May 20, 2014, 10:38 a.m. EDT
What’s more, a growing body of research suggests that simply owning a gun is correlated with an increased likelihood that you’ll be a victim of violence. A study published this January in the Annals of Internal Medicine found that people who live in homes with firearms are over three times as likely to die from suicide and two times as likely to be a victim of homicide as those who don’t have access to firearms. The study analyzed the results of 16 other studies and found that in all but one, access to guns was linked to a higher probability of murder or suicide. In another study published in the journal Aggression and Violent Behavior, two Harvard researchers conducted a review of 26 studies on gun availability and homicide in multiple countries and found that most of them “are consistent with the hypothesis that higher levels of gun prevalence substantially increase the homicide rate.”
Still, many gun owners say that having a gun in the house makes them feel safe and empowered to confront threats. That sentiment was summed up by NRA executive vice president and CEO Wayne LaPierre, who said in an interview following the Newtown, Conn., elementary school shooting in December 2012 that “the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.”
3. “Guns get special treatment under the law.”
In some ways, Congress treats firearms differently — and some say more leniently — than other mass-produced products. For starters, the
Consumer Product Safety Commission — a government agency that protects consumers from “unreasonable risks of injury or death” associated with consumer products — does not have the authority to regulate guns, thanks to a 1976 amendment to the Consumer Product Safety Act. Experts think the amendment makes it significantly harder to get a gun recalled from the market. “They can ban or recall even things like lawn darts, but have no authority over guns,” says John Culhane, a professor of law and the director of the Health Law Institute at Widener University School of Law The NRA’s Arulanandam points out that while guns aren’t regulated by the Consumer Product Safety Commission, they are regulated by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.
On a few occasions in the late 20th century, cities and victims of shootings pursued a different legal strategy against gun manufacturers, arguing that gun makers should be liable for damages because they made it easy for criminals to obtain their products. Suits like that, Culhane explains, inspired the 2005 Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which shields gun manufacturers from many negligence and product-liability lawsuits, he says. This means that many victims of a criminal shooting will find it difficult if not impossible to sue gun manufacturers under those theories and win. The NRA Institute for Legislative Action, the NRA’s lobbying arm, wrote in a 2010 article that “this legislation is a vitally important first step toward ending the anti-gun lobby’s shameless attempts to bankrupt the American firearms industry through reckless lawsuits.”
The gun industry says it endures plenty of regulation. “Firearms are highly regulated by a series of federal laws,” writes Michael Bazinet, a spokesperson for the National Shooting Sports Foundation. “In addition, many states and even some cities have enacted their own statutes and ordinances governing firearm characteristics, ownership and sales.”
4. “We want your kids to play with guns.”
Under most circumstances, people under 18 can’t legally buy guns. But many hunters and target shooters first learned to shoot (and shoot safely) during childhood, and both gun advocacy groups and gun manufacturers craft their messages with young people in mind.
On the product side, Keystone Sporting Arms’ Crickett rifle is marketed as “my first rifle,” using a cartoon cricket as its logo; on its website, the company says its goal is to “instill gun safety in the minds of youth shooters.” Other manufacturers use cartoon imagery that may make it particularly appealing to children (think Joe Camel, but for guns). For example, ammunition manufacturer Hornady makes the Zombie Max bullet (marketing materials read: “supply yourself for the Zombie Apocalypse”), which has cartoon zombies on the box. Hornady did not respond to a request for comment. Crickett’s attorney John Renzulli says that Crickett’s guns are not marketed to children; they are marketed to the parents, who “make the decision based upon the maturity level of their children whether or not to buy the rifle so the child can participate in the shooting sports.”
The NRA offers shooting camps for kids that teach them how to shoot a rifle, shotgun and pistol; the organization says on its website that these camps are designed to “provide a high-quality training opportunity” with “top-level coaches.” (One of its magazines, NRA Family InSights, features a special section for kids.) And gun manufacturers advertise in “Junior Shooters,” a magazine about shooting for children and teens.
That’s all perfectly legal, says Culhane, who notes that while cigarette manufacturers aren’t allowed to directly market to children, gun manufacturers are. But gun-control advocates argue that guns are just as dangerous to young people as cigarettes are. Firearm-related injuries send an average of 20 children and adolescents to the hospital per day, according to a study published in the journal Pediatrics this year. Incidents of children injuring themselves or others with guns underscore statistics like these: Last year, for example, a Kentucky boy accidentally shot and killed his two-year-old sister with a Crickett rifle.
Guns aren’t sold to kids, it’s true. Under federal law, you have to be at least 18 to buy a rifle or shotgun from a licensed dealer, and you must be 21 to buy any other type of gun. However, it’s easy to get around these restrictions, as it’s legal for an adult to buy shotguns and rifles and let a child use them; and while it is illegal for a child under 18 to possess a handgun, this law can sometimes be skirted with written permission from a parent or guardian.
5. “Gun control may work. We still think it’s a bad idea.
For a study released in 2013, researchers at Boston Children’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School and Harvard School of Public Health compared firearm death rates for suicide and homicide with gun-control laws in each state. The states with the strictest legal codes had statutes designed to strengthen background checks, curb firearm trafficking, ban assault weapons, prevent consumers from having guns in some public places or ensure child safety.
The study’s conclusion: States with the largest number of gun-control laws on the books had gun-death rates that were significantly lower than those in states with the fewest such laws. For example, Massachusetts and New Jersey, which have relatively strict gun-control laws, had an average of only 3.4 and 4.9 firearm-related deaths per 100,000 people, respectively, each year from 2007 to 2010, while Alaska and Louisiana, which have some of the loosest laws, had 17.5 and 18 per 100,000 people, respectively, the study revealed.
Here, too, as the authors admit, cause and effect are in question — do stricter laws reduce violence, or do less-violent places tend to enact stricter laws? A study published in the Harvard Journal of Public Law and Policy which compared international gun laws and ownership found that on the global level, stricter gun laws don’t mean less crime: “For example, Luxembourg, where handguns are totally banned and ownership of any kind of gun is minimal, had a murder rate nine times higher than Germany in 2002,” the study authors write.
But experts say lawmakers shouldn’t ignore studies showing the correlation between gun control and reduced firearm deaths. “Gun control is not a panacea, but some aspects of it do work,” says Spitzer. His research on the effects of laws in New York state, for example, concluded that 80% to 90% of the guns used in crimes came from other states, which he believes is because of New York’s strict gun laws. Considering that data, he says, it stands to reason that having these kinds of laws in all states might decrease firearm-related crimes across the board.
The gun industry opposes many forms of gun control, casting some regulations as violations of constitutional rights and arguing that restrictions could put law-abiding citizens’ lives at risk. Indeed, the NRA opposes the Manchin-Toomey bill promising universal background checks; some nine in 10 Americans want universal background checks. The NRA’s Arulanandam says that our government should focus on enforcing the current gun laws before it starts trying to make new ones and points out that we need a better database of those who are mentally ill, so that they get flagged in the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System database, or NICS, when trying to buy a gun. “Any database is only as good as the info contained within it,” he says. Furthermore, the NRA Institute for Legislative Action has said that expanding background checks might not reduce crime.
6. “Politically, we’re practically unbeatable.”
The Constitution protects the right to bear arms. But the Constitution isn’t the only thing helping them win political battles: Guns groups spend millions on lobbying each year to protect their interests. The
National Rifle Association and its subsidiary, the NRA Institute for Legislative Action, together spent more than $3.4 million on federal lobbying efforts in 2013, up 14% from the year prior, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonprofit research group that tracks money in U.S. politics. The National Association of Gun Rights, a gun-rights organization that educates gun owners about state and federal legislation that affects gun rights, spent nearly $6.8 million last year, and the National Shooting Sports Foundation, a trade association of firearms manufacturers, spent more than $2.3 million.
Groups like these also give plenty to aid individual members of the Senate and House. For example, during the 2011-12 election cycle, the NRA spent roughly $19 million to defeat or get certain candidates elected — about $13 million against Democrats (and about $42,000 for them) and $6 million for Republicans (and about $221,000 against them).
The gun industry is far from the biggest spender on lobbying; industries like pharmaceuticals and insurance spend more, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. But combined with gun-rights organizations’ ability to reach and mobilize voters who oppose gun restrictions, their spending makes them a formidable political force.
Recent events underscore the industry’s clout. After the Newtown massacre, polls suggested that most Americans supported universal background checks for gun buyers. But the NRA’s LaPierre said: “It’s aimed at registering your guns,” he said in a statement. “When another tragic ‘opportunity’ presents itself, that registry will be used to confiscate your guns.”
In the end, Congress wasn’t able to agree on any gun-control compromise. “It’s a testament to the NRA’s power, its political pull,” says Josh Sugarmann, the executive director of the Violence Policy Center, a gun-safety advocacy group. A few states did tighten their laws, but some have already faced political blowback. In a recall election in Colorado last year, voters unseated state senators John Morse and Angela Giron, both of whom were supporters of strict new gun laws; the NRA, via the Committee to Restore Coloradans’ Rights, spent roughly $360,000 from March 1 through Aug. 29, according to campaign filings. The NRA’s Arulanandam says it wasn’t the money that led to their win — gun-control proponents outspent the NRA, he says. Instead, he says, it was because the NRA “has the support of the people.” And, of course, the gun industry does sometimes lose battles: California recently passed a law requiring gun manufacturers to add microstamping technology to some guns, which would stamp the bullets when the gun is fired so they can be traced to the gun.
7. “Under ‘Gun Ban Obama,’ we’re doing just fine.”
In the wake of the Newtown tragedy, President Obama announced his plan to try to curb gun violence with measures such as strengthening background checks. None of those measures made it through Congress. Indeed, despite often landing on the opposite side of the policy fence, the gun industry hasn’t suffered all that much under the Obama administration.
Obama’s election in 2008 seems to have helped send gun sales through the roof. Part of this is due to
Defense Department spending, but civilian gun sales also spiked, “because of concerns about potential law changes by the Obama administration,” IBISWorld reports. Obama has even signed laws that expanded firearm rights. For example, in 2009, he signed bills allowing Americans to carry loaded weapons into national parks and to carry firearms in their checked baggage on Amtrak trains. The NRA’s Arulanandam says that the reason Obama hasn’t been successful in getting gun-control measures passed is that he is trying to sell a premise that “defies common sense.” “People want to be able to keep themselves and their families safe,” he says.
8. “Sometimes we aren’t ‘pro-gun’ enough.”
Pro-regulation legislators aren’t the only parties who can face pressure from gun-rights supporters: Sometimes, the gun industry itself feels the sting. In the 1990s, for example, gun-control supporters, in conjunction with the Clinton administration and some city mayors, launched a series of lawsuits against the gun industry. In 2000, gun manufacturer Smith & Wesson decided to settle some of those claims and made an agreement with the government to submit to more regulation. The result: Some members of the gun industry encouraged consumers to boycott Smith & Wesson. The company’s sales plummeted, and the gun manufacturer ended up distancing itself from the previous settlement.
Boycotts have been effective for the gun-rights lobby more recently, too. Last year, a number of members of the gun industry boycotted the weeklong Eastern Sports and Outdoor Show, in part because it decided to ban modern sporting rifles (these are AR-15-style semi-automatic guns) from the show; the show wound up being cancelled that year. The NRA’s Arulanandam says that this is an “example of the whole outdoor community banding together and standing up for the rights of law-abiding citizens.”
9. “We sell guns to people you might not want us to.”
Federally licensed gun dealers are required to run their customers through the FBI’s criminal background check system before a sale: That system will catch people who have a criminal record or, in some cases, a history of mental-health problems. But there is no law that prohibits businesses from selling guns to individuals on the so-called terrorism watch list, which contains an estimated 875,000 names of people the government thinks might be terrorists, including suspected members of
al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations. “Even if they are deemed too dangerous to fly on planes, suspected terrorists can buy guns,” says attorney Jonathan Lowy, the director of the Legal Action Project for the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence.
And, indeed, these suspects do buy guns: Data from the
Government Accountability Office showed that between February 2004 and February 2010, people on the terrorism watch list tried to buy guns and explosives more than 1,200 times and were successful 91% of the time. (The number could be even higher, because buying a gun from a private seller or at a gun show doesn’t require a background check.)
While all federally licensed firearms dealers have to check all people trying to buy guns through the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System database — and that database does check gun buyers against the terrorism watch list — the gun dealer never sees any alert that the person is a suspected terrorist (though the government is alerted that this person is trying to buy a gun). Sometimes those on the terrorism watch list are allowed by the government to buy guns, for reasons that the government has kept confidential.
Some experts note that just because someone is on the terrorism list doesn’t mean he is a terrorist: Indeed, this is only a list of “suspected” terrorists, and sometimes the government gets it wrong, in that the person is not a terrorist at all or the government has the person mistaken for someone else. Some gun-rights advocates have used those facts as an argument against legislation that would bar people on the watch list from purchasing firearms.
May 20, 2014, 12:03 p.m. EDT
Paranoia has its limits as gun sales slump
Opinion: Enthusiasts are saying with their wallets that gun laws won’t change
Bloomberg
Guns sit on display at a Dick's Sporting Goods Inc. store in Paramus, N.J.
WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) — Dick’s Sporting Goods issued a profit warning Tuesday, and the biggest concern from management is over golf equipment. But that’s not the only reason the sporting-goods retailer is struggling.
The firm
DKS +0.37% also warned over its hunting division, and on a conference call, management made it clear what’s going on.
Here’s what COO Joe Schmidt told investors: “We had anticipated this category to be below last year as did others in the space but we underestimated the decline. We all knew the significant increase in sales during the past couple of years was temporary and driven by concern for both legislative action that would broadly change our gun laws.”
Put another way: paranoia has its limits as a driver of gun sales. Background checks — a proxy for sales — jumped 19% in 2012 and rose another 8% in 2013, according to the FBI’s National Instant Criminal, Background Check System.
But there’s a different story in 2014. Background checks plummeted by a third in January — and even as some of that decline was weather related, there hasn’t been a catch-up since then. Background checks were up just 1% from February to April. Taken together, background checks are down 9% this year.
No wonder, then, that Cabela’s
CAB -5.04% — another retailer of guns — saw its shares slump by around 5%. Of the publicly traded gun makers, Sturm, Ruger
RGR -3.23% also was lower, though interestingly, Smith & Wesson
SWHC +0.66% was up, helped by a brokerage upgrade due to market-share gains.
President Barack Obama famously said on the campaign trail that people in small towns cling to either guns or religion. Under his administration, the right to cling is untainted, his efforts for fairly mild legislative action are dead in Congress, and there’s little interest from his administration in taking executive action.
The Newtown, Conn., school shooting in 2012 shocked a nation but did not lead to a consensus on what to do about it. And by now even the most concerned of gun enthusiasts has concluded there’s nothing to fear.
