by Glenn Beck
Two things stand out from this report: First, there were not “2 armed guards” at the school that day; there was one. And second, while Michael Moore is technically correct that the guard was “at” Columbine High School, he was not “in” it. To use this as the prime example of why armed guards in schools won’t work is pretty disingenuous.
Unfortunately, many controllists suffer from magical thinking. They believe that banning guns will somehow make them safer, as though laws are all we need to stop criminals. But consider for a second that you felt threatened for some reason and then ask yourself this: would you feel safer with a sign on your front window saying “This house is a gun-free zone” or with an armed guard on call whenever you were home?
If you wouldn’t put this sign on your home, why would anyone think it’s okay to put them in places where young children gather nearly every day?
COLLEGE STUDENTS ARE TOO IRRESPONSIBLE TO CARRY GUNS.
“Carrying guns on a college campus, for example, is one of the dumbest things I’ve ever heard of in my life. I don’t remember what you were like when you were in college, but I shouldn’t have had a gun when I was in college nor should anybody I knew. We just don’t need guns every place.”
—MAYOR MICHAEL BLOOMBERG, December 16, 2012
Currently, once someone qualifies for a permit in a right-to-carry state they can carry a concealed handgun with them virtually anywhere in that state except for a few designated gun-free zones. Prominent among those “protected” areas are universities and schools.
As of the beginning of 2013, five states guaranteed people the right to carry concealed handguns on university campuses: Colorado, Mississippi, Oregon, Utah, and Wisconsin. Twelve other states, including two large ones, Texas and Florida, are currently engaged in a debate over whether to end their bans on concealed-carry on campus. Twenty-one states leave the decision up to individual schools, though it’s not surprising that most liberal universities have views similar to Mayor Bloomberg’s.
So, what about those views? Is Bloomberg right? Would armed students and faculty pose a danger to others? Would armed students confuse police and possibly get shot themselves?
Fortunately, we don’t have to guess at the answers since many campuses have allowed concealed-carry for years, especially prior to the major push for gun-free zones back in the early 1990s. According to John Lott, “Back then, in the states that allowed concealed permitted handguns, students and professors frequently carried handguns, and there simply weren’t any problems.”
As a group, permit holders (not just those on college campuses) are exceedingly law-abiding. Consider the two states at the front of the current debate over carrying guns on campus: Florida and Texas, both of which keep detailed records on the behavior of their permit holders. Over the nearly twenty-five-year period from October 1, 1987, to June 30, 2012, Florida issued permits to 2.4 million people, with the average person maintaining that permit for more than a decade. Few of them—168 to be exact (about 0.01 percent)—have had their permits revoked for any type of firearms-related violation. (Ironically, the most common reason for revocation was carrying a concealed handgun into a gun-free zone, such as a school or an airport.)
Over a forty-three-month period—the latest period that data was available for—only four Florida permit holders had their permit revoked for a firearms-related violation—an annual rate of 0.0001 percent. The numbers are similarly small in Texas. In 2011, there were 519,000 active license holders. One hundred twenty of them were convicted of either a misdemeanor or a felony in that year, a rate of 0.023 percent—and only a few of those crimes involved a gun.
While it’s clear that permit holders have succeeded in stopping a wide range of public massacres, at schools and elsewhere, there has not been a single reported incident where a permit holder has accidentally shot a bystander. Likewise, the police have somehow managed to get to the attackers without shooting any permit holders in the process.
Data and studies aside, there are also plenty of examples from the real world. Recently, Joe Salazar, a Colorado state representative, invoked the wrath of lots of people with this idiotic comment about why women don’t need guns to stop a rapist on campus:
It’s why we have call boxes, it’s why we have safe zones, it’s why we have the whistles. Because you just don’t know who you’re gonna be shooting at. And you don’t know if you feel like you’re gonna be raped, or if you feel like someone’s been following you around or if you feel like you’re in trouble and when you may actually not be, that you pop out that gun and you pop—pop a round at somebody?
Amanda Collins, whom I spoke with recently on my television program, begs to differ. Collins, who had a concealed-carry license but was not permitted to carry her gun while on campus, was brutally raped inside a parking garage, less than one hundred feet from campus authorities.
“I was denied the one equalizing factor that I had,” she said.
And what about those campus safe zones that Representative Salazar talked about? “Well,” Collins said, “I was in a safe zone and my attacker didn’t care.”
Gun-free zones don’t deter criminals—they help them by providing a guarantee that they will not face any armed resistance. But they do deter the law-abiding. A faculty member with a concealed-handgun permit who breaks the campus gun ban would be fired and likely find it impossible to get hired at another university. A student with a permit who brings a gun to school faces expulsion and would probably find it difficult to get admitted to another school. Bringing a firearm into a gun-free zone can have serious adverse consequences for law-abiding people. But for someone like the Virginia Tech killer, the threat of expulsion is no deterrent at all.
THE POLICE SUPPORT MORE GUN CONTROL LAWS—YOU SHOULD, TOO.
“I don’t understand why the police officers across this country don’t stand up collectively and say we’re going to go on strike [until more gun control is adopted].”
—MAYOR MICHAEL BLOOMBERG, July 23, 2012
It is illegal for police to go on strike, and Bloomberg later backed off his statement. But, aside from the fact that he probably should’ve known that already, this is a classic case of once again trying to click those heels and wish that people would behave the way you think they should. However, unlike with his restrictions on cigarettes, painkillers, and baby formula, Bloomberg can’t just force the police into believing that more gun control is needed.
The annual survey by the National Association of Chiefs of Police polls more than twenty thousand chiefs of police and sheriffs. In 2010, 95 percent of respondents said they believed that “any law-abiding citizen [should] be able to purchase a firearm for sport or self-defense.” Seventy-seven percent said that concealed-handgun permits issued in one state should be honored by other states “in the way that drivers’ licenses are recognized through the country” and that making citizens’ permits portable would “facilitate the violent-crime-fighting potential of the professional law enforcement community.”
National surveys of street officers are rare, but the ones that have been done show officers to be overwhelmingly in favor of law-abiding civilians’ owning and carrying guns. A 2007 national survey of sworn police officers by Police magazine found that 88 percent did not agree that “tighter restrictions on handgun ownership would increase or enhance public safety.” In the same survey, 67 percent said they opposed tighter gun control because the “law would only be obeyed by law-abiding citizens.”
Regional and local surveys show similar patterns. For example, a 1997 survey conducted by the San Diego Police Officers Association found that 82 percent of its officers opposed an “assault weapons” ban, 82 percent opposed a limitation on magazine capacity, and 85 percent supported letting law-abiding private citizens carry concealed handguns. And, just recently, the non-partisan association that represents all 62 of Colorado’s elected sheriffs issued a position paper against attempts to limit the capacity of magazines. “Law enforcement officers carry hi
gh-capacity magazines because there are times when 10 rounds might not be enough to end the threat,” the group wrote. “County Sheriffs of Colorado believe the same should hold true for civilians who wish to defend themselves, especially if attacked by multiple assailants.”
So, Mr. Mayor, maybe the reason police aren’t begging for more gun control is the very same one that, despite the evidence, you won’t listen to: our cops know that more guns mean less crime.
WE SHOULD RESTRICT MAGAZINES TO A MAXIMUM OF TEN ROUNDS.
“[W]hy can’t we restrict the big magazines? If you sort of have a smaller magazine, it’s very likely fewer people would have gotten shot in Tucson. Why can’t we ban assault weapons?”
—E. J. DIONNE JR. (Washington Post columnist), January 13, 2011
“Extended magazines for handguns, for example, are not used in hunting. They’re not used in self-defense. An extended magazine for a handgun is the sort of thing that is only used for killing a large number of humans or trying to.”
—RACHEL MADDOW, January 10, 2011
“What we’re trying to do, which seems reasonable, is to limit the number of rounds in a magazine to two. Excuse me, to 10. That was in the Assault Weapons Ban, which we allowed to expire. At least 10 fewer people would had been shot [in Tucson] had that been the case and I can’t understand any rational argument for not, at least restricting the size of the magazines to 10.”
—REPRESENTATIVE JIM MORAN (D-VA), January 13, 2011
This is such common sense that I can’t believe we haven’t done it already! Just limit the number of bullets a magazine can hold to ten and mass killings will magically disappear. Or should it be seven bullets, as New York has decided? Or five? Or, as Senator Feinstein suggested many years ago, three rounds?
Or how about zero?
A magazine is basically a metal or plastic box with a spring. Before 3-D printing came into existence it was pretty easy for people to make these at home. A few years from now, anyone will be able to make a magazine in virtually any size they want. Restricting their capacity to some arbitrary number may ensure that law-abiding people can’t buy a larger one, but it will not stop a criminal who wants one, especially since many millions are already in circulation.
In some ways I can understand this argument, since it follows the typical pattern. Controllists think more guns mean more crime, so naturally they think more ammunition means more fatalities from mass killings. The problem is that the data just doesn’t bear that out.
Mother Jones, whose data issues we’ve already covered, claims that half of the incidents they looked at involved magazines holding more than ten bullets. That’s thirty-one incidents over the last thirty years. Whether U.S. policy involving millions of people, not to mention a constitutional right, should really be changed over something that happens an average of once a year can be debated—but let’s put that aside and instead think about the practical impact on criminals of restricting magazine sizes.
I looked at the underlying Mothers Jones data from those thirty-one incidents involving so-called high-capacity magazines (remember, a 30-round magazine is standard on many guns) and found that twenty of them involved a killer who brought multiple guns to the scene. Using multiple weapons is obviously one convenient way around any kind of magazine capacity restriction. (Having multiple smaller magazines is another way around it, but then you get into dumb arguments about how quickly someone can switch magazines.) If you exclude the massacres where the murderer possessed multiple firearms, you are left with eleven incidents. Over three decades.
Controllists like to make the argument that a gunman who has to reload is more likely to be stopped during that process, but I know of only two incidents where that has ever actually happened: Tucson and the 1993 Long Island Rail Road massacre. If others exist I’d be curious to know why those who think that restricting magazine size will reduce fatalities do not cite them more often.
There is also the obvious issue of control. Once a magazine limit is determined, controllists have a starting point. Right now they are fighting for ten, but is that really the end of it? In his essay Guns, Stephen King gave a glimpse into how this mentality works: “Ban the sale of clips and magazines containing more than ten rounds. I think that’s too many; to borrow the title of an old sitcom, I believe eight is enough. But I’d happily accept ten.”
So he’d happily accept ten . . . right now. But what about a few years from now? Will he push for eight? You can see how quickly this can get out of hand. In fact, controllists may have found a back door into the overall gun ban they dream of. After all, the Constitution may guarantee the right to keep and bear arms, but it says nothing about ammunition.
Many gun control advocates don’t care about the data or the practicality or the history (or the Constitution) and instead simply can’t stand the idea that these magazines even exist. Why does anyone need a thirty-round magazine, they ask rhetorically.
I think there are two answers. The first is simple: none of your business. We are not a “needs-based” society when it comes to rights. We don’t dole out freedoms based on the collective wisdom of some group of elitists. The second reason is more practical, though controllists aren’t going to like it: sometimes people need more than seven or ten bullets to defend themselves.
There are plenty of examples to highlight, but a recent one occurred in late February 2013 in Houston. A family was baking a cake in their kitchen when three men invaded their home. After taking down the father the men went for his wife. Their son, seeing what was happening, ran and got his father’s gun. He opened fire, killing one of the attackers and forcing the others to flee. Had his gun started clicking after seven or ten shots this home invasion could have ended very differently.
Controllists may scoff, but it’s a pretty good bet that the number of lives saved each year because law-abiding people had access to magazines holding more than ten rounds is greater than the lives lost in mass killings because the gunmen did. For some reason, that other side is never counted—maybe because stories about people saving their own lives are not as interesting to the media as those where lives are taken.
One final note on this topic. There’s a fairly widespread belief among those who have probably never held a gun before that so-called assault weapons hold larger magazines than hunting rifles. But that is totally wrong. Any gun that can hold a magazine can hold one of virtually any size. And that is true for handguns as well as rifles. An “assault weapon” ban would therefore not limit the number of rounds that guns could fire.
DON’T BELIEVE THE GUN NUTS: HITLER DIDN’T TAKE ANYONE’S FIREARMS AWAY.
“Gun control in Germany came prior to Hitler, and Hitler in fact relaxed gun control laws (though not for the Jews and other groups).”
—DAILY KOS
“By 1938, when Hitler was riding high, those laws were pretty much the same as American gun laws today . . . you needed a permit to acquire and carry a handgun, but you could have as many rifles as you wanted. Unless you were a Jew, of course, but that was the annoying thing about the Nazis, wasn’t it? They killed lots of Jews, and they didn’t need restrictive gun legislation to do it; it was the government that armed the killers.”
—STEPHEN KING, Guns
One of the ways that dictatorships maintain their power is by disarming opponents in order to prevent resistance. Tyrants no more recognize the right to keep and bear arms than they do the right to free speech. Yet, for some reason, people are either confused or in denial about how this worked in regard to Nazi Germany.
Some claim that Hitler and the Nazis didn’t disarm people because gun control laws were already in place before he rose to power. This is partially true—as I’ll detail later on—but first I have a much more important question: so what?
If there had been no gun control laws in Germany prior to Hitler, and the German people were as heavily armed as Americans are today, would things still have played out the same way? Obviously, no one knows for sure—but it�
��s hard to make a convincing case that things could’ve been much worse.
Let’s put the hypotheticals aside for now and instead go through the actual history to see how gun control and confiscation really worked. Once you have the facts and understand the time line it’ll be a lot easier to see how important gun control was for the Nazis.
Before Hitler rose to power, it was the Weimar Republic’s gun laws of 1928 and 1931 that ruled the land. They provided that “licenses to obtain or to carry firearms shall only be issued to persons whose reliability is not in doubt, and only after proving a need for them.” It also prohibited gun possession for anyone “who has acted in an inimical manner toward the state, or it is to be feared that he will endanger the public security.”
A 1931 Weimar “emergency decree” authorized the German states to register all firearms, which could be confiscated if “public security and order so requires.” The interior minister warned the states to provide “the secure storage of the lists of persons who have registered their weapons,” so that they would not “fall into the hands of radical elements.” Unfortunately, they never considered that those radical elements might be the government itself and those lists would eventually fall right into the hands of the Nazis.
According to Stephen P. Halbrook, a constitutional attorney who has done extensive research on German firearm laws, “the Nazi seizure of power in 1933 was consolidated by massive searches and seizures of firearms from political opponents, who were invariably described as ‘communists.’ ”
After Hitler became chancellor in 1933, the Nazis used gun control to repress Jews and political opponents. Using the Reichstag (the German parliament building) fire as evidence of an impending plot to overthrow the government, Hitler successfully pushed through the ironically titled “Decree of the Reich President for the Protection of People and State” emergency measure. This decree suspended civil liberties, thereby allowing the state to restrict basic rights, like freedom of the press, freedom of speech, and freedom of assembly. Guarantees of personal privacy were also suspended as Nazi police began to search homes and offices for subversive literature and firearms under the guise of suppressing “Communists.”
