Michael R. Weisser's Blog, page 6
December 18, 2019
Is The Ar-15 A ‘Modern Sporting Rifle?’ Like I’m Voting For Donald Trump.
Back in October the FBI released their crime report for 2018 which
showed that violent crime not only fell another 4% from the previous year, but
dropped 14.6% over the last decade. Immediately the hot-air balloon for the gun
industry, the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) issued a press release contrasting this
trend with the continued strong sale of assault rifles, the obvious conclusion
being that guns protect us from crime.
So the gun industry is finally admitting to something
that they have been trying to deny for years, namely, that the so-called
‘modern sporting rifle’ is nothing more than a marketing scam to pretend that a
gun that was designed for military and tactical purposes is just another good,
old hunting gun. And how could anyone feel that any kind of hunting gun
shouldn’t be protected by the 2nd Amendment, right?
The fact is that the AR is advertised and sold
as a ‘self-defense’ gun. Now maybe
companies like Bushmaster and Smith & Wesson are thinking of AR-owners as
using their ‘black’ guns to defend themselves against an invasion from Iran,
Iraq or from outer space. But let’s not quibble over technicalities; anyone who
thinks that a bottom-loading gun which can discharge 100 rounds of
military-grade ammunition in 4 minutes or less is a ‘sporting’ weapon has about
as much of a grasp on reality as someone who believes that Rudy Giuliani is in love with
the American way of life.
When I first started writing about guns back in 2012,
the most vicious and angry comments I received from Gun-nut Nation was whenever
I stated that the AR-15 was a military gun. ‘How can you call this a military
gun when the Army uses guns that are full-auto and this gun is just another
semi-automatic gun?’ That was one of the
more polite comments I used to receive.
In fact, the current battle weapon carried by our
troops, the M-4 carbine, can be set to fire in semi-auto mode or 3-shot burst.
And I have yet to receive an answer from any of the Gun-nut Nation hot-air
balloons when I ask them to explain how, if he sets the gun to fire once time
every time the trigger is pulled, a soldier can go into battle with a modern
sporting rifle.
Which brings us back to the claim made by the NSSF
that the decline in violent crime has something to do with the continued
popularity and sales of the AR-15. Except this drop in violent crime happens to
have occurred at the same time that the homicide rate has gone up. Meanwhile, the percentage of murders
committed with guns (72%) has remained constant over the last several years.
In fact, guns have been the weapon of choice for people
who kill other people for a century, if not more. According to Brearley’s study
of homicide,
data from the U.S. Division of Vital Statistics, of the 63,906 murders
committed between 1920 through 1926, 45,666 were committed with firearms, which
just happens to be 72%. Of course in 1920 the national population stood at 106
million, which means the homicide rate was, on average, around 10 percent. In
2017 the CDC says that the U.S. homicide rate was around 6 per hundred
thou.
On the other hand, in both 1981 and 1991 the overall
homicide rate was above 10 and in both years, guns figured in roughly 70% of
all homicidal events. Up, down, no matter which way the murder rate goes, each
year the number of people who kill someone else without using a gun
stays more or less the same. And guess what? The U.S. murder rate which doesn’t
have anything to do with guns is also higher than what happens
in other advanced nation-states.
The bottom line is that talking about gun violence as uniquely
American may obscure the fact that America is an exceptionally-violent country
with or without guns. Anyone have an answer for that one?
December 16, 2019
Reduce Gun Violence By Regulating Gun Dealers. What Else Is New?
Last week a lawsuit that was filed in Chicago in 2018
was given the green light to proceed in the Federal courts which could possibly
provide a new and different approach to reducing gun violence beyond what has
now become a rather hackneyed and useless argument about how gun violence is a
‘public health threat.’
The suit names the Governor of Illinois and the
Illinois State Police as defendants. It claims they are violating the Americans
with Disability Act (ADA) because gun violence in Chicago creates
emotional trauma that is responsible for ‘trauma-related disabilities’ in
children, chief among them being cognitive and emotional functions which
control learning and the ability to communicate properly with other kids. It’s
a class-action suit brought by the mother of a 9-year old boy who saw his
father gunned down in the street, and includes many other children living in
what can only be described as Chicago’s war zone; i.e., the neighborhoods that
have seen over 500 murders this year alone.
The suit names the Governor and the State Police as defendants because it argues that the gun
violence which violates the ADA is the result of lax enforcement of the
laws that cover the behavior of gun retailers around Chicago, thus resulting in
guns that are first sold legally but then trafficked illegally into the
neighborhoods where so many shootings take place. The suit lists 11 remedies
that should be instituted in licensed gun shops, including the installation of
video systems, inventory audits and more training of store personnel.
This lawsuit builds on a state law, ‘Combating Illegal
Gun Trafficking Act,’ which took effect at the beginning of this year and requires all gun
dealers in Illinois to install security systems, keep more comprehensive
records of sales and submit to annual inventory audits, as well as only hiring
staff who are licensed to own guns. The lawsuit basically claims that the state
government and the state police have been lax in enforcing this new law, the
proof cited is the extraordinary level of gun violence on the Windy City’s
streets.
The problem with this lawsuit is that it assumes a
causal connection between how well the government fulfills its regulatory
responsibilities as listed in the law which took effect at the beginning of
this year and the level of gun violence which occurs on the West Side and South
Side of Chicago every day. In other words, if gun violence continues at its
current horrific pace, this must be somehow tied to lax enforcement of the new
law. The lawsuit cites data which shows that 40% of the ‘crime guns’ picked up
by the Chicago P.D. were first purchased in gun shops located in suburbs around
the city; hence, with stronger enforcement this flow of guns into high-crime
neighborhoods would go down.
Maybe it would and maybe it wouldn’t. Like so many
other laws which seek to prevent a specific commodity from reaching a specific
market, the Illinois gun dealer law doesn’t take into account the issue of demand.
And as governments have discovered since the sixteenth century when the Valois
Monarchy tried to regulate the commerce of salt, if people want
something badly enough, they’ll find a way to get around any law which tries to
control supply.
This is the reason that I refer above to the
‘hackneyed’ arguments about gun violence being bandied about by my friends in
public health. Because again and again I hear the gun-control community
demanding that we enact stronger laws to keep guns out of the ‘wrong hands.’
But what if the size of the wrong-handed population keeps going up?
As long as songs like ‘Bullets Ain’t Got No Name’ are best-sellers on the hip-hop
charts, the idea that guns will somehow disappear from high-violence
neighborhoods because we pass another regulation is not only a joke, but
demonstrates just how far away from reality the discussion about gun violence
has moved.
Want to get rid of gun violence? Get rid of the
you-know-whats, okay?
December 12, 2019
What Should Doctors Say To Patients About Guns?
Today a
group of well-meaning and thoroughly ignorant physicians are getting together in New York City to
discuss for the umpteenth time the appropriate medical response to what is
called a ‘national public health crisis;’ i.e., injuries caused by guns. They
will no doubt draft yet another set of proposals to deal with the problem which
will include all the usual things – more research funding, comprehensive background
checks, ‘red flag’ laws, assault rifle ban, maybe even a mandatory delay in gun
transfers or mandatory training before someone can walk around with a gun.
The
reason I say these medical professionals are ‘thoroughly ignorant’ is because
none of them know anything about guns. If they did know something about guns,
they would understand that you can’t make something ‘safe’ which is designed
not to be safe. How do we define the word ‘safe?’ It means that when we use
something the way it’s supposed to be used that no injury occurs.
That
being said, let me break the news gently to all those folks shooting their mouths
off at today’s meeting in New York: The guns which are used to commit virtually
every act of gun violence happen to be designed for one purpose and one purpose
only – to kill or injure either the user of the gun or someone else. To use
such guns in a ‘safe’ way is to invent a narrative that could only be taken seriously
by people who know absolutely nothing about guns.
Want to
ban assault rifles? Fine. Such a ban might result in reducing the number of
people killed or injured with guns by, at best, 2 percent. What about the other
98 percent? Oh no, we can’t ban Glocks, we can’t ban tactical shotguns, the
Constitution says Americans can own
those guns. And the last thing that medical professionals would ever
want to be accused of doing is coming up with a response to a public health
problem that didn’t align with 2nd-Amendment rights.
I have
never understood how or why physicians need to be concerned about what the
Constitution says or doesn’t say about guns when the evidence-based research
that physicians are supposed to use to define all medical practice clearly proves
that access to a gun is a significant health risk. Is the risk somehow lessened
by locking the guns up or locking them away? Sorry, but I have to gently break something
else to my medical friends: There is not one, single study which has ever
shown any connection whatsoever between ‘safe storage’ and the injuries caused
by guns.
There
are studies all over the place which find that when patients are counseled on safe
behavior with guns, many of them later report that they have taken the doctor’s
advice and are behaving with their guns in a safer way. But none of these
studies are based on a before-and-after analysis of gun violence rates; it is
simply assumed, with no evidence whatsoever, that behaving in a safe way
with guns results in gun-violence rates going down.
When anyone
puts their hand on a live gun (that’s a gun with ammunition ready to go) they
have moved into a high-risk zone. And the only way to mitigate that risk is to
make it impossible for anyone to put their hands on that gun. Now there happen
to be many people (one of them me) who have decided for all sorts of reasons
that they have no problem accepting that risk. There are also a lot of people
who still like to ‘light up a Lucky’ or walk around with 40 extra pounds on
their frame. And by the way, the Constitution gives every American the ‘right’
to do both.
Would
any physician ever claim, in the interests of ‘non-partisanship,’ that these patients should
be advised to find a safer way to eat or smoke? Of course not. And that being
the case, the physicians who think they can find some kind of neutral pathway
to reducing gun violence are simply showing their ignorance about guns.
Want to
get rid of gun violence? Get rid of the guns designed to cause gun violence. An
approach which, by the way, doesn’t run counter to the 2nd Amendment
at all.
December 10, 2019
Hunting And Conservation Are A Good Thing.
You may recall that last month Rudy Giuliani’s business buddy, a.k.a. Donald Trump, threatened to cut off federal aid to California because the state wasn’t doing an effective job on fighting wildfires. Now the fact that the Federal Government owns half the forest land in California whereas state forest lands represent 3% and thus the problem is one for the Feds to resolve as opposed to being the responsibility of Governor Newsom’s administration is only yet further proof (as if we need more proof) that the 45th President of the United States is the most misinformed Chief Executive of all time. Be that as it may, this exchange brought back to mind a brief chapter of American conservation history which deserves to be recalled.
In 1933,
Franklin Roosevelt established the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC), which was
an effort to combat the high rate of unemployment during the Depression while,
at the same time, use government resources to expand and protect natural
resources, particularly forest lands. When it comes to conservation we usually
think of the other Roosevelt, Teddy, because he was an active conservationist
his entire life and created five major national parks as President from 1901 to
1909.
Today
the National Park System covers 85 million acres and everyone has either
visited or would like to visit parks like Yellowstone, Grand Canyon, Mesa
Verde, Yosemite, Zion, the list goes on and on. I have been in every national
park and my own favorite is Joshua Tree outside of Palm Springs because it is
mostly desert which means the solitude is immense. A close runner-up to Joshua
Tree is Capitol Reef in Utah, another amazingly undisturbed place.
What is
often overlooked when we talk about federal government efforts to preserve our
natural space is that in fact it was Franklin Roosevelt’s CCC that enlarged
the National Wildlife Refuge system which now covers more than 150 million
acres, including 566 national wildlife refuges in all 50 states. In
my state, Massachusetts, there are 11 refuges and I often wander in and around
the Oxbow Refuge, which is 1,667 acres of totally unspoiled, natural swamp with
nesting places for various migratory birds.
During the years when the CCC was engaged in wildlife conservation,
one of their chief tasks was to fight fires that threatened wildlife sites.
As open
space becomes an ever-increasing precious resource, the fact that virtually
everyone living in the United States can gain access to these unspoiled places by
driving a short distance from their homes, means that the ability to appreciate
the wildness of nature remains an experience we all can share. What group among us is dependent upon this
environment to help them enjoy the outdoors? Hunters, whose purchase of hunting
licenses, firearms and ammunition have contributed more than $14 billion to the upkeep
and extension of these natural zones.
Much of
the current debate about the place of guns in American
culture ignores how the use of small arms for hunting and sport is a vital element
in preserving the space needed by wild to flourish and grow. This may sound
like something of a paradox, insofar as we usually consider hunting to be a threat
to wild animal life. But in fact, hunters understand and support the Boone
& Crockett idea of a ‘fair chase’ is really all about helping to maintain the vital balance
between all living things – humans and animals sharing the Earth’s natural
space.
For me, the
importance of hunting for strengthening conservation is a much more fundamental
argument for gun ownership than anything having to do with armed, self-defense
or 2nd-Amendment ‘rights.’ Which is why I got involved with Conservation
Centers for Species Survival (C2S2), a remarkable organization whose scientific
research is moving our understanding
of how to protect wild species to an
entirely new level.
I am
going to be writing more columns about C2S2 but in the meantime I invite you to
look at their website (https://conservationcenters.org/)
and subscribe to their Facebook
page. I guarantee you’ll like what you see.
December 6, 2019
Want To Learn About Guns? Try This Magazine.
One of the reasons I like to write about guns is
because it was when I first started reading about guns that I decided to become
a gun nut. I had been given a Daisy Red Ryder when I was nine or ten years old;
I also was a member of an NRA-sponsored shooting team when I was eleven (and
have been a member since that time), but I got my first, real gun in 1956 when
I was twelve years old. I’ll save that story for another time.
About a month before I bought my first gun, the first
of at least a thousand I have bought and sold over the following sixty-plus
years, I found myself on a train going from Washington, D.C. to Florida,
looking for something to read. What I picked up from a vacant seat close by was
a copy of Field and Stream. And right inside the cover was a full-page,
color photograph of some hunting gun, probably a Winchester or a Remington,
which was the most beautiful photograph of anything I had ever seen.
Why do some boys become gun nuts instead of collecting
model trains or getting into ham radios, which is what most of my friends did
back in those days? I have absolutely no
earthly idea. But what I do know is that I started wandering around gun shops
and gun shows in my late teens, an activity which continues to the present day.
And I also never go into Barnes & Noble without wandering over to the
magazine rack and leafing through Guns and Ammo, Shooting Times or Field
and Stream.
The last-named is rather interesting because it just so
happens that of late I am devoting myself to animal conservation and the
restoration and protection of animal species which live in natural space. But
we can’t assume that open, natural space is likely to remain open or natural
without conscious efforts being made to keep things that way. And we certainly
can’t assume that these spaces are large enough to provide the environment required
for all wild species to survive. Which is why I have become a supporter of a
remarkable organization, Conservation
Centers for Species Survival, but that’s also a story for another day.
Getting back to Field and Stream, it was founded in
1895 and absorbed its chief competitor, Forest and Stream, in 1930. The
editor of Forest and Stream from 1876 to 1911 was America’s first
conservationist, George Bird Grinnell, who founded the Boone & Crockett
Club with Theodore Roosevelt in 1887. Neither Grinnell nor Roosevelt ever
wrote about guns, but they encouraged gun writers to contribute content to both
of these magazines because they understood that hunting was an integral part of
how humans have always interacted with the outdoors. And by the way, if you
think for one second that the members of Boone & Crockett are just a
bunch of right-wing yahoos running around in the woods with their AR-15’s, take
a look at what the club says about climate
change.
As far as writing about guns is concerned, most of the
writers who helped me become a gun nut happened to be contributors to Field
and Stream. I’m talking
about guys like Townsend Whelen, Warren Page and Jack O’Connor who managed
always to strike a wonderful balance in their work between the technical aspect
of gun design and manufacture versus the joys and challenges of taking a gun out
to the field.
Many of the hunters and the gun writers I met growing
up are long gone; for that matter hunting is also slipping away. When kids talk
about enjoying the outdoors, they are much more likely to be carrying a kayak
on the roof of their cars then carrying a gun in the trunk. But the outdoors is
still the refuge for most of the wild species whose existence we both need and
enjoy.
And I am still grateful that I first became aware of
this wonderment in the pages of a hunting magazine called Field and Stream.
December 5, 2019
Josh Montgomery: AR-style rifles – What Should You Pay Attention When Buying.
You’re probably very excited to
buy your first AR-style rifle, yet you’re afraid you might end up choosing one
that is not right for you. You’re not the first nor the last. After all, not
everyone can be an all-around expert, right?
AR-style rifles are semi-automatic
performers that are capable of being used in combat. They are of
multiple types, such as polymer, AK-47, AR-15, compact and many others. However,
combat is not the only way assault rifles can be
put to work, as they can be used for hunting and self-defense as well.
Especially if you’re a first-time
buyer, the many choices you find on the market could be overwhelming and can easily
give you the “this is not for me” mindset. However, it is not as difficult as
you think, and all you need is some guidance. So, if you’re thinking of
purchasing an AR-style rifle, here’s what you
need to look for before you spend your money.
Brand
Is it even worth mentioning that
there are a lot of brands out there? Just like it’s the case for any other
product, there are different brands that are trying to manufacture the best
model on the market. In case you were thinking the brand doesn’t really matter,
well, think again. Each one hires different experts to manufacture the weapons,
so it’s only normal the rifles differ from each other, depending on who made
them.
That being said, some brands sell
their rifles for lower prices, while others seem quite expensive. While we
don’t suggest choosing the pricier item, don’t settle for the cheapest one
either. Unless you want to end up with a gun that will have a poor performance
and won’t resist for too long, you should avoid it.
Look for one with a decent price.
Some popular brands are Smith, Colt, and Wesson.
Triggers
The trigger is the one
determining the bullet to pass through the barrel, so it only makes sense you
have to consider this factor. Some triggers are harder to pull than others, and
choosing the right pull weight depends on your strength and preference.
Make sure you choose one that’s
not too easy to pull, nor requiring all of your power to work. Also, if
triggers have screw adjustments, avoid them, as they may back out.
Feel
How you feel with the rifle while
handling it is really important. So, this should definitely be one of the
decisive factors before you invest in it. You wouldn’t want to feel any discomfort
while struggling to shoot accurately, would you?
Of course, this also differs from
one person to another. So, you have to test the assault rifle before deciding
if it’s the right one for you. You can do this by picking it up and putting it
on your shoulder.
If it feels uncomfortable, it’s
best to avoid buying that model because you will have to spend extra money on
adjustments.
Test each rifle you set your eyes
on and make sure it feels comfortable when you handle it.
Fit
Whether the rifle fits or not is
yet another very important aspect to take into consideration. Just like the
feel, this depends on each individual. It can be figured out through a simple
test.
You have to hold the rifle and
use your dominant hand to make a firing grip. See if you’re able to reach every
control, such as the safety, bolt catch, magazine release and, ultimately, the
trigger. Don’t be surprised if some rifles make this the most difficult task in
the world. As they are manufactured differently, not each one allows for
smooth, easy operation, so reaching every control may not be possible.
That being said, choose one that
allows you to reach the controls without putting in too much effort. Otherwise,
you might drop the weapon and you’ll not be able to use it efficiently. Look
for a different model if the one you tested doesn’t fit.
Durability
Let’s be honest, who would want
to buy a gun knowing it will most likely die after barely being used? Nobody
wants that, given the amount of money spent. It’s important to look carefully
at the weapon and do some research before you settle for it. Assault rifles
should be able to withstand years of usage without losing their good condition.
Coming as no surprise, the market
has many low-quality rifle models that are not only about to crumble after a
few uses but may also be really dangerous. So, you need to be really careful
and not just choose a cheap option, or one from a brand you haven’t heard of.
Check out the rifle, do some research and ask the shop worker for as many
details as possible to be sure that you’re getting the right item.
Accessories
Sometimes, you have to look for
some additional items that will make the experience much better. When it comes
to AR-style rifles, you may want accessories such as optics, lights, and
slings. So, the rifle you choose should have attachment points for them.
This is why you should look at
how many attachment points the weapon has. Particularly if you want to do
competitive shooting, the more attachment points, the better. This is because
accessories can greatly improve your performance by helping you.
So, look for rifles with a higher
number of attachment points, and you can add versatile and useful accessories.
Final
Thoughts
AR-style rifles are not like
children’s toys and looking for one is a task that should be taken seriously. Since
assault rifles can be a really solid investment, you need to know what to look for to
choose one that delivers exactly what you wish. Hopefully, our article has
helped you in this regard.
December 4, 2019
Want To Find Common Ground Between Gun Owners And Non-Gun Owners? Think Conservation.
An interesting article appeared today on a website which caters primarily to residents of Ohio who earn their livings by owning or working on farms. There are still 75,000 farms in the Buckeye State, which means that the farmers and their families account for less than 3% of the population, but together agriculture contributes more than $100 billion to the state’s economy, which isn’t bad considering that taken together, farmland accounts for about half of all the state’s physical size.
The article, written by the Director of Agricultural Law at Ohio State, summarizes what landowners need to know when they allow hunters to go trekking across their land. Ohio has passed any number of statutes covering who can hunt on someone else’s land, what kind of permission is required, how many hunters can be on a specific piece of land at the same time, who needs to be notified about trespassers, and so on. As the author of the article states, “hunting raises many questions and concerns for agricultural landowners. Ohio law offers rules and remedies that can ease those concerns.”
What I find interesting is the degree to which hunting and
farming both help to sustain the natural balance that allows all living species (including
humans) to survive. The farmer plants a crop which both draws and restores
natural ingredients to the land. After the harvest (which produces sustenance
for animals and man) the stubble and vines provide nourishment for all kinds of
living things. Then the hunters come and trim the flocks and herds attracted to the open, farmed space
and the whole cycle repeats itself again.
The importance of this process and the role played by hunting
in maintaining the natural balance of this cycle was recognized by Theodore
Roosevelt and George Grinnell when they founded the Boone & Crockett Club
in 1887. This followed from Roosevelt’s
first hunting expedition in 1883 when he went out West to bag a trophy-sized
bison. What he thought would be an easy hunting trip into the Dakota Territory,
turned into an arduous trek into Montana because the American bison, once
native to the entire continent, had become almost extinct in the continental
United States. The founding of Boone & Crockett was the first of many steps
taken by Roosevelt and other hunter-conservationists to regulate the taking of
game so that herds and flocks would continue to flourish and grow.
I did my first serious hunting in South Carolina in the
mid-1970’s, going after white tails both in highland and lowland sites. When I
moved to Massachusetts in 1993 I froze my rear end several times hunting
high-flyers from duck blinds on the Atlantic coast. I also briefly hunted elk
in Wyoming and antelope in West Texas; in neither place did I even get off one
shot.
What impresses me about this country is that we have almost
an endless supply of open space, most of which represents farms that are no
longer in production but offer all kinds of landscapes where hunters can go and
engage in what Boone & Crockett calls a ‘fair chase.’ This means that at
all times the
hunter is aware of his responsibility to “conserve wildlife natural
resources, especially game species.”
It
just so happens that an organization, Conservation Centers for Species
Survival (C2S2) has been working on ways to maintain and augment the natural
balance so that wild species can survive in what is increasingly less amounts of
natural space. The group is an offshoot of the Smithsonian, and the CEO, Katy
Palfrey, just happens to be the great-great granddaughter of Theodore Roosevelt,
I kid you not.
You
can see what they are doing on their website,
but I’ll just summarize it quickly and tell you this. They work with ranchers and
farmers who have open land that can be used to study the most effective ways to
protect and grow natural species, and some of their spaces are shared with
hunters as well.
Want to find common ground between gun owners and non-gun
owners? Here it is.
December 3, 2019
Bruce Pankratz: Using Zoning to Limit Assault-style Rifle Violence.
This
article is written out of personal curiosity about the merits of an idea. It is
personal curiosity not advocacy.
A
perhaps new, interesting idea came long
recently along. I cannot remember it being discussed in the many gun posts or
articles I have read over the years or in places mentioning solutions to gun
violence like the Bloomberg School of Public Health course on gun violence or
in Tom Gabor’s recent book ENOUGH! Solving America’s Gun Violence Crisis. The idea
died as far as I know when Beto O’Rourke stopped running for president. But the
idea was not confiscation. It was zoning.
Recently
the Des Moine Register said “Democratic presidential candidate Beto O’Rourke said Friday
he was open to allowing people to use assault-style weapons like AR-15s and
AK-47s at gun ranges and hunting clubs, despite his plan to ban the weapons
purchase and to require owners of existing weapons to sell them to the
government. “ (see Note 1)
America
already has some forms of place control or zoning for guns so the idea is not
really new. You usually cannot hunt in a
crowded city park or take guns onto private property without the owner’s
permission being examples of place control. But applying place control to the
so-called assault weapons seems new or at least seldom discussed. The concept
described in this article then is to use zoning to help prevent
made-for-television mass shootings with assault-style rifles while still
letting people own them.
What
this all means is there would need to be gun clubs with ranges for people to
shoot their assault-style rifles where the rifles would be stored securely at
the clubs and owners could clean or maintain their rifles but not take them off
premises. Currently unless people live in the middle of nowhere they probably
would have to go to a range to shoot anyway. The difference then would be the
rifles stay at the club with the range so people cannot tinker with the guns at
home in their basements. The clubs would need to have an FFL who could only accept assault-style
rifles from another FFL or send them to other clubs with an FFL and to state
the obvious safe storage. Finally, with place control anyone who could legally
buy an assault-style rifle could buy one
from an FFL and have it shipped to an FFL in a gun club who would accept it.
They do not need to jump through all the hoops needed to own a machine gun.
Much of
what we hear about gun control regulations has winners and losers. What follows
are some tentative thoughts about who wins and who loses with this
concept.
Winners
with place control:
1)School kids living in a world where the assault rifles
only are used in gun clubs would not have to worry about them in schools. They
would still have to worry about handguns so it may not be a big change
2)Gun controllers would call it a victory
3)Fighting this idea would bring money into the coffers of
the NRA and similar organizations
4)Assault-style rifle owners in the states where the ‘antis’
are trying to make the rifles illegal might be able to work towards legislation
allowing people to keep their rifles in clubs instead of not at all
Losers:
1)TV news people (they would not longer be able to report on
assault-style weapons used in school shootings and maybe fewer mass shootings)
2)People who live in the country who shoot assault-style
rifles on their property
3)People who like to build or maintain assault-style rifles
in their basements
4)Companies and dealers selling assault-style rifles could
see sales slip
5)People who hunt wild pigs from helicopters using
assault-style rifles
6)People who want an assault-style rifle for home defense
Some
Open Issues (out of many possible others):
1)Grandfather clause for existing owners?
2)How get guns to a shooting match?
3)Would people actually obey the law?
4)How many aspiring school shooters would just switch to
handguns?
5)How do families handle estates when the owner of a rifle
dies?
This is
only a first try at exploring the concept. Any constructive thoughts out there?
December 2, 2019
Is The NRA Finished? Don’t Be So Sure.
Last week
the Wall Street Journal ran a story about NRA finances based on the publication of the
organization’s 2018 tax return. If this story had appeared before the
impeachment thing heated up, it would have been big news. But right now media
click-bait is based overwhelmingly on the contest between Schiff and Trump,
with an occasional aside about how yet another member of the MAGA team can’t keep
his you-know-what in his pants. Anyway, back to the fiscal and financial doings
at the home office in Fairfax, VA.
The
headline of the story was what has become the standard gotcha’ narrative
employed by Gun-control Nation to throw a little dirt on America’s ‘first civil
rights organization,’ namely, that while everything the NRA touches
these days seems to be going to Hell in
a handbasket, Wayne LaPierre’s salary and benefits keep going up. Putting
together his salary and some other financial perks, Wayne-o’s compensation
package increased by 55%. Not bad for a guy who looked like he was going to be jettisoned from the top position earlier this
year.
The WSJ
article went on at length about how Wayne-o continues to draw support from the
group’s major donors, but the reporter who did the story happened to miss the
most important news of all; namely, that revenue from membership dues also went
up by more than 30% last year. In 2017 the revenue from dues was $128 million, last year
the annual members kicked in $170 million. Remember when everyone was
predicting that the NRA was going down the tubes? Yea, right.
I have
been involved with various advocacy organizations for years, including the
usual conservation, wilderness and outdoor groups. All of these organizations
play an important role in promoting what I believe to be a public narrative
which needs to be heard. Lately I have become invested in supporting the Boone
& Crockett Club because they are becoming a strong voice in
conservation and the protection of wildlife.
That being
said, most not-for-profit advocacy organizations tend to spend much of the
money they receive from donations on themselves. Between salaries, perks and other
staff benefits, the average dollar received by these organizations is usually
split about 50-50 between the costs of getting their message out to the general
public and the costs of standing around the water cooler comparing who got the
best Black Friday deal.
In that
regard, the NRA’s balance sheet doesn’t look all that bad. Given the fact that
next year’s financials will not contain the hefty $30 million they were
spending every year on NRA-TV, if anything, they will probably be back
to operating in the black. Where they are still legally vulnerable is the
continuing New York State investigation concerning how Wayne, Ollie and a
couple of others were double-dipping by drawing paychecks from both the NRA
and Ackerman-McQueen. Know what will happen if it turns out that this behavior
violated New York State not-for-profit rules?
The NRA will be assessed a financial penalty, the lawyers will
negotiate over the amount for a couple of years, and then they will pay a fine. As my grandfather would
say, “det’s det.”
I was
never impressed by the NRA‘s attempt to become yet another alt-right
media presence via NRA-TV. Never mind the attempt to promote a political
line right out of Breitbart and Alex Jones, the one-minute spiels by Dana
Loesch and Grant Stinchfield, along with Colion Noir’s prancing around were
just boring to the extreme.
People join
the AAA because it’s something which just goes with owning a car, and
it’s not like the annual dues make such a dent out of the household budget each
year. I have renewed my AAA membership at least 20 times, I have used
their emergency towing service exactly twice.
It’s not protecting
the 2nd Amendment or the fear of losing their guns which keeps NRA
members in the fold. If you’re a gun owner, it’s simply something you do. Think
this habit can be broken by digging up some dirt on Wayne LaPierre? Think
again.
High Five to Margaret Ayers for sending me the WSJ article.
November 27, 2019
Happy Thanksgiving!
According to the accepted legend, the first wild turkey consumed at a Thanksgiving dinner was at the feast held at Plymouth Colony in 1621. The guests at that event were members of the Wampanoag Tribe who are still trying to open a casino in Massachusetts – so much for how we have thanked them for bringing a turkey to the first Thanksgiving meal.
After the holiday I am going to change somewhat the focus of this website because I want to spend more of my own writing time looking at the issue of hunting as it impacts conservation, wilderness and the whole question of the outdoors. Today’s column marks the 1,399th column posted on this website, so why not widen the perspective a bit?
Also, I just want to thank everyone who has contributed content to this site and encourage the current Contributing Editors to send more content as well as to encourage everyone else to consider joining the group. I make absolutely no editorial decisions about any column I receive in terms of length, topic or anything else. My only request is that writers refrain from profanity and personal insults – a request I make to anyone who wants to post a comment here as well.
All of that being said, please have a happy, safe and sober holiday.
Column #1,400 will appear on December 2nd.
