The Problem with Gun Legislation

 

In light of the recent tragedies in Aurora Colorado, Newtown, and Tucson have renewed debate about how we look at privately owned firearms.  Could these tragedies been prevented by a comprehensive firearm policy? Were there warning signs that were missed?  How this country proceeds depends on how we interpret the second amendment and how we define the underlying causes of gun violence.  Gun rights advocates see any regulation as an affront to their constitutional rights, while gun control advocates see the second amendment as limited to maintain public safety.  Currently Congress is debating whether a law banning assault style weapons and high capacity magazines would solve this ongoing problem.  

Although an honest debate is healthy, a few key points always seem to be overlooked when lawmakers create gun laws.   Luckily, a rather large sample size of data exists from the 1994 Clinton assault weapons ban that provides some background to past policy efforts.  This ban addressed semi-automatic rifles and high capacity magazines.  This law only applied to assault weapons made after the date the bill was signed in to law.  This law had a sunset clause that kicked in after 10 years if the bill was not renewed.    The National Institute for Justice (NIJ) produced a report on the effects of the ban and the results were mixed at best.  The NIJ stated that the impact was minimal because assault weapons were only used in 2 percent of crimes to begin with and any change would be almost insignificant.   Most of the crime data showed that high capacity magazines (10 rounds or more) were used in nearly a quarter of the gun crimes.  The report further elaborated that assault weapons with high capacity magazines are mostly used in public assaults on police and mass shootings, both exceedingly rare events.  Finally, the reduction of crime involving assault style weapons was somewhat offset by the use of more conventional pistols with high capacity magazines.  Overall the report showed that the ban lacked the proof that it made any significant decreases to gun crime (Koper 2004).

 

The goal of any policy should be to solve a problem which is accomplished by making educated decisions based on tangible data, experience, and available resources.  A firearms ban will not achieve the intended results and will create too many negative consequences.   The proposed policies doesn’t address the root cause of gun related crime they just address the symptoms for the purpose of political expediency.  First and foremost, a vast majority of gun crimes in this country involve handguns not rifles.  According to the FBI’s US crime statistics for 2011, 6,220 homicides were committed with the use of a hand gun compared to 356 rifle involved homicides.  Keep in mind these statistics lump all rifles together so the actual homicide rate by assault style rifles is even lower.  If a policy is supposed to address this urgent problem, an assault rifle ban would not succeed. 

So should we just ban all guns?  A subset of the public and some lawmakers want to, but it is impossible and illegal.  This action would violate the Constitution and it denies the ability of law abiding citizens to defend themselves, especially in high crime or rural areas where police response times are often slow.  According to the FBI, the areas with the highest homicide rates are the areas with the toughest gun control laws.  These areas include Chicago, Los Angeles, Detroit, Philadelphia, New York, New Orleans, Houston, and Baltimore to name a few.  Given that the statistics state that over 2/3 of homicides are committed with a firearm, it appears that the gun laws are ineffective in preventing gun violence.  In recent years, the homicide rate in Chicago has begun to rival places like Afghanistan  (Huffington Post Blog 2012).  A majority of those homicides resulting from gang activities.  Gun laws work as long as everyone obeys the law, but unfortunately those who are truly dangerous willingly break multiple laws leading up to the commission of an assault or homicide.  The murderers in Aurora, Sandy Hook, and Tucson all committed multiple crimes leading up to their final murder.

Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA) recently stated that one of the goals of the assault rifle ban is to reduce the supply of these guns over time.  This strategy would only work in and closed system where the supply could be cut off with legislation.  In reality, criminals rarely, if ever, acquire weapons through official means and subject themselves to background checks and documentation.  Most often, criminals use alternative means (i.e. theft, black market, etc) to acquire the weapons.  As long as there are criminal organizations capable and willing to traffic weapons across the northern and southern boarders, criminals in this country will be well armed.  Law enforcement officers in the southern states often encounter criminal elements more armed then they are with weapons already completely banned in the US.  Property owners in the Southwest constantly live in fear of the drug cartels that control territory along the border and even in to US territory.  Property owners depend on firearms to defend their land, property, and families against these threats.  Unfortunately, in many cases it requires more firepower than a handgun or hunting rifle. 

It is funny how history can repeat itself and, as a society, we make the same choices only to expect a different result.  Once upon a time, we started the war on drugs because they were destroying too many lives in this country.  Years later it is widely accepted that the war on drugs has failed, drugs are still banned yet still widely available and cartels are making billions of dollars as a result.  We are trying to accomplish the same thing with firearms while facing the same challenges.  Additionally, current policy options neglect major instances of gun violence in the US.  According to the CDC there were over 19,000 firearm suicides in 2011 compared to 11,000 firearm homicides (CDC n.d.). According to the FBI, 48 percent of violent crimes are connected with gang activities.  Yet no part of the current debate talks about either one of these important issues.   If we are serious about curbing firearm deaths, the policy should at least address suicide, gangs, and other societal factors that cause violent behavior.  Where is the debate over depression and anxiety prescription and treatment?  Why do we look the other way when kids under the age of 20 are killing each other in the streets of our cities? Why do we not hold parents to higher standards and accountability for their children?

As a former law enforcement officer and someone who has owned firearms, have friends who own firearms, and have family members who own firearms, I understand the place that firearms have in our society.  Firearms are tools for protection and survival, they have great power and their owners are entrusted with great responsibility.  That responsibility extends not only to them but to those who have access to the firearm as well.  An owner of a gun must at least educate their family about the gun, including how to safely handle the weapon and the damage it can cause if it is misused.  Individuals who do not understand or respect guns are bound to misuse them.

Everyone must realize that the overall violent crime rates in the US are drastically lower than they were in the 1970’s and 1980’s.  Advancements in law enforcement have made the enforcement and prevention of crime much more effective.  The correct gun policies can continue to drive these rates down.  To address gun crime specifically, additional resources need to be allocated to help those who are mentally ill or predisposed to violence.  More attention needs to be paid in order to prevent events where mentally ill individuals act out violently with a firearm.  Background checks need to be mandatory for all gun purchases and all purchases need to be made through official channels, not backdoor private transactions.  The supply of assault weapons will never dry up so long as the US border remains porous.  The causes of Firearm violence is vastly complex and involves long term planning and conscious policy changes to address the root of the problems.  The solution is not easy, not simple, and does not involve depriving law abiding citizens of their Constitutional right to protect themselves.

CDC. Deaths: Final Data for 2010. n.d. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/dvs/deaths_2010_release.pdf (accessed Jan 30, 2013).

FBI: Criminal Justice Services Division. FBI: Crime in the US 2011. 2012. http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-20 (accessed Jan 30, 2013).

GAO. Firearms Trafficking: U.S. Efforts to Combat Arms Trafficking to Mexico Face Planning and Coordination Challenges. Audit Report, Washington D.C.: Government Accountability Office, 2009.

Huffington Post Blog. "Chicago Homicides Outnumber U.S. Troop Killings In Afghanistan." Huffington Post Chicago. June 2012. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/16/chicago-homicide-rate-wor_n_1602692.html (accessed Jan 2013).

Koper, Christopher S. "An Updated Assessment of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban: Impacts on Gun Markets and." Report to the National Institute of Justice,, 2004.