Sigh. Another refuge from the outside world sullied. OK, here's my contribution. First, the debate is at the inevitable level. We have a mass shooting. Tragic. Avoidable. But it makes us all aware of the evil in people. So, there are cries to control people. Yes, they use the term, 'gun control,' but it is people that they really want to restrict. Otherwise, there would be a push for laws that restrict criminals, and not law-abiding citizens. It is also a cry of those who want public policy decided by emotion, not reason. The demand always starts with the cry, "don't just stand there, do something!" Vague demands are then replaced by demanding laws that are already on the books. It's not recognized that they are on the books, as they failed. But maybe, this time, they will succeed. (Now, what did Einstein say that insanity is doing the same thing and expecting different results?) Witness, Biden's demand that 'armor piercing' bullets be banned, although they already had been--twice. Inevitably, also, there is a slide--although it is "assault rifles" used, the push becomes for greater control over handguns.
The ruling, Heller v DC, did indeed say that weapons in common usage among the people ("the militia) are protected, and that meant those commonly used in sports, hunting, and self-defense. Scalia said that Miller v US allowed the prohibiting of "exotic weapons," including machine guns and assault weapons. (It actually said that there has to be a rational relationship between the training of the militia and the weapon. This would allow for assault weapons.) Now, the thing about banning assault weapons is that they are identical in function, but not in appearance, to ordinary semi-automatics (which incidentally are not easily converted to automatic weapons. You have to have expertise, gunsmithing knowledge, and the right equipment,) The weapons in question (using Diane Feinstein's list) are used in about 2% of the crimes. Yes, mass murderers use them, but they are often used to stop mass murderers as well (the Texas Church shooting, where a good guy with an AR-15 stopped a bad guy with an AR-15).
Nine out of ten mass killings occur in "gun-free zones." They would be more accurately descirbed as "victime disarmament zones," and that is what we are talking about, victim disarmament. I know, vern would say, we are talking about "automatic weapons," (he used the slide from SA to automatic that is so often in victim disarmament debates). But the slide is always to guns used for self-defense, sports, and hunting. Let's also be clear about the meaning of "assault weapon"--it means scary looking one. Diane Feinstein's white list had identical guns allowed that were banned, but they didn't scare her. No jumping up on a table top in their presence. (Ironically, that makes her bill constitutional, as, if the identical weapon is allowed and banned, then, since it is allowed, no harm, no foul).
Gun violence has dropped in inverse relationship to the proliferation of guns, and right to carry laws. Even some victim disarmament advocates recognize this. I read an editorial in the New York Times where this statistic was given, and the writer then went on to say, yes, homicide has plummetted in States with right to carry laws, but justified homicides (victims protecting themselves), has skyrocketed. He referred to victims defending themselves as "aggressors," and those who attacked them as victims. (Most gun deaths are suicides, btw. 2/3rd, in fact. As I believe that you have a right to sucide, whether by guns or by physician-assistance, this is ok with me. Not that I think we shouldn't get people help, and sure, force gun stores to carry suicide-prevention hotline information.)
This isn't to say that somethings can't be done that are both constitutional and consistent with natural rights. Putting bump stocks on the FFA list doesn't interfere with the training of people (in fact bump stocks counter the training, as they interfere with accuracy and ruin your gun). Having the military put dishonorable and medical discharges into the national database would help, as would training the FBI in elementary geography, so the person running the check doesn't confuse North and South Carolina. When police ignore a psychiatrist's information that a man is dangerously psychotic and he should not be ignored, that would be nice (the Holmes case), and the FBI following up on tips about a school shooter too. And yes perhaps the age for buying scary looking guns should be raised to 21. After all, if you have to have an adult buy your liquour, why not your gun?
I'll end by asking the question, to vern and anyone else--how does disarming me (or any victim) make you safer?
