Gun Control: Why The Dianne Feinstein Assault Weapons Ban Has Nothing to do With Newtown Massacre

Gun control has been on the minds of our society and politicians over the past year after high profile shootings such as in Newtown, Conn., and Aurora, Colo. Just recently the summary of a new Assault Weapons Ban (AWB) being proposed by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) was released. It's more aggressive than the one that was passed in 1994, and it doubles down on the same failed policy that did little to address gun violence. Let's break it down.

The new bill would ban the sale, transfer, importation, or manufacturing of:
-120 specifically-named firearm;
-Certain other semiautomatic rifles, handguns, shotguns that can accept a detachable magazine and have one military characteristic;
-Semiautomatic rifles and handguns with a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10 rounds;

So it expands the list of banned firearms and reduces the requirement of two military characteristics down to one. Remember, these military characteristics have no bearing on the lethality of the firearm. In addition, the bill is banning all semiautomatic rifles, handguns, and shotguns that "can" accept a detachable magazine and those that have fixed magazines. What this does is basically ban all semiautomatics and firearms without detachable magazines (harder to reload) that accept more than ten rounds.

It's also worth pointing out the language here that it bans the "sale, ban, importation, and manufacturing." So what that means is that once you own one, its yours. You can't sell or transfer it to anyone else. So what happens if you pass away? Does the government then confiscate it?

The new bill would strengthen the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban and various state bans by:
-Moving from a 2-characteristic test to a 1-characteristic test;
-Eliminating the easy-to-remove bayonet mounts and flash suppressors from the characteristics test;
-Banning firearms with “thumbhole stocks” and “bullet buttons” to address attempts to “work around” prior bans;

Again, they are banning another range of weapons with certain cosmetic characteristics. We should also note the irony in that bullet buttons were designed to make firearms harder to reload than a traditional semiautomatic. Bullet buttons are normal in California (Feinstein's home state), and they do actually accomplish what the senator wants (harder to reload guns), but not happy with that Feinstein has decided that these need to be banned too.

-Bans large-capacity ammunition feeding devices capable of accepting more than 10 rounds. 

Nothing new here. The criminals response? Carry more magazines, as we've seen in Virginia Tech where the shooter brought nineteen loaded magazines for his two handguns and Columbine where they brought 13 extra magazines. (Note: there is also a separate bill which focuses primarily on limiting magazine size)

 -Protects legitimate hunters and the rights of existing gun owners by:
-Grandfathering weapons legally possessed on the date of enactment
-Exempting over 900 specifically-named weapons used for hunting or sporting purposes and
-Exempting antique, manually-operated, and permanently disabled weapons

Sounds good right? Except that if you think about it, it boils down to a list of firearms that you can buy. I wonder if the good old musket is going to be on that list! We'll have to see what our government think we should be allowed to own.

-Requires that grandfathered weapons be registered under the National Firearms Act, to include:
-Background check of owner and any transferee;
-Type and serial number of the firearm;
-Positive identification, including photograph and fingerprint;
-Certification from local law enforcement of identity and that possession would not violate State or local law; and
-Dedicated funding for ATF to implement registration

And here at the bottom we have the most egregious part. Grandfathered firearms must be registered under this bill. Keep in mind that there is an estimated 9 to 10 million AR-15's in circulation. And these are just one model of firearm that needs to be registered as this bill seeks to cover most semiautomatics ever made. One could argue that this amounts to a registry of firearm owners in the U.S. But think about what else is being proposed; a background check of all owners who are having their firearms registered including keeping photographs and fingerprints (much like we do for criminals).

Our beleaguered and understaffed BATF already has trouble enforcing existing laws with 4,000 employees, so how are they going to handle this task of creating a national registration database along with conducting millions if not tens of millions of background checks and processing of paperwork, considering that the BATF only processes around 90,000 applications yearly at the moment? Maybe just as important, who is going to pay for that?

What's even more diabolic in Feinstein's presentation of this new AWB is her use of sources that she misrepresents to back up her proposed legislation. For the most part, the studies linked on her site point out that assault weapons only make up a small fraction of gun crime, and that her original AWB was minimally effective. For example, Feinstein links to this study where she then says:

"Jeffrey Roth and Christopher Koper find that the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban was responsible for a 6.7 percent decrease in total gun murders, holding all other factors equal."

However, going to the original source:

"At best, the assault weapons ban can have only a limited effect on total gun murders, because the banned weapons and magazines were never involved in more than a modest fraction of all gun murders. Our best estimate is that the ban contributed to a 6.7 percent decrease in total gun murders between 1994 and 1995, beyond what would have been expected in view of ongoing crime, demographic, and economic trends. However, with only one year of post-ban data, we cannot rule out the possibility that this decrease reflects chance year-to-year variation rather than a true effect of the ban. Nor can we rule out effects of other features of the 1994 Crime Act or a host of state and local initiatives that took place simultaneously."

Let's take a look at another source. Feinstein claims:

"A recent study by the Violence Policy Center finds that between 2005 and 2007, one in four law enforcement officers slain in the line of duty was killed with an assault weapon."

However that's not what the study states. The data which she is referencing studies 64 incidents that already involve "assault weapons" of which also involved law enforcement.  The study actually says that out of the 64 incidents that involve assault weapons, four ended in at least one law enforcement fatality, not that one in four officers are killed by assault weapons.

One begins to wonder if Feinstein is even reading these studies as she is grossly misstating the data from her own sources and they conclude that the AWB did not work. What is worse is that her sources offer alternative methods of curbing gun violence that do work. Gun buybacks in urban areas, targeting hot spots for drug and gang violence, cracking down on straw purchasers, and requiring background checks for all purchases and transfers of firearms are just some of the solutions that were brought forth, but unfortunately not recognized by Feinstein. If we are worried about public safety and gun violence, shouldn't we actually consider the advice proffered by law enforcement practitioners in these studies?

We all know gun control politicians are aiming to ban guns to further their political agenda. This legislation does nothing to prevent the next Sandy Hook or Virginia Tech mass shooting as even Michael Bloomberg points out. I've already detailed in a previous article how the previous ban was not effective, and that this discussion is taking away from addressing the underlying cause of violence in our society. This legislation is just further proof that we need to question the motives of our politicians as this has nothing to do with public safety but everything to do with banning guns.

Orginally posted on PolicyMic.com
http://www.policymic.com/articles/21526/the-dianne-feinstein-assault-weapons-ban-has-nothing-to-do-with-the-newtown-massacre

A Starting Point for Gun Control

I'm an NRA member and I believe we could have smarter gun control, like background checks for all purchases including private sales. However, an assault weapons ban will not work to prevent tragedies. Columbine should be proof of this. I would bet if gun control advocates weren't calling for gun ban, but instead smarter legislation to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill, you'd have full on support from all sides.

The DOJ admits that the '94 AWB had little effect on gun violence and said that reinstating it would have little effect. Why would we want to reintroduce something that did not work and experts say will not work to prevent gun violence.

Here is the link to the study that states that the AWB did not work and that reinstating it would not work.

We really need to end the cycle of violence in this country. Stop the wars overseas, stop tearing families apart, stop over medicating our children, and stop the war on drugs. The problem is not guns, the problem is our violent society. This is not an easy thing to do, and we shouldn't expect it to be as this cycle of violence has spanned generations. If you are interested in the gun control debate, I'd encourage you to educate yourselves. Below is a video regarding gun control our near the end will go through how our society has come to a cycle of violence.




Edit: After further study and rumination, I know longer support Universal Background Checks. Although the measure would sound good at first, I realized that it would be unenforceable. Law enforcement needs to be focused efficiently enforcing existing firearms laws, and dealing with the deficiencies of the current background check system (such as updating and adding mental health records).

After reading this article on CNBC, I had to share a few thoughts.

CNBC Article

This was the intention of QE3, to lower mortgage interest rates, which would in turn drive up real estate and people who would refinance their mortgages. Not only that, it would spur new mortgages also. In essence, Americans are going into more debt now for more liquidity. Now what is this new found liquidity going to go to? Consumer goods of course. Those goods that are made abroad that increases our trade deficit. Maybe people will invest that money back where in essence it will go back to the financial institutions. In the end, I fail to see how this will benefit our economy in the long run.

GOP Establishment Urging Liberty Supporters to Vote Romney

There have been a slew of articles published recently that have called for Liberty supporters and Libertarians to vote for the Romney/Ryan ticket. The reasons why these voters should vote Romney are ones that have been presented before, but unfortunately for Romney, they are as unconvincing now as they were then.

For instance, they say that we must prevent Obama from getting a second term as he would lead the country into a disaster. However, many of the target audience already believe that Romney will also lead the country the wrong way as well. From civil liberties (Patriot Act, NDAA, war on drugs), to foreign policy and economic policy, there is no difference between Obama and Romney.

Now here is something to think about: We've already experienced this type of argument before in the lead up to the War on Terror, War in Iraq, and now the situation with Iran. This argument tries to play on people's fears in order to get their support for something unpopular. Yes I am equating Romney with the unpopularity of War, but instead of the WMD boogeyman, we've just swapped it for the Obama boogeyman.

Another reason why the GOP establishment gives to support Romney is that he would be more likely to work with Libertarians and liberty-minded individuals than Obama. Unfortunately the actions of just the past few months has shown how much Romney campaign is willing to work with Liberty supporters. Abuse, disenfranchisement, and trying to cut them off in future participation in politics are usually not signs that someone is willing to work with you.

The Romney campaign has successfully demolished any chance of support from Liberty supporters. It was said months ago, that Romney would need the support of this group to win, but instead of working with the group or maintaining relations with them, he has antagonized and silenced them.

Sorry Romney, but basically you've burned bridges with this entire group of supporters, and now you are trying to throw us a rope. I feel sorry for anyone willing to trust you enough to even touch that rope.  I and many other Liberty supporters will stay here on the side of liberty and vote Gary Johnson in the upcoming election, and watch as you lose the by that 10% margin belonging to the vote which you've worked so hard to alienate.

Coverage of the Empire State Building Murder

In the Empire State Building incident last week, two people were killed and nine were wounded.  The two people killed were the murderer and his intended target, and the nine wounded were innocent bystanders.  As the facts of the events were sorted, it turns out that the murderer only shot his intended target, and that the nine innocent bystanders were shot by police who took down the murderer.  Now I am not angry at how the events played out.  I am not angry at the police for how they handled the situation either.  The man did have a gun after all, and police do need to defend themselves.  It's unfortunate that nine people were injured solely by police defending themselves, but I am positive that the officers didn't intentionally shoot those that were wounded.

No, what really angers me is the media coverage of the event.  I was online when the stories were being posted.  Some labeled it as a shooting, and some were posting it as 'terror' probably trying to grab their audience's attention. Not surprising.  However, many media outlets were quick to label the event as a mass shooting.  After Aurora, CO and the shooting at the Sikh temple, the mainstream media was ready to jump on this, and so were many gullible gun-control advocates.

And here is the problem: it wasn't a mass shooting.  There was only one victim of the shooter in this case, and as stated above, the rest of the wounded were victims of police fired rounds intended to take down the murderer.  According to a witness, the BBC posted that the murderer was shooting indiscriminately at people, which is absolutely false. Some media outlets even published that the nine bystanders were injured in a 'gun battle'.  In actuality, there was no gun battle as the murderer was taken down pretty quickly by police.

Whatever happened to the phrase 'just the facts' because apparently our media doesn't believe in this any longer? And when are we going to hold our media outlets accountable for their atrocious journalistic standards?

The World in a Different View

I read an article bashing Ron Paul's foreign policy views.  I ended up posting a comment to that article and thought that I should post it here as well.  Here's what I wrote:

There is so much wrong with this article that I don't even know where to begin.

1. On Osama Bin Laden, he may have not even been a factor if we didn't support him in the first place.  But as it is, Paul was for going after Bin Laden in Afghanistan, but with a mark of reprisal, and not by invasion and nation building.

2. The United States would not be in NATO or the UN. I would wonder what either of these organizations have to contribute to the US.  If anything both organizations just serve to compromise or circumvent US sovereignty. When our defense department looks towards the UN and NATO for indication to go to war instead of our own Congress, then you know our sovereignty is compromised.

3. Federal foreign aid to disaster areas would not have happened sure, but the caveat would be that it is FEDERAL.  There is nothing to stop the american people themselves in donating and giving aid, and if we had more of our own money that government takes from us, then I am sure we would be happy to donate and give aid ourselves.

4. Iraq... The US supported, funded and armed Saddam Hussein.

5. Yugoslavia, I can't say too much here as I am not familiar with that history, but I will point out Rwanda because the US did nothing in that country while it was being ethnically cleansed.  I wonder why...

6. Libya... we did more than so called 'protect' innocent civilians although that is what the American public was sold on.  It went from protecting to overthrowing the government. I remember the original intent was to just institute a no fly-zone in civilian populated areas, but quickly evolved into bombing Ghaddfi's headquarters. Now also throw in the fact that Islamic militants such as Al-Qaeda were part of the side that we were protecting...

7. Syria... Islamic militants are also at work here, but more so this is a civil war. Let's be honest here, what you are advocating is not the protection of citizens, but the victory of the rebels in overthrowing the current regime. This is the painfully obvious goal here, not the protection of the Syrian citizens.

8. Didn't a report just come out stating that Iran is not close to developing a nuclear weapon nor have they even decided to pursue one?

In closing, it seems that in recognizing all of these examples, you try view them in a way to advance your own political view.  Such myopic views of these situations is what is the real problem here. The attention span of our media seems to be limited to the 1 minute clips that they present, which is just enough to grab an audiences attention, but we never get the whole story. We can't rely on today's media any longer to do their job because they can be flat out lazy instead of diligent. This means that the public, who needs information to make informed decisions, must be diligent themselves to seek that information.

Here's an interesting article on CNN about a journalist facing wiretapping charges. Apparently there is a viral video out there of a police officer slamming the head of a handcuffed kid into a cafeteria table. The journalist may potentially get 21 years in prison if found guilty, and this case is a good test for jury nullification in New Hampshire.  While the story itself is interesting, what I want to point out is the reaction and comments to the case made by readers of the story.  Here are two of those responses.

What I would like to point out is that there is such a thing as bad laws.  The law is not perfect, and if we do see bad laws, we need to challenge them and not accept them as 'just the way it is.' If we were to reduce our thinking to accepting the laws as is, then nothing would ever change, and we would be drowning in bad laws. A question that I would ask to those two people above - What would you have said fifty years ago in the age of Jim Crow laws of the South? Would you tell those African Americans, oh too bad you just have to follow the law?

Link to the article

Harry Reid and Audit The Fed

Harry Reid does not have time to fit the bill (H.R. 459) to audit the Fed into the Senate schedule for a vote, but has time to talk to/about Mitt Romney's tax returns. This is the situation even though Reid has supposedly been fighting to audit the Federal Reserve for the past two and a half decades. What gives?

Bloomberg and Gun Control

It wasn't long after the Aurora shooting that politicians jumped at the chance to speak out in favor of more gun control laws.  Bloomberg was praised by some in the media as having the fortitude to speak out in favor of more gun control.  However, just because Bloomberg was speaking out in favor of such measures doesn't make the man right.  I've put out the idea that even if guns were not available to the shooter, that he could have easily killed many people, and probably more people if he had chosen a different weapon (say the many explosives that were found at his apartment). Getting back to Mayor Bloomberg and his view on gun control though, according to this article, he was brazen enough today to say these remarks:

"I would take it one step further. I don't understand why police officers across this country don't stand up collectively and say, 'We're going to go on strike. We're not going to protect you unless you, the public, through your legislature, do what's required to keep us safe.'"

While I agree that we should do all we can for our law enforcement officers, abridging the Second Amendment of our Bill of Rights should not even be in consideration.  The right to bear arms is there so individual people can defend themselves not only from criminals, but from tyrannical government. After tragedies, such as 9/11, we are urged to give up our civil liberties in order to attain more security, and the politicians succeed.  We have already had compromises of the First and Fourth Amendment, and now they are going to go after the Second Amendment once again.  We now live in a society where any citizen can be spied on if they are 'suspected' to be a terrorist, where they can be on the President's kill list, where we are searched in order to get on an airplane, where we can even be indefinitely detained without charges brought against us.

Getting back to the Second Amendment though, the right to bear arms is meant for personal self defense and prevention of tyranny.  What Bloomberg suggests is that we need to give up this right in order for our police to be safe.  Now think about this;  who will protect us against the police in those situations where the police are in the wrong?  I am not saying that this happens often, but it does happen.

Take this account recently in Florida.  Police shot a man in the early hours of the morning after knocking on his door.  Police were searching for a suspect at the wrong home.  They proceeded to knock on his door without announcing themselves, and the resident answered with a firearm drawn.  The police then shot the resident, who had nothing to do with the suspect they were looking for.

Here is another account from Bloomberg's home state of New York.  I watched the entire youtube video, and I would encourage everyone to do the same. The story had me in tears, but is a good example of police misconduct which ended in a tragic fatality.

Police are not perfect, and we shouldn't expect them to be. If I need to defend myself, I would much rather have a firearm than a police officer 5 minutes away.  However, Bloomberg is the same politician who wants to ban large sugary drinks from his city, so I understand his political philosophy.  You can depend on the government to protect your health from sugary drinks, just like you can depend on the government for your personal safety. 

Think about this though;  when the government fails in its duties (in some cases it does pretty often), who is left to protect the individual?

Media Hype of Gun Control

I came to the realization that what seems to be the driving force behind the gun control debate seems to be the media.  The media needs to talk about "something."  They need to attract attention.  They need this attention to make money, so naturally they will mention gun control, which is a topic that will surely draw that attention.  What is more troubling is that even though they bring up the topic, they fail to be interested in reporting on the facts, and in some cases completely disregard the facts.

I've run across a number of articles following the Aurora shooting where it is painfully obvious that the journalist publishing the piece failed to even cross check their article.  In one article, they label the weapon used as an 'AK-47 style' rifle, which to anyone who knows anything about the AK-47 or the AR-15 will tell you, are not similar at all.  Another article pointed out that the guns were obtained online without background checks, which again is totally false.  Yet another article claims these assault weapons are the very ones that the military uses, completely and utterly false.  You cannot start a debate on a topic with false facts, and expect an honest debate to take place, so why do we let our media get away with this?  Whatever happened to doing your research before publishing something?

We need to stop media from dictating what issues we talk about today.  I am not saying that we shouldn't have an open or honest debate on gun control, but it should be just that - open and honest.  We should not let the media tell us that this is about guns.  The story here should be, why didn't anyone around this guy raise any flags about his behavior in those four months when he was planning this?  Why is the media not focusing on that fact?

The guy, Holmes, also had explosives, and had booby trapped his own apartment.  Why is that not a cause for concern? He could have easily blown up his entire building and everyone in it.  Why is there no talk about this?

And think about this; when the Trayvon Martin incident took place, infused in the national dialogue was the idea that race was a factor.  Turns out it wasn't, but it sure did grab a lot of attention that way.  Even Obama capitalized by saying that if he had a son, he'd look like Trayvon Martin.  We don't need media spinning stories in a way that grab our attention.  We need them to report facts, not fabricate them for us so that we pay attention.  We need to hold our media accountable.  We need to demand that these so called journalists lose their jobs.

The true tragedy here is that not one of these so called journalists will lose their jobs and that the public will accept their misinformation as fact to form their own opinions of the situation.  If we base our debates on lies and misconceptions we will solve nothing.

The Road to Serfdom

I picked up this book the other week, so I have been reading it off and on as of late. I think the subject of the book is as relevant today as it was back then. Hayek discusses how central planning, particularly government with the economy, often leads to authoritarianism. Just food for thought, how can we entrust our elected officials to centrally direct our economy when they can't even balance their budget?

This also leads me to something else I saw recently. I recently youtube'd an interview that Elizabeth Warren did with Jon Stewart on the Daily Show. In one instance she stated that without government, 'no one is going to invest in the basic research that flings off thousands of things that private industry can do with it.' I really hope that she does not believe that, but rhetoric like this is dangerous and disingenuous at the same time.

History shows that private industry can and will invest in research and technology that can fuel the future. Some people seem to forget that modern central economic planning is a relatively new idea, and like Hayek I can agree that some central planning is necessary for society, but the debate should be where we draw the line (for instance cutting some subsidies). I think maintaining our roads, police, fire departments, and schools are a good form of planning. Those are all things a society needs for commerce to take place. What we don't need is government promoting green energy with companies like Solyndra. As Hayek pointed out, we should not be planning at directing resources where they ought not to go, but instead be planning for the freedom of the marketplace.

Voted for Ron Paul

Just got finished voting for Ron Paul in my state's primary. Go vote your and let your voice be heard, no matter who you choose to vote for.

A Decade Ago

I found this video on youtube of a speech made by Ron Paul predicting what would happen in the near future. It's pretty spot on in terms of predicting what would happen within a 5-10 year period from when he gave the speech on the house floor.

I sometimes read in comment sections that even 'broken clocks are right twice a day', but looking at the entirety of the speech, it seems like this broken clock was right most of the day. If Paul's ideas are crazy, then I guess its a crazy world that we live in right?