Most Want Law On Sale Of Handguns To Be Stricter

The chart above reflects the results of the Economist / YouGov Poll -- done between March 3rd and 5th of a nationwide sample of 1,556 adults (including 1,450 registered voters). The margin of error was 3.6 points for adults and 3.2 points for registered voters.

Republicans Are Out Of Step With Voters On Gun Laws

These charts reflect the results of the Economist / YouGov Poll -- done between October 28th and 31st of a nationwide sample of 1,333 registered voters, with a 2.9 point margin of error.

Supreme Court Insures More Lives Will Be Lost To Guns

The following editorial is by the editorial board of The Washington Post: 

The Supreme Court on Thursday struck down a century-old New York gun law. Its decision is just the latest sign that the court’s conservative majority is committed to dangerous pro-gun dogma at odds with the Constitution’s words and common sense.

The New York statute required handgun owners to obtain a permit to carry concealed handguns in public, which in turn required them to show “proper cause” justifying the permit. The majority reasoned that the Constitution guarantees individuals the right to keep and bear arms to defend themselves. Because people face the general risk of violence outside the home, they concluded, the Constitution demands that people be allowed to carry handguns in public without any special justification.

The court repudiated sensible distinctions between gun owners’ homes, where it is reasonable to impose less regulation on their use of firearms, and public spaces, where states have an overwhelming interest in maintaining public order. The majority said that only a few public places — schools or government buildings — are “sensitive” enough to justify such stringent gun restrictions.

Underlying the court’s reasoning is the conservative majority’s apparent concern that the Second Amendment is considered “a second-class right.” This is puzzling, given how the justices themselves have elevated the Second Amendment above others. Their interpretation — construing the amendment to convey a personal right to individual Americans and all but ignoring its stipulation that its purpose is to preserve a “well-regulated militia” — is atextual. Rather than disfavoring the Second Amendment, the court has taken an unduly expansive view of its words.

The implications are broader than this specific case. Writing for the majority, Justice Clarence Thomas declared that “to justify a firearm regulation the government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.” The majority then discarded the historical antecedents to the New York law.

In its decision, the court rejected balancing Second Amendment rights against the government’s compelling interest in preserving peace — the sort of balancing the court performs in the context of other constitutional protections, including the First Amendment. The court’s special treatment of the Second Amendment is a break not only with good sense but also with its recent decisions. In 2008’s District of Columbia v. Heller, the court found that individuals’ right to keep and bear arms for self-defense is “not unlimited” and gave several indications that legitimate state concerns could be considered in assessing gun laws’ constitutionality.

If there was anything reassuring in the decision, it was that Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh and Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. emphasized in a concurrence that the court’s opinion does not prohibit states from requiring licenses to carry handguns for self-defense, so long as they use “objective licensing requirements,” such as background checks, mental health records reviews, firearms training and other possible stipulations.

Despite this nod by the justices to the need for some regulation of firearms, the nation will pay in more lives lost to gun violence as the court continues its ideological crusade to supercharge the Second Amendment.

American Voters Want Stricter Laws On Sale Of Handguns

 This chart reflects the results of the new Economist / YouGov Poll -- done between March 20th and 23rd of a national sample of 1,267 registered voters, with a 3.1 point margin of error.

U.S. Public Supports Stronger Gun Restrictions

These charts reflect the results of the new Economist / YouGov Poll -- done between August 10th and 13th of a national sample of 1,500 adults (including 1,127 registered voters). The margin of error for adults is 2.6 points, and for registered voters is 3 points.

It shows that the American public is sick of mass shootings and gun deaths. They want Congress to act. They support closing the loopholes in the background check law by a 68 margin, making laws on handgun sales more strict by a 33 point margin, banning semi-automatic weapons by a 28 point margin, and banning ammunition clips holding more than 10 round by a 38 point margin.

Will the congressional Republicans stop blocking constitutional restrictions on guns. Probably not. But if they don't, they may pay a price for it in the next election.

Gillibrand's Record On Guns Won't Help Her Presidential Bid

Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-New York) is running for the 2020 Democratic Party presidential nomination. But so far, she has been unable to get above 1% or 2% in any of the polls of Democrats.

Part of the reason may be because voters outside of New York are not very familiar with her. But part may also be that Democrats remember she was the first, and most vocal, Democrat to demand that Senator Al Franken resign (even though the charges against him were spurious and unproven).

Now something else has been revealed that won't help her with Democrats -- her past support of gun rights (and her support by the NRA).

Here is part of the report by Andrew Kaczynski and Nathan McDermott at CNN:

Speaking at the official launch of her presidential campaign on Sunday, US Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand singled out the National Rifle Association as an example of special interests taking priority over the will of the people.

"Right now, special interests are displacing the voices of the people of this country. Find me a so-called unsolvable problem, and I will point you to the greed and corruption in the way," Gillibrand said, speaking in front of Trump International Hotel in New York. "The NRA stops popular, common sense gun reform, while stray bullets kill children in our communities."

But during her tenure in the US House of Representatives from 2007-2009, then-Rep. Gillibrand fought vigorously in defense of gun rights, including the right to own handguns. While in the House, the New York Democrat represented a more conservative, rural district, compared to the more liberal statewide constituency she represents as a senator.

Gillibrand's position, which was politically advantageous at the time in earning the endorsement of the NRA in her 2008 re-election bid, could now prove a political liability in the 2020 Democratic primary.

Gillibrand has said she regrets her past positions and frames her views on guns at the time as supporting hunting rights.

"On guns, I should have done more, I regret not caring about other communities," Gillibrand said at an MSNBC town hall last week. "My community didn't have the gun violence that other parts of the state had, and, in fact, the biggest issue for upstate New York was hunting rights."

But Gillibrand's advocacy extended beyond hunting rights. She signed an amicus brief that argued for overturning a handgun ban in Washington, DC, and that private gun ownership was a guaranteed right unconnected to service in a militia.

The amicus brief was submitted to the US Supreme Court while the court was hearing the 2008 landmark case, District of Columbia v. Heller. The court ultimately repealed the city's strict gun control laws in a sweeping victory for gun rights advocates. . . .

At the same time the Heller case was moving through federal courts, Gillibrand co-sponsored legislation that would revoke the city's gun control laws. The proposed bill, however, went much further in restricting the city's ability to write its own gun laws than the court's ultimate decision. The core of the proposed bill, called the "District of Columbia Personal Protection Act," made it so that Washington, DC, would not be allowed to pass any laws restricting firearm usage and ownership that exceed existing federal rules.

The pro-gun bill also would have repealed the city's ban on semi-automatic weapons, most registration requirements for possession of firearms and a ban on owning ammunition. These aspects weren't addressed by the Supreme Court. . . .

Gillibrand's support for such measures was key in her earning the backing of the NRA in her 2008 bid for re-election, with an "A" rating from the NRA indicating she was a "solidly pro-gun candidate." Gillibrand boasted of the "A" rating on her House website.

"As a strong supporter of the Second Amendment, it is a privilege to have the endorsement of the NRA and the support of Upstate New York's gunowners and hunters," Gillibrand said at the time. . . .

By September 2010, her NRA grade changed from an "A" to an "F." Meredith Kelly, Gillibrand's communications director for her presidential campaign, said she proudly earned the NRA's repudiation.

"Senator Gillibrand proudly earned an 'F' rating from the NRA a decade ago, and has been a passionate advocate for critical reforms to address the scourge of gun violence across our country ever since," Kelly told CNN's KFile in an email.

Most Americans Don't Own A Gun & And Want Stricter Laws

 (This cartoon on guns is by Nick Anderson in the Houston Chronicle.)

The killings continue in America, and currently we are averaging about one mass shooting every day. This doesn't happen in other countries, so why does it happen here? One answer is because of the proliferation of guns in this country. There are more than 300 million guns among the American population -- almost enough for every man, woman, and child in the country. And more than enough for every adult.

That rather frightening statistic might make someone think that nearly everyone in this country owns a gun -- but that is far from the truth. Actually (see top chart below), a majority (57%) of households do not have a gun. That means the percentage of households with a gun (35%, or slightly more than a third of households) probably own more than one gun. Why then, are our gun laws so lax?

The truth is that most Americans would like to see stricter gun laws (see bottom chart) -- especially relating to handguns (which have no real use other than to kill human beings). About 52% say they would like to see stricter laws concerning handguns. And if you ask just about strengthening background checks for those wanting to purchase a firearm, the percentage goes up to over 80% of Americans (and that includes a huge majority of NRA members).

Unfortunately, we have one organization that seems to be controlling the Congress on the question of gun restrictions -- the National Rifle Association (NRA). The leadership of that once respectable organization has been bought and paid for by the gun manufacturers, and they no longer listen to anyone else (including the membership of their own organization). They oppose any law they think might result in fewer gun sales in this country.

And sadly, they have either bought off, or scared off, enough members of Congress to make sure no new gun laws are passed -- no matter how much sense the law might make, or how many people support that law. And the mass killings will continue until that changes.

We seem to have decided in this country that it is more important to protect the profits of gun manufacturers than the lives of American citizens. And that says something very dark about our society.

These charts were made from information in a new YouGov Poll -- done between July 31st and August 4th of a random national sample of 1,000 adults, with a margin of error of about 4 points.

Should Sex Offenders Have Guns ?

This is not an urban legend. The Des Moines Register decided to find out who was able to get a concealed carry permit in Iowa, and they found at least 50 sex offenders (listed on the state sex offender registry) who are licensed to carry a concealed weapon. Most were convicted of misdemeanor sex crimes (although three were felons), but that shouldn't put anyone at ease -- many felonious sex offenders started out committing misdemeanors, and others had felony charges reduced to a misdemeanor in exchange for a guilty plea.

Jerry Dunbar, Washington County sheriff and president of the Iowa State Sheriffs and Deputies Association, said of the finding, "My concern of a sex offender having a gun is they try to typically rule in a bullish way to influence people -- and just the presence of a gun on a hip could be a threat to get people to cooperate. They intimidate to get what they want." The sheriff is right. As much as any criminal, sex offenders are intimidators -- and allowing them to carry a gun just gives them another tool with which to intimidate (and poses a substantial risk for those who might try to rescue one of their victims).

One sex offender (on the sex offender registry for an indecent exposure in 2005) with a concealed carry permit told the newspaper that he posed no danger to the public and only used his guns for hunting. But concealed carry permits are not issued for hunting rifles (since they cannot be concealed on your person). He has a permit to carry a handgun. What is he hunting with a handgun -- human victims? The only thing a handgun is good for is to intimidate or kill humans at close range.

This is just crazy. Sex offenders (and domestic abuse misdemeanor offenders) should never have a concealed carry permit. In fact, in my opinion, they should not be allowed to even own any kind of firearm -- because the sex offenders are likely to offend again (and the gun makes that easier) and the domestic abusers are the most likely to injure or kill a member of their own family with a gun.

It's time for some reasonable gun restrictions in this country. Guns may not kill people, but they certainly make it much easier for criminals and other dangerous people to injure or kill other people. It's time to ignore the NRA (which has just become a lobby for gun manufacturers) and pass some reasonable laws to make it more difficult for dangerous people to buy or carry a firearm -- and that includes ALL sex offenders.

An Excellent Question

The argument of the NRA and all their right-wing lackeys is that the more guns there are in circulation, the safer the American people will be. That argument has never made sense, and has been disproven by studies. But probably the best argument against the silly proposition that more guns equals more safety is the question above. How can it be that more guns make things safer, when the United States has the most guns of any developed country (both in the total number of guns and in guns per capita the population), and yet has the highest rate of gun deaths (both murder and suicide) of any other developed nation? The truth is that a gun being kept in a home significantly raises the chances that someone in that home will die (either through murder or suicide). And the same thing is true of a country -- the more guns, the more gun deaths.

Guns Aren't A Magic Self-Defense Cure

About two months ago, Assistant District Attorney Mark Hasse was shot and killed as he walked from his car to the Courthouse in Kaufman County, Texas (which borders Dallas County to the east). His killers have not yet been caught, but are believed to be white racist members of the Aryan Brotherhood (or a similar organization).

Kaufman County District Attorney Mike McLelland (pictured above) swore he would find and prosecute the killers of his Assistant D.A., but last Saturday he and his wife were discovered dead in their home -- and both had been shot dead. Police said the front door looked as though it had been kicked in and the house was littered with numerous shell casings. So far, the killers are not known, but many in law enforcement consider it to be the same killer(s) of Assistant D.A. Hasse (or members of the same organization).

These are the kind of murders that many gun lovers say could be prevented by arming more people with a gun. But they probably won't tell you this -- both of these men were armed. The Assistant D.A. had a concealed carry permit and was armed at the time he was killed. The D.A. had told the media that he always carried a gun (even when just walking his dogs in his neighborhood). And he was no novice to gun use, having spent 23 years in the military. But carrying a firearm (and knowing how to use that firearm) did neither of these men any good at all.

The idea promoted by gun lovers that a gun is the answer to prevent violence against yourself is an appealing idea, and most gun owners believe they would be able to react in time to save their lives -- but the awful truth is that is very unlikely. Like the two men discussed above (who knew their lives were in danger), the chance of recognizing the danger and reacting in time is pretty slim.

Many have told us that if there had been armed persons at the Arizona shooting of Rep. Gabby Giffords (where several people were killed and many wounded), they would have been able to prevent much of the mayhem by taking out the shooter. But we now know that there were those in the crowd that were armed, but the shooting was over and the subject apprehended before they were able to react.

I am not in favor of disarming law-abiding Americans or taking their guns away. But it is time we recognize that laws that keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people (convicted felons, dangerous psychotics, domestic abusers, etc.) can do far more toward reducing gun deaths than arming more people. A step in the right direction would be to close the loopholes in the background check law. Every person trying to purchase a gun in this country should have to undergo a background check (even when buying or receiving a gun from a private citizen).

I would also be in favor of making our laws more stringent on those found to be illegally carrying a weapon (without a permit). That should result in serious jail time, even for someone without a police record (and probation should not be an option). While private citizens have the right to own a firearm in this country, they should not have the right to purchase one without a background check, or carry one around without a permit (requiring a background check, training in use of the weapon, and a class on state and federal laws relating to guns).

The truth is that keeping guns out of the hands of those who should not have one will do far more to reduce gun deaths in this country than arming more people. The right-wingers in Congress and the NRA leadership don't want to admit that, but it is still the truth. And that is why about 90% of Americans want the loopholes closed in the background checks done for gun purchases.

Right-Wing Gun Lies (Israel/Switzerland)

The right-wing has been spreading a lot of lies to avoid any new gun restrictions at all. I think they know that most Americans want background checks on all guns sales (85% to 90%) and a majority want to see the sale of military-style assault weapons banned (54%), so they have been saying all sorts of things to try and change public opinion.

One of the things they have been doing to try and demonstrate that guns are not the real reason for the many thousands of gun deaths in this country every year, is to use the nations of Israel and Switzerland as examples. They want Americans to believe that large numbers of people in those countries are allowed to have guns, and since they don't have an inordinate amount of gun deaths, then guns can't be the problem in this country. The problem with that argument is that it just is NOT TRUE!

Janet Rosenbaum studied these claims for the National Institute of Health (NIH), and she found two things -- neither country has anywhere near the number of guns possessed by civilians per capita as the United States does, and both countries have much more restrictive laws on gun possession by civilians than the U.S. does.

The United States has an estimated 83 to 97 guns per 100 residents. That is far more than either Switzerland or Israel. Switzerland had about 16 guns per 100 residents in 2002, but they issued long guns to some residents when they reduced the size of their standing army. The ratio now is between 31 and 60 guns per 100 residents (and very few of those are handguns). Israel has far less than that, at only about 7.3 guns per 100 residents. And in Israel, most of those civilian-possessed guns are in the settlements (and are not handguns).

The laws for possession of a handgun by a civilian in both countries in much stricter than in the United States. While a citizen in the U.S. can own an unlimited number of handguns, in Switzerland and Israel a citizen can only own one gun -- and the ownership of that one handgun must be approved by the government (and Israel leads the world in turning down handgun permits by rejecting at least 40% of all applications).

In both countries, a citizen must demonstrate a justifiable need for a handgun before the government will issue a permit (and "home defense" is not considered a justifiable need). After satisfying the government that the need has been met, a Swiss citizen is issued a permit for six months, and then that permit must be renewed every three months. In Israel, a permit is issued for a year and must be renewed annually, or whenever the permit-holder changes residence, job, or national security status (and no one who takes psychotropic drugs or has been arrested for domestic violence, even if not convicted, can get a permit).

The NIH report concludes by saying:

Swiss and Israeli gun ownership is rare, regulated stringently such as by putting the burden of proof on permit applicants to demonstrate a specific need for a gun, and neither country encourages gun ownership.

By using these two countries as examples, the right-wing gun proponents in this country are hurting their own argument for less restrictions on gun ownership. Both countries have far fewer guns possessed by civilians per capita than the U.S. does -- and both countries have far more stringent rules about gun ownership and possession (especially of handguns). Personally, I think their gun laws make a lot more sense than ours do.

The Real Problem Is Handguns

The chart above is from the blog called Mikeb302000. It shows the weapons that were used to commit murder in the United States in 2010. While I am in favor of banning the sale (and possession) of military style assault weapons (because they are the weapon of choice for mass killers), it is obvious that there is a weapon that kills far more people in this country every year than assault weapons do -- the handgun. And while rifles and shotguns do have a legitimate sporting use, handguns really do not. They have one use -- to kill other human being, and they are very good for doing that.

It is to control the purchase of handguns that we most need to close the loopholes in the background check laws in this country. Almost anyone, even criminals and persons with a dangerous mental illness, can go to gun shows or make other private purchases and get a handguns whenever they want -- with no waiting period and no background check. In fact, about 40% of all gun sales are done in this manner. Doesn't it make sense to close that loophole? Would that really put an unreasonable burden on decent Americans who want to buy or sell a gun?

I grew up in rural Texas, and everyone I knew (including my own father) owned a firearm. I do not support taking weapons away from decent law-abiding citizens. But I do support denying the ability to purchase a weapon to criminals (including domestic abusers) and people who pose a serious danger to their fellow citizens (like the dangerously mentally ill). Closing the background check loopholes won't completely eliminate murders in this country -- but I do believe it could save the lives of thousands of Americans each year (without abusing the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding people). How can anyone be against that kind of reasonable and constitutional law?

Nothing Will Be Done

I'm sure you have by now heard of the shooting in the Connecticut elementary school -- where six adults and 20 children (most of them in kindergarten or first grade) were killed in a senseless rampage by a lone gunman. To call this a tragedy is a gross understatement. I was tempted to say that there is never an excuse for killing children (and that would be true), but that statement would infer that there might be an excuse for killing innocent adults (and that would not be true at all). There is never any excuse for the killing of innocent citizens of any age.

Sadly, this is an all too common occurrence in the United States, and no state or community is immune to this kind of tragedy. Here, from Think Progress, are the mass shootings that have occurred just this year:

December 11, 2012. On Tuesday, 22-year-old Jacob Tyler Roberts killed 2 people and himself with a stolen rifle in Clackamas Town Center, Oregon. His motive is unknown.

September 27, 2012. Five were shot to death by 36-year-old Andrew Engeldinger at Accent Signage Systems in Minneapolis, MN. Three others were wounded. Engeldinger went on a rampage after losing his job, ultimately killing himself.

August 5, 2012. Six Sikh temple members were killed when 40-year-old US Army veteran Wade Michael Page opened fire in a gurdara in Oak Creek, Wisconsin. Four others were injured, and Page killed himself.

July 20, 2012. During the midnight premiere of The Dark Knight Rises in Aurora, CO, 24-year-old James Holmes killed 12 people and wounded 58. Holmes was arrested outside the theater.

May 29, 2012. Ian Stawicki opened fire on Cafe Racer Espresso in Seattle, WA, killing 5 and himself after a citywide manhunt.

April 6, 2012. Jake England, 19, and Alvin Watts, 32, shot 5 black men in Tulsa, Oklahoma, in racially motivated shooting spree. Three died.

April 2, 2012. A former student, 43-year-old One L. Goh killed 7 people at Oikos University, a Korean Christian college in Oakland, CA. The shooting was the sixth-deadliest school massacre in the US and the deadliest attack on a school since the 2007 Virginia Tech massacre.

And remember, those were all done this year, and 2012 is not all that unusual.  Several of these kinds of shootings happen each year. Some of them have many victims and others only have a few victims, but all are tragedies. And this is not a new thing that has just started happening in this country. I remember when a gunman entered a cafeteria in Killeen (Texas) in 1991, killing 23 people and wounding another 20. That was more than twenty years ago.

As I watched the TV accounts of the Connecticut shooting and perused the comments of social media users, I heard the same thing being said -- that it is time to have a national discussion about our gun laws, and how we could more effectively keep guns out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them. I agree with that. But haven't we heard those same sentiments expressed after each of these tragedies in the past few years? And yet, that discussion is never held, and our gun laws are being loosened -- not made more restrictive. And I expect we'll see the same thing this time. After a few weeks, the outrage will die down and both state legislatures and our national Congress will get back to the job of making guns more easily accessible to everyone.

And that will happen because that is what the National Rifle Association (NRA) wants to happen. The NRA spends a ton of money each year promoting the notion that tragedies like this either cannot be prevented or can only be prevented by even more people owning and carrying guns in our society. And that NRA propaganda has been very effective, because we can expect many people to parrot one or both of those arguments in the coming weeks -- including legislators and other elected officials. Too many elected officials are running scared these days -- afraid that the powerful NRA will spend money to defeat them if they even try to discuss the issue of more restrictive gun laws.

There have been a couple of rather pathetic attempts at restricting gun ownership in the recent past. In 1994, during the Clinton administration, a ban on the sale of assault weapons was passed. This addressed only the future sale of these weapons, and did nothing about those weapons that already were owned by American citizens. And even that law expired in 2004, during the Bush administration, and no effort to extend it has been able to even reach the floor of either branch of Congress for a vote. So that effort has to be called an epic failure.

Then there is the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, also passed in 1994. This law made it a requirement for licensed gun dealers to not sell a firearm to anyone without first clearing them through a federal background check (which would deny a gun sale to a felon, a fugitive from justice, a person with a dangerous mental illness, or anyone convicted of domestic abuse). This was a good idea, but the law had enough holes in it to make it virtually useless. 

First, many states have dragged their feet on reporting persons with dangerous mental illnesses. Second, even if a person could not pass a background check, they could still buy a firearm -- just not from a licensed dealer. They could buy the weapon from a family member, friend, or acquaintance, they could buy the weapon from a gun show, or they could simply check the classified section of nearly any newspaper for people wanting to sell weapons. None of those sources are required to do a background check.

Will there be a national discussion after this most recent tragedy, and will it result in needed and effective restrictions of gun ownership? I hope it can, but I must admit that I doubt either will happen. The NRA is too powerful, too many people have bought into the propaganda that any restriction on guns (even a sensible one) would violate their "rights", and too many politicians put their jobs before doing the right thing to save innocent lives. I know that's a sad assessment of where we are as a nation, and I wish it wasn't true. But I believe it is the truth. 

Study Shows "Stand Your Ground" Laws Don't Decrease Crimes

"Stand Your Ground" laws have become very popular recently, with the NRA being successful in getting these laws passed in at least 20 states. The excuse given for passing these laws is that it gives a person the right to defend themselves from an attack. That is unadulterated crap. People have always had the right to defend themselves in this country, even to the extent of using deadly violence. The only exception was that a person should retreat instead of using deadly violence if it was possible to do so.

What the new "Stand Your Ground" laws do is to remove the duty to retreat. Instead of taking the non-violent way out, a person could go straight to deadly violence and shoot someone (as long as they claimed they thought they were in danger). And those who thought the SYG laws would just lead to more deaths have been proven to be correct. In the states with these laws, the number of "justifiable homicides" have nearly doubled.

Some of the NRA crowd might try to claim that the increase in "justifiable homicides" is because of an overall increase in violent crime in this country. However, that is simply not true. According to statistics recently released by the FBI, violent crimes have gone down again -- for the fifth year in a row. The increase is more likely due to some people satisfying their own bloodlust rather than taking an opportunity to retreat and avoid violence.

Now a new study done at Texas A&M University shows that the new SYG laws don't lessen the incidence of murder in the states that have them. In fact, it tends to cause more murders to happen. Here is what the study found (by examining statistics in the states with SYG laws):

Results indicate that the prospect of facing additional self-defense does not deter crime.  Specifically, we find no evidence of deterrence effects on burglary, robbery, or aggravated assault.  Moreover, our estimates are sufficiently precise as to rule out meaningful deterrence effects.


In contrast, we find significant evidence that the laws increase homicides. Suggestive but inconclusive evidence indicates that castle doctrine laws increase the narrowly defined category of justifiable homicides by private citizens by 17 to 50 percent, which translates into as many as 50 additional justifiable homicides per year nationally due to castle doctrine. More significantly, we find the laws increase murder and manslaughter by a statistically significant 7 to 9 percent, which translates into an additional 500 to 700 homicides per year nationally across the states that adopted castle doctrine.


Thus, by lowering the expected costs associated with using lethal force, castle doctrine laws induce more of it. This increase in homicides could be due either to the increased use of lethal force in self-defense situations, or to the escalation of violence in otherwise non-lethal conflicts. We suspect that self-defense situations are unlikely to explain all of the increase, as we also find that murder alone is increased by a statistically significant 6 to 11 percent.

These laws need to be abolished. This is not a Second Amendment issue, nor is it a self-defense issue. Abolishing the "Stand Your Ground" laws would not infringe on the right of gun ownership, and it would not keep a people from defending themselves when no avenue of escape is available. It would, however, prevent some unnecessary killings -- and saving lives is always a good thing.

% Of Homes With Guns Is Dropping

We already know that right after President Obama was elected and took office the gun sales in this country rose sharply. And just this last christmas season, the sale of guns broke new records. As early as 2007 there were approximately 294 million firearms owned by American citizens -- 106 million handguns, 105 million rifles, and 83 million shotguns. That's a ratio of about i gun for every American citizen, and even more when only adults are considered. Figures like that make it sound like America is armed to the teeth.

But it's really not like that at all. While there are a lot of guns owned by civilians in the United States, the number of households with a gun in them had been dropping for over thirty years, and continues to do so. As the chart above shows (from Think Progress), the percentage of households with at least one gun peaked in 1977 at around 54%. It has been dropping since then and currently is about 32% -- a drop of 22%.

One thing that shows attitudes about gun ownership may be changing in America is the age factor. The households of those born before 1959 have the highest percentage of gun ownership (in the  low to mid-forty percent range), and even that has been dropping slightly. But the biggest drop is among young adults (those under 30 years old). Back in the 1970s the households of those under 30 showed about 45% gun ownership. That has now dropped to below 20%.

That speaks well of young people. We already know that the young are much more likely to want equal rights for all their fellow citizens (including minorities and homosexuals), to support government efforts to help the poor and disadvantaged, and to work for a cleaner environment. Now we learn they are far less likely to own a firearm. They may actually turn out to be the best and smartest generation this country has produced.

Federal Court Overturns Handgun Ban

On friday, the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for District of Columbia struck down a ban on handguns in Washington, D.C. This gun ban had been in effect since 1976.

The Brady Campaign To Prevent Handgun Violence called the decision "judicial activism at its worst". Mayor Adrian Fenty said, "I am personally deeply disappointed and, quite frankly, outraged by today's decision". Fenty vowed that the city would appeal the decision.

For a while now, many progressives have tried to interpret the second amendment to mean that militias, and not individuals, have a right to bear arms. The court struck that idea down.

The court said, "The amendment does not protect the right of militiamen to keep and bear arms, but rather the right of the people. If the competent drafters of the Second Amendment had meant the right to be limited to the protection of state militias, it is hard to imagine that they would have chosen the language they did".

I believe the court was correct in its decision.

Let me be clear - I do not like handguns. I would be very happy if all the handguns in the world would disappear tomorrow. I have never owned a handgun and probably never will own one. Handguns are good for only one thing - shooting other humans.

In fact, as some of you know, I was the victim of a handgun attack myself about a year and a half ago. A desperate criminal, running from the police, shot me in the stomach and stole my car. I came very close to dying that day.

But regardless of how I feel about handguns or what happened to me, I can still read. The Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution clearly grants individuals the right to own firearms. For a handgun ban to be legal, the Constitution would have to be amended.

Actually, the court was pretty reasonable in its decision. It left intact the provision that outlaws carrying unregistered weapons on the streets of our capitol, and also the provision that would prevent ownership by certain individuals (convicted felons, mentally ill persons, etc.).

Like it or not, our forefathers made gun ownership a right. This was not "judicial activism". The court simply upheld the Constitution as it is written.

(The picture above courtesy of Ken Lunde at http://www.praxagora.com/lunde/firearms.html)