The editors of the New York Times call for “real” gun control laws:
After the slaughter in Las Vegas, Republican leaders in Washington tried to stifle the public’s demands for action with the same technique they’ve deployed after mass shootings in the past: offering up pious exhortations not to “politicize†a tragedy by debating gun controls that might, you know, prevent such mass killings from happening again.
without ever delineating what “real” gun control laws would be. Do they want a full repeal of the Second Amendment? Do they want a modification of the Second Amendment to prohibit private ownership of firearms, presumably accompanied by compulsory buybacks?
It may be that my view of law is drastically different from that of the editors. I believe in laws that are narrowly tailored to accomplish achievable goals and enforceable rather than in laws that provide law enforcement and prosecutors the discretion to indict just about anybody for just about anything. I think that making “bump stocks” and other after-market adaptations that turn semi-automatic weapons into fully automatic weapons illegal would be sensible. It’s unclear to me what measures would prevent “mass killings from happening again”.
The people of the United States already have a vast number of firearms, it is not a tiny island, and experience tells us that prohibition laws, whether against alcohol, gambling, prostitution, or drugs, while they may reduce the incidence of the behaviors they’re attempting to affect, do not prevent them. There are already laws on the books making it illegal for convicted felons to own firearms; they do not prevent them from doing so.
Of the three largest mass murders in American history only one, the recent Las Vegas shootings, used firearms. Shall we also prohibit air travel and fertilizer?
Note that I am not advocating doing nothing. I am advocating limiting what you call for to what’s effective, what you are willing to enforce, and what you are able to enact.
It’s a bizarre the “conversation” our country has after these incidents. The gun control crowd brings out their laundry list of “common sense” reforms which would have had no effect in preventing the tragedy. The pro-gun side digs in their heels, puts their fingers in their ears.
The reality that no one wants to admit is that reducing gun violence in this country via gun control policies would require radical measures that everyone knows are politically untenable.
Three largest? I think that if you go further back there were more mass murders that were carried out with guns, like the Elaine massacre, that were probably larger than McVeigh. Regardless, we have so many guns now that anything we do lily has no or just small effects. Is it worth trying to achieve some small effect? Would, as an example, truly effective, universal background checks stop a few more killings?
Steve
I agree. Why are they pitching “prevent all”?
“Is it worth trying to achieve some small effect? Would, as an example, truly effective, universal background checks stop a few more killings?”
Would it? Serious question.
What is the cost-benefit for such a proposal? What are the details? “Universal” background checks implies some method of mandating checks for transfers between private individuals. How is that going to work in practice?
Real world example: I sold my last two guns to a friend (who is also a cop) a couple of months before we hit the road – we met in a parking lot and exchanged the guns for cash – which is perfectly legal. How will a “universal” system ensure a background check occurs prior to the transaction? Someone like me would follow any universal background check system (or I would, more likely, sell to an FFL holder), but what about people who are planning mass shootings or criminal activity?
In short, “universal” background checks would be very complicated, difficult and expensive to actually implement.