The Assault Weapons Ban

I'll itemize the points I see you making that I think merit some kind of discussion. 1. Target Semi-Automatic Weapons 2. Polls 3. Political Expedience 4. Statistics So, targeting semi-automatic weapons. Essentially the problem I see there is that semi-automatic is one of the absolute widest brushes you can select to draw across the field of firearms. It covers all types of longarms and pistols, dating from 1885 to today. Now, can you give me one good reason to ban a curio and relic German Gewehr 43 that some collector has paid 4,000 dollars for? Or a first world war Luger pistol? To forestall an argument about protecting curios and relics, I will point out that A. The President has already barred the import of curio and relic firearms, calling them 'military weapons,' and 2. The dates of production that designate something a curio and relic have been increasing year for year as we advance in time, but protections have been denied to weapons deemed 'scary.' Polls. I know I'll sound like the Grinch Who Stole Politics here, but I'm not a big fan of polls. That's for two reasons. One, polls are always subjective and prone to errors based on who asks the question, how it is asked, and how it is perceived. Two, operating from the precept that all opinions are equal is pretty foolish. An expert gunsmith or a law enforcement officer are better sources of opinion. A random man who has never held a gun and works at a deli is not such a great source of opinion. Call me a technocrat, but I want policies made by people who understand the issues, not a bunch of armchair generals. Political expedience. You act as if it's either 'assault weapons go now' or 'Semi-autos go later.' Considering that the Supreme Court has finally incorporated the 2nd Amendment and cracked down on gun bans, permanently ruining the 'militia means national guard' argument, the position of gun rights has never been stronger. The simple fact is that people need to realize the tree they're barking up is getting pretty bare of leaves. And it's a pretty political tree. We need to reexamine this divisive approach, and find some solutions that are bipartisan, and endorsed by experts. Simply passing a law banning something isn't going to have any change as a result unless you literally go door to door with a search warrant to find and seize weapons. Statistics. I'll keep this one brief because I don't want it to turn into the battle of the experts that makes everyone fall asleep. Again, here's an itemized response. 1. I cite the cosmetics because they are being targeted as somehow more dangerous. The fact that they aren't needs to be noted. Additionally, show me a remotely politically viable call for a ban on semi-automatic firearms. We discuss the issues that are in the mainstream of belief, because they are actual possibilities. 2. The pistols it includes are pistols in name only. They are much larger, not concealable, and are essentially shorter rifles missing stocks. If you want those 'assault pistols' banned, I'd actually agree to that. They serve no purpose. 3. Can you show me a better statistic? For example, what caliber of bullet was recovered from each crime scene? I can assure you that the most common weapons used in crimes are small caliber pistols, and shotguns. Unless you can find a better statistic, all you're doing is nitpicking the data provided by Law Enforcement. Now, a few points of my own. 1. Rights. Yes, I know the whole 'GUNS ARE MY RIGHTS!' point is too loud and prevalent. But catchphrases or not, the Supreme Court has ruled that every lawful individual in the US has a right to own a firearm, and in US v Miller they ruled a firearm was not protected unless useful for a militia. So, essentially, why are we even acting as if this is negotiable? Hunting isn't protected per se. National and self defense is. To be clear, I am NOT arguing about fighting the government. But if such a fight did happen, do you really think gun laws would prevent massive violence? 2. Extremes. So we've looked at things to ban and examined either an overly broad category, or a misled specific category. In a proper technocratic sense, we should look at this through the lens of what is an actual problem. You'd find that Police even have a term for the problem. Saturday Night Specials. Little pistols, easily concealable, low capacity, and dirt cheap. Jennings, Hi-Point. That's the favored weapon of crime. So, why not take aim at those? 3. Cosmetics. Why should the public accept a ban that is, essentially, pointless? That would be an abuse in many ways. 4. Inevitability. It's my opinion, from observations of the debate, statements, and human nature in general, that gun control doesn't stem from reactions to news quite so much as it does from the guidance of political interests. Sure, people will support a ban on scary guns if one was used on the tv, but people tend to rally around dumb arguments and banners all the time. Someone guides them