Category: Gun control

Protecting schools

Terrorists hijack four planes using box cutters and crash them into various targets around the U.S. No one tries to outlaw box cutters or require their registration and licensing, and no one blames the boxcutter. Instead, The Department of Homeland Security is created to watch over our airports and airline travelers. No one is surprised when terror attacks using airplanes are largely eliminated.

A crazy person uses a firearm to attack a school, knowing full well that it is a soft target where children will be unable to defend themselves. There is an immediate demand that law-abiding citizens be stripped of their constitutional rights, and that all firearms be banned. No one bothers to take any action to protect the schools so as to remove their “soft target” status. Everyone is surprised when another attack occurs.

It is unfortunate that criminals have found a target that they can exploit. As a result, much like the impact of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, our lives will be forever changed going forward. Because these people now know that school attacks are possible, they will continue until they are made impossible or extremely difficult. That will not happen by removing a single mechanism for attack; we must instead make all attacks impossible or difficult.

That being said, I have a few suggestions that I am sure will appease no one. Still, they are prudent actions at this time.

1) Protect the schools. Bouncers protect bar patrons against one another; Armed security guards protect banks against robbery; The Department of Homeland Security protects fliers and airlines from hijackers and terrorists. Is it so far-fetched to ask that someone protect the schools? School attacks will continue not due to the availability of firearms, but instead because nothing has changed. Schools will remain soft targets so long as they are without protection.

2) Restrict the purchase of semi-automatic firearms to those 21 year of age or older, as is now the law for handguns. People 18 years of age may be allowed to purchase single-shot, bolt-action, or pump-action long arms of a minimum length suitable for learning to hunt or shoot, but not semi-automatic firearms of any type. People 18 years or older may be allowed to use semi-automatic rifles belonging to others, but only under the direct supervision of the owner (who must be 21 or older), and they must not have access to such arms independently. An exception can be made for members of the military who are properly trained and disciplined in their use.

I make this recommendation with reservation as many people are responsible and mature adults at 18 years of age, but many are not. The fact that they are still in high school at age 18, however, raises serious concerns. In my opinion, school-aged children should not have free access to semi-automatic firearms.

3) Stop reporting the killer’s name in the media. This will eliminate some of the benefits (notoriety) that the killer receives for their action.

These are not perfect solutions, but they are a reasonable set of changes that  preserve our 2nd amendment rights in line with existing law and common practice.

“Military” firearms in civilian hands

Many have argued that civilians have no business owning “military” grade firearms, such as the venerable Colt AR-15 (the civilian semi-automatic version of the military’s fully-automatic M-16). The argument goes that when the the 2nd amendment was written muskets and muzzle-loaders (single-shot rifles that can take up to a minute to reload) were all that was available, and so that’s all private citizens should own. I disagree.

The second amendment was meant to ensure that the power remain with the people. Specifically, that a standing army acting at the behest of a potentially despotic government could never be as powerful as the body of the people, given the people were properly armed and equipped to defend against such a force. At the time of the American revolution the arms necessary were the same as those possessed by the British military: muskets and muzzle-loaders; today, those same arms would be equivalent to the AR-15 or M-16.

That’s not to say that all military arms need to be available, or even that fully-automatic arms like the M-16 be common implements of a citizen militia. It was always expected that the military would never comprise more than a small segment of the population, and that the balance of the citizens when properly armed would be a formidable opponent for any army the government might muster. However, sending the body of the citizenry armed with muskets against a military force armed with M-16 rifles – well, that is hardly a win-able fight, no matter how many citizens you have. Being armed with a semi-automatic version of the M-16 (the AR-15), however, would allow a citizenry a reasonable chance at success. Thus, without a military arm – if not slightly de-tuned from the full military specification – the power would not remain with the people, as they would easily be defeated no matter their numbers.

If you want to re-arm the military in the United States so that their arms are no more formidable than the arms available to the people, then so be it: give the military muskets, and I’ll take one, too. That will likely make the matter moot, however; it is unlikely that other governments would bother to honor our sovereignty when we could no longer defend ourselves against their M-16 rifles.

From the Federalist #28 (widely attributed to Alexander Hamilton):

If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defence, which is paramount to all positive forms of government…

Gun (pronounced “people”) Control

That didn’t take long.

Gun control pundits, in the aftermath of the Rancho Tehama shooting, are already calling for more gun laws (here and here, for example). They seem not to notice that the shooter resided in California, a state with some of the most restrictive gun control laws in the nation. In addition, the shooter was alleged to have been indicted for assaulting his neighbors and was under a restraining order – both conditions for which California generally precludes the possession of firearms by the accused. What additional gun law do they expect to pass that would have prevented this tragedy?

The truth is that gun control advocates want a complete ban on firearms and their nation-wide confiscation. That is their ultimate goal. However, this will also remove a significant protection afforded the people against an overbearing and tyrannical government – a protection that makes possible every other freedom we enjoy. Only when the people have the means to resist their government does the power truly reside with the people. Only then are their freedoms secure.

It’s not the guns, stupid

The bodies not even cold, already some (examples here and here) are attempting to leverage the memory of the 20+ killed in Texas today to push for more gun control. Not only is this in poor taste, it is not productive.

Devin Kelly, the alleged shooter, was court-martialed and discharged from the military for assaulting his wife and child. Gun control laws already make a domestic violence conviction (battery on a spouse, family member or significant other) a disqualifying offense. It is possible that the military records are not part of the background check system, or that the charge against him was not properly identified as domestic violence, but on the surface it appears that he was not eligible to own a firearm. If so, additional laws will not help; instead, a push for proper enforcement of existing laws would be a better course of action.

However, I doubt that people like Wil Wheaton or Chelsea Handler are concerned with enforcing exiting gun laws.  Instead, based on their posts regarding firearms, I would wager that they are in favor of an outright ban on all firearms. Their position is likely that a complete ban would have prevented this catastrophe. I disagree with such a position, and offer the following to support my case:

1)  People like this shooter want to kill; how is irrelevant. They could have just as easily run these defenseless people over in the parking lot with a rented truck or left a fertilizer and diesel bomb parked outside and leveled the church in its entirety.  It’s hard to stop crazy; they have options other than just firearms. Even a complete ban on guns will not stop people so motivated.

2)  Firearms provide many useful services to the general public, including the ability to defend oneself against attackers who are larger, more numerous, or armed. For example, note that this shooter was engaged as he left the church by an armed citizen; this resulted in the loss of the shooter’s assault rifle as he fled the scene. The actions of this armed civilian likely stopped the attack and prevented additional deaths, and underscores the importance of civilians having the means to defend themselves from such determined and crazed individuals.

3)  Criminals are unlikely to be deterred from such acts by more laws restricting a small subset of their available weapons. If you’re a killer going out to kill people, are you really going to be concerned about the illegal posession of your weapon of choice? Doesn’t murder outweigh a weapons charge?

4)  You simply cannot stop crazy; the best you can do is defend yourself when they arrive. More restrictive gun laws, which will likely be followed by law abiding citizens who are of no risk to anyone, will simply leave the honest citizen unable to defend themselves against the dishonest. What kind of effect do you think this will have on person-to-person violent crimes, such as robbery, rape, carjacking, or home invasions? With a disarmed populace to attack and without fear of reprisal by their victims, I would expect criminals to have a field-day cleaning out the valuables of those who do not have the physical means to defend themselves against a few or more local hoodlums.

Try as you might to denigrate the use of firearms by law-abiding citizens, they do provide a useful service to society. The founders knew this to be true, and it’s why the 2nd Amendment exists in our constitution. Don’t be so quick to judge the 2nd amendment before you consider the positive aspects of having the ability to defend yourself, your family, and your country.

And for gods sake, please stop politicizing these tragic events.

Krazy Kalifornia

A convicted felon, unable to own or possess firearms, allegedly uses one to kill the father of his stepson in their San Francisco home. He claims self-defense, and is not prosecuted – not even as a felon in possession of a firearm. Why? Could it be because he’s a documentary film maker and activist in the good graces of the SF elite?

In nearby Vallejo, a woman and her boyfriend retreat from a confrontation with a third party. As they are driving away, the third party fires an allegedly full-auto AK-47 at the car and hits the girlfriend, killing her. The shooter, a suspected gang member, claims self-defense (?!?) and is not charged. However, the boyfriend is charged with murder for bringing his girlfriend to the encounter. Why? Who knows…

Only in California…

Disarm and conquer, Venezuela style

The cautionary tale of Venezuela:

First, disarm the citizens. Second, arm your supporters. Third, have a sham election that bestows upon you unlimited power. Wallah! your own little dictatorship.

This should be a warning to all those who are pushing for extreme gun control, or – like Venezuela – an outright ban. One of the original ideas behind the 2nd amendment was to ensure that the power remained ultimately with the people. It guarantees the people the means to overthrow a despotic ruler, and as a result acts as a strong deterrent against such a possibility.

Many believe such a despotic ruler could never come to power in America and,  since no such event has occurred in our more than 200 years of existence, that gun ownership by private citizens should be abolished. However, I would argue that the reason we haven’t had such an event here is precisely because of our right to bear arms. Without this right, things could change very quickly. Mark my words: When the people’s consent to be governed is no longer needed, don’t expect their consent to be sought.

Think not? Ask any Venezuelan.

Overly strict gun laws….

… only serve to leave innocent, law-abiding citizens disarmed and defenseless against ruthless or crazed criminals. After all, by definition criminals ignore the law; why should gun laws be any different?

A San Francisco UPS driver shot 5 co-workers at a driver’s meeting on June 14th of this year. He did not care that murder is a crime; he did not care that at least one of the guns he used was banned under California law; he did not care that his guns were stolen. He only cared that he was armed and his victims were not.

Strict gun laws will never disarm criminals. In this case, California’s strict laws only provided the shooter with a pack of sitting ducks who were unable to defend themselves against a disturbed attacker armed with stolen weapons.

There are a lot more good people out there than bad. If we allow properly trained and vetted law-abiding citizens to carry firearms for their defense and the defense of others, attackers such as this will not stand a chance (but at least our citizens would).

A clear media bias…

Daily newspaper columnist who defended NRA quits after suspension

Stacy Washington’s employer, The St. Louis Post-Dispatch,  claimed that her unpaid work for the NRA represented a conflict of interest with respect to her story in support of the NRA. Does that mean that all members of the NRA, who support the NRA through their donations, would also represent a conflict of interest for pro-gun articles? Who would you expect then to be qualified to write pro-gun articles? People who oppose guns?

The St. Louis Post-Dispatch’s position is an appalling attack on free expression, and is a perfect example of the bias in the press. Do you think they would have rejected an anti-gun article from Michael Bloomberg because of his extensive work to support anti-NRA efforts? Yeah; me neither…