Posted on 12/08/2015 10:29:50 AM PST by Kaslin
There is something I forgot to mention in my Sunday column about California's gun laws and their failure to stop the San Bernardino terrorist attack last week: I supported California's 1989 assault weapon ban. The bill passed after a vicious elementary schoolyard shooting in Stockton left five children dead. The shooter had an AK-47. Sacramento passed an assault weapon ban that I believed would save lives because it would limit the speed with which a deranged thug could kill.
Fact is, I knew next to nothing about guns. I wrongly equated semi-automatic weapons with automatic weapons. I wrongly thought the guns banned in the 1989 law were faster than other semi-automatic long guns. I felt virtuous because at least I was supporting something.
In 1994, Washington adopted a national assault weapon ban. As the law was about to sunset in 2004, a Department of Justice evaluation determined that if the ban were renewed, then its effects on gun violence would be "small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement." That's in part because the banned firearms were used in about 2 percent of crimes before the law was enacted, according to most studies.
In his Sunday night speech on the San Bernardino attack, President Barack Obama told America that to fight terrorism, Washington has to make it "harder for people to buy powerful assault weapons like the ones that were used in San Bernardino." Methinks he wants some partisan cage-rattling to distract from the frightening prospect of terror in the homeland.On Saturday, a New York Times front-page editorial opined likewise. The editorial noted that European bans have not stopped terrorist attacks, "but at least those countries are trying."
That's the spirit of the assault weapon ban community; it is a good thing to enact laws that don't work, because it shows you really care. Pat yourself on the back quickly because you've just chased other Americans -- people who fear that this is an early step in a march against their Second Amendment rights -- to their local gun dealer to buy what they think you want to ban.
For the record, I don't think it's a good thing if more people own guns. Irresponsible owners leave loaded weapons where children can find them. Also, more than 20,000 Americans kill themselves with guns annually.
But this is important: There has been "a remarkable decrease in violent crime and gun crime in the U.S. since the early 1990s, even though the number of firearms has increased by about 10 million every year," Center for Research in Crime and Justice Director James Jacobs told Time magazine. "There's no simple correspondence between the number of firearms in private hands and the amount of gun crime, and I often find it somewhat strange that there seems to be a perception that things are worse than ever when, in reality, things are really better than they've been for decades."
So what's my plan? A few readers have asked me. To start, I don't believe in enacting laws that do not work. I know what did work -- the heroic San Bernardino Police Department. Officers arrived at the scene in four minutes. A surveillance team found the terrorists' rented van; the shootout that followed very likely prevented another deadly attack. The officers' training saved lives. The key is to know your enemy. The enemy is Islamic extremism, not American gun owners.
I’m a little confused. The article says that the number of guns in America has increased by about 10 million per year, every year, since 1990. That would mean 250 million new guns since 1990. Does that mean that prior to 1990, there were only 50 million guns in America, or that there’s a whole lot more than 300 million today?
Toddlers as victims of self-inflicted wounds often raise questions with me. Although I understand the superpowers of the errant two-year old, I have few arms which would be readily lifted (when loaded) or operated by one so young.
I agree, that despite the incredible climbing abilities of the little nippers, the attempt should be made to place a loaded weapon out of their reach. Like anything else, once they have it, they will mess with it until they get it to work.
For that environment, I would recommend a pistol with a magazine safety. You can leave one up the pipe, pull the mag, and it can't be fired. Put the mag at a separate high location where an adult can readily reach it, insert it, and you are ready to go if you need it, but it would be darned hard for the kid to get it operable.
Anyone with toddlers should put noisy stuff on the way to things they don't want touched, both as a distraction and as an alarm that someone is messing where they shouldn't be.
Thanks for the video link. That is a great video. Too bad we cant feed it to the sats and override the evening news to educate the masses. I’m pretty sure CBS won’t be playing it real soon.
The video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pELwCqz2JfE
Always wondered about those myself.
I don't know many toddlers that could either pull a double-action trigger or cock the hammer on a revolver or pistol to get it to single-action. Aside from strength, their hands just aren't big enough. Or rack the slide on a semi-auto.
Either these guns were left unattended in the most ready condition possible, which would be extremely negligent, or something else was going on.
Does that mean that prior to 1990, there were only 50 million guns in America, or that there’s a whole lot more than 300 million today?
Yep.
Now THAT is a very, very troubling story. I met and spoke with Jim Comey a few times when he was the DAG and consider him an honest and upstanding man. His failure to look at, or speak to, Lynch speaks volumes and he was obviously extremely uncomfortable at having an Obama acolyte and back bencher monitoring and revising his comments.
Interesting point there. Not sure how one would preemptively identify “irresponsible gun owners”.
Children who are brought up around and taught to respect weapons, taught proper gun safety and educated in the use of firearms are MUCH less likely to pick up and “play” with weapons than children who are not.
Some time ago, I read about a study done in Virginia in which inert (non-firing) guns were left in classrooms; closed-circuit cameras monitored childrens’ reactions to the guns. What the study found was that children who had been taught gun safety and proper handling left the room and reported the presence of the gun in the classroom, whereas children who had not immediately picked them up and started playing with them, including aiming them at their classmates and “shooting them”.
Yes. ALL of it.
Repeal the National Firearms Act. All of it.
Repeal the Gun Control Act. All of it.
Repeal the Hughes Amendment.
A well regulate militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Likewise, there are “stories” of children who have been taught to use guns properly, knew where they were and used them in the defense of themselves and their siblings.
yeah, kinda like that at my house, too....when I was a lad.
my dad was LEO, and would come home from work every day, and lay his old blued 4” smith in the holster on the buffet in the living room.
we knew not to play with it.....of course, all of us kids had our initial firearms training under his tutelage, starting at the age of seven.
*ding ding*
Give that FReeper a Kewpie Doll.
You cannot childproof a gun. My Dad had trigger locks. I learned to pick them. What kept me from doing naughty things with them? I was taught to respect them as dangerous tools.
You cannot childproof the world, but you CAN world-proof your children.
Start teaching responsible gun handling in Grade school. Right along with knives and fire.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.