After the Kyle Rittenhouse trial, I wrote about an incongruity in the outrage around the not guilty verdict in light of the fact that Rittenhouse presented some compelling evidence that he acted in self defense. I suggested that people take pause and think about what a present danger guns are for many people, particularly in minority communities, and how as long as we live in a highly armed society, self defense may be a very important basis for acquittal.
In light of yet another mass shooting tragedy, Matt Yglesias points out another incongruity:
In light of yet another mass shooting tragedy, Matt Yglesias points out another incongruity:
So while a sweeping national gun ban would surely reduce firearms deaths, it would have to be paired with a tremendous expansion of police powers and incarceration.
There is a gaping chasm between this progressive view of law enforcement and mass incarceration and the progressive view of the gun issue. The means through which gun regulations reduce gun crime is that gun laws are enforced and the perpetrators punished. Criminal justice reformers are right to observe that the “tough on crime” posture the ‘90s generated significant costs, and perhaps some will argue that the large increase in murders since 2015 has been worth it for the sake of reducing the scale of overpolicing. I disagree, but it’s not a crazy argument.
If we want to reduce suicides, we should invest in treating depression. If we want to reduce gun crime, we should use aggressive policing to deter illegal gun carrying.
If you create new crimes, someone must be responsible for enforcing them. This will result in a complicated set of distributional impacts along racial and class lines.
There actually appear to be some folks (who I am sure are a very vocal minority) who think the failure of the police to act honorably and swiftly in Uvalde underscores the fact that we need police abolition. Logic dictates basically the opposite conclusion.
We should all at least agree that when current enforcement measures against criminals in our communities seem so ineffectual, we should be skeptical about the ability of law enforcement to absorb greater enforcement responsibility with the current talent and resources at its disposal.
Another sad observation is that, despite whatever issue polls you see, the revealed preference of Americans is that guns and the right to have them are very important. I can't take anyone seriously who says that Americans actually want drastic reform given there is basically no political penalty for inaction.
Last observation. It's purely on the basis of anecdote from what the media elevates as a story, so take it as speculative. I am struck by how reticent the police were when they needed to make a deliberate choice to intervene versus how quick to shoot they have seemed when faced with a chaotic fight-or-flight situation. I am now slightly less of the mind that the police are trigger happy and more that they are just poorly trained to respond.