Stay solution-focused
Aresounding chorus of misinformation adds no validity; it simply adds volume. There’s nothing “common sense” about trying to solve gun crime by controlling either the behavior of non-criminals or the guns that are only rarely used in criminal activity.
The first level of control over any firearm starts with the individual, which means criminal gun control must begin with the control of those persons who seek to possess and use guns illegally.
Only one fringe faction cares about guns that are never used for criminal violence, and that’s the manic anti-gun zealots seeking to impose their dystopian ideology on everyone else. For the majority who truly care about reducing gun crime and its victimization of innocents, inert weapons of any sort are not the problem.
Guns used in crimes are the problem.
To the hyperpolitical periphery that views all guns as bad, a gun owner is essentially guilty of a moral crime.
But most Americans fully realize that if guns alone were the issue, the
U.S. would have a whole lot more gun crime. As it is, only a minuscule fraction of the nation’s guns ever wind up being used in murders and other criminal shootings.
Consider the much-maligned AR15 series: There are up to 8 million such rifles in American hands, yet few people can name 10 crimes committed with one. If we could apply that same criminal utilization rate to handguns, we wouldn’t have a gun-crime problem at all.
The core challenge is that too many criminals carry guns. Even if they never open fire, armed criminals are dangerous and shootings often occur that were not premeditated—and wouldn’t have happened if the criminal hadn’t had a gun.
But the penalty for illegal possession of a gun isn’t harsh. Strengthen the punishment and it will reduce the crime by putting some lawbreakers in prison and deterring others.
If we want to also reduce possession of certain guns in the hands of criminals, like assault rifles, then weight and stagger penalties accordingly. An illegal handgun gets a guy up to five years, say, but bump the time for illegal possession of an assault rifle so that it makes the violator an old man by the time he gets out.
Criminal gun control strategy not based in relation to the volume of gun types used for crime will be flawed and fail.
The headlines today are dominated by assault rifles. But the news coverage is in diametric opposition to the role that particular firearm type plays in gun crimes.
Handguns are used in murders at a rate 19 times higher than all other firearms combined, according to FBI data, even though they have a higher age restriction and a waiting period requirement. And despite those additional regulations, handgun crime and carnage is up in recent years—in some uber-regulated places (think Chicago) it’s skyrocketed.
Feel-good measures have their place. They enhance the smug of politicians’ smiles, for example.
But lethal crime issues demand more than Pollyanna wish-thinking, such as “banning guns.” We might as well ban greed to end robbery. It may sound laudable, but it won’t change a thing.
Guns in America are a fact of life, and have been since the founding. But wanton violent crime has not always been a fact of life. Before 1960, it was basically nonexistent compared to modern crime statistics.
Even if someone could figure out a way to wave a Harry Potter wand and presto, eight million AR-15s vanished, there are eight million black market AK-47s overseas waiting to flood in and fill that vacancy.
That’s why mis-focusing on restricting legal access is ineffectual. People who use guns illegally are fine with obtaining their guns illegally, too.
Killers break a lot of laws, not just the one against murder. And the first time they shoot someone is almost never the first time they illegally carry a gun. The focus point of prevention is the moment the perpetrator decides it’s okay (i.e., worth the risk) to pack heat in the first place.
Mothers Against Drunk Driving achieved results because it succeeded in toughening the punishment for what previously had been a minor crime. And nonbinge offenders (who constituted the majority of alcohol-impaired drivers) began to think twice about the harsher penalty.
Had MADD sought to ban alcohol to solve drunk driving, or to alter the drinking habits of people who never drove while impaired anyway, it would have failed as spectacularly as Prohibition did a century ago. MADD wisely avoided treating widespread adult access to alcohol as the problem, and instead focused attention on a specific abuse of it.
Make illegal possession of a gun a serious offense, with real teeth, and small-time offenders (who also constitute the majority of lawbreakers) might think twice before carrying.
We’ll never stop two-bit criminals from trying to rob convenience stores for petty cash, but if we can stop them from gun-toting, those kinds of crimes won’t escalate to shootings.
The solution to gun crime is fewer criminals with guns. Arguing about guns in the hands of non-criminals only distracts from achieving it.