Rethinking the Assault Weapons Ban

After any major gun-related tragedy, such as Columbine, Virginia Tech, and even now with the Tucson shooting, it's vogue for pro-gun control advocates to use the event as support for their policy objectives. And it is vogue for media and policymakers to eventually dismiss these calls as a ploy. They say that in the view of insane people committing atrocities, gun control misses the point. The weapon used matters less than the intent of someone disturbed to do harm to others. I disagree.

First of all, let's be clear: Yes, Loughner is clearly a disturbed individual, as are the majority of perpetrators of such rampages. The most effective method of preventing such individuals from committing heinous acts is to identify and treat their illness before these types of events are triggered. That colleges, and the military, and law enforcement suffer such a disconnect as to be unable to share the information that could have had him, and several others like him, seeing physicians instead of gunstore owners, is a sign that systemic changes must be made to make diagnosis and treatment much more rapidly and easily available to those who are ill.

However, the argument that "he, and other madmen, will commit these acts regardless of the laws that exist" is invalid. It has been used by the NRA, by media commentators, and numerous people each time these events happen. It speaks to a level of cynicism that I cannot abide; it assumes that society itself is powerless to stop the assaults of dangerous and sometimes evil people. It assumes that laws are no safeguard against those who would seek to break those laws. This is a mentality that is brought on by sustained ineptitude of government: because we failed in the past, we cannot succeed. I find this view unacceptable, and here is why.

It is true that if Jared Loughner wished to kill the Congresswoman, he could have bought a normal, unmodified handgun and done the same basic crime; hell, he could have bought a switchblade or other non-firearm and still threatened her life. It is true that if cartels and drug kingpins in Mexico wanted to slaughter people and soldiers in the thousands, handguns are capable of doing this. These are simply facts: in the modern world, there are too many tools of murder to pretend we have an airtight defense, or that we ever will.

Ladies and gentlemen, it is also true that if a child wants to put a fork in a power outlet, it may find a way. It is equally true that if someone at my work wanted to poison me, household cleaners would work. It is also true that if a burglar wants my possessions, a simple window lock will not suffice to stop him if he tried enough (as my family found out personally several years ago).

Yet we buy baby-proofers for outlets, we ban arsenic, and we lock our doors and windows. Why? If in fact, as the phrase goes, the inmates are running the asylum, why do we care?

Because we, as beings capable of rational thought, have reasonable preventive measures we take against things which would do us harm. The reason we can say that gun control laws need another look, is that a madman was able to acquire a modified semiautomatic weapon capable of destruction on a scale most of us should not have access to. And let's be clear about the facts:

1: Loughner purchased a Glock 9mm semiautomatic gun which, unmodified, carries 15 rounds in its cartridge.
2: Loughner then proceeded to purchase a modified cartridge for the gun which could hold up to 30 rounds. These "extended cartridges" are intended to make reloading less common and thus save time and effort for the shooter. Please note that in virtually all law enforcement jurisdictions in this country, extended cartridges are not issued even to police officers or agents, with only necessary exceptions.
3: On Saturday, Loughner fired 31 shots (1 round in the barrel, 30 in the cartridge) into the crowd at Congresswoman Giffords' event, before having to reload. It was during this period of reloading that an older woman seized the second cartridge he intended to load, and the crowd overpowered him, ending his rampage.
4: Of the 31 shots, 20 hit victims. Of those victims, 6 were killed and 12 wounded. Note that the number of HITS alone is 5 higher than would have been possible without reloading if he had not had the extended magazine.
5: Under the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994, the extended magazines would have been unavailable for Mr. Loughner to purchase, much less fill with ammunition and fire into a crowd. Instead, he was able to walk into a store and acquire something which elevated his capacity for slaughter higher than was otherwise possible.

But this incident is only a sideshow compared to a larger problem: the United States is the most-armed nation on Earth, with 90 firearms per 100 in the population. National intelligence service estimates say about 90% of the guns used by cartels in their war against the government and police in Mexico come from stores in the United States purchased easily and then smuggled easily across the border. The guns have empowered cartels to counterattack and threaten all stability in the country, and slaughter thousands easily and with only token defense by average citizens. Their sheer firepower and strength intimidates entire communities, and the United States' gun market is all but financing their private armies.

The violence in Mexico spreads closer to, and already partially across the border. American citizens have been kidnapped and held for ransom, or simply murdered, sometimes in broad daylight, by this criminal empires supported by our gun manufacturers.

In Alaska, Arizona, and Vermont, there are no permit restrictions whatsoever on the purchase and concealed carry of firearms for any person above the age of 18. Concealed-carry laws are not enough, however, because they do stand as an example of a law that has no effective method of enforcement, and therefore no effective prevention of illegally concealed weapons. Hence, urban areas have tried to do wholesale gun bans, but again these prove ineffective in the face of being able to transport guns into the area from easier-purchase states. And so the encroachment of criminal activity and violent acts using guns so easily acquired continues.

Thus, the initial response, even from me, is to reinstate the Assault Weapons Ban that might have helped prevent some of this, but not all of it. In writing this I have realized, however, that the AWB is not the gun control policy I would agree with because it is simultaneously ineffective and not enough. I recognize that the Assault Weapons Ban was not comprehensive and indeed was mostly cosmetic in nature, not entirely banning all weapons capable of the same level of destruction.

I also recognize that outright bans on categories of firearm are unacceptable to supporters of Second Amendment rights, but the fact remains that weapons are too easy to acquire by the people who want them most: people who would do us harm.

Thus, as rational people, we are encouraged to form policy which protects our rights but also protects our lives, that meets some kind of compromise between knowing that not all tragedies can be prevented but that we can also resist simply letting the criminals and madmen have open access to tools of slaughter.

I propose the following solution as a starting point:

• Set up a national gun registration service;
  
• The service will issue uniform permit registrations, which would include mandatory drug test, mandatory number of hours of firearms training, and mandatory background checks that would be flagged for any prior criminal behavior or mental illness which the doctor believed made the person unfit for deadly weapons ownership.
  
• All guns manufactured would require identification numbers that would identify the guns in the event of use or seizure in a crime scene;
• Each permit-holder would have a yearly limit on the number of guns he or she may purchase;
  
• All guns purchased would have to be registered to the name of a registered permit-holder. These guns would then have to be registered every 6 to 12 months to ensure that they are still in the possession of the permit-holder.
• Any gun sales must be reported to the national registry for a paper trail to exist; failure to do so results in revocation of license and further penalties as prescribed by law.
• The system would be paid for very easily: increase the gun tax so that purchases of guns fund the system that ensures they are used safely and properly and can hunt down criminals who would misuse them.
  

Most importantly however, I wish to start a debate: a debate on the merits of gun control and how we can strike the balance between what we accept as the reasonable extension of the right to bear arms, and the reasonable expectation of our own safety in public. Please comment as you will and seek to find where you stand as well, and contribute to a national discussion on this issue which has so horrifically been brought to light.