Guns in America

I think the gun/ gun control debates could use some common sense talk.  From the outset I will state my political position so it is clear where I stand on the non-factual aspects of the debate.  I will leave it up to you, dear reader, to point out any place where bias appears to infect this piece.

• I believe the Second Amendment does not refer to an individual right to bear arms outside of the context of a well-regulated militia;
• I believe assault rifles and high capacity magazines serve no legitimate non-military purpose;
• I believe there are too many handguns in the U.S.;
• I see no reason why law-abiding adults should not be able to own rifles and shotguns for hunting and other sporting purposes; and
• I believe the notion that private citizens need to arm themselves for self-protection is deluded, juvenile, and demonstrates (if true) the utter failure of civil society.

So now you know my opinions about guns in America.  I will try to keep my opinions out of the discussion that follows.

1. An assault rifle ban would most likely not have a significant impact on the total number of homicides by gun in America.  Why?  The vast majority of homicides by gun involved handguns.  In 2011, 8,583 persons were killed in homicides by gun.  This and all of the following homicide statistics can be found here:  http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8  Of these, 6,220 involved handguns, 323 involved rifles, 356 involved shotguns, 97 involved other guns, and 1,705 involved unspecified guns.  While I find it odd that 1,587 homicides by gun do not specify the type of gun used, I do not believe a significant portion of these homicides involve assault rifles.  The reason is that homicides involving assault rifles are noteworthy; hence, it seems unlikely that a homicide involving an assault rifle would not specify the type of gun involved.  Obviously this is pure conjecture, but I would be willing to bet that it is accurate. 
2. More people are NOT killed by baseball bats and hammers than guns.  In 2012, the total number of persons in the U.S. killed in homicides was 12,664.  Of this number, 6,220 persons were killed by guns; 1,694 persons were killed with knives or other cutting objects; 496 persons were killed with blunt objects (clubs, hammers, etc.); and 853 persons were killed with other weapons or the type of weapon was not stated in the report to the FBI.  I am not sure this even requires further comment.  I will, however, mention that the FBI statistics do support a plausible argument that blunt objects probably kill more persons that assault rifles given that the "rifles" category would include assault rifles and 323 persons were killed in homicides involving rifles while 496 persons were killed in homicides involving blunt objects.  The argument is only plausible because the data does not actually provide the number of persons killed with assault rifles and it is possible (though unlikely) that the 97 "other guns" and 1,587 "unspecified guns" could contain enough homicides by assault rifle to tip the balance toward homicide by assault rifle.  The numbers, in any reading, do not support the notion that because blunt objects may be used in more homicides than assault rifles, assault rifles should not be banned because we do not ban blunt objects that might be used in a deadly assault.  First, blunt objects generally make poor mass murder weapons.  Second, the argument obviously removes the instruments from context.  For example, if numerical superiority were the only criteria we would certainly need to ban motor vehicles, which were responsible for 32,367 deaths in 2011.  http://www.nhtsa.gov/About+NHTSA/Press+Releases/2012/New+NHTSA+Analysis+Shows+2011+Traffic+Fatalities+Declined+by+Nearly+Two+Percent  However, banning motor vehicles would be impossible in our society.  Banning assault rifles would, on the other hand, have little discernible effect.  The point being that our tolerance for risk inherent in specific activities or instruments has to be assessed within the context of the practical world by balancing costs and benefits.  Thus, the fact that blunt objects may be used in more homicides than assault rifles is not a valid argument against a ban on assault rifles.
3. The presence of guns raises the numbers of homicides.  Western European countries have similar rates of violent crime to the United States; however, the same countries have markedly lower homicide rates.  The same countries also have markedly lower rates of gun ownership.  The general consensus among academics studying the statistical evidence is that the higher presence of guns in the U.S. account for the higher rate of homicide in the U.S.  If the data is disaggregated to remove for homicides by gun, the rates of homicide in the U.S. and Western European countries is comparable.  This is not being put forward as an argument for gun control here.  We must, however, accept the fact that as more firearms are available in developed countries, the number of homicides will increase.  In my opinion, this should shift the debate to civil liberties and costs/benefits of gun ownership.  Those supporting expansive gun ownership rights should not shy away from discussing the issue without melodrama and hyperbole.  A legitimate argument can be made for expansive gun ownership rights based on a principles of individual rights and limited government despite the fact that expansive gun rights will result in increased homicide rates.  We make arguments like this all the time in the context of the First Amendment and the Fourth Amendment.  Hyperbole and melodrama are unnecessary.
4. Guns are not going away.  First, the current law of the land is that the Second Amendment grants individuals the right to bear arms.  District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008).  That alone should be sufficient to convince all but the irrationally paranoid that guns are here to stay.  Even with this right, the Supreme Court of the United States acknowledges that the government has some abilities to regulate gun ownership.  No one seriously debates the ability of the government to prevent persons convicted of felonies from possessing or owning guns.  Nor is there any serious debate that a person with a diagnosed mental illness in which it has been determined that the person poses a threat to self or others can be prevented from owning a gun.  There are no constitutional rights that are absolute, but the right to bear arms is currently well-defined and strong.  Second, the U.S. Supreme Court interpreted the Second Amendment as not granting an individual right to bear arms for over 200 years.  Despite the ostensible lack of "constitutional" protection, gun ownership has been (relatively) commonplace and accepted throughout U.S. history.  Even if a future Supreme Court changes course and overrules current precedent, gun ownership will not change in any meaningful sense.  The Congress would never pass a law that would limit an individual's right to own most types of guns because the majority of Americans support the right to own guns.  A change in Second Amendment jurisprudence could result in municipalities' ability to regulate gun ownership and some would surely act as Chicago and Washington, D.C. did.  Nevertheless, a total ban on guns would not pass constitutional muster and the vast majority of municipalities in this country would never be able to pass onerous restrictions on gun ownership.  The bottom line is that no matter who is in the White House, guns will remain commonplace in the U.S. as long as a strong majority support gun ownership generally.  The only way gun ownership would truly truly diminish is if an earth-shattering change of opinion were to sweep through the nation that was so strong as to result in repeal of the Second Amendment.  Hint:  this will not happen anytime soon.
5. Regulation of guns cannot meaningfully impact homicide rates unless guns are removed from society.  If we allow most persons to be able to own handguns, homicide rate by gun will remain high because the prevalence of handguns will make them available to those who commit violent crimes.  Unless regulation makes guns extremely difficult to own, guns will be manufactured to meet high demand and will be priced accessibly for most persons who wish to own guns.  This will make guns nearly ubiquitous (in the U.S. there are 88.8 guns for every hundred persons).  The ubiquity of guns will also allow for a secondary, unregulated market because their availability will tempt a portion of those who legally own guns to sell to those who cannot legally own firearms.  There are things law enforcement can do to reduce the secondary market such as vigorously prosecuting those who illegally possess guns or who sell guns illegally which would raise the transaction costs for the secondary market and hence drive out some buyers and sellers.  In addition, the government could raise the transaction costs for all gun sales by doing such things as requiring background checks for all legal gun sales.  Regardless, if gun regulation does not significantly restrict the number of guns entering the stream of commerce, the impact on rates of homicide by gun will likely be negligible.  More guns means more homicides by gun.  This is not an argument for or against gun regulation.  If we allow more guns, we have to accept that there will be more homicides by gun.
6. When guns are present in the households of domestic abusers, the victims of domestic abuse are at least five times as likely to be killed than if guns are not in the household.  As a corollary, 2/3 of women killed by guns are killed by their domestic abusers.  When Men Murder Women: An Analysis of 2002 Homicide Data: Females Murdered by Males in Single Victim/Single Offender Incidents. 2004. Violence Policy Center. Washington, DC. Retrieved January 9, 2004. http://www.vpc.org/studies/wmmw2004.pdf;  J. C. Campbell, D; Webster, J; Koziol-McLain, C. R; et al. 2003. Risk Factors For Femicide in Abusive Relationships:  Results From A Multi-Site Case Control Study. American Journal of Public Health. 93(7).  The argument that putting more guns in the hands of women will protect them from violence is not persuasive in the context of domestic violence because guns present in households with a male batterer raise the risk that the battered female will be killed by a gun.  Guns in households where men batter women do not protect women, but rather imperil them.  In addition, a significant majority of women killed by guns are killed by their abuser. The statistics do not support the argument that has recently been made that women need guns to protect them from violence nor do the statistics support the argument that violence against women is perpetrated by strangers, except in a significant minority of cases.  

Where does this leave us in the gun debate?  I hope it leaves us in a better position to evaluate the merits of the arguments based on facts.  The bombastic and unsupported claims of demagogues like Wayne LaPierre (http://dailycaller.com/2013/02/13/stand-and-fight) should be seen for what they are:  baseless assertions designed solely to stoke irrational fears.  http://www.theroot.com/views/nra-chiefs-racial-rant-hides-larger-truth?wpisrc=nextbox  We should be able to evaluate the merits of guns and gun control without resorting to barely disguised racist fears and unfounded claims.  Let's at least try to be honest:  one cost of guns is gun violence.  One cost of gun regulation is reduced personal autonomy.  And finally - gun regulation that does not reduce gun violence is useless.  I do not know where the debate will go from here.  I do not have concrete answers, though I have strong opinions and may add them to the chorus; however, I sincerely hope that the debate dispenses with chicanery and focuses on the facts as we know them and the actual costs and benefits of the varying positions on gun rights/gun control.  I, for one, am tired of lies, exaggerations, and self-righteous platitudes.