The Assault Weapons Ban

CONCLUSIONI wonder if Con has noticed today's headline out of California, where Gov. Brown vetoed an effective ban on the sale of all new semi-automatic rifles, essentially categorizing all semi-automatic rifles as assault rifles. [1] Although the Governor's moderate response has killed the bill for this year, legislators in Sacramento promise to renew their efforts next year.I'm sure if Con had a chance to respond he would dismiss the bill as unconstitutional and unlikely to be sustained by the Supreme Court, to which I would probably agree. Nevertheless, California's bill is a good example of the kind of legislation that is only going to increase in popularity and regularity in the coming years. I would summarize Con's argument as an appeal to the ideology of expertise: If assault weapons definitions are spurious and assault weapons are not themselves a major contributor to gun violence, why "cater to ignorant outrage?" In ideology, then, Pro & Con are in agreement. We agree that assault weapons definitions are spurious. We agree that assault weapons do not kill as many people as pistols. Where Pro & Con diverge comes after ideology. To quote William F. Buckley, "Idealism is fine, but as it approaches reality, the costs become prohibitive." Con wishes to stand on ideology and ignore the changing world. In contrast, Pro offers a pragmatic accomodation. I argue that if gun owners wish to preserve the core of their present material right, semi-automatic weapons, they are going to have make compromises in response to changes within the American electorate.Those compromises include a new emphasis on responsible gun ownership and a rejection of the increasingly irrelevant militia mentality. But the compromise under consideration here is acceptance of the assault weapons ban- not in spite of its irrelevance, but because of it. Since we agree that the differences between ordinary rifles and assault weapon are mostly cosmetic, gun owners have the advantage of appealing to the moderate position with little sacrifice. Standing firm in defense of those cosmetic differences will lead to more intrusive restrictions like those proposed in California, not less.Con does not argue against the likelihood of Pro scenario, he only argues that accomodation would be nonsensical. I offered statistics to show that gun owners are now a shrinking minority, increasingly unable to sustain gun rights via election. Con did not contradict the argument, but replied that he does not care for statistics.I offered polls to show that the majority of Americans are now okay with banning semi-automatic weapons. Con does not dispute the number, but replied that he does not care for polls.I argued that semi-automatic rifles have an image problem, which compromise might help correct. Con does not disput my rationale, but replied that he does not care for compromise.I suspect that Con's position is representative of the majority of gun owners and positions on both sides will polarize. Inevitably, there will be some mass shooting or assassination that will provoke the majority to further gun legislation. If assault weapons bans were in place, then gun owners might have an argument that those bans were ineffective so legislation should focus elsewhere- perhaps even on those cheaper handguns that Con recommends. Without those bans, rifles will be the more likely target and as I have cited before, the public makes little distinction between semi-automatics and "assault weapon" rifles. A small compromise in the short-term may be very effective in forestalling a much heavier price in the longer term.This is may be "catering to ignorant outrage," but history is replete with tales of the power of such outrage. As Jefferson said, Democracy is mob rule. You can either spot the mob coming and take measures to avoid it or you can stand your ground and let the mob overtake you.Thank to Con for a good debate. [1]http://abcnews.go.com...