The latest string of mass shootings has sparked the inevitable cycle of political discussion when politicians suddenly care about mental illness, and useless or ineffective solutions to stop gun violence. First, popular leaders share their worthless platitudes, the armchair activists scream “policy and change” or share the latest Occupy Democrats infographic, yet these same individuals have never offered productive in terms of solutions. However, the El Paso shooting has resulted in leftist politicians calling Trump a white nationalist and citing his rhetoric as a fault. No, Trump is not complicit in the mass shooting in El Paso. Is Trump a nationalist? Probably so, but in the rarest spirit of honesty, let us make something abundantly clear:



There is not a soul in the United States of America that does not think that mass shootings are anything short of a horrific tragedy. However, suggesting the total confiscation or massive restrictions of guns is not the solution.



If someone suggests that fearmongering is incredibly harmful to society at large, they will inevitably be ostracized by the public court of twitter. This occurred to a traditionally secular leftist, Neil DeGrasse Tyson, after suggesting that statistically, there are other events that result in more casualties. As always, he quickly backtracked when the usual group of “woke” activists tore at him on social media. While the timing of his words was insensitive, Tyson brought up a valid argument.



In the past 48hrs, the USA horrifically lost 34 people to mass shootings.



On average, across any 48hrs, we also lose…



500 to Medical errors

300 to the Flu

250 to Suicide

200 to Car Accidents

40 to Homicide via Handgun



Often our emotions respond more to spectacle than to data. — Neil deGrasse Tyson (@neiltyson) August 4, 2019

The issue of guns is one of the most misunderstood topics in American politics. The media continues to make this worse, by over-inflating numbers to fit their narrative, such as the alleged “250 mass shootings” metric. This information is being fed to the entirety of the United State without question. The organization responsible is known as the Gun Violence Archive, which tracks gun violence, uses its own methodology. The context is dishonest at best, with their methodology assigning “mass shooting” status to 4 or more people being shot (not killed, but shot), not including the shooter. The FBI defines mass murder when four or more people are killed. By going with the FBI’s definition and applying it to mass shootings that brings the number of mass shootings to seven. The larger issue is the lack of a universally accepted definition, resulting in numbers being played with to fit narratives.

On this same note, let us break down into the finest statistical detail of gun violence, how impossibly ineffective control is, and what realistic solutions are available, instead of the usual “universal background checks” which essentially have already existed for years.

Without further ado, no gimmicks, no bleeding-hearts, just the unadulterated truth about guns:

While this is a rather large number, context, which is always ignored when politically convenient, must be addressed.

22,983 of these deaths, or over 75%, are attributed to suicides. This is much more indicative of a certain mental health crisis, although that too is mocked by politicians as a copout (hint, it’s real).

987 a year (and climbing) are attributed to police-related shootings.

489 are accidental deaths.

Again, doing basic math, subtracting 24,459 (the sum of the aforementioned figures) from 30,000 leaves 5,541 violent gun deaths, dramatically less than the routinely touted 30,000. This deserves context too.

St. Louis contributes to 5% of all violent gun deaths, with 298 murders.

Detroit contributes to 6% of all violent gun deaths, with 327 murders.

Baltimore contributes to 6% of all violent gun deaths, with 328 murders.

Chicago contributes to a staggering 14% of all violent gun deaths, with 764 murders.

These four cities alone make up roughly 30% of annual violent gun crime. Yes, as much as it hurts to admit, cities like Chicago have some of the most stringent gun laws in the country which haven’t helped the issue.

The armchair activists cling as tightly as possible to the fabled success of gun laws in other countries. Australia, the alleged nonviolent utopia, finds itself in the limelight every single time, without fail. But, as always, there is more to the story.

A study conducted by the American Public Health Association has poked a multitude of holes in the Australian narrative. Primarily, in that:

A mandatory recall, under the guise of “buyback”, successfully netted 640,000 guns.

It has no reliable, quantifiable impact on firearm-related homicides or suicides.

Studies and the media have dishonestly reported as much as an 80% reduction in successful suicides or homicides, but fail to account for the fact that crime rates were simultaneously dropping across the globe for a myriad of reasons. Simply put, the statistical timing was convenient, and not adjusted for.

To summarize, the evidence is inconclusive at best, and ineffective at its worst.

There are many, many, observable trends in criminal statistics over the past several decades that would suggest that ownership has very little correlation with crime, for several reasons. Israel, Switzerland, and Canada boast very high ownership numbers, but even Canada has a higher gun crime rate in some provinces, in spite of stringent laws. The traditionally blue state of Vermont has very high ownership, less restrictive laws, and very low rates of gun crime. General statistics about violent crime since the 90s are also phenomenal indications of how little guns have to do with crimes:

From 1993 to 2011, gun violence in the United States dropped 39% in spite of ownership soaring. Non-fatal firearm crimes dropped 69% in this same time.

A DOJ 2004 study on inmates convicted on gun crime charges indicated that 37% got it from family or friends, and 40% obtained it illegally through other methods.

70 to 80% of gun crimes were committed with a handgun, not the spooky AR15 that so dominates every facet of the gun conversation. 90% of non-fatal crimes were committed with a handgun.

Clearly, there is very little correlation with ownership, but men between the ages of 18-34, involved in gangs or drug crime, are almost always the victims and perpetrators of gun crimes.

After reading this, one may be under the impression that I am insensitive to the plight of those afflicted by gun violence every day, or the victims of horrific tragedies driven by domestic terrorists. I am fully on board with finding new and effective ways to tackle the scourge of gun crime, but the currently available methods of curbing gun crime from the left are as follows:

Throw legal gun owners in jail.

Banning semi-automatic firearms, in spite of the fact that the majority of guns are semi-automatic.

“Enhance background checks” without any real convincing detail.

Banning “high capacity magazines” and the inevitable slippery slope to any magazine. Senseless because it takes seconds to reload. Not to mention they have been extremely widely available for years.

“Mental health” is the most common bipartisan answer, but again, in no convincing detail whatsoever. The National Institute of Health finds that many mass shooters have undiagnosed or untreated severe mental illnesses.

It may seem bleak, but there are many possible and realistic solutions. Here are a couple of ones that tackle the underlying causes of gun violence.



First, do not give notoriety to mass shooters. It only plays into what they want. Leading news stories with sirens blaring, describing the shooter as a monster, while highlighting every evil aspect of their life, and posting information from their manifesto does no good. It promotes notoriety and suggests to other would-be shooters that their legacy and message will be passed on to the masses.

Second, conferring blame to unrelated targets destroys the political fabric of the country, but also fails to pin the blame on the perpetrator. Nothing good comes when we cannot mourn as a country, and fight evil in unity. Bernie Sanders is not responsible for a crazed supporter to shoot at several Republican Congressmen, wounding 4. Elizabeth Warren is not responsible for the psychotic leftist in Dayton. Islam is not responsible for the Pulse Nightclub Shooting, and Donald Trump is not responsible for the violence in El Paso. The only person responsible for a mass shooting is the shooter

Third, there needs to be more comprehensive treatments and less stigmatization to mental health issues. Saying “mental health” is not a political circumvention to talking about gun policy; it is a fully legitimate concern. Deinstitutionalizing the mental health care system had the right intentions in mind, protecting the rights of the mentally ill, who were being abused and savaged in corrupt mental hospitals of old. While a historical stigma exists, I firmly believe that a broad scale, ethical movement is very possible under the right supervision. Also, the courts made it almost impossible to have someone institutionalized against their will. The vast majority of institutions were closed down by JFK’s and the Reagan administrations. This effectively saw pouring out of severely mentally ill people into the streets, and then into jail cells. The rapid exodus of severally mentally ill people, as well as the presently poor mental healthcare infrastructure, has had a direct link to mass murders. The lack of mental health infrastructure, including vital institutions where potentially violent people with mental illnesses can be interned, have contributed to the current mental health crisis.



Fourth, realize that gun-free zones are soft targets, and ought to be defended. Nearly all major governmental buildings, in addition to organizations that may be targets of crimes, are hard targets. Hard targets have armed guards, metal detectors, among other things to keep their occupants safe. Airports, the NAACP building, some Planned Parenthoods have armed guards, synagogues may have metal detectors and guards, and the Holocaust museum has armed guards. These institutions are rarely ever the targets of mass shooters, who prefer to face no opposition when committing their acts of treachery. Realizing that gun-free zones are almost always the target should be convincing enough that people who frequent these places ought to have legislation that favors their defense. While controversial, if certain school staff or armed, or have security armed officers, they would be more readily available to dispatch a would-be shooter.

Gun violence is truly one of the most pressing issues of our day, and it will be one of our many generational challenges to fight it. However, misunderstandings or overt falsehoods do nothing but damage to the social and political integrity of our nation. Although it is fair to say that these changes may take a long time to make a lasting impact, it is imperative that we respond quickly with effective policy. Finally, don’t fall into the trap of fearmongering and emotional response. Instead choose a route that favors the statistics, preserving the rights of the people, all whilst keeping our citizens safe.



Advertisements

Share this: Facebook

Twitter



Leave this field empty if you're human: