Gun Control News Round-up

Gun Control Stories From Around The Web

Here's my take on some selected news stories on gun control from around the web.  These are stories I found interesting, intriguing, silly, stupid or just completely off the wall. 

Joe Biden - Winner of the Forest Gump "Stupid is as stupid does" award. 

Why: We need more gun laws because we don’t have time to enforce the ones we have.

That you could fill a book with the gaffes that come from Biden's pie hole is no surprise.  Remember Dan Quayle's misspelling of potato?  Oh my, how the press used that to paint Quayle as an ignorant, rich white boy.  Some folks mocked President G. W. Bush's pronunciation of "Nuclear" (in Texas it's nuclur we'd guess) as a sign that he was a doofus. 

Who can forget Biden's speech at an AARP town hall meeting where he said We have to spend money to keep from going bankrupt. Or his comment that during the depression, FDR went on television to talk to Americans.  

Biden's gaffes are so frequent he has a full time podiatrist on his staff to extricate his foot from his mouth (we think Joe should probably hire a proctologist too). 

During the National Rifle Association’s meeting with Vice President Joe Biden and the White House gun violence task force, the vice president said the Obama administration does not have the time to fully enforce existing gun laws.

Jim Baker, the NRA representative present at the meeting, recalled the vice president’s words during an interview with The Daily Caller: “And to your point, Mr. Baker, regarding the lack of prosecutions on lying on Form 4473s, we simply don’t have the time or manpower to prosecute everybody who lies on a form, that checks a wrong box, that answers a question inaccurately.” 

So, the V.P. is admitting that the government fails to prosecute over 98% of the rejected background checks when prohibited people try to buy a gun. What that means is that if a deranged person is rejected, he need not fear being contacted, much less arrested, by the Feds.  So instead of adding funding to the DOJ to go after these people, they'll let them "slip through the cracks" while adding even more onerous "gun control" laws that they won't have time to enforce.  

Oh, just one more thing. Gun prosecutions in 2011 were down 35 percent from the previous administration’s peak in 2004, according to Justice Department data.

Your tax dollars at work ... wasted! 

Winner Of The Off-the-Wall Category: Actor Danny Glover

Why: The Second Amendment was to protect slavery and conquest of the Indians.

I like actor Danny Glover and I think he is a fine actor. Best known for his role in the Mel Gibson Lethal Weapon series of films, Glover

manages to bring dramatic stature, along with a charming sense of humor to films.  Sadly, however, Mr. Glover seems to view the world through a prism of race and also appears to harbor some smoldering hatred over events that happened generations ago. 

At a Texas A&M University speaking event being held in honor of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr, Glover told a student audience the "true story" behind the second amendment. 

“I don’t know if you know the genesis of the right to bear arms,” said Glover. “The Second Amendment comes from the right to protect themselves from slave revolts, and from uprisings by Native Americans.”

“A revolt from people who were stolen from their land or revolt from people whose land was stolen from, that’s what the genesis of the second amendment is,” he continued.

Really, Danny? The uniquely American right to arms can be traced to the English right to arms and the way the English required "all good Protestants" to have arms. Further reading reveals the influence of this right, combined with the ideas of Machiavelli on the relationship between citizens and government gave us the 2nd Amendment.

Did the right to arms and the weapons themselves contribute to what Glover says was oppression of "negro slaves" and the native American Indians? Certainly.  Was that racist? Unquestionably, especially by today's standards. Does that make every white man who killed an Indian to survive, or every white man who returned a slave to the plantation an evil racist? No. These men were a product of their time. Their racism then was born of ignorance and arrogance. Their racism was no more evil than doctors were incompetent because they didn't know to wash their hands in 1791. Nor should Mr. Glover ever forget that it was other Africans who conquered villages, took slaves to sell to Muslim slave traders, who in turn sold the slaves to the British, Dutch, Arabs and other nations. We are ill-positioned to judge our forefathers, especially when trying to use today's standards of "civilized" behavior.

Recommended reading list for Mr. Glover - and anyone else interested in the debate. All of these books are available at Amazon.com.

• To Keep and Bear Arms: The Origins of an Anglo-American Right, Joyce Lee Malcolm 
• The Federalist Papers by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, et al 
• The Debates in the Several State Conventions On the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, As Recommended by the General Convention at Philadelphia in 1787 - Jonathan Elliot (republished Mar 9, 2010, reproduction) 

Food For Thought: Who Protects Our Children?

Police officer William Kiphart analyzed, and tracked 90 active shooter/bomber/killer cases back through 1982 and 124 school-specific incidents back to 1927 (114 of which have occurred since 1982).

Thus far, he has only been able to locate only two instances where a murderer entered a location with prior knowledge of armed security or police, and both are outside of the school house active shooter profile.

One was the U.S. Capitol shooting in 1998 and the other being the Kirkwood City Hall shooting in 2008. Both were revenge shootings by older males not fitting the school shooter profile or targeting children. This research is ongoing.

Kiphart did not located any active shooter/murderers with the school house shooter profile that occurred with armed security or police assigned to that location. And there are plenty of schools with such security or resident officers in place.

Kiphart describes the school house active shooter/killer profile. It is a combination of traits and circumstances that generally exist within these incidents.

The shooter is most often a Caucasian male, 14 to 17 years old with several incidents having them as young as 11 to 13 and an occasional anomaly of a female. They typically have documented behavioral problems and are currently or previously have been on drugs for such problems. In all cases, the weapons are illegally possessed and in all but one case that I have found illegally obtained.

This profile also indicates that the classic school house active shooter is non-confrontational.

Note that over a span of 83 years, most school shootings have occurred since 1982 (91.9%). And remember, from 1927 until 1968, people could mail-order firearms and there were no background checks of gun purchases.  This means about 92% of the incidents happened in the last third (33%) of the time period studied (actually more, since Kiphart's research omits 2011-12).  What has changed since 1982?  More violent movies? Video Games? Routine drugging of our problematic kids in schools?  I'd say all of the above.  

Sheriffs, State Lawmakers Push Back on Gun Control

For most people, their local Sheriff is the most powerful local law enforcement agency. Since sheriffs are elected in most counties, they also swear an oath to protect and defend the Constitution. And many of these men and women take that oath seriously.  

Now, Newsmax is reporting that from Oregon to Mississippi, President Obama's proposed ban on new assault weapons and large-capacity magazines struck a nerve among rural lawmen and lawmakers, many of whom vowed to ignore any restrictions — and even try to stop federal officials from enforcing gun policy in their jurisdictions.

"A lot of sheriffs are now standing up and saying, 'Follow the Constitution,'" said Josephine County Sheriff Gil Gilbertson, whose territory covers the timbered mountains of southwestern Oregon.

And some sheriffs are being backed up by their state lawmakers.  

In Mississippi, Gov. Phil Bryant, a Republican, urged the Legislature to make it illegal to enforce any executive order by the president that violates the Constitution.

Tennessee Republican state Rep. Joe Carr wants to make it a state crime for federal agents to enforce any ban on firearms or ammunition. Carr instead called for more armed guards at schools.

"We're tired of political antics, cheap props of using children as bait to gin up emotional attachment for an issue that quite honestly doesn't solve the problem," Carr said.

Legislative proposals to pre-empt new federal gun restrictions also have arisen in Wyoming, Utah and Alaska.

A Wyoming bill specifies that any federal limitation on guns would be unenforceable. It also would make it a state felony for federal agents to try to enforce restrictions.

In Utah, some Republicans are preparing legislation to exempt the state from federal gun laws — and fine any federal agents who try to seize guns. 

A bill in the Alaska House would make it a misdemeanor for a federal agent to enforce new restrictions on gun ownership.

In Minnesota, Pine County Sheriff Robin Cole sent an open letter to residents saying he did not believe the federal government had the right to tell the states how to regulate firearms. He said he would refuse to enforce any federal mandate he felt violated constitutional rights.

If it comes down to a court battle, the sheriffs might lose.  However, the matter is complicated by the whole idea of "states rights" too.  Two sheriffs successfully sued the Clinton administration over the Brady Gun Control Act, which required local sheriffs to perform background checks for federal law, but without funding. The courts ruled that the Federal government could not force sheriffs to enforce a federal law without funding because that would violate a State's sovereignty. Now the sheriffs are fighting back against what they believe is an unconstitutional set of laws and executive orders. Hopefully it will result in a court show-down where the feds have to prove the constitutionality of their orders.

New York's Journal News Removes Gun Map

The Journal News newspaper in New York has removed a controversial interactive map of gun-permit holders in Westchester and Rockland counties from it's website. The paper caused an uproar over its posting a map pinpointing county citizens who held a permit-to-possess a handgun. Worse yet, readers could pull up the name and address of the permit holders on the website. The map, part of an anti-gun story posted in the wake of the Newtown, shooting was titled The gun owner next door: What you don't know about the weapons in your neighborhood.  

Properly outraged gun owners across the country reacted with disgust at the invasion of privacy, even though New York allowed the release of the data by law. The Journal News' comments and opinions section were filled with irate letters from residents from California to Florida.  Several people said that the map exposed both gun owners and non-owners to danger from criminals. The home addresses of several police officers were included on the map which could subject their families to retaliation  on source said.  The staff at the Journal News said that some of the letters were "threatening" and they hired armed security guards to protect their facility. 

When the Journal News refused to remove the map after several days, bloggers got busy and published a similar map -- with the names and addresses of the Journal News staff.  In response, some of the paper's staffers hired armed security to protect their homes.  To point out this hypocrisy, the people at Project Veritas posted this video where they posed as an anti-violence group and asked these elitists if they would post a "Gun Free Home" sign on their lawns. Not surprisingly, every one of them refused.  

Two homes have since been burglarized after the map's publication. In one case, thieves stole valuables but couldn't open a locked safe to acquire any firearms. In the second case, thieves opened two safes, taking jewelry and valuables, then carted off a third safe containing firearms. Police have not yet tied these burglaries to the Journal New's website however it is reported that both homes were listed on the site.

New York legislators moved quickly to amend the law to allow permit holders to withhold their personal information from public release. 

New York Gun Law Follies

It's back to the drawing board for the New York legislature.  In their rush to pass a new gun law that bans assault weapons and limits pistol magazines to only seven (7) shots, lawmakers forgot to exempt police officers from the statute.  According to New York officials, this doesn't actually impact police because a prior statute limiting magazine to ten shots exempted police officers. 

Gov. Cuomo

Other provisions of this unconstitutional bill include a mandatory one-hour waiting period when trying to register any firearm, an obvious ploy to discourage lawful ownership by making compliance with the law expensive, cumbersome and uncomfortable.  One unnamed police officer asked "Can you imagine what it's going to be like when thousands of people show up to register their guns?"  We can. There are other provisions of the law which are unworkable in practice.  Such as the 10-shot magazines already owned will still be legal, as long as you don't load more than seven bullets, said a state spokesman.  But how will police know if your shiny new 10-shot magazine was bought yesterday or five years ago?  They won't. The law is largely unenforceable. 

Priggish Pedantic Professors:

Academics weigh in from their ivory towers.  Over the decades of my life, one thing that I have learned is that when college and university professors speak out on a public issue they frequently get it all wrong.  Take a few examples here. 


"White Privilege" Behind Many Mass-Shootings Says Professor
CampusReform.org reports that Robert Jensen, a journalism professor at the University of Texas at Austin, claims mass shootings, such as those in Newtown Conn., and Aurora Colo., are often the effects of jilted “white privilege.”

“Why are the men who commit mass murder disproportionately white?” Jensen asked rhetorically. “My guess is that it has something to do with the sense of entitlement that most white people feel.”

“When the world doesn't deliver what those men feel they deserve, violence is seen as a reasonable response,” continued Jensen. He then tried to link the Tea Party movement to these violent acts.

My question is how in the hell a journalism professor thinks his position qualifies him to speak on issues of criminology and social issues? And given the low quality of journalism these days, perhaps he should focus on demanding excellence in journalism before letting himself be distracted by other fields of study that are over his head. 

Some quick research shows that Jensen focuses on "feminist" issues and deplored the 9/11 attacks but said it was no worse that what the U.S. military had done in his lifetime.  A rebuke from University of Texas President Larry Faulkner wrote in a letter to the editor published in the Houston Chronicle that he was "disgusted by Jensen's article" and called Jensen "a fountain of undiluted foolishness on issues of public policy." 



Good News, Bad News - 60% of young Americans plan to purchase firearms

According to a study by American University professor Jennifer L. Lawless and Loyola Marymount professor Richard L. Fox, (both political science professors) about 40 percent of the American students surveyed said they definitely planned to own firearms once they had established their own households. Another 20 percent said they were “contemplating” owning guns.

Those findings were part of a broader study conducted which focused on the political opinions of young Americans. The study was conducted prior the recent Newtown massacre, but after the Aurora theater shooting.

Lawless told Campus Reform on Tuesday that in her view the findings were proof that President Obama should move swiftly, and without the permission of Congress if necessary, in order limit the availability of firearms.

“The next generation plans on owning guns, so if we want to avoid the tragedies that we've seen… we obviously need to move quickly and if an executive order is the way to do it, then that is the way the to do it,” she said.

Students who identified as Democrats were twice as likely to fear gun violence as those who were not, the study found. Only 33 percent of the respondents who were questioned were raised in households where guns were owned.

David Burnett, the public relations director of the conservative student group Students for Concealed Carry, told Campus Reform on Tuesday he was not surprised by the study’s result.

“With every single spree killing we've seen in this nation in the past twenty years, with every sexual assault that takes place, nine every day on college campuses, with every robbery report we have, with every campus that goes on lock-down, these gun free zones are proven to be indefensible and impractical,” he said.

“College campuses put pictures on the door and expect psychopaths to abide by them,” he continued.  “I think more and more college students have been waking up to this reality in the past five years since Virginia tech and they don’t want it.”

The good news is that 40% of students graduating from high school or colleges plan to acquire a firearm and another 20% are considering it. That shows that young people are aware of the benefits of owning a firearm for protection and/or sport.  

The bad news is the conclusion and recommendations advocated by one of the study's researchers.  How appropriate is it that a professor named "Lawless" advocates the President take unconstitutional actions to prevent the next generation from owning guns? What is frightening is that she has a Ph.D in political science. I guess she skipped that pesky class on the U.S. Constitution.  And I have no doubt she is one of those gun-fearing Democrats her study uncovered. 

She offers no proof that lawful gun ownership is a cause of tragic shootings or that a lack of available firearms would actually prevent mass killings of any type.  If anyone wanted evidence that academics will distort the truth to support the leftist agenda, just have a talk with professor Lawless. 

Professor Ignores Colorado state law with personal Classroom Gun Ban 
Colorado University physics professor Jerry Peterson said he stood by his policy stated last year that he would cancel class if he became aware of a student carrying a gun.

Peterson’s rule stirred controversy last August when he announced the policy in August 2012 because it seemed to directly defy a 2011 Colorado Supreme Court ruling that granted individuals the right to carry firearms CU campus.

In a description of the policy in August, Peterson said he would not tolerate any sort of firearm in his classroom space.  “My own personal policy in my classes is if I am aware that there is a firearm in the class -- registered or unregistered, concealed or unconcealed -- the class session is immediately canceled,” Peterson told a local paper in 2011.

"I will tell you the position of the university is unchanged," Bronson Hilliard, Director of Media Relations for CU said,  "Any faculty or staff member who withholds services from students based on their concealed carry weapons permit status will face university discipline."

David Burnett, the spokesman for Students for Concealed Carry, expressed regret to Campus Reform that the professor was seemingly failing to abide by state law.

"Until the carry ban was removed, Students for Concealed Carry urged our members to respect and abide by it," he said. "Apparently our opponents don't share our respect for the law."


Once again, a professor thinks he knows better than everyone else. He may know and understand the physics behind ballistics, but he is obviously unaware (or perhaps unconcerned) of the dangers some of his students may face in the real world. 

ENOUGH! No More Restrictions (Part II)

Congress Lacks Authority

There is nothing in the Constitution that gives Congress (or the President for that matter) the authority to prohibit citizens from acquiring military style or military type weapons. To do so would "infringe" on the Second Amendment right. None of the authorities given to Congress, not even to regulate commerce, were envisioned to provide them with the power or authority to regulate away the types of arms citizens could own.  As evidenced by this commentary by one member of the delegation to create the Bill of Rights. 

"The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier , are the birth-right of an American ... the unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people. "
    -- Tench Coxe    Pennsylvania Gazette, February 20, 1788  [emphasis added]

For the President, to recommend banning "assault weapons" is certainly a violation of his oath of office. His oath requires him to support and defend the constitution.  He cannot plead any ignorance that such a move would be blatantly unconstitutional since he was reportedly a teacher of constitutional law. For the President to urge Congress to exceed their authority, both despite the plain history of the constitution and the recent Supreme Court decision that firearm ownership is an individual right, is a clear, willful and wanton violation of his oath and the Constitution.  The Supreme Court, as far back as 1939 has said that military type weapons are protected by the Second Amendment.  

If this president had suggested this kind of action in 1875 against the repeating rifles like the Henry or Winchester rifles, it is likely that if Congress did not move to impeach him that many residents of the eastern states would have called for charges of treason!  

Other measures called for by the president will likely be ineffectual in preventing further attempts at mass murder by deranged individuals. Simply banning certain weapons will only result in these people planning to use improvised explosives or incendiary devices.  In fact, the worst school massacre in U.S. history was the result of exactly this combination.  And it happened in 1927, when guns were easily bought, sold and traded as easily as selling a hammer or carpenter's level.  

Some of these recommendations, when paired together, allow us to extrapolate how they may be used to justify further restrictions.  Take these two recommendations;

• Push for mandatory laws on reporting lost or stolen firearms.
• Require any gun recovered in any criminal investigation to be traced (presumably even if the owner is known).

There is nothing inherently wrong with a reporting law. But such a law must be fair and reasonable. Any time limit on reporting must begin with the discovery of the theft, not the actual theft itself.  A firearm stolen the day after you leave for a two week holiday cannot be reported stolen until the owner return. One worry here is that government will enforce this law to the limit and prosecute someone for reporting at 48¾ hours because he was waiting for a friend to check inside his car or home.  

Equally disturbing is wasting resources by mandating all guns be checked in a criminal investigation. "Any criminal investigation" would include misdemeanors in which a firearm plays no part and the crime has no bearing on the person's ability to own gun.  Police can deem any firearm found during an investigation as "recovered." This means if you call police regarding a prowler and when they arrive, you have said prowler at gunpoint, they will then be obligated to trace your gun. If that takes several days, you'll have try to get it back (good luck) and undergo another background check to get your own property back (in some states you'll fork over $19 for that privilege).  

• Step up efforts to prosecute felons attempting to buy guns and those providing false information when purchasing guns.

While this sounds good, I'm dubious about it working.  The graphs below will help illustrate why I don't have much confidence that this will reduce much crime or have a great impact on crime. I'm also dubious that convicted felons who have a modicum of "smarts" will go to gun retailers to obtain guns, versus buying them out of someone's trunk on the street. 

The chart above shows all NICS checks for 2009 and the percentages for rejections. But percentages can be misleading.  There were over six million NICS checks in 2009 which resulted in 67,300 denials. Of those denials, 14,200 people appealed them and 23% or about 3,300 were later cleared.  The good news is that 44,000 rejections were for felons and wanted fugitives (including deadbeat dads and people who had failed to pay fines in full). The vast majority of people (99.02%) purchasing firearms are legitimate, law abiding "good guy" citizens. The remaining less than 1% (0.977% for the detail oriented) less those who successfully appealed looks like the chart below

NICS Denials by Type. Represents 0.977% of all NICS Transactions

It is important to remind the reader that the entire "pie" above represents less than 1% of all background checks.  Thus, the 48.5% shown for felons represents less than ½ of 1% of the total checks.  Currently, mentally ill people make up less than 0.013% of the total.  These stats show that gun buyers are overwhelmingly legally entitled to do so.  

NICS Denials by Disposition - 2009

In 2009, there were over 71,000 denials, of which 4,600 were referred to an BATF field office for investigation.  This resulted in only 140 cases referred for prosecution and only 32 convictions or guilty pleas. All this thrashing around and expense for very few prosecutions makes me wonder if we can't find a better way to stop prohibited persons from obtaining firearms.  It makes me wonder why, out of some 32,000 felons, 11,000 fugitives and over 6,000 drug addicts being rejected why only thirty-two (0.0005% of all NICS checks or 0.045% of all denials) prosecutions.  Why does BATF not follow up on known felons trying to obtain guns in violation of the law? 

Gun Control Doesn't Work

After weeks of looking at data from the FBI, CDC, NIJ, BJS and other alphabet soup agencies that publish statistics I've tried to find a relationship between violent crime, homicide and gun control with no luck.  There is no correlation between the enactment of any gun control laws and a reduction in crime. 

Violent crime and homicides peaked in 1991 and began a downward trend that continues today. The current  rate of violent crime is about the same as we had in 1972 (~400 per 100,000).  The exact reason for the decline is not well understood and perhaps some researcher will find a relationship to explain the decline. 

With this decline beginning in 1991 we cannot credit the Brady Act (1994) or the Assault Weapons Ban (1994) for lowering the violent crime or homicide rates. The Gun-Free School Zone act was passed in 1990 but ruled void by the courts and updated in 1995.  Some states passed versions of a three-strikes law which may have had some impact, but that remains to be studied. 

The only apparent relationship I could find was by accident when looking at historical immigration trends (for a different project actually). In this case, there is an apparent relationship that deserves further scrutiny before suggesting a cause and effect relationship.  But I must admit I find the idea may have some merit in understanding the peak in violent crime given the amnesties and immigration issues that have embroiled our politics for too long. 

Hopefully this blog has given you some food for thought.  I hope you are questioning the effectiveness of adding more "gun control" to solve a problem that does not respond to deterrent laws and laws that act mostly upon the law-abiding people of the country.

It is time we focused on making the use of a gun in a crime a serious penalty for criminals. And I mean for the true criminals - people with a criminal history that indicates they skirt the laws or have felony convictions. These are the ones we want to dissuade from using a gun. The only way I know to do that is longer prison sentences that allow the criminal to "grow out" of the violence of youth.  If we need to release non-violent offenders and small-time offenders to make room, then we can probably live with that if the violence continues to diminish.

Please, leave a comment if you found this article interesting or if you have something to say.

ENOUGH! No More Restrictions!

WE DRAW THE LINE HERE. 
NO MORE RESTRICTIONS! 

In the wake of two tragic shootings, President Obama assigned Vice President Joe Biden, a man who never met a gun restriction he didn't like, the task of recommending changes to deal with violent crime and "gun violence". Does anyone really think that the result of Biden's "panel" was not preordained, if not pre-written?

As a result, the Vice President's panel made many of the same predictable recommendations we've heard proposed by the anti-gun lobby for years. These recommendations will do NOTHING to prevent or reduce the kind of violence the President (and Democrat party) is using to pass these laws.  It was too predictable and with all the media attention, what else would a gun-hating Chicago-style bureaucrat say, but... 

Round Up Twice The Number of Usual Suspects!

Ban Assault Weapons, Magazine Limits, Background Checks

Instead of making V.P. Biden's meetings productive and creating a national dialogue, the President will pay token attention to those recommendations and push for a major gun control bill.  How do we know that?  Just a day or two after announcing Biden's assignment the President asked people to tell their congress-critters to ban assault weapons. 

Why go to the trouble of having a "fact-finding" panel when you've already decided on your course of action? Simple. To pay lip service to all the voices that blamed violent media or demanded more mental health care.  Sure, there will be some attention on those issues, but Obama's main thrust will be to demagogue the firearm industry and gun owners.  

Here are some of the ideas coming out of this administration and why they miss the mark. 

• Assault weapons ban with a broader definition that includes one "military characteristic".  
• Limited magazine capacity to 10 shots
• Background checks on every sale or transfer of firearms
• Expand the list of "prohibited persons" to include "dangerous persons
• Tighten the ban on so-called "cop killer" armor piercing bullets

The 1994 ban on "Assault Weapons" had no measurable impact on crime.  That's what the government's own studies showed as well as a couple of independent studies. Crimes with these weapons remain low.  Rifles account for about 2.5% of homicides and assault rifles make up only a small portion of the rifles used.  In 2011, there were 323 homicides with rifles nationwide making homicide with a rifle almost literally a one in a million occurrence!  Note that the total number of homicides in 2011 was 12,664, of which 8583 were committed by some type of firearm. 

Proponents say that the ban didn't go far enough or wasn't tight enough to prevent people from circumventing the law. Be that as it may, a law that does not lower crime but does strip people of important choices is unjust.  

The gun control lobby (and the President) want us to believe in their propaganda message that "If it saves just one life it's worth it".  If this is true - that banning a whole range of firearms to save just one [child's] life is worth all the negative consequences of the ban - then it stands to reason it works both ways.  If an AR-15 saves just one [child's] life, having them around is worth it.  So, here it is.  A Mount Royal Village, Texas boy who used an assault rifle to protect himself and his sister when two men broke into their home.  No matter. The idiots in the gun control lobby will trot out 1,001 excuses to dismiss this story as irrelevant. 

WW-II Rifles - Which is an "assault weapon"

"Assault Weapon" is a political term invented by the Violence Policy Center, a spin-off of the anti-gun Brady Campaign.  It was intended to confuse the public's perception about exactly what guns were targeted with anti-gun laws. These groups further encouraged confusion by letting (or helping) the media to show video of fully-automatic weapons being fired.  Thus "Assault Weapon" is a grouping that includes whatever gun(s) they add to the group rather than something that is easily articulated.  This verbal dishonesty allows them to include all forms of firearms, such as home-defense shotguns, some handguns, a lot of lightweight, small-caliber rifles as well as civilian versions of battle rifles.  

Take a look at the two rifles in the photo above. Which is an "assault weapon"?  Under the 1994 ban, neither would be classed as an assault weapon.  In 2013, Diane Feinstein's bill would certainly ban one of these classic rifles, perhaps both (the devil is in the unreleased details).  If you guessed the magazine-fed carbine on the bottom would be an "assault weapon", go to the head of the class.  The semi-automatic .30 caliber M1 Carbine, with its 15-round magazine is a target of the new gun ban.  Keep in mind that our elected officials and media use adjectives like "high powered" just before "assault weapon" to instill fear in the public.  Just to show you how false this is, the M1 Garand, shown above the carbine, holds 8 shots of .30-06 ammo, but there is a big difference in the power of each cartridge. Take a look at the cartridges these guns fire. 

.30-06 Springfield of the M1 Garand (top) versus the
.30 Carbine (bottom) cartridge of the M1 Carbine.

The M1 Carbine cartridge is a smaller cartridge resembling pistol ammo more than rifle ammo.  The range of the larger .30-06 is about 800 yards, and the .30 Carbine is effective to about 150 yards. Yet, political wags tell us the little carbine is a "high powered" gun that must be controlled!  

In WW-II the carbine was issued in lieu of harder to produce .45 caliber pistols. It was issued to cooks, clerks, truck drivers and artillery crews. It was considered a "light carbine" with ballistic performance similar to the .357 Magnum revolver cartridge. There were rumors during Korea, where the M1 Carbine was widely used, that it would not penetrate the heavy winter jackets worn by the North Korean and Chinese troops when fired at over 100 yards.  In contrast, the .30-06 Springfield standard ammunition could penetrate through a spare rifle magazine on the front of a Chinese soldier, his jacket and exit the soldier's body at over 200 yards.  But somehow the M1 Carbine is a "dangerous assault weapon".

The larger .30-06 Springfield cartridge of the M1 Garand versus
the smaller "intermediate range" 5.56mm (.223) for the AR-15

Perhaps more telling is the difference between the AR-15's cartridge and the M1 Garand. Once again, the .30-06 Springfield cartridge is compared to the modern 5.56mm (.223) cartridge of the AR-15.  As you can see, the AR-15 cartridge is smaller, shoots a smaller bullet with a shorter effective range.  

The .30-06 Springfield was the main rifle cartridge of WW-II and in post-war years the top hunting cartridge in North America. It has good penetration on game and much better penetration on metal targets than either the .30 Carbine or the 5.56mm cartridge. 

Standard capacity magazines save lives.

The limit on magazine capacity makes no sense either. All of these laws will exempt police and military use of "high capacity" (standard issue size) magazines, but limit civilians to 10 shots in whatever guns are not banned.  Gun control advocates claim this will somehow limit the number of victims at a shooting scene because the shooter will have to reload.  "That will give someone maybe a few seconds to stop him" they've claimed. Really? A few seconds for you to observe, make up your mind, steel yourself for a fight and cover whatever distance between you and the shooter? They've got to be kidding! If you're not convinced, watch this video of someone well practiced in changing magazines. 

Travis Tomasie of the U.S. Army shooting team 

demonstrates a fast (0.44 sec.) competition reload.

If multiple intruders break into your home while you are there they pose an immediate threat to you and your family. If you call the police and if they respond in time, the police will operate in several 2 or 4-man teams, wearing body armor, coordinate their actions by two-way radios, carrying assault weapons and handguns with 15 to 30 round magazines that are outfitted with laser sights and/or intense flashlights, have flash-bang grenades available, possibly with a helicopter overhead equipped with infra-red night vision and a spotlight, plus a SWAT team on call if needed.   

In the citizen's world, however, (s)he is rudely awakened by the noise of the intrusion, will be operating in the dark, on his/her own, barefoot, lightly dressed without spare magazines readily available, with no back-up, no SWAT team on-call and possibly half as many shots as just one of the intruders.  This is what our government officials deem as "sufficient" for your protection.  


Expanding Background Checks With Dangerous Persons

The current system in the National Instant Check System (NICS). A licensed dealer feeds your personal information and the type of gun purchased into NICS. This system approves or rejects the buyer based on their legal and mental history.  The system can issue a response of "proceed", "deny" or "delay". The delay happens when there is uncertainty if the buyer is legally qualified (i.e. a person with a similar name and description has a felony record). For delayed purchases, NICS has three days to issue an approval and if not, the sale proceeds anyhow.   

The NICS system combines records from several databases, the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) records wanted people and protection orders, the Interstate Identification Index (III) for criminal records and the NICS Index which has information about persons predetermined to be prohibited. 

The President's call for agencies to share more information with NICS would seem logical. However, there are problems.

Returning veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan who are having difficulties adjusting may, through the VA hospitals, voluntarily appoint someone to help them manage their affairs while they seek counseling and treatment.  This is very helpful to battle-weary soldiers returning to face things like a divorce, a critically ill child, substantial financial debt due to their service or a combination of problems. Except under Obama's plan, these veterans would be forever listed as mentally ill and prohibited from owning or buying any guns. Why should our soldiers be forced to choose between retaining their constitutional rights or seeking a benefit of their service?  

Then, there are things like the "No-Fly List" and the "Terrorist Watch List". If people like Ted Kennedy can find themselves grounded by the no-fly list, adding these kinds of quasi-legal lists to the NICS check will abuse the rights of thousands.  These lists are "secret" and they won't tell you how you got onto it and if you ask to be removed, they may just ignore you with impunity.  A simple "computer glitch" could flag everyone as being prohibited through one of these lists and there is no way to verify it. 

Cop-Killer Armor Piercing Bullets
Another red-herring by the gun control lobby is the idea there are thousands of people running about with armor piercing (AP) bullets just waiting to kill police.  First, armor piercing handgun ammunition has been restricted to police & military since 1994.  So it is already regulated. 

Next, the current definition of armor piercing is a bullet with a core made not from lead, but one or more of a list of materials -- such as brass and tungsten or steel -- without the bullet actually being loaded into a cartridge.  Just the bullet.  But the gun haters want to cleverly change the law to say that any ammunition that can penetrate soft body armor (like police wear) and can be fired from a handgun is prohibited.  

Here's the problem. This definition doesn't say ammunition designed to be used in a handgun. Many rifle cartridges, even with hunting loads, will penetrate soft body armor at modest distances.  Should someone, somewhere decide to make a single-shot pistol that chambers a rifle cartridge, then a hunter possessing that ammo could be prosecuted.  In fact, this is already a dispute with the BATF regarding some cartridges. The law must be clear that the ammunition is designed for a handgun.  

I'll show you what's wrong with some of the other proposals in my next column. 

Kids And Guns

Ask anyone who with a little boy around the house if their son ever picked up a stick and turned it into an imaginary sword.  Or used his thumb and forefinger to emulate a gun to "shoot" one of his siblings.  Watch young boys playing and you'll usually find them emulating a super-hero, a swashbuckling pirate or even a lion or tiger. According to most experts, this is normal as young boys seem hardwired to project their power over each other and even the natural world around them.

Does this mean little boys are somehow born as rampaging mass killers?  Of course not. Watch boys playing and they will build a sand castle just to drive their Tonka® trucks into it and destroy it. Boys seem to learn from this cycle of building and destruction to make their structures more elaborate, bigger or stronger.

Boys who own legal firearms have much lower rates 

of delinquency and drug use and are even slightly less 

delinquent than non-owners of guns."

Today we hear from "experts" -- usually those with a hatred of firearms -- that "kids and guns don't mix" or "keep guns away from children". They claim a child who gets near a firearm is "a tragedy waiting to happen".  I'll be one of the first to admit that if you have very small children around the house, keeping your firearms behind lock & key is a wise move. Parents know you can't watch them every moment.  But those in the anti-gun movement (or the far left) react in horror at parents who teach their children to shoot safely.

The anti-gun lobby makes comments like "Teaching a child to kill is not parenting" or "Letting your child touch a gun disqualifies you as a parent".  On YouTube videos showing a child shooting a .22 rifle, one comment was that "Parents who let their kids play with guns should be executed!" So much for their preaching tolerance and diversity.

In 1995, a study[¹] by the NIJ Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency prevention revealed that gun ownership was actually beneficial, stating "Boys who own legal firearms have much lower rates of delinquency and drug use and are even slightly less delinquent than non-owners of guns."[²]

Activity	Illegal Gun	No Gun	Legal Gun
Street Crimes	74%	24%	14%
Drug Use	41%	15%	13%
Gun Crimes	21%	1%	0%

Relationship between type of gun owned and percent 

committing street, drug and gun crimes.

Teaching our kids gun safety should be as common as teaching them to ride a bike safely or go hand in hand with kitchen safety around hot and sharp things.  Yet, the left only considers it as "training for killers".   If we took their myopic vision to other areas, our children would be ignorant about germs and personal hygiene.  Instead, look what happens when kids are taught to shoot and compete in a controlled and safe environment. 

And lest you think this pasttime is just for "older" students in their teens, take a look at the youngest shooter in practical shooting competition;

Miko Andres, six years, competes in the AustralAsia 

competion shooting a .45 ACP pistol! 

Certainly it takes time, patience and a very focused child to begin shooting at such an early age.  This shows that even children as young as six and seven can shot responsibly enough when properly trained and supervised.

Once again, facts contradict the claims of the anti-gun lobby that children and guns are not a good combination.  I believe these self-proclaimed protectors of "the children" sell children short on their mental abilities. Children need to be children, however at the same time history shows us that children benefit when they are challenged through self-discipline (with parental assistance of course). The statistics from the NIJ study show the benefit of legal gun ownership and shooting sports - parents involved in their children's lives, spending quality time together sharing a sport, instilling discipline and focus that will help them in the future.


¹ Source: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, NCJ-143454, "Urban Delinquency and Substance Abuse," August 1995.
² "The socialization into gun ownership is also vastly different for legal and illegal gun owners. Those who own legal guns have fathers who own guns for sport and hunting. On the other hand, those who own illegal guns have friends who own illegal guns and are far more likely to be gang members. For legal gun owners, socialization appears to take place in the family; for illegal gun owners, it appears to take place 'on the street.'"

Trifecta of Failure - Drugs, Gun Control and the Media

The recent tragedy at Newtown, Connecticut's Sandy Hook elementary school started a national debate. That's good. Not so good are the failures we are seeing in this debate. 

Before we start, let's make it absolutely clear that the Second Amendment is not about hunting. It is meant to provide Americans with their last resort to stop a tyrannical government, state or federal. It is a gift from our founding fathers to preserve the spirit of their revolution. Period.[¹] 

If the media continues to fail the people as a source of information there will be no honest debate. There is a shocking amount information the media fails to provide. Sandy Hook was covered like a blanket with dozens of daily reports recounting the horror, the body count and comparisons to other school shootings. But great gaps exists. 

Lack of Media Investigations

So far, no investigative reports reveal the facts. In a review of seventeen mass school shootings[²] since 1989, assault weapons were used less than 19% of the time (just 3 of 17). More over, publicly available data says almost 60% of the killers used mood-altering drugs such as Ritalin, Prozac and Zoloft. These drugs account for 75% of the dead and wounded in the seventeen school shootings studied. But despite the media's money and resources no one has examined this relationship. 


Pharmaceutical Cover-Up?

What of the drug companies? The side effects of these drugs are dangerous. Rage, suicidal thoughts and acts of violence are not unusual. Is it any wonder that 60% of the killers on these drugs commit suicide? These drugs are over three times more likely to be involved than assault weapons, yet we are not addressing the dangers. We hear "Big Pharma" tell us that the majority are used "safely" and the media swallows it whole, while demonizing guns, of which less than 0.9% are misused. I'm sure advertising revenues play no part in the media's silence. 


Does Gun Control Even Work?

We must ask why more gun control being pushed as the solution. Specifically, why ban assault weapons and limit capacity of guns when psychotropic drugs are three times more likely to be involved?  In my review of the seventeen mass shootings over a 23-year span, assault weapons were the minority type used.  So why the big push for a ban on assault weapons? Does gun control even work? 

Evidence says no. A review of the available statistics from the FBI, CDC and other agencies shows that despite adding some 18,000 or more laws between 1965 and 1991, violent crime and homicide rates tripled. Since 1991, rates have declined to 1972 levels, just double that of 1965, before the first gun control act was passed. You would think that if gun control was going to work at all, we'd see some evidence of it in the last 45 years.  We have not.  Adding the current gun control proposals would be like trying to stop drunk driving by banning two-seat V8 sports cars and making everyone drive around with a six-gallon gas tank. 

If we are to have an honest debate the media must start doing its job. Reporters and editors must start looking at what is behind these shootings. Why are these people so angry and unable to find help? Why are dangerous drugs dispensed with so little oversight about their side effects?  

¹ If you want to argue it's absurd to think we could use pistols and rifles against tanks, Apache helicopters and nuclear weapons, save yourself some time, don't. Instead learn what it means to control a population. Or research how many governments have been taken over by authoritarian rule and killed hundreds of thousands of their own people. 

² A school mass shooting is defined as 3 or more fatalities for this study. 

Internet Gun Sales

Internet Shopping

If you are listening to the media, you may be under the impression that Internet gun sales create a huge loophole in the law.  The media won't tell you that federal regulations still apply to Internet sales of firearms at all levels.  You cannot directly purchase and receive firearms over the internet.  Only licensed dealers or licensed individuals can receive firearms and they have to abide by the state and federal laws before transferring the guy to the buyer. 

When you use the Internet to order from outfits like Amazon.Com, LLBean.com or Costco.com, items are packaged and shipped right to your door.  However, when you buy a firearm, direct delivery to your door is not allowed under federal law.[¹]   All firearms must be shipped to a licensed dealer.  Before ordering, you must send a copy of your dealer's license and a copy of your own ID (to prove your age).  Once the order is processed it is shipped to the dealer's address on his license.  When it arrives, the end user still fills out all the required state and federal forms to purchase a firearm.  In some states, like California, all handgun transactions must be performed through a licensed dealer.  

It's quite legal to purchase firearm parts on the internet. Parts such as optic sights, replacement parts, slings, grips, holsters and the like. If you want to buy just the receiver - the main frame of a firearm that holds all the other parts - it is treated like a complete firearm and shipped to a licensed dealer. 

So the next time someone tells you there is an "internet loophole" that must be closed, tell them they are sadly misinformed. Tell them that Internet guns sales are still regulated like any other gun sales.



¹ There are exceptions for "curio & relic" firearms, such as black powder muzzle loaders, guns at least fifty years old or older and those guns made before 1899. These guns are either collectors items or unlikely to be used illegally according to BATFE.