Some more interesting numbers about guns, and the military

The entire U.S. military is in the process of replacing their now mostly decades old Beretta made M9 pistols (in service since 1985), with the SIGArms manufactured M17 and M18 (full size and compact variants of the civilian P320)... A process going on since the beginning of 2017, and expected to be finished by the end of 2022... though most likely there will be some spillover into 2023.

What's really fascinating to me though, isn't what they're buying...

...The M17/M18 is an excellent self defense firearm, for both duty and concealed carry, with a lot of advantages over the M9, and even the other P Series based pistols it will mostly be replacing (the SIG P226/228/229 based M11)...

...It's how many pistols they're actually buying... 

...Or rather, how few...

Including all active duty, reserve, and national guard components, we have around 3 million people in uniform... A little less than one percent of our population.

However, the ENTIRE pistol replacement program, expected to replace every standard service issue pistol (excepting perhaps 20,000 other earlier M11 pistols still in use by some selected units across all branches, and a few thousand model 1911 pistols in use by some special operations components), will encompass appx. 422,000 pistols.

Meaning that somewhere between one in six, and one in eight servicemembers, are actually issued a sidearm.... Which is pretty similar overall to the ratio of officers to enlisted personnel, though it's certainly not a 100%  overlap (many officers and enlisted never touch a pistol... or rifle for that matter... after or outside of qualification. Many enlisted carry them every day as part of their normal duties)

But it's a good reminder, that for the military, pistols are not "serious weapons" for the most part... Outside of certain special operations contexts, they're secondary or even tertiary weapons, used for self defense... Enabling someone to survive, and get to a rifle, or a radio.

Also, it's a good reminder of how TINY the actual military market is, compared to the civilian firearms market in the United States.

The DOD is acquiring approximately 85,000 pistols a rear, for 5 years. 

In the last five years since the P320 the M17/M18 are based on has been on sale, SIG has sold more than 150,000 per year of them to the U.S. civilian market alone. 

...That's more than 1.5 times the total number they will sell to the armed forces... 

For one single model of pistol, from one manufacture. 

There were more than 25 million sales of firearms through federally licensed dealers last year... About 5 million of those were new centerfire handguns. 

Meaning, Americans buy more than 10 times as many handguns, as the entire U.S. military has in total, every single year. 

...Oh and the same is true for rifles and shotguns by the way, except considerably more so... 

EVERY... SINGLE... YEAR...

And yet gun banning geniuses still trot out that silly old mantra "You can't resist tyranny with rifles and handguns"... As if the last almost 20 years of continuous warfare wasn't clear proof otherwise...

"Too bad about that common sense theory though..."

"But if more people have more guns, then they'll shoot more people, in fights, or by accident... it's just common sense"...

Great theory... common sense etc... except it's entirely incorrect...

The peak of violent crime in the country was the mid to late 90s. Not coincidentally, this is when the rapid growth in concealed carry also began.

... And since the peak between 1994 and 1997, violent crime, and crime with firearms, have fallen by about 50%... While the number of people legally carrying firearms have increased by over 700% (and total firearms ownership has increased by somewhere around 200 million according to production and import records).

*** An Aside: those 200 million new and imported guns sold in the U.S. in the last 20 or so years (18 million just in 2015 alone, 14 million new manufactured, and 4 million imported)? 

About 1/8 of them have been some variant of the AR15 or AR10... you know, the scary black rifle people keep wanting to ban? 

Semi-official estimates are only about 10-15 million AR15s... but that's because there are now literally hundreds of manufacturers of the rifle if not thousands, and most of them call it something else, or sell it in a slight variant, or different chambering, etc... so it's technically not an AR15... but for all practical purposes it is. 

It's not some kind of strange and powerful "weapon of war"... it's just another rifle, like any other... in fact less powerful than most. It just happens to be black and scary looking to some... 

.... and these days, most people who own guns, seem to own one, or two or more... They're like legos... mix and match, and have fun. 

It's by far the most commonly sold, and likely the second most commonly owned (behind the remington 700) centerfire rifle in the country... and the second most common semi-auto rifle behind the Ruger 10-22 ***

As of today, 29 states have "shall issue" carry licensing. That means anyone who can legally own firearms, and meet the basic standards those states require, can get a permit to carry.

... and millions of people have done so...

Before the carry boom, 16 states didn't allow carry at all, and 25 had very restrictive permits, with less than 2 million legally carrying concealed nationwide.

As of today, there are already almost 15 million people legally carrying concealed firearms in this country (12.8 million at the beginning of 2015, and an expected 2 million more since then, but no 2015/16 numbers are available yet)...

... and that doesn't include all the people in the 11 states that now don't require any permit whatsoever, to carry a firearm concealed (and there will likely be 2 or 3 more of those states by the end of the year).

That's 40 states, where any adult that meets the standards and can legally own firearms, can carry them.... and only 10 where they cant...

... Actually... all of those 10 states technically have a permit process... but it usually requires a big "campaign donation" or a good friend in the government, in order to get one... but technically, all 50 states allow concealed carry now, with or without permit.

...and yet... no increase in accidental or criminal shootings... in fact they fell by half.

...Well... except in a couple of those 10 gun control states, where they didn't fall nearly as much... like Illinois... but hey...

There are about 215 million adults 21 or over, and without a felony conviction... there are about 15 million CCW holders, and some number of carriers in those 11 states with constitutional carry... most likely a couple million, given most of them are heavy gun owner states...

... So... on any given day, basically, at least 7% or so of adults may be legally carrying a gun.

Given that very few of those, are in the 10 states with restrictive gun control... which together have a population of about 105 million...

... that actually means, more like at least 12% of the eligible adult population in the shall issue and constitutional carry states... probably more like 15%.

So... 1 out of every 14 or so at the absolute minimum, and maybe as much as 1 out of 6 adults may be legally carrying, in areas where carry is not restricted... on any given day...

... And yet, violent crime, crime with firearms, and accidental shootings, have all fallen by around 50% since the mid 90s...

Funny that....

Too bad about that "common sense" theory though...

"But there MUST be SOMETHING we can do? We HAVE to do SOMETHING!!!"

The core belief behind those who truly and honestly believe in, and support gun control, as a public safety measure; is the notion that there MUST be SOMETHING that we, collectively, as a society, acting through the state, can do, to stop people from doing bad things....

...and, that when people try to do bad things anyway "someone" will be there to stop them, and protect us.

It's the same impulse behind just about every other time anyone says "there ought to be a law"...

... And just as it is with just about every other issue, in just about every other case... it's pretty much always wrong.

Why "must" there be "something" we can do?

Because we wish there was? Because we hope there is?

Sadly, wishing and hoping don't seem to have much if any impact on criminal behavior. Nor do the literally millions of laws and regulations, hundreds of thousands of police, and thousands of prisons and jails in this country.

Laws don't prevent bad behavior, they simply define the punishment for violating the law... and when someone is already willing to commit a crime regardless of the punishment, making it "extra illegal" isn't going to change anything.

Murder is already illegal... gun, knife, baseball bat, fist... the weapon used doesn't matter.

The second part of the error, is the idea that laws will actually stop people from acquiring the weapons they "need" to commit crimes.

Of course... you don't actually need a "weapon" to commit murder... it's just physically easier than beating someone to death... But then again, so is running them over with a car.

You can't control behavior, by regulating an inanimate object, that has little to do with the behavior... Or for that matter, much at all, even if it IS required...

You simply cannot stop people from acquiring weapons... including guns... no matter how "strong" you think your laws are. It's not possible. No matter how strict the gun control, criminals get guns... never mind knives, clubs, bombs, poison...

You can literally make a gun, and it's ammunition, with a few dollars, and access to a hardware store.
You can make the regulated parts of AR15 in your garage with basic power tools, never mind what you can do with a benchtop CNC machine, or a 3d printer, all of which are now commonly available at low cost.

.... and then there's the hundreds of millions of guns already out there... Actually I personally think, and have posted the math and evidence as to why, it's more like over a billion...

It is impossible to stop people from acquiring basically whatever weapon they want, with laws.

It is impossible to stop people from doing bad things, with laws.

They're just about as effective as the "war on drugs" is today, or alcohol prohibition was in 1919.

All laws do, is hobble the law abiding.

If you want to stop people from doing bad things, you have to do so either:

1. Before they ever want to do those bad things... with education, mental health care, productive employment etc...
   
2. While they are attempting them... with opposing force.

... And I don't know about you... but I don't have a time machine to go back and give a criminal a better life  and a good therapist, so they wont try to harm me... and I live in the middle of nowhere, and don't happen to carry a cop around in my pocket. If someone wants to do something bad to me or my family, I don't have time to wait for police.

... Never mind the fact that it is both entirely irrational, and entirely morally bankrupt, to believe it is acceptable for someone else to use force to defend me and my family, but not acceptable to do so for myself...

What I DO have, is a responsibility to understand all of the above, accept it, and be prepared to do something about it if necessary... Not to hide my head in the sand, deny it, and pretend otherwise.

It's my responsibility to defend myself and my family, because no-one else is going to do it for me (and in fact, to burden others with doing so by my unpreparedness, is immoral)...

... and for that matter, if I am able to do so... without undue risk of harm to myself or my family...to defend those around me, if they are similarly attacked... But that is secondary...

Thus, I have guns, and I train with them, and I mentally prepare to use them to defend myself and others, if necessary. I hope it never is, but I would be failing in my responsibilities, if I didn't prepare for the possibility.

Ok...

What really gets me though... Is that I have this discussion with people... and sometimes, they really do understand it and believe it...

... and they still think we "must do something" anyway...

For symbolic reasons I guess?

Seems like insanity to me...

The Problem is People

The problem with violence is people... always, and nothing but.

No substance, no object, no tool, no law, no government, no society, no state... just people, always and nothing but.

People are violent, and they cannot be controlled by the laws against violence we already have, nor by any new laws, nor by the state and it's agents, nor by other people directly.

The only control any person has, is over their own choices and actions. If people chose to act in ways that harm others, then there is very little anyone else can do, except to attempt to use force against those people, in order to stop them.

Laws do not keep one safe, nor do they control the actions of others. They simply codify the rules by which force may be used to attempt to prevent their violation, the means and manner of force which may be used to attempt to prevent such violations, and the means and manner of force which may be used to punish such violations when they occur.

LAW IS FORCE. If any control is exerted by this, it is through nothing but fear of said force, by those who would otherwise violate the law.

As should obvious to all... though many attempt to ignore and deny it... fear of this force, has but little restraining influence on those who would do violence against others.

Control over anything but ones own choices, is an illusion. Safety is an illusion. Both illusions are incredibly dangerous. There is no such thing as control, or safety... Only probabilities and degrees of risk, and mitigation of that risk. Acting as if it were otherwise guarantees only that the risks are greater, and the damage greater when that risk becomes reality.

This set of objective factors and principles, presents a truly, incredibly, difficult; intellectual, emotional, and moral understanding. It violates all of our closely held precepts of what society should be, how people should behave... simply the way things SHOULD be... and accepting it can be nearly impossible.

Some accept this, and decide that they have a moral responsibility to take what actions they can when confronted with it. Thus they prepare to use force personally and directly against others if necessary, and bear the consequences if they do so.

Some accept this, but also believe, or decide, that they cannot personally and directly use force against others, or have the means to do so, even in defense of themselves or others. They must then accept that when confronted by such violent acts, that either someone else must intervene, or violence will be done to them or others.

Some accept this, but believe morally or ideologically, that whether they would be capable of doing so or not; using force directly and personally against others, or having the means to do so, even in defense of themselves or others; presents an unacceptable risk or threat to themselves, to others, or to society as a whole. Thus they delegate such use of force to society as a whole, or to the state, and must accept that if the state fails to prevent it, violence may be done to them or others.

Many people simply cannot accept these things at all... or at best, only parts of them, or in limited ways. This creates extremely strong cognitive, emotional, and moral dissonance in them. Things simply SHOULD NOT BE this way. They CAN NOT BE this way. They feel out of control, unsafe, and threatened.

Many people cannot bear... or believe they cannot, or cannot even consider... the responsibility and moral weight, of personally using force directly against another, even in defense of themselves or others. Nor can they bear the understanding, that this moral weight falls not just equally upon them, but in fact greater upon them, when others do so on their behalf; whether as individuals, or as agents of the state.

In defense of their own sense of self, they create a false moral separation, and false sense of control and superiority, in order to partially resolve the emotional and moral dissonance of this state. They then partially resolve the cognitive dissonance, by rationalizing the false notion that they are too moral, too compassionate, too civilized... and therefore they are morally uncompromised, and superior... for being unable to, or refusing to, use force personally and directly against others.

Perhaps worse, they may also (or instead) rationalize the false notion that individuals (sometimes all individuals, sometimes all others but not themselves, sometimes just a subset of others they disfavor, sometimes all others except agents of the state) are morally and actually incapable of preventing, attempting to prevent, or having the means to prevent; such acts of violence against themselves or others (either entirely, or without engendering unacceptable risk or actual harm, to others, or to society). They falsely believe this then absolves them of the moral weight of the use of force against others, and the violence which might otherwise have been prevented.

Yet, they also cannot accept this utter lack of control over the actions of others. This presents an existential threat to their person and their psyche, which they cannot resolve within their intellectual, emotional, and moral framework. They feel out of control, unsafe, and threatened, with no means of resolving these problems.

Thus, in a state of profound cognitive, emotional, and moral dissonance, they will attempt ANYTHING they can justify in the slightest, no matter how poor the justification, no matter how little evidence or reason, to reassure themselves. They will seize on any rationalization, any symbol or totem or fetishes that they can cling to. Any way, in which they can at least partially resolve this dissonance, in order to regain and maintain the illusions of control and moral superiority.

In so doing, they have no problem with compelling others to use force on their behalf, and to enforce the symbols which maintain that illusion of control, on all people; falsely believing that such action absolves them of both the moral responsibility for the use of force against others, and the violence done to others that might otherwise have been prevented.

It doesnt matter if what they are doing is useless, or even harmful. Even that which harms others, and violates the rights of others, is inconsequential to them, so long as they can restore and maintain their illusion of control, to resolve their cognitive, emotional, and moral dissonance, and to dismiss the existential threat.

They will justify and rationalize it in any and every possible way. Compassion, justice, morality, safety, "civilization"... but in reality, it is simply their desire to restore their comfortable illusion of control and safety, without having to take moral responsibility for the use of force against others.

Any person, principle, argument, or fact, that threatens this set of illusions and rationalizations... or breaks it...  must be destroyed or dismissed. or the painful dissonance and existential threat will return. They will feel out of control, and unsafe, and this cannot be tolerated.

Gun Control and Electoral Math - The Scoreboard

Two years ago, I wrote a piece about electoral math and gun control, and how it was unlikely that we would have any serious national level gun control... and we have not (state level is another story unfortunately).

In that, I included a list of democratic senators who were up for re-election this year, their position on gun control, and how "at risk" their seat was:

Stupidity, Politics, and Electoral Math

So, now that we have the results of all of their elections, let's see what the last two years hath wrought among them:

XX = Unelected (or resigned and replaced by Republican)

1. XX - Alaska - Mark Begich - Very Pro Gun - very unsafe seat
2. XX - Arkansas - Mark Pryor - neutral - very unsafe seat
3. XX - Colorado - Mark Udall - neutral - not a safe seat
4. Delaware - Chris Coons - Very anti-gun - safe seat
5. Hawaii - UNKNOWN (special election to replace Daniel Inouye) - safe seat
6. Illinois - Dick Durbin - Very anti-gun - safe seat
7. XX - Iowa - Tom Harkin - Very anti-gun - iffy, can't afford to screw up
8. XX - Louisiana - Mary Landrieu - neutral - very unsafe seat
9. Massachusetts - UNKNOWN (special election to replace John Kerry) - safe seat
10. Michigan - Carl Levin - very anti-gun - safe seat
11. Minnesota - Al Franken - very anti-gun - not a safe seat
12. XX - Montana - Max Baucus - very pro-gun - iffy, can't afford to screw up
13. New Hampshire - Jeanne Shaheen - very anti-gun - not a safe seat
14. New Jersey - Frank Lautenberg - very anti-gun - safe seat
15. New Mexico - Tom Udall - slightly anti-gun - safe seat
16. XX - North Carolina - Kay Hagan - very anti-gun - not a safe seat
17. Oregon - Jeff Merkley - very anti-gun - safe seat
18. Rhode Island - Jack Reed - very anti-gun - safe seat
19. XX - South Dakota - Tim Johnson - very pro-gun - very unsafe seat
20. Virginia - Mark Warner - very pro-gun - not a safe seat
21. XX - West Virginia - Jay Rockefeller - moderately anti-gun - very unsafe seat

Lotta XX's there... 9 actually, out of 21 (10 of those 21 were considered safe seats, barely challenged by Republicans). Pretty much every anti-gun democrat that wasn't in a safe seat, except Shaheen and Franken.

And THAT folks, is why we will not have any significant gun control on the national level any time soon.

Reality Check on "Gun Control", after the most recent mass shooting incident

This one is mostly for my anti-gun, pro-gun control, or otherwise gun ignorant (the three tend to be correlated) friends on facebook...

...And for anyone else who thinks that mass shootings are a good reason for gun control, or who are for "common sense gun laws" etc... etc...

Once more around the dance floor, for those who haven't been paying attention...

For those of you who have seen this before, let's do it one more time, so the others can catch up.

One:

The navy yard murderer did not use an "assault weapon". He did not even use a handgun at first, he took two 9mm handguns off the guards he killed. He did not use an AR-15 of any kind.

He didn't even use a "semi-automatic weapon".

He used a standard 12ga pump shotgun.

Two:

The shotgun the murderer used is legal in every state, and is not subject to any kind of special regulation. The only way to make it illegal would be to make ALL guns illegal.

Three:

The murderer purchased the firearm legally, from a licensed dealer, and passed a background check

...Though given his history he likely shouldn't have been able to. Unfortunately that's because of problems between state agencies sharing information, and various bureaucratic and technical failures; not because "gun laws are too loose".

Four:

Murder is already illegal. People do it anyway.

Five:

Please describe for me if you will, what additional "common sense gun law" would have prevented the murders committed by this murderer?

Oh wait, you can't, because there ISN'T ONE.

Shotguns are used in only about 3.5% of all murders in the U.S.

Rifles of any kind, including so called "assault weapons" are used in only about 3% of murders.

Most of those rifles are still just standard hunting and target rifles. Less than 1% of all murders in the U.S. are committed using "assault weapons".

...Which by the way, are functionally no different than hunting or target rifles... in fact they are LESS powerful and and LESS deadly than common hunting and target rifles... they just LOOK different. They are NOT extra lethal special deadly killing machines for military use only... And they are especially NOT fully automatic weapons, aka machine guns.

They aren't even actually "assault rifles" which ARE machine guns, made for military use. The first one was actually used by the Nazis in world war 2, and Hitler invented the term "Sturmgewehr", which means "storm rifle" or "assault rifle". They're called "assault" rifles, because they're smaller, lighter, and less powerful than the"battle rifles" then commonly used by the military. 

"Assault weapon" isn't a real thing... It's a term made up by gun control advocates to get laws passed against guns they think look scary, and can easily lie to the public about, because people who are afraid of or don't know anything about guns, can be made to THINK they are machine guns.

All "assault weapons bans" do, is restrict access to newly manufactured (because you can't retroactively ban something there are millions of) standard civilian firearms, which LOOK like military weapons. This just makes them more expensive, it doesn't actually ban them.

Actually... I should expand that a bit... Because I've been using the term murder, when I should be using the term homicide. Homicide statistics include justifiable homicides like police shooting criminals, and self defense shootings.

Why is that relevant? Because almost all the homicides with "assault weapons" were actually self defense shootings, or police shootings.

Why?

Because that's mostly who own them and use them. Cops use them, and firearms enthusiasts use them. They're EXPENSIVE (I've paid $3500 for an AR-15 and the cheapest you can get them is around $800), heavy (8-12 pounds) and you can't easily conceal them (maybe, if you're a large man, under a trench coat). They attract attention. They are not commonly owned or used by criminals.

Taking that into account, less than 0.3% of actual murders were committed with "assault weapons".

Oh and by the by, those less than 0.3% of murders that WERE committed with "assault weapons"?

...Most of them were related to organized drug gang activity.

... and here's the kicker...

...Most of them were committed in places where they are already "banned".

The majority (not just the most common, actually more than 50%) of rifles used in murders by the way, are small .22s. Little target plinkers like they use at boyscout camp.

The most common handguns used in murders are also .22 actually.

.22 is universally recognized as just about the LEAST powerful, LEAST lethal commonly available chambering. It's what you use to teach kids how to shoot, or for shooting tin cans out back. It's illegal to use for hunting most animals in most states, because it's not powerful enough (it could hurt an animal without killing it).

Note: More than 90% of the people who are shot with .22s survive by the way. And more than 80% of all people who are shot survive. If you get shot, and aren't killed immediately (which only happens about 5% of the time), and make it to medical attention, you are nearly certain to survive. Guns, particularly handguns, are not nearly as lethal as most people believe. Severe knife wounds actually have a far worse survival rate.

Should we ban .22s?

I suppose it's relevant to ask, why are .22s used in so many murders?

Simple... because they're cheap, and there are a lot of them. There are more .22s made and sold each year, than all other firearms combined (and, like most firearms, they're durable. They last forever).

Most .22s, rifle or handgun, sell new for less than $400. Most .22 rifles for less than $300, some as cheap as $150. Used, most sell for less than $200, some as cheap as $50.

FBI research suggests that almost all firearms used in crimes were acquired for less than $500, the majority for less than $300. In fact, the only real trend or preference that criminal have in their firearms usage, is that they be cheap.

By the by... Glocks, and other "high capacity" handguns? Not actually all that popular with criminals... Because they're expensive. Very popular with cops, and self defense and firearms enthusiasts though. Also '90s rappers, which is how they got demonized in the first place... Remember, gun control is racist. 

Should we ban guns that cost less than $300... $500... less than $1000...

Sadly... that's actually been suggested as a serious proposal. Or that a licensing surcharge or tax be applied to otherwise effectively ban "cheap" guns. That's that they're talking about when they say "ban Saturday night specials" (which is also a racist term by the way).

Kitchen knives are used in more murders than either rifles or shotguns.

Should we ban kitchen knives?

Note: not scary "tactical" or "combat" knives, or double edged "daggers", or switchblades, or butterfly knives (all of which are also banned in some place)... Kitchen knives.
... and sadly that HAS been done already in some places. The UK has a ban on kitchen knives "without showing good reason" to have them, and many cities and states in the U.S. have extremely restrictive knife laws as well... Which, unsurprisingly, are also mostly racists leftovers from the 20s through 60s, as knives were seen as weapons of blacks, hispanics, and asians.

Baseball bats are used in more murders than either rifles or shotguns.

Should we ban baseball bats?

FISTS and FEET are, individually, used in more murders than rifles and shotguns combined.

So... should we ban fists and feet?

How about cars? More of them are used to deliberately murder people every year (about 300-400) than rifles or shotguns...

Oh and that's not even counting fatalities involving drunk driving, negligence etc... that were not charged as homicide. There are more drunk driving related fatalities (about 11,000 last year) than all murders with firearms (and accidental shootings and negligence by the way ARE counted in firearms statistics).

Should we ban cars?

There were about 15,000 homicides in the U.S. last year (including justifiable homicides like self defense, and police shootings by the way - about 1000 of them - , but excluding suicides. ). About 9,000 of them were committed using firearms (including 700 of the justifiable ones). 6,000 of them were committed with everything else.

Should we ban everything else?

Oh wait... right... MURDER IS ALREADY BANNED it doesn't matter what you use to commit it.


Now, to address the real agenda here...

The only way you could reduce "gun crime" (there is no such thing by the way. Crime is crime. Whether it's committed with a firearm or not) would be to ban, seize, and destroy all guns.

Note, I said REDUCE, not eliminate.

Guess what, even in countries where all firearms ownership by civilians is outright banned, and in some cases has been for 80 years... there is still a LOT of crime committed with guns.

The United Kingdom has had strict gun control since the 1920s, and an absolute ban on civilian ownership of semi-automatic centerfire rifles and handguns for about 30 years... And more crime committed with firearms, than all but the 10 highest crime cities in the United States (most of which by the way have very restrictive gun control).

AND IT'S AN ISLAND

You can not eliminate crime with guns, because you cannot eliminate crime; and criminals will seek out the most effective means to commit crimes.

Banning guns doesn't stop them from getting them... it doesn't even make it particularly difficult. Even banning, confiscating, and destroying all firearms in civilian hands doesn't stop criminals from committing crimes with guns (ask China for example, how well that worked).

More to the point, the more restrictive gun control got in American cities, and in the UK for that matter, the more crimes were committed with guns.

Gun control does not reduce crime, and it doesn't particularly reduce crime committed with firearms, it actually increases both.

If more guns meant more crime, than areas in the United States with high firearms ownership would have more crime than those with lower firearms ownership. Conversely, if less guns meant less crime, areas with lower gun ownership, would have lower crime than those with high gun ownership.

The reverse is true... to an absurd degree.

Even controlling for urban, suburban, and rural populations; areas with low lawful gun ownership are MUCH higher crime areas, and in particular have much more crime committed with firearms.

Dallas has far less "gun crime" than New York. Atlanta has far less "gun crime" than Chicago.

Actually... let's apply that to Europe while we're at it. Switzerland and Finland have nearly as much firearms ownership as the U.S. ... and far lower crime, and far lower crime committed with firearms, than the U.K.

In 2012, Switzerland and Finland both had about 6 times the rate of private firearms ownership as the U.K. (about 2/3 that of the U.S.). In 2012 Switzerland had about the same rate of murder with firearms as the U.K. and a much lower rate of other crimes committed with firearms. Finland had about HALF that.

Oh and neither Finland or Switzerland ban semi-automatic weapons or handguns, as the UK largely does. In fact, most adult males have military rifles, for use in their militia service.

France and Germany have far less restrictive gun control than the U.K., and far more civilian gun ownership... and they aren't islands... and they still have far less crime, and far less crime committed with guns.

In the United States itself, approximately 50% of all murders happen in cities or states which ALREADY HAVE STRICT GUN CONTROL including "assault weapons" bans.

Up until a few weeks ago, Chicago banned firearms almost entirely, and both Chicago, and the state of illinois, still have very strict gun control. There were more than 350 murders with guns in Chicago in 2011 (of the 435 total murders. 2012 data isn't available yet).

Washington DC, even after the supreme court forced them to rescind their near outright ban on firearms still has incredibly restrictive gun control. It is almost impossible to legally own a firearm in DC. There were 77 murders with guns in DC in 2011.

California has something like the second or third strictest gun control in the country... really you could say it's tied for top with Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, and Illinois.

Hey wait a second... Four of those five states are in the top 10 states for murders with guns (MA is the one exception. It's like 20th, but it's also a much smaller state than the others).

California alone, accounts for 14% of all murders with firearms.

Violent crime is a CULTURAL issue, not a gun issue. America has ALWAYS been more violent (outside of wartime) than Europe, because by the late 18th century Europe had become culturally far less violent (for many complex reasons).

Violent crime in America however was far lower prior to the 1920s (yes, including the "wild west", which actually wasn't very wild. There really wasn't that much violent crime, particularly not many murders with firearms) than today. Violent crime in the United States started rising significantly during the depression, then spiked dramatically in the mid 60's peaking in the early 90s; and has fallen significantly since then.

This does not correlate with gun control. In fact, there was NO national, and almost no state gun control before 1934 (and on the state level what the was, was largely racist in nature, trying to keep blacks, hispanics, and asians disarmed). From 1934 to 1968 gun control was minimal.

It was only in 1968, in the wake of widespread race riots, and several high profile assassinations (Martin Luther King, Bobby Kennedy and others) that the first true national gun control law was passed; and the majority of state gun control laws were passed after that.

Funny thing... violent crime rose FASTER after the implementation of gun control, both on the state and national level.

Plus, guess what... that surge of gun control? It was largely racist as well. It was mostly motivated by the desire to keep guns from the hands of "radicals" and "undesirables"... Basically blacks and hispanics.

The societal disruptions of the 1960s made a lot of old white men think that there was the possibility of a counterculture and drug fueled racial revolution in the U.S. and wanted to make sure that it was mostly old white men who had the guns.

Since 1993 violent crime in the U.S. has trended dramatically downward. You know what hasn't? Gun ownership. It's trended dramatically upward. More people own more guns in this country than at any time in our history.

Oh and a huge number of those guns, particularly a huge number of the guns new since 1993 are scary black guns with "high capacity magazines" like Glocks, and "assault weapons" like AR15s.

Magazine capacity, and "assault weapons" have nothing to do with violent crime.

Violent crime in the United States, rose in line with the rise of drug abuse, and single parent households in urban poverty in the United States, particularly those in urban poverty.

It spiked in the late 80s and early 90s, because of large scale organized drug trafficking and its associated urban violence (as it spiked somewhat in the late1920s and early 30s with prohibition); and because of the general collapse of the black family in urban America (prior to the 1960s, blacks in America had a lower divorce rate, and a lower rate of illegitimacy than whites. It's now approximately double that of whites).

The prevalence of lawful gun ownership in a society is NOT positively correlated to the prevalence of crime committed with firearms; in fact it is the opposite. More guns means less crime.

But let's ignore all that... Guns are bad m'kay...

However, even if, against all evidence, science, and common sense, you STILL think that guns should be banned... How would you do it?

Even if you managed to ban all firearms, how would you enforce the ban?

It is completely impossible to ban firearms in the United States

There are reportedly 350 million firearms in the U.S. according to FBI estimates. Actually the number is likely far higher... I'd guess it may be double that. Guns are durable. I personally own and shoot guns that are over 100 years old, and which are just as good today as they were when they were first manufactured. If they're properly stored, or properly maintained, guns don't "go bad", or even wear out.

...And we make and sell somewhere between 10 and 20 million guns a year, EVERY YEAR, in the U.S. (the number varies significantly year to year).

You could not possibly seize and destroy them all, or even a significant percentage of them. And if you tried, you'd end up with a lot of dead cops, and possibly a populace, and a military, in revolt against the government.

... and even if "successful" you wouldn't get most of the guns, because people would just hide them.

... and it wouldn't be allowed anyway, because it's against the constitution; and the supreme court has recently reaffirmed this several times.

They can't even effectively ban guns in the UK or Japan which have had strict gun control for many years, AND ARE ISLANDS.

Japan has even stricter gun control than the UK (there is almost no civilian firearms ownership in Japan - about 400,000 guns total, including police firearms, for a population of 130 million -  and what there is is mostly single shot target firearms, and hunting shotguns), and again IS AN ISLAND. An island with very strict customs and immigration enforcement and which doesn't have a tunnel or ferries to a mainland with less restrictive gun laws. Criminals still have little difficulty getting guns (police seize about 2000 guns a year from criminals).

A note on Japan: Japan is often touted as an example of the efficacy of gun control. It's not. Though they have much less crime committed with guns, they also just have much less crime. In fact, the lowest crime rate, and in particular the lowest violent crime and murder rates, of any major nation in the industrialized world. This mostly has to do with them having a wealthy, highly educated, homogeneous, and stable society with a very high societal trust and cohesion, and a very strong sense of cultural propriety and conformity; along with very low rates of drug abuse, poverty, and illegitimacy. Not with guns.

Japan still has murders of course. In 2012 there were officially 506 murders in Japan (it is widely known that Japans official crime statistics are deliberately misreported, and are in fact much higher than officially acknowledged - it's estimated that there are likely two to three times as many murders as officially reported for example- ; but they're still very low in comparison to most of the world), about 20 of which were committed with firearms (the official numbers haven't been released and media accounts vary). Effectively banning guns didn't stop the other 462 murders... they just used knives, swords, poison, fists, and feet.

They still have mass murder, and mass school murders too. In 2001 a murderer in Osaka. killed 8 students and teachers, and injured 15 more, with a kitchen knife. 

Oh and none... not one... of those 2012 murders was committed with a lawfully owned firearm.

It would take a constitutional amendment to ban guns. That would require a two thirds majority in the house and the senate, and then ratification by 38 of the 50 states.

That's NEVER going to happen (note for my hysterical conspiracy theorist right wing friends too).

You cannot ban guns in this country. It is not legally, or practically, possible.

The problem isn't guns, even scary "assault weapons"... it's people.

There are bad people, who do bad things. Sometimes even good people do bad things. They will do that whether they have guns or not.

And yes, we should do what we can to keep bad people from doing bad things, and to try to keep firearms out of bad peoples hands.

Gun control doesn't do that.

The only thing gun control does, is make sure that the law abiding are disarmed, making them easier targets for those who don't give a damn about the law.

Factual inaccuracies and logical fallacies WEAKEN your argument

It has been reported that 12 people were killed yesterday, in the Washington Navy Yard, by a civilian shooter (a contract employee with post access, apparently previously discharged from the Navy for disciplinary reasons), firing civilian weapons (most likely obtained illegally, as he had a criminal record which should have been disqualifying).

All details of the incident are not yet available, but I believe that is a substantially accurate statement.

I believe this is the fourth multiple casualty shooter incident at a U.S. Military facility outside of zones of hostile activity (not in a theater of combat operations), in the last 5 years.

There is a notion (and numerous memes) currently circulating in the blogsophere and on facebook, and which I believe is certainly true; that the reason 12 people were shot and not 1 or 2, is that U.S. servicemembers on duty outside of zones of actual hostile activity (and even sometimes within them), are, with a few exceptions, barred from carrying weapons for self defense while on duty.

In fact, as difficult as it may be for the general public to believe... the majority of U.S. military facilities, the majority of the time, are actually as much "gun free zones" as any federal court house.

Often the only firearms in the entire facility are those of the civilian contract guards; and sadly, that's not a joke or an exaggeration. Many military facilities around this country and around the world are guarded by rent-a-cops, not servicemembers.

I am absolutely certain, that if all servicemembers were required to maintain a high degree of proficiency in personal defensive small arms use, and were issued and carried on a day to day basis a defensive weapon (much as almost all serving law enforcement officers in this country); that such incidents would be reduced, and that when they occurred the casualty count would be lower.

I also fully and firmly believe that such incidents will only increase over time.

Soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines, officers and enlisted, regardless of duty station or speciality; should have the skills and equipment to defend themselves, any time, any place, full stop.

This is especially true now that we are in the age of asymmetric warfare, publicity seeking "terrorism", and just plain fame killers and nutjobs.

Unfortunately... There are lots of folks who don't seem to understand that factual inaccuracies and fallacious arguments HURT their cause, not help it...

Thus we get graphics like this:

That is simply untrue. Oh, yes, servicemembers were largely disarmed under Clinton, and thus it isn't a complete lie... but they were also largely disarmed under every previous president of the 20th century.

This is a matter of military policy, not gun control policy.

Throughout most of the 20th century, with a few exceptions (certain special duty postings for example) it has been the general policy of all branches of the U.S. military; that only those actually on guard duty, in military law enforcement or security forces (and often only those posted on guard duty), or actually engaged in small arms training; have small arms on their person while on duty in the United States (and in most foreign facilities, most of the time).

Most servicemembers don't carry guns most of the time... and haven't for over a century; as a matter of military policy.

A facility commander may, with the approval of their higher command, allow routine small arms issue and carry while on duty (at least on the facility. There are some potential local legal issues off the facility depending on the local laws). In fact, a facility commander may even allow the concealed carry of personally owned weapons to those properly certified and otherwise lawfully allowed to do so.

They just generally choose not to.

Actually, most of the time, most commands, forbid concealed carry while on duty or on their facilities; even to those servicemembers who would otherwise lawfully be allowed to do so.

The fact is, most commanders don't trust most servicemembers with guns.

In general, small arms are tightly controlled in the U.S. military; checked out of an armory shortly before they are to be used, and then checked back in shortly after they have been used and given proper maintenance (at least in theory).

Frankly, most servicemembers aren't very good with small arms. Even those who, in theory, actually shoot small arms regularly as part of their duties (and that is less than 10% of the military), often aren't particularly good with them. Nor are they particularly well trained with them, or if reasonably well trained, kept to a high level of currency and proficiency.

This is especially true of handguns. Handgunning is a far more difficult skill than basic riflery, and requires much more practice, more frequently, to maintain proficiency.

The vast majority of servicemembers (even those in combat arms) will fire a handgun for familiarization during training; and then either never again, or at most, at long intervals (anywhere from 6 months to two years). This often includes those who, in theory, carry a handgun as part of their duty (infantry officers, armored vehicle crewmembers, aircrew members etc...).

As a whole, outside of special operations and security forces, the U.S. military doesn't do much with handguns. Lots of servicemembers are issued handguns, but very few actually shoot them very much (I would say less than 5%).

Unfortunately, when large numbers of servicemembers who are relatively untrained, and relatively uncomfortable with small arms, end up being issued them (and live ammo); this lack of training and proficiency leads to... issues.

In particular, and the reason why commanders are so reluctant to allow regular carry of small arms; it leads to lost and stolen weapons or ammo, and negligent discharges.

Commanders are held responsible for these incidents (particularly if the injury of a third party is involved), and therefore are extremely reluctant to trust PFC Somedude, whose normal duty is driving a forklift in a quartermasters warehouse; with an M9 and two loaded magazines.

If you want to make long serving officers and non-coms cringe in terror, tell them "we're issuing EVERYONE small arms and live ammo"; because they KNOW for a certainty, that some idiot is going to shoot his toe off, and some other idiot is going to lose his weapon.

There's two solutions to that problem.

The first, is to maintain very high standards of small arms training and proficiency; and to downcheck anyone who can't meet them, or who has a safety problem in handling their small arms.

In general, this is the right way to do it...

Unfortunately, it's expensive, it's time consuming, there are just a lot more more problems, carrying firearms all the time is inconvenient (particularly the standard U.S. Military sidearm, the Beretta M9, which is why those whose duty regularly includes carrying a handgun for self protection - security forces, CID agents etc... - are often authorized carry of a smaller weapon such as the M11 - basically the SIG P226); and no matter what you do or how well you train them there will always be a few idiots who will lose their weapons, or shoot their toes off.

Worse, if you downcheck good people who are just bad with guns, when their duty never involves touching guns; you lose that good person (at whatever they do), for "no good reason". After all, they also serve who file and collate, and 80% of servicemembers never go anywhere near small arms as part of their duty.

I know plenty of great servicemembers, who are horrible with small arms. Even guys who shoot BIG guns for a living... but don't necessarily do so well with little ones (pilots, tankers, and artillerymen are not generally noted for their small arms proficiency).

The other way of doing it, is disarming everyone unless they are actually going to use a weapon. Fewer people with guns, for less time, means less chances for weapons to be lost, and less chances for idiots to shoot themselves.

But it also means that our servicemembers are without effective means to defend themselves when someone decides they'd like to kill some soldiers.

My personal belief, is that we should accept the costs and difficulties in universal personal weapon issue and routine carriage for self defense. If you're a servicemember, no matter what your duty, you should be able to effectively defend yourself while on duty.

And that's what we should be advocating for. That's a military policy change, not a political one.

Claiming otherwise hurts us. Lying hurts us. Making inaccurate claims hurts us. It doesn't help.

It's a bad policy that gets people killed, and as time goes on will get more people killed. There's no need to make factually incorrect claims, or associate the policy with undesirable people, in order to make it seem worse than it is.

Larry Correia On Huckabee, explaining the stupidity of gun control

I must say I have never seen our case better represented, and I am proud to call this man my friend.

23 executive orders eh?

I have but a single comment.

Macbeth, Act 5, Scene 5

Treaties, Executive Orders, and the NRA

So... It seems that a lot of folks understand that the electoral math of the question makes any significant federal gun control in the near future unlikely.

Unfortunately, many still hold the idea that somehow, the Obama administration doesn't need congress to implement gun control; that they could do so by executive order (or that the ATF would do so without congressional action, at Obamas direction), or by signing the UN arms treaty; and that they would of course, do so at their earliest opportunity.

... I guess because Obama is the living earthly incarnation of satan or something?

Comics from the new and so-far very good web comic Failure to Fire. 

Finally, these same folks mostly seem to believe that the NRA is useless, or worse, actively conspiring with the evil one to take away our guns etc... etc...

All three of these ideas are entirely incorrect, as I have written here and on other blogs many times before (as this is a commonly held mistaken idea that has come up often).

Oh and an aside: anyone who is getting their information or opinions (on any subject whatsoever) from reading things like Alex Jones, Joseph Farrah, World Net Daily, or anything that Larry Pratt or the GOA put out... you should really just stop. They’re about 90% full of it, and the 10% that isn’t, is overblown.

Before we get get into the legalities of the first two ideas, let's talk about the politics for a second...

For those that do, please tell me... Why do you believe so strongly that, against all evidence, gun control is the hill the democratic party wants to die on?

Because, make no mistake, that's what it would be; even if the gun control was Obama and his administration alone, without the action of congress.

If Obama really cared that much about gun control, he would have done it already.

If you think that "He was just waiting for his second term. Now that he doesn't have to be re-elected, you'll see, he'll do all the things we've been saying he was going to since 2008"...

...You're an idiot.

Oh it's absolutely true that Obama will be more liberal/progressive/socialist etc... this term; and will get more aggressive about what he wants etc... (or perhaps more to the point, his far more radical appointees, who he can sacrifice if necessary, will do so).

It's this ridiculous argument that somehow Obama is special, specially evil etc... and that by virtue of this he has some magical ability to completely ignore the realities of law, the constitution, government, politics... physics... that makes these folks idiots.

Perhaps there are some rational arguments to be made that perhaps Obama want's gun control bad enough to commit politicial suicide, or to have his party do so; but I haven't seen them being made. Just this idiotic "because he's Obama, that's why" crap.

Yes, Obama want's more gun control (though not to the extent that some seem to think), but in order to do so, he needs to deal with CONGRESS.

Obama wants a lot more things, a lot more than he wants gun control; and he isn't going to waste any political capitol whatsoever on a subject he doesn't really care about that much.

Why do you think he put Joe Biden in charge of the "special comission"?

If he was serious, he'd be leading the charge himself. He'd be on television twice a day with specific ideas, and demonizing opponents etc...

If it works out, hey, great, he can claim credit. If it fails (and it will), he doesn't get any of the blame.

What Obama really wants is to raise taxes, cut the military, increase social spending etc... He's not stupid, he knows that he's going to need congress to do it.

What Obama absolutely does NOT want, is to see Obamacare repealed (for which he's going to need to have at least the senate stay under democratic control); and that trying to shove gun control down our throats would just about guarantee all the vulnerable Democratic senators would lose their seats.

There are maybe a dozen truly committed, truly anti-gun senators, and maybe two dozen in the house... plus another dozen completely safe seats in the senate and maybe 50 or 60 in the house. No-one else is going to put their seat on the line over an issue that they either don't care about all that much, or that they don't see any major advantage in supporting.

Now, on to the legal question

Neither treaties nor executive orders can violate the constitution (including the court decisions interpreting the constitution).

First, treaties:

Some seem to believe that a double evil combination will occur, where Obama signs a treaty that will unconstitutionally ban small arms; and by doing so while congress is in recess, he can immediately implement the provisions of the treaty to do so.

If you believe this, let me say to you, right now, without any hesitation...

YOU'RE A MORON

Or, at the very least, you have no business having an opinion on this subject, since you have no idea how our government works, or anything about law, or the constitution.

Treaties cannot be implemented without the approval of congress. They must be ratified by the senate, and their implementation must be enabled by house legislation (approving the funding for implementing the provisions of the treaty).

If a treaty is signed, but never ratified, the executive branch cannot implement any of its provisions.

However, that's entirely irrelevant because...

Treaties don't trump the constitution, nor do they override court decisions interpreting the constitution.

Ever, under any circumstances.

Treaties can supersede state and federal law, but not the constitution.



Any provision of any treaty that would do so, is automatically null and void.

Here are the relevant supreme court decisions:

Amaya v. Standard Oil:

"the treaty-making power does not extend ‘So far as to authorize what the constitution forbids.’"

Reid v. Covert (which is controlling in this question):

“No agreement with a foreign nation can confer power on Congress, or on any other branch of Government, which is free from the restraints of the Constitution. 

There is nothing new or unique about what we say here. This [Supreme] Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty.” – Reid v. Covert, October 1956, 354 U.S. 1, at pg 17.

And the summary of the majority opinion:

“The United States is entirely [354 U.S. 1, 6] a creature of the Constitution. Its power and authority have no other source. It can only act in accordance with all the limitations imposed by the Constitution. 

(Quoting Article VI, Clause 2…)
“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land … ” 

There is nothing in this language which intimates that treaties and laws enacted pursuant to them do not have to comply with the provisions of the Constitution. 

Nor is there anything in the debates which accompanied the drafting and ratification of the Constitution which even suggests such a result.”

Treaties MAY NOT supersede the constitution; however, it is important to note that the constitution does not necessarily apply to actions outside our borders and not concerning our citizens (US v. Curtis Wright).

The ratification of a treaty is an act of congress, and no act of congress, or its effects, may supersede the constitution. Article II and Article VI are mostly clear, and what ambiguity there is has been clarified numerous times by the supreme court.

Treaties CAN AND DO trump previous federal laws, and both state laws and state constitutions; which was clarified in Gibbons v. Ogden.

...And on to the executive orders...

Now, there's some important language I quote above:

"The United States is entirely [354 U.S. 1, 6] a creature of the Constitution. Its power and authority have no other source. It can only act in accordance with all the limitations imposed by the Constitution."

As this applies to acts of congress, it also applies to the executive branch and its agencies.

The substance and authority of the government exists solely in the constitution; therefore no agency of it may act outside of its authority.

Because great power and discretion are given to the president (and by extension the executive branch) in foreign affairs, executive orders can ignore the constitution outside the borders of the country and when acting on non-citizens; but they cannot ignore the constitution inside our borders, or when dealing with American citizens.

"It doesn't matter if its unconstitutional, Obama is evil and doesn't care, and he's going to do it anyway"

Yeah...

Rather than address this whole thing again on the politics side, I'll just refer you back to the politics section above, and say...

YOU'RE A MORON

Or at the least, without any knowledge or understanding, you're parroting misinformation spread by either morons, or by those who are deliberately manipulating you (most likely for fundraising purposes).

But since we're in the legal section, let's get back to that...

I can see that there are some arguments (other than the "but he's evil" one that is), where its plausible the Obama administration might decide to attempt some blatantly unconstitutional garbage...

But...

Why do you believe that if the Obama administration suddenly decides to do various clearly and obviously unconstitutional things, that they'll actually be allowed?

That they'll have funding to do so?

That they won't be stopped by the courts?

That there won't be a million lawsuits?

That the various officials of the executive branch will go along with it?

That the enforcement agents of the executive branch will implement and enforce these new unconstitutional measures?

Again, I'm not talking about the possibility that they may attempt minor and lesser executive action to restrict guns in some ways (more on that below); just the idea that somehow, because Obama is extra special magic evil; that he can all of a sudden magically seize or ban all our guns (or all our evil black guns etc...)

Ok... the NRA

Right now I'm rather irritated with the NRA.

Not because they are "evil, ineffective, compromising backstabbers", but because of this:

http://home.nra.org/pdf/Transcript_PDF.pdf

This statement... Much of it is reasonable, true, good, useful helpful; unfortunately, some is very much not:

And here's another dirty little truth that the media try their best to conceal: There exists in this country a callous, corrupt and corrupting shadow industry that sells, and sows, violence against its own people. 

Through vicious, violent video games with names like Bulletstorm, Grand Theft Auto, Mortal Kombat and Splatterhouse. And here’s one: it’s called Kindergarten Killers. It’s been online for 10 years. How come my research department could find it and all of yours either couldn’t or didn’t want anyone to know you had found it?

Then there’s the blood-soaked slasher films like "American Psycho" and "Natural Born Killers" that are aired like propaganda loops on "Splatterdays" and every day, and a thousand music videos that portray life as a joke and murder as a way of life. And then they have the nerve to call it "entertainment." 

But is that what it really is? Isn't fantasizing about killing people as a way to get your kicks really the filthiest form of pornography?

In a race to the bottom, media conglomerates compete with oneanother to shock, violate and offend every standard of civilized society by bringing an ever-more-toxic mix of reckless behavior and criminal cruelty into our homes — every minute of every day of
every month of every year. 

A child growing up in America witnesses 16,000 murders and 200,000
acts of violence by the time he or she reaches the ripe old age of 18. 

And throughout it all, too many in our national media … their corporate
owners … and their stockholders … act as silent enablers, if not
complicit co-conspirators. 

Rather than face their own moral failings, the media demonize lawful gun owners, amplify their cries for more laws and fill the national debate with misinformation and dishonest thinking that only delay meaningful action and all but guarantee that the next atrocity is only a news cycle away.

Ahhh yes... it's all the medias fault, especially that nasty TV and those awful video games.

Not only is this not helpful, in context it is both idiotic, and actively HARMFUL.

Not intentionally so of course; but in spectacular arrogance and ignorance.

I think the Penny Arcade response to this is appropriate here:

Lord knows, this isn't the first time the NRA was harmfully wrong (their entire history on the Heller case for example)... and it won't be the last.

However, that doesn't mean that I don't generally support the NRA.

I'm a life member, and I won't be resigning my membership over this stupidity (though I will be letting them know how I feel; and unlike most gamers, I know people inside NRA management... I would suggest everyone else who does as well, also make their displeasure known).

The NRA are by far the most effective organization for protecting our rights surrounding firearms and self defense (as I have written many times before, for example: http://anarchangel.blogspot.com/2010/06/political-captial-fundraising-mission.html)

The GOA has been promoting the idea for years that the NRA are the bad guy... but frankly, the only thing Larry Pratt believes in is Larry Pratt... And the only thing the GOA is effective at is spreading  unreasonable fear, and disinformation, aimed at increasing their fundraising.

Without the NRA our right to keep and bear arms would be fully abrogated by government... and would have been long ago.

Are they perfect? No. But they're the best we've got, and they do the best they can; and they are certainly NOT "part of the problem".

All that said... there's still some potential problems (of course)

I don't mean to suggest that there isn't any possible thing that the Obama administration could do on its own, or headaches, irritation, delays and difficult etc... they could cause.

For example, through executive orders and "administrative procedures", "administrative rules", "executive agency regulations" etc... the import of some firearms... possibly even all firearms, and ammunition... could be accomplished.

That is a foreign policy action, which has what could be interpreted, in principle, as having enabling legislation, depending on interpretation.

The administration couldn't ban the domestic manufacture, sale, or possession of any particular type of firearm; nor could they establish standards through the ATF or DOJ that would have the effect of doing so (there is specific legislation addressing this issue, and executive orders cannot counter that).

...BUT...

That doesn't mean they couldn't make life immensely more difficult; applying maximum scrutiny to every manufacturers, distributor, FFL etc...

Some have suggested they could simply order the NICS system shut down; but there's actually a default out for that. Even if there wasn't, this would clearly be an action intended to ban further sales of firearms, and the courts would be on that in a heartbeat (with the SAF, SAAMI, the NSSF the NRA, and every firearms manufacturer behind it).

...But they could make every transaction go through enough scrutiny to make the 3 day delay/proceed limit; backing the system up, and preventing sales entirely in some gun control states.

They could also go for some restrictions that may be allowed under existing law, and wouldn't be clearly unlawful or unconstitutional... The evil mind can think up lots of scenarios where some restriction could happen...

But again, the politics of the situation militate against it; except possibly in a minor way.


So, to appropriate the meme:

Keep Calm and Carry One... or More... Guns...

Stupidity, Politics, and Math

So...

I REALLY didn't want to write anything about the Connecticut school shooting... Frankly, it may sound callous, but we've seen this before, we've seen this worse.

It's truly awful...

...but sometimes truly awful things happen; especially when mental illness is involved.

That's not why I'm writing though... Or even exactly what I'm writing about...

What has basically forced me to write about this, is the outright stupidity that much of the pro-gun side is exhibiting at the moment.

Stupidity, paranoia, histrionics.... whatever you want to call it, it's irritating me enough that I had to write this little 3800 word rant.

The world is not ending.

The sky is not falling.

This is not the "American Dunblane".

No-one is coming to take our evil black rifles.

"...But... But.... 26 dead kids.... AHHHHH!!!!!!!.... IT'S DIFFERENT THIS TIME, I DON"T CARE ABOUT ALL THE OTHER TIMES, IT"S DIFFERENT THIS TIME... AAAAHHHHHH!!!!!"

No... It's not.

Why not?

Because, much as abortion is for the right, gun control is something the left talks about to get column inches and screen time, to win the approval (and money) of single issue voters from your own side; and of course, to feel morally superior... It's not something you actually DO.

... If you actually DID it, it would end up hurting you... Again, much like abortion....

Pro gun folks, please stop screaming about how all the fun guns are going to be banned, Obama tyranny, etc... etc...

It's not going to happen.

There will be no new gun control of any kind (except perhaps, at worst a symbolic gesture, though I doubt even that), never mind a new so called "assault weapons" ban, or a magazine capacity ban.

Not that I wouldn't strongly oppose such a thing, but:

1. I'm pretty sure such a thing would never get voted on at all.
2. I'm pretty sure it wouldn't even get debated in committee.
3. I'm pretty sure if it was, it wouldn't be voted on in committee.
4. I'm pretty sure if it ever made it to the floor, it wouldn't get a floor vote.
5. I'm pretty sure that if it did, it wouldn't pass...
6. Actually, I'm pretty sure such a thing wouldn't get more than about 25% behind it... 40% at worst
7. I'm pretty sure if it did somehow pass in one house, it wouldn't get through both houses.
8. I'm pretty sure if it did, it wouldn't make it through conference or reconciliation.
9. I'm pretty sure even if it did, current jurisprudence would prevent such a thing from ever being implemented.
10. If there were any kind of "ban" passed, and it were to somehow make it through the courts, it would have to be so restricted, narrow, and limited as to  be meaningless

I repeat, there will be no meaningful or significant gun control legislation of any kind even voted on... or likely even debated in open hearings, never mind passed.

I'm sure several bills will be introduced... Carolyn McCarthy, Frank Lautenberg, and Dianne Feinstein need to get their fawning press... and in an attempt to appear "reasonable" some republicans will talk about talking about it... but they'll never be slated for conference. They'll just be symbolic gestures by congresscritters in pro gun control districts.

In fact, there will most likely be several conflicting bills introduced by several different people in each house.... Intentionally so. This allows the politicians in question to pretend THEY were trying to get the GOOD bill passed, but couldn't, so they wouldn't vote for the BAD bill... etc... etc...

Nothing but red meat for the base... Just like every other time this has happened since 1996.

"...But.... But.... How can you possibly say that? Awful media screaming.... Gaaahhh!!! SCARY BLACK MILITARY STYLE RIFLES!!!!!, Dead CHILDREN!!!! PELOSII!!! FEINSTEIN!!! OBAMA!!!! GAAAAAAAHHHHH!!!!!!!!"

Simple.

Politics, and Math.

Fox news was reporting that this morning, Rasmussen released a poll conducted after the shootings:

Only 27% of the population support additional gun control. Over 60% believe that additional gun control won't stop things like this from happening. Over 70% believe that this is a mental health issue, not a gun issue.

AND THEY ARE RIGHT.

This IS a mental health issue. A major one. And a cultural issue (the part of the culture that turns guns into a magic rod of power in their heads, and denigrates and degrades the value and nobility of human life).

If you haven't already, you should read Clayton Cramers book about mental illness and how poorly we deal with in this country "My Brother Ron"... We basically have NO way of dealing with the mentally ill at this point, and it's a major problem.

... and a lot of folks know this, and understand this.... Though I don't think anyone has a really good idea what to do about it.

Occasionally, "the people" are not mindless sheep. Occaisonally they're actually surprisingly wise... Especially after decades of obvious garbage being shoved down their throats, is utterly contradicted by just a few minutes of real world experience, or the tiniest bit of basic logic and reason.

... And yes, "the people" can, on occaision, exhibit the ability to reason using facts and logic.

It's rare I admit...

So... as far as "more gun control" goes, the people don't want it, it won't work, and everyone not operating on a predetermined agenda (or through naive idealism, or blind ignorant fear) already understands that...

Because, as any advocate for the legalization of drugs will tell you, banning only stops the law abiding. It doesn't eliminate either the use, or desire, for the banned subject.

Because of course the argument makes sense when it's applied to something you support, but is utter twaddle when it's something you don't support... Of course...

...No, of course not...

Gun control is exactly as good an idea as banning drugs, or alcohol, or knives, or cars, or any other damn thing that requires an adult level of responsibility to manage properly.

Of course, that hasn't ever stopped politicians before.... like, well... for example, prohibition.

And much like prohibition, something like half the households in this country have guns in them.

When you account for the fact that very few of the households in the urban northeast, midwestern industrial cities, or coastal California, are among that number (and that's about 1/3 of Americas households)... and it actually works out to something more like 3/4 of households outside of the big anti-gun constituencies.

...and for the past 8 years, the second most popular gun in America, is what our president has been calling a "Military style Assault Weapon" (which in and of itself is a delberate fraud, but that's another issue entirely).

Since 2004, manufacturers have sold between 500,000 and 1 million AR-15 type rifles a year. While there are certainly lots of folks who have three or four of them, most folks only have the one...

They sell them at WAL-MART now. And not just one model, covered in mossy oak for the hunters... The last time I looked into the WallyWorld gun section a few weeks back, they had FOUR different models, including ones with rails, collapsible stocks, flash hiders, 30 rounds magazines...

You can't demonize the rifle that the guy takes to the range for his 12 year old daughter to shoot. The scare tactics only work on people who don't know any better...

...and more than half the country now knows better.

But I digress...

Basic truism of politics: Politicians never do anything unless they think it is to their advantage.

EVER...

...and outside those few districts that are strongly pro gun control (about 20% of the population, but only about 2% of the area) there is no advantage in gun control.

Plenty of advantage in talking about it... Talking about it helps liberals raise money...

But actually DOING something?

No... that's bad.

Gun control hurts the democratic party. The only places that support it would support democrats anyway, and everywhere else, every single democrat that votes for gun control means thousands fewer democratic voters.

Gun control cost the Democratic party control of Congress in 1996, they know it, and they will NEVER repeat that mistake again.

So, Democratic party politicians will talk about gun control on TV, but they won't actually DO anything that they can get nailed down on, unless they are from one of the (very few) anti-gun districts, or their seat is completely safe (in which case they're playing to the small but wealthy national liberal donor audience).

Hell... there isn't even any money in organized gun control anymore. There used to be big money lobbies behind it, but now almost all gun control is funded out of the Joyce foundations, and they don't have the money to spend on buying either politicians, or media campaigns.

Private individuals rarely donate very much to the gun control cause, if anything; and that has always been the case. A few very rich ideologues, the occasional frothing or crying liberal, and the sad people whose loved ones were killed by lunatics and idiots, and who are now used by the ideologues to put a sympathetic and legitimate face on their actions... and that's really it.

 You can almost always get people to donate "for" something... it's a lot harder to get them to donate "against" something; unless you can make people very afraid, and then convince them you will take their fear away.

Well... most people aren't afraid of guns anymore... and of the ones who are, most don't believe that the government is going to be able to do anything about their fear.

There's just no constituency for gun control.

Just 27%, in a poll after a major emotional event...

Certainly less, when the emotion dies down, and they have to actually commit to something, not just say what they think the guy at the other end of the phone wants to hear...

Ok... so maybe no AR-15 bans... but what about magazine capacity limits?


Not a chance. Any real restriction on people doing something they actually want to do... they remember it. A magazine ban would lose the Democrats every remaining rural house and senate senate seat they have left.

There's literally tens of millions... if not hundreds of millions, of "high capacity" magazines out there. Unless they made ex post facto law criminalizing their possession  then seized all of them (also a constitutional problem) and destroyed them... Which, never mind the legal, constitutional, political, and economic issues surrounding that, is simply PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE...

It's also just plain stupid... People understand and remember stupid. They remember being irritated, and inconvenienced.

Again, this is the kind of idea that only sounds good to the ignorant or the fearful. Those who have no clue... who just don't know any better... And now, more than half the country knows better.

No... A ban of any kind, of any weapon, of any magazine, just isn't going to happen.

No-one who isn't in a guaranteed liberal pro-gun control seat is going to touch ANY gun control of any kind.

Hell, the NRA has had more than 30,000 new members sign up since the shooting, along with over 80,000 renewals, and who knows how much in additional donations (I'm already a life member); and more are coming in every HOUR.

People on the left keep saying "We need to have a conversation about gun control"... 

Well, guess what, we've been having that conversation since 1968; and as of 2008, it's over.  

They lost, and we won. 

That doesn't mean there isn't still work to do of course; there's 150 years of racist, bigoted, fascist, legal kruft to get rid of.

That's going to take decades, and millions of dollars in legal fees, and there will be setbacks along the way...

But, fundamentally, gun control is dead.

I'm going to say this flat out:

There will not be any kind of meaningful, serious, or significant gun control legislation on the federal level within the next 12 years... possibly not ever again.

"...but... but... the Republicans are caving... they're stupid, venal cowards... but.. but... they ALWAYS sell out and screw up. I just KNOW they're going to cave on this like they do everything else and they'll go along with a ban...

...but.... but... DUNBLANE!!!! STOCKTON!!!! AAAAAHHHHH!!!!!"

... OK...

Why would they do that?

Republicans certainly do a lot of dumb stuff... just look at who they ran for president the last two times... but they do it for a reason.

Like all politicians, they only do that which they believe is to their own advantage.

Any vote on gun control at all, never mind a vote FOR gun control?

To what advantage, and for whom?

There is no rationale under which any remaining Republicans (now that Chaffee and Snowe are gone) would vote for any kind of gun control legislation; nor would better than half the democrats. 

It's a losing issue for democrats, it's an even worse losing issue for republicans, AND then the dems get to lord it over the republicans... There's no WAY they'd let that happen. 

However, to avoid fundraising issues, giving the press talking points, or being nailed down on the record, rather than vote yay or nay, they'll just make sure that it never comes to a floor vote. 

• Just like they did after Aurora (2012, 12 dead, 58 injured)
• Just like they did after Seal Beach (2011, 8 dead, 1 injured)
• Just like they did after Giffords (2011, 6 dead, 13 injured)
• Just like they did after Binghamton (2009, 13 dead, 4 wounded)
• Just like they did after Virginia Tech (2007, 32 dead, 18 wounded)
• Just like they did after Columbine (1999, 13 dead, 21 wounded)

Just like they have after every other "Ahhhh!!!! they're going to take our guns now!!!" incident since 1999.

Oh and note... I don't include the shooters in those totals, or mention their names. Just a thing for me...

Let's do some math here....

The last significant piece of gun control legislation to pass at the federal level was the 1994 so called "assault weapons ban". There was a minor amendment that was passed in 1999. The so called "assault weapons ban" expired in 2004, without any kind of serious attempt at renewing or extending it.

Nothing has changed since 2004 to make gun control any easier or more likely... or 1999, or 1994 for that matter. 

In fact, post '96, it's a lot harder and a lot LESS likely.

Every significant federal gun control measure introduced since 1999 (and there have been a lot of them. McCarthy and Lautenberg introduce restrictive bills every few months) has not only failed, but I believe they have all failed to even reach a floor vote. Only rarely have they even made it out of committee. 

... and the 1999 bit was minor legislation on trigger locks, and only passed as a last second add-on amendment to an anti-crime funding bill (to put more "cops on the street"), 51-50 with Al Gore voting as tie breaker. 

The majority of serious pro-gun legislation since 1999 on the other hand has either passed, or come close to passing in one house or the other (usually passing in the house and never coming to a vote in the senate). 

Just as an example, the national parks carry bill in 2009 passed 279 to 147, under a democrat controlled house (and just after a couple of mass shootings within a few months). The national concealed carry reciprocity bill from 2011 passed 272-154 (just after a couple MORE mass shooting events). 

They couldn't even get gun control after Columbine...

They got a nifty piece of propaganda disguised as a documentary... but no actual gun control.

After losing control of the house and senate after '96 (because of gun control), the Democrats took both the house and senate back in 2007; and had the house, senate, and presidency from January 2009 until January of 2011. 

In that time, they didn't even bother trying to advance a serious bill out of committee. 

There's a reason for that...

Overall, the Senate has 46 members with an NRA A grade, and another 13 with a B or C. Only 35 get a D or F (6 are not rated). 

Of those 35, many can't afford to vote for any kind of gun control right now (no matter what speeches they make in front of the cameras); either because they're in very pro-gun states, or because they're in moderately pro-gun states (or even pro gun areas of generally anti-gun states... look at the map below) and have a strong challenge facing them.

There are 11 strongly pro gun Democrats in the senate, 1 slightly pro gun, 3 neutral, 2 slightly anti-gun... (from a+ to c-) meaning none of them have actually supported major or serious gun control in any meaningful way (otherwise they'd be graded at D or F)... Then there's 2 D's and 36 F's (counting Sanders and King as democrats of course). 

Oh, and there's only one strongly anti-gun republican in the senate at this point, Mark Kirk of Illinois; and two neutral to slightly pro-gun (both got C+), Collins of Maine, and Coats of Indiana. Every other republican gets either an A or a B. 

So... WORST case, we'd be looking at a 60/40 split...

...But that's before the electoral politics and math come into play.

The Dems know that with the economy going the way it's going (and they're going to be attempting to make it worse) they're going to lose seats massively in 2014. They are desperate to hold on to the senate, or at the very least to prevent a filibuster proof Republican majority

The following democratic senators are up for re-election in 2014:

1. Alaska - Mark Begich - Very Pro Gun - very unsafe seat
2. Arkansas - Mark Pryor - neutral - very unsafe seat
3. Colorado - Mark Udall - neutral - not a safe seat
4. Delaware - Chris Coons - Very anti-gun - safe seat
5. Hawaii - UNKNOWN (special election to replace Daniel Inouye)
6. Illinois - Dick Durbin - Very anti-gun - safe seat
7. Iowa - Tom Harkin - Very anti-gun - iffy, can't afford to screw up
8. Louisiana - Mary Landrieu - neutral - very unsafe seat
9. Massachusetts - UNKNOWN (special election to replace John Kerry)
10. Michigan - Carl Levin - very anti-gun - safe seat
11. Minnesota - Al Franken - very anti-gun - not a safe seat
12. Montana - Max Baucus - very pro-gun - iffy, can't afford to screw up
13. New Hampshire - Jeanne Shaheen - very anti-gun - not a safe seat
14. New Jersey - Frank Lautenberg - very anti-gun - safe seat
15. New Mexico - Tom Udall - slightly anti-gun - safe seat
16. North Carolina - Kay Hagan - very anti-gun - not a safe seat
17. Oregon - Jeff Merkley - very anti-gun - safe seat
18. Rhode Island - Jack Reed - very anti-gun - safe seat
19. South Dakota - Tim Johnson - very pro-gun - very unsafe seat
20. Virginia - Mark Warner - very pro-gun - not a safe seat
21. West Virginia - Jay Rockefeller - moderately anti-gun - very unsafe seat

Now... look at that list....

That's 21 Democratic senators up for election, only 9 of which are actually "safe" seats (including Mass and HI), and four of which are very pro-gun. 

Of those senators, who is anti-gun, and in a safe seat?

1. Delaware - Chris Coons
2. Hawaii - Whoever it is, they'll be an anti-gun democrat
3. Illinois - Dick Durbin
4. Massachusetts - Whoever it is, they'll be an anti-gun democrat
5. Michigan - Carl Levin
6. New Jersey - Frank Lautenberg (the most anti-gun senator)
7. New Mexico - Tom Udall
8. Oregon - Jeff Merkley
9. Rhode Island - Jack Reed (as bad as Lautenberg)

Al Franken almost lost his last election, and there are plenty of hunters and shooters in Minnesota. He can't afford to lose a single vote, or to have Minnesota uninvolved voters mode involved at all. If it comes to a vote he'll probably vote for it, but he won't be pushing hard for it. 

Tom Udall may actually be iffy... He's generally pro gun control, but he's not very outspoken about it; and New Mexico is swingy on the issue, with a slight pro-gun bias. My guess, if it actually comes to a vote he'll be for it; but he'll want to avoid it. 

Tom Harkin is another one. He's anti-gun, but he had a serious challenge last time (his opponent wasn't all that strong, and lost by a wide margin, but Harkins negatives are HUGE in his home state right now), he's going to have a  serious challenge in 2014 (he's a core target for unseating as part of the GOP midwestern strategy, and he's got some serious weaknesses), and Iowa is generally a pro-gun state (though there's a lot of anti "scary black rifle" shotgun owners... all that great bird hunting and all...). Same guess, he'll vote for it if it comes up, but he'd much rather avoid the issue. 

You know who REALLY can't afford to even have something come up for a vote?

Harry Reid. 

You know... the Senate Majority leader? 

The guy who controls the senate agenda, and what comes up for a vote when?

If he presides over gun control legislation of any kind, he loses his gavel in 2014, and his seat in 2016; and he knows it. 

No if's ands or buts about it, he's gone, it's that simple. 

Reid isn't going to let that happen.

... and that's just for 2014, never mind 2016 and 2018. Gunnies have long memories on this sort of thing, as does the NRA, never mind the SAF, JPFO, GOA, the various state rifle and pistol associations....  

The numbers are even worse looking for gun control in the house. House members have to run every election; and of the 435 members of congress, 242 get an NRA "A" rating, and another 30 get a B or C. Only 146 get a D or F (17 are unrated).

Take a look at this chart:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/12/19/us/politics/nra.html

Of those 146 congrescritters, 37 of them are in STRONGLY pro-gun states (though not necessarily pro-gun districts). Another couple dozen are in moderately pro-gun states, or in pro-gun areas of anti-gun states. 

Basically... I doubt they'd get 100 votes in the house if it went to a floor vote.

They might do it if they could... but they just don't have the votes.

Every left wing political show, talking head, blog, columnist etc... has been talking all day long about how they don't think anything is actually going to happen. That the politicians will talk big, and do nothing. 

There's a reason for that. 

But the biggest reason I'm sure this is all noise? A nice distraction for Obama and the democrats from the upcoming "fiscal cliff"?

Obamas special blue ribbon action committee on gun control, is chartered to "come back with advisory recommendations by the end of January"... and Joe Biden will be in charge of it. 

Seriously... If they actually meant to do anything, would they have appointed BIDEN to run the effort?

Seriously...