For the next three weeks, I go off the topic of jobs.
As Americans, we have a major issue which badly needs
attention from the center. Except for possibly
abortion, it is the most divisive one in the United States, with what seems
like every commentator and almost every citizen exclusively in one camp or the
other. Both sides are passionate, both
sides are entrenched in their beliefs, and, as is so often the case with complicated
political, governmental, and cultural problems, both sides espouse not only
truths but excellent talking points. Unfortunately
both sides are also wrong, and neither seems to have taken the effort to
understand the other.
In its simplest form, the problem we face and need to
resolve is not one of ideology, freedom, or civil rights. It is a public health issue. Too many Americans are being shot to death.
Why do I say “too many”?
Let us look at how American gun deaths compare with other
countries. In 2013, 10.64 per 100,000
died from gunshot. That ranked 13th
of the 75 tracked by Wikipedia, with the only one worse that could be called
first-world being Uruguay, 11th with 14.01. The next highest developed country was
Finland, with 3.64 (92% of which were suicides, compared with 63% in the United
States), followed by France (3.01), Austria (2.95), Switzerland (2.91), and
Estonia (2.54). The countries usually thought
of as most comparable to us, Canada, Germany, Australia, and Great Britain, had
gun-death rates of 2.22, 1.24, 0.86, and 0.26 per 100,000 respectively. The average of these four numbers is less than one ninth that in America. Unlike
deaths from automobiles (of which there are now fewer than from guns) or other
violent sources, more and more here are dying that way, up almost every
individual year from 29,569 in 2004 to 33,636 in 2013. That is what makes it a concern for public
health.
Recently, mass shootings at schools and workplaces have
brought attention to the problem. The
liberal side has made proposals of various sorts, with essentially all parts
being in the direction of more restrictions, and conservatives, many of whom
will accept no changes at all, have unsurprisingly rejected them. Yet liberals are getting increasingly
intolerant of the gun situation the way it is.
We are clearly in need of a truly bipartisan solution. Accordingly, liberals as well as
conservatives need to concede some things.
That is the first principle. What
others should form the foundation?
Second, the number of guns alone does not explain the damage
done with them. The United States now has
112.6 privately owned guns per 100 residents; the 2014 rates for Canadians,
Germans, Australians, and Britons were 30.8, 30.3, 15, and 6.6. Dividing the numbers above by these gets us
one 2013 American death per 10,583 2015 guns, with the other countries better (and
one less year apart) at 13,873, 24,435, 17,442, and 25,385. If the 2013 United States rate was the 20,284
average of these four, with no change in the number of guns there would have
been 10,686 fewer people dying that way.
Third, even with the most optimal set of gun laws, United
States murder rates, in particular, would be higher than in comparable
countries. That is because of several
factors less prominent in the likes of Great Britain – to name only three, a
more heterogeneous population, a more aggressive national character, and traditions
of more freedom and fewer laws in general which in combination lead to economic
inequality. For better or worse, we do
not have the same national disposition as Britons, and may never.
Fourth, following from the last principle, as harsh as it
sounds there are acceptable levels of gun violence. The ability to stop every person from ever shooting
anyone is beyond any solution other than complete elimination, which is not a
reasonable, let alone possible, solution.
We can debate what those levels should be, but they will, in deference
to realism, be more than zero.
Fifth, the Second Amendment does not guarantee a complete
lack of gun laws, any more than the First allows any speech of any kind in any
setting, or assures your right to practice a religion involving, for example, the
torture of animals. In fact it could be
modified or even repealed, or, as has been the case with other amendments,
interpreted differently by a future Supreme Court.
Sixth, guns remain the easiest and surest way for people with
average capability to destroy anyone, including themselves. Several decades ago, women attempted suicide
three times as often as men, but actually killed themselves only one third as
much – that was because they generally used seldom-lethal pills, whereas the
men most often chose firearms. It is
true that people and not guns themselves are responsible for what happens with
them, but people with guns can kill much easier.
Seventh, per the old business principle, cost should go to
the cost-causers. That rule means that
if something we own has the potential to damage others, we are liable for
that. Firearms are no special exception.
Eighth, and most sadly, at times some people ruin things for
everyone. Some areas, such as owning and
managing guns, are matters of trust, and if too many abuse that, innocent
people will be inconvenienced. There are
numerous other examples of this principle from daily life: your new car brakes do not mean you are allowed
to follow others more closely; your great sense of humor does not stop your joking
about bombs in the airport security line from being a crime; fireworks easily
managed by your conscientious 10-year-old are still often judged too dangerous
to be legal, and so on. We can and
should debate the value of laws stemming from this principle, but the fact is
that they are commonplace.
Given these ground rules, what further restrictions on
firearms should we accept or reject?
That will be the subject of next week’s post, followed by freedoms we
should and should not implement, and more, the week after.