Hello,
I happened to catch your show last night about guns. I watched the whole episode. I quite obviously disagree with you on the gun issue. Is there some common ground on which we can agree? I doubt it, but I'm always willing to try. I don't have an hour to counter all of your false arguments (much less the additional hours to solidify my research), but I would like to point out a few things, realizing you’ll likely dismiss this as it does not fit the narrative of your show (no offense, just trying to be honest and practical):
1. In response to your contention that there is no evidence ever of the "gun fantasy" that a law-abiding citizen with a gun can stop a crime in progress:
a1: Having another gun at the scene did in fact “work out” in Tucson. Mr. Zamudio, using restraint regularly taught in concealed handgun licensing classes, DID NOT fire his gun at the wrong person. And he did rush TOWARD the gunfire from another store (he was not involved in the original massacre) to help contain the suspect until police arrived. Mr. Zamudio, because of his restraint and because he ran toward the danger, is a hero just like Mr. Hernandez and the others who’ve been profiled in the media for their heroism. And his honesty about almost shooting the wrong man and personal sadness that he could not do more to help exhibit the very nature of an honest, law-abiding person who wants to help, not hurt. His story does not neatly fit the narrative of either side of the gun debate. That’s because his story is real, not fantasy.
a2: In 1997, an assistant principal at Pearl High School in Mississippi did stop a mass murdering gunman using his own gun, and didn't even have to fire a shot.
http://reason.com/archives/2000/06/01/loaded-coverage" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
a3: literally thousands of Americans use guns to defend themselves from crime every year - a few examples
http://www.thearmedcitizen.com" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
a4: why don’t more multiple-victim mass shootings end with a courageous citizen saving the day with a legally carried gun? Because until Saturday, no shooting in US history with more than three victims (a morbid measuring stick to differentiate mass shootings from “typical” shootings, I guess) had EVER occurred in a place where regular citizens were allowed to possess guns. Go look it up in those stacks and stacks of news stories about previous mass shootings you’ve been tossing around on your show for a few days now. Until Saturday, every multiple-victim shooting in US history with more than three victims had occurred in a Gun Free Zone. Thing is, the murderers who perpetrate these mass crimes don’t think twice about breaking a law that prohibits guns in certain areas. But law-abiding citizens abide by these misguided laws and become helpless victims – sitting ducks for a madman hunting human beings. Had Mr. Zamudio been in the crowd on Saturday, instead of in the Walgreens, perhaps that streak would still be intact. Perhaps he would have pulled out his gun and shot the killer before the killer shot anyone else. I don’t know if that would have happened, and neither do you.
a5: Lastly, a citizen lawfully carrying a handgun has no obligation (legal, moral, or otherwise) to try to stop a crime in progress. Many counsel that thrusting yourself into an in-progress crime is a bad idea because your concealed handgun license is neither a police badge nor a Batman cape. Many who legally carry a gun do so strictly to protect themselves and their loved ones. Everyone else – in states that allow citizen carry – is free to carry a gun for his or her own protection. This is not to say that a good Samaritan with a lawfully carried gun won’t jump in to save the day. But don’t count on it. Also, don’t count on police either. Law enforcement officers are some of the most heroic and underappreciated public servants in this country. But, despite the “protect and serve” logo on their patrol cars, police have NO DUTY OR OBLIGATION to prevent crime. The US Supreme Court has ruled on this issue multiple times. Feel free to look up the legal precedents and case law.
2. The statistics you showed on gun ownership as relates to gun crime state-by-state are spurious at best. I don’t have all the data readily available to support this, but one neglected aspect is how many of the “gun deaths” are actually suicides. Let’s face it, if guns are unavailable, suicidal people will find another way – but that other way gets labeled as merely “suicide” and not lumped in with all other gun deaths in statistical reports. Also gun deaths include all deaths caused by bullets – doesn’t matter if the deceased was shot by a police officer, a law-abiding citizen in a self-defense scenario, or a criminal – they’re all lumped together. States that allow more gun freedom will also have more citizens using guns to defend themselves, as well as more accidents.
Again, I’m no expert on statistics. But if you want an actual debate on this topic, rather than just putting out numbers that fit your narrative, you really should contact Professor John Lott who IS an authority on crime statistics. Also try Gary Kleck. I would be interested to see you engage in an actual debate on the issue with someone who can counter your claims intelligently.
3. “High-capacity magazines” – as an gun owner, concealed handgun license holder and instructor, and someone who carries a gun with me every time I leave my home – I will readily admit to you that the 30-round magazine the alleged killer used doesn’t have much purpose beyond a novelty item for gun owners. No one who carries a gun for self defense carries one of these foot-long magazines in their gun, and few even carry one as a backup or spare magazine (though a few do). On the other hand, some gun owners do keep these magazines in their home “just in case” – especially owners with handicaps that make quickly changing magazines in a life-or-death situation difficult or impossible.
But since when do we need a reason, legitimized and OK’d by society, to practice a Constitutional right? I realize Constitutional rights are not absolute, but the standard for infringing upon them is high. The majority of Americans sees little reason or benefit for many types of art and expression, but that alone is not enough to infringe upon the artist’s First Amendment rights.
Furthermore, the bill introduced by Rep. McCarthy does not stop with 30-round extended high-capacity magazines. It seeks again (as with the 1994-2004 ban) to impose an arbitrary limit of 10 rounds in any firearms magazine or feeding device, regardless of the original design of the firearm. Many firearms used for self-defense by American citizens are designed to hold more than 10 rounds in a magazine. The Glock 19 used by the killer (and also, coincidentally, owned by Rep. Giffords and thousands of other law-abiding Americans) has a standard magazine capacity of 15 rounds. The largest designed capacity for commonly used handguns is 17 rounds, though a few hold as many as 20.
And many semi-automatic carbines and rifles are designed to hold 20 or 30 rounds. You may choose to call these “assault weapons”, but until the 1994 ban on them, such a description had no meaning in the English language and describes no particular class of guns – just lumps together a bunch of semi-automatic, long-barreled firearms that “look scary”. An AR-15 purchased legally before, during, and after the 1994-2004 ban is NOT the same weapon as the M16 and M4 ASSAULT RIFLES used by the US military.
The reasons why a law-abiding person would need that many rounds in a firearm intended for self defense are many, but suffice to say that despite what you see in the Bruce Willis action movies you referenced last night, in the real world the “bad guys” don’t always stop their violent attacks after being shot one or twice. The violent, drug-addled criminal who killed multiple FBI agents in a 1986 gun fight in Miami was shot no less than 12 times before he succumbed to his injuries and collapsed. Every brave FBI agent who was killed that day was shot AFTER the suspect had already been shot. The problem was, they ran out of ammunition after firing all six shots from their revolvers and the bad guy kept shooting even after he’d been hit with bullets multiple times. In response to this tragedy, the FBI not only worked with gun and ammunition makers to device a more lethal round but also made Glock pistols holding 13 or 15 rounds standard issue to their officers. And under duress, even the most skilled shooters sometimes miss (the hit rate of NYPD officers is less than 1/3rd of all shots fired in line of duty). The same benefits that standard capacity magazines provide to our brave law enforcement officers apply to law-abiding citizens using guns for self defense.
And Rep. McCarthy’s bill also seeks to prohibit all commerce involving already legally owned magazines with capacities over 10 rounds. This means whatever magazines gun owners currently possess, they must keep for life or destroy. If they sell their gun or trade it in on another, they cannot transfer the magazines with the gun – rendering the gun useless unless redesigned 10-round capacity magazines are available (not likely with a gun whose manufacturer has gone out of business). And what of gun owners’ possessions when they die? Does inheriting your grandfather’s World War II-era M1 semi-auto carbine (with 20-round magazines) make you a criminal? The penalty is 10 years in Federal prison under Rep. McCarthy’s bill.
4. Lastly, borrowing the tortured logic you and EJ Dionne used last night to say that anyone who believes the Framers’ intent when they wrote the Second Amendment was to hedge against government tyranny must take that belief to its radical extreme and believe that civilians should have access to private nuclear weapons, I ask you this:
You and Rep. McCarthy both agreed that even if the high capacity magazines were banned, Rep. Giffords and others still would have been shot and injured or killed by the gunman using a firearm with a 10-round magazine. But if your goal is to prevent needless killing, then how can you possibly stop there with merely a ban on certain magazines? After all, if the killer was unable to buy not only the magazine, but also the bullets, or even the gun itself then no one would have been hurt, right? Of course, even if he couldn’t buy those items, he could still steal them from other lawful gun owners or even police. So it’s best to just make all firearms disappear off the face of the earth.
When will we see that bill from Rep. McCarthy? The Spontaneous Obliteration of All Firearms on Earth Act? Because I might support that bill – as soon as you prove to me how you’re going to do it, and then tell me what implements are still legal for me to use to defend myself from criminals who are much larger, stronger, faster, and more prone to violence than I am. After all, you just want to get rid of guns right? You don’t want to force me and my family to be helpless when confronted by thugs with fists, clubs, and knives do you?
Rep. Giffords was shot in the back of the head at point blank range. A killer that close to his victim doesn’t need a gun. A knife, a club, a bomb, his bare hands in many cases can all be used to kill someone without warning.
The inanimate object used to kill is not the problem. The deranged madman is the problem.
Anyway, thanks for your time. I eagerly await your follow up episode in which you’ll let experts who don’t necessarily agree with your positions debate you on-screen regarding the issue of guns.
Sincerely,
Xxxxx Xxxxxxx
Texas Concealed Handgun License Instructor
(now I'm going to go throw up again).
