The killing of 20 schoolchildren in Newtown, Connecticut this month seems to have moved the United States more than anything since the September 11th attacks. In many ways, the killings have affected Americans in ways that September 11th did not—September 11th was an act of terrorism that was tantamount to a declaration of war (and resulted in two wars and multiple other interventions), while the Newtown killings seem to affected people on a more personal level, since there has so far been no motivation revealed. The shootings struck at every parent’s worst fear--that they cannot always be there to protect their children, even at school. The President’s speech in Newtown on December 16th may have been one of the most emotive that an American president has given in recent history, while other public figures have responded similarly.
In these moments, always most acute after mass shooting events, the exceptionalism of American gun culture is scrutinized and compared to gun laws in other nations. It is a foregone conclusion that some form of gun control will be attempted in response to the killings; even the National Rifle Association (NRA) has expressed a willingness to make “meaningful contributions” to prevent future incidents. The problem with comparisons to other countries is that gun culture cannot, by itself, explain the relationship between gun ownership and gun violence because data points exist on both sides of the debate: Japan and Singapore have virtually no guns and almost no gun deaths while Switzerland and Sweden have relatively high levels of gun ownership but also have few gun deaths. Generally, there is a loose positive correlation between the level of gun ownership and the level of gun deaths, but the fact that some countries can break the trend indicates that the correlation is not perfect and that other causal factors are at work.
The latter point is important because gun ownership in the United States is a reality that will likely not be legislated away, even after an event like Newtown. The reasons are complex and relate to so many historical, cultural, and social issues that a brief survey is impossible. The fact is that there are roughly 270 million guns in the United States, almost one gun for every person in the country. The scale of American gun ownership makes analogies to Japan, Singapore, and other states with low gun ownership unworkable—the U.S. will simply never get to that level unless dramatic and unrealistic legislation is enacted. By that same measure, hugely successful gun reform programs, specifically the one Australia implemented after a mass killing in 1996, would be prohibitively expensive. If the United States were to attempt a gun buyback program similar to the one in Australia, offering roughly $500 for each gun, it would cost more than $100 billion. Furthermore, Australia complemented its buyback program with legislation that outlawed firearms, creating an incentive to participate in the buyback program that also allowed them to undercut the price of the buyback; if the U.S. offered a buyback without similar accompanying legislation, it would have to offer to buy back the guns (at least) at cost, making the outlay even more expensive.
If removing guns will not work, the next step would be to reconcile gun ownership with lower rates of gun violence (but again, scale is important because the U.S. owns more guns per capita than the next seventeen countries combined, making comparisons difficult). Bucking the correlation is rare, but possible. Sweden, Finland, Switzerland, and Canada are four states with high levels of gun ownership that are most analogous to the U.S. because their guns are not left over from wars or transit points for the small arms trade. Switzerland, a favorite of gun rights activists, has considerably fewer guns than the U.S. at roughly 0.5 guns per person, and also has far more rigorous tracking and registration laws than the United States. Switzerland also requires compulsory military service (and consequently compulsory gun training) for all men between the ages of 21 and 32. Canada, Finland, and Sweden all own guns primarily for hunting, and the latter two acquiesced to stricter controls following mass shootings, suggesting that strict regulation is able to break the trend if gun owners buy in.
The above examples actually emphasize how distinct American gun culture is compared to the rest of countries with high rates of gun ownership. Unlike Finland and Sweden, only 58 percent of American gun owners own guns for hunting, compared to 67 percent for home defense and 66 percent for target shooting. Unlike Switzerland (and, to a point, Israel), guns are not part of a formalized militia or compulsory service requirement. In fact, many in the U.S. own guns to prepare for a disaster scenario or as a check against government excess (data on ownership based on these factors is hard to find and probably unreliable since much of it would fall under the “home defense” category). This likely explains part of the resistance to further regulations on grenade launchers, Uzis, detachable magazines, and more.
Politically, the killings have been described as a “game changer,” and the NRA and other gun-rights advocates have encouragingly signaled that they are open to reforms, at least on some level. But the fact is that American gun culture is far more extensive and has more intrinsic support than gun culture in any other country, which makes it difficult to look for “ready-made” solutions from abroad.
Paul Nadeau is a political and international relations consultant based in Washington, DC. Previously, he was the editor-in-chief of The Fletcher Forum of World Affairs.
Photo: Jay Mallin (cc).
a global affairs media network
There’s No International Template for American Gun Reform
December 21, 2012
The killing of 20 schoolchildren in Newtown, Connecticut this month seems to have moved the United States more than anything since the September 11th attacks. In many ways, the killings have affected Americans in ways that September 11th did not—September 11th was an act of terrorism that was tantamount to a declaration of war (and resulted in two wars and multiple other interventions), while the Newtown killings seem to affected people on a more personal level, since there has so far been no motivation revealed. The shootings struck at every parent’s worst fear--that they cannot always be there to protect their children, even at school. The President’s speech in Newtown on December 16th may have been one of the most emotive that an American president has given in recent history, while other public figures have responded similarly.
In these moments, always most acute after mass shooting events, the exceptionalism of American gun culture is scrutinized and compared to gun laws in other nations. It is a foregone conclusion that some form of gun control will be attempted in response to the killings; even the National Rifle Association (NRA) has expressed a willingness to make “meaningful contributions” to prevent future incidents. The problem with comparisons to other countries is that gun culture cannot, by itself, explain the relationship between gun ownership and gun violence because data points exist on both sides of the debate: Japan and Singapore have virtually no guns and almost no gun deaths while Switzerland and Sweden have relatively high levels of gun ownership but also have few gun deaths. Generally, there is a loose positive correlation between the level of gun ownership and the level of gun deaths, but the fact that some countries can break the trend indicates that the correlation is not perfect and that other causal factors are at work.
The latter point is important because gun ownership in the United States is a reality that will likely not be legislated away, even after an event like Newtown. The reasons are complex and relate to so many historical, cultural, and social issues that a brief survey is impossible. The fact is that there are roughly 270 million guns in the United States, almost one gun for every person in the country. The scale of American gun ownership makes analogies to Japan, Singapore, and other states with low gun ownership unworkable—the U.S. will simply never get to that level unless dramatic and unrealistic legislation is enacted. By that same measure, hugely successful gun reform programs, specifically the one Australia implemented after a mass killing in 1996, would be prohibitively expensive. If the United States were to attempt a gun buyback program similar to the one in Australia, offering roughly $500 for each gun, it would cost more than $100 billion. Furthermore, Australia complemented its buyback program with legislation that outlawed firearms, creating an incentive to participate in the buyback program that also allowed them to undercut the price of the buyback; if the U.S. offered a buyback without similar accompanying legislation, it would have to offer to buy back the guns (at least) at cost, making the outlay even more expensive.
If removing guns will not work, the next step would be to reconcile gun ownership with lower rates of gun violence (but again, scale is important because the U.S. owns more guns per capita than the next seventeen countries combined, making comparisons difficult). Bucking the correlation is rare, but possible. Sweden, Finland, Switzerland, and Canada are four states with high levels of gun ownership that are most analogous to the U.S. because their guns are not left over from wars or transit points for the small arms trade. Switzerland, a favorite of gun rights activists, has considerably fewer guns than the U.S. at roughly 0.5 guns per person, and also has far more rigorous tracking and registration laws than the United States. Switzerland also requires compulsory military service (and consequently compulsory gun training) for all men between the ages of 21 and 32. Canada, Finland, and Sweden all own guns primarily for hunting, and the latter two acquiesced to stricter controls following mass shootings, suggesting that strict regulation is able to break the trend if gun owners buy in.
The above examples actually emphasize how distinct American gun culture is compared to the rest of countries with high rates of gun ownership. Unlike Finland and Sweden, only 58 percent of American gun owners own guns for hunting, compared to 67 percent for home defense and 66 percent for target shooting. Unlike Switzerland (and, to a point, Israel), guns are not part of a formalized militia or compulsory service requirement. In fact, many in the U.S. own guns to prepare for a disaster scenario or as a check against government excess (data on ownership based on these factors is hard to find and probably unreliable since much of it would fall under the “home defense” category). This likely explains part of the resistance to further regulations on grenade launchers, Uzis, detachable magazines, and more.
Politically, the killings have been described as a “game changer,” and the NRA and other gun-rights advocates have encouragingly signaled that they are open to reforms, at least on some level. But the fact is that American gun culture is far more extensive and has more intrinsic support than gun culture in any other country, which makes it difficult to look for “ready-made” solutions from abroad.
Paul Nadeau is a political and international relations consultant based in Washington, DC. Previously, he was the editor-in-chief of The Fletcher Forum of World Affairs.
Photo: Jay Mallin (cc).
