Safety: The fallacy of 'anti-guns proponents'

The post-Aurora shooting has seen Americans re-engage the debate over small-fire arm regulation. On 25 July 2012, President Barak Obama called for “leaving no stone unturned” in seeking measures to reduce violence in America. Mr Obama’s speech to the National Urban League in New Orleans featured a shift in the president’s policy position that gun laws in the US are sufficient.

Mr Obama said, “A lot of gun owners would agree that AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers, not in the hands of criminals […] But I also believe that the majority of gun owners would agree that we should do everything possible to prevent criminals and fugitives from purchasing weapons, that we should check someone’s criminal record before they can [purchase a gun], that a mentally unbalanced individual should not be able to get his hands on a gun so easily. These steps shouldn’t be controversial, they should be common sense.”

Around 0038Z on 20 July 2012, at the Century-16 Multiplex Cinema in Aurora, Colorado, suspect James Eagan Holmes walks into cinema No. 9 wearing Kevlar body-armour and a gas mask, with a black costume to resemble comic superhero Batman’s arch nemesis. The film had been playing for half an hour before the suspect began shooting into crowd, after having thrown a smoke bomb into the cinema. Within 90 seconds police were on the scene. The suspect had killed 12 and injured 58 people, before being apprehended by police in the car park. None of the people killed were members of a minority group. Leaked reports show the accused was being treated for psychiatric care after having dropped out of the University of Colorado Medical School. The suspect had no previous medical condition or any confrontations with law enforcement, including moving-traffic violations.

 shooting a Thompson M1928A1

Contrary to the President’s thesis, the accused in the Aurora shooting had no criminal record, didn’t use an AK-47, and the leaked counselling reports indicate he was not “mentally unbalanced”. Seeing a psychologist or councillor is not an admittance of being “mentally unbalanced” and using such rhetorical comparisons is prejudicial and sends a negative message to those individuals in society who really do need professional help.

According to a Harvard Law research paper, nations with the highest small-arms regulations are not always the safest or less violent. The most-pro regulation nations include: Colombia, Somalia, Japan and Sweden.

The day before Mr Obama’s speech, a court in Sweden convicted a man on two counts of murder and four attempted counts for a shooting which took place in Malmo. The accused ignored the prohibition on firearms and had been linked to a dozen street shootings over the past two years. Somalia has a major problem with gun violence, even though the official government position is to ban firearms. Some scholars have implicitly suggested a low fire arm ownership rate gave rise to al Shabaab and piracy, which in-turn gave rise to high levels of illegal gun ownership. Colombia is a nation well known for gun violence, however much of this comes from drug cartels who target unarmed civilians. The UNODC reports Colombian illegal small-arms ownership is at an all-time high, which many citizens opting for a means to protection. Criminals seem to have a propensity to ignore the rule of law. By definition, a person is a criminal if they disobey the law established by the recognized government authority. Even Japan has its share of gun crime, most will recall the assassination of the mayor of Nagasaki in 2007, a pensioner going on a shooting spree in 2009, and organized gangs who annually shot members of the opposing mafia.

There is no research which shows taking away guns makes a society safer, less violent, or secure. People intent on doing harm, will do harm. Look at 9-11, why didn't we ban air planes, or make private ownership illegal? I don't recall a single gun being used on that day, yet nearly 3,000 people lost their lives.

The UK, which has pretty much banned guns (unless you own land and a title) still has gun violence, albeit not as high per capita as the US, but knife and bombing violence are way higher per capita in the UK. Stopping all bad people in society takes the rest of society to be vigilant, sense when folks need help, or being prepared to fire back when evil attempts to prevail - that includes both criminals and the government.

Research conducted by Oxford University reveals correlations between the type of homicide and the socioeconomic and subcultural status of the victim and offender. More research needs to be conducted into this area, as it is a highly charged hypothesis to suggest a person who feels poor, socially rejected, or outside their culture is more likely to commit an offence of the person resulting in a fatality. Mass murders in OEDC states see offenders who isolate themselves from their society.

Nations with strict firearm regulations don’t necessarily have lower homicide rates. Switzerland, which has 
one of the world’s highest firearm ownership rates (2/3 of every home has at least one firearm), also has one of the lowest overall homicide ratios at 1 > per 100,000. The US, which has a similar gun ownership rate as Switzerland, has a much higher overall homicide rate of 4.5 per 100,000. Larger nations tend to have different social problems, but also Switzerland requires a large percentage of its male population to have spent a year in the military, in addition to this, much of the nation is fairly rural and research has shown murder rates are much lower in rural environments. (See UNODC homicide statistics)

A paper looking at the urban v rural divide for gun violence in and around Washington, D.C. shows that nearly 70% of all gun deaths in both areas were suicides, which are illegal in the US. It should be noted, rural suicides by guns were 10% higher in the countryside, suggesting an opportunity for medical professionals and educators to develop mechanisms for intervening. While the likelihood of being murdered in an urban area of Washington, D.C. was 50% greater, when compared rural areas. When examining other parts of the US, the gap between urban murders and rural murders was well over two-fold. Accidental shootings with a rifle or shotgun were greater (3% of total) in rural areas, accidental shootings with handguns where significantly higher in urban centres. Homicides are greater when the offender was drinking or doing drugs, vulnerable, depressed, and subject to violence or mental abuse.

Recently, Elliot Fladen with the Colorado Springs Gazette made the comparison with the war on drugs resembling the war on guns. His conclusion is that just as anti-drug laws didn’t prevent drug dealers, users, or abusers; gun control laws won’t stop black market dealers, offenders, or individual’s intent on doing harm.

Many conclusions may be reached from noting statistics and arguments from the post-Aurora shooting debate, but one point is certain – more gun regulations and laws is not the answer to America’s struggle to interdict violent criminals.