
firearm are are the southeastern states, from Louisiana to South
Carolina. That's roughly parallel to the areas with the greatest
African-American population, which only makes up about 13% of the
population, but over 54% of all firearms homicides. The second highest
threat area is the southwest, which has a significant minority
population of Hispanics. Many studies have shown a correlation between
Blacks and Hispanics and homicides using firearms.
That isn't just true for these areas of the South. Nationwide, young
Black males are killed at a rate 2.5 times higher than Latinos and 8
times higher than Whites. A report from New York City shows that
shooting victims are Black (73.8%) or Hispanic (22.1%) and that those
arrested for shooting homicides are Black (70.9%) or Hispanic (25.8%).
Whites accounted for only about 2.5% in each category. This is in a city
that is about 45% White, 25% Black, 27% Hispanic, and 12% Asian.
Over 90% of homicides are carried out by males. However, I'm not sure if
men are just that much more prone to commit murder or if they are
simply that much more likely to own and use firearms. In a marginally
related topic from the Bureau of Justice Statistics about murders of
intimate partners, I found that husbands were killed by knife 26% of the
time and boyfriends by knife 47% of the time, which was the only
instance in the study where a knife was used more than a firearm.
The Brady campaign helps clarify this even more. In 2007, 84% of all
African-American gun deaths were homicides. In that same year, 68% of
Hispanic gun deaths were homicides, while 80% of gun deaths for Whites
were suicides. That's pretty clear cut. Just as clear cut, about 60% of
all homicides take place in the largest 50 metro areas. These are the
biggest areas of concern. Again, simply looking at homicides and
ignoring self-inflicted intentional death, the key indicators seem to be
race, area of the country, and urban environment.
That makes sense with handguns, because the only real advantage of a
handgun is concealability. As a weapon, it's marginally better than a
spork, which is why its only use in war is an officer's sidearm or a
bottle opener. Sadly, a lot of politicians fail to distinguish between
handguns and other firearms. Most bans seem to focus on "assault rifles"
... which should clearly NOT be the focus of their efforts in an
attempt to reduce homicides and gun-related crime. Instead of worrying
about collapsible stocks and flash suppressors, which should be
considered cosmetic since they don't actually have an effect on the
function of the weapon, they should be focused on education and
enforcement targeting these at-risk populations.
If that were the case, I think it would do a lot to ease the concerns of
those worried about their 2nd amendment rights. Most say that they want
their firearms for self-defense, though some claim that it's for
defense from people and other say it's for defense from government (if
ever necessary). Many of these people are thinking long-term, and want
to be prepared for civil unrest if it happens in the future. That's not
such a bad idea either.
Since 1970, there have been over 50 civil wars throughout the world, as
well as over 50 significant international military engagements. That's
in addition to the drug wars going on in Mexico, right on our border.
It's not unreasonable to expect some sort of uprising in our country at
some point either. There's a lot of talk about the "fiscal cliff"
lately, and parts of the government have made plans for shutdown several
times in the past few years as part of budgetary concerns.
Some of the most turbulent and dangerous times in a nation's history are
those following an economic collapse. Recent examples such as
Argentina, Russian, and Thailand are just a few examples. The defender
of gun rights may be considering those as valid threats and supporting
their desire to stand ready to be part of a militia should it be
necessary. As the 2nd amendment states, "the right to keep and bear arms
shall not be infringed" since a well regulated militia is "necessary to
the security of a free state." To me, that means that individuals are
allowed to own firearms, but it doesn't state ALL firearms.
The "assault rifles" that politicians keep attempting to ban are
actually the very sorts of weapons that would be useful to a militia.
Rifles are the primary weapon of professional militaries, and most of
the objects that keep getting banned are either cosmetic in nature or
don't affect the function of the weapon. Things like flash suppressors,
folding stocks, or pistol grips won't make any difference in the use of
the weapons. They are simply cosmetic differences that can make the
weapons appear more threatening.
Sadly, the repeated attacks on the weapons that could reasonably be
expected to be used to defend the nation from foreign or domestic
threats are the same ones that politicians seem to be going after.
Regulating the size of a magazine just means that shooters have to
reload additional times, which for a skilled shooter can be done very
swiftly. To those that fear the government's power, that seems to be an
attempt to disarm the citizens rather than ensuring their safety.
In reality, I doubt that it matters much. There are about 300,000,000
privately owned firearms in the United States. In comparison, the
military branches only have about 10% of that amount and all of the law
enforcement agencies have fewer than 1,000,000. That means that the
question isn't about having the guns out there, that's already happened,
but it's about the safe ownership and use of those firearms as well as
the sale of new ones.
To me, if we concentrated on firearms education, enforcing the laws that
we have, train and license handgun users, and prevent crime among the
most at-risk populations, then we can help to increase the safety of
individuals while still ensuring the safety of the nation as a whole by
allowing the unfettered ownership of more effective defensive weapons,
like rifles, shotguns, and sporks."
***
Posts
