Savages vs. Civilization
Of Course, Sean Penn Is Making a Movie About This Event. The Left...
*THAT* Is Not a Good Sign for Dems Regarding the 2026 Midterms
Here's What Former Judge Hannah Dugan Tried to Argue to Get Her Obstruction...
Magic Medicine?
Trump Lays Down the Law: No FISA Extension Without SAVE America Act
Desperate California Anti-Gunners Target Gun Company
Who Will Be Held Accountable for the Border Policies of the Biden Years?
What Can I Say?
JD Vance Levels Jessica Tarlov for Repeating Iranian Propaganda
Rep. Nellie Pou Cares More About Illegal Aliens Than American Citizens
Here's Why the Iran Deal Has Yet to Be Released to the Public
Mamdani 2.0? DSA-Backed Democrat Leads Race As Trump Floats Total Takeover
The Wall That Wasn't: The Establishment Clause From Everson to Kennedy
Why Jordan Must Extradite Ahlam Tamimi and Why America Must Insist
OPINION

If Confiscating 'Assault Weapons' Is a Gimmick, So Is Banning Them: O'Rourke's Scheme Would Be an Ineffectual Attempt to Enforce Arbitrary Distinctions

The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Townhall.com.
If Confiscating 'Assault Weapons' Is a Gimmick, So Is Banning Them: O'Rourke's Scheme Would Be an Ineffectual Attempt to Enforce Arbitrary Distinctions
AP Photo/John Minchillo

Beto O'Rourke is taking flak from other Democratic presidential contenders for supporting mass confiscation of military-style rifles, a proposal several of them view as an impractical campaign gimmick. Although they are right about that, all the Democratic candidates are guilty of magical thinking on this issue; they support an "assault weapon" ban that cannot reasonably be expected to have a measurable impact on gun violence.

Advertisement

"Hell, yes, we're going to take your AR-15," O'Rourke declared during last month's Democratic presidential debate. The former Texas congressman, whose campaign immediately started selling T-shirts emblazoned with that threat, clearly thinks it will appeal to Democratic primary voters.

But O'Rourke has not given much thought to how he would translate his slogan into reality. During last week's Democratic debate, CNN's Anderson Cooper asked O'Rourke how he would confiscate 16 million or so guns, because "you don't even know who has those weapons."

O'Rourke's response: "I expect my fellow Americans to follow the law." He repeated that line the next day, when CNN's Alisyn Camerota pressed him to explain how he would "get assault weapons away from people who don't want to give them up."

Camerota was incredulous. "You expect mass shooters to follow the law?" she asked. "Our fellow Americans will follow the law," O'Rourke insisted. "Yes."

The experience of states that have mandated registration of "assault weapons" suggests otherwise. A year after New Jersey banned the possession of unregistered "assault weapons," a grand total of 18 had been surrendered or confiscated, out of an estimated 100,000 to 300,000 guns covered by the law.

California, New York and Connecticut met with similar success when they required registration of "assault weapons" owned before those states banned them: Only a small minority of the targeted guns, ranging from 2% to 15%, were actually registered. As O'Rourke wants to confiscate "assault weapons," and not merely register them, he can expect even wider defiance.

Advertisement

Related:

BETO O'ROURKE

While Camerota was appropriately skeptical of O'Rourke's mandatory buyback plan, she nodded in agreement as he described the guns he wants to seize as "materially different" from handguns and hunting rifles because they fire at "a terrifying rate." O'Rourke also thinks so-called assault weapons are uniquely suitable for mass shootings because they fire "high-impact, high-velocity round(s)."

Neither of those claims is true. The characteristics that distinguish "assault weapons" from other guns -- features like pistol grips, threaded barrels, barrel shrouds and folding or adjustable stocks -- have nothing to do with rate of fire, caliber, ammunition capacity or muzzle velocity.

If you remove those prohibited features, you are left with a gun that is equally capable of quickly killing lots of people. Even former Vice President Joe Biden, who joins the other Democratic candidates in supporting a new federal law prohibiting the manufacture and sale of "assault weapons," concedes that the 1994 ban, which expired in 2004, had no impact on the lethal capacity of legal firearms.

Biden notes that gun manufacturers could comply with that law by "making minor modifications to their products -- modifications that leave them just as deadly." That is equally true of the new, supposedly improved "assault weapon" ban proposed by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., who also wrote the 1994 law.

Nor do "assault weapons" figure prominently in gun violence. In 2017, according to the FBI, all rifles combined -- only a subset of which would qualify as "assault weapons" -- accounted for just 5% of guns used in homicides where the type of firearm was specified, while handguns accounted for 89%. Even mass shooters prefer handguns.

Advertisement

The Democratic presidential candidates, including those who criticize O'Rourke's confiscation scheme as impractical, nevertheless insist that banning this arbitrary category of firearms "would be huge," as South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg put it last week. That belief is no less a fantasy than O'Rourke's dream that Americans, including would-be mass shooters, will happily turn in the guns he thinks they shouldn't have.

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Townhall Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement