Gun Control vs. Gun Violence in America

One political issue that never fails to be highly charged for both sides of the aisle is gun control. Traditionally, the political right asserts its love for the Second Amendment as it waves its guns in the air while the political left gets on its soapbox and pushes for solutions to gun controls (meaning a ban on gun ownership in the U.S.). Both draw on compelling statistics and anecdotes to support their points of view. And both points of view have merit. It’s interesting that the debate tends to devolve into all-or-nothing, emotional arguments, however, when the answer doesn’t have to be at either end of the spectrum: a situation that might be termed a false dilemma. If each side analytically considered some of the relevant points made by the other and rejected the very premise of the old argument, there might be some actual movement toward a real solution. The intended end-result is preventing guns from getting into the hands of those who would use them in violent crimes. If the focus of the debate shifted to the proposed outcome, perhaps there would be a greater likelihood of finding a reasonable solution.

What each side might do is to look at some of the fallacies in their own analysis of the argument. One of the arguments that the political right makes in response to the left’s demand for gun control—by which they really mean a ban on non-military firearms—is that criminals will find some way to get their hands on a firearm, no matter if it’s legal or not. This argument is meant to explain that it’s necessary for law-abiding citizens who just want to go hunting or protect themselves from criminals to be able to purchase firearms via legal channels in order to protect themselves from the criminals, who will figure out a way to be armed at any costs. And Johnny-Law-Abiding-Citizen needs to have a way to defend himself.

One of the interesting fallacies of this analysis is that it assumes—quite wrongly, according to Kleck (2009)—that criminals are always highly driven go-getters who have definite plans that they design ahead of time and then carry out. They’re never the victims of circumstance or chance. They never follow the path of least resistance. They’re never dissuaded or frightened and they never change their minds. Whereas in fact, many of these things are true about many of the criminals or potential criminals running around. All of this is to say that it’s not the worst idea to put some regulations in place to make the purchase of a gun that much more of a deliberate process. Making it just a touch more difficult to qualify to be a gun owner might throw up enough of a barrier to dissuade a few of the lazier types of criminals, at least.

It is true that some criminals would obtain guns illegally regardless. It’s also true that criminals will break the law and might commit violent crimes regardless of whether or not there’s a law in place meant to prevent that behavior. What is perhaps not being considered under this scenario, however, is that there are a lot of potential criminals who will be deterred because of regulations. It’s part of the nature of near-misses that you aren’t always aware of them. Just because they are not known doesn’t mean they don’t exist, however.

On the other hand, many on the political left tend to scoff at the idea that gun ownership can be a deterrent. In fact, it might be the case—according to Kleck & Hogan (1999)—that the possession of a gun increases a criminal’s sense of power and actually makes him or her less likely to engage in violent behavior. There is a spectrum of possible ways for a person to act when they possess a sense of power. This might suggest that the assumption that the possession of a gun will necessarily lead the owner to commit violent acts might need to be rethought. As old paradigms begin to be challenged, the discourse can move to framing the discussion in a more constructive manner. In Rethinking Gun Violence, Greenburg: “The passion of this symbolic fight over guns has greatly infected, if not overwhelmed, serious empirical analysis of how to reduce crime” (2). By getting too caught up in political and emotional arguments, both sides have taken their eyes off the ball.

When it comes to the ownership of guns, the Supreme Court spoke in Heller in 2008, an individual does have the right to keep and bear arms—especially for self-defense— in the U.S.under the Second Amendment. In a slightly more nuanced idea, this is this right is not absolute, however. “There are some gun control laws that do not violate that right, particularly laws which aim to keep guns out of the hands of people who have proven themselves to be dangerous” (Kopel, 2012, 102).

As it turns out, Greenberg (2010)—again in Rethinking Gun Violence—recommends a solution-based strategy with the goal of doing just that. He makes the case that keeping guns out of the wrong hands should be the real focus of discussions about gun violence and gun control (3). His strategy involves what he calls the “demand” side and the “supply” side. As far as the demand side goes, it turns out that violent crime is mostly carried out by a disproportionately small group of identifiable persons. And while implementing gun controls that ban every citizen from having any type of firearm (which would violate the Second Amendment) might not be feasible or even desirable, prohibiting violent offenders who have already been convicted of one offense from possessing firearms is not an unreasonable goal or restriction. According to Wintemute (2005), as of 2005, eighteen states and Washington, D.C. denied firearms to people who have been convicted of certain misdemeanors, including crimes involving violence (78). This is a strategy that could potentially be expanded to all 50 states.

Interestingly, as far as the supply side goes, it turns out that the black market relies heavily on licensed dealers for getting its weapons. In fact, one way criminals purchase guns is to send a “straw man” to a gun show to make purchases. Crimes are often committed in fairly short order after purchase. If the penalties—or potential penalties—for the straw man and the dealer are high enough, it would make the downside too big for any potential profit to be worth the risk.

Another interesting thing to note is that the U.S. and state governments have already actually implemented a fairly detailed and elaborate network of regulations relating to firearms dealers according to Greenberg in Gun Violence and Gun Control (2010). Additionally, evidence exists that strides can and have been made in the reduction of violent crime during various periods in the past. This suggests that if the two sides of the political spectrum could set aside differences and focus on the end goal of keeping guns out of the hands of those most likely to use them to commit violent crimes, progress could be made in fairly short order. It’s time to focus “on the practical question of the utility of various gun-control measures in reducing crime” (Greenberg, 2010, 9).

When gun control and its potential effects on gun violence are discussed, it might be tempting to try to make assertions related to one-off rampages such as Columbine and the D.C. sniper. What’s important to remember about those events is that they are extremely difficult to predict or prevent using the criminal justice system. There really isn’t any easy way to develop some sort of algorithm for predicting and then preventing them. The good news there, though, is that it means that those types of killing sprees—though horrific and though more recurrent that one would wish—are still not the norm.

When analyzing gun-related deaths in the U.S., another important point that should be made is that there are typically three different types: accidental shootings, suicides, and gun crimes. The three are discrete issues and don’t bear much resemblance to each other. For example, advocates of gun control often argue that banning guns will reduce the risk of accidents in the home. That risk, however, is slight and can be reduced by implementing “commonsense measures that responsible gun owners would normally take” (Greenberg, 2010, 9).

What is more relevant for policy purposes is that—despite the fact that accidental shootings and gun crimes both utilize guns, the methods used to prevent or reduce the outcomes would be—or at least should be—very different. He goes on to mention that the suicide rate tends not to vary much, regardless of the availability of guns. The point being that, again, though it might involve a gun in some circumstances, the situation is separate and very different from the other two types of gun-related deaths. And—this being so—the remedies for the problems might very well be separate and very different from each other as well.

In conclusion, though the political debate surrounding gun control and gun violence in the U.S. can be quite exciting and spirited, the related histrionics tend to miss the point. Rather than arguing for one extreme or the other—which is the norm for the two sides of the political spectrum— perhaps what is needed is a recasting of the issue altogether. The real issue relates to preventing guns from ending up in the hands of violent criminals. By shifting the focus of the discussion and looking for answers to the real problem, reasonable and feasible strategies can be developed strategies for keeping guns out of the hands of violent offenders.

References

Greenberg, M., & Litman, H. (2010). Gun violence and gun control. UCLA School of Law Research Paper. No. 10-01. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1531366.

Greenberg, M., & Litman, H. (2010). Rethinking gun violence. UCLA Public Law and Legal Theory Series, Los Angeles: UCLA School of Law, eScholarship.

Kleck, G. (2009). Point blank: Guns and violence in America. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.

Kleck, G., & Hogan, M. (1999). National case-control study of homicide offending and gun ownership. Social Problems, 46(i2), 275(1).

Kopel, D. B. (2012). The great gun control war of the twentieth century—And its lessons for gun laws today. Fordham URB. L.J., XXXIX, 101–195.

Wintemute, G. (2005). Guns and gun violence. In Blumstein, A. & Wallman, J. (Eds.), The crime drop in America (45–94), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.