Control the shooters better, not the guns

Like most analogies, this one is imperfect. But that doesn’t mean it doesn’t  do what it is intended to do:  illustrate a point by making a comparison between two seemingly unrelated subjects.

My comparison is firearms to motor vehicles. One flaw in my analogy is that people own motor vehicles primarily for transportation, while people own firearms for a myriad of reasons (personal protection, hunting, home security, hobby collection, competitive shooting and, tragically, committing crime).

I have noticed that almost all the demands for ending gun violence focuses on the sales process and ownership requirements of firearm owners. What confounds me is the absence of demanding accountability of and consequences for those charged with criminal firearm behavior.

On to my analogy. The U.S. Department of Transportation’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration reported there were 38,824 traffic deaths in 2020. According to Forbes Advisor (citing the U.S. Department of TNHTSA), “about 37 people in America die each day in drunk-driving car crashes. That equals one alcohol-impaired driving fatality every 39 minutes.” Note this does not account for marijuana impaired driving deaths, just alcohol related ones.

Contrast that with the number of firearms deaths in 2023: 18,874 (this figure excludes death by suicide, which accounts for more than half of all firearms deaths); 13,384 motor vehicle fatalities due to alcohol (2021) vs. 20,958 deaths due to gun violence (2021).

On June 25 this year, the AP reported that U.S. Surgeon General Vivek Murthy called on “the U.S to ban automatic rifles, introduce universal background checks for purchasing guns, regulate the industry, pass laws that would restrict their use in public spaces and penalize people who fail to safely store their weapons.” What is mysteriously missing is penalizing people who commit crimes while using or illegally possessing a firearm.

This is the 800-pound gorilla in the room everyone is supposed to ignore:  accountability for those who decide to violate existing firearm laws. The focus is always on trying to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals while overlooking the harsh reality that punishing criminal behavior is far more effective. While no single strategy will solve this problem, let’s try mine. If you are arrested for unlawful possession of a firearm, one year in prison. If you are arrested for a crime while carrying a firearm, three years in prison in addition to whatever prison time is given for the originating offense (robbery, assault, sale of narcotics, etc.). All second offenses: double the penalty; third offenses:  triple the penalty. Make these sentences mandatory. Even the mathematically challenged will be able to crunch those numbers and predict their future.

If you applied the current strategy of reducing gun violence to traffic fatalities, the focus would be on restricting the sale of cars to people who tend to drink alcohol and/or smoke marijuana, then drive. Every motor vehicle sale or transfer would attempt to screen the prospective buyer by answering a questionnaire under penalty of a false statement regarding their consumption of alcohol or their use of recreational marijuana.

The next logical step would be to run their name or check their fingerprints to see if they have ever been arrested for motor vehicle offenses or crimes regarding the use or possession of alcohol or marijuana. Don’t get me wrong here; I’m all for mandatory background checks for gun sales or transfers. But as far as U.S Surgeon General Murthy’s murky recommendation to “regulate the industry”, should the automotive industry now be required to equip every vehicle with an Ignition Interlock Device (a car breathalyzer that measures your breath sample to determine recent alcohol consumption)?

Now, there are some of the opinion that — like motor vehicle owners — it should be a mandatory requirement for gun owners to carry liability insurance, so that those harmed by the use of a firearm can file a civil claim against the insurance company. This, of course, creates yet another financial burden for the legal gun owner; the first being the cost of applying for and then renewing a pistol permit, the second now applying for and maintaining liability insurance. This is a financial penalty for those citizens who choose to exercise their constitutionally protected Second Amendment right.

To those who would make that suggestion, ask yourself an honest question: anytime you read a newspaper article or see a news story on television detailing an arrest made for a gun crime, do you really think the defendant had a valid pistol permit? Many of these arrests are for a variety of crimes: homicide or assault, robbery, threatening, or possession/sale of narcotics. These same criminals are also oftentimes charged with carrying a pistol without a permit, possession of a firearm with an obliterated serial number, possession of a stolen firearm, and/or possession of a
high-capacity magazine. Do you really think that these types of criminals — who make up the majority of gun arrests — are responsible gun owners who would pay for liability insurance? Of course not; it would be just another financial burden for responsible, law abiding gun owners to shoulder.

On Friday, July 5, there was a double shooting in Hartford which left a 23-year-old female dead. According to NBC CT, “Hartford Mayor Arunan Arulampalam released a statement about the shooting Friday saying: “These recent, tragic instances of gun violence underscore the need to curb the cycles of trauma in our city by removing illegal guns from our streets and implementing a robust violence prevention strategy including partners throughout our city. ”

Why does the mayor (and most large city leaders) focus on removing “illegal guns from our streets” while not focusing on removing violent criminals from our streets? Again, the guns are not committing the violence; it is the criminals carrying the guns and pulling the triggers.

Do you see where I’m going here? We are focusing our efforts on trying to keep a mechanical object out of the hands of people by regulations and rules while ignoring the behavior of those who are committing crimes of violence against our community. We jail repeat DUI offenders; we don’t sue car manufacturers or car dealers for selling fast cars or cars that don’t come equipped with Ignition Interlock Devices.

It doesn’t have to be a binary choice; we can chew gum and walk at the same time. But the focus always seems to be on passing more laws and regulations while failing to enforce the existing criminal statutes and penalties, which will have a more immediate impact on making our communities safer. Blaming the object – be it a firearm or a motor vehicle – makes little sense. It is the manner in which that object is being used by the owner that should be our main focus.

Greg Dillon was a 30-year career law enforcement officer who lives in Connecticut and is the author of The Thin Blue Lie:  An Honest Cop vs. The FBI .