In the wake of the Tuscon, Arizona shootings, there has been renewed discussion about gun control. The New York Times recently published the following editorial, calling for a shift in ‘gun control without a ban’. The approach is aimed at the person, not the gun, with the focus on increasing sensitive background checks so that guns are not sold to criminals, drug addicts and mentally ill patients.
On an average day in the United States, guns are used to kill almost eighty people. If any other consumer product had this sort of disastrous effect, the public outcry would be deafening. For a fascinating, scholarly (yes, with references) look at gun violence as a public health issue, I refer you to David Hemenway’s book, Private Guns, Public Health.
The sale and supply of guns is less regulated than any other consumer product. Hemenway calls for commonsense policies to prevent unnecessary gun related violence and accidents, including childproof safety locks, licensing of gun owners and registration of hand guns; one-gun-per-month laws to reduce gunrunning; all gun transfers to go through licensed dealers with background checks; greater scrutiny of licensed dealers; and a federal agency (similar to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration) with the power to regulate firearms as a consumer product. His argument is backed by best available evidence, case control studies, and population level data, like a proper scientific argument.
Again, the focus is public health and the prevention of injury, not a ban on guns.
