The Debate Over Gun Control | NATIONAL SECURITY FORUM

Colleagues:

The Reno Gazette Journal was taken with the in depth “point paper” on gun violence and control that many of you read and kindly commented on. In a highly unusual step, they ran the entire piece (over 3,000 words and in the point paper style I chose).

Prior to paring the piece down, I was able to revise the paper and incorporate many of the excellent suggestions readers had. What impressed me the most was that so many had thought about the issue from multiple perspectives of view.

This paper lays out the spread of guns in our society, the high levels of violence we have compared to other developed countries, a brief history of gun control, and looks at the role mental illness and our increasingly violent entertainment culture may have on the problem.

However, the paper also notes that violence has been trending down over the years, that a significant percentage of the deaths are the result of inner city gang warfare fueled by drug use, and that mental illness is a major factor in the “mass shootings”. It also highlights that gun owners have generally been very careful, law abiding and skilled possessors of these weapons. That is not where the problem lies.

The paper also looks at 2nd Amendment issues.

The attached study is designed to provide background reading and does not make many strong recommendations. It does note that even the most ardent “gun rights” supporters feel that there is little reason for law abiding citizens to own assault weapons or have magazines with high capacity. Having said that there is little support for “rounding up” such weapons, which might be impossible to carry out anyway.

The President and VP Biden are on a fast track on this issue, but I do express concern here that if the preliminary ground work designed to thoroughly air this issue and create some form of consensus is not done first, that an Executive Order or similar directive from the White House could be very counter-productive.

Hope that below helps grow an intelligent discussion.

THE DEBATE OVER GUN CONTROL

By Tyrus W. Cobb

After the tragic deaths of 27 people—including 20 school kids–at Sandy Hook, there have been many calls for action. This includes new gun laws, arming teachers, closer watches on the mentally ill, and a host of other restrictions or initiatives. The incident has generated a firestorm of suggestions for new controls, as well as demands that no new restrictions be placed on gun ownership. As the Wall Street Journal aptly summarized the stand-off:

Supporters of gun control demand restrictions on ammunition magazines and bans on so-called assault weapons. Gun-rights advocates see another mass shooting in a “gun-free zone” and argue for expanding the places where individuals with valid permits may carry their weapons.

Neither proposal will accomplish much—except to alienate the other side. Those in favor of gun rights feel that gun-control advocates are using the deranged actions of a few as a pretext to erode the right to bear arms. Because crimes committed with assault weapons are rare, they argue that such bans will have little or no impact on crime.

Gun-control advocates, meanwhile, are completely frustrated with Congress’s unwillingness to strengthen gun laws, despite the mounting body count over the years. For them, an assault-weapons ban is a first step toward bringing some rationality to this country’s gun policy.

The result is stalemate. Gun-control supporters have not passed a major federal law since the 10-year freeze on assault weapons in 1994. Gun-rights advocates have not significantly rolled back existing federal restrictions on firearms since 1986.

The purpose of this “point paper” is to frame the debate over gun control, provide background information on gun violence in America, trace the history of legislation designed to ameliorate killings by various types of guns (and the ammunition), and to identify core issues.

Guns evoke irreconcilable ideological differences. Many will have come to their conclusions without much reading or analysis, other than searching for articles that support their pre-conceived stances. Still, I hope that most of you will read through the data provided below and then draw your own conclusions regarding how best to reduce the violence caused by guns.

Gun Violence: How Extensive is the Problem?

The United States has the highest private citizen murder rate of any industrialized country in the world.

Americans kill other Americans with guns at rates that are unheard of in other advanced countries. Britain, with about a fifth of the population of the U.S., had 41 gun murders in 2010, while the United States had more than 10,000! America has the highest gun homicide rate, the highest number of guns per capita and the highest rate of deaths due to assault. America has more homicides by guns than the next 20 developed countries combined.

Jihadist terrorists have only been able to kill 17 Americans in the U.S. since 9/11. Yet some 88,000 Americans died in gun violence from 2003 to 2010. Put another way, that means a U.S. citizen was 5,000 times more likely to be killed by a fellow citizen than by Al Qaeda.

There are cities in the U.S. that experience a higher death toll from violence than the civilian death tally in the war in Afghanistan. The civilian death rate there is 1 in 10,000; in New Orleans it is 5 times that—6 for every 10,000 residents. Washington, D.C., had 108 murders last year—2 in every 10,000. Chicago is even worse—over 500 in 2012, largely gang on gang violence in minority areas.

A child is killed in the U.S. by guns every three hours! About five times that many are wounded. In the 2008-09 time frame, 34,387 children were wounded by guns…..A disproportionate number of these kids were black or Hispanic, with Afro-American kids accounting for 45% of the total.

However, despite these horrifying statistics, violent crime has actually been trending down for decades. There is much less gun violence than there was 20 years ago, and it is only a fraction of the level it was in the 1950’s.

Following the Newtown massacre and the cry for new gun restriction legislation, gun sales have soared. In Nevada alone, in the weekend following the Connecticut shootings, more than 2,383 firearms were sold. Lines are long at guns shows and arms dealers—they cannot keep AR-15s or virtually any other weapon in stock…..As one shop owner laughed, “Every time a liberal says something stupid about guns, I sell a gazillion of them”.

Gun sales laws in Nevada are particularly lax. While California requires a 10-day waiting period and extensive background checks, Nevada has no waiting period. Nor any restrictions against private sales of guns (California does, but it has been very hard to enforce).

There are more than 300 million guns owned by American citizens, one for every man, woman and child in the U.S. But while the numbers are stark, it would be hard to correlate the sheer numbers of weapons out there with violence. After all, Israeli citizens who serve in the military have automatic weapons—more, in fact—than any other country, but they do not have mass shootings of their populace by other citizens.

What role do mental illness and our culture play?

Our violent culture: So here is the “toxic mix”—Take 300 million firearms, and stir that with 50 million mentally ill Americans, add in a society that is hyper-charged with violent movies and video games, and topped off by a press that is desperate for sensational news, and you have a very volatile mix.

America today is that “toxic mixture” of nasty ingredients. It begins with disrespect and a vulgar disregard for human life. Kids today are addicted to violent video games and movies, playing computer games that are teaching kids to kill—and like it. They get most points for not only killing, but doing so in a gruesome manner. Head shots the best. As Charles Krauthammer wrote, “We live in an entertainment culture soaked in graphic, often sadistic, violence….It’s not just movies. Young men sit for hours pulling video-game triggers, mowing down human beings en masse without pain or consequence. And we profess shock when unstable, deeply deranged, dangerously isolated young men go out and enact the overheated narrative”.

What do kids take away from the cultural environment today? Our political system centers on very nasty vitriol cast on one’s adversaries. Reason and rational discourse seem absent. Anger and vitriol is the new norm.

Mental illness: In addition to guns, the common denominator in most of the mass shootings has been mental illness—Virginia Tech, Tucson, Newtown, the Colorado theater—all shooters had significant mental problems.

Federal firearm laws generally prohibit the possession of purchase of guns by a person who has been adjudicated to be mentally defective. While that law may have prevented violent acts we don’t know about, it hasn’t stopped the atrocities.

Many of the “shooters” involved in crimes were, in fact, taking prescribed psychoactive drugs at the time of the shootings—Prozac, Luvox, etc. There may be 60 million Americans suffering from mental illnesses, most on some form of medication.

Erratic behavior by most of the shooters had earlier been observed, and in some instances, reported. Still, no one has suggested how we identify those who have exhibited troublesome behavior and effectively take them out of society or insure they don’t get access to guns. Should mental health professionals now be charged with informing public safety officials if errant behavior is noted? One psychiatrist recommended identifying those considered mentally challenged, encouraging other citizens to report them, and place them into a “publicly supported remedial program”. Whew, sounds unworkable to me…..”Violent risk assessment”, a UC Davis professor countered, “is notoriously unreliable”. She argues that we run the risk of violating the civil liberties of someone just suspected of these leanings, and perhaps incarcerating millions needlessly.

The Crux of the Debate: How Do We Prevent Gun Violence?

President Obama announced he is forming a Commission to study gun violence and make recommendations as to what can be done. That could take years and, as Commissions usually do, produce not much more than pablum…..VP Joe Biden is now spearheading a White House effort on this and reportedly will have concrete recommendations prepared this week. I worry that rushing to judgment here could further polarize the debate and endanger the few areas where we do have some agreement.

Advocates for restrictions on guns have come forward, arguing for the elimination of certain types of guns or ammunition clips…..In contrast, following the lead of the NRA, others will argue that what is needed today are more guns in the hands of responsible people to serve as a deterrent.

Here is a capsule summary of previous attempts to regulate gun and ammo sales:

The 1934 National Firearms Act placed a tax on machine guns and sawed-off shotguns, in response to use of these weapons by criminal gangs.

– In 1968, an Act was passed after the assassinations of the 1960’s that prohibited felons, drug users, and the mentally ill from buying guns. It also expanded age and licensing requirements.

– The Brady Handgun Act of 1993 created a national system for checking backgrounds of gun purchasers. But the law only pertained to gun dealers—private transactions were exempt.

– In 1994 Congress passed a 10-year ban on the sale of assault weapons and large ammunition magazines. Because of opposition from the gun lobby, an attempt to extend the law failed. Supporters of the ban were also dismayed by the number of exceptions that defined an assault weapon. In 2004 this largely ineffective ban died.

– Over the years law enforcement has attempted to enact further restrictions, for example, outlawing “cop killer” (Teflon coated) bullets. Pete Herl, former head of the California Police Chiefs Association, said that this effort failed in the face of stiff opposition from the NRA. Herl said the NRA head, Wayne LaPierre, told the Chiefs that it viewed any attempt at limitations of weapons or ammunition as potentially opening the gates to further restrictions.

SEN Diane Feinstein is introducing legislation to put restrictions on the types of guns and ammunition clips that can be sold. However, her proposal has a number of exceptions—something like 900 types of guns are excluded…..Most proposals will aim at preventing the sale and ownership by private citizens of semi or automatic weapons and ammo clips that can be rapidly reloaded.

Specifically, it is likely that ammo clips that hold more than 10 rounds would be banned…..Ever here, how does law enforcement then go out and confiscate magazines with over 10 rounds?

It is likely that the requirement for background checks will be tightened up. At present, 40% of all gun transfers take place without background checks (primarily at gun shows).

In sum, gun laws on the books or proposed do little to prevent criminals or the mentally deranged from getting these weapons. Still, many avid gun owners, hunters and members of the NRA also feel that there is no reason for any individual to own auto or semi-automatic weapons or assault guns….. Federal District Judge Larry Burns wrote a persuasive piece calling for reinstatement of the federal assault weapons ban that expired in 2004, which also prohibited the sale of high-capacity magazines. He calls for a ban on the manufacture and sales of both assault weapons and high capacity magazines, and taking them away from those who already own them. Burns notes he is a member of the NRA, a conservative judge who recently sentenced Tucson shooter Jared Loughner to 7 life terms. As both a gun owner and conservative, the Judge feels there is no reason any citizen needs to own semi-automatic weapons and have high capacity magazines.

Other gun owners feel that additional restrictions might be in order—requiring gun locks, for example. How can this be enforced? After all, the mother of the shooter at Newtown was an NRA member who owned guns illegally. However, she obviously failed to properly secure them…..and despite signs of mental disorder, actually trained her son on how to fire the weapons she owned!

The NRA has taken on the advocates of restrictions head on, arguing that no additional limitations on gun sales or types of weapons should be considered. The NRA stated that what was needed was more—not fewer—weapons in the hands of duly authorized individuals. The biggest deterrent to “a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun”, said President LaPierre.

Would arming teachers or other school personnel would serve as a deterrent? The NRA prefers to have armed guards at schools throughout the country (many schools plagued by individual violence do, in fact, employ armed guards)….Not sure how this would work—after all, at Virginia Tech and Columbine there were armed security guards on site, but that did little good. They couldn’t react fast enough….At Columbine, there were not only armed police, but one Deputy, Neil Gardner, actually fired shots at the attacker, but missed. He had NO effect on the outcome. I worry that the proliferation of weaponry at schools could lead to instances of those guns falling into the hands of deranged or temporarily angry students, or gangs, who might overthrow the guard, teacher or principal carrying the weapon. And, if instead, the guns were securely locked up, it is hard to see how they could be retrieved and utilized in time to halt a shooting (which usually take little more than a minute). Maybe arming school officials with tranquilizer guns instead of lethal weapons should be considered.

There has been criticism of declaring school yards “Gun Free Zones”, charging that this only invited shooters to stage their massacres there because they would not face the possibility of an armed adversary. I agree that “Gun Free Zones” do little to thwart violence, but to conclude that such declarations invite these sadistic killers seem to be a stretch of logic.

Although the NRA is coming under sharp criticism, the Association overall performs several functions. It teaches and stresses responsible gun ownership. It emphasizes that no one should own or employ without proper safety, handling and firing instruction…..Virtually all NRA members are law abiding citizens.

In contrast, they (and I) doubt that any of the shooters were members of the NRA or even possessed their weapons of employment legally. The responsible individuals who have concealed weapons and carry permits would rather NOT do so, but feel that the risk involved with being unarmed and defenseless in these situations is getting worse. They point out that those who most like strict gun control laws are the “bad guys”, since that gives them an advantage. Seeing individuals openly carrying a weapon is seen as a deterrent to criminal acts.

Finally, a word about the Constitution

Considerable attention has been give to taking another look at the 2^nd Amendment to the Constitution, and what its relevance is to gun ownership today. Here is what that Amendment actually says:

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”.

While the Courts have largely left it up to the states to regulate firearms, recently the conservative-leaning Supreme Court has overturned laws made at a lower level that banned certain types of guns and placed restrictions on ownership, including requiring gun locks.

But what does the 2^nd Amendment really mean? Many Constitutional scholars believe that the purpose of the Amendment was to enable the young country to resist aggression from European powers or hostile Indian tribes. And then, only as part of a “well-organized militia”, to put down internal rebellions. They believe—and I concur—that the Founding Fathers hardly had in mind permitting citizens to own the powerful weapons with high capacity magazines available today.

This perspective was one propounded no less by Reagan’s Supreme Court nominee and leading conservative jurist, Robert Bork, who wrote that he believed that the “intent was to guarantee the right of states to form a militia, not for individuals to bear arms”. The NRA thinks, Bork continued, “that it protects their right to have Teflon-coated bullets. But that’s not the original understanding.”

Still, the Court decision reflects the feeling of many in the U.S. A number of gun owners consider it a Constitutional right to own any form of gun. As such the U.S. has almost 50% of the world’s civilian-owned guns, and some say not coincidentally, the highest homicide-by-firearm rate in the developed world. Most nations place significant restrictions on ownership. For example, while Israel is often cited as a heavily civilian-armed nation, that country has very strict laws governing who can own a weapon (including having to show genuine cause to carry a firearm). The United States is conspicuous by its lax approach.

Summary:

There is little disagreement that guns are much more prevalent in American society than that of virtually any other developed nation. It is also generally agreed that we have far and away more deaths from guns than any other country, more violence, and more mass murder incidents.

There is agreement that the vast majority of gun violence is centered in the inner cities, and that much of the illegal ownership of weapons and their employment is driven by gang warfare over lucrative drug operations. Most killings are the work of adult males ages 18-39 with criminal records killing others like them…..The mass shootings have generally taken place in “safer” areas, committed by deranged and mentally unstable individuals….Thus does it make sense to restrict ownership of guns by responsible individuals when such legislation would likely do little to prevent inner city warfare or the occasional shooting by a deranged suburbanite?

Thus there is a wide gulf regarding what can be done to lower the level of violence in the United States. Legislation will be introduced to place further restrictions on gun sales and ownership. That will be countered by proposals to increase the possession of guns by armed, responsible individuals or trained professionals. There will be calls to reinterpret the 2^nd Amendment and the Supreme Court will likely take on gun restriction legislation soon. Calls will be made to tone down the level of violent games and movies in our culture, but will have little impact. There will be demands for more thorough background checks, greater restrictions on private guns sales, and possibly subjecting the mentally ill to government oversight.

And we will probably witness another mass shooting incident again, followed by calls for action, much hand wringing, and an acrimonious debate over how to bring down the level of gun violence in this country. Then we all will go back to our cocoons.

– Tyrus W. Cobb

– Jan 15, 2013