Denver Post on Guns

Michael Booth and Kevin Simpson have written a surprisingly balanced article about gun ownership for The Denver Post, not a paper to which readers usually look for balance regarding such issues.

Unfortunately, the authors do get some points wrong. My criticisms should not be interpreted as a blanket condemnation of the article, but as a corrective to an article that's largely good.

The authors sound surprised to report that, in handgun safety classes, people spend much of their "class time learning how to avoid actually using a gun." The authors call this a "paradox," but it is the standard orientation of gun owners.

The authors correctly note that those with concealed-carry permits compose an "exceptionally law-abiding group." Unfortunately, the authors misstate the evidence regarding guns and crime. They write: "Gun enthusiasts argue more guns equal less crime... but researchers point to a long-term decline influenced by larger forces and no impact on crime attributable to concealed-carry laws."

It is true that "larger forces" play the bigger role. However, it is simply not true that "researchers" -- suggesting all researchers -- have found no impact of concealed-carry laws. Some researchers have found that concealed-carry reduces crime, others have found that it does not reduce crime, and no researcher has found that concealed carry increases crime.

Moreover, plenty of unassailable research shows that gun ownership reduces "hot" burglaries when the owners are home. John Lott, in addition to running statistical regressions showing that concealed-carry reduces crime, also ran regressions showing that gun ownership generally relates to lower crime, other things equal. (Lott reviews the research regarding guns and crime in The Bias Against Guns and More Guns, Less Crime. Such scholars as Joyce Malcolm, Gary Kleck, Don Kates, and Dave Kopel discuss many other issues including burglary. I review a portion of the evidence in my 2003 article, "Guns and the Media.")

The main problem with the Post's article is that it advocates "middle ground" gun restrictions but does not offer any actual evidence that such restrictions would work. The article ignores the evidence that existing restrictions (such as Brady registration checks) have failed, as well as the well-developed arguments as to why various proposed measures would cause more problems than they solved. For example, the article quotes State Senator Sue Windels, who has offered "lock up your safety" legislation that would demonstrably make homeowners less safe. Instead, the article offers polling data indicating that many people want more restrictions, as though polling data were a substitute for sound arguments. The article thus reveals a deeply pragmatic mindset that assumes a principled, consistent view must be wrong by virtue of the fact that it is principled and consistent, despite the fact that it is also supported by tight logic and robust empirical evidence.

CCW for School Safety

Recently I mentioned an "empty holster" protest planned for the University of Colorado, Boulder.

Diana Hsieh argues in The Gazette that faculty should be allowed to harry concealed handguns:

I'm a graduate student instructor at CU Boulder. Since 2001 I've been licensed to carry a concealed firearm in Colorado. Every time I hear of a new school shooting, I worry that some psychopath might unleash his rage on my campus. University policy forbids any firearms on campus. I obey that policy but it won't stop a killer from waltzing onto campus armed to the teeth. So if my students and I were in his path, we could only cower in fear in a corner of the classroom, helplessly waiting for him to kill us.

If the university respected my concealed carry permit, my good aim could protect my students from such an unthinkable end. Since I'm a law-abiding citizen trained in the proper use of firearms, my gun poses no danger whatsoever to other peaceful people.

To forbid a trained staff member from carrying a concealed handgun is dangerous and insanely stupid.

'Do Not Be a Hero'

Kirk Mitchell writes for the February 15 Denver Post:

"If danger presents itself, flee the area, if at all possible, or seek sanctuary in a locked classroom, restroom," according to one memo sent to staffers and students at metro campuses of the University of Colorado. "Do not be a hero. Be a good witness. Report what you have seen as soon as you can notify the campus police."

Vincent Carroll has responded with mild criticism:

People don't need exhortations to flee danger. That's what they will do almost every time without a prod.

But why the explicit warning against heroism?

Of course a university shouldn't encourage reckless behavior in a crisis, or try to shame people into taking chances they would otherwise avoid. Most of us aren't cut out for heroics anyway.

But do we really want to insist that people avoid heroics, as if there were something faintly disreputable about those who spontaneously risk their lives on behalf of others?

As my readers might expect, I want to offer a somewhat stronger criticism.

Generally, the advice to flee is appropriate for students. The problem with the advice is that it is not always possible to flee. In some cases, heroic action is the only reasonable way to protect one's life. Students who are unable to flee or "seek sanctuary" should attack, as their only other option is to wait to be murdered. For example, at a school shooting in Oregon, the killer "was tackled by other students." Here is a more detailed account of that story, as reported by the AP:

Jake Ryker was shot in the chest but managed to tackle a schoolmate who had opened fire in the Thurston High School cafeteria.

On Monday night, Jake's father, a Navy diver wearing his full dress uniform, presented him with the highest honor in the Boy Scouts of America.

Robert Ryker's hands trembled as he pinned the red ribbon with gold medallion of the Honor Medal with Crossed Palms to Jake's chest before a crowd of about 300 people at Thurston Christian Church. ...

Jake and his younger brother, Josh, 14, and three other Boy Scouts subdued the gunman after two other Thurston students were killed and 22 wounded on May 21.

Josh Ryker, Douglas and David Ure, and Adam Walburger all were presented Monday night with the Honor Medal, the second-highest honor in scouting. It was the first time in the 88-year history of the Boy Scouts that five medals for heroism were awarded at one time.

"I believe it was no coincidence that the five who stopped the shooting were Scouts," said Jerry Dempsy, Oregon Trail Council executive for the Boy Scouts. "I'm so grateful they stopped the killing when they did."

Jake was shot through the chest during the shooting spree. When the gunman ran out of ammunition and started to reload, Jake tackled him, and was shot in a finger. His brother and the three other Scouts piled on and held the shooter until help arrived.

Notably,"Jake Ryker gave credit to the fact that he had taken a marksmanship and safety training program given by the National Rifle Association. ... His father, Rob Ryker said that both Jake and his 14-year-old brother, Josh, had taken the course." Because of his training, Ryker knew when to tackle the killer. (Dave Kopel mentions Ryker in his article about "common-sense school protection.")

And, sometimes, more mature and better-trained students may choose to intervene rather than flee, if they reasonably believe that they can save lives without putting themselves in too great a danger. For example, at the Appalachian School of Law, two armed students subdued a murderer.

Mitchell's article does not make clear whether the "memo sent to staffers and students" was intended also as advice for staffers, or as information for staffers to pass along to students. If it was intended as advice for staffers, then the advice is despicable, for instructors have accepted as a chosen responsibility the care of their students. While no staffer should place him or herself in undue danger without good reason, instructors have a moral responsibility to take reasonable, heroic actions to protect their students, as Joel Myrick did.

Outside of the school environment, there is Jeanne Assam, who used her concealed, Beretta 9 mm semiautomatic handgun to shoot a murderer at New Life Church.

The rash of copy-cat school shootings, in part encouraged by irresponsible media coverage, reflect a cultural sickness in which moral relativism and nihilism undermine some people's values and very lives. The solution to such problems is not to impose gun restrictions that fail to impede criminals but that only make self-defense more difficult.

CU's policy is only helping to create what Jeff Snyder calls a "Nation of Cowards." But cowardice only encourages criminals.

If CU's administrators wanted to act to save lives in the event of a violent attack -- as well as to deter such attacks -- they would establish a policy of allowing trained staffers to carry concealed handguns. The memo to staffers should then read, "If someone starts attacking your students with intent to kill, then, within reasonable guidelines of safety appropriate to an emergency situation, shoot the bastard."

Legislature Tries to Restrict Guns, Abortion

The following column originally appeared in Grand Junction's Free Press.

February 18, 2008

Pick your poison: Dems and GOP both violate rights

by Linn and Ari Armstrong

A legislative committee heard two bills in two weeks. Both votes split along party lines. The first week, all the Democrats voted to violate our rights. The second week, all the Republicans did so.

Senator Sue Windels sponsored Bill 49 to impose criminal penalties on gun owners who do not store their guns the way that district attorneys deem proper after the fact. On Monday, February 4, the Senate State, Veterans and Military Affairs Committee heard the bill. Windels joined with fellow Democrats Chris Romer and Abel Tapia to pass the bill to the next committee, over the objections of Republicans Bill Cadman and David Schultheis.

On February 11, the committee heard Schultheis's Bill 95 (which Cadman cosponsored) to impose criminal penalties on doctors who fail to observe a 24-hour waiting period for their clients seeking an abortion. Both Republicans voted for the bill, though the Democrats killed it.

While the bills cover quite different situations, they have much in common. Both bills would impose useless additions to Colorado's already-massive books of statutes. Both would create arbitrary and onerous restrictions on activities that people have a right to pursue but that some ultimately want to ban altogether.

Let's first look at the gun bill. As the Daily Sentinel pointed out earlier in the month, existing laws already cover cases of placing children in danger. The effect of Bill 49 would be to discourage citizens from keeping firearms for self-defense. When citizens are too afraid of prosecution to defend themselves, the advantage goes to the real criminals.

As Cadman said in a Republican press release, "We have a good balance right now between the need to keep kids from misusing guns and the right of homeowners to be able to defend their families. This bill would upset that balance by giving home intruders the upper hand and tying the hands of homeowners... This bill likely would have a chilling effect on gun ownership."

Originally, Bill 49 stated that it applied if a gun owner "reasonably should know that a minor would be able to gain access to the firearm" without permission. And who gets to decide what's "reasonable?" Prosecutors, some of whom are unfriendly toward defensive gun ownership. The committee dropped that language in favor of a line that says the bill applies in cases of "criminal negligence." In other words, you commit "criminal negligence" if you commit "criminal negligence" -- again as determined by prosecutors.

Another problem with the bill is that it says it doesn't apply if a minor obtains the gun through burglary or robbery. So does the criminal prosecution of the gun owner hinge upon the criminal conviction of the minor? Who decides whether the minor should face charges? Apparently, again the prosecutor gets to make the call.

Of course, while many Colorado Democrats don't express this motivation, many activists who favor storage laws, waiting periods, and other restrictions ultimately want to ban the use and ownership of guns, at least for defensive purposes.

What about the abortion bill? Bill 95 would have required a doctor to provide information about ultrasounds to all women seeking an abortion, then imposed a 24-hour waiting period. But women already know what abortion implies -- the destruction of a potential but not actual person -- and are already free to order ultrasounds.

As Jody Berger of Planned Parenthood pointed out to us, an ultrasound cannot even detect a pregnancy before five weeks. And Planned Parenthood already administers an ultrasound for every abortion in its clinics, which offer abortions from around five to eighteen weeks of pregnancy. (The clinics offer "morning after" medications up to 72 hours following intercourse.)

Berger said, "What would have been onerous is the 24-hour waiting period. In a lot of rural areas, a doctor is available only one day a week. And clients who drive three or four hours to come to the Planned Parenthood center in Denver have to make that drive twice. If they come with their husband or boyfriend, that means two people have to take two days off of work."

So Schultheis, who is on record opposing waiting periods for purchases of firearms, is the sponsor of the bill to impose waiting periods for abortions.

Mike Saccone recorded the hypocrisy of Republicans and Democrats alike in his January 23 and February 11 stories for the Sentinel. Shultheis said his bill was "trying to whatever degree we can to reduce the number of abortions" -- the exact attitude of the anti-gun lobby toward gun ownership. Of course, Schultheis really wants to ban abortion, just as many anti-gun activists ultimately want to ban defensive gun ownership.

And Romer said of the abortion bill, "It puts a burden on certain people" -- the way that the gun bill that Romer voted for puts a burden on gun owners.

These Democrats and Republicans deserve each other. But Colorado deserves better.

Linn is a local political activist and firearms instructor with the Grand Valley Training Club. His son Ari edits FreeColorado.com from the Denver area.

Shooting No 'Accident'

The Rocky Mountain News reported today:

Mesa County sheriff's deputies are investigating an accidental shooting at a Grand Junction gun store Saturday, in which an employee was shot in the abdomen.

The accident happened at Jerry's Outdoor Sports, a sheriff's spokeswoman said Sunday. Witnesses said a customer had brought a .243-caliber rifle into the store for servicing. While the weapon was being worked on, it discharged a bullet...

Okay, when you're working on a gun that you haven't bothered to unload, the resulting discharge is not an "accident." Apparently the shooting was unintentional, but an "accident" it certainly was not. "Always keep your gun unloaded until you're ready to shoot." It's one of the essential three rules of gun safety.

Also, why does the Rocky use passive language? The gun "was being worked on?" The gun "discharged a bullet?" Where was the person during all of this working and discharging? Guns are inanimate objects; they don't fire themselves.

Sentinel Opposes Storage Bill

The Daily Sentinel of Grand Junction published a strongly worded editorial February 5 against the gun storage bill. Tracking a point I made yesterday, the Sentinel points out that existing laws already address the issue of putting children in danger.

The paper goes on to make two points that I did not make (though I've written about in years past). First, the penalties of the bill hardly match the inherent penalties of irresponsible gun handling: "On top of losing your child or seeing him involved in a horrible crime, you could be fined."

Second, the law would only change the behaviors of people who are already safe:

[R]esponsible gun owners already keep their guns secured when minors are around. Equally important, they make sure their children are instructed in gun safety and understand the rules with respect to access to their weapons.

However, the irresponsible gun owners -- those who care little about having loaded guns available and easily accessible even if their are children around -- aren’t likely to change simply because the state creates a new misdemeanor charge and a fine for violating it.

The result of the bill would be to discourage responsible, defensive gun ownership and thereby empower criminals. It's nice to see that the Sentinel, unlike various state legislators, has thought this one through.

Unsafe Storage

They're back. Colorado's Democrats held off for as long as they could, but, as predicted, their animosity toward peaceable gun owners is rising to the surface. (There are some exceptions among Colorado's Democrats.)

Mike Saccone reported the story for the February 5 Daily Sentinel, which assigned the biased headline, "Bill would crack down on careless gun storage." The bill would do no such thing. It would instead intimidate gun owners who store their guns safely, giving criminals the upper hand. A more accurate headline would have stated, "Bill would coddle criminals, punish responsible gun owners." (Of course, the Sentinel could also consider hiring headline writers capable of distinguishing between neutral and slanted language. "Bill would create new gun storage rules" would have been fine.)

Saccone writes, "Senate Bill 49 would make it a misdemeanor offense for an adult to fail to safely and securely store a firearm, which a 16-year-old or 17-year-old child could then use to harm someone or take the gun to school."

But, as I wrote back in 2001, existing laws already cover cases of putting children in mortal danger, without discriminating against one class of citizens (i.e., gun owners). The Democrats, though, wish to punish gun owners in particular and criminalize them for responsible storage of a gun, which in many contexts means storing the gun such that it is available for potential defensive use.

Of course, many of those who support the "storage" bill generally oppose defensive gun ownership, and their strategy is to incrementally outlaw it.

The bills are available at the Colorado legislature's web page.

The new twist for Senate Bill 08-049 is that it emphasizes "teenage suicide." This is a clever political move, because, obviously, nobody likes teenage suicide. But why is that suddenly the issue? The bill states, "A recent and comprehensive study of the effectiveness of laws to prevent minors' access to firearms shows a significant decrease in firearm suicides by minors in states that have adopted these laws..." I have not read the unspecified "recent and comprehensive study." But the uncritical reader might miss the significance of the phrase "firearm suicides." The anti-gun lobby apparently doesn't care whether the total suicide rate stays the same, so long as "firearm suicides" go down. If people switch methods of suicide, that's totally irrelevant, so far as the anti-gun lobby is concerned. Obviously, the proper goal is to responsibly reduce total teenage suicides, which are fundamentally unrelated to gun laws.

Nor does the anti-gun lobby care whether more people are victimized by criminals who have less to fear when they break into somebody's home.

Another problem with the bill is its invocation of the "reasonable person" standard. Unfortunately, prosecutors are not always reasonable; sometimes they prosecute cases to inflate their statistics so that they can run for higher office. Yet the bill requires the posting of notices that demand that "you store[] the firearm in a manner that a reasonable person would believe is inaccessible to a minor." Gee, nothing ambiguous about that!

For once, the Republicans have discovered their back bones:

ColoradoSenateNews.com

Controversial curb on gun owners passes committee on party-line vote

Tuesday, 05 February 2008

Republicans sided with a host of witnesses in a Senate committee hearing Monday challenging a Democrat measure placing new conditions on guns stored at home. The State, Veterans and Military Affairs Committee's GOP members said Senate Bill 49 would make it much harder for homeowners to protect themselves and their families against home intrusions and burglaries.

SB 49, sponsored in the Senate by Arvada Democrat Sue Windels, holds homeowners criminally liable--subject to a misdemeanor charge--if minors obtain their firearms and commit suicide or a crime against another. Windels says the measure is meant to cut crime and teen suicides, but Republicans on the committee said the bill would backfire.

"Current law already addresses this issue," Sen. Bill Cadman, a Colorado Springs Republican on the committee, said after the hearing.

"We have a good balance right now between the need to keep kids from misusing guns and the right of homeowners to be able to defend their families," Cadman said. "This bill would upset that balance by giving home intruders the upper hand and tying the hands of homeowners."

Current law already bars people from knowingly or recklessly allowing firearms to fall into the hands of any person under the age of 18.

Cadman said the bill as drafted imposes a one-size-fits-all restriction on homeowners by coercing them into keeping their guns inaccessible. As a result, he said, guns not only would be difficult to use in those circumstances where a homeowner needs quick access for home defense but also could wind up discouraging more citizens from trying to defend themselves at all.

"This bill likely would have a chilling effect on gun ownership," Cadman said.

Cadman added that statistics show that a decline in the ability of homeowners to defend themselves leads to an increase in crimes against those homeowners.

Cadman and fellow Colorado Springs Republican Sen. Dave Schultheis voted against the proposal. It passed 3-2 on a party line vote.

Defenders of the right to self-defense contend SB 49 represents the latest in a series of swipes at gun ownership by law-abiding citizens since ruling Democrats took power in the General Assembly. Last year, Democrat Gov. Bill Ritter signed two bills into law that placed additional restrictions on the right of Coloradans to carry concealed weapon.

SB 49 is now en route to the Senate Appropriations Committee for consideration.

Nothing "Accidental" About Shooting

Alan Gathright wrote a story earlier today titled, "Shooting story backfires:"

At first, the 20-year-old man reported he was shot by a drive-by gunman Tuesday evening while walking with a friend near the Byers Library. ...

Now the victim admits he was accidentally shot in the back at a home when a 15-year-old buddy -- showing off a handgun -- placed it on a coffee table and it accidentally discharged. ...

"They were in a residence and had the gun out and the gun was put onto a table," [Arapahoe County sheriff's Capt. Mark] Fisher said. "It discharged and ended up shooting the 20-year-old in the back.

The description by the victim is obvious nonsense, and the description by the officer is misleading. Guns are inanimate objects. They do not fire themselves. If you place a gun on a table, it will not then "accidentally discharge" all on its own.

Instead, the 15-year-old "buddy" obviously violated all three of the main rules for firearm safety. First, he kept the gun loaded when he wasn't intending to use it. (Perhaps the magazine was in the semiautomatic gun, or perhaps the teen forgot or never learned that, even when the magazine is removed, a round might be left in the chamber.) Second, he pointed the gun at something that he didn't intend to shoot. Third, he probably put his finger on the trigger. My guess (assuming that the shooting actually involved a table) is that the teen discharged the gun while placing it on the table. The teen fired the gun, one way or another (again, assuming that the basic story is accurate). The shooting was no accident. It was the result of gross negligence.

[January 17 update: Of course I accept Steve D'Ippolito's statement in the comments: "Some guns are physically defective (or poorly designed) to the point where they will discharge when they get a sufficiently abrupt jolt." However, as D'Ippolito adds, somebody who tosses a loaded (and defective) gun onto a table, such that the muzzle points at a person, is still responsible for the consequences. That said, getting the full truth out of the characters involved may be impossible.]

The three main rules of gun safety can be described as the principles of "gun control:" chamber control, muzzle control, and trigger control. But apparently somebody else neglected the central principle of gun control: always keep your gun under your own control. The teen is manifestly too ignorant and negligent to handle a firearm.

Fortunately, many teens learn about gun safety and shoot responsibly and legally in the company of responsible adults.