by Mitch Kokai
Senior Political Analyst, John Locke Foundation
President Obama’s timing is off. Just as he tries to assure us that there’s no conspiracy to take away our guns, Democrats across the country are calling for banning most firearms.
From Georgia to California, Democratic legislators have introduced bills to ban all semi-automatic rifles or even all semi-automatics, period. In the New York Times this month, Thomas Friedman called for “bans on the manufacture and sale of all semi-automatic and other military-style guns.” The city council of Lexington, Mass., is seeking to “ban the ownership of semi-automatic or fully automatic weapons able to hold ammunition clips containing more than ten rounds.”
Well over half of the guns sold in the U.S. are semi-automatic. And, if a gun can accept a magazine, that magazine can be of pretty much any size. So the “ten round” rule is meaningless. So, with the exception of a few specialty guns, these rules would in effect ban all semi-automatic guns. …
… Gun-control advocates have continually demonstrated their ignorance about how guns operate. How often do we hear them ask, “why do people need a semi-automatic Bushmaster to go out and kill deer?” But the answer is simple: A Bushmaster is a hunting rifle — it has just been made to look like a military weapon.
If, however, the Democrats plan to ban semi-automatic handguns, banning revolvers isn’t going to be far behind. Not that banning revolvers would reduce gun crime, either. …
… Either way, today’s ignorant politicians want to ban all semi-automatic guns. Tomorrow they will push to ban revolvers.
Will this make anyone safer or reduce gun violence? No.
While mass shooters can plan their attacks by bringing multiple guns, extra magazines, or speed loaders for revolvers, concealed-carry permit holders are unlikely to lug along any extra equipment. And the law-abiding citizen won’t be able to carry as many bullets in a legal revolver as in a potentially illegal semi-automatic.