Gun Control

I am seeing a lot of the normal arguments come up, including a number which are framed out of ignorance. (For example, though, yes, converting an AR to full auto is technically possible, it usually requires both machining of the receiver and access to restricted sears. As a result, such conversions are very rare.)

This doesn't surprise me: when I moved to the US 14 years ago, I was very definitely in the Irish camp that outside of smaller calibre firearms for sports shooting, only government agencies should have access to firearms. However, after years of exposure, and doing my own research on the matter, I have over time changed my position that the US system for firearms ownership is very reasonable, especially for a country like the US. We have a significant issue with criminal violence, and a smaller issue with mass shootings, but there are very few laws which we can realistically enforce which would have any effect on either of those two, for the obvious matter that criminals tend not to worry too much about breaking firearms laws. An interesting domestic case in point is the current Detroit Chief of Police, who is currently making waves by suggesting that armed citizenry is a good thing for their own protection and that instead of focusing on the firearms, we should instead be focusing on criminals and the ill. He didn't always have such a policy: when he was LAPD's chief of police, he had a defecto "guns not for the general populace" policy. Over time he has changed his stance, especially now he is CoP for a known violent crime city.

The first and most obvious problem with many of the proposed solutions is that there are millions of firearms in circulation. You're not going to get rid of them, no matter what political will there is. Even registration without confiscation is not going to happen: for an example, look at the case of Canada in the last decade, where there was mass non-compliance by the famously polite Canadians with their long gun registry, which was finally abandoned as a waste of time and money a few years ago. Recent attempts in NY, CT and a few years prior, CA, give similar examples in the US.

Then you have the question of actually ridding the country of the things. You cannot randomly search people or property for weapons, we have this little Constitutional issue known as the 4th Amendment. And this is before you get to the legal issues about enacting such a ban such as Constitutions, or the policy issues such as hunting or self defense.

On the matter of hunting, there is strong advocacy amongst hunting enthusiasts for semi-auto weaponry. They have less felt recoil, and especially for smaller prey such as varmints, the rapid follow up capability makes them more effective either if you miss, or if there are a couple of the pests to get rid of. Go on the various hunting boards and look for the threads. The general conclusion is "to each his own." Prohibiting them because you personally feel that you should never need more than one shot isn't going to fly.

For self defense, nothing beats a semi-auto. There is a reason that no major police force today in the US issues its personnel either revolvers, or pistols with limited magazine capacity. (It is also why New York's police forces screamed bloody murder when they discovered that New York's knee-jerk SAFE act applied to them as well). Revolvers are popular choices for novices (they are so simple and cheap, someone who is untrained can't screw it up), and criminals (they don't leave shell casings behind as evidence and they are cheaply disposable.) Shotguns are commonly used for similar reasons. But if one actually does the research, and is willing to spend a little time and effort learning to use them, semi-auto carbines are the way to go, semi auto pistols come in second.

Constitutional discussion on the matter of the right to arms alone is never given full breadth. Most analysis of the Constitutional right to arms focuses on the Federal 2A, and the militia clause. (And yes, as pointed out, by law basically every male is in the Federal militia in the US. That's why there are consequences for failing to register for Selective Service (The Draft). Many States have similar scope for State militias).

However, it should not stop there. Some 44 states have the right to arms in their State Constitutions as well. Some are identical to the Federal one, others are very explicit. (For example, Delaware's right to bear arms for "defense of self, family, the State, hunting, and for any other lawful purpose.") Even if, somehow, Federal 2A was changed (good luck getting those votes from enough of those 44 States to get the 2/3 requirement), a citizen's State constitutional right still applies to him. A number of States have started enacting "domestic firearms legislation," which basically states that if a weapon is made in a State, marked as being made in the State, is only sold in the State, and is used in the State, then it does not trigger Congress' jurisdiction as inter-state commerce.

The matter of concealed weapons is another one which currently may well be off the table. Although there is a circuit split on the matter, the two courts which have taken an in-depth look have found that there is a right to bear arms in public. Whether that right is to be exercised by openly carrying the weapon or concealed carrying the weapon is for the legislatures of the various states to decide, but they cannot ban both at the same time. The last State to have a blanket prohibition (Illinois) was given a smack down by the 7th Circuit last year. My own State, California, took a drubbing of its own by the 9th, so I look forward in the next year or so to being able to wander around armed. I don't currently do so as it's illegal. (Witness earlier statement about who follows laws).

A common misconception is that people who are fighting the latest rounds of legislation are not pro gun control. We are just not pro more gun control. We have some already. As the Supreme Court said, there is no right to for any person to carry any weapon around for any purpose whatsoever. Reasonable restrictions are desired. To this end, convicted felons may not do so. Those mentally incompetent may not do so. You can't go armed on an airliner. Machine guns (which by the legal definition includes assault rifles) are restricted federally, and in some places, by State. I can't own an assault rifle in California, even if I could afford it (I can't, really) and passed the ATF criteria. Even then, there is still room for more legislation (to add to the twenty thousand or so firearms laws already on the books in the US), such as more/improved background checks. The problem is legislative overreach. If that federal legislation which was proposed after Newton had only provided a requirement and facility for background checks on private transactions (eg gun shows), as the media commonly reported it to do, it would likely have encountered much less resistance than it actually received. The reason it was objected to (and I objected to it) was that if you read the fine print, it actually did more than that, including requirements for third-party transactions, and record-keeping. The problem is that unless you knew the mechanics behind what the registration proposed, which the vast majority of people don't, you don't see the overreach.

And, frankly, ignorance is behind a significant portion of firearms legislation. Usually the politicians trying to restrict them don't like the things to begin with, so they are not prone to do their research. That's how we end up with such wonderful pieces of legislation such as California's regimen which prohibits weapons purely on the basis of cosmetic appearance. (Really, custom engraving, or a different color on a pistol makes it presumed unsafe unless tested, paid for and listed). This is quite possibly the main reason us gun owners cringe when we hear about the latest knee-jerk legislation. It's usually proposed by someone who doesn't know what they're talking about, and the only practical effect of it is to gain votes, usually from voters who also don't care enough to know what the legislation talks about either, but it all sounds great, so we'll support it. Amusingly, I've heard similar complaints from healthcare and education professionals as well about legislation directed towards their fields.

In any case, any proposed solutions to the US's gun violence problem needs to to meet a few criteria, some hard, some soft.

Hard ones, you can't do anything about. It must take into account the fact that there are hundreds of millions of firearms in circulation and they're not going away. It must take into account the fact that in some places, it is foolish to go without a firearm. (Rural states with bears, alligators, mountain lions come to mind. Until 9/11 it was mandatory to fly with a large calibre rifle in the airplane in some States). The legislation must be targeted towards some specific effect and be likely to have that effect. Most legislation doesn't seem to.

Soft criteria may be more flexible in theory. Do you believe that an individual has a right to effective self defense? If so, how many restrictions can one morally place upon the ability to actually conduct it, either in terms of the nature, or with time, place and manner prohibitions (eg gun free zones).

Simply saying "I don't like evil black rifles" or "we should not allow concealed carry" do not really meet these criteria. Come up with practical suggestions, which can be politically enacted, and which are likely to have the desired effect, and we'll talk.

No, just one to three guys with, if anything, knives or pistols.

Stop thinking melodramatically (Seal team 6? Really?) and actually look at it logically. If the objective is to end the threat to you as quickly as possible, with the minimum of danger to yourself or others, a modern carbine is the best choice out there. Barring special circumstances, such as my storage requirement, or if you only have one hand, there is no advantage to use a pistol, and shotguns have their own problems, not least inaccuracy.