While I am not particularly interested in assault weapons, especially for the few knuckleheads who take them hunting, I am not opposed to their ownership by law-abiding folks. For those of us who enjoy shooting there is always a fascination with firearms. I realize the liberal urge is to associate it with some sort of phallic-envy, but I’d say it’s more visceral than that. It’s akin to the same impulse that forces me to look at every tool in the Craftsman catalog, pause the remote when I see This Old House on television and what makes me enjoy chopping wood for an hour when I could just buy it from the feed store down the road. I’m not going to pretend that everyone should understand this, but I don’t see anything wrong with it either.
Personally, I am a wing-shooter and shotguns are what gets my blood pumping. Are they as deadly as an assault rifle? In the right hands, yes. So are hand guns, semi-automatic ‘black rifles’, Chinese stars and those big Rambo knives they sell at flea markets.
While yes, assault weapons are more efficient at killing folks, data actually shows that handguns are the most lethal in the U.S. The big problem I see with assault weapons is the same problem we have with all weapons and that is the loopholes in enforcement which allow gun traffic to thrive, especially in inner cities. Any new gun legislation would be much better aimed at catching gun traffickers than in going after a particular type of gun. On this point both conservatives and liberals need to change their views.
Conservatives have been guilty of obstructing any attempts at gun regulation, even in the form of simple gun sales restrictions. Their fear of this being the first step towards taking their guns is justified, but it makes their obstruction no less problematic. On the other side of the aisle, liberals refuse to see the corollary between criminals and gun crime and instead blame the guns themselves, which is misplaced.
Over at Democracy Journal there is an excellent piece entitled, “Deepen Gun Ownership” by Jim Kessler. Mr. Kessler does a far better job than I could of explaining the problem of gun trafficking.
An excerpt (bold emphasis mine):
There are 280 million firearms in private hands in America, and last year there were about 300,000 gun crimes. That means that at least 279,700,000 guns did nothing wrong. We also know that in 89 percent of crimes, the person using the gun was not the person who originally bought it. In 34 percent of crimes, the firearm was bought in one state and used in a crime in another. And in 32 percent of crimes, the firearm was less than three years old.
This indicates that the root of America’s gun crime problem is not the number of guns in the hands of Americans, but an extensive web of gun trafficking operations that funnel firearms to criminals. In some cases, the trafficking operations cover long distances. Nearly 40 percent of all crime guns recovered in New Jersey and New York came from Virginia, Georgia, Florida, and the Carolinas. Nine out of 10 crime guns changed hands between the first purchase (which was likely legal) to the last purchase (which was certainly illegal). What we need, then, is a new national strategy to reduce gun violence: Don’t restrict gun rights, but instead deepen the sense of gun ownership.
The first step is to make gun trafficking a federal crime, not a term of art. There is only one statute on the federal books that deals even indirectly with gun trafficking–a vague, loophole-ridden law that allows only federally licensed gun stores “to engage in the business” of dealing in firearms. Since federal law allows any individual to sell his or her own firearms to anyone else, the “engaged in the business” bar is virtually insurmountable. And since any individual may also sell firearms without performing a background check, asking for identification, or keeping any sort of record, the requirement that individuals not knowingly sell to criminals is merely a suggestion. That is why federal prosecutors in 29 states filed five or fewer cases related to trafficking behavior over a recent three-year period.
So, in answer to the questions of my friends, I do not feel that banning assault weapons is the answer. I believe the answer is in fighting trafficking and in making gun owners more accountable, not by taking their guns away. Progressivism is about using sensible legislation and moderate tactics to achieve radical results. That is possible if both sides of this debate give a little.
6 comments
Comments feed for this article
May 8, 2008 at 11:26 am
Rustmeister
My only question: How do you define “assault weapon”?
May 8, 2008 at 11:35 am
Progressive Conservative
I’m pretty conservative on my definition. I only apply the ‘assault weapon’ label to the rate-of-fire, i.e. ‘full auto’. As I’m sure you know, there are plenty of rounds out there being used by both the military and by hunters. (Personally, I find the .223 round a little small for deer, but some people like it. ) The only thing separating these two groups is that hunters don’t need to fire on full auto. Soldiers do.
The so-called ‘black rifles’ out there are certainly configured as ‘assault weapons’ with a smaller frame, more lightweight, etc but I think that only muddy the waters. At the end of the day, they still have a semi-auto rate of fire and that makes them no more dangerous than your average hunting rifle. Yes, they are sometimes more easily concealed, but concealment isn’t the problem. It’s the lead coming out of them when they are un-concealed.
May 8, 2008 at 12:07 pm
Rustmeister
The reason I ask is because I (and many gun enthusiasts) consider the term “assault weapon” to be a political term made up to confuse the general public. Many times, politicians, media types, etc., use the term “assault weapon” when what they really should be saying is “assault rifle”.
An assault rifle is what soldiers use. They can fire in full-auto or burst mode, and if made after 1986, are illegal for the general public to own.
Those made before 1986 are controlled the same way any machine gun is – through the provisions of the National Firearms Act of 1936.
In a nutshell, in order for a regular person to but a machine gun, they have to undergo a federal background check, get permission from their chief local law enforcement officer, pay a $200 tax, and then pony up the money to actually purchase the machine gun, which usually means $10,000 or more.
You’re spot-on in regards to black rifles. They look cool, but are functionally no different than any other “normal” rifle. That’s what everybody is talking about when they use the term “assualt weapon”.
They aren’t talking about machine guns, they are talking about normal guns that look like military ones. But, they want us to think “assault rifle”, so we won’t oppose banning them.
Sorry for rambling.
May 8, 2008 at 12:19 pm
Progressive Conservative
No apologies necessary. I completely understand your position on ‘assault weapons’ vs. ‘aasault rifles’. As we both know, most of those promoting firearm restrictions don’t actually know much about firearms. They tend to be in big cities and are a bit naive about the differences in various types of guns (I always love it when they talk about putting ‘bullets’ in shotguns!)
I think the biggest problem regarding ‘assault weapons’ has been the proliferation of AK-47’s in the U.S. They look scary, they sound scary and people associate them with all the bad guys in those old Chuck Norris movies. I was just watching ‘DEA’ on television the other night and they talked about how these are now very popular with the drug crowd. But their fear is really the rounds they shoot and the possibility of after-market modifications that make them fully auto. Fortunately that only describes a small % of these guns. I’m sure you have been to gun shows and seen hundreds of AK’s that were completely benign and being touted as a decent semi-auto hunting rifle.
As in most things political, you are 100% correct that terminology frames so much of the arguement. Conservatives have been good at this at times but on gun rights, we keep falling short.
May 9, 2008 at 2:06 pm
Shaheen Lakhan
We recently wrote on another issue of gun rights at Brain Blogger. Disgruntled or disturbed patients have come into physician offices and assaulted staff or physicians. This has led some doctors to store firearms in the workplace.
I would like to hear your comments on this issue on our site. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Shaheen
November 6, 2009 at 5:38 pm
Republicans and Gun Law | Republicans United.
[...] at RU, I am reposting this item from my own blog. I wrote about the problem of gun trafficking at The Big Sticklast year. Republicans have a long history of generally being on the right side of law [...]