Gun Control Redux

The gun control argument all too quickly degenerates into a futile exchange of accusations and often insults. That is distressing and does not get us any closer to ending or even reducing the string of mass shootings in the United States.

Pro-gun people say gun control doesn’t work, that there are too many laws on the books already, and that the existing laws need to be enforced. Extreme anti-gun people say ban all guns. The first argument basically means live with the current situation. The second has no chance of being enacted in this country in the foreseeable future. We need a middle way.

We are not going to end mass shootings in the US. There are simply too many legal guns and it is too easy for people to legally obtain guns. Further there is no popular support for changing those things. While we may not be able to end mass shootings, that does not mean we cannot reduce the number of mass shootings or the death toll from these incidents.

The numbers seem to vary, but surveys show that roughly 80% of Americans are in favor of improved background checks. How can we improve background checks while not interfering with the ability of most law abiding citizens to obtain weapons? We don’t know how accurate the number is, but one estimate from some years back was that perhaps as much as 40% of guns sold had no background check. How could this be? First, there is the gun show loophole allowing sales at gun shows by non-licensed dealers to proceed with no background check. Second, there is the three day rule which says if the background check is not completed in three days, the seller can complete the sale with no check. Third, we have private gun sales or transfers, which never have background checks. We should close the gun show loophole, and end the three day rule. We should also provide an easy means, and insist that private sales also undergo a background check.

We need to tighten who can pass a background check. Convicted violent felons generally cannot buy guns legally, but suspected terrorists on the no-fly list can buy them. While people who have been committed for mental problems usually can’t legally buy guns, folks with serious mental problems who were never committed can. Folks who have been stalking, harassing, abusing, or under restraining orders can buy guns unless they have a violent felony conviction. I suggest we keep all three of these categories of people from buying guns legally. I would not categorize any of these as being ‘good law-abiding’ citizens. For the third category, once restraining orders are lifted, and a reasonable time after the last charge for stalking, harassment, or abuse, I’d allow them again. The mental prohibition should apply to anyone who a mental health professional feels is a danger to others.

While I would not limit other types of weapons, I’d suggest that semi-automatic and “assault weapons” be banned as they were previously. I’d also suggest that high capacity magazines also be banned. To me, neither is necessary either for hunting or personal protection. Further, something like 28% of all mass shootings involved assault weapons, and when used the death tolls were more than 50% higher. I suspect that will reduce the incidence of mass shootings, and at the least reduce the death toll from those shootings. Many of the folks who used assault weapons with high capacity magazines might well think twice about it, if neither was available.