Gun Control i.e. The Illusion of Safety

In a post Connecticut tragedy America, the left has decided the best thing to do to prevent another tragedy is to begin debating new gun control laws. As I stated in a previous post, this seems like a no brainer, right until you actually think about it. In my previous post I viewed gun control generally, but now that some time has passed we can evaluate more closely what has actually come up for debate. Sen. Feinstein has pledged to introduce legislation in January that essentially revives the old assault weapons ban.

Specificly, Sen. Feinstein has decided to:


"Following is a summary of the 2013 legislation:

• Bans the sale, transfer, importation, or manufacturing of:
• 120 specifically-named firearms
• Certain other semiautomatic rifles, handguns, shotguns that can accept a detachable magazine and have one military characteristic
• Semiautomatic rifles and handguns with a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10 rounds
• Strengthens the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban and various state bans by:
• Moving from a 2-characteristic test to a 1-characteristic test
• Eliminating the easy-to-remove bayonet mounts and flash suppressors from the characteristics test
• Banning firearms with “thumbhole stocks” and “bullet buttons” to address attempts to “work around” prior bans
• Bans large-capacity ammunition feeding devices capable of accepting more than 10 rounds. 
• Protects legitimate hunters and the rights of existing gun owners by:
• Grandfathering weapons legally possessed on the date of enactment
• Exempting over 900 specifically-named weapons used for hunting or sporting purposes and
• Exempting antique, manually-operated, and permanently disabled weapons
• Requires that grandfathered weapons be registered under the National Firearms Act, to include:
• Background check of owner and any transferee;
• Type and serial number of the firearm;
• Positive identification, including photograph and fingerprint;
• Certification from local law enforcement of identity and that possession would not violate State or local law; and
• Dedicated funding for ATF to implement registration"

Source: http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/assault-weapons

First, and most obviously, even if this is effective, it will not prevent the next tragedy. As many have pointed out, the Connecticut shooter procured his guns from his mother, a legal gun owner, after killing her. So, assuming this was in effect before the Connecticut killing, and was effective, all that would have happened is that the killer would have used different guns. Maybe (see more below). Not one life would have been spared as a result.

Secondly, how does addressing bayonet mounts, bullet buttons and thumbhole stocks make us safer as a nation? In no mass shooting that I am aware of has anyone ever been bayoneted to death. Gunman use the most deadly feature of a gun to kill people, namely the GUN part. Since this does not address the access to the gun part, this seems just plain stupid (i.e. because bans an assault weapons are just bans on cosmetic features and specific makes, not on access to rifles in general). But then I am no gun expert, so maybe someone can chime in and tell me how thumbhole stocks make guns more deadly?

Thirdly, grandfathering in old weapons just means that there is a huge supply of these supposedly extra deadly weapons available for psychopaths to procure. If the purpose of this is to make these specially deadly guns harder for psychos to get, how does grandfathering in all the currently held ones accomplish this goal? Similarly, adding a background check before transfer sounds good, until you realizes this gives people a way to sell assault weapons legally. How does enshrining a means of circumventing the law make it more effective? Again, the Connecticut shooter did not procure his guns legally, he killed his mother to get them and she was a legal owner. I have no doubt that she would have passed a background check.

So what can we conclude from this? That it will be completely ineffective. It's only purpose is so that law makers can tell their constituencies that they "did something", even if that something is stupid. Has there been any mention of strengthening our public mental health system? Nope. That would take money, effort, careful planning and intelligence, things in terribly short supply in Washington. I wish I could say I was surprised.