Gun smokescreens
In an effort to let reason reign on divisive public policy arguments, sometimes it helps to reduce unproductive invective by going back to fundamental basics. This inevitably reinforces the reality that on core principles, we all agree far more than we disagree.
It’s safe to say that 100 percent of mentally sound Americans are against mass shootings of all sorts: at schools and churches, in workplaces, during parties, etc. All law-abiding citizens are also against criminal gun violence of any sort.
The only people who are “for” such heinous activities are those who perpetrate or consider perpetrating them, and thankfully that segment is a very tiny portion of our national population.
The most hard-core, right-wing gun-rights enthusiasts and the most hard-core, left-wing gun-control advocates unanimously agree that Uvalde and Buffalo are unimaginably tragic events that should never happen. Likewise regarding the gun-crime epidemic plaguing so many cities.
It’s important to not only remember and remind ourselves of that foundation of mutual agreement, but also to let it keep our eyes on the goals. Disagreements are all downstream from the basic guncrime opposition we all share, and tend to fall along fault lines shaped by secondary—but potent—social and political beliefs and positions.
The problem is, partisan politicians campaign and get elected by capitalizing on voter discord rather than harmony. Issues like gun crime become better opportunities for advancing political agendas than achieving real solutions.
It’s not that politicians don’t want to stop things like mass shootings from happening. They just believe getting elected or re-elected is priority one.
That’s how and why so many smokescreens pop up around guns, and the first of these ruses is the practice of conflating gun violence with gun crime, which only confuses people.
A prime example of this is comparing firearm mortality rates among states. The majority of firearm mortalities (suicides and accidents) in many states has nothing to do with gun crime, so using those statistics obscures more than it enlightens.
For instance, you may have heard that the highly restrictive gun law state of California has one of the lowest firearm mortality rates. So what? The more important metric is gun homicide rate, which focuses on crime and controls for population. By that measure, 27 other states—including many with much more gun-friendly laws—fare better than California. Another gun smokescreen is comparing statewide statistics, period. Gun crime is notoriously concentrated. A New York Times report this week highlighted Chicago’s plight, noting that the Windy City essentially experienced a mass shooting over Memorial Day weekend, when 51 people were shot (a five-year high).
But most of the victims were in high-crime neighborhoods on the south and west sides, where gunfire is a daily occurrence and not breaking news. The problem gun crime presents for the majority of Illinois is paltry compared to what Chicago faces.
And even most Chicagoans aren’t at much risk, because shootings are highly localized in certain neighborhoods. Just 4 percent of city blocks account for the majority of shootings across Chicago’s 228 square miles, according to data assembled by the University of Chicago Crime Lab.
The homogeneous minority makeup of those blocks also concentrates risk racially: Blacks are 40 times more likely to be shot and killed than whites in Chicago.
That same concentration is repeated in city after city. For the most effective solutions, localized risk should equate to localized regulation and prevention efforts. But whole states vote for the highest political posts, so the fear-mongering gets broadened.
Another popularly deployed smokescreen involves ignoring existing gun laws, many of which are continually broken and routinely unenforced. There are already more than 300 federal gun laws on the books, plus thousands of other laws and regulations among the various states.
It’s already illegal everywhere for a felon or a minor to purchase or possess a handgun, and yet every day in every metro area across America felons and minors are shooting people using handguns.
Maybe Congress should pass a law against making a mockery of gun laws, too.
In light of recent events, a study from last year resurfaced that found nearly 70 percent of mass shootings involved domestic violence.
A percentage that high is startling, and your first gut reaction might be that there ought to be a law banning guns from people with a history of domestic violence. Congress already addressed the issue—more than 50 years ago.
The 1968 Gun Control Act created a federal firearms ban for anyone “subject to a domestic violence protective order” or convicted of a “misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.”
Those crimes cover any state or federal misdemeanor involving the use or attempted use of force, or any threat with a deadly weapon, by parties in any domestic situation. That law allows seizure of firearms even without a prosecution.
Good lawmaking includes closing loopholes. A bipartisan group of U.S. senators may help do just that in some common-sense ways with new gun legislation.
Meanwhile, let’s push back on the pawn-playing with guns by politicians with ulterior motives. Smokescreens only work when we let them.