In recent months, governments released prisoners and announced that some laws wouldn’t be enforced because of the coronavirus. Now, with protests against police misbehavior, we’re seeing governments fail to maintain law and order.
As suggested by this excellent Reason video, these developments bolster the case against gun control.
But does this mean politicians will be more supportive of the 2nd Amendment?
The answer (at least for anyone with an IQ above room temperature) should be yes.
From an economic perspective, one major goal is to change the cost-benefit analysis for criminals. If bad guys have to worry that good guys may be armed, that significantly increases the potential cost of illegal behavior.
A well-functioning system of law enforcement can help, of course, but that’s not a description of how things work in some communities – even in normal times, much less when there’s civil unrest.
But all this evidence and analysis doesn’t seem to matter for Joe Biden. A look at his campaign website shows support for a wide range of gun-control laws from the soon-to-be Democratic nominee.
…gun violence is a public health epidemic. …In 1994, Biden – along with Senator Dianne Feinstein – secured the passage of 10-year bans on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines.
As president, Joe Biden will defeat the NRA again. …As president, Biden will: …Ban the manufacture and sale of assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. …Regulate possession of existing assault weapons under the National Firearms Act. …Biden supports legislation restricting the number of firearms an individual may purchase per month to one. …End the online sale of firearms and ammunitions. …Give states incentives to set up gun licensing programs.
What’s especially discouraging is that Biden apparently hasn’t learned anything about so-called assault weapons since 1994.
In a 2019 column for Reason, Jacob Sullum dissected Biden’s incoherent views on the topic.
Joe Biden…is still proud of the ban on “assault weapons”… Biden argues that it made mass shootings less common…, citing a study reported in The Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery last January. But that is not what the researchers, led by New York University epidemiologist Charles DiMaggio, actually found.
…The study…looked not at the number of mass shootings, as Biden claims, but the number of mass-shooting deaths as a share of all firearm homicides. The difference in total fatalities during the period when the ban was in effect amounted to 15 fewer deaths over a decade, or 1.5 a year on average, including mass shootings that did not involve weapons covered by the ban. …The causal mechanism imagined by Biden is even harder to figure out. He describes “assault weapons” as “military-style firearms designed to fire rapidly.” But they do not fire any faster than any other semi-automatic. …Under the 1994 ban, removing “military-style” features such as folding stocks, flash suppressors, or bayonet mounts transformed forbidden “assault weapons” into legal firearms, even though the compliant models fired the same ammunition at the same rate with the same muzzle velocity as the ones targeted by the law.
I wonder if Biden understands the policy he’s advocating.
Does he think that “assault weapons” are actual machine guns, capable of firing multiple rounds with one pull on the trigger (a remarkably common misconception among gun-control advocates)?
Or, if he understands that a so-called assault weapon is just like any other gun (firing one round each time the trigger is pulled), then why would he think anything would be achieved by banning some guns and leaving others (that work the same way) legal?
Perhaps most relevant, does he even care what the evidence shows?
The bottom line is that people are “voting with their dollars” for gun ownership for the simple reason that they know it’s unwise to trust government (either to protect them from crime or to respect their rights).
But that doesn’t mean their constitutional freedoms will be secure if Biden wins the 2020 election.
P.S. The good news is that there will be widespread civil disobedience if politicians push for new gun bans.
P.P.S. Another silver lining is that we’ll get more and more clever humor mocking gun control.
[…] years ago, I rhetorically asked whether the movement for gun control was […]
[…] years ago, I rhetorically asked whether the movement for gun control was […]
[…] Is Gun Control Dead? […]
[…] Is Gun Control Dead? […]
[…] Is Gun Control Dead? […]
[…] Is Gun Control Dead? […]
[…] Is Gun Control Dead? […]
[…] Is Gun Control Dead? […]
[…] Is Gun Control Dead? […]
[…] Is Gun Control Dead? […]
[…] Is Gun Control Dead? […]
[…] Is Gun Control Dead? […]
[…] Is Gun Control Dead? […]
[…] Is Gun Control Dead? […]
[…] Is Gun Control Dead? […]
[…] Is Gun Control Dead? […]
[…] Is Gun Control Dead? […]
[…] Is Gun Control Dead? […]
[…] Is Gun Control Dead? […]
[…] Is Gun Control Dead? […]
[…] Is Gun Control Dead? […]
[…] Is Gun Control Dead? […]
[…] Is Gun Control Dead? […]
[…] Is Gun Control Dead? […]
[…] direction on other issues as well, including a push for gun control (an issue where Biden is both wrong and […]
[…] analysis also applies to folks who are motivated by other issues (immigration, foreign policy, guns, judges, decorum, etc). Simply stated, put principles […]
[…] And since I wrote recently about the (hopeful) death of gun control, I’ll also share this polling data from 2014 about […]
[…] For what it’s worth, while the intellectual case for gun control is dead, I fully expect Biden (assuming he wins in November) to push gun control next year. The silver […]
correction:
104 shot in Chicago… 14 dead….
BLM…………..
Reblogged this on Boudica BPI Weblog.
” A toddler and three teenagers were among those shot to death between Friday evening and Sunday night, according to data maintained by the Chicago Sun-Times. Five other juveniles were also struck by gunfire.”
“DEFUND THE POLICE: 70 Shot in Chicago Over the Weekend”
By Daniel Greenfield
https://www.frontpagemag.com/point/2020/06/defund-police-70-shot-chicago-over-weekend-daniel-greenfield/
illegally confiscate privately owned firearms… and defund the police…
what could possibly go wrong?
it isn’t likely that the socialist democrats will abandoned their goal of totally disarming the nation… their objective is to dismantle our social and economic systems… and reconstruct a new society based on their vision of a modern Marxist state… rest assured… that their vision DOES NOT include an armed citizenry… in 2008 Mr. Obama said that he intended to “fundamentally transform the United States of America”… essentially… that meant an increase the role of government… increased taxes… and undermining of the parts of the constitution that interfere with the hard left’s ability to control the fate of the American People… to the socialists… guns are problematic… there are more than 393 million civilian held firearms in the U.S…. that’s 46% of the world’s privately owned firearms… without the consent of the governed… that could present quite a problem for an unpopular government… if the socialists try to nullify the 2nd amendment… Dr. Mitchell is right…. civil disobedience will occur on an unprecedented scale… and the same criminal organizations that have flooded the country with drugs and other contraband since the 1970’s will change their product line to include selective fire military weapons… and they will sell… just as they do in Europe…..
[…] Is Gun Control Dead? […]
I watched a Netflix-created show that portrayed the following ridiculous scenario:
A mentally handicapped adult goes into a big-box type store and buys a gun with great ease, taking immediate possession. He then hands the gun to the true customer, a kid maybe 12 years old. The kid goes into the woods to test the gun. He pulls the trigger and it sprays bullets wildly, machine gun style, and knocks the kid over.
Those writers and producers are either totally clueless about guns or they’re trying to score false propaganda points that we need more gun control.
I look forward to “Roof Top Rednecks”.