Letter to Congressmen and Senators on Gun Congrol

I wrote the following letter to Senators Cornyn and Cruz and Congressman Mac Thornberry on February 20, 2018.  I also sent it tot he White House.  Anyone who wishes to copy and send the recommendations in my letter to their representatives in Washington is free to do so.  I simply ask that you acknowledge that the recommendations are written by Jim Burleson and me.

________________________________________________

20 February 2018

Dear Congressman Mac Thornberry:

I am a current resident in Canyon, Texas.  I am also a retired municipal deputy police chief from New Mexico, and recently retired criminal justice professor in the State University of New York system where I taught criminology and constitutional law.  The last six years of my post-secondary education career in New York was spent as an academic dean and associate vice president.

Like the rest of the country, my friends and I have been discussing gun control in the wake of the Florida mass shooting.  I presented some recommendations to my friends and a few have suggested that I present these recommendations to you.  In addition to my recommendations, a friend and former colleague, Jim Burleson, a former deputy director of the New Mexico Law Enforcement Academy has added suggestions to my list.  His and my recommendations for legislation are included in this list.

Admittedly, it is not a perfect list for legislation, but it is a start and I believe it would go a long way toward addressing the problem we currently have.  The stark reality is that no matter what is done now or in the future, someone will find a way around the law while others will simply continue to flat out break it.

Here are our recommendations with footnoted comments.  The list is lengthy, but I do hope you review and consider these action items as part of a comprehensive approach to protecting our children in schools while at the same time protecting those who want to secure their Second Amendment rights.  The NRA probably wouldn’t like some of these suggestions.

Regards,

Gregory B. Talley

115 Nicci Lane

Canyon, TX 79015

gregory.talley@yahoo.com

1.     Require that all purchasers of any semi-automatic firearm except for those that fire .22 caliber bullets, be at least 21-years-old.[1]

2.     Require all first-time purchasers of any firearm complete an approved gun safety course.[2]

3.     Continue the instant background check system.[3]

4.     Require at the time of purchase of a firearm that the buyer complete an approved (by a board of psychologists) short psychological screening test (perhaps a section of the MMPI) regardless of the number of firearms a person has purchased in the past, which test can be administered by the seller and be automatically evaluated electronically.  The psychological screening is to be completed by a non-government agency, subject to review by court order in the event of an unlawful shooting.  Failures of the screening would be appealed through an in-person evaluation by a licensed psychologist and ruled upon by a judge.[4]

5.     Except for automatic weapons already permitted by law (pre-1986 manufactured), continue to outlaw the possession of automatic weapons.

6.     Rather than prohibit the addition of items that converts a semi-automatic weapon to an automatic weapon, prohibit the addition of ANY item to a semi-automatic weapon that converts it to firing more than one bullet at a time with a trigger pull, regardless of the rate of fire.[5]

7.     Restrict the sale of video games that depict the shooting of weapons at people or animals, using edged weapons to kill or injure a person, the use of explosive devices, or the use of any other item to kill or injure a person to persons over the age of 21.[6]

8.     Hire retired police or former honorably discharged military members to provide armed presence on school campuses.[7]

9.     Require any person except sworn law enforcement officers to pass through a magnetometer or be subjected to a visual or pat-down search upon entering a school.[8]

10.  Require in-service training to teachers at all grade levels to complete a course that helps them to identify potentially dangerous students and provide the means for them to report their suspicions to school administrators, school counselors and/or school mental health personnel, and the subject student’s parents or guardians.  Assure that there are no adverse repercussions directed to teachers making good faith reports.

11.  No federal funds for any hospital not equipped with a mental hold area manned with qualified personnel.

12.  A comprehensive data base for mental health checks accessible to police, judicial and gun sales.

13.  Expanded family courts to hear wide varieties of mental health cases.

14.  Mandatory reporting requirements for mental health related danger on par with similar requirements for child abuse.

15.   

---

[1] Ruger makes a popular rifle (10-22) as does Marlin.  There are probably other popular semi-automatic rifles suitable for target practice and plinking.  Removing these from permissible firearms would probably meet with strong objection.

[2] Hunter safety and NRA firearm safety courses are readily available and for a nominal fee.

[3] We know that the instant background checks are not perfect, but they need to continue.  If there are things to beef these up then they should be included.

[4] I received a few comments about this particular recommendation; However, something is better than nothing.  Those administering the test need to be trained in administering.  There are sufficient resources out there to score such a test.  When I was in law enforcement we used a psychological screening test that rooted out the most unsuitable applicants.  Some, we learned, were downright dangerous.  Such a screening as a designated section of the MMPI could quickly be administered and scored by an outside vendor.

[5] Doing this will make it unnecessary to come back every other year to adopt new legislation that converts a semi-automatic weapon to a full automatic.

[6] I can hear the First Amendment supporters and manufacturers of video games (and even violent movies) crying foul on this already.  That said, we are already talking about Second Amendment restrictions as well as acknowledging those that are in place.  There is adequate research out there to show that the power of suggestion of these games and videos are indeed powerful and influential.  It’s time to dial it back.

[7] Former police and military police already have a world of training.  They would need training dealing with school security and dealing with youth.  Obviously, they would need to maintain certain certifications in firearms, first aid, etc.

[8] This does not have to be intrusive and it doesn’t have to expensive and lengthy.  It does present problems concerning the entry of students, faculty, and staff during high volume traffic hours.  Though not likely agreeable with the NEA, even teachers and staff could be used in this process.  Another problem would be things such as basketball games, but the object here is to keep firearms out of the schools.

I Still Wake Up in a Cold Sweat

I occasionally still wake up in the middle of the night in a cold sweat.  I don’t do it as much as I did 20, 30, and 40 years ago, but I still do it.

My good friend Doc Brad Spaulding, was a deputy sheriff before he became a doctor.  One evening as we visited reliving our past lives he commented that we’ve seen things that men aren’t supposed to see.  He was right, you know.  By the way, I miss Brad.  A different enemy got to him.

The things I saw bothered me and yes, occasionally kept me up at night.  But, they didn’t have the same impact on me as did the other thing that kept me up.

I was on duty the evening that Richard was shot in the chest.  He was off duty at the time.  It was touch and go for him for a while.  But, as soon as the news came over the radio everyone on the department went on hyper alert.  We all began looking for a suspect and a suspect car without knowing what to look for.  It didn’t matter.  It kept us busy in spite of the difficulty of looking through the tears.

Richard survived and the shooter was identified.  We all breathed a sigh of relief.  However, it was a stark reminder that at any time, for any reason, and in any manner it could have been any one of us.  It could have been Frank.  It could have been me.

Police live on the edge.  I know.  Police do things that most people don’t do.  There’s a price for doing that.  Some officers are killed in accidents while in pursuit of someone who has committed a crime.  Some are killed while responding to an accident or a crime when a person not paying attention pulls out in front of the speeding police car.  Some are struck and killed by cars while the officer is out issuing a motorist a traffic citation or while changing a stranded person’s tire.  Some drown while trying to save someone else.  Some are stabbed to death.  Some are exposed to hazardous materials in the line of duty.  Some even contract deadly diseases while trying to help another.  Some have been poisoned.  Of all the manners of death an officer can face though, gunfire outnumbers them all.

Sometimes the gunfire is in the heat of a gun battle.  Lately, ambush seems to be the preferred method of killing police.  Sometimes police are killed with their own duty weapon as they scramble to retain their weapon from the “bad guy” who didn’t want to go back to prison or decided it was time to kill a cop.  That was my story, but I lived to write the reports.

Police officers know all of this.

So, when the dust settles officers tend to look back and evaluate or assess what they did earlier in the night or day or evening and think about where things could have gone south.  They think about things like when their cars fishtail and their back bumpers hit the guardrail protecting them from a 500 foot drop-off.  Had the guardrail been just a little weaker or had they hit it just a little harder someone would be knocking on a surviving spouse’s door.  They think about drawing their weapons first and the other guy having second thoughts and what if.  They think about the shadows that move in the darkened buildings that were left unsecured.  (Your heart hasn’t sufficiently stopped if you haven’t seen a moving shadow in a building at two in the morning.)  They think about the car that started to pull out in front of them but stopped just in time.  They also think about the times when they pulled a gun on a suspect, finger on the trigger but didn’t pull it.  Of course, it usually is the right decision, but what if he or she should have pulled the trigger.  Or, what if he or she pulled the trigger but should not have done so.  These are the kinds of dream - nightmares - that wake police officers up.  The dead bodies, abused babies, tortured souls - the things Doc Spaulding talked about -  simply add to the nightmares.

They have constant reminders.  Friends they’ve never met end up being the headline; except now it seems that it happens so often that it’s a byline.

I occasionally still wake up in the middle of the night in a cold sweat.  I don’t do it as much as I did 20, 30, and 40 years ago, but I still do it.

The Effect of the Obama Administration of Firearms Applications

I posted something recently saying that a salesperson at the firearms counter at a sporting goods store said that they lost their best salesman in the last election.  It was a true account that took place at the Academy Sporting Goods store in Amarillo on Saturday, December 30, 2017.  The salesman was dead serious.  When I posted the summary of that conversation I added three little words: “Think About It.”

I recently spoke with a salesperson at the firearms counter at the Cabela’s store in Albuquerque.  His comment to me about firearms sales was telling.  Firearms sales slowed to a crawl compared to sales during the previous eight years following the last presidential election.  I am compelled to once again say, “Think About It.”

I believe the vast majority of Americans are concerned about gun violence.  There is a handful of wackos who don’t care.  Thankfully, they constitute a minority - a handful.  However, the debate rages on between conservatives and liberals on how to address the problem.  The extreme left would confiscate all firearms, even from the police.  The extreme right would present newborn babies with NRA membership and a loaded AR-15.  OK, maybe that’s a little extreme for the far right.

In the interest of full disclosure, I am not a member of the NRA, but I favor their training emphasis, position on the Second Amendment, and mission.  I don’t believe the NRA would issue membership to newborns.

In the course of my studies and research, there is something that rings familiar with these statements from salesmen from two reputable firearms dealers and I believe there is a lesson to be learned in application to gun violence.

Several years ago, a criminologist by the name of Edwin Schur wrote a book called Radical Nonintervention.  In his book dealing with juvenile crime, he presents evidence showing that we have a better success rate at preventing recidivism by doing nothing to juvenile offenders than by running them through the juvenile justice system.  By making a big deal out of juvenile offenses we encourage juvenile offenders to reoffend.

In my own published drug abuse prevention research I assert that children base their actions on their perception of what their older peers are doing.  For example, fifth graders believe that sixth graders use addictive substances at a higher rate than what sixth graders actually use.

Noted criminologist, Howard Becker, stated that the criminal label overrides any other label a person may have once that person has committed a crime or delinquent act.  Consequently, that person will continue to offend, often escalating in seriousness.  Likewise, Edwin Sutherland in his Differential Association Theory states that criminal behavior is learned, which learning includes the techniques of committing the crimes and the motives, drives, attitudes, and rationalizations for committing those crimes.  Further, building on the work of Shaw and McKay, Sutherland describes a type of Social Disorganization that exists that breeds criminal behavior. David Matza in explaining his theory on Drift says that criminals not only drift in and out of criminality, but that delinquent (criminal) behavior is likely to occur in areas of the social structure in which control has been loosened, freeing the person to respond to whatever criminal forces happen to come along.  (See Theoretical Criminology, by Vold and Bernard for discussions on Labeling, Differential Association, Social Disorganization, and Delinquency and Drift.)

Understanding that there is no one theory that fits all, it is incumbent upon serious students of crime to put the pieces together, pulling pertinent parts from appropriate theories and aligning them to meet the requirements of any given situation.  There is no such thing as a common theory to explain all crime.  Likewise, there is no such thing as a common theory to explain any specific crime.  The number of theories to explain behaviors of multiple people for a specific type of crime would be as big as the number of people engaged in those behaviors.  It would be irresponsible to state that all mass murderers commit their crimes because of Theory A or Theory B or Theory X.  Nonetheless, many of the mass murderers and spree killers share several things in common.  It is that common thread we look for in the process of explaining criminal behavior.  That common thread acts as a springboard for looking deeper into the actual nexus between offender and offense.

Since we are interested in gun violence I suggest that we first look at the anecdotal evidence provided by the two firearms sales clerks.  Firearm sales have slowed to a crawl since the last presidential election.  We need only review recent history to understand that the Second Amendment was under serious threat from the Obama Administration and a Democrat Party controlled Congress.  A period of several months passed when it was impossible to find firearm ammunition.  Though that period has passed, it is still difficult in many places to find .22 caliber ammunition, popular for plinking.  The lack of availability of ammunition caused widespread panic and fear among firearms owners and many gun owners began to stockpile ammunition.

The threat of removal of ammunition is over and the threat of confiscation of firearms and making firearm purchases more difficult have ceased.  Once again ammunition of all calibers is found on sporting goods shelves firearm sales have slowed.

Longitudinal studies are helpful in looking at trends and allow us to compare one unit of time to several other units of time.  While there are no control groups for comparison we can at least look to see what historical events took place during the time being studied which allows us to make some assumptions about the effects of those events on the data.

As I began researching the history of firearms sales over the past 20 years I found a number of articles that actually used the wording of the Academy Sporting Goods salesman that firearms dealers lost their best salesman when President Obama went out of office.  So, I dug a little deeper.

I checked the The National Instant Criminal Background Check System, or NICS, database for answers.  At first, I checked 18 selected states as sort of a check against the news articles and salesman’s comments.  What I found was astounding.  There not only was a noticeable increase in instant criminal background checks beginning with the Obama Administration, but there was also a noticeable decline in background checks during the beginning of the Trump Administration.  Of course, we have only one year to look at with the Trump Administration, but there is more.

After reviewing the statistics for the 18 states I continued my search and found data for criminal background checks from 1999 through 2017 and all of January 2018.  I selected January 2018 as it is the only month available at this time and compared it to each January from 1999 through 2017.

Year     January Year Total

1999 591,355 9,138,123 

2000 639,972 8,546,037 

2001 640,528 8,910,191 

2002 665,803 8,454,322 

2003 653,751 8,481,588 

2004 695,000 8,687,671 

2005 685,811 8,952,945 

2006 775,518 10,036,933 

2007 894,608 11,177,335 

2008 942,556 12,709,023 

2009 1,213,885 14,033,824 

2010 1,119,229 14,409,616 

2011 1,323,336 16,454,951 

2012 1,377,301 19,592,303 

2013 2,495,440 21,093,273 

2014 1,660,355 20,908,547 

2015 1,772,794 23,141,970 

2016 2,545,802 27,538,673 

2017 2,043,184 25,235,215 

2018 1,000,530

The results again were dramatic as can be seen in the graphs below. 

Looking at the numbers and the graphs in another way helps us to understand the impact that the Obama Administration has had on the sale of firearms, or at least on the applications to purchase firearms.  The eight years prior to the Obama Administration from 2000 to 2007 there was a 37.8% increase in the number of applications.  The same eight-year time frame in the Obama Administration from 2008 to 2016 saw a 116.7% in firearm applications.

Now, criminal background checks do not necessarily represent the total number of firearms purchases.  First of all, there are denials.  And, states have their own restrictions on sales.  Not all states are equal when it comes to firearms sales.  Secondly, private sales are not included and clearly stolen firearms are not included.  However, if the background checks are representative of legitimate interests in purchasing firearms, then we can assume that there was a fairly significant jump in the number of firearms purchased during the Obama Administration.  Why is this important?  Simple.  President Obama had a campaign of reducing firearms in the hands of citizens which stimulated a scare among people that their guns would be taken away.  Therefore, people bought guns when they had the chance.  That threat went away with the Trump Administration.  Of course, we’ll need a few more years to see what effect the Trump Administration has on firearms sales before we can conclude that his administration’s stance on firearms has any bearing on the sales of firearms.  But, it is hard to deny the decline in firearms purchase applications during Turmp’s first year in office.

If the trend holds true for the rest of the Trump Administration, then we may be able to conclude that if you want to slow down gun sales then stop the threat of taking guns away or making the purchase of a firearm more difficult.

However, tying the sales of firearms to murder rates by firearms is a bit more tricky.  FBI Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) and Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) are not especially helpful in sorting through the data.  One thing is clear and that is that murder and non-negligent manslaughter have steadily decreased over the years.  The other thing we do know is that these murder rates were at a low from 1950 through the mid-1960s.  Then a dramatic increase took place until the early 1990s and took a plunge from about 25,000 per year to about 15,000 in 2010 (https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/htus8008.pdf#page=27).

Follow-up study needs to be conducted to determine the role of firearms in each murder during this short study.

Conclusions

1.     You cannot slow down the sales of firearms with the perceived threat of restricting firearms ownership.

2.     If you want to slow down firearms purchases and ownership you need to remove the perceived threat of restricting firearms ownership.

3.     The number of murders appear to decrease with the number of firearms in circulation.

4.     There may actually be something to the assertion that guns don’t kill people but that people kill people.

5.     Think About It.

Note: This is not a purely academic study.  However, statistics were obtained from the FBI Uniform Crime Reports and the Bureau of Justice Statistics.  See also Theoretical Criminology by Vold and Bernard.