Nov 28, 2022 6 min read

Editor’s note: This is the first of two parts.

The racially motivated mass shooting in Buffalo and the mass shooting at the elementary school in Uvalde, as well as the shootings at the LGBTQ Club in Colorado and the Walmart in Virginia, have forced us to consider yet again the problem of gun violence. Proposed solutions vary from passing “common sense” gun control that requires background checks, red flag laws, requirements for training, banning assault rifles, and more, each of which would probably prevent some gun deaths. From conservative gun advocates we hear about “hardening schools,” more armed guards to fight back, and from Donald Trump, a proposal for classroom doors “lockable from the inside.”

But the sad truth is that while mass shootings garner the headlines, and are heart-breaking, they account for a very small portion of gun deaths in the U.S. Since the Columbine High School shooting grabbed the nation’s attention in 1999, fewer than 200 people have been killed in mass shootings at schools (the FBI counts 884 deaths from all “active shooter” events from 2000 to 2018). In 2020, 45,222 people died from all gun violence. In one year, there were almost as many gun deaths as there were soldiers killed in the entire Vietnam War, yet we tolerate the death toll year after year. Suicides were the most common (24,292) followed by murders (19,384); 535 were accidental, while 611 involved law enforcement (which also generate a lot of attention).

Most of these gun deaths are preventable; no other developed country not in the midst of a war has the level of gun violence we have. There are mentally ill people in other countries, as there are people who get angry or depressed, but without easy access to guns, those people do not engage in gun violence. For example, a man attacked a kindergarten in China in 2010, stabbing 28 people; only two died. If he’d had an AR-15, the death toll would have been far higher. As inanimate objects, guns are not responsible for gun violence. But they are force multipliers, and allow violent people to have a tragically greater impact.

People who feel hopeless may attempt to commit suicide, but how they attempt to kill themselves is an important factor in whether or not they succeed. For those who use guns, 82.5% succeed. Other methods are much less effective (drugs or poison only have a 1.9% success rate). And many people who attempt suicide but fail go on to live full lives. Red flag laws, which allow police to take guns away from people deemed mentally unfit to have them, are seen as a potential compromise solution to solving the problems of mass shootings. It is difficult to predict and prevent human behavior, so these laws are unlikely to stop many mass shootings; they are more likely to save lives by reducing suicides, which, given the relative size of the problem, will actually save more lives.

Homicides are most often committed with handguns. In 2019, more than 6,000 murders were committed with handguns, while rifles and shotguns combined accounted for 564. We should not be surprised that guns designed to kill people are the ones most often used for that purpose.

If handguns were rare, police shootings would also be easier to reduce. Police shoot quickly because in our gun-saturated world, the likelihood of the person they are confronting having a gun is high, so they are under pressure to shoot before they get shot. When police know a suspect is unarmed, they can take their time to deal with them without resorting to violence.

We have to decide, do we live in a civilized society or not? If we do, we can rely on social norms and laws, as well as police, to make sure most interactions are not threats to our safety. If not, then we must rely on our wits and our ability to use violence to protect ourselves and our loved ones from people who mean to do them harm. But the latter scenario creates an inherently violent world.

People who advocate firearms for personal safety like to paint themselves as “realists” who understand that there may be people who mean to do you harm. And of course, there are bad people out there, and sometimes even good people do bad things. But studies have shown that bringing a firearm into a home actually increases the chances that the occupants will be victims of gun violence. Realism is understanding that more guns lead to more gun violence.

There is a simple solution gun violence, though it is politically difficult. Take all the guns that are designed to kill people (handguns and guns with high-capacity magazines) out of circulation. Guns used for other purposes, like shotguns and rifles used for hunting, would not be affected. Buyback programs, like the one Australia successfully implemented, would need to operate to reduce the estimated 400 million guns in circulation. People who did not want to give up their guns could continue to own them, but they would but would have to store them at a certified gun range, or get a special license certifying safe storage at home. Allowances could be made for people who need a gun to perform their job, or if they were under threat, but the goal would be to dramatically reduce the number of lethal weapons in circulation.

We have a choice; we can either allow guns to permeate our society and live with the resulting gun violence, or we can limit them and the associated violence.

Canada, the country that is probably most culturally similar to our own, has banned assault rifles and just limited handguns. If the Supreme Court’s expansion of the Second Amendment prevents us from making our country safe, we have the ability to change it. Relying on individual gun ownership for personal safety has led to tens of thousands of deaths every year. We can do better.

Kent James has a doctorate in History and Policy from Carnegie Mellon University and is an adjunct in the History Department at Washington & Jefferson College.