Facebook
Fark
Digg
Reddit
Stumble
Friday, Dec. 21, 2012 | 2:02 a.m.
Another view?
View more of the Las Vegas Sun's opinion section:
• Editorials - the Sun's viewpoint.
• Columnists - local and syndicated writers.
• Letters to the editor - readers' views.
Have your own opinion? Write a letter to the editor.
In response to the letter to the editor from Roger Witcher, “It’s a mistake to disarm good guys,” I would like to point out a few misconceptions that he and many others have about gun control.
First, I don’t think that anyone is advocating confiscating every gun in America. He is correct that it would be a needless and impossible task. I do think, however, that we need to make every effort to reduce the types of weapons that are capable of causing so much death in such a short amount of time. No one hunts with an assault rifle. Law-abiding citizens can and should have the right to acquire guns used for hunting and home defense.
We need to increase our efforts to control who can purchase a gun. Does anyone really want to allow felons, terrorists or the mentally ill to buy guns at gun shows without a background check? It is a dangerous loophole that needs to be closed.
Lastly, Mr. Witcher feels that having the “good guys” armed with more guns will somehow deter the “deranged individuals” from going on killing sprees because of their fear of being shot. It’s not unusual that the mentally ill don’t even make the connection between their actions and possible consequences.
In many officer-involved shootings, the victim has some form of mental illness or is a substance abuser, or a combination of the two. They are simply unable to follow simple commands or make connections between their actions and the consequences.
As long as high-capacity guns and assault rifles are allowed into the hands of “deranged individuals,” it won’t matter how many guns the “good guys” have. There will still be mass killings.
In reply to David Skelton; thank you for your letter to the editor. Plese continue to spread your intelligence, common sense and good reasoning amongst the populace.
Judging by some posts on this issue in the past few days I would say, in my opinion, you are now in "high demand"!!!
David says "In many officer-involved shootings, the victim has some form of mental illness or is a substance abuser, or a combination of the two."
Not a single mention by David that we MUST CORRECT our mental health system and change a mental health laws
Attempting to control guns while you leave deranged mentally I'll out on their own to find and use them will not solve the problem
A well written and well reasoned letter. I will quibble with the last conclusion however:
'As long as high-capacity guns and assault rifles are allowed into the hands of "deranged individuals," it won't matter how many guns the "good guys" have. There will still be mass killings.'
There are good reasons to ban assault weapons and high capacity magazines and to close the gun show loophole, but doing so will not stop mass killings. 'Future' is correct in his assertions that changes to the way we handle the mentally ill will be required, even more than gun control, if we want to affect the number of mass killings.
Michael
This is Assault Weapon Control not Gun Control. It's entirely reasonable to control the amount of firepower reasonably necessary for self-defense and hunting. After all, the writers of the Second Amendment had only weapons with a "magazine capacity" of one round in mind.
Trying to ban a clip (essentially a spring and a piece of stamped metal or modeled plastic) will be as smart as trying to ban alchohol. How did that work out?
All the gun shows in Nevada have transfer dealers that do background check for transactions, same with those in California. (Guns in the massacre were bought legally by the way in a high gun control state, Conn.)
Drugs, alchohol, porn, prostitution, abortion, gambling, attempts to ban things that people want does not work.
It is a shame to see people almost giddy to come out the woodwork with anti-gun talking points trying to gain political traction over the mass murder of children.
Author of letter does not understand that the mechanisms of firearms are independent from the "scary look" of a rifle with plastic components.
http://rendezvous.blogs.nytimes.com/2012...
"After all, the writers of the Second Amendment had only weapons with a "magazine capacity" of one round in mind."..................
And Kings had swords and arrows, while peasants had rocks and pitch forks.
You need killer control, not gun control. A monster can kill just as many with a handgun. Get the monster off the street, not the guns.
"No one hunts with an assault rifle. Law-abiding citizens can and should have the right to acquire guns used for hunting and home defense.
"We need to increase our efforts to control who can purchase a gun. Does anyone really want to allow felons, terrorists or the mentally ill to buy guns at gun shows without a background check? It is a dangerous loophole that needs to be closed."
Skelton -- on your first point you are completely wrong. Our Constitution spells it out -- "Every citizen has the right to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes." This is a protected liberty, not a privilege to be abrogated by any lawmaking or other regulation.
About your second, you failed to mention the most important bit -- those who do these killings don't bother with any law. The biggest criminal in that regard is our own federal government. Did you forget "Fast and Furious" from a few months ago? You not only failed to mention it, but you represent anyone representing government as a "good guy." What about Metro's bullies with badges killing our own unarmed citizens? Then there's the counterweight to Sandy Hook @ http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2012/dec...
"You need killer control, not gun control."
FreedomRadio -- excellent post!
"Abe Lincoln may have freed all men, but Sam Colt made them equal." -- post-Civil War slogan found @ http://www.colt.com/ColtLawEnforcement/H...
Understand this: history shows that freedom will not be taken all at once. Rather, it will be taken incrementally, inch by inch, until we wake up and suddenly find it gone. By then, it will be too late to reverse what has been done. "Those that would sacrifice a little freedom for a little security deserve neither." This ploy is not about gun control. However, it is about control and power. The power to control. You trust the slimy politicians at your own peril.
Jerry is a true anarchist. Every man for himself. Take away my government social security and medicare and leave me alone.
"This ploy is not about gun control. However, it is about control and power. The power to control."
lvfacts -- amen to that!
"We must choose between freedom and fear -- we cannot have both. If the citizens of the United States persist in being afraid, the real rulers of this country will be fanatics fired with a zeal to save grown men from objectionable ideas by putting them under the care of official nursemaids." -- Scales v. U.S., 367 U.S. 203, 270 (1961), Justice Douglas dissenting
Earlier this year my wife and I went on a 4000 mile road trip across the Western United States. We stopped at several frontier towns. Some of the most draconian gun control measures were enacted in these towns to control violence. If you wanted a drink, a bath and a whore you had to leave your weapons elsewhere. If they caught you with a gun they would either ask you to leave or throw you in jail if you were mouthy.
How many shootings occurred in these boom towns. One or two a year. Mostly on the outskirts of town.
150 years ago they understood that guns and cities don't mix. Millions of Americans have been blown to pieces because we forgot those lessons today.
"This is a protected liberty, not a privilege to be abrogated by any lawmaking or other regulation."
Got it, folks? They think your right to a gun is absolute. Have you been diagnosed as mentally ill? Threatened to carry out an act of terror? Convicted of a violent crime, like rape?
KillerB says your right to buy as many guns as you can should not be limited in ANY way. It is not a "privilege" to be restricted by any law or regulation.
Should we arm convicted rapists?
Or does that include children, KillerB? Should children have the "right" to purchase guns? Carry guns? I mean, given your views on the age of consent, I'd assume you think 9 year-olds are old enough...
Massive gun proliferation in this country isn't a sign of freedom. It's tyranny by the minority. In parts of this nation people are afraid to walk down the street at night for fear of being shot. The National Rifle Association wants to put armed policeman in every school in the United States.
Freedom is worrying that your six-year-old is going to be blown to bits in an elementary school?
Guns are changing our whole way of life and it's not for the better.
Affluent high profile people have to spend massively for private security in this country. bullet resistant clothing, elaborate security systems for their homes, bulletproof cars, bodyguards. These people all fear being shot.
"Got it, folks? They think your right to a gun is absolute. . .KillerB says your right to buy as many guns as you can should not be limited in ANY way."
ksand -- I didn't say any of that. You seem to be another buffoon who makes it up as you go along. Expect to be disrespected and ignored in any reasonable Discussion here.
"Massive gun proliferation in this country isn't a sign of freedom. It's tyranny by the minority. . . . .Guns are changing our whole way of life and it's not for the better."
zippert -- I disagree about the sign of freedom. The problem isn't keeping and bearing firearms, it's when they're used for other than lawful purposes. Like fire -- it can warm or burn, depending on the use.
"This case illustrates that tragic facts make bad law." -- Wyeth v. Levine, 129 S.Ct. 1187 (2009), Justice Alito, with whom The Chief Justice and Justice Scalia join, dissenting.
Those suggesting America's RIGHTS be infringed upon ARE the BAD GUYS.
: {
Maybe we should all walk around with AK-47's slung over our shoulders for "protection". Then we will have devolved to being Afghanistan. That's where we are heading if the NRA and these gun radicals have their way.
The ridiculous histrionics of the Gun Nut Crowd...
Tired, worn out excuses like 'they're trying to disarm the country!' and 'guns don't kill people!'
and 'only criminals will have guns!' and 'my 2nd ammendment rights!' and 'from my cold, grey hands!'
ring hollow in the face of all evidence to the contrary.
Common sense & good judgement...
The MAJORITY of American citizens will have their say and
what they demand will rule the day.
gmag39 says "The MAJORITY of American citizens will have their say and what they demand will rule the day."
Nice historical reference there gmag. I believe that was a quote from a 1953 speech by the Grand Master of the KKK pointing out that only a minority of people in the US wanted desegregation and insisting that the Supreme Court follow what the majority wanted when the ruled on the Constitutionality of segregation. Right?
Oh wait, Constitutional protections supersede majority opinion.
Once again, I'll support and gun control measure, from assault weapon bans to capacity limits to pre-purchase application and evaluation, that can be shown to have actually been tried and had the desired effect previously...or at least can't be shown to have been tried and failed miserably.
A great example of the above would be the 1994 assault weapon ban everyone wants to reintroduce, which should have shown a reduction in gun crime after enactment and an increase after its expiration. But, oh hey, that's not what actually happened.
So tell me, what would make reinstating an assault weapon ban that had no effect on crime previously suddenly be effective this time?
No one is talking about disarming the gun fetishists, only bringing some common sense into the topic.
At 7:17 AM Killer B wrote". Our Constitution spells it out -- 'Every citizen has the right to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes.' "
I'm not sure what constitution you are quoting, B, but I just checked my copy of the U.S. Constitution and it contains nothing resembling your quoted statement. If it did, I'd have problems stretching "...other lawful purposes" to include the massacre at Newtown, Connecticut.
Robert:
http://www.leg.state.nv.us/const/nvconst...
And since the massacre at Newtown, Connecticut was, as you point out, already an UNLAWFUL purpose....it begs the question why you think additional laws against such would be effective when the current laws were not.
What DID happen, Charles (Wender) is that "... in the five-year period before enactment of the Federal Assault Weapons Act (1990-1994), assault weapons named in the Act constituted 4.82% of the crime gun traces ATF conducted nationwide. Since the law's enactment, however, these assault weapons have made up only 1.61% of the guns ATF has traced to crime" (1994. Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, "On Target: The Impact of the 1994 Federal Assault Weapon Act.")
Additionally, since the 1994 act expired, there has been an increase in gun crime.
"I'm not sure what constitution you are quoting, B..."
renorobert -- what I quoted is far more relevant for all of us here than the Second Amendment. Look it up @ http://www.leg.state.nv.us/Const/NVConst...
"This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it." -- Abraham Lincoln, first inaugural address, 1861
Really robert? Please provide a citation for "an increase in gun crime" as the FBI data says you are incorrect.
As for the statistic you did supply, of what value is the percentage of crimes committed with assault weapons?
Are you saying that if 100 people are murdered before the ban with 40 of them involving assault weapons that your ban was effective if after the ban 150 people are murdered with only 20 by assault weapons?
Here's the FBI data on violent crime in the US by year:
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/cri...
Crime in the United States by Volume and Rate per 100,000 Inhabitants
Year Violent crime rate
2001 504.5
2002 494.4
2003 475.8
2004 463.2
2005 469.0
2006 479.3
2007 471.8
2008 458.6
2009 431.9
2010 404.5
2011 386.3
Please show us the spike resulting from the 2004 expiration of the assault weapons ban.
According to a Gallup poll done a couple of years ago 30% of the people in the country own guns. The rest don't.
People should be able to walk down the street and send their children to school without fear of being slaughtered. A nation shouldn't have to suffer the way we do because of the minority.
The Killer is referring to the "Killer Constitution".
Read my above posts. There have been gun restrictions in various cities throughout the nation's history. We have age restrictions, restrictions due to criminal histories, restrictions on selective fire weapons, silenced weapons, short barreled weapons, weapons that fire explosives. The argument that the Constitution allows someone to own any type of weapon they want is a little weak. Restrictions on assault rifles, high-capacity magazines and bulk Internet ammo sales are very close.
"The Killer is referring to the "Killer Constitution".
zippert -- assuming you're referring to me, don't be such a dolt. Both Wendor and I provided the link to take you right to Nevada Constitution's Article 1, Section 11.
To put some context into this Discussion, I've had the experience of standing unarmed between my child and a violent home invader. Your turn.
"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual." -- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Isaac H Tiffany (1819)
My turn??? Four shootings while I was with the Santa Monica Police Department from 1981 until 2003. I was shot in the head and nearly killed in a training accident. I have had somewhere in the neighborhood of 15 friends shot and two killed. My mother-in-law was nearly shot and killed while tending bar at the River Rd., Tavern in Piscataway New Jersey. A bar her and her husband owned for 50 years.
I had to deal with the Watts riots and the LA riots. I lived a short distance from the Jewish community center that was shot up by a neo-Nazi and the North Hollywood shootout in which two armed gunmen fired over 1000 rounds at the police wounding I don't know how many. My house was close enough to be hit by the bullets.
I went to work one morning and arrived to find out that nearly half of the previous night's watch was shot during the Santa Monica pier shootout.
The Nevada Constitution?? Nevada is near the top of the list when it comes to gun violence and for five out of the last six years it has led the country in women being shot by their husbands. Go to the UMC emergency room and hang out for a while. Gunshot victims are a frequent occurrence and cost the hospital millions in uncompensated care.
Gun owners have rights but so do the millions whose lives are being decimated. Over 50,000 a year are getting shot up. The cost is in the billions and the heart ache to surviving family members is incalculable.
I don't know if you have ever been shot or had someone close to you shot but it's no joke.
Dave.....Very good letter.
NOBODY NEEDS AN ASSAULT RIFLE, PERIOD.
We will ban assault rifles again.
Whether crazy republicans like it or not.
And you can take that to the bank.
gerry, "Gun owners have rights but so do the millions whose lives are being decimated. Over 50,000 a year are getting shot up. The cost is in the billions and the heart ache to surviving family members is incalculable."
But you still have failed to show that ANY of the gun control laws proposed would have any effect whatsoever on that.
You have, however, now given us an explanation for your irrational fear of guns, so we can all evaluate your position accordingly.
wendor.......
If republicans had kept the assault rifle ban in
place, THOSE KIDS AND TEACHERS WOULD BE ALIVE
TODAY.
Just suppose for a moment that it was possible for a group of religious fanatics to gain enough seats in Congress and the White House as well and began passing laws so obnoxious that a sizable portion of the citizenry were to find it necessary to rise up. Since the vast majority of people no longer deal with pitch forks and hoes, would you rather have a single shot shotgun or a high power semi-automatic rifle when it came time to assault the local National Guard armory to get better weapons?
The issue of mental health is one of the reasons I am leaning more towards a single payer health system, with the provision that those who are truly a menace are dealt with in a fashion that minimizes the threat they can pose.
As for background checks, I would consider having background checks on all people with access to a weapon, not just the person making the purchase. But even then, I would prefer to see some kind of severe liability attach to an irresponsible gun owner if they allowed or created circumstances that resulted in a weapon being misused.
I do not mean to speak ill of the dead, but the mother was just as responsible as her son for thinking it was okay to have firearms unsecured around him.
It's been a week and one day since and the people of Newtown Connecticut are still burying the fallen angels of Sandy Hook Elementary School. This is the time to respect and revere the dead with mourning and prayers, not talk gun control. There will be plenty of time for the latter but not yet.
CarmineD
Here are the facts:
National Gun Ownership (2010) 39 %
Sex
Male 43 %
Female 35 %
Race
White 44 %
Non White 27 %
Black 27 %
Age
18 -- 29 31 %
30 -- 49 40 %
50 -- 64 45 %
50 + 42 %
65+ 38 %
Education
College Post Graduate 30 %
College Graduate 37 %
Some College 41 %
High School Graduate or Less 42 %
Income
$75,000 47 %
$50,000 49 %
$30,000 44 %
Region
East 22 %
Midwest 39 %
South 50 %
West 37 %
Politics
Republican 49 %
Democrat 35 %
Independant 35 %
Ideology
Conservative 49 %
Moderate 37 %
Liberal 22 %
The solution lies to the problem in getting a more balanced percentage of gun ownership, so the NRA folks don't have numeeical superiority any longer.
I call on women, blacks, other non whites, and liberals en masse to buy these weapons, learn how to use them and take your guns to the NRA members churches, busineses, Christmas Caroling, etc. And let's send more of their kids to college, it looks like if you are more educated you have less need for a gun.
Wendor and the other absolutists:
"The definition of assault weapon was written by the NRA. 100 round magazines are not assault weapons If it didn't have a bayonnet mount, and a telescoping stock, and a pistol grip.
The number of assault weapons did decrease.[manufacturing seized] The number used in crimes decreased [those used in crimes were confiscated, so each one confiscated was one less used...it's that abhorant thing called math]. Further data on the effectiveness of the ban was outlawed by the NRA. Further research and data compilation was outlawed by the NRA. Public release of the ATF data base reflecting firearms risk or lack thereof was prohibited by the NRA. They need to scrub the data to fit their twisted narrative. Recalculate the stats, put the perentages into an irrelative comparison, and further their statistical lies. They then feed them to pseudo intellectuals like George Will to parrot on sunday corporate talk shows.
There are laws requiring the notification to a community when a sex offender moves in. The same laws could apply to NRA members. Neighbors knowing an unhinged family member resides in an NRA member's home ought to have that right. At least then they could install Lexan glass windows.
NRA comparison goes something like this, the percentage of gun owners has fallen [they still own all 310 million], but more people died [cardio, auto accidents old age], gun control doesn't work."
At the end of this argument all you are saying is you refuse to be part of the solution, it means that your input will not be included in the final outcome, your choice...
TO LIVE AND DIE IN AMERICA...
...some of this weeks NRA final chapters...
3 Shot And Killed In Mich... 18-Year-Old Shot Multiple Times, Dies... Man Kills Wife, Teen, Himself... Man Shoots, Kills Own Son... Cops Shoot Teen Dead... Man Gunned Down In Parking Lot... 5 Dead In Spate Of Shootings... 2 Murdered In Philly... 2 Kansas Cops Shot Dead... Shooter Killed... 4 Die In Apparent Murder-Suicide... Ga. Cop Dies From Gunshot... Argument Leads Teen To Shoot Friend... Man Shot To Death... Teen Dies After Being Tied Up, Shot... Man Shot Dead In Street... Drug Deal Leads To Shooting Death... Mother Of 2 Killed In Road Rage Shooting... Man Shoots, Kills Intruder... 1 Killed In Coney Island... Man Dies From Gunshot Wounds... Cops Investigate Gun Death... Shooting Victim's Body Found On Bike Trail... Man Charged With Shooting Own Brother Dead... Man Dies After Being Shot In Chest... Body Of Shooting Victim Found In Pickup... Teen Arrested For Robbery Shooting Death... Man Carrying 2-Year-Old Son Shot Dead... Man Fatally Shot Near Home... Parolee Dies In Shooting... 1 Killed In Buffalo Shooting... Man Shot Dead In Apartment Complex... Street Gun Battle Kills Grandma Bystander... Man, Woman Dead In Apparent Murder-Suicide... Woman Shot Dead By Intruder... 14-Year-Old Arrested Over Fatal Gun Attack... Man Found Shot Dead In Parking Lot... Woman Shot In Face By Ex-Boyfriend... 1 Woman, 3 Men Shot Dead... 2 Die In Attempted Robbery... Army Reservist Shot To Death In Alley... Man Shot To Death In Bodega... 2 Shot Dead In Burned House... Man Shot During Break-In... Man Fatally Shot... 20-Year-Old Gunned Down... Man Shoots Self During Police Pursuit... 1 Killed In Baltimore Shooting... Cops ID Shooting Victim... 60-Year-Old Man Shot Dead... Shot Man's Body Found In Vacant House.... Woman Shot And Killed Outside Her Home... Shooting Victim Was 'Trying To Turn Life Around'... Slain Shooting Victim Found In Street.... Driving Altercation Leads To Shooting, 1 Dies... 3-Year-Old Dies In Accidental Shooting... Man Turns Self In After Allegedly Shooting Wife... Man Shot Dead Outside Home... 3 Slain In Separate New Orleans Shootings... Cops Investigate Shooting Death... Man Shot Dead In Ohio... Teen Shot To Death... Man Dies After Being Shot Multiple Times... Man Charged Over Son's Shooting Death... Cops Find 2 Men Shot Dead... 1 Dies In Shooting... Man Charged Over Gun Killing... 1 Shot Dead In Confrontation... Man Charged With Murder Over Shooting... Motel Owner Shot And Killed... Husband Shoots Estranged Wife Dead... Suspect Arrested Over Deputy's Shooting Death... Police Probe Fatal Shooting... Cops Kill 2 Suspects In 3 Shooting Deaths... Man Killed Fighting Back Against Robber... Man Killed In Home Invasion.... Nightclub Shooting Kills 1... Child Brain Dead After Drive By Shooting... Man Charged Over Shooting Of Ex-Wife... Body Found In Vacant House... Teen Fatally Shot...
I looked for any MP3 murders, found none, I looked for any video game murders, found none. Looked for some DVD murders, they did not exist either.
wendor (Charles Gladu) (Dec. 21, 2012, 5:38 p.m.) In responding to my letter you presented an interesting array of data at 5:38 p.m. yesterday. But you made a very common, error in logic. You answered A comment. You did not answer A SPECIFIC comment. I stated "Additionally, since the 1994 act expired, there has been an increase in gun crime." You counter with data on "violent crime."
KillerB, you made the same error at 5:27 p.m. I specifically cited the U.S. Constitution. You attempted to rebut me by citing the Nevada State Constitution. I'll keep your response in mind if there is ever an attempt to increase Nevada's specific gun control laws. In the meantime, the Nevada Constitution has absolutely no significance in a debate about Federal gun control legislation.
"KillerB, you made the same error. . .In the meantime, the Nevada Constitution has absolutely no significance in a debate about Federal gun control legislation."
renorobert -- it's why I usually put your quote in what I'm posting about. I see no error. And since we're in Nevada the federal Constitution and laws aren't as relevant as our state's. Chances are it's Metro on the front line of gun crime scenes here, not federal police.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it's natural manure." -- Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, Nov 13, 1787
Step one: a VERIFICATION process that can work. Not many who don't meet the minimum qualifications are going to apply using their real I.D. The system would need a turnaround time or technology such as e-verify--online access to the database of those who cannot buy, own, possess. And then we'd need a means of verifying that potential purchasers are citizens--birth certificate at time of purchase? ATF funding?
Has anyone else notice Jeff jumping off the deep end?
Jeff says "The number of assault weapons did decrease.[manufacturing seized] The number used in crimes decreased [those used in crimes were confiscated, so each one confiscated was one less used...it's that abhorant thing called math]. "
Actual figures please. And then explain why you feel that the "number [of assault weapons] used in crimes" is significant. If the total number of gun crimes or violent crimes didn't decrease then of what siginifigance is the percentage by type of gun? Can you show a decrease in gun crime after the ban went into effect and an increase after the ban expired? No, you can't.
Jeff says ""The definition of assault weapon was written by the NRA."
and
"Further data on the effectiveness of the ban was outlawed by the NRA."
and
"Public release of the ATF data base reflecting firearms risk or lack thereof was prohibited by the NRA"
Wow, anyone else notice Jeff acribing godlike powers to the NRA without any actual connection to relaity?
Jeff, the FBI and ATF collect and publish the exact same data and statistics as they have for decades. They didn't stop publishing, nor does the NRA have the authority to change what they publish.
Murder rates and violent crime rates are published each and every year. I've linked to the FBI web page that has the data multiple times. Please feel free to use that data to show us any correlation whatsoever between the number of guns in priovate hands and any category of crime.
robert, that's because "violent crime" is the category the FBI reports on.
But hey, if you want to use "gun crime" instead then please provide actual data on "gun crime" for us.....with source citations such as the FBI crime database, etc.
So you say "Additionally, since the 1994 act expired, there has been an increase in gun crime."
Great, please provide the actual numbers to back that claim.