POLITICS JANUARY 31, 2013
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
Wayne LaPierre, chief executive of the National Rifle Association was back in the spotlight on Wednesday—this time to appear before a congressional committee contemplating new gun violence legislation. And while LaPierre got emotional at a few points, he spent most of his testimony trying to make a pragmatic argument: "We need to be honest about what works and what does not work," LaPierre said, in a prepared statement. "Proposals that would only serve to burden the law-abiding have failed in the past and will fail in the future."
LaPierre didn’t specify which past laws he had in mind, but it’s a safe bet that he was thinking about two high-profile pieces of legislation from the early 1990s. One was the Brady Law, which created a system of background checks for people purchasing guns. The other was the 1994 crime bill, which included a ban on some assault weapons. LaPierre is hardly the only person who thinks those laws demonstrate the futility of gun control. Most experts agree that the cumulative effect of the laws was, at best, modest.1
It’s one thing to say gun laws haven’t significantly reduced gun violence, but quite another to say they couldn't.
But it’s one thing to say gun laws haven’t significantly reduced gun violence, quite another to say they couldn’t. Both the Brady Law and assault weapons ban had serious, specific flaws. The most conspicuous problem with the Brady Law was that it didn’t affect private sales: You could buy a gun from a non-licensed dealer—say, at a gun show—without anybody checking to make sure you didn’t have a criminal record or some other characteristic that made it illegal for you to have a weapon. The big loophole in the assault rifle ban was that its definition of prohibited weapons, which manufacturers were able to circumvent by making minor modifications to existing guns. But gun control advocates have learned a lot since that time. And that's one reason to think the proposals now on the table could have a bigger impact than their predecessors did.
To be fair, it's not as if architects of the Brady Law or assault weapons ban thought either law would have a huge impact on crime. It’s easy to forget now, but enactment of the Brady Law culminated a decade of political struggle against the opponents of gun control, particularly the National Rifle Association. It took the election of Bill Clinton, who had promised to sign such a bill as president, to break the logjam—and even then it was a struggle. "I remember going up to the final day of that vote, we were whipping it for over a month," says Jim Kessler, who was an aide to then-Congressman Charles Schumer, one of the law's co-sponsors, and is now senior vice president for policy at Third Way. "We did not have the support of the speaker, we did not have the judiciary chairman, Jack Brooks of Texas, we had to do it on our own—and up to the day of the vote, we felt we might not have the votes to pass." Given that political reality, the advocates of gun laws knew they would be settling for highly imperfect legislation. One hope was that passing Brady would demonstrate the political viability of gun legislation, making it possible to pass stronger legislation later on. "The NRA had such a stranglehold around the neck of Congress, we knew that if we were going to get anything through, it had to be narrow," says Richard Aborn, a former prosecutor who was president of the Brady Campaign during the early 1990s.
But advocates of gun legislation in the 1990s didn’t simply lack sufficient political power. They also lacked know-how. At the time, experts didn’t really understand gun shows—and they certainly didn’t grasp the role that gun shows might play in facilitating sales once the Brady Law was in effect. "The notion of private sales and, in particular, gun show leakage was not on ours, or anybody else’s, radar screen," Aborn says. And even if lawmakers had been thinking about gun shows, it's not clear how much they could have done to restrict sales, at least in that political environment: Requiring private dealers to run full background checks, cross-checking identifications with criminal records and such, would have been time-consuming and in some cases unwieldy. Tom Diaz, a former Democratic staffer for the House Judiciary Committee and former policy analyst at the Violence Policy Center, explains, "There was no established system to do the background check. It seems easy now, but in the mid-1990s there were no 'apps' and the communication among computers was fragile. It was just much easier and more realistic to require federal firearms licensees—i.e., dealers—to do the background check, since they were already regulated under existing law."
Veterans of the assault weapons ban fight recall facing similar obstacles. Lack of technology wasn’t an issue, but lack of understanding about guns was. Diaz, author of a forthcoming book called The Last Gun: How Changes in the Gun Industry Are Killing Americans and What It Will Take to Stop It, remembers the crafting of that bill as a decidedly amateur exercise:
In the case of the assault weapons ban, it was as inelegant as this: a bunch of politicians (mostly in the Senate, then in the House as the Senate bill became the vehicle) who knew (and some still know) precious little or even nothing at all about guns in general and assault weapons in particular literally sewed together (1) a list of guns, like Uzis and AKs, and (2) a silly list of "features" (bells and whistles) that "defined" in law what an assault weapon was supposed to be. If the gun had two or more of these features, well, it was an assault weapon. The defect was that manufacturers easily just eliminated the bells and whistles, but kept the major design features that make assault weapons so problematic, namely the ability to accept a high-capacity magazine, and a pistol grip to hold the gun for rapid fire.
One sign that the advocates of new gun laws have learned from the past is that their proposals are more sophisticated, and savvy, than the ones they put forward last time.2 Under the assault weapons proposals circulating now, including the proposal from California Senator Diane Feinstein, a gun would be illegal if it had just one criteria of an automatic rifle, rather than two. Lawmakers are also talking about new restrictions on high-capacity magazines. Christopher Koper, a criminologist at George Mason who was co-author of the official Justice Department review of the old assault weapons ban, thinks a stronger law has potential. "Restrictions like the old ones on assault weapons and large capacity magazines probably won't lower the overall rate of gun crime," he says, "but they may modestly reduce shootings by reducing gun attacks with particularly high numbers of shots fired. My best estimate is that the impact on shootings would be under 5 percent overall. I wouldn't consider this trivial, however, given the seriousness and social costs of shootings."
More important, advocates for gun laws have quietly shifted their priorities. The assault weapons ban continues to get the most publicity, but the real focus—for advocates and the lawmakers they support—is on a better system of background checks. "Universal background checks… would have much greater impacts," Koper says. "That could be a game-changer, but they also need to make sure the law is accompanied by meaningful penalties and enforcement." The advocates for new gun laws seem to grasp that last point. And that includes the president. Obama has already ordered law enforcement agencies to trace the history of guns they seize in crimes. It was one of the executive orders he issued when he unveiled his full gun plan.
To be clear, this doesn’t mean that the new push for gun legislation is destined to succeed—or to have dramatic effects on crime. Lawmakers in more conservative and rural districts remain reluctant to take on the National Rifle Association and its allies. And even the new laws will have loopholes. The more government regulates gun purchases from legal dealers, for example, the more criminals will seek to get them illegally. And the more government limits the manufacturer certain types of weapons, the more criminals will use older, grandfathered versions—or get them from overseas.
But even a modest impact on violence would represent progress. It would create a framework on which future lawmakers can build stronger regulations and, in the meantime, it would save at least a few lives. "Just because we can’t do everything doesn't mean we shouldn’t do everything we can," says Aborn. "Will it stop all gun crime? No. But … we don’t say repeal the murder statutes because it doesn’t stop all murders. There have to be reasonable expectations and a reasonable expectation is that it will make a difference and save some lives."
27 comments
Good thesis. You have to try to do something, even if it's only modestly successful. If we give up completely, we'll become Mexico, where you can get shot going to the supermarket. How many guns do Americans have now--over 300 million? If it gets up to a billion, there will definitely be an attempt to overthrow the government. And the government, including a Republican one, will be forced to use tactical nuclear weapons to wipe out areas of resistance. Ironic that WMD's will be used by the government and not against it. And ironic that the gun nuts themselves will bring on the Armageddon that they claim to be so fearful of. Actually, they're looking forward to it. They see the world as such a fearful and ugly place that they'd love to check out--on their terms, of course.
- magboy47.
January 31, 2013 at 3:26am
and, if such happened, would NATO, have a say? hard to know today....
- cdmcl3
January 31, 2013 at 8:46am
and, if such happened, would NATO have a say? hard to know today....
- cdmcl3
January 31, 2013 at 8:50am
SHOW ALL 2 RESPONSES
There are three basic profiles of perpetrators of gun violence: the most likely, which is the family member or friend of the victim; the most notorious, which is the mass killer in the mall, at work, or in school; and the most determined, which is the criminal who uses a gun to facilitate other crimes. The problem with gun control legislation is that it's usually intended to address all three and ends up addressing none. Of course, that suits opponents of gun control legislation such as the NRA. Why not start the process by identifying the perpetrator. I would identify the first of the three I have described since it is by far the most prevalent, but for that reason and others (how does any legislation prevent momentary acts of rage by an otherwise sane person) the most difficult (short of banning guns). What about the second category, which is the reason Congress (and Cohn) are even discussing gun control legislation. The main problem with this category is that the perpetrator is deranged and, hence, isn't likely to be dissuaded by legislation; indeed, opponents like to point out that the various proposals would not have avoided the latest massacre. Legislation addressed to the final category, as we have been told again and again, will result in only criminals having guns. My point isn't to express disapproval of gun control legislation (I support it), but to suggest that it be tailored to whatever category of perpetrator the framers wish to address. I am not optimistic. Cohn says we've learned a lot about gun control legislation (at least with regard to assault weapons) since the last effort. Maybe we have. And Cohn says that even inadequate legislation is better than none if it saves lives. I cannot agree. Passing an assault weapons ban that doesn’t ban assault weapons and doesn’t prevent the next massacre only confirms what the opponents say about gun control legislation. Yesterday I commented to Kirn’s essay how the drumbeat of highly negative messages teens receive from the media can affect impressionable teens and contribute to the mayhem that teens perpetrate, including the torture suffered by their families and not just the isolated instances of massacres perpetrated by teens. I’ve spent lots of time with boys over the past 15 years, and to witness the change of behavior that afflicts some of them is heartbreaking, both for the boys and their families. I describe them as being demon-possessed, both because their behaviors are so similar and the change in behaviors so profound. Of course, my comment (which was essentially confirming a point made by Kirn) was met with overwhelming disapproval among commenters, who argue that it’s access to guns not the media that are the principal cause of massacres by teens. Well, yes, but short of banning guns, which isn’t going to happen, what can be done to modify the behavior of teens and to further limit their access to the types of guns that can be used in a massacre. Ignoring the cause or the consequence will lead to more massacres and confirm the arguments made by gun control opponents.
- rayward
January 31, 2013 at 9:57am
Ray asks "short of banning guns, which isn’t going to happen, what can be done to modify the behavior of teens and to further limit their access to the types of guns that can be used in a massacre. Ignoring the cause or the consequence will lead to more massacres and confirm the arguments made by gun control opponents. ” Ray I understand your point and, as I pointed out my my comment to Kirn, was that simply focusing solely on the "violent entertainment culture" and questionable media messages bombarding teenagers purposely misses one of the key factors that informs that "violent entertainment culture" we all seem to be lamenting (cyclically so when the next mass shooting occurs). But if the NRA and manufacturers spend millions of dollars putting forth ad campaigns, marketing videos, and yes...shooting video games, to get children under the age of 18 excited and interested in the "tradition of shooting guns" and especially the exciting to shoot AR-15s, is an example of what I mentioned. Our collective miopia about addressing the violent culture of America cannot be had without including the roll of guns, guns abuse, gun violence, and easy access to guns in American culture. And while the gun advocates claim that 'law abiding' citizens didn't perpetrate these mass killings and any gun regulation would penalize the other law abiding citizens are being disingenuous with that sentiment. Simply put, the very youth shooting programs and mother who bought the guns that Adam Lanza used play a huge roll in Sandyhook. By all definitions, Adam and his mother WERE law-abiding citizens who "enjoyed" target shooting their AR-15 . It wasn't until he 'cracked' and murdered people did he become a criminal. So really how can we regulate that? Well what purpose does someone under 18 need easy access to an AR? According the NRA it's all about Freedom. In reality, it's about selling more guns. Period. I think your bigger question about modifying the behavior of teens, leads to the bigger question of how, do we, as a society address the issues that make American males so prone to violent reaction? Is it just teenage boys? Is it just recently returning vets with PTSD? Is it adults dealing with the long-term affects of child-abuse, addiction, depression, anger at their perceived failures? Blaming the "others"? It's a difficult question indeed. In fact, the way in which the laws are written it is nearly impossible to involuntarily have a person institutionalized for mental treatment unless that person either has already attempted murder, murdered someone or attempted suicide. And even then, the wait periods for residential treatment are years. Our collective denial, ignorance and blindness to why our 'culture of violence' is so very American is one in which we have grappled with since our founding as a nation.
- singlspeed
January 31, 2013 at 12:22pm
SHOW 1 RESPONSE
There is no recreational target shooting or hunting justification for a long gun chambered for a rifle round that has a removable magazine of any sort, or a total capacity greater than 5 rounds. The only reasons for such weapons are pure adrenalin "shoot the shit out of some inanimate target as rapidly as possible," actual warfare or police SWAT activities, or mass murder. Just ban civilian ownership of them, except as part of an actual "well-regulated militia." (And I say this as someone who has owned and used guns for 5 decades)
- IowaBeauty
January 31, 2013 at 12:19pm
Iowa, There's a strong self-defense reason for having a gun in the house with more than 5 shots. Consider your average cop has a handgun that holds 15 rounds, and then carries another 30 rounds on his person. In other words, your average cop has decided when it comes to defending HIS life that he needs 45 rounds. Yesterday, 3 men broke into the house of a single mom and they were carrying a role of duct tape, presumably to tie her up. She shot them and they ran away. But 3 people breaking into a house isn't uncommon. Why do you deny a 100 pound woman the right to defend herself against 3 men who wish to do her harm?
- seattleeng
January 31, 2013 at 2:40pm
First, I wrote about long guns, which I doubt are the weapons of choice for self defense in the home for most people. They certainly are not necessary for that purpose. Second, I strongly doubt you can make a case that the overall case for self defense in the home is significantly limited even if the 5 shot magazine rule is applied to handguns. I'm sure there are occasional cases where someone invades a home so intent on mayhem that they keep right on coming after they or their buddy take a pistol shot to the torso. If the shooter is properly trained, that leaves her several more in the magazine to re-emphasize the point. Of course there will be cases were a 6th shot would have made the difference. No regulation achieves perfect results - airbags occasionally kill people, but that doesn't make putting them in cars a lousy regulation. I happen to believe our society would be a healthier society with fewer guns, and less fascination with guns as a means of killing ones fellow humans, and I'm happy to move in that direction with sensible regulation, but I am not arguing for an absolute prohibition of guns in the home for self defense.
- IowaBeauty
January 31, 2013 at 8:23pm
SHOW ALL 2 RESPONSES
RAYWARD, doing something about a serious problem is better than doing nothing. Like you, I did social work for several years--at a home for disturbed children--and I knew while I was there that the majority of boys would end up in prison and that the majority of the girls would eventually become suicidal drug addicts, but that didn't keep me and my co-workers from doing our best to make small changes in the kids' lives and hope they would stick. I don't care if the deranged leadership of the NRA says 'I told you so' after new gun laws do almost nothing to deter gun violence. That's like caring what influence a terrorist's words have on his fellows. Humans should try to make others more human, even in tiny ways. That's a major mission of the race.
- magboy47.
January 31, 2013 at 12:43pm
The ban crowd still doesn't understand guns; Feinstein is an example. Ban pistol grips on rifles!, c'mon, one can mow down kids just as fast with a straight stock. Even a 5 round magazine will allow for plenty of mayhem; it takes only seconds to swap a well designed one. An effective ban would eliminate removable magazines; tube and rotary magazines are enough for all practical purposes. Hell, for sporting purposes one doesn't even need a magazine rifle; singles and doubles cover all the bases. I suspect it's the irrational B.S. the gun banners always put forth that irks gun owners the most. If you want a ban, propose one that can have an effect.
- karlwk
January 31, 2013 at 12:51pm
Exactly.
- IowaBeauty
January 31, 2013 at 12:56pm
But herein lies the problem: For anything to have an effect, it must clamp down hard on common guns that have been around for 50+ years. Are you really willing to ban your father's deer hunting rifle? Are you willing to ban pistols that cops carry everyday? Many are, they just don't want to come out and say it. So instead, they gnaw away at the margins with silly bans that accomplish nothing.
- seattleeng
January 31, 2013 at 3:54pm
Most grandpas didn't own AR's and the like. Most bolt guns any competent gunsmith can modify to a blind magazine; grandpa won't roll in his grave. Of course, rifles aren't the big problem in the US. Handguns are. I always laugh at the banners: "get rid of the cheap .380's and .32's. Yeah, I want the miscreants armed with .45's instead...
- karlwk
January 31, 2013 at 8:44pm
KarlWK, a 308 semi auto with a 5 shot clip has been a deer hunting mainstay for 50 years. A 22LR rifle with a 10 shot clip has been around even longer. Both look like a normal rifle, not at all scary. But they can accept a 20 or 50 shot clip, fire as fast as an AR, and each bullet (from a 308) is much more destructive than a AR's bullet.
- seattleeng
January 31, 2013 at 10:31pm
The Remington and Browning semi's have been around that long, but I'm not aware they have ever been very popular. Those two certainly couldn't be readily converted, I agree. The 760 series would also be in danger under such a ban, too.
- karlwk
February 1, 2013 at 12:13pm
SHOW ALL 5 RESPONSES
JC writes: "But even a modest impact on violence would represent progress. It would create a framework on which future lawmakers can build stronger regulations and, in the meantime, it would save at least a few lives."<P>Wrong. You assume that a new law will have a modest impact. It will not. It will have negligible at best. And this desire to do something--anything--in response to a bad event is legislating at its worst. But it does typify liberalism.
- seattleeng
January 31, 2013 at 2:34pm
Yawn. Yet another intellectually dishonest post by Seattle. At least correct your penultimate sentence to read "... in response to 30,000 bad annual events, any one of which could have plausibly become the impetus for action..."
- Fishpeddler
February 1, 2013 at 9:59am
SHOW 1 RESPONSE
For the hunter gatherers in the culture, handguns or rifles render routine household functions easier. I get that but comparisons between rifles, handguns and automobiles or kitchen utensils is quite a stretch. I believe every one should become subject to a background check when offered a handgun, even the handgun grandpa used in Korea that's been up in the attic for so many years. Don't worry folks, the government is taking away your knives, forks or spoons or right to drive to work. . The problem about gun control debates seems to be there is no general agreement about language.
- Doug12
January 31, 2013 at 3:03pm
You don't have a right to drive to work. You do have a right to own a gun. The language is actually quite clear. The problem is that those that want to outlaw guns won't come right out and say it. So instead they make silly laws that accomplish nothing, knowing that eliminating guns will be a decades-long process where every 6 months you impose another limit.
- seattleeng
January 31, 2013 at 3:57pm
Actually, there is a current right to drive to work as well as a right to possess a handgun or rifle. In either case, the right arises once a license or permit is issued. Anyone satisfied with the current restrictions on the possession of guns is someone who wants to own guns. Presumably more and more guns. The question I've always asked is how gun owners can look to the constitution for support against further restrictions while disregarding the misbehavior of those who have exercised some 2nd amendment rights. Does the constitution allow for unrestricted gun ownership?
- Doug12
January 31, 2013 at 4:58pm
The law of the land is that the 2nd amendment confers an individual right to own guns. I happen to think the decisions that got us to that point were erroneously decided, but they are nevertheless the law of the land. But, Heller and McDonald, do not establish an absolute right, but rather one subject to substantial regulation, including registration, limitations on the functional capability of permitted firearms, and limitations on where they may be carried. Just like cars must be registered and operated by licensed individuals. That is the law of the land. People who support gun restrictions ought to view Heller and McDonald exactly as anti-abortion groups view Roe - as establishing a right (which they believe wrongly decided), but which is nevertheless as a right constrained by permitted regulation, which regulation they can use to substantially limit the exercise of that right. Sauce for the goose and all that ....
- IowaBeauty
January 31, 2013 at 8:16pm
Doug12, there is no right to drive to work that is inherent to being born. There is, however a right to own a gun that is inherent to being born in the US, just as there is a right to speaking your mind. You do not have to do anything special to gain those rights. You can have them taken away, of course. But to compare driving to speech or guns is just silly.
- seattleeng
January 31, 2013 at 10:36pm
SHOW ALL 4 RESPONSES
Ordinary, lovable boys transformed into demon-possessed abusers, mostly abusers of family members but occasionally strangers. I focused on this alarming trend, an epidemic really, to make my point: that gun control legislation can be effective only if tailored to address a particular profile of perpetrators of gun violence, and then only if part of an informed and coordinated effort to address both cause and prevention. Cohn focuses on assault weapons. But with enough assault weapons already in circulation to arm the military, the effort may prove counter-productive to gun control legislation, for the next massacre may well convince the public that gun control legislation is ineffective, or worse. Cohn says it's worth the effort if it saves only one life. But how would we know? It's like the bell that isn't rung. But we will know the assault weapons ban is ineffective when (and it's a matter of when, not if) the bell is rung (i.e., another massacre). Stemming the tide of gun violence will require more than a wish - and that's all these proposals are, a wish. It will require are a narrow focus. My focus in my first comment was on teen boys because of my heartbreaking experience with demon-possessed boys. No, none I know has committed a mass murder, but they torture their families. And some who I don't know, such as the boy in Connecticut and the boys in Colorado, have committed mass murders. Of course, far and away the most gun violence is committed against a family member or friend in a moment of rage. A focus on this perpetrator has the potential to save many more lives than a focus on deranged teens, but crafting effective legislation would be far more difficult.
- rayward
January 31, 2013 at 3:32pm
'I suspect it's the irrational B.S. the gun banners always put forth that irks gun owners the most. If you want a ban, propose one that can have an effect.' KARLWK, even if only a universal background check is voted into law, millions of American gun owners will begin organizing to overthrow the government. An effective gun ban? Civil war, without question. The real problem is not wimpy legislators. It's responsible gun owners who are terrified of the leadership of the NRA. 75% of NRA members support background checks, but only in polls. They haven't got the guts to come out and say so in public. They should be marching in our streets, calling for the protection of American lives, including their own. And until they do, 'wimpy' legislators will do what they can to protect us from extremist gun owners gone mad. Gun banners are not the problem. Gun owners with common sense are.
- magboy47.
January 31, 2013 at 5:45pm
Universal background checks leading to civil war? Here in Illinois we effectively have that already, and I didn't notice any civil war today as I ran my errands. Mind you, I don't think even a ban on all guns will prevent another Newtown. Nearly the same day, a nut in China broke into a school and tried to hack up all the kiddies he could. I saw a few clips of it; had he used a garden machete instead of a kitchen cleaver he'd have been close to Newtown. Sadly, kids are easy victims.
- karlwk
January 31, 2013 at 8:38pm
Only the planning for civil war will begin with universal background checks. For highly paranoid, heavily-armed people the Web has been sent from heaven. I guarantee you there will be a firestorm of interaction between paranoids after even background-check legislation. These nuts already see Obama as a tyrant because they can only buy 10,000 rounds of ammo a month. Wait till he passes a law, even a toothless one.
- magboy47.
January 31, 2013 at 9:16pm
SHOW ALL 2 RESPONSES
I'd suggest gun owners get behind gun control in a meaningful way or in the future, even liberals won't be able to keep the Second Amendment in the Constitution.
- jet
January 31, 2013 at 9:27pm