Cui Bono Fuisset?

These Latin words, most famously used by Cicero in two of his speeches in defense of persons accused of crime, are generally translated as, variously, "who benefits?" or "for whose benefit?" or "for whose advantage?".  He credited them to the Roman censor and consul Cassius Longinus Ravilla.  The question is usually shortened to "cui bono?".

It's a question commonly asked, though not necessarily in Latin, during investigations of conduct; notably, criminal conduct.  It inquires into motive.  Why would someone do such and such, which leads necessarily to the inquiry--who would benefit from doing it?

The Latin phrase comes to my mind, like Zardoz, when I hear of another mass killing through use of firearms, especially the semi-automatic known as the AR-15 and other weapons designed to mimic automatic weapons typically used in the military, and it would seem increasingly "militarized" law enforcement agencies.  Specifically, it comes to mind when the leadership of the NRA and others leap to defend the sale of such firearms in the wake of these murders, and also promote arming teachers and others to prevent them from taking place.

The response typically given in reply to calls for banning or limiting firearms like the AR-15 is that they're not really military weapons, not assault rifles, not automatic weapons.  This is somewhat understandable as it's not uncommon for those seeking to restrict them to assume they are such weapons.  This kind of response, however, is a non-response, in my opinion.  Whether their sale should be restricted is not dependent on the fact that far more lethal weapons exist.  Based on what I've read, such a firearm is capable for firing 45-60 rounds a minute, depending on the skill of the shooter.  Of course, it may also be rendered automatic for all practical purposes by a bump stock, as we learned in the Las Vegas massacre.  Regardless, though, what is the argument against restricting sale of such a weapon which may, through use of easily used and well-stocked magazines, be employed in firing 45-60 rounds a minute?

If they're not restricted, cui bono?  Manufacturers and sellers of such weapons do, of course.  They would benefit as well if teachers were armed, or armed guards employed.  Money is the constant in their universe of gun control.  They win everyway if only they can sell more guns.  Fear of guns used by others induces the fearful to buy guns.  What, really, do they care if money is the only consideration?

I would maintain hunters and sport shooters do not.  They're not needed to hunt or to break clay pigeons.  Someone using one to do so would I think seem, well, weird.  And not in a good way.  Should the fact gun manufacturers/seller want to make more money figure in this debate?  Absolutely not, again in my opinion.

Who would use them, who would need them?  Who would benefit from them?  I suppose there are those who find them desirable in what I would call a creepy way.  Firearms which mimic military or automatic weapons may make some people with self-esteem problems, or who are excessively fearful or whose self-regard is conditioned on posing or appearing  as a soldier or mercenary or something, feel better or good if they own them.  Should free sale of such weapons be allowed in order to maintain their enjoyment in possessing if not using them?  The peculiarities of such people shouldn't figure in assessing whether and to what extent such weapons should be regulated.

What about what gun advertisers like to call "home defense"?  How likely is it that, in order to protect my home, I'll require a firearm allowing me to fire 45-60 rounds a minute as opposed to the shotguns I own now (personally, I'm not over concerned with home defense, but let's take into consideration the fact that some people are concerned)?  Not very likely.

Unless, perhaps, one accepts what I think is a rather fantastic view, that such weapons will be needed to prevent the government from harming me or my family.  I cannot.  The thought of indefinitely holding off any reasonably large and well-armed body of government agents from the security of my home, or vehicle, or from anywhere else strikes me as remarkably fanciful, at best; deluded at worst.

Do collectors of weapons benefit?  Well, we must make a judgment between whether we continue to gratify collectors or restrict weapons which have such potential to do harm.  My judgment is that the potential to do harm outweighs the desire of a collector.

What about the benefit derived by the defenders of the Second Amendment?  I've been a lawyer too long, perhaps.  I know that the rights granted by the Bill of Rights and the Constitution are and have always been subject to reasonable restriction.  The right to bear arms doesn't in any case imply a right to bear or have any arms one wants.  The Second Amendment will not disappear if such weapons are restricted.

For me, it's difficult to think of any good reason for acquiring such weapons.  So, I tend to think that most of those who buy them are not doing so for hunting, or sport shooting, or collecting but have other uses or purposes in mind, which likely are unreasonable and may do harm.  I would have no objection to such weapons being banned.