This is Bill's Gun Page.

FAQs that are too often ignored by the gun industry and its supporters

Who supports the gun industry's agenda and why?
Pretty easy answer here.  All you have to do is visit a website listing those promoting the industry's initiatives.  You'll see gun sellers, gun makers, and a handful of not too important organizations and individuals.  Sadly, these folks also make money from this madness and this multi-billion dollar a year industry is financing the bulk of the agenda. 

Typically, these are people with whom I would not want to associate.  These are people whom I have observed calling to make reservations for seats on buses that were headed to lobbying efforts for gun safety in order to make the organizers look bad and spend more money; misrepresenting where they live in order to try to influence legislators on controversial bills; lying about their concerns for police while willingly selling guns to those who intend to do harm to the police; deliberately misrepresenting statistics in order to make the gun industry and its supporters look better than they really are; and being outright threatening and unpleasant individuals with other vices.

Remember, I am talking about those who support the gun industry's misguided agenda here, not your typical decent and law-abiding gun owner who takes his ownership seriously.  In fact, I am one of these, as are the majority of the gun owners and members of the NRA.  However, studies show pretty clearly that even a large majority of the NRA membership does not share the views and values of its leadership and support a far greater regulation on guns than the NRA leadership does.  And why not?  Responsible gun owners know how dangerous guns are, what a bullet can do to a body, and, above all, they don't want to shoot back. 

Sadly, it is hard to make money from peace.

Who opposes the gun industry agenda and why?
Much more interesting and wonderful people.  These are the people I want to associate with -- Doctors, Public Health professionals, victims and survivors of crime, good legislators, some wonderful entertainers and social activists.  Pretty good people.  Not purveyors of death, but advocates of life.  Not the destroyers, but the creators.  Not those who promote liberal guns laws but those who are true conservatives -- they want to conserve life, liberty, and the fabric of society.

Ironically, despite the NRA's claims to a burgeoning membership and its paying off of legislators to ensure their compliance, it's interesting that the NRA hasn't gotten more than it has.  At some point even NRA bought and paid for legislators recognize that the organization has gone too far and stands up to it.  I hope this will be a trend.

What was the original definition of the word "infringe" in the 1700's?
Look it up in the Webster's Dictionary from the early 1800's (see above), the first English dictionary printed in America.  You'll find that the definition of "infringe" meant something different in those days.  Entering our language from French (the language of diplomacy because of its precise and stable meanings) and derived from the Latin infrango, it meant to break, abolish, or cancel.  Not, as has become common in today's usage -- to trespass upon, restrict, limit, abridge, or impinge. 

I suspect its use in "copyright infringement" has had something to do with the weakening of the definition over the years.  Proper grammar dictates that one "infringes something," one does not "infringe upon something."  This is the big error in Second Amendment interpretation today.  And of course, no one is seriously advocating abolishing gun use by United States citizens, merely keeping guns out of the hands of those who would hurt others.

Interestingly enough, every word for word examination of the Second Amendment I have ever seen has minutely looked at every single word in the document except this one.  More deception at work, or perhaps merely illiteracy.

What is the dirty little secret about suicides among gun-owning men above 40?
Over half the gun deaths in this country are suicides.  Many of them are NRA members -- aging NRA members.  And while they callously watch their customers and members kill themselves after bad news or a bad diagnosis, they still sell guns and acknowledge nothing.  There is no support for suicide victims' families.  No suicide prevention program.  Nothing.  This is a horrible state of affairs and the gun industry should be ashamed of themselves.  I guess if they aren't ashamed of how they market and sell guns, they won't be ashamed of this, either. 

All I can say is that the gun industry and its auxiliaries better get it while the getting's good, because in about ten to fifteen years support for unrestricted gun ownership in society will be a pale shadow of what it is today.

What's the big deal about Assault Weapons, anyway?
OK, here's the problem.  You want a detachable magazine on your semi-auto deer rifle, no problem.  But once you put a pistol grip on it for spraying bullets from the hip, I have a problem with that.  Take your pick:  A detachable magazine or a pistol grip.  That's your only choice.  No more of this garbage about how legitimate hunting guns are going to be illegal when we ban AR-15 type weapons from civilian use. 

The NRA sabotaged the Assault Weapons Ban when it was passed a decade ago by pushing through a definition that included too many options.  As a result, it was too easy to get around the ban and as a result, there were problems with that bill actually getting assault rifles off the street (although it did do a good job of getting assault pistols off the market).  Now, of course, the NRA crows that the original AWB was ineffective even though they were themselves instrumental in making the bill ineffective in the first place.  I still don't know how they live with themselves for doing this.

No matter.  We can solve the problem of what is an Assault Weapon very easily.  Use the gun industry's own documentation against them.  For several years now, Gun Digest has been publishing series of books containing a compendium of articles that firearm expert Jack Lewis has written about military style assault weapons.  I propose that any weapon that he, as an expert in tactical firearms, includes in these books, The Gun Digest Book of Assault Weapons, be considered an assault weapon for the purposes of prohibiting for civilian use.  Seems fair, no?

Military-style assault weapons (AK-47's, AR-15's, etc.) were designed by their inventors to be -- and let's be perfectly clear on this -- offensive weapons of war to be used against other human beings.  That's it.  No other standard was used in their development.  So, now they are bringing the war to our streets.  These guns are capable of putting bullets through Kevlar vests.  Not only that, they can put a bullet through your car door and then through your Kevlar vest.  I have a problem with that as do most police officers and their families.  I have a problem with the gun industry not being satisfied with their war profits to begin with and trying to make even more money through the civilian market where these guns can get into the hands of criminals who will use them against the police and others.

I have a friend whose daughter was killed by a man with an SKS assault rifle.  He fired into a group of five people from a distance of less than 20 feet.  Eleven rounds fired so quickly that the last man shot only had time enough to turn around before he was shot in the back.  Every person was hit.  One lost his lower jaw, one was shot in the chest multiple times, one girl was shot in the arm and disabled, the last one shot was hit in the back as he turned to run, and my friend's daughter (who was standing next to the intended victim, so much for accuracy) was hit several  times and died at the scene.  Bullets sprayed everywhere as the shooter tried to control the gun.  This is not a firearm that is good for anything but killing people with lots of bullets and giving you a testosterone rush when you shred a target. 

Regulating military style assault weapons is an appropriate response to these firearms and the crimes committed with them.

Just how does the Centers for Disease Control really rank firearm deaths?
When it became evident that there are 1% of the gun dealers who are responsible for selling the vast bulk of guns used in crimes, the response of the gun industry was to find legislators who would sponsor a bill stating that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives couldn't use firearm sales data and crime gun trace data to find the corrupt dealers.

When the Centers for Disease Control reported the true dangerousness of firearms and the toll it takes every year on American lives, the gun industry responded by trying to cut funding for the CDC legislatively in order to keep them from collecting the data.  If you add up the gun deaths for all firearm related deaths -- suicide, unintentional, homicide, and other -- you get firearms as the number two non-illness killer of Americans behind motor vehicles.  Compared with other countries, this is absolutely inexcusable behavior by the gun industry who not only creates the opportunity for these incidents but also works to prevent restrictions on its commercial interests. 

Not only that, but the CDC estimates that three times as many injuries are caused by firearms each year than deaths, leading to a number that exceeds 100,000 people adversely and directly affected by firearms every year.  Add to that the number of family members and close friends and you have a very quickly growing oppositional force to the gun industry's wild west mentality.  It is only a matter of time before these voices become the loudest.  We're already seeing it in the urban areas.  As each state urbanizes more and more, guns will be more and more seen as threats rather than tools.  The gun culture will not be able to sustain its policies as its supporters die out and are not replaced in appreciable numbers.

The gun industry is on the ropes financially.  Is that why it's so desperate?
Fascinating things happening to the demographics of those who buy guns.  Hunters are down to 85 % of what they were twenty years ago.  Wayne LaPierre lamented this fact himself at a recent national convention.  The urbanization of America is seeing a new disinterest in firearms.  People would rather take photos of wildlife than kill it.  Reading about canned hunts in fenced compounds repulses many Americans and goes against their spirit of fairness. 

Target shooters are a very, very small part of the market, as are those interested in self-protection.  Last time I went to an NRA event, fully seventy percent of the attendees were obviously going to be dead in ten years as they age.  These were not healthy people.  Winchester has stopped making rifles and closed its doors.  Other gun-makers are facing hard business decisions.  Many are selling their souls in the process.

When you look at the charts, the gun industry has seen its profits decline steadily over the years.  Sadly, they refuse to adapt as any other manufacturing community would, and they continue to produce firearms at an astounding rate.  Why engage in such business practices?  Because, if the gun industry does not pay attention to who their clients are, they can still make money.  They cannot ignore the criminal market, it's keeping them in business.  Yet they do so at our peril.

Do people actually think that the Bible advocates carrying firearms?
Believe it or not, yes, they do.  I've heard them say so on television.  I've even had a pastor tell me following the trial of a man who shot one of his parishioners that he hoped this episode would not "affect the way I thought about guns."  I was not impressed.  However, without getting into a big theological discussion, for anyone to think that Jesus, the most liberal, anti-establishment, peaceful, loving, forgiving, and meek (but not weak) figure in history could advocate conditions contributing to the carnage we are experiencing in the U.S. today, that person would in no way understand the message of the Bible.  Not the least little bit.

What did George Bernard Shaw say about guns and munitions?
In Major Barbara, Shaw states "The Faith of the Armorer."  (See Above)  In it, we see the true nature of the gun maker.  It is all about money.  It is the most eminently "fair" business in the world.  Everyone qualifies, there is no prejudice or restriction.  Guns for all.  Watch Nicholas Cage's recent movie Lord of War.  It also shows quite dramatically how this philosophy is put into practice today. 

Yes, he is portraying an international gun runner but sadly, this same philosophy holds true at your local gun shop if they knowingly sell to straw purchasers or break the law when selling or transferring firearms.  These people do not deserve our protection and legitimate gun owners and honest gun shops should be the first in line to hold these crooks accountable for their illegal business practices.  Let's bring some credibility back into this business and stop the bad dealers from ruining it for everyone.

Are there those who really want to take all our guns away?
Perhaps, but no more than those who think every home should have an M-16 and a Claymore mine in the front yard to keep the pesky neighbor kids off their grass.  Most of the people who want to do away with guns completely have been hurt so deeply by the effects of firearms that their response is perfectly understandable. 

Regardless, look at the numbers.  With over 250 million guns in private hands in the U.S. today, if we were to start a complete and comprehensive gun confiscation program tomorrow, we would have to confiscate 2000 guns in every state, every single day, for a period of TEN YEARS.  It is utter foolishness to think that this would ever take place.

Occasionally, at gun buy back programs in Chicago, Illinois, as many as 2000 guns can be collected in one day by people who just don't want the gun in the house anymore and don't know how to get rid of it legally.  These people turn in the gun that is more a danger to them than anything else and get a reward.  In response, the state gun groups have routinely taken the buy back organizers to task criticizing them ruthlessly and suggesting ways to sabotage the programs.  Why would they do this?  This is a good thing that they should be behind because it reduces the possibility that a firearm, something they care about, would be used inappropriately or even tragically, thus leading to a greater adverse response from the public.  Maybe they just don't think that strategically.

There are people who should not possess firearms -- criminals, the mentally ill, domestic abusers and other breakers of the law.  Of course, it is illegal for these people to possess guns.  So, where is the outrage from the gun advocates and gun owners for enforcing the gun laws already on the books?  More hypocrisy at work, I'm afraid.

More Guns, Less Crime, or More Guns, More Crime?
The logic here is simple.  More guns, more access to guns.  More access to guns, more opportunities for illegal and tragic gun use.  We, as creatures of opportunity, are very good at being careless and foolish.  The careless gun owner is the worst of all -- endangering family and friends with unlocked and improperly stored firearms.  The NRA's own safety materials state that firearms are "dangerous," that they should never be loaded until they are to be used, and that they should be stored locked and separate from their ammunition.  What is the risk?  Simple.  If there is a gun in the house, a curious child will find it and an imaginative child will play with it.  Anyone who thinks otherwise is severely overestimating children and setting the stage for tragedy.

Moreover, the more guns there are, the easier it is to obtain them.  If you look closely, you will find that there are large numbers of gun buyers who have no respect for the firearm.  They will not keep it.  It is a disposable commodity.  You simply do not use a gun in a crime more than once.  Too easy to trace back to you.  Hence, the urban criminal gun culture is different from the rural gun culture. 

Incomprehensibly, the rural and generally more responsible group often takes action that aids and abets the urban criminal because they have been deceived by the NRA's propaganda.  If the hunters and farmers would only read some of the hip-hop magazines and graphic novels out there, I think they would realize that they have nothing in common with the urban criminal and would stop protecting his interests.  But gun sales are gun sales, no matter who buys them.  That is why the NRA and its board of gun makers and sellers doesn't want the supply to be inhibited.  Stupid idea, really.

Where do victims go for help? 
Not to the NRA, that's for sure.  They have no programs in place to help victims, nor do they care.  I have been told this on many occasions by hard-hearted and callous individuals and gun-owners.  There is good help out there for victims, but it will not, and cannot, come from the gun industry.  They are the architects of our grief.  They can only help us by taking the initiative to make conditions of life better.  But I'm not holding my breath for that.

Face it, the NRA leadership, and many of its members, are hypocrites.  The worst hypocrisy is how they treat the police.  They claim to be pro-law enforcement but would sell guns to criminals with no questions asked if the Brady Law didn't force them to ask questions.  They love selling firearms and accessories to the police but then oppose micro-stamping ammunition and firearms to identify what gun was used and who bought the ammunition in order to make forensic investigations easier.  They try to make it impossible to expose corrupt dealers to put them out of business, especially since one of them serves on the NRA board of directors, at least until recently when he had to resign in disgrace. 

They oppose banning assault weapons which kill twenty percent of the police officers killed in the line of duty.  And, most outrageous of all, when a police department buys a new inventory of guns, often the gun dealer buys back the old guns in order to reduce the price, but then those guns are sold on the largely unregulated after market, putting them back on the street to potentially be used against the police from whom they were purchased in the first place.  This is just insane.

Won't allowing people to carry concealed weapons make us safer?
This is one of the NRA's primary initiatives and has been for the last decade or so -- to get concealed carry in every state.  They have resorted to all sorts of political pressures and some states have been more stubborn than others.  Actually, concealed carry is merely an attempt to give a reason for people to increase the market for small firearms and thus boost manufacturers' profits.

I have no problem admitting that there will be some people who are carrying guns who will be in the right place at the right time, but my greatest concern is that concealed carry has resulted in a great deal of misuse because people tend to solve problems with firearms.  I have read many stories of people having an altercation in a club or parking lot and going all the way home for a gun, returning to the scene and using it to kill the offending party.  If a gun is more readily accessible, its use will be even more easy and tempting.

But this is not my greatest concern with concealed carry.  Studies show that 7% of gun owners will carry a concealed weapon on their person or in their vehicle regardless of the law.  Legalizing this opens police and civilians up to an armed population who are variously experienced and trained.  I, for one, do not appreciate this new armed citizen auxiliary. 

The laws regarding concealed carry generally state that one must pass a background check and that they must (sometimes at a judge's discretion) attend a basic firearm safety course.  I've had basic firearm training myself and I in no way feel qualified to function as the concealed carry supporters say I should in a crisis.

I will accept concealed carry only on one condition -- that the basic firearms course be required for the purchase of ANY and ALL firearms and that those who wish to carry concealed pass a rigorous combat level course comparable to what police officers have to go through as well as a psychological profile, not just a background check.  Then, they must requalify annually.  Only in this way would I trust the person next to me with a firearm in a crisis situation.  Anything less endangers us all and is substandard training.

How do Registration and Licensing affect criminal gun use?
The big problem when we look at gun running is simple.  It doesn't do Washington, DC much good to pass a ban on gun sales unless all the states around it do, as well.  That's the thing.  Gun buyers must be held accountable for their gun ownership.  Everyone buying a gun should demonstrate proficiency or be required to attend a safety class.  Registering a firearm allows police and law enforcement to track that gun when it is used illegally.  Licensing ensures that we are weeding out the careless, untrained, and illegal gun buyers.  Pretty simple and very reasonable, really.  The truth is that when no one is looking, it is easy and tempting to break the law.  We are simply trying to prevent laws being broken.

When licensing and registration are both present in a state, we see that the number of firearms bought in that state and used in crimes in that state reduces from around eighty percent down to fifteen percent.  A comprehensive licensing and registration system would dramatically reduce the number of gun deaths in America because gun owners would be sent the message that, like in other countries, gun ownership is a serious business.  This is something we desperately need.  I am not so defeatist and pessimistic to think that criminals will always be able to get guns.  Not if the industry were to have an attack of conscience and take a stand against criminal purchase, no matter what the cost to the bottom line. 

Seeing the way that the gun industry treated Smith and Wesson's honorable attempt to adopt a code of ethics, I don't think it's really interested in being a good neighbor.

Where can an honest gun owner go for community?
Take a look at American Hunters and Shooters.  They are really looking to be what the NRA started out as and what it should be today, without the hype, without trying to get rural gun owners to become activists protecting the interests of criminals in order to keep the industry profitable.  These folks are gun owners who get it and they have my full support.

Links - Find out how you can become involved and make a difference

The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence and the Million Mom March

Coalition to Stop Gun Violence

The Violence Policy Center

American Hunters and Shooters Association

The Gun Guys and Freedom States Alliance

There are many state groups devoted to preventing gun violence.  Look them up on the web.

My Speeches and Articles Designed Specifically to Tick Off the NRA

A flyer I created for legislators on gun violence and me

[Home] [WBJ Press] [William's Memorial]