Maybe.

The Wall Street Journal has an article on new calls for the “assault-gun ban.” And they seem to get a few things right, but much of it is the same old misconceptions. But you know, I can understand this. Recall, I used to be in the camp of the ignorant so I can understand where all this comes from.

…assault weapons, or guns that can fire rounds more quickly than standard weapons

Oh, so that is what an assault weapon is. So pray tell me, what exactly is a standard weapon? I’d go out on a limb and guess they’d say revolvers would be such a thing, but then you get guys like Jerry Miculik:

So I guess revolvers would be “assault weapons” too. Maybe a standard weapon is your arm throwing a rock?

In November [2008], a record 1,529,635 background checks were performed on firearms sales, up 42% from the same period a year earlier, according to the Federal Bureau of Investigation. A 24% year-over-year increase followed in December [2008], with similar increases so far this year [2009].

Background checks are considered a measure of sales because they are required during any sale of a new weapon from a federally licensed retailer, or if a weapon is sold or reclaimed from a pawn shop.

I admit I don’t know how it works in other states (tho I reason it’s the same since the 4473 is a Federal form), but I know here in Texas if you have a concealed handgun license you can just show your license and they skip the background check. Why? Because if you have a valid concealed handgun license you’ve been background checked far more extensively and thoroughly than the “insta-check” does, and that you still have the license means you’re still in good standing.  So I would reason while the above numbers are certainly a good indicator, I wouldn’t use them as absolutes because with the millions of concealed handgun license holders in this country, I’m sure a few of them bought at least one firearm in the past few months so the real numbers are likely higher.

“Democrats have finally gotten it,” said Larry Sabato, director of the University of Virginia’s Center for Politics. “The message they’ve gotten is if they become gun-control advocates, they are going to suffer at the polls.”

Uh huh. Note that while people love to paint gun-owners as knuckle-dragging Republicans, there are a lot of Democrats that own guns too. Whether their knuckles drag or not remains in question.

When AG Eric Holder stuck his foot in his mouth earlier about bringing back the “assault weapons” ban other top Democrats, like Pelosi and Reid were quick to distance themselves from him. They know they’ll be looking for a new job if they breech the matter. The whole matter of giving Washington D.C. a vote and how that bill has gun rights squarely as an issue within it… the Democrats know how they proceed on this matter will greatly affect their future re-election efforts because how they proceed in it will tell exactly how they feel on the matter. It’s wonderful to watch them squirm. I mean, they love to scream about “rights” and now when something comes along that improves rights that they don’t necessarily care for… oh, how amusing it is.

The weapons used in the Alabama shootings “are military-bred firearms developed for the specific purpose of killing human beings quickly and efficiently,” wrote a coalition of groups, including the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, in a joint release on Wednesday. “Today we call on the U.S. Congress to pass a federal assault weapons ban.”

Of course… the Brady’s. They seem to love to dance on the still-warm graves when they can use it to further their agenda. 

But still, tell me… how will banning any sort of gun serve to stop people from going crazy? Look at the UK. Guns are more or less banned; people still go crazy and commit horrible acts. Banning objects does not stop people from going crazy and doing stupid and/or terrible things. 

And let’s also ignore something else. Consider the millions of “assault weapons” owned in this country by private citizens. Have we gone crazy? Have we all instantly turned into blood-thirsty maniacs hell-bent on destruction? How many people today didn’t go on a killing spree?  We tend to focus on the one that did bad and ignore the millions that do good. Consider this yourself when you’re driving around town. There are hundreds or thousands of other cars on the road all around you. You pay them no mind because they are going about their own business and never tread on you. But then there’s that one asshole that cuts you off and nearly runs you off the road, and that’s the asshole that you focus on and ruins your whole day. Thus because that asshole was driving one of those evil SUV’s (probably painted black at that), we must call for a ban on all SUV’s because of that one asshole that ruins it for the rest of us, right? Is that a logical train of thought?

Under current federal law, anyone over 18 years old can buy a semiautomatic assault rifle from a licensed gun dealer as long as the buyer passes a background check verifying that he or she isn’t a convicted felon or mentally ill, among other things. Unlicensed dealers, such as those at gun shows, may sell semiautomatic assault rifles to anyone of any age without conducting a background check.

So are you saying there’s a problem with current federal law? If you don’t like where the line is drawn, pray tell me where do you want the line to be drawn? Well, we already know that answer… you don’t want a line at all because if there are no guns there’s no line to draw in the first place, right?  So if we have no guns, then that means no guns period. Not even for the police, not even for the military. No wait you say? Those people should have guns! Ah, so you see some merit in people having guns. So what sets those particular people apart from the rest of us citizens? A uniform? That the State grants them authoritiy? Ah, a dangerous road we’re heading down. 

And those unlicensed dealers? They’re private citizens performing private transactions. If they don’t do it at gun shows, they’ll do it in their homes or at other locations. It doesn’t matter. So you say, ban this too… any/all private sales. So, a father can’t sell or transfer a gun to his son now? But note… no matter what laws you wish to institute, it’s only going to stop the Good Guys, the law-abiding. Once again we must remember that a criminal — by definition — doesn’t obey they law. They will still sell, or more likely steal, whatever guns they want. The laws we have don’t stop criminals from doing bad things, so more laws won’t stop them. You say it’ll make it harder for them to get at things, but anyone with enough determination in this world can get and/or do whatever they want to. You only truly make it harder on the Good Guys. Why would you want to do that?

 

Hrm… this went on longer than I expected. But it’s the same old things. Folks, it is terrible when someone does a horrible thing like a mass killing. If they chose to use a car and rammed it through a crowded farmers market killing many people, we wouldn’t be calling for a ban on cars. When someone used airplanes and flew them into buildings killing thousands, we didn’t call for a ban on airplanes. But when someone uses a gun, we call for a ban on guns. Why? In any of these cases the object the crazy person used didn’t cause the destruction, it was the crazy person. 

Perpetuating lies and misconceptions about firearms does little good. Like any lie, eventually it will be exposed and the credibility of the liar will be damaged, and then your cause will be hurt even more. If you don’t like guns that’s fine, but learn the truth about them. Truth will only serve you better in the long run.