No major federal gun legislation has been enacted in the U.S. since 1994. For a host of reasons, the number of deaths by gun violence dropped in the 1990s, but has now remained essentially level over the last decade. Level- but still shocking. According to the Gun Violence Archive, in 2017, there were 53, 722 incidents of gun violence (not counting suicides), with 13, 513 deaths. We lost 696 children under the age of 11 to gun violence. There were 333 mass shootings. These numbers were the approximate “level” recorded in each of the previous four years. In the first 9 days of 2018, 364 people have been killed by gun violence in the US.
The gun rights community has been on a winning streak despite the efforts of gun-control advocates and some gun-control legislation in a few blue states. After the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting Connecticut, Colorado, Delaware, New York, and Washington, for example, joined California and Rhode Island in requiring background checks for all gun sales. Nineteen states had banned concealed gun carrying by civilians in the 1980s and 29 states could decide whether to grant carry permits. Now, only nine states can decide whether to grant carry permits. Twenty-nine states must issue carry permits, unless the applicant is a felon or mentally incompetent and 12 states do not require carry permits.
After Sandy Hook, the cry for national comprehensive background check by Congress went unheeded. Congress is now considering a bill to require concealed carry reciprocity among the states. That is, every state’s concealed carry permits must be accepted by every other state. In effect, this reciprocity law would impose the lowest standard for a concealed carry permit on every other state. Wyoming does not require a permit to carry within the state, but will provide one, if it is needed in another state. Presumably if this bill is enacted, a neo-Nazi or KKK member from Wyoming could carry a concealed weapon on the New York subway. Congress is also considering a law that would remove the obstacles to owning a gun silencer or suppressor, presumably to prevent gun enthusiasts from damaging their hearing. Originally, this law was enacted to prevent their use in criminal activities like shooting people. Congress should reflect on the value of hearing the shots in Las Vegas. Instead of hearing gunshots, the first sounds will be agonizing screams.
Toi overcome the intransigence of the gun lobby to permit any gun-control legislation, new approaches to gun-control must be developed. One such approach is to focus on fixing particularly dangerous gun devices and practices. A dangerous device, discussed in the first of a two part series--“Las Vegas Shows Why the NRA Stand on Banning Assault Rifles Is Phony,” is the “bump stock.” One approach to changing gun community practices is discussed in the second article--“Let’s Work toward a Gun Rights Compromise.”
The gun rights community has been on a winning streak despite the efforts of gun-control advocates and some gun-control legislation in a few blue states. After the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting Connecticut, Colorado, Delaware, New York, and Washington, for example, joined California and Rhode Island in requiring background checks for all gun sales. Nineteen states had banned concealed gun carrying by civilians in the 1980s and 29 states could decide whether to grant carry permits. Now, only nine states can decide whether to grant carry permits. Twenty-nine states must issue carry permits, unless the applicant is a felon or mentally incompetent and 12 states do not require carry permits.
After Sandy Hook, the cry for national comprehensive background check by Congress went unheeded. Congress is now considering a bill to require concealed carry reciprocity among the states. That is, every state’s concealed carry permits must be accepted by every other state. In effect, this reciprocity law would impose the lowest standard for a concealed carry permit on every other state. Wyoming does not require a permit to carry within the state, but will provide one, if it is needed in another state. Presumably if this bill is enacted, a neo-Nazi or KKK member from Wyoming could carry a concealed weapon on the New York subway. Congress is also considering a law that would remove the obstacles to owning a gun silencer or suppressor, presumably to prevent gun enthusiasts from damaging their hearing. Originally, this law was enacted to prevent their use in criminal activities like shooting people. Congress should reflect on the value of hearing the shots in Las Vegas. Instead of hearing gunshots, the first sounds will be agonizing screams.
Toi overcome the intransigence of the gun lobby to permit any gun-control legislation, new approaches to gun-control must be developed. One such approach is to focus on fixing particularly dangerous gun devices and practices. A dangerous device, discussed in the first of a two part series--“Las Vegas Shows Why the NRA Stand on Banning Assault Rifles Is Phony,” is the “bump stock.” One approach to changing gun community practices is discussed in the second article--“Let’s Work toward a Gun Rights Compromise.”
Las Vegas Shows Why the NRA Stand on Banning Assault Rifles Is Phony
Easily accessible assault style rifles thwart the law against machine guns. The U.S. public, fearing massacres enabled by machine guns, demanded a law against them in 1934. And, for the first time, the U.S. passed anti-gun legislation, effectively outlawing machine guns. Now innovative gunsmiths have developed devices that, when coupled with assault style rifles, skirt the law against machine guns. These barely legal guns mimic the sound, feel, and deadliness of machine guns.
As sold in the U.S., assault style rifles are incapable of shooting like a machine gun. A person cannot shoot continuously by holding the trigger down. Instead, he must pull and release the trigger for each shot. Hence, these guns are called semi-automatics. The rate at which they can be fired is slower than a fully automatic machine gun.
As sold in the U.S., assault style rifles are incapable of shooting like a machine gun. A person cannot shoot continuously by holding the trigger down. Instead, he must pull and release the trigger for each shot. Hence, these guns are called semi-automatics. The rate at which they can be fired is slower than a fully automatic machine gun.
Typical semi-automatic hunting rifles are designed to be aimed and accurately deliver one powerful bullet. Assault rifles, on the other hand, spray an area with bullets and kill anything within that area. Assault rifles also fire bullets that are more powerful than a handgun, but less powerful than typical hunting rifles. They have shorter barrels and collapsible stocks to more easily swing from side to side; they have pistol grips to more easily pointed rather than carefully aimed; they have detachable magazines holding 30 or so bullets that can be preloaded and attached to the rifle in seconds.
Most importantly, an assault rifle is a machine gun while an assault style rifle is a semi-automatic. With the other characteristics that an assault style rife shares with of an assault rifle, assault style rifles are almost as deadly as assault rifles. According to AssaultWeaponTruth.com, an assault style rifle can fire 100 bullets in about 60 seconds while an assault rifle can fire the same number of bullets in about 20 seconds.
Given the ease with which assault style rifles can mimic or actually become machine guns their possession by people who claim they want them for hunting poses an unnecessary risk to us. There is even a greater risk of assault style rifles being converted into machine guns by those who want them for self-protection. People who want an assault style rifle for protection may fear “bad guys” who have superior weapons. This may lead them to seek a machine gun to defend themselves against “bad guys.” Despite the ease with which an assault style rifle may be converted into a machine gun, the NRA has persisted in arguing that assault style rifles are simply another type of semiautomatic rifles.
Devices like bump stocks, trigger cranks (i.e., a hand turned grinder that activates the trigger faster than any person’s finger), or “quick-spring-back” triggers can legally turn assault style rifles into a “simulated” machine gun. In addition, kits are available that can be used to modify the internal mechanism of an assault style rifle, already similar to assault rifles so that it can be turned into a “true” machine gun. Legislation to outlaw these devices is being considered now. But, it is surely a fool’s errand to try to stop innovators from devising new devices that skirt the law.
The NRA’s tepidly responded to these innovations by calling for further regulatory review. The ATF, however, has already ruled they cannot regulate devices like bump stocks, trigger cranks, and tactical triggers. Additional legislation is needed, and that legislation should be a well thought out ban on assault style rifles. A previous ban on selling assault style rifles was criticized because it did not result in a decrease in gun crimes. That ban, however, was seriously flawed. It was repealed within a 10 years before most of these weapons could be removed. And, it did not prevent manufacturers from making simple cosmetic changes to evade the law. A ban more comprehensive than the previous one could remedy these flaws. If this seems a reasonable goal for legislation, you should let your representative and Senators know your feelings.
Most importantly, an assault rifle is a machine gun while an assault style rifle is a semi-automatic. With the other characteristics that an assault style rife shares with of an assault rifle, assault style rifles are almost as deadly as assault rifles. According to AssaultWeaponTruth.com, an assault style rifle can fire 100 bullets in about 60 seconds while an assault rifle can fire the same number of bullets in about 20 seconds.
Given the ease with which assault style rifles can mimic or actually become machine guns their possession by people who claim they want them for hunting poses an unnecessary risk to us. There is even a greater risk of assault style rifles being converted into machine guns by those who want them for self-protection. People who want an assault style rifle for protection may fear “bad guys” who have superior weapons. This may lead them to seek a machine gun to defend themselves against “bad guys.” Despite the ease with which an assault style rifle may be converted into a machine gun, the NRA has persisted in arguing that assault style rifles are simply another type of semiautomatic rifles.
Devices like bump stocks, trigger cranks (i.e., a hand turned grinder that activates the trigger faster than any person’s finger), or “quick-spring-back” triggers can legally turn assault style rifles into a “simulated” machine gun. In addition, kits are available that can be used to modify the internal mechanism of an assault style rifle, already similar to assault rifles so that it can be turned into a “true” machine gun. Legislation to outlaw these devices is being considered now. But, it is surely a fool’s errand to try to stop innovators from devising new devices that skirt the law.
The NRA’s tepidly responded to these innovations by calling for further regulatory review. The ATF, however, has already ruled they cannot regulate devices like bump stocks, trigger cranks, and tactical triggers. Additional legislation is needed, and that legislation should be a well thought out ban on assault style rifles. A previous ban on selling assault style rifles was criticized because it did not result in a decrease in gun crimes. That ban, however, was seriously flawed. It was repealed within a 10 years before most of these weapons could be removed. And, it did not prevent manufacturers from making simple cosmetic changes to evade the law. A ban more comprehensive than the previous one could remedy these flaws. If this seems a reasonable goal for legislation, you should let your representative and Senators know your feelings.