What is happening in New Jersey should frighten anyone – gun-owner or not.
Comedy outlet We the Internet TV took on the gun control debate recently, skewering both sides of the contentious issue and taking on the “newest form of American celebrity – the mass shooting survivor”. This particular video takes on more of a serious tone than their typical fare, but host Lou Perez still doesn’t shy away from tasteless jokes that will make you roll your eyes as you giggle.
- School shooting survivors plan 60-day, 20 state bus tour
- Tour aims to boost youth turnout and discuss gun reform
Student survivors of the Parkland school shooting were announcing on Monday plans to take their March for Our Lives movement on a summer road trip of the United States.
The 60-day, 20-state bus tour will take in stops to meet victims and survivors of other school shootings, including Sante Fe, Texas, where 10 people were killed by a student gunman last month.
The Divide” is a weekly commentary that aims to find common ground on an issue dividing Americans. Each week, Brandi Kruse tackles topics including gun control, free speech, policing, and politics.
This week: The curious search for Seattle’s next police chief, and whether community voices really matter.
The National Rifle Association once upon a time supported sensible gun control measures before becoming opposed to them when competing gun manufacturers began complaining about reduced market share. Isn’t it all too often about the profit motive!
At least one gunman opened fire at a Houston-area high school Friday, killing eight to 10 people, most of them students, authorities said, in the nation’s deadliest such attack since the massacre in Florida that gave rise to a campaign by teens for gun control. Harris County Sheriff Ed Gonzalez said he could not be precise about the number of deaths at Santa Fe High School, which went on lockdown around 8 a.m. One person was in custody, and a second person had been detained, he said.
Ways to shoot your gun faster have been around for ages now. They’re nothing new, and prior to Las Vegas, they were almost never used in a crime of any sort, so far as I’ve been able to tell. They were toys slapped onto guns to amuse people as they wasted ammo at a range day and not much else.
In Connecticut, though, they’re now history.
Connecticut Gov. Dannel Malloy, a Democrat with a long history of advocating gun control measures, signed a law on Thursday outlawing a variety of firearm accessories.
The proposal, HB 5542, creates a new felony for the sale and possession of a “rate of fire enhancement” as defined under the new law. It was approved last month in the state House 114-35 and the Senate 26-10, with Dems pushing hard for the bill.
“This should be the law throughout the entire country,” said Malloy during a press conference that included gun control advocates, high school students and lawmakers. “There is no reason why anyone needs to own a device that can fire 90 bullets every 10 seconds but for the mass killing of people.”
I’m going to interrupt here and mention that my initial reactions to Malloy’s comments are, well, unprintable. I’m a professional, and I try not to use that kind of language when I’m working. I’m sure you can imagine.
However, I will add that “need” is irrelevant when it comes to our rights. There’s no need for Malloy to pontificate on what he thinks the laws in the rest of the country should be, yet there he is anyway. See how that works?
The same is true with “rate of fire enhancements.” I shouldn’t have to illustrate a need to have something.
Anyway, back to the story.
The new law, now Public Act No. 18-29, defines a “rate of fire enhancement” as any bump stock, binary trigger, trigger crank or similar device and makes it a Class D felony under Connecticut law to manufacture, own, possess, sell or transfer one. Violators could face five years in prison and a fine up to $5,000. There is no route to legal ownership or grandfathering of devices already in circulation in the state, leaving those with one on their hands until October to comply with the law.
It doesn’t appear that shoelaces or rubber bands, both of which can be used for bump fire, are covered under this bill.
Or do those not count because people “need” those?
The truth is, Connecticut and most other states have no issue with these devices. They’ve never seen a problem with them within their borders. The nation has seen precisely one. It was horrific, but these aren’t commonly used for crime, and it’s beyond time to stop pretending anyone is safer from a law like this.
It should be noted that despite the availability of such devices since Las Vegas, not a single other mass shooter using an AR-15 style rifle has used bump fire.
In other words, Malloy and his ilk are doing nothing but waving the flag to their fellow travelers, signaling how they care so hard.
In the meantime, work that went into this could have been devoted to doing something that might actually make life better for Connecticut’s citizens.
The post Connecticut Bans ‘Rate Of Fire Enhancements’ On Firearms appeared first on Bearing Arms.
Fairfax, VA – -(Ammoland.com)- Social justice busybodies obsessed with how other people live their lives often portray the success of their causes as a matter of destiny.
“The young people will win,” insists one youthful gun control advocate, falsely portraying his personal crusade as a generational mandate. Yet recent events have demonstrated that bedrock American values – including support for the Second Amendment – tend to outlast moments of high emotion that are increasingly relied upon by political opportunists to advance their agenda.
Given the chance to collect their thoughts, most Americans instinctively revert to freedom.
We recently commented on this point with reference to poll numbers that show a familiar pattern of gun control support spiking in the immediate aftermath of an infamous firearm-related crime, only to taper off as the punditry aims its fury in another direction or overplays its hand and is forced to regroup.
Since then, additional evidence has arisen to complicate the media’s breathless narrative that “the ground is shifting on gun control.”
First, more recent poll numbers underscore the fact that Americans, including young Americans, recognize that the country has far more pressing problems than rushing to enact unproven gun control measures.
The Associated Press and MTV, for example, teamed up this year to measure the “Youth Political Pulse,” with surveys conducted from late February to early March (when the news cycle was focused on the terrible crime at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School) and again from late April to early May. Between the survey periods, the percentage of respondents aged 15 to 34 who identified firearm-related issues as their highest concern for the country fell 15 points, from 21% to 6%. During the earlier survey period, the gun issue was the highest concern. In the latter period, it was tied for the sixth most common response, behind the economy, social inequality, and even threat of nuclear war.
Moreover, a week after a similar crime in Santa Fe, Texas on May 18, support for gun control in the Lone Star State had actually dropped 6% since April, as measured by Quinnipiac University polling. Support for stricter gun laws was also lower in the May sample among those aged 18 to 34 than among those 65 or older, another inversion of the conventional wisdom that youth are destined to change the national debate on this question.
A Quinnipiac analyst opined: “The tragedy at the Santa Fe school south of Houston changed few opinions among Texas voters about gun control. Support for gun control in general is down slightly, while support for background checks for all gun buyers is virtually unchanged.”
Adding to the gun control advocates’ woes were the release of data and studies that contradicted their claims of a rising epidemic of school shootings fueled by easy access to so-called “assault weapons.”
The website The74Million.org, which describes itself as a “non-profit, non-partisan news site covering education in America,” published a lengthy interview in May with Criminologist Nadine Connell of the University of Texas at Dallas, who’s compiling a database of every school shooting since 1990. The piece underscored Connell’s findings that “school shootings are extremely rare” and that allowing them to drive policy isn’t “always the most productive” way to keep students safe.
Connell indicated that “from the perspective of policymaking,” the media’s current reporting on school shootings can be misleading.
“[A]s of now,” she said, “we don’t think there is an increase in the number of incidents as much as there is an increase in the attention to the incidents.” She also stressed that “the number of rampage-like incidents remains extremely low, and they are a relatively small subsection of the shootings we are analyzing.” Schools, Connell said, “are the safest they’ve ever been.”
While Connell indicated in the interview that she is not a fan of arming teachers, she also declined to put gun control at the center of the debate. When asked what would be the “most effective method to stop the lion’s share of the problem,” she emphasized “whole-school-centered approaches to improve climate, clarify expectations, and support teachers and administrators in creating a community of trust and support.” She also noted that the “environmental design” of schools can play an important role in keeping kids safe without making them feel like they are under siege.
Can Mass Shootings be Stopped?
Perhaps more even more ironic was a May 22 report from the Rockefeller Institute that was funded by a multi-state “Regional Gun Violence Research Consortium” representing a who’s-who of Northeastern antigun jurisdictions. Entitled “Can Mass Shootings be Stopped?” the report broadly focuses on mass shootings in general, rather than on school-specific events.
Like Connell, however, the authors mentioned media distortion as an impediment to understanding the true nature of the problem.
“Mass shootings, and those that are particularly lethal, are amplified by the news cycle, making them appear more commonplace when they are, in fact, statistically rare,” they stated. They also characterized the media’s coverage of the events as “unbalanced,” potentially leading the public to “hold disproportional attitudes about the events themselves.”
The report made the points that mass shootings are not limited to the U.S. but “occur in countries worldwide,” are nearly three times more likely to be perpetrated with handguns than with “assault weapons,” and occur more frequently in workplaces than in schools. Also likely to displease its funders is the report’s observation that gun control laws, whether passed in the immediate wake of a mass shooting or kept on the books for decades “often are not enforced, leading them to be ineffective at preventing the next mass shooting.” But perhaps most damning of all was the authors’ admonition that “[k]nee-jerk reactions rooted in emotion will not solve the problem.”
Yet that is exactly how gun control advocates operate and what they offer. Whatever can be said about the youthful gun control activists who have captured so much of the media’s attention lately, they are among the prime purveyors of emotionalism and hyperbole. And far from bringing innovative new thinking to the issue, their main “solution” is the tired notion of banning guns that are underrepresented in rampage gun crimes and remain highly popular among the law-abiding. Instead of treating every word out of their mouths as some new game-changing revelation, their gun control seniors should remind them that “assault weapon” bans had until recently been de-emphasized as an embarrassment to the movement and too obvious of its prohibitory intent.
Unlike the latest gun control hashtag or self-congratulatory Hollywood vanity project, the National Rifle Association has been around since 1871. We’ve seen movements come, and we’ve seen movements go. And while we never doubt the sincerity of our opposition in their desire to eradicate the right to keep and bear arms, we’re not about to change our values or objectives just because some media talking heads or youth-obsessed celebrities begin making demands or throwing around half-baked claims.
Fortunately, the American commitment to freedom also remains strong and resilient. And freedom-loving Americans know they have an ally in the NRA.
Established in 1975, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is the “lobbying” arm of the National Rifle Association of America. ILA is responsible for preserving the right of all law-abiding individuals in the legislative, political, and legal arenas, to purchase, possess and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Visit: www.nra.org
The post American Values Prove Stubbornly Resistant to Gun Control Opportunism appeared first on AmmoLand.com.
The National Rifle Association (NRA) is America’s oldest civil rights organisation and the country’s most influential political lobby group, boasting six million members. NRA spokespeople like Dana Loesch routinely appear on TV in the aftermath of …
Americans demand Congress debate and vote on commonsense gun controls. That bill may not pass, but repeating National Rifle Association and pro-gun talking points hasn’t curtailed mass shootings. Here are five commonsense gun controls: • Mandatory …