Bill Moyers is highly critical of the NRA:
Every year there are 30,000 gun deaths and 300,000 gun-related assaults in the U.S.,” he said. “Firearm violence may cost our country as much as $100 billion a year. Toys are regulated with greater care and safety concerns than guns … we have become so gun loving, so blasé about home-grown violence that in my lifetime alone, far more Americans have been casualties of domestic gunfire than have died in all our wars combined.
And firearms are used defensively between 64,000 and 2.5 million times each year, depending on whose study you believe. The data cited in that link is somewhat aged, a 2000 study found that civilians used a firearm to defend themselves or others at least 989,883 times per year.
Regardless of which statistic you believe, the number of defensive uses of firearms is at least on par with Moyer’s numbers for gun-related assaults. How many of those assaults were committed by criminals who obtained their firearms illegally?
And it’s simply not true that toys are more highly regulated than firearms.
This is one of those issues on which I have completely changed my mind. I used to be an advocate for greater measures of gun control, but a couple of factors led to me changing my mind.
First, presuming that one has an inherent right to self-defense, then it’s only a small step to the right to protect oneself with a firearm. This is especially true for women, the elderly, or the physically disadvantaged when facing an attacker. “When seconds count, police are only minutes away.”
Second, gun control inherently disadvantages the law-abiding. Making it harder to obtain guns legally does nothing to stop those who are already criminal in their actions or intent. A 1997 survey of state prison inmates found that among those who had posessed a firearm, some 80% of those firearms were obtained from a family member, friend, street buy or illegal source. If you know someone who can pass a background check, you can get a gun, despite all the currently existing regulation. There’s a saying among firearm owners: “if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns”. Why don’t we just outlaw murder? Oh, wait.
Third, the statistics on the matter are probably something of a mixed bag, and you could find statistics to support positions on either side of the issue. Gun crime or violent crime does appear to be higher in localities that have had handgun bans (see Washington DC, Chicago, Britain, etc… Although no causal link has been established, it would tend to support the idea that criminals generally disregard firearm regulation in the commission of their crimes.
Third, I’m a big fan of constitutional rights. All of them. The Supreme Court has had several ruling supportive of individual and incorporated Second Amendment rights (D.C. vs. Heller, McDonald vs. Chicago).
Fourthly, it’s impractical to enact stiffer regulations, and an outright ban would not work. The NRA has the political power to block most attempts at increasing regulation. An outright ban would serve only to disadvantage the law abiding (see above). Additionally, such a move would be seen as vindication in the paranoid subset of gun owners, and the possibility of provoking armed resistance cannot be discounted.
So, realizing all of this, where are we left? Pandora’s box has been opened, and we can’t shut it again. Knowing this, it seems to me that firearms are a side-issue to whatever we are discussing. If it is crime that we want to limit or prevent, then we ought to look at other ways of doing that, perhaps by improving the socioeconomic status of those at the bottom. If it’s a disgruntled madman bent on killing a bunch of people, we ought to wonder what it is in our society that manufactures such malcontents. Especially in the case of the alleged Aurora shooter, who reportedly had manufactured explosives in his apartment. If he had no guns, couldn’t he just have brought those explosives to the theater and still accomplished whatever twisted goals he had? (BTW, manufacturing explosives is highly illegal without the proper permits, and yet he was allegedly able to do so anyway).
Brynn: Thank you for injecting lots of good information into the discussion. Good food for thought.
I used to be very much in favor of strict gun control. Given the proliferation of guns in the US, supposedly 300,000,000 of them, and the fact that many of them are in the hands of people I don’t trust, making handguns illegal (to use an extreme example, at least here in the US) would leave many law abiding people defenseless against those who intend to do ill with guns. This is, indeed, a conundrum. I wish I could wave a magic wand and make the US like Japan, where people simple don’t worry about getting gunned down on a city street.
I think of what we have as a reverse-commons situation. We aren’t depleting a beneficial commons, but rather building up a toxic commons of weapons, which leads to many deaths that would not have occurred except that it is so easy to own and use a gun. I often read about a mugging within a mile of my house where a handgun was used or at least displayed. This is a horrendous situation, and it causes people to flee the city to even read about such events.
I didn’t approve of the easy access of handguns, but that is now a reality and I don’t know how to get rid of them. In that environment, we either allow law-abiding citizens to arm themselves or not. One friend of mine carries (with a permit) and I don’t blame him one bit, given his/her circumstances. I suspect that other people I know also carry. I fully get that many people carry ONLY to protect and defend themselves, and I fully get that there are lots of people out there who attack innocent people. I also get that there is a steady stream of cases where law abiding people use weapons to defend themselves, and I do believe that this is a concern that might be keeping some killers from being more brash then they are.
That said, I wonder why we can’t at least limit the number of bullets that guns can carry. Shouldn’t we at least make it harder for people to go into a store on a whim and then walk out and kill dozens at a time? I understand that assault weapons are not the same thing as machines guns. I just want to make it harder to kill lots of people quickly. It is my working assumption that law-abiding people don’t need to kill lots of people quickly.
Thanks Erich, and I’m glad we’re having this discussion. Your comment about Japan’s gun culture was interesting, and led me to this quotation from Wikipedia:
So again, it appears to come down to a matter of culture, as Niklaus pointed out in another thread.
I appreciate your desire to limit the number of bullets per magazine. It’s a common expression following these types of incidents. See this Washington Post editorial following the Tucson shooting which wounded Rep. Giffords. One thing to be aware of is that such large magazines are generally “after-market” parts, and are more prone to jam the gun. There have been reports that the alleged Aurora shooter’s gun jammed, which was the catalyst for him to stop shooting. I don’t know if that’s true or not, but thought I’d point it out. I don’t know what the right answer is here, but could probably be persuaded either way.
I forgot one other reason I changed my mind on gun control:
I would not foreclose the possibility that such a day may come again, although it possibly seems anachronistic or fantastical to us now. I think the founders were considering this possibility when discussing the Bill of Rights, and chose to preserve an armed citizenry as a means of providing a final check on the power of the federal government. Madison and Jefferson in particular explicitly make these arguments. Should a new revolutionary war be needed, however far in the future, how much should we hobble the freedom fighters?
Brynn: Your talk of the possibility of armed revolution reminds me of several things.
This country was born of a justified revolution, where the government was not run by the consent of the governed. It’s amazing how often people consider it blasphemy to talk of revolution as being inappropriate per se, even though there is increasing evidence that the government is massively corrupt. At what point do Americans have the right to revolt (again)? I suspect that there are many Americans who would say never.
But there is another way to have a revolution, and it was built right into the Constitution–the amendment process. This reminds me that the corporate media dominate the information dissemination process, making it extremely difficult to make use of the amendment process. We have been severely indoctrinated into seeing ourselves as consumers rather than as citizens with substantial duties BETWEEN elections. Have you seen Annie Leonard’s Story of Change? Change need not be done with angry faces by the changers, and it can be accomplished with education and encouragement rather than guns.
I’m trying to see this as an outsider (which I’m not), but if the government takes away all of the peaceful avenues of ridding the government of corporate corruption, and keeps a clamp on the mass media, what else is there for disgruntled citizens? What other avenues do people have other than reaching for their torches and handguns? On the other hand, it strikes me as quaint to think that a grassroots uprising would have a chance against the U.S. military, with its sonic canons, drones, takes and air force. Then again, it occasionally happens that the military decides to side with ordinary citizens rather than elitist/corrupt politicians.
It seems to me that the pressure is building in the U.S., dissent is growing and the government is responding by clamping down on civil rights, secrecy and whistle-blowers, as well as serious attempts to peel back the veil of what the government is really up to. I, for one, hope that we figure out a way to revamp the system peacefully, but the trend makes me extremely nervous.
Erich- well put, and I mostly agree with you.
Perhaps, although I think our military’s reputation possibly exceeds its grasp. Let’s not forget that they’ve been fought to a stalemate in both Iraq and Afghanistan, and I suspect that many Americans are better armed than most insurgents, at least in Afghanistan.
There was a small but visible contingent of Iraq Veterans Against the War and other current and former military members as part of last fall’s Occupy movement. I believe many of them are realizing that the wars we have been asking them to fight are frauds. I hold out hope that change can be managed without bloodshed, but if not, I hope that members of the military would carefully consider the choice presented to them.
I must say, it appears a bit terrifying to me as I have noticed some preparations on the part of the federal government lately. The Marine Corps has just created 3 new “law-enforcement” battallions who “will be capable of helping control civil disturbances, handling detainees, carrying out forensic work, and using biometrics to identify suspects.” Ostensibly for use overseas, it strikes me that the government might consider such battalions to be “dual-purpose”, especially in light of this:
My bookmarks aren’t functioning properly at the moment, but there was also a whitepaper a few years ago from the Army, I believe, which speculated that the military may be needed domestically to maintain or regain control in the event of an economic collapse, terrorist attack, domestic unrest or other such conditions. I understand that their obligation is to plan for a wide range of scenarios, but when budget resources begin to be devoted to these line items, my concern grows.
Brynn: I share all of your concerns about the U.S. military’s apparent preparations to fight domestic dissent, I’m sad to say.
Jason Alexander explains his position on the AR-15: http://www.twitlonger.com/show/if2nht
A former Marine posts a retort to Alexander’s claims here. No endorsement of the website linked should be implied.
Alexander makes a few mistakes that I would like to point out as well.
Alexander claims that the 2nd Amendment is a right given solely to militia members, then provides the Webster’s definition of militia:
He then goes on to ignore the sub-2 definition, which applies to the whole body of able-bodied male citizens eligible to be called for military service. The second definition is the one used in US Code: 10 U.S.C. § 311 : US Code – Section 311: Militia: composition and classes
Alexander goes on to betray his ignorance with respect to “assault weapons”:
Here is a typical sportsman’s “hunting rifle” available for sale at a local sporting goods store. The only item Alexander is correct on his comparison is that an AR-15 carries more rounds without reloading. The AR-15 typically has a 30 round magazine, while the Remington linked only has a 4 shot magazine. But an AR-15 will not fire farther or more accurately than the Remington, nor does it “accommodate a more lethal payload”. The Remington comes in either a .270-Win caliber or 30-06 caliber, both of which are larger, able to be fired further with greater accuracy, and presumably more lethal than the .223 caliber in which AR-15’s typically are made. Niklaus pointed out in another thread that AR-15’s are, in fact, used in many hunting applications. Generally, people react to the cosmetic appearance of these rifles though– they “look” military-style, and therefore shouldn’t be in private hands.
I’m not trying to snarky about this, and I believe Alexander (and others on both sides of this issue) are mostly genuinely good-willed and well-intentioned. But he’s clearly misinformed about what features of various firearms are used for, and that’s how ineffective and stupid regulations come about, such as the ridiculous regulations that California has in place. Such regulations lead to people building “Hello Kitty” AR-15 models which are cosmetically different and perfectly compliant with applicable laws, yet their function and ability to effectively operate have not been significantly impeded.
Thanks, Brynn. It seems to me that there is a sweet spot that rational people can legislate and protect. I don’t know anyone who thinks that guns shouldn’t be available to hunters, target shooters or people who want to defend their property. I do know numerous people who are shocked to hear that an ordinary citizen can buy thousands of rounds of ammo on short notice and carry a gun that carries 100 rounds, such that he can shoot up a theater.
When I’m in the secure section of an airport, where only law enforcement has guns, I don’t worry about people walking up and shooting me. I sometimes have that fear in my own neighborhood.
I’m highly ambivalent about the claim that we need guns to take down our own government (under the premise that it is corrupt). I do believe that we can do far more with education and a committed citizenry. Unfortunately, our educational system is crumbling, citizens are highly trained to be consumers by our media, not knowledgable citizens. Self-interest has been put on the national pedestal (to the point where John F. Kennedy’s “Ask not” quote is now ridiculed). Our national government IS largely bought and paid for. We largely do have a one-party system, the two ostensible parties differing on perhaps 10% of the issues. It takes great wealth to run a campaign, so that citizens with good ideas alone don’t have a chance of winning political office.
I deeply feel the frustration. It annoys the shit out of me that so few people use social media to organize to make the country work (instead, we mostly see Facebook posts about things like cats and movies). Therefore, because we sense the government has turned on us, we turn to . . . guns. That is our “solution,” even though we have solutions, if only we cared. This simply does not work for me. Violent revolution would then require that we rebuild the country and get citizens to care about each other, and care about sustainability. Revolution by guns would shake things up, but THEN what would we have? It might be a government that is more physically oppressive than what we have now.
I thus worry that many of the folks out there who embrace guns, see them as a solution, whereas I see them as a method of shaking up the box, but then ultimately empowering those more willing to use guns, and putting a great amount of faith on those gun users to come up with a better system of government than the one we currently have. I see that as an act of unbridled faith.
In the meantime, we have guns everywhere, with thousands of people dying because they are shooting each other. I don’t see the existence of these guns as pressuring our government to act reasonably or rationally. It’s as though the government is saying, “Sure, go play with your guns. We’ll be busy wrecking your lives by cuddling up to Wall Street, Big Pharma, the Insurance industry and the fossil fuel industry.”
I don’t see guns as a long term solution to reshaping government, but only shocking it, which might make it all the more oppressive. We still need to figure out a way to do the hard work of making government work, with or without guns. Perhaps this is merely my aesthetic, but I find the “need” for guns as a distraction to the hard work that all of us should be doing.
Thanks Erich, good comments and I largely agree.
Erich says:
I find the “need” for x to be a distraction to what we all should be doing, where “x” is facebook, video games, consumer electronics, watching sports, and so much more.
This phrase comes to mind: “Rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic . . . “
Michael Moore had this to say on Piers Morgan’s show:
If gun control actually succeeded in controlling guns, we could talk. Since that has never and will never happen, why would people be proposing laws that can’t be enforced?
One thing has been nagging at me about this whole discussion over the past few days, and I think I finally figured out what it is. Erich- you have posted repeatedly about the dangers of “innumeracy”. About a month ago, you posted on the infinitesimal odds of dying in a terrorist attack, and then questioned why we are devoting so many resources to fight an statistically non-existent problem.
This firearm debate strikes me as much the same issue, but you seem to be on the other side of this debate. According to the National Safety Council, your lifetime odds of dying due to a firearm discharge is 1 in 6,609, slightly greater than your lifetime chances of dying due to an “air and space transport accident”. As a cyclist, you should know that your chances of dying on a bike (1 in 4,381) are significantly greater than dying due to a firearm. Your odds of dying due to suffocation or through a medical mistake are much much greater than your odds of death due to firearm (source).
What’s more, the death rate due to firearms accidents has been declining steadily since its peak in 1904. The NRA reports that some 4 million new firearms go into circulation in the U.S. annually, so we should be seeing a change in these trends with all the new firearms, if access to firearms were the key variable. Instead though, the number of deaths due to firearms seems fairly stable. Granted, the odds are far greater than dying in a terrorist attack, but I think they are still tolerably low.
In the wake of these horrific types of incidents, our natural urge is to attempt to prevent future occurrences. Similarly, in the wake of terrorist attacks, our natural urge is to do everything we can to prevent them in the future. But we live in an inherently dangerous world. We cannot prevent bad things from happening, and in some cases it’s folly and a waste of resources to try, as you’ve pointed out in the case of terrorist attacks. The odds are so small, and we take much greater risks on a daily basis simply living our lives. The government has shown that they are more than happy to seize these types of events as a pretext for greater control, always at the expense of our rights. I am not willing to make that trade.
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”– Benjamin Franklin
Brynn: I think you’ve caught me flat footed, Brynn. Even though the raw numbers are disturbing, the chances of dying from a gunshot wound, for any particular person, is low.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States
The numbers of deaths resemble the magnitude of deaths due to drunk driving, another thing I have strong feelings about.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drunk_driving_in_the_United_States
Perhaps, this issue bugs me so much because it affects my behavior so often. Almost once a month I read about one of someone within a mile of my house getting mugged at gunpoint. It happens quite often, and it makes me nervous about being approached by strangers at night.
I also don’t like what guns represent for me–that complex issues can be solved by violence. But I’ve already indicated that I have friends who carry and I fully understand why. Perhaps another reason is that the people who I know who carry do so because the are worried about other people out there carrying. We’re in the middle of an arms race, and the whole thing seem pointless, or even worse, it provokes paranoia.
You’ve asked a good question, and I’ll think more on it.
Security expert Bruce Schneier echoes my point: