Posted on 11/07/2016 9:50:09 AM PST by servo1969
The next time you hear a politician call for common sense gun control, listen for the details.
You are likely to be treated to a torrent of platitudes about assault weapons, gun show sales and other half-measures.
These sorts of proposals are rooted in a theory of gun control that has been around since the 1960s. The basic idea is that fewer guns equal less gun crime.
But for this theory to have even a chance of working, drastic reductions in the supply of guns will be necessary. Everything else amounts to security theatre.
The late Senator Howard Metzenbaum, a strong gun control advocate, explained it this way: If you dont ban all guns you might as well ban none of them.
But few, if any, politicians who call for common sense gun control have the courage to propose this.
Even putting aside the issue of the Second Amendment to the Constitution, which affirms the right to keep and bear arms, a gun ban has no broad popular support. Never mind the conservative states, handgun ban referendums failed in two of our most liberal statesMassachusetts in 1976 and California in 1982by large margins. No serious attempts have been made since then.
Recently Australias gun control efforts have gained new prominence as a possible model for the United States to follow.
Lets take a closer look at Australia.
In 1996, after a lunatic used a semiautomatic rifle to murder 34 people in Tasmania, the Australian government banned all semi-automatic rifles and repeating shotguns.
Owners of roughly 700,000 registered firearms about a quarter of the countrys three million total guns were required to turn them in for destruction. The government called this a buyback, but in fact no one had a choice.
As my research shows, this model will not work in the United States for the simple reason that the U.S. has roughly 325 million guns. This is orders of magnitude more than any other country. Even if the Australian plan were tried in the U.S. and worked to perfection, wed still be left with over 200 million guns, including handguns, which account for nearly 80 percent of gun crime.
But gun confiscation has never worked to perfection, and sometimes threatens to make the problem worse.
The 2007 International Small Arms Survey studied 72 countries that attempted to enforce gun confiscation or registration on their citizens. They found massive defiance of these laws, with only about a third of owners complying.
If Americans defy gun bans at just the average rate that has occurred internationally, then we should expect tens of millions of guns to flood into the black market.
Not surprisingly, politicians advocating for gun control prefer to avoid the thorny issues that confiscation raises. Instead, they seek to have it both ways.
They pursue the votes of gun owners by paying lip service to the Second Amendment and offering assurances that they only want to ban the bad guns like rifles with pistol grips.
And at the same time, they pander to their core constituents with broad gun ban rhetoric, and supply control proposals that will have a marginal effect at best. And when these meager efforts fail to pass or to work? Blame the gun lobby.
So, to the glib critics of Americas gun culture, we should make this demand: If supply controls are the answer, describe precisely the full program of supply-side policies you propose to stop the gun crimes that we all abhor. And then tell us how those policies will also allow lawful gun owners to keep and protect themselves with firearms.
If you cannot square these two things, then you must convince Americans that they are better off under policies that would disarm good people, in a fruitless attempt to keep bad men from getting guns.
Im Nicholas Johnson, Professor of Law at Fordham University for Prager University.
What Should We Do About Guns?
Buy more!
The Prager University videos are great! Not too in-depth, but they catch the salient points, and are short.
Good to send to people who are open to discussion...:)
Not most liberals.
If you dont ban all guns you might as well ban none of them.
Have you ever noticed the inconsistency in this argument? On one hand, liberals often cite NYC as an example of how you can reduce violent crime through gun control. On the other hand, they will tell you that local gun control does not work because guns can be moved, and that is why we need national gun control. Both statements cannot be correct.
Issue a gummint M16 or M4 to every head of household willing to qualify as NRA sharpshooter! Crime will disappear!
“common sense gun control” is a meaningless term that would be highly variable depending on whom you ask. Some might consider it to be “common sense” to have ZERO gun ownership. It’s a term for the simpletons.
ala the very successful Swiss model? Sounds good to me!
“Common sense gun control” is opaque newspeak code language—like “comprehensive immigration reform” and “affordable health care”.
Translation: firearms confiscation, amnesty for illegals and taxing the middle class.
The solution for problems like Chicago is aggressive policing and stiff jail and prison sentences for thugs and others breaking gun laws we have now.
Go Trump, win win win.
What Should We Do About Guns?
Figure out a way to get the prices down.
Sorry, but gun ownership continues to rise, and in spite of a few liberal hellholes like Chicago and Detroit, violent crime continues to decline.
What we’re now doing, incarcerating felons, is working.
If Hillary gets in, what will soon happen is that sentencing will be reduced, felons will be released early, and violent crime will begin to rise again.
Then they will use the increased crime as reason to take away legal guns. And they’ll have the Supreme Court votes to make it stick.
Why not just make gun crime illegal and be done with it?
Sheesh.
When in use, practice sight alignment and trigger control to hit the target.
Yes, it will be interesting to see how VA’s crime rate fares after the Gov. has “pardoned” 10’s of 1000’s of felons.
Yeah, works great in Chicago.
How to control gun crimes? Quit blaming the guns and start blaming the shooters.
Ha, I came here to post exactly that!
You should take them from violent criminals and muzzards, but leave non-violent citizens alone!
Faggoty-assed Prager. The milquetoast of them all! Cowardly traitor!
Medved has him beat ... BIGLY ...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.