Complicity?

Complicity of current gun laws makes people guilty of slaughter
Are you complicit?

Re: the mindless slaughter of men, women and children in a church in Texas, at a hotel in Las Vegas and at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Ct. plus many others too numerous to mention.

You are complicit if you are an elected official voting to block adequate gun control laws! You have the blood of innocent individuals on your hands.

I should like to note that, by his peculiar standard of law, Mr. Blank is complicit in the murder of my brother who was disarmed by the sort of retroactive — ex post facto — gun control he likes.

By his standard, Blank is complicit in the murder of Carol Bowne, killed while waiting for her lawfully purchased defensive tool; mandatory waiting period gun control.

By his standard, Blank is complicit in the murders of 23 people in Luby’s Diner, where gun control had disarmed Dr. Suzanna Gratia.

Considering that Sandy Hook Elementary School was a “gun-free zone” by federal gun control, with lawfully possessed defensive arms banned, by his standard, Blank is complicit in those murders as well.

I’m sure guilt-stricken Blank will be contacting his representatives immediately to call for an end to victim disarmament.


Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar.

paypal_btn_donateCC_LG


Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

Assault Weapons Ban of 2017

Die-Anne Feinswine’s Assault Weapons Ban of 2017 is out. It’s worth a read. In some respects it’s much like its 1994 predecessor, only more so. Particularly in that it isn’t a ban. Hang on to that thought.

The first section sets up definitions. “Assault weapons” become pretty much any semiautomatic firearm with a detachable magazine and any 1 of several other features: pistol grip, pistol grip (specifically includes thumbhole stocks), forward grip, barrel shroud, adjustable stock, shoulder thing that goes up, threaded barrel, and so forth. Pistols specifically have their own characteristics, which you can guess from Feinstein’s previous ranting.

She got smart on one point. Back in the ’90s, manufacturers simply redesigned platforms to conform to the law (which she fein-whined was taking advantage of a “loophole”). This time she remembered to ban any variant of pages of specified firearms. So gun makers can’t take an AR-15 and saw off the pistol grip or weld the magazine in place and call it an AR-15PB (post-ban).

They’ll have to give it a new model number series. I suggest the UYDF-17. You can figure it out.

Then she gets to the ban-that-isn’t.

Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, is amended—
(v) (1) It shall be unlawful for a person to import, sell, manufacture, transfer, or possess, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, a semiautomatic assault weapon.

(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to the possession, sale, or transfer of any semiautomatic assault weapon otherwise lawfully possessed under Federal law on the date of enactment of the Assault Weapons Ban of 2017.

Yes, existing gear is grandfathered. As before, her “assault weapon ban” doesn’t ban a single firearm, and — gun owners having learned the lesson of her last attempt — have far more “assault weapons” on hand than they did in 1994.

Standard capacity magazines are next to not-go, with similar language merely banning future manufacture or importation of detachable magazines with capacity greater than 10 rounds, existing magazines grandfathered.

Government entities are all exempted, of course.

Up next, “safe storage.” Yeah, if you aren’t carrying it, or have it within arms reach, lock it up. Unloaded. Ammunition elsewhere. Feinstein really hates children.

“High capacity” magazines for government are going to get more expensive, but hey: taxpayers have deep pockets. New “assault weapons” and magazines must be serial-numbered and marked with date of manufacture.

She then inserts 90-some pages of specific firearms that are exempted from this law’s restrictions, which strikes me as stupid because the ones I recognize don’t fit her “assault weapon” definition anyway. She never was that bright.

Transfers of grandfathered “assault weapons” would have to go through an FFL. A private seller has to turn it over to the FFL, who has to enter it into his inventory records. The buyer will have to fill out a 4473, just as if the firearm were being purchased from the FFL, and be run through NICS. There is no exemption for gifts or loans, even between family members.

She’ll graciously allow you to let the buyer handle it for pre-purchase inspection without the FFL and NICS check. Oh, goody.

Now back to that thought I started with; why a ban that isn’t a ban? She did that before, and we know how that turned out.

  • Strictly by the numbers, crimes committed with firearms fitting the ’94 definition of “assault weapon” did go down. But it was statistically meaningless because those firearms were always rarely used by criminals. It’s like a town that saw one case of measles one year, then had 100% percent increase the next when two siblings get the measles. Statistically meaningless in a town of a couple hundred thousand or more.
  • Overall, firearms crime remained roughly the same. A few more hand gun crimes compensated for “assault weapons.”
  • A frickin’ huge number of evil, wicked “assault weapons” were transferred in panic-buying before the ’94 ban went into effect. So the imminent law had the effect of a subsidy for firearm manufacturers and dealers.If Feinstein — or her staffers/handlers — have a brain amongst them, they know this. They know every time someone makes serious banning noises (Obama election sound familiar?) sales skyrocket. “Gun Salesman of the Year.” Prices go through the roof.

    We know Feinstein isn’t bright. But is she crazy? Or is she taking brib campaign contributions from the evil gun industry?


    Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar.

    paypal_btn_donateCC_LG



    Ed. note: This commentary appeared first in TZP’s weekly email alert. If you would like to be among the first to see new commentary (as well as to get notice of new polls and recaps of recent posts), please sign up for our alert list. (See sidebar or, if you’re on a mobile device, scroll down). Be sure to respond when you receive your activation email!

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

We don’ need no steenkin’ due process

“Extreme risk protective orders” (ERPO) are the latest fad of the victim disarmers who snidely assure that one more law will save us from “gun violence.”

They don’t care about violence inflicted by any other means.

The TL;DR if you didn’t follow those links is that ERPOs allow — variously in assorted state implementations; typically family, friends, co-workers, cops — people to petition the courts to have someone’s firearms taken away because they fear that person is at risk of harming herself or others. And who could possibly be in favor of hurting people?

What they don’t tell you is that protective orders are already available. The tricky part is “due process.” Now, a judge can issue an order for a potentially violent person to stay away from the allegedly threatened person. A judge can call the potentially violent person in to see if, just maybe, he should be sent in for a mental health evaluation. The first isn’t too big a deal, and the second incorporates constitutional due process because the one who may be confined is in court to have his say.

As I said, ERPOs lack that due process, by deliberate intent. The accused isn’t told about the hearing until afterwards, when the cops show up to confiscate firearms. Conventional initial protective order hearings may or may not include the accused; ERPOs codify that lack in law.

Ex parte is a legal fiction that claims that, in certain emergency situations, there’s no time for due process, or that tipping off the accused could allow her to do something bad before she’s served with the order. That’s a good thing, right?

No. A conventional protective order amounts to a preliminary emergency injunction, and the accused will get a hearing. ERPOs make no allowance for hearings until after property is taken, and then the burden is on the accused to prove his innocence. No due process; problem.

But it’s a terrible emergency. The guy is dangerous. Really, really so dangerous we don’t have time for due process, or to worry about prior restraint.

But apparently not so dangerous as to justify taking him into custody. A judge could require that in his order. Or not.

And there’s my problem: if the accused is so dangerous that he must be preemptively disarmed of firearms without notice, then he shouldn’t left free to walk the streets…

…say, with a crowbar, to the home of his accuser, who is now relying on a shield of paper. But who cares about crowbar — or knife — violence? After all, it’s a lot tougher to take out an oath-breaking, bodyguarded politician with a crowbar — or knife — than with a rifle at a distance.

Or maybe the — improperly? — accused is left on the street weaponless to defend himself against a — baseless? — accuser with a grudge, who manipulated the system into rendering his victim harmless. Maybe ERPOs should disarm both parties until it’s sorted out.

Rights and property should never be taken without real due process.


Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar.

paypal_btn_donateCC_LG


Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

Ancient Mysteries

While the current news cycle churns out reports about multiple bills to ban bump-fire stocks and other accessories, or to ban nearly all semiautomatic rifles, let us cast our minds back to the ancient — in lamestream media time — history to the event that prompted this round of Second Amendment infringements.

Mandalay Bay Resort in Las Vegas, where the uninformed world discovered “bump-fire.” You know the narrative: A multimillionnaire dragged a couple dozen semiautomatic weapons to his 32nd floor suite. A dozen of them were equipped with evil bump-fire stocks. He broke out two windows and used those bump-fire “fully automatic” weapons of mass destruction to hose down a crowd of 20,000+ country music fans who probably deserved it because they’re nasty NRA gun owners themselves.

So our heroes in Washington, DC were forced to protect us by offering legislation to deny stuff to the 55 to 120 million gun owners who didn’t do it. “Bump stocks” must go! Bump stock manufacturers must pay for their crimes!

Whoa. Like I said, cast your minds back in time. To… say, October 2, 2017.

Did you see that? At least one fully automatic weapon and weapons equipped with bumpstocks.

The LA Times reported that other weapons were being examined to determine if they had been converted to full auto.

The Weekly Standard reported at least fully automatic weapon as well.

Dennis Michael Lynch noted it, too.

But the automatic weapon(s?) vanished from the narrative. Perhaps I overlooked it, but my searches turn up no “correction” that, “Oh, we didn’t mean full auto,” or, “That person was mistaken; we were talking about two different bump-fire devices and he thought we meant bump-fire and full.”

They just stopped talking about it.

Then they just stopped talking.

Well, why not, when you have powerful senators and congresscritters who need a lawful accessory to demonize in the interest of creating a gun control slippery slope?

Was one (or more) of the shooter’s weapon fully automatic? Personally, I thought at least one recorded burst sounded so regular (as opposed to other stuttering bursts) that I took it for full-auto fire.

The shooter had a clean record, so he’d have been eligible to purchase an NFA item. Certainly a multimillionnaire could afford one even at the inflated prices driven by the FOPA of 1986. But if he’d bought one legally, that would be just another example of the law not working as advertised. If he purchased one unlawfully, or converted a semiautomatic to full, well, then he’s just another criminal. Our protectors need something unregulated to… regulate. Gotta get that slippery slope.

So our ancient media mysteries are:

  • Was there one or more fully automatic weapons as reported in multiple outlets?
  • Did inspection of the weapons found in the hotel suite show which had been fired?
  • Has ballistics testing determined which were used to kill and wound the victims?

This is fairly important, really. The Mandalay Bay massacre is being used to justify a whole new set of infringements of human/civil rights, starting with bump-fire. Are they justifying legislation by something that didn’t happen per the script? (Note to nutcases: I’m not saying the incident was staged/faked; I’m questioning which weapon(s) was used.)

But shooters — aside from a few Mom’s Basement Army keyboard commandos and mall ninjas — consider bump-fire stocks to be nothing more than fun ammo-wasters. Granted, I can’t really wrap my head around mass murder, but it seems to me that if I were a wealthy guy intent on the murder of as many people as possible in ten minutes, and I had one or more automatic weapons handy, I don’t think I’d look over the selection and say, “Nah, the toy is the better tool for the job.”

I might transition to a bump-fired weapon if everything else jammed or broke, but who would start with that?

The cable news attention span has expired, so we may never learn the answers to my questions.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

And Then

Today I was listening to the radio while I was driving. One of the topics was the attack on Sen. Rand Paul. The host discussed when it first happened the mainstream media (#FakeNews) more or less laughed it off. The assailant IS a Doctor at Bowling Green hospital, man they must be hurting for staff there, don’t think I’d go there regardless of the reason. Then the media said it was over “grass clippings” “landscaping”, apparently the statement given by the assailant’s lawyer. But then a spokesman for Sen. Paul released a tweet (love how there are ways to get around the msm) that made a few people begin to question the excuse given. Breitbart and I believe, the Washington Examiner actually did this old-fashioned thing called “journalism”. They didn’t accept the lawyers word, they went and talked to the neighbors. All of whom said the Pauls were wonderful neighbors, kept their place immaculate, and unlike everyone else who has a lawn care service, Sen. Paul does his own. The “doctor” who is the inventor of a QVC product in 2005. The neighbors reached out to Breitbart because what they were reading in the msm was so wrong. The media reported it as “minor injuries”. The man has six broken ribs and a pleural effusion. Check out the x-ray picture! Minor my ….. foot. The media did everything it could to cover for the liberal Bernie supporter and conservative hating “doctor” and QVC maven.

But this is not the first legislator attacked by a supporter of the communist Bernie Sanders. No, Republican Representative Steve Scalise was shot along with four others before a good guy with a gun, the Capitol police, showed up to end it.

In fact, a lot of the shootings have actually been the peaceful, tolerant, liberal left.

But it seems in the left has stepped up their game in terms of shooting people. Now they have decided riots are a form of free speech.

For instance Charlottesville, to protest, um, why exactly? Some naughty words in this.

Attacking someone physically that believes differently than you do is perfectly acceptable. Remember what I said about the media covering for Sen. Paul’s attacker, and what Paul Joseph Watson said about how the media reported the “peaceful protests”.

And let’s say, what if the police, or campus security were told to stand down, not to help those being attacked. And some of the campus security were ticked, they were told by the college STAFF that everything was “ok”. Sounds like University of Missouri. Who now rents the empty dorm rooms to the 5 people that come to the football games.

If you live in a blue area, I’m sure this makes you really anxious for the next patriotic event, parade or speech perhaps, by someone you would like to hear. Except that to the thugs, many of them Soros funded, free speech only applies to them.

College campuses a safe space? Only the liberals are safe on college campuses. If you are conservative, or want to hear a conservative, not so much “safe space”.

A conservative, gay, Jewish speaker Milo was suppose to speak at Berkeley, yes, this is old news, but it’s going somewhere.

Milo is gay, normally not a group attacked by the left. Milo is Jewish, in the past, not a group attacked by the left. But Milo is a conservative, and no matter what else he is, it means he has no right to say things that college students don’t want to hear and expose them to thoughts they’ve never heard in class except to hear them derided.

And this is going somewhere. Here. Hate Spaces on American campuses

This documentary portrays a horrific picture of anti-Semitism at a number of American campuses. Much takes the form of extreme anti-Israelism, yet also manifestations of intense hatred toward Jews are shown. Under the cover of the First Amendment of the US constitution, which does not permit limitation of free speech, far-reaching hate mongering against Jews and Israel is carried out and considered protected speech. In the American contemporary academic reality this movie can only be called contrarian.

…….

Another question is why has the Department of Education failed to intervene against this ongoing bigotry? Why has it not systematically investigated the breach of academic integrity by biased teachers at institutions of higher learning. Is it not a national interest that university administrations have a moral compass? All this is not only a Jewish issue but also one which indicates that there is a great deal wrong with the American university system.

Protected speech policies allow extreme hatred. Politically correct administrators and professors teaching one-sided biased views reflect academic degeneration. The probability that there is much more wrong on campuses beyond biased teaching and anti-Semitic hate speech is high. This is the more important issue because some students infected by their teachers may eventually come to hold senior positions in the country.

A mob of people going after people that they don’t like. They don’t agree with how they think, and they’ve been told by the media that those people aren’t really even human. So you don’t have to treat them as such. They’re vile, they’re deplorable. What happens when you have large groups of people that think that way? They believe it’s ok to attack? Because we have that now….And then

Today is November 9th. The anniversary of the start of Kristallnacht.

Kristallnacht
Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

Timing is everything, but one more gun law will fix it

The First Baptist Church shooter had an interesting history. Pulling this together from assorted news reports:

  • He was reportedly on “high doses of ‘psych’ meds” in 6th through 9th grade.
  • As an adult, he dated a 13 year-old girl.
  • The police were called because he stalked the girl when she dropped him.
  • In the Air Force, while in pre-trial detention, he was committed to a psychiatric hospital (from which he escaped) because he was deemed a threat to himself and others. Somehow, the Air Force never reported the committal to NICS.
  • In a General Court Martial, he was convicted of multiple counts of domestic violence (including cracking a child’s skull). Somehow the Air Force failed to report the felony-equivalent domestic violence conviction to NICS.
  • There was an open sexual assault investigation of him that police dropped in late 2013 because they thought he’d left the state.
  • Then the police responded to another complaint against him (domestic abuse) at the same address in early 2014. Yet somehow the police couldn’t figure out that he was still in state.

That an adult was dating a 13yo is concerning enough (and where were her parents?). Was it a sexual relationship? If so, then he committed sexual assault. Where were the police?

But one more gun control law will fix it.

The timing of the asshole‘s military and civilian legal interactions raises more questions. In June 2012, he was facing charges in the at Holloman AFB in New Mexico. He was committed to a New Mexico psychiatric hospital in June. He escaped — that’s desertion –and was recaptured on June 13, 2012. He was sent to a Miramar Navy brig for pre-trial confinement, presumably after his escape and recapture; otherwise I have to wonder why he’d be sent from California back to New Mexico for committal.

In November 2012, he was convicted and sentenced to a year confinement, which he served in the Miramar brig until June 2013. Clearly, he was credited with pre-trial time served despite having escaped custody. For three counts of felony-equivalent assault, including breaking a child’s skull?

An appeals court upheld the conviction in 2013. When in 2013 isn’t clear.

Upon release from the brig “in early June of 2013”, he was placed on unpaid leave, apparently through the end of his term of enlistment in early 2014. Well, it’s not like the Air Force wanted him back (and oddly enough, I was stationed at Holloman AFB in the ’80s, and was detailed to maintain custody of another deserter, whom we didn’t want either).

Almost immediately — June 17, 2013, just seven months after his initial conviction — he was under investigation in New Braunfels, Texas for alleged rape. I would expect the police to run a background check on him, but since his committal and conviction were never logged, he would come up clean. Perhaps if the Air Force had done its job, the police would have seen a history of violence towards women and taken this case more seriously and arrested him.

In early 2014, the police were called to the same address again, on a complaint against him. They failed to notice that he was the same person they assumed had fled the state during another investigation. Since the Air Force never reported his committal and conviction, and the police hadn’t arrested him for the rape complaint, apparently he still looked clean. So he was allowed to roam the streets.

On August 1, 2014 he was cited for animal cruelty. With no other apparent criminal record (thanks, USAF and New Braunfels PD) a judge fined him and gave him deferred probation.

On November 13, 2014, he registered to vote in Colorado. He was able to do this because no one had bothered to record his committal and felony-equivalent crimes.

All we know about the next few years is that he lived in Texas and Colorado and bought guns. Because no one recorded his committal and conviction in NICS, or investigated other complaints more carefully… because he seemed to have a clean record each time. He tried to get a Texas carry license but was denied because they apparently noticed his Bad Conduct Discharge (my reading of Texas law is that anyone with less than an Honorable discharge is ineligible). At least someone did his job.

On November 5, 2017 — reportedly angry with yet another woman — killed 26 men, women, and children, and wounded 20 more. Because various authorities failed to apply the laws they expect all of us — who didn’t commit these crimes — to obey. The authorities failed to notice his criminal record, mental health record, and his history of of disturbing and criminal behavior with women.

But more bans, limits, and background checks for us — who didn’t commit these crimes — will fix it.


Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar.

paypal_btn_donateCC_LG


Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

Dear “Common Sense Gun Safety” Advocate,

You say you want “common sense gun safety” laws. Fine. Propose them. Specifically.

Specifically. Don’t issue vague wishes about “mental health,” and “safety.” Don’t use the term “assault weapon” unless you live in a state that has defined that term in law. Know the differences between “assault weapon” (where such exists), “assault rifle,” and “machine gun;” and do not use the wrong term in discussion; it makes you look ignorant at best.

Do tell us exactly what you intend; preferably by providing the text of law you propose. Be prepared to address the following points:

  • If your rationale for a law refers to semiautomatic firearms as “military-grade,” “military-style,” or “weapons of war,” identify the nation which uses semiautomatic rifles as standard issue to regular troops.
  • If your rationale is based on “90% or (whatever number you like today) of Americans want,” please show where that number was proven in an actual referendum.
  • If your rationale references “militia,” please know what the militia is, and the legal differences between the militia, national guard, and standing army.
  • If your rational includes “if it saves a single child/person,” explain why the converse — if it results in a single innocent’s harm — does not count.
  • If you are banning and/or confiscating any firearms, explain how you will locate the items when you don’t even know how many there are.
  • If you are licensing gun owners, explain how you will identify them when you don’t know to the nearest ten million how many of them are out there.
  • If your law purports to address “gun violence,” explain why it would be imposed on the 99.9814% of gun owners who aren’t the problem.
  • Similarly, explain how a restriction will not be a prior restraint, nor violate due process.
  • Explain how you will induce criminals to comply with the law, when they don’t comply now.
  • Given the low compliance rates with other firearms laws, explain why people will comply with this one. Explain how you will deal with malicious compliance.
  • If you are reinstating something that failed to reduce gun violence in the past, explain why it would be different this time.
  • If you are expanding a restriction, explain how it will improve the situation.
  • If you are expanding the definition of “prohibited person,” please research existing law to see if those people are already prohibited.
  • In any case, please understand your own law.
  • Your law must include a stated goal and metrics to determine if it is accomplishing that goal, and an automatic sunset clause to end the law if it does not work by its own metrics.
  • If your law involves federal employee action such as adding a prohibited person to NICS or conducting a NICS check, include penalties for failing to do the job properly, with particular penalties those who act maliciously. Individual penalties.
  • If your proposed law conflicts with other laws, explain how you will resolve the conflict.

That’s a starting point. TL;DR: know the subject and honestly address all aspects you can think of. If you cannot address those points intelligently and honestly, there is no reason why gun owners should take you seriously as anything but a threat to constitutionally-guaranteed human/civil rights.

If you propose something in reaction to a specific event, do not whine when someone questions how your proposal would have prevented that event. In wake of The Sandy Hook, Mandalay Bay, and Sutherland Springs church shootings, I have heard “gun safety” advocates call for “expanded” background checks; in these cases “expanded” means requiring privates sales to go through NICS as FFL dealers already do.

Both of the Mandalay Bay and Sutherland Springs shooters went through — and passed — multiple NICS checks. The Sandy Hook killer bypassed checks by killing his mother and stealing her guns. This causes knowledgeable gun owners to wonder what the advocates’ real agenda and goals are. Or if they are simply ignorant.

Many of those advocates also decry the elimination of the Obama administration rule that placed thousands of Social Security disability recipients on the prohibited persons list used by NICS. Congress blocked that rule because it violated federal laws (yes, plural) regarding adjudication and due process, not because they want crazy people to have guns. Such claims — again — cause informed people to question the advocates’ agenda or intelligence.

Sadly, at this point, having given a gun controller facts, the response devolves into, “You’re a heartless person who doesn’t care about people — CHILDREN! — being killed and hurt!”

I care enough to spend thousands of dollars and thousands of hours on defensive firearms, ammunition, training, practice, maintenance, licensing, and studying rules and laws in order to protect myself, family, and friends. I’ve trained other people in how to protect themselves, and occasionally provided one with a firearm or other tool until they could afford their own.

So what have the gun controllers done, other than trying to pass laws to stop me?

Tell me again about those common sense gun laws you want. Intelligently and honestly.


Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar.

paypal_btn_donateCC_LG

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

Looking at the “gun violence” problem

Last year (2016) the FBI’s Uniform Crime Report states that number of firearms-related homicides was 11,004. Each was a personal tragedy, but how significant were they in terms of devising a strategy to prevent future murders?

Number of justifiable homicides (law enforcement): 435
Number of justifiable homicides (civilian):331
Difference/Criminal homicides: 10,228

The UCR does not specify the number of murderers (I use this word to collectively refer to those who commit criminal homicides, even though the charge may have been criminal negligence rather than capitol murder, for instance; it’s literary shorthand for “perpetrator of criminal homicide”) who used firearms, only the number of victims killed with firearms. Given the above data, we know that we have a theoretical maximum of 10,228 firearms-wielding murderers. In fact, since we also know of serial and and mass shootings, the number of gun murderers must be lower, but is not quantifiable with available data. For purposes of discussion I will use the high 10,228 figure for murderers.

US Population (2016): 322,762,018
Percent that are gun murderers: 0.0032%
That’s 32 ten-thousandths of 1 percent.

Estimates of American gun owners vary by significantly large amounts. The lowest I have seen is 55 million, or roughly 17% of the general population. The highest is 120 million, or approximately 37%.

Therefore, murderers are 0.0085 to 0.0186% of all gun owners. 85 ten-thousandths of 1 percent to 186 ten-thousandths of 1 percent. The greater estimate is represented graphically:

In reality, the number of gun owning murderers is far lower than even that. Some 64% of violent criminals have prior convictions, which would make them “prohibited persons” who cannot lawfully possess a firearm. Even if we disregard that — perhaps the criminal bought a lawfully owned firearm from some trusting soul — data indicates that 88% of firearms-related homicides are committed with stolen guns. Being in possession of stolen property clearly does not make one the owner.

The potential number of gun-owning murderers suddenly drops by 9,000 to 1,228. That makes them, at most, 0.0022% of all gun owners; 22 ten-thousandths of 1 percent. But, in reality, even fewer than that because as I noted, each murder victim doesn’t represent a separate individual killer (serial/mass murders); I opted for the high number out of convenience.

Perhaps gun owners aren’t the problem. Could it be the guns?

Figuring the number of “murder guns” is difficult. The Uniform Crime Report gives the percentage of total murders committed with firearms, but doesn’t give the total number of weapons, nor does ATF gun trace data break out guns by crime (not even guns by whether or not criminally used). But since we know there were 10,228 firearms-using murders, we can figure a minimum of 10,228 firearms as well. As for a maximum, the highest number of firearms in a single one-shooter incident I am aware of is the approximately two dozen in the Mandalay Bay shooters hotel room. Even a month later, the exact number of firearms present varies in news reports, and how many were, in fact, fired has not yet been made public. For convenience, I’ll use 24 (the highest number I’ve seen) were all used.

We have no idea, given the lack of data, of the average number of guns used by murderers. We know it ranges from 1 to 24, but those 10,228 individual shooters could have used any number in that range. For this discussion, I’ll make the probably outrageous assumption that the average is as high as 12, midway in the range (my gut feel is that average is closer to 1.1 per shooter).

So… 10,228 shooters time 12 guns, gives a hypothetical number of “murder guns” of 122,736 (gut feel would be 11,250).

I guesstimated gun owner numbers. Firearms estimates are just as vague. Recent lowball estimates are around 265 million. Others put it well over 300 million. Or over 400 million. The highest estimate I’ve encountered is 750 million.

122,736 murder weapons would be 0.0463% (less than 5 hundredths of a percent) of the low estimate. Or 0.0307% (a hair over 3 hundredths of a single percent) of the 400 million estimate. I’m not going to bother graphing that either.

Murderers and their weapons are such a tiny fraction of a percentage of all gun owners and their arms that both are statistical outliers.

Murderers cannot be taken as representative of gun owners, and any attempt to address “gun violence” by ignoring that fact, by proposing sweeping laws and regulations addressing all gun owners and all guns, will fail. Any “stumbling block” put before all gun owners in hopes of catching the murderers, any delay or restriction, will miss the intended target demographic — murderers — and is an infringement of human/civil rights of the 99.9814% of — tens to hundreds of millions — gun owners who didn’t do it.

No, new restrictions — just like the current restrictions — will not work.

Criminals break laws. They don’t — and cannot be required to — undergo background checks. The vast majority of criminals obtain their firearms through already unlawful channels, bypassing background checks and other supposed limits on their access. That is why universal background checks do not result in a reduction in gun homicide rates. Background checks merely make the process of lawfully purchasing a firearm — remember, something that criminals bypass — more expensive and inconvenient for the large majority of honest people, particularly when considering that approximately 94% of NICS denials are false positives resulting in more expensive, delays, and sometimes legal intervention for law-abiding people.

If those allegedly intent upon eliminating “gun violence” truly have that as their goal, they must change their focus. Stop regulating “guns” and “gun owners,” and begin looking at the specific offenders. For one thing, being such a smaller group, they’re easier to examine.

They should examine 1) murderer demographics (the UCR is a good place to start), and 2) murderer motivations and drivers (turf wars over drug-marketing territory for instance).

I predict that they will discover — if they go about honest research — that most murders are related to unlawful drugs because the profitable black market is worth fighting over. Note that AbbVie rarely send gangbangers out to commit drive-bys on Pfizer. But the “War on (some) Drugs” has boosted the street price of a weed that grow over virtually the entire continent to hundreds of dollars.

They will also likely discover that those once convicted of crimes have limited chances to find honest work at pay scales similar to drug-dealing.

They will discover repeat offenders — even repeat murderers — on the street thanks to plea deals, rather than being incarcerated. Incarceration may not be rehabilitative, but at least the killer isn’t on the street killing more competitors and innocents.

They’ll find criminals who were motivated by a need for enough money to buy their drugs at regulatively-inflated prices.

They should look at where gun crimes occur, and examine the political/economic/psychological reasons behind the clustering.

And yes, they will find some murderers who are simply crazy. Perhaps if they study those people closely enough, they’ll learn the warning signs so that other such can be stopped before they kill.

But they have to address the problem, not the 99.9814% who didn’t do it (except perhaps to establish a baseline for decency and sanity by which the murderers can be judged). If those allegedly intent upon eliminating “gun violence” won’t do this, we have to ask, what are their true motives? And how will they respond to growing noncompliance with irrational, inconvenient, and expensively useless infringements on gun owners’ rights?


Carl is an unpaid TZP volunteer. If you found this post useful, please consider dropping something in his tip jar.

paypal_btn_donateCC_LG



Ed. note: This commentary appeared first in TZP’s weekly email alert. If you would like to be among the first to see new commentary (as well as to get notice of new polls and recaps of recent posts), please sign up for our alert list. (See sidebar or, if you’re on a mobile device, scroll down). Be sure to respond when you receive your activation email!

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail