Abandoning Gun Control

by Silent E, Wed Nov 17, 2004 at 09:07:24 AM EST

[This started as a comment in Chris's main-page post.]

The numbers on guns, per year, from gunsafe.org:
Fatal accidents: 1,100
Suicides:  18,000
Homicides:  14,000

Why do liberals and progressives want gun control?  To reduce gun-related violence and deaths.  Chris asks, rightly, whether gun control measures actually accomplish this goal.  I think the answer has to be: "some, but only a little bit." So if it's not really that effective, why do we do it?

I think there's three sources of this argument:

[more after the jump]

I think there's three sources of this argument:
  1.  "WAR ZONES / PERSONAL FEAR": Many residents of large cities live in fear of being an innocent victim bystander to a shooting.  Eliminating guns is thus self-preservation, and is a major policy objective for Democratic politicians representing those constituencies.
  2.  "30,000 LIVES": Suburban liberals see the 30,000 deaths per year and realize that Europe has nothing close to these rates, mostly due to very strict gun-control (although cultural factors and policing tactics may play a minor role).  Eliminating guns is thus essential to saving those lives.
  3.  "ANTI-VIOLENCE SYMBOLISM": Many Democrats from all walks of life also simply dislike guns (and fear them), the reification of them and those who use them, and the violence they represent.  It's a cultural thing: we want to reject the hyperviolence of American mass-culture, and eliminating guns is a symbolic way of doing so.

Who is a victim of murder in this country?  
mostly:
(a) DRUGS: perpetrators of crimes (mostly drug dealers and drug users killing each other), those who associate and live with drug dealers, those who are mistaken for drug dealers, and a small number of "random bystanders" of drug-related killings (including gang killings);
(b) DOMESTIC VIOLENCE: female family members/ex-girlfriends of men who have emotional problems or anger management problems and who also own guns, (and their new boyfriends/husbands).  

There is also a very small population of random innocent bystanders who do not fall into either category.  However, there is a popular misconception about the frequency of truly "random" homicides of complete strangers, much like the misconception over random kidnappings.  There are tens of thousands of kidnappings every year, nearly all of which involve family members (usually in divorce or custody disputes).  Fewer than 150 kidnappings per year involve stranger abductions, but their rarity attracts all the media attention.  Similarly, while there are nearly 20,000 firearm homicides per year, only a very small portion are not covered by groups (a) and (b) above - but those are the ones that attract most of the attention: snipers, work-place and school shootings, etc.

Interesting note: I'd argue the more than being an urban issue or a black issue (as I've seen suggested), gun control should be thought of as a women's issue.  The victims in group (a) are overwhelmingly male while the victims in group (b) are overwhelmingly female.  Of the two, my sympathies lie far more with group (b).  Gun violence in group (a) is an outgrowth of crime; gun violence in group (b) is an outgrowth of domestic violence.


 

We can thus conceptualize gun violence as a largely avoidable occurence:
  1.  don't do drugs
  2.  don't associate with drug addicts or dealers
  3.  avoid gun owners
  4.  don't date gun owners
  5.  don't date women who just broke up with a gun owner
  6.  most important: DONT OWN A GUN

Follow this list, and your odds of being the victim of a firearm homicide, suicide, or accident are close to zero.  That's true REGARDLESS OF WHERE YOU LIVE.  If those you love can do the same, gun control is largely irrelevant to your family's personal safety.
 

Gun Fantasies

Conservatives have fantasies about using their concealed weapons to take down muggers and work-place shooters, and defending their homes.  Whatever - it's unlikely to happen because crime is actually quite rare, especially in the rural ane exurban areas where such folks usually live, and we all know that gun owners are at a much greater risk of accident or suicide than non-gun owners.  If gun nuts want to own guns because they feel safer, go ahead.  Their over-estimation of their ability to protect themselves is only exceeded by their over-estimation of their actual risk of harm from random criminal violence.

But liberals have equally fantastic notions about the efficacies of gun control, simply because there are so many guns in America already. Also, drug dealers will get guns.  Although total gun control would greatly reduce the group (b) deaths, it would not do much about group (a) deaths except in the very long term.  And that's only if we assume a very strict nation-wide policy; as long as there is an open market for guns (even for "hunting") in some part of the country, those guns will find their way to drug dealers.
 

Addressing The Origins of Gun Control

Having thus conceptualized the problem, we return to our three motivations for gun control and realize that they are not nearly as compelling as we thought at first.

War Zones: Gun control won't eliminate all firearms; drug dealers will still have them.  If we want to control urban homicide rates, the best solution is better policing, not gun control.  

30,000 Deaths: being a firearm victim (homicide, suicide, or accident) is avoidable; lets work to help people (and women especially) do so.  But if they want to take the risks that come with drugs and gun ownership, there are limits to our responsibility to protect them from their own stupidity.

Anti-Violence Symbolism: get over it - it's not important enough to lose an election over.

We tolerate tens of thousands of deaths each year from auto accidents,  and we are all far more likely to die from an auto accident than from a firearm.  We can tolerate guns as well.

Tags: (all tags)

  • 18 Comments
  • 0 recs
  • Share
  • Permalink

Comments

18 Comments

Shadow_head_small
No Silver Bullet
I'm a public defender and I see gun crimes all the time in our cities.  2 points:

The cause of the crime decline is the result of community policing.  People who are connected with police who they know and respect will cooperate and welcome their efforts.  In the past, the cops swooped in in squad cars like an annonymous army and were seen as harrassers rather than allies.  I remember my grandfather retiring from the nypd in the 50's because he hated the idea of riding in a cruiser rather than walking a beat.

 There are too many guns in the cities where they are a menace, but there is no problem with guns in rural areas where they are a legitimate (albeit too bloody for my taste) sport that has been handed down over generations.  

Conclusion:  Gun control is not irrelevant but it's overbroad. There's still a role for it IF it can be targeted to the cities and directed away from legit sportsmen.  Kerry's duck hunting trip was probably the best attempt to show people that we understand and respect that there's a distinction. Not all gun owners in the heartland think kids in the bronx should have easy access to uzis, but they do think their kids should have a .22 for squirl hunting.

by jmckay 2004-11-17 09:15AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: No Silver Bullet
Agreed - community policing and a booming economy that provides lots of urban jobs will do far more than gun control could hope to accomplish.

There are a lot of very good ideas in Europe that simply will not fly in the US.  Gun control is one of them.  We've got more hope for national health care, stronger unions, and state-supported child care than we do for substantial nation-wide gun control.

by Silent E 2004-11-17 09:22AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: No Silver Bullet
The cause of the crime decline is the result of community policing.

Be careful here.  Lots of opinions out there on the cause of the crime drop.  Death Penalty, police officers, longer sentences, mandatory sentances, 3 strikes, etc.  All opinions, with few facts to back them up.

Fortunately, one can do detailed studies comparing crime rates in different localities over time and get a pretty good idea of what coorelates to crime rises and drops and what doesn't.

And those who do studies have consistently found that the biggest predictor is the percentage of the population that is male in the 16-35 age group, and the next biggest is the economy, especially as it relates to that age group.  The last of the boomers hit 18 in 1980, at the height of the recession and, not coincidentally, when the crime rates generally peaked.  And the decline that started in 1990 was predicted in advance based population demographics.

Interestingly, the number of police had less effect on crime rate, but did have an effect on conviction rates.  The death penalty seems to have a negative coorelation ... probably because states which use the death penalty alot tend to have more violent local cultures.  

by AmberChaos 2004-11-17 08:59PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Ignoring the point
I think that Democrats frequently ignore the very purpose of freedom of firearm ownership.  They tend to assume that the only legitimate reasons that people own them are self-defense, hunting, and collecting.  I have to argue that the very purpose of granting the right to bear arms is that it is the last defense against tyrrany.

When laws break down, and the government is not properly regulating itself, our founding fathers would argue, it would be time to get rid of it.  Sometimes, tragically, that takes some firepower.

That's why Democrats trying to argue for rational gun regulation along the lines of hunting and licensing has not resonated with rural dwellers.  You have to address their real concerns, and in the case of gun ownership, I think that it is a common concern.

by nanoboy 2004-11-17 09:36AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
gunsafe.org?
Sounds really nonbiased to me.

Either you're for the Bill of Rights or you're not.

by quoi 2004-11-17 10:03AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: gunsafe.org?
I'm not suggesting that any arguments on their site are credible.  However, I have no reaso to doubt their numbers, and it was one of the first links in Google for gun deaths.

If these numbers are terribly off the mark, I'd like to know.  Especially if other statistics in any way undermine my arguments.

by Silent E 2004-11-17 11:26AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
There is some quote from back in the day
Some European politicians were laughing at a US politician, saying the US was full of barbarians for not banning guns..

The US politicians responds, "no sir, we are better politicians because we ALLOW our citizens to have guns."

i.e. letting the public have guns keeps politicians in line.

by pacified 2004-11-17 10:15AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Is this even an issue?

The gun control advocates have already lost - the NRA is just too powerful.

However, there may be a resurgence of interest should there be another Columbine incident, or major political assassination. Those are the types of events that seem to spur on advocates of gun control.

by vj 2004-11-17 10:17AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Is this even an issue?
As long as gun owners as a group can be swung to the GOP by demonizing Democrats as 'those idiot fuzzy-minded do-gooders who want to take away all the guns', then it's an issue.
by Silent E 2004-11-17 11:37AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: Is this even an issue?
The problem with the NRA is that they are advocates for the gun manufacturers and not the gun owners.  Of course, both have common interests, but at the same time, safety features are great for consumers but not manufacturers.  If that makes any sense.
by nanoboy 2004-11-17 12:23PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
My view
The reason that the 2nd amendment is there is not to protect the rights of hunters.  It is to protect the people from a government that decides to abandon democracy and become a monarchy (or in modern terms, a dictatorship).  This is why I am personally opposed to gun control.  The assault-weapons ban was pointless - anyone could buy a grandfathered weapon, and there were legal versions of the AK-47 and other guns that could easily be converted into the illegal versions.  Plus, anyone with a clean criminal record and $200 for the federal permit can buy a fully automatic weapon, just don't ever lose it or else you're in deep doo doo.  

I have seen some posts that have talked about how bad the Bush administration is getting.  All I know is that if the snot REALLY hit the fan, there are plenty of folks who would be happy that the NRA had succeeded.

Mark Warner won the governorship in Virginia because he took the NRA out of it - he went to the NRA and made sure that they knew exactly how pro-gun he was and the NRA thusly elected to stay completely neutral in the race.  That really helped Warner.  

The NRA won.  I personally support that, but I know that there are many of you who don't.  I would ask that the rest of you just let that dog lie.  There are more important things to fight, such as keeping anti-Roe, anti-Griswold judges off the bench, keeping the religious right from setting all policy, keeping us out of stupid wars, protecting our country from terrorism by securing ports, etc. - all those things that Bush won't do, getting our financial house in order, getting fair elections, protecting the environment (which can be turned into a religious issue because God created this planet and we're destroying it, and can appeal to many Republicans because you can't be a farmer or rancher or fisherman or hunter without a clean environment), etc.  

-Fred

by FredFred 2004-11-17 01:56PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Well said-- with added comment
I would ask that the author and readers of this diary expand their thoughts to reflect more than just suburbanites fear of guns and want gun control vs. the rural owner of gun(s), who mainly oppose control. My thought is that most suburbanites are not familar with guns in their childhood, have not been exposed to guns in non-violent settings, i.e., target practice, pseudo-hunting (comradarie outings without actually killing)or sport hunting. On the other hand, those of us reared in more rural areas ARE exposed to guns at early ages, and, in most cases, were taught how to handle guns, respect their potential and, generally, learned that real guns were NOT toys-- could kill someone or something. Given those experiences, we are more liberal(if that's the correct term)about possession because of those experiences.
Now, please understand this: my perspective is that there are types of guns that are inappropriate for public ownership. Assault rifles and military-style guns are, in my opinion, needless in the general population. Those were legislatively banned from the market until recently. (And should be again.)
As to the violence associated with guns and ownership? Yes, there IS violence with gun misuse; however, there is violence with misuse of knives, bricks, clubs, fists, cars, etc.; it is just another way of perpetrating violent actions.
Finally, I fully agree, "get over it- it's not important enought to lose an election"...and, I might add, a country..."over."
by CFnAR 2004-11-17 06:46PM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
this diary would have more credibility
if you were within 80% of the correct answer for the annual murder rate.

the true figue is nowhere near 30,000.  In 2001 and 2002, we had 16,037 and 16,204 respectively.

In 1992, at the peak, there were 23,579 murders in this country.  

The second poster would have more credibility if he took into account the fact that the big northern metropolitan areas are now safer than southern rural counties.

The murder rate per population in New York in 1990 was approx. 1 for every 3,500 people.  It is now 1 for every 14,000.  In Cook County, IL, the county that holds Chicago, it's went from 1 for every 5,000 to 1 for every 12,000.

The national rate is now 1 for every 16,000.  So the rate for metropolitan areas is not that diferrent from the national rate.  Southern rural counties are more violent than this.

We're supposed to be the reality-based community.  Yet this post is just a bunch of people sounding off about their own personal public safety anxieties, rather than basing their arguments on facts.

by ne plus ultra 2004-11-18 03:43AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: this diary would have more credibility
I meant to say "many" Southern rural counties.

Here is a listing of the 10 states with the highest murder rate, listed starting with the most violent:

  1. Louisiana
  2. Mississippi
  3. Georgia
  4. Maryland
  5. Alabama (tie)
  6. New Mexico (tie)
  7. Tennessee (tie)
  8. Illinois (tie)
  9. Arizona (tie)
  10. North Carolina (tie)

You may notice a common theme - these are not the states one associates with big cities.  Note that Illinois is only on the list because this list predates the dramatic drop in the murder rate in the last 18 months after Chicago adopted the Bratton-style compstat-based policing strategies.  (Note, Chicago has had community policing for a decade, but it was only on the adoption of the Bratton strategies that the murder rate went into freefall.)

If you trace the rate through time in a given place, the murder rate tends to track quite well with the inverse of the clearance rate -- when police make more arrests in murder cases, this either has a deterrence effect or breaks the cycle of violence or gets the perpetrator-types off the street.  Whatever it is.  

Yet these variables don't work well across geographic boundaries.  This suggests something.

Though this would be a very difficult theory to test, because of the difficulty of measuring the second variable, I would argue that the murder rate tracks best with a scale of poverty matched to the cynicism of the police.  For 30 years starting in the late 60's, northern police went racist and cynical, taking the view that Southern police have always taken - if there's a murder, grab one of them young black guys, it don't matter which one.  

It's not that northern police weren't racist prior to that, but blacks weren't a big enough proportion of the population of northern cities and particularly of their working class prior to the mid-60's for their presence to become all-encompassing in defining police attitudes to crime.  But after the mid-60's, this became increasingly prevalent -- the attitude defined by "these people - what can you do."

Only when Bratton took over in NYC, did a major urban police force get its discipline, morale and spirit back -- the sense that you can control crime if you do your friggin' job, instead of rolling your eyes and saying it was beyond your control.  

That development has brought northern violence rates back within their historic norms, leaving the south again in its role as the most violent region of the country.

by ne plus ultra 2004-11-18 04:13AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: this diary would have more credibility
You'll get no argument about this from me: community policing strategies will do more to reduce urban gun-related homicides than gun control could ever hope.

I suspect the culture of 'honor' among poor groups - rural, urban, north and south - is a big part of the higher rates of homicide.  Men in poverty or of limited means with little expectation of rewarding employment or success are more sensitive to perceived slights to their honor, especially from the women around them.  That's a universal human condition.  It sucks, but there it is.  Those men are more likely to get angry and violent when faced with the loss of a job, a romantic rejection, or an argument with a neighbor, bar patron, or motorist.  

When those men have guns, their violence is more likely to turn lethal.

by Silent E 2004-11-18 06:40AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: this diary would have more credibility
My numbers WERE within 80%.

You must have skipped the intro, which cited the number of homicides as 14,000.  FYI: 80% of 16,200 is 12,960.

The 30,000 figure refers to ALL gun-related accidents, suicides, and homicides, a distinction I was quite clear about maintaining.

Thanks for the facts about murder rates, and yes I was aware that some southern rural murder rates were higher than some northern urban murder rates.  But of course, gun control activism does not begin in southern rural areas, and media attention to murders in such places is scant.

Do I get my "credibility" back?

by Silent E 2004-11-18 06:13AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
problem with your numbers
Silent E - I agree overall, but have one concern.  You say that we are "far more likely to die in a car accident than from a firearm."  However, there are roughly 41,000 car accident deaths per year, compared with roughly 33,000 deaths by firearm.  So on the simplest statistical level I think you're wrong.

You may be arguing that someone who takes the precautions you suggest will vastly reduce their risk of firearm death.  I.e., if you don't have a gun in your home and avoid gunowners, you're very unlikely to get shot to death.  I agree.  Of course, you're also very unlikely to die in a car accident if you avoid driving or riding in a car.  

Point being, I'm not sure your argument holds up.  It's not easy to just stop using cars, and I think it's also not so easy to avoid guns.  I don't even know whether someone owns a gun most of the time, or whether a girl i date has a psycho gun-toting ex-boyfriend.  But even whether there's a gun in my home may not be my choice, especially if i'm a woman at risk of domestic violence.

by snaktime 2004-11-18 04:55AM | 0 recs
Shadow_head_small
Re: problem with your numbers
You probably own a car and drive it daily.  Your risk of dying in an auto accident is thus probably pretty close to the national average, although that depends on the type of car, your age and driving habits, and the number of miles you drive.  While you can reduce your risk somewhat, every time you get in a car you are taking a risk.  Because of our car-dependent economy and culture the vast majority of Americans CANNOT avoid that risk.

The variation in risk for dying from a firearm must be much greater than that for dying from a car, because the risk factors for automobile deaths are distributed much more evenly through the population, while risk factors for firearm deaths are more concentrated in specific sub-populations.

Do you own a gun?  If not, you are not a likely candidate for a firearm suicide.  Bam! - the relevant number of deaths drops to 15 - 20K, and probably lower because many accidental gun deaths involve gun owners (either from their own guns, or in hunting accidents at the hands of other gun owners), as do many firearm homicides.  

Do you do drugs?  Do you sell them?  Do you associate with people who do so?  If not, the likelihood of being the victim of a firearm homicide also drops considerably.

Do you play with guns in a juvenile and dangerous fashion?  Do you clean guns without checking if a round is chambered?  Do you forget to set your safety?  Do you hunt without wearing orange caps and vests?  Are you an idiot?  Perhaps there are simple things you can change to reduce your risk of dying in a firearms accident.

So even if you live in a southern city with lots of gun-owners, where everyone you know has a gun, including your unstable co-workers and your new girlfriend's ex-boyfriend, you can STILL reduce your risk of death to less than a third that of dying in an auto accident.  (Especially if you keep an eye open at work and ditch the girlfriend. -- :) )

Unlike cars, you don't have to own a gun, and you don't have to associate with drugs and drug dealers - so you CAN avoid nearly all the risks from firearms.

by Silent E 2004-11-18 06:31AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads


----------- myDD - skin -----------