Quote of the day—Nicholas James Johnson

Without a commitment to or capacity for eliminating the existing inventory of private guns, the supply-side ideal and regulations based on it cannot be taken seriously. It is best to acknowledge the blocking power of the remainder and adjust our gun control regulations and goals to that reality. Policymakers who continue to press legislation grounded on the supply-side ideal while disclaiming the goal of prohibition are deluded or pandering.

Nicholas James Johnson
Fordham University School of Law
December 1, 2008
Imagining Gun Control in America: Understanding the Remainder Problem
[H/T to eriko in the comment to this post.

Just reading the abstract is scary eye-opening. Here are just a couple sentences:

the temptation is to view Heller as the central obstacle to effective gun control. This is a mistake born of our failure to confront the incoherence of pre-Heller supply-side controls. This article elaborates the supply-side ideal as the foundation of our most ambitious gun control proposals, explains the remainder problem and the defiance impulse as both cultural and physical phenomena that block supply-side rules, and evaluates a series of familiar gun-control proposals in the context of these structural barriers in order to identify which can work and which cannot.

Some of our opponents are far more intelligent than we give them credit for. Not all of them are the almost useful idiots like MikeB302000 and Japete.—Joe]

14 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Nicholas James Johnson

  1. Remainder, heck. I didn’t read the article, but if every gun in the US vanished tomorrow, in weeks, months or years, criminals would be resupplied by theft from cops and military, smuggling and clandestine manufacturing. Look at guns in Mexico. Look at cocaine, heroin, pot.
    But it’s not just gangsters who would defy a gun ban, it’s also patriots. And that’s what the statists hate.

    • PhillaBOR, do NOT be deluded into thinking that this push for gun control is about CRIME control. It isn’t, it’s about removing the guns from ALL of the society so as to make way for an uncontested dictatorship.

      The only thing we can’t know yet is how benevolent the dictatorship might or might not be. In other words, will our enslavement be easy or harsh.

      Also, do not be deluded that we aren’t already in the fight. The line between us being considered as dissidents exercising our rights and the putative dictatorship considering us insurgents is but a line in the sand, and the blowing wind will soon cover that line.

  2. The download is free.

    You really do need to read this. It is not what you were expecting- I’m only 1/3 into it, and it’s BACKING UP JOHN LOT’S CONCLUSIONS and explaining the fallacy of “less guns = less crime? And mentions he may not have gone far enough??? With foot notes…

    13. John R. Lott, Jr. & David B. Mustard, Crime, Deterrence, and Right-to- Carry Concealed Handguns, 26 J. LEGAL STUD. 1, 28 (1997). See generally JOHN R. LOTT, JR., MORE GUNS, LESS CRIME: UNDERSTANDING CRIME AND GUN CONTROL LAWS 19 (2000). Several critics have now replicated Lott’s work using additional or different data, additional control variables, or new or different statistical techniques they deem superior to those Lott used. Interestingly, the replications all confirm Lott’s general conclusions; some even find that Lott underestimated the crime-reductive effects of allowing good citizens to carry concealed guns.

    • Yes indeed. Almost all the way through it, and I still have no clear idea what the author’s personal preferences on all this might be. It’s a very good and *scholarly* take on the difficulties of banning/confiscating.

      • Yeah. I mostly changed my mind about him by the time I was all the way through it. I still need to write up some stuff about it though.

  3. I ran in to that a couple weeks ago while trying to find interesting pro gun control papers. Initially I was not sure if the paper was written as a troll to pro gun control folk. I still have not found any interesting pro gun control paper. I have sent this paper to a number of people with a preface to look at the level of intrusion that would be needed to restrict the firearm supply to the small number of people that use them will ill intent.

    Why am I looking for interesting pro gun control papers? I think that discovering that I am wrong about something is one of the most satisfying things I can do. So I check my assumptions. I was once reflexively anti gun and not I am thoughtfully anit gun control. I just would to check my thought process by validating it against the opposition. This is why, even though I hate it, I can really appreciate how well written 5737 is http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=5737&year=2013 . They are learning.

    • Challenging assumptions (heck, even recognizing them) is a hard thing to do, and something most people really suck at. I’d say I’m better than most, but still not very good. It’s part of the reason that I believe rhetoric / debate / language is one of the most important subjects a young person can learn, because it helps to teach them to think logically. Makes teaching them math and science much easier.

      • I don’t know, but they should be keel-hauled (slowly and stem-to-stern, not side-to-side) just for proposing the idea.

  4. I just finished reading the article, it is certainly interesting, but ultimately just a long lament that what the antis want is just not achievable as the last paragraph makes clear.

    “Without a commitment to or capacity for eliminating the
    existing inventory of private guns, the supply-side ideal and
    regulations based on it cannot be taken seriously. It is best to
    acknowledge the blocking power of the remainder and adjust our
    gun control regulations and goals to that reality. Policymakers who
    continue to press legislation grounded on the supply-side ideal while
    disclaiming the goal of prohibition are deluded or pandering.”

    I am not sure what the authors intent was, he advances no ideas other than a vague hope that at some time in the future Heller will be overturned, I am guessing the authors head just about exploded following the MacDonald decision. Ultimately all this article proves is that the antis have no real new ideas and will never be able to overcome resistance from the population at large with their gun banning schemes so it is better to just forget about trying to do so all together. At least that is my take away from this.

  5. Primers. Currently, a few friends and I together could fabricate every component except for primers. That’s what came to mind, reading this.

  6. I don’t think primers are all that tough. Strike anywhere match heads to replace the active component of a used primer would be a decent first approximation. Better approximation of commercial grade primers wouldn’t be far behind.

    • Functional primers are not hard to make, just dangerous. The technology is of 19th century chemical and technical sophistication and may be carried out in any kitchen or garage.

      Primers suitable for long range accuracy are more challenging, but feasible.

  7. Pingback: Quote of the day—Rivrdog | The View From North Central Idaho

Comments are closed.