"We need gun control," Biden, et al, declare. Or not. Radicals to the left of me, jokers to the right, here I am, stuck in the middle ... with me. No one can deny that there are too many people being killed by people with guns. Simply going by facts, guns have a higher killing capacity at a longer range with a larger number of targets. I mean, rocks can kill, but how many can you kill before you get overpowered? A rock is not as powerful as a gun. There is a problem, and it needs to be addressed. We're all in agreement. Right up to there and no further.
The problem is we can't define ... anything. Are guns killing people or are people killing people? Do we need to change minds or the Constitution? Is it a personal problem or a societal problem? We can't even figure out just what an "assault weapon" is.
The range of definitions for "assault weapon" is broad. Some go low with "Any gun that can fire more than one projectile." That would include most guns, some shotguns, and even paintball guns. (Don't laugh. It has been tried.) At the other end it only includes those weapons that can be switched between automatic and semi-automatic -- called "select-fire" weapons. Okay, but automatic weapons are largely outlawed and heavily regulated and they're still wanting to outlaw "assault weapons," so that can't be it. Some mistakenly think that the famed "AR-15" stands for "Assault Rifle"-15, but the truth is the AR stands for "Armalite Rifle," so that's no help. And, as it turns out, far fewer gun deaths occur from "AR-15 style weapons" than from handguns ... or even "hands, fists, feet, etc." The only reasonable definition for "assault weapon" would have to be "any weapon that can be used for assault," but that would require a ban on baseball bats, knives, and SUVs to just name a few. As you can see, we're not getting any closer to a definition of the problem.
Some push for what they term "common sense gun control." I contend that "common sense" died in the early 21st century, but, okay, what is that? Ban military weapons for civilians and high-capacity magazines. Okay. Fine. The angry left says, "That's not enough!" and the loony right says, "They're just planning to take away our guns!" Both are wrong ... and not. You see, if we can't define "assault weapons" and we just go, without definition, and take away these assault weapons, what stops us from taking away those tomorrow? "First they come for our guns. Then they come for our knives." Silly? Sure ... but not entirely. (You know when they made Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, they had no notion of extending protection to sexual orientation or gender identity.) "It's not enough"? Possibly. But without definition or even a nod to the fact that guns don't kill people, it becomes what we call "a dangerous precedent." And it illustrates that "common sense" is not common.
Look, you can make as many laws as you want. It won't stop lawbreakers from breaking them. If it makes you feel better, go ahead. Just don't complain to me when they outlaw your favorite pasttime. I'm okay with it; you may not be. You can go ahead and limit rights to a large degree. It won't stop angry people from taking lives. You can demand people be nicer to each other until the cows come home, but if people are not nicer inside, law enforcement won't make a difference. Just look at our "war on drugs." Jesus said, "What comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart, and this defiles a person. For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness, slander" (Matt 15:18-19). We can tack on "illegal use of a firearm" to that list. And all we're talking about is changing the tools evil hearts can use.
4 comments:
You have thought this through well and expressed yourself equally well (as usual)!
~Lorna~
If I remember correctly, less than 500 people a year are killed with rifles of any kind. even if all of those are "assault rifles", that still isn't going to make a dent in the numbers. If people are denied "assault rifles", they'll likely resort to shotguns which for most "mass shootings" would actually be more effective.
Also, it looks like the MSM has redefined "mass shootings" to lower the bar/count more shootings. It's dishonest, but it looks good in headlines and Tweets.
Statista reported that in 2020 455 were killed by rifles, 662 by hands, fists, feet, etc., and 8,029 by handguns. Death by shotgun was at 203 and by knife was 1,739. None of us are fine with the murder rates (by gun or anything else), but I'm not sure limiting "AR-15 type weapons" is the best answer. How about knives? Feet? Blunt objects (393)? Seems more like a knee-jerk, gut reaction than a well-considered plan.
That sounds abut right. The last number I remember was 400, but that was a few years ago. If they limit AR-15 derivatives, it will literally have a statistically zero effect on murders. The reality is that once you separate suicides, the gun death number drops dramatically. It seems obvious that suicide is not something that would be dramatically affected by any type of gun ban as there are multiple alternatives to guns. I posted a couple of links at my blog to some conversations about the actual data regarding shootings and the number of defensive uses of firearms regardless of whether shots were fired.
As I've re entered the shooting world over the last two years, I've realized that one of the most important things about shooting is that the shooter must be comfortable and confident in their weapon. Where that becomes an issue is with women. My wife is never going to be comfortable with a shotgun (probably the best choice for home defense), she's reasonably comfortable with our pistol and will become more comfortable with more training. If we were looking at a rifle that she would be shooting, I would probably start with either an AR or a Mini 14 (functionally identical to an AR, but not considered an assault rifle), because the .223 is relatively low recoil for it's power level and both of those platforms are relatively easy to shoot well with. I suspect that is why many women choose an AR for home defense. By banning them, you potentially put them at higher risk in the event of a home invasion by forcing them to something that they are less comfortable with.
As long as the left limits it's acceptable solutions to ban assault rifles, red flag laws, and raising the age, we won't see any appreciable difference in these high profile shootings.
Finally, as long as the news continues to ignore or downplay instances where the mass shooter is black, or where someone uses a car to kill a mass of people, we'll never be able to really discuss the issues driving this problem.
99.9+ % of gun owners are peaceful, law abiding citizens, yet we think that punishing or restricting their freedom is going to deter someone who's ready, willing, and able to break much more serious laws than those regarding gun ownership.
Post a Comment