Let’s talk about guns
A follow-up to this piece from February 2019 is available here.
Part 1: The Numbers
In the United States, there have been over 6,600 gun-related incidents since January 1, 2018 during which 1,838 people have been killed. Of those, 416 deaths/injures have been of people under the age of 17, and 69 have been under age 11. Over 3,100 people have already been injured because of these incidents already this year, which is an average of over 67 people a day.
There have been 30 mass shootings (incidents with 4 or more people injured/killed). Of those 6,600+ incidents, only 185 have included documented defensive discharges of a weapon.
None of these numbers above includes the stunningly high number of gun-related suicides, some 51% of all suicides in this country.
To put some perspective on these numbers, consider this:
· Enough people have been killed by guns already this year to fill 3 ½ fully-loaded 747 jumbo jets.
· Taking an average American classroom size of 24.2 students, the U.S. has already seen 17.19 full classrooms of young people shot this year.
· Since Sandy Hook in 2012, over 400 students have been killed in over 200 school shootings.
· Per 100,000 people, the US sees 3.85 violent gun deaths a year. Germany sees 0.12, the UK has 0.07, and Japan 0.04.
· 3 in 10 American adults say they own a gun of some kind, and of those, 73% of them could never see themselves not owning a firearm.
· Nearly no place is safe from gun-related incidents:
Religious Institution, Elementary School, Middle School, High School, Four-Year University, Community College, Workplace, Political Rally, Concert, Grocery Store, Shopping Mall, Airport, Baseball Practice, Nightclub, Military Base, Movie Theater
This is a uniquely American phenomenon. No other developed country in the world sees anywhere near this level of gun violence. All data as of February 15, 2018.
Part 2: The Anatomy of a Gun
Gun rights advocates will often make the claim that those of us who favor stricter gun control legislation do so without first understanding the fundamentals of firearms — they are likely correct. Let’s fix that with a crash course in gun vocabulary so we can all be on the same page moving forward and so they can’t continue to throw ignorance back.
Automatic vs. Semi-Automatic Vs. Others
An important distinction between firearms is their firing mode, that is, the way in which a trigger pull effects the weapon. Not all rifles are fully-automatic and not all pistols are semi-automatic. The style of the weapon does not dictate its firing mode.
An automatic firearm will continuously fire rounds (bullets) until the trigger is released or the magazine (where the bullets are stored) is empty. These types of firearms are heavily regulated by the federal government, require extensive and expensive licenses to own and operate, and are generally not found in the open. (A fine example of federal gun control measures working as intended).
A semi-automatic firearm will fire one round for every pull of the trigger. They are ‘semi-automatic’ in the fact that they do not require additional action by the user to prime the weapon for the next shot; that is, the gun will fire as fast as the user can pull the trigger, but the trigger will have to be pulled each time. The overwhelming majority of firearms manufactured and owned today are semi-automatic. When someone talks about guns, they are very likely talking about a semi-automatic weapon.
Other types of firearms exist, such as bolt-action, lever-action, black powder (antique), and pump-action. Each of these types requires additional ‘action’ by the user between shots. A bolt-action rifle, for example, requires the user to physically pull back the bolt (priming mechanism) of the rifle between shots. President Kennedy was killed with a bolt-action rifle, as were the students at the University of Texas.
Firearm Parts, Accessories, and Modifications
The phrase “assault rifle” genuinely means nothing. It’s a term used to loosely describe any number of things depending on who you ask. A semi-automatic pistol can be far more deadly in the wrong hands than a fully-automatic military rifle. Painting a weapon black and calling it an ‘assault’ weapon does nothing to change the overall fundamentals of a weapon. It’s a silly term, and shouldn’t be used by advocates on either side of the issue.
In the recent Las Vegas shooting, you may have heard conversation about so-called “bump stocks.” This is a specialized accessory for a semi-automatic rifle, say the AR-15, that utilizes the inertia of the weapon’s recoil to slide or ‘bump’ the user’s finger back into the trigger, thus massively increasing the overall firing rate of the weapon. Like all automatic weapons however, firing quickly usually sacrifices overall accuracy.
Part 3: America the Brave
We should pass comprehensive federal gun control reform. No longer can the states themselves be the stewards of safety — for every Illinois doing its best to curb the influx of guns, there’s an Indiana 20 minutes away with zero regard for such measures (some 60% of guns used in Illinois are traced back to neighboring states). The federal government is uniquely qualified to provide a nationwide structure for firearms laws.
This is a touchy subject with a lot of legal obstacles — certainly, the 2008 District of Columbia V. Heller is a major roadblock to reform. Worse yet, Congress is overrun with members receiving hundreds of thousands of NRA lobbying dollars. Perhaps most damming however, is the general culture of this country. Americans genuinely believe that guns somehow make them and their families safer, despite there being mountains of evidence to the contrary.
It’s going to take a concerted, sincere effort from concerned Americans to make this country safer. One of the first things we are going to have to do is confront the growing number of broken and flawed arguments that gun advocates have wheeled out in response to this continuing epidemic.
Only when we rid ourselves of these superficial and largely nonsensical arguments can we, as a people, move on to discussing the real issues in play, such as the role of the Second Amendment, the power of the states, and the idea of an individual right instead of a collective right (the core issue in Heller).
Argument 1: Outlawing arms only arms outlaws
This is one of the most common arguments that gun advocates tote: that stricter gun laws only hurt the responsible gun owners, while doing little to prevent a criminal from obtaining an illegal gun. It’s a catchy soundbite, but doesn’t stand up to much scrutiny. For one thing, this argument fundamentally undermines the entire premise of our legal system, that is, that laws serve as an effective and practical deterrent. Why outlaw OTC narcotics for responsible users, when addicts will just find a way to get their fix? Why mandate seat belts and auto insurance when the responsible drivers won’t get into accidents in the first place? When taken in literally any context outside of gun rights, the argument falls flat. It’s based around an appeal to the second amendment being somehow immune from revision — which is ironic, given the word “amendment” is right there in the name.
Secondly, this argument fails to understand the broader picture, which is that gun violence occurs almost entirely free of any categorization or demographic trend. This is to say that the only common denominator between a mass shooting in Orlando, a toddler finding a gun in the nightstand, a rampage shooter on a school campus, a man fighting depression, and a disgruntled former employee is the gun itself. Guns are fundamentally dangerous — they serve no other purpose than to kill.
We can talk ourselves into circles about why a shooter decided to shoot, but what remains constant is the how: they got their hands on a gun and used it for its intended purpose. We should legislate and argue about the how first and worry about the why when the blood stops running down our chalkboards.
Argument 2: This is a mental health issue, not a gun issue
Nonsense. This is a downright shameful bastardization of the truth, and an affront to mental illness everywhere. This population is already tragically misunderstood — yes, we as a nation need to devote more resources and time to understanding their issues, but no, those issues do not involve committing violent acts like those we continue to see.
Anyone who uses this defense is factually incorrect, and willing to scapegoat an already vulnerable population for their own political needs. They are as ignorant as they are cowardly.
Argument 3: Guns don’t kill people, people kill people
This is the granddaddy of all fallacies. Again, if even basic reasoning is applied, we see this argument collapse. Like the first argument, this relies heavily on a misconstrued view of what governance actually is.
No one is suggesting that heroin walks around injecting itself into people’s veins, that guns have consciousness, or that pipe bombs build themselves. By removing the utility of the objects however, and instead placing blame entirely on the actors involved, we strip the meaning away from policy. Most policy is designed to limit the ability of a person to do something, and in a lot of cases to do that something with something. If we say that any dangerous object can’t be legislated because the final decision still comes down the actor with no regards to the object, we’ve effectively gutted regulatory policy. It’s easier to enforce and regulate “no more bulk fertilizer sales” than it is to say “no more making bombs with this fertilizer that’s readily available.”
A gun is infinitely more lethal than any replacement, sans explosives, and we regulate the bajeezus out of explosives. It is exceptionally more difficult to kill another human being with something that isn’t a firearm. Guns are made to kill people efficiently, unlike all the other replacement tools we hear of.
‘If we ban guns, they will just start using knives, or bombs, or trucks, or planes.’
There’s a reason that knives aren’t used now — they aren’t as effective. If knives were just as lethal, they’d be used now.
This is a classic way to divert the topic away from guns. If and when the day comes that a senior citizen holed up in a tower with a knife kills 50 people from 300 yards away, America can have ‘the knife talk’ then too. Stop pretending that we can only fix one issue at a time. It’s pitiful.
Also, this argument collapses because the idea that “attackers will still find a way” intrinsically cedes the point that gun control measures are effective and thus attackers would be deterred or put out — mission accomplished.
Part 4: THOUGHTS AND PRAYERS AND THOUGHTS AND PRAYERS AND THOUGHTS
Your thoughts are useless and your prayers won’t bring back Charlotte, or Dylan, or Rodolfo, or anyone else who has been senselessly gunned down. Until you’re willing to back your thoughts and your prayers with policy and action, you’re standing in the way.
These families deserve better than thoughts, they deserve hope. Hope that they don’t have to spend the rest of their lives reliving this nightmare every few days in towns across America. Hope that future children won’t be educated in the shadow of violence.
Spend your time thinking about ways to bring about change, instead of trying to clear your own conscious from the horror by compartmentalizing it — dive into the victims’ stories. Speak with survivors. Feel their pain.
Get angry.
Do something and don’t let anyone tell you that “now is not the time to politicize the dead.
It wasn’t Jaime Guttenberg’s time to die either.