Assault Weapons Ban Efficacy
Unfortunately, after every mass shooting, people like to blindly jump on the assault weapon's ban train. Whether it makes sense or not, whether people have actually read what the bill would entail or not, people jump on it, claiming the attack couldn't have been done without them. While it's sad people try and push political legislation after the deaths of innocent people, I suppose that's just the way it goes. While it is far from my favorite subject, that is in depth discussing the deaths of innocent people and the best ways to kill lots of people, I guess that's what you get. While I enjoy the sentiment, that you only want to ban the particularly deadly weapons (after all, nuclear weapons and submarines are banned), the assault weapons ban, on all levels, makes close to no sense.
So, these deadly assault weapons; just how deadly are they are? Just analyzing preliminary statistics, according to the U.S. department of justice around 2% of murders use weapons that would qualify as so-called "assault weapons". (Page 2) (Page 98) In fact, only about 9% use a rifle or a shotgun at all (4% and 5% respectively). Roughly 88%, or a confirmed 72% of firearms homicides use a pistol, or a handgun. According to the FBI, in 2012, there were 8,855 total firearm-related homicides in the US, with 6,371 of those attributed to handguns. [1] This is a little strange, considering people continue to assert that these weapons are particularly deadly or should be banned.
So, let's analyze mass shootings, then. In general, it is higher; approximately 40% of mass shootings used an assault weapon. According to some select sources with more particular definitions of assault weapons, it's roughly half. Some believe this puts the nail in the coffin; however, it completely ignores that the other 50% or so are done with non-assault weapons. The argument then that assault weapons are needed, that other weapons couldn't have been used that were just as deadly, is quite silly. Looking at the deadliest mass shootings in the U.S., 32 people were killed with two pocket pistols, one of them a .22 pistol holding only 10 rounds, and the other a glock compact, designed to (but capable) of holding less than 10 rounds, in the Virginia Tech shooting. The 5th deadliest, done by Charles Whitman, used a bolt action hunting rifle, where he killed nearly 16 people. George Hennard also used two pistols, much like the Virginia tech shooter. The deadliest shooting of all time, the Norway Shooter, used a Glock 34, which is designed to only holds on to 10 rounds. So, not only do 50% of mass shootings not involve so called assault weapons, but the deadliest one's of all time do not. The idea that it can't be done with a 10 round pistol, is quite absurd, considering it has, more than once. As a result, there's no obvious connection that assault weapons are more dangerous.
What is actually in an Assault Weapon's Ban
For those of you who support the assault weapon's bill, and you haven't even read it, you terrify me. A nation's democracy is only worth a damn if the people are educated enough to make intelligent decisions. If people support legislation blindly, than we will invariably end up with terrible things. It's how dictators have risen to power, how people voluntarily sign over their rights. You should never vote to take away your rights without first knowing what it is you're even given up. If the vague term of "assault weapon" is enough to get you on board, you just aren't thinking at all. First, anything could be in the bill, such as banning free speech or the like, since you don't know what's in it. Second, anything can be used as a weapon (even speech; the pen is mightier than the sword), and any weapon can be used for assault. Save for say, chocolate weapons, any weapon in existence can be used for assault. To me, this is an automatic red flag due to it's vagueness. It didn't even say "assault gun", or "assault firearm", or "lethal gun", or "kill-kill gun". Just "assault weapon". It could be banning knives or two-by fours for all you know, even if the title is truthful. It's a horrible thing to base it on. And please don't lie to yourself and convince yourself you read it if you haven't, your opinion, your vote, matters to what decides the fate of an entire nation the people within it, so please actually think about it, first.
So, what's actually in the bill? Very roughly, it's all weapons with a pistol grip; forward grip; folding, telescoping, or detachable stock; grenade launcher or rocket launcher; barrel shroud; or threaded barrel. Any weapon with more than 10 rounds, or any shotgun with more than 5 rounds. What are these things? If you support banning them and you don't even know what they are, but they "sound scary", you are the problem in this country. First of all, Grenade launchers and rocket launchers have been banned since 1934; as per the law, any explosive projectile weapon is illegal, and has been for some time. Banning such an attachment then is redundant, such as say, banning murder two times. It's already illegal, thus there's no point. Background checks are already mandatory, and a whole list of things can bar you from getting a gun, such as mental illnesses, a felony, spending more than a year in prison, domestic abuse, or other obvious issues. Getting past the feel-good measures to pat themselves on the back and say they got rid of these non-existent problem, what is the rest of it?
It specifically mentions the pistol grip; forward grip; folding, telescoping, or detachable stock, and barrel shroud; or threaded barrel. Virtually any of this can be made from a 3-D printer, since they're just accessories, and not something that particularly makes the weapon any more deadly in and of itself. This is a pistol grip. I know, it looks so mischievous. [1][2] It's basically a comfortable and ergonomic way to hold on to a weapon; present on a large number of guns, probably most civilian guns, it allows someone to transition from the safe position to a ready to fire position rather quickly without hurting their wrist. Unlike weapons without it, it doesn't penalize the user for the safe carry of his weapon (pointed down at the ground), which in turn teaches them to carry their weapon in a safe manner. There really is no bad thing about this, yet it would be banned. As you can see, guns without said grips do not look too terribly dissimilar without them. Removing a comfortable grip just increases the chances of an accident while having no way to stop a shooter who needs all of 10 minutes to shoot a gun; while removing the steering wheel of a car might have "some" impact on get away drivers, it will far more likely cause more accidents, which is more deadly in the long run. "Even if you save just one life", you'll be taking far more than that, making it a far greater risk to do. This is an adjustable stock. Terrifying, I'm sure. Adjustible stocks not only make a weapon more comfortable, but make them universal. Smaller people, or shorter people, can adjust it to be shorter so they can reach the trigger easier; taller people can make their stocks longer, so as not to have to deal with the weapon being too cramped. Woman, men, tall people, short people etc. can adjust their weapon to their own shape, rather than having to form fit a weapon to make it comfortable. Other than simply being a piece of plastic and thus easy to replicate, it makes the weapon easier to hold on to, and, like the pistol grip, in no way actually enhances the lethality of the firearm. The bullet out of a weapon with a fixed stock won't suddenly be any less deadly. All a person has to do is ignore the pain for 15 minutes, take drugs or just put something soft on their shoulder instead and, voila, problem solved, assuming they couldn't literally carve out of wood or make a plastic mold. Finally, perhaps the most draconic, is the barrel shroud. Basically a handguard (easily made from wood or plastic), it keeps the user from getting burned. Nothing says "less dangerous" like removing the protective covering off of something to keep a person from being burned. While in theory you could say, wear oven mitts or other protective gloves to prevent this, expecting a civilian to carry around oven mitts at all times to operate their weapon is, well, draconic. It's hard enough to pull a pistol in the 2 seconds the bad guy has a gun pointed at my face, let alone put on gloves before I do it. All you do is add extra steps to my shooting, make it more uncomfortable, while doing nothing to stop a planned attack. Unfortunately in self defense, I have no time to plan an attack; I've got a few seconds ot draw my weapon and fire. The guy who's spent the last hour suiting up, picking the location and such for months? Yeah, he doesn't have the problem of the race to put on all my protective fire gear so I can use a weapon in self defense without losing the use of my hand. To pretend this would stop a mass shooter is nothing short of nonsensical, and to implement it would be nothing short of a vicious attack on ordinary people. The only moral, decent, sane people who couldn't implement this are those totally ignorant to it's contents.
The fact this got a 40% support in the senate, is terrifying. That our politicians are that ignorant or insane, terrifies me.
10 Round Magazine Ban
By and large, this argument makes the most sense. While I still disagree, it at least has some sound reasoning. After all, if we limit the amount of rounds in the magazine, people won't be able to shoot as many bullets, right? Unfortunately, this is wrong. A person can quickly reload, thus adding more bullets to their gun after they run out. Fundamentally, this has little impact on how fast a person can shoot. As you can see, a person can in theory reload a magazine rather quickly. In less than 2 seconds, you can put another magazine in. A person can only practically shoot so quickly, that is, they have to aim in between shots to practically stand a chance of landing on the target. So, having the ability to shoot faster doesn't even necessarily mean a chance to kill more people. Unless a person can shoot faster, the gun's speed doesn't even matter. Because few people can reach the upper limits of what a gun can shoot in theory (600 RPM+), then it really has little bearings on total lethality (as evidenced by the fact that many of the deadliest mass shootings in history used 10 round magazines or less). As I've hopefully demonstrated, it doesn't even really make you practically much faster.
Another question is, why 10? Why not, 11, or 12? What makes 10 the magic number? How do you know it's the exact figure civilians need in self defense, but just too little for criminals to use? How do you know it's not dangerous, or that it is dangerous to use more? Seems a bit arbitrary, right? Has a study been done that proved that being allowed a 30 round magazine really made a shooter more deadly? Cause if not, this is kind of pulled from nowhere. I won't tell you where you likely got the number, but I can tell you it's somewhere brown and sticky (Protip: An almond chocolate bar. Wait, that wasn't really a hint, was it?). I don't say this to insult you or attack you, but rather to get you to think about your opinions. Why 10? It seems pretty much chosen at random.
So, then, if holding to more rounds doesn't make me shoot faster or more deadly, why then do I, as a responsible gun owner, want one? The first reason is really more so because if it's not dangerous, it shouldn't be banned. We shouldn't just ban things "just because", we should err on the rights of civilians. If we don't have a reason to rain on someone's parade, let them be. That's a fundamental idea of this country; live and let live. Secondly is convenience. True, I could reload as quickly if I was fully suited in my tactical gear and mentally prepared for a battle. But sadly, self defense is rarely fought under ideal conditions. I won't have several months to prepare an assault like the killer, I will have 2 seconds and whatever I keep on my person. If that's a pocket knife, it's a pocket knife. If that's a gun, it's a gun. Because carrying full combat gear everywhere I go isn't practical, larger magazines become a boon. Because a 10 round magazine is more or less going to be the same sized magazine as a 30 if the gun is comfortable, it's easier to carry rounds this way. I can carry rounds in say, 2 15 round magazines, one in my gun, and one in my pocket, to be easy, to have 30 rounds. Instead of only having 20, I can carry 1.5 times as many rounds in what I can practically fit on my body. It makes my job a lot easier, so I don't have to carry around fully combat gear everywhere I go. The killer has the advantage, because he can spend hours or more preparing, and I've got what I can carry on my person. Sure, in theory I could carry 10, 10 round magazines on my person, but it's much easier to carry 2-3 30 round one's. In a practical self defense scenario, it's only the defender who is left at the disadvantage.
The last one is more or less, because I'm human. I'm going to have a lot to juggle should I ever be in a real, active shooter scenario. I have to worry about hitting innocent bystanders, about my bullets shooting through a wall and hitting someone, about maybe angering the guy and getting him to shoot more people, about the cops mistaking me as a shooter, and so on. Even in the best case scenario, I'm taking a life, which is no small quandary to ponder. It's normal for a human being to hesitate or have second thoughts about killing someone, even if we know that it would save more lives or ultimately be the morally right thing to do. With all of this to juggle, why would I want to take my attention off of the environment, off of what's in front of me, and put it on the gun? All the killer has to do is shoot as many innocent people until he dies or gets arrested; if he makes a mistake and hits someone, so much the better. He has no moral qualms and no hesitation, no problems. Virtually every mass shooter in history has been on some kind of powerful drug, so even if they did have these problems, they don't care about others or understand what they are doing when they are high on meth. I don't have these kinds of luxuries. I have to weigh everything going on around me, and take down one very specific target to win, he just has to injure people until somebody physically takes him to the ground. Why would you want me to take the focus off of he important things and needlessly put it on my weapon? 10 times more reloads means 10 times more distractions, distractions I don't need. For a merciless killer, this means nothing. For a good moral person, with actual empathy, this is a tremendous problem. The only person you stand to actually benefit from this, is the killer.
Well, you can still keep your other weapons!
Actually, no. In addition to all the features listed, 157 firearms have been listed by name. So, even if we complied and removed these so-called "military features", they would still ban, by name, a host of weapons. This includes, the AR-15, the Ak-47, the FN FAL, CETME, G3, and virtually all the most popular weapons in America. It doesn't exactly ban semiautomatic shotguns, but any semiautomatic or revolving shotgun on the market is more or less banned, because there are so few, and it lists the "type", rather than specific weapons (although in some cases, it does list specific weapons). The argument I could just get a revolver instead is well, kind of diminished when some of the most of the popular revolvers are banned despite not possessing any of these features. So, the idea that, well, it won't stop people from taking away your normal hunting rifles or revolvers, or your double barrel shotguns, is hopefully blown out the water.
Fundamentally, I'm not opposed to gun control or weapon control in general. There's no need for a nuclear weapon, F-16 or tank, and background checks and grenade launcher bans seem fairly reasonable, a small price to pay. In many cases, these weapons aren't even practical for self defense. But this? This is absurd. Only the most brainwashed drone or ignorant person could even begin to believe any of this. If you take the time to read and research, which I beg of you, you will realize this makes no sense. In many ways it's the exact opposite of what we should be doing, since small, concealable weapons easy to conceal from the general public or security are largely what allow people to sneak in weapons and kill people. Big guns get you caught quickly. All in all, even if you believe in strict gun control, this is not the path to take. While I'm satisfied with what we've got, this makes no sense. Fundamentally, the statistics don't support it, and neither does common sense. For those of you worried about doing nothing, violent crimes with firearms have fallen nearly two thirds since 1993 (which isn't considered by most to even be a particularly violent time period), [1][2] and homicides have fallen by half. What we're doing now is working; while many of you don't realize it, violent crime with firearms is falling, and if we stay the course it will continue to drop. The idea that it's getting worse is only exacerbated by the media, that is people realizing that it's happening at a greater rate rather than it actually happening at a greater rate. Not supporting an assault weapon's ban is not the same as doing nothing, or not having morals. Rather than believing in this rhetoric blindly in an effort to randomly do "something", maybe we should take a step back, think first, and then decide what to do after we've come to a rational decision. Randomly doing something that pops in to our mind is rarely a good idea.
Edited by Manoka, 05 December 2015 - 07:22 AM.