There's No Such Thing as Gun Control
I don’t want this blog to be about politics. That would probably get very depressing very quickly. But there is one area where I feel it’s worth a one-and-done post.
“Gun Control” seems to be a perennial topic these days - whether it’s the latest atrocity in the USA, or European governments seeking to tighten regulations. But it’s a term I take great issue with for one simple reason: It’s meaningless.
Ask yourself this:
What is Gun Control?
There’s the problem. “Gun Control” is at best an umbrella term that could include:
- Background Checks
- Age limits
- Licensing of individuals
- Licensing of dealers/the trade
- Registration of Firearms
- Regulations disqualifying convicted criminals from acquiring or possessing firearms
- Outright prohibition of one or more categories of firearms
- Minimum secure storage requirements
- Border inspections to prevent the smuggling of firearms
- Police operations to prevent the illicit manufacture of firearms
- Effective Enforcement of all the above
And within those are a glut of possible different implementations.
If you ever find yourself having a discussion or reading an article about “gun control” that isn’t making the effort to specify at least some of those points, then there’s a fair chance you are reading propaganda. When a Fox News anchor rails against “gun control” in the US are they saying a twelve year old should be able to buy firearms off the shelf like chocolate with no restrictions, or are they objecting to an outright ban of some description? The vague framing is usually deliberate - they don’t get into specifics because they’re shock jocks seeking an emotional “gut” reaction from their audience. Of course so too are the reactionary politicians clamouring to be seen as “Tough on Crime, Tough on the Causes Symptoms of Crime” without worrying too much about “details”. Such is the nature of the toxic, partisan “in-or-out” politics of 2019.
Invariably, what is offered is a false dichotomy - if you are for “gun control” then you must be against liberty or freedom (and conversely that to be “against gun control” is to be directly supportive or complicit in school shootings). This unhelpful position is picked apart very well by Brene Brown in her article Gun Reform: Speaking Truth to Bullshit, Practicing Civility, and Effecting Change.
Does it make a difference?
The example often given is that Britain (with its strict gun laws and relatively low gun ownership) has low levels of violent crime, whilst the US (with lax laws and high ownership) has high crime. Of course any fool can draw a line between two points - that does not mean there is a correlation, much less a causal link.
When we include the rest of the “developed” world - namely the EU, plus Switzerland, Iceland and Australasia what seems clear is that most developed nations have homicide rates significantly lower than 2 per 100k people, which compares very favourably with the ~5.3/100k average for the US.
Yet most European nations permit the private ownership of most types of firearm subject to licensing. Only the UK has gone “off the deep end” and prohibited entire classes of firearm. For its effort though, the UK’s homicide rate is a very average 1.2/100k. By way of example, every country on the following list except Britain permits the private ownership of pistols for target shooting. Only America has no federal/national licensing scheme. The numbers are “homicide rate per 100,000 people”.
- USA: 5.30
- Hungary: 2.50
- Estonia: 2.20
- France: 1.50
- UK: 1.20
- Germany: 1.00
- Iceland: 0.90
- Spain: 0.70
- Italy: 0.67
- Czech Republic: 0.60
- Norway: 0.50
- Switzerland: 0.50
Are those numbers selected to make a point? Yes, a little - it’s a short list. But if you care to examine the rest of the EU you find the same point holds. The key takeaway is, all those countries have higher legal gun ownership than the UK.
There is clearly something more nuanced going on that gives lie to the idea private ownership of firearms correlates with crime. The basic trend seems to be that licensing is wildly effective in bringing down homicide rates, but prohibitions are not. Once you have implemented a basic series of background checks and confirming bona-fides (such as membership of a club) then further restrictions (such as prohibiting pistols entirely) are well into diminishing returns. Experience in the UK shows that twenty years after prohibiting pistols in England, Scotland and Wales our levels of homicide and firearm crime are low, but entirely in line with countries which did not - such as the entirety of Europe and indeed Northern Ireland. Moreover, Government figures indicate that the most common firearm used in firearms crime is a pistol. Criminal fraternities are certainly not getting them from legal shooters (who don’t have pistols), and it’s well established that they are being smuggled in, or simply manufactured illicitly within the UK.
This is why nuance is so important. Ask many British shooters if they support “gun control” and they will not be able to answer simply. They will all support the sensible and rigorous licensing process, but many will feel the 1997 prohibitions on pistols have been utterly pointless (even Lord Cullen did not recommend it, going so far as to call such a move “draconian”):
9.113 If for any reason that course is not to be followed I see no alternative to considering the more draconian alternative of a ban on multi-shot handguns. However, in such circumstances I would suggest that the ban should be directed to the possession of such handguns by individual owners rather than the possession of handguns by shooting clubs, since it is through possession by individuals that the risk, in so far as there is a risk, of homicide or serious injury arises. Thus I do not consider that the banning of handguns for target shooting or the banning of shooting clubs would be justified. I have no particular recommendation as to the legislative means by which effect would be given to such a ban.
But I digress.
If you are a politician finding yourself talking about “gun control” or being told by a lobbyist that countries with more guns have more crime or homicides, then take pause and think about whether you are being misled. The truth is far, far, more nuanced than idiotic soundbites like “It’s the guns, Stupid” or “If only there had been a good guy with a gun”. Such platitudes do a great disservice to your constituents; make you look foolish and naive, ultimately impeding the development of effective, evidence-based policy and legislation.
If you’re going to write about gun control or lobby on the issue. Please, for the love of all that is accurate, study up, understand the issues you are writing about and get specific. If you can’t talk details, you don’t have an opinion worth listening too. Worse yet, talking about gun control in broad terms frequently ends up coming across as a rant. It’s not specific, it doesn’t help formulate useful policy - it adds nothing of value to the debate and is trivially dismissed.
Also, if you’re in Europe, just ignore America. They add nothing to the discourse other than being a bad example. Let’s all be like Norway, Switzerland or the Czech Republic where civil liberties are effectively balanced with rigorous licensing and regulatory controls.
There is far too much “in-or-out” partisan nonsense in the mainstream discourse and the world is a worse place for it. Let’s do better.