All one needs are the facts. Once acquired, their own experiences can help them make up their minds. One would hope they remove any prejudices and inaccuracies from the equation and really take a moment to think about the issue.
It is my hope that what I provide here may help in that endeavor.
Let's begin:
The main focus of the gun control argument is on three key aspects: semi-automatic "assault" styled weapons, "high" capacity magazines, and background checks. Let's look at each of these individually and separately:
Assault-Styled Weapons
Or just "assault weapons" as generally termed by the media. The military introduced the M16 pattern rifle to its troops during Vietnam in 1963. As with anything, there were growing pains, and many of our troops lost their lives due to failures of the gun during firefights. However, changes were implemented and it attained widespread acceptance in the military.
The M16 and other military variants are rifles capable of semi-automatic and fully-automatic fire. Fully-automatic fire is when the user is able to pull the trigger once and fire more than one round. Semi-automatic fire means that for every pull of the trigger you only get one round fired.
In 1934 the National Firearms Act was passed and fully automatic weapons (machine guns) were illegal to own without express permission from the US Treasury Department. Each time a fully-automatic weapon transfers ownership a $200 tax must be paid as well as a lengthy registration process for the new owner through the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms (BATF).
Yes, this does mean that machine guns manufactured prior to the 1986 are legal to sell and transfer (provided the sale follows the rules and guidelines put for by the 1934 National Firearms Act). However, due to the 1986 ban on "new" machine gun sales, existing machine guns are prohibitively expensive. If one decides they want a real machine gun, they should expect to pay tens of thousands of dollars and wait eight or more months while their paperwork is settled before they're able to actually take ownership.
So, how does this all play in to the current discussion on assault-styled weapons? It doesn't-- or at least it shouldn't. The only similarities the two have in common are that they are both center-fire rifles that look the same.
The term "assault weapon" was coined in the early 1990's as an ingenious way to confuse the misinformed about the capabilities of the rifles being legally sold. Actual M16's and their variants used in the military are actual assault rifles capable of fully automatic fire. AR-15's and the like are just sporting rifles, but they started calling them assault weapons to borrow the connotations from assault rifles about being fully automatic, military grade weapons.
Truly, it was an ingenious ploy and has been amazingly successful. I can't say how many times I've heard "machine guns should be illegal" in the wake of the recent shootings. Well, my friend... they are.
What is truly being talked about right now is the banning of any semi-automatic rifle. Unfortunately for the AR-15, it looks like something scary, so therefore must be the root of all gun crime. This is statistically untrue and there are thousands of documents a Google click away to show it: search "Assault weapons used in crimes" if your interest is piqued.
So, to reiterate, AR-15's are not fully-automatic; they are not military-grade weapons; and they account for such a small amount of actual gun crimes, that the attack on them specifically is asinine.
"High" Capacity Magazines
Now, this one is interesting because it applies to more than just semi-automatic rifles. This again comes down to nomenclature. A Glock 19 or an M&P 9 that holds 15 or 17 rounds respectively, is not a high-capacity magazine [historically]. The grips of those guns are a certain size. Logic dictates, that one uses all available space to increase the functionality and use of any machine. The magazine is placed within the grip. Manufacturers were only using the space available within the grip of the firearm-- thus, 15 or 17-round magazines for those platforms are standard capacity. To think logically, reducing the the rounds available in a magazine to lower than what the space allows for would make it a reduced-capacity magazine; not the other way around.
I know one is not supposed to think of it like that, though. They're supposed to think that 10 rounds and lower is the magical realm where crime doesn't exist and that anyone who has or wants a magazine with a normal capacity is a maniac on the verge of committing murder.
One must, of course, also consider the millions of magazines already in existence that hold more than 10 rounds. If you make them illegal, law-abiding citizens will, of course, make the necessary changes. Criminals won't, though; and I thought the whole idea here was to decrease the amount of crimes committed by criminals?
New York just passed legislation that has made it illegal for anyone to buy/sell/own a magazine capable of holding more than 7 rounds. Why 7 rounds is the magic number for New Yorkers is uncertain to me, but they believe it will help.
I should point out that Mayor Bloomberg has made guns illegal in his city for some time (and large soft drinks!). This has guaranteed two things:
- Law-abiding citizens do not carry guns in New York City
- They ingest fewer calories through soft drinks (not considering refills)
Oh, just some nomenclature that bugs me:
A magazine is not a clip. The two terms are not interchangeable. A gun that uses a magazine, will not accept a clip. This image should help:
Background Checks and the So Called "Gun Show Loophole"
This is common sense to me. Felons cannot buy firearms. The only way to know if someone is a felon is to put them through a background check.
This is why whenever one buys a firearm from a store or at a gun show from a dealer, they have to call in a NICS check. NICS is the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. Every firearm purchased from a dealer (gun show or not!) goes through this background check. All of them. Every single one.
The process goes like this:
- Someone decides what firearm they'd like to buy.
- The dealer gives them a form to fill out.
- They fill out the form.
- The dealer uses that form and calls in a NICS check.
- They will get a "proceed" or a "wait" (wait means they have to wait X number of days for further investigation... proceed means you can take it home now. Some states have required wait times no matter what)
- In every instance.
Here's a copy of the existing form:
There is no "Gun Show Loophole." Sorry. I know the media has harped on it and many have probably assumed that meant that they can walk into a gun show and buy anything they want no matter their criminal background. False. Completely and utterly false. Once again, it is just words used to confuse those who don't know better.
"Well, what about online sales? You just give them your credit card and you've bought the gun!" Yes, that's true. You've bought the gun. However, that gun HAS to be shipped to a licensed dealer. They cannot ship a gun to any private citizen that is not a Federal Firearms License (FFL) holder. Once the gun arrives at their local dealer, they have to go there in person, pay a transfer fee, sign the paperwork, and do a... a... what? Yep... a background check!
There is ONE way to avoid a background check: private sales. Private sales are not made to do a background check. Yes, one can go to a gun show and do a private sale with someone there who is not a dealer, but they can also do it at their house, in a parking lot, on an empty road, or in the middle of a swimming pool. It is not a gun show loophole.
There is one big reason no private sale background check requirement: complete unenforceability (I needed this word to exist... so it now does). Unless one owns a National Firearms Act (NFA) weapon (such as a short-barelled rifle or the aforementioned machine guns), there is no gun registry. There would have to be a national gun registry put into place before you could ever enforce a requirement for private sellers to do background checks during private sales. Why? Because that is the only way they would be able to tell if a gun transferred ownership at some point.
Even if such a law existed, how would it affect criminals? Law-abiding citizens would go through the required bureaucracy to stay within the law, but criminals? You're saying that this is meant to prevent murders and other crimes committed with firearms by criminals. Do you think that this criminal cares about calling in a NICS check?
Background checks already exist in every enforceable way. Adding the requirement to private sales is not enforceable without a national registry-- and good luck even bringing that up.
So... There Are Some Facts
So, an AR-15 is a semi-automatic sporting rifle shaped like a very popular military rifle. It is not a machine gun designed to be used in combat.
"High" capacity magazines are just standard sized magazines. There isn't a magic number of rounds that make them less lethal in the wrong hands. A criminal bent on a mass shooting will either have regular magazines or carry multiple reduced-capacity magazines. Unless each magazine is going to weigh ten pounds, the fact that one has to carry a few more will not matter.
Background checks already exist. There is no "gun show loophole." There is no "online" loophole.
I apologize for being a little long-winded with this. There's a lot of misinformation running around the airways. I listen to NPR a lot and about 90% of the people that have spoken on this issue are anti-gun and spoken one or more of these inaccuracies. I welcome feedback and comments, but let's remain civil. There's enough childish arguments going on about this that we can act like adults here.
