Lawyers, Guns, and Money

You know how people love to make that "I'm completely neutral on gun control but I just wanted to tell you the facts" and then they're all up in one side or the other on gun control?

You're lookin' at the guy who is actually neutral on gun control. I'm just interested in the facts. And you know what? Facts are really hard to find.

Let's take a look, shall we?

Gun control. It's almost as easy to get facts on gun control effectiveness as it is to get facts on education.

About 13,000 people are murdered each year in the US. Mass murders are much more sensational and everyone wants to talk about them but they are statistically irrelevant.

As it turns out, assault rifles are used in a few hundred murders each year in the US. Perhaps under 200 murders (statistics are hard to come by).

Remember how 13,000 are murdered? A lot more people are killed by guns. That's right, a gun is more likely to be used in a suicide than a homicide. And, of course, a huge number more than that are people who are injured by guns.

Still, a relatively insignificant number of these crimes are done with any sort of long guns. These crimes are mostly done with handguns.

My conclusion here is that a ban on assault weapons is almost irrelevant to violent crime reduction. Such a ban might preclude some of the more emotionally affecting mass murders like Columbine or such. But as it is it may be that a simple reduction in maximum magazine size would do the same thing.

If you're opposed to gun control you're probably thinking to yourself "Oh, Drew gets it. He understands."

You couldn't be more wrong. Because here's the other side of that.

A ban on handguns might be vastly more meaningful. Or perhaps a ban on males under the age of 25 having in their possession any weapon. If you could actually enforce such a ban, it could be widely successful in reducing gun violence.

Now, actually making an enforceable ban, that actually works, is another issue entirely.

I'll go ahead and posit that there are three main arguments in the pro-gun camp.

1. The Second Amendment guarantees the right to bear arms so that we can overthrow a tyrannical government.
2. I like shooting/hunting. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean I should have to stop.
3. I have the right to self-defense.

So let's look at how a ban on handguns and no further restrictions on assault weapons* or other long guns would affect the above three points.

Second Amendment: A ban on handguns, or a ban on men under the age of 25 having guns, would not affect the first point. If (and that's a big "if") you need to have some sort of armed revolution against a tyrannical government (note that freakin' Algeria had revolution and they have almost no civilian-owned weapons) a handgun ban would be meaningless. So your right to bear arms is in-tact even if you can't own handguns.

Hunting and Shooting: I suppose that there are hunters who like handguns. Most hunters use long guns. And there are pistol target shooters. And a restriction on handguns and/or a restriction on the age of those who may possess such guns would interfere with their hunting and shooting handguns.

Self Defense: If you enjoy reading crazy people on the Internet, see what people have to say about the use of handguns for self-defense. The long and the short of it is that 1) a shotgun is better and 2) your "self defense" weapon is much more likely to be used to kill a family member.

Soon we will look at Executive Orders relating to gun violence and have a 2nd Amendment party.

*Don't argue with me about the term "assault weapon". We're using "assault-weapon ban" language, I'm perfectly cognizant that the differences between an "assault weapon" and other long semi-automatic guns is purely cosmetic.