The Battles Over Gun Control Are Not Over
by Jeffrey Miron on June 30th, 2010
14 Comments
CHICAGO—The day after the Supreme Court cleared a path to overturn this city’s ban on handguns—among the toughest in the U.S.—frustrated city officials began Tuesday to consider new measures to circumvent the high court’s ruling.
At a tense City Hall meeting packed with citizens holding up photos of children who’d been shot, city aldermen discussed forcing gun owners to purchase liability insurance and to undergo criminal background checks and periodic firearms training. They also peppered a firearms-law expert and Chicago Police Supt. Jody Weis with questions while promising to pass something meaningful.
This story illustrates why I personally focus on the consequential arguments against gun control, not just on constitutional aguments.
Categories: My Blog
The free market sprite
That was quite embarrassing this morning, wasn’t it? Having Conason point out what a complete ideologue you are, I mean. Glibertarianism! The Marxism of the right. It’s designed for idiots but you don’t have to learn big words like “proletariat”! I didn’t read your book. Who would? But what will the Austrians over at Lew Crockpot think of it?
Harvard really has come a long way – down.
Jess Austin
Way to stay on topic sprite. Or should I say Joe? Conason was who ought to have been embarrassed this morning. I’m not familiar with his work in general (actually I’d never seen “Morning Joe” until you prompted me to google this), but on that pathetic performance he seems to know as much about economics, history, logic, etc. as Jim Kramer. Asking for unemployment numbers from 1873: hilarious! I also loved his “modesty” in declining the host’s suggestion for a scheduled debate with Prof. Miron right at the end.
I almost hope that Miron got a cribsheet of Conason’s peculiarly-specific questions beforehand, because if not, that’s just scary. Every time Conason stopped hollering to draw breath, Miron calmly demolished his most recent inquisition. Gosh, I wonder if we could pick out a bad year since the Fed regime started? We could start with this year!
Nice “H” animus too. That should score plenty of points with the cretins. Unfortunately you won’t find many of those on this site.
Zack
constitutional arguments shouldn’t be thought of as something separate from consequential arguments. Hayek wrote that “all famous law givers did not intend to create new law but merely to state what law was and had always been” it was “largely the articulation of previously existing practice.”
the constitution can be thought of as a binding historical document which says that because certain behaviors on the federal government’s part lead to certain consequences, they ought to be prevented. this IS is consequentialist approach. they can’t really be separated.
Jeffrey Miron
Zack: totally agree that we should think of the constitution as codifying various “rules of thumb” for policy that tend the generate good consequences.
I wish the constitution were binding, but alas it is not.
So I am just saying we should talk about the consequences explicitly, since that has a better chance of convincing people.
jeff
Robert
Jeff, To give you another arrow to put in your quiver of consequential arguments: http://lawreview.law.wfu.edu/documents/issue.43.837.pdf
This document argues that even if gun control was put into law with draconian regulation and an iron fist to seize them, that we still would have a 400 year supply of firearms on a gray and black market.
Jeffrey Miron
No crib sheet!
dfvzazan
Hmmm… I’m ever impressed by your subjectively selective support of individual liberty. When the US constitution supports libertarian ideals you’re impressively gung ho, when it doesn’t you’re adamantly oppossed to said principles, and when the issue is equivocal, you simply pick a side you prefer.
This is the same Prof Miron that said, “[BP is only as responsible as its contract said it should be,]” right?
Why do we apply different standards to contemporary US citizens? The US constitution essentially guarantees the right to “bear arms,” as any literate, non-ACLU lawyer can translate. If a state wants to limit that right, so be it. However, you can no more deny a US citizen the most basic right to own a firearm, as you can deny him the right to speak his mind or practice his religion publically. (I’m certainly no lawyer, so please correct me if need be.)
Likewise, I’m not sure I fully appreciate the “consequentialist” versus “constitutional” arguments. If there’s something I’m missing, please give me a link to connect the dots. Otherwise, I look forward to your defense.
cheyenne
I think he thinks people would be better educated about gun safety if there were not strict gun laws.
dfvzazan
Ya. I misinterpreted his post. My mistake.
Margie
Great atricle, thank you again for writing.
Matt
By the way — I’d just like to point out that “gun control” is in fact a misnomer; it’s more precise to refer to it as “victim disarmament.”
jesse Dziedzic
Particularly well written writing…
networking social networking
At least some bloggers can still write. My thanks for this article..
IEEE 1394B
What a truly good post!!!
Amazon.com
Barnes & Noble
Borders
Search Jeffrey's Site
Jeffrey’s Recent Posts
Recent Tags
Jeffrey’s Archives
Entries (RSS)