I happened to write a five-page essay to foster a healthy debate. I wrote it up in a period of about 45 minutes, but after proofreading it, I like the way it's turned out. I would, however, like feedback on the essay, if you wouldn't mind. Of course, we can also use this topic to discuss the right to bear arms and efforts by authoritarians to limit that right. Below is the essay I wrote:
Let me start by saying that I am a gun owner and NRA member, but I’m open to some gun control, namely background checks, but only with the provisions that we have further constitutional protections of the right to bear arms.
Let’s look at a ban on semi-automatic firearms and/or so-called “assault weapons.” What is a semi-automatic firearm and what is an “assault weapon?” A semi-automatic firearm is a firearm that can fire one bullet each time you pull the trigger; this differs from a fully-automatic weapon, which continues to fire as long as the trigger is held down, or ammunition is depleted. An “assault weapon” is a semi-automatic (or occasionally bolt-action) rifle that has certain cosmetic features, such as a barrel shroud, telescoping stock, bayonet lugs and/or pistol grip. The so-called “Federal Assault Weapons Ban” in 1993 banned these so-called “assault weapons;” the ban later expired in 2004.
Why does the gun control lobby call these rifles “assault weapons” when they are no more or less deadly than other semi-automatic rifles? In fact, there is no difference between a semi-automatic firearm and an “assault weapon,” aside from certain cosmetic features. Bolt-action rifles are actually more deadly than a so-called “assault weapon,” such as the previously banned AR-15 rifle; this is because the AR-15 (and other firearms like it) fire .223 Remington rounds, which are considerably smaller than your average hunting rifle ammunition. To say that so-called “assault weapons” aren’t used for hunting is an incorrect statement, in fact, the AR-15 is the most popular rifle in the United States, in part due to it’s .223 rounds, which are considered better for hunting small game (such as rabbits) and even some deer.
The Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 was considered a failure by both criminal experts and the United States Department of Justice. A 2004 report from the Department of Justice showed that only 2% of all firearm murders were committed with semi-automatic rifle. That same report concluded that: “Should it be renewed, the ban's effects on gun violence are likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement. [Assault weapons] were rarely used in gun crimes even before the ban.”; source:
http://crim.sas.upenn.edu/jerry-lee-center-criminology/In 2011 the FBI released statistics that show that you’re more likely to be murdered with a hammer, than you are with any kind of rifle, including so-called “assault weapons;” source:
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8 In addition, semi-automatic rifles were banned in the United Kingdom (since 1988) and Australia (since 1996), and both of such bans have been failures. A 2005 report by the Bureau of Crime Statistics in Australia reported: “Gun ownership is rising and there is no definitive evidence that a decade of restrictive firearms laws has done anything to reduce weapon-related crime, according to NSW's top criminal statistician.
The latest figures show a renaissance in firearm ownership in the state - a 25 per cent increase in three years. And the head of the Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, Don Weatherburn, said falls in armed robberies and abductions in NSW in the past few years had more to do with the heroin drought and good policing than firearms legislation.
Even falls in the homicide rate, which have been steady, began long before the gun law debate provoked by the Port Arthur massacre in 1996.
Nationwide, the proportion of robberies involving weapons is the same as it was in 1996, while the proportion of abductions involving weapons is higher, the latest Australian Bureau of Statistics fiures reveal. They show a mixed result in firearms-related offences since the mid-1990s. There has been a fall in firearms murders (from 32 to 13 per cent) but a rise (19 to 23 per cent) in attempted murders involving guns.” Source:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/gun-laws-fall-short-in-war-on-crime/2005/10/28/1130400366681.htmlAnd in the United Kingdom, violent crime (including homicide) rates have been on the rise since the 1960s, correlating ominously with the 1968 gun control law, which heavily regulated civilian gun ownership. Of course, correlation does not equal causation, but it is rather telling that gun control isn’t a solution to violent crime. In fact, statistics show that, if anything, gun control actually increases violent crime rates.
Source:
http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp Meanwhile almost no other first-world country (including Albania, Andorra, Austria, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Canada, Finland, France, Greenland, Ireland, Italy, Republic of Korea, Montenegro, Netherlands, New Zealand, Northern Ireland, Norway, San Marino, Singapore, Sweden, Switzerland, etc.) has banned semi-automatic rifles or handguns, yet they don’t have mass shootings or high crime rates. Source:
http://www.gunpolicy.org/ So what about mass shootings? Will mass shootings stop if we ban semi-automatic rifles and/or so-called “assault weapons?” Both Australia and the United Kingdom experienced mass shootings after their gun bans. In Australia there was the Monash University massacre in 2004 (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monash_University_shooting) and in the United Kingdom there was the Dunblane massacre in 1996 (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunblane_massacre) and Cumbria (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumbria_shootings) massacre in 2010. Prior to the 1997 Hungerford massacre in the United Kingdom, which led to the 1988 ban on semi-automatic firearms, there were zero mass shootings in Great Britain. In the United States we experienced arguably the worst school shooting in American history, the Columbine High School massacre, which was committed during a time in which both “assault weapons” and so-called “high capacity magazines” were banned.
Okay, so banning semi-automatics won’t stop mass shootings, but will banning magazines stop them? Not according to the United States Department of Justice, (cited from the previously linked to report):
“
It is not clear how often the outcomes of gun attacks depend on the ability of offenders to fire more than ten shots (the current magazine capacity limit) without reloading.“
During the Columbine High School massacre, a massacre that took place when so-called “high capacity magazines” were banned, the attackers used thirteen magazines. In the Viriginia Tech massacre, the attacker used nineteen magazines. These attacks show that magazine bans do not work.
Why are “assault weapons” called that, when they are no more or less deadly than non-“assault” weapons? The gun control lobby is surprisingly open about why; they released this statement in a 1988 report and said report is currently readable on their website:
“Assault weapons are a new topic. The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons.”
Source:
http://www.vpc.org/studies/awaconc.htm As you can see in the above document, the gun control lobby openly admits to intentionally misleading the public, by conflating semi-automatic rifles with fully-automatic rifles. Fully-automatic machineguns have been heavily regulated since the 1930s and the sale of new fully-automatic machineguns has been virtually banned since the Hughes Amendment in 1986. Even still, there are over 60,000 legal owners of fully-automatic machineguns in the United States, and there have been no crimes committed with such firearms.
Now that we’ve covered semi-automatics, let’s discuss handguns, shall we? Handgun bans have been tried before both in the United States and around the world, and resulted in dismal results each time. Handguns were banned in the United Kingdom in 1997 and homicide rates have rose 15% since the ban. Handguns were also banned in Chicago and the District of Columbia, and homicide rates also rose drastically on both occasions; the handgun homicide rate in Chicago by 40% since the ban and the homicide rate in the District of Columbia rose by 73% since the ban (
http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp). The Center for Disease Control released a study showing that handguns were used in self-defense up to ten times more than they were used to commit crimes, saving up to three million lives a year (
http://www.iom.edu/Reports/2013/Priorities-for-Research-to-Reduce-the-Threat-of-Firearm-Related-Violence.aspx).
What about background checks? The national background check system was created in 1993, with the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act. This law mandates that any firearm transaction between a firearms dealer and a private citizen, result in a background check being performed on the buyer. This does not, however, mandate background checks for private firearms transactions. In other words, I can give a firearm to my best friend as a birthday present, without requiring a background check.
What is the so-called “gun show loophole?” The “gun show loophole” is the (factually wrong) idea that firearm sales at gun shows are not subject to background checks. Any regular dealer at a gun show is required to perform a background check on the buyer. However, if I’m a normal person visiting a gun show and happen to run into someone who wants to buy a gun, and I happen to own that gun and want to sell it, I can sell it without a background check, so long as I don’t do it on a regular basis.
Some laws have been proposed to ban the so-called “gun show loophole.” These proposed laws, however, are not aimed at background checks at all. It would criminalize all private firearms sales, regardless of whether or not they take place at a gun show. Then there’s the proposed “universal background check” idea, which would have created a database of all gun owners who obtained their firearms from a private individual. This proposed law was far more strict than the current law concerning firearms dealers. The law concerning firearms dealers requires that information regarding the background check be deleted within 48 hours, provided the background check goes through; however, the proposed “universal background check” law would have required that firearms obtained through private sales be de facto registered. A report published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics states that less than 2% of criminals who committed firearms related offenses obtained their firearms at a gun show. Source:
http://bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fuo.pdf In conclusion, it is clear that gun control is not going to lower violent crime rates in the United States, or anywhere else for that matter. Rather than harming law abiding citizens and discarding the fundamental rights we hold dear, I propose we work towards fixing the underlying problems that lead to violent crime. The underlying cause of violent crime is not firearms, it is social and economic factors; and the underlying cause of mass shootings is poor mental healthcare. Rather than focusing on the symptoms, we should work on improving our education system, healthcare system (including mental health) and eliminating the poor economic conditions that cause people to resort to violence.
Poll
