the assault gun ban

Topics: Crime
04 May 1994

From: ervan

As I have said before, I have mixed feelings about just where the line
should be (nukes are out, rifles are definitely in). But this current debate is
so inane. We are considering banning a class of weapons responsible for the
deaths of only 10's of people each year (who may have very well been killed with
other weapons were assault weapons illegal). We could instead cut the murder
rate in half by legalizing drugs ["On Liberty and Drugs" by Milton Friedman, p.
45].

Assault weapons have nothing do with shooting rabbits. They have
everything to do with shooting politicians. Assault weapons have nothing to do
with self-defense against burglars. They have everything to do with self-defense
against the police. The police want them banned because they feel outgunned by
drug dealers. Since drugs should be legal, I see this sort of enforcement as
wholly unacceptable and am not that upset (though not approving either) that
people engaging it what should be legal activity have the fire power available to
defend themselves against egregious police actions.

If only David Koresh had had a tank too, it would have been far more
interesting....

Regardless, it boils down to this:
If you think the U.S. government is not and will be never be tyrannical, then
'yes', ban assault weapons. If you think that removing a good chance of
self-defense against a government will lead to its being more tyrannical (or that
such self-defense can be of use against inevitable tyranny), then 'no', leave
assault wepaons legal and pay the price of an occassional innocent person getting
killed.

---Ervan


Home