Wednesday, January 9, 2013

Sensible Gun Control Isn't Sensible

Proponents of gun control claim that all they want is "sensible" gun control.  In 1994 the "Clinton Gun Ban" was passed.  Was it sensible?

Ask yourself the following questions:

If we could wave a magic wand and magically make the following disappear,  how many lives would be saved?
  • Folding or telescoping stock - How many people are killed by a gun stock?
  • Pistol grip - How many people are killed by a gun stock?
  • Bayonet mount - If you are going to ban bayonet mounts, then why not also ban knives?
  • Flash suppressor - Does adding a flash suppressor make a gun more or less lethal?
  • Grenade launcher - Are they legal anyway?
  • Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip - I don't even know what that means.
  • Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or suppressor - Does adding a flash suppressor, hand grip, or barrel extender more or less lethal?
  • Barrel shroud that can be used as a hand-hold - How many people have been killed by a barrel shroud?  Notice that they only want to ban some barrel shrouds.
  • Unloaded weight of 50 oz (1.4 kg) or more - The heavier the gun the more lethal it is. Right?
  • A semi-automatic version of a fully automatic firearm. - Ten features in and we finally got to one that effects the actual usage of a gun.  Automatics are banned; semi autos are not, unless they are?
  • Fixed capacity of more than 5 rounds - Because reloading is impossible to do, right?
  • Detachable magazine - How many people have died thinking, "if only the magazine was permanently affixed to the gun! That would have made all the difference!"
Those are all the features of guns that were "sensibly" banned by the Clinton Gun Ban.

If someone argues for "sensible gun restrictions," then ask them: how many people would be saved if we banned all heavy handguns? How many people would be saved if we banned certain stock shapes?"

"Sensible gun restrictions" are anything but sensible.


  1. They just move the goalposts until they can pass ANY restriction. And notice they're never content with today's restrictions. 5 years later, some new aspect of weaponry needs to be banned...

  2. The real danger of the current bill is that we know with absolute certainty that it will never be passed as is. The prohibitionists know this as well, what they want will certainly be less than they are asking, but I fear they might rightly be thinking they can brow beat the GOP, hardly the bastion of conservatism anymore, into conceding ground on this issue.