There’s no such thing as bad publicity . . . GOP candidate for Georgia governor holds bump stock giveaway
A Republican candidate for Georgia governor said Monday he opposes any ban on bump stocks and will give away one of the devices.
“The tragedy in Las Vegas broke my heart, but any talk of banning or regulating bump stocks is merely cheap political lip service from career politicians. In reality, the bump stock is the new, shiny object politicians are using to deceive voters into believing they are taking action against gun violence,” state Sen. Michael Williams said in a statement.
“Many firearms experts determined the Las Vegas shooter’s use of a bump stock actually prevented more casualties and injuries due to its inconsistency, inaccuracy, and lack of control. There is zero evidence that banning bump stocks would prevent any gun violence deaths,” Williams continued.
The new gun control hotness: waiting periods on gun purchases (see our quote of the day) . . . Hundreds Shot Dead Every Year Because States Don’t Have Waiting Periods
Waiting periods save lives. A legally mandated delay imposed by some states making would-be gun owners pause before actually getting a firearm lowers rates of murder and suicide.
While this nexus may seem as logical as night following day, a new study released this week actually proves it. Published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Harvard Business School researchers Michael Luca, Deepak Malhotra, and Christopher Poliquin found waiting period laws reduce homicides in which a gun is used by 17 percent.
Because you can never restrict gun ownership enough or make it too difficult or expensive in California . . . San Jose: New gun control measure could require locking up firearms at home
The idea, under consideration Tuesday, stems from sweeping measures proposed last year by San Jose city councilmen Ash Kalra — now a state assemblyman — and Raul Peralez. In addition to requiring gun owners to lock up their weapons when they’re not home, they’d need to place them in a lock box in unattended cars, report theft within 48 hours and ammunition vendors would need to keep records of sales.
But new state legislation last year covered many of those gun control policies, except locking up firearms when an owner isn’t home. The San Jose City Council on Tuesday will debate that policy, which some experts say could be difficult to enforce. And now Peralez — joined by Councilman Chappie Jones — wants to go further. They want gun owners to secure firearms inside the house even when they’re home.
Lessons learned . . . Democrats Pissed Off the NRA in 1994—And They’re Still Haunted by It.
“The biggest gaping hole in the ’94 ban was that it didn’t get the guns away from anybody,” said Robyn Thomas, the executive director of the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence. “All it said was no new guns. So if you were willing to spend enough money, you probably could have gotten them.”
Another explanation for why few, if any, lawmakers have broached the idea of reintroducing an assault weapons ban, however, is that many are politically frightened to do so. The lessons Democrats derived from the passage of the 1994 ban is that it is politically poisonous. Some of this has been mythologized by gun rights groups, who benefit from the perception that they can sway elections. But a chunk was internalized by lawmakersthemselves.
Because it’s the camel’s nose under the tent . . . Why gun experts don’t support banning – or buying – ‘bump stocks’
Larry Pratt, emeritus director of Gun Owners of America in Springfield, Va., notes that the Las Vegas mass shooting “is a very unusual situation in many ways, because the bump-stock, this is the first time anybody has ever heard of it being used this way, so to say [banning the device] will solve our crime problems is a bit much.”
In his view, such a push would fit into what he sees as a familiar pattern, where gun control advocates ask for small concessions and then increase their demands – a slippery slope toward more regulations. “I’m not interested in the details about, ‘Oh, this is a particularly vulnerable point and we ought to address it’; no, what they are looking for is any way they can get momentum,” says Mr. Pratt.
Evidence of intelligence in an institution of higher education . . . No guns, no liberty
In the end a gun is a tool, just like a pen, an axe or a rake. We would never think to place blame on the pen for what the author has written, the ax for what the lumberjack has chopped down or the rake for leaves the gardener has piled. Why, then, should we blame the firearm for the actions of the one who wields it? With the absence of a finger to pull the trigger, a gun is useless.
Yes, guns are dangerous in the hands of a few. Then again, so is any other item that could be used to do another harm, including something as seemingly innocent as peanut butter. Should we restrict every allergen that might harm another if not handled responsibly? The many should not suffer for the issues of the few.
It’s almost as if gun control laws don’t work . . . Gun Ownership Skyrockets In Australia
Interestingly, a feature published over the weekend in The Sydney Morning Herald reports that Australians now own more guns than they did before the country’s mass confiscation.
The Herald’s report is based on a piece posted at theconversation.com that states, “The proud claim that Australia may have ‘solved the gun problem’ might only be a temporary illusion. In recent years, arms dealers have imported more guns than ever before. And last year we crossed a symbolic threshold: For the first time in 20 years, Australia’s national arsenal of private guns is larger than it was before the Port Arthur massacre.”
If at first you don’t succeed, re-brand and re-package the same tired message . . . After Las Vegas, gun-control group seizing moment to push for tighter regulations
One of the country’s leading gun-control groups is changing its name Tuesday from Americans for Responsible Solutions to Giffords, the name of the former Arizona congresswoman who was shot in the head in 2011 and founded the group two years later after 20 Connecticut first-graders were killed.
Gun-control advocates say the name change is part of a larger effort to reframe the gun debate in the wake of the recent Las Vegas mass shooting. By focusing on former Democratic congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords as a symbol of “courage,” they are hoping to draw in more people to fight for stronger firearms laws.
ATF Assn. to bump stock ban bill author: ATF Doesn’t Have the Legal Authority to Regulate Bump Fire Stocks
The Bump Slide, and a number of other similar after market accessories that increase the rate at which a shooter can pull the trigger, are purposefully engineered to avoid regulation under Federal law. These accessories DO NOT cause the firearm to shoot more than one shot by the single function of a trigger pull. There is a trigger pull for each shot caused by these accessories and that is why ATF does not have the legal authority to regulate them. The notion that ATF chose not to regulate an item it had the authority to regulate is completely false. The law is very clear and it does not currently allow ATF to regulate such accessories.