At the heart of the renewed debate is whether the gun-a-month law works.
Supporters and opponents agree that the cap reduced the number of Virginia firearms recovered and traced by law enforcement officials in cities along the East Coast.
Special Agent Michael Campbell of the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives added, "Anecdotally, we've heard people we've arrested for firearms trafficking say that it was more difficult to find people to do straw purchases because they had to find more people."
Beyond anecdotes, however, it's not clear that the law reduced crime or gun-related violence, largely because there's no way to determine whether criminals simply found another way to buy guns. Tracing data, collected by ATF, offer only a limited view of the flow of firearms.
"I would say that there's suggestive evidence that the Virginia gun-a-month law did some good, but it's not determinative evidence," said Jens Ludwig, a professor at the University of Chicago.
That's the way they debate, the pro-gun crowd. If it's only "suggestive evidence," forget about it. It must be "determinative evidence." We need proof before we can accept something as crazy as the idea that a straw purchaser might be hindered and limited by the one-gun-a-month rule.
Of course, when Prof. Kleck or Eugene Volokh say that most DGUs are only brandishings of the gun, but they count towards the 2.5 million instances every year, suggestive evidence is OK.
Does it sometimes seem like the gun rights folks have a double standard?
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
Mikeb: That's the way they debate, the pro-gun crowd. If it's only "suggestive evidence," forget about it. It must be "determinative evidence."
ReplyDeleteExcept that I think that Professor Ludwig is usually in favor of gun control. Anyone know more about that?
Mikeb says:
ReplyDeleteThat's the way they debate, the pro-gun crowd. If it's only "suggestive evidence," forget about it. It must be "determinative evidence." We need proof before we can accept something as crazy as the idea that a straw purchaser might be hindered and limited by the one-gun-a-month rule.
Of course, when Prof. Kleck or Eugene Volokh say that most DGUs are only brandishings of the gun, but they count towards the 2.5 million instances every year, suggestive evidence is OK.
Does it sometimes seem like the gun rights folks have a double standard?
Let's ignore that even a Clinton administration National Institute of Justice study suggested a much higher rate of defensive gun use than of killings/injuries inflicted with guns--you can dismiss that, since the methodology relied on telephone surveys (which are obviously not iron-clad).
Here's the thing, though--what's wrong with demanding a higher evidentiary hurdle for claims used to justify curtailment of liberty than for those used to justify its preservation?
Why not give the anti-rights folks a heavier evidentiary burden, unencumbered as they are by the weight of morality, conscience, and love of liberty that those on the pro-rights side willingly carry?
it's not clear that the law reduced crime or gun-related violence.
ReplyDeleteWhy keep a law on the books if it's not effective?
I agree with FWM, it's a small victory. But it illustrated another thing we've discessed recently. The VA Senate voted "along party lines," Democrats against and the one Republican for. This could make one think the gun debate really is divided along those lines, no?
ReplyDeleteYou know, the pro-gun-rights crowd keeps talking about freedom as if they have some kind of monopoly on it, as if only they know what it is. How about the liberty to to not have to wonder who has a gun and if they know what they're doing with it? How about the freedom to go out of your house and not have to consider that if the criminals don't getcha, one of the vigilante law-and-order types might?
ReplyDeleteIf the anti-gun folks used the words freedom and liberty as much as the pro-gun types do, perhaps we'd achieve some level of credibility too, perhaps our ideas would then be associated with those lofty concepts too.
You have NO Freedom to disarm others and force them to live with that choice because you don't like guns.
ReplyDeleteYou have the freedom to choose not to own a gun. Telling others they have to live according to your choices is the very antithesis of freedom.
Mikeb says:
ReplyDeleteHow about the liberty to to not have to wonder who has a gun and if they know what they're doing with it? How about the freedom to go out of your house and not have to consider that if the criminals don't getcha . . .
You have the liberty to wonder (or not) whatever you want. Likewise, no one is imposing an obligation on you to consider anything you choose not to.
. . . one of the vigilante law-and-order types might?
So do you really not know the difference between vigilantism and self-defense, or is it simply a matter of your agenda being better served by pretending ignorance of the vast difference?
If the anti-gun folks used the words freedom and liberty as much as the pro-gun types do, perhaps we'd achieve some level of credibility too, perhaps our ideas would then be associated with those lofty concepts too.
Yeah--good luck with that. Good luck convincing people that you are owed the "freedom" to demand that others be disarmed and defenseless. Good luck convincing Americans that they deserve the "liberty" to impose on their fellow citizens a government monopoly on force.