This is interesting. Of the very few people killed by rifles in America (323 in 2011), turns out about 10 percent of those are actually killed by police.
We don’t know how many of the 323 were killed by AR-15s, but we do know that that is the rifle of choice by the police. We also know that a fair number of rifle killings are by shotguns and bolt action rifles from hunting accidents… which means that the number of killings from AR-15 is quite a bit less than the 323 total.
So, if we consider that most police killings are with “assault” rifles… we end up with a fairly small number of innocents killed by civilians with AR-15s.
Here is the key section of this article.
According to the FBI, 323 people were killed nationwide by rifles in 2011 — less than 4 percent of the total deaths by firearms. The official statistics are not broken down by the type of rifle, so it is impossible to know how many of the victims were slain with the type of weapons that Mr. Obama classifies as “assault” weapons. Nationwide, 10 percent of the killings with rifles were committed by law enforcement officers, according to the FBI. Ironically, the raw numbers of killings by police are tossed into the firearm fatality totals that some politicians invoke to drum up support for confiscating privately owned guns.
Ah… what we need are more liberals like this:
Hundreds of protesters gathered in Atlanta Wednesday to protest “Stand Your Ground” laws, marking the one-year anniversary of the shooting death of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin.
One woman even told CBS Atlanta that she’d rather die than use a weapon in self-defense.
“Self defense is not an option, it is not an option,” she told CBS‘ Christopher King. “They’ll just have to kill me, Christopher.”
This is excellent.
I have often explained to my Concealed Pistol License classes that all I need to teach is contained in the Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin case.
Prosecutorial abuse. Notions of vigilantism. Reasonable belief of facing an imminent threat of great bodily harm, and more.
So, It’s fitting that this article appears a year after the start of this charade. Here is a pull quote. It’s a good article and worth the read.
Now, we’ve come full circle around the sun since the night of February 26th, 2012. That was the night on which no fewer than two eyewitnesses in Sanford, Florida, stated that they saw Trayvon Martin on top of neighborhood watch member Zimmerman, violently battering him “MMA” style, and that Zimmerman – pinned flat on his back – was screaming over and over again for help.
From the Washington Times. A report from the Justice Department’s research arm, the National Institute of Justice, titled “Summary of Select Firearm Violence Prevention Strategies,” explains that:
… a “complete elimination of assault weapons would not have a large impact on gun homicides.” It further noted banning guns with certain scary-looking features “could be effective” if the government outlawed all existing firearms, and bought them all.
Similarly, the Justice report asserts that the only way to achieve the “goal to reduce the lethality of guns” with a ban on magazines over 10 rounds would be by a “massive reduction in supply.” It recommends not “grandfathering” the hundreds of millions of existing magazines, but implementing an “extensive buyback” program. Even then, it would “take decades to realize.”
In a speech on Thursday, Wayne LaPierre of the National Rifle Association said the president’s true agenda with his “universal background check” proposal was “the national registration of every single gun owner in the country.” The Justice Department memo recommends the creation of a national gun registry to make background checks for private gun sales useful for the government.
The report says registering every gun purchase in the country would “increase owner responsibility,” enable “monitoring” of multiple gun purchases in a short period of time and “improve law enforcement’s ability to retrieve guns from owners” prohibited from possessing firearms. That’s code for confiscation.
The National Institute of Justice did not respond to questions about who in the administration asked for the research and whether it was given to the White House.
The document puts the administration’s plans into context. Mr. Obama and his allies want to know who owns every single gun in this country, and if they think a gun is scary looking, they will take it away.
Emily Miller is a senior editor for the Opinion pages at The Washington Times.
This is from the NRA. These are true.
NRA and NICS
The National Rifle Association supported the establishment of the National Criminal Instant Background Check System (NICS) , and we support it to this day. At its creation, we advocated that NICS checks be accurate; fair; and truly instant. The reason for this is that 99% of those who go through NICS checks are law-abiding citizens, who are simply trying to exercise their fundamental, individual Right to Keep and Bear Arms.
Since 1986, those engaged in the business of selling firearms for livelihood and profit have been required to have a Federal Firearms License (FFL). All retail sales of firearms currently require a NICS check, no matter where they occur.
Regarding the issue of private firearms sales, it is important to note that since 1968, it has been a federal felony for any private person to sell, trade, give, lend, rent or transfer a gun to a person he either knows or reasonably should know is not legally allowed to purchase or possess a firearm.
Mental Health Records and NICS
According to a recent General Accounting Office study, as of 2011 23 states and the District of Columbia submitted less than 100 mental health records to NICS; 17 states submitted less than ten mental health records to NICS; and four states submitted no mental health records to NICS.
A common misrepresentation is that criminals obtain firearms through sales at gun shows.
A 1997 Bureau of Justice Statistics survey of state prison inmates who had used or possessed firearms in the course of their crimes found that 79 percent acquired their firearms from “street/illegal sources” or “friends or family.”
Only 1.7 percent obtained firearms from anyone (dealer or non-dealer) at a gun show or flea market.
In 2010, the FBI denied 72,659 NICS checks out of a total of 14,409,616. But only 62 of these cases were actually prosecuted, and only 13 resulted in a conviction.
“Universal Background Checks”
While the term “universal background checks” may sound reasonable on its face, the details of what such a system would entail reveal something quite different. A mandate for truly “universal” background checks would require every transfer, sale, purchase, trade, gift, rental, or loan of a firearm between all private individuals to be pre-approved by the federal government. In other words, it would criminalize all private firearms transfers, even between family members or friends who have known each other all of their lives.
According to a January 2013 report from the U.S. Department of Justice’s National Institute of Justice, the effectiveness of “universal background checks” depends on requiring gun registration. In other words, the only way that the government could fully enforce such a requirement would be to mandate the registration of all firearms in private possession – a requirement that has been prohibited by federal law since 1986.
Proposed law in Washington:
“In order to continue to possess an assault weapon that was legally possessed on the effective date of this section, the person possessing shall … safely and securely store the assault weapon. The sheriff of the county may, no more than once per year, conduct an inspection to ensure compliance with this subsection.”
Okay, these loons apparently want my book to hit best-seller status. Cool with me.
Missouri Democrats introduced an anti-gun bill which would turn law-abiding firearm owners into criminals. They will have 90 days to turn in their guns if the legislation is passed.Here’s part of the Democratic proposal in Missouri:4. Any person who, prior to the effective date of this law, was legally in possession of an assault weapon or large capacity magazine shall have ninety days from such effective date to do any of the following without being subject to prosecution:1 Remove the assault weapon or large capacity magazine from the state of Missouri;2 Render the assault weapon permanently inoperable; or3 Surrender the assault weapon or large capacity magazine to the appropriate law enforcement agency for destruction, subject to specific agency regulations.5. Unlawful manufacture, import, possession, purchase, sale, or transfer of an assault weapon or a large capacity magazine is a class C felony.
These people are insane. Truly insane…
“The Senators feel the best course of action is to remove all weapons from law enforcement and private citizens so no one else gets hurt,” said a Senate communications intern. “When the gunman realizes that nobody else is armed, he will lay down his weapons and turn himself in…. that’s just human nature.”
This is excellent:
Elected Officials Are Fundamentally Dishonest
To the Editor:
This letter was forwarded to Barack Obama, John Boehner, Chris Murphy, Dick Blumenthal, Elizabeth Esty, and Harry Reid
I live in Sandy Hook, CT. My family and close friends werent harmed on December 14. That day impacted 26 families with an indescribable, staggering pain and anguish. For most of Sandy Hook, it merely affected us with an inescapable intensity of sadness and grief.
Gun control has long been a focus of many in this country. Though Im not knowledgeable of all the nuances of the Second Amendment, based on the Founding Fathers circumstances, it had far more to do with enabling the citizenry to protect themselves against tyrannical government than against local psychopaths. It is about providing a balanced firepower so when King Georges successor came knocking on your door, you could fight back. Government today is no less inclined to abuse its authority than it was then. Based on the absurd and ongoing power grab that is present day Washington, its as threatening as ever.
That so many of you view the NRA with its resistance to further restrictions on firearms as intransigent lunatics has far more to do with how you conduct yourselves in office than it does with the NRAs actions.You in public office are fundamentally dishonest people. You lead lives of deception at every turn, structuring your lives as comfortably as you can while governing with an indifference and arrogance that is absolutely maddening. When the country is reeling from financial disaster, you waste a trillion dollars on a health care bill we cant afford and youve never read. You claim its critical because health care costs are killing this country… no theyre not, you are! You are killing this country. You endorse the ongoing slaughter of millions of unborn children and whine when terrorists are water boarded. You cant lecture us right in Newtown High School about not doing enough to keep our children safe, while simultaneously slaughtering the unborn. You fabricate the intense, media laden drama of the fiscal cliff and lack the courage to do anything about truly reforming the obscene gluttony of government. You know youll be out of office before the bill comes due… you dont care and have no integrity nor honor.
You lie whenever and wherever you need to to move forth your agenda. Were you able, you would purge the US of guns… every last gun in the country, if you could. So please forgive Wayne LaPierre and those of us who dont trust you as far as we can spit. Youre a dishonest lot, motivated by a distorted worldview. If mass murder prevention were truly your goal, you would welcome armed security wherever needed. It is outrageous that we protect our money with far more firepower than we protect our children.
I have never owned a gun, nor wanted to as intensely as right now. Youll stop restricting guns when only you have them.
Brendan Duffy4 Chestnut Knoll Drive, Sandy Hook January 8, 2013
This is pure insanity and I hope the parents of the child get an attorney. One can NOT be charged with brandishing a weapon UNLESS one brandishes a weapon! A toy is NOT a weapon folks!
But, I guess, when the DHS buys 7000 FULL AUTO M-4 rifles to be deployed in AMERICA and calls them “Personal Defense Weapons,” we should not be surprised with this type of lunacy from leftist school administrators…
ALEXANDRIA, Va. –
A 10-year-old boy has been charged after bringing a toy gun on a school bus in Alexandria.
The boy is a fifth grade student who attends Douglas MacArthur Elementary School.
The trouble for him started Monday afternoon on the school bus ride home. According to Alexandria Police, the boy showed the toy gun, described as a replica silver handgun with a black handle and orange tip.
Police say he neglected to mention the toy was a fake gun. School officials found out, and when the fifth grader arrived at school Tuesday morning, they found the toy gun in his bag.
Police arrested him and charged him with brandishing a weapon. He was taken to the juvenile detention center and later released.
The child has been suspended and Alexandria City Public Schools Superintendent, Dr. Morton Sherman, says further action is under consideration, including expulsion.
I finally get it! We really do need to ban guns. It’s clear!
How funny. A REAL assault rifle–ie. one with “automatic fire”–is called a “personal defense weapon” by the Obama administration…
The Department of Homeland Security is seeking to acquire 7,000 5.56x45mm NATO “personal defense weapons” PDW — also known as “assault weapons” when owned by civilians. The solicitation, originally posted on June 7, 2012, comes to light as the Obama administration is calling for a ban on semi-automatic rifles and high capacity magazines.Citing a General Service Administration GSA request for proposal RFP, Steve McGough of RadioViceOnline.com reports that DHS is asking for the 7,000 “select-fire” firearms because they are “suitable for personal defense use in close quarters.” The term select-fire means the weapon can be both semi-automatic and automatic. Civilians are prohibited from obtaining these kinds of weapons.
Obama is lying and he knows it about the claim that up to 40% of guns are obtained without a background check. This absurd claim comes from ONE study in the Clinton years of 251 people. For a number of reasons, the people did not even know if they had purchased from a federal firearm license dealer. But, considering all the problems with the study, here are the bottom line numbers:
If you include these transfers either through FFLs or from family members, the remaining transfers falls to 11.5 percent.
We don’t know the precise number today, but it is hard to believe that it is above single digits.
Yet, what we need to look at are the costs of pushing background checks into private sales and transfers.
We have to realize that the current system of background checks suffers from many flaws, some causing dangerous delays for people who suddenly need a gun for self-defense, such as a woman being stalked by an ex. In addition to crashes in the computers doing the checks, 8 percent of background checks are not accomplished within two hours, with almost all of these delays taking three days or longer.
Obama made many other false statements during his talk. He asserted that “over the last 14 years [background checks] kept 1.5 million of the wrong people from getting their hands on a gun.” But these were only “initial denials,” not people prevented from buying guns.
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms dropped over 94 percent of those “initial denials” after just preliminary reviews. Virtually all the remaining cases were dropped after further investigation by ATF field offices or the Department of Justice. Few of these “initial denials,” 62 people or about 0.1 percent, involved strong enough evidence to be consideration for prosecution. Just 13 pleaded guilty or were convicted.
This is a good analysis of why we DON’T want the government doing “research” on guns…
The directives on gun violence President Obama signed Wednesday were meant to seem harmless. A closer look at the president’s first memorandum reveals it to be a sneaky assault on congressional authority in order to fund gun-control propaganda.
… Mr. Obama is trying to steamroll the Democratic and Republican majorities that kept the ban intact by labeling the advocacy as research… Under the terms of the memo, CDC may “sponsor” another entity to conduct the research, which is a handy way of funneling taxpayer cash to sympathetic gun-control groups.
… Congress clamped down on the spending after President Clinton used the CDC and National Institutes of Health to create material advancing his theme of treating gun ownership as a public health issue, rather than a constitutional right. Millions in taxpayer funds were blown on junk science, such as $2.6 million used to determine if teenagers who are shot are more likely to have been drinking and carrying a gun…
Is it a gun grab or is it an actual concern about keeping guns away from bad guys?
Vice-President Biden said, “And to your point, Mr. Baker, regarding the lack of prosecutions on lying on Form 4473s, we simply dont have the time or manpower to prosecute everybody who lies on a form, that checks a wrong box, that answers a question inaccurately.”
For your information, the Form 4473 is what prospective gun buyers have to fill out as part of the NICS program, which is the National Instant Crime Check System.
In 2011, for example, out of 72,600 NICS denials, the feds prosecuted only 62 cases. Now, while it is true that the vast majority of denials are what are called “false positive” results, the paucity of prosecutions reflects an ambivalence toward enforcing existing laws.
So, when bad guys are right there for the taking… Obama instead wants to restrict the law-abiding from owning and using the guns they prefer.
With all the gun debate business, it’s good to recall how leftists tried to brainwash us with bogus statistics. This is an excellent piece by my friend and law school classmate, Dave Kopel.
Perhaps the most enduring factoid of the gun prohibition movement is that a person with a gun in the home is 43 times as likely to shoot someone in the family as to shoot a criminal. This “43 times” figure is the all-time favorite factoid of the gun-prohibition lobby. It’s not really true, but it does tell us a lot about the gun-prohibition mindset.
The source of the 43-to-1 ratio is a study of firearm deaths in Seattle homes, conducted by doctors Arthur L. Kellermann and Donald T. Reay (“Protection or Peril?: An Analysis of Firearm-Related Deaths in the Home,” New England Journal of Medicine, 1986). Kellerman and Reay totaled up the numbers of firearms murders, suicides, and fatal accidents, and then compared that number to the number of firearm deaths that were classified as justifiable homicides. The ratio of murder, suicide, and accidental death to the justifiable homicides was 43 to 1.
This is what the anti-gun lobbies call “scientific” proof that people (except government employees and security guards) should not have guns.
Of the gun deaths in the home, the vast majority are suicides. In the 43-to-1 figure, suicides account for nearly all the 43 unjustifiable deaths.
Counting a gun suicide as part of the increased risk of having a gun in the home is appropriate only if the presence of a gun facilitates a “successful” suicide that would not otherwise occur. But most research suggests that guns do not cause suicide….
via Dave Kopel on NRO.
This is fun.