The Supreme Court will decide whether the Constitution protects possession of AR-15-style semiautomatic rifles. That is the constitutional question. It is not the practical one, which is what an assault-weapons ban could accomplish in a country already saturated with firearms.
These weapons have repeatedly been used in exceptionally deadly mass shootings, and there are legitimate reasons for restricting them. I should add that I was a gun owner during the 20 years I served as a reserve police officer in Massachusetts. That does not make me a firearms expert, but it does mean that guns are not an entirely abstract subject to me.
But begin with three realities:
-
The firearms industry estimates that approximately 32 million AR-15-style and similar "modern sporting rifles" are already in circulation.
-
Any politically plausible federal ban would probably stop new sales and transfers while grandfathering many weapons already owned.
-
Such a ban could therefore prevent the existing arsenal from continuing to grow, but substantially reducing its size would take years-- probably decades.
This matters for another reason that is uncomfortable even to think about-- and that I admit I am hesitant to discuss.
I know how easily examining the possibility of political violence can be mistaken for advocating it. Several years ago, after writing some 1,700 Daily Kos posts, I published an article addressing political violence and firearms. Not long afterward, I was banned without explanation or recourse. I cannot prove that article was the reason, but the timing left me suspecting a connection.
Nevertheless, refusing to examine political violence does not make the risk disappear. Actual warfare is not fought with one kind of rifle. Ground troops use standard infantry rifles in ordinary combat, while snipers use specialized precision rifles designed for long-distance killing. If American political violence ever escalated into organized armed conflict, banning one category of civilian rifle would not eliminate the many other firearms that could be used.
Gun ownership for personal protection and hunting is more prevalent on the right, but it is hardly confined to MAGA. Nor would political violence depend upon the continued legal sale of one particular kind of firearm.
An assault-weapons ban would not remove the firearms already circulating from a violent political conflict. Gun ownership for personal protection and hunting is more prevalent on the right, but it is hardly confined to MAGA. Nor would political violence depend upon the continued legal sale of one particular kind of firearm.
None of this is an argument against an assault-weapons ban. A law does not have to eliminate a problem completely to reduce it or save lives. But neither should such a ban be presented as if it could fundamentally change how thoroughly armed this country has already become.
The Supreme Court can decide whether governments may prohibit one category of rifle. It cannot reverse the decades during which America accumulated more guns than people.
An assault-weapons ban may be worthwhile. What it cannot be is mistaken for anything approaching disarmament.
Post Article Comment and Rate This Article
