Why Can't We Have Common Sense Gun Legislation?

Gun control seems to be an easy topic to bring up that tends to invoke a lot of passion from either side of the argument. Like so many other issues, there is a well-defined line drawn between both sides of the argument and neither side seems willing to cross it. I believe a lot of the frustration surrounding this issue stems from misinformation and general ignorance of how firearms work, how they are classified, and why they're so popular.

One can make a solid argument against gun control based on liberty, equality, and natural rights, but my intention here is not to address the issue, but the misinformation associated with it. My perspective on liberty, equality, and natural rights can be found in some of my other posts, Social Equality: A Concept That Has Been Completely Ignored by the Majority of People and Common Sense Policies: Balancing the Rights of the Individual against National Security.

My intention is not to mock the ignorance of firearms. If owning or shooting firearms doesn't interest you at all, I wouldn't expect you to know the details I am about to cover. However, if you're going to advocate the limitation and/or prohibition of firearms, it is both unreasonable and dishonest to use inaccurate definitions and incorrect data to do so.

How are assault rifles classified?

Let's look at how an assault rifle is classified. According to Wikipedia, the U.S. Army defines an assault rifle as having the following characteristics: capable of selective fire, has an intermediate-power cartridge (more power than a pistol but less than a standard rifle or battle rifle), ammunition must be supplied from a detachable box magazine (A magazine and a clip are two different things. When someone says an assault weapon has a clip, that's an immediate indication that they do not know what they're talking about.), and must have an effective range of at least 300 metres (330 yards). Selective fire means the firearm is capable of switching between semi-automatic and fully automatic. This characteristic alone disqualifies any firearm currently sold by retail stores because fully automatic weapons have been banned since the National Firearms Act of 1934. There is a way to purchase fully automatic weapons, but it does require approval from the federal government and local law enforcement and purchasing a tax stamp. After that, these weapons are extremely expensive due to supply being extremely limited since 1986. So, basically, an extremely small percentage of civilian owned firearms can be classified as assault weapons. When politicians and the media refer to assault weapons owned by civilians, they are showing their own ignorance.

We've all heard supposed experts on the media explain how a normal "hunting rifle" can be "easily converted into assault weapons." Usually, the "easy conversions" they mention either wouldn't make an actual difference, wouldn't work, or make absolutely zero sense whatsoever when you understand how these firearms work. Their implication is that a gun owner can convert a semi-automatic rifle to an automatic rifle and it becomes an assault riffle. That's not exactly true based on the definition of assault rifle, but let's ignore that and look into the conversion from semi-auto to full-auto because full-auto weapons are the actual concern rather than assault weapons specifically.

How do firearms work?

Here are a couple of videos explaining how both semi-automatic and automatic firearms work. The second one includes an explanation of select fire with options for semi-auto (1:40), fully-auto (2:50), and three round bursts(4:35).

From these videos, you can see that converting from semi-auto to full-auto would require a totally different trigger mechanism all together. This mechanism is not for sale to the public. It cannot be purchased at a grocery store, nor can it be purchased online. With the right skills, the necessary parts could be made and machined to fit a particular firearm, but any legislation to prevent people from making these in their own home would be virtually impossible to enforce. In any case, the only effective way to change the rate of fire of a firearm is replacing the trigger mechanism. Scopes, magazine capacities, stocks, and other accessories are rather trivial considering they don't really affect the functionality of the firearm.

Why do people like guns so much?

Short answer: They're fun to shoot! If you've never shot a gun, it's worth trying out. Just be sure you go with someone that is knowledgable about them. Choosing the right gun for you and knowing proper firearms safety is extremely important. Until a few years ago, I wasn't very interested in guns myself. Now, I see target shooting as a great way to spend a day having fun with friends and family.

Of course, there's also hunting. When I was watching the fourth democratic presidential debate earlier this year, candidate Martin O'Malley said something that really stood out to me on the topic of gun control. He said, "I've never met a self-respecting deer hunter that needed an AR-15 to down a deer." It's pretty obvious Mr. O'Malley hasn't met very many deer hunters. Many people use Armalite Rifles to hunt with because they're accurate, ergonamic, customizable, and reliable. These qualities a very important to hunters that are looking to feed their families with affordable, all-natural food in the most humane way possible.

Believe it or not, a good majority of hunters are more concered with feeding their families than participating in some sort of contest. Sure, they want to get the biggest animal possible, but that's because they have to purchase a tag for every animal they "down" no matter the size. The bigger the animal, the more meat they get in return for purchasing that tag. These hunters also want to make the kill as quick and painless for the animal as possible, they're not cold-hearted torturers. They want to use the best firearm that allows to do this. Some of them may choose an AR-15, an AK-47, or some other variation of semi-automatic rifle. There is no shame in that at all, even if people like O'Malley want to ridicule them.

Conclusion

I hope you found this post helpful. It ended up much longer than I intended. I'm sure my position on this issue is apparent, but I don't mean to sway your position one way or another with this post. I only mean to address the fallacious arguments used in the issue. I encourage you to research these points further.