One Gun a Month - will it work?

One gun a month - a gun control measure backed by the Clinton administration. What does it mean, how does it work?

And, most importantly, could it have a positive effect on reducing crime, preventing accidents, and reducing or preventing suicides?

This Libertarian says "no", and what's more, he thinks it's a crock! And, we're not talking reptiles here either.

Let's look at how this silly law is supposed to work.

The Concept and Objectives

The concept is really clear - you can only buy one gun each month from a Federal Firearms Dealer. Whether that's a 30 day period or a calendar month, it doesn't matter - you can only buy 12 firearms each year from a dealer, whether that is in his shop, or at a gun show.

Objectives of the law are:

1. Reduce the number of arms that an individual can accumulate.
2. Cut down on the number of guns "on the streets".
3. Eliminate large purchases intended for resale.
4. Maintain a list of individuals and the date they purchased a firearm.

Effects of the law are:

• Interferes with free trade of a legal product.
• Gun collectors are penalized for criminal activity of others.
• A registry and database is created that identifies the dates of lawful purchases of firearms by law-abiding individuals.

Does it Prevent or Reduce Crime?

Criminals very rarely buy their guns through a Federal Firearms Dealer, so this doesn't stop any criminal from accumulating as many guns as they want, any time they wish.

One gun a month programs don't cut down on the number of guns criminal have out "on the streets" either because criminals don't follow the law.

Large quantity purchases for resale are only affected if the sales take place at a Federal Firearms Dealer. The effect of the law will be to shift large purchases from dealers to the black market. The black market isn't regulated, so the law would have no effect there.

One gun a month programs would require a list of gun purchasers and dates of transaction, and would likely include what they purchased. This is a clear violation of privacy and is tantamount to gun registration.

Molotov cocktails are made from gasoline, but no one is crying out for one gallon a month restrictions on fuel purchased in containers. Why not?

Cars are often used as get away vehicles, yet we aren't calling for one car a month purchase restrictions. Why not?

One gun a month isn't looking very sensible or well thought out is it?

Does it Prevent or Reduce Accidents?

Gun accidents are closely related to gun handling and storage, not how many guns you're allowed to purchase. As an example, you don't get into more car accidents because you own more cars, you get into more accidents because of how you drive.

There will be no appreciable prevention or reduction in gun related accidents because of such a law.

Does it Prevent or Reduce Suicides?

Suicide by guns is unaffected by one gun a month purchase restrictions. You can commit suicide before or after your first gun purchase. Either way, the restrictions have no effect on you. They don't stop you before the fact, and they don't apply to you after the fact.

Also, you don't have to wait months to accumulate a number of firearms before you can commit suicide. So, there isn't a logical connection between this one gun a month proposal and a reduction in suicides.

My Observations

I object to one gun a month purchase restrictions on many points. Let's take a look:

• The law only applies to the law-abiding. Criminals aren't restricted to one gun a month, and these are the people that should be restricted.

• As a crime fighting law, it would be much better, and just as effective to pass legislation that limited criminals to "one crime a month". Either way, the criminals aren't going to follow the law.

• This law interferes with free trade of a legal product. We aren't restricting knife or baseball bat purchases to one a month, so we shouldn't do that for anything else.

• The outcome of the law is a database of gun purchasers that are law-abiding people. It could easily morph into a database of what was purchased as well. Who cares what law-abiding people are doing until they violate a law with their gun?

• This is another preventive law. We hope that crime will be prevented by limited the number of guns that can be purchased. If this was really possible, we'd have taken guns away from criminals long ago, but that just isn't possible. Crime is prevented by people having guns to defend themselves, and by putting criminals behind bars or under the ground.

• There is nothing intrinsically evil about purchasing multiple firearms in a single month, anymore than it is intrinsically evil that someone hasn't purchased a firearm for years. This infringes on our liberty, plain and simple.

• One gun a month laws open the door to other restrictions as the "camel is allowed to get his nose under the tent". What is next, a restriction on the amount of ammunition you can stock up on? How about the number of grips, scopes, gun stocks, and rifle slings you can buy?

  It is easy to see how a one gun a month restriction can easily morph into a restriction on the number of guns you can own at one time, or over the course of a lifetime. The idea is simple, if we can regulate this, then why not that?

• What does it matter if you own 35 firearms? Does that make you more dangerous? No more dangerous than someone that owns 35 knives. It's the people behind the guns that make them dangerous, not the number of guns owned by the people.

Done with One Gun a Month, take me back to Gun Control