Skip to comments.Gun Violence -- Let's Shift the Odds in Favor of the Good Guys!
Posted on 12/20/2012 3:37:38 AM PST by Kaslin
The unimaginable horror of Sandy Hook jumpstarts another "national conversation" about firearm violence. President Barack Obama, promising "meaningful action," said: "We will have to change. ... We can't tolerate this anymore. These tragedies must end."
Let's examine four of the "commonsense" measures frequently proposed by "gun control advocates":
One, closing the "gun show loophole." What gun show loophole? Restricted from selling at guns shows prior to 1986, a licensed dealer today requires a background check whether he sells guns at a store, a gun show or the back of his SUV.
Two, banning "high-capacity" magazines. One of the firearms used by Adam Lanza was a Bushmaster .223, with a magazine that can carry as many as 30 rounds. Would there have been less carnage had he been limited to a firearm with low-capacity magazines? What is the appropriate amount of firepower? Clips with 10 rounds? Five rounds? If the idea is to reduce the lethality of the guns, what does this do to reduce the lethality of the shooter's intent?
The deadliest school massacre on American soil appears to have occurred in Chicago in 1958. A student set fire to the school, killing 92 students and three nuns. And in 1927, in Michigan, a former member of the school board set bombs at three schools, killing 45 (mostly second- to sixth-graders), including the bomber.
The Columbine tragedy could have been worse. Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold set bombs throughout the school, but only one partially detonated, doing little damage. But had the bombs gone off as intended, hundreds could have been killed.
Three, reinstating the so-called "assault weapons" ban. An "assault rifle" is one where puling the trigger unleashes a volley of bullets, like a Tommy gun or AK-47. Since 1934, these firearms require licensing and registration. And in 1986, these weapons were banned from civilian sale. These laws remain in effect. The "assault weapons" ban did not restrict fully automatic weapons. Again, they were already under strict guidelines.
What exactly did this ban do? It outlawed certain weapons based on cosmetic features, many of which have nothing to do with the firepower or lethality. For example, the ban defined as an "assault weapon" a firearm with three or more of the following features: a folding or telescoping stock; a pistol grip; a bayonet mount; a flash suppressor; a muzzle capable of launching a grenade; and a magazine capacity over 10 rounds. It outlawed the manufacturing of 18 specific models of semi-automatic weapons.
The Bushmaster .223 was not one of the outlawed weapons.
The ban, enacted in 1994, expired 10 years later. What has been the result? Nothing. Crime was unaffected. The reason is simple. Assault-style rifles (the kind banned by the law) are rarely used in crime. Less than 1 percent of weapons used in crimes are fully automatic rifles (illegal to buy for nearly 30 years). An estimated 1 to 2 percent of firearms used in crime are assault-style rifles, like the one used in Newtown.
Four, requiring a mental health test to prevent the "mentally ill" from purchasing a firearm. The goal is to predict who will use a firearm in an unlawful way. But how to define mental illness? Is it depression? Abraham Lincoln supposedly suffered from depression or melancholia. Would the 16th president be denied the right to purchase a firearm? Do you forbid someone from purchasing a firearm if he or she is in therapy? Should a psychiatrist be required to inform the police when a client expresses anger, hatred or feelings of revenge?
Apart from the Second Amendment, how many other amendments to the Constitution will have been violated by denying someone the right to purchase a firearm because he is predicted to use the gun illegally -- based on a psych test.
So what can be done?
We can harden the target to make it more likely that the shooter will encounter resistance. We can re-examine the soundness of "gun-free" zones like schools and malls. By law and policy, these are places where bad guys know there are no guns.
Rampage school shootings in Pearl, Miss., Edinboro, Pa., and in Grundy, Va., have been stopped or minimized by citizens with legal weapons. More recently, it appears that a concealed-carry weapon (CCW) holder minimized the damage that a shooter sought to inflict at the Clackamas Mall near Portland, Ore.
Nick Meli, who has a CCW permit and was armed, positioned himself near the mall shooter. Meli did not shoot, but feels he stopped what could have been greater carnage: "I'm not beating myself up 'cause I didn't shoot him. I know after he saw me, I think the last shot he fired was the one he used on himself."
Americans, according to criminologist Gary Kleck, use guns 2.5 million times each year for self-defense, usually just brandishing the weapon. (The attacker is wounded in less than 8 percent of self-defense cases.) Of the 2.5 million, 400,000 claim that but for their gun they would have been dead. If we're serious about "doing something," we might consider shifting the odds in favor of the good guys.
Just imagine how the MSM would react if the situation changed. Imagine the reaction: Teacher shoots boy trying to kill students.
It started out as a simple check to see if the potential buyer is/was a felon/drug user/mental patient and has since been expanded to include those charged or accused of domestic violence, crimes that might be felonies today but weren't earlier, etc. Nothing is in place to stop the government from expanding those restrictions any way they want to.
The systems allow no way for a citizen to review their records within that system - to know why they were delayed or turned down - or to challenge a refusal.
We have handed the government the full power to define our rights to keep and bear arms as completely as they'd like.
If you haven't written to your representatives and spoken out against this final grab for power, we deserve what we get.
One minor correction, Mr. Elder. The Firearm Owner’s Protection Act of 1986 didn’t ban civilians purchasing fully automatic firearms. FOPA only ended the importation of fully automatic firearms to the civilian market, thereby, driving up the price of these firearms with the limited supply. Today, you can still purchase fully automatic firearms provided you pay your $200 tax, at least $7500 for the firearm, registration, passing the ATF background check, and your resident State (like TX) allows the purchase.
I am sick and tired of the knee jerk reaction from congress. I don’t think they have gotten anything right in the last 60 years...passing feel good laws has to stop. I believe the people are tired of the type of BS.
I agree with you with exception of the review part. Technically, you can challenge or petition the gov. to see why a denial was issued. I was given a brochure on the procedures for this several years ago at a show. Whether it’s effective or just smoke and mirrors is another issue.
Has that Nick Meli thing been verified?
The maniac at a school door wearing ninja gear armed with an assault rifle would have been summarily dispatched by an "armed" school guard.........an "armed" school custodian, or even an "armed" teacher. One shot and 26 people would have been saved.......including 20 children
The troubled Lanza--untethered from reality--was a toxic cocktail---infused with the killing culture via video games that he obsessively watched. All of which taught him exactly how to mow down a crowd of people w/ a gun.
No one I know would know how to do that----since they don't have video game tutorials. Yet, there is no outcry to ban destructive "how-to" video games. Yes, regulate assault weapons---but get rid of video games, as well. And arm key school personnel.
Is merely "carrying" a gun protection enough? Do you actually have to shoot someone to protect yourself? Read on.
Women being stalked is epidemic---so much so there is an entire cable series devoted to the subject. The cases are shocking---with women being killed, beaten and maimed just b/c they decided to leave an abusive spouse or boyfriend.
One case involved a successful woman who was brutally beaten by her live-in. She then decided to leave. He stalked her relentlessly, he emptied her bank accounts; she could not hold a job--he would harrass her employers causing her dismissal. She had to move constantly b/c he threatened the life of anyone who sheltered her.
At the end of her rope, she decided she would take a new tact. She got licensed to carry a weapon. When the stalker drove up her driveway, she went outside holding her weapon at her side. She NEVER pointed it at him nor did she use it---she just wanted him to see it.
Oh yeah, he saw it. He turned tail and rarely showed up at her door again.
Here's another famous case where just holding a gun saved two lives.
A NY Dad and his son were on a "bonding weekend" at their isolated weekend New England cottage. A loud insistent knock on the front door aroused the savvy dad's suspicions. The Dad positioned his son behind a large chair out of sight of the doorway.
The Dad then got out his gun and held it at his side---he cautiously pulled aside the curtain on the door and saw a teenaged stranger asking to "use the phone."
The savvy Dad became even more alarmed---he raised his gun and rested his hand on the door jamb---so the stranger could see the outline of the gun. Sure enough the stranger fled.
Later the Dad found signs of a 2nd intruder, the telephone wires had been cut and a makeshift grave dug at the back of the house.
But the story did not end there. The Dad's story was being told in the context of the brutal knife-killing of husband and wife professors who had let two teenaged strangers into their house.........the same two who had attempted to kill the Dad and his son. The profs did not have weapons.
This is true and needs to stop. Refusing to explain the delay or being turned down is refusing a redress of grievance.
Imagine a country where a significant segment of the population repeatedly breaks laws; rapes others from 5 months to 85 year olds; murders people on the highways, drunk and with no license. Now imagine that this group is rewarded with food, health care, supplemental income and even refunds on income tax when they pay no tax.
Now imagine a country where another significant segment of society commits little if any crime, pays taxes and plays by the rules. They get no food, health care, supplemental income or tax refunds. They are are derided, mocked and punished for what they think or for what they might do in the future.
Welcome to Amerika, no longer the land of the free.
Yes because loads and loads of people buying video games means that they are all ticking time bombs......
Video game tutorials? I didn’t realize that guns had directional pads, a buttons, b buttons, x buttons and y buttons. I guess that Tetris also should be banned.
I saw the interview he did with a Portland TV station. He said he heard the shots, got his girlfriend into cover, then drew his CCW Glock 22, found some cover himself, and saw the shooter. He aimed at him, and the shooter did see him, but he did not fire because he said he saw people moving behind the guy and he thought if he missed he might hit an innocent bystander.
After seeing Meli, the shooter only fired one more shot...into himself.
Ironically, Meli is a security guard by trade, and once worked at the mall where the shooting took place.
Everyone should read this gem by Karl Denninger on the subject of Obama (and many others) being complete hypocrites on the gun ssue: http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=215107
Please also pass it on to other threads and your email lists. This kind of brutal logic MUST become part of the “national conversation on guns” that the gun-ban crowd wants to have.
***The deadliest school massacre on American soil appears to have occurred in Chicago in 1958.***
I remember that when I was a child. I did not realize it was arson.
Over 20,000 schools in America today have armed guards.
When I went to school- we didn’t have any of these problems and the village police was known to all of us-—and he knew all of us.
***I am sick and tired of the knee jerk reaction from congress.***
It is not knee jerk. It is meticulously planned. They draft an anti law, then set back waiting, waiting.
Then when there is a shooting they grab the bill, introduce it, then run around in circles screaming “We all gon’a die if you don’t pass this NOW!” That is how California passed it’s gun ban.
Why, holding any conservative viewpoints, of course!
Everyone should read this gem by Karl Denninger