US Murder Rate at an All Time Low - So Why Are We Talking About More Gun Control

While the gun control debate rages on, we hear claims that U.S. gun violence is out of control. Pundits and politicians will make claims about our violent culture by pointing our attention to violent movies, violent video games, and maybe even the lack of religion. But the fact of the matter is this: despite the narrative being offered by media pundits and politicians, the numbers show that the U.S. is actually becoming less violent. 

According to the FBI Uniform Crime Reports (UCR), in 1991 the U.S. murder rate was 9.8 per 100,000 people. In 2011, that number dropped to 4.7, which is almost a 54% drop in our murder rate. During that same period the U.S. violent crime rate dropped from 758.2 per 100,000 to 386.3 (a reduction of almost 50%). 

Also according to the UCR, firearm murders have declined every year since 2006 from 10,177 murders to 8,583 in 2011 despite the population increasing in the United States. Nonfatal firearm crimes are dramatically decreasing as well. The Bureau of Justice Statistic shows that the crime rate for nonfatal violent crimes involving firearms dropped from 5.9 per 100,000 in 1993 to 1.4 in 2009 (over a 66% decrease). All of this is occuring despite the fact that there are more guns in America than ever before.

One might ask, if the U.S. is actually a less violent society now than it was two decades ago, and guns are much less of a problem now than they were before, why doesn't it feel that way? At this point, we could focus our attention towards two culprits, the media and our politicians. With the advent of the twenty four hour news cycle and the priority of news outlets to bring forth breaking news, our news media is constantly on the search for the next big story.

Take for example the Empire State Building shooting that occurred in late August of 2012. Some media outlets like Reuters were quick to label it as a mass shooting, and even Fox News went so far as to label it as terrorism. There is no question that media outlets are all competing for our attention because that is how they make money. Also, there is no doubt that horrific events such as shootings and violence grabs our attention. Maybe that's also why we have video games and movies that are more violent and realistic than they ever were before.

Invariably though, the media pushes the narrative to gun control and we look towards our politicians for answers. However, is it wise to let our sensationalist media and news outlets determine where our attention should go when discussing public policy?

The same could be said of politicians. Politicians much like our media outlets thrive on our attention. Dianne Feinstein is the exemplar of this as it only took her two days after the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School to get in front of a camera to push her new legislation, which I must reiterate is not only ridiculous, but would be ineffective at addressing mass shootings.

Whenever a tragic event occurs, our media and politicians will always push the idea that we have to do something. The Obama administration is looking to pass gun control legislation as quickly as possible, while the emotions following the Sandy Hook incident remain high, regardless of whether it would prevent the next mass shooting incident from happening. Much like how we witnessed the passage of the PATRIOT Act in the aftermath of Septmber 11th, our politicians are doing exactly the same thing today. Are we once again willing to trade our civil liberties for a false sense of security (and yes, gun ownership is a civil liberty)?

Tragedies occur every day, and they will continue to occur. Admittedly, some of these will involve guns. But despite what the media, politicians, and gun control advocates would have us believe, going by the statistics, violent crime and gun violence is not out of control. We know politicians and gun control advocates can't pass gun control legislation if they actually recognized that our society is actually becoming dramatically less violent. So we must ask ourselves, after these tragic instances, why is there not the same fervor to help the mentally ill, and why are we so focused on passing more gun control laws?

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.