Presidential Firearms

I’ll begin by admitting that like many Americans I own a few firearms. I’m not a hunter, but I enjoy target shooting thanks to a summer spent at Camp Adahi in Union, ME, back in 1954. It was there, as a 10-year-old, I first fired a gun. Several times a week we’d go to the outdoor firing range and shoot at targets with .22 rifles. I really enjoyed it, and also learned how to use firearms safely and responsibly. 

The lessons learned at Camp Adahi have served me well over the years. I realize, too, the vast majority of those who own firearms have learned these same lessons. They are law-abiding citizens who simply exercise their rights as guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment of the Bill of Rights. It’s also important to realize the 2nd Amendment wasn’t written to serve hunters and target shooters. The Founders had just fought and won a war of independence against the most powerful nation on earth. And they won because the people were armed and could fight against the army of a despotic ruler who chose tyranny over freedom. If we can learn one thing from history, it’s that tyrants always try first to disarm the people…something to remember.

Anyway, our current President speaks often of firearms, but sadly too much of what he says about them is not true. Some of these statements might result from simple ignorance since he seems to know little about guns. But other comments address information readily available, often from his own administration, and leads us to question his motives. Here are a few examples:

• In a recent speech in Wilkes-Barre, PA, the president claimed, “Back in 1994, I took on the NRA and passed the ‘assault weapons’ ban. For ten years, mass shootings we’re down.” He then added, “Republicans let that ban expire, and what happened? Mass shootings tripled.” But both statements are incorrect. In 2004 the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) of the Department of Justice concluded that no reduction in crime could be attributed to the assault weapons ban. Indeed, the NIJ report stated, “The ban’s effects on gun violence are likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement.” As for the tripling of mass shootings, here's the data. There were 31 mass shootings during the decade before the ban and 31 during the decade the ban was active. During the 10 years after it expired there were 47. Yes, there was in increase, but nowhere near a tripling. The increase has been attributed not only to population growth but, sadly, also to a growing lack of respect for both the law and traditional moral standards. 
• In the same speech President Biden also stated that “There is a mass shooting every single day in this country.” Given that the definition of a mass shooting comes from his own Department of Justice, this claim was very strange and very wrong. In truth, we experienced a total of 129 mass shootings during the 40 years between 1982 and 2022. So far this year we've had 7, and there certainly haven't been 365 during the past 12 months.  
• Speaking in Wilkes-Barre must have an odd effect on our president. He also claimed that “The bullet out of an AR-15 travels five times as rapidly as a bullet out of any other gun.” Oh, boy, I simply can’t imagine where he got this little gem that is so wrong it’s laughable. Depending on the ammunition and the particular A-15, the muzzle velocity might be as high as 3,000 feet per second, about the same as a rifle firing .30-06 ammunition. But, believe me, there are commercial rifles with muzzle velocities well above this, even above 4,000 fps. To claim an AR-15's muzzle velocity is five times that of any other gun is just absurd.
• The president also said, “The AR-15 just rips the body apart.” This, too, is absurd. The ammo used determines its effects and most AR ammo penetrates rather than expands, and even expandable hollow points don't “rip the body apart.”
• He said something similar when discussing 9mm ammunition, stating that a 9mm bullet will “blow the lung out of a body” — another absurdity. No 9mm bullet will blow the lung or any other major organ out of a body. But perhaps his confusion stems from another comment he made when he labeled 9mm firearms among “high-caliber weapons.” This also is hard to understand. A 9mm round is generally a pistol round and is certainly not among the largest pistol calibers. Yes, it's larger than a .22 but smaller than a .38, or a 10mm, or a .45. And virtually every rifle round would be considered more powerful than a 9mm.

I think that’s enough, but I find myself wondering why he would say these things. The only answer I can come up with is that he’s likely speaking to true believers, those on his side anyway. And like most of those who actively support “gun control” rather than “crime control,” they know very little about firearms. The president, then, can say whatever he likes and still be believed. The mainstream media, also avid gun-control supporters, could fact-check the president, but exposing his errors would work against their narrative, so why bother? 

Alec Baldwin and His Trigger Finger

Okay, I’ll admit I own a few firearms, both handguns and long guns. I’m not a hunter, but I’ve always enjoyed shooting, not at people, but at targets. I once owned a single-action revolver not unlike that used by Alec Baldwin, but sold it over 30 years ago. Baldwin, as most people now know, used such a revolver when he shot and killed cinematographer Halyna Hutchins, 42. 

For those who are not familiar with firearms, I suppose there’s one obvious question: Is shooting a firearm essentially dangerous? No it’s not. Shooting a firearm is really no more dangerous than driving a car, operating a circular saw, or really using any tool that has the capability of causing injury or death…unless — and it’s a very big unless — unless proper safety precautions are not always followed. 

From what we know, the firearm involved was an authentic single-action revolver, a “cowboy gun” for the unenlightened. Firing such a weapon normally involves a two-step process. First, the shooter manually cocks the hammer, usually with the thumb. As the hammer is engaged in the cocked position, the cylinder also rotates and sets up a fresh cartridge to be fired. Then, when the trigger is pulled, the weapon fires. Usually very little pressure is required to pull the trigger of a cocked revolver. Obviously, one normally does not want to carry a cocked revolver, for it can easily fire inadvertently.

There’s another issue that might be involved in this incident. Most single-action revolvers hold six cartridges, but for safety reasons shooters usually load only five rounds, leaving the chamber in front of the hammer empty. Doing this keeps the revolver from firing if it is dropped or if the hammer is pulled back and released before it is fully cocked. Baldwin, then, may have just lightly touched the trigger of a cocked revolver, or he may have let the hammer fall on a live round in the chamber. At this point, let’s see what Alec Baldwin had to say about his use of this firearm.

In a recent ABC News interview, presumably permitted by Baldwin’s attorneys, the actor said, “I feel that someone is responsible for what happened, and I can’t say who that is. But I know it’s not me.” That’s right, Baldwin takes no responsibility for the tragic and totally unnecessary death of Ms. Hutchins.  

He claimed Hutchins was directing him to pull back the revolver’s hammer as far as he could without cocking it. "I’m just showing her, I go, ‘How about that? Does that work? Do you see that?' ... She said, 'yeah, that's good.'" 

Baldwin then made this remarkable admission, “I let go of the hammer — Bang! The gun goes off." He also added, "I would never point a gun at anyone and pull the trigger at them. Never.”

Almost everyone in the media has been calling this tragedy an “accident.” But when it comes to firearms safety, there’s no such thing. It always boils down to one of two things: it was either an intentional shooting, or it was a case of negligence abetted by ignorance of normal firearms safety rules. Perhaps, at this point, it would be useful to review some very basic rules regarding the use of firearms. All of us who use firearms responsibly know and always follow these four rules:

Based on what Alex Baldwin stated in his ABC interview with George Stephanoupolis, it appears he broke every one of these four rules. 

1. Always keep the firearm pointed in a safe direction. Baldwin not only intentionally pointed the revolver in an unsafe direction, but actually pointed it directly at Halyna Hutchins. This cannot be denied because Hutchins was struck by the bullet fired from the revolver.  
2. Treat every firearm as if it is fully loaded. Baldwin obviously did not know whether the firearm was loaded or unloaded, but apparently simply accepted what someone else told him. Sorry, Alec, but the only way you can be certain your firearm is unloaded is to examine the firearm yourself. It’s important to recognize that “blanks” can also be dangerous. They are not completely blank, but can cause injury, even death. Besides the explosive gasses that make the “bang,” anything in the cartridge, like wadding or wax filler, will be propelled at high velocity. At close range this can cause serious injury or worse. Apparently, in this instance, however, the round that killed Hutchins was a live round, a bullet not a blank.
3. Keep your finger off the trigger until your sights are on the intended target. Baldwin claims he “didn’t pull the trigger.” This assertion leads to a couple of possibilities. First of all, he might actually have fully cocked the revolver but didn’t realize it because of his distracting ongoing conversation with Hutchins. Then, just touching the trigger lightly might well have fired the revolver. Or perhaps the revolver was actually fully loaded, with a live round in the chamber immediately in front of the hammer. Then, when Baldwin released the uncocked hammer, it went forward and fired the round in the chamber. Anyway, according to the National Shooting Sports Foundation, “It is possible that the gun can fire at any time, or even later when you release the safety, without you ever touching the trigger again.” Things are even trickier with a single-action revolver which has no safety. It’s always critical to know if a live round is in the chamber under the hammer.
4. Always be sure of your target and what’s behind it. Baldwin was fully aware that he was pointing the firearm at Hutchins. This is apparent by the nature of the conversation he had with Hutchins, a conversation he described during his interview on ABC News.

Alec Baldwin broke every rule of firearms safety and his ignorance or willful negligence should not protect him from prosecution. I believe Baldwin’s attorneys made a serious error by allowing the actor to grant that interview. If he is charged, and he might well be accused of some form of involuntary manslaughter, any competent prosecutor will certainly address all the issues I’ve included above (and many others) in order to educate the jurors on firearms safety. 

Should Baldwin be convicted and sentenced to some time in prison? I certainly can’t say, but I hope for his sake he thinks about this woman’s life and accepts his responsibility for her death. In the meantime, we pray for her soul and for his.

Firearms: What the Mainstream Won’t Tell You

If I’ve discovered one thing in the past few years it’s that the media has become totally politicized — left, right, and in-between. How does this affect reporting? Quite simply, far too many in the media tell lies, lots of lies. I’m not talking about different points of view arising from political beliefs. No, the motives are far deeper. These folks are supposedly professional journalists who can and should suppress their personal beliefs to report the truth, or at least a reasonably close version of the truth. They have direct access to the truth because they have access to original sources. But they either distort the truth or completely ignore it because their ideology demands it. 

The left, of course, are more likely to distort because they are true ideologues. I suppose they can’t help themselves. But there are others, even some on the political right who distort because…well, it’s so easy to do so. These include the so-called fiscal conservatives along with many libertarians, who are driven solely by a kind of conservatism that lacks any moral foundation. Their only real concern is economic growth. Now, economic growth is a good thing because it ensures growth in jobs, wages, business expansion — all good things. But when growth is sought as a desired end and virtually any means are considered acceptable to achieve it, we find major corporations happy to do business with oppressive, corrupt nations like Communist China, Cuba, Saudi Arabia, to name just a few. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, an organization that does the bidding of major corporations, is happy to encourage increases in low-wage immigration at the expense of American workers and ignores the real engines of growth, the small and mid-sized companies of America. 

If you avoid the mainstream media and search instead for original sources, you’ll uncover information that will likely alter your view of what’s actually true. Here are a few examples, all related to the current political effort to disarm American citizens and overturn the 2nd Amendment:

• Guess which number is larger: the number of children shot in Chicago during 2021 or the number of children who died of COVID in the entire country during 2021? The truth which, by the way, comes directly from the Center for Disease Control, a federal agency: 261 children were shot in Chicago so far this year, while 214 children died of COVID-19 in the entire United States during the same period. COVID, then, is far less dangerous to children (age 17 and under) than living in Chicago. If we counted the number of children shot throughout the entire country the difference would be far more dramatic. Oh, yes, these children and virtually everyone shot in Chicago was shot not by someone with a legally owned firearm, but by gang-bangers and other criminals who own guns obtained illegally. 

• We've also heard a lot lately about the dreaded AR-15, a style of rifle that has  become the most popular sporting rifle among gunowners in the US. I've actually heard some in the media state that the AR stands for "Assault Rifle" or "Automatic Rifle." Both are highly inaccurate. Those two letters actually stand for  ArmaLite Rifle. ArmaLite was the company back in the 1950s that first developed the rifle that evolved into the AR-15. The civilian versions, the kind you and I can buy if we like, are not assault weapons, primarily because they are not automatic weapons. They are instead semi-automatic, which means when you pull the trigger one round is fired. This is really no different from the double-action .38 caliber revolver or .45 semi-automatic pistol I used to carry when I flew in the Navy. There's an awful lot of misinformation in the news about AR-15s.

• OK, speaking of rifles, here's another question...Are more people killed by rifles or by knives? According to the FBI's Uniform Crime Report, far more people (3 1/2 times as many) were killed by knives than were killed by rifles. In 2020 a total of 454 people were killed by rifles, while 1,732 died as a result of stabbings or hackings by knives or other cutting instruments. If you add shotguns to the "rifle" numbers, the total rises to 657, still less than one-half the number killed by knives. And, even more interesting, over 600 people were killed by "fists, hands, and feet" during 2020. 

• Another guessing game — guess what percentage of new gun owners are women? Here’s the answer. Between January 2019 and April 2021, 7.5 million Americans became new gun owners, and 3.5 million of them were women. I’ll bet you won’t find that statistic in the mainstream media. But that’s not all you’ll never see. For example, while 55% of new gun owners were white, 21% were Black and 19% were Hispanic. To demonstrate the dramatic change, one that shows the impact of out-of-control crime, of the almost 20 million existing gun owners who bought firearms in 2019, 71% were male and 74% were white. In other words, women, Blacks, and Hispanics no longer trust our defunded and depleted police forces to defend them, but have decided to defend themselves from an out-of-control criminal element. 

• Okay, one more…Guess who killed more criminals during the commission of crimes, the police or private citizens who possessed legally owned firearms? According to the FBI’s Uniform Crime Report for 2020, armed private citizens killed more criminals during the commission of felonies than were killed by police. For a variety of reasons, this is to be expected. First, the police often don’t arrive until after the criminal has left the scene. Second, more Americans are now armed and will defend their lives and property from those who threaten them with violence. Of course, no sane person wants to use deadly force, but neither does he or she want to be wounded or murdered during a criminal attack. We all have the right to defend ourselves and those who depend on us to protect them, which is why political efforts to disarm law-abiding citizens are so wrong. Ironically, and hypocritically, legislators and others among the elites who scream so loudly for so-called “gun control” are most often surrounded by paid and well-armed bodyguards. Yes, indeed, what’s good for them must be denied to the rest of us.

As you can see, there's a lot of "fake news" and other disinformation in the media, especially when it comes to firearms. 

Yes, I’m a member of the clergy who follows Church teaching and believes individuals have the right to defend themselves and their families from the mayhem and increased criminality plaguing our nation. Here’s what the Catechism of the Catholic Church has to say:

Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility [CCC 2265].

Although this applies to the defense of the community, it apples as well to the defense of the family. A husband and father, for example, has the right to protect his wife and children from harm, even if doing so demands the application of lethal force. The Catechism also includes the following:

Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one’s own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow: If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful…Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one’s own life than of another’s [CCC 2264].