To: Nick, Re: "Assault" Weapons

I hope Nick doesn't mind that I'm transposing the excellent comment discussion we're having here to the main page. I wanted to add some pictures to illustrate a point and don't think comments will let me do that. One disclaimer to anyone that may be coming in late: Legal definitions of "Assault Weapons" have nothing to do with fully automatic machine guns. Those have been severely restricted since the 1930's.

Allow me to post Nick's last words for our reference:

I re-read your definition of assault weapons, and agree that they are not as dangerous as they may often be perceived. But I ask again, why do civilians need high-powered, semi-automatic, clip-loaded rifles?

I don't know if you're a hunter, but I'm totally against bloodsports. The only hunting I might be willing to bend on is bowhunting.

That being said, I don't think you need much more than a simple handgun for home defense.

It's not so much that I have a problem with guns, it's the people who own them. With many of them, I simply don't trust their judgment.

Good stuff, Nick.

First, let me remind you that the definition of assault rifle we're discussing isn't mine, it's the legal definition of one as dictated in the Assault Weapons Ban (AWB) in the Columbus city code. I quoted and posted a link to the actual code section previously. It's basically word for word what the federal Clinton AWB said, and (I have no proof of this) but I bet that 98% of all AWBs in this country are also direct copies. So -- not from me. Our legislators have defined and banned a class of firearms based on looks and not function. I merely provided information as to what a "muzzle brake" or "pistol grip" actually meant for those not familiar with those terms.

I was giddy when you said "... and agree that they are not as dangerous as they may often be perceived." Excellent! But then you contradict yourself by saying, "why do civilians need high-powered, semi-automatic, clip-loaded rifles?" Since you are on record saying they are not as dangerous as they are perceived... I prefer to turn the tables on that line of thinking. Have someone give me definitive proof that they should be banned rather than asking me to prove that they should not. Variety is the spice of life. Should we ban automatic transmissions just because it's a different way of operating the car? Same with rifles. Since they're no more dangerous in function, what's the point of demonizing them? (By the way, the answer to that question is that the goal of anti-gun organizations is to ban all firearms. First they want to propose "common sense" legislation that goes after "high capacity". Then they have the precedent to go after semi-auto, then when crime doesn't magically disappear they go after everything... But I digress.)

Also, what does "high powered" mean and why are you picking on "clip-loaded"? There are hundreds of types of rifle ammunition out there and each has its pros and cons. Any bullet when shot at a human head is going to kill someone, so let's not go down the road of banning certain types of ammunition. Ammunition varies for the job. Distance to target, size of game one is hunting, etc. "Clip-loaded" is just a way to hold the ammunition. It doesn't affect the function or "deadliness" of the bullet. I don't think we should ban cardboard boxes and only allow people to store stuff in plastic boxes. Do you?

Moving on...

For the record, I'm not a hunter and don't think I'd ever go hunting, but I have no problem with people hunting so long as it's not endangered species and they eat what they take. People always complain every year about the number of crashes caused by deer and then try to outlaw hunting. Doesn't make sense. Humans have eliminated the natural predators for a lot of animals and need to help control populations. Also,I find it odd when people say they are for bowhunting but not rifle hunting. The point of ethical hunting as I understand it is to minimize the pain and suffering for the prey. Sure, bowhunting makes it more of a challenge for the hunter, but that means that it's harder to get a clean kill. Believe me, no one goes out bowhunting and misses. I bet a lot of people go out and being not as accurate or effective as they would be with a rifle, they'll wound the deer and make it suffer more.

You said that " I don't think you need much more than a simple handgun for home defense." Can I ask what a "simple handgun" is? There are basically two kinds:

Revolvers






and Pistols.







One is not more simple than the other -- just subtle differences in how they're loaded, unloaded, etc. Each one requires one pull of the trigger to expel one bullet. Which is more simple? Which don't you like? Why?

Also, allowing only handguns for home defense seems like an unneccessary restriction. What's the reasoning for that? The point of a home defense gun is to stop the violent attacker RIGHT NOW before he can kill your family. A shotgun is the best tool for stopping someone at close range instantly... then a rifle... then a handgun.

And finally, "It's not so much that I have a problem with guns, it's the people who own them." You've definitely got this part right! It's not the guns, it's the people that do bad things. You could leave a loaded gun sitting on a table with a camera on it indefinitely and it would never murder someone. We don't need to control the guns, we need to control the criminals.

As for "the people that own them" there are very very strict laws in place to make sure that bad people don't get guns. What other tool requires an FBI background check? There are close to 30,000 gun laws on the books. Now, if you're worried about the number of criminals that have guns, I agree with you 110%. Unfortunately, they still break all of those laws and Judges let them go with a slap on the wrist to become a repeat offender (a la the original post on "Columbus Justice Ban" that got this whole ball rolling). Since nobody can dispute that criminals have guns... I want to be sure that I am armed for the defense of myself and my family.

If my assumption is wrong and you're not worried about only criminals with guns, and instead you're worried about the average Joe such as myself... That would mean that you already think an average citizen will commit crimes with that tool. In this country we are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty. Once someone has a history of criminal activity, mental illness, dependence on drugs/alcohol, and a million other things, they can't legally buy a gun anymore. Remember that it's illegal for a felon to be in the presence of a firearm! We're not talking shooting. We're not talking carrying. We're talking about the fact that it's against the law for a felon to walk into his buddy's living room if that buddy has a gun on the wall. If that's the case, what do the other 29,999 laws leave out? Do we really need more?

Are you sure you want to start treating people as if they're guilty with absolutely no proof? Where will that line of thinking lead? What governments in our history (even currently) have acted on that line of thinking? Are those places you want to live?




Phewwwwww! That was a lot of ground to cover! But all good stuff and I thank Nick for asking these questions. To sum up, I'd very much like to have Nick's thoughts (and anyone else) on

A) Whether he thinks civilians should be allowed to have semi-auto rifles (if not... why not?)
B) If there are certain types of handguns you don't like... which ones? Why?
C) And the big enchilada: if banning more firearms and adding more gun laws to the 30,000 already in place will positively affect crime in this country?