Friday, December 28, 2012

Does Gun Control Really Save Lives?

We have entered another round of debate over gun control.  Gun control advocates say, fewer legally owned guns, equals fewer crimes - especially murder.  Gun rights advocates argue that gun control has never reduced homicide rates and that some of the safest nations in the world have high rates of firearms ownership, while some of the most dangerous countries in the world virtually ban the legal ownership of firearms.

Who is right?  Consider this chart:



Gun Ownership "Common" = More than 30 legally owned private firearms per 100 population
Gun Ownership "Difficult" = Severe restrictions, but average law abiding person can own a firearm
Gun Ownership "Extremely Difficult" = People with significant wealth or connections may be able to own a firearm
Gun Ownership Virtually Banned = Effectively impossible for citizens to own firearms


Since we are focused on so called "assault weapons", it is worth noting that Switzerland has a homicide rate six times lower than the US, even though these kind of weapons are the primary rifle owned in Switzerland.  Russia's homicide rate is over twice as high as the US, even though they virtually ban private firearms ownership.

Even more instructive is Jamaica.  This country, located on an island, has spent the last 40 years attempting to get rid of all guns.  They have been banned all firearms since the 1970's and even have special "firearms courts" to deal with offenders.  Guess what?  They now have a homicide rate thirteen times higher than the U.S.

Still think gun laws are the answer?  OK, a few questions:

In what democratic nation has implementing gun control reduce homicides or other crimes? 
Answer:None.  

What was the effect of the last "assault weapons" ban on crime and mass shootings?  
Answer: None

What cities have had handguns bans since the 1970s?
Answer: Chicago and Washington DC

What two cities have the highest murder rates in the US?
Answer: Chicago and Washington DC

Gun control is not the answer.  It has never been  been the answer.  The answer is a lot harder than banning inanimate objects.  The answer lies inside human beings.  If we focus there, we may actually be able to make things better.

Thursday, December 27, 2012

What The National Media Left Out Of The Portland Mall Shooting Story


On December 11, 2012 and armed man stood outside the Clackamas Town Center near Happy Valley, Oregon.  He had to chosen what he would do.  He knew that the shopping mall was a “gun free zone”.  Signs were posted to that effect.  He would be violating the wishes of the owner – and possibly the law - by carrying his gun into the building – but Nick Meli, 22 and a concealed weapons permit holder who was packing a Glock 22 semi-auto pistol, decided to take his firearm into the Mall.  Perhaps the fact that he had a friend and her baby with him that night influenced his decision.

A short time later, someone else who also knew that the Clackamas Town Center was a gun free zone arrived there.  Chances are this greatly influenced his decision to choose this location.  Jacob Tyler Roberts, also 22, was not there to shop – he was there to kill as many people as he could with a stolen AR-15.

Roberts entered the mall and started shooting, killing two people and wounding another almost immediately.  Meli’s reaction was a textbook perfect example of CCW training put into practice.  First, he got his friend and her baby down and behind what cover there was.  He then took a defensive position behind a pillar.

It was then that Meli saw Roberts attempting to clear his jammed AR15.  At this point he drew his Glock and put his sights on Robert’s head – who by now had cleared the jam and had the AR15 ready to fire.  As he was beginning to squeeze the trigger, his eye caught movement behind Roberts – there were innocent people in the line of fire, so Meli made the correct decision not to shoot.  At the same time, Roberts saw Meli.  Meli, in another textbook move, took cover in a nearby store (from which he might have had a clear shot at Roberts).  Roberts, having run into the last thing he expected at this point – armed opposition – ran down a hallway.  There he encountered a worker from one of the stores, but did not fire at him.  Instead, he ran down a flight of stairs where he fired his last shot – into his own head.  The killing was over.  Minutes later the police arrived, along with a huge EMS response.  As is almost always the case, when seconds counted they were minutes away.  The reality is they cannot be everywhere, no matter how much we want them to be.

A homicidal maniac entered a mall full of people – and because a CCW permit holder disobeyed a no guns allowed sign, the death toll of innocents was not dozens – it was two killed and one wounded.  What would have happened if Nick Meli had obeyed those signs?

The answer is clear and simple: Many more people would have died.  Of this there can be no doubt – because Roberts’ actions were textbook for what law enforcement trainers call “active shooters”.  They have thought and planned for some time before they show up and start killing.  A very important part of their planning is how these sick people want the incident to end.  They may want to escape or surrender, but the most common plan is suicide.  In almost all cases they will keep shooting innocents until the first armed opposition shows up.  When this happens they will almost always put their “end game” plan into effect, before the armed opposition can stop them from doing so.  This is exactly what Roberts did when he realized Meli was not a helpless victim, but an armed citizen.

Meli did everything right that night – and almost certainly saved many lives.  Yet, few news outlets other than local Portland, Oregon media have mentioned this obvious example of an armed, trained and licensed CCW permit holder saving a lot of lives.  

Why is this? Why is it that if a man in Florida, who also has a CCW permit, shoots a young man potentially in self-defense, it is news for weeks.  But when another CCW holder cuts short a mass shooting without firing a shot, those same outlets are silent.

Simple: The mainstream media will not cover this story because it contradicts all of their made up “conventional wisdom” about CCW permit holders.  Such people are supposed to be knuckle-dragging yahoos that do more harm than good.  Gun free zones are supposed to be safe because people like Nick Meli are kept out, or at least they have to leave their guns behind.  Gun free zones are not supposed to attract people like Jacob Roberts.  Guns are ALWAYS supposed to be the problem, NEVER the solution (unless they are magically transformed by being in the hands of a cop).   This story was never supposed to happen – and since the national media hardly reported it, it effectively didn’t happen.

This story, if actually reported widely, could actually change the “national conversation” on guns – and the mainstream media doesn’t want that to happen.  There is too much danger that they might not get what they want if the public learns that guns in the hands of trained and licensed citizens like Nick Meli are actually a good thing.

References:

http://www.kgw.com/news/Clackamas-man-armed-confronts-mall-shooter-183593571.html

http://nation.foxnews.com/mall-shooter-oregon/2012/12/16/report-armed-man-helps-stop-oregon-mall-shooting

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/12/15/Man-With-Concealed-Carry-Gun-May-Have-Prevented-Oregon-Shooter-From-Inflicting-More-Carnage

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clackamas_Town_Center_shooting

Sunday, December 23, 2012

Why Is The AR15 Rifle So Popular?

In the coming months, there will be a great deal of debate about so called "assault rifles", including the AR15 and it's bigger brother, the AR10.  What most people outside the firearms community don't know this that these rifles are - by far - the best selling type of rifle in the United States today.  When a hunter or target shooter goes shopping for a rifle to use in their sport, there is a good chance they will select an AR15 or an AR10.

This is important, because both gun control advocates and many people who simply are not into guns, think that only a few, slightly off kilter, militia types own these guns.  In reality, these guns are VERY mainstream in both the hunting and target shooting community.  Millions upon millions have been sold and are used legally by millions of Americans.  Threatening to outlaw these rifles is likely to be viewed by most gun owners as the same thing as outlawing rifles period.  It's a bit like saying "We aren't going to ban all cars and trucks, at least not right now.  We are only going to outlaw GM vehicles." and then expecting that people who currently don't own a GM car or truck to say, "Oh, as long as you are not going to ban my car, that's OK."

So, why is it that these rifles are so popular?


1) Crossover between military and civilian firearms development.

Most people don't realize that military and civilian firearms have always developed in parallel.  The Henry lever action rifle - which later became a famous civilian gun as the Winchester - was first developed for, and used by, Northern troops during the Civil War.  Indeed, since it was able to fire 16 rounds in 25-30 seconds, it became known as the most powerful gun of the war.  Post war, it was developed into a whole series of guns that are still being made today.  The 45/70 cartridge, adopted by the Army in a single shot rifle, in 1873, was used in some of those Winchesters and is still popular today.  The first semi-automatic rifles made in the US were hunting rifles (Teddy Roosevelt used one).  The 30-06 cartridge, developed by the ordinance department for the 1903 Springfield, was (and is) popular as a sporting round, and was made available in civilian bolt action firearms, in less than 20 years.  The 7.62 NATO round was released by Winchester (as the .308 Winchester) and chambered in a variety of firearms before the military even started using it.  The Springfield, Enfield, and M1 Garand semi-auto rifle have been used in civilian target shooting for as much as 100 years.  The cartridge used in the M16 (and in most, but not all AR15s) was developed from a civilian target and hunting cartridge.  In Vietnam, US Army and Marine snipers used civilian sporting rifles made by both Winchester and Remington.  The famed .50 Cal BMG sniper rifle was developed for the sport of extremely long range target shooting.   Although sales have been banned in California, never once has one been used in a crime - and they are still used as very long range target rifles.  For the last 150 years, military and civilian firearms have cross pollinated each other.  It should be no surprise that civilian versions of the most successful and long lived military rifle in history would be extremely popular with civilians for exactly the same reasons the military has kept it for so long.


2) 50 years of military training

For the last half-century, every Soldier, Marine, Airman and Sailor who has been trained to fire a rifle, learned to fire an M16, or the carbine version, the M4.  The semi-automatic only, civilian  version of these fully automatic/semi-automatic rifles is the AR15.  (The AR does not stand for Assault Rifle, it stands for Armalite - the company that designed it.)

When these folks leave the military, if they want to take up target shooting or even hunting, they desire a rifle that handles, feels and functions in the same way as the rifle they learned on and are familiar with.  This may be the biggest factor that makes these rifles so popular.

If they want a rifle for target shooting, of many, many types - they probably will choose an AR15 - likely in the original caliber of 5.56 NATO (.223 Remington).  If they want to hunt larger deer, elk, moose or bear - they will probably choose an AR10, likely in  7.62 NATO (.308 Winchester).  Surplus ammo and empties for reloading are available at low prices in both calibers.

This has always been the case.  In the second half of the 1800s, the military used single shots and some lever action rifles.  Through the early 1900s, these were the most popular rifles with target shooters and hunters.  World War I came along and millions of young men learned to shoot bolt action rifles.  In the 1920s and 1930s bolt action rifles became the most popular type with civilians.  During WWII, Soldiers and Marines learned to shoot both bolt action and semi-auto rifles.  After the war, semi-auto sales increased.  Then, in the 1960s, the military adopted the M16 - the military version of the AR15.  By the 1980s, AR15 sales started to climb.

These shooters don't buy the guns to commit any kind of crimes (in fact, in spite of their popularity they rank behind knives, blunt objects, bare hands, and shotguns as murder weapons).  They don't buy them to overthrow the government.  These law abiding shooters buy them to target shoot, to hunt and in some cases, to protect their families.  Would you argue that a rancher on the Arizona - Mexico border could not legitimately use one of these rifles for self defense?

I don't know what we will do when the military starts using ray guns, but 150 years of history says that what soldiers use will become the predominant firearm type in the civilian market within 20 years.


3) Modern design

One of the reasons the anti-gun crowd can demonize the AR15 is that to untrained eyes it doesn't "look like" a civilian firearm.  Ruger firearms makes a rifle called the Mini-14.  It shoots the same round as the AR15 and M16.  It shoots just as fast and takes magazines in the same capacity range (5-30+ rounds).  However, in California - which has the nation's tightest assault weapons ban - a stock AR15 is banned and a stock Mini-14 is not.  Why?

The biggest reason is that the Mini-14 has a wood stock and is usually made of blue steel.  The AR15 does not have any wood,  it is made of plastic, aircraft aluminum and some steel that is finished black to match the plastic and aluminum.  If you show a person only minimally familiar with firearms the Mini-14, they will say it "looks like" a typical civilian gun.   Show that same person an AR15 and they will say that it looks like a military gun.

In reality, the AR15 looks like it does because it is modern.  It is made of modern materials that don't rust or corrode nearly as much as steel and wood.  Leaving wood out and replacing it with plastic eliminates the wood swelling and shrinking in different conditions - which causes the rifle to shoot to a different point of aim - often causing a shooter to miss their target.  Aluminum and plastic are a lot lighter than steel and wood, resulting in a gun that, all other things being equal, is lighter.  All of these features are attractive to both military users and civilian target shooters and hunters.  A pistol grip makes it easier to fire more accurately.  Although they make the AR15 or AR10 rifle appear different and more "military", they do not make it any more powerful or deadly than the standard wood and blue steel Mini-14, a rifle that is left off of most ban lists because it originated as a civilian rifle and is only used by civilians - including many hunters.

Which one is more deadly?  Neither one.  They are just as deadly, just as good or evil as the person using them.


4) Modular design

Again, this is something most people have no knowledge of.  The AR15 and AR10 rifles are the most modular and "customizable" rifles in the world.  Nearly every part is changeable by the end user.  There are all kinds of buttstocks (both fixed and adjustable), all kinds of trigger mechanisms with different "feels" and sensitivity, magazines in many capacities, and upper receiver assemblies in countless calibers.  It can be equipped with many different sighting systems - including many kinds of scopes and metal (iron) sights.  Barrels come in many calibers and every diameter and length the law allows.  You can have no mounting rails or more rails than you can possibly use.

Another advantage of the two sub-assembly design (they are called "uppers": the part with the bolt, barrel, and sights, and "lowers": the part with the buttstock and trigger assembly, which is legally the firearm) - is that one "lower" can be used with many different "uppers".  This allows a shooter to have one upper with a long and heavy barrel, in say ,223 for target shooting or long range ground squirrel hunting and another in the powerful .458 SOCOM cartridge for hunting the largest game in North America, in thick brush at fairly close range.  Since the uppers are not firearms (they cannot function without a lower), the gun owner not only saves a lot of money by not buying another lower, he or she also saves the cost and hassle of additional background checks and other government requirements - which can be considerable in some states.

Few other firearms designs are as modular as the AR10 and AR15.


5) Accuracy

50 years of development has resulted in a design that can be made so accurate that the Army and Marines are about to adopt an AR10 variant in 7.62 NATO as their primary sniper rifle.  The Air Force has already done so.  The modular design makes it easy to build a semi-automatic rifle that - for the first time in history - meets or exceeds that of a bolt action target, sniper or hunting rifle.  The one thing a rifle shooter seeks more than anything else is accuracy.


So, these are the reasons with the AR15 and AR10 designs are the best selling rifles in the country.  This is the truth about them.  This is why we own them and why when the administration tries to ban them, they will find themselves facing a lot of political opposition from average gun owners who know the truth: If they can ban the AR15 because of how it looks, even though it kills fewer people than bare hands, they can ban anything.

If they can ban guns that are so seldom used in murders, that when they are used the range is usually so close that a semi-auto pistol would be just as effective, than handguns will be next - because they are the number one murder weapon used in America.

We gun owners are willing to talk and we are willing to listen.  We will see if the administration and the gun control advocates are willing to do the same, however since they have not done so in many, many years, I will not hold my breath.

Saturday, December 22, 2012

The Real Problem: A Completely Broken Mental Health System

Predictably, the media and the left have focused up one aspect of the tragic mass murders: Firearms.  There have been calls for radical gun control measures that almost certainly violate the 2nd Amendment - and even calls for its' repeal.

Massively under covered and under discussed is the US mental health system, even though every one of the recent shooters had mental health issues.  

For instance, did you know that:


1) Connecticut is one of the most difficult states in which to force a mentally ill person to get help.  According to this article: "A senior law enforcement official confirmed Lanza's anger at his mother over plans for "his future mental health treatment" is being looked at as a possible motive. Police said they had no evidence Lanza had been medicated when the killings occurred. But even if Lanza had a proven history of mental illness, having him forcibly committed would have been nearly impossible."

Not only did Adam Lanza's mother face an impossible task in attempting to get him committed - Connecticut's Democratic legislature actually killed a bill that would have enabled her to do just that in the last legislative session.

The biggest lesson here: Connecticut - the site of the Newtown school massacre - has some of the tightest gun laws in the nation and the some of the worst mental health commitment laws.   Why is the national media and the political left only talking about more gun control? 

Many other states are just as bad.


2) This issue bears directly on the effectiveness of our gun control laws - making them much less effective.

Most people do not realize that a mental health commitment of two weeks or longer triggers a lifetime prohibition on firearms ownership, under Federal law.  It also triggers a requirement that the state report the commitment to the FBI for inclusion in the background check database.  This ensures that if the person who has been committed attempts to buy a firearm at a dealer, they will be rejected and can actually be prosecuted and jailed for the attempt.

Gun control advocates are pushing for an expansion of the background check requirements to private sales - but none of them are talking about the flaws in the mental health system that sabotage the current background check system


3) The number of in patient mental health beds - the places where people can be committed for initial treatment, evaluation and stabilization - has declined from 525,000 in 1970 to 212,000 in 2002.    Since 1970, our population has increased by 38%.  This results in patients being released before they are ready - if they are even admitted.

Even in states that have better laws than Connecticut - such as my native state of California - the lack of beds often results in people being released who should be admitted.  I saw this again and again during my years as an EMT and paramedic.


4) The ACLU is largely responsible for the lack of good mental health commitment laws - because they have opposed ANY forced mental health treatment - often succeeding in preventing such laws,  according to this article from Mental Illness Policy Org.  The article also reports that the ACLU has done everything they could to empty every mental hospital.

Given this fact, is it any surprise that the ACLU is opposed to gun rights?  Is it any surprise that the left doesn't want to talk about the crisis in mental health care they have created?


Sadly, the left is only interested in accomplishing one thing: More limits on the gun rights of sane, law abiding citizens.  They are not interested in facts and they have no regard for the truth. If they did, they would focus on mental health, not guns - since we already have thousands of gun laws.  The latest school massacre happened in a state with tight gun laws and poor mental health laws.  Should that not be a lesson for us?


In this article, Dr. Keith Ablow outlines how our mental health system can be repaired.  In the article Dr. Ablow states that:


"The tragedies in Aurora, Colorado and in Newtown, Connecticut and the shooting of Congressman Gabrielle Giffords and President Reagan and thousands of murders around the country might well have been prevented if the mental health care system were appropriately robust and paid special attention to those at risk for violence."

He's right,




Friday, December 21, 2012

What Can Be Done To Reduce Mass Murder Incidents?

In my previous post, I clearly established that the three gun control measures being pushed in the wake of the Newtown Connecticut school shooting (Assault Weapons Ban, Magazine Capacity Limits, and Background Checks on Private Sales) would have had zero effect on ANY of the recent mass shootings.  In this post, I will suggest measures that actually have a chance of reducing the number and effect of these horrible incidents.

First of all, we need to take a long look at the Mental Health Issues.  The most common thread in the lives of these murderers is that they exhibited bizarre behavior.  This was true in Virginia Tech, the Giffords shooting, the Colorado theater shooting and the horrible incident in Newtown.  Other measures may reduce the effects of these incidents, but the only way to completely stop these killings is to identify and stop the people who are prone to committing them.  Let's consider the lessons from the recent tragedies:

Virginia Tech: In this case, the shooter actually passed a background check because the courts did not report his commitment to a mental hospital because of "privacy concerns".  In the wake of this, the NRA successfully pushed for a Federal law that required that such commitments, which prohibit a person from owning a firearm for life, be reported to the FBI and be added to the background check database.  Since then, concerns have been expressed that states have been slow to report such commitments - we need to make sure states are actually doing doing this.

The Giffords Shooting: In this case the shooter was acting so bizarrely that he was expelled from the local Junior College - but in spite of approximately 20 contacts with law enforcement, not one officer sent him to the hospital for a mental health evaluation.   We need to find out why they did not do so, and states need to consider expanding the circumstances under which officers can send people to a mental health facility for evaluation.

The Colorado Theater Shooting: In this case the shooter was actually under the care of a mental health professional.  We need to find out why she did not realize the depth of his mental illness, and if he broke off treatment what options were available to the doctor and what she did and did not do.  This incident happened because the mental health system totally failed.  We need to find out why the doctor treating him failed to recognize and report his condition.

The Newtown School Shooting: In this case, there are reports that the shooter was about to be committed to an institution by his mother.  He was also known by the community to have acted bizarrely in public.  All of this needs to be investigated.  What difficulties did his mother face in committing him?  Do we need to enable a relative to commit a family member for evaluation by mental health professionals?  As in the Giffords shooting, do we need to expand the criteria under which law enforcement may send someone in for evaluation?

Our first line of defense is our mental health system.  We need to strengthen it.


Second, we need to examine ways to deter these mass murders, and when that fails, how to stop them as soon as possible.

The Law Of The Second Gun: This is how law enforcement trainers frequently express the fact that in nearly every mass shooting, the killing stops when the shooter faces armed opposition.  These shooters have thought and planned for a long time.  They have already decided how they want it to end.  When they encounter the first armed opposition, they know they are in danger of loosing control, so they carryout that plan.  Usually, this means they commit suicide, sometimes they surrender - but the vast majority of the time the killing stops. Any solution that fails to recognize that a gun in the hands of a screened and trained individual both ends and deters these mass murders will fail.

The first step is to look at why these incidents happen where they happen.  Nearly all of these shootings take place in so called "gun free zones".  According to John Lott, a researcher and professor at the University of Chicago, this is true in literally 99.5% of cases. 

What do I mean by gun free zones?  Gun free zones are places where screened, trained and licensed citizens (as well as off duty cops) are prohibited from carrying firearms - but there is absolutely nothing to prevent a criminal from entering with a gun.  These areas are a creation of the gun control lobby - they pressure businesses to prohibit the lawful carrying of firearms, claiming that this will promote safety, when they in fact know that it does just the opposite. Think for a minute: Mass shootings do not happen in real gun free zones (such as the sterile areas of airports) because there is enforcement.  They also do not happen at firing ranges or gun stores because most people are armed.  They are happening in what I like to call "phony gun free zones"  - 99.5% of the time - because these killers are choosing them in order to avoid facing armed opposition.  Gun free zones are killing fields created by the gun control lobby and we must do something about them.

First, let's look at the "gun free killing fields" we have created in our public K-12 schools.  As we do so, we need to consider the experiences of two countries and one state:

China: After a series of school mass murders committed with knives and clubs (China bans ALL private firearms), China made the decision to station an armed guard at every school.  A guard stopped such an attack, before anyone was killed, on the same day as the Newtown shooting.

Israel: This nation's schools face a worse threat than crazies - terrorism.   They have effectively stopped school shootings by: 1) Posting trained and armed security guards at every school.  If there is no guard, school is canceled for the day.  2) The armed guards are backed up by armed teachers who have concealed carry permits.  3) When students go on field trips, some of the teachers are armed.  This has stopped school shootings and there have been none of the problems predicted by the gun control lobby.

Utah: For the past fifteen years, the state of Utah has authorized teachers with concealed weapons permits to carry in the class room.  They even allow teachers without permits to carry with a simple authorization by the school's principle.  Not only have there been no negative incidents associated with this policy, there have been no school shooting murders.  Not even one.  It appears that the knowledge that they will face armed opposition has prevented these incidents.

In addition to the above, consider the following:  We have thousands of volunteer Firefighters, EMTs, Paramedics and even Police Officers - all of whom we trust in life and death situations.  In addition a huge portion of our military is composed of reserves and the National Guard.  It is therefore a complete departure from reality to contend that volunteers from the school staff cannot be trained to serve as armed security in emergencies.  it is also an insult to teachers.

With all of the above in mind, I propose the following plan - which has been proven to work in China, Utah and Israel:

1) Place armed police officers in as many schools as possible.  They should be on patrol - not placed at a stationary post where a shooter can easily take them out.  If there are not enough officers to station one per school, they should be randomly rotated through the schools in such a way that a potential mass murderer cannot easily know that there is or is not an officer on campus.  If China - a totalitarian nation with no private guns - stations guards at every school to protect the children, should we do less?

2) Train and equip volunteer teachers and staff to really protect students in emergencies.  The brave actions by teachers at Newtown were futile because the had to face an armed killer with bare hands.  It is absolutely absurd to contend that teachers cannot be trained to properly handle firearms.  Is this not an insult to these fine professionals?  Are not many teachers and staff veterans, retired cops, retired military, reserve police officers, and members of the Guard and Reserve?  If they can function in these roles, why are they incapable of protecting students after they have been properly trained?  Remember, these people do not need most of the skills a cop needs - they only need a small sub set of them.  Remember this has worked in Israel, so we are not reinventing the wheel.

These people do not need to carry firearms in order to both provide deterrence and end any shootings that may happen.  Even though we know that teachers actually carrying firearms has resulted in zero problems in Utah, there are alternatives that avoid this but still provide for an immediate, armed response.  I would propose that in districts where people are concerned about teachers carrying weapons in the classroom, that they remain in bio-metrically secured safes, accessible only to the trained individuals.  These safes could be set to send an alarm to police dispatch when they are opened - thus insuring that police respond every time the weapon is accessed.  This should eliminate any concerns about students gaining access to the volunteer security officer's weapon, while providing nearly instant access in an emergency.

We demand that schools be ready to deal with fires and medical emergencies - it's time to demand the same abilities in regards to those who want to kill our kids.

Having proposed the above in regards to schools, I now turn to the matter of other public places.

First, experience has taught us that real gun free zones - such as the "sterile" areas in airports - are in fact very safe.  It has also taught us that gun free zones consisting of only a sign have the effect of attracting mass killers.  Something must be done to address the matter of unsecured "gun free zones".

I propose that states strongly consider passing laws that require any place or business open to the public, that chooses to ban the legal carrying of firearms by licensed persons, to actually secure that public space to prevent the illegal carrying of firearms.   Failing this, they should pass laws that make those who create phony gun free zones legally responsible for the totally predictable results.  It's time to get rid of the signs that do nothing to make people safer, but in fact have the opposite effect.

Additionally, those in charge of public areas such and theaters and shopping malls should be exempted from legal liability if they either provide a true gun free zone (with screening and enforcement) or if they permit people with concealed carry permits to carry firearms.

These measures would have stopped or at least limited both the Colorado theater shooting and the Oregon mall shooting.  It's time to look at the other side of the equation: The ability of people to defend themselves.

Finally, it's time for the President and Congress to take action in regards to concealed carry permits.  There are two realities that we all must face in regards to this issue:

1) The Supreme Court is very likely to affirm that the right to carry is secured by the 2nd Amendment in the near future.  Two Federal Appeals Courts have already made such rulings.  It seems highly unlikely that the Supreme Court would rule that the 2nd Amendment only protects the right to keep firearms, when them Amendment specifically speaks of the right to carry firearms as well. Hopefully, they will rule that government may require permits and training - but since four states do not have this requirement and simply allow anyone legally able to own a gun to carry, it is possible that they will rule that a permit is unnecessary.

2) Permit requirements vary greatly from state to state.  The situation is somewhat similar to drivers licenses in the early days of automobiles.  The Federal government could raise standards for permits by setting minimum training and background check requirements for permits by mandating that permits issued in states that meet these requirements be recognized nation wide (provided they are issued by the permit holder's state of residence).  

We know from 25 years of experience in 41 states that crime is lowered and lives are saved when law abiding, trained citizens are permitted to carry.  The blood baths predicted by anti-gun rights groups when each of the 39 states changed their laws to allow trained citizens to carry NEVER HAPPENED.  How many times to we need to prove these people wrong?  We are rapidly running out of states to demonstrate this truth, since 41 states now issue permits to anyone who meets the background and training requirements.

 If President Obama and the Democrats are smart - if they really want a conversation - then this is something they could offer gun rights advocates in return for say, background checks on private sales.  Sadly, chances are that gun control advocates are not interested in a conversation. They have no interest in listening, no interest in the facts, and no concern for the Constitution.  They do not care that people have died in the killing fields falsely called "gun free zones" they have urged others to create.  They do not care that none of the measures they are pushing would have had any effect upon any of the recent shootings.  They only want to push measures that advance their real agenda: A total ban on firearms.

When the measures that they are proposing now do no good, they will always be able to propose more restrictive measures.  They are already talking about repealing the 2nd Amendment.

The gun control lobby can prove me wrong by actually being reasonable and listening to our concerns and working for measures we can all support.  I'm not holding my breath.


Thursday, December 20, 2012

Which Proposed Gun Control Measures Would Have Made A Difference?

In the wake of the horrible events in Newtown Connecticut, as well as the other recent mass shootings, we are hearing calls for gun control measures - but would any of them have made a difference, or are gun control advocates simply exploiting this tragedy?

Let's examine each of these proposals and ask the question, "Would this really have helped in any of the shootings, had they been in effect?"

Proposal One: Ban So Called Assault Weapons.  Assault Weapons were not involved in either Virginia Tech  or the Giffords Shooting, so banning them would not have helped in these cases.  That leaves the Colorado theater shooting and the Newtown school shooting.  In both of these cases, the range was short and just as much damage could have been inflicted with any semi-automatic firearm, including a semi-automatic pistol - a weapon that was also used by the Newtown and Colorado shooters.  Indeed, this is what the vast majority of mass shooters use.  Additionally, when the Federal Assault Weapons Ban was in effect, it had absolutely no effect on crime or mass shootings, according to the FBI.  Sadly, you do not need an assault rifle - designed to hit targets out to 300 meters - to kill little children in a classroom or people in a theater, so banning them would have had zero effect.  This is confirmed in this government funded report to the Department of Justice.

Proposal Two: Limit Size of Magazines.  This measure was also in effect from 1994-2004.  It also had no effect, according to the FBI.  It did not reduce crime.  It did not reduce the number of people killed in mass shootings, or even the number of times people were shot.  Results in California, appear to be the same.  Why is this?  Why does reducing magazine capcity have no effect?

The answer is simple: Modern semi-auto pistols are designed to enable very fast magazine changes.  In what is frequently called a "tactical reload" a shooter who believes that they are near the end of a magazine's capacity simply accesses a magazine with one hand, while pressing the magazine release with the other.  The magazine drops free due to gravity and the shooter inserts the new magazine.  Time required?  Less than one second.  In addition, with most semi-auto pistols, the round that remains in the firing chamber can be fired during this time if necessary.  The gun is never "out of action".

In at least two recent cases, the shooters choice to use 'hi-capacity magazines" actually saved lives.  In the Giffords shooting, the shooter used a standard Glock factory magazine to fire his first shots.  He then changed to a "hyper-capacity" 30 round magazine, which promptly jammed allowing members of the crowd to attack and subdue him.  In the recent Oregon mall shooting, a hi-capacity magazine also jammed enabling many to escape.

The bottom line is that limiting magazine capacity would not have saved any lives - and ironically could have cost lives in two cases.  This is also confirmed by the same report to the DOJ.

Proposal Three: Require background checks on private sales.  Currently, federal law requires a FBI background check on all sales made at a licensed dealer.  The matter of sales made between two private parties within a state is left up to that state.  Many states do require that these sales be conducted through a dealer (including Connecticut).  Others allow sales only between people who know each other well enough to reasonably believe that they are "of good character".  Still others allow sales between any two people, regardless of how little they may be acquainted with each other.

On the news, you may hear talk of  "unlicensed dealers" being able to conduct business within the law.  This is completely false.  ANY person selling firearms for profit is required to have a 01 Federal Firearms License (FFL).  Being "in the business of selling firearms" without one is a federal felony.  The fact that some people may be doing this at gun shows or other places is an example of how the ATF is failing to do it's job.  I hold a 03 FFL (collectors license).  While this allows me to buy and sell older, collectible firearms, I am only allowed to do so "in furtherance of the collection".  I have to keep records, file reports and I am subject to inspection.  If my pattern of buying and selling indicates that I am doing so for profit, I am likely to be awarded a very long vacation at "Club Fed".

Moving on to the issue at had, would any of these mass murderers have been stopped by requiring a background check on all sales?  Absolutely not.  Every single one of these shooters (or in the case of Connecticut, the shooters mother) was subjected to a Federal background check which they passed.  In the Colorado shooting, the mass murderer also had passed a state background check.  In Connecticut, the shooter's mother had to obtain a state license before she could buy a firearm.  In every other mass shooting in the recent past, a Federal background check was passed.

Which one of these proposals, if they had been in place, would have stopped, or even helped to reduce the effect of, any of the recent shootings: None of them.

So - why is there now a "full court press" to pass laws that those pushing them know will do nothing to stop these mass shootings?  Simple: Those pushing these laws are exploiting these horrible tragedies to advance their agenda.

What is their agenda?  In addition to the above, what else is possible?

The agenda of all of the main line gun control groups is gun control like what is in effect in the UK: Total ban on handguns, ban on all semi-auto firearms, extreme controls on rifles and only slightly less restrictive controls on shotguns.  This is revealed by their support of the D.C. and Chicago handgun bans and their constant praising of UK gun controls - which have still not stopped mass shootings there.  They see the current tragedy as an opportunity to "advance the ball".  When these measures accomplish nothing, they can call for even more restrictions.  They can keep this up until they get rid of nearly all firearms.  This is exactly what happened in the UK. 

But, under the current Bill of Rights, what is possible?  What additional gun laws are possible?  Answer: Probably none.  The Supreme Court has held that the 2nd Amendment protects a personal right, and that this right is "fundamental to our system of ordered liberty".  They have ruled out the kind of gun laws that the organizations really want: Handgun ban, requirement to demonstrate a "need" to own a firearm, etc.  In fact, there is a very good chance that the "assault weapons ban" may also be ruled unconstitutional - since all rifles, including so called assault rifles, are used to murder less often than blunt objects and bare hands.  In deed, there is a very good chance that the high court will soon rule that there is a constitutional right carry firearms (hopefully with a permit).

This is why there are more and more calls from these groups and their supporters for the repeal of the 2nd Amendment.  Since only 1/4 of states can stop it, this will not happen.

If we are looking for measures that will help prevent mass murder incidents, none of these proposals will help.  They are worse than doing nothing, because they will give people the false impression that effective action has been taken, when it has not.  In my next post, I will suggest measures that may actually help to prevent mass murders.

Tuesday, December 18, 2012

Gun and Gun Control Facts Test - How Much Do You Really Know?


In the wake of the latest horrible tragedy, Pres. Obama has asked for a “national conversation” on the issue of guns and gun violence.  The following test will enable you to see how much you know about this important issue, before the debate begins.  Please consider printing it out and taking it.  There is a link to the answer sheet at the bottom of this very long page.  Information is power!

1) If the assault weapons ban had remained in effect, including its’ restrictions on magazine capacity, the shootings in Arizona, Colorado, and Connecticut would have been prevented or at least lives would have been saved.

True          False


2) The Federal Assault Weapons ban, in effect from 1994 to 2004, banned  “assault weapons” and large capacity magazines.  This law:

a) Reduced Crime and Mass Shootings

b) Increased Crime and Mass Shootings

c) Had no measurable effect upon crime and mass shootings


3) The NRA has opposed all gun control laws.

True       False


4) Since the 2nd Amendment refers only to the National Guard, it presents no obstacles to gun control laws.

True      False


5) Assault Weapons are likely not protected by the 2nd Amendment.

True         False


6) The 2nd Amendment probably doesn’t prohibit gun registration.

True      False


7) Since we live in a modern age, with modern weapons, the militia purpose of the 2nd Amendment is irrelevant.

True     False


8) “Assault Weapons” are machine guns.

True    False


9) “Assault Weapons” have significantly more firepower than other semi-automatic firearms.

True     False


10) Semi-auto weapons can be fired accurately much more quickly than other guns available to the public.

True     False


11) Limits on magazine capacity are probably constitutional if the limits are reasonable.

True      False


12) Banning large capacity magazines will reduce the firepower of criminals and mass murderers.

True      False


13) Assault rifles are used as murder weapons:

a) Frequently

b) Infrequently

c) Less often than bare hands


14) The United States is the only modern, Western nation in which military style semi-automatic firearms may legally owned by civilians.  The United States is also has the highest percentage of homes in which firearms are present.

True     False


15) Rifles with magazine capacities greater than 15 rounds have been around for 150 years.

True      False


16) Most gun owners are hunters – the 2nd amendment is about protecting their rights.

True     False


17) Most mass shootings take place in places where screened, trained, and licensed citizens and off duty police are forbidden to carry firearms.

True      False


18) The vast majority of mass shootings are ended when:

a) The shooter runs out of ammunition

b) The shooter runs out of people to kill

c) The shooter is tackled by a bystander

d) The shooter is confronted with armed opposition


19) Other countries, with much tighter gun control laws, do not experience mass shootings.

True      False


20) The rate of legal firearms ownership in a state or city is related to violent crime in that:

a) The more guns are legally owned, the higher the crime rate

b) The more guns are legally owned, the lower the crime rate


21) It is easy for prohibited persons to buy firearms from a dealer in the US.

True       False


22) Connecticut’s loose gun laws contributed to the recent school shooting there.

True      False


23) States with more restrictive gun laws experience:

a) More mass shootings

b) Fewer mass shootings

c) About the same number of mass shootings


24) The AR15 rifle is the most popular rifle in the US and is widely used in target shooting, competitive shooting, self-defense and even hunting.

True     False


25) Leading gun control groups only want to ban assault weapons and high capacity magazines.

True        False


Gun and Gun Control Facts Test - Answers


Answers:

1) If the assault weapons ban had remained in effect, including its’ restrictions on magazine capacity, the shootings in Arizona, Colorado, and Connecticut would have been prevented or at least lives would have been saved .

Answer: False 


None of these shootings required the use of anything more than a semi-automatic handgun with 10 round interchangeable magazines.  So called assault weapons – a very imprecise term – are not any more lethal at the ranges involved and magazine can be changed so quickly that capacity is nearly irrelevant.  It should also be noted that the Supreme Court has ruled that these weapons are protected by the 2nd Amendment and cannot be banned.

2) The Federal Assault Weapons ban, in effect from 1994 to 2004, banned  “assault weapons” and large capacity magazines.  This law:

a) Reduced Crime and Mass Shootings


b) Increased Crime and Mass Shootings


c) Had no measurable effect upon crime and mass shootings


Answer: “c” 


This ban, which was intentionally written to sunset after 10 years in order to determine if it would have an effect, had no effect on either crime or mass shootings.  It did not even reduce the number of times victims were shot.

3) The NRA has opposed all gun control laws.

Answer: False  

The NRA supported both the federal background check system (the original Brady bill in its’ final form) and the “fix” after Virginia Tech that added mental health commitments to the background check database.  The NRA has also supported state laws that require permits in order to carry a loaded firearm.  These actions have drawn criticism from other gun rights groups and has cost the organization both members and support.

4) Since the 2nd Amendment refers only to the National Guard, it presents no obstacles to gun control laws.

Answer: False  


Although this was a widely held opinion in the past, the Supreme Court never established this.  Given that the National Guard was not established until the early 1900s, this is not possible.  Although it does refer to a militia, in the past this included all able bodied males and today legally includes all able bodied males between 18 and 45.

The operative clause in the 2nd Amendment (“the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”) has been established by the Supreme Court to protect a personal, individual right to own firearms covered by the Amendment. (Heller 2008).  Furthermore, in the McDonald decision (2010) the high court found that this right also restricted state and local governments, and held that it was “fundamental to our system of ordered liberty” – placing it on the same level has our other basic freedoms such as freedom of press, speech and religion.  The court did hold that laws prohibiting possession by felons and carrying in ‘sensitive places” do not violate the 2nd Amendment.

5) Assault Weapons are likely not protected by the 2nd Amendment.

Answer: False  

Because of the relationship of the 2nd Amendment to the militia, in 1939 the Supreme Court held that a firearm was not covered by the 2nd Amendment unless it had military value.  Justice Blackman, in a dissenting opinion in the Heller case (2008), stated that because the intent of the 2nd Amendment was to permit the average citizen to own the basic individual weapon of the soldier, rifles such as the AR15 are likely protected because they are the current basic weapon of the individual soldier.   Furthermore, in the Heller case, the majority held that firearms are protected by the 2nd Amendment if large numbers of Americans choose to own them.  The AR15 is the highest selling rifle in America.  It is therefore likely that banning such weapons would be prohibited by the 2nd Amendment.  We all await a test case and decision from the high court.

6) The 2nd Amendment probably doesn’t prohibit gun registration.

Answer: True   


Since one of the reasons that the 2nd Amendment was included in the Bill of Rights was to enable the citizens to be called upon in an emergency, as a citizen militia, it only makes sense they need to know who has them.  In the past, militia members had to report, or muster, at least once a year.  Basically, this was every adult male in the community.  At the muster, the privately owned guns were inspected by an agent of the state government and the type and ownership was recorded.  If this was permissible, than registration likely is too.  The state governments cannot call these weapons into service if they do not know who has them.

7) Since we live in a modern age, with modern weapons, the militia purpose of the 2nd Amendment is irrelevant.

Answer: False


Under current US law, every adult male between 18 and 45 is part of the “unorganized militia”, subject to being called upon in the event of a grave emergency.  The US has never had to call upon the unorganized militia – but the UK has.  During WW2, after Dunkirk, under threat of invasion, the UK called up ordinary citizens and formed the “Home Guard”.  Their biggest problem was a lack of weapons.  Many had nothing more than pitchforks or broomsticks.  The Army needed all the output of the weapons factories to re-equip the army that had lost almost everything at Dunkirk.   Initially, the only guns the Home Guard had were a few shotguns and civilian guns donated by the American gun owners via an NRA program.  Although there was not any invasion, the Home Guard had to hunt down shot down German crews who were better armed than they were. Given these facts, it is not impossible that the US might need to call up the citizen militia.

8) “Assault Weapons” are machine guns.

Answer: False


Although “real” assault weapons are in fact machine guns, when used in the context of US gun laws, it always refers to a semi-automatic weapon, usually a rifle.  Gun control advocates often use the fact that they look nearly identical to the military versions to promote the misconception that they actually are the fully automatic, military only versions – sometimes going so far as to show the fully automatic version firing and then cutting to the semi-auto version with no explanation of the difference.

9) “Assault Weapons” have significantly more firepower than other semi-automatic firearms.

Answer: False


Setting aside that matter of magazine capacity, since both can accept magazines with a variety of capacities, semi-automatic rifles and pistols classed as “assault weapons” fire no more quickly than semi-automatics that are not classed as “assault weapons”.  The difference is purely cosmetic.

10) Semi-auto weapons can be fired accurately much more quickly than other guns available to the public.

Answer: False


Although a semiautomatic rifles and shotguns can fire additional shots very quickly, other types of guns can be fired almost as quickly.  A pump action can be fired very quickly – at nearly the same speed as a semi-auto (experts have fired 5 rounds in one second), and lever actions are not far behind.  The reason no one is talking about banning these weapons (yet) is because they have been used as hunting weapons for over 150 years.  However, if semi-automatics are banned, they will be next because they already have been used in mass shootings and have proven very nearly as deadly.

11) Limits on magazine capacity are probably constitutional if the limits are reasonable.

Answer: True


It would be hard for a gun rights advocate to convince the court that there is a Constitutional right to a 30 to 100 round magazine.  After all, the firearm is still fully functional with a smaller magazine.  The real question the courts would have to decide is at what point does restricting magazine capacity so cripple a firearm that it is a 2nd Amendment violation.  My guess is that gun control advocates would have a hard time convincing the courts that a limit below 10 rounds is reasonable. 

12) Banning large capacity magazines will reduce the firepower of criminals and mass murderers.

Answer: False


The problem with a magazine capacity limit is two fold.  First, every one that has been proposed or actually implemented has left millions of “pre-ban” full capacity magazines in circulation.  It is simply legally, politically and physically impossible to confiscate them.   Second, modern firearms are designed to enable rapid magazine changes.  In many cases a button is simply pushed, the empty magazine drops and you can insert the new magazine.  With practice, it can be done in less than one second.    As someone who lives in a state with a current ten round limit, I can confirm this.  This is the reason why previous Federal 10 round limit, which ended in 1994 had no measurable effect on murders, mass murders. Or even the number of times victims were shot.

13) Assault rifles are used as murder weapons:

a) Frequently


b) Infrequently


c) Less often than bare hands


Answer: “c”


FBI statistics do not distinguish between types of rifles used in murders.  Everything from single shot .22s to semi-auto high-powered rifles are put into one category.  Even counting every time any kind of rifle was used in a homicide, rifles are used less often than handguns, knives, blunt objects and even bare hands.

14) The United States is the only modern, Western nation in which military style semi-automatic firearms may legally owned by civilians.  The United States is also has the highest percentage of homes in which firearms are present.

Answer: False


The United States does have the highest rate of firearms ownership in the world.  However, another nation has a higher percentage of households in which a firearm is present, and a far higher percentage of households in which a military semi or fully automatic firearm is physically present.  That nation is Switzerland.  Yes, Switzerland.

Switzerland ranks 2nd in the percentage of firearms owning households, only slightly behind the US.   However, there is something that makes the difference: Members of the massive Swiss reserve military, are permitted – and in fact encouraged – to take their personal military weapons (which are fully automatic and comparable to our M-16) home with them.  In addition, when they have fully completed their time in the reserves, they are offered the opportunity to buy and keep that same rifle (after it is converted to semi-automatic). Most Swiss homes have several rifles, all ex-military.  Their laws regarding private sales and ownership are less restrictive than most US states.

In spite of all those guns, or perhaps partly because of them, Switzerland has one of the lowest rates of violent crime and crime period.  Number of mass shootings in their entire history: Exactly one.

15) Rifles with magazine capacities greater than 15 rounds have been around for 150 years.

Answer: True


Lever and pump action rifles made as far back as the 1860s would be classified as having “hi-capacity” magazines if made today.  Without special exemptions, they would be classed as assault weapons under California law.

16) Most gun owners are hunters – the 2nd amendment is about protecting their rights.

Answer: False


Today the vast majority of gun owners are not hunters.  The most common firearms activity is target shooting and more people target shoot with handguns than long guns.  While hunting was extremely important when the 2nd Amendment was ratified, as noted in other answers, the 2nd Amendment was drafted to ensure that the states would be able to call on a citizen militia in time of need and to ensure that any attempt by a tyrannical central government to pervert the constitution would not succeed.  While we rightfully feel much more secure than we did then, both from outside threats and any attempted coup, the 2nd Amendment still serves the same purpose.

17) Most mass shootings take place in places where screened, trained, and licensed citizens and off duty police are forbidden to carry firearms.

Answer: True

There is strong evidence that killers intentionally choose places where legally carried firearms are prohibited.  Almost all mass shootings happen in the phony “gun free zones” where only criminals and mass murderers are allowed to carry, because they do not care about signs.  These areas are frequently established on the advice of, and under pressure by, gun control groups.  In recent years the only mass shooting that took place outside of a “gun free zone” was the Giffords shooting – and that took place outside.  All the other recent high profile shootings – and many lower profile ones – took place in these zones where the murderer knew there was little chance of anyone stopping them before they killed a lot of people.

18) The vast majority of mass shootings are ended when:

a) The shooter runs out of ammunition


b) The shooter runs out of people to kill


c) The shooter is tackled by a bystander


d) The shooter is confronted with armed opposition


Answer: “d”


The reality is that all of the above are reasons why these shootings end, but in the vast majority of these cases, the shooting and dying stops when someone else confronts the shooter with their own gun.  Sadly, it took an analysis of the Columbine massacre to learn that one person – obviously usually a cop – to end these incidents.  Since then, we have learned that it doesn’t have to be a cop.  It can be a teacher who runs to his off campus car to get his gun, or the church security guard (CCW permit holder), who confronts the shooter.  The result is still usually the same.  It ends.

Why is this?  Simple, the shooter has premeditated his or her attack.  They have planned it – including how it will end.  As soon as they are confronted with armed opposition, they almost always carry out that plan.  Usually its’ suicide – including pointing their gun at the armed opposition and getting shot as a result.  Once in a while it’s surrender.   Very rarely will they shoot it out.  Therefore, the most effective way to limit the death toll is to assure that mass shooters are confronted with armed opposition as quickly as possible.

19) Other countries, with much tighter gun control laws, do not experience mass shootings.

Answer: False


The mass shooting with the highest death toll took place in Norway – a country with very tight gun control laws.   The next highest took place in Germany – another nation with very tight laws.  Recently the in UK – a gun control paradise, with a ban on all handguns and all semiautomatic high powered rifles and very tight controls on all other guns – a man killed twelve people with double barreled shotgun and a .22 rifle.

20) The rate of legal firearms ownership in a state or city is related to violent crime in that:

a) The more guns are legally owned, the higher the crime rate


b) The more guns are legally owned, the lower the crime rate


Answer: “b”


One of the closest correlations with the crime rate is the rate of legal gun ownership.  The more guns are legally owned in a community, the lower the rate of violent crime.

21) It is easy for prohibited persons to buy firearms from a dealer in the US.

Answer: False


Every sale by a dealer requires an FBI background check.  Identification is required and the buyer must certify that he or she is not a prohibited person.  Attempting such purchases is a felony, and the process provides everything need for prosecution.

The shooter in the Connecticut shooting inquired at two different gun stores about buying firearms.  He was deterred by the fact that there would be a background check, a waiting period and probably the fact that at age 20, he could not buy a handgun – only a rifle or shotgun.

22) Connecticut’s loose gun laws contributed to the recent school shooting there.

Answer: False


According to the Brady gun control group, which rates state laws, rates Connecticut’s laws as the fourth tightest in the nation.

23) States with more restrictive gun laws experience:

a) More mass shootings


b) Fewer mass shootings


c) About the same number of mass shootings


Answer: “c”


Looking at the three states with the highest populations (CA, NY, TX), all three have approximately the same rate of mass shootings.  California and New York have some of the most restrictive laws in the nation – including the assault weapons ban now being proposed, while Texas has some of the least restrictive.  It appears that these differences have no effect on the rate or severity of mass shootings.

24) The AR15 rifle is the most popular rifle in the US and is widely used in target shooting, competitive shooting, self-defense and even hunting.

Answer: True


Gun control advocates promote the lie that rifles they class as assault weapons have “no sporting purpose” and are owned by a small number of “gun nuts”.  In reality, these are mainstream recreational and defensive firearms.  It is common for gun control advocates to state that “no one needs these firearms for self defense”.  Those living in rural areas along our border with Mexico, who face threat from cartel member armed with military grade weapons, are but one group that might beg to differ.

25) Leading gun control groups only want to ban assault weapons and high capacity magazines.

Answer: False


Gun control groups want to ban much more than hi-cap magazines and so called assault weapons.  Every major gun control group supported the 100% ban on handguns in both Washington DC and Chicago.  The former name of one of the major gun control groups is “The National Committee to Ban Handguns”.   Every major group constantly praises gun laws in the UK, where most guns available in the US are banned, gun ownership is generally restricted to the rich, and several successive gun confiscations have taken place.  Their real agenda is very clear to those who take the time to look.

Furthermore, the experience in the UK is very instructive as to how these groups operate.  First, only “military” type guns were banned and confiscated.   When that didn’t stop the mass shootings, handguns were banned and confiscated.  Now that a mass shooting has taken place involving a shotgun and a .22 rifle, guess what they now want to ban?

The tactic is simple: Propose a “reasonable” ban, when that doesn’t “work”, propose another ban, and so on until all guns are banned.  After that, they start pushing for knife bans – yes, this has happened in the UK.

Sadly, these deceptive tactics by gun control groups encourage gun rights groups to “not give an inch”.