Gun Control Really Works...you might say

It works for those who want to eliminate opposition, that is.  I've added nothing to the following from columnist Doug Giles.  What could one add?  Curt

Here's a little history lesson regarding gun-grabbing and the carnage that ensued: 

In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. 

In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. 

Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated. 

China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. 

Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. 

Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. 

Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. 

Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th century because of gun control: 56 million. You won't see this data on the U.S. evening news or hear politicians disseminating this information."

The Truth About Assault Weapons

For the facts about so-called "assault weapons" -- what they really are and what they really aren't -- this site is about as straight-forward and simple as it gets.  It takes about 5 minutes to click through the information provided.

Assault on Weapons

There is a renewed assault on lawful gun ownership. People who have generally been conservative (at least on this issue) have started caving to the pressure by liberals. A person in my life who I am pretty sure always votes Republican said the other day, "I just don't see any reason for those assault weapons, though.  'Weapons of war' have no place on our streets and ought to be outlawed."

This is so wrong, and is based on emotional rather than rational thinking.  It reflects the same sort of thinking that Dianne Feinstein employs when she identifies "assault weapons" for her proposed law by looking at pictures of guns and selecting those that look scary. 

Illinois legislators are trying to pass onerous laws to restrict gun ownership.  A huge insult in the bill is an attempt to preserve the opportunity to shoot at an approved "shooting range" an assault weapon "rented" from the range! It also provides that you could use an assault weapon while hunting, for hunting, and could transport it to and from hunting...but other than that it is otherwise unlawful to even possess the assault weapon.  What are you supposed to do with it between hunting seasons?!

An attorney organization of which I am a member recently had a list-serve "discussion" of the issue as it relates to Newtown, CT, and here are some of the posts.  I've deleted information where I think it might identify the writer, but tried to carefully retain their message.  My editorial comments are inserted in black print.  My own contribution to that discussion is in italics. 

First, just so it's 100% clear... this is a tragedy of unspeakable proportions.  The death of a child is a parent's greatest fear.  At a personal level my heart goes out to each of those grieving family members.

Second, the frustration accompanying all the "What if" scenarios leaves us all searching for answers which are in proper balance...

Third, to address the question of what is "too soon" following a tragedy, the conversation is already in play, so why not add factual materials...

1.   The term "assault rifle" is problematic.  In technically, an "assault rifle" would be a FULLY AUTOMATIC firearm which would continue to fire at the cyclical rate so long as the trigger was pulled.  Gun control advocates, according to gun rights advocates, have deliberately misused this term to demonize certain SEMI-AUTOMATIC firearms based upon appearance rather than function.  Because WORDS matter, consistent usage is important as is the need to recognize alternate usages as tools of influence.

2.  "Large capacity magazine" is a term without a clear agreed-upon definition.  For some firearms, the ability to load 20 rounds (bullets) would be unusual, while others would "normally" have 20-30 rounds.  That "hunters" arguably have no need for more than 2-3 rounds at a time does not address the needs of other shooting enthusiasts.

3.   "Free Fire Zone" is a term gun advocates use to describe an area where the possession of a firearm is prohibited by law.  The rationale for this term is that an individual intent on committing a crime with a a firearm would ignore this restriction and, as a result, be virtually unstoppable until the police arrived.

[This is, of course, where mass shootings occur:  Columbine, Ft. Hood, Va. Tech, Aurora, etc.  "Gun Free Zones" mandated by law end up being nothing more than "there will be nothing to stop me" zones for evil men bent on causing as much death as possible.]

4.   Concerns about personal self-protection are rational.

5,   It appears that the "Brady Campaign" folks rated the gun control laws in CT as 4th best in the nation.  As these laws clearly did not prevent the tragedy, this gives rise to an argument that no amount of gun control legislation (short of an arguably constitutionally-impermissible outright ban) would have affected the outcome.  I decline to actively engage in "what if"s. on this point.

6.   There is a certain degree of frustration in play here where it appears likely that the shooter is dead and his estate non-existent.  Suit against the manufacturers appears to be barred by federal law.  I have no opinion as to whether an action would lie against the school district for "failure to protect" or against the estate of the shooter's mother for "negligent storage".

7.   There are also questions regarding the mental status of the shooter.  The tort experts would likely have a better sense of what would be possible, particularly given today's report that the events were the result of a decision by the mother to seek commitment for the shooter. ...

11. AD HOMINEM attacks on individuals as "rednecks", "gun nuts", "gun control freaks", "fascists", etc are generally not helpful at this point.  Demonizing people gets us no where we want to go.

12. There will be those who point to increased violence in movies, on television and in video games.  There will be others who will attempt to label individuals as "deranged" who are merely at one end or another of a wide-spectrum of diagnosis.  This is largely above my paygrade.

Let me end with a prayer that common sense and courtesy will prevail on this listserve.  This is NOT a problem quibbling in this forum will solve.

A response went as follows: 

I have never owned a gun.  The last time I recall shooting a gun, I was going for my marksmanship merit badge.  While I had neighbors who hunted, the primary gun memory from my childhood involved a 12 year old friend who killed himself with his father’s gun.   (Father Nee declared that it was an accident, so that Dickie could be buried in the Church, but we had our doubts.)  [Someone I know well] works as the director of a community development corporation in the Boston neighborhood that year after year has the highest murder rate in the city, almost all of them involving handguns.

Nonetheless, I agree with much of what you say.   I don’t think many people question that the use of guns for self-defense, hunting, and competition is appropriate.  I also think that the most ardent gun advocates would concede that we have the most lax gun control laws among developed nations, and also have the highest incidence of mass shootings, and of murder in general.    Count me among those who think that this is not a coincidence.

[His claims are inaccurate, and this sort of statement is the kind that persuades many ill-informed people.  A more accurate statement would be that mass shootings typically occur where, within a given society, country, etc., the gun laws are most restrictive.  Sweden and Germany have experienced this recently.  That is clearly the case in our own country dating back to Columbine at least.  This includes the Aurora theater, where, although Colorado permits concealed carry, lawful gun owners were not permitted to carry their weapons. He continues...]

 I think everyone would agree that it is a good idea to keep weapons out of the hands of those who are likely misuse them, because of mental illness or otherwise.  Where we seem to get stuck is how to do that without unduly infringing on people’s right to self-defense, and their desire to hunt and shoot competitively.

Part of the problem is that we get stuck on technical issues with murky definitions, as you suggest. Personally, I don’t think it should make much difference whether a gun is fully automatic, or capable of being made fully automatic, or only semi-automatic.  The only thing that changes is whether it takes fifteen seconds, or only five, to kill twenty school kids.

One critical issue that we need to grapple with is why, and under what circumstances, we should permit the sale and possession of weapons that are designed to hunt and kill other human beings, particularly weapons that are designed to kill large numbers of people quickly.   Those weapons include both automatic and semi-automatic weapons.  It would also include single shot sniper rifles, for that matter. We need to think and talk about under why we should permit high capacity magazines (do they serve any purpose other than killing lots of people quickly?) and armor-piercing rounds (which don’t serve any purpose that I know of other than killing cops and soldiers).

[How about killing bad people who are well-armed and trying to kill innocent people? That is a very important "why."] 

While I have a viewpoint on these issues, I don’t claim to have the answers, much less all of the information.  What is critical is that we not let the Second Amendment keep us from even having the discussion. As lawyers, we can help that discussion occur productively, with respect and without rancor.

To the above came the following sympathetic chime-in from a third attorney: 

This has been an interesting thread to read and ponder both sides of the issue.  I think tinkering with the 2nd Amendment will just get us more deeply divided. But something has to be done.  

I've read several articles now about gun locks.  That seems like a good way to protect responsible owners and citizens alike. What good is a stolen hang gun with a gunlock on it? A gun without a gunlock in the wrong place is a fairly easy 'plain view' evidence rule, and can work to create compliance as well as seizure.  Gunlocks allow responsible gun owners to step up in this conversation and make a meaningful contribution towards the protection of society without loosing any rights and without government oversight.  I would be willing to hand them out like candy without any tracking. 

Sooner or later we are going to have to step up as a country and get responsible for the reckless disregard of life that can occur when guns - of any type can be purchased by people who have difficulty with social conformance.   

Is it possible to have a national conversation about gun safety separate from gun rights and ownership?  I hope so.  Good faith steps on both sides can keep people talking and the talk could get a result we can all work with.

How would it be possible to have a conversation about gun safety separate from rights and ownership?  Anyway, to the above came the following reply from a fourth attorney: 

I like to take a busman’s holiday each time I go to Scotland or England.  I spend a day in the Courts in London or Edinburgh.  There are many murder trials.

How can one kill a great many people if there are no guns?  They can use poison, they can use bombs, and they can use lethal gas.   When guns are not available, people just use something else.  They engage in the same kind of detailed planning which those using guns have used.

Moreover, even if all guns were eliminated by law it, would likely take several centuries to gather them all up.  If there are restrictions on automatic weapons, large clips and assault weapons, then semiautomatic weapons can be converted, large clips can be manufactured, and  assault weapons will likely be available in black markets for centuries.  Moreover, once one has a model, an assault weapon can be manufactured in a garage.

I agree that it would be good to do something.  I also doubt that our nation will do anything that will be effective.

There has been a fundamental change in values.  Community values by degree mean less.  People look  more toward government for assistance and government has monetary tests and then gives out money.  While there are a few who care in government, that is not their task.  Their task is to measure eligibility and then dispense cash.

I see little good analysis of this issue.  It reminds me of the hysteria during the Terri Schiavo matter.   In the crisis of the moment, there was a call for something not be done.  Something had to be done  in reaction to the situation.  Pay no attention that ten years before the US Supreme Court had ruled on the guidelines for the issue.  Forget that there was a finding of fact by the trial court that there was sufficient evidence to know Ms.  Schiavo’s wishes.  People had no logic, no contemplation , no analysis.

In this situation, there is hysteria.  That which occurred is horrible.  There is a cry for others to do something.

For myself, I find it is better to ask the question: How do I contribute to this situation?  Do I pay attention to the condition of others?  Do I treat those on the fringe with respect?  Do I listen not only to that which is said, but to the meta message? 

We could pass laws about guns, but I doubt that would stop mass killing given  current values.

For me, the solution is not in guns.  It is in values and I think it will have to get worse before we will address the issue of values.  In the meantime, we do not have to abandon values that can make a difference. 

I joined at this point, first expressing agreement with the essence of last post, and continuing: 

What we are facing is a values crisis.  God help us look at ourselves and consider how we might be contributing to the problem.

The horror will continue and grow so long as a large body of the people trivialize the value of life, provide junk-food-for-the-brain (such as video games called “Kindergarten Killer”) activities to keep children out of our hair while we pursue our own pleasures, cheapen marriage from that unit of society responsible for raising another positively-contributing-to-society generation to nothing more than house-sharing-so-long-as-you-keep-me-happy, and the list could go on and on.  God help me examine the details of my life, lest I contribute to the decline.

So long as there are evil people with means (and as [the immediately above commenter] points out, that will be forever, for a material universe has always provided means) to do harm, we must assure that there are good and law-abiding people with comparable means to deter such harm.  This is nothing new.  It is the concept behind not only the 2^nd amendment, but also behind both horizontal and vertical separation of governmental powers.  Behind free market capitalism and anti-trust laws. Behind the cold war. Behind freedom of speech and press.

When Illinois complies with the recent Federal court order and legislates a right to concealed carry, I will be posting a sign outside my firm that specifically welcomes those permitted to carry, with their weapons.  I believe this will virtually assure that there will never be a shooting in or around my firm.  It isn’t much, but in my community it is something tangible I can do.

The anti-gun hysteria in the media and among the liberals in power is not based on fact. Illinois is, like many at the federal level, presently trying to push gun-restricting legislation through.  Today I wrote my own Senator and Representative the following, and encourage others to do similarly:

Mr. McCarter & Mr. Cavaletto:

I have heard:

Senate President John Cullerton will introduce a so called “assault weapons” ban on Wednesday when the legislature returns for its “lame duck” session.  Cullerton hopes to ramrod the bill through and get it to Governor Quinn for signature by Friday.  If he is successful at doing so, nearly every gun you currently own will be banned and will be subject to confiscation by the Illinois State Police.”

I trust you will be vigilant in standing against any such legislation! It is time for concealed carry, not disarmament. Mass shootings only occur in “gun free zones” and the murder rate is highest in the most limited-gun zones…like Chicago, for instance.  Don’t let the thugs from that area spread their failed policies to the rest of the state.

Sincerely,

Curt W. Ferguson

More recently, a similar bill was taken up by the Judiciary Committee in the Illinois House.  I've called and left messages with all members of the committee whose voice mailboxes weren't already full, and wrote my own Senator and Representative the following:

John & Kyle:

The gun grabbers aren't giving up yet!  I see that SB2899 is now before the House Judiciary committee. Big government liberals are relentless in their attempts to disarm us.  With the recent Federal court ruling on concealed carry, they are getting desperate!
This bill (SB2899) is an insult to the constitution and to millions of people who care about protecting their families. The bottom line is VERY SIMPLE:
YOU DON'T STOP BAD GUYS BY DISARMING GOOD GUYS.
--
Curt W. Ferguson
Salem, Illinois

Interestingly, the Federal courts recently ordered Illinois to enact a concealed carry law (as alluded to in the above letter), since we are the only state in the union that allows for no concealed carry.  Other states, following Florida's lead a couple of decades ago, consistently saw crime drop in states where concealed carry laws were enacted, and one by one adopted similar legislation.  Except my state!  So, regarding that issue, I wrote my Senator and Representative, and encourage you to write yours:

Mr. Cavaletto and Mr. McCarter,

Finally! It took the liberals’ favorite law-writing branch of government…the judiciary!...to tell Illinois legislators to catch up to where all other states have been for years or decades. The Second Amendment actually means something sort of like what it says: law-abiding "people" have a "right" to "bear arms!"

Promptly after this federal court ruling, another horrific “gun-free-zone” massacre in the news re-emphasizes the importance of this issue.  Gentlemen, there should be NO legally mandated gun-free-zones, because as Newtown, Aurora, Ft. Hood, Columbine and Va Tech prove, there ARE NO gun free zones!  Those are only “zones” where, by law, only criminals have guns.  How many more massacres must occur before common sense returns?

Don’t go along with the liberal kooks who more or less run this state.  The judiciary is on our side for a change. We need a real “shall issue” right to carry concealed weapons.  When the legislation becomes law, my place of business will display a sign welcoming lawfully licensed, armed citizens.  Such a welcome sign will let criminals know they’ll likely receive return fire if they try anything…and that is the world’s strongest deterrent!

We don’t need Chicago-like gun control in the rest of the state.  They can disarm only the good guys up there if they want to be stupid.  As the saying goes, “how’s that working out for ya, Daley, Rahm, et al?” Just look at their crime rate…

DO NOT let the media badger you into some gross compromise, restricting good guys’ access to the most effective family protection arms: AR-15s, Glocks, Street-Sweepers, Riot Guns and the like are what the 2nd Amendment is about. We don’t need Connecticut’s gun laws.  We need laws like are on the books in the states that are not reporting mass killings.

Disarming good people only helps the bad ones. I will close this commentary with what I just wrote to my two U.S. Senators:

Please put me in the category of those who see a strong correlation between "gun free zones" and mass murder. In case you have not noticed, gun free zones are places where criminals can shoot many people and no one has means to deter or stop them.

If a criminal breaks into my home, I'm not a great shot, so I need to be able to shoot many times and quickly to assure that I get them before they harm my family. Because when seconds count, the police are just minutes away...the Second Amendment is not about target shooting (I should do more) or hunting; it is about the liberty of good people to deter and if necessary stop evil people.

Resurrecting the "1994 Assault Weapons Ban" is a terrible idea. I urge you to oppose it.

You can never stop bad people by disarming good people!