Psychologically, humans have
difficulty making sense of data. Although we are talented associative, causative, and analogous thinkers, cognitive science has abundantly
demonstrated that we have trouble thinking statistically. For example, most
people incorrectly believe politicians have more extra-marital affairs than
doctors. Why? Because, thanks to the news, they associate politicians with
scandals. Indeed, even the way statistics are framed can drastically change our
perception. Doctors are more likely to operate on patients if they are told
there is a 90% survival rate than if they are told there is a 10% mortality
rate. In my observations of the recent gun control debate, I have noticed a lot
of flawed statistical reasoning. But, with so many numbers being thrown out, it
is hard to make sense of the data. I decided to spend an hour looking over gun
and crime statistics to see if I could start to make any sense of them. Here
are my thoughts.
Moral Assumptions about Gun Ownership
The Second
Amendment guarantees the right of citizens to “keep and bear arms.” The Supreme
Court has interpreted the phrase to mean, essentially, “possess and own
non-military weapons.” Although many
argue that the Second Amendment only applies to militia members and others go even
further to assert that a right to gun ownership is antiquated, I think both
arguments are wrong. Before and after the Constitution was ratified, militias
were composed of private citizens who owned and carried their own guns. Indeed,
a number of states were told they were voting for individual, private ownership
of guns when the Second Amendment was up for ratification. So, it doesn’t seem
to make much sense to say that private citizens can’t own or carry weapons
unless furnished by an official military unit. Private gun ownership was firmly
entrenched in the American tradition and went unchallenged for about a century.
I believe gun ownership is
beneficial today for three reasons: (1) it allows private citizens to protect
their lives and property; (2) it disincentivizes against oppressive
government conduct and strengthens our military; (3) it represents the value we
place on freedom in America. According to the FBI, one in about every 250
Americans will be murdered (assuming current murder rates) and the likelihood of being involved in violent
crime or robbery is even higher. The likelihood of dying in an accidental
firearm discharge is one in 4,888 (and many of these are from hunting and target shooting accidents outside of the home). It might make some sense to require a gun safe in
the home, but these numbers suggest owning a gun is more likely to protect you than to hurt you. Although I think foreign invasion or
a coup d’état is extremely unlikely in the United States, I think the slow
erosion of our rights in exchange for false security is likely. Gun ownership
is symbolic to our freedom and discourages rash government intrusion. In
addition, our military is disproportionately made up of people who grew up with
guns in the home. I think it fair to say that our military, especially in case
of an unexpected need for a draft, is all the stronger for it.
However, I am not one to say, “Guns
don’t kill people. People kill people.” Although violent crime is much more a
function of mental health, racial demographics, socio-economic factors, and
family stability than it is about gun ownership, the easy availability of guns
has some effect. Whether easy availability of guns is 2%, 10%, or 30% of the
cause of violent crime, I don’t know. Although gun sales and ownership is up by
about 5% since 2001, gun murders, gun aggravated assault, and gun robbery have
all gone down during the same time frame. Clearly, other contributing factors
are more an issue than gun sales and ownership. Although mass murders in upper
and middle class America draw the most attention, they represent only a tiny
segment of murders nationwide. The majority of murders are concentrated in less
advantaged urban neighborhoods and carried out with standard handguns, blunt objects, knives, or hands and feet. Poverty, education, and race are all more
predictive of violent crime than is gun ownership. Perhaps gun restrictions should be focused on urban (democratic? Just kidding, but seriously) neighborhoods. Although we lament the
horrifying acts of violence at Sandy Hook Elementary, should we not also grieve for the
thousands of murders that don’t make national news? Despite my support for some
gun regulation measures, I am not particularly emphatic of any because I feel
our time and effort could be better spent addressing family stability and
socio-economic disparity.
Anyway, with that, I wanted to
comment very briefly on a few of President Obama’s legislative proposals for gun regulation.
Ban on Assault Weapons and High-Capacity Magazines
Assault
weapons are inconvenient for criminals because they are too bulky for easy
concealment. In 2009, rifles were used in 349 murders. Likely only a tiny percentage of
rifle murders were carried out with "assault" rifles, which happen to be some of
the best selling guns in the country. Most Americans do not know what an
assault rifle is. The distinction between a "regular" rifle and an "assault" rifle isn't the lethality, but the cosmetic features. The difference between a semi-automatic hunting rifle and
an assault weapon is not the size of bullet, firing rate, or lethal range.
Rather, the difference is whether a gun has a pistol grip, flash hider, or an adjustable
shoulder stocks. Assault rifles may have menacing looks, but there is no
meaningful distinction between a semi-automatic “assault weapon” and a hunting
rifle. The DOJ supposes that assault rifles account for, at most, 2% of gun
crimes and that the effects of a ban would be so small as to represent
statistical insignificance. The burden on freedom is not de minimis. Really, the ban on assault rifles is only symbolic.
It has virtually no affect on crime rates, but represents a step towards more intrusive
gun control.
Bans on high-capacity magazines are
similarly symbolic. Such a ban was in place until 2004, when the law expired.
Crime rates lowered at predictable rates without the magazine ban lapse even
registering as a statistical blip. Indeed, a number of mass murders, including
the Columbine High School Massacre and the Virginia Tech Shooting were
perpetrated with low-capacity magazines without sacrificing any malicious
efficiency. This legislative proposal is
more about eroding freedoms with a false lullaby of security than it is about
actually saving lives; therefore I oppose this measure.
Requiring Background Checks on All Gun Sales
I support background checks on gun
sales as long as they don’t cause unreasonable inconvenience on the buyer. To
the extent that the purchaser does not have to fill out unnecessary paperwork, wait
an undue amount of time, or wade through sticky bureaucracy—I think background
checks on all gun sales will have a more beneficial affect than the minor any
minor inconvenience. I would even consider a national gun registry—so long as
it wasn’t being used as symbolic warfare on gun ownership generally.
Stricter Penalties for Assisting Criminals and Felons to Obtain Guns
Tough
penalties on illegal gun trafficking and crimes are a step in the right
direction. However, deterrence is better accomplished by increasing the
likelihood of getting caught than by increasing the severity of the punishment.
We need more undercover cops and less cozy prisons.
Strong Families
President Obama is not suggesting this as a solution to violent crime. But, more than anything, we need strong
families for a secure and free society. Single-parent homes, high-divorce rates, sex out
of wedlock, diminished involvement in community organizations, and drugs in the
home are the driving factors of poor educational outcomes, high crime, and
socio-economic disparity. Crafting policies to support strong families would do more for lowering gun crime than regulating guns would lower gun crime.
