My dad is fond of saying one of the most important reasons we have guns is so that we don’t have to use them.
Some are naive enough to believe that if we were to ban guns altogether, there would be no crimes committed with guns. We should take the assault weapons ban as an example.
The idea of ‘taking these horrible weapons off the streets’ begins with the fallacy that if the government makes a law, it will be followed.
This past week the Newport Beach City Council passed a resolution banning smoking on the beach.
Their intent is to curb the littering of cigarette butts on the beach. Well, the last time I checked, littering is already illegal, much like the malicious acts that were committed with assault weapons before 1994 (when the ban went into effect).
The assault weapons ban goes beyond the previously established laws to assume that because some people commit crimes with assault weapons, everyone does.
Another false assumption is that if we ban assault weapons, they will not be used in crimes.
An important aspect of the ban was a laundry list of exempt guns that would otherwise have been considered assault weapons if not for some technicality.
For example, antique guns were excluded from the assault weapons ban (my dad owns a Russian SKS rifle used in World War II that is fully operational and considered an antique, and therefore does not have to be registered).
Are we to believe that this weapon will not equally harm someone who is injured or killed with an assault weapon? Of course not, which begs the question of what good this law did in the first place.
It only succeeded in taking weapons out of the hands of people who are willing to obey the law