Gun Rights Lesson #315 – Arsenals

EDITOR’S NOTE: This is one of a series of articles on gun rights. Each addresses a common anti-gun trope.

---

“No one needs an arsenal! There should be limits on the number of guns someone can own or buy!!”

This argument sprung forth in the aftermath of the Las Vegas Stephen Paddock mass shooting, when it was discovered that Paddock had amassed 47 guns and had hauled 23 of them up to the hotel suite from where he carried out his rampage. This obviously seems an excessive number of guns for one man to own, although we don’t yet know how many were rifles, how many were pistols, if any were shotguns, or, most notably, how many were actually used in his massacre.

That last point is the crux of this gun rights lesson. The thing of it is, previous mass shooters carried out their carnage with at most a couple rifles and a couple pistols. The 24 guns Paddock had at home were obviously not used for his massacre, so frustration or outrage at “47 guns” is kinda pointless. But, still, one might argue, “why would anyone need 23 guns?” Indeed – why would anyone need 23 guns to carry out a mass shooting in the manner that Paddock did? The answer: he wouldn’t. Even if we grant a paranoiac’s degree of worry about reliability and malfunctions, and even if we make allowances for barrel overheating, a fraction of Paddock’s arsenal would have been more than sufficient.

We don’t know Paddock’s motives, or his state of mind, or the thinking behind his decision to bring all those guns up to his room, or whether he had a bigger plan that he failed to fully carry out, so we can’t speculate as to whether his reasons for doing so were justified in his own mind. We can, however, conclude that he didn’t need all those guns to do his murder, and therefore that laws and regulations intended to slow the accumulation of many guns or limit the total number of guns one can own would not have made a difference in this incident.

Therein lies the rub. As I’ve noted elsewhere in this blog, a rational discussion about gun regulation in the wake of the Las Vegas shooting requires an assessment of efficacy. What laws might have stopped Paddock? It’s hard to imagine that any would, a point that even a staunch anti-gun Democrat like Dianne Feinstein acknowledges. Even a total ban on semi-automatic rifles would not be hard to skirt for someone with money and patience (like Paddock), given the realities of black markets (both France and Australia have much stronger gun prohibitions than America, but also have robust black markets, and literal tons of consumable drugs are smuggled into the US every day), and the impracticality of effecting such a ban when tens of millions of them are currently in civilian hands.

Beyond the reality that a mass shooter doesn’t need many guns, there are a couple other points to consider.

First, the idea of “arsenals.” Consider a hypothetical middle American, living in one of the 41 states where the right to buy a gun isn’t subject to the whims of bureaucrats. Lets call our hypothetical American “Patrick.” Patrick’s an avid hunter. Patrick’s a sportsman. Patrick believes in armed self-defense, both in his home and when walking about. Patrick owns a big-game rifle for deer and black bear, a magnum rifle for elk, brown bear, and moose, a varminting rifle for… varmints, a .22 rifle for “plinking” i.e. recreational target shooting, a semi-automatic shotgun for duck hunting, a double-barrel shotgun for skeet and trap, a pump shotgun for home defense, a “modern sporting rifle” for smaller game and for target shooting, a small frame semi-automatic pistol for concealed carry, a magnum revolver as a backup for hunting, a large frame semi-automatic pistol for target practice and home defense, and a .22 match grade pistol for competitive target shooting. That’s 8 long guns and 4 pistols, and that’s before we contemplate the idea of having more than one hunting rifle of a particular size. Now, lets assume Patrick is married with a couple teenagers, and that his family shares his interest in shooting sports. Patrick has a deer rifle for each of his kids, Patrick’s wife has her own concealed carry pistol, her own skeet/trap shotgun, and prefers a coach gun for home defense.

Think that’s a lot of guns? Consider: #0, #1, #2, #3 Phillips. 1/8″, 3/16, 1/4″ Slotted. Torx T10, T15, T20, T25, T30. Robertson #0, #1, #2, #3. That’s 16 different screwdriver sizes, and that’s before considering stubby, short and long shaft lengths. In some cases, one can substitute for others, but the old adage “the right tool for the job” is apropos.

Guns are much the same. Different guns are like different tools. Each has its uses, and cross-purposing has its limits. You cannot hunt deer with a .22 pistol, and you wouldn’t want to hunt grouse with a magnum rifle.

So, while a dozen guns may seem, to someone unversed in shooting sports, to be nutty or pointless or dangerous, would we criticize a mechanic for having a complement of tools sufficient to do all the jobs he’s likely to engage? Why, then, would a complement of guns that covers a wide range of uses be troubling?

Next, there lies great difficulty in implementing an “arsenal” restriction. In order to prohibit an individual from owning more than X guns, the government would have to know how many guns everyone owns. To do that, it would need a national registry. With 350 million guns already in circulation, and with ample evidence that Americans won’t comply with a registration mandate (Australia’s buy-back effort netted 19% of the guns in circulation. Connecticut mandated registration of “assault weapons” and got 11% compliance. New York did the same and got 5% compliance), how would the government manage to make such a registry work?

A partial alternative would be to limit purchase frequency. This presents a couple problems. First, there’s the fact that private sales aren’t tracked (more on that here). Second, there’s the aforementioned black market (which hasn’t been a factor in mass shootings, for the most part, but would certainly grow rapidly and robustly under any major restriction or ban). Third, there’s the reality I’ve already mentioned: a mass shooter doesn’t need more than one or a couple guns. Someone like Paddock, who spent a LOT of time planning his murder, could simply buy what he needed within even a one-a-month constraint.

Certainly, a purchase frequency restriction would make some people happy, and make it look like politicians “did something,” but to what end? If it does nothing to mitigate gun crime or mass shootings, then all that has happened is that the rights of good people have been violated. And, when the next atrocity occurs, and it turns out that this infringement did nothing to stop it, will those who called for it admit it was a useless violation of people’s rights and support repeal? Don’t make me laugh.

Finally – even a two gun limit as recently proposed in Slate would not stop or hinder a mass-shooter. All it would do is make the anti-gunners feel like they did something and set us up for the next infringement of our rights.

So,

Gun rights lesson #315: An hoplophobe might wonder why people should be “allowed” to own many guns. A limit, however, would serve only to undermine our rights and back-door national registration and tracking of the guns we own. It would do nothing to stop the next mass shooter. And, when that proves out, there’ll simply be more demands for infringing on the rights of people who’ve done nothing wrong.