Here comes the ban hammer...

Here we go again... calls for gun control.  And this time, since Obama isn't up for re-election, he's actually going to push for it.  Here are my thoughts on the various prongs of his plan.  I'll just start with the points that require Congressional action; I'll take a look at the executive actions another time.

- Criminal background checks for all gun sales: In theory, I think this is a good thing.  The problem is that whatever bill is used as a vehicle to set this up will undoubtedly be saddled with unnecessary grants of discretion and ambiguities.  For example, Carolyn McCarthy's H.R. 137 would require background checks for all gun sales, but also slips in language that broadens the definition of "adjudicated as mental defective" (a condition that would prohibit a person from purchasing a firearm) to include anyone who has been ordered by any "lawful authority" to receive counseling or medication.  What kind of counseling or medication are we talking about here?  What constitutes a "lawful authority"?

- "Assault weapons" ban:

This Mini-14 is not an assault weapon...

... but this Mini-14 is.  And yet, it's the same gun.

I've commented about this before here.  Banning "assault weapons" is basically premised on the fraudulent idea, perpetrated by anti-gun groups in the early 90s, that certain semi-automatic firearms magically become far more dangerous than other semi-automatic firearms simply by virtue of the fact that they look scary or "military style."  This proposition is absurd as saying that the Hummer H2 is a military style vehicle, or that a car with a spoiler is a race car.  President Obama complained that the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban (AWB) was too easily circumvented by manufacturers making "cosmetic" changes, but this shouldn't come as a shock since the AWB categorized firearms as assault weapons based exclusively on cosmetic features such as a pistol grip, collapsible stock, bayonet lug, or flash hider.  Whether or not a firearm is an "assault weapon" has absolutely nothing to do with its effectiveness as a firearm.  What's worse, assault weapon bans don't even work.  From 1994 to 2004, the United States had an assault weapon ban in place, and yet it failed to prevent the Columbine shooting in 1999.  Furthermore, one of the Columbine shooters used an Intratec TEC-DC9, a firearm that was banned by name in the assault weapon ban.  This should boggle the minds of those who buy into the fairy tale that banning certain firearms will take them off the streets, but should come as no surprise to those who have recall the failures of the drug war (banning narcotics certainly has not taken them off our streets) or Prohibition in the 1920s (even a constitutional ban couldn't get alcohol off the streets).  Here's another mind boggler: the other of the two Columbine shooters used a firearm that was compliant with the assault weapon ban, meaning it was not an assault weapon.  Clearly, whether or not a firearm is an assault weapon has absolutely no bearing on an evil person's ability to use it to deadly effect.  The only thing that assault weapon bans do is reduce the ability of law-abiding citizens to select a firearm that suits their needs.

If President Obama and other anti-gun politicians want to step up and say that they really just want to ban all semi-automatic firearms, then while I won't necessarily agree with them, at least I'll feel like they're willing to have an intellectually honest discussion about the constitutionality, pros, cons, etc. of such actions.  But if they're going to continue to push the myth that so-called "assault weapons" are these unbelievable weapons of mass murder while other semi-automatic firearms are not, then I can only conclude that they're either willfully and purposely ignorant about firearms, or bent on perpetuating a lie.

- "High-capacity" magazine ban:

Another useless idea.  The theory behind a "high-capacity" (in quotes because many of the magazines politicians want to ban are actually the factory standard capacity for a particular firearm, i.e., the capacity at which the firearm has always been sold historically) magazine ban is that by forcing criminals to use smaller magazines, they'll have to reload more, which will slow them down and provide an opportunity for them to be stopped.  Let's see how well that worked out.  In addition to taking place during a nationwide AWB, Columbine took place during a nationwide "high-capacity" magazine ban.  One of the Columbine shooters simply showed up with thirteen (13) ten-round magazines.  Before taking his own life, he fired at least 98 rounds, which means he must have reloaded at least 9 times.  Similarly, at the Virginia Tech shooting in 2004, the shooter carried a backpack containing nineteen (19) ten- and fifteen-round magazines.  He used seventeen (17) of the magazines and fired 170 rounds before killing himself.  Even in the Newtown shooting, reports are that the shooter fired 150 rounds and reloaded multiple times.  Assuming he was using 30-round magazines, that amounts to at least four reloads.  Reports are that some magazines were recovered from the scene partially loaded, which means there may have been even more than four reloads.  In none of these cases  was the shooter stopped by the need to reload, even in Virginia Tech where the shooter reloaded sixteen times.

The problem is that reloading when you're in a gun free zone, not taking fire, and under relatively little duress is an easy process.  It's when you're under fire and fearing for your life -- for example, in a self-defense scenario -- that your motor skills start to break down and you fumble your reloads.  A "high-capacity" magazine ban would primarily affect law-abiding firearm owners who find themselves in defensive situations -- especially those with disabilities that make reloading more difficult, but even those without disabilities all the same.  We've been hearing a lot on the news lately about the woman in Georgia who emptied her six-shot revolver into a home intruder, hitting him in the face and the torso, and yet he was well enough to get up, get in his car, and drive off.  The man had literally been shot in the face and was in decent enough condition to drive.  Had he chosen to continue his attack instead of retreating, or if he'd had accomplices, that woman and her children would have been in trouble.  Home invasions with more than one perpetrator are not uncommon -- while I was on vacation for the holidays, a story broke about a Sacramento man who had to use his firearm to fend off multiple men who broke into his home while his children were having a sleepover with friends in the next room.  And some months ago, there was a report of a man whose gun shop (which was attached to his home) was broken into by multiple burglars.  They exchanged fire with the shop/home owner, who emptied a 30-round magazine from his AR-15 to cover his retreat into his attached bedroom to retrieve additional magazines, which he then used to drive off the intruders.  If he'd been limited to a 10-round magazine, he might not have even made it to his back room.  Events like this are precisely the reason that law-abiding firearm owners need so-called "high capacity" magazines.

- Banning the possession of armor-piercing ammunition other than by military/law enforcement: This seems reasonable in theory, but again, the devil is in the details.  How is "armor-piercing" defined?  Kevlar vests are weak against rifle rounds - even your run of the mill lead core, metal jacketed rounds that are used for target practice can probably penetrate Kevlar.  If the ability to penetrate a Kevlar vest is going to be the bar, then this could well amount to a ban on all rifle ammunition.  Tangentially, the connection between this particular proposal and the Newtown shooting escapes me, since the shooter did not, as far as I know, use armor-piercing ammunition, and even if he did, the people in the school weren't wearing body armor anyway.

- Increasing penalties for "straw purchasers," people who pass the required background check to buy a gun for someone else: Again, a reasonable proposal, but we'll have to keep an eye on the implementation details.  Since nothing concrete has been proposed yet, not much more to say about that.  I do agree that, in theory, straw purchasing is bad and should be penalized.

- Acting on a $4 billion administration proposal to help keep 15,000 police officers on the street: I'm not sure that lack of police officers is a major contributing factor to gun violence, especially mass shootings, but in theory I have no problem with helping keep police officers employed.  $4 billion for only 15,000 officers seems a little high, but I guess all that equipment and government benefits does cost money.

- Confirming President Obama's nominee for director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives: All things considered, it's probably a good idea for BATFE to have a confirmed director, at long as he's not going to do something stupid like giving military firearms (actual military firearms, not "military-style" semi-automatic weapons) to Mexican drug cartels and then losing track of them, only to find out they were used to kill American officers.  I don't really know anything about Todd Jones, the guy that Obama nominated, but hopefully we'll find out a little more about him if his confirmation goes up for a vote.

- Eliminating a restriction that requires BATFE to allow the importation of weapons that are more than 50 years old:

Seriously, are curios and relics (the federal term for firearms more than 50 years old, also known as C&Rs) a major factor in gun violence?  Are there gang members out there slaughtering each other in droves with M1 Garands, M1903 Springfields, Mausers, and other 50+ year old firearms?  I highly doubt it.  Certainly there are no school shootings being perpetrated with firearms made before 1963.  The only people this affects are law-abiding collectors, who scour far and wide for that rare collectible.  Going after C&Rs makes even less sense when you consider that the vast majority of them are either bolt-action (like the M1903 and Mauser) or have fixed magazines (like the M1 Garand), which makes them even less likely to be used in gun crimes.

- Financing programs to train more police officers, first responders, and school officials on how to respond to active armed attacks: More training is always good.  I just hope the money is spent effectively, and that we're teaching folks more than just telling the kids to grab pencils and try to stab the attacker.

- Provide additional $20 million to help expand the system that tracks violent deaths across the nation from 18 state to 50 states: I suppose this is good if it helps provide better statistics on violent crime and identify trouble spots.

- Providing $30 million in grants to help schools develop emergency response plans: Again, more training is always good, as long as the plans make sense.

- Providing financing to expand mental health programs for young people: This is probably the best point in this portion of the plan.  The common denominator in all of the recent mass shootings has been that they were carried out by mentally troubled young men.  Improving the country's mental health system is an important first step in understanding what motivates these individuals to commit crimes and hopefully finding ways to prevent future occurrences.