assault rifles gettting some more play time. Been a busy two years!

[Atypical Liberal]

106. Answers.

Refreshing to hear someone admit that. Now the question remains -- is there a legitimate public policy interest in regulating and restricting weapons designed for killing people?

In a word, no. All rifles combined, let alone assault rifles, only account for about 300 homicides annually. This is half as many as are killed by hands and feet.

The reason is simple: Rifles are not conducive to crime because they are not concealable.

If you want to regulate firearms, the only firearm that really could use regulation are handguns. But this makes the militia arms angle moot. And of course we don't want to regulate handguns, because they are the most portable, easy to use way to resist violence that current technology produces.

For example, if you take the "well-regulated militia" point of view, would it be reasonable to limit everyone to one, militarily-viable long gun, to be kept in the home under lock and key?

Here's the thing: If you own one, you are no more dangerous if you own 10. You can only use one rifle at a time. So there is no harm if I own a dozen. So why regulate it?

I'm somewhat ambivalent on the "lock them up" argument. When I had children, I bought a cheap-o $150 "gun safe", which, while it meets the requirements of the California Department of Justice for storing firearms, is really little more than a lockable filing cabinet. I bought it to keep my kids away from the guns. It is probably not much for protection against theft. Anyone with a crowbar could break into it.

If you want true UL-rated theft protection, such as a safe that is rated to protect against 15 or 30 minutes of dedicated attack, you are looking at many thousands of dollars.

Before I had kids, I did not lock up my firearms.

I think it is responsible to lock up your firearms, but there is also a penalty in time-to-access for doing so. If I lived someplace dangerous, I might be less willing to lock up my self-defense firearm. However, advances in quick-access gun safes may make this problem irrelevant.

My personal opinion is that if you have kids, or kids will ever be visiting your house, you should lock up your firearms.

Or, are there design elements which are neither sporting, nor military viable, but which are well-suited to illegal purposes?

I can't think of one. The number-one trait of a firearm that makes is well-suited to illegal purposes is concealability, at which the handgun excels. Unfortunately, the handgun is also the premier portable self-defense weapon.

That said, if I ever absolutely had to choose a firearm class to outlaw, it would be handguns. You don't need them in a military context (a pistol is a weapon you use to fight your way back to a rifle) and as long as people were armed with military-grade rifles you could easily defend your home and uphold the intent of the second amendment.

Unfortunately it will mean that every victim of violent crime will have no way to fight back short of engaging in a physical fight with their attacker.