Thursday, October 5, 2017

A Tiny Number

Three percent of Americans own 50% of the guns in America.

The survey’s findings support other research showing that as overall rates of gun ownership has declined, the number of firearms in circulation has skyrocketed. The implication is that there are more guns in fewer hands than ever before. The top 3 percent of American adults own, on average, 17 guns apiece, according to the survey’s estimates.

The survey is particularly useful to researchers because it asked respondents not just whether they own guns, but how many and what types of guns they own. This makes for one of the clearest pictures yet of American gun ownership, showing the concentration of most guns in the hands of a small fraction of American adults.

And yet they and their presumptive ally, the NRA, control the debate and the laws — or lack of them — that regulate them.

Bret Stephens, the token conservative columnist at the New York Times, calls for the repeal of the Second Amendment.

I have never understood the conservative fetish for the Second Amendment.

From a law-and-order standpoint, more guns means more murder. “States with higher rates of gun ownership had disproportionately large numbers of deaths from firearm-related homicides,” noted one exhaustive 2013 study in the American Journal of Public Health.

From a personal-safety standpoint, more guns means less safety. The F.B.I. counted a total of 268 “justifiable homicides” by private citizens involving firearms in 2015; that is, felons killed in the course of committing a felony. Yet that same year, there were 489 “unintentional firearms deaths” in the United States, according to the Centers for Disease Control. Between 77 and 141 of those killed were children.

From a national-security standpoint, the Amendment’s suggestion that a “well-regulated militia” is “necessary to the security of a free State,” is quaint. The Minutemen that will deter Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong-un are based in missile silos in Minot, N.D., not farmhouses in Lexington, Mass.

From a personal liberty standpoint, the idea that an armed citizenry is the ultimate check on the ambitions and encroachments of government power is curious. The Whiskey Rebellion of the 1790s, the New York draft riots of 1863, the coal miners’ rebellion of 1921, the Brink’s robbery of 1981 — does any serious conservative think of these as great moments in Second Amendment activism?

And now we have the relatively new and now ubiquitous “active shooter” phenomenon, something that remains extremely rare in the rest of the world. Conservatives often say that the right response to these horrors is to do more on the mental-health front. Yet by all accounts Stephen Paddock would not have raised an eyebrow with a mental-health professional before he murdered 58 people in Las Vegas last week.

What might have raised a red flag? I’m not the first pundit to point out that if a “Mohammad Paddock” had purchased dozens of firearms and thousands of rounds of ammunition and then checked himself into a suite at the Mandalay Bay with direct views to a nearby music festival, somebody at the local F.B.I. field office would have noticed.

The only way the Second Amendment would ever be considered for repeal would be when every non-white man went out and bought an AR-15.  Then you’d see the GOP pass every gun-control proposal ever dreamed up in an afternoon.  Until then, like the system of English weights and measures, we are stuck with an artifact of the 18th century in the hands of the very few.

3 barks and woofs on “A Tiny Number

    • Well, according to the legal beagles, to be considered “domestic terrorism,” the shooter had to be working under the influence of a foreign group such as ISIS. That’s the legal reason, but terrorism is terrorism no matter where it comes from.

  1. The Second Amendment doesn’t need repealing, it just needs the Supremes to go back and check the original language. When Scalia was on the bench he joined with the other conservatives to read that amendment as permission for all (white) males to own guns. In fact the wording goes something like this: IN ORDER TO FORM A MILITIA THE RIGHT OF THE CITIZENS TO OWN FIREARMS MUST NOT BE ABRIDGED. When that was written there was concern, and rightfully so, that the monarch would deprive the patriots of the ability to defend themselves. Indians lived on the edge of the settlements and threatened the settlers’ lives. And of course there was every unwritten intention of forming a revolt against the crown.

Comments are closed.