Weaons Bans? Do the Math

There are those that really believe that a ban on the future sales of semi-auto mag fed rifles. would suddenly cause Islamic terrorist to stop their killing, or at least mitigate their killing, but they can't explain how that would work. First SAMFR account for less deaths than any other weapon, so even if all these SAMFR suddenly disappeared from the US, it would have practically no affect on gun crimes. However, that is not the plan, as the ban would only affect future sales, leaving 3-4 million of these rifles available. It is simply a war on reality that such a ban would save any lives for a very long time to come; if ever; and this not just my opinion, it is an opinion that is universally accepted by anyone the can look at these issues objectively, Following this ban there are usually laws that would require those with SAMFR to register them, but since the sole purpose of this registration is for later confiscation, the compliance level where it has been tried is less than 5%. My question is simple, I ask anyone that is for a banning SAMFR, to explain how it would stop any criminal from acquiring one. And it is not so simple as a ban would limit the number of SAMFR available to criminals and terrorist. In the US there has been 14 deadly Islamic terrorists attacks, some of which didn't even involve a SAMFR, however even if one assumes that that each attack SAMFRs, that would mean that over 6 years, 28 assault rifles used. Even if one accepts that the number of Islamic terrorists attacks will will increase to double the current rate, a ban would need to stop 10 SAMFR @ year (or 100 over the next 10 years) out of the 3-4 million available, to fall into criminal Islamic Terrorists hands; that doesn't include the estimated 1000's of SAMFRs (specifically Russian AK-47's since Obama's ban) smuggled into the US. We also know that with relatively free/open borders, if Americans want something and are willing to pay the price, someone will make them available (look at alcohol use during the Prohibition, and the failure of stopping illegal drug use).

Gerry Grimes stated; "Now, would banning them stop all future mass murders — absolutely not. Would it significantly reduce their death/injury toll — absolutely". However the poster doesn't explain how this "absolutely" would happen. To even mitigate the killings done by Islamic terrorists, would necessitate, 10 of the remaining millions SAMFRs left in circulation from falling into the wrong hands; it's ludicrous. Since Islamic terrorists and mass killers usually have very well planned attacks, the fact they may have to spend a little more time finding the right weapon, will certainly not mitigate the lethalology. Once it becomes obvious that ban on future sales accomplished nothing, the next push will be to confiscate SAMFRs, as it is the only reason the government would wants to register these rifles in the first place) rifles still in civilian hands (which also explains the historic near zero compliance), However, regardless of the oppressive nature of anti-gun zealots, it is pretty much accepted that any gun confiscated program would cause such civil unrest, that the deaths resulting from Islamic terrorism in the US, would be dwarfed by a factor of a 1000 or 10,000, making the saving of lives by banning SAMFRs, a moot point.

We know now that US intelligence had identified the last two Islamic terrorist attacks, but due to political correctness, they ignored them, instead their pushing for gun bans that have no past record of of working.  It's almost like the Administration is simply waiting for these Islamic terrorist attacks, so they can use them for fodder to ban guns, As Maureen Dowd would say, Sick Sick Sick!

When the People Ignore the Law

A ban on the future sale of Semi-Automatic Mag Fed Rifles (SAMFR), would have no affect on public safety; even if it actually stopped the citizenry from accruing these rifles, and a terrorist was locked into using only a SAMFR, there would still be 3-4 million SAMFR available to buy, beg, borrow or steal. Further thousands of these rifles are bought by law enforcement every year, and as we have seen in Salinas, stealing weapons from the police continues to be a big problem; and of course the elephant in the room is the 2nd Amendment. If we want to stop the violence we need to concentrate on the criminals and terrorists, not guns. As mention France has strict assault rifle possession bands, but that didn't stop the massacres on French soil. The Administration needs to get serious about protecting the us from Islamic Terrorism. Instead DHS has orders not to concentrate on Muslims and a prohibition of investigating mosques, unless a member ask them to. The result is the the US did a good job of identifying suspected terrorist, but were stopped from maintaining their investigation becasue of political correctness.

But there is a larger issue; and that is current owners of SAMFR and magazines that carry more than 10 rounds have simply decided not to comply with these anti-gun laws. Connecticut instituted mandatory registration for SAMFR, compliance was less than 5% and it was also discovered law enforcement officers were the main culprit. Los Angeles and Colorado instituted a law that forbid hi-capacity magazine ownership, compliance in Colorado was less than 5 % and in Los Angeles it was 0%. In a Democracy, the vast majority of the people need to voluntarily comply with the laws (punishment is only meant for the less 1% that are sociopaths). If not, a large section of the population will ignore the law, the result of which is devastating to a representative government.
So what are we fighting for? Let our country's investigative agencies do their job! Don't tie their hands with rules of engagement based on political correctness! The anti-gun zealots tell us he have a gun violence epidemic, when gun violence has been on a decline since the 1970 (50%). The fact that SAMFR continue to be the least used firearm in criminal activity should be a clue that those calling for their ban are not doing so to increase public safety.

The Misdirection of Gun Restrictions

A liberal blogger asked the question, "How many people have died from gun violence because Republicans put the NRA profits above public safety?" If one looks are crime statistics and historical evidence, the answer would be none, because the people die when the crime rates are high, and there is no evidence that the massive increase of gun ownership has resulted in an increase in gun crime, as a matter of fact the opposite is true. Like the issue of background checks, there is no evidence that the gun restrictions would protect anyone or increase public safety. While the left has done a good job of associating guns to crime, the reality is gun violence follows crime rates, not the other way around.

Throughout the country, whether a state had strict restrictions or not, gun violence and homicides fell about the same rate of 50% over the last 20 years, while gun ownership nearly doubled. It is easy to pass laws and demonize guns, but much harder to actually to have real affect on violent violence. The anti-gun zealots say universal back grounds checks are logical and make sense, which on the surface does seem so, the problem is background checks have ever been shown to lower crime rates. Further the system is so flawed that some 80% of those flagged when trying  to buy a gun, are flagged in error. Is this the kind of system that should be expanded?

The same with assault weapons ban. One might buy into the argument that assault weapons and large capacity magazines have the ability to shoot more bullets and kill more people, yet their use in crimes (along with use of any rifles), continue to be very rare; less than shotguns, while their number in the US has climbed to 4-5 million. As a matter of fact, if all the assault weapons disappeared from the country, there is no evidence that it would have any impact on gun violence and/or gun homicides at all; it's simply a scam. Again it is the left simply creating an emergency and divisive issue and pretending they are on the side of public safety, while nothing they are proposing has ever prevented or lowered the amount of gun crimes and/or gun homicides; the problem is not guns, it's crime; and crime is way down so gun crimes are way down. It's that simple.

Mexican Government Importing Most US Guns Used by Cartels

This should not come as any surprise, but the US has been exporting tens of thousands of military grade M4s to the military and police in Mexico. Mexican authorities are purchasing the firearms through a program called "direct commercial sales", where they order the firearms directly from the US manufacturer and only need the request signed off by the US State Department (aka ex Sec of State Hillary Clinton 2009-2013), unfortunately about a quarter or more of these guns are ending up in the hands of the cartels. One of driving forces behind this transfer of weapons to the cartels is since 2007, over 150,000 Mexican soldiers have defected to the cartels "and I think it's safe to assume that when they defect they take their firearms with them." In 2006 Mexico bought about 2500 rifles, however since the end of the Fast and Furious program, Mexico has upped the purchase by almost a factor of 10; 18,700 in 2009 (the State Department estimates 26% of these rifles ended up in the hands of the cartels or other "unfavorable" results). "The Mexican military recently reported nearly 9,000 police weapons "missing."" Since 2010 "the State Department has since stopped disclosing numbers of guns it approves", but if we use 20,000 as an average, Mexico has imported about 100,000 M4's in the last 5 years. Legal US Gun Sales to Mexico Arming Cartels
 
This also seems to undermine the entire Straw Purchase complaint and investigation that was the impetus for the failed debacle that was Fast and Furious. Sure, there have been those that buy guns in the US and smuggle them into Mexico, but due to the relative small numbers, most of those where offered for purchase to civilians, not the cartel. Further Fast and Furious threw a monkey wrench into investigating the the Mexican Straw Purchase smuggling, when the DOJ encouraged FFL dealers to sell guns to suspected smugglers. This greatly increased the amount of firearms that were being smuggled into Mexico (as most the dealers would not normally sell to the suspected Straw Purchase, smugglers but did so at the behest of Eric Holder and the DOJ) so some of them ended up in the hands of the cartels. But again the mother load of US firearms in Mexico were legally imported by the Mexican Army and Police and it is these firearms that have been arming the cartels.

So, the next time you hear complaints about US guns in the hands of the cartels (as from the Mexican or US President) it's worth remembering that vast majority (in 2009, Mexico had become one of the world's largest purchasers of U.S. guns through direct commercial sales) were imported by the Mexican Government themselves, who are so inept and corrupt, that they can't keep the guns out of the hands of the cartels..
 

Weapons Bans And Other Symbolic Nonsense

The the anti-gun liberals admit in private that an assault weapons ban would be symbolic at best, the intent is to demonize firearms rather than acknowledging their need to protect freedom. Our forefathers knew that with freedom comes those that will take advantage of it. Freedom requires an armed citizenry to keep the criminals in check; in every state where concealed carry laws have been liberalized, violent crime has plummeted; in every state where firearms are restricted to the criminals, the criminals own the streets. Diane Fienstein has posted her idea for an Assault weapons ban, and then uses some cherry picked stats to prove her allegation that the 1994-2004 federal ban accomplished something. The reality is the federal ban accomplished nothing (there has been a 49% reduction in gun violence over the last 15 years that has had no connection with banned firearms); least one forget the Columbine massacre occurred right in the middle of the ban in 1999. In 2004 The Nation Institute of Justice released it's report on the Federal Assault Weapons Ban An Updated Assessment of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban: Impacts on Gun Markets and Gun Violence, 1994-2003 In general the finding were there's no evidence that an assault weapons (AW) ban accomplished it's goal to reduce gun violence; this included the fact the pistols with large capacity magazines (LCM) were classified as assault pistols and pistols are used in far more crimes that AR(s). " ...the ban’s effects on gun violence are likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement. AWs were rarely used in gun crimes even before the ban. LCMs are involved in a more substantial share of gun crimes, but it is not clear how often the outcomes of gun attacks depend on the ability of offenders to fire more than ten shots (the current magazine capacity limit) without reloading." In recent history the mass casualty shooters all have some level of mental illness, but instead of responding to these psychotic killers as terrorists, the powers that be want to ban gun from law abiding citizens. Further, the police have already admitted they can't protect individuals from criminals. There is an old saying, "If you have a gun you can decide if you are going to use it or not. If you don't have a gun you can't make that decision". Even Diane Fienstein admitted to carrying a concealed weapon in this 1995 speech caught on video, I carried a concealed weapon .

 In the wake of the Sandy Hook shooting that tragically took the lives of so many children and teachers the anti-gun lobby is ramping up it's efforts to demonize guns. These ideologues have never shown any interest in gun safety, i.e.actually trying to control gun violence, they simply want to regulate or ban them out of existence; the problem is this can never happen. With 300-400 million firearms in circulation in the USA, assault weapons make up only about 1%, but that is still some 3.5 million so called assault rifles. The only known action that has ever effectively reduced gun crimes is arming the citizenry with less restrictive concealed carry laws. In states were this has been done gun crimes plummeted, but were gun possession is strictly controlled, the criminals rule the streets.It's an interesting to note that if you subtract the gun violence that occurs in cities where gun possession is the most restrictive, such as Chicago and Washington DC, the national average that has been falling for decades, would plummet even more; it is in those where gun violence has increase while the national average has gone down!.  It is no accident that these massacres occur most frequently in gun-free zones. It's interesting that a shooting incident occurred 2 days after the Newtown killings and it received no media coverage at all. There an off duty female police officer saved a theater full of possible victims by wounding a deranged shooter that had just shot his girlfriend at the location, Two Wounded in Theater Shooting The moment these cowards are confronted by someone who is armed they stop. Too bad there wasn't an armed someone at Sandy Hook.

Even the term "assault rifle" was manufactured by the anti-gun lobby. The term was meant to describe an AR-15/AK47 (the AR in AR-15 does not stand for Assault Rifle, it's stands for ARmalite, the company that designed the AR-15), the civilian semi-automatic versions of the fully automatic military grade M16/AK47 rifle. But since an assault rifle is defined by how it looks, not how it operates, there are numerous guns the operate exactly the same as a so called assault rifle, are just as deadly, but would not be included in any ban. There are also many restrictions already on guns; automatic assault weapons are so highly regulated the may as well be banned, short barrel shotguns are banned and so are exploding rounds. One of the justifications for banning assault rifles is the fact that at the time of the Constitution's writing the long rifle of the day was a musket; but the Constitution does not describe a particular arm. Our founding fathers wanted the miltia (best defined as an armed citzenry)  to protect itself from enemies foreign and domestic, so it is reasonable they would have wanted the citizenry armed with whatever the weapons of the time was. It would be absurd to believe anything different. Further there is the argument that it takes more to buy and drive a car than to obtain a gun. Regardless of the validity of this statement, the 2nd Amendment describes a right, not a privilege (like driving a car. The right to own a firearm is no less restrictive than the right to vote; something always lost on the left. Have you ever noticed that when a liberal agrees with the constitution it's a right, but if they don't it's a privilege?

 Any politician that wants a weapons ban and refuses to afford our children and schools the same safeguards they enjoy with armed security agents simply has an agenda that is not centered on saving lives. The primary way to address illegal gun violence is to enforce existing laws and provide armed security for schools. The reason that pro-gun advocates get a little crazy about gun bans is they know they it will not stop the killings like the massacre of children at the Sandy Hook school. Pro gun advocates want to protect their children and don't want liberal ideologues in the name of "not letting an emergency go to waste" and ignoring the cause of mass shootings, to simply push forward their agenda. If the powers that be get their assault weapons ban, they'll walk away saying " look we did something to save the kids," when they have done nothing but demagogue. Then they'll wait for the next mass shooting and start the process all over again. We all deserve better than this.