The gun control debate seems to be getting more demagogic and
polarized every time it comes up in Washington.
But it seems to me that if you are willing to consider the use cases
that are thrown around as justification for extreme views, we can actually come
up with a good set of regs that balance our Constitutional rights and cultural
history in support of gun ownership and freedom with the practical realities
that crazy people are going into crowded places, including schools full of 5
and 6 year-olds, and shooting people.
Use Case 1: Shooting as a sport that requires the use of
semi-automatic weapons with large clips.
I am not sure this exists, but let’s assume for a minute
that there are some sports that require some combination of these. If it is really for sport, then the shooting
would be done at a facility of some kind.
An effective regulation would require competitors to keep their guns at
the facility. This is where you need it,
for competitions and most of the time for practice. The guns would be safer there. Your little kids can’t find it in the closet,
play with it, and accidentally shoot themselves or their friends. Your suicidal teenager can’t use it to hurt
him/herself. A burglar can’t steal it
and use it to commit a crime. You can’t
get desperate during a period of unemployment and sell it on the black market
to make ends meet.
But of course there are counter-examples where this doesn’t
work. What if you live in rural Montana
with 25 acres of land? Why can’t you
practice at the range in your backyard?
OK, so instead of categorically rejecting the idea, let’s work with
it. Let’s take the reg out of federal
jurisdiction. Let a place like New York
City, where there are no 25 acre backyards, and let them limit these kinds of
weapons to ranges and qualified facilities and let a county in rural Montana
allow them at home. Different locations
have different values, different priorities, and different circumstances. This seems better than a federal law either
preventing NYC from passing a limit or forcing Montana to have one.
Use Case 2: Self-defense at home.
OK, but what about self-defense at home? The gun needs to be in the same place as the
kids, burglars, and desperate provider.
But how often is a home invaded by a team of 10 burglars? I am no expert here either, but I suspect it
is usually just one or two. So if you
start spraying bullets around with a semi-automatic, you are more likely to hit
your family, pets, or neighbors than the burglars. Accuracy with a smaller gun would be much
more effective. But, there are people who really want one of these, so let’s at
least try to accommodate.
Another thing we can do it require fingerprint readers on
the trigger. Years ago, this was too
expensive and not reliable. But now,
these things are located on just about every computer to replace passwords. The greatest benefit is that this prevents
all of the above risks – your kids, burglars, or other people simply can’t use
it. And if you want to legally sell the
gun, you can reset the reader. If these
can be made inexpensive and reliable, there is no practical argument against
them – just the extreme view that any requirement is a bad requirement.
But again, let’s consider the counter-examples too. What if you have a large estate that could be
target of a larger burgling team? What
if you own a diamond polishing factory that often has $1 million in
inventory? OK, but in these cases you
probably also have paid security, who can be trained at a much higher level and
armed accordingly. And if you want to be
armed too, then get trained. Not for any
kind of gun, I realize that there is too much support for allowing anyone to
have a basic handgun, trained or not. But for something more substantial the
owner should want training.
But of course we have all heard about certification mills in
other industries that sell training and certification without really teaching
anything. I have a better
suggestion. Run this kind of training
out of your local police station. They
have a personal stake in making sure you are properly trained because these
same officers are responding to the burglary you call in. If you are not well trained, the random
automatic weapon spraying is going to hit them. Also, if the police station has
an outside revenue source, we can limit the local taxes that go to fund station
operations. It’s a small amount (how
many people are really going to want this?), but any bit helps. Another benefit is that the police get to
know who owns these weapons and when they respond to the home invasion call
they know who NOT to shoot at.
Use Case 3: Carrying a weapon for self-defense in public
The motivated “bad guy,” whether we are talking about a
criminal or psycho, is always going to be able to get hold of a gun if they
really want to. So carrying one yourself
in public does have a logic to it. I am
not sure you can fit a semi-automatic and/or large clip weapon in your purse,
holster, or pocket, but it still warrants some consideration. Again, I think accuracy with a smaller
handgun is more effective, but we should at least accept the resolve of those
who really really want one of these and find a way to accommodate it. We can require the same training as in Use
Case 2 that is limited just to this kind of weapon. This makes even more sense for Use Case 3
because the last thing we need is untrained spraying of semi-automatic fire in
a crowded mall or elementary school.
The NRA’s arguments against all of these boil down to the
idea that the right to bear arms in the 2nd Amendment is
unlimited. But even if you do read it as
an individual right, as opposed to a militia, it doesn’t say this explicitly. There is some interpretation required. On the other hand, it also is legitimate to
read it as allowing the maximum flexibility that we can make workable. So instead of taking the extreme view on
either side, let’s create an environment with the least regulation, the least
limitation on gun ownership, but that is also practical, workable, and
safe.
Posts
