Category: Gun control

Politics and the 2nd amendment

The governor of Virginia is calling for more gun laws to prevent “gun violence” in the wake of the Virginia Beach shooting. However, referring to the attack in Virginia Beach as “gun violence” underscores the political nature of the governor’s move. When people are beaten with a bat it is not referred to as “bat violence”; ditto for hammer, knife, fist, feet, crowbar or tire iron enhanced violence. No one blames the implement except when it comes to guns. That’s because the goal is not really violence reduction, but gun control. But would more gun laws work, and what laws does the governor intend to implement? According to the article cited above, Gov. Northam is:

“… summoning the Republican-controlled Virginia General Assembly to consider what he describes as “common-sense public safety laws” — including universal background checks; bans on assault-style weapons and bump stocks, as well as sound suppressors like the one used in the Virginia Beach shooting; requirements to report lost or stolen firearms; and expanded authority for local municipalities to regulate firearms, including in government buildings.”

The shooter in Virginia Beach was a respected city worker and licensed engineer. He is alleged to have had no significant criminal record, and purchased his firearms legally several years before the attack. Thus, a universal background check law would not have had any impact on this crime. Also, no assault weapon was used (and, in fact, you are 5 times more likely to be stabbed to death than shot by an assault rifle) so an assault weapons ban would have had no impact, either. Bump stocks have already been banned by Trump, so again – no impact. Even the suppressor – one of the most tightly regulated firearm accessories, requiring individual federal approval prior to purchase – is not known to have had any impact on the attack. Why, then, are these laws being proposed by Gov. Northam? Could it possibly be that liberals just don’t like guns, and see incremental restrictions as a means to an end – the elimination of guns and a repeal of the 2nd amendment?

The elimination of guns from private hands might prevent mass shootings by otherwise law-abiding citizens who acquire their guns legally. However, it should be noted that since 1966 a total of 1165 people have died in mass shootings, while fully 15,696 homicides were committed in 2015 alone. Thus, mass shootings account for far fewer deaths than other criminal activity. What impact would a repeal of the 2nd amendment have on these other much more numerous deaths, or on overall criminal activity?

Will crime rates rise when individuals are disarmed and unable to protect themselves against a physically or numerically superior attacker? Will criminals be incentivized to use firearms – given that a gun in the hands of a criminal guarantees a win against an unarmed victim – driving black-market demand? And finally, what is the fate of “…that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government…” in a society where citizens are disarmed, but the government is not?

The deaths associated with mass shootings are tragic, but we must consider the impacts of repealing the 2nd amendment on individual security and freedom before we take such drastic action.

Why I support the 2nd amendment

This story illustrates one problem faced by a disarmed society:

Off-duty FDNY firefighter attacked by teens after defending elderly couple, cops say

Without a way to fend off a physically or numerically superior attacker, we are at the whim of any brute or mob that happens by.

The gun is known as the “great equalizer” for a reason.

Preparation, or indoctrination by terror?

Schools have increasingly been implementing mass shooting protocols and drills, ostensibly to protect school children by preparing them for such an event. But are these really for the benefit of the student, or are they instead an attempt to sway future voters by indoctrination through terror? With some of these drills using plastic “bullets”, simulated gunfire and fake blood, one has to wonder – particularly given the low probability of such an attack.

Since 1999, there have been 11 mass school shootings in the US (as of 4/2019), involving the deaths of 127 people. These are sad statistics, but do they warrant terrorizing students with fake mass shooting drills? Some have wondered whether these drills will have a greater overall negative impact than not.

There are approximately 84000 public schools in the United States; this amounts to a 1 in almost 8000 chance of having a school shooting at any given school over the last 20 years and a one in approximately 150,000 chance in any given year. In addition, with approximately 55 million kindergarten through 12th grade students in the U.S. the odds of being shot in a mass school shooting in the last 20 years is roughly one in 433,000, and in any given year less than 1 in 8 million.

One has to wonder what is the end goal of those who would subject students to the terror of active shooter drills, particularly when there are much more likely and serious issues to address. For instance, 382 teenagers died in 2016 as the result of traffic accidents where the teenage driver had a BAC level of 0.08 or greater; this amounts to 3 times as many killed in 1 year as the result of alcohol than those killed in all the school shootings over the last 20 years. Even though these accidents have a much greater impact on the lives of students, authorities don’t run simulations of accidents or force students to attend faux funerals for the mock dead.Why, then, do they stage fake active shooter drills?

So I ask again – what is the purpose of these simulated mass shooting drills? To truly protect our students, or to precondition future voters against 2nd amendment rights? You must decide for yourself; I have already come to my own conclusion.

Restrictive gun laws don’t work

We need to identify the root causes of violence if we are to save lives. Blaming the implements of violence won’t help, and restricting their lawful use will only benefit the lawless.

Case in point: California. Virtually no right to carry a firearm in self defense; arduous paperwork and long delays for firearm purchases – even if you are currently under threat or personally in danger; background checks for ammunition acquisition; firearms limited to those on an “approved” safety list (even though police are exempt from these same safety requirements). And yet all of these draconian laws did not prevent the death of this individual.

Restrictive gun laws do not apply to criminals – by definition, such people do not obey the law. These laws are proffered on the theory that by reducing the availability of firearms these laws will reduce the criminal use of firearms. Unfortunately, they serve only to disarm law-abiding citizens.

One could argue instead that restrictive gun laws actually embolden criminals while at the same time increasing the value of a firearm during criminal operations. Consider this point: in a defensively armed society, where properly-trained law abiding citizens are allowed to carry firearms for self defense and the defense of others, a criminal with a firearm would be equally matched. If he starts a firefight, he may well lose; at best he has even odds (given that there are far more law abiding citizens than criminals, I would argue that the odds are much worse against him).  However, in a disarmed society the criminal with a firearm universally wins. A disarmed citizen has no reasonable defense against a criminal with a gun.

So, while the criminal use of a firearm by an offender against an armed populace might well get him shot (a serious disadvantage to the criminal), against an unarmed populace it guarantees a win. Which do you think would result in an incentive for a criminal to obtain and use a firearm? While firearms might be more scarce as a result of these restrictive laws, their value to the criminal is increased to the point that the additional cost resulting from their scarcity is warranted. This might even be sufficient to increase the black market availability of illegal firearms to feed this now lucrative market.

Allow law-abiding citizens to own and carry firearms. Such citizens outnumber felons by approximately 12 to 1; the criminals won’t stand a chance.

Failure to enforce existing laws

This was a terrible and tragic event. Several people were shot down by Gary Montez Martin, a disgruntled employee, as he was being let go by his employer of 15 years:

Illinois Gunman Opened Fire When He Learned He Would Lose His Job, Police Say

However, what is truly sad is that this event was completely preventable. Martin was a member of a prohibited class, forbidden to own firearms due to a previous felony conviction. Worse, the police knew this, knew he had acquired a firearm, and yet failed to seize it and arrest Martin.

The cause of this tragedy was a failure by the police to assert existing laws. Remember this when the anti-gun zealots come calling for more gun laws.

Anti-gun propaganda

Lt. Gov. Cyrus Habib of Washington refused to attend Gov. Jay Inslee’s State of the State speech. His reason? A perfectly legal activity might occur. In Washington, concealed carry (CCW) permit holders can carry their firearm in most public locations – including the galleries of the state House of Representatives where the Governor’s speech was held.

CCW permit holders in Washington are highly vetted, undergoing a background check conducted by state and federal entities. In addition, permit holders are far less likely to be involved in criminal activity; one study focusing on Texas suggests that permit holders are 10 times less likely to be convicted of a misdemeanor or felony offense, and 7 times less likely to be convicted of a firearms violation, than a police officer.

I’ve got news for you, Lt. Gov. Habib: It’s not the licensed, vetted, law-abiding CCW permit holders that should be of concern. The individuals who don’t follow the law are the ones to watch, but they won’t have any need for a CCW.

So when politicians take actions such as that by Lt. Gov. Habib, where they refuse to attend an event because the rights of the people under the 2nd amendment of the Constitution of the United States are being upheld, what they are really doing is making a political statement as to their position regarding firearms. Such actions are not based on any real or perceived danger; it’s simply propoganda. Even Lt. Gov. Habib admits as much:

“There is no specific threat to me. There is no specific threat we know of, period,” Habib said. “It’s about the policy.”

Thanks for insulting the integrity of every CCW holder in Washington, Cyrus, and for ignoring that it’s the ones without permits with whom we should be concerned.

Hammer control

From USA Today:

1 dead, 2 critically injured in hammer attack at Brooklyn restaurant

How much longer can we allow such acts of violence to continue? Even if only one life is saved, we must take action. Hammers should be banned, or a permit with background check be required for their purchase. Strict records should be kept so that confiscation can occur when hammer crimes spike. In addition, nail possession should be restricted to those with a hammer permit, and only in quantities sufficient for the task at hand.

OK, so I’m making light of a tragic situation. But it is important to understand that it is the person who is the danger, not the weapon. I also make this point to stress the futility of proposed “assault weapon” bans, such as the one making its way through Congress right now.

These proposed bans on so-called “assault weapons” (termed multi-purpose rifle, or MPR, by much of the gun industry) are as pointless as the hammer ban I propose above, and will do little to curb firearm related deaths. Want proof? I offer data from the FBI’s Uniform Crime Report database.

For example, between 2012 and 2017 rifles of all types – including assault weapons – accounted for only 2.3% of homicides. By comparison knives or sharp instruments account for 11.5% of homicides, personal weapons (hand, feet, fists) for 4.9%, and blunt objects for  3.3%. In summary, you are 5 times more likely to be stabbed to death and more that 3.5 times as likely to be beaten to death (without or without a weapon) than you are to be shot to death with an “assault rifle”.

Why then do some lawmakers, politicians and anti-gun organizations favor these restrictions? In my opinion, it is solely to punish those who are ideologically different from themselves. Consider it the ideological equivalent of racism; it’s not that these people hate guns, it’s that they hate gun owners. I have come to this conclusion because there is simply no reason to restrict the constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens by creating onerous rules or restrictions that will have little to no impact on crime.

Effective gun laws

Democrats believe that expanded background checks will curb gun violence, and are planning legislation towards that end:

House Democrats Pledge Passage Of Expanded Gun Background Checks Bill

Unfortunately, their efforts will do little but provide the government with more data on law-abiding gun owners while interfering with their constitutional rights. Any limits on such rights should dis-proportionally effect the criminals they target, rather than the vast majority of the population who are not involved in crime.

The fact is that, according to a past study by the Department of Justice, almost 40% of crime guns were obtained from friends and family with almost another 40% from illegal street sources. Approximately 12% were purchased legally from a licensed dealer. This means that only 8%  of crime guns (including 0.7% purchased at gun shows) will be affected by expanded background checks.

To really have an impact on gun crime we must work to eliminate the supply of crime guns from friends/family and illegal street sources.  One way we can do this while preserving rights guaranteed under the 2nd amendment is to pass a law making it illegal, with or without knowledge of their status, to pass a firearm to a prohibited individual. This law should include a low-cost or free means for the general public to verify that a buyer is not prohibited and facilitate the firearms transfer. This could be accomplished through a background check similar to that now in place in most jurisdictions, but administered by the local police or sheriff’s department for a nominal fee. The law should also require that all crime guns used by prohibited individuals be traced to their source and – where applicable – the source charged with illegal transfer of a firearm. The law should also include a penalty or sentence enhancement for criminals who do not cooperate in the tracing of firearms they use in a crime.

In this way the transfer of firearms between well-acquainted parties is not restricted, but the risk is assumed by the transferer. This will encourage use of the free or low-cost police-based background check and transfer system when even the slightest doubt exists. At the same time it will encourage criminals to assist in the tracing of their guns, resulting in prosecution of those who provide prohibited individuals with  firearms and thus reduce the illegal supply on which they depend.

So, in summary, Congress should instead pass a law that:

  1. Criminalizes the transfer of a firearm to a prohibited person, whether or not their status was known to the transferer, unless a licensed firearms transfer service is used.
  2. Allows private transfers between well-acquainted parties, so long as the transferer assumes the risk of criminal charges in the event the transferee is a prohibited individual.
  3. Establishes a low-cost or free law-enforcement based firearms transfer system for the general public to use that frees them from criminal liability.
  4. Traces every crime firearm to its source, and prosecutes those who provide these firearms.
  5. Provides sentence enhancements for criminals who do not assist in the tracing of their firearms.

If we start locking up those who provide firearms to criminals, we will have a dramatic effect on common sources of crime guns while minimizing the impact on law abiding citizens seeking to exercise their constitutional rights.

Write your congressman. Forward them a link to this post. Demand useful action that keeps guns out of the hands of criminals – action that does not restrict the rights of law-abiding citizens.

Stupid is as stupid does

When Ohio Governor John  Kasich recently vetoed a gun rights bill, he provided the following statement:

“If you think I’m going to sign a bill that gives more power to the gun folks, are you kidding me?” Kasich told reporters, according to the Enquirer. “That’s a moral issue: gun violence.”

Why is it a moral issue, Governor? And why do you use the term “gun violence”?

When someone is bludgeoned with a hammer, do you call it “hammer violence”? How about when someone is attacked with a knife, or pummeled by a baseball bat; are these deemed “knife violence” or “bat violence”? Of course not – that’s because the violence is not being perpetrated by the hammer, knife or bat. To blame a weapon for violence is like blaming cars for drunk driving, airplanes for hijackings, or forks for obesity. It’s just plain stupid.

Violence – not the implements of violence – is the moral issue, Governor. Your statements associating violence with the implements of violence, rather than with the perpetrators of violence, is nothing but gun-control propaganda.

What the headline doesn’t say…

The headline for this Time magazine article implies that gun violence is on the rise.

Gun Deaths in the U.S. Are at Their Highest Rates in Decades, CDC Says

However, the article is deceiving. While it correctly identifies suicide as an increasing cause of firearm-related deaths, it fails to note that the use of firearms as a percent of suicides are down.  Also, while the use of firearms as a percent of homicides are up, overall per capita homicide rates have been trending down for some time. In addition,  the article is fails to note that the increase in raw numbers cited is in a large part the result of population increases; a more accurate representation requires per-capita comparisons.

Continue reading “What the headline doesn’t say…”