The editors at the National Review are largely sympathetic to the president’s proposals, however they are opposed to the three most important items. While they support confirming a permanent head of the ATF, strengthening the background check system, and working to inform mental health professionals about how best to deal with homicidal patients, they are opposed to closing the gun show loophole, limiting magazine capacity, or reinstating the assault weapons ban. Here’s their argument on the last two points:
President Obama also called for restoring the assault-weapons ban and capping magazine size at ten rounds. As we have explained previously, these measures are not useful if the goal is to reduce crime: President Obama can call assault rifles “weapons designed for the theater of war” all he wants, but in fact they are semiautomatic guns, functionally indistinguishable from hunting rifles. High-capacity magazines, meanwhile, are of dubious benefit to someone intent on harming innocents: They require less frequent reloading, but are more likely to jam, and at any rate changing magazines is not difficult even for the untrained.
People are using semiautomatic rifles to hunt these days. I really don’t understand why people are doing it, but it has become normal. The expired Assault Weapons ban attempted to distinguish between semiautomatic weapons designed for hunting and those only suitable for killing people, but the distinctions were somewhat arbitrary. And, in any case, a semiautomatic hunting rifle or pistol can do just as much damage, just as quickly, as a semiautomatic Uzi, AK-47, AR-15 or other military knock-off. So, on this point, I understand what the Review editors are saying. I don’t agree that we can’t arrive at some reasonable distinctions, but you can use a rifle designed to bring down a deer to bring down a person, and as long as semiautomatic guns are legal in any form, banning just some of them will be of limited value. Still, if a semiautomatic gun isn’t suitable for hunting, I see no reason not to limit its use to the shooting range. Licensed range operators could allow people to get their jollies but not to leave the premises with an assault weapon.
The bigger problem is with high-capacity clips. The editors downplay this, but when someone has to reload, they can be stopped (as happened in Tucson) and people have the opportunity to escape. I already mentioned that I don’t understand why people hunt with semiautomatic weapons, so maybe I am just dumb. But what kind of animal would you want to fire more than ten bullets into? Where is the utility of these clips for the hunter? It seems to me that they are a convenience for the shooting range. Other than that, they just allow people to fantasize about having a shootout with the ATF or FBI. Unless someone can make a better argument than I’ve yet seen, I don’t see how there would be any real problem with limiting magazine size. The lives saved might ultimately be small, but well worth quite a bit of inconvenience.
The editors’ argument on the gun show loophole is interesting:
In addition, the president backed mandatory background checks on gun sales between private individuals; under current law, checks are required only for sales conducted through licensed dealers. In theory, a comprehensive background-check system could be helpful — but in practice, any attempt to implement such a system would probably be cumbersome and unworkable, and the president did not offer specifics. It would be wrong to make gun sales difficult and expensive, or to spend massive amounts of money on a project with dubious benefits.
Having a massive background check system that can be easily and legally circumvented is exactly what we have now. I would call that cumbersome and unworkable and of dubious benefit. So, either we give up entirely on background checks, or we make them a real requirement. How the Review editors can support Obama’s efforts to improve and expand the background check system, yet still oppose extending it to all gun purchases escapes me. It would seem to violate every principle of conservatism to take such a view, except the principle that a conservative should never disagree with the National Rifle Association.
But, seriously, why do people hunt with semiautomatic weapons? Maybe if you’re hunting bear or something. Otherwise, don’t fill your meal with lead and save your ammunition. Jesus.
