Rethinking assault weapons regulation
The gun debate is kind of insane, and I can argue both sides of it, depending on context. What I could never get particularly excited about, however, were bans on semi-automatic assault weapons or other large-caliber, high-capacity, war-like contraptions. Only rarely are they used to commit crimes (handguns are much more dangerous), and mostly they’re the provenance of hobbyists. Assault weapons bans don’t do much good for anyone. They only fan the culture wars.
However, with the drug war going on in Mexico (a real war! with hand grenades and everything!), it’s time to revisit assault weapons regulation. The New York Times reported on Wednesday that the Mexican bad guys get their guns in the U.S. – high-caliber guns like AK-47s – and traffic them across the boarder. It’s easy to acquire the weapons because U.S. gun regulations are so lax (this type of firearm is illegal in Mexico).
When weapons like AR-15s, Kalashnikov rifles, and machine pistols bought easily in the U.S. become tools of criminality in our neighboring countries, it’s time to regulate the hell out of them, and fast. I know Americans don’t generally give a shit about how their actions affect the rest of the world, so to put it in terms they can understand: It’s only a matter of time before these Mexican gangs start staging shootouts in Tempe, Arizona, and by then we’ll be wishing we disarmed them when we had the chance.
I wouldn’t venture to take a stab at what, exactly, the new gun regulations should be. Of course, no regulation is perfect, and the criminals will find ways around them. But we’ve got to start somewhere, and before it’s too late.
February 28th, 2009 at 10:01
My understanding was that it was possible to by more or less the same guns legally in Mexico, though they had to be chambered in non-military cartridges. So, something like an Ar-15, would not be sold in .223/5.56×45mm, but would be sold in .222 Remington, which is balistically equivalent. The same thing goes on in, I think Italy.
That may have changed but would be worth looking into, since if its just a cost savings measure to smuggle weapons from the U.S. rather than the only way to obtain them, it changes the nature of the debate.
In any case, I not sure that we don’t already have some of the legal tools necessary to work on problem. Take a look at ITAR, and think about how it can be used to effectively prosecute virtually everyone that touches a gun if it crosses a border. Even transfers of information inside the U.S. to foreign nationals are tightly controlled under it.
Also, every assault weapon bill that has passed, or conceivably could get political capital to pass was strictly cosmetic. Sure, you can cutoff production of high capacity magazines again, but even after 10 years of the ban last time, the price on common magazines (AK, AR, Sten) was probably advancing at just the rate of inflation since the millions of military surplus ones are still being absorbed. You might be able to piss off some Mexican warlord that wanted some rarity, but that’s about it. If you do completely shut off the flow from the U.S., say with a big bushian fence, I think you’d instantly see local production spring up, ala serbia, croatia, afganistan, india, etc
February 28th, 2009 at 12:16
I think you’re right about past regulation… mostly cosmetic. Banning production of certain kinds of magazines is laughable. But from the nytimes article, though, it seems like the U.S. could do a better job keeping track of assault weapons and maybe increase penalties on people whose guns do end up in Mexico. Maybe better enforcement is the key? The fact that Mexican nationals can walk into a Texas gun show, fork over some cash, and walk away with a bunch of rifles (which are easy to smuggle) without any notification of anyone should be worrisome.