The previous entry in this series dealt with The myth of the accidental gun death And showed conclusively that guns are simply not a significant source of accidental death as some would have us believe.
This time I will address the single most prevalent cause of death involving firearms: Suicide.
Aaand flip...
That's right folks! According to the CDC, If a person intentionally sets out to kill someone with a firearm, the majority of the time the intended target is....themselves.
This happened 16,603 times in 2004 in the U.S., so simply removing firearms from the environment would serve to save these lives, right? Well...not so fast.
You see, suicide occurred a total of 31,647 times in the same year and roughly half of them involved other means such as strangulation, poisoning, knives, etc.
- national average - 10.9 suicides per 100,000 people
Data ctsy NIMH
Now what happens when we take the guns away? Let's take a look at the U.K., where access to firearms is extremely rigidly controlled:
- national average - 6.9 per 100,000
Data ctsy WHO
Which is to say that a 100% drop in the availability of firearms in the home corresponds to a 37% drop in suicides. Although causality cannot be proven (or even assumed), one thing is indisputable: People that want to die will still kill themselves regardless of whether they have a gun or not.
But let's say (for the sake of argument) that a direct causality does exist. Removing firearms drops the national suicide rate 37%. The 48% who don't employ firearms still die at the same rate. Of those who would have employed a firearm , 29% will simply go overdose or hang themselves instead so what we're looking at is an annual savings of 12,000 lives a year. That's a very charitable best-case scenario.
Question #1: How do we bring this situation about?
Answer: The only way to eliminate firearms in the Untied States is a nationwide door-to-door search and seizure. Metal detectors would have to be employed, as many of these firearms are hidden. The search would have to be coordinated so as to eliminate the possibility of smuggling from unchecked areas into previously checked areas. All sources of firearms must be eliminated, including police and military storage.
This, of course, does not take into account the political, Constitutional, legal, and social ramifications that such an endeavor would bring about.
The important thing is this: Merely banning firearms would no more eliminate firearms than simply banning drugs will eliminate drugs.
Question #2: What is the benefit?
Answer: Looking strictly from the viewpoint of modes of death covered thus far in the series (accidents and suicides), America's death rate drops 0.5%. Factor in homicides with the incorrect assumption that elimination of firearms would eliminate homicides at an equal rate, America's death rate drops 0.7%
Question #3: What is the cost?
Answer: The cost is impossible to mathematically quantify in terms of a dollar figure and lives lost during the resultant rebellion. The true political cost would be the complete and utter destruction of the Democratic party, a potential civil war, the undermining of the Constitution, and the loss of the people's means of guaranteeing our own freedom.
Question #4: What other alternatives might we employ to effect a similar savings in American lives?
Answer:
- Banning smoking - Even if this resulted in a mere 1% drop in the incidence of heart disease, cancer and lung disease, it would still result in the savings of twice as many lives as eliminating all firearms in the U.S.
- Banning fast food - A mere 2% reduction in cardiovascular disease would save more lives annually than eliminating guns.
- Eliminating alcohol - Would save nearly twice as many lives annually as eliminating guns.
- National speed limit - Lowering the speed limit on interstates could potentially reduce motor vehicle accident fatalities at least 25%, resulting in an equal savings of American lives as eliminating firearms.
Best of all, there is no mention of a Constitutionally protected right to travel at high rates of speed, eat junk food, smoke, or drink alcohol.
The upshot of the whole thing is this: Gun control is not about saving lives. Gun control is about eliminating guns. Politicians who advocate gun control do so not out of an altruistic concern for the lives of their constituents, but rather out of fear of an armed populace. Citizens who advocate gun control do so not out of an altruistic concern for the lives of their fellow citizens, but rather out of 1)fear of guns themselves and 2) being misinformed.