In the last few days, we have heard a lot about gun control proposals. Vice president Biden says that the president may impose some sort of control by executive order rather than waiting for legislative action. Of course, he does not specify what that executive order would say. Nevertheless, the big thing under discussion is reimposition of a ban on so called assault weapons. Governor Cuomo of New York delivered a speech yesterday in which he called for banning ammo magazines that hold more than ten bullets and also tightening New York's already existing ban on assault weapons. Similar calls mostly from the Democrats are reverberating across the land.
Let's forget for the moment the arguments with regard to the legality of these proposals. Let's also ignore whether they violate the Constitution. Instead, let's focus on perhaps the most important question: would they work? Would a reinstituted federal ban on assault weapons reduce the chances that there would be a mass killing by a mentally ill shooter in the future? Would a ban on larger ammunition clips change the chances of people dying at the hands of a crazed killer next year?
Sadly, the answer is a clear negative. Let's start with the easiest one, the size of the ammo clips. The point of all of these psycho killings is that they end once there is armed opposition to the shooter. In other words, at the theater in Colorado, at Newtown, and elsewhere, there was no one present with a weapon to oppose the shooter. That means that the shooter certainly had the one or two seconds to take out a depleted ten shot magazine and clip in another one. In other words, taking away ammo clips that hold more than ten shots would do nothing. The shooter would merely have to carry a few more that hold ten shots only in order to do as much harm. And, by the way, even if the shooter only had ten shots, he could still kill many folks.
Then we have the assault weapon ban. It did not work during the ten years it was in place from 1994 to 2004. Why would it work now? And why did the killing in Newtown take place if Connecticut bans assault weapons? Remember the guns used at Newtown were legal; the killer took his mother's weapons after he killed her.
The simple truth here is that the whole issue needs to be rethought. If there is a way to cut down on the possibility of mass shootings, it may be worthwhile. We all need to examine it in order to decide. What is not worthwhile, however, is revisiting the old gun control debates of the last thirty years. What is the point of fighting over the imposition of measures that clearly will not work? Okay, other than using gun control for demagoguery, what is the point?
Let's forget for the moment the arguments with regard to the legality of these proposals. Let's also ignore whether they violate the Constitution. Instead, let's focus on perhaps the most important question: would they work? Would a reinstituted federal ban on assault weapons reduce the chances that there would be a mass killing by a mentally ill shooter in the future? Would a ban on larger ammunition clips change the chances of people dying at the hands of a crazed killer next year?
Sadly, the answer is a clear negative. Let's start with the easiest one, the size of the ammo clips. The point of all of these psycho killings is that they end once there is armed opposition to the shooter. In other words, at the theater in Colorado, at Newtown, and elsewhere, there was no one present with a weapon to oppose the shooter. That means that the shooter certainly had the one or two seconds to take out a depleted ten shot magazine and clip in another one. In other words, taking away ammo clips that hold more than ten shots would do nothing. The shooter would merely have to carry a few more that hold ten shots only in order to do as much harm. And, by the way, even if the shooter only had ten shots, he could still kill many folks.
Then we have the assault weapon ban. It did not work during the ten years it was in place from 1994 to 2004. Why would it work now? And why did the killing in Newtown take place if Connecticut bans assault weapons? Remember the guns used at Newtown were legal; the killer took his mother's weapons after he killed her.
The simple truth here is that the whole issue needs to be rethought. If there is a way to cut down on the possibility of mass shootings, it may be worthwhile. We all need to examine it in order to decide. What is not worthwhile, however, is revisiting the old gun control debates of the last thirty years. What is the point of fighting over the imposition of measures that clearly will not work? Okay, other than using gun control for demagoguery, what is the point?
No comments:
Post a Comment