5 myths about guns

[Straw Man]

21. Nope -- several false premises there.

The argument is that because no law will ever be 100% effective in preventing criminals "from getting their hands on pretty much any sort of gun they might want," the attempt should not be made.

First of all, that's one hell of a straw man you've constructed there, and it's no kin of mine. There are already numerous laws designed to do exactly what you say. Some of them are successful. Some of them are not, and the objection is not that they aren't 100% effective -- it's that they're more like 10% or 5% or 0% effective in preventing crime. Furthermore, they're not without consequences in terms of things like enforcement budgets, public trust, the electability of Democrats, and rights.

Ever since the NY SAFE Act of 2013, it's illegal for me to go to the trap range and swap shotguns with person next to me so that we can try each other's gun: two "exchanges" without background checks, and two more when we return the guns to the original owners: four Class A misdemeanors in a five-minute swap. Tell me how that level of restriction has anything to do with crime or mass shooting or public safety. Two legal gun owners, exchanging guns temporarily, using them in each other's presence on private property, and returning them immediately. Yet this is illegal. "Universal background checks" sound great in principle, but honestly they mean nothing to convicted felons who steal their guns or buy them on the street: that's "nothing," as in 0% effectiveness. More on NY's universal background checks here: http://www.albanylawreview.org/Articles/vol79_4/1327%20Jacobs%20PRODUCTION.pdf

Furthermore, the laws against child pornography don't distinguish between people who should be able to possess it and people who shouldn't be able to possess it. It's not a question of "getting their hands on it"; it's a question of it existing at all. It shouldn't. There is no such thing as acceptable child pornography. Any law that does anything at all to inhibit the traffic in it should be implemented immediately.

There is such a thing as acceptable gun ownership, and the legal system needs to be careful where it draws the line between acceptable possession and unacceptable possession, so as to have maximum impact on crime without unnecessarily infringing on the rights of the law-abiding. That is unless you feel that guns, like child pornography, should be banned outright. Is that the case?

There are better ways of achieving the goal of keeping guns out of the hands of those who shouldn't have them. A licensing system for gun owners is one: fairly effective and reasonably unobtrusive. Pass a test to get your license, renew it periodically, surrender it if convicted of a violent crime, and otherwise just use to to freely purchase or borrow firearms. It works for drivers, helping to keep the unfit off the road. Why not for guns?