Firearms Friday: Continuing The Dialogue

A couple of weeks ago I wrote a “Firearms Friday” post which was requested by a friend. I did what I could to address their original query but had no illusions that it would be an answer to their question. There are simply too many aspects to this whole discussion to offer a definitive response but it was a means to have a respectful dialogue. And so, with that in mind, below is their response to that post:

Thank you for taking the time to answer my question seriously. I really do appreciate it. Like you, I'd rather have smart laws and knee jerk reactions. As you say you may not be an expert, but you have more experience on this topic than I do and can point out the flaws in my arguments. My goal is a reduction in gun violence and I don't really care much how we get there, as long as it's a path that works and not a token effort.

Here are my immediate thoughts:

When I've been thinking about the problem of shootings I've been dividing it into three categories: one-on-one (most self defense cases would fall into this category, I imagine), one-on-many (mass shootings) and many-on-many (gang violence maybe?). I'm mostly concerned about the one-on-many, mass shooting case. I'm looking for ways that could render a gun less effective when attacking a crowd that would have minimal impact in the one-on-one case, and thus minimal impact on self defense uses. In our legal system it is considered inhumane to maim. If lethal force is warranted you are supposed to take lethal force. That is a sentiment I support. To be 100% clear: If your family is threatened, I want you to be able to defend yourself with lethal force.

I do think there are ways we can make guns less lethal in the one-on-many case that have little impact in the one-on-one case since. Bullet ricochet increases the number of casualties, whereas (I believe) it is a virtually non issue in most self defense cases. It's my understanding that most (all?) bullets are deadly, but not all bullets are equally effective at passing through a person harming the person behind them. Most one-on-one situations don't require dozens of dozens bullets be fired in mere seconds. This is why the arguments of limiting gun magazine sizes, limiting bullet caliber, and firing rate make so much sense to me. (Guns are machines and it is possible to engineer them to fire no faster than a specific rate, regardless of how fast one can pull the trigger.) For a one-on-one scenario, there is no rushing the shooter/person defending themselves. In a one-on-many such changes might give the crowd a chance. At least the casualty count should be lower.

I was unaware that there was a sport dedicated to conduct speed reloads. How long does it take the average-to-above-average person to reload? If it's non trivial, than limiting capacity sizes still makes sense to me. I think (hope) most would be mass shooters are not in the elite class.

I strongly agree with both your points that gun violence is glorified in the media, and that the way the media reports on shootings encourages copycats. I have no idea how this can be addressed given the first amendment.

I also agree that we as a nation need more support for mental health issues. What's less clear to me is what this kind of approach would look like, especially since mental health status can change. I think it's a noble, but unrealistic goal to catch everyone who would commit a mass killing before they have a chance to follow through. Besides, hate is protected under the first amendment. One cannot be committed saying people of a certain race, religion, gender, sexual orientation or anything else should be executed. (David Duke is a terrifying example of this.)

I know I will not change your opinion on the matter, but I support gun free zones. For what it's worth, I don't think the intention behind gun free zones is to prevent intentional shootings. As you, and others, have pointed out, there's nothing magical about a gun free zone that keeps bad guys with guns out. Rather, I thought gun free zones are intended to limit guns from areas where thinking may be impaired (such as places that serve alcohol) or judgement lacking (schools). They're intended to prevent heated arguments and rash decisions from turning into tragic mistakes. While I agree with you that we should hold the shooter responsible for his or her own actions, it's little solace to the person whose life was lost. In these situations I feel the potential for tragic accidents is so great it warrants special treatment.

In this response I will focus on where we seem to be the furthest apart. Let us begin by discussing “limiting gun magazine sizes, limiting bullet caliber, and firing rate” which, to this person, seem to be the options that make the most sense regarding the prevention of mass shootings while having little to no impact on the ability to defend themselves. Unfortunately, this is a flawed argument as the assumption is that “there is no rushing of the person defending themselves”. On the contrary, in many self-defense scenarios there is immense pressure for quick and effective action as seconds count… if you hesitate you are most likely dead. Further, under duress the use of multiple rounds is commonplace. This makes all three of the above options dangerous in a self-defense situation.  

While caliber is something that is thoroughly discussed within the firearms community the simple fact of the matter is that in a self-defense situation accuracy diminishes and stopping power and capacity play critical roles in eliminating the threat. Further, there is no predicting the size of the assailant or how they will be dressed so, personally, I would prefer to have a little more punch than average. Over-penetration is a reality which is why anyone with a reasonable amount of training (and, in my opinion, anyone who owns a firearm) should always be aware of their surroundings and what is behind their intended target. The final point in this is that limiting calibers is a slip and slide that I don’t car to ride as it is nearly impossible to enforce, it would put those who reload in a precarious position, and, most importantly, it is completely against the rights for which I stand.

Rate of fire is something that is already regulated as automatic weapons are classified as Class III firearms and only legal for ownership with those who undergo the scrutiny of the ATF application process (and pay the tax). To regulate rate of fire would not only be dangerous in a self-defense situation but would add over-complication to a rather elegant mechanism. We don’t need to Rube Goldberg firearms… look what that thought process has done to our government.

As for “gun free zones”, the idea that these places are made any safer by eliminating the presence of legal firearms is preposterous. It has proven, time and again, to be a fallacy… nothing more than a means to provide a “warm and fuzzy” feeling for some people. Anyone who has carried a firearm and knows others who carry on a regular basis knows that the one thing that maintains a person’s even temperament is not a sign but the fact that they are carrying a firearm. Those who accept this responsibility also accept the fact that they must go above and beyond when it comes to keeping calm in precarious or stressful situations. This also means that those who responsibly carry will not allow themselves to enter into an altered state of rage or intoxication.

While I would like to say that there is an answer to preventing, as a whole, the practice of mass shootings in this country that is simply not a part of reality. I have already made a few suggestions regarding how we can go about addressing the issue of mass shootings but they are by no means a way to “solve” the problem. The best way that we, as a society, can face this is to come to terms with the fact that this is the reality in which we live. And while the contrary is reported on the daily news, this persons primary objective has already been realized... shooting deaths and gun violence continue to decline while gun sales continue to rise.

However, an important point to remember is that while this person, and many others, continue to make statements regarding the importance of the first amendment and how it limits our ability to address certain statements, stances, and positions that heinous people take, those same people are willing to do anything to limit the second amendment. Remember, the only reason that the second amendment is second is so the first amendment has backup. Why is it that so many people are willing to acknowledge that heinous people are outliers regarding the beauty and effectiveness of the first amendment but those who commit heinous acts are representative of those who support the second amendment? While the person with which I am having this discussion isn’t one of these extremists, the position is all too common.  

If we really want a solution to the situation that we find ourselves in it would be to face the reality that there is evil in this world. Evil people will commit evil acts and we need to confront that evil head on by defending ourselves, defending others, and eliminating the threat when we are threatened. We can’t rely on government in general or legislation in particular. If anything, we need to eliminate the hurdles that continue to plague law abiding gun owners. We must educate ourselves, our families, and our fellow citizens about firearms. We must respect what they can do and appreciate the freedom that they represent. So, my advice is simple, go to a range. Understand, appreciate, and respect firearms. Teach one another. And never allow yourself to be helpless and maintain your self-reliance. I’m sure that this is not the response that they were looking for but it is an honest response and one that has proven, time and again, to be the most effective was to address the issues that we are currently facing.

Firearms Friday: Fulfilling A Request

Following my previous Firearms Friday post, I received a request from a friend on Facebook. This is someone who has demonstrated time and again an even temperament regarding a variety of topics whether or not they agree with the stance that I am taking. It is because of this thoughtfulness and willingness to discuss various issues that I am honoring their request for the Firearms Friday post this week. Their request was as follows:

“I fully accept your premise that mental health is significantly lacking, however I don't believe focusing solely on mental health with solve the problem of gun violence. (Some people really are just are evil.) I would be happy to support legislation that limits evil people's ability to do harm with fire arms, while still allowing gun owners to own fire arms. As a non gun expert I can only guess. I've been thinking in terms of limits on clip sizes, the rate at which bullets could be fired, or the maximum force behind the bullets. My requested topic is this: As a gun expert, how would you make firearms safer so that if they were to fall into the wrong hands they would do less damage?”

They later added the following:

“Fundamentally all I care about is a reduction in gun violence. Propose something I can get behind and I'll happily advocate for that when I call my representatives, otherwise I'm forced to stick to the generic "do something!" plea… We may not always agree, but I appreciate the effort. Our end goals are the same. The best polices come from listening to people on all sides of the aisle.”

Again, they were reasonable and respectful in their approach so my response was rather simple… ask and you shall receive. Of course, I made sure to point out that there it is likely that they will not agree with my response but I can't expect everyone to agree with me. In the end, we all have our own views. Sometimes we agree and sometimes we don't. So, here is my response…

First of all, it is very important to note that I am by no means a firearms expert. This is an enjoyable hobby and a means to defend myself and my family. I enjoy and respect this right. I may have more knowledge in this field than others but I am by no means an expert. 

Second, the concept of "making guns safer" is simply an impossibility. Capacity is a moot point when you watch people dedicated to the sport conduct speed reloads. The same can be said regarding rate of fire when you consider the capabilities of the British Army conducting "Mad Minute" drills during World War I. Of course it should be noted that while the media and politicians may use the term "automatic weapon" we are really talking about semiautomatic firearms that fire one round per pull of the trigger. Finally, regarding lethality of the projectile, I wouldn't even consider this as plausible because while I can understand the perspective of the questioner I also have to consider the fact that, if put in a situation to defend myself and/or my family, I don't want to question the lethality of the rounds I am using... I just want to eliminate the threat. 

That being said, I will do my best to address the larger subject at hand. 

The sad fact of the matter is that there is no way to stop all violence committed with firearms. Bad and/or evil people will always find a way to get them and thinking just because something is illegal that criminals will stop using them is lunacy. Evil people will find a way to commit evil acts and the most recent Terrorist attack in France is a prime example of that fact. This is the world in which we live, like it or not.

As I previously mentioned, mental health is the primary means of further decreasing the number of crimes committed with firearms in this country. I specifically used the term “further decreasing” as PEW research shows the steady decline since the early 1990’s. Unfortunately, the media coverage of “gun violence” has not only distorted public opinion but also has offered a tremendous incentive to those looking to commit such a heinous crime… fame. What further sickens me is the fact that the individual who committed this act, the one responsible for the death(s), is seen more as an accomplice rather than the perpetrator… the ones “found guilty” are gun owners in general. As I have said before:

“…The most commonly used of which was a quote from then Governor Ronald Reagan when he addressed the Republican National Convention in Miami Florida on July 31, 1968 amid a time of tremendous racial turmoil which erupted in riots. The excepted says simply “We must reject the idea that every time a law's broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions.”” 

What I am getting at is that there needs to be a drastic shift in the mentality of the American people. We can’t glorify violence on a daily basis and we can’t assign blame to those who had nothing to do with the crime. We have to return to a society that accepts individual responsibility and promotes self-reliance. Too often, people are blaming others for crimes, addiction, health issues, financial situations, living conditions, and limited employment opportunities. We need to take responsibility for our own lives.

Education is fundamental to a healthy and thriving society but the idea that institutionalized settings are the only place that offer this is a misconception that is continuously perpetuated in every political circle. In this instance, on this topic, people need to be familiar with firearms and have at least a basic understanding. This used to be part of growing up and it was slowly strangled from the consciousness of the schools. We need to teach children and adults not just about how a firearm operates but also, and more importantly, proper gun safety. Firearms should be respected not something that should be feared or, even worse, painted as an innocuous piece of video game memorabilia.

These things would take time but, per the request above, what can be done NOW? My stance is rather simple in this regard. What we need to do is enforce the volumes of laws that are already on the books before any other measures should even be considered. Besides, overzealous kneejerk local laws work so well, right? Additionally, we need to spend the money allocated, through legislation, to improve the NICS system. By the way, it was signed into law by President Bush. Here is an overview that I previously wrote:

“Lastly, the other part of this whole equation that is being overlooked is the fact that even when bills are passed, they are not being enforced and/or the funding is not being spent (i.e. The National Instant Criminal Background Check System). The NICS Improvement Amendment Act was signed into law by President Bush on January 8, 2008 with the explicate mission to improve the background check system in this country. The law, endorsed by the NRA by the way, allocated Congress $1.3 Billion to improve record keeping in states which would allow greater transparency and improve the Federal gun background check system. To date nearly 90 percent of funding has never been spent and the Obama administration will further reduce spending from its peak in 2015 of $78 million down to $55 million in the President’s 2016 budget request.”

This is something that really bothers me as it seems as though the intentional “spenddown” is being leveraged to paint a completely different story about the system and the way it should be working. Again, even the positive actions taken are spun to accommodate a political objective. After all, if you improve the system you can’t blame it and try to pass additional legislation.

The final “recommendation” I would make is that we need to increase the penalties associated with crimes (violent or nonviolent) with a firearm. I’m talking decades not simply years. Basically, instead of the mandatory minimums for drugs, why don’t we change things up and have mandatory minimums for these crimes. This would also apply to those using something (i.e. a toy) to misconceive people in thinking they had a firearm. Those found guilty of straw purchasing (including members of the media) should be brought up on criminal charges. Those found in possession of a loaded firearm while intoxicated need to be penalized as well.

Lastly, we need to eliminate gun free zones. They have been proven time and again to be ineffectual. In fact, rather than offering real protection they have presented wicked people with targets of opportunity. In addition to the multitudes of accounts, police reports, and stories about firearms being used to stop crime even the CDC has noted in one of their own studies that the use of firearms in “Self-defense can be an important crime deterrent.” Again, we need to be more self-reliant and willing to take control of our own lives in every situation rather than relying on the faux fairy dust sprinkle around certain places in the community.

So, let us review.

What is the current situation that we find ourselves in?

• Violence is a Part of the Real World
• PEW: Gun Violence in Decline
• CDC: Self Defense is an Important Crime Deterrent
• Mental Health Resources are Lacking
• Government is NOT Spending Allocated Funds on NICS
• Firearms Education is Lacking
• More Gun Laws are Ineffectual

What needs to be done to address the problems crippling our society?

• Increased Focus On Mental Health
• Firearms Education (with Particular Focus On Safety)
• Reintroduce Self Reliance and Self Sufficiency
• Stop Assigning Blame to Others
• Acknowledge and Refute Media Bias
• Use The Funds Allocated To Improve NICS
• Increase Penalties for Crimes Committed with Firearms
• Eliminate Gun Free Zones

Of course, these are just some of the thoughts that came to mind over the past week since being presented with the original question. Again, I didn’t say that they would necessarily agree with my perspective on the topic but I hope that I have been able to answer their question. If you have a question or request, on this topic or others, please feel free to contact me or comment below. You never know, I may end up writing on that topic.

Firearms Friday: From Tel Aviv To California

The news on Wednesday night was maddening and sad but, honestly, I can’t say that I was surprised. The reality of this world, especially in Israel, is that terrorist attacks are going to happen. I didn’t quite expect it to happen at this time, during Ramadan, but the fact remains that three shooters opened fire in a Tel Aviv market killing four people. Afterward there where a few reactions that also didn’t surprise me…

There was no widespread social media outpouring like that which we witnessed following other terrorist attacks in Europe or high profile shootings in the United States for that matter. Actually, there were a number of people and organizations beyond with the clear majority being those affiliated with Judaism or Israel in some way and the next closest, in the United States, being those of a more conservative nature.

Sadly, but again not surprisingly, the liberal media and various groups on the left either saw this as an opportunity to shame and blame Israel into conceding peace or, given the news coming out of California this week, use this as an opportunity to preach gun control through some delusional view of the situation and the world as a whole. And that this the real point that I am going to dwell on for a bit. Give me a minute while I collect myself….

The unfortunate state that this country finds itself in at the moment is that when there is a shooting somewhere in the United States or a well reported incident from around the world, the gun control storm troopers take to the internet, the television, the radio, and/or the podium and preach the flawed and unconstitutional “virtues” of gun control. It has gotten to the point that regardless of the facts of the incident, they celebrate the moment and seize the opportunity to politicize tragedy. They are perfectly happy to strip people of their rights and place the blame on an inanimate object while completely ignoring or dismissing the fact that the individual is responsible for what happened.

By and large, those same people react in the same manner when there is a terrorist attack in Israel as they, once again, seize the opportunity to berate Israel and use the recent incident as a “clear example” of why Israel must make peace. They are perfectly content in stripping Israelis of their security and blaming Israel for “creating this situation” while completely ignoring or dismissing the fact that the individual is responsible for what happened. Further they refuse to accept the reality that the Palestinian people take to the streets in celebration every single time this happens.

For the most part, we are now in a situation where Israel must defend herself and those of us here in the United States must defend ourselves. We both need to defend our right to live and our right to self-defense (despite the ruling in California). We must accept the guiding principle of personal responsibility and focus on the facts rather than accept the propaganda smeared across the headlines. We are Tel Aviv.

Firearms Friday: Banning All Means Of Self-Defense

There have been countless bills in recent history that have been specifically designed to limit firearms ownership and essentially strip the rights away from people to defend themselves. That simple and devious objective has recently been broadened to include those items that are truly, by any political definition, defensive. By this I am of course referring to the bill proposed last month by Representative Mike Honda (D-CA) deceptively titled the “Responsible Body Armor Possession Act”. As summarized on the Congressional website:

Amends the federal criminal code to prohibit the purchase, ownership, or possession of enhanced body armor, except: (1) by or under the authority of the United States or any state or political subdivision, or (2) enhanced body armor that was lawfully possessed before the effective date of this Act.

Defines "enhanced body armor" to mean body armor, including a helmet or shield, the ballistic resistance of which meets or exceeds the ballistic performance of Type III armor, determined using National Institute of Justice Standard-0101.06.

That’s right, the same people that want to strip you of right to bear arms also want to eliminate any possibility to defend yourself once those firearms have been taken away. Once again, we are all caste in the same pool as those who perform illegal, insidious, and barbaric acts with firearms. For a group that likes to focus so intensely on the lives of the one percent it is interesting that they have no problem ignoring the fact that only a fraction of a percent of the hundreds of millions of firearms in this country are actually used to commit a crime. However, I think that Robert Farago at TheTruthAboutGuns.org was much more succinct in his reaction to the bill:

That “argument” presumes that A) active shooters wear Type III bullet resistant vests, B) a ban on Type III bullet resistant vests would prevent active shooters from obtaining and wearing such attire and C) active shooters (wearing Type III bullet resistant vests) are enough of a problem to warrant federal legislation. D’oh! Forgot D) banning Type III bullet resistant vests doesn’t limit law-abiding citizens’ ability to defend themselves

It’s that last one that reveals Honda’s true agenda.

Like all gun control advocates, Honda believes that people are safer under the protection of the bullet resistant vest-wearing police than they are when they take responsibility for their own defense – which could include wearing a rifle-round capable bullet resistant vest. Self-defense is too risky! People who own guns – and wear bullet resistant vests – could turn into active shooters! Hard-to-kill active shooters!

All of this debate has spurred sales of personal body armor and those companies offering that protection at a reasonable price have been inundated by orders resulting in lead times of up to 10-12 weeks. AR500 is probably the best example of this influx of activity and while some customers have been content to wait others have criticized the small Arizona based manufacturer for the delay. However, just like the ammunition shortage we all experienced a few years ago, production can only go so fast if quality is to be maintained.

We all heard the stories of overpowered and underpowered rounds that resulted from the high input to keep up with demand. However, I can confidently say that the AR500 armor is well worth the wait. Despite the political pressure and subsequent order inundation, AR500.com maintains a high standard. I have seen the quality first hand and despite the lag times that are currently in place and the volume that they are now producing, the quality remains unquestioned and the prices remain the same. Those who are thinking about purchasing should probably hedge their bet now and at least order some plates. After all, grandfathering is a beautiful thing in the face of strict regulation when you know that you are already covered.

With that said, all of this would be so much easier if everyone could simply agree to allow people to defend themselves. All of these bills and fear mongering is getting out of hand and the encouragement of people to rely so heavily on the government is a bit ridiculous. The police do all that they can to protect us but they can’t be everywhere and when something does happen it is going to take them time to arrive on the scene. We can’t fault them for doing all that they can do but, at the same time, you can’t fault us for wanting to protect ourselves.

We don’t need overregulation and bans on everything that anyone has ever used in a crime. We need some real gun sense to finally take hold and for people to embrace the broader concepts of personal responsibility, self-sufficiency, and self-defense sense. Those characteristics should be recognized and encouraged for the solid foundation that they provide to a nation of law abiding citizens. We must defend not attack “we the people.”

Firearms Friday: Time To Ban Paper

This counts too!

The fear of inanimate objects continues to run rampant across the country and my state, Pennsylvania, is not immune to these ludicrous sentiments. While there has been progress made over the past year and the commonwealth is still seen as firearms friendly, there are areas in the keystone state that seem to be shaped from a different rock. A prime example of this was the recent announcement regarding “Shooting Range Legislation” made on January 8^th by State Representative Thaddeus Kirkland which states the following (note that this is only one the many loopy proposals that he has made):

In the near future, I will introduce legislation amending Title 18 of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, which will address the use of human silhouette targets at shooting ranges.

Rather than perpetuate violence by continuing to allow individuals to practice their target shooting by shooting at human silhouette targets at shooting ranges, my legislation will prohibit the use of targets that depict human silhouettes at shooting ranges across the Commonwealth. Instead, silhouette targets could include, but are not limited to the following: white-tailed deer, black bear, wild turkey, and elk.

My legislation creates a new section under Title 18 Chapter 61 regarding firearms and other dangerous articles. Specifically, the bill prohibits the use of human silhouette targets at shooting ranges across the Commonwealth except by law enforcement officers, military personnel or other public safety personnel in line with their official duties. If a person violates the provisions of the new section, he or she will commit a summary offense.

So basically, if this lunacy passes, you have to pretend that the person breaking into your home and trying to harm your family is a deer. That just doesn’t make sense. Nor does pretending to see a target on the perpetrator. Given the revolutionary history of the commonwealth, I can just imagine the command given to the militia (not covered in this proposal) sounding something like “Don’t shoot until you see the white of their tails!”

Of course, this irrational idea doesn’t just have implications to the practice range. If passed, this would drastically affect the shooting sports that have thrived within our borders. So, the actions of one man from Delaware County can both limit the sporting culture in the commonwealth as well as put citizens at a significant training disadvantage putting them in a situation that could endanger their lives as well as those of their family. Training is crucial to the safe ownership, carrying, and operation of a firearm and training with silhouettes is integral to proper training. After all, criminals don’t have four legs.

Not Guilty

That brief quote, those two words have caused a lot of upheaval as of late. That simple phrase has served as a conclusion for many cases but this time around, even weeks later, there is no closure to be found. In fact, it has been the source of tremendous turmoil and disorder across the nation.

I don’t know if the public trial of Zimmerman is ever going to end and I don’t know if there will ever be a satisfactory conclusion that will ease the masses. Verdicts no longer have sway when it comes to the emotions of the public as the pain that they feel is deeper than that which can be found in any courtroom. Regardless of your opinion of the case and its conclusion, it is important to remember the life that was extinguished.

It all comes down to the simple fact that life is precious and the taking of a life is not something that should be taken lightly. However, justified or unjustified, the taking of a human life is something that happens every day in this world. What we each have to ask ourselves is where is that fine line between taking a life and preserving a life?

In this case, we have to ask ourselves what we would have done. Go through BOTH of the proposed timelines introduced during the trial from beginning to end and figure out what we would have done. Ignore the reports that have been made, the commentaries that have been offered, and look at the evidence that was introduced by the prosecution and the defense. Do you have any lingering questions or doubts?

This is what the jury was faced with during the trial. The system is not perfect but we cannot rely on rhetoric and theory. We have to look at the facts presented, the testimonies given, and the applicable laws in play. There is a lot of room for doubt to be introduced and where reasonable doubt exists a not guilty verdict must follow.

I recently came across an interesting survey which I hope you will take a look at. It is obvious from what perspective the author is coming from but it still is worth a look simply for the links that are provided throughout the document. Regardless of your opinion on the verdict, this is an interesting piece to consider. I don’t expect it will sway anyone from one side to the other, from not guilty to guilty, or vice versa. However, at least for me, it introduces doubt.

In conclusion, I will offer these opinions. IF the events unfolded the way Zimmerman said they did I would have done the same exact thing. IF the events unfolded the way the prosecution said they did I fully support the pursuit that is now taking place. IF I was on the jury I would have voted the same way they did.

In the end, it all comes down to the fact that I wasn’t there and all I have to form an opinion are the facts at hand. What I can say for certain is that we should pray for BOTH of the families and hope that peace reigns in their hearts. Additionally, I will say the same prayer for those who have been adversely impacted by those two words, “not guilty”.