Blaming Superman: Our Gun Problem Is Caused by Guns, Not Movies

"AK-47. The very best there is. When you absolutely, positively got to kill every motherfucker in the room, accept no substitutes."
-"Jackie Brown"

Quentin Tarantino's "Django Unchained" is undoubtedly controversial, mostly because of its repeated use of the N-word (don't discuss it with Samuel L. Jackson). But the film is also controversial because of its violence. Consider the classical Greek-style violence of his earlier movies like "Reservoir Dogs" and "Pulp Fiction," where much of the violence is off-camera and relatively mild compared to a lot of the action films of the time. Compare this to Tarantino's more recent ones like "Kill Bill" and "Inglorious Basterds." Tarantino would argue that these recent films are homages to the gratuitous violence of the movies he's paying tribute to, particularly those from Italy and Japan. Regardless, Tarantino has come to the point where he has decided to stop defending violence in his movies.

If a boy jumps out of a window thinking he is Superman, do we blame Superman? As many of you know, "Taxi Driver" is about a borderline-insane cab driver, played by Robert De Niro, who befriends a young prostitute and who, at one point, tries to assassinate a candidate for president. A man named John Hinckley was apparently under the impression that he could impress the young star of "Taxi Driver," Jodi Foster (who played the prostitute), by assassinating President Ronald Reagan, and so he tried. In 1981, after the attempted assassination of President Reagan, there was as much controversy about violence in movies as there is today. But are movies to blame for our gun violence epidemic? (Incidentally, a picture is making its rounds on the internet, pointing out the various officials with weapons meant to protect the president on that day in 1981. The point is directed to those who say that "good guys with guns" can stop "bad guys with guns." Sometimes it doesn't work.)

Upon reading the Second Amendment (in my copy from the Heritage Foundation, no less), I am astounded by how vague it is. All arms for every citizen? Well-regulated militia? If our ancestors found it appropriate to amend the Constitution throughout history, would it not be appropriate to amend this part of it? Second Amendment or not, we have a serious problem on our hands. In 2010, over 31,000 Americans were killed by guns. Since 1968, more Americans have died from guns than the number of Americans killed in our entire country's war history. Americans are not more violent than their counterparts around the world (our levels of car left, robbery, and assault are similar to other high-income nations), but American children are 13 times more likely to die from guns than their counterparts around the world. The remedy for this is gun control, simply because it works; according to conservative estimates, Australia's relatively recent gun control policies have saved at least 200 people a year, and instead of having 13 gun massacres in 18 years before their gun control law, Australians have had 0 since. Great Britain went through a similar decrease in gun violence. After the government introduced new gun control measures, gun violence fell. It's true that England and Wales faced a rise in gun crime immediately after the ban was introduced, but since 2004, the total number of firearm offenses has fallen every year (Lau 2012). Likewise, Scotland has seen a reduction every year (except 1998), and gun crime in Scotland is a third of what it was in 1996, after the Dunblane Shootings. Last year, Great Britain had only 32 gun homicides (North 2013). Because of this, Britain and Australia have been able to largely avoid an "American-style" gun culture of violence. It's time the American people also demand we end this "American-style" gun culture.

(Here's the links for Part 2 and Part 3.)

But instead of realizing these facts, we hear from the other side that doing something "infringes" on our rights. But currently under federal law, background checks are not required for sales from private sellers. This provides prohibited batterers with easy access to guns (Zeoli, Frattaroli 2013). Passing universal background checks could help prevent the wrong people from getting guns, but according to conservative logic, this is unconstitutional. (Additionally, 90% of Americans support background checks including 74% of NRA members.) Do conservatives and libertarians believe that everyone is entitled to possess a gun? Does everyone include those with substance abuse, those who have committed violence against intimate partners, and illegal aliens? The Constitution does not provide guidance on this, yet we have decided as a society that these individuals should not be allowed to possess guns. Under current federal law, those convicted of domestic violence misdemeanors are prohibited from purchasing or possessing guns for life. Does this infringe on these citizens' constitutional rights? Several studies (Vigdor and Mercy 2003, 2006; Zeoli and Webster 2010) show that state domestic violence restraining order laws significantly reduced intimate partner homicides (guns are the weapon of choice among IPH perpetrators, according to Zeoli and Frattaroli), which is another example of the efficacy of gun control. Drug abusers are prevented from possessing guns, so why can't we extend that prohibition to those with alcohol abuse, which is just as strongly associated with violence and suicide as drug abuse is?  

Fortunately, times are changing. Despite conservative rhetoric, national gun ownership is decreasing; according to data collected from the General Social Survey, gun ownership has fallen even in the South and Western regions of the U.S. Then there's the falling approval ratings of Senator Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire after her anti-common sense votes on the expanded background checks and her pathetic response to the daughter of the principal killed in Newtown.  Also consider the recent change-of-heart of Senator Joe Machin, the conservative Democratic senator of West Virginia. As Alec MacGillis' article in The New Republic points out, "What's remarkable [about Machin's switch] is not just that he sponsored the background-check bill, but that when it failed, he kept on campaigning."

So when guns aren't to blame, movies are. There are essentially two opinions on our epidemic: one is that guns cause violence and one is that violent media causes violence. As I stated before, I am not an expert on the Constitution, on psychology, on sociology (come to think of it, I'm not an expert in anything.) But I am a lover of the movies, and I feel compelled to explain my thoughts on whether it is right or wrong to regulate movies instead of regulating guns. The Mayors Against Illegal Guns have put forth a proposal of seven recommendations, including required background checks for all gun sales, limiting the availability of military-style weapons (as General Stanley McCrystal recently advocated for), and installing a Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives director, which hasn't had a director for six years. None of the proposals focus on violence in films. Additionally, we should pass federal legislation to pass child protection prevention to reduce gun violence among children; follow the 2013 recommendations of Vitter, Webster and Vernick to raise the federal minimum age requirement for firearm possession; and prohibit alcohol abusers from possessing firearms. This problem we have is not caused by the film industry but instead the fact that a "considerable fraction of people who commit violent crimes are legally entitled to guns" (Cook and Blose 1981).

But for now, regarding our gun violence epidemic, whom should we blame?  Our lack of common sense gun control or Superman?