Thursday, November 21, 2013

Banning Detachable Magazines, Pt 1: Would Do Nothing To Reduce Homicides or Mass Murder Shootings

Bolt-action rifle with detachable mag 02

Banning detachable magazines would do nothing to reduce homicides, or prevent mass murder, or mass shootings. While the idea is somewhat of a new fad among gun control advocates, criminology research shows that would be a non-solution to violence. We ought to instead look at underlying, root causes of violence.

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. The idea that banning detachable magazines would have any measurable impact on crime, homicides, or decrease in mass murders is asinine, inane and imbecilic – contrary to logic and available research from criminology experts who study mass murder.

Remington Model 8

As a measure to reduce crime, banning detachable magazines is ludicrous. Over 90% of the 1.2 million annual incidents of violent crime do not involve a gun, and of the 120,000 incidents that do involve a gun, less than 9,000 result in firearm homicides (including all handgun,rifle, shotgun and other gun categories). Of those, the majority are the result of handgun violence (6,371 out of 12,765 homicides in 2012) – not rifles (322 in 2012), or mass murder (usually less than 100). These would not be affected by banning detachable magazines. The “logic” behind banning detachable magazines is to reduce potential death by reducing the ability to rapidly reload. However, research shows most firearm homicide victims are shot at less than 10 times, and actually shot less than four times. Reloading would not a requirement in these murders. A ban on detachable magazines is not a ban on capacity in firearms that hold 15 rounds or more. Capacity of over 10 rounds of ammunition – even in internal, attached magazines – has existed for over 100 years; for example, the 1906 Remington Model 8, which originally featured an attached magazine, held 15 rounds.

Despite inordinate reporting of mass shootings to capitalize on ratings and ad revenue, which makes it seem that mass shootings are on the rise, the truth is they are not increasing. Similarly, homicide, violent crime, and even gun crime are at 20 year lows.

Bolt action rifle with detachable magazine

Banning detachable magazines would not have any logical effect on mass shootings. A magazine is simply an ammunition storage and feeding device in a firearm, which may be internal (integral) or detached. All rifles, with the sole exception of single-shot rifles, have them. A ban of detachable magazines doesn’t eliminate magazines from a rifle, just the ability to replace one detachable magazine with another detachable magazine. And that wouldn’t eliminate the weapon’s rate of fire or ability to be reloaded, even quickly reloaded. The remedy to faster reloads for fixed, internal magazines have been in existence since before the invention of detachable magazines. Stripper clips are flat metal devices that hold ammunition in a line which allows rapid reload of semi-automatic internal, or attached magazines (note: available for rifles and handguns). Similarly, speedloaders allow for fast reloading in revolver magazines.

Revolver speedloader

A criminal or mentally disturbed person intent on doing a lot of shooting could simply replace detachable magazines with alternate reloading devices such as stripper clips and speedloaders. Failing that, such a person could simply bring several loaded guns and not bother with reloading any of them. Even a single firearm with no additional reloading mechanism could be used to produce tragedy. Further, guns are no requirement to mass murder, and a determined person will find a way according to the experts. Dr. James Alan Fox of Northeastern University states that most mass murderers plan out their attacks well in advance and expect to die in the event. If one tool – firearms with detachable magazines – is not available, they will simply find another. The worst school massacre in U.S. History, the Bath School disa ster of 1927 in which 44 were killed, the perpetrator used bombs, like the Oklahoma City Bombing incident.

Stripper clip

Gun control advocates counter to gun rights advocates is often to complain that they don’t seem to want to do anything. This is not accurate. I advocate a genuine look at the underlying causes of violence – which almost no one is talking about – in lieu of suggestions which are easily demonstrated to be no solution. Banning detachable magazines is no solution to either homicide or to mass murder. However, a real look at gang violence (responsible for half of all violent crime), drug abuse (the single greatest predictor of violence, with or with mental illness), mental illness, and poverty, particularly urban poverty would be genuine steps towards real solutions. Rather than exploiting every gun tragedy to advance non-solutions, politicians and concerned citizens ought to be willing to roll up their sleeves and do the real and difficult work of finding solutions to the root causes of violence rather than cosmetic, feel-good measures that ultimately achieve nothing productive.

Be sure to check out part 2 of this series, which will cover the unconstitutionality of banning detachable magazines.

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 6, 2013).

Banning Detachable Magazines, Pt 1: Would Do Nothing To Reduce Homicides or Mass Murder Shootings

by Matt MacBradaigh | Nov 6, 2013 | Gun Control Facts | 0 comments

Banning detachable magazines would do nothing to reduce homicides, or prevent mass murder, or mass shootings. While the idea is somewhat of a new fad among gun control advocates, criminology research shows that would be a non-solution to violence. We ought to instead look at underlying, root causes of violence.

Despite inordinate exploitation of mass shootings for the ratings and ad revenue, which makes it seem that mass shootings are on the rise, the truth is they are not increasing. Similarly, homicide, violent crime, and even gun crime are at 20 year lows.

Gun control advocates counter to gun rights advocates is often to complain that they don’t seem to want to do anything. This is not accurate. This author advocates a genuine look at the underlying causes of violence – which almost no one is talking about – in lieu of suggestions which are easily demonstrated to be no solution. Banning detachable magazines is no solution to either homicide or to mass murder. However, a real look at gang violence (responsible for half of all violent crime), drug abuse (the single greatest predictor of violence, with or with mental illness), mental illness, and poverty, particularly urban poverty would be genuine steps towards real solutions. Rather than exploiting every gun tragedy to advance non-solutions, politicians and concerned citizens ought to be willing to roll up their sleeves and do the real and difficult work of finding solutions to the root causes of violence rather than cosmetic, feel-good measures that ultimately achieve nothing productive.

This article was originally published on Brenner Brief. Original publish date Nov 6, 2013. Original author, Matt MacBradaigh.

State Magazine Capacity Laws Violate the Second Amendment

State magazine capacity laws violate the Second Amendment. Nearly all state laws were passed prior to recent Supreme Court gun rights cases, but in the light of the rulings they clearly violate the people’s right to keep and bear arms.

Several states have laws restricting the capacity of magazines in firearms. With the exception of Colorado, these laws were passed prior to several recent Supreme Court gun rights cases. However, now the 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 that magazine capacity restriction laws violate the Second Amendment’s protections to the people’s civil right to keep and bear arms.

The Second Amendment protects the right of the individual to keep and bear arms – not ‘the right to own a single-shot musket’, but “arms”. In Heller, The Supreme Court defines 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).

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, they also re-affirmed that what is protected are weapons “in common use at the time”. This is further upheld in McDonald.

Rifles with magazines have been in existence for nearly two centuries and are in very common use today. The ATF defines a rifle as “any weapon which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive” under Federal law § 921(a)(3)(A). Magazines are a part of the rifle, and all rifles, with the sole exception of single-shot rifles, have them. A magazine is an ammunition storage and feeding device in a firearm. Magazines can be detachable or internal. Without the magazine, rifle function is impaired, or is nonfunctional; some firearms will not fire unless the magazine is attached. Federal law considers magazines to comprise 3 of the 20 parts of a firearm under section § 922(r).

Rifles featuring magazines have been commonplace since the 1800′s. At this time, magazines were internal. 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. Since the early 1900′s, modern rifles more commonly have detachable magazines. The 1911 Colt handgun, still “in common use” today, features detachable box magazines. The Thompson “Tommy gun” was invented in 1919 and features detachable box and drum magazines. The Remington Model 8 and 81, first developed in 1906 with attached box magazines, were later adapted for detachable box magazines.

Today, detachable box magazines are common in everything from bolt-action rifles, like the Remington 700 to semi-automatic AR-15s, as well as virtually all semi-automatic handguns. Because today’s detachable box magazines are so common, many people think of magazines as separate objects, but they are integral to the function of rifles. So-called “high capacity” or “large capacity” magazines are ‘standard’ every place not prohibited by law.

How common are they? No one has a precise count of magazines, but the numbers easily range from tens of millions to billions. AR-15 variants, for instance, are designed to use a 30 round magazine as standard. NATO countries created the STANAG protocol to standardize magazine features including 30 round capacity. Over 70 countries have produced tens of millions of rifles that accept STANAG magazines with magazine production for these rifles possibly into the billions. Similarly, AK47 variants – with standard 30 round magazines – number an estimated 100 million produced, with magazine production also likely in the billions. It is legal to import these magazines into the U.S. This is just two popular rifles; there are many others, like the Mini-14, FAL, Uzi, H&K 91, and others. Estimates of so-called “high” capacity magazines in the U.S. range from 40 million to 130 million. A 2004 report to the Dept. of Justice (at the close of the ten-year Federal Assault Weapons Ban, which included ban on new production magazines over 10 rounds) estimated nearly 30 million “large capacity” magazines. Millions have been produced and imported every years since the ban was ended. According to the ATF, over 6.5 million firearms were manufactured and over 3.2 million firearms imported in 2011 alone. Major U.S. firearms manufacturers, such as Colt, Ruger, and Mossberg, ship 30 round magazines as standard with their rifles. New production magazines from manufacturers like Magpul, and importers of surplus magazines add to the number annually.

Semi-automatic rifles that utilize detachable box magazines with a standard capacity of 30 rounds have been “overwhelmingly chosen by the American people” for lawful purposes including home and self-defense and hunting. That, according to Heller (pp.55-56) qualifies them as “in common use”, and “as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time” (p.55). Therefore laws that restrict their use violate the protections under the Second Amendment. In McDonald, the Court made clear that the 14th Amendment ensures Second Amendment rights cannot be infringed upon by individual states, and the Court struck down Illinois’ unconstitutional gun law. The same must be applied to every state that currently violates the Second Amendment’s protections by restricting magazine capacity.

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 1, 2013).

State Magazine Capacity Laws Violate the Second Amendment

by Matt MacBradaigh | Nov 1, 2013 | 2nd Amendment Facts | 0 comments

State magazine capacity laws violate the Second Amendment. Nearly all state laws were passed prior to recent Supreme Court gun rights cases, but in the light of the rulings they clearly violate the people’s right to keep and bear arms.

The Second Amendment protects the right of the individual to keep and bear arms – not ‘the right to own a single-shot musket’, but “arms”. In Heller, The Supreme Court defines 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).

Rifles with magazines have been in existence for nearly two centuries and are in very common use today. The ATF defines a rifle as “any weapon which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive” under Federal law § 921(a)(3)(A). Magazines are a part of the rifle, and all rifles, with the sole exception of single-shot rifles, have them. A magazine is an ammunition storage and feeding device in a firearm. Magazines can be detachable or internal. Without the magazine, rifle function is impaired, or is nonfunctional; some firearms will not fire unless the magazine is attached. Federal law considers magazines to comprise 3 of the 20 parts of a firearm under section § 922(r).

Rifles featuring magazines have been commonplace since the 1800′s. At this time, magazines were internal. 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. Since the early 1900′s, modern rifles more commonly have detachable magazines. The 1911 Colt handgun, still “in common use” today, features detachable box magazines. The Thompson “Tommy gun” was invented in 1919 and features detachable box and drum magazines. The Remington Model 8 and 81, first developed in 1906 with attached box magazines, were later adapted for detachable box magazines.

Today, detachable box magazines are common in everything from bolt-action rifles, like the Remington 700 to semi-automatic AR-15s, as well as virtually all semi-automatic handguns. Because today’s detachable box magazines are so common, many people think of magazines as separate objects, but they are integral to the function of rifles. So-called “high capacity” or “large capacity” magazines are ‘standard’ every place not prohibited by law.

How common are they? No one has a precise count of magazines, but the numbers easily range from tens of millions to billions. AR-15 variants, for instance, are designed to use a 30 round magazine as standard. NATO countries created the STANAG protocol to standardize magazine features including 30 round capacity. Over 70 countries have produced tens of millions of rifles that accept STANAG magazines with magazine production for these rifles possibly into the billions. Similarly, AK47 variants – with standard 30 round magazines – number an estimated 100 million produced, with magazine production also likely in the billions. It is legal to import these magazines into the U.S. This is just two popular rifles; there are many others, like the Mini-14, FAL, Uzi, H&K 91, and others. Estimates of so-called “high” capacity magazines in the U.S. range from 40 million to 130 million. A 2004 report to the Dept. of Justice (at the close of the ten-year Federal Assault Weapons Ban, which included ban on new production magazines over 10 rounds) estimated nearly 30 million “large capacity” magazines. Millions have been produced and imported every years since the ban was ended. According to the ATF, over 6.5 million firearms were manufactured and over 3.2 million firearms imported in 2011 alone. Major U.S. firearms manufacturers, such as Colt, Ruger, and Mossberg, ship 30 round magazines as standard with their rifles. New production magazines from manufacturers like Magpul, and importers of surplus magazines add to the number annually.

Semi-automatic rifles that utilize detachable box magazines with a standard capacity of 30 rounds have been “overwhelmingly chosen by the American people” for lawful purposes including home and self-defense and hunting. That, according to Heller (pp.55-56) qualifies them as “in common use”, and “as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time” (p.55). Therefore laws that restrict their use violate the protections under the Second Amendment. In McDonald, the Court made clear that the 14th Amendment ensures Second Amendment rights cannot be infringed upon by individual states, and the Court struck down Illinois’ unconstitutional gun law. The same must be applied to every state that currently violates the Second Amendment’s protections by restricting magazine capacity.

This article was originally published on Brenner Brief. Original publish date Nov 1, 2013. Original author, Matt MacBradaigh.

Tuesday, October 15, 2013

The Polls Are In: Gun Control Loses with the American Public

A recent poll shows that the average American rejects the partisan rhetoric calling for more gun control. Rather, the American public falls more in line with academic research, recognizing that superficial legislation cannot curb violent crime, but may in fact make it worse.

An AP-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll asked Americans to size up how well the government is protecting a variety of rights and freedoms. Interestingly, the poll revealed that Americans believe there has been a dramatic decline in the protections of the Bill of Rights, especially with regard to the Second Amendment. The results were not confined to specific demographics. Instead, the “impression of a declining track record on guns rights turned up everywhere: among Republicans and Democrats, men and women, young and old, city dwellers and those in small towns. ”

Survey findings demonstrate that overall, just 44% of Americans think the federal government is doing a good job of safeguarding the right to keep and bear arms, down from 57% two years earlier. Unsurprisingly, Republicans and independents were far more likely than Democrats to give the government poor marks for protecting gun rights. Among Republicans, the percentage who believe that the government is doing a good job protecting the right to bear arms fell to 36%, down from 51%. However, even among Democrats, the percentage dropped to 56% from 64%. The biggest decline was among independents at just 25% down from 52%.

Of note from the survey, “Americans of all stripes spoke with sorrow about the latest deaths” – but simply reasoned that tighter laws would not have prevented the tragedies. Some believe tighter gun control laws could make things worse. This is corroborated by government-reported crime statistics, criminologist research and studies of lawful gun use for defensive purposes. Academic research and data in three major areas confirms what the polls reflect, that additional gun control is unnecessary and even counter-productive.

U.S. Homicide, Violent Crime and Gun Murder Is Declining
Murder is near an all-time low in the U.S. Violent crime, including homicides and even gun murder have been steadily declining. Homicides in the U.S. peaked in the early 1990′s when homicides in 1990 to 1994 ranged from 21,000-24,000 annually. In 1993 there were a total of 24,530 homicides (p.137). A majority – 17,075 – of these were Firearms-related (69.6%). The homicide rate was 9.5 per 100,000 people. But homicides dropped homicides dropped to 12,664 in 2011. Again, two-thirds (67.7%) of homicides are Firearm-related, at 8,583. The homicide rate has dropped to 4.7 from 9.5 per 100,000 people. The FBI shows violent crime rates are also drastically declining, dropping from 747.1 in 1993 to 386.3 in 2011. The violent crime rate is now 50.7% of what it was 20 years ago. The homicide rate has declined by 48.7% in that same time period. Firearm homicides have declined by 50.2%. The BJS report “Homicide Trends in the United States” states, “In recent years, all regions have experienced a decline in homicide rates”(p.144, emphasis added) and “Trends in gun homicides follow patterns similar to those for all homicides” (p. 145). Additional gun control isn’t necessary because murder – even gun murder – is already in decline and reaching record lows.

Lawful Defensive Gun Use
Academic research of lawful gun use for defensive purposes shows that defensive use far outpaces criminal use of firearms. A major reported reason for gun ownership is self-defense. Criminology researchers have found lawful defensive gun use is widespread. Studies with low estimates still show there is more lawful defensive use than there is criminal use. One study in the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, found annual defensive gun use (DGU) occurs between 256,000-373,000 times per year. Defensive gun use is the lawful use of a firearm to protect oneself in a threatening situation. A Department of Justice study conducted by Philip J. Cook and Jens Ludwig found 1.5 million “genuine” instances of DGU. The seminal Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology study by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, found 2.5 million annual instances of DGU.

Most recently, a 2013 study “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 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.”

Criminal use of firearms is reported by the FBI and Bureau of Justice Statistics. FBI Uniform Crime Reports show that approximately 9,000 homicides (lethal violent crime) per year that involve firearms. There were a total of 1.2 million non-lethal violent crimes in 2011, but just 10% of “nonfatal violent crime from 1993 to 2011” involved a firearm, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, making the total of non-lethal violent crimes with guns approximately 120,000 in 2011. Combined with lethal violent crime (homicides), there are just under 130,000 annual criminal uses of guns. Compared to criminal use of guns – both lethal and non-lethal, defensive gun use is far more pervasive.

Criminologist Research Supports Widespread Gun Ownership
Research in the U.S. indicates substantial evidence that widespread gun possession decreases crime, according to criminologists Don Kates and Gary Mauser. Their 2007 published study in Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy “Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide?” found gun restrictions have a negative correlation to crime, meaning “where firearms are most dense, violent crime rates are lowest, and where guns are least dense, violent crime rates are highest” (p.653). They examine cross-nationally among 36 nations including many developed European nations as well as the United States, as well as examining within the United States, state-to-state, county-by-county, and over historical time periods. They state: “Whether viewed as a cause or coincidental, the long term macrocosmic evidence is that gun ownership spread widely throughout societies consistently correlate with stable or declining murder rates” (p.673).

Professors Kates and Mauser go as far as to say this is an axiom to criminologists, the culmination of virtually every study since at least the 1890s, that average, law-abiding citizens virtually do not murder. Adult murderers have adult criminal records 90% of the time, and usually have multiple contacts with the justice system. In other words, average people don’t suddenly become homicidal simply because they have a gun. Laws intended to prevent crime by keeping all citizen from having guns are useless because crime is committed by criminals with history of doing so. They state: “there is no reason for law prohibiting gun possession by ordinary, law-abiding responsible adults, because such people virtually never murder… disarming them becomes not just unproductive, but counter-productive” (p. 670 emphasis added).

Academic research confirms what Americans already believe, that the ‘benefits’ of gun control pale in comparison to the Constitutional rights infringed. Though media reports of shootings are often sensational, homicide and gun murders are nearing an all time low. In addition, criminologists show that widespread gun possession correlates with reduced crime and murder rates, and that guns are most commonly used for lawful defensive purposes. Elected representatives in Congress would do well to listen to the voice of the people, a voice in this case that is backed by a large body of academic research and the government’s own reported crime statistics. Congress needs to abandon bad policy and act to protect law-abiding citizens’ right to keep and bear arms.

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

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

This article also appears on The Bell Towers. (Original publication September 26, 2013).

Polls Show Americans Do Not Support Gun Control

by Matt MacBradaigh | Sep 26, 2013 | Gun Control Facts | 0 comments

Survey findings demonstrate that overall, just 44% of Americans think the federal government is doing a good job of safeguarding the right to keep and bear arms, down from 57% two years earlier. Unsurprisingly, Republicans and independents were far more likely than Democrats to give the government poor marks for protecting gun rights. Among Republicans, the percentage who believe that the government is doing a good job protecting the right to bear arms fell to 36%, down from 51%. However, even among Democrats, the percentage dropped to 56% from 64%. The biggest decline was among independents at just 25% down from 52%.

Of note from the survey, “Americans of all stripes spoke with sorrow about the latest deaths” – but simply reasoned that tighter laws would not have prevented the tragedies. Some believe tighter gun control laws could make things worse. This is corroborated by government-reported crime statistics, criminologist research and studies of lawful gun use for defensive purposes. Academic research and data in three major areas confirms what the polls reflect, that additional gun control is unnecessary and even counter-productive.

U.S. Homicide, Violent Crime and Gun Murder Is Declining

Murder is near an all-time low in the U.S. Violent crime, including homicides and even gun murder have been steadily declining. Homicides in the U.S. peaked in the early 1990′s when homicides in 1990 to 1994 ranged from 21,000-24,000 annually. In 1993 there were a total of 24,530 homicides (p.137). A majority – 17,075 – of these were Firearms-related (69.6%). The homicide rate was 9.5 per 100,000 people. But homicides dropped homicides dropped to 12,664 in 2011. Again, two-thirds (67.7%) of homicides are Firearm-related, at 8,583. The homicide rate has dropped to 4.7 from 9.5 per 100,000 people. The FBI shows violent crime rates are also drastically declining, dropping from 747.1 in 1993 to 386.3 in 2011. The violent crime rate is now 50.7% of what it was 20 years ago. The homicide rate has declined by 48.7% in that same time period. Firearm homicides have declined by 50.2%. The BJS report “Homicide Trends in the United States” states, “In recent years, all regions have experienced a decline in homicide rates”(p.144, emphasis added) and “Trends in gun homicides follow patterns similar to those for all homicides” (p. 145). Additional gun control isn’t necessary because murder – even gun murder – is already in decline and reaching record lows.

Lawful Defensive Gun Use

Academic research of lawful gun use for defensive purposes shows that defensive use far outpaces criminal use of firearms. A major reported reason for gun ownership is self-defense. Criminology researchers have found lawful defensive gun use is widespread. Studies with low estimates still show there is more lawful defensive use than there is criminal use. One study in the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, found annual defensive gun use (DGU) occurs between 256,000-373,000 times per year. Defensive gun use is the lawful use of a firearm to protect oneself in a threatening situation. A Department of Justice study conducted by Philip J. Cook and Jens Ludwig found 1.5 million “genuine” instances of DGU. The seminal Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology study by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, found 2.5 million annual instances of DGU.

Most recently, a 2013 study “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 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.”

Criminal use of firearms is reported by the FBI and Bureau of Justice Statistics. FBI Uniform Crime Reports show that approximately 9,000 homicides (lethal violent crime) per year that involve firearms. There were a total of 1.2 million non-lethal violent crimes in 2011, but just 10% of “nonfatal violent crime from 1993 to 2011” involved a firearm, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, making the total of non-lethal violent crimes with guns approximately 120,000 in 2011. Combined with lethal violent crime (homicides), there are just under 130,000 annual criminal uses of guns. Compared to criminal use of guns – both lethal and non-lethal, defensive gun use is far more pervasive.

Criminologist Research Supports Widespread Gun Ownership

Research in the U.S. indicates substantial evidence that widespread gun possession decreases crime, according to criminologists Don Kates and Gary Mauser. Their 2007 published study in Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy “Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide?” found gun restrictions have a negative correlation to crime, meaning “where firearms are most dense, violent crime rates are lowest, and where guns are least dense, violent crime rates are highest” (p.653). They examine cross-nationally among 36 nations including many developed European nations as well as the United States, as well as examining within the United States, state-to-state, county-by-county, and over historical time periods. They state: “Whether viewed as a cause or coincidental, the long term macrocosmic evidence is that gun ownership spread widely throughout societies consistently correlate with stable or declining murder rates” (p.673).

Professors Kates and Mauser go as far as to say this is an axiom to criminologists, the culmination of virtually every study since at least the 1890s, that average, law-abiding citizens virtually do not murder. Adult murderers have adult criminal records 90% of the time, and usually have multiple contacts with the justice system. In other words, average people don’t suddenly become homicidal simply because they have a gun. Laws intended to prevent crime by keeping all citizen from having guns are useless because crime is committed by criminals with history of doing so. They state: “there is no reason for law prohibiting gun possession by ordinary, law-abiding responsible adults, because such people virtually never murder… disarming them becomes not just unproductive, but counter-productive” (p. 670 emphasis added).

Academic research confirms what Americans already believe, that the ‘benefits’ of gun control pale in comparison to the Constitutional rights infringed. Though media reports of shootings are often sensational, homicide and gun murders are nearing an all time low. In addition, criminologists show that widespread gun possession correlates with reduced crime and murder rates, and that guns are most commonly used for lawful defensive purposes. Elected representatives in Congress would do well to listen to the voice of the people, a voice in this case that is backed by a large body of academic research and the government’s own reported crime statistics. Congress needs to abandon bad policy and act to protect law-abiding citizens’ right to keep and bear arms.

This article was originally published on The Bell Towers. Original publish date Sep 26, 2013. Original author, Matt MacBradaigh.

Thursday, November 21, 2013