Is gun control effective? Evidence says, “meh."
Studies suggest that some gun-control policies are, at best, cartoonish.
Before I proceed, I want to express my deepest condolences to the victims of recent tragedies and their families. My intent is not to belittle such loss but rather to satirize the goofy policies that overinflate their ability to solve this complex and troubling issue.
Leah Libresco isn’t goofy. In fact, she did something quite remarkable: She weighed the evidence and changed her mind.
Libresco, along with her fellow journalists at FiveThirtyEight, analyzed gun deaths in the United States (roughly, 33,000), evaluated peer-reviewed research, and published an interactive, narrative-based visualization. Suffice to say, Libresco and her merry band of data dweebs did more than just Google it.
Politically, Libresco leans left, so, naturally, she expected the conclusion of her work to be “duh — gun control, of course.” Empiricism got the best of her politics, though.
“We looked at what interventions might have saved those people, and the case for the policies I’d lobbied for crumbled when I examined the evidence,” wrote Libresco.
To help visualize this issue, I find it helpful to imagine the scene in “Despicable Me” where a young Felonious Gru (who will play the anthropomorphized role of gun control proposals in this metaphor) struggles to win the approval of his curmudgeonly mother, Marlena Gru (playing the role of evidence).
“Look, mom,” said the proposal. “I will ban assault weapons.”
“Meh,” said the evidence dismissively.
Case in point: the Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994. This ten-year experiment prohibited the manufacture, possession, and transfer of “semiautomatic assault weapons.” However, the ban only targeted the cosmetic elements of firearms, so all that gun manufacturers needed to skirt this law was a little extra rouge and lipstick.
As expected, the ban’s impact on violence was minimal. The Justice Department concluded, “Should it be renewed, the ban’s effects on gun violence are likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement.” Typically, references to size elicit sophomoric humor; fortunately, I’m a mature commentator. I now return to my belabored metaphor of a children’s cartoon.
“Look, mom. I will ban the AR-15.”
“Meh.”
The New York Times, not known for being an NRA shill, conducted their own analysis on mass shooters and their use of the AR-15. The Times found that, between 2007 and 2018, these madmen killed 173 people — roughly, 15 per year. For perspective, on average, 13 people die per year from vending machines falling on them.
“Look, mom. I will enact Australian-style gun control.”
“Meh.”
In the aftermath of the Port Arthur massacre, Australian lawmakers passed the National Firearms Agreements (NFA), which tightened controls on firearms and enforced a mandatory buyback program. If it’s good enough for the Aussies, then it is good enough for us Yanks, right?
Not so fast, mate. Scholars refute the correlation between this law and declines in gun violence. Overall violence was already declining before the legislation took effect. One study found that, while firearms deaths declined in the 20-year period following NFA’s enactment, non-firearm deaths also decreased but more precipitously. Put simply, the Aussies — much like us Yanks who have experienced a 50% decline in violent crime in the past three decades — were not only less shooty but also even less stabby and chokey.
Furthermore, transplanting policy from Down Under may prove to be complicated. Harvard researchers analyzed the NFA and concluded, “It does not appear that the Australian experience with gun buybacks is fully replicable in the United States.” Activists may have better luck banning Vegemite due to its high concentration of artificial folic acids — a big no-no with the FDA.
“Look, mom. I will save Black lives.”
“Meh.”
It is no laughing matter that Black Americans are disproportionately victims of gun violence. Accompanying this violence against Black people is also the mass incarceration of Black people. And what is locking up Black people?
Duh — gun control, of course.
According to the U.S. Sentencing Commission, 50.4% of those convicted of federal gun crimes are Black. The Bureau of Labor of Justice statistics also found that law enforcement arrested Black people for gun crimes five times more than white people. If you believe that Black lives matter, then so do Black guns.
The word “denialism” gets thrown around a lot, especially in the environmental debate. Those in favor of increased environmental protections often use this pejorative against their opponents. To be clear, anybody who unironically posits “if there is global warming, then why is there snow?” is a denialist worthy of full-throated mockery. This argument is goofy, too.
However, is it appropriate to use the same slur when somebody jettisons empiricism in favor of emotional appeals but does so with guns? Is “gun denialism” a thing? My assumption is yes, but perhaps I should wait until the evidence says “meh.”
