Why Proposed New Gun Legislation Will Not Stop Mass Shootings

In the aftermath of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, President Obama, as well as others, seemed to indicate that all facets of this shooting would be looked at to find a solution to school violence. What seems to have happened since that time, however, is that most reasonable items have been overlooked in favor of focusing on the guns. For those who have been calling for outright gun bans for years on end it seems that guns are always an easy target--at the expense of actual solutions.

Trying to find a quick-fix for incidents like the Connecticut school shooting is being short-sighted. One would hope that the shooting in Connecticut has shown that school shootings, and gun violence in general, is a complex issue requiring more than just one simple solution.

As is typical of the Newtown shooting, however, many are now making what they claim will be a quick-fix, based on what happened in that one incident. Some of the proposed solutions to this type of violence, focusing primarily on the guns, have been:

Banning or limiting assault weapons
The first thing targeted after the unfortunate incident in Connecticut is known to the general public as the AR-style assault weapon / rifle.

Even “experts” I’ve heard on recent talk shows seem to have no idea about this type of “assault weapon”. Unfounded claims are often made by these uninformed “experts” that the Assault Weapons Ban was an effective measure in reducing crime.

Fortunately on one of the shows with an uninformed “expert”, there was another guest—a police chief from a department in Wisconsin. The cheif corrected the uninformed guest by pointing out that the initial Assault Weapons Ban that ran from 1994 to 2004 made no difference in the crime rate. It also produced no reduction in violent crime, and it didn’t affect crimes with that type of weapon.

Those who try to make the argument that a certain type of crime was reduced during and after the 1994 ban like to cling to, and continue to report, a 6.7% reduction in crime. As seen in my last article, even the U.S. Department of Justice will not commit to saying the Assault Weapons ban had any effect.

It appears that another reason the ban may have not had the intended impact on gun crime is that the Assault Weapons Ban only banned weapons largely on the way they look, and not their power or level of danger. The assault weapons ban of 1994 only eliminated guns based on things such as folding sights, collapsible stocks, having a rail to install a flashlight, and other cosmetics. The new anti-gun legislation being proposed by Senator Diane Feinstein will ban a gun for simply having a folding front site. This has hardly anything to do with the actual functionality of the gun, especially when Senator Feinstein doesn't even think you are supposed to use a site because as she so "knowingly" states, "you shoot these guns from the hip", anyway.

Assault weapons are actually on the low to low-mid range of all rifles in terms of actual power or deadliness. The idea behind the ban was that it would be easy to get the uninformed public behind such a ban because the guns simply looked scary. One NPR guest I heard even made the statement, “I get scared just looking at these things.” That’s the idea behind the ban—to vilify a gun based solely on the fact that it “looks scary.”

For those who cling to that old ban, the reality is that we tried it their way, and their way doesn’t work. The Columbine school shooting took place during that ban. I think those with good common sense know that if we try an experiment and it doesn’t work it’s time to look at a different solution.

So if banning assault weapons has no effect on violent crime in this country, what is the next step?

Banning eleven-round magazines
The current proposed gun control legislation defines a "high capacity" magazine as any magazine containing more than 10 rounds of ammunition. So, 11 rounds of ammunition falls in the same category as 100 rounds according to the words in Senator Diane Feinstein's current proposal. Therefore the banning of “high-capacity” magazines eliminates many magazines that are supplied as standard equipment for a larger percentage of handguns in use today.

The general public is typically uninformed as to what a “high capacity” magazine really is, and the number of rounds of ammunition in a high capacity magazine. 100 rounds would surely qualify as high capacity. Who in their right mind could say it does not? The anti-gun lobby always likes to reference the highest end of “high capacity” influencing the populace to believe “high capacity” is somewhere around 100 rounds.

Why anyone would need more than 10 rounds of ammunition? Let’s start by looking at real-world examples of how many rounds one might need in an actual critical dynamic incident.

The police are generally highly trained shooters. At least they are trained more than the average civilian. Yet the police only hit their target about 17% of the time. (I’m not cutting on police, I’m just trying to make a point we can all understand here) This has police suicides and shots at large objects such as vehicles (presumably 100% shots) included in the data, which would raise the overall rate for other missed shots. These don’t even have to be good, stopping shots. These could be shots to the arm, finger, or foot. All shots that hit are included in the data.

In 1999 New York police officers (the best in the world, according to Mayor Bloomberg) fired 41 shots at Amadou Diallo, missing 22 times. In August of 2012 this same New York police force fired 16 rounds at a man outside the Empire State Building hitting ten people—the gunman, and nine innocent bystanders!

Now let’s say you are trained as well as the best police officers in the world (you’re probably not). That means at best, out of a 10 round magazine you will only get one good shot.

Here’s a personal example of why one bullet may not be enough. There were two intruders at my home one night, one near a front window, and one on the back porch. Both were attempting entry at the same time. The thought quickly went through my head about the police shooting statistics I just mentioned above. Needless to say, anyone with a capacity for reality would feel very inadequate being limited to 10 rounds knowing you've only essentially got one effective bullet.

What if you were in a convenience store and two guys came in with shotguns? Would you feel comfortable with your ability to have the defense of only one bullet if you had to use your weapon to stay alive?

I can tell you one thing from my personal experience, should you ever end up pitted against an armed intruder dedicated to raping your wife, taking your children or killing you; there are two things you will never wish for in that situation—a smaller gun, or less ammunition.

Let’s also not forget about the ranchers in our country with land on the Mexican border. Who are lawmakers to say they can only have 10 bullets in their guns to protect themselves against the Mexican drug cartels coming across the borders? These cartels (armed partly by the U.S. in the Obama administration’s Fast and Furious scheme by the way) are armed with full automatic rifles. And the  same lawmaker in Washington D.C. with armed bodyguards want to limit our southern landowners to 10 rounds of ammunition?!

Let’s just say that laws did affect criminals. Let's also say a law was passed to restrict magazines to 10 rounds. Let's then say the next crazy person intent on doing a school shooting only has access to 10-round magazines.

Someone skilled in the use of arms can change a magazine in one second. With just a little practice, one can do this in 2-3 seconds. Even the most inept person with a gun could do it in five seconds. Based on the worst case scenario—taking five seconds to exchange an empty magazine for a full one—the total “changing time” for 20 10-round magazines (a total of 200 rounds) is under two minutes. If one can “just mow people down” with a semi-automatic gun as Mayor Michael Bloomberg suggests, and shoot bullets at the rate of two per second, a person could conservatively fire 200 rounds in under four minutes even with changing the magazine 20 times.

Even if we use New York State's ridiculous 7-round per magazine law, a criminaly deranged lunatic could easily fire 200 rounds of ammunition in just under five minutes.

Even the craziest ammunition magazine capacity proposals will have no effect on the total number of bullets fired by a crazy criminal prior to the police showing up, if that is what you’re waiting for to stop the bloodshed. In the timing of various police radio messages reported in the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, from start to finish the shooter had more than ten minutes. This would have been enough time to easily expend more than 400 rounds of ammunition under even the most strict magazine capacity restriction proposals.

Based on the actual shot statistic evidence I included earlier, I can personally say 11 rounds should not be considered high capacity. What should be the line dividing truly high-capacity from reasonable capacity? I don’t know. But I do know what isn’t.

More strict concealed carry permit dispensing
Those in favor of registration, and against concealed carry, like to argue that the states should not be allowed to give permits out based on the applicant passing various criteria such as passing a firing test, and getting trained. They argue that the local police should be able to decide who gets a permit to carry concealed and who doesn’t.

These arguments come from people who prefer to be victims and not victors should they ever encounter a violent criminal. These are also people who don’t care if they ever get a permit to defend themselves or their loved ones, and care less about you being able to defend yourself.

Anyone with a modicum of brains knows that putting the decision-making in the hands of an arbitrary law enforcement agency (local police, for example) is the recipe for very few, if any, permits being issued. Of course this is the intent. If you live in an area where the police chiefs have a bias against anyone but the police being able to defend themselves against violent criminals, home invasions, rapes, etc, they won’t issue any permits.

In the cases where an applicant to carry concealed has been a victim of local police corruption, violence and harassment, or if said applicant has exposed that same department for what they have done to someone else, the applicant will never get a permit to be safe, even though this is pure retaliation by the police chief and has nothing to do with being a good candidate for a CCW.

Gun-free Zones
In the 22 years since enactment of ‘gun free schools’ there have been 10 mass school shootings. "Gun-free" zones have grossly failed to protect our children and I think we're starting to realize that they may have actually placed them in more danger.

It’s hard to get much more strict than banning guns from anywhere, but where have tougher gun-control laws gotten us?

In the 22 years since enactment of ‘gun free schools’ there have been 10 mass school shootings. "Gun-free" zones have grossly failed to protect our children and I think we're starting to realize that they may have actually placed them in more danger.

Larry Pratt may not be too far off when he said, “Gun control supporters have the blood of little children on their hands. Federal and state laws combined to insure that no teacher, no administrator, no adult had a gun at the Newtown school where the children were murdered.”

Let’s look at the obvious. The largest shootings in our country, occurring at VA Tech, Columbine (taking place during the obviously ineffective 1994-2004 “Assault Weapons Ban”), and Newtown, Connecticut happened in “gun free zones”—the most strict zones for “gun safety” you can find. The majority of public shootings in the last 30 years have occurred in “gun-free” zones. That should make it immediately obvious that “gun free” zones are no deterrent for criminals. In fact, it could be argued they are nothing more than a safe haven for those who want to do the most damage.

In Sandy Hook the only method the teachers could reportedly use to protect the children was to hide under tables, in closets, and huddle in corners. I wouldn’t call that protection as much as I would call it hope--the hope that the gunman won’t come into your room. “Hope” in this situation is a bad strategy.

Placing armed guards at schools
NRA Vice President Wayne LaPierre has mentioned that the solution to school violence and shootings would be to place armed guards at schools. That way if an incident like Columbine or Sandy Hook Elementary occurred again, there is someone right there to eliminate the threat. If not stopping the incident entirely, the damage could at least be diminished with a response faster than that of what it takes for the police to arrive.

It’s important to again remind the masses that bullets travel faster than police cruisers. In the case of Sandy Hook in Connecticut, the first emergency call was reportedly placed at 0930 E.T. According to the New York Post, “Police radios crackled with the first word of the shooting at 0936.” One newspaper I read indicated it was more than 10 minutes before the shooter took his own life. That’s a long time to wait for someone to save you when bullets are raining down.

If a visibly armed guard is stationed at a school, this really would serve not much of a purpose for the same reason I’d not want to be visibly carrying a sidearm when a thug comes in to rob a convenience store. If it’s obvious you are armed, you know who’s going to be the first target.

An armed guard would help only if the implimentation was carried out in the same capacity as the U.S. Air Marshall program, or with the general thought behind concealed carry. The criminal would know someone is armed, but he just doesn’t know who. With concealed carry, even those who don’t believe in it are safer because the criminal doesn’t know who it might be, making the criminal less likely to attack anyone.

Arming the teachers
Is arming the teachers the answer? One has to wonder how many lives may have been saved in Newtown, Connecticut, VA Tech, Columbine, and other school shootings had teachers not have been prevented from having a weapon. I don’t suggest all teachers be required to carry a weapon. In fact if one is reluctant to do so they will probably not train properly and could possibly even be a liability. But should the teachers who wish to take protecting their students seriously be prohibited from having a weapon available if they desire?

Former Lake Crystal police chief Tony Cornish puts it this way: “When the shooter knows it’s not a gun-free zone, it would be very unlikely they would attempt [a shooting] like that, and if they did, there would be far less carnage if a teacher or a principal could arm themselves.”

Allowing concealed carry on campus
What about college campuses such as VA Tech that have students much older than 21 years who already have a permit to carry? How many lives could have been saved there?

The gun-grabbers make paranoid statements about how, “…the only thing more terrifying than a lone gunman firing in to a classroom or a crowded movie theater is a half a dozen more gunmen firing their pistols at the killer, or in effect, at each other.

We’ve seen what the alternative is—innocent students murdered with no way to defend themselves. And by the way, I bet if you asked those involved in these horrendous scenarios, they would say the only thing more terrifying than being shot at is when no one is there to defend them.

Selective ammunition bans
I’ve heard a radio guest advocate that we should not have “soft bullets” available or even allow them to be manufactured. He mentioned that these “soft bullets” were used in the shooting in Connecticut. He also indicated the bullet is designed to stay in the subject in order to expend all of the energy so it can do the most damage. He went on to mention that police should also be prevented from having access to these bullets. He then went on to further show his lack of knowledge on the subject by stating, “I don’t even know why we have them.” Perhaps I should send him the following information so next time he can speak from a position of knowledge instead of ignorance. Perhaps you can help me by sending all my blogs to all your uninformed friends.

Almost all bullets are comprised of lead (Pb) which is a soft metal. So, most bullets are, in fact, “soft.” Based on his description and lack of knowledge, I’m going to assume he was talking about hollow-point bullets.

So, why would we allow hollow-point bullets in our society?

These bullets are also known as "self-defense rounds", and as he mentions they are meant to do exactly as he describes—and for good reason. The idea behind this type of round is so it stops an aggressive assailant as soon as possible. It’s also designed to not penetrate the target, preventing collateral damage, as it would otherwise create if it exited the perpetrator and entered an innocent civilian standing behind him or her.

Just like all weapons, these bullets have good uses when used as intended. It’s the person behind the gun that makes the choice where to place the bullets. When used incorrectly they have devastating consequences, similar to driving drunk, mixing chlorine and bleach, and how you use the electricity in your home. When used correctly many of the things we encounter on a daily baisis make our lives better. Used incorrectly, almost anything can have devastating consequenses.

Background checks at all gun shows
A guest I heard on national media talked about a gun-show “loophole” where background checks are “never” done. Again, in order to be an anti-gun “expert” it appears the only credentials you need are to a living, breathing human, adorned with a clip-on tie.

Mainstream media love to state that 40% of all firearms are transferred where a background check is not required—such as at a gun show. Some reporters outright lie by citing that 40% of all firearms are transferred without a background check.

While I think even the first statement contains an exagerated percentage, and even though there are some places (gun shows, for example) that don’t require background checks) it does not mean that every purchaser in these venues never undergoes a background check.

The truth is that at every gun show I’ve been to, there have been federal firearm dealers comprising the majority of the booth participants. As a matter of practice every seller I’ve talked to at these shows does the background check.

The real number of legal firearms transfers happening without a background check in this country is closer to 1.6% to 1.9% of all transfers. Usually this is between trusted friends and family members.

The problem with many of the proposed background checks in currently proposed legislation is that they have referred in the past to all firearm transfers. This would include the ludicrous practice and waste of money when a father is forced to do a background check on his son before giving him an heirloom muzzle-loading hunting gun. Other restrictions have also been proposed—and not enunciated to the public—that some background checks they would like to see are required to be done by both parties still being alive. I know this seems crazy on the surface but this is designed to eliminate more guns by preventing transfers from a deceased person to an heir. This would also mean things like an old neighbor who hunted with a group of friends his entire life couldn’t leave each of them the firearm they’ve always used to hunt with him upon his passing away.

The Registration Of All Guns Purchased
This item takes an entirely new blog by itself. Check the article posted after this one for a detailed account on gun registration.

Banning all guns
We tried this with alcohol and it didn’t work. Only after mob violence escalated to the point where the mafia controlled the cities, did we start to realize this was a failed experiment. Drugs are illegal, but our drug problem is no better off in the United States because of it. It could very easily be argued, however, that the illegal nature of anything makes the problem even worse. At the very least it creates an entirely new black market for the item in demand. Guns will be no different.

Mental evaluations
It has been suggested that mental help be more available for those in need. It has also been suggested that a mental health screening should be required for anyone prior to receiving a permit to carry a firearm concealed.

In the first scenario, it’s highly likely that a mental condition will not present itself prior to an outburst such as the one at Sandy Hook. We simply may not know if someone has a mental condition until it’s too late. This approach to ending school shootings and other violence may do nothing to prevent these types of crime in the first place.

Even if this approach was carried out properly, it would practically require mandatory mental health screenings for everyone. This could end up being a largely unnecessary expense overall. Things change over time and mental health issues may present themselves at different points in ones life. Therefore this method would result in our kids being required to undergo mandatory periodic evaluations at great expense, with little likelihood of crime prevention.

Another issue here is that anyone can be diagnosed with anything these days when it may purely be the opinion of one doctor. Another doctor may concur just because he may be lazy or assume the first doctor was correct. It seems that almost any previous behavior deemed as normal has now received a name in order to prescribe a medication for a "solution." I’d feel better about this method of crime prevention if the medical field was more concerned about making proper determinations than making money as the goal.

Screen all CCW applicants
As far as the suggestion by some to screen all potential CCW (concealed carry weapon) permit holders, the same issues present themselves here. To start with we’d be subjecting hundreds of thousands of perfectly sane people to unnecessary tests—many that will come back with an unwarranted faulty and damaging diagnosis.

Screening for CCW holders would also be somewhat redundant since those who choose to purchase a gun are already disqualified if there is a previous mental condition deemed to be too unhealthy for the applicant to possess a gun.

Underhanded measures
It’s been said that Republicans and conservatives have, “rabidly opposed gun restrictions that don’t infringe on Second Amendment rights”…such as, “a bill to levy a 10,000% tax on hollow-tipped bullets.” And that, “Further reaching proposals…[like] taxing them out of existence have been laughed at.”

Wouldn’t anyone laugh at a 10,000 percent tax on anything? Is there any difference between this type of tax and an underhanded attempt at a ban on that same targeted item?

It’s obvious this is nothing more at an ignorant proposal of taxing bullets out of existence. It’s an example of another ludicrous attempt to infringe on our Second Amendment rights. What good are guns without bullets? And I feel silly even having to point out the obvious to anyone who thinks taxing bullets at 10,000% is a rational measure. Even the most staunch anti-gun rights activist should know this won’t slip under the radar of anyone half-way intelligent.

A New York newspaper, The Journal News, recently published the names and addresses of law-abiding concealed carry permit holders in three counties. They’ve also provided an interactive map that can be accessed online showing the names, addresses, and locations of the permit holders. Apparently this was done as a way of bullying future permit seekers into thinking twice about getting a permit to carry a firearm. Maybe it was a way to “punish” those who currently have a permit. Either way, I think this short-sighted and grossly ignorant move will backfire. Here’s why.

First, it shows the childish mentality of those who run the paper. The thought of targeting those who are upstanding, law-abiding citizens is a poor message to send.

I’m also convinced that some of these people who were targeted on this list are either advertisers in this newspaper, or people who have as much or more power in their communities than the wimps choosing to publish this information.

This list could also let criminals know where they will find firearms, steal them, and add to the firearms currently on the streets, making it less safe for those who have published this list.

On the other hand, I propose a better idea—publish a reverse listing. Publish a list of all those who do not have concealed carry permits, and are therefore less likely to own firearms.

Distribute this list to the local prisons, thugs on the street, and any underworld individuals and their friends. Let them know this is the official list of “Easy Pickins’”. Or, if the thugs desire, they can follow these people around, knowing these unsuspecting travelers should be easy targets for mugging on the street since they don’t have a permit to carry a firearm. And hey, if the thug brings one of the guns he just stole from the list of permit holders, it will be the only gun at the party, y’all.

Let’s see how that reverse list publication turns out. Let’s see if The Journal News seems to be as amused by that as they are with their own little shenanigans.

And here’s the irony to this anti-gunner columnist’s list. The newspaper has now placed armed security on the premises of their grounds to protect themselves against a backlash from the publication. Yep, the anti-gunners always turn to guns when they need protection, but they don’t want anyone else to have them. Hopefully they don't have anything more than seven rounds in each gun since this is the nanny state of New York.

Shortening the lifetime service of a gun
Current gun ban legislation also calls for making it illegal to buy, sell, or transfer any of the banned ammunition magazines to anyone. In other words, if an 11-round capacity magazine is illegal to purchase at the time of a relative's passing, yet possessed legally by that relative his entire life, it still cannot be transferred via any means, including a will, to an heir. Another way to put this is that upon that person's death, that firearm has to be thrown in the garbage.

If maintained properly a firearm will last many people's lifetimes. Generally it is easily replaceable parts that break. In the case of ammunition magazines, there is the very likely chance that the magazine will malfunction or break way before the life expectancy of the gun. If there is no way to purchase another magazine or get the parts to fix it, the gun is simply no good. This is just another simple underhanded way the anti-gun politicians are trying to hasten the removal of all firearms from the hands of responsible gun owners.

Claims that gun owners are radicals
The previous items are some of the reasons the pro Second Amendment people seem so unwilling to budge. Despite the verbiage of the anti-gun lobby, “sensible” legislation still hasn’t been introduced. Everything being proposed is so vague or radical in and of itself, it's as if the anti-gun lobby and lawmakers can't actually be serious about thier own ideas. That’s why those with “common sense” are opposed to turning any of the proposed measures into law.

Next we take an in-depth look at the biggest, and most covert, proposed solution to the gun violence in the United States—gun registration.