Breaking Down Gun Violence: No 'Simple
Formula'
by NPR STAFF August 12, 2012
In 1990, 78 percent of Americans supported
tougher restrictions on gun sales, according to aGallup poll. A decade later, that number fell
to 44 percent.
Part of the reason has to do with how the
debate has been framed: one between those who want to ban all guns and those
who want to protect the right to own them.
The reality is far more complex. Private gun
ownership is a fact of life in the U.S. The country tops the charts worldwide
in terms of civilian gun ownership. A 2007 study from the United Nations Office
on Drugs and Crime [PDF] reported there were 270 million private
firearms in the U.S.
The question is how to keep them away from
people who perpetrate crimes like the recent shootings in Aurora, Colo., and in
Oak Creek, Wis. That's the tricky part — partially because getting a gun in the
U.S. can be fairly easy.
Purchasing Guns
At the Blue Ridge Arsenal in Virginia, sales
rep Mark Warner says the process can take only about 25 minutes. You pick any
gun, fill out a form and wait for approval.
"If you're a law-abiding citizen and you
don't have a criminal record and the computer likes you in Richmond, you're
done in 15-25 minutes," he says.
And that's if you buy it in a shop.
Dan Gross, president of the Brady Campaign to
Prevent Gun Violence, says 40 percent of legally sold guns are sold without a
background check. That 40 percent includes the guns sold at gun shows or
through classified ads, where legal loopholes don't require background checks.
"Every day in our nation, 32 Americans
are killed by guns," Gross says.
He argues that a few simple changes — tighter
background checks, a ban on certain types of weapons — could all make the
difference.
It's been done before. In the early 1990s, the
Brady Handgun Violence Protection Act, or the "Brady Bill,"
introduced background checks. Then-President Clinton signed it into law in
1993. From 1994 to 2004, the sale of assault weapons was banned.
How To Tackle Crime Rates
But is there a link between gun restrictions
and fewer murders?
Paul Barrett, author of a book on the history of the famous Glock handgun, says
the answer is no.
"Criminologists have studied it, and the
consensus is that those laws simply did not have a statistically meaningful
effect on crime rates," he tells Guy Raz, weekends on All Things
Considered.
Barrett says making slight changes to existing
laws won't bring down the homicide rate. The equation of "more guns equal
more crime" just doesn't add up, he says.
"There's a relationship between the
presence of guns and the lethality of crime, but there is not a
cause-and-effect, simple formula that will solve crime problems by simply
regulating, in slightly different ways, how easily you can acquire a gun,"
he says.
Gun-control advocates point to the shootings
in Colorado and Milwaukee as justification for stricter laws. But Barrett
argues that's not the nation's biggest gun issue.
Print books: http://www.gypsybooks.co.nz
Books for e-readers: https://www.smashwords.com/books/search
Books for e-readers: https://www.smashwords.com/books/search
"We fixate, understandably, on the
aberrational mass-shooting events, but they're actually not our main social
problem," he says. "Our main social problem is the overall gun homicide
rate."
The Political Calculus
Still, neither the overall homicide rate nor
the recent atrocities have spurred real political action. Barrett says
President Obama is probably just taking history into account and deciding that
"it is not worth the political punishment to tinker with gun laws."
The first lesson would be the presidential
election in 2000. Then-candidate Al Gore was targeted by the National Rifle
Association in key sates because he had been vice president when Clinton signed
the assault-weapons ban.
The result? Gore lost in states he should have
won: his home state of Tennessee, Clinton's home state of Arkansas and West
Virginia. Barrett says Gore's losses were due "in large part" because
of the gun-rights activism.
Another example of political backlash is the
1994 turnover in the House. The Republican sweep in that election followed the
enactment of the assault-weapons ban. Barrett says Clinton himself attributed
the election at least in large part to the gun laws.
Barrett breaks down the political calculation
for like this: "a huge downside risk, a marginal upside potential to
please people who are going to vote for you anyway."
"There is just not a lot of popular
demand for stricter gun control," he says. "The public opinion polls
tell you that, and I think Barack Obama and his advisers can read those
polls."
Peter’s
Comment
The above is probably a fair assessment of why Barack Obama
is unlikely to change the gun laws during this term. He could wait until near
the end of his final term and do it then. But that would make for an
interesting 2016 presidential campaign before the effect of any change could be
accurately gauged.
Other countries get along nicely without easy access to guns
and enjoy low murder rates.
Meanwhile, in America the political stalemate continues and the
National Rifle Association has what many would call a murderous grip on the electorate.
It is an absolute misnomer that any man or woman could be
safer by carrying a gun.
The greatest advance in American social history was the
abolition of slavery. The next great step forward could be the abolition of
guns for personal protection.
Email Peter Blakeborough's Blog: peterblakeborough@gmail.com
No comments:
Post a Comment