It always amazes me how violent is the reaction of most of the population of the United States to any suggestion, however mild and reasoned, that restraints be imposed upon the availability of firearms. There is talk of rights and even obligations regarding the possession of these things, a concept which is beyond all argument, given the status of religious dogma.
It has been established in studies of the risks associated with the possession of handguns in particular that the risk of homicide by men who have purchased handguns is lower than that among men in general, but that there is a higher risk of suicide among women who purchase them. The meaning of these statistics is by no means clear.
According to an article in the New England Journal of Medicine for November 18, 1999, 26-30 per cent of men and 7-8 per cent of women in the US own a handgun of some sort. The reason for purchasing guns is given as a need for self-defence, but the protective role of guns in the community is open to doubt. Access to guns may in fact increase the chance of violent death, either homicidal or suicidal, and we do not know whether a history of domestic violence, past child abuse, or depression has a bearing on the phenomenon.
A report from the University of California, published in Science for November 19, 1999, notes that in 1997 there were 32,436 people in the US who died from firearm attacks, compared with 43,458 who died in motor vehicle crashes, and that the comparison has suggested that firearm design, like vehicle design, might be aimed at reducing fatalities. For instance, guns calling for a minimum grip strength to fire them that is beyond the capability of a child might prevent children from shooting one another. Then the design of a "personalised" weapon including an electronic device which prevented any but an authorised person from firing it might limit possible misuse. Personalised handguns, it is argued, might prevent shootings by an adolescent and offer some protection to police.
Firearms, regrettably, are durable objects, and it is thought that many now loose in the community could never be made to conform to any new safety standards. Nevertheless, a survey has shown that there is strong public backing for measures to make guns childproof, personalising them, and banning small, easily concealed, and inexpensive handguns. It was found that men who already own guns were less likely to support such measures than others who do not. There is, however, substantial support for having a congressional inquiry into the whole firearms industry. Manufacture of guns is at present concentrated in privately owned companies whose practices, policies and profits are not open to public scrutiny.
The fundamental question remains: why go to great lengths to maintain a thriving trade in weapons of destruction when the simplest way of reducing the fatalities they cause would be to outlaw them tout court? It is not just a question for the US, but for countries world-wide.