This is part of an ongoing series highlighting some of the best political commentary from Reddit. Content skews to the left, because — as they say — facts are inherently liberal. All credit for this content goes to the original author. For more great content like this, check out the Reddit category or tag.
2nd amendment absolutists tend to see the words gun control and quickly trot out the tired phrase “Well I’d support new policies, if anyone was proposing something that would actually work!” It’s the NRA infantry equivalent of thoughts and prayers, a way of pretending to support something, of pretending to do good, it’s rearranging the peas and mashed potatoes so it looks like you ate your vegetables.
Usually this is followed up by some variation of “The Democrat party only cares about feels, not reals!” and similar bullshit. So, for your consideration, here’s a list of “real things that would actually work,” may they serve you well in your arguments:
Firearm Laws and Firearm Homicides A Systematic Review
Findings We found evidence that stronger firearm laws are associated with reductions in firearm homicide rates. The strongest evidence is for laws that strengthen background checks and that require a permit to purchase a firearm. The effect of many of the other specific types of laws is uncertain, specifically laws to curb gun trafficking, improve child safety, ban military-style assault weapons, and restrict firearms in public places.
Findings: This study used an interrupted time series design to analyze changes in rates of homicide and firearm-related homicide. We found that the implementation of Florida’s stand your ground law was associated with a 24.4% increase in homicide and a 31.6% increase in firearm-related homicide.
The Relationship Between Gun Ownership and Firearm Homicide Rates in the United States, 1981–2010
Results: Gun ownership was a significant predictor of firearm homicide rates (incidence rate ratio = 1.009; 95% confidence interval = 1.004, 1.014). This model indicated that for each percentage point increase in gun ownership, the firearm homicide rate increased by 0.9%.
Mental illness and reduction of gun violence and suicide: bringing epidemiologic research to policy.
RESULTS: Media accounts of mass shootings by disturbed individuals galvanize public attention and reinforce popular belief that mental illness often results in violence. Epidemiologic studies show that the large majority of people with serious mental illnesses are never violent. However, mental illness is strongly associated with increased risk of suicide, which accounts for over half of US firearms-related fatalities.
Firearm legislation and firearm mortality in the USA: a cross-sectional, state-level study
31,672 firearm-related deaths occurred in 2010 in the USA (10.1 per 100,000 people; mean state-specific count 631.5 [SD 629.1]). Of 25 firearm laws, nine were associated with reduced firearm mortality, nine were associated with increased firearm mortality, and seven had an inconclusive association. After adjustment for relevant covariates, the three state laws most strongly associated with reduced overall firearm mortality were universal background checks for firearm purchase (multivariable IRR 0.39 [95% CI 0.23–0.67]; p=0.001), ammunition background checks (0.18 [0.09–0.36]; p<0.0001), and identification requirement for firearms (0.16 [0.09–0.29]; p<0.0001). Projected federal-level implementation of universal background checks for firearm purchase could reduce national firearm mortality from 10.35 to 4.46 deaths per 100,000 people, background checks for ammunition purchase could reduce it to 1.99 per 100,000, and firearm identification to 1.81 per 100,000.
Results: State laws that prohibit persons subject to IPV-related restraining orders from possessing firearms and also require them to relinquish firearms in their possession were associated with 9.7% lower total IPH rates (95% CI, 3.4% to 15.5% reduction) and 14.0% lower firearm-related IPH rates (CI, 5.1% to 22.0% reduction) than in states without these laws. Laws that did not explicitly require relinquishment of firearms were associated with a non–statistically significant 6.6% reduction in IPH rates.
TL;DR:
- Universal background checks for firearm purchases
- Universal background checks for ammunition purchases
- Requiring a permit to purchase a firearm
- Overturning ‘stand your ground’ laws (read the study before you get your panties in a bunch)
- Prohibiting individuals with a history of domestic violence from purchasing a firearm (and ammunition, presumably)
There ya’ go, five real, empirically proven ways to reduce firearm related deaths. For my own peace of mind, I’d throw comprehensive mental health care funding on the pile too, since suicides account for a large percentage of deaths (and yes, suicides do count! You’d be surprised how many people think they shouldn’t.) Of course on that same point, comprehensive mental health care funding really doesn’t need to be tied to firearms since it’s the right thing to do anyway, so maybe I’m just being redundant.
One of the biggest problems we face when it comes to gun control is that we’ve got patchwork laws across the nation. Many people like to point to Chicago and proclaim “Look, they have some of the toughest gun laws in the country, they also have some of the highest homicide rates in the country, checkmate!” …but less than half of the firearms used in Chicago were originally purchased in Illinois, the rest came from other states where gun laws are more relaxed and firearms are easier to acquire. Here in Maryland it’s pretty common for people to get their cigarettes in Virginia, because Maryland puts a hell of tax on them and Virginia doesn’t. Until firearm regulations are universal and cross state lines, until a straw buyer has to meet the same standards in every state in the union, and street criminals have to pass a background check to buy a box of ammunition, firearms will just flow following the path of least resistance.
A last thought before I go, another rhetorical trick of the NRA is to fall back on “Yes, but [that policy] wouldn’t have prevented [this shooting], so it’s a bad idea!” Don’t fall into that trap. We don’t need reactive gun policy in this country, we need proactive gun policy, how we could have prevented the last shooting is less important than how we can prevent the next one. Most shootings aren’t mass shootings, they’re suicides, they’re family killing family, they’re friends killing friends, that’s what the policies above are meant to help. I don’t know how to prevent mass shootings, but in this debate we cannot afford to narrow our view so tightly. Don’t let yourself be dragged into a rhetorical debate with shifting goal posts and a stable of wellbuts, the above is what we know works, that’s the whole scope of my post here “These are the policies that we know will reduce the rate of firearm homicides.” That’s all I can offer you today, unfortunately, those five reals.
Edit: A response to a some recurring rhetorical reasoning in the comments below, namely “Yes, but I have a right to keep and bear arms!” (I’m putting this in an edit since it doesn’t really fit into the “policies to reduce firearm related deaths” category, but does fit into the “reals” category.)
Prior to the Heller decision, 2nd amendment rights were weighed in the context of their usefulness in a militia, as specifically outlined in the 1939 US vs. Miller decision, quoted below:
(Emphasis mine, though I’d encourage you to read it in its entirety.)
If you want to learn more you can read Justice Steven’s and Justice Breyer’s respective legal dissents on the Heller decision, both of whom go into much more detail than I can here. Essentially, however, they make the same point that I am making: The individual right to keep and bear arms is a deviation from historical precedent and existing legal opinions.
Stated simply: The Heller decision was judicial activism, not constitutional interpretation.
