Following the murders in Highland Park, the editors of the Washington Post plead for a ban on assault weapons:
The high-powered rifle used in the attack, according to authorities, was legally purchased by the suspected 21-year-old gunman, who was arrested on Monday and charged Tuesday with seven counts of first-degree murder. The ease of acquiring these weapons of war — and make no mistake, war is what the designers of these weapons envisioned — is by now, after Columbine, Sandy Hook, Parkland, Las Vegas and countless other mass shootings, a sadly familiar story. That the back-to-back shootings in May at a grocery store in Buffalo and at an elementary school in Uvalde, Tex., were allegedly committed by 18-year-olds who had no problem strolling into gun stores and leaving with weapons that would be used to kill 31 people should have been a call to action for Congress.
Instead, the regulation of assault weapons was not even allowed on the table as a package of moderate gun and school safety measures was negotiated by a bipartisan group of senators and signed into law. As we said at the time, it was good that Congress was able to take some action, breaking more than a 25-year stalemate on gun control. But as the horrific events of Highland Park demonstrated, more rigorous reforms are needed. Banning assault weapons is a good place to restart the conversation.
I don’t object to a ban on the private ownership of “assault weapons” providing they can be defined in an objective way. However, I think the editors will be disappointed at the outcome. IMO the reforms necessary (in descending order of importance):
- We need to enforce existing law.
- We need to change our attitudes regarding mental illness and how it is treated, indeed, whether it is treated.
- Define what is meant by “assault weapons”.
- Ban them.
Highland Park already has a city ordinance banning assault weapons. Illinois does not.
I agree with 1-3, and disagree with the outright ban option. In the meantime, what about those Netherland farmers and fishermen revolting against their government!
We have had a nationwide ban on the private ownership of fully automatic weapons for most of the last century.
However, the definition of “assault weapon†is usually poorly defined. I know virtually nothing about guns, but I think how you handle bans, in the midst of emotional events, one has to be careful not to overreact. Also, so many laws in place already are not being exercised. What will layering more on them actually do to effect criminal misuse of them? In effect, the current 22 year old assassin is a misfit like so many other school shooters, such as the Parkland kid, where numerous red flags and warnings were overlooked until he shot up a school. The same lack of vigilance, ignoring anti-social behavior, is at the heart of this tragedy. To then create gun control laws that usually only effects the law-abiding gun owner seems foolish.
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2022/07/06/how-the-highland-park-shooter-got-his-gun-n2609795
“….Highland Park already has a city ordinance banning assault weapons. ….”
How’d that ban work out? Oh, I know. We’ll just ban them harder.
Your first point could be addressed by Biden thru the AG reminding all US Attorneys that felon in possession of a firearm is a federal offense and their duty to prosecute.
Assault gun, hmm the USG sells thru a civilian org, M1 Garand rifles that hold 8 rounds and on occassion M1 carbines with advice on which 30 round magazine works best.
Getting mental heath involved sounds good, yet will need a better framework, too much variability between examining head shrinkers and needs to be capable of being printed on a wallet sized card for officers to consult.
I mean more than “getting mental health involved”. I think we need a different attitude towards mental illness and different laws. See the John Kass quote from my earlier post today on the Highland Park shootings. On the one hand, the guy’s mental issues are obvious. On the other hand “nobody knew”. How do you reconcile those? IMO the guy’s screams for help were being ignored by friends, family, everybody.
Changing the law and medical practice to diagnose and treat potential mass murderers is maze of very twisty passages. Our current system requires a recent overt witnessed act before either jail or the hospital is an option after a trial. Somewhere, some how, we (voters, legislators) would have to create a framework to short circuit the process without it becoming no better than witch finding. In short, we need a way to say “thats a scary dude”, put him in the database and then what? Immurement in a institution, chemical lobotomy via implant? Drafted into a penal battalion clearing toxic waste? Exorcism?
Maybe if the suicidal ideation that was manifest several years ago had been treated then he might not have graduated to mass murderer.
I think the focus on “assault” weapons is a mistake. And the editors lump Columbine in there (the guns there weren’t “assault” rifles) and neglect to include events where handguns and other weapons were used.
I think a big and obvious problem with attempting to make assault weapons seem like these super-bad, uniquely scary, military rifles is that incentivizes mass shooters to pick those guns for their murder sprees. Especially the ignorant ones who don’t know much about guns. Why wouldn’t they pick the weapons that seemingly strike fear into parts of the population and are frequently characterized as uniquely dangerous and deadly? Even though statistically, semi-auto rifles account for a tiny number of firearm murders in this country.
And there’s the obvious point that mass murders will use other weapons if those rifles are not available and those are weapons, situationally dependent, are no less deadly. So if the goal is to prevent mass murders specifically or reduce gun crime generally, then I don’t see the cause and effect that ban supporters promote.
This brings me back to Columbine which is a bit personal because I’m from Colorado and knew one of the victims (a relative of my best friend). One of the weapons used there was a Tec-9 machine pistol and another was a pistol caliber carbine rifle (plus two shotguns). Both the pistol and carbine were “trendy” weapons in the 80’s and 90’s. Watch any movie or inner city culture from the period and those weapons are everywhere – heroes and villains alike spraying bullets with their machine pistols. There’s even a rapper (still around today) that uses that gun (Tec-9) as a stage name.
Fads change and now machine pistols and carbines are passe and modular rifles based on the M4 platform are the trendy and scary weapons today. Even if you ban them all (attempts so far have not been successful), then some other weapon will become trendy.
And regardless, for most mass shootings the type of weapon used is not very relevant. Murdering scared, defenseless people at close range isn’t better accomplished with a rifle. I know a thing or two about guns and were I to plan a mass shooting, I would probably pick handguns. Easier to conceal, easier to use in close quarters, quicker to reload, easier to carry spare weapons, easier to carry more ammo, and just as deadly for close-range murder. Rifles only make sense if you’re the Las Vegas shooter or this turd in Highland park who want to kill at range.
Anyway, to sum up, I don’t think banning certain classes of weapons works unless you’re willing to ban entire categories of weapons – like semi-automatic, magazine-fed weapons. That’s all an assault rifle is, but so is nearly every other modern firearm, which is why attempts to carve out an “assault” weapon category haven’t been successful.
And it’s weird and frustrating to me that handguns are responsible for the vast majority of murders and gun deaths, yet the modern gun control movement hardly talks about them.
Another thing you don’t see is anyone analyzing mass shootings seriously. When a plane crashes, there is an investigation to determine the precise causes of the crash, and identify specific actions that would prevent the crash from reoccurring in the future. Gun control people never do this and neither do the pro-gun people. It’s more useful to have talking points than real understanding I guess.
Your comments both in this thread and in the Ukraine thread have been excellent, Andy.
As I said in my post, although I don’t oppose banning assault weapons I strongly suspect that advocates of such a ban will/would be very disappointed in how little it would change things.
Think you are right about handguns though if outside rifle with handgun back up would work I think. I also dont think you can define assault in any meaningful way. Any semi-auto with a high capacity can kill lots of people. We arent banning all of those. Its fine to talk about mental health but we ned to remember that we arent good at predicting who will actually become violent. The current shooter was suicidal. So are millions of other people every year. That doesn’t mean they all go on to kill other people.
We have so many guns not sure we can do much really. Limit access to those under 21 if you can will eliminate young shooters. Limit magazine size but so many large ones are already available. I hating we mostly just build memorials.
Steve
“And there’s the obvious point that mass murders will use other weapons if those rifles are not available…”
Motor vehicles are a relatively popular choice. Among crazed lunatics and terrorists alike, or did I just repeat myself.
Ran across this today, which I thought Dave and others might be interested in:
https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/vtmel3/oc_40256_chicago_shooting_victims_in_12_years/
That expresses graphically a point I have made here many times. When you exclude black urban homicides and Hispanic urban homicides the U. S. homicide rate approximates that of Germany. My conclusion from that is somewhat different than bob sykes’s. I think that there is a pathology in urban black culture. Not racial but cultural.