Ed Ames
Member
I'm going to revisit this in a slightly different way.
In judging a law you should look at the following:
1. Does it identify a real and widely accepted problem? E.g. Interpersonal violence is a real and near-universally recognized problem, the sale of red underwear is not. The sale of guns is not universally accepted as a problem (look around here) and the sale, as such, is not a real problem (though misuse may be).
2. Does it address the problem? Let's say we have accepted gun violence as a real and widely accepted problem; do restrictions on new sales address that problem? Not directly, because most newly sold guns are not used for crime and most crime guns were not newly sold. It is argued that indirect laws are appropriate in cases where the problem is difficult to address directly. E.g. you cannot stop people from choosing to drink or take narcotics so you regulate their production and distribution. Indirect laws come at immense cost because they must be expansive and limit legitimate behaviors... because some people choose to drink it is illegal for you to build a still to produce fuel alcohol to run your car (without licenses). Because someone else wants to take pep pills you can't buy a $3/100 bottle of nasal decongestant any more and for the $5/20 package you need to show ID.
3. Does it cause or enable harm? An example in the news a lot these days is the easing of lending standards in the 1990s. Lawmakers identified a problem: low social cohesion and success among urban dwellers. Lacking a direct solution they looked for some handle on the issue. What they found was that areas with more owner occupied dwellings did better. So they tried to bring greater uniformity there. Unfortunately homes in urban areas are more expensive and jobs aren't a bunch better so they had to change the lending standards. Fast forward to today.... that indirect approach to a real problem is looking pretty harmful. Another example is the violence that can be directly attributed to prohibition. Prohibition makes drug sales profitable and profit is worth fighting over - next thing you know, people are using that violence as a justification for new firearms laws that apply to Idaho.
So, how does your average gun law measure up by those standards?
In judging a law you should look at the following:
1. Does it identify a real and widely accepted problem? E.g. Interpersonal violence is a real and near-universally recognized problem, the sale of red underwear is not. The sale of guns is not universally accepted as a problem (look around here) and the sale, as such, is not a real problem (though misuse may be).
2. Does it address the problem? Let's say we have accepted gun violence as a real and widely accepted problem; do restrictions on new sales address that problem? Not directly, because most newly sold guns are not used for crime and most crime guns were not newly sold. It is argued that indirect laws are appropriate in cases where the problem is difficult to address directly. E.g. you cannot stop people from choosing to drink or take narcotics so you regulate their production and distribution. Indirect laws come at immense cost because they must be expansive and limit legitimate behaviors... because some people choose to drink it is illegal for you to build a still to produce fuel alcohol to run your car (without licenses). Because someone else wants to take pep pills you can't buy a $3/100 bottle of nasal decongestant any more and for the $5/20 package you need to show ID.
3. Does it cause or enable harm? An example in the news a lot these days is the easing of lending standards in the 1990s. Lawmakers identified a problem: low social cohesion and success among urban dwellers. Lacking a direct solution they looked for some handle on the issue. What they found was that areas with more owner occupied dwellings did better. So they tried to bring greater uniformity there. Unfortunately homes in urban areas are more expensive and jobs aren't a bunch better so they had to change the lending standards. Fast forward to today.... that indirect approach to a real problem is looking pretty harmful. Another example is the violence that can be directly attributed to prohibition. Prohibition makes drug sales profitable and profit is worth fighting over - next thing you know, people are using that violence as a justification for new firearms laws that apply to Idaho.
So, how does your average gun law measure up by those standards?