By David French
Tuesday, February 27,
It’s back. In the aftermath of the Parkland, Fla., school
massacre, House Democrats are making another attempt at banning so-called
assault weapons. A “supermajority” (156 of 193) of House Democrats have signed
on, leaving no doubt as to the party’s move left on gun control. The bill,
called the “Assault Weapons ban of 2018,” is a non-starter — at least so long
as Republicans control the House — but it’s a mistake to simply write off any
proposal backed so overwhelmingly by one side of the aisle. This debate isn’t
going away.
So let’s deal with he bill on the merits, beginning with
taking on its inherently deceptive name. The bill calls for a “ban” on both
“semi-automatic assault weapons” and “large capacity magazine feeding devices”
(magazines holding more than ten rounds). But then — in the very next
paragraphs — it exempts every single weapon and magazine lawfully possessed
before the enactment of the law.
In other words, the assault-weapons ban isn’t a ban at all. It would leave tens of
millions of guns and magazines on the streets. In fact, nobody actually knows
the number. Rifle sales have skyrocketed. Counting rifles made and distributed
in the U.S. only (in other words, not counting imports), the number has
increased from 1.6 million in 2007 to 4.2 million in 2016. During that time,
the AR-15 has been among the most popular rifles sold in the U.S.
In other words, even if the proposed “ban” were enacted,
a person who wanted an AR-15 could find an AR-15. A person who wanted a
large-capacity magazine could find a large-capacity magazine.
Moreover, the phrase “assault weapons” is also inherently
deceptive. The drafters include within the definition not just the
scary-looking, military-style rifles such as the AR-15 but also semi-automatic pistols that can “accept a detachable
magazine” and have at least one common additional feature such as a threaded
barrel. The proposed ban also includes semi-automatic shotguns with, among
other things, a pistol grip, a fixed magazine that accepts more than five
rounds, or the ability to accept a detachable magazine of any size.
This is the worst kind of gun control. Any measure that
preserves the ability of criminals to access guns while restricting the access
of law-abiding Americans is a measure that fundamentally impairs the very
purpose of the Second Amendment. For the law-abiding, the existing stock of
tens (hundreds?) of millions of weapons and magazines would instantly become
more expensive. Yet with the slightest premeditation, a criminal could easily
circumvent the ban. It’s a simple matter, in fact, to make your own
high-capacity magazine.
Moreover, it’s sheer speculation that a ban on so-called
assault weapons would reduce mass shootings, reduce gun suicides, or reduce
overall gun violence. Rifles are rarely used in “normal” gun crimes (blunt
objects and fists kill more people), and you don’t need an AR-15 to kill
yourself (rifle suicides are rare). And as ample, grim experience shows, you
don’t need an AR-15 to commit a horrific mass killing. America’s worst school
shooting — the Virginia Tech massacre — was committed with handguns, and the
list of deadly handgun shootings is long and sad.
Mass shooters are among the most committed criminals in
the entire United States. They often fantasize about their attacks for years
and plan them for months. They can find an AR-15. Yet an AR-15 isn’t an
indispensable weapon for a spree killer. They have options.
At best, then, the argument is that making an AR-15 slightly more difficult to obtain won’t
make spree killings less common, but it might
make spree killings less lethal. Again, that’s more speculation, assuming that
the most committed killers 1) can’t get their hands one of the tens of millions
of legal weapons still on the streets; and 2) that a man with a semi-automatic
pistol isn’t just as deadly as a man with a rifle. Neither assumption is
warranted.
In fact, experience with the previous federal assault-weapons
ban demonstrates that any benefit gained by decrease in crimes committed with
one type of weapon is often offset by increases in crimes committed with other
weapons, leaving no net benefit. Here’s the key language from a comprehensive
study of the impact of the federal assault-weapons ban:
We cannot clearly credit the ban
with any of the nation’s recent drop in gun violence. And, indeed, there has
been no discernible reduction in the lethality and injuriousness of gun
violence, based on indicators like the percentage of gun crimes resulting in
death or the share of gunfire incidents resulting in injury, as we might have
expected had the ban reduced crimes with both AW [assault weapons] and LCMs
[large-capacity magazines].
And that study is based on a world where tens of millions
fewer assault magazines and
large-capacity magazines were in circulation. The facts on the ground have
changed, substantially, since 2004.
But we have to offset the known and undeniable negatives
against the entirely speculative positive effect. Millions of law-abiding
Americans would find it more difficult to obtain guns and magazines that would
match the foreseeable criminal threat. Indeed, the necessity of assault weapons
and large-capacity magazines to confront the criminal threat is illustrated by
the proposed ban itself, which exempts law-enforcement officers. Police officers
need 15 rounds in a pistol to defend themselves, but I don’t need 15 rounds to
defend myself? How is that coherent?
An assault-weapons non-ban does nothing to address the
underlying causes of mass shootings. It does nothing to empower citizens or
police to respond to troubled individuals before they pull the trigger, and it
does nothing to enhance the ability of citizens to defend themselves once
engaged. In fact, it may well put the armed citizen at a meaningful
disadvantage. It’s not the answer to mass killings. It’s not even “an” answer.
It is, however, an infringement on individual liberty, and it’s one that a
majority of American voters will not tolerate.
No comments:
Post a Comment