Another mass shooting by a criminal has once again sparked debate about gun control in the United States. What is gun control and how would we go about doing it? Would it do any good? Is it really what we need to focus on?
A friend of my wife's, normally a pretty conservative fellow, is a pretty big fan of gun control I saw his comments on her Facebook page, most of them the same calls you hear after such a horrible attack as happened in Orlando this past weekend.
I would like to look at a few of these and show where gun control is most likely not the answer. But first, let's discuss briefly, the "shall not be infringed" portion of the 2nd Amendment.
Donald Trump likes to claim Hillary Clinton will abolish the 2nd Amendment. As much as she may like to, if the Constitution is followed at all, that would be difficult to do, if not impossible. Personally, I do believe she will do everything in her power to make it as hard to buy certain guns, ammunition, parts, etc. She will push so many punishing laws upon gun owners as to "infringe" on their rights to have a gun. You see, if you can't afford the ammunition, you won't shoot it. This is how I see government infringing on that right and a way to take away the right without actually doing so.
OK, now looking at my wife's friends demands for gun control:
1. Ban "assault weapons", i.e. semi-automatic weapons
I'm still not sure what an assault weapon is, but for the sake of this argument and in this writing, I am sure he means the AR-15 style rifles. First of all, let me point out that a statistic I saw showed that a very small number of gun shootings in the United States are done with an AR-15 style rifle. Mass shootings, yes perhaps, more are done with this rifle, but not all mass killings are. AR-15 style rifles were banned in the early 1990s with no appreciable drop in the number of shootings. It just isn't used that often. Most of these rifles are purchased for sport shooting or even for coyote hunting. Banning them would only cause someone determined to kill people to find another way... and they will. The last list I saw of proposed guns to ban was pretty long and did not stop with the AR-15 style rifles.
2. # of boxes of ammunition
Her friend stated that he saw no reason anyone should be allowed to have 100 boxes of ammunition. My initial response was, "And who do you think you are to decide how much I do need"? On an average day at the range, if my wife and I both go out and shoot, even just our pistols, we can easily use three or four boxes. If we are having a lot of fun and want to shoot more, that number goes up. A competitive shooter, on a practice day, could go through a lot more than that. One thing to consider, what constitutes a box? When the stores were regulating the amount of .22 Long Rifle bullets you could buy, they said two boxes. It didn't matter if the box was 50, 100, or 250 rounds. It was two boxes. So how many is in the box?
I would also add that it would be impossible to know how many boxes of ammunition a person had, unless it were somehow registered. Then, how do you know if I fired it? It is another impossible attempt to "control guns".
3. Capacity of magazine
I see this one as another feel-good idea that has no basis in reality. I normally carry a gun that holds 7 rounds. I feel woefully unprepared in the event I must protect myself. Seven rounds allows me no room for error. A policewoman friend of ours, who is an expert shot, once had to fire her weapon at a criminal. She fired five times and never hit him. Adrenaline, noise, environment, all affect Whether or not you will hit what you shoot at. I would rather have another 8 rounds to fire. Also consider the number of assailants. If my home is getting broken into and I find myself facing two armed robbers, I better have enough to handle two people, not just one.
The capacity of a magazine or clip is irrelevant in the case of a mass shooting. Magazines can be taped together so you simply flip them over to fire another full magazine. A determined shooter will get off a lot of shots whether or not the magazine/clip is 10 rounds or 30. The only person affected by a law like this will be the defender.
4. Gun show loophole/background checks
I think this is one of those issues spoken about that is the most misunderstood and reported, whether intentionally or not. The "gun show loophole" is NOT where you can go to a gun show and buy a gun without a background check. That is an absolute lie told by the gun control crowd. I purchased two guns at gun shows and had to be checked. I bought one from a FFL (Federal Firearms License) dealer from his house and he did one on me from his kitchen table. Any gun seller holding an FFL MUST and will do a background check on a buyer. The "loophole" comes when a private seller, outside of the gun show, sells a gun to another private citizen. I have seen those. They cannot, however, do the purchase and exchange inside the gun show.
I am a member of the NRA...proudly...and I am not, and I don't believe the NRA is against universal background checks for all sales. Perhaps the two individuals need to go to a FFL dealer and have them run a check for them for a nominal fee.
Where the real problem rises is when I want to give one of my guns to a relative or a child, or I want to buy my daughter her first gun. I should be able to do that without need for any background checks between us. If a "heritage/gifting" clause existed, then I believe pushback by the NRA would cease. Remember, the NRA is about tradition too.
5. No need for them
This friend, and others, believe there is no need for these rifles to exist. That is because they have never fired them. They are fun to shoot, plain and simple. They are easy to operate, easy to maintain, and easy to build. Don't forget, they are sexy!!! And yes, they look military, so it lets some people live out a dream. They do not do a very good job of hunting. Believe it or not, they are under powered. They are good for coyotes and small game, but not a good deer rifle. They really are good for a sporting rifle and yes, home defense. If there is civil chaos in my city, you can bet your behind you will find me with my AR-15 and as many rounds as possible protecting my family and home. And with that AR-15 I can reach out and touch you before you are too big of a threat.
6. No need for .50 Cal rifle or automatic
He brought up the fact that anyone can purchase a Barret .50 Caliber Sniper Rifle like the military uses. That is almost true. I am not sure it is the same one, but you can purchase that .50 Caliber rifle...at a pretty hefty cost for the rifle and the ammunition. Not to mention it is pretty hard to find a range that can handle it. No one is going to simply walk into a gun store and purchase that rifle without a very specific reason. Usually that reason is long range rifle competition. Otherwise, the cost of it alone would stop most people bent on using it nefariously. In that case, they would probably get it illegally somehow.
This friend also mentioned that fully automatic weapons didn't need to exist. Now, he mentioned these as if you could buy them off the shelf. You cannot. It takes a lot more paperwork, you must actually register it with the ATF, and you must pay a tax to own it. Again, not just something your everyday shooter has. He said you could purchase a modification kit on the internet and then modify your weapon so it was fully automatic. That may be, but now you have an illegal weapon, so you have broken the law already. So perhaps we make those modification kits illegal. I think they most likely already are, at least in most states.
7. Closed ranges
One of his strangest arguments was that these weapons must only be allowed to be fired on closed ranges. How is that going to stop someone from using one for evil? Also, I live in North Dakota. Lots of open land. Does that mean I cannot fire my AR-15 on a friends land? That is dumb. How am I supposed to hunt prairie dogs or coyotes with it?
His arguments all sounded good to him, but in reality are extremely difficult or impossible to implement. They are nothing more than costly and burdensome regulations that would infringe on our rights and add a little "feel good" to a politician.
I am mostly amused by how most gun control advocates usually reference laws being broken in order to ban something. Fully automatic weapons are illegal to own without proper licensing...but they claim they are all over. Purchasing an automatic weapon through an illegal means is ILLEGAL!!! Straw sales, the purchasing of a weapon for another person who many not be able to, is ILLEGAL! So illegal actions done by criminals means that law abiding gun owners must pay the price? That is crazy!
We do not have a gun problem in America. Well, we do, but it is in the places the politicians don't want to talk about. You see, we have a huge gun problem in the cities where there are the most strict gun laws: Washington, D.C., New York, Chicago, and Detroit. But see, those are hand guns, not as scary as that big bad AR-15. Those are also ILLEGAL guns. We can't bother ourselves with keeping illegal guns off the streets. It is much easier to go after those folks who own their weapons legally and responsibly. And let's not forget, those are criminals shooting criminals...mostly. They aren't a bunch of innocent people out at a night club who were massacred. Just a few innocent children hit by stray bullets, or victims of robberies, etc.
No, what we have is a country who takes God out of the public square and locks Him in a church and then wonders why its people have no values or morals. We have public officials who, instead of looking at the shooter and his background and what is around him, blames his weapon of choice. It doesn't matter if the killer uses a truck bomb, a rifle, a shotgun, or a pressure cooker...people died and we need to figure out how to keep it from happening again. Going after the weapon solves nothing and does nothing but direct our attention away from the real problems.
