The “Minimum Needs” Gun Control Tactic

Published by the Author on August 29, 2008 at 12:32 am > Pro Gun Rights Articles > The “Minimum Needs” Gun Control Tactic

When discussing gun ownership rights and laws, I’ve heard some people argue in favor of magazine capacity restrictions, features of ordinary firearms, and limits on the number of guns one can own, (incorrectly) asserting that such restrictions won’t harm law abiding citizens.  I’ve previously discussed, from a technical standpoint, why such restrictions would not affect criminals, and would leave law abiding citizens confused about the law, and with guns that are less safe and less suitable for self defense.  This article, however, addresses the deeper problem with arbitrarily restricting gun rights on the basis that a citizen doesn’t “need” a particular magazine capacity, feature, or quantity of guns.

Gun Control Advocates Don’t Know What Each Person Needs For Self Defense
The gun control lobbyists and politicians who introduce legislation to ban magazines above a certain capacity or so called “assault weapons” often have no understanding of what they are trying to ban.  For example, Congresswoman McCarthy went on TV to argue in favor of an “assault weapon” ban but had no clue what a barrel shroud was, or what part of a firearm it would attach to. In another case, Chicago’s Mayor Daley made a series of anti gun rights statements, including one which suggested that the .357 Magnum was some sort of super cartridge that would lead to widespread destruction if owned by mere civilians.  Others suggest that handguns are simply not legitimate self defense tools and could be banned in their entirety. Such people lack even a basic understanding of firearms, and are simply not in a position to determine what type of firearms and magazine capacity are needed for self defense or sporting purposes.

ALSO READ:  Chicago's Mayor Daley Blames Guns for the Murder of Hudson's Family

Even This Author and Other Pro Gun Rights People Don’t Know What Each Person Needs For Self Defense
It is also not possible for pro gun rights individuals such as myself to decree the magazine capacity or type of firearm that each person would need for self defense.  Being a male in my mid 20’s, I am more than capable of handling a shotgun.  However my grandfather, who is in his 80’s, would not be able to do so.  Some people have very good good aim and are cool under pressure, while other people may miss when shooting at a home invader, and need additional rounds to defend themselves.  Some citizens, such as amputees with only one arm, would also have difficulty operating the self defense firearms which I prefer (pump action shotguns). A person with arthritis would likely benefit from a muzzle compensator. Someone who does not own a large gun safe could benefit from a collapsible stock on their gun, allowing it to be safely stored in a smaller safe. Since I do not run a business with large quantities of cash or valuables on hand, it is not very likely that I will face a group of 5 armed attackers.  That is not necessarily true for jewelers, so they just might need a different self defense tool than I need. In short, each person’s self defense needs are different, and a one size fits all law is not reasonable.

Join the NRA today and do your part to help preserve our gun rights (and save $10).

Tags for this article: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

  • BasinBictory

    Ugh – I've had arguments with some people in my own family regarding the "needs" issue. Their stance is basically that, unless you live in a high-crime area, or work in a high-risk profession, you simply do not "need" a weapon, period point blank.

    When I questioned their "need" for medical insurance, despite their youth and relative health, their "need" for auto insurance, despite their clean driving record and generally responsible habits, or their "need" for a large SUV when they were a childless couple that never drives off-road, they got a little irritated.

    People advocating limits on an activity or features of a product that they're completely ignorant about wouldn't be tolerated in any other field – except for firearms. Why is that? I'm not a fisherman, I know nothing about fishing, bait and tackle, appropriate sizes of fish to be caught, or what might constitute an inappropriate fishing method, so if I were a legislator and attempted to put some kind of limit on fishing and fishermen's equipment, I'd be loudly (and rightly) laughed out of the room. Yet, if I'm totally ignorant about firearms, yet introduce legislation that will make it illegal to own a gun, I'm applauded.