Is it finally time to put partisan politics aside and do whatever is necessary to mitigate the growing problem with gun related crime and deaths?
For the first time in decades, firearm deaths have now eclipsed deaths from automobiles in children and teens (0-19 yrs old). In no other civilized country in the world is this the case.
ABSTRACT: The U.S. is a clear outlier in terms of both civilian gun ownership and number of gun deaths among the world’s developed countries. For the first time in decades, firearm deaths have now eclipsed deaths from automobiles in children and teens (0-19 yrs old). In no other civilized country in the world is this the case -- no other industrialized country is even close. After well over 200 years of debate, this polarizing issue is still not close to resolution. There are valid opinions on both sides and significant constitutional and legal barriers. Without question, both the times and the law have changed and it may be time to look at some form of gun control but, perhaps more importantly, we need to look at regulating access to guns for those who represent high risk. Some potential ways to achieve this are presented.
Across the globe, there are people who argue, fight over relationships, suffer from mental health issues, get invested in conspiracy theories, or hold racist views. But in the U.S., there is a glaring difference because here, those disenfranchised or mentally ill people can more easily obtain a gun and take irreversible action that will influence the entire lifetime of many people.The data bears out this explanation. The U.S. is a clear statistical outlier in both civilian gun ownership and the number of gun deaths among the world’s developed countries.
One of the things that is gravely concerning about this debate is that it tends to frequently be rhetorical and NOT fact-based. The debate has been historically dominated by those on both sides of the issue who vociferously defend something they are invested in, even if/when the data suggest that their position many be untenable.
There are those who rail against gun control because of an implied constitutional right under the Second Amendment. The verbiage within the second amendment is under nearly constant discussion, with respect to the gun control issue: "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." There are those who interpret this statement to mean that it protects the private right of individuals to keep and bear arms. On the other side, there are those who interpret the amendment more literally and believe that the amendment provides a right that can be exercised only through militia organizations like the National Guard.
We haven't come very far in the argument about the right to bear arms. The argument today, both for and against is pretty much the same debate that was happening some 245 years ago when the Constitution was ratified. During the Constitutional Convention of 1787, is was decided that the federal government should have almost unfettered authority to establish peacetime standing armies and to regulate the militia. This decision was made because it became clear after the Revolutionary War that militia forces could not be relied on for national defense. But the two factions, the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists engaged in vociferous discussions over this point. Anti-Federalists argued that the proposed Constitution would remove the States primary means of defense against federal usurpation. The Federalists took the position that fears of federal oppression were overblown, in part because the American people were armed and would be almost impossible to subdue through military force.
However, we also need to consider that a LOT has changed since 1791. The traditional militia of the day no longer exists, nor is it any longer needed, and state-based militia organizations were over the years assimilated into the federal military structure. The US military has become enormously more powerful than eighteenth century armies. Most Americans have no fear of the nation’s armed forces and virtually no one thinks that an armed populace could defeat those forces in battle. In the eighteenth century, civilians routinely kept at home the very same weapons they would need if called to serve in the militia, while modern soldiers are equipped with weapons that differ significantly from those generally thought appropriate for civilian uses. Civilians no longer have a reasonable expectation to use their household weapons for militia duty, although they still keep and bear arms to defend their homes and property against criminal activity (as well as for hunting and other forms of recreation).
The times are not the only thing that has changed. The law has also changed dramatically over the years, through various pieces of legislation and interpretations by the courts. In the Founding era, States actually regulated guns, in a sense — blacks were often prohibited from possessing firearms and militia weapons were frequently registered on government rolls. But today's gun laws are more extensive and controversial.
First and foremost among these legislative changes was the Fourteenth Amendment -- or specifically, the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the 14th Amendment. Remember that the Second Amendment originally applied only to the federal government and left States to regulate weapons as they saw fit. Despite the fact that there appears to be substantial evidence that the relevant language in the Fourteenth Amendment was meant to protect the right of individuals to keep and bear arms from infringement by the states, the Supreme Court rejected this interpretation in United States v. Cruikshank (1876). Then, in 2008, in District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court invalidated a federal law that forbade nearly all civilians from possessing handguns in the nation’s capital. Then, two years later in 2010, in McDonald v. City of Chicago, the Court struck down a similar handgun ban at the state level. In effect, the Court found that the Fourteenth Amendment protects against state infringement of the same individual right that is protected from federal infringement by the Second Amendment.
The Court's decision in the Heller case in 2008 suggested a list of “presumptively lawful” regulations, including bans on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, bans on carrying firearms in “sensitive places” such as schools and government buildings, laws restricting the commercial sale of arms, bans on the concealed carry of firearms, and bans on weapons “not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes.” Those issues are still all being debated in the lower courts, some 15 years later.
In United States v. Miller (307 U.S. 174 (1939)), the Court sustained a statute requiring registration under the National Firearms Act of sawed-off shotguns. Following the Miller decision, Congress placed greater limitations on the receipt, possession, and transportation of firearms, and proposals for national registration or prohibition of firearms altogether have been made.
So, for well over 200 years, we have engaged in an extensive debate -- and there has been a significant amount of legislative and judicial action with respect to regulation of the purchase, possession, and transportation of firearms. There have been proposals to essentially curtail firearm ownership. Yet there still has been no definitive resolution by the courts of just what right the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect.
While it is instinctive for some to jump on the gun control bandwagon, others argue that it might be more useful and efficient to first look at mental health -- first and foremost because "banning guns" (the pejorative term of choice for "gun control") at the Federal level involves modifying a constitutional amendment. That process will necessarily take years, enormous effort, and significant messaging costs in order to achieve a coalesced amendment that is acceptable to the majority of Congress. And even if we get that far, it is likely that the constitutionally prescribed ratification by the States would fail, since any proposed constitutional amendment requires ratification by three-fourths of the States (38 of 50 States).
Consider what would happen if a prospective mass shooter was unable get their hands on a firearm. What is the likelihood that they would use knives, or build a bomb, or create a chemical/bio weapon (like a chlorine gas or CO generator)? Would taking guns out of the picture eliminate or alleviate this problem or would it just signal a change in tactics for the domestic terrorist?
Regardless of how we think about this, doing nothing is probably not a good path. Doing nothing is what has resulted in the US currently owning the dubious honor of having gun violence as the number one cause of death for children and teenagers (ages 0-19).
For children/teens, the gun-death rate for children is nearly five in every 100,000. After remaining fairly constant for more than a decade during which fewer than three in every 100,000 children were killed by guns the rate began to creep up in 2014. By 2020, guns became the top mortality mode in children/teens.
Data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that firearms were a leading cause of death for children in 2020. In 2020, 3,597 children/teens died by gunfire, according to provisional statistics from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The death rate from guns was the highest it has been in more than 20 years.
In the same year – the most recent year with available data – there were more than 11,000 emergency-room visits for gunshot injuries among children and teens under the age of 18.
One would think that, given the 0-19 demographic under consideration here, that accidental gunshot deaths would be the leading mortality mode in this group. But that’s not the case. In fact, firearm assault is, by far, the largest modality in this group, followed by suicide.
For the first time in decades, firearm deaths have now eclipsed deaths from automobiles. For years, cars held that distinction. But over the past two decades, motor vehicular deaths involving young Americans between the ages of 1 and 24 plummeted, cutting the rate by nearly half.
So let’s think about this — let’s compare cars and guns. Can you title a car without a drivers license? (No). Can you legally drive a car without license? (No). Do you have to pass a test to get a drivers license? (yes) Does your car have to have a license plate/registration? (Yes). Now compare that to guns, the new, leading cause of death in children and teens. While it may not be totally fair analogy — I hope you are clear-eyed and clear-minded enough see my point here. If we require that level of control over motor vehicles, which used to be the number one cause of death among children and teens, why is it so outlandish for us to place substantially similar requirements on weapons?
No other industrialized country (considered to be within the US peer group) in the world comes even close to having firearms becoming the leading cause of death among children and teens. Firearms account for 20% of all child and teen deaths in the U.S., compared to an average of less than 2% of child and teen deaths in similarly large and wealthy nations. The U.S. is the only country among its peers that has seen an increase in the rate of child and teen firearm deaths in the last two decades (42% since 2000).
As a nation, we have been dragging our feet on initiatives that could at least improve these statistics and be accomplished in the relatively short-term without "banning" a single weapon. Some of these include:
1) Establishing a federal red-flag clearing house with access to mental health records and state-level conviction records. It's likely, however, that this would "shake the walls of Jericho" -- particularly due to the need to link HIPPA protected mental healthcare data with conviction and police interaction records. Doing this would require a HIPPA carve-out that would be unpopular in certain communities/fields. But, because of HIPPA, this must be done at the Federal, and not State/local level. Such a clearinghouse, along with a mandatory delay between purchase and receipt of a weapon would likely have nearly immediate beneficial affect.
2) We need laws with (big, giant, sharp) teeth that provide very steep penalties for anyone who provides a weapon to someone outside of full and proper screening (including the red flag clearing house I described above).
3) All weapons should be registered and no weapon should be sold or traded without a requisite transfer of the registration (and expanded background check) to the new owner. Not doing so should be a felony. This is a measure that would not influence a single hunter, sport shooting enthusiast, or any other person who desires to own a weapon for self-protection. And yet, in States like Florida, residents are not required to have a permit to buy handguns, rifles, or shotguns; there is no requirement to register a firearm, nor is there one for owners to get a license or have a permit to carry a rifle or shotgun.
These things could all be accomplished TODAY, without banning a single weapon. But we vacillate. In the time you took to read this article, ANOTHER CHILD JUST DIED from a gunshot somewhere in the US (statistically, one child/teen dies in the US from a gunshot every 2 hours).
It's time to put partisan politics aside and do whatever is necessary to mitigate the growing problem with gun related crime and deaths. There is so much we can do without "banning guns." We need to let that issue get sorted out in the Supreme Court. But right now there are other things we can do.
Sources:
“Child and Teen Firearm Mortality in the U.S. and Peer Countries.” KFF, 14 Apr. 2023, www.kff.org/global-health-policy/issue-brief/child-and-teen-firearm-mortality-in-the-u-s-and-peer-countries.
“PolitiFact - No, Joe Biden Doesn’t Want to Ban 9 Millimeter Pistols.” @Politifact, www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/mar/18/national-rifle-association/no-joe-biden-doesnt-want-ban-9-millimeter-pistols.
Walsh, Joe. “U.S. Mass Shootings Hover Near Record-Breaking Levels.” Forbes, 4 July 2022, www.forbes.com/sites/joewalsh/2022/07/04/us-mass-shootings-hover-near-record-breaking-levels/?sh=47e426bb5f62.
https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/
Lopez, German. “Mass Shooting in California.” The New York Times, 23 Jan. 2023, www.nytimes.com/2023/01/23/briefing/california-shooting-monterey-park.html?unlocked_article_code=0IaezKIrzAqW7BWTciTlnKn-6zkhRZ5hZZHOBzc0vvmvZZu7ERG125oqoH3iMys3t6WLyeqe8KSPq1fsTjUK3G93_7WF_3v-KvieHo2xFf4L6FxR1YyC-ve4SGmmg6PXMkKpU0xiPcVu6GlvZAuDd0v3Yths5B-t3bwh1blja_v8fIrgY37V_FDUcfH_bD3LjaaNi7B_OJMHoONhvtbwaPZkq65UO5_UNNqcdA40jOSDJPlXV6IEEXNakc_H4kCQhkIvF44FXAq6iatngF5cn8HnyljLopucR-vvhlty01NJNtL8ss7KXwGlKBaawl7CqkSTT-_oEZ2wgBLypbNsPh_v4iX1Bq0kUg0qj4g.
“Interpretation: The Second Amendment | Constitution Center.” National Constitution Center – constitutioncenter.org, constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/amendments/amendment-ii/interpretations/99.
“The Second Amendment Right to Bear Arms.” Findlaw, https://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment2.html.
Owens, Caitlin. “Guns Have Become the Leading Cause of Death for American Kids.” Axios, 26 May 2022, www.axios.com/2022/05/26/gun-deaths-children-america.
"More Children Killed By Guns Than Cars In US." International Business Times [U.S. ed.], 27 May 2022, p. NA. Gale OneFile: Business, link.gale.com/apps/doc/A705040296/ITBC?u=uphoenix&sid=bookmark-ITBC&xid=a0a40741.
Gramlich, John. “Gun Deaths among U.S. Children and Teens Rose 50% in Two Years.” Pew Research Center, Pew Research Center, 6 Apr. 2023, https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2023/04/06/gun-deaths-among-us-kids-rose-50-percent-in-two-years/
Gebeloff, Robert, et al. “Childhood's Greatest Danger: The Data on Kids and Gun Violence.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 14 Dec. 2022, https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/12/14/magazine/gun-violence-children-data-statistics.html?unlocked_article_code=uUR362j6_dg2hrh1J_RjElddlBr0ZAn3qSQyl_rAtKzgbLjas_xoX8h4DDUu6Me8hrOjYCv3LT16Ojq5MWgV9Z3C-9d0MeuM7EkjRqeo9hJCCb8sVTizLP4yYhZI44dz6Rmp7T7PTiHdp4DzANFNSw1-1HPygHPKefSFw_uVSCXKZTdaVQoN9FeT3RbxJufjVUlPlomMie3mHo059ENfkWblHHlIA6XEjtabQToEFAEpSe8zk1xtKPJW5AM91lN4yUX1h_51V5p1aoUwlrOQ3dwtibtVDQ2oXC2q7a7KFlSs3ENh-uwOfEuBPpVzO3VyeP9TNEpQUBLOqOomSh4LHvQJ5iPujiQ5GDm5lyUYKvOWGoKiqij4kfSi5g3PnDLqzw&giftCopy=3_Independent&smid=url-share.
Molla, R. (2022) America's gun violence epidemic, in one chart, Vox. Available at: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/23141964/america-gun-violence-epidemic-chart.