Gun Sales Surge in Newtown, Shooting the Gun Control Argument That Fewer Guns Equals Less Crime In The FootGun Sales Surge in Newtown, Shooting the Gun Control Argument That Fewer Guns Equals Less Crime In The Foot

Applications for gun permits surge in Newtown, CT

Gun sales surge in Newtown, already surpassing the total for all of 2012. Gun sales are also sharply rising in the rest of Connecticut. This is common after a tragedy and runs counter to the Left’s prevailing narrative that fewer guns means less crime. Academic research also refutes the Left’s claim.

Gun Control advocates would have people believe that fewer guns are the answer, not more. However, communities victimized by tragic gun shootings usually reject that position and gun sales surge after such an event. Gun sales surged after Columbine, after the Tucson, Arizona shooting of Congresswoman Gabby Giffords, after the movie theater shooting in Aurora, Colorado, and in Newtown, Connecticut. Newtown, the community that experienced the Sandy Hook Elementary school shooting more closely than any other community in America has seen a surge in gun sales since the tragedy occurred in December.

The Wall Street Journal reports that through July 24 th, more than 200 Newtown residents have new local firearm permits, a requirement in Connecticut in order to purchase a firearm. There were only 171 permits issued for all of 2012. The surge in Newtown coincides with an increase statewide in Connecticut, which has seen more than 91,000 firearms sales this year – on track to surpass the 127,000 gun sales processed by Connecticut’s Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection in 2012.

Local Newtown resident, Bill Stevens said “I think people realize that you can’t call the police all the time and expect them to save you. It’s sinking in to some folks that ‘I need to take responsibility for keeping my family safe.” Newtown resident, Ryan Delp, says that fear after the Sandy Hook shooting is responsible for some of the increase, and noted a 2007 home invasion in nearby Cheshire, Connecticut that left a mother and her daughters dead also struck a chord. He says, “Obviously both situations are places where you expect to be safe.” Resident Donald Casey states “Ever since this incident, people are afraid and want to protect themselves.”

The sentiment in Newtown is common following a mass murder shooting. Background checks in Colorado spiked more than 40% immediately following the shooting in Aurora, CO, according to the Colorado Bureau of Investigation, and are up 90% in 2013. Immediately after the Tucson, AZ shooting in January 2011, that left Rep. Gabby Giffords injured and killed six, sales of handguns in Arizona jumped 60% according to FBI data. One reason for the spike in gun demand is the understandable desire for safety and self-defense. Following most large shooting events, especially if it’s close to home, many people desire to have something to protect their family.

That perspective is supported by FBI crime data and the bulk of academic research on defensive gun use. Though nationwide, gun sales have surged, gun crime in the last decade has fallen; in the last 20 years, violent crime and homicides have been cut in half. Even anti-gun researcher David Hemenway concedes that defensive gun use occurs more than 152,000 times annually. But Hemingway’s contemporaries find that Americans use guns for lawful defense more often. One study in the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, contends defensive gun use is between 256,000-373,000 times annually. A Department of Justice study conducted by Philip J. Cook and Jens Ludwig found 1.5 million “genuine” instances of defensive gun use.A study by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, found 2.5 million annual instances of defensive gun use. Most recently, a July 2013 report “Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence” from the Institute of Medicine and National Research Council for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention which was ordered by President Obama,states “Defensive uses of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed. Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year, in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms.” Regardless of which study is the most accurate, academic research shows defensive gun use far outpaces gun crime; even Hemenway’s study demonstrates this. People inherently understand this; the science just validates it: only a good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with one. The surge in sales in Newtown illustrates this basic truth and shows us that despite gun control advocates sentimentality that fewer guns is better, average people – like those in Newtown – use guns more often for their own lawful defense.

By Matt MacBradaigh. Matt is a Christian, Husband, Father, Patriot, and Conservative from the Pacific Northwest. Matt writes about the Second Amendment, Gun Control, Gun Rights, and Gun Policy issues and is published on The Bell Towers, The Brenner Brief, PolicyMic. TavernKeepers, and Vocativ.

Follow Me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/2AFight  

Follow Me on Facebook:   https://www.facebook.com/2ndAmendmentFight
 

This article also appears on The Brenner Brief. (Original publication August 21, 2013).

Gun Sales Surge in Newtown, Running Counter to the ‘Fewer Guns Equals Less Crime’ Mantra

by Matt MacBradaigh | Nov 21, 2013 | News | 0 comments

Gun sales surge in Newtown, already surpassing the total for all of 2012. Gun sales are also sharply rising in the rest of Connecticut. This is common after a tragedy and runs counter to the prevailing liberal narrative that fewer guns means less crime. Academic research also refutes liberal’s claims.

Gun Control advocates would have people believe that fewer guns are the answer, not more. However, communities victimized by tragic gun shootings usually reject that position and gun sales surge after such an event. Gun sales surged after Columbine, after the Tucson, Arizona shooting of Congresswoman Gabby Giffords, after the movie theater shooting in Aurora, Colorado, and in Newtown, Connecticut. Newtown, the community that experienced the Sandy Hook Elementary school shooting more closely than any other community in America has seen a surge in gun sales since the tragedy occurred in December.

The Wall Street Journal reports that through July 24 th, more than 200 Newtown residents have new local firearm permits, a requirement in Connecticut in order to purchase a firearm. There were only 171 permits issued for all of 2012. The surge in Newtown coincides with an increase statewide in Connecticut, which has seen more than 91,000 firearms sales this year – on track to surpass the 127,000 gun sales processed by Connecticut’s Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection in 2012.

Image credit: WSJ

Local Newtown resident, Bill Stevens said “I think people realize that you can’t call the police all the time and expect them to save you. It’s sinking in to some folks that ‘I need to take responsibility for keeping my family safe.” Newtown resident, Ryan Delp, says that fear after the Sandy Hook shooting is responsible for some of the increase, and noted a 2007 home invasion in nearby Cheshire, Connecticut that left a mother and her daughters dead also struck a chord. He says, “Obviously both situations are places where you expect to be safe.” Resident Donald Casey states “Ever since this incident, people are afraid and want to protect themselves.”

The sentiment in Newtown is common following a mass murder shooting. Background checks in Colorado spiked more than 40% immediately following the shooting in Aurora, CO, according to the Colorado Bureau of Investigation, and are up 90% in 2013. Immediately after the Tucson, AZ shooting in January 2011, that left Rep. Gabby Giffords injured and killed six, sales of handguns in Arizona jumped 60% according to FBI data. One reason for the spike in gun demand is the understandable desire for safety and self-defense. Following most large shooting events, especially if it’s close to home, many people desire to have something to protect their family.

That perspective is supported by FBI crime data and the bulk of academic research on defensive gun use. Though nationwide, gun sales have surged, gun crime in the last decade has fallen; in the last 20 years, violent crime and homicides have been cut in half. Even anti-gun researcher David Hemenway concedes that defensive gun use occurs more than 152,000 times annually. But Hemingway’s contemporaries find that Americans use guns for lawful defense more often. One study in the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, contends defensive gun use is between 256,000-373,000 times annually. A Department of Justice study conducted by Philip J. Cook and Jens Ludwig found 1.5 million “genuine” instances of defensive gun use.A study by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, found 2.5 million annual instances of defensive gun use. Most recently, a July 2013 report “Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence” from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), the Institute of Medicine and National Research Council for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention which was ordered by President Obama, states:

“Defensive uses of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed. Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year, in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms.”

Regardless of which study is the most accurate, academic research shows defensive gun use far outpaces gun crime; even Hemenway’s study demonstrates this. People inherently understand this; the science just validates it: only a good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with one. The surge in sales in Newtown illustrates this basic truth and shows us that despite gun control advocates sentimentality that fewer guns is better, average people – like those in Newtown – use guns more often for their own lawful defense.

This article was originally published on Brenner Brief. Original publish date Nov 21, 2013. Original author, Matt MacBradaigh.

Banning Detachable Magazines, Pt 2: Banning Would Violate The Second Amendment

Banning detachable magazines is all the rage among the anti-gun crowd. However, several recent Supreme Court cases clearly demonstrate that such a law would violate the Second Amendment. The Court has repeated ruled that weapons “in common use at the time” are protected for use by the Second Amendment. Firearms with detachable magazines have been “in common use” for over a century.

As noted in part one of this series, California’s state legislature passed a bill that would have banned firearms that accept detachable magazines. The bill failed to become law only because California Governor Brown vetoed it. Gun control advocates have recently put forth the idea of banning detachable magazines as a means of crime reduction or reducing mass murders. MIT Economics Professor Chris Knittel’s made this suggestion in an OpEd earlier this year. The idea has also been put forth by other anti-gun fanatics and unscrupulous politicians. In part one, we covered why the banning detachable magazines would not have any measurable impact on crime, homicides, or decrease in mass murders. Here in part two, we will cover why a ban on detachable magazines would be unconstitutional in violating the Second Amendment.

In several recent (and one not-so-recent) cases, the Supreme Court has ruled that the Second Amendment: protects the individual’s right to keep and bear arms (D.C. v Heller, 2008); that arms lawfully protected are those “in common use at the time” (U.S. v Miller, 1939; Heller, 2008; McDonald v Chicago, 2010); and the 14th Amendment extends Second Amendment protections to all states (McDonald, 2010). In the light of these Supreme Court rulings, it is clear any state or federal law banning detachable magazines would violate the Second Amendment’s protections to the people’s civil right to keep and bear arms.

In Heller, The Supreme Court defined what “arms” means in legal and historical context:

Before addressing the verbs “keep” and “bear,” we interpret their object: “Arms.” The 18th-century meaning is no different from the meaning today…defined “arms” as “weapons of offen[s]e, or armor of defen[s]e.”…Timothy Cunningham’s important 1771 legal dictionary defined “arms” as “any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another” (p.7).

Thompson Tommy Gun, invented in 1919 and features detachable magazines

All firearms constitute arms according the Supreme Court: “The Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding” (p.8). While this doesn’t mean any arms whatsoever, in Heller the Court upheld previous legal restrictions from Miller on “dangerous and unusual” weapons. It should be noted that “dangerous and unusual” weapons are specifically defined and highly regulated under the 1934 National Firearms Act (NFA). They are also not “banned”, but are legal to own, provided the proper paperwork is filed with the ATF. “Dangerous and unusual” does not mean semi-automatic rifles and handguns, which are not regulated by the NFA.

The Court stated that what is protected are arms “in common use at the time” in Miller, Heller and McDonald. Rifles with magazines have been in existence for nearly two centuries. A magazine is an ammunition storage and feeding device in a firearm, and may be internal or detachable. All rifles, with the sole exception of single-shot rifles, have them. Rifles with magazines have been common since the 1800′s; the first bolt-action rifle was invented in 1824. Bolt-action and lever-action rifles with magazines became increasingly prevalent throughout the 1800′s: the Spencer repeating rifle utilized a tube magazine, while the M1885 Remington-Lee which featured an internal box magazine.

 Colt .45 handgun, featuring detachable magazines. Invented in 1911, still “in common use” today.

Detachable magazines have existed since the early 1900′s. The 1911 Colt .45 handgun, still “in common use” today, features detachable magazines. The Thompson “Tommy Gun” rifle, invented in 1919, also features detachable magazines. The Remington Model 8 and 81, first developed in 1906 with attached box magazines, was adapted in the 1920′s for detachable box magazines. Today, detachable magazines are common in everything from bolt-action rifles, like the Remington 700 to semi-automatic rifles like the AR-15, Mini-14, M-14, FAL, G3/H&K 91 type, AK47 variants and many others, and virtually all semi-automatic handguns. Because today’s detachable magazines are so common, many people think of magazines as separate objects, but they are integral to the function of rifles.

 

Schematic of Remington Model 81 magazine. Model 8′s & 81′s were invented in 1906; detachable magazines were available by the 1920s.

The Court has also said in Heller it is unconstitutional to ban an entire class of weapons popularly chosen by the American people (p.56-57). The Court also said that constitutionally protected rights are not subject to an interest-balancing approach, meaning the right can’t be limited just because gun violence is a problem (p.62-63). The Court states, “we are aware of the problem of [gun] violence in this country, and we take seriously the concerns raised by the many amici who believe that prohibition of handgun ownership is a solution…But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table” (p.64). Similarly, semi-automatic rifles and handguns that utilize detachable magazines have been overwhelmingly chosen by the American people for lawful purposes including home and self-defense and hunting. The Court stated in Heller “as we have explained [from Miller], that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time” (p.55). A law banning them would violate the Second Amendment.

By Matt MacBradaigh. Matt is a Christian, Husband, Father, Patriot, and Conservative from the Pacific Northwest. Matt writes about the Second Amendment, Gun Control, Gun Rights, and Gun Policy issues and is published on The Bell Towers, The Brenner Brief, PolicyMic. TavernKeepers, and Vocativ.

Follow Me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/2AFight  

Follow Me on Facebook:   https://www.facebook.com/2ndAmendmentFight
 

This article also appears on The Brenner Brief. (Original publication November 7, 2013).

Banning Detachable Magazines, Pt 2: Banning Would Violate The Second Amendment

by Matt MacBradaigh | Nov 7, 2013 | 2nd Amendment Facts | 1 comment

Banning detachable magazines is all the rage among the anti-gun crowd. However, several recent Supreme Court cases clearly demonstrate that such a law would violate the Second Amendment. The Court has repeated ruled that weapons “in common use at the time” are protected for use by the Second Amendment. Firearms with detachable magazines have been “in common use” for over a century.

As noted in part one of this series, California’s state legislature passed a bill that would have banned firearms that accept detachable magazines. The bill failed to become law only because California Governor Brown vetoed it. Gun control advocates have recently put forth the idea of banning detachable magazines as a means of crime reduction or reducing mass murders. MIT Economics Professor Chris Knittel’s made this suggestion in an OpEd earlier this year. The idea has also been put forth by other anti-gun fanatics and unscrupulous politicians. In part one, we covered why the banning detachable magazines would not have any measurable impact on crime, homicides, or decrease in mass murders. Here in part two, we will cover why a ban on detachable magazines would be unconstitutional in violating the Second Amendment.

In several recent (and one not-so-recent) cases, the Supreme Court has ruled that the Second Amendment: protects the individual’s right to keep and bear arms (D.C. v Heller, 2008); that arms lawfully protected are those “in common use at the time” (U.S. v Miller, 1939; Heller, 2008; McDonald v Chicago, 2010); and the 14th Amendment extends Second Amendment protections to all states (McDonald, 2010). In the light of these Supreme Court rulings, it is clear any state or federal law banning detachable magazines would violate the Second Amendment’s protections to the people’s civil right to keep and bear arms.

In Heller, The Supreme Court defined what “arms” means in legal and historical context:

Before addressing the verbs “keep” and “bear,” we interpret their object: “Arms.” The 18th-century meaning is no different from the meaning today…defined “arms” as “weapons of offen[s]e, or armor of defen[s]e.”…Timothy Cunningham’s important 1771 legal dictionary defined “arms” as “any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another” (p.7).

Thompson Tommy Gun, invented in 1919 and features detachable magazines

All firearms constitute arms according the Supreme Court: “The Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding” (p.8). While this doesn’t mean any arms whatsoever, in Heller the Court upheld previous legal restrictions from Miller on “dangerous and unusual” weapons. It should be noted that “dangerous and unusual” weapons are specifically defined and highly regulated under the 1934 National Firearms Act (NFA). They are also not “banned”, but are legal to own, provided the proper paperwork is filed with the ATF. “Dangerous and unusual” does not mean semi-automatic rifles and handguns, which are not regulated by the NFA.

The Court stated that what is protected are arms “in common use at the time” in Miller, Heller and McDonald. Rifles with magazines have been in existence for nearly two centuries. A magazine is an ammunition storage and feeding device in a firearm, and may be internal or detachable. All rifles, with the sole exception of single-shot rifles, have them. Rifles with magazines have been common since the 1800′s; the first bolt-action rifle was invented in 1824. Bolt-action and lever-action rifles with magazines became increasingly prevalent throughout the 1800′s: the Spencer repeating rifle utilized a tube magazine, while the M1885 Remington-Lee which featured an internal box magazine.

Colt .45 handgun, featuring detachable magazines. Invented in 1911, still “in common use” today.

Detachable magazines have existed since the early 1900′s. The 1911 Colt .45 handgun, still “in common use” today, features detachable magazines. The Thompson “Tommy Gun” rifle, invented in 1919, also features detachable magazines. The Remington Model 8 and 81, first developed in 1906 with attached box magazines, was adapted in the 1920′s for detachable box magazines. Today, detachable magazines are common in everything from bolt-action rifles, like the Remington 700 to semi-automatic rifles like the AR-15, Mini-14, M-14, FAL, G3/H&K 91 type, AK47 variants and many others, and virtually all semi-automatic handguns. Because today’s detachable magazines are so common, many people think of magazines as separate objects, but they are integral to the function of rifles.

Schematic of Remington Model 81 magazine. Model 8′s & 81′s were invented in 1906; detachable magazines were available by the 1920s.

The Court has also said in Heller it is unconstitutional to ban an entire class of weapons popularly chosen by the American people (p.56-57). The Court also said that constitutionally protected rights are not subject to an interest-balancing approach, meaning the right can’t be limited just because gun violence is a problem (p.62-63). The Court states, “we are aware of the problem of [gun] violence in this country, and we take seriously the concerns raised by the many amici who believe that prohibition of handgun ownership is a solution…But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table” (p.64). Similarly, semi-automatic rifles and handguns that utilize detachable magazines have been overwhelmingly chosen by the American people for lawful purposes including home and self-defense and hunting. The Court stated in Heller “as we have explained [from Miller], that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time” (p.55). A law banning them would violate the Second Amendment.

This article was originally published on The Brenner Brief. Original publish date Nov. 7, 2013. Original author, Matt MacBradaigh.