Blood, Bullets, & Badges
Warning: This essay goes into detail around topics including suicide, domestic violence, depression, and mass shootings. Should you be sensitive to such topics, it may be best to skip to the conclusion section.
Who, me?
Time for some personal history. I’m a FOID card holder — that’s Firearm Owners’ Identification card for those non-Illinoisans in the audience. I’ve had mine for a few years now. I don’t actually own a firearm, but a FOID is required to handle guns in Illinois, even at places like a gun range. A CCL — Concealed Carry License — is required for Illinoisans to actually carry any firearm around. I don’t have any intention of ever getting a CCL.
So why would I want a FOID if I have no intention of carrying or really owning a firearm?
Two reasons.
The first reason is simple and humbling — because shooting holes in paper is really cathartic. It’s that simple. I started shooting when I lived on the east coast, where states like Virginia allow pretty much anyone to handle a gun without even a second glance. It was a fun hobby that me and a few friends would participate in. When I moved back to Illinois, I realized that it was something I enjoyed, but would need a FOID to continue doing, so I got one.
I don’t want to hunt, I don’t want to ‘protect my home,’ and I don’t even shoot at paper targets shaped like anything living. I couldn’t care less if I can’t hit center mass or what my groupings look like. I like going to a range and putting holes in paper.
For those who have never shot before, I’m sure you’re rolling your eyes — and for good reason. It absolutely is a power, toxic-masculinity, caveman brain thing. The feeling of holding a gun is unlike anything else in the world — that amount of power and adrenalin can be super intoxicating, especially for folks who may not otherwise have a lot of ways to cope with stress. It’s no different than lining up in a Porsche on an open track. There is a thrill in being in control.
Guns are the great equalizer and play directly to the same part of the brain as every solider/John Wayne/super-hero fantasy. There is very excellent research about how guns feed into the “traditional male fantasy” structure and how guns make men feel more like men. It’s an enlightening read.
Most importantly for me though, is that it’s fun. Fun is a word not really associated with guns these days, despite recreation/plinking being one of the most common uses for firearms in America. Hell, target shooting/plinking is an Olympic sport.
When channeled into something fairly harmless, like putting holes in paper with your buddies, it’s not a whole lot different than cutting some donuts in an empty lot as a high schooler or driving a bucket at your local golf course. It’s only when that power is taken out of controlled environments that it becomes seriously dangerous to society. Home gun ownership introduces those feelings of power and adrenaline into everyday domestic situations. It empowers and emboldens dangerous behaviors that wouldn’t even be an option otherwise.
It’s difficult to threaten a spouse with a gun; or to have a child find your gun in the drawer; or to contemplate shooting yourself if there isn’t that power in the household in the first place.
The very best gun control in the world is simply not owning them and/or keeping them out of your home. Rent a storage locker and keep them there.
Guns empower the worst impulses of humanity and destroy anything and everything they get pointed at. Even those John Wayne power fantasies at a controlled gun range with a .22 are fundamentally destructive, if far more harmless than owning a gun at home. This isn’t to say that all people can’t handle themselves around guns or will 100% use them to harm someone. Clearly that isn’t the case. Rather, it’s to say that removing the option solves the issue before the thought can ever be had.
Sometimes the only thing between a passing thought and a tragedy is opportunity.
The difference between a ‘good guy with a gun’ and a violent statistic is one very small, usually very quick decision. A decision that may be instantly regretted, or a decision that may come from a place that no one, including the perpetrator, could ever have thought possible. A trigger cannot be un-pulled.
If you’re tired of hearing “they were such a kind person” or “they never did anything that would lead us to think they were capable of this,” that’s because as a society, we overlook just how instantaneous gun violence actually is.
The overwhelming majority of shootings and gun violence comes in split-second personal decisions, not long-planned attacks or manifesto-driven vengeance. They are just single tragic moments that last forever.
It’s this immediacy that we overlook. The simple fact that one singular moment can destroy everything regardless of what came before. That’s why guns need to be regulated and controlled.
I wrestled for a really long time if a FOID would be hypocritical of me to possess given my vocal stance in favor of stricter gun control. In a lot ways I have to live with the fact that it is. I am part of the problem because I, in a small way, perpetuate the market for guns but I hope with conversations like this, I can also help be a part of the solution.
That brings me to the second reason I have a FOID — I think it’s important for folks who want to tackle the issue of gun control to have a real-world understanding of what they’re dealing with. A common tactic of among gun rights advocates is to discredit reform by implying that the other side simply doesn’t understand guns well enough. That they’re scared or afraid of things they don’t understand and thus want to punish those who do.
As I’ve shared in other pieces, I have a pretty good understanding of guns, their usage, and their mechanics. I’d say I’m fairly well educated on the matter. I’ve got a lovely slide bite scar from where I choked up too high on a Walther and I’m pretty good at hitting a target from 15 yards.
But these arguments aren’t for folks like me — they’re meant to somehow discredit other people who may not have those lived experiences or who haven’t dug into the intricacies of existing gun laws. By hiding behind procedure, technical terms and snarky Facebook comments on every single news story, they believe they can discredit the overwhelming evidence that gun control is effective and necessary.
So let’s talk logistics then: in Illinois, a FOID requires shockingly little from the applicant. It’s just $10, a fresh photo, and a background check with the State Police. They last ten years, despite a driver’s license only being valid for four (and a driving/written test). There are rules about what crimes you’re not allowed to have committed and when (non-domestic assault/battery charges are voided after 5 years), but in general, it’s pretty straightforward and significantly easier than a getting a Driver’s License.
You don’t even have to be an adult to get a FOID and handle firearms in Illinois — if your parents are eligible, you can get a FOID as a minor through the same $10 process. No classes, no tests, no communication. I got my FOID having never once interacted with anyone from the State. Oftentimes the hardest part of getting a FOID in Illinois is the long backlog of applicants clogging up the system, not any of the actual requirements.
With that FOID in hand, I am able to purchase firearms, ammunition, legally transport firearms around the state, and even rent guns to use at ranges. Despite all this, Illinois is famously one of the strictest gun jurisdictions in the U.S.
So why does Illinois have such a reputation as a ‘tough state’ for gun owners? Because getting a CCL or actually buying a firearm are far more extended processes. CCL’s require state-regulated in-person trainings and more regular renewals. All firearm purchases are subject to a fresh background check with the State Police, a 72-hour waiting period from sale to pick-up, and in Cook County, ownership registration with local police. Contrast all this to say, Virginia, where there are no licenses, no waiting periods, no registration, and no laws against open carry.
So Illinois has all these great laws — why do we still have gun violence, and in such large numbers? Everyone is always using Chicago as the poster child for ineffective gun control.
The simple fact is that these laws don’t work in a vacuum. For those who have never visited the great state of Illinois, we are bordered on all sides by 5 states — Indiana, Iowa, Wisconsin, Missouri, and Kentucky. Of those 5 states, none have a great track record with gun control.
In fact, of those states only Iowa requires any sort of licensure/registration to purchase a firearm and it is a limitation that applies only on handguns and that permit to purchase lasts for 5 years. Missouri repealed their licensing laws and the number of guns used in crimes that were sourced from in-state retail transactions doubled. Gun laws stop at the border but guns don’t.
In short, Illinois’ gun laws do work. They work well enough that that criminals are having to source their guns from our neighbors who don’t have such laws. Illinois sources 6.5x more guns from Indiana than it sends back over the border. Some 60% of all guns used in Illinois crimes can be directly traced to an acquisition in a neighboring state.
Unfortunately, the exact same relationship is true of other controlled states like California, whose guns come from notoriously uncontrolled Arizona and Nevada.
This is not an issue that can be solved on a state-by-state basis and instead requires a national effort to ensure effectiveness. Think of all the times you’ve crossed a county or state line to buy cheaper gas or save on sales tax — the same is true for gun laws. If the next town over doesn’t have the same laws, those laws and regulations are easily skirted.
What does gun violence actually look like?
There have been 3 mass murder events in the past 24 hours. There have been over 45 mass shootings in the past month, and over 150 since the year began. There were 610 in 2020, 21 of which were mass murder events, even with national stay-at-home orders in place for much of the year.
But big mass shootings and discussions of AR-15s don’t really paint a true picture of the gun violence epidemic in this country, brutal and tragic as they are. There are a million things we can, and should, do to prevent incidents like this — however, the single best way we can prevent mass shootings, and gun violence in general, is to limit and regulate the prevalence of guns.
Roughly 316 Americans are shot every single day. That’s about an entire movie theater full of people shot, every day. 106 of those people die.
Say it takes you 15 minutes to read this essay — in that time 3 people in the U.S. will have been shot, 1 of whom will die. There’s a 7% chance that one of those people shot is a child.
Actual gun violence is far more common than most people realize — it’s just not all gang shootings and mass rampages. While America is entirely unique in its mass shooting problems, it is also unique in its overall gun violence numbers as well.
Domestic violence accounts for a major percentage of gun violence in America and is entirely predicated by immediate and largely unrestricted access to firearms. Guns in the home lead to shootings in the home.
Many of the countries above us on that list are racked with political unrest, cartel violence, and economic instability. Places like Iraq, Colombia, Venezuela and Belize.
Meanwhile, countries like the United Kingdom, Canada, Japan, and Norway are facing gun violence death rates well below 0.5 per 100,000.
What are they doing differently? Gun control. In the United Kingdom, self-defense does not qualify as a legitimate reason to own a gun. In Canada, guns are more strictly classified and safe storage is a requirement of ownership. In Japan, you must pass a mental health screening prior to even being considered for a license. All of these countries, including Switzerland, a country often cited by advocates as a “gun friendly” European country, require strict licenses to own and use firearms, something only three U.S. states require (New York, Massachusetts, and Illinois).
All of these common-sense and incredibly popular regulations save lives — not because they somehow make people less violent or solve the intricacies of human behavior, but because they lower the overall prevalence of guns in the country. Less guns = less deaths.
Americans are not intrinsically more violent, more unwell, more dangerous or more prone to crime — Americans just have more guns and thus more opportunity for tragedy.
Speaking of tragedy
A 13-year-old was just shot and killed by Chicago police. His hands were up and he was unarmed when he was shot and killed. The video of his death has gone viral.
Chicago Police officials, including former Police Superintendent Eddie Johnson, have called the shooting justified and that the officer involved was “doing what he was trained to do.”
I’m not here to defend police officers nor to attack the profession writ large. Surely a large percentage of those 265 shootings were justifiable to the law and the right call in those impossible situations. I have family members who wear the badge and do so with honor and compassion. For them, I am grateful.
However, I also recognize that policing across this country is in critical need of serious reform because society has come to view police as antagonists to the common good, instead of protectors of it.
I believe gun control is vital to this discussion.
Two things are true — 1) Police officers are agents of the state, and as such, need to be held to a level of account far higher than the average civilian and 2) the same split-second “good guy with gun”/violent statistic decision calculus applies to their job.
Let’s look again at Mr. Johnson’s comments on the shooting:
“All of this happened in less than a second,” Johnson said. “To think the officer could process it that quickly is not being fair. It’s tragic all the way around. … Tossing a weapon and turning around in a split second doesn’t give your brain time enough to process. Reality isn’t like Hollywood. It’s much different.”
He’s right. All of this did happen in less than a second. And that’s the problem with guns. In the shooting of 13-year-old Adam Toledo, any number of heartbreaking things happened. That young boy should be alive and he isn’t because an agent of the state became a bad-guy-with-a-gun in a single moment. I feel confident in saying that officer wishes he could un-pull that trigger. But he can’t. Such is the immediacy and irreversible devastation of guns. I feel confident that many officers wish they could un-pull the trigger.
What overlap is there between gun control and police violence? Prevalence. Police fatally shoot about 1,000 Americans a year. Some 54% of those killed were in possession of guns at the time of the shooting.
Police are pulling the trigger so often precisely because guns are so prevalent. In states where gun ownership is higher, like Alaska and Georgia, the rates of fatal police shootings were more than triple those of states with low gun ownership. Conversely, civilians are growing wary of police because these relatively rare police shootings are nationalized, and in some cases, entirely unwarranted. Roughly 6% of the people shot and killed by police were wholly unarmed when they were shot. Surely they didn’t present an immediate danger to the officers involved and those officers should face accountability for their decisions, however tragic or reactionary.
Further proving this point, American police officers fatally shoot civilians far more often than any other developed nation. There is a direct correlation between civilian gun ownership in a population and police shootings.
Despite fatal police shootings being relatively rare in the field of policing, only about 0.00002% of total police interactions lead to a fatality in the U.S., we have to recognize the immense power these incidents have on the public consciousness. Every time an officer makes an impossible split-second decision, trust in the institution falters and more blood gets spilled. Critically, a lot of these decisions wouldn’t have to be made if guns weren’t so prevalent in civilian hands.
More people buy guns to protect themselves from other people who bought guns to protect themselves from the first guy who bought a gun. It’s a never-ending cycle of fear.
The single best way to mend the relationship between civilians and policing is disarmament.
It will save lives, it will protect officers, and it will significantly limit the number of fatal interactions.
It is also critically important to discuss reforms to the power structures around policing. In the Toledo case, the prosecution was caught lying about Toledo holding a gun at the time of his death. Equally appalling is the right-wing media calling Toledo a “13-year-old man” in an effort to paint the officer’s actions as more justifiable to an audience already primed to tow the police line. We also see, time and again, how powerful police unions and privileged legal protections can save officers from facing any sort of liability or repercussions for improper decision making. Far too many ‘bad apples’ continue to abuse their power on police forces nationwide and far too many otherwise good cops are damningly silent in this process.
Moments like this radically erode confidence in the institution of policing and fan the flames of dissent. We have to do better.
If you want to save police lives and ‘back the blue’, the best thing you can do is support civilian gun control and support officers willing to speak out about abuse and misconduct in their own ranks.
The sad reality of American firearms
Suicide is the 10th leading cause of death in the United States. An average of 132 Americans commit suicide every day. Guns are used in half. It is impossible, and irresponsible, to discuss gun violence without including the prevalence of guns and their impact on suicide rates.
Firearm suicide is nearly twice as common as homicide in this country.
Gun suicides have consistently risen over the past 12 years.
The United States is not the global leader in suicides, but is far and away the leader in firearm suicides.
The number one indicator of whether an American suicide attempt will end in a death is whether the attempter had access to firearms.
Again, sometimes the only difference between a passing thought and a tragedy is opportunity.
“Studies show that most attempters act on impulse, in moments of panic or despair. Once the acute feelings ease, 90 percent do not go on to die by suicide,” — David Hemenway, Director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center.
The lethality and instant nature of firearms significantly raises the overall American death toll from suicide attempts. Men who own handguns are 8 times more likely to die of suicide than non-handgun owners and women are 35x more likely.
Reducing the number of guns in American homes and hands will dramatically reduce the number of suicides nationwide.
Conclusion
So, where does this leave us?
Disarmament is a vital and urgent public health necessity. Guns play an outsized role in American life. It has become impossible to go a day without breaking news of another heart-wrenching shooting.
No one solution will ever ‘solve’ violence. Gun control won’t prevent every mass shooting; spouses will still abuse each other; people will still die of suicide; and murder will still happen.
But what gun control will do is remove a significant amount of the opportunities for those things to happen when they otherwise wouldn’t.
At a federal level, we should look to pass laws that require national background checks for all gun purchases and prohibit private sales (closing the so-called gun-show loophole). Any and all guns sales should take place with an FFL (Federal Firearms License) holder present. Such policies have shown themselves effective at lowering the overall gun violence rates, but more than anything, they create a single national standard for gun ownership which is desperately overdue, as we see at the Illinois-Indiana border.
Similar, we should create a national 72-hour waiting period for all firearms sales and a limit on the number of guns that can be purchased in a given timeframe. No one needs a gun immediately, nor do they need to buy 3 guns at once. These ‘cooling off periods’ can save hundreds of lives a year, especially as it relates to firearm suicides.
It would also serve America well to institute annual gun buyback programs. Such programs have been shown to have mixed impact on the overall gun violence statistics, but can help to significantly lower the overall prevalence of firearms, thus limiting opportunities for tragedy and present a good option for folks to disarm themselves while being rewarded for the effort.
Have these policies worked elsewhere? Yes! In 1996, Australia instituted the National Firearms Act, which implemented a number of these same licensure policies and involved a massive national gun buyback program. The buyback alone is estimated to have reduced the number of guns in private hands by 20%, and, by some estimates, almost halved the number of gun owning households. The NFA also significantly reduced firearms suicides and homicides in the years following its passage — there was also a major reduction in mass shootings following the legislation.
At a state level, we can begin to heavily invest in community wellness and health solutions. Depression and other mental ailments are leading factors in suicide attempts — providing the necessary care and help to folks suffering can mitigate such outcomes. We should also look at ways to ensure domestic counseling and therapy is included in any health care provisions.
States can also pilot community service systems that can respond to mental health and domestic emergencies with trained specialists, instead of putting that taxing work on the back of police forces. Further, states can create their own gun buyback and education resources to expand beyond the national programs.
Finally, local officials and governments can help the disarmament movement by disarming everyday policing. Officers on traffic patrol and ticketing duty can, and should, leave their weapons in the patrol car.
In London, over 90% of police officers don’t carry firearms with them during daily duties. Internally, the London police motto is “policing by consent” not force, and feel that carrying firearms sends the wrong message to civilians. I tend to agree.
If citizens feel and see less guns around them in daily life, they are less likely to feel the need to possess their own or defend themselves from them.
Please note that absolutely none of these proposals actually takes away any guns by state mandate. None of them involve invasions of privacy nor infringements of the Second Amendment. They only serve to better define our national outlook on firearms and defend against preventable tragedies. Lowering the overall prevalence of guns should be our first priority.
No one person or policy will solve America’s gun control crisis. It’s going to take all of us, and it’s going to be challenging. I don’t know that every solution proposed above will work exactly as intended, but I do know that something must be done. We can’t save every life — but we should do our best to save as many as we can.
In the face of overwhelming death and violence, silence is the most dangerous path.