4 ms·

You Cannot Regulate Guns Unless You Know How to Use One

11 points by joeyespo 10y ago

stephenr 10y ago
By that logic, you need to smoke crack before you can make it illegal.
- ori_b 10y ago
  You should definitely know how crack is used, it's effects, and how other legal derivatives are used before trying to regulate it, yes. Otherwise, you may end up banning a large number of cocaine-based anesthetics. Or worse, ban rubbing cocaine in your hair while leaving it legal to smoke it. This is the state of gun regulation right now -- many of the people trying to ban guns don't seem to know the first thing about guns, making the regulation likely to be ineffective.
  - smt88 10y ago
    A better argument would be that you need to know how guns are purchased before trying to regulate them.
    - ori_b 10y ago
      And how would that work to prevent legislators from banning one of the least dangerous forms of firearms?
      - smt88 10y ago
        How does firing a gun tell you how dangerous it is? The danger of a firearm is most likely a function of its rate of fire, the likelihood that it will kill someone it hits, and not much else. The rate of fire is a simple fact and can be learned without firing the weapon. The deadliness of the gun is probably difficult to know for sure, and it certainly wouldn't be obvious just from shooting it. For example, is a low-power firearm with hollow-point bullets more dangerous than a high-power firearm? Is a weapon that's easier to aim significantly more deadly, or is that effect irrelevant once rate of fire is considered? I don't know, and shooting guns wouldn't tell me.
        ori_b 10y ago
        Firing or handling a gun isn't critical, but it does make it clear the kind of damage different kinds of guns will do to targets. Assembling and disassembling them makes it clear how easy a crude gun is to make at home with a machine shop. Handling it will help you judge how easy it is to conceal it. And firing a police issue revolver will make it obvious how much harder it is to fire accurately than a regular, civilian issued one (and possibly lead to fixing the policy that ensures officers end up with guns handicapped to endanger bystanders; I'm against police being armed with lethal weapons, but if it's going to happen, I'd like them to at least hit their targets). > For example, is a low-power firearm with hollow-point bullets more dangerous than a high-power firearm? How does knowing how a gun is purchased tell you this? This seems to be another argument for teaching regulators against guns, and not against it. The simple fact of the matter is that to effectively regulate guns, you need to know about them. The legislation proposed to curb gun violence is (almost invariably) written by people who are very obviously flying blind, and as a result, the laws proposed are the equivalent of banning rubbing cocaine in one's hair while leaving crack smoking legal.
        smt88 10y ago
        To be clear, I don't think either of these arguments (the original, or the one I proposed as "better") are good arguments. Like cocaine, guns are not that complicated. If lawmakers aren't experts, they can easily have experts review their proposals and inform them. The core problem with gun-related legislation is that we don't actually know much about gun violence in the US in an epidemiological context. The CDC hasn't been able to keep track of gun violence, and there isn't a good centralized database for it. It could be that everyone having a gun would be safer, and it could be that no one having a gun would be safer. We don't have conclusive data to support either position definitively.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
  - dsfyu404ed 10y ago
    And only a hindrance to law abiding citizens (see the debate about encryption).
  - stephenr 10y ago
    > You should definitely know how crack is used, it's effects, and how other legal derivatives are used before trying to regulate it, yes. All things that I would be willing to bet a lot of money, the legislators in question didn't know because of first-hand knowledge, they were advised by doctors, chemists, etc. This is a direct quote from the article: > You need to learn how to fire a gun, how to be safe with a gun, how to clean and take apart a gun, and you need to know what the process is like when you buy a gun. That sentence applied to the cocaine scenario means that legislators would need to be trained in chemistry, rather than say, relying on expert advice from doctors who can tell them "smoking crack is bad y'all". Would you really want legislators to try to be fluent enough in technical concepts to legislate on those things, without the use of outside expert advice? > This is the state of gun regulation right now -- many of the people trying to ban guns don't seem to know the first thing about guns, making the regulation likely to be ineffective. I'm pretty certain a reasonable percent of the legislators involved in all the other developed nations which have functioning gun control, were not all packing heat. Legislators are basically lawyers - their job is to codify in legal terms, the agreed upon changes to be made, based on the advice of experts, and the opinions of their constituents.
- dalke 10y ago
  Or: "You cannot regulate nuclear weapons unless you [personally] know how to use one."

11 points by joeyespo 10y ago

stephenr 10y ago

By that logic, you need to smoke crack before you can make it illegal.

ori_b 10y ago
You should definitely know how crack is used, it's effects, and how other legal derivatives are used before trying to regulate it, yes. Otherwise, you may end up banning a large number of cocaine-based anesthetics. Or worse, ban rubbing cocaine in your hair while leaving it legal to smoke it. This is the state of gun regulation right now -- many of the people trying to ban guns don't seem to know the first thing about guns, making the regulation likely to be ineffective.
- smt88 10y ago
  A better argument would be that you need to know how guns are purchased before trying to regulate them.
  - ori_b 10y ago
    And how would that work to prevent legislators from banning one of the least dangerous forms of firearms?
    - smt88 10y ago
      How does firing a gun tell you how dangerous it is? The danger of a firearm is most likely a function of its rate of fire, the likelihood that it will kill someone it hits, and not much else. The rate of fire is a simple fact and can be learned without firing the weapon. The deadliness of the gun is probably difficult to know for sure, and it certainly wouldn't be obvious just from shooting it. For example, is a low-power firearm with hollow-point bullets more dangerous than a high-power firearm? Is a weapon that's easier to aim significantly more deadly, or is that effect irrelevant once rate of fire is considered? I don't know, and shooting guns wouldn't tell me.
      - ori_b 10y ago
        Firing or handling a gun isn't critical, but it does make it clear the kind of damage different kinds of guns will do to targets. Assembling and disassembling them makes it clear how easy a crude gun is to make at home with a machine shop. Handling it will help you judge how easy it is to conceal it. And firing a police issue revolver will make it obvious how much harder it is to fire accurately than a regular, civilian issued one (and possibly lead to fixing the policy that ensures officers end up with guns handicapped to endanger bystanders; I'm against police being armed with lethal weapons, but if it's going to happen, I'd like them to at least hit their targets). > For example, is a low-power firearm with hollow-point bullets more dangerous than a high-power firearm? How does knowing how a gun is purchased tell you this? This seems to be another argument for teaching regulators against guns, and not against it. The simple fact of the matter is that to effectively regulate guns, you need to know about them. The legislation proposed to curb gun violence is (almost invariably) written by people who are very obviously flying blind, and as a result, the laws proposed are the equivalent of banning rubbing cocaine in one's hair while leaving crack smoking legal.
        smt88 10y ago
        To be clear, I don't think either of these arguments (the original, or the one I proposed as "better") are good arguments. Like cocaine, guns are not that complicated. If lawmakers aren't experts, they can easily have experts review their proposals and inform them. The core problem with gun-related legislation is that we don't actually know much about gun violence in the US in an epidemiological context. The CDC hasn't been able to keep track of gun violence, and there isn't a good centralized database for it. It could be that everyone having a gun would be safer, and it could be that no one having a gun would be safer. We don't have conclusive data to support either position definitively.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
- dsfyu404ed 10y ago
  And only a hindrance to law abiding citizens (see the debate about encryption).
- stephenr 10y ago
  > You should definitely know how crack is used, it's effects, and how other legal derivatives are used before trying to regulate it, yes. All things that I would be willing to bet a lot of money, the legislators in question didn't know because of first-hand knowledge, they were advised by doctors, chemists, etc. This is a direct quote from the article: > You need to learn how to fire a gun, how to be safe with a gun, how to clean and take apart a gun, and you need to know what the process is like when you buy a gun. That sentence applied to the cocaine scenario means that legislators would need to be trained in chemistry, rather than say, relying on expert advice from doctors who can tell them "smoking crack is bad y'all". Would you really want legislators to try to be fluent enough in technical concepts to legislate on those things, without the use of outside expert advice? > This is the state of gun regulation right now -- many of the people trying to ban guns don't seem to know the first thing about guns, making the regulation likely to be ineffective. I'm pretty certain a reasonable percent of the legislators involved in all the other developed nations which have functioning gun control, were not all packing heat. Legislators are basically lawyers - their job is to codify in legal terms, the agreed upon changes to be made, based on the advice of experts, and the opinions of their constituents.
dalke 10y ago
Or: "You cannot regulate nuclear weapons unless you [personally] know how to use one."