Michael Epshtein ENG102, Mon/Wed 2pm Hooper 23 October 2011 Guns dont Kill People, Chuck Norris Kills

People: A Discourse on Why Gun Control Legislation is Inherently Impotent due to Underlying Social Variables

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed-2nd Amendment of US Constitution
The need to defend oneself and ones family is a hardwired into the human brain. However, as man began to migrate to life in collective societies, the well-being of the whole began to predominate that instinct. In a modern context, the second amendment is a bone of contention between those that believe that it is up to the individual to defend those that he/she loves, and those that believe that the added risk to the social welfare from a predominance of firearms in untrained hands outweighs any personal benefit of carrying guns for the defense of ones family. Many social and medical researchers have devoted their entire lives to definitively decide whether guns protect those that carry them, or whether they actually create an atmosphere more predisposed to homicidal violence both for the guncarriers and those around them. As of late, most research points to a decrease in accidental firearm related deaths and suicides when stricter gun regulations are enacted - this leads one to reach the reasonable conclusion that a decreased prevalence of firearms prevents most of the evils attributed to them. However, most of the research on the topic is only interested in finding the effects of greater gun regulation, and only those effects that are directly influenced by said changes. There is currently no research being done on the effects of the prevalence of firearms on crime rates, civilian deaths due to homicide, or the death of innocent bystanders during a crime in progress. Despite the inherent flaws in

any social-based research, the current findings suggest that a restriction of the availability of firearms to specific groups (primarily ex-convicts, illegal immigrants, those with mental disabilities, etc.) does in fact reduce the prevalence of certain gun-related deaths in the general population. One of the number one firearm-related deaths is suicide. According to Matthew Miller et al., there is a direct and definite correlation between the availability of firearms and their use in suicides in America. As Miller puts it, In 2002, of the 31,655 Americans who committed suicide, 17,108 (54%) used a firearm. Although men account for 80% of all suicides and 88% of all firearm suicides in the United States, firearm use accounts for over 40% of all completed suicides by women and children as well (1). The logical conclusion, which many legislators and activists took to heart, is to limit the availability of firearms to the average American citizen in order to lower the gun-related suicide rate. However, as Kathryn Wilkins points out in her Canadian Health Report, the absence of firearms only discourages a minute percentage of total suicides, those that are seriously contemplating ending their life will not be deterred by the absence of firearms they will simply find another equally effective method. According to Wilkins, As gun-related suicides declined, suicide by suffocation/hanging became more common: the rate rose from about 3 to 5 deaths per 100,000 (3). In short, until society works out most of its problems, suicides will be a continuing aspect of modern life, and the limiting of the means for ending ones life will not significantly affect the global suicide rate. Hawton and Heeringen found that Clinical studies of suicide prevention are hindered by methodological and ethical problems, especially since many people at risk do not have contact with clinical care (7). In short, suicide is a problem not only related to firearms, and one which is exceedingly difficult to study and prevent. However, the passing of legislation to limit the availability of firearms to the general public has a benefit, which (be it marginal or not) can be considered significant enough to warrant further investigation into the effects of gun control on social health.

Second on the list of firearm-related deaths is the accidental demise. These types of situations typically stem from the improper securing of a firearm which allows small children to play with it and subsequently shoot themselves, improper carrying of a firearm which allows for an accidental discharge condition, or improperly operating a firearm which results in the shooting of an unintended target typically a human. According to Kathryn Wilkins, as Canada introduced gun-restricting legislation, the rate for accidental firearm-related death proceeded to decrease. In her research, Wilkins found that In 1979, 71 Canadians died from unintentional firearms-related injuries, representing a rate of 3 deaths per million population. People younger than 25 accounted for the majority (60%) of these deaths: 16 were in children under 15, and 27 occurred in the 15-to-24 age group (4). As such, there is a definite and direct correlation between the number of firearms in civilian hands and the rate of accidental gun related deaths per unit of population, as well as a significantly greater risk for accidental demise in young people. Wilkins found that During the 1990s, the rate of unintentional fatalities related to firearms fell fairly steadily, and by 2002, it was one-third the 1979 level (4). In short, there is an immediate and evident benefit to reducing the availability of firearms and supporting ammunition to the general public. David Lesters findings also demonstrate a direct and negative correlation between the scope and severity of gun-enforcement laws and the general firearm-related death rate per unit of population. As Lester puts it, The average of the percentages of suicides and homicides using firearms was associated with the accidental mortality rate from firearms, suggesting that restricted access to firearms might be associated with a lower firearm mortality rate (1). The general conclusion that can be drawn from this information is simple the prevalence of firearms in civilian homes increases the chances of an accidental firearm-related death. Many states have taken this into account, and have passed legislation required specific gun storage protocols, including trigger locks, gun vaults, and keeping ammo and firearms separate. Unfortunately such laws are difficult to enforce, and as such the best method for controlling accidental firearm deaths remains to control the availability of said firearms.

Finally, a large contributor to the firearm-related death count is homicide. The United States has a disproportionately high number of gun-related homicides per capita, with a rate that is 35 times greater than any other 1st world country. According to Krug, Powell, and Dahlberg, It *the US+ has highest overall firearm mortality rate, a high proportion of homicides that are the result of a firearm injury, and the highest proportion of suicides that are the result of a firearm injury (5-6). In response to Americas newfound reputation as murder capitol of the world lawmakers passed a number of pieces of legislation, all designed to limit the number of firearms (and their destructive potential) that fall into criminal hands. Through his research, Christopher Koper concluded that after the federal government passed legislation severely regulating the sale and distribution of firearms through Federal Firearm Licensees (FFLs), many FFLs promptly went out of business, and further investigation revealed falsified records, evidence of straw purchases, and outright sales to unqualified buyers (ex-convicts, people with restraining orders filed against them, those with mental instabilities/disabilities, etc.). Koper found that In the wake of these initiatives, the number of retail gun dealers declined nearly 70% from 1993 to 1998 (2). Due to inherent problems with performing sociological research on subversive illegal groups such as gangs and militias, no reliable data could be gathered on the percentage of guns used in crime that did not stem from dirty FFLs. However, an investigation by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms revealed that almost half of all guns recovered at gun-related crime scenes originated from those FFls that were suspected or convicted of performing illegal firearm transactions with unqualified buyers. According to Koper, Although corrupt FFLs were only involved in 9% of ATFs recent gun trafficking investigations, they were linked to 48% of all guns estimated to have been diverted in these cases (5) . In short, more direct and stringent regulation of FFLs may decrease the number of guns acquired by criminals, therefore possibly reducing the propensity for violent, firearm related crime in the criminal underworld.

In short, all of Americas gun-related problems cannot be solved simply through the regulation of firearms, or other weapons for that matter. There are social ills and woes that will transcend the absence of guns, and those afflicted by said ills will simply find another way to kill themselves/each other. According to Hawton and Heeringen, Because suicide is a complex problem, no single approach is likely to contribute to significant substantial decline in suicide rates (7).However, it can be argued that firearm regulation can diminish the risk of accidental firearm death, as well as the possibility of criminals to get their hands on firearms. With such a broad issue, and with so many conflicting viewpoints, reasonably unbiased research is hard to come by, and the studies that one does find typically only deal with certain aspects of the issue. There is a noticeable lack of research on the effect of large quantities of firearms in civilian hands on the overall crime rate research that would be immensely useful in determining if any positive aspect exists to the widespread carrying of firearms by the general population. It is difficult to gage the benefits of firearms, as there a plethora of confounding variables that may influence any resulting statistical evidence, however one can safely say that recent firearm legislation has only truly made a difference in the area of accidental death, and that the areas of homicide and suicide will require a different approach in order to cure the underlying condition. Firearms are not the disease they are a symptom of a grave underlying condition. It is time that lawmakers and activists stopped trying to treat the symptoms, and instead focused their efforts on curing the disease. As the popular saying goes; guns do not kill people people kill people. Until the various social strata that inhabit this world choose to peacefully coexist, there will be homicides, accidents, and suicides. Eliminating the availability of firearms will not change the very fact that human civilization was built on, and continues to thrive upon, conflict. Until humans learn to overcome their respective differences, no amount of legislation or gun control will ever make a difference in whether we kill each other or not. Guns are not the overarching problem we are.