When you bring up the effects of assault weapon restrictions in other countries, particularly Australia, the most common response is, “But America is different. There are so many out there, we can’t possibly find them all. Owners won’t turn in their semi-automatic high fire rate weapons, and that will make tens of thousands of criminals out of law-abiding people who haven’t hurt anybody. It could turn neighbors in communities against each other because they’d be afraid that someone they know could report them to law enforcement. It would take vast amounts of money that we don’t have, so would be a budget busting restriction that would be impossible to enforce. ”
I have an answer for that. Let us consider another item, marijuana, which is illegal at the federal level but used throughout the country. Let’s take this point by point:
“We can 't find them all” — We wouldn’t have to find them all, just the ones that people refused to turn in within a reasonable time after the enactment of the law. A buyback program at a reasonable price would reimburse the law abiding owners. And turning to that comparison, there are definitely
“Tens of thousands of criminals” — We don’t know and can’t know how many people would violate the law, but we can know that those who do would be disproportionally likely to commit other crimes. The people who would be most likely to disobey that law when given an option to be compensated for their weapons would have a high likelihood of being involved with organized crime and radical militia groups. And let’s see, aren’t there tends of thousand of people who are federal criminals because of marijuana prohibition, despite the fact that a majority of Americans believe it should be legal?
“Who haven’t hurt anybody.” And have marijuana users hurt anybody?
As for that part about turning neighbors against each other, isn’t that happening on a daily basis because of marijuana prohibition? Don’t the WETIP and DARE programs encourage that very thing?
And budget busting? How many gangs and militia thugs could be busted if the money spent chasing peaceful pot peddlers was spent to pursue violent organized criminals. The sloganeers like to say, “If assault weapons are outlawed, only outlaws will have assault weapons.” They’re right, and if you make the tools of their trade illegal, then they will be easy to identify and prosecute. There will be plenty of room in the jails for them if you release and erase the records of all the people who are behind bars on marijuana charges.
And I should say that I’m fine with regular hunting rifles and home defense pistols, but not massacre weapons like the type used in Vegas. I do think that prohibition should be for high capacity rapid fire weapons that will turn a deer into hamburger — they’ll do the same thing to a third grader. A line must be drawn, and that’s where I think a sensible person would draw it.
Can we get them all? No. Does that stop the federal government from vigorously trying to eradicate marijuana now? No. Would you feel safer if the government shifted resources in that way? I’ll watchg for the answers in the comments.