Update concerning the Congresswoman: Fortunately, Rep. Giffords has continued her miraculously speedy recovery, and is starting rehab. We can only continue to hope and pray that all continues to go well, if not better.
In the wake of the assassination attempt on Rep. Gabrielle Giffords by a mentally deranged man – an attack which took the lives of six and wounded over a dozen others – politicians and pundits have resumed calls for stricter gun control laws. Rep. Peter King (R-NY) has plans to introduce legislation creating a 1,000-ft. “gun-free” zone around federal officials, much like current bans on bringing firearms into school zones.
Much has also been made of the high-capacity ammunition clip used by Rep. Giffords’s mentally-ill would-be assassin, Jared Loughner. A proposal by New York Democrat Rep. Carolyn McCarthy would restrict the sale of the high-capacity magazines, since the 19-Glock used by Loughner had a total capacity of 33 rounds.
The desire to restrict and outright eliminate horrific occurrences such as these is, of course, honorable and noble. One need not question the goodness of the intentions of Reps. King and McCarthy.
But as the French thinker Éttienne Gilson reminds us, “Piety is no substitute for technique.” It is not enough that Reps. King and McCarthy intend, through their legislation, to prevent similar incidents in the future. Rather, one must evaluate and examine what the actual effects of these policies will be.
Two related questions, as well as a two other, broader ones, must be asked:
(1) Would the King and McCarthy measures have prevented the Giffords shooting?
(2) Will they prevent future shootings?
(3) Are there better alternative solutions?
(4) Are the measures worth the costs they impose?
Harvard’s very own Prof. Jeffrey Miron, in a Bloomberg column written shortly after the incident, thinks the answers to questions (1) and (2) is “not likely”:
If these had been unavailable, Loughner could still have carried out his attack with a 10-bullet clip, and he might have aimed more carefully knowing he had less ammunition. Loughner could have brought several guns, allowing him to continue firing without interruption. Loughner could have purchased extended-ammo clips that were sold before a ban took effect (especially since the prospect of bans stimulates sales in advance of implementation). Or he could have bought a black- market clip, perhaps just by placing a classified advertisement.
Prof. Miron echoes the perennial objection of libertarians to gun control: that restrictive laws and other prohibitions of this particular sort rarely deter criminal activity. One could perhaps argue in principle that gun laws may be effective in reducing the incidence of violent crime, but this idea rests on the very generous assumption that is possible to remove, confiscate, and control all guns, especially guns associated with criminal activity. Sandra Korn has described the seizure and ban of personal firearms as “politically unfeasible.” Not only is it politically unfeasible: it is, for all intents and purposes, practically impossible.
Even an aggressive gun confiscation program would, if successful at all, mostly remove guns from the homes and possession of licensed, responsible, sane, law-abiding owners of firearms – an effect precisely opposite the intention of any potential firearm confiscation program, as criminals and those trafficking in underground firearms would be the last, if at all, to see their weapons taken.
It should also be worth noting that, in this particular case, even a restriction on the capacity of guns would not have done anything to help save the life of Rep. Giffords. After all, she was shot by a single bullet. Even on the also generous assumption that a ban of an extended clip would have had an effect on Loughner’s ability to fire, this does not change the fact that a single bullet suffices to take a life. Though perhaps the lives of other victims may have been spared, this would have done nothing to save Rep. Giffords.
Prof. Miron also answers question (4) in the negative. However, his reasons for this answer consist in considering not only the immediate cost of gun control measures, but also other potential, but likely, long-term costs.
But mild controls don’t always stay mild; more often, they evolve into strict limits on guns, bordering on outright prohibition. And this isn’t just slippery-slope speculation; a century ago most countries had few gun controls, yet today many have virtual bans on private ownership. Some of these countries (the U.K. and Japan) have low violence rates that might seem to justify strict controls, yet others experience substantial or extreme violence (Brazil and Mexico).
More broadly, comparisons between states and countries –as well as social-science research — provide no consistent support for the claim that gun controls lower violence.
Where the absolute level of U.S. violent crime stands in relation to the U.K. or Mexico is ultimately irrelevant; the relevant question for policy makers is whether new gun restrictions will result in a lower U.S. crime rate – a proposition cast into doubt by reasons cited above.
Fortunately, one can answer question (3) in the affirmative: there are alternatives to simply further restricting and hampering the right to gun ownership – alternatives that can still have a higher chance of preventing future shootings.
For example, it is wrong to assume that further firearm restrictions can be merely “inconvenient.” Millions of peaceful, harmless individuals who have access to weapons every day for self-defense do not view them as such. Having access to a legal, working firearm is something upon which folks rely for self-protection and safety. This is not “disgusting,” as Sandra puts it. When confronted by dangerous, aggressive, or even armed criminals, a victim of a violent crime can find no protection in gun control. But he can find protection in a weapon. As the phrase goes, “When seconds count, the cops are only minutes away.”
Rather than simply rush to apply the most instinctual solution to the Giffords shooting, we should also explore other alternatives, ones that may actually result in less of a net “inconvenience.”
There is nothing particularly essential, for example, about having a gathering such as the one Rep. Giffords held in such a public and open place. One could instead hold such an event in a more secure location, such as a public building, a local chamber of commerce, or even a school or church – places that can more easily accommodate a security operation and keep away armed threats. Such a decision may result in inconvenience, certainly, but an inconvenience more akin to that presented by traffic lights, to use Sandra’s example.
The Giffords incident should rightly thrust gun control into the national spotlight, but we should take a sober look at the issue, and realize that impulsive restrictions on freedom present no real solution to the problems we face.
Photo Credit: Wikipedia
