No Silver Bullet
There is no silver bullet.
--Vice President Joe Biden
In a little-noticed remark just days before President Obama announced sweeping plans for gun control action and legislation, Joe Biden summed up the problem his task force was charged with tackling by using (depending on your reaction) either an incredibly appropriate phrase, or a wildly inappropriate phrase. After all, the subject is guns, so perhaps it isn't the time for bullet metaphors.
Then again, it's hard to argue with how perfectly the phrase "there is no silver bullet" fits the task Biden was assigned: to come up with suggestions for possible government action on the availability of guns in America. A "silver bullet" is a magical answer to a fantastical problem. In the classic myth, silver bullets were used to slay werewolves, and (depending on the fantasy realm you explore) at times, vampires and other things that go "bump" in the night. When faced with a big and unfathomable problem, a magical bullet can be forged which will slay the demonic foe. This is not to say that you can't literally make a bullet out of silver in the real world, but that the "silver bullet" idea itself is nothing more than a fantastical plot device. And such things rarely exist in reality. Biden reminded us all of this by his choice of words.
The big problem with gun control legislation is that a lot of it boils down to nothing more than liberal "feel-good-ism." Or, perhaps, "do-something-ism." Gun control legislation has, historically, almost always been purely reactionary in nature. Some terrible slaughter happens, the public demands the government "do something," and laws are passed which sometimes do have a positive effect and sometimes do not. The first major federal gun control law was passed in part due to the Saint Valentine's Day massacre in 1929, and Chicago gangsters' fondness for "Tommy guns."
Here's a quick quiz: is it legal today for a private individual to own a working Thompson submachine gun? Many believe private ownership of fully-automatic weapons has been banned, but this is actually not correct. Fly into Las Vegas and you'll see ads on the majority of taxis from gun ranges offering you the chance to fire a machine gun (do a web search on "Las Vegas" and "machine gun" if you don't believe me). If you happen to live in a state which allows such ownership, you can even buy a Tommy gun of your own.
To do so, you've got to jump through a lot of hoops, though. You've got to pay the feds a licensing fee ($200, although had it kept up with inflation, this 1934 figure should really have risen to over $3,400 by now). You've got to register the gun (actually, you have to register the transfer of the gun, as it will already be registered). You have to submit to an extensive background check, complete with submitting your fingerprints to the feds. You've got to get your local sheriff or police chief to sign off on the transfer. And you can be turned down.
Still, owning or even buying a Tommy gun is not illegal for an individual. If you want the pre-1930s classic "Chicago Organ Grinder" Thompson, though, you're going to have to pay anywhere from (according to Wikipedia) $25,000 to $45,000 for it.
What you can't do, however, is buy a brand-new fully-automatic rifle (or "machine gun"). That has been prohibited since 1986. Only older models are allowed to be owned or sold by private individuals. This puts a premium on the price, even for less-glamorous models than the classic Tommy gun. A transferable M16 rifle -- manufactured before May 19, 1986 -- costs (again, from Wikipedia) anywhere from $11,000 to $18,000, while the military buys new ones for $600 to $1,000. That's a pretty steep premium.
Gun control legislation should be measured by how effective it is at achieving the goals it sets out to attain. The story of the Tommy gun (and other full-auto guns) shows the way "grandfather" clauses work. Instead of outright bans on ownership (or, even more drastic, confiscation of a certain type of weapon), almost every gun control law proposed in America aims to reduce, over time, the availability of a certain type or class of weapon. It's not a silver bullet, it is instead a long and slow process.
What this means is that nothing will be solved overnight, even if Congress passed everything Obama is currently asking for today. The most-contentious proposal Obama made today is the renewal (and, assumably, permanency) of the lapsed "assault weapons" ban. By some estimates, however, there are upwards of a million of these weapons already in circulation in America. And that was before the frenzy of people buying them in the past month is even taken into consideration. If you think the panic buying is bad now, just wait until a deadline emerges from Congress -- thousands upon thousands of assault rifles will be purchased right up to the deadline. They'll be flying off the shelves. All of which adds up to an enormous number of these guns already legally-owned the day any such ban takes effect. All of which will be "grandfathered" in. Ditto for extended ammunition magazines, most likely.
Over time, this will have a gradual effect, though. By placing a premium on such weapons, their prices will eventually go through the roof. Owning a Tommy gun is legal, but you don't hear of them being used in crime much these days. Who would risk the loss of such a valuable weapon, when they cost five figures to buy? They are working museum pieces, not a public safety problem. But then, they've been under severe restriction for over 75 years. The process takes decades, not months or even years.
Judging how effective any particular gun control measure will be (or even can be) is tough, especially since virtually all restrictions will come with such grandfather clauses. President Obama announced possible improvements in tangential issues such as mental health and the pervasiveness of violence in popular culture, both of which may be laudable goals but also will be almost impossible to link definitively with any future stats on gun violence.
Obama (and Biden) had to face a few very hard realities before even proposing any remedies. Politically and socially, it would be virtually impossible (even in the post-Newtown environment) to pass any law which confiscated any gun from anyone. Likewise, banning (for instance) all handguns or semi-automatic weapons would just not be realistic politically, and would indeed open up constitutional questions. Ask even the gun control advocates, and they'll likely agree that any such legislation doesn't stand a chance of being passed.
To put it bluntly, any proposed new gun laws are only going to improve things on the margins of the scope of the problem. Which is why any and all of these proposals will be fought as liberal "feel-good" laws which will not solve the problem immediately. The classic example of this was the original assault rifle ban, back in the 1990s. The legislators proposing the ban quickly ran up against the problem of: "What, exactly, is an 'assault rifle'?" What they decided was (in essence) that semi-automatic rifles which "looked" like what they considered "assault weapons" were to be banned, but other semi-automatic rifles which looked only slightly less "assault weapon-ey" would not be banned. Functionality wasn't a consideration -- you could still buy just as powerful a weapon, as long as Dianne Feinstein didn't disapprove of how the weapon "looked." This led to a flurry of weapons manufacturers redesigning rifles so that they just barely fell outside the ban's language. Which made the whole ban somewhat of a joke.
Obama also made several proposals to increase the "cops in schools" programs, which already put armed police officers known as "School Resource Officers" ("S.R.O.s") in many schools across the country. Even the National Rifle Association seems to approve of this sort of thing, which means this proposal is a lot more likely to survive in Congress than, say, an assault weapons ban. But, once again, having cops in schools is no silver bullet. Putting federal money into the program (as Obama has previously tried to do) might make a whole lot of folks feel better (because the government "did something"), but doing so can have unintended consequences beyond the subject of guns, as Tracy Velázquez, of the Justice Policy Institute explained yesterday. Even putting this aside, having an armed cop at your kid's school is still no silver bullet.
There was indeed an S.R.O. on campus the day of the Columbine massacre. He exchanged fire with the two shooters on at least two separate occasions (one of which took place five minutes after the shooting started), without anybody hitting anything. Part of the problem of Hollywood violence is the widely-held notion that a cop with a handgun can "take down" any shooter at any range, just because he's a "good guy." In reality, handguns aren't that accurate, although you'll likely never see this in the movies. Just having one cop on campus in Columbine didn't have any real effect on the outcome of the slaughter -- the two shooters didn't commit suicide until a S.W.A.T. team entered the building -- over half an hour after the S.R.O. had fired at the shooters. And no one (that I'm aware of) is suggesting permanently stationing S.W.A.T. teams at schools, even now.
The pro-gun side of the debate would take this argument even further. They'll be pointing out that very few of the proposals Obama just made would have changed anything in Newtown, Connecticut. Laws restricting weapons sales weren't an issue, the shooter's mother had legally bought the weapons, not the shooter. Having guns to protect yourself wasn't very effective either (knocking down one of the pro-gun side's favorite arguments), since the mother was shot with her own weapons. Just about the only thing proposed today which might have changed the outcome in any way would be the restriction of large ammo clips. The thinking here is that forcing a gunman to reload limits his lethality and gives the good guys a better chance of taking him down. But the difference between having 30-round clips and 10-round clips would only really have meant the shooter would have had to carry more clips in his pockets in Newtown. The outcome would likely have been exactly the same.
Gun laws are almost always passed in reactionary fashion, but that doesn't mean they should be held to the standard of "preventing all future mass gun violence forever." That -- given the fact that no gun confiscations are ever going to happen in America -- is simply too high a standard. The depressing thing for gun control advocates, however, is that even changing things for the better -- or preventing some future lone-wolf gun attacks -- is one of those things that takes so long to manifest that it can lead to defeatism. Since nothing that could pass Congress would have had any real effect on Newtown, why even bother?
This is too pessimistic a stance, however. Gun laws are always going to change incrementally, at best, but that doesn't mean they aren't worth the effort of passing. Gun crimes with fully-automatic weapons are (mostly) a thing of the past, and that can directly be traced to laws passed in 1934 and 1986. There are fewer of them out there, no new ones can be bought, and the value of the guns themselves has grown so high that they're seen now (mostly) as collector pieces. Perhaps one day -- decades from now -- "assault rifles" will likewise be too valuable to contemplate using in criminal activity. But for the time being (even if a ban passes) there are over a million of them out there. That is not going to change overnight, even if Obama got everything he wanted from Congress. In fact, the only change that will likely happen is a bonanza for the manufacturers of such weapons, as people scramble to buy them before laws are passed. Who knows, maybe the number will top two million before Obama signs any such law? Even one of the best ideas in Obama's proposal -- closing all the loopholes to avoid background checks -- isn't going to change the total of guns that are already out there one bit.
There is, as Vice President Biden pointed out, no silver bullet legislation that will fix the problem quickly and permanently. The pro-gun folks can rest assured that not a single gun will be confiscated as a result of any of these laws. The pro-gun-control folks need to realize that no matter what gains they make, tragic gun violence is not going to magically disappear like the morning dew. Those are the real margins of this debate. Both sides should enter into the debate with reasonable expectations of the outcome, even though they probably won't. New gun control laws will almost assuredly have only a limited effect in the real world. Perhaps over time, things will get better, but it's going to take a while to even see this positive effect. Perhaps a powerful weapon will be kept out of the hands of a sociopath in the future, which is indeed a worthy goal to attempt.
Biden is right. There is no silver bullet. But both Biden and Obama are also right to make the attempt at chipping away at the problem of mass gun violence. "The problem is too big" should no longer been seen as an excuse to do even the marginal things which Obama is now proposing. Marginal gains are better than no gains, magic bullets aside.
-- Chris Weigant
Cross-posted at Business Insider
Cross-posted at The Huffington Post
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
Let me make one point perfectly clear..
There will NEVER come a time in this country when the government will confiscate guns from the American people..
If that ever were to be attempted, there WOULD be blood.. It would become a civil war between Americans who have guns and Americans who want to TAKE their guns...
Now, who do you think would come out on top??
So, let us end ANY discussion of confiscating American's guns..
It WILL NOT happen..
Now, having established that, let me say that CW has hit the nail on the head here.
All the proposals coming down will not do DIDDLEY squat to protect our schools or our citizens in the short term... Sans one..
Early today, I told our newest Guest Commenter that the solution to the school shooting problem is completely obvious when one discards all political agendas and looks at the issue thru the cold light of objectivity..
It's clear to ANY person who is logical and rational about this that guns are NOT the problem.
How do we know this??
Two reasons..
First off, there has never, never, EVER been ANY kind of report of a gun walking into a bar or walking into a school and shooting people.
It simply has NEVER happened...
In 100% of the incidents of this nature, it's ALWAYS been a "bad guy" (or woman) who has walked in WITH a gun...
Second... What happens when a "bad guy" (or woman) walks into a place with a gun??
The prospective victims call a GOOD GUY (or woman) with a gun..
Ergo, the ONLY logical conclusion is that it's NOT the gun that is the problem. It's the person wielding the gun that is the problem..
So, how can we combat this in the short term??
Ensure that there is a "good guy" (or woman) with a gun in proximity of ANY possible target zones...
There is an interesting stat that is floating around..
The average number of people killed in a mass shooting, where police arrived and ended the shooting spree is 14...
14 people are gunned down and killed before cops can show up and end the rampage..
The average number of people killed in a mass shooting where a civilian was armed and trained??
2.5...
2 (or 3) people are killed when a would-be victim is armed...
Now, it seems to me that THAT is a no brainer...
Since it is universally agreed that NOTHING the government can realistically do will prevent mass shootings in the short term, the ONLY LOGICAL choice is to make sure that there are GOOD GUYS (or women) with guns in close proximity to would-be target zones..
And, for gods sake, GET RID of "gun free zones"...
They ONLY thing that gun free zones do is insure that a psychotic gunman can kill innocent people with impunity..
I, for one, can attest to the fact that I will NOT go un-armed into any "gun free zone", rules be damned.
The ONLY place I feel comfortable in going unarmed is in locations that have a plethora of "good guys" (and women) with guns.. A courthouse, for example...
Guns are not the problem.. They are part and parcel to the solution..
Michale
Listening to President Obama and Vice President Biden today and to some of the analysis following the announcement of their proposals to reduce gun violence, I was really struck by how comprehensive a problem this really is and how its going to take action on a number of fronts to just begin to solve.
I think it was President Obama who said that this is a problem that affects all Americans - everyone in America, at the wrong place at the wrong time, if I can broaden it even further - and that it shouldn't be a partisan issue. Of course, we all know that partisan politics will unavoidably be a part of the discussion and debate that will follow the unveiling of these new anti-gun violence proposals. Just as we know that there will be people and groups with extreme views that always tend to get more than their fair share of publicity.
I notice that the distinction is made here between run of the mill gun violence and "mass" gun violence. That's a very interesting distinction. It was alarming to hear Obama cite the statistic that in the last month 900 Americans have reportedly died as a result of gun shots. Was that a typical month? I suppose it may be "easier" to tackle mass gun violence when you consider bans on semi-automatic military-style assault weapons (once it is determined what list of weapons that entails) and high-capacity ammuntion magazines, etc. But how would those bans stop the run of the mill handgun violence?
I'm not sure that the availability and accessibility of mental health services can be described as a tangential issue. In fact, I have come to see this as a critical part of the mix if there is to be any success in reducing gun violence of all kinds.
I couldn't agree more that there are no silver or magic bullets insofar as what it will take to begin to make progress. It's going to take a lot of time, too - generations, probably - and the persistence of political leaders from both sides of the aisle and all of the people they represent to work towards a solution, no matter how incremental the progress is.
If any country can do this, then I have faith that America can and today gave me a lot of hope in that regard.
Michale,
There will NEVER come a time in this country when the government will confiscate guns from the American people..
How many guns are out there right now? I've heard figures as high as 300 million or even that there are more guns than citizens.
How do you prevent those guns from falling into the hands of someone who is not responsible and who is prone to using that gun to perpetrate a violent crime?
The answer to that question seems to be a glaring omission from your prescription to reduce gun violence and the horrific number of gun-related deaths in America. Do you have any thoughts on that?
I just want to point out that silver bullets were the hallmark of the Lone Ranger.
Did VP Biden mean to imply that there was no one to magically rescue us from gun violence?
db -
Someone on HuffPost also pointed out the Lone Ranger thing. I plea my age -- I am too young to have seen the Lone Ranger on either television or (even older) movie serials.
But I still say werewolves predated the Lone Ranger.
Heh.
-CW
Michale -
Except sometimes that doesn't happen. Statistical averages don't always work out. See the timeline for Columbine. SROs (actual cops, LEOs, two of them in fact) didn't do much before the SWAT team arrived. Most of the students died AFTER the SRO engaged the shooters, in fact. There is no silver bullet, sorry.
-CW
How many guns are out there right now? I've heard figures as high as 300 million or even that there are more guns than citizens.
That sounds about right..
However, the number of guns are irrelevant.
Switzerland and Israel have some of the highest ratio of guns per citizen in the world. And their violent crime against civilians is virtually non-existent by comparison...
So there is not any correlation between number of guns per capita and the number of violent crimes committed with guns.
On the other side of the scale, Mexico has a huge comprehensive ban on guns and some of the most violent gun crimes in the world.
In every country in the world that has a comprehensive gun ban, violent crime against persons sky-rocketed. UK, Australia to name a couple in addition to Mexico.
Now, to be fair there are stats that support the idea of a gun ban. So, for every stat I can bring up that supports a gun in every cupboard to prevent crime, you can bring up a stat that supports a gun ban. And this simply de-volves into a stats war with both of us singing, "My stats are better than your stats. My stats are better than youorrrrrsss"
The answer to that question seems to be a glaring omission from your prescription to reduce gun violence and the horrific number of gun-related deaths in America. Do you have any thoughts on that?
I do indeed..
There will always be criminals in our midst. It's the nature of humanity..
The problem that no one in the Gun Control factions see is that guns are not only the tools of criminals they are also tools of defense AGAINST the criminals.
How do we prevent guns from falling into the hands of criminals?
How can we prevent cars from being driven by drunk drivers?
We can't.. There is simply no way to do so w/o totally shredding the US Constitution.
Even doing that, there is no guarantee that bad guys still won't acquire guns.. All a ban does is guarantee that the bad guys won't be opposed.
There is NO silver bullet... Banning guns is a knee-jerk reaction designed to appease the public's demand that government "do something".
Nothing more..
And, as with many problems caused by government intervention, it cause more problems than it solves..
CW,
I must have been loopy last night. Because re-reading your commentary this morning, I see things that you said that I repeated exactly w/o giving you the credit for the initial idea..
You are dead on ballz accurate. There will never be gun confiscation in this country. NEVER. The citizenry, the ARMED citizenry, will never allow it to happen..
This fact negates the effectiveness of ANY gun ban..
The genie is out of the bottle. Pandora's box has been opened and there is no way we can go back to the way it was pre-gun..
Except sometimes that doesn't happen. Statistical averages don't always work out. See the timeline for Columbine. SROs (actual cops, LEOs, two of them in fact) didn't do much before the SWAT team arrived. Most of the students died AFTER the SRO engaged the shooters, in fact. There is no silver bullet, sorry.
True enough. Columbine had one SRO that briefly engaged the two scumbags before being ordered to pull back and wait for SWAT.
It should be noted that THAT was SOP at the time. A procedure that has since been changed..
But it is also relevant to point out that it is likely that the scumbags was very familiar with the SRO and didn't consider him much of a threat. However, when SWAT showed up and began their breach, the scumbags committed suicide..
But, you are correct. That one instance is somewhat of an outlier..
However it doesn't do anything to mitigate or negate the stat. Just like there is one instance of a mass shooting NOT being in a gun free zone. A single instance which doesn't negate the significance of the fact that every mass shooting (except that one) was in a gun free zone..
So, this begs the question.
Why is it that "guns" are the problem? Why doesn't anyone even CONSIDER the idea that "gun free zones" are the problem??
It's like creating an entire city and have signs posted all around announcing that there are no cops in this city.. What do you think the crime-rate would be in that city???
The scumbag who shot up that Aurora theater targeted that specific theater because it was a gun free zone. There were bigger theaters closer to his location that was showing the exact same movie.
He chose THAT particular theater because he knew he would be un-opposed
You are correct. There is no silver bullet..
But having an armed Good Guy in every school is MUCH more effective than ANYTHING that has been proposed by the Obama Administration. Especially in the short term..
I can't find any mention of a gun ban by the administration. I didn't watch the presser because seeing Obama use those children in such a blatant and disgusting manner was nauseating..
Was there a gun ban mentioned? Is Obama doing it by executive order or going to go thru Congress??
But anyways, I AM glad to see that there is SOME semblance of logic in all of this on the part of the Administration. A lot of the things coming down I have long advocated.
Especially enforcing laws already on the books and throwing those books at violent thugs who USE guns.. THAT particular problem is a problem of the bleeding heart's in this country..
"Oh, he's just misunderstood!! We shouldn't lock him in jail and throw away the key!!"
It will be interesting to see these two conflicting points being addressed by those with a political agenda..
Final note. I have noticed a trend here in Wegantia of refraining to name the scumbags who have committed mass murder. I welcome such a trend and would like to see it be made policy...
Michale
I can't find any mention of a gun ban by the administration. I didn't watch the presser because seeing Obama use those children in such a blatant and disgusting manner was nauseating..
Was there a gun ban mentioned? Is Obama doing it by executive order or going to go thru Congress??
OK looking at CW's comment in the previous commentary I see that a gun ban and magazine ban are mentioned and it will be done thru Congress, not thru Executive Orders.
Now, assuming that Obama is being truthful with the American people, this is a good thing.
It's universally accepted by both Republicans and Democrats in Congress that there is virtually a ZERO chance of any ban/restriction being pushed thru...
Once again, the US Constitution wins out uber alles..
I am a very happy American today...
Final note. I have noticed a trend here in Wegantia of refraining to name the scumbags who have committed mass murder. I welcome such a trend and would like to see it be made policy...
Another policy I would like to see is to lose the term "Assault Rifle".. Outside of the biased MSM, Hollywood and the video game industry, there is no such nomenclature as "assault rifle". It's a media construct designed to inflame prejudices..
NO ONE here can describe EXACTLY what an "assault rifle" is because it simply doesn't exist.. Many "assault rifles" are of the .22 caliber variety and are much MUCH less dangerous than a good 30 Ought 6.
Let's face it. The MSM loves the term "assault rifle" because it sounds scary.
"The call him The Sand Spider."
"Why?"
"Probably because it sounds scary."
-True Lies
So, let's be factually accurate instead of furthering an MSM-constructed myth..
If you want to add Sport Rifles to differentiate from Hunting Rifles, that's a LOT more logical than "Assault Rifle"...
But, these are rifles we are talking about.
Nothing more..
Nothing less.
Just rifles..
Michale
Michale,
I wasn't asking you about what DOESN'T work. I was asking you what would work to help in the effort to keep guns out of the hands of people who are not responsible for whatever reason.
I can't believe you are saying that NOTHING can be done about ANYTHING, forget about the issue of guns. You seem to be arguing, presumably of sound mind, that NOTHING can or even SHOULD be done to help keep the public safe from ANYTHING.
Does public safety mean NOTHING to you!?
Please, tell me I'm wrong about that!
I wasn't asking you about what DOESN'T work. I was asking you what would work to help in the effort to keep guns out of the hands of people who are not responsible for whatever reason.
And I answered.
It's NOT possible.
Bad guys will get guns. It's as sure as night follows day... A while back, when conservatives were in power, the passed legislation making harsher penalties for people who use guns in the commission of a crime. Liberals, when they came to power, promptly rescinded many of those penalties..
I can't believe you are saying that NOTHING can be done about ANYTHING,
I invite you to find a big city and take a ride along with local LEOs.. You'll see things a lot more clearly..
You seem to be arguing, presumably of sound mind, that NOTHING can or even SHOULD be done to help keep the public safe from ANYTHING.
I am not saying that nothing SHOULD be done. But let's do things that are effective. The Death Penalty for intentionally shooting anyone is a good place to start, in my book.. While we're add it, the Death Penalty for those who supply drugs to children..
Does public safety mean NOTHING to you!?
From the age of 17, my entire life has been devoted to public safety, in all it's forms...
Which is why I am somewhat of an expert in knowing what works and what doesn't..
Taking the tools of defense away from law-abiding citizens, profiling gun owners as psychotic murders doesn't work..
Making the tools of defense easily available, free mandatory training courses for firearms things like those, DO work..
How much money do we spend on educating our kids in school about driving? Safety, responsibility etc etc are all part of the driver training curriculum..
Doesn't it make sense to have such training course for firearms??
There are many MANY things that can be done to minimize crime and violence against innocents and children.
It only takes the political will to employ common sense instead of slavishly adhering to political ideology..
Michale
Michale,
Of course it's not possible to prevent all gun violence.
But that is a very sad excuse not to do anything to reduce gun violence.
Michale,
Taking the tools of defense away from law-abiding citizens, profiling gun owners as psychotic murders doesn't work..
Who is proposing that?
Oh, wait, you think that the firearms that the president's proposal would ban are the end all and be all of the "tools of defense" and that without these tools, law-abiding citizens will be left defenseless?
I hope you're not of the mind that there are no limitations on the individual right to bear arms. Is that your starting point in this debate?
Michale,
Would you agree with the statement by the NRA's Wayne Lapierre in which he said that the Clinton administration's "semiauto ban gives jack-booted government thugs more power to take away our Constitutional rights, break in our doors, seize our guns, destroy our property, and even injure or kill us."
According to a recent op-ed in the New York Times, George H W Bush was sufficiently outraged by such language that he resigned his life membership in the NRA.
I'm just trying to understand where you're coming from.
Why is it that you believe Americans need to have unlimited access to firearms?
But that is a very sad excuse not to do anything to reduce gun violence.
Who said anything about not doing anything??
The problem is ya'all are concentrating on the SYMPTOM, the TOOL used and ignoring the actual problem..
Oh, wait, you think that the firearms that the president's proposal would ban are the end all and be all of the "tools of defense" and that without these tools, law-abiding citizens will be left defenseless?
Do you know why semi-automatics (both handgun and rifle) are the choice for self defense?
Because they are effective..
Put another way...
If you have a job or a project, do you choose the LEAST of the tools that MIGHT allow you to get the job done??
Or do you choose the BEST tools necessary to cover a wide range of contingencies??
When it comes to the safety and security of one's family and friends, the tools chosen become even MORE vital..
When cops go out on patrol, they don't choose to carry the LEAST of the choices. They choose the best tools possible...
When it comes to firearms, it's infinitely better to choose the best and not need it than to choose the least and need the best..
Because a mistake will cost you or an innocent person their lives...
It's to Obama's credit that he didn't choose to ram a gun ban thru an Executive Order. I am betting he realized how much violence that would cause..
The fact the he mentioned a gun ban at all is bad enough...
It's like trying to address shoddy building practices by taking away the tools the contractors use....
It's not the tools that are the problem..
It's the people...
Michale
Whenever you have a rash of crimes (burglaries, assaults, etc etc) the very first and the very best solution is an increased police presence..
Why is a school shooting any different??
Answer.. It's not..
Michale
Would you agree with the statement by the NRA's Wayne Lapierre in which he said that the Clinton administration's "semiauto ban gives jack-booted government thugs more power to take away our Constitutional rights, break in our doors, seize our guns, destroy our property, and even injure or kill us."
I would put such a statement in the same vein as the Hysterical Left saying, "The Patriot Act gives jack-booted government thugs more power to take away our Constitutional rights, break in our doors, seize our guns, destroy our property, and even injure or kill us."
It's hysterical rhetoric that is long on fear-mongering and short, if not non-existent on facts and reality..
Michale
Michale -
I have to point out that the article does mention the "look" of "assault weapons" and even dings Dianne Feinstein.
I considered using the scene from "Jackie Brown" where the gun dealer talks about how when a certain model of gun appears on TV or in a movie, then everyone wants that particular model. It's like advertising. The article ran so long, I couldn't fit it in, but it's certainly an interesting point to bring up.
Now, I don't buy into the "Hollywood creates violence" thing at all, because the same movies we watch, the same video games we play are ALSO available in many other countries in the world -- countries where they don't have our gun violence problem. So I consider it a very minor factor, at best.
But the Jackie Brown scene is certainly interesting, vis a vis all the panic buying currently going on out there.
-CW
Note:
Michale's comment is about a comment I posted yesterday, which I should look up and re-post here. It is a little table of all the proposals from Obama (all the ones most of the media was too lazy to report), and it's broken down into what each will take (Executive action, Congress passing bill, etc.).
It's a very handy chart:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/obama-gun-proposals/?hpid=z1
-CW
Now, I don't buy into the "Hollywood creates violence" thing at all, because the same movies we watch, the same video games we play are ALSO available in many other countries in the world -- countries where they don't have our gun violence problem. So I consider it a very minor factor, at best.
Call me cynical (no, go ahead, it's OK..) but I have a feeling that the main reason Hollywood escaped virtually unscathed is because Hollywood is a big part of Obama/Democrat donors...
It's a very handy chart:
It is, indeed..
A LOT of these ideas aren't too bad..
Some are patently ridiculous.. Having doctors inquire as to guns in the house!???
SERIOUSLY!!!????
Michale
Now, forgive me...
Mid season premiere of SUPERNATURAL is on!!!
WOOT!!!! :D
Michale
"Why would ANYONE need a high capacity magazine??"
http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=news%2Flocal%2Fnew_york&id=8958116
Michale
It's a shame that this topic is not getting the attention it deserves...
My guess is I called it right the first time..
It's a non-issue if there isn't a tragedy to play off of..
Michale
Hay CW!!!
GOP TO SENATE: NO BUDGET, NO PAY...
thehill.com/homenews/house/278007-house-gop-aims-to-tie-senate-action-on-budget-to-debt-limit-increase
Looks like Republicans are reading CW.COM!! :D
Michale
I would be remiss in my duties if I didn't point out the complete and utter hypocrisy of the Obama Administration mounting a campaign against "assault" rifles in light of the activities of Operation: FAST AND FURIOUS....
Michale
But that is a very sad excuse not to do anything to reduce gun violence.
I am all for doing ANYTHING that will reduce gun violence against innocent people.
The problem is, many of the suggestions being floated have a PROVEN track record of NOT doing anything to reduce gun violence against innocents.
More often than not, the suggestions actually INCREASE the violence against innocents..
So, by all means, let's do SOMETHING...
But for the gods' sake, lets do SOMETHING that is EFFECTIVE....
Getting rid of Shooting Galleries For Psychotics (AKA "Gun Free Zones") is a damn good place to start..
Michale
Michale [23] -
Didn't see your comment until just now, but yeah, that leapt out at me too.
See today's FTP column...
:-)
-CW