To subscribe to email updates (you will only receive emails of new posts, nothing else and no spam), enter your email address in the Subscribe box to the right. ------>
In the aftermath of the Aurora shootings, the gun ban crowd has been reiterating their agenda on how to stop mass murderers. It may sound like good ideas to some on the left, but it is far from common sense. Let’s rehash some of these utterly bullshit notions to be prepared to put these freakishly naïve and outrageous ideas six feet underground.
Ban "assault weapons"
This is obviously the first topic that was mentioned. Of course making AR-15s illegal will stop people from getting them, right? Just ask drug lords. Of course, when police and the military use AR-15 style firearms, they are instead called 'service rifles' - the term "assault rifle" was dreamed up to categorize weapons which in federal legislation could not 'officially' be described simply as "scary looking." Banning 'service rifles' is not allowed, but by all means get rid of the 'assault weapons.' It’s not as if criminals normally rob, murder, or rape several people before running into an officer who “needs” his service rifle to make an arrest.
It also doesn't matter that so-called 'assault weapons' are infrequently used in crime, or that the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban had no measurable effect on gun violence. With Progressives, as usual, it's the intentions that are important - not the actual results.
Institute a one-gun-per-month purchasing limit
This just postpones a mass murderer’s actions by a few months until he can buy what he needs - it doesn't prevent him from actually murdering anyone. With the extra time to think it may in fact give him the opportunity to plan an even more calculated massacre.
Security cameras in public
I’m not a scientist, but I’m quite sure that security cameras don’t project mystic body armor to victims just before a criminal yanks a trigger. Good luck identifying a masked criminal or somebody more than 20 feet from the camera.
Ballistic testing and microstamping
Ballistic investigation has been a tool of law enforcement forever, and does routinely connect recovered bullets to a particular firearm. However, when paired with microstamping, one must question... why? Microstamping is a proposed method of embedding a unique serial number on the face of the firing pin so that whenever the firing pin contacts the cartridge and ignites the primer, the serial number is embedded in the primer face. The problem is that any serial number on the face of a firing pin could be easily ground off with any sharpening stone (or even with sandpaper).
A mass murderer also isn’t going to care if you can trace an embedded stray bullet or shell casing to a particular firearm - he's a murderer and he murdered people in public, so lots of people saw him. This is yet another "after the fact" method of gun control and won't prevent a single death.
A mass murderer won’t care about whether you can trace the guns to his name - he's a criminal. Frequently, he’ll be dead anyway from a self-inflicted wound. James Holmes is one of the few exceptions to be taken alive.
Gun registration also is a frequent precursor to firearms confiscation as has been proved in numerous foreign nations. The federal government is not Constitutionally obliged to track firearm owners - registration is left to the state governments, if they determine it to be necessary. Tracing firearms back to purchasers is relatively simple with the existing structure in which law enforcement can demand that the dealer or transfer agent produce firearm records in connection with a criminal investigation. Having a massive database of firearm owners is just a bad idea, particularly considering that the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is as a last line of defense against tyranny.
Oh - and gun registration won't affect criminals, who by definition don't obey the law.
Restrict ammunition quantities
Quantity restrictions on buying ammunition would prove to be a total failure because it would simply take more trips to the store or trips at different stores. It also would not prevent mass murder because even if ammunition were restricted to 100 rounds, you could still conceivably kill 100 people. In the case of James Holmes, I would wager that with the number of killed and injured (71) in the Aurora shooting, Holmes fired no more than 200 rounds and probably much less (the 100-round drum magazine he used is notorious for being unreliable).
The fact that Holmes had 6,000 rounds in his possession is immaterial - he couldn't possibly carry all of them (if this were all .223 caliber, carrying all 6,000 rounds would weigh approximately 200 pounds if loaded in magazines). Enough standard issue AR-15 30-round magazines (i.e. "super-deadly high capacity clips" for the news media and the Brady Campaign) to hold over this would require 200 magazines. In comparison, the average soldier carries between 7 and 11 magazines while on duty.
Ban armor-piercing ('steel core') ammunition and hollow points
Reports now indicate that James Holmes used .223 caliber armor-piercing steel core ammunition . Where do they draw the line on what is and is not armor piercing? Is it just the ammunition that is labeled in a particular way or ANY bullet that can penetrate armor? People who produce body armor can tell you that many types of commonly available copper full metal jacket ammunition is capable of penetrating some types of soft Kevlar armor used by police. For pistols, a commonly used 9mm NATO FMJ bullet can penetrate Class IIA soft armor, and so will a jacketed .357 mag and .44 mag. What about multiple hits? Even a .380ACP can get past the IIA if fired enough times.
Regarding rifles, conventional soft Kevlar body armor won’t stop hardly any full metal jacket rifle rounds (except the .22LR). The bullets just have too much energy, a more pointed tip, and an overall cross section that is normally less than a handgun round. Any bolt action deer rifle loaded with a copper FMJ .308 is 'armor-piercing' to any level of soft armor which does not incorporate solid ballistic plates, and barring a new material discovery, this won’t change anytime soon.
Banning ammunition that is capable of penetrating soft armor would disqualify nearly all copper FMJ rifle rounds. Your practice session just got a lot more expensive now that you would have to use expanding bullets; but of course those would be on the chopping block as well—they are somehow “controversial” because they are designed to expand (recall the invented "cop killer" bullet nonsense from the late 80's). Never mind the fact that these bullets are used byalllaw enforcement agencies that I am aware of, and never mind that people choose hollow points for self-defense for their better terminal performance and lower risk of injuring an innocent bystander.
In short, Progressives haven’t found a bullet yet that they like. Either it can penetrate armor, expands, or uses lead (environmental groups have actually asked the EPA to regulate lead found in bullets! ). About the only bullet that doesn’t fall into one of the above categories is a .22lr thin copper jacket with a hollow core of air. Good luck finding that somewhere in a store. I would like to be in the room if they attempted to sell police on using any .22lr round to chase down criminals with shotguns. But of course they are not talking about restricting anything that government personnel have access to - in their minds, only private citizens misuse weapons—not government employees. Whew, that is certainly a relief.
Ban high capacity magazines
Perhaps a Progressive bonehead can explain to me how 11 round magazines create potential murderers, while 10 round magazines magically transform this same person into a law-abiding citizen. In an enormous show of ignorance, the Brady bunch calls these “large ammo clips” instead of magazines, as anyone familiar with even amateur use of firearms knows - it's an excellent way (and almost a joke) to separate the actual shooters from the gun control crowd . Boy, they sure know what they are talking about. Reloading a gun from an empty magazine takes about one second and can be done while on the move, so I’m confident any mass murder could do it quickly with practice. How about restricting magazines to one per gun? Even if you were allowed a single 10 round magazine per gun, a mass murderer can just bring a dozen guns and shoot them all empty, or simply settle for murdering 10 people at a time.
Ban body armor
James Holmes used it, so why not ban it too? Tell that to non-police officers who work as bodyguards and private investigators. This also does not prevent mass murder, unless the body armor is trained to strangle anyone who is about to commit a crime. As far as I know, armor isn't that advanced just yet.
Ban 'military-style' equipment
This uber-dangerous consumer product allows everyday citizens to have delusions of foreign commando operations by wearing a cheaply made Chinese knockoff MOLLE combat vest in their own home. About the only way to murder someone with a combat vest is to strangle them—I’m guessing it won’t be widely utilized by even the most desperate of criminals. The military uses other things that can be used to cause harm to people in a pinch as well: mylar blankets (suffocation?), canteens (blunt-force trauma?), nail clippers (bleed ‘em slowly?) and small can openers (eye gougers?). With all these makeshift weapons available, the federal government better get to regulating them too.
Let's also not forget that it was the gun, of course, that caused this heinous crime, and not the person behind the gun. If you watch carefully, late at night, there are guns walking down the sidewalk in virtually every city, just looking for someone to murder.
Ban gun carry in public places
That will stop criminals from carrying guns, right? If laws against murder, rape, robbery, and assault could magically make these actions impossible then we could save a ton of money since police officers would no longer be needed. By having a sign banning guns in their establishment, Century Theaters essentially hung a giant flashing neon sign that read “This is a Hundreds of Defenseless People Zone." If all public areas were suddenly gun-free zones, then a criminal would only have to worry about two things: another criminal packing heat and an off-duty cop who happened to be carrying. That sounds like an atrocious nightmare for all middle class Americans living in otherwise low-crime suburbia.
Finally, some good news. Even with all the shouting from these dreadfully uninformed gun restricting turds, there are always people doing the right thing. Gun sales in Colorado have soared since the shooting, as people seek to arm themselves against such violence in the future . Thank you to all those who have taken security into your own hands and purchased a firearm since the shooting. You are truly great Americans.
Yours in freedom,