Beretta to move after Maryland passes strict gun laws

Posted by Steve Adcock

Italian gun manufacturer Beretta, one of the biggest and oldest gun companies in the world, plans to follow through with its threat to leave the state of Maryland after new gun regulations would ban one of its own 9mm pistols with its 13-round capacity. Previously, Beretta moved one of its warehouses to Virginia after the state’s last gun control maneuver.

Once again, politicians are using their power to enact gun laws that not only fail to make state residents more safe, but actively discourage business in the state. Over the decades of calling Maryland their U.S. home, Beretta has contributed more than $30 million to the state’s treasury and currently employs more than 400 people.

Once again, politician reveals her own idiocy on gun rights

Posted by Steve Adcock

Democrat Robin Kelly, who is running for Jesse Jackson Jr.’s seat in Congress, stuck her foot in her own mouth during a speech this week when she attacked the idea that concealed carry laws keep innocent people safe because – during the Aurora, Colorado theater shooting – nobody pulled out their concealed firearm.

The problem, Ms. Kelly? That theater was a gun-free zone. It would have been illegal for anyone to have carried a concealed weapon inside that theater. But as we know, criminals do not follow the law, do they Ms. Kelly? In fact, that was the only “gun-free” theater within 20 miles – and not even the closest theater to the gunman’s house. Are we starting to connect the dots now, Ms. Kelly? Perhaps when gun rights activists use the term “victim zone” when referring to gun-free businesses, there is a reason for that.

Edit: Robin Kelly’s Facebook page has become flooded with comments from angry and frustrated people who accurately recognize Ms. Kelly’s distinct and astounding lack of knowledge and insight into the Aurora, CO shooting and gun rights in general.

Thousands in Connecticut flock to gun stores before vote

Posted by Steve Adcock

Before the expected passage of yet another terribly harmful slap-in-the-face gun control bill, this time in the state of Connecticut, state residents flooded local gun shops to buy up remaining items that will soon be banned, including so-called “high capacity magazines” and other firearms that the state will soon consider “assault style”.

The bill would limit magazine capacity to 10-rounds, meaning home owners need to be extra judicious (and lucky) when multiple intruders break into their homes to not run out of ammunition before the threat is neutralized. The bill would also expand what the state considers to be “assault weapons” and would require all private sales to undergo background checks through an FFL before a sale of a firearm.

Ignorant state representatives considered the measure a “powerful response”, seemingly unaware that these types of bans are notoriously unsuccessful in virtually every way. Are any of Connecticut’s lawmakers aware that the Columbine shooters obtained their ammunition magazines from California, which also had a 10-round limit in place at the time?

Many state residents are incensed, and they should be. The number of those opposed to this nonsensical gun control bill vastly outnumber those in support of it during a rally today at the Hartford statehouse.

The solution to gun control is deterrence, not prevention

Posted by Steve Adcock

On SmallGovTimes.com, we spend a lot of time discussing the demonstrable shortcomings of common legislation to control access to guns. Evidence soundly rejects the majority of gun control proposals as nothing but ineffectual goals that will not, and cannot, prevent the next mass shooting. Now, let’s discuss the solution to gun control using a solution that actually works.

Governments cannot prevent crime. Many state governments, in fact, admit this. Governments can, however, deter crime. The difference between deterrence and prevention is fundamental and important. The attempt to remove guns from a would-be criminal’s hands is an attempt to prevent the crime from happening. It’s a direct and tangible effort to stop violence before it starts.

Unfortunately, prevention does not work, and history has clearly shown that tangible crime prevention methods are notoriously unsuccessful. One look at our nation’s War on Drugs program paints a grim but realistic picture of the harm that prevention truly causes society. When government attempts to take away something tangible that it deems harmful to society, that activity is naturally driven underground, making it near impossible to track. Visit almost any high school in the country and you will surely find a good percentage of students who can obtain illegal narcotics. The underground drug trade is quite sophisticated.

In this case, prevention has achieved two things: 1: all drug trafficking is performed underground where government authorities rarely infiltrate, relying on stupid criminals and dumb luck to capture drugs, and 2: failed at ridding our society of illegal narcotics, as evidenced by the easy access to these substances by virtually anyone in our country.

And so, if prevention is the government’s solution to gun crime, then we can expect largely the same result. Criminals will not give up their guns – that’s why they are criminals. The gun trade will be taken underground where the government cannot track and monitor, making the prosecution and investigation of gun related crimes that much harder. Prevention simply does not work.

Deterrence is the answer to gun control. Deterrence involves building an environment where it is simply too risky to commit a crime with a firearm. Deterrence does not remove the gun from the hands of a criminal, but it makes the rest of his or her life – or at least a good portion of it – significantly more brutal.

Currently, if a criminal gets caught holding up a 7/11 convenience store with a gun, he might spend a couple years in jail, max (depending on prior arrests and warrants, of course). Get a good enough lawyer, and that sentence might be reduced to several months. In other words, in the grand scheme of someone’s life, it amounts to very little time behind bars and removed from society. The risk, sometimes, is worth the reward.

To properly deter a criminal, sentencing for crimes involving guns needs significant reform. If state governments begin establishing laws that set minimum sentences for all gun crimes, governments can then begin setting up an environment where the rewards no longer support the risk. For example, if a state set a minimum 20-year prison sentence for ANY crime involving a gun, you immediately send a message that gun crimes are not tolerated. Buy whatever gun you want, but if you commit a crime with it, you will be spending at least the next couple decades behind bars paying for it.

Deterrence can apply to any crime. Get caught driving while under the influence of alcohol? Spend 5 years in jail. Get caught selling drugs to a minor? Spend 15 years in jail. In other words, build a society where crimes are punished, and punished heavily. Let people live their lives the way they see fit, and be sure those who are dangers to freedom and liberty think twice about whether or not they want a long jail sentence for the crime of using a gun to steal a case of beer from a local convenience store.

Right now, for far too many people, the reward is worth the risk.

Poll finds fewer Americans in favor of stricter gun control

Posted by Steve Adcock

Article Highlights

47% still want stricter gun control, but number down from 57%

39% want laws to remain the same, 11% favor fewer gun laws

Emotional politics fading, reason and logic finally returning

CBS News released poll results this week that indicates 47% of those surveyed are in favor of stricter gun control, down from 57% shortly after the December shooting in Sandy Hook, CT. Although this is only a single poll, the trend away from more strict gun laws is common between surveys.

This, of course, should tell us something very important: emotional legislation is not good legislation. Had we quickly rammed through gun control shortly after the Connecticut shootings (like the state of New York did), we would end up with a piece of legislation that – once again – fails to accomplish its intended goal of keeping Americans safer from gun crimes.

Had we used the 57% popularity of gun control at the time, Americans would be forced to cope with legislation that was emotionally-driven and ill-conceived, requiring additional hoops for gun owners to jump through for no real benefit to public safety. At the time strict gun control seemed popular because of the emotional environment, but more times than not, emotional politics are bad politics.

Even among Democrats, the poll finds, a whopping 78% of Democrats polled after the Connecticut shooting favored stricter gun controls. Today, that number stands at 66% – still high, but nowhere near ridiculous 80% figure where it stood just months ago.

Why the across-the-board drop in numbers between these national polls? Because emotions are fading and logic and reasoning are making their way back into the debate. Slowly…but surely.