Gun Control: Rights, Responsibilities, And Privileges

[GS_Dirtboy]

I feel compelled to write this after a week of reflection on the Sandy Hook Elementary School shootings. There have been a number of discussions on this forum not only about self-defense and gun control in Buenos Aires but also gun usage in general so I thought this group would be a good sounding board and get a lively discussion on the topic. I apologize in advance for the length of this post.

Let me first address the question, “Who am I to be talking about gun control?” Here is my background: I was a Rifle and Pistol Expert in the US Marines. After being commissioned an officer I flew in the US Navy as a fighter pilot. I am a life-long owner of many firearms (my first at age 5), an avid hunter, a competitive shooter, a long-time member of the NRA, and have been a firearms instructor and range safety officer. When it comes to shooting and killing I am literally a certified professional.

I’m also an Average Joe, raising a family and hoping to protect them in what I perceive to be a more and more dangerous world. My first wife was a “city girl.” She had absolutely no contact with firearms and was so anti-guns and hunting that we could never have an intelligent discussion on the topic. My second wife (with whom I have two kids) has been much more positive about having firearms around. After our first very sensible conversation about guns in the house I learned that her father was shot dead by two guys who robbed his convenience store. It is obvious that Gun Control is such a polarizing topic that unless we change the premise of the argument, there will be no solution. I know there must be a solution. The photos of twenty smiling first-graders can’t all be wrong. Try watching it while listening to this song.

I was hopeful when I saw that Piers Morgan had taken up the issue in this publically-aired debate. I like Piers. He, or perhaps Anderson, might actually be able to get a sensible dialogue going. Instead, Piers succumbed to his own emotions and added fuel to the fire. The show devolved into Piers yelling at the obviously out-matched pro-gun spokesman, “You can’t seriously tell me the answer is MORE GUNS!” It was an opportunity lost.

Here are my thoughts on a way forward in the debate:

First, I think even the definition of the issue is polarizing. Gun Control. The fight is for “Control.” No sensible person wants to lose Control. So why do we call it that? To me, Gun Control is the ability to hit what you are shooting at. My recommendation is Gun Management. We can get behind Management. Management invokes ideas of thoughtfulness, progress, and good outcomes.

Now, to the guilty parties. Both sides of this debate are mired in rhetoric. “You can have my gun when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers.” “When you criminalize guns only the criminals will have guns.” “An armed society is a polite society.” “Your guns are killing innocent children!” “My guns never killed anyone!” Rhetoric and dialogue are never good friends.

Let’s get past the rhetoric to real scenarios and practical solutions. Take the Sandy Hook shooting to start. In this case, the shooter tried to purchase guns at a local Dicks Sporting Goods store. He was denied. Success Point number 1. The gun management laws worked. Unfortunately, this shooter was then able to get access to his mother’s firearms. Failure Point number 1. I seriously question the judgment of any parent who keeps firearms in the house unlocked, let alone with a disturbed adult-child hanging around with nothing to do all day but play Call of Duty. This, more than anything else, has me pin much of blame of this shooting on her. Sorry, but this was severely irresponsible gun ownership. We will never know what would have happened if he had not been able to get to those firearms. Perhaps he would have gotten others. Then again, perhaps not.

This shooter was then able to purchase a large quantity of hollow-point rounds and high-capacity magazines. Failure Point number 2. I don’t know the state laws in Connecticut, but I have a hard time understanding why anyone needs hollow-point rounds, let alone hundreds of them. I’ve never used hollow-point rounds to hunt or target shoot and I don’t need hollow-point rounds for home defense. To be clear, if the shooter in this case had used solid point rounds I think the death toll would have been the same. His use of this ammo was simply an absurdly deviant act in an already evil play. The point is that his purchase should have raised red flags.

One of the solutions I’ve heard is that we should arm all of the teachers. To be fair, that would work. If some or all of the teachers in Sandy Hook (or Virginia Tech, or Columbine) had been armed and well-trained this may never have happened. The shooter would have been engaged early with deadly force. But, is this really the type of school environment we want our kids to have? Even though my family is pro-guns I don’t think I want them going to school with armed teachers.

A similar argument was made about the Aurora, Colorado theater shooting. “If people in the audience were armed they would have stopped the shooter.” I say bull crap! These are comments from people who have never been in a scenario where other people are actually shooting at them. After the first moments of confusion your first instinct is to get you’re a$$ down, NOT to pull your weapon. This was a dark theater showing a loud and action-packed movie, the shooter was wearing what was perceived to be a costume, and there was tear gas thrown. I can assure you that if ordinary citizens had pulled their weapons and started shooting the death toll would have gone up. In the military we have very sophisticated systems and overlapping procedures to make sure we don’t accidentally kill our friends. Even then, in the fog of war, mistakes happen. What makes you think that the ordinary civilian is going to do better in this scenario?

In the Oregon mall shooting it seems like an armed citizen was able to stop further bloodshed. Unconfirmed reports say that a person with a concealed carry permit drew his weapon on the shooter who then fled to an unoccupied area of the mall and committed suicide. In this scenario, “more guns” apparently worked. Though, this is still unconfirmed by anyone except the concealed carry holder.

A point of contention is the type of weapons to which we have access. Both shooters in Aurora and in Sandy Hook used versions of the military M-16. This weapon is specifically designed to kill lots of people fast. That is what you want when you are in a military operation. I have to question why anyone who is not military or law enforcement would need one – unless you are a member of a self-appointed militia in the hills of Utah waiting for the implosion of civilization, or in the show The Walking Dead. I know these weapons are fun to shoot. I’ve fired thousands of rounds from them. But do you really need it for home protection? I’d argue that a 12-gauge shotgun would be much more effective in protecting your family in your house.

On the other extreem is the argument that we should have no guns. Really? How are you planning to do that? With a magic wand? They already exist. You can’t make them disappear. What we have is a world full of guns along with some crazy people who want to kill lots of other people. And we gun owners cannot deny that the carnage one person is able to inflict is usually much greater with firearms than without.

Some suggestions:

1. Gun owners should be licensed to own a firearm, whether it’s one firearm or a hundred. That means classes and lots of range time. There is nothing I can’t stand more than watching someone mishandle a firearm around me like in this video or to read about a child getting shot because they found Daddy’s gun. And, I don’t buy the argument that licensing and registration is the first step to the government grabbing all of your guns. It’s the first step in professionalizing an otherwise cowboy-culture.
   
2. Gun owners need to have a full background check. That means at gun shows, as well. If that puts some gun dealers out of business then they should find another profession, like running the mandatory gun safety classes. See number 1.
   
3. Expand the open carry laws to allow more people who are really well trained and mentally stable to carry handguns. These people aren't the ones shooting up schools and malls. At the same time I’d like to see the training drastically improved. The hardest hurdles to overcome now are the bureaucratic ones. If you have passed intensive tests, including live scenario training and shooting, you should be able to carry your firearm in public.
   
4. Limit or restrict access to assault rifles. As a gun owner I hate to say this. I love all firearms. They are beautiful machines and a hoot to shoot. The downside is events like Sandy Hook and Aurora. We really have a choice. Either move these firearms to professionals, or we run the risk of more events like this. In addition to the tragic human toll, the bad PR on firearms is really hard to overcome.
   
5. Let’s interpret the 2[sup]nd[/sup] Amendment like it was intended. It’s a privilege, not a right. Civilian firearm ownership was essential for the militia in the 1700’s. I don’t think that if the Founding Fathers were alive today that they would say this applies to every Dick and Jane. It applies to a militia and we already have one. It’s called the National Guard and Reserves. If you want to shoot some really cool weapons go down to your recruiter and sign up. All it takes is a summer of training and one weekend per month. You’ll get in really good shape and you’ll get paid to shoot, too.
   
6. Never air the name or photograph of anyone who commits one of these atrocities. Sports channels turn cameras away from streakers at sporting events for a reason. Why take your clothes off and run around a soccer field if millions of people on TV won’t see you? Let's give the killers the same anonymity
   
7. There is a lot we need to do to improve mental health care but I’ll leave those suggestions care to mental health professionals.

Those are my suggestions to start. Your comments are welcome.

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!

GS

 

[StevePalermo]

Being a european and sharing the common view there (and every other country I've been to) that the US is an insane country for allowing this proliferation of guns, I'm surprised at how reasonable I found this post. The horse may have bolted for the US in restricting guns like the rest of the civilised world, but this is a good start for a discussion. I now live in Australia, and found this in the local press last week: " In 1996, Australia banned semi-automatics. In the 18 years before, there were 13 mass shootings. Since then, none".

Something has to be done otherwise we're just waiting for the next inevitable mass funeral of school kids and more crocodile tears from the NRA and its friends.

A friend passed this on to me this week: http://www.upworthy.com/10-terrifying-facts-about-guns-in-the-us

 

[ElQueso]

Man, I think you wrote a very well thought-out piece there. You hit all the major points that I could think about and made suggestions that seem sensible and practical. I agree with you on almost everything, and one of those I don't may be an important point, but maybe there can be some movement there on either side (I'll explain).

First, I think #4 could be handled alongside #s 1, 2 &3. I think if a reasonable person who truly believes that the world as we know it is going to end, for whatever reason, he or she has every right to prepare their self for such an eventuality in any way they see fit - as long as that person is sane, well-trained and meets other criteria that may be wise to be used to determine that.

Second, I disagree with you on the stricter interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. Although the current wording in the 2nd Amendment is vague enough to allow there to be a debate, previous attempts at wording in historical records, wording of some State constitutions, as well as many letters written by many founders of the time, particularly in discussion about the wording of the amendment itself, make it clear that many felt not only should States have the right to form militias but that individuals had the right to bear arms themselves. As Wikipedia says (hey, it does good summaries):

"In no particular order, early American settlers viewed the right to arms and/or the right to bear arms and/or state militias as important for one or more of these purposes:[sup][26][/sup][sup][27][/sup][sup][28][/sup][sup][29][/sup][sup][30][/sup][sup][31][/sup][sup][32][/sup][sup][33][/sup]

• deterring tyrannical government;[sup][34][/sup]
• repelling invasion;
• suppressing insurrection;
• facilitating a natural right of self-defense;
• participating in law enforcement;
• enabling the people to organize a militia system."

I didn't just form my opinion on the Wikipedia entry, BTW - I've been reading on this issue for some time, on and off, it just summarizes nicely what has been written.

I mention this because I think the majority feeling at the time was for the reasons listed above, which include, but do not limit to, an organized militia. I think it is very valid to take into account the intention of the founders in their time in the case of ambiguous wording. And of course, to an extent it should be interpreted in light of current times, but that becomes dangerous if too much leeway is given. If we go too far from the intentions of the early founders, I think we should consider a separate amendment to further define that according to today's morals and desires. That means a serious discussion and a nation-wide acceptance of the new interpretation, not an adjudicated or legal change that really is invalid.

Now, the problem I feel with your statement is that if you don't interpret the "right to bear arms" part of the 2nd Amendment as an individual right, you take away a very strong point of individual gun ownership at any level outside of militias or the armed forces. I, like you, do not think that you can completely keep guns out of the hands of those who really want them. In fact, any type of gun really, if someone were to try hard enough. To me, gun control wouldn't work, even if it wasn't unconstitutional. I know there are many who feel that way, but I merely have to point to things like the "War on Drugs" as an example of something that, in today's world, we are not able to control with any real success.

I mean, I could see one way around that at a State-by-State level anyway - you could form "militias" and membership enjoined you to own a gun. Much like dry counties in Texas (yes, they still exist!) allow you to join a "cluc" at a restaurant to drink alcohol. but that seems kind of hokey and may not have any benefit toward managing the right to own guns at all.

However, I do not believe that rights are non-revocable or that they cannot be withheld until responsibility is proven. We already do that to an extent with many things, guns included, and I believe that this is about as far as we should go in "managing" rights given to us through the Constitution.

I know many people believe that guns are a serious problem and should therefore be banned. I can seriously understand this point of view. My first wife was as well completely anti-gun and I was completely unable to talk to her about it as you describe from your situation. She had no experience-related reason for this, it just went along with her set of beliefs. But the Constitution exists to ensure rights that even some of us don't like. If enough of us don't like it, let's make another amendment banning guns, but it should never be done through the legislative or judicial branches of government. As well, recent Supreme Court decisions have upheld that States must abide by the current interpretation of the 2nd amendment.

I think the problem is that there is too deep a divide over this issue. There is a lot of misinformation on both sides. Like most things in today's political world, nothing gets done because people are too polarized. In this particular case, anti-gun proponents tend not to stop and honestly consider - let's look at this from the point of view of the Constitution - just what ARE we really allowed to restrict instead of using an emotional argument to try to do something that really can't be done constitutionally. Gun proponents have to wake up and realize that rights CAN be granted and revoked in the case of guns, as it is in many states with voting for felons and in all States actually removing their liberties while they are in prison, as it is even with driving a car and operating it responsibly. (Actually I think driver's license requirements for training are way too low for the most part) (also, remember that the Constitution is not an individual liberty granting mechanism - if it is not restricted in the constitution, it is not restricted. I mention that in relation to car ownership - it is a right for people to own and drive a car because it is NOT restricted in the Constitution - yet we still manage that right, although poorly)

Until people go back to honestly asking what the Constitution allows us to do and mature a little in trying to go too far, we won't get anywhere.

 

[Nounou]

That is by far the most rational common sense argument I have ever read GS, if only all gun owners were like you we could all rest easy, and I would say from the time I spent in the US, your view represents the vast majority of gun owners I knew, maybe with the exception of Texas where it rather disturbingly appeared to be a free for all.

My biggest problem with the gun control debate are the issues of mental health and behavioural dysfunction. Mental health is a concern as it is at epidemic levels in most of the western world, and the majority of cases remain undiagnosed. Another problem remains an adequate definition in law as to what constitutes mental illness (you'll find that this differs state to state and country to country). I recognise that in point 7 you say leave this to the mental health professionals, but quite frankly in my experience even they can't agree on what is a mental illness and what isn't! Point in fact the MH professionals jury is out on Aspergers, some call it mental illness, some call it a disorder, others a disability......I think you can see the confusion. Personally speaking I would not like to see anyone with a past or present mental health problem being granted a gun license or with a gun in their hands, so I guess I will not be flavour of the month with anyone who has experienced depression (be it mild or severe) as this is by far the biggest mental health issue in the west......edited to add that such people are far more likely to harm themselves with such a weapon than anyone else. This view is of course discriminatory, I can live with that! I would be interested in hearing of others who agree or disagree and their reasons for their view point.

Behavioural dysfunction I suppose would fit into "background checks", past records for assault, domestic violence, substance abuse etc. This is another bigger than 'Ben Hur' area, my question would be how sufficient are these checks as existing methods stand? I'll use myself as an example, in order to work in my field I must possess the following, a current federal and state police clearance, Dept of Education check, and a Working With Children Check, but the reality is if I were to committ a crime today (serious or not) and the police weren't quick to act I could return to work next week and beyond and no one would be any wiser!

It's going to take a hell of a lot of money and goodwill to solve this issue, that is if it can ever be solved.I live in a country where there are very strong gun controls, and to my knowledge assault arms are banned, but even that is of little consequence to Sydney families who have been victims of shootings in recent years. But just think of the advances in the areas of mental health in terms of cognitive therapy, medicine, secure facilities and early intervention we could make if extra funds could be found. I have no idea what the NRA has in the bank, but as lobby groups go along with tobacco, pharmaceuticals etc, I would imagine they would have more than a few cents to rub together. Wouldn't it be nice to see them make a contribution towards mental health......???

 

[Iznogud]

Well written. Thank you.

I agree on most observations but can't fail to notice that these do not address the main problem which is essentially the one I can't begin to grasp.

The source of the problem is not sick guns but sick people. Why do they turn against the others with such violence? Why is this a recurring event mostly circumscribed to the US that rarely happens outside its borders and therefore is considered a freak situation by the rest of the world thus harder to fathom or understand?

Am aware of the resposabilities on gun ownership, been a gun enthusiast since forever and owner since 95, used to have a carry and instructor license, attended a bunch of clsses in the US up to tactical/concealed carry pistol instructor at SIG Academy. I respect guns, I do fear certain people.

Human have handled dangerous objects since the first stone picked from the ground. We must focus on human behaviour to solve this. The issue, to me, is about resposibility. As individuals and as a group. Deflecting it to round count, round tips, or cycling is just deflecting. Denying the core subject.
People, regular people, do not have access to guns in Mexico yet they're in the middle of a war. So much for disarming civilians to stop/deterr crime.
I know this is a biased argument but so are nost of them. They fail to take proper responsibility and define /deal with the real issue.

Worth what you paid for it.

 

[TERKILD]

US has 5% of the world's population, and 50% of its guns. But this has noting to do with the school shootings ... obviously.......


God bless America!

 

[jeff1234]

Well written and thoughtful GS_Dirtboy. I can't offer any better suggestions than you have. But I have some thoughts on them.

#1 Re controlling access to guns: Of course guns should require at least as much screening, training and licensing procedures as driving a car or flying a small airplane or even cutting hair. But when I was a teenager, my friends and I knew exactly where our parents hid the keys to the liquor cabinet, their coin collection and everything else that they tried to keep from us. We have to assume that if there are guns in 100 houses, the kids who live in 50 of them will have figured out how to get access to the guns.
#2 Re training: Lanza's mother took him to a firing range often, so I assume they were well trained in the proper care and handling of guns. So far I haven't read that anyone from the range or fellow gun owners noticed anything wrong about the way the Lanza's were trained or following procedures.
#3 We have to consider disruptive technologies: I read recently that some college kids were able to use a 3D printer to fabricate gun parts which they assembled and successfully used to fire a bullet. Gun stores may become obsolete.
#4 Background checks and screening: I wish there were a test that could identify the crazies among us. Unfortunately we're maybe 50 years away from that technology. Remember a few years ago there was a rash of post office workers 'going postal'. Its going to be challenging to identify which ones are capable of such violence and what amount of stress would be required to push them over the edge. We'd have to constantly monitor everyones level of stress and anger.
#5 The media: I completely agree that glorifying criminals and suicide bombers perpetuates them. But any limit on what the media can tell us, no matter how small and reasonable that limit is, sets a precedent for the government interfering with our knowledge of whats going on. More importantly you'd have to restrict the internet too, which coincidentally China and Russia are trying to do at this moment in the UN.

GS_Dirtboy, what do you think of the suggestions made by Wayne LaPierre, of the NRA, yesterday. If the NRA intends to continue to represent the gun owners side of this debate, they'll need a more credible approach than to blame video games and the media.

 

[citygirl]

I agree with many, many of your posts. The only issue I have is increasing the amount of people who are allowed to carry a concealed weapon. Training or not, I still think it brings a lot of security issues to the table.

My only other suggestion is requiring insurance be purchased for every gun. We require car owners to carry insurance, I think gun owners should have it as well. Seems logical and a good way to encourage responsible gun ownership.

I am very pro gun management (I like that) and definitely think more training and more training is a great step. I'm definitely not anti-gun (we have one in the house) but think the whole system in the US needs to be better managed. And I find many gun owners in the US are very open and aware and want to be part of the solution. The trick is to get their (your) voices heard.

A friend of mine posted this the day after the shooting. I really loved it.

Let me start with the fact that I am a gun owner...Multiple guns....I own some very old guns that belonged to my grandfather as it provides a connection to him and the past. I also own a modern weapon for my protection. All are secure in a safe and rarely come out. Yesterdays tragedy is bringing a lot of attention to this issue of gun laws and such. Yes, almost 30 people, a majority children died by a mad-man. Not much could have stopped that. Current reports suggest the guns were not even his and were purchased by his mother. So laws did not help. But just because laws didn't work doesn't mean we can't have a meaningful conversation about gun violence. I hear all this BS like guns don't kill people, if a bus killed kids do we get rid of busses? Just stop with that nonsense. Here is the facts: For almost 40 years, about 10,000 Americans are killed annually due to gun violence. More than any other western country. Its a problem and we have to figure it out. Doing nothing isn't an option because although you have the right to own a gun, that right also took away those kids right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Its a serious problem that deserves a serious conversation. In my opinion, the first step is better training, better screening process and creating a culture of responsible gun ownership. We need to do something - now.

 

[Iznogud]

A massacre is not the direct result of trigger, time, capacity or fast reloads but of messed up emotions. IMO.

Found this an intereting read.


http://kontradictions.wordpres...n-well-ill-tell-you/


Why Not Renew the “Assault Weapons” Ban? Well, I’ll Tell You…
[EDIT: Since this article was published, the Democratic party has officially added support of the assault weapon ban renewal to their party platform and Senator Feinstein has vowed to introduce it again in the upcoming session, hoping the Newtown massacre will help it push through. This bill WILL be debated and voted on, and I hope you can learn something about it here.]

Between Two Worlds

It’s not easy being a leftist who loves guns. It’s like being a Republican who listens to NPR or supports single payer health care. But being a leftist, I get exposed to all the liberal publications and media that invariably call for gun control every time someone does something stupid with one. Being a gun enthusiast, I also get exposed to the political Right’s oversimplification of those liberals as somehow lacking moral fiber or true appreciation of freedom. Rather than agreeing with both, I tend to end up arguing with both. It’s exhausting to always feel like I’m apologizing for the other “side”.

This article takes a point of view, but aims to do so in a way that members of both sides of the political spectrum can understand. I’ll try to give some idea as to why we on the political left roll our eyes at the rhetoric of the NRA, and how we in the “gun culture” can possibly defend something called “assault weapons”.

We all know the cycle by now: Tragic incident occurs, both sides attempt to use it for their political gain, both sides act shocked that the other would attempt to use it for political gain, insults are flung, statistics are cherry-picked, rinse, repeat.

I began writing this some time after the Aurora massacre, but it was just this morning that news started coming in of the mass shooting at a Sikh temple in Wisconsin. I knew the wave of cries for a renewal of the “assault weapon” and “high capacity” magazine bans hadn’t yet faded from Aurora, and that they would be reinforced by this next event, regardless of how relevant either of the topics were to the incident.

So in order to get around to why the assault weapons ban was an utter and absolute failure in its attempt to deter violent crime, I have to start with mass shootings.

Misleading Vividness

I’m just going to submit this uncomfortable truth to both camps up front, with the vain hope that it will not sound callous:

Mass shootings are a tiny, tiny problem. Which isn’t to say that they aren’t utterly horrifying in more than one way. People’s lives are destroyed, both literally and figuratively. What I mean to say is that if we were to prioritize our political attention to topics according to how many lives were at stake, mass shootings wouldn’t even be on the radar.

Factoring in the rate of death caused by mass shootings from Columbine to the present (about 210 people in 13 years), it will be more than 300 years until we reach the number of casualties that occur from accidental drownings every single year in this country. In a little more than 150 years from now, we’ll approach the number of people who are poisoned to death every single year in this country. Sometime in 2014 we might surpass the number of people struck by lightning every single year in this country.

Which is to say that mass shootings are incredibly rare and don’t kill a lot of people when they do happen.

It is tempting to ask why accidental drowning is not 340 times more important a social issue than gun control. Or why poisoning isn’t 150 times as pressing a political issue. (If the number of people dying is truly what’s important, almost anything would be more pressing.) The problem is not hard to understand though, and rests in a psychological concept known as the “logical fallacy of misleading vividness”.

The fallacy of misleading vividness is when the thought, imagery or reality of something is so emotionally potent – positively or negatively – that you begin to overestimate the likelihood and frequency of its occurrence. This is why many people are afraid to fly. They can understand intellectually that crashes almost never happen, and that airplanes are statistically the safest way to travel, but the idea of being torn apart mid-air, or knowing that they’re about to die for a full two minutes in freefall, or being dragged under the ocean while stuck inside the cabin is so vivid and disturbing, that they actually experience intense fear about a process that is safer than their drive to the airport.

This is what happens to us collectively as a nation when mass shootings occur. Yes, it is terrible, for both the person who was so disturbed and all the people they harmed. It puts on graphic display the absolute worst aspects of our culture, which is painful to watch.

However, it is also an incredible statistical deviation from the norm, objectively inflicting far less suffering and death than many other ways that people are far more likely to die. This is an important point. When our policy becomes based on emotional content rather than facts, we are heading in the wrong direction.

With that in mind, let’s take a look at how things are in the world of guns and how they got to be that way.

Obama & the NRA: Frenemies of the State

It is a running joke in gun-interest circles that Obama is the “gun salesman of the year”[1]. From the moment he won the Democratic nomination, gun sales in the US surged dramatically. If the joke were more honest, he might be called “gun salesman of the decade”. According to the National Shooting Sports Foundation, the economic impact of the firearm industry grew more than 50% (from $19 billion to $31 billion) between 2008 and 2011[2] In 2010, a record was set for the number of background checks filed for firearm purchases. That record was broken again in 2011.

All of this was largely the result of a campaign by gun rights advocates like the NRA to convince the country that Obama would be a gun control activist. To be sure, their concerns weren’t entirely baseless. In a 2004 NPR interview, then-senator Obama clearly stated that he not only supported the Federal Assault Weapons ban, but that he would “continue to support a ban on concealed carry laws” altogether.[3] The administration reaffirmed its support of the assault weapons ban in 2009.[4]

But, lacking political capital, Obama made no such push for gun control legislation. In fact, quite the opposite. During his first term he signed laws making it legal for people to carry concealed weapons in National Parks and in their checked luggage on Amtrak trains, provided they met their state’s requirements to do so. As a result, the Brady Campaign, the leading gun control lobbying group, gave Obama an “F” rating. When the administration was asked about how it would respond to the Aurora shooting, the first words out of spokesman Jay Carney’s mouth were, “We plan to uphold the second amendment.” When the Sikh shooting happened, his press conference informed people that the President “will continue to instruct his administration to take action towards common-sense measures that protect the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens but make it harder and harder for those who should not have weapons under existing law to obtain them”.

Despite this conspicuously moderate viewpoint, the NRA continues to stoke the flames of fear, promising that once Obama is reelected to a second term, he’ll have no reason to hold back on the gun control legislation he’s been wanting to implement since 2004. In fact, at a recent CPAC conference in Florida, NRA vice president Wayne LaPierre went so far as to suggest, without offering any evidence, that Obama’s failure to act on gun control has been a “massive Obama conspiracy” to postpone his attack on the second amendment until his second term.[5] While I appreciate the NRA’s vigilance on an issue I feel strongly about, I can’t help but think that it is rants like this that make much of the populace totally unable to identify with the organization.

Meanwhile, the Aurora shooting, like all shootings, has revived the cries for gun control from the political Left. At a loss for somewhere to direct their grief, outrage and sense of justice after such a senseless tragedy, they are again calling for renewal of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994. If a second Obama administration will have the political capital to promote any gun control legislation at all, it will be the renewal of this ban. It will therefore benefit anyone interested in gun politics to review what the assault weapons ban was, what it was not, and how it affected (or failed to affect) the nation.

Creating the Category
or
How Do I Look?

The most important question, of course, is: “What exactly is an assault weapon?”

The term was specifically designed to conjure images of military machine guns, but for those totally unfamiliar with firearms, it should be made clear that automatic weapons (those that fire more than one bullet with each pull of the trigger) are already illegal for the average citizen to own. They are heavily regulated by the federal government, registered with the ATF and very difficult to obtain licenses for. Almost no crime is ever committed with them.

So in 1994, legislators were forced to ask themselves, “What exactly will this ban do away with?” The category of “assault weapon” didn’t actually exist, and this was an opportunity for gun control advocates to create it, to say exactly what they wanted off the streets.

As it turns out, they were mostly opposed to things they saw in movies. Which is to say that most of the features that now defined “assault weapons” had to do with form and not function, totally sidestepping the issue of violent crime altogether. Three quick examples:

1) Stock Manipulation


This is the Ruger 10/22. It has been in production since 1964 and is one of the most popular rifles in the country.

It is an ideal first rifle, small and manageable, which is why my parents bought one for me in my mid teens. It is well-made, inexpensive and easy to maintain. Its small caliber (.22) means that it is cheap to shoot and has almost no recoil. It can be used for very small game hunting (foxes, rabbits, etc) or varmint control, but is generally a sport (target shooting) gun.

What you see is also an assault weapon.

Not because of anything it actually does, but because of the stock. You might be able to tell that it is hinged, allowing it to fold up against the rest of the gun. This was one feature of an “assault weapon”, according to the new law. Another was the grip, which is vertical like a pistol rather than horizontal. A non-”assault” Ruger 10/22 looks like this:



There is not a single difference in the functioning of these two firearms. All the moving parts that make up the actual firing mechanisms are identical. The diminutive size of the ammunition means that it isn’t even recommended for self defense purposes. But the ban was far more concerned with the way guns looked than their ability to actually assault anything.

2) Suppressing



Can you tell the difference between these two guns?

The gun on the bottom has a slightly longer barrel, which is threaded to allow a suppressor or other accessory to screw on. This too was now illegal. Suppressors are usually called “silencers” by the general public, though they do no such thing. (That little *ptew* sound you hear in the movies whenever a gun with a “silencer” is fired? It was dreamed up entirely by the film industry.)

As an acquaintance of mine wrote:

In the early 20th century, before guns lost social acceptability and marksmanship was publicly encouraged, people with enough space were known to practice in their back yards. No one wants to annoy their neighbor with fussilades of afternoon gunfire, so the Maxim Silencer found success being marketed as a relatively inoffensive and civilized way to increase shooting proficiency.
In addition to being polite, home defense uses also prevent the temporary and permanent loss of hearing that is sure to occur when firing a pistol indoors, while also reducing recoil and eliminating muzzle flash, which can be temporarily blinding or disorienting.

Modern criminals have never really used suppressors, and its hard to understand where the gun control crowd were getting their ideas about the world if not from bad movies. Did they really think that assassins were creeping around executing people with suppressed pistols? Surely not. Nonetheless, one of the pistols you see above is an “assault weapon”, while the other is not.

3) Shrouds
As it turns out, even the most vociferous and high-ranking gun control advocates didn’t actually know what was being legislated. After the Virginia Tech massacre, Democratic House representative Carolyn McCarthy went on MSNBC to explain why she had introduced legislation even more extensive than the elapsed Federal Assault Weapons Ban. After some discussion, Tucker Carlson picked a banned feature from the list – a barrel shroud – and asked her to explain what it was and why it should be regulated.


After some hemming and hawing she admitted that she had no idea what her own legislation was referring to, but made a wild guess anyway, and thus another gun-culture joke was born:



For those interested, a barrel shroud is simply a metal cover that prevents the operator of a firearm from burning their hands on a hot barrel.


It would have been interesting to me if Carlson had explained the barrel shroud, and then asked again how cooler barrels contributed to violent crime. It is hard to imagine what her response could possibly have been. But it looks mean, and this was apparently what mattered to whoever actually wrote the legislation.

These are some examples of what the ban in question covered. Perhaps most tellingly, semi-automatic (legal) versions of automatic firearms were banned just because they looked like illegal guns.

When the category of “assault weapon” had finally been conjured into being, all of its included firearms together accounted for less than 2% of violent crime.[6] None of them had any more functionality than a hunting rifle. It couldn’t have been clearer that this was a war founded on image rather than reality.

The foreshadowing of just how much it wouldn’t accomplish was clear. Years later, a study of the ban’s effectiveness by the National Institute of Justice seemed to scratch its head out loud that “[a]lthough the weapons banned by this legislation were used only rarely in gun crimes before the ban, supporters felt that these weapons posed a threat to public safety…”

There was only one banned feature that had anything to do with practical function.

“High Capacity” Magazines

The ban on “large capacity ammunition feeding devices” was the most far reaching aspect of the legislation, as it applied to magazines for all guns, not just guns that were illegal due to other cosmetic features. Again, the question became: “What exactly is a high capacity magazine?” No such thing had been defined, and an arbitrary number of rounds would have to be selected.

Legislators settled on the number 10 for rifles and pistols, while 5 shells would be the maximum for a shotgun.

The strongest focus by gun control advocates in the wake of various shootings has been a return to these limits on magazine size.[7] (During Carol McCarthy’s question-avoidance in the above video, notice that her stump speech is an assertion of the importance of banning high capacity magazines. This has been duplicated on countless news and talk programs, blogs and websites, especially those that lean politically to the Left[8].) The idea is that if mass shooters have larger magazines, they will be able to kill more people before police or an armed citizen can intervene.

Keeping in mind the statistical rarity and relatively tiny death toll of mass shootings to begin with, is this true? Will high capacity bans lower the number of people killed in mass shootings? All we have to do is look at one of the deadliest shootings in the world: the Virginia Tech massacre.

With one pistol of 10-round capacity and one pistol of 15-round capacity, Cho killed more people than anyone has ever killed in a single U.S. shooting incident. He didn’t need any massive magazines or custom weapons. The embarrassingly simple reason that magazine size restrictions can’t lessen the lethality of mass shooters is that it doesn’t matter how many rounds fit in a magazine if a shooter has multiple magazines. When one runs out, they can simply drop it and pop another in, a process which takes five seconds at most. (Less than half a second, if you happen to be this guy.) Cho was able to carry out this massacre because he carried a backpack containing 19 magazines, a fact not well-publicized.

Of course, most semiautomatic pistols hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition. In preparation for this article I asked a gun dealer to guess what percentage of new pistols came standard with magazines of more than 10 round capacity. His estimate was 70-75%, and he took model after model out of the display case to illustrate. The most popular (best selling) handgun in the world, the Glock 17, holds 17 rounds of 9mm ammunition. In fact, after looking at all available Glock models, I found that less than half them even had magazines smaller than 10 rounds available at all.

This is the model I own, a Ruger P95. It’s a standard sized pistol, small enough for me to regularly carry concealed. It was made to hold 16 rounds, more than either of the standard-sized magazines used by Cho.

My point here is that “high capacity” magazines are not some specialty aftermarket part that criminals obtain shadily over the internet. They were defined arbitrarily into existence, and before the ban were considered standard production to give consumers a decent product. (If you’ve made the decision to be an armed citizen to defend your self, home or family to begin with, why would you want less capacity than you could practically fit into one mag?)

Bottom line: Whether you have two magazines that hold 15 rounds or three mags that hold 10 rounds, you’ll be able to shoot all 30 bullets in less than 45 seconds. This fact, combined with the statistical rarity and low death rate of mass shootings and the statistical prominence of guns used in self defense (2 million times every year) make it difficult for me to justify the criminalization of what has, throughout American history, been considered a perfectly normal capacity – that is, however many rounds fit comfortably inside the firearm.

Remember, the only sensible reason for a capacity ban of any kind is the specific class of crime whose degree of success depends on the 5-10 second difference between having to reload and not having to reload. Mass shootings, it turns out, are the only time this is the case, and only to an incredibly slight degree, as demonstrated by Cho. I have already discussed why I do not believe that mass shootings should guide our policy to begin with.

And yet, I can almost hear the voices I have heard before, asking whether it is realistic to think that people actually defend their homes with “assault rifles” that have “high capacity” magazines…



(The gun used to defend both of these homes was an AR-15, the same gun Holmes used in Auarora, banned for production because there existed models of it elsewhere that were automatic.)

Grandfathering

This ban presented gun control legislators with another huge problem, which can’t be overstated.

There were about 1.5 million of these “assault weapons” already owned by Americans, and far more high-capacity magazines. In order to actually ban them, the government had to do one of two things:

1) Turn many thousands of law-abiding citizens into felons overnight, even though the guns were legal at the time of purchase or receipt.

2) Demand that the whole country surrender 1.5 million guns and millions of magazines.

Both options were practically and politically impossible, especially the latter. Images of the federal government confiscating and destroying the firearms of veterans, families and law-abiding Americans would not sell to most of the nation, and in some areas, might result in open revolt or civil unrest. It would also ignore a fundamental flaw with gun control legislation in general – that people willing to abide by laws aren’t the ones we should be concerned about.

The predicament resulted in what is generally referred to as the “grandfather clause”. It essentially meant that all “assault weapons” and “high capacity” magazines manufactured before the ban remained legal to own, sell and use.

To reiterate, millions of these banned firearms and high capacity magazines were legal to own and sell during the ban.

This meant that prices for these firearms and magazines shot up along with demand. Manufacturers had churned out as many soon-to-be-banned items as they could before it went into effect, then sold them at nearly twice what they had originally cost. Individual dealers who had already stocked up made small fortunes. You might even say that the Federal Assault Weapons Ban was the gun salesman of that particular decade.

10 Years Later
When the ban expired in 2004, everyone was anxious to study the results. Had it reduced crime?

How could it have?

The National Institute of Justice found that the ban hadn’t reduced gun crime or crime involving “high capacity” magazines, and that the effects of renewing the ban were “likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement.” It then added: “Assault weapons were rarely used in gun crimes even before the ban.”[9]

The Center for Disease Control released a study of gun control legislation, including the assault weapons ban and found “insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws reviewed for preventing violence.”[10]

The National Research Council noted that all of the studies they had looked at “did not reveal any clear impacts on gun violence” and noted “due to the fact that the relative rarity with which the banned guns were used in crime before the ban … the maximum potential effect of the ban on gun violence outcomes would be very small…”[11]

Slippery Slope

If there was ever a single quotation that summarized the fears of the gun rights crowd surrounding the “assault weapon” ban, it is this one:

“No one should have any illusions about what was accomplished [by the ban]. Assault weapons play a part in only a small percentage of crime. The provision is mainly symbolic; its virtue will be if it turns out to be, as hoped, a stepping stone to broader gun control.”
– Washington Post editorial, September 15, 1994
As we have seen, the battles of gun control have been fought, won and lost with definitions. Categories are created, connotations ascribed with the stroke of a pen. The Brady Campaign, the strongest advocate for these bans, has taken this particular work one step farther since Aurora. They have now redefined “mass shootings” to include all drive-bys involving a shot fired toward three or more people, regardless of whether anyone was even actually hurt, leading them to assert that there are “20 mass shootings every year”. People who follow the news with some regularity may sense that there is something wrong with this statement, but this sort of redefinition does influence many people who don’t have the time or will to investigate such a claim.

It is intentional deceptions like this that have peaceful, gun-loving folks like myself looking over our political shoulders all the time. Add to this the fact that the Brady Campaign strategically changed its name from the more honest designation of “Handgun Control, Inc”, and perhaps it’s easier for the Left to understand why those of us who believe in the importance of ALL of the items in the Bill of Rights (including firearm ownership) are worried about the progressive nature of these bills.

With intentionally dishonest lobbying groups pushing already-failed legislation while calling it a “stepping stone”, we can see the slippery slope right in front of our feet.

Summary
If gun control advocates want to actually have meaningful discussion and debate about the “assault weapon” and “high capacity” ban, they MUST address these questions:
- Why ban cosmetic features?
- Why ban guns used in a mere 2% of crime?
- Why base gun control legislation on rare and statistically insignificant mass shootings to begin with?
- Why ban magazines that have been consistently sized since their invention?
- How would banning these magazines have saved lives, given that all a shooter needs is multiple magazines and 3 seconds of time (i.e. Cho)?
- How will a ban on either these weapons or magazines reduce crime, since there are many millions of them legal and available anyway, especially since production has ramped up after the ban’s expiration?

And most importantly:

After a decade of failure, why assume that the bans will reduce violent crime THIS time around?

 

[PhilinBSAS]

I was hopeful when I saw that Piers Morgan had taken up the issue in this publically-aired debate. I like Piers.
.....................................................
Here are my thoughts on a way forward in the debate:
.....................................................
On the other extreem is the argument that we should have no guns. Really? How are you planning to do that? With a magic wand? They already exist. You can’t make them disappear. What we have is a world full of guns along with some crazy people who want to kill lots of other people. And we gun owners cannot deny that the carnage one person is able to inflict is usually much greater with firearms than without.
......................................................
Some suggestions:
......................................................
3. Expand the open carry laws to allow more people who are really well trained and mentally stable to carry handguns. These people aren't the ones shooting up schools and malls. At the same time I’d like to see the training drastically improved. The hardest hurdles to overcome now are the bureaucratic ones. If you have passed intensive tests, including live scenario training and shooting, you should be able to carry your firearm in public.
.......................................................
Those are my suggestions to start. Your comments are welcome. Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!

Two thoughts having read a well crafted and cogent OP that demands careful thought. I hope you can take criticism of your country from someone from another English speaking country that has its own problems - including a slowly growing illegal rise in the use and ownership of guns for criminal purposes by youth culture and as a result an increase in the number of killings - but nothing on the scale of yours. No where is perfect ok?

A . 3 doesnt seem practical to me and also inconsistent with the point about what do you do with so many guns in the USA already in circulation

You would like "some" people to be able to carry guns around in public - are they to be challenged at every corner to show their credentials?. Hardly likely - unless you are going to have additional police with high profile armour etc to do that? Hardly going to be popular. And so easy to fake any credentials?

As to a new class of "super-citizens"? who are empowered to carry around guns and use them in public? Seems still very "cowboyland". Wear a white hat stand tall and shoot anyone on sight who looks like they may be "mentally disturbed"? OK so maybe might help appease your pro-gun lobby all whom no doubt would consider they are eminently well qualified to start hunting down "abnormals" - and no doubt find time for the other "usual suspects" and here Im talking ethnicity

No the only people carrying guns in public areas should be Police. OK so you have your Militia although why they need these in public areas other than in times of crisis I dont understand. I'm fairly sure in my mind that even security guards should not carry guns. Get rid of gun dependency starting with getting them off the streets and public places no exceptions.

Seems to me the central issue is that gun ownership is an endemic commodity fetishism in the USA. Do your best to get them out of the scene totally and they will be less desirable. This is the situation more or less in the rest of the civilised world.

Your choice USA you can have your guns and then you will have your murdered babies and regular and relentless outrages. Or give up your guns. Stark choice you cant have both. Willfull collective blindness not to see this. It wont stop all the outrages but will reduce them to the still unacceptable average in other lands - to reduce still further then yes look at the whole issue of national mental health care which is a more universal problem in western countries at least

Doing something to reduce and not reinforce the cultural affection and the worship of guns is another. For the military they are tools of a trade and for sportsmen or a highly specialised and preferably highly regulated sport. How well did USA shooters do at the Olympics? Or for use by land professionals for dealing with vermin. (I have no sympathy for those who think they can just head out for the woods and kill anything that moves). As parents do you provide the right role models for your children? I'm glad my two boys never even played with toy guns.

You have a lot to do. Sincerely your OP is the best I have read on being adult and having to face up to the consequencies of a cultural failure. Thank goodness Argentina and most other place havn't the same problems or at least not at anything like the same scale. I'm fearful in Brazil where gun crime is scary.

B. Piers Morgan is odious. So that you know a little more about him - to quote someone else

"He is the worst of British, no morals or ethics, arrogant to the point of being smarmy, he lacks a sense of humour or fair play. He was the editor the two worst examples of bad journalism in the UK, the News of the World and Sun, two papers which have no respect for the truth or the individual rights of anyone. He was heavily involved in illegal telephone tapping.

When the well respected Ian Hislop, editor of Private Eye stood up to him on the highly popular television programme "Have I got News for You" Morgan's reporters were tasked with trying to get gossip on Hislop's private life (including phoning acquaintances of Hislop), and photographers were sent in case Hislop did anything untoward or embarrassing while in their presence. Neither the reporters nor the photographers succeeded. He did the same to Clive Anderson the talk show host who made fun of him on the air."

USA is welcome to him - along with your appetite for getting off with people killing technology they are both toxic.




There is a strong chance that if he returns back to the UK he will be arrested.

P.S And yes the same goes for knives too. Enforce a law that anyone found with a knife in any public area and which has a blade of say less than 3 inches long not including lock-knives etc should have the knife confiscated and the carrier prosecuted.

PPS and you could do the rest of the world a favour and provide a better example to your own by also stopping killing children by remote control in Pakistan

http://www.guardian....stan-bug-splats

For the USA, mass child killings are tragedies. In Pakistan, mere bug splats



I hope you and yours as well as they can look forward to a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year