A Shot at Change

The Parkland shooting claimed the lives of seventeen people. It was followed by an understandable period of mourning, outrage, and national self-reflection. But what really set it apart from other national tragedies was the political reaction it provoked.

Previous mass shootings have failed to make gun control a topic of national attention for more than a brief period of time. Perhaps it was the fact that it occurred at a school, that most of the victims were teenagers, or that this was one shooting too many. Regardless, the Parkland shooting has ignited a wave of gun control activism unlike any in recent memory. As victims of the Parkland shooting speak out, students walk out of their schools in protest, and legislators seek to provide answers, we should laud those courageous and passionate enough to take a stand.

However, in a justifiably emotional time, we would do well to take a step back and assess which of the proposed policy proposals we should and should not seek to enact.

It has become commonplace to react to every shooting by demanding harsher gun control. However, this quasi-instinctive response is more reactive than pragmatic. It should be noted that more guns does not equate to more crime. As the number of privately owned firearms has increased in the U.S., the gun homicide rate has decreased, with the Crime Prevention Center finding that this trend also holds true internationally.

While it is difficult to account for differences in what is classified as a homicide across various countries and weigh inaccuracies in countries self-reporting their data, there is no evidence to suggest that an increase in gun ownership leads to an increase in gun violence.

Though this may seem counterintuitive at first, it is made less so when taking into account defensive gun usage. An example would be the Sutherland Springs Texas Church shooting, during which the gunman was shot at and forced to flee. The exact number of defensive gun uses is hard to pinpoint on a larger scale due to variability in reporting, interpretation, and the definition of what classifies as a “defensive gun usage.” And despite the fact that the phrase “good guy with a gun” is often a source of mockery, most surveys estimate annual defensive gun usage to be between 500,000 to three million cases.

This enormous variability is a result of the differing survey methods used. Regardless of what figure in that range is the most precise, defensive gun use outweighs any sort of gun crime. For context, there were 8,342 criminal gun homicides in 2012 and guns were used in only a fraction of crimes. These statistics suggest that being armed is a strong deterrent to crime and is of aid in a self-defense situation.

While many gun control advocates concede that guns are of use in self-defense situations, they maintain their criticism of “assault weapons,” devices which are commonly associated with mass shootings. The most common argument in favor of banning these devices claims that they aren't a must-have for any law-abiding citizen and are, in the words of Hillary Clinton, “weapons of war” with no place on American streets. However, in a free nation, there is no requirement to show “need” in order to exercise a constitutional right. Civilians allegedly not “needing” assault weapons is not a valid reason for banning them.

Furthermore, there is no clear consensus as to what an “assault weapon” is. The assault weapons ban proposed in the Senate defines an “assault weapon” as a semi-automatic firearm which includes a detachable ammunition magazine, pistol grip, and occasionally other features such as a forward or barrel shroud. This bill overlooks the fact that few, if any, of these features make a firearm any more dangerous than it already is.

For example, a pistol grip simply makes the user’s grip of the gun more comfortable, a barrel shroud is a cover on the gun’s barrel that prevents operators from burning themselves while it’s hot, and a semi-automatic gun is simply one that reloads automatically while still requiring one trigger pull per shot. Moreover, the infamous AR-15 is no more dangerous than a semi-automatic shotgun, the rounds of which can do far more damage than an AR-15’s, or a Glock 17, the most popular firearm in the world, which can hold seventeen rounds in its magazine. Neither of these other weapons would be covered under a ban on “assault weapons.”

Nonetheless, gun control advocates continue to cling to the AR-15’s status as “the weapon of choice for mass shootings” as justification for a ban. Yet according to Dean Hazen, a firearms instructor, the reason mass shooters choose the AR-15 is more a result of a “copycat” mentality than the actual power of the rifle. He points out that “there are rifles that are more powerful and more dangerous than [the AR-15], but they're not being used.” For example, the 2007 mass shooting at Virginia Tech, the third deadliest in U.S. history, was carried out using two semi-automatic handguns, hardly the “weapons of war” that are so often the target of criticism.

On a larger scale, assault rifles are rarely used in shootings. According to F.B.I. statistics, 374 people were murdered with any kind of rifle in 2016 compared to the 7,105 who were victims of handguns. This suggests that any effective gun control legislation would have to target illicit handgun possession and sales rather than those of “assault weapons.” And even if an assault weapons ban were passed, it would still have to find a viable way to prevent the estimated five million to 10 million AR-15 rifles owned in the United States from finding their way into criminal hands. Ultimately, banning assault weapons would come at the expense of millions of law-abiding Americans while failing to prevent or lessen the severity of mass shootings.

It’s up to us to respond to the mass shootings occurring around the U.S. with pragmatic policies which do not infringe on the uniquely American right to bear arms, both for self-defense and recreational purposes. If we are to respect the founding fathers’ wishes and the ideals espoused in the Second Amendment, we will avoid supporting anything resembling the restrictive gun control in countries such as Australia, whose 1996 de facto ban on semi-automatic firearms “did not reduce either suicide or homicide rates below what, based on pre-1996 trends, they would have been...and may even have increased the number of fatal gun accidents,” according to a study by criminologist Gary Kleck.

The most reliable path towards reducing gun violence is to prevent guns from falling into the hands of people who shouldn't have them. We should launch a war on illegal guns, rather than guns. This may seem over simplistic and obvious, but according to Philip Cook, a professor of economics and sociology at Duke University, only 3 to 10 percent of guns used by criminals are acquired legally.

FBI statistics show that between 2012 and 2015, 1.2 million guns were stolen from other people and 22,000 were stolen from gun stores. To lower these numbers, we should advocate for a considerable increase in the penalties given for illegal possession of a gun. If these penalties were enforced, we could create a situation where criminals see that the benefits of carrying or trading illegal firearms are far outweighed by the harsh sentences they risk if and when they are caught. Fewer illegal firearms in circulation would undoubtedly provide lower gun crime rates that Americans want to see.

To further reduce gun crime, we should begin to more effectively enforce the gun control laws already on the books. For instance, we need to crack down on the straw purchasing of guns, one of the most common ways for firearms to fall into criminal hands. Straw purchasing is a method of acquiring a firearm in which a third party legally purchases a gun with the intention of giving it to an individual legally barred from owning a firearm.

While straw purchasing of this kind is already illegal, punishable by up to 10 years in prison and a $250,000 fine, these laws are rarely enforced. More vigorous enforcement of straw purchasing laws would go a long way in preventing illegal gun trafficking and reducing gun violence.

Finally, we should find practical methods for preventing people with mental illnesses from acquiring firearms. Currently, federal law says that a person can be prohibited from purchasing or possessing a firearm due to a mental illness if they are either involuntarily committed to a mental hospital or if a court or government body declares them to be mentally incompetent. Yet Nicolas Cruz, the Florida shooter, someone who wasn't allowed to wear a backpack to school for security reasons and had been known to torture animals, was able to legally acquire a gun. This is largely a result of security failures on various levels, as tips about Cruz's “desire to kill people, erratic behavior, and disturbing social media posts” went unheeded by the FBI, who later conceded that “protocols were not followed.”

As we question the role of the Second Amendment and guns in modern America, we need to remain resolute against the temptation to restrict gun ownership without proof of any substantial effect on gun violence. We need to make sure movements like “Stuy Says ENOUGH” remain grounded in their policy goals, while simultaneously supporting their commendable activism. And most importantly of all, we should remain united around shared American values and prevent hysteria or fear from taking over our lives. If we follow this course of action, we will emerge from the tragedy that was the Parkland shooting a stronger, safer, and more unified country.