Assault Weapons and Large Capacity Magazines does NOT equal more crime


Often, when people quote the statistics, they will state that since the Clinton-era Assault Weapons Ban expired, the number of violent crimes committed with the use of an assault weapon or a weapon with a large capacity magazine has actually gone up.  Some would argue that they’ve gone down.  Regardless of who is correct, one thing remains paramount and clear.  The ban expired.  Let’s be perfectly clear on this undeniable fact.

With the expiration of the ban, firearms manufacturers have returned to selling weapons that firearms aficionados want.  That happens to include “assault weapons” and large capacity magazines for both assault rifles and all semi-automatic handguns.  I like to compare this to something that almost all Americans use, which are automobiles.  Automobile manufacturers build vehicles that are going to be able to get the driver from point A to point B efficiently (and sometimes quickly).  A great deal of research and development goes into building an automobile which can get great gas mileage, etc. however nobody would argue that selling automobiles with the largest possible capacity for storing gasoline is an ineffective design.  It’s obvious to anyone who can think clearly on the issue.  The fewer times you have to stop and fill up, the better.  The same line of thinking applies to firearms, and firearms manufacturers know this.

Let’s assume that the number of crimes committed with assault weapons and/or high-capacity magazines has risen since the Assault Weapons Ban expired is true.  Logically, wouldn’t it make sense that those weapons which the criminal would be using at the time of his crime would be those very same weapons which are available for purchase?  If assault weapons and high-capacity magazines are available for purchase, then logically those would be bought and then subsequently used in these hypothetical crimes.  If those weapons were not available, then a different weapon would be used; however I do not believe that the crime would not be committed.  That is shortsighted and ignorant thinking.  I mean, did all crime cease during the Clinton-era and the now expired weapons ban time period?  The answer is quite simply, no.

Lastly, try to recall the mass killing that took place a number of years ago at Virgina Tech.  This was committed on April 16, 2007 by a troubled student named Seung-Hui Cho, who used 2 semi-automatic handguns to carry out his attack which injured 17 people and took the lives of 33 people, including himself.  The handguns he used were a 15-round capacity Glock 19 (9mm rounds) and a 10-round capacity Walther P22 (.22 caliber rounds).  With the capacity to only carry 25 rounds of ammunition at a time, how did he manage to shoot, injure and kill so many?  It doesn’t take a genius to figure this one out.  And if you’re still too dumb to figure it out….he re-loaded!

In conclusion, it is my firm belief that the only way to stop crimes with firearms is for firearms to not exist. However; this is just as ignorant and unthinkable as believing that limiting the number of bullets a criminal’s semi-automatic handgun can hold will make any difference on the number of bullets he brings with him to his crime.

Advertisements

7 thoughts on “Assault Weapons and Large Capacity Magazines does NOT equal more crime

  1. The 1966 shootings on the Univ of Texas campus were carried out using a single shot bolt action rifle.

    the connecticut shootings by Adam Lenzano (sp?) were carried out using a weapon that his mother purchased. she didn’t have a mental history, so sale to her was ok.

    I agree with Chris – banning weapons, accessories, and/or ammunition isn’t the answer.

  2. Chris Congresswoman Gabby Gifford’s assailant was captured as he attempted to reload his weapon so he could shoot more innocent citizens. I believe in universal background checks for all gun purchases. I have never needed more than three cartridges in a weapon to bird hunt or deer hunt….

    1. Although I agree in universal background checks for all gun purchases, it alone wouldn’t fix the problem I’ve discussed here. My point, which may have not been clear is that the number of rounds that a firearm may contain won’t stop crime from occuring. I hear replies like yours all the time (smaller capacity), and they always really translate to “less people killed and/or shot is better”. In my opinion, that is not an appropriate answer or solution to the problem. Would we, as a society be happy with the same if we were discussing over the counter Tylenol? If Tylenol killed 1 in 10 people who took it for a headache, would that be acceptable?

      The real point I was trying to make is that the firearms that are used in ANY crime are uncategorically and without doubt, most often those firearms which are available for purchase at the time the crime is committed.

      Your arguement makes a good case for hunting; however the 2nd Amendment wasn’t written to pacify hunters. It’s purpose is to protect the citizens of this country against a potentially tyranical government.

    1. Yea, I saw that interview too. My assumption is that Biden’s home is not in a residential neighborhood though. At least, that’s the way I took it when I heard that interview. I assume he lives in a great big, rural home.

  3. First off, I’m always annoyed when people refer to the civilian military style of rifle as assault rifle. The AR as in AR 15 stands for ArmaLite, the company that make it. Much like the FN in FN SCAR is part of the name of the company that makes that rifle. For any rifle to be considered an “assault rifle”, it has to be fully automatic (or possibly a three-round burst – 3 bullets per trigger pull). The M4’s on sale at my local sporting goods store are semi-automatic (one bullet per trigger pull and I don’t have to manually chamber a round after each shot).

    Now, you mentioned that an idea (a horrible one at that) is to do away with all guns. But you really can’t do that because somehow military grade guns would make their way into bad people’s hands (actually they already do…don’t gang members in larger cities engage in violence with full auto rifles?). But let’s assume all civilian guns were done away with and bad guys had no way of obtaining them. It’s not like bad guys are gonna disappear if there are no guns, their just gonna modify what they use to assail you. More knives and baseball bats. If someone or a small two to three man group breaks into my house with knives and aluminum baseball bats, even if I have a knife and a bat I’m out numbered. But let’s say we all have guns in this scenario. The sound of them breaking into my house wakes me up. I can get to a point in my dark house that I know better than them, which gives me a visual of them and possibly their flash lights, and suddenly it’s open season on home invaders.

    All of this talk about background check has me confused. Growing up in Montana, I took hunters safety, and had to fill out a little card. I have to have a permit to go hunting, I have to show ID and FILL OUT PAPERWORK to buy a gun. There’s a three day waiting period. I don’t think the availability of guns is so easy, it’s people with psychological issues who hide those problems. What did neighbors say about that Bind Torture Kill guy…”he seemed normal to me”? That dude didn’t use guns.

    1. Thanks for leaving a comment. You make valid points. I think you may have misunderstood my meaning when I said that doing away with all guns is an option. What I meant was ALL guns, which would include the military. I, too, agree that this is not a viable or good option. I also agree with you that it wouldn’t stop crime. However, my blog entry isn’t about stopping crime. It’s about large capacity firearms, “assault” weapons (an often misused term) and their effect on crime.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s