Usually, hyper far-left outlets like the Pacific Standard are all for banning guns, even confiscating them. This is an interesting take (but there’s something missing)
THE MOST EFFECTIVE GUN-CONTROL LAWS TARGET WHO BUYS GUNS—NOT WHICH GUNS THEY BUY
Each time there is a mass shooting, activists call for stricter laws regulating firearms. But even legislatures amenable to such actions must decide among a variety of approaches. Which types of laws—or combinations of laws—actually reduce homicides?
New research that analyzes state-level homicide rates over a quarter-century provides some clear answers. Universal background checks and state laws prohibiting handgun possession for people who have committed a violent misdemeanor are associated with meaningful reductions in the homicide rate.
The thing there is, if you punch someone who grabbed your wife’s ass and get charged with simple assault, should you be denied a firearms permit? Should you have your firearms taken by The State? There’s a serious danger in a blanket application when denying people their Constitutional Right. But, yes, certain people should be denied, I think we can agree on that.
On the other hand, “shall issue” laws, which require local law enforcement to issue concealed-carry permits to anyone who qualifies, are associated with a significant increase in homicides.
Interesting. The vast majority of these are people who have already passed background checks
Seven other varieties of gun-control laws, including assault weapons bans and bans of large-capacity ammunition magazines, had no effect on the homicide rate.
“It appears that laws that regulate the ‘what’ [what guns/products are allowed on the market] do not have much of an impact on overall population homicide,” lead author Dr. Michael Siegel of the Boston University School of Public Health writes in a “roadmap for policymakers” that accompanies the study. “In contrast, laws that regulate the ‘who’ [who has legal access to firearms] may have an appreciable impact on firearm homicide, especially if access is restricted specifically to … people who have a history of violence, or represent an imminent threat of violence.”
So, this is a double edged sword. On one hand, we see that regulating firearms doesn’t make a damned bit of difference. On the other, the focus on “who” will certainly lead to calls by the gun grabbers to restrict even more people from their constitutional right.
Also, how are you going to restrict criminals, who are responsible for the vast majority of homicides with firearms?
“Universal background checks were associated with 14.9 percent lower overall homicide rates,” they report. “Violent misdemeanor laws were associated with 18.1 percent lower homicide rates. ‘Shall issue’ laws [requiring police to issue concealed-carry permits] were associated with 9.0 percent higher homicide rates.”
“None of the other seven laws was significantly associated with overall homicide rates,” they add. “This does not necessarily mean these laws are ineffective. It may also be that the laws are not broad enough to affect overall population death rates, or that the laws are not being adequately enforced.”
Of course, in order to have said universal background checks a registry of private property mentioned in the Constitution would be required, and the second paragraph opens the door to cracking down on the “what” even more.
What’s also interesting is that someone was actually able to do a homicide involving firearms study without funding from Congress. Gun grabbers have been whining for years about not being able to get studies done without that funding. Weird, right?
