Gun Control and the Slippery Slope

Every time there is a shooting that makes the national news because the number of victims was more than one or two, and especially if it was quite a bit more than that, we are sure to hear proponents of stringent gun control measures calling for a ban on high-capacity magazines. The idea is that being able to fire numerous rounds without having to reload the gun makes a deranged killer even more deadly. And so, if there is a limit of ten rounds per magazine, the killer will be forced to stop and reload more often than if the magazine holds 15 or 17 rounds.

Such a proposal will invariably be labeled a "common-sense" gun control measure. Anyone who opposes it will be accused of somehow being in league with psychopaths and criminals - who, after all, are the only ones who "need" large-capacity magazines, for the purpose of killing as many victims as possible in the shortest possible time. Oh, and the police need them, too, so they won't be "out-gunned" by the lawless.

Twenty-five years ago, when talk of banning "assault weapons" was approaching a fever pitch, a colleague who was an avid pistol shooter told me, in a conversation about gun control, that no one "needs" a semi-automatic rifle.

[For those unfamiliar with the mechanics of firearms, a semi-automatic rifle or pistol fires one bullet with each squeeze of the trigger, and the next round is "automatically" fed from a magazine into the chamber. This is different from a "machine gun," which will fire bullets in rapid succession if the trigger is squeezed and held. The typical machine gun is capable of "selective fire." Squeeze and release the trigger: one round at a time; squeeze and hold: rapid fire of bullet after bullet until the trigger is released. Some weapons offer the option of three-round bursts. In military parlance, an "assault weapon" is one that can be used to lay down a field of fire, which necessitates the mode known as "full auto." So only a machine gun, or selective fire rifle, meets the definition of an assault weapon. Many people use "assault weapon" to describe semi-automatic rifles and pistols, sometimes out of ignorance, sometimes to make them sound as though their only raison d'être is wanton destruction of human life.]

First, let us take note of the fact that owning a selective fire rifle (lawfully) requires a special license that is very expensive, and an awful lot of paperwork. And the firearms themselves are quite pricey. They are very rarely found on the street. Then we can move on to examine the difference between ten- and thirty-round magazines for use in a semi-automatic rifle or ten- and fifteen-round magazines for use in a semi-automatic pistol. The difference is simple. One must reload once or twice, versus not, in order to fire 30 rounds. How much extra time does that take? And does the pause to reload give a person who might try to stop the shooter time to intervene?

With a little practice, the time to reload is extremely brief: perhaps a second or so. And if you think you can tell when the shooter is pressing the release button to eject the magazine, with the right hand, while reaching for a fresh magazine with the left hand, thus identifying the moment when a flying tackle will put a stop to the carnage, consider this: the way most guns are designed, there is quite possibly still a round in the chamber, and the shooter can fire it at you. Bad plan.

So let's move on a little further. How about banning semi-automatic pistols and rifles (except for use by law enforcement, which means they are still being manufactured, and criminals will still get hold of them), and restricting people (the law-abiding, anyway) to revolvers? They typically hold six cartridges (bullet plus gun powder plus a "primer" to ignite the powder in a metallic case) and take much longer to reload than a semi-automatic pistol. Hmmm. Well, they do take longer to reload, but a lot longer? Not necessarily. There is a device called a speed loader that makes the process a lot faster, especially with practice. Ask any police officer who carried a revolver in the days before most agencies switched to semi-auto pistols.

Maybe we should restrict civilians to single-shot firearms that must be reloaded after each round is fired. After all, a responsible and skilled hunter believes in the "one-shot kill." Why do you need a quick follow-up shot? Ask a good hunter whose first shot didn't put the animal down right away about the importance of a follow-up shot. And then there is the matter of using guns for self-defense, but that is another argument altogether, especially when you're talking to people who think a law-abiding citizen who buys a gun for self-defense is much more likely to shoot his spouse in anger, or by mistake, than to use the gun in defense of home and family.

By now you should be able to see that the title revealed where this was going. And that is the problem with the societal debate on gun control. Every time the proponents of gun control measures put forth what they call a "common-sense" measure, the advocates for gun rights immediately see what will follow it, and what will come after that, and so on.

For much of the 20th century, a citizen with a clean record willing to subject himself to an extensive background check, pay a hefty fee, and do lots of paperwork could get a license to own a selective-fire rifle. Then in 1986 it became illegal for a person with such a license to purchase such a weapon manufactured after that year. The supply of eligible firearms thus severely limited, their prices have since skyrocketed (unless you buy them illegally, or re-engineer a semi-auto rifle to fire in full-auto mode, which is both illegal and much more technically difficult than news reports would have you believe).

So it's extremely difficult and expensive to purchase a selective-fire rifle. Beginning in 1994, and for a period of ten years, certain semi-automatic rifles and pistols, and high-capacity magazines, were illegal; that ban expired, but there are frequent calls for its reinstatement. Many proponents of gun control frequently argue for banning all semi-automatic firearms, and gun-rights advocates are quite certain that a complete ban on private ownership of firearms will eventually follow.

This, you see, is the slippery slope.

We've seen it with waiting periods. How about a background check? Just look at the records to make sure the prospective buyer is not a convicted felon. That can be done instantly with modern computer systems. But why not a three-day waiting period anyway, a "cooling-off" period to help avoid tragedy for the temporarily unhinged suicidal or homicidal person? If three days is good, wouldn't seven be even better? How about 30 days? Yes, those exist in some locales.

There may be some "common-sense" gun control measures that few rational gun owners would find truly objectionable. Except for the slippery slope. As long as law-abiding gun owners who believe in their right to keep and bear arms, as a natural right of self-defense protected by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, believe that every gun control measure enacted will be followed by more and more until their rights are a memory ... as long as that is the case, which will be as long as gun control proponents give frequent and ample evidence that this is their agenda ... we will never achieve anything remotely approaching societal consensus on just what "common sense" would dictate.

Update: July 21, 2012
In the wake of a massacre in a movie theatre in the early hours of 7/20/12 in Aurora, Colorado, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg has renewed calls for stricter federal gun control.  New York has very strict gun laws, but Mayor Bloomberg believes the reason that the rate of violent crime is rising in NYC while it is falling for the nation as a whole is that the influx of guns from outside the state cannot be controlled without new federal laws.  Most (if not all) of that influx is the result of illegal commerce in guns, so exactly how new laws would solve the problem is unclear.

Political pundits are saying Congress and the Obama Administration will go nowhere near this issue in a presidential election year.  Republicans are consistently pro-gun-rights, and Democrats fear the National Rifle Association. Many believe Al Gore would have won Tennessee and West Virginia - and the White House, without Florida - in 2000 if not for his strident pro-gun-control policy positions.

Thousands of Americans have become instant experts on the complex issue of gun control and are expressing their views on social networking sites.  It is remarkable how many people are sure they have the solution to one of the most consistently vexing problems of modern American society.

In 1968 Bobby Kennedy and Martin Luther King, Jr. were assassinated.  The Gun Control Act of 1968 followed.  More than four decades later we seem no closer to real answers.

For those interested in a critical examination of the issues and the full spectrum of perspectives, I recommend The Gun Control Debate: You Decide.  This is a collection of articles assembled in a cohesive volume by editor Lee Nisbet, Ph.D. in 1991 and updated for the 2001 second edition.