Lone Star College Texas School Shooting Followup

In the wake of the school shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, the shooting at Lone Star College in Texas last week served to keep these types of incidients fresh in the national spotlight. However, unlike Newtown, the tragedy at Lone Star College is being given less attention as more of the facts come to light.

According to investigators two individuals, Jody Neal and Trey Foster, had bumped into each other and an altercation ensued where Trey Foster opened fire resulting in three people being wounded. At this time, all three shooting victims are expected to recover, and Trey Foster was arrested days later in Plano, Texas.

Initial reports indicate that there was a shootout between two gunmen that exchanged fire, with 22 year-old Carlton Berry being one of the shooters. The other shooter, now known to be Trey Foster, fled the scene but again was apprehended days later. As it turns out though, there was only one shooter involved, not two.

On Monday, charges were dropped against Carlton Berry after investigators concluded that he did not participate in the shooting. Initially Berry had been fingered as a shooter by eyewitnesses according to Police, which was enough for an arrest. As it turns out, Berry was shot from behind in the leg/buttocks and was arrested while being treated at the hospital. What is ironic is that some news outlets had also reported that Berry shot himself in the leg.

Further investigation reveals that the sole shooter, Trey Foster, did purchase his gun legally at a local Gander Mountain store, and he did apply for a Texas CHL license to carry his handgun. Foster however to this date has not been approved for his CHL because the background investigation stalled as it found Foster had two misdemeanor arrests (not convictions) on his record, despite completing the required concealed-carry training course. In essence, Foster not only ignored the concealed-carry handgun laws, but he also violated gun-free zone laws for educational institutions.

This incident highlights how quickly our news media, in the rush to report the latest shooting, is not so much concerned with accuracy in reporting, but with grabbing our attention and highlighting an agenda. Was this an example of violence in American society today? Abosultely it is, but was this a shootout between two individuals that highlights a country that has an out of control gun culture? As it turns out, no it isn't.

This situation turned out to be an individual who legally bought a gun, but then decided to break a few laws and shoot someone he didn't like. It just happened to occur near an educational institution. In this author's opinion, the correct course of action is not to enact more gun laws that would serve to punish law abiding citizens, but to hold this criminal (the person who actually broke the law) accountable to the fullest extent possible with the current laws that are already on the books.

Gun Control: Debunking the Assault Weapon

We've all heard the terms in the gun control debate: assault weapon, weapons of war, military style weapons, arsenal, rapid fire killing machines capable of spraying bullets. It's about time we call 'assault weapons' what they actually are; semiautomatic firearms that fire one bullet at a time with each pull of the trigger. They are not the same weapons that our military uses nor are they the ones used in war. What we call these firearms does matter if we want to have a healthy discussion about them.

After watching the video below, I felt compelled to write this article. As the presenter in the video points out, labels are a very powerful way to control the debate before the debate even gets started. If you call something an 'assault weapon' or a 'rapid fire killing machine' you've already limited any meaningful discussion of the topic. Surely no one wants anyone to have a rapid fire killing machine!



Consider the difference in impact of these two statements where the first is a quote from President Obama:

“But I am also betting that the majority, the vast majority, of responsible, law-abiding gun owners would agree we should be available to prevent an irresponsible few from buying a weapon of war.”

Versus

“But I am also betting that the majority, the vast majority, of responsible, law-abiding gun owners would agree we should be available to prevent an irresponsible few from buying a semiautomatic firearm."

Notice the difference?

Even when our politicians reference these firearms as 'military style guns', they are already making that decision for us that these should not belong to the ordinary citizen because they only have military uses, when in fact that is not true. When Obama calls these firearms 'weapons of war' he is already planting the seed in our minds that these firearms are meant only for 'war' when in fact they are used for other purposes.

Furthermore, labels can also be used to illicit emotions like fear, insecurity, and disdain. When gun control advocates call these guns 'weapons of war' or 'military style assault weapon', they are already assigning a negative connotation to these guns. Our politicians in turn can use these negative emotions to garner support for legislation that they say will make us safer.

 Instead of calling the new gun control legislation an 'assault weapons ban' maybe we should call it a 'scary semiautomatic firearms ban.' What we name this new legislation matters *cough* PATRIOT Act *cough*.

These labels are used to control what we think about certain things even before the discussion starts. They can also be used to control people's emotions and thoughts on a particular subject. In that sense, the language of labeling becomes more powerful than any gun can ever be, especially in the hands of a politician.

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.