Tuesday, March 26, 2013

America and Guns - Part 3 of 3

Resolving the Gun Issue


To find a resolution to the debate between the pro-gun and anti-gun populations requires understanding gun ownership and gun usage.  Part 2 looked at gun ownership.  Let's tackle gun usage with some genuine statistics.

A personal firearm in the home is 22 times more likely to be used for a purpose other than self defense. In other words, there is a less than 5% chance the weapon will protect your family and a 95% chance that it will hurt your family or someone else when it is used. How do guns go wrong? They are used almost entirely for suicides and homicides including spouse killing (mostly women). Very few are accidents of the "I didn’t know it was loaded" type, or the toddler shooting. Odds of 95/5 are not good. Most people would not make a bet on those odds (Powerball aside).  This statistic makes gun ownership look very unsafe.

Sources for the 22x statistic:   http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/03/opinion/sunday/dangerous-gun-myths.html?_r=0  and http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9715182
Abstracts of original gun studies at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=Kellermann%20AL%5BAuthor%5D&cauthor=true&cauthor_uid=3713749

However, the 95/5 statistic is misleading and is questioned by gun advocates. The statistic applies to instances where a firearm is used. It does not count all the non-events that never occur.  When does the threat to use a weapon prevent its actual use?  On a larger scale, the question is "Of the more than 200,000,000 firearms in possession, how many cause bodily injury each year?" The answer can be derived from CDC information on gun deaths for 2009. The answer is that about 30,000 people die each year as a result of a firearm (9.8 deaths per 100,000 people). That is about 1.3% of the 2.25 million deaths from all causes. Of the 30,000 gun deaths, about 18,000 are suicides and another 12,000 are homicides. Accidental shootings are a tiny fraction of the total. That means that 0.01 percent (one one-hundredth of 1%) of all guns each year are used to kill someone, and roughly two thirds of those deaths are self-inflicted. Viewed another way, you would need to remove 30,000 guns from all gun owners to statistically prevent two suicides and one homicide.  Of the 12,664 murders reported in 2011 by the FBI, 68% involved a firearm.  Of the total, 49% were commited using a handgun, 5.3% with a rifle or shotgun and 13.3% with some other type of firearm.  One-third of all homicides were caused by other means.

The CDC data that was the source for this analysis is on the internet at:
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss6106a1.htm?s_cid=ss6106a1_w
The FBI data is at:  http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-20
The 200,000,000 guns in possession is a very rough estimate based on gun production since 1899.  http://web.archive.org/web/20071214215005/http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/guic.pdf

Applying the 5% self-protection statistic to the 30,000 gun deaths each year would suggest (not prove) that of the 200 million guns in households, only about 1,500 each year are used in self-defense. So the odds of using a gun for self defense in any given year are about .00075% (less than 1 in 100,000).  Unless a person lives in a high-threat environment, or works in that type of occupation, gun ownership for self-protection is largely illusory.

The evidence would indicate that when gun owners act responsibly by keeping their guns and ammunition safely stored and using them under proper conditions, the likelihood of a firearm killing anyone is tiny. It is the mentally disturbed, the violence prone, and criminals who create the scary statistics. How do we separate these people from the responsible gun owners so as to protect society while honoring the right to own a firearm?

Suggested Solutions

One approach is to control who purchases guns. That’s a good start. Barring felons and mentally unstable people from buying a gun helps. It is however, not a complete defense. Felons will still buy guns from the black market or street dealers. People who are mentally stable when they buy a gun can become mentally unstable years later, or they have access to one owned by a friend or family member. Short of requiring every gun owner to periodically reapply to own a gun (like a driver’s license), there is only a limited defense against keeping guns away from people with mental health issues. So, background checks for gun purchases can help, but they are not a total solution by a long measure. And, they are fatally flawed unless those checks are required for all gun sales including private seller transactions - a fragmented market that could be as hard to police as policing garage sales would be. If the government wishes to impose the background check requirement on all sellers, then it is incumbent upon the government to make it easy and inexpensive for the seller to perform the check for the solution to be practical.

Another approach is to limit the lethality of weapons. That is what the assault rifle ban and magazine capacity limits would do. That helps, but not much since only 2.3% of homicides involve more than one victim (or 230 cases a year). Assault rifles have virtually no practical use that could not be met with a different rifle. Aside from fueling a fantasy of annihilating enemies as portrayed in video games, assault rifles aren’t really necessary. While there are many things in life that aren’t necessary (exotic sports cars, skydiving, supersized soft drinks), they do not pose the lethal hazard that assault rifles do. A similar argument can be made for high capacity magazines. Aside from allowing a longer firing period before reloading at a shooting range, high capacity magazines are not a necessity for civilians. If you can’t hit what you are shooting at after nine shots, a bigger magazine is not the answer.

A different approach, not using gun control, is to increase the presence of armed security officers - "The way to stop a bad guy with a gun is by a good guy with a gun." This solution is limitless in its applicability which makes it highly flawed. The knee jerk reaction to school massacres is to put police in the schools. The cost of prevention must be weighed not only against the horror of lost life, but against the reality of limited resources and realistic risk. Would it be better to have one more guidance counselor working with students every hour rather than adding a police officer whose time is spent patrolling corridors? 

There is a difference between a tradegy and a catastrophe.  A single death can be tragic.  School shootings are certainly tragic, but they are not catastrophic.  A 9.0 earthquake in San Francisco is a catastrophe because of the enormous loss of life and property. 

The need for preventive actions is based on two criteria:  the probability something will happen and the damage to life and property if it does.  Preventive actions are prudent for tragic events with high probabilities and for catastrophes with even low probabilities.  There simply are not enough resources to take preventive actions for tragedies with low probabilities.   It is not the emotional response to tragedy that prevents future problems; it is the rational calculation of probability and extent of damage and injury that offers the best protection.

The Newtown school shooting was a tragedy, but it was in one school of 130,000 schools.  In Newton, 27 people were killed.  Twenty-seven deaths is horrific in one event, but it is .000034% of the 80,000,000 students in schools and universities.  The odds of being struck by lightning in your lifetime (1/10,000 odds) are much greater than being involved in a school shooting.  Policing schools has its place, but that solution is more psychologically satisfying than practically effective because the tragedy is so random and infrequent.  The first thing any planful school shooter in the future would do is ambush the lone school officer at the start of a shooting spree.  For every measure of protection, there evolves a counter-measure of offense.  While it is prudent to have officers in high-crime and violence prone areas and the schools they serve, in other situations it is not.

Protecting schools is admirable, except people congregate in many other places and are just as vulnerable. Schools have our attention because school shootings are senselessly tragic and in the news.  Fortify the schools and deranged gunmen will go to the movies (already happened), the mall, a freeway overpass, a downtown corner, a sports stadium, a metro station, etc. Short of turning the nation into a police state, we must accept there will be some risk that we must live with. That does not mean we cannot be prudent and improve school security and security at other public venues, but we must not delude ourselves into believing that it solves the problem. The security problem it aappears to solve, means diverting tax dollars from education or other purposes to pay for police protection. That diversion of funding may lead to other problems elsewhere.

Banning all guns is an extreme alternative, but not without precedence elsewhere.   In the USA, it would require the repeal of the second amendment - part of  the "Bill of Rights." As opponents to this approach point out, the first ten amendments are about "rights," not "restrictions." Persons seeking total gun elimination need to channel their efforts into legislation to repeal the second amendment since a regular law would currently be unconstitutional. Given the history, popularly, and widespread existence of gun ownership, as a practical matter it is unlikely confiscating and eliminating firearms will succeed. The second amendment is not likely to go away. Its protections do need to be regularly clarified by the Supreme Court to make them applicable in 21st century America. Pursuing that path might be more productive for anti-gun activists.

Let's recap some of the solutions under discussion.  Limits on the types of guns can be imposed without hurting the legitimate needs of conscientious gun owners. Better screening of purchasers can reduce the likelihood of guns getting into the wrong hands. More professional security positioned wisely can limit the severity of a gun attack. However, none of these provides complete protection. Criminals will not cease to exist. A black market for weapons can be reduced, but not eliminated. Safer weapons (handgrip technology) can help, but there are already hundreds of millions of guns in homes that will last for many years. Mentally unstable people can be hindered in acquiring a gun, but a desperate person can still circumvent a system. Police can man our schools, but other venues of opportunity for killers are plentiful.

In the end, it becomes a matter of balancing the reduction of risk with the rights of all citizens to be safe and free from fear. Free from the fear that "I can’t protect myself" and free from the fear that "Someone with a gun will do me harm." One fear drives gun ownership, the other gun control. One coin, two sides, both valuable viewpoints. The issue of guns in America also means balancing how we allocate our scarce resources of tax dollars between policing and other social needs. In a democracy, debate is how we settle those matters. Debate we will.

America and Guns - Part 2 of 3

Gun Owners, Interested Parties, and Non-Owners


To understand the debate about guns, we need to answer the questions:
"Who owns guns?" and "Why?"
"Who does not own guns?" and "Why?"
"Who are other interested parties to the debate?"

Gun Owners

Gun owners include a variety of people and their reasons for ownership are as diverse as they are.  In 2010, approximately one-third of all adults in the US reported owning a gun.  This is down from a high of about 54% in 1977 (source UPI).  While reports vary, 33% - 40% seems a likely figure.  Men are much more likely to own guns than women.  Gun ownership is concentrated in some homes where multiple firearms are owned.  This accounts for the greater number of guns than households owning them.  Let's look at different groups of gun owners.

The first group is the closest to our history. They are sports persons both male and female who use guns for hunting or sport shooting. They are responsible gun owners who are trained and careful in using firearms. While they consider their guns as available for self protection, that is not their principal reason for owning guns. They enjoy the sport.  As a member of my high school rifle team, I can attest to the challenge and satisfaction of target shooting.  It's not for everyone, but it is a legitimate sport / hobby.

The second group is the police. They own guns as part of their profession. Guns are their tools. They are highly trained and very careful. Their work brings guns into their homes.

The third group is the military. Their weapons are numerous and very deadly. They are kept in secure storage and used under controlled conditions. As a result of their professional use of guns, military personnel own their own guns. When members leave the military they take with them their training and familiarity and respect for firearms. Barring personal psychological problems, they can be expected to be responsible gun owners.

The fourth group is criminals. They own weapons for the purposes of status, intimidation, and outright injury and murder. Because they are criminals, without respect for the law, legal prohibitions on gun ownership are essentially meaningless to them. As long as there is a black market for guns, these people will own and use them. Laws do not control the lawless, except to put them in jail after the fact.

The fifth group is citizens concerned about being the victims of crimes. These people can be in the inner city, suburbia, or rural areas. Some may have been personally threatened or physically hurt and truly need a gun for self protection.  Others are faced with living in dangerous neighborhoods where a gun feels like a necessity just like it was on the frontier. There is a historical connection and rationale for why these people own guns.  Other gun owners are in less dangerous situations, but their personal perception of danger is high. As Shakespeare once wrote, "Nothing is, but thinking makes it so."

Either because of a personal past experience, the experience of a friend, or just the events on the news, these people feel somehow safer owning a gun. For them, a gun is seen as a great equalizer. It enables a farmer or a rancher living in an isolated area to be his own first line of defense before help arrives. It equips a 110 lb, 5'2" person to counter a 6', 200 lb person or a 75 year old to resist a 20 something drug addict turned robber. However, the usefulness of a gun is related to the ability of the user to handle it properly and keep his/her wits under great pressure. The training and expertise of people in this group has to be very mixed.  Unlike police gun training that can teach both shooting skills and usage in pressure-packed situations, civilian practice does not replicate the stress of an actual confrontation in which a gun would be used.  For capable people, gun ownership can make them safer. Incompetent gun owners are, however, a danger to themselves and others.

The sixth group is persons worried about the power of government or the collapse of civilized society. They own guns for self protection against crime, but more importantly for protection against an abusive government or social disorder. For them, 1776 could happen again tomorrow. If it does, they will be ready. They envision a military-style conflict between civilians and the government or a rampaging mop and hence support civilian access to military weapons. Today’s military conflicts are a far cry from those of early America. In colonial times, the military weapons advantage was limited to cannons and cavalry. There were no rocket propelled grenades, machine guns, mortars, helicopter gunships, drones, etc. There was far more parity in arms between the civilian militia and the professional soldier. The need for military weapons for civilian protection against the government is a moot point today given the total great disparity in armaments.  Incidents of societal breakdown are too few and far between to merit military-style firearms.  In the words of Joe Biden, "Get a shotgun."

The "government danger to democracy" gun owners may be technically proficient with their firearms, but their mental state is perhaps the most suspect of any of the groups. Fortunately, their fantasy of government resistance has not turned into overt action. Talking about what they would do, or could do, seems sufficient as long as they own weapons to make those thoughts plausible in their own minds. No rational person would truly believe he could prevail against the professional armed forces of the United States.  Lending credence to their viewpoint drags the gun debate to an unnecessary extreme.

The last group of people who own firearms are the casual owners. These people have a gun around the house because they once used it when they were younger, or inherited it from a relative. They are not active gun users and have no particular reason for owning the gun except they somehow came into possession of it. Having it is no hassle; using it is of little interest.

Non-Owners

Non-owners outnumber owners with probably two-thirds of homes not having a gun.

The first group of non-owners is those who simply have never been around guns, are not in circumstances where there appears to be a need to own a gun, are not afraid for their own well-being, and who are not comfortable with handling a gun. These people are ambivalent about gun ownership. They don’t see a need for one themselves, but are not especially concerned that someone else owns a gun.

The second group is those who are opposed to gun ownership. They do not want to own a gun and they are concerned that other people own guns. For some, that concern is limited to the type of gun someone else owns (e.g., assault rifle), while others oppose any form of private gun ownership.

Interested Parties

Three other groups who are not owners, but who are closely connected to them need to be mentioned.

The first are gun manufacturers and importers. These firms have a vested interest in promoting gun ownership. They appeal to sports persons, to worried citizens, to government tyranny resisters. From the standpoint of a gun producer, it matters little why you want a gun, only that you want one. That is not to say that gun firms are reckless or irresponsible in promoting gun ownership, only that they benefit from many different ownership scenarios and cannot be expected to turn away business.

The second are the retail gun sellers. These range from big stores like Gander Mountain, to the small, local gun dealer, to the personal sellers at gun shows. This is truly a mixed group. Sellers, like manufacturers, benefit from any rationale for buying a gun. It is hard for a seller to know the true motivation of a buyer even if he wanted to. Businesses have some interest in not selling to obviously deranged, dangerous, and untrained people because of potential liability. For that reason, they are probably somewhat more responsible in their practices. Expecting sellers to police the marketplace may work for the professional ones, but it is no protection against those sellers whose only interest is in the sale. With 200 million guns already in private hands, controlling sales of new guns has a limited usefulness.

The third are the gun owners’ associations, of which there are many.  The most well known is the National Rifle Association, the NRA. These associations speak on behalf of their members, but those members represent varied segments of the gun owners’ population. Some may promote sporting gun usage, others target shooting, others antique guns, etc. Many of these associations have good and valid reasons for supporting gun ownership for the groups they represent. However, mixed in with the gun owners are the gun makers and gun sellers. These groups have access to the associations as well. Their agenda for promoting gun ownership can be entirely different. It is the mixing of the message and the money of gun producers/sellers with that of gun owners through the gun associations that creates much of the confusion in the gun ownership and gun control debate. It muddles the message.

With this wide array of gun owners and gun spokespersons, it is easy to recognize why the debate over gun ownership is so confused. Parties to the debate come at it from various perspectives. 

Given the diversity of gun owners and the differing positions of non-owners, it is not surprising that polls on gun ownership produce mixed results. The population has mixed feelings. From out of the mix emerge the voices of those who are most passionate and best financed. This becomes the national gun associations, gun makers, and anti-gun organizations. All of which invoke interpretations of the constitution to promote or limit gun ownership. Is there a solution to the problem of guns in America that satisfies these conflicting views? Probably not. Is there a workable solution that accommodates all sides? Perhaps.

America and Guns - Part 1 of 3

Putting guns into perspective.


American culture is unique in its relationship to firearms. We have a history dating back only 400 years when guns were a central part of life. Early settlers relied on their rifles for both food and protection. Western pioneers relied on them for both as well. From the viewpoint of a white pioneer, the west was won at the point of a gun. ( The Indian perspective was the opposite.) In this regard, "winning" is a dubious honor.

This mystique of history has carried over to the present day. Unlike European countries with longer histories that were settled long before the arrival of guns, America is a country whose history is interwoven with firearms. The telling of history has a tendency to glamorize weapons and discount suffering. This distorts our perception of what firearms mean in our contemporary society. The America of today is not the America of the 1700's and 1800's.

The Constitution enshrined the right of the people to bear arms. Specifically, it says: "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 right to bear arms is stated after the premise for the right. At the time of the constitution, the U.S. had no standing army. For a lot of early U.S. history, military forces were raised when necessary. Under those conditions, the need for an armed citizenry was essential for the protection of the nation. Also, having gained its freedom from Britain by the force of arms, the country and its founders understood that a defenseless population was easy prey for a tyrannical government - one they had just thrown off.

Put in its contemporary context, the second amendment protected the right to own a single shot, muzzle loading, flintlock rifle and pistols of the same sort. The Bushmaster AR 15 semi-automatic, assault-style weapon is so technologically advanced from a musket, that it requires continued reinterpretation of the amendment to keep pace with modern firearms. The paths for doing that are laws passed by the Congress and the states and their review by the Supreme Court. It is not a fast or easy process and it is beset by strong rhetoric and political influence, but it is the process.

The three ideas of: government tyranny, the need for personal protection from a hostile environment, and the necessity of hunting for survival, all influence our current perceptions of gun ownership and gun control.

How do we merge history with contemporary society to find the right place for firearms in today’s America? It is a daunting question. It would be a bit easier to discuss the issue of gun ownership and gun control if more data were available in the public domain. Once source of information is a database on firearms kept by the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms (ATF).  Knowing what types of guns are used for homicides and criminal acts would help guide legislation. However, the ATF information can only be released to law enforcement officials in conjunction with an investigation. This restriction is called the Tiahrt amendment. The Tiahrt amendment has been attached to the federal budget for years. It prohibits AFT from using any of its funds to publish the data it has collected. This blatant, back door suppression of information serves no useful purpose for society as a whole. It is opposed by mayors and police organizations. Supporters of an enlightened discussion of guns in America would help the cause by petitioning their representatives to remove the Tiahrt amendment.