Oct 16, 2024 09:25 PM
https://blog.apaonline.org/2024/10/11/gu...peaks-out/
INTRO: I am a professor of philosophy. I am also a gun owner. And I think that advocates of gun control need to stop all this nonsense about banning “assault rifles.”
True “assault rifles” in the technical sense are not used in mass shootings in the US. A “necessary condition” (as we philosophers like to say) for something being an assault rifle is that it is capable of firing both semiautomatic and fully automatic. Semiautomatic means it fires one round every time you pull the trigger, without you needing to do anything else. Fully automatic means it keeps firing rounds as long as you hold the trigger down, or until the magazine is empty. You need federal approval to own a true assault rifle or other fully automatic weapon, and they are prohibitively expensive for most people.
When the government tries to ban so-called “assault rifles,” they are really banning semiautomatic rifles with certain features, but many of the features that legislators pick out are not especially important. An AR-15 and a Ruger Mini 14 have the same caliber and same rate of fire, but the former is regulated in states like New York, New Jersey, and California because it has a pistol grip and a muzzle brake (misspelled “break” in the New York legislation), while the latter is not. Guess what? You’re just as dead if someone shoots you with a rifle that does not have a pistol grip or muzzle brake, and the improvement in accuracy from these features at the ranges most mass shooters are using these weapons is negligible. A further problem is that gun manufacturers are clever, and they frequently figure out ways to mitigate the effects of the restrictions. (This Wall Street Journal video is a good explainer.)
So is there nothing we can do about the epidemic of mass shootings in the US? There is something. One of our distinguished statesmen, Republican Senator Marco Rubio, showed us the way in a town hall meeting on CNN on 22 February 2018: “Once you start looking at how easy it is to get around [legislation to ban ‘assault rifles’], you would literally have to ban every semiautomatic rifle that is sold in America.” The audience erupted in thunderous applause at Rubio’s suggestion (to his evident chagrin).
Rubio was (unintentionally) right. In order to address the problem of mass shootings in the US, we need to eliminate all semiautomatic firearms, including semiautomatic rifles, semiautomatic shotguns, and semiautomatic pistols. Semiautomatic pistols are actually more commonly used in mass shootings than semiautomatic rifles. In addition, there is not a categorical distinction between “pistols” and “rifles,” so if we only ban semiautomatic rifles, gun manufacturers will produce what are legally pistols that function as, or can be easily converted to, rifles. Banning semiautomatic firearms would not infringe on legitimate uses: for someone who wants to hunt, control pests on their farm, target shoot, or protect their homes, revolvers, bolt or lever-action rifles, and pump-action shotguns are more than adequate. In fact, for self-defense, pump-action shotguns and revolvers are superior in many ways. At close range, a shotgun has immense “stopping power” (that is a technical term, and not a euphemism), and buckshot is less likely than a rifle bullet to penetrate a wall and kill an unintended target. In addition, revolvers are easier to use than semiautomatic pistols, and so are a better choice for civilians with less extensive handgun training. (Incidentally, none of the creators of any of the videos or articles I link to have endorsed my views as expressed in this article.)
And, no, you do not have a Constitutional right to own a semiautomatic firearm. Such weapons did not exist when the 2nd Amendment was ratified in 1791, and they were not even practical until the development of “smokeless powder” in the 19th century... (MORE - details)
INTRO: I am a professor of philosophy. I am also a gun owner. And I think that advocates of gun control need to stop all this nonsense about banning “assault rifles.”
True “assault rifles” in the technical sense are not used in mass shootings in the US. A “necessary condition” (as we philosophers like to say) for something being an assault rifle is that it is capable of firing both semiautomatic and fully automatic. Semiautomatic means it fires one round every time you pull the trigger, without you needing to do anything else. Fully automatic means it keeps firing rounds as long as you hold the trigger down, or until the magazine is empty. You need federal approval to own a true assault rifle or other fully automatic weapon, and they are prohibitively expensive for most people.
When the government tries to ban so-called “assault rifles,” they are really banning semiautomatic rifles with certain features, but many of the features that legislators pick out are not especially important. An AR-15 and a Ruger Mini 14 have the same caliber and same rate of fire, but the former is regulated in states like New York, New Jersey, and California because it has a pistol grip and a muzzle brake (misspelled “break” in the New York legislation), while the latter is not. Guess what? You’re just as dead if someone shoots you with a rifle that does not have a pistol grip or muzzle brake, and the improvement in accuracy from these features at the ranges most mass shooters are using these weapons is negligible. A further problem is that gun manufacturers are clever, and they frequently figure out ways to mitigate the effects of the restrictions. (This Wall Street Journal video is a good explainer.)
So is there nothing we can do about the epidemic of mass shootings in the US? There is something. One of our distinguished statesmen, Republican Senator Marco Rubio, showed us the way in a town hall meeting on CNN on 22 February 2018: “Once you start looking at how easy it is to get around [legislation to ban ‘assault rifles’], you would literally have to ban every semiautomatic rifle that is sold in America.” The audience erupted in thunderous applause at Rubio’s suggestion (to his evident chagrin).
Rubio was (unintentionally) right. In order to address the problem of mass shootings in the US, we need to eliminate all semiautomatic firearms, including semiautomatic rifles, semiautomatic shotguns, and semiautomatic pistols. Semiautomatic pistols are actually more commonly used in mass shootings than semiautomatic rifles. In addition, there is not a categorical distinction between “pistols” and “rifles,” so if we only ban semiautomatic rifles, gun manufacturers will produce what are legally pistols that function as, or can be easily converted to, rifles. Banning semiautomatic firearms would not infringe on legitimate uses: for someone who wants to hunt, control pests on their farm, target shoot, or protect their homes, revolvers, bolt or lever-action rifles, and pump-action shotguns are more than adequate. In fact, for self-defense, pump-action shotguns and revolvers are superior in many ways. At close range, a shotgun has immense “stopping power” (that is a technical term, and not a euphemism), and buckshot is less likely than a rifle bullet to penetrate a wall and kill an unintended target. In addition, revolvers are easier to use than semiautomatic pistols, and so are a better choice for civilians with less extensive handgun training. (Incidentally, none of the creators of any of the videos or articles I link to have endorsed my views as expressed in this article.)
And, no, you do not have a Constitutional right to own a semiautomatic firearm. Such weapons did not exist when the 2nd Amendment was ratified in 1791, and they were not even practical until the development of “smokeless powder” in the 19th century... (MORE - details)
