Delo: Gun misconceptions abound

In years past, whenever I weighed in to comment on an editorial which appeared in this newspaper, I was usually in disagreement with the content and opinions expressed by the writer. One example would involve the voter initiative from the mid-2000’s in Alaska calling for a complete ban on black bear baiting. The editorial called for support, I argued against.

I hope this column doesn’t come as too much of a shock to the editorial staff at the Frontiersman, but I actually agree, in theory, with the editorial discussing gun violence published in last Sunday’s paper!

Since the latest shooting at the college campus in Oregon, we’ve heard our president adamantly calling for more gun control. He is even considering using his Executive Order powers to sidestep Congress and enact measures he thinks are needed, such as mandatory background checks for private firearms sales, making firearms harder to obtain. I would respectfully remind him he is a president, not a dictator!

On the other hand, the pro-gun side is saying that a significant increase in mental health screening and treatment for those in need would greatly reduce these mass shootings, all of which have been performed by someone in serious need of mental health treatment. They also make the point that all the school and campus shootings have occurred in so-called “gun free” zones, where the shooter knew he would not meet any immediate resistance once the killing spree began.

The Frontiersman editorial stated that both sides in the gun control debate make valid points, but that neither side’s agenda will prevent future gun violence. Quoting from the editorial: “What needs to happen is far simpler and yet infinitely more difficult than either side’s preferred solution. It’s something that will take a monumental change in the American psyche, and something that, quite frankly, isn’t likely to happen. We must turn our backs as a nation on violence in all its forms.”

In an ideal world, calling for an end to violence in all its forms is probably very doable. However, this is not an ideal world! Human nature tends to be very self-centered and “me” oriented. That trait and others equally unsavory assures ending all violence will never happen in this world as we know it.

Coincidentally, a reader emailed me a link to an article talking about a study published in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy which reveals some astonishing things about firearms, crime, and gun control. Findings from such agencies as the Centers for Disease Control, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and the United Nations International Study on Firearms Regulation led the Harvard study to conclude that the more guns a nation has, the less criminal activity occurs.

Given that the Ivy League schools, along with the CDC, the National Academy, and the UN are commonly viewed as having an extremely liberal political agenda, the study’s conclusion is astonishing. While the pro-gun side has been making this statement for years, it’s almost shocking to hear the “other side” finally and honestly admit the same thing.

Here’s the fly in this ointment. The Harvard study was originally done in 2007 and was titled: “Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide?” When completed, the study was ignored by the national broadcast and print media and was virtually unpublicized because the findings did not support the popular misconceptions being promoted about firearms and crime.

One of those popular misconceptions states that the US has the industrialized world’s highest murder rate. This is a holdover from the Cold War era when, in fact, Russia’s murder rates were nearly four times higher than the US. This Cold War propaganda campaign painted the US as a “nightmare of street violence” which many folks still believe to be true today.

Quoting from the article, “Today violence continues in Russia – far worse than in the US – although the Russian people remain virtually disarmed…International evidence and comparisons have long been offered as proof of the mantra that more guns mean more deaths and that fewer guns, therefore, mean fewer deaths. Unfortunately, such discussions have all too often been afflicted by misconceptions and factual error.”

This last quote from the article vividly illustrates our imperfect world: “By the early 1990’s, Russia’s murder rate was three times higher than that of the United States. Thus, ‘in the United States and the former Soviet Union transitioning into current-day Russia, homicide results suggest that where guns are scare, other weapons are substituted in killings’.”

Howard Delo, a retired fisheries biologist, writes a weekly outdoors column for the Mat-Su Valley Frontiersman.