Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Gun Control & RKBA
Showing Original Post only (View all)The new target for gun bans: All semiautomatic weapons? [View all]
The new target for gun bans: All semiautomatic weapons?
By Eugene Volokh January 8
Back in the 1970s, talk was of banning Saturday Night Specials cheap, generally low-caliber handguns that were supposedly favored by criminals. Actually, criminals, like other people, preferred better, more powerful guns. And to the extent the bans pushed criminals away from the cheap, low-caliber guns and to slightly more expensive, high-caliber substitutes, they might have increased gun deaths, precisely because the high-caliber substitutes were deadlier. (A gun is a criminals tool of the trade; a few would-be gun criminals might be put off by having to pay some more for a gun, but many others would pay the extra money if they had to.)
Then talk shifted to so-called assault weapons particular kinds of semiautomatic weapons partly because these too were seen as unusual and not generally owned by law-abiding people. Quite a few states and cities have indeed banned sales of such weapons, as did the federal government (for newly manufactured) weapons from 1994 to 2004. Of course, especially now, such assault weapons are actually pretty common, but bans on them are still being proposed.
And of course now things have moved on: Now were hearing calls for bans on sale or home possession of semiautomatic weapons generally. Consider, for instance, Thomas Friedmans column in the New York Times this week; Damon Linkers article for The Week this week, though apparently limited to semiautomatic rifles; the Media Matters article hopefully noting a poll of Latinos that showed support for a ban on semi-automatic and assault weapons (the polling organization itself characterized the position as ban semi-automatic weapons).
These proposals arent entirely new; President Obama, when he was a candidate for the Illinois legislature in 1998, said hed support a ban on semiautomatic weapons. But Ive been hearing them more and more often even though semiautomatic guns likely represent close to half of the guns out there in the country. These arent calls for restricting supposedly narrow categories of guns that are allegedly used predominantly by criminals. These are calls for banning the sorts of guns that tens of millions of law-abiding Americans have in their homes.
Now if people think that wed be safer with a ban on semiautomatic weapons, they should of course feel free to argue in favor of such a ban. But, as I suggested in this post earlier today, its hard to view gun rights supporters as paranoid for worrying that supposedly modest restrictions will lead to broad gun bans, when they see how supposedly narrower past restrictions are indeed being followed by calls for much broader gun bans today.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/01/08/the-new-target-for-gun-bans-all-semiautomatic-weapons/
Eugene Volokh teaches free speech law, religious freedom law, church-state relations law, a First Amendment Amicus Brief Clinic, and tort law, at UCLA School of Law, where he has also often taught copyright law, criminal law, and a seminar on firearms regulation policy.
By Eugene Volokh January 8
Back in the 1970s, talk was of banning Saturday Night Specials cheap, generally low-caliber handguns that were supposedly favored by criminals. Actually, criminals, like other people, preferred better, more powerful guns. And to the extent the bans pushed criminals away from the cheap, low-caliber guns and to slightly more expensive, high-caliber substitutes, they might have increased gun deaths, precisely because the high-caliber substitutes were deadlier. (A gun is a criminals tool of the trade; a few would-be gun criminals might be put off by having to pay some more for a gun, but many others would pay the extra money if they had to.)
Then talk shifted to so-called assault weapons particular kinds of semiautomatic weapons partly because these too were seen as unusual and not generally owned by law-abiding people. Quite a few states and cities have indeed banned sales of such weapons, as did the federal government (for newly manufactured) weapons from 1994 to 2004. Of course, especially now, such assault weapons are actually pretty common, but bans on them are still being proposed.
And of course now things have moved on: Now were hearing calls for bans on sale or home possession of semiautomatic weapons generally. Consider, for instance, Thomas Friedmans column in the New York Times this week; Damon Linkers article for The Week this week, though apparently limited to semiautomatic rifles; the Media Matters article hopefully noting a poll of Latinos that showed support for a ban on semi-automatic and assault weapons (the polling organization itself characterized the position as ban semi-automatic weapons).
These proposals arent entirely new; President Obama, when he was a candidate for the Illinois legislature in 1998, said hed support a ban on semiautomatic weapons. But Ive been hearing them more and more often even though semiautomatic guns likely represent close to half of the guns out there in the country. These arent calls for restricting supposedly narrow categories of guns that are allegedly used predominantly by criminals. These are calls for banning the sorts of guns that tens of millions of law-abiding Americans have in their homes.
Now if people think that wed be safer with a ban on semiautomatic weapons, they should of course feel free to argue in favor of such a ban. But, as I suggested in this post earlier today, its hard to view gun rights supporters as paranoid for worrying that supposedly modest restrictions will lead to broad gun bans, when they see how supposedly narrower past restrictions are indeed being followed by calls for much broader gun bans today.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/01/08/the-new-target-for-gun-bans-all-semiautomatic-weapons/
Eugene Volokh teaches free speech law, religious freedom law, church-state relations law, a First Amendment Amicus Brief Clinic, and tort law, at UCLA School of Law, where he has also often taught copyright law, criminal law, and a seminar on firearms regulation policy.
Discuss.
I agree. The 'gun owners are paranoid' argument, just doesn't fly when you:
A. Take anti-gunners at their word, on what they wish to ban
B. Pay attention to legislative history, how the anti-gun crowd always wants something more legislatively. Nothing is ever 'enough' for them.
C. Note the dishonesty invoked in their methodology. It might be mentioned in this thread by someone, that the pro-gun side has engaged in some dishonesty of their own. While this is true to a relatively very small extent when compared with well known anti-gun doctrine, theres one HUGE difference. Anti-gun dishonesty is aimed toward reducing our rights, while any dishonesty on the part of the pro-gun side is aimed toward keeping intact the rights we still have, the extent to which we still have them, and the recognition that keeping and bearing (owning and carrying a gun) are rights not priveleges.
19 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies