Organization: Computer Science Department,  Stanford University.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics
Date:         Thu, 9 Apr 1992 12:59:03 -0700
From:         Andy Freeman <andy@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
Subject:      Re: gun control again?

>Haven't we been here before? :)

Yup.

>[accidents] might be addressed by requiring the equivalent of a
>driver's license -- a user's permit that can be acquired after one has
>demonstrated at least a rudimentary understanding of safe use (via
>equivalents to the driving test and written exam) and the various laws
>involved (via the written test).
>
>Would requiring such a license for the purchase of a gun violate the second
>ammendment?

It depends very much on the details.  For example, how objective
is the process?  (The "moderate" Brady Bill allows police chiefs to
arbitrarily delay or deny permission to purchase, with absolutely
no recourse.)

To me, the interesting question is whether such a system can have a
useful effect, and whether it could be implemented profitably (so that
the cost was less than the benefit).  Those of you who remember
previous versions of this discussion (or who've done the relevant
research; there's a reason that I provide cites) know that we're
talking about well under 2k lives/year, and that overstates the
potential benefits because not everything that is classified as an
accident is an accident in any reasonable sense.  (For example,
dueling hunters or suicides misclassified by police who figure that
"gun cleaning" is a blessing to the survivors.)  If we concentrate on
certain legal channels, we miss a large fraction of the "at risk"
population.

Gun safety isn't complicated (the NRA has outstanding safety programs,
but most are too big, because they are aimed at specific audience,
although this is changing as the NRA spends millions to work on more
general programs*).  It is simple enough that it can be taught in
elementary schools in an afternoon (which is basically the only way
that you're going to reach the entire "at risk" population), but it
won't be as long as people think that teaching kids how to not shoot
themselves is teaching them to like guns.**

-andy

* - I'm not a member, but I do know some things about the NRA.
(They'll send info to people who ask, and I review for-member info
with acquaintances who belong.)  The NRA itself is a non-profit that
does absolutely NO political activity.  Membership dues provide the
bulk of its money and they go to producing a nice magazine, safety and
competency programs, Olympic training, and some history and hunter
stuff.  (I think that the hunters are being fleeced, but ....)  There
are a couple of political affiliates, but they are very small and have
less money than HCI, the major gun control organization.  (There's an
interesting difference in funding for the political gun and anti-gun
groups.  The anti-gun groups get most of their money from just a few
places and in huge amounts while the pro-gun groups rely on small
donations from pretty much all over.  There's also a difference in
organization; the gun groups have a significant grass roots presence,
but love to fight among themselves.  The anti-gun political groups are
fairly united and rely on pros and semi-pros.)  No gun control
organization spends a significant amount on safety; all are
fundamentally, if not legally, involved in political advocacy.

** - I find the "sex ed can be a good idea" arguments rather
compelling; the "gun ed" arguments are much the same.

BTW - I'm not saying that elementary school children are at risk, I'm
saying that elementary school is the last time one can reach a large
portion of the population with any program.
--
UUCP:    {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!cs.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA:    andy@cs.stanford.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU