Before you ask to ban them, you should at least take a moment to learn something about them...

A good friend posted a link to Jason Alexander's essay regarding prohibiting "assault style weapons".

I fear for the sanity of any person who isn't absolutely shocked and appalled at events like the Colorado theatre shootings, the Columbine shootings, the Virginia Tech shootings, etc.

If I believed that gun violence would disappear tomorrow by giving up my guns they'd be gone in an instant.  What I fear, however, is that laws that impact only the law-abiding will not take guns out of the hands of the crazies and criminals.  It isn't my law-abiding neighbor's guns that are the problem.  It's the guns in the hands of a diagnosed mental patient (like the Va Tech shooter) that are the problem.

That having been said, Jason Alexander and everybody who wants to get rid of guns has noble motives in my opinion.  We all abhor violence.  Nobody wants to see innocent people harmed.  However, his essay appears to be based on facts that are either completely untrue, or which are only partially true.

This is the link to his essay:

http://www.salon.com/2012/07/22/jason_alexanders_amazing_gun_rant/

Here is where I take exception:

His quote:  "Despite these massacres recurring and despite the 100,000 Americans that die every year due to domestic gun violence – these people see no value to even considering some kind of control as to what kinds of weapons are put in civilian hands."


First, even if one person died, that's one person too many, and all people, gun-owners and non-owners alike should work to try and make sure that we are all safe in our homes.


That having been said, Jason's statistics are a bit off.  There are roughly 30,000 gun-related deaths every year.  The majority of those are suicides.  Now, I'm not saying that I think suicide is okay.  What I'm saying, however, is that suicide is a mental-health issue, not a gun issue.  


That still leaves over 10,000 gun-fatalities a year.  Not all of them are due to assault-style weapons.   In fact a large percentage are handgun-related fatalities.  10,000 is too many, to be sure.  Hey, let's figure out ways to reduce those fatalities.  I completely agree.  But let's also keep this in proportion.  Cars are getting safer every year, but we still have 30,000 fatalities on the roadways every year.  If we really wanted to save lives, maybe we should think about getting rid of guns AND cars.

Now, let's revisit the last part of that statement:  "...these people see no value to even considering some kind of control as to what kinds of weapons are put in civilian hands."

It's difficult to find a statement that could be farther from the truth.  Let's take a step back for just a moment. The military weapon that was used for four decades was not the AR-15.  it was the M-16.  The M-16 had features such as fully-automatic mode and burst-mode (where multiple bullets were fired with one trigger pull.)  The AR-15 is the civilian version of the weapon and is basically a non-automatic weapon.  So, gun-owners and gun-rights advocates do see value in limiting ownership of certain types of weapons.

It just so happens that we don't agree that gun X, which fires one bullet with every trigger pull, is far more dangerous and deadly than gun Y, which fires one bullet with every trigger pull.

Now for the constitutionality question:

"...constitution says citizens have the right to bear arms in order to maintain organized militias. "


Actually, no, that isn't what it says.  We'll clearly need a tie-breaker here because some folks think that IS what it says and others don't agree.  Jason then goes on to quote the second amendment:


"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

There has been much debate over this subject for half a century.  Gun-rights proponents always said that this is a right invested in THE PEOPLE.  Gun opponents said that it only applied to members of a militia.

The reality is that the enumerated rights in the Bill of Rights, other than the 10th amendment, spell out INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS that could not be taken away by the state.  The state is what controls the militia.  So, granting a power to the state in the bill of rights would have been contrary to the entire purpose of the bill of rights.

Also, although the second amendment spells out a reason for this right (because we want a competent militia), the right is clearly a right that belongs to "the people."

Says who?  Other than the plain-text of the constitution, the Supreme Court says so.  They are the tie breaker on all issues of constitutionality.  They are the guys who get to decide this stuff.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

So, we've got a half-truth (exaggerated fatalities) and an outright falsehood (that the 2nd amendment only protects gun-ownership rights within a militia.)

Now for the really boring stuff, the technical details of weapons such as, say, the AR-15.

"What purpose does an AR-15 serve to a sportsman that a more standard hunting rifle does not serve? Let’s see – does it fire more rounds without reload? Yes. Does it fire farther and more accurately? Yes. Does it accommodate a more lethal payload? Yes. So basically, the purpose of an assault style weapon is to kill more stuff, more fully, faster and from further away. To achieve maximum lethality."

Let's take his questions one at a time:

"Let’s see – does it fire more rounds without reload? Yes. "

No, it does not.  It can fire exactly one round without being reloaded.  However, it can accomodate a magazine of up to 30 rounds.  So can a rifle like a Ruger Mini-14.  Do we want to limit magazine capacity?  This is a reasonable debate.  So, let's chalk this one up to a half-truth.  An AR-15 is capable of employing a very large (30 rounds, sometimes more) magazine, however, non-assault-style weapons can also accomodate magazines of that capacity as well.  

"Does it fire farther and more accurately? Yes."

This is where lack of knowledge about firearms really starts to show through.  It does not fire farther and more accurately.  It fires with a shorter range and less accuracy than a common hunting rifle like a Remington 700 or Winchester Model 70.

Here are some stats:  

AR-15 effective range - 400 to 600 meters, give or take.

Winchester Model 70 or Remington 700 in 30-06?  Up to 1,000 meters.  

So, the idea that an AR-15 has better range than a typical hunting rifle is absolutely wrong.

"Does it accommodate a more lethal payload? Yes."

Again, dead wrong.  An AR-15 comes in .223 caliber.  This is a very small caliber weapon with not much stopping power.  You would not use this to hunt large animals and many folks would say it would be unwise to try and shoot a deer with it.  Can it kill people?  Yes, but not because of a more lethal payload.  This is actually a very small caliber weapon.  It has a less lethal payload than most hunting rifles. 

"So basically, the purpose of an assault style weapon is to kill more stuff, more fully, faster and from further away. To achieve maximum lethality."

Well... first, it's difficult for anybody to come up with a working definition of an "assault style weapon".  The Clinton administration banned, them, but it banned them based on characteristics like having a pistol grip, which does not make a weapon either more or less lethal.  It banned them because of bayonet lugs, as though drive-by pokings were a national scourge.  Pretty much all the things that made a weapon an "assault rifle" were cosmetic, not functional.

I don't think we'll be able to make ourselves safer by outlawing scary-looking guns.

I have a disagreement of viewpoint with Jason Alexander.  I'm sure he cries himself to sleep on his mattress of money because of it.  However, it doesn't mean that I think he's a bad person, or is out to harm people's rights, or has motivations to do damage to law-abiding citizens.

He's a person who is heartsick and disgusted at the actions of one crazy person who killed a whole lot of people who didn't need to be killed.  

I agree that something has to be done.  However, I just don't see that another assault-weapons ban will matter.  The last one we passed really didn't impact crime at all.  I don't see the next one having any more luck.

"In conclusion, whoever you are and wherever you stand on this issue, I hope you have the joy of family with you today. Hold onto them and love them as best you can. Tell them what they mean to you. Yesterday, a whole bunch of them went to the movies and tonight their families are without them. Every day is precious. Every life is precious. Take care. Be well. Be safe. God bless."

And right back at ya, Jason.  Let's solve this issue by attacking the causes.  In this case, it was a crazy guy bent on murder.  The biggest act of domestic terrorism, ever, took place by a guy with a truckload of fertilizer.  The reality is, you simply can't take away every tool that a person like this could use.  Though you don't appear to agree, it may have been possible for a few people with concealed carry permits to have had a positive impact on this situation.  Yeah, the guy had kevlar... however, being shot while wearing kevlar is no picnic.  Maybe a few more people could have escaped.  Maybe a bullet could have found a vulnerable area.  It wasn't the gun, Jason.  Thank god he didn't think to buy fertilizer or everybody in the theatre would have been killed.