Op-Ed: Gun control will not solve gun violence

Removing assault weapons from the market will do nothing to address the root causes of violence.

Whenever there is a mass shooting or crime involving firearms — whether it be the Orlando nightclub shooting or the epidemic of inner-city violent crime — the phrase “gun violence” is immediately injected into every conversation.

While Democrats have sought to increase gun control with legislation that bans assault weapons and makes it harder to obtain a firearm, reports have shown that assault weapons account for a miniscule percentage of most gun-related crimes. And, as a National Rifle Association member and a Democrat, I think it’s time to change the politicized and oftentimes rhetorical nature of the gun control debate.

Programs that focus on issues such as housing, health care, mental health treatment and job training programs — which have been implemented in Richmond, California — have proven to reduce violence far more than increasing gun control.

In late September, the FBI released the 2015 Crime in the United States report, a detailed compilation of statistics that helped pinpoint how and where crimes were occurring. It revealed a staggering 9,616 homicides carried out with firearms, but it also provided us with data that seemed to run counter to the political morass surrounding the gun control debate. More importantly, it highlighted the failings of disarmament in the hopes of crime prevention rather than the engagement of the root causes of violence.

Rifles accounted for 252 deaths, roughly two percent of homicides in 2015. And with assault weapons responsible for only a fraction of this already miniscule subcategory, it raises questions about the legitimacy of the Democratic party’s arguments that “weapons of war” flood America’s streets.

Historical data backs up this problematic truth, with the New York Times reporting that assault weapons only accounted for two percent of gun crime prior to the signing of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban, a time when violent crime in America peaked.

The most overlooked category of homicides by weapon type continues to be homicides carried out with handguns, totaling 6,447 and largely located in metropolitan centers. Chicago, with its assault weapons ban and high capacity magazine ban, is one of the strictest cities in terms of gun control while having a violent crime rate nearly 2.5 times greater than the national average.

Its police department confiscated more firearms than any other police department in the nation, nearly 6,500 in 2014. The top 20 most popular types of guns seized by Chicago police were handguns. Out of the thousands confiscated, only three were assault weapons.

Absolutely none of the assault weapon rhetoric filling American politics has any relation to the core of this country’s gun crime problem. During the widely viewed presidential debates, neither candidate made any serious mention of how to help the Americans trapped by inner-city gun violence. Meanwhile, the vast majority of those who face violent crime on a regular basis are forgotten.

Furthermore, a handgun ban would enjoy meager support among Americans. Only 5 percent of Americans believe that a ban on handguns could prevent a mass shooting, according to a 2011 Gallup poll. In addition, such a move is unconstitutional and considered extreme by even the most vocal gun-control advocates in Congress.

The real solution is not unknown or out of reach. In July, Texas police detective Nick Selby published a Washington Post article which detailed Richmond’s successful struggle against violent crime.

Previously grappling with one of the highest rates of gun violence in the country, Richmond’s city leadership discovered that nearly 70 percent of the city’s gun violence in 2008 was carried out by roughly 30 individuals. This isn’t specific to Richmond — the Cincinnati Initiative to Reduce Violence identified less than 1 percent of their residents for being responsible for 74 percent of the city’s homicides.

Richmond leadership soon realized that plunging more funding into forceful police efforts was not decreasing the rate of crime. Instead, they developed an innovative program which combed through police records to identify the 50 individuals most likely to go out and shoot someone or be shot themselves.

The program then approached these individuals and offered an 18 to 24 month fellowship which mapped career goals, provided job training and internships, offered health care and granted a $1,000 monthly stipend to those involved. And not once did the program ask these individuals to surrender their firearms.

Since the program’s introduction in 2007, Richmond has experienced a 76 percent reduction in firearm-related homicides and a 66 percent reduction in firearm-related assaults.

Other cities have taken note of Richmond’s success. The District of Columbia; Oakland, California; Toledo, Ohio and San Jose, California, have all adopted this model. Gary, Indiana, and Baltimore are also interested in initiating similar programs. If we want to address the root causes of violence, then cities like Pittsburgh should follow suit in implementing similar programs.

Richmond’s program evaluation report concluded that their approach successfully struck at the heart of violent crime in the city and empowered program participants to become forces for positive change in their communities. As one participant in the program stated, “I can leave all the bulls*** at home and work on being me. I come with my problems and [the fellowship] grows you up and makes you a better person for what you got to do in life.”

The term “gun violence” is a cop out, just like “knife violence” or “fist violence.” The more important half of the term is “violence,” and if we truly want to pursue an endeavor to tackle the issue at its root, the rhetoric needs to stop, and we must start focusing on the violence and not the guns.

Jeremy Wang is an officer for the Pitt College Democrats and a gun owner who focuses his efforts on self-defense training and instruction.