President Obama will be making a public address on Wednesday to discuss the recommendations brought forward by Vice President Biden's task force on gun violence. Many suspect that a new ban on assault weapons will be part of his proposal. If so, be prepared for the fix that will fix nothing. And make no mistake, the President knows it.
Acknowledging reality is not an endorsement of reality; so let's acknowledge some facts I don't endorse: the United States cannot prevent people from crossing its borders illegally. It cannot prevent drugs from entering its borders illegally. It cannot prevent underage Americans from acquiring alcohol illegally or for that matter, acquiring virtually anything that is illegal for which there is significant and broad demand.
Despite this many Americans, and Canadians too, believe that an assault weapons ban will actually prevent Americans from obtaining "assault weapons" or could be a panacea for mass shootings. There are at least 2,446,294 domestically produced AR-15 assault rifles in the United States. If you take into account foreign made AR-15 models, that number skyrockets to at least 3,261,725. Any proposed ban would have to grandfather in this enormous number of rifles, unless of course the plan is confiscation, which would lead to more bloodshed than was witnessed in Connecticut. This is the AR-15 model alone mind you, not the equally popular AK-47 or countless other models that are just as lethal and also semi-automatic. Draining this swamp is near impossible.
The problem with bans is that capitalism and the supply and demand cycle are smarter than government -- so long as sufficient people desire assault rifles a ban on assault rifles will enjoy the same success as the bans on marijuana, cocaine and handguns currently enjoy. And such consideration about the effectiveness of a potential assault weapons ban exists most principally in another universe -- where the physical laws of politics operate sufficiently differently as to allow such a ban to even be possible -- because the United States in this universe and at this present time is not such a place.
Approval from Congress for an assault weapons ban will not happen. The President knows this, which is why much of what we will hear on Wednesday will ultimately be about reassuring his base and a slightly broader group of Americans that he tried to do something. That his administration at least made an effort -- an effort that when it fails will be blamed on the NRA and Republicans, who will be portrayed as cold-hearted obstructionists in reporting that will dominate the news cycle right up to the debt limit talks, where Republicans look even worse.
Although many Canadians are disturbed by guns, its important to understand that many Americans view them as heroic possessions. Many AR-15's were given out as Christmas presents last year, the way Canadians give out hockey sticks. Prohibition against a manufactured good this socially acceptable and this widely in demand cannot hope to be effective. Demand always wins -- gun manufacturers will spend time and money (they've done it before) reworking and renaming the rifles before they sell them to the exact same public.
What we're most likely to hear from the President, aside from an assault weapons ban, will be a federal registry of all assault weapons (which is as likely to pass through Congress as this humble writer is likely to be crowned the King of Chicago), the restriction of high-capacity magazines, registration of ammunition sales (perhaps with background checks) and improved, coordinated screening for mental illness or criminal records at gun shows and elsewhere.
I expect to hear a cocktail of suggestions for decreasing gun violence -- legislative solutions such as prosecuting people who lie on applications, mental health initiatives to ensure the psychologically ill receive treatment and general prevention that focuses on cultural issues and the promulgation of violence.
If the Obama administration is to use this moment in history to its utmost potential, they will focus more on the latter of these solutions than the former. Congress is more likely to agree that background checks, cultural problems and mental health can be improved than pass an assault weapons ban, though there may be some movement with the restriction of high- capacity magazines.
But let there be no confusion -- no one serious expects an assault weapon ban to occur. It's theatre for the voters. Let's hope this moment in history isn't squandered.
Loading Slideshow
1981: The Attempted Assassination Of President Ronald Reagan
on March 30, 1981, President Reagan and three others were shot and wounded in an assassination attempt by John Hinckley, Jr. outside the Washington Hilton Hotel in Washington, D.C. Reagan's press secretary, Jim Brady, was shot in the head.
1993: The Brady Handgun Violence Act
The Brady Handgun Violence Act of 1993, signed into law by President Bill Clinton, mandated that federally licensed dealers complete comprehensive background checks on individuals before selling them a gun. The legislation was named for James Brady, who was shot during an attempted assassination of President Ronald Reagan in 1981.
1994: The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act
The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1994, instituted a ban on 19 kinds of assault weapons, including Uzis and AK-47s. The crime bill also banned the possession of magazines holding more than ten rounds of ammunition. (An exemption was made for weapons and magazines manufactured prior to the ban.)
2004: Law Banning Magazines Holding More Than Ten Rounds Of Ammunition Expires
In 2004, ten years after it first became law, Congress allowed a provision banning possession of magazines holding more than ten rounds of ammunition to expire through a sunset provision. Brady Campaign President Paul Helmke told HuffPost that the expiration of this provision meant that Rep. Gabby Giffords's alleged shooter was able to fire off 20-plus shots without reloading (under the former law he would have had only ten).
2007: The U.S. Court of Appeals For The District Of Columbia Rules In Favor Of Dick Heller
In 2007 The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled to allow Dick Heller, a licensed District police officer, to keep a handgun in his home in Washington, D.C. Following that ruling, the defendants petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case.
2008: The NICS Improvement Amendments Act
Following the deadly shooting at Virginia Tech University, Congress passed legislation to require states provide data on mentally unsound individuals to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, with the aim of halting gun purchases by the mentally ill, and others prohibited from possessing firearms. The bill was signed into law by President George W. Bush in January of 2008.
2008: Supreme Court Strikes Down D.C. Handgun Ban As Unconstitutional
In June of 2008, the United States Supreme Court upheld the verdict of a lower court ruling the D.C. handgun ban unconstitutional in the landmark case <em>District of Columbia v. Heller</em>.
Gabrielle Giffords And Trayvon Martin Shootings
Gun control advocates had high hopes that reform efforts would have increased momentum in the wake of two tragic events that rocked the nation.
In January of 2011, Jared Loughner opened fire at an event held by Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.), killing six and injuring 13, including the congresswoman. Resulting attempts to push gun control legislation <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/09/trayvon-martin-shooting-gun-debate_n_1413115.html" target="_hplink">proved fruitless</a>, with neither proposal even succeeding in gaining a single GOP co-sponsor.
More than a year after that shooting, Florida teenager Trayvon Martin was <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/trayvon-martin" target="_hplink">gunned down</a> by George Zimmerman in an event that some believed would bring increased scrutiny on the nation's Stand Your Ground laws. While there has been increasing discussion over the nature of those statutes, lawmakers were <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/09/trayvon-martin-shooting-gun-debate_n_1413115.html" target="_hplink">quick to concede</a> that they had little faith the event would effectively spur gun control legislation, thanks largely to the National Rifle Association's vast lobbying power.
Read more <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/09/trayvon-martin-shooting-gun-debate_n_1413115.html" target="_hplink">here</a>:
Colorado Movie Theater Shooting
In July of 2012, a heavily armed gunman <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/20/aurora-shooting-movie-theater-batman_n_1688547.html" target="_hplink">opened fire on theatergoers</a> attending a midnight premiere of the final film of the latest Batman trilogy, killing 12 and wounding scores more.
The suspect, James Eagan Holmes, allegedly carried out the act with a number of handguns, as well as an AR-15 assault rifle with a 100-round drum magazine.
Some lawmakers used the incident, which took place in a state with some of the laxest gun control laws, to bring forth legislation designed to place increased regulations on access to such weapons, but many observers, citing previous experience, were <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/20/batman-shooting_n_1690547.html" target="_hplink">hesitant to say</a> that they would be able to overcome the power of the National Rifle Association and Washington gun lobby.
Follow Ike Awgu on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/IkeWeLike
I really don't understand why there are not more articles from you here on Huffpo.
But perhaps you can explain something to Canadians. Why do some of our American friends say they need to own guns to defend themselves from the "tyranny" of their own government? I could understand feeling the need to arm themselves against their own government if the United States were a third-world military dictatorship, but the United States is a first-world democracy where the government is elected by its own citizens every four years in accordance with the legal standards.
In Canada, if we don't like the government or think they are becoming too "tyrannical", we exercise our freedom of speech to get them booted out in the next election. Even the richest of politicians lives in fear of public opinion turning against them in the next election, so this approach is generally effective in keeping the government in line.
Do you have any insights into this?
As to your comments on free speech, the second amendment helps to guarantee the first. "Public opinion" is not very terrifying when the unarmed public is staring down the barrels of your junta's rifles. A casual glance around the world should be sufficient to illustrate this principle, if not, the capacity to do so is beyond my words.
Thank you for your comments.
50 years ago, people argued against de-segregation, saying that even the blacks didn't want to sit in restaurants with whites, because it wasn't their "culture". But attitudes changed a lot. Race relations are not perfect -- but they are a LOT better than they were 50 years ago. And that's what we're fighting for now: responsible attitudes about gun control and ownership so that we our children and our children's children are in a better place.
I have a dream that events like Sandy Hook become rarer, rather than more frequent.
And the undertakers will also be very busy burying the tens of thousands who die of psychiatric drug overdoses, bad mixes of drugs, wrong drugs, and bad reactions to drugs
If 20% of the people have mental health issues - some 65 million - that's a whole lot of anti-depressants and anti-psychotics.being consumed.
Soon there will be only two kinds of people in the US - wild-eyed gun owners looking for mentally ill people to "defend" themselves from and "mentally ill" people so drugged out of their minds they'd make great targets for the gun nuts.
No, a witch hunt against the "mentally ill" would be a horror show.
But that's the way Americans do things.
Protect the real culprits and scapegoat the weakest and most vulnerable.
to decrease gun violence Americans need to change their values, their attitudes, their economy, their culture, their politics, their social system, and their way of life
By that sort of logic, people need rocket launchers, jet fighters and nuclear bombs.
Hey, fair is fair.
Level the playing field. Arm your neighbourhood car mechanic with tanks and the used car dealer with drones.
Just too many guns in circulation. I think the US has hit a point of no return. Sadly there will be more Sandy Hooks and Auroras.
We have gun laws, we have immigration laws, we have corporate regulations up the....
The problem is that the government is not governing itself. No one is watching the watchers!
Washington, by its own corruption, has sanitized and ignored the disregard of laws that are already on the books.
The fault is not on main street, but in our courts, "news rooms" that have become no more than 24/7 propaganda treadmills, and in our government offices where management is failing terribly because it refuses to acknowledge its own inefficiencies and can't be bothered to address them.
The fault, dear Brutus, is not of the universe, but in our progressively progressive liberalization in every aspect of our lives of anything vaguely resembling studious work, responsibility or accountability.
Main street hasn't become more lawless, Washington has become more corrupt and indifferent. Main street is responsible, however, for letting the inmates run the prison!
I came in (guns blazing) ready to disagree with Ike and write a comment about how a ban would actually make a huge difference, and then he went and lulled me into a a state of sad acceptance. Ike, you're probably right.
Confiscation would work, but as you said, probably result in another civil war.
Canada does not have that same history. Cdn history has been one of strict control around guns all the way back to Sam Steele & in 1934, established a handgun registry.
In Canada we already have a long list of both prohibited & restricted firearms; many of which are on there because they look scary.
Although some might suggest Canada is becoming more like the US with its gun laws, the reality is far less fearful. Starting in the late 70's to the early 90's, Canada enacted several pieces of legislation with better scrutiny of ownership & tighter storage/transport laws.
While casusation is difficult to prove, the results of Canada's various laws & support networks is that our violent crime has been falling sine the mid-70's - steadily.
Canada has much better support systems & social safety net along with better [but eroding] mental health network.
Just like the nra using guns as its "hammer & everything else is a nail" philosphy, firearm bans do not address the other causes of violence.
Canada should always maintain its strict gun laws & review them frequently - but not base them on knee-jerk responses but rather on reasoned argument with all stakeholders.
All too often polarization of the extreme views dominate the discussion & skews the attempt for meaningful change.
We have gun laws; we have immigration laws; we have corporate governance. Who's not doing their job?!
Washington has sanitized and made legal the discarding of our laws...not on main street, but inside our courts, our "news rooms" which have become little more than propaganda treadmills, and our government offices where the rules that are on the books already are either bypassed by insane liberal interpretations or simply ignored because they are not as expedient as some government managers would like to believe.
No one is watching the watchers and the fault, dear Brutus, is not of the universe but in ourselves and our government that no longer functions except to make excuses for itself.
I believe it was Chris Rock that said (loosely quoted) the easiest solution to gun control is to give guns away for free, but charge $1,000 a bullet.