Skip to comments.Banning ‘Assault Weapons’ Is Not the Answer (Well-intentioned, but ineffective)
Posted on 12/18/2012 5:27:59 AM PST by SeekAndFind
In the wake of the tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary, numerous Democrats have called for legislation banning assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. Unfortunately, such bans are empty gestures, certain to offend many law-abiding citizens but highly unlikely to reduce gun violence.
Simply put, so-called assault weapons are nowhere near the root of the American violence problem. According to FBI data, of the two-thirds of murders that involve firearms, about 69 percent involve handguns rather than rifles or shotguns of any kind. Most estimates place the contribution of assault weapons to gun crime at around 1 or 2 percent. These numbers should not be surprising: Rifles are difficult to conceal, and a criminal who decides to use a rifle has little reason to prefer an assault weapon over any other semiautomatic option. Contrary to popular myth, assault weapons fire only once for each pull of the trigger; they are not machine guns.
The features that define assault weapons such as a folding stock or a pistol grip may look militaristic, but they provide little advantage to someone intent on killing innocent civilians. Adam Lanza used a variant of the AR-15, but he could have achieved the same result with any number of guns commonly employed in hunting and self-defense. As yet there are no reports that Lanzas Bushmaster .223 was outfitted in such a way as to fall under Connecticuts assault-weapons ban (or under the national ban that expired in 2004), and .223 ammo is not unusually powerful; to the contrary, most deer hunters use larger calibers, and many of them are required to do so by state laws.
Further, statistical research has failed to turn up evidence that the federal ban that expired in 2004 did any good. Columbine occurred while the ban was in effect.
A limit on magazine capacity (which was also part of the federal ban) is by far the more plausible of the proposed measures, seeing that Gabrielle Giffordss shooter was tackled while reloading his gun. However, other shooters (such as those at Columbine and Virginia Tech) have had no problem reloading, and still others (such as those at the Aurora movie theater and possibly the Oregon mall) have experienced jams while using high-capacity magazines. The net effect of such legislation would almost certainly be statistically indistinguishable from zero.
Both of these measures raise Second Amendment concerns as well. It is difficult to claim there is a legitimate reason to ban assault weapons, given the above-explained irrelevance of the distinction. And reviving the 1994 bans ten-round cap on magazine capacity would outlaw the standard versions of popular guns such as the Glock 17, which is likely a violation of the Second Amendment interpretation laid out in Heller and McDonald.
The Left would like to take this tragedy as an opportunity to reform our laws in such a way as to make public shootings significantly less likely. This is a noble goal. Bans on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines will not accomplish it.
You don’t have to ban them. You just have to coerce retailers not to sell them.
If major stores don’t want the money, fine. There’s endless dealers that will make up the sales.
Make it less expensive and easier to obtain weapons and ammunition. Try to convince all Americans to arm themselves. Make carry laws easier. THEN we’ll begin to get a handle on the gun problems. Since it’s always the crazy people who do the killing, instead of having to supply two personal references, just the family doctor reference should suffice.
“well intentioned” my foot (or other body part)...
The commies intend to subjugate the citizens of this country, and banning firearms must happen to achieve that goal.
And the sheeperals who follow them are more despicable than this. They support policies without thinking, simply to support their own sense of advocacy-based righteousness.
I say mass shootings have gone up because liberals keep advertising gun control which lets the shooter know nobody is going to shoot back, so I say the time is now to ban all liberals. How many more have to die before we finally decide to ban them?
Want to get rid of half these problems? Make the sale of body armor to private citizens illegal.
Many of these whackos who go on shooting rampages are wearing body armor. Not saying this was the case, however we have seen it in the past.
Just an opinion.
Dick’s announced they are pulling assault weapons. More for the smaller shops.
Many of these whackos are REPORTED TO BE wearing body armor.
It usually turns out to be a tactical vest.
Don't want to ban guns but want to ban clothing? Body armor is strictly defensive. I wan the ability to protect my family when the bullets really start flying. No...you can't hide behind me.
Actually in the cases where it is initially reported that the perp is armored, it is rare that it ends up being true.
In any case, the crimes are usually committed in ‘gun free’ zones so nobody is going to shoot back anyway.
About the only case of body armor being significant was in that LA bank robbery a while back where those guys were armored head to toe.
Though I do know a lot of EMTs who would be rather incensed that you want to endanger their lives by banning body armor.
People always bring up the British Bobbies as an example of law enforcement not needing guns. The reason that they didn’t need guns was that virtually everyone else was armed and citizens defended themselves with personal firearms. There was no reason for the constabulary to carry weapons. Their job was to document crimes and identify perpetrators.
What is the definition of politicizing a tragedy? When the solution does not solve the problem. Its what liberals do!
Here is a legislative proposal:
Let the teachers at each school decide if they want to arm. Couple this with school vouchers so parents can decide if they want their kids going to an armed school or gun free school. If teachers do not want to arm then parents should be allowed to volunteer.
Great platform for 2014!
“This is a noble goal.”
...will we ever cut the sh*&!? There is nothing “noble” or “well intentioned” about the left. Stop trying to work with them The sooner we call them for what they are, the sooner we’ll get our republic back!
“Though I do know a lot of EMTs who would be rather incensed that you want to endanger their lives by banning body armor.”
I would think EMT’s would get it through their job. I am taling about walking into a store, show or going online and buying it.
Good luck gun grabbers in convincing that tough as nails Vietnam Vet who owns my friendly local gun store and always dresses in fatigues and marches around the store with a pistol on his side to stop selling anything. I pity you if you even try, heck he scares me!
Well Intentioned? Taking guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens cannot by definition be “well intentioned”.
How about “well intentioned” removal of the defectives? Does that ring a bell? One seemed to follow the other in 1939 Germany!
Somebody needs to look at the real agenda here and not let the left define the argument.