National Firearm Agency?
What's the best way to reduce gun deaths in the United States? They're debating that question at the Freakonomics blog at the New York Times.
David Hemenway, professor of health policy and director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center at the Harvard School of Public Health, argues for a bureaucratic solution. He suggests creating a new National Firearm Safety Administration, modeled on the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. NHTSA, he says, has "created a series of data systems on motor vehicle crashes and deaths and provided funding for data analysis," which in turn has "enabled us to know which policies work to reduce traffic injuries and which don’t."
A firearm safety agency, Hemenway argues, "should create and maintain comprehensive and detailed national data systems for firearms injuries and deaths and provide funding for research." In addition, he says, it should "require safety and crime-fighting characteristics on all firearms manufactured and sold in the U.S. It should ban from regular civilian use products which are not needed for hunting or protection and which only endanger the public. It should have the power to ensure that there are background checks for all firearm transfers to help prevent guns from being sold to criminals and terrorists."
(Hat tip: Andrew Sullivan)
COMMENTS
Post a Comment
By using this Service you agree not to post material that is obscene, harassing, defamatory, or otherwise objectionable. Although GovExec does not monitor comments posted to this site (and has no obligation to), it reserves the right to delete, edit, or move any material that it deems to be in violation of this rule.
ABOUT THIS BLOG
Government Executive Staff Correspondent Alyssa Rosenberg takes a look at news affecting the management and operations of the massive federal bureaucracy.
Don't we already have a department that's supposed to do that? Doesn't the "F" in ATF stand for firearms? I'm not sure this would affect ANYONE's safety, but it sure would affect everyone's tax bill.
Michelle Posted Monday, August 25, 2008 9:51 AM"it should "require safety and crime-fighting characteristics on all firearms manufactured and sold in the U.S. It should ban from regular civilian use products which are not needed for hunting or protection and which only endanger the public."
Great, more nanny state mentality. The 2nd Amendment is not about hunting.
Bob Posted Monday, August 25, 2008 12:36 PMIt sounds unconstitutional and excessive.
US Posted Monday, August 25, 2008 3:12 PMHmmm...sounds like a conspiracy to "infringe" Second amendment rights. Justice department should pursue a criminal case against David Hemenway and the Harvard Injury Control Research Center.
Paul Posted Monday, August 25, 2008 4:05 PMThe idea proposed by David Hemenway is deplorable. We already have the BATF, and over 30,000 gun laws on the books. The proposed NFSA is merely an attempt at a run-around of the Constitution, and should be exposed as such. There is already vast amounts of data that can provide the same answers that Hemenway seeks, from groups like the BATF, NRA, and even the FBI. In fact the answers themselves are already well known facts : more legal gun ownership per area equals less crime; and that there are more accidental deaths from doctors than accidental deaths from firearms (ie. children finding guns). It would be much better if Hemenway's funding went towards firearms marksmanship programs in our public schools (perhaps as a part of the Phys. Ed. department). Take away the 'mystique' of firearms, and treat them in a real-life and practical manner.
Allen Davenport Posted Monday, August 25, 2008 6:03 PMNo, No, and again, NO! What PC nonsense! Bean Counters unite. Lawful firearms owners already comply, criminals don't what else do you need to know?
US Customs Senior Inspector (Retired) Posted Monday, August 25, 2008 8:18 PMA few years back, my oldest son entered First Grade and I was invited to a school board meeting to discuss what they thought was a growing issue: guns at the elementary school (this fear, by the way, was spurred by a single uincident on the opposite coast). Turns out the school wanted programs to scare kids to death and to teach them that their parents were bad for owning guns. Needless to say, I was offended. I proposed instead that they invite the NRA to school to teach gun safety...could have heard a pin drop.
Needless to say, I was not invited back.
IBpackin' Posted Tuesday, August 26, 2008 8:17 AMWho is to decide what is not for hunting or self defense,Nato, China, Iran Some South American would be king?
Mark Hoch Posted Tuesday, August 26, 2008 9:00 AMWhat about a "Free Speech Bureau" it could make sure the right to free speech is used in a responsible way.
Philosopher King Posted Tuesday, August 26, 2008 7:06 PMWhat about a "Free Speech Bureau" it could make sure the right to free speech is used in a responsible way.
Philosopher King Posted Tuesday, August 26, 2008 7:06 PM