From the Orlando Sentinel, an editorial calling for a renewal of the “assault weapons ban”.  (hat tip to Murdoc).

First, who wrote this? There’s no name attached to it. All I know is “we think” and I’d like to know who this “we” is. Maybe it’s the same “they” that call him Vader (obscure reference).

There’s no need for ordinary citizens to be armed with such lethal firepower. Hunters don’t need them. Gun-toting urbanites don’t need them, either.

So what should us ordinary citizens be armed with? spitballs? kinda-lethal? things that send strongly worded letters to the guy breaking into my house that might kill my children and rape and kill my wife? But apparently, there’s no reason for me to need such lethal firepower. So please tell me, just what do I need? just what will you allow me to use?

Those who say that outlawing these lethal rifles will only mean that criminals will have access to them are flat wrong. All that legalization does is make it easier for crooks to get them, and make it necessary for police to play catch-up in a costly city-street arms race.

No, we’re flat right. You see, a criminal by definition doesn’t obey the law. So if you outlaw these “lethal rifles” then certainly the law-abiding citizen is going to continue to obey the law and will now not have access to them. However, the criminal will still go about their merry law-breaking ways and can get whatever they want. And as it is, a criminal cannot obtain a firearm through legal means (go look up the BAFTE 4473 form), so how are the criminals today obtaining their firearms? They’re sure not going down to the local sporting goods store like Joe Law-Abiding Citizen is. So pass all the laws you want… it doesn’t stop a law breaker since, by definition, that’s what they do. But it sure stops us law-abiding citizens, and that’s why we don’t like this – it’s not right to punish the good guys and put them at a disadvantage.

No one is trying to trample on Second Amendment rights.

How is calling for a renewal of “the assault weapons ban” not a trample upon Second Amendment rights? Have you read the text of the ban? Have you read the SCOTUS DC. vs. Heller ruling? have you been able to reconcile the two?

But there do not seem to be many examples where honest citizens stopped a crime, or caught a criminal, by brandishing an AK-47 or some similar brand of assault rifle. However, there are too many examples of the opposite — criminals using these weapons to kill people or law-enforcement officers.

Here we agree. But why does this happen? Some may say media bias in selecting what to report. I think it’s also because the stopping of a crime doesn’t instantly become a newsworthy event. Someone staves off a mugger in a dark alley, that doesn’t mean we need to call Channel 4 and get a news team down here stat. This is one place where statistics and perception are skewed, because what you mostly hear about and gets reported are when things get heavy, police are involved, someone got shot. But believe me, law-abiding folks defend themselves every day.

 

What gets me about these things is that the object is demonized. We want to ban guns, we don’t look at the behavior. Do we need to ban alcohol because people drink then drive? We tried that and it didn’t work very well. Should we ban TV because our children don’t go outside and are getting fat? Should we ban sex because people commit adultery?  Why do we demonize the inanimate object? Why aren’t we working to deal with the behavior? A gun itself isn’t a good thing nor a bad thing, it’s just a thing. What is done with the gun determines if it’s a good thing or a bad thing. If I’m able to use a gun to keep my wife and children from being injured or killed by an attacker, I’d say that’s a good thing — but then, it was my actions that were really the good thing, the gun remained just the gun.

I don’t like violence. I agree with the article that when senseless death happens it’s an unwelcome thing. But how is banning guns going to stop that violence? Look at the UK where guns are essentially banned? Violent crime is rising, especially with knives. So what next? ban knives? Ok. Then the criminals will just find something else to use (pointed sticks?). The article speaks of “a city-street arms race” but that will never go away, only shift. So truly to solve the problems we need to attack the problem, not symptoms, not accouterments. But in the meantime, there are still bad people out there and I’d rather they didn’t have the advantage over me.

So once again, we come back to Joe Huffman’s “Just One Question“. Still waiting on an answer.