THE UNITED STATES AND ITS INFATUATION WITH GUNS

By Ron Walsh

‘’The guns are not the problem’’. So claimed Greg Abbott, the ubiquitous Republican Governor of the state of Texas, in May of 2023 whilst commenting on the latest mass-shooting in the country. According to Abbott most shootings, mass or singular, are simply down to mental illness on the part of the perpetuators.

Former President Donald Trump is of the same mind, and claims that when returned to office he will ensure than anyone suffering from mental illness will be removed from the public domain as a potential danger, and taken care of medically. Thus the overwhelming homicide problem that is endemic in the country will vanish, if not exactly overnight, but sometime soon. The mental illness angle is the latest enlightenment to emerge from The Republican Party (The Grand Old Party), and as the murders continue that mantra is repeated by the faithful, ad nauseam. But the facts and figures do not support their thesis.

Over many decades 132 perpetrators were arrested following mass-shootings, but only five of them were adjudged to suffer from mental illness, and treated accordingly. (If there are four or more homicide victims the incident is regarded as a mass-shooting) Along with the 132 people just mentioned, the remaining 231 perpetrators were shot dead by members of the police-force, or took their own lives.

Late in 2015 ‘’The Washington Post’’ newspaper reported that the U.S. was averaging almost one mass-shooting per day, and presented figures to back up their statement! There had been 294 such outrages during the year, with 1,464 people either killed or wounded. While the gun-lobby prefers to count only those who are actually killed, the ‘’Post’’ was counting everyone who had been shot, thus producing much higher figures. Although assault-rifles have been used in many school shootings, handguns were the main weapon-of-choice, around 60%. Accurate research figures is hampered by the fact that the type of weapon used is often not actually recorded.

Mass-shootings are rare in Europe, although they do occur occasionally. Nine students were killed early in 2023 inside a Belgrade school in Serbia by a 13-year-old boy. Two days later eight more people were killed in three separate villages just south of Belgrade, by a 21-year-old man. The President of the country called for tougher gun laws.

The very first recorded school-killing in the United States occurred before the commencement of the American civil war, in 1840 in the state of Virginia, when a teacher was shot dead by an irate parent. The first mass-shooting in an educational setting was carried out by a former Marine in Austin, Texas, in 1966. He initially killed his wife and mother before using the University of Texas clock-tower as a snipers nest from where he killed fifteen more people, while wounding 31.

Over 47 years, from 1968 through 2015, 1.53 million people died in the U.S. by guns. During all the wars the country had been involved in from 1775 through 2017, including two World Wars, Vietnam, the Civil War and the Revolutionary War, total losses came to 1.2 million people. And what is not well known is the fact that suicides have long accounted for the majority of U.S. gun deaths. In 2021 alone, 55% of all gun-related deaths were suicides (26,3280, the highest figure since 2001) while 43% were murders (20,958). The remaining gun deaths that year were; accidental (549), death by cop (537), and undetermined (458). Over four out of every five murders that year (81%) involved a firearm, the highest percentage since 1968. Those statistics do not take into account the nations growing population, so on a per capita basis there were 14.6 gun deaths per 100,000 people in 2021, lower than the 16.3 gun deaths recorded in 1974.

Staying with 2021, those states with the highest rate of overall gun deaths were Mississippi (33.9 per 100,000 people), Louisiana (29.1), New Mexico 27.8), Alabama (26.4) and Wyoming (26.1). Those with the lowest rates turned out to be Rhode Island (5.6), New York (5.4), New Jersey (5.2), Hawaii (4.8) and Massachusetts (3.4). The states with the highest gun suicide rates had been Wyoming (22.8), Montana (21.1), Alaska (19.9) and New Mexico (13.9), while the lowest were Connecticut (2.9), Hawaii (2.8) and New York (2.0).

The gun death rate in the U.S. is much higher than most other countries, especially in the developed world. While it is well below the rates in several Latin American countries, that in itself is neither surprising nor encouraging. The U.S. rate in 2016 was 10.6 per 100,000. World figures that same year included France (2.7), Canada (2.1), Australia (1.0), Germany (0.9) and Spain (0.6). Far higher figures were reached in El Salvador (39.2), Venezuela (38.7), Guatemala (32.3), Colombia (25.9) and Honduras (22.5).

It was stated in June of this current year (2023) that suicide rates in the country had increased dramatically throughout 2021/22, and up to June, particularly in the 10 to 14 year-old age-group! That information is extremely worrying. The bullying and dreadful behaviour carried out almost continuously on Social Media, in the guise of ‘’Free Speech’’, was cited as having been one of the main reasons. (It has to be sincerely hoped that Artificial Intelligence will be monitored far better than Social Media had been) Experts also concluded that many youths have undoubtedly been impacted by gun violence itself. Let Governor Abbott, ex-President Trump, and the GOP in general, take these facts into account and cease playing games with young peoples lives.

( It should be noted by men in high positions who have a great desire to control women’s rights, that unwanted pregnancies can sometimes cause mental illness, whether the result of rape, incest, or simply a mistake.)

...............................................................................................................................................................

Recording the numbers of homicides back in the 1800’s was something that was not done, although the figure of half-a-million deaths during the civil-war has to be pretty close. The number of Native-American deaths overall is not fully known, even though the figures from the most famous battles such as the one on the Little Bighorn river (Custer’s Last Stand) and the slaughter at Wounded Knee areaccurate. Numerous killings took place in the old Wild West over many decades, not as depicted in some of the best western movies, where two men face each other and the winner is the one with the fastest draw, as though there had been a referee present who would shout ‘’now’’ at the appropriate moment.

In fact most of the killings carried out back then were bushwhackings, a method for dealing with ones enemies which was employed by such diverse character’s as lawman Wild Bill Hickok, and the outlaw Billy the Kid. Both men were gunned down without being given any warning of their immanent demise. Hickok was involved in a game of poker inside a Deadwood saloon when shot in the back, while holding black aces and eights, which later became known as the ‘’dead man’s hand’’. The Kid was tracked down in the middle of the night by sheriff Pat Garrett in New Mexico, where he was shot dead without any warning. There were very little niceties back in the day.

Has the lure of the Wild West and its many myth’s been one of the reasons why so many Americans today are infatuated with guns? (The overwhelming use of violent video games has to be part part of the problem also) The Second Amendment to the Constitution reads as follows; ‘’A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed’’.

During the Revolutionary War against the British, the ‘’Militia’’, as referred to in the Amendment, were groups of men who banded together to protect their communities, towns, colonies and eventually states, following the 1776 Declaration of Independence. Many Americans believed that governments used soldiers to put down the ordinary people, and that the federal government should only be allowed to raise an army when facing a foreign foe. (That was later changed to allow the establishment of a standing army even in peacetime) They also believed that each community or state should have its own part-time militia, consisting of ordinary civilians employing their own weapons.

In addition to checking federal power the Second Amendment also provided state governments with the ability ‘’to thwart and oppose the general government’’. It enshrines the ancient Florentine and Roman constitutional principle of civil and military virtue by making every citizen a soldier.

Shortly after the Constitution was officially ratified, James Madison proposed the Second Amendment as a way to empower state militias, and also to ensure that the federal government did not have the authority to disarm citizens. Ever since then Americans have debated the full meaning of the Amendment, whether it protects the right of private individuals to keep and bear arms, or whether it protects a right that should be exercised only through formal militia units. Those who argue the latter point to the words ‘’A well-regulated Militia’’, and claim that the right to bear arms should be given only to organised groups such as the National Guard, a reserve military force that replaced the state militias following the civil-war.

Those who oppose that argument claim that the Amendment gives every citizen the right to own guns in order to protect themselves. The National Rifle Association (NRA), which was founded in 1871, has always vehemently supported that idea while pursuing a vigorous campaign against every gun control measure proposed at local, state and federal level. Donald Trump, who had little interest in guns throughout his early life, soon discovered how beneficial the support of the NRA could be, with its millions of members, whilst seeking the Presidency.

................................................................................................................................................................

In March of 2021 following a mass-shooting in Boulder, Colorado, Senator Rafael Edward Cruz (Ted) of the state of Texas, commented that the Democrats were playing ‘’theatre’’ with their proposed gun-control changes, and like many others he offered ‘’thoughts and prayers for the victims’’. That condescending offer was not of much help to the victims families, while at the same time it was becoming blindingly obvious to about half of the nation that something had to be done to greatly reduce the outlandish number of homicides. But too many people in powerful positions either supported the gun-lobby, or simply sat on the fence. Was it fear for their careers, a shortage of intelligence, or simply a lack of moral compass. Maybe it was all of the above. But vested interests werealsoinvolved.

A lack of moral compass is certainly nothing new amongst politicians, and very few of them would be included in any proposed up-to-date edition of the 1956 John F. Kennedy book ‘’Profiles in Courage’’. Indeed the aforementioned Ted Cruz, along with many highly-rated members of the GOP, had been extremely critical of Donald Trump after the latter put his name forward as a contender for the Republican Party’s nomination for the U.S. Presidency. Trump replied in kind to Cruz, only more so. And not only did he lambast poor old Ted, he also dispensed some harsh comments at the Senator’s wife and father. Yet, when The Donald was nominated to run, and after Ted was advised that his political career would go down the tubes if he didn’t start to whistle a different tune, he managed to pull himself up by his bootstraps and canvassed wholeheartedly for his former nemesis. It has to be mentioned that there were some brave members of the party who continued to stand their ground, butwhoeventuallylost-out because of havingdone so.

In 2012, twenty-six people had been slaughtered at the Sandy Hook Elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut. Six teachers, and twenty children aged between five and ten years! Following that particular horror-story many people within and without the U.S. assumed that at last something substantial would be done about the practically free-availability of guns throughout the country. But the gun-lovers had no need to worry, because not enough people in high positions saw any reason to suddenly develop a conscience simply because of the slain children and teachers. And nothing happened.

Within the confines of the U.S. there is an estimated 390 million guns, in a population of 336 million people! Over half of the worlds civilian-owned guns! Even that dreadful figure is not accurate, as many experts claim that the real figure is likely to be somewhat closer to double that when unregistered weapons are factored in! The U.S. has a major gun-problem that is not, apparently, going to go away anytime soon.

................................................................................................................................................................

Over the decades someattempts have been made to reduce the amount of guns in circulation and thus reduce the number of homicides. But even that very statement, less guns less killings, would not be accepted by the gun-lobby, althoughmany studies have shown it to be a fact. When such studies doappear an opposite viewpoint will soon be presented with the full blessing of the NRA and its supporters. So its tit for tat right down the line.

The history of gun violence in the U.S. shows that while it had its ups and downs, even during the down periods shootings remained high. Homicide rates in most large cities during the 19th century were significantly lower than today, but began to increase following the 2nd World War, then surged dramatically during the 1970’s, 80’s and 90’s. The rise in the use of crack cocaine across the country during those years was the main reason cited for the increased gun violence, with the majority of shootings involving male teenagers and those in their early twenties. A survey carried out in 2012 showed that 47% of homes had at least one gun, but that figure is likely to have beenvery much underestimated.

Some states did alter their gun laws over the years, although most of the changes had little or no effect on the homicide figures. Those who advocate strict gun control laws always cite the very high number of homicides committed with firearms, and that a large reduction in guns would pay-off by bringing about a major decrease. On the other hand gun rights advocates cite the use of firearms for self-protection, and a deterrent to violent crime. They also say that criminals are hardly likely to obey firearm laws, while limiting access to guns by law-abiding members of the public would only make them more vulnerable to said criminals. And the argument continues.

From 2014 onwards each of the 50 states had some form of right to ‘’carry-concealed-weapon’’ on their books, but less than one-third of adults supported the idea of carrying firearms in public places. Gun-supporters claim that the ‘’right-to-carry’’ law serves as a deterrent against crime, but researchers have found that the only statistically significant effect of the law had been an increase in assaults. Yet another study carried out in Arizona ten years ago found that the law allowing adults to carry a concealed weapon without a permit, and without passing a training course, brought about an increase in gun-related fatalities. In the state of Connecticut a 2018 study found that ‘’temporary gun seizure’’ laws had brought about a 13.7% reduction in firearm suicides. That information failed to make the headlines.

‘’Child Access Prevention’’ laws (CAP) were introduced some years ago, and now operate in most states. They require parents to store firearms safely so as to minimize their access by children, and hold gun owners liable should a child manage to get hold of a loaded gun that had not been stored properly. The Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) found that between 2000 and 2005 (prior to the CAP laws) one child died every three days in accidental incidents, while later research showed that the CAP laws had brought about a reduction in unintentional gun deaths by 23%, and gun suicides among those aged 14 to 17 by 11%. A study carried out in 2013 found that the laws resulted in a reduction in non-fatal gun injuries in states where violations were considered felonies, whereas in states that considered such violations simply a misdemeanour, there had been no significant change.

The studies continue and the ‘’for’’ and ‘’against’’ argument also continues, but little is actually done to reduce the very high volume of guns in play. And, of course, the slaughter continues.

...............................................................................................................................................................

It would be true to say that a U.S. male aged 15 to 24 is seventy times more likely to be killed with a gun than their counterpart in the eight (G-8) largest industrialized nations in the world (U.K., Germany, France, Japan, Canada, Italy, Russia and the U.S.). While Canada and Switzerland have much looser gun control regulation than five of the other G-8 countries their death-by-gun rate per 100,000 people is much lower than the U.S. Statistics from 2013 read as follows; U.S. 10.64, Canada 2.22, Switzerland 2.91, Australia 0.86 and the U.K. 0.26. The rate in the U.S. was almost five times greater than their neighbours Canada (often much higher), which has the seventh highest rate of gun ownership in the world. In the U.S. there had been 13,286 such deaths in 2015.

On two momentous occasions the Supreme Court ruled in favour of the Second Amendment, in order to protect the right of individual private gun ownership for self defence purposes. They took place in the District of Columbia in 2008, and in Chicago two years later. Both decisions were passed by a 5-4 majority. In the second case Justice Samuel Alito wrote; ’’Self defence is a basic right, recognized by many legal systems from ancient times to the present day, and in Heller (the D.C. case), we held that individual self defence is the central component of the Second Amendment right’’.

In the Heller case the Supreme Court did suggest a list of ‘’presumptively lawful’’ regulations, including ‘’bans on the concealed carrying of weapons, and generally bans on weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes’’. Strange then that, six years following that particular ‘’suggestion’’, all fifty states had some form of right to ‘’carry-concealed-weapon’’ on their books, as previously mentioned! Strange also that assault-weapons can be owned by ‘’law-abiding citizens’’ for self defence, and that many hunters use such weapons to kill their prey!

In the U.S. today it is no more surprising to carry a gun, concealed or otherwise, than to be seen holding the latest ubiquitous cell-phone. At some point in the not-too-distant-future it may well become normal for most new-born-babies, girl or boy, to be presented with a gold-plated derringer to mark the occasion! It can hardly get any sillier. The Second Amendment, as it has been interpreted, has proved to be a complete disaster as far as the safety of life is concerned.

One extremely salient fact regarding guns is this; Higher gun availability is positively associated with higher homicide rates, as the very concept of guns can prime aggressive thoughts, and aggressive actions or reactions! No matter what interpretation is placed on the Second Amendment, that is a simple fact! Anyone in a bad mood for whatever reason, if a gun is within easy reach when upset by another person, can completely over-react to a real or imagined slight. Nothing whatsoever to do with self defence! Recently an intoxicated man shot dead all four of his neighbours when a basketball was inadvertently knocked into his back-yard. Self defence?

And whether the person is intoxicated or not, an available gun can often turn the smallest and silliest confrontation into a life-changing situation. Many suicides are impulsive actions where, if a gun had not been readily available, the urge to die might well have faded away. Other attempts at suicide, such as the taking of an overdose of pills, can be reversed if the perpetuator was spotted by somebody in time for resuscitation to be carried out successfully. There is no coming back from a bullet to the head, or a very slim chance.

The vast majority of homicides have no connection whatsoever with a person defending him or herself, or even protecting their property or possessions. The well-publicised mass-shootings have been carried out for various reasons, including having recently been laid-off from work (a fairly common one), while a persons colour or religion also rates highly, and even an upset at school has brought about many of them. In May of 2022 a local man drove to his former elementary school in Uvalde, Texas, where he shot and killed nineteen children and two adults as well as wounding eighteen others, before being killed by the police. Why? It can be anything and everything, but whatever the reason in that case 23 people died. And then there was the 2017 Las Vegas massacre, where sixty people attending a country music festival died and 867 were injured, almost half of the latter suffering from gunshot wounds. The shooter committed suicide.

The first part of the Second Amendment reads ‘’A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,......’’. The people who have carried out the numerous atrocities throughout the country simply do not constitute a ‘’well-regulated Militia’’. A states National Guard would do so.

So why today do we have to listen to people who have no desire to significantly reduce the amount of weapons in circulation, and who poke fun at anyone who proposes such an idea, at the same time making stupid comments such as ‘’the guns are not the problem’’? The armaments industry certainly has no desire to see its output diminish, which is why it employs PR people to promote their product, while speaking softly. They also use people in high places to support their cause. Should those people profit from their largess?

...............................................................................................................................................................

In 2021 it was estimated that gun violence costs the U.S. around $280 billion annually. Another statistic which emerged back then was that the majority of Americans supported some form of restrictions and limitations on the availability of firearms, whether they were gun owners or not. Data utilised from surveys that had been carried out over twenty years (up to 2018) also provided some very interesting information. It compared the attitude of the massacre generation (people born after the Columbine high school shooting in 1999, where two students shot and killed twelve classmates and a teacher, before committing suicide) to the older generation. Results showed that the younger generation was far more likely to believe that the government could effectively prevent further mass shootings if it introduced some very strict gun prevention laws.

Its not impossible that, because of the outlook of many of the younger people, things might change dramatically sometime in the future. Talk that school-teachers should be armed is yet another hair-brained idea, and will surely lead at a later stage to suggestions that the students themselves should be armed. Less guns is the answer, not more. The armaments industry would certainly not concur with that idea, just as the cigarette industry was unhappy when reports began to appear concerning their cancer-producing product, nor when Perdue Pharma’s painkillers were finally exposed as being addictive, having earlier fuelled an opioid epidemic throughout the country.

From the relative safety of Europe its very difficult to understand America’s infatuation with guns, and its opposition to any type of real control over their availability. As the slaughter continues the Second Amendment has questions to answer. While a plebiscite to alter the Amendment would require a 70% ‘’yes’’ vote, hope does spring eternal.

..............................................................................................................................................................

‘’Progress is impossible without change, and those who cannot change their minds, cannot change

anything’’. George Bernard Shaw.

‘’Beware of false knowledge, it is more dangerous than ignorance’’. George Bernard Shaw.

‘’Professed patriotism may be made the cover for a multitude of sins’’. Robert C. Winthrop,

American legislator and historian.

.............................................................................................................................................................

Copyright 2023. Ron Walsh