Gun Control Is Not the Answer

Anyone who is not brainwashed or biased, and considers the facts, should realize that gun control is not the answer to the problem of violence in America. There are several different gun control proposals, but none of them tackle the real problems.

First of all, gun control laws ignore the fact that criminals don't obey laws. It makes no difference to a madman planning a mass murder whether or not the tools he plans to use are legal. There are already so many illegal guns in the U.S., not to mention the rest of the world, that trying to make them less accessible through legislation is a naive but hopeless attempt.

Let's examine some of the current gun control proposals. Probably the one most in the public eye is the "assault weapons" ban, along with the ban on "high capacity" magazines. First there is an obvious flaw in the designation "assault weapon". While the public thinks of assault weapons as fully automatic rifles like machine guns, the gun banners use the word to describe semi-automatic rifles that only fire one shot per trigger pull, if they have only a few tactical, or "military-style" cosmetic features. This popular misconception is purposely exploited by the gun control advocates. Josh Sugarman of the VPC is quoted by the NSSF: "The public's confusion over fully-automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons -- anything that looks like a machine gun is presumed to be a machine gun -- can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons." But the fact is that these guns operate exactly the same as non- "assault-style" semi-automatic, legal firearms, and actually are not as powerful as many of the big game hunting rifles.

Common sense precludes the notion that cosmetic features have any bearing on the "lethality" of a particular weapon. (Not to mention that many of the proponents of an "assault weapons" ban don't even know the use of various features that they demonize. Case in point – the Chicago Tribune published a diagram of an AR-type rifle, pointing out the "dangerous" features. They had the sling swivel marked as a "bayonet mount/grenade launcher"!) Most of the features, for example, tactical stocks, can be added or removed easily, changing the gun from a "legal" to illegal" without changing it's firepower. Some of the features provide easier handling and more control over the firearm, making them particularly suited for smaller shooters, and enhancing safety. (For a full explanation of assault weapons, visit http://www.assaultweapon.info.)

Along with an "assault weapons" ban goes a ban on "high capacity" magazines. Usually the number of rounds is set to 10 or less, a random number which has no real basis in fact. "Who needs 30 rounds for deer hunting?" is the common refrain. But this isn't about hunting. Many pistols commonly used for self-defense are designed with magazines that hold more than 10 rounds. (and despite what Joe Biden says, in many situations a double-barreled shotgun is not the right weapon for personal defense, especially for women.) These guns would be made illegal by such a ban. Also, in the stress of home invasion,accuracy is diminished. A few shots more than the arbitrary number of 10 may easily mean the difference between life and death. There are many other valid uses of "high capacity" magazines as well.

But if banning "assault weapons" and "high capacity" magazines prevents mass murders, that should trump any hypothetical personal defense situation, right?

Not exactly. The last assault weapons ban did not preven Columbine; in fact according to the research report submitted to the DOJ< it had little if any effect on violent crime, since those types of weapons are used only rarely in crimes anyway. Joe Biden himself admitted that none of hte proposed gun control bills will affect the probability of another mass murder. http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/31/16794835-biden-new-gun-controls-likely-wont-end-shootings?lite

Criminals have many tools at their disposal. Double- barreled shotguns, which Biden favors, can easily be used to mow down scores of people with one blast. Bombs can be made with common ingredients for the same purpose. And if the criminals insist on using "assault weapons," they can easily obtain them illegally.

"Universal background checks" is a popular proposal. After all, everyone agrees that we need to keep the guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill. The fact is that "universal background check" really means gun registration to the gun ban crowd. (Chuck Schumer accidentally admitted that!) We already have a background check system, but criminals still manage to get their weapons. Until the current NICS system is used to it's full potential, with all agencies reporting crimes and mental illness, it makes no sense to add greater scope to it. Besides criminals and madmen don't care whether they obtain weapons legally or illegally. Straw purchasing is already a crime, yet it still happens frequently. Universal background checks are just another attack on law abiding gun owners, and pave the way for registration(which leads to confiscation).

Gun registration is another proposal that won't reduce violent crimes. Does anyone actually think that criminals will register their guns? Or that they will balk at stealing registered guns? Not to mention that it is a fact of history that gun registration leads to confiscation. (Even in the US – In NY City in the 90's, lawfully owned semi-automatics were confiscated using the information from the long-gun registrations enacted in 1967.)

"Even though the laws are only partly effective," some people argue,"they are worth passing if even a few lives are saved." But how many thousands of innocent lives would be lost because of those laws? Guns (many of which would be made illegal) are used over 2 million times a year for personal protection. Not all these occurrences would have resulted in the death of the potential victims, of course. But many of these cases are attempted rapes, and home invasions by armed intruders. So it is reasonable to assume that many more lives are saved by the legal use of firearms, than innocent lives lost to gun violence. Especially because the majority of gun deaths are gang-related. Obviously, no amount of laws will stop the gangs.

The gun ban crowd has waited eagerly for a tragedy like Newtown, so they can impose their hatred of guns on everybody. Many politicians use gun control as a way to make it look like they are"doing something," so they can avoid the real issues. Meanwhile, innocent children and adults will continue to be killed.