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.
No comments:
Post a Comment