This is a response to C.R. Jones III's column published Oct. 12, "Policy, not prayer, can stop shootings."
Last week The Daily Gamecock, like many media organizations, ran reactionary gun control editorials in response to the shooting at Umpqua Community College in Oregon. I write today in response to these and other articles nationwide on the subject.
Let's begin by setting one thing straight: Americans, regardless of their views on the issue, are not numb to mass shootings. We are all painfully aware of the many tragic deaths resulting from the senseless violence of a few twisted individuals. Second Amendment supporters are people too; we don't trade our hearts for our firearms. To the contrary, most people who purchase guns do so with the protection of life in mind.
We should also address the popular misconception that mass shootings are a uniquely American problem. Even the moderately liberal-leaning Politifact found that President Obama and others (including Mr. Jones in the above article) are wrong in claiming that these kinds of incidents don't happen elsewhere; in fact, we don't even crack the top five nations in measuring mass shooting deaths per-capita.Scandanavian Norway and Finland, held by many as the liberal ideal, top the list with almost three times more per-capita mass shooting deaths than the U.S. despite having only a third as many guns per capita.
Data from within the United States suggests that stricter gun control policies may in fact increase violent crime. Lateral comparisons of Washington, DC, and Chicago show that their murder rates have increased relative to other urban centers in the years since the two enacted handgun bans. Chicago's ban has since been struck down in court, leading to a spike in their number of concealed carry permits but a dramatic decline in their violent crime rate.
Pro-gun advocates will often suggest that the positive correlation between gun control and violent crime (more restrictions means more crime) is due to the general deterrent effect of an armed populace, or the idea that criminals will be less likely to commit their offenses if they fear that their intended victim may be armed. I tend to prefer a more economic explanation; harsher restrictions on the supply of legal firearms increases the demand for illegal firearms. The effect of prohibition on guns is the same as it is on marijuana and as it used to be on alcohol — the market doesn't disappear but is pushed into the shadows where dealers don't ask for ID, run background checks or enforce waiting periods.
When a drunk driver kills someone else in a car accident we don't call for greater restrictions on access to cars or stricter licensing procedures because these measures would be ineffective at preventing future loss of life while also being unduly burdensome on other car owners, who have done nothing wrong. Our problem with gun violence should be treated the same way as our problem with alcohol abuse — not with bans or restrictions on lawful consumers, but by addressing the underlying problems that lead a few individuals to make the choice to endanger the lives of others.