What I Think About Guns
In last
weekend’s mass shooting, seven people were killed in Texas; more than twenty
were injured. Not long ago it was Ohio,
a different Texas city and California before that. But those are only the shootings that jump to
mind. In fact, in 2019 the United States
is averaging more than one mass shooting per day—that’s defining a mass
shooting as four or more persons shot excluding the shooter.
Mass
shootings get headlines, but more people die from handguns than the high
capacity guns usually used by mass shooters.
“Ordinary” murders, one or two at a time, outnumber those killed in the
mass cases. And gun suicides outnumber
all the murders put together. Over
33,000 people were killed by shooters in 2017.
Quite likely, this year’s total will be higher.
Interestingly,
the shooting death rate was actually
a little higher in the 1970s. As the
U.S. population grew and the baby boomers aged, the ratio of most violent crimes
decreased greatly. Recent increases in
murder and suicide have not quite caught up with the heyday of shooting deaths
in 1974. Statistically speaking, all
violent crimes are more likely to be committed by younger people. Now that we are an older population we ought
to have much lower violent crime rate. And
we do—fewer bank robberies, property crimes, and so forth have declined
significantly. Shooting deaths are the
exception, a smaller decline that looks to be erased soon.
Of course, the U.S. shooting death
rate is far higher than corresponding numbers from Canada, the U.K., Australia,
France, Germany, and many other countries.
If it’s any consolation, our shooting death rate is lower than some
countries: Columbia Venezuela, Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras. It’s not surprising that refugees from these
countries try to escape civil wars and gang wars (is there a difference?) by
fleeing to the U.S.
Which would you rather be like, El
Salvador or France?
Let’s not jump to conclusions. Obviously there are many social factors that probably
increase rates of violent crime. But
easy access to what I will call killer weapons has be a causal factor in
shooting deaths.
By “killer” weapons I do not mean
hunting rifles. “Killer” weapons are
those expressly designed to kill people.
Our military forces have a vast variety of such weapons, including
explosives and chemicals and germ weapons.
(The military may dispute that sentence.
They might deny they stockpile germ weapons or certain kinds of nerve
gases. I wish I could believe them.)
Should private citizens have access
to the variety of killer weapons that our armed forces have? Almost no one would agree to that. Timothy McVeigh had to build his bomb; if
killers could buy bombs like handguns, the Boston Marathon bombers could have
killed thousands rather than a handful.
The only killer weapons readily
available to ordinary citizens are guns.
People can use knives or cars
or fertilizer to commit murder or suicide, but they have to work at it. Knives, cars, and fertilizer are not designed
to be convenient killer weapons. Guns
are. That’s why more than half of all
suicides are gun suicides, because guns are so good at killing. If hanging oneself, or using pills, or
electrocuting oneself, or driving off a road, or any of the other methods of
suicide were as “effective” as guns, the “successful” suicide rate would be far
higher.
People believe deeply that having a
gun makes them safer. It’s not
true. And even if it were true (perhaps
you think your gun will make you safer; like a teen driver you don’t think the
statistics apply to you), it would only be true if the gun owner were willing
to use it. When you buy your gun for
protection, it means you must be willing to use it. You must be willing to kill. So ask yourself: are you willing to kill to
protect your stuff? What is it you own
that is more valuable than a human life?
No, no. You say I misunderstand. You would only use your gun to protect your
life or the life of your child. You
would never use it to shoot an unarmed burglar.
Except, of course, that you never know if the burglar is unarmed. So in reality you are willing to kill a
stranger if he might be armed. Really?
Are you ready to kill a stranger who may or may not be a danger to you?
The statistics are that the gun you
buy will more likely be used in suicide or accidental death or stolen and used
against you. Nevertheless, people deeply
believe that having a gun makes them safer.
Many people call for “common sense”
gun laws. I agree, but we need to be
realistic. The U.S. citizenry has about
300 million guns. Some of them are
rifles for hunting. Some are used in
sport shooting. That leaves at least 250
million guns owned for the express purpose of shooting people. (You can tell yourself your gun is for
defense, but you have to be willing to use it.
It’s purpose is to shoot people.)
With that many guns in circulation, we should not expect any “common
sense” gun law to have immediate effect on shooting deaths. The most we can hope for is a slow decline in
shooting deaths.
“Common sense”? I think guns should be registered and
insured. Gun owners should be civilly
liable if their weapons are used to commit crimes. If your gun is stolen and used in a crime,
your insurance should pay. Naturally, if
your insurance company knows you keep your gun under lock and key, your
insurance rate will be lower. I do NOT
think such laws would stop shooting deaths, but I’m quite confident shooting
deaths would decline.
