Gun Control's Slippery Slope

“Contrary to the claims of what some gun rights proponents have suggested, this hasn’t been the first step in some slippery slope to mass confiscation. Contrary to claims of some presidential candidates, apparently, before this meeting, this is not a plot to take away everybody’s guns.”

These words were spoken by former President Barack Obama in early 2016, after he imposed a collection of new gun-control measures through executive order. The declaration reflects an argument commonly used by many gun-control proponents today: the claim that no one is coming to take your guns.

The argument is effective, at least in belittling its opposition. It paints strict Second Amendment advocates as paranoid, gun-crazed loonies — red-necked Gollums, dwelling in their trailer-home caves, softly stroking their AR-15s while whispering, “My precious.”

The reality, though, is that a slippery slope is only fallacious to the extent that it doesn’t manifest, and when it comes to gun control, there is growing evidence to suggest that we may actually be sliding further down that hill.

On Wednesday, CNN hosted a town hall in Sunrise, Florida, as a platform for gun-control debate, and the audience’s reaction was telling enough. When Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) proposed the notion that you would have to ban every semi-automatic rifle in America to make these laws effective, the crowd immediately erupted into applause.

To be entirely clear, we’re not just talking about AR-15s or “assault rifles” in general — we’re talking about every self-loading rifle in existence, dating back to the late 19^th century. So no, you’re not some paranoid gun nut if you’re concerned about your Second Amendment rights; there is legitimate reason to be concerned that gun ownership in America is under assault.

Of course, the true extent to which we will continue to slide down this slope is still uncertain, and full-scale gun confiscation seems highly unlikely in the foreseeable future, but we can at least speculate how a semi-auto weapons ban would turn out by looking at similar legislation in America.

In 1994, Congress passed the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, banning the sale and use of assault weapons in the U.S. Nine years later, in 2003, the University of Pennsylvania produced a study on the effects of that law, reporting to the DOJ.

This study was titled “An Updated Assessment of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban: Impacts on Gun Markets and Gun Violence, 1994-2003.” From it, the DOJ was informed on a few telling conclusions.

For one, researchers concluded that they could not credit the assault weapons ban with “any of the nation’s recent drop in gun violence” and that any effect would only become apparent over time. Keep in mind this was already a decade after the ban.

Second, the researchers concluded that, aside from reducing the use of assault pistols, the ban was widely ineffective at reducing the use of other targeted weaponry such as rifles and magazines:

The decline in the use of [Assault Weapons] has been due primarily to a reduction in the use of assault pistols (APs), which are used in crime more commonly than assault rifles (ARs). There has not been a clear decline in the use of ARs, though assessments are complicated by the rarity of crimes with these weapons and by substitution of post-ban rifles that are very similar to the banned AR models.

However, the decline in AW use was offset throughout at least the late 1990s by steady or rising use of other guns equipped with LCMs [large capacity magazines] in jurisdictions studied (Baltimore, Milwaukee, Louisville, and Anchorage). The failure to reduce LCM use has likely been due to the immense stock of exempted pre-ban magazines, which has been enhanced by recent imports.

Should it be renewed, the ban’s effects on gun violence are likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement. AWs were rarely used in gun crimes even before the ban. LCMs are involved in a more substantial share of gun crimes, but it is not clear how often the outcomes of gun attacks depend on the ability of offenders to fire more than ten shots (the current magazine capacity limit) without reloading.

In other words, the use of rifles is rare, regardless of legislation, while limiting magazine capacity is ineffective because of a) existing supply and b) the ability to reload.

Given the current prevalence of semi-automatic weapons in the U.S., it’s fair to infer that banning these weapons would be similarly ineffective to the 1994 assault weapons ban. At the very least, the effects would be small and would occur over a long period of time.

Of course, gun control advocates can rightly argue that you have to start somewhere, but what happens in the meantime?

As compelling as chants of “Never again!” and “Do something!” may be, the stark reality is that this will continue to happen for the foreseeable future. Semi-auto weapons ban or not, America will experience another mass shooting, and the call for stricter gun control will rear its head again.

Here’s what that could look like, assuming gun-control advocates are successful every time there’s another shooting:

The assault weapons ban wasn’t enough; we need stricter background checks.

The background checks weren’t enough; we need a semi-automatic ban.

The semi-automatic ban wasn’t enough…

Of course, we’re not quite at the latter stage of this slippery slope just yet, but it’s not so difficult to see how we would eventually get there when lawmakers make continuous concessions to appease reactionaries.

Of course, none of this is to suggest malicious motives of gun-control advocates or even today’s lawmakers. It’s important to remember that whichever side of the debate you’re on, most of us want the same thing in the end: safety.

Defending the Second Amendment doesn’t mean you condone school shootings, just as pushing for gun control doesn’t mean you condone government abuse of power. Most of us can hopefully agree that neither of these things is desirable for a thriving society.

But like the allegory of a frog in a pot of boiling water, we know through the study of history that ceding power to the government can lead to atrocities that make even school shootings look tame by comparison. We also know that school shootings are a uniquely American problem.

The question, then, is how do we balance each of these concerns without impeding on the other? How do we reduce mass shootings without eroding our constitutional rights?

There’s no straight or easy answer, but security is an obvious place start.

After the September 11 attacks, we added new security measures to airports without much debate. We put thousands of air marshals on planes, locked the cockpit, and implemented new technology to ensure airports were safe. Now, similar initiatives are being pushed to protect our children.

On Wednesday, to start, parents petitioned the Palm Beach County School Board to bolster school security. They’re asking for more police officers, a single entry point, and strict ID checks after the Marjory Stoneman Douglas shooting.

But there are also growing calls for the implementation of new technologies that can protect not just our schools but our hotels, stadiums, concert venues, and even places of worship. After all, mass shootings are not location specific.

These technologies reach far and wide, but there is one that stands out today in particular — a new standard in weapons detection that’s promising to change anti-terrorism security forever. In the future, these devices, or “practical detectors,” will be everywhere, and the world will be safer for it.

Until next time,

Jason Stutman

Check us out on YouTube!