Imagining Gun Control In America: Understanding The Remainder Problem


PDA






Bob_P
January 21, 2009, 01:43 PM
I did a search and didn't see this academic article on gun control posted. We need to keep an eye on what is being proposed by the grabbers. Worth reading, IMHO.

IMAGINING GUN CONTROL IN AMERICA: UNDERSTANDING THE REMAINDER PROBLEM (http://lawreview.law.wfu.edu/documents/issue.43.837.pdf)

CONCLUSION

"... Without a commitment to or capacity for eliminating the existing inventory of private guns, the supply-side ideal and regulations based on it cannot be taken seriously. It is best to acknowledge the blocking power of the remainder and adjust our gun control regulations and goals to that reality. Policymakers who continue to press legislation grounded on the supply-side ideal while disclaiming the goal of prohibition are deluded or pandering..."

If you enjoyed reading about "Imagining Gun Control In America: Understanding The Remainder Problem" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Duke of Doubt
January 21, 2009, 01:44 PM
Basically, the argument is that 300,000,000 guns is too many to take away, and Heller makes the "ideal" of prohibition unattainable.

I tend to agree, but convincing the antis of this logic will prove difficult. Most of them don't know beans about guns anyway.

everallm
January 21, 2009, 02:01 PM
An interesting read, tying economics with law and prohibition.

The telling part is the conclusion

CONCLUSION
Without a commitment to or capacity for eliminating the
existing inventory of private guns, the supply-side ideal and
regulations based on it cannot be taken seriously. It is best to
acknowledge the blocking power of the remainder and adjust our
gun control regulations and goals to that reality. Policymakers who
continue to press legislation grounded on the supply-side ideal while
disclaiming the goal of prohibition are deluded or pandering.

In other words, anything other than a national confiscation program is dooming to failure any controlling law to actually meet its putative goal.

Art Eatman
January 21, 2009, 02:19 PM
A confiscation program would be a "taking" under the Fifth Amendment. Jury trials to establish values for each and every firearm? I don't think the feds have the $$$ to do that.

Duke of Doubt
January 21, 2009, 02:25 PM
Art, I don't think they paid compensation to the victims of the 1934 Act who didn't register and pay taxes on their devices.

everallm
January 21, 2009, 02:44 PM
NFA '34 was not confiscatory, it was licensing for a one off fee. Small difference but significant.

The SC even before Heller talked directly to punitive taxation against constitutional rights being verboten before we get the "It'll be a $10,000 a year registration fee"......

TimRB
January 21, 2009, 02:59 PM
"In other words, anything other than a national confiscation program is dooming to failure any controlling law to actually meet its putative goal."

And even a national confiscation program would fail, since the vast majority of firearms in America are not registered. Which is another reminder that, above all, we need to fight tooth and nail against registration schemes.

Tim

expvideo
January 21, 2009, 03:10 PM
But when Mark Wahlberg says it we all jump on him as an anti.

glockman19
January 21, 2009, 03:58 PM
A confiscation program would be a "taking" under the Fifth Amendment. Jury trials to establish values for each and every firearm? I don't think the feds have the $$$ to do that.


Can't they just print more money? Aren't we dooing that now?

JImbothefiveth
January 21, 2009, 04:09 PM
A confiscation program would be a "taking" under the Fifth Amendment. Jury trials to establish values for each and every firearm? I don't think the feds have the $$$ to do thatHey, if we can fund overseas abortions with taxpayer money during an economic crisis....

But I still don't think confiscation will happen.

roscoe
January 21, 2009, 04:32 PM
He clearly sees registration as a way around Heller, and a possible shortcut to confiscation should the USSC shift leftward.

Titan6
January 21, 2009, 04:45 PM
A confiscation program would be a "taking" under the Fifth Amendment. Jury trials to establish values for each and every firearm? I don't think the feds have the $$$ to do that.

Can't they just print more money? Aren't we dooing that now?

And How! They can crank up those printing presses or let you write them off on your taxes. But it won't happen in my life time.

Deanimator
January 21, 2009, 05:01 PM
But when Mark Wahlberg says it we all jump on him as an anti.
I can't imagine anything that Mark Wahlberg could say on any subject, other than comedic acting, which could be of the slightest interest to me. What's next, Tracy Lords' take on quantum entanglement? The ability to dress up and play make believe does not confer upon a person's ideas (apart from ideas about dressing up and playing make believe) ONE iota of credibility.

legaleagle_45
January 21, 2009, 05:05 PM
The way I read the article is that classic gun control strategies will not work in the US. Even confiscation is doomed to failure, since it is estimated that 75% (low estimate) to 95% (high estimate) of gun owners would fail to comply.

On the low end range of estimates, this would leave 200 million firearms in private hands in the US...

legaleagle_45
January 21, 2009, 05:08 PM
By the way, and just in case BATFE is monitoring this message board... I do not own a single gun... nope not me. Never have, honest.;)

Hollowdweller
January 21, 2009, 05:11 PM
Hey, if we can fund overseas abortions with taxpayer money during an economic crisis....

I think taxpayer funded abortions are prohibited by the Hyde Amendment passed in 1976.

TexasRifleman
January 21, 2009, 05:29 PM
I think taxpayer funded abortions are prohibited by the Hyde Amendment passed in 1976.

Well, until tomorrow anyway.....

President Obama will issue an executive order on Thursday reversing the Bush administration policy that bans the use of federal dollars by non-govermental organizations that discuss or provide abortions outside of the United States.




http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/01/21/obama-lift-ban-funding-groups-providing-abortions-overseas/

HOPE! CHANGE!

You got it.....

damien
January 21, 2009, 07:25 PM
"Sorry, sold them all in the years between when they were purchased and when the ban on private transfers was passed. Can't remember who I sold them to, sorry officer."
\
:evil:

Zundfolge
January 21, 2009, 07:38 PM
The flaw in this thinking is to assume that the goal of gun control laws is to get guns out of the hands of anyone.

They don't have to be successful in getting guns out of the hands of criminals or the homes of the law abiding, however it makes it easy to use the law as a bludgeon against anyone at any time.

If here in America we have an experience similar to what happened in Canada (majority of law abiding gun owners ignored the registration laws) it wouldn't matter and it wouldn't be a failure, what WOULD happen is that if you're a gun owner you can't speak out or run for office for fear that the gun laws would be selectively enforced against you.

Regarding the Ayn Rand quote in my sig below, here it is in its original context in Atlas Shrugged:

“Did you really think we want those laws observed?” said Dr. Ferris. “We want them to be broken. You’d better get it straight that it’s not a bunch of boy scouts you’re up against... We’re after power and we mean it... There’s no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What’s there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now that’s the system, Mr. Reardon, that’s the game, and once you understand it, you’ll be much easier to deal with.”



Again, the real purpose of gun control has little to do with guns, it has everything to do with expanding the power of government over the day to day lives of the people. Forcing us like rats in a maze of byzantine rules, regulations and laws.

Another flaw in our thinking is that gun control proponents in government are afraid of our guns ... afraid we'll revolt. They aren't. They don't care if their gun control laws save a single one of their colleagues from assassination, they clearly don't care if their gun control laws save one innocent life. All they care about is the growth of bureaucracy.

Bureaucracy is the only real power left in the world.

Carl N. Brown
January 22, 2009, 12:06 PM
Imagining Gun Control in America: Understanding the Remainder Problem
by Nicholas J. Johnson in Wake Forest Law Review, Vol 43, pp. 837-891 (PDF dated 13 Jan 2009)

Johnson (Professor of Law, Fordham U Law School; J.D. Harvard, 1984) examines the impact of the Heller decision on traditional gun control strategies (mostly based on regulations on the legal gun supply or prohibitions certain features allowed on legal guns) and concludes:

""Without a commitment to or capacity for eliminating the
existing inventory of private guns, the supply-side ideal and
regulations based on it cannot be taken seriously. It is best to
acknowledge the blocking power of the remainder and adjust our
gun control regulations and goals to that reality. Policymakers who
continue to press legislation grounded on the supply-side ideal while
disclaiming the goal of prohibition are deluded or pandering.""

Johnson also has this to say about Lott's More Guns Less Crime thesis:

I. THE SUPPLY-SIDE IDEAL

The conclusion that some horrible gun crime would not have
happened if we had prevented the scoundrel from getting a firearm
is straightforward and quite natural. This calculation is the
foundation for views that advance supply-side gun regulation as a
recipe for crime control. [11] It conforms to simple tests of
logic. Consider two scenarios. In the first, we are sitting in a
room with a gun in the middle. In the second, our room is gun
free and sealed_ the supply-side ideal. The risk of gun violence
is obviously higher in the first scenario. Indeed, absent
creative cheating, it is zero in the second. Projecting this
dynamic to society generally allows the claim that laws limiting
the supply of guns in private hands will dramatically reduce gun
crime. [12]

Tracking violent crime rates in jurisdictions with generous
concealed carry laws, John Lott reaches the opposite conclusion.
Lott posits that laws enabling trustworthy citizens to carry guns
in public are a deterrent to crime.[13] Lott has drawn criticism
[14] and support [15] sufficient to leave doubters and believers
nearly exactly where they started.

[11] See, e.g.,
John Godwin, Murder U.S.A.: The Ways We Kill Each Other 281
(1978) (claiming that places with the most gun owners also have
the highest homicide ratios);
Pete Shields, Guns Don't Die--People Do 64 (1981) ("[T]he
availability of firearms breeds violence.") (internal quotation
marks omitted);
Frank Zimring, Is Gun Control Likely to Reduce Violent
Killings?, 35 U. Chi. L. Rev. 721, 735 (1968) (citing a study
showing an increased ratio of deaths per 100 reported attacks
involving firearms, as compared to knives, in order to suggest
that "the absence of firearms would depress the otherwise
expectable homicide rate");
Deane Calhoun, From Controversy to Prevention: Building
Effective Firearm Policies, Injury Prevention Network Newsletter,
Winter 1989-90, at 17 ("[G]uns are not just an inanimate object
[sic], but in fact are a social ill.");
Janice Somerville, Gun Control as Immunization, Am. Med. News,
Jan. 3, 1994, at 7 (describing guns as a "virus that must be
eradicated").

[12] In contrast, Don Kates and Gary Mauser argue that the more
guns, more murder "mantra" is undercut by both historic and
current correlations between gun ownership and murder. Don B.
Kates & Gary Mauser, Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and
Suicide: A Review of International and Some Domestic Evidence, 30
Harv. J.L. & Pub. Pol'y 649, 687-90 (2007). According to Kates
and Mauser, Franklin Zimring, one of the architects of those
conclusions, has admitted that they were made speculatively and
essentially without an empirical basis:

""In the 1960s after the assassinations of President John F.
Kennedy, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and Senator Robert F.
Kennedy, it [gun control] became a major subject of public
passion and controversy . . . . [sparking a debate that] has been
heated, acrimonious, and polarized. . . . It began in a factual
vacuum . . . neither side felt any great need for
factual support to buttress foregone conclusions. [i]In the
1960s, there was literally no scholarship on the relationship
between guns and violence and the incidence or consequences of
interpersonal violence, and no work in progress.""

Franklin E. Zimring & Gordon Hawkins, The Citizen's Guide to Gun
Control xi (1987) (emphasis added).

Kates and Mauser contend that much of the early support of supply
restrictions was grounded on little to no empirical evidence. So
much so that prominent criminologist Hans Toch recanted his
support of handgun prohibition: "(I)t is hard to explain that
where firearms are most dense, violent crime rates are lowest and
where guns are least dense, violent crime rates are highest."
Kates & Mauser, supra at 675 (internal quotation marks omitted).

Professor Toch was a consultant to the 1960s Eisenhower
Commission and, until the 1990s, he endorsed its conclusions that
widespread handgun ownership causes violence and that reducing
ownership would reduce violence.

[13] John R. Lott, Jr. & David B. Mustard, Crime, Deterrence, and
Right-to- Carry Concealed Handguns, 26 J. Legal Stud. 1, 28
(1997). See generally John R. Lott, Jr., More Guns, Less Crime:
Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws 19 (2000). Several
critics have now replicated Lott's work using additional or
different data, additional control variables, or new or different
statistical techniques they deem superior to those Lott used.
Interestingly, the replications all confirm Lott's general
conclusions; some even find that Lott underestimated the
crime-reductive effects of allowing good citizens to carry
concealed guns.

[14] See, e.g.,
Albert W. Alschuler, Two Guns, Four Guns, Six Guns, More Guns:
Does Arming the Public Reduce Crime?, 31 Val. U. L. Rev. 365,
366-71 (1997);
Ian Ayres & John J. Donohue III, Shooting Down the "More Guns,
Less Crime" Hypothesis, 55 Stan. L. Rev. 1193, 1197-1202 (2003);
Dan A. Black & Daniel S. Nagin, Do Right-to-Carry Laws Deter
Violent Crime?, 27 J. Legal Stud. 209 (1998);
D.W. Webster et al., Flawed Gun Policy Research Could Endanger
Public Safety, 87 Am. J. Pub. Health 918 (1997);
Franklin Zimring & Gordon Hawkins, Concealed Handguns: The
Counterfeit Deterrent, 7 Responsive Community 46 (1997);
see also John J. Donohue III & Steven D. Levitt, The Impact of
Legalized Abortion on Crime, 116 Q.L. Econ. 379 (2001).

[15] See, e.g.,
Bruce L. Benson & Brent D. Mast, Privately Produced General
Deterrence, 44 J.L. & Econ. 725 (2001);
John R. Lott, Jr. & John E. Whitley, Safe-Storage Gun Laws:
Accidental Deaths, Suicides, and Crime, 44 J.L. & Econ. 659
(2001);
Thomas B. Marvell, The Impact of Banning Juvenile Gun
Possession, 44 J.L. & Econ. 691 (2001);
Jeffrey A. Miron, Violence, Guns, and Drugs: A Cross-Country
Analysis, 44 J.L. & Econ. 615 (2001);
Carlisle E. Moody, Testing for the Effects of Concealed
Weapons Laws: Specification Errors and Robustness, 44 J.L. &
Econ. 799 (2001);
David B. Mustard, The Impact of Gun Laws on Police Deaths, 44
J.L. & Econ. 635 (2001);
David E. Olson & Michael D. Maltz, Right-to-Carry Concealed
Weapon Laws and Homicide in Large U.S. Counties: The Effect on
Weapon Types, Victim Characteristics, and Victim-Offender
Relationships, 44 J.L. & Econ. 747 (2001);
Jeffrey S. Parker, Guns, Crime, and Academics: Some
Reflections on the Gun Control Debate, 44 J.L. & Econ. 715
(2001);
Florenz Plassmann & John Whitley, Confirming "More Guns, Less
Crime," 55 Stan. L. Rev. 1313 (2003);
see also Florenz Plassmann & T. Nicolaus Tideman, Does the
Right to Carry Concealed Handguns Deter Countable Crimes? Only a
Count Analysis Can Say, 44 J.L. & Econ. 771 (2001)
(supporting Lott's analysis of the impact of right-to-carry
laws with respect to decreases in some categories of crimes).
In 2003, Lott extended his findings. John R. Lott, Jr., The
Bias Against Guns: Why Almost Everything You've Heard About Gun
Control is Wrong (2003).

Here we have Johnson's theoretical test of logic:

It conforms to simple tests of logic. Consider two
scenarios. In the first, we are sitting in a room with a gun in
the middle. In the second, our room is gun free and sealed-- the
supply-side ideal. The risk of gun violence is obviously higher
in the first scenario. Indeed, absent creative cheating, it is
zero in the second. Projecting this dynamic to society generally
allows the claim that laws limiting the supply of guns in private
hands will dramatically reduce gun crime.

Here is a practical application known to me:

My sister was awakened one night, about 2:00am, by the sound of
breaking glass. She thought the cat had knocked something over in
the kitchen. She got up to investigate. A home invader had kicked
in the glass of the kitchen door and was standing in the living
area with her VCR in his hands. They got into a tussle. Her
roommate was awakened and came out of the bedroom with a .357
revolver. The home invader released my sister and ran. My sister
took the revolver and pursued. They found the invader's
accomplice burglarising their car in the driveway. They detained
the accomplice at gun point for arrest by responding police
officers. The officers thanked my sister and her roommate.
As of this writing (Jan 2009) the home invader and the car
burglar are in prison. My sister's household has relocated to a
new address. Gun control advocates believe that when the two men
are paroled, there should be a public record of my gun-owning
sister's new address, because people have a right to be warned
who in their neighborhood owns a handgun.

Take the theoretical construct and shove it further. The real life
scenario is this: In the first, we are sitting in a room with a
bigger stronger home invader and we have a gun. In the second,
our room is gun free and sealed--the gun control ideal and we are
sitting unarmed with a home invading thug. The risk of gun
violence is obviously higher in the first scenario and is zero in
the second. Projecting this dynamic to society generally allows
my claim that laws limiting the supply of guns in private hands
will dramatically reduce self-defense with guns and make life
safer for home invading brutes.

Jeff White
January 22, 2009, 01:09 PM
Taxpayer funded abortions aren't on topic here. The OP is free to start another thread and hopefully it will stay on topic. If not it will meet the same fate as this one.

If you enjoyed reading about "Imagining Gun Control In America: Understanding The Remainder Problem" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!