Time to face facts: Outlawing assault weapons would save lives

by: Eric B.

Thu Jul 26, 2012 at 15:24:30 PM EDT

From the outset, let me just state that I'm not a fan of gun control. I grew up around guns. I've fired all sorts of guns. I like guns. I received firearms training in the military. I'd own guns if I didn't have a small kid and I'd hunt if I didn't find the idea of taking the day off work for hunter's safety to be an annoyance (that same sloth, of course, informs the energy I'd put into processing my own meat, probably).

That said, this...

We can rush to ban certain firearms types based solely on cosmetics. We can reduce their ammo capacity. But those are feel-good measures that won't prevent the next nut-ball from going on a killing rampage.

...is utter horseshit. Making something illegal by the very merits makes it more difficult to obtain, and it places law enforcement in between a killer and his firearms.  If assault rifles are illegal, then it means law enforcement is tasked with making sure they stay out of everyone's hands, and that also means law enforcement can do it without playing "mind detective," that is sorting out who can own a gun safely and non-violently for decades and who will turn it on his or her neighbors. When a James Holmes goes looking for an AR-15 -- and despite Nolan Finley's objections, a few simple modifications made possible with a file and a screwdriver can turn a semi-automatic rifle into a fully-automatice rifle -- and law enforcement is keeping watch for people looking for them, then it increases the chances from zero to whatever that they'll catch him before he kills anyone.

There are two things worth keeping in mind here. The first is that the term assault rifle wasn't created by pro-gun control people. The term was coined by Adolph Hitler to describe a class of weapon designed specifically for use by the German army in the assault and seizing of fixed positions. The term is rooted in the intended use of the weapon.

The second is that he is very correct in saying that actual hunting weapons have a greater per-round lethality. That's because assault rifles are designed for use on people, not animals, and designed for a military purpose, not for putting food on the table. In fact, the story goes that ammunition for the old M-16s were designed to wound rather than kill on the grounds that it took two additional people to carry a wounded man to medical aid.

One last piece of perspective. He says it takes an experienced marksman just a couple of seconds to change out a magazine. This is true, if the magazine is loaded. It takes much longer, however, to take out the bullets and slide them into the magazine and then load that. If James Holmes were to loaded the legal five-round clips rather than the 100-round clip, he'd have to carry 20 magazines around. Think there's a reason why gunmen favor large magazines?

Finally, his entire premise at the start -- proliferation of gun ownership corresponds to a decline in homicide rates -- is a very silly false cause. Who believes that more guns, made more easily available, has really caused a decline in the illegal use of guns? Put another way, these are the same people who've been up in arms over Fast and Furious, in which they accuse the Obama administration of having a hand in the murders of dozens of innocent Mexicans on the grounds they did nothing to stop the flow of firearms purchased legally in the United States into Mexico. Yet, when it comes to domestic massacres, those are acceptable if it means unrestricted access to AR-15s.