Dr. John Lott, Jr., wrote an excellent piece called The truth about assault weapons bans and background checks over at Fox. In that article, Lott catalogs the ineffectiveness of bans and background checks, as well as exposing the lies commonly heard from freedom haters. Well worth the read. Lott concludes with the only common sense position on our flawed background check system:
Some people who suddenly, legitimately need a gun for self-defense, such as a woman being stalked by an ex-spouse or companion will find themselves defenseless.
Unfortunately, the unintended consequences of these laws can cost lives. Talking about only the benefits of more laws and not their costs isn’t going to make anyone safer.
As to limits on magazine capacity for self-defense, Lott posted 10 Defensive Gun Uses in December 2012 where victims had to fire a lot of shots in self defense on his blog. That’s just a quick look at the readily-available data for one month. If 10 rounds or even 7 rounds like New York were enough in a defensive situation, then why do the police need more than 7 or 10 rounds. The real first responder at the crime scene is the victim, not the police. So, citizens typically have more need for higher capacity magazines than the police. If Biden really believes that double-barrelled shotguns are sufficient, then all police should turn in their AR-15 “patrol rifles” for shotguns. And how is it that when police carry the guns they are “patrol rifles” but in citizen hands they are “assault weapons”? The rifles are identical.
On the subject of so-called “assault weapons”, Mary Walsh wrote an excellent OpEd on Fredricksburg.com. She talks about the assault weapons sitting in your driveway and how a drunk driver killed her grandmother. Her bottom line covers the gun debate nicely:
No amount of additional laws would have saved her since the drunk was concerned only about a fleeting good time. Laws fail without moral compass or common sense. No one would say my grandmother was killed by beer; she was killed by a young woman who had too much to drink and then got behind the wheel of a car.
Real police get it. On the Police Magazine forum, an officer commented (at 1/22/2013 @ 5:46 am):
After the 1987 Hungerford Massacre, the Brits banned semi-automatic rifles. Did it protect the children? No. 1996, Dunblane, Scotland: A gunman entered a primary school gymnasium armed with four handguns and shot and killed 16 five-year-olds and one teacher before killing himself. The Brits then banned handguns. Still didn’t stop the shooting. 2010, Cumbria, England: A spree shooter killed 12 and wounded 11.
Magazine capacity limits didn’t stop Columbine. Eric Harris carried 13 ten-round magazines and fired 96 rounds with a ban-legal carbine. He fired another 25 rounds with a pump-action shotgun. Dylan Klebold carried a Tech-9 with a 28-round, 32-round, and 52-round magazine, along with a double-barrel shotgun. He fired only 67 rounds.
What exactly will an “assault weapons” ban accomplish? Nothing substantial. Do these police chiefs not understand that the most dangerous firearm to an LEO is a bolt-action .308 with good optics (i.e., a hunting rifle)? You can’t even see who’s shooting at you.
He knows from experience. The officers commenting on the Police Magazine site and policeone.com overwhelmingly oppose gun control as ineffective and dangerous for potential victims. The few politically-appointed police chiefs that Obama keeps marching out in front of cameras are no more real police than the seven dwarfs. The street cops and real sheriffs know better.
While Emperor Obama fiddles, gun-control poster child Chicago burns, suffering the equivalent of 19 Sandy Hooks last year. That’s of course impossible in Obama’s distopia where his national gun control proposals are already in place. You want to know what the US will look like under Obama/Feinstein/Bloomberg gun control? Just look to Chicago or DC today. They don’t care about children or anyone else. It’s about absolute power and control, not guns.