A week ago I predicted that because of the massacre, “there will be new momentum to get gun control legislation passed.”
This prediction was obvious, and it appears to be coming true. Today’s announcement from the NRA that we need armed police in every school and fewer violent video games and movies is only going to rile up the pro-gun-control crowd.
The NRA refuses to get into a conversation about what guns people need for whatever people do with guns (hunt?).
* * *
Lawrence Auster, who is a hardcore conservative, writes:
I do not understand why civilians should be able to own weapons capable of firing scores of bullets in rapid fire. The primary reason for firearm ownership, the reason why the right of gun ownership is absolutely essential, is self-defense. How does self-defense require a weapon—such as the weapon used by the Newtown mass killer—with a magazine containing thirty or fifty bullets?
By the way, just as I was writing the above, I finally understood the meaning of the imprecise and much maligned phrase “assault weapon.” They are called assault weapons because they are weapons designed to kill the maximum number of people. They are not weapons designed for self defense.
So, I would like knowledgeable gun owners, of whom many post at VFR, to explain why they oppose any legal restriction on the number of bullets that can be fired by a semi-automatic rifle without changing the magazine. I also would like them to explain why they oppose mandatory background checks in private, one-on-one firearms sales.