The problem with tougher gun laws
E. Thomas McClanahanIt’s understandable that the Sandy Hook tragedy has prompted a wave of outrage and sorrow, fueled not only by the carnage but frustration with the continued occurrence of mass shootings. President Obama has called for a task force (as he has in response to many other issues) and perhaps something constructive will come of it.
As for the commonly suggested remedies, I can’t see how they get you where you want to go, which is diminished gun violence and prevention of mass shootings.
Take the assault weapons ban, which is reflexively pulled from the shelf in response to each outrage. The earlier ban expired in 2004. One of its key provisions grandfathered weapons manufactured before the ban, of which there are tens of millions.
Such a provision is necessary, unless you think Congress is willing to turn every current owner of a non-conforming weapon into a criminal. Ain’t gonna happen.
Connecticut has an assault-weapons ban, but the rifle used by Adam Lanza at Sandy Hook didn’t meet the definition – even though it was a version of the military M16. That’s the problem with the notion of “assault weapon.” It’s a nebulous category created solely by the law.
Under the ban, an “assault rifle” is a semi-automatic weapon with removable magazine and at least two military style features like a bayonet lug or pistol-grip stock. But what’s “military style”? I guess we’re supposed to believe gun makers won’t quickly alter their designs to bring their products into compliance. There’s little or no difference between an “assault weapon” and rifles used by millions of hunters and target-shooters.
Ban high-capacity magazines? Similar problem: They’re all over the place and you can’t wish them out of existence.
Britain banned handguns outright but handgun crime still went up. Mexico has tough gun laws but look who ended up with the guns and the high-capacity magazines. If you can’t stop illegal immigration of human beings, you’re not going to stop the gun trade even if you make the weapons illegal. You’ll just ensure that the people with the guns are the bad guys.
The Daily Beast’s Megan McArdle has a long and thoughtful post on this topic that deserves a look. Also, The Washington Post’s Ezra Klein weighs in and admits “we don’t know how to prevent a tragedy like the Newtown massacre.”
Klein adds another wrinkle, though: He quotes an expert saying that most of the weapons contributing to gun crime aren’t the old ones hunters and target shooters keep in the basement, but new ones. Apparently, criminals eschew the old and prefer the new. His point: Closing the gun-show loophole might make a difference. Maybe, but it might also simply alter the supply channels. See Mexico. As with drugs, demand won’t vanish if you sanction supply.
Despite outrages like Sandy Hook, schools have become safer over the last 20 years. From 1992-2010, the number of on-site murders dropped by nearly half. Violent crime at schools has dropped by roughly the same proportion – along with violent crime for the nation as a whole. And for all the focus on assault weapons, rifles of all sorts were involved in only 3 percent of last year’s homicides.
Personally, I’d favor a ban on ammo that shatters in the body, and I’m not strongly opposed to measures like bans on assault weapons, high-capacity magazines or closing the gun-show loophole. I just don’t think such measures would do much.
A lot of people are using Sandy Hook to vent their disdain of “gun culture” and those loathsome bitter clingers. In other words, some of the emotional reaction involves snotty class arrogance as well as public safety, and to the extent its the latter, it’s only poisoning the debate.
Mark Robertson
5 months agoFinally! Sanity at the Star. Thank you. Mark Robertson Independence
Ted Allen
5 months agoWell let’s see, no one thing will solve the problem, so let’s just do nothing.
Phil Cardarella
5 months agoActually, Australia’s ban seems to be working well: ZERO mass killings since it went into effect. Macho Aussies still hunt — and can defend their homes from the random kangaroo attack. Of course, it carried a MANDATORY buy-back provision, so we probably cannot get to the 99.99% mark they have. Still… not likely Mrs. Lanza would have gotten one.
And, lest we lose track, most of the guns in Mexico came from the US of A — and not just those from Fast & Furious. We outsourced our drug production to them — and the guns followed. (Remember Al Capone & the St. Valentine’s Day Massacre — same deal.)
Here is the simple issue: Crazy loner nerd plus knife = maybe one dead. Crazy loner nerd plus regular gun with regular clp = 2, maybe 3 dead. Crazy loner nerd with AK and 30 - 100 round magazines = mass murder. If you do not want a guy to kill a whole bunch of people, do not let him have access to a weapon of mass destruction.
It will take a while for the legally purchased AKs and big magazines to work their way out of out society once transfers of such weapons are illegal. But, that is no reason to do nothing. Think how many fewer there would be now if the NRA had not intimidated the Congress out of renewing the 1994 law — you know, the one that commie RONALD REAGAN supported?
Mark Hastert
5 months ago“I’m not strongly opposed to measures like bans on assault weapons, high-capacity magazines or closing the gun-show loophole. I just don’t think such measures would do much.”
No not right away but over time. 40% of all the guns purchased in the US are sold at guns shows with no back round check. Felons, crazies, anyone can buy there. The excuse has always been that it would be burdensome yet you can go to any gun show and find that the merchant can scan your credit card with a simple cell phone device so no, it’s not burdensome anymore.
In time there will be an effect. With other measures we can begin to reduce our perverse glorification and adoration of firearms.
Tim Bruggeman
5 months ago40% of all the guns purchased in the US are sold at guns shows with no back ground check.
Really?
Cite your source for this information.
George Hunsucker
Northland
5 months agohum, no link to the 40% comment Tim, is there?
Could it be it was bogus??????