The World Health Organization defines violence as a threat to health when someone tries to injure themselves or someone else. If they try it with a gun – voila! – we have gun violence.
The United States suffers from an elevated rate of gun violence because we are the only country in the entire world which gives its residents free access to guns that are designed, manufactured, sold and used for the purpose of committing violence. And note that the WHO doesn’t distinguish between attacking someone else because you want to hurt them or defending yourself from getting hurt. Either way, it’s violence, okay?
The gun industry would like you to believe that using a gun to defend yourself isn’t gun violence, it’s armed, self-defense. But this nonsense is simply the industry’s attempt to avoid being regulated and frankly, I can’t blame them for promoting such a stupid and totally false idea. After all, do banks like being regulated? Do insurance companies spend millions of dollars lobbying Congress because they want to be told what to do?
I’m not saying that we should ban all guns. I’m saying that if we want to reduce gun violence to any measurable degree, we have to get rid of the guns which cause the violence. There’s no other way.
Unfortunately, the approach to reducing gun violence which is the accepted and promoted narrative both by gun-control researchers and advocates, is the idea that we can continue to allow gun companies to design, manufacture and sell products whose only usefulness is for the commission of violence, as long as we figure out a way to keep these products out of the ‘wrong hands.’
How do we know the difference between people with ‘right’ hands and people with ‘wrong’ hands? We make everyone who wants to buy a gun fill out a form which tells us whether that particular individual is a ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ candidate for gun ownership based on how they have behaved up to the moment they actually buy the gun.
Even if this kind of predictive strategy would actually work, what about the 60 or 70 million guns out there that could be used to commit gun violence right now? Hey – wait a goddamn minute! Aren’t there at least 300 million guns floating around?
That’s right. There probably are more than 300 million guns sitting in homes. garages, basements all over the place. But, and it’s a very important but, most of the guns owned by Americans weren’t designed to commit gun violence. They were manufactured and sold to people who used them to take a pot shot at Bambi in the woods, or blast away at a target at the local range, or maybe freeze their rear ends off while sitting in some swamp while the geese coming back from Florida fly overhead.
On the other hand, the concealable, polymer-framed handguns which are chambered for military grade ammunition, guns from companies like Sig, Beretta, Smith & Wesson, and Glock, were all designed for military and tactical use. Ditto the AR-15 which is now given to our troops in a version that shoots in semi-automatic mode.
We don’t need to ban all guns. We need to ban guns that are not designed for hunting or sport. Several years ago, I looked at a list of more than 9,000 crime guns picked up by the cops and I ran a word-check of those 9,000 guns against the following names: Remington, Winchester, Marlin, Browning and Savage. These happen to be the five largest manufacturers of hunting guns.
Know how many times those five words came up against a list of 9,000 crime guns? Try less than 50 times. And when those names did come up, in every, single case it had something to do with licensing, not any kind of violent crime at all.
You want to do universal background checks? Go right ahead. Want to pass a national ‘red flag’ law? Fine. Do that too.
Want to end gun violence in the United States? Get rid of the guns which cause the violence. There’s no other way.
Mar 29, 2021 @ 10:42:07
How can you call yourself a “gun guy” when you don’t believe in 2A as a right and you openly call for gun confiscation? I’ve read your blog for years, so I know you’re a very antigun. You’ve advocated to “get rid of the guns” many times. But I wouldn’t give up my guns if there was a mass shooting every day.
Mar 29, 2021 @ 11:37:20
“…free access to guns…” ???
Don’t know where these people are getting free access to guns, I just purchased one of those military and tactical guns, a Sig P365, it wasn’t free, it cost me $525. (Great price in today’s market)
I just might agree about the “military grade ammunition” idea. It just might be a good idea to get rid of the ball ammunition and only let the civilian’s use the “civilian ammunition” from soft to composite to hollow point. Maybe police should also only use “military grade ammunition.” Don’t know, but I do like the idea that civilians would only be able to use hollow point ammunition.
Saying: “How do we know the difference between people with ‘right’ hands and people with ‘wrong’ hands? We make everyone who wants to buy a gun fill out a form which tells us whether that particular individual is a ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ candidate for gun ownership based on how they have behaved up to the moment they actually buy the gun.” Isn’t that what the ATF Form 4473 is doing? If it’s not working, why do we keep using the form?
Sent from Outlook
Mar 29, 2021 @ 12:45:09
Main problem I have is this. The U.S. homicide rate was highest in the seventies and eighties, before everyone had a Glock and an AR. Seems to me that motive drives homicide rate as much as whether its a revolver or a plastic fantastic gun.
But admittedly, more firepower makes for more hazard. I think the whole thing is complicated.
Mar 29, 2021 @ 13:04:05
There’s a problem when you go around saying someone supports or doesn’t support the Second Amendment: How much do you understand what it really means?
This is a model that George Mason pushed relating to what would become the Second Amendment. It was adopted by Virginia:
“That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well regulated Militia composed of the body of the people trained to arms is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free State. That standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided, as far as the circumstances and protection of the Community will admit; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to and governed by the Civil power”
When the American Revolutionary War began in April 1775, the colonial revolutionaries did not have an army. Previously, each colony had relied upon the militia, made up of part-time civilian-soldiers. The initial orders from Congress authorized ten companies of riflemen. The first full regiment of Regular Army infantry, the 3rd Infantry Regiment, was not formed until June 1784. After the war, the Continental Army was quickly disbanded because of the American distrust of standing armies, and irregular state militias became the new nation’s sole ground army, with the exception of a regiment to guard the Western Frontier and one battery of artillery guarding West Point’s arsenal.
The problem is that the US Constitution gave congress the power to arm the militia (article I, Section 8, Clause 16). If you actually spent time reading the primary sources instread of quotes taken out of context, you would find that was the issue. Not private arms.
The US Constittuion makes it clear in the preamble. You know the bit you ususally truncate as “we the people” that one of the purposes of the US Constitution was to provide for the “Common defence”. There are other goals which the seem to contradict the “gun rights” position, like “insure domestic Tranquility” and “promote the general Welfare”. A close read of the document shows that rebellion runs contrary to its principles (Hint try Article III section iii).
There is a concept in the law that if a legal document is silent on a topic. That is it fails to mention something, That topic is not covered by the law.
So, show me EXACTLY where the US Constitution mentions “self-defence” or “tyranny” and we can have a discussion.
Otherwise, you need to have a serious rethink of what exactly the Second Amendment means.
Mar 29, 2021 @ 13:13:07
Mike obviously doesn’t support the Second Amendment. He doesn’t acknowledge it as a right. 2A is an individual right, thanks to Heller. Hopefully SCOTUS will expand it further in the near future.
Mar 29, 2021 @ 16:49:13
I think a fair number of people conflate the Constitution with the individual writings of some of its framers, not to mention the B.S. one can hear on right wing media. Your quote from Mason is pretty much in line with my understanding from the Federalist Papers and similar documents.
The Miller decision further noted that the (small) arms that the people have the right to keep and bear must have some relevance to that well-regulated militia. Its not a right to have any arms under any conditions (I think I am paraphrasing Heller). One could argue that modern military rifles have the most relevance to a well regulated militia but going to Adam Winkler’s book “Gunfight”, there is a long history of state regulation of firearms and most of those regulations have been upheld by the courts. Personally, I would like to see some of these almost-rifle/almost pistol stuff (such as what our latest patriot used to storm the supermarket in Boulder) off the shelves as these muddy the water.
But the 2A was not about hunting or sport shooting. It was and is about the relationship between the citizen and that well regulated militia. There is a lot of room for debate on what that means, but I am pretty sure it means that some form of screening to keep lunatics from turning their militia-relevant firearms on each other, our wife, children, parents, supermarkets, churches, or schools, etc. is permissible under any plausible reading of the Constitution and well-established law. I strongly urge those who have not read Prof. Winkler’s book do so.
Given the changing demographics of this nation and ongoing misuse of ever more lethal firearms, I think if the firearms community doesn’t cooperate with gun safety groups to find something that works, we will have something that works found for us. And many of us won’t like it.