Ending Gun Violence

In my last post, I mentioned towards the end that this week I would be discussing what I consider to be the root of the debate over gun control. Generally speaking, those arguing over this issue can be divided into two camps; they either consider owning a gun to be a right or a privilege. This is the fundamental difference of belief that results in the argument that is widespread today. If guns are a human right, then any attempt to take them away is a violation of said rights and should not be allowed. If guns are a privilege, then they need to be earned. Without first acknowledging this gap and trying to bridge it there is little chance of any real change happening because the argument will be happening on two separate planes that don’t intersect.  

While there are multiple arguments as to why the ownership of guns is a fundamental right, perhaps the most common (and frustrating) argument is that it is a right because it says so in the Second Amendment of the Constitution. This argument makes no sense whatsoever. The very phrase “Second Amendment of the Constitution” implies that the Constitution can be amended, or changed. Stating that just because something is in the Constitution it is permanent is nonsensical. The Constitution is hundreds of years old and will likely last for hundreds more. As times change and technology evolves the Constitution will have to adapt to keep up, that is a simple fact. Arguing that the something being in the Constitution is the be-all-end-all makes no sense when the Constitution itself was not designed to be permanent. Any issue as important as gun control needs to be debated on its own merits, not those of a document that is centuries old.

This is especially true for an issue such as gun control. At the time that the Second Amendment was written, guns were vastly different from what they are today to the point where they are almost not even comparable. At the time of the Constitution a highly skilled shooter could fire around 3 shots per minute with a musket. In contrast, a modern AR-15 assault rifle can fire 45 effective rounds in a minute and at over 10 times the range. Trying to keep laws stagnant is an excercise in futility when the world they are applying to is constantly changing.

The second argument is that everyone should be able to defend themselves and that we shouldn’t have to jump through a series of hoops and brave miles of red tape in order to do it. While I do agree that everyone has a right to defend themselves if attacked, that cannot come at the expense of others. No matter the danger that you are in, putting others at risk to make yourself feel safer is unacceptable. I believe that if someone wants to own a gun, then they need to know how to use it. Otherwise, if they are caught in an active shooter situation where there is a real danger they are just as likely to hurt innocent bystanders as the shooter. If they are unwilling to put in the time and effort that it takes to learn how to use a deadly weapon properly, then they should not be able to use one at all.

The fact is that ownership of a gun does not really meet any of the criteria that are necessary to be a human right. A human right is something intrinsic that cannot be removed. Things such as food, water, and life itself. A gun is not like any of these things. In my view, a gun is a tool with which the right to live can be defended. Access to a tool, no matter how fundamentally necessary it may be, is not a right. Especially not a tool that can be used at the expense of others, either intentionally or unintentionally.

There are very few people who think that every citizen should have unfettered access to guns. Virtually everyone agrees that there are certain people, such as criminals or the mentally ill, who should not be able to own guns. This itself is also indicative of gun ownership not being a right. If it were a human right instead of a privilege then by definition everyone would have it, regardless of legal or mental standing. You cannot deny someone the right to have food because they are a criminal. You cannot deny someone the right to have water because they have a mental illness. Why then can you deny these people the right to own a gun? Because it is not a right at all, but a privilege.

While there are many sticking points in the debate over gun control, there is one that is very controversial yet seems to receive fairly little of the public spotlight. What I am referring to is the idea that individuals who are on the no-fly list should not be allowed to purchase firearms. Before discussing whether or not this should be allowed, here is what the no-fly list actually is. The no-fly list is a subset of the terrorist watchlist, which contains information about those who are known to be or suspected to be terrorists or involved with them. If an individual is on the no-fly list then this means that they are considered by the government to be a security risk, and are not allowed to board a plane. It is worth noting that an estimated 9 out of 10 people on this list are not lawful residents of the U.S, and therefore any legislature that is passed most likely would not affect them. However, this is an issue that is still worth resolving. Even if there aren’t many people on the no-fly list that this would affect, those who are impacted are the people who are most likely to do harm.

At first, it may seem like common sense to not allow these individuals to possess a deadly weapon. After all, if we suspect them of wishing harm on the U.S and its citizens, why would we allow them to carry guns? It doesn’t really make much sense. But, as always, it is a much more complicated issue than it may seem like on the surface. The crux of the matter lies with the no-fly list itself, which has what a lot of people view as nigh-unforgivable flaws. The laws of our country are largely based on the idea that every man can have his day in court; that every citizen will have access to a lawyer, a fair trial, etc. The no-fly list bypasses due process in a way unlike any other. As soon as you are under suspicion you are limited in what you can do.

Furthermore, it is not truly reasonable to expect people to be responsible for clearing their name of terrorism before anything has been truly proved, leave alone clear their name of suspected terrorism. This task is nigh impossible. Not only this, but the mechanisms that underly the no-fly list are largely unknown. It is not publicly known what the criteria are to get placed on the list, nor how one can get themselves removed. The no-fly list itself is only really tolerated because the effect it has on most peoples lives is fairly minimal and non-invasive.

This all changes when guns are thrown into the equation. For many, the ownership of a gun is a right that they are entitled to. It is one thing to be denied such ownership after they have been proved to be unfit to for it, for example, if they are diagnosed with a mental illness. However, in their view, it is anathema for the government to be able to arbitrarily deny them their right to gun ownership without any warning, notification, or justification.

Even though a simple solution may be to open up knowledge of the no-fly list to the public, this would end up being counterproductive. Much of the effectiveness that the no-fly list possesses is due to its secrecy. If its inner workings are made public then it becomes a dog with no bite and can no longer serve its purpose. Because of this its not really an option to simply publicize what makes the list tick.

While the tone of this blog thus far may seem to be advocating that the no-fly list should not include a ban on gun ownership, my actual views are the opposite. I believe that we cannot, in good conscience, allow those who are suspected of terrorism to walk around packing a deadly weapon. However, I do understand why people are worried to put this into action. But there is a disconnect between the two sides of the argument. To those who believe that that they have the right to bear arms, guns are just that: a right. But to others, guns are a privilege. Until this disconnect is somehow bridged, no real progress can be made on this issue. In fact, the entire debate on gun control may very well revolve around this delineation. In fact, now that I think about it, discussing the mindset of “right” as opposed to “privilege” may be a good topic for the final post of this blog.

One issue of considerable debate is whether or not people should be allowed to carry guns on campuses. Currently, there are 16 states that allow people to carry on campuses, although many do leave the school some amount of leeway in determining their own rules. For example, in Kansas schools are allowed to ban firearms in buildings in which there is already sufficient security. In another 23 states, it is solely the discretion of the school whether or not guns are allowed on campus. In some states and schools, only faculty are allowed to be armed, and not students or visitors.

Proponents of the idea of campus carry, such as the NRA, say that shooters are less likely to target areas in which they believe that they will be met with armed resistance. They think that those who have undergone the necessary training and jumped through the requisite hoops should be allowed to protect themselves in the event of a shooting. However, this is (predictably) an extremely controversial issue. Those who oppose it believe that allowing people to carry guns on campus creates unnecessary risks, and opens a gateway for even more school shootings. Not to mention the possibility of a child getting their hands on a gun that their teacher owns, or some similarly horrifying situation.

It is worth noting that if legislature to allow this got passed, it would not supersede other laws already in place. For example, you would still need to be over twenty-one and have a license in order to carry on campus.

In my previous blog post I already covered why a “good guy with a gun” is unlikely to stop any shooting, especially a school shooting. To quickly summarize, an average armed civilian is unlikely to have the training or mindset to quickly put down an attacker within the 3-second timeframe that most shootings take. In fact, in the 2015 shooting at Umpqua Community College, there were multiple students armed with guns who did what everyone else did: cleared out as fast as they could. Now, I am not berating them. How can untrained students be expected to combat an active shooter, especially in a densely populated area? The very idea is ludicrous and has been proved ineffective repeatedly. When faced with a dangerous situation and given the opportunity to flee, most people take it rather than staying and fighting. In addition, those who decide to commit mass shootings most likely already know that they are either not going to survive or will be spending the rest of their time in prison. Therefore the possibility of running into someone with a gun is not much of a deterrent.

Another argument made by those who are pro-gun is that campus carry is not meant to prevent school shootings. Rather, to deny campus carry is to deny our rights as citizens under the Constitution. It embedded in our roots as Americans, and our country was founded with this being a fundamental right.

Personally, I think that this argument is ridiculous. The fact that the ownership of a gun is a “Constitutional right” may be true, but the Constitution is not very specific. It is our responsibility to interpret the Constitution as best we see fit. If we followed the literal wording of the Constitution, which is that, “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed,” then hypothetically any person should have the right to bear any weapons in any place. Wouldn’t anythign else be infringing the rights of the people? This is obviously absurd and shows how important it is that we take our responsibility to interpret the Constitution seriously.

In the same vein, there is the fact that the Constitution was written centuries ago. The time was completely different, as were the guns available. When the founding fathers say “arms” in the Constitution, the arms they were thinking of were muskets and flintlock pistols. In the hands of a highly skilled wielder, a musket from that time period could fire a maximum of three shots per minute. It had a one-round magazine capacity and a maximum range of around 50 meters.  Frankly, I would rather have a bow and arrow.

Let’s contrast this to a modern-day AR-15 assault rifle. It has a magazine capacity of thirty rounds. A range of 550 meters and can fire 45 effective rounds within a single minute. Trying to compare these is like trying to compare apples and oranges. Or, more accurately, like comparing TNT and a nuclear warhead.

 

One of the ideas commonly espoused by the supporters of gun rights is that of the “good guy with a gun.” The theory is that if there were more good samaritans who had access to firearms they could actively prevent shootings from escalating. In addition, supporters of this idea believe that potential shooters would be less likely to attempt something if they knew that every Tom, Dick, and Harry was packing. One potential application of this, they argue, would be to have teachers in schools who have concealed firearms or even allow concealed carry within schools to prevent attacks. In the event of a school shooting, these good samaritans could stop the perpetrator in their tracks.

Well, it’s catchy at least. “Good guy with a gun.” It’s a pretty decent slogan. The problem is that it’s not a very good theory. On the surface it makes sense, good guys with guns seem like they are a good solution to bad guys with guns. But once you look beneath the covering it starts to lose its appeal. First off, allowing concealed carry within school grounds seems to me to be borderline madness. One of the ostensible benefits to this would be that a rationally thinking school shooter wouldn’t be willing to gamble their lives on whether they run into someone else who is armed. The previous sentence is making a massive assumption. The assumption that the school shooter is rationally thinking in the first place, to the point where they are thinking about the consequences of their actions. The fact is that most school shooters aren’t thinking that far ahead, or if they are then they simply don’t really care what happens to them.

Just thinking logically it becomes an obvious fact that deterrence is not really a viable option regarding the prevention of school shootings. But there is another facet as well, which is the notion that an armed civilian within the building could mitigate the effects of the shooting. Again, this seems like a rational solution. Someone who is trained should be able to effectively accomplish this.

But the problem once again lies in the assumptions being made, namely the training that the individual has undergone. While different states vary in the amount of training needed to carry a weapon, the minimal amount is the norm rather than the exception. What this means is that the majority of people who carry a firearm may not have the training to take down a shooter. Even if the shooter is similarly untrained, their goal is just to cause the maximum destruction that they can, whereas the good samaritan needs to take down a specific target quickly and efficiently without collateral damage. Not only this, but 67 percent of the time the bad guy is the first one to attack, and the incident is over within 3 seconds. Even assuming the civilian has undergone extensive instruction, studies show that those who are not properly trained either shoot too slow and get killed or they shoot too fast and injure or kill bystanders.

There is something that I should clarify; I am not necessarily against having armed security around schools, especially those in rough neighborhoods. The only stipulation would be that they would have to actually be well-trained, not random teachers who we put through a compulsory gun safety course. For them to provide sufficient protection they would need to be professionals, preferable experienced ones. If this seems like a tall order to you, that’s because it is. But anything less and they would not be able to adequately perform their job, and people could die. This is the tragic case of Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, at which the armed security guard did not even enter the building while the shooting was taking place.

That covers what happens concerning a school shooting, but if we are talking about the prevention of gun violence in general then the statistics are just as staggering. A 1998 study found that for every legally justified shooting occurred at a home there were four unintentional ones, seven criminal ones, and 11 suicides. Other statistics show that when most citizens are allowed to carry handguns, violent crime will increase by 13 to 15 percent over the course of the next decade. The presence of another firearm can actually have the opposit effect as intended and provoke further violence.

All of the facts seem to point in the same direction. The theory of a “good guy with a gun” simply doesn’t hold water. In fact, it oftentimes leads to even more death than it prevents.

Before diving into the details of the issue, we must first make sure that we understand the context. To do this we need to comprehend the different sides of the issue that is gun control. In general, there are two broad stances on what should be done regarding gun control in America. On the right you have the Republicans who believe that ownership of a gun is a Constitutional right and that the government should not be allowed to obstruct this right. And on the left there are the Democrats, who are of the opinion that gun ownership is not a basic human right, and that only those who have proven themselves capable should be allowed to own them. Obviously there a lot more nuances to the specific views, but that is the bare minimum of knowledge required to understand the generalities of each position.

Another thing that needs to be understood from the beginning is that gun laws vary dramatically from state to state, and sometimes even from city to city. This is because federal gun legislation is generally weak and loophole-ridden, which is meant to allow states maximum autonomy to deal with guns as they see fit.

Something else to get out of the way from the start, I am not an unbiased author. In my opinion, there are certain laws that should be passed just based off of common sense. There have been numerous studies over the years that clearly show that gun control prevents shootings. These studies have been conducted both abroad and on our own soil, in vastly different environments, and they often come to this same conclusion. With any other topic this resistance to change would be comical, but given the fact that we have had over 300 mass shootings a year for multiple years in a row it is horrifying instead. To put things in perspective, the U.S has the most guns per person with around 89 guns for every 100 people. Yemen has the second highest amount of guns per capita, coming in at 55 guns per 100 people. That is bad enough on the surface but Yemen is also in the middle of a civil war. Another staggering statistic: gun homicides are 25 times more likely in America than in other similarly high-income countries.

With all of these statistics it is obvious that something has to be done. The question is what that should be. Gun control is a topic more nuanced than most issues in the national spotlight today. With most topics there are two sides who are trying to accomplish something different, such as in the case of the environment. Conservatives prefer to allow individuals and businesses autonomy whereas progressives would rather the government place regulations of some sort if it means protecting our environment. With gun control, both conservatives and liberals are trying to reduce gun violence (conservatives are also trying to protect gun rights, but most do agree that this is a secondary goal). But they differ in how they believe it should be done. Conservatives subscribe to the good-guy-with-a-gun idea, which is the idea that if enough people were armed then it would make shooters more reluctant. Even if a shooting were to begin, a well-armed good samaritan could take down the shooter themselves and prevent the situation from escalating further. Liberals, on the other hand, would rather institute more strict background checks and psychological tests to make sure that guns don’t fall into the wrong hands in the first place. They believe that the best way to prevent gun violence is to limit the flow of guns to those individuals who may use them in such a manner.

What this creates is a situation where there are people on both sides who genuinely believe that what they are doing is the best way to prevent shootings. After a massacre there will be conservatives advocating for armed teachers in schools and in the same breath progressives will be asking for stricter gun legislation. To further complicate things and muddy the waters, there is the NRA. The NRA has massive lobbying power and uses it to promote guns and fight tighter gun legislation. Since 1998, the NRA has spent over 203 million dollars on political activity. What this means is that if politicians want to get elected in areas that the NRA focuses on, they have to be pro-gun or watch their opponents receive millions of dollars in campaign funding.

One way or another, the current situation is not sustainable. Something has to give, and time will tell who or what that will be.

 

Jeffrey, Courtland. “Map: Where Mass Shootings Have Happened in 2018.” WKBW, 20 Nov. 2018, www.wkbw.com/news/national/mass-shootings-in-the-us-when-where-they-have-occurred-in-2018-1.

 

Duva, Nicholas. “Gun Laws Vary State by State.” CNBC, CNBC, 20 Nov. 2014, www.cnbc.com/2014/11/20/gun-laws-vary-state-by-state-cnbc-explains.html.

 

Fox, Kara. “America’s Gun Culture vs. the World in 5 Charts.” CNN, Cable News Network, 9 Mar. 2018, www.cnn.com/2017/10/03/americas/us-gun-statistics/index.html.