By Chris Cronin
Staff Columnist
It seems like every week there is a new attack. It can come from a disgruntled employee, a loner with a history of violence, even a teenager. The scene can be a movie theater, a shopping mall, an office, or even a school. And it always ends the same—the shooter dead or captured, the media’s frenzied search for answers, a bedraggled police chief announcing the few details in a hastily-arranged press conference, the pictures of the victims pasted on the television screen. Mass murder with firearms has become a grim routine in this country.
You only have to read the news to know that the status-quo is not working. Our nation’s laws are not adequately controlling gun violence, and with every eruption more people are suffering. And yet there seems to be little hope for change.
The argument for gun control has changed. Those in favor of tighter controls have been shouted down, outspent, and out-argued. Democrats, wary of losing political control in states which favor widespread gun ownership, have all but given up on making gun control a political issue. Even Hillary Clinton, whose husband was responsible for the landmark Brady Handgun Act in 1993, spoke of how her grandfather had taught her to shoot a rifle during the 2008 primary.
Republicans, wary of being on the wrong side of one of the nation’s best-funded pressure groups, go so far as to film campaign advertisements flouting their firearms.
That pressure group, the National Rifle Association, recently announced it was spending $1.3 million on ads for Mitt Romney in battleground states, even while Barack Obama has endorsed a similarly pro-gun stance. To contrast, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, a leading voice for gun control, had just $4 million in its entire 2010 budget.
How do we break this political impasse? Well, the best way is for a national leader to have the political courage to stand against gun violence. Both Romney and Obama have supported broader gun control in the past, and just one speech from either candidate could certainly be a strong catalyst for change.
But with the election even closer than ever, neither candidate is willing to risk such a bold move. Even after the election, unless one party is able to win control of both the presidency and Congress, the necessity of focusing on one issue in order to move through political gridlock will cause whoever is elected to shy away from it in favor of more politically expedient issues.
No, the best way to begin the discussion of gun control is at a grass-roots level. The words “gun control” do not even have to be used—instead, we should focus on narrow but logical steps towards restricting the arsenal that mass murderers favor. One such restriction should be a ban on extended magazines.
Extended magazines have been used by shooters like Jared Loughner in Arizona, Nidal Hasan in Fort Hood, and James Holmes in Aurora in order to keep firing without stopping to reload. The most commonly-cited use for firearms, self-defense, does not apply: you do not need 33 shots, which Loughner’s Glock packed, to stop one or two intruders. In fact, these magazines were banned from 1994 until 2004, but this ban has expired—recent events have shown that it is time to renew it.
The second step is to pass national background-check legislation. The list of shooters with prior mental problems is long, but Loughner, Holmes, and Seung-Hui Cho in Virginia Tech were all able to legally purchase their murder weapons despite a clear history of violent mental disorder. By tightening background checks, we can help to keep firearms out of the hands of those who are most likely to use them for violence.
But no matter what, let’s talk. Because people are dying, and something needs to change.
The problem with gun control is simple, the people have figured out it doesnt work. Especially when US govt. studies and data show that over 92% of deaths by illegal use of a firearm are committed by career criminals, gang members, and suiciders (also a felony crime).
Next, unfortunately for you, the pro-gun movement IS a grass roots movement with the NRA representing only 4 mil out of the 80 mil gun owners in the US. Yeah, the politicians learned the hard way in 1994 what happens when you piss the 80 mil law abiding gun owners off, they VOTE.
Funny how the violent crime rate of semi-auto banned because it looks evil was less than 2% before 1994, during the ban, and after 2004. In 2010 out of 14,748 murders, only 358 were committed with any type of rifle, single shot, bolt action, pump, lever action and semi-auto, in fact only 162 involved semi-auto banned because they were evil. Such a mountain you attempt to make out of a molehill.
You even refuse to acknowledge how all those dead and injured were prevented from defending themselves by the law. Also neglecting to acknowledge because of their inexperience with firearms, just like you have demonstrated, Loughner was able to be tackled becuase he had failed to practice tactical reloads and fumbled his reload with the unwieldly, unbalanced 31 round magazine which requires a different effort to lock into proper battery. Or how Holmes, being inexperienced, failed to load and properly lubricate his 100 round Beta-c-Mag, a tempermental magazine at best, failing to do so with his weapon, jamming it after only a few shots ending the shooting as he wasnt experienced enoguh to clear the jam. But no, you imbeciles want to ensure that future killers only have access to smaller, absolutely reliable magazines making them more effiicient killers for the next time, how unevolved and stupid your unintended consequences are.
All while per FBI UCR, deaths from the illegal use of hand, feet and fists, blunt objects and knive totaled over 1,900 deaths, each by themselves more than semi-auto banned because they look evil. One would think you should be crying to register everyones hands, feet and fists as they are far more dangerous than your mythical boogeyman.
Then of course you refusing to acknowledge the common thread of those psycho’s, their psychiatrists didnt report to authorities they were cuckoo for coca puffs, but thats the law abiding gun owners fault, uh NO ITS NOT.
Until you submit that writ of ceritoria to the US Supreme court to repeal Cruishank, Miller, Heller & McDonald, then change our country from a constitutional republic to a democracy based on the vigilante vote of the mob, then change the BOR to a BON Bill of Needs based on that vigilante mob vote, you and all your panty waste little scaredy cats dont get to determine anyones rights, sucks to be you.
See, the problem besides the pathological lie that gun control reduces violence when it never does, is the anti gun extremists have nothing to offer in concessions or compromise. They only wish to take based on their unsubstantiated and illogical fears of their mythical boogeyman, the law abiding gun owner in their promotion of the pathological lie that gun control reduces violence, when it never does.
Unless of course these anti gun extremist pathological liars are willing to wear a symbol to identify their gun free status, uh like the STAR OF DAVID. Such an appropriate mark for disarmed victims.
Then they should be required to post this STAR OF DAVID on their front door, their lawn, their vehicle to show their masters that they are gun free.
This way the police and the criminals will know whom they must protect/attack, whats the difference,, even though by law they (the police have been ruled dozens of times not to be legally liable) to do so.
Those who choose to rely on the police, who only solve an average of 8.06% of all violent crimes committed each year, should themselves alone pay any increases in costs for the police to do so and those STARS OF DAVID on their person, clothing and home will allow the police to maximize and be efficient in their pathetic efforts.
Then any company, organization, govt. entity that wishes to disarm patrons etc, must then put in place protective measures to defend the innocents they disarm, making it illegal on the federal level to increase their costs to pass on to their customer or patrons, taking such costs directly from their own profits.
A law will be made that the BATF must prosecute every felon or person rejected by the background check instead of the less than 1% (over 1 mil since 1994, and 830,000 others rejected) today or face federal funding cutbacks.
This law will force the BATF to allow civilian access without extra licensing or control to use the NICS background check.
Next the state govt. will be held financially and criminally responsible for failure to fund and resource the NICS mental health reporting function.
Today the NICS database shows only 1.7 mil records of those who by due process have lost their rights. All while mental health experts identify that 50% of current 2.7 mil prisoners have severe mental health illness, and 7% of adults (21.8 mil) also have severe mental illness in the US.
Next, all laws that don’t apply to felons, will be judged unconstitutional and removed from the roles, simplifying gun control laws. See Haynes vs. US 390, 85, 1968 for the guidelines of what 85% of the existing gun control laws do not apply to felons due to the 5th amendment right of no self incrimination.
Next, legalize illicit drugs and destroy the cartels and gangs influence fueled by massive drug revenues. This will save $50 bil minimum in DEA budget, then taxes can be generated by using those agents to tax and control the former illicit drugs.
This will open prison space where 30-40% are incarcerated for drug offenses to put the 99% of felons the BATF formerly refused to prosecute for attempting to buy firearms.
Then of course, all anti gun extremists will have to admit that the govt data showing that 92% of all deaths by illegal use of a firearm are indeed committed by career criminals, gang members, and suiciders.
That will be a good start and it is indeed concessions the antis have to available to offer.
These are indeed common sense solutions as they actually address the criminals and not the law abiding gun owners.
Unlike the anti gun extremist freaks whose only solution is to infringe upon and blame the 80 mil plus law abiding gun owners for all the violence like Hitler blamed the Jews for all of Germany’s societal ills in the 1930′s-1940′s. All while government facts continuously show and prove that strict gun control as the BS you propose never, ever reduces violence.
Get a clue.
1) thanks to those “extended” magazines, Loughner and the Aurora shooter had their firearms jam on them. Giving time for their potential victims to flee or counter attack
2) what good are “tighter” back ground checks going to do? Loughner made numerous death threats, had complaints of mental health-the local sheriff (D) did not enforce the law-or Loughner would not have been able to legally obtain a firearm.
The Norway shooter that killed what? 72 people? They had far more restrictive gun laws (like not allowed to own firearms w/out a huge expense in time, money and the right political connections) yet he was able to obtain firearms and murder his victims.
How about allowing individuals their God given and Constitutional right to protect themselves. In restaurants, in theathers and on college campuses.
Loughner was the only one who used an “extended” magazine. The others used normal magazines, except for the 100 round rifle magazine Holmes used which caused the rifle to jam. (which is why no one seriously uses them). So, because one person has used them in a crime in the past 100 years, we should ban them? Really???
Hi Chris,
Interesting column but you, like a lot of journalists (or in your case a budding journalist), don’t really know all that much about the subject of guns or gun control efforts. Indeed, your facts are wrong in a couple of cases when referring to specific shooters. When writing about Nidal Hasan for example, you say that used an “extended magazine” but this simply is not true. The fact is that he fired an FN Five-seveN handgun, which comes with a standard issue 20rd magazine.
Additionally, you write that we need to pass national background check legislation but such legislation is already in place. Every gun that is (lawfully) purchased from commercial dealer includes a background check. By the way, Cho did not have a “clear history of violent mental disorder” as you indicate. You are also wrong about the so caleed Assaul Weapons Ban as it “banned nothing”. Not to worry, this is a common misconception that is easily correctable.
Lastly, the NRA is not a “pressure group”; whatever that is. It is a grass roots organization dedicated to the safe and responsible use of firearms. NRA certifies instructors and training counselors nationwide to teach and advocate safety training often as volunteers. I know because I’m one of them!
I do agree that we should talk to gain a better understanding of the issue from both sides. All of my contact information follows. Please feel free to call or email me at any time.
Paul B. Raynolds – PBR Firearms Training
NRA Appointed Training Counselor & Certified Instructor
Personal Protection Consultant & Advanced Defensive Pistol Instructor
m: 908.899.1GUN (1486)
e: paul@pbrtraining.com
w: pbrtraining.com
Only free people carry arms
Equating the lawful, constitutionally protected exercise of the right to arms by the vast majority of people with the problem of violent criminals and wackos using guns is disingenuous, misguided and just plain bigoted. How difficult is it to grasp that preemptive laws don’t work because one must respect the law to in fact be preempted, therefore criminals aren’t affected in the least, while non-criminals’ rights are being attenuated without any logical justification? Why are you folks continually stuck on stupid?
>>we should focus on narrow but logical steps towards restricting the arsenal that mass murderers favor. One such restriction should be a ban on extended magazines.
This of course ignores the fact that millions of Americans have “arsenals” and “extended magazines” – and are more law-abiding than the politicians, police or even columnists who call for gun control.
Suppose it was discovered that each of the evil killers like spaghetti, and each had at least 3 boxes of spaghetti in their homes. Would Chris be calling for “spaghetti control”?
The biggest commonality between the mass shootings is that they take place in locations where guns are banned. The Cinemark Massacre (so called because the Cinemark theaters where the Colorado massacre took place had BANNED firearms for self-defense) are a prime example of a business who ensured that their customers would be fish in a barrel for any crazed shooter.
Why don’t you read about mass shootings in places where people are well-armed for self-defense? Probably because the shooters avoid such locations, and perhaps in large part because the shootings never amount to “mass shootings”. They get stopped early. By people with guns.
So the answer to gun violence isn’t to try to restrict the ability of people to defend themselves. The answer is to encourage people to take steps to prepare themselves to deal with an aggressor. Teach people to shoot. Encourage them to carry firearms.
Well, Chris, you are wrong on several fronts.
Bill Clinton signed the ill-advised, useless “Assault Weapon” ban into law in 1994, and what did it accomplish? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. Among the reasons why are:
1) “assault weapons” are/were used in so few crimes as to be statistically insignificant;
2) There never was a “ban” on NORMAL capacity magazines, only a ban on magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds (which, by the way, led to the development of much more easily carried handguns), and any NORMAL capacity magazines already in circulation were not affected in any way, shape, or form.
3) Criminal background checks are ALREADY REQUIRED on all firearms purchases through federally licensed dealers, unless, in most cases, the buyer has a license/permit to carry concealed firearms, as these folks have already been checked and cleared.
4) Clinton’s AWB addressed purely cosmetic features on guns; it had no effect on their functionality. And it had NO EFFECT on firearms-related crime. Period.
You’re right, LET’S TALK. Let’s talk about our revolving door crimnal justice system, and the catch-and-release programs that puts violent criminals back on the streets. Let’s talk about criminal street gangs, and our absolute failure in dealin g with them. Let’s talk about those areas with strict “gun control”, like Washington, D.C and Chicago, where it is nearly impossible for a law-abiding citizen to have a firearm for personal defense. Let’s talk about the absymal failure of “gun control” wherever it has been tried, because IT DOES NOT AFFECT THE CRIMINAL ELEMENT, WHO DO NOT OBEY ANY LAWS.
More laws, or more stringent laws, will do nothing. You see, criminals, by the very definition of the word, will ignore those laws as they do the ones currently on the books. All gun control laws do is make a criminals job safer, as he can be fairly certain that his victims won’t be able to fight back effectively. If you look at the statistics violent crime of all types has been falling for 20+ years. Coincidentally, over the last 20+ more states have been allowing their citizens the ability to defend themselves by carrying a firearm, with only one state prohibiting the practice completely. That state, Illinois, is currently having the worst year since the days of Al Capone in terms of violence, especially in Chicago, which is still trying to prohibit all handguns in defiance of the McDonald v. Chicago decision. Guns don’t cause crime, people with no moral compass do.
Dear Mr./Ms. Cronin: There’s really only one thing I can pull from your statements here that rings true. The argument for gun control has changed, and as you state, it’s because those in favor of tighter controls have been “out-argued,” nothing more. Effective arguments, for or against ANY subject, are won on facts, and the facts of this subject clearly prove that “more-gun-control-laws” (and in most instances even current laws) have no positive effect in reducing aberrant violence committed with a gun.
As to your calling the NRA, “the nation’s best-funded pressure group….” It’s simply laughable. Please consult the National BAR Association, and find out how much money the nation’s lawyers spend annually on THEIR political agenda. Your contention that a discussion needn’t even include the words “gun control” has been tried. Anti-rights people have been trying to convince people for years that what they’re really trying to do is not what they’re actually doing, by calling it something else. A rather childish tactic, and easily exposed.
Let’s instead, have a discussion on what to do about something that kills many times the number of Americans each year as do guns, and let’s apply just a few “common-sense restrictions,” like we’re told we need to do regarding guns, shall we? I’m speaking about drunk-driving.
Now, (the same as every anti-gun-rights person always proclaims) I support the right of Americans to drink alcohol. Heck, I even grew up in a home where the adults drank, and on occasion, have actually even imbibed myself, but I think we can all agree, (right?) that we ‘must do something’ about the number of senseless deaths each year caused by the wanton abuse of alcohol in this country. I will therefore propose just this one “reasonable restriction,” and it won’t even interfere with anyone’s right to drink.
We shall have a national law, that says, whenever a person enters any establishment where they could consume alcohol, they will turn in their car keys upon entry. Because science tells us that the human body metabolizes alcohol at the rate of approximately one-ounce per hour, and also that even one drink has a debilitating effect on the ability to drive a vehicle, if someone consumes one drink, they will not be given back their keys for one hour, AND the establishment will not be allowed to serve more than one drink per hour to any patron. See? Nobody’s right to drink harmed at all. Of course this does nothing to address the scourge of alcohol in ‘private hands,’ and we will of course have to continue to discuss further reasonable restrictions. Perhaps a “background check” could be useful as well? Anyone who has ever undergone alcohol treatment of any kind, or suffered any negative judicial action resulting from the use of alcohol, has that fact entered onto their license to drive. Since identification should be shown to either purchase or publicly consume alcohol, we would be able to keep alcohol out of the hands of these people who shouldn’t have it.
But no matter what, let’s talk. Because people are dying, and something needs to change.
While I understand and applaud the desire to look at how to minimize the deaths of innocent people, I’m not sure that restricting or trying to control the capacity of magazines will have any material affect. Those who are criminals will ignore the laws, whether it is “no firearms allowed”, magazine capacity, types of firearms etc. For anyone who has even a fairly basic level of competence with a firearm then changing a magazine takes a minimal amount of time, I therefore don’t see restricting magazine size as saving lives. Those who are pro-gun will also see this as the first step towards gun-control and hence I don’t see it being well received.
Ignoring any debate about how many lives guns save each year; isn’t a better approach to saving lives to first consider and work on the following. I believe both pro and anti-gun would agree with most of these.
a) Enforcing existing laws better – how many criminals are able to be in and out of prison in a matter of weeks or months?
b) Being very tough on straw purchasers
c) Improving the flow of information and accountability – a number of recent shootings e.g. Wisconsin, Colorado etc had a shooter who was either meant to hand in their firearms or had been visiting a psychiatrist who had raised concerns.
d) Improving the training/knowledge/awareness to parents and children on gun-safety
While many pro/anti gun control groups will throw statistics around, the truth of the matter is that once you remove gang related violence and suicides (which studies have shown would occur with or without firearms anyway) then the number of deaths per year, while tragic, is much lower than deaths due to many other reasons. However the media find the news of a shooting much more likely to sell to the public than drunk drivers and it is easier to politicize the stories.
I come from a country which doesn’t have a 2nd amendment or right to bear arms. Having only been in the US for 3 years my belief is that there are more important issues at hand that would improve the quality of life and reduce the issues the country is facing that will have a greater positive impact and more likely have bi-partisan support.
“Extended magazines have been used by shooters like Jared Loughner in Arizona, Nidal Hasan in Fort Hood, and James Holmes in Aurora in order to keep firing without stopping to reload. The most commonly-cited use for firearms, self-defense, does not apply: you do not need 33 shots, which Loughner’s Glock packed, to stop one or two intruders.”
So you are one of the reporters or pundits who believe in one-shot kills, and shooting for the leg or arm or weapon instead of “shooting to kill” (shooting for the torso). Reality is quite different. As for the joker, he was wearing body armor. Had I been in the theater audience and allowed to conceal carry, the odds are more than likely that not only would have I felt the obligation to defend myself if I couldn’t retreat, but I would have strongly felt the obligation to respond. I would have been carrying the legal limit on clips, whether ten rounds or no limit, if no limit, they would have been a 15 round magazine in a .45 semi-auto, along with extended magazines, whatever capacity is the maximum in a para-ordnance semi-auto. And I would have needed every round available to me. Because there were several soldiers in that audience, and as I continued to fire, they hopefully would have positioned themselves to tackle the joker as soon as I saw them and stopped firing. In that case, I would have needed many rounds to put the joker off-balance, hopefully hitting him in an unprotected area in one of the many shots I would have returned. The same reason the police want high-capacity magazines. Not to fill a perp full of holes, or shoot as many people as possible, but to increase the odds of stopping the perp, or surviving a shooting incident. The argument about hitting bystanders doesn’t stand here or in most arguments. If I had to endanger another person in the theater by responding, I would have moved my position or not responded. And having been in self defense situations before, both myself and friends, relatives and other business people I’ve known in the past, there are some situations that responding would be a bad decision, responding would be the only decision, and the most frequent situation that is true country wide according to DOJ figures, the mere presence or belief of the presence of an armed target was enough to diffuse the situation or change the outcome. Nearly every shooting incident involves a very low number of rounds fired, if any. But in the rare circumstance that additional firepower is needed I choose to increase my odds, just as I choose to have the ability to defend myself and my family, and those around me, whether they realize it or not. And lets not forget, as cited in the Heller decision establishing an individual right, (and extended to everyone in a later decision), your “most commonly-cited use for firearms, self-defense, does not apply:” , means nothing. self-defense was not the reason for the second amendment, as the supreme court found, the second amendment’s existence is to protect against a tyrannical government. It may not be conceivable here in the US today, but I’m sure the Egyptians and Libyans wished they were armed like US citizens when their governments fell,, along with several of the old Soviet republics as their governments fell. Maybe you remember when they fell and the citizens convincing soldiers and tank drivers to quit the government and join their ranks to revolution and freedom. It’s the second amendment that ensures the survival of the first amendment along with the rest of the Constitution and other amendments.
” In fact, these magazines were banned from 1994 until 2004, but this ban has expired—recent events have shown that it is time to renew it.”
False.
The high capacity magazines, along with the “assault weapons” (semi-autos with scary features, such as a bayonet mount) were NOT banned. Only the manufacture and sale of the magazines and “assault weapons” were mostly banned from sale if they were manufactured after a certain date. Those that were manufactured before the deadline were all legal throughout the ban period (ten years or so). As the law was being drafted and argued, the manufacturers went into overdrive, with double and triple shifts, creating as many pre-ban firearms and magazines as they could until the deadline. The increased cost of the firearms and magazines after the “ban” made up for any overtime costs. Additionally, there was no ban for selling to the police or military, where some guns are regularly stolen or sold by criminal police and criminal soldiers yearly. And what were the results of the “ban”? Readily available pre-ban “assault weapons”, readily available high-capacity magazines, and as the law took effect, manufacturers who altered the designs of their firearms to get around the ban and who continued to manufacture and sell firearms very similar to banned versions, yet were completely legal under the “ban”. All it did was make knockoff models more expensive. And even with all these firearms continuing to be readily available, what was the result? The so called “assault weapons” continued to be a very small fraction of the firearms used in criminal shooting incidents then, as well as now. The truth is, today, as well as back during the “assault weapons” ban, that the vast majority of shooting incidents DO NOT involve the “assault weapons” banned under the Clinton gun ban.
We don’t have an aftermath report detailing exactly what happened in the theater shootout yet, but reports are that the semi-auto used by the joker jammed. And that he switched to a shotgun and one or more of the several handguns he was equipped with during the incident. The semi-auto jammed because he was reportedly using a type of magazine that is known to be unreliable and jammed during the shooting, causing him to switch to the shotgun. So as bad as it was, it could have been worse, had he selected a more reliable firearm or magazine. It would have been while he was facing in one direction that someone else, perhaps a soldier or other concealed carrying citizen could have responded, or while he was trying to figure out what went wrong with his firearm, or during the time he tried to clear the jam, or trying to switch magazines, or even switching to the shotgun or handgun that a slight delay may have given someone time to respond. Unfortunately, due to a gun BAN in the theater, no one was able to respond due to legal reasons.
If you succeed in banning high capacity magazines and some semi-auto firearms (or all semi-auto firearms since they are all similar in function), will you then step up to ban 3d printers? Or prohibit their open source software? And if so, how do you enforce this ban? Guess who will be the only ones ignoring the ban?
Is it possible to realize that the idea of gun control is simply not supported by the masses? The power of the NRA comes from its members – and more importantly, it’s non-members. There are hundreds of thousands of gun owners who have no affiliation or love for the NRA.
The NRA is turned into the boogeyman in this argument so that there’s a target for the rage of gun control advocates who find themselves in the minority of the country. Why do Democrats not bring up control in many states? Because the voters of the states are not in favor of gun control. That’s how democracy works.
Thanks to everyone who responded. While I vehemently disagree with some of the facts presented, I am happy that you spent the time putting out generally well-thought-out arguments backed up with facts. That was all I was trying to do with my article, and I do stand behind the facts that I used. They were all taken from mainstream media sources, and all should be verifiable through a quick Google search. The one fact I am confused about is whether Hasan used an extended magazine– it is entirely possible that the news source I used for that information confused the twenty-round standard mag for the 5-7 with an extended magazine due to its large capacity.
Regarding the National Rifle Association, I am weighing the possibility of doing a follow-up article, but until then here is a summary of their political spending from a respected source: http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000000082&cycle=2012
As you can see, this group dropped $17.6 million dollars in election advocacy (advertisements, etc.) during the 2011-2012 electoral cycle, and the majority of this was spent on attack ads. This is in addition to over $5 million in lobbying and another million in direct campaign contributions over the past two years. Is it a grassroots group? It has a large membership, but money talks. I refuse to believe that this conversation is over when one side is spending so much more money than the other.
Oh, and “Pressure Group” is another term for an Advocacy Group; I’m sorry for the confusion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advocacy_group
Sincerely,
(Mr.) Christopher Cronin