Gun Control Update
I’ve been thinking more about gun control since the Las Vegas shooting last month, and again following another massacre at a church in Sutherland, Texas this week. While I stand by what I wrote previously about gun control, recent events have both clarified some of the political aspects of the gun control debate and opened my mind to an ambitious gun control solution for mass shootings.
First, the politics. In my last post about guns, I wrote that gun violence is more properly viewed as two separate problems: mass shootings and day-to-day gun violence, including drug and gang-related shootings and domestic violence. Of those two, mass shootings receive most of the media attention, and without them, it seems, gun violence would barely exist as a national political issue (and even the Las Vegas massacre — the most deadly in modern U.S. history — couldn’t keep gun control in the news for more than two weeks). Daily gun violence, aside from providing statistical support that shows a lot of people die from gun violence, plays almost no role in our national discourse on guns. And anyway, I’m absolutely convinced that the non-gun-control solutions to daily gun violence which I outlined are the best solution to those problems. Accordingly, I’m only going to talk here about mass shootings.
There was a lot of noise about gun control after the Las Vegas shooting, and I expect it to continue following Sutherland. As usual, much of the political reaction was either ignorant or designed to increase political tensions without solving any problem. For an example of the former, many people were appalled at the number of guns that the shooter owned: apparently more than forty.
But guns are like pairs of shoes: it doesn’t matter how many you own, you’re going to have a hard time using more than one at a time. In fact, if I had to choose, I’d prefer being attacked by someone carrying or trying to use more than one gun than by someone with only a single gun. There’s a reason that the U.S. military doesn’t give soldiers more than one of the same type of gun — it doesn’t help at all. The shooter’s gun collection shows only that he had a huge gun budget, probably approaching six figures. But it didn’t make him more deadly.
Political ignorance is excusable, or at least inevitable. I can’t offer any justification, however, for the political leaders who express outrage at these shootings but have nothing productive to say about solving the problem. Hyping gun control, especially “common sense” gun control, is guaranteed to rile up political supporters and rake in donations from outraged constituents while conveniently avoiding political risks and ensuring that the so-called problem remains a problem for as long it keeps the money coming in.
Examples abound: Nicholas Kristof proposed nine gun-controls in a column following the Las Vegas shooting: background checks; banning bump stocks; age limits for gun purchases; smart technology; denying guns to domestic abusers; limits on the frequency of gun purchases; micro-stamping gun cartridges; safe storage requirements; and increased gun violence research.
Only one of those nine has anything to do with what might have happened in Las Vegas: bump stocks. The other eight are apparently Kristof pet projects: there’s absolutely no reason to think that background checks and an age limit of 21 on gun purchases would have stopped a 64-year-old with no criminal record. How unserious does a person have to be to propose micro-stamped cartridges — designed to help law enforcement solve gun crimes — following a crime which the perpetrator videotaped himself committing? Even Kristof recognizes that he is only using this latest massacre as an excuse to talk about a different problem: following Sutherland, he wrote “Two of the deadliest mass shootings in modern American history have occurred in the last six weeks….Yet remember that although it is mass shootings that get our attention, they are not the main cause of loss of life.” But Kristof can see the silver lining: “It may sometimes seem hopeless to make progress on gun violence, especially with the N.R.A. seemingly holding Congress hostage. But I’m more optimistic.” At least he’s happy.
Among politicians, the fund-raising impulse is even more pronounced. Hillary Clinton asked us to imagine if the shooter had used a “silencer,” which she is certain would have made him much more deadly. While it’s possible Hillary really thinks she knows more and would be a better mass shooter than Stephen Paddock, I suspect that she is really engaging in some disgusting political opportunism. Supressors are currently illegal without an onerous federal permit, but GOP lawmakers had recently proposed removing the ban for the sake of gun-enthusiasts’ hearing and safety. So is this proposed legislation an opportunity for an honest discussion about suppressors, or an opportunity to scare people into voting for candidates who advocate gun control measures? If we are speaking honestly about “silencers,” we know that they don’t “silence” the sound of gunshots. Guns fired with suppressors are still extremely loud — about 130 decibels for a rifle, about the equivalent of standing on an active aircraft carrier deck or right next to a jackhammer. Everyone in Las Vegas still would have heard the shots.
But even if suppressors could magically silence the sound of a gunshot, shouldn’t we be curious about why the shooter didn’t use one? With a rifle budget well over $50,000, with special adaptations to his guns to fire automatically, and with extensive planning for his operation, there’s no question that he had the means to acquire a suppressor, the knowledge of gun modifications that would make him more deadly, and the intent to be as deadly as possible. Clinton asks us to believe that the gunman hadn’t heard of silencers before, or didn’t know how to buy or make one. That’s a ridiculous claim, but it can raise money for the Democrats who are talking about keeping silencers illegal while conveniently having no effect on actual gun violence.
The political posturing after the Sutherland shooting has been almost more cynical. A long list of Democratic leaders asked Congress to “act,” to “take action,” and to “say enough is enough.” This is a fundraising device, not a legislative program. They want to politicize tragedy for their own benefit, and they should be ashamed of themselves. While the facts in Sutherland are still murky, early reports suggest that the shooter had a disqualifying domestic violence conviction while serving in the Air Force, but he was able to purchase the weapon because the Air Force failed to report the conviction. If that is true, then we don’t need a new law — we need to execute the laws we have. But don’t bet on any gun control advocate admitting this. There’s too much money and media exposure to be had riling people up.
A real solution: a national ban on semi-automatic weapons
If we seriously want to stop mass shootings like Las Vegas or Sutherland, then we should be concerned primarily with the facts of those shootings. The most obvious and deadly characteristic of the Las Vegas shooting was the automatic gunfire. Automatic fire is extremely dangerous, and it is clear that vastly fewer people would have been injured and killed if the shooter had only been using semi-automatic weapons. But it has been federally illegal to manufacture automatic-fire guns since 1986, illegal to purchase any such guns made after 1986, and illegal to transfer any such guns without a federal permit, regardless of when they were manufactured. Possessing a gun which fires automatically is a felony with a minimum ten-year prison sentence. If the Las Vegas shooter had modified his rifles for automatic fire, it meant that he would have been facing decades in prison just for owning them. In short, automatic weapons are already controlled, and the penalties for violating those controls are severe. If gun control is the answer to gun violence, then the problem was already solved thirty years ago, at least as it pertains to automatic weapons. A ban on bump stocks will close a loophole in what was otherwise a comprehensive and effective ban on automatic weapons.
But Las Vegas was unique — most mass shooters, including, apparently, the Sutherland shooter, have used semi-automatic weapons. Semi-automatic guns fire once each time the trigger is pulled, which makes them less deadly than automatics that can fire much more rapidly. Still, they are deadly. Their ability to accept magazines of ammunition means that a shooter can fire more rounds without reloading and can reload much faster than he could if he had to individually insert each cartridge. Clearing used shells from the chamber of the gun is also much faster with a semi-automatic.
Previously, I had dismissed the possibility that semi-automatic weapons could be banned. The 1986 ban on automatic weapons, however, could serve as a model for such a ban, which would not only reduce the deadliness of shooters and save lives, but is also capable of gaining the support of a majority of Americans. Unfortunately, it would also require our political leaders to display a seriousness and sense of responsibility that seems, right now, completely implausible.
The first step would be to ban the manufacture and purchase of new semi-automatic guns, followed by a standing buyout program for semi-automatic guns. Guns can last a long time, but not forever, and a standing buyout creates a permanent temptation for gun owners to sell whenever they need extra cash, especially if the buyout would pay a premium over the real value of the gun. Some people would undoubtedly hold on to their guns despite whatever is offered, but that would be equally true if the guns were simply criminalized. This phaseout of semi-automatics wouldn’t happen overnight, but what’s the alternative? There is no chance of criminalizing semi-automatics in the near future, and a delayed effect dulls the political counter-reaction which has blocked other gun control efforts to date.
It would also be politically expedient for Democrats to acknowledge that they will not pursue a broad gun confiscation scheme. They might as well — any gun control scheme that is capable of garnering majority support will still allow most Americans to own a gun. This is true not only because of the demographics of gun ownership, but also because the Supreme Court has held that the Second Amendment guarantees the possibility of individual gun ownership, a doctrine that will not be changed without a constitutional amendment or serious damage to the credibility of the court. But most Americans can still own guns for purposes of recreation, hunting, and self-defense even in the absence of semi-automatics. If semi-automatic weapons could truly be phased out, then muzzle-loading rifles, pump and break-action shotguns, and revolvers are all anyone but the most die-hard preppers really need. Those weapons are compatible with most self-defense needs (even concealed-carry) and would be almost useless for mass shootings. What’s not to like?
To be clear, this is not necessarily my preferred solution to gun violence. An insurance fund, for example, that pays the victims of gun violence with funds raised from gun manufacturers would give a competitive advantage to manufacturers who can figure out how to keep their products out of the hands of murderers, and the program’s costs would be sustained, appropriately, by consumers of guns. Such a fund would be both cheaper and more effective than banning semi-automatics. But the ban is a real solution, unlike what is bandying around the political leadership right now, and real leadership could get it done. Don’t count on it.
