YouTube
According to an article in the Business Insider, this is what the Parkland students and their handlers in the gun control movement say they want along with a point by point analysis:
1) Ban "assault weapons"
This proposal is rooted in massive deception. Knowing that they are unable to ban all semi-automatic rifles (which is definitely one of their goals) they have sought to deceive the public into believing that firearms that look like military firearms have the same capabilities. This is a lie. It is a lie that has been repeated over and over again - largely without refutation - until most people outside the firearms community believe it. However, this does not make it true.
 |
| All three rifles above have identical capabilities. All three fire only one round per trigger pull. They all have detachable magazines. Magazines of the same capacity exist for all three. They all fire the same ammunition. Yet only the middle rifle is considered an "assault weapon" under most such laws. |
Semi-automatic rifles do not spray bullets as long as you hold down the trigger. Only fully automatic rifles do that. For decades, many news stories have shown the fully automatic versions of these firearms spraying bullets when discussing the semi- automatic versions. This has been done intentionally to confuse the public into believing that so called "assault weapons" are machine guns. They are not. While polls do so that a majority of the public wants a ban of these rifles, it is also clear that most people do not know what they are. In fact, even most people calling for them to be banned have no idea what they are. They have been fooled into thinking there are fully automatic machine guns when they are not.
Assault weapons bans do not ban all semi-auto rifles with detachable magazines - at least not at first. The picture above shows three semi-auto rifles in 5.56 NATO caliber. Read the caption. They are functionally identical - yet only one is banned under "assault weapons bans".
So, here are the reasons why an"assault weapons ban" will not work:
According to the FBI, all types of rifles are involved in only 374 homicides in 2016 - 2.5% of the total number of homicides. Semi-automatic rifles are involved in even fewer. In contrast, knives were used to kill 1,604, blunt instruments were used to kill 472, and 656 were killed without any weapon beyond the murder's hands and feet. In order to have a major impact, the weapon you are trying to ban must actually be used in a large number of homicides - rifles simply are not.
Every proposed assault weapons ban only bans future sales. They would leave tens of millions of the banned weapons in private hands, Confiscating tens of millions of lawfully owned firearms is not only politically impossible, it would result in a great deal of push back in many states - so this is off the table.
Every proposed "assault weapons ban" allows rifles with identical capabilities to continue to be sold. Every crime that was committed with an AR15 or an AK47 could just as easily have been committed with one of these rifles.
Other types of firearms can and have been used in mass shootings with high death tolls. Even if mass shooters cannot obtain the banned weapons, they will simply use another firearm. In fact, the most commonly used firearm in mass shootings is the semi-
 |
| The Navy Yard mass shooter used a 12 gauge shotgun, not a so called assault weapon. |
This video clearly demonstrates that, at close range,
a common hunting shotgun is much more deadly than an AR15
Finally, we had an assault weapons ban federally from 1994-2004. It did absolutely nothing. Columbine happened in the middle of this ban. The Washington Post's fact checker - certainly not a gun rights advocate - gave Pres. Clinton's claim that mass shootings increased after the ban expired "Three Pinocchios". The primary reason that this ban was not renewed in 2004 is that there was no evidence that it accomplished anything positive.
All of the above proves that their first proposal will accomplish nothing.
2) Prohibit high-capacity magazines
This is another favorite measure of gun control advocates that sounds good, but will accomplish absolutely nothing. In fact, we need look no farther than the Parkland mass murder to prove this, because the murderer did not use 30 or 20 or 15 round magazines. He used 10 round magazines - which would still be 100% legal if gun control advocates get their way. So did the Virginia Tech killer. So we see that restricting magazines size does not reduce the death toll in mass shootings.
The reason is something that people who are not familiar with firearms typically no nothing about: The speed reload. In a speed reload, a magazine that is mostly expended is ejected and a fresh magazine is inserted. It leterally can take less than one second AND THE GUN IS NEVER EMPTY. That's right, there is no opportunity to "rush the shooter" while they are reloading - the reason most often given for magazine limits. Watch these videos of speed reloads, and ask yourself if limiting magazine capacity will help.
This is a rifle speed reload
This is a pistol speed reload
This is why 10 round magazines did not reduce the death toll at Virginia Tech, or at Parkland, or at the many other shootings that involved 10 round or less magazines. It is also why they won't help in future mass shootings. All that is needed is a little practice and magazine capacity is irrelevant.
3) Close "background-check loopholes"
Here we are primarily talking about expanding background checks to private "transfers", here are the facts about this:
Expanding background checks will not stop mass shootings as the vast majority of these mass murderers obtained their firearms after passing a background check.
Criminals routinely walk into gun stores and simply lie on the background check form in hopes that they are not in the system. About 1/3 of the time this works. This is a federal felony, but is almost never prosecuted.
Criminals also routinely get around background checks through "straw purchasing", in which someone with a clean record buys a gun for a prohibited person. This is also a federal felony which is seldom prosecuted.
It is a federal felony to transfer a firearm to a prohibited person, which encourages private sellers to be careful about who they sell to (typically they sell to people they know well) and gives the ATF a tool to fight illegal sales.
The "gun show loophole" is a complete myth. The same laws apply at gun shows as anywhere else. The vast majority of sales at gun shows are done by licensed dealers who must conduct background checks.
There is no exemption for internet sales. Sales conducted over the internet must be shipped to licensed dealers who are required to conduct a federal check and any required state checks. (Note: If a sale is arranged over the net and then completed in person between two residents of the same state, this face to face transaction may not require a check - but this is not an "internet sale". It is no different than a private sale advertised in the local paper.)
No matter what you have heard, it is not true that 40% of firearms sales take place with a background check.
The experience in Colorado, according to the AP, indicates that the actual figure is probably 4%.
The latest 20% figure pushed by gun control advocates is also deceptive because it includes people exempt from background checks such as CCW permit holders (who are subjected to a much more rigorous check), transfers to federally licensed collectors (who undergo the same check as dealers) and law enforcement officers.
The 20% figure is also greatly inflated because it depends upon the memory of the people surveyed. Many people who bought guns at dealers will remember filling out the form, but not realize or remember that a check was done.
Furthermore, gun control advocates count transfers to family members such as a parent giving a family firearm to an adult child. Even California exempts these transfers from background checks.
Additionally, enforcement of current laws is critical. without actual enforcement of the background check laws - such as prosecuting felons who attempt to illegal buy guns - the background check laws only stop criminals from getting guns through legal channels. They remain free to get guns the way most criminals do so - through illegal channels. Yet, so far, prosecutions for background check related felonies are rare compared to the number of violations..
While many denials are in error, most are not. Only a tiny percentage
are referred for prosecution. Prohibited persons have
nothing to lose by trying to slip through, because they likely won't be charged.
Conclusion: The positive effect expanding background checks to private sales is extremely limited and will likely not prevent mass shooters from obtaining firearms.
4) Slap a 10% tax on all firearms sales
The article is not clear about exactly what they will use the money for, and a quick Google search didn't turn anything up either - however, one purpose is clear: Make firearms more expensive to own.
This is a recurring theme in gun control that goes back to the first gun control laws, passed in the South, after reconstruction and motivated by racism. Designed to keep poor blacks from owning handguns, the law banned all handguns except Army and Navy models. Since these were very expensive, poor blacks could not afford them and the law's purpose was achieved.
The entire effort to ban "Saturday Night Specials", another term made up by gun control advocates to describe any inexpensive handgun, was designed to prevent the poor from being able to afford handguns. California's "handgun roster" was designed to safety test firearms, and to require "safety features> When the law was debated, it was made quite clear that the purpose was not firearms safety - it was to price urban poor minorities out of the handgun market. In this case the effort largely failed, as the most of the targeted guns passed the safety testing.
Today, in New York City, owning a handgun costs hundreds of dollars every year (not to mention that hassle involved). Again, the purpose is to price as many people as possible out of the firearms market.
In this case, once they have the tax in place, they will push to raise it, a little bit at a time, until most people cannot afford to buy firearms.
So, in my opinion, this is likely coming from the gun control "experts" who are really behind the protests - and the goal is to price people out of the firearms market.
5) Raise the minimum federal age of gun ownership and possession to 21
 |
| There are serious constitutional questions concerning a gun ban for law abiding adults 18-20. |
First, there is the issue of current law. Federal law currently allows people to purchase long guns at 18 and handguns at 21. 18 year olds can receive handgun via private purchase and transfers, provided state law allows it. There are no federal restrictions on possession.
So, if federal law already restricts the 2nd Amendment rights of 18-20 year olds, why is there a constitutional question? Well, quite simply, SCOTUS has never addressed the issue and the law - the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA68) - was passed 40 years before the landmark 2008 Heller decision that established firearms ownership as a constitutional right. It is likely that GCA68 would not have included this restriction if passed today.
One huge problem is the precedent that would be set if legal adults can be denied a basic constitutional right based on age. We have set the age of majority at 18, moved down from 21 during the Vietnam War. This was based on the idea that if someone was expected to fight and possibly die for their country, they should be able to vote.
If it is constitutional to deny 2nd Amendment rights to young adults, then any right could be denied because people are too young, or too old. If 18-20 year olds are denied firearms, the only constitutional way to do so is likely to be raising the voting age to 21 as well.
What about the drinking age? Well, quite simply, there is no constitutional right to drink alcohol. Admittedly, an argument could be made that such a restriction violates the equal protection clause, but I don't know of any cases where this argument was made. In contrast, firearms ownership is a constitutional right - period.
OK, what about the possible effectiveness of such a law?
Well, first of all, most active shooters are not in this age group. They are either under 18, and obtain firearms via theft, or they are over 21. Therefore, such restrictions will have little to know effect on the number of mass shootings.
 |
| This in spite of a 50 year old age 21 requirement for handgun purchases |
Second, we can look to the handgun restriction, which as been in effect for almost 50 years. There is no evidence that this law has prevented even minors under 18 from obtaining handguns. In fact, teenage street gangs seldom use any firearms other than handguns. They simply obtain them illegally. We need only to consider Chicago - where gun laws are very tight - to see that this law is completely ineffective. The idea that someone 18-20 years old planning a mass murder, would be prevented from obtaining a firearm by such an age restriction on legal sales, is simply not supported by the facts.
6) Increase spending for mental healthcare programs
Here we find agreement - but this should be at the top of the list, not the bottom.
 |
| While the nation remains divided about gun control, there is a strong consensus in support of better mental health care. |
No comments:
Post a Comment