Student Life Needs Refresher Course on How Guns are Purchased
This week Student Life, “the independent newspaper of Washington University in St. Louis” offered an editorial titled, “Stricter gun control needed,” and suggested that it was just too easy to buy a gun.
The writer offered some thoughts:
The guidelines for purchasing a new gun today are, from the point of view of the customer, that one walks into the store, picks out a gun, and comes back after the store after the proper documents have been processed/approved. The dealer must ask for a photo ID and for the purchaser to fill out form 4473, which is kept on file at the store permanently. Depending on the state, the store may ask for other personal information. Some require purchasing firearm locks, proving that the customer owns a gun safe, or requiring that the customer pass a test before they are authorized to purchase. Many of these regulations seem very levelheaded and logical, but a few requirements, such as taking mandatory gun handling and safety classes, undergoing a psych evaluation, or acknowledging any children or teens that would be in contact of the weapon, should also be considered as new policies.
First of all, clearly the writer hasn’t bought a gun. At virtually all gun shops the buyer would need to undergo the instant background check. This point is made with the form 4473, but the fact that she leaves out the words, “background check” are either done to sway opinion or shows lack of knowledge on the subject. Those will criminal felony records will be denied, and that is an important fact to note.
But the writer adds:
These laws, however, only apply to the licensed, store-to-customer sale of new and used guns. They do not apply to the personal/private sale of a gun between two people. This is a serious issue that needs to be addressed as guns could pass from a cleared person to one who has not been approved to use it.
Again, what is missing here is whether state or local laws require background check, or a transfer through a licensed dealer. In other words, the situation she describes is not universal. This is a common misunderstanding and one that should be addressed by those who write about guns. In many cities such person-to-person transactions are essentially prohibited.
The other point is that this writer assumes – as with so many – that more restriction would deter criminals. There is little, or no evidence that criminals would be deterred by more gun control.
Finally, the writer adds:
Rules on their use detract from the “wild West” mentality of the United States, but times have changed since the cowboy needed a gun to protect himself on the frontier and hunt his food. Nowadays, we have grocery stores and significantly less wild-animal encounters. Americans’ rights to own, carry or purchase firearms should not be taken away, it just needs to be retailored to this day and age. Using computer technology and communication, firearms could be more easily monitored: it’s as easy as putting information into the computer that can be logged by a government database.
Again, the anti-gun type tries to suggest this is just about hunting or life in the wilds. And this notion of a government database is an interesting one. The mere thought that the government would want personal information on individuals for anything but guns is enough to suggest we’re inching closer to the world of 1984, but as soon as guns are mentioned people can’t throw out civil liberties fast enough!
NRA News: Anti-Hunting Sentiment Reaches Fever Pitch in California Legislature
Cam Edwards talks to Dan Richards, California Fish and Game Commission Chairman, who is under fire for a legally killing mountain lion in Idaho
NRA News: Tovar Cerulli – The Mindful Carnivore
Cam Edwards talks to Tovar Cerulli, author of The Mindful Carnivore: A Vegetarian’s Hunt for Sustenance
Green Car Report Responds to Gingrich Comment
So this week Newt Gingrich noted that he didn’t like the Chevy Volt because it couldn’t have a gun rack. The exact quote was:
“Let me start from a simple premise that Oklahomans will understand: you cannot put a gun rack in a Volt.”
Well, of course Green Car Report wasn’t going to take that sitting down and offered this snide rebuttal:
As for the Gingrich gun-rack contention, it took Volt owner Scott Faque less than a day to prove Gingrich wrong.
Not that it’s likely that hunters would take a Volt off-roading into the back country to go hunting anyhow. But never mind that.
Gun racks: ‘bad idea’
High Gear Media’s resident gun expert, Kurt Ernst, said experienced firearms instructors (he is one) consider gun racks “a really, really bad idea” in general.
Guns openly mounted in vehicles pose an obvious and severe theft risk.
While it was proven that a gun rack would fit in the car, the points that “hunters” would not take the car “hunting” just shows how little the media understands the issue of firearms. Why is this always about hunting? We have nothing against hunting and do believe there is both a right to hunt, and a culture of hunting, the fact is that the Second Amendment isn’t about hunting, and Gingrich never said anything about hunting.
As for the point the use of gun racks is a matter of opinion, but the theft risk is only if you leave the gun unattended.
Orlando Sentinel Editorial Misses the Point on “Guns rule”
This week writing for the Orlando Sentinel, Leonard Pitts offered his thoughts, “For worse or worst, guns rule.” He writes:
In a democracy, nothing is supposed to matter more than the will of the people.
So it was painful to watch last week as the will of the people was overturned and one of Arizona’s duly elected representatives was forced from office. It wasn’t a recall vote or scandal that did it. No, the people’s will was overturned by a gun.
Here we go, another anti-gun type who somehow thinks the “will of the people” must be for gun control, but somehow the gun lobby has too much power. The irony here is that he even says, “In a democracy, nothing is supposed to matter more than the will of the people,” so why doesn’t he accept that the will of the people is for their Second Amendment rights?
And normally we don’t respond to editorials, but Pitts is ripe with errors, half-truths and utter misunderstandings. So much so we’ll take them one at a time. He notes:
This episode (in Tucson) joins a long list of elections overturned and social movements derailed by men with guns, as in the shootings of Abraham Lincoln, James Garfield, William McKinley, Huey Long, Malcolm X, Medgar Evers, the Kennedy brothers, George Wallace, George Moscone, Harvey Milk andMartin Luther King Jr. Somehow, people who should never have guns never have trouble getting them. John Kennedy’s assassin, a disaffected former Marine who had once defected to the Soviet Union, bought his by mail order. King’s assassin, a wanted fugitive, bought his over the counter.
Today, you cannot easily buy a gun mail order without a Federal Firearms License. Either Pitt doesn’t know this or chose to ignore this fact, but it does deflate his argument. Likewise, background checks are now done when buying a “gun over the counter.” The vast majority of crimes are committed with “illegal guns,” so how does changing the laws as they have been changed really going to stop gun violence?
Likewise, Pitt doesn’t note the cases where guns have been used in self defense? He chooses to ignore such examples as well. Not exactly the fairest argument but we’ll move on. Pitts adds:
After all, the solution here is not rocket science.
We need meaningful background checks on all gun purchases — no loopholes. A mentally unstable man should not have legal access to a gun, period.
Actually we have these background checks in place, with a few exceptions. But it wasn’t actually a loophole that allowed Jared Lee Loughner to obtain a gun. It was a failure in the mental health system, not the background check system. So here we agree, a mentally unstable man should not have access to a gun, but why blame gun laws when he did everything legally?
Pitts also adds:
We need to ban fully automatic weapons from private use. The hunter who needs a gun that fires hundreds of rounds a minute isn’t much of a hunter. Read more
SHOT SHOW 2012: Under Armor Controls Smells
There is no denying that when heading to the great outdoors most people will come back home smelling worse for it. This is part of the outdoor experience, and in a way if you don’t smell bad you probably didn’t do enough. That’s true for fitness, but sometimes a strong scent won’t just have your loved one sending you to the shower, for hunters it can keep the prey away.
At SHOT Show in Las Vegas Under Armor, a leader in athletic performance apparel are introducing new Zeolite-based UA Scent Control Technology in its 2012 Whitetail Collection. This helps hunters remain undetected when in the field via a silver anti-microbial that promises to last 10 times longer than commonly used carbon-based technologies. There is a saying that some predators can smell fear, but now the hunted won’t smell the hunters!
Media Matters Tries to Claim Americans Want Gun Control
Liberal media watchdog Media Matters for America tried to put an anti-gun spin on the findings from a Gallup poll. The crew over at Media Matters must not have liked the results, so instead of letting it go, they instead offered some interesting thoughts:
“Indeed, another question included in Gallup’s poll demonstrates robust support for gun violence prevention legislation. 77 percent of respondents feel that the laws covering the sales of firearms should either be stricter or kept as they are now, with only 11 percent calling for them to be weakened. In other words, the vast majority of Americans support reasonable gun control measures; only a small fraction is actually opposed to gun control.”
That isn’t exactly what the poll suggests that “only a small fraction is actually opposed to gun control.” Even Gallup noted:
“In 1991, 68% of Americans favored stricter gun laws and 43% favored a ban on handguns. Those percentages are 43% and 26%, respectively, today.”
But again here is where the media – or in this case a “media watchdog” – doesn’t like the findings and will put its own spin on it. Read more
Daily Star Uses Misinformation in Anti-Gun Editorial
Earlier this week Sabria Chowdhury offered an op-ed for The Daily Star titled, “‘Guns don’t kill people. People kill people’ … Since when?” She suggests that slogan is somehow officially that of the NRA. For the record it isn’t. It is widely attributed to the NRA, but any editorial that states this as fact is one that should be questioned.
Of course the writer also tried to suggest that crime and gun owners is connected. First she writes:
“This organisation [sic] strongly advocates the rights of gun ownership to be a personal and moral right, denying any links between the lax laws relating to gun ownership and high gun-related violence in the US.”
Has this writer seen the news? Has she seen the violence in Africa, notably Libya? There is strong gun-related violence. America by contrast is a safe country, but she considers rare events to be the effect of gun ownership. And she tries to explain this fact in an argument that we see too often from those who need a lesson in history. She writes:
“The Second Amendment to the US Constitution protects the ‘rights of the people to keep and bear arms.’ This is embedded within the Bill of Rights. This amendment was drawn by the Founding Fathers in 1791, in a historical period when most people lived in agrarian communities and guns were used for hunting and for protection against Native Americans and highwaymen. Attempting to find actual sense in this inherent piece of the foundation of American society in the 21st century is to say the least, insanity.”
The Second Amendment actually reads “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” It is a single “right” not “rights,” but again, it appears she wrote her editorial from memory. And no, this was not written at a time to defend from “Native Americans and highwaymen.” This was following the American Revolution was to ensure that the people would not fall under tyranny. This notion that it was also for hunting primary is nonsense.
She adds:
“There clearly needs to be a modification in the Second Amendment which can be viewed as anachronistic, belonging to the long-gone days of the wild, American frontier. Is the right to bear arms in today’s society a necessity as it was over 200 years ago? And has this right not been stretched too far and a borderline obsession with the possession and usages of guns not ensued from this need to ‘protect’ oneself? Has that ‘protection’ not turned around drastically to cause many of the heinous crimes we see today?”
And here she plays the long established card that the technology has changed. So do we need to change (modify) the First Amendment. It protects the right of free speech and freedom of the press. But it says nothing of radio, TV or the Internet. Should those not be protected?
And later in the editorial, which spends much of the time focused on mass shootings, she writes something truly disturbing:
“How many innocent lives have actually been saved by the use of weapons (excluding uses by the police forces) and how many innocent lives have been taken? The plain and simple question in my mind is: why should anyone have any access to guns except for the police and military forces?”
Many people have actually used guns to defend their homes and property. Likewise, this reporter didn’t take the time to actually note that the latest FBI statistics show crime is down and gun ownership is up. That goes against her whole argument that there is more crime because of guns. What there actually is now is more reporting of big events. These tragic shootings happen and these grab media attention.
Finally, she asks, “why should anyone have any access to guns expect for the police and military forces?” This is a common question. But doesn’t that make us live in a police state? While we don’t agree with the protesters on Wall Street, the truth is we believe they have a right to be there. In a police state they might not. And finally, given how many guns have gone missing in Mexico from the military, we ask would you really want to trust the military – not to mention the police. Given the fact that the Los Angeles SWAT team just lost nearly two dozen submachine guns it is clear the police can’t always be trusted.
Assault Weapon Under Fire
Last month we missed a post from Media Matters for America titled, “Gun Blogger Under Assault Over Term Assault Rifle.” This article basically discussed how Eric at the Gunmart Blog, writing for our friends at Ammoland.com, didn’t like the term assault weapon.
As we’ve long noted, the term is dubious because it implies that people think assault weapons are something they are not – mainly military firearms. While this debate will likely continue… we were shocked by some of the comments:
“And accurately labelled [sic] in the original. It is used for assaults. I have hunted numerous times, and have yet to see someone taking down a deer with an AR-15 or an AK-37 [sic].”
This just shows arrogance. If this guy doesn’t want to hunt with an AR-15 it must not be good enough for anyone else. And this notion of “it is used for assaults” is nonsense and an utter simplification. The Germans who produced the first assault rifle, the StG44 were surely on the defensive in 1944 and 1945 but used the small arm. This is like saying only a sniper can use a sniper rifle. Nonsense.
And there is this comment:
“Are assualt [sic] weapons fully automatic? I thought fully automatic guns were against the law?” Read more
Congressional Sportsmen: Hunting Heritage Opportunities Act Introduced in U.S House of Representatives
Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation:
H.R. 2834, legislation “to recognize the heritage of recreational fishing, hunting, and recreational shooting on Federal public lands and ensure continued opportunities for these activities,” was introduced Friday by Congressional Sportsmen’s Caucus (CSC) Rep. Ban Benishek and co-sponsored by former CSC Co-Chairs Rep. Dan Boren and Rep. Don Young and CSC Member Rep. Mike Kelly.
The “Recreational Fishing and Hunting Heritage and Opportunities Act” would direct the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to utilize the “multi-use” mandates in their agencies’ respective land management plans to promote sportsmen and sportswomen’s access to national forests and public lands, enhancing the ability of Federal land managers to provide, promote, and plan for recreational uses that balance the needs and interests of all outdoor enthusiasts.
“The Congressional Sportsmen’s Caucus has been working alongside us and many of our partners in introducing this legislation to allow Federal public land planners to evaluate the effects that management initiatives have on hunting, fishing, and recreational shooting, and provide a clear analysis of how proposed actions would affect sportsmen’s access to Federal public lands,” said Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation President Jeff Crane.
The legislation requires Federal land managers to support and facilitate use and access for hunting, fishing and recreational shooting and affirms an “open until closed” management policy for these activities on Federal public lands managed by the USFS and the BLM. H.R. 2834 also maintains state authority in managing fish and wildlife on Federal lands.
“Nearly 50 million men, women, and youth hunt and fish. Almost half of all hunters use Federal lands, and in certain states the Federal government owns the only open land available. Millions more engage in target shooting at ranges and informal sites on our public lands. We must protect and enhance sportsmen’s access to Federal lands and opportunities to participate in these activities,” said Rep. Boren.
BLM and USFS lands designated as wilderness, wilderness eligible, or suitable and primitive or semi-primitive areas under provisions of the bill are considered “open” to all legal forms of hunting, fishing and recreational shooting unless there are good reasons to close such areas and the bill requires a transparent public process for any closure or restriction. BLM and USFS would be required to report to Congress on the closure or significant restrictions of 640 or more cumulative acres of land for use in or access to hunting or fishing and related activities.
About:
The Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation celebrated its 20th anniversary in 2009. Throughout this time, CSF has maintained a singleness of purpose that has guided the organization to become the most respected and trusted hunting and fishing organization in the political arena. Visit: www.sportsmenslink.org
