When I hear proposals to ban the AR-15 or things along those lines, I am reminded of this quote:“The rifle itself has no moral stature, since it has no will of its own. Naturally, it may be used by evil men for evil purposes, but there are more good men than evil, and while the latter cannot be persuaded to the path of righteousness by propaganda, they can certainly be corrected by good men with rifles.”
I’m a firearm owner, but I do not hunt, collect, or compete. I have firearms for defensive purposes, only. With that ownership there is a cost – a literal cost in terms of dollars, and a cost in terms of time spent practicing, a cost in securing the weapons, space used, inconvenience, etc. And while I don’t think it’s reasonable to prepare for all possible circumstances, there are two scenarios which I prepare for that involve firearms.
[ol][li]**Defense of myself and family when I am at home and out and about. ** In my state the vast majority of residents are unable to obtain a CCW. This isn’t about inconvenience. Inconvenience I could deal with. If there were simply a higher burden, in testing, fees, training, etc. but those hurdles were objective and could be met, then I’d be less opposed to them. I’ve said previously, I could pay a higher fee, take POST training, a 1 year waiting period, whatever. Unfortunately that’s not the case. But if I were able to obtain a CCW, my personal interest would significantly decrease in advancing the gun rights movement further. Sure I’d still be opposed in principal to many of the gun control proposals, primarily to the extent they are bans, but CCW is the end game.[/li]
[li]**Defense during temporary local civil unrest. ** In one of the many threads there was a link describing the AR-15 platform rifle, its ease of use, low recoil, accuracy at range, etc. The article describes those things as negatives for civilian ownership. In my mind, those are the very reasons I own them. They are fun to practice with though somewhat expensive, but I hope to never use them for defensive purposes. When not practicing, the rifles sit securely in my safe, harming no one. [/ol][/li]I have previously been opposed to things that were merely inconvenient, and from a principled point of view I still am. But recent events have given me pause and I think I’d be less opposed to mere inconvenience. As long as they don’t stymie the 2 reasons listed above, then in principle I’d be fine with hurdles in place to weed out bad actors if those hurdles actually do that. The issue I most often see is that the hurdles and restrictions and bans favored by those in favor of additional gun control would prevent me from satisfying my two core purposes while at the same time not accomplish the stated goals of such proposals – to reduce crime with firearms. A longer waiting period is an inconvenient hurdle. But a restriction outright on magazines of a certain size is more than an inconvenient hurdle because it limits the ability to satisfy the purpose for which I keep firearms. Universal background checks could fall into either camp depending on how implemented.
I live in CA. Here we have the potential for earthquakes, wildfires, and other natural disasters much like other places. There have been times in recent memory where due to whatever circumstances, temporary local civil unrest occurs. The LA riots were a formative event for me. When the police were unable or unwilling to intercede, the people who were able to defend themselves did so against multiple persistent threats at range. Those who could not either lost everything, were tortured and killed, or were lucky to avoid the wrath of the mob. If services are disrupted, like, water, power, gas, roads, police, etc. I’m prepared to ride out whatever temporary thing is causing a problem and that includes repelling threats. Semi-automatic center fire rifles are the best and most effective way to do that. The AR-15 platform fits these requirements quite well. Less experienced firearm users like my wife could achieve a level of effectiveness with an AR-15 platform rifle that would take comparatively longer than with a pistol. Its ease of use and effectiveness are what make the weapon system appealing. I’ve said before that anything that is effective for defense will likely also be effective for offense and this is true here. Of course, at any given time the rifles rest tucked away in the safes, harming no one.
And this is what is meant when people say that the proposals primarily impact law abiding people who will never commit a violent crime. Because that’s most firearm owners. And for the folks that would commit violent crimes, a large portion of those folks wouldn’t abide by the law anyways. So for any control proposal to gain my support and the support of people like me, inconvenience can be tolerable if there is a tradeoff for crime reduction, but thwarting entirely the purpose of firearms is not. That’s why things like raising the age limit to purchase long guns to 21 is tolerable for me (though I think it should be consistent with the age of majority). I don’t particularly care about bump stocks because they aren’t useful for my two purposes. I think suppressors should be legal, but if they’re not it’s not a huge deal to me. Training requirements would be fine with me as well, as long as the success criteria were objective and they were no more difficult than those required of police. But when the proposal is to ban the rifle all together, ban the magazines that contribute to their effectiveness, that’s a hard no.
So again, when gun control proposals are proffered, they typically involve some kind of ban where the purpose of possessing the firearm is thwarted. This isn’t about inconvenience. Inconvenience I could deal with. If there were simply a higher burden, then that would be something that I could work with. But few if any proposals at the legislative level retain my ability to possess these firearms. So as a practical and strategic matter, it is most effective to support organizations like SAF, GOA, and the NRA that take a hard line because a rising tide lifts all ships and the moderates have been crowded out on this issue. Moderate approaches when the opposition pushes extremes is a failure of strategy. That’s the strategic play, but if I were to ignore the larger landscape I would be okay with making it harder to obtain firearms, more rigor on screening, more aggressive pursuit disarming those with certain mental illnesses, treating threats and earlier signs of violence more harshly (remember when bullying was often overlooked but now it’s not?), expanding how and when a person can be considered prohibited, and a more expansive way to disarm those who become prohibited.
