Many well-meaning people believe that banning guns would make us safer, but my bleeding heart goes out to people like 11-year-old Alyssa Gutierrez, who used one of her family’s guns to defend herself and her family’s house when three armed burglars attempted to break in while young Alyssa was home alone.
Without a gun to protect herself, Alyssa, who was taught how to fire it just days before her home was attacked, would have been a helpless victim, not a proud and empowered defender of home and self. Those are actually Alyssa’s words, who told a local news channel: “I felt proud of myself.”
And Alyssa should. Having never been attacked like this, I can’t even imagine what it’s like to be home alone while three armed men try to break in to my house, and while it hasn’t been so many years since I was 11 years old, it has been long enough that I certainly can’t imagine what it would be like to face such a terrifying situation at such a young age. (At the age of 11, I was still afraid of the dark, aliens, dogs, ghosts, and the Easter Bunny… not even kidding.)
But Alyssa didn’t let the fear, nor the danger faze her. While she says her heart was pounding, her mind was poised and decisive– the kind of confidence and poise that comes with knowing you have the means to defend yourself. When three armed burglars burst through the door from the outside, one of them brandishing a rifle, Alyssa immediately ran to her parent’s room to get her mother’s gun. Loaded and ready, Alyssa turned to confront the three armed men, who spooked and ran away.
Support for stricter gun laws in general is lowest Gallup has measured
PRINCETON, NJ — A record-low 26% of Americans favor a legal ban on the possession of handguns in the United States other than by police and other authorized people. When Gallup first asked Americans this question in 1959, 60% favored banning handguns. But since 1975, the majority of Americans have opposed such a measure, with opposition around 70% in recent years.
The results are based on Gallup’s annual Crime poll, conducted Oct. 6-9. This year’s poll finds support for a variety of gun-control measures at historical lows, including the ban on handguns, which is Gallup’s longest continuing gun-control trend.
For the first time, Gallup finds greater opposition to than support for a ban on semiautomatic guns or assault rifles, 53% to 43%. In the initial asking of this question in 1996, the numbers were nearly reversed, with 57% for and 42% against an assault rifle ban. Congress passed such a ban in 1994, but the law expired when Congress did not act to renew it in 2004. Around the time the law expired, Americans were about evenly divided in their views.
Additionally, support for the broader concept of making gun laws “more strict” is at its lowest by one percentage point (43%). Forty-four percent prefer that gun laws be kept as they are now, while 11% favor less strict laws.
As recently as 2007, a majority of Americans still favored stricter laws, which had been the dominant view since Gallup first asked the question in 1990.
This research is based upon the most recent available data in 2010. Facts from earlier years are cited based upon availability and relevance, not to slant results by singling out specific years that are different from others. Likewise, data associated with the effects of gun control laws in various geographical areas represent random, demographically diverse places in which such data is available.
Many aspects of the gun control issue are best measured and sometimes can only be measured through surveys, but the accuracy of such surveys depends upon respondents providing truthful answers to questions that are sometimes controversial and potentially incriminating. Thus, Just Facts uses such data critically, citing the best-designed surveys we find, detailing their inner workings in our footnotes, and using the most cautious plausible interpretations of the results.
Particularly, when statistics are involved, the determination of what constitutes a credible fact (and what does not) can contain elements of personal subjectivity. It is our mission to minimize subjective information and to provide highly factual content. Therefore, we are taking the additional step of providing readers with four examples to illustrate the type of material that was excluded because it did not meet Just Facts’ Standards of Credibility.
Posted by Brian Darling
August 27, 2010
The Obama Administration is considering using the vast power of the federal government to ban the sale of certain types of ammunition. This administrative ban would increase cost for hunters and fisherman dramatically. If implemented, this ban would go against the will of the American people. Furthermore, this action is an inappropriate use of federal power.
U.S. News and World Report posted a story today indicating that President Obama’s Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is considering a ban on lead bullets and sinkers in the name of protecting the environment. This ban, if put into place, would dramatically increase the cost of ammunition for hunters and lead sinkers for anglers. If gun owners needed any more evidence that the Obama Administration is looking for creative ways to take away the Second Amendment rights of all Americans, they need to look no further than this new proposed rule.
This is an idea that would have absolutely no chance of passing in Congress, yet liberals in the Obama Administration clearly are looking for ways to implement a creative means to raise the prices of ammunition and infringe on hunter’s rights. The American people reject gun control, yet the EPA does not care about the will of the American people. Remember, this is the same Administration that nominated two anti-Second Amendment lawyers to the Supreme Court, Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.
From the story:
The National Rifle Association, already on high alert over gun control rumors, has gone to battle stations to fight a new scheme before the Environmental Protection Agency to restrict hunters and anglers from using lead bullets, shot and sinkers.
John McCormack of the Weekly Standard has an excellent piece where he explains that this creative means to regulate gun ownership through doubling the cost of ammunition for deer hunters.
Several environmentalist groups led by the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) are petitioning the EPA to ban lead bullets and shot (as well as lead sinkers for fishing) under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). Although EPA is barred by statute from controlling ammunition, CBD is seeking to work farther back along the manufacturing chain and have EPA ban the use of lead in bullets and shot because non-lead alternatives are available. But here’s the catch: the alternatives to lead bullets are more expensive. A ban on the sale of lead ammunition would force hunters and sport shooters to buy non-lead ammunition that is often double the cost of traditional lead ammunition. A box of deer hunting bullets in a popular caliber could be upwards of $55.
The National Rifle Association (NRA) Executive Director Chris Cox has written a letter to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson urging the EPA to stand down, because the EPA does not have authority under existing law to ban a certain type of ammunition.
We are writing to urge you to reject a petition filed by the Center for Biological Diversity and others asking the EPA to ban lead shot and bullets under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). Simply put, the Act does not grant the EPA the authority to regulate ammunition of any composition.
Hunters and fisherman need to keep a close eye on environmental bureaucrats to make sure that they don’t ban lead fishing sinkers and ammunition under the pre-text of protecting the environment.
UPDATE: The Obama Administration has backed away from banning lead in bullets, but may allow a ban on lead fishing sinkers. From U.S. News and World Report:
In a swift and unexpected decision, the Environmental Protection Agency today rejected a petition from environmental groups to ban the use of lead in bullets and shotgun shells, claiming it doesn’t have jurisdiction to weigh on the controversial Second Amendment issue. The decision came just hours after the Drudge Report posted stories from Washington Whispers and the Weekly Standard about how gun groups were fighting the lead bullet ban.
By James D. Agresti.
Just Facts, June 10, 1999.
This listing of facts is derived from over 200 hours of research and analysis of more than 100 articles, documents, and books. Every statistic from a given year was chosen based on availability, and not to slant the results by singling out a specific year that was different from others. Especially when dealing with statistics, the determination of what constitutes a credible fact and what does not, can contain elements of personal subjectivity. It is our mission to minimize subjective information and to provide highly factual content. Therefore, we are taking the additional step of giving our readers a tool to determine for themselves the viability of our work. To that end, we have provided four examples to illustrate the type of material that was excluded because it did not meet Just Facts’ Standards of Credibility.
Topics in full article:
• Crime and Self Defense
• Right-To-Carry Laws
• Brady Bill
• Assault Weapons
• Armor Piercing Bullets
• School Shootings
for full article Click Here