Gun Control Works

We here don’t like guns.

Not because they’re bad in and of themselves. They’re tools.

They are dangerous tools that too many humans have proven to be incapable of using responsibly. And irresponsible use as well as ill-intentioned use is not only bad for freedom and democracy, but also harmful to the general welfare of the nation. Tools influence behavior, which doesn’t get mentioned often enough. If you have to go 60 miles, you could walk there in several days, ride a bicycle there in several hours, drive there in an hour or two. How you plan the trip depends on whether the tool is shoes, a bicycle, or a car. Guns are perhaps a way to ‘save time,’ as the possession thereof leads, in many cases, to more aggressive behavior.

The Man is sticking it to us with guns on many levels. Over 45,000 Americans were killed by guns in 2020, and the number has been moving upward, and nothing is being done. Part of the story is a rapacious gun industry that seeks profit at all costs. Part of the story is soulless lobbyists who use the carrot of money and the stick of single-issue voters to bend lawmakers to their will on guns, despite the unpopularity of guns. Part of the story is politicians who have little to offer their constituents choosing to focus on guns to attract voters. Part of the story is people who want to use the excuse of gun violence they’ve unleashed as a heavy-handed way to punish the unwell and unlucky and increase the domestic security apparatus (gun proponents are often in favor of spending more on police, more equipment for police, more surveillance, as well as “hardening” things like schools, turning them into fortresses). Part of the story is people are responding to increasing gun violence by buying more guns. Part of the story is the threat that gun nuts have become to democracy. Undergirding it all is the depressing truth that much of the pro-gun movement is a culture war issue that owes its existence to a backlash against the civil rights movement.

All those things are swirling around, but what they effectively have done is empowered a legislation-stopping number of lawmakers to do anything to make access to guns easier.

The Pro-Gun Politician Game

Pro-gun politicians will invoke The Constitution, mutter something about the Second Amendment, assure us that good guys with guns aren’t the problem, that we just have to make sure the bad guys and the mentally ill don’t get guns and everything will be ok.

After mass shootings, they like to play a game where they first call for ‘thoughts and prayers,’ then demonize anyone who is concerned about safety and human lives for politicizing the moment, and then assert that because any proposed law won’t stop all gun violence it shouldn’t even be considered, but making sure more people have easy access to guns will help, because, you know. guns.

So Many Problems

The pro-gun side has a big problem. It’s called reality. That’s why they try pretty hard to either ignore it or obscure it or fall back on beating their chest about The Second Amendment. They have no reason to engage with reality when it doesn’t help their cause.

Take the idea that guns make people safe. I guess one can almost see it. But then, one looks at the rate of gun deaths in states where there is lax gun control, and it turns out, those states have the highest gun death rates in the nation. And conversely, the states with strict gun control laws are generally the states with the lowest rates of gun deaths in the nation.

You can see the data from the Centers for Disease Control here.

Here’s an article about how packing heat makes one more likely to be a victim of gun violence.

Research shows that living in a home with a gun increases your odds of death. Here’s more.

The NRA and others like to claim that a woman should have a gun for self-defense. However, that claim falls apart when researched. Women are more likely to be a victim of the gun they own, than have it protect them. And worse for the NRA, gun control actually does a better job of protecting women. Another example of gun control working.

Professional Good Guys With Guns Don’t Help

In the Uvalde, TX mass shooting, not only does the town spend 40% of their budget on police, but the school actually has it’s own police force.

There were also armed guards at the Santa Fe (TX) school before its shooting and the Parkland school before its shooting.

There was a study looking to see whether presence of armed guards made a difference in school shootings. Turns out they do. But that difference is only to make the violence more deadly.

In a sense, these facts shouldn’t be surprising. Trained police officers can miss their target over 80% of the time. And police, at least according to the court, don’t have at duty to protect anyone, save those in their custody.

Amateur Good Guys With Guns Essentially Don’t Exist

NRA Chief Wayne LaPierre came up with the following pithy formulation shortly after the Sandy Hook shootings in Newtown, CT “The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun.” It was useful at the time, even if it was widely derided, and it seems that many pro-gun folks still echo it. But it’s also bunk.

Here are three articles that detail studies: In Politico, on the PBS News Hour, and an op/ed from an Army veteran and gun owner. And another for good measure.

Here’s an article digging deep into defensive uses of guns. Not many.

Mental Illness is not a driver of gun violence

After reading all these things, one might be thinking about mental illness. Anyone who would shoot kids must be mentally ill, right? That’s not really relevant. In purely practical terms, it seems that expecting lots of people to alert the authorities to a spouse, sibling, child, friend who could be a danger to the public is a tall ask. But even if we had the infrastructure in place, had a population that not only knew what to do and willingly doing it, it still wouldn’t make much difference. Because mental illness is not a major driver of gun violence.

Three articles: Live Science, Fact Check, Today. And a bonus.

While mental illness is not a driver of gun violence, mental health, or the lack thereof, is a driver of gun deaths. In 2020, 54% of all gun deaths were from suicide. It’s hard to know why people are committing suicide; a gun certainly makes it easier. Guns are the most common means of committing suicide, more common than all other causes combined. But it seems like something that might be treatable, and making it harder to commit suicide is certainly one way to reduce the suicide rate. Guns have an 82% success rate, higher than any other means. For suicide, easy access to guns clearly makes a difference.

Gangs are not the problem when it comes to gun violence

They are a problem, but not the problem. The beauty of blaming gangs is that myth takes over with very little prompting. There’s an assumption that gangs are professional criminal enterprises, thus they are both more likely to use guns and less likely to be stopped by gun laws. It also is a way to erase the victim, as many assume that the victim was doing unlawful stuff, too. It also makes it easier to do nothing because they’re too smart, too driven for anyone to do anything about it.

Chicago is often treated as the poster child for gang shootings. It’s a two-fer as Chicago not only has gangs, but gun control laws. There are problems with the formulation. First, while Chicago’s current gun homicides are high, they are only a third as high, when measured by per capita shootings, as Jackson, MS, the current leader in gun homicides. Second, while Illinois has strict gun laws, and Chicago stricter, Indiana, which has lax gun laws, is essentially suburban Chicago, and Wisconsin, another state with lax gun laws, is also nearby.

But…

Won’t Bad Guys Always Be Able To Get Guns?

Versions of this complaint/concern come up repeatedly. Here are two variations:

“When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.”

“The bad guys, the criminals, don’t follow laws and restricting more of America’s freedoms when it comes to self-defense isn’t the answer.”

The reasons these come up are because the data overwhelmingly shows that gun control works, and this complaint is fairly resistant to statistical analysis. Only “bad guys” having guns is an idea, a fear, and it’s hard to find a way to tease out whether or not this fear has any basis in reality. Fear is a strong motivator, so if one is easily scared, these arguments might seem to have merit. Research on the matter is limited. In places with strong gun laws, like New York, a majority of crimes involving a gun are committed by people who are illegally possessing that gun. Problem is, relatively few crimes committed with a gun in New York. Looking at the big picture, gun deaths, and sorted by state, the claim falls apart. If we’re to believe the idea that we need guns to protect from bad guys means there are lots more bad guys per capita in states where there are loose gun laws rather than strict. And the New York “problem” with bad guys and guns is that the bad guys are currently able to get guns from states with lax gun laws, particularly six gun shops in Philadelphia. An FBI study from 1995 found that most guns used in crimes were stolen, most guns used in crimes were handguns, and most crimes did not involve guns.

The ‘bad guys with guns taking advantage’ fear seems unfounded based on other evidence. The populace of New York City is largely unarmed, a pretty well-known fact. Thus, by the reasoning suggested, NYC would be an easy place for a bad person with a gun to mug, rob, whatever, with abandon. But NYC is safer than most of America, not only cities, but small towns as well, so either the bad people didn’t get the memo or something else is afoot.

There’s a second order of illogic to this fear. Namely, that criminals aren’t deterred by laws. If crime is their job, of course their behavior is constrained by laws. The only way to succeed as a criminal is not to get caught, and killing people is a way to draw the unwanted attention of both police and journalists. To add to the illogic, since there’s reason to believe that most guns used in crimes are acquired illegally, if we make laws that penalize the person who improperly sold the gun used in a crime or the person whose gun was stolen, then those people would be incentivized not to sell guns carelessly or not store guns carelessly. By making it harder to acquire guns illegally, bad people will both think harder about whether they need one, how they use one, and when to use one.

There’s a third order of illogic. That just by owning a gun, a good person will be able to stop the bad person with a gun. Being able to not only properly assess threats, but actually hit the intended target takes training and repeated practice. If one thinks that the bad people with guns are so determined, they should assume the bad guys have trained with guns, and the only way to be on similar footing is to train regularly. The New York City Police Department’s “hit rates” from 1998-2006 were analyzed, and they hit the target 18% of the time in gunfights, and 37% at close range. Those are trained professionals who are on the job, basically where they’re in the position of expecting trouble. The idea that someone who is startled awake in the middle of the night by someone breaking into their home can quickly, safely grab a gun, properly assess a threat and then hit a moving target within seconds of being awakened seems fairly implausible. If the bad person is actually breaking into the home to steal lots of stuff, they probably have done enough research to break in when nobody’s home, because if someone’s home, it’s harder to steal the big things that are inevitably at home–it’s not easy to run with a flat panel TV, but then, it’s also not terribly valuable anymore. FBI data indicates that most burglaries happen between 10am-11am and 1pm-3pm weekdays; the times when few people are likely to be home. And the startled awake person with the gun better hit the alleged bad person with the first shot, because the noise from that first shot will likely make it hard to hear anything, and if it’s dark, the flash from the shot will be sufficiently blinding not to see. There’s a not-small chance that the startled awake person either misses completely, or hits family members or neighbors unintentionally.

I’m not the only person to see a problem with these “concerns.” Here’s another person’s take on the same.

But…

What about Ghost Guns?

Ghost guns are guns that can be ordered in pieces and assembled at home. Because they’re in pieces when sold, they are currently not treated as if they are guns at the point of sale, so, at least currently, they don’t need a background check, or waiting period, or are limited in any other way. They currently don’t have serial numbers, so they can’t be traced.

There are plenty of easy fixes. And the Biden administration has published new regulations for them, but only in April of 2022. Of course they can be regulated. Here’s a fact sheet on ghost guns from the Brady Center.

But…

What About 3D-Printed Guns?

Oy. We’re really getting long here. While it seems that the code needed to 3D-print a gun is probably protected by the First Amendment’s Free Speech clause, but there’s probably plenty of room to ban the unregulated manufacture of guns, which is what people would be doing. And we can still regulate the sale of bullets. Gunpowder storage was regulated in 17th century America because it posed a clear threat to the populace working and living near said storage facility.

It really is that simple. Gun control works.

Here are some articles: Business Insider, Channel 4 News UK, Center For Research. More from Science Alert.

Fewer guns loose in the world makes people safer. Fewer people carrying guns makes people safer. Making sure the guns that are around aren’t treated carelessly makes people safer. Conservatives like to talk about states being “the laboratories of democracy;” we can look at states with strict gun control laws and see a real, measurable effect. The laboratory has proven gun control works.

Here are some studies: Firearm Laws and Firearm Homicides: A Systematic Review, A systematic review of the causes and prevention strategies in reducing gun violence in the United States, and if you want to see all the studies of guns and death on the National Institutes of Health website, you can do it. Here’s an overview of research studied by the RAND Corporation; TL/DR gun control works.

And there are clear majorities for much proposed gun control legislation. So not only gun control works, but people want it. Gun control works.

But…

The Second Amendment

“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’s short, but oh-so confusing to the modern reader. On a strictly factual matter, the Second Amendment did not establish an individual right to own guns until over 200 years after The Constitution was ratified. Which should be seen as bizarre; somehow, not a single justice of the Supreme Court until the 103rd, Antonin Scalia, showed up, properly understood the meaning of this single amendment. And somehow, Scalia was able to divine the original meaning after all this time? And stranger still, there were gun control laws in English common law, in 18th century America, in 19th century America, and 20th Century America. Somehow, even the people who wrote and approved The Constitution, even the next generation, and the next nine generations after that, didn’t see the Second Amendment as guaranteeing an individual right to own a gun. James Madison, the author of the Second Amendment, twice tried to pass gun control legislation in his home state of Virginia after penning The Constitution–basically, his draft legislation prevented people from walking around with guns unless they were actively participating in militia duty. He also, along with former President Thomas Jefferson, got the University of Virginia to ban guns on campus.

Here are two law review articles detailing the problems of Scalia’s Heller decision, the decision that claimed there was an individual right to bear arms. Dead or Alive Originalism as Popular Constitutionalism in Heller and What The Heller: An Originalist Critique of Justice Scalia’s Second Amendment Jurisprudence. Here’s a historian disputing Scalia’s claims on the term “to bear arms.”

Much of the originalist position seems to be about removing context from law. The Second Amendment was written at a time when the United States was a young country, in debt, and concerned about the dangers of having a standing army. Relying on the citizenry to come to the defense of the country was an inexpensive, speedy, local solution to having a large standing army spread out over a vast area. But militias were never good fighting forces, and abolished in favor of The National Guard in 1903.

While there are lots of issues with Heller, in a sense they don’t matter. Basically, once something comes to The Supreme Court, so long as a Justice can get four votes in addition to his own, any crazy idea can become law of the land. And another year, or composition of Supreme Court Justices can reverse any decision.

What should be noted is that Scalia himself in his decision gave plenty of room for gun regulation. Even in his view, it’s not an unfettered right. However, it seems that the current composition of The Supreme Court seems to think Heller was not deferential enough to gun owners, and that’s a bigger problem. Kind of funny to think that “originalism” can change, even when three of the five votes for the Heller decision are still on the court.

The current state of gun control is a backlash to The Civil Rights Movement

It’s both hard to believe, and makes perfect sense. Starting with Brown vs. Board of Education, the Supreme Court and Congress expanded rights for minorities. Some people seem to have felt this meant that their rights as white people were being diminished because of the rights expansion granted to others. As if the government was no longer protecting white people. So, guns could be used to get back some of that protection. Read the law review article “Dead or Alive” mentioned above. For a shorter explanation, this article should suffice. White individuals could thus sort of reacquire the rights they lost by buying a gun–because the country seems dangerous, which they see as being the result of things like Brown vs. Board of Ed, Civil Rights Act, Voting Rights Act, Fair Housing Act, school busing, and so on.

One of the many problems with the idea that the “country seems dangerous” is that violent crime has been declining for at least the past 30 years.