Token Dissonance

Young, Gay, Black, and Conservative! Oh, my! What on Earth did Yale do wrong?

The End Game on Guns

7 Comments

Update: A modified version of this post was adapted by The Daily Caller to address the recent Cuomo and Obama proposals for gun control. You can find that article here.

“When seconds count, government is minutes away.  This means that in those critical moments when violence sparks, you are on your own.” – Nicholas J. Johnson

“We must stop the madness.” –Gov. Andrew Cuomo

Beware of Government bearing “common sense”

To the shock and horror of (some) people from places where I don’t care to live, gun and ammunition sales are breaking records. While the trend has escalated in wake of the recent tragedy in Newtown, it had been gaining steam ever since President Obama’s reelection inspired many wary Americans to fear for their Second Amendment rights. I can hardly run into a friend in Virginia these days without one mentioning plans to procure their first weapon or expand an existing arsenal. (For my part, I intend to wait for prices to calm down again.)

As the much-maligned NRA gains 100,000 new members in 18 days—expected to reach 5 million during this debate—Michael Bloomberg’s Mayors against Illegal Guns has seen its membership skyrocket as well. So the cultural divide yawns between worlds adrift.

Liberals are ruefully engaged in mocking perspectives they appear unable to understand from people they seem unwilling to take seriously. Nevertheless, Piers “Rambling Asininity Never Sounded So Posh” Morgan, there are many compelling reasons why ordinary people would want to own so-called “assault weapons”, which are not actual military-grade assault rifles. While we’re at it, semiautomatic firing capacity isn’t terribly new:

“Consider this from an 1862 report assessing Winchester’s lever-action Henry rifle:

‘187 shots were fired in three minutes and thirty seconds and one full fifteen shot magazine was fired in only 10.8 seconds. A total of 1,040 shots were fired and hits were made from as far away as 348 feet at an 18 inch square target with a 44 caliber 216 grain bullet [compare the 22 caliber 55 grain AR-15 round].’

This was common nineteenth century technology when the Fourteenth Amendment trumped state laws that denied citizens of United States the constitutional right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.”

Vice President Biden has indicated that he will present his proposals for gun control to President Obama on Tuesday, more than two weeks ahead of the deadline. Sen. Feinstein’s push for an “assault weapons” ban is expected to be among them, along with strengthened mental health and background checks for all firearm purchases. I understand that gun control advocates see proposed bans as about gun violence, and they aim to better the world. But the seeds of antagonism are sown, not in the hearts of recalcitrant conservatives, but in the essence of the argument for the bans. Nicholas J. Johnson elucidates nicely:

“Supply controls are no answer to this problem unless you eliminate virtually all guns.  Only when you fully acknowledge that it is impossible to get rid of guns in America (and that the failed attempt would make things worse by sending a hundred million guns fully into the black market) do you see the substantive emptiness and folly of Feinstein’s plan.

And this actually reveals a crucial sticking point.  Some of us genuinely appreciate that it is impossible to ban guns in America.  Others of us (and I believe Feinstein must be one of them)  still, deep down, imagine that we might someday fulfill the supply control dreams hatched in the 1970’s and actually get rid of guns.

Indeed, if you don’t deep down believe that this is possible, the Feinstein plan is just nonsense. Because it cannot be true that the Senator is saying we want to stop mass shootings against innocents using certain semiautomatic rifles, but shootings using other semiautomatics, pumps, lever actions, revolvers, double barrels or bolt actions are ok. If your tool is supply controls, you must ban those guns too. (Gun people know this. So they will fight this proposal like it is the last battle.)”

The reason my fellow gun rights proponents respond to bans as though the government desires to take our guns is precisely because the bans could only properly “work” if they do so. This—along with the facts that “assault weapons” is a political invention and more people die from barehanded (or –footed) assault than from all rifles—is the real reason the last ban failed and why this one would, too. Guns are all deadly and there are many “civilian” weapons (e.g. for hunting deer) more powerful than and as semiautomatic as “assault weapons”.

To understand the profound lack of seriousness of any “assault” ban, consider the laws in question (courtesy of Reason):

The New York Times reports that what Gov. Andrew Cuomo yesterday described as “the toughest assault weapons ban in the country” would copy California’s definition of forbidden firearms. In addition to a list of specific models, California’s law covers guns that meet certain criteria. Any one of these six features, for example, makes a rifle with a detachable magazine illegal in California (unless it was legally owned prior to June 1, 1989, in which case it has to be registered): 1) a flash suppressor, 2) a grenade launcher or flare launcher, 3) a thumbhole stock, 4) a folding or telescoping stock, 5) a forward pistol grip, or 6) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon. If you are wondering why a mass murderer needs any of these features to kill schoolchildren or moviegoers, you have already put more thought into this issue than the average legislator. [My emphasis]”

If the Vice President’s anodyne proposals pass, we would be remiss not to wonder what gun control enthusiasts will want after the next disaster. After all, they will have done nothing of substance to prevent that problem beyond the placebos of a poll-tested echo chamber of “common sense”. If overall violence—including gun violence—continues falling even as gun sales rise, perhaps we will finally get around to pondering a more holistic consideration of our culture and how to ameliorate its flaws. Then again, Diane Feinstein and her enablers might just find even more guns to ban and restrictions to pass in the name of “common sense”.

So to be clear: there is no such thing as an “assault weapon”. The weapons so labeled are not used in or intended for the military (sorry, Gen. McChrystal), nor are they particularly powerful, nor do they have much of anything to do with overall violence, armed or otherwise. That many ordinary people think otherwise is a testimony to our regrettably exaggerated trust in the competence and integrity of our media and political elite. Few in the chattering classes seem either willing to admit or capable of understanding easily demonstrable reality.

That should tell you plenty about how serious our leaders are about guns and violence.

Author: Rek

Young, gay, black, Southern, conservative. I'm a veritable pocket full of sunshine.

7 thoughts on “The End Game on Guns

  1. I surrendered my one and only gun to the military when I was returned from Vietnam. Not that I had anything against gun ownership, but I didn’t feel (at that time) but rather that I just didn’t want to have a gun in the house after having to sleep with one for over two years.

    I no longer feel that gun ownership is unnecessary. While I’ve spent the better part of my lifetime harboring a lack of trust for our government (at all levels) that lack of trust has become a total vacuum of trust. I think everyone should be able to defend themselves, even if it is a defense from an overbearing government. (Wait. Didn’t we do just that in 1776?)

    Even my daughter, a deep-dyed liberal if there ever was one (having been indoctrinated for four years at Berkeley) owns a S&W pistol. And I wholly support her. To paraphrase libertarian science fiction author Robert Heinlein, I’d rather go down to bail her out than go down to identify her body.

  2. probably an unpopular tone, but I need to malign the NRA again in all of this. Running around like their hair is on fire, in panic mode, is NOT the way to react. they need to put their money towards buying a calm and rational debate in the mainstream media.

    The Feds, however, are on the path to a new civil war with these proposals. I invite Senator Biden to come and live on my block on North Las Vegas and hear the screams from the houses forcibly invaded every night. Then I invite him to ask I give my gun back. Let’s see where that gets him.

  3. Pingback: Empire State of guns |

  4. Pingback: Reality and Obama’s colossal pride « Publius Prime

  5. I suspect many conservatives believe the endgame of gun control is a complete ban on citizen ownership of any firearm, and considering some of things we’ve seen some of the left say regarding guns, their fears may be somewhat justified.

    I.E. “In a 1996 questionnaire, then-state senator Barack Obama answered “Yes” to a question asking whether he would support legislation to “ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns.” Thus, Obama supported the complete banishment of firearms in Illinois.”
    http://www.examiner.com/article/1996-records-obama-supported-banning-all-guns-illinois

    The one problem these bans never seem to able to address and prevent is guns falling into the hands of criminals. I live in Illinois and I can drive to nearby Round Lake and buy an unregistered and illegally obtained Ak47 for around 2000$ from either the GDs or The Latin Kings.

    I suspect the thinking behind the concept of the AR ban is that it will somehow reduce the amounts of ARs being used in criminal activity by normal citizens gone awry and by criminals who have obtained them in a private transaction. However, I see no evidence to indicate that the ban would lead to the results gun control advocates are hoping for.

  6. Thought provoking piece, although I disagree with the majority of your sentiments.

    “What does all the furor over guns south of the border mean for Canadians? NRA members see themselves as staunch defenders of freedom – and depict countries with tough gun laws like Canada as unjustly restricting the freedom of its citizens. Though the NRA’s lobbying can’t directly affect laws here, the relaxed regulations in some southern states do have consequences north of the border. About 70 per cent of Canadian crime guns are smuggled from the United States into Canada. the fifth estate traces their route along the so-called “Blue Steel Highway” from states where they’re available almost on demand.”

    This preceding bit is from a documentary that I don’t think is available for viewing in the U.S
    It is why I feel that I have a dog in this, your race, over an amendment that I have little understanding or sympathy for.

    Great Blog. I appreciate your well researched, well assembled pieces.

  7. Pingback: The convoluted politics of gun control | Token Dissonance

Your Thoughts?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,492 other followers