BryanM wrote:Ed Oscuro wrote:- Why is it that we can't use the cross-national comparison?
You can. You have to at the very least, dig and cull out the numbers that don't apply for crimes not included in the other set, so you can have apples to apples. Not even touching on error rates.
Which is more work than any rational forum or google warrior would do.
So, to recap, you've discovered that none of the statistics clearly support controlling firearms, at least not at the level of detail you care to approach for a punitive and undiscriminatory set of reforms, and we still haven't solved the problem of what happens to innocent people who attempt to buy firearms.
I won't say we're running on pure dogma, nor am I asking for a "perfect" justification. But clearly I think we've discovered some troublesome holes in even the utilitarian-style argument for firearms control.
So far you have avoided (either pointedly or due to careless reading) my request for developing some kind of account about what separates the lack of regulation on many of those items from firearms. And as the case of drugs (illegal? prescription? over-the-counter but still potentially deadly?) shows, it's essentially an accident of history that some things get a pass (alcohol) while others don't (cocaine leaf, which was originally just a mild aid for hikers in South America). The media is going through a phase, but we shouldn't forget that the heavy-handed policies being promoted by certain police departments would have the unfortunate effect of making the people even more dependent on somebody else's funding, ability, closeness, and even whims. I think it is a fundamental right of people to take charge of their own survival, as it has always been throughout history, and a firearm can be a useful tool in this effort.
If I had to put forward an account of what might make firearms different from some of those other kinds of things, I would use Michigan's recent poorly-considered helmet law as an example. Yes, if you ride a motorcycle in Michigan, helmets are no longer mandatory! (I don't know if this was due to an aggressive campaign of ticketing cyclists who neglected to strap up before moving to a different parking space, or due to direct lobbying in favor of restoring that classic wind-in-the-hair, bee-in-the-eye freedom to the highways.) A helmet law does restrict your freedom to do something that will likely increase your risk of horrible death (or blinding) and it forces externalities on the rest of insurance-paying public (because more cyclists die or are horribly injured without helmets, although they're usually screwed anyway no matter the crash).
Yet wearing a helmet is the kind of policy that doesn't hurt a motorcyclist's ability to partake in a general kind of activity (riding a motorcycle). If we were only concerned about deaths and saving money for society at large, we'd just ban hogs altogether, but we don't. Additionally, a law stating you must wear a helmet does not seek to make it impossible to ride without a helmet - there may be some case where it would be pardonable to do so, and it is still considered possible.
Now, I think making people register firearms is more like wearing a helmet. Ignoring the rather hilariously extortionate fee the BATF charges for registering a suppressor, it's a relatively minor inconvenience for legally-minded people who want to own a gun (although I think prices should be affordable) that can discourage some gun ownership. It works if it is minimally problematic for a person to register and it also discourages purchase of guns with an illegal use in mind, and might even be used to discourage people from buying guns they cannot secure (a little "you could be found an accessory if this and that" kind of notice) or for other official education efforts. This is the same kind of reasoning you'd use to consider whether voter ID laws are reasonable - you'd have to reject them outright if you find that they hamper a person's ability to vote or didn't achieve the policy goal. You could also argue the same for locks on guns, but those are a terrible idea and should be rejected for a variety of reasons.
About what to do for spree shooters - it's really hard to say what policy would work without being as expensive on the level of a national obsession (like anti-terrorism has swallowed up billions of dollars, without even considering the wars conducted in the name of counter-terrorism), or without trampling on somebody's rights. I rejected the NRA's proposal to basically force people to accept more guns in schools because, although I think it's a policy that might help overall, communities' right to determine their own needs should be respected, and if they say no to armed guards they might have a very good reason for saying so!
Bans won't work because old parts (and weapons) are grandfathered in - and of course all this ends up doing is making more work for gunsmiths and limiting DIY-types to increasingly old, inconvenient, outdated, and unsafe products.
... I'll leave again now.
