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.

Apoplexy or solutions?

The United States Code

It was a huge disappointment to the president – he termed it “shameful”. Expanded background checks, arguably the mildest of planned gun control measures, failed in the Senate last week. Illustrating how difficult national gun legislation is to achieve, the bipartisan group of senators voting down the bill included a contingent of rural state Democrats.

Liberals were apoplectic that these senators chose to represent the wishes of their constituents rather than those of President Obama, California Senator Dianne Feinstein, and New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg. Conservatives were relieved that they had dodged a bullet, viewing the bill as an incremental assault on Second Amendment rights. According to Vice President Joe Biden, President Obama vowed to implement new executive actions on gun control quite soon. This stirred constitutionalists, always sensitive to whiffs of executive overreach.

What to do… what to do?

Here’s an idea. There are over 12,000 words of the United States Code dealing with unlawful acts related to firearms possession. This is settled law – it’s already on the books! If only we were to enforce these laws, imagine the enormous reduction in gun violence we could achieve.

Here are some examples, with the USC citation and related prison sentence provided.

18 USC § 922 (g)  - 10 years in federal prison

Unlawful to possess a firearm or ammunition by one who is a felon, fugitive, drug user, adjudicated as mentally defective, illegally in the United States, subject of a restraining order, or convicted of domestic abuse.

18 USC § 922 (j)  - 10 years in federal prison

Unlawful to receive, possess, conceal, store, barter, sell, or dispose of  stolen firearm or ammunition.

18 USC § 924 (b)  - 10 years in federal prison

For shipping, transporting, or receipt of a firearm in connection with a federal crime of violence or drug trafficking.

18 USC § 924 (a)(1)(A)  - 5 to 30 years in federal prison, consecutive mandatory minimum sentences

For carrying, using, or possessing a firearm in connection with a federal crime of violence or drug trafficking

18 USC § 924 (j)  - death penalty or up to life in prison

Committing a murder while possessing a firearm or while trafficking drugs

There are many more firearm-related prohibitions, all with severe penalties. What would be the effect if these laws were assiduously enforced?

Well, we know the inverse. Chicago, with the toughest gun control laws in the nation, racked up 522 murders last year. Yet the Department of Justice prosecuted only 52 gun crimes, the lowest rate in the nation. So it’s evident, as well at intuitive, that fewer prosecutions don’t lead to favorable results.

The problem of gun violence in this country, statistically, is urban. Yet the administration has been focusing their collective effort on the rest of us. It is to this that the right objects. Why not ramp up federal prosecution of existing laws, no senate vote required, no constitutional objections, and see what happens?

Here’s why it won’t happen:

      1. Increasing the incarceration rate for gun crimes will further burden the federal prison budget, and, more importantly; 

      2. The majority of urban crime is committed by minorities on minorities. The PC police would not permit an unrepresentational increase in the minority prison population.

But if we’re serious about saving just one child, here is one: Hadiya Pendleton. Previously covered by this column, Hadiya was senselessly murdered in Chicago by two reputed gang members, guilty of all of the above USC provisions and more. Both President and First Lady Michelle Obama have invoked Hadiya’s name in their quest to crack down on gun ownership in Kingfield, Maine, and Eudora, Kansas.

Perhaps the president and his attorney general should look first to the cities, and put their focus on vigorously prosecuting the laws that we already have. Call your elected representatives and ask them, "why not?"

Summer safety -- myth vs. reality

With summer approaching and the end of the school year nigh, we must be vigilant regarding the safety of our children. Parents, rightfully, are concerned for the safety of their children. A popular parenting website offers this featured article: Gun Safety - Do You Ask About Weapons Before a Playdate? Skittish parents are warned that forty percent of homes with kids also have guns and that “eight kids die every day from guns” (emphasis in original).

Humans tend to be very poor processors of risk information, and that tendency is greatly exacerbated by downright bad information. The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) statistics for 2004 (last full year available) states that for children 5-14, a total of 41 were killed by accidental firearm discharges. (Unless you allow your child to play hopscotch on the drug war battlefields, your chief concern should be accidental death by firearm). While 41 deaths are tragic, that is a far cry from the 2,922 deaths asserted in the article (the yearly total of 8 per day).

So what should you, as a caring and responsible parent, be concerned about? While guns are popularly vilified, they are way down on the list. According to CDC statistics, here’s what you should be asking your playdate’s adult family (mom, dad, steps, uncles, aunts, etc.):

1. Do you have a bad driving record? Any DUI convictions? In 2004, 1,453 children aged 5-14 were killed in transportation-related accidents (overwhelmingly in automobiles). Odds – 64.3%
2. Do you have a pool, or will you be taking my child to the beach? Over 250 children died by drowning in the same period. Odds – 11.3%
3. Is your home protected by fire and smoke alarms? How about a sprinkler system? More than 180 kids died from smoke, fire, or flames. Odds – 8.0%
4. Are all of your household poisons (cleaning solutions, etc.) safely locked up? Nearly 60 kids died from poisoning in 2004. Odds – 2.6%
5. Finally we get to the firearms question – with 41 accidental deaths. Odds – 1.8%

While it may be fashionable and politically correct to vilify firearms, a truly responsible parent will pay attention to the real probabilities. Maybe it’s time for a Brady Campaign to Prevent Traffic Violence. It would be much more effective in actually savings kids’ lives.

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.