Disclaimer: This is the first of three posts that I wrote in the spring of 2018 regarding violence involving firearms, then-current arguments regarding possible solutions, and the information that, given the research I had been able to do up to that point, might actually lead to the most effective solution possible, for both short and long term.
First, I'd like to take a look at the current favorite potential solution: bans. There are a few different categories and specific bans that have been proposed recently, with various reasoned and unreasoned arguments attached to them. I'll assess and provide counterarguments to both sides of each proposal as best I can given the research I've been able to do so far.
The most commonly called for ban at the moment is to ban "Assault Weapons", "Assault Rifles", and specifically the ArmaLite designed AR-15. The first two are arbitrary definitions. Despite what it held to be true by many, the "AR" in AR-15 does not refer to Assault Rifle, it stands for ArmaLite Rifle; it serves as a designation for the company that designed it, not its actual function. There are no firearms that any organization that actually uses them for violent purposes, such as the military, militia groups, hunters associations, police forces, etc. categorize as "Assault Weapons." Any ban on such weapons would require a definition first. "Assault Rifles" has the same problem, except that it already has one feature defined: rifling inside the barrel (basically grooves that twist the bullet on the way out to improve accuracy and range.)
The AR-15 itself is the media's poster weapon for mass violence. However, statistically speaking, it's not actually the weapon of choice for killers. Overall, its versatility (which is why a very similar rifle, the M-4 Carbine, is the current choice of the US Army Infantry) actually hurts its ability to be the best gun to kill anything in a specified situation. It's capabilities are focused on being able to be used effectively in as many situations as possible: it has a maximum effective range of 600 yards, it uses a commonly found round size (NATO 5.56mm rounds), it has a variety of magazines, all of them able to be changed quickly, and it is both smaller and more mobile than more powerful rifles as a result. Unfortunately, this makes it inefficient for both close quarters combat, as its size and barrel placement make it unwieldy around doors and narrow aisles, and very long range, as beyond 300 yards, its accuracy is no longer good for human-sized targets, and the rounds it uses don't have the power to destroy most equipment at that range.
When looking at the actual statistics of mass shootings (Data from Mother Jones investigations of mass shootings in the USA from 1982-present), the AR-15 is actually very rarely used. Out of a total of 97 mass shootings, only 7 (7.22%) used an AR-15 style rifle. A higher percentage of fatalities (15.81% or 129 total) resulted from the use of an AR-15 style rifle. Unfortunately, although this seems like a lot, the AR-15 style specifically doesn't make up enough for a ban on it to be effective. Other rifles, most notably Kalashnikov-like rifles (similar to AK-47), are just as easily obtainable, and are generally more capable of doing damage, and have been used in a number of mass shootings.
This leads to looking at the possibility of banning all "assault weapons." Thankfully, there is a definition we can look at in order to figure out what a ban on them would be, from the Assault Weapon Control Act of 1989 (California). In order to pass that test, a rifle must either not be center-fire (meaning it uses a round in which the primer, the point of the round that has to be struck in order to fire the bullet from it, is in the center of the rear of the casing), must not be semi-automatic (Semi-automatic does not require a separate action between pulls of the trigger), or if it is both of those things, it must be at least 30 inches long, and either have a fixed magazine that can hold 10 or less rounds, or if it has a removable magazine, it cannot have any of the following: A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon, a thumb hole stock, a folding or telescoping stock, a grenade launcher or flare launcher, a flash suppressor, or a forward pistol grip. This law also has requirements regarding shotguns and handguns.
This would ban an extensive variety of rifles and handguns, many of which are actually the types that were used by mass murderers. If any arbitrary ban on the types of firearms available for purchase would possibly be effective, this might be the one. However, there are a wide variety of arguments against it, and some of them are actually well reasoned.
The primary argument against an "Assault Weapon" ban, even with a clear definition, is that it would violate the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America. That Amendment reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The current Supreme Court interpretation of this clause is that it contains two separate but related clauses, and that its spirit is to allow the citizens of the United States to be able to defend themselves from the government of the United States, including being able to fight back effectively, should the need arise. The second clause "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" is the linchpin here. The spirit of this clause was, indeed, to avoid the kind of injustices that the British Government perpetrated against the colonists that led to the Revolutionary War by allowing US citizens to always have access to the military equalizer that firearms represent. However, just like all of the other rights in the Bill of Rights (The first ten amendments to the Constitution), this has been limited in order to provide for the general welfare, safety, and the rights of all citizens. Current restrictions include a ban on fully-automatic firearms that were manufactured after 1986 (the time at which the Firearm Owners' Protection Act was passed). The appeal to the 2nd Amendment is still a strong argument, but it is not all-encompassing. Unfortunately, it is being used as one of the major arguments *against* even discussing gun control reform, and loses its effectiveness as a reasonable argument at that point.
The secondary argument against such a ban is that it wouldn't work. Either the firearms could be purchased illegally, or they are already owned. This is actually a very effective argument. If the current trend of mass violence continues (which is likely to matter the solution proposed), then we're likely to see anywhere between 2 and 12 more mass shootings before the end of the year. Given that, the next few shooters probably already own the weapons they will use, making any ban only good for the long run. If we want a solution to help in the immediate future, a ban on purchasing guns will not be that solution. Even with the bans in place, there are so many firearms and other methods of destruction that would be legally available for anyone with the willingness to train and do some research in order to commit the atrocity they want to.
The possibility of purchasing weapons illegally is actually a huge problem. As it is, Law Enforcement doesn't really have a legal means by which to enforce even the current purchasing laws, thanks to people who illegally sell through informal means, either to friends, through services like Craigslist, or even illegally online. Most individuals that do this are not attempting to circumvent the law, they just want to sell their gun for what could be considered a fair price (the only legal solution is to sell it back to a licensed seller, who will need to make a profit off of the weapon in short order, reducing the price they're willing to pay you). Without the "teeth", so to speak, even our current laws lack the punch they need to.
The other major form of ban that is proposed is a ban on selling firearms to those with "mental illness." There are many, many problems with this, so I'm going to have to cover just a few. The primary problem is that it is a direct violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. By discriminating against those with a disability (as many mental health conditions are), you have essentially taken an entire protected class of citizens and removed part of their citizenship. The immediate counterargument to this is that people with mental health issues are violent, or likely to become violent. This is not the case at all. There are really only three classes of individuals with mental health issues that are more likely than the average person to commit an act of violence: Those who suffer from a short list of fairly rare personality disorders (Borderline Personality Disorder, Antisocial Personality Disorder, and Conduct Disorder are among them) or paranoid delusions, Those that suffer from both a substance abuse disorder and another severe psychological disorder, and those with early exposure to *actual* violence (most notably forms of domestic abuse).
Those at an increased risk of violence that is related at all to their psychological disorder make up less than 3% of the US population, and in the vast majority of cases, when those that do have mental health issues commit a crime, it has nothing to do with their psychological condition. That doesn't even cover the fact that fatalities from mass shootings make up less than 1% of gun-related homicides. Even among those previously mentioned 97 mass shootings, 17 of them (17.53%) were committed by those with an absolutely clean mental health record, and many of the others had ambiguous mental health records. Very few were actually committed by people with what can be defined as a "severe psychological disorder." Creating laws that significantly reduce the rights of 48 million Americans because of 3% of the actual gun crimes would be not only ineffective, but likely would result in an increase in harm to those with mental health issues. In that case, doing nothing is actually better than doing something, as such a ban would likely increase the suicide rate significantly, if only for a short period of time, out of fear of government oppression of those with psychological disorders, and a possible increase in violence against those individuals.
The reason why that particular ban leaves a bad taste in so many mouths is that it stinks of similar restrictions that totalitarian states put on their citizens before essentially slaughtering millions of them. Yes, that does include the Nazi regime in Germany, but that is far from the only place. Registration and categorization of those with mental health issues has a dark history all over the world, including in our own nation. It wasn't even that long ago, back in the 1950's, that reforms brought about by exposing the atrocities committed in psychiatric institutions changed the United States, and it seems far too easy to slip back into the mindset of those suffering from mental illness being lumped together as "dangerous" and isolated from the rest of the world.
Then there's the problem of deciding who is too "mentally unstable." Because it would be a legal decision, not a medical one, the decision would probably be made by those with law or business degrees, focused not on the good of the people, but maintaining or improving their position. We already know that the federal government is full of people that do just that. "Mentally unstable" would likely become a political tool, with the worst case scenario involving declaring those with opposing opinions and beliefs as "unstable" and taking away their rights as a result. Again, this is not science fiction, it's historical fact, right in our own back yard. Categorizing and partially disenfranchising a population of tens of millions for the actions of perhaps a few hundred may be effective in reducing one kind of atrocity, but it would give rise to plenty of others. It doesn't help that literally anyone who survived a mass shooting would automatically be considered mentally unstable, as they're incredibly likely to suffer from PTSD for the rest of their life.
As a side note, PTSD specifically has been used a lot in the recent past as a reason to isolate and disenfranchise people, specifically veterans. There are dozens of child custody cases in which a Veteran's diagnosis of PTSD has been used as evidence against them, sometimes resulting in full custody going to the other parent, with no visitation rights. There have been those that have used specifically to ban Veterans suffering from PTSD from owning firearms, despite the fact that firearm ownership among veterans with PTSD is actually correlated with lower rates of suicidal ideation, and in fact a higher level of stability than the average of veterans with PTSD.
At this point, the discussion tends to be at a standstill. One side insists on a ban, and the other side insists that it won't work, and that's where they keep it. The discussion needs to move forward, because gun control reform cannot simply take the form of more bans; it must be more complete. A ban *might* be part of the reform, but it cannot be expected to be the whole of it, and any reform must move to not only protect those without firearms, but also to better protect those with them. I'll cover the possible course of action for reform that I've worked out as a framework in my next article.
As always, Thanks for reading. God bless if you'll allow Him, and in any case, I hope you have a good day.
- Draknus.
Sources:
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/mass-shootings-mother-jones-full-data/
https://www.nami.org/learn-more/mental-health-by-the-numbers
https://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-03.pdf
http://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2014/04/mental-illness-crime.aspx
http://jech.bmj.com/content/70/3/223
https://psychiatryonline.org/doi/pdf/10.5555/appi.books.9781615371099
https://www.health.harvard.edu/newsletter_article/mental-illness-and-violence
http://www.antoniocasella.eu/archipsy/Swartz_1998.pdf
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colt_AR-15
https://www.pewpewtactical.com/rimfire-vs-centerfire-ammunition/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_California#Assault_Weapons_Control_Act_of_1989
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_psychiatric_institutions#United_States:_reform_in_the_1940s
http://www.12news.com/article/features/can-military-vets-ptsd-records-be-used-against-him-in-child-custody-dispute/459535150
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5308415/
No comments:
Post a Comment