Pro-gun leftist explains why an ‘assault weapons’ ban doesn’t work

It’s a long article but well worth the read. It goes into the arbitrary definitions of “assault weapons,” the incredible rareness of the actual problem despite its sensational nature, the problem of perception and media portrayals, the Achilles’ heel of restricting magazine capacity, the question of grandfathering, and the ineffectiveness (except in making people feel safer) of the expired assault-weapon ban.

It concludes with the following questions:

If gun control advocates want to actually have meaningful discussion and debate about the “assault weapon” and “high capacity” ban, they MUST address these questions:

  • Why ban cosmetic features?
  • Why ban guns used in a mere 2% of crime?
  • Why base gun control legislation on rare and statistically insignificant mass shootings to begin with?
  • Why ban magazines that have been consistently sized since their invention?
  • How would banning these magazines have saved lives, given that all a shooter needs is multiple magazines and 3 seconds of time (i.e. Cho)?
  • How will a ban on either these weapons or magazines reduce crime, since there are many millions of them legal and available anyway, especially since production has ramped up after the ban’s expiration?

And most importantly:

  • After a decade of failure, why assume that the bans will reduce violent crime THIS time around?

Written by

Jon Sanders (twitter.com/jonpsanders) is Director of Regulatory Studies at the John Locke Foundation. A columnist for TownHall.com, Sanders has also been published in The Wall Street Journal, National Review, ABC News online, FrontPage Magazine, the San Francisco Chronicle, The Freeman: Ideas on Liberty, the Philadelphia Inquirer and numerous newspapers throughout North Carolina. A native of Garner, N.C., Sanders has been an adjunct instructor in economics at North Carolina State University, and he holds a masters degree in economics with a minor in statistics and a bachelors degree in English literature and language from N.C. State.

One comment

  1. By this argument, I would assume you think it is then ok to own machine guns, pipe bombs and anti-aircraft missiles? We have to draw the line somewhere. Banning magazines or drums that hold 100 rounds and the guns that use those bullet holders seems perfectly logical.

    Yes, it’s only 2 percent of crime. But you know what? 9/11 was just a fraction of all the crime committed on US soil that year. Yet we got involved with two wars, started a new gov agency, passed the patriot act, and tightened security for airports.

    Banning these guns and buying back as many as possible won’t change much over night. But it’s a step in the right direction.

    Comment by Pops on December 28, 2012 at 12:04 pm

Our apologies, you must be registered and logged in to post a comment.