Posts Tagged With: magazines
This 15-year-old girl bats down nearly every strawman gun control argument in about three minutes. SHARE this with liberals who think they can debate straightfoward logic and statistics with a teenager.
Even in its heyday, the statistic wasn’t the kind you could count on.
A finding that 30 percent to 40 percent of guns changed hands outside the background-check system was, at best, a rough guide post in the murky gun-ownership universe.
At least it was fresh.
Now it’s old and surely very tired. But President Barack Obama, some Democratic lawmakers, a coalition of mayors and others arguing for expanded background checks won’t let that statistic rest in peace.
To hear them talk, you’d think it was born yesterday, rather than 20 years ago.
OBAMA, on Jan. 16: “It’s time for Congress to require a universal background check for anyone trying to buy a gun. The law already requires licensed gun dealers to run background checks…. But it’s hard to enforce that law when as many as 40 percent of all gun purchases are conducted without a background check.”
MAYORS AGAINST ILLEGAL GUNS, a coalition favoring tighter gun controls, on Tuesday: “Around 40 percent of U.S. gun transfers are conducted by unlicensed ‘private sellers’ who are not required to conduct a federal check, and who often do business at gun shows and on the Internet.”
NEW YORK MAYOR MICHAEL BLOOMBERG, Dec. 17: “Congress should pass the Fix Gun Checks Act, which would close the ‘private sale loophole’ that allows more than 40 percent of gun sales to go through without a background check.”
REP. DAVID CICILLINE, D-R.I., Jan. 26: “More than 40 percent of sales nationally are made without background checks.”
VICE PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN, Jan. 17: “Because of the lack of the ability of federal agencies to be able to even keep records, we can’t say with absolute certainty what I’m about to say is correct. But the consensus is about 40 percent of the people who buy guns today do so outside the … background check system.”
Biden stands alone here in acknowledging he may be saying something that isn’t right.
A 1996 law pushed by the gun-rights lobby closed the spigot on federal gun research, leaving scholars, private groups and states to pick up some pieces. Only now, under a recent order by Obama, can federally financed research resume.
So it’s no wonder policymakers are grasping at shreds of moldy data. But they’re not owning up to the true vintage of their information or the shortcomings that made it questionable at the time.
The claims that gun sales made without background checks comprise “more than,” ”as many as,” ”nearly” or “about” 40 percent of all gun sales are rooted in a poll looking broadly at gun ownership in America. Sponsored by the Justice Department through a grant to the Police Foundation, the poll’s principal relevance today is as a snapshot of the way things were when it was taken, namely 1994.
The research reported on the nature of gun acquisitions made in 1993 and 1994, asking people who had obtained guns then where the guns had come from and whether they thought the source was a federally licensed dealer. Transactions through licensed dealers were considered covered by the background check system, which was just then coming into effect.
Although the survey interviewed more than 2,500 Americans, just 251 had acquired guns during that time frame, a small sampling from which to make a general conclusion.
In all, 64 percent of those respondents reported acquiring a gun from a source they thought to be a licensed dealer, suggesting that 36 percent of gun acquisitions were in the secondary and unregulated market.
But the study’s researchers found considerable ambiguity and some apparent contradictions in the responses. The poll relied, in part, on people’s best guess about whether a seller was licensed.
With a clear picture eluding them, the researchers estimated 30 percent to 40 percent of the acquisitions were off the books and would not have been subjected to a background check.
Only 4 percent of gun sales were thought to have come through gun shows or flea markets. That’s just a corner of the market, but a main concern today for those who want to expand background checks to close the “gun-show loophole,” as Obama’s proposals would do.
More than 17 percent of guns acquired in 1993 and 1994 came from a family member, according to the poll. This source of weapons would remain largely unregulated in pending Senate legislation calling for expanded checks.
Discounting family acquisitions, the percentage of gun transactions eluding background checks would be considerably less.
In contending that 40 percent of gun transfers are conducted by private sellers, often “at gun shows and on the Internet,” the mayors stretched a thin claim even thinner in their statement Tuesday.
They cited the same old study as everyone else, one done well before the spread of online commerce. The study considered purchases by mail order, 3 percent of reported gun acquisitions, but makes no mention of online transactions.
The almost 500-year-old firearms manufacturer, Beretta, is considering leaving the state of Maryland because of unfriendly gun laws that advanced in the Maryland General Assembly last week.
According to the Washington Post, Beretta has invested more than $1 million in the production of a civilian version of a machine gun designed for special operations forces and has already made plans to expand its plant in Maryland to ramp up production. But with the new gun laws making their way through the legislative process, the expansion is in jeopardy.
But under an assault-weapons ban that advanced late last week in the Maryland General Assembly, experts say the gun would be illegal in the state where it is produced.
Now Beretta is weighing whether the rifle line, and perhaps the company itself, should stay in a place increasingly hostile toward its products. Its iconic 9mm pistol — carried by every U.S. soldier and scores of police departments — would also be banned with its high capacity, 13-bullet magazine.
“Why expand in a place where the people who built the gun couldn’t buy it?” said Jeffrey Reh, general counsel for Beretta.
The Maryland legislation would ban assault rifles, magazines with more than 10 bullets, and any new guns with two or more “military-like” features. The new rifle, a semiautomatic ARX-160, would almost certainly be banned.
Senate President Thomas V. Mike Miller Jr. (D – Calvert) said, “I’m concerned. I think they’re going to move. They sell guns across the world and in every state in the union – to places a lot more friendly to the company than this state.”
This isn’t the first time Beretta has threatened and carried out a move; When Maryland upped gun restrictions in the 1990’s Beretta moved its warehouse operation to Virginia. “I think they thought we were bluffing,” Reh said. “But Berettas don’t bluff.”
One side note to consider: Seeing as how well Chicago has fared with its strict gun control laws, is this gun control legislation a little bit of grandstanding by Democratic Governor Martin O’Malley? His name has been floated around as a possible presidential nominee in 2016, so this gun control legislation could stamp his name on an explicitly liberal agenda. However, it looks like that agenda could come with an economic price – I can’t imagine he wants to push out all of those jobs. Welcome to the free market, Mr. O’Malley.
The “Oklahoma 2nd Amendment Preservation Act” is now working its way through the Oklahoma legislature.
Introduced by state senator Nathan Dahm, this legislation puts Oklahoma shoulder-to-shoulder with Wyoming and Texas by putting federal gun-grabbers in check.
The language of the legislation is clear: “Federal acts, laws, orders, rules, regulations, bans or registration requirements regarding firearms constitute an infringement on the individual right [to keep and bear arms] in the Constitution of the United States…and are hereby declared to be invalid in the State of Oklahoma.”
The legislation mentions the “intent” of America’s “Founders” and the Constitution’s “ratifiers,” and sets forth the punishment for trying to enforce new gun control measures:
Any official, agent, or employee of the United States government or any employee of a corporation providing services to the United States government that enforces or attempts to enforce an act, order, law, statute, rule or regulation of the government of the United States in violation of this act shall be guilty of a felony and upon conviction…shall be punished by imprisonment in the custody of the Department of Corrections not to exceed five (5) years.
After reading this legislation, only one word comes to mind–FREEDOM.
Illinois Senate Democrats advanced legislation late Wednesday to restrict semiautomatic weapons and high-capacity magazines, pressing forward with new gun control measures in the waning days of the session over the objections of firearms groups.
Amid the developments, the Illinois State Rifle Association issued an “urgent alert” to its members warning them that Democratic legislators were trying to push through last-minute anti-gun legislation.
“There would be no exemptions and no grandfathering,” the group stated in its alert. “You would have a very short window to turn in your guns to the state police and avoid prosecution.”
One measure would ban the possession, delivery, sale and transfer of semiautomatic handguns and rifles. People who currently own such weapons could keep them but would have to register them. The bill would allow semiautomatic weapons to be used at shooting ranges, but those facilities would be regulated.
National Rifle Association lobbyist Todd Vandermyde told lawmakers the bill would restrict about 75 percent of handguns and 50 percent of long guns in circulation today. He also said it would treat law-abiding gun owners like criminals, and is in conflict with Second Amendment rights upheld by the courts.
“I’ve never seen a piece of legislation that tramples on so many court decisions,” Vandermyde said.
The other bill, introduced by Democratic state Sen. Dan Kotowski, would limit ammunition magazines to 10 or fewer rounds.
Those pushing for enhanced restrictions say stricter rules are needed in the wake of a string of high-profile mass shootings — most recently the deadly school shooting in Newtown, Conn. Democratic Gov. Pat Quinn had been trying earlier this year to pass new legislation in the wake of the Colorado movie theater shooting, but lawmakers are taking another crack at it.
Kotowski sponsored legislation in 2007 that would have prohibited assault weapons and .50-caliber rifles. His bill made it through a Senate committee but died on the floor.
Another Democratic state lawmaker, Antonio Munoz, introduced the ban on all assault weapons “designed for war.”
Quinn has repeatedly tried to get stricter laws on the books but has fallen short.
The state Senate got back to work Wednesday. The House plans to return Monday. Both legislative bodies are working against a Jan. 9 deadline — when the state’s new General Assembly will be sworn-in.
Gun manufactures in Illinois have already threatened to leave the area if laws limiting guns are put in place. ArmaLite owner Mark Westrom told FoxNews.com that he’s been fielding offers from at least two others states to move his operation if gun control laws in Illinois are pushed through.
In the wake of the Newtown horror, a call has gone up for a conversation about our gun laws. To that end, here are questions for advocates of gun control pushing for a ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, among other new restrictions, to address school shootings.
What’s the functional difference between an assault weapon and a semiautomatic rifle? You do understand that the answer is “nothing”? An assault weapon is not an automatic weapon. It is semiautomatic like most guns now sold in the United States, i.e., it fires every time the trigger is pulled. What sets it apart is its scary-looking features.
What’s more powerful, the Bushmaster .223 used by Adam Lanza in his slaughter or the average deer-hunting rifle? If the answer is the average deer-hunting rifle — indeed, many states ban the Bushmaster .223 for deer hunting because it is too weak — will you attempt to ban them, too?
What gun law would have stopped Newtown? Please be specific. Adam Lanza’s mother didn’t have a criminal record. Neither did he. If the Bushmaster .223 had been banned, he could have done the same with a semiautomatic rifle.
If all semiautomatic rifles were banned — something that would never pass Congress — he could have done the same with a semiautomatic handgun. If high-capacity magazines had been banned, he could have reloaded with smaller magazines.
How many guns are in the United States? The answer is 280 million. In a country with that many guns, how is gun control possibly going to succeed? If you ban a small subset of new guns for sale, what are you going to do about the rest?
Let’s say you succeed beyond anything that is remotely possible. Let’s say you somehow stop the new sale of guns altogether and somehow decommission half of existing guns. What are you going to do with the other 140 million guns?
Does the Virginia Tech massacre affect your view of the efficacy of an assault-weapons ban? In 2007, Seung-Hui Cho perpetrated the deadliest shooting in the country’s history. He killed 32 people using two semiautomatic handguns.
Why has violent crime declined in the United States during the past 20 years even as gun ownership has ticked up? According to Gallup, nearly half of adults have a gun on their property, the highest number since 1993. Why has crime declined even as gun-control laws have been liberalized?
The assault-weapons ban passed in 1994 and was in effect for 10 years. The paradigmatic school shooting took place at Columbine High School in 1999. Why didn’t the assault-weapons ban prevent it?
There have been hundreds of murders with guns this year in Chicago, where gun laws are restrictive. What new gun laws does the city need to stop the tide of mayhem? There have been hundreds more in New York City, where the mayor is the foremost anti-gun scold in the country. What new gun laws does New York need?
Why aren’t violent crimes routinely committed at gun ranges teeming with people who own multiple weapons, some of them quite dangerous-looking, and who enjoy shooting them?
Why do gun-free school laws never succeed in stopping lunatics bent on murder from taking guns to schools?
NRA President Wayne LaPierre proposed posting armed police officers at schools in his widely derided press conference the other day. Would you feel at least a little bit better if an armed officer were guarding your child’s school? Please be honest.
In places where guns are the tightest, why do so many people own guns anyway? In your zeal against guns, do you favor stop-and-frisk policies to catch people carrying illegal guns in those major urban areas?
In your view, should a public policy have a discernible connection to its stated goal to make it worth pursuing? Or is it enough that it be well-intentioned and opposed by the NRA? Actually, there’s no need to answer that. It’s obvious enough already.
Rich Lowry is the editor of National Review. He has written for The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, Los Angeles Times, and a variety of other publications
Supporters and opponents alike of gun control will point to this fact in the coming days: Connecticut already has some of the toughest restrictions on gun laws in the United States.
“In general, the laws here are pretty strict, and they’re working,” said Bob Crook, executive director of the Coalition of Connecticut Sportsmen. “But I don’t know of any law that would prevent someone like at Columbine or at Aurora or here in Connecticut from committing these offenses which are clearly psychologically based.”
In 2011, Connecticut was rated the fifth toughest by the pro-gun control Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence on a scorecard which gave points for each restriction the group favors.
To buy a gun, Connecticut law requires residents apply for a local permit, typically with the town’s police chief, have their fingerprints taken and submit to a state and federal background check with a 14-day waiting period. To buy a handgun, residents also are required to take a gun safety course.The state is also one of seven to have an assault weapons ban that specifically lists more than 35 semiautomatic and automatic weapons.
“We have some of the strongest gun laws in the country, but guns don’t respect boundaries any more than criminals do,”