So, recently, some of my “crazy, backwoods, Southern-person views” were called into question. I argued as best as I could, but without research (the debater’s best friend) I couldn’t convince my discussion-partners of my point. Now I have researched. Though I’m sure nothing will change their minds that they’re right and I’m wrong, I at least can say I have a well-developed argument.
My position:
I think American citizens should be allowed to own and use guns. I do not think that most gun-control efforts would work to reduce the amount of violent gun crimes in this country, and I think that any revenue and time from abandoning said gun-control efforts would be better spent in cultural and educational ways to reduce violent crimes of all kinds.
Yeah, I like guns. I like guns because I like freedom and personal responsibility. I like guns because I like the first amendment and my protection to say what I want. I like the third and fourth amendments for protecting my home and privacy, the fifth, sixth, seventh and eighth for giving me a fair trial and protection from excessive punishment.
I would also like to point out that I do not own a gun. I have fired guns recreationally, and in my mother and stepfather’s home, I know where a loaded handgun is kept in case I need to defend myself against an intruder when I’m there.
My supporting research:
First, the text, “the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” By the governing document of our country, citizens’ rights to keep guns and use guns can’t be challenged.
Second, I previously had unrealistic ideas of how many people die in gun-homicides per year. I downloaded a complete copy of the National Vital Statistics Report on Death for 2007 (link is a PDF) (a lengthy, serious document chronicling all causes of death of the 2,423,712 persons who were reported to have died in the U.S. in 2007). On the front page, the 15 leading causes of death are listed, and right there, at No. 15, is Assault (homicide).
To me, as probably the simplest, most efficient way to kill another human, if one were to desire, would be to get a gun and shoot them. So, I made an assumption that yeah, I guess there must be a lot of people getting shot. For the past few years I’ve lived in cities that, for some reason, have higher-than-average levels of gun-related crimes (Savannah, Ga., Washington D.C. and Atlanta), and I’m constantly flooded with local news coverage of gun crimes and gun homicides. In my head, people were killing each other with guns a lot. If I had been asked to estimate, just off the top of my head, I probably would have guessed closer to 750,000 or a million people died from gunshots per year in the U.S. And dang, would I have been wrong.
And I kept reading. And I learned I didn’t make a really smart assumption. If you total the numbers for deaths from Accidental discharge of firearms, Intentional self-harm (suicide) by discharge of firearms, Assault (homicide) by discharge of firearms and Discharge of firearms, undetermined intent, you get 30,873 deaths from guns. That’s still a lot. But the breakdown is surprising, or at least, it was surprising to me.
- Accidental Discharge of Firearms: 613
- Intentional self-harm (suicide) by discharge of firearms: 17,352
- Assault (homicide) by discharge of firearms: 12,632
- Discharge of firearms, undetermined intent: 276
I was surprised that the number of gun-related suicides was so high, but more surprised that the number of gun-related homicides was so low.
(Of course, in reading the report, I saw some other interesting big, and small, numbers. 46,844 people died from motor-vehicle accidents, 562,875 from “malignant neoplasms” aka cancer, 30 from Salmonella, 2,644 from malnutrition, 411 from influenza, 769 from pregnancy and childbirth. For context, I tried to find other causes of death that caused a number of deaths near the number of deaths caused by gun homicides; roughly, these included HIV, esophageal, stomach, kidney, brain, bladder and ovarian cancers, multiple immunoproliferative cancers, and emphysema. Most of the heart diseases kill way more, most other things kill way fewer.)
What I’m saying with all these numbers is, and this is just as cold as it will sound, because it’s simply based on columns of figures and not thinking of those figures as human beings and sons and mothers and wives and grandchildren, is, on the whole, if you’re going to die, it’s not really likely it’ll be from being shot with a gun. And if you are shot with a gun and die from it, it’s more likely you do it to yourself.
There are a lot of things out there killing people we should be more furious and more outraged about than guns. Personally, those 2,644 who starved to death makes me pretty furious. People dying of curable diseases (pneumonia, hernias, tuberculosis, meningitis, syphilis, measles, etc.) makes me furious. And honestly, both make me more furious than even my imagined-number of gun-homicide deaths could make me.
Next, not a lot of guns actually are used in crimes. Here’s an interesting number from the National Academy of Science. Of the approximately 70 million handguns in the U.S. (in 2004) only about 7,500 a year are used in gun crimes. That’s .011 percent of handguns. Which means that 99.989 percent of handguns in the U.S. are never used to commit a crime. Never.
In debate, I would call this “no link,” because statistically, most handguns aren’t used in crimes. If you took all of these 70 million handguns away from their owners, you’d only be getting rid of about 7,500 guns that actually were used illegally.
Plus, think about the effort involved there. The effort to collect those 70 million handguns would be a colossal undertaking that would probably cost a lot of money and a lot of time. However, to collect just 7,500 guns wouldn’t take so long or cost so much, and really, if your goal is to prevent crimes, only 7,500 handguns are used in crimes in a year. Shouldn’t you just focus the utmost effort on just getting those 7,500 guns that are used in crimes, and not all 70 million? Wouldn’t that solve the problem AND have the added bonus of being very efficient?
OK, next research point. In the friendly discussion I had about my “crazy” views on guns, it was suggested that guns should be taken away from people, and not able to be purchased legally. High-profile voluntary gun buyback programs have been put on across the country and statistically, well, they sucked. People gave up their old and broken guns, and then took the cash and bought newer, nicer guns.
But what has worked to deter gun crimes? Police and penalties. Cities that put lots more cops in locations where lots of people got shot saw gun homicide rates plummet (re: Boston’s 1996 Project Cease Fire). Likewise, places that made crimes with guns highly punishable, more than just a regular crime (i.e. robbery vs. robbery with a gun), saw fewer gun crimes.
So, bottom line, based on proven attempts to deter gun crimes: taking away guns didn’t work, but preventing and prosecuting gun crimes worked. Wouldn’t it make more logical sense to then channel problem-solving efforts related to gun crime into the proven methods of reducing gun crime, instead of the wasteful methods that are proven not to reduce gun crime?
Here are two more statements, ones that don’t have as much research, but are to be considered, I think:
- Criminals do illegal things (you know, like crimes). If we make having a gun a crime, I doubt it will matter much to a criminal. He/she is already going to commit a robbery or a homicide or whatever crime, so I doubt he/she would gasp “Oh! But getting a gun is illegal!” Plus, there are already illegal ways of getting guns, and guess what, people get guns illegally. People also get guns legally, and then use them illegally to kill people. Obviously, the legality here is not the issue.
- This is just my opinion, and I didn’t research it, but I think making guns illegal would just make them some kind of worse fetish property. It would raise the glamour level of guns. It would make people who had guns somehow sexier, cooler, and then it would make gun crimes seem that way too.
Similar research has been done on other stuff like this. Like, kids who were raised in strict homes and not allowed sweets, or had big stigmas about alcohol, go off to college and eat junk food and get fat, or binge drink. Reactionary. Push one way and it only makes the other way happen.
Conclusion:
I think making guns illegal would be a waste of considerable time, money and effort. I also think that using that considerable time, money and effort on things that deter gun crimes would be an infinitely better solution to any gun-related-crime problem than criminalizing simple gun ownership.
OK, so, sure, call me a crazy, red-state-dwelling weirdo. I believe what I think on this subject is practical, rational and logical. I also have plenty of ideas and opinions that would not fit my crazy, red-state-dwelling weirdo persona (ask me how I feel about legislating my uterus, or about my public school education, or school prayer, or school vouchers, or, I dunno, like a million other things that explain why I’m registered to vote democrat in a state that never does).
If I want a gun, if my friend or mother or neighbor or son or daughter or husband or wife or whatever wants a gun, they should decide for themselves if having one is right for them, not the government. Likewise, the government should not take broad, inaccurate generalizations to make legislation to remove freedoms under the false guise of personal safety. (Plus, if it turns out anything like how airport security did, it’ll be totally FUBAR and won’t really make us feel that much safer.)