Posted May 6, 2019 9:35 am by Comments

By Matthew Larosiere Matthew Larosiere

A familiar feud in American politics has reared its head once
more. After the massacre that struck Christchurch, New Zealand in
mid-March, the question of whether civilians should be able to own
“assault weapons” again became en vogue.

New Zealand responded to the shooting by banning an entire class
of weapons just days later, to the thunderous applause of gun
control activists and others on the mainstream political left. This
response was lauded as reasonable and decisive, with proponents
insistent that nobody needs “weapons of war.” In turn,
gun rights activists deflected per their usual means, poking holes
in gun control logic, and attacking their opponents’ vague
and uninformed definitions. But no one is explaining the reason
that people truly do need these weapons.

Generally, Americans know what people are talking about when
they hear the term “assault rifles.” But when someone
tries to write a rigid definition, things get ridiculous. Past
definitions have included things like 22-caliber “squirrel
guns,” handguns, shotguns, and so on.

A weapon’s power isn’t a
matter of magic or opinion, it’s one of science.

This naturally leads to policy failure. It’s worth noting,
for example, the Christchurch killer’s rifles didn’t
even fit the definition of the “Military Style
Semi-Automatic” rifles New Zealand banned after the fact. But
let’s accept “assault weapons” as short,
semi-automatic rifles which accept a detachable …Read the Rest

Source:: Cato Institute

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.