I DO NOT own guns, and the last timeI discharged a firearm was on “SecondAmendment Day” at a conservativejournalism program many years ago.
(Yes, dear reader, that’s how conservativejournalism programs roll.) My politicalcommitments are more communitarian thanlibertarian, I don’t think the constitutionguarantees a right to bear every kind ofgun or magazine, and I think of myself asmodestly persuadable in the gun controldebate.
Of course that doesn’t mean I really am,since we’re all tribal creatures and gunrights advocates are part of my strange andmotley right-wing tribe. But at the very least Iunderstand why the idea of strict gun controlhas such a following, why it seems to manypeople like the obvious response to massshootings — whether the perpetrators are ISISsympathizers, mad right-wingers, or simplymad — and why the sorrowful public piety ofRepublican politicians after a gun massacredrives liberals into a fury.
That fury, though, needs a little morecool reasoning behind it. It’s fine to demandactions, not just prayers, in response to gunviolence. But today’s liberalism often lacksa clear sense of which actions might actuallyaddress the problem – and, just as importantly,a clear appreciation of what those actionsmight cost.
Sometimes, it’s suggested that all we needare modest, “common-sense” changes to gunlaws: Tighter background checks, new ways totrace firearms, bans on the deadliest weapons.
This idea was the basis for the Manchin-Toomey bill that failed in 2013 in the Senate.
It was also, though, the basis for two majorpieces of gun legislation that passed in the1990s: The Brady Law requiring backgroundchecks for handguns and the assault weaponsban.
Both measures were promoted as commonsensereforms — in the case of the BradyLaw, by none other than Ronald Reagan. Butboth failed to have an appreciable impacton homicides — even as other policies, likehiring more police officers, probably did. Thatdouble failure, some gun control supporterswill tell you, has to do with the loopholes thosetwo laws left open — particularly the fact thatindividuals selling guns aren’t required to runbackground checks when they sell within theirhome state.
But that claim’s very plausibility points tothe problem: With 300 million guns in privatehands in the United States, it’s very difficultto devise a non-intrusive, “common-sense”approach to regulating their exchange byindividuals. Ultimately, you need more thanbackground checks; you need many fewerguns in circulation, period. To their credit,many gun control supporters acknowledgethis point, which is why there is a vogue forciting the Australian experience, wherea sweeping and mandatory gun buybackfollowed a 1996 mass shooting.
The clearest evidence shows that Australia’sreform mostly reduced suicides — as theBrady law may have done — while theevidence on homicides is murkier. (In general,the evidence linking gun ownership rates tomurder rates is relatively weak.) But a lowersuicide rate would be a real public healthachievement, even if it isn’t immediatelyrelevant to the mass shooting debate.
Does that make “getting to Australia” acompelling long-term goal for liberalism?Maybe, but liberals need to count the cost.
Absent a total cultural revolution in America,a massive gun collection effort would facesignificant resistance even once legislativeand judicial battles had been won. The bestanalogue is Prohibition, which did have majorpublic health benefits … but which came ata steep cost in terms of police powers, blackmarkets and trampled liberties.
I suspect liberals imagine, at some level,that a Prohibition-style campaign against gunswould mostly involve busting up gun showsand disarming Robert Dear-like trailer-parkloners. But in practice it would probably lookmore like Michael Bloomberg’s controversialstop-and-frisk policy, with a counterterrorismcomponent that ended up heavily targetingMuslim Americans. In areas where gunownership is high but crime rates low, likeBernie Sanders’ Vermont, authorities wouldmostly turn a blind eye to illegal guns, whilepoor and minority communities bore the bruntof raids and fines and jail terms.
Here the relevant case study is probablynot Australia, but France. The French havethe kind of strict gun laws that Americanliberals favor, and they have fewer gun deathsthan we do. But their strict gun laws are partof a larger matrix of illiberalism — a mixof Bloombergist police tactics, Trump-likedisdain for religious liberty, and campusleft-style restrictions on free speech. (Andthen France also has a lively black marketin weaponry, which determined terroristsunfortunately seem to have little difficultyacquiring.)Despite their occasional sympathies forGallic socialism, I don’t think Americanliberals necessarily want to “get to France” inthis illiberal sense.
But to be persuasive, rather than just selfrighteous,a case for gun control needs toexplain why that isn’t where we would end up.
<
ROSS DOUTHAT>
댓글 안에 당신의 성숙함도 담아 주세요.
'오늘의 한마디'는 기사에 대하여 자신의 생각을 말하고 남의 생각을 들으며 서로 다양한 의견을 나누는 공간입니다. 그러나 간혹 불건전한 내용을 올리시는 분들이 계셔서 건전한 인터넷문화 정착을 위해 아래와 같은 운영원칙을 적용합니다.
자체 모니터링을 통해 아래에 해당하는 내용이 포함된 댓글이 발견되면 예고없이 삭제 조치를 하겠습니다.
불건전한 댓글을 올리거나, 이름에 비속어 및 상대방의 불쾌감을 주는 단어를 사용, 유명인 또는 특정 일반인을 사칭하는 경우 이용에 대한 차단 제재를 받을 수 있습니다. 차단될 경우, 일주일간 댓글을 달수 없게 됩니다.
명예훼손, 개인정보 유출, 욕설 등 법률에 위반되는 댓글은 관계 법령에 의거 민형사상 처벌을 받을 수 있으니 이용에 주의를 부탁드립니다.
Close
x