08-16-2014, 12:37 AM
I write these things and put them on Facebook, but it seems like it might be good to throw it up here.
Guns: a good-enough guide to gun regulation, Parts 1--4
I'm not trying to be right or perfect. I'm just trying to get the arguments to be less bad
Part 1: We Can't Eliminate Guns
On April 29, 1996, a gun massacre in Australia precipitated a government ban on combat firearms. The government bought 643,000 weapons for $350 million.
In the US, at a population of 314 million, there are 310 million guns. Assuming price equivalency, a buy-back program would cost $170 billion.
If such a program were successful, over a ten-year period, it would cost $540,000 per life saved. (This figure assumes that the 32,000 gun fatalities per year would be eliminated; they wouldn't be.)
Because that money could be used to save lives more economically, eliminating guns in the US is not a serious option.
(Note that the seizure of guns without reimbursement would likely be severally unconstitutional and would likely incite unacceptable levels of violence.)
Part 2: Criminality
The "right to bear arms" is enshrined in the US Constitution. The intent of the framers is unclear, or perhaps even against the liberal, unregulated ownership of combat weapons, but centuries of jurisprudence and culture have vouchsafed the right.
The debate is not whether you can own a gun. That's settled, and you can.
The debate is not what you can do with guns. You can hunt in season, kill in self-defense, and engage in sportsmans contests.
Finally, there are upper bounds of weapon ownership. You can't own most types of bombs, plastic guns or guns that can't be detected, or guns without identifying markings, for instance.
Guns may be used as objects of trade, meaning that I can buy and contract to buy weapons from legal owners, subject to certain restrictions.
Guns may also be held and used by US citizens, subject to licensure and profiling requirements (i.e., guns may not be purchased and held by certain dangerous classes of citizens).
Finally, gun possession may be barred in certain localities, such as courthouses and businesses with proper signage.
With that background, it is difficult to conceive of non-deterrent regulation of weapons. That is, most regulation would work to limit total massacre fatalities, incidents of home shootings, and would aid police in locating owners of weapons discharged in the commission of crimes.
Most regulation of guns would not significantly deter the use or firing of weapons for intent crimes, such as murder, aggravated assault, and so on.
The question arises, why regulate guns at all?
Part 3: The NRA
The National Rifle Association has five million members. It raises $256 million per year and spends $254 million of that to advocate for gun ownership as a civil right and, secondarily, to train gun users (both police and others) on the safe use of guns and to sponsor shooting competitions. (Presumably, the remaining two million is held in trust.)
NRA revenues are driven by its advocacy for gun rights.
Because of that objective, the NRA's survival depends upon the belief of its members that gun rights are in jeopardy.
There are only two reasons to encroach upon gun rights: (1) to prevent civic resistance to military force and (2) to prevent civilian gun fatalities.
If only a vanishingly small number of gun fatalities would be prevented by gun reform, it becomes likely that all gun reform is designed to prevent civic resistance to military force.
Said differently, the burden on advocates for conservative gun ownership is to show that the the threat of tyranny is outweighed by the cost of gun ownership, which is an argument that runs counter to the American Revolution.
(Note: the conservative gun ownership position seeks to limit gun ownership rights. The Conservative Party is liberal regarding gun ownership rights.)
All NRA messaging obliquely incorporates that framework--that gun regulation invites tyranny--thereby training gun advocates to argue in reference to worst-case scenarios.
Most advocates of gun reform do not advocate gun abolition. For instance, in Australia, gun ownership rates are 5.2%. Nevertheless, all pro-regulation positions are miscast by the NRA as gun-abolition positions.
That mischaracterization is the central obstacle to the conservative position.
Part 4: What isn't Scotched
To rehearse, here are the bad arguments.
(1) We should get rid of guns.
(2) All conservative positions invite tyranny. (Note, again, that the conservative positions restrict ownership rights.)
(3) Meaningful regulation will prevent gun crime and gun fatalities and injuries.
But that leaves the important fourth argument open for debate, and it's the debate we should be having:
(4) Gun crime and injury is insensitive to changes in gun law.
To be pointed, position four is the only position worth discussing. Any conversation about the other three positions is largely wasted talk, and the point of these guides is to prevent wasted talk.
Here are the viable reforms, alongside their respective purposes.
(1) Replace cocking firing safeties with identifying marker safeties, such as a fingerprint, password, or "gesture." Why? To prevent unauthorized or accidental gun discharges.
(Note: a "gesture" would be, for instance, drawing a circle with the gun to disengage the anti-firing safety.)
Why? To prevent children and criminals (who frequently use holders' weapons against them) from being able to use the gun.
(2) Limit magazine capacity.
Why? Because most mass shooting fatalities are a function of magazine capacity. Smaller magazines force reloading, encouraging shooter error, providing safe windows for heroic intervention, and limiting firing duration.
(3) Increase the robustness of background checks.
Why? Background checks would prevent dangerous classes of citizens from convenient purchases. Certain subclasses of potential criminals--e.g., the acutely insane and the impassioned--would not commit crimes unless gun purchases were convenient. Said differently, delayed purchasing would discourage rage crimes and crimes that result from other immediate obsessions.
(4) Reduce weapon and ammunition force.
Why? A buy-back could effectively limit the street-presence of certain combat weapons if gun sellers were not allowed to sell such.
And, most importantly,
(5) Brand shell casings with serial numbers via the firing pin.
Why? So that firing weapons could be identified by ballistic analysis without requiring ballistics from the weapon itself.
Guns: a good-enough guide to gun regulation, Parts 1--4
I'm not trying to be right or perfect. I'm just trying to get the arguments to be less bad
Part 1: We Can't Eliminate Guns
On April 29, 1996, a gun massacre in Australia precipitated a government ban on combat firearms. The government bought 643,000 weapons for $350 million.
In the US, at a population of 314 million, there are 310 million guns. Assuming price equivalency, a buy-back program would cost $170 billion.
If such a program were successful, over a ten-year period, it would cost $540,000 per life saved. (This figure assumes that the 32,000 gun fatalities per year would be eliminated; they wouldn't be.)
Because that money could be used to save lives more economically, eliminating guns in the US is not a serious option.
(Note that the seizure of guns without reimbursement would likely be severally unconstitutional and would likely incite unacceptable levels of violence.)
Part 2: Criminality
The "right to bear arms" is enshrined in the US Constitution. The intent of the framers is unclear, or perhaps even against the liberal, unregulated ownership of combat weapons, but centuries of jurisprudence and culture have vouchsafed the right.
The debate is not whether you can own a gun. That's settled, and you can.
The debate is not what you can do with guns. You can hunt in season, kill in self-defense, and engage in sportsmans contests.
Finally, there are upper bounds of weapon ownership. You can't own most types of bombs, plastic guns or guns that can't be detected, or guns without identifying markings, for instance.
Guns may be used as objects of trade, meaning that I can buy and contract to buy weapons from legal owners, subject to certain restrictions.
Guns may also be held and used by US citizens, subject to licensure and profiling requirements (i.e., guns may not be purchased and held by certain dangerous classes of citizens).
Finally, gun possession may be barred in certain localities, such as courthouses and businesses with proper signage.
With that background, it is difficult to conceive of non-deterrent regulation of weapons. That is, most regulation would work to limit total massacre fatalities, incidents of home shootings, and would aid police in locating owners of weapons discharged in the commission of crimes.
Most regulation of guns would not significantly deter the use or firing of weapons for intent crimes, such as murder, aggravated assault, and so on.
The question arises, why regulate guns at all?
Part 3: The NRA
The National Rifle Association has five million members. It raises $256 million per year and spends $254 million of that to advocate for gun ownership as a civil right and, secondarily, to train gun users (both police and others) on the safe use of guns and to sponsor shooting competitions. (Presumably, the remaining two million is held in trust.)
NRA revenues are driven by its advocacy for gun rights.
Because of that objective, the NRA's survival depends upon the belief of its members that gun rights are in jeopardy.
There are only two reasons to encroach upon gun rights: (1) to prevent civic resistance to military force and (2) to prevent civilian gun fatalities.
If only a vanishingly small number of gun fatalities would be prevented by gun reform, it becomes likely that all gun reform is designed to prevent civic resistance to military force.
Said differently, the burden on advocates for conservative gun ownership is to show that the the threat of tyranny is outweighed by the cost of gun ownership, which is an argument that runs counter to the American Revolution.
(Note: the conservative gun ownership position seeks to limit gun ownership rights. The Conservative Party is liberal regarding gun ownership rights.)
All NRA messaging obliquely incorporates that framework--that gun regulation invites tyranny--thereby training gun advocates to argue in reference to worst-case scenarios.
Most advocates of gun reform do not advocate gun abolition. For instance, in Australia, gun ownership rates are 5.2%. Nevertheless, all pro-regulation positions are miscast by the NRA as gun-abolition positions.
That mischaracterization is the central obstacle to the conservative position.
Part 4: What isn't Scotched
To rehearse, here are the bad arguments.
(1) We should get rid of guns.
(2) All conservative positions invite tyranny. (Note, again, that the conservative positions restrict ownership rights.)
(3) Meaningful regulation will prevent gun crime and gun fatalities and injuries.
But that leaves the important fourth argument open for debate, and it's the debate we should be having:
(4) Gun crime and injury is insensitive to changes in gun law.
To be pointed, position four is the only position worth discussing. Any conversation about the other three positions is largely wasted talk, and the point of these guides is to prevent wasted talk.
Here are the viable reforms, alongside their respective purposes.
(1) Replace cocking firing safeties with identifying marker safeties, such as a fingerprint, password, or "gesture." Why? To prevent unauthorized or accidental gun discharges.
(Note: a "gesture" would be, for instance, drawing a circle with the gun to disengage the anti-firing safety.)
Why? To prevent children and criminals (who frequently use holders' weapons against them) from being able to use the gun.
(2) Limit magazine capacity.
Why? Because most mass shooting fatalities are a function of magazine capacity. Smaller magazines force reloading, encouraging shooter error, providing safe windows for heroic intervention, and limiting firing duration.
(3) Increase the robustness of background checks.
Why? Background checks would prevent dangerous classes of citizens from convenient purchases. Certain subclasses of potential criminals--e.g., the acutely insane and the impassioned--would not commit crimes unless gun purchases were convenient. Said differently, delayed purchasing would discourage rage crimes and crimes that result from other immediate obsessions.
(4) Reduce weapon and ammunition force.
Why? A buy-back could effectively limit the street-presence of certain combat weapons if gun sellers were not allowed to sell such.
And, most importantly,
(5) Brand shell casings with serial numbers via the firing pin.
Why? So that firing weapons could be identified by ballistic analysis without requiring ballistics from the weapon itself.
A yak is normal.