|
|
Book review of One Nation Under Guns: an Essay on an American Epidemic By Arnie Grossman Introduction by Gary Hart Fulcrum Publishing, Golden, Colorado (2006). $12.95 pp. xxiv, 166
December 18, 2006
Why are so many gun control activists so angry? If you read this book you will understand.
On November 15, 2006, I debated author Arnie Grossman, in an event organized by the Denver Press Club. The debate was taped for C-Span’s Book Talk series, and broadcast on the weekend of December 16-18. The debate will also be available, in either video or audio-only, at the Independence Institute’s iVoices podcast and multimedia website, in either Quicktime or in WMV format.
Mr. Grossman is co-founder of SAFE (Sane Alternatives to the Firearms Epidemic), Colorado’s leading gun control group. SAFE is a state affiliate of the Brady Campaign, the leading United States gun control group. The Brady Campaign, in turn, is a member of the International Action Network on Small Arms (IANSA), the world’s leading anti-gun lobby.
This essay examines various claims in Mr. Grossman’s book One Nation Under Guns, and also some claims that he made during our debate.
Mr. Grossman is a good writer, a fine speaker, and, in person, a nice man. Yet the tone of his book is one of outrage and fury.
One the one hand, he decries "name-calling" (26). (Parenthetical references are to particular pages in the book.) On the other hand, the book revels in name-calling. He approvingly quotes Sarah Brady that all Congresspeople who do not vote her way consist of the "the cowardly lions and the ones without a brain." (56). Senator Gary Hart’s introduction claims that the policies of the gun rights movement are "the triumph of paranoia" and "simply insane" (Hart, xvi). In the debate, Mr. Grossman began by asserting that it was wrong that there even is a gun control debate, since there is only one correct view of the issue.
Indeed, if the world really were the way that Mr. Grossman, Mrs. Brady, and Senator Hart claim, it would be appropriate to be extremely angry. The problem is not that these gun control advocates are unintelligent. It’s just that they know so much that isn’t so.[1]
One Nation contains no footnotes, endnotes, or citations. Only rarely does the author explain the source of any of his claims. Quite clearly Mr. Grossman has gotten almost all of his information from the national anti-gun groups. Unfortunately, he is so eager to believe that worst that he has apparently not checked the veracity of any of those claims.
As a result, an enormous amount of One Nation is factually wrong. No respectable newspaper would continue to employ a report whose work included such an enormous high rate of factual error – especially of facts which are easily checked, such as the straightforward language of a federal statute.
Thus, One Nation is of very little use in studying the pros and cons of gun control policy. Readers interested in intellectually serious books which argue for increased gun control would be much better off with any of the following: Philip J. Cook & Jens Ludwig, Evaluating Gun Policy: Effects on Crime and Violence (Brookings Institution, 2003); Philip J. Cook and Jens Ludwig, Gun Violence: The Real Costs (Oxford University Press, 2000); William J. Vizzard, Shots in the Dark: The Policy, Politics, and Symbolism of Gun Control (Rowman & Littlefield, 2001).
I do not necessarily agree with all of the policy conclusions of these three books, and Vizzard’s book does have some careless errors. But on the whole, these books are based on accurate presentation of basic facts and law about firearms – in sharp contrast to One Nation.
One Nation is still worthwhile reading, however, because it provides an excellent insight into the mind of the anti-gun movement. You would not study a Ku Klux Klan book to learn an accurate history of race relations in the United States, but you could study a Klansman’s book in order to understand the mentality that leads to the most extreme form of racism. Similarly, One Nation can help readers better understand the dystopian world view which has convinced so many gun control advocates that anyone who disagrees with them must be insane, cowardly, or brainless.[2]
Table of Contents I. Non-Existent "Loopholes" in Gun Law II. Bogus Statistics III. The Brady Bill IV. Terrorism V. NRA VII. The Politics of the Gun Issue VII. Columbine IX. Those Sophisticated Europeans!
I. Non-Existent "Loopholes" in Gun Law
A. The .50 caliber machine gun In debate and in print, Mr. Grossman is obsessed with the terrifying .50 caliber machine gun; he claims "the weapon can be bought at most gun shows." (41-42).
To the contrary, it is impossible to buy any machine gun at a gun show. Pursuant to the National Firearms Act of 1934, the purchase of a machine gun requires a months-long process involving a background check and letter of authorization from local law enforcement (known as Form 4), fingerprinting, registration of the owner and the gun with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE), and a $200 tax.
There has never been an instance of a legally-owned, registered machine gun being used in a crime (with the lone exception of one Ohio police officer’s misuse of a personally-owned gun.)
In 1986, Congress outlawed the sale of new machine guns (manufactured after May 19, 1986) to anyone except law enforcement and the military. 18 US Code § 922(o).
Accordingly, it would be impossible to complete the transaction for any machine gun at a gun show.
Moreover, the only .50 caliber machine guns which an ordinary citizen can buy are World War II antiques. They are rare, and would likely cost a collector over $20,000. The claim that they are on sale "at most gun shows" is preposterous. It is like saying "most police officers are over seven feet tall." Only a person bereft of any personal knowledge of gun shows (or police officers) would make such a silly claim.
B. Conversion kits Another product which Mr. Grossman believes can be purchased at gun shows are conversion kits, by which a self-loading firearm can be converted to fully automatic. (44, 75).
To the contrary, federal law mandates that the purchase of such a conversion kit is subject to precisely the same restrictions as a machine gun itself. For purposes of federal law, the definition (and, hence, the applicable restrictions) of "machine gun" includes 26 USC § 5845(b) ("The term ‘machinegun’…shall also include…any part designed and intended solely and exclusively, or combination of parts designed and intended, for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun, and any combination of parts from which a machinegun can be assembled if such parts are in the possession or under the control of a person.")
What can be purchased as a gun show is an entirely different type of a "conversion kit" – one that changes the caliber of an ordinary firearm. For example, if a person owns a .45 caliber Colt pistol, but wants to practice using the gun with .22 caliber ammunition (since .22 caliber ammunition is far less expensive), the person could buy and install a conversion kit to change the gun’s caliber from .45 to .22. Of course changing the caliber does not turn an ordinary gun into a machine gun.
C. Assembly of firearms from kits Mr. Grossman believes that a person can evade existing federal laws (such as the mandatory background check of the buyer and registration of the gun):
He further claims that a consumer can obtain, via mail-order parts, with no background check, everything to assemble a firearm, except that he must "add something called a ‘flat’ to a completed receiver, and he has a fully operable and legally obtained assault weapon." (83-84).
Federal law plainly states just the opposite. The Gun
Control Act defines the term "firearm" to include the following: "…(A) any
weapon (including a starter gun) which will or is designed to or may be
readily converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive:
(B) the frame or receiver of any such weapon." 18 USC §
921(a)(3). The receiver is "The basic unit of a firearm which houses the firing and breech mechanism and to which the barrel and stock are assembled. In revolvers, pistols, and break-open guns, it is called the Frame."
Thus, any retailer who sells receivers or frames must conduct the same federally-required background checks as are required for the sale of completed guns.
Similarly, the retailer must fill out a federal gun registration form (Form 4473) which must be kept available for law enforcement inspection at any time. Retailers must retain each and every one of their 4473 forms for 20 years. Thus, Mr. Grossman’s assertion, throughout the book, that there should be gun registration is blind to the fact that there already is registration of every gun (and every frame and every receiver) sold by every firearms dealer in the United States. Such registration has been the law of the land since 1968.
In addition, a person who is not federally-licensed firearms retailer may not sell receivers or frames to a person in an another state, just as the interstate private sale of assembled firearms is illegal.
As for the "flat," Mr. Grossman is apparently referring to a "receiver flat." This is a piece of sheet metal, with some pre-drilled holes. Turning this piece of metal into a functioning receiver requires dozens of steps involving sophisticated machine-shop skills, with an accuracy of 1/1000th of an inch.
So Grossman creates the impression that the consumer need only add a simple piece of metal ("a flat") to the "completed receiver," the truth is that consumer cannot even buy a completed receiver without going through the same background check and registration that are required for purchase of a complete firearm. If a consumer wants to make his own receiver, he must manufacture (not simply "add") a part which is very difficult for anyone but a skilled machinist to make.
By the way, the "firing mechanism" (the unit which includes the firing pin, the hammer, spring, and trigger) does not carry the serial number. The firing mechanism is attached to the receiver/frame, which by federal law must have the serial number.
18 USC § 923(i).
D. Federal Firearms Licenses issued to dogs According to Mr. Grossman, the standards for issuing Federal Firearms Licenses (the licenses required for all persons "engaged in the business" of selling firearms) are so lax that people can and do obtain licenses in the name of their dogs. Thus, "A terrorist with no identification, bent on killing perceived enemies on American soil, is obviously going to choose to do business with a ‘dealer’ whose license bears the name Rover." (115-17).
In 1990, two reporters obtained FFLs in the name of their dogs. (Knut Royce, "New Rules Target Gun Dealers: Applicants must provide photo IDs, fingerprints," Newsday Feb. 15, 1994 ("In 1990, the ATF licensed two dogs as firearms dealers. The dogs had acted as proxies for reporters…).)
In 1994, federal law was changed to require a photograph plus fingerprints, thus making future journalistic dog stunts impossible. 18 USC § 923(a) ("The application… shall include a photograph and fingerprints of the applicant.") Thus, Mr. Grossman’s fear and anger that the "loophole" will be exploited by terrorists in 2006 are based on the fact that he does not know that the law was changed a dozen years ago.
E. The federal government can only investigate crimes by a gun dealer once per year Complaining about the Firearms Owner’s Protection Act of 1986, Mr. Grossman asserts that the Act prohibits the BATFE (the regulatory bureau for gun dealers) from investigating criminal activities by the dealer more than once a year. "Imagine any other public safety agency being told it can only investigate a business suspected of illegal and dangerous activity once a year." (83)
Again, if Mr. Grossman had read the law – rather than relying on misleading propaganda from the gun prohibition lobby, he would not to be so worried. The one-per-year limit applies only to random investigations involving no probable cause or suspicion. There is no limit on the number of audits which may be conducted pursuant to a genuine criminal investigation. 18 USC § 923(g)(1)(B) (allowing inspections "at any time with respect to records relating to a firearm involved in a criminal investigation that is traced to the licensee; or (iii) when such inspection or examination may be required for determining the disposition of one of more particular firearms in the course of a bona fide criminal investigation.")(emphasis added)
F. Supposed immunity for criminal gun sales Foremost among Mr. Grossman’s bête noires is the new law which he believes was named the "Gun Industry Immunity Bill" (38). The actual name is the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Firearms Act, which became law in 2005.
According to Mr. Grossman, the new law makes the firearms business "the only industry in America to enjoy blanket immunity from prosecution and accountability, even when its members knowingly furnish illegal gun traffickers with weapons destined for criminals and terrorists." (93)
The bill was passed in response of a wave of abusive lawsuits filed against firearms manufacturers, retail dealers, wholesalers, and even trade associations, at the behest of the Brady Center, the litigation arm of the Brady Campaign. (Analysis of the lawsuits, and the need for preventive legislation, is available here.)
Mr. Grossman is apparently unaware that the new law’s restriction on lawsuits specifically allows lawsuits against any defendant which violated the law. Far from providing blanket immunity, the Act also allows for lawsuits for defective products, negligence per se, negligent entrustment, breach of contract, and warranty:
And despite Mr. Grossman’s intimation, the Act in no way changes the federal law that furnishing guns to criminals or terrorist is a major federal felony. See 18 USC § 922(d)(barring firearms transfer prohibited persons, including convicted criminals, by any transferor "knowing or having reason to know" of the transferee’s prohibited status); 18 USC § 924(a)(2) (ten year prison sentence for violating § 922(d)); 18 USC § 924(h) (any transfer when the transferor knows the gun will be used in a crime of violence or a drug trafficking crime is a 10 year felony).
Mr. Grossman is not attorney, so he apparently takes at face value the claims of the Brady Center (the instigator of the abusive lawsuits which Congress curtailed), and he therefore insists that the firearms business was given an "unprecedented free pass from civil accountability in the courts" and is "the only industry in America which is granted such a shield." (xxii, 38, 93).
A quick look at state and federal statutes shows that Mr. Grossman is far off base. First of all, the Protection of Lawful Commerce Act is far from a "free pass" or "blanket shield." Moreover, the firearms business is one of many businesses which lawmakers have chosen to protect from abusive litigation. Other such industries and liability limitation laws include:
In addition, many states have enacted similar bills to prevent abusive lawsuits against a particular industry, or prevent trial lawyers from using the courts to usurp policy decisions which belong to the legislature. Among the businesses so protected are skiing and the food industry.
G. Why People Get So Angry For a moment, put yourself in the shoes of Mr. Grossman, and other victims of the national gun prohibition lobby propaganda.
If you believed all these things, wouldn’t you be mad? Wouldn’t you think that anyone who refused to close these terrorist loopholes must be insane, brainless, or cowardly? I would.
Mr. Grossman is a smart man, but he foolishly believes everything that the gun prohibition lobbies tell him. Senator Hart is a brilliant man, but he foolishly believes everything that Mr. Grossman tells him.
One thing that Mr. Grossman, Senator Hart, and I agree on is that the war against Islamic terrorism is crucial to the survival of the free world. It would be understandable to be angry about the continued existence of loopholes which allow the provision of arms to terrorists.
Mr. Grossman, Senator Hart, and the readers of One Nation have all been duped by the gun prohibition lobbies. None of the "loopholes" exist -– as anyone who bothers to read the relevant federal statutes can be absolutely certain. As an author, Mr. Grossman owed his readers a higher duty of care.
At a time when national unity against terrorists is so important, what does it say about Washington lobbies which create false fears and needless domestic divisions by spreading blatantly false stories of terrorist loopholes? Can it be said that spreading false fears is a type of terrorism hoax? When Americans are distracted and divided by terrorism hoaxes, the greatest beneficiaries are the real terrorists.
II. Bogus Statistics
The inside cover flap of One Nation promises "staggering statistics." The statistics are indeed staggering, in the sense that they are stumbling and directionless. Put another way, they are false.
A. States with repressive gun laws are safer.
"How Safe Are You?" is the title of concluding section of One Nation. It purports to show that the more repressive the gun laws, the safer the state. In an October 2006 debate on KHOW radio (the Caplis & Silverman Show) with Mr. Grossman, I asked him for the source of his claim that gun control makes a state safer. He replied that the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports was his source.
To the contrary, the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports were certainly not the source of Mr. Grossman's statistics, since the statistics apparently include items which the FBI does not track, such as gun accidents.
The actual FBI statistics disprove Mr. Grossman's claim that more gun control leads to more safety. The tables below show the homicide rates and the total violent crime rates, sorted by the the stringency of a state's gun control laws. States with an "A" rating have the more severe laws, and states which a "F" have the least repressive.
Thus, the "A" states--with the most gun control laws--are by far the most dangerous.
Unlike Mr. Grossman, I do not believe that simple state-to-state comparisons provide a definitive answer about the efficacy of various social policies. Multi-variate studies, taking into account many different factors, provide better information. My point here is that Mr. Grossman's simplistic state-to-state comparison--which he and his publisher claim to be decisive, "staggering" proof that gun control works, are false, even their own terms.
B. "in the next two minutes, someone will be shot by a handgun". Mr. Grossman begins the book by announcing: "In the next five seconds, another handgun will be manufactured in the United States. In the next two minutes, someone will be shot by a handgun." Both of these claims are wildly false.
According to the BATFE, in 2004 in the United States, there were 728,511 pistols manufactured, and 294,099 revolvers. This is a total of 1,022,610 handguns manufactured in the United States in 2004.
Simple division shows that this is 2794.02 per day, or 116.42 per hour, or 1.94 per minute. This equals one new handgun every 31 seconds.
Mr. Grossman does not say where he got his figure of one every 5 seconds, but he has overstated the rate of handgun manufacture by 620%.
What about the claim that "In the next two minutes, someone will be shot by a handgun." This claim is utterly false, and cannot be rescued using even the highest estimates for shootings involving all types of firearms.
Let us being with data from the National Center for Health Statistics for 2004. (As with firearms manufacture, it is the most recent year for which complete data are available.) Let us take the number of fatal gun shots (the majority of which are suicide), which is 29,557.
The last year for which NCHS has data on non-fatal gun shot wounds is 1997. That year, there were 64,207. (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, "Nonfatal and fatal firearm-related injuries--United States, 1993-1997," Morbidity & Mortality Wkly Rep., Nov. 19, 1999 (vol. 48, issue 45):1029-34.)
The number of woundings has almost certainly declined since 1997, because we know that fatal gun shots have declined since then. Indeed, according to the 2005 annual report of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, gun crime declined by 50% from 2001 to 2005. (See pages 9-10 of the report.) If we bias the data in favor of Mr. Grossman, we can hypothesize that there was no decline in wounds from 1997 to 2004.
Then we get a figure of 29,557 + 64,207 = 93,764 divided by 365 days = 256.88 per day = 10.67 per hour. This is a rate of once every 5 minutes and 37 seconds (or every 337 seconds) for all types of firearms.
The NCHS wounding figure includes all non-fatal gunshot wounds which were treated in hospital emergency rooms. There may have been other gun shots for which the victim did not seek hospital care; presumably, these wounds would tend to be very minor. Scholarly gun control advocates Cook and Ludwig estimate 113,000 gun shot wounds in 1997, including fatal and non-fatal.
Again, let us (counter-factually) presume that there has been no decline since 1997. If we use Cook and Ludwig’s estimate of 113,000 total wounds in 1997, then the per day rate is 310, and the hourly rate is 12.9, which is a rate of once every 4 minutes and 40 seconds, for all guns.
Based on 2004 data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics, handguns were used in 78% of gun homicides. Because handguns are less powerful than are rifles and shotguns, it makes sense to presume that a gun shot wound would be more likely to be caused by a handgun than would a gun shot homicide. This would be especially likely for the thousands of wounds (in Cook and Ludwig’s estimate) which do not even necessitate hospital treatment.
So let us again make an assumption in Mr. Grossman's favor, and estimate that 90% of non-fatal gun wounds come from handguns. Let us also use the (high) Cook-Ludwig estimate for total wounds, rather than the lower estimate from the National Center for Health Statistics. Let us also assume (counter-factually), that wounds have not declined since 1997. Then: 29,557 x. .78 = 23,054 fatal handgun wounds. (113,000-29,557) x .9 = 75,099 non-fatal handgun wounds. This is a total of 98,153. This is 268.91 per day, or 11.2 per hour. Or one every 5 minutes and 21 seconds.
Mr. Grossman claims a handgun rate of once every two minutes. Making extremely generous estimate in Grossman’s favor, we find that he has overstated the handgun wounding rate by at least 268%.
Every reasonable person would prefer a society in which the handgun wounding rate was less than even one per year.
But the fact is that Mr. Grossman, to bolster his handgun "epidemic" claims, has recklessly exaggerated the data by hundreds of percent.
C. "nearly half" of gun deaths are suicides This claim appears on page 8. The actual figure is about 57%. I do not suggest that the difference between whatever figure Mr. Grossman had in mind, versus the actual number, is tremendously significant. But it hardly seems unreasonable to ask an author to take care to find out an easily-obtained item of data.
National Center for Health Statistics, 2003 data for firearms deaths
III. The Brady Bill
In 1993, Congress passed the Brady Act. As originally proposed, the Brady Bill did not require a background check, but did required a two-week waiting period, and prohibited handgun sales without police approval. As finally enacted, the bill included a provision--originally supported by the NRA and sponsored by NRA A-rated Rep. Bill McCollum (R-Fla.) for a mandatory "national instant check" using computers; the Brady waiting period sunset in 1998, and was replaced with the NRA's National Instant Check System.
A. Did the Brady Bill reduce crime? Mr. Grossman insists that it did, and tells his readers: "As the saying goes, ‘Do the math.’" (34-35). He provides, however, no evidence that the Brady Bill reduced crime; he simply supplies data about the number of transactions prevented under the Brady Bill.
Scholars and gun control advocates Jens Ludwig and Philip Cook actually did the math, and reported their results in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA). The Brady Act had no effect on gun homicide, they found. The only benefit the authors could find was a reduction in gun suicide (but not overall suicide) among people over age 55.
One reason may be that many of the Brady rejections are based on incomplete criminal justice records; the records, for example, show an arrest, but not that the case was dismissed.
B. Would the Brady Bill have stopped John Hinckley? Mr. Grossman quotes Mrs. Sarah Brady (39. also, 44):
Unfortunately, Mrs. Brady is simply incorrect. Hinckley was a legal resident of Texas, where he bought the gun. Accordingly, there is no possibility that a background check on Hinckley would have revealed that he was not a Texas resident. Moreover, the Brady Bill check does not include a residence check.
Indeed, a police background check was run on Hinckley a few days before he bought the guns, and nothing turned up. Hinckley was caught trying to smuggle another gun (while he already owned) aboard a plane on October 9, 1980, in Nashville. His name was run through the National Crime Information Center, which reported, correctly, that he had no felony convictions in any jurisdiction. He was promptly released after paying a fine of $62.50 and pleading guilty to a misdemeanor.
On October 13, 1980, John Hinckley walked into Rocky's Pawn Shop, in Dallas, Texas, and walked out shortly thereafter with two .22 caliber RG revolvers. As with the retail purchase of any firearm, the gun dealer was required to complete a federal form which listed Hinckley's address. Because Hinckley was buying two handguns in the same five-day period (in fact, at the same moment), the dealer also filled out another federal form. That federal form was sent to the local office of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms.
By federal law, the dealer was required to verify that Hinckley was a resident of Texas, the state in which he was buying the handgun. When asked for identification, Hinckley offered his Texas driver's license.
Hinckley moved around a great deal, from one Texas address to another. The Lubbock address he listed on his federal gun form (the address for a rooming house) was different from both his driver's license address and his address in the then-current Lubbock phone book. Of course moving frequently is not a federal crime. Because the only use of the driver's license (on a gun purchase) is to prove identity and residence in the state, there is no federal requirement that a handgun purchaser reside at the street address shown on his license, as long as the address is in the same state.
Merely offering a Texas driver's license with a street address that was no longer current and was different from the address put on the federal form was not illegal.
During the previous summer, Hinckley had attended both summer sessions at Texas Tech in Lubbock. According to federal gun regulations, a university student is considered a resident of the area where he attends school, and may purchase firearms there. When Hinckley was arrested in Nashville (a few days before he bought the handguns), he identified himself as a Texas resident.
Significantly, Hinckley, after the assassination attempt, was the subject of an intensive federal investigation. The federal government used every resource possible to convict Hinckley. Yet, Hinckley was not charged with illegally purchasing the handguns in Texas. Had the prosecutors believed that Hinckley was guilty of an illegal gun purchase, the charges would likely have been brought. The case could have been prosecuted before a conservative Dallas jury, rather than a liberal Washington one. Further, Hinckley would then have had to convince the Texas jury that he was insane not just on the day of the assassination attempt, but six months beforehand.
If the full resources of the Department of Justice did not find enough evidence even to charge Hinckley with an illegal gun purchase, it is not realistic to claim that a routine background check would have found the exact same transaction illegal.
In any case, law enforcement authorities already had an opportunity to run a check on Hinckley. Because Hinckley bought two handguns on the same day, his purchase was immediately reported to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (as it was then known) as required by federal law. At the time, the Bureau reportedly ran name checks as standard procedure, but did not run detailed background checks on multiple handgun purchasers (such as Hinckley) even though it had the legal authority to do so. Perhaps BATF concluded that the expense of running the checks exceeded the likely benefits.
Hypothesize the fact that Mr. Grossman and Mrs. Brady assume (but for which the Justice Department apparently had no evidence): Hinckley was no longer a Texas resident. Would the assassination have been prevented by a background check? Almost certainly not.
How would the police have found Hinckley's "lie"? If they had looked in the phone book, they would have seen Hinckley listed as a Lubbock resident. To ascertain that Hinckley did not reside in Texas, the police would have had to visit his purported residence at least once. Since many police departments do not have the time to visit the scene of residential burglaries, it is not realistic to assume that they would have bothered to verify the address listed as Hinckley's residence.
Most importantly, the police never would have found the "lie" about Hinckley's address, because they would not be checking addresses. Under the Brady Act, the police do not verify anyone's address. As Mrs. Brady’s own organization stated, in lobbying for passage of the Brady Act, "The ‘investigation’ is limited to the review of police and court records."
Sources: Hinckley trial transcript, pp. 1489-1559. Texas driver's license #9457099, issued to John W. Hinckley, Jr., 1612 Avenue Y, Lubbock, Texas, in Hinckley trial transcript, pp. 1751-52. Southwestern Bell, Lubbock-Slaton Telephone Directory (November 1979) (listing "John W. Hinckley...409 University Av."). 18 United States Code § 922(a)(6). ATF Rul. 80-21, reprinted in Department of the Treasury, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, (Your Guide to) Federal Firearms Regulation 1988-89, ATF P 5300,4 (6-88), p. 73.
IV. Terrorism
A. Cop-Killer/Armor-piercing bullets Mr. Grossman and Senator Hart claim that terrorists can buy "armor-piercing ammunition." (53; Hart xv). In support of the claim, Mr. Grossman describes a video by the Brady Campaign, involving the Fabrique Nationale (FN) 5.7 pistol (99-100).
The video purports to show two bullets from the FN 5.7 penetrating a police vest. The video does not follow the federal protocols for testing vests and ammunition. Notably, the video does not disclose what type of ammunition is used. According to the Firearms Technology Branch of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, none of the types of ammunition for the FN 5.7 which are available for sale to the public in the United States are armor-piercing.
B. Gun shows and Terrorists Under federal law, the laws for gun sales at gun shows are exactly the same as for gun sales anywhere else. (Details here.) Mr. Grossman claims that the "gun show loophole" results in terrorists acquiring guns from gun shows. The claims are much weaker on closer examination.
1. Connor Claxon is said to have bought concealed guns "in packages they mailed back to Northern Ireland to be used against the British government in terrorist attacks." (78-79).
Actually Claxon was convicted of gun smuggling, but not of supplying guns to terrorists. The case counts as an incident of guns shows being used to supply terrorists only if one deliberately ignores the jury's findings of fact.
Moreover, Claxon's purchases at gun shows were approved by the same background checks as if he had bought firearms in a retail store.
2. Muhammed Navid Asrar is another "example of weapons flowing through gun show loopholes to terrorists." (78).
On October 30, 2001, federal prosecutors secured a guilty plea for immigration law violations by Muhammad Navid Asrar, an illegal alien from Pakistan. While illegally living in Texas, Asrar purchased several firearms at gun shows. In federal court, Asrar pleaded guilty to illegal possession of ammunition, since it is illegal for illegal aliens to possess firearms or ammunition. While Mr. Grossman has claimed that the illegal alien was a terrorist, no one in the government has so claimed.
3. Ali Boumelhem. According to the Middle East Intelligence Bulletin of November 17, 2000:
On September 10, 2001, Boumelhem was convicted by a Detroit jury of federal weapons charges. Shotguns and ammunition are indeed the kinds of products which one can buy at a gun show. "Automatic weapons, explosives, grenades and rocket launchers" are certainly not. Thus, it appears that Boumelhem had some source unrelated to gun shows from which he obtained very powerful weapons.
Even before Boumelhem began his arms acquisition spree he was a convicted felon, so it was illegal for him to acquire or possess firearms or ammunition. Yet like most convicted felons, he knew someone who could make purchases legally: his brother. Boumelhem brought his brother to gun shows, to make "straw purchases." More laws against gun shows would not stop straw purchases, since the straw purchaser (the surrogate for the real buyer) is chosen because he has a clean record. (Firearms industry efforts to thwart straw purchasers are detailed below.)
Currently, stringent federal background checks are already required for the acquisition of automatic weapons, explosives, grenades, and rocket launchers — yet Boumelhem was apparently able to obtain those. Given that Boumelhem acquired police scanners (no background check) and rocket launchers (virtually impossible to buy legally, even after a very strict background check), perhaps the lesson of the Boumelhem case has less to do with background checks on shotguns, and more to do with the necessity of strictly watching suspected terrorist sympathizers — as federal agents commendably did with Boumelhem.
Indeed, the Boumelhem case is a good illustration of two contrasting approaches to anti-terrorist law enforcement. Because Boumelhem had a straw purchaser working for him, nothing that Mr. Grossman proposes would have made any difference in his case. To use Boumelhem as a pretext for passing restrictive laws about gun shows is purely symbolic politics — to pass legislation for the sake of appearance, even when the legislation is manifestly irrelevant to the very case which is proclaimed as the reason for passing the law. Such symbolism does for gun safety precisely what confiscating toenail clippers from airline pilots does for airplane safety: nothing. Indeed, such symbolism reduces the freedom of law-abiding people, and distracts the public and the government from genuinely substantive actions.
V. NRA
Mr. Grossman is quite sure that the gun rights movement in general, and the NRA in particular, are evil. He alternates between theory that NRA is only concerned with firearms manufacturers, or only concerned with the Republican Party. He also makes implausible charges about bigotry, and about alleged support for carrying guns while drunk.
A. "The NRA has become an arm of the Republican Party…" So says the then-head of the Brady Campaign, Michael Barnes. (103). Yet the NRA refused to endorse the presidential campaigns of George H.W. Bush in 1992, or Bob Dole in 1996.[3] It’s hard to believe that something is an "arm" they party if it refuses to lift a finger on behalf of the party’s head.
The notion that the NRA is an arm of the Republicans must sound very strange to the Republicans who have been defeated by NRA-endorsed pro-gun Democrats such as Wyoming Governor Dave Freudenthal, New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, Oklahoma Governor Brad Henry, and Nebraska Governor and Senator Ben Nelson.
During the 2006 election, the only two realistic Republican hopes of defeating Democratic US House incumbents were in Georgia. There, the NRA-endorsed, A-rated incumbent Democrats, Jim Marshall and Sanford Bishop, blanketed the airwaves with advertisements touting their pro-Second Amendment voting records. Both of them narrowly won re-election. Bishop, by the way, is black--a relevant point in light of the racism charges discussed below.
B. NRA as tool of firearms manufacturers Mr. Grossman also writes that the NRA’s "only concern is with the profits of the gun industry." (133-34, quoting an anti-gun activist.)
This would be news to the gun industry, because every time there has been a conflict between the interests of gun users and gun makers, the NRA has sides with the former. The NRA, after all, is a group of four million consumers. Manufacturers have a separate lobby: the Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers Institute (SAAMI).
Usually the NRA and SAAMI share common goals — just as book readers and book publishers often have common goals. But sometimes the NRA and the industry diverge. For example, the first major federal anti-gun law, the Gun Control Act of 1968, was initially pushed by American manufacturers to curb the spread of inexpensive imported guns. The gun industry backed it, and the NRA fought it.
For similarly protectionist reasons, the industry supported Drug "Czar" William Bennett's 1989 ban on the import of so-called "assault weapons." The NRA, on the other hand, went ballistic, and launched a massive campaign against the import ban and its administration supporters.
Like most businesses, the American firearms industry is protectionist. Like most consumer groups, the NRA supports free trade.
C. False accusations of racism Mr. Grossman claims that when he ran a web search for "Second Amendment rights" "one of the first web sites that came up" was a racist site. (58). Strangely, he does not name the web site and the search engine. When I ran a search for "Second Amendment rights" through all the major search engines in November 2006, and examined every site which appeared on the first screen, there was no site like the one Mr. Grossman described.
Mr. Grossman claims that "the racist thread appears in the rhetoric of the most venerable of all pro-gun groups, the National Rifle Association." (64)
As proof, he quote NRA Chief Executive Officer Wayne LaPierre "There are many politicians willing to sacrifice the Second Amendment as the first step in the homogenization of American culture." (64).
When I ran "homogenization of American culture" through the Google search engine on Nov. 14, 2006, the first screen results involved the weakening of regional distinctions, the growth of national businesses, post-WWII conformity, suburbanization, national restaurant chains, television, and national advertising. If you are against homogenization, then you want to celebrate cultural diversity. For Mr. Grossman to take the anti-homogenization comment as being racist says more about Mr. Grossman than about Mr. LaPierre.
Mr. Grossman also quotes from a 1989 paper by now-retired NRA Research Coordinator Paul Blackman. (Blackman is now a Senior Fellow at the Independence Institute; I have co-authored one book and many articles with him.)
Blackman is quoted as saying that deaths of homicide victims who are "criminals themselves and/or drug addicts or users...in terms of economic consequences to society, are net gains." Well, "in terms of economic consequences," that is generally true.
Blackman was addressing the assertion that gun-related injuries and deaths cost society $20 billion annually. Blackman noted that most of the alleged "costs" were lost productivity — lower contributions to society (taxes paid, etc.) that were lost if a productive young person died. One of the oddities of the public-health "productivity" analysis is that it sees children and retired people as drains on society. According to this flawed analysis, if a 20-year-old gangster shoots an 80-year-old, there is no economic loss to society beyond the costs of the funeral; on the other hand, if the 80-year-old victim manages to kill the 20-year-old in self-defense, tens of thousands of dollars in productivity are imagined to have been lost.
Blackman simply noted that, to the extent these young thugs were unlikely actually to become |