\n\n\n\n
It's been a while since I've posted anything overtly political, but I just listened to the third and fourth episodes of the latest series of Malcolm Gladwell's podcast, Revisionist History. Even though this is probably my favorite podcast of all time, I wasn't hugely taken with the first two episodes. The thesis that America's obsession with gun culture is [largely] a result of too many Westerns being on TV in the 50s and 60s has some credibility, but we can't fix it now except by waiting for the deluded to die.
\n\n\n\nBut the third and fourth episodes deliver two huge punches:
\n\n\n\nShooting Lesson discusses the disingenuity of the arguments of gun control advocates, namely that \"assault weapons\" aren't the problem, semi-automatic weapons, and handguns in particular, are the problem, and advocating for \"assault weapons\" bans is a political gimmick not an actual useful argument.
\n\n\n\nMoral Hazard discusses the improvements in trauma care for gunshot victims that, it turns out, is responsible for the decline in homicide rates in the US. Violent crime is up, shootings are up, but owing to improvements in medical care, 95% of gunshot victims are now saved. If we really want to understand what's happening with violent crime, we need to track shootings, not homicides, and there is no methodical capture of this data in the US.
\n\n\n\nAs someone who doesn't (or very rarely) shoots, but knows a fair bit about guns owing to (a) having been a heterosexual boy who grew up in the 70s, (b) being a huge fan of procedural crime fiction, (c) a wargamer, and (d) a role-playing game designer, I was fully aware that assault weapons are neither the problem nor a coherent category (a semiautomatic rifle that isn't an AR-15, lacks a pistol grip, and has a wooden stock is in no way less lethal than an AR-15, the AR-15 is popular because it's modular, so folks can customize and \"hotrod\" them).
\n\n\n\nWhat I wasn't aware of was that gun control advocates are disingenuous about pursuing \"assault weapons bans\" because that they can get people to vote for them. It's a \"something\" they can \"try to do\" to gain votes which will be voted down by their political opponents. Assault weapons bans are to gun control arguments what late term elective abortions are to \"pro-life\" arguments.
\n\n\n\nSimilarly, I knew that trauma care for gunshot victims has vastly improved. E.g. US casualties in Vietnam numbered approximately 60,000 dead and 150,000 wounded while the numbers for Iraq are 4,431 dead, 31,994 wounded, and Afghanistan are 1,921 dead, 20,713 wounded. The ratio of wounded to dead went from 2.5:1 in Vietnam to 10:1 in Iraq and Afghanistan. In other words, 75% of the people killed in combat in Vietnam survive with modern medivac and trauma care.
\n\n\n\nIn contrast to this, the US homicide rate peaked in 1980 at 10.2 per 100,000 people (per annum) whereas as of 2019 the homicide rate was half that, at 5 per 100,000. It seems pretty reasonable to suggest that this \"halving\" of the murder rate took place an increase in the attempted murder rate masked by huge improvements in trauma care. And if you look at the rate for rape, 36.8 in 1980 vs 42.6 in 2019, this tracks. On the other hand, the \"violent\" crime rate has somewhat decreased since 1980, but (a) this includes everything from fist fights to mass shootings, and (b) we also know that statistics-driven policing (\"comstat\" etc.) led to methodical underreporting of \"minor\" crimes since the 1990s. Rape is, of course, a complicated crime to compare to homicide. E.g. society has changed its definition of rape and the threshold for reporting has changed. The big problem is that the US just doesn't track violent crime or gun crime rigorously enough.
\n\n\n\nAnother key point raised in the Moral Hazard episode is that rifles are, on average, far less deadly than pistols simply because it's hard to get in close with a rifle and shoot someone lots of times. Instead, unless the first shot is an outright kill, the person hit falls to the ground and is harder to hit again. Again, the problem isn't \"assault rifles\" but semi-automatic firearms of all kinds, and handguns (the difference in rate of fire between a semi-automatic pistol and a revolver is basically irrelevant).
\n\n\n\nThe crime data I'm using is here if you want to check it.
\n\n\n\nAfter the Port Arthur massacre, the conservative (\"Liberal\" coalition) Australian government at the time took the controversial stance of simply banning semi-automatic rifles. I attended a large rally in Sydney at which the anti-gun crowd was addressed by politicians of all the major parties. Since then, as Jim Jefferies has pointed out in his excellent bit on Gun Control, there have been no more mass shootings in Australia. That said, Australia's homicide rate in 1990 (before Port Arthur) was 2.2 in large part because handguns were strictly regulated. Even so, it was 0.74 as of 2021. I found these stats here. From what I know, Australia is not actually a less violent country than the US (I don't have the stats handy, but last I checked Australia has slightly higher rates for violent crime than the US, they just don't end in shooting deaths).
\n\n\n\nGiven that Australians probably watched all the same westerns as Americans, are just as prone to violence as Americans, and have the same frontier macho dude delusions as Americans, my basic conclusion is that strict handgun regulation eliminates roughly 75% of gun homicides, and banning semi-automatic rifles eliminates another 50% of gun homicides. But banning \"assault weapons\" accomplishes none of this. There are plenty of semi-automatic rifles that aren't \"assault weapons\" and in any event most of the gun homicides are from handguns.
\n\n\n\nAs such, campaigning for an \"assault weapons ban\" is worse than useless. It probably fails, it won't persuade anyone of anything (and in fact hardens opposition from reasonable people who know anything about guns), and it won't stop anyone from being murdered. And if it succeeds it will take the steam out of genuine reforms by (a) not working and (b) allowing folks who voted for it to rest on their laurels. It's virtue signaling at its worst.
\n\n\n\nThe Sandy Hook perpetrator could have accomplished just as much mayhem with a non-assault-style semi-automatic rifle or handguns. In fact the Dunblane massacre in Scotland was conducted with semi-automatic pistols and revolvers.
\n\n\n\nSo it comes down to what the purpose of proposing assault weapons bans actually is. If it's just posturing for the purposes of pretending to have a plan to \"do something\" about gun violence that serves as a bullet point for political platforms then, I guess, mission accomplished. But as a measure to actually address gun violence it serves no purpose.
\n\n\n\nI've been wrong about plenty of things in the past. Back in 2004 or so I was basically against making gay rights or gun control major planks in the Democratic Party platform because I thought they were vote losers and the problems were intractable. I was comprehensively wrong about gay rights but at least the gay rights policies actually addressed real problems and proposed real solutions.
\n\n\n\nIt's possible that \"assault weapons bans\" are a brilliantly nuanced policy that signals to people who would happily dispense with the 2nd Amendment (\"of course you can change it, that's why it's called an amendment\", to quote Jim Jefferies) that they're on our side while not aggravating gun owners too much because they know (a) it will never pass and (b) even if it actually passes they'll just sell their \"assault weapons\" to the taxpayer and use the money to buy the new modular non-assault-style semi-automatic rifles that will promptly become wildly popular and easily available, or just buy handguns if they really want to murder people.
\n\n\n\nI think focusing on \"assault weapons\" is purely counter-productive, and the screen capture suggests Fox News does too. It doesn't persuade anyone and it antagonizes both the unreasonable pro-gun folks who might otherwise not bother voting and the reasonable pro-gun folks who correctly recognize it as disingenuous and pointless.
\n\n\n\nBut, what Assault Weapons Bans aren't is a way to reduce gun homicides or address gun violence. Preventing impulse purchases, age restrictions, background checks, and red flag laws will have some impact at the edges, but a lot of these measures will likely be declared unconstitutional by the conservative idiocracy dominating the Supreme Court.
\n\n\n\nTo actually reduce gun violence in the US, we need to ban semi-automatic weapons, strictly regulate handguns, and come to grips with the insane number of guns already in circulation. And that entails repealing or further amending the 2nd Amendment and probably changing the composition of the Supreme Court or drastically reducing its power by some constitutional sleight of hand (which is also how it got the power it has).
\n\n\n\nWe also probably need to fix a lot of psycho-social problems but that's clearly a second order issue (recall Australians also watched American TV, fancy themselves to be rugged frontier individualists, and so forth, yet have far fewer gun homicides.)
\n\n\n\nFile it under the US system of government is broken and probably can't be fixed.
\n","$updatedAt":"2024-06-05T09:10:30.268+00:00",path:"sensible-gun-laws",_created:"2024-07-09T20:28:34.189Z",id:"7920",_modified:"2024-07-09T20:28:34.189Z","$id":"7920",_path:"post/path=sensible-gun-laws"},"page/path=blog":{path:"blog",css:"",imageUrl:"",prefetch:[{regexp:"^\\/(([\\w\\d]+\\/)*)([\\w-]+)\\/?$",path:"post/path=[3]"}],tags:["public"],source:"