The Monday Notice - Issue 44: A conversation about guns
Yes, it is complicated.
Hey, readers! Welcome to The Monday Notice. I like to get feedback, even when it’s not positive so feel free to drop me a line at jaycaruso@gmail.com — and if you like the newsletter, I’d really appreciate it if you’d ask others to sign up. Send them to this link: https://mondaynotice.substack.com/p/coming-soon
***
It’s inevitable. Following the horror of a mass shooting, the issue of gun control gets debated. It’s not the easiest conversation to have, particularly when emotions run high. People have a tendency to shout at each other in the public square and more so on social media. I’m going to attempt in this issue to advance the debate as best I can. Good faith arguments can take place and that has to come from both sides. People who support gun rights are not advancing a debate when screaming, “MOLON LABE!” and neither are gun control supporters when they accuse those on the other side of “wanting to see children die.” 2020 presidential candidate Joe Biden went with this drivel in a New York Times op-ed where he wrote, “…the problem is with weak-willed leaders who care more about their campaign coffers than children in coffins.” Does he really think that’s going to get people to side with him?
First, I’m going to start with a list of the kind of arguments I’ve seen gun control advocates advance since I’ve been debating this issue, which goes back over 20 years. They’re not arguments so much as they are appeals to emotion. Second, I’ll cover the ways I think politicians disingenuously discuss the issue, making it harder to take any concrete steps and then show how the proposed legislation on the table at the moment, won’t impact violence committed with firearms.
***
I invariably come across or face the following arguments and I’m going to say up front that they don’t hold merit. They’re not based on logic or reason and adds more to the toxic environment than it adds to the discussion. It’s possible you may not like my characterization but I’ll leave it to you to make the case why I’m wrong. Here we go.
“You don’t need an AR-15.” Another variant of this is, “No one needs an AR-15 to hunt.” The question of what people do or do not need, is not a question for the government to decide. There are plenty of everyday items people use that they don’t need. No one needs a 70” television. No one needs a MacBook Pro, an iPad pro, an iPad mini and an iPhone. No needs a Ford Expedition or an 8 inch Mac chef’s knife.
Law enforcement agents will get people to waive their fourth amendment rights by telling them, “If you didn’t do anything wrong, you don’t need to worry.”
The response often leads to the next reason…
“Guns are designed are to kill.” Guns can kill, yes. But to argue they are “designed” to kill assumes if one uses one and doesn’t kill someone, the firearm must have a flaw. I’ve fired plenty of firearms and never killed a human or animal. I’ve slaughtered plenty of paper targets, however. No one would argue, “Knives are designed to kill” despite the fact nearly 1,600 people were murdered in 2017 with a knife. More people used their bare hands to murder than people did with rifles (700 vs. 400). Nearly 500 people were murdered with blunt objects like bats and hammers.
“These are weapons of war.” The latest to advance this argument is Mike Mullen, the 17th Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The argument is fallacious and the simple rebuttal is, “They are not weapons of war.” An AR-15 is a semi-automatic rifle, meaning one has to pull the trigger each time for it to fire. The weapons used by infantrymen and women in the military have settings for burst (typically three rounds) and also full auto. People refer to them as “weapons of war” because they look like military weapons. Look at the two guns below:
The first is a Bushmaster AR-15 (which does not stand for “assault rifle” - it stands for Armalite rifle, the company that developed the first model in the 1950s) . The second is a Ruger Mini 14. Does the Ruger look like a weapon of war to you? Meanwhile, look at this one:
That is a Heckler and Koch 416 rifle. That one looks like a weapon of war, does it not? The first two are pretty much the same firearm. They both take ..223 rounds and the Ruger has a detachable magazine and one can add other accessories such as a barrel shroud or pistol grip. The HK certainly looks scarier than the Ruger, but it it’s only a .22 rifle, what many enthusiasts call a “plinker” as people will typically use it for shooting cans or bottles.
“Now hold on a second, Caruso! Mullen is a retired Navy admiral. Doesn’t he know what he’s talking about?” He has his opinion, sure. But that doesn’t mean he’s right. I doubt many people would accept the views of Michael Flynn on national security, despite his long history of military service. Arguing Mullen is right because of his service is an appeal to authority and it wouldn’t take long to find someone who takes the opposing view. What then?
“If it saves one life, it’s worth doing.” This argument has more to do with gun control legislation that I’ll cover in more detail, but it’s a common refrain. If the goal is to save lives, there are plenty of avenues to take. The number one cause of unintentional injury death for people between the ages of 5 and 24 is motor vehicle accidents. If the goal is “saving lives” why not implement a nationwide 25 mph speed limit? Sounds preposterous doesn’t it? The savings lives argument is one that stems from emotion. It’s the kind of thinking that got us The Patriot Act. It’s nonsensical in that it doesn’t add to the debate but gets used as a “one-up” in an increasingly emotional debate.
***
As for the politicians…well, that could take up an entire newsletter but I wanted to focus on one thing in particular. But the other day, I tweeted out that what Chicago Senator Dick Durbin said in this tweet is untrue:
I said I’d answer some critics as to what is untrue. Let’s get one thing straight, convicted felons (under 18 US code chapter 44) cannot legally acquire firearms. By claiming felons can “avoid our laws” by getting guns at gun shows and on the internet, Durbin is being dishonest. If you attempt to purchase a firearm at a gun show from a federally licensed dealer, you will undergo a background check.
Granted, private sales do not require a background check, but those sellers make up a small percentage of the vendors at gun shows. Also, private sales are not exclusive to gun shows. Selling a gun privately out of one’s home or at a garage sale is the same thing. It’s part of the reason I cringe when I hear people use the term, “gun show loophole” as it is total misnomer. No one says, “The garage sale loophole.” Once again, if a person is prohibited, they are not making a legal purchase. Loopholes in the law, allow people to do something legally, while circumventing a poorly written law to prevent something.
This is where people say, “Then how come we don’t pass the universal background check law especially if it polls so high?” Because it’s impractical. The FBI can barely measure crimes committed via the purchase of private sales because the rate is so low. None of the mass shootings that have occurred in recent years (and before) would have been prevented those shootings under such a law because they all acquired their firearms through via a process that already had them undergo a background check. The idea that a parent, who already owns guns and receives a gift from his son who also owns guns, must go through a background check for that gift, is ridiculous. People who are intent on committing a crime will just find another way.
As for internet sales, it’s more complicated. First, purchasing a gun from a place such as Bud’s Gun Shop online is an easy enough thing to do. So where does the gun get sent? Not to your home. The gun will get sent to a federally licensed dealer who will perform the background check.
What about private sales? If you sell a gun online to a person outside your state, you must ship it to an a federally licensed dealer who will perform a background check, and you’re required to use a common carrier as well as notify the carrier in writing that you’re shipping a firearm. Any deviation from those steps is a violation of federal law. If you ship in state, you can send it directly to a person but it still requires the use of a common carrier and notifying the carrier in writing.
So for Durbin to claim there are legal loopholes for felons to get guns is just not true. The avoidance of a background check is not a loophole. That person is still committing a crime that is punishable by up to 10 years in prison.
One final note on gun shows. The press often refers to people who sell privately as “unlicensed dealers.” That’s simply not true. A person who has 10-12 guns and decides to sell them at a gun show is not a “dealer.” And if the ATF finds that a person is acting like a dealer, and doing so without a license, those people are going to face some questions.
Additionally, Democratic politicians continue to claim we have an “epidemic of gun violence” in the United States and it’s false. I’d agree we do have an epidemic of suicide in the country as the rate of suicide continues to rise. But gun violence? It’s half of what it was in the 80’s and 90’s. Don’t take my word for it. Vox – Yes, that Vox – has that info:
Violent crime overall hasn’t been lower since the 1960s. The American people haven’t lived in a safer era in over 60 years. Epidemic of gun violence? Not even close.
***
I get that this is contentious issue. But it is not one that’s cut and dried and plenty of times, the “common sense” laws proposed don’t make much sense. It is not too much to ask that gun laws have a practical purpose. HR 5087, the House bill that would ban “assault weapons” is one that is not practical. That HK416 .22 plinker rifle? An “assault weapon” under the proposed bill because it has a pistol grip. The proposed law defines an “assault weapon” as:
A semiautomatic rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any one of the following
A pistol grip.
A forward grip.
A folding, telescoping, or detachable stock.
A grenade launcher or rocket launcher.
A barrel shroud.
A threaded barrel.
Note that none of what’s on that list, changes the functionality of a rifle. A barrel shroud does nothing but prevent people from burning themselves when the barrel heats up. But add one to a rifle and it suddenly becomes an “assault weapon” and that’s just silly. It has nothing to do with functionality and everything to do with how a particular rifle looks.
***
I welcome the feedback, especially if you disagree or if you think there’s something I didn’t cover. If you think any of the arguments I wrote about at the top are valid, please feel free to tell me why. If you think the legislation will create the kind of change necessary in the country, please explain why.
***
Until next week, folks!