I watched WDRB’s interview with former Louisville Mayor Jerry Abramson. In fact I recorded it so I could review it in detail. Abramson touched on all the standard talking points people use against assault weapons. There is no set definition of assault weapon. It can be used to describe most any weapon. Each State that puts restrictions on assault weapons has their own definition which in some States (California) changes on a regular basis. More on this below.
Abramson said, “And we walked away from a mass shooting. That term wasn’t even a part of the lexicon at that point in this country.”
Mass shooting is another term that has no set definition. Early on people used the FBI definition for mass murder for mass shooting. Basically, a single event where four or more people die, not counting the shooter and not involving another crime like a robbery gone bad. Not having a set definition causes problems with statistics. Some use the definition of a single event where three or more people die. Some use the definition of a single event where three or more people just get shot. Under this definition a drug deal gone bad and three people get wounded would count as a mass shooting.
That’s why mass shooting statistics can be misleading. Right now groups or websites that use the last definition are reporting there have been 146 mass shootings in the first three months of 2023. Using the historical FBI definition, there have been only four mass shootings in 2023. Mother Jones News maintains a detailed spreadsheet online of mass shooting data. To help support their agenda and increase the numbers, they changed their definition from four killed to three killed in a single incident in 2014. Their data shows no mass shootings with three victims before 2014. So there is no confusion, when I use the term mass shooting, I am using the FBI definition four or more people die, not counting the shooter.
Abramson said, “Why are there assault weapons on the streets of America?”
To me this statement is an attempt to sensationalize the shooting event. It makes it sound like people everywhere are walking the streets with assault weapons. I feel it’s disingenuous. Assault weapons are not on the streets of America.
Abramson said, “But they banned it (assault weapons) for a ten-year period with a sunset clause. What ultimately happened was during that ten years there was a significant decrease in the number of mass shootings in America.”
There was a decrease, but you could hardly call it significant. Looking at the numbers, there were two fewer mass shootings when the ban was in effect than in the ten years before the ban went into effect. But assault weapons were used in six shootings in both ten-year periods. So the ban did not have its intended effect of reducing mass shootings by banning assault weapons. In the ten-year period after the law expired in 2004, the number of mass shootings doubled; but the number of mass shootings involving assault weapons only went up by one even though so-called real assault weapons were available again.
Did Bill Clinton’s Assault Weapon Ban really have a chance of reducing their use in mass shootings or crimes in general? Not really. When most people think something is “banned”, they think it is now illegal to own. So for ten years no one should have had an assault weapon. But that is not the case. The ban only prohibited the sale of new assault weapons. All assault weapons already in the hands of citizens, estimated at 12 million at that time, remained. If a new ban is actually considered, it will most likely be a ban on sale of new weapons only, but will broaden the definition of what an assault weapon is. And currently there are an estimated 20 million AR15 type rifles in civilian hands. No estimate of AK47 type rifles.
There was no exact definition of assault weapon when the 1994 law was being written. There still isn’t. So they had to make one up. Under Bill Clinton’s 1994 Assault Weapon Ban, any semi-automatic rifle able to accept detachable magazines and had two or more of the following features was considered an assault weapon and was banned:
- Folding or telescoping stock
- Pistol Grip
- Bayonet mount
- Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
- Grenade launcher mount
Since assault weapons were claimed to be weapons of war, the features that made them “weapons of war” were based on weapons carried by soldiers as shown above. That actually makes sense, but it was also the flaw that made the law useless.
Gun manufacturers had their marching orders so to speak and went to work. They replaced the adjustable stock used on some AR15’s with the non-adjustable stock as used on the original AR15. They removed the bayonet mount or stud from the front sight. Sportsmen had no use for it anyway. They also removed the flash suppressor and stopped threading the barrels for muzzle devices which also reduced manufacturing cost. By making these three changes, the AR15’s they were producing were no longer assault weapons.
Assault Weapon per Assault Weapon Ban of 1994
Just a Rifle
So you can see why Bill Clinton’s 1994 Assault Weapon Ban couldn’t really have any affect on crime in general or mass shootings. Don’t take my word for it. Obama’s own Justice Department published a report after the Newtown School Shooting on Selected Firearm Violence Prevention Strategies. The report was kept quiet for over three years but finally leaked out.
Some of their conclusions were:
- With an average of 11,000 homicides a year, the average number attributed to mass shootings is 35 (0.32% of total homicides).
- After the 1997 Australian gun ban was enacted, mass shootings were reduced. But other violent crimes increased: Rape 30%, Assault 49%, Robbery 6%. Overall violent crime rate increased 42%.
- Assault weapons are not a major contributor to gun crime.
- The complete elimination of assault weapons would not have a large impact on gun homicides.
- Assault weapon bans will have little effect unless coupled with gun buyback programs and no exemption or grandfathering clause.
The full report can be found at: Summary of Selected Firearm Violence Prevention Strategies
Speaking of the Newtown School Shooting, in the aftermath of the shooting, there was a call to look into gun laws that could prevent future shootings. But there was also a call for investigating whether violent movies and violent video games could have anything to do with the increase of teenagers engaging in mass shootings in their schools. Later that year both the movie industry and the video game industry released studies that found no connection between their products and mass shootings conducted by teens. I find this hard to believe. In March 1999 the Matrix movie was released. It showed Keanu Reeves and friends dressed in long, black coats, armed to the max walking through a building, blowing away everyone that approached them. Almost like a video game. So is it just coincidence that in April 1999 two teenagers entered Columbine High School wearing black raincoats and walked through the school randomly killing their fellow students? I don’t think so.
Always at the forefront of gun control, California passed its own Assault Weapon Ban in 1989 after having two mass shootings. It has been revised multiple times in the past 34 years. It remains in effect today. How has that worked out for California? Since their Assault Weapon Ban went into effect they’ve had 20 more mass shootings, seven of which were committed with an assault weapon.
California’s initial ban listed the banned weapons by name. Manufactures circumvented this by selling the same guns under a different name. Then California switched to a “features” system similar to the Clinton Assault Weapon Ban. When this system didn’t work as it didn’t work for the Clinton Ban, they changed to less features required to consider a weapon an “assault weapon.” Basically any semiauto rifle with a pistol grip and removable magazine. Innovative gun owners were able to circumvent the main qualifying feature, the pistol grip with these designs.
Note that these changes were made by legitimate, legal gunowners who just wanted to be able to use a well-designed weapon for legal purposes. Criminals who have no problem with committing murder are not going to obey a law that says they can’t have a rifle with a pistol grip. That being true, what is the real purpose of an assault weapon ban?
Info on California’s ban: https://www.sfchronicle.com/projects/2021/california-assault-weapons-ban/
Abramson said, “Nobody goes hunting to shoot a deer with an assault weapon. Nobody goes out for sport to shoot a rabbit with an assault weapon.”
Mayor Abramson has been misinformed. They may not hunt with an assault weapon, but many people hunt with AR15’s. The AR15 can be had in 16 different calibers from .22LR to .50 Beowulf. The AR15’s larger brother, the AR10 comes in eight calibers up to .50 Auto Max. AR15 type rifles are suitable for hunting anything from squirrels and rabbits to the largest mammals found in North America. It is the most used rifle for vermin control especially coyotes and the wild boars that are destroying farms in Texas. Abramson also seems to be implying that the only reason to have a semi-automatic rifle is for hunting. There are far more AR15 owners who are target shooters than hunters.
Abramson said, “If we had a Red Flag Law in this State where the mom and dad of the shooter the other day could have called a judge and said we have an individual, our son, he’s having these problems. We would request you issue an order to take any and all weapons away from him. That’s what the Red Flag Law is. We don’t have one of those.”
The mother of the shooter said on the 911 call something to the effect that her son didn’t have a gun or know where he could get one. So why would she need a Red Flag Law? Seems to me in most cases like this, a mental inquest warrant would be the better way to go. You know, like they did Kris Kringle in the movie Miracle on 34th Street. The individual is taken to a mental facility or hospital and kept there until completing a thorough mental examination keeping them away from all weapons. Using a Red Flag Law, the individual is left free after his firearms are taken by the police. They could attempt to obtain other firearms or weapons. Also, saw a video of Philadelphia police enforcing a Red Flag warrant. The individual being served had a large gun collection. The police were throwing the weapons in the back of a police van like cord wood. Will the police be libel for any lost value in the firearms from damage?
Early in Mayor Abramson’s statement, he mentions two areas to look at: “Why are there assault weapons and mental health.” After 50 plus years, the mental health issue is finally as the real cause of mass shootings is coming to the forefront. Millions of people have firearms and never harm anyone. A very small percentage, for unknown reason, reach a breaking point, acquire a weapon and kill people they do not know. Also there’s been a major increase in the mentality that if you insult me in any way, I’ll shoot you. Or I want your car or your Nike Air Jordans and I’ll shoot you to get them. Trying to keep guns from people that think this way is not the solution. It’s finding out why they think this way.
Abramson said, “When I was mayor, when we would pick up a weapon from a robbery or murder scene after the end of the year and all of the evidence was used and the court proceeding was over, we’d melt down those weapons. Frankfort, the State Legislature changed the law. And now they auction them off, which means that AK, that AR15 that was used in the tragedy of several days ago will at some point in time be auctioned off and sold back to be used again on the streets somewhere in the State of Kentucky.”
In an interview with WDRB in 2016, former LMPD Chief Conrad indicated he knew of 40 incidents where an auctioned off crime gun confiscated in Louisville found its way back to Louisville. He was only able to give details on one incident. He could not provide records to support the rest. I personally find this hard to believe. Anyway, the way the discussion has been framed is that if the gun hadn’t been auctioned off, the new owner of the gun wouldn’t have been armed when committing a crime. Also, it’s not been explained in all of the news releases that crime guns are only auctioned off to Federal Firearms Licensed dealers (FFL’s) leading people to believe that any individual could buy the gun. Anyone buying a former crime gun is buying it from a licensed dealer that performs a background check. If the crime gun wasn’t there to buy, many other guns to choose from would be.
Auction proceeds help outfit police officers, sheriff’s deputies and other law enforcement with body armor, Tasers, weapons, ammunition and body-cameras. In a recent case, a Paris, KY police officer was shot and survived because he was wearing body armor purchased with funds from weapons auctions. In 2016, State Police sold firearms netting nearly $575,000 for distribution as grants to many Kentucky Law Enforcement agencies. If these auctions end, where will the money come from to help small county departments whose tax base can’t support their needs?
“Nobody needs an assault weapon.”
You hear that every time after a mass shooting when one is used. And in Joe Biden’s case, you hear it even if an “assault weapon” wasn’t used. But do we really want the government deciding what we need? Does anyone really need a car that will go 184mph? (2023 Corvette). Does anybody really need a motorcycle that will go 240mph? (Kawasaki Ninja H2R). Does anybody really need their own private jet when airlines fly everywhere every day? (John Travolta owns five). Does anyone really need a 15,000 sq. ft. mansion? (Every Hollywood star and Billionaire). For that matter, does anyone really need a billion dollars? (There’s 2,668 Billionaires). Be careful what you wish for. You finally save up enough money for the down payment on that new 2024 Corvette and find out the government has limited its speed to 70mph because who really needs a car that will go 184mph?
“AR15’s are a weapon of war. “
The M1 Garand was a weapon of war, but you can still buy them from the government through the Director of Civilian Marksmanship (DCM). The .45 Colt pistol was a weapon of war, but you can find them in every gun shop in the country. The M1 Carbine was a weapon of war, is about the same size as the AR15, has a 30-round magazine, military and civilian versions are readily available. The M14 was a weapon of war, and the civilian version, the M1A is the most sought-after long-range rifle ever. The M16 is a weapon of war and there are over 20 million of the civilian version, the AR15, in circulation. Getting hung up on a name or description makes no sense. The problem isn’t the weapon, it’s the people that use them to commit crimes. There’s over 20 million AR15’s in the country and who knows how many AK47’s and only 38 have been used in mass shootings in the past 74 years.
2nd Amendment: “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
One of the main purposes of the Second Amendment wasn’t just to protect our right to keep a firearm for personal defense, but to keep it for defense against a tyrannical government. This was verified in the Supreme Court decision of U.S. vs. Miller (1939). The ruling accepted the long-standing definition of militia as “All adult male inhabitants” and “A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.” It also said, “Men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.” Note: “in common use at the time.” Currently, the most commonly used military weapons today are actual Assault Rifles with the available civilian equivalent being semi-auto versions of the same weapon. Supreme Court decision protects owning AR15’s.
Does having an armed citizenry make our enemies think twice about invading our country? It did during World War II. Admiral Yamamoto of the Imperial Japanese Navy said, “You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass.”
And for those that say a citizenry armed with AR15’s could never stand up against the might of the modern U.S. Military, have they never studied history? Local militia groups in Afghanistan, using small arms and man-portable weapons fought two of the largest Armies in the world (USSR and USA) to a standstill and eventually forced them from their country even though the USSR and USA employed tanks, APC’s, helicopters and jet bombers. It’s not the size of the dog in the fight but the size of the fight in the dog.
And while we’re on the subject of Supreme Court rulings, all too often you hear people say, “You don’t need a gun to protect yourself, just call the police; it’s their job to protect you.” Actually, the Supreme Court and numerous Federal and State courts have already ruled that “It is well-settled fact of American law that the police have no legal duty to protect any individual citizen from crime”. This ruling would imply that YOU are responsible for your own protection as well as your family. But while one branch of the government confirms that you are responsible for your own protection, another branch is trying to limit your ability to own an instrument of protection. How can that be constitutional? Shouldn’t the opposite be true? The Affordable Healthcare Act mandates that you have Health Insurance to protect your health and prevent financial ruin. Shouldn’t the government also mandate that you have the means to protect yourself and your family?
A sad Example: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Riss v. New York, 22 N.Y.2d 579,293 N.Y.S.2d 897, 240 N.E.2d 806 (1958). Quote from ruling: “What makes the City’s position particularly difficult to understand is that, in conformity to the dictates of the law, Linda did not carry any weapon for self-defense. Thus by a rather bitter irony she was required to rely for protection on the City of New York which now denies all responsibility to her.”
The latest push in the Metro Louisville area to reduce gun crime in the area is to ask State government to allow Louisville to write their own gun laws. This is never a good idea. Ohio recently rescinded their law allowing cities and counties to write their own gun laws. If Louisville passed a local ordinance declaring all retail outlets “Gun Free Zones” and someone from out of state or out of county that was unaware would be breaking the law as soon as he entered a Walmart if he was legally armed. Additionally, declaring places Gun Free Zones doesn’t work. In the last six years, 46 guns have been confiscated from students in JCPS schools.