rolling back gun control in Canada

So there is talk of rolling back the gun registration program in Canada because it has had little effect on crime or mass shootings, but has instead been a costly and invasive system.

I wonder if we will hear a peep from mr. Moore about this?

I wish I had a better source than just an LJ post, but here it is:
http://community.livejournal.com/guns/1340720.html

What struck me was some of the statistics cited:

"Of the 5,194 homicides committed between 1997 and 2005 [in Canada], only 118, or 2.27%, were committed with a registered gun. Of the 5,194 homicides committed between 1997 and 2005, only 63, or 1.21%, were committed with a firearm registered to the accused murderer. Of the 5,194 homicides committed between 1997 and 2005, only 111, or 2.14%, were committed by a person who held a valid firearms licence. Of the two million licensed gun owners in Canada, only 111, that is 0.00555%, used their firearm to murder somebody."

"We have the highest homicide rate in nearly a decade. The firearm homicide rate is the same as it was 20 years ago. Sixty-six per cent of murders in 2005 were committed without a firearm; 58% of the firearms homicides were committed with handguns; 9% were committed with banned fully automatic firearms, sawed off rifles and shotguns; and only 30% of recovered firearms were registered."

"Sixty-four per cent of the accused murderers had a criminal record, 6% for homicide. [...] Seventy-three per cent of the accused murderers had been drinking or on drugs. Thirteen per cent of the accused murderers were mentally ill; 45% of the murders occurred while the accused were committing another crime; and 22% of murder victims were involved in illegal activities."

It's still pretty unlikely that they'll roll back the registration scheme, but it is interesting to note some of the results of Canada's experiment with gun registration.

Gun Safety 101

Another blogger has done an excellent job of explaining the basics of gun safety.

I highly recommend this to everyone:

New shooter, going to the range with me? Read this.

Chris Cox, executive director of the NRA-ILA on gun control

It's short but it's worth a read.

Gun control has worked for criminals and against law-abiding citizens elsewhere. California has a waiting period on firearm sales; prohibits private sales, trades and gifts of firearms between family members and friends; prohibits buying more than one handgun in a 30-day period; and has an "assault weapon" ban. But California's murder rate is 24 percent higher than the rest of the country.

Studies for Congress, the National Academy of Sciences and Health and Human Services have found no evidence that gun control reduces crime, at home or in foreign countries.

Whenever I've tried to use the example of Washington DC's handgun ban and the resulting increase in crime, my Liberal friends have countered with, "but DC is surrounded by places where you can buy guns". While this may be true, it still doesn't negate the fact that disarming citizens will increase crime.

A great example of this is Jamaica. You would think that a tiny island nation would be a great place to experiment with stringent gun control. Ban all the guns, the logic goes, and the criminals wouldn't be able to arm themselves. Alas, even on an island the black market prevails. The results of Jamaica's gun control has been staggering.

The UK's gun control has resulted in them having the highest knife crime of any country in Europe. There can be little doubt that eventually enough guns will be smuggled into the country to supply the criminal demand, and that violent crime rates will continue to increase.

gun control helps criminals

I've argued before that gun control helps criminals, but this is the first time I've seen actual criminals pushing for stronger gun controls (presumably to disarm their victims) and then being busted for gun trafficking:

The founder of an anti-violence group called No Guns pleaded not guilty Thursday to federal weapons charges.

Hector “Big Weasel” Marroquin is accused of selling an assault rifle, a machine gun, two pistols and two silencers to undercover federal agents last fall.
...
Marroquin, 51, of Downey, is a onetime member of the 18th Street gang who founded No Guns in 1996, ostensibly to reduce gang and gun violence.

No Guns received $1.5 million from the city as a subcontractor on anti-gang efforts but its contract was canceled last year after authorities learned that Marroquin had hired relatives, including his son.

Hector “Little Weasel” Marroquin, is an acknowledged 18th Street gang member who pleaded no contest last week to home-invasion robbery and was sentenced to nine years in state prison.

Marroquin is charged with three counts of manufacture, distribution and transport for sale of an unlawful assault weapon, along with one count each of machine gun conversion and possession of a silencer.

The irony is hilarious.

The Nuuuuudge on Gun Control

NRA, Democrats Team Up To Pass Gun Bill

You may have heard about this in the news: the NRA and gun control advocates have teamed up to craft a bill that both sides can agree on. The goal: tightening the NICS background check system that keeps guns out of the hands of criminals & the insane.

The measure would require states to automate their lists of convicted criminals and the mentally ill who are prohibited under a 1968 law from buying firearms, and report those lists to the FBI's National Instant Criminal Background Check System, or NICS.

As I'm in favor of preventing convicted felons & the insane from being able to purchase guns legally, I'm in favor of this as long as it's done right while respecting the rights of honest citizens, and allowing for a process that would enable the restoration of gun rights through petition.

The legislation requires state and federal agencies to transmit all relevant disqualifying records to the NICS database. It also provides $250 million a year over the next three years to help states meet those goals and it imposes penalties — including cuts in federal grants under an anti-crime law — on states that fail to meet benchmarks for automating their systems and supplying information to the NICS.

OK, so it's closing gaps in the system, and providing money to fix those gaps.

The bill would automatically restore the purchasing rights of veterans who were diagnosed with mental problems as part of the process of obtaining disability benefits. LaPierre said the Clinton administration put about 80,000 such veterans into the background check system.

This is very important. In addition to being an NRA member, I belong to the VCDL, and they were rather concerned that the bill include that measure. See, if you're a veteran and you come home from war, you're going to have some issues that need to be worked through, but with treatment you will have recovered enough that you should still be allowed to maintain your 2nd Ammendment rights. This portion allows for that rehabilitation.

It also outlines an appeals process for those who feel they have been wrongfully included in the system and ensures that funds allocated to improve the NICS are not used for other gun control purposes.

That part also makes a lot of sense. Let's say your name got on the list by accident, how could you petition it? This ensures that there is a way to do so.

Radical Libertarians are still opposed to this bill, but I'm pragmatic, and think that this bill would accomplish the goals of improving public safety while respecting 2nd Ammendment rights.

Boar Hunting with Pistols

The fastest way to start a fight amongst gun enthusiasts is to ask them, "which round is better, 9mm or .45?" Ask that one and you'll be sure to see sparks fly. If you google for "9mm stopping power" you will undoubtedly come upon articles claiming that 9mm isn't enough. There are old police reports of plugging a guy with 11 9mm bullets and him still standing. It goes on and on.

In my opinion, a caliber capable of taking down a deer or a wild boar is plenty to stop an aggressor. Now, contrary to what some would have you think, handguns are used in hunting in some circumstances. Oddly enough, wild boar hunting is one of them these days. I honestly would love to attempt this. First because of the challenge of getting close to a boar without getting mauled by it, and second because I love pork, and the idea of eating 'free range bacon' just appeals to me.

The guys over at Gunblast recently decided to go wild boar hunting, with a S&W MP in 9mm. At first glance, I would have said, "that's crazy, 9mm isn't enough for a wild boar." Well, they have proved me wrong. He managed to put down the animal in two shots. Go over and read the story if you get a chance, and check out their other reviews while you're at it.

The key is to bring along the right type of 9mm ammo. See, bullets come in all types of loads. These are various combinations of gunpowders with bullet shapes and designs. For practice, standard military 'full metal jacket' rounds will do fine, and they don't cost much. But for self defense, I always carry some variety of hollowpoint overpressure ammo (known as +P for short). A hollowpoint bullet will expand when it hits flesh, and the overpressure ammo gives the round more power behind it.

Still, were I to ever get the chance to go wild boar hunting, I'd still bring a semi-auto rifle in 7.62x39 or .308 to back me up if the pistol doesn't put the animal down.

One final note: the ammo used to hunt boar in that article came from ExtremeShock. If you have a change, check out these videos of them firing bullets into ballistic gelatin. Ballistic gelatin gives a pretty good guesstimate of what a bullet does when it hits flesh. To be an even better test, the gelatin should have something to simulate a rib cadge in it.

the Real ID scares the shit out of me

Seriously. I'm 100% behind the ACLU and whatever other groups are out there that are fighting this bureaucratic monstrosity.

If you haven't taken the time to read the Wiki on the Real ID, please do so.

Bill Richardson

I would vote for this man. Too bad he really doesn't have much of a chance for the Democratic ticket.

I still want to be a Democrat

Some people think that just because you own guns you have to be a Republican. This is hard for me to do, however, because I hold some liberal views.

I spend a lot of time on this blog talking about guns and what I think about gun controls, so I wanted to take a moment and point out some of my more liberal views. Needless to say, come election time, I've been forced to vote both ways on occasion.

First of all, I'm pro-choice. I just do not think that the government has the right to tell people what they can do with their bodies. Pregnancy is a private situation, and it should be a private choice. That said, I think the issue should be up to the states, as I recognize that what people believe in Utah isn't the same as in California.

Gay Rights. Gays should be allowed in the military. They should be able to marry or have civil unions. It's a human right in my opinion, and the arguments against it just do not seem very strong to me. I don't think that gays (or other minorities) should necessarily have more rights than anyone else, but they should at least be on common playing ground as everyone else. Again, since this is one of those very controversial issues, I think it should be left up to the states and not the Federal Government. I am totally against any sort of Federal constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.

The government has no right to dictate what I can or cannot do in my own bedroom amongst consenting adults.

Legalization of drugs: I'm against the drug war, because I think that it has caused more problems (both in our country and abroad) than it has solved. And I'm not just talking about marijuana here, I'm talking about everything. As much as I hate cocaine & heroin, I think they should be legal and regulated so as to take their trafficking out of the hands of hardened criminals. Our criminalization of cocaine has given countries like Columbia decades of bloody civil war and terrorism.

Environmental protection: I'm strongly in favor of protecting the environment. The fishing industry can and should be regulated so as to preserve fisheries from collapse. We should preserve vast stretches of forest for wildlife, and so that we can enjoy these areas! Here is a huge area where hunters & environmentalists can work together. After all, you can't go hunting if there aren't enough places to hunt!

Alternative energy: I am strongly in favor of removing any subsidies for oil, natural gas, and coal. I am strongly in favor of the government providing subsidies & incentives for people to develop, purchase, and install solar & wind power. Our fuel economy standards should be increased for all vehicles. Electric cars & motorcycles can and should be made, and if the government has to browbeat the auto makers into making these vehicles available to the public, then dammit they should. our addiction to foreign oil is helping our enemies. It is giving money to radical islamists and radical socialists in Venezuela. For security reasons alone, we must get away from using oil as much as possible.

Universal healthcare: I'm not yet decided on this issue, but I'm beginning to lean in favor of such a system. If they can make it work in every other industrialized nation (including Israel) then why not here too?

So you can see that with views like this, it is hard for me to vote Republican, but it is also hard to vote Democratic when they are trying to leave me disarmed and vulnerable to maniacs and criminals.

Democrats like Jim Webb do give me hope for the future though, that we can work something out within the party.

gun controls

I just want to take a moment and point out that there are some gun controls that I think are good. These are just a few that come to mind:

"Shall Issue" Conceal Carry Permits: I'm a big fan of these for several reasons. First, to get the permit you have to go through an FBI background check, which prevents people with any sort of felonies from getting the permit. Second, you have to complete a gun safety class. When I took the class, most of the time was spent on the legality of carrying a weapon, and when it is legal to use it. This is very good information to have if you're going to be carrying a weapon, as using your gun in the wrong way will land you in prison, even if you have a nice permit. The "shall issue" part refers to a difference in state licensing. May issue states require that you have to prove a 'need' to carry a gun, which usually means that the local sheriff can deny you the right based on whatever excuse he makes up. Not the right race? Not a politician? Not a celebrity? Don't count on getting one. Shall issue states are far more democratic, in that as long as you pass the background check and take a safety class, then you can get one. Alaska & Vermont do not require any sort of permit at all to conceal carry. I'm not a fan of this, as I think that preventing criminals from legally carrying a weapon is a good thing. Oh, one more thing. You have to be 21 years old, which again, I think is a good restriction.

One gun a Month laws: I'm going to take some flak from other gun owners on this one, but I think it's a good law. We have it in Virginia, and it helps to prevent gun trafficking. The law basically says that you cannot buy more than one handgun a month (rifles & shotguns are not restricted because they are not used in crime as much). The law is good at preventing trafficking, but not good at stopping madmen, as we saw in the VT shooting where Cho was willing to wait another month to buy a second handgun (which also proves why waiting periods for handgun purchases are worthless).

Background Checks: I'm a firm believer that if you commit a felony, that you should loose your right to vote & own a firearm. These rights can be reinstated over time if the former felon proves that he or she has corrected their ways, but I think it should be a difficult process. All Federally licensed gun dealers are required to perform a background check when they sell a gun, even at gun shows. This process works for the most part. It does a great job of preventing felons from buying guns, but it is currently doing a lousy job of preventing nutcases, but this is mostly because there is a problem with the mental health bureaucracy reporting its info in a timely manner to the system. As far as the so-called gun show loophole, this pertains to the fact that sales between individuals are not regulated the same way. I am in favor of providing a method that people can use at gun shows to perform background checks, but I have not seen it proposed in a good way yet. In short, I would be in favor of closing the loophole if it is done in a way that is fair and doesn't create de-facto gun registration.

Regulation & licensing of Class III Firearms: Did you know that it's totally legal to buy a full auto gun in the USA? Well, it is, but you have to license & register it with the government, and pay a tax. I generally think this is a good idea. The people who buy these weapons tend to be upper-middle class people who have lots of money to spend on a hobby. Criminals don't use this method, as they can just buy these types of weapons on the black market instead.

Strawman Purchase: if you buy a gun for your buddy who is a felon because he can't legally buy the weapon on his own, you both deserve to go to jail. 'nuff said.

And now let's flip the coin around a bit. Gun Controls that I'm not in favor of:

Gun Free Zones: with the possible exception of courthouses (where I think only lawyers, judges, and the police should be armed) I don't think that there should be any gun free zones. Why? Because these zones do nothing but disarm the people who follow the law, and give criminals and maniacs unarmed victims. Massacres happen this way.

Assault Weapon Bans: the problem with these bans is that they focus on cosmetic features, most of which deal with the ergonomics or even safety of the rifle itself. These features are focused upon by anti-gunners because they are ignorant of and scared of these features. For instance, what purpose does a barrel shroud serve, and why do anti-gunners want them banned? Well, they make the weapon look menacing, but they are actually a safety feature: they keep you from burning your hands if you touch the weapon the wrong way after shooting it a bunch. Collapseable stocks, flash suppressors, bayonet lugs, etc. Why do these features make the weapon so much more dangerous? When was the last time you've heard of a 7-11 being held up by somebody carrying a rifle with a bayonet attached? Again, most of these features just make the gun look menacing. I've seen some military weapons enthusiasts do things like paint their weapons neon pink as a way of jokingly mocking the anti-gun crowd's fear of these weapons. Ted Nugent owns a pink tiger striped AR-15. The only feature that makes these weapons more dangerous than common hunting rifles is their magazine capacity size. If the antis were serious and understood weapons, they would focus on that feature alone (not that I'd agree with them being banned though).

Banning of all semi-auto weapons: Yes, with a semi-automatic weapon you can fire the gun faster than you could with a bolt action, but the rate of fire isn't that much more than with a lever action, or a pump action, or from a revolver. Plus the semi-auto mechanism also reduces felt recoil, which makes the weapon easier to control (which is a huge factor for women). Banning semi-auto weapons would remove a huge section of firearms that are legitimately used for hunting as well. Furthermore, it is counter productive. The US Government routinely sells off old surplus WWII & Korean war semi-auto rifles to members of the Civilian Marksmanship Program. The US Government has a vested interest in making sure that its populace (or at least a percentage of it) already knows how to shoot, and how to shoot well. Why? Because in the case of invasion, or of a really big war (WWII levels) what we would need is lots of people who already know how to use a weapon properly.

Gun registration & licensing: I'm totally against the registration of firearms, as it does nothing to prevent crime. As John Lott has pointed out repeatedly in his research, these controls do not affect violent crime. What they do create, is a list of guns which can be confiscated at a later time.

Gun owner registration & licensing: I am generally against this on purely Libertarian grounds, but it is one of those things that I could probably live with if I had to. I've stated before that I'm in favor of conceal carry licensing. In a way this creates a list of gun owners, and if things got really bad, this means that the government has a list of people to round up guns from. On the other hand, a weapon is a dangerous tool. Shouldn't we require people to go through training and licensing as we do with cars? This is probably one of the few gun control measures that I might be able to give some ground on, if the licensing was done correctly. Some states require you to get a license to own a handgun. If this license were combined with conceal carry ability, then I'd be fine with it. Good arguments can be made on both sides of this particular issue. In either case, I think that this should be something left up to the states to experiment with, and that the Federal Government should let the states experiment with systems in this case to see what works best.

Jackie Mason, aka TheUltimateJew, on Gun Control.