Click here to subscribe today or Login.
Opinions vary nationally on the root cause, but we really do not know why the United States has been experiencing so much gun violence in recent years. Are there too many firearms or not enough of them available? Are shootings the direct result of drug addiction or the manifestation of an overburdened mental health system? The reason or reasons might not be clear, but we do know our nation has a deadly problem.
The Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research says the U.S. has 10 times as many gun deaths per year as other wealthy nations. Tragically, that includes about 3,000 children – almost all of them shot in their homes and neighborhoods, not in mass shootings. Another 7,000 are injured every year, according to the journal Pediatrics. Shootings are one of the top three causes of death among children, claiming twice as many as cancer and 15 times as many as infections, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics.
Maybe we could do something to solve this epidemic if we knew why we have it in the first place. Our ignorance is a result of the Dickey Amendment, which was pushed by the National Rifle Association after a 1993 study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that homes with guns were at an increased risk for homicides, suicides and accidents. The NRA – a lobbying group for the gun industry – pushed Congress to stop the CDC from studying gun safety by restricting the use of federal funding for gun violence research. The 1996 ban remains in effect today, as Congress recently renewed it and voted to provide no money to the CDC to study gun issues.
Americans have a constitutional right to own guns, but based on the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller, that right is not unconditional. Probably, not all of us (for example, people on terrorist watch lists) should be allowed to own guns, and maybe none of us should be allowed to own the type of war weapons used to kill 26 children and teachers in Newtown, Connecticut.
Fear sells guns, even when it is unwarranted. President Barack Obama’s opponents convinced many to see him as a tyrant, even though he has been a consistent force for peace. At a recent U.S. House of Representatives hearing, his opponents accused him of ruling with a “dictatorship” in a “totalitarian government.” Gun sales spiked when he was elected and again when he was re-elected.
The president never has behaved like a tyrant. In fact, when gun-toting Cliven Bundy – a “hero” to right-wing politicians – refused to pay grazing fees, the Bureau of Land Management backed off rather than force a confrontation with his supporters. More recently, Texas officials, aided by U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, stoked fears – and gun sales – by claiming President Obama intended to use the army to occupy the state.
Americans also have been convinced that we need guns for self-defense. The NRA says 2.5 million people annually use guns to protect themselves, their loved ones or their properties. The National Crime Victimization Survey, however, determined the actual rate is less than 5 percent of the NRA’s estimate. Others have produced different estimates. So, we really do not know whether, how or how often guns are used in self-defense, even though, according to Harvard University researchers, there is no evidence that having a gun in a house reduces the risk of being a victim of a crime.
The opposite, however, is true. Concerned for children, the American Academy of Pediatrics urged us to remove all guns from our homes, regardless of what kind and how well they are secured. Children die from gunshots at a rate 13 times higher than the rates in other developed nations. For young Americans ages 15 to 24, the rate is 43 times higher. Gun owners and their children are at greater risk of suicide. According to Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, children are more likely to kill each other than to be hurt by terrorists.
Maybe we need guns to fight immigrants, who some presidential candidates say are potential terrorists. According to the CDC, between 2001 and 2013, 406,496 people were killed by guns in the United States; 3,030 were killed by terrorists, but that includes the nearly 3,000 people who tragically died on 9/11, an event that no number of “good guys with guns” could have prevented.
Gun laws do not prevent all violence, but we know that states with the strictest gun laws have the fewest gun deaths, and vice versa. In 2007, murders increased by 18 percent in Missouri after the state eliminated most of its gun laws. Nationally, the murder rate decreased by 11 percent, according to media reports. Gun crimes in the state doubled and, in its rural areas, suicides increased by 16 percent. In St. Louis, there were 138 gun fatalities. By comparison, in New York City, which has strict gun laws, there were far fewer. In Manhattan, for instance, there were 36 gun-related homicides.
Doctors for America, the American College of Preventive Medicine, and the American Academy of Pediatrics have asked for the repeal of the Dickey Amendment and for Congress to support research. Even former U.S. Rep. Jay Dickey, of Arkansas, opposes the amendment that bears his name. He’s stated: “Doing nothing is no longer an acceptable solution.”
Research on gun violence will not infringe on anyone’s “right to keep and bear arms.” Maybe it will even prove the NRA is right: Maybe we do need more and bigger guns in our malls, theaters, churches, schools and homes.
We cannot solve the problem, though, unless we know its cause – even with the well-intentioned executive orders being considered by the president. In the new year, we all – including the responsible members of the NRA – should urge Congress to repeal the Dickey Amendment and fund a CDC-led effort to study gun violence. What does the NRA have to fear?