Gun Control

I certainly respect President Obama's position on gun control, and I admire his political courage in taking the issue up against a Congress that will almost certainly resist strenuously. Perhaps he simply wants a more popular issue to fight than the upcoming budget issues.

But of course his proposals, sensible as they are, even if they pass, will have relatively little real effect on gun control, because

a) There are already an estimated 300+ million guns in this country (88 guns per 100 citizens, as of 2007). Almost half the households in the nation have one or more guns in the house. Any attempt by the government to FORCE people to give them up would just feed the existing widespread paranoia that the government is out to take our freedom away (or is it paranoia?).

b) Anticipation of possible restrictions has already driven sales of guns, high-capacity magazines and ammunition through the roof the past few weeks. So even more guns are now flowing into the population.

c) Criminal gangs have never had trouble getting illegal guns, and these laws will make no difference there.

d) Universal background checks sound like a nice idea, but the dirty little truth is that many states don't contribute information to the national database -- especially data about felony convictions and mental illness -- the very data that would be most useful.

As usual, politicians are taking an ineffective, but popular, approach (and perhaps Obama even knows that, and is just playing for political capital among his base). A far more effective approach would use incentives, such as:

1) Making criminal penalties much, much stiffer for any crime committed with the use of a gun, or by a criminal in possession of a gun.

2) Making people financially liable if their weapons are used in a crime, even if the weapon was stolen from them (maximum incentive to keep them locked up and otherwise disabled when not in use).

3) Making people criminally and financially liable if they loan or sell a gun to someone who subsequently uses it in a crime.   The "selling" part is an interesting, and difficult, issue.  One wants to craft a system so that gun sellers know they have a responsibility (and a financial exposure) if the gun they sold is misused.  But of course they can't reasonably be expected to know the entire life history of every customer. The national database is supposed to address this issue, but as I have pointed out, it is thus far ineffective.  But requiring that every gun owner be licensed, and perhaps that they get some required training before they are issued the license (as we do with vehicles), would certainly be a step in the right direction.

4) Making owner's financial liability and criminal penalties much, much higher if battlefield weapons (assault rifles, machine guns, armor-piercing ammo, high-capacity magazines) are used in a crime. As usual, it is money and self-interest that will work better than government dictates.