Las Vegas Shootings And Gun-Laws

Whenever there is a crime involving firearms, anywhere in the U.S., the progressives start screaming for more gun control.  They don't really mean some mystical method of reducing death by gunfire, they really mean disarming the American citizens.

And so it is with Las Vegas.  As it turns out, the madman  (Stephen Paddock) broke neither Federal nor state gun laws

The progressives cry, "Oh, if we just required everyone to get a background check".   Federal law does require every gun purchaser to have a background check!  According to the BATFE, Mr. Paddock passed the background check in four different states for a total of 47 times. For the record, Gun Shows are not exempt from background checking.

 "If only mental heath was part of the background check".  That is a valid point.  However, it is not the NRA fighting this check, it is blocked by Federal HIPAA law.  However, the FBI has found no evidence that Paddock had any history of mental issues.

Twelve of the semiautomatic rifles used in the attack were equipped with a device called a 'bump stock'.   These devices do not turn the rifle into an automatic rifle and they do not increase the rate of fire.  In reality, they let an amateur shoot as fast as a expert.   Several reporters were aghast that the rifles might attain a rate of fire as high as 800 rounds per minute.  These rates of fire need to be put into context.   The magazine can be emptied at that rate for a 30 round magazine in 2.25 seconds.  Then a new magazine is needed.  An expert, under ideal conditions, can reach around 150 rounds per minute.

Automatic firearms were banned in 1934.  It would seem that the 'bump stock' does violate the intent of the 1934 ban and it is doubtful that there would be much opposition to banning the devices.  There are other devices that accomplish the same effect.  Any new regulation or law should be crafted to encompass all such devices. 

The number of firearms and rounds of ammunition in a home are not nearly as sinister as the media would have you believe.  This writer was a firearms and hunter safety instructor for 50 years.  During that time we often had as 50 or more firearms, often more than 10,000 rounds of ammunition, and perhaps 10 pounds of gunpowder.

A word on "silencers".  That well known expert, Hillary, claimed that if the Las Vegas shooter had a "silencer", the police would not have been able to detect him.  Contrary to what you have seen in the movies, suppressers ("silencer" is a Hollywood made-up name) do not make gun shot quiet.  They only lower the peak sound impulse.  The effect is very much like motorcycles with and without the baffle removed from the tailpipe.  The Suppresser Bill currently in Congress is a health bill intended to protect hearing.
  
Before we once again start screaming about a magic gun-law that does not exist, lets examine some facts:

In the U.S., there are 30,000 firearm related deaths per year.

On June 22, 2016, the U.S. population was 324,059,091. Do the math:  0.000000925% (slightly less than one in a million) of the population dies from gun related causes per year. 
Statistically speaking, this is insignificant! 

 Those 30,000 deaths.  Occur as follows:

  .       65%  of those deaths are by suicide (which no law would prevent)

   .      15%  are by law enforcement in the line of duty and justified

   .       17%  are through criminal activity– gun violence

    .      3%  are accidental

Firearm deaths to "gun violence" are not 30,000 annually, but are actually 5,100 or 1/6 of the total.

Well, first, how are those deaths spanned across the nation?

        480 homicides (9.4%) in Chicago 

             344  homicides (6.7%) in Baltimore

             333 homicides (6.5%) in Detroit

             119 homicides (2.3%) in Washington D.C. (a 54% increase)

Twenty-five percent (25%) of all gun crime happens in just 4 cities. 
All 4 of those cities have very strict gun laws, so it is not the lack of laws.
All 4 of these cities are also Sanctuary Cities.

In a recent year, criminal firearm deaths by state ranged from 1 in Alabama to 1,169 in California.   The national average was about 75.

California (now a Sanctuary State) accounted for 31% of the total while at the same time, having the strictest gun-laws in the country.  Clearly, it is not a lack of gun-laws causing these deaths.

The Progressives (a.k.a. Democrats) make no secret of the fact that they want to end private ownership of all firearms.

The question is why?

The simple answer:Taking away guns gives "control" to governments.

The Founding Father knew that regardless of the form of government, those in power may become corrupt and seek to rule just as King George attempted to do by disarming the colonist.  It is not difficult to understand that a disarmed populace is a "controlled" populace.

Thus, the second amendment was proudly and boldly included in the U.S. Constitution. It must be preserved at all costs!

So the next time someone tries to tell you that gun control is about saving lives, look at these facts and remember these words from Noah Webster:

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe.

The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword, because the whole body of the people are armed and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force at the command of Congress can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power.”

When it comes to "gun control," the important word is "control," not "gun.”

Comments are invited!

Send feedback to:  WatchDog

Fact-Free Gun-Control Crusaders

by Thomas Sowell
Amid all the heated, emotional advocacy of gun control, have you ever heard even one person present convincing hard evidence that tighter gun control laws have in fact reduced murders?

Think about all the states, communities within states, as well as foreign countries, that have either tight gun control laws or loose or non-existent gun control laws. With so many variations and so many sources of evidence available, surely there would be some compelling evidence somewhere if tighter gun control laws actually reduced the murder rate.

And if tighter gun control laws don’t actually reduce the murder rate, then why are we being stampeded toward such laws after every shooting that gets media attention?

Have the media outlets that you follow ever even mentioned that some studies have produced evidence that murder rates tend to be higher in places with tight gun control laws?

The dirty little secret is that gun control laws do not actually control guns. They disarm law-abiding citizens, making them more vulnerable to criminals, who remain armed in disregard of such laws.

In England, armed crimes skyrocketed as legal gun ownership almost vanished under increasingly severe gun control laws in the late 20th century. (See the book “Guns and Violence” by Joyce Lee Malcolm). But gun control has become one of those fact-free crusades, based on assumptions, emotions and rhetoric.

What almost no one talks about is that guns are used to defend lives as well as to take lives. In fact, many of the horrific killings that we see in the media were brought to an end when someone else with a gun showed up and put a stop to the slaughter.

The Cato Institute estimates upwards of 100,000 defensive uses of guns per year. Preventing law-abiding citizens from defending themselves can cost far more lives than are lost in the shooting episodes that the media publicize. The lives saved by guns are no less precious, just because the media pay no attention to them.

Many people who have never fired a gun in their lives, and never faced life-threatening dangers, nevertheless feel qualified to impose legal restrictions that can be fatal to others. And politicians eager to “do something” that gets them publicity know that the votes of the ignorant and the gullible are still votes.

Virtually nothing that is being proposed in current gun control legislation is likely to reduce murder rates.

Restricting the magazine capacity available to law-abiding citizens will not restrict the magazine capacity of people who are not law-abiding citizens. Such restrictions just mean that the law-abiding citizen is likely to run out of ammunition first.

Someone would have to be an incredible sharpshooter to fend off three home invaders with just seven shots at moving targets. But seven is the magic number of bullets allowed in a magazine under New York State’s new gun control laPeople who support such laws seem to blithely assume that they are limiting the damage that can be done by criminals or the mentally ill – as if criminals or mad men care about such laws.

Banning so-called “assault weapons” is a farce, as well as a fraud, because there is no concrete definition of an assault weapon. That is why so many guns have to be specified by name in such bans – and the ones specified to be banned are typically no more dangerous than others that are not specified.

Some people may think that “assault weapons” means automatic weapons. But automatic weapons were banned decades ago. Banning ugly-looking “assault weapons” may have aesthetic benefits, but it does not reduce the dangers to human life in the slightest. You are just as dead when killed by a very plain-looking gun.

One of the dangerous inconsistencies of many, if not most, gun control crusaders is that those who are most zealous to get guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens are often not nearly as concerned about keeping violent criminals behind bars.

Leniency toward criminals has long been part of the pattern of gun control zealots on both sides of the Atlantic. When the insatiable desire to crack down on law-abiding citizens with guns is combined with an attitude of leniency toward criminals, it can hardly be surprising when tighter gun control laws are accompanied by rising rates of crime, including murders.

Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution in Stanford, Calif. He is the author of 28 books, including "Dismantling America" and "Basic Economics: A Common Sense Guide to the Economy."


Comments are invited!
Send feedback to:  WatchDog
.