Gun control in general
Gun control advocates have a real, legitimate basis, for their desires; firearms are incredibly dangerous weapons, and thus should be treated as such. If I could ban all violence causing devices, I would, without hesitation, to end violence on this planet. Unfortunately, this approach, while a noble pursuit, is incapable of working, both due to the endless variety of devices that can be utilized for violent attacks, and the fact the proliferation of effective devices, particularly in this case guns, is too high to get rid of them on any significant level. Thus, the only remaining option is to possess the capability to defend oneself when the need arises, which requires access to firearms.
Central to the over-all theme of gun control is the limitation or banning of legally available commercial firearms; the theory essentially rests upon limiting legal civilian access to firearms, or goods in general to prevent criminal from obtaining them. While to some degree, this may be necessary or prudent, such as in heavy regulation of explosives, anti-aircraft or tank weaponry, and even potentially more serious threats such as nuclear, chemical, or biological threats, with many products, limitations have not completely curbed or even greatly impacted legal prohibition from the hands of criminals. The issue is not black in white; some things can largely be eliminated by banning, such as nuclear weapons, which have only been used twice in a real combat setting, while other things, such as water or ethanol, would be incredibly difficult to ban. The ease of access largely determines the availability, not legal precedence on them; thus, something hard to obtain naturally might be difficult to hold of if it was prohibited, while something widely available, such as water or organic produce required for ethanol production, would be incredibly easy. Thus, prohibiting proliferation of goods on any reasonable means is determined by access, availability, strictness of enforcements, and many other factors than deciding to prohibit something alone.
In the United States, there are approximately 80 million gun owners, only approximately X amount of total crimes, and X amount of homicides committed each year. Thus it's easy to ascertain that your average person an unlikely suspect for committing crimes, and in particular, and small percentage of society, or "criminals" are the most likely to commit crimes. In fact, in the legal system, most offenders are repeat offenders, going on to comity more crimes even after released from jail, or repeatedly and charged for multiple crimes, while the average person is unlikely to commit any crimes. Therefore the focus on civilians is somewhat arbitrary.. The goal of gun control, like any form of complete restriction, is to limit it to the hands of civilians, and thus potentially criminals from the avenue as well.
But would this level be significant? Would it be considerable enough to warrant the complete ban of firearms (or any particular product) or would the removal of firearms from law abiding citizens have greater implications of it's own, raising successful crime attempts against civilians or broadening the weapons theoretically usefully available by criminals when civilians are disarmed? Could disarming civilians raise crime in it's own right, as the weapons were intended?
It's impossible to completely determine the outcome, due to the wide variety of variables responsible for the presence of crime, ranging from poverty, educaiton levels, culture, law enforcement capabilities and technological advancements, as well as individual thought or personality. However, a reasonable conclusion can be drawn from basic data.
Banning Legal Commercial Sales to Civilians
Comparing crime rates from Country's in General
In general, Gun control laws have a relatively minor impact on over-all crime rates in a country. Country's, such as Mexico, have strict gun laws and yet relatively high crime rates (compared to the U.S.) and yet country's like Switzerland have high firearm ownership and less strict gun laws and have incredibly low crime rates. Furthermore, comparing to criminal value's at face value is a poor way to determine the outcome, since various country's have different manners in which they record or report crime internationally. Since gun control legislation is only one variable of many, including proper execution of legislation, culture, naturally high crime rates, poverty, and standard of living, all such things do more to greater influence crime, or unchecked crime, than gun control. Technological and infrastructure development, law enforcement capabilities, technique, and raw numbers all influence the success of policy in addition to policy itself, and many laws formulate the creation of a government, and thus determine the outcome in general. Thus gun control laws are relativley minor to the over-all outcome in terms of crime rates and specifically, homicide rates.
In addition, crime contributes in a very minor way to over-all death, injury, and general health problems. For instance, in the U.S. x homicide out of X total deaths, aggravated assault X part of injury. or X percent. According to the World Health Organization, x to x etc. Furthermore, the chances of being injured or greatly harmed by criminal activity is low in general, with a lifetime low chance of such crimes even happening, despite their rare occurrence compared to regular injury (as non criminal forms of injury are quite rare, as well).
Therefore the over-all contribution of crime in general to death and injury rates is rather low, the over-all chance of being negatively effected during a person's entire life time is rather miniscule, and gun control measures require a variety of other factors to be successful and have a limited impact on crime in general. It is but one minor part of an over-all system.
Will guns be obtained from criminals anyways?
If successful, which guns should be targeted?
Banning various guns due to arbitrary concepts of power may be a bad idea. "Power" is a very complex and multi faceted
Wednesday, June 19, 2013
Thursday, May 30, 2013
Prohibition of Firearms
Prohibition of Firearms
The core of Gun control
The core of the gun control argument essentially rests upon the notion that the commercial availability of firearms to civilians is a danger to civilians, as it also is arming criminals; by this argument, firearms being removed from civilian circulation should therefore reduce over-all violence. The notion also suggests that civilians will be better off without certain weaponry to defend themselves, or will not need them in defensive scenarios if said firearms are removed. The notion that if the playing field is leveled, they shall not need certain firearms.
By banning a firearm, the government would essentially be banning them from major civilian hands or retailers. The argument than rests upon, whether or not removing firearms from general civilian access would decrease over-all crime or homicide rates.
The defensive position
An argument can be made that certain "powerful" firearms would not be needed in self defense if said weapons did not exist; as long as the "power" levels are equal, I stand an equal chance against a criminal aggressor and therefore I am not at an a disadvantage. The problem with this shallow and face value view of firearms is it's blatant disregard for the inner complexities of firearm functioning; "power" is not a single unit that can be measured in a definitive quantity, nor is it one that can it be directly compared or examined. Additionally, it disregards the notion that criminals will be able to obtain such firearms anyways, without much regard to the law.
Different firearms possess different purposes; sniper rifles for instance, are intended for long range target acquisition. However, if civilians were only allowed to possess these firearms, then they would present a variety of problems. They would be difficult to carry around, often times being large, heavy, and cumbersome, in addition to slow or difficult to fire, such as with a bolt action firing system; an enemy that can face their targets hundreds of yards away, while having prepared themselves, is going to be more dangerous than a defensive person with such a firearm. If the only weapon available for defense is a sniper rifle, where an individual would need to quickly return fire to a largely unknown position with a weapon that would be difficult to carry around in public or utilize without proper preparation, it would extremely difficult to defend oneself. In essence,
Pump action versus semi etc.
In essence, banning certain weapon in fear of their "power" disregards the inner dynamic complexity of firearm combat and use. Certain weapons are not just "better" than other firearms, as they have their specific uses. Thus banning a particular firearm in fear of it's power is simplifying a matter that's more complex than this. Finesse and particular qualities about firearms make them more useful for self defense or tricky situations, such as semi-auto or large magazines
Obtaining firearms from alternative means
The individual
The core of Gun control
The core of the gun control argument essentially rests upon the notion that the commercial availability of firearms to civilians is a danger to civilians, as it also is arming criminals; by this argument, firearms being removed from civilian circulation should therefore reduce over-all violence. The notion also suggests that civilians will be better off without certain weaponry to defend themselves, or will not need them in defensive scenarios if said firearms are removed. The notion that if the playing field is leveled, they shall not need certain firearms.
By banning a firearm, the government would essentially be banning them from major civilian hands or retailers. The argument than rests upon, whether or not removing firearms from general civilian access would decrease over-all crime or homicide rates.
The defensive position
An argument can be made that certain "powerful" firearms would not be needed in self defense if said weapons did not exist; as long as the "power" levels are equal, I stand an equal chance against a criminal aggressor and therefore I am not at an a disadvantage. The problem with this shallow and face value view of firearms is it's blatant disregard for the inner complexities of firearm functioning; "power" is not a single unit that can be measured in a definitive quantity, nor is it one that can it be directly compared or examined. Additionally, it disregards the notion that criminals will be able to obtain such firearms anyways, without much regard to the law.
Different firearms possess different purposes; sniper rifles for instance, are intended for long range target acquisition. However, if civilians were only allowed to possess these firearms, then they would present a variety of problems. They would be difficult to carry around, often times being large, heavy, and cumbersome, in addition to slow or difficult to fire, such as with a bolt action firing system; an enemy that can face their targets hundreds of yards away, while having prepared themselves, is going to be more dangerous than a defensive person with such a firearm. If the only weapon available for defense is a sniper rifle, where an individual would need to quickly return fire to a largely unknown position with a weapon that would be difficult to carry around in public or utilize without proper preparation, it would extremely difficult to defend oneself. In essence,
Pump action versus semi etc.
In essence, banning certain weapon in fear of their "power" disregards the inner dynamic complexity of firearm combat and use. Certain weapons are not just "better" than other firearms, as they have their specific uses. Thus banning a particular firearm in fear of it's power is simplifying a matter that's more complex than this. Finesse and particular qualities about firearms make them more useful for self defense or tricky situations, such as semi-auto or large magazines
Obtaining firearms from alternative means
The individual
The Realities of Self Defense
The Realities of Self Defense
A common questioned posed is, how often are guns really used in self defense? Are they necessary for defense, or at least are they useful? Why does anyone need to own a gun, a weapon with a 10 round magazine, a machine gun or so on? While the most obvious response to this question is that I personally should not have to prove a need whether or not I should be allowed to own it, but that you should prove a need to why it should be banned, it is possible to prove that there is a certain relative minimum for what's recommended for self defense and, that guns have an overall positive influence on self defense. While the impact of guns as a deterrent is obviously immeasurable (since how many crimes didn't happen obviously doesn't get recorded with forensic evidence), I can point to the correlation that countries with more guns have lower homicide rates. More guns, on paper, points to more guns = lower murder rates or crime, but as a face-value statistic it's meaning is somewhat halted. So, how many civilians use weapons to defend themselves, successfully?
According to a Bipartisan study by the CDC, authorized by Obama, more citizens successfully defend themselves with guns than are likely to be victims of gun violence. [1] "Defensive use of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed (Cook and Ludwig, 1996; Kleck, 2001a). Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million (Kleck, 2001a), in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008 (BJS, 2010)." Furthermore... "A different issue is whether defensive uses of guns, however numerous or rare they may be, are effective in preventing injury to the gun-wielding crime victim. Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was “used” by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies (Kleck, 1988; Kleck and DeLone, 1993; Southwick, 2000; Tark and Kleck, 2004)." According to this study done, which comprised numerous other studies, more citizens are likely to be defended by gun violence than victims of them. Even if it's slightly lower, the lowest rate of defensive gun use found by one study was nearly 100,000 cases of self defense a year.
The argument that gun control would be worth it if even just 1 life was saved is obviously, somewhat farcical. They would need to save thousands of lives to outnumber the positive impact guns had on society. Even if banning guns could save 1 life, or 50 lives, it would need to save far more than that to make up for or, break even with how many lives are saved by civilian being allowed to own guns. Whether or not we ban guns or can ban guns, the question of, do guns have a net positive impact on society, can fairly easily be answered by this study. Some might still disagree on this, however.
Refuting the Harvard Study
There are a few studies the refute the claims of hundreds of thousands of people successfully defending themselves with guns every year (which equates to more than are victims of them). According to a Harvard study for instance, "We found that firearms are used far more often to frighten and intimidate than they are used in self-defense. All reported cases of criminal gun use, as well as many of the so-called self-defense gun uses, appear to be socially undesirable" following with "To believe fully the claims of millions of self-defense gun uses each year would mean believing that decent law-abiding citizens shot hundreds of thousands of criminals. " Their entire argument is that because people did not shoot people in self defense, it doesn't count as defensive gun use. The problem with this study is obvious; people do not actually need to shoot others to successfully defend themselves. A criminal that surrenders, runs away or is dettered via intimidation by a gun is a criminal that is not committing a crime and not shot. It is better, more moral, to capture criminals alive than shoot them dead, so disregarding cases of intimidation with guns as being "socially desirable" means of gun use is absurd.
Obviously, not all self defense cases result in something being show. The fact very few people are killed is not evidence that defensive gun use is not useful. For all intents and purposes, if a gun is used to solve a violent confrontation, without violence, where neither the criminal nor the defender is killed or seriously harmed, than this is a good thing. It is disgusting for the creators of this study to suggest that intimidating, rather than shooting a criminal, is somehow less socially desirable. Guns intimidation effect is perhaps their most important use as a weapon. Using a gun in self defense can cause a criminal to shoot you, but simply brandishing a gun was effective between 80 and 95% of the time. [2] Despite the nearly 300,000+ defensive gun uses cases a year, less than 300 [3], or .1%, resulted in the death of a criminal. This means that not only are guns used commonly, but less people are actually dying because of it. You literally only have a chance of less than 1 in a 1000 of ever having to kill someone in self defense, even when a gun is brandished. The scare factor of a gun, or the intimidation factor, is extremely important. Study's like the one at Harvard are obviously an attempt to deliberately manipulate the fact that defensive gun uses rarely result in the death of anyone, which should be regarded as an otherwise good thing.
Intimidation is not inherently bad as the Harvard study suggestions. Police often have a saying, that "violence of action", rather than violence, is a good way to resolve a situation. Acting quickly to overwhelm your adversary so they surrender immediately rather than provoke them in to an immediate shoot-out resolves a situation without bloodshed. A police officer who points a gun in the face of a criminal and then handcuffs them does not kill said criminal even if he intimidates him. However, a police officer who shoots someone results in their death, even if it was justified, which is a less favorable outcome. Therefore if a civilian threatens but does not harm a criminal and escapes unharmed from an attack, it is a victory for both the civilian and criminal. To dismiss these cases as socially undesirable is pedantic, at best, and disgusting at worst.
The Need for high capacity magazines
A common question asked is, not exactly per say why does a person "need" or want a gun for self defense, but why do they want certain firearms? While the definition of an assault weapon bans vary, magazine restrictions are more straightforward, suggesting that only so many rounds are needed in a magazine for self defense. The obvious response would be "why does it need to be banned?", but this won't deter those who believe they are somehow needing to be banned if they are not, needed by civilians. So, does a citizen really need a magazine capacity over 10 rounds?
It's difficult to determine need; a person only needs something to achieve a particular goal. As a person, I want to survive ,but is my life somehow necessary to the continuation of the United State,s the world or even the universe? Asking me whether or not I "need" to live is a bit insulting and, quite frankly an existential crisis that, at this moment ,cannot be answered objectively. What I can argue however is the recommended minimum amount of rounds required for self defense. How does one accurately determine exactly how many rounds are "needed" for home defense?
A good baseline might be asking ourselves how many are needed by police. If the average citizen is as well trained and possesses as good of marksmanship as the police, than it stands to reason they would not need significantly more than the average police officer. According to a report released by the NYPD, only about 1 in 6, to 1 in 10 rounds fired by police hit their target at ranges as close as 3-30 feet, depending on the year. [Page 4] On average, there were two police officers per suspect shot, and 10-15 rounds fired total per suspect. Not every single round fired, even by a trained marksmen, will hit their mark, and not every round is a kill or incapacitation shot. A person could be shot in the hand, arm, ear or other area that does not result in death or serious injury, and a person even when shot in a generally fatal area can often can fighting for quite some time. Reports by police of shooting suspects, multiple times, sometimes even up to 9 to 10 times, without the suspect going down are not uncommon. 1 round doesn't always do the job, and landing even 1 round can be difficult even for a trained marksmen. How would the average civilian fair?
If it takes the police on average 10-15 rounds to resolve a gunfight, this might be considered the bare minimum needed. Therefore, banning of 15 rounds or less per magazine might make sense. But these police have the advantages of numbers, preparation for a fight, body armor and in general training. The average civilian is likely not as good a shot, not traveling in packs of trained men, and don't possess the other advantages such as being informed of a shooting before hand. A person who can mentally prepare themselves for an attack in advance is far more likely to succeed than someone who is taken off guard. A person who doesn't realize a burglar is breaking in to his house has mere seconds to respond, where as police officer often times have minutes to drive down to the scene and respond after the 9/11 call informing them of the situation is made. Therefore it's reasonable to assume that civilians would need more ammunition than this in a gunfight as their lack of mental preparation, ensuring good marksmanship will cause them to falter further. However, the average civilian will typically face off against more than in target. Nearly 48% of all violent crimes involve a gang, and because gangs are defined as organizations with 3 or more people, it's very likely that the average home owner will need up to 10 rounds per suspect or, 30 rounds, in order to potentially survive a shoot-out with these individuals. This is just a minimum recommended level based on how many criminals there will be.
The convenience of carrying a single magazine is more important for a civilian, than a criminal. In theory, a person could wear a tactical vest, that is garments designed specifically to hold on to magazines, to allow a user to reload. Because reloading can take under 2 seconds, if one had 30, 10 round magazines on them (totaling 300 rounds), it would make little difference if they had a 30 round magazine or a 10 round magazine. But, if a person grabs their gun and only has as many rounds are loaded in it, say in a reaction to hearing a window break (but at the time the home owner is unaware if it's a burglary or just an accident), than it can be severely limiting. Civilians don't have hours to prepare for an attack. While a burglar can afford to "gear-up" ahead of time because, they are the assaulter, the defender has mere seconds to figure out what's going on and then respond back. He likely does not have time to put on all his combat gear and be ready to go in a moment's notice. Therefore, for a criminal, the limitation of a 10-round magazine is more or less irrelevant. Not only due most violent criminals travel around in large groups carrying multiple weapons, but they also have a nearly unlimited amount of preparation time before hand. A civilian who simply grabs their weapon and goes doesn't have 30 magazines strapped to them, but a criminal could. Unless a person wore clothing with bullets in it at all times, even when he slept, he could never be prepared 100% of the time. Keeping a single loaded gun by the bedside table is a lot easier than expecting to carry hundreds of rounds everywhere you go. So, in the case of self defense, a civilian has whatever is in his gun at that exact moment, most likely squaring off against multiple suspects. A criminal has whatever he has planned for at least hours in advance. In fact, most americans aren't even armed at all.
In this mindset, civilians need even more ammunition than criminals or police, since they are usually outnumbered, worse trained and worse prepared for a situation. This puts the minimum at around 30 rounds, even if they were as well trained as a police officer, with the real numbers likely being higher. Therefore, banning high capacity magazines would be a detriment to civilians, and have very little impact on criminal activity. This is on top of there being no reason for a ban in general. Bear in mind, the NYPD statistics showed a 1 in 6 to 1 in 10 hit ratio with 69% of the time the target being under 2 yards away. 19% of the time the suspect was between 3 and 7 yards away, and 11% of the time they were 8 or more yards away. This means that literally two-thirds of the time they were missing this often at ranges under 6 foot, or an arm's reach away. Bear in mind that inside a house distances can be greater than this.
A common questioned posed is, how often are guns really used in self defense? Are they necessary for defense, or at least are they useful? Why does anyone need to own a gun, a weapon with a 10 round magazine, a machine gun or so on? While the most obvious response to this question is that I personally should not have to prove a need whether or not I should be allowed to own it, but that you should prove a need to why it should be banned, it is possible to prove that there is a certain relative minimum for what's recommended for self defense and, that guns have an overall positive influence on self defense. While the impact of guns as a deterrent is obviously immeasurable (since how many crimes didn't happen obviously doesn't get recorded with forensic evidence), I can point to the correlation that countries with more guns have lower homicide rates. More guns, on paper, points to more guns = lower murder rates or crime, but as a face-value statistic it's meaning is somewhat halted. So, how many civilians use weapons to defend themselves, successfully?
According to a Bipartisan study by the CDC, authorized by Obama, more citizens successfully defend themselves with guns than are likely to be victims of gun violence. [1] "Defensive use of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed (Cook and Ludwig, 1996; Kleck, 2001a). Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million (Kleck, 2001a), in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008 (BJS, 2010)." Furthermore... "A different issue is whether defensive uses of guns, however numerous or rare they may be, are effective in preventing injury to the gun-wielding crime victim. Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was “used” by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies (Kleck, 1988; Kleck and DeLone, 1993; Southwick, 2000; Tark and Kleck, 2004)." According to this study done, which comprised numerous other studies, more citizens are likely to be defended by gun violence than victims of them. Even if it's slightly lower, the lowest rate of defensive gun use found by one study was nearly 100,000 cases of self defense a year.
The argument that gun control would be worth it if even just 1 life was saved is obviously, somewhat farcical. They would need to save thousands of lives to outnumber the positive impact guns had on society. Even if banning guns could save 1 life, or 50 lives, it would need to save far more than that to make up for or, break even with how many lives are saved by civilian being allowed to own guns. Whether or not we ban guns or can ban guns, the question of, do guns have a net positive impact on society, can fairly easily be answered by this study. Some might still disagree on this, however.
Refuting the Harvard Study
There are a few studies the refute the claims of hundreds of thousands of people successfully defending themselves with guns every year (which equates to more than are victims of them). According to a Harvard study for instance, "We found that firearms are used far more often to frighten and intimidate than they are used in self-defense. All reported cases of criminal gun use, as well as many of the so-called self-defense gun uses, appear to be socially undesirable" following with "To believe fully the claims of millions of self-defense gun uses each year would mean believing that decent law-abiding citizens shot hundreds of thousands of criminals. " Their entire argument is that because people did not shoot people in self defense, it doesn't count as defensive gun use. The problem with this study is obvious; people do not actually need to shoot others to successfully defend themselves. A criminal that surrenders, runs away or is dettered via intimidation by a gun is a criminal that is not committing a crime and not shot. It is better, more moral, to capture criminals alive than shoot them dead, so disregarding cases of intimidation with guns as being "socially desirable" means of gun use is absurd.
Obviously, not all self defense cases result in something being show. The fact very few people are killed is not evidence that defensive gun use is not useful. For all intents and purposes, if a gun is used to solve a violent confrontation, without violence, where neither the criminal nor the defender is killed or seriously harmed, than this is a good thing. It is disgusting for the creators of this study to suggest that intimidating, rather than shooting a criminal, is somehow less socially desirable. Guns intimidation effect is perhaps their most important use as a weapon. Using a gun in self defense can cause a criminal to shoot you, but simply brandishing a gun was effective between 80 and 95% of the time. [2] Despite the nearly 300,000+ defensive gun uses cases a year, less than 300 [3], or .1%, resulted in the death of a criminal. This means that not only are guns used commonly, but less people are actually dying because of it. You literally only have a chance of less than 1 in a 1000 of ever having to kill someone in self defense, even when a gun is brandished. The scare factor of a gun, or the intimidation factor, is extremely important. Study's like the one at Harvard are obviously an attempt to deliberately manipulate the fact that defensive gun uses rarely result in the death of anyone, which should be regarded as an otherwise good thing.
Intimidation is not inherently bad as the Harvard study suggestions. Police often have a saying, that "violence of action", rather than violence, is a good way to resolve a situation. Acting quickly to overwhelm your adversary so they surrender immediately rather than provoke them in to an immediate shoot-out resolves a situation without bloodshed. A police officer who points a gun in the face of a criminal and then handcuffs them does not kill said criminal even if he intimidates him. However, a police officer who shoots someone results in their death, even if it was justified, which is a less favorable outcome. Therefore if a civilian threatens but does not harm a criminal and escapes unharmed from an attack, it is a victory for both the civilian and criminal. To dismiss these cases as socially undesirable is pedantic, at best, and disgusting at worst.
The Need for high capacity magazines
A common question asked is, not exactly per say why does a person "need" or want a gun for self defense, but why do they want certain firearms? While the definition of an assault weapon bans vary, magazine restrictions are more straightforward, suggesting that only so many rounds are needed in a magazine for self defense. The obvious response would be "why does it need to be banned?", but this won't deter those who believe they are somehow needing to be banned if they are not, needed by civilians. So, does a citizen really need a magazine capacity over 10 rounds?
It's difficult to determine need; a person only needs something to achieve a particular goal. As a person, I want to survive ,but is my life somehow necessary to the continuation of the United State,s the world or even the universe? Asking me whether or not I "need" to live is a bit insulting and, quite frankly an existential crisis that, at this moment ,cannot be answered objectively. What I can argue however is the recommended minimum amount of rounds required for self defense. How does one accurately determine exactly how many rounds are "needed" for home defense?
A good baseline might be asking ourselves how many are needed by police. If the average citizen is as well trained and possesses as good of marksmanship as the police, than it stands to reason they would not need significantly more than the average police officer. According to a report released by the NYPD, only about 1 in 6, to 1 in 10 rounds fired by police hit their target at ranges as close as 3-30 feet, depending on the year. [Page 4] On average, there were two police officers per suspect shot, and 10-15 rounds fired total per suspect. Not every single round fired, even by a trained marksmen, will hit their mark, and not every round is a kill or incapacitation shot. A person could be shot in the hand, arm, ear or other area that does not result in death or serious injury, and a person even when shot in a generally fatal area can often can fighting for quite some time. Reports by police of shooting suspects, multiple times, sometimes even up to 9 to 10 times, without the suspect going down are not uncommon. 1 round doesn't always do the job, and landing even 1 round can be difficult even for a trained marksmen. How would the average civilian fair?
If it takes the police on average 10-15 rounds to resolve a gunfight, this might be considered the bare minimum needed. Therefore, banning of 15 rounds or less per magazine might make sense. But these police have the advantages of numbers, preparation for a fight, body armor and in general training. The average civilian is likely not as good a shot, not traveling in packs of trained men, and don't possess the other advantages such as being informed of a shooting before hand. A person who can mentally prepare themselves for an attack in advance is far more likely to succeed than someone who is taken off guard. A person who doesn't realize a burglar is breaking in to his house has mere seconds to respond, where as police officer often times have minutes to drive down to the scene and respond after the 9/11 call informing them of the situation is made. Therefore it's reasonable to assume that civilians would need more ammunition than this in a gunfight as their lack of mental preparation, ensuring good marksmanship will cause them to falter further. However, the average civilian will typically face off against more than in target. Nearly 48% of all violent crimes involve a gang, and because gangs are defined as organizations with 3 or more people, it's very likely that the average home owner will need up to 10 rounds per suspect or, 30 rounds, in order to potentially survive a shoot-out with these individuals. This is just a minimum recommended level based on how many criminals there will be.
The convenience of carrying a single magazine is more important for a civilian, than a criminal. In theory, a person could wear a tactical vest, that is garments designed specifically to hold on to magazines, to allow a user to reload. Because reloading can take under 2 seconds, if one had 30, 10 round magazines on them (totaling 300 rounds), it would make little difference if they had a 30 round magazine or a 10 round magazine. But, if a person grabs their gun and only has as many rounds are loaded in it, say in a reaction to hearing a window break (but at the time the home owner is unaware if it's a burglary or just an accident), than it can be severely limiting. Civilians don't have hours to prepare for an attack. While a burglar can afford to "gear-up" ahead of time because, they are the assaulter, the defender has mere seconds to figure out what's going on and then respond back. He likely does not have time to put on all his combat gear and be ready to go in a moment's notice. Therefore, for a criminal, the limitation of a 10-round magazine is more or less irrelevant. Not only due most violent criminals travel around in large groups carrying multiple weapons, but they also have a nearly unlimited amount of preparation time before hand. A civilian who simply grabs their weapon and goes doesn't have 30 magazines strapped to them, but a criminal could. Unless a person wore clothing with bullets in it at all times, even when he slept, he could never be prepared 100% of the time. Keeping a single loaded gun by the bedside table is a lot easier than expecting to carry hundreds of rounds everywhere you go. So, in the case of self defense, a civilian has whatever is in his gun at that exact moment, most likely squaring off against multiple suspects. A criminal has whatever he has planned for at least hours in advance. In fact, most americans aren't even armed at all.
In this mindset, civilians need even more ammunition than criminals or police, since they are usually outnumbered, worse trained and worse prepared for a situation. This puts the minimum at around 30 rounds, even if they were as well trained as a police officer, with the real numbers likely being higher. Therefore, banning high capacity magazines would be a detriment to civilians, and have very little impact on criminal activity. This is on top of there being no reason for a ban in general. Bear in mind, the NYPD statistics showed a 1 in 6 to 1 in 10 hit ratio with 69% of the time the target being under 2 yards away. 19% of the time the suspect was between 3 and 7 yards away, and 11% of the time they were 8 or more yards away. This means that literally two-thirds of the time they were missing this often at ranges under 6 foot, or an arm's reach away. Bear in mind that inside a house distances can be greater than this.
The "Assault" Weapons Ban
The "Assault" Weapons Ban
The term "assault weapon" is rather vague; it does not refer to any type of firearm present in the common vernacular of gun enthusiasts or in military classifications, and since practically all weapons are used for "assault", it is difficult to distinguish how these weapons, and more specifically firearms, could be seperated from the over-all majority of weapons. Furthermore there is little to no indication of how these weapons are more dangerous in general mentioned in common conversation, what element they possess that makes them unwarranted for use by civilians, or even the type class of which type of weapon they refer to, including firearms, swords, knives, or other such weapons.
The term is relatively vague; so vague in fact, that the term could apply to almost anything, including an "assault weapons ban", which refers to arbitrary and cosmetic features of a firearm and even some knives. Clearing up some common misconceptions, such as confusing an assault weapons ban with military style weapons, "large caliber", and even fully automatic weapons with semi-automatic weapon, is important for rational discourse on the topic of gun control. If we don't know what we are banning, how can we be sure it will have a positive impact? Anyone who rushes towards a political measure that would effect hundreds of millions of people without considering the consequences, that is even reading the bill or understanding what it would entail is guilty of placing their own ego and zeal for gun control ahead of the well being of this country, and possibly many other country's. A zealot, in this context, is someone who redoubles their efforts while losing sight of their goals. The goal is not gun control, but to save lives, and if this measure fails to do this or even works against it, wouldn't that imply that it's a bad measure? Jumping on board because it's popular or it's "gun control" is just as dangerous as being against something without having any knowledge of what it is. Putting blind faith behind a goal you've literally thought nothing about and don't know what it is means the country could end up anywhere, and you would be responsible for it for nothing other than being too lazy to even read what an assault weapon's bill was. It's quite honestly terrifying how many people will jump at the chance to support something without even knowing what it is, which is an issue that quite honestly supersedes gun control. If you don't know what something is, don't vote, or at least attempt to educate yourself.
So, first thing's first; what even is the assault weapon's ban? To begin, approximately 2% [1][2][3] of all weapon's used for murder would qualify as an "assault weapon", making it unrealistic target to dramatically, if at all lower murder rates, and around 9.7% of mass shootings. [4] Not surprisingly, studies on the subject have revealed almost no impact on lowering crime. [5][6] Specifically, according to a National institute of Justice (NIJ) study, there was no increase in the lethality of shootings when the assault weapon's ban was removed, and assault weapons were not found to kill more people per shooting event. They are among the most common weapon's used in self defense, and removing them from civilian hands would likely not in any way reduce murder rates. They are not required or needed to facilitate murders. Murders can be committed with a variety of different weapons, many that are not even guns, and supposed "high power" assault weapons in reality contribute very little to the murder rate, making them perhaps not as dangerous as many imply. These are just the face value, obvious statistics; but why, in effect, is this the case? To find out, we actually have to look at the assault weapon's bill itself.
What an Assault Weapon's Ban would entail
The Federal assault weapon's bill [1][2][3] would ban a number of supposedly lethal features on various firearms, magazines over 10 rounds for rifles and pistols or 5 rounds for shotguns, and an additional 150+ firearms by name, even if the criteria mandated by the bill was otherwise met. These supposed "assault features" include adjustable stocks, pistol grips, forward grips, thumbhole stocks, barrel shrouds (which are not the shoulder thingy that goes up), bayonet mounts, and other common accessories. It's difficult to imagine how anyone could possibly believe that an adjustable stock or barrel shroud dramatically impacts the lethality of a weapon. The bullet doesn't gain mass, energy, velocity, or defy the laws of physics, and yet the stock itself is supposedly going to make the weapon more deadly.
For those of you who are unaware, an adjustable stock is, just that, a stock that can adjust to the user's shoulder. When fitting a stock to someone, who may be unusually short or tall, or have long or short arms, it's comfortable to simply, have a weapon that can be adjusted or custom fit to the shoulder of any user. Rather than going out and buying a stock that perfectly fit your shoulder (which is basically impossible in mass production), one can simply, adjust the stock to fit their shoulder. So, why would this be illegal in an assault weapon's ban? Why should it be illegal? Not only are the claims unsubstantiated that it would actually reduce violence in any way, but no actual reason is given by any of the proponents of the bill why this particular feature needs to be banned specifically. It merely discriminates against people of abnormal size who would have trouble holding on to an "average" sized weapon. It's quite frankly, an embarrassment that a feature like this got added to a federally recognized bill that was almost passed with a 40 out of 100 support in the senate. And this is not the only such feature.
The next would be a pistol grip. This is essentially a pistol that is curved slightly, similar in appearance to a pistol grip. The design of the grip is as such to where a user does not need to significantly pronate or extend their wrist to keep it pointed at the ground, or in the safety position. In essence, it makes the gun more comfortable to hold on to and allows a user to not be accidentally pointing it at someone, or risk carpel tunnel syndrome. Without a pistol grip, or a similar designed grip which would also be banned (the thumbhole stock), a user experiences significant pain and a chance for wrist damage to keep the gun pointed at the ground, or the safest position. This can have no practical means of benefit for reducing gun violence as accidents would be far more likely without comfortable grips. Imagine a steering wheel shaped in a way that hurts you hands; is likely to reduce accidents with cars, or increase them? Now imagine the same with guns. This can only end badly. A forward grip is essentially a grip on the gun shaped like a pistol grip, but not next to the trigger and safety. This would also be banned in the bill. It's hard to imagine what thought, if any went in to designing the bill and banning these specific features.
Then next is the barrel shroud, famously misrepresented by a supporter of the bill as "the shoulder thingy that goes up". A barrel shroud's purpose is simple; keep the user from being burned. It basically is just a handguard on the barrel to keep one from directly contacting it. This seems rather draconic and likely to once again, be more likely to cause fatal accidents when people reflexively wince after burning themselves, rather than stop a mass shooter. The most ridiculous feature, of all features banned is the banning of a bayonet attachment, that is the ability to attach a knife to your gun. As if attaching a knife to a gun would significantly increase the lethality of a weapon so much it needs to be illegal, compared to guns without knives attached. It's worth nothing that any of these features can be easily got around; one can carve gun accessories out of wood or use a 3-d printer to replicate them as they have no moving parts and are relatively simple, and in some cases can be replicated by features not technically connected to a the gun (such as an oven mitt to absorb heat). None of these features categorically eliminate the ability to kill lots of people, increase lethality or even show a measure of common sense behind them. So why are they on the bill to potentially be banned for the rniter nation? My only thought is that proponents of the bill haven't looked to closely at it., and this don't know. Any educated person would obviously oppose such ridiculous measures.
Now on to the few measures that at least have some semblance of thought or reason behind them. The first would be banning rocket launcher or grenade launcher attachments. While this is a good idea, it's actually been highly regulated since 1934. Rocket launchers and grenade launchers, in fact any explosive projectile, has been illegal for over 80 years. According to the NFA laws established in 1934, one cannot legally own a "Destructive Device", which includes grenade launchers, without extensive government oversight. Therefore it's a bit redundant to re-ban something on an assault weapon's ban it is already, essentially, banned. So while I agree on the assessment, the fact it is already illegal means this part of the bill likely will have no impact (I suppose they failed to do their homework on what was already banned?).
Perhaps the only logical measure among the bunch is to restrict magazine capacity to 10 rounds. After all, there is some logic among this. If a person only has 10 rounds in their magazine, how is it technically feasible that they can shoot more than 10 rounds? Obviously, a mass murderer couldn't shoot more than 10 people with only 10 bullets and, America is saved. Unfortunately, there's a number of problems with this theory. First, a murderer can simply reload, that is replace the magazine or clip, and therefore put more bullets in to a gun. Running out of bullets is a temporary issue that can be fixed by simply adding in more bullets, which can take less than 2 seconds to perform. Given that a person likely cannot significantly outrun an attacker or a bullet in under 2 seconds, this is unlikely to provide any realistic benefit. Most shooters shoot less than 1 bullet every 2 seconds anyways, meaning that it likely would have very little if any real tangible impact.
One has to ask the question? Why 10 rounds? Why not, 11, or 12? Why not 8? Why was 10 chosen? Is there some study that's been done that proves that 10 rounds is just enough rounds per magazine to be used in self defense but just too few to be used in a mass murder? Or is it completely random, drawn out of a hat to provide an arbitrary baseline? What good is there to banning one of these magazines, making a criminal out of otherwise innocent people and consuming police manpower on arresting people with these devices if it won't actually drop or deter crime? For the few credible studies that exist on the subject, such as by those of renowned gun violence criminologist Gary Kleck, it makes very little if any difference how many rounds are in a magazine. A person can simply carry 10, or 20 10-round magazines and make up for their smaller capacity by carrying, more. [1][2][3] Therefore, it's very unlikely it would save any lives, and there is no proof it would do so. The deadliest mass shooting in the world occurred largely with a 10 round pocket pistol in Norway, killing 67 people, although at least one extended magazine was used. 57 out of the 67 people killed were killed by gunshots to the head, in a situation that would make caliber largely irrelevant, largely by shooting people who had already been shot or sneaking up on them.When looking at the majority of mass shootings, less than 10% used an assault weapon, and they were no deadlier on average than shootings that did not use them. As a result, there is no evidence to back up the assertion that 10 round magazine bans would lower the murder rate, the number of people killed in an individual event, or many things like it.
The fundamental premise to gun bans rests almost entirely upon a very specific notion that guns are unusually deadly in comparison to other methods of murder. While difficult to prove in some cases, such as in comparison to stabbings, given that global lists of mass stabbings are generally incomplete, it is possible to compare to other forms of attack. The entire notion that guns are more deadly than other commonly available weapons or methods of murder, many that don't require a permit or background check at all to obtain, with little to no regulations, is more or less wrong, which dismantles a key fundamental proponent to gun control. Why ban guns if they pose no greater risk than a car, pack of matches, bug spray or fertilizer? All of these methods of murder can and have killed more people, such as with vehicle ramming attacks, arson, mass poisonings, and mass bombings. While sad, the deadliest single person mass shooting in the world killed 67 people in Norway, while the deadliest in the U.S. killed 58. [1][2][3][4] In the U.S., the second deadliest killed 49, the third deadliest killed 33, the fourth deadliest killed 27, and the fifth deadliest killed 26. Less than 30 have killed 10 or more people as of 2018, although this figure is subject to change. In the United State's, approximately 78 mass public shootings which killed 4 or more people, occurred between 1982 and 2012 according to congress, and according to Mother Jones, approximately 110 mass shootings which killed 4 or more people have occurred since the 1980's. According to another source, mass shooting tracker, approximately 350-450 mass shootings occur per year, however these are only figures resulting in 3 or more injured, as opposed to the 4 or more killed figure. When in comparison to mass shooting tracker data, around 1% of mass shootings kill 4 or more people, and less than 30 have killed more than 10 people. The average mass shooting kills 1.6 people and injures 5 per year according to the three or more injured statistic, and only a handful have killed more than 4 people.
A simple incomplete list of truck bombings reveals that far more people die per attack of this type. Keeping in mind that the deadliest mass shooting in the world killed 67 people and only 30 have killed more than 10, in 2017 alone for example at least 587 people were killed in Mogadishu, in Aleppo 126+, in Hillah 125, in Baghdad 323+, and in Kabul 90+, with mass bombings frequently killing more than 10. [1] Most bombings are done with fertilizer, specifically ammonium nitrate, which is easily obtained and poorly regulated, being widely available to most farmers. Perhaps the deadliest bombing occurred in Iraq, known as the Yadizi bombing, killing 796 people and injuring 1500 people, far more than guns ever have, with bombings consistently killing more people per attack. A notable attack occurred in India, killing 206 people and injuring nearly 700, with a pressure cooker, a simple cooking device, and similarly powered explosives such as TATP can be made from antibacterial cleanser and fingernail polish, while nearly 200 were killed and 2000 injured in the Madrid train bombings using a type of ammonium nitrate bomb (Goma-2). The Oklahoma city bombing killed 168 people and injured over 680, in the United States, and was done with a fertilizer bomb as well, far deadlier than any mass shooting not only in the U.S., but the world. Assault weapon's, by comparison, kill far less people. Arson is another common form of death, with a notable incident in Iran killing over 420 people in the Cinema rex fire, 173 people in Australia and injuring 454, and the 9/11 attacks killing nearly 3000 with a combination of a vehicle ramming attack and arson. The Salang tunnel fire killed nearly 2700 people, although the exact details of the event were obfuscated by the Russian government, making it difficult to know if it was an accident or an act of arson. A vehicle ramming attack in France killed 86 people and injured 458 with a truck, in Barcelona combined attacks killed 16 people and injured over 160, and several more attacks have occured. A notable attack occurred in New York, which killed 8 people, and if was a shooting would be one of only approximately 50 such events to have occurred in the U.S., equating to being more deadlier than 99.95% of shootings. The simple reality is that other more deadly weapons are available, and won't be removed in a gun ban, and likely can't be banned by themselves, be it fertilizer, cars, flammable substances or the like. Then, it doesn't make sense to ban assault weapon's for their comparative deadliness, or highly regulate them, when by comparison they are not only not more deadly in comparison to other firearms, but to other common forms of attacks. According to a congressional study authorized by Obama, more people use guns to defend themselves than are victims by them, and thus even if you could for some reason save "just one life", you would need to be able to save for more than this to make up for the lack of ability for people to defend themselves.
Ultimate End
It's difficult to say that the assault weapon ban could achieve it's ultimate end of saving lives. The list of features banned are arbitrary and despite being labeled as ultra-deadly "military features" which, technically aren't military features and technically aren't deadly, seem to in any case contribute very little to the overall crime rate. It's likely that given it's such low contribution to murder rates that it could be easily replaced by other firearms or weapons and have just as high a death rate present, comprising just 2% of all weapon's used in murder. The other features of the bill are overly redundant in their re-banning of other illegal things or are barely supported by the facts.
But even if we say that all of these features are somehow ultra deadly and need to be banned, banning them wouldn't be enough for those who have crafted the bill. An additional 153 names of weapon's have been added to the bill, and weapons even closely resembling their "style" would be made illegal. This means even fi all the non-assault features are met, the majority of firearms in the U.S. would be banned by name in any case. If these features are so deadly, what was the point of banning them if you were just going to ban firearms without them anyways? In addition, due to a clause which allows more guns to be added to the list, it is possible that even more guns could potentially be banned after the bill is even passed, with no oversight as to what guns can or cannot be banned. This would give them the potential to ban virtually any firearm they chose, rather than just the one's currently mentioned. So even if we as citizens comply with their demands, the majority of our firearms will be banned anyways.
The concept of an assault weapon's ban is fairly arbitrary to begin with. The term "assault" and "weapon" as so vague as to be virtually meaningless. Almost anything can be used as a weapon, and almost any weapon can be used for assault. As compared to weapon's not used to "assault" people, such as, "chocolate" weapons? What weapon is not used to assault? Perhaps, "deadly" weapons or, lethal firearms or even, the emphasis on firearms would be nice. "Lethal gun" ban might make more sense, albeit they are in fact banning certain types of knives with this bill (bayonets) as well. A two-by four with a nail in it is a weapon that can legally be used for assault, but will it be banned by this bill? To be conveyed by such vague rhetoric seems almost nauseating, as much as "military-style" weapons and the like supposedly needing to be banned. Not only are most military firearms actually illegal, but they have yet to demonstrate why they need to be banned or that they are even more lethal to begin with. Not all weapon's used by the military are especially deadly, or even deadly at all. Tear gas, pepper spray and even non-lethal microwave weaponry are used. Bolt action rifles, pump action shotguns and non automatic or semi-automatic weapons are already widely used in the military. Of course, one is likely referring to a specific military weapon, but making the distinction that it's military at all is irrelevant.
Something isn't banned because it is in the military; this is the classic failure of circular reasoning. Clearly, something is banned due to it's danger. A nuclear bomb is only used by the military because it can destroy an entire city and leaves behind radioactive waste that can be harmful to the environment for years to come. Clearly, no civilian should have it. It is not banned because it is in the military, it's that only military members are allowed to use it because it is banned. Therefore saying "well, it's banned, so therefore it should be banned" or "it's in the military so, therefore it should be banned" is obviously circular reasoning. A plethora of other weapon's, such as the BAR, M1 Garand, Remington 700 and Mossberg 500 aren't banned in the bill, despite being used by the military. Banning something because it's used by the military makes very little sense, since the military actually uses everything from knives, to handguns to hunting weapons. And it fundamentally ignores the fact that things are only banned because they are demonstrated to be unusually dangerous. If no specifics on it's danger can be clarified, than it likely is not particularly more dangerous than any other firearm, and has no reason to be banned. Vague rhetoric and bandwagon mentalities unfortunately contribute to the success of bill's such as this. For true, sensible gun laws to be established we must first ignore the nonsensical one's that, at the very best, would do damage to our average citizenry.
The term "assault weapon" is rather vague; it does not refer to any type of firearm present in the common vernacular of gun enthusiasts or in military classifications, and since practically all weapons are used for "assault", it is difficult to distinguish how these weapons, and more specifically firearms, could be seperated from the over-all majority of weapons. Furthermore there is little to no indication of how these weapons are more dangerous in general mentioned in common conversation, what element they possess that makes them unwarranted for use by civilians, or even the type class of which type of weapon they refer to, including firearms, swords, knives, or other such weapons.
The term is relatively vague; so vague in fact, that the term could apply to almost anything, including an "assault weapons ban", which refers to arbitrary and cosmetic features of a firearm and even some knives. Clearing up some common misconceptions, such as confusing an assault weapons ban with military style weapons, "large caliber", and even fully automatic weapons with semi-automatic weapon, is important for rational discourse on the topic of gun control. If we don't know what we are banning, how can we be sure it will have a positive impact? Anyone who rushes towards a political measure that would effect hundreds of millions of people without considering the consequences, that is even reading the bill or understanding what it would entail is guilty of placing their own ego and zeal for gun control ahead of the well being of this country, and possibly many other country's. A zealot, in this context, is someone who redoubles their efforts while losing sight of their goals. The goal is not gun control, but to save lives, and if this measure fails to do this or even works against it, wouldn't that imply that it's a bad measure? Jumping on board because it's popular or it's "gun control" is just as dangerous as being against something without having any knowledge of what it is. Putting blind faith behind a goal you've literally thought nothing about and don't know what it is means the country could end up anywhere, and you would be responsible for it for nothing other than being too lazy to even read what an assault weapon's bill was. It's quite honestly terrifying how many people will jump at the chance to support something without even knowing what it is, which is an issue that quite honestly supersedes gun control. If you don't know what something is, don't vote, or at least attempt to educate yourself.
So, first thing's first; what even is the assault weapon's ban? To begin, approximately 2% [1][2][3] of all weapon's used for murder would qualify as an "assault weapon", making it unrealistic target to dramatically, if at all lower murder rates, and around 9.7% of mass shootings. [4] Not surprisingly, studies on the subject have revealed almost no impact on lowering crime. [5][6] Specifically, according to a National institute of Justice (NIJ) study, there was no increase in the lethality of shootings when the assault weapon's ban was removed, and assault weapons were not found to kill more people per shooting event. They are among the most common weapon's used in self defense, and removing them from civilian hands would likely not in any way reduce murder rates. They are not required or needed to facilitate murders. Murders can be committed with a variety of different weapons, many that are not even guns, and supposed "high power" assault weapons in reality contribute very little to the murder rate, making them perhaps not as dangerous as many imply. These are just the face value, obvious statistics; but why, in effect, is this the case? To find out, we actually have to look at the assault weapon's bill itself.
What an Assault Weapon's Ban would entail
The Federal assault weapon's bill [1][2][3] would ban a number of supposedly lethal features on various firearms, magazines over 10 rounds for rifles and pistols or 5 rounds for shotguns, and an additional 150+ firearms by name, even if the criteria mandated by the bill was otherwise met. These supposed "assault features" include adjustable stocks, pistol grips, forward grips, thumbhole stocks, barrel shrouds (which are not the shoulder thingy that goes up), bayonet mounts, and other common accessories. It's difficult to imagine how anyone could possibly believe that an adjustable stock or barrel shroud dramatically impacts the lethality of a weapon. The bullet doesn't gain mass, energy, velocity, or defy the laws of physics, and yet the stock itself is supposedly going to make the weapon more deadly.
For those of you who are unaware, an adjustable stock is, just that, a stock that can adjust to the user's shoulder. When fitting a stock to someone, who may be unusually short or tall, or have long or short arms, it's comfortable to simply, have a weapon that can be adjusted or custom fit to the shoulder of any user. Rather than going out and buying a stock that perfectly fit your shoulder (which is basically impossible in mass production), one can simply, adjust the stock to fit their shoulder. So, why would this be illegal in an assault weapon's ban? Why should it be illegal? Not only are the claims unsubstantiated that it would actually reduce violence in any way, but no actual reason is given by any of the proponents of the bill why this particular feature needs to be banned specifically. It merely discriminates against people of abnormal size who would have trouble holding on to an "average" sized weapon. It's quite frankly, an embarrassment that a feature like this got added to a federally recognized bill that was almost passed with a 40 out of 100 support in the senate. And this is not the only such feature.
The next would be a pistol grip. This is essentially a pistol that is curved slightly, similar in appearance to a pistol grip. The design of the grip is as such to where a user does not need to significantly pronate or extend their wrist to keep it pointed at the ground, or in the safety position. In essence, it makes the gun more comfortable to hold on to and allows a user to not be accidentally pointing it at someone, or risk carpel tunnel syndrome. Without a pistol grip, or a similar designed grip which would also be banned (the thumbhole stock), a user experiences significant pain and a chance for wrist damage to keep the gun pointed at the ground, or the safest position. This can have no practical means of benefit for reducing gun violence as accidents would be far more likely without comfortable grips. Imagine a steering wheel shaped in a way that hurts you hands; is likely to reduce accidents with cars, or increase them? Now imagine the same with guns. This can only end badly. A forward grip is essentially a grip on the gun shaped like a pistol grip, but not next to the trigger and safety. This would also be banned in the bill. It's hard to imagine what thought, if any went in to designing the bill and banning these specific features.
Then next is the barrel shroud, famously misrepresented by a supporter of the bill as "the shoulder thingy that goes up". A barrel shroud's purpose is simple; keep the user from being burned. It basically is just a handguard on the barrel to keep one from directly contacting it. This seems rather draconic and likely to once again, be more likely to cause fatal accidents when people reflexively wince after burning themselves, rather than stop a mass shooter. The most ridiculous feature, of all features banned is the banning of a bayonet attachment, that is the ability to attach a knife to your gun. As if attaching a knife to a gun would significantly increase the lethality of a weapon so much it needs to be illegal, compared to guns without knives attached. It's worth nothing that any of these features can be easily got around; one can carve gun accessories out of wood or use a 3-d printer to replicate them as they have no moving parts and are relatively simple, and in some cases can be replicated by features not technically connected to a the gun (such as an oven mitt to absorb heat). None of these features categorically eliminate the ability to kill lots of people, increase lethality or even show a measure of common sense behind them. So why are they on the bill to potentially be banned for the rniter nation? My only thought is that proponents of the bill haven't looked to closely at it., and this don't know. Any educated person would obviously oppose such ridiculous measures.
Now on to the few measures that at least have some semblance of thought or reason behind them. The first would be banning rocket launcher or grenade launcher attachments. While this is a good idea, it's actually been highly regulated since 1934. Rocket launchers and grenade launchers, in fact any explosive projectile, has been illegal for over 80 years. According to the NFA laws established in 1934, one cannot legally own a "Destructive Device", which includes grenade launchers, without extensive government oversight. Therefore it's a bit redundant to re-ban something on an assault weapon's ban it is already, essentially, banned. So while I agree on the assessment, the fact it is already illegal means this part of the bill likely will have no impact (I suppose they failed to do their homework on what was already banned?).
Perhaps the only logical measure among the bunch is to restrict magazine capacity to 10 rounds. After all, there is some logic among this. If a person only has 10 rounds in their magazine, how is it technically feasible that they can shoot more than 10 rounds? Obviously, a mass murderer couldn't shoot more than 10 people with only 10 bullets and, America is saved. Unfortunately, there's a number of problems with this theory. First, a murderer can simply reload, that is replace the magazine or clip, and therefore put more bullets in to a gun. Running out of bullets is a temporary issue that can be fixed by simply adding in more bullets, which can take less than 2 seconds to perform. Given that a person likely cannot significantly outrun an attacker or a bullet in under 2 seconds, this is unlikely to provide any realistic benefit. Most shooters shoot less than 1 bullet every 2 seconds anyways, meaning that it likely would have very little if any real tangible impact.
One has to ask the question? Why 10 rounds? Why not, 11, or 12? Why not 8? Why was 10 chosen? Is there some study that's been done that proves that 10 rounds is just enough rounds per magazine to be used in self defense but just too few to be used in a mass murder? Or is it completely random, drawn out of a hat to provide an arbitrary baseline? What good is there to banning one of these magazines, making a criminal out of otherwise innocent people and consuming police manpower on arresting people with these devices if it won't actually drop or deter crime? For the few credible studies that exist on the subject, such as by those of renowned gun violence criminologist Gary Kleck, it makes very little if any difference how many rounds are in a magazine. A person can simply carry 10, or 20 10-round magazines and make up for their smaller capacity by carrying, more. [1][2][3] Therefore, it's very unlikely it would save any lives, and there is no proof it would do so. The deadliest mass shooting in the world occurred largely with a 10 round pocket pistol in Norway, killing 67 people, although at least one extended magazine was used. 57 out of the 67 people killed were killed by gunshots to the head, in a situation that would make caliber largely irrelevant, largely by shooting people who had already been shot or sneaking up on them.When looking at the majority of mass shootings, less than 10% used an assault weapon, and they were no deadlier on average than shootings that did not use them. As a result, there is no evidence to back up the assertion that 10 round magazine bans would lower the murder rate, the number of people killed in an individual event, or many things like it.
The fundamental premise to gun bans rests almost entirely upon a very specific notion that guns are unusually deadly in comparison to other methods of murder. While difficult to prove in some cases, such as in comparison to stabbings, given that global lists of mass stabbings are generally incomplete, it is possible to compare to other forms of attack. The entire notion that guns are more deadly than other commonly available weapons or methods of murder, many that don't require a permit or background check at all to obtain, with little to no regulations, is more or less wrong, which dismantles a key fundamental proponent to gun control. Why ban guns if they pose no greater risk than a car, pack of matches, bug spray or fertilizer? All of these methods of murder can and have killed more people, such as with vehicle ramming attacks, arson, mass poisonings, and mass bombings. While sad, the deadliest single person mass shooting in the world killed 67 people in Norway, while the deadliest in the U.S. killed 58. [1][2][3][4] In the U.S., the second deadliest killed 49, the third deadliest killed 33, the fourth deadliest killed 27, and the fifth deadliest killed 26. Less than 30 have killed 10 or more people as of 2018, although this figure is subject to change. In the United State's, approximately 78 mass public shootings which killed 4 or more people, occurred between 1982 and 2012 according to congress, and according to Mother Jones, approximately 110 mass shootings which killed 4 or more people have occurred since the 1980's. According to another source, mass shooting tracker, approximately 350-450 mass shootings occur per year, however these are only figures resulting in 3 or more injured, as opposed to the 4 or more killed figure. When in comparison to mass shooting tracker data, around 1% of mass shootings kill 4 or more people, and less than 30 have killed more than 10 people. The average mass shooting kills 1.6 people and injures 5 per year according to the three or more injured statistic, and only a handful have killed more than 4 people.
A simple incomplete list of truck bombings reveals that far more people die per attack of this type. Keeping in mind that the deadliest mass shooting in the world killed 67 people and only 30 have killed more than 10, in 2017 alone for example at least 587 people were killed in Mogadishu, in Aleppo 126+, in Hillah 125, in Baghdad 323+, and in Kabul 90+, with mass bombings frequently killing more than 10. [1] Most bombings are done with fertilizer, specifically ammonium nitrate, which is easily obtained and poorly regulated, being widely available to most farmers. Perhaps the deadliest bombing occurred in Iraq, known as the Yadizi bombing, killing 796 people and injuring 1500 people, far more than guns ever have, with bombings consistently killing more people per attack. A notable attack occurred in India, killing 206 people and injuring nearly 700, with a pressure cooker, a simple cooking device, and similarly powered explosives such as TATP can be made from antibacterial cleanser and fingernail polish, while nearly 200 were killed and 2000 injured in the Madrid train bombings using a type of ammonium nitrate bomb (Goma-2). The Oklahoma city bombing killed 168 people and injured over 680, in the United States, and was done with a fertilizer bomb as well, far deadlier than any mass shooting not only in the U.S., but the world. Assault weapon's, by comparison, kill far less people. Arson is another common form of death, with a notable incident in Iran killing over 420 people in the Cinema rex fire, 173 people in Australia and injuring 454, and the 9/11 attacks killing nearly 3000 with a combination of a vehicle ramming attack and arson. The Salang tunnel fire killed nearly 2700 people, although the exact details of the event were obfuscated by the Russian government, making it difficult to know if it was an accident or an act of arson. A vehicle ramming attack in France killed 86 people and injured 458 with a truck, in Barcelona combined attacks killed 16 people and injured over 160, and several more attacks have occured. A notable attack occurred in New York, which killed 8 people, and if was a shooting would be one of only approximately 50 such events to have occurred in the U.S., equating to being more deadlier than 99.95% of shootings. The simple reality is that other more deadly weapons are available, and won't be removed in a gun ban, and likely can't be banned by themselves, be it fertilizer, cars, flammable substances or the like. Then, it doesn't make sense to ban assault weapon's for their comparative deadliness, or highly regulate them, when by comparison they are not only not more deadly in comparison to other firearms, but to other common forms of attacks. According to a congressional study authorized by Obama, more people use guns to defend themselves than are victims by them, and thus even if you could for some reason save "just one life", you would need to be able to save for more than this to make up for the lack of ability for people to defend themselves.
Ultimate End
It's difficult to say that the assault weapon ban could achieve it's ultimate end of saving lives. The list of features banned are arbitrary and despite being labeled as ultra-deadly "military features" which, technically aren't military features and technically aren't deadly, seem to in any case contribute very little to the overall crime rate. It's likely that given it's such low contribution to murder rates that it could be easily replaced by other firearms or weapons and have just as high a death rate present, comprising just 2% of all weapon's used in murder. The other features of the bill are overly redundant in their re-banning of other illegal things or are barely supported by the facts.
But even if we say that all of these features are somehow ultra deadly and need to be banned, banning them wouldn't be enough for those who have crafted the bill. An additional 153 names of weapon's have been added to the bill, and weapons even closely resembling their "style" would be made illegal. This means even fi all the non-assault features are met, the majority of firearms in the U.S. would be banned by name in any case. If these features are so deadly, what was the point of banning them if you were just going to ban firearms without them anyways? In addition, due to a clause which allows more guns to be added to the list, it is possible that even more guns could potentially be banned after the bill is even passed, with no oversight as to what guns can or cannot be banned. This would give them the potential to ban virtually any firearm they chose, rather than just the one's currently mentioned. So even if we as citizens comply with their demands, the majority of our firearms will be banned anyways.
The concept of an assault weapon's ban is fairly arbitrary to begin with. The term "assault" and "weapon" as so vague as to be virtually meaningless. Almost anything can be used as a weapon, and almost any weapon can be used for assault. As compared to weapon's not used to "assault" people, such as, "chocolate" weapons? What weapon is not used to assault? Perhaps, "deadly" weapons or, lethal firearms or even, the emphasis on firearms would be nice. "Lethal gun" ban might make more sense, albeit they are in fact banning certain types of knives with this bill (bayonets) as well. A two-by four with a nail in it is a weapon that can legally be used for assault, but will it be banned by this bill? To be conveyed by such vague rhetoric seems almost nauseating, as much as "military-style" weapons and the like supposedly needing to be banned. Not only are most military firearms actually illegal, but they have yet to demonstrate why they need to be banned or that they are even more lethal to begin with. Not all weapon's used by the military are especially deadly, or even deadly at all. Tear gas, pepper spray and even non-lethal microwave weaponry are used. Bolt action rifles, pump action shotguns and non automatic or semi-automatic weapons are already widely used in the military. Of course, one is likely referring to a specific military weapon, but making the distinction that it's military at all is irrelevant.
Something isn't banned because it is in the military; this is the classic failure of circular reasoning. Clearly, something is banned due to it's danger. A nuclear bomb is only used by the military because it can destroy an entire city and leaves behind radioactive waste that can be harmful to the environment for years to come. Clearly, no civilian should have it. It is not banned because it is in the military, it's that only military members are allowed to use it because it is banned. Therefore saying "well, it's banned, so therefore it should be banned" or "it's in the military so, therefore it should be banned" is obviously circular reasoning. A plethora of other weapon's, such as the BAR, M1 Garand, Remington 700 and Mossberg 500 aren't banned in the bill, despite being used by the military. Banning something because it's used by the military makes very little sense, since the military actually uses everything from knives, to handguns to hunting weapons. And it fundamentally ignores the fact that things are only banned because they are demonstrated to be unusually dangerous. If no specifics on it's danger can be clarified, than it likely is not particularly more dangerous than any other firearm, and has no reason to be banned. Vague rhetoric and bandwagon mentalities unfortunately contribute to the success of bill's such as this. For true, sensible gun laws to be established we must first ignore the nonsensical one's that, at the very best, would do damage to our average citizenry.
Gun Smuggling
Gun Smuggling
Gun smuggling is an issue to any gun control measure, simply because laws only are as effective as they can be enforced. If you want to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, you need to ensure that your laws, that don't allow anyone to own guns, can be applied to criminals, as well. If they can find alternative means for obtaining the goods you've prohibited, essentially the law becomes worthless, as they can obtain that good anyways. While you may be able to stop a handful of criminals from possessing guns if they were made illegal, unless the good outweighs the bad, such as the now black market for it fueling crime (in the case of alcohol prohibition, for instance) or outweighing the benefit guns have in self defense, a gun control law wouldn't be worth it. There's also obviously the issue of freedom and rights being infringed by banning firearms, but many gun control proponents from the outset probably aren't very concerned about that. Irregardless however, if criminals can still obtain the guns in sizable enough quantities to offset any advantage of banning them, than a gun ban isn't worth it. Whenever guns can be illegally smuggled across the border in to the U.S. despite a gun ban, just like drugs, people and other forms of contraband, you effectively remove any teeth a piece of legislation might have. A criminal who might get 15 years for armed robbery likely won't care too much about a few extra years for a weapons charge, meaning it isn't a severe enough penalty for them to care. A person about to murder someone likely would't care too much at all what the extra penalty for owning a gun was, even if it was extremely severe. In essence, criminals already do illegal things, so adding more illegal things to the list likely isn't a primary concern to them. Especially when it does carry a lesser charge.
Obviously, most guns smuggled across the border or illegally produced in underground factories aren't done by the criminals who use them, themselves. Most of the people who consume drugs for instance don't smuggle it across the border themselves, but rather purchase it from a dealer, who himself purchases it from a gang, and of which that gang purchases it from a bigger gang. The Cartels or Mafia smuggle the drugs across the border itself, and then proliferate it among local street gangs, who sell it to the drug dealers, which is how it ends up in the hands of the average person. Despite being illegal, drugs are so prolific that more than 38% of the population have reported trying illegal drugs [1], and 9.4% admit to currently using drugs. [2] 35.1% of highschoolers report having used marijuana at least once, suggesting that even kids are consuming them at alarming rates. [3] Nearly 50% of new drug users will be teenagers each year. When unreported accounts are considered, it's likely to be much higher than this. Because the same exact smugglers that smuggle drugs also smuggle guns, people and other contraband, it's easy to see just how prolific the gun trade could be, and already is. These criminals overwhelmingly smuggle the guns across the border with them and then sell them to other criminals, rather than purchase them at gun stores which requires a background check, often a waiting period, and is usually more expensive. It's clear that they can get drugs even to children at highschools, and thus the prolific nature of their other contraband is likely to be as prevalent. Physically, there's not much difference between smuggling a gun across the border, and drugs. Guns are actually harder to catch, as metal guns don't leave behind a unique scent for a dog to pick up on, unlike many forms of drugs. Wood and metal just smell like the rest of the car a person is in, and make it harder to smuggle. Guns can also be smuggled across the border in pieces, further making it difficult to detect.
It's not very difficult to see why drugs are so prevalent, as well as guns among criminals. Between 1-10% of land based border crossings result in criminals being caught ever year [Page 24], meaning that some 90-99% of criminals are capable of getting across the border without being detected. Only around 3-5% of sea containers are even screened for contraband or concealed people, meaning over 95% of contraband likely gets in. [Page 56] As nearly 500,000 to a million undocumented immigrants are able to get past the border every year, individuals with billions of dollars and organization have a much easier time doing so. Given that the border is almost completely open as it is, it's easy to see why nearly anything, including human beings, can get across the border. It shouldn't come as a surprise that approximately 40% of gangs are involved in arms trafficking, and that gun trafficking is fairly common in general.
Another common problem with illegal gun trafficking is that the weapons are generally untraceable. AS they were made in a foreign country usually illegally, there is no record of them in the U.S.'s or any other governments records, thus meaning it's almost to trace the firearms to a particular purchaser. When done off the books, there obviously are no records left behind.
Gun smuggling is an issue to any gun control measure, simply because laws only are as effective as they can be enforced. If you want to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, you need to ensure that your laws, that don't allow anyone to own guns, can be applied to criminals, as well. If they can find alternative means for obtaining the goods you've prohibited, essentially the law becomes worthless, as they can obtain that good anyways. While you may be able to stop a handful of criminals from possessing guns if they were made illegal, unless the good outweighs the bad, such as the now black market for it fueling crime (in the case of alcohol prohibition, for instance) or outweighing the benefit guns have in self defense, a gun control law wouldn't be worth it. There's also obviously the issue of freedom and rights being infringed by banning firearms, but many gun control proponents from the outset probably aren't very concerned about that. Irregardless however, if criminals can still obtain the guns in sizable enough quantities to offset any advantage of banning them, than a gun ban isn't worth it. Whenever guns can be illegally smuggled across the border in to the U.S. despite a gun ban, just like drugs, people and other forms of contraband, you effectively remove any teeth a piece of legislation might have. A criminal who might get 15 years for armed robbery likely won't care too much about a few extra years for a weapons charge, meaning it isn't a severe enough penalty for them to care. A person about to murder someone likely would't care too much at all what the extra penalty for owning a gun was, even if it was extremely severe. In essence, criminals already do illegal things, so adding more illegal things to the list likely isn't a primary concern to them. Especially when it does carry a lesser charge.
Obviously, most guns smuggled across the border or illegally produced in underground factories aren't done by the criminals who use them, themselves. Most of the people who consume drugs for instance don't smuggle it across the border themselves, but rather purchase it from a dealer, who himself purchases it from a gang, and of which that gang purchases it from a bigger gang. The Cartels or Mafia smuggle the drugs across the border itself, and then proliferate it among local street gangs, who sell it to the drug dealers, which is how it ends up in the hands of the average person. Despite being illegal, drugs are so prolific that more than 38% of the population have reported trying illegal drugs [1], and 9.4% admit to currently using drugs. [2] 35.1% of highschoolers report having used marijuana at least once, suggesting that even kids are consuming them at alarming rates. [3] Nearly 50% of new drug users will be teenagers each year. When unreported accounts are considered, it's likely to be much higher than this. Because the same exact smugglers that smuggle drugs also smuggle guns, people and other contraband, it's easy to see just how prolific the gun trade could be, and already is. These criminals overwhelmingly smuggle the guns across the border with them and then sell them to other criminals, rather than purchase them at gun stores which requires a background check, often a waiting period, and is usually more expensive. It's clear that they can get drugs even to children at highschools, and thus the prolific nature of their other contraband is likely to be as prevalent. Physically, there's not much difference between smuggling a gun across the border, and drugs. Guns are actually harder to catch, as metal guns don't leave behind a unique scent for a dog to pick up on, unlike many forms of drugs. Wood and metal just smell like the rest of the car a person is in, and make it harder to smuggle. Guns can also be smuggled across the border in pieces, further making it difficult to detect.
It's not very difficult to see why drugs are so prevalent, as well as guns among criminals. Between 1-10% of land based border crossings result in criminals being caught ever year [Page 24], meaning that some 90-99% of criminals are capable of getting across the border without being detected. Only around 3-5% of sea containers are even screened for contraband or concealed people, meaning over 95% of contraband likely gets in. [Page 56] As nearly 500,000 to a million undocumented immigrants are able to get past the border every year, individuals with billions of dollars and organization have a much easier time doing so. Given that the border is almost completely open as it is, it's easy to see why nearly anything, including human beings, can get across the border. It shouldn't come as a surprise that approximately 40% of gangs are involved in arms trafficking, and that gun trafficking is fairly common in general.
Another common problem with illegal gun trafficking is that the weapons are generally untraceable. AS they were made in a foreign country usually illegally, there is no record of them in the U.S.'s or any other governments records, thus meaning it's almost to trace the firearms to a particular purchaser. When done off the books, there obviously are no records left behind.
Sources
Sources
https://www.unodc.org/toc/en/crimes/organized-crime.html - "320 out of 870 billion dollars are from drugs"
https://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/2011-national-gang-threat-assessment -"48 percent of violent crime is committed by gangs"
Americas Criminal Law
Europe's criminal law
Australia's Criminal law
Total Homicide Rate World
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
http://www.unodc.org/documents/gsh/pdfs/2014_GLOBAL_HOMICIDE_BOOK_web.pdf
Total Violent Crime according to WHO
https://www.unodc.org/toc/en/crimes/organized-crime.html - "320 out of 870 billion dollars are from drugs"
https://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/2011-national-gang-threat-assessment -"48 percent of violent crime is committed by gangs"
Americas Criminal Law
Europe's criminal law
Australia's Criminal law
Total Homicide Rate World
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
http://www.unodc.org/documents/gsh/pdfs/2014_GLOBAL_HOMICIDE_BOOK_web.pdf
Total Violent Crime according to WHO
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)