On December 14, 2012, 17-year-old Adam Lanza fatally shot 20 children and six adults at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., after killing his mother. Five months earlier, on July 20, James Holmes, dressed in tactical clothing, went into a midnight screening of “The Dark Knight Rises,” setting off tear gas and opening fire on the people in the theater. He was arrested and charged with 24 counts of first degree murder and 116 accounts of attempted murder.
Amidst the emotional stories of each victim, the heroism displayed by others and the anger aimed at the guilty, the debate on gun control has once again sparked up.
There is no doubt that guns make it easier for people to kill other people. Guns, while tools, were made with a deadly purpose. And with pro-gun Americans proclaiming the Second Amendment in the heat of this debate, it seems that politics regarding the regulation, distribution and control of firearms is an unstable, one-lane mountain highway with a thousand foot drop at the best of times.
But we believe in the Second Amendment.
A common response to this is to say something along the lines of “Well, that was intended for the militia.” And yes it is true, the Second Amendment does use the specific words “well-regulated militia” but the militia itself was a group of unprofessional citizen-soldiers that was organized by citizens for the purpose of engaging in rebel activities or to supplement the existing military. We acknowledge both to be no longer relevant or likely, as we have a large and powerful enough military with reserves of troops to never need a militia. And a rebellion, if one should ever happen, would be quelled within days, with precision and minimal collateral damage.
But the Second Amendment has other implications. Early American settlers viewed the right to arms or the right to bear arms or state militias as important for many purposes. Which of these were thought of as most important and ultimately found expression in the Second Amendment is disputed. Some were explicitly mentioned in early state constitutions; for example, “the Pennsylvania Constitution of 1776 asserted that, the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the state.” As for today, we can see that the self defense bit is what is hot on people’s minds.
It has been demonstrated time and time again that the only thing that can effectively stop a bad person with a gun, is a good person with a gun. And we in no way whatsoever believe that an all out gun-ban would ever work or be effective. It is a common fantasy spouted of by liberals and anti-gun activists that gun bans make society safer. This could not be further from the truth.
On the gun-control debate, the topic of Australia often surfaces. Australia enacted a gun ban ten years ago that outlawed shotguns, semi-automatic and automatic weapons in an attempt to reduce gun-related crime. It was seen largely as a failure and they even saw an eventual increase in gun-related crimes. Australia’s Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research acknowledges that the gun ban had no significant impact on the amount of gun-involved crime. If anything, they saw a rise in crime. In 2006, assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent. Sexual assault, Australia’s equivalent term for rape, increased 29.9 percent. And overall, Australia’s violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent. We should learn from Australia’s example.
But there are several gun-control proposals we would like to advocate, specifically concerning easy access and assault weapons.
Most people will agree that violent criminals and mentally unstable persons should not be allowed access to guns. As it stands, there are many ways that these people can get away with obtaining weapons; at gun shows, for example, gun customers are not required to undergo a background check if they purchase from a non-licensed dealer. This is wrong.
We also believe that selling or trading firearms between private parties should be more heavily regulated. If a gun is registered in your name and if you give/sell/trade it to someone else, then the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) should be aware of it. People who don’t do this or lie should be heavily penalized.
Further, in Arkansas there is very little prosecution against people who lie on forms when they buy a weapon from a licensed distributor. This too should be reformed. When people are caught lying on these forms, they need to be punished severely.
We would also like to bring up Title 2 weapons or National Firearms Act (NFA) weapons, which are certain explosives, firearms and other munitions. Currently, all a person needs to do to own one is fill out a form, send it to the ATF and pay a $200 dollar tax; if it’s categorized under “Any Other Weapon,” which includes equivalents to sawed-off shotguns and other novelty weapons like cane guns or pen guns, then it is only a $5 tax.
Violations of the NFA are currently felonies punishable up to 10 years in prison. We believe this isn’t enough. Far heavier penalties should be enforced for violating the NFA, and the fees to obtain Title 2 weapons should increase.
Another way criminals obtain weapons is theft. In Newtown, the guns he used were the shooter’s mother’s. Many criminals are arming themselves and children accidentally shooting themselves because people do not lock up their guns in a safe place.
We know, a gun for home defense will not do any good if it is locked up when a burglar or someone with murderous intent breaks into your home. But it will keep your guns out of that person’s hands, who already by his actions demonstrated that he has no regard for the law. If you are really concerned about self-defense, a Concealed Handgun Carry License allows you to carry your gun with you to most places, and you need only keep it close at hand while you are at home.
In addition to this, we believe that if a violent crime is committed with a gun registered in your name, you should be penalized for it, but not so heavily penalized if you report the gun stolen as soon as possible. As ridiculous and over-stepping as this may sound, the ATF has released statistical evidence showing that most criminals get their guns from robbing other people’s homes. If this will serve as an incentive for people to lock away their guns and effectively keep guns out of the hands of violent criminals, then there should be no reason not to do this.
As far as assault weapons go, we believe they are fun to shoot and interesting weapons to collect, but that is the extent of it. It was with assault weapons that the two gunmen mentioned above killed all those people (and with some handguns). Assault weapons are made with the utilitarian purpose of killing large numbers of people and the weapons used in these cases fit the bill perfectly.
We don’t hide behind far-fetched and desperate pretensions of so-called “practical uses” when it comes to assault weapons, nor are we as paranoid or devoid of reason to believe that one day our government will transform itself into a malevolent and tyrannical entity and march down on us with guns blazing.
Others cling to their want for assault weapons because they feel that they are effective home defense weapons. If you are using an assault rifle for home defense, then you are guilty of serious negligence and you are almost deliberately endangering your neighbors and others in your home. Assault weapons use high-powered rounds that can easily penetrate flesh and go on to travel through walls at the ranges involved in a home defense situation. If you live in a suburban area, a bullet might easily travel into another person’s home and injure a neighbor. A bullet might injure someone in your home if you are not paying attention to what is behind your target.
We have also heard people say that assault rifles are great for hunting and good for putting rounds down range quickly. They might be fun to use while hunting, sure, but at long ranges they are not accurate and if you really need to put a lot of rounds down range at your target in a short amount of time, then we suggest marksmanship classes.
We also suggest you use the type of rifle actually designed for hunting game, as you might have better luck. If you have a good hunting rifle, all you need to do is buy one box of ammo, use half of it to sight in your scope, and take three rounds with you in the field. If you take your time and are a decent shot, you will only need one bullet. If you are afraid of being mauled by a bear or something, then take your handgun.
There is more to be said on the subject but all in all, we do not believe in a gun ban, but we do believe that there are some serious changes to existing gun laws that can be made. Assault weapons are not necessary, and we would not lose any sleep if they were banned. Plus we would have a lot more respect for people who own them if they did not try to justify it with “practical uses” and just say “Hey, it’s fun gun to shoot and this is gosh-danged freakin’ ‘Murica.”
It’s not about whether they’re necessary, practical or not…at least that’s not the way the Second Amendment phrased it: “…the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
I agree with maybe half of this opinion post. What you fail to mention is that this whole gun control debate by the left is more of the same that they always spew, and that’s less freedom for us and a more, bigger government which our founders dreaded. And what’s worse is how the left exploits these recent shooting tragedies which have NOTHING to do with the “gun control debate”. It’s sick really. We don’t need more regulations. We need less government.
John,
To be close-minded to others, including the socio-political left, and pigeonholing anything a certain person or group of people have to say as “the same that they always spew” is a serious character flaw and a dangerous state of mind that demonizes anyone who doesn’t agree with you. It might also be wise to form opinions of your own instead of spewing off the same old stuff that the socio-political right always spews off: less government, less regulation.
But I must commend you on your astute and keen observation that there is absolutely no connection whatsoever with gun control and the mass murdering of children by people who just happen to be wielding assault rifles and other firearms. It most certainly is sickening to see people question who we allow to possess firearms when heinous crimes are being committed with them before our very eyes.
“Others cling to their want for assault weapons because they feel that they are effective home defense weapons. If you are using an assault rifle for home defense, then you are guilty of serious negligence and you are almost deliberately endangering your neighbors and others in your home. Assault weapons use high-powered rounds that can easily penetrate flesh and go on to travel through walls at the ranges involved in a home defense situation. If you live in a suburban area, a bullet might easily travel into another person’s home and injure a neighbor. A bullet might injure someone in your home if you are not paying attention to what is behind your target.”
Anybody with any experience with ballistics will tell you that the 223 round has less penetration through walls and flesh than shotgun and pistol rounds. The tiny high velocity lead bullet will fragment into many small pieces with almost no momentum. This has been tested and tested again and again and is the reason why police departments use ar 15s. With some 223 loads, I would actually worry more about UNDER penetration.
http://how-i-did-it.org/drywall/
This is one of many tests that proves that shotgun and handguns are much more dangerous for home defense than an ar15. The FBI also got similar results through another test. I believe that a shotgun is best for home defense because you need penetration to stop people. But don’t say that the 223 round will zip through walls more than shotguns and handguns. That is utterly false.
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed!
You say, “Assault weapons use high-powered rounds that can easily penetrate flesh and go on to travel through walls at the ranges involved in a home defense situation. If you live in a suburban area, a bullet might easily travel into another person’s home and injure a neighbor. A bullet might injure someone in your home if you are not paying attention to what is behind your target.”
If this is true (the over-penetration and danger is presents to innocent bystanders), why do so many police agencies now issue semi-automatic, magazine-fed rifles, particularly the AR15, to their average patrol officer? Police are extremely concerned with any rounds their officers fire in their duties causing injury, death or destruction to innocent bystanders, so “over-penetration” is a huge issue for them.
What we know about the issuing of AR15s to police agencies is that the AR15, like other semi-automatic, magazine-fed rifles, is the IDEAL self-defense weapon. Law Enforcement issues weapons to their officers for two reasons: self-defense and defense of others. They are not in the business of killing people, either 1 or hundreds, but upholding the law. After exhaustive evaluation, police agencies across the country decided that the AR15 was a better choice than the shotgun for their squad cars because of the REDUCED likelihood of an errant projectile, either from a miss or over-penetration.
In addition, they issue 30 round magazines as they don’t know ahead of time how many shots is might take to effectively stop an attacker in a self-defense of defense-of-others situation. Read about “The Miami Shootout”, where the FBI shot both Platt and Matix multiple times. Matix had to be shot SIX times before he died, and Platt took TWELVE shots before he expired. IF this pair had entered your house, and you lived in NY after their “7 round magazine ban” went into effect, what do you think you’re chances would be? Zero, or less than zero?
Massad Ayoob has done many studies of shootings, including a Chicago criminal that was shot 33 times by police before he was killed. 33 times! If you only have 7 round magazines, you’d need to reload 4 times, almost 5, in order to stop this ONE CRIMINAL! Just Google/Bing “Massad Ayoob Files” and learn about actual incidents that have taken place where the criminal had to be shot many multiple times to stop the attack.
As the 2nd Amendment, and many states’ constitutions with similar language, is about self-defense, it explicitly protects the average citizens’ access to arms which are ideal for self-defense. The semi-automatic, magazine-fed, rifle, like the AR15, with a 30 round magazine is the ultimate “self-defense” tool.
TL;DR
Semi-automatic, magazine-fed rifles like the AR15 with 30 round magazines is exactly what the 2nd Amendment protects, and is the ultimate self-defense weapon available today.
1) So called “assault weapons” are excellent for defensive use. That is why police officers carry them (they call them “patrol rifles,” and cops actually often have fully automatic weapons of war, whereas civilians have semiautos which just look similar), and that is why the DOD/DHS order them and call them “personal defensive weapons.” That is why the bodyguards of politicians and the wealthy 1% carry them.
There are many technical reasons why this is true, which can be easily found if you do a few internet searches. The features which you specifically hate make the rifles especially useful for women and smaller men (adjustable stocks for smaller folks, lower recoil and less powerful round is more controllable, pistol grip stock design reduces felt recoil impacts even more, etc).
2) National gun registration is a simply retarded idea. I could explain why, but it is simpler and faster to look at all the places it has been tried.
– Canada: Massive non-compliance (at least 40%), orders of magnitude over budget, never solved a single crime, repealed.
– Las Vegas (handguns only): High non-compliance, very expensive, Metro PD cannot articulate a single crime solved with the “blue card” registry.
– California: Extreme non-compliance (90%+), expensive, again, not used to solve any crimes.
Registries are useful for confiscating weapons from people dumb enough to register them, though.
3) You have NO IDEA how the NFA works. Really, no clue at all. How about you go try and go through the “simple process” yourself like a good investigative reporter and then get back to us. Carefully dodge all the potential legal pitfalls, each of which carries a term of a decade in prison.
Finally, you need to carefully consider the consequences of your proposed draconian penalties. In New York under the SAFE act, the sentence for owning an unregistered AR-15, an unregistered Beretta 92, and a few mags for each is essentially life in prison. Why would someone not illegally modify their weapons to fully automatic if they’re already looking at life in prison? Heck, the penalty for a violent crime is likely to be less, so what would such a hypothetical individual have to lose by resisting arrest?
Draconian penalties for victimless crimes WILL meet with non-compliance of varying degrees, especially if people cannot move to a “free state” to avoid the penalties (such as simply moving and taking their family and tax dollars to PA from NY). After the first felony, the rest are free.
This is really what it comes down to: I assume that you are immune to facts, logic, or reason, so you just need to understand that otherwise law abiding people who have degrees themselves, pay taxes, go to work, and would never consider committing a violent crime simply will not comply. You can then think about if it is worth sending SWAT teams to shoot their dogs, terrorize their children, and send them to prison for life to achieve your utopian dream.
The Signal staff welcomes your comments on this and all articles posted to our website. We respect your opinions and criticism and we want to hear it. In return, we expect you to respect ours. Comments that do not add to the discussion – comments that demean our writers, call us names and insult our intelligence and abilities – will not be tolerated on this website and will be immediately deleted.
– Tanner Ward, Editor-in-Chief
If gun owner give one more inch to federal regulation now, what happen in a year when these new laws don’t work? Will they be repealed or will new regulations be talked about, gun owners can give another inch until the tyrants have gotten what they want. In six years every elected politician could be out of office, but the knee jerk reaction laws they pass can last a life time. I will not give another inch. I will not comply.
It’s interesting you bring up the National Firearms Act as a segment of firearms that need more regulation, when in fact it directly flies in the face of the second amendment. Not only that but what stats do you have that these items are used in crimes where the criminal legally possessed them before committing the crime? You don’t have any because they don’t happen plain and simply, I with my NFA weapons will never commit a crime, and I can say this strictly statistically speaking with no regard to what kind of human being I might or might not be.
Also, why is a silencer considered a firearm in and of itself? It by itself can be used as no more than a blunt object, which by the way were responsible for killing more people last year and all the way back to 2007 than ALL types of rifles combined. Rifles are the legal classification in crime stats of these “assault weapons.” I guess I should also mention the North Hollywood Shootout as a pretty good example of illegally obtained weapons that killed no one because they are useless in untrained hands, have you ever shot a machine gun? A real full auto, select-fire weapon? An actual
“weapon of war” that a military would actually choose to arm its soldiers with?
Also I should mention ironically police officers commit more violent crimes with legally owned machine guns than do civilians. Oh I should also mention the total number violent crimes committed with machine guns can be counted on your phalanges, and keep in mind this is since 1934.
[…] n last week’s edition of the Signal, we published an editorial outlining our thoughts on gun control. We have had much response to this, including a flood of […]