By Morgan McFall-Johnsen & Aylin Woodward
Business Insider, August 13, 2019
Most of this article… Well it’s pretty easy to pick apart. For starters when the phrase "According to Science" is used you pretty much know something isn't right. It's kinda like invoking God. So the one thing I agree with is gun violence should be rigorously studied and when something can be done that doesn't unduly infringe on the 2nd Amendment and the rights of law abiding citizens, changes should be made.
That said, suggesting that the President is the voice of reason or fact when it comes to guns is a stretch at best. For example, his comments suggesting a link between video games and gun violence has been studied to death with very little correlation and some of the correlation that does exist even suggesting a decrease in gun violence is actually more likely than an increase.
I will address a few items I thought interesting:
“When people convicted of domestic abuse were barred from buying guns, gun deaths decreased.” So let’s discuss how the Earth is flat. Duh, clearly this isn’t a reason to ban or restrict gun ownership to law abiding, none abusive spouses. It’s a false argument against guns and a good argument for nationwide “red flag” laws. I do have concerns who determines the red flag and what a red flag is but you had me at “convicted” and I’m all in for something along this line.
“By contrast, Switzerland, which has high gun ownership but hasn't seen a mass shooting in 18 years, has strict gun policies including rigorous licensing procedures (including training) and restrictions on who can buy guns.” Again this argument seems out of place. Clearly this is making the case, at least in Switzerland, that gun ownership isn't the problem, people are the problem. It’s the people who don’t go through a rigorous background check, training, etc… that cause problem. It’s pretty much the same in the United States which is why I’m 100% for rigorous background checks to include fingerprints, class room training and live fire before someone can own a
handgun.
Why handguns and not long guns? Because I choose to go after what’s responsible for 90% of all gun deaths. Furthermore, don’t forget that 2/3 of all gun deaths in the US are suicides. It’s possible, but not many people kill themselves with an AR-15 or shotgun.
“There's also a clear link between assault weapons and gun-massacre deaths. After Congress let a 1994 ban on assault weapons expire in 2004, gun massacres increased by 183 percent, and associated deaths went up 239 percent.” Really? Clear link? Yep, I’ve seen this before and I’ve seen just the opposite, had the statistics shown that the “Assault Weapons Ban” was effective the law would have been renewed.
Google how many people are killed in the United States with assault weapons in mass shootings?
Google the number of people hit by lighting in the United States every year.
Google the number of bank robberies that typically happen in Los Angeles per year.
Funny, those numbers are all about the same which shouldn’t shock you if you have studied the issue.
Now Google how many suicides, shootings, deaths and murders are by handguns versus long guns. I would suggest you use the FBI database for your best numbers. Pretty shocking and now you, like me, know when a politician goes on and on about banning assault weapons either they haven’t looked at the numbers or they just don’t give a rip and are doing what they can to get reelected.
“Researchers and policy experts think a new ban on assault weapons could reduce mass-shooting deaths.” Okay that’s a pretty safe assessment but if saving lives is the driving force wouldn’t it make more sense to make our roads safer (40,000 deaths last year) or focus on drug overdoses (60,000+ deaths last year) than assault weapons?
Also, what is the cost of banning assault weapons?
The 2nd Amendment has NOTHING to do with hunting. The 2nd Amendment is second because it’s protecting the 1st which is actually the five things a free society can’t do without. Freedom of: Religion, Speech, Press, Assemble and to Petition our Government for Redress of Grievances.
You once said it was silly to think an armed American population would stand a chance against a modern army. Well, it would seem a few thousand goat herders armed with not much more have kept the world’s two greatest militaries from victory in Afghanistan. Furthermore, it’s not too hard to imaging small arms and semiautomatic rifles being used to storm an armory to obtain more lethal weapons.
“A lack of background checks is also associated with higher rates of gun violence.” No doubt, which is why the background system needs to be overhauled and implemented as Congress intended. Unlike previous Presidents, Trump has actually passed legislation to do just that. I’m all for this and would like to add that if someone prohibited from buying a gun, knowingly attempts to buy a gun they absolutely should be prosecuted and spend a year in jail.
Furthermore, any crime that is committed with a gun should automatically have five years tacked onto their sentence. Use a gun in a crime and you get five years. Not five years plea bargained away but five years minimum added to your sentence.
“Finally, concealed-carry policies are also associated with increased firearm homicide rates.” I happen to agree that universal concealed-carry is not a good idea. I would also like to point out that many cities with horrific gun violence inevitably have the most restrictive gun laws. The argument that our cities have gun issues because neighboring states have slack gun laws doesn’t logically apply to conceal carry. Although stop and frisk sure seems unconstitutional it worked wonders in New York City because bad guys don't care about the law!
Before anyone goes off and suggests new gun laws it’s really important to study areas of the country that have strict very gun laws and high crime. Also, there are a few cases where gun laws were overturned and stats changed for the better suggesting that some laws with good intentions end up making matters worse.
For example in DC, gun ownership was effectively outlawed which resulted in an increase in violent crime and home invasions. When the Supreme Court overturned these gun laws (DC v. Heller) the number of home invasions decreased. If one were to believe the NRA, then guns or the presence of a gun helps prevent over 2,000,000 crimes per year.
I don’t believe this and I don’t believe most of what this article is trying to convey. I’ve researched this issue at nausea. I’ve blogged about it a dozen times with exhaustive research and facts documented with government provided numbers or well researched, peer reviewed studies and I've determined most members of the media and politicians are clueless when it comes to guns.
Considering the number of guns in the United States and the arguments the left makes regarding gun control I’m shocked we don’t have 100 times the number of mass shooting. Clearly, guns themselves aren’t bad, but guns in the hands of people who aren’t trained, have a criminal background, have a desire to randomly kill people, are clinically depressed, are terrorists, are children, etc… can and do have devastating impact albeit nothing compared to the carnage on our roads and drug overdoses.
America is a unique and we are very much still an experiment waiting for a result. Many who live in cites don’t see a reason for anyone to have a gun while those who live deep in the interior of Alaska or Montana can’t imagine a walk in the woods without one.
I didn’t own a handgun for the first forty-three years of my life and I rarely questioned my safety. Then I started to hear politicians seriously talking about banning guns and I thought to myself that maybe one day I might actually need a weapon and not be able to buy one. Not to hunt or defend against the zombie apocalypse mind you but to ban together with fellow Americans in order to protect the Constitution of the United States, specifically the five freedoms of the 1st Amendment.
Yes innocent people die in shootings and that makes me sad but there is no doubt, given enough time, history will repeat and the cost of not being ready could once again cost millions, if not tens of millions of lives.
In the twentieth century over 130,000,000 people died at the hands of governments. Scholars says this will not happen again but maybe the fusion of communism and capitalism is more efficient and leads to a new world order. What them? One common factor over the centuries is freedom is something that has proven costly.
“… The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions, that I wish it to be always kept alive. It will often be exercised when wrong, but better so than not to be exercised at all. I like a little rebellion now and then. It is like a storm in the atmosphere.” Thomas Jefferson on Liberty
