Article: "The Sanest Approach to Gun Policy"

[CMJeepster 2,780]

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/charles-wheelan/2014/04/29/three-common-sense-ways-to-reduce-gun-deaths

 

By Charles Wheelan

 

"The National Rifle Association has just finished its annual meeting in Indianapolis. I don’t think I’m being reductionist in describing the NRA’s position on gun safety as pretty basic: Guns are good; gun regulations are bad. That’s unfortunate because the key insight in the perpetually fruitless gun control debate is that our social problem is deaths from guns, not the guns from themselves.

 

That distinction opens up the door to what I’ve always believed is the sanest approach to gun policy: a public health approach. What if we treated guns like cars, cribs and small electrical appliances? What if we focused less on the guns and more on when, where and why people get hurt or killed by them?

 

Automobile safety is an encouraging example. America’s roads are much, much safer than they were a half century ago. We didn’t become anti-car. We didn’t take cars away (except for some chronic drunk drivers). We made cars and roads safer and minimized the situations in which Americans were most likely to kill themselves on the road.

 

In 2010, the last year for which we have data, roughly 11,000 Americans died in gun homicides; 19,000 died by gun suicide; and 600 died from gun accidents – over 30,000 gun deaths a year. To put that in perspective, the faulty General Motors ignition switch at the heart of the current massive recall has been blamed for 13 deaths. Not 13,000. Not 130. Thirteen.

 

Experts believe that a high proportion of gun deaths are preventable. David Hemenway, a professor at the Harvard School of Public Health, has been an advocate of the public health approach to gun deaths for decades. I first met him when I was writing about this subject for The Economist in the late 1990s. The NRA annual meeting prompted me to call Professor Hemenway and ask what his top three reforms would be if our goal were to reduce unnecessary gun deaths.

 

Here are three sensible policy changes that would enable Americans to keep their guns and not die from them, too:
 

•  Universal background checks to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. Unlike drugs, just about every gun starts out legal. (You can make heroin in the remote regions of Afghanistan; you can’t make a handgun that way.) Regulations that make it harder for legal guns to end up in the hands of criminals and psychopaths will make it less likely that those criminals or psychopaths rob or shoot the rest of us.
 

•  More responsibility on the part of manufacturers for producing safer guns. The phrase “safer gun” may seem like an oxymoron; it’s not. There are many ways that gun technology can be improved to reduce inadvertent harm. Guns can be childproofed, so that young children cannot fire them. Guns can be equipped with “smart chips” so they cannot be fired by anyone but the owner. (This makes them both safer and less likely to be stolen.) Recording the unique ballistic fingerprint on every firearm would make it possible to trace any gun used in a crime back to its owner.
 

•  Lean on gun dealers to do much more to prevent “straw purchases,” in which a person buys a gun legally with the express intent of passing it on to someone who cannot buy a gun legally (e.g. a convicted felon). We do not consider it acceptable for retailers to sell liquor to people who are underage. So why is this practice in the gun trade not more rigorously opposed, including by gun enthusiasts? Let me connect the dots: If it is harder for bad people to get guns, then fewer bad people will have guns.

 

The NRA and the most steadfast gun rights advocates oppose these policy changes as well as the public health approach to reducing gun violence in general. Opponents typically subscribe to the “slippery slope” argument: If the government is allowed to require background checks or to promote “smart guns,” then soon all conventional guns will be banned.

 

This is sadly tragic logic. According to the New England Journal of Medicine, traffic fatalities per mile driven have fallen more than 80 percent since the 1950s. We’ve cracked down on deadly behaviors like drunk driving. We’ve used data to reduce other risk factors (such as young drivers driving at night or with other teens in the car). We put airbags in every new car and required seat belts.

 

Lots of people are alive today as a result. I may be one of them. When our Ford Explorer rolled over at 65 mph on an interstate highway in 2001, my wife and I were wearing seat belts and our two children were in car seats; we were relatively unhurt.

 

These kinds of changes are not costless. In the 1980s the major car companies argued that airbags were far too expensive to ever become a standard feature. Technology solved that problem; the same companies now use safety as a selling point. Most important, we have saved a lot of lives without fundamentally changing the driving experience.

 

So let’s do that for guns. The public health approach seems like an end run around a pro-gun versus anti-gun debate that is getting us nowhere. We have the potential to prevent tragedy – while still respecting the basic rights of responsible gun owners – if we focus on one crucial fact: guns and gun deaths are distinctly different things. I’ve never met anyone who is in favor of the latter."

______

 

I know that I'm preaching to the choir, but this author made a few points that I agree with that I feel should be the focus of this issue:

 

"...the key insight in the perpetually fruitless gun control debate is that our social problem is deaths from guns, not the guns from themselves."

 

I fully agree.  No inanimate firearm shoots and/or kills on its own.  There's an actor behind the trigger who willingly acts.

 

 

"...approach to gun policy: a public health approach. What if we treated guns like cars, cribs and small electrical appliances? What if we focused less on the guns and more on when, where and why people get hurt or killed by them?"

 

Why do people get hurt or killed?  "...11,000 Americans died in gun homicides; 19,000 died by gun suicide; and 600 died from gun accidents..."  The majority get killed because they act upon the inanimate object themselves.  How about those involved in homicides, where did they occur?  California (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state).

 

 

"Automobile safety is an encouraging example. America’s roads are much, much safer than they were a half century ago. We didn’t become anti-car. We didn’t take cars away (except for some chronic drunk drivers). We made cars and roads safer and minimized the situations in which Americans were most likely to kill themselves on the road."

 

The parallels can be taken either way, but to look at the spread of the automobile post-WWII, one sees the culture evolve.  I can equate that to the spread of legal CCW throughout the states.  (It gives individuals a chance to take their personal safety into their own hands, something that we in this state do not have the chance to do.)  I disagree on the author's and his source's call to implement "smart gun" safety items on firearms.  I didn't want airbags in my last vehicle, but had no choice.  I do wear my seatbelt every day and would anyway even if if weren't the law.  We have, in fact, made cars more powerful and faster and have raised speed limits.  This state's gun laws trend in the opposite direction.

 

In summary, to me it all boils down to the lack of individual personal responsibility.  Each generation is raised with morals and a concious that are just a bit weaker than the previous generation.  (A copy of a copy is never as clear as the original itself.)  For example, I give you this: 

 

"Chicago’s Gun-Toting Gang Girl" http://news.yahoo.com/chicago-teen-girl-ganglord-094500470--politics.html

[SgtToadette 59]

At least they aren't talking about Assault Weapons. It's a shame that they continue to hold onto futile, feel good measures like "Smart Guns" and micro-stanmping. Those are both very easily argued against, though.

[Catch22LR 0]

How do you childproof a gun? Is that just using an external lock?

[NicePants 58]

(You can make heroin in the remote regions of Afghanistan; you can’t make a handgun that way.)

This is absolute crap. They should check out how many guns amateur smiths in the Philippines pump out every year. They act as though it's impossible to produce firearms unless you are some sort of artisan endowed by Zeus.

[mark_anthony_78 0]

Implement a policy where I (as a seller) can decide to privately perform a background check on a buyer, and chances are most gun owners would utilize it to cover their ass.

 

Get the federal government involved with a database record of each transaction, make, model, serial number, etc...  and there's no chance in hell most gun owners would utilize the system.

[Newtonian 453]

Don't let anyone bamboozle you with the suicide stats. We're way down the list of civilized countries in terms of suicide. Japan and S. Korea are gun free, and have suicide rates double ours.

 

Anti-gunners confronted by the irrefutable facts about gun violence are forced either to betray their liberalism, or to double down on idiotic solutions. Career criminals are the overwhelming source of gun violence in the U.S. That is, predominantly minority-group drug dealers and gang members. 

 

Corey Booker has famously stated that only one murder during his tenure as mayor of Newark was committed with a "legal" gun. In NY City last year, not a single murder was committed by a white person.

 

Apologies to any black or Hispanic gun owners reading this. My purpose is not to put you down, or to lump you in with criminals, but to state facts. I actually endorse minority participation in the "gun culture" that liberals so despise. More on that in a minute.

 

A great first step would be legislation mandating that criminals who commit violent acts with, or in possession of, guns suffer the same consequences I would if an off-duty cop noticed a round of hollow-point .22lr fall out of my pocket as I searched for my Price Plus card at ShopRite. 

 

When someone is arrested for aggravated assault with a weapon or armed robbery, it is my understanding that the gun charge is the first thing pleaded away. Even if this were not true, the criminal gets 7 years for the serious crime and five for possession, and gets out in three, four, or five anyway because the sentences are served concurrently. In other words, there are no consequences to them, both before or after the fact.

 

Anti-gunners confuse the gun culture, which they loathe, with the criminal element, which they coddle. They confuse the people who actually do commit murder and mayhem with law-abiding citizens whose guns never wind up "on the street" (a euphemism for "in the hands of ****** [fill in your favorite vulgar racial slur]), whose firearms are used only for legal purposes and never used to commit crimes.

 

They disingenuously confuse people who buy guns legally with those who purchase them from other criminals, individuals who belong to ranges and clubs with someone who's not even eligible to own a firearm, someone who takes classes and trains with scum whose only practice is shooting at people.

 

To sum up, they hurl the vitriol at what is arguably the most law-abiding segment of the U.S. population, while advocating mercy and rehabilitation for incorrigible miscreants who have served notice on society, usually multiple times, that they are not fit to live among us.

 

You can't find a better example than the poor guy who was shot at the mall last December. The perps' rap sheets were so long, they should never have been let out of jail.

 

Let your mind wander to a happier scenario, where the victim drew a handgun and defended himself. I'm tempted to add "and blew the motherfukcers away" but that's not necessary: Nobody killed or hurt, but he holds them at bay, shitting in their cowardly drawers, until the police arrive.

 

In this state, where Weinberg and Sweeney hold sway over popular opinion, who do you think would have received the longer sentence?

[fapipa 3]

(You can make heroin in the remote regions of Afghanistan; you can’t make a handgun that way.)

 

This is absolute crap. They should check out how many guns amateur smiths in the Philippines pump out every year. They act as though it's impossible to produce firearms unless you are some sort of artisan endowed by Zeus.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khyber_Pass_Copy

 

There is actually a whole cottage industry of gun manufacturers, right there in the remote regions of Afghanistan...

[DirtyDigz 1,812]

(You can make heroin in the remote regions of Afghanistan; you can’t make a handgun that way.)

 

This is absolute crap. They should check out how many guns amateur smiths in the Philippines pump out every year. They act as though it's impossible to produce firearms unless you are some sort of artisan endowed by Zeus.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khyber_Pass_Copy

 

There is actually a whole cottage industry of gun manufacturers, right there in the remote regions of Afghanistan...

 

Nice video documentary showing guys in this region manufacturing handguns in garages using very rudimentary tools and processes:

 

http://www.vice.com/the-vice-guide-to-travel/the-gun-markets-of-pakistan#ooid=hsZGZpMjr6usvtLWOH3I7PXHz91Eo0x4

[magnawing 5]

Anybody remember "zip guns"?

 

When car radio antennas were regularly made of telescoping hollow tubes, the lower (largest diameter) piece would hold a 22lr round nicely. It would be cut down, duct taped to a piece of wood and a striker (usually a nail and heavy rubber band) would become the hammer. Good for one shot, but antennas were plentiful and you could easily get 2-3 "guns" out of one.

 

Inner City ingenuity at its finest.

 

 

This signature is AWESOME!!!

[CMJeepster 2,780]

In summary, to me it all boils down to the lack of individual personal responsibility.  Each generation is raised with morals and a concious that are just a bit weaker than the previous generation.  (A copy of a copy is never as clear as the original itself.)  For example, I give you this: 

 

"Chicago’s Gun-Toting Gang Girl" http://news.yahoo.com/chicago-teen-girl-ganglord-094500470--politics.html

And today's shining example in the same city:  http://news.yahoo.com/chicago-police-14-old-killed-girl-over-boy-211409423.html

[raz-0 1,259]

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/charles-wheelan/2014/04/29/three-common-sense-ways-to-reduce-gun-deaths

 

By Charles Wheelan

 

"The National Rifle Association has just finished its annual meeting in Indianapolis. I don’t think I’m being reductionist in describing the NRA’s position on gun safety as pretty basic: Guns are good; gun regulations are bad. That’s unfortunate because the key insight in the perpetually fruitless gun control debate is that our social problem is deaths from guns, not the guns from themselves.

 

That distinction opens up the door to what I’ve always believed is the sanest approach to gun policy: a public health approach. What if we treated guns like cars, cribs and small electrical appliances? What if we focused less on the guns and more on when, where and why people get hurt or killed by them?

Like HIV and aids. We just banned it. Oh wait no, we educated people about it.

 

Automobile safety is an encouraging example. America’s roads are much, much safer than they were a half century ago. We didn’t become anti-car. We didn’t take cars away (except for some chronic drunk drivers). We made cars and roads safer and minimized the situations in which Americans were most likely to kill themselves on the road.

Yeah like drunk driving. We don't have an interlock on every car, we educated people that doing stupid stuff was stupid.  

 

In 2010, the last year for which we have data, roughly 11,000 Americans died in gun homicides; 19,000 died by gun suicide; and 600 died from gun accidents – over 30,000 gun deaths a year. To put that in perspective, the faulty General Motors ignition switch at the heart of the current massive recall has been blamed for 13 deaths. Not 13,000. Not 130. Thirteen.

Yes, but there's a difference between a faulty product and a dangerous product. A car is dangerous. That's why there is no recall for falling asleep and plowing into oncoming traffic. 

 

Experts believe that a high proportion of gun deaths are preventable. David Hemenway, a professor at the Harvard School of Public Health, has been an advocate of the public health approach to gun deaths for decades. I first met him when I was writing about this subject for The Economist in the late 1990s. The NRA annual meeting prompted me to call Professor Hemenway and ask what his top three reforms would be if our goal were to reduce unnecessary gun deaths.

Unfortunately, his peers disagree with him, at least on suicide the absence of firearms just changes the method, not the rate or degree of success.

 

Here are three sensible policy changes that would enable Americans to keep their guns and not die from them, too:

 

•  Universal background checks to keep guns out of the hands of criminals. Unlike drugs, just about every gun starts out legal. (You can make heroin in the remote regions of Afghanistan; you can’t make a handgun that way.) Regulations that make it harder for legal guns to end up in the hands of criminals and psychopaths will make it less likely that those criminals or psychopaths rob or shoot the rest of us.

Hmm, is there some magic difference between the hills of afghanistan and the hills of pakistan?

 

 

•  More responsibility on the part of manufacturers for producing safer guns. The phrase “safer gun” may seem like an oxymoron; it’s not. There are many ways that gun technology can be improved to reduce inadvertent harm. Guns can be childproofed, so that young children cannot fire them. Guns can be equipped with “smart chips” so they cannot be fired by anyone but the owner. (This makes them both safer and less likely to be stolen.) Recording the unique ballistic fingerprint on every firearm would make it possible to trace any gun used in a crime back to its owner.

Show me a smart gun that isn't a mechanical interlock that can be removed or readily converted to a machine gun is it is capable of semi-automatic fire. You can't. There is no method of inducing a tool mark that cannot be altered very, very easily. Also, what good does tracing a stolen gun back to the purchaser do? The suggestion that it matters in terms of finding and convicting criminals means you have to have the weapon, proof it was used in a crime, and proof that the suspect had it at the very least. Matching up numbers here and there isn't really going to reduce the hard part of that work. HEck, if I can buy replacements with stamps, I can whack someone, swap out a new part, and then I have plausible deniability that my gun was NOT the one used at the crime scene. SO real good plan there bob.

 

•  Lean on gun dealers to do much more to prevent “straw purchases,” in which a person buys a gun legally with the express intent of passing it on to someone who cannot buy a gun legally (e.g. a convicted felon). We do not consider it acceptable for retailers to sell liquor to people who are underage. So why is this practice in the gun trade not more rigorously opposed, including by gun enthusiasts? Let me connect the dots: If it is harder for bad people to get guns, then fewer bad people will have guns.

Howabout we lean on the government to actually investigate oh lets say for example, the 19% of NICS denials that were due to matching an fugitive. Just saying. Active fugitives might not have good intentions there. It's not the FFLs who aren't taking straw purchases seriously.

 

The NRA and the most steadfast gun rights advocates oppose these policy changes as well as the public health approach to reducing gun violence in general. Opponents typically subscribe to the “slippery slope” argument: If the government is allowed to require background checks or to promote “smart guns,” then soon all conventional guns will be banned.

They oppose the stupid ones. They ahve asked for the one above to be done time and again.  

 

This is sadly tragic logic. According to the New England Journal of Medicine, traffic fatalities per mile driven have fallen more than 80 percent since the 1950s. We’ve cracked down on deadly behaviors like drunk driving. We’ve used data to reduce other risk factors (such as young drivers driving at night or with other teens in the car). We put airbags in every new car and required seat belts.

this article is sadly tragic logic. 

 

Lots of people are alive today as a result. I may be one of them. When our Ford Explorer rolled over at 65 mph on an interstate highway in 2001, my wife and I were wearing seat belts and our two children were in car seats; we were relatively unhurt.

 

These kinds of changes are not costless. In the 1980s the major car companies argued that airbags were far too expensive to ever become a standard feature. Technology solved that problem; the same companies now use safety as a selling point. Most important, we have saved a lot of lives without fundamentally changing the driving experience.

 

So let’s do that for guns. The public health approach seems like an end run around a pro-gun versus anti-gun debate that is getting us nowhere. We have the potential to prevent tragedy – while still respecting the basic rights of responsible gun owners – if we focus on one crucial fact: guns and gun deaths are distinctly different things. I’ve never met anyone who is in favor of the latter."

NONE of this has a respect for gun owners. It ALL operates from the position that we are all criminal suspects and encourage violence and crime on the part of people who cannot behave reasonably in society.

[Worn_Holster 2]

We all know that criminals don't but their guns through legal channels, so universal background checks is total BS. Its just a list of gun owners to knock on their doors when its time to confiscate confiscate confiscate.

 

To the OP, it would be nice if you had your take on what this article means to you. I find it is out of the Bloomberg handbook, and I am wondering why you posted it if you have nothing to say about its content.

[CMJeepster 2,780]

To the OP, it would be nice if you had your take on what this article means to you.

I did do that. ;-)