Jimmy Carter on gun control - I am ashamed...

[Shadi Khalil]

What? 'Got a crystal ball or somethin'?

My crystal ball is in the shop this week, my bad.

Jimmy Carter should practice keeping his mouth shut. He knows nothing of the concept, like most everything else, and really needs to learn it.

I agree, dont talk about things you dont understand. I think there are alot of things he does understand. The thing with Jimmy Carter is, whether he says something good or bad, no ones going to listen.

[buzz_knox]

I think there are alot of things he does understand.

A more accurate statement is that there were a lot of things he understood at one point. I believe he's lost the capability for true understanding over the years, due to age and outrage at the way history has treated him.

[maestro pistolero]

I think 'ole Jimmeh needs his diaper changed. He's gotten a little grouchy.

[P5 Guy]

Maybe Jimmy can move to the Middle East and try taking their assault rifles.

[Brian Pfleuger]

delete

[zxcvbob]

Carter did one good thing while in office; he started a comprehensive national energy policy. IIRC, even had solar collectors on the White House.

Reagan dismantled it as soon as he got in office.

Oh, and one other thing I almost forgot about. Carter signed the law that legalized home brewing of beer. (Wine was already legal, but beer technically was not)

[Playboypenguin]

I once volunteered on a Habitat for Humanity program outside of Atlanta where I got to meet former Pres. Carter and even work along side him for a day. In my opinion Jimmy Carter is an amazing man, he is an impressive intellectual, he is an exemplary human being, he is an outstanding motivator, and he is an example of compassion and humanity that most men and women could only dream of comparing to....but he is a horrible politician and just too far left to be setting public policy.

[Markbb]

I guess I had to jump in on this one since I own the dreaded black rifle...remember the 2A is not about hunting period...but I use my ARs for hunting especially the 458 SoCom knocks wild ferrel pigs down like the hand of God reached down and smacked it...and yes we here in Oklahoma and Texas have a real big problem with these critters...Carter has nothing to lose by making those outragous comments he surly not going to hold another elected postion if he can get elected...I took an oath when I was 18yrs old to support and defend the constitution against enemys foriegn and domestic...just my 2centavos

[USAFNoDak]

I once volunteered on a Habitat for Humanity program outside of Atlanta where I got to meet former Pres. Carter and even work along side him for a day. In my opinion Jimmy Carter is an amazing man, he is an impressive intellectual, he is an exemplary human being, he is an outstanding motivator, and he is an example of compassion and humanity that most men and women could only dream of comparing to....but he is a horrible politician and just too far left to be setting public policy.

Those are some of the same sentiments I have about GHW Bush, except he's not too far left or too far right. I thought he was a mediocre politician at best, but I suspect he is a pretty good human being, and an amazing man in real life. He did some good things, but he failed at others. I think he tried to be too nice at times and was a go along to get along Prez. That often doesn't translate into good leadership. I almost felt like he didn't want to be the Prez anymore in his campaign battle against Clinton. Maybe he found it too hard to be nice and be a leader, all at the same time. That's just my opinion. I never met him as you had met Carter.

Note: Back to the topic at hand, my younger brother just joined ranks with us EBR owners. That's Evil Black Rifle owners for those of you in Rio Linda, CA. He bought a DPMS with a 20" barrel. Looks nice in the picture. I'll have to visit him in a couple of weeks to help him break it in. Aim small, miss small.

[oldcspsarge]

By JIMMY CARTER
Published: April 26, 2009
Atlanta


Times Topics: Gun Control
THE evolution in public policy concerning the manufacture, sale and possession of semiautomatic assault weapons like AK-47s, AR-15s and Uzis has been very disturbing. Presidents Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton and I all supported a ban on these formidable firearms, and one was finally passed in 1994.

When the 10-year ban was set to expire, many police organizations — including 1,100 police chiefs and sheriffs from around the nation — called on Congress and President George W. Bush to renew and strengthen it. But with a wink from the White House, the gun lobby prevailed and the ban expired.

I have used weapons since I was big enough to carry one, and now own two handguns, four shotguns and three rifles, two with scopes. I use them carefully, for hunting game from our family woods and fields, and occasionally for hunting with my family and friends in other places. We cherish the right to own a gun and some of my hunting companions like to collect rare weapons. One of them is a superb craftsman who makes muzzle-loading rifles, one of which I displayed for four years in my private White House office.

But none of us wants to own an assault weapon, because we have no desire to kill policemen or go to a school or workplace to see how many victims we can accumulate before we are finally shot or take our own lives. That’s why the White House and Congress must not give up on trying to reinstate a ban on assault weapons, even if it may be politically difficult.

An overwhelming majority of Americans, including me and my hunting companions, believe in the right to own weapons, but surveys show that they also support modest restraints like background checks, mandatory registration and brief waiting periods before purchase.

A majority of Americans also support banning assault weapons. Many of us who hunt are dismayed by some of the more extreme policies of the National Rifle Association, the most prominent voice in opposition to a ban, and by the timidity of public officials who yield to the group’s unreasonable demands.

Heavily influenced and supported by the firearms industry, N.R.A. leaders have misled many gullible people into believing that our weapons are going to be taken away from us, and that homeowners will be deprived of the right to protect ourselves and our families. The N.R.A. would be justified in its efforts if there was a real threat to our constitutional right to bear arms. But that is not the case.

Instead, the N.R.A. is defending criminals’ access to assault weapons and use of ammunition that can penetrate protective clothing worn by police officers on duty. In addition, while the N.R.A. seems to have reluctantly accepted current law restricting sales by licensed gun dealers to convicted felons, it claims that only “law-abiding people” obey such restrictions — and it opposes applying them to private gun dealers or those who sell all kinds of weapons from the back of a van or pickup truck at gun shows.

What are the results of this profligate ownership and use of guns designed to kill people? In 2006, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported more than 30,000 people died from firearms, accounting for nearly 20 percent of all injury deaths. In 2005, every nine hours a child or teenager in the United States was killed in a firearm-related accident or suicide.

Across our border, Mexican drug cartels are being armed with advanced weaponry imported from the United States — a reality only the N.R.A. seems to dispute.

The gun lobby and the firearms industry should reassess their policies concerning safety and accountability — at least on assault weapons — and ease their pressure on acquiescent politicians who fear N.R.A. disapproval at election time. We can’t let the N.R.A.’s political blackmail prevent the banning of assault weapons — designed only to kill police officers and the people they defend.

Jimmy Carter, the 39th president, is the winner of the 2002 Nobel Peace Prize.

[USAFNoDak]

Let's address some of President Carter's points:

have used weapons since I was big enough to carry one, and now own two handguns, four shotguns and three rifles, two with scopes. I use them carefully, for hunting game from our family woods and fields, and occasionally for hunting with my family and friends in other places. We cherish the right to own a gun and some of my hunting companions like to collect rare weapons.

This guy is a certifiable nut case. His age is affecting his thinking, it would seem. So, he owns sniper rifles, eh? He also owns handguns which are the weapon of choice for criminals who kill cops, innocent people, and other criminals. I use all of my guns carefully as well, including my "assault weapons". I too like to collect rare weapons. So, I'm just as much of a good guy as he is.

But none of us wants to own an assault weapon, because we have no desire to kill policemen or go to a school or workplace to see how many victims we can accumulate before we are finally shot or take our own lives. That’s why the White House and Congress must not give up on trying to reinstate a ban on assault weapons, even if it may be politically difficult.

I have no desire to kill a policeman or anyone else for that matter, be it at a school or workplace. I could kill with a sniper rifle, or with a handgun as the guy did at V-Tech. So why does Carter own handguns then? He's tilted so far left that he fell off his park bench. I don't want to take my own life with a gun or any other weapon. Does he? I don't want to be shot by cops. Yet, I still want to own my assault weapons. Am I just weird or is he just crazy?

A majority of Americans also support banning assault weapons. Many of us who hunt are dismayed by some of the more extreme policies of the National Rifle Association, the most prominent voice in opposition to a ban, and by the timidity of public officials who yield to the group’s unreasonable demands.

Proof please Mr. Prez. I've not seen a poll lately on how many people want to ban assault weapons. 65 of his own party members in Congress sent a letter to the current AG and told the AG to lay off pushing for an AWB. Are they just stooges of the NRA? Are they scared of the NRA? Why would they be scared? Because NRA members might vote them out? Too bad. That's our political system at work Mr. Prez.

Heavily influenced and supported by the firearms industry, N.R.A. leaders have misled many gullible people into believing that our weapons are going to be taken away from us, and that homeowners will be deprived of the right to protect ourselves and our families. The N.R.A. would be justified in its efforts if there was a real threat to our constitutional right to bear arms. But that is not the case.

He says that the NRA is misleading gullble people into believing that our weapons will be taken away from us in an article he wrote proposing that we have our assault weapons taken away from us. Who's gullible again, here, Mr. Prez.? Who's gone off the deep end?

Instead, the N.R.A. is defending criminals’ access to assault weapons and use of ammunition that can penetrate protective clothing worn by police officers on duty. In addition, while the N.R.A. seems to have reluctantly accepted current law restricting sales by licensed gun dealers to convicted felons, it claims that only “law-abiding people” obey such restrictions — and it opposes applying them to private gun dealers or those who sell all kinds of weapons from the back of a van or pickup truck at gun shows.

I have yet to hear the NRA say that criminals should have access to ANY guns. I've heard them say that criminals should be locked up so they can't get guns and commit more crimes.

There is no such thing as "private dealers". You can sell a gun without a license from your private collection, but you can't be engaged in the business of selling guns for profit without being licensed. Again, he seems confused. Alzheimiers? No joke, but I think he may be there. His scoped rifles could also penetrate cops protective vests, depending upon what caliber they are. He's either looney, misinformed, or disingenous. Boy, he really hates the NRA, doesn't he. Too much hate is probably stressful on his heart and nerves at his age. He should let go of the hate and relax a little.

What are the results of this profligate ownership and use of guns designed to kill people? In 2006, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported more than 30,000 people died from firearms, accounting for nearly 20 percent of all injury deaths. In 2005, every nine hours a child or teenager in the United States was killed in a firearm-related accident or suicide.

Um, don't many liberals say that all guns are designed for one thing, to kill? Don't many liberals say that handguns are only designed for killing? Why does he own any handguns. Why does he own any guns? Do I hear Rod Serling talking in the background?

The CDC numbers include all guns, not just assault weapons. Why does he own any guns then? Has he entered "The Twighlight Zone"? He's in the twighlight of his life and it's obviously taking a toll on his ability to think rationally and with logic. Again, most of those deaths and injuries are associated with handguns which he owns. He should be feeling really guilty, but he can't think straight anymore.

Across our border, Mexican drug cartels are being armed with advanced weaponry imported from the United States — a reality only the N.R.A. seems to dispute.

They don't dispute it. They dispute that the majority of the guns are coming from licensed gun dealers in the US because most of these guns are coming from the US govt. and other countries such as China and Venezuela. Much of the weaponry is full auto, hand grenades, RPG's, frag grenades, rocket launchers, etc. You can't buy that crap at a dealer or a gun show in the US Mr. Prez. Is he confused by the media and Obama or is he just lying to support Obama and a new AWB?

The gun lobby and the firearms industry should reassess their policies concerning safety and accountability — at least on assault weapons — and ease their pressure on acquiescent politicians who fear N.R.A. disapproval at election time. We can’t let the N.R.A.’s political blackmail prevent the banning of assault weapons — designed only to kill police officers and the people they defend.

More irrational hatred of the NRA. There is a reason that politicians fear the NRA. How often do we hear that the SAF or the GOA need to be held up for public scrutiny for their policies on gun rights? They are not publicly and politically powerful enough for the pols to worry about. But the NRA, with 4 million plus members who cherish their right to vote as much as their right to keep and bear arms, they must be paid attention to. So what? That's how politics works.

Now you can see why he was only a one term failure as a leader. Sheesh. He's daffy.

[Creature]

Published in the NY Times...

[Al Norris]

I feel a merge coming on....

[Hkmp5sd]

"The Real Jimmy Carter: How Our Worst Ex-President Undermines American Foreign Policy, Coddles Dictators and Created the Party of Clinton and Kerry" by Steven F. Hayward

[Webleymkv]

I see no reason to get worked up over this. Jimmy Carter has about as much sway in this matter as the Queen of England: not much.

[Evan Thomas]

And the Queen is better-looking.

She's probably a better hunter than Mr. Carter, as well; does anyone else remember the time, a few years back, when she got into all sorts of trouble with the animal-rights crowd for dispatching a wounded pheasant?

[USAFNoDak]

And the Queen is better-looking.

And smarter.

[freakintoguns]

30K people died in 2006 form gunshot wounds???? OMG what about all the other people that died from oh i dunno, heart attacks strokes cancer AIDS drug over doses ETC ETC? 30K is minor in a country with 300M people ( give our takea few). also, how many of those deaths were people shot by polie officers? i hate when people try to skew numbers for to gain favor amongst the sheep. we really need more sheep dogs. i think the media and the government truly fears smart people

[stilettosixshooter]

#1 - Thank you for taking me at my word that I am anti-ban.

#2 - Thank you for taking the time to explain things to me calmly and patiently.

I am a total gun novice, saw one of the "scary guns" in person for the first time a week or two ago at the gun shop. Was actually the first time I'd even been in a gun shop. But since joining the gun community (with the assistance and guidance of my family and a few friends who shoot regularly) I have been anxious to discuss the gun-related things I am learning with others. The "assault weapon" issue invariably comes up, and although my instinct is to shy away from any gun ban, my inexperience keeps me from saying much for-or-against. Thus, my question

Maestro:

You seem to have no bias against military style rifles, so the fact that your question quietly assumes there is a performance difference between what some people call an assault weapon, and any other semi-automatic firearm, is an indication of how deeply ingrained the so-called assault weapon myth is in the culture. And it IS a myth.

I did assume there was a performance difference - and am pleasantly surprised to find otherwise. That lends support to my anti-ban instinct.

I think the myth is VERY deeply ingrained - mostly because of image association. Terrorists always hoist the "scary guns" in their pictures, soldiers use them in violent war movies, crazy renegade military forces abroad fire them into the sky off rickety truck beds. Semi-automatic or otherwise, the "look" has negative associations for folks.

Is there a way to increase visibility of a semi-automatic rifle as owned by responsible, trustworthy citizens? How do we educate people who, like me, don't even realize there was a question I wasn't asking about the "assault weapon" category?

USA:

Already we can see some confusion by the person who posted the above quote. I'm not trying to denigrate that poster, but it's important to point out some errors or potential errors in his above statement. He did mention that he wants to be educated, so here goes.

She, she! And yes, I am glad you took the time to educate. Thank you.



Not to sound disbelieving, but am I understanding correctly that the rifles shoot the same calibers as the semi-automatic handguns? Is there any meaningful difference between the velocity of a same-caliber bullet shot out of a different gun?

I am trying to wrap my head around my own misinformed-ness. I feel duped! 'Cause I have been! Kindof want one for HD now. Might as well put the negative image associate to good use - against the BGs!

[buzz_knox]

Not to sound disbelieving, but am I understanding correctly that the rifles shoot the same calibers as the semi-automatic handguns? Is there any meaningful difference between the velocity of a same-caliber bullet shot out of a different gun?

There are many pistol caliber carbines, just as there are more than a few rifle caliber pistols. The increased barrel length typically found on the carbines provides some increased velocity but not as much as you'd expect because the powder has ceased burning (having been designed to be consumed within a pistol barrel's length). You do get increased accuracy over a pistol, ease of shooting, and cheap cross training.

[Tom Servo]

30K people died in 2006 form gunshot wounds???? OMG what about all the other people that died from oh i dunno, heart attacks strokes cancer AIDS drug over doses

More people die of bedsores in this country every year than from firearms. In fact, more people die from unnecessary medical procedures.

The WISQARS database can be very useful for this stuff. The VPC has been caught trying to massage statistics for awhile, and this was a way I once tripped them up.

Bear in mind, that ~30,000 figure includes all causes. That means homicide, suicide, and "accidents," a catch-all which often includes suicide. Actual gun violence hovers ~11,000.

It's not a pretty number, but I can produce statistics against which gun violence pales in comparison. A high-school age child is 9 times as likely to die playing football than from a bullet.

Oh, and one other thing I almost forgot about. Carter signed the law that legalized home brewing of beer.

Billy Beer! I still have a six-pack in the garage somewhere.

He's a good human being and a great humanitarian. I'm not happy with his views, but as I said earlier, they hold no weight.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

There is a problem in using other causes of death in arguments. Now, students - here's the point. The intent in the causality of the death affects people more than the actual numbers.

More people die in accidents or from bedsores or doctors, etc. Your emotional mind may not care. Why - they view the firearm as an instrument designed to do harm (yes, it's just a tool - sings the choir unconvincingly to the nongun world). Thus, a death from an intentional instrument of harm is more reprehensible than a side effect of medical care or a mode of transportation.

EBRs clearly descending from a line of killing instruments and arouse negative feelings in some - INCLUDING many of the sports shooting inclination.

So if you do argue the point about EBRs - you need to know the processes that are active in their evaluation outside of the views of our choir. And you need to know that some of these arguments are not very effective if they are being viewed by fast, emotional based affective evaluation processes.

Simply saying they are not that dangerous, doctors kill more or it's the 2nd Amend. may not carry the debate.

[carguychris]

Thus, a death from an intentional instrument of harm is more reprehensible than a side effect of medical care or a mode of transportation.

EBRs clearly descending from a line of killing instruments and arouse negative feelings in some - INCLUDING many of the sports shooting inclination.

So if you do argue the point about EBRs - you need to know the processes that are active in their evaluation outside of the views of our choir. And you need to know that some of these arguments are not very effective if they are being viewed by fast, emotional based affective evaluation processes.

+1. IMHO the arguments in support of legal EBR ownership should emphasize the fact that thay have plenty of use in legitimate shooting sports, that they're useful for legal self-defense, that they lack full-auto capability like the guns you see on TV in the hands of BGs and terrorists, and that plenty of law-abiding citizens own them and never use them to commit any kind of crime.

It should also be emphasized that most criminals don't use EBRs, criminalizing them would merely prop up the black market and support the mafia, and that the Mexican drug cartels have plenty of sources of illegal weapons other than U.S. straw buyers who are already breaking multiple U.S. federal laws to supply them.

Most people lack the attention span to listen to us explain the difference between an "intermediate-power" and "full-power" cartridge, and may not care anyway. Most U.S. citizens do not have a strong and tangible fear of federal government tyranny, and trying to convince them otherwise will just cause them to tune us out, or worse yet, to write off all gun-rights supporters as potentially violent revolutionary nutcases.

To get back to the original topic, I deeply admire Jimmy Carter for his outspokenness and his human-rights work, but he's wrong on this one.

I also think that the gun-rights lobby needs to think of ways to generate positive PR on the EBR issue.

All IMHO of course.

[maestro pistolero]

Not to sound disbelieving, but am I understanding correctly that the rifles shoot the same calibers as the semi-automatic handguns?

Generally, no. Some 'long guns' shoot pistol ammo like 9mm and 45, and are often referred to as carbines. Although a carbine may also be somewhat diminutive rifle that, in fact uses rifle ammo.

Few pistols shoot rifle ammo, but there are exceptions, AR pistols, for example. Pistols that use rifle ammo have limited usefulness in my opinion.

Is there any meaningful difference between the velocity of a same-caliber bullet shot out of a different gun?

Not so much with pistols that use pistol ammo, There is a difference, but since pistols all have relatively short barrels, it is not much.

With pistols that use rifle ammo, there is a significant loss in velocity that the round depends upon for its effectiveness, also a loss in sight radius (the distance between the front and rear sight that helps to place accurate fire), and the inability to 'shoulder' the gun (no buttstock), which is the integral part of rifle technique that enables accurate fire at distance.

Pistol ammo is usually short and fat, and is most useful for up close use, say, under 50 feet. Actual defensive situations are usually much closer than that, often just a few feet away.

Rifle ammo is also useful up close, but, depending on the caliber, may pose a safety hazard if used in, say, an apartment complex, where any stray rounds could penetrate walls and endanger innocents.

5.56 nato, aka .223 Remington (the AR15/M16 round) may be the most powerful rifle round that would be prudent in such confined living quarters, because it's a light round whose effectiveness is greatly diminished by walls, etc. Choosing an even lighter, hollow point round for home defense in this caliber can reduce overpenetration issues even further. (hollow points tend to stop in their targets better rather than punch right through, also true for handgun ammo)

Is there a way to increase visibility of a semi-automatic rifle as owned by responsible, trustworthy citizens? How do we educate people who, like me, don't even realize there was a question I wasn't asking about the "assault weapon" category?

If you can figure that one out, the NRA will host a parade for you. It is difficult, if not impossible at times, to get any fair play from the mainstream media outlets. There are a few exceptions, CNN's Lou Dobbs being one of them.

Hope this helps, Stilletto.

[carguychris]

Not to sound disbelieving, but am I understanding correctly that the rifles shoot the same calibers as the semi-automatic handguns? Is there any meaningful difference between the velocity of a same-caliber bullet shot out of a different gun?

Yes and no. It depends on several variables. This is a slight sidetrack, but I'll try to keep this brief.

As powder burns, it creates a column of expanding hot gas that pushes the bullet down the barrel. Think of it as an expanding cylinder; as the bullet moves down the barrel, the cylinder gets taller.

When the powder is completely burned, the pressure of the column of hot gas drops off sharply. From that point, the bullet is slowed down by friction between the surface of the bullet and the inside of the barrel. Therefore, there is an optimal barrel length for each cartridge, one that gives the gas enough room to expand, but no extra room to cause the bullet velocity to decline due to friction. This optimal length is determined by the type of powder, the shape of the bullet, and the capacity and shape of the cartridge case.

Pistol cartridges typically have small cases filled with fast-burning powder pushing a relatively large-diameter bullet. The diameter is important because greater diameter equals more surface area rubbing against the barrel, and therefore more friction. The small case and fast-burning powder will accelerate the bullet quickly, but the gas will be expended quickly, and velocity will drop off if the barrel is too long.

Conversely, most modern rifles use a large case filled with slow-burning powder and a relatively small-diameter bullet. This type of cartridge needs a longer barrel to give the gas enough room to expand, but yields a much higher ultimate velocity. If the barrel is too short, the excess hot gas will wastefully blow out the end of the barrel, creating lots of muzzle flash and contributing little to the velocity of the bullet. (Ask anyone who has ever fired a lightweight short-barreled carbine in a high-powered rifle caliber. Think "fireball". )

Most pistol-caliber carbines will fire bullets at somewhat higher velocities than the same load in a handgun, but the difference can be small, and such carbines are usually offered only in relatively high-powered, high-velocity pistol calibers (like .44 Magnum) with relatively short barrels by rifle standards (16"-18"). This minimizes the theoretical performance disadvantages.

OK, back on topic now.