Race & Ethnicity

Public opinion polls and peer-reviewed survey research point to one of the great paradoxes of American life: guns are everywhere, but the average person doesn’t seem to know much about them. With mass shootings occurring in the United States at rates not seen in other Western industrialized countries, Americans remain puzzled nonetheless about why they occur with such regularity here.

To get a sense of what passes for common knowledge, one poll by NPR/Ipsos found that less than 10 percent of Americans were able to answer seven out of 10 questions on gun violence correctly.

In the wake of the Las Vegas shooting, Ipsos Public Affairs President Cliff Young said, “what we know actually is that gun violence like this typically has a short-term effect on public opinion where there’s a crystallizing event” that temporarily bumps support for gun control upward”(Kurtzleben).

Gun control remains a contested “hot-button” issue in the United States. Not surprisingly, political party identification has a big impact on public opinion on the topic of guns. Thus, pollsters find that while Republicans and Democrats alike support specific restrictions, the general idea of tighter gun control is much more firmly supported by Democrats than anyone else — 84 percent of Democrats said gun laws should be “a lot” or “somewhat” stricter than today, compared to 61 percent of independents and 55 percent of Republicans (Kurtzleben).

Here’s a summary based on race, education, and gender differences on the issue of gun control. See if you can find yourself in these statistics:

Here’s another summary of what people think about guns based on political party ID:

• One-third of Republicans said gun laws right now are “about right,” compared to 23 percent of independents and just 9 percent of Democrats.
• Partisan differences also showed up in exposure to guns — significantly more Republicans than Democrats have fired guns, own guns, and have friends who own guns, as the survey shows.
• And this dovetails with some particularly wide partisan gaps on attitudes toward guns: two-thirds of Republicans agreed with the statement “owning a gun would make me feel safer,” compared to around just a third of Democrats. Likewise, 72 percent of Republicans agreed with the statement, “The benefits of gun ownership outweigh the risks.” Democrats were the near opposite of this, with 60 percent disagreeing about the benefits of gun ownership (Kurtzleben).

What About Other Countries?

The United States has the highest rates of gun violence and gun ownership in the world – by far. This fact is not in dispute. And it has the highest rate of homicides with guns among advanced countries. But, again, those are statistics and not demonstrative of a causal relationship. But what about other countries. How do we stack up and/or compare?

The National Research Council of the National Academies concluded in its report that studies comparing large geographic areas, what it called “ecological studies,” didn’t show a distinct trend, and instead “provide[d] contradictory evidence on violence and firearms.”

One problem in comparing various countries is the wealth of other factors, besides the mere presence of guns, that can affect whether a homicide occurs, such as the economy, general crime rates, and laws governing guns. Another issue is that the data isn’t all that great. Gun ownership numbers are largely based on public opinion surveys, and the reliability of numbers can vary widely from country to country. “We don’t have good data on the prevalence of ownership on all the countries we’d want to have it on,” says Wintemute.

The numbers in the chart below are from the (2007) Small Arms Survey. This project gives high and low estimates, along with an average. Using average numbers, they show the U.S. with 88.8 guns for every 100 people (you can also see this in the chart above. That makes the U.S. No. 1 in the gun ownership rate in the world.  Switzerland, with 45.7 guns per 100 people, is No. 3 in the world, with nearly half the rate of the U.S. Switzerland also requires military service. (Yemen is No. 2, with 54.8 guns per 100 people.)

The Small Arms Survey acknowledges that its numbers are approximations, making these estimates is far from an exact science. In addition to surveys, the researchers rely on gun registration, experts, other indicators such as firearm suicides, and comparisons to similar countries. The survey qualifies its results by saying “All gun numbers—even those that seem most accurate—approximate reality or reveal only part of it. They should be used with caution.”

The firearms homicide rate and homicide rate overall is also higher in the U.S. compared to other advanced countries, such as Canada, Australia and those in Europe, according to data from the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. The U.S. gun homicide rate was 3.2 per every 100,000 people in 2010, according to UNODC figures. The UNODC measures “intentional homicide,” which is “an unlawful death purposefully inflicted on a person by another person.”

More Guns = More Homicides

In 2008, researchers explored the issue of whether more gun ownership meant more or less gun violence. What they found, and it still holds true, was that some studies had shown a statistical relationship between those factors — areas with a higher prevalence of guns had higher prevalence of gun homicides and homicides in general. But studies haven’t been able to show a causal relationship — that the mere presence of guns, as opposed to other factors, caused the higher rates of gun violence. It’s doubtful, however, that a study could ever beyond-a-doubt prove a causal relationship (Farley).

The international data show that country-to-country comparisons are inherently difficult to make — and, as the NRC said,  and they can sometimes provide “contradictory evidence.” For instance, Latin American countries with high levels of firearm homicide show low levels of gun ownership. Honduras has a gun ownership rate of 6.2 per 100 people and a gun homicide rate of 68.43 per 100,000 people, and Colombia has a gun rate of 5.9 and firearm homicide rate of 27.09, as shown in this chart produced by the Washington Post using the same data cited here (Farley).

But among advanced countries, the U.S. homicide rate stands out. “We seem to be an average country in terms of violence and aggression,” says Harvard’s Hemenway. “What we have is huge homicide rates compared to anybody else.” These sentiments are echoed by Wintemute: “The difference is that in the U.S. violence involves firearms and firearms change the outcome” (Farley).

Do Concealed Carry Laws Reduce Violent Crime?

Typically, in the wake of a high profile shooting, emotion and public opinion fill the airwaves as people debate whether or not the answer is more guns or fewer guns. It’s not uncommon for people to say things like had the (insert victim) been armed, they might have killed the shooter. Individual case illustrations will be offered up to illustrate a time when a “good guy with a gun” took down a bad guy. But there’s a difference between studying individual cases and aggregates. Research and statistical analysis focus on aggregates to make statements about populations.

John Lott, the author of the 2010 edition “More Guns Less Crime,” contends that “[a]llowing citizens to carry concealed handguns reduces violent crimes, and the reductions coincide very closely with the number of concealed-handgun permits issued.” (p. 20) He goes on to state that the results of his research “clearly imply that nondiscretionary [concealed carry] laws coincide with fewer murders, aggravated assaults, and rapes” (p. 57).  More controversially, he argues that “[w]hen state concealed handgun laws went into effect in a county, murders fell by about 8 percent, rapes fell by 5 percent, and aggravated assaults fell by 7 percent” (p. 59). Similarly, Carlisle Moody, an economics professor at William & Mary, says guns prevent injuries and death.

Alternatively, one of the leading researchers on gun violence, Dr. David Hemenway at the Harvard Injury Control Research Center, contradicts Lott and says “that’s completely wrong.” Hemenway along with a committee of the National Research Council of the National Academies in 2004 analyzed Lott’s research and took issue with his findings, concluding that “it is impossible to draw strong conclusions from the existing literature on the causal impact of these laws.” According to them:

The initial model specification, when extended to new data, does not show evidence that passage of right-to-carry laws reduces crime. The estimated effects are highly sensitive to seemingly minor changes in the model specification and control variables. No link between right-to-carry laws and changes in crime is apparent in the raw data, even in the initial sample; it is only once numerous covariates are included that the negative results in the early data emerge. While the trend models show a reduction in the crime growth rate following the adoption of right-to-carry laws, these trend reductions occur long after law adoption, casting serious doubt on the proposition that the trend models estimated in the literature reflect effects of the law change. Finally, some of the point estimates are imprecise. Thus, the committee concludes that with the current evidence it is not possible to determine that there is a causal link between the passage of right-to-carry laws and crime rates.

Again in 2008, the Harvard Injury Control Research Center reviewed the reams of scientific research on concealed gun-carrying laws and broadly concluded: “the changes have neither been highly beneficial nor highly detrimental” (Farley).

More Guns = More Suicide

National debates over gun violence tend to focus on mass murders and high profile shootings (i.e. the Newtown, Connecticut, elementary school, Las Vegas shooting, Columbine). Unfortunately, what tends to get lost in the shuffle of sensation is one important face: many more people kill themselves with a firearm every year than are murdered with one.

In 2010 in the U.S., 19,392 people committed suicide with guns (compared with 11,078 who were killed by other people). According to Matthew Miller, associate director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center (HICRC) at Harvard School of Public Health, “If every life is important, and if you’re trying to save people from dying by gunfire, then you can’t ignore nearly two-thirds of the people who are dying.” Suicide is the 10th-leading cause of death in the U.S.; in 2010, 38,364 people killed themselves. In more than half of these cases, they used firearms. Indeed, more people in this country kill themselves with guns than with all other intentional means combined, including hanging, poisoning or overdose, jumping, or cutting. Though guns are not the most common method by which people attempt suicide, they are the most lethal. About 85 percent of suicide attempts with a firearm end in death. (Drug overdose, the most widely used method in suicide attempts, is fatal in less than 3 percent of cases.) Moreover, guns are an irreversible solution to what is often a passing crisis. Suicidal individuals who take pills or inhale car exhaust or use razors have time to reconsider their actions or summon help. With a firearm, once the trigger is pulled, there’s no turning back (Drexler).

Quiz

Test your knowledge on gun violence and take an online quiz here or simply follow below:

1. About how many people in America are shot each year?

1,000

10,000

50,000

100,000

2. Of those shot in the United States annually, how many people are killed?

350

3,500

35,000

350,000

3. How many guns are there in the United States per 100 people?

8 per 100 people

32 per 100 people

88 per 100 people

175 per 100 people

4. T or F: The number of guns in America has increased over the last 20 years.

5. What is the most common type of firearm in America?

Handgun

Shotgun

Rifle

6. What kind of firearms are most commonly used in homicides?

Handgun

Shotgun

Rifle

7. What percentage of gun deaths are the result of mass shootings?

1.5%

15%

30%

50%

8. T or F: Most gun deaths in the United States are homicides.

9. About what percentage of reported suicide attempts carried out with a gun result in a death?

20%

40%

60%

80%

10. About how many children are shot each day in America?

5

10

15

20

11. T or F: Every gun buyer undergoes a background check, whether purchasing from a store or a private seller.

12. T or F: Chicago has the highest homicide rate in America.

13. T or F: Households with guns are more likely to experience a fatality from crime, accident or suicide than households without guns.

14. Kids and adolescents are at an increased risk for suicide when there is a gun in the home. What Suicide rates in this population are _______times higher than for kids who live in homes without guns.

15. More than _________% of all unintentional shootings of children take place in the homes of their friends, neighbors, or relatives. 

How Did You Score?

Answer Key:

1. An average of 115,000 people were shot each year from 2011 to 2015, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control.
2. More than 38,000 people died by firearms in 2016, preliminary CDC reports indicate, and the rate of gun deaths increased to 12 per 100,000 people. In 2015, there were 36,000 gun fatalities and about 33,500 annually from 2012 to 2014.
3. With 88 per 100 people, the United States has more guns than any other country. Yemen, with 54.8 guns per 100 people, is second.
4. There are an estimated 265 million firearms in American households, an increase of 70 million from two decades before, one survey found. In 2015, there were approximately 55 million gun owners, compared with approximately 44 million in 1994. But because of population increases, the share of Americans who owned guns over the same period actually dipped slightly, from 25 percent to 22 percent.
5. A recent survey estimated that 42 percent of all firearms were handguns, most of them acquired for self-defense. That reflects a big shift: two decades ago, the most common gun owned by Americans was a hunting rifle.
6. Handguns are used in homicides more than twice as often as other types of firearms, according to the Department of Justice.
7. Mass shootings account for less than 1.2 percent of annual gun deaths, the New York Times estimates, using figures from the nonprofit, nonpartisan Gun Violence Archive.
8. About a third of the 35,000 gun deaths recorded annually are homicides; 60% are suicides. Unintentional shootings make up another 1 percent.
9. Suicide attempts by firearms have an 82.5 percent fatality rate, one study found. Guns are not the most common means of suicide attempt, but they result in more deaths than every other method combined.
10. Nineteen children are shot in the United States every day. Three die, on average, a study released this year in the journal Pediatrics found.
11. Federal law requires that gun buyers undergo a background check only when purchasing a weapon from a licensed firearms dealer. Fewer than 20 states require checks on sales between private parties. In an estimated 22 percent of gun transfers, the person acquiring the gun is not vetted by law enforcement, research shows.
12. Chicago has the most homicides in raw numbers. But on a per-capita basis, the city’s homicide rate is lower than seven other cities, including New Orleans, St. Louis and Buffalo, New York.
13. Polls show that a majority of Americans believe a gun makes a household safer, but crime and violent injury data suggest the opposite. One study found that “For every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides.”
14. Suicide rates among kids and adolescents are four times higher than for kids who live in homes without guns.
15. More than 30% of all unintentional shootings of children take place in the homes of their friends, neighbors, or relatives.

Sources

“How Much Do You Know About Gun Violence in America?” by Team Trace

“Poll: Majorities of Both Parties Favor Increased Gun Restrictions,” by Daniel Kurtzleben

“Gun Rhetoric vs. Gun Facts“, by Robert Farley

“Guns & Suicide, The Hidden Toll” by Madeline Drexler

Guns, Violence & the War at Home

Millions of Americans have come to find that they want and need to carry guns. How we have arrived at this moment in time in the United States is indeed one of the most vexing issues than confronts our society. Why, for example, do so many people feel a need to carry a gun with them everywhere they go – even to do pedestrian things like trips to the store, the movies, and to buy coffee? Do they not feel safe in their neighborhoods? Do they feel their lives are in imminent danger? Does carrying a gun afford a sense of pleasure? Or does it give people access to a sense of power that they may otherwise not have? Whatever the case, Americans have a unique history that informs a complex relationship with firearms and guns.  Without a doubt, the subject of carrying firearms and guns instigates sharp debate in U.S. society.

Up until now, most of the scholarship that addresses gun ownership has focused on documenting demographic characteristics – Who owns guns? Why do they own them? Where do they live? Perhaps more in-depth critical analysis might yield answers that could account for the social and psychological processes bound up within our culture that may offer insight and help solve some of the problems with gun violence in America.

Gun Culture – Why Are Americans So Attached to Their Guns?

For some people, having and holding a firearm is a way to express pride and carry on family traditions. For others, it might be about looking tough.  Doubtless, there are a variety of reasons, social, psychological, and political that all factor into how guns interact with people and their expression of their social identity.

The research tells us that the physical location of where you grew up most assuredly will have an impact on what you think about guns and gun violence. To this end, if you are someone who is lives in a place where you are culturally and/or racially isolated, so that you typically only interact with other people who are: 1) part of your own racial cohort; 2) share local cultural values (i.e. attend similar schools, churches, and enjoy similar entertainment activities like hunting), this will determine in many respects what you think and believe about guns.

For example, research has shown that people who live in predominantly all-white communities, where they have never attended a school or worked in a workplace that reflects any kind of cultural/racial diversity, such that they only know and socialize with other people who look like them, are more likely to view places that reflect racial and cultural diversity with a mixture of suspicion, fear, scorn, and perhaps even hatred.

Researchers have found that people who live in culturally and racially homogeneous area are statistically more likely to: 1) own and carry firearms, and 2) to support policies that make it easier to own and carry firearms; 3) view “others” (racial and otherwise) with suspicion and animus.  Put another way, what this research is telling us is that affinity for firearms is not simply always about hunting and “protecting the family.”

Aside from issues of having fear of people who may be different, it is important to bear in mind that issues of “culture” are notoriously difficult to define. This only serves to add to the difficulty of understanding guns and gun violence. No one knows this more than the people who make and sell guns.

Debates about “gun culture” often become fixated on ideas like “gun culture is under attack” or “people who grew up around guns are a problem.” Consequently, fears are easily stoked that people want to dismantle gun culture by taking guns away from people who own them and/or see guns as being representative of a vibrant part of their culture. People have been encouraged to be sympathetic to those fears and to respect the feelings of people who fear the loss of their culture. But maybe there’s more to it than this.

What about the fact that there are lots of people in the United States who think NOT having guns is part of their culture? Many of them don’t mind saying that they don’t want to live around people who love guns. As it turns out, research tells us that a sizeable majority of Americans do not own guns. For people in this group, they might define their cultural values and the places they like to live as places where people don’t always walk around armed with weapons and ready to fight. This too can be considered a culture that is worthy of respect, yet we don’t often hear consider this perspective in public debates.

As one author put it, “But back when a far greater portion of the American public lived in rural areas and small towns than do today, there wasn’t really anything like today’s “gun culture.” If you had a hunting rifle or a shotgun your dad gave you, as millions of Americans did, you weren’t participating in an encompassing “culture” in which guns defined your identity. That gun was a tool, like a broom or a shovel or a cleaver. But the gun culture of today, with so much fetishization of guns and an entire political/commercial industry working hard to spread and solidify the idea that guns are not just a thing you own but who you are, is what we’re now expected to show respect for.

For instance, the idea that anyone should be able to own military-style rifles designed to kill as many human beings in as short a period as possible, for no real reason other than the fact that some people think they’re cool, is supposed to be a part of people’s culture, no matter how ludicrous it would have seemed to your grandparents. And when you say something is part of your culture, you’re placing it beyond reasoned judgment. In other words, when you place something in the sphere of culture, you automatically afford it a kind of conditional immunity from criticism. And you can demand that it be respected” (Waldman, 2018).

According to Waldman, “the “gun culture” promoted by gun advocates today is toxic. It’s paranoid, angry, hostile, and is built on the idea that even the most modest restrictions on guns represent a cataclysmic evisceration of liberty. It’s constantly fed fantasies of oppression and righteous violence in order to maintain its power — which of course keeps the customers buying more and more guns” (Waldman, 2018).

Righteous Violence – Fighting for Freedom & Rugged Individualism

The idea of the “rugged individual” is one that is deeply ingrained in the American psyche. It is one that evokes images of the early settlers, who set out to conquer new frontiers. Back in the “old days” men (and it was mostly men) proved their worth by using guns to hunt and kill animals to eat; they needed guns to protect themselves and their families. Guns, in other words, were effective tools that served a vital purpose.  While the days of the frontier are part of our past, the popularity of hunting, particularly in rural and rural parts of the U.S., evokes the nostalgia of this past and the popularity of this ideal.

But that’s not where this ends. The notion of the rugged individual who prevails over the social “collective” is another important dimension of this thinking and this idea too has become foundational to contemporary notions of American patriotism.  Now, a “real” patriot is one who both loves their country and loathes their government. What about duty, honor, country? These self-identified patriotic individuals serve only a duty to themselves and their families.

According to this view, no one has a right to rely upon or demand that the government and society provide them with assistance or the means for subsistence. To this end, governments that interfere with the individual’s pursuit of their freedom – which is to say, their self-interest – is the enemy.

It is this “enemy” ideation of government that has become the wellspring for a sizeable number of people in the U.S., who now feel a need to stockpile arms in order to face down an overreaching government and its army. And herein lies a glaring contradiction: “Schrodinger’s Patriot,” it turns out, doesn’t really support the troops after all.

The Second Amendment (2A) to the US Constitution has, in the minds of some Americans, virtually enshrined the right of individuals to keep and bear arms. Notwithstanding, there have been numerous attempts to interpret this provision by entities like the U.S. Supreme Court, who have noted that the language contained in the amendment applies to state militias and not individuals, whose rights may be constrained. This says nothing of the fact that the kinds of weapons that existed at the time these historical documents were written bear no resemblance to today’s modern firearms.

Oddly enough, Americans who rightly revere the extraordinary sacrifices made by war veterans are also advocating for the increasing militarization of American culture when they support weak regulation of guns (which leads to the increased proliferation of guns).

As the data here indicate, the trends toward owning,  carrying, and stockpiling firearms has had hugely problematic effects in American society, which by far experiences more gun violence, injuries, and deaths than any other developed nation – by a long shot.

Basic Nomenclature

Before moving forward, some basic housekeeping around the nomenclature that is conventionally used for how we talk about guns in the United States is in order. Not only does this often vary from state to state in legal discourses, the very naming guns as you will see here shortly can be politically contentious.

Firearms are understood to be a generic category made up primarily of portable guns (barrel ranged weapons). These guns fire shaped projectiles and are propelled by rapidly expanding high-pressure gas produced by the exothermic combustion of propellant within the ammunition cartridge.

The general category of “firearms” can be broken down further, such that it includes handguns, long-guns, rifles, and weapons. Handguns tend to be the smallest of all firearms. There are two typical classifications that apply to the handgun – the revolver and the semi-automatic pistol.

Long guns are conventionally fired with two hands; they tend to have a barrel that ranges between 10 and 30 inches in length. The barrel, along with the receiver and trigger group, is mounted onto a wood, plastic, metal or composite stock; the stock is composed of one or more pieces that form a foregrip, rear grip, and optionally (but typically) a shoulder mount called the butt. Muskets are one example of an early form of long guns; they featured a smoothbore barrel that fired one (or more) ball shot.

Contemporary forms of long guns include both rifles and shotguns. Rifles are distinctive as a result of their spiral bore fluting (rifling). The rifling helps put a spin on the bullet as it is launched down the barrel. Shotguns, on the other hand, are smooth bore weapons that are designed to fire shot (pellet cartridges). Shotguns can also fire slugs, bean bags, and other forms of breaching rounds (i.e. tear gas). Rifles and shotguns have more traditionally been used for hunting and for home defense. But this too is changing.

To make matters a bit more complicated, rifles can be broken down to distinguish automatic rifles and assault rifles. An automatic rifle is a magazine-fed firearm that chambers rifle cartridges and is capable of automatic fire.

The U.S. military originally adopted the M19 Browning Automatic rifle as its first infantry weapon/battlefield rifle. Big rifles were eventually replaced because they were too big/heavy to carry and were cumbersome. They were too slow to fire and often the range was not long enough. Soldiers wanted a lighter weapon that could fire on automatic like a  machine gun without being too heavy and one that could still fire big-rifle ammunition, all while absorbing recoil, so as to not detract from accuracy. To address this need, a new category of firearm was developed – the light “assault rifle.”

Another discrepancy worth pointing out occurs in usage over the term “guns” which some (not all) states use to denote long guns, reserving the term “firearms” to designate handguns. This is how the state of Pennsylvania defines it.

Spare Us the Jargon – The Semantics of Assault Rifles

The AR-15 is America’s most popular rifle. It has also been the weapon of choice in mass shootings from Sandy Hook to Aurora to San Bernardino. In Orlando, the shooter used a Sig Sauer MCX, an AR-15 style rifle originally developed for special ops, to kill 49 people in the Pulse nightclub. The carnage sparked new calls to reinstate a ban on assault rifles like the AR-15, which were originally designed as weapons of war (Zhang).

While it’s possible to argue about everything when it comes to the politics of guns—including about the definition of “assault rifle” itself— it’s harder to argue about history and physics. So let’s take a look at the history and physics of an AR-15.

History

As Michael Schurkin writes in The Atlantic, “The assault rifle is a class of weapon that emerged in the middle of the last century to meet the needs of combat soldiers on the modern battlefield, where the level of violence had reached such heights that an entirely new way of fighting had emerged, one for which the existing weapons were a poor match. The name “assault rifle” is believed to have been coined by Adolf Hitler. Toward the end of World War II, the story goes, Hitler hailed his army’s new wonder weapon by insisting that it be called not by the technical name given it by its developers, the Machinenpistole (the German name for a submachine gun), but rather something that made for better propaganda copy. A Sturmgewehr, he called the new gun: a “storm” or “assault” weapon.”

The United States Defense Department’s Defense Intelligence Agency book Small Arms Identification and Operation Guide explains, “assault rifles” are “short, compact, selective-fire weapons that fire a cartridge of intermediate power between submachine gun and rifle cartridges.” In terms of size, they are slightly smaller than battlefield rifles.

Assault rifles are, in other words, battlefield rifles that can fire automatically; they have mechanisms that allow the user to select between different functional settings – single shots, fully automatic bursts, or fully automatic fire.

The M-16 rifle and its shorter M-4 version are the standard assault rifles used by the U.S. military. Other armies use these rifles in addition to different versions of the AK-47 and AR-15 assault rifles.

Put another way, assault rifles are military rifles which have select-fire capability (they can shoot on full auto – like a machine gun; or more than one round with the single pull of a trigger). These rifles, however, are not easy for the average shooter to obtain, for reasons that they are subject to strict regulations that limit their availability and pricing that will break the bank account of the average person.

ArmaLite “AR” Rifles 

The decision to adopt the AR/M-16 was preceded by the U.S. Army testing several different rifles to replace the obsolete M1 Garand (Springfield Armory’s T44E4 and heavier T44E5 were essentially updated versions of the Garand chambered for the new 7.62 mm round, while Fabrique Nationale submitted their FN FAL as the T48). ArmaLite/Colt entered competition late, after submitting several AR-10 prototype rifles to the United States Army’s Springfield Armory for testing. It was subsequently adopted by the military as the M16 rifle, which went into mass production in March 1964.

Before this time, beginning in 1959, after a combination of product line setbacks and financial difficulties, ArmaLite sold its rights to the AR-10 and AR-15 to Colt. Colt made modifications to the original AR rifle (notably, the charging handle was re-located from under the carrying handle like AR-10 to the rear of the receiver. Soon after, Colt rebranded it the Colt ArmaLite AR-15 and marketed the redesigned rifle to military services around the world.

The ArmaLite AR-15 was a select-fire (manual, semi, fully auto) rifle equipped to shoot 5.56x45mm ball ammunition; it’s an air-cooled, gas-operated, magazine-fed assault rifle, with a rotating bolt and straight-line recoil design. Originally created by Eugene Stoner, Jim Sullivan, and Bob Fremont in the late 195o’s, its design is based on the ArmaLite AR-10 rifle. This rifle used a system called “direct impingement.” Most modern AR-15-type rifles use this system (Gibbons-Neff).

The AR-10 and AR-15 were designed, first and foremost, to be lightweight assault rifles; they fired a new lightweight, high-velocity small caliber cartridge, which enabled their primary customer, the U.S. military/infantryman, to easily carry additional reserves of ammunition.

The Colt AR-15,  as it is known now, was manufactured with the extensive use of aluminum alloys and synthetic materials. It is a civilian semi-automatic version of the United States military M16 rifle. 

Consequently, if it’s not already clear, “AR” does NOT stand for “assault rifle” or “automatic rifle.”

After Colt’s patents expired in 1977, other manufacturers started to copy the original Colt AR-15 rifle’s design. However, the term “AR-15” is a Colt registered trademark and Colt only uses the term to refer to its line of semi-automatic rifles. Consequently, other manufacturers marketed their generic AR-15s under different names, which are frequently referred to as AR-style rifles.

AR-15 rifles and other AR-style rifles are semi-automatic rifles that are popular with civilian shooters because they are reliable, simple, cool-looking, and easily customized; they’re also relatively inexpensive and easy to use (Peters). How customizable? Only the sky and $$$$ limit you. Users can add scopes, lasers, suppressors, slings, and various handles. They can even change out the lower portion of the gun – the receiver – as well as the magazine, which allows for total customization to whatever the user wants. The gun lobby prefers to call these weapons “modern sporting rifles” But make no mistake: what the Orlando attacker used was a weapon of war -it was designed to kill people quickly and efficiently.

Pictured below is a replica of the rifle Omar Mateen used in the Pulse Club massacre, which he alternated shooting that day with a Glock 17 9mm handgun. Able to shoot the same caliber ammunition — .223 —  as an AR-15, the Sig Sauer MCX, better known as the “Black Mamba” in military circles, was originally designed for military Special Operations forces to fire a round called a .300 Blackout. This relatively new caliber was designed to provide them with a bullet that was as quiet as a pistol round even as it packed the range and lethality of a rifle cartridge [another feature of the bullet’s design is that it mimics the size of the round fired by AK-47-type assault rifles].

Although the legal civilian version of the gun fires on semi-automatic, it is still highly lethal. The fact that the rifle, despite being sold with modifications, can be acquired by a civilian purchaser does not erase the history of its development as a weapon of war – nor should this preclude anyone from calling it an “assault rifle.”

Physics

The key difference between the standard AR-15 series rifle and the MCX “sporting” rifle can be traced to the operating system that is used to 1) mechanically propel the bullet from the gun; and 2) cycle the next round to be fired.

The military version of the assault rifle has a fully automatic select-fire capability and it uses the lesser power rifle round (intermediate cartridge – such as the .223 or 5.56 caliber ammunition ). The round fired from this rifle cartridge reduces recoil and allows a shooter to fire controllable 3 round “bursts” at short range, all while retaining rifle-like accuracy at medium ranges.

Alternatively, civilian AR and AR-style rifles are semi-automatic rifles. They have a more limited function mechanism in the sense that these M-16 style rifles are not technically made to fire as many rounds per minute as the military automatic rifles. The semi-automatic sporting rifles fire one round every time the trigger is pulled.

So while gun enthusiasts argue there is a simple basic difference between the two rifles based on fire selection mechanism, where the assault rifle alone has the ability to fire on full automatic and switch between automatic and semi-automatic fire; this view only tells part of the story. Civilian legal rifles aren’t “select-fire “capable. This means they don’t have a select-fire switch that lets them shoot in a fully-automatic mode.

By way of comparison, the bullet from a handgun is—as absurd as this may sound—slow compared to that from an AR-15. In the case of the former, it can be stopped by the thick bone of an upper leg. Or it might pass through the body, only to become lodged in the skin, which is surprisingly elastic (Zhang).

Military M-4 – note the select fire mechanism with the full-auto select fire option

Strike Industries AR-style rifle with a restricted selection mechanism

The bullet from an AR-15 /AR style rifle, however, accomplishes an entirely different kind of violence to the human body. The round itself is relatively small, but it leaves the muzzle at three times the speed of a handgun bullet. It has so much energy that it can disintegrate three inches of leg bone. “It would just turn it to dust,” says Donald Jenkins, a trauma surgeon at University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio. If it hits the liver, “the liver looks like a jello mold that’s been dropped on the floor.” And the exit wound can be a nasty, jagged hole the size of an orange (Zhang).

These small but high-velocity bullets can damage flesh inches away from their path, either because they fragment or because they cause something called cavitation. When you trail your fingers through water, the water ripples and curls. When a high-velocity bullet pierces the body, human tissues ripples as well—but much more violently. The bullet from an AR-15 might miss the femoral artery in the leg, but cavitation may burst the artery anyway, causing death by blood loss. A swath of stretched and torn tissue around the wound may die. That’s why, says Rhee, a handgun wound might require only one surgery but an AR-15 bullet wound might require three to ten (Zhang).

Multiply the damage from a single bullet by the ease of shooting an AR-15, which doesn’t kick. “The gun barely moves. You can sit there boom boom boom and reel off shots as fast as you can move your finger,” says Ernest Moore, a trauma surgeon at Denver Health and editor of the Journal of Trauma and Acute Surgery, which just published an issue dedicated to gun violence (Zhang).

Handguns kill plenty of people too, of course, and they’re responsible for the vast majority of America’s gun deaths. But a single bullet from a handgun is not likely to be as deadly as one from an AR-15 (Zhang).

How fast can you pull the trigger?

A top gun competitor can easily pull the trigger of a semi-automatic weapon three times a second for short periods of time. Theoretically, their “cycling rate” might be 180 rounds per minute, even though may only do this to fire bursts of a second or two. Most modern semiautos use 30-round magazines, which means the magazine would have to be changed six times to reach the magic 180 number. Keep in mind that an expert can change a mag on some rifles in about two to three seconds (depending on the gun and how he/she has staged the mags), but that results in 12–18 seconds of lost shooting time per minute. So that leaves them with a maximum theoretical firing rate of about 138 rounds per minute.

Now take an average shooter with a top speed of about two shots per second; they’re emptying a magazine in 15 seconds. Reloading takes maybe four seconds, so it takes about 19 seconds to empty a mag and recharge. Their effective firing rate is about 90 rounds per minute, not counting the time it takes to aim.

Now ask yourself: if an average shooter fired only 90 rounds a minute into your body, as opposed to 138, would you feel less assaulted?

Rifle Modifications

A semi-automatic rifle can easily and in many cases can legally be modified to mimic automatic fire through the use of a bump stock. Bump stocks are legal and are part of a class of products that are designed with one purpose in mind – to increase a semiautomatic weapon’s rate of fire.

When used correctly, a bump stock increases the output of the average firearm to such an extent that it is almost indistinguishable from that of a machine gun. This accessory is not subject to federal regulations and they’re legal in all but a handful of states. They’re also cheap — a typical bump stock sells for a few hundred dollars. This is, for many people, a preferable option compared to the more difficult and costly undertaking of modifying the receiver, as this requires expensive fabrication and additional paperwork – not easy, though it is certainly attainable for someone with money to burn.

How does a bump stock work? When employing a bump stock,  the shooter keeps his trigger finger rigid. Using his second hand, he gently pushes the gun forward. The forward movement causes the user’s finger to depress the trigger. The shot’s recoil then drives the gun backward, and the bump stock is designed to allow this cycle of discharge and recoil until the shooter chooses to stop firing or the gun’s magazine is spent (Kohrman). The Las Vegas shooter used this in his massacre, which killed 58 people and injured 489 others.

The Last Word on “All American Toys”

Assault rifles were always designed to fight wars. The fact that different versions of these rifles are now being marketed to/used in domestic civilian social spaces doesn’t mean we cannot or should not call them assault rifles. As writer Justin Peters explains, “The sporting rifle designation is merely a euphemism the gun industry created in 2009 to describe modular semi-automatic rifles. The phrase is an artful attempt to recast weapons such as the MCX and the AR-15 (and its variants) as “all-American toys” (Peters).

To be sure, it’s understandable that people who like their toys don’t want them taken away. But instead of debating issues of substance and policy, there is a tendency to resort to jargoning everyone to death to win (shut down) argument. And by this, I’m referring to the non-stop haggling over the distinction between civilian AR-styled rifles and military-style assault rifles. These differences – AR vs. AK, civilian vs. military, fully automatic vs. semi-automatic – have become the rallying cry for many gun enthusiasts, who protest – “stop calling an AR-15  an assault rifle!” 

This laboring over technical distinctions amounts to what is essentially a semantic dance; it constitutes a form of identity politics, where “in-group” members/gun enthusiasts play a game of cultural virtue signalling, where they deploy language as a weapon to tell “outgroup” members to more or less shut up and exit the debate (see example above).

For what it’s worth,  I served in the military intelligence services, where I was an Army Captain and served on active duty for a number of years. And like a lot of people, I was rated “expert” on these weapons many times. So, I know a thing or two about guns. People don’t have to be sharpshooters to take part in conversations about guns. They don’t have to be able to take a rifle apart blindfolded or name every last part of a gun without fail before they can talk about guns and what capabilities guns have. Guns, furthermore, shouldn’t be a symbol to tell other people whose “side” you are on in terms of politics. And finally, you don’t have to be a gun expert to see there is an abundance of research and evidence that suggests it’s simply common sense for many of these guns to kept out of the hands of untrained civilians.

As for the remaining term “weapons,”  this addresses a broad category of items that can cause death or injury; this includes knives, bows, arrows, explosives, chemicals, and hand grenades. The important takeaway here is that there may be considerable linguistic variation when it comes to the use of these terms; people may slide easily from one term to the other without always being specific and consistent in terms of practical usage. “Gun” is perhaps the shortest and simplest term. Notwithstanding, if you are/were in the military, you probably already know that it’s not always a good idea to say “gun.”

Photo from the film Full Metal Jacket – “This is my rifle, this is my ‘gun.’ ”

Framing the Debate

What is the appropriate way to frame the debate over guns in public? Is it a rights discourse – the right to own, to carry concealed, to carry open? Or is it about freedom? As in, Americans are uniquely constitutionally guaranteed the freedom to own and carry any type of gun anytime and anyplace? Do gun rights outweigh human rights?

Advocates of gun control say that easy access to firearms increases gun violence and therefore the restriction of gun ownership will save lives. Opponents of gun control say that such restriction violates individual liberty guaranteed by the Constitution and cite the need for armed self-defense.

Julius Goat has some ideas:

So What Does the 2nd Amendment Really Say?

The meanings implied by the 2nd Amendment (2A) to the U.S. Constitution continue to be disputed and tested by the courts. On one side, opponents of gun control maintain that the 2A guarantees an individual’s right to have firearms. On the other side, gun control supporters say the amendment embodies only a collective right of the states to maintain militias. Just to be clear then, the 2nd Amendment says nothing about private gun ownership. In light of this, gun ownership is protected under private property laws for use on our own properties and are subject to regulation by local, state and federal jurisdictions.

Over the years, the federal courts have been nearly unanimous that the Second Amendment protects only the collective right of the states to maintain militias, and not an individual’s right to own
guns (the District of Columbia v. Heller, 2008 is the lone exception to this consensus).

Heller is a landmark case in many ways, not least of which for Justice Antonin Scalia’s majority opinion, one of his most discussed and most quoted. Because it says the 2A is not unlimited and that no one has a right to carry a weapon in any manner for any purpose. But a close look at decisions over the past decade indicates Heller did not revolutionize the judicial treatment of gun laws in quite the way that justice Stevens and others might have feared… or gun rights supporters might have hoped (Blocher and Rubin, 2018).

So where are we at? The Second Amendment, as courts have come to interpret it, undoubtedly protects a fundamental constitutional right, but it also leaves room for a potentially wide range of interpretation and regulation (Blocher and Rubin, 2018).

Espresso Shots, Not Gun Shots

Why do some Americans need to carry guns to buy bread, milk, and Starbucks? Why is coffee so scary? The simple answer is – because they can.

Starbucks, in particular, has a symbolic value – the American corporate coffee chain has become an iconic signifier of effeminate liberal consumption. Unlike Dunkin Donuts, it offers a “target rich” environment to the extent that it is likely to be chock-full of liberals who will be unnerved (if not pissed off) by the aggressive posturing of 2A enthusiasts openly carrying loaded firearms.

Starbucks customer — gun on his hip & drink in hand — watches a rally held by gun control advocates in Seattle, Washington.

Regulatory Framework

The regulation of firearms in the United States has proved to be extremely controversial. Opponents of Gun Control argue that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution makes the right to bear arms an inherent and inalienable right. In practice, it is a combination of federal and state laws that work together to regulate who may own firearms and impose other conditions on their use (Burtons)

The passage in 1993 of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (18 U.S.C.A. § 921 et seq.) was the first major federal gun control law. The Brady Act bars felons and selected others from buying handguns, establishes a five-day waiting period for purchase, requires the local police to run background checks on handgun buyers, and mandates the development of a federal computer database for instant background checks (Burtons).

The 1994 federal crime bill is addressed to the use of deadly weapons by criminals. This law (108 Stat. 1796) banned nineteen assault-type firearms and other firearms with similar characteristics. It also limited the magazine capacity of guns and rifles to ten rounds, but exempted firearms, guns, and magazines that were legally owned when the law went into effect (Burtons). These changes, it should be emphasized, focused on gun characteristics, which gun manufacturers ultimately proved willing to change in an effort to get around the new law.

In what remains the deadliest instance of chemical explosives use was demonstrated by the April 1995 bombing of the federal courthouse in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. In response, Congress passed the 1996 Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act. (P.L. 104-132). The act increases the penalties for conspiracies involving explosives and for the possession of nuclear materials, criminalizes the use of chemical weapons, and requires plastic explosives to contain “tagging” elements in the explosive materials for detection and identification purposes (Burtons).

FBI Agents investigate the damaged rear wall of the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, where Omar Mateen massacred club goers with his Sig Sauer sporting rifle.

Concealed Carry 

One of the reasons I took up this problem to study is that within the span of my own lifetime, I have seen a dramatic turn of events in terms of how people own, carry, and interpret their social identity as this pertains to guns and other firearms.  The desire to conceal and carry is on the upswing. The question is why?

Unless prohibited by statute, possessing or carrying a weapon is not a crime, nor does it constitute a breach of the peace. However, most states make it a crime to carry a prohibited or concealed weapon. The term concealed means hidden, screened, or covered. The usual test for determining whether a weapon is concealed is whether the weapon is hidden from the general view of individuals who are in full view of the accused and close enough to see the weapon if it were not hidden. If the surface of a weapon is covered, the fact that its outline is distinguishable and recognizable as a weapon does not prevent it from being illegally concealed. In addition, most states have enacted laws mandating longer prison terms if a firearm was used in the commission of the crime (Burtons).

Law enforcement officers (LEOs) who must carry weapons in order to perform their official duties ordinarily are exempted from statutes governing weapons. Private citizens may apply to the local police department for a permit to carry a firearm. Permits are generally granted if the person carries large sums of money or valuables in his or her business, or can demonstrate a particular need for personal protection (Burtons).

Who Owns Guns in the United States?

Not only is the United States the runaway world leader for gun ownership – it also suffers mass shootings at more than 11 times the rate of any other developed country, according to a 2014 study published in the International Journal of Criminal Justice Sciences (McCarthy, Beckett, Glenza, 2017).

A 2017 Pew study found that nearly 4 out of 10 Americans say they either own a gun themselves or live in a household with guns; 48% say they grew up in a household with guns. At least two-thirds of adults say they’ve lived in a household with a gun at some point in their lives.

Roughly 7 out of 10 – including 55% of those who have never personally owned a gun – say they have fired a gun at some point (Igielnik and Brown).

The total number of guns in circulation in the United States has been increasing oddly enough at the same time as the number of people buying guns is decreasing.

More interesting (or troubling?) is the fact that those individuals who are acquiring firearms and guns represent a concentrated demographic of people – they are predominantly middle-class white men.

The Guardian journalists point out: “The US is home to 88 guns for every 100 people and sees mass shootings more than 11 times as often as any other developed country.” Check out the statistics featured in their report:

73%

The proportion of firearm murders among all murders in 2016 – the highest ever on record in the United States, according to FBI statistics. While murders in the United States are well down from historic highs, gun murders represent a greater share of the overall total.

70%

The proportion of gun murders in the United States in which a handgun is the weapon, according to FBI statistics.

127

The number of US cities and towns accountable for half of America’s gun homicides in 2015, according to a spatial geographic analysis by the Guardian.

71%

Increase in the number of handguns owned in the United States since 1994.

38%

Increase in the total number of guns owned in the United States since 1994.

3%

The proportion of people who own half of the country’s guns. Anchoring this group are America’s super-gun-owners – the estimated 7.7 million Americans who individually own between eight and 140 guns.

The Pew study reported similar findings; in this study two-thirds (66%) of gun owners indicated they own more than one firearm; roughly three-in-ten (29%) say they personally have five or more guns. Among those who own just one gun, handguns are by far the most popular: 62% say they own a handgun, compared with 22% who say they own a rifle and 16% who own a shotgun (Pew study).

An early study in 2007  conducted by Hepburn, Miller, and Hemenway examined the size and composition of the privately held firearm stock in the US; this study aimed to describe the demographic patterns of firearm ownership as well as the motivations for ownership. They found that 13 percent of Americans, most of whom are men, own four or more guns; 20 percent of these gun owners with the most guns possess the equivalent of 2/3rds of the nation’s stockpile.

Building on that work, a 2017 Harvard/Northeastern study conducted by the same researchers found that the number of privately-owned guns in America grew by more than 70 million—to approximately 265 million—between 1994 and 2015. According to this study, half of the gun stock in the U.S. is owned by only 3 percent of the population (Miller et al). This survey is the first nationally representative survey of firearm ownership and use in more than a decade, according to Miller, a professor of health sciences and epidemiology at Northeastern.

So why are such a small proportion of white Americans stockpiling guns? Who are these people? Where do they live? What kinds of guns do they own? Why do they feel like they need so many guns? Who do they imagine they might need to shoot?

As indicated by Pew, 3 in 10 American adults say they own a gun. As the concentration data indicate, gun ownership cuts across demographic groups but is more concentrated among middle-class white men. That is, white adults are more likely than blacks or Hispanics to own guns: 48 percent of white men say they own a gun, compared to 24 percent each for nonwhite men and white women, who all say they own one. The percentage ownership rate for non-white women is low at 16% (Pew study). Americans with less education are also more likely to be gun owners – a gap that is again noted to be widest among whites.

As for the women, despite these reported statistics, the gun industry believes the potential female market may actually be much larger. White women outnumber non-white women in terms of gun ownership.

What is the Top Reason for Owning a Gun?

Current research documents a consequential shift in terms of attitudes about owning guns. Again, the Pew Study finds that protection and self-defense top the list of reasons for owning a gun – this reflects a shift away from hunting, which was the traditional reason for owning a gun. Consequently, even though gun owners cite more than one reason for owning a firearm, the Pew study found in 2017 that 67% of respondents cited protection as a major reason for owning a gun. Compare this to statistics recorded in the late 1990’s, where the trend is nearly reversed: 49% cited hunting and 26% cited protection (26%).

Hunting, nonetheless, remains a popular reason for owning a gun. The 2017 study documents that 4 in 10 gun owners 38% cite hunting and 30% cite sport shooting, with smaller shares of people citing a gun collection or their job as major reasons (2017 Pew study).

Rural/Urban Divide

Majorities of gun owners who live in cities, suburbs and rural areas say protection is a major reason they own firearms. But when we focus only on owners who live in rural areas, they are significantly more likely to cite hunting as a major reason for owning a gun (Pew study). A question to consider then is how do we measure this? Median distance from home to a major city? Population density or some measure of zip code ID?

To complicate this even more, despite the fact that studies document rural men are statistically more likely to own a gun for hunting purposes, trends show this may be changing. Data reported by the General Social Survey (which contains a panel of questions about hunting) find fewer men reporting over time that they own weapons for hunting purposes. In 2012, when the survey asked men if they hunted, 25% responded positively. Compare this to the roughly 40 percent of men who responded positively in 1977 – that’s a significant decrease.

To what then do we attribute the increasing preference for handguns among rural men?

Group behavior is, of course, of primary interest to sociologists and psychologists. How do people acquire,  maintain, and assert group identity? What beliefs do they adopt which we might view as “markers” of group identity? Given all of this, what happens when factual information challenges the basis for a belief that is deeply bound up in group identity formation? These are all interesting questions to ponder.

Here’s another question: if given the choice of being technically “right” about an issue that conflicts with and/or challenges group affinity & identity, what would you choose? In other words, are you willing to sacrifice group belonging if you came to be aware of information that the group belief was not well-informed, supported by evidence, or just plain wrong? (refer to the Ash test of group conformity in psychology).  Hint: significantly large numbers of people have been shown to rank group conformity & belonging as more important than being right about a given issue.

Moving on, let’s consider for a moment how the desire to project a social identity as “one who carries” might explain this trend? Is it possible that carrying a handgun is important to men for reasons other than practical ones (i.e. hunting/protection)? Obviously, handguns are easier to carry and conceal than hunting rifles.  Is it possible that men (and it is statistically still mostly men) are using guns to help bolster precarious social identities that they perceive to be under attack?  What happens when traditional social identities (i.e. male breadwinner/ head of household with a submissive wife/mother – notably the form of manhood revered by many white, middle-American, rural and suburban men) prove difficult or even impossible to attain?

My Penn State Research Assistant – “Hunter 1”

The Political Economy of Gun Sales

Gun sales are often tracked by proxy in light of the number of U.S. federal background checks that are conducted. Basically, when someone wants to buy a gun (from a dealer), the dealer submits paperwork to the FBI, who runs a background check. While this figure does not technically represent the number of guns sold (for that you would have to rely on industry self-reports) the total number of checks initiated through the NCIC (National Crime Information Center) are publicly documented, reported, and are available for analysis (see FBI.gov).

Fears of new gun regulations throughout the Obama presidency were instrumental in helping to boost gun sales for gun manufacturers and retailers. Increases in incidents of mass shootings have also helped to stoke fear and fatten the industry’s bottom line. The trend only continued as people anticipated a Hillary Clinton victory in the 2016 election. The expectation was that she would be more aggressive about pushing gun controls that never materialized during Obama’s tenure.

Trump’s victory, however, took a toll on the gun trade almost immediately, as fears about gun control receded and gun demand reached an all-time low in 2017. During the months of January through July 2017, approximately 4.3 million background checks were performed; a figure down by comparison from 16 million checks performed in the same period during the prior year. In light of this, the first half of the year saw Sturm, Ruger & Co.’s net sales fall to $299.2 million from $341.1 million in the first half of 2016. But Killoy, the CEO, points to its more diverse consumer base, including “a lot more women shooters,” as a reason for optimism (Schultz).

To make up for the shortfall and overcome the “Trump slump,” the industry initiated new promotions that targeted women. As reported above, the ownership rate for women is 24 percent. Consequently, industry researchers estimate there is a much larger potential upside for the female market. “With the overall decrease in demand for guns, the increasing prevalence of female consumers is more important to gun manufacturers than ever before,” said Kevin Cassidy, an industry analyst for Moody’s (Schultz).

Men & Guns: Are Firearms an Extension of Masculinity?

So what are the important trends as it pertains to men? As it has already been discussed, both men and women gun owners are equally likely to say protection is a major reason (65% and 71%, respectively); men, however, are reported as more likely than women to say hunting and sport shooting are central to why they own a gun (Pew study).

Among the men, middle-aged white men (the ones with disposable income) are buying more and more of the guns and firearms. Again, it is this demographic group in particular where we see the highest concentration of gun ownership. But why? And more to the point, what are they afraid of?

Men, furthermore, are the largest demographic group represented by the community of Law Enforcement Officers (LEOs). Yet according to peer-reviewed research, LEOs are documented as having disturbingly high rates of domestic abuse. They have also, due to their occupation, been shown to be at a high risk for suicide. What are the potential problems associated with this? Should law enforcement officers who are convicted of domestic violence lose their right to carry a firearm? What about LEOs with mental health problems? Should they be permitted to carry firearms?

Gender dynamics in advertising are also important to consider, given the stark differences that distinguish the marketing of guns to men and men. Take a look here at an example of how the advertising of gun industry manufacturers is designed to appeal to male customers. The advertisements are rife with what gender scholars refer to as “toxic masculinity.”

Toxic masculinity is here understood to be only ONE form of masculinity among different “masculinities,” where in this case there is a distinct appeal to dominance narratives. As the ads below seem to indicate, “real men” carry guns and dominate others through violence if necessary; worse, if you don’t carry a gun, you’re not only a failed man – you’re a woman…you might even be gay.

The activist and scholar Time Wise confronts these ideas head-on when he says to men “Shooting things in rapid fire with lots of bullets makes you feel like more of a man. Because your manhood is fragile and pathetic and built on a foundation of sand. And rather than deal with that, or get therapy, or redefine masculinity in a less toxic way, you — we as a culture — just keep repeating the same bullshit. It’s time for you to grow up and find other ways to define yourself as a man other than through weaponry and violence. At the very least just admit your pathology. Owning your sickness, after all, is the first step to healing.”

Alternatively, Leonard Steinhorn reports, “Glock guns give men “confidence to live your life.” The Walther PPX handgun is “Tough. Very Tough.” The Tavor Semi-Automatic Rifle, promises to restore the “balance of power” to anyone holding the gun. Buying a Bushmaster semi-automatic “confirms that you are a Man’s Man, the last of a dying breed, with all the rights and privileges duly afforded” (Steinhorn).

Guns & Military Chic

Not to be underestimated is the symbolic power of military chic that is being marketed. Gun advertisers are quick to exploit the demographic fact that the vast majority of American men (roughly 99%) have not experienced military service. This fact may be highly relevant, considering the major social changes that have taken place since the 1950’s in the wake of World War II.

After the war, many men were left questioning their place in the world, as changes in the economy brought about changes at home and at work. Relations between men and women during this time were radically reformulated. For many many men, their jobs became outdated and “feminized” as office work replaced the stereotypical masculine heavy industry occupations that were the mainstay of previous generations. Even men born later, in 1960’s and 70’s are subject to being caught up in this cultural drift. They are the first generation of men, who didn’t follow their fathers into the coal mines and mills; the first to not earn a living wage from the family farm. And they’re pissed.

This is why the 1950’s time period continues to be ensconced in the minds of many men as a “golden era.” It’s as if they can’t avert their eyes from looking longingly at the “real men” of the Greatest Generation – the gruff, thick-cut, mans’ man – the man who is no longer “fashionable” (so we are told by Hollywood and Madison Ave) as the revered male archetype. Sadly for them, this man of old was replaced by a highly stylized/refined image of man. He is the new man that we see depicted so often in films and popular media – the well-groomed, lithesome, chiseled model, who strips for money and fronts bikini briefs. These are not men in the traditional sense; they’re feminized “gay” men.

Men have been domesticated. In other words, they’re not “real men” anymore. Having effectively called into question what it means to be a man, these developments have left many men feeling hopelessly adrift; they’re unsure of their place in a world that seems to have left them behind. What does it mean to be masculine? What can a man do? What would it take to make men “great again.”

Gun advertisers absorbed these cultural lessons and are now targeting their ads to make money from men who are not happy with the cultural change. The latest ads suggest men might assuage their dissatisfaction by vicariously affiliating their personal social identity with the identity of military men – one of the last remaining vestiges of proper manhood. The best part is that they can do this without any of the inconvenient blood sacrifices. A simple gun purchase and salutary “thank you for your service” makes everyone feel good. Violence fixes everything.

Always the astute observer of social and demographic changes, the NRA (National Rifle Association) stepped in during the 1970’s to help men shore up their creeping anxiety, while maintaining the flow of new weapons into U.S. society. This occurred during a time when statistics were revealing that men were hunting less and buying fewer guns. Guns represent power; they offer a way for wounded men to reclaim their manhood. This is the easy path to greatness that many men choose. The problem is, not all of us are going to live as they figure out how to adjust.

The SIG MCX “sporting” rifle

Girls & Guns: Pretty Guns for Pretty Ladies

Magazines, online ads, and gun/firearm manufacturers are increasingly making direct appeals to women. But the sales pitch to women is distinctly different from the way guns are marketed to men. For women, it’s all about keeping other men from hurting and killing them.

The typical female gun owner favors a handgun, not a rifle. Studies document that women, not unlike men, also want access to a firearm for protection purposes.  Yet unlike the trend established for men, women who own guns are more likely than male gun owners to live in an urban area; further, they are less likely to have grown up in a gun-friendly household (based on a survey by the Guardian). Again, this trend for women contributes to why the gun industry views them as a growth opportunity.

“Confident Women Carry the Cross” states a banner ad for gun holster brand CrossBreed that recently ran on Women’s Outdoor News. A Smith & Wesson ad shows a woman grasping a handgun with the copy, “Where protection meets performance.” In the ad below, we move into the realm of desire, where we are given a sense of what women want in terms of men and guns.

The website for Miss Concealed includes a variety of female gear that they refer to as “hidden heat.” These include stylish concealed carry purses and lacy corset belts that contain pouches for your Glock, lipstick, and passport. Boise, Idaho, resident Lorelei Fay founded the retailer in 2014 after she noticed a problem with guns for women. In her view, “there is nothing out there that’s even remotely feminine” (Schultz).

Display, Gettysburg gun show, 2018.

Women gun owners appear to be more accepting of at least some restrictive gun policies. Of gun-owning Republican women, 60 percent favor banning assault weapons and 57 percent support creation of a federal gun-sales tracking database, according to a recent Pew survey. That compares with 28 percent and 35 percent, respectively, for Republican men gun owners. (Pew did not include a similar statistic for Democrats) (Schultz).

My first day of fieldwork – research is “me-search!”

Narrowing the Gender Gap – “Pink it & Shrink It”

It’s not exactly a surprise that the gun industry is male-dominated; its sales, likewise, are targeted to men – real men, who support an arms trade in guns and ammunition that generates nearly $13 billion in sales. While the targeting of women customers is not new, efforts to do so have been reinvigorated due to the softening of product demand in the post-Obama era. According to one market research firm, Southwick Associates, who specializes in market research for hunting, shooting and sportfishing, they find that women account for 46.8 percent of the 24 million Americans who have yet to purchase a firearm but are interested (Schultz).

“More women are working, more women are single, more women are in their own homes and they have a very unique interest in self-protection that they never had before,” says Deb Ferns, co-founder of Babes with Bullets, which runs a traveling firearms academy geared to female first-time gun buyers (Schultz).

Deb Ferns of Babes with Bullets

Babes with Bullets is backed by manufacturers like Smith & Wesson, who have contributed to sponsoring female training camps (a total of 11 in 2017), which spanned states from California to New Hampshire. Contributions furnished the camps with loaner guns, holsters and other financial support, including gun-range fees. Guns were not made available for purchase at the camps (Schultz).

A forthcoming study by Northeastern and Harvard universities also paints a tightening gender gap, albeit a lower percentage of female owners. Gun ownership among American men dropped from 42 percent in 1994 to 32 percent in 2015 while female ownership increased from 9 percent to 12 percent, according to the Guardian, which got an early look at the data last year (Schultz).

Marketing Rape Scripts

The National Rifle Association is actively promoting the narrative that women need to purchase guns to protect themselves from rapists and domestic abusers. The most visible female supporter of the NRA is the well-known conservative talk show host Dana Loesch, who was last year named as an NRA special adviser on women’s policy issues. Her videos are currently running on the NRA TV online network, which is currently promoting female gun ownership at the same time as it attacking Second Amendment critics.

In one video that drew national headlines and backlash, Loesch targeted The New York Times, calling it “an old gray hag,” while saying, “We’re going to fist the New York Times.” “We’re coming for you.”

In another video, she directly addresses rapists and domestic abusers. “Your life expectancy just got shorter, because there’s a very good chance your next target will be armed, trained and ready to exercise her right to choose her life over yours,” she says. “This is what real empowerment looks like.” (Schultz).

NRA Critics: The Mother Movement

Gun control proponents, including one female-led organization called Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America have been pushing back hard against the NRA’s marketing initiatives.

Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, founded in 2012, pushes its gun-control agenda with a variety of tactics, including an attention-grabbing one called “stroller jams.” These involve crowding statehouse halls with babies and moms armed with infant gear like diaper bags, making it “impossible for lawmakers to get by without answering our questions,” says the organization’s founder, Shannon Watts, a mother of five who founded the group in the wake of the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting (Schultz).

When Sandy Hook happened, “it really spoke to me as a mom,” says Watts, a former corporate communications executive who at the time was a stay-at-home mom in Indiana. She looked to join an organization like Mothers Against Drunk Driving, but for gun safety, and couldn’t find one. So she started a Facebook page that evolved into an organization created to demand action from legislators, companies and educational institutions to establish gun reforms (Schultz).

Last year, the group won the North American Grand Effie for a campaign called “Groceries Not Guns” by Grey Canada that pressured Kroger stores and other retailers to ban the open carry of guns in stores (Schultz).

The group says it supports the Second Amendment but wants “common-sense solutions” to help “decrease the escalating epidemic of gun violence that kills too many of our children and loved ones every day,” according to its website. “There’s never been a grassroots movement in gun violence prevention. It’s really been male-run think tanks mainly to shape federal legislation,” says Watts, who now resides in Boulder, Colorado. “For decades the NRA has been able to generate emails and calls and industry meetings and outrage with the flip of a switch, and we needed that kind of power on our side. And we have that now”(Schultz).

According to one spokesperson, “the NRA has figured out … they have to create a culture war now to sell guns. They don’t have a bogeyman in the White House to use in their marketing campaign, so they have to make Americans afraid of one another,” says Watts (Schultz).

How Do Federal Background Checks for Guns Work?

Before ringing up the sale (when it’s a dealer/retailer) Federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs) must first contact the FBI, who initiates the background check using the NICS system (National Instant Criminal Background Check).  This is done by completing the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) Form 4473 and by contacting NICS  via a toll-free telephone number (or electronically on the Internet and the E-Check System) to request a background check. The system was designed to provide a means to instantly determine whether or not a prospective buyer can buy firearms. Records searches are conducted to ensure that customers do not have a criminal record or are not ineligible to make a purchase for other reasons.

There are three databases that comprise NICS:

1. The National Crime Information Center contains information on restraining orders and warrants;
2. The Interstate Identification Index holds convictions;
3. The NICS Index records on mental health commitments and dishonorable discharges from the military (Pane).

Holes in the System

According to the 2017 Northeastern and Harvard study, 1 out of 5 U.S. gun owners who obtained a firearm in the past two years did so without a background check. The reasons for this are varied. The biggest culprit and the most difficult to control is the unregulated sale of guns between individuals who own guns. Also contributing to the problem is the infamous “gun show loop hole.”

Federal vs. State Law

Complicating matters is the fact that state standards that regulate who can carry a gun in public are often different from the federal standards that regulate who can buy a firearm. Background checks at the state level can also be different.

In Texas, someone applying for a permit can be turned down for being charged with or convicted of certain misdemeanors or for being delinquent in child support — things that don’t prevent someone from buying a gun. Texas uses a variety of databases, including NICS as well as statewide criminal databases.

In Hawaii, the standards are more strict. There you need to demonstrate to the local police chief that you have an “exceptional case” and a very specific reason for needing to carry a gun in public. Other states, such as Vermont, don’t require a license to carry a firearm (Pane).

(Photo by Joe Raedle/Getty Images)

Pennsylvania state law regulates people two ways – upon application and at the point of purchase.

APPLICATION: individuals who are 21 years of age or older can apply for a license by submitting a completed application for a Pennsylvania “License to Carry Firearms” (LTCF) to any Pennsylvania County Sheriff’s office along with the required fee. The sheriff has 45 days to conduct an investigation to determine an individual’s eligibility to be issued a license. Included in the investigation is a background check conducted on the individual through the Pennsylvania Instant Check System (PICS) to determine if the records indicate the individual is prohibited by law. The license is valid for a period of five (5) years unless sooner revoked(PA.gov website).

An individual who is age 18 or older and is licensed to hunt, trap or fish, or who has been issued a permit relating to hunting dogs, may apply for a Sportsman’s Firearm Permit by submitting a completed application along with the required fee to the county treasurer’s office.  A Sportsman’s Firearm Permit is NOT a License to Carry Firearms concealed.

In accordance with 18 PA C.S. §6109, a sheriff may deny an individual the right to a License to Carry Firearms if there is a reason to believe that the character and reputation of the individual are such that they would be likely to act in a manner dangerous to public safety. If the PICS check is approved and the subject is of good character, the sheriff may issue a License to Carry Firearms.

PURCHASE: a license to “carry” firearms in Pa, however, is NOT the same as a license to purchase. Individuals who purchase a firearm from a licensed dealer are required to have a background check conducted regardless of whether they have a license to carry firearms or not (PA.gov website).

VEHICLES: 

Car carry in Pennsylvania is governed in part by 18tC Pa.C.S.A. § 6106. In many states, it is no problem to have a firearm (meaning a handgun) in your vehicle whether you have a license to carry a firearm or not. In Pennsylvania, this is not the case. The minute you enter your vehicle with your firearm, however, it becomes covered under 6106.

Under §6106, “any person who carries a firearm in any vehicle or any person who carries a firearm concealed on or about his person, except in his place of abode or fixed place of business, without a valid and lawfully issued license under this chapter commits a felony of the third degree.”

In Pennsylvania the issuance of a “License to Carry Firearms” allows individuals to carry a firearm (not a long gun) concealed on or about their person or in a vehicle throughout the Commonwealth.

Even if your handgun is on your hip, open and exposed, and even if it is on the dash so everyone can see it, the minute you get in the car, it might as well be in your shoulder rig under a jacket.

Pennsylvanians are not breaking the law if they have non-NFA regulated shotguns or rifles (regulated National Firearms Act regulated weapons include machine guns, short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns (SBS), any other weapons AOW or concealable weapons other than pistols or revolvers and silencers) in their car, provided they are not loaded.

No person, even the holder of an LCTF, may carry a loaded long gun in a vehicle.

Pennsylvania, it is worth noting, does not prohibit the carrying of weapons on college campuses, leaving it up to individual institutions make their own rules in regards to where weapons are permitted. Penn State, the University of Pittsburgh, and Temple do not permit the carrying of weapons on campus (USA Today).

“Open Carry” in Pennsylvania

No one needs a special license to open” carry in Pa, but if you enter a vehicle with a firearm w/o the proper license to carry you committed a crime.

Problematic Social Identities

While they are too numerous to list them all, here are a few recent examples of men who developed pathological social identities around guns and/or used guns to commit horrific crimes. The question that haunts in both cases is: How Are “Bad Guys” – men like Devon Kelly and Dylan Roof – able to buy guns?

Given that federal law forbids anyone convicted of domestic violence from purchasing a firearm, and it also forbids sale to people dishonorably charged from the military – Kelly failed on both counts – we are left to question how did he manage to get his hands on a gun so easily?

For one, the Air Force (his former employer) failed to inform federal law enforcement authorities that Kelley had been court-martialed for assaulting his wife and child (he cracked her son’s skull). Consequently, when went to buy guns after he was released from military prison, there was no conviction registered in the database system used for the background check and thus the purchase was allowed (Pane).

As it turns out, the state of Texas (where Kelly lived), produced documentation that showed Kelley sought a permit in 2015. His application was delayed by the state “due to a possibly disqualifying issue.” Kelley at that time had failed to respond to the agency’s request for additional information and so he was denied. The “disqualifying issue” was never identified, but his 2014 misdemeanor animal-cruelty conviction for beating his dog in Colorado might have have been enough to trigger the delay (Pane).

Unfortunately, Kelly was authorized at the Federal level even as he was flagged and denied at the state level.

Dylan Roof, on the other hand, convicted last year (December 2016) of murdering nine parishioners of the Emanuel AME Church in Charleston, South Carolina, was able to buy a gun due to a break down in the federal FBI background check system. Despite having been convicted of drug possession and demonstrating mental health problems, mistakes were made by FBI agents that resulted in this application being approved. Roof’s mental health issues were common knowledge, though they apparently remained untreated. People described him a strange loner who signed his name in block letters, fell asleep on the job, stared at the walls when home and worried in a Craigslist post that, “I have no friends even though I am cool.” Roof had a well-documented preoccupation with imaginary/exaggerated health concerns, including lymphatic cancer, a thyroid disorder, and Hashimoto’s disease.” He was also known for his sudden efforts to reach out to former childhood acquaintances through social media.

Roof also was able to exploit the FBI’s 3 day wait period – a stipulation that gives the FBI 3 days to investigate the applicant’s background – on the fourth day, Roof was able to return to the dealer to procure his gun (Schmidt).

Trouble in Western Pennsylvania – “Guns Don’t Kill People, I Kill People”

Social media was the platform of choice for a Western Pennsylvania man, George Shallenberger, who was arrested on charges of making terroristic threats via Facebook after posting the status update: “Guns Don’t Kill People, I Kill People.” His threat was directed at teachers on strike in the Ringold School District. Shallenberger also wrote: “f—ing school teachers need to get real jobs. Damn snowflakes.” “shoot them and start over.” Another post on his page said: “Happiness is a warm gun,” – which also happens to be the name of a Beatles song.

So What Happened?

Towards a Theory of Social Identity

Concepts of identity, community, and social solidarity are foundational to the discipline of sociology. Such themes, nonetheless, are also highly contested and subject to interpretation. Contemporary theories have tended to focus on the intersectionality of multiple social identities and how they interact within the context of social inequality (Patricia Hill Collins, 1990; Crenshaw, 1989). People, for example, have identities that situate them within both privileged groups (i.e. white, male, heterosexual, middle and/or upper class) and oppressed groups (i.e. female, person of color, poor, gay, disabled, or working class) (Twine, 2013). Questions remain, however, as to how we might use and expand upon these theories to explain current happenings as they pertain to guns and social identity in the United States.

Researchers have documented that over the course of the last 30 years, gun ownership has evolved – guns are no longer a mere functioning “tool” – a simple piece of hardware used to enjoy outdoor sports and hunting. Now, they represent something else; they constitute a form of symbolic currency for their owners, which itself can be weaponized.

Gendered social identities, for example, may be caught up in men’s efforts to preserve a sense of self in the face of rapid social change. Class-based identities reflect a distinctly American form of relative deprivation, leading to what scholars have referred to as “aggrieved entitlement” (Kimmel, 2014), which may be further fueled by “toxic masculinity” (R.W. Connell, 2005; Trappen, 2017). In light of this, it is critical that we understand the social psychological factors that drive the self-making process, particularly as this interacts with violence, which can occur when people have suffered from trauma, feel their life chances have been thwarted, or when they have been shamed or aggrieved.

To address this, I employ an assemblage of interpretive, poststructuralist, feminist, psychoanalytic, and social identity theories to explain how guns have become important to the articulation of social identity. On one level, I propose a classic historical and materialist approach, which aims to explain how the making and taking of human life as well as human labor power are bound up with social inequality and the political economy of guns. On another level, I propose a social psychological approach, where I will explore how trauma, fear, anxiety, and rage play a role in the development of problematic social identities. Lastly, I want to look at the problem of guns and social identity in terms of its embodied affective social dynamics (Shapira and Simon, 2018). In taking this multidimensional approach, it becomes possible to explain the complex and often contradictory experiences of people who reach for guns as a way to complete their self-making projects  (Trappen, 2017).

The policy implications are obvious. What should the gun regulations policies in the United States look like at the national and federal levels of control? Ultimately, everyone has to ask themselves – what kind of society do I want to live in? Is it one where everyone is armed and ready to shoot at a moments notice? Does accepting the sanctity of some people’s “culture” mean we all have to accept as normal the idea that more than 30,000 Americans, on average, are going to be killed by guns every year?

Sources

The Current State of Affairs

Eleven states currently permit some form of gun carrying/possession on college campuses. They include Arkansas, Wisconsin, Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Mississippi, Oregon, Tennessee, Texas, Georgia, and Utah.

The first states to legalize campus carry was Colorado in 2003 followed by Utah in 2004. Subsequently, a debate ensued across the United States as students and administrators at various universities throughout the country as well as state legislators took up questions in regards to how or if this would enhance student safety.

“Campus Carry,” as it is conventionally known, refers to state laws that make provision for the carrying of firearms on the campuses of public colleges and universities.

Pennsylvania

Students on some of Pennsylvania’s college campuses might be carrying more than books. Pennsylvania is among the states that allow individual colleges or universities to decide if they’ll ban concealed weapons on campus, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. While Pa state law does not prohibit the carrying of weapons, individual institutions make their own rules in regards to where weapons are permitted (USA Today).

Because of changes in Pennsylvania’s concealed weapons law in 2012, one of the two major public Higher Education Systems became concerned that they might not be able to constitutionally prohibit concealed weapons permittees from carrying guns on campus.

There are two major public Higher Education Systems in Pennsylvania:

1) The Commonwealth System of Higher Education (CSHE), which oversees Penn State, Pittsburgh, Lincoln Univ, and Temple

2) The Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education (PSSHE) oversees the other 14 state colleges.

In 2012, PASSHE’s Chairman, Guido Pichini, stated the following:

“PASSHE universities have the ability to prohibit weapons, including legally registered firearms, in academic buildings, student residence halls, dining facilities, student union buildings, athletic facilities and recreation centers or while attending a sporting, entertainment or educational event on university property or sponsored by the university.  However, PASSHE’s policies also must be consistent with Pennsylvania law, which allows individuals who are properly permitted to carry a firearm ‘on or about one’s person or in a vehicle throughout the Commonwealth.’

As a result, PASSHE’s schools changed their policies to allow concealed carry permittees and the ability to carry weapons on certain parts of their campuses.

The PASSHE guidelines do not impact private colleges or the other public colleges and universities in Pennsylvania, including Penn State, Pittsburgh, and Temple.

But why are these schools different?

The important distinction here is that these particular schools receive a state appropriation each year, even though they are not owned by the state of Pennsylvania. Penn State, the University of Pittsburgh, etc. are in this manner state-supported but not state-run. In light of this, they are free to make their own decisions about the prohibition of weapons on campus. The only exceptions are for students who hunt or shoot recreationally; they are permitted to store them with police.

Penn State Policy – “University policy prohibits the use, possession, or carrying of firearms while on University-owned or controlled property, or at University sponsored or supervised activities. Likewise, keeping a firearm in any locker or storage area of any building of the University is prohibited. The use, possession or carrying of explosives, fireworks, bows, and arrows, slingshots, knives or other dangerous weapons while on University-owned or controlled property or at University-sponsored or supervised activities is prohibited. Violators of this policy will face disciplinary action via the University discipline system. In certain circumstances (e.g. carrying a loaded firearm concealed in a motor vehicle without a valid concealed firearms permit, possession of an enumerated firearm under the Federal Crime Bill, etc.) such possession may subject the student to criminal prosecution under Commonwealth of Pennsylvania or federal statutes. Any weapon found in violation will be seized and will be returned to the student under proper court order.”

Briefly put, if you are carrying a gun at Penn State, you may have committed a crime and will likely be expelled if you are discovered and/or reported.

Firearms That Require a License in Pennsylvania

• Pistol or revolver with barrel less than 15 inches
• Shotgun with a barrel less than 18 inches
• Rifle with a barrel less than 16 inches
• Any firearm with an overall length of less than
  26 inches
• “Loaded” – ammunition in the chamber, nondetachable
  magazine, cylinder, or detachable
  magazine IF the magazine is with the firearm

“Open Carry” in Pennsylvania

No one needs a special license to “open” carry in Pa, but if you enter a vehicle with a firearm w/o the proper license to carry you committed a crime. Any person who carries a firearm, where it is concealed on or about his person, except in his place of abode or fixed place of business without a valid and lawfully issued license commits a felony of the third degree.

Concealed Carry in Pennsylvania

To lawfully carry a concealed firearm in Pennsylvania, a person must either:

• 1 – possess a valid Pennsylvania License to Carry Firearms (LTCF),
• 2 – maintain residency in, and possess a valid license/permit to carry a firearm from a state with which Pennsylvania has a current reciprocity agreement or
• 3 – fall within the applicable exceptions in 18 Pa. C.S. §6106(2)(b) as listed above, including §6106(2)(b)(15) regarding licenses/permits to carry a firearm recognized under Pennsylvania law without a formal reciprocity agreement.

Vehicle Carry in Pennsylvania

Car carry in Pennsylvania is governed in part by 18tC Pa.C.S.A. § 6106. In many states, it is no problem to have a firearm (meaning a handgun) in your vehicle whether you have a license to carry a firearm or not. In Pennsylvania, this is not the case. The minute you enter your vehicle with your firearm, however, it becomes covered under 6106.

Under §6106, “any person who carries a firearm in any vehicle or any person who carries a firearm concealed on or about his person, except in his place of abode or fixed place of business, without a valid and lawfully issued license under this chapter commits a felony of the third degree.”

In Pennsylvania the issuance of a “License to Carry Firearms” allows individuals to carry a firearm concealed on or about their person or in a vehicle throughout the Commonwealth.  No person, even the holder of a license to carry a firearm, may carry a loaded long gun or handgun in a vehicle.

Pennsylvanians are not breaking the law if they have non-NFA regulated shotguns or rifles (regulated National Firearms Regulated weapons include machine gun, short-barreled rifles (SBR), short-barreled shotguns (SBS), any other weapons AOW or concealable weapons other than pistols or revolvers and silencers) in their car, provided they are not loaded.

Handguns are more tricky (Giaramita). Absent a LTCF, you may only have a handgun in your vehicle if:

1. You’re driving a car which belongs to you, your spouse, or your parent and the gun belongs to a parent or spouse who holds a valid LTCF; or
2. It’s unloaded and you’re transporting it
   • to or from target practice
   • to or from a Federal Firearms Licensee

Penn State students are never permitted to open carry or carry and store any weapons on campus and/or in their vehicles. They must be stored with the police.

Georgia

The state of Georgia, as of June 2017, is the most recent state to permit guns on campus (new law not reflected on above map). This was done in spite of the results of a survey conducted by Georgia Tech’s Student Government Association, which revealed that a majority of students oppose concealed handguns on campus.

According to Georgia officials and House Bill 280, the law leaves it up to the person carrying the gun to know what the rules are and to follow them. This includes whether they are entering a place on campus where guns are banned or if they are taking a class with a high school student — a situation that would also bar them from carrying their weapon.

Georgia law requires anyone seeking a state permit to carry a concealed gun to be at least 21 years old. They must be fingerprinted and pass a background check. No signs will be posted on campus identifying which areas are off-limits. Everyone has been told they are not allowed to ask whether someone is legally carrying a gun.

Guns are supposed to be concealed, carried in a fashion that does not attract attention. Campus police will be responsible for administering the law.

Football game day exceptions: people will be allowed to carry their weapons in tailgating areas where alcohol can be consumed, but not inside athletic facilities.

Storage problems: there remains a question of what to do with firearms when owners are not carrying them if, for example, they live on campus. No campus in Georgia will provide gun storage facilities. Existing state law allows weapons to be locked in cars if the permit holder comes onto campus.

Student advocates at the “Cocks Not Glocks” protest against Texas’s “campus carry” law was held on the first day of classes in 2016 at the University of Texas at Austin, which spearheaded resistance to the law from students and faculty members at colleges in the state.

Texas

In 2015, Texas law was changed to permit the carrying of concealed handguns by license holders in public university buildings, classrooms, and dorms. Handgun licenses are available to anyone at least 21 years of age (18 for military service members).  Applicants must pass a classroom and gun range training course. Restrictions may be applied to convicted felons and people charged with felonies, high-level misdemeanors, as well as people with a history of mental illness.

The law allows guns in buildings, classrooms, and dorms, but each campus makes its own rules about where weapons are permitted. By law, campuses must map out where guns are banned. At the University of Texas at Austin, for example, faculty members can declare their offices as gun-free zones. Students residing on campus can have their guns in common areas, including cafeterias and student lounges, but they are not permitted to keep their weapons in their rooms because there is no place to store them. Alternatively, guns are allowed in dorm rooms at Texas A&M University in College Station, where faculty must seek permission to ban guns from their offices.

Private schools, including Baylor, Rice, Texas Christian University and others, retained the option of banning or allowing weapons. Amberton University, which doesn’t allow students under 21 and has a total enrollment under 2,000, was the first private school that opted to allow guns.

Texas state law still bans weapons campus-operated hospitals and school sporting events.

In one incident that occurred, a Texas Tech University police officer was fatally shot. A student was subsequently arrested for the killing. The student, Hollis A. Daniels, was 19 years old at the time and was not in compliance with the law that required him to register the weapon with Texas Tech, which is required under the state’s campus carry law. Daniels was also not 21 years old (IHE).

The law in Texas, it should be pointed out, was adopted against the wishes of higher education leaders in the state, who argued that colleges are safer when police officers are the only ones armed (IHE).

In the first year since the law went into effect, at least 20 Texas universities had no gun-discharge incidents or reports of intimidation with a firearm, the Chronicle’s review found. More than a dozen had at least one gun-related report, including aggravated robbery and an accidental discharge in a dorm (IHE).

Campus Safety

The debate is classically polarized around safety concerns, with different views about how to keep people safe. There are those who believe that allowing students to carry would allow them to protect themselves. Following the same logic, they claim that if college campuses are put on a list of venues where guns are prohibited they will become targets for attacks. Alternatively, others say that allowing students to carry would be dangerous because there would be more guns on campus grounds and that this poses a distraction to learning. These arguments, however, have tended to break down and lead nowhere—particularly in states like Texas and Georgia with strong traditions that embrace gun culture and firearms ownership.

Adrienne O’Reilly, Oklahoma Director for Students for Concealed Carry on Campus, carries an empty gun holster on the Oklahoma State University campus in Stillwater, Okla. (AP Photo/The Tulsa World, James Gibbard).

Anxiety + Fear = A Potentially Lethal Cocktail (re-post from Ian Bogost, The Atlantic)

According to an Atlantic journalist Ian Bogost, there is a “deep and pervasive unease” that already pervades college campuses, and safety and speech worries are just instances of a more general and more universal anxiety.

“Today’s college students,” he says, “are beset by unease. And it’s no wonder why—their whole lives have been lived bathed in vague and constant threat. Today’s 21-year-old students were born in 1995. They were kindergarteners on 9/11, and their whole childhoods were backgrounded by forever war. Their primary and secondary schooling took place under the supposed reforms of No Child Left Behind, which meant an education designed around lots of high-stakes testing and the preparation necessary to conduct it.

They entered high school just after the 2008 global financial crisis, after which declines in the tax base led to billions of dollars of funding cuts to primary, secondary, and postsecondary public education. Here in Georgia, the lottery-funded HOPE Scholarship, which had paid full college tuition for students who kept a 3.0 average, increased its achievement requirements for full tuition and eliminated support for books and fees. Meanwhile, tuition rose precipitously—35 percent over the last five years at Georgia Tech—as funding declined. And as state funding has waned, flagships like UGA and Georgia Tech have increasingly pursued more lucrative out-of-state enrollments, while increasingly relying on gifts, endowments, grants, and contracts as state funding has become a minority contributor to institutional budgets.

Getting into college also became harder. In the arms race to raise test scores and thereby rankings, admissions have pushed average SAT scores at Georgia Tech up from 1420 in 2013 to 1449 in 2015, only adding to the anxiety of admission. Twenty-five points doesn’t sound like much, but because of the way the SAT is scored, it might amount to a difference of as few as one or two incorrect answers on the exam. A couple answers might measure a differential in academic performance and potential, but it might also represent the accident of a cold testing facility or a stressful commute into the exam. Every aspect of these kids’ lives are drawn taut. One badly timed sneeze can spell disaster.

Once enrolled, college campuses are brimming with new anxieties and newly trenchant versions of old ones. The issues of preparation, access, and affordability to create an environment in which mere survival overwhelms learning—let alone indulgences like free speech. Then someone like me comes along and teaches the same class I would have taught five or 10 or 15 years ago, only to find that students are falling apart from the stress rather than from the materials. No wonder they fantasize about kidnapping my family.

Even the successful students still must contend with a much worse economic lot than their cohorts did in the past. At Georgia Tech, even students who pursue “practical” degrees in areas of supposed economic growth, like computing, still face massive competition and pressure for jobs. I have students who have filed hundreds of applications and endured five or 10 separate interviews for a single entry-level job, including time-consuming cross-country trips to all-day interviews, before finally receiving an offer. The only greater motivator than fear is debt.

A concealed-carry campus becomes a campus in which everyone carries a potential gun. And the potential gun is far more powerful than the real gun, because it both issues and revokes a threat all at once. Made habitual and spread atop an already apprehensive base, that sort of mental anguish is nothing short of terrorism.”

What Does the Research Say?

Researchers at Johns Hopkins University (Bloomberg School of Public Health) released a study that argues the campus-carry movement is based on flawed assumptions about the relationship between civilian gun use, violent crime and mass shootings, including several killings on college campuses. The higher likelihood for college-aged people to engage in reckless behavior — binge drinking, drug use, fighting, suicide — heightens the danger, they said (NBC News).

The Hopkins researchers criticized much of the research cited in the pro-carry movement, saying that it was difficult to corroborate incidents in which gun owners claimed to thwart shootings — both mass shootings and smaller-scale attacks. The researchers also said that emerging research on concealed carry laws contradicted prior studies that concluded that such measures prevented violent crime. They said their data showed that right to carry laws are correlated with increased violence; that most fatal mass shootings occur in places where guns are allowed, and people with guns rarely are able to stop them (NBC News).

Alternatively, economist and author John Lott, whose work is often cited by the National Rifle Association, argues that concealed-carry laws make the public safer because they put guns in the hands of people who are more law-abiding than the general public. The Hopkins researchers also disputed this claim – a central claim of the gun-rights movement – that concealed-carry permit holders are far more law-abiding than the general population. The claim does not hold in states with law-abiding loose gun laws, the researchers said. “Many states relaxed restrictions on concealed and open carrying of firearms based on claims that such policies reduced violent crime,” the authors wrote. “But the best available evaluations of these policies indicate that these right-to-carry laws increase violence” (NBC News).

Daniel Webster, director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research and one of the report’s authors, said in an interview that he hoped the study would be read by policymakers who are in the middle of the debate about campus-carry laws (NBC News).

A Harvard Study found that access to firearms increases the risk of suicide among populations of students, who are already vulnerable. Ecologic studies that compare states with high gun ownership levels to those with low gun ownership levels find that in the U.S., where there are more guns, there are more suicides. “The higher suicide rates result from higher firearm suicides; the non-firearm suicide rate is about equal across states” (Harvard)

Another study (Miller 2007) used survey-based measures of state household firearm ownership (from the CDC’s Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System) while controlling for state-level measures of mental illness, drug and alcohol abuse, and other factors associated with suicide. The study found that males and females and people of all age groups were at higher risk for suicide if they lived in a state with high firearm prevalence. This is perhaps most concrete when looking not at rates or regression results but at raw numbers. The authors compared the 40 million people who live in the states with the lowest firearm prevalence (HI, MA, RI, NJ, CT, NY) to about the same number living in the states with the highest firearm prevalence (WY, SD, AK, WV, MT, AR, MS, ID, ND, AL, KY, WI, LA, TN, UT). Overall suicides were almost twice as high in the high-gun states, even though non-firearm suicides were about equal (Harvard)

Grossman (2005) found that while the risk of youth suicide is lowest in families with no firearms at home, among gun-owning families, youths living in homes in which all firearms are stored unloaded and locked are at lower risk for suicide than those living in homes in which firearms are stored less securely (Harvard).

It may be worth noting here that gun-rights advocates have helped block federal research into gun violence for years.

Common Arguments Against Guns on Campus

Those against carrying guns on college campuses believe that having more firearms around makes gun crime more likely. They oppose the campus-carry campaign as an extension of broader efforts to allow people to carry concealed weapons in other public areas, which they say raises the risk of violence.

Critics also argue that apart from safety concerns, permitting guns to be carried on campus will have chilling effects on free speech.  College classrooms might be censored as a result, as faculty and students might not be inclined to discuss contentious issues in the open without fear that students, absent rhetorical skills, might pull a gun to prove their point.

In an active shooter situation, the likelihood of another gun-carrying student diffusing the situation safely and responsibly is slim. Heroic notions that promote fighting bullets with bullets, ultimately putting more students in danger and increasing the likelihood of injury by increasing the number of guns on campus.

The question remains – what happens when a licensed gun owner who is permitted to carry a concealed firearm is the person who becomes the danger to other students?

Common Arguments For Guns on Campus

Those in favor of carrying guns on college campuses argue that those who have proper permits are being denied the ability to defend themselves by having to comply with state and campus gun restrictions.

Gun-rights advocates including Students for Concealed Carry — a group launched in the wake of Virginia Tech —maintain that an armed campus is a safer campus because police typically can’t respond quickly enough to stop a mass shooter in the act (USA Today).

A Compromise?

If exercising the right to carry a weapon on campus is a deal breaker for a given individual, perhaps attending a university campus where the activity is welcome is a better choice for that person. In spite of the recent spate of mass-shootings and a high-profile shooting on a college campus (VA Tech), college campuses are, for the most part, not social spaces characterized by violent activity. Some people derisively refer to them as “safe spaces” and in this they are not altogether incorrect (sexual assault is another issue).

Though rules can be broken, research and evidence suggest it is better to have rules that keep weapons away from campus than to remove stricter rules and open the door to a greater potential for violence.

Sources

Pennsylvania State Police, Carrying Firearms in Pennsylvania

The Armed Campus in the Anxiety Age, by Ian Bogost

Campus Carry In the Spotlight, by Nick Roll,  Inside Higher Education (IHE)

More Guns on Campuses Won’t Make People Safer, Researchers Say, by Jon Schuppe, NBC News

Harvard Public Health Study

Baxley F, Miller M. Parental misperceptions about children and firearms. Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine. 2006;160(5):542-7.

Grossman DC, Mueller BA, Riedy C, et al. Gun storage practices and risk of youth suicide and unintentional firearm injuries. JAMA. 2005;293(6):707-14.

Helpful Information on Pennsylvania vehicle carry provided by Mike Giaramita’s Pennsylvania Law Abiding Gun Owner Blog.

Discussion Questions (none of this information is being used for research purposes and you may answer anonymously using a pseudonym/nom de plume)

What do you think about your university’s policy on the concealing and carrying of guns, firearms, and weapons on campus?

Do you know anyone who conceals/carries on campus? Do you know more than one person who conceals/carries on campus?

If you knew that a classmate was carrying a prohibited concealed firearm, how would feel about it?

Does the idea of other students carrying weapons on campus make you feel safe? Does it make you feel unsafe?

Would you want to conceal carry on the Penn State campus if the rules were changed? If so, why?

Do you agree or disagree with the statement: colleges are safer when police officers are the only ones armed.

Do you feel that owning and/or carrying a gun is essential to your personal freedom?

Do you feel that attempts to regulate firearms represent an infringement on your personal freedom?

Do you think gun violence is a problem in the United States?

Have you ever known anyone who has been shot?

Do you think gun access should be restricted? Or do you think nothing should be done?

Finally, if you don’t know anyone that conceals and carries a firearm on campus, you can simply share any other thoughts you might have on the subject that are not covered by these questions.

Eastern State Penitentiary was once the most famous and expensive prison in the world. Today, it stands today in ruin; its grounds offer glimpses into a haunting world of crumbling cellblocks and empty guard towers. The lonely corridors and vaulted sky-lit cells at one time held many of America’s most notorious criminals, including “Slick Willie” Sutton and “Scarface” Al Capone. The building was designated a National Historic Landmark in 1965.

History

Eastern Penitentiary quickly became a model for more than 300 prisons worldwide. As news of its notoriety spread, foreign dignitaries that included the famous writer Charles Dickens as well as the French General Lafayette.

Originally designed by John Haviland, Eastern State opened on October 25, 1829. Considered to be the world’s first true penitentiary, its revolutionary system of incarceration, dubbed the “Pennsylvania system” or “separate system” encouraged separate confinement (the warden was legally required to visit every inmate every day, and the overseers were mandated to see each inmate three times a day) as a form of rehabilitation.

The Pennsylvania System was opposed contemporaneously by the Auburn system (also known as the New York system), which held that prisoners should be forced to work together in silence, and could be subjected to physical punishment (Sing Sing prison was an example of the Auburn system). Although the Auburn system was favored in the United States, Eastern State’s radical radial floor plan and system of solitary confinement became a model for prisons worldwide.

Inmates were housed in cells that could only be accessed by entering through a small exercise yard attached to the back of the prison; a small portal, just large enough to pass meals, opened onto the cell blocks. This design proved impractical, and in the middle of construction, cells were constructed that allowed prisoners to enter and leave the cell blocks through small metal doors that were covered by a heavy wooden door to filter out the noise (like the one pictured above).

Saving Souls

It was no coincidence that the halls of Eastern State were designed to evoke the feeling of being in church. Vaulted ceilings, arched windows, and light portals that filtered light into the prisoners’ cells were all designed with this purpose in mind.

Some believe that the doors were small so prisoners would have a harder time getting out, minimizing an attack on a security guard. Others have explained the small doors forced the prisoners to bow while entering their cell. This design is related to penance and ties to the religious inspiration of the prison. The cells made of concrete featured a single glass skylight that represented the “Eye of God,” which was intended to suggest to the prisoners that God was always watching them.

Cell accommodations were advanced for their time, as each included a faucet with running water over a flush toilet. Curved pipes along part of one wall served as central heating during the winter months where hot water would be run through the pipes to keep the cells reasonably heated. Toilets were remotely flushed twice a week by the guards of the cellblock.

Pep the Cat-Murdering Dog

In 1924, Pennsylvania Governor Gifford Pinchot allegedly sentenced Pep “The Cat-Murdering Dog” – yes, he was a real dog – to a life sentence at Eastern State. Pep allegedly murdered the governor’s wife’s cherished cat. Prison records reflect that Pep was assigned an inmate number (no. C2559), which is seen in his mug shot. However, the reason for Pep’s incarceration remains a subject of some debate. A contemporary newspaper article reported that the governor donated his own dog to the prison to increase inmate morale.

Famous Escapes

On April 3, 1945, a major escape was carried out by twelve inmates (including the infamous Willie Sutton), who over the course of a year managed to dig an undiscovered 97-foot (30 m) tunnel under the prison wall. During renovations in the 1930’s an additional 30 incomplete inmate-dug tunnels were discovered.

End of an Era

The prison was closed in 1971. Many prisoners and guards were transferred to Graterford Prison, located about 31 miles northwest of Eastern State. During the abandoned era (from its closing until the late 1980’s) a “forest” grew in the cell blocks and outside within the walls. The prison also became home to many stray cats.

In 1988, the Eastern State Penitentiary Task Force successfully petitioned Mayor Wilson Goode to halt plans for commercial redevelopment. Later, in 1994, Eastern State opened to the public for historic tours.