Yeah, It's Gun Control... Again

            In a press briefing, five days after the murders at Sandy Hook Elementary School, President Obama said of the ongoing debate on gun violence and gun control, “But this time, the words need to lead to action.” He went on to say, “A majority of Americans support banning the sale of military-style assault weapons.  A majority of Americans support banning the sale of high-capacity ammunition clips.  A majority of Americans support laws requiring background checks before all gun purchases, so that criminals can’t take advantage of legal loopholes to buy a gun from somebody who won’t take the responsibility of doing a background check at all.”

            First of all, isn’t it always interesting to hear both Republicans and Democrats, while debating a particular issue, claim to know that “the majority of Americans” want a certain thing? How is it possible for “the majority of Americans” to simultaneously support opposite sides of an issue?

            It’s not and the fact is, neither Democrats nor Republicans can lay claim to having that knowledge, much less any sort of mandate from The People. In the 2012 presidential election, 72% of eligible voters did not vote for Barack Obama and 73% did not vote for Mitt Romney, which means 45% didn’t vote for either. That’s correct, the president was selected by only 23% of eligible voters; not even close to “the majority of Americans”.

            The president used the phrase “words need to lead to action”. More appropriately, “words” need to be parsed and actions need to be justified by facts, not rhetoric. So, what are the facts?

            One progressive website cites 29 “mass” murders, as evidence in support of the types of gun control measures being offered up by Obama, Biden, Feinstein and others. The author included murders of 2 or more in the list, dating back to the massacre at Columbine High School in 1999. Five of them, including Columbine, occurred in the midst of the previous “assault weapons ban”.

            When those 29 events are broken down, so-called “assault weapons” were used in only 6 and in one of those the killing continued, although the semi-auto rifle failed to function and was abandoned. In another, an AK47 style semi-auto rifle was in the murderer’s vehicle, but had not been used. At Columbine, which is often used as the standard for gun control, autopsies indicate a shotgun was used to kill most of the victims. Two were used; one double-barreled and one pump action. So, “assault weapons” were used in only 20% of these events, yet are the prime target of the gun control movement.

            Included in the president’s list above, is what is referred to as the “gun show loophole”. The phrase actually refers to an individual selling a personally owned firearm, to another individual. So, “closing the loophole” will necessarily require the registration of all privately owned firearms and their transfers, which will in no way affect those who steal guns to commit crimes.

            Another important set of data in this debate is the numbers of violent crimes in the U.S. According to FBI Uniform Crime Reports, the rate of violent crime between 1994 and 2004 averaged 561.9 per 100,000, annually. Remember, this was the term of the previous “assault weapons ban”. Unfortunately for the gun control advocates, the rate of violent crime has actually decreased since the expiration of the ban, to 443.1 per 100,000.

            Of course, all of that is trivial, when you consider there are some who are advocating actually repealing the 2^nd Amendment and others passing local bans of certain types of firearms. In order to successfully debate that issue, one should be careful with how they refer to the 2^nd Amendment. Too often, People argue it is the 2^nd, which gives them the right to private ownership of firearms. The problem with doing so is that by authorizing government to give you a “right”, you also give it the authority to take it away. Actually, the Constitution doesn’t permit the People to do anything. But, it does tell government what it must and must not do. Your right to defend yourself, by whatever means necessary including firearms, preexists the Constitution. It preexists any government. It is, in fact, one of the unalienable rights, natural to each and every human. Unalienable meaning it cannot be taken from you, nor given away by you.

            The founders of this country recognized this and acknowledged it within the Declaration of Independence. Words are important and one should read those carefully. It says that all men “are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” As to the right of self-defense, how else can a man enjoy his life, liberty and property, without the ability to protect it? Notice also, the authors used the specific words, “among these”. It means to not limit the rights of the individual in any way and to affirm individual rights are not derived from governments. They wanted to ensure whatever form of government was established, honored the natural rights of the People and its predominant purpose was to protect them. This was subsequently added to the Constitution, as the 9^th Amendment. I will not provide that text here, because I think it is important for everyone to reread our founding documents and a great place to do so is www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/.