In his letter of June 11, William Aherin claims without evidence that gun control laws “haven’t worked” and should therefore not be used to try to protect people from gun violence.
While this claim may give comfort to some gun owners, it is also demonstrably untrue. A thorough overview of the data showing how gun regulations are directly tied to reduced gun violence can be found in the May 26 issue of Scientific American. But here are some other sources for reputable evidence to support implementing common sense gun controls. A 2016 meta-study published in the academic journal Epidemiologic Reviews conglomerated evidence from 130 studies comparing 10 different countries to show that implementing restrictions on gun purchasing and ownership tends to be followed by a drop in gun violence.
Countries that have gun restrictions have far fewer incidents of gun violence than the United States, including our peer countries: the rate of firearm homicides per 100,000 people is 4.12 in the United States — the only other peer country with a rate over 0.5 is Chile, at 1.82. A clear data visualization showing how our country is an outlier in the world when it comes to gun violence can be found at https://www.healthdata.org/acting-data/gun-violence-united-states-outlier.
If one looks just at our own country, there is also ample evidence to show that gun regulations reduce gun violence. A 2018 study by the American Academic of Family Physicians shows that red flag laws, background checks, and other legal mechanisms to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous individuals lead to a demonstrable drop in gun homicides and suicides.
According to that study, one of the most effective ways to reduce mass shootings is to ban assault weapons. From 1994 to 2004, when those weapons were banned, the number of gun massacres dropped compared to the previous decade; in the decade following the repeal of the ban, gun massacres increased threefold.
Another study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in 2018 found that states with more and more sensible gun control laws had far fewer gun deaths than those without them. States that enacted measures to limit gun ownership or access to guns had reductions of up to 11% in annual gun deaths when compared to other states.
This is confirmed by several other studies undertaken at Stanford University, which have found clear evidence that, as one of the researchers, Professor Stephanie Chao, puts it, “If you put more regulations on firearms, it does make a difference. It does end up saving children’s lives.”
In his letter, Aherin takes issue with President Biden’s statement that the Second Amendment is “not absolute” by asking whether the rights of free speech, the free exercise of religion, or the free press are also not absolute. But, of course, those rights are not absolute: the Supreme Court has determined that all of our rights have boundaries of some manner in order to prevent the rights of one individual from impinging upon the rights of another.
You can’t falsely cry “fire” in a crowded theater. You can’t forcibly convert someone else to your faith. You can’t print libelous statements. These constraints on absolute liberty are an essential part of the social and civic fabric of our country. They make it possible for us to live with respect for all and to respect the dignity of all.
And as the evidence clearly shows, similar constraints on the rights described in Second Amendment make it possible for people simply to live.
Matteo Pangallo lives in Shutesbury.