In the aftermath of the senseless and shocking the urge to do something inevitably comes. The compulsion to find some good in overwhelming evil, to somehow make the meaningless meaningful is overpowering. Then comes the senseless: the Mayor of New York City, Michael Bloomberg, who said:
I don’t understand why police officers across this country don’t stand up collectively and say we’re going to go on strike, we’re not going to protect you unless you, the public, through your legislature, do what’s required to keep us safe,’’ he told CNN’s Piers Morgan.
‘Police officers want to go home to their families. And we’re doing everything we can to make their job more difficult, but more importantly, more dangerous, by leaving guns in the hands of people who shouldn’t have them and letting people who have those guns buy things like armor piercing bullets.’
Shortly after making these improvident comments, Mayor Bloomberg began hastily walking them back. Apparently one of his less deranged aides pointed out that calling for public employees to strike is actually a violation of New York law, as well as being rather, well, stupid.
And also comes Richard A. Epstein of the Hoover Institution with a thoughtful essay, containing one comment revealing of a significant contemporary problem:
A ban on the sale and possession of assault weapons makes sense on the ground if it is true that there are few lawful uses of guns and many dangerous ones.
There is little chance for additional federal gun control legislation. The Supreme Court’s landmark Heller and McDonald decisions, as well as the severe legislative beatings of Democrats over the Clinton gun ban and in the 2000 presidential election (Al Gore loudly advocated for draconian gun control laws) have seen to that. Not only has the electorate changed to an overwhelmingly positive view of the Second Amendment, Democrats have come to understand that gun control is political suicide. Even so, Mr. Obama’s well-known gun control desires ever lurk so obviously just below the surface of his transparent pro-Second Amendment rhetoric that gun shops around the nation display his photograph as the greatest gun salesman America has ever known.
Americans know that the Second Amendment is only a single vote from extinction in the Supreme court, and that if Mr. Obama wins a second term, he and die-hard Congressional anti-gun Democrats will do everything possible to work their will. Even without tipping the Supreme Court balance, Mr. Obama could do considerable harm to a fundamental, inalienable right through executive orders, bureaucratic rule making and harassment and UN treaties.
The danger of losing any fundamental liberty is ever-present, which begs a return to the significant contemporary problem I earlier mentioned. Even people of good will–rational analysts–lack necessary knowledge of the technology of firearms and the efficacy of gun control measures. If more of the public were better informed, the likelihood of unnecessary and abusive laws in hasty response to mass murder might diminish even more.
What is known of the Aurora killer—who would want his name to be mentioned here—and precisely what happened is still incomplete, but sufficient is known to draw reasonable conclusions. The theater complex was a victim disarmament zone—also known as a gun-free zone—so the killer could be reasonably certain his victims would be unarmed, as they were. Buying a ticket, he quickly left through an exit and apparently propped it open while he armed himself and put on a tactical vest–apparently not actual body armor. He returned through the same door, loosed tear gas, and initially opened fire with a common pump-action 12 gauge shotgun, dropping the weapon when it was empty, and then began to fire with a common AR-15 type rifle, this particular rifle apparently made by Smith and Wesson. The inexpensive aftermarket 100 round drum magazine he used malfunctioned. Rather than try to clear it beyond a cursory attempt, he dropped that weapon as well and drew a .40 S&W Glock handgun—another common firearm and caliber—and emptied that firearm before leaving and being captured by police in the parking lot.
A brief examination of the legislative proposals filling the airwaves may help to better inform the public and make gun control legislation even less likely.
Ban Armor Piercing Ammunition: Many media sources are claiming the killer used armor piercing ammunition. This is almost certainly mistaken. Armor piercing ammunition is specially designed and manufactured with hardened projectiles capable of piercing actual plate armor of varying types. It has been banned for civilian use since 1986. The NRA was instrumental in drafting H.R. 3132 to include actual AP ammo instead of banning common rifle ammunition. The common .223/5.56mm cartridge of the AR-15 family of rifles will penetrate the bullet resistant vests commonly worn by police officers and others—they are designed only to defeat lower powered handgun rounds–but not body armor designed to resist intermediate power rifle cartridges. Virtually any intermediate or high-power rifle cartridge will penetrate some levels of body armor, and depending on the actual bullet, even some levels of metal plate. Actual AP ammunition is expensive and available only to the police and military. AP ammo is actually less dangerous than common rifle ammunition. Such bullets—if they miss vital structures of the body—rather than expand or fragment, tend to simply drill small caliber holes that do less damage.
Ban High Capacity Magazines: This was a major feature of the Clinton gun ban, which was in effect from 1994 to 2004. By 2004 when the law sunset, it was painfully apparent it had no effect whatever on crime and criminal misuse of firearms and after the legislative drubbing Democrats took over their support of the law, there was little support to renew it. Under the law, magazines were limited to 10 rounds, which led directly to the invention of many small, easily concealed handguns with 10 round magazines, the excellent Glock 26 being the first. The theory behind such bans seems to be that smaller magazines would limit the number of rounds a killer could fire. Unfortunately, any practical difference is negligible.
Experts can change magazines in a single second. Even average shooters can accomplish the task in six seconds or less. Revolvers, holding only six rounds on average, can be reloaded with astonishing speed. Using inexpensive polymer “speed loaders,” experts take in the neighborhood of two seconds, and average shooters with a brief familiarization can manage the six-second range.
Thirty round or larger magazines are, in many ways, to be preferred when used by criminals in handguns because they tend to hinder rather than help accuracy by unbalancing firearms, and as the Aurora killer discovered, they also tend to be far less reliable than standard capacity magazines, which doubtless prevented at least some injuries and deaths.
Also overlooked is the fact that in the hands of a single law-abiding citizen—such as a woman approached by multiple criminals–a large capacity magazine can provide a powerful deterrent and capability against multiple attackers. Those who wish such bans always overlook the fact that firearms protect the innocent far more frequently than harm them. Magazine capacity limitations only inconvenience and endanger the law-abiding while doing nothing to hinder criminals who could care less about such laws.
Ban “Assault Weapons:” “Assault weapons” do not exist. They are an invention of gun banners and may be best understood as any scary looking firearm they seek to ban at any given moment. Any military looking firearm, such as the AR-15 family (our standard military rifle) or semi-automatic versions of the Soviet AK-47 family, generally qualify.
There is a class of military weapons known as assault rifles. These weapons fire a rifle cartridge of intermediate power and are capable of fully automatic fire. In other words, if the trigger if pulled and held back, the weapon will continue to fire until the trigger is released or the magazine is emptied. While the rifles for sale to civilians outwardly resemble actual assault rifles, they are semi-automatic weapons only. They fire only a single bullet for each pull of the trigger. This technology has been in existence for more than a century. Semi-automatic rifles are capable of firing at only a slightly higher rate than lever action or pump action rifles which represent even older technology. These semi-automatic rifles have become popular because they are rugged, reliable and accurate, but other rifles are more accurate at longer ranges and fire far more powerful cartridges.
The Virginia Tech shooter killed 32 people using only two common handguns; no rifle was necessary. One handgun had a magazine capacity of 10 rounds, another had a magazine capacity of 15 rounds. As In Aurora, he operated in a victim disarmament zone. Virtually every mass murderer in recent American history operated in a victim disarmament zone.
Assault Weapons Are Useful Only For Killing People: The AR-15 family of rifles has become one of the most popular designs in history. So common are they that one can expect to see several at any shooting range at any time. They are currently used for target shooting, competitions of many kinds, home and personal defense, and hunting. The primary factor determining the usefulness of a given rifle for hunting is the cartridge it fires. The AR-15’s .223 cartridge is useful on small game, but not on animals the size of deer. The polymer stock and fore arm, rugged non-glare finish, rust resistance, ability to accept many accessories, inherent accuracy and reliability of the AR-15 family also makes them ideal rifles for the field, and they are used by many hunters.
Limit Ammunition Purchases: Who needs 1000 rounds of ammunition? As it turns out, a great many people do. A family day at the range can easily expend that amount of ammunition, as can attending a professional shooting course. Practicing for competitions requires far more ammunition. Government is already telling Americans what kinds of toilets and light bulbs they are allowed to possess, what would a government determined ammunition limit look like? Fifty rounds per month? One round? Criminals would obey such a law?
Enhance Movie Theater Security: Most Americans would agree that a trip to the theater is already more than expensive enough. Some have suggested setting up TSA-like checkpoints with metal detectors and security personnel standing ready to pat down patrons. At Aurora, simply posting gun-free zone signs was sufficient to disarm honest, law-abiding people, but even airport-like security theater would not have stopped the killer, who walked in unarmed and slipped out an exit to retrieve his weapons. Not only would such measures increase the cost of admission to the point of pricing theaters out of existence, they would succeed only in annoying the honest and do nothing to stop a determined killer.
Strengthen Mental Health Laws: This is an issue I explored after the shooting of Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson in 2010 at PJ Media. In most states, sufficient involuntary commitment laws exist, but police officers are often unfamiliar with them and reluctant to deal with them as a result, and local systems often develop informal or even formal procedures that make using such laws difficult. Ultimately, most laws are not the problem. The Aurora killer apparently showed no sign of mental illness, or at the very least, nothing that would have obviously allowed his involuntary commitment, which has been the case with virtually every mass shooter in American history. We tend to believe that anyone capable of killing others for no apparent reason must—in some way-be mentally ill. Our criminal justice system encourages the sane to suddenly profess insanity when arrested for murder, as the Aurora killer surely will.
FINAL THOUGHTS:
It is surely a truism to observe that criminals are aptly named because they commit crimes. They do not play by the rules of society. They dishonor the social contract. Police officers understand that the primary reason they can function is because most people will willingly obey most laws most of the time, just as the citizens of Aurora obeyed the law depriving them of the right and ability to protect their lives and the lives of their loved ones in that theater that night. They did not expect to need their firearms. They did not expect to have to take responsibility for saving themselves and their loved ones. No one does, which is why the Second Amendment and concealed carry laws are so important. People do not carry because they know when they’ll need a gun, but because they can’t know.
It is not comforting to understand that none of the laws mentioned here, none of the thousands of gun control laws with their severe penalties, stopped the Aurora killer, or any other mass shooter. It does not sooth the soul to understand that such laws can never hinder those who do not obey any law. Imagining that one planning mass murder might be deterred by the lesser punishment meted out under a gun law is quite irrational.
It is truly horrifying to believe that the Aurora killer may have wounded and killed some 70 people simply because he wanted to do it and liked doing it. His motivation may have been no more complex than that. If so, he was not the first and will surely not be the last, and no gun law will make the slightest difference, unless, that is, it deprives the innocent of their ability to survive as it did in that theater that night.
Stately McDaniel Manor 
Mike,
Thank you for pointing out that “assault weapons” is a meaningless term suitable for liberals and mush-minded people. In point of fact, a chair can be an assault weapon. It is in how you use the chair.
Also, thank you for pointing out that these murders were committed in a “GUN FREE ZONE”. Somehow, most of the media seems to skip that part.
Your last paragraph is what most people find the hardest to understand. There are evil people. No law can be created to stop evil people from murdering. Take the guns away from everyone and evil still will be among us.
“Thank you for pointing out that “assault weapons” is a meaningless term suitable for liberals and mush-minded people. In point of fact, a chair can be an assault weapon. It is in how you use the chair.” — Improvising a screwdriver as a jackhammer does not make a jackhammer.
An assault rifle is not a difficult classification to make, Joel. I disagree with Mike on this point that it was some sort of creation. Semi auto only weapon can be fired a LOT faster than a lever or pump action, since they don’t require additional effort to chamber the next round. More powerful weapons require mountings or a bolt action. IE, they aren’t practical for an -assault-.
Assault weapons are only useful for killing people- Um, yeah, that is their purpose. People or animals, whichever strikes your fancy at the time. Exluding sport, that is what guns in general do. I prefer not to dally around the obvious instead state yes, a gun that is easy to handle, can put accurate fire quickly on a target, durable, and simple in construction is a weapon designed to kill things in a rapid engagement. Hence, an assault.
Please, don’t misunderstand my intention here. I have no desire to see legislation enacted to restrict any kind of firearm, but at the same time I am not going to try and soften up the image of hardware that has a specific purpose for its creation. Cannons weren’t designed to deliver ball bearings in a fast and friendly manner at extreme distances, know what I mean?
Assault is not as descriptive a term as semi-automatic. It is a catchall word that doesn’t describe a weapon. By your definition, the Colt 45 semi-automatic is an assault weapon.
Carrot dude carried two Glock semi-automatics, a Smith and Wesson AR-15 semi-automatic and a Remington 870 shotgun.
After the fool used the shotgun, he turned to the AR-15. which had a hundred round drum attached. That very quickly jammed. He finished up his attack with the two Glocks.
By your definition, the Glocks and the AR-15 are assault weapons. They are all semi-automatics.
And it is your intention to obfuscate what assault means. If you were in the military, in a police force or just a plain gun aficionado you would know that assault weapons is a liberal mush-minded term.
One more thing, all guns that send a lead bullet down range are designed to kill. You might make the case that guns for target shooting are not designed to kill. You would be mistaken.
::sighs:: Okay, first I started off saying “assault rifle”. By my definition, the two weapons you mention are PDW’s, since they are pistols. By my definition, the AR is indeed an assault weapon, as it has a high(er) capacity of ammo, easy of use, accuracy, range, a magazine capacity. By my definition, there is a LOT more to an assault weapon than just a semi auto feature, which, in reading my post, I didn’t say was a criteria of an assault weapon. My mistake for not clarifying but I was referring to Mike’s premise of pump and lever action technologies being similar in speed to a semi auto firing weapon. That would render the pump and lever actions as not suitable for an assault.
“You might make the case that guns for target shooting are not designed to kill” — I also might make the case that I specifically stated “excluding sport”.
“And it is your intention to obfuscate what assault means” — uh-huh. Obfuscate it by literally listing out criteria which to define it by. The most important qualifier that I didn’t mention is the capability of automatic fire.
Non belt fed, effective range longer than a hand gun, but shorter than a battle or standard rifle, fired from the shoulder, and automatic fire selection I think are the core criteria. You and I can both buy an AK (an assault weapon), with the full auto capabilities disabled. That doesn’t mean its not an assault rifle.
The blanket term “assault weapons” is a common sense descriptor for weapons that have a pistol grip that are fired from the shoulder. Rather than get into the hims and haws of range, ammo capacity, etc, law makers looked at standard designs of assault rifles, found a common denominator for them, and called them “assault weapons” rather than make a specific list of assault rifles they wanted to ban. Quite literally, it looked like a duck, quacked like a duck, so they called it “duck-like bird” and made rules around it. To continue my analogy, you want to call people who say a duck is a “duck like bird” mush minded.
If you feel as though insulting the intelligence of people that pin an appropriate descriptor to a weapon some how bolsters yours and Mike’s opinion on the matter, more power to you, but I have no problem calling a spade a garden tool when I see one. It is a weapon. For assaulting. Assault weapon.
Dear RuleofOrder:
Thanks for your comment, but I’m afraid I must disagree. “Assault weapon” and “assault rifle” are indeed two different things, though one may resemble another. Precision in language matters a great deal, particularly where legislation is involved. That’s why the term “assault weapon” is so imprecise and dangerous.
The true agendas of anti-gun organizations have been revealed over the years, at least in part through the inadvertent release of their internal documents. Among the most famous was the document that revealed their universal intention to make the public think that every weapon that looks like a machine gun is a machine gun, relying on the lack of specific firearm knowledge by the public. The same problem applies to “assault weapons.”
Briefly, an assault rifle has these characteristics:
(1) Shoulder fired;
(2) Gas operated;
(3) Box magazine fed;
(4) Select fire (semi-auto, burst and/or fully automatic);
(5) Firing an intermediate cartridge with an effective range of 100-300 yard;
(6) Intended to be carried and operated by a single soldier.
“Assault weapons,” as I noted in the article, are an invention of anti-gunners and cooperating legislators drafting definitions that encompass an over-broad range of firearms, including rifles, handguns and shotguns. By the definitions of many proposed and adopted laws, even common hunting rifles–including bolt action rifles–are “assault weapons” merely because they are capable of accepting box magazines or have accessory rails, compensators, or synthetic stocks.
True, currently manufactured assault rifles are not available for civilian purchase, but all manner of firearms that might fall under some definition of “assault weapon,” are. Because a given weapon might be used for “assaulting,” might turn it into an “assault weapon,” in the minds of those who wish to ban all firearms, but the term is neither practically accurate, historically accurate, correct terminology among those who know the correct terminology, or useful if accurate and rational legislation is the goal. There is no doubt what an assault rifle is, but the term “assault weapon” is so nebulous–purposely nebulous–that it might allow the illegitimate banning of virtually any weapon ever made.
Assault is descriptive of what something does. Not of what something is. Your attempt to apply this word to a rifle is similar to calling it bad. As in BAD gun. If you can get people to agree with your term it is very easy to then to call for all assault weapons be banned. Something that the American People are loath to do.
When lawmakers had decided to ban “Assault weapons”, someone came up with a list that looked like it came from a catalog. Each weapon banned was of a type that looked mean and military. No effort was made then to define “Assault Weapons”, just an incredibly preposterous list. The actual effect of this stupid and idiotic effort to ban guns was the Democrats lost power in Congress.
High capacity drums are not used in combat because of the tendency to jam a rifle. Banning them does nothing except force the buyer to get magazines that don’t jam. If the idiot had taken ten minutes to research his rifle, he would have stuck with equipment that wouldn’t fail. As it is, his rifle failed. He finished people off with his Glocks.
The only common denominator that I can find is the effort to ban guns. You are part of a vanishing group who loath guns and want everyone to give them up to make yourself feel good. The first effort is to get people to agree with you on definition of terms.
In short, I am not buying your bovine excrement.
Mike, thanks for the reply. I am not trying to argue some kind of legal verbiage for banning purposes. I am trying to demonstrate calling something what it is. An assault rifle is a weapon. A weapon for assaulting. An assault weapon. To me, that doesn’t seem like a hard triangle to go around. If some other folks want to narrow down even further, as you mention with mountings, certain sizes magazines, or whatever, that is -their- problem. Correct me if I am wrong, but legislators (re)defined an assault weapon- as that which has two qualities of the following after the ability to take more than ten rounds in a detachable magazine:
folding or telescopic stock
primary pistol grip
designated secondary grip
threaded barrel (for whatever purpose)
That triangle I mentioned previously existed long before an assault “weapons” ban came down the pike. I am not going for any thing deeper here.
Joel: Since reading comprehension is not your friend (and I say this because you missed two of my points in my posts that would have saved you typing some stuff out) let me give it one last try.
“Assault is descriptive of what something does. Not of what something is. Your attempt to apply this word to a rifle is similar to calling it bad” — Is AND does, yes, very good. “Lawn mower”. What is it, what does it do, what is it for? Its all right there in the title. “Hole punch”. “Tooth Brush”.
Bad is a either a moral term which I am not trying to get into (but you seem to want to take it there), or term reflecting its quality. I have no desire to ascribe moral views to inanimate objects.
“The only common denominator that I can find is the effort to ban guns. You are part of a vanishing group who loath guns and want everyone to give them up to make yourself feel good. The first effort is to get people to agree with you on definition of terms.” — well, brush up on your fractions then, Joel. I am part of a group of some what regular dudes whom use the English language for descriptions and purpose rather than legal-ese. And let me state it again, since you missed it the first go round: I don’t care if you own guns. Even assault weapons. Or, if you prefer, even assault rifles. I don’t care if its sold to you semi, and I don’t care if you buy a drum mags or hi cap mags, or talk to the various agencies in the US to put a full auto kit in it, but I will NOT smile and nod when you say the machete you are holding is just a letter opener.
More ignorance of the class of weaponry called guns.
The simple fact that you don’t know what the threading of a barrel is for demonstrates to me you don’t have the first clue about guns. The name of this threading is called rifling. Rifling was made popular during the Civil war. It is to create a spinning effect on a bullet. This rifling is also present in the barrels of hand guns. It is used to increase the accuracy of a gun.
You are persistent, I’ll grant you that.
What you attempting to do is over ride the terminology of guns and do your best to create an atmosphere of fear. Assault Weapons, Assault Rifles, Assault, Assault, Assault. Once you have created this atmosphere, then you apply it on certain weapons. Weapons that you don’t like. You also imply that any one who buys an assault weapon is going to use it for assault. The next step is to ban these “Assault Weapons.” You are counting on people not using their brains to think these things through.
You are just the latest of a long line of people who are trying to ban guns. You use the English language to hide the facts.
Joel…
A threaded barrel for purposes of a muzzle break or silencer. Threads. In the barrel. It screw something in. Not rifling. If I meant rifling, I would have said rifling. See how English works? Or are -you- not familiar with what a threaded barrel is?
“What you attempting to do is over ride the terminology of guns and do your best to create an atmosphere of fear. Assault Weapons, Assault Rifles, Assault, Assault, Assault. Once you have created this atmosphere, then you apply it on certain weapons. Weapons that you don’t like. You also imply that any one who buys an assault weapon is going to use it for assault. The next step is to ban these “Assault Weapons.” You are counting on people not using their brains to think these things through.” —– What I am attempting to do is not twist words to make it some legal descriptor. I am not implying anything. I would have said it plainly if I thought it. The next step is… I don’t frickin care? How many times do I have to tell you I am not interested in any kind of ban? Is that sinking in yet? From the guy who says I am counting on some on to not use their brains, you are certainly proving yourself correct. Engage the brain Joel. Read the text on the page, rather then the text you want to see. Here, lets try it with this simple exercise:
“You are just the latest of a long line of people who are trying to ban guns. You use the English language to hide the facts.”
And what I actually said with this incredible language we have is… what? This is your word problem for the night, Joel. Find the words in my post that tell you how in favor I am of any kind of gun ban.
Now, since you probably didn’t find it, here is the answer:
I am not trying to ban guns. I own some guns, my room mate does do, as does my pa, and some other friends. We have a great time out at the range.
I am not trying to ban guns. I own some guns, my room mate does do, as does my pa, and some other friends. We have a great time out at the range.
I typed it twice with the hopes of you getting de ja vou by the time you read about my room mate.
If you did have guns, and every one around you had guns, you would not be having this problem with understanding the objection to “Assault Weapons”. You would be doing your level best to correct the false impression generated by the media.
The rest of it is a classic setup by liberals to create consensus to ban guns.
One particular bloodthirsty image is a man with a machete and comparing him to someone who has your dreaded “Assault Weapon” . This is intentional on your part.
You say that you aren’t trying to ban guns, yet all of your argument screams at me that you are a liberal with an agenda of getting people to agree with you about guns and the necessity of banning them. Your word selection is not of a gun enthusiast.
If you really don’t care about trying to ban guns, you will drop your argument about “Assault Weapons”, do you understand?
Joel, I admit, I don’t understand your objection with that term. A weapon, built for assaulting. Assault weapon. Human history has had scores of weapons built for such a purpose. An assault rifle is another one in the arsenal.
A man, holding a machete, and calling the machete a LETTER OPENER is my point Joel. Would you like me to soften the image, and say the young man with a iPad calling it a calculator? How about the construction worker with a bulldozer and calling it a shovel? Its an understatement of an obvious purpose, but you may feel free to remain willfully obtuse on the matter.
“yet all of your argument screams at me that you are a liberal with an agenda…and the necessity of banning them ” — uh huh. Thats what screams at you, eh? Selective interpretation is selective. Don’t think you have selective interpretation? How did your Google search for “threaded barrel” go? Obviously, I meant the rifling of a barrel, even though I said threaded, right?
“If you really don’t care about trying to ban guns, you will drop your argument about “Assault Weapons”, do you understand?”
Why? So more people can decide to twist words to mean other things? I saw deviant and abnormal come to mean immoral, I have seen “marriage” require so many descriptors now days that people keep forgetting exactly what makes a marriage instead of what a marriage IS, and I have seen “Liberal” get turned into some one advocating bigger government, and seen “conservative” get adopted as some one in favor of individual rights. I am sick of people using double think and double speak to use plain English as code for something else.
TL;DR – if plain English description conjures forth in your head some phantasmal or expired weapons ban, that is YOUR problem, not mine. There are such things as assault rifles. Rifles are weapons. Assault weapons. People said “happy holiday” to eachother before it became some weird politically correct BS, and people made mention of assault weapons before the 1990’s.
Mike,
Thanks for another terrific article, and another timely reminder that laws do nothing to constrain the behavior of the lawbreaker but can significantly harm the law-abiding, and that the absence of guns in that theater probably made the tactical situation far worse for the victims. (I’d also point out that a large number of the wounded, and probably of the demographic group most interested in Batman films, are those too young to carry concealed weapons even if the theater allowed them.)
I also must respond to Joel’s comment, because I see a common attitude in some corners of the firearms community that the 2nd Amendment is a conservative issue, a fight between liberals and conservatives. The truth is, it shouldn’t be this way. Fundamental freedom and personal safety are HUMAN issues and AMERICAN issues, and to frame gun rights as a liberal vs. conservative issue alienates people who need to become allies to the fight for liberty if liberty is to win the day, and also denies the liberals who support gun rights a seat at the table and a voice in the debate. I myself am fairly liberal (in a “live and let live, mind your own business” libertarian sort of way) on most social issues, quite conservative on many economic issues, and an ardent 2nd Amendment supporter.
This is not, and should not ever be, a partisan issue. The anti-gunners’ strategy is divide and conquer, and we’re going to lose the fight if we agree to play the game by their rules.
Tammy
Dear Tammy:
Thanks for your kind comments! I agree that liberty is an issue for all honorable Americans. Unfortunately, too many are more interested in personal power and in controlling others, apparently believing the freedom they steal from others will not affect them. Sadly, the overwhelming majority of those people are on the political left. This does not, of course, mean that we should ever stop trying to educate and convince others, but we need to be realistic about those who would destroy our liberties and be prepared to fight them in every necessary way.
Thanks again!
Too bad for Mayor Bloomberg his argument is not based in reality. The “cops just want to make it home for dinner” myth was shattered long. While there are many jobs far more dangerous the being a cop, when an officer does lose his life on the job the cause is more likely to be a car accident that a gun shot. in fact, the rate amount of background checks conducted for gun ownership has been growing by double digits and despite all those guns, the number of officer killed by gunfire is at a 50 year low. What does continue to rise is the number of people killed by police, a great many of whom were unarmed, committing no crime, or shot in the back.
Bloomberg has it backwards. In any given interaction between the police and the public, the member of the public is far more likely to end up dead than the cop. Seems to me that should encourage more gun ownership.
Where do you get the crap you peddle? Let’s take a look at the deaths of police officers and how many were murdered by gun fire from one of those slugs you seem to think are being oppressed by the police:
2007 – 201 dead/66 by gunshot
2008 – 152/40
2009 – 139/97
2010 – 173/67
2012 (to date) – 60/21
The second number is only by gunshot. It does not include the LEOs that have been run down by a vehicle by some scum of the earth who wants to keep from getting busted or does it just for the hell of it (thrill killing that has become quite the rage in a certain racial group).
Take you “I hate cops” crap somewhere else, perhaps Huffington Post or one of those other Marxist websites.
@retire2005…”Where do you get the crap you peddle?”
Why? Are you saying that anything I have posted isn’t factual? Because my sources are beyond reproach, and yet something tells me that after I prove that I have posted the truth, you won’t be man enough to admit that I am 100% correct.
My first assertion..”The amount of background checks conducted for gun ownership has been growing by double digits”
That statistic was published here (http://bit. ly/Qm6kzU) on the The Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) website
In case you didn’t know, the ILA is the lobbying arm of the NRA. If the NRA isn’t credible enough for you then maybe this report (http://1.usa. gov/P59vVg) from the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System will be enough to open your closed mind.
According to the report, in 2011 the FBI did a record number (around 15 million) of background checks.
My second assertion “the number of officers killed by gunfire is at a 50 year low” was culled from the National Law Enforcement Memorial Funds website (http://www.nleomf. org/) as well as the Officer Down Memorial Page (http://www.odmp. org/) Private Officer Breaking News (http://bit. ly/N10tcz) InTheLineOfDutyDotcom (http://bit .ly/MoSgj8) and OfficerDotCom (http://bit. ly/O3Fqqt) just to name a few.
And for clarity’s sake. at least three of the “slugs” who shot and killed a member of LE this year were officers themselves.
Finally explain how being pleased that cops aren’t being killed in record numbers would indicate to any rational person that I hate cops. The facts clearly show that police work isn’t putting officers lives in jeopardy like it used to.
You don’t seem happy about that. Would you rather more cops get shot?? Because if I had my wish not a single officer would lose his/her life ever again. That would be wonderful. A country where police weren’t at risk. Where they had no reason to shoot unarmed citizens in the back. Where law abiding citizens can feel free to exercise their right to carry a firearm without getting gunned down at Costco.
Does that world not appeal to you?
Since my facts are sound and am able to provide numerous references to support my statements, my reply contains a great many links and I haven’t been able to get it to post here.
However, I posted a copy of my response on out site just for you.
bit . ly/ P5jKsN.
Why would I go back to you website and built traffic for it? I found it disgusting the first time.
“Why would I go back to you website and built traffic for it? I found it disgusting the first time.”
I completely understand. A lot of people have that reaction when they first confront the appalling level of police misconduct and corruption that exists here in Clark County. It can be quite overwhelming and many find the actions of police we report overwhelm them with disgust. You are not alone. I wish I could tell you it gets easier, but it doesn’t.
I noticed that you weren’t honorable enough to admit that my post accurate. Why am I not surprised?
Your website is disgusting because you attemp to portray blacks as being persecuted by LEOs. What about Rodney Johnson? Not ONE word on your racialist website about him. Yet, you do a lede about how once every forty hours a black person is killed by a police officer. How about the fact that blacks are killing blacks in record numbers (Hello! Chicago?) and a high percentage of white murders are committed by blacks?
You’re a racist and I don’t like racists or their websites.
@retire2005…”Your website is disgusting because you attemp to portray blacks as being persecuted by LEOs.” Interesting that you think that, especially considering that I’ve never once made that assertion. I did publish raw data on the arrest, conviction and sentencing rates of African-Americans vs Whites and after reading you came to the conclusion that point to “blacks as being persecuted by LEOs.”
And that one page of stats are the only thing we’ve written about race and police, how does that make me racist? Clearly the fact that you have judged my entire sight based on one 275 word post is more of an indication or your desire to prejudge rather than mine. I see how you don’t have an issue with the validity of the information, just a problem that I made the information available.
And exactly what is racist about not publishing “ONE word on your racialist website about [Rodney Johnson]?” Here’s the results you get if you search for “Rodney Johnson here on Mike’s page. (https://statelymcdanielmanor.wordpress.com//?s=Rodney+Johnson&search=Go) Does that make this a racist website? I would say no. I mean other than former Houston PD Officer Rodney Joseph Johnson, I have no clue who you are referring to. And considering that Officer Johnson was killed nearly six years before we started our site and has no connection to Clark County there would be no reason to mention him, no would there.
And the reason we haven’t published anything about “the fact that blacks are killing blacks in record numbers” is because:
1) My site focuses on reporting criminal activity based on occupation, not race.
And
2) Because ” blacks are NOT killing blacks in record numbers.” The number of black murder victims in 1993 was north of 10,000 in 2010 the number was less than a third of that. So unless you mean the number of “blacks killed by blacks is a at a record low,” just as the number of murder victims in general has dropped since 1993, then you’re not being truthful. Just as you are not being truthful when you state “a high percentage of white murders are committed by blacks.” because its not a very large percentage and pretty close the percentage of blacks killed by whites.
It seems, there isn’t an accurate statement in your entire response.
Now spreading inaccuracies about a specific race (YOU) is racist.
Publishing accurate statistics about a several races (ME) is not.
All this would be amusing if your hypocrisy wasn’t so blatant. After all you suggested I be banned for calling Mike a liar in “The Trayvon Martin Case, Update 14,” even though I hadn’t done so there, yet in your mind calling me a racist because I report facts you don’t like sits nicely with you twisted moral code.
The fact that someone like you would find my site “disgusting” is perhaps the highest praise I can think of.
And Mike, I apologize that RETIRE2005 found it appropriate to make my site a topic of discussion on yours, especially when I was agreeing with your basic premise here.
1) you site deals with only ONE profession – law enforcement officers. Bad attempt at spin there, CCCC.
2) the percentages are NOT close if you have passed even a remedial math class: in 2010, whites killing blacks was 8% – blacks killing whites was 13%
You have THREE articles about blacks and crime: one entails encarceration, one youth stats and I forget the other. For you to say ONE is dishonest.
You have a Wall of Shame for cops; odd, only one of them is black.
The difference between your website and this one? Mike is not ashamed to put his name on it. You seem to be ashamed for your name appears no where on your website.
And you have no authority to apologize for anyone, especially not ME. If Mike feels I owe him an apology, I doubt he would be hesitant in telling me.
Now, this is my last response to you as you are a basic waste of my time.
retire…”You have THREE articles about blacks and crime: one entails encarceration [sic], one youth stats and I forget the other.” Hey at least your consistent in your avoidance of anything resembling the truth. The information about blacks AND WHITES and crime, the information of incarceration rates for Blacks and WHITES and the information about drug use by blacks and WHITES are from ONE SINGLE POST. I wish I could say you were purposefully being dishonest, but I’m pretty sure you just are so blinded by hate you are not seeing things clearly.
You are so intent on seeing some kind of race angle on my blog you don’t realize how utterly wrong you are. You accuse me of only listing one black cop, but you have no way of making that determination. I don’t list the race of any the officer’s whose behavior is a disgrace to the department. Photos are not available for many of the officers, so how do YOU KNOW only one is black? And, so what if that is the case. How does the racial make-up of Metro as well as the race of the cops who behave poorly a result of my racism? I post every cop whose had his/her conduct called into question. Are you suggesting I would purposefully leave names out. Are you suggesting that there are actually many more bad cops here that we know about?
Finally, I don’t know who taught you math, but on the field of 1% to 100% the numbers 8% and 13% are pretty darn close. Think about it. There are 87 numbers further away from 8% than 13%.
The RKBA is about preventing the deaths of millions at the hands of government. The last 120yrs has shown that governments have killed their own people in the millions- USSR, China, Germany, Cambodia, Iraq, Syria etc. etc. etc. A far greater numbers and risk than the acts of criminals.
The progressives focusing on the sporadic deaths of 10s of folks never address the larger issue with the much higher loss of life. Any loss of life in spree killings is horrible, regrettable, and we should make efforts to reduce them. However, we can not lose sight of the much greater loss of life we risk by stripping the public of arms. Particularly those arms useful to opposing a goverment that has devolved into tyranny.
It is not just about reducing crime. BTW according to the DC Court of Appeals and SCOTUS the pre-existing right the 2nd Amendment is saying shouldn’t be infringed includes hunting and self-defense as well as opposition to government tyranny. So yeah, it’s partly about hunting.
It seems silly to have to say it, but laws are for the law-abiding.
The Aurora shooter broke scads of laws. Who really thinks that another would have stopped him?
While the gun control advocates are circling, it pays to keep the perspective that they themselves don’t really believe what they say:
“I also believe a lot of gun owners would agree that AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers, not in the hands of criminals…” – Barack Obama. It needs to be pointed out that Eric Holder and Barack Obama are not among these people, as they have facilitated the transfer of thousands of such weapons into the hands of criminals in Mexico.
Nice article Officer McDaniel.
The key difference between the gun restriction and gun rights advocates is the question of why people own guns. Most gun restriction advocates do not have problem with using a gun for hunting, target shooting, or as part of your job. The idea of using a gun to protect yourself doesn’t compute. They view guns as dangerous tools that are more dangerous to the common citizen who uses them than anyone else. Gun rights advocates view self-defense as the primary purpose of owning a gun. If gun rights advocates can get more people to see the use of guns in self-defense as a good thing, all but the hardened statists would probably be on board with widespread gun ownership.
As for myself, I like the idea of licensing gun users like car drivers, and allowing local schools to educate on guns like they do on cars. Also, I like the idea of tacking on additional years to a crime if a gun is involved. That way, a petty criminal is less likely to use a gun in a crime, while his victim is not deterred from defending herself with a gun.