About Guns, Again

Tom Kando 

A recent editorial by Leonard Pitts prompts me to chime in, once again, about America’s gun problem. I am a criminologist and I have lectured and written about the gun issue for years. See for example my May 17 post on this blog, “It’s the Guns, Stupid,” 

Pitt’s editorial is titled “”Mass Shootings: It’s Time to Stop Asking ‘Why?’” I agree with this. However, while much of what Pitts writes has merit, at some point he goes somewhat astray. Let me explain: 

First, Pitt reminds us correctly that the bulk of American gun violence does not consist of mass shootings. A vast majority of it consists of what he brilliantly calls “knucklehead shootings.” These are “small-scale shootings where the motive is patently absurd.” For example, “in Atlanta, in June, a woman who worked at Subway was killed for putting too much mayonnaise on a sandwich... In Brooklyn in August, a man who worked at McDonald was shot in the neck because the French fries were cold. In Detroit in November, a man was shot to death after he apparently failed to hold the elevator door...In Tulsa, in November, a man shot at his stepfather after they got into an argument over a game of Monopoly...” Let me add to this the many cases of domestic violence, for example irate husbands killing their wives and children. What all these crimes have in common is that someone got uncontrollably angry. 

Pitts goes on to argue that we should stop asking “Why?” (the killers’ motives) and start asking “Who?” He notes that “Many say that the problem is that guns are too readily available in America.” But he feels that this is not the best explanation of America’s problem. He mentions Australia and New Zealand, countries where gun ownership is also widespread, and yet they do not have the same atrocious level of gun violence as we do. 

But in my view he is wrong: Per capita gun ownership in those two countries is 15 and 22.6 per 100 people, respectively, whereas in America it is 112.6 per 100. Our rate of gun ownership is eight times greater than Australia’s, and five times larger than New Zealand’s. I my article “It’s the Guns, Stupid,” I show that America has BY FAR the highest rate of gun ownership of any country in the world. Most of the countries that have somewhat high rates of gun ownership are affluent western countries (Switzerland, Scandinavia, Canada, France, Germany) but their rates are about one fourth ours (except Switzerland’s whose rate is nearly half ours, but is strictly regulated by the military). 

Instead of trying to reduce America’s atrocious number of firearms in circulation, Pitt focuses on America’s peculiar culture, namely the American “stand-your-ground” macho attitude, according to which “owning a gun is to own swagger, to know that nobody’s going to mess with you or move you off your spot, and that if you want hot French fries , then doggone it, you will have hot French fries” 

Pitt’s cultural analysis may be correct, but isn’t it also an answer to “why?”, and therefore useless? 

America will not make progress in reducing its gun deaths until it clearly understands that the AVAILABILITY of dangerous weapons makes the entire difference. The only pragmatic approach is to reduce the number of automatic firearms in circulation. The only variable that correlates almost perfectly with gun violence is gun availability. Nothing matters more than the rate of gun ownership, especially the widespread ownership of rapid-fire assault weapons. 

Think for a moment about the nature of interpersonal conflict, whatever its cause may be: A minor conflict arises; words are exchanged; there is escalation; the parties become ANGRY; the body chemistry changes; adenaline, etc. However, after 15 or 20 minutes, the body returns to normal; anger dissipates; you get over it. 

The imbecility of our society consists of making available to millions of people deadly weapons immediately during that dangerous fifteen minute period. We could call it the “dangerous fifteen minutes.” 

In the absence of deadly firearms, angry men (most killing is done by men) might, far more often, muddle through the dangerous fifteen minutes and soon begin to calm down, thereby saving the lives which they might otherwise take, including their own. Without the availability of firearms, anger might far more often be a transitory stage without severe consequences. What is not clearly understood is that the AVAILABILITY of a dangerous weapon makes the entire difference.      leave comment here 

© Tom Kando 2022;All Rights Reserved