Pretend Gun Control

Frank J. has a great idea that should make everyone happy, ignorant and knowledgeable alike:

…What we can do is pass a law banning a bunch of made-up things that sound scary, and many gun control proponents already have great ideas along this line. For instance, I read a column in which Howard Kurtz mentioned a ban on high-magazine clips — we can certainly do without something that nonsensical. And I’ve heard the press before mention armor-piercing hollow points and plastic guns (actually, I think we already banned that made-up weapon in the ’80s). And as long as the NRA and Wayne LaPierre go apoplectic about it (“This ban on sorcerer-enchanted guns is just a slippery slope toward eliminating all witch-hexed weaponry!”), gun control proponents won’t know the difference between this and actual gun control. And this will help protect our most vulnerable people out there: politicians. Because long after the gun control advocates move on to other things, like who they want to tax next, gun owners will still be annoyed by any actual gun control legislation. One of the greatest fears politicians have is seeing an angry guy with lots of guns charging down the street, because they know he’s probably on his way to commit an act of voting.

Of course, with this idea, absolutely nothing will be done to keep criminals and madmen from obtaining guns, but that’s the effect of every other gun control law, so we’re just reaching this end in a much cheaper and less messy fashion.

I think you could probably even get it through the House. And the enforcement costs would be zero.

18 thoughts on “Pretend Gun Control

  1. wodun

    Except terms with no meaning are left open to interpretation. What could high capacity magazine clips be interpreted as? And banning plastic guns would mean no more air soft, squirt guns, or nerf guns, which are things the left would love to ban. I know it’s satire but be careful what you wish for.

    1. Johnny B

      Not “high-capacity magazine clips”, “high-magazine clips”.

      Just as nonsensical of a term as multi-clip rounds.

    2. Paul Milenkovic

      Is “jungle taping” a pair of magazines back-to-back illegal (to flip the magazines for a quick reload — do you go through a lot of bullets in the jungle)?

      I have seen this here at the “U” — some students have some kind of game going on with Nerf guns (Zombie wars?), and I have seen jungle-taped clips.

      Actually, having taken an NRA-sanctioned course, I don’t like people going around campus waving, pointing, and I guess shooting guns, even if they are orange plastic. I don’t think people should point guns, even fake guns unless they intend to shoot for a lawful purpose. I would rather see the students practice on a range with real guns, and I am not too fond of paintball either.

  2. BlueMoon

    Let’s tell ‘em they should ban all “stripper clips with a capacity over 10″ and that such a ban will take care of all the problems they are worried about. That proposal should both confuse and alarm most of the male anti-gun know-nothings! By the time they figure it out, it will be time to move on to the debt ceiling crisis, and POTUS and his minions will forget about the whole gun control thing.

    1. DaveP.

      “Let’s tell ‘em they should ban all “stripper clips with a capacity over 10″ …”

      Seriously, I have trouble getting more than two or three clipped together before they start to complain and ask for tips…

  3. RandyBeck

    Good point but you slipped up at the end: “the enforcement costs would be zero.”

    That’s obviously not true. The enforcement costs will reach into the hundreds of millions. Still pocket change for the U.S. budget, and certainly well worth every penny, but not even close to zero.

    1. Johnny B

      The enforcement costs would be zero because there would be no enforcement to perform, as none of the banned items even exist.

      It would be like banning the use of dilithium crystals in medical procedures. Since dilithium doesn’t exist outside of the fictional Star Trek universe, the enforcement costs would be zero.

      1. Arizona CJ

        I think you’re underestimating the nature of the US Government. Just because something does not exist does not mean zero enforcement costs.

        If we use a ban on dylithium crystals as an example, the government would set up the bureaucracy to ensure that the non-existent things are not being used, stored, owned, etc. My guess; they’d spend a billion a year on it. They’d also decare it a partial success, though point out that they need more money to keep the country safely dilithium-free.

        Is that really any different from shoveling money at federal programs that have been proven to be worthless? (Head start for one – it’s been shown that it produces no benefit at all, yet funding for it was increased.)

        Never, ever underestimate Washington’s ability to spend money by the metric ton.

        That said, I could support a ban on privately-owned armor-piercing hollow-point ammo, and triple-ended magazines. :)

      2. McGehee

        Arizona CJ is correct. Just because the banned items don’t exist doesn’t mean the Executive Branch wouldn’t establish an agency to inspect every home to make sure nobody has one.

  4. Larry J

    I read a news report many years ago that featured a “semi-automatic revolver.” While there actually were a small number of such weapons made (surprised the hell out of me!), the most likely explaination was that the reporter was just trying to use the scare phrase “semi-automatic” to make the weapon sound mush worse.

  5. M Puckett

    I love when they talk about the scary semi-automatic pistols when 99% of all pistols are semi-auto. The lone exception being the rare single-shot pistols.

    A revolver is best simply described as a revolver.

    1. McGehee

      Actually the distinction is between single-action revolvers an double-action revolvers. With the former, cocking is a separate action, whereas with the latter you can accomplish both cocking and firing with a (longer) pull of the trigger.

      Of course, correctly a semi-automatic handgun is one that ejects the spent cartridge, loads a fresh round in the chamber and cocks itself, after you’ve fired the weapon.

  6. M Puckett

    “Of course, correctly a semi-automatic handgun is one that ejects the spent cartridge, loads a fresh round in the chamber and cocks itself, after you’ve fired the weapon.”

    …in other words, 99% of all Pistols.

    1. McGehee

      Unless you’re defining “pistol” as not including a revolver (which is incorrect), I’m pretty sure your percentage is too high.

      1. M Puckett

        I consider a Revolver as a thing to be addressed as a Revolver and something like a Glock or a 1911 to be addressed as a Pistol.

        If it has a Cylinder, it is to be called a Revolver. If it has a Slide, it is to be addressed as a Pistol.

        1. McGehee

          I consider “pistol” to be synonymous with “handgun.” In fact “pistol” is the much older word. “Handgun” is a relatively new word coined by those who decided arbitrarily to exclude revolvers from the class.

  7. PeterH

    I know of an assortment of geeks who would not be happy with such a ban. They make or use prop fantasy weapons.

Comments are closed.