GunLoon Myths: 20,000 Gun Laws
Another example where the media gets it wrong is the fact they buy into the NRA’s myth of 20,000 gun laws. The standard NRA talking point is that there are 20,000 gun laws which should be more than enough and if we just enforce those (as opposed to new laws), there’ll be no problems regarding gun-related crime.
A complacent and compliant media buys into this myth.
Of course, there aren’t 20,000 gun laws.
So how many gun-control laws are there? Recently, we assembled a significant new database of major state gun laws, including laws governing how firearms are designed, manufactured, sold, and possessed, that sheds some light on the 20,000 figure. Although we didn’t include every possible law, our count yields approximately 300 different state laws as of 1999. These laws were defined as those that affect the manufacture, design, sale, purchase, and possession of firearms. Adding the few federal laws wouldn’t appreciably increase the total.
This is something so typical of this debate.
Both side just love to conjure up huge impressive numbers that impress idiots who don’t look any further than what somebody shows them.
20 000? well, if every county made but six entries concerning firearms (like noise regulations, hunting zoning etc. …) we’d have 20 000 “laws”. So, we probably DO have 20 000 laws, like that matters.
I think it’s really time to restrict firearm legislation to state level, and hunting regulations to a single agency, as to do away with our current patchwork of “20 000″ laws.
For the record, I am a gun rights advocate (click my name for my own blog), but I dislike idiocies like the one discussed here, regardless of who uses them.
Comment by Michael Hawkins — September 9, 2007 @ 6:40 pm
So, we probably DO have 20 000 laws, like that matters.
In reality, though, we have nowhere near that number. Look, if somebody murders someone–there are laws against murder at the federal, state, and local levels. That doesn’t mean there are more than three laws against murder; a perpetrator is going to be tried on one.
And, let’s face it, most of the laws at the local level are of the “no shooting squirrels in the public park” variety.
Comment by Administrator — September 9, 2007 @ 7:14 pm
How convenient. An author completely funded by anti-gun groups writes an article that has to dismiss anything they consider “irrelevant” to justify themselves. Color me shocked. Of course that would contrast w/ the mottled grey I’m wearing after my drill weekend.
Comment by thirdpower — September 9, 2007 @ 7:52 pm
Third: You may be wearing “mottled grey” for all I know; anyone can go to a surplus shop and have their pick. You just aren’t in the military.
As for Johns Hopkins being funded by anti-gun groups–well, you’re just being delusional again.
Comment by Administrator — September 9, 2007 @ 8:36 pm
So you apparently have ignored everything on the particular groups the Joyce Foundation funds when it comes to firearms.
Nope, no surplus shop. Supply. The battalion had extra uniform funds so we’re getting two more sets.
You keep trying to get a rise out of me w/ your silly little antics. It’s funny in a “this TV sitcom has been on for way too long” kind of way.
Comment by thirdpower — September 9, 2007 @ 8:41 pm
Third: Do you have some religious aversion to staying on topic?
Comment by Administrator — September 10, 2007 @ 7:55 am
I don’t know. Why don’t you ask Uncle how Kevin B. banned you from his (uncle’s) site. Kind of like staying on that topic?
Seems I was staying on topic by mentioning the obvious bias of the article as well as it’s technical deficiencies.
Comment by thirdpower — September 10, 2007 @ 8:19 am
Third: You offered no proof of any bias. Nor did you offer any refutation the study is wrong.
I can’t help that sites like the coward Kevin Baker and SayUncle ban dissenting views. Kinda Stalinistic, don’t you think?
Comment by Administrator — September 10, 2007 @ 8:22 am
What’s there to refute?
Didn’t we establish that it simply boils down to what you call a law, and what you dismiss as being superfluous? (i.e.: semantics)
Comment by Michael Hawkins — September 10, 2007 @ 8:37 am
Michael: The fact is the vast majority of these gun laws are duplicates/redundant and are preempted by either state or federal law.
Nor is it a matter of semantics. The gun lobby is trying to present the erroneous there are 20,000 different and separate laws. In reality, there are closer to 300.
It’s also interesting Vernick and Hepburn note some 40% of these gun laws were enacted prior to 1970, before there was any gun control activism.
Comment by Administrator — September 10, 2007 @ 9:17 am
So the study admits it chooses to ignore the majority of laws while Jade chooses to ignore funding from the Joyce Foundation.
In the words of Saul Cornell” Obviously Joyce does not want to put money into the hands of gun rights people (that does not seem unreasonable) so the funds for participation of those folks will have to come from somewhere else.”
And since Uncle didn’t ban you, it shows you seem to have some sort of pathological issues w/ telling the truth.
Comment by thirdpower — September 10, 2007 @ 8:45 pm
Third: You been drinking? The “BC” won’t like that.
Comment by Administrator — September 10, 2007 @ 9:18 pm
Why? I’m not on duty.
You’re disconnect from reality is showing. You may want to cover it.
Comment by thirdpower — September 10, 2007 @ 11:48 pm
Gee the book from the ATF just covering all the states & some of the larger cities, is about 3/4 of an inch thick & there are no photos, & most of the the print is about 8 font, and I just guessing there might only be 19,999 laws in there
Comment by The Duck — October 10, 2007 @ 1:18 pm