Comprehensive Gun Reform: No! IT’S ALL ABOUT THE AR-15!
Okay, a bit of sarcasm in the title to the left — or is it simply a comment on the current political reality. And there is a recognition that more deaths come from other types of guns, but maybe a focus on the AR-15 assault rifle (including its lookalikes) could prove a wedge in the right direction, an opening shot across the bow to use an unfortunately apt imagery.
For the defense of your home, your family, your sense of self, a conventional pistol will suffice 99% of the time. SCOTUS decisions regarding well-designed statutes in Connecticut and Maryland support this conclusion.
SCOTUS did not use the following language — the justices are too reserved (usually) but I will say it: barring an actual declaration of war (which excludes whatever is going on with the extralegal blowing out of existence of boats carrying alleged drug smugglers), you really only need an AR-15 if you want to eviscerate a group of deer or a gathering of political protestors with whom you have a disagreement, or a bunch of school kids who mercilessly bullied you while the school administration did nothing.
Yes, an AR-15 is great for these purposes. The kill rate of these wonderful armaments is far advanced from the muskets that accompanied passage of the Second Amendment. The approximate number of dead bodies when shooting into a crowd or group is uh, a very large number per minute (Google the kill rate and you get the range of the AR-15, not its lethality.)
Time to be analytical as much of the above might be considered to be on the emotional side:
Perhaps there are multiple reasons why the USA far outpaces other developed countries in its mass shooting frequency: (1) we have more mentally ill individuals who receive inadequate services and take out their frustrations by killing, (2) our gun laws are relatively weak, (3) we don’t care, or (4) it’s about the symbolic importance of protecting access to the AR-15.
Reason number one is not only less than flattering, but it is on the obtuse side, requiring an understanding of the social service approaches of multiple countries. Note: if you go through the history of guns in America, the need for therapy is without question.
Reason two begs for a definition of the word “weak.”
Reason three cannot possibly be true even if the data suggest otherwise.
Why then not simply initially focus on reason four: the AR-15, and structure a code of rules and regulations pertinent solely to this firearm, inclusive of the gadgetry associated therewith. Lamentably our constitution provides little enlightenment on this proposal as it is fixated on musket time, i.e., it has not been updated to include the particulars of modern weaponry.
Maybe having tackled only one of the many components of comprehensive gun reform, a second change would become less difficult to accomplish.