Home / GunControl
Showing posts with label GunControl. Show all posts
Showing posts with label GunControl. Show all posts

New op-ed in the New York Daily News: Concealed weapons save lives, The evidence is clear: Massacres are stopped by legally armed citizens

My newest piece there starts this way:

Friday’s horrible shooting in Colorado occurred in yet another place where guns are banned. And that’s consistent with a trend: With a single exception, every multiple-victim public shooting in the U.S. in which more than three people have been killed since at least 1950 has taken place where citizens are not allowed to carry their own firearms.

The Cinemark movie theater in Aurora, like others run by the chain around the country, displayed warning signs that it was illegal to carry guns into the theater.

This applied to all nonlaw enforcement personnel, including individuals with concealed handgun permits. In other words, despite more than 4% of the adult population of Colorado having concealed handgun permits, a gunman intent on killing a lot of people could be confident that law-abiding citizens there would be sitting ducks.

If one of the hundreds of people at the theater had a concealed handgun, . . .

Mayor Bloomberg has a competing piece also on guns in the same newspaper and his is "Gun Control Cannot Wait."
BREAKING NEWS: TEXT OF UN ARMS TRADE TREATY

BREAKING NEWS: TEXT OF UN ARMS TRADE TREATY

A copy of the treaty is available here.  It does include restrictions on small arms.

UPDATE: From Fox News:

But even without amendments, there is plenty for the U.S. not to like in the draft, say critics. The treaty could set the stage for legal challenges to U.S. aid to allies like Israel and Taiwan, and it could also expose private information about U.S. gun owners.  . . .
But release of the draft so close to Friday’s deadline for a final text sends a strong signal that the treaty’s broad strokes are already set, observers say.
While critics say U.S. gun owners and interests would be left exposed by the draft, it has drawn criticism on other fronts. Activists on the political left say it is a gift to illicit gunrunners around the world, and the only group that seems to like it is the rogue states leading talks, say critics. . . .
Colorado governor on gun control and shooting

Colorado governor on gun control and shooting

This is good, but I wish that he would understand that gun control with gun-free zones caused the problem.  From MSNBC:

On Sunday's Meet the Press, Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper expressed skepticism that tougher gun laws could have prevented Friday's massacre in Aurora, Colorado. 
"I think that [gun control] debate's going to happen, it has already started. But you look at this person, again, almost a creature, if he couldn't have gotten access to guns, what kind of bomb he would have manufactured. We're at a time an information age where there's access to all kinds of information," he said. "I think he was almost a terrorist that wanted to take away not just from the people here, but from the country, our ability to enjoy life, to go to a movie theater. Which for most of us is a refuge where we can get away from the pressures of life. It's a human issue. How are we not able to identify someone like this who is so deeply, deeply disturbed?"  
The Hill notes that Hickenlooper also seemed to dismiss calls for tougher gun controlduring an interview on CNN's State of the Union. "This person, if there were no assault weapons available, if there were no this or no that, this guy's going to find something. Right? He's going to know how to create a bomb," he said.

Posts for gun control on Twitter from early this morning

Update on UN Arms Trade Treaty

Update on UN Arms Trade Treaty

The treaty is basically a way for governments to blame individuals for what governments are doing. Government, not individuals, are the almost exclusive suppliers of guns to rebel and terrorist organizations. In addition, the treaty will be used to to accomplish all sorts of other political aims. From Fox News:
A clause permitting arms transfers solely between UN member states would allow UN member China to object to U.S. arms sales to Taiwan, a non-UN member that China considers to be a renegade province. This would be highly problematic for the U.S. at a time when Beijing is engaged in an unprecedented arms buildup. Another fear is that Arab or other states critical of Israel may use any treaty language on human rights standards to argue against U.S. arms transfers to the Israeli government – much in the same way they currently use the UN Human Rights Council to repeatedly condemn Israel. . . .
Why do we want to set up rules that are being pushed by a country such as Iran?
A treaty being hammered out this month at the United Nations -- with Iran playing a key role -- could expose the records of America's gun owners to foreign governments -- and, critics warn, eventually put the Second Amendment on global trial. . . .
My concern about Iran is more for its ability to stop rebel groups from getting arms in its country than it is for them getting a hold of lists of Americans who own guns. Here is an old article that I wrote for the Washington Times in July 2010:
. . . “Some type of micro-stamping regulations seems all but inevitable. It is very, very likely,” the Heritage Foundation’s Theodore R. Bromund, who tracks the U.N., told The Washington Times. “Restrictions on trade between private individuals are somewhat less than 50-50, but you surely can’t rule that out. Some kind of gun registration and licensing system is an extremely likely probability.” Registration proposals cover guns as well as individual rounds of ammunition. The Obama administration strongly supports the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty and no doubt will use the process to push for gun-control regulations that it can’t get through Congress otherwise. . . . Gun registration is being promoted despite evidence that the costly bureaucratic system has been a complete failure in solving any crimes or stopping criminals from getting access to guns everywhere it’s been tried. “None of these treaties have a relationship to reality,” Mr. Bromund explains. “Terrorists are still going to have access to guns because governments give them guns, and they are still going to be able to give them guns.” As an example, he pointed out, “The FARC fighting in Colombia get their guns from Venezuela.” . . .
The pointlessness of gun buyback programs

The pointlessness of gun buyback programs

There is a reason that researchers don't find that gun buyback programs reduce crime.  1) Most of the guns sold don't work. 2) It is possible that the gun buyback programs actually allow those giving up the guns to buy money to buy working guns.  3) The gun buyback program can actually help criminals get rid of guns that they have used in crime and to get rid of them in a way that allows them to make some money off them.

There is a recent example in Chicago that illustrates these points.  I wonder how much money gun dealers have made from these buyback programs over the years.  From the Chicago Sun Times:

Sixty of the guns and several BB guns were turned in by the Champaign-based Guns Save Life. In return, the group received $6,240 in gift cards, said John Boch, president of the group. . . .
Most of the money will go toward buying ammunition for an NRA youth camp in Bloomington. The rest will pay for four bolt-action rifles that will be given away to campers. . . .
Vandermyde said he’s heard that gun-shop owners also have used the annual gun turn-in for profit.
Vandermyde said he was told one suburban gun dealer imported junk rifles for less than $50 each and received $100 gift cards for each of them.
“It’s comical,” he said.
But the city doesn’t think so.
“We host the gun turn-in event on an annual basis to encourage residents to turn in their guns so we can take guns off the street and it’s unfortunate that this group is abusing a program intended to increase the safety of our communities,” said Melissa Stratton, a police spokeswoman.
Boch said he doesn’t think the crooks who have pushed the number of Chicago’s homicides to 38 percent over last year’s total are the ones handing over their weapons.
“If you were a criminal, you would be a fool to go there with the police presence,” he said. “What criminal would turn in the tool he uses to do his trade for a $100 card?” . . .
It should be noted that the police broke their promise not to ask where the guns came from in the Guns Save Life group's case.
DC drags feet on correcting false info on DC's gun laws

DC drags feet on correcting false info on DC's gun laws

From the Washington Times:
Washington’s Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) has had two weeks to remove false information about the city’s gun transport laws from its forms and website. It has no interest in doing so. . . . MPD's firearms registry has at least six full-time staff who answer questions about gun laws and regulations asked over the phone or in person. Unfortunately, the police officers do not appear to understand the legal code they are in charge of interpreting, which means gun owners are being given bad advice regarding activities that could result in a felony arrest. . . .
DC drags feet on correcting false info on DC's gun laws

DC drags feet on correcting false info on DC's gun laws

From the Washington Times:
Washington’s Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) has had two weeks to remove false information about the city’s gun transport laws from its forms and website. It has no interest in doing so. . . . MPD's firearms registry has at least six full-time staff who answer questions about gun laws and regulations asked over the phone or in person. Unfortunately, the police officers do not appear to understand the legal code they are in charge of interpreting, which means gun owners are being given bad advice regarding activities that could result in a felony arrest. . . .
Democrats' campaign against "Stand Your Ground" Law will hit a lot of Democrats

Democrats' campaign against "Stand Your Ground" Law will hit a lot of Democrats

When asked about Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law on Sunday, Vice President Joe Biden told Face the Nation that gun control would be a topic of debate this year.  He warned: “as a consequence of the laws, [people] unintendedly put themselves in harm's way.”

Well, it turns out that Democrats have overwhelmingly supported the law.  From the Daily Caller:


One Democrat, Fort Lauderdale state Sen. Mandy Dawson, missed the vote. But the rest of the Senate chamber supported it, 39-0.
The Florida House vote was 92-20. Twelve Democrats voted in favor.
And of the 15 states that have passed variations of the law since 2005, the year Florida’s model legislation became law, eight — a majority — had Democratic governors when the laws were enacted. None issued a veto. . . . Democratic governors who signed “stand your ground” bills, or otherwise permitted them to become law, include Kathleen Blanco of Louisiana, Jennifer Granholm of Michigan, Brian Schweitzer of  Montana, John Lynch of New Hampshire, Brad Henry of Oklahoma, Phil Bredesen of Tennessee, Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Janet Napolitano of Arizona – now the U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security.
The bills in Louisiana and West Virginia passed with Democratic control of both houses in the states’ legislatures, in 2006 and 2008, respectively. . . .
Blue Bloods - No Questions

Blue Bloods - No Questions

I have written on Blue Bloods before.  Tom Selleck's influence is probably responsible for the discussion at 1:30 into the program that points out some of the problems with gun buyback programs: the guns purchased are largely ones that don't work and some guns are crime guns that get purchased without question.  In addition, raising the price that you will pay for used guns actually increases the demand for new guns.  Take an extreme case.  Suppose that the government offered a $1,000 to buy guns.  People would buy every gun that they could find and then sell them to the government.  The amount offered here is $200, but the amount that you think that you can eventually sell your gun for increases how much you are willing to pay for it to begin with.

Now I am not sure what to make of the rest of the program.  A criminal gun is traced through the buyback, but doing so involved a cop breaking the rules behind the program.  Breaking those rules would eliminate the incentives for criminals to turn in the crime guns to begin with.  In any case, it turned out that a video may have let them solve the case anyway.
Washington Examiner piece: "Ask Canada -- gun registration won't make D.C. safer"

Washington Examiner piece: "Ask Canada -- gun registration won't make D.C. safer"

My piece with Gary Mauser in the Washington Examiner starts this way:


The D.C. Council will soon vote on a new law that would eliminate several obstacles for gun buyers -- a five-hour training course, ballistics testing, a vision test, and a ban on certain types of ammunition. But they will leave unchanged the registration requirement for gun owners. D.C. could learn a lot from Canada's decision to finally rescind its gun registry in February.Beginning in 1998, Canadians spent a whopping $2.7 billion on creating and running a registry for long guns -- in the U.S., the same amount per gun owner would come to $67 billion. For all that money, the registry was never credited with solving a single murder. Instead, it became an enormous waste of police officers' time, diverting their efforts from traditional policing activities. . . .

Some relevant links are here:

 D.C. Council panel agrees to discard some gun rules

 Fox Can't Keep Story Straight On D.C. Gun Laws


"D.C.’s made-up gun laws"

"D.C.’s made-up gun laws"

Emily Gets Her Gun series has some interesting stories.

Washington, D.C. police appear prepared to arrest gun owners even if they aren’t breaking the law. Transporting a gun through the District, whether as a resident or visitor, is not nearly as big of a legal risk as the police department experts say. . . .

A partial victory for gun ownership in DC.

The District has moved one step closer to showing due respect to the Second Amendment. Potential gun owners will now save hours of their time and hundreds of dollars as a council committee voted to eliminate hurdles meant to discourage the law-abiding from keeping arms in the nation’s capital.

The newly-drafted legislation eliminates the five-hour training requirement for gun ownership. As documented in The Washington Times’ “Emily Gets Her Gun” series, this turned out to be the most time-consuming and expensive barrier. The classes, which cost an average of $200, could not even be legally taken within city limits, calling into question the requirement’s constitutionality.

Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) Chief Cathy Lanier asked the council to end the mandatory classes. She told The Washington Times that her department will instead provide a video online or at the registry office that covers gun safety and local laws. “I think it makes sense,” she explained. “We’ll be more consistent with what other jurisdictions do.” . . .


Her archives are available here.

From the Washington Times:

D.C. officials will do just about anything to keep law-abiding citizens from lawfully possessing a gun in the city. The Washington Times’ Emily Miller has found in the “Emily Gets Her Gun” series that the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) has been spreading false information about firearms ownership. As a result, residents and nonresidents who have done nothing wrong risk false arrest and gun confiscation. As of Friday, the MPD's Firearms Registration Office had not removed the incorrect information from its website.

The registry office supplies a 22-page written guide to prospective gun owners and answers their questions over the phone. The registration packet says that a gun can only be outside the home when “traveling directly to or from a lawful firearm-related activity (registration, hunting, shooting at a practice range, etc.).” This is inaccurate; residents can transport their registered handgun for any legal purpose as long as it is properly stored in their vehicle. The word “directly” is the source of false interpretation by the department, which has been advising the public that a D.C. resident taking his pistol to a shooting range in Maryland or Virginia could not legally stop for gas or for lunch.

Asked about this, D.C. Councilman Phil Mendelson told The Washington Times, “They’re just making stuff up.” . . . .


DC doesn't make it easy to get the training to get guns. The list has gradually got more out of date, making it progressively more difficult for people meet DC's rules for getting a handgun permit.

The Washington Times’ Emily Miller has been closely documenting each step required in the process of exercising her Second Amendment right to keep arms. One of these is the mandatory gun “safety” course consisting of four hours of classroom instruction and one hour on the shooting range. For this, the city hands prospective gun owners a long list of instructors who have been certified by the Metropolitan Police Department to teach the class.

As Miss Miller revealed, this sheet of 47 phone numbers hadn’t been updated since September 2009. The majority were cellphones that went directly to voicemail when called, seven lines were out of service, two said they don’t teach the course anymore and one teaches the class only in Colorado and Georgia.

Within a month after Miss Miller’s story appeared, the registry office quietly posted an updated list of instructors online. The new document included Donna Worthy, an instructor who had been trying without success to get on the list for two years, along with another 15 new instructors. The police also deleted 14 obsolete names, undoubtedly saving other residents from wasting time making dead-end calls. The city additionally updated the detailed list of firearms that it will allow residents to purchase. . . .


More problems are discussed here.

As part of the ongoing “Emily gets her gun” series, The Washington Times’ Emily Miller has documented each step in the convoluted process the council concocted to thwart legal gun ownership. One of the most obnoxious hurdles she has found so far is the requirement that prospective gun owners undertake four hours of classroom and one hour of range “safety” training. As Mr. Mendelson explained to his colleagues Tuesday, “That training can’t be offered in the District of Columbia because our law is such that in order to handle a gun, it has to be registered to you. But you can’t register the gun until you’ve had the training.”

To break out of the difficulty, Mr. Mendelson proposes to clarify that the shooting portion of the training could happen within the city limits. In addition, he’d specify that individuals don’t need to take the test for each gun they purchase and that military personnel with firearms training wouldn’t have to waste their time taking a D.C.-specific class. Ballistic testing of each gun would also be eliminated.

These are all sensible steps in the right direction, but more must be done to reverse the District’s revival of the despicable Jim Crow-era gun laws.

Following the Civil War, many Southern states required blacks to obtain police permission before they could own guns - which, of course, was never granted. Ratification of the 14th Amendment forced officials to be a bit more subtle with their racially motivated laws. So in 1871, Tennessee came up with “An Act to Preserve the Peace and Prevent Homicide” that made carrying anything but expensive military pistols a crime punishable by a $50 fine and three months in jail. The statute put the price of self-defense beyond the reach of most blacks, and it even included an instruction to local sheriffs that its provisions be “strictly enforced.” . . .

UPDATE: Some things to remember about the debate over gun registration from 2009.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, California Democrat, announced last week that she wants to register guns. Her next move will be to try to confiscate them.
The speaker picked a television show with a viewership of 4.6 million to float the Democrats' coming gun-control push. Questioned on ABC's “Good Morning America” about the prospect of new gun-control laws now that “it's a Democratic president, a Democratic House,” she responded, “We don't want to take their guns away. We want them registered.”
Politicians and bureaucrats routinely claim that registration helps solve crimes. If a registered gun is used in a crime and left at the crime scene, registration supposedly lets the police trace the gun back to the criminal. Though this turn of events might work on fictional TV crime shows, it virtually never occurs in real life. Criminals' guns are rarely left at crime scenes. When guns are left behind, it usually is because a crook has been seriously injured or killed and the police are poised to catch him anyway.
The few guns left at crime scenes rarely - if ever - are registered to the perpetrator. If they are registered at all, it is to someone else, whose piece was stolen. Despite what Mrs. Pelosi might think, those who use guns to commit major crimes such as robbing and killing are unlikely to respect her request to file paperwork so the government can catalog the tools of their trade. . . . 
Only three states will still have a one gun a month law

Only three states will still have a one gun a month law

South Carolina repealed its one-gun-a-month law in 2004. My research in More Guns, Less Crime didn't find any harm from this. The same fears are being stoked for Virginia's new legislation, but it also will soon be forgotten. From Reuters:

The state Senate voted 21-19 to amend Virginia law to eliminate the prohibition that was enacted in 1993 in an effort to curb gun-smuggling operations.

The vote confirmed a version of the measure passed by the House of Delegates in a 66-32 vote earlier this month, and now sends it to Republican Governor Bob McDonnell's desk.

Governor spokesman Jeff Caldwell told Reuters that McDonnell plans to sign the bill into law.

The one-a-month limit on handgun purchases was enacted by former Democratic Governor Douglas Wilder at a time when Virginia had the reputation as a state where gunrunners could arrange to purchase a volume of weapons to sell on the streets of cities such New York. . . .

Lawmakers who favor lifting the limit said doing so will bring Virginia into line with the majority of states. California, Maryland and New Jersey are the only others with such handgun purchasing limits, Republican Senator Charles Carrico Sr said during an earlier debate. . . .
Gun control groups advocating boycotting Starbucks on Valentine's Day 2012

Gun control groups advocating boycotting Starbucks on Valentine's Day 2012

Well, it will be interesting to see how successful the boycott is.

A nationwide boycott of Starbucks stores and its products will be launched on Valentine's Day 2012. Its goal is to eliminate the risk of guns in public places and ultimately to bring sane gun laws to the U.S.

This boycott is being called by the National Gun Victim's Action Council (NGAC), a network of 14 million gun victims, the faith community including the: Episcopal Peace Fellowship, United Church of Christ, Fellowship of Reconciliation (46 peace fellowships and 43 affiliate fellowships), secular groups working to reduce gun violence and many of the organizations that support passing sane gun laws.WHY STARBUCKS? Currently, Starbucks allows guns and assault weapons to be openly carried in its stores (in 43 states) and concealed and carried in its stores (in 49 states) (See Photos). Starbucks' compliance with the National Rifle Association's Pro-Gun Agenda was exposed in 2010 when members of the "open carry" movement began meeting in popular chains, such as California Pizza Kitchen, Peets, IKEA, Disney and Starbucks openly carrying their handguns and assault rifles. . . .
Gun permits almost double over last 5 years in New South Wales Australia

Gun permits almost double over last 5 years in New South Wales Australia

Gun control groups in Australia aren't happy with this.

THE number of gun permits issued in NSW has almost doubled in the past five years, sparking calls for restrictions on how many guns people can acquire.
Figures from the NSW firearms registry show 111,792 permits to acquire a firearm were issued in 2009 and 2010. That was 29,427 more than for the previous two-year period. In 2005 and 2006, there were 65,997 permits issued.
The National Coalition for Gun Control, which obtained the latest figures under freedom-of-information laws, says that the increase is linked to the scrapping of a 28-day waiting period for a second or subsequent firearm. . . .
Gun shot detectors coming to an American city near you

Gun shot detectors coming to an American city near you

If this really works as advertised, why do we need gun control when we can quickly catch the bad guys who use guns to do bad things? From Fox News:

Gunshots ring out in the dead of night, and not a single person reports it. Yet police know exactly where the shots came from, even before they arrive on the scene.
It sounds like a scene from The Minority Report, but it's real. A new technology called ShotSpotter enables law enforcement officials to precisely and instantaneously locate shooters, and it has been quietly rolling out across America. From Long Island, N.Y., to San Francisco, Calif., more than 60 cities in the U.S. have been leveraging ShotSpotter to make their streets safer. . . .
“If You Fire a Gun, We Will Find You.”
ShotSpotter relies on wide-area acoustic surveillance and GPS technology to triangulate the source of gunshots. Sensors are fixed to buildings and poles to provide coverage over a fixed area. With audio-analysis software, it can identify whether a shooter is stationary or moving -- meaning police officers can be equipped with information on the speed and direction of, say, a vehicle from which a shot was fired.
It can also “hear” the acoustic signature and distinguish between calibers and types of firearms. Similarly, it can hear different explosions and classify them, from vehicle backfires to fireworks to bombs.
The ShotSpotter Gunfire Alert system then relays the location and data to the police or a dispatch computer within moments, enabling a more rapid response time for both police and first responders.
The best part: ShotSpotter works. It's accurate to 10 to 15 feet, and some police departments are reporting accuracy to within five feet. In Long Island’s Nassau County, gun violence was reduced by a whopping 90 percent at the close of this year’s first quarter. . . .
The subscription-based implementation called ShotSpotter Flex costs as much as $60,000 per square mile. . . .
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)