A common response to arguments that attempts to keep mass shooters from getting guns are likely to be futile goes something like this: Maybe gun control canât generally stop mass shooters from getting guns through the black market (or through straw purchasers or through theft or what have you), but sometimes maybe it might â maybe the shooter will make a mistake and get caught by the police in trying to get the gun, or might even be stopped from committing the crime more broadly. Whatâs the harm in trying to do something?
Well, it depends on what exactly youâre trying to do. Sometimes there might be relatively little harm, which is why the NRA was ultimately willing to compromise on an instant background check for buying guns from gun dealers. Likewise, requiring all gun transfers to go through a firearms dealer, who can run a background check and would presumably charge a fee for it, would impose only a modest burden on law-abiding citizens. The burden isnât nil â some people might be tripped up by false positives in the background check databases, and the fee for getting a dealer involved ($25 under California law) may be significant for poorer gun owners. And, as I mentioned, the benefit is likely to be quite modest, limited to prohibited gun buyers who arenât highly motivated to buy a gun (as opposed to, for instance, mass shooters, who are very motivated indeed).
On the other hand, how are you going to stop 20-year-olds from getting guns from their parents? You could, I suppose, require all gun owners to keep their guns locked away even from their adult under-21-year-old children â and to lock them away so securely that the 20-year-old is unable to get it, not with bolt-cutters, saws, stealing keys, [...]
