GUNS ( Part 6: Defund the Police and Defend Yourself )

Mixed Messages in the Era of Gun Control

But let’s take this one step further.  We have established that the cops have a 6.5% hit rate in armed encounters.  If we are seeking to defund the police and effectively reduce their presence, one can logically assume that crime will increase. Nature abhors a vacuum.  Without law enforcement, the citizenry will have to rely on themselves for security.  And nobody drives that point home better than a democrat administration in the White House, whose anti-police and anti-gun rhetoric has driven gun sales through the roof.  Ironically fueled by government stimulus checks, the FBI broke its record for background checks for gun sales, and concealed carry permits in March. According to Forbes, “background checks for gun purchases and other firearms related actions totaled 15.96 million in the first four months of 2021”. And since the start of the pandemic “more than 8.4 million Americans have purchased guns for the first time”.  Gun manufacturer Sturm Ruger reported a “50% spike in quarterly sales and more than doubled its profit.” So Mr. Biden, America is listening and responding appropriately to secure their safety.   So here’s the dilemma: if more Americans are forced to rely on firearms for there own security while the government reduces our police presence, how does that mesh with the government simultaneously seeking to restrict the citizen’s access to a firearm? And here’s where the statistics become very inconvenient.  If law enforcement, trained professionals are scoring only a 6.5% hit rate on assailants, how exactly will the relatively untrained citizen score in a similar situation? The Biden Administration seeks to impose a ban on “assault weapons”, an ill-defined construct that lumps the AR-15 sporting rifle into that category, a rifle that accounted for 61% of all civilian rifle sales in 2016 according to CNN. There are more than 15 million AR-15 rifles in the hands of American citizens today. So how is such a popular firearm that even CNN states was “designed for close, confusing combat”, an apt description for say, a home invasion, deemed unfit for civilian use? Without launching into that argument, we all know why. It has been the weapon of choice in certain high profile mass shootings and serves as the most effective poster child for the narrative of not allowing a “military style weapon designed to kill people “ in the hands of the public.  It’s modular, it’s ugly, it looks evil, it’s black and that’s probably racist. It also serves as the “camel’s nose under the tent”, the observation that in other countries that have instituted all-encompassing gun bans, they started by demonizing one type of firearm, banning it in the name of public safety, only to incrementally expand their definition of what is “allowed” until they were all eliminated.  And the party of science is choosing to ignore the data.  The Clinton era assault weapon ban, misleadingly titled The Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act, was a 10-year prohibition on the manufacture of certain semi-automatic firearms, ill-defined as “assault weapons”, as well as large capacity magazines greater than 10 rounds.  Despite notorious ant-gun Senator Diane Feinstein crowing that the 1994 ban was “effective at reducing crime”, the data is clear that the legislation resulted in no statistical change in criminal activity, or firearm homicides. In actuality, the homicide rate with firearms was less in the three years preceding the ban. Christopher Koper, a professor at George Mason University concluded “the ban did not appear to effect gun violence during the time it was in effect”.  Of course, good liberal that he is, he suggested, “it may have modestly reduced shootings had it been in effect for a longer period”.  May have.  Possibly. Just give it time.  Uh-huh.  But back to the premise at hand:  The government, who we have established is forcing us to fend for ourselves, is intent on eliminating the most popular rifle in America, popular due to it’s ease of use, customizable features, effective caliber, handling, manageable recoil and magazine capacity?  Which gun do the pros use, you know when the SWAT team shows up to clear the building?  I want that one. Why do I want a Kitchen-Aid mixer in my kitchen?  Because that’s the one the Cake Boss uses.  And yet, the government expects the citizen to be restricted in his choice of equipment, restricted in the number of rounds in his magazine and yet still have the skill to stop the threat, even when our professionals, armed with the best equipment, training and unlimited magazine capacity have shown that they only score a hit on their intended target 6.5% of the time.  So we are expected to perform better than the professionals, with less training and less rounds in the magazine.  You have to be kidding.  And the ten round magazine restriction, law already in most blue states, is creeping its way through Congress as we speak.  Going back to Sheriff Ken Campbell: “If armed with a firearm containing 16 rounds (15 round magazine plus one in the chamber)” statistically  “12-13 rounds will may miss the target entirely.  Of the 3-4 rounds that [score hits on] the attacker, none may be effective in immediately stopping the attack. If restricted to a 10-round magazine it’s likely that all 10 rounds may miss the target and the citizen will be “unable to stop the attack”.  Comments by liberal author Stephen King who said in 2013 “If you can’t kill a home invader with ten shots, then you need to go back to your local shooting range”, are totally out of touch with the reality of armed engagement.  But Sheriff Campbell astutely points out, “it’s not about hunting”.  Andy Cuomo infamously bellowed in his grating downstate accent: “No one needs 10 bullets to kill a deer”, while promoting banning magazines greater than 10 rounds for New York State’s preposterous SAFE Act.  Similarly Joe Biden latched on to the ridiculously unrelated hunting theme with this patronizing nonsense: “talk to responsible gun owners-they’ll tell you there’s no possible justification for having hundreds of rounds in a weapon.  What do you think the deer are wearing, Kevlar vests?”  No, Joe I don’t. But it’s unlikely that deer are going to break into my house. Besides, dummy, most high-powered rifle rounds will penetrate Kevlar…… providing you are able to hit it. Of course, the preposterous notion behind this whole magazine restriction nonsense is the assumption that the attacker, specifically those engaged in a mass shooting incident, can be stopped when they pause to reload. More hooey. Not only is it unlikely that the criminal will choose to adhere to your magazine restrictions, but Sheriff Boone showed in a live fire exercise that, even with a relatively unpracticed shooter, the difference between emptying two 15-round pistol magazines into a target and five 6-round magazines was somewhere on the order of four seconds.  With a seasoned shooter, this was reduced to less than two seconds. He placed a runner 25 feet from the shooter and had them speed towards the shooter when they perceived the shooter was engaged in a reload.  In none of the exercises was the runner able to reach the shooter before the reload was complete. You could argue that a potential hero could be closer or could surprise the shooter from cover, but that would require a lot of luck and a huge set of….intestinal fortitude.  Statistically, experts recommend running for the nearest exit, specifically advising, in order of preference, evacuation, barricade yourself, prepare for attack if cornered, distract the attacker, and lastly swarming the suspect with improvised weapons.  Doesn’t that sound appetizing? Unfortunately, there have been few instances where such a disarming has occurred, most notably the Tucson shooting incident where a 61 year-old woman managed to wrestle a magazine away from the shooter.  But in another high profile supermarket shooting, it appeared that two potential heroes lost their lives in an attempt to disarm the attacker.  It may actually be more dependent on assessing the skill of the attacker. And frankly, the government and the media shouldn’t be promoting this nonsense. Wait until he attempts to reload, then rush the attacker.  Seriously? But none of this would apply to a home invasion where we are right back to the statistics game.  If confronted with an attacker or, worse yet, multiple attackers in your home, with no means of egress, with the likelihood of you scoring less than 6.5% hits on your attacker, how many rounds do you want to have in your magazine?  And you have to assume that if the attacker is armed as well, it is unlikely that he is concerned about adhering to your state’s magazine capacity restriction laws.  Sheriff Campbell summed up his study best; “Proposed magazine bans are absurd.”