Bartholomew Roberts
Moderator
Below is a little piece I wrote about a year ago to help people grasp the basics of the gun control debate. I have recently updated it and thought I would share it with you all in hopes that it might be useful
So you are curious about the gun control issue? This is by no means an exhaustive analysis of the subject. Rather, it is just a quick attempt to address the basics of the issue. There can be no doubt that people use firearms to kill. We see it on the news on a regular basis (In fact, The Los Angeles Daily News reported on July 5,1998, "while the homicide rate in the United States dropped 20 percent between 1992 and 1996, the number of homicides reported on network news increased by 721 percent."). Is what we see on the news every evening a reflection of a serious problem in this country or is the media focusing on rare incidents of blood and mayhem in the search for ratings?
Essentially when you address the problem of reducing firearms injury and death, you are looking at three major areas involving suicide, gun crime, and accidents. This paper will offer you some basic familiarization with the possible effects of more gun control in each area and help educate you regarding the current status.
In 1998 (the most recent year I could find data for all deaths on one website), there were 30,708 deaths due to firearms (down from 32,436 in 1997). This was the second leading cause of injury-related deaths (with auto accidents the leading cause).
For every death, it is estimated that three more people receive treatment in a hospital emergency room (although this estimate itself is the source of some controversy).
(Source:1998- http://webapp.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate.html 1997 -http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/data/us9794/Ofarm.htm )
SUICIDE
Over half (17,424 – Source: http://webapp.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate.html ) of the 30,708 firearms deaths, are suicides. By addressing suicide deaths, we address the major portion of firearms-related deaths. There is no question that reducing access to firearms reduces the rate of firearms suicide. The real question is does it reduce the TOTAL suicide rate? Do these people simply use another means to kill themselves when firearms aren’t available? Does suicide death result from the greater lethality of a firearm, or is the person who uses a firearm more determined to die than others?
In 2000, two professors undertook to examine the effect of the Brady Law (a gun control bill passed in 1994) on firearm homicides and suicides in the United States. The law examined the decline in states that already had stricter laws than Brady and compared that decline to the states recently implementing provisions of the Brady Law. The study found no decline in firearm homicides and only a slight decline in firearm suicide rates for men over 55 (0.92 per 100,000) that could be attributed to the Brady Law. More importantly, the study found that the total suicide rate (including men over 55) did not change at all. When a firearm wasn’t available, the person simply chose another means to commit suicide. Specifically, the study stated:
“Although our study detected no reduction in homicide rates in treatment states compared with control states, we found that suicide rates for persons aged 55 years or older were reduced in the treatment states. The estimated association between the Brady Act treatment and gun suicide rates among persons aged 55 years and older is equal to -0.92 per 100,000 (95% CI, -1.43 to -0.42), or about 6% of the gun suicide rate among this age group in the control states after the Brady Act had become law.
However, we did not detect an association of the Brady Act with overall suicide rates. We find some signs of an offsetting increase in nongun suicides to those aged 55 years or older, which makes the reduction in the total suicide rate smaller than the reduction in gun suicides. Neither the increase in nongun suicides nor the decrease in suicides from all causes are statistically significant at the conventional 95% level, though the overall pattern of findings is consistent with theories of "weapon substitution." (source: http://jama.ama-assn.org/issues/v284n5/full/joc91749.html - Cook and Ludwig)
Perhaps the laws in the United States were simply not strict enough to make a difference? What has happened in other countries with much stricter gun laws? While there are always many cultural differences to consider when making country to country comparisons, several countries come to mind as a proving ground for gun control as a means of reducing the total suicide rate. In 1976-1977, Canada proposed to severely restrict access to handguns. In 1978, Canada enacted registration of all new firearms and stricter gun controls designed to reduce access to firearms. Despite strict gun laws that required police permission for transportation of firearms, banning of certain types of firearms, and storage requirements with licensing and registration for others, the overall Canadian suicide rate increased and continued at per-1977 levels for many years (Source: http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hppb/mentalhealth/pdfs/suicid_e.pdf - Suicide in Canada, Appendix 6, Section 3, pg. 216)
In addition, several studies were done examining the law and the effect it had on suicide rates
“Making guns less available does not reduce suicide but merely causes the person seeking death to use another means. While gun-related suicides were reduced by Canada's handgun ban of 1976, the overall suicide rate did not go down at all: the gun-related suicides were replaced 100% by an increase in other types of suicide -- mostly jumping off bridges." (Source: Rich, Young, Fowler, Wagner, and Black The American Journal of Psychiatry March, 1990)
Starting in 1980, Australia began restricting use of firearms. Although most gun regulation was enacted at the state level, widespread efforts to reduce access to firearms were common. For example, South Australia enacted a firearms law in 1977, with amendments to that law in 1986, 1988, 1993 and 1996 (Source: http://www.users.senet.com.au/~ssaa-sa/SA_9.htm). These laws established things such as licensing, registration, weapons restrictions, storage requirements, until in 1996, over 500,000 semi-automatics and certain pump-action weapons were confiscated and destroyed (across Australia as a nation). During the same period Australia faced a problem with youth suicide. Here is what they discovered:
“Graph 6 shows the changes in death rates for methods of suicide over the period since 1979, and shows in particular a dramatic increase in hanging as a method of youth suicide. Cantor et al (1996) showed that hanging constituted 10 per cent of all suicide deaths for this age group in 1974 and 39 per cent in 1995. The increase in young male suicides over the last few decades reflects rises in hanging and in poisoning by motor vehicle exhaust gas. The rate of suicide death by use of firearms has decreased significantly over the same period”
(Source: http://www.health.gov.au/hsdd/mentalhe/nysps/back/problem.htm#t6)
At the same time, the overall youth suicide rate in Australia continued to climb even as firearms suicide declined. This suggests that firearms availability may not be a significant factor in determining suicide rates. It also suggests that the will of the victim to commit suicide may play a more important role in the lethality of the attempt than the method used (since even with reduced firearms suicides, overall youth suicide continued to climb). Furthermore, it is likely that the money used for law and enforcement of firearms laws could have a more dramatic effect on suicides if it were instead used for identifying and treating mental illness and depression in its early stages.
Usually, the gun control debate centers on a single subject…crime. Most of us do not fear that we will one day kill ourselves. We fear the attack from some random stranger that is difficult to protect against. For many that support gun control, it is the fear that an otherwise rational person will go on a mad killing spree. After all, we have seen this same event often in the news lately. However, how realistic is that picture?
GUN CRIME
In 1997, there were 13,252 deaths due to homicide or non-negligent manslaughter (Source: http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/data/us9794/fhomi.htm) This number decreased to 11,798 in 1998 (Source: http://webapp.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate.html - NOTE: CDC includes justifiable homicides by civilians in the homicide mortality rate) Who is doing the killing? Most often, criminals engaged in criminal activity do it, and often the victim is another criminal. The following data is from the Bureau of Justice Statistics and examines inmates who were convicted of any crime involving a weapon (including all firearms crimes).
“In State correctional facilities, fully 90% of felons convicted for weapons offenses have prior convictions. 44% of felons convicted for weapons offenses have prior convictions for violent crimes. In Federal correctional facilities 75% of felons convicted for weapons offenses have prior convictions. 26% of felons convicted for weapons offenses have prior convictions for violent crimes.
(Source: BJS, Survey of Inmates in State and Federal Correctional Facilities. Data available online from Bureau of Justice Statistics at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/woofccj.pdf (page 6)
Of the defendants in felony weapons cases in the 75 largest counties in 1992, two-fifths were on probation, parole, or pretrial release at the time of the offense and a third had previously been convicted of a felony. (page 1 of same link)”
And what about the victims of these repeat violent offenders?
“According to a BJS study of murder in the 75 largest counties in 1988, 13% of the victims killed with a firearm had a prior criminal arrest and 7% a prior conviction -- a pattern similar to victims of homicide killed with other weapons. McGonigal and others' study of firearm deaths in Philadelphia in 1985 and 1990 found that two-thirds of the victims killed in 1990 had a prior criminal history including 36% who had prior firearms arrests.”
(Source: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/fifc.pdf – page 5)
What can be done to prevent criminals from obtaining firearms and using them in crime? There are two schools of thought on this subject. One is that by severely restricting or eliminating lawful ownership of firearms, criminals will find it difficult to obtain a firearm and crimes involving them will drop accordingly.
The problem with this school of thought is that, unfortunately, the first people to be disarmed will be the ones who obey the laws and do not cause trouble to begin with. Criminals already have no problem with breaking the law and the failure to prosecute weapons crimes since 1992 means that they have little reason to fear carrying and using a firearm (Source: http://www.senate.gov/~judiciary/guns106.htm ).
In the meantime, those who obey the law will not be able to protect themselves and their families as well as they could and will have to rely on police protection. Since the police are not obligated by law to protect you (Source: 41 A.L.R.3d 700-711 (1972); 94 Harv.L.Rev. 820. ) this leaves most law-abiding citizens in a bad position. How long would it take for criminal gun use to decrease? As long as it takes for the current estimate of 225 million firearms in the U.S. to work its way out of the system through breakage and confiscation by law enforcement (Assuming no smuggling or illegal manufacture similar to the “War on Drugs” takes place). Another good question is whether violent crime might actually INCREASE when criminals realize they have no need to fear a potentially armed citizen.
How often does this scenario really happen though? How often is a citizen forced to use a firearm to defend themselves or loved ones from crime? The lowest estimate EVER made on the subject is about 65,000 times a year. (National Crime Victimization Survey) A recent Department of Justice funded study by the Police Foundation puts that number at 1.5 million a year. Most recently, the NCVS made an estimate of 108,000 defensive gun uses every year in contrast to a popularly quoted study by Gary Kleck citing 2.5 million defensive gun uses every year.
The following is from ABC News (http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/guns_damage.html)
“The political climate surrounding guns is so intense that studies have been done of studies that have been done about studies. Philip Cook, the director of Duke University’s public policy institute, has examined the data behind the 108,000 and the 2.5 million figures and suspects the truth lies somewhere in between. “
A second school of thought is to direct firearms restriction schemes at criminals and vigorously enforce laws regarding violent crimes and firearms. As we showed earlier, a large percentage of murderers have a past criminal history as well as a long record of violence (as do a fair portion of their victims). By imprisoning violent criminals and keeping them there, crime is reduced. In fact, the costs of releasing them to commit more crimes far outweigh the cost to society to imprison them long-term. In addition, by imprisoning them, these criminals are prevented from committing a violent crime with ANY item, firearm or not.
The main complaint with this school of thought is that it is not preventative. By waiting until a criminal commits a violent crime to act, we fail to save that one person from the trauma of violent crime. My only answer here is that America assumes that a person is innocent until proven guilty. We cannot convict people based on what we THINK they might do, we must wait for them to act. However, by making the punishment swift, sure, and severe, we cannot only prevent that criminal from being involved in further acts of violence; we can deter others from attempting the same crime.
At the same time, we can enforce a number of current laws designed to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. The current NICS background check uses an instant check system to verify that the purchaser of a firearm is legally entitled to receive that firearm. It checks to see if the purchaser has a documented history of felony crimes, mental illness, drug or alcohol abuse, and domestic violence. A background check of some sort has been in effect since 1994. Sadly, the current administration has often failed to prosecute those prohibited people who attempt to buy a gun through legal sources. Even though this very act is a felony under federal law out of 700,000 denials between 1994 and September 1999, the Department of Justice has prosecuted only 201 of these crimes (the last 200 prosecutions in the last year since NICS began operating as it includes an automated reporting of denials to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms).
(Source: http://www.senate.gov/~judiciary/guns106.htm )
The Department of Justice argues that it is not their job to enforce federal law regarding firearms and that should be left to the states. However, even using the all time high of state and federal weapons prosecutions combined (26,000) for every year since 1994, over 570,000 denials were never prosecuted (And even THAT number assumes that no other weapon crime was prosecuted for the entire 5-year period).
For an example of how enforcing our current laws can have a tremendous impact on crime look at Project Exile. This program has been widely reported in the news and is mentioned in the Senate report shown above:
“U.S. Attorneys in Richmond and other cities have continued an enhanced Project Triggerlock with great success. Under the new version of the program, Project Exile, the number of homicides in Richmond's has fallen by more than 30% each year since the program was introduced in 1997. The State of Virginia has been so impressed with the results from Project Exile in Richmond that it recently adopted Project Exile on a statewide basis. “
You will often see comparisons that claim that because selected European countries enjoy a lower homicide rate, it represents proof of how effective gun control can reduce crime. While this is meant to be a basic introduction to gun control, a detailed comparison of international homicide rates and gun availability in industrialized countries will quickly show the fallacy in this argument. For more information see: http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvinco.html
While gun crime and suicide account for the majority of both firearms-related deaths and firearms-related injuries, there is a third category where tremendous progress has been made in reducing both firearms-related death and firearms-related injury.
ACCIDENTS
There were 981 fatal accidents in 1997. That number has continued to decrease every year since then. In 1998, accidental deaths from firearms reached an all-time low – 886 (Source: http://webapp.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate.html ) since we began recording these figures in 1903). This is despite an increase both in the number of firearms available and the number of people. As with any other unintentional death, the way to reduce those numbers even further is through training and education.
For a comparison of other accidental causes of injury-related death, in 1998 there were 43,501 accidental vehicle-related deaths, 12,595 accidental deaths by falling, 10,801 accidental poisonings, 4,585 accidental suffocation deaths, 4,406 accidental drowning deaths, and 3,363 accidental burn deaths. (Source: http://webapp.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate.html). In fact, from 1997 to 1998, accidental deaths in every category mentioned above increased – except for firearms. Keep these figures in mind the next time you see a piece of “firearms safety” legislation. Ask yourself how many deaths could be prevented in other areas by redirecting this money. Preventing a mere 10% of all accidental falling deaths would save more lives than preventing 100% of all firearms-related accidental deaths.
If you would like more information on this subject, would like to verify the sources of data, or wish to address specific issues in the gun control debate, please contact me at mailto:chuangtzu2@hotmail.com.
I welcome any and all reasonable commentary on the subject.
Thanks to Ieyasu, RJ_Simmons, LegalEagle_45, Tanjor00, LawGal265_32, NRA_Instructor, and BillofRights, for their input and commentary.
So you are curious about the gun control issue? This is by no means an exhaustive analysis of the subject. Rather, it is just a quick attempt to address the basics of the issue. There can be no doubt that people use firearms to kill. We see it on the news on a regular basis (In fact, The Los Angeles Daily News reported on July 5,1998, "while the homicide rate in the United States dropped 20 percent between 1992 and 1996, the number of homicides reported on network news increased by 721 percent."). Is what we see on the news every evening a reflection of a serious problem in this country or is the media focusing on rare incidents of blood and mayhem in the search for ratings?
Essentially when you address the problem of reducing firearms injury and death, you are looking at three major areas involving suicide, gun crime, and accidents. This paper will offer you some basic familiarization with the possible effects of more gun control in each area and help educate you regarding the current status.
In 1998 (the most recent year I could find data for all deaths on one website), there were 30,708 deaths due to firearms (down from 32,436 in 1997). This was the second leading cause of injury-related deaths (with auto accidents the leading cause).
For every death, it is estimated that three more people receive treatment in a hospital emergency room (although this estimate itself is the source of some controversy).
(Source:1998- http://webapp.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate.html 1997 -http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/data/us9794/Ofarm.htm )
SUICIDE
Over half (17,424 – Source: http://webapp.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate.html ) of the 30,708 firearms deaths, are suicides. By addressing suicide deaths, we address the major portion of firearms-related deaths. There is no question that reducing access to firearms reduces the rate of firearms suicide. The real question is does it reduce the TOTAL suicide rate? Do these people simply use another means to kill themselves when firearms aren’t available? Does suicide death result from the greater lethality of a firearm, or is the person who uses a firearm more determined to die than others?
In 2000, two professors undertook to examine the effect of the Brady Law (a gun control bill passed in 1994) on firearm homicides and suicides in the United States. The law examined the decline in states that already had stricter laws than Brady and compared that decline to the states recently implementing provisions of the Brady Law. The study found no decline in firearm homicides and only a slight decline in firearm suicide rates for men over 55 (0.92 per 100,000) that could be attributed to the Brady Law. More importantly, the study found that the total suicide rate (including men over 55) did not change at all. When a firearm wasn’t available, the person simply chose another means to commit suicide. Specifically, the study stated:
“Although our study detected no reduction in homicide rates in treatment states compared with control states, we found that suicide rates for persons aged 55 years or older were reduced in the treatment states. The estimated association between the Brady Act treatment and gun suicide rates among persons aged 55 years and older is equal to -0.92 per 100,000 (95% CI, -1.43 to -0.42), or about 6% of the gun suicide rate among this age group in the control states after the Brady Act had become law.
However, we did not detect an association of the Brady Act with overall suicide rates. We find some signs of an offsetting increase in nongun suicides to those aged 55 years or older, which makes the reduction in the total suicide rate smaller than the reduction in gun suicides. Neither the increase in nongun suicides nor the decrease in suicides from all causes are statistically significant at the conventional 95% level, though the overall pattern of findings is consistent with theories of "weapon substitution." (source: http://jama.ama-assn.org/issues/v284n5/full/joc91749.html - Cook and Ludwig)
Perhaps the laws in the United States were simply not strict enough to make a difference? What has happened in other countries with much stricter gun laws? While there are always many cultural differences to consider when making country to country comparisons, several countries come to mind as a proving ground for gun control as a means of reducing the total suicide rate. In 1976-1977, Canada proposed to severely restrict access to handguns. In 1978, Canada enacted registration of all new firearms and stricter gun controls designed to reduce access to firearms. Despite strict gun laws that required police permission for transportation of firearms, banning of certain types of firearms, and storage requirements with licensing and registration for others, the overall Canadian suicide rate increased and continued at per-1977 levels for many years (Source: http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hppb/mentalhealth/pdfs/suicid_e.pdf - Suicide in Canada, Appendix 6, Section 3, pg. 216)
In addition, several studies were done examining the law and the effect it had on suicide rates
“Making guns less available does not reduce suicide but merely causes the person seeking death to use another means. While gun-related suicides were reduced by Canada's handgun ban of 1976, the overall suicide rate did not go down at all: the gun-related suicides were replaced 100% by an increase in other types of suicide -- mostly jumping off bridges." (Source: Rich, Young, Fowler, Wagner, and Black The American Journal of Psychiatry March, 1990)
Starting in 1980, Australia began restricting use of firearms. Although most gun regulation was enacted at the state level, widespread efforts to reduce access to firearms were common. For example, South Australia enacted a firearms law in 1977, with amendments to that law in 1986, 1988, 1993 and 1996 (Source: http://www.users.senet.com.au/~ssaa-sa/SA_9.htm). These laws established things such as licensing, registration, weapons restrictions, storage requirements, until in 1996, over 500,000 semi-automatics and certain pump-action weapons were confiscated and destroyed (across Australia as a nation). During the same period Australia faced a problem with youth suicide. Here is what they discovered:
“Graph 6 shows the changes in death rates for methods of suicide over the period since 1979, and shows in particular a dramatic increase in hanging as a method of youth suicide. Cantor et al (1996) showed that hanging constituted 10 per cent of all suicide deaths for this age group in 1974 and 39 per cent in 1995. The increase in young male suicides over the last few decades reflects rises in hanging and in poisoning by motor vehicle exhaust gas. The rate of suicide death by use of firearms has decreased significantly over the same period”
(Source: http://www.health.gov.au/hsdd/mentalhe/nysps/back/problem.htm#t6)
At the same time, the overall youth suicide rate in Australia continued to climb even as firearms suicide declined. This suggests that firearms availability may not be a significant factor in determining suicide rates. It also suggests that the will of the victim to commit suicide may play a more important role in the lethality of the attempt than the method used (since even with reduced firearms suicides, overall youth suicide continued to climb). Furthermore, it is likely that the money used for law and enforcement of firearms laws could have a more dramatic effect on suicides if it were instead used for identifying and treating mental illness and depression in its early stages.
Usually, the gun control debate centers on a single subject…crime. Most of us do not fear that we will one day kill ourselves. We fear the attack from some random stranger that is difficult to protect against. For many that support gun control, it is the fear that an otherwise rational person will go on a mad killing spree. After all, we have seen this same event often in the news lately. However, how realistic is that picture?
GUN CRIME
In 1997, there were 13,252 deaths due to homicide or non-negligent manslaughter (Source: http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/data/us9794/fhomi.htm) This number decreased to 11,798 in 1998 (Source: http://webapp.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate.html - NOTE: CDC includes justifiable homicides by civilians in the homicide mortality rate) Who is doing the killing? Most often, criminals engaged in criminal activity do it, and often the victim is another criminal. The following data is from the Bureau of Justice Statistics and examines inmates who were convicted of any crime involving a weapon (including all firearms crimes).
“In State correctional facilities, fully 90% of felons convicted for weapons offenses have prior convictions. 44% of felons convicted for weapons offenses have prior convictions for violent crimes. In Federal correctional facilities 75% of felons convicted for weapons offenses have prior convictions. 26% of felons convicted for weapons offenses have prior convictions for violent crimes.
(Source: BJS, Survey of Inmates in State and Federal Correctional Facilities. Data available online from Bureau of Justice Statistics at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/woofccj.pdf (page 6)
Of the defendants in felony weapons cases in the 75 largest counties in 1992, two-fifths were on probation, parole, or pretrial release at the time of the offense and a third had previously been convicted of a felony. (page 1 of same link)”
And what about the victims of these repeat violent offenders?
“According to a BJS study of murder in the 75 largest counties in 1988, 13% of the victims killed with a firearm had a prior criminal arrest and 7% a prior conviction -- a pattern similar to victims of homicide killed with other weapons. McGonigal and others' study of firearm deaths in Philadelphia in 1985 and 1990 found that two-thirds of the victims killed in 1990 had a prior criminal history including 36% who had prior firearms arrests.”
(Source: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/fifc.pdf – page 5)
What can be done to prevent criminals from obtaining firearms and using them in crime? There are two schools of thought on this subject. One is that by severely restricting or eliminating lawful ownership of firearms, criminals will find it difficult to obtain a firearm and crimes involving them will drop accordingly.
The problem with this school of thought is that, unfortunately, the first people to be disarmed will be the ones who obey the laws and do not cause trouble to begin with. Criminals already have no problem with breaking the law and the failure to prosecute weapons crimes since 1992 means that they have little reason to fear carrying and using a firearm (Source: http://www.senate.gov/~judiciary/guns106.htm ).
In the meantime, those who obey the law will not be able to protect themselves and their families as well as they could and will have to rely on police protection. Since the police are not obligated by law to protect you (Source: 41 A.L.R.3d 700-711 (1972); 94 Harv.L.Rev. 820. ) this leaves most law-abiding citizens in a bad position. How long would it take for criminal gun use to decrease? As long as it takes for the current estimate of 225 million firearms in the U.S. to work its way out of the system through breakage and confiscation by law enforcement (Assuming no smuggling or illegal manufacture similar to the “War on Drugs” takes place). Another good question is whether violent crime might actually INCREASE when criminals realize they have no need to fear a potentially armed citizen.
How often does this scenario really happen though? How often is a citizen forced to use a firearm to defend themselves or loved ones from crime? The lowest estimate EVER made on the subject is about 65,000 times a year. (National Crime Victimization Survey) A recent Department of Justice funded study by the Police Foundation puts that number at 1.5 million a year. Most recently, the NCVS made an estimate of 108,000 defensive gun uses every year in contrast to a popularly quoted study by Gary Kleck citing 2.5 million defensive gun uses every year.
The following is from ABC News (http://www.abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/guns_damage.html)
“The political climate surrounding guns is so intense that studies have been done of studies that have been done about studies. Philip Cook, the director of Duke University’s public policy institute, has examined the data behind the 108,000 and the 2.5 million figures and suspects the truth lies somewhere in between. “
A second school of thought is to direct firearms restriction schemes at criminals and vigorously enforce laws regarding violent crimes and firearms. As we showed earlier, a large percentage of murderers have a past criminal history as well as a long record of violence (as do a fair portion of their victims). By imprisoning violent criminals and keeping them there, crime is reduced. In fact, the costs of releasing them to commit more crimes far outweigh the cost to society to imprison them long-term. In addition, by imprisoning them, these criminals are prevented from committing a violent crime with ANY item, firearm or not.
The main complaint with this school of thought is that it is not preventative. By waiting until a criminal commits a violent crime to act, we fail to save that one person from the trauma of violent crime. My only answer here is that America assumes that a person is innocent until proven guilty. We cannot convict people based on what we THINK they might do, we must wait for them to act. However, by making the punishment swift, sure, and severe, we cannot only prevent that criminal from being involved in further acts of violence; we can deter others from attempting the same crime.
At the same time, we can enforce a number of current laws designed to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. The current NICS background check uses an instant check system to verify that the purchaser of a firearm is legally entitled to receive that firearm. It checks to see if the purchaser has a documented history of felony crimes, mental illness, drug or alcohol abuse, and domestic violence. A background check of some sort has been in effect since 1994. Sadly, the current administration has often failed to prosecute those prohibited people who attempt to buy a gun through legal sources. Even though this very act is a felony under federal law out of 700,000 denials between 1994 and September 1999, the Department of Justice has prosecuted only 201 of these crimes (the last 200 prosecutions in the last year since NICS began operating as it includes an automated reporting of denials to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms).
(Source: http://www.senate.gov/~judiciary/guns106.htm )
The Department of Justice argues that it is not their job to enforce federal law regarding firearms and that should be left to the states. However, even using the all time high of state and federal weapons prosecutions combined (26,000) for every year since 1994, over 570,000 denials were never prosecuted (And even THAT number assumes that no other weapon crime was prosecuted for the entire 5-year period).
For an example of how enforcing our current laws can have a tremendous impact on crime look at Project Exile. This program has been widely reported in the news and is mentioned in the Senate report shown above:
“U.S. Attorneys in Richmond and other cities have continued an enhanced Project Triggerlock with great success. Under the new version of the program, Project Exile, the number of homicides in Richmond's has fallen by more than 30% each year since the program was introduced in 1997. The State of Virginia has been so impressed with the results from Project Exile in Richmond that it recently adopted Project Exile on a statewide basis. “
You will often see comparisons that claim that because selected European countries enjoy a lower homicide rate, it represents proof of how effective gun control can reduce crime. While this is meant to be a basic introduction to gun control, a detailed comparison of international homicide rates and gun availability in industrialized countries will quickly show the fallacy in this argument. For more information see: http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvinco.html
While gun crime and suicide account for the majority of both firearms-related deaths and firearms-related injuries, there is a third category where tremendous progress has been made in reducing both firearms-related death and firearms-related injury.
ACCIDENTS
There were 981 fatal accidents in 1997. That number has continued to decrease every year since then. In 1998, accidental deaths from firearms reached an all-time low – 886 (Source: http://webapp.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate.html ) since we began recording these figures in 1903). This is despite an increase both in the number of firearms available and the number of people. As with any other unintentional death, the way to reduce those numbers even further is through training and education.
For a comparison of other accidental causes of injury-related death, in 1998 there were 43,501 accidental vehicle-related deaths, 12,595 accidental deaths by falling, 10,801 accidental poisonings, 4,585 accidental suffocation deaths, 4,406 accidental drowning deaths, and 3,363 accidental burn deaths. (Source: http://webapp.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate.html). In fact, from 1997 to 1998, accidental deaths in every category mentioned above increased – except for firearms. Keep these figures in mind the next time you see a piece of “firearms safety” legislation. Ask yourself how many deaths could be prevented in other areas by redirecting this money. Preventing a mere 10% of all accidental falling deaths would save more lives than preventing 100% of all firearms-related accidental deaths.
If you would like more information on this subject, would like to verify the sources of data, or wish to address specific issues in the gun control debate, please contact me at mailto:chuangtzu2@hotmail.com.
I welcome any and all reasonable commentary on the subject.
Thanks to Ieyasu, RJ_Simmons, LegalEagle_45, Tanjor00, LawGal265_32, NRA_Instructor, and BillofRights, for their input and commentary.