First off, what is a hoplophobe? The term hoplophobia was coined by the highly influential writer, marksman, and firearm safety and tactics educator Jeff Cooper. It refers to the irrational fear of firearms technology and armed citizens. One who exhibits such irrational fear is thus a hoplophobe.

Cooper would be the first to say that a firearm can be dangerous. He advocated four points of firearm safety that are used in one form or another in every firearm manual I have seen and in all firearm safety courses. I included my own version of these rules in a prior post here. However, he also understood that a firearm is no more dangerous than the person wielding it, and thus promoted training and education as the path to peace and safety.

The hoplophobe instead demands legislative action to impose his opinion upon others at gunpoint. How hypocritical! I would like to present some responses to common hoplophobe statements below.

Image credit

"We need a new assault weapon ban!"

An assault weapon ban is usually equivalent to saying that putting a spoiler on a Honda Civic reclassifies it as a race car, and make it no longer street legal without additional taxes and licenses. Sometimes it would instead be like arguing that since new passenger sedans use technology that was first used on race cars, they are still race cars and should not be street-legal. Instead of addressing the actual function of a firearm, since that has already been extensively regulated or outright banned by numerous prior legislative acts, these proposed laws address the cosmetic features of firearms. This is disguised as concern for public safety, but it relies on public ignorance of technological change. Hoplophobia manifests as a fear of advancement in ergonomics and materials, or it claims that civilian firearms that are derived from (but not functionally identical to) military-issue weapons should still be forbidden as if they were military arms.

• Semi-automatic rifles have been around since 1885, and were quickly adopted by the civilian market as better hunting and defensive arms. This is old technology, not something new and scary.

• A 20, 25, or 30-round magazine has been the standard capacity for semi-automatic rifles since the 1960s, including the first civilian-market Colt AR-15. The Browning Hi-Power with its double-stacked 13-round magazine predates World War II. Ammunition capacity is a technological advancement, not a modern terror innovation. In a self-defense situation, having more ammunition is far more of an advantage to the one facing aggression than to the aggressor(s).

• A pistol grip on a rifle provides better ergonomics than a traditional wood rifle stock under most circumstances, making the firearm more comfortable to use. This can also enhance safety, since the firearm will be better controlled. Forend pistol grips serve a similar purpose. It may not be as aesthetically pleasing, but form follows function.

• A folding stock makes it easier to transport a rifle, while an adjustable stock like those on M4-style carbines allow the firearm to fit the user and circumstances without any part replacement. Wearing heavy clothing for winter hunting? Shorten the stock by a notch. Participating in a marksmanship competition? Adjust the stock for standing or prone shooting as needed. Teaching a child or someone of small stature? No problem. Versatility is a good thing!

• A barrel shrouds is not the "shoulder thing that goes up." It is a shroud over the barrel of a firearm that protects hands from injury. Barrels heat quickly from gunpowder gasses and bullet friction. Barriers are a safety feature. On many firearms, the forend is designed as a barrel shroud that can be gripped by the supporting hand without adding pressure to the barrel that may distort its accuracy.

• The very term assault weapon is a disingenuous effort to demonize an object by applying a scary label. An assault rifle is not defined by its shape, but by its operation. It is an infantry rifle capable of firing like a machine gun. Once the trigger is pressed, it will continue to fire, eject the spent cartridge, reload, and then fire again until the trigger is released or the ammunition supply is expended. That last italicized part is the key. Firing multiple rounds with a single trigger press is a defining feature, and one that has been illegal for civilian ownership without extensive background checks, licenses, and taxes since 1934. Some actual assault rifles instead feature a burst fire that limits this cycle to a few rounds before resetting, but this is still already effectively illegal for civilian ownership.

"Close the gun show loophole!"

Gun owners can legally sell their property to another individual who is a resident of the same state, provided they do not have reason to believe the buyer is a felon or otherwise a prohibited person. This isn't a loophole, it is a specific legal protection clause. These private sales sometimes occur at events called "gun shows" where collectors, manufacturers, and commercial sellers meet for the purpose of buying and selling firearms, sporting goods, and related items. Commercial sellers and manufacturers are still bound by the same laws, background check requirements, etc. as if they were in their retail establishments, contrary to the assumptions of hoplophobes. Assertion that there is a gun show loophole thus demonstrates ignorance of existing law and a profoundly totalitarian perspective on property rights.

"We care about safety!"

Gun manufacturers print the rules of firearm safety in every manual. The NRA promotes firearm safety. Gun shops and sporting goods stores either offer firearm safety classes or will promote classes in their areas. Gun owners overwhelmingly promote safe firearm handling and storage, and advocate educating kids so they don't inflict injury through ignorance. Opposition to hoplophobic legislative efforts does not betray disregard for safety, but rather support for personal responsibility instead of nanny state oversight.

Contrary to the assertions of hoplophobes, accident rates are declining. Even the Los Angeles Times, hardly a bastion of pro-gun journalism, acknowledges this.

Experts attribute the decline to a mix of gun safety education programs, state laws regulating gun storage in homes and a drop in the number of households that have guns. While the improvement occurred in every state, those with the most guns and the fewest laws continue to have the most accidental shooting deaths.

Of course, their explanation is still flawed. Firearm manufacturers, organizations like the NRA, and advocates like Jeff Cooper have worked tirelessly to promote firearm safety as already noted. Measuring the impact of state regulations is difficult to say the least, and firearm ownership rates are impossible to verify with any accuracy. Meanwhile, the assertion that, ". . . [States] with the most guns and the fewest laws continue to have the most accidental shooting deaths," is a bit difficult to accept at face value when ownership rates are completely unknown and relative accident rates per capita over time are not mentioned at all.

"US gun violence is unacceptably high!"

This is a very common assertion with little critical analysis by those making it.

First, suicides are included with homicides and accidents, which is quite deceptive. The US does not have a remarkably high suicide rate, and many countries with far higher rates have far fewer firearms. The fact that firearms are sometimes used in suicides does not mean firearm access causes suicide.

Second, high-profile crimes such as mass shootings are used as proof that guns are an increasing problem in America. However, the FBI violent crime stats show that violent crimes including homicide are on the decline. 2017 is the most recent year with a fill report as of the time I am writing, and there has been a disturbing uptick in recent years, but the long-term trend is dramatic.

• Violent crime, Table 1, 1998-2017

We can also see a similar chart from the decade before showing an even more dramatic decline beginning in about 1992-1993, before the Clinton-era ban on so-called assault weapons.

• Violent crime, table 1, 1988-2007

Third, assailants killed in self-defense are lumped in with assailants who kill people as gun violence victims. This is downright dishonest.

Fourth, the underlying assumption is that opposition to the hoplophobes means callous disregard, or even outright support, for violence and crime. This demonstrates a lack of honesty in debate on the part of the would-be regulators.

"More guns means more crime and more death!"

It is often asserted that owning a firearm increases one's risk of death by firearm. This is shallow analysis even if the data is accurate, and I have seen little hard evidence to support the assertion. What if people are at risk of violence first, and buy firearms in an effort to alleviate that risk? As noted previously, while guns are used in suicide, the suicide rate in the US is not unusually high, and suicide is a very difficult matter to address with many causes and triggers. Blaming guns is a lazy response, but we must do something, and legislation is something we can do, so we are doing what must be done, right? Wrong.

When states began relaxing their restrictions on open and concealed carry of firearms in the late 1980s, hoplophobe predictions were universally dire. Blood would surely flow in the streets as yahoos settled disputes with shootouts. As noted above, crime rates have not spiked in response to relaxed carry restrictions. In fact, one could argue there is a good correlation in the decline of violent crime as firearm freedom increased. New records for firearm sales have also been set frequently during this timeframe. However, such correlation is not proof of causation, and doubtless many factors are at play. We need to be responsible in data analysis. When long-term data directly contradicts the predictions of hoplophobes, though, it warrants attention.

Final Rant

Stop trying to make excuses for your puritanical control freak busybody instincts and just mind your own business. Your "solution" is enforced with actual gun violence against innocent people. Shove your hypocritical virtue signalling nonsense where the sun don't shine. Calling for "compromises" that only serve to impede honest folks for the sake of your paranoia isn't making progress. If what has been surrendered thus far in the name of "compromise" hasn't worked to your satisfaction, we need to go the other way. The path of politics is a dead end in subservience.

Screenshot credit