News broadcasts of mass shootings and school campuses devastated by gun violence have become a familiar sight on Americans’ television screens. The events at Sandy Hook Elementary School and most recently at Umpqua Community College in Oregon have created a legislative and constitutional debate, echoing a long overdue call for a new approach to gun violence.
The anger felt by outraged Americans impacted by gun violence is palpable, but at this time, reacting in a smart, strategic manner is more likely to bring about change than wild protest. What America really needs to do to address gun-related violence is establish a public health approach to tackle gun violence. More specifically, the U.S. needs to pass legislation that mirrors existing laws designed to prevent harm and/or death from other potentially dangerous activities like smoking cigarettes and driving cars. It is clear that gun activists are not doing away with their Second Amendment rights anytime soon. With this in mind, the goal is not to do away with guns in America but find a way to live with them safely.
In order to develop effective gun control policy, it is important to understand the severity of gun-related violence and the impact it has had on American people. Gun violence amongst civilians is inherently an American issue: no other Western country experiences or tolerates the amount of gun violence that takes place in the U.S. In the last 50 years, there has been a barrage of gun-related deaths. According to the Congressional Research Service, there is an average of 92 gun related deaths every day in America, and in the last 40 years, more Americans have been killed by guns than have died in all U.S. wars dating back to the American Revolution.
As Nicholas Kristof noted in the New York Times, just over one hundred years ago, an established right to bear arms in the United States did not exist. There was, however, an established right to travel freely, which included the right to drive cars without regulation. Courts repeatedly refused to issue checks on automobile safely out of fear of impinging on drivers’ rights, but it became clear over time that cars, and their unregulated drivers, were dangerous and killing others.
When seeking to develop an influential model for gun regulation, cars provide an appropriate public health approach that can be applied to guns. Cars are not banned, but there are provisions for drivers to protect themselves from others on the road; the government requires drivers to have a valid driver’s license and insurance. The government also requires that car manufacturers install seatbelts, airbags, padded dashboards, safety glass and collapsible steering columns. Applying similar regulations on guns would entail a greater investment in “smart gun” technology, such as weapons that fire only with a PIN or fingerprint. The government can require liability insurance for guns as we do for cars.
A poll in a Preventative Medicine article found that a majority of the population, even of gun-owners, favor gun regulation. Eighty-eight percent of people polled were in favor of universal background checks, 67 percent advocated for safe storage requirements in homes and 77 percent were in favor of a 10-year prohibition on possessing guns for anyone convicted of domestic violence, assault or similar offenses.
Not only do these measures have public backing, they have been proven to work. For example, Australia, a country that has an extensive historical relationship with guns, instituted more regulatory gun laws during the 1980s after a surge of gun-related deaths. Firearms in Australia are grouped into categories set out in the National Firearm Agreement, which was instituted in 1996 with different levels of control. In addition, Australia’s gun laws made private weapons sales illegal and required that all weapons be individually registered to their owners. Gun patrons must also give a “genuine reason” for each weapons purchase. Today, homicides by firearm plunged 59 percent between 1995 and 2006 and suicide rates fell by 80 percent.
While Australia provides the United States with an effective example of appropriate gun regulation, the battle over weapons continues. The central issue in the gun debate is not whether stricter gun regulation effectively protects Americans from each other, but rather it is whether stricter gun regulation is constitutional.
A century ago, politicians made rational accommodations to the law regarding automobile safety that effectively improved the safety of Americans without compromising American rights. Such revisions exist today and continue to protect Americans on the road. Despite the array of options the U.S. has to combat the country’s increasing gun violence, America has been unable to make modest reforms to protect its citizens from wars waged against each other.
Hannah Fishbein is an undeclared first year. She can be reached at hfishbein@oxy.edu.
The argument sounds very sound, but until there are constitutional amendments it is a wasted battled. Instead of restricting that guns are bad, teach people how to handle them safely. Teach gun safety like buckling up and recylcling in school. Some parents would not like it, but it can be easily done without having guns. Most gun accidents are because people do not realize how dangerous an weapon is.
Not so fast. Leftist screeching on this issue is a wild concoction and such meddling might embolden the criminal element living among us. For example, consider worldwide murder rates. Of 218 nations, the U.S. ranks 108th. Stated another way, your chances of being murdered in the U.S. are 47 ten-thousandths of a percent (.000047). In France, your chances are one ten-thousandths of a percent (.000001). That’s a difference of 46 ten-thousandths of a percent, a pretty small number any way you look at it. Perhaps statisticians don’t lie after all. But doubtlessly, statists do.
Regardless of the infinitesimally small differences, nations with higher murder rates include Greenland, South Africa, Kenya, Thailand, Brazil, Argentina, Lithuania, Eritrea, Palestine, Pakistan, several UK and French islands, a number of other South American nations, many Gulf and Caribbean resort vacation islands, Russia and of course Mexico. Most have draconian gun control. Those ranked near the U.S., within two murders per hundred thousand, include India, Egypt, New Caledonia, Taiwan, Nepal, Malta, Micronesia, Cuba, Fiji and Maldives. When considering those with lower murder rates, think about the number of murders by illegal aliens, a major factor in the U.S. and few other places.
According to the 2014 FBI Uniform Crime Report, Expanded Homicide Data table 8, between 2012 and 2014, total firearm murders in the U.S. declined 8.7%. Total homicides committed with a rifle declined 16.6%. Shotgun homicides declined 15.5%. These declines were not due to the constant yammering by leftists and in fact Congress consistently declines to take action, even after the Sandy Hook atrocity. Seems our Congresspersons are getting smarter. By the way, since 2010, murders with rifles declined 32.5%, a fact that debunks the idea that rifles are “disproportionately used.” Knowing this, choosing how you feel about gun control is as easy as choosing up sides on a playground. The only ones who favor it are nuts, felons and democrats. All you have to do is choose those you want for teammates.
HA.
Your “new approach” is without any framework much less detail.
Australia is only one anecdote. Vermont the foil.
Also, gun control, we have 20,000 anti gun laws on the books now, another will do the trick?
What is the trick to be accomplished, the goal?
If the goal is preventing gun shootings, no law has nor will accomplish that.
If the goal is preventing the mass shootings we’ve seen,
the answer to that has nothing to do with laws, nor guns, nor money, nor religion, it is;
RUSH THE SHOOTER! Take that guy down! Brave Americans! Like the train to Paris incident.
This is an amazing article. Well researched and thought out. Beautiful. I’m very impressed with the complex understanding the author has of this issue. Truly a pleasure to read.