VCDL's meeting schedule: http://www.vcdl.org/meetings.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Abbreviations used in VA-ALERT: http://www.vcdl.org/help/abbr.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------
VCDL Update 5/6/09 - Defending your right to defend yourself
1. VCDL member straightens out York County/Poquoson
2. Terry McAuliffe: Master of doublespeak
3. Blundering Bloomberg roundup (3 articles)
4. Guns, gore and government
5. Shooting outside Buffalo Wild Wings
6. Interior won't challenge rule on guns in parks
7. Lautenberg gun show bill as bad as expected
8. John Lott: ABC's shameful 20/20 "experiment"
9. A response to "If I Only Had a Gun" by Chip Hammond
10. Who will face down the gun lobby?
11. The real lesson of Columbine
12. Armed self-defense & 'The Stopwatch of Death'
13. As multiple-death shootings surge, Congress looks away
14. Assault weapons ban - in the Violence Policy Center's own words
15. NPR admits error on guns in Mexico
16. WT: Obama's gun lies
17. Paranoia not fueling gun sales; it's the other way around
18. A look at the Nordyke ruling (2A Incorporation)
19. Study: 'Green' ammo carries cancer risk
**************************************************
1. VCDL member straightens out York County/Poquoson
**************************************************
VCDL Executive Member Ron Lilly writes:
I stopped in the York County/Poquoson court house for a friendly chat
with the clerk of the court. Sadly she was "in a meeting," so I spoke
with an assistant who adamantly protested that they have nothing to do
with whether a person gets fingerprinted.
Then, I went to see the good sheriff, who was (wouldn't you know it)
not available. So I had a very nice chat with a lady who worked for
him and she assured me that she'd pass along my concerns (and notes)
to the sheriff.
Much to my surprise, the sheriff called me back and stated that his
view was that I am absolutely correct and that there was no statute in
Poquoson requiring fingerprinting of applicants, therefore they could
not be fingerprinted. He thanked me for bringing it to his attention
and stated that furthermore he would call the clerk of the court and
inform her that they would stop fingerprinting applicants from Poquoson.
The clerk of the court called me back and apologized (repeatedly) for
the confusion and said that Poquoson residents would not be
fingerprinted in the future. She said that they "just didn't know"
that such an ordinance was required. (I guess they just run things on
supposition and their "gut feeling.")
So, we'll see. I am however, going to go to the Poquoson city council
meeting and inform them (again) that they still have preempted laws on
the books that need to be repealed. They seem to be a nice enough
bunch but just need a little encouragement and the occasional reminder.
**************************************************
2. Terry McAuliffe: Master of doublespeak
**************************************************
The master of doublespeak: "He [Terry McAuliffe] believes we need to
enforce the laws that we have - and this means closing the gunshow
loophole..."
Uh, that would be a new law.
Thanks to Steve Paxson for the forward:
Mr. Paxton,
Thanks for your message and for following up on the VCDL Survey. Terry
is a gun owner and a hunter, and he fully supports 2nd amendment
rights. He thinks Virginia's current laws strike the right balance. He
believes we need to enforce the laws that we have - and this means
closing the gunshow loophole in order to ensure that guns don't end up
in the hands of convicted felons, perpetrators of domestic abuse, or
people who have been adjudicated mentally ill and dangerous.
Thanks again for sharing your thoughts with the campaign.
All the best,
Friends of Terry McAuliffe
**************************************************
3. Blundering Bloomberg roundup (3 articles)
**************************************************
As I read these articles on New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg
attempting to meddle in Virginia politics, I can't help but remember
just how well his support of Virginia Senate candidate Jeannemarie
Devolites-Davis worked out a couple of years ago.
http://tinyurl.com/cquauy
HamptonRoads.com
Bloomberg blunders into gun-show fight
New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg may well be sincere in his
efforts to toughen gun controls across the country, but his efforts to
use that issue to support like-minded candidates has clearly misfired.
A Republican, Bloomberg backed a Democratic congressional candidate in
New Jersey last year and a GOP state senator from Virginia in 2007
because they shared his enthusiasm for firearm reforms. Both lost.
Undaunted, Bloomberg came to Arlington this week to launch a TV ad
criticizing Republican gubernatorial candidate Bob McDonnell for
opposition to new restrictions on gun shows. The ad, airing in Hampton
Roads, is funded by Americans United for Safe Streets, a political
action committee underwritten by Bloomberg.
The initiative was timed to coincide with the second anniversary of
the Virginia Tech shootings, a tragedy still agonizing for millions of
Virginians. Rather than promoting a thoughtful discussion of the
state's gun laws, the biting tone of the ad sparked an angry backlash.
Both the ad and McDonnell's response to it were rife with parsed words
and misleading descriptions of Virginia's firearms laws. The footnotes
required to reach the truth would take more space than the accusations
and the defense combined, but that's the point.
The ad creates confusion by shifting between two different "loopholes"
in state law.
The ad correctly notes that one loophole allowed shooter Seung-Hui Cho
to pass an official background check and purchase guns from a licensed
dealer despite a background of mental health problems. State lawmakers
fixed that flaw, but have declined to address another legal gap that
permits unlicensed sellers to peddle firearms at gun shows without
running background checks.
Casual viewers of the ad could wrongly infer from it that gun show
regulations were directly at issue in the Tech killings.
McDonnell issued a press release noting that it is illegal in Virginia
to sell a firearm to a criminal or someone declared mentally
incapacitated. But McDonnell failed to acknowledge that the "strong
law" applies only if the seller knows the purchaser's background. The
exemption for unlicensed sellers at gun shows allows them to claim
ignorance as a defense even as they profit from transactions that
would otherwise be illegal.
Omar Samaha, whose sister Reema was among the 32 people murdered at
Virginia Tech, appears in the television ad (and has written a column
on the facing page). Some gun rights advocates have criticized the
victims' families for pressing for tighter gun show laws because Cho
obtained his weapons from a store. Instead, the families deserve
respect for their work to make Virginia safer even as they struggle
daily with unimaginable anguish.
Bloomberg has a less compelling but nevertheless legitimate interest
in Virginia's laws because firearms from the commonwealth sometimes
end up on the streets of his city, often with deadly consequences.
But Bloomberg cannot be so obtuse that he failed to anticipate the
potential for his intervention to arouse animosity among Virginians
for whom the Tech shootings remain a subject too painful for political
use.
Instead, Bloomberg blundered into Virginia's gubernatorial race seven
months before Election Day, energizing the gun rights groups he abhors
and repulsing fair-minded Virginians who might otherwise support his
cause. The full extent of the harm he has done will take months to
measure.
------
http://tinyurl.com/cbshjc
winchesterstar.com
Bloomberg targets Virginia, guns
New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg is at it again. Two years ago,
mere weeks after the shootings at Virginia Tech, Mr. Bloomberg, who
seems to think most gun violence originates in Virginia, authorized a
rogue sting operation, sending teams of private investigators into the
Old Dominion to set up "straw" purchases of firearms. He did this
without informing any of the pertinent authorities of his intention,
thus eliciting somewhat more than quizzical looks from Gov. Kaine and
Attorney General Bob McDonnell.
Just this past week, Mr. Bloomberg took aim at Virginia yet again --
and at Mr. McDonnell in particular. He and a group he has rather
lavishly funded -- Americans United for Safe Streets -- released a TV
ad advocating the elimination of the "gun-show loophole" and calling
out Mr. McDonnell, now the presumptive GOP gubernatorial pick, for
what we view as his support of Second Amendment rights.
The ad featured the brother of one of the 32 Virginia Tech victims,
who, in no uncertain terms, accused Mr. McDonnell of protecting
criminals rather than Virginia residents.
If this spot did not raise hackles, it should have. It's time for the
halogen spotlight of public attention to shine on these 30 seconds of
misinformation.
For starters, any attempt to link the alleged "gun-show loophole" to
the Virginia Tech tragedy is galactically specious. Seung-Hui Cho
purchased the weapons he used legally, at a firearms store. The
systemic crack, in this instance, was not an absence of a proper
background check, but the failure of mental-health authorities to
properly report Mr. Cho's condition and status. This crack has since
been filled, courtesy of Messrs. Kaine and McDonnell and the General
Assembly.
Second, what Mr. Bloomberg seems eager to push is not the closure of
any "loophole" -- all registered dealers are obliged to run background
checks for any buyers, even at gun shows -- but rather governmental
regulation of private firearm sales.
To his credit, Mr. McDonnell does not favor such an expansion of
governmental reach into the affairs of law-abiding private citizens,
and is explicit in saying so. The meddlesome Mr. Bloomberg is
decidedly less forthcoming. This is not about gun shows, or the
prevalence of Virginia firearms in the Big Apple -- or even, for that
matter, Virginia Tech. It's all about regulation and control, and a
contraction of Second Amendment rights.
------
http://tinyurl.com/dbuk2y
Friday, April 17, 2009
campaignspot.nationalreview.com
Mike Bloomberg Attacks Bob McDonnell
New York City mayor Mike Bloomberg decided to interject himself into
the Virginia governor's race by financing a pro-gun-control commercial
that amounts to an attack ad on Republican candidate Bob McDonnell.
I saw the commercial last night and was appalled by both its
exploitative nature and its slipshod treatment of the facts.
In the commercial, a Virginia Tech shooting victim's brother says,
"Her killer got his guns because of a gap in Virginia's background
checks."
That is somewhat true, but the issue was not a lack of a law
prohibiting someone like him from purchasing a weapon; it was that a
court clerk did not send the killer's mental-health paperwork to the
Central Criminal Records Exchange, a division of the Virginia state
police. This is appalling but rare; according to the review of the
shootings, "the FBI cited Virginia as the state that provided the most
information on people disqualified due to mental deficiency." Beyond
that, the killer was asked on the form whether he had "ever been
adjudicated mentally defective (which includes having been adjudicated
incompetent to manage your own affairs) or have you ever been
committed to a mental institution?" He responded "no."
The victim's brother then suddenly shifts gears: "There's still
another huge loophole, the gun-show loophole, which allows convicted
criminals to purchase guns completely unchecked. Bob McDonnell wants
to keep this loophole open . . . I know closing the loophole won't
bring [his sister] Rema back, but the question is whose sister is next?"
Unmentioned is the fact that the killer did not get his weapons at a
gun show. The so-called "gun show loophole" had nothing to do with the
horrific events at Virginia Tech.
What's more, the most recent statistics suggest that criminals very
rarely get their weapons from gun shows. In 2006, an FBI study of
criminals who attacked law-enforcement officers found that within
their sample, "None of the [attackers'] rifles, shotguns, or
handguns . . . were obtained from gun shows or related activities." In
2001, the Bureau of Justice Statistics found that less than three-
quarters of one percent of guns used in crimes were purchased at gun
shows. (Interestingly, Bloomberg's group, Mayors Against Illegal Guns,
keeps citing statistics from 1998, even in reports from 2008.)
The attack ad concludes, "Ask Bob McDonnell why he's protecting
criminals instead of protecting us."
I am angry that Mike Bloomberg is using this victim's family to argue
for a legislative provision that, if it had been in effect two years
ago, would have had absolutely no impact on the Virginia Tech
massacre. Bloomberg might as well run ads for his trans-fat ban, too.
**************************************************
4. Guns, gore and government
**************************************************
Ah, and predictably here comes the Daily Press with one of their
shameful anti-gun editorials. As usual with the Daily Press, they
don't want to address the fact that most guns used by criminals are
either gotten by theft or by straw purchases. Changes to our laws to
require private gun sales to go through a background check won't make
one iota difference in crime, as such changes won't and can't address
either issue.
http://tinyurl.com/dccj38
dailypress.com
Guns, gore and government
April 21, 2009
Gun issues are a picture window into the workings of government, one
of the issues where you can see how special interests bend lawmakers
to their will. One thing you'll see, in Virginia, is the public's
elected representatives refusing, over and over, to adopt policies
that the public wants. You'll hear loud voices drowning out more
sensible and numerous voices.
Take the gun-show loophole. Gun rights advocates scoff at the term,
but when a particular way of doing business has a special exclusion
carved out from the law that applies to other businesses, it's a
loophole. In the gun-show case, the loophole says that while
registered dealers have to run background checks on buyers of guns,
"occasional sellers" don't have to -- even if their idea of
"occasional" involves a brisk trade.
Gun rights advocates like to paint those nondealer sellers as your
Uncle Frank trying to find someone who will cherish his antique rifle.
They don't like to talk about the unscrupulous people ready to sell
guns to anyone. So if you were a felon, mentally ill or have a
restraining order against you -- that is, if you fell into any of the
categories of people who are barred from buying guns legally -- where
would you take your cash?
The public knows a loophole when it sees one, the public can figure
out the dangers the loophole poses, and the public supports plugging
it. The latest evidence came in a Rasmussen poll last week, in which
76 percent of those interviewed said Virginia should require all
sellers at gun shows to do background checks.
Sharing that sentiment are officials from states whose citizens are
victims of Virginia's free-for-all bazaar (we're a well-documented
source of guns used in crimes in other states). Virginians love to put
down New York City, but Mayor Michael Bloomberg is on their side when
it comes to gun shows.
Bloomberg's behind an ad campaign, launched last week to coincide with
the anniversary of the shootings at Virginia Tech, featuring the
brother of a murdered student. While the Tech shooter didn't get his
guns from a show, this family and others include the gun-show loophole
in their campaign against gun violence. Bloomberg pitches to state
lawmakers and takes aim at Republican gubernatorial candidate Bob
McDonnell, who opposes closing the loophole. The mayor is paying most
of the ad's costs himself and even traveled to Virginia for its launch.
This isn't Bloomberg's first venture into gun politics in Virginia.
Earlier, he provoked then-Attorney General McDonnell when New York
launched an undercover operation that resulted in federal charges
against gun dealers in several states, including Virginia, who were
sources of guns used in crimes in New York. One channel for the flow
of guns to thugs is dealers who enable "straw man" sales, in which one
individual puts his clean name on the application (and background
check) while someone else, who can't buy legally, is actually the buyer.
Virginians got all up in arms about New York officials interfering in
our business. And they were right about the undercover operation,
which New York wrongly kept undercover from Virginia law enforcement.
Better that Virginia authorities had been involved, because when guns
used in crimes can be traced to a dealer in our state, there's a
problem.
The General Assembly refused again this year to address the gun-show
loophole. Once more, the voices of the few, the loud and the adamant
have drowned out the legitimate wishes of the many.
Expect to hear more from Michael Bloomberg as our gubernatorial race
heats up. Only this time, as this ad shows, it won't be an undercover
operation.
**************************************************
5. Shooting outside Buffalo Wild Wings
**************************************************
More shootings outside gun-banning Buffalo Wild Wings. Who'da thunk it?
Until they finally figure out that disarming people like you and I
serves no purpose other than to endanger our lives, I will continue to
get my chicken wings elsewhere.
http://tinyurl.com/dcosqs
wric.com
Person Shot Outside Buffalo Wild Wings
April 23, 2009 09:43 AM
Police in Shockoe Bottom responded to a shooting outside of Buffalo
Wild Wings around midnight last night.
Police say a male was shot in the leg, but his injuries are not
considered life-threatening.
No suspects have been named in the case.
**************************************************
6. Interior won't challenge rule on guns in parks
**************************************************
http://tinyurl.com/cqmj4q
google.com/hostednews/ap
Interior won't challenge rule on guns in parks
By MATTHEW DALY - Apr 17, 2009
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Obama administration said Friday it will not
appeal a federal court ruling that prohibits carrying loaded guns in
national parks and wildlife refuges.
Instead, the Interior Department said it will conduct a full
environmental review of an earlier policy that allowed concealed,
loaded guns in parks and refuges.
U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly struck down the gun policy
last month. She called the rule, issued in the waning days of the Bush
administration, severely flawed and said officials failed to evaluate
its possible environmental impacts, as required by law. The judge set
an April 20 deadline for the Interior Department to indicate its
likely response.
The Bush rule, which took effect in January, allowed visitors to carry
a loaded gun into a park or wildlife refuge as long as the person had
a permit for a concealed weapon and the state where the park or refuge
was located allowed concealed firearms. Previously, guns in parks had
been severely restricted.
Kendra Barkoff, a spokeswoman for Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, said
Friday that the department is not completely discarding the Bush rule.
Instead, she said that officials intend to complete a comprehensive
environmental impact statement that analyzes the possible effects of
the Bush rule, as well as a range of alternatives.
The review is expected to take several months at least. In the
meantime, 26-year-old restrictions that had been in place before the
rule change remain in effect.
In her 44-page ruling last month, Kollar-Kotelly called the rule-
making process used by the Bush Interior Department "astoundingly
flawed." She noted that officials failed to perform an environmental
assessment, which calls for the government to take into account such
factors as public safety and the "human environment."
Even without an appeal by the Obama administration, the court case is
likely to continue. The National Rifle Association has filed a
separate appeal of the ruling. A spokesman has said the group will
pursue all legal and legislative avenues "to defend the American
people's right to self-defense."
Meanwhile, lawmakers who support gun-owners' rights have introduced
legislation to reinstate the Bush rule. Bills introduced by Sen. Mike
Crapo, R-Idaho, and Rep. Doc Hastings, R-Wash., would allow citizens
to carry concealed firearms in national parks and wildlife refuges.
Crapo's bill is co-sponsored by Montana Democrats Max Baucus and Jon
Tester, as well Republican Sen. Robert Bennett of Utah. Two dozen
House members -- all but one Republican -- have co-sponsored the House
bill. Rep. Glenn Nye of Virginia is the sole Democrat to back the bill.
**************************************************
7. Lautenberg gun show bill as bad as expected
**************************************************
VCDL will be launching an effort to fight this bill. Details in a
future Alert item.
http://tinyurl.com/cn4hvk
examiner.com
UPDATE: Lautenberg gun show bill as bad as expected
April 25, 7:52 AM
'Gun show' bill registers private gun sales with Attorney General and
FBI; potentially reaches into your home
The language for S. 843, Senator Frank Lautenberg's bill to close the
mythical "gun show loophole," is now available on THOMAS (Library of
Congress) and, despite naysayers' doubts, it is every bit as bad as
expected. For reasons stipulated below, this is almost certainly the
first gun bill Democrats will try to move.
CONTENTS OF THE BILL
As I predicted, S. 843 is nearly identical to S. 2577, Lautenberg's
gun show bill of the last (110th) Congress. It is a massive gun
registration and licensing scheme which, in reality stretches beyond
gun shows.
Here are the specifics, with referring proposed statutes:
Gun show promoters must register with the Attorney General (AG):
Within the bill, however, are absolutely no restrictions on the AG
with regard registration requirements or fees. If you have any doubts
about how AG Eric Holder will construe such requirements, click HERE.
[Sec. 932(a)(1)&(2)]
You are a "vendor" and subject to registration if you wish to sell
even a single firearm: The promoter must obtain from you a government
ID and retain a photo and a ledger signed by you for "such period of
time and in such form as the Attorney General shall require..." (Read
that: Permanently). "That's not so bad," you say, "After all, it isn't
as though the government is registering me." No? Well how about this
one:
"...the Attorney General may enter during business hours the place of
business of any gun show promoter and any place where a gun show is
held for the purposes of examining the records required by sections
923 and 932 and the inventory of licensees conducting business at the
gun show. Such entry and examination shall be conducted for the
purposes of determining compliance with this chapter by gun show
promoters and licensees conducting business at the gun show and shall
not require a showing of reasonable cause or a warrant." [Sec. 932(b)
(1)&(2), Sec. 923(g)(1)] [Emphasis added]
All gun sales would be registered, and not just be the computerized
National Instant Check System (NICS), but directly to the Attorney
General. Sec. 932(e)(1) & (2) require licensed gun dealers to keep
separate bound records and forms for each transaction. Although the
report doesn't include the name of the buyer, his or her name could be
easily retrieved using the firearm serial number ... which, again, can
be obtained at any time by the AG. Moreover, if you have the gall to
buy more than one handgun in five days, the dealer must report you not
only to the AG but to your state of residence by the close of business
on the same day. [Sec. 932(e)(4) & (5)]
S. 843 extends beyond gun shows: The key here is language which
applies the law "if any part of a firearm transaction takes place at a
gun show." Translated, if you run into a friend and say, "Nice
Perazzi, Harry. How much are you asking? Only $10,000?" you are
required to register the transaction if you later buy the shotgun,
even if the transaction takes place in your home.
Penalties: Don't worry, gentle readers. If you violate any of these
laws, intentionally or accidentally, you are only subject to two years
imprisonment (five for repeat offenses). The gun show promoter and
licensed dealer, on the other hand, may be imprisoned for five years
or even ten years for "serious recordkeeping violations." Makes you
want to be a gun dealer, doesn't it?
CONSTITUTIONALITY
One canny reader of Thursday's piece on S. 843 asked how such a bill
could possibly be constitutional. The answer lies in Article I,
Section 8, under which Congress may "...regulate Commerce with foreign
Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes..."
Guns move in interstate commerce, and federal gun laws are frequently
justified under various, tortured interpretations of this clause.
THIS IS THE BILL THEY WILL MOVE
As fellow examiner Kurt Hofmann expressed it, S, 843 is "low hanging
fruit." Other gun control proposals, such as a ban on semi-automatic
firearms, have drawn intense opposition. Democratic leadership is
avoiding them until the time is right. A "gun show" bill, on the other
hand, seems "reasonable" to uninformed voters. Their intentions are
telegraphed by the fact Lautenberg has signed on eleven powerful
Democrats as sponsors.
The rest is up to you: If you do nothing, Reid, Pelosi et al. will
move this bill. If they succeed, Democrats will be emboldened, and
will follow shortly thereafter with a semi-auto ban. This is precisely
what they did in the 1990s, when they first ran the Brady Act,
following it closely with the so-called" assault weapon" ban.
**************************************************
8. John Lott: ABC's shameful 20/20 "experiment"
**************************************************
http://tinyurl.com/df5kxx
foxforum.blogs.foxnews.com
JOHN LOTT: ABC's Shameful '20/20 Experiment
By John R. Lott, Jr.
Gun control advocates look desperate. Last Friday night, on April 10,
ABC aired a heavily promoted, hour long "20/20 special called "If I
Only Had a Gun." It is ABC's equivalent of NBC's infamous exploding
gas tanks in General Motors pickups where NBC rigged the truck to
explode. With legislation in Texas and Missouri advancing to eliminate
gun-free zones at universities, perhaps this response isn't surprising.
The show started and ended by claiming that allowing potential victims
to carry guns would not help keep them safe -- not even with hundreds
of hours of practice firing guns.
No mention was made of the actual multiple victim public shootings
stopped by people with concealed handguns nor did they describe who
actually carried out such shootings. Instead, ABC presented a rigged
experiment where one student in a classroom had a gun. But sometimes
even the best editors can't hide everything the camera sees.
The experiment was set up to make the student fail. It did not
resemble a real-world shooting. The same scenario is shown three
times, but in each case the student with the gun is seated in the same
seat -- the center seat in the front row. The attacker is not only a
top-notch shooter -- a firearms expert who teaches firearms tactics
and strategy to police -- but also obviously knows precisely where the
student with the gun is sitting.
Each time the experiment is run, the attacker first fires two shots at
the teacher in the front of the class and then turns his gun directly
on the very student with the gun. The attacker wastes no time trying
to gun down any of the unarmed students. Thus, very unrealistically,
between the very first shot setting the armed student on notice and
the shots at the armed student, there is at most 2 seconds. The armed
student is allowed virtually no time to react and, unsurprisingly,
fails under the same circumstances that would have led even
experienced police officers to fare poorly.
But in the real world, a typical shooter is not a top-notch firearms
expert and has no clue about whether or not anyone might be armed and,
if so, where they are seated. If you have 50 people -- a pretty
typical college classroom -- and he is unknown to the attacker, the
armed student is given a tremendous advantage. Actually, if the
experiment run by "20/20 seriously demonstrated anything, it
highlighted the problem of relying on uniformed police or security
guards for safety: the killer instantly knows whom to shoot first.
Yet, in the ABC experiment, the purposefully disadvantaged students
are not just identified and facing (within less than 2 seconds) an
attacker whose gun is already drawn. They are also forced to wear
unfamiliar gloves, a helmet, and a holster. This only adds to the
difficulties the students face in handling their guns.
Given this set-up the second student, Danielle, performed admirably
well. She shot the firearms expert in his left leg near the groin. If
real bullets had been used, that might well have disabled the attacker
and cut short his shooting spree.
Nevertheless, even terrible shooters can often be quite effective.
Despite all of ABC's references to the Columbine attack, the network
never mention the armed guard at the school. He had an unusually poor
target shooting record -- indeed it is reported that he couldn't even
hit a target. Yet, his bravery still saved many lives because his
poorly aimed shots forced the two killers to engage in gunfire with
him. This slowed down their killing spree and gave many students a
chance to escape the building. The guard was only forced to retreat
and leave the school himself because of the homemade grenades that the
Columbine murderers had.
The Columbine murderers strongly and actively opposed passage of
Colorado's right-to-carry law, particularly the part that would have
allowed concealed handguns being legally carried on school campuses.
What goes unnoticed is that the Columbine attack took place the very
day that the state legislature scheduled final passage of the
concealed handgun law.
Time after time the attackers in these multiple victim public
shootings consciously avoid areas where people might be able to defend
themselves. In the attack on the Jewish community center in Los
Angeles in which five people were wounded, the attacker had apparently
"scouted three of the West Coast's most prominent Jewish institutions--
the Museum of Tolerance, the Skirball Cultural Center and the
University of Judaism--but found security too tight."
In the real world, even having a gun and pointing it at an attacker
has often convinced the attacker to stop shooting and surrender.
Examples include high schools in Pearl, Mississippi and Edinboro,
Pennsylvania, as well as the Appalachian Law School in Virginia.
Street attacks in Memphis to Detroit ended this way, too, without any
more shots fired.
Even if the cases don't get much attention, gun permit holders stop
these multiple victim attacks on a regular basis. Ironically, just
this past Saturday, the day after ABC's broadcast, a permit holder in
Columbia, Texas stopped a mass robbery by fatally shooting the
criminal. Some Web sites have started collecting these and other
defensive gun use cases (e.g., see here, here, and here).
ABC'S "20/20 exaggerates "the danger of accidentally hitting a friend"
when confronting an attacker. The show cites as an example is a man
who mistook his wife for an intruder. Obviously that case is a
tragedy, but those cases are exceedingly rare. But why didn't they
present a single multiple victim attack as an example? Simple, because
it has not happened.
ABC pushes the notion that gun show regulations, rather than arming
potential victims, can stop these attacks. But very few criminals get
their guns from gun shows: a U.S. Justice Department survey of 18,000
state prison inmates showed that less than one percent (0.7%) of
prisoners had obtained their gun from a gun show. Even adding flea
markets and gun shows together raises the number to just 1.7 percent.
There is not a single academic study showing that regulating private
individuals selling their own guns -- the so-called "gun show
loophole" -- reduces any type of violent crime. What the regulations
have accomplished is cutting the number of gun shows by 25 percent.
The show ends with this claim:
"If you are wondering where are all the studies about the
effectiveness of guns used by ordinary Americans for self-defense,
well keep searching, we could not find one reliable study and the ones
we found were contradictory."
Yet, "contradictory" is an overstatement. There have been 26 peer-
reviewed studies published by criminologists and economists in
academic journals and university presses. Most of these studies find
large drops in crime. Some find no change, but not a single one shows
an increase in crime.
You would think that if gun control worked as well as ABC implies,
there wouldn't be these multiple victim public shootings in those
European countries with gun laws much stricter than those being
publicly discussed in the United States or by ABC. Yet, multiple
victim public shootings are quite common in Europe. In just the last
few days, there have been a shooting at a college in Greece and in a
crowded cafe in Rotterdam. Of course, the worst K-12 public school
shootings are in Europe.
Given the hundreds of millions of dollars that have been spent
annually in the United States for police officers on campus and other
programs, one would hope that this relatively inexpensive alternative,
where people are willing to bear the costs themselves to protect
others, would be taken more seriously.
ABC never mentions a simple fact: all multiple victim public shootings
with more than 3 people killed have occurred where permitted concealed
handguns are prohibited. Rather than studying what actually happens
during these shootings, ABC conjured up rigged experiments aimed at
convincing Americans that guns are ineffective. Unfortunately, ABC's
advice, rather than making victims safe, makes things safer for
attackers.
**************************************************
9. A response to "If I Only Had a Gun" by Chip Hammond
**************************************************
http://tinyurl.com/ctvm67
centerforajustsociety.org
A Response to "If I Only Had a Gun" by Chip Hammond
4/16/2009
On April 10, ABC ran a persuasion piece done by Diane Sawyer entitled
"If I Only Had a Gun." The purpose of the piece was to convince people
that if one were in a situation in which he or she was attacked,
especially by someone with a gun, the very last thing that person
would want is a gun of their own to defend themselves with.
I am a certified self-defense and firearms instructor who has taught
the defensive use of firearms to private citizens, police officers and
private security. I have been used as a source for firearms
information by journalists in this country and in Europe.
The ability to own and carry ("keep and bear") firearms is a right.
That right morally requires the responsibility of training and
proficiency, but the lack of living up to that moral responsibility
does not take away the right. The first amendment guarantees the right
of freedom of the press. That right also morally requires the
responsibility of telling the truth, getting your fact straight, and
the like, but the mere fact that journalists do not always do this
does not take away their right to freedom of speech in the print or
broadcast media.
In Sawyer's piece she displayed footage of actual shootings in which
the upright citizen prevailed, but then went on to say that we should
not pay any attention to these actual instances, but rather should
make our decision as to whether to have a gun or not based upon a
"scientific" classroom scenario that she set up. The problem with her
"scientific" scenario was that she co-opted a highly skilled firearms
instructor to play the part of the murderer. That's simply skewed
journalism. None of the mass-shooters have had that level of skill.
What would have been more telling is if Diane Sawyer herself played
the part of the criminal shooter. That situation would more
approximate the firearms skill level of the murderers in actual
incidents.
One of Sawyer's points highlighted how seemingly different her moral
make-up is than mine. In one of the scenarios, a young lady was able
to return fire and hit the shooter, but not without herself being hit.
It was obvious from Sawyer's reaction that she deemed this completely
unacceptable. The message was, "You may get the shooter, but not
without you yourself being shot," with the implicit conclusion, "It is
therefore not worth it to have a gun."
That's where Ms. Sawyer and I differ. If being shot means that I can
save my family members, friends, or scores of innocent people from a
murderous rampage, I'm willing to risk it. Without shooting back,
there's a chance I'll be killed in the carnage nevertheless. If I'm
going to die anyway, I'd rather that my death serves to save innocent
life. That moral conviction is what separates Diane Sawyer from most
concealed handgun permit holders.
Chip Hammond is the Pastor of Bethel Orthodox Presbyterian Church in
Leesburg, VA. Please email your comments to forum@centerforajustsociety.org
.
**************************************************
10. Who will face down the gun lobby?
**************************************************
A VA-ALERT reader writes: I love how America's lack of an assault
weapon ban allows Mexico to obtain the full-auto firearms, RPGs, and
grenades."
http://tinyurl.com/d89awl
washingtonpost.com
Who Will Face Down the Gun Lobby?
By E.J. Dionne Jr.
Monday, April 20, 2009
Try to imagine that hundreds or thousands of guns, including assault
weapons, were pouring across the Mexican border into Arizona, New
Mexico and Southern California, arming criminal gangs who were killing
American law enforcement officials and other U.S. citizens.
Then imagine the Mexican president saying, "Well, we would really like
to do something about this, but our political system makes helping you
very difficult." Wouldn't Mexico's usual critics attack that country's
political system for corruption and ineptitude and ask: "Why can't
they stop this lawlessness?"
That, in reverse, is the position President Obama was in last week
when he visited Mexico. The Mexican gangs are able to use guns
purchased in the United States because of our insanely permissive gun
regulations, and Obama had to make this unbelievably clotted,
apologetic statement at a news conference with Mexican President
Felipe Calderon:
"I continue to believe that we can respect and honor the Second
Amendment rights in our Constitution, the rights of sportsmen and
hunters and homeowners who want to keep their families safe, to
lawfully bear arms, while dealing with assault weapons that, as we
know, here in Mexico, are helping to fuel extraordinary violence.
Violence in our own country as well. Now, having said that, I think
none of us are under the illusion that reinstating that ban would be
easy."
In other words: Our president can deal with all manner of big
problems, but the American gun lobby is just too strong to let him
push a rational and limited gun regulation through Congress.
It's particularly infuriating that Obama offered this statement of
powerlessness just a few days before today's 10th anniversary of the
massacre at Columbine High School in Colorado -- and just after a
spree of mass homicides across the United States took the lives of
least 57 people.
No other democratic country in the world has the foolish, ineffectual
gun regulations that we do. And, unfortunately, what Obama said is
probably true.
Earlier this year, when Attorney General Eric Holder called for a
renewal of the ban on assault weapons -- he was only repeating a
commitment Obama made during the presidential campaign -- the response
from a group of 65 pro-gun House Democrats was: No way.
Their letter to Holder was absurd. "The gun-control community has
intentionally misled many Americans into believing that these weapons
are fully automatic machine guns. They are not. These firearms fire
one shot for every pull of the trigger." Doesn't that make you feel
better?
Those Democrats should sit down with Gov. Ed Rendell of Pennsylvania.
"Time and time again, our police are finding themselves outgunned,"
Rendell said in Harrisburg last week. "They are finding themselves
with less firepower than the criminals they are trying to bring to
justice."
The Democratic governor told his own state's legislators that if they
didn't support such a ban, "then don't come to those memorial
services" for the victims of gun violence. "It's wrong," he said.
"It's hypocritical."
And why can't we at least close the gun show loophole? Licensed
dealers have to do background checks on people who buy guns. The rules
don't apply at gun shows, which, as the Violence Policy Center put it,
have become "Tupperware Parties for Criminals."
But too many members of Congress are "petrified" of the gun lobby,
says Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.), a crusader for sane gun
legislation ever since her husband was killed and her son paralyzed by
a gunman on the Long Island Rail Road in 1993.
Family members of the victims of gun violence, she says, are mystified
by Congress's inability to pass even the most limited regulations.
"Why can't you just get this done?" she is asked. "What is it you
don't understand?"
Obama, at least, should understand this: He was not elected by the gun
lobby. It worked hard to rally gun owners against him -- and failed to
stop him.
According to a 2008 exit poll, Obama received support from just 37
percent among voters in households where guns are present -- barely
more than John Kerry's 36 percent in 2004. But among the substantial
majority of households that don't have guns, Obama got 65 percent, up
eight points from Kerry. Will Obama stand up for the people who
actually voted for him?
Yes, I understand about swing voters, swing states, the priority of
the economy and all that. But given Congress's default to the
apologists for loose gun laws, it will take a president to make
something happen.
