Last night, Steve and I were talking about gun control laws. We ended up at the same place as Ezra Klein. Gun control laws might not be able to prevent another Newtown or Columbine, but they might prevent all sorts of other deaths.
While we may not be able to stop every gun death, there are lots and lots and lots of gun deaths to stop. And if a deadly mass shooting like the one in Newtown is specific and idiosyncratic in ways that make it very difficult to confront through policy, the average gun death follows a much clearer pattern.
I'm not sure what the law should look like, because my eyes glaze over when people start talking about grips and magazines.
For my pro-gun readers, would you support any gun control laws? What kind of law would effectively prevent accidental deaths and criminal activity without interfering with a harmless hunting activity?
Apt. 11d 
If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will be able to defeat baby-snatching birds.
LikeLike
I’m curious as to what people think about mandatory gun insurance, which this article in Slate discusses: http://www.slate.com/blogs/breakingviews/2012/12/18/congress_should_push_for_mandatory_gun_insurance.html
It makes a lot of sense to me, but I am not one of the pro-gun people you are asking.
LikeLike
Here’s a one I’d like to propose for discussion: require a CCL for possession/ownership of any multi-shot handgun.
This would address the majority of guns used in homicides. I have no idea how it would affect the actual homicide rate due to substitution effects.
It would remove a large-ish number of guns from circulation. For people who see that as a goal irrespective of effect on gun deaths, that would garner some supprt.
It would burden a largish number–perhaps a slim majority–of gun owners who 1) possess revolvers or semi-automatic pistols but 2) do not have a CCL. Those people would either be forced to sell their weapons or get a CCL, which would most substantially hurt the rural elderly.
It would not substantially burden those most adamant about self-defence or resisting tyrrany nor those enthusiastic about an armed citizenry — they are fans of the CCL anyway. If it were proposed in language that cast ‘upright CCL-holding citizens’ vs. ‘drug-dealing gang-bangers’, you might even get some political support from them.
It would not substantially burden competitive target shooter, as target pistols are single-shot.
It might burden hunters and hikers. Growing up in cajun country, I remember that a lot of fishermen carried revolvers or smallish shotguns for dealing with sharks, alligators, snapping turtles, and snakes. Given the intrusions of coyotes and bears into the areas my family hikes, I can imagine carrying a multi-shot pistol for that danger, although there are alternatives like pepper spray.
It would probably have no effect at all on mass shootings, suicides, or hunting accidents.
What do you think?
LikeLike
Another problem is that not all states issue CCLs.
LikeLike
Smart guns: http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2012/12/smart_guns_we_have_the_technology_to_make_safer_guns_too_bad_gunmakers_don.html
Remove the protection from liability lawsuits for all new guns sold without smart triggers. I suppose one could make an exemption for shooting ranges, so that people could learn about gun safety without possessing a personal gun.
If one can retrofit older guns with such devices, require all licensed gun owners to retrofit or disable existing guns, under penalty of imprisonment.
Several school shootings have been committed using family members’ guns. A gun keyed to the shooter’s grip signature could not be used in such a manner. It would cut down on the number of possible suspects in violent crimes. If a gun is used in self defense, an intruder cannot use the gun against its owner.
A number of burglary rings which have been broken up in the area seem to pick up guns from houses they’ve robbed while the owners were away. I deduce such guns were not stored in gun safes, as required by law. Smart trigger locks would render stolen guns useless as weapons.
Hunters could use their own guns.
LikeLike
I deduce such guns were not stored in gun safes, as required by law.
What law is that?
LikeLike
I think our (and by that I mean, loosely, anti-gun people) focus on “harmless hunting activity” is misguided. People use their guns for a variety of purposes (including, as I said in the example of shooting at abandoned cars or targets that blow up, for fun). They also use them for defense. And some believe that their guns will be the last line of defense of American liberty (against a government that has gone awry, or an invasion).
We get into squirrel hole discussions when we start acting questions like why would you need that weapon to shoot pigeons, because, really, that’s not why the owner wants the gun. As long as people aren’t killed or maimed or threatened or crimes committed, I don’t care why a person owns a gun. The key point of regulation has to be the damage the guns cause to others (which could include something as low level as noise, in some environments, or at the other extreme, mass murder).
If gun owners are willing to meet us on some common ground, as with, say, the regulation or oil rigs, they could offer valuable insight on how to prevent the things that we don’t want to have happen. Mind you, some ideas are non-starters in my mind, though I’m willing to try to find and cite data for them (for example, the idea that casual gun carriers in crowded public places will effectively prevent violence). But, we could talk about the consequences of different regulations realistically.
For example, the gun grip idea might be problematic because I suspect gun owners share their guns, with family and friends. Is it possible to key to more than one owner? One could imagine, for example, a personal use gun + a key to allow access to others (which would be stored separately from the gun). Schemes like that could help reduce the utility of stolen guns, accidental gun deaths, and suicides (of non-owners of the gun).
LikeLike
http://www.malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXX/Chapter140/Section131L
Section 131L. (a) It shall be unlawful to store or keep any firearm, rifle or shotgun including, but not limited to, large capacity weapons, or machine gun in any place unless such weapon is secured in a locked container or equipped with a tamper-resistant mechanical lock or other safety device, properly engaged so as to render such weapon inoperable by any person other than the owner or other lawfully authorized user. For purposes of this section, such weapon shall not be deemed stored or kept if carried by or under the control of the owner or other lawfully authorized user.
More details at link. My relatives who own guns also own gun safes.
If a burglar breaks into your house and carries off a gun, it wasn’t stored in an effective locked container. The gun safes I’ve seen have combination locks.
LikeLike
That’s a Massachusetts law that I hadn’t heard of. Not all states have that type of law. Also, it would seem that trigger locks are allowed in addition to guns safes.
LikeLike
We get into squirrel hole discussions when we start acting questions like why would you need that weapon to shoot pigeons, because, really, that’s not why the owner wants the gun.
My relatives hunt with their guns. Ducks, geese, squirrels. They eat what they kill. The youngest hunter is the most effective. The wildlife is generally safe from everyone else.
For example, the gun grip idea might be problematic because I suspect gun owners share their guns, with family and friends. Is it possible to key to more than one owner? One could imagine, for example, a personal use gun + a key to allow access to others (which would be stored separately from the gun).
If one wants to prevent mass shootings, then allowing different shooters to use the same gun cannot be allowed. The Newtown shooter was more than smart enough to retrieve the key from wherever it was stored. My children figure out my internet passwords from observation. There is no storage device which protects against evil people who live with you.
LikeLike
I’m guessing that CCL is concealed carry license? And, if so, I’m presuming the license is being suggested because it is a license (and that might be something the anti-gun folks want)? And if so, why can’t we just require a license, without allowing people to conceal their weapons?
Clearly we are pretty far apart. Note that a significant goal for me is the reduction of accidental and suicide deaths by children whose families own guns. To some extent, I see the Lanza incident as an extended version of that issue — access of children to guns. Lanza wasn’t precisely a child, but he could have been.
LikeLike
” There is no storage device which protects against evil people who live with you.”
In this context, though, there’s no storage device that protects people from being evil themselves. The idea that we can identify the evil people and not give them guns is indeed impossible, the equivalent of inventing a perpetual motion machine.
I didn’t mean that people didn’t use their guns for hunting, only that that’s not the only use of the guns.
LikeLike
@MH, note that the trigger lock is an alternative to gun safes. I assume it’s more expensive than normal guns*, because there’s no market demand for it. Laws can create demand.
LikeLike
Requiring all guns with removable magazines to have a safety so they will not fire without the magazine in place would be a good way to stop many accidental shootings, including the one near Pittsburgh that you mentioned in a comment to another post. People who don’t know guns often thing that pulling the magazine removes all the bullets and even experienced people can forget.
This already exists on many guns, but isn’t required.
LikeLike
The law just says “a tamper-resistant mechanical lock or other safety device.” I assume this kind of trigger lock ($16 for three) is meeting the law.
LikeLike
@bj, I don’t feel that we need a gun in the home to defend ourselves. There have been more home invasions than in the past, so I could be wrong. There was a recent murder in Andover which was terrible. http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2012/12/08/law-enforcement-turns-public-for-tips-andover-murder/Q2XRn5h6pJIYwixCYs5cjO/story.html
We don’t know enough about Adam Lanza yet to know if he would have had access to firearms other than his mother’s.
LikeLike
“People who don’t know guns often thing that pulling the magazine removes all the bullets and even experienced people can forget.”
Yeah, those are good changes, like the improvements we’ve made on cars. But, that’s part of the discussion I want to have. A lot of anti-gun folks tend to think of guns as evil (and, I kind of do). But, I’m willing to discuss their regulation like the regulation of cars and driving and leave the evil out of it. Cars are useful; they can also be fun and personal. A person with a humvee can try to explain to me why he needs one, but, I’d rather not have that discussion. I’d rather discuss how to make the world safe and make sure we impose external costs without having a judging decision on the utility of the device for the particular individual.
LikeLike
this isn’t difficult.. just as the USA is the only first world country that doesn’t have health care for its citizens, it is also the only first world country that doesn’t have effective gun laws. There are plenty of examples and different ways to accomplish both universal health care and effective gun control. What is missing is the political will to do either..
bj, “the idea that casual gun carriers in crowded public places will effectively prevent violence”
The data is in, and it’s clear this idea is a Jack Bauer-style fantasy, like effective torture..
See
http://www.vpc.org/ccwkillers.htm
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concealed_carry_in_the_United_States#Research_on_the_efficacy_of_concealed_carry
As one of James Fallows’ readers observed,
“People who believe the only way of halting gun violence is to equip every American adult with a weapon may be well meaning. But they envision a United States populated by Jack Reachers. I think we’d get a United States populated by Barney Fifes.”
LikeLike
@MH, I don’t know if that would suffice. It isn’t on the list of approved firearms locks: http://www.mass.gov/eopss/firearms-reg-and-laws/firearm-safety-locking-devices.html.
Note that the control over gun licenses rests with the local police department. If they don’t think you’re a good risk, you’re not getting a license. As a result, the police know who owns firearms.
LikeLike
The Master lock version of the same thing is on the list, $10.
LikeLike
I don’t own any guns, and have never held or fired one. Where I differ from most of my Upper West Side (or suburban New Jersey) neighbors is that (i) when I encounter people doing something I don’t understand (like owning guns, or watching sitcoms, or drinking Coca-Cola), I respond not with a desire to prohibit it, but with blank indifference and (ii) I really don’t favor any new law, ever, unless there is evidence that it has clear benefits. (The fact that some magazine writer with a BA in poli sci says something is a good idea doesn’t qualify as evidence of clear benefits.)
So on that basis, no, I would not favor any additional gun laws. You don’t like the way those people live, just leave them alone.
LikeLike
The CCL is the concealed carry license. I suggested it because it 1) already exists in many (most?) states, 2) requires a substantial course in safety, law, and conflict de-escalation, and 3) is most enthusiastically supported by people who make the “more guns=less crime” argument. It seems like combining advocating for/strengthing the CCL while reducing non-CCL handguns might be a winning political coalition.
LikeLike
As long as people aren’t killed or maimed or threatened or crimes committed, I don’t care why a person owns a gun. The key point of regulation has to be the damage the guns…
This is so important. One reason that many gun owners fear that talk of ‘reasonable regulations’ is a smokescreen to eliminate all guns is that many non-gun-owners actually do view guns themselves as a totemic evil and seem to feel that reducing the number of guns as a good in its own right, regardless of any effect on crime. Any gun control regulation must clearly state which problem it’s trying to solve (gang homicides? household accidents? mass shootings?) and how the regulation would address that specific problem in order to be politically successful.
LikeLike
“We get into squirrel hole discussions when we start acting questions like why would you need that weapon to shoot pigeons, because, really, that’s not why the owner wants the gun.”
Yes. As far as I can tell, 50% of the point of guns is the sheer boyish pleasure of going BANG BANG. When my younger brother was a teenager he and a chum would blast pumpkins off fence posts. That was an unofficial activity that I’m not sure their parents know about to this day. It would have been a very good thing for them to have had a real gun safety course.
LikeLike
We used to shoot abandoned appliances and junked cars. That was great fun, but not as much fun as it could have been since by the time we got guns, it was hard to find a square foot of metal without a hole shot in it.
LikeLike
“It seems like combining advocating for/strengthing the CCL while reducing non-CCL handguns might be a winning political coalition.”
Here’s the thing–currently, people who have concealed carry permits are especially conscientious, responsible and law-abiding (the two I know personally are a 60ish female pharmacist and a 40ish professor). CCL has been a very successful experiment (for one thing, not losing their concealed carry privileges is apparently a huge motivator for these people). However, I think expanding the pool of concealed carry permitees would probably dilute the quality of the permitees.
LikeLike
[E]xpanding the pool of concealed carry permitees would probably dilute the quality of the permitees.
It probably would, and that would probably raise the rate of crimes committed by CCL holders. But it still provides an outlet for legal handgun ownership while essentially banning casual handgun ownership and possession.
LikeLike
I guess I’m not at all comfortable with the notion that people with concealed carry permits are more responsible, since Ian Stawicki, the killer in the Cafe Racer incident in Seattle had a concealed carry license.
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jun/01/news/la-ol-stawicki-seattle-guns-20120601
Stawicki had been charged with misdeamonors involving assault (but not convicted, because family & friends refused to press charges), but under WA state’s “shall issue” laws, he obtained a permit.
LikeLike
Y21, I’m a it confused by the categorical idea that you don’t want more gun laws, though generally not opposed to the notion of live and let live. My concern about guns is, first, that they not be in places my children & I frequently occupy and second that children be protected from them. I can see why your analysis might differ from mine on the second (the degree to which society imposes laws to protect the choices other parents make for their children). But, on the first, are you comfortable with guns in your children’s schools?, in their colleges?, in your cafes? in their friends homes (when your children are there).
Michigan recently voted into place a law that would allow other parents to bring guns into their children’s schools (which, in my mind, fortunately, was vetoed). In WA state, concealed carry licenses are easy to obtain, and permit one to carry them into many locations (including cafes where alcohol is served).
Are there places guns shouldn’t be? Even if one sees ownership of guns (of all sorts) and ammunition (of all sorts) as being up to the individual? In that case, it could be that gun laws in some states permit situations that don’t fall under the live and let live exemption.
LikeLike
Ben Brumfield wrote: The CCL is the concealed carry license. I suggested it because it 1) already exists in many (most?) states, 2) requires a substantial course in safety, law, and conflict de-escalation,
In Oregon it’s a concealed handgun license, not concealed carry license. You’re only allowed to carry a handgun concealed, not any other weapon. In Oregon the “substantial course” requirement can be met by a 3-hour lecture read by a county sheriff’s deputy. I personally didn’t hear a thing I didn’t already know.
Don’t assume that the laws in your state obtain across the other 49, especially on this subject. And the laws are mostly state-by-state, e.g., my Oregon CHL does not authorize me to carry in Washington state. (There are some states that have reciprocity with other states, so that if you have a license in one, you can use that license to carry in the other states.)
As a “pro-gun reader,” there are no new gun laws I would support, because I think there are valid arguments against any new gun law I’ve seen proposed. I think we should try to enforce the current gun laws before proposing any new ones. It’s already a violation in most states for a convicted felon to own a gun, yet many gun crimes are committed by convicted felons.
The arguments against most new gun restrictions arise from self defense. Everything suggested to make it more difficult for a child or mentally ill person to use a gun also makes it more difficult to use for self defense.
Cranberry writes: Note that the control over gun licenses rests with the local police department. If they don’t think you’re a good risk, you’re not getting a license. As a result, the police know who owns firearms.
Again, this varies by state. Oregon is a “shall issue” state–there’s intentionally very little control exercised by the county sheriff’s office (not the police department) over who gets a CHL. Also, the police only know about the license, not who owns a firearm–you can get a CHL without owning a gun, and you can own guns without getting a CHL (just don’t carry a handgun concealed on your person). I owned a gun and carried it in my car to and from the range for years before I got a CHL. The “police” still don’t know whether I own a gun–that’s not part of the CHL process, it’s not a gun registry.
LikeLike
So, do you have an obligation to disclose that you are carrying a gun when you enter someone’s home? I ask this of those who carry guns with you. The question came up on a blog site I read, with a mother asking whether she had an obligation to disclose that her family kept guns when she invited other children to her house.
I have opinions, but I’m interested in what people who carry guns think.
LikeLike
y81, I disagree with you, too. Guns are different from other things that people have, but I don’t understand, ie orange sweaters, bundt pans, BMWs. Those things don’t affect me in the least. Guns DO have the potential to have a big impact on my life. And your liberty ends where my nose begins.
Guns can lead to a higher homocide rate during criminal activity. They can lead to accidental deaths. (I do think that I should know if my children go to a house with guns in it.) That’s why we should regulate them, just as we regulate drivers on the road and we regulate pollution emissions from factories.
LikeLike
“We used to shoot abandoned appliances and junked cars. That was great fun, but not as much fun as it could have been since by the time we got guns, it was hard to find a square foot of metal without a hole shot in it.”
I should mention that the only gun fatality where I knew the victim involved that sort of informal target practice. It was very freakish. There were two high school students shooting in a quarry where explosives were stored in a powder house and shots were being fired at the powder house. The powder house exploded and one of the boys (a classmate of mine) was killed and the other was very severely injured.
LikeLike
I also have a question about people who plan on using their guns in self defense — is there data that could convince you or would you always believe that your case would be different? Of course, it’s reasonable to argue about the data itself, but what I’m wondering is if one is immune to the statistical evidence, since it can’t actually predict what would happen with the gun you own and carry.
I found a summary site at the Harvard School of Public Health:
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-threats-and-self-defense-gun-use/index.html
The site does have a point of view, though, and I would like to see other peer-reviewed cites.
I am convinceable, BTW, that a law (for example, that laws requiring safe storage of guns, or liability for use of guns) that I think might do one thing might actually not accomplish that aim (for example, reducing accidental deaths and suicides).
One example, http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=418289, suggests an effect on accidental death in children, but not suicide or homicide.
LikeLike
“That’s why we should regulate them”
We do regulate them. There are many, many, many gun laws on the books and there’s a whole federal agency devoted to Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Explosives. Unfortunately, the TFA is most noted for 1) the botched 50-day siege of the Branch Davidians during which many children were killed 2) facilitating the sale of guns to Mexican drug cartels. The guns that they facilitated the sale of keep turning up next to dead bodies, including most recently that of a Mexican beauty queen.
http://washington.cbslocal.com/2012/12/18/cbs-news-fast-and-furious-gun-found-at-site-where-mexican-beauty-queen-killed/
From the article:
“The “Fast and Furious” operation was launched in 2009 to catch trafficking kingpins, but agents lost track of about 1,400 of the more than 2,000 weapons involved.”
Fast and Furious was actually more reprehensible than that description suggests, but it does give one a clear picture of how dysfunctional the ATF is.
LikeLike
So, do you have an obligation to disclose that you are carrying a gun when you enter someone’s home? […] mother asking whether she had an obligation to disclose that her family kept guns when she invited other children to her house.
Although I don’t carry a gun, I can’t imagine having an obligation to volunteer it, though I do think you should respond truthfully. I think the same is true of guns in the home. Fundamentally, a gun owned by a responsible person does not threaten me so long as I can’t see it, or it’s locked away. Volunteering ‘I have/This house has a gun’ is a strange, sort of threatening act. People knowledgeable about and comfortable with guns will wonder why you’re telling them that. People uncomfortable with guns will freak out. I don’t see anything to be gained there.
LikeLike
Here’s another complication: the belief that tighter gun control is just around the corner is one of the factors that drives gun sales.
LikeLike
Interesting, since I do feel threatened by someone bringing a gun into my home or my car, and do expect that someone would tell me they have a gun. Furthermore, I expect to know if there are guns stored in a home that my children are visiting, or will visit with minimal supervision (in the same way, say, that I would expect to know there’s a swimming pool).
However, I guess I have to ask, if gun owners feel differently. I’m presuming that one does have a moral obligation to answer my question truthfully if asked?
On a related issue, is one required to disclose whether a food being fed a child in one’s home has peanuts, meat, gluten? Or is it the obligation of the child and parents to ask, with the assumption that the information is irrelevant if not asked? I generally follow the philosophy that I will ask, the first time a child visits my home. We did have a big birthday party recently, though, where a kid told us that he couldn’t eat the cake because he was gluten free (and, produced resulting confusion in our minds that he had eaten the pizza). It was a quandary, ’cause it’s possible that the kid just doesn’t like cake, or that he is forbidden cake for some reason, but it’s also possible that he thinks pizza is gluten free, because that’s the only kind they get in his house. Those confusions are a reason why everyone should probably be on board with disclosing, so that people can make their own decisions about relevance.
LikeLike
Isn’t the gun show loophole generally considered to be a significant source of illicit guns (including guns that later turn up in Mexico or Lebanon?)? Do gun control opponents deny that connection? or is it a cost of gun freedom?
LikeLike
I think you do have an obligation to answer truthfully, and in detail, if asked. I’d say ‘of course’, but that probably assumes too much in this conversation.
Your point about supervision is also important, and speaks to evaluations of the likelihood a child will be endangered. We always tell other parents that we have a trampoline, since not only is it dangerous, but visiting kids are guaranteed to jump on the thing unless we intervene beforehand.
We also may evaluate the validity of each other’s fears differently. I’m not sure what the standard is for viewing someone else’s worries as rational or worthy of respect. Being the parent of a kid who was terrified of dogs for many years, the reactions of those who liked and understood dogs varied between pity, impatience, and contempt.
LikeLike
Being the parent of a kid who was terrified of dogs for many years…
As the parent of a kid who wants to own a dog, you’re lucky.
LikeLike
“Isn’t the gun show loophole generally considered to be a significant source of illicit guns (including guns that later turn up in Mexico or Lebanon?)?”
There is no “gun show loophole.” There’s a private sale exception. If you happen to be a private person who is trying to sell a gun at a gun show, you don’t have the same paperwork requirements that a gun store would if they were selling guns at a gun show.
Ben, did I get that right?
LikeLike
Presumably, gifts or inheritance are yet another “loophole”.
LikeLike
Responding from Canada. My brother-in-law is a gun owner and has a restricted license. Before he could purchase a restricted gun license, he had to get two character references. The police called his ex-wife in addition to the character references. There was a significant waiting period.
The size of the clips he is allowed to have is restricted. I believe (but may have this wrong) that depending on the gun, he is allowed a clip holding five to 10 bullets.
He also mentioned that he has heard from fellow gun owners of surprise visits from the police to check that the guns are stored safely and securely. The fines for not doing so are quite high.
LikeLike
“He also mentioned that he has heard from fellow gun owners of surprise visits from the police to check that the guns are stored safely and securely.”
In the US, that would be a 4th Amendment violation.
LikeLike
Here’s a game changer: there’s a group in Texas that is doing research and development on making a 3D printed gun. Their current version (an AR-15 look alike) is only partially printed and falls apart after 6 rounds.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2012/12/03/heres-what-it-looks-like-to-fire-a-partly-3d-printed-gun-video/
There’s a video at the link.
LikeLike
Ben, did I get that right?
It matches what I’ve read over the last few days, but I don’t have personal experience. All the firearms in my family have been inherited, inter-family gifts, or built from kits, so I have no experience with background checks and gun sales.
LikeLike
Wow, the comment about dogs really resonated with me. Both of our toddlers are skittish around dogs, and I’ve had a number of people try to force their dog in my child’s face in a misguided attempt to “help them get over it” (yes, your loud and large big-toothed canine is continuing to make him scream, thanks.) Dog bites are one of the top reasons for childhood ER visits, and I’m OK with some cautiousness around strange dogs. In fact, if I see one of the “dangerous” breeds coming down the sidewalk I’ll turn into a driveway or cross the street to avoid having the animal come face to face with my stroller-bound child. Our backyard backs up to a neighborhood common area, and I’ve also had a number of problems with huge unleashed dogs coming into our yard and trying to jump upon the kids. We recently took our toddlers to a dog expo, where hunderds of owners were walking around with (leashed and well-behaved) dogs, and our kids were fine, but they will not willingly approach a strange dog to pet it or tolerate being licked/jumped on. Most dog lovers see this as a huge character defect in me as the parent and or our kids.
Some people, including myself, are afraid of guns, and it’s a rational fear considering how deadly they can be. My husband’s rarely used “hunting tools” have trigger locks and are in an expensive safe in the garage which he alone knows how to open. I do think we have a moral obligation to share that info with anyone who asks. It’s smart to ask other parents whether there are guns in the home because it reminds them to be more aware of the gun safety when children are over. Of course, people have assured me that their guns are “secured,” and I later learn they are simply up high on top of a cabinet or “hidden” in a closet.
LikeLike
What Amy P said: guns are already heavily regulated. The question is not whether guns should be regulated in any way, but whether there exists a regulation not currently in effect that would somehow make my child (or Laura’s) safer. Such a regulation would have clear benefits, but I don’t know of any such, and therefore cannot support any further regulation. Note that Ezra Klein (who in any case has no particular expertise) is talking about reducing violence by the Crips and the Bloods, not protecting upper middle class children.
LikeLike
Throwing up in my mouth a little bit at this conversation. I believe those who are still speaking have just agreed that no change is necessary, despite what happened last Friday.
LikeLike
jen,
You do understand that 3D printer technology may make the whole concept of controlling gun sales obsolete, don’t you?
I’m not saying that that’s a good thing (I like it that as things stand today, guns are an expensive hobby), but we have to deal with the world as it is, not the world as we wish it would be.
I also note that you aren’t proposing any concrete policy changes.
I could say that the idea of abortion makes me feel sick (and it would be true), but just saying that wouldn’t be much of a contribution to a policy discussion.
LikeLike
Harmonizing gun laws across the country to the same strict standard would save lives. http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/01/the-geography-of-gun-deaths/69354/
Firearm deaths are significantly lower in states with stricter gun control legislation. Though the sample sizes are small, we find substantial negative correlations between firearm deaths and states that ban assault weapons (-.45), require trigger locks (-.42), and mandate safe storage requirements for guns (-.48).
While the causes of individual acts of mass violence always differ, our analysis shows fatal gun violence is less likely to occur in richer states with more post-industrial knowledge economies, higher levels of college graduates, and tighter gun laws. Factors like drug use, stress levels, and mental illness are much less significant than might be assumed.
LikeLike
I have no objection to harmonizing gun laws–Kai’s description of his CHL training was frankly shocking–but I’m rather of the opinion that gun control and lower homicide rates are both the products of cultural differences between regions that go back to colonial times. We may not get much bang for that particular buck.
LikeLike
Here’s some empirical evidence that gun control laws make people safer:
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/index.html
LikeLike
Yes, it is interesting that in response to this question, all the pro gun folks have said no change to the laws (I’m not sure, exactly, how to classify BB’s call for more concealed weapons, or whether MH should be considered pro gun).
I do believe there are gun laws, especially in my state, where laws are very lax that would make my children safer. They include further discretion on the issuing of concealed weapons permits. We can’t be sure that those laws would have measurable effects until we try them, because, of course people don’t always obey laws. That’s true about drunk driving, too, but the laws, and enforcement has decreased deaths.
But, let’s turn the question around and say that the laws are coming — which ones would be the least onerous to you, as a gun supporter?
Do any of you advocate requiring elementary teachers to be armed (a proposal in VA)?
How the law that passed in MI before being vetoed, preventing schools from allowing others to
LikeLike
Oops, that got cut off, but, I’m talking about the MI law requiring guns to be permitted in schools.
LikeLike
In AZ anyone who owns a gun legally (everyone can buy one) can carry it concealed.-.
http://www.vpc.org/ccwkillers.htm
Lists murders by holders of concealed carry licenses, including killings in Arizona (two appear in the mass murder list)
LikeLike
I’m not sure, exactly, how to classify BB’s call for more concealed weapons
Did you entirely miss the part where I suggested banning all handgun possession except for concealed license holders?
LikeLike
3d printing doesn’t really change the debate of what the laws should be, even if it makes enforcement more complicated. I once knew someone whose project was figuring out ways of limiting the use of color printers for counterfeiting money. a technology changes methods, but it doesn’t say much about right and wrong.
It’s true that regulating guns for the goal of better public safety is a hard project, but no harder than ny of our other laws for regulating public safety.
LikeLike
I didn’t miss the ban, but since in my experience, concealed weapon laws are not significantly different from those required to buy weapons, it didn’t seem like a real change. If concealed weapons rules were more rigorous, and we’re talking about more stringent licensing of guns in general, I do think that’s a common ground.
(don’t understand the distinction among different kinds of guns and their dangers, so don’t know about the use of handgun in that statement)
LikeLike
According to the FBI’s website (which I cannot link to for some reason), in 2011 handguns accounted for 6,220 murders, rifles for 323, and shotguns for 356. (There’s also a substantial (1,587) ‘not stated’ category, which I’m assuming breaks down proportionally.)
LikeLike
“3d printing doesn’t really change the debate of what the laws should be, even if it makes enforcement more complicated.”
There’s actually already a law on the books forbidding all-plastic guns–it’s the Undetectable Firearms Act of 1988, but it’s set to expire in one year.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2012/12/19/newtown_school_shooting_undetectable_firearms_act_should_cover_defense_distributed.html
Interestingly, back in 1988 they came up with a law to ban a gun that didn’t yet exist.
I don’t think I could accurately be described as pro-gun. Being a normal woman in many ways, I’m nervous about guns, have never been around them in real life, and wouldn’t have one in my home except with lots of training, a gun safe, the kids all grown up and out of the house and special circumstances (like if I knew somebody in particular wanted to kill me). Unfortunately, “special circumstances” can arise very suddenly. One of my formative experiences was living in the epicenter of the Rodney King riots when LA burned. It was spectacular to go up on a USC dormitory rooftop in the spring of 1992 and to see buildings burning all around. It was largely a sort of anti-Korean pogrom and many innocent hardworking people lost their hard-won livelihoods over the course of those days and nights of looting and arson (to say nothing of the beatings and murders). Some people didn’t lose their stores–namely the armed Korean storekeepers who were able to guard their stores until the National Guard arrived and order was restored. The LAPD was helpless (or just useless) the first couple days and the TV news turned into a sort of Home Shopping Network for looters. The whole experience was instructive as to the limitations of the “just call 911” home security plan, especially for people who live or work on the wrong side of town.
Regarding the law, I’m not well-informed enough about the technicalities of guns to have much of an opinion about any particular new law. However, I do occasionally lurk on gun discussions involving more informed people. I think that any new legislation needs to be done in cold blood (i.e. not when everybody wants “something” to be done, but has no idea what something ought to be) and it needs to be technically sophisticated and informed by a deep knowledge of past and current gun law in the US and the efficacy of each law. There’s no such thing as “gun control” in the abstract–there are only particular laws and policies, and each needs to be examined on its own merits. But of course, laissez faire is my default position and the urge “to do something” is one I find deeply suspect. We have it to thank for such things as the TSA’s protocols which seem to exist largely to maximally humiliate and inconvenience the elderly and the infirm.
LikeLike