By Sean Davis
Monday, June 13, 2016
It happens like clockwork: as soon as there’s a mere
whisper of a terrorist attack or a mass shooting, the usual suspects kick in to
high gear. Their destination is always the same: a faraway land where a
so-called assault weapons ban magically eliminates not only guns but also
prevents guns from walking of their own volition, without need of human agency,
into crowded places and killing people.
The reaction after the terrorist attack in Orlando, in
which a radical Islamist who pledged allegiance to ISIS murdered at least 49
people in a packed night club, was as predictable as it was pathetic.
Set aside for the moment the fact that no automatic weapons
were used in the Orlando terrorist attack (an automatic weapon is one for which
a single trigger pull will fire multiple bullets), and that it is literally
impossible for a semi-automatic weapon to fire 700 rounds per minute. Nor, to
my knowledge, have automatic weapons ever been used in a mass shooting in the
modern era.
When silly people like Seth MacFarlane and Susan Sarandon
say they want to ban “automatic weapons,” what they mean is that they want to
ban guns that look scary. They don’t understand that you can’t walk into a gun
store and walk out with a military-style assault weapon (one that can fire
multiple rounds with a single trigger pull). That’s because 1) most gun dealers
don’t carry the military version of the scary looking gun, 2) you have to jump
through an obscene number of hoops with the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,
Firearms and Explosives (ATF) to even obtain a tax stamp that says you may
purchase such a weapon (a process that takes months, if not years), and 3) the
actual versions of rifles used by the military are really expensive and
unaffordable for the vast majority of prospective gun owners.
What you can buy from your local gun dealer, after that
licensed gun dealer has confirmed that you passed a federal background check
(yep, that’s required by existing law), is a semi-automatic rifle. And now, a
bunch of gun controllers who don’t understand the slightest thing about guns
have decided that rifle needs to be banned. Not because it’s more deadly than a
typical hunting rifle (it’s absolutely not), but because it looks scarier.
But before we dive into whether the assault weapons ban
was merely dumb, or if it was monumentally stupid and counterproductive, it’s
important to define what the previous federal ban covered and how it defined an
“assault weapon.” The 1994 assault weapons law banned semi-automatic rifles
only if they had any two of the following five features in addition to a
detachable magazine: a collapsible stock, a pistol grip, a bayonet mount, a
flash suppressor, or a grenade launcher.
That’s it. Not one of those cosmetic features has
anything whatsoever to do with how or what a gun fires. Note that under the
1994 law, the mere existence of a bayonet lug, not even the bayonet itself,
somehow turned a garden-variety rifle into a bloodthirsty killing machine. Guns
with fixed stocks? Very safe. But guns where a stock has more than one position?
Obviously they’re murder factories. A rifle with both a bayonet lug and a collapsible stock? Perish the
thought.
A collapsible stock does not make a rifle more deadly.
Nor does a pistol grip. Nor does a bayonet mount. Nor does a flash suppressor. And
for heaven’s sake, good luck finding, let alone purchasing, 40mm explosive
grenades for your rifle-mounted grenade launcher (and remember: the grenade
launcher itself is fine, just as long as you don’t put the ultra-deadly bayonet
lug anywhere near it).
The complete unfamiliarity with guns and how they work
that led to the inept definitions in the 1994 law was on full display in a
now-infamous television interview with Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, a New York
congresswoman who backed the so-called assault weapons ban. In the interview,
Tucker Carlson asked McCarthy to define “barrel shroud,” a firearm feature
regulated by the law. Here’s how she answered:
CARLSON: I read the legislation and
it said that it would regulate “barrel shrouds.” What’s a barrel shroud and why
should we regulate that?
MCCARTHY:The guns that were chosen
back in those days were basically the guns that most gangs and criminals were
using to kill our police officers. I’m not saying it was the best bill, but
that was they could get out at that particular time.
CARLSON: Ok. Do you know what a
barrel shroud is?
MCCARTHY: I actually don’t know
what a barrel shroud is. I think it’s the shoulder thing that goes up.”
“The shoulder thing that goes up.” It’s not the “shoulder
thing that goes up.” There is no “shoulder thing that goes up.” The “barrel
shroud” (a term nobody uses) is simply a hand guard that goes around a barrel.
That embarrassing spectacle happened over seven years ago, and yet over that
period of time, McCarthy’s fellow gun banners still haven’t seen fit to learn
the slightest thing about the objects they wish to regulate.
If the cosmetic features used to define an “assault
weapon” in the 1994 law strike you as really stupid ways to define an “assault
weapon,” it’s because the 1994 law was a stupid law with stupid definitions
written by stupid people. And not only was it a stupid law, it was a stupid law
that didn’t even accomplish its stated goal. How do we know? Because today,
more than a decade after the law’s expiration, the number of people murdered by
rifles is 36 percent lower than it was during the last full year the assault
weapons ban was in effect.
The law expired in September of 2004, making 2003 the
last full calendar year in which the law was in effect. According to Federal
Bureau of Investigation (FBI) crime statistics, 390 people were murdered with
rifles in 2003, making rifles the weapon of choice in 2.7 percent of murders
that year. But in 2014, more than a decade after these vile weapons of war flooded
American streets, the number of rifle murders surely skyrocketed, right?
Not so much. Quite the opposite. In 2014, the most recent
year for which detailed FBI data are available, rifles were used in 248
murders. And not only are rifles used in far fewer murders over a decade
following the expiration of the 1994 gun ban, they’re also used in a smaller
percentage of homicides. In 2003, when the gun ban was in full effect, rifles
were used in nearly 3 percent of murders. In 2014, they were used in barely 2
percent.
That’s the exact opposite of what gun banners said should
happen. After the assault weapons ban, guns were supposed to flood the streets
and just start killing people. Crime was supposed to skyrocket. But that’s not
what happened. Yes, Americans bought a ton of rifles after the law expired, but
rather than going up, the number of homicides in which rifles were used
drastically fell. There were way more guns, but way less crime.
Are you ready for a mind-blowing statistic? In 2014, you
were six times more likely to be murdered with
a knife than you were with a rifle. Knives were the weapon of choice in
1,567 murders in 2014, according to the FBI. It gets crazier. You were also
nearly three times more likely to be killed by someone’s fists or feet than you
were to be murdered with a rifle. In 2014, 660 people were murdered with what
the FBI calls “personal weapons”–hands, fists, feet–compared to 248 with
rifles.
In the United States, knives are more deadly than rifles.
So are fists. And feet. This is not my opinion. It is an incontrovertible fact.
And it’s a fact that highlights a point that far too many people refuse to
acknowledge: the human desire to kill is far more deadly than any weapon.
Weapons do not of their own volition and agency decide to kill people. That
requires human intervention. Humans hell-bent on death and destruction will get
their hands on whatever tools they need to wreak their desired havoc.
Restricting the use of those tools by innocent people who only want to protect
themselves and their families is delusional madness.
Yet here we are. Rather than blaming individuals and
ideologies, the leading lights of American society have decided to demonize
inanimate objects. Despite the fact that the terrorist in Orlando was a radical
jihadi who pledged allegiance to ISIS, progressives have decided to blame the
NRA for what happened. Even though the terrorist was registered to vote as a
Democrat, his fellow Democrats have decided that Republicans are the true
culprits.
This is apparently how 2016 is going to go. If a boy
tells you he’s a girl, then he’s a girl. If an Islamic terrorist who pledges
allegiance to ISIS tells you he’s killing for Allah, then he’s probably a
Republican with a lifetime NRA membership. After all, Islamic terrorists don’t
kill people; peaceful, law-abiding citizens who believe the Second Amendment
means what it says kill people.
Collective leftist denial about the existential, radical
Islamic threat facing America is not going to prevent Islamic terrorism. Gun
bans that ban guns based on nothing more than scary-looking cosmetic features
are not going to prevent radical jihadis from murdering innocent people.
Pretending that Republicans and the NRA are the real villains is not going to
prevent ISIS from killing more Americans. Ignoring the fact that these attacks
seem to only happen in gun-free zones won’t prevent violent psychopaths from
waltzing into those gun-free zones and gunning down the unarmed civilians who
congregate there.
But all those things will make progressives feel better
about themselves, and who are you to deny them that right?
No comments:
Post a Comment