So I agree that something needs to be done about gun violence in this country. A young man in Philadelphia has a greater chance of being shot than a soldier in Afghanistan. Clearly whatever we're doing is not working.
Yet the problem I have is when people say, "You shouldn't be allowed to buy an assault rifle. Why do you need one?"
Well, I have a samurai sword I don't need. Also keep a serious utility knife by the bed. Not to mention all the baseball bats and power tools that could do serious damage.
I don't need any of these, but I want them and I bought them. I'm concerned this line of thinking will expand to other types of weapons. Swords, nun-chucks, throwing stars, machetes, etc.
But none of those are weapons that can kill crowds of people, you say.
That is true. If I wanted to take out a crowd, I can get all the supplies I need from a hardware store and make a pipe bomb. Just saying.
Look, my point is the weapon itself is just a blunt object. Like my samurai sword, it is a display item in the homes of collectors. Without ammunition, it's just a weird paper weight.
That's right, ammo is the real danger, not the weapon. Being able to buy armor piercing rounds, hollow points, or 30 round magazines of 5.56mm or 7.62mm. Is the sniper rifle a problem or the 50 caliber ammunition?
A real chicken and egg argument.
Guns and weapons have always been valuable and highly collectible among historians and war buffs. Ammo, not so much. I think if you ban the weapon, you increase the black market. If you ban the ammo, well there would still be a black market for it, but not as large. And if confiscated, ammo is easier to render inert and dispose. Look up Explosive Ordinance Disposal (EOD) if you don't believe me.
It also gets around the second amendment nicely. Sure you have the right to bear arms, but it doesn't say anything about ammo.
No comments:
Post a Comment