How do we think about the George Floyd murder?

Tighter gun laws will help reduce violence in low-income communities

Question: How do we think about the George Floyd murder?
Position‹5 of 5: George Floyd's murder is a structural issue: American gun laws are to blame
Argument‹2 of 4›: Tighter gun laws will help reduce violence in low-income communities

There is a correlation between poverty and gun violence. Better regulation of how and to whom firearms are issued would reduce gun based violence.

The argument

Studies have concluded that in neighbourhoods with higher levels of resident poverty have 27% higher gun homicide rates. Conversely, where there was greater social mobility, there was a 25% reduction in gun homicides and a 19% reduction where there was greater trust in government. It conveys that gun violence does not only relate to financial inequality but also the fear of survival amongst these communities. It is contended that in addition to community-based incentives, such as better education, creating community-based programmes that discourage gun violence to change attitudes, better legislative measures. This includes regulation of how the firearms are licensed, are necessary, taking into consideration the psychological health of the persons the firearms are issued to, as well as their propensity for committing criminal acts.

Premises

[P1]Gun homicide rates are significantly higher in low-income communities and lower where there is social mobility and trust in government. [P2] This shows that gun violence is driven by structural conditions combined with easy access to firearms, not just individual behavior. [P3] Tighter gun laws — including stricter licensing that accounts for psychological health and criminal propensity — would reduce firearm access in these vulnerable contexts. [C] Therefore, tighter gun laws are a necessary structural response to violence of the kind that killed George Floyd.

Counter-arguments

Tighter gun laws in isolation will not assist in reducing gun violence in low-income communities. There is a significant racial disparity in gun violence. For example, in 2018, 288 of 309 victims of gun crime were African American in Baltimore, yet the focus seems to be on white, middle class, suburban teenagers. Racism against minority communities exists as evident in the Baltimore Police Department after the death of Freddie Gray. Communities are suspicious of the police, and in return, as more police officers are killed in states where there are more guns, the reaction from the police is to use their firearms quickly. Long term solutions cannot merely focus on legislative measures, but in putting the spotlight on low-income communities, where there is racial disparity in gun use. Efforts need to be made to reduce the lack of trust that these communities have with the police. Investments need to be made to provide those impressionable members within these communities with alternatives to resorting to street-level violence such as illegal drug trade. There needs to be better access to psychological health services for those affected by gun violence, as younger members affected by it in their communities are likely to develop more aggressive behaviours.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] The correlations cited point away from the conclusion drawn: they identify poverty, social mobility and trust in government as the variables that move with gun homicide, none of which is a firearm law. [Rejecting P2] The premise concedes the structural reading and then abandons it. If fear for survival and distrust of institutions drive the violence, restricting lawful access leaves both drivers, and most of the illegal supply, untouched. [Rejecting P3] Licensing screens on psychological health and criminal propensity reach lawful purchasers, not the guns already in illegal circulation in the communities described — and George Floyd was killed by officers using physical restraint, not by a privately licensed firearm, so the mechanism proposed does not reach the case the position is built on.