luzyfuerza
Member
I recently sent this letter to my RINO US Senator, Mitt Romney. He recently called for "a serious, fact-based, and thorough national discussion" regarding the recent killings in Gilroy, El Paso, and Dayton.
Borrow anything I've written here if you think it might be useful.
August 13, 2019
Senator Romney:
In your recent statement on the murders in Gilroy, El Paso, and Dayton, you called for "a serious, fact-based, and thorough national discussion" about steps that could be taken to prevent these murders. You indicated that you looked forward to actively participating in these discussions. I also look forward to such a national discussion, and welcome any changes to Federal law or procedures that would actually reduce the incidence of such events. This discussion should also address the myriad murders and assaults which occur every year in the United States. These are far more common and result in the deaths and injury of far more Americans each year than the high-profile events noted above.
Unfortunately, the proposals which are commonly discussed when this topic is raised would not affect the incidence of these events. Such proposals include:
Firearm and firearm owner licensing and registration
Background checks on private transfers of firearms
Background checks on ammunition purchases
So-called Red Flag laws
Bans on importation, manufacture, assembly, or purchase of "arms of war"/"assault weapons"/semi-automatic centerfire rifles
Limits on the numbers of firearms which can be purchased in a week, month, or year
None of these proposals would have prevented any of the recent mass murders. As you will recall, news reports have indicated that the shooters at Dayton, Gilroy, and El Paso were not felons and appeared normal to coworkers, neighbors, and friends. Each passed full federal and state background check when they purchased the tools that they used in their crimes. They could have been legally licensed and their firearms licensed and registered under proposed laws. They would have passed any proposed ammunition background check. Those who knew them had no reason to report them under "Red Flag" laws as suicidal, or as a danger to their neighbors and families. The firearms used in each event are completely legal to manufacture and own under current Federal law. Each appears to only have purchased one firearm. I repeat: none of these proposals would have prevented any of these killings. The same is true of the overwhelming majority of similar, recent, mass murders.
These proposals would likewise have no impact on criminals who commit more common assaults and murders each year. These individuals ignore current law, and they would ignore any new laws as well.
No "serious, fact-based, and thorough national discussion" could conclude that any of these proposed changes to current law would have any effect on mass killers, on common murderers, or on their actions.
In my opinion, to suggest that any legislation along these lines would improve public safety in any way is fatuous.
Confiscation of all "weapons of war"/"assault weapons"/semi-automatic rifles has also been proposed. This proposal ignores the fact that semi-automatic rifles, or rifles of any kind, are used in only a tiny fraction of murders and assaults in the United States each year. Hands and hammers kill more each year in America than all rifles.
This proposal also ignores the fact that these rifles are in common use for self defense, as well as for other legal, sporting purposes. You'll recall that the Texas church shooter was stopped by a citizen with one of these "weapons of war"/"assault weapons"/semi-automatic rifles, and that there have been many instances where citizens have used these tools to defend themselves while at home, at their place of business, and elsewhere. I can provide references if you are unaware of these events.
You'll remember this passage from the Doctrine and Covenants: "...we believe that all men are justified in defending themselves, their friends, and property, and the government, from the unlawful assaults and encroachments of all persons in times of exigency, where immediate appeal cannot be made to the laws, and relief afforded." (D&C 134:11)
How many law-abiding citizens would die in their homes and businesses if these commonly-available tools were not available for defensive purposes? Perhaps this question should be considered during a "serious, fact-based, and thorough national discussion".
Magazine size limitations have also been proposed. As a firearms instructor, I have proved that magazine size doesn't make much difference to the effectiveness of semi-automatic firearms. A reasonably competent shooter with a little practice can change magazines very quickly. Such magazine changes can be made while transitioning between targets. It is extremely unlikely that a limitation on magazine capacity would have affected either the number who were injured or who died in the Gilroy, El Paso, or Dayton attacks. Or who die every day in common attacks around the country.
One fact is completely certain: Absolutely none of the proposals above would have had any effect on the horrific intent formed in the hearts of these murderers. For whatever evil reasons, they choose to attack their fellow men and women, without mercy. No proposals being discussed at the moment would have any impact on the purposes of these individuals.
In the place of these clearly ineffective changes to federal law which are currently being discussed, I suggest three changes to federal procedures which would significantly reduce the number of deaths in America. These are:
1) Prosecute and incarcerate all felons who are found with dangerous weapons in their possession. The federal practices regarding prosecution and incarceration of these individuals are highly variable. See:
https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/...ck_Facts_Felon_in_Possession_of_a_Firearm.pdf.
US Attorneys around the country should actively prosecute these offenders, to refuse to plea-bargain these particular violations away, and to separate these violators from society for a fixed period of time. Such a step, which would not require any changes to Federal law, would have a huge impact on the possession and use of firearms by those who have already proven that they should not ever be armed.
2) Prosecute straw purchasers of firearms. When surveyed, many felons say that they ask girlfriends or others to purchase firearms on their behalf. This is illegal under Federal law. However, these crimes are seldom prosecuted. Just as felons-in-possession should be prosecuted and incarcerated more often, those who buy firearms on their behalf should also be prosecuted much more often under current law.
3) Many deaths and injuries occur when children access firearms without adult supervision. The NRA's Eddie Eagle program teaches children, who are naturally curious about anything, what they should do when they find a firearm. Eddie Eagle teaches kids to "STOP! DON'T TOUCH. RUN AWAY. TELL A GROWN-UP". This program protects little children. It saves young lives. Every kid should hear this critical safety message, perhaps in public schools, or in federally funded public service announcements.
Each of THESE three proposals would have a significant, measurable impact on the number of violent deaths in America. None of the other steps being proposed in public discourse come anywhere close.
If you are truly committed to "a serious, fact-based, and thorough national discussion" I invite you to reject ineffective proposals, even though they might be popular at the moment, and to carefully consider the three concrete, easy-to-implement recommendations that I have described above.
Regards,
Borrow anything I've written here if you think it might be useful.
August 13, 2019
Senator Romney:
In your recent statement on the murders in Gilroy, El Paso, and Dayton, you called for "a serious, fact-based, and thorough national discussion" about steps that could be taken to prevent these murders. You indicated that you looked forward to actively participating in these discussions. I also look forward to such a national discussion, and welcome any changes to Federal law or procedures that would actually reduce the incidence of such events. This discussion should also address the myriad murders and assaults which occur every year in the United States. These are far more common and result in the deaths and injury of far more Americans each year than the high-profile events noted above.
Unfortunately, the proposals which are commonly discussed when this topic is raised would not affect the incidence of these events. Such proposals include:
Firearm and firearm owner licensing and registration
Background checks on private transfers of firearms
Background checks on ammunition purchases
So-called Red Flag laws
Bans on importation, manufacture, assembly, or purchase of "arms of war"/"assault weapons"/semi-automatic centerfire rifles
Limits on the numbers of firearms which can be purchased in a week, month, or year
None of these proposals would have prevented any of the recent mass murders. As you will recall, news reports have indicated that the shooters at Dayton, Gilroy, and El Paso were not felons and appeared normal to coworkers, neighbors, and friends. Each passed full federal and state background check when they purchased the tools that they used in their crimes. They could have been legally licensed and their firearms licensed and registered under proposed laws. They would have passed any proposed ammunition background check. Those who knew them had no reason to report them under "Red Flag" laws as suicidal, or as a danger to their neighbors and families. The firearms used in each event are completely legal to manufacture and own under current Federal law. Each appears to only have purchased one firearm. I repeat: none of these proposals would have prevented any of these killings. The same is true of the overwhelming majority of similar, recent, mass murders.
These proposals would likewise have no impact on criminals who commit more common assaults and murders each year. These individuals ignore current law, and they would ignore any new laws as well.
No "serious, fact-based, and thorough national discussion" could conclude that any of these proposed changes to current law would have any effect on mass killers, on common murderers, or on their actions.
In my opinion, to suggest that any legislation along these lines would improve public safety in any way is fatuous.
Confiscation of all "weapons of war"/"assault weapons"/semi-automatic rifles has also been proposed. This proposal ignores the fact that semi-automatic rifles, or rifles of any kind, are used in only a tiny fraction of murders and assaults in the United States each year. Hands and hammers kill more each year in America than all rifles.
This proposal also ignores the fact that these rifles are in common use for self defense, as well as for other legal, sporting purposes. You'll recall that the Texas church shooter was stopped by a citizen with one of these "weapons of war"/"assault weapons"/semi-automatic rifles, and that there have been many instances where citizens have used these tools to defend themselves while at home, at their place of business, and elsewhere. I can provide references if you are unaware of these events.
You'll remember this passage from the Doctrine and Covenants: "...we believe that all men are justified in defending themselves, their friends, and property, and the government, from the unlawful assaults and encroachments of all persons in times of exigency, where immediate appeal cannot be made to the laws, and relief afforded." (D&C 134:11)
How many law-abiding citizens would die in their homes and businesses if these commonly-available tools were not available for defensive purposes? Perhaps this question should be considered during a "serious, fact-based, and thorough national discussion".
Magazine size limitations have also been proposed. As a firearms instructor, I have proved that magazine size doesn't make much difference to the effectiveness of semi-automatic firearms. A reasonably competent shooter with a little practice can change magazines very quickly. Such magazine changes can be made while transitioning between targets. It is extremely unlikely that a limitation on magazine capacity would have affected either the number who were injured or who died in the Gilroy, El Paso, or Dayton attacks. Or who die every day in common attacks around the country.
One fact is completely certain: Absolutely none of the proposals above would have had any effect on the horrific intent formed in the hearts of these murderers. For whatever evil reasons, they choose to attack their fellow men and women, without mercy. No proposals being discussed at the moment would have any impact on the purposes of these individuals.
In the place of these clearly ineffective changes to federal law which are currently being discussed, I suggest three changes to federal procedures which would significantly reduce the number of deaths in America. These are:
1) Prosecute and incarcerate all felons who are found with dangerous weapons in their possession. The federal practices regarding prosecution and incarceration of these individuals are highly variable. See:
https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/...ck_Facts_Felon_in_Possession_of_a_Firearm.pdf.
US Attorneys around the country should actively prosecute these offenders, to refuse to plea-bargain these particular violations away, and to separate these violators from society for a fixed period of time. Such a step, which would not require any changes to Federal law, would have a huge impact on the possession and use of firearms by those who have already proven that they should not ever be armed.
2) Prosecute straw purchasers of firearms. When surveyed, many felons say that they ask girlfriends or others to purchase firearms on their behalf. This is illegal under Federal law. However, these crimes are seldom prosecuted. Just as felons-in-possession should be prosecuted and incarcerated more often, those who buy firearms on their behalf should also be prosecuted much more often under current law.
3) Many deaths and injuries occur when children access firearms without adult supervision. The NRA's Eddie Eagle program teaches children, who are naturally curious about anything, what they should do when they find a firearm. Eddie Eagle teaches kids to "STOP! DON'T TOUCH. RUN AWAY. TELL A GROWN-UP". This program protects little children. It saves young lives. Every kid should hear this critical safety message, perhaps in public schools, or in federally funded public service announcements.
Each of THESE three proposals would have a significant, measurable impact on the number of violent deaths in America. None of the other steps being proposed in public discourse come anywhere close.
If you are truly committed to "a serious, fact-based, and thorough national discussion" I invite you to reject ineffective proposals, even though they might be popular at the moment, and to carefully consider the three concrete, easy-to-implement recommendations that I have described above.
Regards,
