dennis2146 Loc: Eastern Idaho

The Cost of Doing Something
By DRGO - July 1, 2022


From our friends at DRGO

(from knowyourmeme.com)
[Ed: Dr. Wheeler originally published this on American Greatness June 11.]

The failures of the same old gun control laws should warn us away from the easy route of penalizing virtually all American gun owners who will never commit a crime with their guns.


“Do something!” begged the crowd gathered before Joe Biden last week in Uvalde, Texas. And who could blame them? Racked with sorrow and fury at the massacre of 19 elementary school children and two of their teachers, they were desperate for answers. Do something! “We will,” promised Biden. But what?

The standard nostrums—more background checks, bans on scary-looking black rifles, bans on so-called “high-capacity” magazines—are always proffered hastily and in the fog of overwhelming emotion. Such laws passed in anger have burdened only innocent people and sometimes resulted in their deaths by depriving them of a life-saving self-defense tool.

Now the House reflexively brings forth the Protecting Our Kids Act, presumably intended to mitigate mass shootings. Each of its six bills is a recycled version of old and failed proposals. One aims to raise the age for legal ownership of semiautomatic rifles and shotguns from 18 to 21. It would surely face immediate legal challenges, a California version of this law having just been declared unconstitutional by a federal appellate court.

The second title tweaks well-established statutory law prohibiting so-called straw purchases, or covert gun purchases for third parties. Nothing new here except more ways for innocent people to run afoul of already complicated legal traps. Career criminals, the supposed targets of straw purchase bans, routinely circumvent the law anyway, acquiring the tools of their trade from family or business associates.

The final section of the Protecting Our Kids Act targets a perennial bogeyman of gun prohibitionists: firearm magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition. A magazine is the removable container (often erroneously called a “clip”) of ammunition. Although the bill exempts—for now—the tens of millions of such magazines currently owned by American gun owners as normal parts of their guns, a version of this law has already served as the first step down a slippery slope to a total ban on ownership. We have a real-life example of how it happened in California, which in a 2016 ballot initiative finally banned ownership of magazines holding more than 10 cartridges.

Most of the voters who overwhelmingly approved California’s Proposition 63 were likely unaware that magazines holding 15 or more rounds have been standard parts of America’s most popular handguns for over 30 years now. They remain unremarkable and legal parts of handguns in most of America today, with no evidence that they somehow cause mass murders. But the lives of Californians who own these pistols and similar perfectly legal firearms changed overnight with the passage of Proposition 63.

In a 2017 federal court decision striking down the California ban, Judge Roger Benitez noted, “On July 1, 2017 [the effective date of Prop. 63], any previously law-abiding person in California who still possesses a firearm magazine capable of holding more than 10 rounds will begin their new life of crime.”

Benitez further observed that “at the preliminary injunction hearing, the attorney for the Attorney General, although well prepared, was not able to describe all of the various exceptions to the dispossession and criminalization components of [California’s law regulating magazines] . . . the California matrix of gun control laws is among the harshest in the nation and are filled with criminal law traps for people of common intelligence who desire to obey the law.”

If even the government’s own law enforcement experts can’t parse this web of laws, how can the average citizen stay out of legal danger? Nevertheless, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals en banc ultimately reversed that decision, putting millions of Californians back in legal peril.

The lesson here is an old one. The founders gave us a system of government with carefully crafted controls on destructive human passions. When the wrath of mobs becomes the law of the land, innocent people always suffer. The failures of the same old gun control laws should warn us away from the easy route of penalizing virtually all American gun owners who will never commit a crime with their guns. Justice requires us to focus our efforts instead on deterring those very few flawed individuals who commit such evil.

.

.

Dr. Tim Wheeler
— Timothy Wheeler, MD is the founder and former director of Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership, and a retired head and neck surgeon.

All DRGO articles by Timothy Wheeler, MD

Dennis

wilpharm Loc: Oklahoma

thanks for posting

dpullum Loc: Tampa Florida

From Dennis post... "Do something!” begged the crowd... Racked with sorrow and fury at the massacre of 19 elementary school children and two of their teachers, they were desperate for answers."

The lack of police action was indefensible. After taking so long, and then opening the door via the janitor's key... they immediately killed the shooter. Two police could have shot the knee and two the arm holding the gun. However, they chose to shoot to kill because "dead men tell no tales."

That summary execution was not to save children but was to save the prolonged embarrassment that would result from a lengthy trial of police and politicians cooked slowly by the news media.

Will we have overreaction laws, perhaps? I am in favor of home-defense and would call in a cleaning service after dispatching the home invaders. But to carry on the street is not my style. When I move to Charlotte NC in 1965 I was on the main street the first Saturday and along came a guy with his 6 gun hanging at his side!!! Detroit was more civilized, the chrome-plated cheap guns were kept hidden until you were robbed in broad daylight!!! Gun control is a "sticky wicket" as the British would say... a difficult delicate problem question to balance.
-----------------
Regarding the SCOTUS ruling on gun control. Do I now have the right to observe the court with a gun strapped to my side... supporting my now out-of-control second amendment right ... as a member of a not "well regulated" militia"? I bet not.

"The lesson here is an old one. The founders gave us a system of government with carefully crafted controls on destructive human passions. When the wrath of mobs becomes the law of the land, innocent people always suffer." I agree... but the framers in 1776 did not envision AR-15s nor many things of our high-tech world.

WNYShooter Loc: WNY

Spoken by somebody who has absolutely no idea what they are talking about. First off, if you think you could hit a moving arm or leg in a stress situation, you're nuts! That would be a tough shot for even an expert shooter on a good day. Second, guns are not designed for less than lethal application, so you can't expect a LEO in a stressed situation where they are trying to stop an immediate deadly threat to themselves or others to be minimal in their responce, and the courts have repeatedly said as much.




Many of the founders were inventors themselves, to believe that they thought the technology of that day would be the end all is actually a pretty ignorant belief.

dennis2146 Loc: Eastern Idaho

Are you insane? Never mind. It appears you must be.

First you make fun of my post even though you are just like FJB. You insist on SOMETHING being done even though it most likely won't work. Tell us what can be done that will work. I will be right here.

Then you attack the police officers methods of dealing with the school shooter. I was not there nor were you but as a Left Winger you feel the need to attack the officers because they, according to you, were too slow. IF that door was a solid door that opened outward and they had no key to open the door then what did you expect them to do but wait until a key was found. Your lack of common sense is simply astounding.

Then you attack the officers for not shooting the suspect in the arms and legs to put him down. Are you a shooter, ever been under a LOT of stress such as going into a room where you KNOW someone wants to kill you and will kill you given the opportunity. Your aiming techniques tends to suffer somewhat. These officers were not on a range shooting at paper targets. They were in a real life or death situation where STOPPING the shooter from firing even one more shot is crucial to fewer kids being killed and the officers going home. Notice I put the going home part second because every single police officer I ever worked with would have put that second in their mind too. Did you know that people shot numerous times in the torso and especially the arms and legs can and will continue to fire their weapon just as if they have never been shot at all. Officers are taught to shoot to STOP the shooter from firing even one more shot. Now knowing that, and if you were the police officer, would you choose to shoot the suspect holding a firearm in the arms and legs or in the chest as many times necessary to ensure he fire no more cartridges at ANYBODY, especially YOU.

Why is it you on the Left seem to have no common sense at all and are more like little pussified Snowflakes. You want to stop the killing but let's not injure the shooter. He might turn out to be a nice guy who only wanted to grow up to help others, to be an example of goodness and light to the world. Sorry Bucko but that is nothing but Left Wing bullshit and you all fall for it. This shooter was an animal and deserved to die right then and there. Yes the officers put him down and did a good job of it just as soon as they were able.

As for the Founding Fathers not envisioning AR-15's, you are correct. But even back then there were repeating rifles and revolvers. Not everything was like the Brown Bess Musket used by the British. Repeaters were already in use. They were not something the Founding Fathers had no idea of.

Dennis

dennis2146 Loc: Eastern Idaho

Well said my friend. So much common sense out there and the pussified Left will have none of it. They want something done but not really.

Dennis

wilpharm Loc: Oklahoma

is he insane you ask, of course..he is an admitted socialist &toady of AOC...

dennis2146 Loc: Eastern Idaho

Yes I know. You are absolutely correct as always. But I wanted him to see himself as the FOOL he portrays. Many people have a very strong misconception of police officers and law and order. They think just because the Lone Ranger easily shoots a gun out of the hands of a criminal, every law enforcement officer can and should be trained to do the same thing. They forget the officer has to consider where the bullet will go, stress of the situation, perhaps running to the scene, distance to the target and so on.

Honestly most citizens have no idea of the training law enforcement officers go through nor do they understand the real meaning of most laws and arrest procedures.

Dennis

JRiepe Loc: Southern Illinois

Shoot to kill was absolutely the correct call. The chances of hitting the arm or leg are unlikely and the chance of the police officer getting killed for making that decision is very likely.

This reply was for D Pullum's post. My mistake.

Joy Behar's Skin Tags Loc: Maryland

Wow you have just put pen to paper ( I know it's a keyboard) and posted the absolute dumbest thing I have ever read. And that's really saying something considering some of your other posts.

Laramie Loc: Tempe

So, explain to me, the horde of conservatives, what should be done? Or, alternatively, is a 'mass' shooting a week to be expected. Do something, righties. Don't just pee and moan about what some else tries.

Jade Warrior Loc: Sydney, Australia

Just accept that the USA will never fix this problem

Rose42

Thomas Jefferson had some semi autos that could fire 22 rounds in a minute.

They were far more intelligent than some give them credit for

thom w Loc: San Jose, CA

source please.

davidrb Loc: Half way there on the 45th Parallel

Know What You Post (pt 1)

DGRO has a dividend yield of 2.19% and paid $1.05 per share in the past year. The dividend is paid every three months and the last ex-dividend date was Jun 9, 2022.