Why is it that there is so little trust between gun owners and gun control advocates? Why are gun owners so suspicious of "reasonable" gun control laws?
In the current gun control debate, gun control groups and their allies in Congress have been careful to say, "We only want these reasonable measures, we don't want to take guns away from law abiding citizens. We don't want laws that harass or hinder responsible firearms ownership." The measures they want to take (at least for now) fall into three categories: An Assault Weapons Ban, a limit on magazine capacity and universal background checks.
My home state of California has had exactly these measures in place for decades (with the exception of the magazine limit which has been in effect for "only" 13 years). California is the model for all the proposed new laws which are - no coincidence - being pushed by California's senior Senator.
So, having enacted these measures 10-90 years ago - surely California legislators are saying, "Look see how well these laws work! They are a good model for the nation. Do this and you will solve the problem. Do this and you won't need any more restrictions." Right? Wrong!
Far from being satisfied with these laws, California's liberal Democratic 2/3's majority in the state Assembly and Senate is working to enact much, much more draconian laws designed to make owning a firearm as difficult and expensive as possible.
Consider the following proposed laws, and you will understand why gun owners have a very well founded belief that when gun control advocates are quite simply lying when they say that the measures they are now pushing are the "reasonable gun laws" that they will be satisfied with.
In 1990, California passed the Assault Weapons Ban that is the model of the ban Sen. Feinstein has proposed at a federal level. As with Sen. Feinstein's bill, the law contained a "grandfathering" provision that permitted current owners to keep their affected firearms - provided they registered them with the state. At the time, as in the current federal debate, those who said that these firearms would eventually be confiscated were characterized as a "bunch of paranoid gun nuts". That was 23 years ago. To the best of my knowledge, none of these registered weapons has ever been used in a crime. Today, a bill under consideration (AB 174) would provide for the confiscation of these firearms. Gun rights advocates have warned for decades that "registration leads to confiscation" - this bill proves that they are right.
Than there is AB 48. This bill has a number of provisions, many of which are simply designed to make owning and using any firearm as expensive and difficult as possible.
1) The law would license all ammunition vendors, require detailed record keeping on ammunition sales, and ban internet sales of ammunition. To those who are unfamiliar with the history of gun laws in the US, this sounds very reasonable. To those who are familiar - including gun control advocates - the effects are very well known.
You see, under the original Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA 1968), we had this same system nation wide for 18 years (from 1969 to 1987). When Congress looked at revising the nations gun laws in 1986, both the FBI and the ATF did not believe that this law was worth keeping. The FBI could not come up with even one case where this law had helped solve a crime. The ATF testified that they had to spend a lot of time auditing ammunition records and that this time could be better spent elsewhere. In the light of this, this section of GCA 1968 was repealed.
So, if it didn't stop crime what did it do? Well it made ammunition a lot harder to get (especially in rural areas) since many places that sold ammunition, but not firearms, simply decided it wasn't worth the hassle. It also made ammunition, much much more expensive - something that doesn't bother criminals or even mass shooters - because they use so little compared to target and competitive shooters. This law will have the same effects.
It will make ammunition a lot more expensive. Before the recent rush on ammo, a 50 round box of .22 LR ammo sold at a gun store here in California for about $7.50. At the other end of the spectrum, online sellers were offering 500 bricks for about $25.00. Doing the math, if online sales are banned, the cost of 500 rounds of .22 LR (about a days worth of shooting) will increase by 300%. Do you think this will increase or decrease recreational shooting?
Could it be that making recreational shooting more expensive is one of the main goals of AB 48?
2) It will require vendors to report all but the smallest sales of ammunition to the police. One has to wonder what the purpose of this is? Who is going to end up being reported? Criminals? They don't need very much ammo. Mass shooters? Most don't even use one box of ammo, so they won't be reported either.
The people who will be reported are those who buy and use a lot of ammo - target shooters, competitive shooters and recreational shooters. If this law passes, they will potentially be questioned by police. Remember, we are talking about a constitutionally protected activity.
What if newspapers faced questioning by police if the simply bought "too much paper"? Would this not have a chilling effect upon freedom of the press? This law is designed to discourage people from exercising their constitutional rights - pure and simple.
3) This bill also makes it illegal to repair defective 11+ capacity magazines purchased prior to the ban by making repair parts and kits illegal.
Even more outrageous, this bill makes magazines that merely "appear" to hold more than ten rounds illegal - even if they hold 10 or fewer rounds! That's right, if your magazine simply "looks wrong" you could be arrested.
AB 187 would impose a tax on ammunition - the amount currently is not stated in the bill - and direct the proceeds to "crime prevention". This is yet another effort to make shooting more expensive. It also implies that law abiding gun owners are somehow responsible for crime and should therefore pay for it.
Then there are the bills by Senator Yee - born and raised in Communist China. His chief of staff told a gun rights advocate - in a Facebook chat - that hunting rifles and shotguns should be banned. The gun rights advocate posted a screenshot online.
His first bill (SB 47) would vastly expand the number of firearms classed as assault weapons. (Pay attention everyone - once you have an "assault weapons ban", it is simple to add more and more kinds of guns.)
Senator Yee, doesn't care one bit that he swore an oath to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States". He wants gun laws like they have in China - a total ban on firearms.
Finally, the contempt that gun control advocates have for the 2nd Amendment can be seen in a statement made by former state Senate Pro Tem Don Perata in response to concerns that some of these laws just might violate the Constitution, "Don't worry about legalities - that's why we have courts."
Remember, California has had everything the anti-gun rights groups are asking at a federal level FOR DECADES - plus mandatory handgun registration and as of, January 1, 2014 long gun registration too. One would think that this would be enough - it isn't. Anything short of a total or near ban on all firearms will not satisfy the majority of gun control advocates. That is why gun owners don't trust gun control advocates. They have very good reason to believe that the real goal is the complete abolition their 2nd Amendment rights.
Thursday, January 31, 2013
Saturday, January 26, 2013
Gun Control For Dummies - A Beginner's Guide
Before you form an opinion on the current debate, shouldn't you make sure that what you think you know is really accurate?
Gun and Gun Control Facts Test - How Much Do You Really Know?
Any laws passed by the Congress and signed by the Pres. Obama are certain to be challenged by gun rights groups. Sen. Feinstein pointed out that no one challenged her last ban, in effect from 1994-2004. What has changed since then, and what constitutional challenges do gun control laws face?
What Will The Constitution Allow? New Gun Laws And Current Constitutional Law
The administration and other gun control advocates are arguing that "Assault Weapons" are not used by "sportsmen" and "target shooters" - so they should not be concerned if they are banned. So far it isn't working. Why not?
Why Virtually All Gun Owners Oppose A Ban On "Assault Weapons" - And Why You Should Too
Gun control advocates argue that by limiting magazine capacities, lives can be saved. Do the facts support this idea?
Why Magazine Capacity Limits Are Pointless
Expanding the background check system to all firearms transfers is supported by not only a majority of the public - but if the polls are to be believed, this is the only gun control measure that has the support of most gun owners. Are there any problems with the background check system? What are they, and will they result in it being ineffective?
What's Wrong With More Background Checks?
In the midst of all of this controversy, are there any steps that both sides agree on? If so, why are we not starting by enacting them?
Common Ground? 5 Gun Control Measures Both Sides Agree Upon
The current motive for gun control is the recent cluster of mass shootings. What do they all have in common and what can we do to reduce the number of such incidents?
What Can Be Done To Reduce Mass Murder Incidents?
On December 11th, 2012 a man entered the Clackamas Town Center near Happy Valley, Oregon with a stolen AR15 rifle intent upon mass murder. His killing spree was cut short after two people were killed. What caused him to stop shooting other people and take his own life?
What The National Media Left Out Of The Portland Mall Shooting Story
The purpose of gun control is supposedly to save lives. The argument is that if fewer people are allowed to own guns, there will be fewer guns and fewer guns will result in fewer murders. Do the facts support this theory?
Does Gun Control Really Save Lives?
A Point By Point Analysis Of President Obama's Executive Orders And Recommendations On Gun Violence
The Good, The Bad, The Ugly And The Missing
Why Magazine Capacity Limits Are Pointless
One of the three major gun control proposals (along with an Assault Weapons Ban, or AWB, and expanded background checks) is a 10 round limit on magazine capacity. Let's examine this idea.
First, magazines that hold more than 10 rounds are not necessarily "high capacity". Many firearms were designed, from the start, to use magazines. Most semi-auto pistols designed in the last forty years were designed to hold 15-20 rounds. Rifles, a bit more. My point is simple: With the exception of 100 round drums and the like, we are talking about a restriction on normal capacity magazines - not some after market accessory like a silencer.
Second, let's consider the motive for this restriction. The idea is that if magazine capacity is restricted it will help in two ways: First, fewer people will be shot because while the shooter stops to reload, people can get away. Second, someone will be able to overpower the shooter while he or she is reloading. One would think that a much better plan would be to allow people to actually be able to defend themselves - but the very people pushing these bans want to ban licensed concealed carry. Apparently, it's a ban thing if someone trains and otherwise prepares for such a situation, but a good thing if - after around 10 people have been shot - an unprepared person is somehow able to overpower the shooter.
So, what about the larger issue: Will restricting the capacity of magazines to ten rounds do any good? Let me give you the facts that the media won't. There is actually quite a bit of information that a person unfamiliar with firearms and their use is not likely to know.
1) Magazines Can Be Changed Very Rapidly
Most people - even those who may have fired a gun a few times - have no idea just how rapidly a magazine can be changed. How long does it take? The answer is: Well under a second.
In the video above, this expert changes magazines fast enough to shoot a target with a round out of one magazine, reload and shoot the same target again before it hits the ground. While a less experienced shooter would take longer, with a little practice (which does not require firing - and can thus be done anywhere) times of 1.0-1.5 seconds can be achieved by just about anyone who can fire a gun.
In the video above, the shooter reloads very quickly even though he "shoots the gun dry", rendering it completely empty and requiring more steps to reload it.
The bottom line is that reloading does not provide the window of opportunity that the advocates of magazine restrictions contend it does.
2) The Firearm Can Be Remain Ready To Fire While Being Reloaded
You may have noticed that in, the first video, the shooter merely ejects and replaces the magazine, leaving a round in the chamber. What you may not realize is that by doing so, the handgun is able to be fired once during the reloading process. should the need arise.
In other words, by using this method of reloading, a shooter can be ready if someone attempts to approach during that time. In short, there is no window of opportunity.
3) Magazines Are Not Difficult To Make
After all, they are little more than a sheet metal box and a spring. It is not hard to make one - or to modify an existing 10 round magazine to increase its' capacity.
4) Many Mass Shootings Have Been Committed With Restricted Capacity Magazines
I live in California, where the sale and other transfer of magazines holding more than 10 rounds have been banned since 2000. While criminals have no problem getting them, never the less, many mass shootings have been committed with 10 round magazines - most recently the Oikos University shooting.
5) A shooter can easily use more than one gun
Lets assume that the Sandy Hook gunman had been limited to ten round magazines. What options would he have had when he fired the 11th round (a ten round magazine, plus one in the chamber) from his AR15?
Well he could have simply drawn one of his two handguns and fired 11 more times. When that ran dry, he could have drawn his second handgun and fired yet another 11 rounds. That is 33 rounds without a reload.
I fairly sure that somewhere in the course of firing all those rounds, he would have found time to reload - but even if he didn't, that's more rounds fired than people who died.
So, if you thought that limiting magazines to ten rounds was a great idea before you read this, chances aren't so sure about it any more. Trust me, while you may not have known these things before you read this - most of the people who are pushing these restrictions on gun rights know full well they will have little to no effect. In fact they are counting on it.
Long before any high profile shooting, they already have their "next step" proposals drawn up and ready to go. When this doesn't work, they can push for more restrictions. If you have any doubt about that, look at New York. Before Sandy Hook, they had everything being demanded on a national level: AWB, ten round limit, mandatory background checks on all sales. What did they do after Sandy Hook? Did they say, "How good that we already have tight gun laws like the feds are talking about?" Of course not! The enacted even tighter laws - now the ten round magazines that used to be OK are banned. Now the limit is seven rounds - at least until the next shooting provides an opportunity to lower it further.
The ultimate goal? The honest gun control advocates - like Bob Beckel - will tell you: A total ban on all handguns, a ban on all semi-auto and pump rifles, a ban on all shotguns except single shots and double barrels and extremely heavy controls on the few guns they all people to own. In other words - UK style gun control. This is where they are going - the question right now is: How far will the be able to go this time in their quest to render the 2nd Amendment mute?
First, magazines that hold more than 10 rounds are not necessarily "high capacity". Many firearms were designed, from the start, to use magazines. Most semi-auto pistols designed in the last forty years were designed to hold 15-20 rounds. Rifles, a bit more. My point is simple: With the exception of 100 round drums and the like, we are talking about a restriction on normal capacity magazines - not some after market accessory like a silencer.
Second, let's consider the motive for this restriction. The idea is that if magazine capacity is restricted it will help in two ways: First, fewer people will be shot because while the shooter stops to reload, people can get away. Second, someone will be able to overpower the shooter while he or she is reloading. One would think that a much better plan would be to allow people to actually be able to defend themselves - but the very people pushing these bans want to ban licensed concealed carry. Apparently, it's a ban thing if someone trains and otherwise prepares for such a situation, but a good thing if - after around 10 people have been shot - an unprepared person is somehow able to overpower the shooter.
So, what about the larger issue: Will restricting the capacity of magazines to ten rounds do any good? Let me give you the facts that the media won't. There is actually quite a bit of information that a person unfamiliar with firearms and their use is not likely to know.
1) Magazines Can Be Changed Very Rapidly
Most people - even those who may have fired a gun a few times - have no idea just how rapidly a magazine can be changed. How long does it take? The answer is: Well under a second.
A member of the US Army's Marksmanship Unit demonstrates just
how quickly a semi-auto pistol can be reloaded
In the video above, this expert changes magazines fast enough to shoot a target with a round out of one magazine, reload and shoot the same target again before it hits the ground. While a less experienced shooter would take longer, with a little practice (which does not require firing - and can thus be done anywhere) times of 1.0-1.5 seconds can be achieved by just about anyone who can fire a gun.
An AR15 can be reloaded nearly as quickly
In the video above, the shooter reloads very quickly even though he "shoots the gun dry", rendering it completely empty and requiring more steps to reload it.
The bottom line is that reloading does not provide the window of opportunity that the advocates of magazine restrictions contend it does.
2) The Firearm Can Be Remain Ready To Fire While Being Reloaded
You may have noticed that in, the first video, the shooter merely ejects and replaces the magazine, leaving a round in the chamber. What you may not realize is that by doing so, the handgun is able to be fired once during the reloading process. should the need arise.
In other words, by using this method of reloading, a shooter can be ready if someone attempts to approach during that time. In short, there is no window of opportunity.
3) Magazines Are Not Difficult To Make
After all, they are little more than a sheet metal box and a spring. It is not hard to make one - or to modify an existing 10 round magazine to increase its' capacity.
This video shows how to make a 30 round magazine
with basic tools
4) Many Mass Shootings Have Been Committed With Restricted Capacity Magazines
I live in California, where the sale and other transfer of magazines holding more than 10 rounds have been banned since 2000. While criminals have no problem getting them, never the less, many mass shootings have been committed with 10 round magazines - most recently the Oikos University shooting.
5) A shooter can easily use more than one gun
Lets assume that the Sandy Hook gunman had been limited to ten round magazines. What options would he have had when he fired the 11th round (a ten round magazine, plus one in the chamber) from his AR15?
Well he could have simply drawn one of his two handguns and fired 11 more times. When that ran dry, he could have drawn his second handgun and fired yet another 11 rounds. That is 33 rounds without a reload.
I fairly sure that somewhere in the course of firing all those rounds, he would have found time to reload - but even if he didn't, that's more rounds fired than people who died.
So, if you thought that limiting magazines to ten rounds was a great idea before you read this, chances aren't so sure about it any more. Trust me, while you may not have known these things before you read this - most of the people who are pushing these restrictions on gun rights know full well they will have little to no effect. In fact they are counting on it.
Long before any high profile shooting, they already have their "next step" proposals drawn up and ready to go. When this doesn't work, they can push for more restrictions. If you have any doubt about that, look at New York. Before Sandy Hook, they had everything being demanded on a national level: AWB, ten round limit, mandatory background checks on all sales. What did they do after Sandy Hook? Did they say, "How good that we already have tight gun laws like the feds are talking about?" Of course not! The enacted even tighter laws - now the ten round magazines that used to be OK are banned. Now the limit is seven rounds - at least until the next shooting provides an opportunity to lower it further.
The ultimate goal? The honest gun control advocates - like Bob Beckel - will tell you: A total ban on all handguns, a ban on all semi-auto and pump rifles, a ban on all shotguns except single shots and double barrels and extremely heavy controls on the few guns they all people to own. In other words - UK style gun control. This is where they are going - the question right now is: How far will the be able to go this time in their quest to render the 2nd Amendment mute?
Thursday, January 24, 2013
Could President Obama Be Making A Huge Mistake?
President Obama is going all in for gun control - including turning the full force of his campaign on Democratic House and Senate members who were elected as being "pro-gun". Is it possible that he is making a huge mistake?
Many Democrats remember 1994. After passing a much more reasonable Assault Weapons Ban (and magazine restrictions) they lost both the House and the Senate for the first time in 50 years. Several high profile Democrats switched parties. They have spent the last 20 years recovering from that disaster - largely by allowing Dems in pro-gun areas to court gun owners. It has worked. 12 Democratic Senators (including Sen. Harry Reid) and even more Democratic Representatives are rated highly by the NRA (B, A, or A+) - while most Dems rate "F". Every one of these politicians knows that if they fold on this issue, they won't be reelected. Their political lives are on the line. They are effectively being told to commit political suicide - because this new gun ban is much, much more radical AND support for gun rights is much, much higher.
These are moderate Democrats. I think that if they are pressured hard enough, and if Republicans court them, at least some may switch parties - or go independent and caucus with the Republicans. Given a choice between voting with the Dems and against their constituent's (and perhaps their own) views, they may just decide to bolt.
Many Democrats remember 1994. After passing a much more reasonable Assault Weapons Ban (and magazine restrictions) they lost both the House and the Senate for the first time in 50 years. Several high profile Democrats switched parties. They have spent the last 20 years recovering from that disaster - largely by allowing Dems in pro-gun areas to court gun owners. It has worked. 12 Democratic Senators (including Sen. Harry Reid) and even more Democratic Representatives are rated highly by the NRA (B, A, or A+) - while most Dems rate "F". Every one of these politicians knows that if they fold on this issue, they won't be reelected. Their political lives are on the line. They are effectively being told to commit political suicide - because this new gun ban is much, much more radical AND support for gun rights is much, much higher.
These are moderate Democrats. I think that if they are pressured hard enough, and if Republicans court them, at least some may switch parties - or go independent and caucus with the Republicans. Given a choice between voting with the Dems and against their constituent's (and perhaps their own) views, they may just decide to bolt.
Monday, January 21, 2013
Why Virtually All Gun Owners Oppose A Ban On "Assault Weapons" - And Why You Should Too
The administration and gun control advocates are pushing for a ban on so called "Assault Rifles". They hope to gain support for this from gun owners, believing that most gun owners don't consider these firearms to be "sporting arms" and therefore won't mind a bit if they are banned. So far, the polls prove them wrong. Nearly every gun owner stands opposed to such a ban.
Why is this?
To understand why almost all gun owners - even those who do not own a gun that will be affected - are vehemently opposed to an "Assault Weapons" ban, you have to understand the history of the issue.
In the mid to late 1980s, gun control groups began to misapply the term "assault weapon" and "assault rifle" to modern (in design and materials) semi-automatic firearms. They did this even though these firearms are functionally no different than the semi-automatic rifle President Theodore Roosevelt used on hunts in Africa over 100 years ago (1).
The term "Assault Rifle" was coined by Adolf Hitler when he was shown a new German rifle called the MP44. This weapon was intended to replace both the sub-machine gun and the rifle in the German army. Instead of a full power rifle cartridge, it fired a cartridge about half way in power and range between a full power rifle round and a comparatively low powered pistol cartridge. Because it was intended to replace the sub-machine gun, it was made with the capability of fully automatic fire. The MP44 is the father of both the AK47 and the M16.(2)
For over 40 years, the definition of an an assault rifle was a rifle firing an intermediate power cartridge with BOTH SEMI AND FULLY AUTOMATIC FIRE OPTIONS.(2) No one considered the civilian versions of these guns "assault rifles" because they were all semi-automatic only. Then, in the 1980s, as younger shooters who had been trained on the M16 in the military began to buy the civilian versions of these rifles, THE GUN CONTROL GROUPS BEGAN TO MISUSE THE TERM.
Gun control groups began to use the term "assault rifle" or "assault weapon" to apply to any modern semi-automatic rifle of modern design made of modern materials. They love this term because it makes the guns they falsely apply it to sound especially evil. In addition, to people who are not familiar with firearms, their modern construction makes them appear very different than the older civilian firearms they may have seen, even though they still function exactly like that semi-automatic rifle Teddy Roosevelt used over 100 years ago. At this point, they have largely succeeded in convincing people that there is a significant difference between the two - when in fact there is not.
For instance, under California's strict assault rifle ban, the Ruger Mini-14, seen below, is not considered an assault rifle.
Because it has a wood stock and lacks a "pistol grip" - this rifle looks more like your grandfather's rifle. It would be very hard to ban it.
Below is a image of an AR15 pattern carbine, which is considered an assault rifle in California and under every proposed ban.
Both rifles shoot the exact same ammunition, use magazines with the same capacities and fire just as fast. Functionally they are identical. What is the difference? Simple: One is WW2 technology, while the other is 1960s to 1980s technology.
So, what makes the AR15 above an assault rifle? Well, it has an adjustable, telescoping stock to enable shooters of different statures, and shooters wearing clothing of different thicknesses.to shoot it comfortably. It also has a pistol grip, which most shooters find much more comfortable to shoot. Finally it has a combination muzzle brake (reduces recoil) and flash hider. Under California law, these features (often called "evil features") that are designed to make the rifle comfortable to shoot make this rifle illegal - even though it is the most popular firearm in the U.S. These features have been around for a very long time too.
Of course, the main reason they can get away with it is that the Ruger is made of wood and blued steel (old school materials) while the AR is made of steel, aluminum, and plastic. The difference in appearance is what enables them to convince people that this rifle is especially evil. But, as we have seen, it is a difference without a distinction.
Another reason that almost all gun owners are up in arms is that this same, dishonest tactic can just as easily be used on many other commonly owned and used firearms. A bolt action hunting rifle can just as easily be called a "sniper rifle". After all, in Vietnam, off the shelf hunting rifles were used for that very purpose. Why wouldn't most "non-gun" people buy into a ban on "sniper rifles"? Gun owners can see this one coming.
Then there is the "weapons of war do not belong in civilian hands" argument. This sounds perfectly reasonable - until you realize the implications. THERE ARE NO CIVILIAN FIREARMS IN EXISTENCE THAT HAVE NOT BEEN WEAPONS OF WAR. The lever action rifle was invented for, and used by some, Union forces during the Civil War. Bolt Action rifles were first used by the military and were the military standard from the 1890s though WW2. Semi-automatic firearms were issued to US troops during WW2. Even single shot firearms were "weapons of war", since the US Army used them from the early 1870s through the early 1900s. IF ANY RIFLE TYPE INITIALLY DESIGNED FOR AND USED BY THE MILITARY IS DISALLOWED FOR CIVILIAN USE - ALL FIREARMS WOULD BE BANNED.
Where is all of this going? What is the real reason for "Assault Weapons" bans? One of the leading advocates of gun control is the Washington Post. Consider this statement:
“No one should have any illusions about what was accomplished [by the ban]. Assault weapons play a part in only a small percentage of crime. The provision is mainly symbolic; its virtue will be if it turns out to be, as hoped, a stepping stone to broader gun control.” – Washington Post editorial, September 15, 1994
So, one of the leading newspapers pushing the original Federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB) lays it right out: "We know that this won't do anything to reduce crime - but once we get this we can move on to ban even more guns." They were certainly right about the first part, because no one argues that the 1994-2004 AWB accomplished anything. So far they have been wrong about the second part - but they are still trying.
This is why gun owners will stand united on this issue. We know that this effort to ban the most popular firearm in America is just the beginning. We know what the gun control advocates really want. They want gun control laws that mirror those in the UK: A total ban on handguns, a total ban on semi-autos and all other guns made so expensive and difficult to purchase and possess that only the very well off can afford them. We know this because they constantly hold up the UK as a shinning example of gun control at work.
INDEED THE UK IS AN EXAMPLE OF GUN CONTROL AT WORK - BUT IT IS NOT A POSITIVE EXAMPLE!
Of course, while the UK has always had a low murder rate compared to the US, there is much more to the story. Consider this story from a paper in the UK:
How bad is it? The rate of violent crime is four times that of the US. Pubs are now barred from using breakable glass mugs because fights are so common. Stabbings are so common that their have been calls for a total ban on pointed kitchen knives. The murder rate, after handguns were banned, is up - not down. The UK had a greater number of murders in 2007 than any other EU country. The murder rate per 100,000 was higher than any other western European nation, including France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Finland and Switzerland.
Think that's one isolated article? Check out this article. Here's a table from that article:
The article footnotes that table, "The U.S. has a violence rate of 466 crimes per 100,000 residents, Canada 935, Australia 92 and South Africa 1,609." Interestingly, the order of violent crime almost exactly mirrors the gun control laws, the more gun control, the higher the rate of violent crime. The US has the least restrictive laws, Canada slightly more restrictive, South Africa much more restrictive, and the UK the most restrictive. Australia is the exception, with laws slightly more restrictive than Canada.
The gun control advocates never mention violent crime rates - instead they focus exclusively on US vs. UK murder rates to "prove" that gun control "works". But they NEVER compare the UK murder rates with its' close neighbors - the other nations in and around the EU.
In 2007-2008, the UK's murder rate was 1.57 per 100,000 (better than the US), while Switzerland's murder rate was slightly less than half that (0.72)(3) - the lowest in Europe. Gun laws in Switzerland? About the same as the US.(4) Gun ownership? The Swiss are second only to the US among Western nations (if their "take home" military assault rifles are included they may have a higher rate than the US).(5)
What about other European nations? Well, Germany (0.7), France (1.35), Italy (1.16) and Austria (0.58) all have much more permissive gun laws than the UK and lower murder rates. (3) So, comparing European countries, the more gun control the higher the murder rate.
The bottom line is that everyone, gun owner or not, needs to oppose gun bans because they can be proven to make violent crime much worse - and if they can ban so called "assault weapons", they can and will ban nearly all other guns.
Want to let all of your elected representatives know that you are opposed to any future gun bans? The Ruger Firearms company has set up a web page that allows you to send a letter to every one of your representatives with only a few clicks. They will look up your representatives, address a letter to each one, print and mail it, all at no cost to you. Just click HERE.
1 - Quote from an article in Field and Stream magazine, August 1909 regarding the Roosevelt safari:
"Colonel Roosevelt is not handling toy weapons. A Mannlicher bolt-action in 9mm equipped with a telescopic sight was purchased in Germany. The (Holland & Holland) .450 cordite express was purchased in London, the .30 caliber U. S. Army (note: this is a 1903 Springfield) was made at the Springfield armory and converted into a sporting model, the .35 caliber autoloader was made by the Remington Arms Company, Ilion, and the .405 caliber repeater (note: this is a Model 1895) was made by the Winchester Repeating Arms Company of New Haven. The rest of the party is armed on lines somewhat similar, with the exception of a couple of Mausers." (note: There were a number of shotguns also in the battery, including Roosevelt's favorite Fox double gun.)
"The .35 Autoloading Remington, the other American rifle that Colonel Roosevelt is carrying, is an excellent weapon for all-round use. It carries a bullet of 200 grains which has a velocity of 2,000 feet a second. As it is the latest weapon on the market, it embraces all the inventions and improvements up to date. It is automatic in action, cocking and loading itself, and is charged from a clip that holds five cartridges. The most powerful automatic rifle made, it is a fine arm for jungle work and closer quarter shooting when there is danger, as one has five shots at his command by merely pulling the trigger after each shot. The rifle will be used on leopards, giraffes, and Kudu. In an emergency it could be used on hippos, elephants, and rhinos by a good shot who could place with certainty his bullets in the head or the heart."
2 - "An assault rifle is a selective fire (selective between fully automatic, semi-automatic, and burst fire) rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine." (Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle)
3 - European Commission (Eurostat) http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/Crime_statistics
4 - Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_gun_laws
5 - Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country
Why is this?
To understand why almost all gun owners - even those who do not own a gun that will be affected - are vehemently opposed to an "Assault Weapons" ban, you have to understand the history of the issue.
In the mid to late 1980s, gun control groups began to misapply the term "assault weapon" and "assault rifle" to modern (in design and materials) semi-automatic firearms. They did this even though these firearms are functionally no different than the semi-automatic rifle President Theodore Roosevelt used on hunts in Africa over 100 years ago (1).
A Remington Model 8 like the one was used by Teddy Roosevelt on his 1909 African hunting trip.
The term "Assault Rifle" was coined by Adolf Hitler when he was shown a new German rifle called the MP44. This weapon was intended to replace both the sub-machine gun and the rifle in the German army. Instead of a full power rifle cartridge, it fired a cartridge about half way in power and range between a full power rifle round and a comparatively low powered pistol cartridge. Because it was intended to replace the sub-machine gun, it was made with the capability of fully automatic fire. The MP44 is the father of both the AK47 and the M16.(2)
For over 40 years, the definition of an an assault rifle was a rifle firing an intermediate power cartridge with BOTH SEMI AND FULLY AUTOMATIC FIRE OPTIONS.(2) No one considered the civilian versions of these guns "assault rifles" because they were all semi-automatic only. Then, in the 1980s, as younger shooters who had been trained on the M16 in the military began to buy the civilian versions of these rifles, THE GUN CONTROL GROUPS BEGAN TO MISUSE THE TERM.
Gun control groups began to use the term "assault rifle" or "assault weapon" to apply to any modern semi-automatic rifle of modern design made of modern materials. They love this term because it makes the guns they falsely apply it to sound especially evil. In addition, to people who are not familiar with firearms, their modern construction makes them appear very different than the older civilian firearms they may have seen, even though they still function exactly like that semi-automatic rifle Teddy Roosevelt used over 100 years ago. At this point, they have largely succeeded in convincing people that there is a significant difference between the two - when in fact there is not.
For instance, under California's strict assault rifle ban, the Ruger Mini-14, seen below, is not considered an assault rifle.
Because it has a wood stock and lacks a "pistol grip" - this rifle looks more like your grandfather's rifle. It would be very hard to ban it.
Below is a image of an AR15 pattern carbine, which is considered an assault rifle in California and under every proposed ban.
Both rifles shoot the exact same ammunition, use magazines with the same capacities and fire just as fast. Functionally they are identical. What is the difference? Simple: One is WW2 technology, while the other is 1960s to 1980s technology.
So, what makes the AR15 above an assault rifle? Well, it has an adjustable, telescoping stock to enable shooters of different statures, and shooters wearing clothing of different thicknesses.to shoot it comfortably. It also has a pistol grip, which most shooters find much more comfortable to shoot. Finally it has a combination muzzle brake (reduces recoil) and flash hider. Under California law, these features (often called "evil features") that are designed to make the rifle comfortable to shoot make this rifle illegal - even though it is the most popular firearm in the U.S. These features have been around for a very long time too.
This Remington Model 8 - a 100 year old design - is equipped with a forward pistol grip and a 30 round magazine. This would classify it as a "Assault Rifle" under many state laws. However, it is still the same firearm.
Of course, the main reason they can get away with it is that the Ruger is made of wood and blued steel (old school materials) while the AR is made of steel, aluminum, and plastic. The difference in appearance is what enables them to convince people that this rifle is especially evil. But, as we have seen, it is a difference without a distinction.
Another reason that almost all gun owners are up in arms is that this same, dishonest tactic can just as easily be used on many other commonly owned and used firearms. A bolt action hunting rifle can just as easily be called a "sniper rifle". After all, in Vietnam, off the shelf hunting rifles were used for that very purpose. Why wouldn't most "non-gun" people buy into a ban on "sniper rifles"? Gun owners can see this one coming.
One of these Remington 700s is a "Sniper Rifle", the other is a "Hunting Rifle". There is no functional difference.
Then there is the "weapons of war do not belong in civilian hands" argument. This sounds perfectly reasonable - until you realize the implications. THERE ARE NO CIVILIAN FIREARMS IN EXISTENCE THAT HAVE NOT BEEN WEAPONS OF WAR. The lever action rifle was invented for, and used by some, Union forces during the Civil War. Bolt Action rifles were first used by the military and were the military standard from the 1890s though WW2. Semi-automatic firearms were issued to US troops during WW2. Even single shot firearms were "weapons of war", since the US Army used them from the early 1870s through the early 1900s. IF ANY RIFLE TYPE INITIALLY DESIGNED FOR AND USED BY THE MILITARY IS DISALLOWED FOR CIVILIAN USE - ALL FIREARMS WOULD BE BANNED.
Every one of these rifle types began as a "weapon of war". They are functionally identical to their military counterparts.
Where is all of this going? What is the real reason for "Assault Weapons" bans? One of the leading advocates of gun control is the Washington Post. Consider this statement:
“No one should have any illusions about what was accomplished [by the ban]. Assault weapons play a part in only a small percentage of crime. The provision is mainly symbolic; its virtue will be if it turns out to be, as hoped, a stepping stone to broader gun control.” – Washington Post editorial, September 15, 1994
So, one of the leading newspapers pushing the original Federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB) lays it right out: "We know that this won't do anything to reduce crime - but once we get this we can move on to ban even more guns." They were certainly right about the first part, because no one argues that the 1994-2004 AWB accomplished anything. So far they have been wrong about the second part - but they are still trying.
This is why gun owners will stand united on this issue. We know that this effort to ban the most popular firearm in America is just the beginning. We know what the gun control advocates really want. They want gun control laws that mirror those in the UK: A total ban on handguns, a total ban on semi-autos and all other guns made so expensive and difficult to purchase and possess that only the very well off can afford them. We know this because they constantly hold up the UK as a shinning example of gun control at work.
INDEED THE UK IS AN EXAMPLE OF GUN CONTROL AT WORK - BUT IT IS NOT A POSITIVE EXAMPLE!
Of course, while the UK has always had a low murder rate compared to the US, there is much more to the story. Consider this story from a paper in the UK:
How bad is it? The rate of violent crime is four times that of the US. Pubs are now barred from using breakable glass mugs because fights are so common. Stabbings are so common that their have been calls for a total ban on pointed kitchen knives. The murder rate, after handguns were banned, is up - not down. The UK had a greater number of murders in 2007 than any other EU country. The murder rate per 100,000 was higher than any other western European nation, including France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Finland and Switzerland.
Think that's one isolated article? Check out this article. Here's a table from that article:
The article footnotes that table, "The U.S. has a violence rate of 466 crimes per 100,000 residents, Canada 935, Australia 92 and South Africa 1,609." Interestingly, the order of violent crime almost exactly mirrors the gun control laws, the more gun control, the higher the rate of violent crime. The US has the least restrictive laws, Canada slightly more restrictive, South Africa much more restrictive, and the UK the most restrictive. Australia is the exception, with laws slightly more restrictive than Canada.
The gun control advocates never mention violent crime rates - instead they focus exclusively on US vs. UK murder rates to "prove" that gun control "works". But they NEVER compare the UK murder rates with its' close neighbors - the other nations in and around the EU.
In 2007-2008, the UK's murder rate was 1.57 per 100,000 (better than the US), while Switzerland's murder rate was slightly less than half that (0.72)(3) - the lowest in Europe. Gun laws in Switzerland? About the same as the US.(4) Gun ownership? The Swiss are second only to the US among Western nations (if their "take home" military assault rifles are included they may have a higher rate than the US).(5)
What about other European nations? Well, Germany (0.7), France (1.35), Italy (1.16) and Austria (0.58) all have much more permissive gun laws than the UK and lower murder rates. (3) So, comparing European countries, the more gun control the higher the murder rate.
The bottom line is that everyone, gun owner or not, needs to oppose gun bans because they can be proven to make violent crime much worse - and if they can ban so called "assault weapons", they can and will ban nearly all other guns.
Want to let all of your elected representatives know that you are opposed to any future gun bans? The Ruger Firearms company has set up a web page that allows you to send a letter to every one of your representatives with only a few clicks. They will look up your representatives, address a letter to each one, print and mail it, all at no cost to you. Just click HERE.
1 - Quote from an article in Field and Stream magazine, August 1909 regarding the Roosevelt safari:
"Colonel Roosevelt is not handling toy weapons. A Mannlicher bolt-action in 9mm equipped with a telescopic sight was purchased in Germany. The (Holland & Holland) .450 cordite express was purchased in London, the .30 caliber U. S. Army (note: this is a 1903 Springfield) was made at the Springfield armory and converted into a sporting model, the .35 caliber autoloader was made by the Remington Arms Company, Ilion, and the .405 caliber repeater (note: this is a Model 1895) was made by the Winchester Repeating Arms Company of New Haven. The rest of the party is armed on lines somewhat similar, with the exception of a couple of Mausers." (note: There were a number of shotguns also in the battery, including Roosevelt's favorite Fox double gun.)
"The .35 Autoloading Remington, the other American rifle that Colonel Roosevelt is carrying, is an excellent weapon for all-round use. It carries a bullet of 200 grains which has a velocity of 2,000 feet a second. As it is the latest weapon on the market, it embraces all the inventions and improvements up to date. It is automatic in action, cocking and loading itself, and is charged from a clip that holds five cartridges. The most powerful automatic rifle made, it is a fine arm for jungle work and closer quarter shooting when there is danger, as one has five shots at his command by merely pulling the trigger after each shot. The rifle will be used on leopards, giraffes, and Kudu. In an emergency it could be used on hippos, elephants, and rhinos by a good shot who could place with certainty his bullets in the head or the heart."
2 - "An assault rifle is a selective fire (selective between fully automatic, semi-automatic, and burst fire) rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine." (Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle)
3 - European Commission (Eurostat) http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/Crime_statistics
4 - Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_gun_laws
5 - Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country
Sunday, January 20, 2013
It’s Time For Controls On The 1st Amendment
Long, long ago, it was said that the pen is mightier then the sword. Recent events have shown us just how true those words are. We have seen violent video games – created on computers, the modern day pens – stimulate a troubled young man to kill 26 people, including 20 little children.
Of course this isn’t the only way that the extreme, absolutist view of the First Amendment hurts people. Recently, a New York newspaper published the names and addresses of gun permit holders. Now if they had limited themselves to only “normal” gun owners, publishing that data would have been a public service – but they were careless. They published the names and addresses of cops and prison guards who have gun permits. Prisoners are already walking up to guards and telling them their exact address – a veiled threat to both them and their families. Police officers are now worried that people they have arrested know exactly where to come to seek revenge. The effects of this newspapers actions will be felt for years and will likely cost several lives.
Then there is the fact that the broadcast media continues to fuel these incidents of mass murder by reporting them, complete with names and details. Hearing about such murders tends to cause other unbalanced people to plan their own massacres. If these murders were kept quiet, it is very possible that additional murders could be prevented.
Violent movies and video games are a direct cause of these incidents. What good comes from these forms of “entertainment”? How dare those who enjoy such things claim that they are somehow exercising a constitutional right? Just because the vast majority of these people watching and playing them experience no ill effects, and in fact find them a pleasant diversion from everyday life, does not mean that they should not be regulated. If even one life can be saved by banning violent movies and video games, shouldn’t we do it?
Although the courts have allowed a few limits on speech – you cannot libel others or yell fire in a crowded theater – in order to save lives and make a better nation, we need more limits – especially on the out of control internet. After all, why should anyone be able to hop on the Internet and pretend to be a journalist, any without training, qualifications or a license? The Internet has been used to distribute directions on how to build guns and bombs from common objects. It has also been used by both terror and hate groups to recruit new members and to plan attacks.
Speaking of hate groups, the 1st Amendment stands in the way of common sense regulation of religious groups. Not only does uncontrolled religion contribute to terrorism, it contributes to hate. Surely, the religions we have allowed to oppose the lifestyles of some people have lead to attacks upon them. Why should anyone be allowed to simply set up a religious organization, without having to prove they are qualified? Isn’t that how cults get started, many of which have killed people? Shouldn’t they have to prove that they are qualified and that their teachers pose no threat to the public?
Then there is the matter of pornography and rape, and sexual murders. The two are directly linked in many studies. Pornography degrades women. It causes addiction in both men and women. It causes some people to commit rape and murder. The fact that the vast majority of people who buy and watch porn do not act out in this way is irrelevant. This is yet another case where this so called “freedom” is costing people their lives. Surely the authors of the 1st Amendment could never have intended that it protect this kind of “speech”.
I could continue and talk about how the media exposes important state secrets, intrudes into people’s private lives (remember how Princess Diana died?), and even bring unsubstantiated charges against the government. Things are just out of control.
We need to remember that when the 1st Amendment was written, the only media outlet was a single sheet printing press. Each piece of paper had to be inserted one sheet at a time. Today, automatic presses spit out thousands of sheets per minute. We have radio and television, we have the Internet, and we have video games. Surely if the founders could have foreseen these things they would not have allowed such uncontrolled and destructive power.
It’s time for effective controls on speech, religion and the press. Benjamin Franklin may have said, “Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety”, but why should we listen to him? As a constitutional professor recently said, “The founders are just a bunch of old white men, who lived over 200 years ago. Why should we be guided by their words?”
It’s time for us to have the same kind of strict controls on 1st Amendment “rights” as we have on 2nd Amendment “rights”. If it saves just one life, isn't it worth it?
Saturday, January 19, 2013
How Mainstream Is The NRA?
The mainstream media is in the process of demonizing both the NRA and gun owners, as a small group of extremists. They are even comparing the NRA to the NAZIS. Word is that the administration has decided to "marginalize" the NRA.
So, what will their task be like? Who who are the people they are going after? How common is gun ownership? What does the public think of the NRA? What about its' political positions? Some recent polling sheds some light on these questions.
A popular idea among gun gun control advocates is that gun ownership is declining. When they are confronted the evidence that gun sales are booming, their reply is always the same: "It's not new gun owners, it's the same gun owners buying more guns." Well, a recent poll looked at that issue:
This supposedly "extreme" position is held by nearly two out of three Americans. Less than one in five agree with the mainstream media, that this is an "extreme" position.
Another position held by the NRA and directly opposed by gun control groups and their friends in the mainstream media, is that more guns in the hands of the law abiding leads to less crime and greater safety. Gun control groups contend that the opposite is true. What does the public believe?
Clearly, the public has rejected the gun control message that more guns equal more crime and more death, and accepted the NRA's position that crime is deterred when people can defend themselves.
Pres. Obama has focused primarily - although not exclusively - on tighter gun control laws as the primary answer to the recent outbreak of mass shootings. What does the public think? Do they think it will work?
Although they MAY be willing to try a bit tighter gun laws (more about that later), they do not think it will do a lot of good. This is why they are looking for additional solutions, not just window dressing.
So, next let's look at the various solutions that have been proposed by both the administration and the NRA. * indicates an NRA proposal.
Let's consider these results:
Only one of the administration's gun control proposals (universal background checks) has greater than 60% support, while all except one of the NRA's proposals (arming teachers) has support of 60% or better. Again, the NRA appears much more mainstream than one would think if your only information were the mainstream, liberal media.
Furthermore, at least one of the administrations gun control proposals is based on ignorance. Most "non-gun" people could not define "assault rifle" if their lives depended upon it. Why? Because the gun control groups have intentionally sowed confusion. The love the term. Assault Weapon just sounds criminal. The governor of New York stated that they are never used for hunting. He is mistaken or lying - because they are now commonly used for hunting. In addition, they have worked very hard to convince people that they are machine guns (they are not!). What they really are is simply modern, semi-automatic rifles made from modern materials. If only a small minority of those favoring the ban are informed of the absurdity of the differences between rifles that would be banned and those that would not be banned, support will likely drop below 50%.
The gun control groups have seen these polls too - and that's why they are now telling their friends in Congress to put most of their efforts into getting universal background checks. They know that this is the only one of the gun control proposals that has any chance of passing - even though it would not have helped in ANY of the recent mass shootings.
So, judge for yourself. Is the NRA the radical organization that is "out of touch with most Americans"? Or, is it the president that is out of touch?
So, what will their task be like? Who who are the people they are going after? How common is gun ownership? What does the public think of the NRA? What about its' political positions? Some recent polling sheds some light on these questions.
A popular idea among gun gun control advocates is that gun ownership is declining. When they are confronted the evidence that gun sales are booming, their reply is always the same: "It's not new gun owners, it's the same gun owners buying more guns." Well, a recent poll looked at that issue:
So, far from declining, the number of households willing to tell a polling firm that they own guns is up from 40% to 52% in the past 14 years (a 30% increase). This is even more significant when one remembers that the 2012 polling was done in the wake of the Newtown shooting and that most pollsters believe that gun ownership is under greatly under-reported at any time. The number of gun owning households is almost certainly significantly higher - perhaps much higher.
One might ask, what has happened to crime while more and more guns were being purchased. FBI statistics give us a very clear answer:
So, we have looked at gun owners - now well over half of households - now let's look at the opinion that people have of the NRA, post Newtown:
Here we see that the percentage of people having a favorable opinion of the NRA, tracks very closely to the percentage of people owning firearms. This indicates that gun owners believe that the NRA is doing a good job of representing their interests. It also proves that in spite of decades of demonization by the main stream media, they remain very much a mainstream organization.
Speaking of the media, of all positions taken by the NRA, none is more mocked by the media then their position that the 2nd Amendment is a safeguard against a tyrannical government that might decide to trample the rights of the people. This position, more than any other, is cited - even by some conservatives - as evidence of the NRA's "extremism". But is this view, extreme or mainstream? Well, the polls clearly answer this question.
Another position held by the NRA and directly opposed by gun control groups and their friends in the mainstream media, is that more guns in the hands of the law abiding leads to less crime and greater safety. Gun control groups contend that the opposite is true. What does the public believe?
Clearly, the public has rejected the gun control message that more guns equal more crime and more death, and accepted the NRA's position that crime is deterred when people can defend themselves.
Pres. Obama has focused primarily - although not exclusively - on tighter gun control laws as the primary answer to the recent outbreak of mass shootings. What does the public think? Do they think it will work?
Although they MAY be willing to try a bit tighter gun laws (more about that later), they do not think it will do a lot of good. This is why they are looking for additional solutions, not just window dressing.
So, next let's look at the various solutions that have been proposed by both the administration and the NRA. * indicates an NRA proposal.
Let's consider these results:
Only one of the administration's gun control proposals (universal background checks) has greater than 60% support, while all except one of the NRA's proposals (arming teachers) has support of 60% or better. Again, the NRA appears much more mainstream than one would think if your only information were the mainstream, liberal media.
Furthermore, at least one of the administrations gun control proposals is based on ignorance. Most "non-gun" people could not define "assault rifle" if their lives depended upon it. Why? Because the gun control groups have intentionally sowed confusion. The love the term. Assault Weapon just sounds criminal. The governor of New York stated that they are never used for hunting. He is mistaken or lying - because they are now commonly used for hunting. In addition, they have worked very hard to convince people that they are machine guns (they are not!). What they really are is simply modern, semi-automatic rifles made from modern materials. If only a small minority of those favoring the ban are informed of the absurdity of the differences between rifles that would be banned and those that would not be banned, support will likely drop below 50%.
The gun control groups have seen these polls too - and that's why they are now telling their friends in Congress to put most of their efforts into getting universal background checks. They know that this is the only one of the gun control proposals that has any chance of passing - even though it would not have helped in ANY of the recent mass shootings.
So, judge for yourself. Is the NRA the radical organization that is "out of touch with most Americans"? Or, is it the president that is out of touch?
Thursday, January 17, 2013
What's Wrong With More Background Checks?
Why would anyone oppose a simple background check for all firearms purchases? Wouldn't this make us all safer?
To understand why many of us are opposed to this measure, you need to look at how the ATF and the DOJ are handling the current background check system.
First of all, people who lie on the background check form are not even being reported to local and state law enforcement. Is it not important that the cops know as soon as possible that a convicted felon or a person subject to a domestic violence retraining order is trying to by a gun? Is it not possible - and in fact probable - that this kind of individual will then look for a gun on the back market?
In fact we know this has happened, because several years ago such a person did find a gun on the black market, and than used it to kill a sheriff's deputy. Even after this incident, ATF still does not notify local law enforcement of failed background checks - and President Obama has not ordered them to do so. One has to wonder why he has not done so.
Second, criminals who attempt to by firearms at dealers and are prevented from doing so are nearly certain to never be prosecuted for doing so.
In case you are not familiar with the process, every person who attempts to buy a firearm must fill out ATF Form 4473. On that form are listed all of the reasons a person may be legally ineligible to own a firearm. The applicant must swear, under penalty of perjury, that each of them does not apply. The applicant must present ID, it is in their handwriting and their prints are all over the form. One would think that prosecution would be a slam dunk.
According to a study of Instant Checks done in 2005, of 8.3 Million checks done in that year, 66,700 were rejected. Of these, 46% were rejected for felony convictions or current charges, 15% were for convictions for domestic violence or a current restraining order, and the rest were for other reasons such as mental health commitments.
So, of 66,700 rejections, 61% - or about 41,000 - were attempts by criminals or people at risk of committing domestic violence who flat out lied on the form - which is a felony. How many were even referred to the Department of Justice for prosecution? Answer: 135, or .33%. There is no indication that this situation has changed
So a criminal risks no more than a 1 in 300 chance of being prosecuted if they try to illegally buy a gun from a licensed dealer. Why not try? Maybe you can slip through.
There is absolutely no indication that things are any better today.
So, the current instant check system may be preventing some criminals from buying guns at a dealer but it is not being used to prevent crimes by arresting and prosecuting criminals who attempt to buy firearms. There seems to be zero concern that these people will simply turn to the black market. Why not?
Why in the world should we expand a background check system that is clearly broken? Shouldn't we demand that it first be fixed before it is expanded?
To understand why many of us are opposed to this measure, you need to look at how the ATF and the DOJ are handling the current background check system.
First of all, people who lie on the background check form are not even being reported to local and state law enforcement. Is it not important that the cops know as soon as possible that a convicted felon or a person subject to a domestic violence retraining order is trying to by a gun? Is it not possible - and in fact probable - that this kind of individual will then look for a gun on the back market?
In fact we know this has happened, because several years ago such a person did find a gun on the black market, and than used it to kill a sheriff's deputy. Even after this incident, ATF still does not notify local law enforcement of failed background checks - and President Obama has not ordered them to do so. One has to wonder why he has not done so.
Second, criminals who attempt to by firearms at dealers and are prevented from doing so are nearly certain to never be prosecuted for doing so.
In case you are not familiar with the process, every person who attempts to buy a firearm must fill out ATF Form 4473. On that form are listed all of the reasons a person may be legally ineligible to own a firearm. The applicant must swear, under penalty of perjury, that each of them does not apply. The applicant must present ID, it is in their handwriting and their prints are all over the form. One would think that prosecution would be a slam dunk.
According to a study of Instant Checks done in 2005, of 8.3 Million checks done in that year, 66,700 were rejected. Of these, 46% were rejected for felony convictions or current charges, 15% were for convictions for domestic violence or a current restraining order, and the rest were for other reasons such as mental health commitments.
So, of 66,700 rejections, 61% - or about 41,000 - were attempts by criminals or people at risk of committing domestic violence who flat out lied on the form - which is a felony. How many were even referred to the Department of Justice for prosecution? Answer: 135, or .33%. There is no indication that this situation has changed
So a criminal risks no more than a 1 in 300 chance of being prosecuted if they try to illegally buy a gun from a licensed dealer. Why not try? Maybe you can slip through.
There is absolutely no indication that things are any better today.
So, the current instant check system may be preventing some criminals from buying guns at a dealer but it is not being used to prevent crimes by arresting and prosecuting criminals who attempt to buy firearms. There seems to be zero concern that these people will simply turn to the black market. Why not?
Why in the world should we expand a background check system that is clearly broken? Shouldn't we demand that it first be fixed before it is expanded?
Wednesday, January 16, 2013
The Good, The Bad, The Ugly And The Missing
A Point By Point Analysis Of President Obama's Executive Orders And Recommendations On Gun Violence
Setting aside the issue of the president violating the Constitution by issuing some of these orders, how effective will they be? Which are good ideas and which aren't?
(Please note that I have placed executive orders that are a “mix” of good and bad in the “good” category. The numbers are from the White House.)
The Good
Improvements to the Instant Background Check System (NICS):
1. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background check system.
2. Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background check system.
3. Improve incentives for states to share information with the background check system.
Items 1 to 3 have been a problem for a long time – and both Brady and the NRA have pointed this out and asked for action. The real question is why has this not been done before now?
4. Direct the Attorney General to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks.
Not a problem as long as it is just a review. If Pres. Obama attempts to issue an executive order expanding the kinds of people prohibited from possessing firearms under Federal law, that would violate the separation of powers and clearly be unconstitutional.
5. Propose rule-making to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun.
Not a bad idea, and probably not even unconstitutional as long as it is not a requirement that local law enforcement run these checks, but is simply limited to giving them the ability to do so. State or Federal laws would be required to mandate such checks.
A good question is why he does not give federally licensed collectors the ability to run such checks before selling guns from their collections?
6. Publish a letter from ATF to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers.
Again, not a problem, but probably does not accomplish much. In states that require it, such checks are already being done and the process is fairly simple.
7. Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign.
Nothing wrong with this – in fact the administration can and should partner with the leading gun safety group in the nation – the NRA – to accomplish this.
8. Review safety standards for gun locks and gun safes (Consumer Product Safety Commission).
Readers may be surprised to learn that I am very much in favor of this action. There are strong indications that the mother of the Connecticut shooter did, in fact, secure her firearms. (He attempted to buy his own, which would have only been necessary if his mother’s were not available to him.) It is possible that he defeated the lock or locks. We need to know what went wrong here and make sure that locking devices and safes really work.
9. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations.
This is somewhat puzzling, as this is already being done.
11. Nominate an ATF director.
If the president appoints a non-political reformer to head ATF, this would be a very good thing. If he does what he has already done twice, appoint an anti-gun zealot to head the agency, that person will not be confirmed by the Senate, just like the last two. It’s up to President Obama.
12. Provide law enforcement, first responders, and school officials with proper training for active shooter situations.
Of course, this is already happening – but this doesn't hurt anything.
13. Maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime.
There could be a problem with the “efforts to prevent gun violence”, depending upon what they are. As for prosecuting gun crime, it’s about time!
17. Release a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities.
Since this applies only the “threats of violence”, it is a good thing to let the healthcare community know that they can, under current law, report them.
18. Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers.
This is a very good thing, but any funding would require congressional approval.
19. Develop model emergency response plans for schools, houses of worship and institutions of higher education.
A good idea, but if it is done with an anti-gun bias that fails to recognize the value of armed defense, it will be useless.
20. Release a letter to state health officials clarifying the scope of mental health services that Medicaid plans must cover.
21. Finalize regulations clarifying essential health benefits and parity requirements within ACA exchanges.
22. Commit to finalizing mental health parity regulations.
23. Launch a national dialogue led by Secretaries Sebelius and Duncan on mental health.
Items 20-23 are good, because they address the greatest problem, the broken mental health system. Read my extensive post on this HERE.
The Bad
10. Release a DOJ report analyzing information on lost and stolen guns and make it widely available to law enforcement.
Again, not a problem, but won’t accomplish much except lay the foundation for future laws to require “immediate reporting” of lost and stolen guns. Canada has such a law and it has resulted in the prosecution of many gun owners who did not discover that their guns were stolen until some time later. (i.e. they were on vacation and did not discover the theft until they returned.)
15. Direct the Attorney General to issue a report on the availability and most effective use of new gun safety technologies and challenge the private sector to develop innovative technologies.
This is a very bad idea. Why? Because the idea is to require all guns sold to citizens (not police, of course) to have some kind of digital electronic device that will permit it to be fired only by the owner.
This idea is bad for a ton of reasons, but I will mention only two. These devices are digital. Has your computer or “smart phone” ever locked up and required a reboot? How would you like your guns software to lock up when you have it pointed at an armed intruder? Guns are also subject to recoil – which is very likely to eventually cause the electronics to fail. Do you now understand why the cops would never let these devices – that don’t exist yet – be placed on their guns?
Recommendation to Congress: “Assault Weapons” Ban
Why in the world are we focusing upon a weapon used in well under 326 murders or less than 3% of homicides? This puts all rifles (not just “Assault Rifles”) behind handguns, knives, clubs, shotguns and bare hands as murder weapons of choice. Anti-gun rights groups simply see banning these guns as “low hanging fruit” because of the term they falsely apply to them males them sound evil and more dangerous than other long guns. After they ban these and things do not improve, they can come back and ban more guns. After all, they do not have to even be commonly used in crimes.
Even the biased CDC could not find any positive results from the previous 10 year long ban, and they looked really hard..
Recommendation to Congress: 10 round magazine capacity limit
No one who is trained to use firearms believes that this will make a significant difference. Magazines can be quickly changed (1-2 seconds), in most cases while a round remains available to be fired. The real question is, what happens when a 10 round limit doesn’t “work”. New York State has already shown us what happens. They just reduced their limit to 7 rounds. Some in Connecticut are talking about outlawing ALL MAGAZINES, effectively banning all but single shots.
We don’t have to wonder about the results of such a ban. The Federal Assault Weapons ban included such a ban. There was no measurable impact upon crime or mass shootings. California’s ban, which is still in effect, also has produced zero results.
Recommendation to Congress: “Universal Background Checks”
Although this is the least offensive of all proposals, there are two problems with it:
1) Gun owners are concerned (with good cause, because it has already happened) that background checks will be used to build a database of gun owners – in spite of a Federal law forbidding it. Given that the governor of New York (a possible Democratic candidate for president) has called for gun confiscation, it’s easy to understand why gun owners fear such a list.
2) Opposition to this is so strong that the only way it will be passed is if there are exceptions for “family transfers” and the NRA supports it. The NRA would loose millions of members to groups to their left if they supported such a law without getting something gun owners really want in return. The only thing I can think of would be nationwide carry permit recognition and nationwide shall issue permitting. I don’t think gun control groups would back it – but it would be a brilliant move for Obama to propose this. He would get something that he wants and prove that he really does support responsible gun ownership and use. Don’t hold your breath.
The Ugly
14. Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence.
The CDC is absolutely the wrong agency to study this issue. This is not a health issue, it is a crime issue. Why did the president choose them instead of a research organization with more expertise in this area? Simple: The CDC has a very long standing bias against lawful firearms ownership. The administration is looking for biased propaganda, not science.
It is worth noting that even the CDC, who really wanted to find differently, was unable to find ANY positive result from the 1994-2004 Assault Weapons ban.
16. Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.
Why do gun owners oppose doctors doing this? Simple: Doctors are not trained in gun safety. They are not competent to draw professional conclusions or to give advice on firearms safety. Furthermore, they are intentionally misinformed (read LIED TO) by anti-gun rights groups and encouraged to HORANG THEIR PATIENTS. Think this doesn’t happen? Reports of this have been out there for decades and it has happened to me, personally.
The Missing
There are also a couple of things that were clearly considered by the president (according to leaks from Vice-President Biden) and were rejected:
The president failed to direct the ATF and Department of Justice to aggressively prosecute criminals who attempt to buy firearms by lying on the Federal Form 4473 – which is a felony. Currently, a criminal who attempts to buy a firearm and is stopped has a 1 in 300 chance of being prosecuted. Why didn’t the president do something about this?
The president took absolutely no action in regards to violent movies or video games – in spite of the fact that the Connecticut shooter spent a FULL YEAR playing violent games before the shooting. Not even a call for these industries to be more responsible. One would think that Pres. Obama gets a lot of support from this industry…..
Then there are these common sense measures that were not included:
The president failed to addresses the killing fields known as “gun free zones” where 99.5% of mass shootings happen. Unsecured, phony “gun free zones” are not a solution to gun violence – they are an aggravating factor in it. Apparently the president has no problem assuring mass shooters that if they choose one of these places to start killing people, no one will be able to shoot back for several minutes until the police arrive. He holds this position in spite of ample evidence that as soon as the shooter faces armed opposition – from police or an armed citizen – the shooting and dying almost always stops.
The president failed to even consider training and arming selected teachers – a much more cost effective way to provide school security that experiences in Utah and Israel prove it to be both safe and effective.
The president failed to call for Concealed Carry Permit reform to standardize permit requirements across the nation, make permits available to all qualified citizens and make permits valid across state lines.
The president failed to order the development of a model mental health commitment law, providing for both emergency commitments for evaluation and long-term commitments. Given that a commitment is needed to trigger a firearms prohibition and inclusion in the database, this is critically important.
In short, the president didn’t push as far as we feared he might – likely because he knew he would not get away with it – but he didn't do much that will help either. The executive orders are weak and the proposals to Congress are essentially dead on arrival, since 52% of senators and representatives have a “A” rating from the NRA. In my opinion, yet again, our president has missed an opportunity to really lead.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)