This was an interesting conversation, but there were a number of inaccuracies related to firearms.
A minor technical point is that the shootings in Buffalo and Uvalde were not committed with “automatic heavy weapons”; the AR-15 is a semi-automatic rifle firing what is considered to be an intermediate caliber. The manufacture of new fully-automatic firearms for civilians was outlawed in 1986.
The core problem with “red flag laws” has nothing to do with the Second Amendment; rather, they probably violate the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. Given the very low base rate of mass shootings, Bayes’ theorem with a highly sensitive and specific test suggests a virtually nonexistent evidentiary standard would be needed to reliably stop mass shooters. A similar argument would also work for suicide prevention.
Mandatory reporting laws, and Rajiv’s gun insurance idea, are only enforceable with a registration system, which will be opposed by gun rights supporters. You need only look to the other Anglosphere countries with firearms registration to see that promises to not confiscate firearms are never binding. Furthermore, registration does not seem to ever independently solve crimes and controlling SCOTUS precedent is that prohibited possessors do not have to register firearms – this would lead to self-incrimination. Many guns couldn’t be traced anyways since criminals will often scratch off the serial number, regardless of how they acquired the gun; there is nothing magical about tracing serial numbers on a firearm.
While it is true that smart guns exist, they are such a minuscule part of the firearms market that about the only people who care about them are gun control advocates. There are already a number of failure modes in a mechanical device, such as a firearm; so why would anyone interested in self-defense carry a gun that adds an extra layer of failure when they need to guarantee operation immediately after choosing to deploy the firearm? I don’t know where Rajiv is getting this idea that smart guns can’t be used by non-owners – it has been known for some time that current technology can be defeated by the use of a simple magnets.
Most studies on gun control measures, in the case they find a positive impact, suggest very small effect sizes – if we assume that there is enough statistical power to even detect an effect. That is if the effective measures are even enforced. For example, prosecutions for straw purchasing and lying on a 4473 (the federal background check form) are severely lacking, despite both offenses carrying substantial prison time. From a simple Law of Demand analysis, if the cost of some action is low the prevalence will be greater than if a higher cost is imposed.
It is true that the U.S. is an outlier compared to many European countries on the homicide rate, but as Glenn mentions there are significant differences in homicide by racial and ethnic groups – no matter the ultimate causes of the disparities. For example, among non-Hispanic whites the homicide rate has been hovering around 2 per 100k in recent years – this is the same homicide rate as Canada, with 4-5 times as many firearms per capita. And while this homicide rate is almost double that of the UK, it’s with 30 times as many firearms per capita. There’s certainly reason to think that higher rates of gun ownership could increase the baseline homicide rate, but the magnitude of the effect size is probably much lower than is conventionally believed.
Kyle, thank you for your comment and especially the constructive tone. We already have a federal reporting requirement for licensed gun dealers as well as a tracing system so it doesn't seem like a stretch to extend coverage more broadly. Many states have reporting requirements and NJ has civil liability for some owners and weapon types if an unreported stolen gun is used for a crime. And such liability (for original owners) doesn't increase incentives to scratch off serial numbers for those in possession of the stolen guns. Smart guns are rare in part because there is no incentive to pay the extra cost, but they would be cheaper to insure, and perhaps easier to access quickly than a gun in a safe. I don't know about the magnets but it doesn't seem like making the guns secure would be technologically insurmountable.
My goal has been to offer policy solutions that don't try to target ownership, given both 2A constraints and the low correlation between ownership and homicide at the state level. Discussed this issue at length with Bari Weiss and David French on her podcast recently. Anyway, just my two cents. Thanks again for the comment, much nicer that some I'm getting on YouTube (telling me to go back to selling slurpees at a 7-11 or learning how to speak English).
This was an interesting conversation, but there were a number of inaccuracies related to firearms.
A minor technical point is that the shootings in Buffalo and Uvalde were not committed with “automatic heavy weapons”; the AR-15 is a semi-automatic rifle firing what is considered to be an intermediate caliber. The manufacture of new fully-automatic firearms for civilians was outlawed in 1986.
The core problem with “red flag laws” has nothing to do with the Second Amendment; rather, they probably violate the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. Given the very low base rate of mass shootings, Bayes’ theorem with a highly sensitive and specific test suggests a virtually nonexistent evidentiary standard would be needed to reliably stop mass shooters. A similar argument would also work for suicide prevention.
Mandatory reporting laws, and Rajiv’s gun insurance idea, are only enforceable with a registration system, which will be opposed by gun rights supporters. You need only look to the other Anglosphere countries with firearms registration to see that promises to not confiscate firearms are never binding. Furthermore, registration does not seem to ever independently solve crimes and controlling SCOTUS precedent is that prohibited possessors do not have to register firearms – this would lead to self-incrimination. Many guns couldn’t be traced anyways since criminals will often scratch off the serial number, regardless of how they acquired the gun; there is nothing magical about tracing serial numbers on a firearm.
While it is true that smart guns exist, they are such a minuscule part of the firearms market that about the only people who care about them are gun control advocates. There are already a number of failure modes in a mechanical device, such as a firearm; so why would anyone interested in self-defense carry a gun that adds an extra layer of failure when they need to guarantee operation immediately after choosing to deploy the firearm? I don’t know where Rajiv is getting this idea that smart guns can’t be used by non-owners – it has been known for some time that current technology can be defeated by the use of a simple magnets.
Most studies on gun control measures, in the case they find a positive impact, suggest very small effect sizes – if we assume that there is enough statistical power to even detect an effect. That is if the effective measures are even enforced. For example, prosecutions for straw purchasing and lying on a 4473 (the federal background check form) are severely lacking, despite both offenses carrying substantial prison time. From a simple Law of Demand analysis, if the cost of some action is low the prevalence will be greater than if a higher cost is imposed.
It is true that the U.S. is an outlier compared to many European countries on the homicide rate, but as Glenn mentions there are significant differences in homicide by racial and ethnic groups – no matter the ultimate causes of the disparities. For example, among non-Hispanic whites the homicide rate has been hovering around 2 per 100k in recent years – this is the same homicide rate as Canada, with 4-5 times as many firearms per capita. And while this homicide rate is almost double that of the UK, it’s with 30 times as many firearms per capita. There’s certainly reason to think that higher rates of gun ownership could increase the baseline homicide rate, but the magnitude of the effect size is probably much lower than is conventionally believed.
Kyle, thank you for your comment and especially the constructive tone. We already have a federal reporting requirement for licensed gun dealers as well as a tracing system so it doesn't seem like a stretch to extend coverage more broadly. Many states have reporting requirements and NJ has civil liability for some owners and weapon types if an unreported stolen gun is used for a crime. And such liability (for original owners) doesn't increase incentives to scratch off serial numbers for those in possession of the stolen guns. Smart guns are rare in part because there is no incentive to pay the extra cost, but they would be cheaper to insure, and perhaps easier to access quickly than a gun in a safe. I don't know about the magnets but it doesn't seem like making the guns secure would be technologically insurmountable.
My goal has been to offer policy solutions that don't try to target ownership, given both 2A constraints and the low correlation between ownership and homicide at the state level. Discussed this issue at length with Bari Weiss and David French on her podcast recently. Anyway, just my two cents. Thanks again for the comment, much nicer that some I'm getting on YouTube (telling me to go back to selling slurpees at a 7-11 or learning how to speak English).