I started this post after the August
killing of two journalists
in Virginia, but put it aside as it’s hard to write on gun control in the US, knowing
three clear realities: (1) I will be accused of naively misunderstanding the
issue of gun and crime, regardless of how well-informed my ideas are; (2)
someone will tell me that the real problem is mental illness, the rebuttal to
which is set out at the end of the second part to this post; and (3) very few
people will actually be open to the conversation.
Wading into this discussion at
times seems pointless.
And yet… I feel I have to write because not
a single calendar week has passed in Barack Obama’s second term without a
mass shooting in the US. Mass shootings for this purpose are defined as
shootings in which more than 4 people are killed.
 | ||
| A student is reunited with family after the killings at Umpqua Community College From CNN |
That’s a staggering statistic,
particularly when compared with the sparsity of mass killings during that time in
other industrialized states. Last night, it was the
killing of ten people on the Umpqua Community College campus in Oregon.
The number of Americans killed by gun violence dwarfs those killed by terrorism, and the number of young people killed by gun violence now exceeds the number killed in car accidents.
The number of Americans killed by gun violence dwarfs those killed by terrorism, and the number of young people killed by gun violence now exceeds the number killed in car accidents.
It’s hard for me to relate
anymore to this aspect of American life.
I am still, very much, a
“local” in Cleveland, Ohio, but mass shootings and everyone’s desire to
have a gun has become increasingly foreign to me. While I’m currently in Palestine, I’ve spent
most of the past 7 years in places with strict gun laws and almost no mass
shootings.
Yes, there are still murders in
all the places I’ve lived, but it’s much harder to kill 4 people with a single
knife than it is to kill 10 people with a gun.
The Goal of Gun Regulation is Not to Eliminate Murder but to Lessen Its
Frequency and “Success” Rate.
I am tired of people dismissing
gun regulations as being unable to eliminate all murders. Yes, there were horrible
shootings in Denmark the very month I moved there. That doesn’t mean Denmark
should do away with its gun regulations.
The purpose of gun regulation is
not to make a utopian state in which no one dies. It is to make a safer state where fewer
people die from gun-related deaths, and where mass killings are less frequent
and more difficult to achieve.
That’s why gun regulation is
viewed as effective in Europe: murders
aren’t actually as frequent in most of Europe as they are in the US.
 |
| People leaving the campus at Umpqua Community College From CNN |
According to OECD
data, in 2010, the latest year with the most complete data, the US was
third in the number of intentional homicides per 100,000 inhabitants. That’s
only intentional homicides – leaving aside accidental shootings and suicide.
Only Mexico and Iceland had
greater numbers (in 2011, Mexico had no data, but Iceland still has a great
rate of intentional homicides).
In 2010, the US had 4.8
intentional homicides per 100,000 inhabitants.
Comparably, Israel had 2 murders
per 100,000; Australia 1.1; Hungary 1.4; France 1.2; Switzerland 0.7.
And in Denmark, it was 0.9.
These statistics are not accidental;
these countries have reasonable gun laws—and I think Denmark has gun laws that
would work well for the US.
Denmark’s Gun Regulations Protect the Rights of Those with an Interest or
Need for Guns While Limiting Misuse
Sometimes people say guns “are
banned” in Denmark, but this
isn’t true. They are just well regulated. In fact, if Denmark needed a
militia and called on all the gun owners, they would certainly have a
well-regulated militia.
I’ll let that sink in for those
of you familiar with the US’s
2nd amendment.
Whenever the question of why someone needs a gun in the US comes up, there are three typical answers: hunting;
leisure; and self-defense. For two of out three of these, Denmark has a path to
gun ownership. It’s just a little longer
than the US path.
Now, as I don’t read Danish at a
legal level yet, and there’s a paucity of real information on Danish gun laws
in English, I’m recounting information as it was explained to me through
several interviews with individuals knowledgeable about the subject.
For leisure, you have to join a
gun club, where you can
use the guns only at the range for two years. At the end of the two years, the
head of the club can certify to your suitability to own a gun in your house. At
this point, you can apply for a permit to get a gun, but to have a gun in your
home you have to have several safeguards.
First, you need two safes, one
for the gun and one for the bullets. There are specific regulations about the
kinds of safes you need to use, how much they must weigh, how they are kept in
the house, etc.
Second, only the registered gun
owner is allowed the combination or key to the safes. It’s unlawful for them to
share access even with their family members.
Third, you can only take the gun
with you to the range and your home. When travelling between the gun range and
your home, you are expected to take the most expedient route. If the police
pull you over and find the gun in your car, they can ask you to detail where
you’re going and how you’re getting there.
If it’s not within specified limits or routes, you are in violation of
the law.
Unfortunately, no one told me
what happens if you’re in violation of the “most expedient route” rule, but I
would guess that it’s a loss of the permit, similar to what happens if you don’t
have the right kind of safe or share your safe details with unlicensed persons.
Hunters can apply for a permit
under similar conditions. They, however, are given more of an area in
which they can use the guns and travel with it to ensure the regulations are
effective for hunting.
Denmark does not allow guns for
self-defense because doing so would defeat the purpose of gun regulations.
Allowing self-defense as a justification
for gun use simply increases the numbers of guns around and therefore the
number of people who need guns for self-defense, which in turn increases the
number of guns, and then… well, you get the United States of America, where two
of my relatives who are almost 70 have concealed carry permits, meaning they
can carry a gun on them in public despite the fact that I’ve seen both struggle
with finding their eyeglasses when those eyeglasses are on their head. And don’t get me started on the number of
times they lose their keys everyday…
Denmark realized this – and realized
that if they did actually face an invasion or an authoritarian regime they
could either change the law or collectively ignore it – so they do not permit
gun ownership solely for the purpose of self-defense.
Yes, criminals still get guns,
but most people who use guns in the US are not hardened criminals. For some reason, people in the US think that anyone who uses a gun would’ve
found another way to get the gun. That’s
simply not true. Imagine I got in a horrendous fight with my boyfriend and
decided if I couldn’t have him no one would [side-note: I’ve never once thought
this about any of my ex-boyfriends and the idea that I could is surreal to me].
In the US I could, tear-streamed
and without a second thought, head to a nearby gun store, buy a rifle, and kill
my boyfriend within two hours.
 |
| Evidence at the Umpqua Community College Shooting From CNN |
In Denmark, I’d have to spend
serious time cultivating relationships with criminals. I don’t have those
relationships right now, so I’d have to seek them out. I don’t actually know
how to seek out criminals, and I don’t have shady friends in Denmark as of now,
so this would entail a process. I doubt the criminal would sell me the gun
right away, not knowing me or who I work for.
So, we’re talking at least a month to figure out who would sell me a gun, getting the cash together to buy the gun
(illegal things are obviously more expensive than the lawful purchase of a
rifle at Walmart or Dick’s Sporting Goods), and getting the purchase done.
Now, sure, a month from now I
could still be in a “if I can’t have him no one will” mentality, or … I could’ve
moved on with some random guy I meet at a bar or on a bus and not feel the need
to kill someone just for breaking up with me.
The people using guns in the UK
and Denmark are actually more
hardened criminals. In the US, you have hardened convicted criminals and domestic
abusers (who are, too often, not convicted criminals), but you also get a lot
of people who didn’t have a criminal background before they purchased a gun and
murdered someone.
The ease and accessibility of
guns increases the likelihood of their use by people who otherwise would not be
criminals.
No comments:
Post a Comment