Fragile Foundations

Let’s suppose a half-baked version of the Myan calendar thing came true, and we are now living in a post-apocalyptic dystopia in which roaming motorcycle gangs from Mad Max may, at any moment, descend upon our homes, pillage our belongings, kidnap our wives and daughters and leave us for dead. If, in this world, Barack Obama were to sign a directive mandating stricter gun control laws, I would very likely be acting the same way the conservatives are today.

But we don’t live in that world. Nor do we live in the world of our country’s founders, who were under very real threats from the British, the French and hostile Indian tribes, all of whom were on the continent and could attack—without the protection of a police force or a military. We also don’t live in a world devoid of Acme, Smith’s and Ralph’s.

Nevertheless, many opponents of gun control react heatedly to the prospect of stricter gun laws, fearing that we will be left vulnerable and unable to protect our families. For they believe that without firearms, we would be rendered susceptible to a host of dangers, from a 1984 style totalitarian government to roaming packs of bandits.

Among the opposition to possible regulations, perhaps the most difficult to understand is the resistance to a ban on assault weapons and high capacity magazines. The Obama administration posits that revolvers, shotguns and rifles are all sufficient for the purposes of protection. The response from the right, however, is an unequivocal “NO!”

When their usual platitudes and circular reason failed to gain traction, the right ramped up their efforts, employing their regular go-to strategy: fear. On America Live, Megyn Kelly asked conservative radio host Lars Larson about the story of a woman and her two children who were the victims of a home invasion. The woman defended her family when the assailant found them, shooting him five times with a .38 revolver—a firearm that would be perfectly legal under the new regulations.

When asked why we need assault weapons and high capacity magazines when a .38 revolver worked just fine, Larson responded: “The problem is she was confronting one intruder. If she had been confronting three people…she would have been out of bullets way to early. This president wants to take away people’s rights to own the appropriate tool to repel an invader or invaders.”

Heck, why stop at 3? During a congressional hearing, Gayle Trotter, founder of the Independent Women’s Forum stated that “an assault weapon in hands of a young woman who is defending her babies in her home becomes a defense weapon. And the peace of mind a woman has as she is facing 3, 4, 5 violent attackers…gives her more courage when she’s fighting hardened violent criminals.”

To substantiate her position, Trotter recounted the story of Sarah McKinley: “Home along with her baby she called 911 when two violent intruders began to break down her front down…As the intruders forced their way into her home Ms. McKinley fired her weapon, fatally wounding one of the attackers. The other fled.”

The purpose of the hearing was to ascertain whether an assault weapons ban was in fact prudent legislation. Trotter sought to proffer evidence underscoring the efficacy of assault weapons for defense purposes in order to impugn the proposed legislation. The problem with Ms. Trotter’s example is that Sarah McKinley used a Remington 870 Express 12-guage shotgun, which would not be banned under the new firearm restrictions.

In response to Trotter’s histrionic testimony, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse remarked: “the example you used is one that would not bear an argument against the proposal that is before us, because that Remington 870 Express is a weapon that would be perfectly allowed… she would clearly have an adequate ability to protect her family without the need for a 100 round piece of weaponry.”

In an emotive tone, Trotter responded: “how can you say that?”

Well…

Trotter attempted to substantiate her position by painting an illustrative image for Sen. Whitehouse. “You are not a woman stuck in her house having to protect her child, not able to leave her child, not able to go seek safety, on the phone with 911 and she cannot get the police there fast enough to protect her child. And she is not used to being in a firefight. “

While anyone of us would sympathize with the poor mother in this example, it is a wholly fictitious example conjured up by Trotter to support her own ideology. If Trotter had testified about instances in which revolvers, rifles and shotguns had been inadequate for protection, the new gun legislation would have been flummoxed and soon floundered. But no such example—not one instance—was reported throughout the course of the hearing.

When your case rests on a fictional anecdote and depends on fear, it is because actual statistically significant evidence does not exist. We’re not going to get evidence from the opponents of gun control. We’re not going to get statistics. We’re not going to get numbers. We’re going to get like likes of Larson and Trotter. We’re going to get the cool sensible Huckabee who leaves us with significant questions to marinate: "If a band of marauders comes kicking your door down and all you got is your double barrel shotgun with two shells, God help you because Joe Biden won't." Instead of real world examples, conservatives have only been able to offer ginned up imaginary dramatizations meant to inspire fear, because that is the only tactic they have left.

Here is what I know about assault weapons: they’ve been used to facilitate horrible massacres. On that basis, I’m led to believe they should be banned. If you can present compelling evidence demonstrating that the use of high capacity assault weapons plays a role in self-defense, then I’m wide open to changing my stance.

But no one has been able to do that. Whereas gun control advocates can easily point to instances in which assault weapons have been used in massacres, no one can point to a real world example outside of military combat in which they have been used for self-defense. The tired right-wing refrain “it’s not a massacre weapon, it’s a defense weapon” has yet to be corroborated.

There may be situations in which attacks by multiple assailants do occur. And it won’t matter if you have a revolver, a 12-gauge, an assault weapon, or a Gatling gun. So unless the Canadians determine that they have the resources and capabilities to invade Michigan, and for some reason our national guard goes on vacation to Jamaica, I’m going to support universal background checks, an assault weapons ban and a limit on high-capacity magazines.

The case for gun control has been made and substantiated. Its opponents are trying to proffer reasonable doubt. But they can’t, so they’re relying on fear.

Neil Heslin on Gun Violence in America

Neil Heslin, father of one of the Sandy Hook victims, provides his heartbreaking, but incisive view on gun violence in America. I'm not going to comment on it. Check it out. He boils all the nonsense down to common sense.

Guns in the US and the UK: Piers Morgan vs. Larry Pratt

One of the big topics in the business world is how to deal with big data. I've been doing some reading about multimillion dollar software programs that larger firms are now using to handle the massive amount of information that they have, but can't digest. Entire branches of technology and professional services firms are dedicated to wading through big data in the pursuit of gleaning relevant information from an overwhelming heap of noise.

Yet we are expected to sort out big data on a daily basis. This is most clearly evinced by the current debate about gun control, which is raging in the United States. Flick on any news program and you will be besieged with data about guns. Both sides of the debate cherry-pick statistics that help advance their positions. Curiously, some draw wildly different inferences from the same data. 

In the past month, I've heard a lot of different numbers thrown around about guns. For instance, I've heard no fewer than three different numbers tossed about regarding gun related homicides in the US. On my quest to find the right number, I realized that—well, there is no right number. Gathering this data isn't always easy, which might be why the FBI statistics vary from the CDC statistics, which vary from the United Nations statistics. Nevertheless, you're usually in the ballpark. While the numbers do show some variability, they almost never vary more than 5%. 

But in an interview with Larry Pratt, President of the Gun Owners Association of America, Piers Morgan contended that there were 39 firearm related homicides in England and Wales in 2011. Pratt's number: 970. This number would represent a 2387% increase in the incidence of firearm related homicides when compared to Morgan's 39. These drastic differences are endemic of the gun debate in America. Both guys cited data. And if you're citing data, you must be credible, right? Turns out it's important to cite the right data. The Home Office of the UK—the governmental department responsible for immigration, crime and policing—published this report listing crime statistics for 2010/2011. On Piers Morgan's blog you can find a link to the most recent data for 2011/2012, which hasn't been compiled into an official report yet.

I took screen shots of the relevant data:

These numbers corroborate Morgan's statement. So where on earth did Larry Pratt's 970 come from?  Pratt asserts that: "according to your investigator of your constabulary, the data that you’re using for the murder rate in England is a sham. There’s a monumental misreporting of what constitutes murder. If three people are murdered, it’s likely to be counted as one event."

Is this true!? No, not exactly. Pratt was referring to two articles from The Telegraph. The first is a seemingly extinct 1996 article in which UK police were accused of massaging crime statistics. While this may very well be true, these statistics mainly related to burglaries and vandalism, not homicide. 

The second Telegraph article, which the GOA had archived on its website, gets to the heart of Pratt's assertion. Here are some excerpts: 

Figures to be published by the Home Office this week will massively understate the scale of the problem.

Data provided to The Sunday Telegraph by nearly every police force in England and Wales, under freedom of information laws, show that the number of firearms incidents dealt with by officers annually is 60 per cent higher than figures stated by the Home Office.

The explanation for the gulf is that the Government figures only include cases where guns are fired, used to "pistol whip" victims, or brandished as a threat.

Thousands of offences including gun-smuggling and illegal possession of a firearm - which normally carries a minimum five-year jail sentence - are omitted from the Home Office's headline count, raising questions about the reliability of Government crime data.

"Firearms offences are comparatively rare in Britain, and the vast majority thankfully do not result in a serious or fatal injury. But if the police already collect this information it is difficult to understand why it should not be put routinely into the public domain."

The Home Office crime figures document states: "Firearms are taken to be involved in a crime if they are fired, used as a blunt instrument against a person, or used as a threat."

While we thank Mr. Pratt for enlightening us on the current state of police work in Britain, the manner in which the Home Office reports non-violent gun crimes overextends the framework in which the current argument ought to be couched. Yes, England and Wales are not without their faults, and perhaps the Home Office should be more meticulous when it comes to accounting for non-violent firearm related crimes. However, it is important to note that the statistics that are underreported have to do with firearm related incidents that do not include a weapon being fired, used as a blunt object, or brandished. The underreporting involves smuggling and illegal possession. Violent crimes involving firearms are, in fact, accurately reported. 

Let's stick to the question on the table. Where did Pratt get that 970? 

Well Pratt was citing an article from (you guessed it!) The Telegraph. This article reports that the UK (England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and some small islands) had 927 total murders in...2009. So, let's just throw all analytical structure out the window and arbitrarily cherry-pick data from whatever year, source and, hell, statistic, we feel like!

Let's compares apples with apples. 

According to the UK's Office for National Statistics there were 550 homicides in England and Wales in 2011/2012. (Looking back at Pratt's figure of 970, I find it very curious that there were more firearm related homicides in the UK than total homicides). Guns accounted for 7.1% of total homicides. There were 640 homicides in all of Great Britain, of which guns accounted for 6%. (These numbers are corroborated by data from the latest Home Office report, which extends to 2011).

Let's compare these figures to the United States.

According to the Center for Disease Control there were 16,259 homicides in the US in 2012. Guns accounted for 11,078 of those homicides, or 68%

The FBI's latest crime statistics show that there were a total of 12,664 homicides in 2011. Guns accounted for 8,583 of them, or 68%

The National Institute of Justice cites a Department of Justice report, showing that 68% of homicides in 2006 were committed with a gun. 

And the final piece of evidence I will submit is this table from the United States Census Bureau, illustrating that guns accounted for 66% of all homicides from 2000 to 2008. 

Larry Pratt may have been right to criticize the UK for certain practices that they employ. Heck, the UK might have some work to do itself. But we have a serious problem here, and the numbers attest to that fact. Whether or not conservatives want it, the gun debate is at the epicenter of public attention. Maybe the argument for stricter gun control won't be borne out by the facts. But let's have an honest debate. Let's get our numbers right. And let's show some intellectual integrity here. 

The Cost of the Second Amendment

Two weeks ago, Bob Costas ignited the ire of the questionably qualified by reciting an article by Jason Whitlock during Monday Night Football. The excerpt he chose was:

“Our current gun culture ensures that more and more domestic disputes will end in the ultimate tragedy, and that more convenience store confrontations over loud music coming from a car will leave more teenage boys bloodied and dead. Handguns do not enhance our safety. They exacerbate our flaws, tempt us to escalate arguments, and bait us into embracing confrontation rather than avoiding it.”

Costas was then roundly lambasted by a range of commentators for having had the gumption to moralize the American people and for mixing divisive political issues with an apolitical event.  And perhaps it would have been an inappropriate place to speak one’s mind about gun control, had Jovan Belcher of the Kansas City Chiefs not, only nights before, shot and killed his wife in front of his mother and daughter before taking his own life.

Despite its direct relation to Monday night’s game, a number of talking heads, from Laura Ingram to Bill O’Reilly, were adamant that this gruesome act did not warrant the one minute and thirty-three seconds that Costas devoted to the issue. After all, it was Jovan Belcher who killed his wife. His gun just happened to be the instrument with which he chose to do it.

The stubborn “guns don’t kill people, people kill people” argument is endemic of the gun control debate in the United States. Yes, people kill people. And frequently with guns. Like the tax debate, the question of gun control is painted in black and white: taxes vs. no taxes, guns vs. no guns. These simplistic approaches to important question omit the crucial importance of magnitude.  The children in Newtown, Connecticut were killed with a .223 caliber Bushmaster rifle. If you’re not familiar with the .223 Bushmaster, it is an advanced semi-automatic firearm designed for use in combat and capable of firing 6 bullets per second. Despite its intended use, it is widely available at your local Walmart. Questioning the legality and wide-spread availability of this type of semi-automatic firearm is distinctly different from impugning the second amendment.

Nevertheless, gun advocates, enthusiasts, and people who just don’t like democrats, will find a number of ways to evade the crux of the matter. They will play the constitution card and overextend logic to such a ludicrous degree that all sensible negotiations about gun control will break down entirely.

Last year, a story was swirling around detailing the events of a young boy who accidentally shot and killed his younger sister after getting into his father’s gun cabinet. This unfortunate occurrence briefly piqued national interest about gun control. However, advocates and lobbyists quickly deflated the matter with a tired line of questions: do we also take away matches, sharp objects, trampolines? Kids, they argue, get in to mischief and occasionally things go terribly wrong. And, hey, what about the bad guys? “The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun,” right? Wouldn't you rather have had a gun in that Aurora theater?

These aren't completely unfair points. No, we can’t live in a bubble. But let’s not find satisfaction in simplistic rationale that routs common sense. The cold truth is that guns in the home are more likely to harm someone in the home than an intruder. They facilitate accidents and embellish our emotions.

The children who were slaughtered in Newtown deserve a reasonable discussion—one that sidelines the rhetoric and homes in on constructive questions. How many accidental gun deaths occur per year compared to accidental deaths caused by those matches, sharp objects and trampolines? Do limitations on the sale of semi-automatic firearms impinge upon the second amendment? Should we not have stricter background checks and more extensive requirements for gun purchases?

Very few advocates of gun control are lobbying for an outright ban on the sale of guns. On Monday night, Costas posited no prescriptions. He merely pointed out that maybe, just maybe, the US has a gun problem that we should start talking about. What advocates of gun control believe, is that the costs of nearly unfettered access to firearms far exceed the benefits.

There are good arguments, both practical and constitutional, on each side of the gun control debate. But failure on both sides to jettison stubborn preconceptions and cherry-picked facts is an affront to the children who have become the victims of our lack of action. No, violence won’t be uprooted, but let’s ask what role the prevalence of guns plays in earning us the highest homicide rate due to firearms of any developed country.

*****

Reading about the history of guns in the United States, I came across a good article in “American Rifleman,” the official journal of the NRA, which states that “to the American Colonists the hunting gun was his primary food source or the critical supplement to an unreliable crop yield.” Walter Isaacson, in his book “Benjamin Franklin,” discusses life in the colonies during the latter part of the 18^th century. He tells us that for homes outside of urban communities, a gun was necessary for survival. For there was, at the time, no organized police force of which to speak. A militia had be assembled to keep the peace and protect the colonies.  Many of the framers of the constitution grew up during a time when French and Indian raids on Colonial towns were commonplace. Perhaps that is what influenced them to write:

"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"

At the time of its writing, arms meant muskets and clumsy pistols, both of which required a detailed reloading process after every shot. Semi-automatic was not part of the vocabulary of the 18^th century colonist. Even the most ardent gun enthusiast probably hadn't dreamed of the .223 caliber Bushmaster.

Given the situational discrepancy, maybe it’s about time to inquire whether our current gun culture overextends what our founding fathers had intended. Those who consider open and unquestionable access to guns part of our national DNA need to ask whether they are willing to accept the collateral damage.