Constitutional Law

Gun Control Policies Have Been Destructive, Ineffective, And Unnecessary

Dread it, run from it, the brutal reality of prohibition still arrives as long as significant portions of the population demand it as a policy solution.

By  
on

Guns are a totem in society, an emblem that seems to represent either the epitome of freedom, or fear. Unlike most Americans, I find myself seeing both representations when I look at guns. The “gun nut” culture that fetishizes gun ownership scares and bewilders me. I own guns, but I am not a “proud” gun owner nor do I understand the reason to flaunt my ownership to those who do not approve, other than to satisfy some deranged psychosis.

Growing up in Alaska as I did meant that guns were a regular part of life, in my case primarily for subsistence hunting. Alaska is a very rural place to put it mildly, and it was easy growing up to understand that people desired guns to protect themselves — from intruders both of the human and animal variety — given that police protection was not always readily available. This is not to say that my upbringing has deluded me from the stark reality of guns; they are deadly weapons that kill a lot of innocent Americans. Gun ownership is also a protected right in the United States. When you merge these two realities together, the question inevitably becomes to what degree should the right to own guns be curtailed in order to prevent gun deaths?

For many, the answer is wholesale prohibition of certain guns from society. Prohibition is not a crazy idea to begin with really. Thinking that banning, or rationing and restricting, the use of something, which can cause harm, might be a good way to mitigate the harm is a logical inference to start with. However, when implemented, the policy of prohibition comes with a far worse negative effect on certain demographics than the harm it is designed to prevent.

As the artist and activist Killer Mike put it recently, gun “laws are going to affect us worse, and they are going to affect us first.” The simple facts prove his prediction is correct. Wherever strict prohibition style gun control measures are implemented, a negative impact has been disproportionately felt on black people. Therefore, the destructive ends that prohibitionist policies reap on whole categories of my fellow Americans represents my primary justification in opposing them. What frustrates me is that I typically do not have to try to convince liberals of how prohibition policies in the context of drugs end up targeting communities of color. When it comes to guns however, my liberal friends often seem to turn a blind eye to the great pain that prohibition inflicts or simply view it as an unfortunate consequence to a worthwhile policy goal they feel will save lives. Which brings me to my second point of contention.

My second main objection to most gun control measures is that they are ineffective. After every horrific instance of gun violence (a form of violence that is decreasing not increasing in society, more on that below), it is endlessly said that gun control is the “solution.” Yet, whenever that claim is tested, in virtually every case it is shown that “none of today’s gun control measures” would have kept the firearm from being in the perpetrators hands. If these policies worked, maybe those who fall victim to their disproportionate impact could find some measure of solace. The fact that such measures do not work however only adds further insult to an already costly injury.

The third reason I oppose most gun control prohibitions is that they are unnecessary. Despite gloom and doom proclamations to the contrary, gun violence, including in our nation’s schools, is declining. But if you base your beliefs about the rate of gun violence in our country from watching the news, your beliefs are going to be incorrect. This is not, as many of our current president’s supporters like to claim because of “fake news” or a mainstream media conspiracy. Instances of gun violence, including in our nation’s schools are very real, but also undeniably less common than they once were.

Four decades ago, Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky demonstrated that people assume a distorted sense of risk based on how easily they can recall events from memory. Instances of gun violence in schools are legitimate newsworthy events that cause a tremendous amount of terror and grief that rightfully should stay in our minds. They are also, thankfully, not accurate indicators for the current state of violence in this country. It behooves us to keep an accurate perception of gun violence in mind to avoid reactionary prohibition laws that are far reaching and brutally enforced on certain segments of the population.

Sponsored

In the years since the assault weapons ban expired in 2004, the murder rate has fallen drastically, including during the last few years. Of course, the United States still has more gun violence than other countries, which is undoubtedly because of the sheer amount of guns in our society.  However, as Jeffrey Goldberg pointed out years ago, it’s simply not rational to believe that we can solve the problem of gun violence by relying on prohibition policies. That is not to say that we simply throw up our hands to the problem. There are a number of legitimately hopeful policies that I would support; including gun-violence restraining orders, universal background checks, and diverting more resources towards mental healthcare. What we should not do is compound societal problems by constantly turning to destructive, ineffective, and unnecessary policies.

Tyler Broker is the Free Expression and Privacy Fellow at the University of Arizona James E. Rogers College of Law. His work has been published in the Gonzaga Law Review and the Albany Law Review. Feel free to email him or follow him on Twitter to discuss his column.

Sponsored

Topics

, , ,