Judging from Post editor Sally Buzbee’s introduction to the project, as well as from my own reporting, the paper talked to dozens of survivors and family members and weighed the enormous range of their opinions about this issue to craft the feature. It was so much better than I was expecting that it initially blinded me to the way it was bad. But bad in a kind of routine way: The media, as well as certain kinds of activists, believe we need to be presented with graphic, grisly evidence to grasp what are simply facts. This grisly evidence, they posit, will change hearts and minds.
It will not. Upwards of three-quarters of American voters support almost every commonsense gun law. And we know why political leaders haven’t heeded their call: the gun lobby, and its disgusting political servants. But the Post tried, anyway, with its multimedia “Terror on Repeat” project. I won’t impugn these journalists’ motives. I’ll assume they are good. I’ll just tell you what I saw, and why I would like to spare people seeing the same thing. Especially survivors.
An ‘assault weapons ban’ isn’t the answer. Does anyone really think that a crazed gunman using an AR-15 is going to have a significantly higher body count than a crazed gunman with a pistol? The answer (in terms of gun control) is stricter background checks, closing of purchasing loopholes, mandatory safe storage practices, etc, not ‘Making sure the gun doesn’t look scary and doesn’t have a bayonet lug’.
Interesting how the facts disagree with you.
So let’s stop pretending that the guns themselves aren’t part of the problem. Sure, more background checks, closing loopholes, better access to mental health services, and other things can and should be part of the solution. But the simple fact is that you can’t shoot someone with a gun you can’t get. That’s why gun bans have worked so well all around the world.
If your answer is “Does anyone really think that a crazed gunman using an AR-15 is going to have a significantly higher body count than a crazed gunman with a pistol?” is “mass shooting deaths fell slightly in the decade of the federal assault weapon ban”, you can just answer “No” and save everyone the time.
If you’re advocating for a total gun ban, go ahead. I won’t argue that reduced supply reduces opportunity to obtain such weapons. My argument only regards the notion that ‘assault weapon bans’ solve anything. An ‘assault weapon’ is just ‘a weapon that look scawwy’ writ in legislative terms. If you want to argue for banning all semiautomatic weapons, go ahead. If executed, that likely would make a difference. But be clear about what you’re advocating.
Yeah, that I agree with, large-capacity magazines should definitely be restricted again on a national level.
Except the answer is not “no,” there are a number of factors that suggest assault rifles – even ones marked for civilian use – are inflating those numbers. It could be psychological, it could be practical, it could be a number of things, but the points of correlation are too frequent and too strong to be ignored. Saying otherwise is to make yourself a liar.
Okay, so, next time, maybe post a source that says that when claiming “the facts disagree with you”, instead of one that directly contradicts your point?
Those bayonet lugs though…
As someone from a country that doesn’t have guns I always find these conversations so fascinating, so much to learn. If I’m reading the gunnuts in this thread right there’s no need for anyone to have a big gun because the little ones are exactly as deadly.
Why do the nuts all obses about having the silly over sized guns then? Surely it doesn’t make any difference if they ban the ones that are oversized for show?
Well, what’s usually being banned isn’t size so much as features. You can have a hunting rifle and an ‘AR-15 style rifle’ side-by-side, and the actual difference ends up minimal. Some ergonomic and ease of use features. But the AR-15 looks more ‘military’ and thus ‘scary’ and dangerous.
The gun-nuts generally want the scary-looking gun because it makes them feel more manly. A sizable minority of gun owners, a few of whom have chimed in here, want the scary-looking gun because they have features that marginally improve comfort and shooting. But in a mass shooting situation, where your targets are all likely within 20 yards? It means nothing. May as well just use a pistol - the only reason shooters now don’t is because of the attention given to ‘assault weapons’.