How to Reduce Shootings
By Nicholas KristofGraphics by Bill Marsh NOV. 6, 2017
It has happened yet again: Inevitably, predictably, fatefully, a gunman shot dead 26 people in a Texas church on Sunday. These incidents are peculiarly American tragedies, and what’s particularly heartbreaking is that they aren’t shocking. People all over the world become furious and try to harm others, but only in the United States do we suffer such mass shootings so regularly; only in the U.S. do we lose one person every 15 minutes to gun violence.
Two of the deadliest mass shootings in modern American history have occurred in the last six weeks. So let’s not just mourn the dead, let’s not just lower flags and make somber speeches. Let’s also learn lessons from these tragedies, so that there can be fewer of them. In particular, I suggest that we try a new approach to reducing gun violence – a public health strategy.
America Has More Guns Than Any Other Country
The first step is to understand the scale of the challenge America faces: The U.S. has more than
300 million guns – roughly one for every citizen – and stands out as well for its gun death rates. At the other extreme, Japan has less than one gun per 100 people, and typically fewer than 10 gun deaths a year in the entire country.
We Have a Model for
Regulating Guns: Automobiles
Gun enthusiasts often protest: Cars kill about as many people as guns, and we don’t ban them! No, but automobiles are actually a model for the public health approach I’m suggesting.
We don’t ban cars, but we work hard to regulate them – and limit access to them – so as to reduce the death toll they cause. This has been spectacularly successful, reducing the death rate per 100 million miles driven by 95 percent since 1921.
Take a look at the history of motor vehicle safety since World War II:
The Liberal Approach is Ineffective.
Use a Public Health Approach Instead.
Frankly, liberal opposition to guns has often been ineffective, and sometimes counterproductive. The 10-year ban on assault weapons accomplished little, partly because definitions were about cosmetic features like bayonet mounts (and partly because even before the ban, such guns were used in only 2 percent of crimes).
The left sometimes focuses on “gun control,” which scares off gun owners and leads to more gun sales. A better framing is “gun safety” or “reducing gun violence,” and using auto safety as a model—constant efforts to make the products safer and to limit access by people who are most likely to misuse them.
What would a public health approach look like for guns if it were modeled after cars? It would include:
Background Checks
22 percent of guns are obtained without one
Protection Orders
Keep men subject to domestic violence protection orders from having guns
Ban Under-21s
A ban on people under 21 purchasing firearms (this is already the case in many states)
Safe Storage
These include trigger locks and guns and ammunition stored separately, especially when children are in the house
Straw Purchases
Tighter enforcement of laws on straw purchases of weapons, and some limits on how many guns can be purchased in a month
Ammunition Checks
Experimentation with a one-time background check for anybody buying ammunition.
End Immunity
End immunity for firearm companies. That’s a subsidy to a particular industry
Ban Bump Stocks
A ban on bump stocks of the kind used in Las Vegas to mimic automatic weapon fire
Research ‘Smart Guns’
“Smart guns” fire only after a fingerprint or PIN is entered, or if used near a particular bracelet.
If someone steals my iPhone, it’s useless, and the same should be true of guns. Gun manufacturers made child-proof guns back in the 19th century (before dropping them), and it’s time to advance that technology today. Some combination of smart guns and safe storage would also reduce the number of firearms stolen in the U.S. each year, now about 200,000, and available to criminals.
We also need to figure out whether gun buybacks, often conducted by police departments, are cost-effective and help reduce violence. And we can experiment more with anti-gang initiatives, such as Cure Violence, that have a good record in reducing shootings.
Fewer Guns = Fewer Deaths
In Texas on Sunday, it seems that a man living near the church grabbed his gun and confronted the shooter after he left the church. It may be that this defensive use of a weapon saved lives, and the N.R.A. often hails this view that guns are necessary to counter gun violence.
But really? Can anybody possibly see what unfolded in Texas as a success of gun policy?
It is true that guns are periodically used defensively. One study by the
Violence Policy Center found that in 2012 there were 259 justifiable homicides by a private citizen using a firearm.
Not trolling, just wanna make sure I understand exactly what is being asked for and exactly how it would have stopped this senseless violence.
nikka what!
