Our friend David Hemenway has just been interviewed by The Harvard Gazette about Joe’s ideas for gun control and finds the strategies “excellent” and “good first steps to reduce the terrible problem of firearm violence in the U.S.”
Down the road, David says, we’ll need to do more things, like universal background checks, better training, better safety standards for how guns are designed and more liability for gun owners who allow their guns to end up in the ‘wrong hands.’
I have been listening to David and his public-health research friends talk about reducing gun violence for the past 25 or so years. They make the same arguments that David made to The Harvard Gazette again, again, and again. Sometimes they throw in a few more ideas, like requiring an individual permit for each purchase of a gun, or extending ‘red flag’ laws, or getting rid of those laws that allow someone to use a gun to defend themselves when they are threatened by someone else.
Meanwhile, what none of these well-meaning researchers ever point out is one, simple fact about gun violence, which is that intentional fatal and non-fatal gun injuries (which happens to be how the WHO defines violence) are committed overwhelmingly by one type of gun.
What type of gun am I talking about? Semi-automatic guns which load from underneath the frame of the gun. If the gun has a barrel of 16 inches or longer, it’s a rifle. If the barrel is shorter than 16 inches, it’s a handgun.
The reason why this is the design of guns which are used in most shootings is because, believe it or not, that’s what these guns are designed to do. A Glock 17 which holds 16 rounds of military-grade ammunition isn’t a ‘sporting’ gun. An AR-15 which can take a magazine that holds 40 or 50 rounds isn’t what you use to go out and trek after Bambi in the woods.
The whole point of designing a gun which accepts bottom-loading magazines is that if the magazine were stuck into the gun from above the frame, it would get in the way of the shooter when he aims the gun.
Of course, researchers like Hemenway know that gun injuries are overwhelmingly a function of access to semi-automatic, bottom-loading guns. So why don’t they ever mention that banning such weapons would bring gun-violence rates way down? Why is it that every time one of these researchers points out that our gun-violence rate is 7 to 25 times higher than other countries, they then forget to mention that none of those other countries allow their residents to own semi-automatic, bottom-loading guns?
Oops – I forgot! There’s something out there called the 2nd Amendment which gives every law-abiding individual the ‘right’ to own a gun. And thanks to the essay by our friend Sandy Levinson reminding all his liberal, academic friends that the 2nd Amendment is as valid and as important as the other nine amendments in the Bill of Rights, we just avoid the idea that maybe, just maybe we should rethink the gun ban issue again.
Actually, there has been some noise about calling for a ban on assault rifles, the reason being that those are the kinds of weapons which are used in the big, gugga-mugga shootings, like the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, the elementary school in Sandy Hook, or the Las Vegas event.
But the mass slaughters, what our friend Louis Klarevas calls ‘gun rampages’ don’t add more than 3% to the random, daily shootings which total at least 125,000 fatal and non-fatal injuries every year. At least 28 people were shot in Chicago over this past weekend. Big deal.
By the way, when the town of town of Highland Park enacted a ban on assault rifles which was followed by a similar ban covering all of Cook County, the conservative, pro-gun Supreme Court let both laws stand.
One of these days (hope, hope) my academic friends who do gun research will stop quaking when someone accuses them of being against gun ‘rights’ and will do the right thing and talking honestly about getting rid of guns.
Apr 14, 2021 @ 13:12:13
Again, just a small corrections to this post: The Glock pistol magazine well is the same for all Glock 17 pistols, and so its standard magazine holds 17 rounds.
This post says “Glock 17 which holds 16 rounds of military-grade ammunition.”
The Glock 17s not only hold “military grade” ammunition but “civilian grade” ammunition as well.
As Obama says…words matter. I also believe definitions matter.
Apr 14, 2021 @ 13:43:58
“…David says, we’ll need to do more things, like universal background checks, better training, better safety standards for how guns are designed and more liability for gun owners who allow their guns to end up in the ‘wrong hands.’.”
When will these well-meaning researchers ever point out that by definition criminals are just that, CRIMINALS, and no matter how much research is done and laws past they will continue to be criminals. But yet let’s just tackle the low hanging fruit and punish the innocent and in the process make criminals out of them. And maybe, just maybe these researchers just look at simple “solutions” to the violent crime peoblem because…it’s easy money.
Talking about Chicago and Cook County, those gun laws are working well:
“On Monday, prosecutors charged a five-time convicted robber with violently attacking two women in separate robberies on the Blue Line over the weekend. He was arrested after his second alleged attack at the LaSalle station downtown.
Tuesday, a 29-year-old man was charged with robbing two women as they sat on a bench at the Roosevelt Red Line station Sunday afternoon. Prosecutors say Darrell Wyatt pointed a gun at one victim’s chest while three juveniles, including a 13-year-old boy, helped him rob the women.”
Apr 14, 2021 @ 16:45:24
The Georgia and Boulder shooters both passed background checks without a blip. The latter for an AR 556 Rugger! You are right, It’s the guns stupid, it’s the guns. Stop already with the band aids.
Jim Webster MD
Apr 15, 2021 @ 01:48:22
More antigun talk from a so called gun guy. I’m not giving up my guns like a some European. Mike, I always knew you were this antigun. I’ve read your posts for years and I knew banning guns was your endgame. For all the talk about your experience with gun ownership and being an NRA member, you’re a hardcore antigunner.
Apr 17, 2021 @ 08:11:09
I always know when I’m dealing with someone who I won’t take seriously because invariably these folks se an alias. And then they tell you that they have to protect their identity because otherwise they will lose everything! Like anyone would be interested in coming after this guy.
Apr 18, 2021 @ 10:56:42
My name isn’t your business, simple as that. It’s nothing personal. This is the internet. Lots of people have usernames that are different from their given name.
Now shouldn’t you put your money where your mouth is and turn in your “assault weapons” and “killer handguns?” Or are you going to continue to own them while preaching about how they’re too dangerous to own?