[bicknergseng]

Not OP, but here's some unsolicited thoughts.

While it's true that criminals, by definition, will break the law, all laws are not treated equally by individuals. Millions of people litter or speed despite the law, but I imagine not all who speed in a car also rob banks. It's my understanding that psychological, social, and legal thresholds are not the same for all people, nor are they binary (there's some really great research into ethics thresholds if someone knows of a link). Sure, adding an additional law might not deter the truly determined, but what about those who have a lower threshold for criminal activity? Why not call all manslaughter murder? Would those who commit suicide with a firearm (half of American suicides [1]) choose a more difficult and less immediate method?

So the question might be, how does changing a law affect those thresholds? Maybe we don't stop determined criminals or mass shootings, but maybe we can make a dent in the more than 20,000 Americans who choose to shoot themselves every year, or make a difference in urban gun violence.

That said, I personally believe that American society is probably too violent and too committed to gun ownership change anytime in my lifetime. We as a society value arguing about gun ownership over actually taking steps to reduce gun violence, or even gathering data on it. The folks that crack me up the most are the ones who say things like you can take my gun from my cold, dead hands because that'd somehow be a check on government power, despite the fact that the federal government possesses tanks and stealth bombers and whatnot. Bonus points if they also think net neutrality is bad, even though open information is demonstrably better for civic checks and balances.

[1] http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/suicide.htm

[ensignavenger]

"maybe we can make a dent in the more than 20,000 Americans who choose to shoot themselves every year, or make a difference in urban gun violence."

If those are your goals (and noble goals they are), why not work on health care, notably mental health. If we fixed that, we would probably make an even more substantial dent on the number of suicides, improve the quality of life of those who aren't killing themselves, reduce the amount of urban violence, and even possibly make an impact on mass shootings.

I can certainly understand the compelling societal goal- but I'm a big fan of using the least restrictive (and most effective) means to achieving those goals.

[bicknergseng]

Why not both? Feels like only doing one is like only putting airbags in cars when seat belts are also effective. I don't get why there has to be only one approach to solve societal problems.

[ensignavenger]

Well, I knew someone would eventaully ask this... I should have addressed it in my orginal comment. I kind of hinted at it.

"I'm a big fan of using the least restrictive (and most effective) means to achieving those goals."

That is perhaps the best reason to follow my recommended course. Another reason is simply opportunity cost. Society faces many challenges, and we can't pursue every possible solution to all of them, so it is best to focus first on the best options that are likely to have the greatest impact on the highest priority problems. For the problems noted above, the solution I proposed is more likely in my estimation to have a greater impact, and at a lower cost.