I am opposed to this legislation because it barks up the wrong tree. It resorts to scare tactics instead of addressing the actual underlying causes of gun-related deaths. The legislative “findings” are speculative, ideological opinions without support in non-partisan data.
1. “[G]un violence is a threat to the public health and safety...” “Gun violence” is a vague, ambiguous and misleading term. “Violence” signifies an injury to a third person or object; however, the overwhelming number of gun-related deaths are suicides. Nationally, suicides account for 54% of all gun deaths. (Pew Research, “What the Data Says...” (2/22).) In Washington state the number is 70%. Since 1968, suicides have always outstripped murders. (Ibid). So-called “assault weapons” are not used to commit suicide; neither are high capacity magazines. In fact it is difficult to imagine how a person committing suicide could even get to triggering the eleventh round.
2. “Assault weapons have been used in the deadliest mass shootings in the last decade...” This is a rhetorical teaser masquerading as a fact. Yes, so-called assault weapon(s) “have been used”... but what are the numbers? The data show that, in 2020, handguns were involved in 59% of the 13,620 U.S. gun murders and non- negligent manslaughters (Pew, op. cit., 2/22) So-called assault weapons “were involved in a mere 3% of firearm murders.” (Ibid.) I would challenge whoever compiled these legislative findings to produce data showing that ordinary crimes (non-suicide, non-mass shooting) are committed with semi-automatic “assault” rifles.
3. As for “mass shootings” the FBI "Active Shooter Incidents 2021," lists zero such incidents for Washington. The overwhelming majority of such incidents were in California which already banned assault weapons. The FBI's description of the 61 incidents at pp. 21-28 of its report indicates that 54 of the incidents were committed with handguns; six with a “rifle” and one (#23) with a “semi-automatic rifle.” One.
4. The U.S. Secret Service, National Threat Assessment, recently released a report analyzing the 173 “targeted [mass] attacks” in the period 2016-2020. Of the 73% of incidents in which firearms were used, 74% used handguns and 32% used long guns, of which 26% (n=33 of 126) were semi-automatic. Only one firearm was fully automatic (i.e. a “military style” weapon.) The task force recommended multiple behavioral assessment interventions (Id., pp. iii-v, 50-51) but not one of its recommendation involved outlawing so-called “assault rifles” or for that matter any weapon at all.
Thus Bill 1240 seeks to ban a lawful weapon that is not or that is negligibly used in “mass-attack violence” situations and which haven't taken place in the state at all, while ignoring the weapon (handguns) that is used in 70% of all gun-related deaths. A more useless feel-good exercise of pointless legislation could not be imagined. The Legislative findings are nothing but factually empty, ideologically motivated conclusory statements swimming in ambiguous terminology and fear mongering insinuations.
I am assuming that the proponents of this bill will be unswayed by the Supreme Court's definitive interpretation of the Second Amendment. Gov. Hochul of New York enunciated the attitude well enough. Therefore I will not address any constitutional issues. Suffice to say, that given its own stated goals, the proposed legislation is useless and is not rationally related to its avowed ends. The proponents would better use their energies addressing the economic, medical and psychological factors resulting in an astonishingly high rate of suicide in this state.
As a person who both in and out of uniform was sworn to uphold the Constitution, the fundamental principles enunciated in the Bill of Rights (all of it), trump all other considerations of policy. “Progressive” as I might generally be, I cannot and will not vote for anyone who derogates or infringes on any of the fundamental rights that had defined our nation's political character since its inception.
Sincerely,
1. “[G]un violence is a threat to the public health and safety...” “Gun violence” is a vague, ambiguous and misleading term. “Violence” signifies an injury to a third person or object; however, the overwhelming number of gun-related deaths are suicides. Nationally, suicides account for 54% of all gun deaths. (Pew Research, “What the Data Says...” (2/22).) In Washington state the number is 70%. Since 1968, suicides have always outstripped murders. (Ibid). So-called “assault weapons” are not used to commit suicide; neither are high capacity magazines. In fact it is difficult to imagine how a person committing suicide could even get to triggering the eleventh round.
2. “Assault weapons have been used in the deadliest mass shootings in the last decade...” This is a rhetorical teaser masquerading as a fact. Yes, so-called assault weapon(s) “have been used”... but what are the numbers? The data show that, in 2020, handguns were involved in 59% of the 13,620 U.S. gun murders and non- negligent manslaughters (Pew, op. cit., 2/22) So-called assault weapons “were involved in a mere 3% of firearm murders.” (Ibid.) I would challenge whoever compiled these legislative findings to produce data showing that ordinary crimes (non-suicide, non-mass shooting) are committed with semi-automatic “assault” rifles.
3. As for “mass shootings” the FBI "Active Shooter Incidents 2021," lists zero such incidents for Washington. The overwhelming majority of such incidents were in California which already banned assault weapons. The FBI's description of the 61 incidents at pp. 21-28 of its report indicates that 54 of the incidents were committed with handguns; six with a “rifle” and one (#23) with a “semi-automatic rifle.” One.
4. The U.S. Secret Service, National Threat Assessment, recently released a report analyzing the 173 “targeted [mass] attacks” in the period 2016-2020. Of the 73% of incidents in which firearms were used, 74% used handguns and 32% used long guns, of which 26% (n=33 of 126) were semi-automatic. Only one firearm was fully automatic (i.e. a “military style” weapon.) The task force recommended multiple behavioral assessment interventions (Id., pp. iii-v, 50-51) but not one of its recommendation involved outlawing so-called “assault rifles” or for that matter any weapon at all.
Thus Bill 1240 seeks to ban a lawful weapon that is not or that is negligibly used in “mass-attack violence” situations and which haven't taken place in the state at all, while ignoring the weapon (handguns) that is used in 70% of all gun-related deaths. A more useless feel-good exercise of pointless legislation could not be imagined. The Legislative findings are nothing but factually empty, ideologically motivated conclusory statements swimming in ambiguous terminology and fear mongering insinuations.
I am assuming that the proponents of this bill will be unswayed by the Supreme Court's definitive interpretation of the Second Amendment. Gov. Hochul of New York enunciated the attitude well enough. Therefore I will not address any constitutional issues. Suffice to say, that given its own stated goals, the proposed legislation is useless and is not rationally related to its avowed ends. The proponents would better use their energies addressing the economic, medical and psychological factors resulting in an astonishingly high rate of suicide in this state.
As a person who both in and out of uniform was sworn to uphold the Constitution, the fundamental principles enunciated in the Bill of Rights (all of it), trump all other considerations of policy. “Progressive” as I might generally be, I cannot and will not vote for anyone who derogates or infringes on any of the fundamental rights that had defined our nation's political character since its inception.
Sincerely,
