Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
The Big Pile of Gun Facts to Share with People
America is once again going to spend the next fortnight in the grips of a debate which is, unfortunately, all too common: the role of guns in our society in light of the horrific events in Parkland, FL.
Depressingly, many people — particularly, many on the Left — are ignorant regarding guns, how they work, what they are and what the facts regarding gun violence in this country are. Ignorance is not stupidity and is remediable, so this article will be mostly aimed at people on the left because this is where remediation is most in demand.
In the interest of cutting through some of the chaff that exists out there regarding guns, I’ve put together some facts so that people can discuss the topic from a point of common knowledge.
Part one: Guns and terminology
(Again, I apologize if this is remedial learning for Conservatives who own or are familiar with guns; the genuine ignorance regarding them demands that we have a brief talk about this.)
When an incident like the Parkland massacre happens, one of the very first terms that the media throw into the mix in order to describe the weapon used by the killer is “assault rifle” or “AR-15.” The first term is politically charged, bringing to mind the rifles carried by soldiers in combat. Any weapon used to commit violence could be accurately described as “an assault _____.” Assault Brick. Assault Bat. Assault Battery Acid. The second term “AR-15” is actually a reference to the product line of a specific manufacturer – the ArmaLite Model 15 rifle. This term doesn’t stand for “Assault Rifle,” contrary to popular opinion.
The main difference between these AR-15 rifles and their more traditional-looking counterparts is their use of plastics and other alloys on the stock, handle and barrel, in addition to frequently having a pistol grip rather than a traditional trigger guard and stock assembly.
See below for a depiction of the differences between a more traditional-style hunting rifle and an AR-15:
On the left is a Ruger Mini-14, .223 caliber rifle, and on the right, an “AR-15” version, the Ruger SR-556 with pistol grip and other features associated with that style of weapon.
Each of these guns fires the same ammunition (the same caliber, in this case, the .223 Remington shell) and each of these weapons is “semi-automatic,” which means that when a round is loaded in the chamber and the shooter fires the gun. The gases from the burning of smokeless powder in the cartridge both propel the bullet down the barrel, and actuate the ejection mechanism. This removes the spent shell and loads the next round into the firing chamber, recocking the firing pin, allowing the user to fire the weapon again by pulling the trigger.
These are not machine guns. Machine guns fire at very high rates of speed in an “automatic” fashion, meaning that when the user pulls the trigger, the weapon will continuously reload itself and continue to fire until the user releases the trigger.
The differences between the two weapons above are essentially cosmetic; operationally, they are practically identical. Yet the one on the right is considered an “Assault Rifle” in the parlance offered by the media and the one on the left, a more benign-looking “hunting rifle.” Obviously, the rifle on the right is shown with a larger capacity magazine (essentially a spring-loaded box which allows the feeding of each subsequent round into the firing chamber.)
Other examples of semi-automatic firearms include most commonly known handguns such as the Glock 9mm or any double-action revolver. There is a practically infinite variety of such long and handguns, including semi-automatic shotguns.
Estimates vary, but by some reckonings, there are between 250-300 million guns of all types in the hands of private owners across the United States today.
Part 2: Guns and Crime in America
When thinking about crime in the United States, it’s impossible to not consider guns and the effect that they have. We are the third largest nation in the world by population and have by far the world’s largest GDP. The US is an outlier in a variety of measures.
Beginning with the general, however, it should be noted that in that after peaking in or around 1993, the rate of Reported Violent Crime in the United States has declined by almost half:
(Annual Rates reported in incidents per hundred thousand people; Source: The FBI Uniform Crime Reporting Data system)
This result is most frequently a surprise to partisans on the right; Conservatives of a law and order bent, having been raised on tales of the vast epidemic of crime which bedevils inner cities have trouble adjusting themselves to the fact that the nation hasn’t seen rates of criminality this low since the halcyon days of the 50’s. How did this seemingly paradoxical result occur?
Criminologists have debated the root cause of the secular decline in crime and arrived at a variety of conclusions. Some of them point to improved economic conditions in depressed areas; others point to improved policing techniques and longer prison sentences for violent criminals. Still others like Stephen Levitt hypothesized that the legalization of abortion in 1973 resulted in an overall reduction of the population which was most likely to engage in criminal careers; indeed, in 1993, a man born in 1975 would have turned 18, which is the prime age for the initiation of serious criminal activity… and coincidentally that just happens to be the year in which American crime began its remarkable fall.
What ought to discomfit liberals about this data just as much as it confounds conservatives is whom these improved policing techniques, longer prison sentences, and abortions are being practiced on: typically, residents of inner cities and ethnic minorities. Disentangling correlation from causation in this regard is complicated by the fact that these policies are routinely decried as “racist” today, yet their adoption coincided with that fall in crime.
Whatever the cause of this decline in criminality, another factor remains unaccounted for, yet is germane to the discussion: the number of guns in private hands.
As was already discussed, the number of guns in America is fairly phenomenal; Pew research has studied the question of gun ownership for decades, and come to the conclusion that between the years of 1973 and 2013, there was only a negligible decline in the number of households where there was a gun. Consequently, there doesn’t seem to be a causal link between the rate of criminality and the percentage of households that report owning a gun.
Digging further into the data, one should next want to know just how many people are being killed and in what manner. Again, the FBI’s data is incredibly illuminating:
This tabulation of 2014’s homicides are not atypical – I invite you to review the data from past years on the FBI website. The first, surprising bit of data which ought to jump out at you first is that only about 2/3 of murder victims in the country died due to gun violence. Even if we assumed that there weren’t readily available replacements for guns and we could wave a magic wand causing all guns to evaporate, there were still quite a few murders by other means.
Surprise number two: Just in case you thought that rifles were a scourge upon the land and responsible for vast quantities of death and destruction, keep in mind how much more frequently other modes of death than rifles were chosen in 2014:
You were 6 times as likely to be stabbed to death
3 times as likely to be punched or kicked to death
Twice as likely to be bludgeoned to death
I point this out not to minimize even a single death — but merely to make the point that the problem of murder in America is much larger than the single issue of rifles, which account for around 2% of the total reported wrongful homicides – far less than the proverbial tip of the iceberg.
Handguns are by far the single, largest category of weapon used in murders. This makes a certain sense: they’re small, easily concealed and hugely multiply the force of their owner, which explains their prevalence in wrongful deaths. Of course, an honest accounting of that shockingly large number would lead a person to notice that huge numbers of these deaths were the result of gang-land activity; turf-wars, initiations and the like.
If you were to strip such killings out of the overall numbers, the US murder rate begins to draw much closer to that of its OECD partners. The thesis of many social scientists in this regard is that ready access to guns in the US has the effect of escalating situations and making the consequences of the sorts of encounters mentioned above far more serious. I think that for a certain subset of people that is true – a very tiny bump of them highly likely to use violence to settle disputes. Fortunately, we know they’re an outlier. How?
Have a peek at this graphic:
Presented without comment. pic.twitter.com/fS4KdzZcfm
— Ian Miles Cheong (@stillgray) February 19, 2018
If you believe what such social scientists have to say about “guns causing violence,” the American murder rate must be an incredible outlier… incredibly low given the number of guns we have as a whole.
Part 3: Potential Remedies to Mass Shootings
Following in the wake of any one of the modern scourge of mass-killings that have occurred since the 24-hour news cycle began — essentially, Columbine in 1999 — the calls have been fairly consistent from one side of the aisle: for restrictions on gun rights, including and up to gun confiscation.
Well before Columbine, (late in 1994) the Clinton Administration championed and managed to pass the apple of many gun control advocates’ eyes: the Assault Weapons Ban. By the time any measurable effect from that ban could be seen, crime was already well into its post-1993 collapse phase. Add to this the fact that “assault weapons” comprise such a tiny percentage of overall murders, it would hardly make sense for such legislation to have an effect on the overall murder rate.
As an observation purely of the political tactics involved, this legislation was folly; Calling it “Wishful thinking” on the Democrats’ part cannot describe what a meaningless appeal to the emotions of people lacking in knowledge of firearms it truly was. What’s worse for Democrats was that it’s hard to argue that it was effective in any real way, given that when the Act expired in 2004, it was not accompanied by anything like a surge of murders.
It’s also arguable that the Assault Weapons Ban did serious damage to the Democrat party’s electoral prospects, as a scant two months after its passage, Republicans swept into control of both Houses of Congress in an historic wave election. Obviously, there were other issues at hand but ’94 marks the first time that the Democrats’ naked hostility to gun owners spurred voters to go to the polling place — and to the gun store, as in the case of President Obama.
As an interesting counterfactual exercise: is there anybody who thinks that a vociferously pro-gun Hillary Clinton campaign could have lost the 2016 election?
Suffice to say, there is very little taste in this nation for restrictions on gun rights. In fact, it’s gone the other direction. The following graphic displays how states have successively voted for ever greater gun rights for their citizens over time, switching inexorably from “No Issue” for concealed carry, to “Shall Issue” to “unregulated” in many cases which means that people are free to carry concealed firearms in that state without a license.
https://twitter.com/ATabarrok/status/964199662004723712
So, it seems discussion of outright gun bans, gun confiscation or gun buyback programs as a means of curbing violence — particularly the sort of violence that we saw in Parkland — are going to fail utterly, because not only do gun owners have no interest in participating, but the sort of violence we’re seeking to curb doesn’t lend itself to being solved via high-handed action at the Federal Government level. The guns which these perpetrators purchased have routinely been obtained legally. So how can we begin to move the needle in the opposite direction?
As a conservative, I believe people respond to incentives. Even people who are crazy; at least, “crazy” in the sense that they want to carry out a mass-casualty attack. To that end, we have to examine the incentives that we have created for such persons.
The current crop of potential mass-killers seems to be driven by two things: severe mental illness or the desire to obtain fame and rack up a body-count in excess of Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold at Columbine. To that end, the policy of media outlets ought to be to not use the name of mass-killing perpetrators in order to deny them the thing they so desire.
The second is that we need to shift the incentive structure around the targets themselves. As it stands, we have created what amount to vast, target rich and resistance-free environments for sufficiently motivated would-be murderers. That needs to end.
When my family and I recently visited Washington, DC what I noticed immediately at our national monuments, museums and capital was the universal presence of armed security. The same was true for our visit to the theme parks in Florida. Attempted mass-killers don’t attack places like “police stations” or other locations where highly-armed and trained resistance is readily apparent.
If a potential mass-killer knew that walking into a school with a gun meant that within a few seconds they would be facing down well-armed and trained resistance in the form of a gun-wielding security guard or police officer, this ought to shift the calculus in their minds. The window which they would potentially have to kill would be shortened sufficiently that it seems unlikely many would attempt it, given that their primary goal (mass killing) would be denied them.
The paradox of security is that attacks which are deterred by it are a dog that doesn’t bark. The argument that armed security would turn schools into “shooting galleries” or “fortresses” ignores utterly the lack of such killings or attempted killings going on at other locations where you have large numbers of unarmed people, yet where security is efficient and obvious.
When you deny people the right to defend themselves, the expectation is that you will provide security for them in lieu of their own prerogative. We’ve seen enough of these killings to know that doing the same thing repeatedly is going to generate similar results. Let’s hope that sooner rather than later, policy-makers will notice this insanity and change it.
Published in General
I had an interesting conversation with my daughter today. She lives in upstate New York and has become a progressive, influenced by her in-laws. She is opposed to arming teachers. “But your own kindergarten teachers were armed,” I pointed out, “and your own dear mother did guard duty at the kindergarten and at your grade school, armed with an M-1.” At first she didn’t believe me (kindergarten teachers certainly didn’t wave their handguns around for the kids to see, after all). But after the Maalot massacre, the Israeli government decided that teachers should be armed. It was only after schools began to hire guards that parents were relieved of doing occasional guard duty, although the school fees added an extra sum for security.
One thing I would like to see in American schools would be gun safety classes. The NRA has some excellent training material, designed for different age levels. I think that part of the problem for school age kids is that there is a mystique about guns that needs to be dispelled. I happened to grow up around guns and hunting, and all the adults in my life made sure that all us kids knew the rules, but it seems most kids today have no more basic knowledge than the adult progressives who think an AR-15 is a “machine gun.”
I have some more questions, and they are related to each other. :)
I don’t understand the issues that cities and states are considering in making “concealed carry” determinations. In telling some gun owners that they cannot allow their guns to be seen in public settings, what are they hoping to achieve? I would think that if evildoers saw the guns that individuals were carrying, they would be less apt to commit evil deeds. I don’t understand the sides of this issue unless it relates to my second question, below. I would think, in other words, there would be tremendous deterrence value in potential evildoers seeing the guns people were carrying. I don’t understand the other side of this issue in which cities and towns and states say to some people, “You can have a gun, but it must be out of sight.” I’m guessing there’s a legitimate concern somewhere since this is a popular idea.
Also, how easy is it for someone to get at and fire someone else’s holstered gun? What would it take for someone else to get a hold of that gun and fire it? Is it fairly easy (just grab a vase and knock out the gun owner from behind, and bingo, the evildoer now has the gun) to get that gun and fire it?
And if so, would that be a reason to not arm teachers but rather hire security personnel? Could a high school student easily overpower a teacher and steal the gun and use it?
This question is answered right here:
If you see the weapon, it’s considerably easier to get at than if you have no idea whether or not your target actually has one.
The example of Kennesaw, GA comes immediately to mind: Kennesaw passed an ordinance requiring its citizens to own a gun. As a result, crime dropped by something like 90%.
The incentive structure simply changed: if you are somebody seeking to commit a crime, if the odds are 1-in-2 that somebody walking beside you has a gun – whether you can see it or not – you’re probably not too interested in messing around.
Firearms are all about physics and chemistry.
The very best way to gain understanding is to find a patient, knowledgeable person to show you some real firearms and ammunition, take them apart and put them back together, and tell you what the pieces are called, and how they work. Then go to a range and watch people shooting, and if you want to, try it yourself under a good instructor.
It might be that I am old school, but when I am trying to learn about how mechanical things work, one of the things that helps me the most is a good hard copy diagram (so I can write on it), with all the parts labeled. It’s even better if I can find an exploded diagram (that’s a diagram, with the parts moved away from each other so that you can see how the parts fit together).
I go through the diagram bit by bit, identifying all the parts. Then if I can, I find a slow motion cartoon video of the thing in motion, and watch it until I understand it. I admit to being a nerdy, science person, so this may not work for others.
That is astounding. Wow. A case study our nation should be discussing.
Good ideas. :)
@marcin,
I believe most who favor arming the teachers are talking about either concealed carry, or keeping the guns in safes. But I guess you could ask those who live in school districts that have armed teachers, and see how they do it.
The risk of someone taking a gun away from someone carrying w/o concealment is real, and there have been cases,* but I doubt that’s really the concern of most cities/states that outlaw open carry. People just think it’s scary or distasteful to see someone carrying a gun, w/o a uniform on. Some talk about it as if it were some kind of implied threat, but I’m not sure whether they really believe that. When I went on an open-carry walking demonstration a while back, the counter-protestors said nothing about the danger of our guns being grabbed from our holsters. They were, strangely enough, yelling about people that had been shot by police. I think what they really don’t like about open carry is that a visible gun on a private citizen is a sign that they are losing, and it shows people that those carrying guns are not scary, and not a threat to other law-abiding people. It “normalizes” carrying a gun (not that it should require normalizing).
What’s funny is that, when we were still trying to get concealed carry permits in my state, people complained that they needed to know whether or not the people around them had guns. Concealing one’s firearm was supposed to be some kind of sneaky trick. Now that concealed carry is the new normal, the complaint is that open carry is rude, or threatening, or something.
*That’s why I have some kind of retention strap on all of my holsters that go outside the waist-band. It’s not a perfect solution, but it helps.
Here is an animation of a handgun being loaded, unloaded, and fired. You can make different parts visible or invisible, to let you see what all the parts are doing.
https://www.m1911.org//loader.swf
In the olden days, some states had laws forbidding concealed carry, because legislatures thought that every one should know who was carrying. This is called open carry, pistols on your hip like in western movies. As you say, that might be a deterrent, but it might also be the case that the person openly carrying gets shot first, thereby leaving the rest of the crowd defenseless.
Concealed carry means that you carry your gun as invisibly as you can, and in current thinking, it is more liable to keep you safe, because no one knows who is carrying and who isn’t. Some places prohibit open carry, and the why varies. Some people freak out and call the police when they see guns, so making people hide their guns theoretically keeps that from happening. Some states require concealed carry permits, and requirements for those vary from state to state. Other states (Vermont?) have constitutional carry, which means that any one not prohibited from owning a gun can carry concealed.
(more in next post)
Goodness. You’ve just described perfectly what I have been sensing from the arguments coming from all directions. Thank you.
I worry about teachers carrying guns that students could get from them simply by disabling the teacher somehow. I don’t know anything about guns, but I have spent quite a bit of time as volunteer in our local high school. There were some powerful unsavory students in our school that I can easily envision knocking out or otherwise overpowering a teacher so as to steal his or her gun.
We were the first high school in the country to put a police officer in our high school full time. There was a lot of controversy surrounding this decision, as you can imagine. I didn’t like the idea at all. Now I am a firm believer in the value of doing so.
It just makes sense to me to have a police officer on the grounds, someone who gets to know the students and threats that are present, someone who is trained to deal with the general public.
Happy to be of service, and thank you.
I have begun to think that any student that has made themselves enough of a threat that the police are watching them needs to be expelled. No tax-funded free-ride education for them. Hopefully, they learned to read before they got the boot, and maybe they can get an education on their own. Hopefully, some kind of private schooling will take them in. Otherwise, shrug. The schools should be schools; not juvenile detention.
As to how easy it is for some one to take a gun from some one else’s holster, that depends a lot on the size of the people involved. To take a gun from some one else’s holster, the taker has to get really close, like hugging distance, and if things have deteriorated to that extent, there’s already a fight. There are holsters that won’t let go of the gun unless you push a release. A big strong guy could get mine if he knew I had it and I wasn’t paying attention, because I am a little old lady, but that is unlikely because I always pay attention and I would shoot any one who came that close to me with hostile intent. However, two or three high school students working together could easily overpower a single teacher-that’s how teachers get beaten up and raped.
As far as arming teachers or other school employees, a lot depends on what you are trying to do. If you are trying to prevent mass shootings, armed teachers and other employees might provide a deterrent. If you did that, plus hardened the doors and windows, added metal detectors, and strictly controlled entry to the school, that is probably the best we can do, without vastly increasing the amount of money we spend.
I think that hiring armed security people, or arming other staff (administrators, secretaries, janitors, etc.,) is a better idea than arming teachers, because teachers are supposed to be teaching and security is a harder job than people think, but security guards are not cheap, and unless you have the means to be really selective, you may not get quality people ( the Pulse night club shooter was a security guard).
I agree.
As I said, our town put a liaison officer in our high school full time. As it turned out, the kids and teachers loved him.
We also have a secure front entrance and the sides door are locked during the day.
There’s no guarantee here that an evil person could not figure out a way to get in. All the windows open, for example. But we haven’t made it ridiculously easy.
I think we really have to segregate the juvenile offenders from the regular high school population.
That’s what I was thinking too.
We need professionals to handle school security, I think.
We do this in our courthouses in Massachusetts. Our schools should have the same level of security.
An online resource for basic firearms information:
https://www.pewpewtactical.com/beginners-guide-guns/