Do the recent mass shootings in New York state and Pittsburgh suggest a need for more stringent firearms laws? The Brady Campaign’s Paul Helmke and ‘Ricochet’ author Richard Feldman debate….
Do the recent mass shootings in New York state and Pittsburgh suggest a need for more stringent firearms laws? The Brady Campaign’s Paul Helmke and ‘Ricochet’ author Richard Feldman debate….
Not very helpful articles. Both are heavily into rhetoric and light on facts although the anti gun argument by Paul Helmke is the least helpful as it indulges in slinging around undefined terms. For example: Just what is a “high powered” weapon? A high powered round is a 30-06 cartridge, which dates from 1906. It is a typical hunting round and is used in bolt-action rifles and some semi auto rifles like the M1 used in World War 2. A low powered round is a pistol or revolver cartridge like a .38, .45 ACP or .357. An intermediate cartridge is a .30-30, 7.62 X 32, or .223 Remington.
Rapidity of fire has nothing to do with the “power†of the ammunition. In fact the lower the power the more controllable is the weapon if it is an automatic weapon (which are by and large illegal in the US). This article is just so wrong that it deserves an analysis line by line.
The AK47 the young man used to shoot three policemen here in Pittsburgh was, apparently, fully automatic. Illegal, but pretty common in gang shootings and also among militia types. What I can’t get over is the mother, who apparently knew that her son was stockpiling weapons and tipping far over the edge psychologically, but who did nothing. We have excellent psychiatric intervention services available here, and a phone call a few months ago might have turned this in a dramatically different direction.
Bruce Robison
I can only hope the LA Times goes bankrupt with all the other print media. Unless they provide them bailout money.
Don Kates writes:
[blockquote]The March 21 murder of four Oakland police officers by Lovelle Mixon, a convicted felon wanted for a recent parole violation, epitomizes the futility of “gun control,†or the banning and restricting of gun ownership for law-abiding adults. Using the officers’ tragic deaths to further an unrelated agenda — stripping away the Second Amendment rights of honorable citizens — is both harmful and distracting.
Mixon was not an anomaly. Felons commit over 90 percent of murders, with the remainder carried out primarily by juveniles and the mentally unbalanced. The United States already has laws forbidding all three groups from owning guns, which, by definition, are ineffective against the lawless. “Gun control,†therefore, only “controls†those who have done nothing to merit such regulations. . . .
Notably, only 15 percent of all Americans have criminal records, yet more than 90 percent of murder suspects have a history of crime. Their criminal careers average six or more years’ length, including four major adult felonies, in addition to their often extensive juvenile records.
A New York Times study of the 1,662 murders in that city between 2003 and 2005 found that “more than 90 percent of the killers had criminal records.†Baltimore police records show similar statistics for its murder suspects in 2006. In Milwaukee, police reported that most murder suspects in 2007 had criminal records, while “a quarter of them [killed while] on probation or parole.†The great majority of Illinois murderers from the years 1991-2000 had prior felony records. Eighty percent of Atlanta murder arrestees had previously been arrested at least once for a drug offense; 70 percent had three or more prior drug arrests — in addition to their arrests for other crimes.
In sum, guns or no guns, neither most murderers nor many murderers — nor virtually any murderers — are ordinary, law-abiding, responsible adults.[/blockquote]
[blockquote]or even the .50-caliber sniper rifles able to shoot down a helicopter.[/blockquote]
Yes, I suppose one could shoot down a helicopter with a .50 caliber rifle but no one has. How many murders or robberies have been committed with a .50 cal rifle? None that I have seen reported. It simply is not practical to even carry one around. It is illegal to own one in my state. In CA one has to pass an proficiency exam and a background check. You then have to wait for two weeks to pick up the weapon. Hand gun regulation is just another step in hand gun elimination for law abiding folks.
I have always felt that the importation, manufacture, sale, and distribution of assault-type rifles and carbines should be illegal in the United States. NO civilian has the need to own or use one of these weapons…..they are meant to KILL other human beings en masse. Their design and use is meant for the military and the police SWAT units……NOT for the ordinary citizen to use as hunting weapons; there are rifles which are far better for that purpose (and I was a big game hunter earlier in my life). Machine pistols and 15-round autoloading handguns are also not suitable for the average citizen. They are military weapons. Ever see what a Glock 40 can do to a block of concrete or a 5 gallon can of water at 20 yards? It’ll blow ’em apart, so just think what it can do to a kid on the street!
#6
If you believe the citizens of a country [any country] will never have to rise up against a common enemy, then go ahead and turn in all your guns. Just don’t come to my house to hide later.
Dcn Dale,
Not to nit pick, but Clyde Barrow (of Bonnie and Clyde) as known to use the BAR (Browning Automotic Rifle) while committing crimes and it is .50 caliber.
Of course, no one since the 40s has been known to use .50 caliber weapons for crime.
As the old saying goes ” ‘real gun control’ is hitting your target and this country needs more ‘real gun control.’ ”
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
Cennydd, just what is an assault-style rifle? How are they any different from a Ruger mini-14? Or any other semi-automatic rifle? Is it the bayonet lug you obfject to?
BMR, fully automatic weapons are in fact difficult to come by. It’s not impossible, but you can’t just walk into any gun shop and pick one up. The problem is that there is a deliberate attempt in the press and elsewhere to confuse semi-automatic firearms with fully automatic ones. I am willing to be corrected, but I would doubt that the weapon used was fully automatic.
Phil, the BAR is .30-06 not .50. It was designed by John Browning in 1918 and fired the same cartridge used in the 1903 Springfield bolt action rifle. In its several varients it weighted no more than19.2 lbs. Far to light to handle a .50 caliber found. That round was developed by Browning and Winchester in 1918 for the M1921 water and air cooled machine guns. See Joseph E. Smith, Small arms of the World (9th ED), Stackpole Books pp 663-669 and 686-687.
#8. Phil,
Not to nit pick either. The BAR was used by Bonnie and Clyde but the BAR was never manufactured in .50 cal. It was mainly manufactured in 30-06 and 7.62mm and similar variant calibers. As I posted this I see Br. Michael has already corrected you.
#10, the police haven’t given a final account of the AK-47. Local news reports have variously reported it as semi-automatic or automatic. If it was purchased legally as a semi-automatic, it may have been altered. [url=http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/cityregion/s_619531.html]Pittsburgh Tribune Article/].
Bruce Robison
Sorry.
[url=http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/cityregion/s_619531.html]Pittsburgh Tribune Article[/url]
In defense of #6. Cennydd, I would say that he and I would agree that fully automatic rifles or pistols should not be in the hands of civilians who have no use for them. The problem that I see is that the anti gun lobby issues statements about weapons that are sometimes ignorant and sometimes intentional that confuse the public about what constitutes an “assault style rifle”. A semi automatic rifle can look like an AR 15, M16 or AK47 but if it doesn’t have a detachable magazine capable of firing more than six rounds it is not an assault rife. It is an “assault style rife” because it looks like an assault rifle and generally fires the same caliber ammunition. Any rifle or handgun that is capable of firing in an automatic mode is illegal to own. I own a .375 HH magnum for target shooting. I guarantee you that as powerful as it is, it should never be considered an assault weapon. $3.50 per round alone would discourage most from even owning one (No, I’m not into reloading).
15, The ammunition capacity for any weapon that uses a detachable box magazine is dependent generaly on the length of the magazine. An weapon that uses a detachable box magazine can use magazines that hold one, five, 10, 15, 20, 30 reounds. It just depends on the length of the magazine. I suspect the aim is to ban any firearm that uses a detachable box magazine. On the other hand an assault rifle is a selective fire (both auto and semi-auto fire weapon, that is, a machine gun) The term “assault weapon” generaly has no precise meaning and is tends to be used to confuse the issue as to what type of firearm it is. This is by design. That is why I dislike the term “military style assault weapon.” The term is designed to portray the weapon as something that it is not.
The other term thrown around is AK-47. A true AK-47 is a selective fire assault rifle (machine gun). There are firearms that are semi-auto only that look like AK-47s, but do not bear that name. The use of the term is to confuse the public into thinking that a fully automatic weapon is being use.
People are not running around with machine guns. It was the aim of Josh Sugarman to ban “semi-automatic only” firearms by deliberately confusing the public into thinking that they were machine guns. That why so many “news shows” showed people firing machine guns which, which because they were already strictly controlled, were not at issue.
Unless you are into gun running or buying illegaly, to legally buy a machine gun, sub-machine gun or assault rifle you must, at a minimum: undergo a full backgrond check (I think by the FBI), pay a $200 transfer tax, and find a Class III dealer. You may even have to get permission from local law enforcement. Then you have come up with the cash to pay for the weapon. I have seen a legal M16A1 assault rifle (machine gun) on sale for $15,000 dollars.
You can own fully automatic weapns as a civilian. You just need to get a federal firearms license. I know several people that own them. At Adobe walls in the late 1800’s a group of trapers held of an indian raiding party and shot one indian at over a mile using a telescopic sight!
Br. Michael,
There are plenty of folks out there that believe if you own a gun you are a dangerous individual. I blame the unpopular Vietnam war for eliminating the draft. With the end of the draft millions of men were no longer trained in the proper use of a weapon. I would like to see the draft reinstated with the continuing provision for alternate service for conscientious objectors. My guess is, as long as hunting is allowed, hunting caliber rifles will be available. We have to keep in mind that whatever the police have for armament will guide legislators in what civilians are allowed. The police always seem to be tinkering with what is the best sidearm. The M1911 .45 has always good enough for the military. The police response to North Hollywood bank robbery continues to puzzle me.
Dcn Dale (#18.) said,
“With the end of the draft millions of men were no longer trained in the proper use of a weapon.”
===============================================================
The training that draftees received was a very mixed-bag. Some were trained to be competent infantrymen and many others received, essentially and only, ‘familiarization training” with firearms if their duties were not in the “combat arms” areas of the Army.
It would be far better if we were to have a national program of firearms training instituted in our high schools that required every youth to have proper training in firearms use and safety just as we have driver education.
This should include instruction in the lethality of firearms, the safe handling and storage of firearms, how to limit unauthorized access to firearms in one’s possession, the laws regarding the handling, general use, and the use in self-defense of firearms. There should be heavy emphasis on the existing legal penalties associated with the misuse of firearms.
And, as far as deranged people and firearms are concerned, you’ll never put and end to their criminal behavior through the passage of a law.
Just as drunk driving laws haven’t put an end to the hundreds of thousands of people being killed, terribly wounded and crippled and by drunk drivers, gun laws won’t stop gun violence, tyhey will just deny law abiding citizens of their rights under the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
There should be pasrticular emphasis placed on the existing criminal and civil consequences undert the law for those who accidently or deliberately misuse a firearm.
We are a nation of people who have, for the most part, due to the prejudices of the anti-gun advocates, have received training in how to drive a car but who who have little or no training in the use of firearms.
#19. AnglicanFirst,
[blockquote]It would be far better if we were to have a national program of firearms training instituted in our high schools that required every youth to have proper training in firearms use and safety just as we have driver education.[/blockquote]
I agree but the chances of this kind of training happening are Zero. The chances that the draft will be reinstated has low but better odds.
I’d be happy to see some kind of firearm competence training in schools. My feeling on gun control is that I have no objection — in fact I support — responsible, competent, level-headed citizens owning guns; but I strongly object to gun ownership by people who are idiots, who don’t know how to handle their guns, or who take their understanding of appropriate gun usage from Hollywood.
Also criminals, of course.
Unfortunately, “irresponsible idiot” is a difficult term to define in a legal sense, so I don’t see a way of keeping guns out of their hands short of banning them entirely — the guns, that is, not the idiots — although if there were a way… but I digress — and I don’t support any kind of blanket ban on guns because that infringes on the responsible and level-headed gun owners as well. However, “competence” you can at least approximate, the same way we do with driving, by “demonstrated the ability to pass a written and practical test.” So I do support a legal competence requirement for gun ownership.
As for bringing back the draft… wasn’t this the same blog that went ballistic a week or two back at the hint that the Obama administration might be considering mandatory community service for high school students?
Ross, I think that there is a differance between drafting citizens for the defense of our nation (one of the rolls of government actually expressed in the constitution , other than the implied responsiblities of the “living document” such as setting corperate salaries) and having some nebulous form of forced community service!
Is there a problem here for American culture? Are images of masculinity tied up with gun-owning and fire power? The American psyche was deeply influenced by the expansion into the West The new frontier offered an image of newness and innocence in which the compromises and effeteness of the East (and Europe) were left behind. Combine this with ready recourse to weaponry and you have a potent national symbol of rugged self-reliance. And, alas, of self-righteousness.
You do know that under the US Code all male citizens between the ages of 18 and 45 are members of the unorganized militia. Not the national guard, as that is a select militia. There are similar provisions in state laws.
21, would you support the same sort of training requirement for voting? After all both are considered fundamental individual rights. And we might presume that voters should know what they are doing.
I do support a training requirement for voting. We call it “compulsory schooling” up to a minimum age which varies from state to state. Public school, private school, or home school, as long as some basic level of history and citizenship is covered — and so far as I know all states impose requirements on what topics must be covered by any school program — then that’s a training program for voting. Among other things.
Voter competency is a real issue.
There seems to be an inverse relationship between knowledge of the Constitution, Bill of Rights, structure of government and the duties of elected officials and those who vote for populist candidates.
The less educated a voter is in the realities of government, the more likely a voter is to cast his vote based upon emotion and/or believing that government is an entity that somehow has a life of its own and will somehow make everything ‘better’ and heal everybody’s ‘boo boos.’
If a person is old enough to vote, they are also old enough to pass a simple test of their knowledge of government.
“Passing a simple test of their knowledge of government” in order to vote sounds good in theory. But unfortunately such tests have often been used to selectively disenfranchise certain portions of the electorate, so I would be very wary of instituting any such requirement now. Teaching civics in school and assuming that the great majority of the electorate managed to pass is good enough for me.
Also, the lament “if only all the voters were as educated as I am in matters of import, they would vote with me” is one I’ve heard repeatedly from both sides of the red/blue divide. It forms a descant to the general theme “O how terrible everything is when the opposition is in charge.”
Reply to Ross (#28.) who said
“…the lament “if only all the voters were as educated as I am in matters of import, they would vote with me†is one I’ve heard repeatedly from both sides of the red/blue divide.”
Come on Ross, that is a personal attack.
I don’t assume that everybody or anybody will agree with me.
‘I am talking about voter ignorance and it is rampant.
I am not talking about partisan self-righteousness.
As could your competance test for firearms ownership. And I suggest voters can do far more damage. On the other hand maybe firearms training in schools is the way to go. After all we don’t want double standards in how we treat fundamental rights, do we.
#30, you have a point. I wouldn’t object to firearms training being part of the standard curriculum.
I think that all of us have missed the point here in that ALL FIREARMS USED IN CRIMES ARE ALREADY ILLEGAL. If you are going to murder someone the choice of legal weapons is not on you’re mind. So how is another law that won’t be evenly enforced going to help??? Other than to further erode our freedoms? Dont tread on me!
#23. Terry Tee,
[blockquote]Is there a problem here for American culture? Are images of masculinity tied up with gun-owning and fire power?[/blockquote]
It goes beyond a sense of masculinity. My childhood heroes included Roy Rodgers, Gene Autry, Hoot Gibson and Hopalong Cassidy (William Boyd). Later, it was John Wayne, Gary Cooper and later yet it was Clint Eastwood. Each of these men carried guns but each also portrayed men with uncompromising values and self sacrifice. Now maybe your heroes didn’t carry guns and that’s OK with me too.
a recent article in FSU’s magazine, “Research in Review” entitled [url=http://www.rinr.fsu.edu/issues/2009winter/cover01_a.asp] In Defense of Self Defense[/url]finds that when law abiding citizens own weapons, the crime rate decreases!
The article was written by [url=http://www.criminology.fsu.edu/p/faculty-gary-kleck.php]Gary Kleck:
[blockquote][Gary] Kleck’s recent research on illegal gun markets has found that organized gun trafficking is largely irrelevant to the arming of America’s criminals, and that high-volume trafficking is virtually nonexistent. Instead, gun theft is central to the channeling of guns into criminal hands. Other recent research has found that higher general gun ownership rates reduce homicide rates, probably because the violence-reducing effects of guns among noncriminal victims and prospective victims outweigh the violence-increasing effects of guns among criminals.[/blockquote]
Deacon Dale – as I went on to say, the problem is not the role gun ownership plays in American culture and self-imagery, but the associated belief that it conveys righteousness. This is ultimately a religious question. One of the characteristics of the United States is a basic understanding that people will stand on their own two feet, and will make their own way in the world. This has given the nation remarkable strength and resilience, compared with other countries hooked on welfare and state social care. However, it is a truism that we have the weaknesses of our strengths. And it seems to me that this sense of self-reliance, when allied to gun ownership, becomes something dangerously self-justifying. Any number of incidents come to mind. The visiting student from Japan who got lost in Dallas and banged too loudly on a door to ask for directions; the homeowner thought it was a break-in and shot the guy dead. No charges were brought. Or Arizona readers may recall a couple of years ago the Chandler police officer who was called to a drive-thru pharmacy because staff noticed a forged prescription. He parked his bike in front of her car, when to the window of the car to talk to her, she put her car into gear nudging his bike over, and he shot her dead. Her infant daughter was next to her in the front seat. A police investigation exonerated the officer. Many of the readers may concur. My fear is that this is becoming a terrible version of might is right.
Dale – a postscript. I wondered at your list of heroes. Yes, some of mine – and some of yours, I would wager – were not ‘strapped’. Would we have felt the same about Mother Teresa if she had a Colt strapped to her waist? Or Dorothy Day if she had made it known that every Catholic Worker house should have a weapon handy?
Terry Tee,
You linked “manhood” with guns and I wanted to explain the masculine aspect as something more than just “packing heat” or as you said being ‘strapped’. I am a part of a male culture that understands guns and gun ownership as part of who we are. I make no apologies for this. I had toy guns as a child. There were lots of morality plays in the neighborhood some good (some not so good like cowboys and Indians). Hunting was a activity for the males in my family. These are moments that my brother, late father and I shared as males. [blockquote]the problem is not the role gun ownership plays in American culture and self-imagery, but the associated belief that it conveys righteousness.[/blockquote] Your statement which seems to be at the heart of what you are expressing confuses me. I don’t believe that I am a more righteous person because I own a gun nor do other gun owners that I know. I appreciate your list of female heroes too but we were talking about the masculine aspect of gun ownership and the developmental aspect of male formation. You are correct to state tragic occurrences of the misapplication of deadly force but certainly there are examples where guns have saved lives also. What I believe you are really getting at is the “macho” aspect (or false maleness) of men that you believe male gun owners display. What I have been talking about are the associated values males like me have acquired developmentally. My late mother and sisters provided the feminine input in my life and were heroic in their own way. I agree with you that self reliance can be a strength and a weakness and this needs to be balanced by the interdependent form of community provided by feminine morality. I don’t need to have a gun to be a man nor do the other men I know that own guns. What I am concerned about in today’s world is a loss of an understanding of what it means to be a man. Men are essentially raised by their mothers and the feminist attitude in play now is as much anti male as it is pro feminist. This misandry has infected our culture and diminished men. Men today are apologetic for being men. There is a self loathing and unwillingness to defend oneself. A good man is hard to find but a necessary part of a family and a society. I have been blessed to know a few who were softened by submission to Christ but all men nonetheless. This is the longest post I have ever offered but it has been an unapologetic but honest attempt to explain who I am and who many in my generation are too.
[blockquote]Deacon Dale – as I went on to say, the problem is not the role gun ownership plays in American culture and self-imagery, but the associated belief that it conveys righteousness. [/blockquote]
I think there’s something to this, but it’s really no different from other liberties recognized by the US Constitution insofar as virtually all of them can be misused to the detriment of others by a small minority. (I’d quarrel with your example of the police officer here, too…was that a problem of the firearm, the woman’s aggressive action or maybe even the power granted to police themselves that was at the root?)
The question then becomes how much prior restraint can be imposed to ward off these misuses without infringing on the right by those who do not abuse it. Given the fact that criminals do not seem to be terribly worried about breaking the law, most prior restraint as regards firearms tends to inconvenience lawful owners of same and not those disposed to misuse them.