Wednesday, February 21, 2018

Tafasta Merube Lo Tafasta -- Thoughts on Attainable Gun Control

Tafasta merube lo tafasta  is a phrase in the Talmud (Yoma 80a) which means if you try to do too much, you might wind up not doing anything at all. The phrase comes to mind as I see friends and colleagues, in the wake of yet another horrific massacre, advocating for the repeal of the Second Amendment, bans on private possessions of semi-automatic weapons and similar measures.

I happen to own a semi-automatic rifle. I first learned to use one in my mid-20s when I lived on a border kibbutz in Israel. I carried an Uzi for guard duty and when my work responsibilities took me to fields adjacent to the border after dark. With the current climate in the country and the rise of hate crimes, I feel safer being able to protect myself, although I also recognize that this is not for everyone. I store my ammunition in a safe away from my weapon itself, and I probably would not have a gun if we had young children in the house. But it is precisely the fact that I am a gun owner that gives me the ability to speak with some degree of knowledge about guns and what could reasonably be done to reduce the carnage in our country.

Gun owners often criticize gun control advocates as knowing nothing about guns, and there is often some truth to the claim. In order for us to all be on the same page, I’m going to begin with some definitions and facts.

A fully automatic weapon is one which will continue firing for as long as the trigger is squeezed, until the ammunition runs out. Private possession of fully automatic weapons was heavily restricted in the United States in 1934 and importation of such weapons has been banned since 1986. It’s extremely difficult to obtain a fully automatic weapon and none of the perpetrators of recent massacres have used them.

A semi-automatic weapon shoots one cartridge (“bullet”) each time the trigger is squeezed until the ammunition runs out. The AR-15 which is the weapon of choice in most recent events is a semi-automatic weapon.

A bump stock is a modification to a semi-automatic rifle which allows it to mimic an automatic by using the weapon's own recoil to allow the shooter to pull the trigger over and over much faster than they otherwise would be able to do.

A magazine (sometimes called a “clip”) is a device which feeds bullets into the weapon without having to reload. Most semi-automatic weapons have detachable magazines. The higher the capacity of the magazine, the more cartridges that can be shot without having to reload. In Maryland, it is illegal to sell magazines which have a capacity of more than ten cartridges, but it’s legal to possess them. One could drive over to Virginia and purchase a high-capacity magazine there and bring it back to Maryland, and that would be perfectly legal.

There is no generally accepted definition of the term assault weapon. There was a federal Assault Weapons Ban which passed in 1994 and expired in 2004 which banned the manufacture and sale of new weapons which have detachable magazines and at least two of the following other features: folding stock, pistol grip, bayonet mount, flash suppressor, or grenade launcher. The weapon I own, a Hi-Point Carbine, would not qualify as an assault weapon under this legislation as it has only a detachable magazine and a pistol grip but none of the other features. Hi-Point makes only 10-round magazines and while other manufacturers make larger magazines which fit the Hi-Point, use of them generally voids the warranty on the weapon.

Background check:  anyone who purchases a gun from a licensed firearms dealer has to present valid identification and fill out a federal background check form. If you have been convicted of a crime for which the penalty can be a year or more in prison,  are under indictment for a felony, have been convicted of domestic violence or are under a domestic violence restraining order, have been dishonorably discharged from the military, or been adjudicated as “mentally defective” you will not be allowed to purchase a firearm. Since this system went into effect in 1998, more than 1.3 million sales have been denied. The main problem with this system is that it depends on states and the military to report disqualifying information to the FBI, which runs the database. The Air Force failed to do so in the case of Devin Patrick Kelley, who killed 26 people in a Texas church in November 2017. As a result, Kelley passed the background check even though he should not have due to his 2012 court-martial conviction for domestic violence.

“Gun-show loophole”: while all gun purchases from a licensed dealer require background checks, transactions between two private individuals do not. While it’s still prohibited to knowingly transfer a gun to someone who is legally prohibited from owning it, the lack of a background check makes it very difficult to prove that the seller knowingly violated the law.

Internet Gun Sales: if you Google “AR 15 for sale” you will return 15.9 million hits. However, you can’t simply go online, order a gun, and have it delivered to your home. All Internet sales must be delivered to a licensed dealer who is required to run a background check and will charge you a fee for it. If you can’t pass the background check you will be denied the gun.

I’ve given all this background because I really think it’s important that if you are advocating certain policies you ought to know what you are talking about. When I see smart people advocating to ban things which are already banned or require things which are already required, it’s frustrating to say the least.

Now that we’ve discussed terminology and current law, let’s look at some policies which might help reduce the gun carnage in our country.

Let’s be clear that advocating a repeal of the Second Amendment is a waste of time and effort. In order to amend the constitution, the proposed amendment needs a two-thirds vote in both houses of Congress followed by ratification by 38 state legislatures. This is so self-evidently not going to happen that it isn’t even worth discussing.

A ban on private gun ownership and confiscation of privately-owned guns is neither politically nor technically feasible. Last year I submitted written testimony in favor of Maryland Bill HB1424, which died in committee. Under current law, anyone convicted of domestic violence or under a restraining order is prohibited from owning a weapon. But there is no actual mechanism to take weapons away from such people. They are supposed to voluntarily appoint someone to turn their weapon in at a police station or licensed gun dealer, but if they don’t -- and most don’t -- nothing happens. This bill would have required the state or local police to go and get the weapons, but it failed because of the expense involved and the fact that the police didn’t want this responsibility. Not surprisingly, they did not want to be tasked with going to a home in which they know is a weapon and someone who has been found guilty of a violent crime. Now multiply this by the estimated 300 million guns already in circulation in over 100 million homes and you will see that this is a Sisyphean task.

Having said all this, it seems to me that there are at least four legislative proposals that in the current climate have a possibility of passing. They will not eliminate all gun-related deaths but they will reduce them, while preserving the right of law-abiding Americans to possess weapons for hunting, target practice and self-defense.

Ban high-capacity magazines. The need to stop and reload more frequently and to carry more magazines should reduce death tolls as most perpetrators eventually are shot or caught fleeing the scene. Reloading a spent magazine takes time and is not so easy.

Require background checks for all firearms transfers, not just those conducted by a licensed dealer.

Ban bump stocks. After the Las Vegas massacre in October, even the NRA was briefly amenable to this legislation. They of course soon changed their position, but now might be an opportune time to try again.

Institute Gun Violence Restraining Orders (GVROs) on a national scale. David French of the conservative National Review recently advocated GVROs as “a gun control measure conservatives should consider.” A GVRO would allow someone to go to court to prevent a specific person from possessing firearms. As we learned from the recent Parkland massacre as well as the Charleston and Orlando nightclub shootings, relatives and neighbors did “see something” and “say something” but authorities failed to act in time. By allowing someone to go to court, neighbors and family members and local courts would be empowered to act where others have failed. French’s specific proposal is narrower than I would like to see -- I would give neighbors and co-workers standing to petition and not just family members and those who live in the same home -- but it’s certainly the start of a conversation which could lead to meaningful outcomes.

We may be at a moment where the anger of the populace can overcome the power of the NRA. Let’s not squander it by advocating for things which will never happen and let’s work for meaningful change instead.

3 comments:

Carpe Articulum Literary Review said...

Some Thoughts on Gun-Control in the US PART ONE (due to limited response area)

Ok, perhaps to my own peril, I am venturing to wade into the waters of the subject of the shootings… Unlike with other subjects, where the stats and facts all seem to make any thinking person’s position clear, this one is not always so. Therefore I am doing some research to try to wade through the facts that are currently and frequently put forward on both sides.
SOME CONCESSIONS are at the bottom, so don't bash me if you are of a differing opinion until you have read them, please. I tried to be thorough in approaching this complicated issue.

On the left they are chanting gun control, gun control. Which, like most things, sounds good--very good, at first blush. Until you dig. Then you find out it isn't as simple as that. On the right they are screaming about the Second Amendment as though the whole of society would positively collapse if the populace at large wasn’t armed. Also terribly flawed.
Trying to excise emotion from this one is really difficult. Maybe it is actually unethical to do so.

So where am I? Well. The tight gun control option is obviously too little too late. There are more GUNS than PEOPLE now. So let us not kid ourselves. In any city (yes, even the smaller ones) in America, for 200.USDollars, anyone can get a gun, and in most cases immediately. Period. This is the reality. It is far too prolific to “control” that kind of instant availability. Sadly.
However, there are other considerations… what about ammunition control? A global, comprehensive control system on ammunition would be something to look at. That is something that could eventually make every bullet traceable to the owner, seller and manufacturer. But still…then you know where it came from, and keep illegal sales of it off the market. Then what? Many shootings happen with registered, legal guns. We know where they came from. Didn’t keep tragedies from happening.
Then the question arises concerning the facts of gun ownership v. incidents.

America is inarguably in the lead. In comparison to ALL of its peers, including the whole of Western Europe (EVEN TAKEN TOGETHER) America is STILL at a minimum, according to ANY study, FIVE TIMES more violent (gun-related homicides).
Then there is the argument as to rights. It is an interesting subject in terms of guns… rights. Rights? Hmmm. Why would such an argument be made? No other European or other first world country recognises blanket rights to gun ownership. One has to have a REASON to have a gun. Even uniform police in UK are not permitted to use a gun. So clearly the surrender of firearms is NOT somehow guaranteeing a governmental overthrow.

Another feebly made argument was about the guarantee that a man could feed his family. Well, I suppose if he could not reach a Burger King, this might make sense, but I think America is quite past the time when someone had to hunt or die. So a little update shouldn't be difficult to stomach on those grounds.

Which brings us to the next subject: Culture. Gun control (specifically, disarming the American public) is not even possible. That ship has sailed. Why is this even such a touchy issue in America? Well, it is a country founded upon violence. Funded by violence. And a marketer of violence. It was a country founded upon the displacement and categorical annihilation of nearly ALL of its indigenous people. Then re-established by violent rebellion against its homeland. Then, having “succeeded” in these endeavours, has proudly maintained the motif and culture of gun ownership and its historic role in these events to this day. How? By everything from “passing down family guns” as an heritage, to being the most prolific creators and marketers of firearm violence-based video games, movies and television in the entire world.

Carpe Articulum Literary Review said...

--PART 2 Due to limited space--
What are the common arguments for NRA members and their sympathisers? The real importance of their 2nd amendment right is to specifically arm oneself against a government take-over. Please. Wake up, America. Did you really think, in your wildest dreams, that you, even the most die-hard of you with assault rifles, could possibly hold off your government? Your government with the most advanced weaponry in the entire world (speaking again to your culture of violence)? Did you think for an instant that your assault rifles or shotguns or .44 calibre pistols would actually hold up against a tank rolling through your neighbourhood? Bad argument.

Perhaps we should look at the fact that it took hundreds/ of years to get the older, in many cases, wiser, countries of the world to recognise the pitfalls of a massively armed public, and to come to a place in civilisation history that such things are for Military, police and environmental predation uses only, in order to protect the nation.
Some have said that they needed their 2nd amendment right because they were guaranteed by the constitution—which, to hear them speak of it, was their third testament to the xtian the bible.

I hardly think so. If that were so, why would they need so many amendments if to adjust and even reverse itself? This "perfect document" didn’t even give black men the right to vote until ratification of the 15th amendment occurred on Feb. 3, 1870 as a reconstruction amendment. The “three-fifths clause” found in Article I, section 2, clause 3. Some have argued that it wasn’t a pro-slavery intent which drove the black 3/5 of a man equivalent argument. That it was really a bold move to make the south recognise slavery was wrong… ok. I will leave you to derive your own conclusions to this idea. For me, it makes little difference. Allocating a human being to being legally only 3/5 of one, and publicly putting ones’ name to such a proclamation—frankly speaks for itself.

If you think that is bad (considering a man sub-human because of the colour of his skin) then let us consider that women of ANY colour weren’t allowed to vote until August 18, 1920 as ratified by the 19th Amendment! Yes, the roaring twenties. It took FOUR more amendments before we were finally recognised as a human AT ALL, with a brain capable of casting a meaningful vote that would be actually be counted. It took arrests, imprisonment, and public shaming, but it finally happened. So much for a perfect document.

Frankly this makes me wonder at any woman being staunchly constitutionalist in the first place. But that is just me.
So, we know the following:

US has the highest gun crime per capita of all western nations. By a minimum of 500%
90 guns per every 100 people, in American
Mass shootings 2000-2014 in America= 133 public populated places (NOT INCLUDING gang violence and/or terrorism.)
COUNTER-ARGUMENT: Adjust for population size.
Ok, adjusted per 1 million people=still FIRST.

Highest suicide rate with firearm, by over 10X over other peer countries
COUNTER-ARGUMENT: If they wanted to die, they would find another way.
Ok, except according to studies, up to 70% of these suicide attempts did not try again because they stemmed from specific life-crisis as opposed to ,metal illness. Gun use nearly guarantees the inability for medicine to save these people who could be rehabilitated. With those studied in UK, only 7% of these attempts ending in “successful suicide” 9 years later according to the UK median studies.
COUNTER-ARGUMENT: Homicides overall in US are going down.
Ok. But 1. That STILL leaves you over 500% higher than any other first word country with the most conservative of reports and
2. Firearm SUICIDES in US are going up nearly in exact proportion. It seems when Americans aren’t killing one another with guns, they are killing themselves.

Carpe Articulum Literary Review said...

Part 3 of 3 due to limited space:

From 2000-2013, gun deaths exceeded Aids, drugs, casualties of war and terrorism combined.
COUNTER-ARGUMENT: Overall, if you add smoking-related deaths and medical malpractice then it exceeds gun-related deaths completely.

OK… I am not sure how that makes this a great argument, except to say that America ALSO has a massive health crisis AS WELL. But let’s give that one to the gun-control opposition. It is a proven fact, even if it doesn’t change the other facts listed.
300 MILLION guns exist in US and growing. And in comparison with other nations with markedly lower gun-related fatalities, America is the least regulated. The correlation is evident: see graph below

Another problem with guns is that it is so much easier as an “answer” or an alternative to a heated situation. As easy as pushing a button, one can end it all. Far more personal and less removed are all other options. It may seem a minor point but it really isn't. Especially when considering heat of the moment situations.
What decision have I come to after all this research? Well. A few things have become clear:

1. You cannot “un-ring the bell”—gun proliferation in the US is far beyond being ABLE to be truly regulated, much less controlled.

2. In a (very) young country who was founded and established upon violence, and embraces this as a cultural norm from its film culture to its game entertainment to its actual “gun heritage” there will have to be an acceptance that there WILL be more violence and perhaps nothing can be done about it anymore. For those peace-loving people, perhaps the only thing to be done if they wish to remain in the US, is to move to states within the nation with the highest amount of gun regulation and the lowest amount of gun-related deaths. It is not a solution to the actual problem, but may be the answer to YOUR problem, temporarily. Furthermore, perhaps peaceful demonstrations could be held, demanding that schools have better security before you will return your students to dangerous environs.

3. That people are so polarised on the issue (especially but not entirely between “north and south” that I think it will be yet another blow upon the wedge that will eventuate in the US experiencing a repeat of their violent history: namely another Civil War.

CONCESSIONS:
1. There are countries where it seems to make sense that they have guns, such as in the case of Israel where people are literally being sniped and where terrorism is a daily struggle. But America is not among those thus threatened, and when they are, a few people with guns won’t solve it.
2. There IS a place for guns. Even in the UK, firearms, although closely restricted, ARE used in particularly dangerous situations such as drugs raids, and of course, the military. Moreover, there is a place for SOME gun use under close and restrictive laws, in rural places where animal predation threatens local wildlife and the livelihood of farmers, for instance. But those few sharp exceptions wouldn’t make a scratch on the surface of gratuitous gun use/ownership in the US.
3. Blanket statements cannot apply everywhere at all times. For instance, I would not wish to live in Alaska without a gun, esp. in bear country. Again, I think these exceptions are self-evident.
All of this is profoundly disheartening, as it seems that a budding nation is refusing to leave the bronze age in terms of maturation. As with all war-loving civilisations in history, it is always the vulnerable who pay the highest prices for these predilections. I leave you to your own conclusions.

Sincerely, Hadassah Broscova-Righetti