Mass shootings are particularly heinous, but are in reality rare. But such measures do not address the extent of US gun violence. These might seem like steps in the right direction. Many people have proposed banning bump stocks and raising the age on semi-automatic rifle purchases, such as Donald Trump. While there are a number of things to know about the weapons themselves, taking the time to understand some of the complexities of classifying weapons would lead to a more informed debate, where potential policies could be discussed credibly. Some would say that extended magazines have absolutely no place in civilian hands, but many ranchers who deal with wild hogs would disagree. To others it means guns that look scarier than others, without any real consideration to their firing mechanism or caliber.

Headlines call for a ban on all assault weapons, for example, but what actually classifies as an “ assault weapon ?” To some this means automatic weapons, which are already unavailable in civilian markets.

Liberals should know something about guns if they hope to regulate them. What kinds of things should liberals learn about guns? Here I will consider four points: technical distinctions about guns gun violence gun control policy and gun culture. The control solutions can quickly come off as uninformed, and therefore, unserious. While making general statements about the dangers of firearms catches the public’s attention, headlines can often be misleading and even reflect wrong information about what are the most dangerous weapons out there and why they should be seized. Talking about firearms can get very technical very quickly. First of all, such knowledge will help them craft better policy and, second, it will build important credibility when talking to political opponents who assume most gun control advocates do not know what they are talking about. Learning about firearms would have a two-fold purpose for liberals. But nuanced policy, again, requires knowledge.

Even if all guns could be banned, unimaginable financial resources would have to be utilized to track down the estimated 300 million firearms in the United States.īarring the repeal of the Second Amendment, then, gun control advocates will have to push for more nuanced policy. Legislation and policy that proposes this as the only solution politicians can and should pursue does not reflect a pragmatic desire to begin tackling the problem now. Acknowledging the legal parameters framed in the Second Amendment as interpreted by the Supreme Court today, banning all guns is constitutionally impossible. Guns are dangerous, and to pretend that they are anything otherwise is foolish and careless.īanning all guns in the US, however, might be more of an idealistic wish than a path towards meaningful reform. It is easy at this point to say, “I know all I need to know: guns are dangerous and they should all be banned.” Yes. Liberals who wish to enter into the gun control debate must be willing to enter into these debates with better information about guns, gun culture, gun violence, and the Second Amendment. If conservatives have a values problem, then liberals have a knowledge problem. In this post I focus on the liberal puzzle surrounding the role of knowledge in the gun control debate. Last week, I addressed the ways in which conservatives might move into the national conversation surrounding gun violence. See here for Part I on conservatives and gun control.

Gun facts liberas cannot accept