A smarter way to reduce gun deaths

Once again, the United States is engulfed by screams, gunshots, blood, sirens, and calls from politicians to think and pray.

Two shootings in California

since Saturday have claimed at least 18 lives, leaving Americans wondering once again:

What can be done to break the political deadlock on gun policy and save lives?

Firearms on display at the NY Shooter Supply Gun Store in Albany.

-EFE/EPA/JUSTIN LANE

For decades, we have treated gun violence as a battle to be won rather than a

, and this has gotten us worse than nowhere.

In 2021, a record

from firearms, including suicides, homicides, and accidents.

So let's try to bypass the culture wars and try a harm reduction model known from public health efforts to reduce deaths from other dangerous products like cars and cigarettes.

Gun harm reduction would begin by acknowledging the stark reality that we are not going to eliminate guns any more than we have eliminated vehicles or tobacco, not in a country that already has

.

We are destined to live in a sea of ​​weapons.

And just as there will always be kids sneaking cigarettes or people driving drunk, some criminals will get their hands on firearms, but one lesson learned is that if we can't eliminate a dangerous product, we can reduce the toll by regulating

That can make a big difference.

Consider that American women age 50 and older commit fewer than 100 firearm homicides in a typical year.

By contrast, men 49 and under typically kill more than 500 people a year with their fists and feet alone;

with weapons, they kill more than 7,000 each year.

Indeed, firearms are safer with middle-aged women than fists with young men.

We will not restrict guns to women 50 and over, but we may try to keep firearms away from people

or who have a history of violent misdemeanors, alcohol abuse, domestic violence, or any red flag that indicate that they may be a threat to themselves or others.

There is a very successful example of this damage reduction approach that is already being applied:

It is often said that machine guns are banned in the United States, but that is not exactly the case.

More than 700,000 of these fully automatic weapons are found in the United States outside of the military, completely legally.

Mark Degeneffe, of Troy, New York, holds up a pistol for sale at NY Shooter Supply gun store.

EFE/EPA/JUSTIN LANE

Most are owned by federal, state, or local agencies, but perhaps several hundred thousand are in private hands.

With a background check and a permit, citizens can buy an Uzi submachine gun or mounted .50 caliber machine gun made before 1986, and even a

To buy a machine gun made before 1986, you need a background check, no criminal record, and a $200 transfer tax, a process that can take several months.

In addition, you must report it to the authorities if it is stolen and get approval if you move it to another state.

Buying a submachine gun made after 1986 is

and expensive.

None of this is terribly onerous, but these hoops—and strict enforcement of existing laws—are enough to keep machine guns in responsible hands.

In a normal year, these registered machine gunners are responsible for approximately

So let's start with a ray of hope: If we can safely keep 700,000 machine guns in the United States, we should be able to manage the pistols.

Keep guns away from dangerous people

In many facets of life, we are used to testing people to make sure they are trustworthy.

For example, let's think about the paperwork you have to go through in Mississippi to adopt a dog:

1. 1. Fill out an application with 64 questions.

2. If you rent, you contact the owner.

3. 3. Meeting in person with the whole family.

4. Evaluation of the fencing and security of the yard.

5. Visit to sleep with the pet.

6. Pay $125 adoption fee.

7. Adopt the dog.

And now consider what someone in Mississippi must do to buy a firearm.

For a private purchase from a private individual, nothing at all is needed, except that the buyer is obviously not underage or drunk.

For a purchase at a gun store, this is what is required:

1. Pass a 13 question background check.

2. Buy a gun.

Why should it be easier to buy military-grade weapons than to adopt a Chihuahua?

And why do states that make it difficult to vote, with waiting periods and ID requirements, allow just about anyone to walk out of a gun shop with a wad of military-style rifles?

If we want to keep dangerous products away from people prone to impulsiveness and poor judgment, a control tool is obvious:

age.

We already prohibit people from buying alcohol or cigarettes before the age of 21, because it saves lives.

The same would be true if a minimum age of 21 was imposed to purchase a firearm

.

This may be more politically feasible than other gun safety measures.

Wyoming is one of the most gun-friendly states in the United States, but it has set a minimum age of 21 to buy a firearm.

Federal law already prohibits felons from owning guns, and we should go a step further and bar those convicted of violent misdemeanors from owning guns.

Stalking, domestic violence, and alcohol abuse are particular warning signs;

Unfortunately, only 10 states prohibit someone from obtaining a gun after a conviction for a stalking offense, according to the Giffords Law Center.

To prevent unfit people from buying firearms, we need universal background checks.

(According to one study, 22% of firearms are obtained without a background check.)

But the even bigger problem is that there is no comprehensive system for removing guns from ineligible people.

If a person is convicted of stalking or is the subject of a domestic violence protective order, they should be prevented from possessing or having access to firearms, but that is rarely the case in practice.

California has some of the best policies in this area, and its smart overall gun policies may be one reason -- recent shootings notwithstanding -- its gun death rate is 38% lower than that of the country as a whole.

A pillar of motor vehicle harm reduction is the requirement of a license to drive a car.

Why not a permit to buy a gun?

Some states require a license before you can buy a gun, and researchers find it effective in reducing gun violence.

In Massachusetts, which has one of the lowest firearm death rates in the country, an applicant who wants to buy a gun must pay $100 for a license, be fingerprinted, undergo a background check and explain why. want a gun

If permission is granted, which is usually the case after a few weeks, the bearer can then go to a gun store and purchase the firearm.

Next, you have the obligation to keep it in a safe place and report it if it is stolen.

In effect, Massachusetts applies to firearms the kind of system we routinely use in vehicle registration and driver permitting to save lives from traffic fatalities.

Unfortunately, gun registration raises alarm among some gun owners that high-booted thugs are coming to confiscate firearms, which is another reason to work to cool down the gun policy debate.

Learn to live with guns

Harm reduction will prove frustrating and unsatisfying for many liberals.

Me too.

It means living with levels of guns and gun deaths that are extremely high by world standards.

But far-reaching gun bans will not pass in this Congress or likely in the near future.

Meanwhile, since 2020 alone,

have been sold in the United States.

So, as a practical matter of saving lives, let's focus on harm reduction.

That's how we manage alcohol, which kills more than 140,000 Americans each year (often from liver disease), three times as many as guns.

Prohibition was not politically or culturally tenable, so instead of banning alcohol, we opted to regulate its access.

We authorize who can sell liquor, we tax alcohol, we limit its purchase to those over 21 years of age, we regulate labels and we repress those who drink and drive.

This is all imperfect, but there is a consensus that

works better than ban or passivity.

Likewise, smoking kills 480,000 Americans a year, about 10 times more than guns, including 41,000 people from secondhand smoke.

You are twice as likely to be killed by a smoker as by a gunman.

That's why we regulate tobacco, restrict advertising, impose heavy taxes on cigarettes, require warning labels, ban sales to those under 21, and sponsor public education campaigns that warn young people against cigarettes:

"Kissing a smoker is like licking an ashtray."

All of this has

more than two-thirds since 1965.

Similarly, we don't ban cars, but we do impose safety requirements and carefully regulate who can use them.

Since 1921, this has reduced the death rate per 100 million kilometers traveled by approximately 95%.

Alcohol, tobacco, and cars are obviously different from firearms and have no constitutional protection, but one of the most important distinctions is that we have approached them as public health issues to be progressively made.

Historically, cars killed more people each year than firearms in the United States.

But because we've worked to reduce vehicle deaths and haven't made a serious attempt to curb gun violence,

How to work with gun owners

One of the advantages of the harm reduction model is that, if done right, it avoids stigmatizing people as gun crazy and makes firearms not part of a culture war.

I am writing this essay on the farm in Oregon where I grew up.

As I write this, my 12 gauge shotgun is a few feet away, and my .22 rifle is in the next room.

(Both are safely stored.)

They're the kind of firearms Americans have traditionally kept at home, for hunting, gaming, or target shooting, and the risks are manageable.

Rifles are known to have been used in 364 homicides in 2019, and shotguns in 200 homicides.

Both were less common murder weapons than knives and other sharp objects (1,476 homicides) or even hands and feet (600 homicides).

In contrast to a traditional hunting weapon is the AR-15 style rifle.

Military versions of these weapons were designed for troops so that they can effectively kill many people in a short time, and can be fitted with large magazines that are quickly interchanged.

They fire one bullet each time the trigger is pulled.

It is sometimes said that the civilian versions, like the AR-15, are fundamentally different because they do not have a selector for automatic fire.

But troops rarely use automatic fire on military versions of these weapons because then they become inaccurate and use up ammo too quickly.

In one respect, the civilian version may be more lethal.

Normally, US troops are not allowed to shoot the enemy with hollow point bullets, which cause horrific wounds, because they could violate the laws of war.

But any civilian can walk into a gun store and buy hollow point bullets for an AR-15;

Hollow point bullets have been used in several mass shootings.

Then there's what is in a sense the deadliest weapon of all: a 9mm pistol.

This and other semi-automatic pistols have the advantage of being easily concealable, making them more comfortable for criminals than assault rifles.

In addition, there has been a huge push to carry handguns, concealed or openly - and that, of course, means that more and more, a firearm is readily available when someone is scared or angry.

Small arms have been outpacing long arms in the United States, and that's one of the reasons guns are killing more people.

Let's see what kind of weapons are recovered at crime scenes: the vast majority, short arms.

Five of the most common American weapons are hunting rifles: the Remington Model 700, the Ruger 77 series, the Winchester Model 70, the Marlin Model 1894, and the Savage Model 11.

However, a study of weapons recovered by police departments revealed that only 5 out of 846,000 were identified as one of these hunting rifles.

So we should reassure gun owners that we're not going after their deer rifles or bird shotguns.

This will make it easier to reach a political consensus on the measures needed to prevent dangerous people from having access to lethal weapons such as 9mm pistols.

There is also evidence that gun owners with military or police training strongly believe in safety training and other requirements for small arms carriers;

any gun safety coalition must work with these

What about ammo checks, gun warning labels, and insurance requirements?

Public health is not about one big thing, it's about a million little things.

Seat belts and air bags helped reduce car fatalities, as did fender padding, crash tests, headlights, highway dividers, drunk driving crackdowns, and thousands of small measures such as potholes on highways to prevent drowsy drivers from running off the road.

Similarly, we need countless measures to tackle gun violence, many of which have been debated for decades.

One promising approach is background checks to purchase ammunition, and this should be possible without creating burdens for gun owners who have already gone through background checks to purchase guns.

California, under Governor Gavin Newsom, has taken the lead in this regard, and the early results are encouraging.

People have often tried to buy ammunition when they were not authorized to own guns, suggesting that many unauthorized people have firearms and that ammunition controls may prevent them from doing so.

Red flag laws also hold promise, particularly in reducing firearm suicides, which receive less attention than homicides but are more frequent.

Red flag laws allow authorities to temporarily remove the gun from those who appear to be a threat to themselves or others.

An academic study found that, over 10 years, Indiana's red flag law reduced firearm suicides by 7.5%.

There is less evidence that red flag laws reduce homicides.

Waiting periods and limiting the number of weapons that can be purchased at one time can also help.

We also need to crack down on untraceable ghost guns and 3D-printed firearms;

ghost guns are already a growing source of weapons for criminals.

Another harm reduction approach is graphic warning labels for weapons and ammunition.

"Health warning labels on tobacco products are the most cost-effective tool for educating both smokers and non-smokers about the health risks of tobacco use," says the World Health Organization, so let's apply the lessons to firearms.

A proposed label for the ammunition has a picture of a bloody face and claims that a gun increases the risk of killing someone in a home.

Taxes on cigarettes reduced demand for tobacco, especially among young people, so how about taxes on guns, particularly 9mm Glocks and other deadly handguns?

There is evidence that the demand for arms is very sensitive to price:

Historically, a 1% increase in the price of firearms has reduced demand by 2-3%.

So let's raise gun prices to cover some of the externalities that firearms impose on society.

According to one study, each murder costs society about $17.25 million in police services, courts, imprisonment, lost productivity, and insecurity.

Si cada pistola y arma AR-15 tuviera un impuesto adicional sobre las ventas del 20%, se reduciría significativamente la demanda y se empezaría a pagar parte de los costes de la delincuencia.

¿Y los seguros?

Los propietarios de automóviles deben contratar un seguro, y los propietarios de piscinas y camas elásticas pueden pagar primas más elevadas, así que ¿por qué los propietarios de armas no deberían pagar tarifas más elevadas por correr mayores riesgos?

¿Y por qué debería la industria armamentística estar protegida de muchas demandas por responsabilidad civil?

Los economistas han propuesto una idea inteligente para aumentar los precios de las armas de fuego que los fabricantes de armas podrían aplaudir:

Imponer fuertes aranceles a las armas importadas y, simultáneamente, dar a los fabricantes nacionales inmunidad frente a la responsabilidad antimonopolio para que pudieran coludirse y fijar precios.

Todo ello permitiría a los fabricantes de armas estadounidenses practicar un monopolio de precios que reduciría las ventas y las muertes.

Dada la diferencia de impacto entre las armas largas y las armas cortas, también puede tener sentido como medida de reducción de daños aconsejar a los propietarios que cambien sus Glocks por escopetas.

Como vicepresidente en 2013, Joe Biden animó a los propietarios de viviendas a confiar para la autodefensa en una escopeta en lugar de un arma de asalto, y dijo que había aconsejado a su esposa que respondiera a un intruso a la antigua usanza:

"Pon esa escopeta de dos cañones y dispara dos ráfagas fuera de casa".

Fue denunciado a diestro y siniestro, pero tenía razón:

Estaríamos mucho mejor si las familias nerviosas buscaran protección en una escopeta y no en un fusil de asalto o una pistola de 9 mm.

Por razones similares, quizá deberíamos suavizar las restricciones sobre el spray de pimienta.

Los excursionistas saben que el spray para osos es más eficaz que las armas para protegerse de los osos pardos, y quizá los propietarios de viviendas podrían aprender el mismo principio para protegerse de los delincuentes.

Ningún enfoque es tan eficaz por sí solo.

Pero los expertos en seguridad de las armas creen que un modelo de reducción de daños políticamente plausible podría reducir con el tiempo la mortalidad por armas de fuego en un tercio.

Eso supondría salvar más de 15.000 vidas al año.

Aprendamos la lección, porque la violencia con armas de fuego alcanza niveles inconcebibles.

Sólo desde que me gradué en el instituto en 1977, parece que han muerto más estadounidenses por armas de fuego (más de 1,5 millones), incluidos suicidios, homicidios y accidentes, que en todas las guerras de la historia de Estados Unidos, remontándonos a la Guerra de la Independencia (alrededor de 1,4 millones).

Podemos hacerlo mejor, y no es inútil.

Carolina del Norte no es un estado liberal, pero exige una licencia para comprar un arma de mano.

Si evitamos una retórica exagerada que antagonice con los propietarios de armas, es posible que se produzcan algunos avances, sobre todo a nivel estatal.

La regulación de la seguridad de las armas puede marcar la diferencia.

Los conservadores suelen pensar que Nueva York es un ejemplo de política de armas fracasada, pero el estado de Nueva York tiene una tasa de muertes por armas de fuego inferior a una cuarta parte de la de estados amigos de las armas como Alaska, Wyoming, Luisiana y Misisipi.

La seguridad de las armas funciona, pero no tan bien como nos gustaría.

La reducción de daños no es glamorosa, pero es el tipo de trabajo largo que redujo las muertes por accidentes de tráfico y tabaquismo.

Si la política de armas se convirtiera en algo aburrido, eso podría ayudar a desactivar la guerra cultural sobre las armas que durante décadas ha paralizado a Estados Unidos a la hora de adoptar políticas eficaces sobre armas de fuego.

Los últimos tiroteos eran trágica y exasperantemente predecibles.

So let's ask politicians not only for flying flags and moving speeches, but also for a better way to honor the dead: an evidence-based shooting that saves lives.

c.2023 The New York Times Company

look also

Tragedy after tragedy: January brought dozens of shootings in the United States

Massacre in California: the reasons for the attack in a dance club remain a mystery