There is no necessary reason to own a firearm that is designed for killing people [View All]

[jpgray]

There simply isn't. Let me go through the rote arguments of the gun crowd now, to save us some time.

1)Concealed pistols, civilian versions of military weapons, etc., protect against violent crime. Those who own and carry these guns legally are therefore on a level playing field with those who own them illegally for use in crime. If there were concealed carriers on campus, the VT tragedy could have been remitted.

-A shotgun or rifle with a limited magazine is superior for home security.

-As for incidents outside the home, the sad truth is that having the capacity to own and fire a gun does not give you the capacity to effectively neutralize a hostile gunman. Police forces spend years training on this, and they still get it wrong--the number of innocents gunned down by these well-trained officers attributing a violent threat to an innocent person and reacting with lethal force should be troublesome to those with a "wild west" idea of vigilante security through gun proliferation.

-Remember a certain wedding in Baghdad, wherein so many guns were around and yet so many innocents were shot once a threat was perceived. While it is possible that a citizen with a gun could stop such a tragedy before it claimed more lives, the scenario of mass murder or even mass violent crime is so remote statistically, and the consequences of misjudgment are so high, that the cure may prove more damaging than the symptom. How would the hypothetical teacher with a firearm identify the gunman if thirty other folks were wandering around with firearms? Would each person have the training and the experience to make the right choices? It's doubtful. Not to mention that increased legal proliferation of weapons designed to kill will inevitably lead to increased illegal proliferation of those same weapons.

-Violent crime is incredibly rare. Violent crime that requires possession of a firearm designed for killing people to prevent is even rarer than that. And premeditated mass murder in a school using firearms is even less common than that. I hope people who make the argument that these weapons designed wholly for killing people are necessary for personal safety in the face of these dangers do not drive cars, smoke, or eat unhealthy foods. Statistically these are far more likely to cause them harm.

2) The Assault Weapons Ban was mostly designed around cosmetic features--it would have no impact on actual gun violence.

-Here's another shady dodge by the gun lobby. While your favorite gun nut will crow about how no real "assault weapons" were banned by said ban, collapsible stocks, pistol grips, large-capacity magazines and bayonet lugs are all indicative of weapons that are designed to be tactically more effective at killing people than your average rifle. It's tough to conceal a large rifle, or several of them. It isn't as tough to conceal a collapsible stock semi-auto submachine gun clone, or several of them. It's tough to kill thirty people when you have to reload constantly--it isn't so difficult with a military-size magazine. Increased proliferation of these weapons gives those who desire to kill many people some of the most effective tools available, designed expressly for the purpose. A rifle that falls within assault ban regs, even a high-powered one, would not be as effective for the sort of school assaults we've seen in this country.

3) Ownership of powerful weapons is necessary to keep the government in check.

-If the government chose to do anything to suborn your rights, it would be sure to ignore the 2nd amendment while taking away all the others. A citizen with an embarrassingly large collection of small arms, however potent, cannot stand against a government once his or her other rights are taken away. So why would the ostensible evil government bother fighting the 2nd amendment at all? Guns do not make a people free--the rights to free speech, free press, and the right to organize all trump guns as necessary checks on the government. Take much of sub-Saharan Africa, or Saddam era Iraq, for your free examples that wide proliferation of powerful weapons in isolation does not make a people free.

4) The right to bear arms (including those expressly designed to kill people) is in the Bill of Rights! May as well say freedom of the press is wrong, or that people should be subjected to unreasonable search and seizure!

-But there is a line everyone draws somewhere, no? No one accepts the idea that every nation possessing nuclear weapons would insure world peace. Why would anyone imagine that if each person were to own extremely dangerous weapons that a town, a city, a state or a country would be any more peaceful? There are some weapons of which proliferation does less to protect in any significant way than it does to harm, and I think those designed solely for the murder of people are among them. You may draw the line at LAWs or howitzers, but I'll draw mine at the design intent of efficient killing.

Okay, now have at me. :P These weapons designed for murder simply aren't necessary or even desirable. I don't know the answer to the problem, but it seems clear to me that the less proliferation, the less likely a disturbed person will have the tools to magnify his or her dementia into a national tragedy. How to achieve less proliferation I don't know, but the current ease of obtaining weapons like this serves no useful purpose whatsoever.