Horvath pushes safety signage as solution to gun violence, aims for gun registry

We need more common sense regulations to protect our communities from gun violence.

My motion with @HildaSolis to strengthen gun regulations in LA County does exactly that, and it just passed! Here’s what it means 👇🏼

— Lindsey P. Horvath (@LindseyPHorvath) February 7, 2023

County Supervisor Lindsey Horvath believes the new regulations she authored with fellow Supervisor Hilda Solis are the “common sense” solutions that will “protect our community from gun violence.”

Horvath shared her enthusiasm about the new rules with her Twitter followers on Tuesday. The move to tighten gun laws is likely a reaction to the recent spate of mass shootings affecting the county and state.

“It will begin the process to require signage in firearm stores to show the clear dangers of guns,” she wrote. “The motion also directs a requirement for the safe storage of firearms in locked boxes, or safes, throughout LA.”

“We also begin the process of asking L.A. County to look into the feasibility and possibility of creating a database of firearms that can be used by first responders,” she wrote, “and examining the establishment of liability insurance for gun owners.”

There is some evidence to suggest that locking up firearms can help reduce the risk of gun violence, particularly among children and individuals who may pose a threat to themselves or others. Studies have found that in homes where firearms are stored locked and unloaded, the rates of suicide are lower compared to homes where firearms are stored unlocked.

However, the impact of safety signs on reducing gun violence is limited. While signage can serve as a symbol of a commitment to safety, it is unlikely to have a significant impact on reducing gun violence on its own. There is limited evidence to suggest that gun safety signs act as a deterrent to potential shooters.

The impact of gun registries on reducing violence is a matter of ongoing debate and research. Proponents of gun registries argue that they can help to identify individuals who should not have access to firearms, such as those with a history of violence or mental illness, and help to reduce the number of guns that fall into the wrong hands.

However, opponents argue that gun registries are ineffective in reducing violence and can even make it easier for criminals to obtain firearms by creating a central repository of information on the location of guns. They also argue that gun registries can infringe on the right to privacy and the right to bear arms protected by the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution.

Research on the impact of gun registries on reducing violence has produced mixed results. Some studies have found that countries with comprehensive gun registries have lower rates of gun violence, while others have found no significant impact.

Based on data from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), it is estimated that there are tens of millions of firearms in circulation in the United States. Given the size of Los Angeles County, it is likely that there are hundreds of thousands of firearms in the area, owned by both individuals and law enforcement agencies. The number of firearms in circulation can change over time due to factors such as sales, transfers, and confiscations.

There are numerous studies that have explored the impact of various strategies and approaches on reducing gun violence. Many have been proclaimed ineffective, including:

• Banning specific types of firearms: A study by the RAND Corporation found that the 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban had limited impact on reducing gun violence and was unlikely to be effective if reinstated.
• Armed guards in schools: A study by the National Institute of Justice found that the presence of armed guards in schools did not significantly reduce the likelihood of a shooting taking place.
• “Gun-free zone” signs: A study by the National Bureau of Economic Research found that “gun-free zones” did not reduce the incidence of mass shootings, as shooters often targeted these areas because they believed that the absence of firearms would make it easier for them to carry out their actions.
• Mental health screening: A study by the National Institute of Mental Health found that mental health screenings alone were not effective in predicting or preventing mass shootings and that a comprehensive approach was needed to address the underlying factors that contribute to gun violence.