photo sledgehammers_banner_zpsd82b7322.jpg"

Wednesday, December 19, 2012

And Then What?

Okay, so let's say, for the sake of argument, we do renew the 1994 Assault Weapons ban like Obama favors. Given that the 1994 ban wouldn't have made a lick of difference in what happened in Newtown, what's the next step? Do we ban all magazines over 5 rounds? 3 rounds? Do we outlaw all semi-automatic rifles? The Virgina Tech massacre used two handguns, one that only had 10 round magazines.

Nothing short of a full repeal of the Second Amendment and a complete and total ban on all firearms stands any kind of chance of putting a dent in these episodes. Renewing the ill-conceived and horribly executed "Assault Weapons Ban" will do precisely nothing to stop this sort of attack - collapsible stocks and bayonet lugs, despite making gun-fearing wussies pee in their pants, have exactly zero to do with how the firearm functions.

Okay, so let's remove the grandfathering, then - no more high capacity magazines means fewer bullets, right? Well, there are several fundamental problems with this idea. First, there are literally millions of magazines already in existence, and none of them are registered or have any identifiable markings on them. It would be a herculean task to collect even a tenth of them. Secondly, it's a chunk of metal and a spring. *I* could make a crude but functioning magazines with little more than sheet metal and some hand tools.

Of course, we can't keep pot, cocaine, or heroin out of the country; it's folly to think that we could keep firearms out if we wanted to, let alone magazines. Also, unless we want wholesale violations of the Fourth Amendment, there's the thorny problem of compensation for those millions of magazines - at anywhere from $10 (AR) to $40 (Sig P226) per magazine, the cost for compensation alone could run well into a billion dollar figure.

And, lastly, the real meat of the issue. I am by no means skilled with a pistol or rifle. I can still swap a magazine in a second or two. Jerry Miculek can shoot a revolver so fast it sounds like a machine gun, with a reload in the middle - a skilled shooter can change a magazine so fast that one thirty round magazine would be indistinguishable from three ten round magazines. So rather than a killer walking around with ten 30-round magazine, he's got 30 ten-round magazines. Is this really much of a difference to a madman shooting children?

So, what then?

Do we ban all semi-automatic rifles with removable magazines? The scope of that project - of trying to account for all of the AR-15 and AK-47 pattern rifles, as well as FALs, Saigas, Mini-14s, M1 carbines, and every other semi-auto rifle ever made is staggering. Millions of rifles would be affected, from the $200 Ruger 10/22 to a $10K Barrett M82A1. It defies credibility to think that even a tiny fraction of these guns would ever be recovered - let alone their owners properly compensated for their confiscation.

And then what?

A lever-action .357 Magnum has anywhere from 9 to 15 round capacity. Are we willing to let over a dozen children die because these rifles are legal? Some shotguns can hold up to 10 rounds (with the mini-shells). Some revolvers have 8 rounds and can be reloaded very quickly with high capacity assault speedloaders - are we willing to risk that? Using the same cursory risk-assessment techniques as those hyping the 1994 AWB - which is to say, banning things that will do nothing to actually change how the firearm operates - will lead to no change in levels of violence committed with firearms.

Which means they'll be looking for the next thing. And then the next thing. Until we're in the same place as (formerly) Great Britain, where all handguns are illegal and only single-shot 22s and shotguns are allowed - provided they're stored in a locked room filled with concrete. And, like Britain, we'll see skyrocketing gun crimes. You see, when the focus is on the inanimate object, rather than the human, the human will never change. The tools might change, slightly, but the human will not - unless you address the root problems behind the violence, rather than the tools used to commit the violence.

Any measure that seeks to address the tools used and nothing else will fail. Whether this is a feature or a bug to the ghouls pushing these measures is an exercise for the reader; however it is impossible to see people claiming that we need a renewal of the Assault Weapons Ban to stop the next Newtown massacre when the 1994 AWB would have done nothing to stop this. In fact, it's highly likely that the rifle - if it was even the weapon used - was a ban-compliant rifle, as Connecticut has a ban on certain semi-automatic rifles.

To anyone that supports a renewal of the ban, please answer this one simple question: 
What's next?

That is all.


15 comments:

dustydog said...

Step 1 - renewal of the ban.

Step 2 - BATF needs another whole Center, in order to enforce the ban. Nevermind that they didn't fire anybody or cut FTEs (full time equivalents) when the last ban expired; they need at least a thousand new employees. Two new buildings in some DC suburb. A democratic Congressperson crowing about bringing more jobs to the district. FBI gets more employees. TSA gets more. More inspectors at ports, to look for contraband.

Step 3 - Third World countries reward Liberal Politicians with more Nobel Prizes and vacations (that they call summits or meetings).

Step 4 - as crime spikes, all the myriad benefits liberals liberal constituencies becomes more reliable.

Mopar said...

Everyone also forgets that with just a little practice, 100yr old bolt action rifles without a removable magazine like the Lee-Enfield can be fired as fast as a semiauto. There is a vid on youtube of a guy shooting 10 rounds in 6 point something seconds. Using a little strip of metal you can reload one almost as fast as changing a magazine.

Hell, for all the antis that say we should only have the guns available when the Bill of Rights was written..... A Revolutionary War era musket can fire 5 rounds of .69 or .75 caliber per minute. We're hearing it took police 10 to 20 minutes to respond in Sandy Hook. That's 50 to 100 shots could have been fired in that school by one person with one gun that shoots bullets that would have been FAR more deadly at close range then a tiny .223 caliber.

AK™ said...

How many people did Timothy McVeigh kill with diesel,ammonium nitrate and a truck?
What about the hijackers on Sept.11th?

I don't recall ever reading that ANYONE got killed by a bayonet lug.

Ferret said...

We couldn't just lock up all the known and potential sociopaths in the country. All infringement of the more popular constitutional rights aside, where the hell would we get our politicians from then?

Brad_in_MA said...

AK,

Tim McVeigh killed 168, including 19 toddlers in a day care center, and injured or maimed more than 600 others. He did this not with fertilizer & a rented box truck, but with THE WILL TO CAUSE GRAVE BOLIDY HARM TO INNOCENTS. This is the crux of the issue whether we're talking about Jared Loughner, Adam Lanza, the nutbag who shot up the movie theater in Colorado, or the follow who in 1927 set off two bombs in Bath Township Michigan, killing 44 in the worst school massacre in US history. I should note that the bomber in the 1927 case stockpiled his tools (dynamite and another US Mil surplus explosive) for more than a year before causing the destruction.

Limiting the number of gun purchases, or restricting ammo capacity will do nothing to stop future incidents. From the movie Full Metal Jacket -- "it is a hard heart that kills" -- plain and simple. Yes, using an AR with multiple 30-round magazines is more efficient than using say a knife, (see China, Dec 14, 2012) but with DETERMINATION AND THE WILL TO CAUSE HARM, a disturbed individual will find a way. Nineteen musloids using THEIR TWISTED EVIL WILL TO CAUSE HARM, along with a common tool, aka a box cutter, killed almost 2900, injured thousands more, and forever changed a nation.

The kind of violence we saw last week is not a gun issue. It is first and foremost a MENTAL HEALTH issue. If anyone reading this has not seen "I am Adam Lanza's Mother" I strongly suggest seeking it out. Jay, perhaps you can link to this terrifying story which has gone viral in the last few days.

If only now I could convince my wife, but she won't listen to reason. ;-(

- Brad

Andie said...

I feel this is not just any one issue, but several all interwoven, but it is easiest for the "big, bad guns" to take the brunt of the ire. From the loss of funding to provide additional methods to make schools safer, to better screening methods, education, and training, for those applying for licensing, and the lack of sustained care for those with mental health issues, the government has consistently failed to provide meaningful dialog, and avenues to engage the American public in working together to reach common ground, let alone middle ground.

I shudder to think that the more things become polarized, the more the potential exists for folks like me (somewhat new to being involved with the Second Amendment) to lose any opportunity to exercise it... and that is not acceptable to me.
So, I keep an eye on the media stories, I listen to the opinions of folks in the gunnie community, and I try to make balanced decisions for my own beliefs... and then stand by them.

Cormac said...

"...it's highly likely that the rifle - if it was even the weapon used..."

I keep hearing about it, but at first they were saying it was left in the car.

I suppose he had time to run out and drop it in the car (20 minutes).

But nobody talking about it anymore, leads me to wonder...

PoppaJ said...

If we ban "ZOMG ASSAULT RIFLES" what will Eric Holder sell to the Mexican Cartels?

Expat said...

Okay,

Instead of all of us griping to each other or, running out to buy anything we can get off the shelf before the next ban, why don't we get out there and get visibly active; get out there and show our communities and our legislators that we are a substantial and respectable part of their constituencies?

The Antis will hold a vigil at the drop of a hat. Perhaps it's time we hold our own.

Drawing the line this time is going to take grass-roots efforts and, as admirable as they are, we can't solely rely on the NRA or SAF to make this fight for us!

Pick a day. Organize. Spread the word and encourage your shooting buddies to show-up.

Sorry. There I go ranting again. Been trying to organize folks I know up here in Alaska and all I'm getting are cricket chirps...

Bubblehead Les. said...

What's next? Well, how about the idea that anyone who wants a Gun in the first place FAILS the new "Mental Health Stability Requirement Check?"

Remember, the Soviet Union sent Political Prisoners to the Gulag Psych Wards because it was obvious that ANYONE who opposed Communism MUST be Insane. And since the ANTIS know that anyone who wants a firearm MUST want to use it to KILL PEOPLE!

Jay, this whole damn Gun Control Legislation hasn't got one damn thing to do with Gun Safety. The Object is to gain more Control so that the Sheeple will fall in line. There are only 2 ways to Legally Stop it: A) the Republicans in the House prevent it from becoming Law. B) SAF stops it in the Courts.

I really don't have much Hope of those Republitards doing much to prevent it, and the Court Route takes a long time.

The only saving Grace is that they are saying that the Ban will allow "Grandfathering." But look for the NEXT One or Two to do Confiscation.

But HEY! All those people who Hated Romney and Voted for Obama because "Obama didn't do Gun Control" must be happy, right?

Pakkinpoppa said...

Maybe I'll just take up fishing.

Probably going to pick up at least a couple 10 shot AR and AK mags...just for range use in case the others get put up as being collectors items.

Do have a couple revolvers to go along with the Blocks...but would hate to have to put them up simply for magazine unavailability.

Anonymous said...

Here is a video of an awesome two year old giving Obama her two cents.


http://youtu.be/yzpdn-Hx6s8

Anonymous said...

When you stop and consider the laws already broken by the murderous F-Tard in CT, the Colorado shootings, Ft. Hood, etc. and that two presidents have been assassinated by mentally ill or diminished capacity people. Yet we still refuse to have "that talk" and our health care is in shambles (more so since Regan) and finally we have prosecutors like Eric Holder and Lanny Breuer who refuse to prosecute because they might offend the "good ol' boy" status quo. Is it any wonder that people keeping whining and moaning, wringing their hands and listening to snake oil and other hucksters to "do something" knowing full well the assault weapons ban will do nothing, but conveniently missing having the talk that we really do need, for lack of a use better set of words, "insane asylums."

The time is now: We need this conversation and stop avoiding it.

ASM826 said...

And if this last guy had run down the hall throwing glass bottles full of gasoline into each room? What's the death count then?

Anyone remember the Happy Land nightclub fire in New York in 1990? One guy killed 87 people with one plastic bottle of gasoline.

Going to ban the sale of gasoline?

Ed said...

Banning the sale of gasoline does not fit the meme.

Guns - Bad!
Gasoline - Good!

End of national discussion, even though you know it has been a monologue.