I've been giving this a think, and I'm not sure I understand the problem...
By that, I mean what are we trying to solve?
Certainly we can all agree that we don't want the mass murder of children.
But where is the upper bound of the problem? To prevent gun crime, to prevent murders, to prevent gun deaths, to prevent mass murders or to focus on the murder of children?
And what would be an acceptable outcome for a solution? We have around 40,000 deaths on the roads each year, compared with around 14,000 firearm homisides. And we are not afraid to drive.
Around 1,200 kids under 15 die on our roads, and though those lost lives are a tradgedy, and we do continue to improve road safety, it is a level of risk we accept. We lose around 250 kids each year murdered by guns, and a similar number lost to gun related suicides and accidents.
What would be the "acceptable risk" to offset the benefits of gun ownership, in the same way we "accept" the 1,200 kids lost for the benefit of car ownership.
It seems to me, as an outside observer, that the gun control debate in the USA is caught between two intentionally misleading definitions. The pro-gun-control side (PGC) roll all multiple victim incidences into the one mass shooting statistic to make a more horror-filled headline “240 Mass Shootings already this year” even though a school shooting is very different to a shoot-out between police and gangsters and surely needs different policy. The anti-gun-control side (AGC) roll all attempts at gun control into the one category although a law to control military machine guns is clearly different to a law to control a 0.22 rifle for shooting rabbits. Somehow an Honest Broker needs to ensure that the debate is more nuanced and to stop this use of debate-by-definition because this sets up an unsolvable demonisation of the opposition.
Andy, I agree with your comment. I'm afraid, though, that there is too much fame and fortune for Federal politicians and bureaucrats in grandstanding and throwing money around to stop it now. Allowing them to tax income and the direct election of Senators, along with local greed for unlimited Federal money, sealed our fate. We are fighting a rearguard action with the Supreme Court our only buffer.
"...that from 1976 to 2016 among gun owners the partisan gap between Republicans and Democrats in presidential elections increased from 9% (46% of gun owners voting Republican to 37% voting Democratic) to 31% (61% R to 30% D)."
>>The Ds have been always after the guns of citizens as they are the party of statism which is the responsible party for the ghettos which is the responsible party for marginalization and government-dependence of minorities which has transformed the black family into a 70%+ fatherless family which, in turn, makes young kids vulnerable to joining some local gang which entails everyday shooting among them.
Note, also, that Australia swept all guns after a mass shooting in Australian-ruled Tasmania. The shooting was done by a retard (literally) that was already banned from having any sort of guns or even drive a vehicle. He did both and there's substantiated evidence that some time before the shooting he was the one that grabbed the steering wheel in a head-on collision of the vehicle he was in and a truck (if I recall well) that killed his, then, girlfriend who was driving the vehicle. So, the retard wasn't very deterred by rules and legislation. In the Tasmania shooting ONE sane citizen with a gun would have stopped him killing everybody in a sadistic way (killing children first in front of helpless parents who came next!). Every rose MUST have its thorns.
It is estimated that between 2 and 3 million crimes (including rape and murder) are annually prevented by the presence or use of guns.
The 2nd should be revered for it is one of the reasons that the US never came close to have a coup. That's not the case with other Western countries, including, Germany, Spain, Italy, Greece, etc, (only a few decades ago).
Recently, the Australian government took its citizens and placed them in "COVID" concentration camps! At the same time the people of Myanmar are fighting with bows and arrows against dictators with guns.
That's for everyone that believes that the 2nd isn't relevant today. Nonsense! It's even MORE relative because democracy is always under seize.
You have a real problem in the US, thanks to the 2nd Amendment - which makes little sense today. Its original purpose was to provide for 'a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,' so ' the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'
Some poor wording, but it could be interpreted better by the Supreme Court. It does not seem to have been written so the citizens could rise against a tyrannical state, but to serve a militia to protect the security of the state.
Of course, were citizens to rise up against the state, they would be transgressing laws against sedition and treason.
That said, the genie is out of the bottle, and as your recent post showed, there are huge numbers of weapons in circulation - mutilple per capita. Here in Australia, we were able to ban semi-automatic weapons completely after the Port Arthur massacre where 35 people were killed with an AK47, and guns must be kept securely, etc. (There are around 12 guns per 100 peaople). That is not possible in the US, and a ban would simply drive ownership underground.
A sensible measure might be to restrict types of weapons. AR15s and AK47s have no purpose BUT to kill multiple people in a short time. They are not the muskets the Founders had in mind. They are modern killing weapons that no decent hunter has a purpose for: sport shootingis about skill in tracking and killing the target (ideally with a single shot).
So start with restrictions on semi-automatic long arms and challenge the court. Surely other weapons like RPGs and mortars are illegal, so why not AR15s? And have a buy back as we did in Australia, so the 5th Amendment is not transgressed,
Then, require positive vetting for mental illness, with the onus on the owner to prove their fitness. Secure storage of hunting weapons.
Handguns are a lost cause - too easily hidden to regulate effectively.
Then: monitor social media posts as they are for threats to political leaders; support for mental health; better security at schools.
None of that would end gun violence, but it might reduce the risks.
Thank you for bringing up this important topic, Dr. Pielke. Constitutional constraints, however, complicate and put this issue in a class separate from debate and establishment of normal health and safety policy such as for your examples of transportation safety and opioid overdoses. The vast differences of opinion surrounding "commonsense" gun laws and the amount of vitriol being thrown around militate against the types of trust and cooperation needed to reach even minor policy agreements.
It is a cold fact that significant restrictions on ordinary citizens' right to keep and bear arms that are in common usage, in the absence of an unexpectedly weird SCOTUS opinion, will take a Constitutional Amendment. That can only be accomplished through at least a two thirds vote of the States (38). I think that no rational person would put a high likelihood on that happening in the absence of extreme societal changes.
I'm afraid that dispassionate funding of necessary, non-partisan scientific firearm studies is impossible when funds are allocated along political lines and prejudices. As you have personally experienced a prime example of corruption of science is through politicized allocations of governmental funding related to the global warming issue. As you and others have noted on various other occasions both UN IPCC climate reports and U.S. National Climate Assessments by Federal government agencies are hopelessly corrupted by governmental political manipulation.
Given my age (74) I don't see much chance of meaningful cooperation on gun control in my lifetime. Who knows, though, what generational changes are coming down the pike.
For half-a-century, I both listened and contributed to PBS. UK and USA Government media broadcast neither 'evidence-grounded' reporting nor opinion. From Yorktown to Tazewell, VA, from BBC to VPM & WVPB, 'feeling' rules. Unrelenting emotion and subjectivity. I wish you good fortune. My advice? look to your Right, for evidence, for Reason.
For over ten years, I have followed your writing; thank you.
Why is it only "gun violence" that get all the attention? The problem is violence. The weapon doesn't matter. More are killed with knives, cars, fists, bats, etc.
Let's have policies that address violence and psychosis and poor education and bad parenting, etc.
There are more than enough gun laws, but they dont stop the mentally ill and criminals.
Roger has a good proposal. But the execution of it will fail, as always, because lazy politicians take the easy way out and blame the inanimate objects.
I'd really like to see someone from the gun control side summarize the existing gun control laws., and be explicit about how this new law would have prevented any mass shooting.
So many policy proposals seem to be based on "Something must be done. This is something. Therefore, we must do it."
We have all kinds of problems in this country. Someone tell me the last time government agencies, commissions, blue ribbon panels, or legislative action solved anything. I'll wait. Ok, that's what I thought. Government will just create another agency to thrown money at. Examples in the 1970's we decided we had a drug problem and created the DEA to deal with it. 50 years and trillion of dollars later, drugs are worse than ever and funding goes ever higher. About the same time we decided the environment was bad and created the EPA to fix it. 50 years later the environment is worse than ever (if you believe the greens) and more money is needed. Here's one more, about the same time the DOE was created to solve the energy crisis. 50 years later...well you know. Mental health is the root cause of these shootings. Deal with that and the gun problem will go away. Clearly we need a dept of Mental Health. (kidding here)
The more politicians talk about legislating against guns in general and automatic guns specifically the higher gun sales go. The more gun violence in the news the higher gun sales go. According to standard polling gun ownership per capita is highest in rural areas where crime is the lowest and lowest in urban areas where crime is the highest. (Too many confounding variables in my opinion.) According to street polling gun ownership (often off book) is highest in high crime black neighborhoods. This includes off book guns used for crime and self defense. The government does not have control over illegal gun traffic across the Southern border or via overseas shipping containers.
Wow, Roger. I can see that your substack attracts just the people we don't need making gun policy in this country. I think that what you're saying is that multiple pathways need to be investigated. That includes better mental health programs, true; but it is also clear that effective gun policy measures can be taken--ones that are perfectly legal under the high court's reading of the second amendment-- that will reduce gun violence. Particularly suicide. Your readers ought to read Nicholas Kristof's op-ed in the NYTimes yesterday that presents extremely useful data. The idea that guns will always be with us is a pointless observation that is put forth as far as I can tell simply to elevate the status quo and justify doing nothing. It's also interesting that some commentators speak from experience, which is pretty much worthless when we're talking about a policy issue that desperately requires data and its activation to conduct a rational discussion. Finally, I very much enjoy your column; but please proofread it more carefully.
I'm a bit disappointed that everyone -- again -- is focusing on the weapon, and not the person. We need to address mental health in this country and what has changed over the last several decades. Without that, this will only get worse, no matter what gun laws you pass. We can't even enforce the ones we have now. (I see someone posted on this subject just as I was writing this. Way to go!)
Please, let's get real. There are guns. There will be guns. There are several hunting rifles in my home (though it is my sons that hunt, not me). None of these guns will ever be a threat to anyone anywhere by themselves.
I had a personal protection shotgun onboard our sailboat for when we were in dangerous waters. Of course, it was safely unloaded and locked up when pirates boarded our vessel in the middle of the night and robbed us. They were armed but not us.
The problem in this country is mental illness -- not guns. we have closed out mental health hospitals and their patients roam the streets homeless. Families that know they have a mentally ill son or daughter, father or mother, have no one to run to for real help. Authorities are loath to
take any protective action against the mentally ill.
Thus, we have the mentally ill, on very rare occasions (given the number of mentally ill on the streets) getting their hands on a gun (or knife, car, or firebomb) and committing a heinous act of violence. Once one madman gets publicity for such an act, other madmen copy-cat his "success".
Blaming the gun is a misdirection.
All that said, there is no excuse for allowing the sale of rapid-fire military-type weapons to the general public, or allowing possession of them under all but the most stringently controlled circumstances.
This country is in the process of promoting mind-altering substances as "recreational" -- and forbids, for the most part, the incarceration and treatment of the mentally ill. and then is surprised when a crazy person commits a crime powered by psychosis.
This statement is true, but the 2nd Amendment precludes the federal government from doing much about it. I dislike the tendency in the media of turning everything into a federal problem. The Federal government does not, and should not, respond to every problem. Some problems are better left to the states or cities, this is one such problem. The federal government might offer help, but not laws or regulations that will simply be overturned because they violate the second amendment.
This is also true:
"The U.S. has a mental health crisis."
It does, and it was exacerbated by the covid lockdowns. It is especially evident in our young people, the shooter in Uvalde was only 18 years old. He had shot at and/or assaulted people before, this was the same with the recent New York shooter. Why were both allowed to purchase guns? I'm not asking for federal "red flag" laws, but local laws are justified, and they need to be enforced. The real problem is that seriously mentally ill people are not only free, but they are able to buy guns.
I've been giving this a think, and I'm not sure I understand the problem...
By that, I mean what are we trying to solve?
Certainly we can all agree that we don't want the mass murder of children.
But where is the upper bound of the problem? To prevent gun crime, to prevent murders, to prevent gun deaths, to prevent mass murders or to focus on the murder of children?
And what would be an acceptable outcome for a solution? We have around 40,000 deaths on the roads each year, compared with around 14,000 firearm homisides. And we are not afraid to drive.
Around 1,200 kids under 15 die on our roads, and though those lost lives are a tradgedy, and we do continue to improve road safety, it is a level of risk we accept. We lose around 250 kids each year murdered by guns, and a similar number lost to gun related suicides and accidents.
What would be the "acceptable risk" to offset the benefits of gun ownership, in the same way we "accept" the 1,200 kids lost for the benefit of car ownership.
It seems to me, as an outside observer, that the gun control debate in the USA is caught between two intentionally misleading definitions. The pro-gun-control side (PGC) roll all multiple victim incidences into the one mass shooting statistic to make a more horror-filled headline “240 Mass Shootings already this year” even though a school shooting is very different to a shoot-out between police and gangsters and surely needs different policy. The anti-gun-control side (AGC) roll all attempts at gun control into the one category although a law to control military machine guns is clearly different to a law to control a 0.22 rifle for shooting rabbits. Somehow an Honest Broker needs to ensure that the debate is more nuanced and to stop this use of debate-by-definition because this sets up an unsolvable demonisation of the opposition.
Andy, I agree with your comment. I'm afraid, though, that there is too much fame and fortune for Federal politicians and bureaucrats in grandstanding and throwing money around to stop it now. Allowing them to tax income and the direct election of Senators, along with local greed for unlimited Federal money, sealed our fate. We are fighting a rearguard action with the Supreme Court our only buffer.
"...that from 1976 to 2016 among gun owners the partisan gap between Republicans and Democrats in presidential elections increased from 9% (46% of gun owners voting Republican to 37% voting Democratic) to 31% (61% R to 30% D)."
>>The Ds have been always after the guns of citizens as they are the party of statism which is the responsible party for the ghettos which is the responsible party for marginalization and government-dependence of minorities which has transformed the black family into a 70%+ fatherless family which, in turn, makes young kids vulnerable to joining some local gang which entails everyday shooting among them.
Note, also, that Australia swept all guns after a mass shooting in Australian-ruled Tasmania. The shooting was done by a retard (literally) that was already banned from having any sort of guns or even drive a vehicle. He did both and there's substantiated evidence that some time before the shooting he was the one that grabbed the steering wheel in a head-on collision of the vehicle he was in and a truck (if I recall well) that killed his, then, girlfriend who was driving the vehicle. So, the retard wasn't very deterred by rules and legislation. In the Tasmania shooting ONE sane citizen with a gun would have stopped him killing everybody in a sadistic way (killing children first in front of helpless parents who came next!). Every rose MUST have its thorns.
It is estimated that between 2 and 3 million crimes (including rape and murder) are annually prevented by the presence or use of guns.
The 2nd should be revered for it is one of the reasons that the US never came close to have a coup. That's not the case with other Western countries, including, Germany, Spain, Italy, Greece, etc, (only a few decades ago).
Recently, the Australian government took its citizens and placed them in "COVID" concentration camps! At the same time the people of Myanmar are fighting with bows and arrows against dictators with guns.
That's for everyone that believes that the 2nd isn't relevant today. Nonsense! It's even MORE relative because democracy is always under seize.
A good, thoughtful post, Roger.
You have a real problem in the US, thanks to the 2nd Amendment - which makes little sense today. Its original purpose was to provide for 'a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,' so ' the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'
Some poor wording, but it could be interpreted better by the Supreme Court. It does not seem to have been written so the citizens could rise against a tyrannical state, but to serve a militia to protect the security of the state.
Of course, were citizens to rise up against the state, they would be transgressing laws against sedition and treason.
That said, the genie is out of the bottle, and as your recent post showed, there are huge numbers of weapons in circulation - mutilple per capita. Here in Australia, we were able to ban semi-automatic weapons completely after the Port Arthur massacre where 35 people were killed with an AK47, and guns must be kept securely, etc. (There are around 12 guns per 100 peaople). That is not possible in the US, and a ban would simply drive ownership underground.
A sensible measure might be to restrict types of weapons. AR15s and AK47s have no purpose BUT to kill multiple people in a short time. They are not the muskets the Founders had in mind. They are modern killing weapons that no decent hunter has a purpose for: sport shootingis about skill in tracking and killing the target (ideally with a single shot).
So start with restrictions on semi-automatic long arms and challenge the court. Surely other weapons like RPGs and mortars are illegal, so why not AR15s? And have a buy back as we did in Australia, so the 5th Amendment is not transgressed,
Then, require positive vetting for mental illness, with the onus on the owner to prove their fitness. Secure storage of hunting weapons.
Handguns are a lost cause - too easily hidden to regulate effectively.
Then: monitor social media posts as they are for threats to political leaders; support for mental health; better security at schools.
None of that would end gun violence, but it might reduce the risks.
Thank you for bringing up this important topic, Dr. Pielke. Constitutional constraints, however, complicate and put this issue in a class separate from debate and establishment of normal health and safety policy such as for your examples of transportation safety and opioid overdoses. The vast differences of opinion surrounding "commonsense" gun laws and the amount of vitriol being thrown around militate against the types of trust and cooperation needed to reach even minor policy agreements.
It is a cold fact that significant restrictions on ordinary citizens' right to keep and bear arms that are in common usage, in the absence of an unexpectedly weird SCOTUS opinion, will take a Constitutional Amendment. That can only be accomplished through at least a two thirds vote of the States (38). I think that no rational person would put a high likelihood on that happening in the absence of extreme societal changes.
I'm afraid that dispassionate funding of necessary, non-partisan scientific firearm studies is impossible when funds are allocated along political lines and prejudices. As you have personally experienced a prime example of corruption of science is through politicized allocations of governmental funding related to the global warming issue. As you and others have noted on various other occasions both UN IPCC climate reports and U.S. National Climate Assessments by Federal government agencies are hopelessly corrupted by governmental political manipulation.
Given my age (74) I don't see much chance of meaningful cooperation on gun control in my lifetime. Who knows, though, what generational changes are coming down the pike.
"Policy makers need evidence-grounded options..."
For half-a-century, I both listened and contributed to PBS. UK and USA Government media broadcast neither 'evidence-grounded' reporting nor opinion. From Yorktown to Tazewell, VA, from BBC to VPM & WVPB, 'feeling' rules. Unrelenting emotion and subjectivity. I wish you good fortune. My advice? look to your Right, for evidence, for Reason.
For over ten years, I have followed your writing; thank you.
Why is it only "gun violence" that get all the attention? The problem is violence. The weapon doesn't matter. More are killed with knives, cars, fists, bats, etc.
Let's have policies that address violence and psychosis and poor education and bad parenting, etc.
There are more than enough gun laws, but they dont stop the mentally ill and criminals.
Roger has a good proposal. But the execution of it will fail, as always, because lazy politicians take the easy way out and blame the inanimate objects.
I'd really like to see someone from the gun control side summarize the existing gun control laws., and be explicit about how this new law would have prevented any mass shooting.
So many policy proposals seem to be based on "Something must be done. This is something. Therefore, we must do it."
We have all kinds of problems in this country. Someone tell me the last time government agencies, commissions, blue ribbon panels, or legislative action solved anything. I'll wait. Ok, that's what I thought. Government will just create another agency to thrown money at. Examples in the 1970's we decided we had a drug problem and created the DEA to deal with it. 50 years and trillion of dollars later, drugs are worse than ever and funding goes ever higher. About the same time we decided the environment was bad and created the EPA to fix it. 50 years later the environment is worse than ever (if you believe the greens) and more money is needed. Here's one more, about the same time the DOE was created to solve the energy crisis. 50 years later...well you know. Mental health is the root cause of these shootings. Deal with that and the gun problem will go away. Clearly we need a dept of Mental Health. (kidding here)
The more politicians talk about legislating against guns in general and automatic guns specifically the higher gun sales go. The more gun violence in the news the higher gun sales go. According to standard polling gun ownership per capita is highest in rural areas where crime is the lowest and lowest in urban areas where crime is the highest. (Too many confounding variables in my opinion.) According to street polling gun ownership (often off book) is highest in high crime black neighborhoods. This includes off book guns used for crime and self defense. The government does not have control over illegal gun traffic across the Southern border or via overseas shipping containers.
Wow, Roger. I can see that your substack attracts just the people we don't need making gun policy in this country. I think that what you're saying is that multiple pathways need to be investigated. That includes better mental health programs, true; but it is also clear that effective gun policy measures can be taken--ones that are perfectly legal under the high court's reading of the second amendment-- that will reduce gun violence. Particularly suicide. Your readers ought to read Nicholas Kristof's op-ed in the NYTimes yesterday that presents extremely useful data. The idea that guns will always be with us is a pointless observation that is put forth as far as I can tell simply to elevate the status quo and justify doing nothing. It's also interesting that some commentators speak from experience, which is pretty much worthless when we're talking about a policy issue that desperately requires data and its activation to conduct a rational discussion. Finally, I very much enjoy your column; but please proofread it more carefully.
As much as these school shootings grab media attention, they represent a tiny proportion of the roughly 40,000 people shot and killed every year.
Remember, 46% of all people shot and killed are white men shooting themselves.
18% of all people shot and killed are black men being murdered.
The remaining stats dwindle after that...
7% white women shooting themselves
6% white men being murdered
5% hispanic men being murdered
4% hispanic men shooting themselves
3% black men shooting themselves
2% white women being murdered
2% black women being murdered
And the rest are 1% or below.
Figures from the 2018 CDC National Vital Statistics Reports vol 65 no 13.
I'm a bit disappointed that everyone -- again -- is focusing on the weapon, and not the person. We need to address mental health in this country and what has changed over the last several decades. Without that, this will only get worse, no matter what gun laws you pass. We can't even enforce the ones we have now. (I see someone posted on this subject just as I was writing this. Way to go!)
Please, let's get real. There are guns. There will be guns. There are several hunting rifles in my home (though it is my sons that hunt, not me). None of these guns will ever be a threat to anyone anywhere by themselves.
I had a personal protection shotgun onboard our sailboat for when we were in dangerous waters. Of course, it was safely unloaded and locked up when pirates boarded our vessel in the middle of the night and robbed us. They were armed but not us.
The problem in this country is mental illness -- not guns. we have closed out mental health hospitals and their patients roam the streets homeless. Families that know they have a mentally ill son or daughter, father or mother, have no one to run to for real help. Authorities are loath to
take any protective action against the mentally ill.
Thus, we have the mentally ill, on very rare occasions (given the number of mentally ill on the streets) getting their hands on a gun (or knife, car, or firebomb) and committing a heinous act of violence. Once one madman gets publicity for such an act, other madmen copy-cat his "success".
Blaming the gun is a misdirection.
All that said, there is no excuse for allowing the sale of rapid-fire military-type weapons to the general public, or allowing possession of them under all but the most stringently controlled circumstances.
This country is in the process of promoting mind-altering substances as "recreational" -- and forbids, for the most part, the incarceration and treatment of the mentally ill. and then is surprised when a crazy person commits a crime powered by psychosis.
"Gun violence is indeed a policy problem."
This statement is true, but the 2nd Amendment precludes the federal government from doing much about it. I dislike the tendency in the media of turning everything into a federal problem. The Federal government does not, and should not, respond to every problem. Some problems are better left to the states or cities, this is one such problem. The federal government might offer help, but not laws or regulations that will simply be overturned because they violate the second amendment.
This is also true:
"The U.S. has a mental health crisis."
It does, and it was exacerbated by the covid lockdowns. It is especially evident in our young people, the shooter in Uvalde was only 18 years old. He had shot at and/or assaulted people before, this was the same with the recent New York shooter. Why were both allowed to purchase guns? I'm not asking for federal "red flag" laws, but local laws are justified, and they need to be enforced. The real problem is that seriously mentally ill people are not only free, but they are able to buy guns.