After he bought his first gun, he says ,“I felt grown up. It was like a coming-of-age thing. I felt like an adult.”
“It’s a Zen thing,” he says. “You can control time down to that 1/1,000th of a second.”
That was Rob Farago, owner of TheTruthAboutGuns.com, in an interview with the Washington Post. Rob's sincerity in this interview perfectly sums up the state of gun culture in America. They're more than inanimate objects. They're more then just steel and wood. In America, they're a symbol of empowerment. In Rob's case, they were a right of passage into adulthood.
It shouldn't come as any surprise that gun politics are so bitterly partisan in this country, then, when one side of the debate uses the same grandiose language concerning these inanimate objects they might otherwise use in describing their personal relationship with God.For the sake of clarity, let's try to cut through the bullshit and get to something closer to the reality of gun ownership in America.
In 2011, some 32,000 Americans died at the hand of a firearm. Just over 11,000 of those deaths were gun related homicides, while about 19,700 were gun related suicides. About 850 were unintentional shooting deaths (source for these numbers).In America, we kill one another with firearms more frequently than citizens of other first world nations. By a lot.
When the gun lobby (and here, I'm referring to the broad coalition of gun lobbying groups, like the National Rifle Association, Gun Owners of America, National Association for Gun Rights, etc., the gun manufacturers, the elected officials who promote their interests, and other assorted gun activists) talks about gun use, they prefer to talk about "good, law abiding citizens" using their guns in legitimate acts of self defense against intruders. In other words, the unexpecting homeowner vs. the faceless assailant, wherein the faceless assailant is aiming to kill the homeowners' family, and walk away with his hard earned stuff (the 46" flat screen, undoubtedly). "Good Guys" vs. "Bad Guys," to make it even more absurdly simplistic. This isn't an exaggeration; executive vice president of the NRA, Wayne LaPierre, famously broke it down in these terms when he declared that "the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun," in his post-Newtown massacre address.
What the gun lobby neglects to mention is that guns are very rarely used in this manner. Instead, guns are used far, far, far more frequently to kill innocents than they are used in legitimate acts of self defense.
They neglect to mention that guns are more commonly used by people such as Michael Dunn, who was apparently so enraged by the loud music emitting from a nearby teenager's SUV, he felt compelled to pull out his gun and shoot said 17-year-old teenager to death.
They neglect to mention that guns are more commonly used by 3-year-olds, whose lives are tragically cut short when they mistake a pink handgun for a toy. Or, sometimes it's a 4-year-old boy who finds a cop's gun collection, and mistakenly kills the deputy's wife.
They neglect to mention that a gun owner is far more likely to be injured or killed at the hand of his own firearm than he is to use it to defend himself. Sometimes they demonstrate this point at the the very gun rallies they use to promote gun ownership! At least 5 different people were shot and injured at 3 different gun shows on this year's "Gun Appreciation Day."
They neglect to mention that a woman is more likely to be shot and killed by the ex-husband she has a restraining order against (in this case, the man was able to get around existing federal background checks by simply purchasing his weapon online, from a private seller) than she is to use a firearm to defend herself from said ex-husband.
I'm not posting these examples to demonize gun owners who have never, and never will, harm another human being with their weapons. Rather, I'm pointing out that the gun lobby's support of the proliferation of firearms is based on scenarios that are far less likely to occur than the examples I listed above.
Empirical evidence proves this. An article in the peer reviewed journal, Injury Prevention, compiled results from two separate private surveys conducted by the Harvard Injury Control Research Center:
"On both surveys combined, 2.9% of gun owners, 0.3% of those living in the home with someone who owns a gun, and 0.4% of non-gun owners reported a self defense gun use. After eliminating police, security guards and military personnel, approximately 1% of respondents reported a self defense gun use."
A mere 1%. Not surprisingly, the article concluded that guns are much more frequently used to "threaten and intimidate" victims than they are used in self defense. Furthermore, a majority of the reported examples of self defense are problematic in and of themselves - that is, they were probably illegal:
"Of the 43 respondents reporting a self defense gun use, six did not provide a description of the most recent event, and for two more the descriptions indicated that the respondent did not use the firearm (for example, one never encountered the thieves who had stolen his truck). The criminal court judges were shown summaries of the remaining 35 events; each judge rated each event. Twenty percent of the time a judge rated a case as "as likely legal as illegal." Excluding these ratings (when judges often said there was not enough information), a majority of the judges rated 18 of the 35 (51%) as probably illegal, and 15 of the 35 (43%) as probably legal."
I post this to prove that firearms are not the saviors that the gun lobby makes them out to be. Far from it. Indeed, a study by the American Journal of Public Health concludes that possessing a firearm actually increases the likelihood of being shot in an assault:
"After adjustment, individuals in possession of a gun were 4.46 (P < .05) times more likely to be shot in an assault than those not in possession. Among gun assaults where the victim had at least some chance to resist, this adjusted odds ratio increased to 5.45 (P < .05)...on average, guns did not protect those who possessed them from being shot in an assault. Although successful defensive gun uses occur each year, the probability of success may be low for civilian gun users in urban areas. Such users should reconsider their possession of guns or, at least, understand that regular possession necessitates careful safety countermeasures."
The most comprehensive and timely written work I've read on this matter is David Hemenway's take on the "Risks and Benefits of a Gun in the Home," published in the American Journal of Lifestyle Medicine. It's well worth the effort to read it in its entirety, but here's part of the abstract:
"The evidence is overwhelming for the fact that a gun in the home is a risk factor for completed suicide and that gun accidents are most likely to occur in homes with guns. There is compelling evidence that a gun in the home is a risk factor for intimidation and for killing women in their homes. On the benefit side, there are fewer studies, and there is no credible evidence of a deterrent effect of firearms or that a gun in the home reduces the likelihood or severity of injury during an altercation or break-in. Thus, groups such as the American Academy of Pediatrics urge parents not to have guns in the home."
The part on homicides is especially pertinent. Remember, the gun lobby is trying to emphasize examples of self defense against third party intruders, but the empirical evidence suggests that gun violence is much more common amongst spouses/domestic partners, particularly against women. The end result is that victims are more likely to die in households where guns are readily available in impulsive crimes of passion. Hemenway continues:
"Many murders are committed in a moment of rage. For example, a large percentage of homicides—and especially homicides in the home—occur during altercations over matters such as love, money, and domestic problems, involving acquaintances, neighbors, lovers, and family members; often the assailant or victim has been drinking. Only a small minority of homicides appear to be the carefully planned acts of individuals with a single-minded intention to kill."
It makes sense that there are so few examples of homeowners acting in self defense, given the fact that most home intrusions occur in the absence of the homeowner:
"The main reason people give for having a handgun in the home is protection, typically against stranger violence. However, it is important to recognize that the home is a relatively safe place, especially from strangers. For example, fewer than 30% of burglaries in the United States (2003-2007) occur when someone is at home. In the 7% of burglaries when violence does occur, the burglar is more likely to be an intimate (current or former) and also more likely to be a relative or known acquaintance than a stranger. Although people typically spend most of their time at home, only 5% of all the crimes of violence perpetrated by strangers occur at home."
What can be done about all of this? The gun lobby, particularly the NRA, would have us believe that passing gun control legislation will only impede non-violent citizens, who desire nothing more but to hunt, shoot skeet, and defend their families, from buying firearms. Meanwhile, violent criminals will continue to acquire weapons to their heart's content.
But the NRA is fucking wrong.
For one, it's difficult to imagine Rob Farago and other like minded gun enthusiasts would let a simple, if albeit cumbersome, background check get in their way. These are the people who would crawl over glass to get their fix. Secondly, taken to its logical conclusion, this argument suggests that we should throw our hands in the air and give up on enacting any sort of reasonable laws or measures to deal with the problems we face. Why bother placing stop signs or traffic lights at busy intersections? Law breakers will simply blow by them, while law abiding citizens will be rudely expected to wait. Why bother with speed limits? Once again, law breakers, by definition of being law breakers, will ignore those limits, while law abiding citizens will have to contend with the possibility of being late for work. See the problem with the gun lobby's line of reasoning?
Finally, recent evidence suggests that there is, in fact, a strong correlation between existing gun control laws and rates of gun homicides/suicides in the States:
"Over the 4-year study period, there were 121,084 firearm fatalities. The average state-based firearm fatality rates varied from a high of 17.9 (Louisiana) to a low of 2.9 (Hawaii) per 100,000 individuals per year. Annual firearm legislative strength scores ranged from 0 (Utah) to 24 (Massachusetts) of 28 possible points. States in the highest quartile of legislative strength (scores of ≥9) had a lower overall firearm fatality rate than those in the lowest quartile (scores of ≤2). Compared with the quartile of states with the fewest laws, the quartile with the most laws had a lower firearm suicide rate and a lower firearm homicide rate...A higher number of firearm laws in a state are associated with a lower rate of firearm fatalities in the state, overall and for suicides and homicides individually. As our study could not determine cause-and-effect relationships, further studies are necessary to define the nature of this association."
It's worth noting that background checks in particular appear to be the most effective, given the fact that the legislation being hotly debated in Washington currently is centered around more comprehensive federal background checks for would-be gun buyers:
"For the specific legislative categories, only background checks had a significant relationship across all outcomes, with stronger background checks associated with lower overall firearm fatality rates."
Additional effective measures might include stringent penalties for individuals that pass a background check and buy a gun for those who would be unable to (so called "straw" purchases), more stringent penalties for gun traffickers, and repealing the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which shields arms manufacturers from liability suits in a manner other firms do not enjoy. As this graphic indicates, the Act was was just one of many legislative victories fought for and won by the gun lobby:
The measures that prevent federal agencies from taking a position on gun control, and the explicit reductions in funding for research pertaining to it, are particularly heinous. Former Emory University researcher, Art Kellermann, is intimately familiar with this. The NRA wasn't pleased when his research concluded that a gun kept at home was 43 times more likely to be used in the death of a member of the household than it was to be used to defend the household from an intruder. So they went after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which was funding Kellermann's work. Thankfully, one of President Obama's post-Newtown executive orders was to lift this ban on the CDC, enabling it to once again conduct research into the public health effects of gun violence. As it should; firearms are very much a public health issue.
But this is the modus operandi of the gun lobby - promote any measure to make it as easy as possible for anyone at anytime to buy a firearm, while stifling any legislation or measure that could possibly make it more difficult. What else is the gun lobby lying about to promote their interests?
Well, they like to pretend that strict gun control laws in other first world nations have turned them into violent-ridden hellholes, in which criminals run amok and prey upon citizens who are unable to adequately defend themselves. This is wrong. Blogger Frank Thomas has compiled data that, when shown side-by-side, clearly shows that the U.S. has more intentional homicides per 100,000 than other first world nations throughout Europe, and Canada, and many more intentional gun related homicides:
It should go without saying that it's easier to kill another human being with a firearm than it is with other weapons, such as knives, or blunt objects. On Dec. 14th, the day Adam Lanza went on his shooting spree at Sandy Hook, a man wielding a knife injured 22 children in a primary school, thousands of miles away in China. The difference between these two horrific incidents is that the students in China survived, whereas 20 kids and 6 adults lost their lives in Newtown. The U.S. has more guns floating around than any other nation on the planet, and the most lax laws concerning them than any other developed country. Small wonder that the preferred tool for murder in this country is the firearm:
The gun lobby would have us believe that our intentional homicide rates are higher than that of other nations because our numbers are inflated with "justifiable homicides," in which someone legally defends himself by shooting a criminal. As I've extensively written above, this is emphatically untrue.
Another lie the gun lobby likes to tell is that strict gun control laws have directly led to increased homicides and/or violent crime in cities such as Chicago. Here's a look at homicides in Chicago since the 1980's:
It's evident that the murder rate has been trending downwards since the beginning of the 1990's (just as it has throughout the nation). As the ThinkProgress article notes, Chicago had a ban on handguns until the Supreme Court overruled it in 2010. That is to say, the recent spike in homicides actually occurred after a significant regulation was discarded. As always, correlation doesn't necessarily equal causation. Nevertheless, it does undercut this particular assertion by the gun lobby. Meanwhile, the same gun proponents tend to ignore the fact that cities such as NYC also have strict gun laws, and much lower murder rates per capita (trending downwards since 2000). In addition to this, per the study linked above, the entire state of Illinois is doing far better in terms of firearm fatalities than other states with lax restrictions.
Finally, there's a prevalent myth that so called "gun free zones," such as schools and shopping malls, are specifically targeted by criminals, who are secure in the knowledge that they won't meet resistance from armed "Good Guys." This is an easy one. The fact that recent, popular shooting destinations include a grocery store in gun friendly Arizona, a U.S. military installation, and an honest to Christ gun range debunks this particular myth quite thoroughly. It doesn't even make sense to begin with. Why are we attributing such rationality to individuals who have made a conscious decision to slaughter other human beings, particularly children? Especially when it's not uncommon for these individuals to take their own lives after they've had their fill of carnage. It's difficult to argue that they'll be deterred by the possibility of armed citizens when they already have every intention of dying.
Why does the gun lobby tell these lies? What motivates them?
Money, of course.
Granted, they would prefer us to believe that they are solely interested in the defense of "freedom" and "liberty." But they're not. It's about money.
Firearms in the U.S. is an $11.7 billion industry, and the mutually beneficial relationship between manufacturers and lobbyists is well documented, particularly regarding the NRA. It's a relatively simple scheme; firearms manufacturers (under the guise of "corporate partners") donate directly to the lobbying group, who, in turn, fund the campaigns of politicians that are willing to do whatever necessary to keep the flow of revenue to arms manufacturers nice and steady. As such, the manufactures get a return on their investment, the executives get to skimp a bit off the top (and by "a bit," I mean about $1 million - former executive director of general operations Kayne B. Robinson netted just over $1 million in 2010, while Wayne LaPierre netted $970,000), and everyone is happy. Roughly 4 million members of the NRA kick in the additional revenue needed to ensure that the organization is a well-oiled Washington power player, punching way above its weight.
Of course, "blood money" isn't exactly a PR friendly campaign face for the gun lobby, which brings us back to "freedom" and "liberty." The NRA leadership is apt at feeding their members a healthy diet of nationalism and patriotic rhetoric, persuading them that they alone are the virtuous defenders of the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms against a tyrannical government. They also serve a healthy dose of fear and paranoia, convincing them that the great seizure of all privately held firearms by the government is always right around the corner. The end result? A sustainable market of gun consumers who will walk, run, and crawl to the nearest gun store to gobble up whatever merchandise they can get their hands on, whenever the gun lobby tells them to do so. Indeed, recent data indicates that existing owners are acquiring more firearms, even as the total number of U.S. households with them has declined. Somewhere, in San Francisco, there's an Apple executive wishing his company enjoyed the same kind of consumer loyalty the arms manufacturers enjoy.
Supporters of the gun lobby like to point out that there groups and lobbyists that spend money to promote gun control as well, such as the Mayors Against Illegal Guns, and the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. But the gun lobby has much, much more money to spend on lobbying, and far more revenue than their gun control counterparts. If someone were truly active in gun control lobbying simply for the money, then it would seem they ended up on the wrong side, financially speaking.
But what of the "freedom" and "liberty" aspect of the debate? Is there any merit to it, for the true believers? Libertarians and progressives are typically in lockstep when it comes to other matters of civil liberties, such as drug legalization and abortion. Why the split on guns?
Here, I would invoke the old saying: "the right to swing my fists ends where your nose begins." It is clear that the Constitution was written with the intention to safeguard the natural rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Since the inception of this country, however, we have been grappling with the matter of how to balance all three.
Consider the issue of free speech. To be sure, this is a country where free speech is protected. But that protection is not absolute. To invoke another old cliche, one does not have the right to yell "fire!" in a crowded theater. One does not have the right to "make any threat to take the life of, to kidnap, or to inflict bodily harm upon the President." To use a more recent example, the Westboro Baptist Church is frequently barred (via local ordinances) from protesting directly on the sites of the funerals it wishes to protest, despite the fact that they do indeed have a constitutional right to spew the verbal garbage they are notorious for spewing.
In these examples, ones right to free speech (liberty) is limited to protect another's right to life. This dynamic, of course, can be applied to the 2nd Amendment. Though Americans have the right to bear arms, as the gun lobby likes to (frequently) remind us, even conservative Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia concluded (in the landmark D.C. v. Heller decision) that Americans do not have the right to own every conceivable type of firearm, under any conceivable circumstances:
"Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."
Just as we, as a society, have ultimately come to the conclusion that the social value of shouting "fire!" in a crowded theater does not outweigh the natural right to life, so to must we weigh the social utility value of the right to bear arms against every Americans right to life.
"If you don't like guns, then don't buy a gun," argues the gun advocate. "Just leave me and my right to buy a firearm alone. It's none of your business, and it's not your problem." Well, here's the thing - if that same advocate finds out that his wife has been fucking his best friend, drives up to her place of employment, pulls out his gun, blows away his wife and all of her coworkers, and I happen to be one of those coworkers, then it's pretty clearly my fucking problem. To be sure, the vast majority of gun owners would never do such a thing. But some will. And that's the difference. That's what makes this issue different than someone choosing to smoke a joint at home, a woman choosing to get an abortion, and two same-sex partners choosing to get married. The proliferation of firearms has potentially life ending consequences for the rest of us. I don't have an inherent problem with the advocate's desire to own a firearm. But I do have a mathematical problem; the easier it is for 300 + million to obtain a firearm, the more likely it becomes that I'll end up dead alongside some guy's cheating wife.
Make no mistake - the gun lobby's preferred policy of "any gun, any time, for anyone" is a public health issue that absolutely infringes on every Americans right to life. The empirical evidence overwhelming suggests that where there is a higher volume of guns, there is more homicide, whether it is across all developed nations, or all 50 states. The gun lobby wants us to believe that the issue can be boiled down into a simplistic world, in which there are static, never changing categories of "Good Guys" and "Bad Guys," and stopping the "Bad Guys" is a simply a matter of adequately arming the "Good Guys." They fail to recognize that, sometimes, the only difference between a "Good Guy" and a "Bad Guy" is a rough day at the office, a pending divorce settlement, and a couple shots of whiskey. The end result of this is that there are 40 + more tales of a gun taking the life of an innocent household member for every 1 instance of that gun being used to protect the household from an intruder.
The gun lobby doesn't care, though, because they're more concerned about making money. Hence their support for armed teachers at schools, and their desire to get rid of restrictions on concealed weapons and "gun free" zones. All of these measures, of course, would naturally boost firearms sales, but never mind that; they'd prefer to conceal their profit motive behind a waving American flag and a screaming bald eagle.
Don't fall for it.
Recognizing that the proliferation of firearms has negative consequences for gun owners and non-gun owners alike should be the starting point for any informed debate on our civil liberties.
No comments:
Post a Comment