It seems to me that the reform that best covers both assault-weapons and handguns is strict liability insurance that goes all the way up the supply chain. Say someone gets murdered with a handgun, and the gun is traced back to a legal owner who claims that it was stolen from his car. We, as a society, have a choice between who pays for the funeral (among other damages). The survivors, who did nothing wrong, or the gun owner, who did not adequately secure his gun, or in some cases, invented the theft to conceal a strawman purchase.
In almost every jurisdiction, we put the costs on the grievers (unless the criminal is O.J. Simpson, and can pay a civil judgment after a wrongful death suit.) This passes up an opportunity to disincentive practices that allow guns to flow from legal owners to criminals.
Mass shootings are a small part of the overall gun deaths but they disproportionately terrorize the public and to the extent that those high lethality massacres can be reduced, we will benefit greatly, even if it makes little reduction in the total amount of gun deaths.
What stands out to me remarkably is that in the last 5 major massacres, 4 of them were done by teenagers 19 and under. An 18 year old killed 10 in Buffalo, an 18 year old killed 22 in Uvalde, a 17 year old killed 17 in Santa Fe, and a 19 year old killed 17 at Parkland.
Why are 17 year olds allowed to get assault style weapons when they cant purchase cigarettes or beer.
At a minimum you should be 21 to purchase that weapon and I would suggest any weapon should require a parents signature or some type of evaluation.
Have you read Michele Gelfand's book Rule Makers, Rule Breakers? Seems like part of our high crime rate simply has to do with our less rigid social norms. Not to diminish the evidence about gun availability, but it should probably be part of our conversation and we should recognize that our crime rate is likely to always be higher than most other countries.
I think we’re missing the right framing opportunity still. The left tends to focus on the guns being the moral agent. Some guns are “bad”. But this makes the millions of law abiding jconservative dads with ARs bristle.
Conservatives are more than happy to vilify bad humans who shouldn’t own guns. But the left doesn’t like doing that, especially if the bad humans are in a preferred demographic class that they don’t want to incarcerate.
The thing is, it’s the conservatives who need to be convinced here. The fact that there hasn’t been a “Keep guns away from depraved transgender people who attack our Christian schools” act just shows a lack of awareness of the dynamic.
I think Mr Yglesias' proposal is sensible. Focusing on handguns, not the anesthetics of "assault rifles", addresses the real problem. Also, I would like to have the distinct difference between suicide (self murder) and other homicides kept in the forefront of policy debates. In my opinion, suicide is a mental health issue. Most commentators appear to focus on crimes against others, a view I share. As a gun owner, I despise the often openly stated intent of proponents of restrictions to strangle, then prohibit, firearms use and enjoyment.
Anyone know of a good breakdown of gun homicide by circumstance? As in, what fraction of gun homicides are domestic violence, gang related, drugs related, etc?
The first part, disabusing people of the idea that banning assault weapons will have much effect on the homicide rate, or even the mass shooting homicide rate is off. I at least have never heard that argued. [And it this is am argument with people on Twitter, keep it on Twitter. :)]
I see zero benefits to ownership of assault weapons and so zero cost to banning them and at least some benefit of inconveniencing mass murderers. So if we can do it w/o endangering D Senate seats, let go for it.
That argument has little to do with enforcing existing laws (ideally enacting new ones) against carrying guns in public. This however is a strictly local/state issue*. The fact that if you spend resources enforcing low level public order ordinances and find a few folks with guns and arrest them, raises the benefits of spending more resources enforcing public order ordinances (like polluting the atmosphere with marihuana stench). It needs to go into the calculation of who (police or other officers) to deal with public order offenses.
*Ideally Congress could help localities disrupt illegal gun sales with a national registration of and transfer program, but that's pretty utopian at this point. Right now it's a local issue.
The fact that more [X group] goes to jail than [~ X group] is probably good evidence that something wrong, but not that it's the at the who gets arrested stage. We should not NOT arrest [group X] people to compensate for problems farther up the line.
The thing about the broad & deep movement of younger people getting into politics & law who have a well deserved aversion to americas carceral decades, is that they’re pretty smart. So I’m actually pretty confident that within a few years we’ll see some reform DA or progressive mayoral candidate try the “actually, it’s progressive to care about reducing the homicide deaths of urban poor youth” as a way to pivot to re-incorporating gun enforcement into the agenda. And once someone wins on that frame it’ll become progressive orthodoxy again. Going soft on fun enforcement was never thought through (unlike the rest of the crim justice reform agenda).
I'm pretty certain that the best evidence we have shows that going back to "broken windows" policing would be a bad idea. Too many people get caught up in it who never had a weapon, reducing trust and cooperation with investigating crimes.
Also, I tend to doubt that the semi-random stops approach that Matt is advocating will really make a dent in the kinds of illegal firearm possession that leads to violence. You have to make something like 200 stops to get one illegal firearm (at least in Dallas: https://www.dmagazine.com/frontburner/2019/08/after-12000-traffic-stops-in-seven-weeks-south-dallas-is-ready-for-dps-troopers-to-go/). There are far more targeted approaches that are going to be more effective at defusing situations, building cooperation with the police and reducing gun deaths. For instance, there's been some solid research on hot spot policing, problem-oriented policing, and some mixed but somewhat promising results for focused deterrence approaches. Red flag laws have some promise, as well, I think.
Plus there are tons of good interventions that don't involve police - better mental health treatment access, better lighting, blight cleanup, jobs + counseling for those most at risk of violence, anti-eviction policies and other financial support, and the list goes on.
No, finding people with guns is an _additional_ benefit of enforcing public order. But when a gun IS found, the carrier should be prosecuted. Smoking marijuana in public is bad. Smoking marijuana in public AND carrying a gun is worse.
Matt writes: "And occasionally (though still far too often), they [long guns] are used in a rare-but-spectacular spree killing that electrifies the nation because it affects middle-class suburbanites who are unaccustomed to having their lives impacted by violence... But the focus on the very most spectacular events to the exclusion of “normal” shootings generates bad policy analysis. We have policy solutions at our disposal that would address the proliferation of illegal handguns that drives the bulk of gun deaths in this country."
Here's the problem with this -- which Matt lays out in the text above but then seems to ignore: Most people probably don't care about the overall number of gun deaths in the country. And I honestly get it. If one gang member wants to shoot another gang member in an area of the city I never visit, what difference does that really make to me?
And indeed what people do care about is the types of gun deaths that could affect them (putting aside suicides for a minute) - a mass shooting that does use long guns.
So shouldn't a popularist just focus on the area where there is more consensus (an assault weapons ban) and stay away from the part that's a bit hazier (putting more people in prison for carrying handguns)? Given that, I'm not sure why Matt seems to be arguing the opposite.
Maybe YOU don't care about people on "an area of the city I never visit" killing each other, but the victims are just as dead and most are NOT other "bad guys." Frequently they are children. Besides, I'll bet that anything that works to reduce homicides and gun violence "over there" will reduce it in the areas of the city you DO visit.
I agree that mass shootings are the only overwhelming thing that gets people in general really riled up about gun ownership. But to try to steelman a popularist argument in favor of Matt, there's enough support for opposing assault weapons bans that prevent the votes from being able to get through Congress, particularly the Senate. Contrast that with enforcing existing laws on illegal gun ownership, where the lack of interest from the general public may be a feature rather than a bug, as it may not be as ridiculously deep into the partisan chum bucket as ownership of any kind regarding semiautomatic rifles is, and thus not enough strong opposition to prevent action from happening. Not sure if I agree with that, but there's my attempt.
But the problem is it appears there actually is opposition among many on the left (and presumably especially in Black communities who are a key part of the Democratic base), and possibly also from civil libertarians, to having Democrats come out in favor of sending more people to prison for things short of assault, rape or murder.
And again I get it. For a potentially bad analogy: we as a society generally don't go after people who illegally hire nannies and pay them under the table, so long as they don't abuse those workers (since hiring a nanny is something that can be done legally). So why should we go after people who illegally carry -- but don't use -- a gun, when many others are allowed to take the exact same action legally?
FWIW, I'm overall in favor of a handgun ban. I really don't think people need them, and self-defense is generally a pretty spurious argument for their ownership. But that's not going to happen. So I'm not sure that selectively enforcing the law on handguns -- or only enforcing the law on handguns when someone does something else mildly illegal, like jump a subway turnstile or run a stop sign -- is really the answer.
Personally, what I find most appalling in all this is the amount of mental contortions needed to classify illegal gun possession as “non-violent crime.” Technically, I suppose it’s true (no one has been shot...yet), but who can argue with a straight face that it’s more likely than not that a person who illicitly procures a lethal weapon has no real intent to eventually use it (yes, I know what the answer is; this is a rhetorical question)?
Probably learn how to shoot, then run for office with a lot of ads of yourself shooting while also saying all you want is common sense measures to prevent guns from getting into the hands of criminals.
It seems to me that the reform that best covers both assault-weapons and handguns is strict liability insurance that goes all the way up the supply chain. Say someone gets murdered with a handgun, and the gun is traced back to a legal owner who claims that it was stolen from his car. We, as a society, have a choice between who pays for the funeral (among other damages). The survivors, who did nothing wrong, or the gun owner, who did not adequately secure his gun, or in some cases, invented the theft to conceal a strawman purchase.
In almost every jurisdiction, we put the costs on the grievers (unless the criminal is O.J. Simpson, and can pay a civil judgment after a wrongful death suit.) This passes up an opportunity to disincentive practices that allow guns to flow from legal owners to criminals.
Mass shootings are a small part of the overall gun deaths but they disproportionately terrorize the public and to the extent that those high lethality massacres can be reduced, we will benefit greatly, even if it makes little reduction in the total amount of gun deaths.
What stands out to me remarkably is that in the last 5 major massacres, 4 of them were done by teenagers 19 and under. An 18 year old killed 10 in Buffalo, an 18 year old killed 22 in Uvalde, a 17 year old killed 17 in Santa Fe, and a 19 year old killed 17 at Parkland.
Why are 17 year olds allowed to get assault style weapons when they cant purchase cigarettes or beer.
At a minimum you should be 21 to purchase that weapon and I would suggest any weapon should require a parents signature or some type of evaluation.
Have you read Michele Gelfand's book Rule Makers, Rule Breakers? Seems like part of our high crime rate simply has to do with our less rigid social norms. Not to diminish the evidence about gun availability, but it should probably be part of our conversation and we should recognize that our crime rate is likely to always be higher than most other countries.
I think we’re missing the right framing opportunity still. The left tends to focus on the guns being the moral agent. Some guns are “bad”. But this makes the millions of law abiding jconservative dads with ARs bristle.
Conservatives are more than happy to vilify bad humans who shouldn’t own guns. But the left doesn’t like doing that, especially if the bad humans are in a preferred demographic class that they don’t want to incarcerate.
The thing is, it’s the conservatives who need to be convinced here. The fact that there hasn’t been a “Keep guns away from depraved transgender people who attack our Christian schools” act just shows a lack of awareness of the dynamic.
I think Mr Yglesias' proposal is sensible. Focusing on handguns, not the anesthetics of "assault rifles", addresses the real problem. Also, I would like to have the distinct difference between suicide (self murder) and other homicides kept in the forefront of policy debates. In my opinion, suicide is a mental health issue. Most commentators appear to focus on crimes against others, a view I share. As a gun owner, I despise the often openly stated intent of proponents of restrictions to strangle, then prohibit, firearms use and enjoyment.
Anyone know of a good breakdown of gun homicide by circumstance? As in, what fraction of gun homicides are domestic violence, gang related, drugs related, etc?
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/gun-deaths/
The first part, disabusing people of the idea that banning assault weapons will have much effect on the homicide rate, or even the mass shooting homicide rate is off. I at least have never heard that argued. [And it this is am argument with people on Twitter, keep it on Twitter. :)]
I see zero benefits to ownership of assault weapons and so zero cost to banning them and at least some benefit of inconveniencing mass murderers. So if we can do it w/o endangering D Senate seats, let go for it.
That argument has little to do with enforcing existing laws (ideally enacting new ones) against carrying guns in public. This however is a strictly local/state issue*. The fact that if you spend resources enforcing low level public order ordinances and find a few folks with guns and arrest them, raises the benefits of spending more resources enforcing public order ordinances (like polluting the atmosphere with marihuana stench). It needs to go into the calculation of who (police or other officers) to deal with public order offenses.
*Ideally Congress could help localities disrupt illegal gun sales with a national registration of and transfer program, but that's pretty utopian at this point. Right now it's a local issue.
"Progressives are right about guns, and we ought to act like we’re right and re-embrace the successful strategy of enforcing gun laws."
But you are a progressive, you can't advocate for putting more black men in jail. Duh!
The fact that more [X group] goes to jail than [~ X group] is probably good evidence that something wrong, but not that it's the at the who gets arrested stage. We should not NOT arrest [group X] people to compensate for problems farther up the line.
What?
"We have policy solutions at our disposal"
LOL
Is this what our legislators consider and act upon?
According to the public data Krasner has not cut down on firearm possession charges:
https://data.philadao.com/Charge_Report.html
Would be nice to see this error corrected. Printing untrue stuff isn't good journalism.
The thing about the broad & deep movement of younger people getting into politics & law who have a well deserved aversion to americas carceral decades, is that they’re pretty smart. So I’m actually pretty confident that within a few years we’ll see some reform DA or progressive mayoral candidate try the “actually, it’s progressive to care about reducing the homicide deaths of urban poor youth” as a way to pivot to re-incorporating gun enforcement into the agenda. And once someone wins on that frame it’ll become progressive orthodoxy again. Going soft on fun enforcement was never thought through (unlike the rest of the crim justice reform agenda).
I'm pretty certain that the best evidence we have shows that going back to "broken windows" policing would be a bad idea. Too many people get caught up in it who never had a weapon, reducing trust and cooperation with investigating crimes.
Also, I tend to doubt that the semi-random stops approach that Matt is advocating will really make a dent in the kinds of illegal firearm possession that leads to violence. You have to make something like 200 stops to get one illegal firearm (at least in Dallas: https://www.dmagazine.com/frontburner/2019/08/after-12000-traffic-stops-in-seven-weeks-south-dallas-is-ready-for-dps-troopers-to-go/). There are far more targeted approaches that are going to be more effective at defusing situations, building cooperation with the police and reducing gun deaths. For instance, there's been some solid research on hot spot policing, problem-oriented policing, and some mixed but somewhat promising results for focused deterrence approaches. Red flag laws have some promise, as well, I think.
Plus there are tons of good interventions that don't involve police - better mental health treatment access, better lighting, blight cleanup, jobs + counseling for those most at risk of violence, anti-eviction policies and other financial support, and the list goes on.
No, finding people with guns is an _additional_ benefit of enforcing public order. But when a gun IS found, the carrier should be prosecuted. Smoking marijuana in public is bad. Smoking marijuana in public AND carrying a gun is worse.
Thanks. Good to know. But discouraging.
Matt writes: "And occasionally (though still far too often), they [long guns] are used in a rare-but-spectacular spree killing that electrifies the nation because it affects middle-class suburbanites who are unaccustomed to having their lives impacted by violence... But the focus on the very most spectacular events to the exclusion of “normal” shootings generates bad policy analysis. We have policy solutions at our disposal that would address the proliferation of illegal handguns that drives the bulk of gun deaths in this country."
Here's the problem with this -- which Matt lays out in the text above but then seems to ignore: Most people probably don't care about the overall number of gun deaths in the country. And I honestly get it. If one gang member wants to shoot another gang member in an area of the city I never visit, what difference does that really make to me?
And indeed what people do care about is the types of gun deaths that could affect them (putting aside suicides for a minute) - a mass shooting that does use long guns.
So shouldn't a popularist just focus on the area where there is more consensus (an assault weapons ban) and stay away from the part that's a bit hazier (putting more people in prison for carrying handguns)? Given that, I'm not sure why Matt seems to be arguing the opposite.
Maybe YOU don't care about people on "an area of the city I never visit" killing each other, but the victims are just as dead and most are NOT other "bad guys." Frequently they are children. Besides, I'll bet that anything that works to reduce homicides and gun violence "over there" will reduce it in the areas of the city you DO visit.
To be clear I’m not saying this is me, only that this is the logic many suburbanites might have.
I agree that mass shootings are the only overwhelming thing that gets people in general really riled up about gun ownership. But to try to steelman a popularist argument in favor of Matt, there's enough support for opposing assault weapons bans that prevent the votes from being able to get through Congress, particularly the Senate. Contrast that with enforcing existing laws on illegal gun ownership, where the lack of interest from the general public may be a feature rather than a bug, as it may not be as ridiculously deep into the partisan chum bucket as ownership of any kind regarding semiautomatic rifles is, and thus not enough strong opposition to prevent action from happening. Not sure if I agree with that, but there's my attempt.
That's fair - and a good effort!
But the problem is it appears there actually is opposition among many on the left (and presumably especially in Black communities who are a key part of the Democratic base), and possibly also from civil libertarians, to having Democrats come out in favor of sending more people to prison for things short of assault, rape or murder.
And again I get it. For a potentially bad analogy: we as a society generally don't go after people who illegally hire nannies and pay them under the table, so long as they don't abuse those workers (since hiring a nanny is something that can be done legally). So why should we go after people who illegally carry -- but don't use -- a gun, when many others are allowed to take the exact same action legally?
FWIW, I'm overall in favor of a handgun ban. I really don't think people need them, and self-defense is generally a pretty spurious argument for their ownership. But that's not going to happen. So I'm not sure that selectively enforcing the law on handguns -- or only enforcing the law on handguns when someone does something else mildly illegal, like jump a subway turnstile or run a stop sign -- is really the answer.
Personally, what I find most appalling in all this is the amount of mental contortions needed to classify illegal gun possession as “non-violent crime.” Technically, I suppose it’s true (no one has been shot...yet), but who can argue with a straight face that it’s more likely than not that a person who illicitly procures a lethal weapon has no real intent to eventually use it (yes, I know what the answer is; this is a rhetorical question)?
What is your advice to progressives in red states where there are very few "illegally carried handguns" bc open carry and all the other lax gun laws?
Or just focus on blue states and have that be an example?
Probably learn how to shoot, then run for office with a lot of ads of yourself shooting while also saying all you want is common sense measures to prevent guns from getting into the hands of criminals.
This is a good message for Democrats and Republicans alike.