Many have
questioned why it took the tragedy at Sandy Hook to jump start the debate on gun
control, a massacre so horrific that even some staunchly pro-gun politicians have
started to suggest that perhaps some new regulations might be in order.
 |
| "The Suicide" Edouard Manet, |
This
outpouring of support for tighter gun control was due largely to the fact that
the Sandy Hook massacre involved the slaughter of “innocents.” Young school
children are seen by many as the most vulnerable, unsullied and worthy members
of our society (unless you include unborn fetuses and the rich, whose worth to
society is unquestioned).
This
distinction between worthy and unworthy victims has permeated the discourse on
gun control on both sides of the issue, with the focus being on how to make our
schools safer (i.e., protecting the “innocents”) rather than how to make
society safer or how to cut the overall social costs associated with gunshot
wounds and deaths.
Yet, as
tragic as it is for children to be gunned down at school, school
shootings make up only a tiny fraction of the total annual gun deaths (less
than 300 since 1980, or less than 10 per year). The sad reality is that
tens of thousands of Americans die each year from gun violence, primarily due
to suicide. In 2010, there were 19,392
gun-related suicides, or 63.6% of the total gun-related deaths, according to Wikipedia. In
contrast, there were 11,078 gun-related homicides, or 36.4% of the total. Very
few of the homicides occurred at schools or other public settings. Nevertheless,
President Obama promised on January
16 to make our schools safer by keeping guns out of the wrong hands and
improving mental health surveillance and services. Like his sanctimonious colleagues
in Congress and the media, the focus is on the “innocents,” while the bulk of
gun victims are ignored.
Biggest Bang for the Buck: Depression
or Psychopathy?
In one
sense, the discussion of better mental health monitoring and treatment is welcome.
For too long mental health services have been inaccessible or unaffordable to
many who need them, while prejudice and shame prevent some from attempting to
obtain these services even when they are accessible.
The problem
is that this aspect of the discourse has focused on almost entirely on psychopathic
rampages, which account for very few gun deaths, while virtually ignoring
depression, PTSD and other conditions that lead to suicide, which accounts for
the overwhelming majority of gun deaths. From the perspective of cost
effectiveness, it would make a great deal of sense to improve mental health
access and services for everyone who needs it—not just those who are seen as
potential homicidal maniacs.
Another
problem with the mental health “solution” is that it tends to be discussed in
essentially moralistic and prejudicial rather than rational terms. For example,
Obama’s call for schools to become “more nurturing” implies that mean teachers or impersonal
schools are somehow responsible for school shootings. His call for more mental
health workers in the schools to curb “student-on-student violence” (rather than to treat all student
mental health conditions) suggests a distinction between the worthy but rare victims
of school rampages, and the less worthy but abundant victims of depression,
anxiety, and stress (conditions which, if left untreated, could lead to suicide).
His call for more police on campuses sends the message that school shooters are
bad guys who must be punished or killed, rather than troubled youth in need of
help. Yet there is no clear evidence that
school safety officers have any effect on reducing crime or violence at school.
Moralism is
also behind the lynch mob demanding a national registry for the mentally ill
and the denial of their second amendment rights. The assumption is that because
some crazy people have committed shooting rampages, that all crazy people are untrustworthy and violent and therefore
need to be carefully monitored and controlled. Yet statistically, crazy people
are no more likely than anyone else to commit acts of violence. Thus,
identifying them and preventing them from buying guns should have only a
nominal effect on the total number of annual gun deaths. On the other hand, the
implementation of a national registry could scare away many people who need
mental health services from seeking help, thus putting themselves (and possibly
the public) at greater risk.
A Rational Person in the Asylum? (Or Not)
One would
think that mental health practitioners would take this unique opportunity to
talk about depression, PTSD, and other problems that can lead to suicidal
thoughts, now that the media has latched onto the idea that the government
might do something to improve access and affordability of mental health
services. Yet when the media interview mental health experts about the role of mental
health in reducing gun violence, the experts rarely mention suicide. They, too,
seem to be caught up in the moralism and hysteria (or perhaps they were told in
advance to avoid mentioning suicide since it is a downer, far less titillating
than massacres and therefore bad for advertising).
Of course
those who commit suicide rarely take out large numbers of “innocents” in the
process. They simply shoot themselves, often when no one is watching.
Furthermore, they have made their own decision when and how to die, in contrast
to the “innocents,” whose choice was made for them by their murderer.
Yet suicide,
like school violence, has significant social costs, including the loss of
income and the emotional trauma for surviving family members (including the “innocents”
they leave behind). Suicide can require emergency services, often at the
taxpayers’ expense. It is disruptive to colleagues who must pick up the slack
at work as they mourn the loss of their workmate and friend; and to their bosses,
who must suddenly find a replacement; and to landlords, who lose rental income
while their bloodied apartment is being cleaned.
What About Gun Control?
Gun
enthusiasts like to point out that during the 10-years assault rifle ban,
there was no reduction in gun fatalities in the U.S. However, the ban was
pretty leaky, with loopholes that allowed the purchase of numerous high powered
weapons. It also did nothing to reduce the 270 million guns circulating in the U.S. (close to nine guns per every 10 people).
However, it
is hard to imagine how a total reduction in circulating guns (rather than
temporary bans on the sale of certain types of guns) could not reduce gun
fatalities. Consider that slightly more than 50% of suicides in the U.S. are
committed with firearms. When guns already exist in the household, they provide a quick and
highly efficient means of killing oneself. Since other methods are less
reliable, more painful, or more difficult to plan and carry out, reducing
access to guns should reduce the number of suicide attempts, as well as the
success rate.
A reduction
in the number of guns in circulation also ought to reduce accidental gun deaths
(which average around 600 per year). Though statistically rare compared
with suicides and homicides, slightly more than half of the accidental gun deaths
involve children, and
thus account for far more deaths of “innocents” than do school rampages. However,
the otherwise upstanding adults whose negligence or irresponsibility contributed
to these accidents are far more sympathetic (and formidable, when it comes to
threatening their right to bear arms) than are crazies like Adam Lanza (the
Sandy Hook killer).
Poverty is Violence
Since the
pundits and politicians have taken suicide off the table, let’s talk about
homicide, because even here there is a lot of moralism and prejudice in the
public discourse. Certainly it is scary to imagine oneself or one’s child the
victim of an armed robbery, rape, terrorist attack or school massacre. But for
most Americans this fear is exaggerated. In the majority
of homicides, the victim is poor, with a prior criminal record.
One might
justly wonder why the left isn’t calling for “economic justice” or programs to
help ex-cons integrate back into society, in addition to gun control and improved
mental health access, since this could help reduce the number of gun deaths.
But then again, ex-cons and the poor, in general, are not considered worthy
victims. If we really wanted to reduce their unnecessary deaths, we would have
to provide housing to the homeless so they didn't die of exposure. Employers would have to slow down the
factories and provide sufficient safety equipment so their low income employees
would stop dying on the job. They'd have to provide healthcare so they could keep their employees' diabetes and hypertension under control, and increase their pay so they had
less stress and material insecurity (which
contribute to their elevated rates of hypertension, diabetes, cancer and heart
disease).
Lastly, a
significant fraction of the homicide victims are women who were killed by their
partners. In 2000, according to the Violence Policy Center,
1,342 women were shot to death by their partners (about 50% of the total
domestic violence deaths). But why worry about a thousand dead women (some of
whom left behind orphaned “innocents”) when there are ten innocent
school children who need protecting?
