10-03-2017, 12:13 PM
(10-03-2017, 11:54 AM)bfine32 Wrote: In an effort to stop the Las Vegas tragedy thread from becoming a petty back and forth. I thought I would bump this one.
It seems the current debate is now over silencers. If you have ever been inside an indoor firing range you may appreciate the need for silencers and I'm hesitant to vote for their outlaw.
As I've said a number of times: I'm not a huge 2nd Amendment proponent (I own one handgun and one shotgun), but is the answer to outlaw things that law abiding citizens wish to use? If a criminal wants to "silence" the report he or she will find a way.
Thanks for this, actually. I had forgotten about this thread. I'll post my quote from the LV thread here and delete my comment over there in hopes of furthering this discussion on this thread rather than the other one:
So, here is some information I brought up before on this topic when I was writing a policy proposal on it over the summer.
We have seen that there is a correlative relationship between the ease of legal availability of firearms and firearm violence. What we have also seen is that when a more restrictive area is neighbored by a less restrictive area, the restrictions are less effective (e.g. Chicago). We also see an increase in interstate gun trafficking from less restrictive areas to more restrictive (e.g. firearms from Virginia being used in crimes in northern states on the Atlantic coast).
Missouri has provided a great case study for this, as they had a license to purchase program for decades that included universal background checks for private transfers. When they ditched the program and became less restrictive on purchases and no longer requiring background checks for private transfers, in the years immediately following their firearm homicide rate increased and the number of firearms from Missouri used in violent crimes in neighboring states increased.
Now, this is all based on limited, privately funded research because there has been a stall on any government funded research thanks to some interpretations of legislation that have made the agencies that would handle this funding skittish to fund any. My suggestion is, first and foremost, study the issue to that we can look at the root causes of gun violence in our country and address those. Then, we see strong evidence that universal background checks are an effective measure, but they would be most effective if applied across the country. I will post the closing section of my policy memo:
Quote:With this information in mind, it is recommended that federal legislation be put in place to expand background check requirements to private transfers and require permanent record keeping by those private sellers. Two funding efforts would come with this: a grant program to improve state reporting to NICS and to facilitate the creation of more state and local background check procedures, and federally supported gun violence research by both the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and the Department of Justice (DOJ). For twenty years, federal funding for gun violence research has been cut to nothing. As a result, questions about the effects of socioeconomic factors on gun violence as well as the effects of expanding the disqualifying factors for purchasing a firearm are not being adequately researched to form effective policy.
This policy should see a reduction in gun crimes across the country, particularly in states where they have not previously expanded background checks to include private sales of firearms. The standardization of the requirement for a background check across all states should result in a reduction in interstate firearms trafficking and related crimes. Therefore, there should also be a greater reduction in the gun crime rate in states that already require background checks for private sales.
Implementation of this policy would have to be a legislative action from Congress, resulting in a politically contentious situation. The National Rifle Association (NRA) is well known in its opposition to any efforts toward gun control. The organization argues for greater enforcement of existing law rather than the creation of more laws, but expansion of the background check requirements increases the ability of law enforcement to enforce current laws. Since this does not restrict gun ownership any further than current law and provides an opportunity for better enforcement of existing regulations, it is an action that should be supported by the NRA. Making background checks of private sales will help law enforcement do its job (Braga, 2001).
While there will be funding efforts against this sort of legislation from the NRA and other anti-gun control organizations, the public is behind the concept of universal background checks. A recent report from the Pew Research Center found that 84% of Americans are in favor of requiring background checks for private sales and gun shows (Parker et al., 2017). While the 84% is an overall figure, the percentage of gun owners in the country who agree with this policy is 77%, and 70% of Republican or Republican-leaning gun owners are also in favor of it. These figures show that public support could push legislators toward support of the policy, creating the opportunity for a bipartisan legislative effort.
If implemented, the expanded background checks would be an effort guided by the DOJ and the FBI, but much of the work would be handled at the state level as they strengthen their systems for background checks. These federal agencies would be a resource and would assist the states in the transition. It would put greater emphasis on states doing more to control gun violence within their borders and recognizing that their efforts have a national impact as gun violence crosses borders. This emphasis on state-level responsibility will help to make the policy more politically viable among conservative circles. Even though the law would put a federal regulation in place, it is giving the real power for enforcement to the states themselves.
The funding of gun violence research will allow for future efforts towards effective gun policy to be made. Gun policy, rather than gun control, is specific here. Efforts to stymie research in this area are based on the idea that it will result in gun control efforts by the federal government. There is not sufficient evidence right now to suggest that many of the potential gun control efforts offered would have an impact substantial enough to justify limiting Second Amendment rights. The issue is that there is not sufficient evidence for almost any policy to address gun violence other than what has been suggested here. Research can help policymakers determine where to focus efforts going forward with evidence that they do not currently have in hand.
To paraphrase an article by two researchers previously cited, there are not likely any policies that could be passed that would drop gun violence in the United States the same levels as those of other developed nations (Cook & Ludwig, 2006), but this does not mean we should not make any efforts towards reducing that rate. For twenty years there has been no movement on curbing gun violence at the federal level. The problem of gun violence is one that infects the entire country and can cross borders, as was shown when guns from Missouri ended up in neighboring states when they relaxed their laws. It is time for the federal government to take this action and listen to the people of the United States. They are looking for answers and the government should try to find them.
