Needed Domestic Disarment, Not 'Gun control '

[Janelle2002 3,865]

E BLOG

Needed: Domestic Disarmament, Not 'Gun Control'

7 hours ago | Updated 1 hour ago

Amitai Etzioni Professor of international relations, George Washington University

Scott Olson via Getty Images

In response to the almost daily mass shootings in the United States -- which could be expected to rise now that they are also promoted by ISIS -- good progressive persons are calling for some measure of gun control. They may well know, in their heart of hearts, that even if these measures are enacted, they will do little to reduce gun violence.

Universal background checks of gun buyers is a fine idea, but of limited value in a nation in which citizens already own 250 million guns, more than one for every adult. Providing more mental health treatment is always a good idea. But if you believe that one can tell which mental patients will resort to mass shootings, and that most of these can be stopped by therapists, there are several bridges in Brooklyn I would like to sell you.

Slowing the speed by which magazines can be reloaded (by requiring a tool to reload) would help, but gun manufacturers already found a way to circumvent this regulation -- by declaring that a bottom on the gun is a tool.

Advertisement

AdChoices

"It is at best naïve, sometimes disingenuous, to imply that if several gun control measure would be enacted -- and somehow enforced -- the U.S. would gain what these other nations take for granted."

Good progressive people may well respond that they must start with small, incremental measures, because the really big, effective ones do not have a prayer. But neither do the tiny ones, at least on the national level. The NRA will not yield an inch.

One needs no better evidence than to note that Congress just refused to ban people on the no-fly list, those strongly suspected of being terrorists, from buying guns legally in the U.S.! Moreover, the NRA is moving the needle in the opposite direction, getting more and more states to allow people to carry concealed weapons, in more and more places.

Most progressives seem unaware that whatever laws are finally enacted will have very little effect because the NRA and its allies in Congress have found powerful ways to prevent their enforcement. The Firearms Owners' Protection Act of 1986 bans the ATF from inspecting gun dealers more than once in any 12-month period, even if violations are uncovered, and it reduces record-keeping violations from a felony to a misdemeanor offense, the result being that gun dealers are very rarely prosecuted.

The 2003 and 2004 Tiahrt amendments, named for their sponsor Rep. Todd Tiahrt, require that records from the background checks of gun buyers be destroyed within 24 hours, bar requiring gun dealers to conduct inventory checks to monitor gun thefts, and prevent crime gun trace data from being used in court, even when a dealer has broken the law. In addition, Congress has barred the ATF repeatedly from creating a computerized database, so when a gun is recovered at a crime scene, agents must manually search through boxes of paper records to trace the firearm to dealer or purchaser.

Advocates of gun control frequently cite the much lower levels of gun violence in other developed nations -- such as Canada and the UK -- in support of the measures they promote. However, these very low levels of gun violence have not been achieved by gun control but -- by domestic disarmament.

"Make the gun manufacturers liable for harm done with their products. Ban the sale of ammunition. And vote for a president that will add to the Supreme Court those who will read the Second Amendment as written."

Most people have no guns in these fully democratic nations and have no way of getting them, legally or otherwise. It is hence at best naïve, sometimes disingenuous, to imply that if several gun control measure would be enacted -- and somehow enforced -- the U.S. would gain what these other nations take for granted. (By the way, Black Lives Matters may wish to take note: In these blessed nations most cops, most of the time, have no guns either.)

Given that even micro gun control measures will be effectively blocked by the NRA and its allies, and that promoting mini measures as potentially effective is misleading, progressives may as well go for the big enchilada: Call for domestic disarmament.

One may say that the Supreme Court, after 250 years in which the Second Amendment was read as allowing only a well-regulated militia to have guns, recently reinterpreted it to mean that there is an individualized right to own guns. This suggests that we may have to get to domestic disarmament through the back door.

Make the gun manufacturers liable for harm done with their products. Ban the sale of ammunition. And vote for a president that will add to the Supreme Court those who will read the Second Amendment as written.

Above all, domestic disarmament is a true, compelling vision which cannot be said about the small gun control measures that are currently promoted by some of the most enlightened people among us.

--

Amitai Etzioni is a University Professor and Professor of International Relations at The George Washington University. His latest book, Privacy in a Cyber Age, was recently published by Palgrave. You can follow him on Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube. To subscribe to his monthly newsletter, send an e-mail with the subject line "Subscribe" to icps@gwu.edu.

Also on HuffPost:

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/8739712?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592

Edited December 7, 2015 by Janelle2002

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

Won't happen in our lifetime.

[OriZ 3,157]

Fact remains, that as gun ownership has risen, homicides have actually gone down.

Can you argue with numbers? They don't argue back, they just sit there all pretty staring at you.

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

Fact remains, that as gun ownership has risen, homicides have actually gone down.

Can you argue with numbers? They don't argue back, they just sit there all pretty staring at you.

http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/

Post the numbers that show that homicides have gone down.

[OriZ 3,157]

This is from two years ago but as far as I know is still relevant. I've recently seen a new study but can't find it right now.

Two new studies released at the beginning of May 2013 have shown that the primary factor in the reduction of the number of gun homicides and violent gun crimes is not gun control, but rather the proliferation of legal gun ownership.

In a study released by Pew Research, violent gun crimes are significantly lower now than they were at their peak during the mid 1990s. Gun homicides declined 49% from 1993 to 2010, despite the fact that population in the United States grew during the same period.

Other violent crimes involving firearms including robberies, assaults, and sex crimes declined 75% in 2011 as compared to 1993. The data also showed that six-in-ten firearms deaths are actually suicides, meaning they are not victims of criminal violence.

According to Bureau of Justice Statistics, there were 31,672 deaths from guns in the U.S. during 2010. Nearly 20,000 of those deaths were gun related suicides.

Unfortunately, the vast majority of Americans are unaware of this decline in firearms violence. The Pew study found that 56% incorrectly perceive that gun crime is actually higher now than it was two decades ago.

The Pew study utilized data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the DOJ National Crime Victimization Survey and the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports.

The same trends are mirrored in a May 2013 Justice Department study from the Bureau of Justice Statistics. According to this study, firearms homicides in 2011 are down 39% since 1993, while non-fatal violent crimes involving firearm declined 69% during the same period.

One interesting aspect of the DOJ study showed that in 2004, state prison inmates were surveyed regarding the source of the firearm they used during the commission of their offense. The survey showed that less than 2% purchased their firearm at a gun show or flea market, 37% obtained a gun from a friend or family member, while 40% obtained their firearm from an illegal source.

There is also clearly no relationship between the number of guns and firearms related violence. In December 2012, the FBI reported a record 2.78 million background checks for firearms purchases. In November 2012, the number of background checks was just over 2 million. The total of FBI background checks for 2012 numbered 19.6 million, an increase of 19% over 2011.

Media attention has not focused on the decline in gun related violence, but rather has emphasized attention on mass shootings like those in Aurora, CO and Newtown, CT. While mass shootings are certainly of great interest and concern to the public, they are a small percentage of all shootings that occur in the United States in a given year.

Fortunately, mass murders, while tragic, are exceeding rare. Mass shootings represent less than 1% of all shooting related homicides.

While many gun control advocates, including Senator Diane Feinstein attempted to use the Newtown tragedy to advance her Assault Weapons Ban proposal, an DOJ analysis of the 1994 ban failed to show that there was a "significant impact" on assault weapons use and failed to support the allegation that large capacity magazines lead to more violent gun crimes.

In all of these studies, there is no data that supports the idea that a reinstatement of any Assault Weapons Ban would have an impact on future tragedies.

While researchers have been unable to reach a clear consensus on exactly why crime rates have declined so dramatically, advocates of gun control have used the events in Newtown to redouble their efforts to pass more limiting legislation, despite compelling evidence that draconian gun laws do not result in a reduction of violent crime.

The City of Chicago has some of the toughest gun laws in America, yet in 2012 there were 512 gun related homicides, an increase of 15% over 2011. The murder rate in Chicago three times the murder rate in the rest of Illinois. Law enforcement also reports that 80% of the murders and shootings in Chicago are gang-related. It would appear that the 'gun problem' in Chicago is really more of a 'gang problem'.

Despite the efforts of gun control advocates and much of the mainstream media to convince the American people that they must surrender some of their Second Amendment rights to reduce gun violence, the data simply does not support that conclusion.

Perhaps these revelations will help the American people recognize the wisdom of Ben Franklin's words when he said "Those who would give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty or safety."

http://www.examiner.com/article/two-new-studies-confirm-gun-control-s-worst-nightmare-more-guns-less-crime

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/

Post the numbers that show that homicides have gone down.

Surely you cannot be serious?

FBI Stats

Or a picture, if you prefer:

Edited December 8, 2015 by ROYGBP

[OriZ 3,157]

Thanks, that's the one I was looking for.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

You're welcome. It's always fun helping those who don't fully comprehend the interwebz get the info they crave!! (Even if it doesn't further their agenda)

Thanks, that's the one I was looking for.

Here's another one that will upset the folks who think the US is such a "out of control, gun-happy" country:

[Póg mo 1,749]

Surely you cannot be serious?

FBI Stats

Or a picture, if you prefer:

Isn't it also true, that the percentage of Americans who own guns has also decreased? And couldn't it be argued that because fewer people actually own guns than in the past, the homicide rate has decreased as a result.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

Fewer people own guns, yet there are more guns owned today. That means that the number of owners has decreased, but the number of guns per person has gone up. While gun homicides have gone down. Which can be interpreted to mean that with more guns in the hands of RESPONSIBLE gun owners, there is less to fear.

Isn't it also true, that the percentage of Americans who own guns has also decreased? And couldn't it be argued that because fewer people actually own guns than in the past, the homicide rate has decreased as a result.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

This one pretty much sums up the concept of concealed carry and the added value it brings when responsible people carry guns:

[Póg mo 1,749]

You're welcome. It's always fun helping those who don't fully comprehend the interwebz get the info they crave!! (Even if it doesn't further their agenda)

Here's another one that will upset the folks who think the US is such a "out of control, gun-happy" country:

How does Ireland even have a million firearms? Oh wait it doesn't. Singapore? You got to be kidding me?

[Boiler 46,246]

Isn't it also true, that the percentage of Americans who own guns has also decreased? And couldn't it be argued that because fewer people actually own guns than in the past, the homicide rate has decreased as a result.

That is so, but the vast majority of gun incidents are down to Gangbangers and those commiting suicide and as far as I know there is no suggestion that those numbers have gone down.

How does Ireland even have a million firearms? Oh wait it doesn't. Singapore? You got to be kidding me?

That is not what the graph is about, look at the description.

[Póg mo 1,749]

Fewer people own guns, yet there are more guns owned today. That means that the number of owners has decreased, but the number of guns per person has gone up. While gun homicides have gone down. Which can be interpreted to mean that with more guns in the hands of RESPONSIBLE gun owners, there is less to fear.

How many guns can your average gun nut fire at one time? Perhaps more sane people give them wider berth?

[Póg mo 1,749]

That is not what the graph is about, look at the description.

The graph is labeled gun homicides per million firearms. What am I missing?