# Bandemonium (opinion)



## Winston (Jun 18, 2016)

(_I know we don't debate here anymore.  I'm not looking toward causing a stir.  I just felt like writing.  If you feel ike reading...)
_
Societal trends tend to by cyclical.  Politicians, keen to be responsive (and stay elected) keep their fingers on the collective pulse.  As they divide and conquer, the Pols look for cracks, enhance them and try to corral-up the necessary majority to "win".  

Tragedies often bring out the best in people, and the worst in politicians.  Before the healing can begin, opportunistic Pols and their entrenched infrastructure begin their attacks on their targets.  The latest violence in Orlando, Florida was a horrific event for all of us.  But some see this as more.  For them, it's an opening to go once more into the breach. 

The Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 expired (sunset provision) in 2004.  Since then, a growing segment of the firearms community has purchased variants of the AR-15 rifle.  The "Black Rifle" is popular among shooters for many reasons.  Many of the features that make that rifle popular among legal shooting enthusiasts also make the rifle appealing to criminals.  As more incidents are reported detailing how the mentally ill and generally "evil" people misuse these weapons, public opinion has once again shifted toward some kind of weapon ban.  Politicians, never wont to waste an opportunity, are more than ready to respond.

But before we go looking for solutions, it would be wise to review the earlier "ban", as some see that as a template for future statutory remedies.  

The Fed Assault Weapons Ban (FAWB), signed by President Clinton, was in response to a number of mass shootings in the late '80s and early '90s.  Some of the weapons misused in these shootings are not commonly in use today, and are rarely seen in mass attacks.  These weapons include the TEC-9 and Uzi pistols.  The AK-47 rifle was used in violent attacks, and is still a fairly common firearm in the US.  It is functionally identical to the AR-15.  It is interesting to note that no one is clamoring for AK style rifles to be regulated, at this time.  

The "assault weapon" criteria from the 1994 law was, to be frank, mostly useless and not based in the functionality or lethality of the weapon.  The law focused on things like pistol grips, bayonet lugs and even grenade launcher mounts.  I don't have the total numbers in front of me, but the persons killed by rifle propelled grenade in the US since 1980 is pretty close to zero.  Likewise with death by rifle mounted bayonet.  Although, during that same time, many have died by plain and simple stabbings.  The statistical breakdown on whether one was killed by a regular knife or assault bayonet are available somewhere.  I'm sure.

Other criteria from the 1994 Ban are just as nonsensical.  A barrel shroud, flash suppressor or folding stock do not affect the lethality of a weapon.  While cosmetically "scary", statutory limiting such features is only a panacea for political "do something disease".  

In 1994, entire classes of weapons were banned as well.  The ban prohibited the manufacture or transfer of 660 types of weapons.  It allowed the possession of said weapons ONLY if you owned them prior to the law's enactment (that whole messy ex-post facto thing).  This, of course made these weapons extremely valuable.  As well as the "high capacity magazines" (over 10 rounds) that were made illegal to purchase or transfer.

The effect of this law was predictable.  The NIJ and US Department of Justice already stipulated that rifles "are rarely used" in so-called "gun crimes".  The "assault weapon's" impact in criminal activity, in any form, is statistically negligible.     

Now, in 2016, there is a public outcry to "re-enact" something like the 1994 law.  Let's stipulate that in addition to being ineffective, the FAWB did not go far enough.  What are our options?    

The most simplistic, and unworkable solution is to ban all "AR-15 style" rifles.  First, we must decide whether or not we are talking about outlawing the production and sales (like the 1994 FAWB) or a confiscation of all such weapons.  In the limited jurisdictions where AR's are illegal, owners were ordered to register or surrender their weapons.  There was a three percent compliance rate.  With upwards of 15 million AR rifles in the US, that would leave fourteen million in circulation.  The remainder could be forcibly taken from their legal owners, through legal warrants of search and seizure.  I personally don't think that would go too well, but I do know that there would be thousands of police not available to perform their primary duty of protecting the public.  

We also need to revisit what is an "assault weapon".  All too often, the answer is akin to Justice Potter Stewart's "I know pornography when I see it".  Assault weapons are "scary".  They're black, except when they're AK-47 variants,  then it's that "banana clip" thing at the bottom.  They "spray bullets", although fully auto weapons have been illegal since the 1930's.  They are "weapons of war", except for the fact that AR's fire a round so small it is classified as a "varmint round".

The 1994 route would ban weapons such as the AR-15, based on irrelevant cosmetic features.  Yet, weapons functionally identical, like the Ruger Mini 14 "Ranch Rifle" would get a pass.  The Ruger has a wooden stock and no pistol grip.  But it is a semi-automatic rifle that fires the same round.  Do we include the Ranch rifle?  How about a 9mm carbine rifle?  It looks a lot like the AR, but uses a different system of operation.  Is the method of operation important?  The caliber?  The capacity?  How sweeping will the list of banned weapons need to be to be inclusive enough?

Also, the term "semi-automatic" itself is a misnomer.  The more correct term is "self-loading".  The only way to make any of these weapons "automatic" is to commit a felony by altering the trigger / sear assembly in the weapon.  No law passed will deter those bent on unlawful possession of any weapon not only from acquiring a weapon, but modifying it to make it as deadly as they want.

The realistic question is:  Will half-measures work, or will this need to be a comprehensive ban on a huge class of weapons?  Where idealism meets reality, the gray envelops and dulls the details.  With over 300 million weapons in the US, even a confiscation of "only" 10 to 20 million is unworkable.  Both practically or politically.  Furthermore, any simplistic ban on current manufacture or transfer has no merit of being more effective than the 1994 ban.  Equally futile would be the attempt to restrict or outlaw "high-capacity" magazines, numbering in the hundreds of millions. There are the two options:  Token, half-measures that make folks think that they are doing something, or draconian police-state tactics that would permanently change the very nature of our nation.  

For those desperately seeking the "middle ground", consider California.  The state has some of the strictest gun laws in the US, and they are only getting more restrictive. With the current political environment, a nation-wide implementation of similar laws could be politically viable.  Yet, recent events (the 2015 San Bernadino terrorist attack) prove that even "safer" weapons can be criminally altered.  This begs the obvious question:  What good do restrictive laws do when criminals simply ignore them?

The obvious conclusion is that the focus on limiting the access to certain types of weapons, or altering their functionality, is folly.  Not only is it un-workable, but if implemented, will have little to no statistical effect.  I have purposely omitted any Constitutional issues.  Frankly, gun control in The United States at this moment is a local issue.  It is best implemented by incremental limitations, factoring in local conditions, in accordance with Federal law. 

Common sense solutions, that can actually be implemented, should be the focus.  Not sweeping, "feel good" legislation that politicians self-congratulate over.  "Stop and Frisk" laws in high crime areas save more lives than any restriction on rifles ever will. Holding individuals criminally accountable (consistently) for their actions would limit "gun violence".  Gun owners with small children (or others not capable of responsibility) in their home MUST secure their firearms.  For that matter, societal issues that dismiss violence in certain areas (Chicago), must not be allowed.  The "soft bigotry of low expectations" is more destructive than any weapon ever devised.

Finally, we must face the fact that evil does exist.  When the hate-filled criminal killed 49 people in Florida, there were millions of owners of that same rifle that went to bed peacefully that night.  The exception does not prove the point.  Someone bent on mindless murder will find a way, or make a way.  I get that we don't want to make it easy for such criminals. Yet no solution exists to make every person, everywhere, safe from violence perpetrated by truly bad people. 

It is no longer 1994.  Simply decreeing something is "bad", and now illegal, will fix nothing.


----------



## Plasticweld (Jun 21, 2016)

Well articulated. 

I really enjoy seeing this type of writing here on the forum, thanks for your intro setting the tone.  For any of those who oppose this view I would encourage you to write in similar fashion in* "a separate" thread" as a  new topic,*  similar to a letter to the editor.  

While each piece here is written to be critiqued as a vehicle for expressing your thoughts in writing, and the best way to improve on those skills, it is nice to also just be able to share your thoughts in. the process.


----------



## Bard_Daniel (Jun 22, 2016)

I felt this was also very well articulated. You handled it with great finesse and your paragraphs seamlessly worked together as efficiently as cogs in a machine, making it easy to digest.

Good work!


----------



## escorial (Jul 17, 2016)

clear a concise...often it's whats behind the words that i enjoy...you just put your thoughts down and that's so cool...


----------



## WildPolitics (Aug 17, 2016)

A challenging subject handled deftly Winston. 
I come from another part of the world and a different vantage point on gun-control, but I was compelled by the case that you put. That’s the essence of good non-fiction writing I guess. To convince the reader to follow and ultimately agree with your thesis.
Great writing.


----------



## ppsage (Aug 17, 2016)

Terrible introduction. Two paragraphs of blurry, unsupported generalities. This is something you do a lot, and, if I had to choose one thing you could do to improve your non-fiction works overall, it would be to work out a way of getting into your topic that actually introduced what you want to write about without dragging a bunch of basically off-topic baggage in at the start. ----------- I think you missed an important point in that by far the majority of gun-involved criminality doesn't use rifles at all. Were it ever to be conceded that reducing the amount of guns in American society would have any sort of utility, then side arms are the obvious place to begin. --------------- For me, as a non-believer, these routine semantic arguments about assault rifle and semi-auto represent a sort of techy-nerd incrowd one-up-manship. Everybody's heard them by now. Nobody really cares: that knowledgeable persons ought to write any new legislation is more the point to be made. -------------- All that being said, your voice is still one of the more coherent that I read, from the gun-nut side. In appreciation, pp.


----------



## Eric Romano (Oct 17, 2016)

I like it when you mentioned that evil does exist and the 49 killed in Florida does prove it. The gun laws need to be strict. Anyone has access to it illegally these days.


----------

