Last week I introduced the public health problem of too many
American gunshot victims, and said I would dedicate the next two weeks’ posts to
evaluate suggestions for dealing with it made by both conservatives and
liberals. This post considers the
latter.
The main idea espoused by those advocating more gun control
is that if we reduce the number of firearms, less damage will be done by
them. That is not completely true. As per the second point I made last week, showing
that if the American rate of fatal shootings, per privately owned firearm, was
the same as in the four countries arguably most comparable to the United
States, about a third fewer people would die without a single gun being
removed. However, the left does have
some logically sound proposals.
The best ways of improving the public health concern are
those that minimize the fatal shootings while limiting damage done to those
owning and using guns responsibly. That,
unfortunately for them, does not mean avoiding any inconvenience
completely. Although cars are safer and
drivers are more conscientious than half a century ago, both must now meet
higher standards, which costs money for the vehicles to conform and impedes
drivers from doing what they once did legally, such as going out after having a
few drinks. We cannot avoid moving in
the same direction with our gun laws.
However, as with stricter driving-under-the-influence statutes not disturbing
teetotalers, such statutes should be designed to have the smallest effect on
those least likely to abuse their firearms.
Accordingly, some liberal suggestions stand out as worthy of
full national implementation. Most
valuable would be a requirement of an electronic background check for any
personal gun purchase. That would apply
to all settings, from private sales (with the buyer obtaining approval online
or over the phone), to people buying firearms at gun shows (with sellers using
point-of-sale machines) to permanently located dealers. The background check would, after the
technology is in place, take no longer than credit card approval does today. Convicted felons, anyone found guilty of
threatening or committing violence with guns, those with certain mental health
histories and medical judgments of being currently dangerous to others, and
perhaps others convicted on domestic violence charges would be prohibited from
buying firearms.
Consistent with the requirement for background checks, other
laws should be passed as well. The
transactions as approved above should include tracking information, at least
manufacturer and serial number, and would constitute an electronic title for
the gun in the buyer’s name. Any theft
of a firearm would need to be reported promptly, the exact interval required to
be negotiated, to police, whereupon the gun’s title would be marked. Gun sellers would be legally liable for using
proper procedure, and subject to prosecution for violations. Transferring firearms without reporting,
including buying one in your name for another person, would also be a
crime. Legally, guns would be considered
extensions of their owners, as dogs, rather than “the darlings of the law” such
as cats and small children.
Along with the above ideas, which are constructive and
entail as little of a burden on law-abiding gun owners as they can reasonably
expect, many bad ones have been put forth.
Written and practical tests before anyone can buy or own a firearm, or
other licensing requirements, sound reasonable to many, but would be, as well
as expensive and cumbersome to administer, made superfluous by the current and
above proposed laws, which hold gun owners accountable anyway. The same goes for requiring regular
inspections, which has questionable merit even for cars. Buy-back programs have failed, as they bring
in almost exclusively weapons which don’t work or are unwanted anyway, and
should not be restarted. Mandatory
waiting periods endanger people with urgent needs, so are too detrimental to
require. The legal liability of gun
manufacturers should be restricted to their products working improperly, and
not invoked when people use them as they are designed but for the wrong
reasons. And accusations or arrests
without convictions should never stop anyone from being able to buy firearms,
as we are innocent without being proved guilty.
One other large area of gun control suggestions should also
be eliminated. There is no point in
banning guns over a certain capability, ammunition in quantities over specific
amounts, clips larger than a predetermined capacity, or the like. As too many mass shootings have shown,
shooters need not have extraordinary firepower to kill. When people with guns are held to the
recommended standards above, they will be liable, whether they are using one-bullet
muskets or 75-round-capable military rifles.
Three further gun control measures I see as flawed but worthy
of consideration. One is requiring
liability insurance, which would help shooting victims get financial help but
would end up being a real burden on the masses whose guns only come out for
cleaning or target practice. Another is encouraging that guns be “smart,” in other words fireable only by their registered owners –
that would be a good option for buyers where theft is a real problem, or maybe
a requirement in cities whose citizens want it, but would be bad for, for
example, farms and ranches where weapons are available but shared, and would
inhibit one of the best settings for learning gun safety, parents teaching
their children how to shoot. Requiring
bullet microstamping, or other technology to conclusively show which firearm it
came out of, would help such identification, but might be too expensive to
implement and be covered predominantly by ballistics analysis anyway.
Next we move to the other side. In what ways should the ownership and use of
guns be freer than it is now? I will
post that, along with the series conclusion, a week from today.
No comments:
Post a Comment