From the Tactical Wire

[tombogan03884]

By Rich Grassi

Outdoor Channel TV star, author and shooter Michael Bane saw me Wednesday morning and told me that Gallup was reporting their annual gun control public opinion poll. He said the results were interesting.

I went to the Gallup website and took a look for myself.

It seemed that the writer of the summary was surprised at the relative lack of public support for increased gun control measures - especially when considering the recent accumulation of "gun crimes" in mass shootings.

Gun crimes. What a concept. If someone driving a car rolls through a crowd of pedestrians, causing deaths and crippling injuries, is it "car crime?" No. If a politician takes bribes in exchange for favorable consideration, is it "money crime." Why does the thing drive the behavior?

Well, it doesn't except in certain cases and for political reasons. It's a way to lie without lying. In England, a country with ugly gun prohibition, they now have "knife crimes." Can you imagine telling one of the heroes of English history, someone who made his name with a sharp blade, that knives cause crime? The response, I feel, would be sudden and pointed.

There is no "gun crime." That's a fantasy. Guns don't cause crime, as we've seen time and time again. There are prohibited behaviors - actions taken by people that are contrary to the rules of civilized society. Laws that prohibit those behaviors (e.g., murder, theft) are legitimate.

Laws that prohibit the possession of things are not legitimate. Don't believe me? Look at the history of laws against possession in American history - not possession of guns, though those laws are routinely ignored in places like NYC. What about the real Prohibition - the Volstead Act. That was so routinely ignored the law was rendered irrelevant.

Counter-drug laws have been similarly irrelevant - to our shame and detriment. It's not that I'm for legalization or that I think the drugs prohibited are good or bad. It's that the laws have proven ineffective.

England got their anti-gun laws and still violent crime is high. Now, following the failure of gun prohibitions, they want to repeat the error and ban knives. Who said the definition of insanity is doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting a different result?

Gallup reported that 29% of Americans interviewed said that handguns should be banned. These are clearly the real thinkers in the group - or not. More likely, they feel handguns should be banned. 49% said that laws on sales of guns should be stricter - a bad thing. According to Gallup, that number is the smallest recorded since they began running that question in 1990. 41% said that laws on gun sales should remain as they are.

Clearly the firearms community needs to outreach - NSSF, among others, is currently trying to reach the non-shooting public and draw them into safely enjoying the shooting sports. It's a trend to be proactive on - not reactive.

[JC5123]

I was recently able to change the mind of a anti gunner. The argument I used to change her mind was this. "Was it the hammer that built your house, or the carpenter?" She still wants to get rid of the evil "assault rifles" but I did see the light come on. I don't understand why people have the mentality that it's the tool and not the operator. I guess it's the same attitude that thinks that just because you have a so called " sniper rifle " somehow that makes you a sniper.
It's the same thing with hate crime laws. (I am ready for the mortars I'm going to take on this) I think that hate crime legislation is absolutely insane. Here's why: Hate is a motive, not a crime. We don't convict and sentence people for their feelings, but for their actions. And last I checked a firearm was unable to perform any action without someone on the trigger...

[1776 Rebel]

We don't convict and sentence people for their feelings, but for their actions.

Sadly we actually do these days...the western world is coming ever so much closer to an Orwellian reality. Thought crimes exist in many countries. Our northern neighbor has thought police monitoring society and prosecuting folks. And I do agree with you that the HATE CRIME legislation is simply nuts ! You can beat the crap out of someone but don't make an utterance about his ethnic background...that would be really bad !!!

[tombogan03884]

I was recently able to change the mind of a anti gunner. The argument I used to change her mind was this. "Was it the hammer that built your house, or the carpenter?" She still wants to get rid of the evil "assault rifles" but I did see the light come on. I don't understand why people have the mentality that it's the tool and not the operator. I guess it's the same attitude that thinks that just because you have a so called " sniper rifle " somehow that makes you a sniper.
It's the same thing with hate crime laws. (I am ready for the mortars I'm going to take on this) I think that hate crime legislation is absolutely insane. Here's why: Hate is a motive, not a crime. We don't convict and sentence people for their feelings, but for their actions. And last I checked a firearm was unable to perform any action without someone on the trigger...

I don't think you will get flamed for that here. Beating people is already illegal, (though there are many who would benefit from one) but the a$$holes on the touchy feely fringe think it should be "more" illegal for a white guy to beat a black guy (it's never a hate crime when blacks target whites) it's just as stupid as gun laws that make it "illegaler" to murder, rape and rob with a gun than it is to commit the same crimes with a knife or club.
Socialists disgust me.

[JC5123]

I don't think you will get flamed for that here. Beating people is already illegal, (though there are many who would benefit from one) but the a$$holes on the touchy feely fringe think it should be "more" illegal for a white guy to beat a black guy (it's never a hate crime when blacks target whites) it's just as stupid as gun laws that make it "illegaler" to murder, rape and rob with a gun than it is to commit the same crimes with a knife or club.
Socialists disgust me.

But racial differences shouldn't matter after the last election. But I guess try telling that to Al Sharpton.

[Sponsor]

[fightingquaker13]

But racial differences shouldn't matter after the last election. But I guess try telling that to Al Sharpton.

To no one's surprise, I'm going to be bit contrary here. On the hate crimes thing, I am very wary of them for the good reasons already mentioned. There is a flip side though. Motive does matter and always has in our sentencing. Lose it in a bar fight and pull a knife, probably murder 2, follow the guy into the parking lot and then kill him, murder 1. The idea is that we do understand that its not just the action but the reason for the action that matters.This is important if you believe that the law can act as a detterant. If you believe this you can make it clear to folks that if they kill a cop, they're going to die. Likewise all the bigots who hate gays, christians, arabs etc. can be given a message. Finally, and most impotantly, we need to remember that this country has a long history of violence against minority groups being used as a political weapon. This isn't "hate" its a rational act of premeditated intimidation, and therefore can hopefully be detered by tough sentences. Given the fact that this was going on well into the Seventies we can't pretend that its all ancient history. I agree that this can go way too far, way too fast and Canada is an example, but there is a rational basis to at least not dissmiss it as mere PC nonsense here.

As far as the enhanced penalties for carrying a gun (or any other weapon) during a crime, if they don't go too far (cf the case of the two Border Patrol agents Campeon and Ramieriez) they can be useful. Look at burgularly. In most states f you break into an unoccupied home you face one penalty. If its occupied, the penalty increaces sharply. If you're armed, it sky rockets. Criminals are well aware of this. If these laws encourage some one who is going to risk robbing my house to do it while I'm at work rather than 1am, good. I think the evidence points out that these laws do work as there a lot fewer home invasions than simple burglaries.
fightingquaker13

[JC5123]

To no one's surprise, I'm going to be bit contrary here. On the hate crimes thing, I am very wary of them for the good reasons already mentioned. There is a flip side though. Motive does matter and always has in our sentencing. Lose it in a bar fight and pull a knife, probably murder 2, follow the guy into the parking lot and then kill him, murder 1. The idea is that we do understand that its not just the action but the reason for the action that matters.This is important if you believe that the law can act as a detterant. If you believe this you can make it clear to folks that if they kill a cop, they're going to die. Likewise all the bigots who hate gays, christians, arabs etc. can be given a message. Finally, and most impotantly, we need to remember that this country has a long history of violence against minority groups being used as a political weapon. This isn't "hate" its a rational act of premeditated intimidation, and therefore can hopefully be detered by tough sentences. Given the fact that this was going on well into the Seventies we can't pretend that its all ancient history. I agree that this can go way too far, way too fast and Canada is an example, but there is a rational basis to at least not dissmiss it as mere PC nonsense here.

As far as the enhanced penalties for carrying a gun (or any other weapon) during a crime, if they don't go too far (cf the case of the two Border Patrol agents Campeon and Ramieriez) they can be useful. Look at burgularly. In most states f you break into an unoccupied home you face one penalty. If its occupied, the penalty increaces sharply. If you're armed, it sky rockets. Criminals are well aware of this. If these laws encourage some one who is going to risk robbing my house to do it while I'm at work rather than 1am, good. I think the evidence points out that these laws do work as there a lot fewer home invasions than simple burglaries.
fightingquaker13

This is why we have varying degrees for murder, each  with min/max sentencing. I understand and agree with what you are saying, but I think that you miss my point. Just because a person hates blacks, gays, wascally wabbits, and on and on ad nausium, that is simply a motive for them to commit a crime. Premeditation is the act of planning a crime, not the motivation for it.