gun-control.html

<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>

  <head>
  <meta charset="utf-8">
  <meta http-equiv="X-UA-Compatible" content="IE=edge">
  <meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1">

  <title>Why more gun control won't solve our problems</title>
  <meta name="description" content="The ZipCPU blog, featuring how to discussions of FPGA and soft-core CPU design.  This site will be focused on Verilog solutions, using exclusively OpenSource IP products for FPGA design.  Particular focus areas include topics often left out of more mainstream FPGA design courses such as how to debug an FPGA design.
">

  <link rel="shortcut icon" type="image/x-icon" href="/img/GT.ico">
  <link rel="stylesheet" href="/css/main.css">
  <link rel="canonical" href="https://zipcpu.com/gun-control.html">
  <link rel="alternate" type="application/rss+xml" title="The ZipCPU by Gisselquist Technology" href="https://zipcpu.com/feed.xml">
</head>


  <body>

    <!-- Google tag (gtag.js) -->
<script async src="https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtag/js?id=G-4ZK7HKHSVW"></script>
<script>
  window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || [];
  function gtag(){dataLayer.push(arguments);}
  gtag('js', new Date());

  gtag('config', 'G-4ZK7HKHSVW');
</script>

    <header class="site-header">
  <div id="banner">
  <a href="/"><picture>
    <img height=120 id="site-logo" src="/img/fullgqtech.png" alt="Gisselquist Technology, LLC">
  </picture></A>
  </div>

  <div class="site-nav">
<ul>

<li><a HREF="/">Main/Blog</a>


<li><a HREF="/about/">About Us</a>


<li><a HREF="/fpga-hell.html">FPGA Hell</a>


<li><a HREF="/tutorial/">Tutorial</a>
<li><a HREF="/tutorial/formal.html">Formal training</a>


<li><a HREF="/quiz/quizzes.html">Quizzes</a>


<li><a HREF="/projects.html">Projects</a>


<li><a HREF="/topics.html">Site Index</a>

<HR>

<li><a href="https://twitter.com/zipcpu"><span class="icon--twitter"><svg viewBox="0 0 400 400"><path fill="#1da1f2" d="M153.62,301.59c94.34,0,145.94-78.16,145.94-145.94,0-2.22,0-4.43-.15-6.63A104.36,104.36,0,0,0,325,122.47a102.38,102.38,0,0,1-29.46,8.07,51.47,51.47,0,0,0,22.55-28.37,102.79,102.79,0,0,1-32.57,12.45,51.34,51.34,0,0,0-87.41,46.78A145.62,145.62,0,0,1,92.4,107.81a51.33,51.33,0,0,0,15.88,68.47A50.91,50.91,0,0,1,85,169.86c0,.21,0,.43,0,.65a51.31,51.31,0,0,0,41.15,50.28,51.21,51.21,0,0,1-23.16.88,51.35,51.35,0,0,0,47.92,35.62,102.92,102.92,0,0,1-63.7,22A104.41,104.41,0,0,1,75,278.55a145.21,145.21,0,0,0,78.62,23"/></svg>
</span><span class="username">@zipcpu</span></a>

<li><a href="https://www.reddit.com/r/ZipCPU"><span class="username">Reddit</a>
<li><a HREF="https://www.patreon.com/ZipCPU"><IMG SRC="/img/patreon_logomark_color_on_white.png" WIDTH="25"> Support</a>
</ul>
</div>


</header>


    <div class="page-content">
      <div class="wrapper">
        <p>This post is in response to debate that took place on
<a href="https://twitter.com/ZipCPU">Twitter</a> regarding
gun control.</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>I don’t like to get involved in non-tech debates, but I feel inclined to
do so in this instance. [@BitlogIT]</p>
</blockquote>

<p>While I very much agree with this sentiment, I just didn’t want to leave the
statements made in complete ignorance left unanswered.
(<a href="https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/prv/26/5">Prov 26:5</a>)</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Okay, let’s have a discussion then: Why do you think mass shootings are a
problem only in the US and <em>nowhere</em> else in the western world?  What
is the difference between the US and all the other countries that gets
so many Americans killed in mass shootings.  [<a href="https://twitter.com/oe1cxw/">@oe1cxw</a>]</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Okay, let’s have a discussion.  This initial statement is uninformed, and
based upon false premises.  The US isn’t the only nation that suffers from
mass killings.  Neither is it the only Western nation suffering from mass
murder.  But if you read on, I can address some of these mis-conceptions.
[<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Hebdo_shooting">1</a>]</p>

<p>Since I entered into the discussion, several individuals have misunderstood
my reasoning and responses.  Hopefully, this post will help clarify these
thoughts in a forum where more than 280 characters may be said at a time.</p>

<table align="center" style="float: right"><tr><td><img src="/img/TinyFPGA-B2.png" alt="" width="95" /></td></tr></table>
<p>If you are looking for
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field-programmable_gate_array">FPGA</a>
related material, please accept my apologies for this digression.
You might wish to keep your eyes on
<a href="https://github.com/ZipCPU">github</a>, however, as I am likely to
post (work-in-progress)
<a href="/about/zipcpu.html">ZipCPU</a>
designs there shortly for both
<a href="https://www.arrow.com">Arrow</a>’s
<a href="/blog/2017/12/16/max1k.html">MAX1000</a> and the
<a href="http://tinyfpga.com">TinyFPGA BX</a>.  I’m also hoping to build a low-logic
SPI flash controller to be used in both repositories.</p>

<p>I first started examining the issue of “gun control” following the murders
that took place at <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Hook_Elementary_School_shooting">Sandy Hook Elementary
School</a>.
If you recall, there was a large push for new laws at the time in order to
prevent this from ever happening again.  New laws were then passed in the
middle of the night, with little or no debate, that were supposed to “solve”
this problem.</p>

<p>That was when I first started examining both sides of the debate.  At that
time, I came to the debate with no preconceived solutions, and no biases
(that I was
aware of) towards one side or the other.  I owned no firearms, primarily
because I wished to avoid the hassles associated with keeping personally
owned firearms on military installations.  At the time, I examined both
sides on their evidence, and in light of the facts available to me.  I
listened to hearing testimony, read US Supreme Court opinions, examined
the wording of proposed legislation and more.  I even found several
videos replaying particular scenarios, and examining how various laws
might have affected them.</p>

<p>Here are just a small portion of the resources I found:
[<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2Upjn5DR0o">1</a>]
[<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A1bu7Y8iwXA">2</a>]
[<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=84ptFVq22PY">3</a>]
[<a href="https://law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html">4</a>]
[<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_-N9_tnWBo">5</a>]
[<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZo4hbGJjVI">6</a>]
[<a href="https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com">7</a>]
[<a href="http://gunssavelives.net">8</a>]
[<a href="https://www.amazon.com/Gravest-Extreme-Firearm-Personal-Protection/dp/0936279001">9</a>]</p>

<p>The result of my own personal examination was that I could not find a
single gun control proposal that would have prevented the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Hook_Elementary_School_shooting">Sandy Hook
tragedy</a>.
Instead the proposals I read of would have only made the tragedy worse.</p>

<p>Now that a new tragedy has reared its ugly head, the same old ineffective
arguments are being rolled out to push the same ineffective solutions.
It seems as though nothing has changed, save that nothing has been done
to mitigate the carnage.</p>

<p>To explain how I came to this conclusion, let’s start all the way back at the
beginning, and then reason forward from first principles.  I’ll keep the
logic as simple as I can, so that you can see what I am arguing.</p>

<h2 id="the-logic-made-simple">The Logic Made Simple</h2>

<p>Let’s lay out the logic carefully for what is happening in the US and
around the world today with respect to mass murder.
To do this, we’ll have to go all the way back to the beginning to get our
logic properly oriented.</p>

<ul>
  <li>
    <p>Since Adam, all men have been trapped by sin.
(<a href="https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/rom/5/19">Rom 5:19</a>)  This has two
meanings.  First, it means that all men sin.
(<a href="https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/rom/3/10">Rom 3:10</a>,
<a href="https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/rom/3/23">3:23</a>)  Second, it
means that men are condemned to sin, trapped by sin, and even forced to do
so and punished when they do not
(<a href="https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/john/8/34">John 8:34</a>,
<a href="https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/rom/6/20">Rom 6:20</a>).</p>
  </li>
  <li>
    <p>Murder is one such sin
(<a href="https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/exo/20/13">Ex 20:13</a>).</p>
  </li>
  <li>
    <p>The wickedness of man and the reality of murder are not unique to the USA.</p>
  </li>
  <li>
    <p>Neither is the problem of murder specific to guns.  Abel himself will
teach you that men committed murder long before they invented guns.
(<a href="https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/gen/4/8">Gen 4:8</a>)</p>
  </li>
  <li>
    <p>If you get rid of guns, therefore, you will not get rid of murder.
(<a href="https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/rom/1/28">Rom 1:28-29</a>)</p>

    <p>Australia tried this.  It did not work.  [<a href="https://thetruthaboutguns.com/2016/03/robert-farago/truth-austrailian-gun-violence/">1</a>]</p>
  </li>
  <li>
    <p>If you get rid of guns, you will not even get rid of mass murder.
Examples of other mass murder weapons include
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks">Airplanes</a>,
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khobar_Towers_bombing">Trucks</a>,
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_City_bombing">Fertilizer</a>,
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Marathon_bombing">Pressure Cookers</a>,
and more.</p>
  </li>
  <li>
    <p>By the law, the wicked are to be punished for their deeds, not the
innocent
(<a href="https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/eze/18/4">Ez 18:4-</a>)</p>
  </li>
  <li>
    <p>If the law is to have no effect on the innocent, then law enforcement must
wait until a man commits a crime before he can be lawfully punished.</p>

    <p>Even background checks fails in this respect: before a killer commits his
first murder, he is innocent under the law and no background check will stop
him.</p>
  </li>
  <li>
    <p>For this reason, murders <em>cannot</em> be prevented, they can only be stopped
after the murderer’s intention is revealed.
(<a href="https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/prv/24/11">Prov 24:11-12</a>)</p>

    <p>Mass murders have been stopped.  Mass murders that have been stopped rarely
make more than a passing comment on the evening news.
[<a href="https://www.denverpost.com/2013/12/14/arapahoe-high-school-shooting-gunman-intended-to-harm-many-at-school">1</a>]</p>
  </li>
  <li>
    <p>Ending a massacre quickly requires greater weapons in the hands of those
that would create, keep and maintain the peace.
(<a href="https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/luk/11/21">Luke 11:21</a>)
It always has.</p>
  </li>
  <li>
    <p>A massacre can be ended early, but only when someone unexpected who is
serving the public good is already present, armed and prepared.
[<a href="https://www.amazon.com/Thank-God-Had-Gun-Self-Defense/dp/0965678458">1</a>]</p>

    <p>Most massacres end with the death of the shooter, either by his own hand
or by the hand of another.
(<a href="https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/prv/28/17">Prov 28:17</a>)</p>
  </li>
  <li>
    <p>The typical “gun control” approach is to render firearms illegal in
either all or particular situations.  In the US, firearms are already
illegal on most if not all school grounds.
[<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun-Free_School_Zones-Act_of_1990">1</a>]</p>

    <p>In spite of the good intentions of this law, it has not stopped
would-be murderers.</p>
  </li>
  <li>
    <p>Making firearms illegal doesn’t stop someone intent on murder from breaking
the law.  It only makes it more difficult to limit the damage once his
intent is revealed.</p>
  </li>
  <li>
    <p>The US suffers from public massacres primarily in those locations where
those who would serve the public good are disarmed.  I’ve seen figures
suggesting that 98% of all mass murders take place where guns are already
illegal. [<a href="https://crimeresearch.org/2014/09/more-misleading-information-from-bloombergs-everytown-for-gun-safety-on-guns-analysis-of-recent-mass-shootings/">1</a>]</p>

    <p>Such places of disarmament are politically referred to as
“<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun-Free_School_Zones-Act_of_1990">gun free zones</a>.”
In reality they are more appropriately termed “sitting duck zones,” since
there are rarely any law abiding citizens present, police or otherwise,
who can limit the carnage of a man intent upon breaking the law and
committing murder.</p>
  </li>
  <li>
    <p>Depending upon the location, it may take 2-10 minutes before the police are
on scene and perhaps longer before they are able to help.  This leads
to the saying, “When seconds matter, the police are only minutes away.”
During those 2-10 minutes, the only individuals who can help to limit
the carnage are those who are already present.</p>
  </li>
  <li>
    <p>Even if police are present, they have <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia">no duty to
protect you</a>.</p>

    <p>In other words, you are on your own for your own personal protection.</p>

    <p>This also applies to those within a school once an individual begins a
mass shooting spree.</p>
  </li>
</ul>

<p>The problem is not limited to the very public
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_shooting">mass shootings</a>, and the logic
above applies to individual self-protection as well.  Sadly, there are many
stories of honest citizens, intent upon keeping the law, who have
been disarmed by the law, and so suffer at the hands of criminals
as a result.</p>

<table align="center" style="float: left"><tr><td><img src="/img/gc/dummies-before-after.jpg" alt="" width="380" /></td></tr></table>
<p><a href="https://www.amazon.com/More-Guns-Less-Crime-Understanding/dp/0226493660">John Lott makes the strong argument</a>,
based upon comprehensive review of the statistics, that all it takes is
arming a fraction of the citizenry to have a significant impact on crime.
He further argues that an unseen yet armed subset of the citizenry creates
a deterrent effect upon crime–since a would-be criminal must then consider
the possibility of encountering armed resistance.</p>

<p>By this logic, it is the duty of every willing citizen to be both armed and
prepared to keep this peace.  Arming yourself is not immoral, but rather
following the teachings of Christ himself.
(<a href="https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/luk/22/36">Luke 22:36</a>)</p>

<table align="center" style="float: none"><tr><td><img src="/img/gc/biblical_perspective.jpg" alt="" width="800" /></td></tr></table>

<p>Further, by this logic it only takes one armed individual already present
at and within the school, whether teacher, veteran volunteer, or other
school resource officer, to limit the carnage.</p>

<h2 id="what-laws-can-be-passed-to-keep-this-from-happening">What law(s) can be passed to keep this from happening?</h2>

<table align="center" style="float: right"><tr><td><img src="/img/gc/flawed-logic.svg" alt="" width="320" /></td></tr></table>
<p>The first problem with this question is its flawed basis.  Underlying this
question is the fallacious belief that good laws will make good people.
As the logic goes, if only the right law were passed, we could somehow
therefore make mass murder illegal and so it would no longer happen.</p>

<p>The fallacy of this argument is laid bare when you consider that murder is
already illegal, and yet murder still happens.  <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun-Free_School_Zones-Act_of_1990">Guns are already illegal on
school
grounds</a>,
and yet this well-intentioned law has not stopped school shootings.</p>

<p>Biblically, the purpose of the law was never to make people good.
Rather, the purpose of the law is to reveal sin–sin that would be
present even without the law.
(<a href="https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/rom/2/13">Rom 2:13</a>)</p>

<table align="center" style="float: left"><tr><td><img src="/img/gc/good-laws.svg" alt="" width="320" /></td></tr></table>
<p>Therefore, the only reasonable implication that can be held is not that
laws will somehow make people good, but rather that good
people will pass good laws that can then be used to reveal the wickedness
of mankind, and therefore judge the wicked.  A law that turns an innocent
man into a law-breaker does not judge the wicked, but is rather a corrupt
law made.  (Yes, this does mean that an innocent man may break a corrupt
law and remain innocent.)</p>

<h2 id="humanity-is-corrupt">Humanity is corrupt</h2>

<blockquote>
  <p>The Holocaust was the result of a fascist government.  They had guns too,
just like all other governments today do as well.  But gun deaths happen
far more often in the US than in other countries.  Maybe the US citizens
owning around 310 mil. guns plays some role in that?</p>
</blockquote>

<p>If only the Holocaust was the only example of mass murder carried out by a
government we might argue that humanity would no longer suffer from mass
murder at the hands of a government.  If only it was because of an unusual
government structure, fascism, that we now know to avoid we might never
see mass murder on this scale again.</p>

<p>Sadly, the holocaust is only one government sanctioned massacre among
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes">many</a>.
I will cite here <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stalin">Stalin</a>,
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fidel_Castro">Fidel Castro</a> and the
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khmer_Rouge_Killing_Fields">Killing Fields of Cambodia</a>.  These are only modern examples of the wickedness of a mankind that
has been corrupt for many millenia.
(<a href="https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/rom/3/10">Rom 3:10</a>-<a href="https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/rom/3/15">15</a>)</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>So?  How is this an argument for or against gun control?  If anything, it
is an argument <em>for</em> gun control because at the time of the Holocaust
Germany had much loser gun control laws then now and back then there was a
Holocaust and now there is not.  But of course, that’s not a reasonable
argument.  In fact I don’t think there is a reasonable argument to be made
with regard to gun control legislation by citing Nazi Germany.  But you
brought it up.  That’s why I’m asking you to explain to me your argument.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>What this statement misses is the fact that in order to commit their
genocide of the Jews, the Nazi’s first needed to <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disarmament_of_the_German_Jews">disarm
them</a>.  Without
this first “gun control step”, the holocaust would not have happened.
[<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=snFEg7EGaqk">1</a>]</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Maybe there is no problem.  Maybe that is just the “price of freedom.”
(Like car accidents are often referred to as the “price for mobility”.)  But
it’s naive to think that there is no connection between lack of gun
legislation and gun deaths.  Your country, not mine.  You guys can set your
priorities as you want.  But I think it would be wise not to ignore the
obvious connection between gun legislation and gun deaths.  Look at the
data, then decide if it’s worth it.
But don’t be afraid to look at the data!  I mean foolish stuff like
preventing the CDC from researching gun violence.  If you feel like you have
to “protect yourself” from scientific data then you are probably trying to
defend a weak position.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Well, okay, since you would like to put forward the argument that fewer
firearms will result in fewer homicides, let’s look at the data.</p>

<table align="center" style="float: right"><tr><td><img src="/img/gc/Screen-Shot-2014-03-31-at-Monday-March-31-3.17-AM.png" alt="" width="480" /></td></tr></table>

<p>At the right is a chart showing the Gun Ownership and Homicide Rates for
several countries who responded to a Small Arms survey.  It’s shown as
a scatter plot, to allow you to draw conclusions of any correlation
involved.  As you can see just by examining the chart, there’s several
problems with drawing a conclusion from this data set.
First, there are lots of outliers in this data rendering the conclusion
not nearly as clear-cut as the quote above makes it out to be.
Indeed, within this chart, the US is a very unusual outlier compared to the
other nations within it.
Second, were you to ignore the outliers and attempt to fit a linear
regression anyway, you would still come to the conclusion that more
firearms results in fewer homicides.  So,
go ahead, look at the data.  What correlation do you see within it?
(<a href="https://crimeresearch.org/2014/03/comparing-murder-rates-across-countries/">1</a>)</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>And my point is that the availability of guns is making things worse.  We
seldom hear of mass murder of children using hand grenades or rocket
launchers (which I believe are illegal.)</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Judging from the actual available data (shown above), I would draw the
opposite conclusion: the availability of guns is not making things worse,
but better.</p>

<h2 id="why-an-assault-weapons-ban-wont-help">Why an assault weapons ban won’t help</h2>

<p>Following the US assault weapons ban, the CDC evaluated its effectiveness.
From this, the “found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness
of any of the firearms laws reviewed for preventing violence.”</p>

<p>This should silence those critics who believe an assault weapons band
would render this problem solved.  It didn’t.  While there are those
who would argue the effect of this ban, in reality there was no clear
evidence that it was either effective or ineffective.</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>“Note that insufficient evidence to determine effectiveness should not be
interpreted as evidence of ineffectiveness.”  But putting that aside, if
guns don’t play a role, that would then suggest that Americans are somehow
more violent than other people.  Aren’t you guys human too?
[@BitlogIT]</p>
</blockquote>

<p>There are those who would argue that the problem is that the weapons used by
mass murderers were developed and intended for war.  They should never,
therefore, be in the hands of honest (or dishonest) citizens.  If we could
just keep these extra-deadly weapons from the hands of citizens, according
to this argument, then we’d at least limit the number of murders a would
be mass murderer can accomplish.</p>

<table align="center" style="float: right"><tr><td><img src="/img/gc/boomstick-control.jpg" alt="" width="380" /></td></tr></table>
<p>This logic is ill-posed for the simple fact that <em>most</em> weapons were
designed for war.  This includes not only the century old
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colt_Single_Action_Army">Colt .45</a>, but
also common pistols in use today
such as the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1911_pistol">1911</a>.
Likewise, it includes not only the
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_Garand">M1 rifle</a>
used in WWII, but also the
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colt_AR-15">AR-15</a>
which led to the development of the
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M16_rifle">M16</a>.  As you can imagine, these
firearms are drastically different in capability, yet they are all
technically “weapons of war”–even though this argument is never applied
to the full list but typically to the
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colt_AR-15">AR-15</a>
alone.</p>

<p>It doesn’t help that there is no standard as to what constitutes an “assault
weapon”.  This lack of definition makes the conversation more difficult.
For example, many people believe that an “assault weapon” is <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle">one capable of
automatic fire</a>–i.e.
one that fires multiple bullets for each trigger pull.  Such
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_firearm">fully automatic weapons</a>,
however, have been so heavily regulated for years that they have
<a href="http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcfullau.html">not been used in any recent</a>
crimes–yet the politicians still call for their ban, confusing their
constituents in the process regarding the underlying facts of matter.</p>

<p>The result of this lack of definition is that most “<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon">assault
weapon</a>” bans
limit the sale of weapons based upon their
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A1bu7Y8iwXA">cosmetic features</a>
(flash suppressor, pistol grip, etc), rather than by their capacity to
either harm or do good.
Laws of this type are primarily political candy–they look good in the press,
but in reality they are not very effective even in their stated goal.
[<a href="https://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/02/16/cosmetic-tweaks-to-ar-15-thwart-new-york-ban-on-assault-rifles.html">1</a>]
[<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A1bu7Y8iwXA">2</a>]</p>

<p>As an example of the ineffectiveness of such a ban, the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbine_High_School_massacre">Columbine massacre
in 1999</a>
took place <em>during</em> the “<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban">1997 Federal assault
weapons</a>” ban
with weapons that were not covered by the ban.  The ban simply had no
effect, but yet it made politicians feel good.</p>

<p>Incidentally, there was “insufficient evidence” that the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban">assault weapons
ban</a>
had any impact in preventing violence.  What it did do, however, was
create a sudden demand for
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colt_AR-15">AR-15</a>
type rifles.  Indeed, today they are some of the most popular rifles
within the US.
[<a href="https://www.nraila.org/articles/20131108/not-quite-all-the-facts-about-the-ar-15">1</a>]</p>

<p>The other problem with this reason is that the tool of choice to <em>end
a massacre is</em> an
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colt_AR-15">AR-15</a>
type of rifle.  As an example of this point, a <a href="https://www.timeslive.co.za/news/world/2017-11-06-gunman-kills-26-at-texas-church-service/">recent church
massacre</a>
was ended by a good citizen with an Ruger AR style rifle.</p>

<h2 id="wont-reducing-the-availability-of-guns-solve-the-problem-of-murder">Won’t reducing the availability of guns solve the problem of murder?</h2>

<p>While this argument sounds good on its face, it fails in practice for the
reasons listed above.  If you make firearms illegal (and they <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun-Free_School_Zones-Act_of_1990">already are on
school
grounds</a>),
then only murderers and criminals will have them.  Murders
then continue unimpeded until those allowed to have firearms, whether they
be police or other, arrive to end the situation.</p>

<p>As for <em>drastically</em> reducing gun availability, you can see how it affected
the murder rate in Australia after they made rifles illegal: not much.
[<a href="https://thetruthaboutguns.com/2016/03/robert-farago/truth-austrailian-gun-violence/">1</a>]</p>

<p>In the end, this “solution” tends to only magnify the problem.</p>

<h2 id="what-if-we-made-gun-ownership-illegal">What if we made gun ownership illegal?</h2>

<p>While many politicians have discussed this possibility, in practice it
cannot be done within the US.  There are just too many firearms here, and
it’s not likely that the entire population would turn them in.</p>

<p>As one commentator pointed out, the next mass murderer is likely to
already have the firearm(s) and ammunition he needs to create the next
tragedy.  If the current laws against murder will not stop him, making
guns illegal won’t stop him therefore.
[<a href="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/02/18/limbaugh-suggests-armed-security-is-only-answer-to-mass-shootings-at-schools.html">1</a>]</p>

<p>That’s from a practical standpoint.  From a moral standpoint, the
command against stealing applies to governments as well.
(<a href="https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/exo/20/15">Ex 20:15</a>).</p>

<h2 id="what-about-the-no-fly-list">What about the “no-fly” list?</h2>

<p>This argument suggests that only terrorists are on the US “no-fly” list, and
therefore if we prevented these individuals from getting firearms we would
limit the problem.  While this has also been proposed as a “common sense”
solution, it also fails on its face.</p>

<ul>
  <li>
    <p>The “no-fly” list is a secret list, maintained by the government</p>
  </li>
  <li>
    <p>Many innocent men and women (and children!) have found themselves on this
list</p>
  </li>
  <li>
    <p>The result is that this proposal would effectively punish the innocent,
not the guilty.</p>
  </li>
  <li>
    <p>Because the list created and maintained in secrecy, there is no ability for
the public to cross-check it with reality or to sue to have their name
taken off of it.</p>
  </li>
</ul>

<p>Indeed, the US constitution declares that,</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>… nor shall any person … be deprived of life, liberty, or property
without due process of law; … (<a href="https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/bill-of-rights-transcript">Ammendment #4</a>)</p>
</blockquote>

<p>As a result, the last time this proposal was discussed in congress, those
proposing this solution left complaining that we would need to change our
constitution to enact this “reform”.</p>

<h2 id="didnt-congress-just-recently-remove-the-mental-health-exception-from-the-background-check-law">Didn’t congress just recently remove the mental health exception from the background check law?</h2>

<p>Sadly, this argument is uninformed and stems instead from a lack of
understanding US politics.</p>

<p>What actually happened started within the Veterans administration.  If a
veteran wanted his wife or family to handle the legal aspects of his
benefits for him, he could file some paperwork to state that he wasn’t
capable of handling his own benefits.  This had become a common practice
and bore little reflection on the veteran’s mental capacity for good or
evil.</p>

<p>This was a common practice for many years.
Then the Obama administration decided that these individuals were somehow
more prone to murder than all other individuals–despite having no evidence
to back up this claim.  They then declared these innocent men and
women to be so incompetent that they should be prevented from owning
firearms.  This process was done contrary to the US constitution, which
clearly states that</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>… no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due
process of law.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Due process references an adversarial court hearing or trial where those
accused of being mentally incompetent can present evidence to the contrary.
This was not taking place, and hence it was an offense to the firearm-owning
citizenry.</p>

<h2 id="if-it-saves-one-child-">If it saves one child …</h2>

<p>This emotional appeal is fairly common.  It is used as a justification for
knee-jerk reactions to children being killed by firearms.  However, if you
think this argument through, it can be applied in both directions.</p>

<p>On the one hand, some argue that making firearms illegal might just save one
child, and therefore the innocent should suffer (i.e., not be allowed access
to particular firearms) so that this one child might live.</p>

<p>This is a hypocritical argument.  By this logic, we should get rid of planes,
trains, automobiles, hammers, and more, yet those making this argument are
only willing to apply it to firearms.  (Yes, it is true that more individuals
are murdered with blunt objects than those that are murdered with
rifles.  [<a href="https://www.quora.com/Is-it-true-that-more-people-are-murdered-with-hammers-than-guns-in-the-US">1</a>]</p>

<p>On the other hand, if by getting rid of firearms we magnify the problems
associated with school shootings because no one is available to provide a
rapid armed response, then the argument could be applied in the opposite
direction: if it saves just one child, then we should allow armed staff
within our schools!</p>

<h2 id="why-does-europe-have-fewer-firearms-deaths-than-the-us">Why does Europe have fewer firearms deaths than the US?</h2>

<p>This question cannot be answered on its face–there are just too many
variables involved–something
<a href="https://www.amazon.com/More-Guns-Less-Crime-Understanding/dp/0226493660">John Lott</a> addressed in his book when comparing one part of the US to another.
Were the murder rate uniform within both the US and (pick
your favorite European country), then it might be possible that some one
variable within the US was the cause for this difference.  However, this is
not the case.</p>

<p>If you look at a map of murders rate by county, you’ll discover that
some US counties have fewer murders per capita than some countries in
Europe, while other counties have many more.  Further, the researchers
noted that the correlation is roughly inverse in firearms ownership–the
more guns owned within a given county, the fewer murders per capita that
take place there.
[<a href="http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/04/26/us-murders-concentrated-in-5-percent-counties.html">1</a>]</p>

<p>Looking over the chart, it is noteworthy that California, Chicago, DC, New
Jersey, and New York City have some of the highest murder rates.  These
counties (and states) are also known for having the strictest gun laws.
Hence, it cannot be the gun laws that <em>solve</em> the problem, but rather it
may instead be that the gun laws are <em>magnifying</em> the problem.
Indeed, the <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/04/26/us-murders-concentrated-in-5-percent-counties.html">article cited above</a>
suggests the inverse correlation from the data: areas with more guns have
less crime.</p>

<p>Further, even the supposed correlation between US gun ownership
and its crime rate doesn’t hold across Europe.  In other words, not only
is the US diverse in its population, but Europe is as well.
[<a href="http://realityalwayswins.com/2014/01/25/do-less-guns-mean-less-homicides-in-a-country/">1</a>]</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>“In 2012, Germany’s murder rate stood at 0.8, compared to 4.7 in the United
States.”  How do you explain this?  I’m genuinely curious, this isn’t a
rhetorical question to try to prove a point.</p>

  <p>I think the problem is that you look at the data locally: you start from a
high gun availability/ownership, lower it <em>a bit</em> and crime rate/intensity
rises &gt; (normal, too difficult for “good” ppl to get a gun for
self-defense, not difficult enough that “bad” ppl can still access.
Unfortunately, you stop there in the logic and don’t see that by
<em>drastically</em> reducing gun availability and making it truly hard to
EVERYONE to get a gun you actually massively reduce the crime rate and
their intensity (e.g. how many deaths in mass stabbings vs mass shootings?)
[@PetitsChameaux]</p>
</blockquote>

<p>After writing the above, I was surprised to look into this further and
discover that firearms reporting is not uniform between the US and other
nations.  This would also help to explain some of the supposed difference.
(<a href="https://crimeresearch.org/2014/03/comparing-murder-rates-across-countries/">1</a>)</p>

<h2 id="misconceptions-regarding-the-nra">Misconceptions regarding the NRA</h2>

<p>Many of those proposing new firearms legislation have openly argued
that the
<a href="https://home/nra.org">NRA</a>
has kept the US from enacting “common sense” legislation.
This reflects a misunderstanding of the nature and character of the
<a href="https://home/nra.org">NRA</a></p>

<p>The <a href="https://home/nra.org">NRA</a>
is not owned by or controlled by the firearms industry.  It is composed
of individuals within the US who have chosen to join and/or donate to this
organization.  The result is that the
<a href="https://home/nra.org">NRA</a>, as a
<a href="https://www.nraila.org">lobbying organization</a>,
represents a large voting block within the US.  Because the
<a href="https://home/nra.org">NRA</a>
represents large numbers of constituents, politicians listen.</p>

<p>More than that, the reason why the
<a href="https://home/nra.org">NRA</a>
has kept so many “common sense”
gun reforms from taking place is that … they were never “common sense”
in the first place.  As we’ve discussed above, either these proposed
“common sense” ideas would have no effect, or worse they would further
magnify the problem.  In many cases, they would also punish the innocent.</p>

<p>As a result, the reason “gun control” legislation has not passed within the
US in recent years is not because of the
<a href="https://home/nra.org">NRA</a>.
Rather it has been because the proposed legislation hasn’t been worth the
paper it was written on.</p>

<h2 id="conclusion">Conclusion</h2>

<ol>
  <li>
    <p>Murder is not unique to the US</p>
  </li>
  <li>
    <p>Gun control laws appear to only make this problem worse</p>
  </li>
  <li>
    <p>Murders can be and have been stopped with an armed response, whether by
the police or some other good and willing citizen</p>
  </li>
  <li>
    <p>Turning public schools into <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun-Free_School_Zones-Act_of_1990">Gun Free
Zones</a>)
has so far only delayed such an armed response, and therefore has only
magnified the problem.</p>
  </li>
</ol>

<p>If “gun control” laws won’t help this problem, what will?  What will stop
our children from acquiring firearms and attempting mass murders in the
first place?</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and
pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear
from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.
(<a href="https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/2ch/7/14">2Ch 7:14</a>)</p>
</blockquote>

<p>If this is an issue you care about, then please join me in prayer, in
seeking His face, in turning from our own wicked ways.  Why?  Because
this is one of those things that only God Almighty can truly <em>solve</em>.</p>

<h2 id="further-references">Further references</h2>

<p><a href="http://www.beliefnet.com/news/articles/harvard-university-study-reveals-astonishing-link.aspx">Harvard University Study Reveals Astonishing Link between Firearms, Crime, and Gun Control</a></p>

      </div>
    </div>

    <footer class="site-footer">

  <div class="wrapper">

    <h2 class="footer-heading">The ZipCPU by Gisselquist Technology</h2>
    <div class="footer-col-wrapper">
      <div class="footer-col footer-col-1">
        <ul class="contact-list">
          <!-- <li></li> -->
          <li><a href="mailto:zipcpu@gmail.com">zipcpu@gmail.com</a></li>
        </ul>
      </div>

      <div class="footer-col footer-col-2">
        <ul class="soc-medlist">
          
          <li>
            <a href="https://github.com/ZipCPU"><span class="icon icon--github"><svg viewBox="0 0 16 16"><path fill="#828282" d="M7.999,0.431c-4.285,0-7.76,3.474-7.76,7.761 c0,3.428,2.223,6.337,5.307,7.363c0.388,0.071,0.53-0.168,0.53-0.374c0-0.184-0.007-0.672-0.01-1.32 c-2.159,0.469-2.614-1.04-2.614-1.04c-0.353-0.896-0.862-1.135-0.862-1.135c-0.705-0.481,0.053-0.472,0.053-0.472 c0.779,0.055,1.189,0.8,1.189,0.8c0.692,1.186,1.816,0.843,2.258,0.645c0.071-0.502,0.271-0.843,0.493-1.037 C4.86,11.425,3.049,10.76,3.049,7.786c0-0.847,0.302-1.54,0.799-2.082C3.768,5.507,3.501,4.718,3.924,3.65 c0,0,0.652-0.209,2.134,0.796C6.677,4.273,7.34,4.187,8,4.184c0.659,0.003,1.323,0.089,1.943,0.261 c1.482-1.004,2.132-0.796,2.132-0.796c0.423,1.068,0.157,1.857,0.077,2.054c0.497,0.542,0.798,1.235,0.798,2.082 c0,2.981-1.814,3.637-3.543,3.829c0.279,0.24,0.527,0.713,0.527,1.437c0,1.037-0.01,1.874-0.01,2.129 c0,0.208,0.14,0.449,0.534,0.373c3.081-1.028,5.302-3.935,5.302-7.362C15.76,3.906,12.285,0.431,7.999,0.431z"/></svg>
</span><span class="username">ZipCPU</span></a>

          </li>
          

          <li>
            <a href="https://twitter.com/zipcpu"><span class="icon icon--twitter"><svg viewBox="0 0 16 16"><path fill="#828282" d="M15.969,3.058c-0.586,0.26-1.217,0.436-1.878,0.515c0.675-0.405,1.194-1.045,1.438-1.809c-0.632,0.375-1.332,0.647-2.076,0.793c-0.596-0.636-1.446-1.033-2.387-1.033c-1.806,0-3.27,1.464-3.27,3.27 c0,0.256,0.029,0.506,0.085,0.745C5.163,5.404,2.753,4.102,1.14,2.124C0.859,2.607,0.698,3.168,0.698,3.767 c0,1.134,0.577,2.135,1.455,2.722C1.616,6.472,1.112,6.325,0.671,6.08c0,0.014,0,0.027,0,0.041c0,1.584,1.127,2.906,2.623,3.206 C3.02,9.402,2.731,9.442,2.433,9.442c-0.211,0-0.416-0.021-0.615-0.059c0.416,1.299,1.624,2.245,3.055,2.271 c-1.119,0.877-2.529,1.4-4.061,1.4c-0.264,0-0.524-0.015-0.78-0.046c1.447,0.928,3.166,1.469,5.013,1.469 c6.015,0,9.304-4.983,9.304-9.304c0-0.142-0.003-0.283-0.009-0.423C14.976,4.29,15.531,3.714,15.969,3.058z"/></svg>
</span><span class="username">@zipcpu</span></a>

          </li>
          
          
          <li><A href="https://www.patreon.com/ZipCPU"><img src="/img/become_a_patron_button.png"></a></li>
          

        </ul>
      </div>

      <div class="footer-col footer-col-3">
        <p>The ZipCPU blog, featuring how to discussions of FPGA and soft-core CPU design.  This site will be focused on Verilog solutions, using exclusively OpenSource IP products for FPGA design.  Particular focus areas include topics often left out of more mainstream FPGA design courses such as how to debug an FPGA design.
</p>
      </div>
    </div>

  </div>

</footer>


  </body>

</html>