Jimmy Carter Wants to Ban Just the Guns That Kill People

Jacob Sullum | April 27, 2009

In a New York Times op-ed piece, former President Jimmy Carter presents revival of the federal "assault weapon" ban, which President Obama supports, as a no-brainer, since the guns that were covered by the expired 1994 law are "designed only to kill police officers and the people they defend." Evidently, if you aim one of these firearms at a home intruder, a prairie dog, or a paper target, instead of firing a bullet it harmlessly unfurls a little flag that says "Bang!" Having polled himself and his hunting buddies, Carter reports that "none of us wants to own an assault weapon, because we have no desire to kill policemen or go to a school or workplace to see how many victims we can accumulate before we are finally shot or take our own lives." According to Carter, then, everyone who owns one of these guns is an aspiring cop killer, homicidal maniac, or both.

Carter never explains what makes these weapons uniquely suited to murdering policemen and random passers-by yet completely inappropriate for any other purpose. On the face of it, the criteria that distinguish "assault weapons" from legitimate, non-cop-killing, non-student-slaughtering guns—which include "military-style" features such as bayonet mounts, folding stocks, and flash suppressors—do not have much to do with criminal functionality. But they must, because Carter says "the results of this profligate ownership and use of guns designed to kill people" (i.e., "assault weapons") include the deaths of "more than 30,000 people" in 2006. In other words, "assault weapons" account for every gun-related death, with none left over for models that don't fall into this arbitrary category. No wonder Carter is so eager to ban them.

Studies of "assault weapon" use prior to the 1994 ban paint a different picture. In these studies, according to a 2004 Justice Department report (PDF), "AWs typically accounted for up to 8% of guns used in crime, depending on the specific AW definition and data source used." Even the shooting rampages for which Carter claims "assault weapons" are especially designed typically involve guns that were not covered by the federal ban. Here is a catalog (PDF), compiled by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, of "Mass Gun Violence in the United States Since 1997." Given that the group is an unrelenting booster of bans on "assault weapons," it presumably would not have missed an opportunity to associate them with mass murder. Yet firearms covered by the federal ban are mentioned in connection with only a small minority of the crimes on the list—nine out of 138, or less than 7 percent, on the first 10 pages. And as I mentioned in a column last month, both the deadliest and the second deadliest mass shootings in U.S. history were accomplished with ordinary handguns.

Help Reason celebrate its next 40 years. Donate Now!

Try Reason's award-winning print edition today! Your first issue is FREE if you are not completely satisfied.

PIRS|4.27.09 @ 5:28PM|#

What about the golf clubs that kill people?
http://www.newburyportnews.com/punews/local_story_338093927

JB|4.27.09 @ 5:29PM|#

Fuck you Jimmy Carter. Fuck you and your peanut-farming peanut-brain.

Why don't you show up and try to take my guns? Cowardly fucking shithead.

Bluto|4.27.09 @ 5:30PM|#

Carter should be locked up in an asylum.

|4.27.09 @ 5:31PM|#

Jimmy Carter doesn't want anybody but the PLO and Hamas to have AK-47s, it seems.

-jcr

Swamp Bunny|4.27.09 @ 5:34PM|#

"Carter should be locked up in an asylum."

Oh no you di-int!

hmm|4.27.09 @ 5:37PM|#

Assault weapons = scary guns and we should always ban the scary things. These assclowns are completely fucking up the gun and ammunition market. Which pisses me off more than anything.

I hope he tries to pass a ban. At the least it will use up all the political capital he has and maybe we can stop this juggernaut of knee jerk "big actions" retardation from progressing any further.

Fuck Carter, the man was an invalid in office and nothing has changed.

hmm|4.27.09 @ 5:39PM|#

MSNBC Assault Weapons Ban Poll

|4.27.09 @ 5:40PM|#

I really wish the New York Times would stop pestering the senile elderly for their opinions!

Geotpf|4.27.09 @ 5:40PM|#

Many smart liberals (like Russ Feingold) realize the assault weapons ban is retarded.

I will not choose to characterize the former president.

|4.27.09 @ 5:43PM|#

I will not choose to characterize the former president.

That would be redundant. The man is a self-caricature.

-jcr

And once the "scary" guns are banned, we have to ban the innocent looking ones, because of the shocking discovery that they're just as (or even more) dangerous than the ones "we" decided are too dangerous for civilians.

If these guns are only good for mass murder, why do we give them to cops and soldiers?

Killer Rabbit|4.27.09 @ 5:44PM|#

Ok, I'm ready to bite his stupid ass again. Get him in the canoe, boys.

hmm|4.27.09 @ 5:47PM|#

We should just ban the people trained to use firearms. They clearly present the greatest threat since they are versed and practiced in the efficient execution of human beings with firearms. Why ban the firearm? Just go straight to the source and ban the most capable people. The threat is clearly the trained people and not just the gun.

|4.27.09 @ 6:01PM|#

If these guns are only good for mass murder, why do we give them to cops and soldiers?

FTW, IMO.

|4.27.09 @ 6:45PM|#

jimmy carter has hunting buddies? really.

Paul|4.27.09 @ 6:57PM|#

"none of us wants to own an assault weapon, because we have no desire to kill policemen or go to a school or workplace to see how many victims we can accumulate before we are finally shot or take our own lives."

Fuck him with highly polished brass knobs on. Oh, Obama supporters keep telling me Obama nor the Democrats are interested in any further gun legislation.

hmm|4.27.09 @ 6:59PM|#

jimmy carter has hunting buddies? really.

Someone has to lay the smack down on those rascalliy rabbits.

guy in the back row|4.27.09 @ 7:18PM|#

Why do people listen to these UFO kooks anyway?

|4.27.09 @ 7:23PM|#

Jimmy Carter deregulated the airlines and interstate trucking. More than enough to make me willing to forgive his latter-day senile moonbattery.

|4.27.09 @ 7:25PM|#

On the subject of clowns with guns, when Florida was trying to pass its own version of the AWB, an alert gunshop owner noticed that a Ruger Mini-14 with a folding stock ("semi-automatic military-style assault weapon" to you lefties out there) that had brought in for repair by a state trooper was owned by then Governor Lawton Chiles, who was in favor of banning assault weapons. The shop owner ratted the gov out to the press who jumped on the chance for an interview. The gov said "Heck, that's no assault weapon, thats my squirrel rifle!" I'm wondering if former governor and president Carter has any more of a clue what he's talking about?

|4.27.09 @ 7:33PM|#

I'm wondering if former governor and president Carter has any more of a clue what he's talking about?

In a word?

No.

hmm|4.27.09 @ 7:35PM|#

For some fun cocktail fun in a room full of bunnyhugging tofu munchers ask for definitions of assault weapon and listen to the crazy misinformed housewife babble about Rambo like M249 SAWS in the hands of your local crackhead (they have no clue what a M249 is, to them it's a giant MACHINE GUN!!!). I've considered carrying the NFA list for what is taxed and what is de facto banned (post ban autos) just to explain to these tofu grazers what these guns actually are. Fucking Rambo ruined it for us.

This is one of those subjects my wife gives me the look of death as some cardigan wearing PhD begins to expound on the need to regulate these vile weapons that only rednecks and KKK members own. I spend a lot of time on the couch during the holiday and summer BBQ party circuit.

wingnutx|4.27.09 @ 7:46PM|#

I have used weapons since I was big enough to carry one, and now own... three rifles, two with scopes.

...the N.R.A. is defending criminals' access to assault weapons and use of ammunition that can penetrate protective clothing worn by police officers on duty.

So he owns 3 weapons that can defeat level III or III-A armor, which is standard cop armor.

He likely thinks that a 5.56 AR is more powerful than his .30-06 fudd gun. Moron.

Jordan|4.27.09 @ 7:52PM|#

He likely thinks that a 5.56 AR is more powerful than his .30-06 fudd gun. Moron.

But it's black! And it has a barrel shroud!

wingnutx|4.27.09 @ 7:52PM|#

A shoulder thing that goes up?

Well, why didn't you say so?

hmm|4.27.09 @ 7:55PM|#

But the AR just looks scary and they call it the "black rifle." We all know black means bad right? The armor argument is hilarious and always has been. Never mind armor penetration is often a function of the round and not the gun.

For the record .223/5.56 has one hell of a muzzle velocity, part of the penetration equation, when compared to other commonly known "assault weapons." Probably not the best choice of comparison, but the point still stands and you are correct.

I say we ban .300 Win Mag and .338 mag and hunt moose with .22 and .38. Talk about sport.

Bingo|4.27.09 @ 8:07PM|#

If the Dems try to re-institute the assault weapons ban then they will officially reclaim the title of "The Stupid Party" from its current holders (the GOP.)

|4.27.09 @ 8:13PM|#

He's gonna take yer guns!

Hooray for Reason gun threads, where everyone can drop caliber sizes and tell stories about how some limp-wristed guy didn't know that a blu-bley-blu wasn't a bue-bay-bue (the dumbass!). Lots of fellas typing with one hand below the table.

Enjoy.

hmm|4.27.09 @ 8:14PM|#

Hell. Right now they don't need a ban. Production for AR lowers has to be 5 months behind and buying ammo has turned into a sport unto itself. The bad guys probably can't find or won't pay for ammunition at this point and the cost of building or buying a tactical weapon is probably out of their reach as well.

hmm|4.27.09 @ 8:15PM|#

Hooray for Reason gun threads, where everyone can drop caliber sizes and tell stories about how some limp-wristed guy didn't know that a blu-bley-blu wasn't a bue-bay-bue (the dumbass!). Lots of fellas typing with one hand below the table.

What's wrong? Your ignorance of the subject hindering your constructive participation? I can offer some good beginners reading if you would find it helpful?

|4.27.09 @ 8:24PM|#

How about I start here?

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/28988

Bingo|4.27.09 @ 8:24PM|#

Hey mantooth,

I'm just about as cosmo as they come and even I recognize and appreciate different firearms. Not knowing your guns is like not knowing your cars, or being ignorant about fine wine and good food, or even being unable to converse about business, finance, or sports. Check your testicles at the door if you are uninterested in any of those topics.

|4.27.09 @ 8:26PM|#

Bingo,

I own guns, I work on cars, I'll attend multiple stock car races this year. I am completely ignorant of fine wine. Just don't feel the need to posture, which is what these threads are for.

|4.27.09 @ 8:42PM|#

Can someone please explain why it's so important to own guns? As a non-US citizen - and someone who grew up loving guns and hunting - I just don't understand why you care so much.

What difference does it make to your quality of life if you can't own an assault rifle?

jtuf|4.27.09 @ 8:45PM|#

What's the difference between an assault weapon and a hundred MiGs? If you control one hundred MiG's, Obama and Carter will gladly shake your hand.

Bingo|4.27.09 @ 8:48PM|#

Colddead hands:

What difference does it make to your quality of life if you can't own an assault rifle?

Because we want to own one. Why should I have to justify to you what I spend my money on?

And as a bit of turnabout, what difference does it make to your quality of life if I do own an assault rifle?

Jordan|4.27.09 @ 8:48PM|#

What difference does it make to your quality of life if you can't own (insert non-life essential item here). Some of us take liberty seriously.

Hooray for Reason gun threads, where everyone can drop caliber sizes and tell stories about how some limp-wristed guy didn't know that a blu-bley-blu wasn't a bue-bay-bue (the dumbass!). Lots of fellas typing with one hand below the table.

There's always at least one insecure guy who feels the need to make a penis joke on a gun thread.

|4.27.09 @ 8:51PM|#

hmm | April 27, 2009, 5:39pm | #

MSNBC Assault Weapons Ban Poll

Thanks. I voted duh-undecided because this is the first I've heard of the issue, I is stooopid and needs me some more fucking timeses to decide.

Was Hitler a bad guy?
Yes - 80.1%
No - 16.3%
Undecided 3.6%

BakedPenguin|4.27.09 @ 9:04PM|#

I hate to say it, but I was almost hoping that Obama would try for a renewal of the AWB. It would all but ensure divided government again in 2010, and would kill his political capital to continue pursuing the power grabs he's going after.

|4.27.09 @ 9:08PM|#

Obama will get his gun ban via treaty and let House Dems claim there was nothing they could do.

Bingo|4.27.09 @ 9:14PM|#

BP:

That is true, but I still feel like the GOP is the party of paying lip-service to small government while implementing the opposite. I'm not sure having a fight between a big-government party and a party that espouses limited-government ideology (while voting for big-government policies) is exactly conducive to the long-term goals of the liberty movement.

|4.27.09 @ 9:23PM|#

Bingo:

"Because we want to own one. Why should I have to justify to you what I spend my money on?"

You don't have to justify why you want an assault rifle. I'm just genuinely curious where the thrill is.

"And as a bit of turnabout, what difference does it make to your quality of life if I do own an assault rifle?"

None at all, unless someone shoots me with it.

Jordan:

"What difference does it make to your quality of life if you can't own (insert non-life essential item here). Some of us take liberty seriously."

I'm pretty sure people everywhere take liberty seriously, this doesn't explain much to me.

So I'll ask again - why do you care so much about owning guns?

Given that more people die from gunshot wounds in the US than any other country it seems germane.

In any given area with an expanding population, you're going to need more laws / compromises on 'absolute' freedom to ensure a minimum level of freedom for all, than if there's a small population in the same area. Otherwise you're in a Hobbesian state-of-nature where only the strongest are truly free, no?

Or is the argument that your right to bear arms supercedes someone else's right not to get shot?

(I'm just an interested bystander).

Appreciate your insights guys.

wingnutx|4.27.09 @ 9:34PM|#

where everyone can drop caliber sizes and tell stories about how some limp-wristed guy didn't know that a blu-bley-blu wasn't a bue-bay-bue (the dumbass!).

More like some influential guy is asserting that an apple is an orange, and using that logic to curtail my liberties.

wingnutx|4.27.09 @ 9:36PM|#

Or is the argument that your right to bear arms supercedes someone else's right not to get shot?

It's not a zero sum game.

My owning a scary rifle does not in any way threaten you, and taking that rifle from me does not in any way protect you.

Suki|4.27.09 @ 9:37PM|#

Good thing nobody in New York City has any assault weapons or we could have lost Air Force Two today.

|4.27.09 @ 9:40PM|#

In any given area with an expanding population, you're going to need more laws / compromises on 'absolute' freedom to ensure a minimum level of freedom for all

I don't recall reading anything about natural rights that conditioned them on various levels of population... except the difference between one person and more than one person.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'absolute' freedom, but it doesn't sound like something that any of us would argue for.

Or is the argument that your right to bear arms supercedes someone else's right not to get shot?

Do I have in fact have a right not to get shot, whatever actions I might take?

More generally, does my right to do X supercede someone else's right not to get killed by some possible consequence of my doing X? Do I not get to drive a car because someone else might get drunk and stumble into traffic?

Rhetorical questions, of course. I'm sure others here can and will have better responses.

Bingo|4.27.09 @ 9:43PM|#

Cold(d)ead Hands:

You don't have to justify why you want an assault rifle. I'm just genuinely curious where the thrill is.

You've actually stumbled upon a pretty remarkable observation about libertarians. It seems like libertarians are concerned about why things should be banned. Most mainstream political affiliations are concerned about what should be banned, and generally orient themselves on a political axis based on that. Example: Liberals ban guns, conservatives don't. Conservatives ban abortion, liberals don't.

I think a lot of it comes down to the US Constitution (which a lot of libertarians idealize as a libertarian government) and the idea of burden of proof. Modern politics puts the burden of proof on the accused. Why do you need an assault rifle? Why do you need a big gas-guzzling SUV? Why do you need to use contraception? Why do you need to smoke pot?

Libertarians tend to embrace that people should have the freedom to choose what they want and how to live, as long as their actions are not causing harm to another person.

None at all, unless someone shoots me with it.

Which sums up my entire point nicely :)

BakedPenguin|4.27.09 @ 10:08PM|#

Bingo - I won't vote for a Republican, and I sure as hell don't trust them (with a few exceptions), but so long as they're out of power, they'll pretend they care about fiscal restraint, small government, etc.

Jordan|4.27.09 @ 10:11PM|#

So I'll ask again - why do you care so much about owning guns?

Because they're fun to shoot. Not that it's relevant. Why do you care so much about reading blogs?

Or is the argument that your right to bear arms supercedes someone else's right not to get shot?

Oh jeebus. You're actually comparing ownership of an object with assault and murder? Please tell me how my owning a rifle interferes with your "right not to get shot?" Right now, my scary black rifle is lying under my bed, not doing a damn thing. Assault and murder, acts which actually do interfere with said right are already illegal.

|4.27.09 @ 10:24PM|#

There is at least some correlation between the amount of guns in circulation and the amount of deaths by gunshot wounds. The US is proof of that. Although Switzerland shows it's not absolute, which begs the question of what's the cultural difference between the US and Swiss leading to higher rates of gun deaths per gun in circulation?

Y'all seem kind crazily attached to ya guns - surely there's more important liberties to expending energy over?

I also had a bit of a screed about how more people in any given area will keep needing more laws in order that everyone doesn't accidentally get in each other's way and impinge on each other's freedom, but the submission process (heh) shot that one down.

Ah well.

Does anyone here even care about reducing death by gunshot wounds?

BakedPenguin|4.27.09 @ 10:28PM|#

Does anyone here even care about reducing death by gunshot wounds?

Of course. That's one reason why we're against the War on Drugs.

hmm|4.27.09 @ 10:28PM|#

I own guns, I work on cars, I'll attend multiple stock car races this year. I am completely ignorant of fine wine. Just don't feel the need to posture, which is what these threads are for.

Who is posturing? You don't want to join in. If all you do is make some snide remark about people who mention a caliber of a weapon and the absurdity of banning guns based on look you are going to get the same comments back. Congratulations on your massive amount of restraint in not mentioning a caliber or make/model of guns.

Your, "I own guns and go to NASCAR races" is akin to the white suburb guy or redneck saying I have a black friend.

PS. I do know wines, not so much on the cheese, and I take my nuts where ever I go and check neither my nuts nor my 1911 at the door. (crap another model mention, I must be some degenerate)

anarch|4.27.09 @ 10:29PM|#

I care about reducing my death by gunshot wounds, the chance of which reduction is increased by the exercise of my Second Amendment right.

Jordan|4.27.09 @ 10:38PM|#

Although Switzerland shows it's not absolute, which begs the question of what's the cultural difference between the US and Swiss leading to higher rates of gun deaths per gun in circulation?

The War on Drugs, the lingering effects of slavery and institutional racism, and the cultural heterogeneity of American society, among others.

Y'all seem kind crazily attached to ya guns - surely there's more important liberties to expending energy over?

Are you new to this site, or something?

Absolutely, but not at the expense of liberty. That's why I support an end to the War on Drugs. In any case, the majority of firearm deaths are suicides. People should have the right to kill themselves, and those so inclined would just seek another method if firearms were unavailable.

hmm|4.27.09 @ 10:38PM|#

Does anyone here even care about reducing death by gunshot wounds?

Of course they do. That might be why many bear arms.

I'd like to see where your stats are coming from. I have a sneaking suspicion, from the way the sentence was worded, that you got the more gun deaths world wide comment from wiki. In which case you need to look at how that table was put together. Your correlation assertion is also of by most standards with several countries. You are also only mentioning gunshots and not assaults ending in death or bodily harm. The data is not as cut and dry as you are attempting to portray it.

I would definitely agree that there is a huge cultural difference. I have been in the worst ghettos in Europe and thought to myself "the hood" in STL makes this place look like a park.

|4.27.09 @ 11:10PM|#

cdh sez There is at least some correlation between the amount of guns in circulation and the amount of deaths by gunshot wounds. The US is proof of that. Although Switzerland shows it's not absolute,

Not to mention Brazil and Mexico. Got any more stupid, non-reality-based observations to share?

As for your right to not be shot, that's as true of muzzle loading guns of the 18th century as it is of fully automatic guns of the 20th.

|4.27.09 @ 11:13PM|#

bingo sez Modern politics puts the burden of proof on the accused.

[sigh] I can't think of a more succinct indictment against liberty than that.

We are so fucked.

|4.27.09 @ 11:18PM|#

cdh wonders Does anyone here even care about reducing death by gunshot wounds?

Not particularly, but I would like to see our murder rate lower overall.

Then again, I'm not in a demographic cohort very likely to be a murder victim (although I am in the demographic cohort most likely to own multiple firearms).

"Contemplate this on the tree of woe".

Kreel Sarloo|4.28.09 @ 12:33AM|#

I'm curious as to whether any place ever saw a decrease in homicides after banning another class of firearms.

JB|4.28.09 @ 1:20AM|#

What difference does it make to your quality of life if you can't own an assault rifle?

What difference does it make to your quality of life if you can't get fucked in the ass every night by your boyfriend?

You want your ass-fucking, I want my gun.

LarryA|4.28.09 @ 1:31AM|#

the guns that were covered by the expired 1994 law are "designed only to kill police officers and the people they defend."

Cops want to kill each other and the people they defend? Who knew?

In any given area with an expanding population, you're going to need more laws / compromises on 'absolute' freedom to ensure a minimum level of freedom for all, than if there's a small population in the same area.

Why? If the people set up a limited government designed to protect individual rights you can have much more than a minimum level of freedom for all. If, however, you believe that people must be regulated for their own good, then your minimum level of freedom for all will rather quickly disappear.

The only way you can protect your right to live your life the way you want to is for you to protect other people's rights to live their lives the way they want to.

Otherwise you're in a Hobbesian state-of-nature where only the strongest are truly free, no?

No. Where there is a strong individual right to keep and bear arms those who are physically strongest will have little advantage over the frail. Firearms, and only firearms (so far) enable the 80-year-old woman in a wheelchair to protect herself from a 20-something gangbanger.

Every genocide in the 20th century was preceded by a firearms ban.

Given that more people die from gunshot wounds in the US than any other country it seems germane.

I would invite you to take a vacation in Mexico. Don't expect me to rescue you, though.

Or is the argument that your right to bear arms supersedes someone else's right not to get shot?

The argument is that people are much more likely to get shot where legal gun ownership is banned. Note that many of the murders in the U.S. are committed where firearms are restricted or banned.

There is at least some correlation between the amount of guns in circulation and the amount of deaths by gunshot wounds.

True. Over the past two decades the number of privately-owned firearms in the U.S. has expanded greatly. The murder rate continues to drop.

|4.28.09 @ 3:51AM|#

First off:
Assault rifles are not available to the general public. Full-auto firearms are so heavily regulated that they are beyond the means of most citizens.

Now that I've gotten that clarification out of the way, I can answer your question.

I'm a competitive shooter. At the height of the competitive shooting season I'm attending somewhere between six and ten matches a month.

Despite what people who have no clue will tell you, firearms whose designs are derived from military guns dominate nearly every form of competition. AR15 pattern rifles are shot by the majority of competitors in Service Rifle, National Match, and Multigun competitions. Bullseye pistol matches are dominated by .45 pistols that were originally issued by the US military. Most practical pistol matches are dominated by designs that find their origins in either those same military pistols, or other guns that were designed for use by police and military forces.

Interestingly enough, many of these designs that are useful for competition are also adaptable and useful for self defense.

As to the quality of life issue, well, I fire somewhere around 10,000 or so rounds per year. All of it in the pursuit of bettering my marksmanship abilities. I derive great satisfaction in refining my skills as a shooter. In attending matches, classes, and practice, I have found great camaraderie among the shooting fraternity.

In all of this, in matches that encompass everything from International 10 meter air pistol to multigun competitions spanning the use of multiple platforms and problem solving skills, I have not harmed anyone.

Nor has any other shooter that I know.

So, I'd say it makes a pretty big difference in my quality of life.

|4.28.09 @ 7:07AM|#

Govt: Assault weapons are deadly, we will ban them
Gun owner: that's insane, they are used in only 7% of killings, but are 20% of weapons, they are LESS dangerous!
Govt: thank you for your help, in that case we will ban all the other types. Too.

MNG|4.28.09 @ 7:45AM|#

"they are used in only 7% of killings, but are 20% of weapons, they are LESS dangerous!"

That's a pretty important fact in this debate. It's actually a bit surprising. I imagine it's because AW's are more expensive than a cheaper weapon and murderers figure the cheaper weapon will do.

I understand the stance taken by those who want to ban AW's though. You just combine two rather less than incredible ideas: 1. there are lots of unstable people out there and 2. AW's appear to be able to do a large amount of damage in a short amount of time. And the thinking is we don't want those two things to come together. But as the fact mentioned above demonstrates, the two simply don't seem to come together very much, either relatively (compared to other guns) or overall.

|4.28.09 @ 8:05AM|#

An armed society is a polite society.
Robert A. Heinlein

Xeones|4.28.09 @ 8:36AM|#

More than enough to make me willing to forgive his latter-day senile moonbattery.

If there weren't plenty of people on the left who treat him as some elder-statesman dispenser of wisdom, i'd agree with you.

And since no one's said it yet: yo, fuck Jimmy Carter.

BakedPenguin|4.28.09 @ 8:57AM|#

And since no one's said it yet: yo, fuck Jimmy Carter.

I understand the derisive views of Carter. But in addition to the dereg's crimethink pointed out, he also helped allow legal home brewing of beer.

I don't think he was a good president, but there are significant mitigating factors here...

|4.28.09 @ 9:56AM|#

And since no one's said it yet: yo, fuck Jimmy Carter.

We were waiting for you.

hmm|4.28.09 @ 10:25AM|#

Assault rifles are not available to the general public. Full-auto firearms are so heavily regulated that they are beyond the means of most citizens.

Most people do not know this. There is a pseudo ban on full auto weapons since 1986.People also do not understand the 1934 National Firearms Act. You mention assault weapon and people freak. It's like saying AIDS in the 80s.

For the love of god a short barrel rifle (under 16 inches) or a silencer costs $200 each in tax and fingerprints for individuals. You can get around the fingerprints with an LLC or gun trust. I'm actually serious about carrying the NFA rules and FFL classifications of weapons with me to parties. The sheer amount of ignorance is staggering.

LarryA|4.28.09 @ 10:53AM|#

The sheer amount of ignorance is staggering.

Last year I taught a class on Heller, and got folks from both sides. During the break one of the ladies thought D.C.'s law was "a little harsh," but Texas needed a little more gun law. She said, "I'm not sure about completely banning assault weapons, but when you go into a store and buy one you should at least have to pass some sort of background check."

Loupeznik|4.28.09 @ 11:09AM|#

In related news: "Ticks Want To Ban Tweezers"

|4.28.09 @ 12:33PM|#

There is at least some correlation between the amount of guns in circulation and the amount of deaths by gunshot wounds.

Er, actually, there's not much of a correlation between gun ownership and overall crime rates, and a weak correlation at best between gun ownership and violent crime. In the US, there is an inverse correlation between these things, and a positive correlation between strict gun control and crime/violent crime.

wingnutx|4.28.09 @ 2:59PM|#

So I'll ask again - why do you care so much about owning guns?

One word: Zombies.

LarryA|4.28.09 @ 3:30PM|#

Here is a catalog (PDF), compiled by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, of "Mass Gun Violence in the United States Since 1997."

I use two of the incidents on their list in my concealed handgun classes.

Salt Lake City, Utah. February 12, 2007. A teen opened fire inside the Trolley Square Mall, killing five, before being shot and killed by police.

The mall in question bans concealed handguns. An off-duty police officer celebrating an early Valentines with his wife was the first responder. He used his concealed handgun to corner the active shooter in an empty store for the time it took SWAT to arrive. Note that the same folks who would end concealed carry for non-law enforcement testified before Congress that cops can't be trusted either. If allowed to carry outside their jurisdictions they would kill innocent civilians and cost cities billions in liability. Officer Ken Hammond was credited with saving several lives.

Arvada & Colorado Springs, Colorado. December 9, 2007. One man with an assault rifle attacked a missionary training center in Arvada and a church in Colorado Springs. He killed two people and injured two others in Arvada, and killed two and injured three others in Colorado Springs. He fatally shot himself after being shot by a security guard in Colorado Springs.

The person who stopped this active shooter was not a security guard. She was one of six New Life Church ushers who were carrying concealed handguns under the authority of Colorado concealed handgun licenses. There were several thousand people in the sanctuary with nothing to hide behind that would stop a rifle bullet. Jeanne Assam was credited with saving at least fifty to a hundred lives.

I note that Brady doesn't list the third incident I use. On January 19, 2009 a woman with a bow and arrow walked into Texas Components, a Houston business, and shot a male employee. She then pulled what appeared to be a handgun. Luckily this was not a gun-free business, and two Texas concealed handgun licensees drew their handguns and drove her off. When the police showed up they had to shoot her again to take her into custody. The CHLs were credited with stopping the attack before anyone else was hurt or killed.

Of course, that wasn't gun violence.

ellipsis|4.28.09 @ 4:46PM|#

I've used several of my Evil Black Rifles® to successfully hunt coyotes. In fact, I go coyote hunting once or twice a month, usually with an EBR®.

Of course, I'm quite sure Carter would like to ban coyote hunting, if he thought he could get away with it.

Paul|4.28.09 @ 7:20PM|#

Or is the argument that your right to bear arms supercedes someone else's right not to get shot?

Yes, just like your first amendment rights supercede someone else's right to not be insulted or not hear something they don't agree with.

Just like your right to own a car supercedes someone else's right to not get run over.

See how this whole constitional-ey liberty thing works?

Suki|4.28.09 @ 9:06PM|#

Paul,

You ROCK!

May I add? Thank you sir.

Our right to bear arms does not include any affirmation to shoot innocent people and it does not include hunting dinner either, but the latter comes in handy.

Our Sixth Amendment rights do not protect us from every government ~~persecution~~ prosecution, just some rules for the criminal/felony ones and it would be nice if the governments revisited that.

I seems that the whole New York thing may have cast bad karma on the Constitution. Just look from the preamble:
Congress of the United States begun and held at the City of New-York, on Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

|4.29.09 @ 1:27AM|#

I'm a bleeding heart liberal but don't F*%k with my guns. I'm in the process of building my AR as we speak. I'm think about building 2. I just add a 1911 to my collection a few weeks ago. I plan on buying even more guns. If you guys think you have it bad try living in California with it 10 round mag capacity. "Guns don't kill people". "People Kill People".

|4.29.09 @ 4:56AM|#

Jimmy Carter was an unprincipled doofus as president. Now he is a senile unprincipled doofus.

Funny how liberals (and many conservatives too) seem to want to express social problems in terms of errant objects and not errant humans.

We are facing years more of laws against things and human behaviors that the politicians would have us believe are for our own good and will actually prevent "bad things" from happening.

Laws, in spite of what anyone would have you believe to the contrary, do not prevent crimes.

Laws only provide a framework for describing what behaviors are unacceptable and a model for punishing those who don't respect the framework.

(I am not being preachy . . .I am being acerbically sarcastic for the benefit of anyone reading this that doesn't agree with me.)

As far as the gun thing goes, it is only a matter of time before the traumatized public have had enough and ban them all. Then we'll be in the same situation as England where property crime is out of control because of the bastards that think another's stuff rightfully belongs to them if they can successfully take it.

It is that way because they don't need to worry about getting capped while they are rifling through someone else's shit after they have broken a window and climbed into the house in the middle of the night.

Let 'em try it with me . . .

As my grandfather the cop told me when I was about 8, "I'll shoot 'em and if they survive . . . I'll ask why they are in my house without my permission."

Oh, I do have a loaded throwaway even though the law in Georgia gives me the unquestioned right to blast 'em no questions asked.

Reason Magazine

Get Reason E-mail Updates!

Site comments/questions:

Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:

Editorial & Production Offices:

advertisements