We’ve heard it before: gun control laws only affect law abiding gun owners. We hear it, and say it, because it’s true. Lawful gun owners, by definition, follow the law. Likewise, criminals are criminals because they break the law, either deliberately or because they simply don’t care. But how, exactly, does that play out? Do gun control laws really impact responsible gun owners negatively, or are we just making noise?
To answer that question, let’s look at some common gun control measures. We’ll briefly examine their intent, their impact on lawful citizens, and whether they seemingly curtail irresponsible or criminal activity.
Background Checks
This is not a comment on whether background checks should be a thing. There’s an argument for both sides, and I’m personally ambivalent on the current National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). The NICS system has prevented dangerous people from buying guns from licensed dealers, though most denials, by a large margin, are false hits. But we often hear the media screaming about how a mass murderer passed the background check and legally bought one or more guns.
That’s because NICS is only as effective as the information to which it has access. It won’t deny people with no prior criminal record. Nor will it catch people whose criminal acts were committed as a juvenile, since those records are sealed. Finally, it won’t flag people with non-criminal mental conditions, which may or may not make them dangerous. Strong privacy laws protect those records.
One of my closest friends is a mental health professional and she told me that she cannot share anything a client says unless they make a direct threat to themselves or someone else. Even then, reporting such statements does not necessarily mean they will be submitted to NICS. In fact, they probably won’t, as we’ve seen over and over.
The NICS System works about as well as it can. But, honestly, it’s more of a time and convenience impediment to lawful gun buyers. Because research has shown that most criminals, people who knowingly perform criminal acts, don’t buy from licensed dealers. Most crime guns are stolen or purchased on the black market. Which brings us to the call for so-called “universal” background checks.
“Universal” Background Checks
This is where background checks disproportionately affect lawful gun owners. “Universal” background check laws require that all firearm sales, whether from a dealer or between private citizens, include a background check. Sounds great on paper.
The people who push “universal” background checks conveniently leave out the fact that they are unenforceable without a national firearms registry. After all, how can you track who has what unless you already know who has what? I bought my first shotgun at a gas station, way before anyone ever thought about background checks. If I sell that shotgun to my neighbor, who’s to say that he hasn’t owned it all along? Especially since that gas station no longer even exists and the owner passed away over 20 years ago. There’s no way to prove it without a registry.
I’ve also sold several guns for which I underwent a background check, but legally sold to other people, since private sales did not require background checks. For all I know, they’ve sold those guns again. There is simply no way to keep up with it at this point. And, once again, criminals do not subject themselves to background checks. Do you really think a guy trading drugs for a handgun gives a rip about background checks supposedly being “universal?”
I’ve always believed that the “universal” background check push is merely a deliberate prerequisite to call for a national registry when the checks prove ineffective, as they have and will.
“Universal” background checks, which subject them to extra expense and aggravation, only affect law-abiding citizens. Buyers and sellers must travel to and pay a licensed dealer to run the checks for them. But I also believe the people behind those laws see expense and aggravation as features, not bugs, so perhaps that’s their immediate purpose on the way to a registry.
Gun Free Zones
This one’s easy. “Gun-free zones” are nothing of the sort. Responsible gun owners will obey the signs, usually gritting their teeth. Their lawfully carried firearms will be left at home or in their vehicles. Never mind that they probably had to undergo training and an enhanced background check to legally carry them. I say “probably” because 27 states now have Constitutional Carry, which doesn’t require a permit.
Numbers regarding gun-free zones’ effectiveness vary. Crime researcher Dr. John Lott places between 86% and 98% of mass shootings in gun-free zones, while gun control group Everytown for Gun Safety says it’s only 10%. The main difference lies in how each group defines “mass shooting.” Basically, Lott, like the FBI, does not count gang violence or shootings, which are part of another criminal activity. Lott and the FBI classify a mass shooter as a special type of offender who seeks only to kill innocents. Everytown counts all shootings, including gangs and criminals committing other crimes. You can see why their percentages are so different. You can also choose which one you think is more valid.
Either way, neither gangs, criminals, nor headline-seeking murderers have shown any regard for gun-free zone signs or restrictions. Several have explicitly stated they chose their targets because they knew no one else would be armed. Gun-free zones only affect lawful gun owners.
Magazine Capacity Restrictions
Magazine capacity restrictions supposedly limit the number of rounds a criminal has immediately available. The line goes that pausing to change a mag allows victims an opportunity to fight back. Sigh. Where to begin? Best go with the obvious: Criminals don’t care about the law. I mean, if they’re ready to fire into a crowd, aiming to kill, do you think they care about an illegal magazine charge?
The response to that, of course, is that a nationwide capacity restriction would have the desired effect. I’m not sure about that, though.
Americans own an estimated 400 million firearms of all types. People who study such things believe that’s a conservative number. Now, considering that many of those firearms require magazines whose standard capacity can be anywhere from 5 to 30 rounds of ammo, it’s not difficult to imagine that hundreds of millions of those mags are in circulation. The number could easily be over a billion, most of which will be over the artificial government-imposed limit. If a prospective murderer wants a 15 or 30-round mag, they will get a 15 or 30-round mag. Or many 15 and 30-round mags.
But, once again, lawful gun owners will only carry 10 rounds (or another arbitrary number) because they don’t want a felony charge, which is what many of those restrictions carry. Magazine capacity limits do nothing but put the good guys at a distinct disadvantage if they find themselves in the nightmare scenario.
“Assault Weapons” Bans
Politicians, usually advised by gun control groups, decide what features make a firearm an “assault weapon.” The term “assault weapon,” by the way, was coined by gun control advocate Josh Sugarmann. He decided it sounded ominous, and advised the gun control movement to start using it for AR and AK pattern rifles, or anything else that looks scary. Sugarmann said using the term would frighten people who didn’t know any better. And his strategy has worked. It has now evolved into “weapons of war.”
Anyway, these bans sometimes name certain firearms, and they often use certain features like threaded barrels and pistol grips to define “assault weapons.” The ban’s patrons will say that anything meeting their arbitrary definition will be illegal to purchase or transfer after a certain date. All currently owned “assault weapons” must be registered by another, usually later, date. They would dearly love to require everyone to “turn ‘em all in,” as Dianne Feinstein once said, but they have so far lacked the stones and support for such an outrageous move. Plus, that would refute their claim that “no is coming for your guns,” even though that is indeed their fondest wish. All active-duty military, law enforcement, and retired cops are almost always exempt.
Americans own at least 20 million AR-15 rifles. The number is likely to be significantly higher. I haven’t seen numbers on AKs and other rifles, but count those in the millions too. Now, remember most crime guns are stolen. Also, consider that Mexican drug cartels run guns across the border daily. If a bad guy wants an “assault weapon,” he’ll get one.
But the truth is that “assault weapons” are rarely used in crimes, though the media and certain politicians would have us believe otherwise. So, once again, an “assault weapons” ban would severely limit lawful gun owners’ access to the rifles of their choice but would have little to no effect on crime. You’ve probably heard more people are killed by hands and feet each year than by rifles of all types. That is indeed true. There is literally no point to an “assault weapons” ban, other than limiting lawful gun ownership and allowing politicians to score political points from the ill-informed.
Gun Control and the Lawful Gun Owner
The term “lawful gun owners” is self-explanatory. We are gun owners who follow the law. We may not like it, but the consequences are generally not worth incurring. However, it’s difficult to understand how limiting magazine capacities or imposing “universal” background checks inhibits someone set on committing murder. I just can’t picture a would-be active shooter stopping at a mall door and saying, “Darn! A gun-free zone. Guess I can’t kill anyone.”
Strict, nationwide gun control may lower the number of crimes committed with a gun. But I recently saw an interview with a newly minted American citizen who immigrated from Australia. He concedes that his home country’s mass gun confiscation lowered incidents of gun crime, though the reduction was minimal because it was already rare. He also noted that violence levels stayed the same or even increased as criminals realized that law-abiding citizens were now less able to defend themselves. Australian citizens can now be arrested for carrying a pocketknife for self-defense. You won’t hear that on CNN.
He also noted Australia is basically a big island, making arms smuggling somewhat difficult due to the ocean barrier. The same things can be said about the United Kingdom, including being arrested for having a knife. There’s even serious talk about outlawing certain kitchen knives. Gun controllers love to hold up both countries as shining examples.
But the geographic situation is different here. Using drugs, or even the Prohibition Era, as an example, if the people want something illegal, the black market will meet the demand. Again, criminals don’t generally use rifles, but the black-market potential from Mexico is another reason why comparing the United States with Australia and the United Kingdom is not valid.
I’ve often said that the operative word in “gun control” is “control.” And it’s not about controlling criminals. Criminals are only controlled by removing them from society. Likewise, the sheer number of firearms and accessories means that anyone with some perseverance can get what they want. What these laws come down to is whether politicians want law-abiding citizens to be able to protect themselves. I must believe they are privy to the same information I am, so I can only reach one conclusion. And it ain’t good.
