Why are we talking about banning “assault weapons?”

You can’t have that assault rifle, but I will make sure you don’t have to pay for your partial birth abortion.

We celebrated a birthday in the office today.  During the cake-eating, someone brought up Friday’s shooting (it wasn’t me).  Everyone was talking about banning this and regulating that, and I said, in a joking manner, that the government will have to take my guns from my cold dead hands.  People laughed, because I’m funny.  One of my co-workers said something along the lines of “Nash, you don’t have any assault rifles though.”  While he is correct, I don’t have one, I thought it would be fun to say that I did.  So I said, “Sure I do.”  Silence.  Awkward silence.  Later my secretary, a gun-owning conservative herself, asked me why I needed such an item.

Make no mistake: the government is coming for assault rifles.  And since they’re now bringing the majority of Americans with them, it’s unlikely that many of you out there care.  I’ll say one thing about Americans: We’re quick to give up freedom for perceived safety.  After all, we were all ok with letting the feds do whatever they wanted after 9/11.  Many had a problem with pouring water on a terrorist’s face, but tapping our phones without a warrant?  No problem.  And don’t forget about the whole shooting a missile at an American citizen without due process thing.  But hey, it’s all in the name of safety.

Now, I could drop a line from Benjamin Franklin about those who give up liberty for security have neither, but I won’t.  Instead, I’ll just say that banning assault rifles won’t result in less crime, or fewer shooting sprees, or safer schools.  Kids are being killed in Chicago everyday, and it’s not happening with expensive assault rifles obtained legally.  It’s happening with semi-automatic pistols obtained illegally.

When I mentioned Americans giving up their freedom earlier in this post, I wasn’t necessarily referring to a Constitutional Right.  We certainly have a right to bear arms.  Included are semi-automatic handguns, rifles, and shotguns.  The Supreme Court hasn’t had a case dealing specifically with assault weapons though, so I don’t know if we have a Constitutional Right to them (but I think we’ll be finding out).  That doesn’t mean we’re not giving up our freedom though.

Everybody is understandably sad and angry over what happened.  But before we go banning something, shouldn’t we at least figure out if it will make a difference?  For example, would the shootings on Friday have happened if the shooter didn’t have the assault rifle?  Probably.  He brought two handguns as well, and being that there was no one available to stop him until the police arrived several minutes later, it’s unlikely he would have been held up in any meaningful way.  Also, let’s not forget that assault weapons were banned two decades ago, and there was no appreciable decline in shootings.  Moreover, when the assault weapons ban expired, there was no appreciable upswing in gun violence.

There are two groups of people who are pushing the ban.  First, there are the politicians, consisting almost entirely of libs from California and the Northeast who have likely never been friends with someone who owned a gun, let alone owned one themselves.  Dianne Feinstein of California, pictured above, is such an example.  Then there is the large group of people who are so angry over what happened, and a little scared to oppose the conventional wisdom, that they are willing to simply go along with it.

Newsflash: the aforementioned politicians don’t care about those killed with assault rifles, by the way.  They have an agenda, and are taking advantage of everyone’s fear and sorrow to push that agenda.  Don’t believe me?  Then, while we’re at it, why don’t we ban tobacco, cars, and alcohol?  How about rationing ground beef and bacon because of their cholesterol and fat content?  Maybe we should have a government mandate whereby every single person who ever enters the water needs to have at least twenty hours of swimming lessons to lessen the likelihood of them drowning?  Or limiting the number of television channels that someone can have or the amount of t.v. that they can watch because being a couch potato is dangerous to one’s health?  You’re far more likely to die from any of the aforementioned than from someone killing you with a gun.  Oh, and we don’t “need” any of them.

I said it yesterday, and I’m saying it again today: freedom costs.  And regardless of whether you own a gun or are scared to death of them, banning a product or activity that is perfectly safe when used responsibly is an affront to our freedom.  It also conveniently avoids the more obvious issues of why the ACLU found it appropriate to help strike down a Connecticut bill that would allow for involuntary institutionalization of adults, like the shooter?  Or why the government is utterly failing to enforce the gun laws we already have on the books?  It also avoids the issue of the cultural dumpster fire that we’ve created in this country.

But it’s free speech!

Hey, if you don’t want to take my word for it, here’s an article written by the smartest man in the world, Thomas Sowell.  It’s so simple, even a progressive from San Francisco can understand it.

Thinking on Connecticut

Another shooting.  This one consisting of 6 and 7 year olds.  Everyone is rightfully horrified.  Questions that have been asked before are being asked again.  Why did it happen?  How can we stop it from happening again?  Who’s to blame?  Guns and mental illness have been the most common “causes” that I’ve run across, oftentimes being made part of a snarky Facebook comment or agenda-driven political commentary.  The actual cause, of course, is evil.  Sin.  I’ve heard only one person offer that answer and it was a preacher in a church in Newtown, Connecticut.  That I’ve only heard this explanation once is telling, I think.  A related cause, this one a little more “earthly,” is freedom.

Many of you will read that last sentence and roll your eyes.  “Owning an assault rifle isn’t about freedom,” you say.  Well you’re right.  It isn’t.  I’m both a gun-owner and a NRA member, but I agree that owning an assault rifle isn’t a Constitutional Right, and I’m guessing neither would the Supreme Court.  The freedom I’m talking about doesn’t directly pertain to the Second Amendment, however.  One’s culture is a derivative of one’s freedom.  For example, some have blamed Friday’s shootings on video games.  I own Modern Warfare II, and there’s an infamous level where your character kills hundreds of civilians at a Moscow airport, for no apparent reason.  The game was banned in some countries, including Russia, until the developer offered to basically delete the aforementioned level in those countries.  The author of the linked article had this to say regarding Russia’s decision:

This is seriously quite pathetic. I am sure Russians would have had no  problem if it was another country involved in the game’s plot, like Germany,  which has of course been the antagonist in most Call of Duty games.  Anybody who pays attention to MW2‘s plot will understand why  Russia is at war with the US, and know that the Russians aren’t being depicted  solely as bad guys.

But still, these are videogames, right? No need to actually research and  contextualize those at all, not when there are kneejerk reactions to be had.

As I stated earlier, I’ve played the game, and I’m confident the developer could have come up with a different way to get Russia to attack the U.S.  The developer put the level in for one reason, and that was to shock the audience.  In other words, it was completely unnecessary.  But the thought of censoring/banning speech in America is viciously attacked, and rightfully so.  Other games have been banned in various countries, for various reasons.  A nice summary is contained here.

The target of scorn when I was a kid was “gangsta’ rap.”  It’s too violent.  It disrespects authority.  It advocates killing cops (which is bad).  All of these things were true, by the way.  While certain words were half-heartily bleeped out on the radio, the albums themselves weren’t banned in American stores, nor should they have been.

What’s the point about all of this?  Do I blame video games?  Or violent music?  Or everything else that bombards us on a daily basis?  No.  But it all has an impact.  Culture matters and freedom costs.  Everyone has seen the bumper-sticker that says “Freedom Isn’t Free,” and understand that it is referring to those who died to defend our freedoms.  For anyone who has had to quickly change the radio station because their kid is in the car, or has to explain why the girl on the cover of the magazine at the checkout line is half-naked with “SEX” written in big letters, understands that we’re all victims of our freedoms…especially our kids.

So what’s the answer?  Should we turn all authority over to Barry, or a select group of Philosopher Kings, to determine what we should or shouldn’t have access to?  Should we have a police state, like in the old USSR?  Of course not.  But we all need to take ownership and acknowledge that our freedoms have allowed for a culture of violence and death to take root in America.  Or more specifically, we have allowed our freedoms to be used to justify our moral relativism.  And it isn’t just multimedia.  While the country rightfully mourns the twenty children that were murdered on Friday, no one takes much notice of the 3,700 kids that were aborted that day, and every day.  It’s hypocritical for anyone to attempt to blame Friday on just one thing.

You can ban assault rifles, but history indicates it won’t reduce firearm violence.  You can spend more money on mental health, but you’ll still have the people with no history of issues.  You can take some of the trillions we throw down the black hole of the public education system and use it to put an armed guard in every school, but you’ll always have the problem with some guard negligently handling his weapon and either accidentally shooting a student or allowing someone else to get his hands on it.

Freedom requires that each citizen act responsibly and be held accountable for his or her actions.  If you want to reduce the number of bad things that happen, then you have to get involved.  Guard your children from the world’s influences.  Pay attention and help your neighbors.  Simple acts like these will be far more effective in reducing events like Friday than will the government deciding to ban something.