| The old joke goes that everyone talks about the weather, but
no one does anything about it. It wouldn’t be much of an exaggeration
to say the same thing about guns in our society. The problem is,
what’s to do?
Here’s where you find a major disagreement between two very
polarized lobbies, the pro-guns, usually represented loudly and
clearly by the National Rifle Association (NRA), and the anti-guns,
less loudly but just as clearly represented by such groups as Handgun
Control, Inc. (HCI). In fact, it’s hard to find a topic on
which the public is more polarized. Those who do hold a moderate
view are attacked verbally by both sides, and in my experience learn
to keep their opinions private.
What both sides seem to agree strongly on is that guns play some
major role in relation to crime. But one side believes it’s
a preventive role, and the other believes it’s a causative
one. “When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns”
read the bumper stickers, succinctly stating a major tenet of the
pro-guns’ position, to my notion an obviously simplistic one.
So far the HCI’s have failed to come up with any attention
grabbing slogans, but the position of most anti-guns is equally
simplistic: Take away the guns and you take away the crime. In private
conversations I’ve gotten the impression that many of the
anti-guns believe that only an outlaw could possibly want a gun.
So we have a fine mess. Two sides wrestling over decisions that
both would say are crucial to the wellbeing of our society, and
virtually unable to speak civilly to or about each other. Now, it’s
been said that resolution of differences comes when A can state
B’s position such that B would say “that’s right,
that’s exactly where I stand,” while B could do the
same with A’s position. That’s a diplomacy starting
point.
In this case, the A view of B is something like:
You want to infringe on my basic rights, you want to disarm
me so that I can be a helpless victim of criminals; maybe you’re
in favor of a coup d’etat that will turn our society into
a dictatorship overnight; you haven’t bothered to read the
Second Amendment; you don’t give a damn about hunting and
sport shooting; and if I let you impose any restriction on my right
to keep and bear arms the next thing I know you’ll come into
my house to confiscate the kitchen knives.
And B would hardly agree that this correctly summarizes their position.
Meanwhile, the B view of A is like the following:
You’ve got this gun fetish because you need a penis
symbol to feel OK; you don’t give a damn about all the kids
getting shot up on our streets; you’re too stupid to understand
the Second Amendment; with that gun you treasure so much you’re
more likely to shoot your spouse than a criminal; maybe you’re
another Timothy McVeigh at heart; and if any politicians agree with
you it’s because you’re bribing them.
And, of course, A would not agree that this is an accurate reflection
of A’s position.
Isn’t American culture sufficiently sophisticated for us
to realize that most things aren’t that black and white? Isn’t
it possible that guns both cause and prevent crime? Isn’t
it possible that the founding fathers did mean that private citizens
should be able to own their own weapons, with the proviso that they
accept the responsibilities, training, and guidelines inherent in
membership in a state or national militia? Isn’t it possible
that some people aren’t rational and cool-headed enough to
be trusted with a weapon under any circumstances, and some others
could be purple with anger yet not even think of reaching for a
gun?
Appropos of this last point, in my reckless youth I knew a young
guy who got in a bar fight and, in the common vernacular, got his
ass stomped! In his back pocket he had a nine-shot revolver, but
never reached for it. Of course I can't remember word for word what
he said afterward, but it went something like: “[T]hat’s
not what it was about. If he’d come at my throat with a broken
beer bottle, or was about to bash my head in with a bar stool, I’d
have shot him. As it was, it was just a fist fight. I lost. Tough
shit. That’s not worth committing murder for.” At the
other extreme, in my daily work I frequently interview defendants
charged with murder, who readily admit that if no one in the altercation
had been armed, it would have been a shouting or shoving match,
or fist fight at worst.
 It would be pompous of me indeed to think that my words can get
these two warring camps, the anti- and the pro-guns, talking civilly
to each other. But maybe just a few people will rise to the challenge
to think more creatively about the guns-and-crime issue, perhaps
even to see that, whichever side each of them stand on, not everyone
on the other side is totally evil, misinformed, or crazy. And maybe,
just maybe, those few people can begin some dialogue. Looking at
the issue realistically, taking a few numbers into consideration,
I think one has to conclude that each side does have some valid
points.
In 1994, there were 552,669 “violent crimes” in the
United States, including murder and non-negligent manslaughter,
robbery, aggravated assault, and rape . Lethal crimes, that is,
murder and non-negligent manslaughter, numbered 23,305, or nine
per 100,000 population. Of those lethal crimes, the large majority,
70%, were listed as “firearm related” and 56.5% specifically
as “handgun related.” There is strong evidence that
overall crime rates and lethal crime rates are relatively independent
, and that lethal crime rates are closely related to the prevalence
of firearms. One simple comparison, between New York City and London,
speaks volumes: The death rate per 1,000 robberies in London is
0.29, and in New York, 3.9. In other words, in London you may be
about as likely to be robbed as in New York, but in New York you
are 13 times as likely to be killed by the robber!
Sometimes this obvious link is explained away by saying the problem
is that we're not enforcing existing gun laws. I can't say this
is totally wrong, but I've seen no hard evidence for it. In Illinois,
for example, the offense of "Unlawful Use of a Weapon,"
which typically involves a gun, was recently raised from a misdemeanor
to a felony.
Another way to dismiss the gun-lethal crime link is to say we should
more vigorously prosecute criminals, rather than harrassing legal
gun owners. There may be an element of truth in this. Elsewhere
in my writings is a discussion of the practice of giving violent
offenders too many breaks which, as in the case of the fictitious
Mr. Chainsaw, shapes people toward, rather than away from, a criminal
lifestyle.
On the other hand, it would be a misstatement to say that we're
generally "soft on crime." Remember, we have more of our
citizens behind bars than any other nation on earth and when we
do hand out prison sentences, they are among the world's longest
. In 1990/1991, we had 455 out of every 100,000 residents incarcerated,
up 70% from 1989. And, we spend enormous resources on law enforcement
in general, and incarceration in particular.
Zimring & Hawkins2 make an
interesting point, specifically, that the overall U.S. crime rate
is not significantly higher than that of other industrialized
nations, but the violent crime rate is. The numbers they cite
seem to suggest that most or all of the difference can be attributed
to the ubiquitousness of firearms in the United States. But "correlation
isn't the same as causation,"
as every student of scientific method hears over and over.
That leads to questions such as:
Are we such a violent society because we have so many
guns, or do we have so many guns because we're by nature violent
people?
Does some other unknown factor cause both our violent nature
and our tendency to arm ourselves?
Or is it as simple as Zimring and Hawkins conclude: We're about
average in our tendency toward violence, but mixed with readily
available firearms, that tendency more often leads to lethal crime
in America than in other advanced nations.
To me, there seems to be no question that readily available guns
are taking a terrible toll on sections of our inner cities. It's
mostly because of guns that kids don't know if they can get to school
and back alive, that children are kept indoors when it would be
psychologically healthier for them to be in the fresh air playing
with others. Their friends and relatives who’ve been killed
when still too young to vote have almost all died of gunshot wounds.
It’s mostly because of pieces of lead flying about their neighborhoods
that many kinds don’t even expect to survive to adulthood.
Knives don’t miss their intended targets and kill kids sitting
on their front step, or even in their own living room. A baseball
bat can’t put hundreds of people in lethal danger at the same
time. In my work, I’ve never yet examined a defendant accused
of a drive-by strangling.
The fact is, we are raising an entire generation of Post-Traumatic
Stress Disorder (PTSD) victims . PTSD is what used to be called
“shell shock” among soldiers, the disorder so frequently
suffered by Viet Nam veterans, especially those who have been prisoners
of war. Although the vast majority of these men entered the service
with no criminal record and at minimum a high school education,
we know that the rates of violent crime, suicide, drug addiction,
and divorce, are inordinately high among veterans with PTSD. What
can we expect from children raised in the middle of urban battlegrounds,
except with more crime, drug addiction, etc.!!!
By now any IRA members reading this book may be ready to use me
for target practice. Carefully and legally, of course. Please don't
take aim yet, though, because I'm well aware that there's still
another perspective on the question.
All of the foregoing notwithstanding, there's evidence that with
all the crime they seem to cause, guns may actually prevent as much
or more. Estimates of how many crimes against persons are blocked
by privately owned guns run as high as 2-1/2 million, with 400,000
people reporting that a gun almost certainly saved a life . Perhaps
some of those attempted crimes would not have occurred if the perpetrator
had not been armed, it's true, but the numbers are too large to
dismiss. Even harder to pick apart is the analysis by Lott and Mustard5 and their conclusion that laws permitting private citizens to carry
concealed weapons actually lead to a reduction in violent crime.
Zimring and Hawkins surmise that a criminal, knowing that an intended
victim may be armed, would be likely to use deadly force without
warning, but according to the statistics, this is not the general
effect.
A cynic can ask if the professional criminal is going to become
a law-abiding citizen because intended victims may be armed. Well,
no, but consider these observations:
- Most crimes aren't committed by "professionals," i.e.,
those who practice crime for a living as I practice psychology
for a living;
- The majority even of repeat offenders alternate between criminal
and non-criminal pursuits;
- The decision between criminal and non-criminal activities is
often influenced by opportunity, i.e., the criminal will choose
to commit a crime if it looks easy and profitable;
- Most criminals are not specialists. They are "players"
who dabble in various forms of crime, so if muggings become too
risky, a more benign form of misbehavior may be chosen.
So it's not so preposterous to think that giving honest citizens
the right to carry concealed firearms could actually reduce the
rate of violent crime. In fact, that's what Lott and Mustard's statistical
analysis seems to tell us is actually happening. This kind of analysis
is maddeningly complex, and it's certainly easy to say, as some
have, that some flaw in their research design led to a false conclusion.
Personally, I believe these scientists have done everything reasonable
to cover all the bases, controlling for counfounding variables ranging
from racial and socioeconomic breakdowns to NRA membership and percentage
of Republican voters!
There's no guarantee that these results would hold up over time,
of course. Perhaps as carrying a weapon becomes less of a novelty,
people will become more cavalier about their use. Perhaps the first
people to apply for concealed weapons licenses tended to be above
average in their awareness of ethical and non-ethical uses of weapons
and perhaps above average in their knowledge of the safe handling
of weapons (OK, so maybe most of them have been NRA members, so
there!) As the practice continues, however, perhaps licenses will
be sought by an increasing number of those people who shouldn't
have a gun under any circumstances. We don't know.
In other words, there is no simple answer, and I find myself feeling
more than a little frustrated with those on both sides of the question
who keep insisting that there is.
There are millions and millions of guns in private hands in America.
In fact, 40 percent of households had at least one firearm in
1991. True, the number is going down, but very slowly, and it would
be foolish to think that anything we can do is going to bring
American gun ownership down to British or German levels in the
foreseeable future.
At the same time, the pro-gun lobby should take note that the numbers
are going down, albeit gradually, and also that NRA membership is
going down, as is its clout with politicians. Another series of
pretty magazine ads, another speech by Charlton Heston, isn't likely
to reverse that trend.
Well, why don't we just insist that anyone who wants to own a gun
take a battery of tests to "prove" that he or she is psychologically
qualified? Sorry, but there's no battery of tests that could prove
such a thing. At best we could weed out a few of the absolutely
worst applicants, while also weeding out many more pretty level-headed
people. Further, what authority would decide which tests to use,
and what the criteria should be? If you asked a hundred psychologists,
you'd get a hundred opinions. Even if it were feasible from a scientific
standpoint, it would be a costly, bureaucratic mess. (I'm speaking
here as a psychologist who works in a bureaucracy, remember?)
Maybe you've gotten the idea by now that I believe we all can
gain from some compromise, and you're right. For what they’re
worth, I have some suggestions. But first, let me toss out a
few more opinions/observations.
To the audience on the left:
NRA members are not all bloodshot-eyed madmen. They have
some legitimate points, and in fact they promote gun safety;
This
is a very big country, and there are many places where quick-response
police protection just isn't possible, where the biggest crime
deterrent could be the knowledge that there may be a loaded
rifle or shotgun in the next house or pickup truck;
No, guns shouldn't be lying around where kids or burglars can
easily grab them. At the same time, though, I think most people
would agree that a gun should have some self-protection potential.
That potential is diminished or destroyed if it must be kept in
a disassembled state in the house, or locked in the truck with
the firing pin removed.
To the audience on the right:
An assault rifle is constructed to be rapid-fired from
the hip, easily carried while running, sturdy enough to use the
butt to quickly get into a prone firing position, and perhaps to
fire dozens or hundred of rounds rapidly, without malfunctioning.
There really is a difference between that and a hunting rifle. I
think you are insulting my intelligence to tell me otherwise;
A waiting period to buy a gun isn't the worst thing that could
happen to a person. Even with a waiting period of three, or five,
or thirty days, a gun would still be more readily available in
the U.S. than almost anywhere else on earth;
A real sportsman doesn't need a 105 mm howitzer to bring down
a deer, or armor piercing bullets to stop a rabbit. What should
we do next, hunt with hand grenades? Go on resisting all limitations,
and you may wind up restricted to slingshots.
Now that everybody on both sides is thoroughly pissed off at me again,
here are some suggestions:
- Yes, government legitimately can and should put some limits
on weapons and ammunition. This can be done in consultation with
authorities such as the NRA, not in heated conflict with them.
Maybe if liberal and moderate politicians would listen with an
open mind to the pro-gun advocates, they'd find that the latter
also listen to them.
- We pass some laws, or maybe a federal law, that tacks an extra
sentence onto any felony in which a firearm is used, and we enforce
it!!! I.e., even if your state lets you off with three years for
an armed robbery, you still face, say, five years federal for
using a firearm in a felony.
- We allow persons who meet certain criteria to carry concealed
(or unconcealed) firearms. These criteria might include no hospitalizations
for major mental illnesses in the last five years, and no history
of domestic battery or felonies, unless a pardon has been granted
or a special dispensation applied.
- BUT to get that license, you must take a class, under the auspices
of a knowledgeable authority such as the NRA, in the safe and
ethical use of a firearm . Following the class licensees should
be tested both in the handling of the weapon and their knowledge
of the material covered. Similar tests would be required for license
renewal. Heck, we do it with automobiles, don't we? As with automobiles,
costs should be written off by the fees charged.
- AND licensees would have to purchase special liability insurance
to provide compensation for anyone wrongfully injured with the
weapon. This would be a further defense against careless use because
even without criminal charges being filed, any incident could
result in loss of insurance, and therefore, loss of license.
- Penalties should be rather stiff for carrying a concealed firearm
without such a license.
It would be most inappropriate to ask flippantly "what do
we have to lose?" In concept, what we have to lose is thousands
of precious human lives. In concept, what we have to gain is saving
thousands of lives as well. No doubt the stakes are enormous, but,
as I've said as clearly as I know how, it's time for some compromise
in this area. Heaven forbid that such an experiment would result
in more carnage, but if this were the clear result, the policy can
be reversed or adjusted. If, on the other hand, a positive change
is seen, it can be maintained or even expanded.
We do have a big problem. Guns are part of that problem, but they're
not going to disappear. To go on warring at each other over the
issue like peevish school children is unworthy of Americans, leaves
too many lives to chance, and too often results in the worst of
both worlds. Whether you live in a troubled neighborhood, a cozy
suburb, or a rural setting where lethal crime is virtually unknown
as of now , your nation, the most powerful on earth and one of the
wealthiest, has a murder rate like that of a third world country,
far worse than any other advanced nation.
In my opinion, that should make you sick to your stomach. Hopefully,
too sick to cling to the status quo.
NOTES
1. 1995 Dept. of Justice Sourcebook, table 3.114.
2. Zimring & Hawkins, 1997. These authors present a wealth
of national and international data on crime, lethal crime, firearms,
and related topics. Their book, only 272 pages including references,
should be considered “required reading” for anyone wishing
to address the crime problem.
3. Flanagan, T. (Ed.) (1995). Long-term imprisonment: Policy, science,
and correctional practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications,
Inc.
4. This is not an original observation on my part, but I do not
remember where I first heard or read this. My apologies to the author
or speaker to whom credit is due.
5. Lott, J., & Mustard, D. (1996) Crime, deterence, and right-to-carry
concealed handguns. Chicago, IL: The Law School, University of Chicago.
6.Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1996, table 417.
7. It's reasonable to ask if a class can educate people out of
hot-headedness, or prevent the kind of purple rage in which murders
are committed. My answer is yes. The objective is to drill licensees
thoroughly in the appropriate safeguards to take when an irritating
situation develops, and prepare them to recognize their own hostile
impulses. Other material would cover matters as just what is considered
reasonable self-defense under the law, and the penalties for misuse
of the weapon.
8. Perhaps you've heard the story about the wealthy man who, in
1940, thought the U.S. was going to be at war, so he took his family
to live on an idyllic little island named Guadalcanal, soon to be
drenched in blood after World War II broke out. The most dangerous
neighborhoods today were, not too long ago, like Guadalcanal in
1940, so you can't really ignore the problem just because it hasn't
hit your block yet. The headlines of today in Chicago, New York,
and Los Angeles, may be the headlines of tomorrow in any city, town,
or neighborhood in America.
|
Need a speaker for an offender audience?