Legal Perspective: How many "mass shootings" are "terrorism"?

After a recent OpEd, Gun deaths told by the numbers, I was asked to examine how many mass shootings were actually at the hand of a terrorist. For this analysis I opted not to exam each mass shooting and apply the facts to the legal definition, but to look first at the broad legal definition and ask the policy question of how frequently should the term “terrorist” be used to describe mass shootings, or any shootings or violent acts toward humans that would satisfy the definition.

Looking at “mass shootings” committed by “terrorists,” the analysis, from a legal standpoint, is a bit challenging. Title 18 USC § 2331 defines "International terrorism" and "domestic terrorism" for purposes of Chapter 113B of the "Terrorism” code.

International terrorism has three characteristics: (i) involvement in violent acts or acts dangerous to human life in violation of state or federal law; (ii) appears to be intended to intimidate a civilian population, or to influence government policy by coercion, or to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and (iii) occur outside the territorial jurisdiction of the US, or the act transcended national boundaries.

Domestic terrorism has three characteristics: (i) acts that are dangerous to human life and violate state or federal law; (ii) appears to be intended to intimidate a civilian population, or to influence government policy by coercion, or to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and (iii) occurs primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the US.

The federal crime of terrorism, 18 USC § 2332b, is an offence (i) calculated to influence or affect the conduct of the government by intimidation or coercion, or to retaliate against government action; and (ii) violates one of several statutes, including: killing or attempting to kill people at a federal facility with a dangerous weapon (§ 930(c)), and killing or attempting to kill officers or employees or the US government (§ 1114).

Many mass shootings could potentially be classified as acts of terrorism, as the definition of domestic terrorism is fairly broad. For example, both the Colorado Springs and San Bernardino shootings were acts dangerous to human life, namely the mass shooting, killing, and wounding of a group of a people. Such acts of murdering or attempting to murder are criminalized and in violation of both state and federal laws, thus satisfying the first element of domestic terrorism.

The second element which must be satisfied for the offence of terrorism is that the appearance of the act is to intimidate a civilian population or coerce government policy. An argument can be made that the act of killing or attempting to kill a group of people, especially in a metropolitan area that has sufficient media outlets to cover the act and convey the horror to the nation and world would seem to satisfy the requirement of intimidating a civilian population. As perverted as it may sound, a mass shooter could even be attempting to coerce the government to subvert the Second Amendment of the Constitution. A shooter, who knows one day an event will be the tipping point, may utilize such an act to influence governmental action, even if that action violates certain Constitutional provisions, such as right to bear arms, or the Fourth Amendments right of citizens to be secure in their persons, homes, papers, and effects and free from unreasonable searches and seizures. The key words in the second element are that the act’s appearance is to intimidate or coerce. It could be that the perpetrator’s motive was not to intimidate or coerce, but in order to satisfy the definition it is the appearance by a reasonable prudent person.

The final element of domestic terrorism is that the act took place in the territorial jurisdiction of the US. This is perhaps the easiest of the elements to satisfy. Both of the shootings aforementioned took place within the US.

While many, if not most, mass shootings could be classified under one of the legal definitions of terrorism, calling each event “terrorism” dilutes the meaning of the word. Terrorism is a strong word and should not be thrown out lightly. But when it looks like terrorism, smells like terrorism, then it probably is terrorism and the term should be used accordingly. 

Gun deaths told by the numbers*

The thesis for this OpEd is “hold your horses,” gun crime is a far more complex beast than most want to recognise.

From Colorado Springs to San Bernardino mass shootings have continued to make headlines and “memes” floating around social media.

Pundits and politicians have given sound bite solutions to America’s homicide and mass-shooting problems, yet the numbers reveal a far more complex universe, worthy of public analysis.

The latest reportable numbers reveal:

• 21,175 suicides by firearms[1];
•  8,438 murders by firearms[2];
• 1,107 people killed by police using firearms[3];
• 606 unintentional/accidental deaths by firearms[4];
• 31,326 total deaths in the United States during a recent year.[5]

As horrifying as these numbers appear, the U.S.'s murder rate has been declining from a high watermark of nearly 10 out of 100,000 in 1991 to less than 4.5 in 2013.[6] Comparatively speaking, researchers estimate that 18.5 mothers died for every 100,000 births in the U.S.[7]

The total number of suicides by all means was 41,149.[8] Since 2005 Americans taking their own lives has been on the rise, with 12.6 out of 100,000 falling victim to suicide.[9]

The rate of homicides involving a firearm decreased by 49% between 1992 and 2011,[10] though firearms remain the instrument of choice for roughly 67% of murders, the other 43% accomplished their lethal act with some other ‘tool’.[11]

Unintentional or accidental deaths caused by firearms, seems the easiest for society to reduce by pushing more gun safety education. Unfortunately Americans as a whole are not the most safety prone. The Center for Disease Control reports that 130,557 Americans died in 2013 as a result of accidents or unintentional injuries.[12]

Many American’s greatest fear is being the victim of a deranged perpetrator’s shooting rampage, yet the Department of Justice reports that 95% of all homicides in the U.S. involve only one victim.[13] This means 0.23 out of 100,000 will be victims of a mass murder, which is a fairly low rate in direct proportion to the media coverage.

The reality is the victim will more likely than not know their murderer. With certain exceptions, homicide is not committed by an unknown person to the victim: 25.5% of male victims and 11.9% of female victims were killed by complete strangers. Compared with 46.2% of male victims were killed by a friend or colleague, and 41.5% of female victims were killed by an intimate partner.[14]

Is homicide a male problem? The latest trends show: 68% of all homicides had a male offender and a male victim. Shockingly, 98% of all mass shootings were committed by males[15]; 94% of all gang related murders were male victims; 90% of drug related murders were male victims; and 79% of felony murders involved a male victim.[16]

In only 21% of homicides was there a male offender and female victim; 9% involved a female offender and male victim; and lastly just 2% of all homicides involved a female as both the perpetrator and victim.[17]

A mass shooting is defined as four or more people shot in one event, whereas a “murder spree” or “mass murder” is when more than one person was killed during the same occurrence.[18] Legally speaking, these distinctions are used as aggravating factors to increase the severity of the penalty.

According to the shootingtracker.com, mass shootings have declined from 363 in 2013 to just over 300 for the current year.[19]

One commonly cited precedent to follow is that of Australia. Following the 1996 school shooting on the Island of Tasmania, the government seized approximately 650,000 firearms. While suicides by firearms declined significantly, homicides by guns has been a hard statistic to determine since there were so few homicides in Australia before the ban.[20]

The lesson from down under is that a solution that only focuses on the tool and not on culture, education, regional values, crime, or economic triggers misses the big picture.

What is the take-away? Society must decide if attacking the ‘tool’ used or addressing the underlying causes is more important. Such underlying causes include: mental health (and legislative cuts to funding), long-term male joblessness (which leads to crime), and gang and drug related activities (which increase murders). There are no simple solutions, only intelligent choices.

Matt Soper is a resident of Delta County and alumnus of Colorado Mesa University, holding law degrees from The University of Edinburgh and the University of New Hampshire. Contact the author at matt.soper@alumni.law.unh.edu.

*M Soper, "Gun deaths told by the numbers." Commentary. The Daily Sentinel, Grand Junction, Colo. 6 December 2015, p. 7B.

---

[1] “Suicide & Self-Inflicted Injury.” Center for Disease Control. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, 2015. Web, . 6 October 2015.

[2] “Murder 2013.” Uniform Crime Reports. U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2015. Web, < https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/tables/table-20/table_20_murder_by_state_types_of_weapons_2013.xls>. 6 October 2015.

[3] “2014 Data.” Killed by Police. Killed by Police, 2015. Web, . 6 October 2015.

[4] WISQARS Injury Mortality Reports, 1999-2010, supra note 1.

[5] Estimated total number of deaths for 2014 involving firearms. See FBI crime reports, CDC database, & the website killedbypolice.net. 1 December 2015.

[6] “Murder Rate 1970-2011.” Murder Rates. Death Penalty Info, 2015. Web, < http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/murder-rates-nationally-and-state>. 6 October 2015;  “Crime in the U.S. 2013.” Uniform Crime Reports. U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2015. Web, < https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/violent-crime/murder-topic-page/murdermain_final>. 6 October 2015; also see: “The Nation’s two measures of homicide.” DOJ. Web, . 6 October 2015.

[7] “Maternal deaths in childbirth rise in the U.S.” The Washington Post.

[8] Suicide & Self-Inflicted Injury. Op. cite.

[9] “Facts & Figures.” American Foundation for Suicide Prevention. American Foundation for Suicide Prevention, 2015. Web, . 6 October 2015.

[10] “Homicide in the US known to law enforcement.” Bureau of Justice Statistics. U.S. Department of Justice. Web, . 6 October 2015.

[11] “Murder 2013.” Uniform Crime Reports. FBI, 2015. Web. 6 October 2015.

[12] “Mortality: accidents & unintentional injuries.” Center for Disease Control. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, 2015. Web, . 6 October 2015.

[13] “Homicide in the US known to law enforcement.” Bureau of Justice Statistics. Web. 6 October 2015.

[14] “Homicide Trends in the United States, 1980-2010.” Bureau of Justice Statistics. U.S. Department of Justice. Web, . 6 October 2015.

[15] “Why Mass Killers Are Always Male.” Time. Web, . 6 October 2015.

[16] Homicide trends. Op. cite.

[17] Homicide trends. Op. cite.

[18] “2014 Raw Data.” Mass Shooting Tracker. Shooting Tracker, 2015. Web, . 6 October 2015.

[19] “2013-2015 Raw Data,” Mass Shooting Tracker, Shooting Tracker, 2015. Web. 2 December 2015.

[20] Ehrenfreund, Max. “What liberal don’t want to admit about gun control,” Wonkblog. The Washington Post 9 October 2015. Web. < https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/10/02/what-liberals-dont-want-to-admit-about-gun-control/> 2 December 2015.

Beauprez’s anti-gun past may come to haunt him

When asked about the Second Amendment, Bob Beauprez has a tendency of only talking about Governor John Hickenlooper’s policies.

So what about Bob?

A mere 14 years ago, Beauprez and and former Governor Bill Ritter were on the Amendment 22 band

Bob Beauprez flip-flops on 2nd Amendment.

wagon, which was a state-wide referendum calling for special restrictions for gun shows. These included an instant background check for certain sales that take place at a gun show, even if not required had the same sale occurred not at the gun show.

Amendment 22 passed with 70 percent of the vote.

During the 2006 contest between Beauprez and Ritter; Beauprez claimed Ritter loved gun control, whereas he supported the Second Amendment. This claim was the basis of one of the Both-ways-Bob ads which mocked Beauprez for flip-flopping on the Second Amendment.

The Independence Institute defended Beauprez’s mistake, by claiming the error was due to poor journalism by the Denver Post.

However, going back a bit further, when Beauprez was Colorado Republican State Chairman, he sent out a letter to GOP legislators calling for the party uniting on new gun control laws in the aftermath of the Columbine Shooting.

At the time, Rocky Mountain Gun Owners responded to the message by saying, “Gun rights supporters are told, in essence, to sit down, shut up, and take their medicine.”

Beauprez constantly called for closing the “loopholes in our gun laws.” The Owens Administration, working with Chairman Beauprez, crafted legislation to reign-in gun shows, proposed mandatory gun locks, and moved to disarm Coloradoans between the ages of 18 and 21.

Even Congressman Tom Tancredo voted for an assault weapons ban and a ban on magazines, along with making a few incriminating statements after the school shooting.  

The strategy, in the wake of Columbine, was to compromise a little on gun control, in order to maintain control of all three branches of state government. The results of the 2000 General Election saw the Republicans lose the State Senate to the Democrats.

The question now turns, has Beauprez become a hard-line Second Amendment kind of guy?

Recently, the question of gun control arose during an Aspen gathering. Aspen is not necessarily the friendliest of towns for gun advocates. Beauprez, playing to the audience said, if elected, and if a (gun control) repeal comes to me, I’d sign it.

Beauprez further stated that people with mental illnesses shouldn’t have easy access to guns.

Sounds a bit like the old Beauprez?

Perhaps compromising on some aspects makes political sense in some areas of strategy, but once you go down the road of giving an inch, before you know it, you’ve given a mile.

To be fair to Beauprez, he has claimed that a propensity to commit crime must be an element of limiting the Constitutional rights of someone who is mentally ill.

If society knew who had a propensity to commit a crime before a crime occurred, then why wouldn’t we create a pre-crimes police force, as illustrated in the film Minority Report to stop all evils before they occur?

Beauprez has also failed to define who would be legally classified as mentally ill? Does one visit to a psychologist mean a citizen could be pre-empted from their Second Amendment rights?

Prior to endorsing Beauprez this week, State Senator Greg Brophy, had declared both Beauprez and Tancredo weak on the Second Amendment. Yet in his endorsement, Brophy steered clear of gun talk, saying Beauprez had the best odds of winning.

Perhaps being soft on the Second Amendment is the key to winning the even-split urban-7th Congressional District twice, but for voters in rural Colorado the difference between the incumbent and Beauprez regarding gun control is a shady haze of grey.

All hope is not lost.

Republicans Mike Kopp and Scott Gessler, both have served America in the Army and both believe the Second Amendment is a right not to be compromised.

The Rocky Mountain Gun Owners feels the same way and has given Kopp and Gessler the two-thumbs-up.

Defeating Hickenlooper will be tough, but victory only comes if there is a candidate who can draw distinctions, not blur the differences over key policy issues, such as the Second Amendment. 

___________________

Matthew Soper, Letter to the Editor, Beauprez’s past may come back to haunt him, Delta County Independent, May 21, 2014, at A2.

Matthew Soper, Letter to the Editor, Beauprez evaluated on the Second Amendment, Gunnison Country Times, May 21, 2014, at A14.

Hickenlooper signs Syrian-style-gun-control measures

With Governor Hickenlooper's signature to HB 1224 and HB 1229 it looks like indeed the pen is mightier
than the sword/gun. The government now has the carte blanche ability to restrict any firearm which uses a magazine (this is due in part to the hastily drafted language in the bill). This is an assault on all of Colorado, our state and national constitutions, and natural law. Our peaceful protests in halls of power have been ignored. It is time the people stand up to the grievous and al-Assad-like assaults on our liberties!

As in the pre-Arab-Spring-era, the unchecked power of the Syrian Ba’ath Party also stripped their citizens of firearms. Syrian Legislative Decree No. 51 of 23 September 2001 banned private ownership of semi-automatic military looking rifles, revoking rifle permits, and only allowing permits for single shot-pistols and single-shot hunting rifles of low-calibre. Currently the people of Syria are in a bloody civil war in which the government of Bashar al-Assad is trying to quell resistance to the majority elected, single party rule.

In the Democratic controlled legislature, Colorado – like Syria – passed universal background checks, which require background checks of the possessor of a firearm when the owner is away for more than 72 hours. Along with blurring the lines of possession and ownership, the legislature completely ignored the vast majority of Colorado’s sheriffs, including Delta County’s own Fred McKee, who testified in Denver against HB 1229. With the new legislation in Colorado, as in Syria, private sales of firearms will be essentially prohibited.

The Democrats won’t achieve universal registration, universal licencing, and third-party liability this legislative session, but given another future-mass-shooting somewhere in the nation, these Syrian policies can be expected if freedom minded legislators and governors are not elected.

No one party should ever control all three branches of government. Yet when the Democrats rolled into power they began catering to the whims of the masses which has resulted in short-sighted, rights-restricting, and oppressive policies. It is time to petition Governor Hickenlooper for a redress of these grievances and upon denial demonstrate that the people of rural Colorado will openly and respectfully defy these anti-constitutional gun control measures.
_____________________________________________
*M Soper, LTE / OpEd, Mountain Valley News. 27 March 2013  http://www.mountainvalleynews.net/index.php/home/3-opinion/3910-letters-to-the-editor-32713.html accessed 27 March 2013

Murder rate way down, unsolved murder rate way up*

As unbelievable as Hadiya Pendleton’s ruthless murder, less than a mile from President Obama’s home in Chicago, is the reality that only 66% of those who murder are ever brought to justice. Pendleton’s murderer continues to remains at-large.

Marred by the mass-shootings of 2012 was America’s statistical achievement of seeing the lowest murder rate in the past 50 years. Hidden by the smoke of the gun debate is the disturbing reality that unsolved murders are nearing an all-time high.

Pendleton was murdered a mile from Pres Obama's home.

In 2011, according to the US Department of Justice, the murder rate was 4.8 per 100,000 people, which is contrasted to the 1980 high-water-mark of 10.2 per 100,000. It is estimated that after non-culpable homicide cases for 2012 are wound-up, the statistic will be around 4.6 – the rate hit back in 1963.

When graphed on a chart, the national murder rate looks like a bell-curve, with murders steadily increasing from 1960 to 1980 and then decreasing ever since. The lowest murder rate during the past 100-years was in 1957 – there were 4.0 per 100,000. If society does nothing, the projection is such that the US will near the 4.0 mark in a few years.

Vice President Joe Biden, outlined nine proposals for reducing homicides, which include: requiring background checks for all gun sales, banning assault weapons, limiting ammunition magazines to ten rounds, providing tax dollars for gun violence research, school emergency preparedness, and mental health coverage. Each recommendation noted that ‘no single law, or even a set of laws, can prevent an act of violence.’ Yet none focus on apprehending perpetrators.

The US has serious problems, for example, from 2011 to 2012 murders in Chicago increased by 38% to a devastating 506. Pendleton’s murder marks number 42 for 2013. By contrast, 418 people were murdered in New York City last year and seven so far have been murdered in 2013.

According to the UNODC, every US Territory, over the past decade, has seen a general increase in murders. Puerto Rico has the highest murder rate at 26.2 per 100,000 people. A record breaking 1,136 murders occurred in 2011 alone. Yet, Puerto Rico boasts twice as many police officers per capita as any US state.

Shockingly, only 25% of the murders in Puerto Rico result in the police apprehending the culprit. This was the case in New Orleans in 2010. Last year, homicide investigators improved this number to 39%, and were able to reduce murders by 3%. It is unfathomable that over half of the 193 murders during 2012 resulted in an accused being brought before the courts.

From 1980 to 2008 nearly 185,000 homicides went unsolved in the US, according to a Scripps Howard News Service study. Some cities, like New Orleans, have low murder clearance rates. Meaning the police were able to present the court with an accused. Others, like Washington, DC, have nearly doubled their success rate to a laudable 96%. Nearly 6,000 homicides go unsolved every year in the US. A national average of 66% is unacceptable.

While the Biden working group and the emotions of the nation cling to media images of recent shootings, a larger problem is law enforcement’s inability to bring more suspects before the courts.

If America truly cares about justice for victims’ families, society needs to invest resources to bring perpetrators to justice. Sophisticated investigating techniques and the quashing of minor criminal offences that are working in Washington, DC and New York City should be used to help municipalities like Chicago and New Orleans and territories like Puerto Rico.

When does society begin the conversation of addressing low murder clearance rates? Society needs to move beyond looking at the sensationalizing effect of recent mass shootings and see the big picture.

The US murder rate is at a 50 year low and dropping, despite recent outliers in the data. Concern, which should be sounding alarms, is the low national average of solving these murders.

To quote former President Bill Clinton, “There is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right with America.” The US has the knowledge and the resources to better solve homicides; there is void of political will power. It is time to implement successful techniques to bring murderers to justice.

If society truly cares about tackling murders, the debate needs to be about unsolved crimes, supporting local law enforcement, and not about the implementation devices (eg guns) used to commit the offence. 
__________________________________________
*M Soper, Murder rate way down, unsolved murder rate way up, OpEd, Western Slope Watchdog 17 February 2013: 4+ <http://westernslopewatchdog.com/2013/02/murder-rate-way-down-but-unsolved-murders-way-up/> accessed 18 February 2013

Don’t blame tools for murders caused by mentally ill individuals

Matt Soper

Take your pick: knifings in China, bombings in Syria, shootings in the United States: Who’d have thought an elementary education is about survival? This past week saw 20 students murdered in Connecticut, 22 students stabbed in central China and 29 students killed by a mortar in Damascus.

Opponents of guns have quickly taken to the bully pulpit to point out the Second Amendment’s barrier to domestic security. What if guns are illegal or it’s illegal to run a plane into a skyscraper or bomb a school or stab innocent children? Does a law make “bad stuff” go away?

Evil does not exist within a gun, a plane or a box cutter-knife. Evil exists in the malicious minds and actions of those who turn thoughts into deeds. The real crazies in society will accomplish their evil deed regardless of if the actions are illegal, the implementation device is illegal or the geographic location is marked a “safe zone.”

Connecticut has one of the strictest gun control laws in the country, yet a strict law doesn’t stop a thief. Adam Lanza broke state laws of theft, murder, entering a school zone with a dangerous weapon and concealing a firearm. Lanza was guaranteed no one would be able to shoot him for a long while, as he was in a “safe zone.”

No one talks about the Colorado Springs shooting of 2007, in which a mass-murderer began shooting parishioners in a church. That’s because a member of the congregation shot the murderer before the act progressed to the international news stage.

When can the conversation move from the tools used to harm innocent victims to the perpetrators and mental health in America?

As early as 2008, a school psychologist noted that Lanza cannot feel pain emotionally. Likewise, Jared Loughner, who shot Arizona Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, was deemed unfit to serve in the military for mental health reasons. James Holmes, the perpetrator of the Aurora theater murders, dropped out of neuroscience for severe depression and mental disturbances. Columbine killers Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold expressed tremendous warning signs of mental issues through their numerous blogs and membership in the “trench-coat mafia.”

Additionally, Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols, who used bombs instead of guns to further their evil acts in Oklahoma City, were recognized as early as high school as suffering severe psychological conditions and being unable to express emotion. Society can wonder why mass murderers, such as Lanza, Loughner and Holmes, along with Harris and Klebold and McVeigh and Nichols, do not respect current laws. But society should be reasonably certain that these characters won’t respect future laws.

Of these, the only perpetrators who acquired their weapon legally were McVeigh and Nichols. They purchased fertilizer from a local farm coop. By the way, their bomb killed 169 and injured nearly 700 in Oklahoma City.

Real crazies don’t heed legal restrictions, They will accomplish their evil deeds regardless of the lawfulness of their weapon or act. Focusing on gun control is like blaming condom malfunctions for unwanted pregnancies.

When does society begin the conversation of focusing on people and mental health and not on the tools used for evil acts?

While a famous Harvard Medical study found no direct correlation between video games and adolescents’ increased aggressive behavior, the University of Washington’s Psychosocial Epidemiologic Department has found a correlation between a pattern of video game play and aggressive behavior, such as school shootings. It seems reasonable for society to look more to the root causes, such as mental health, PTSD and the increase in violent video games and films.

The shootings across the United States — from Oregon to Colorado to Connecticut — have brought the issue of what can society do back to the forefront. Unfortunately, the public debate is gearing more toward the tools used by perpetrators of mass murder rather than focusing on the root causes.

If our society truly cares about preventing future mass shootings, then the debate needs to look to mental health and aggravating factors such as violent video games and films.

Matt Soper is a resident of Delta County and an alumnus of Colorado Mesa University and the University of Edinburgh’s School of Law. He is earning a post-graduate degree in law from the University of New Hampshire. Contact him at matthew.soper@law.unh.edu.
_______________________________________________

Published in the Grand Junction Daily Sentinel, Tuesday 11 Dec. 2012, p. A4 <http://www.gjsentinel.com/opinion/articles/dont-blame-tools-for-killings-8232caused-by-derang>.

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.