A couple of weeks ago, a heartfelt academic liberal relative got curious about my writing on gun issues.
He asked some meaningful questions when he realized that maybe the answers he’d always heard weren’t the whole story.
I thought I’d share our exchanges, since they touch on many mistaken ideas about firearms, their meaning and our right to them.
Let’s call him Hal:
Hal: “I don’t enjoy living in a society where gun violence is so rampant — is it true that gun deaths are close to surpassing motor-vehicle deaths nationwide? — or where special-interest groups like the NRA have so much power.”
RY: “Did you realize that firearms deaths and injuries have been declining for over 20 years in this country (despite vastly increasing numbers of firearms in circulation)?
“The truth is that deaths in motor vehicle accidents (MVAs) have actually dropped toward the historically lesser number of gunshot deaths, but still occur at vastly greater rates. Fewer miles traveled over the past few years have resulted in fewer traffic deaths. That mainly occurred because of increasing gas prices coupled with the effects of the 2008-09 recession, which seems to have produced a persisting reduction in miles driven. Aside from that, deaths by gun fire are more suicide than homicide, and more homicide than accidental, which are strikingly rare now. Virtually all MV deaths are accidents, and there are far more MVA deaths than accidental gunshot deaths.
“The National Rifle Association’s influence is due to its members, people who seriously intend to preserve their rights under the 2nd amendment. Its corporate support exists because NRA members care about guns, just as other organizations are supported by businesses aligned with their interests. Its political influence is enhanced because of its single issue mission, for which its 5 million members and many more sympathizers vote. Anti-gun groups can’t rouse anywhere near that many committed supporters (e.g., there are no “Million Moms” Against Gun Violence”). That’s why their funding comes almost entirely from billionaires (Bloomberg, Soros et al) who are obsessed with gun control for everyone except their own well-armed security details.
Hal, next: “My only critique is that at times you hit a note or two that weakens your case for someone like me, a liberal big-government guy who gets all his news from the leftwing media. Bottom line: there are way too many impulsive people out there who can get their hands on guns — what do we do about it?”
RY: “If I only hit a note or two that rang off-key for “a liberal, big-government guy who gets all his news from the leftwing media”, that’s not bad. I hope that some might be able to hear and then question their assumptions. That, for example, is why I presented at an American Medical Association conference devoted to their suit against laws limiting routine questioning of patients about gun ownership.
“So what should we do about too many impulsive people who can get their hands on guns?
—Legal gun owners are far less likely to commit crimes than the general population.
—Guns used in crimes are almost always either stolen or bought via straw purchasers, both crimes themselves. We can prosecute these acts, but we can’t easily prevent them. Despite this, only a fraction of people who attempt to purchase guns illegally are prosecuted.
—There are a lot of myths. Federal background checks to exclude people guilty of certain crimes, with a history of mental illness commitment, etc. already occur for up to 85% of firearms purchases in this country (not the 60% always quoted, from a very sketchy 1994 survey). You can’t legally buy a firearm over the internet without undergoing a background check upon taking possession at a Federal Firearms License dealer. You can’t buy one at a gun show from a dealer (the great majority of sellers) without being checked. The only general exceptions are for personal sales/gifts/loans between private individuals. Why interfere with that? It couldn’t be enforced the way checks can be at commercial points of purchase.
—The push after Sandy Hook for nationally mandated background checks for all firearms transfers failed, not because everyone necessarily objects to background checks themselves but because the bill also permitted collecting all the information from those transactions. That would make possible a national gun registry (in spite of claims that it wouldn’t be permitted) which too many Americans oppose. There are ways to do checks without storing that information (e.g., the Blind Identification Database System, or BIDS) but that was unacceptable to pro-control politicians like our New York Senator Chuck Schumer, for whom doing checks without keeping such records was unacceptable.
“So we need to prosecute illegal gun possession aggressively. Proposals to allow family and others to report fears of danger in someone, permitting police to detain them and get them evaluated, makes some sense. That is, so long as there is a simple way to contest that once psychiatric crises have passed and before false reports ruin the lives of their targets.
“Yet this whole discussion ignores a core reality: our traditional affirmation of the natural right to self-defense for which our federal Constitution guarantees the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (RKBA), which has nothing to do with any data, outcomes, or statistical arguments.”
Then, Hal: “Do you know if the founding fathers ever discussed or envisioned a time when the fire power citizens own could become so technically advanced and dangerous to other citizens? Did they consider the cost of firearms dropping to the point where any of the uneducated urban masses could obtain a small arsenal? I guess this is what happens when you create your new constitution/laws so soon after a revolution that required a citizen uprising.”
RY: “Our Founding Fathers counted on all able-bodied free males, as part of the citizen militia, owning the usual infantry weapons of the time to bring to battle when needed. They probably didn’t assume that private citizens would own and transport artillery, which were locally and communally acquired, though neither is it clear these were intended to be illegal otherwise. They were only able to hold off and fight the British army for years because they had the same (or, if you consider longer rifled rifles, better) weapons.
“The Founders were smart men. Why wouldn’t they have expected technological advances? They were fundamentally concerned that the citizenry be armed equivalently to any regular army. So there may actually be no reason that individuals shouldn’t freely own even automatic-fire weapons, true military-grade “assault rifles” (M-16, AR-15 & AK-47 selective fire), machine guns, flame throwers, anti-tank weapons, etc., since those are ordinary modern infantry weapons. But there’s been general acceptance of restricting automatic fire firearms since the 1930’s when they had become criminals’ weapons of choice.
“Only 2.5% of all shooting deaths involve any kind of rifle. So the modern (since the 1950s) mislabeled “assault rifles” (“modern sporting rifles” better describe their actual uses) that are so popular nowadays are the instruments of even fewer deaths. These guns are nothing new functionally, but they’ve been labeled as abominations that anti-gun activists scare people with. There are lots of other semi-automatic rifles that do exactly the same things, but look more traditional and are not so targeted. Human injuries and deaths by firearms almost all involve handguns, which are clearly protected now.
“Killers would use something different if they couldn’t find such exciting looking weapons. Yet about ¾ of mass shooters acquire their guns legally, and none of the new proposals that make acquiring guns harder would have changed the ease with which they armed themselves, legally or illegally.
“Yes, firearms are dangerous. The question is, how much risk do they present compared to their value? That value includes the historic principles that people should be able to oppose an oppressive government, hunt (not much for subsistence now like then), and defend themselves. Injuries and lives lost to firearms (most of which are drug or gang related) have to be compared to lives preserved. I think the best estimate is that at least 760,000 times a year guns are used to prevent criminal violence (>95% of those times not being fired). That must mean many more lives saved than even all 33,636 deaths by gunshot in 2013 (and proportionally, injuries too).
“Still, accidents almost always involve negligence, suicides may ultimately find a way, and any homicides are too many (though some are justified). Harsher punishment of illegal gun acquisition and possession, and intensifying education about how to use firearms safely would reduce violence far more than adding more hurdles for legal gun owners. By definition, they obey the rules. Criminals will keep evading laws intended to keep guns from them.”
Hal still recounts that one of his sons’ all-time highs was shooting my muzzle-loader years ago, their first experience with a gun. Maybe these questions began percolating then. He’s smart, curious and open to new ideas. Many people are, yet have beliefs that arose within an insular network of peers too similar to see past their shared misconceptions.
When there’s an opportunity to educate, be helpful, be informative, and take it!
— DRGO editor Robert B. Young, MD is a psychiatrist practicing in Pittsford, NY, an associate clinical professor at the University of Rochester School of Medicine, and a Distinguished Life Fellow of the American Psychiatric Association.