Gun control

The AR-15 has become the poster child (literally) for the case for and the case against gun control. But banning assault weapons really misses the point. First, a very small proportion of shooting deaths involve assault weapons. But because they they are generally high profile "mass shootings" this particular gun gets more coverage than other weapons. Second, there are really only two uses for guns; for sport (which may or may not involve killing) and for killing, which may be homicide or self defense. Few if any hunters use assault rifles, so in the sporting category, we are talking about target practice. In that context its unclear that the government need get involved in the choice of weapon sportsmen chose. The area in which there is a legitimate concern for government action is when weapons are used for killing people. And they can be used in two ways, call them offensively (homicide) or defensively. Banning ARs will, as gun rights advocates rightly point out, make it more likely that those owning ARs will be criminals (once the ban is in place, owning one would in and of itself be a criminal act). America is a county swimming in guns and a home invasion or other crime in which threats of violence are used will be carried out with a gun. Some would argue that when confronted with an armed assailant, the best course is to comply and or wait for law enforcement. But there are those who want the right to chose otherwise; who believe that by the time law enforcement arrive the crime will have been committed and the the best, if not the only way to meet such a threat is with a response that is of commensurate force. This may or may not be a correct assessment but it is a choice nonetheless that is it not clear to me that the government should constrain.

Banning ARs will create an asymmetry that puts the person who chooses to confront an armed assailant at a disadvantage, to some degree forcing their hand.  And since the government essentially grants that citizens have the right to use deadly force to defend themselves (which the AR ban does, since it only seeks to ban one type of weapon, not to prevent an armed response to an armed (or unarmed) assailant), then in banning ARs, the government is not acting on moral grounds but practical ones; and that choice limits the right of those who chose to use deadly force in self defense to use what they consider the most effective means enacting their choice. If the government was acting on moral grounds it would expunge all stand-your-ground laws, make it illegal to use deadly force in any setting even self defense and ban all weapons, hand guns as well as ARs. If the magazine size is the issue then hand guns with magazines of 10 rounds or more which can be quickly reloaded ought to be treated the same way as California treats ARs -- only small capacity magazines are allowed and a special key be required in an effort to slow down the reloading process.

An argument for banning ARs might be that this would tilt the "balance of fire power" in favor of law enforcement; but ironically there are those on both sides of the debate who think that might not be such a good thing. The anti-federal government survivalists won't trust national law enforcement and the left tents to distrust local law enforcement. Of course the left is more likely to opt for a legislative solution than an armed one.

Its time to get beyond the symbols and begin talking about the real issues; access to weapons (and ammunition) in general, the relationship between law enforcement and those they are sworn to protect and serve, and the root causes of violent crime. While we are fixated on images of the AR-15 we will never make progress in solving some very real issues.