As you suggest, using research for policy issues is fraught with pitfalls, and, thus, unless I already like the researcher or the organization because they agree with my a priori assumptions, I don't like to do it.
It seems to me that, when you're talking about making laws, you're talking about plain old fashioned horse-trading, so the way to make your case is to figure out what the problem is, and what you want to do about it.
I've identified my take on the brunt of the problem, kids with guns, which is already illegal. You cannot legally purchase a handgun from a federal dealer if you're under 21. In DC, for example, it's already illegal to possess a handgun without a license. In Virginia, you don't need a license but you can't possess one if you're under 18.
The guns work fine despite these laws.
Going to the blackboard and drawing a Venn diagram, there's a large group of people who are never going to use a gun for violence, and there's another group of people who won't be stopped by gun laws, and there's a third group, the ones we can hypothesize wouldn't commit crimes with guns if there was some kind of effective law.
Who's in the third group and how do we stop them?
Wish there was some way to stop the people in group 2, as well. Any ideas? |
