Handguns

The city of san francisco will be paying attorney's fees for the suit that struck down their handgun ban.  Gun control always has a cost, but sometimes that cost is more tangible than others.

Sure, they passed laws about this a while ago.  Handguns are verboten in Australia.  But there are still some pretty wild parts of the country, and when you put a human out in the wilderness, they need tools to survive.  But the government is so sure of their gun-banning policies that they will put lives at risk by confiscating handguns from people who need them.

People in that situation know their needs better than the government does, and they won't turn in their guns just for the asking.

This is why we fight registration laws.  When you have such a law, it just gives the government a list of who has a gun they can confiscate.

According to this article, there are about 36,000 registered guns unaccounted for in DC.  It's not clear whether the total includes rifles and shotguns or only handguns.  What IS clear is that the government did not believe their registration information to be of any use whatsoever in solving crimes; they have allowed it to degrade to the point of uselessness.  Is a registration system for lawfully-owned firearms a useful crime-solving technique?  Evidently not.

The Washington Post has decided to do the time warp again, stepping into their echo chamber to proclaim their support for a nationwide ban on all handguns in an editorial entitled Killing Made Easy.  They have lots of biased and misleading statistics to throw at the debate and see what sticks, although they have been reduced to citing their own prior articles for some of the weaker examples. 

While it may be true that only 160 of 12,000 homicides by firearm each year are ruled justified, the vast majority of defensive gun uses each year do not involve firing the gun, much less killing someone; the absolute lowest reliable estimate puts the number of defensive gun uses at around 80,000 a year (National Crime Victimization Survey, requiring a police report to count), and most estimates range between 1-3 million. 

But I'm not going to waste time pointing out statistical flaws in their argument this time around.  I've done that before, I'll doubtless do it again, but there's a bigger point their editorial strikingly fails to grasp.

The easier it is to kill, the better off humanity as a whole will be.

That's a strong statement, I know.   Bear with me.

To understand my argument, consider our history.  At the dawn of human history, we were little better than animals, gathering plants and harvesting arnimals for our sustenance.  Killing animals for their food was a significant effort, consuming the time and energy (and sometimes, the lives) of approximately half the population.  Whatever native intelligence or artistic impulse early humans possessed had little opportunity for outlet or expression, and even when opportunity was available it still revolved around the endless quest for food.

Suppose an early human invented a tool -- say, a bow and arrow.  This tool makes killing easier.  That means it makes hunting easier, requiring less time, less energy, and fewer people.  If enough people take up bowhunting, the surplus from their efforts can support human specialists, who spend their time pursuing something other than game: other sources of food, cultivation of crops, written language, or art.  More efficient killing machines allow for the possibility of humans whose lives do not revolve around killing, humans who otherwise would be unable to support their non-violent activities.

Consider next the middle ages.  The development of agriculture has allowed for a broad spectrum of human specialists to arise and form a civilization recognizably similar to ours in many ways.  Humankind has become the dominant predator on earth; though animals may rival individual humans, as a species there is nothing deadlier.  But as a result, more and more people live their lives insulated from violence. 

In fact, violence itself has become a specialized occupation.  Killing animals is easy, and killing humans is easy, but killing human warriors, specialized killers, is very difficult.  The most prominent positions among humanity are oriented around the best killers of other humans -- knights, the nobles who lead them, the kings who lead nations.  But the existance of those specialized roles allows for people who live entirely peaceful lives: monks and merchants.  Killing has become so much more efficient that large fractions of the population need not be involved in it at all.

But it is still difficult enough that it requires a specialist to do it well, and those specialists can rule the rest of humanity with an iron fist, unchallenged.  Not because they are better; because killing a specialized human warrior has become difficult, even for another human being.  The result is inevitably oppression. 

The invention of firearms changes that equation.  Suddenly, killing is easy again.  Suddenly, untrained farmers can defeat professional soldiers.  And do.

Think about that.

We owe the existance of our nation to tools that make killing easier.

Every single specialized worker whose profession is not warfare owes his life and his freedom to tools that make it possible for him to kill an attacker easily, without needing extensive training, strength, or funding. 

Women owe their independence from men to firearms.  A woman with a handgun can protect herself; she does not require a knight in shining armor to stand between her and brutal rape.

Journalists, who in modern times decry that the pen is mightier than the sword, owe their ability to "speak truth to power" to farmers who outfought professional soldiers on behalf of their forefathers.  They are able to do so because the gun is mightier than both.

We owe our very civilization to those same tools.  Not merely the origin of our civilization but its continuance.  Take away firearms, and see how long civilization survives.  The safe bet would be not very long.

The Washington Post says that handguns make killing easier.  They're right.  And I say Thank god for that.

Looks like San Francisco's handgun ban passed on Tuesday's ballot.  About 42% opposed the ban (according to NRA News).  This is not as bad as it sounds; California has a firearms preemption law, and the ban will most likely be struck down as violating it.  The Second Amendment Foundation and the NRA have filed lawsuits; Of Arms and the Law has more. 

UPDATE: The War on Guns says that attorney Gary Gorski is seeking plaintiffs, if you happen to live in San Francisco.

Proposition H would ban almost all private possession of handguns by San Francisco residents within city limits. Exceptions would be made for people who require guns for professional purposes, such as police officers, security guards and members of the military.

This proposition also would prohibit the sale, manufacture, distribution or transfer of all firearms and ammunition within

The City.

The use of guns in crimes is far too prevalent and gun violence is far too common in San Francisco. But Prop. H would not be an effective or appropriate means of preventing violent crime. These difficulties should be addressed by better enforcement of existing laws and better regulation of firearms ? not a blanket ban, particularly one that affects such a small geographical area and is likely to be challenged in court as a violation of state law.

In addition, it is possible that once residents gave up their handguns, San Francisco would be seen as an easy hunting ground for criminals who have no intention of giving up their own pistols.

Voters should turn down this proposition.

Question: Are there any San Francisco newspapers willing to come out in favor of the proposed handgun ban?

If you live in San Francisco, you better be ready to vote.

Alphapatriot spotted the story about the San Francisco Police Officers Association coming out against the proposed handgun ban, despite several highly-placed supervisors favoring it.  Remember -- politicians pick police chiefs and give them orders.  People who actually work the streets understand that firearms are equalizers.  They make enable ordinary people to resist a criminal attack on equal or better terms.  Take that away, and you tilt the scales towards the criminal.

... I wonder how she would feel if the District restricted the tools of her trade, rather than firearms, an issue on which her opinion has already been expressed?  I wonder whether she's thought about the consequences of her position on other issues?  Let's ask her.

Here's what I wrote:

Sophia,

Recently you wrote an article in the Cavalier Daily favoring local control over the District's gun laws.  You felt that the District was being unfairly singled out due to its special Constitutional status as a federal territory. 

It's understandable that you would be in favor of local control on many issues, but the question of local control as regards Constitutional Rights is a settled one.  States have no right to deny Federal Rights to their citizens.  That applies equally to Chicago and New York as it does to the District of Columbia, although it is true that Congress has more direct legislative authority over the District than those other cities.

If you truly wish to place yourself on the side of local control over Federal Rights, perhaps you should consider the company you are joining.  Do you really want to find yourself on the wrong side of Brown v Board of Education?  What about the Civil Rights Act; do you support local control in that case?  How about Roe v Wade?  Would you be so sanguine if the District chose to restrict the tools of your trade -- the word processor and printing press, equally protected by the Federal Constitution against local infringement?

The fact is, Federal Constitutional Rights are protected against State infringement for good reason, and those reasons apply to the District just as much as they do elsewhere.  You would do well to consider the company you will be keeping if you continue to support your position.

UPDATE: There's a columnist at the Boston Phoenix with similar thoughts, and there's a feedback form...
 

The city of San Francisco has placed on the November ballot a proposal to ban handguns in the city limits. If we defeat the proposed ban, it will send shockwaves throughout the anti-gun ranks (the concept of San Francisco doing anything remotely pro-gun is inconceivable . . . to the gun ban crowd).

From now until November, the left-of-center Bay Area media will be asking a lot of questions  This is our opportunity to educate them, and there are indications that they are ready to listen.

It's a worthy cause.  It may be a doomed cause, but it's a worthy cause.  Any money donated will go towards printing up copies of his excellent gun control fact book to be shipped to the top media people in San Francisco.  I don't imagine that it will take that many copies to make an impact, if they are actually read by the recipients.

New Jersey's U.S. senators plan to introduce a bill that would make it illegal for anyone, except a police officer or military official, to purchase or use an assault pistol that fires bullets capable of penetrating a bulletproof vest. The Five-SeveN gun made by FN Herstal of Belgium has already been denounced by three national police organizations and the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. The handgun is small and lightweight and easily concealed in a person's pocket, the groups said.

Reality check: this pistol fires ammunition which also fits certain rifles.  The BATFE does not classify normal ammunition for this firearm as armor-piercing.  There is, in fact, "armor-piercing" ammunition available -- but it is not sold to normal people, only the elite police and military units who need to kill criminals wearing bulletproof vests on a regular basis, because, well, we can't permit any citizen to be safe from police bullets.  They might get ideas above their station then.

On the issue of real guns, I am immovable. I will never allow one in my house. I am lucky enough to live in a safe neighborhood. I also know that thousands of people are killed every year by guns bought for personal protection, either by accident, suicide or an argument that, because of the gun's availability, turns deadly. Overall, about 30,000 people die from gun violence each year in the U.S.

Of course, most of those are suicides and a substantial fraction of the remainder are justifiable homicides (eg, self-defense). Imagining that the remaining problem of criminals committing murder could be solved by telling the criminals to turn in their guns in a firm voice may make a nice fantasy, but it doesn't address the real problem.

Many would agree with me that, on balance, the world would be better off if the gun had never been invented. (I know many would disagree, too, and I expect an onslaught of e-mails telling me so.)

Using "many" in this manner is a little misleading. Judging by the recent election results, most would disagree and claim that firearms have produced a better world than swords, arrows, and catapults.

Having said all this, the proposal to ban the possession of handguns in San Francisco is the kind of impractical, under-researched, righteous gesture common to college sophomores and San Francisco supervisors.

But she's right about this, and it's gratifying to see someone willing to admit it and speak (well, write) against it. Still, we're going to need a lot more leftists doing it before the left can repair their record on gun control. They have to marginalize the gun control activists and polticians before that can happen, and so far, there's no sign of such a move.

But it's still heartening.

Craig is one of 34 co-sponsors of a Senate bill dubbed the "D.C. Personal Protection Act," which is authored by Judiciary Committee Chairman Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah). The companion House measure is sponsored by Rep. Mark Edward Souder (R-Ind.).

Both bills would end the District's long-standing bans on handguns and semiautomatic weapons, roll back registration requirements for ammunition and other firearms and decriminalize possession of unregistered firearms or carrying a handgun in one's home or workplace. Both measures also would bar the city's elected mayor and council from passing gun limits that go beyond federal law or "discourage . . . the private ownership or use of firearms."

Sounds like a good proposal. It will normalize DC's gun laws with respect to the rest of the nation and provide an opportunity for expanded gun ownership to reduce crime in a city that has had a horrible crime problem for years. All is not happy, however; the bill is described by one Republican senator as a "long shot", and the article brings up the possibility of an assault weapons ban renewal:

On the other hand, if such an amendment does provoke a fight over gun limits, such as renewing a federal ban on some types of semiautomatic weapon that expired Monday, Senate business could grind to a halt.

Indeed, Feinstein and company are likely to try to attach a renewal to this bill if they can. They know that their chances are likely better now than after the elections, since the polls at the moment seem to be showing the Republicans gaining a few seats.

It seems to me entirely proper for us to call our Senators once more to express:

1. Support for repeal of the DC Gun Ban
2. Opposition to any renewal of the Assault Weapons Ban
3. A complete unwillingness to trade a repeal of the DC ban for a renewal of the Assault Weapons Ban.

It's a nice bonus if the repeal can pass in this session. But it's not worth bringing back the AWB. We need to make that crystal clear. No compromise.

The National Coalition for Gun Control says semi-automatic handguns need to be completely removed from the community. Coalition chairwoman Samantha Lee says the use of a stolen semi-automatic Glock pistol in a gunfight at a Hurstville carpark in Sydney on Sunday shows that legal handguns can easily become illegal guns. Ms Lee says the ownership of such guns outside the police force should be banned. "We question why anyone within Australia requires a semi-automatic handgun for civilian use," she said. "The high increase or number of guns moving into the illegal market actually fuels the number of hand guns into the illegal market. "So it's like stopping a leaking tap."

So, it's not about BANNING them, is it? Hmm? Gun control enthusiasts in the US are very fond of telling people they don't want to "ban" guns these days, since they've learned that no one will listen to them when they say that. Instead, they only want to ban *some* guns, only the especially mean and nasty ones. Or so they say.

But in their hearts, they want to ban them all. And once they are in a position to do that, they will. So, we must ensure they are never in a position to make their wishes law.

In an open letter to gun control advocate Sarah Brady, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is asking her to intervene in the case of a Wilmette, Ill., man who has been charged with violating local and state gun laws, simply because he defended his family with a handgun against a home invader.

In his letter to Brady, CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb reminded the longtime gun rights opponent that she and her organization, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, has long insisted that it does not oppose gun ownership, or self-defense. Wilmette resident and restaurateur Hale DeMar stands accused in this case, which has raised the ire of gun rights activists from coast to coast.

"Yet," Gottlieb wrote, "through the years, your organization has yet to actually defend a single law-abiding citizen who has been victimized by an extremist firearms law, and instead your group has supported handgun licensing and registration schemes, waiting periods and other restrictive statutes that have placed many American citizens at risk.

This is an interesting tactic indeed. Good luck.

It seems that one of our elected representatives was stupid enough to bring a gun to the airport. That's hardly a surprise. What's interesting is the plea agreement that came out of the incident:

Rep. John Hostettler has received a 60-day suspended sentence for carrying a loaded gun in a Kentucky airport earlier this year. The five-term congressman from Indiana's 8th District will not spend time in jail unless he violates the terms of his plea agreement.

Under the plea agreement, Hostettler cannot buy or possess a gun outside Indiana or Washington, D.C., for two years.

Now, Indiana is presumably his state of residence, and as I understand it, the gun laws there aren't especially strict. And as a Congressman, when Congress is in session, he's living in Washington DC rather than his "residence of record". But our nation's capital city bans handguns and heavily regulates long guns. Apparantly elected representatives are not subject to those regulations, unlike the peons who elected them.

I don't have a gripe with his desire to carry a firearm to defend himself. But I do have a gripe about not being permitted to do so myself, especially in DC, where it's undeniably needed.

Kenneth E. Barnes Sr., whose son was killed in a robbery in 2001, said he hopes to emulate the work of organizations such as Mothers Against Drunk Driving. He said he plans a public service campaign, workshops, mentoring programs and a pledge drive to sign up youths who promise to stay away from firearms.

After his son's death, Barnes created a nonprofit organization called Reaching Out to Others Together that supports families of homicide victims. The Guns Aside initiative is his latest attempt to bring together government agencies, support groups and social service organizations. It comes at a time when the number of juvenile homicides is surging in the city and when the number of killings overall is on the rise in Prince George's County.

But guns are banned there!

THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES voted overwhelmingly Wednesday to end Washington, D.C.'s self-imposed 28-year ban on handgun ownership. The move was an astounding violation of the principle of home rule, a crude and cynical demonstration of political bullying, and a grossly irresponsible decision that if put into action would likely harm the very people Congress ought to be protecting.

Actually, the District is a unique area governed as a federal territory according to Congress, as defined in the Constitution. There's nothing crude or cynical about allowing people to defend themselves in a city which has been called the "Murder Capital of the United States".

In the District of Colombia, 16 children have been shot to death this year, according to the Washington Post. Just how is enabling the possession of a handgun in a home supposed to help such children? The local police chief opposed the House measure, and district officials credit their self-imposed restrictions with helping what they say is a declining homicide rate.

Just at a guess, maybe having a gun in the home would allow that child's parents the opportunity to shoot the criminal before he shoots their child? That's assuming we are actually talking about a child, of course, and not a teenaged gang member shot in a turf battle over a particularly lucrative drug corner. But since we're talking about gun control, we can't trust that "children" really means "children", so I went looking for some statistics.

Although I didn't find the stats for 2003, I did find something else that's even more useful. That "something else" is a fact sheet from a gun control group that spells out gun deaths of "children" by cause within the District of Columbia and the 50 states. What I found is fairly interesting.

Region	Total			Homicide			Suicide			Accident
	1999	2000	2001	1999	2000	2001	1999	2000	2001	1999	2000	2001
District of Columbia	45	28	32	41	28	29	3	0	1	1	0	2

(I am leaving off the Undetermined column, which in all cases was negligible).

Now, the first interesting point to make here is about how the breakdown in deaths of "children" works. For your information, the source of these numbers defines "children" as people up to 19 years of age. That's a bullshit definition that mischaracterizes the problem, of course, which is exactly what the breakdowns demonstrate..

Look at how many gun deaths there were in the District of Columbia total, and then look at the numbers for homicide. About 90% of the gun deaths were homicides, and in one year there were no gun deaths that were NOT homicides! Deaths by accident and suicide are negligible.

Does anyone think that a criminal intent on murder will pay attention to the ban on guns in the city? The evidence shows that they do not. It's not guns that are killing "children" (some of whom are eligible for the draft!) in the nation's capital... murderers are the ones doing the killing.

And criminals do not obey laws, especially laws banning guns. The people who obey those laws are the victims. The real tragedy here is that many of these "children", the ones who are not criminals at least, were old enough to purchase a gun for self defense and obtain a concealed carry permit for it if they lived anywhere else.

If you must have a legislative answer to these murders, there it is right there: DC's gun ban rendered these children helpless to resist their murderers.

In addition to rolling back the district's existing gun rules, Personal Protection Act advocates would keep their foot firmly planted on the neck of local officials by prohibiting them from installing any gun restrictions that exceed federal law. The act also somewhat vaguely would ban rules that would "discourage" the use or ownership of guns. The members of the House would never dare such a slap at officials in their home states, but apparently felt bold in Washington because no one there can vote against them -- the district has only a nonvoting delegate in the House.

The prohibition on local officials installing gun restrictions is clearly necessary, because the local officials have demonstrated that they will do so if given that power.

Why would the bill's sponsors create this kind of legislation? Well, they gave a lot of pretty speeches about freedom, personal protection, failed bureaucracy and so on. But advocates of the bill know that a number of congressional seats are being contested this year in the South, where voters can be jumpy about perceived attempts to take away their guns. Democrats hold some of those seats, and a vote to keep the district's strong gun measures would make perfect ammunition for opponents, who doubtless would seize the chance to insinuate that incumbent Democrats wanted to take away every shotgun and hunting rifle.

Many of them do. Senator Kerry, who is currently deluded into thinking that he might be President, is an excellent example of a Democrat who wants to ban guns. Including, it seems, guns that he himself owns. How's that for elitist?

Fortunately, the next stop for the bill is the Senate, which is likely to be this bad idea's last stop as well. Senate leaders have said they do not expect to bring it up before the end of the legislative session in about a week, so the act is likely to go out with a whimper before it can take life with a bang.

This is true. But there are lawsuits pending that just might manage to strike down DC's gun laws. And if those lawsuits fail, we will come back, and back, and back until we get those laws removed.

Over much of the last year, Wilmette village officials did what they could to mobilize support against a bill in Springfield they feared would effectively overturn a local handgun ban. In the week since that bill became law, they have been looking for legal options to prevent its implementation.

The backstory here: an Illinois homeowner shot a burglar with a handgun while living in a particularly annoying Chicago suburb that purports to ban handguns. The shooting was ruled legal, but he was convicted of possessing a handgun in violation of the ban and fined. The legislature passed a law that prohibited using the law to charge someone who used their handgun in self-defense. The governor veto'd it. The legislature overrode the veto.

Now the town's lawyers are claiming that the state law, which was passed specifically to preempt this situation, doesn't apply due to so-called home rule powers. As you may recall, Denver used the same argument recently in order to preserve its own local gun control laws.

Frankly, it doesn't make much sense to me. Any "home rule" authority derives from the authority of the state that grants it, and the state is free to modify or revoke that grant at its whim. That's exactly what the Colorado and Illinois statutes were intended to do. But these townships will grasp at anything they can in order to retain their gun control laws, because they don't really care about whether they have the legal authority, or even if it's the right thing to do.

?We know that for even law-abiding folks who own guns, the rates of suicide and mortality are substantially higher. So while just perceived to be a crime thing, we think there is a wide benefit to limiting the number of guns in the city.? ? Bill Barnes, aide to Supervisor Chris Daly (1)

With this erroneous claim to bolster them, San Francisco supervisors kicked off a campaign to get voters to approve a city-wide handgun ban to take effect in 2006. What they are ignoring, besides statistical data, is history.

The above is the introduction to an excellent discussion of mortality rates, their correlation to gun control, and what that means for the City of San Francisco's proposed handgun ban.

Idaho Republican Sen. Larry E. Craig announced yesterday that he has abandoned a bid to seek a repeal of D.C. gun laws in a Senate committee, and Senate GOP leaders indicated that they did not have time to get bogged down in a debate over gun limits in the weeks before Congress adjourns for the fall elections.

Craig dropped his effort as opponents of the proposed repeal, including parents of District residents killed by gunfire, lobbied senators and held a news conference on Capitol Hill. A similar proposal has been introduced in the House and has more than enough co-sponsors to pass that chamber.

I'm sure most of the politicians are nervously watching the polls and don't want to open themselves up to crying mothers on prime time right now. But this issue will come back. And, as Feinstein put it, "back, and back, and back..."

In an interview yesterday, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) promised just such a debate if Craig pursues a repeal of D.C. gun laws. She said that if Craig introduces the repeal on the Senate floor, she will revive a bid to extend the national ban on 19 types of semiautomatic weapons. Feinstein garnered 52 votes in the 100-member Senate in March to extend the national ban, though the legislation to which the ban was attached was eventually scuttled.

Feinstein is eager to keep coming back, but the votes aren't there for her without substantial political cover (and a repeal of the DC ban would, in fact, provide substantial cover). This is why we ask you to tell your politicians "No compromise". Right now, we're holding the line, but we can't afford to trade evenly; we need to win back some ground.