In the National Rifle Association's carefully constructed parallel universe, the governing narrative is that "good people with guns" prevent harm from "bad people with guns," unless misguided gun control laws disarm the "good people". It is revealing to watch the NRA twist itself into contortions trying to fit the Tucson mass shooting into this narrative when everything about the shooting contradicts it.
NRA leader Wayne LaPierre put his parallel universe on full display last week in his address to the annual Conservative Political Action Committee meeting. According to LaPierre, the killing of six and the wounding of thirteen in Tucson on January 8 proves that "government failed" and gun laws don't make us safer. Why? Because, he asserted, the shooting occurred in a government-mandated "gun-free school zone," where presumably the shooter did not have to fear that a law-abiding citizen might confront him with a gun.
LaPierre was referring to the federal law barring possession of a gun within 1,000 feet of a school, a law that the NRA adamantly opposed. He said the sidewalk in front of the Safeway in Tucson where the shooter struck was within 1,000 feet of a school located across the street. Even if this were true (and there appears to be a charter school nearby), LaPierre was wrong that gun carrying on that Safeway sidewalk in Tucson was illegal. The NRA appears to be unaware that the federal gun-free school zones law does not apply "on private property not part of school grounds," like Safeway's sidewalk and parking lot. It also does not apply to individuals lawfully licensed to carry guns, of which there are many in Arizona, due to the State's ridiculously permissive laws.
In other words, the Tucson shooter had every reason to expect that Arizonans carrying concealed weapons might be present at the site of his attack. Yet he attacked anyway. In fact, even if the Safeway sidewalk were a "gun-free zone," LaPierre's argument fixing blame on the gun-free school zones law assumes that Loughner chose to attack Rep. Giffords and her constituents at that location because he knew it was "gun-free". Is it really plausible to believe that Jared Loughner knew about the federal law, knew about a nearby school, believed that the Safeway was within a "gun-free zone," and therefore assumed that he would not be challenged by a law-abiding Arizonan with a gun?
LaPierre is forced to embrace such an absurdity to direct attention away from the plain (but highly inconvenient) truth about Tucson: the shooting happened in a state that makes it easy to carry concealed weapons, in a place where the shooter had every reason to expect to be confronted by law-abiding citizens with guns. Yet Loughner was neither deterred by that prospect, nor prevented by other armed citizens from exacting his horrific toll.
In his CPAC speech, LaPierre boldly declared, to loud cheers, that "the best way to stop a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun." LaPierre failed to mention that there actually was a "good guy with a gun" in front of that Safeway. His name was Joseph Zamudio. His gun had nothing do with stopping Loughner from continuing his carnage.
Zamudio has said that he got to the shooter only after someone else had grabbed the gun from Loughner's hands. Zamudio added that he was prepared to "shoot the person with the gun," and initially thought the hero who had the gun was, in fact, the shooter. Thankfully, Zamudio showed sufficient caution that he did not shoot an innocent person. But it is clear that his gun did no one any good that day and came dangerously close to adding to the carnage.
LaPierre also neglected to mention to the adoring CPAC crowd that under the nearly non-existent gun laws of Arizona -- the NRA's version of nirvana -- Jared Loughner himself was "a good guy with a gun," at least until the instant he pulled the trigger. Loughner had passed a background check and was a legal concealed weapon carrier as he approached his targets. Thanks to the NRA, Arizona's laws are so weak that even if the Tucson police had known of the dangerous behavior that led to his dismissal from the local community college, they would have been powerless to take his gun away until he actually fired.
LaPierre ridiculed the idea that "another law or two" could save lives. "If we could legislate evil out of people's hearts," he said, "we would have done it long ago." Decades ago, opponents of civil rights legislation made a similar argument, asserting that "you can't legislate away hatred." The argument was always a red herring; civil rights laws were not passed to eliminate hatred, but rather to protect people from the discriminatory effects of hatred. Similarly, gun laws are not passed to eliminate evil, but rather to protect innocent people from the death and injury caused when those with evil intentions have easy access to lethal weaponry.
It was not a gun law that contributed to death and injury in Tucson, but rather the expiration of one. For ten years, we had in place a federal law limiting the capacity of ammunition magazines for semi-autos to 10 rounds, but that law inexcusably was allowed to expire in 2004 as part of the federal assault weapon ban. The Tucson shooter used a Glock pistol with a 33-round magazine, and he was able to fire over 30 rounds in about 16 seconds. Only when he paused to reload was he subdued by several unarmed citizens. There is no serious doubt that had Loughner been forced to reload after only 10 rounds, he would have been subdued sooner, with lives saved and serious injuries avoided. Wayne LaPierre has no response, except to label as "clowns" those who would dare make military-capacity magazines no longer available to the civilian market.
LaPierre and the rest of the gun lobby bosses will persist in bending reality in service to their parallel universe. The real world was in front of that Safeway in Tucson, where free access to guns did not save lives, but took them.
For more information, see Dennis Henigan's Lethal Logic: Exploding the Myths that Paralyze American Gun Policy (Potomac Books 2009)
Since most violent criminals are repeat offenders, how about long prison sentences, instead of releasing them them early while whining about 'prison overcrowding'. Take them off the streets.
What were you hoping to hear "ban all guns"?
BS!!! I have addressed the question. Others have echoed MajorTom's response below. Folks like "Legaleagle" and "OdensEye" have also addressed the issue in great specificity. You simply choose to ignore the answers!
On the flip side, you have acidulously avoided giving a direct answer to the direct question I posed to you some time ago: “Well, Scorpio, since you’re so well-versed on what other people need, suppose you tell me what ‘tool’ my wife needs as she tries to protect our grandchildren from the two thugs, one armed with a ball bat and the other with a large fixed-blade knife, advancing down the hall of our home toward her and the grandbabies in our bedroom.
Perhaps you can further enlighten me as to what tool I might need to defend my home & my family from the looting thugs coming out on the evening of the fourth day without power, stranded by flood waters and washed out roads in the aftermath of a category 3 hurricane, knowing that I cannot rely on an already weary and overburdened police force?”
We eagerly await your DIRECT answer!
Old SF MJT
Both sides go to the extreme and say the other side is wrong...
What each side says is common sense always has major holes...
Then you top it off with a slanted article with incorrect statements...
And in the end, no one who reads these comments will suddenly have a Eureka moment and change their view point...
It is like watching my children argue over the front seat in the car...
Both sides swing so far to either side that they both sound unreasonable and the puppet masters in the background know that the answer will land with some form of compromise.
I love going to the range and there are some features & accessories that are "cool". But I don't see any need for a magazine that sticks out 10 inches from the bottom of the pistol. I also don't know why 10 rounds is a magical number that becomes "high capacity". I could love to see a "manufactures design standard" capacity limitation. But then you have to worry about manufacturers making the "standard" a ridiculous number.
I am also for a background check that actually works and classifies dangerous people as such, but then you have to worry about anti-gun doctors saying "liking/owning a gun is a sign of an unstable person", as seen by recent bills that restrict doctors from asking patients about firearms.
In the end, it is all a game and any law that is intended to help will also have some unintended outcomes. Then come the court cases from the pro-gun side that will most likely win, but ultimately cost the taxpayers.
To your question, yes gun owners want restrictions and have ideas, but they need assurance that it won't be abused and eventually reversed at taxpayers cost.
In order to end gun violence, why don't we ban guns in dangerous places, like Washington DC and Chicago?
Firearms last longer than Drugs. With a Drug once you use it..it is gone. Not so with firearms.
Firearms can be used over and over and remain perfectly functional for hundreds of years.
I have firearms made in 1873 that shoot just fine.
There are literally over 200 MILLION firearms in Private Possession in the United States. Any sort of "Ban" on Firearms is NOT going to make them go away.
And Any Firearms Prohibition is absolutely DOOMED to fail.Because of the Market Need by Criminals to own and use firearms to commit crimes and the willingness of Criminals to supply other criminals with firearms or anything else as long as there is a sizable profit involved.
The Author and other Gun Banners fail to understand this. They fail to understand the Economics involved.
The only thing that will stop a criminal from comitting a crime is an immediate threat to their own survival (unless the criminal decides to over ride their survival instinct).
So logically the best way to stop a criminal is to shoot them dead or having visibly armed people in which the threat of being shot acts as a DETERRENT.
But this is just too logical. And so people such as the Author will never understand it, because they are incapable of reasoning without basing their opinions on emotion
Most of those guns are not carried for protection in public at all.
"criminals commit the vast majority of their crimes without fear of such gun carriers"
And how do you know this?
"There is little evidence of "deterrence"."
You offer no evidence against deterrence.
Some is better than none.
Owned is correct, carry is incorrect.
echomac wrote: "Despite this, criminals commit the vast majority of their crimes without fear of such gun carriers,"
Oh really? Do you have any evidence of this claim? For instance, if criminals had no fear of armed resistance, clearly Fort Knox would be the target of criminal activity on a daily basis.
echomac wrote: "There is little evidence of "deterrence". "
Incorrect. The evidence is clear that gun ownership rates substantially deter what I will call "hot burglaries". Hot burglaries are also termed "home invasions" and refer to burglaries which occurs at a persons home while it is occupied by persons lawfully allowed to be there. In comparing crime surveys from Britain and the Netherlands (countries having low levels of gun ownership) with the U.S. you can quickly determine that Britain and the Netherlands have a "hot" burglary rate near 45% versus just under 13% for the U.S.
This is quite significant. All things being equal, a hot burglary is more lucrative than one involving an unoccupied home because of the prescence of purses, wallets and items of personal jewelry. In Britain, the criminal specifically targets the premises of older victims because they know there will be no credible resistance. In the US, the criminal seems to specifically avoid occupied premises, seeking to perform their criminal act when the premises are unoccupied.
Tell you what Scorpio, there are more good guy real life situations out there than you are aware of. I carry most places I go now - I would not hesitate to step in during an active shooter situation or stop a crime. I might even save your life someday. You don't have to thank me though, I will do it out of the goodness of my heart.
To whit; Criminals do NOT obey the law. This makes perfect sense, which is why they are Criminals.
The Author also ignores the fact that EVEN if the Tucson Shooter was legally "banned" from owning a firearm (and he wasn't under the law) he still could have obtained firearms illegally. Just like he could have obtained illegal drugs such as Heroin or LSD or PCP. (take your pick)
Why? because if there is a Market Need for an item...Banning the Item will NOT make the Market Need go away...it will only drive up the price and thus the profits. And Organized Crime will move in to supply the Market with the "Banned" item. Thus insuring more violence ensues (over illicit and tax free profits) This is why Prohibition failed. This is why the "War on Durgs" if a Failure.
Banning an Item does NOT work, it creates more violence. Look at Mexico: Drugs are Banned, Firearm Possession if all but Banned except for the Govnerment. Yet there is NO Shortage of Violence. In fact the Violence is INCREASING south of the border.
"The congress of the United States possesses no power to regulate, or interfere with the domestic concerns, or police of any state: it belongs not to them to establish any rules respecting the rights of property; nor will the constitution permit any prohibition of arms to the people;..." St. George Tucker from the appendix of Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England (1803)
Notice the last line of the quote, where it says, "nor will the constitution permit any prohibition of arms to the people"
So, I guess your insistence that the 2A is for a militia only is mistaken.
You claim "...a gun law...we had in place a federal law limiting the capacity of ammunition magazines for semi-autos to 10 rounds..." Are you implying that during that 10 years of the AWB, that magazines over 10 rounds were illegal? Banned from sale? Banned from possession?
This is not something upon which reasonable persons could differ: the Act says what it says. Still, the gun-grabbers keep repeating the some old, bald-faced lies Now what was forbidden was dealing in hi-capacity mags made while the law was in effect, and it was illegal to put a pre-ban, high-capacity magazine in a post-ban gun, as if that would have made a difference to anyone prepared to do murder..
The grabbers lie all the time. It's what they do.
I don't understand why Americans think the constitution was shot out of heaven and a divine, timeless document especially when it comes to guns. Guns in the 1700's didn't pack the punch they do now. Having a gun with a 33 capacity magazine would be equivalent in the 1700's of having a 33 person militia (more if you consider the accuracy of muskets) follow you around everywhere dispensing your view of justice.
From the FCC's website - http://www.fcc.gov/aboutus.html
"The FCC was established by the Communications Act of 1934 and is charged with regulating interstate and international communications by radio, television, wire, satellite and cable."
So, you're wrong. The constitution has been updated in respect to communication. I personally believe it should be modified to prevent most people from owning guns. Humans are crazy hormone and emotionally driven beings and not all of them should own a gun.
Chris Rock on "bullet control":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OuX-nFmL0II
We should actually count ourselves lucky that he didn't know any better.
According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics less than .05% of homicides involve more than five victims. There are no statistics available for homicides involving more than ten victims but it is safe to assume that this number is extremely small.
Ten is the number usually cited by gun control advocates as the maximum amount of rounds a magazine should be legally allowed to hold. So it is easy to see how a ban on magazines with more than ten rounds could only possibly effect a number of homicides much, much smaller than .05%.
Even if you could wave a magic wand and make all magazines with more than ten rounds disappear immediately, it would have absolutely no effect whatsoever on violent crime. Not a single life would be saved nor a single tragedy be averted.