Guns: Finding Common Ground in the Debate

There is nothing more contentious than the ongoing debate on gun rights versus gun control. Proponents of individual liberty hew to the position that honest citizens have a God-given right to keep and bear arms. Advocates of stricter control fear the carnage that results from the prevalence of guns.

What makes the debate contentious is that both positions have merit.

There are numerous examples of the evils wrought with guns. Sandy Hook. Aurora. Columbine. Just the names evoke horrific memories, visions of grief-stricken parents and grievously wounded survivors.

A recent in-depth investigation by the Providence Journal described the destructive path of a single community gun “in the hands of teenage boys and young men who passed it around and used it to wreak havoc throughout Providence.”  Over a six month period in 2012, six shootings, four fatalities, several  wounded, familial loss and grief.

In Attleboro, more recently, shots were fired in a road rage incident. Property was damaged but no one killed nor injured. This was pure luck. The suspect, a heavily tattooed ex-con, languishes in jail awaiting a dangerousness hearing, the outcome of which may be self-evident.

On the other side of the debate is the defensive use of guns.

In Chicago’s Logan Square last week, a Uber driver happened upon a chilling scene as a young man began spraying bullets into a crowd. The driver drew his licensed handgun and fired, wounding and stopping the assailant. The driver was not charged because, according to the Assistant State’s Attorney, “the driver had a concealed-carry permit and acted in the defense of himself and others.”

In an earlier case reported by the Chicago Tribune, a licensed citizen “shot and wounded an armed man who had fired into a crowd on Chicago's Far South Side.” (Concealed carry was only recently legalized in Illinois, the last state to do so).

Just this week in Baltimore, a shopkeeper with a shotgun protected a reporter who was being accosted by an assailant. The reporter, Justin Fenton, described on CNN that a man in a hoodie “Maced” him in the head and demanded his cellphone. Fenton retreated to the protection of the armed shopkeeper and was later able to safely depart the area.

Defensive gun use (DGU) is the measure of societal benefit that arises from the positive use of guns to dissuade or stop murder, assault, robbery, rape, carjacking, home invasion, and so on. The statistics on DGU vary widely depending on who is providing them. Estimates of annual DGU range from 1 to 1.25 million instances per year at the high end to 55,000 to 80,000 at the low end.

It should be no surprise that the high-end estimates come from gun rights proponents and the low-end from gun-control proponents. (The true number is almost certainly somewhere in the middle).

Where does this leave us in the great debate?

First, we must recognize the true causal factors in gun crimes. Sandy Hook, Aurora, and Columbine all were perpetrated by sociopaths. The Providence single-gun shootings were all committed by criminals. The Attleboro road-rage shooter is an ex-con with a lengthy record and obvious anger management issues. Of note, none of the aforementioned are concealed carry permit holders.

In contrast, the defensive gun use cases referenced above all involved legally owned weapons that were utilized in a legal manner.

It is not surprising that guns rights advocates react in dismay when opponents attempt to further restrict rights rather than addressing root causes.

It is also not a surprise that gun control advocates continue to seek tighter controls. The Rhode Island legislature is debating a bill to ban the carry of concealed weapons on school grounds even by a permit holder. (This is spite of no instance of a school shooting having been committed by a permit holder, and several documented instances of a shooting being stopped by a permit holder).

So like any negotiation between diametrically opposed sides, the hopeful and the fearful, the way forward is to find common ground.

Neither camp should protest if, for instance, we posted signs in shopping malls stating that “Illegal guns are not permitted.” Nor should there be much controversy on either side if we were to redouble efforts to identify sociopaths and keep guns from their hands. There also should be no argument about getting illegal guns off the streets and putting their criminal possessors in prison.

There is plenty of common ground. Let’s start there.

Grandma and her gun

Police officer Melvin Santiago executed by street thug

The horrible tragedy that occurred at Sandy Hook in December of 2012 prompted a number of states to tighten regulations on guns. Massachusetts is the latest of these.

Without exception, gun control activists are upset with perceived deficient regulation and are clamoring for more. Advocates are equally perturbed with what they see as infringements on their rights.  In this emotionally laden debate, the media are of little help. From which perspective can we better understand the divide?

First, it is not a coincidence that Democrats and Republicans line up on different sides. Democrats tend to be collectivists and Republicans, individualists, which explains strongly held beliefs on a wide range of topics. Collectivists believe that human happiness can be best attained by conformity – they put the whole first. Individualists take an opposite tack and elevate the individual, believing that social well-being will follow.

Second, we must perceive guns for what they really are. Forget the images of the semi-automatic “assault” rifles and black handguns glorified by Hollywood. These are machines, evolved over many hundreds of years, designed to multiply the force that a human being can bring to bear.  Muscle mass is removed from consideration; a ninety-eight pound grandmother becomes the complete equal of a muscle-bound attacker.

And finally, we must address the issue of violence, which arises from multiple sources. First and foremost is criminal activity perpetrated by that subset of individuals who lack empathy and communal values. To them, a mugging, robbery, or assault is just a day at the office. According to a recent Swedish study, 63% of all violent crimes are committed by 1% of the population. If applied to the US, we would estimate that well over 3 million individuals are in this category.

Next are extreme sociopaths and the criminally insane, those who commit violent acts to fulfill some need in their fantastical worlds. These are few but spectacular: Newtown, Aurora, Tucson, Columbine.

Lastly we must take special note of the thuggery in our inner cities. Detroit, New Orleans, Baltimore, and Saint Louis top the list, with homicide rates from 34 to 47 per 100,000, on par with many third world countries. Daily we read news accounts of coldblooded killings prompted by territory disputes or minor slights or a desire to be famous. On a recent Sunday, a thug with such a wish executed a rookie police officer. Subsequently killed by police, his shrine is bigger than the slain officer's.

With all this as a stage, how can we understand where we might go? What would satisfy the polar opponents in this question?

Gun control advocates would, in their dreams, completely vaporize guns from the planet. At the very least, they would have us follow the Australian model by confiscating and tightly restricting the private ownership of weapons.

Gun rights supporters, on the other hand, would have each and every citizen (who is not a criminal or insane), freely own and carry a weapon if they so desire.

These two worlds are completely different.

Let’s say, on the first hand, that we could vaporize all guns. This is a mindset that the 98-pound grandmother’s self-defense must be sacrificed to the common good. That by making her vulnerable, occasional losses are, while perhaps regrettable, justifiable.

Those on the other side would say that, in a society made of free citizens, Grandma’s right to self defense is inviolable. And that by her having that right, occasional losses due to mistake or misadventure are, while perhaps regrettable, justifiable.

Who is right?

Antis, who have conflated the words “gun” and “violence,” think that if guns are eliminated, so too will be the violence.  The evidence points elsewhere. Spectacular knife attacks have become common in China and increasingly so in the US. Suicides would continue apace, via hanging or overdose or high dives. The criminally insane would remain so, and would evolve more devious, evil plots, such as propane explosions or mass poisonings.

Supporters, who believe in the goodness of free citizens, would be disappointed. Humans are imperfect. We suffer losses, desire revenge, some become gradually insane. Murders would continue, lover’s quarrels or jealous rages ending in gunfire. Crimes would continue in spite of the shopkeeper’s shotgun.

Neither side is right to demand perfection; it is an impossible dream. But here is something that we could do: directly address the issues. Quit arguing about prison population and leniency. There are plenty of laws on the books – use them, enforce them, and imprison those who demonstrate a lack of empathy, values, or self control. Thuggery must be abhorred rather than glorified (read the lyrics to “When I feel like it” by Fabolous as a homework assignment). The criminally insane must be treated compassionately; it is time to again fund institutions for their housing and treatment.

These actions, rather than their desired prescriptions, would make neither side happy.
 
Which means that it’s probably the right thing to do.

A Canticle for Hadiya

Hadiya Pendleton

The story of Hadiya Pendleton is heart rending. The 15-year-old girl was known as a star student, a loving daughter and big sister, and a talented majorette. That latter aptitude resulted in her performing, along with her King College Prep High School team, at President Obama’s inauguration, an honor of which she was deservedly proud.

But several days later, on January 29^th, she was senselessly killed by a purported gang member in a south-side Chicago park. Hadiya and her friends had taken shelter from the rain under a canopy in Harsh Park when Michael Ward, 18, allegedly opened fire on the group in a tragic case of mistaken identity – he thought they were rival gang members when in fact they were just a bunch of kids out celebrating after completing their mid-year exams.

The pathos of Hadiya’s death was overwhelming to her family and the community. President Obama recognized the event in his State of the Union address, remembering Hadiya while calling for stricter gun controls.

But what was it that made Ward, just a few years older than Hadiya, think it was acceptable to indiscriminately spray a group of young people with gunfire? Ward was in the company of one Kenneth Williams, 20, who had been shot in the arm by another gang last year. In his confession, Ward claimed that he was seeking revenge against that gang. What is it that allows young men to shoot each other with impunity in a city that registered over 2400 shootings and nearly 500 homicides in 2012? And this in a city with some of the toughest gun laws on the books?

There is a theory that addresses this and it has to do with “certainty of punishment.”  While it might seem odd, it turns out that criminals are very savvy about applying economic risk/benefit analysis to their decisions. Criminals calculate (intuitively, as their actual math skills are typically lacking) an “expected value” of punishment by applying the probability of being punished to the extent of the actual (not on paper) punishment.

For instance, while the law might call for 5 years in prison for carrying an illegal gun, they observe that the probability of being caught is very low. Hence, they calculate that the “expected value” of the punishment is far less than 5 years.  Further, even if caught, they see that the typical punishment is only a year of probation with no prison time at all. So in spite of the seemingly tough sanction against carrying an illegal gun, the criminal calculates that the “certainty of punishment” is actually very, very low. Hence, in their warped but canny minds, the benefits of carrying a gun far outweigh its costs.

All this is actually going on in Chicago. While having very tough laws on the books, the cops are dismayed to see offenders they manage to apprehend back on the streets within days. Williams, who provided the gun that killed Hadiya, should have been in prison for parole violations following an earlier gun offense. The cops blame prosecutors and judges, but the judges blame state and local budgets that limit available prison beds. So it comes down to a type of “guns vs. butter” argument – social welfare and pension spending vs. cops on the street and prison beds.

In our zeal to pass new gun laws, it might be worthwhile to ponder how effectively existing laws are being enforced, how certain the punishment for violations are, and how severely the actual punishments are adjudicated. Criminals must assess the “certainty of punishment” as being very, very high if we want to change their behavior.

In the case of Hadiya, her assailants’ long criminal records give sad testimony to ineffective execution of the law. Another toothless law on the books would not have helped, no matter how good it made us feel.

Our murderous young sons

James Eagan Holmes

Saturday before last was Gun Appreciation Day. Tens of thousands of gun owners turned out in cities across the country to rally in support of their 2^nd amendment rights. Certainly, you heard of the outbreak of gun attacks perpetrated at these gatherings. (No, we didn’t either). That’s because honest citizens with legally owned guns are not the problem.

But something is definitely going on – our young men are murdering us.

Nehemiah Griego, 15
Dylan Klebold, 17
Eric Harris, 18
Robert Hawkins, 19
Adam Lanza, 20
Tyler Peterson, 20
Jared Loughner, 22
Seung-Hui Cho, 23
James Holmes, 24

This is a partial list of deranged young men who have succumbed to their demons, murdering their fellow humans in a sociopathic rage often punctuated by suicide. In addition to their gender and age, they seem to have another thing in common – photographs reveal them as being disturbingly similar, with pin-point thousand-yard-stare eyes surrounded by stark white scelerae. What is going on here? How do we discover the ultimate cause?

Our culture has changed; that’s a certainty. Closer to the middle of the last century, guns were not vilified as today. A pickup truck with deer rifles in the rear window gun-rack was common, parked on Main Street or even in the high school parking lot. No one was terrified, no one was disturbed. Farmers strode into the Agway or hardware store with their “mouse gun” on their hip and no one called the cops. No need, for these were honest citizens who did not present a threat.

Fast forward fifty years and it’s all different. Now, monsters in human disguise mow down school children. Gang bangers and drug warriors battle with each other and innocent bystanders. The carnage in Chicago, Los Angeles, New York, and Washington (centers of the strictest gun controls) is enormous. What is going on?

Here are some things that have changed over the last fifty years:

- The breakdown of the traditional family; millions of young men raised without male role models

- Government has become the defacto father of these unhappy young men; handouts stultifying their self-worth; gangs becoming their families

- Extreme gore and violence is endemic in the media, movies, and video games

- The war on drugs has fueled an enormous, lucrative market for drugs which is fiercely defended with deadly violence

- Our mental health system has changed drastically, with long-term hospitalization replaced by socialization, leaving potentially murderous patients living in the community

So when you hear someone decrying “gun violence”, you will know that they are already on the wrong track. The problem is violence, it doesn’t matter what kind. For instance, did you know that more murders are committed by striking implements (clubs, hammers, etc.) than by all kinds of rifles, “assault” or otherwise? We will make no real progress until we begin understanding, and countering, the underlying causes of violence. 

The lost souls sacrificed to our murderous young men demand nothing less.

Let's end violence violence

This weekend’s Wall Street Journal (May 23-24, 2009) reports that community activists are begging president Obama to intercede in an epidemic of murders of young people (“Chicago student killings spark appeals to Obama”). Chicago has suffered the killings of 37 school age children so far in the 2008-2009 school year – which we can all agree is 37 too many.

Two thirds of the murders were drug or gang related, others may involve cases of mistaken identify. Activists decry gun violence and are calling for stricter gun control. This focus may be dangerously wrong headed in that it doesn’t address the root cause of the problem.

The Reverend Michael Pfleger (of “America is the greatest sin against God” fame) urged his congregation to sell and wear t-shirts emblazoned with an upside-down American flag (a sign of distress) and the exclamation “Gun Violence – An American Emergency.” Reverend Pfleger also asked them to wear American flag pins upside down. Reverend Pfleger thinks that America is sick.

Imagine that Mr. Obama could cause all of the guns in Chicago to be magically atomized. Do you think for one instant that the violence would end? That guns are the underlying cause of violence and, that by “disappearing” them, the violence would leave with them? If guns are the source of violence, then I must have had a blessedly lucky childhood. We had guns down on the farm and in all of my friends’ homes, too. None of these guns ever forced one of us to murder a classmate. No, there is something else at work here.

There are creatures in Chicago (hard to call them human) who do not blink to kill in cold blood. The willingness to pull a trigger would transfer with ease to the willingness to swing a baseball bat, crushing a skull, or wield a knife to stab the heart, or slice a throat, or rip open an abdomen. It is that willingness that is the problem. That is our enemy, and that which must be eliminated. Magically atomizing guns won’t make that willingness go away.

But from where does it arise? Much has been written on this, but I suggest that it is lack of boundaries, skewed values, and distorted social and cultural norms. The willingness to kill in cold blood is evil incarnate. So it is not gun violence, or knife violence, or brickbat violence, or dynamite violence, or motor vehicle violence that is the issue – it is violence violence. And until we address the root cause, we are tilting at windmills.

In this, I side with Dr. William Henry “Bill” Cosby, not with Reverend Pfleger. I wonder whom Mr. Obama favors.