For gun control advocates, last fall's election results demonstrated theSisyphean nature of battling the National Rifle Association. Senator JohnAshcroft of Missouri was one of five NRA allies in Congress who was voted out, inpart because of organized efforts by activist groups such as Handgun Control. Butwith George W. Bush in the White House, Ashcroft rose again and now, as attorneygeneral, appears to be in a stronger position than ever to help the NRA.
And Congress, meanwhile, seems entirely cowed by the NRA's clout. Considerthe mild reaction to shootings at two San Diego schools in March. CongressionalDemocrats, who have become increasingly quiescent on gun issues, showed littleinterest in pursuing new gun curbs. Even such longtime gun control supporters asNew York Senator Charles Schumer were speaking not of tougher laws but ofvoluntary measures. Further, the minimal step of requiring unlicensed dealers atgun shows to make thorough background checks is stalled in Congress, while aweaker proposal by Arizona Senator John McCain seems to be gaining traction.
Gun control advocates have long been faulted for lacking grass-roots strength,for being too reactive and fragmented as a movement, and for failing to offercomprehensive and convincing agendas for gun control. And yet a small mountain ofevidence about America's gun problem has been compiled. Several recent booksprovide intellectual ammunition against the NRA as well as useful perspectivesabout new strategies for legislation that could curb gun violence.
In Gun Violence, economists Philip J. Cook and Jens Ludwig have marshaled new information and research to present a compelling picture of the true dimensions and extraordinary costs of gun violence in the United States. The book also debunks some of the key arguments of the NRA and its academic defenders.
More than one million Americans have died from gunshot wounds since 1965. Bycomparison, 600,000 Americans perished in all of the twentieth century's wars.It's true that the number of Americans killed by guns annually declined in thelast decade--from a 1993 high of 39,595 to about 32,000 in 1997. But the U.S.homicide rate is still "far in excess of any other developed nation," the authorsnote, and that's mostly attributable to the nation's arsenal of some 200 millionguns, of which almost a third are handguns.
What makes Cook and Ludwig's book novel and important is their careful effort tocalculate the total costs of gun violence. Beyond determining the medical costsfor treatment of wounds and the lost productivity of victims of violence, Cookand Ludwig factor in a variety of more-difficult-to-measure costs. These rangefrom the seemingly mundane--time spent at airports going through metaldetectors--to more complex factors such as the widespread fear of living orworking in violent places. "Most of what's at stake here are intangible factorsnot traded in the marketplace--freedom from the threat of gun violence, relieffrom the necessity of taking steps to reduce the threat," the authors write.
Cook and Ludwig employ a method known as contingent valuation, pioneered byeconomist Thomas Schelling, in which people are asked to quantify just how muchthey would pay to solve a social problem. Extrapolating from results of anationwide telephone survey of 1,200 individuals, the authors concluded thatcitizens would pay $80 billion to alleviate criminal gun use. Gun suicides andaccidental shootings cost society about $20 billion yearly, the authorscalculate, using a figure derived from earlier studies of lost work time and whatjuries have awarded to compensate gunshot victims or their families.
Challenging the oft-repeated arguments of economist John Lott, author of MoreGuns, Less Crime, Cook and Ludwig say there's scant evidence that violent crime is reduced by "concealed carry" laws like those passed in about 30 states because of NRA lobbying. The authors contend that Lott "confounded the effects of concealed carry laws with other factors" and that "the best available evidence suggests that permissive concealed carry laws have little or no effect on violent crime and injuries."
Eclectic and comprehensive in proposing remedies, Cook and Ludwig say the toppriority ought to be "closing the gaping loophole" that now allows private salesof firearms at gun shows without the criminal background checks that licenseddealers must make before they sell guns. Among their other proposals: Firearmsought to be regulated as consumer products and new gun designs should personalizeweapons to prevent use by children or criminals. They also urge more funding fortargeted police patrols in neighborhoods where gun violence is prevalent. Andthey favor stronger prison sentences for felons who use guns in crimes--an ideathat's been championed, as well, by the NRA. Further, the authors point out thathandgun bans, which have been tried in the District of Columbia, have real merit,though not much possibility of becoming widespread in the near term.
But why is comprehensive legislation to curb gun violence so rare in thiscountry? Shots in the Dark by William J. Vizzard, who spent 27 years as a special agent with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms and now teaches criminal justice at California State University, offers historical insight into this question. The author provides a survey of past attempts at gun legislation, coupled with a guide to the key debates, players, and symbols that have been at the center of gun politics in recent years.
Vizzard's account illuminates just how piecemeal gun control legislation hasbeen. He also faults gun control advocates for their limited vision. "Debate nowcenters around child safety, minimal expansions of the Brady Law and thedefinition of assault weapons," he writes. "This pursuit of modest politicallyattractive but largely ineffective programs has been ingrained in advocatesduring the past two decades." Since the 1968 Gun Control Act, Vizzard notes,almost every legislative effort has taken an incremental approach. The result hasbeen a "massive unregulated increase in the gun population."
The reasons why comprehensive bills haven't been pushed go beyond the NRA's cloutand the tendency of gun control groups to look for winnable battles. Vizzardobserves that there are guns in about 40 percent of American households and thatmost are used for recreation and sporting activities. For most gun owners, "thefear of prohibition provides the tie that binds them to the NRA and motivatestheir opposition to all gun control proposals." Ultimately, a key challenge forgroups that oppose the gun lobby is to "repudiate prohibition as an objective,avoid rhetoric that demonizes gun owners, and avoid support for controlobjectives that do not further their avowed goals." These are wise words that guncontrol advocates should heed if they want to have a decent chance at passingcomprehensive restrictions on guns.
Respecting the rights of law-abiding gun owners is one thing. Dealing with theflood of handguns used in crime is another. Josh Sugarmann, a tough-mindedadvocate who directs the Washington, D.C.based Violence Policy Center, makescompelling arguments in Every Handgun Is Aimed at You. He presents a strong case that in the long run gun control advocates must set their sights on getting rid of handguns. Sugarmann details how and why handguns have proliferated in the United States, and he documents the toll they have taken in human lives.
To go after handguns, the movement needs to be bolder. "America's gun lobbywould be on the run if only gun control advocates would bother to chase them," hewrites in his introduction. "Instead, trapped by their perception of thepolitically achievable, gun control advocates are always on the defensive. Alltoo often their opening offer is their bottom line." Sugarmann laments thatproposals to ban handguns, which were a central focus of advocates from the 1960sto the early 1980s, have faded from political debates. The backsliding occurredin part because gun rights groups invoked the "slippery slope" argument, whichhas reliably aroused worries in hunters and sportsmen that their guns would benext if handguns were banned.
Sugarmann cites a 1994 study sponsored by the Police Foundation that found thatAmericans owned 192 million guns--65 million handguns, 119 million rifles andshotguns, and 8 million other types of guns. Significantly, the study showed thatsales of handguns had surged in the last several decades and that they were ownedby about one in six Americans. In general, handgun owners are white,conservative, and live in rural areas, according to the study. While 26 percentof males in the United States possess handguns, only 6.6 percent of women do.
It's not that all these gun owners have criminal intent, of course; but handgunshave become the weapon of choice for criminals because of what the author callsthe "three deadly Cs": Handguns are prized for their concealability, theircapacity, and their caliber. These factors add up to more firepower and morebloodshed. Sugarmann notes that from 1990 to 1999, handguns were used in about 75percent of so-called high-profile shootings. Other studies have shown thathandguns are used in 81 percent of all firearms homicides. "Trying to preventmass shootings without taking into account the central role of the handgun is anexercise in futility," the author concludes.
In the book's best chapters, Sugarmann carefully dissects the central argumentsthe NRA and other gun rights groups have propagated about handguns that, by dintof repetition, have too often been accepted by the public and the media. For onething, handguns don't achieve the self-defense objectives that their proponentswould have us believe, despite gun industry claims and massive marketing andadvertising campaigns. Keeping a handgun in the house only increases the riskthat someone will be killed or hurt by the weapon, according to the studiesSugarmann cites. Dr. Arthur Kellerman, who studied handgun use in King County,Washington, found that between 1978 and 1982 there were 43 deaths for everyself-defense homicide. And a New England Journal of Medicine study found that keeping a handgun on hand triples the risk that one member of a household will shoot another member.
While fewer than 25 percent of Americans own handguns, several polls in recentyears have revealed that about a third of the public favors a ban on handguns. Aswell, Sugarmann argues that the Second Amendment should not pose an obstacle toa handgun ban. The Supreme Court has refused to review a 1981 ban on the saleand possession of handguns that was adopted by Morton Grove, Illinois. And, asSugarmann observes, no less a conservative icon than Robert H. Bork wrote in his1996 book Slouching Towards Gomorrah that the Supreme Court has "consistently ruled that there is no individual right to own a firearm."
But Sugarmann is too experienced an activist to think that a handgun ban islikely any time soon. So he offers some useful suggestions for how the issue canbe revived: Build coalitions with natural allies such as women's groups andpublic-health activists; try to ban handguns in states that permit communities topreempt state laws; do more nitty-gritty grass-roots work, much as the NRA doesthrough phone calls and letters to government officials. Sugarmann's book offersa commendably broad vision for the gun control movement. His ideas are worthserious thought. While expectations for change in Washington are low for now, itmakes sense for gun control advocates to turn to the states for tougher gunlaws--and all the while to keep their eyes on the long-term goal of preventinggun violence by restricting the supply of handguns.
