People that push for gun control, up to and including confiscation, often propose and create legislation that is more punitive against the gun community then it is helpful. Being charitable you could argue what they are doing is raising the barrier to firearms (and thus firearms harms) or trying to accomplish harm reduction one step at a time. High barriers to entry are certainly one way to reduce deaths. European countries show that you can have these high barriers to entry and still have sport shooting and hunting. Less accepting interpretations are that these are merely baby steps to total bans and confiscation.
The charitable arguments fly in the face of the idea of people having a right to the tools of self-defense or the proclamation that gun control advocates don't want to "Take your guns." Although lately, many gun control advocates have been much more outspoken that they *do* want to take our guns. I can understand that, but I'm not going to address it here. What I wanted to discuss was three broad categories of gun control laws and their actual impact on both harm and people that own guns.
There are reasonable gun control measures that can impact the harm done by firearms with little to no effect on lawful gun ownership. These laws address some problems and many are in place in California. While California is not a "Gun-friendly" state, it is the second largest firearms economy in the US. this shows that gun ownership can withstand some basic protections. Background checks on all firearm transfers, registration (with protections from abuse), and safe storage requirements for example. When written and implemented properly, these do not hinder the lawful gun owner to any substantial degree, but make it harder for those who should not own guns to acquire or keep them. A basic safety test, written and practical, may help prevent accidents with minimal cost to the prospective gun owner.
There are also laws and policies that would probably reduce harms but at the cost of people being able to defend themselves. A cost disproportionately borne by the impoverished and marginalized populations, rich white guys would still have all the guns they want. Laws like licensing requirements for ownership, police interviews before purchase, make it so that people who may need a gun for defense in a timely fashion won't be able to get one. Restrictions on ammo, parts and accessories that reduces availability and raises costs on ownership and practice. Restrictions on the ownership of handguns/concealable firearms would likely reduce criminal harm at the cost of people who need to defend themselves. Magazine capacity restrictions might make a difference in rare instances while criminalizing millions of people. Training requirements to purchase, raising the age to purchase above the age of adulthood.
And then there are things that do little to nothing to reduce harms but directly affect lawful gun owners. Assault weapons bans, the restrictive California Safe Handgun Roster and relatedly the requirement to develop or deploy microstamping or "Smart gun technology". Import bans. Waiting periods, especially for those that own guns. The restrictions on Short Barreled Rifles (in markets that allow ownership of handguns) and suppressors/silencers.
Some good science is needed. Gun rights proponents need to listen to it. But the people proposing restrictions need to target their restrictions to the desired result. And gun people should hold them accountable for punitive laws while accepting the benign ones and discussing where the line exists between too far and too harmful.
Site Navigation