The Benefits of Gun Restrictions

Newton South. Orlando. Las Vegas. Sutherland Springs. Recent shootings have rocked the United States and impelled both everyday Americans and legislators to realize the flimsiness of our domestic peace. Long concerned about lone-wolf terrorism, the US government now faces a more pertinent dilemma: mass shootings perpetrated by US citizens. 

In response to the Texas shooting, GOP lawmakers called for more “total and thorough examinations” of all potential gun-owners. Although their willingness to consider new gun control measures is reassuring, legislators will need to think outside of the box, as their current measures have done nothing but to allow criminals to slip through the cracks. Adam Lanza, the shooter at Sandy Hook Elementary School, obtained his guns from his mother, who had registered them legally. Stephen Paddock, the Las Vegas shooter, raised no red flags at his background checks.

Neither have mental health check-ups assisted in pinpointing potential convicts, so it is overly simplified for Trump to blame the Sutherland Springs shooting on a “mental health problem.” Psychologists have shown that one’s mental health does not correlate with a predisposition for gun violence; individuals with mental diseases are no more likely to commit gun-related crimes than anyone else. In that sense, mental health is solely a scapegoat that politicians employ when fending off criticism.

In addition to being ineffective, gun restrictions have historically empowered whites at the expense of minorities. For a long time the South prohibited blacks from owning guns, especially after the slaves became freedmen. During the civil rights movement, federal licensing laws indirectly restricted firearm ownership amongst the African-American community, making it difficult for blacks to stand up against racial violence. The Gun Control Act of 1968, for example, specifically restricted the sale of “Saturday Night Specials,” cheap handguns that were popular with minorities. Although not explicitly, these laws targeted disadvantaged groups and widened the gap between the oppressed and the oppressors.

Today minority groups feel a renewed need to buy firearms, and for good reason: more and more minorities feel defenseless in the face of police brutality and fringe groups like the Ku Klux Klan. For many guns are not a genuine instrument for self-defense, but rather a deterrent against unwarranted police violence. In 2007, Professor of Psychology Joshua Correll tested for racial bias by using videogames to simulate encounters with potential criminals; he discovered, unsurprisingly, that participants were more likely to shoot at black criminals over white ones. When formulating any proposal, legislators must take into account the disproportionate effects of disarmament on certain sectors of society. 

In places with high gang activity but little law enforcement, more gun control will only exacerbate underground markets. The state had denied Devin Kelley, the perpetrator in the Texas church shooting, the right to carry a gun. Many criminals obtain firearms through straw purchases, wherein a certified and mentally sound adult buys the gun and then passes it on (often illegally) to an ill-intentioned individual. A solution must be enforceable; mandating time-consuming procedures would discourage even the most law-abiding citizens from following the rules and give rise to powerful, unregulated cartels.

A long-term solution to the gun debate would involve tackling the root causes of gun violence. Gun violence is most prevalent in urban communities with meager economic opportunities and poor law enforcement, as people tend to take more risks when they live with no hope—with no job prospects and with no financial security. In Chicago’s case, it was a contraction of the police force, and not the poor implementation of gun control laws, that led to a spike in homicide rates this past year. The new mayor, Rahm Emanuel, closed the detective bureaus, dismantled gang task forces, and lengthened the bureaucratic process for most investigations. Chicago should serve as a warning for all lawmakers: without the fundamental building blocks—everything from school funding to drug prevention programs—any lofty nationwide law will only condone the status quo.