There is a routine to debates on gun control. The left screams, "Safety!", the right screams, "Liberty!" The arguments from both camps are so well established, the tirades so well rehearsed, that the battle for ideology pivots on who can present their argument the most frequently, and to the greatest number of receptive ears. In the mayhem, reason has been kicked aside like a child being sent to their room by arguing parents.
Gun control advocates posit that the solution to the American gun violence epidemic is to restrict access to firearms. They conclude, quite logically, that if there are no guns, then no gun violence can occur. Advocates of gun rights counter, also quite logically, that the cause of gun violence is not the gun, but the person who uses it. They assert the old phrase, "Guns don't kill people, people kill people." To gunners, it is a simple truth. To anti-gunners, it is a disingenuous attempt to distract from the heart of the problem.
Of course, a myriad of holes can be punched in the arguments of both sides. The anti-gunners are wrong in assuming that violent crime will be diminished merely by removing one of the tools. Someone who wishes to commit mass murder has no need for a gun as long as he or she has access to a motor vehicle and a large concentration of pedestrians. The pro-gunners on the other hand are wrong in assuming that an armed citizen is a safer citizen. If you are being mugged, with a gun to your head or a knife to your throat, it doesn't matter if you are carrying concealed or not, you are not in control of the situation, and the lowest chance of injury comes through complying with your mugger's demands. The list goes on, and for nearly every argument made by either side, a compelling counter argument can be presented by its opponents.
But there is one critical failure in this whole debate. One simple flaw which goes undetected by nearly all Americans, and which those who do detect it are loath to bring up, lest they be ostracized by both camps, and labeled a callous asshole. So what is this missed element that I so boldly proclaim is staring us in the face?
It's the fact that there is no gun violence problem in America.
Let's look at some numbers. According to the CDC's National Vital Statistics Report for 2009 (Deaths: Leading Causes for 2009 [PDF- 2.54 MB]), in 2009 there were 2,437,163 deaths total, from a US population of approximately 307,006,550 persons. That's 0.79%. Looking deeper (Deaths: Final Data for 2009, Tables 1, 7, 10, 20 [PDF - 1.4 MB]), 554 of those were accidental discharges of firearms, 18,735 were suicide by firearms, 11,493 were assault by discharge of firearms, and 232 were discharge of firearms, undetermined intent. Homicide by other means was 5,306. Suicide by other means was 18,174. Total non-firearms related accidental deaths were 117,467.
First of all, lets dispense with the suicides. While it's interesting to note that the number of firearms and non-firearms suicides were roughly equal, suicide is an intentional action which an individual arguably has every right to take, if he or she should so choose. In examining whether gun violence is a problem or not, let's focus on bad things that shouldn't have happened, and not on bad things we wish hadn't happened. As disclaimer, let me state that it's my personal opinion that a person has a right to snuff it if they so choose, and to do so in any way they should choose, with whichever tool they choose, provided they cause no undue harm to others (besides making their moms cry). This is my opinion, and I'm sticking to it. So out the window go the suicide numbers. However, just so we know what we're tossing out, that's 0.0061% of the total population who died by suicide with guns, 50.76% of the total number of suicides, and 60.4082% of firearms related deaths. Looks like guns are a more useful tool for whacking yourself than for hurting others, hmm? But I digress. Doing a quick sum, we come up with a total for firearms related deaths (excluding suicides) of 12,279.
Now let's look at percentages. The 554 firearms related accidental deaths comprised 0.00018% of the total US population, 0.023% of the total number of deaths, and 0.47% of the total number of accidental deaths. For comparison, motor vehicle accidents account for 36,216 of the deaths (30.8% of accidental deaths/1.49% of total deaths), accidental poisoning and exposure to noxious substances accounts for 31,758 deaths (27%/1.3%), and falls account for 24,792 deaths (21%/1.0%). Also note that accidents, in all forms, account for only 4.8% of all the deaths for 2009. Moving right along.
Murder. Murder is bad. That's why we outlaw it, and why even the most primitive forms of society mete out vengeance upon its perpetrators. Preventing murder is one of the chief goals of any civilization, along with preventing death in general, and ensuring that the populace is fed, clothed, and sheltered. So naturally, any time we see something that makes us think, "Oh crap, murder!" we likewise think, "What can I do to prevent that from happening to me?" The gunners think, "I'll protect myself by showing a potential threat that they don't want to mess with me!" The anti-gunner thinks, "I'll protect myself by preventing anyone from being a potential threat!" Both approaches are reasonable, and worth considering in the context of their inherent effectiveness, and the side-effects that such approaches would have upon the whole society. However, as a society we must prioritize our efforts toward improvement. We must focus on those things which will provide the greatest benefit. Conversely, we must avoid wasting resources, time and effort on pursuits that provide relatively marginal benefits. Why? Because it's wasteful. Think about that for a second. It's like worrying about putting a fresh coat of paint on your siding while there is a gaping hole in your roof. And your windows are broken. And the garage is on fire. And you're having an allergic reaction to a bee sting. Effort must be spent on things that matter most.
A simple analogy yes. Perhaps a better one, and more fair in this context, would be to compare those asking for action on gun violence with a family whose house has just burned down, who is begging for wood to be banned as a building material, while their city of 100 thousand is suffering massive unemployment, infrastructure failure, and an impending invasion by Canada. (Sorry Canada, have to maintain at least a LITTLE silliness here. Luv ya!) It's a focus on an acute, but relatively minor problem, to the exclusion of critically important systemic ones.
Firearms related homicides in 2009, that number again being 11,493 deaths, represented a loss of 0.0037% of the US population. They comprised 0.47% of the total deaths in 2009. Look at that number. 0.47%. Now, anti-gunners like to focus on the fact that firearms related homicides made up 68% of the total homicides But every rational human being, if they think about it, will agree that even 99% of almost nothing is still almost nothing. Yes, I'm declaring 0.47% to be almost nothing. And yes, I realize that statement infuriates every person who has lost a loved one to gun violence. But it's 100% true.
It's a problem of scale. Acts of violence are personal, and as a personal experience, they are truly horrific. Events like the Newtown massacre, the Giffords shooting, and every mundane shooting that occurs, are tragedies, traumatizing and unthinkable. But only on the personal level. Taken in the context of the whole, they are statistically insignificant events. The solutions proposed by both the anti-gunners and the pro-gunners, however, when taken in the context of the whole, are dramatically significant. To prevent one death, anti-gunners would deprive hundreds of millions of fellow citizens of their rights to own firearms for purposes of self defense, hunting, recreational shooting, and as a deterrent against governmental tyranny or foreign occupation. In turn, the pro-gunners would spend billions of dollars annually to place armed security or police in schools, shopping malls, and other public places. Both sides advocate dramatic measures that would affect society as a whole, in order to solve a problem that affects a numerically insignificant portion of our population.
I call this over reaction. I call this irresponsible stewardship of the country on the part of all of us who are willing to listen to this nonsense. Both sides scream for attention to be paid to their personal problem when we have far more serious issues that deserve to be addressed. National debt and deficit spending, racial discrimination, bullying in schools, the quality of our school system itself. All affect huge chunks of the population every year, all year. It's the problem of scale, of using a tool meant to make gross changes in order to prevent discrete problems. It is immature, irresponsible, and wrong.
There is no gun violence problem in America. Passing new gun laws is unjustified. Putting police in every school in the country is unjustified. And debating the issue is itself unjustified.
