Good Article on Gun Control

[GoneFission]

Myths about assault weapons
By Glenn Garvin, The Miami Herald

An otherwise intelligent friend of mine launched a recent Facebook rant against “weapons that automatically feed bullets and can fire 100 rounds per second. I just don’t get why the Average Joe needs one. Can you explain it to me?” I couldn’t, I admitted. But I could explain that there is no hand-held gun in the world that fires that fast.

Even the machine guns mounted on military helicopters top out around 67 rounds a second, and any Average Civilian Joe caught with one of those would go straight to jail. Automatic weapons – that is, anything that fires a continuous stream of bullets as long as you hold the trigger down – are technically not illegal for civilians in the United States, but they’re so highly regulated that they might as well be.

My friend, who erroneously thinks that America is awash in machine guns that can cut somebody in two with the flick of a finger, is a good example of how the debate over so-called assault weapons perfectly embodies the lament of Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis when he said that “behind every argument is someone’s ignorance.”

The case for banning assault weapons – the definition is cloudy, but essentially they’re rifles that have the stylish accoutrements of military weapons, including collapsible stocks and flash-suppressors, but not the lethal automatic firepower – is being made with arguments that are practically fact-free, by a segment of politicians and chattering-class pundits who believe guns and the people who own them are innately repellent. Over and over again, they say things that simply aren’t true; they don’t bother to check the actual facts because they don’t care about the actual facts.
New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, just to pick a random but highly publicized example, last week theatrically demanded that his legislature “stop the madness” by banning assault weapons. “It’s simple,” Cuomo said. “No one hunts with an assault rifle.”

Leave aside some relevant facts that Cuomo simply ignored: that the rate of violent crime in America is plummeting. That the murder rate is the lowest since the presidency of John F. Kennedy. That the Second Amendment doesn’t condition the right to bear arms on their use in hunting.
Just consider Cuomo’s simple factual claim: No one hunts with an assault weapon. It’s totally, absolutely, ringingly false.

“I’m not sure how many people” hunt with rifles that could be called assault weapons, says Russ Chastain, a hunter who writes a popular Internet outdoors column. But he adds: “While the percentage is low, I believe it has been growing in recent years.”

If the commercial instincts of the gun industry are to be trusted, the growth is fast and significant. The magazine Outdoor Life recently ran a comparative review of 14 hunting rifles that could be considered assault weapons and noted that “virtually every manufacturer is producing these guns.”

The idea that nobody hunts with assault weapons is undoubtedly linked to the myth that they’re like machine guns, emitting bullets in bursts that tear their targets to pieces. In fact, assault weapons are semi-automatic – that is, they fire one bullet each time you pull the trigger, a characteristic they share with practically every other gun in America. And they’re far less likely to tear big game to pieces because they fire smaller-caliber bullets than conventional hunting rifles.
“The small bullets would often cause too little damage to efficiently kill a large game animal,” says Chastain. Mostly assault weapons are used for hunting varmints, smaller animals like coyotes and prairie dogs that damage livestock or property.

Here’s what assault weapons are not used for: killing human beings. Despite the enormous and understandable publicity generated by last month’s massacre of Connecticut schoolchildren, it’s extremely rare for assault weapons to be used in murders. Of the 12,664 people murdered in the United States in 2011, only 323 – less than 3 percent – were killed with rifles of any type, according to the FBI.

That’s why a 2004 Justice Department study on the effectiveness of a federal ban on assault weapons from 1994 to 2003 concluded that the law didn’t have much impact. (Even on school shootings: the Columbine massacre took place in 1997, when the law was in effect.)  “Should it be renewed, the ban’s effects on gun violence are likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement,” the study said, because assault weapons “were rarely used in gun crimes even before the ban.” Unfortunately, that sentence doesn’t get quoted much, because it lacks the poetry of “stop the madness.” It’s just a fact.
 
Glenn Garvin is a columnist for the Miami Herald, 1 Herald Plaza, Miami, Fla  

Read more here: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2013/0 ... rylink=cpy

[John Jones]

Well written.  Thanks CJ.

[SaltH2OHokie]

Makes too much sense to be taken seriously by anyone who fell for the emotional arguments for banning them in the first place.

For example, my dad proclaimed the other day that he didn't see any need in an automatic rifle like the ar-15.  I told him that it wasn't automatic, but semi-automatic.  He retorted that "that's what I meant".  I told him that I found it odd that he suddenly had an issue with semi-automatics since I'd long owned (and he's shot) various semi-auto pistols, rifles and shotguns.  

Long pause followed by him exclaiming: "Well we have to do something, Ryan!" and walking out of the room.

Using facts to dispute emotional arguments is like trying to argue your point with a rock.  (Doesn't stop me from trying...at least with my dad.  Figure we'll still love each other at the end of the day regardless.)

[seabob4]

The unfortunate aspect about this whole thing is that we are almost helpless in trying to keep any type of firearm out of the hands of those who may use it against us.  How does a society determine, how does a family determine, that a person, due to his or her own demon, is right on the tipping point of saying, "Well, F it, my life sucks, so I'm going to make a whole bunch of other people miserable too!"

And if a perp can't get the gun here because they are no longer manufactured...well, a quick trip to Tiajuana could solve that little obstacle.  Or any CL listing...or, chit, just look in the local want ads for gun sales...

Our society, the way we live, 2 income households, no parents at home, video games that glorify INCREDIBLE violence against humans...ya wonder where they get this chit?

It won't end with Newtown, CN, which is an unfortunate thing.  But there is not a damn thing I can do about it, so I don't worry myself with it.  

One of the most interesting commercials I saw over the Christmas season was the one with the 2 kids reading a script over the vent right above the living room hoping their parents would hear them.  Ipads I think it was.  But there's the parents blowing up chit playing vid games on the very ipads they were going to give to the kids...

Now WTF is wrong with THAT picture???

[John Jones]

I am blessed.  After watching the news the last few weeks about the stores being completely out of guns, ammo, and magazines, both my wife and my 84 year old mom asked if I had enough guns and ammo.

[Capt. Bob]

Our society, the way we live, 2 income households, no parents at home, video games that glorify INCREDIBLE violence against humans...ya wonder where they get this chit?

Bob,
I don't by into that because...

I was a latchkey child and everyone I knew was also. No we didn't have video games then, we had (as a parent once described) "shoot um up" cowboy shows every Saturday, western movies with plenty of powder being spent and for 20 plus years a killing a week on Gunsmoke. Chuck Conners had the closest thing to a semi auto and a Fanner Fifty (I had two) was all the rage. With everyone's father having fought (and many still serving like my dad) we played "Army" religiously. We didn't fantasy shoot cartoons but rather each other. What's worse?

I'm not convinced that video games are the ultimate cause of violence. Many stable adults also play them. Kinda like saying porn is the cause of sex. I view a lot of porn but have a lot less sex these days.

[gran398]

I'm howlin' my ass off over that last line Bob....      

[seabob4]

CB,
Agree with you there in regards to the "cause", although it certainly doesn't help.  And obviously latch key kids have been around for quite some time...

So, the question begs to be asked...why didn't this type of chit happen 30 years ago?  Or 20?  Or 15?


Inbreeding?

[pete]

CB,
I was thinking that same thing,as a kid we played "army" all the time,at least we were outside getting some fresh air at the same  time.I don't know what's wrong with people,but there have always been nuts out there doing stupid crap.I have no answers,just alot of questions like everyone else,as long as people are aware there is a problem then maybe we can find a solution.

[Capt. Bob]

CB,
Inbreeding?

Sadly,
I was a cousin-less only child.  :cry:

[gran398]

The difference between then and now is the way in which violence is presented. Yes, John Wayne shot outlaws. Clint did too. But if you'll remember, it was always a battle of good versus evil. Same with James Bond. And kids playing army...us against the Germans, commies, etc.

Nowadays...its shoot 'em up, blow 'em up, rip 'em up, the more exploding gore the better. You can't turn on ANY show without a gun or twelve in someone's hand. And the right versus wrong thing...its blurry to non-existent. Violence is glorified, it is unfortunately mainstream...and if you think about it...no longer shocking. It's sick.

If the government was doing its job they'd censor this crap...but their campaign chests are filled by donations from the entertainment industry, networks, toy and game makers, etc. etc. Not a snowball's chance in hell. Politics wins every time. What a sad state of affairs.

[seabob4]

OMG Scotty, you said the BAD word...censor.  Not what we do here in the good old USA.  That's what "communist" countries do...

We let "the free market" dictate those types of things...    

[gran398]

They "control" nudity...tobacco use...alcohol...drugs...prostitution...etc., etc...

They should do a better job with visual carnage.

[seabob4]

Oh, the debates that could spring from this...

As I stated in an earlier post about the parents playing the same games as the kids (it doesn't show it, but you know they are), if the "industry" said this game can't be sold to anyone under 18 (wait, they already do that, don't they), yet you have parents that think nothings wrong with it...

I'm in the store, I see a pregnant chick that has like 42 holes through her lips, eyebrows, tongue, ears.  She gives birth, and now some little one is going to be looking up from his/her crib, thinking this is "normal"...


Scary....

[MarshMarlowe196]

As logical as it seems to blame violent video games and media for the recent school shootings and youth violence, the research shows that there really isn't a connection to youth violence due to inconsistentcy in the results.  Like the article CJ posted states, there's actually been a decline in overall youth violence over the past 20+ years, while the violence portrayed in video games and media has been on the rise.  The research has shown that, like most other psychological disorders in youths and adults alike, the influence has almost always been early family life, depression, and peer pressures.  We live in a time when the natural social interaction we enjoyed growing up is slowly but surely being replaced by social media like Facebook, Twitter, Smartphones, etc.  While everyone is plugged in and online, the ironic result is that youths are getting more and more lonely and aren't being socialized in healthy, natural human interactions like in the not so distant past... So they act out, and sometimes with tragic results.

As far as gun control goes, I'm actually in favor of the new regulations proposed by Obama, though I'm on the fence with the AR's.  The opponents of gun control say that no amount of regulation will prevent gun violence, and I agree with that, but I do think that these new regulations may prevent future tragedies and had they been in place already, may have prevented a few in the past.  It's hard to make this conclusion with the recent elementary school shooting because the new gun regulations would not have prevented this particular tragedy, nor would it have prevented the Amish school shooting, or Columbine.  BUT - the new regulations may have prevented the Virginia Tech Massacre.  In this case, the shooter had a history of mental health disorders, wasn't a gang member, and most likely didn't have easy access to guns being sold on a "black market".  This perp simply went down to the gun store and easily purchased the guns he used to kill 20 people.  I believe this instance could have been prevented, and if we can prevent even one tragedy like this with some simple regulations, then I'm all for it.  With the exception of the regulations proposed on AR's, I believe these new proposals would still give liberty to responsible gun owners who can prove they are responsible.  I may be speaking from a perspective that isn't shared by other gun owners, but I personally don't have much of a use for guns.  I went hunting with my late Grandfather 15 years ago and it's haunted me ever since.  Hell, I still feel guilty when I gut-hook a fish.  But, I do own guns that were passed down to me from my Grandfather before his death, and I'll be damned if anyone's going to take them from me, so I still sympathize with the opponents.  The opponents believe this is the start to regulations that will eventually be tightened to the point that guns will be taken away from the citizens altogether, and I can understand that apprehension.  But, I do think we should give it a chance.  80% of America are gun owners, and if the government ever did try to take away guns from everyone, the result would be viva la revolucion!  Even the idiots in congress and the White House would know better.