I've been giving this a think, and I'm not sure I understand the problem...
By that, I mean what are we trying to solve?
Certainly we can all agree that we don't want the mass murder of children.
But where is the upper bound of the problem? To prevent gun crime, to prevent murders, to prevent gun deaths, to prevent mass murders or to focus on the murder of children?
And what would be an acceptable outcome for a solution? We have around 40,000 deaths on the roads each year, compared with around 14,000 firearm homisides. And we are not afraid to drive.
Around 1,200 kids under 15 die on our roads, and though those lost lives are a tradgedy, and we do continue to improve road safety, it is a level of risk we accept. We lose around 250 kids each year murdered by guns, and a similar number lost to gun related suicides and accidents.
What would be the "acceptable risk" to offset the benefits of gun ownership, in the same way we "accept" the 1,200 kids lost for the benefit of car ownership.
It seems to me, as an outside observer, that the gun control debate in the USA is caught between two intentionally misleading definitions. The pro-gun-control side (PGC) roll all multiple victim incidences into the one mass shooting statistic to make a more horror-filled headline “240 Mass Shootings already this year” even though a school shooting is very different to a shoot-out between police and gangsters and surely needs different policy. The anti-gun-control side (AGC) roll all attempts at gun control into the one category although a law to control military machine guns is clearly different to a law to control a 0.22 rifle for shooting rabbits. Somehow an Honest Broker needs to ensure that the debate is more nuanced and to stop this use of debate-by-definition because this sets up an unsolvable demonisation of the opposition.
Andrew, you seem to misunderstand the U.S. debate about the control of purchases of firearms by ordinary citizens. "Military machine guns" (in this case select-fire infantry assault rifles such as M16s and AK47s) are already controlled by the Federal government. The confusion arises because anti-gun forces have misnamed common semi-automatic rifles as "assault weapons" based upon their visual appearance. All semi-automatic rifles work in essentially the same manner whether or not they have a pistol grip or are made of black, functional materials.
Our Constitution's 2nd Amendment protects the individual citizen's fundamental and inalienable right to self defense, not plinking rabbits. [BTW, AR type rifles are generally of caliber 0.223, a good size for shooting varmints.] When used in self-defense or defense of others any firearm needs to be easily used, accurate and generally lethal to human-sized forms. Features like a pistol grip on a semi-automatic rifle improve the accuracy of the shooter, a feature that is highly favored in the real world.
Since firearms are a highly emotional and politicized issue, don't expect a civil discussion anytime soon, Andrew.
Dave: that is my point both sides define the issue in a way that makes their argument seem reasonable and the other absurd -- this makes any policy discussion impossible.
Andrew, the gist of my comments is that it would, in the absence of a radical change in the Supreme Court, take 38 U.S. States to vote for a Constitutional Amendment to replace the 2nd Amendment in order for any level of government to significantly restrict the gun rights of common citizens. How does one discuss policy options when any conceivable (semi-effective) governmental gun control POLICY would require a Constitutional Amendment?
Nobody is arguing about mental health and societal disfunction; its just gun control aimed at common citizens that is at contention. As I mentioned previously, the various Blue State gun control laws are now wending through the courts and it will be some time before we get Supreme Court decisions. Hopefully, those decisions would delineate the policy options available to the various levels of government consistent with the Constitution.
I understand the issue with the 2nd Amendment and the difficulty in constitutional amendment as it is not that different from Australia. However if you look across the US gun regulations vary a lot, so clearly there is a lot that can be done without a constitutional change. Making the debate a debate about the constitution distracts from finding effective regulation within the current legal framework even if these regulations need to be state based rather than national.
I agree with you, Andrew, that the States are where societal issues should be worked out and the 10th Amendment was an attempt to ensure that happens. The recent draft of a potential Supreme Court decision on Roe/Casey should make that clear to the authoritarians, although the Constitutional analyses in the draft are complicated such that most people won't understand its reasoning. Essentially it states abortion is properly left up to the individual States by action of the 10th Amendment; abortion regulation is not a power granted to the Federal government by the Constitution.
We should note that the onerous Blue State gun control laws and regulations are all headed (eventually) to the Supreme Court. Ultimately all State laws and regulations must adhere to the restrictions on governmental interference with citizens' rights as outlined in the Bill of Rights; all gun restrictions on citizens become a Constitution issue. It just takes a long time to work these complicated issues out before a clear pattern is apparent for guiding State governmental actions. Governmental policymaking is not as simple as many think.
Andy, I agree with your comment. I'm afraid, though, that there is too much fame and fortune for Federal politicians and bureaucrats in grandstanding and throwing money around to stop it now. Allowing them to tax income and the direct election of Senators, along with local greed for unlimited Federal money, sealed our fate. We are fighting a rearguard action with the Supreme Court our only buffer.
"...that from 1976 to 2016 among gun owners the partisan gap between Republicans and Democrats in presidential elections increased from 9% (46% of gun owners voting Republican to 37% voting Democratic) to 31% (61% R to 30% D)."
>>The Ds have been always after the guns of citizens as they are the party of statism which is the responsible party for the ghettos which is the responsible party for marginalization and government-dependence of minorities which has transformed the black family into a 70%+ fatherless family which, in turn, makes young kids vulnerable to joining some local gang which entails everyday shooting among them.
Note, also, that Australia swept all guns after a mass shooting in Australian-ruled Tasmania. The shooting was done by a retard (literally) that was already banned from having any sort of guns or even drive a vehicle. He did both and there's substantiated evidence that some time before the shooting he was the one that grabbed the steering wheel in a head-on collision of the vehicle he was in and a truck (if I recall well) that killed his, then, girlfriend who was driving the vehicle. So, the retard wasn't very deterred by rules and legislation. In the Tasmania shooting ONE sane citizen with a gun would have stopped him killing everybody in a sadistic way (killing children first in front of helpless parents who came next!). Every rose MUST have its thorns.
It is estimated that between 2 and 3 million crimes (including rape and murder) are annually prevented by the presence or use of guns.
The 2nd should be revered for it is one of the reasons that the US never came close to have a coup. That's not the case with other Western countries, including, Germany, Spain, Italy, Greece, etc, (only a few decades ago).
Recently, the Australian government took its citizens and placed them in "COVID" concentration camps! At the same time the people of Myanmar are fighting with bows and arrows against dictators with guns.
That's for everyone that believes that the 2nd isn't relevant today. Nonsense! It's even MORE relative because democracy is always under seize.
C_R_O_M you need to check a few of your facts, for example (1) The Aust Gov did NOT sweep up all guns, there are 3.5 million guns in private hands in Aust, the Gov did offer a voluntary buy-back scheme and removed a lot of guns esp automatics but by no means all, (2) Bryant broke no laws at the time of his gun purchases, the guns would be illegal now but not back then (3) even with these gun law changes Aust has not come close to a coup (4) there were and are no Covid concentration camps in Australia, there is one government facility (Howard Springs) to quarantine people arrive into Australia from areas with a lot of Covid, last week there were 3 (yes three) residents and 250 staff, people stay for 14 days I really think it is an insult to those who died and suffered in Auschwitz to call this a concentration camp. You seem to have a thorn without a rose.
My arguments just went over your head because you didn't effectively address any of them. You are wrong on Bryant. He was breaking the law as he was deemed a retard since his adolescence. There was never a modern government that didn't have a rule in place to prevent such individuals to get a hold of a gun. Same with a vehicle.
Coups don't occur the next day a government disarms the citizenry. This is a gradual process that creeps in slowly.
The Australian concentration camps placed citizens in there using force and coercion! Many of the citizens that were placed there were arrested and dragged out of their homes! I am personally aware of at least one occasion of a girl that just resisted some command from an officer (walking without a mask or something like that) and was placed there even though she tested negative. That's unacceptable for our societies. This is nothing less that a form of Sinicization where the undesirable are gathered together, locked, imprisoned, deprived of individual liberties and rights because some central planner wants to.
There are plenty of videos on Youtube with Australian citizens being dragged and imprisoned there and, at the time of their imprisonment, there were a lot more than 3 (not that the number should matter) so again you are trying to excuse the act with the use of carefully chosen "labeling" for these authoritarian behaviors ("quarantine" vs "imprisonment"). It is these type of attitudes that allow the statist bureaucrats to gradually take away individual freedoms. I wouldn't be surprised if you are part of the bureaucrat mob and work for the government.
You have a real problem in the US, thanks to the 2nd Amendment - which makes little sense today. Its original purpose was to provide for 'a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,' so ' the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'
Some poor wording, but it could be interpreted better by the Supreme Court. It does not seem to have been written so the citizens could rise against a tyrannical state, but to serve a militia to protect the security of the state.
Of course, were citizens to rise up against the state, they would be transgressing laws against sedition and treason.
That said, the genie is out of the bottle, and as your recent post showed, there are huge numbers of weapons in circulation - mutilple per capita. Here in Australia, we were able to ban semi-automatic weapons completely after the Port Arthur massacre where 35 people were killed with an AK47, and guns must be kept securely, etc. (There are around 12 guns per 100 peaople). That is not possible in the US, and a ban would simply drive ownership underground.
A sensible measure might be to restrict types of weapons. AR15s and AK47s have no purpose BUT to kill multiple people in a short time. They are not the muskets the Founders had in mind. They are modern killing weapons that no decent hunter has a purpose for: sport shootingis about skill in tracking and killing the target (ideally with a single shot).
So start with restrictions on semi-automatic long arms and challenge the court. Surely other weapons like RPGs and mortars are illegal, so why not AR15s? And have a buy back as we did in Australia, so the 5th Amendment is not transgressed,
Then, require positive vetting for mental illness, with the onus on the owner to prove their fitness. Secure storage of hunting weapons.
Handguns are a lost cause - too easily hidden to regulate effectively.
Then: monitor social media posts as they are for threats to political leaders; support for mental health; better security at schools.
None of that would end gun violence, but it might reduce the risks.
Such a shame that our 1st amendment does not deal with typewriters, mass production of paper and printers, nor even the ability to communicate via the internet, Mr. Kellow.
Thus your statement "they are not the muskets the Founders had in mind. They are modern killing weapons that no decent hunter has a purpose for."
The reality of our nation's founding is that our Constitution and its amendments did not give the federal government the right to take away from its citizens weapons of war, such as cannons, as well as rifled barrels on long guns.
Ironically, our founding documents did retain to the citizens of the various states the ability to craft legislation outlawing the use of such weapons as they saw fit.
In modern times, the U.S. Supreme Court has slowly been finding such state and municipal laws to be not in alignment with the U.S. Constitution and amendments.
I am now an elderly man soon to be 80 years old. When I was a nine year old boy, my grandfather began to teach me how to safely handle a nonfunctional .22 caliber rifle. He pounded into my young brain the concept of never treating a firearm as "unloaded," regardless of who told me it was.
A few years later, he taught me how to load a functional rifle with dummy ammunition.
By my early teens, grandpa taught me how to accurately send a bullet down range into a target.
My point?
Throughout my non-adult years, through to my early adulthood I never read about nor saw on television any information about mass shooting, except for the Texas Tower tragedy in August of 1966.
I was born in the early part of the 1940s, when there were three mass shootings where four or more people were killed.
In the 1950s there were four mass shootings in the U.S., two of which killed a total of 8 people and two of which wounded 9 people.
The 1960s found our country suffering from civil rights issues and the war in Vietnam. There were 7 mass shooting where 43 people were killed.
In the next decade there were 19 mass shootings. One hundred people were killed.
I'll not list the remaining decades, but will say that the number of mass killings during each of the next five decades continued to escalate.
But nobody seems to deal with what has changed since I was a lad and a young man!
Firearm safety was routinely taught back in my early days. And firearms were commonly available to most people.
Church attendance was nearly universal. And most folks still believed in the concept of evil.
People suffering with mental illness were routinely placed in hospitals.
Finally, a sense of belonging to and being proud of our society was much more common than it is today.
Any successful measure dealing with mass killings must take such things into account.
We live in countries with much different laws and customs, Mr. Kellow. Most noticeably the lack of a bill of rights embedded within your founding documents.
I appreciate your comment, much of which I find compelling.
I think you touch on a couple of important points, Dennis: publicity and mental health.
Many of these mass shooters clearly seek to mimic past mass shooters, and seek the notoriety.
And, yes, they usually have psychological problems and are not treated or institutionalised. As a friend of mine (an East Tennessee native) once put it, the deinstitutionalisation of the mentally ill is more humane than the 'prisons' that they were once consigned to – if they take their medication. But without institutional support there is nobody to make sure they take them. Perhaps requiring a positive mental health assessment as a condition of acquiring a weapon might be a start?
I'm a little younger than yourself, but I went through a high school army cadet program and served in the army reserve, so I learned to use a range of weapons: rifle; Bren gun (light MG); Stirling SMG; and SLR (semi-automatic - self-loading rifle). All but the first of these (which was a bolt-action with a 5 round magazine) are designed to kill as many people as possible in the shortest possible time.
The US is seemingly stuck with these, so the need is to address the causes and other factors - including affording schools the same kind of protection that is given to politicians and others. (We would find it bizarre to protect schools with armed guards, but it makes sense there).
I can't buy XXXX here in Tasmania, but Cascade and Boags (in the North) are far better. :-)
Thank you Aynsley for your response to my long winded comment.
As an aside, I realize that many people in Australia and Tasmania treat XXXX as if their dog just peed into a bottle. But the distributor my company used down under introduced me to it back in the 90s when he and his wife visited the company I had founded to develop the first Windows based marine navigation program.
My taste for beer may be iffy, but my sense of loyalty is very high.
Even if you had not mentioned in your first comment that you were an Aussie, I'd have placed you in one of the nations that had close ties to the Brits.
Who else would provide firearm training using a WW II era Bren 😀
Thank you once again, and I will be eager to read more of your comments in the future.
Aynsley, the mistakes you make in interpreting the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment are common even among American citizens:
1) The 2nd Amendment (part of the first 10 Amendments designed to delineate the freedoms of individual citizens to avoid undue future governmental control) was included to codify a fundamental, pre-existing human right to self defense and insure future U.S. governments could not infringe on that immutable right. Contrary to your opinion, it makes just as much sense today as it did then; the human condition has not changed in the intervening years.
2) Hunting has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment and, in setting up a new country, the Founder's could be excused for throwing in some hyperbole about protecting itself with independent militias. As affirmed by our Supreme Court, the operative language of the 2nd Amendment is "... the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Members of the Court went on to explain that the right extended to possession of weapons in common use in current times. Since magazine-fed semiautomatic pistols and rifles (e.g. AR-types) are widely used they cannot be banned.
3) In no way does a citizen of the U.S. have to prove (as you suggested) his fitness to exercise any of his fundamental freedoms protected by our Constitution. On the contrary, it is up to the government to prove a citizen's unfitness to exercise any of his rights, without exception.
4) The criminal justice system is the proper place to deal with INDIVIDUALS abusing their Constitutional rights. There is no place for collective punishments (such as bans) in our Constitution.
How is it that you got everything wrong? I mean, my God! The port Arthur massacre was done by a retard (literally) that was already banned from even holding a wheel (which he did and killed his girlfriend in a head-on collision - grabbing the wheel from the passenger seat) and a gun. Do you think that a repeating shotgun would have been less lethal in the massacre? The law didn't prevent him to get an AR15 or whatever he used, even though he was prohibited to get even close to a gun. If you were at Port Arthur that day with your children would you or would you not want to have a gun to protect your family from the murderer? The answer is very clear and rhetorical to me.
Now, you can be afraid of the tool as much as you want but the tool remains to be a tool and the human behind the tool remains the problem.
Anyway you twist it, that's the truth.
Let me remind you that the last time that the Greek State successfully deployed its army and armed forces was against...its own citizens in 1967.
Then, before that, people like Mussolini usurped power using violence.
Germany purged and killed many of its defenseless citizens in Jews and Gypsies. Spain had a bloody domestic conflict in the days of Franco.
The Myanmar people are, as we speak, fighting with bows and arrows against dictators with guns. The Australian authorities started putting people in concentration camps for "COVID" besides their own will.
"The society that will prioritize safety over freedom will end up with less of both!" that's a Milton Friedman quote and it's more relative today than ever.
Thank you for bringing up this important topic, Dr. Pielke. Constitutional constraints, however, complicate and put this issue in a class separate from debate and establishment of normal health and safety policy such as for your examples of transportation safety and opioid overdoses. The vast differences of opinion surrounding "commonsense" gun laws and the amount of vitriol being thrown around militate against the types of trust and cooperation needed to reach even minor policy agreements.
It is a cold fact that significant restrictions on ordinary citizens' right to keep and bear arms that are in common usage, in the absence of an unexpectedly weird SCOTUS opinion, will take a Constitutional Amendment. That can only be accomplished through at least a two thirds vote of the States (38). I think that no rational person would put a high likelihood on that happening in the absence of extreme societal changes.
I'm afraid that dispassionate funding of necessary, non-partisan scientific firearm studies is impossible when funds are allocated along political lines and prejudices. As you have personally experienced a prime example of corruption of science is through politicized allocations of governmental funding related to the global warming issue. As you and others have noted on various other occasions both UN IPCC climate reports and U.S. National Climate Assessments by Federal government agencies are hopelessly corrupted by governmental political manipulation.
Given my age (74) I don't see much chance of meaningful cooperation on gun control in my lifetime. Who knows, though, what generational changes are coming down the pike.
"funds are allocated along political lines and prejudices"
Yes, they are allocated for political ends. This is the main reason I oppose all government spending on research, except for defense or criminal justice purposes. When you mix science and politics, all you get is politics. The science precipitates out of the solution.
Basically, if a researcher cannot get private funding, it probably isn't worth doing, unless he wants to do it on his own dime.
Gun control is very strict already. It just happens that you aren't aware of it. You shouldn't blame the tool but the human behind it. Switzerland has every adult male with a military weapon in his possession (up to a certain age) yet no mass shootings. The problem in the US is cultural and a product of emerging nihilism. Fight those and you see mass shootings decline rapidly. You'll do a lot of good for society, in general, if nihilism was to be faced and fought.
For half-a-century, I both listened and contributed to PBS. UK and USA Government media broadcast neither 'evidence-grounded' reporting nor opinion. From Yorktown to Tazewell, VA, from BBC to VPM & WVPB, 'feeling' rules. Unrelenting emotion and subjectivity. I wish you good fortune. My advice? look to your Right, for evidence, for Reason.
For over ten years, I have followed your writing; thank you.
Why is it only "gun violence" that get all the attention? The problem is violence. The weapon doesn't matter. More are killed with knives, cars, fists, bats, etc.
Let's have policies that address violence and psychosis and poor education and bad parenting, etc.
There are more than enough gun laws, but they dont stop the mentally ill and criminals.
Roger has a good proposal. But the execution of it will fail, as always, because lazy politicians take the easy way out and blame the inanimate objects.
So what? According to the FBI less than 3% of firearm murders are committed using rifles, including those scary-looking rifles. So lets ban those scary things. Hell, knives and blunt objects were each used to murder more people than all rifles combined.
Lets all use complete facts instead of emotions and partial information.
I'd really like to see someone from the gun control side summarize the existing gun control laws., and be explicit about how this new law would have prevented any mass shooting.
So many policy proposals seem to be based on "Something must be done. This is something. Therefore, we must do it."
We have all kinds of problems in this country. Someone tell me the last time government agencies, commissions, blue ribbon panels, or legislative action solved anything. I'll wait. Ok, that's what I thought. Government will just create another agency to thrown money at. Examples in the 1970's we decided we had a drug problem and created the DEA to deal with it. 50 years and trillion of dollars later, drugs are worse than ever and funding goes ever higher. About the same time we decided the environment was bad and created the EPA to fix it. 50 years later the environment is worse than ever (if you believe the greens) and more money is needed. Here's one more, about the same time the DOE was created to solve the energy crisis. 50 years later...well you know. Mental health is the root cause of these shootings. Deal with that and the gun problem will go away. Clearly we need a dept of Mental Health. (kidding here)
The more politicians talk about legislating against guns in general and automatic guns specifically the higher gun sales go. The more gun violence in the news the higher gun sales go. According to standard polling gun ownership per capita is highest in rural areas where crime is the lowest and lowest in urban areas where crime is the highest. (Too many confounding variables in my opinion.) According to street polling gun ownership (often off book) is highest in high crime black neighborhoods. This includes off book guns used for crime and self defense. The government does not have control over illegal gun traffic across the Southern border or via overseas shipping containers.
Wow, Roger. I can see that your substack attracts just the people we don't need making gun policy in this country. I think that what you're saying is that multiple pathways need to be investigated. That includes better mental health programs, true; but it is also clear that effective gun policy measures can be taken--ones that are perfectly legal under the high court's reading of the second amendment-- that will reduce gun violence. Particularly suicide. Your readers ought to read Nicholas Kristof's op-ed in the NYTimes yesterday that presents extremely useful data. The idea that guns will always be with us is a pointless observation that is put forth as far as I can tell simply to elevate the status quo and justify doing nothing. It's also interesting that some commentators speak from experience, which is pretty much worthless when we're talking about a policy issue that desperately requires data and its activation to conduct a rational discussion. Finally, I very much enjoy your column; but please proofread it more carefully.
I'm a bit disappointed that everyone -- again -- is focusing on the weapon, and not the person. We need to address mental health in this country and what has changed over the last several decades. Without that, this will only get worse, no matter what gun laws you pass. We can't even enforce the ones we have now. (I see someone posted on this subject just as I was writing this. Way to go!)
Please, let's get real. There are guns. There will be guns. There are several hunting rifles in my home (though it is my sons that hunt, not me). None of these guns will ever be a threat to anyone anywhere by themselves.
I had a personal protection shotgun onboard our sailboat for when we were in dangerous waters. Of course, it was safely unloaded and locked up when pirates boarded our vessel in the middle of the night and robbed us. They were armed but not us.
The problem in this country is mental illness -- not guns. we have closed out mental health hospitals and their patients roam the streets homeless. Families that know they have a mentally ill son or daughter, father or mother, have no one to run to for real help. Authorities are loath to
take any protective action against the mentally ill.
Thus, we have the mentally ill, on very rare occasions (given the number of mentally ill on the streets) getting their hands on a gun (or knife, car, or firebomb) and committing a heinous act of violence. Once one madman gets publicity for such an act, other madmen copy-cat his "success".
Blaming the gun is a misdirection.
All that said, there is no excuse for allowing the sale of rapid-fire military-type weapons to the general public, or allowing possession of them under all but the most stringently controlled circumstances.
This country is in the process of promoting mind-altering substances as "recreational" -- and forbids, for the most part, the incarceration and treatment of the mentally ill. and then is surprised when a crazy person commits a crime powered by psychosis.
The briefest internet search will turn up millions of hits for "buy kit to convert rifle to rapid fire". Otherwise, criminals and the psychotic are stuck with weapons that only fire as quickly as they can pull the trigger.....
Kip, if your "rapid fire" is automatic action it is already illegal. Additionally, there is much discussion as to the legality of "bump stock" methods that allow one to pull the trigger more rapidly. I won't use them because of accuracy and mechanical reliably issues. For similar reasons I didn't fire fully automatic (spray and pray) very often in combat.
This statement is true, but the 2nd Amendment precludes the federal government from doing much about it. I dislike the tendency in the media of turning everything into a federal problem. The Federal government does not, and should not, respond to every problem. Some problems are better left to the states or cities, this is one such problem. The federal government might offer help, but not laws or regulations that will simply be overturned because they violate the second amendment.
This is also true:
"The U.S. has a mental health crisis."
It does, and it was exacerbated by the covid lockdowns. It is especially evident in our young people, the shooter in Uvalde was only 18 years old. He had shot at and/or assaulted people before, this was the same with the recent New York shooter. Why were both allowed to purchase guns? I'm not asking for federal "red flag" laws, but local laws are justified, and they need to be enforced. The real problem is that seriously mentally ill people are not only free, but they are able to buy guns.
Not in the same way, due to the 10th amendment. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
States and cities cannot violate the second amendment, but they have more power to control gun purchases and use than the federal government. Further, and more important, they can limit the freedom of the mentally ill to a greater degree, especially if some of the laws that restricted incarcerating the violently mentally ill between 1963 and 1980 are reversed. President Carter's in 1980 is the worst. This is too complicated a subject for a comment.
Andy, as repeatedly shown the Supreme Court insists the Constitution must be followed by State and local governments as well as the Feds in all respects. If by "control gun purchases" you mean universal background checks, lengthened waiting periods and marginal expansions of other restrictions then the Fed's lack of political will to enact such legislation means their Constitutionality at the Federal level is unknown. The various local and State level laws are currently (laboriously) working their way through the courts with any significant ones likely to be resolved only by SCOTUS review.
Anyway, individual State and local experiments with universal background checks, closing "gun-show loopholes," increased waiting periods and other marginal restrictions on gun purchases don't seem to have any measurable effect on the illegal use of firearms. Felons, drug users and minors can't pass background checks (or other marginal restrictions by State and local entities) but that doesn't deter them from obtaining firearms. Studies of the issue of various gun control measures' effects on crime are mixed, with anti-gun group funded studies saying they do (or can) work and pro-gun group funded studies saying they don't (or can't) work. Government studies are all over the place.
At this time there is no way we can have a civil debate on gun control policy.
Generally, I agree with what you wrote. My point was that experimenting with the legality and constitutionality of gun restrictions and restrictions on the freedom of the mentally ill is best left to the states. I'm a big believer in the 10th amendment and think that in issues like this the federal government should butt out.
As you say, and I agree with you, most state and local experiments fail. But the failure only effects the state, not the whole country. I'd rather that, then have the federal government experimenting and fail. The learning we get is less harmful. A perfect example is Jimmy Carter's Mental Health Systems Act of 1980, we are all still suffering from that. Just look at the homeless problem and school shooting incidents.
If the federal government stuck to its knitting, basically defense, foreign affairs, the Federal Reserve, and interstate commerce, we would all be better off.
I've been giving this a think, and I'm not sure I understand the problem...
By that, I mean what are we trying to solve?
Certainly we can all agree that we don't want the mass murder of children.
But where is the upper bound of the problem? To prevent gun crime, to prevent murders, to prevent gun deaths, to prevent mass murders or to focus on the murder of children?
And what would be an acceptable outcome for a solution? We have around 40,000 deaths on the roads each year, compared with around 14,000 firearm homisides. And we are not afraid to drive.
Around 1,200 kids under 15 die on our roads, and though those lost lives are a tradgedy, and we do continue to improve road safety, it is a level of risk we accept. We lose around 250 kids each year murdered by guns, and a similar number lost to gun related suicides and accidents.
What would be the "acceptable risk" to offset the benefits of gun ownership, in the same way we "accept" the 1,200 kids lost for the benefit of car ownership.
It seems to me, as an outside observer, that the gun control debate in the USA is caught between two intentionally misleading definitions. The pro-gun-control side (PGC) roll all multiple victim incidences into the one mass shooting statistic to make a more horror-filled headline “240 Mass Shootings already this year” even though a school shooting is very different to a shoot-out between police and gangsters and surely needs different policy. The anti-gun-control side (AGC) roll all attempts at gun control into the one category although a law to control military machine guns is clearly different to a law to control a 0.22 rifle for shooting rabbits. Somehow an Honest Broker needs to ensure that the debate is more nuanced and to stop this use of debate-by-definition because this sets up an unsolvable demonisation of the opposition.
Andrew, you seem to misunderstand the U.S. debate about the control of purchases of firearms by ordinary citizens. "Military machine guns" (in this case select-fire infantry assault rifles such as M16s and AK47s) are already controlled by the Federal government. The confusion arises because anti-gun forces have misnamed common semi-automatic rifles as "assault weapons" based upon their visual appearance. All semi-automatic rifles work in essentially the same manner whether or not they have a pistol grip or are made of black, functional materials.
Our Constitution's 2nd Amendment protects the individual citizen's fundamental and inalienable right to self defense, not plinking rabbits. [BTW, AR type rifles are generally of caliber 0.223, a good size for shooting varmints.] When used in self-defense or defense of others any firearm needs to be easily used, accurate and generally lethal to human-sized forms. Features like a pistol grip on a semi-automatic rifle improve the accuracy of the shooter, a feature that is highly favored in the real world.
Since firearms are a highly emotional and politicized issue, don't expect a civil discussion anytime soon, Andrew.
Dave: that is my point both sides define the issue in a way that makes their argument seem reasonable and the other absurd -- this makes any policy discussion impossible.
Andrew, the gist of my comments is that it would, in the absence of a radical change in the Supreme Court, take 38 U.S. States to vote for a Constitutional Amendment to replace the 2nd Amendment in order for any level of government to significantly restrict the gun rights of common citizens. How does one discuss policy options when any conceivable (semi-effective) governmental gun control POLICY would require a Constitutional Amendment?
Nobody is arguing about mental health and societal disfunction; its just gun control aimed at common citizens that is at contention. As I mentioned previously, the various Blue State gun control laws are now wending through the courts and it will be some time before we get Supreme Court decisions. Hopefully, those decisions would delineate the policy options available to the various levels of government consistent with the Constitution.
I understand the issue with the 2nd Amendment and the difficulty in constitutional amendment as it is not that different from Australia. However if you look across the US gun regulations vary a lot, so clearly there is a lot that can be done without a constitutional change. Making the debate a debate about the constitution distracts from finding effective regulation within the current legal framework even if these regulations need to be state based rather than national.
I agree with you, Andrew, that the States are where societal issues should be worked out and the 10th Amendment was an attempt to ensure that happens. The recent draft of a potential Supreme Court decision on Roe/Casey should make that clear to the authoritarians, although the Constitutional analyses in the draft are complicated such that most people won't understand its reasoning. Essentially it states abortion is properly left up to the individual States by action of the 10th Amendment; abortion regulation is not a power granted to the Federal government by the Constitution.
We should note that the onerous Blue State gun control laws and regulations are all headed (eventually) to the Supreme Court. Ultimately all State laws and regulations must adhere to the restrictions on governmental interference with citizens' rights as outlined in the Bill of Rights; all gun restrictions on citizens become a Constitution issue. It just takes a long time to work these complicated issues out before a clear pattern is apparent for guiding State governmental actions. Governmental policymaking is not as simple as many think.
Andy, I agree with your comment. I'm afraid, though, that there is too much fame and fortune for Federal politicians and bureaucrats in grandstanding and throwing money around to stop it now. Allowing them to tax income and the direct election of Senators, along with local greed for unlimited Federal money, sealed our fate. We are fighting a rearguard action with the Supreme Court our only buffer.
"...that from 1976 to 2016 among gun owners the partisan gap between Republicans and Democrats in presidential elections increased from 9% (46% of gun owners voting Republican to 37% voting Democratic) to 31% (61% R to 30% D)."
>>The Ds have been always after the guns of citizens as they are the party of statism which is the responsible party for the ghettos which is the responsible party for marginalization and government-dependence of minorities which has transformed the black family into a 70%+ fatherless family which, in turn, makes young kids vulnerable to joining some local gang which entails everyday shooting among them.
Note, also, that Australia swept all guns after a mass shooting in Australian-ruled Tasmania. The shooting was done by a retard (literally) that was already banned from having any sort of guns or even drive a vehicle. He did both and there's substantiated evidence that some time before the shooting he was the one that grabbed the steering wheel in a head-on collision of the vehicle he was in and a truck (if I recall well) that killed his, then, girlfriend who was driving the vehicle. So, the retard wasn't very deterred by rules and legislation. In the Tasmania shooting ONE sane citizen with a gun would have stopped him killing everybody in a sadistic way (killing children first in front of helpless parents who came next!). Every rose MUST have its thorns.
It is estimated that between 2 and 3 million crimes (including rape and murder) are annually prevented by the presence or use of guns.
The 2nd should be revered for it is one of the reasons that the US never came close to have a coup. That's not the case with other Western countries, including, Germany, Spain, Italy, Greece, etc, (only a few decades ago).
Recently, the Australian government took its citizens and placed them in "COVID" concentration camps! At the same time the people of Myanmar are fighting with bows and arrows against dictators with guns.
That's for everyone that believes that the 2nd isn't relevant today. Nonsense! It's even MORE relative because democracy is always under seize.
C_R_O_M you need to check a few of your facts, for example (1) The Aust Gov did NOT sweep up all guns, there are 3.5 million guns in private hands in Aust, the Gov did offer a voluntary buy-back scheme and removed a lot of guns esp automatics but by no means all, (2) Bryant broke no laws at the time of his gun purchases, the guns would be illegal now but not back then (3) even with these gun law changes Aust has not come close to a coup (4) there were and are no Covid concentration camps in Australia, there is one government facility (Howard Springs) to quarantine people arrive into Australia from areas with a lot of Covid, last week there were 3 (yes three) residents and 250 staff, people stay for 14 days I really think it is an insult to those who died and suffered in Auschwitz to call this a concentration camp. You seem to have a thorn without a rose.
My arguments just went over your head because you didn't effectively address any of them. You are wrong on Bryant. He was breaking the law as he was deemed a retard since his adolescence. There was never a modern government that didn't have a rule in place to prevent such individuals to get a hold of a gun. Same with a vehicle.
Coups don't occur the next day a government disarms the citizenry. This is a gradual process that creeps in slowly.
The Australian concentration camps placed citizens in there using force and coercion! Many of the citizens that were placed there were arrested and dragged out of their homes! I am personally aware of at least one occasion of a girl that just resisted some command from an officer (walking without a mask or something like that) and was placed there even though she tested negative. That's unacceptable for our societies. This is nothing less that a form of Sinicization where the undesirable are gathered together, locked, imprisoned, deprived of individual liberties and rights because some central planner wants to.
There are plenty of videos on Youtube with Australian citizens being dragged and imprisoned there and, at the time of their imprisonment, there were a lot more than 3 (not that the number should matter) so again you are trying to excuse the act with the use of carefully chosen "labeling" for these authoritarian behaviors ("quarantine" vs "imprisonment"). It is these type of attitudes that allow the statist bureaucrats to gradually take away individual freedoms. I wouldn't be surprised if you are part of the bureaucrat mob and work for the government.
A good, thoughtful post, Roger.
You have a real problem in the US, thanks to the 2nd Amendment - which makes little sense today. Its original purpose was to provide for 'a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,' so ' the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'
Some poor wording, but it could be interpreted better by the Supreme Court. It does not seem to have been written so the citizens could rise against a tyrannical state, but to serve a militia to protect the security of the state.
Of course, were citizens to rise up against the state, they would be transgressing laws against sedition and treason.
That said, the genie is out of the bottle, and as your recent post showed, there are huge numbers of weapons in circulation - mutilple per capita. Here in Australia, we were able to ban semi-automatic weapons completely after the Port Arthur massacre where 35 people were killed with an AK47, and guns must be kept securely, etc. (There are around 12 guns per 100 peaople). That is not possible in the US, and a ban would simply drive ownership underground.
A sensible measure might be to restrict types of weapons. AR15s and AK47s have no purpose BUT to kill multiple people in a short time. They are not the muskets the Founders had in mind. They are modern killing weapons that no decent hunter has a purpose for: sport shootingis about skill in tracking and killing the target (ideally with a single shot).
So start with restrictions on semi-automatic long arms and challenge the court. Surely other weapons like RPGs and mortars are illegal, so why not AR15s? And have a buy back as we did in Australia, so the 5th Amendment is not transgressed,
Then, require positive vetting for mental illness, with the onus on the owner to prove their fitness. Secure storage of hunting weapons.
Handguns are a lost cause - too easily hidden to regulate effectively.
Then: monitor social media posts as they are for threats to political leaders; support for mental health; better security at schools.
None of that would end gun violence, but it might reduce the risks.
Such a shame that our 1st amendment does not deal with typewriters, mass production of paper and printers, nor even the ability to communicate via the internet, Mr. Kellow.
Thus your statement "they are not the muskets the Founders had in mind. They are modern killing weapons that no decent hunter has a purpose for."
The reality of our nation's founding is that our Constitution and its amendments did not give the federal government the right to take away from its citizens weapons of war, such as cannons, as well as rifled barrels on long guns.
Ironically, our founding documents did retain to the citizens of the various states the ability to craft legislation outlawing the use of such weapons as they saw fit.
In modern times, the U.S. Supreme Court has slowly been finding such state and municipal laws to be not in alignment with the U.S. Constitution and amendments.
I am now an elderly man soon to be 80 years old. When I was a nine year old boy, my grandfather began to teach me how to safely handle a nonfunctional .22 caliber rifle. He pounded into my young brain the concept of never treating a firearm as "unloaded," regardless of who told me it was.
A few years later, he taught me how to load a functional rifle with dummy ammunition.
By my early teens, grandpa taught me how to accurately send a bullet down range into a target.
My point?
Throughout my non-adult years, through to my early adulthood I never read about nor saw on television any information about mass shooting, except for the Texas Tower tragedy in August of 1966.
I was born in the early part of the 1940s, when there were three mass shootings where four or more people were killed.
In the 1950s there were four mass shootings in the U.S., two of which killed a total of 8 people and two of which wounded 9 people.
The 1960s found our country suffering from civil rights issues and the war in Vietnam. There were 7 mass shooting where 43 people were killed.
In the next decade there were 19 mass shootings. One hundred people were killed.
I'll not list the remaining decades, but will say that the number of mass killings during each of the next five decades continued to escalate.
But nobody seems to deal with what has changed since I was a lad and a young man!
Firearm safety was routinely taught back in my early days. And firearms were commonly available to most people.
Church attendance was nearly universal. And most folks still believed in the concept of evil.
People suffering with mental illness were routinely placed in hospitals.
Finally, a sense of belonging to and being proud of our society was much more common than it is today.
Any successful measure dealing with mass killings must take such things into account.
We live in countries with much different laws and customs, Mr. Kellow. Most noticeably the lack of a bill of rights embedded within your founding documents.
I appreciate your comment, much of which I find compelling.
I think you touch on a couple of important points, Dennis: publicity and mental health.
Many of these mass shooters clearly seek to mimic past mass shooters, and seek the notoriety.
And, yes, they usually have psychological problems and are not treated or institutionalised. As a friend of mine (an East Tennessee native) once put it, the deinstitutionalisation of the mentally ill is more humane than the 'prisons' that they were once consigned to – if they take their medication. But without institutional support there is nobody to make sure they take them. Perhaps requiring a positive mental health assessment as a condition of acquiring a weapon might be a start?
I'm a little younger than yourself, but I went through a high school army cadet program and served in the army reserve, so I learned to use a range of weapons: rifle; Bren gun (light MG); Stirling SMG; and SLR (semi-automatic - self-loading rifle). All but the first of these (which was a bolt-action with a 5 round magazine) are designed to kill as many people as possible in the shortest possible time.
The US is seemingly stuck with these, so the need is to address the causes and other factors - including affording schools the same kind of protection that is given to politicians and others. (We would find it bizarre to protect schools with armed guards, but it makes sense there).
I can't buy XXXX here in Tasmania, but Cascade and Boags (in the North) are far better. :-)
Thank you Aynsley for your response to my long winded comment.
As an aside, I realize that many people in Australia and Tasmania treat XXXX as if their dog just peed into a bottle. But the distributor my company used down under introduced me to it back in the 90s when he and his wife visited the company I had founded to develop the first Windows based marine navigation program.
My taste for beer may be iffy, but my sense of loyalty is very high.
Even if you had not mentioned in your first comment that you were an Aussie, I'd have placed you in one of the nations that had close ties to the Brits.
Who else would provide firearm training using a WW II era Bren 😀
Thank you once again, and I will be eager to read more of your comments in the future.
All the best to you and yours.
Aynsley, the mistakes you make in interpreting the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment are common even among American citizens:
1) The 2nd Amendment (part of the first 10 Amendments designed to delineate the freedoms of individual citizens to avoid undue future governmental control) was included to codify a fundamental, pre-existing human right to self defense and insure future U.S. governments could not infringe on that immutable right. Contrary to your opinion, it makes just as much sense today as it did then; the human condition has not changed in the intervening years.
2) Hunting has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment and, in setting up a new country, the Founder's could be excused for throwing in some hyperbole about protecting itself with independent militias. As affirmed by our Supreme Court, the operative language of the 2nd Amendment is "... the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Members of the Court went on to explain that the right extended to possession of weapons in common use in current times. Since magazine-fed semiautomatic pistols and rifles (e.g. AR-types) are widely used they cannot be banned.
3) In no way does a citizen of the U.S. have to prove (as you suggested) his fitness to exercise any of his fundamental freedoms protected by our Constitution. On the contrary, it is up to the government to prove a citizen's unfitness to exercise any of his rights, without exception.
4) The criminal justice system is the proper place to deal with INDIVIDUALS abusing their Constitutional rights. There is no place for collective punishments (such as bans) in our Constitution.
How is it that you got everything wrong? I mean, my God! The port Arthur massacre was done by a retard (literally) that was already banned from even holding a wheel (which he did and killed his girlfriend in a head-on collision - grabbing the wheel from the passenger seat) and a gun. Do you think that a repeating shotgun would have been less lethal in the massacre? The law didn't prevent him to get an AR15 or whatever he used, even though he was prohibited to get even close to a gun. If you were at Port Arthur that day with your children would you or would you not want to have a gun to protect your family from the murderer? The answer is very clear and rhetorical to me.
Now, you can be afraid of the tool as much as you want but the tool remains to be a tool and the human behind the tool remains the problem.
Anyway you twist it, that's the truth.
Let me remind you that the last time that the Greek State successfully deployed its army and armed forces was against...its own citizens in 1967.
Then, before that, people like Mussolini usurped power using violence.
Germany purged and killed many of its defenseless citizens in Jews and Gypsies. Spain had a bloody domestic conflict in the days of Franco.
The Myanmar people are, as we speak, fighting with bows and arrows against dictators with guns. The Australian authorities started putting people in concentration camps for "COVID" besides their own will.
"The society that will prioritize safety over freedom will end up with less of both!" that's a Milton Friedman quote and it's more relative today than ever.
Thank you for bringing up this important topic, Dr. Pielke. Constitutional constraints, however, complicate and put this issue in a class separate from debate and establishment of normal health and safety policy such as for your examples of transportation safety and opioid overdoses. The vast differences of opinion surrounding "commonsense" gun laws and the amount of vitriol being thrown around militate against the types of trust and cooperation needed to reach even minor policy agreements.
It is a cold fact that significant restrictions on ordinary citizens' right to keep and bear arms that are in common usage, in the absence of an unexpectedly weird SCOTUS opinion, will take a Constitutional Amendment. That can only be accomplished through at least a two thirds vote of the States (38). I think that no rational person would put a high likelihood on that happening in the absence of extreme societal changes.
I'm afraid that dispassionate funding of necessary, non-partisan scientific firearm studies is impossible when funds are allocated along political lines and prejudices. As you have personally experienced a prime example of corruption of science is through politicized allocations of governmental funding related to the global warming issue. As you and others have noted on various other occasions both UN IPCC climate reports and U.S. National Climate Assessments by Federal government agencies are hopelessly corrupted by governmental political manipulation.
Given my age (74) I don't see much chance of meaningful cooperation on gun control in my lifetime. Who knows, though, what generational changes are coming down the pike.
"funds are allocated along political lines and prejudices"
Yes, they are allocated for political ends. This is the main reason I oppose all government spending on research, except for defense or criminal justice purposes. When you mix science and politics, all you get is politics. The science precipitates out of the solution.
Basically, if a researcher cannot get private funding, it probably isn't worth doing, unless he wants to do it on his own dime.
Gun control is very strict already. It just happens that you aren't aware of it. You shouldn't blame the tool but the human behind it. Switzerland has every adult male with a military weapon in his possession (up to a certain age) yet no mass shootings. The problem in the US is cultural and a product of emerging nihilism. Fight those and you see mass shootings decline rapidly. You'll do a lot of good for society, in general, if nihilism was to be faced and fought.
"Policy makers need evidence-grounded options..."
For half-a-century, I both listened and contributed to PBS. UK and USA Government media broadcast neither 'evidence-grounded' reporting nor opinion. From Yorktown to Tazewell, VA, from BBC to VPM & WVPB, 'feeling' rules. Unrelenting emotion and subjectivity. I wish you good fortune. My advice? look to your Right, for evidence, for Reason.
For over ten years, I have followed your writing; thank you.
Why is it only "gun violence" that get all the attention? The problem is violence. The weapon doesn't matter. More are killed with knives, cars, fists, bats, etc.
Let's have policies that address violence and psychosis and poor education and bad parenting, etc.
There are more than enough gun laws, but they dont stop the mentally ill and criminals.
Roger has a good proposal. But the execution of it will fail, as always, because lazy politicians take the easy way out and blame the inanimate objects.
In the US almost 75% of all murders are committed using a gun.
So what? According to the FBI less than 3% of firearm murders are committed using rifles, including those scary-looking rifles. So lets ban those scary things. Hell, knives and blunt objects were each used to murder more people than all rifles combined.
Lets all use complete facts instead of emotions and partial information.
I'd really like to see someone from the gun control side summarize the existing gun control laws., and be explicit about how this new law would have prevented any mass shooting.
So many policy proposals seem to be based on "Something must be done. This is something. Therefore, we must do it."
We have all kinds of problems in this country. Someone tell me the last time government agencies, commissions, blue ribbon panels, or legislative action solved anything. I'll wait. Ok, that's what I thought. Government will just create another agency to thrown money at. Examples in the 1970's we decided we had a drug problem and created the DEA to deal with it. 50 years and trillion of dollars later, drugs are worse than ever and funding goes ever higher. About the same time we decided the environment was bad and created the EPA to fix it. 50 years later the environment is worse than ever (if you believe the greens) and more money is needed. Here's one more, about the same time the DOE was created to solve the energy crisis. 50 years later...well you know. Mental health is the root cause of these shootings. Deal with that and the gun problem will go away. Clearly we need a dept of Mental Health. (kidding here)
The more politicians talk about legislating against guns in general and automatic guns specifically the higher gun sales go. The more gun violence in the news the higher gun sales go. According to standard polling gun ownership per capita is highest in rural areas where crime is the lowest and lowest in urban areas where crime is the highest. (Too many confounding variables in my opinion.) According to street polling gun ownership (often off book) is highest in high crime black neighborhoods. This includes off book guns used for crime and self defense. The government does not have control over illegal gun traffic across the Southern border or via overseas shipping containers.
Wow, Roger. I can see that your substack attracts just the people we don't need making gun policy in this country. I think that what you're saying is that multiple pathways need to be investigated. That includes better mental health programs, true; but it is also clear that effective gun policy measures can be taken--ones that are perfectly legal under the high court's reading of the second amendment-- that will reduce gun violence. Particularly suicide. Your readers ought to read Nicholas Kristof's op-ed in the NYTimes yesterday that presents extremely useful data. The idea that guns will always be with us is a pointless observation that is put forth as far as I can tell simply to elevate the status quo and justify doing nothing. It's also interesting that some commentators speak from experience, which is pretty much worthless when we're talking about a policy issue that desperately requires data and its activation to conduct a rational discussion. Finally, I very much enjoy your column; but please proofread it more carefully.
Robert, it would help me if you could provide some examples of "perfectly legal" "effective gun policy measures" you have in mind.
As much as these school shootings grab media attention, they represent a tiny proportion of the roughly 40,000 people shot and killed every year.
Remember, 46% of all people shot and killed are white men shooting themselves.
18% of all people shot and killed are black men being murdered.
The remaining stats dwindle after that...
7% white women shooting themselves
6% white men being murdered
5% hispanic men being murdered
4% hispanic men shooting themselves
3% black men shooting themselves
2% white women being murdered
2% black women being murdered
And the rest are 1% or below.
Figures from the 2018 CDC National Vital Statistics Reports vol 65 no 13.
I'm a bit disappointed that everyone -- again -- is focusing on the weapon, and not the person. We need to address mental health in this country and what has changed over the last several decades. Without that, this will only get worse, no matter what gun laws you pass. We can't even enforce the ones we have now. (I see someone posted on this subject just as I was writing this. Way to go!)
Please, let's get real. There are guns. There will be guns. There are several hunting rifles in my home (though it is my sons that hunt, not me). None of these guns will ever be a threat to anyone anywhere by themselves.
I had a personal protection shotgun onboard our sailboat for when we were in dangerous waters. Of course, it was safely unloaded and locked up when pirates boarded our vessel in the middle of the night and robbed us. They were armed but not us.
The problem in this country is mental illness -- not guns. we have closed out mental health hospitals and their patients roam the streets homeless. Families that know they have a mentally ill son or daughter, father or mother, have no one to run to for real help. Authorities are loath to
take any protective action against the mentally ill.
Thus, we have the mentally ill, on very rare occasions (given the number of mentally ill on the streets) getting their hands on a gun (or knife, car, or firebomb) and committing a heinous act of violence. Once one madman gets publicity for such an act, other madmen copy-cat his "success".
Blaming the gun is a misdirection.
All that said, there is no excuse for allowing the sale of rapid-fire military-type weapons to the general public, or allowing possession of them under all but the most stringently controlled circumstances.
This country is in the process of promoting mind-altering substances as "recreational" -- and forbids, for the most part, the incarceration and treatment of the mentally ill. and then is surprised when a crazy person commits a crime powered by psychosis.
Military-type (select-fire) weapons are available to the general public only under the "most stringently controlled circumstances."
The briefest internet search will turn up millions of hits for "buy kit to convert rifle to rapid fire". Otherwise, criminals and the psychotic are stuck with weapons that only fire as quickly as they can pull the trigger.....
Kip, if your "rapid fire" is automatic action it is already illegal. Additionally, there is much discussion as to the legality of "bump stock" methods that allow one to pull the trigger more rapidly. I won't use them because of accuracy and mechanical reliably issues. For similar reasons I didn't fire fully automatic (spray and pray) very often in combat.
"Gun violence is indeed a policy problem."
This statement is true, but the 2nd Amendment precludes the federal government from doing much about it. I dislike the tendency in the media of turning everything into a federal problem. The Federal government does not, and should not, respond to every problem. Some problems are better left to the states or cities, this is one such problem. The federal government might offer help, but not laws or regulations that will simply be overturned because they violate the second amendment.
This is also true:
"The U.S. has a mental health crisis."
It does, and it was exacerbated by the covid lockdowns. It is especially evident in our young people, the shooter in Uvalde was only 18 years old. He had shot at and/or assaulted people before, this was the same with the recent New York shooter. Why were both allowed to purchase guns? I'm not asking for federal "red flag" laws, but local laws are justified, and they need to be enforced. The real problem is that seriously mentally ill people are not only free, but they are able to buy guns.
The Constitution applies to local government the same as to the Feds.
Not in the same way, due to the 10th amendment. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
States and cities cannot violate the second amendment, but they have more power to control gun purchases and use than the federal government. Further, and more important, they can limit the freedom of the mentally ill to a greater degree, especially if some of the laws that restricted incarcerating the violently mentally ill between 1963 and 1980 are reversed. President Carter's in 1980 is the worst. This is too complicated a subject for a comment.
Andy, as repeatedly shown the Supreme Court insists the Constitution must be followed by State and local governments as well as the Feds in all respects. If by "control gun purchases" you mean universal background checks, lengthened waiting periods and marginal expansions of other restrictions then the Fed's lack of political will to enact such legislation means their Constitutionality at the Federal level is unknown. The various local and State level laws are currently (laboriously) working their way through the courts with any significant ones likely to be resolved only by SCOTUS review.
Anyway, individual State and local experiments with universal background checks, closing "gun-show loopholes," increased waiting periods and other marginal restrictions on gun purchases don't seem to have any measurable effect on the illegal use of firearms. Felons, drug users and minors can't pass background checks (or other marginal restrictions by State and local entities) but that doesn't deter them from obtaining firearms. Studies of the issue of various gun control measures' effects on crime are mixed, with anti-gun group funded studies saying they do (or can) work and pro-gun group funded studies saying they don't (or can't) work. Government studies are all over the place.
At this time there is no way we can have a civil debate on gun control policy.
Dave,
Generally, I agree with what you wrote. My point was that experimenting with the legality and constitutionality of gun restrictions and restrictions on the freedom of the mentally ill is best left to the states. I'm a big believer in the 10th amendment and think that in issues like this the federal government should butt out.
As you say, and I agree with you, most state and local experiments fail. But the failure only effects the state, not the whole country. I'd rather that, then have the federal government experimenting and fail. The learning we get is less harmful. A perfect example is Jimmy Carter's Mental Health Systems Act of 1980, we are all still suffering from that. Just look at the homeless problem and school shooting incidents.
If the federal government stuck to its knitting, basically defense, foreign affairs, the Federal Reserve, and interstate commerce, we would all be better off.
Andy ==> Great minds....pragmatic and real.