An amazing thing happened in 2004: The sun set on the federal assault weapons ban. I never thought any gun law would be allowed to expire. But wait, it gets better. Prior to that, in 1987, faced with an ever-increasing violent crime rate, the state of Florida passed a new type of concealed carry permit. It was different in that any law-abiding citizen who met the requirements would get a permit. Concealed carry permit laws up until then were actually left-over Jim Crow laws—a local sheriff or police chief could cancel any permit application without cause, and without appeal, so permits could be denied to people of color.
Many other states followed suit. Most of these states were red states, including Arizona. Most of the Jim Crow laws existed in Eastern blue states. Then another incredible thing happened. Arizona took the next step, and got rid of the law that prevented people from carrying concealed, or discreetly, in the first place! The permit system remained in place, since it did provide certain benefits to the holder. Liberty was on a roll!
In his book More Guns, Less Crime, John Lott surveyed data from every single county in the United States. He wanted to find out if the wave of Florida-style “Shall Issue” permits had any effect on violent crime. The answer was “yes.” They made violent crime rates go down. Alas, the forces aligned against liberty never sleep. After the massacre of children in Connecticut, the ant-liberty forces “pulled the trigger” on their latest attack on the Bill of Rights. They couldn’t resist exploiting the dead children. Sen. Dianne Feinstein wanted to reinstate the federal assault weapons ban and require universal background checks on every firearm transaction (dealer or private sale), effectively building a list of firearms owners like some sort of sex offender registry.
Feinstein, by her own admission, had been working on the bill over the past year, a time during which those who stocked up on guns and ammo were laughed at (no one is laughing now).
President Obama, proving that he is comfortable with not only exploiting dead children but live children, too, held a press conference in which he was surrounded by little kids and announced his list of 23 executive orders, and called on Congress to pass more laws that will have no effect on crime.
The president said, “We should not be afraid of knowledge.” I agree. I just wish he believed it. John Lott points out that “In 2003, the last full year before the ban expired, the U.S. murder rate was 5.7 per 100,000 people, according to the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s uniform crime report. By 2011, the murder rate fell to 4.7 per 100,000 people. One should also bear in mind that just 2.6 percent of all murders are committed using any type of rifle.” Stop the deaths! No rifle bans!
A note about “high-capacity” magazines: Twenty-round magazines for AR-15 rifles are not high-capacity. They are the standard magazines that were designed along with the guns. “Why do you need a 20-round magazine?” some people have asked me. First, why does one feel the need to ask that question? I don’t have to justify my exercising of my right—but I’ll offer a couple of anecdotes.
Many Korean business owners, who in 1992 found themselves in the middle of the Los Angeles riots, defended their families and their businesses with military-style rifles. If you and your son each have a rifle, and your building is being threatened by a violent mob, you are probably glad to have a 20-round magazine. More recently, a 15-year-old boy was home alone with his younger sister when two men attempted a home invasion at his house from two different entry points. The boy drove them off with his father’s AR-15 rifle, protecting himself and his sister. Sorry, no dead children this time. An AR-15 rifle may not have a place in a movie theater, but it certainly has a place in the home or business.
I suspect that many of you have never heard of one or both of these events, yet you know who Adam Lanza is. Why is that?
So, if guns—”assault rifles” in particular—are not the problem, what is the point of attempting to deny an enumerated right of the people? Particularly one that “shall not be infringed”?
This article appears in Jan 31 – Feb 6, 2013.
I’m not sure that any sane legislator wants to infringe on the 2nd Ammendment rights… but how about some common sense approach to gun laws.. tighter background checks for a carry permit…more funding for mental health…more and better instruction classes when a gun is purchased, etc.
If Arizona has it so “right”, then why does the state enjoy fewer traffic fatalities than GSW deaths.. as well as the highest per capita GSW rate in the nation?
Police in school?.. reminds me of Fort Apache, the Bronx….but I understand the concept.
Things can be tweaked to make the system better…..
A megamagazine has no place outside the military..and anyting over a 20 capacity magazine should be banned in most instances.. Christ.. even the police don’t use them.
Until the medical/mental health professions finish fighting the dissemination of the names of patients who are not mentally stable to law enforcement, the issue about unstable folks getting firearms will not go away. The number of firearm related crimes is a small portion of gun owners, legal or otherwise. To Mr Pitaniello: I live in a very rural area of AZ, it takes about 2 hours to get a response from law enforcement. The crack houses and meth labs outnumber law enforcement and are much better armed. Most of the folks carrying these weapons are prohibited possessers. But the cops can’t/won’t do anything to protect the citizenry here. So it is up to us. I carry a Glock with a 15 round magazine and 2 spares. I also carry an AR15 with 2-30 round magazines. I have been shot at while driving on dirt roads and in combat. I know how to handle myself. Maybe you city dwellers are confident in the police to protect them, but my experience in Tucson is you better be armed and ready to protect yourself.
The “science” behind John Lott’s gun lobby propaganda has been broadly discredited. His NRA payed-for “research” employs carefully cherry-picked data which he subjects to equally biased multiple regression analyses in order to tease out a few numbers which he can then parade as scientific proof of his strange hypothesis that more guns equals less violent crime. This is “science” on a level practiced by the climate change deniers from the fossil fuel industries and by the Tobacco Institute, which for decades promoted phony research denying the negative health consequences of smoking. Gun lovers embrace this bad science in which statistics are brutally manipulated to support the favored hypotheses of the firearms industry.
It is quite hilarious to see John Lott, whose so called “data” has been discredited for many years now. He was also revealed as using the pseudonym “Mary Rosh” to misrepresent non-existent support for his own statistical. It is probably enough to say that he no longer has any academic standing is has been reduced to being a contributor to Fox “News.”
Using John Lott to support one’s prejudices about gun violence are like using Ben Shapiro for dating advice.
Oh yes… just Google “John Lott discredited” for a multitude of links!
The NRA and its gun-loving constituents continue to drag out John Lott’s (Mary Rosh’s?) thoroughly discredited propaganda (masquerading as science). As tarnished as it is, it’s all they really have.
Regarding the first comment about the police not carrying hi-cap magazines; yes they do. Almost every police carry Glock has a 13 or 15 round magazine. All police carry AR type weapons are equiped with 20 to 50 round capacity. Talk to some of the officers, they don’t bite.
Just love Hoffman’s citing those assault-weapon toting anecdotes as proof. First, they sound suspiciously fictional–any proof these events ACTUALLY happened? And second, if they are real, two anecdotes don’t prove a goddamn thing! C’mon, Jonathan, I thought as a conservative you were a notch above that cretin Charles Krauthammer, but now I’m not so sure.
Seriously? I can’t believe the Tucson Weekly even published this lame editorial.
I feel ur pain as there’s only 1 Dusty. However, u must have a large mortgage. Mazel toph Mr. Hoffman
The one most common factor in all mass shootings aside from guns is the shooter either using or in withdrawl from SSRIs, a class of mental health drug that specifically warns on its package against extreme rage and/or suicidal thoughts on its packaging.
Our laws already prohibit people from driving under the influence of alcohol, which can and does trigger many of the same moods (along with impaired motor function, to be sure), and cars still kill more people every year than guns do. Why not prohibit gun ownership for those taking SSRIs and similar psychoactive mood stabilizers? I don’t believe their right to medical privacy trumps everyone else’s right to defend themselves however they choose.
RJ, where do you get your facts? Or, more to the point, how did you reach that conclusion? Those drugs don’t cause shooting sprees! They might even have prevented some, given that they’re used to TREAT severe mental illness.
I wish I could agree with your assertion that these drugs might have prevented tragedy, Jefferson, but the facts indicate otherwise. A good place to start would be http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/DrugSafety/Inform…, which demonstrates clearly that the government warned over 5 years ago of an increased risk of suicidal thoughts in young adults prescribed antidepressants. Since these drugs are now routinely given to troubled children as young as age 10, I think the hypothesis that SSRIs may be to blame when some of them snap and commit mayhem is not without merit. Further evidence for this can be found at http://www.ssristories.com/index.php?p=sch…, which cross-references over 20 years of school shootings with the drugs the shooters were known to be taking at the time. Another useful page is http://www.medicationsense.com/articles/oc…, particularly the reference list at the bottom.
I urge you to peruse these links and come to your own conclusions based upon the facts rather than emotion-dead children are indeed a tragedy, but proposing useless solutions does their memory no service.
For every case you can cite where a boy protected his sister with an AR-15, I can find a case where a boy SHOT his sister with an AR-15. Neither make a bit of difference. That whole paragraph, this comment, and that entire editorial are a waste of ink (my case electrons) and should never have been printed.
@Corvi: “For every case you can cite where a boy protected his sister with an AR-15, I can find a case where a boy SHOT his sister with an AR-15.”
We’re waiting.
Jonathan,
I feel a lot of personal prejudice has gone into this Fox News type skewed OPINION article. Citing two cases where guns helped someone (not necessarily saved someone) as evidence for allowing military style guns to be purchased by anybody is idiotic. First, let me say to you that I am not against getting rid of guns, but I do support background checks, mental health screenings, and training. If you want to go shooting ducks or deer than I fully support your “I have a small weiner and therefore I have to have a gun and a pick up truck” mentality. Secondly, why is it that every right wing republican keeps using the second amendment to justify ownership of a gun? I don’t ride a horse to work anymore so can we just say that the second amendment was written for its time. Assault weapons ban was initiated by the Reagan administration, so can we also keep the left/right politics out of this. Finally, history will prove to you that liberal, progressive, and forward ways of thinking has always won every major political battle in this country. I can sleep soundly at night knowing that in few years the demographic of this country will change far enough to allow gay marriage, assault weapons ban, abortion, etc. You, the NRA and the rest of this crazy gun congregation are statistically a very small minority in this country, but just like always and unfortunately, the ones that yell the loudest get a lot of attention. Your opinion reminds me of that one guy at a Tea Party rally with a big sign that said, “Keep your government hands off my Medicare”. To you it might make sense, but to the rest of us thinking that we need to fight off the government or protect ourselves from wild savages in a wild west type of shootout, or be the hero in a gun battle with deranged mall shooter, is a complete fantasy. The few nationwide cases where the victim defended oneself from a perpertrator hardly justifies 11k+ death, 49k+ non-lethal gun shot wounds, 8+ billion in economic losses from medical expenses to missed work to everything else.
@gdelirium454, your claim that “The few nationwide cases where the victim defended oneself from a perpertrator hardly justifies 11k+ death, 49k+ non-lethal gun shot wounds…” does not square with the facts, much less a spellcheck. There were 32,163 gun deaths in 2011 and likely a similar amount last year (www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-s… where you might have found the non-lethal gun wound statistics is anybody’s guess but I suspect they carry equal accuracy.
What you neglected to post, much less investigate, are the estimated numbers of defensive gun uses every year. Depending on your source, this varies from either 100K times a year (Gun Violence Policy center) to somewhere around 2.5 million (Kleck, Lott, et al). Regardless of whose numbers you choose to believe, your assertion that there are “few nationwide cases” where people defended themselves and the reality are obviously two different things. One hundred thousand people or two and 1/2 million-either number far outstrips 32K, and had these people not been able to defend themselves, the social costs you decry would be far higher than they already are. You are welcome to your point of view, but it is simply not based in the real world.
@RJFletcher, I obtained my information from United States Department of Justice and you from some website maintained by the University of Sydney in Australia. What is more interesting, and what I would like to know, is the source that you have used that fabricated the 100k-2.5M number. Only NRA, Fox News, Rush, and Glen have the balls to publish these kinds of exaggerated figures and scare you into thinking that the world is coming to an end The 1% is feeding you garbage information and people like you clap about it and get excited like a bunch of seals in an aquarium who have been thrown a bucket full of chum.