What We Can’t Do About Gun Control and the Florida Shooting
Alright, so it’s been over a week since the Florida shooting. There must be something sensible, right? Well, unsurprisingly, not for the Left. Let’s look at some common arguments for what should happen.
The AR-15 Argument
This one’s just silly. An AR-15 is a semi-automatic rifle, wielding the same power as just about any other one. Just because it is the most common rifle in the United States does not mean banning it will do anything. In fact, studies show it will only do worse.
Let’s take a look at that first part. Approximately 80% of gun crimes occur with the possession of a handgun. Given this, the effect of outlawing AR-15s would clearly be slim-to-none. But that’s just one reason why.
The 2007 International Small Arms Survey studied 72 countries that enacted gun control in some sense, in most cases, confiscation. They found mass defiance among the citizens, with about 2/3 of the collective population not complying. In Australia, in 1996, the government banned semi-automatic rifles, resulting in 700,000 weapons confiscated. If we put that into America’s case, where we have more guns than people, we’d still end up with well over 200 million guns after a confiscation policy.
And those 200 million guns? They don’t even account for illegal weapon sales – that would be an estimated 10 million increase, just as the countries studied in the survey.
It turns out, a lot of people – especially people going to commit a gun crime anyway – don’t care about gun control. They’ll be more encouraged to find other means, and as history has shown, more black market sales results in lower economic success.
The Outdated Constitution/Different Times Argument
Folks, the Constitution does not expire! Let’s just for a second, ignore the fact that the Constitution was revised in 1992. Assuming we’re still on the topic of guns, the argument that the Second Amendment should’ve already been changed falls flat. Why? Well, for starters, gun control failed to pass in Massachusetts in 1976, and California in 1982 – two of our most Left-leaning states. No attempt has been made since then.
Now, let’s take a look at the amendment itself:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
– Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
Last time I checked, “Arms” includes AR-15. If the Constitution needed drastic changing, it would’ve already happened.
The Age Argument
This one’s pretty short; it goes like this: “18-year-olds should not be able to purchase these kinds of weapons.” Going back to the Second Amendment, the Militia Act of 1792 refers to “Militia” as white males between 18 and 45 years of age. Now, obviously, in today’s world, that would include women and people of different races. The Militia Act was revised several times – in 1862 to include blacks, and again later on. But age still stands, even today.
The Public Opinion Argument
Alright, so let’s assume we want to modify the Second Amendment and amend the Constitution. Turns out, there’s a handy part in the Constitution that explicitly allows its revision. On one condition – the majority public opinion reflects the political issue at hand. And so, the Left will push the claim that, “Oh, yeah, the vast majority of the country unites to stand for sensible gun control.” Turns out, that’s not true.
Polls show that well over half of the country believes that the Second Amendment grants a Constitutional right to own guns, and polls also show that over half of the country believe it is necessary to protect.
The Left really likes to try and exploit these arguments for their political agenda. It’s upsetting to see many Republicans falling for this tactic. Too bad for them these arguments don’t work.