Fascitelli calls for several things:

“(A) ban guns in all state, county and city parks, where we have now seen more than once that a toxic combination of alcohol, firearms and elevated testosterone on a sunny day can have deadly consequences… Let’s make our parks gun-free zones where families can gather with peace of mind without the worry of sudden death to innocent loved ones (and let’s have our park rangers make spot checks to ensure that no one does indeed have a gun in their possession). “

Would a criminal follow the ban? Wouldn’t this just put law-abiding citizens at risk if a criminal did have a gun? Oh, but Fascitelli saw our question coming, so he offers the “let’s have our park rangers make spot checks.” Yeah, as if park rangers don’t have enough to do already, and if any city or state budget could handle such a move.

Furthermore, this is nonsense. Park rangers are not exactly law enforcement and can’t deal, nor should they deal with situations that could turn violent and deadly. What happens when a park ranger does do a spot check and finds someone with a gun? Does Mr. Fascitelli suggest arming – and training – park rangers? Wouldn’t this bring the very guns back into the park?

But Fascitelli further proves his ignorance on the issue when he writes:

“Second, let’s close the gun-show loophole and insist on mandatory background checks on all gun purchases. More than one-fourth of juvenile crimes involve guns procured from gun shows, according to a survey by the Portland Police Department. Insisting that felons, the mentally ill and underage juveniles do not have easy access to handguns or military assault weapons is not an infringement on Second Amendment rights.”

Is that statistic on sales even accurate? We did a search online and all that was found was “A Report by Americans for Gun Safety Foundation” dated April 2001. This would confirm Fascitelli’s statement, but this report is nearly a decade ago. For the record it states:

“Over a two-year period, Portland police confiscated several hundred guns from area gang members. 73 of the 265 successful traces indicated that the guns originated from gun shows.”

The other point that needs clarification is the use of “military assault weapons.” This is a term that is thrown around considerably by the anti-gun crowd, but it is far from accurate and far from fair. A semi-automatic AK-47 is not, repeat not a “military assault weapon,” of the type used by military forces around the world. Nor are the various commercial versions of the M-16/M-4/AR-15. These may look like a military weapon but they function very differently. What is the big deal we ask with guns that look like military guns? They’re no more accurate than many semi-automatic hunting weapons, and in the case of some firearms – such as the AK-47 – the hunting versions are often vastly more accurate and powerful.

Fascitelli’s group has previously called for a ban on “military assault weapons,” but this group should already know that true military weapons are banned in most private hands. It is virtually impossible to buy a military version of current issue weapons, unless you are in law-enforcement. But that clouds the facts.

Finally it is hard for us to believe Fascitelli’s statements in general. He states:

“We need to cut through the emotional and irrational rhetoric about Second Amendments rights and find the middle ground between personal freedoms and public safety.”

We’d like to know what the “middle ground” actually is, especially from the president of Washington Ceasefire. Is their motives really about reducing gun violence or is it just about reducing guns?

“Most jarring is the sad irony of all of these people at the podium, with their supporters spread across our National Mall, celebrating, in part, their worship of guns.”

This isn’t about a “worship of guns,” but rather a respect for the Constitution of the United States. This is just further proof that the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence should really re-brand itself as the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Ownership.

He writes:

“Advocates of gun control should not cede the debate just because gun-rights advocates claim that the text of the Constitution is on their side.”

As with many other anti-gun zealots Mr. Salzman proves that the law, nor the Supreme Court ruling, matters. It isn’t just about gun-rights advocates claiming that the Constitution is on (our) side; it is on our side! Read the rest of the sentence:

“The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Doesn’t that sum it up quite enough?

First, he writes that this ruling was by the “controversial decisions by the narrowest of margins,” as the recent SCOTUS ruling was five to four. Yes, that is a narrow margin but it many rulings are five to four. He further adds:

“The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the Second Amendment is about self-defense and guarantees the right of citizens to possess a gun in the home. The court never mentioned handgun suicides, domestic shootings, children getting hold of guns, guns getting stolen from the home, or gang members taking family guns for a drive-by shooting.”

No, the Supreme Court did not consider those issues because that is NOT what McDonald vs. Chicago was about. The issue was whether a 76-year old man could legally own a gun to defend his home.

Mr. Kulis writes about the tragedy that resulted in the death of his 20-year old brother, but can’t see that this 76-year old man lived in honest to god fear from the same type of gang members mentioned in this post. But worse still Kulis offers points that actually weaken his argument:

“It failed to note that under the Chicago ordinance, 15,000 guns seized from persons illegally carrying them were destroyed, and the community was in fact just a bit safer.”

If the law banned guns, how does Kulis explain that this number (which seems high) were being carried illegally? And in fact, according to most reports crime has been on the rise in Chicago, while nationwide gun sales have been up and crime has been down.

In other words, guns continue to make people safer. Those “gang members” that Kulis mentioned will always find a way to get illegal guns for their “drive-by shootings” but some other thugs will likely question whether they’d want to mess with a certain 76-year old man.

If the NRA wasn’t there to fight for gun rights, who would? Of course this is a point of contention that annoys the anti-gun crowd. Romulo tries to show that the NRA has become some insidious group with tentacles reaching out to issues beyond guns:

“In the recent health care debate, NRA lobbyists managed to tack on a provision to the bill banning insurance companies from charging higher premiums for people with guns in their homes.”

Is this really such a stretch? Should gun owners have to pay higher premiums because they own a gun? What’s next paying a higher premium because you beer in the refrigerator and might be tempted to drive after having a few, or paying a higher premium because you have food with trans fats?

She further argues:

“The rationale for not opposing the NRA goes something like this: If the candidate opposes the NRA they are likely to lose their seat. and therefore would be unable to support important legislation they are already committed to.”

Doesn’t that suggest that people in America want their guns? That important point is lost on liberals such as Romulo and anti-gun groups such as the Brady Center. These types seem to think that the NRA somehow doesn’t play by the same rules. The truth is that many Americans want their guns, and that’s an issue that helps them decide how they cast their votes.

The problem with Romulo’s logic is that she thinks guns aren’t an important enough consideration when it comes to “important legislation.” But to the NRA, and to many gun owners, it is the most important legislation. It is the line in the sand. And what’s wrong with that line?

Mr. Diehl writes:

“…in Mexico’s war, the United States also plays the role of supplier to the enemy — and it does that far more efficiently. At a discussion sponsored by the think tank Third Way in Washington last week, Mexican Ambassador Arturo Sarukhán pointed out that the vast majority of guns and money flowing to the cartels come from the United States, including from 7,000 federally licensed gun stores along the border in Texas and Arizona. Eighty percent of the 75,000 guns seized by the Calderón government over three years came from the United States.”

OK, so he’s quoting figures that came from an independent group, and quotes Mexican Ambassador Arturo Sarukhán, but the simple truth is that this number is erroneous. It is simply not true that 80 percent of the guns seized came from the United States, and if Mr. Diehl had bothered to read the rival paper in Washington he’d know this. The Washington Times set the record straight this past May:

“(The) claim that 80 percent of guns used in Mexican crimes come from the United States is completely false. Most weapons seized in Mexico have traceable serial numbers that show they come from countries other than the United States. The 80 percent number reflects how many guns sent to the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives for tracing end up being from America. Most weapons seized in Mexico aren’t transferred to U.S. authorities, so that figure is meaningless for calculating overall totals.”

But beyond this not so simple mistake, it is frustrating to see that Mr. Diehl basically is calling for America do more to help the Mexican government, when Mexico has done little to stop the flow of illegal immigrants to America, or stop the flow of drugs to our country. Maybe when Mexico steps up and stops blaming the United States for its problems the time will come for us to actually step up and help.

Josh Sugarmann, executive director of the Violence Policy Center in Washington, D.C. looks at the reasons why guns shouldn’t be protected. He of course cites the usual silly reasons, such as the fact that someone facing bankruptcy might commit suicide or do something equally stupid. What’s next, stopping someone facing bankruptcy from buying a rope because they might hang themselves?

Sugarmann pulls out a few choice examples of tragedies, but in a time when many home owners are under water in their mortgages and the housing market is still very bleak, we aren’t seeing that many widespread incidents. What Sugarmann doesn’t note is that many firearms have collectible value, so if someone really needed the money the owner should have the opportunity to sell it at a fair market value. This is one of the things that The Protecting Gun Owners in Bankruptcy Act of 2010 is there to ensure.
 
Consider this, jewelry – such as an engagement ring or class ring for example – would be exempt. So why shouldn’t someone’s guns? For one thing, as Rep. Boccieri further notes, guns are protected by the Second Amendment (at least for now), while there is no provision to ensure someone the right to own a diamond ring. If values are protected from repossession by bankruptcy laws, then we feel guns should be as well.

But in an interesting editorial for The Los Angeles Times writer Sonia Wolff explains her process from non-gun owner, who had a strong moral view towards not owning a gun, to a recent gun owner. Maybe more liberal, anti-gun types should give this a read and take a chance to understand the issue before offering an opinion.

Sonia Wolff: The reluctant gun owner

The first is actually one that makes you wonder if he really believes what he is saying:

“If criminals are deterred by the prospect that their victim may be armed, how can we account for attacks by armed criminals against other armed criminals? Why do armed drug dealers have anything to fear from other armed drug dealers? Why do armed gangs have anything to fear from other armed gangs?”

The answer is quite simple. People such as Otis McDonald, who brought his case to the Supreme Court, argued that he needed a gun to defend himself from home invaders. Those home invaders and burglars are not generally the type of thug gang bangers who are shooting each other in drug related turf wars.

The gangs are shooting at each other, and while they might not follow the code of “honor among thieves” most drug gangs don’t actually want to see people shot in the crossfire. They might not actually care, but the truth is that drug dealers are still businessmen of sorts and it is bad for business when a kid gets shot. The police crack down, the corners are cleared and for a while sales of product falls off. Thus it is bad for business. But the police are typically slower to respond when gangbangers merely shoot at each other.

If no “civilian” as they say is hurt or killed, it is often business as usual. This isn’t merely how it works in the movies and TV, but this is real life too.  

But Henigan shows his true colors in further adding:

“More guns means less crime only in the imaginary world of the ‘gun rights’ movement as it tries to push us toward an America where there is nowhere to go to escape the guns.”

This isn’t an imaginary world, or else the increase in gun sales over the last three decades would mean that crime should be through the roof. It isn’t. But Henigan needs to make his argument because he wants to live in an America where there are no guns. He’s clearly an idealist who somehow thinks that if all guns are banned those armed gangs he talks about will suddenly be unarmed as well. Now that’s an imaginary world indeed!

Hoffman notes something that most anti-gun groups, and many in the MSM would like you not to know or think about too closely:

“It is a mistake to equate lower gun crime statistics to restrictive firearms laws. The two areas of the country with the highest rates of gun crime are Washington, D.C., and Chicago, Ill. It is no coincidence that these two areas have the most restrictive firearms laws in the nation.”

And yet Chicago’s Mayor Richard Daley and others in law enforcement continue to find ways to keep guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens, as if it will somehow make criminals think twice about picking up a gun.

Kudos to Hoffman for putting the record straight, and we encourage our readers to check out what he has to say. He makes some excellent points on the issue of guns and crime.

Oakland Tribune: My Word: Columnist wrong about effect of anti-gun laws