A Science-based Approach to Gun Control
The tragic St.
Valentine’s Day Massacre at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland,
Florida provides a tragic opportunity to revisit, once again, the issue of gun
control. A scientific lens can provide a rational framework for such a
discussion, instead of dismissing this as “too soon” as we have heard from so
many.
In these times
across the nation, many in the public are skeptical of science and scientists.
This skepticism is not healthy and is based on a narrative being presented that
focuses on scientists as egghead experts, who don’t listen to or accept counter
arguments. This is blatantly untrue. Scientists love debating when the issues
are data-driven. But put a scientist in a debate with a politician, and you
learn nothing, at least about science. You do learn something about dog
whistles and raw meat, which is a social science.
We in the
science community have faced these times before, with lead poisoning, tobacco
and its relationship to lung cancer, acid rain and air pollution, vaccines as
preventative measures for disease, the causes of AIDS, and climate change, to
name a few. Each time, the scientists have proven to be correct, and it is
often in the US that these scientists face the most skeptical public.
If you are still
reading, perhaps I can convince you about how science can inform the
discussions that will be coming. First, we need to recognize that a very
powerful lobbying organization known as the National Rifle Association (NRA)
pressures elected representatives to only advance laws that enable and expand
gun ownership, and strive to stop any attempt at gun control, hiding behind a
very flexible interpretation of the Second Amendment to the Constitution, but
not science. Many of the same proponents to strict interpretation of the
Constitution and Bill of Rights do not extend that interpretation to the 2nd
Amendment, which addresses a right to bear Arms. Single-shot flintlock or
matchlock firearms, in other words. But, I digress into logic – let’s get back
to science.
Where does
science come in? Science enters the argument here because in science, an
understanding is developed by experimentation and measurement. The first
problem with science and gun control is effectively a ban on research by the #DickeyAmendment.
Congress has passed a law that prevents public funds for the study of gun
violence in the nation. Thus scientists who wish to study the phenomena, are
left to their own funds or funds set up by organizations who have a clear
agenda; thus bias may be implicit in the research. Although some research has
been published recently (OIM and NRC 2013; Sumner 2015) in peer-reviewed journals, researchers
who wish to study public health aspects are stymied by a lack of research-quality
data. Remove these unnecessary restrictions! The only reason they exist is
because their proponents are fearful of the likely findings.
Before we go
further into this particular argument, let’s take a look at how science informs
engineering and public health as examples. Engineers are in effect scientists
who are interested in making things practical or useful. Engineers take an
approach towards understanding how processes are created or limited, and
engineers will design and build to ensure proper function over an array of
conditions, including costs and benefits. This means studying which aspects are
prone to failure. The engineers put their work into practice to ensure that the
worst-case scenario does not lead to catastrophic failure. They calculate the
likelihood of failure of their design, and typically build to a higher
standard as a precaution. They test their work with models. Policies are
developed to license engineers and require routine and ongoing inspections,
looking for points of failure. Physics and materials science provide a lot of
background for this important work.
In the public
health arena, we have another example of science-based policy. We are
well-protected when the vast majority of the population is vaccinated against
the most common and serious illnesses that can rapidly spread in a vulnerable
population. How do we know this? We know because scientists have examined the
biological organisms that pose risk to humans and the ecosystem, and how
outbreaks and pandemics occur. By deploying common-sense measures to control
contamination and reduce harmful organism spreading, public health specialists
minimize risk to susceptible populations and the public at large. Biology,
chemistry, meteorology, and hydrology informs much of the science that evolved
over time to create effective protective measures. These scientists help to
define minimal protective standards;
again, using an abundance of caution to be sure that effective protection is
deployed. These are not set to be at the cheapest level, rather, they are set
to ensure maximum protection among the public!
With regard to
gun control, we often hear about the role that mental health plays in the
perpetrators of mass gun violence. That is undoubtedly an important component. However, in order to raise this as a
controllable issue, we must have a valid mental health assessment and reporting
mechanism in place. Ask any mental health professional if science can provide
an accurate prediction of future behavior, and they will tell you there is much
uncertainty. And given the lack of adequate mental health assessments and care across
the nation, and enabling legislation that strips away states’ rights to keep
guns away from those who have been judged to be at risk, we can eliminate this
argument right away. Scientists will tell you it is impossible to invoke an
effective countermeasure here at the present time.
Scientists who
wish to suggest practical gun control strategies will then likely recommend
that there should be limited availability of firearms, to ensure the safest
situation for the pubic. But wait, there’s more.
Ammunition kills
or injures, not the gun or the person who pulls the trigger. The larger,
faster, more massive, or more numerous the ammunition is, the more likely a
well-aimed discharge will result in the desired effect, namely to stop, wound,
or kill someone or something. Medical doctors will tell you how a round of
ammunition can inflict injury or death, it is not a pretty description so I
won’t repeat it here. Pediatricians have become alarmed at the high rate of gun
injury and deaths from firearms that are not kept away from children, but their
attempts to study or mitigate this (for example, by asking questions of their
patients or family members about gun availability) are against the law in some
states. Since doctors take an oath to cause no harm, they would advocate for
minimizing speed, size, and number of rounds, to reduce injury, and to reduce
the number of humans with the capacity to kill or maim.
The most
sensible way to protect the public, and children in particular, from a
scientific perspective, is to reduce access to high speed delivery of
ammunition (the firearm), fast or massive (high caliber) ammunition, or large
ammunition clips, and eliminate automatic or semi-automatic weapons (legal
semi-automatic weapons are easily converted to illegal automatic weapons).
Scientists will
tell you it is time to create reasonable limitations based on sound science.
And nearly 90% of the general public agrees.
Science informs
public policy makers in many ways. With regard to gun control, give the
scientists the tools they need to study gun violence in the USA. And listen to
them when they tell you that there are ways to reduce gun violence. Each
individual tragic event can be argued in many ways, but collectively, it is
abundantly clear that we do not have the capacity to solve this nationwide
problem without tackling gun control as a science-driven public policy issue.
A useful
starting point would be federal legislation to ban assault rifles and
large-capacity ammunition magazines for public ownership. Provide a cash
incentive for weapons and ammunition to be turned in for a time period, like
Australia did after a mass shooting there in 1996 (Calamur 2017), which has resulted in 0
new cases. After the collection period, institute effective penalties for
violations. Such actions would have no bearing on hunters or target shooters,
but would be an anathema to those who seek the thrill of firing that machine
gun. There are things that are best left to the experts in law enforcement and
the military. And these two organizations should ensure that the weapons that
they use, and seize, are under strict control.
Some science is
not hard. But extending public ignorance of the importance of science to
society is really hard for us scientists to take. So, get the lead out,
Congress and state legislatures. Oh, yeah, science has proven that lead
ammunition poses risks of contamination in the environment, so the laws
recently enacted to forbid the banning of lead ammunition is patently
ridiculous, too. Scientists, and
mechanics, will tell you, “You can pay for it now, or pay a lot more for it
later.” Listen up, everyone.
Dr. Paul
Ruscher, Dean of Science, Lane Community College, Eugene
Fellow, American
Meteorological Society
15 February 2018
External
references cited:
Calamur, Krishnadev (2017). “Australia's Lessons on
Gun Control”. The Atlantic, October
2, 2017, retrieved online from https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/10/australia-gun-control/541710/
Institute of Medicine and National Research
Council (2013). Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related
Violence.
Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/18319.
Sumner, Steven
(November 3, 2015). "Elevated Rates of Urban Firearm Violence
and Opportunities for Prevention"(PDF). Delaware Department of Health and Social Services. Retrieved July 2, 2016 from http://dhss.delaware.gov/dhss/dms/files/cdcgunviolencereport10315.pdf
.
