Another shooting happens. This time in Charleston. I grew up about two hours away and often visited the town with my parents. It’s a lovely place, although like most places in South Carolina it has a difficult, disturbing past.
There are two opposing views which typically surface after Â a mass shooting. The first is that gun violence is driven by gun ownership, and that effective gun control will reduce the number of people killed by firearms every year. Â A simple mathematical way of describing this relationship would be to say that gun violence is a function of the number of guns in a country:
V = F(G)
The opposing view is that there are all sorts of other things that determine gun violence. Proponents look to countries with high levels of gun ownership but low levels of violence, such as Canada. Holders of this view assert a relationship that looks like this:
V = F(S)
Where S is “other stuff” which influences gun violence. This is somewhat consistent with the Â “guns don’t kill people, people kill people” argument, which includes the unstated third statement: “and there are lots of things that determine whether people want to kill each other.”
Setting aside any preoccupations with the Second Amendment, the gun control debate can be characterized as a fight over whetherÂ V = F(G) orÂ V = F(S). But this is a mischaracterization which gives more legitimacy to those opposed to gun control. In reality, gun violence is a function of both the number of guns in circulation and all the “other stuff,” and that, by construction,Â fewer guns makes it more difficult to commit gun violence, so that.
V = F(G,S) and V = 0 if G = 0 or S=0
That is: it doesn’t matter if Canada can have its cake and eat it. If there is some special ingredient to having guns without the violence (S = 0), we don’t know what it is, and won’t know any time soon. But that doesn’t mean that reducing G will not reduce violence. Whether it is a cost-effective way to reduce violence is another question, but unless someone identifies what goes into S, the best bet is for the US to focus on G.