Thoughts on gun violence Part 3: magazines

One of the proposed "common sense" gun laws is the restriction of magazine size. First off, what is a magazine? A magazine is a box, usually made of plastic or metal, with a spring in it. Cartridges are loaded into the magazine, and the magazine is used to feed the cartridges into the gun's receiver. When the magazine is empty it is reloaded or in some cases can be replaced by another magazine. Virtually all firearms that fire cartridge ammunition have magazines.

What is a "high capacity." In the military or firearms industry this means a magazine that holds more than the standard capacity magazine the weapon was designed to use. In the case of the Colt 1911, for instance, a high capacity magazine would be one that holds more than 7 rounds. For a Colt AR-15 a high capacity magazine would be one that holds more than 30 rounds. Various states define "high capacity" as being any magazine holding more than 15, 10 or 5 rounds, regardless of the firearm. So the state's definition of "high capacity" is an arbitrary term.

Now onto the law itself. I would like to list the pros and cons of this law, but I honestly can't find any pros. There are claims made that the law would save lives by allowing people to rush a mass shooter while he is changing magazines, but there are no instances of this occurring in practice. On the contrary, many mass shooters (such as the recent Parkland murderer) have chosen lower capacity magazines because they are more readily concealed. In fact, a case can be made that it is better if mass shooters have large capacity magazines because they are more prone to malfunction and because they relied on a single magazine they can't replace it with a working one, as they could with multiple smaller magazines.

The only concrete statement on justification I can find is this statement by William B. Ruger:

"The best way to address the firepower concern is therefore not to try to outlaw or license many millions of older and perfectly legitimate firearms (which would be a licensing effort of staggering proportions) but to prohibit the possession of high capacity magazines. By a simple, complete and unequivocal ban on large capacity magazines, all the difficulty of defining 'assault rifle' and 'semi-automatic rifles' is eliminated. The large capacity magazine itself, separate or attached to the firearm, becomes the prohibited item. A single amendment to Federal firearms laws could effectively implement these objectives."

So the real goal is to ban firearms in a simpler way. This magazine ban was implemented in the US in 1994 as part of the federal "assault weapons" ban. In 2004 the law ended, after it was determined it had no effect on crime. Despite this, anti-gunners consider this a big part of fighting gun violence, and sadly there is a lot of public support for it, even in the face of evidence otherwise.

Here is a video worth watching, as it shows actual experiments on the effects of magazine capacity on a shooter.


To find the rest of the posts in this series, click here.

Read More

Thought on gun violence part 2, red flag

One of the proposed solutions to gun violence are "extreme risk protection" aka "gun violence restraining order" aka "red flag" laws. Sounds good on the surface. If you see your neighbor or anyone whom you think is a risk to themselves or others you can have the court take away their firearms and put them on a list to be barred from purchasing more. Who would be against that? Let's look at what such laws actually change.

Currently, if you see someone who is acting in a way you think puts themselves or another person at risk you call 9-1-1. The police arrive as quickly as they can and assess the situation. If they determine that the individual is a danger they can seize any weapons involved, arrest or detain him or her, and start proceedings to have the person declared mentally unfit or begin criminal proceedings.

Under the red flag laws, if you see someone who is acting in a way you think puts themselves or another person at risk you file a motion with the court. A hearing is scheduled, where you present your evidence and if a judge feels the person is a danger, the police are issued a warrant to forcefully enter the person's home, fully armed, and force them to turn over firearms.

Do you see the problems?

• The person has several weeks in which to do themselves or others harm, while the wheels of "justice" turn.
• The police, the person involved, and their neighbors are all put at risk by the "no knock" warrant.
• The person loses their firearms, but they are free to kill themselves by another method (likewise for the criminal). The order doesn't address the problem, merely the gun.
• Presumably, the standard of evidence is lower for this than for police intervention. This creates a process which denies the person due process. They cannot present their side of things or defend themselves.
• The police typically don't have the proper environment to store guns without damage to personal property.

I'm sure a lawyer could think of more problems with it, but that's my take. The process, by focusing merely on guns, does nothing to stop the person from doing harm, merely from using a gun to do so. Since the "evidence" is the say-so of a neighbor or other witness, it seem tailor made for abuse when a family member or neighbor has a dispute, or just doesn't like guns.

To find the rest of the posts in this series click here.

Read More

Thoughts on gun violence

I have been debating whether to write this post because (a) there are so many posts out there, written by people so much smarter and more eloquent than I am and (b) people seem recalcitrant on the issue - everyone has made up their minds. Still, there is a lot to be said on the subject, and I never expected people to actually read what I wrote anyway, so here goes.

First off, I get it. It is a tragedy that young men and women go out of the house in the morning and don't return home alive. The point has been made that more children go off and die in texting accidents than from school shootings, and that is true. To the parent, the effect is the same - a life gone, a love gone. But to society they are different because one death was intentional and the other was not. Whether people admit it or not, intention matters.

Secondly, I get it. School shootings are likely, by common sense, to be more deadly than school stonings. The very thing that makes guns effective for self defense is that they can kill more effectively than a rock or a knife.

But let's look at causes, and solutions, that work. And let's consider all the causes. Would the Parkland murders still have happened if the murderer had used a different weapon? Yes. Would more student have died? Maybe. Although a rifle is deadly, so is a car driven through a group of students as they leave the building, or a gallon of gasoline and a match, or a machete. Any of those weapons, and many many others, could have killed 17 people (or more) in 7 minutes.

A number of "solutions" have been proposed to the problem of school murders, some of which make sense, but the vast majority of which do not address the problem at all, and many would exacerbate the problem. Here are some of them [N.B. it is telling that in a google search for the data for this article I was unable to find sources and methodologies, as they were hidden by page after page of anti-gun propaganda. As usual, I have done my best to provide data that is backed by an original source and a known methodology rather than just a claim].

I had intended this to be a single article, but it turns out that I have more to say than I thought, so I will make a series of posts, each discussing one of the proposed solutions, weighing the pros and cons. First of all, a few points that will be common throughout.

1. There is evil in the world. Any claim that if we got rid of guns people would stop killing people is at best naive, and probably disingenuous. History has shown that banning guns does not reduce murders, but increases them. This may seem counterintuitive, but consider that the strong will prey on the weak. The weak, even if they want to, cannot prey on the strong, as they lack the means. A gun is an equalizer, in that a 90 pound 70 year old woman can use a gun as effectively as a 300 pound 25 year old man. Take away the gun and the 70 year old has no defense.

2. There are more "good" people than bad people. By good people I don't mean people who never sin, but rather people who have a moral compass, people who would rather not harm another person. Thus, if everyone were equally strong and equally capable, there would be more people who would stop violence than would start it. "But we're not all equally strong," you might object... see point 1, above.

3. You need to use your brain. The media, Hollywood elite, big business, and incumbent politicians all have an agenda, and that agenda right now is to perpetuate their power. Part of that is making sure nobody else has power, and the best way to do that is to take away the rights of people who don't agree with them. I don't just mean second amendment rights. I mean all rights. Like making sure certain viewpoints aren't allowed on Youtube or carried by cable companies. Like using the IRS and banks to target the finances of organizations with certain viewpoints. Like selectively enforcing laws against people with certain viewpoints. You get the point yet?

4. Why don't we treat this topic like any other topic. When bees are dying do we listen to children who have been stung by bees? No, we turn to bee keepers. When we are worried about the climate, do we listen to children who have been in floods? No we turn to climate scientists. The point is, in every crisis there are experts who should have a say, yet the whole impetus has been to shut out the voices of gun owners and listen to people who have a heartfelt desire to can guns, but know nothing about what guns are, how they work, or what they do.

Case in point, the NRA. Let me tell you about the NRA, then about what's been going on with respect to the NRA.

The NRA, or National Rifle Association, is a civil rights organization, one of the oldest in the United States. It was formed in 1871 by two Union generals. They realized that the war to abolish slavery would have been quicker and less bloody had their soldiers been better with a rifle. From the beginning of the organization, it's main emphasis was on the protection of the Constitution, and that meant promoting the rights of blacks to defend themselves against the Ku Klux Klan.

The NRA is also the largest organization in the United States to support civil rights. It has over five million members. It has always promoted the safe ownership and use of arms for defense, but only got involved in politics in the 1970, after the government began infringing on our rights in a big way. Even so, the organization is non-partisan, supporting both Democrats and Republicans. It is a single issue organization, and its members fall all over the map on other issues.

The money that was spent by the NRA in the last few years on non-partisan lobbying dwarfs in comparison with the amount spent lobbying by Planned Parenthood, big pharma, or even just google in the same time period. Any political clout that the NRA has comes not from money but from the votes of its members.

The NRA does not sell guns, nor promote the sale of guns, but focuses on education and safety. It's  programs, such as Eddie Eagle for children, and programs for youth, sports, recreation, hunting and law enforcement,   are designed to promote safe and legal use of firearms.

How is the NRA connected to mass shootings? To my knowledge, no NRA member has committed a mass shooting (and I imagine if there were such a person there would be headlines about it). On the other hand, in 2017 the Sutherland Springs church mass shooting was ended when Stephen Willeford, NRA member and instructor, used his personal AR-15 to neutralize the shooter. In the recent Parkland shooting, Coach Aaron Feis gave his life to shield students, putting himself in between them and the shooter. Although the NRA doesn't disclose it's members, Feis was at least a fan of the NRA, and was running an NRA sponsored group at the school.

As a result of all this, the NRA has been demonized, had its partner companies harassed, its members attacked, had its voice in the public square squelched, and more. How is attempting to shut down a gun safety organization supposed to make people safer?

To find the posts in this series click here.

Read More

Self Interest

I'm fed up! The latest trope that keeps getting trotted out is that "at least liberals care about kids getting shot." By implication, and sometimes explicitly, others do not. Those others are called out as conservatives/gun owners/pro lifers.

But let's get past the rhetoric and think about it. What do gun owners, et. al. have to "gain" by kids getting shot? Nothing less than the loss of their rights. Now you can accuse gun owners of a lot, but being so selfless that they would act in the interests of liberals against their own rights is not one of them.

On the other hand, who stands to gain from kids getting shot? Now the glib answer of liberals would be the NRA. And it is true, NRA membership took a jump recently. But that isn't a result of kids getting shot - it is a defense against attacks by liberals. Likewise gun sales (especially AR-15 sales) are probably up (I didn't check, this is speculation). But again, it is not because of kids getting shot, but because of attacks against gun owners by liberals. In other words the NRA and gun companies don't benefit from mass shootings, they benefit from liberal attacks. If the liberals really wanted to reduce the power of the mythical gun lobby all they'd have to do is stop attacking gun rights.

No, the real answer to who stands to gain from kids getting shot is the liberals themselves. Who scored massive political gains from the recent massacre? Liberals. Who had bill already written and ready to go to a vote within days of the event? Who had professionally designed web sites ready to be activated, "grass roots" campaigns, letter writing and phone campaigns all ready to go? Liberals.

How long does it take a company to roll out a new web site nationally. How long does it take to get a political campaign running? How long does it take to organize events in all 50 states? How long does it take to get a boycott campaign going? How long does it take to write a bill and bring it to the point of a vote? Quora says 267 days, on average, and that's after it is written, which can take quite a while.

Face it, there is no way this kind of effort was done in a few days and by school kids and even their parents. This was a coordinated effort with a lot of funding and work that had been done beforehand. The liberals were just waiting for kids to be shot so they could move forward and achieve their goals. And not just any kids... couldn't be one where an NRA member was the good guy, or lower income kids, had to be upper middle class white kids because that gets people interested. Did they care about kids getting shot? You betcha - without that they would not have been able to get their way.

Read More

Control

I'd like to talk to you about an object. I'm not going to name it now, but you'll be able to figure it out from my description. As a hint, it is a three letter word.

You can find this object in every part of the world, but nowhere as much as in America. Americans have a unique obsession with these objects, owning more of them than any other country in the world. Some Americans feel naked going anywhere without this object. There is a whole culture around this object. There are clubs where people can go to practice, compete, or just show off this object. There are shows where these objects can be admired or traded. There are even national organizations that lobby to fight government regulations for these objects.

And yet they are dangerous. They kill over 30,000 Americans every year. What do you expect when such objects are ubiquitous? And these objects don't discriminate. Often their victims are children. Sometimes they turn children into killers, when owners fail to secure this object at home and a curious child decides to try it out. This is also one way criminals get a hold of these objects. Once they are stolen they are either traded to other criminals or used in crimes themselves.

What do you think we should do with these objects? Should we ban them outright? Should people undergo background checks and mental health checks before being allowed to buy one? Should we have the police do surprise inspections of the owners' homes to see they are properly secured, and lock up people who don't secure them? Should we limit how large or powerful they could be? Impose bans on accessories or ones that are styled in an aggressive manner? Ban accessories that make them faster or more powerful? Maybe restrict ownership to certain places? After all, maybe out in the boonies people need these, but surely we should ban them in cities. What would you do?

Oh, and I am talking about cars, by the way. What did you think it was?

Read More

HR 38

Brian Fletcher and family, from NJ.com article linked to below

Imagine the following scenarios:

• You are going to a concert. No video recording is allowed. Earlier that day you were at Chuck e Cheese for your daughter's birthday party, and forgot to take the camera out of your bag. One of the concert personnel catches a glance of the camera as you are getting your money out, and you are successfully sued for five million dollars for intellectual property theft.

• You are getting gas, and absentmindedly light up a cigarette. You are immediately arrested and after a month in jail and a lengthy and expensive trial are sentenced to prison for arson and attempted manslaughter.

• There is a pair of nail scissors in your carry-on bag when you check in at the airport. You are arrested, charged with attempted murder and terrorism, and face years in prison with no possibility of parole.

Ridiculous? Of course. In reality the person with the camera is asked to disable it or check the bag. The smoker is told to put out the cigarette (and even if he refuses is fined, not imprisoned). The nail scissors are removed and the owner can either put them back in their car, mail them home, or discard them. You don't prosecute someone for merely being able to commit a crime when they haven't actually committed a crime and they have no intention to ever commit a crime.

But that sort of harassment is exactly what happens to gun owners all the time.

• Shaneen Allen was a mother of two and a nurse in Philadelphia. She drove into New Jersey to arrange a birthday party for her son, and mistakenly brought her legally owned and carried gun, secured in her purse. At a routine traffic stop she showed the officer her weapons license, and informed the officer that there was s gun in the car, as is the law in most states. She was sentenced to three years in prison without the possibility of parole. After public outcry that was reduced, but she still had a felony charge, which would prevent her from working as a nurse and take away her rights for the rest of her life. Governor Christie was able to pardon her, but not until she had spent months in jail awaiting trial, spent thousands in legal fees, lost her job and lost custody of her children.

• Brian Fletcher was a lineman from North Carolina, who traveled to New Jersey to help with disaster relief after superstorm Sandy. He had a legally owned gun in his vehicle for protection. He also showed police his weapons license and informed them of the weapon. He was also arrested, convicted and sentenced. He too was eventually pardoned by Governor Christie.

• Raymond Hughes was a corrections officer in Pennsylvania who took his wife to dinner and a concert in New Jersey. On the way home, they were hit by a drunk driver and had to be hospitalized. He informed police that he was a law officer and he had a gun, and asked them to secure it from the damaged vehicle. Because PA corrections officers do not have "statutory arrest" powers under PA law, New Jersey did not consider him a law enforcement officer and prosecuted him for felony gun possession. After public outcry charges were eventually dropped.

I would like to say that these are the only three cases, but New Jersey has, according to gun rights lawyers, over a thousand people currently serving prison terms for being in the state with a gun that they own legally, and that they had no intention of using for a crime. These cases are significant because of their notoriety. And although in these three cases the citizen was eventually freed, it was not without spending tens of thousands of dollars, losing months or years of their lives, and massive public awareness campaigns, and ultimately depended on Chris Christie being governor. Under our next governor, Phil Murphy, these people would be rotting in jail (not just in my opinion, Murphy has said as much).

Multiple that number by eleven states who have such laws - California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Rhode Island, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, and Washington D.C. and you can imagine the magnitude of the problem.

This week the house passed HR 38, the "Concealed Carry Reciprocity" bill, which does three things.

• It creates a study to address the issue of bump stocks (like the ones used in the recent concert mass shooting in Las Vegas).
• It removes immunity from legal consequences for states and agencies that do not report violent criminals to the NICS system (the National Instant Criminal Search system is what is used to identify people who should not be allowed to purchase guns).
• It treats weapons licenses the same way as other state issued legal documents (marriage licenses, birth certificates, drivers licenses) so that states must recognize gun licenses issued by other states. This would address some of the issues above.

It does NOT (as some are claiming)

• Allow criminals to possess guns.
• Allow legal gun owners to violate state laws regarding firearms.
• Allow people to have guns in schools.
• Allow people to carry a gun who cannot otherwise carry a gun.
• Create a "public safety crisis." This law does not protect anyone with criminal intent.

Soon the Senate will take up bill S 446, the "Constitutional Concealed Cary Reciprocity Act" which is the corresponding similar bill in the senate. This bill does not address bump stocks or the loopholes in the NICS system fixed by HR 38. Please contact your senators and ask them to support S 446 and adopt the language of HR 38.

Read More

A Clear Case for Carrying

You surely have heard of the latest mass killing, at a Baptist Church in Texas. As of this writing 26 are dead and 20 more wounded. First of all, let's stop and pray for the victims, their families, and all affected by this horrible crime (including the murderer).

What you likely won't see get very much coverage in the mainstream media are the following. Even though it happened in Texas, under law the victims most likely would not have been allowed to be armed, because they were in church. In Texas churches (and businesses) can forbid guns on the premises, and that carries the weight of law. I don't know if this particular church allowed guns on the premises or not, but given that nobody was able to defend themselves or their children, I'm guessing no. I can't imagined an armed person watching children get mowed down and not trying to return fire.

Secondly, the slaughter was stopped by a citizen with a gun, before law enforcement was able to get there. How high would the death toll be if this happened in New Jersey or California, where people can't have guns outside their homes? The killer would have had a much longer time to kill his helpless victims. How much lower would the death toll have been if the victims in the church had been able to return fire?

I already see people calling for more gun control. Truth is there isn't a law that could be passed to stop this. The killer was dishonorably discharged, and so under law was not permitted to own or handle a gun. The church (presumably) forbid guns on the premises, by law, and yet the killer brought a gun into the church. Lastly, murder is illegal, and yet the killer murdered helpless people.

All another anti-gun law could possibly do is prevent the hero of this story from being able to stop the killer and chase him away. Rather than using this as an excuse to weaken the defense of Americans, why not actually address the problem and arm more good people? If there is a better argument for concealed carry reciprocity, I don't know it.

The laws... which forbid to wear arms, disarm those only who are not disposed to commit the crime which the laws mean to prevent. Can it be supposed, that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity, and the most important of the code, will respect the less considerable and arbitrary injunctions, the violation of which is so easy, and of so little comparative importance? Does not the execution of this law deprive the subject of that personal liberty, so dear to mankind and to the wise legislator; and does it not subject the innocent to all the disagreeable circumstances that should only fall on the guilty? It certainly makes the situation of the assaulted worse, and the assailants better, and rather encourages than prevents murder, as it requires less courage to attack armed than unarmed persons.⚓

- Cesare Bonesana di Beccaria, "An Essay on Crimes and Punishments" [1764]

Read More

Bump Fire Stocks

Everyone has come out with their opinions on bump fire stocks. I guess I am the last (probably not, as people are still arguing over it). Thought I would share mine. For those who don't know, a "bump fire stock" is a device that attaches to an "AR" style rifle - aka "Modern Sporting Rifle." It consists basically of a plastic guard to hold your finger in place and a spring to allow the gun to bounce back from recoil, into your finger. So instead of pulling the trigger, you push the gun forward, and as the gun bounces on the spring your finger activates the trigger multiple times.

A bump fire stock was used by the Las Vegas shooter to increase his rate of fire.

On the one hand...

• There is no reasonable hunting use for bump fire stock.
• It is gimmicky.
• It is inaccurate.

On the other hand...

• It is not a machine gun (more on that in a minute).
• You don't need a special stock to bump-fire a gun.
• It is trivial to rig up a device to bump fire a gun (see image above)
• You can, with a little practice, do the same thing with no hardware whatsoever.

A number of people/organizations  have come out in favor of banning bump fire stocks (including the NRA), based on the first set of bullet (pun intended) items above. Those people/organizations are wrong. I am dead set (again pun intended) against banning bump fire stocks for the following reasons.

• It is not a machine gun. Therefore it can't be banned based on the definition of "machine gun" but must be banned based on what it is, but on what it does. That's a very important distinction, because what it does is increases the "normal" rate of fire of a weapon. If you're going to ban anything that can increase the "normal" rate of fire, you have established a principle that will also ban lots of other things. For instance, a semi-auto action increases the rate of fire of a magazine fed gun - let's ban all semi-auto firearms! A heavier recoil spring (or even replacing a worn spring) increases the rate of fire of a firearm - let's regulate recoil spring repairs! Training increases the rate of fire of a firearm (exactly the same way as a bump fire stock, in fact, by enabling your finger to activate the trigger more quickly). Let's ban training!
• Even if it were, machine guns shouldn't be banned. The ATF has the authority to ban machine guns under the National Firearms Act (NFA) of 1930. That law was and is unconstitutional. It was upheld by the supreme court in 1938 because of a failure of the defendant to appear. I would dearly love to see this challenged in the supreme court today, as the reasoning behind the law is that machine guns (and certain other weapons) are not used by the military (which is clearly false).

Aside from the legal technicalities, the whole thing runs counter to the second amendment. There have been oceans of ink spilled over the whole issue of the second amendment, so my few drops shouldn't bother anyone. The intention of the second amendment is to make sure that private citizens had weapons equal to or superior to their government. Yes, you read that right.

In the Revolutionary War, the colonist prevailed, in part, because they had superior weapons. The British were equipped, for the most part, with smooth bore muskets. The reasoning of the British army was that such weapons were faster to load, and therefore the soldiers would have a higher rate of fire than their enemies. Many of the colonists had rifles. Rifles took 50% longer to load, but they were more accurate. So, in terms of fighting, the colonists could kill British soldiers at distances where the British could not return fire.

The founders who framed the second amendment were well aware of that, and also of what the colonists realized, and which is still true today. The greatest threat of murder comes not from your fellow citizens, but from your government. The greatest mass murders have been perpetrated by government over an unarmed population. Consider Nazi Germany, which disarmed its populace and proceeded to set up death camps. The Soviet Union, and the millions who died there, also unarmed. The Armenian Genocide - I could go on, but you (should) get the point. Yes, there are those who disagree, but there is no counter example to the rule that they can provide, it's all just opinion of what might have happened had things been different. The fact is that technology can make a 90 pound elderly woman able to defend her rights against a 220 pound attacker. To say that that doesn't make any difference is naive at best.

The wording of the second amendment is

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

In other words, the stated purpose of the right of the people to keep and bear arms is because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state. Free citizens must have the ability to defend themselves effectively. Before you get hung up on the words "well regulated" and "militia" let me offer the following. George Mason, one of the delegates of the Constitutional Convention, said, in debate "That the people have a Right to mass and to bear arms; that a well regulated militia composed of the Body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper natural and safe defense of a free state, that standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided."

You may disagree with his sentiment, but you cannot disagree that the sentiment was one held by many of the founders of our nation. Clearly the second amendment was included to support such a belief. Also, the word "regulated" has been (mis) interpreted to mean "under restrictions from government" but the usage here (which is still a definition today, but was the "main" definition at the time) was "to ensure accuracy of operation" - in other words, that the militia should be well trained.

You may disagree with the Constitution as well, and if so you are welcome to suggest and try to pass an amendment retracting the second amendment. It's been done before, with prohibition. But if you want to pass legislation that ignores the Constitution, you will come up against it at some point.

So, although I don't personally see a "need" for bump-fire stocks, and I agree they are gimmicky, I will not support such a ban, and urge others to examine the issue and make a decision to either amend or support the Constitution, not move towards a dictatorship by subverting the law itself.

Read More

Thoughts on the Republican baseball team shooting

Photo of civilian legal SKS from Wikipedia

The gun banners are already talking about how we need to ban the assault weapon used by the shooter, and institute "universal" background checks. Thought I would put in my two cents. But first, a moment of prayer for those who affected by this tragedy.

First off, the rifle used is reported to be an Chinese SKS. It is nothing like an assault rifle - it has NONE of the features of a so-called assault rifle. It only holds 10 rounds. It does not have a detachable magazine. It does not have a suppressor or flash hider. It does not have a pistol grip. It doesn't have a scope or fancy optics or electronics or anything. It is 70 year old technology. If you would classify this as an "assault rifle" then pretty much anything is. Let's face the fact that rifles can be used to kill. A rifle that can't be used to kill has very little usefulness (for hunting, self defense, target shooting, etc,).

Secondly, regarding universal background checks, there are a bunch of issues that need to be stated. First off, who decides who should be forbidden to own guns? Right now there are cases going through the courts where governments have made rules denying someone a gun because they committed a misdemeanor, because they actually got mental health (as opposed to letting it fester so they could keep their guns), and all other kinds of silly rules. Common sense would say "deny guns to criminals!" but who defines what kinds of crimes count? And even then, does committing a crime take away a natural right (like self defense)? If you look, carefully and honestly, you'll see there is no black and white answer.

But let's say we do manage to define exactly what kinds of crimes/mental issues/etc. take away your right to self defense. Would that stop so-called "gun violence?" Most of the gun crimes committed today are with guns illegally obtained anyway (theft or having a non-prohibited friend or family member get the gun). No background check will stop those people from getting guns, because they didn't go to the gun store and buy them. The (small) remainder of crimes are committed by people who had no prior criminal record, and so passed a background check. Obviously the background check didn't stop them.

Then there is the so-called "gun show loophole" - which doesn't really exist - but what they mean is banning private sales of guns. Again you have the same two issues - the existing criminals don't submit to background checks and the future ones pass them.

So exactly what is the point of background checks? You could say that maybe the criminals find it harder to buy a gun illegally, since the risk and effort involved will make the street guns cost more. However, the opposite is true. Because of the overhead and red tape involved, it is more expensive to buy a gun legally. The criminals have way less overhead.

But that's kind of beside the point, because in the US we don't really have background checks - we have what amounts to registration. Let's go back to first principles and look at how a background check should work. I go to the gun store and say "I'd like to buy a gun." The gun store checks my driver's license or other form of ID, and looks up my name on the list of "bad people." If I'm not on the list they sell me a gun.

Instead what happens is I fill out a form. On that form I have to disclose things like my ethnicity, race, place of birth and fill out a whole bunch of questions about things like whether I belong to a group that advocates the overthrow of the government. None of the questions is optional, and if I fill them out wrong (even by mistake) that is a felony offense. The seller has to fill in the make, model and serial number of the gun involved. But wait, I thought it was me they were checking, not the gun.

Of course all of this paperwork has to be archived forever (literally) and inspected regularly (but not copied - wink wink) by the ATF (which is itself an unconstitutional organization, but I wont' get into that here). The net result is a web of complicated laws and regulations designed to trip people into accidentally becoming a felon, without any proof (or even reasonable hope) that any of this has any positive effect on "gun violence."

At least Maryland, after $5 million, finally scrapped their gun registry after discovering that in the 15 years it had been around it had solved ZERO crimes. How many crimes has the federal gun registry (I mean of course background check system) solved? I think we deserve an answer, but I don't think one will be coming any time soon.

So how do we reduce "gun violence"? Surprisingly gun violence is actually down, despite media claims to the contrary, and despite the number of guns being at a high point (pun intended). Additionally, the three safest states in the US are ones where citizens can carry guns without any paperwork or permission from their government. So maybe the solution isn't more gun control, but less? The definition of insanity is, after all, doing the same thing and expecting different results.

Read More

Californication

So California passed six (count 'em six) new gun laws today! They are ridiculous. For example, take a look at the picture on the right. In 48 states this is an image of two hunters practicing safe hunting procedure (having your hunting buddy hold your gun while you cross a barrier). In California this is a picture of two people committing a crime (unless they are members of the same family).

Here on the left we see a man who has been (successfully) hunting with America's most popular rifle. In California we see a criminal awaiting arrest and prison. His (already crippled by previous California laws) rifle is now suddenly illegal.

Over here on the right we see a plastic box with a spring inside. In California... you guessed it! In fact people who have owned these for decades are now criminals in the eyes of the law. What have they done differently from yesterday when they were law abiding citizens? Nothing.

Here we see shelves in a sporting goods store (or maybe a Walmart) - oh wait, California? Here we see hundreds of felony counts. 

Let's not kid ourselves - none of these laws have anything to do with public safety.

Yes, you can't lend your gun to a criminal, but that was already illegal - what is new is that you can't lend your gun to your non-criminal hunting buddy or friend.

Yes, you can't own a modern sporting rifle, but criminals don't use them anyway. Terrorists do, but can you imagine a terrorist saying "guess we can't kill them, we might get in trouble for having an illegal weapon." No, this is an attempt to take away all of the popular modern rifles.

Yes, you can't have a standard capacity magazine, but as we saw in numerous mass shootings, that just doesn't matter. Changing a magazine take less than a second if you are trained to do it, whereas this will inconvenience or endanger the law abiding citizen who doesn't spend all his time training for tactical battles but merely wants to engage in a sport.

Finally ammunition background checks. If firearm background checks don't work, then ammunition background checks won't work. And if firearm background checks work, then you don't need ammunition background checks. What this really is, is an attempt to put gun stores out of business. Like the proverbial razor and blades, most stores make their money from sales of ammo and accessories, rather than guns (think about it, you buy a gun once in a lifetime, but you have to buy ammo every time you go to the range). Do you think a law abiding citizen wants to provide paperwork and documentation, be treated like a criminal, and wait up to three days just to buy a box of ammo? No, they will all o to neighboring states, and the California gun stores will lose the sales.

That's not to say all gun laws are bad. Even some California gun laws are good, but these are clearly designed not to increase public safety, but merely to harass law abiding citizens and discourage or prevent people from exercising their constitutional rights.

Read More

A Wake Up Call for Second Amendment Activists

This post is a wake up call for the second amendment activists in the state of New Jersey. You are doing it wrong. All your indignation at your rights being denied. Nobody cares. All your examples of successful self defense in other states - after all, if there were no guns, both criminal and victim would be fine.

All your rants about corrupt government not listening to "the voice of the people." You have it all wrong.

I discovered that when I visited my mother and was glancing through the local newsletter of her senior community. I came across this:

Think about it. This group, not associated with guns in any way, manages to get 387 signatures on a petition to expand background checks, ban assault weapons, and limit magazines. How many signatures can you get to fix background checks, remove the assault weapons ban and allow standard capacity magazines? How many people don't even want to talk to you because you are "those gun people?"

Your liberal representatives aren't ignoring "the voice of the people" - they are listening. When you have the same 50 names over and over protesting each new gun law, there are thousands coming in to preserve or tighten NJ gun laws. You can show up at hearings all you want, but nobody cares when there are piles of people happy with the laws they are enacting.

You've lost every legislative battle head to head. You fizzled out on the Sweeney campaign. You are getting nowhere with the public on right to carry. Maybe it's time to look at what works instead of beating your head against the same wall. Here's a modest proposal.

1) No gun groups - you have no credibility trying to get Joe and Jane NJ to sign any petition that says NRA, NJ2AS, NJ2AR, ANJRPC, You-name-it-RPC, CNJFO or anything associated with "gun". Stick with things like "Citizens for a safer New Jersey" or the mysterious "Justifiable Need."

2) No guns - almost everyone knows at least one person who should not have access to a firearm. Most people know someone who has committed or attempted suicide. Suggesting that we need more guns or more access to guns or better guns, etc. does not work for these people.

3) No violence - don't make the issue "my rights" or even "self defense." Make the issue "justice" and "safety - things people can all agree they want.

4) Lie - look at the notice above. "This survey was conducted because of the markedly increased gun violence occurring in the United States." That's a bald-faced lie, with gun violence at an all time low in the United States. And yet, it was what people wanted to hear, and what they believe. Pick something that's subjective, and not easily quantifiable or verifiable and run with it.

5) Get sympathy. The only gun issues that the public has supported you on were the case of Shaneen Allen and Brian Fletcher. Why? Not because they cared about them having gun rights, but because they were "unjustly" imprisoned. Nobody wants to see children go without a parent, even if they don't like that the parent had a gun. And in each case, it seemed that the gun was needed (Allen because she had been mugged, Fletcher because he worked nights in dangerous neighborhoods).

So here's my modest proposal. If you want an issue that will actually get you traction (and signatures), how about presenting all the cases of people "wrongly persecuted" for guns, like Allen, Fletcher, Brian Aitken, Gordon Van Gilder, etc. and using them (and the thousands of cases like theirs) to push for a bill to add the words "for the commission of a violent crime" to every New Jersey gun restriction.

Think about it - nobody wants to see good people in jail for no good reason. Nobody wants to spend millions in taxpayer money arresting, prosecuting, and housing and feeding these people. Nobody want to see families and careers destroyed when no crime was ever intended or committed. Furthermore, not even the leftiest leftie can claim that this weakens laws to prosecute criminals in the slightest.

So find a legislator who will introduce the bill if you get support. Then get the support. Go hit the streets, run media campaigns, do all the things you need to do to get the signatures. This is actually something that will succeed because it is 100% non-controversial.

Or you can sit on your butts and whine about how you want to leave New Jersey because you can't have any rights. Up to you.

Read More

Orlando Blame

First off, please join me in prayer for the victims, and the perpetrator...

Eternal rest grant unto them O Lord. Let Your perpetual light shine upon them.
May their souls, and the souls of all the faithful departed, through the mercy of God, rest in peace.
Amen

...and for all those who reject God's love, that they may find Him

Lord Jesus Christ, most merciful Savior of the world, we humbly beseech You, by Your most Sacred Heart, that all the sheep who stray out of Your fold may in one days be converted to You, the Shepherd and Bishop of their souls, who lives and reigns with God the Father in the unity of the Holy Spirit, world without end.
Amen.

...and for those affected by this tragedy

Heavenly father, we come before you today in need of hope.
Hope for a better future, hope for a better life, hope for love and kindness.
We need your light, Lord, in every way. To bask in your glory.
To know that all is right in the world, as you have planned, and as you want it to be.
Help us to walk in your light, and live our lives in faith and glory.
In your name we pray,
Amen.

Now onto the subject at hand, the blame game. Liberals were quick to blame the NRA for what happened. However, it's hard to see that the NRA had anything to do with it. The NRA actually worked hard to give this country a background check process for gun purchases. That this failed in this case is not their fault. The murderer not only passed FBI background checks for buying a firearm, but passed background checks to work for a DHS contractor. You can say the system failed, but truly there is no way for a background check to predict who will do something if they haven't done anything in their past.

The ACLU is blaming Christians, but it's hard to see that Christians had anything to do with it. No Christian group has called for violence against gays, not even the Westboro Baptist Church. The only religious group that calls for violence against gays is Islam. So I guess in a way you could blame religion, but you can't blame Christians.

In my view, one hundred percent of the blame belongs to the murderer. Yes, you can also blame the Islamic fundamental ideology that encouraged him, but that ideology has not moved me to violence against gays, nor will it ever. The murderer chose to follow it.

So, was there anything that could be done to stop it from happening? The FBI says they couldn't have done anything differently, and I agree. The system did what it was supposed to do - it is foolish to believe that any such system will stop every act of violence unless we take away all human rights and live in a police state (oh wait, that's been done and it didn't work then).

The nightclub, on the other hand, could have done something differently, which would have stopped, or at least minimized, the violence. Florida is a "gun friendly" state, yet nobody in the nightclub fought back. Why? Because the nightclub was a "no guns" zone. I am not against a private business having a "no guns" policy, and in a place where alcohol is served and people are likely to be in conflict it might be a good policy to have.

However, if you are going to deny people their natural right to protect themselves, it is really your responsibility to provide protection for them. If the club had armed guards on the premises (presumably in plain clothes) the body count might have been much smaller (or maybe zero, if the murderer knew he would meet armed resistance and didn't carry out his plan at all).

If you are a business owner with a "no guns" policy, you should consider your moral (and perhaps legal) responsibility to protect the people in your establishment.

[N.B. The state of Florida does allow guns in an establishment which serves alcohol, just not in the bar area proper. So the gun ban was the business owner's decision.]

Read More

Gun Buybacks

The other day at work I looked out the window to see a bus (not the one pictured) parked in the middle of the park across the street. It sat there all day. It turned out to be a police bus, running a gun buyback program.

If you're unfamiliar with the concept, the idea is to "get guns off the streets" by buying them and destroying them. The implementation, however, is a ludicrous waste of taxpayer dollars. First off, the taxpayer pays an average of $135 per weapon. Secondly, there is the cost of paying a bus full of police to sit around all day, every day. The gun buyback programs (at least around here) involve a police bus sitting for a month, in different locations.

Let's go over some of the problems.

Private property is taken without fair market compensation to the owner. If the gun is legally owned, the owner could have sold it to a federally licensed firearm dealer, usually for far more money than the police pay. For instance, the police will pay $150 for a revolver, which might bring $300-$1000 or more at a dealer.

The gun buyback programs con the public. They do not tell the gun owners that they can dispose of unwanted guns in legal ways that would make them more money. They do not tell them that if they have a gun that needs to be secured, they can do so for free through the National Shooting Sports Foundation's Child Safe program.

Gun buyback programs are an excellent way for criminals to have the police dispose of evidence for them. By bringing a crime gun to a gun buyback program, the criminal is immune from prosecution, and the police legally cannot use the weapon as evidence. What a win for criminals!

Gun buybacks are illegal in many states (including New Jersey), yet the state not only fails to prosecute, but encourages them.

They encourage other crimes. For instance, one news story includes a woman who brought in her ex husband's firearms because she didn't want him to have guns. So we have a man whose legally owned property was stolen with approval and assistance form police (I'm fairly sure he didn't even receive the money the ex wife received from the police).

The guns destroyed are often family heirlooms, of personal or historic value.

They are ineffective at reducing violent crime. Let's face it, if you're someone who's interested in using a gun criminally, why would you turn it in (unless you already used it and want the evidence gone). Instead the guns turned in are ones which would never be used in a crime anyway (which, truth be told, is the mast majority of guns anyway).

Read More

The second amendment is about the military, not the individual

This post is the fourth part of my response on a gun control thread on Facebook. Specifically, my response to:

4. The second amendment doesn't guarantee individual rights to self defense, only those in military service can bear arms.

This falsehood is based on articles like this one in the NY Time, which says “Most federal appeals courts have said that the amendment read as a whole protects only a collective right of the states to maintain militias.” But appeals courts are not infallible.

The second amendment reads:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

The whole controversy rests on whether the first phrase constrains the second to refer only to states' militias. Before we get into the law and history involved, let's try a little experiment. Replace the “controversial” terms with equivalent “neutral” terms and see how a reasonable person would interpret it.

A well educated electorate being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed.

So, in the above statement, who has the right to keep and read books? Registered voters, or the people? It is pretty clear that the first phrase merely defines the purpose for the statement, not a limitation. The Supreme court agrees. In D.C. v. Heller the majority opinion states:

The Second Amendment is naturally divided into two parts: its prefatory clause and its operative clause. The former does not limit the latter grammatically, but rather announces a purpose. The Amendment could be rephrased, "Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

The Bill of Rights contains two other amendments which use the phrase “the right of the people.” In both cases the phrase refers to an individual right.

Amendment 1: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Amendment 4: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Furthermore a grammatical analysis of the second amendment reveals

"The words 'A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,'... constitutes a present participle, rather than a clause. It is used as an adjective, modifying 'militia,' which is followed by the main clause of the sentence (subject 'the right', verb 'shall'). 

The to keep and bear arms is asserted as an essential for maintaining a militia.

"The sentence does not restrict the right to keep and bear arms, nor does it state or imply possession of the right elsewhere or by others than the people; it simply makes a positive statement with respect to a right of the people."

We can also look at the founders and framers of the Constitution to see what they said relevant to the second amendment.

George Mason said “I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.” (Speech in the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 14, 1778).

Richard Henry Lee said “A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves… and include all men capable of bearing arms... To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms… The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle.” (Letters From the Federal Farmer to the Republican, Letter XVIII, January 25, 1788)

Samuel Adams said “And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms...” (Debates of the Massachusetts Convention of February 6, 1788)

Thomas Jefferson wrote “False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils, except destruction. Laws that forbid the carrying of arms laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.… Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they act rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” (Quoting Cesare Beccaria, On Crimes and Punishment)

He also wrote “A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercise, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball and others of that nature are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks.” (Letter to Peter Carr, 178)

Thomas Paine wrote “The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The balance of power is the scale of peace. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside. And while a single nation refuses to lay them down, it is proper that all should keep them up. Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived of the use of them.” (Thoughts on Defensive War, 1775)

Realize that the second amendment, while it affirms the natural right to self defense, states explicitly that the people have the right to defend themselves and their community against not only criminals, but armies, both foreign and domestic. Therefore such things as “assault weapons” bans are unconstitutional. The quotes around “assault weapons” are because the weapons banned by these laws are, according to the federal government's own definitions not assault weapons. In fact, when the federal government buys more powerful, more deadly versions of these firearms, they call them “personal defense weapons” or PDWs.

To summarize:

• The founders of our country considered the second amendment to be an individual right.
• A grammatical analysis of the second amendment affirms it to be referring to an individual right.
• The Supreme Court has affirmed multiple times that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right.

Read More

Self defense is a limited right

This post is the third part of my response on a gun control thread on Facebook. Specifically, my response to:

3. Self defense is a natural right, but it is not unlimited.

This statement is obvious, and I agree with it. The problem is it's being used to justify the disarming of law abiding citizens because they don't “need” a gun. So let's get into the moral and ethical side of self defense.

What does a right to self defense mean? It means that you have a God-given right to preserve your own life against someone who would take it, or cause you serious harm. According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

2263 The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. "The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one's own life; and the killing of the aggressor... The one is intended, the other is not."

2264 Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one's own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow:

If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful... Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one's own life than of another's.

2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.

It's pretty explicitly stated in 2265 “those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.” One could argue that this is restricted to police and military, since it talks about the "civil community". However, the basic unit of a community is the family and parents have legitimate authority over the family. I would therefore claim that this statement includes parents in the explicit right to bear arms.

Furthermore limiting this to police and military has a problem in that police are not charged with repelling aggressors, but merely arresting those who have broken the law. Several Supreme court cases have affirmed the fact that the police do not have a duty to protect citizens. So a narrow view of this would be that only the military can bear arms.

Even conceding a narrow view of paragraph 2265, what does the rest of it say about firearms? Note that “Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow” so lethal weapons are not out of the question.

What constitutes a legitimate means of self defense? Certainly one has the right to use one's body to defend itself (e.g. fists). But what if a 5 foot tall 90 pound woman is being attacked by a 6 foot 5, 290 pound man? Saying she has the right to use fists is essentially denying her any effective defense.

Any effective means of self defense must at least even the odds of the defender and attacker. In a
world where attackers are likely to be armed with deadly weapons (knives, guns, etc.) anything less than that is really no defense at all. There is an old adage “God made men, Sam Colt made men equal” referring to firearms manufacturer Colt. There is some truth to the saying.

A 5 foot tall 90 pound woman can hold off a much larger stronger attacker if she possesses a firearm and knows how to use it. There really isn't another weapon that can effectively stop an attacker who is physically superior. I'm not saying everyone should have a firearm, I'm saying that the right to self defense implies a right to be able to morally possess a firearm.

To summarize:

• A right to self defense requires a right to tools sufficient to defend oneself from likely attacks.
• Police have no duty to protect citizens from criminal attack.
• Since attackers are likely to have deadly weapons (knives, guns, bats) defenders should have recourse to similar tools.
  
• Firearms are the only practical means of self defense against a physically stronger attacker.
  

Read More

Legal concealed weapon holders are a menace to society

This post is the second part of my response on a gun control thread on Facebook. Specifically, my response to:

2. Legal concealed weapon holders are a menace to society/toddlers are dying at more than one per week due to "legal" gun owners.

The articles responsible for the second part of this claim are the “People are getting shot by toddlers on a weekly basis this year” and “L. A. to require that stored handguns be locked up or disabled.”

In this case, the data is sort of accurate. It's not easy to find numbers of toddlers shooting people, but if we look at children under 5 killed by being shot accidentally, there are 30 per year. And that is a shame.

L.A. City Councilman Paul Krekorian said in the L.A. Times article “It’s unacceptable to live in a country where it’s more dangerous to be a preschooler than to be a police officer — and we can do something about that today.”

It is true that it is more dangerous to be a preschooler (death rate 25/100,000) than to be a police officer (death rate 15/100,000) but claiming that accidental shootings by lawful firearm owners are to blame is a lie.

If you look at the deaths of all children under five, you would be hard pressed to find a firearm death. That 30 deaths per year is competing with the 27,500 deaths from other causes.

Car accidents claim around 500 toddlers a year, but we don't ban cars on that basis. There are 400 toddlers a year lost to drownings. If our goal is to save the toddlers, we have a number of areas that will give more “bang for the buck” than harassing law abiding citizens.

In fact, the case can be made that innocent lives are saved by having unsecured firearms available. Just this week there was a story about a 13 year old boy who used his mother's gun to defend himself against armed intruders. Had this boy lived where this law was enacted, he could be dead now.

According to a 1993 survey, firearms are used in self defense 162,000 times per years in situations where the victim believed he would have been killed had he not used a firearm (this data excludes military law enforcement and security guards).

The majority opinion in the Supreme Court case D.C. v. Heller states:

Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional.

Understand I am all for protecting children from harmful things. When my kids were too little to understand I kept child proof locks on all the cabinets that had cleaning supplies and other poisons. But once they were old enough I removed those locks. There are already laws on the books against allowing minors access to firearms, just as there are laws on the books against negligently giving poisons to children; but we don't write laws that require all household poisons to be locked up at all times.

Now let's turn to the more general question: are lawful concealed weapons holders a threat to the public? Let's divide this into two parts, since they are different and the data is collected differently.

There are two ways a concealed weapon holder can be a danger. First off, they could become violent and shoot someone. Secondly, they could be well meaning but accidentally shoot someone.

So let's look at how many concealed weapon holders shoot someone in rage. There are no specific numbers for that, but when someone is convicted of a crime so they lose their conceal weapon holder's license, and we can track that. Understand that this includes not just a concealed weapons holder shooting someone intentionally, but any felony crime committed by a concealed weapons holder. According to the Florida Department of Justice that rate is 0.02%. Another study showed that while the crime rate for the general population is 3,813/100,000 and the crime rate for police is 124/100,000, the crime rate for concealed weapons holders in Florida is 12.5/100,000. In Texas that rate is 20/100,000

That means concealed weapons holders are 6 to 10 time less likely to commit a crime (with or without their firearms) than police officers. If you want to save people from being shot, disarming police would be a better thing to do than disarming concealed weapon holders. Understand that I respect the police and am not in any way claiming they are criminal or dangerous – I am saying that calling concealed weapon holders dangerous to society is even more absurd than calling police dangerous to society.

























The second way a concealed weapons holder could be a danger to society would be to accidentally shoot people. Going back to my earlier CDC data, the total for all accidental firearm deaths in the US is 508 per year. There are over 300 million firearms in the US, owned by 110 million citizens. 38% of all households have at least one gun, and there are over 2 million licensed concealed weapons holders (plus six states, Alaska, Arizona, Kansas, Maine, Vermont, and Wyoming have “Constitutional carry”, meaning you can carry a concealed weapon with no license required). All of those law abiding citizens carrying concealed weapons result in less than 508 firearm deaths (the 508 includes all deaths, not just from people carrying concealed weapons). Again, compared to the 130,557 accidental deaths per year it is hard to say that firearms are a major factor.

To summarize:

• Accidental firearm deaths are extremely rare
  
• Concealed weapon holders present less of a danger to society than police.
  

Read More