It’s not shocking that the League of Ladies Voters (LWV) known as for a ban on so-called “assault weapons” after a violent Wednesday during which a radical leftist shot and killed Charlie Kirk in Utah and a 16-year-old shot and wounded two of his fellow college students in a Colorado highschool.
“This week, we noticed two distinguished examples, together with a faculty capturing in Colorado that injured college students, and the assassination of public determine Charlie Kirk at a college in Utah,” the group mentioned in a information launch a number of days later.
On the prime of the group’s checklist of calls for, as listed within the information launch, was “banning assault weapons and limiting journal dimension.” Whereas the decision for a ban on so-called “assault weapons” wasn’t shocking, it was fairly silly. Right here’s why.
Within the high-profile Kirk assassination, the weapon used was a bolt-action .30-06 rifle generally utilized by hunters for deer, elk and different large recreation. With the primary bolt-action rifle constructed manner again in 1836, it’s removed from a brand new development. And it’s actually not an “assault rifle,” though the murderer turned it into that for his nefarious deed.
It additionally doesn’t maintain very many rounds. Most bolt weapons maintain one spherical within the chamber and solely three or 4 extra within the journal.
The LWV’s name for banning “assault weapons” and limiting journal dimension can also be disingenuous concerning the Colorado college murders the identical day. In that assault, the 16-year-old killer used a revolver—about as removed from an “assault weapon” as you will get.
Like bolt-action rifles, revolvers additionally aren’t precisely “trendy” weapons, with many in use by the 1600s, and the primary commercially profitable mannequin coming in 1836. Revolvers additionally don’t have so-called “high-capacity” magazines, with the cylinder of most holding 5 – 6 rounds.
So why did the LWV name for a ban on “assault weapons” and limiting journal capability following a capturing that legal guidelines pertaining to both wouldn’t have made a distinction? As a result of that’s what anti-gunners do—commerce on tragedy, and use startling, horrendous murders to push their ineffective agenda.
By the way, the opposite two large pushes LWV made in its press launch was to shut the so-called “gun present loophole” and institute so-called “common” background checks. First, there is no such thing as a gun present loophole. The legislation at gun reveals is rather like anyplace else—licensed sellers promoting weapons there should carry out the requisite background examine simply as in the event that they have been promoting them in a store. Moreover, there’s no proof right now that both gun was purchased at a gun present or by way of non-public gross sales.
As for the “common” background checks, the style during which the 2 shooters bought their weapons remains to be being investigated. However anybody who believes {that a} legislation requiring a background examine will deter those that have already determined to commit capital homicide from acquiring a gun is as loopy as the oldsters at LWV, who apparently assume that’s the case.
