Archive for the 'Gun Control' Category

News from Chicago:

Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan told thousands of followers Sunday he was planning to reach out to gang leaders to help “protect” the Nation of Islam.

That came at the Nation of Islam’s annual Saviours’ Day convention. Farrakhan, 79, renewed the call for African Americans to pool money and buy as much land as possible, in order to “control means of production” and produce food and other goods, such as clothing.

Farrakhan said collectively owning land is a way for black people in America to prosper economically. The calls were part of a speech that lasted more than three hours and touched on topics including Libya’s Moammar Gadhafi, U.S. Defense Secretary nominee Chuck Hagel and a national push for gun control.

Farrakhan told a crowd of more than 7,000 people at the UIC Pavilion that national lawmakers are using Chicago’s violence epidemic to push for stronger gun control laws but said the Second Amendment has nothing to do with the spate of shootings in Chicago.

“The guns that every one of our young people have, are they legal? No!” Farrakhan said.

Instead, Farrakhan had a different idea for how to address gun violence. In addition to sending letters to black military leaders, Farrakhan said he planned to contact the city’s gang leaders to recruit gang members to “protect” any land the Nation of Islam might buy in the future.

“All you gangbangers, we know you love to shoot, but you’re killing yourselves,” Farrakhan said. “All your weapons are illegal and you’re using them like savages.”

But Farrakhan said gangbangers are “natural soldiers” and could be taught “the science of war” to become protectors of the Nation of Islam’s assets in the future.

“Illegal” guns, whatever that means, are only a problem if blacks are shooting blacks.  The better option is to get control of the situation so that the gangs can behave as protectors of assets, acting according to the “science of war.”  After all, “there is no reason for the American people to be armed to the teeth.”

War … as in the operations one conducts with the implements of war, or in this case, guns.

Corner:

Congressman Steve Stockman (R., Texas) accused President Obama’s gun-control campaign of using Twitter bots to flood Republican lawmakers and give the illusion of widespread support for the president. “Obama’s anti-gun campaign is a fraud,” Stockman said. ”Obama’s supporters are panicking and willing to do anything to create the appearance of popular support, even if it means trying to defraud Congress.”

Last week, organizers told Obama supporters to tweet at their representatives with the message: “I’m 1 of the 92 percent of Americans who support universal background checks. #WeDemandAVote.” When Stockman reviewed the Twitter messages he received, he noticed that more than half were from what appeared to be spam accounts …

Stockman noticed that these “fake, computer-generated spambots” used the default Twitter avatar, had tweeted once (to Stockman), followed only a few people, and had one follower: Brad Schenck, Obama’s former digital strategist. Other GOP lawmakers, such as New York’s Michael Grimm and Illinois’s Adam Kinzinger, are being flooded with similar messages from seemingly fake accounts.

I’ve said it before.  The polls saying that people want more gun control are lies.  The GOP is full of idiots if they believe them, and also if they believe that the polls are any cover once primary time begins.  We gun owners are a fairly sophisticated bunch.  And we never forget.  Ever.

So, Obama’s anti-gun program is a fraud.  Sort of like … Obama is a fraud.

THIS makes it sound like he does.

In Gun Companies Holding The States Accountable we discussed a two pronged approach to addressing the anti-gun legislation that is brewing in certain states, New York, Illinois and Colorado being three key locations. The first of the two prongs involves a refusal to sell to law enforcement when the weapons being sought are prohibited to non-law enforcement.  At the time, LaRue Tactical, Olympic Arms, Templar Custom and Extreme Firepower had enacted policies against selling to law enforcement in New York. The second prong involved the courtship of firearms manufacturers to move to more gun friendly states.  I have mentioned that Remington Arms, Rock River Arms, Springfield Armory and Kimber were prime candidates for this courtship, and I had made a special plea for Remington to relocate to South Carolina along with other firearms industries to move to the South in general. Since publication of these articles there have been other firearms manufacturers who have joined the boycott of New York law enforcement.  Joining the expanding group are the following companies.

• Bullwater Enterprises
• Westfork Armory
• Smith Enterprise
• Alex Arms
• Spike’s Tactical
• Quality Arms
• Liberty Suppressors
• Doublestar Corp
• American Spirit Arms
• Trident Armory
• Head Down Products
• J&G Sales

Barrett Arms has also joined the group, issuing the following statement.

Barrett’s Position Regarding the Assault on Liberty February 20, 2013 Barrett opposes those who are illegally disarming the American public from their efficient arms and creating superior armed elitist government agencies. Elected state officials of New York, having been sworn to protect our Constitution, have instead committed an offense against it and their citizens by stripping inalienable rights duly protected and guaranteed under the Second Amendment. By their deliberate and sinister actions, these officials now cause their state and local policing agencies to enforce these unconstitutional and illegal so called “laws”. By current law, Barrett cannot be an accomplice with any lawbreaker, therefore, cannot and will not service or sell to New York government agencies. Barrett also applies this stance to the individual elected official who, as a matter of public record, has voted for or created regulation that violates the constitutional rights of their citizens. This is an expansion of our 2002 ban against the California government due to their second amendment infringements, and shall apply to any future violators.

Additionally, the states are lining up to court firearms manufacturers.  South Carolina wants Remington and is telling them so.  Magpul has threatened to leave Colorado if the law is passed prohibiting the very magazines (PMAGs) made in their factories.  Alabama is recruiting Magpul, along with Texas, and Oklahoma is in competition with South Carolina in its quest for Remington. New York Governor Cuomo has stated that “There is no shortage of responsible venders who would want to assist New York’s law enforcement agencies keep New Yorkers safe.”  Perhaps there are still those who will supply firearms and firearms parts and accessories to New York law enforcement.  Colt is still smarting from losing the M4 contract with the Army. But the list of non-participants is dwindling rapidly, and it is best for reputable firearms manufacturers to make their decision sooner rather than later.

I had previously mentioned that I had sent notes to Smith and Wesson, Rock River Arms, Remington, Glock, Sig Sauer, Springfield Armory and Kimber asking for their official position on selling to law enforcement in states that have anti-gun policies.  I have received no response from these companies. Making decisions of this kind are major events in the life of a company.  Relinquishing revenue is serious stuff, and decisions like that are usually made at the board of directors level.  On the other hand, gun companies who lead the pack are also usually rewarded in the American civilian market, and this market is far more valuable than law enforcement or even military. Pressure on these companies is appropriate, and they need to hear from you concerning the totalitarian measures being taken in anti-gun states.  Who will be the first really large firearms company to refuse to sell to these states?  Once this first domino falls, the rest will follow.

UPDATE #1: Michelle Malkin has an article up focusing mainly on manufacturing aspects of this issue, although also briefly discussing the boycott of anti-gun states.  She has good information that complements my own.

UPDATE #2: reddit/guns has the most comprehensive list of companies to date that are participating in the boycott.

Courtesy of NC Gun Blog and refusetosell.org.  It is still necessary for the large companies to participate.  Reddit/guns has a list of e-mail addresses to whom you can write.

UPDATE #3: David Codrea has some salient thoughts.  “I’m reminded of “Braveheart,” where the titled and propertied lairds cut their own deals with Longshanks and withdrew from the field, leaving the freedom fighters to take all the risks and suffer all the losses. It’s past time the entire industry was put on notice and then held accountable for any cowardice in this time of threat on all fronts.”

UPDATE #4: Thanks to Ron for the link at reddit/guns.

Bob Owens discusses the fact that a growing number of companies are refusing to do business with New York and other states over unconstitutional gun laws.  More specifically, if a citizen cannot have a particular weapon, then law enforcement doesn’t get it either.

Mountain Guerrilla also weighs in with some direct contact e-mail addresses with the gun companies.  I also have some (one for Rock River Arms), and I intend to send notes around on this issue.

I have strongly advocated that Remington relocate to South Carolina (and that other firearms manufacturers relocate to different states, such as Kimber, Rock River Arms, Springfield Armory, etc.), and CBS News did a segment that showed that this kind of thing might be making a difference.

I realize that this is slightly off subject if we’re discussing manufacturers holding the states accountable for double standards, but this isn’t really that far off subject.  Most good people are hard workers, and I have put in my share of time for my company, including unpaid time.

But I once worked with a man whom I respect who held that this can and often does turn counterproductive in work, family and church.  The more we fill in the gaps for people, the less people feel the effects of their actions and decisions.  It keeps people from learning.  When we work hard to undo bad managerial decisions, management makes the same decisions again.  When we block consequences from our children, they don’t grow up.  I have begun to take my friend’s view in almost every walk of life.

When states abuse its citizens, they should lose business, respect and revenue.  States like New York, with its new assault weapons ban, and Illinois with the continued fight against even concealed carry anywhere in the state, don’t deserve the gun companies, and their states’ law enforcement agencies don’t deserve the best firearms.  Bad actions are needful of consequences in order to rectify those actions.

Furthermore, as I’ve pointed out before, the hypocrisy is just rich and a remarkable thing to behold.  States that ban weapons because they are “evil and inflict damage to innocent lives” but allow their manufacture because of revenue just aren’t worthy to be taken seriously.  This is happening in Colorado as we speak.

At Guns For Everyone, we learn that Colorado wants the ban Magpul’s magazines, but wants their money.

As Colorado state legislators debate HB 13-1224 – a bill that would ban magazines over 15 rounds – an issue arose around Magpul and its base of operations here in Colorado.

Magpul has vowed to leave the state if a magazine restriction is passed in any form.

To appease Magpul, and presumably to keep it’s reported 600 jobs and $85 million in taxable revenue in the state, Representative Joe Salazar announced an amendment to HB 13-1224, L.0.14, that would specifically exempt Magpul from this legislation in as far as they would still be welcome to manufacture and sell these black high capacity ammunition clip death machines to civilians, just not to Coloradans.

When House Republicans pointed out the obvious and blatant hypocrisy of this amendment, House Democrat Rhonda Fields insisted that the amendment was intended to allow Magpul to continue to sell these magazines to law enforcement and to the military because “the military protects the company…Country” (check the record, her slip of the tongue was real and darkly accurate).

This is a preposterous excuse for wanting Magpul to stay in Colorado and we know that she is lying.  Selling magazines to law enforcement and the military wouldn’t even come close to the business they do for the civilian market.

Kimber and Remington moving from New York, and Rock River Arms and Springfield Armory moving from Illinois, and Magpul moving from Colorado, is best for the citizens of those states, as well as the country as a whole, even if it causes pain for a while (or otherwise, if they don’t relocate, the laws need to be reversed as a precondition for their staying).  Likewise, firearms and ammunition companies shouldn’t be doing business with such states.  A principled stand like this also causes increased respect within the firearms community.  And we are a paying bunch of people.  We put our money where our mouth is.

UPDATE: Magpul is threatening to leave if the Colorado bill is passed into law.  I have sent e-mails to Rock River Arms, Smith and Wesson, Springfield Armory, Glock, Remington and Magpul about their positions regarding the state boycott.  I have yet to receive any responses.

In response to Wayne Lapierre And The Apocalypse, Dave Hardy writes as follows:

Here are my own thoughts. A ban on private sales will be unenforceable in the near future, since guns being found will have been initially sold before its effective date, and thus a lawful private transfer before the ban went into effect cannot be ruled out.

But even after, say, ten years pass, the ban will still be unenforceable in practice unless Congress also either:

1) Enacts national firearm registration, requiting FFLs to report all sales so they can be placed in a national database, and requires such reporting backdated to the effective date of the private sales ban, or

2) Makes firearm possession illegal, period, providing for a defense if the gun owner can prove they bought the gun before before the effective date of the ban, or bought it from an FFL after the ban.

Visit Dave’s site for the rest.  He is making a legal and technical point, one that I have seen before.  Perhaps he’s right, but be warned.  First of all, I am concerned about prosecutorial overreach and discretion.  But second, holes in any universal background check law can be plugged in the future once the basic framework is constructed.

Finally, here is the most serious warning.  I work with the federal government on at least a semi-regular basis, and when not, I am doing things that follow federal regulation, even though highly technical (the specific nature of what I do is not the subject and won’t be discussed).

For most people who never work with federal agencies and departments, ignorance is bliss.  But for those who do, they know that the nasty little secret about the federal government has to do with lawmaking by regulation.

Laws are passed by the Senate and Congress.  But after laws pass, thousands of lawyers inside the beltway go to work writing regulations based on those laws, or not, using the law as a pretext for further regulation that Congress didn’t specifically intend.  At times, Congress has even had to pass laws undoing regulations because the regulations don’t meet the intent of the law, and yet the executive branch won’t stop enforcing that regulation (or class of regulations).

Regulation is passed merely by entering them into the federal register, allowing a waiting time for public comments (which are nothing but a chance afforded to the authors of the regulations to ignore them or write sarcastic rebuttals), and then after the waiting period, it takes on the force of law including prosecution, fines and imprisonment for failure to follow them.

This happens every day, all over the nation, and in the DOT, NRC, EPA, DOJ, ATF, DHS, and other departments and agencies that the reader cannot even name and didn’t know existed.  Any law giving the executive branch the authority to further regulate firearms will be an opportunity for abuse, overreach and exploitation.

Take it from someone who has seen it.  Don’t trust the Leviathan.  It is a monster and it has monstrous intentions.

As a warning shot over the bow, South Carolina is poised to take action to protect the rights of its citizens.

Congratulations, you are a member of South Carolina’s “unorganized militia.” Now that you know that, state Sen. Tom Corbin, R-Greenville, wants to make sure you have access to guns in case the governor ever calls on you to defend the state.

Corbin has proposed a new state law — unanimously approved Wednesday by a Senate subcommittee — that would guarantee all members of the unorganized militia “shall have the right, at his own expense, to acquire, possess, keep, and bear all firearms that could be legally acquired or possessed by a citizen of South Carolina as of December 31, 2012.”

Translated that means — barring an almost certain constitutional challenge if the proposal becomes law — you can buy an assault weapon, regardless of whether the federal government bans them, as President Barack Obama and others have proposed.

The proposed law is based on a state law, dating back to 1881, that refers to an “unorganized militia” made up of “all able bodied persons over 17 years of age.”

“All of us here can sit back and go, ‘Finally, I don’t have to worry about giving up my shotgun or giving up my Ruger pistol or whatever. It’s over,” Corbin said. “This bill just simply says it is now part of our unorganized militia’s weaponry, therefore it is protected. … It can’t be changed by anyone outside of South Carolina.”

We had previously discussed this as a possibility, but it’s good to see that this had the unanimous support of the Senate subcommittee.  Perhaps it will pass with ease.  But wait, pointy-head has to get involved.

Nice try, but it won’t work, said Thomas Crocker, an associate professor of law at the USC School of Law who specializes in constitutional law.

It is true, Crocker said, that South Carolina can specify weapons for its unorganized militia — a concept dating back to the 18th century, when states did not have modern police forces or National Guards. States then had laws requiring everyone to own a musket and be ready to fight against outlaws or attacking Native Americans.

“The trick is if the federal government enacts an assault-weapons ban, making it illegal to have the AR-15, that will trump automatically any state law,” Crocker said. “It doesn’t matter if the state statute says that is an approved weapon. It is an illegal weapon under federal law and federal law trumps.”

Really?  Is it just that simple?  The federal government can pass any law imaginable and it trumps state laws regardless of any other considerations?  Perhaps pointy-head has been educated beyond his intelligence level.  He may be smart, but he doesn’t have a lick of common sense and he doesn’t know the very state in which he works.  I do.

Here’s a suggestion, send some federal agents to Pickens, Travelers Rest and Marietta, and up around the Jocassee Gorges, Devil’s Fork and Gap Creek areas to collect guns – that is, after you get all of the local Sheriffs to cooperate with you.  Write me a note and tell me how that goes.

Phoenix New Times:

It also wasn’t ironic that Kelly and Giffords, who overnight became the country’s two most famous gun-control advocates, are honest enough to admit that they both own guns. Giffords, as was widely reported before she was shot, owns a semi-automatic Glock similar to the one used by her assailant.

This is rich.  The country’s premier face of gun control has her own gun.  Next, consider David Codrea on Bill Maher on guns.

“The NRA should just change its name to the assassin’s lobby, because that’s what they are” TV personality Bill Maher told Tonight Show host Jay Leno on Tuesday when asked about his take on the Tucson shootings (watch segment in sidebar media player).

“I’m so tired of hearing about the Second Amendment and the Constitution,” he continued.

“If you love guns, just admit it — like it’s a vice. It’s like alcohol or drugs or sex addiction or gambling… It’s not good for you or anyone else, but you like it.”

Nice. Good, responsible men and women who as a matter of course exhibit self control are equated with degenerates who exercise none. Typical.

Finally, look who else owns a gun.

Appearing on Conan last night, Bill Maher said that enacting gun-control legislation would have little effect because Democrats are as attached to guns as Republicans. Even though he favors universal background checks and placing a limit on clip sizes, Maher, who said in the interview that he is a gun owner, concluded, “it’s not really going to change much in this country.”

Gun control for thee but not for me.  Hypocrisy is always fun for the special people.

Examiner:

Conservative Justice Antonin Scalia, decrying America’s demonization of guns, is predicting that the parade of new gun control laws, cheered on by President Obama, will hit the Supreme Court soon, possibly settling for ever the types of weapons that can be owned.

Scalia, whose legacy decision in the 2008 case of District of Columbia vs. Heller ended the ban on handguns in Washington, D.C., suggested that the Constitution allows limits on what Americans can own, but the only example he offered was a shoulder-launched rocket that would bring down jets.

And the wily judge suggested to an audience of Smithsonian Associates at George Washington University’s Lisner Auditorium Tuesday night that he is not just preparing for a new gun control challenge, but that he’s softening up one of his liberal colleague on guns.

The long-time duck hunter revealed that he’s taken Obama appointee Elena Kagan hunting several times, the last being for big game in Wyoming where she shot a whitetail doe. “She dropped that doe with one shot,” he said during an event that featured questions from NPR’s court reporter Nina Totenberg.

[ … ]

Scalia explained why he wrote Heller, but wouldn’t discuss current gun control limits in Congress and the states. “There are doubtless cases on the way up,” he said, adding that limits on what weapons can be owned will likely be part of any new decision. “There are doubtless limits, but what they are we will see.”

Commentary

Good.  Let’s rock.  Let’s get on with the preservation or diminution of our rights and freedoms.  Time is wasting.  It’s time to revisit the decisions in Heller and McDonald, not because, as Justice Ginsburg thinks, there might be a reversal of Heller on the horizon with a “future, wiser court,” but because Heller didn’t go far enough.  The Supreme Court recognized our right to ownership of firearms, but didn’t specifically broach the issue of “bearing” those arms, i.e., carrying them for personal defense.

This relationship that appears to be developing between Scalia and Kagan is, I’m sure, very sweet and and all of that, but I wouldn’t count on her vote.  Furthermore, the whole issue of duck hunting concerns me.  The Second Amendment, as Scalia knows, isn’t about duck hunting, or deer hunting, or any other “sporting purpose.”  The sporting purposes test imposed by the last round of onerous firearms laws, and enforced by the ATF, is entirely unconstitutional.  I have said before that I think the test is misapplied, and that if it is a firearm, it has a sporting purpose.  But proliferation of this test through the judiciary (from some future decision) is cowardly because it doesn’t formally recognize the truth, and that is that the second amendment exists in order to ameliorate tyranny.

But for the courts, just remember that we firearms owners aren’t likely to have any more respect for confiscatory policies (or anything that can enable confiscation such as universal background checks), onerous policies (such as counting the number of cartridges I can put in my magazine), or unconstitutional tests (like sporting purposes) coming from the courts than we would if it came from the Congress or the President.  And just for the record, the Supreme Court became a laughingstock over the decision on Obamacare.  You wouldn’t want to put the final nail in the coffin holding your honor or respectability, would you?

Be very careful.  Think wisely.  Don’t start things you cannot stop.

UPDATE: Thank you for the visit on this article.  It is timely and important.

Part I: Mental Health Checks Are Not The Answer To Gun Violence

Part II: Guns And Crazy Men

The Capital Times notes that Ann Althouse weighed in on the issue of gun violence and mental health checks.  Her blog “lights up” on this issue, according to the report.  In fact Ann does have a smart and whimsical style of writing, interspersed with humor, and so one must usually read her thoughts more than one time in order to make sure that you’re not misinterpreting her prose.

But I think I’ve got what she says this time around, and I have some difficulty with her views.

Bonavia implies that we ought to make policy based on the percentages. But then she says, make a pervasive law that applies to everyone, without mentioning the very small percentage of perpetrators of gun violence within the truly vast category of Americans who buy guns. And by the way, the category “gun violence” lumps things together. Gun control has become a hot issue because of a few massacres. If you make a category out of the set of incidents that has inflamed present-day opinion, people suffering from mental illness seem to be 100% of the perpetrators! You only get your very small percentage if you throw in other types of incidents, such as gangsters wiping each other out. Wake me up when 90% of Americans want to do something about that. And explain to me how background checks have any curative power over that problem.

The appeal to statistics and reason falls flat when you shape it to suit the policy you already want.

“Only 4 to 5 percent of violent crimes are committed by people with mental illness,” Dilip Jeste, the president of the [American Psychiatric Association], says in a statement. “About one quarter of all Americans have a mental disorder in any given year, and only a very small percentage of them will ever commit violent crimes.”See what I mean? Questions for Dr. Jeste: 1. What percentage of school shootings are committed by persons with mental illness? 2. If we cut the category “violent crimes” down to massacre-type shootings where the motive isn’t robbery and the victim isn’t someone with whom the shooter has a personal dispute, what percentage of those crimes are committed by persons with mental illness? 3. If we break the category “mental disorder” into subparts, so that depression and schizophrenia aren’t lumped together, is there any category within which you cannot say that only very small percentage will ever commit violent crimes? 4. In your effort to shield the mentally ill from unnecessary stigma, are you giving cover to a set of persons who could and should be identified as dangerous?

Ann might be affirming the consequent, where given some mental malady, since some shooter (or several shooters) commit[s] a mass killing, therefore killings will be committed only by those with the identified mental malady.  But this error in propositional logic is too fundamental and I don’t think Ann is arguing in this way.

More likely, Ann is arguing (or has argued) in a probabilistic manner herself, that the preponderance of mass shootings have been committed by those with some identified mental malady.  Therefore, prohibiting people with that specific malady from owning weapons will decrease the number of mass shootings.

If I have interpreted Ann correctly, take careful note of the unstated presuppositions in her argument.  First, she is assuming that mental health professionals can correctly identify that malady, and second, she is assuming that only persons with that specific malady (or perhaps one or two others) will commit mass shootings.

Neither appears to bear the weight of scrutiny.  The mental health professionals I cite in the earlier reports on mental health checks and gun ownership state categorically that they cannot identify illness in many circumstances.  They also state rather categorically that violence of all kinds – mass shootings or not – are not a function of specific mental illnesses.

I usually roll my eyes at the lack of scholarship and honesty when I read Huffington Post.  But today there was refreshing honesty from yet another mental health professional concerning what his own profession cannot accomplish.

As we debate the steps to reducing gun violence in the society a couple points need to be understood: 1. The link between violent crime and mental illness is weak, and 2. Mental health professionals are poor at predicting anyone’s propensity for any specific behavior, including homicide.

Although it is mass shootings, particularly the massacre of school children in Newtown, that capture our attention and have accelerated the current discussion, Americans for the most part kill each other with guns in ones and twos. Of the total number of gun deaths in this country, around 30,000 a year, the majority are not the result of mental illness, but of ordinary human emotions like anger, hate, greed, and despair. In fact, about half of all shootings are suicides.

[ … ]

The only real predictor of future violence in anyone turns out to be a past history of violent behavior. Absent this, professionals are little better than the average citizen at identifying those likely to harm others. Many people report violent fantasies (remember your reaction to the last person to cut you off in traffic); few act on them.

[ … ]

As we confront the reality of these systemic deficits, however, we ought not to do so under the illusion that we are responding to the problem of gun violence. These are separate and largely unrelated issues, both of which deserve our immediate attention and informed response.

It is true that mental health checks can be abused and thus rights denied for incorrect reasons, and it is true that mental health professionals often disagree, and it is true that given a reason to deny rights, a totalitarian state will usually find a way to use it for totalitarian purposes.  All of these things concern me and in fact militate against such checks being a necessary prerequisite for gun ownership, in my opinion (See earlier discussions of the checks we must go through in my own county to obtain a concealed handgun permit, which I do have, and also the “fitness for duty” program and managerial observation we must go through having unescorted access to nuclear power plants – both checks being pretty much worthless in my view, and yet subject to unconstitutional denial of rights).

But the objection raised by the mental health professionals goes beyond my own objections.  In every case, they are saying that there is no identity between those who commit violent crime and any specific mental malady, and beyond that, they are little better than the average person at identifying propensity to violence anyway.

Laws only imperfectly supply incentive for certain behavior and disincentive for the opposite.  But what laws cannot do is ensure that certain behavior does not obtain.  That is a burden too far for legislation and ethics.  These issues ensconce squarely in the domain of morality, and laws do not change that.  Evil cannot be legislated (or medicated) away, and the best amelioration of risk associated with gun violence is to be prepared for self defense (including elimination of gun free zones).

Similarly, mental health professionals have weighed in telling us that their profession cannot possibly hope to shoulder the burden we wish to place on it.  It’s more than simply it is subject to abuse, which it is, or that the doctor-patient relationship is invaded, which it is.  It is that the “science” – if it can be called that at all, is simply incapable of sustaining the burden of gun violence, or any other form of violence, for that matter.  They cannot prevent it, regardless how much we may wish them to.