Assault Weapons Ban Redux
I don't think it's smart to push the assault weapons ban again. I doubt that it's very effective, I think there are better ways to effect the ends, and it just drives a lot of gun-owners farther into the arms of the loony right. Crack down on rogue gun shops in Virgina that are pumping guns all up and down the East coast...ban gun show sales...limit people to one black rifle (rather than none)...radically crank up the penalties for using firearms in crimes...but not an outright ban. (Incidentally, pro-ban folks don't seem to realize that the ban doesn't do anything about weapons and high-capacity magazines already in circulation--you can still buy them used, you just can't buy them new.)
I'm not adamantly against the ban, and I'm certainly in favor of doing something about gun violence in this country...but I'm skeptical about the efficacy of this ban, and have no doubt about its propaganda value to the GOP.
[Here's what Wikipedia has to say about the effect of the AWB on crime, FWIW...]
I don't think it's smart to push the assault weapons ban again. I doubt that it's very effective, I think there are better ways to effect the ends, and it just drives a lot of gun-owners farther into the arms of the loony right. Crack down on rogue gun shops in Virgina that are pumping guns all up and down the East coast...ban gun show sales...limit people to one black rifle (rather than none)...radically crank up the penalties for using firearms in crimes...but not an outright ban. (Incidentally, pro-ban folks don't seem to realize that the ban doesn't do anything about weapons and high-capacity magazines already in circulation--you can still buy them used, you just can't buy them new.)
I'm not adamantly against the ban, and I'm certainly in favor of doing something about gun violence in this country...but I'm skeptical about the efficacy of this ban, and have no doubt about its propaganda value to the GOP.
[Here's what Wikipedia has to say about the effect of the AWB on crime, FWIW...]
posted by Winston Smith at
5:23 PM
3 Comments:
Former student of yours. here. Generally I could be labeled placed on the left politically, but I've been finding myself growing increasingly libertarian when it comes to gun control.
Regarding your proposed solutions in place of a new assault weapons ban:
1 "Crack down on rogue gun shops in Virgina that are pumping guns all up and down the East coast"
I'm with you. no reservations, absolutely. go for it.
2 "ban gun show sales"
Ok, I get the gun show loophole concerns, and am truly sympathetic to both sides on this one. I'm guessing you're meaning is to ban sales between private parties at gun shows (since my understanding is that FFL holder sellers are obligated to do background checks like always)? So imagining your law in place, what’s two stop us as two private parties from setting up the sale in the show and doing the transaction right off property like any other legal gun sale between private parties? One concern then, is enforceability or effectiveness(what difference does it make if they can still set up the sale on site and make the transaction right off the premises?) My other concern is that it seems overly restrictive. What you’re proposing is placing a major restriction on gun sales between private parties. The concern isn’t that people are buying and selling guns at all but that they’re doing it without background checks at a place with such a high volume of guns, right? My proposed solution for the gun show situation is to require all entry fees for gun shows to have a tax attached that pays for some sort of onsite background check system to be used between private parties, that is required for all onsite private party transactions. Yes, I suppose it could still be avoided by people taking the transaction offsite but it seems a lot less restrictive or intrusive than banning private party gun show transactions across the board, while still addressing the concerns about lack of background checks.
(Continued...)
(Part 2)
3 “limit people to one black rifle (rather than none)”
What’s a black rifle? Anything based on an AR-Platform? Anything that gets called an “assault rifle”? With this law in place can I buy as many AK-based guns as I like, just none that are AR? If by black rifle you mean some definition or another of “Assault weapon”, then how do we define it? This is my major gripe with the original ban. Did we see Cho Seung-Hui or Charles Whitman or the Columbine killers using bayonets? Or rifle-launched grenades? Things like bayonet lugs and grenade launchers (like on a Yugoslavian SKS) don’t seem to be very common at all in massacres like those but they were key definitions of an assault weapon. Seems like so many banned features were entirely about limiting things that sounded scary.
Two restrictions that did seem sensible but also unpalatable to me from the ban were restrictions on folding stocks and high capacity magazines. If we’re restricting anything that isn’t already restricted when it comes to firearms It seems much more sensible to me to limit capacity on new production magazines than, say, ak or ar-based platforms, or bayonet lugs. By that I mean that while I’m not sure I would support such a ban I can at least follow the logic behind it and respect the argument, where I cannot when it comes to banning bayonet lugs or suppressors or grenade launchers. Seems like banning those things is all about making people feel good and not at all about a position that could reduce gun violence. And while I probably actually disagree with a magazine capacity limit, I certainly get the thinking behind one.
4 “radically crank up the penalties for using firearms in crimes”
Again, no objections here. Makes sense to me.
So in terms of increasing already in place penalties for gun-related crimes I think I’m right there with you. That something should be done regarding the situation of gun shows in the state currently, I’m right there with you. That private party sales at gun shows should be outright banned, I strongly disagree. That people should be limited to one black rifle at a time, I’m not sure I understand exactly how we’re defining the kind of gun that’s being restricted. Previous qualities for an assault rifle seemed largely arbitrary. When it comes to bans on new high capacity magazines I’m tentatively opposed to it but I have a lot more respect for that position than I do for one banning assault weapons based on things like bayonet lugs or the like.
Also, generally I’m all for any restriction on gun purchasing that stops people from buying them who really shouldn’t be buying them based on things like mental health records. (see Cho Seung-Hui)
Also, finding myself increasingly in favor of expanding concealed carry (save, again, for giving permits to those who shouldn’t have them)
Your thoughts?
Joe from epistemology a few years back.
Joe!!!
So great to hear from you. You should drop me an e-mail and let me know every little ol' thing you're up to.
That's a lot of stuff above...and I don't purport to have all the answers...but here's something:
As for gun-show sales: You make a good point that this interferes with transactions between private citizens. But So does the AWB. I suppose the core of my idea is: try moderate interference first. Make it like some states make handgun purchases--you've got to fill out forms and so forth.
As for "black rifles"...an informal term that's approximately equivalent to "assault weapon"...a Gerrymandered term, meaning something like what you seem to take it to mean--ARs and their cousints, AKs and their cousins...roughly: mean looking rifles, or rifles with a military appearance, or with some sufficient number of the features in question: magazine-fed and/or high-capacity, folding stock, flash suppressor...and then the really kooky stuff like attachment points for bayonets and (!) grenade launchers...
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home