A Science-Based Approach to Gun Control

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 2^nd 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 .