Assault Weapons & Homicide By The Numbers

According to the FBI Crime Statistics for 2011, there were 12, 664 homicides. Of those:

There were 6,220 homicides (49%)  by

Handgun

There were 1,694 homicides (13%) by

Knife

There were 728 homicides (6%) by

Beating with hands and feat

There were 496 homicides (4%) by

Blunt object

There were 356 homicides (2.81%) by

Shotgun

And finally there were 323 homicides (2.55%) by
\

Rifles

And that would be all rifles, of which

 "assault weapons" are a small subset 

So somebody explain to me again how "assault rifles" pose a unique threat to our safety and need to be banned?

For many of the left advocating a ban on "assault weapons," they are not looking at facts, they are riding on pure emotion from Sandy Hook and "scary images" of such weapons from the uber violent movies produced by Hollywood. For others, with clearer eyes amd more sinister motives, the "assault weapons" ban is simply an opportunity to chip away at the 2nd Amendment.

Tweet

Read More...

Summary only...

Methodist Church's CSGV's Outrageous Attack on Rep. John Barrow

The Coalition To Stop Gun Violence (CSGV), has targeted six time Ga Democratic Congressman John Barrow in an attack ad. Collateral damage from the attack ad are integrity, honesty and context.

CSGV's ad is below. They use some very selectively edited footage from one of Barrow's prior campaign ads on the 2nd Amendment, and they use it to tie him to Sandy Hook.



Now for the bits they left out. This is what Barrow actually had to say in his campaign ad:



When CSGV was asked about their editing, their response was to defend it:

"We're not here to run campaign ads for John Barrow. We're not his PR team," group spokesman Ladd Everitt told FoxNews.com.

Asked about the omission of the line about stopping a lynching, Everitt said he was "unable to confirm" Barrow's claim about his grandfather. [Anyone want to bet that CSGV did not even think about confirming the 'claim' before releasing the ad?]

"I think most Americans would understand that if you look at the history of lynchings ... there were probably precious few instances where white men with guns prevented lynchings," he said. [Note to Everitt, the NAACP was started by three white Republicans in particular because of their disgust at the lynching of blacks] Everitt added that the point was to highlight Barrow's ties to the NRA and resistance to new calls for gun control.

"We didn't have time to run his entire campaign ad," he said.

This is outrageous.

CSGV is a low rent, slimy act. But here's the real kicker. Its not that the CSGV is quite literally at war with the 2nd Amendment and has advocated disarming all but the military and police. And its not that such a radical organization would use dishonest and deceptive tactics, essentially making the claim that if you advocate gun ownership, you are a proximate cause of the Sandy Hook massacre. One expects that from the left. But the kicker is that CSGV is a creation of the Methodist Church. Moreover, many of its 48 member organizations comprising the "coalition" are religious organizations. For religious organizations to be using these tactics is just appalling.

If you want to register your dissatisfaction with CSGV's parent organization, the UMC's General Board of Church and Society, their president is Bishop Robert Hoshibata. The phone number to their DC office is 202.488.5600. Or feel free to use their online comment form.

Tweet

Read More...

Summary only...

The 2nd Amednment & The Problems Of Doctors Assessing Likelihood of Violence

I blogged below that the most troublesome aspect of Obama's new anti-gun push was the interplay between doctors' assessments of mental illness and 2nd Amendment Rights. A recent story by NPR shows how difficult it is for the mental health community to assess the likelihood of future violence. NPR does so in the context of addressing a recently enacted NY law that "says mental health professionals must report people they consider likely to do harm. It also gives law enforcement officials the power to take guns from these people " This from NPR:

States aren't likely to prevent many shootings by requiring mental health professionals to report potentially violent patients, psychiatrists and psychologists say.

The approach is part of a gun control law passed in New York yesterday in response to the Newtown, Conn., shooting a month ago. But it's unlikely to work because assessing the risk of violent behavior is difficult, error-prone and not something most mental health professionals are trained to do it, say specialists who deal with violence among the mentally ill.

"We're not likely to catch very many potentially violent people" with laws like the one in New York, says Barry Rosenfeld, a professor of psychology at Fordham University in The Bronx. . . .

Such laws "cast a very large net that will probably restrict a lot of people's behavior unnecessarily," Rosenfeld says. "Maybe we'll prevent an incident or two," he says. . . .

One of the biggest problems with laws like the one in New York is that it asks all mental health professionals to make assessments that are difficult for even those with years of special training, says Rosenfeld.

Rosenfeld says when he is called in to assess a person's risk of violence, "I typically have the benefit of a lengthy face-to-face interview, records on their criminal and mental health history, a tremendous amount of information at my disposal that the typical mental health professional on the fly simply doesn't have."

And even highly trained professionals with lots of information often get it wrong, research shows.

A study of experienced psychiatrists at a major urban psychiatric facility found that they were wrong about which patients would become violent about 30 percent of the time.

That's a much higher error rate than with most medical tests, says Alan Teo, a psychiatrist at the University of Michigan and an author of the study.

One reason even experienced psychiatrists are often wrong is that there are only a few clear signs that a person with a mental illness is likely to act violently, says Steven Hoge, a professor of psychiatry at Columbia University. These include a history of violence and a current threat to commit violence.

Without either of these, Hoge says, "an accurate assessment of the likelihood of future violence is virtually impossible."

"The biggest risk for gun violence is possession of a gun," says Hoge. "And there's no evidence that the mentally ill possess guns or commit gun violence at any greater rate than the normal population."

Obviously, using "mental illness" as a reason for denying 2nd Amendment rights is far more problematic than many of us non-shrinks initially thought.

Tweet

Read More...

Summary only...

Obama's Gun Control Prescription

First, the Drudge summary:

Obama using gun issue to advance health law...
Presses doctors to ask patients about guns in home...
'Health care providers' to offer gun safety tips...
At least $4.5 billion in new spending...
Ignores violent movies, video games...

WAR ON CRAZY: OBAMA DEPUTIZES DOCTORS

That's a pithy summary of the most troublesome portion of Obama's plan. Pitched to the nation by exploiting children as pawns, Obama's plan includes just one thing that might have prevented the Sandy Hook massacre: $150 million to “put up to 1,000 new school resource officers and school counselors on the job.” As I understand the term "school resource officer," that refers to armed law enforcement officers assigned directly to a school. Now, correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't that the NRA solution that the far left spent the past few weeks savaging?

Much of what is on Obama's wish list has nothing to do with Sandy Hook and everything to do with the laundry list of gun control proposals the far left has been advocating for years. At the top of his list, a new "assault weapons ban" and a limit on magazine capacity to ten rounds. Neither has a snowball's chance in hell of passage in Congress and, indeed, will likely never see a vote.

Obama's other legislative proposals come with a price tag. This from the Weekly Standard:

• $4 billion for the president’s proposal “to help keep 15,000 cops on the streets in cities and towns across the country.” (That is roughly $266,000 per police officer.)

• $20 million to “give states stronger incentives to make [relevant] data available [for background checks] … “$50 million for this purpose in FY2014”

• “$14 million to help train 14,000 more police officers and other public and private personnel to respond to active shooter situations.”

• “$10 million for the Centers for Disease Control to conduct further research, including investigating the relationship between video games, media images, and violence.”

• $20 million to expand the National Violent Death Reporting System.

• $150 million to “put up to 1,000 new school resource officers and school counselors on the job.”

• “$30 million of one-time grants to states to help their school districts develop and implement emergency management plans.”

• $50 million to help 8,000 schools “create safer and more nurturing school climates.”

• $15 million to “provide “Mental Health First Aid” training for teachers.”

• $40 million for school districts to “work with law enforcement, mental health agencies, and other local organizations to assure students with mental health issues or other behavioral issues are referred to the services they need.”

• $25 million for state-based strategies that support “young people ages 16 to 25 with mental health or substance abuse issues.”

• $25 million to “offer students mental health services for trauma or anxiety, conflict resolution programs, and other school-based violence prevention strategies.”

• $50 million to “train social workers, counselors, psychologists, and other mental health professionals.”

I can't see much, if any of that legislation, getting passed, at least as itemized by Obama. On the two issues on which left and right have some common ground, background checks and mental health, there is still a great deal of legitimate mistrust that the left will try to shoehorn these into a backdoor means of improperly denying people their 2nd Amendment rights.

As to the mental health issue, the core problem is that our laws make it difficult if not impossible to institutionalize someone who could well turn violent. Nothing in these proposals addresses that problem. Moreover, all mental illness is not equal. Step one would be to identify which mental health issues are so severe as to make an individual dangerous to himself or others, thus establishing a standard upon which to allow or deny a person their 2nd Amendment right. A related issue needs to be made as to when any such ban should be lifted after an individual has successfully been treated. Without any of those issues clearly addressed, the Obama solution of throwing hundreds of millions at mental health does nothing to address Sandy Hook or Second Amemdment concerns.

As to Obama's twenty-three Executive Orders, conservatives can now exhale for the most part. The majority of the Orders are nothing more than Obama telling government agencies to do the jobs that they are tasked by law to do - a point The Everlasting Phelps makes with good humor. The majority of the Orders do nothing other than give the appearance of motion.

That said, the most troubling of the Orders were identified in the Drudge headline at the top of the page, linking to a post by The Weekly Standard:

According to a background briefer provided by the White House, President Barack Obama is asking doctors to help deal with guns. Here's the relevant passage:

PRESERVE THE RIGHTS OF HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS TO PROTECT THEIR PATIENTS AND COMMUNITIES FROM GUN VIOLENCE: We should never ask doctors and other health care providers to turn a blind eye to the risks posed by guns in the wrong hands.

 Clarify that no federal law prevents health care providers from warning law enforcement authorities about threats of violence: Doctors and other mental health professionals play an important role in protecting the safety of their patients and the broader community by reporting direct and credible threats of violence to the authorities. But there is public confusion about whether federal law prohibits such reports about threats of violence. The Department of Health and Human Services is issuing a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits these reports in any way.

 Protect the rights of health care providers to talk to their patients about gun safety: Doctors and other health care providers also need to be able to ask about firearms in their patients’ homes and safe storage of those firearms, especially if their patients show signs of certain mental illnesses or if they have a young child or mentally ill family member at home. Some have incorrectly claimed that language in the Affordable Care Act prohibits doctors from asking their patients about guns and gun safety. Medical groups also continue to fight against state laws attempting to ban doctors from asking these questions. The Administration will issue guidance clarifying that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit or otherwise regulate communication between doctors and patients, including about firearms.

There are real problems with doctors insinuating themselves into what decisions a person makes regarding guns, problems multiplied exponentially at the thought of doctors who may not be specialists in mental health reporting on people for violent tendencies. That sets up a truly adversarial relationship between patient and doctor, making the doctor an agent of the state.

This may indeed be more insidious than even appears at first blush. This from a commentor at Legal Insurrection suggests a plausible scenario that is troubling indeed:

What these do is utilize the medical/mental health health records (that were created by Obamacare) as the new database to determine the criteria for gun permits. What people miss, is that this isn’t just about your doctor asking if you own a gun. This is about you, your spouse, or your child(ren) telling a doctor, therapist, or school psychologist that they feel depressed, anxious, suicidal, fearful, or that they have a condition that requires psychiatric medication. Once you have been treated and given your psych meds, your doctor/therapist writes notes. These notes are what are submitted to insurance companies for payment. Medicaid already has a system set up to screen notes & treatment plans to determine if they will pay and cover future treatment. Once these agencies have open access to each others database (executive order #1) this will be used to determine if you are qualified to have a gun permit or to pass a background check. This and #4 are the most concerning of these orders. . . .

This is one that requires far greater analysis from 2nd Amendment supporters,

So what was missing from Obama's plan?

One, missing was any suggestion to expand on "gun free zone" legislation. That was smart on the part of Obama. Gun free zones only insure that when a bad guy with a gun shows up, the law abiding will be disarmed. That was perhaps the central lesson of Sandy Hook. Obama would have been savaged if he had tried to expand on gun free zones.

Two, missing from Obama's plan was any discussion of the role of Hollywood and violent video games in promoting violence in our society. Could that have been a simple oversight?

Lastly missing, since this was a global solution proposed by Obama to gun violence, was any sort of recognition that much of the violence in our country is, one, gang related, and two, most often carried out by an identifiable subset of society. I was waiting for Obama to tell us that FBI statistics show that over 50% of our nation's homicides are carried out by blacks who make up just over 13% of the population. Without that, this was not a serious attempt to address the underlying causes of gun violence, it was a far left offensive on our 2nd Amendment rights.

At any rate, this dog and pony show over the past month was a huge build-up to, mostly, a molehill. There may be some movement on background checks if the left acts in good faith and doesn't try to create yet another back door to gun control. The interplay between healthcare providers and 2nd Amendment rights deserves a colonoscopic level of scrutiny. That said, the real issues of Sandy Hook, a broken mental healthcare system for the seriously mentally ill, gun free zones and the lack of a good guy with a gun at the point of the crime, those were ignored by Obama.

Update: Mice Deb has a great roll-up of reaction to Obama's gun control proposals.

Tweet

Read More...

Summary only...

Children As Political Pawns

It is perhaps possible to sink lower than using children as pawns and props for political gain - though its a well the left returns to with regularity. But even for the left, Obama's use of children during his address to the nation today is pushing beyond the envelope. In the run up to the speech, Obama also released the letters the White House received from these children begging and pleading for him to rid the nation of our plague of guns. This from the AP:

Three days after six teachers and 20 students were killed by a rampaging gunman at their elementary school in Newtown, Conn., an 8-year-old from Maryland pulled out a sheet of paper and wrote to President Barack Obama asking for "some changes in the laws with guns."

"It's a free country but I recommend there needs (to) be a limit with guns," Grant wrote in the Dec. 17 letter. "Please don't let people own machine guns or other powerful guns like that."

In the days after the shooting, children around the country apparently had the same idea as Grant. They put their feelings about the massacre on paper and sent those letters to a receptive White House.

"I am writing to ask you to STOP gun violence," wrote Tajeah, a 10-year-old from Georgia. "I am very sad about the children who lost their lives. So, I thought I would write to you to STOP gun violence."

On Wednesday, when Obama makes his long-awaited announcement of proposals to reduce gun violence, he will be joined by Grant, Tajeah and other children from across the U.S. who expressed their concerns about gun violence and school safety to the one person they think can make a difference: the president. . . .

So, let's make policy on the basis of letters from some children obviously well on their way to being good little lefties. Excuse me if I hear an adult's voice telling the 8 year old that a "machine gun" (that is the definition of a semi-automatic weapon for many on the left) was used at Sandy Hook, or a 10 year old framing the issue as "gun violence." But that aside, where were the letters telling Obama not to take away gun rights. Surprisingly, apparently no kids wrote in support of that.

Here is a site with a continuously updated roll up of weapons being used by the law abiding in self defense. If you scroll down, you will find links to news reports and articles of more than a few teens and even children who have protected themselves with guns against criminals. There is the boy who used an AR15 to stop a home invasion; the 12 year old girl home alone who shot an intruder in the shoulder; a 14 year old babysitting who shot an armed man who broke into his home; and many more. Likewise you will find many links to the elderly who have similarly protected themselves with weapons.

They don't get included in Obama's release for obvious reasons. This is utterly disgusting. The irony here is that the left is using the pure emotion derived from focusing on children to further their message. Yet the one emotion these people apparently can't feel is shame. It should also be noted that Obama used the obligatory far left justification for the gun control legislation he is pushing: ""If there's even one life that can be saved, then we've got an obligation to try." His definition of "one life" apparently does not include those law abiding among us whose lives are saved by guns.

Tweet

Read More...

Summary only...

Bloomberg - NY's Uber Nanny On A Nationwide Anti-Gun Crusade

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.

- C.S. Lewis

C.S. Lewis did not have far left 'Independent' NYC Mayor Mike Bloomberg in mind when he made his famous quote, but could it be more applicable? The list of "nanny state" actions by Bloomberg is long indeed. Bloomberg fully believes in his own omnipotence and that he knows how we should live.

Under normal circumstances, I could care less. I don't live in NYC, and at this point I have zero sympathy for the NYC residents that keep reelecting this joker. Let them suck on their 16 ounce sodas while they can't smoke and while they writhe in agony from lack of pain medication. But on the issue of guns, Uber Nanny Bloomberg matters beyond NYC.

New York already has perhaps the strictest gun control laws on the books in our nation, and NYC already goes even one further, effectively banning concealed carry. Yet that is not enough for Bloomberg, who wants far reaching gun control, both in and beyond NYC. You have to love how he justifies gun control in the face of arguments to the contrary:

In recent weeks, we have heard some people say that the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun,” Bloomberg said, echoing NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre. “But the truth is that sometimes the good guys get shot and sometimes they even get killed. . . .Washington is letting the bad guys shoot our police officers, our children, our neighbors. That has to stop right now. And there are immediate steps our legislators can take right now.”

That is a non-sequitur if there ever was one. Moreover, he never addresses the fact that he himself is the beneficiary of round the clock armed guards. Bloomberg apparently, like virtually all on the far left, sees the average person having access to weapons as far more problematic than they being able to protect themselves at the point of a crime.

So why does Bloomberg matter? One, NY and NYC gun laws are a trap for law abiding gun owners merely traveling through NY. For example, how many people have to change planes in NYC? If you are flying with a completely legal and checked weapon in your baggage, there is still the possibility that you might end up being charged as a criminal by Bloomberg's police. Mark Meckler is probably the most outrageous case, but there have been others, mere visitors to NYC who get caught up in NY's anti-gun crusade as they try to do the right thing.

Two, and most importantly, Bloomberg matters because he is on a crusade. The uber nanny wants to export his anti-gun crusade throughout the nation. This from WaPo:

Michael Bloomberg, America’s most prominent and deep-pocketed advocate for gun control, would rather rehabilitate Republicans than oust them.

“Somebody got them the way they are now,” the mayor of New York said in a recent interview as he sat in the bullpen offices of City Hall, surrounded by a buzzing staff, blinking Bloomberg terminals and clocks telling the same time in each of the five boroughs. “Why can’t you change them?”

On Monday, Bloomberg will headline a summit on guns at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore, another opportunity for the outspoken mayor to deliver an indictment of Washington’s failure to do anything meaningful on the issue. Although the Democrat-turned-Republican- turned-indepen­dent says he practices a “noble and practical” brand of post-partisan politics, when it comes to gun laws, he is more aligned with one party than the other.

Democrats in the White House and in Congress are working closely with his advocacy group, Mayors Against Illegal Guns, to enact his gun-control agenda. And Republicans, especially those in the House, don’t seem the least bit interested.

“Oh sure,” Bloomberg said, he would blame Republicans if they blocked new gun-control legislation in the House. “But having said that, I won’t let the Democrats off the hook.” He added that when Democrats “were in power, they didn’t do it,” and President Obama “campaigned on an ­assault-weapons ban and he didn’t do it, so spare me.”

It’s not clear how much longer the mayor’s idiosyncratic who-needs-political-parties approach will apply when it comes to gun control.

After the massacre of schoolchildren in Newtown, Conn., a collection of progressive groups and Democratic lawmakers, including, most recently, former Arizona congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, have aggressively entered the debate. (“And so we’re not going to be the star,” Bloomberg said. “My interest is in having this done. I don’t need to get credit for it.”) That still leaves Bloomberg with a significant distinction: He’s a multibillionaire who can immediately reshape the landscape of gun politics with his money. His hope is that he can break the GOP of what he sees as its National Rifle Association addiction by using his considerable resources to promote gun laws with which many NRA members will agree.

“I’m going to prove a counterweight” to the NRA, said Bloomberg, who spent about $10 million in five congressional and statewide races against NRA- supported candidates last year, winning four of those contests. “It seemed effective, and I’m certainly going to take a good, hard look at next time. . . . You can organize people, I can write checks. . . .

Tweet

Read More...

Summary only...

Why The 2nd Amendment - An Object Lesson From Mexico

Caught between drug gangs, public corruption, and strict anti-gun laws, Mexico has seen dramatic increases in murder and violent crime. The murder rate in Mexico is now five times that in the U.S.

At one time, Mexico's Constitution gave its citizens a right to "keep and bear arms." That protection was neutered four decades ago. Today in Mexico, privately owned firearms are limited to small caliber weapons and private citizens are disarmed in public. Concealed and open carry are both outlawed. Law abiding Mexicans have suffered greatly. But now, this from AP:

Several hundred civilians have taken up arms in two towns in a southwestern Mexico state and are arresting people suspected of crimes and imposing a curfew, . . .

People wearing ski masks or bandanas and carrying small arms this week began manning checkpoints on roads into the municipalities of Ayutla de los Libres and Teconoapa in Guerrero state's Costa Chica area about 75 miles (120 kilometers) southeast of the Pacific resort of Acapulco. Leaders said they were acting against crime and insecurity. . . .

People in the area said about 800 residents were participating in the armed groups acting as unofficial police. The vigilantes ordered a 10 p.m. curfew for the two towns and are looking for suspected criminals. Schools have suspended classes.

In Ayutla, Romualdo Remigio Cantu, one of the coordinators for the civic group Union of Peoples and Social Organizations of Guerrero, said that more than 30 people had been arrested. The detainees are accused of drug trafficking, extortion and kidnapping, he said.

A man in a ski mask at one roadblock told reporters that townspeople had to act against criminals.

"They kill, extort, rape. You do not know if they are drug dealers, thugs, who want to grab everything," he said. "We want to return peace and tranquility to the entire population. Only the people can restore order." {emphasis added]

Actually, "only the people" with arms "can restore order." This really is an object lesson in why access to guns is not an archaic nullity, but should be the most basic and universal human right. My hat is off to the people of these towns for their courage in standing up to criminals and their decision to act in defiance of the government who would have them disarmed.

Two final thoughts. One, somebody ought to suggest to Holder that if he is going to unilaterally arm subsets of the Mexican population, he ought to start with these civilians, not the Mexican drug gangs raping, pillaging and killing them. Two, as to access to guns for the law abiding, somehow that doesn't seem to be on the UN's agenda. Indeed, I invite you to read the UN Office For Disarmament Affairs page on the "scourge" of "small arms." One term you will not find - "self defense." And I bet that, in the future, you will you never find reference on that page to the Union of Peoples and Social Organizations of Guerrero.

Linked at Larwyn's Linx. Thanks.

Tweet

Read More...

Summary only...

Sandy Hook, The 2nd Amendment, Biden & Gun Control

“If you look at every one of the tragic events that have attracted so much attention, it’s hard to be able to pinpoint what you could have done to assure it wouldn’t have happened."

PJM quoting Joe Biden, Biden Drafts Gun Agenda While Acknowledging Weak Links to Tragedies, 10 January 2013

Every American shares the horror at what happened at Sandy Hook. That said, the far left has embraced Sandy Hook as an opening to try and pass all of the gun control legislation they can dream up. Yet, as the quote from Biden shows, even the far left acknowledges that their "solutions" are disconnected from anything that would have stopped the Sandy Hook massacre. Just to review:

- The shooter didn't buy his weapon, he stole it. There have been a plethora of plans floated for more background checks and more paperwork in the wake of Sandy Hook, none of which would have stopped the massacre.

- The Sandy Hook shooter used a .223 Bushmaster "assault rifle" to kill some or all of his victims. But the reality is that he had 20 minutes of free fire time once he entered the school and before police arrived. He could have used any type of fire to accomplish his carnage. Banning "assault rifles" would not have stopped Sandy Hook.

- Accepting the left's claim that "assault rifles" serve only one purpose - to kill people - that is a feature, not a bug. Just what does the far left think that the 2nd Amendment protects? Using weapons for skeet shooting? For hunting rabbits? No, the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is, per the Supreme Court, to allow people to keep and bears arms in order to protect against "public and private violence." The AR15 is perhaps the most viable weapon for that purpose - especially for home defense and use by women, teens and people of limited strength. It is a weapon with virtually no recoil, it fires a bullet at very high velocity, thus having having "stopping power" in respect to criminals, and it can hold enough rounds in its magazine to be useful against multiple targets threatening violence.

- Expanding "gun free zones" or penalties for possessing fire arms inside or in the vicinity of schools is the biggest joke of all. One, it merely insures that the law abiding are disarmed for the criminals who, surprisingly enough, are not deterred by the fact that guns are outlawed there. "Gun free zones" only invite carnage. Two, the reality is that the "gun free zone" legislation is nothing more than a de facto ban on gun ownership among the law abiding, particularly in most cities. So, for example, if you are prevented by law from having a firearm within a thousand meters of a school, that would effectively act to disarm the majority of people living in most cities.

- The single "solution" to Sandy Hook, doing away with gun free zones as a matter of law and allowing some teachers and staff to carry concealed weapons, subject to reasonable requirements for training and certification, does not seem to be even within the realm of Biden's task force. - Limiting "high capacity magazines" has nothing to do with stopping what happened at Sandy Hook. One, magazines are simple to exchange - it takes only a second. It is not something that will slow down a criminal bent on firing more than ten rounds. Two, "high capacity magazines" are problematic, but for wholly practical reasons - they have a tendency to jam. Indeed, in the infantry, we never used anything over a 20 round magazine for our M16's for precisely that reason. The only reason for the left to fixate on magazine capacity is as a backdoor to outlawing weapons that are able to take "high capacity" magazines. Lastly, when it comes to self defense, unless someone on the left can assure me that my family will never be put in a position where their safety depends on firing more than ten rounds, then limiting magazine capacity is a restriction on my right to self defense.

- The only thing that even remotely comes close to addressing the causes of Sandy Hook have been some superficial discussions of mental illness. We will have to see what Biden's task force proposes, but I have zero trust in the left to do anything other than use this as a backdoor to gun control. I could envision the left trying to deny gun permits by law to anyone who ever visited a psychiatrist or whoever was once diagnosed with depression and put on anti-depressants. What we have not heard from Biden any serious discussion of allowing people with severe mental illness to be involuntarily institutionalized for evaluation and treatment.

So there you have it. What Biden will ultimately propose, we will have to wait until next week to find out. But you can be sure of one thing - it would not have stopped Sandy Hook, nor will it stop the next mass murder. The only thing that will stop that is if there is a sane person with a gun who fortuitously happens to be at the right place at the right time when the next mass murder is attempted.

Tweet

Read More...

Summary only...

Some Thoughts On Guns & The Left

From Bookworm Room: "Over the course of twenty-five years, I've come to understand that an armed citizenry is the only defense against a tyrannical government; that a weapon is the only way to give an advantage to a small woman (or man) being attacked by a big man (or woman); that the fastest way to stop a murderous gunman is to be lucky enough to have a sane gunman in the same crowd; and that an armed society is a polite society."

- The story of the Georgia woman who protected her family by emptying a .38 caliber revolver into a criminal had a good ending - but it is also a cautionary tale. The intruder took 5 shots with the .38 and still was able to walk away. If there had been multiple intruders or if she had missed with a few shots, the outcome might have been much different. I say again, particularly for women and teens, the single best weapon for home defense is an AR15. It has no recoil, much greater stopping power, and carries significantly more rounds.

- From Instapundit:

DO NOT TRUST CONTENT FROM BRADY CAMPAIGN: FactCheck:

Rep. Donna Edwards said that “since Columbine, there have been 181 of these school shootings.” That’s an inflated figure. She used a list of “major school shootings” supplied by the Brady Campaign that included incidents that were neither shootings nor at schools.

Other than that, the list was accurate!

- Looking at all of the gun control ideas being tossed around by the left, not one of them appears as if it would have actually stopped the Sandy Hook massacre.

- Gabby Giffords has a particularly obnoxious column in the USA Today. She says:

Special interests purporting to represent gun owners but really advancing the interests of an ideological fringe have used big money and influence to cow Congress into submission. Rather than working to find the balance between our rights and the regulation of a dangerous product, these groups have cast simple protections for our communities as existential threats to individual liberties. Rather than conducting a dialogue, they threaten those who divert from their orthodoxy with political extinction.

Given her description of those who disagree with gun control legislation as being an "ideological fringe," one can pretty much bet that her idea of a dialogue is "shut up and listen to me." Come to think of it, that is the same format the left uses for bipartisan compromise.

- Lastly, I still haven't come to grips with Obama's reelection, nor the fact that over 50% of the people who went to the polls pulled the lever for this utterly incompetent far left ideologue. Our nation is in far deeper trouble than I suspected on 6 Nov., 2012, and I really wonder if we will ever come out of it. Moreover, I strongly suspect that Obama will lead us into a Constitutional crisis during his four years, whether that is over guns or the debt ceiling or some other aspect in which he goes around Congress to impose his will by fiat on our nation, I don't know. But it is coming. I fear for our nation.

Tweet

Read More...

Summary only...

What Happens With Guns & Self Defense When The Left Rules Unconstrained? Look To The UK

Britain is a country to watch very closely to see what awaits the U.S. Britain embraced socialism in the immediate aftermath of WWII. And while Britain has dispensed with much of socialism's economic policy, it is still firmly embracing far left social policy - some aspects of which are Britain's policies towards guns, self defense and criminal justice.

I pointed out below that Britain, a country where both the law abiding and the police are near wholly disarmed, is suffering from a rate of violent crime over five times that of the U.S. The British are left with no means of making themselves equal in force to potential criminals at the point of a crime, and as one British Police Inspector wrote the other day, the "thieves rule this country at night, not us." The left in Britain look askance at anyone who might try to defend themselves, and this is coupled with a far left leaning judiciary that is more protective of the criminal than the law abiding.

Britain still allows individuals to own shotguns for hunting purposes under very strictly controlled conditions. Self defense is not considered a legitimate reason. Thus, when, horror of horrors, a Brit with a shotgun uses it to defend the lives of himself or others, he becomes the criminal.

Case in point, Mr. Bill Edwards owns a farm in Yorkshire - one that has been repeatedly raided by thieves. He also owns a shotgun for hunting and pest control on his farm. Several months ago, he and his mother were out walking on the farm when they came upon a thief who was stealing various items. When they confronted the thief, he jumped in his van and accelerated towards them, putting them in fear for their lives. Edwards fired the shotgun at the thief to get him to turn away - which he did, unharmed. The Daily Mail explains the rest:

A farmer accused of attempted murder after catching an intruder red-handed spoke of his outrage last night after the thief walked free with a £100 fine.

Unemployed criminal David Taylor was captured when Bill Edwards confronted him on his isolated woodland property.

Mr Edwards, 21, fired his shotgun at a van driven by Taylor as the thief accelerated towards his mother, Louisa Smith, 50.

Taylor was caught after a high-speed chase but it was the farmer who endured a horrendous ordeal at the hands of police who arrested him on suspicion of attempted murder.

Last night Mr Edwards labelled the experience ‘four months of hell’ and attacked the ‘pathetic’ punishment handed out to the intruder.

The former public schoolboy said: ‘It’s completely changed my view of the police. They treated me like a criminal. The police have acted like bullies who have turned someone who was very supportive of their work into someone who wants nothing more to do with them. They can’t protect the public but don’t allow the public to protect themselves.’

Speaking about the sentence, he added: ‘It is hard to find words to describe how ridiculous the sentence is. I’m absolutely disgusted.

‘We have had four months of being treated like criminals only to see the real criminal let off with a measly fine which will be paid for by the taxpayer since he is on state benefits.’

Mr Edwards and his mother feared for their lives during the confrontation on their land on the outskirts of Scarborough, North Yorkshire, last August. . . .

Mr Edwards said his family has lost thousands of pounds through theft and damage caused in a number of raids on their land.

They caught Taylor and an accomplice loading stolen metal cables into the back of his Ford Transit after spotting that outbuildings had been tampered with. The thieves jumped into the van and drove it towards the pair as they desperately dialled 999 for help.

Mr Edwards fired his shotgun, which was loaded with lightweight rabbit shot, several times, hitting the van’s windscreen and bodywork. No one was hurt. Police eventually caught Taylor when Mr Edwards gave chase and gave a running commentary on his mobile phone. But the crook was only charged with metal theft.

Mr Edwards' shotgun was loaded with lightweight rabbit shot when he fired it at the van.

He was accused of attempted murder after firing his shotgun at a van driven by thief David Taylor as he and his mother feared for their lives.

Meanwhile Mr Edwards and his mother were arrested, held overnight in cells and left on bail for four months. Mrs Smith was arrested on suspicion of possessing a firearm with intent.

It is believed police have a recording of the 999 call in which the shots can be heard as Mrs Smith shouts: ‘He is trying to kill us, shoot his tyres.’

But even now the farmer has not had his shotgun and other weapons returned to him which he uses to control pests on his land and as a hobby. Scarborough magistrate Mike Dineen fined Taylor £100 and ordered him to pay £34.99 for damage caused to the farm gate and padlock when he rammed through it to escape.

Taylor left court grinning and sneered ‘lucky you’ at Mr Edwards after finding out the attempted murder allegation had been dropped. [emphasis added]

Moments earlier his solicitor Ian Brickman said the thief ‘is in many ways the victim in this’ and was left so ‘traumatised’ he cannot work. . . . [emphasis added]

If the left in the U.S. had their way, I have little doubt that we would resemble the U.K. today, both in gun control policy and self defense laws. The question to my mind is, when does something like this become so intolerable that the people revolt? When are judges and prosecuting attorneys going to be held liable for caring more about the welfare of the criminal than the law abiding.

At the core of the social compact between the people and its government is that the government will administer justice fairly so that the injured do not have to resort to vigilante justice. When the government systemically fails in their duty, when thieves rule the night and the criminals go unpunished, how long will it be before the law abiding have had enough, and take justice into their own hands as to the criminals, and aim violent retribution at Judges and prosecuting attorneys for their utter disdain of the law abiding.

At any rate, the UK is very much a cautionary tale for us as to the wages of left wing control and what that means for crime and self defense. I await the day when the law abiding among the UK revolt against this insanity, and the UK becomes an object lesson for the left of the bankruptcy and immorality of their ideology.

Related Posts:

- Guns, Equality, The UK - Where "The Thieves Rule This Country At Night," & An Insane NTY News Analysis - Boy Uses AR15 To Stop A Home Invasion

- Larry Correia's Brilliant Essay On Guns, Gun Control & Concealed Carry

- Thoughts On Gun Control From The Late Paul Harvey

- The Futility Of An Assault Weapons Ban As An Answer To Sandy Hook

- When Seconds Counted At Sandy Hook, Police Were Twenty Minutes Away

- St. Louis Police Chief Calls for Arming School Personnel

- John Fund essay on Mass Murders, Gun Control & Our Treatment of Mental Illness

- Luby Cafeteria Massacre, Testimony of Suzanna Hupp, Texas School District Authorizes Concealed Carry For Its Schools

- Reynolds On Gun Free Zones, The Left's Mistrust Of Armed Private Citizens, & Our Problematic Mental Health Laws

Tweet

Read More...

Summary only...

Guns, Equality, A Land Where "Thieves Rule The Night," & An Insane NYT "News Analysis" (Updated)

There is an old saying, God created man, Samuel Colt made them equal.

We saw the exercise in equality play out in the news just the other night when an intruder broke in on a woman and her two young children. They tried to hide from him in an attic crawl space. He sought them out. The woman had a .38 caliber revolver that she emptied into him, then escaped unharmed with her children. In another story in the news, a young woman in India and her boyfriend were on a bus, unarmed, when they were attacked by several men. The men beat the boyfriend, then gang raped and disemboweled the woman.

[Update: This from Instapundit - GOOD: Delhi Gang-Rape: Indian Women Stocking Up On Guns For Protection. God created man and woman. Col. Colt made them equal.]

Those are anecdotes. So what happens on a meta-scale when a nation is disarmed, and people are unequal to the criminal element? For that, we can compare the U.S. and the U.K.

In the U.K., gun ownership is virtually banned. Even the police force in the U.K. is, for the most part, unarmed. Raw figures show that the UK has a lower homicide rate than the U.S., 1.2 per 100,000 of population in the U.K. versus 4.8 in the U.S. But when it comes to violent crime overall, the UK is a much greater hotbed than the U.S., with 2,034 violent criminal incidents in the U.K. per 100,000 of population versus 486 in the U.S. An anecdote from a British police officer gives a chilling feel for the ramifications of a disarmed society - where the criminals are very often more powerful at the point of the crime than either the citizens or the police. This from the Police Inspector Blog:

An ATM raid is where a gang steals a digger, a flatbed truck and some old 4X4 vehicles. They then drive in convoy, at night, to an isolated bank or other ATM site, use the digger to smash the ATM out of the wall, load it on to the flatbed and ‘make off’ to a dump site.

At the dump site, which will be a field or a clearing in a wood somewhere, the kind of place they also use to burn the metal out of stolen cable, the ‘engineer’ will be waiting in another 4X4, ready to cut the ATM open and release the cash. The cash is then divided and the gang abandon all but the getaway vehicles and run for home.

This is a high value business. Some ATM’s have up to £1/4 million inside if they are ‘hit’ at the right time. Every county police officer knows where I am coming from with this. Here is the bad bit for us.

If an insomniac wandering about in the early hours sees such a raid and calls it in, we have to respond. When we eventually arrive, single crewed or if we are lucky, double crewed, if the offenders are still there or if we come across the convoy ‘making off’ we can expect to be met with extreme violence by at least eight hardened criminals. They are better armed than us and will ram our family saloon cars off the road in an instant.

If police officers are caught in the open they will be met with baseball bats, iron bars and firearms. They will also be heavily outnumbered. Even if we manage to get one of the counties very few police dogs to respond, the dogs can be stabbed or shot and the handlers beaten half to death. This has happened in Ruralshire. With our tiny numbers of police available for such a huge county, our pathetically underpowered vehicles and our uniquely unarmed status, the thieves rule this county at night now, not us.

It would seem that disarming the populace has the effect of making them game animals for the predators. And the same holds true for the police. It has the point of making the law abiding citizens unequal when it counts most, when their lives and liberty are on the line.

Equality is perhaps the greatest good - so the progs assure us. They demand equality for women, for minorities, some even for flora and fauna. You have to wonder why these calls for equality end completely when it comes to the ability of the average law abiding person to protect their lives and liberty?

Update: As we prepare for the upcoming Obama push to limit the availability of guns to law abiding Americans, the NYT continues their daily rhetorical support for such measure with a "news analysis" piece, More Guns = More Killing. Even for the wildly partisan NYT, this one should win an award for its over the top and under sourced claims.

The NYT notes that the NRA solution to Sandy Hook style massacres is to expand legal gun ownership among the law abiding and to put armed individuals in our schools. The Times then tries to make the point that more guns just means more killing by using the examples of Latin American countries, all with unstable governments, poor economies, many with massive problems of narco-terrorism, and several with left wing insurgencies, such as FARC. They are not quite relevant comparisons to the U.S..

The NYT also relies heavily on quotes from David Hemenway, director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center. He makes the remarkable claim that “[t]here is no evidence that having more guns reduces crime. None at all.”

The NYT let's that statement stand, apparently unable to find anyone around their water cooler who might contest it. To assist the NYT on this, let's point out that one who would contest it would be professor and author John Lott, who has studied the correlation between gun ownership and violent crime and written extensively on the topic. This from an interview with Prof. Lott:

There is a strong negative relationship between the number of law-abiding citizens with permits and the crime rate—as more people obtain permits there is a greater decline in violent crime rates. For each additional year that a concealed handgun law is in effect the murder rate declines by 3 percent, rape by 2 percent, and robberies by over 2 percent.

Concealed handgun laws reduce violent crime for two reasons. First, they reduce the number of attempted crimes because criminals are uncertain which potential victims can defend themselves. Second, victims who have guns are in a much better position to defend themselves.

Question: What is the basis for these numbers?

Lott: The analysis is based on data for all 3,054 counties in the United States during 18 years from 1977 to 1994.

Question: Your argument about criminals and deterrence doesn’t tell the whole story. Don’t statistics show that most people are killed by someone they know?

Lott: You are referring to the often-cited statistic that 58 percent of murder victims are killed by either relatives or acquaintances. However, what most people don’t understand is that this “acquaintance murder” number also includes gang members killing other gang members, drug buyers killing drug pushers, cabdrivers killed by customers they picked up for the first time, prostitutes and their clients, and so on. “Acquaintance” covers a wide range of relationships. The vast majority of murders are not committed by previously law-abiding citizens. Ninety percent of adult murderers have had criminal records as adults.

Question: But how about children? In March of this year [1998] four children and a teacher were killed by two school boys in Jonesboro, Arkansas. Won’t tragedies like this increase if more people are allowed to carry guns? Shouldn’t this be taken into consideration before making gun ownership laws more lenient?

Lott: The horrific shooting in Arkansas occurred in one of the few places where having guns was already illegal. These laws risk creating situations in which the good guys cannot defend themselves from the bad ones. I have studied multiple victim public shootings in the United States from 1977 to 1995. These were incidents in which at least two or more people were killed and or injured in a public place; in order to focus on the type of shooting seen in Arkansas, shootings that were the byproduct of another crime, such as robbery, were excluded. The effect of “shall-issue” laws on these crimes has been dramatic. When states passed these laws, the number of multiple-victim shootings declined by 84 percent. Deaths from these shootings plummeted on average by 90 percent, and injuries by 82 percent. . . .

Question: Violence is often directed at women. Won’t more guns put more women at risk?

Lott: Murder rates decline when either more women or more men carry concealed handguns, but a gun represents a much larger change in a woman’s ability to defend herself than it does for a man. An additional woman carrying a concealed handgun reduces the murder rate for women by about 3 to 4 times more than an additional man carrying a concealed handgun reduces the murder rate for men.

The NYT brings up Australia as proof that gun bans are effective.

After a gruesome mass murder in 1996 provoked public outrage, Australia enacted stricter gun laws, including a 28-day waiting period before purchase and a ban on semiautomatic weapons. Before then, Australia had averaged one mass shooting a year. Since, rates of both homicide and suicide have dropped 50 percent, and there have been no mass killings, said Ms. Peters, who lobbied for the legislation.

They don't quite tell the whole story. The homicide rate in Australia, low in 1996 at 1.9, increased in the three years after their gun ban before dropping to 1.3 in 2007. Regardless, overall, violent crime in Australia has exploded since gun control was imposed, with the sum of violent crime, including sexual assaults, robberies and assaults, increasing about 20% in just 12 years.

In comparison, the violent crime rate in the U.S. has fallen precipitously in the same time frame:

Indeed, it would seem Australia is going through much the same experience as Britain, with a fairly low homicide rate, but a disarmed populace increasingly suffering at the hands of violent criminals who hold the upper hand at the point of their crimes. When "thieves rule this country at night," that is not a society in which I would like to live. Nor would most of the NYT's employees, I would imagine, were the violence ever to be directed into their fantasy world.

Back to the article. The NYT writes:

“To put people with guns who are not accountable or trained in places where there are lots of innocent people is just dangerous,” Ms. Peters said, noting that lethal force is used to deter minor crimes like shoplifting. . . .

There are a number of responses to this. The NYT provides zero facts to justify Ms. Peters bald assertion. According to Dr. Lott, statistically, the degree at which civilians with gun permits criminally misuse their weapons is very low, and indeed, no higher or lower than that level of misuse among trained police officers. Moreover, according to at least one retired LAPD detective, it is quite likely that gun permit holders are actually more experienced with their weapons than the average police officer. This bald claim by Ms. Peters is just pure arrogance combined with a mistrust of the unwashed masses.

Lastly, there is this gem from the NYT.

“If you’re living in a ‘Mad Max’ world, where criminals have free rein and there’s no government to stop them, then I’d want to be armed,” said Dr. Hemenway of Harvard. “But we’re not in that circumstance. We’re a developed, stable country.”

The canard in Dr. Hemenway's analysis is glaring. Criminals will always have "free reign" for a period of time when a crime is being committed - at least if the intended victims are unarmed or otherwise unable to mount an effective defense. Police respond after the fact, when the criminal's carnage has either been done or been stopped. For example:

1. Sandy Hook Elementary School was a "gun free zone" where the teachers and staff were prevented by law from carrying concealed weapons. Once the shooter gained access to the school, police were notified. It took police twenty minutes to arrive, during which time the shooter killed 26 children and teachers.

2. In Texas, two men attempted a home invasion. Inside the home were a teen age boy and his young sister. The boy retrieved his father's AR15 and proceeded to shoot the criminals, protecting his life and the life of his sister. Police arrived in time to take the suspects to the hospital.

3. In Georgia, a home invasion ended when a woman, defending herself and her two small children, shot her assailant five times. Police arrived in time to take the suspect to the hospital.

4. In Texas, during the Luby Cafeteria Massacre that claimed the lives of 23 people, a diner at the cafeteria who had left her weapon in her car in order to comply with Texas gun control laws at the time, testified that she could easily have stopped the massacre had she had her weapon in her purse. Police response time was about 15 minutes.

5. In Connecticut, during a home invasion by two men, the husband, Dr. Petit, was beaten and put into the basement. There were no guns available to Petit or his family. Over the next seven plus hours, Dr. Petit's wife was strangled and their two daughters, one 11, the other 17, were tied to their beds and raped. Near the end of the ordeal, Dr. Petit was able to free himself and went to his neighbor's house to call the police. The police arrived, set up a perimeter, then stood in place for nearly half an hour, waiting for more back up. During that half hour, the criminals poured gasoline over the two daughters - both still alive - then set them on fire.

The lessons of the above anecdotes are blatantly clear. If you have a weapon, you can defend yourself, your family and others. If you are disarmed by law or choice, then you are wholly at the mercy of criminals. And as the above scenarios makes clear, while we may not live in a "Mad Max" country, there is nothing to keep "Mad Max" from visiting you or your loved ones. Dr. Hemenway has apparently been lucky in his life to date, but that has not been because he has any concept for the reality of crime, violence or self defense.

Related Posts:

- Boy Uses AR15 To Stop A Home Invasion

- Larry Correia's Brilliant Essay On Guns, Gun Control & Concealed Carry

- Thoughts On Gun Control From The Late Paul Harvey

- The Futility Of An Assault Weapons Ban As An Answer To Sandy Hook

- When Seconds Counted At Sandy Hook, Police Were Twenty Minutes Away

- St. Louis Police Chief Calls for Arming School Personnel

- John Fund essay on Mass Murders, Gun Control & Our Treatment of Mental Illness

- Luby Cafeteria Massacre, Testimony of Suzanna Hupp, Texas School District Authorizes Concealed Carry For Its Schools

- Reynolds On Gun Free Zones, The Left's Mistrust Of Armed Private Citizens, & Our Problematic Mental Health Laws

Linked at Larwyn's Linx, Nice Deb and the Watcher's Council. Thanks.

Tweet

Read More...

Summary only...

Boy Uses AR15 To Stop A Home Invasion

Thank god that boy had a weapon - in this case an AR15, the same type of rifle used at Sandy Hook - and knew how to use it.

The AR15 has several characteristics that make it an eminently practical weapon for self defense. One, it has virtually no recoil, thus making it something that most anyone of any level of strength can use to fire multiple shots with good accuracy. Two, while an AR15 fires a small caliber bullet - 5.56 - it does so with very high muzzle velocity, 3,110 feet per second. It's stopping power comes causing significant cavitation in the body. In other words, pinpoint accuracy isn't required.

By comparison, the M9 9mm handgun fires a larger bullet, but does so at 1,250 fps. Like virtually all pistols, it has a fairly significant recoil that a weaker individual might have trouble with. To reduce recoil, you have to go to smaller caliber weapons and smaller loads. The smaller the caliber and muzzle velocity, all other things being equal, the less effective will be the weapon when it comes to self defense against a determined attacker.

Bottom line, banning the AR15 and its variants is banning perhaps the single most effective weapon for home defense. That is particularly true for women and teens. Keep that in mind as the left tries to disarm America in the wake of Sandy Hook.

Related Posts:

- Guns, Equality, & A Land Where "Thieves Rule This Country At Night"

- Larry Correia's Brilliant Essay On Guns, Gun Control & Concealed Carry

- Thoughts On Gun Control From The Late Paul Harvey

- The Futility Of An Assault Weapons Ban As An Answer To Sandy Hook

- When Seconds Counted At Sandy Hook, Police Were Twenty Minutes Away

- St. Louis Police Chief Calls for Arming School Personnel

- John Fund essay on Mass Murders, Gun Control & Our Treatment of Mental Illness

- Luby Cafeteria Massacre, Testimony of Suzanna Hupp, Texas School District Authorizes Concealed Carry For Its Schools

- Reynolds On Gun Free Zones, The Left's Mistrust Of Armed Private Citizens, & Our Problematic Mental Health Laws

Linked: Larwyn's Linx

Tweet

Read More...

Summary only...

The Feinstein Gun Grab

Sen. Dianne Feinstein will be introducing 'gun control' legislation in January. She is using the excuse of Sandy Hook to introduce legislation that is jaw dropping in its breadth. I have yet to read the text of the bill, but the write up Feinstein provides describes vast regulation of weapons of all sorts. Indeed, it would appear to reach virtually all semi-automatic rifles and hand-guns, since virtually all use detachable magazines.

Following is a summary of the 2013 legislation:

• Bans the sale, transfer, importation, or manufacturing of:
• 120 specifically-named firearms
• Certain other semiautomatic rifles, handguns, shotguns that can accept a detachable magazine and have one military characteristic
• Semiautomatic rifles and handguns with a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10 rounds
• Strengthens the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban and various state bans by:
• Moving from a 2-characteristic test to a 1-characteristic test
• Eliminating the easy-to-remove bayonet mounts and flash suppressors from the characteristics test
• Banning firearms with “thumbhole stocks” and “bullet buttons” to address attempts to “work around” prior bans
• Bans large-capacity ammunition feeding devices capable of accepting more than 10 rounds. 
• Protects legitimate hunters and the rights of existing gun owners by:
• Grandfathering weapons legally possessed on the date of enactment
• Exempting over 900 specifically-named weapons used for hunting or sporting purposes and
• Exempting antique, manually-operated, and permanently disabled weapons
• Requires that grandfathered weapons be registered under the National Firearms Act, to include:
• Background check of owner and any transferee;
• Type and serial number of the firearm;
• Positive identification, including photograph and fingerprint;
• Certification from local law enforcement of identity and that possession would not violate State or local law; and
• Dedicated funding for ATF to implement registration

I have recently concluded that our modern left is every bit as totalitarian as were Stalin and Mao, the only difference being that they are constrained to acting incrementally in our nation.  I see now that I was wrong.  Feinstein's rather incredible attempt to disarm the law abiding is anything but incremental.

And do note the extreme irony.  Feinstein is promoting this as a response to Sandy Hook.  The shooter in that massacre had 20 minutes of free fire time once in the "gun free zone" and before police arrived.  He could have used virtually any weapon still allowed under Feinstein's regulation to accomplish the same amount of carnage.  This isn't legislation responsive to Sandy Hook, it's legislation solely aimed at the law abiding.


Tweet

Read More...

Summary only...