SOCIETYCOMMENTARY Shootings Are a Morality Problem, Not a Gun Problem

[M]

Source; http://dailysignal.com/2018/03/07/shootings-are-a-morality-problem-...

COMMENTARY BY

Walter E. Williams

Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University.

Before we discuss violence with guns, I’d like to run a couple of questions by you.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, every day nearly 30 Americans die in motor vehicle crashes that involve drunk driving. What kind of restrictions should be placed on automobile ownership? Should there be federal background checks in order for people to obtain a driver’s license or purchase a car?

>

The FBI’s 2015 Uniform Crime Report shows that nearly three times more people were stabbed or hacked to death than were killed with shotguns and rifles combined. The number of shotgun and rifle deaths totaled 548. People who were stabbed or hacked to death totaled 1,573. Should there be federal background checks and waiting periods for knife purchases?

>

Any mature and reasonable person would argue that it is utter nonsense to deal with drunk driving deaths and knife deaths by having federal background checks and waiting periods to obtain a driver’s license or to purchase a car or knife.

>

Americans need an alternative to the mainstream media. But this can't be done alone. Find out how you can support the efforts of The Daily Signal >>

>

One would recognize, just as courts and the general public do, that cars and knives are inanimate objects and cannot act on their own. Therefore, if we want to do something about deaths resulting from drunk driving or being stabbed or hacked to death, we must focus on individuals.

>

It would be folly and gross negligence of victims for us to focus on inanimate objects like cars and knives. Guns are also inanimate objects and like cars and knives cannot act on their own. It’s also plain folly to focus on guns in the cases of shooting deaths.

>

What about the availability of guns? It turns out that for most of our history, a person could walk into hardware and department stores or a gun store, virtually anywhere in the United States, and purchase a rifle or pistol.

>

The 1902 Sears mail-order catalog had 35 pages of firearm advertisements. Other catalogs and magazines from the 1940s, ’50s, and ’60s were full of gun advertisements directed to both youngsters and parents.

>

“What Every Parent Should Know When a Boy or Girl Wants a Gun” was published by the National Shooting Sports Foundation. Another magazine advertised, “Get This Cowboy Carbine with Your Christmas Money.”

>

Just a few states even had age restrictions for buying guns. Private transfers of guns to juveniles were unrestricted. Often a 12th or 14th birthday present, from a father to his son, was a shiny new .22 caliber rifle.

>

Today, there is far less availability of shotguns, rifles, and pistols than any time in our history. That historical fact should raise the question: Despite the greater accessibility to guns in previous decades, why wasn’t there the kind of violence we see with today’s far more restricted access to guns? Have rifles and pistols changed their behavior from yesteryear and they are now out committing mayhem and evil?

>

To answer in the affirmative can be dismissed as pure lunacy. Thus, if guns haven’t changed, then it must be that people have changed. Half-witted psychobabble such as stopping children from playing schoolyard games like cops ‘n’ robbers and cowboys ‘n’ Indians won’t do much. Calling for more gun restrictions, gun-free zones, and other measures have been for naught.

>

We must own up to the fact that laws and regulations alone cannot produce a civilized society. Morality is society’s first line of defense against uncivilized behavior. Moral standards of conduct have been under siege in our country for over a half a century.

>

Moral absolutes have been abandoned as guiding principles. We’ve been taught not to be judgmental, that one lifestyle or set of values is just as good as another. We no longer hold people accountable for their behavior and we accept excuse-making. Problems of murder, mayhem, and other forms of anti-social behavior will continue until we regain our moral footing.

[M]

Here is something Oren Long sent me;

Gentlemen,

Pursuant to the Florida school massacre Kansas is considering how to secure schools.   One of our State Legislators has proposed a $5 million plan to secure schools, but we all know that, if adopted, the cost would be much higher and only create yet another state bureaucracy.

This is a letter I submitted to the paper yesterday.   I hope you enjoy it.

Oren

Gentlemen,

As a retired Sheriff's Lieutenant from Shawnee County with a Masters in Law Enforcement Management and Administration, I have an idea that I think would be of value in the current school security debate.

There is a relatively simple way to secure schools against potential school shooters.   Every Sheriff in Kansas has the power to appoint "Special" or "Reserve" deputies under his/her direction and control.   This power could be used to train and appoint school teachers and staff as said Special/Reserve Deputies, allowing them to carry concealed in schools and would be strictly voluntary.   It would cost the State nothing.   Any cost would be borne by the Sheriff's Department and the volunteers.   All Special or Reserve Deputies must furnish their own weapons and ammunition and must undergo mandated classroom and range training, including "shoot, don't shoot" scenarios.   Upon successful completion of training, they would be empowered to carry concealed the weapon they trained with.   That weapon would be registered with the local Sheriff's Department.   They would be required to recertify with that weapon every three months or so, depending upon the requirements of their County Sheriff's Department.

Under the above proposed program there would be ZERO cost to the State.      

I truly believe this might be a viable answer to the current school security issue.

Thank you,

Oren Long

[M]

Source; https://www.dailysignal.com/2018/03/16/6-reasons-gun-control-will-n...

6 Reasons Gun Control Will Not Solve Mass Killings

COMMENTARY BY

John G. Malcolm@malcolm_john

John G. Malcolm is the vice president of the Institute for Constitutional Government and director of the Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, overseeing The Heritage Foundation’s work to increase understanding of the Constitution and the rule of law. Read his research.

Amy Swearer@AmySwearer

Amy Swearer is a visiting legal fellow at the Meese Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at The Heritage Foundation.

In the wake of the tragic murder of 17 innocent students and teachers at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, students, educators, politicians, and activists are searching for solutions to prevent future school shootings.

As emotions morph from grief to anger to resolve, it is vitally important to supply facts so that policymakers and professionals can fashion solutions based on objective data rather than well-intended but misguided emotional fixes.

Are there ways to reduce gun violence and school shootings? Yes, but only after objectively assessing the facts and working collaboratively to fashion common-sense solutions.

Definitions

Americans need an alternative to the mainstream media. But this can't be done alone. Find out how you can support the efforts of The Daily Signal >>

• “Mass shooting” typically refers to mass killings perpetrated by a firearm or firearms. In 2013, Congress defined “mass killing” as “3 or more killings in a single incident.”

• A prominent 2017 study defined “mass public shootings” as incidents that occur in the absence of other criminal activity (such as robberies, drug deals, and gang-related turf wars) in which a gun is used to kill four or more victims at a public location.

1. Mass killings are rare, and mass public shootings are even rarer.

• Mass killings are very rare, accounting for only 0.2 percent of homicides every year and approximately 1 percent of homicide victims.
• Only 12 percent of mass killings are mass public shootings. Most mass killings are familicides (murders of family members or intimate partners) and felony-related killings (such as robberies gone awry or gang-related “turf battles”).
• Although there has been a slight increase in the frequency of mass public shootings over the past few years, the rates are still similar to what the United States experienced in the 1980s and early 1990s.

2. Many gun control measures are not likely to be helpful.

• Over 90 percent of public mass shootings take place in “gun-free zones” where civilians are not permitted to carry firearms.
• A complete ban on “assault weapons” will save very few lives: Six out of every 10 mass public shootings are carried out by handguns alone, while only one in 10 is committed with a rifle alone.
• The average age of mass public shooters is 34, which means that increasing the minimum age for purchasing firearms would not target the main perpetrators of mass public shootings.
• Few mass public shooters have used “high-capacity magazines,” and there is no evidence that the lethality of their attacks would have been affected by delays of two to four seconds to switch magazines. In fact, some of the largest mass shootings in U.S. history were carried out with “low-capacity” weapons:

• • The Virginia Tech shooter killed 32 and injured 17 with two handguns, one of which had a 10-round magazine and the other a 15-round magazine. He simply brought 19 extra magazines.

• • Twenty-three people were killed and another 20 injured in a Killeen, Texas, cafeteria by a man with two 9mm handguns, capable of maximums of 15-round and 17-round magazines, respectively.

• • A mentally disturbed man armed with two handguns and a shotgun shot and killed 21 people in a San Ysidro McDonald’s and injured another 19. The handguns utilized 13-round and 20-round magazines, and the shotgun had a five-round capacity.

3. Public mass shooters typically have histories of mental health issues.

• According to one study, 60 percent of mass public shootershad been diagnosed with a mental disorder or had demonstrated signs of serious mental illness prior to the attack.
• A large body of research shows a statistical link between mass public killings and serious untreated psychiatric illness. The most commonly diagnosed illnesses among mass public shooters are paranoid schizophrenia and severe depression.
• It is important to remember that the vast majority of people with mental disorders do not engage in violent behaviors, and there is no empirical means of effectively identifying potential mass murderers.

4. The United States does not have an extraordinary problem with mass public shootings compared to other developed countries.

• After adjusting for population differences, many other developed countries have worse problems with mass public shootings than the United States has.
• There were 27 percent more casualties per capita from mass public shootings in the European Union than in the U.S. from 2009 to 2015.

5. Mass killers often find ways to kill even without firearms.

• Some of the worst mass killings in the United States have occurred without firearms:

• • Before the 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting, the deadliest attack on the LGBT community in America occurred in 1973 when an arsonist killed 32 and injured 15 at the Upstairs Lounge in New Orleans.
  • In 1987, a disgruntled former airline employee killed 43 peopleafter he hijacked and intentionally crashed a passenger plane.
  • In 1990, an angry ex-lover burned down the Happy Land social clubwhere his former girlfriend worked, killing 87 others in the process.
  • In 1995, 168 people were killed and more than 600 were injured by a truck bomb parked outside the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.
  • In 2017, a man in New York City killed eight and injured 11 by renting a truck and plowing down pedestrians on a Manhattan bike path.
• In other countries, bombings, mass stabbings, and car attacks frequently kill more people than even the deadliest mass shootings in the United States. Consider the following:
  • Spain (2004) — Bombing: 192 deaths, 2,050 injuries;
  • Great Britain (2005) — Bombing: 52 deaths, 784 injuries;
  • Japan (2008) — Car ramming and stabbing: seven deaths, 10 injuries;
  • China (2010) — Shovel-loader: 11 deaths, 30 injuries;
  • China (2014) — Car ramming: six deaths, 13 injuries;
  • China (2014) — Mass stabbing: 31 deaths, 143 injuries;
  • Germany (2015) — Plane crash: 150 deaths;
  • Belgium (2016) — Bombing: 21 deaths, 180 injuries;
  • France (2016) — Car ramming: 86 deaths, 434 injuries;
  • Germany (2016) — Car ramming: 11 deaths, 56 injuries;
  • Japan (2016) — Mass stabbing: 19 deaths, 45 injuries; and
  • Great Britain (2017) — Bombing: 22 deaths, 250 injuries.

6. Australia did not “eliminate mass public shootings” by banning assault weapons.

• Australia did not “eliminate mass public shootings” by banning assault weapons. Mass shootings in the country were rare before the 1996 National Firearms Act, and multiple-casualty shootings still occur.
• Before 1996, firearms crimes in Australia rarely involved firearms prohibited under the National Firearms Act, suggesting that any change in firearm-related crimes or deaths was not due to the law.
• Further, Australia did not see a reduction in “mass murders.” In the years immediately following enactment of the National Firearms Act, the country experienced six mass murders in which five or more people were killed—they just were not killed with guns.