The Falls Church City Council has posted its agenda for the July 27th City Council meeting. They are calling for first reading for the gun ordinance. They are fast tracking this legislative effort with no discussion on the Committee level and moving to first reading under the cloak of COVID 19.
New restrictive gun legislation dominated the most recent legislative session in the Virginia General Assembly and a slate of new gun control laws took effect July 1st in the state of Virginia. This debate however is coming to the City of Falls Church as one new law allows city councils to ban guns in city government owned buildings and land, areas such as recreation or community centers, public parks, or outdoor areas being used during permitted events including adjacent streets to said event. The City Council has this issue on the agenda for the upcoming work session on Monday July 20, 2020.
The issue of guns is personal and contentious. Like the issue of abortion, almost everyone has an opinion about it. However, unlike abortion, the right to bear arms is enumerated by our constitution. Abortion rights are not as clearly delineated and deemed a right via an interpretation of the penumbras of other constitutional protections from several amendments to the constitution. Also like the issue of abortion, when the issue of guns is discussed one can almost find two viewpoints talking over each other as if it were about two different issues altogether so it is not often easy to discuss this much less find a middle ground.
Some people think this is more about a political agenda than the safety of citizens in Falls Church. As an intellectual and academic community there is an expectation that the council would be able to provide and base any decision on accurate information pertinent specifically to our community. Using biased spun data isn’t helpful and the slides made available from work from the city, present information (see slide on page 4) that spans a 17 year period and also includes other local jurisdictions. The biggest number on the chart on statistics for Firearm Related Incidents for Falls Church and these neighboring jurisdictions, is for incidents involving BB guns (50). Robberies are next at 36. How likely are those robbery criminals to be deterred by any local ordinances? We need data for firearm related incidents on the city owned property as is being proposed by this ordnance. That is what we need to look at.
The chart spans SEVENTEEN (17) YEARS and doesn’t provide a yearly breakdown. It omits the locations of these incidents so it is not clear how many of these took place on city property if at all.
Considerations for the Council
What is the potential cost to city tax payers? The City Council needs to be upfront with the citizens about the potential cost to the taxpayer should the city pass restrictive gun ordinances that will in all likelihood face a constitutional challenge. The litigation costs defending the City ordinance can be estimated to be on the order of $250,000 or more according to other localities who have discussed this cost concern. Are the citizens of Falls Church City ready and willing to fund such costs?
Signage would then need to be produced for every public entrance and egress to any city owned building, park and community recreation center. The city council needs to be upfront about these costs and each take a public stance as to why this expenditure, during these times, is a priority over so many other needs.
Will the city be providing extra security and police presence at these public places and events now that law abiding citizens are now left defenseless should an incidence of violence occur. Is the city accepting individual liability should an incident occur? What will be the cost for metal detectors for all the public entrances in order to enforce this ban?
Target of this proposal
Who actually is being targeted by this proposal? The most affected by this ordinance will be law abiding citizens in Falls Church who have conceal carry permits. These citizens would be the most affected by this proposal. According to conceal carry statistics four out of 100 citizens (almost a million people) in the state of Virginia have a permit to conceal carry a gun. Conceal carry permit holders are 5.5 times less likely to commit a violent crime. There are citizens in this city that have government issued permits to conceal carry a gun and it is they that would be the most affected by this proposed ordinance.
The Alexandria City Council recently passed a ban including not just open carry but conceal carry as well on government owned property. How will law abiding citizens know, as they depart a restaurant, which parking lot is government owned and how will they lawfully traverse to their vehicle? Are we prepared to give cause to making an otherwise law abiding citizen a criminal?
Personal safety impact
How will this proposed ordinance in fact make us all safer? The data point that is quoted by council member Letty Hardy refers to statistics that state, “The data from the past 10 years shows that 10% of mass shootings occurred in gun free zones, with the majority happening in private homes.)” Taken at face value of that statement, how does it make the citizen’s of Falls Church safer in fact, by increasing the size of this 10% zone and leaving law abiding citizens defenseless should some incident occur in a setting where they might have been able to carry a weapon to provide their own protection? Looking at the above mentioned chart, what category of firearm related incidents would this ordinance impact and therefore using that data point what is the relative risk to our community that would be lowered by this ordinance?
Many of these new gun laws are referred to using the term “common sense” gun laws so there is interest in understanding what would be common sense about this. As the Council begins its deliberations about this proposal, many citizens in Falls Church are tuned in looking for the logic and the data that would supports its passage.
This is a good story about how gun control is not fair. The Black Guns Matter organization has been fighting against increased gun control also.
The statistics are incorrect. There are 8 million (or so) Virginians. If 4% have concealed carry permits, that’s 320,000, not a million.
Actually the numbers are higher, that was a older study.
Has it at 632k however, because of Reciprocity the state of Virginia honors out of state permit so the total numbers of permit holders are in the millions. As of 2017, there are over 14,500,000 CCW holders ( http://www.gunfacts.info/gun-policy-info/concealed-carry/
A letter I have sent off to the city Council
Good Afternoon, as I understand it Falls Church City Council is discussing gun control tonight in the City Council Work Session. As I’ve read from the information provided by the city council agenda there are a number of options being discussed. These options raise questions.
Options being discussed.
1. Least Restrictive: Make no changes to the existing ordinance, enact no new regulations.
2. Some Change: Restrict or ban open carry of firearms in all or some City government buildings. Continue to allow concealed carry as defined by state law.
3.Moderate Change: Restrict or ban both open and concealed carry of firearms in all or some City government buildings.
4. Most Restrictive: Prohibit the possession, carrying or transportation of any firearms, in public buildings, parks, recreation and community centers and street events where events or rallies, requiring permits, are taking place. Do not restrict ammunition, or components or combination thereof in said spaces.
My comments, questions and concerns.
1. I would like to see the yearly breakdown of slides (4 of 7) for Firearm-related incidents in the city of Falls Church as the data spans 17 years. In many of the categories it looks like that there is less than one incident a year. Some do not take place on city property. How does the data analysis support this ordinance?
2. I would like to know how many of those incidents took place on city property. How many would have been affected by the scope of this ordinance. I would like to see more data/information that supports the need for this legislation. As Falls Church is one of the safest cities. https://patch.com/virginia/fallschurch/how-falls-church-ranks-among-safest-cities-virginia Data shows that more restrictive gun ordinances doesn’t necessarily mean safer. For example, Southern Maryland has severe restrictions on firearms and has over four times the murder rate of Northern Virginia. DC’s murder rate is eight times that of Northern Virginia. Data: https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/local/homicides/
3. I would like to know your thoughts on the problematic issues about banning open carry and allowing concealed carry only. This would put a de facto ban on carrying firearms between ages of 18 through 20 since they are not able to get a concealed carry permit.
a. Recently courts have recently struck down the Virginia state law over universal background checks for this age group because of this de facto ban. https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/part-virginias-new-universal-background-check-law-was-just-struck-down-165148
b. Applicants for a CCW permit must be 21 or older and complete a firearms training course.
Is it common sense to pass laws that potentially cost us the tax payer hundreds of thousands of dollars in litigation potentially. As pointed out by http://fallschurchfacts.com/ “The litigation costs defending the City ordinance can be estimated to be on the order of $250,000 or more according to other localities who have discussed this cost concern. Are the citizens of Falls Church City ready and willing to fund such costs?”
4. I would like to see a map of all the potentially affected areas to get an idea how much city-owned property is no longer welcome to gun owners. Are the sidewalks going to be affected around city property? Will gun owners now have to walk in the road because the sidewalk cuts into Cherry Hill Park down Park Street and Great Falls St.?
5. Let’s run through some basic hypotheticals.
If a neighbor receives a permit for a block party does that mean the citizens who live on that street who work for private armed security companies cannot leave their property to drive to their job? Can citizens not drive to the range? Under “Prohibit the possession, carrying or transportation of any firearms, in public buildings, parks, recreation and community centers and street events where events or rallies, requiring permits, are taking place. Do not restrict ammunition, or components or combination thereof in said spaces.” is seems someone becomes a criminal for stepping off their property. Would this mean those gun owners who live along the parade route would also be barred from leaving their homes? How is that common sense? Is this really making us safer or is this disenfranchisement for groups of people we don’t like. Are we going to follow Alexandria and make stepping off your property a Class 1 misdemeanors punished by up to a year in jail and a $2,500 fine. This ordinance will create a victimless crime.
6. From my understanding of state law signage would have to be installed “”F. Notice of any ordinance adopted pursuant to subsection E shall be posted (i) at all entrances of any building, or part thereof, owned or used by the locality, or by any authority or local governmental entity created or controlled by the locality, for governmental purposes; (ii) at all entrances of any public park owned or operated by the locality, or by any authority or local governmental entity created or controlled by the locality; (iii) at all entrances of any recreation or community center facilities operated by the locality, or by any authority or local governmental entity created or controlled by the locality; and (iv) at all entrances or other appropriate places of ingress and egress to any public street, road, alley, or sidewalk or public right-of-way or any other place of whatever nature that is open to the public and is being used by or is adjacent to a permitted event or an event that would otherwise require a permit.” How much are these signs going to cost? It is common sense that criminals don’t follow the law so we will be spending money on something that doesn’t have any effect on safety.
7. The common Counterpoint I hear to carrying a gun is “why do you need a gun to protect yourself”. We have the police. Here is case law of examples of why that is problematic. “Warren v. District of Columbia (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981) is a District of Columbia Court of Appeals case that held that the police do not owe a specific duty to provide police services to citizens based on the public duty doctrine. The case details are Graphic.https://law.justia.com/cases/district-of-columbia/court-of-appeals/1981/79-6-3.html The point of this example is that the police owe you no duty of individual protection, yet this proposal is taking away citizens right to protect yourself. I am not anti-police they just simply cannot be everywhere they take reports after crimes have been committed. Will the city be guaranteeing protection and safety in the gun free zones if your choses to strip us from being able to defend ourselves? If you would like to take Firearms away can you pass an ordinance to be financially responsible for everybody on the property affected.
8. What is the overall argument for this ordinance?
9. How will this law make the individual citizen safer?
10. I would like to know if you support this proposed ordinance and if so why?
Thank you so much for your time serving on the council. I look forward to hearing from you.
Last night, from the discussion I heard, was that all but one member present were in support of option four. Additionally what I heard is that they also were in favor of mirroring the language from what passed most recently in Alexandria which would be an expansion of option 4. Therefore the council is signalling their intent to add language that would include the transport of ammunition and parts.
I think you are asking great questions, but from what I heard last night, this is more about an agenda/position than anything to do with making Falls Church citizens safer. There was obviously no interest in looking at real relevant data and information that had bearing on public safety because the passage of this ordinance is not about public safety. If it were, then the data that shows that this ordinance would make us all safer would have been presented.
While I know everyone has a right to their opinion, I do feel that elected officials must consider all views, even ones that are not their own and represent, or at least listen to, all of us. Therefore, what I found truly really disturbing is that more time was given to discussing a convenience to our citizenry, as in parking spaces (important here to be sure) than time spent on thoughtful discussion, real data, real facts as it relates to not merely a convenience, but a constitutionally protected civil right.
I wanted to share a further comment with regard to the meeting last night.
I thought both Phil Duncan and Marybeth Connelly asked really good questions. However what I found really very disturbing is the lack of accurate answers provided. It is very alarming to listen to our council members, who might not know the law, or implications there of, turn to our city attorney for counsel and not be provided with accurate and complete forthright answers at this point in the process. I can’t possibly know what was going on there but when Phil Duncan asked about the potential cost to our city should there be a legal challenge to this ordinance, the response, if memory serves, began with something about fairfax county and ended with “I forgot the question.”
Later, when asked by Marybeth Connelly about what this ordinance would mean for stairwells and elevators in (I believe) rented office space (therefore in effect “city property,”) the city attorney began her answer stating that she didn’t know but then ended with mentioning exceptions for police officers. The question was not what does this mean for elevators and stairwells for police officers for which exceptions to this ordinance would obviously be granted. What Ms. Connelly was asking, which was a very good question, is how would this ordinance be enforced or work in areas that serve as an egress for both private office space for private citizens (perhaps on another floor) and city office space? How would this ordinance cover this shared space? I hope Ms. Connelly will pursue her good question and be given a straight up and complete answer.
Ms. Connelly asked another great question: What if someone lives on Park Avenue and wants to walk out of their house and climb into their car and go to the range during the time frame of a permitted event on that street (or something to that effect.) The short answer, just from my understanding, is they can’t. This would be a violation of this proposed ordinance.
I am concerned to listen to this work session and hear so few substantive questions. What was worse though was to hear vague and ambiguous answers to very serious implementation/enforcement questions especially since the council makes it clear it plans to push this swiftly through to first reading and passage.
There is a slippery slope argument to be made. Roll over for these restrictions to your 2nd Amendment rights and there will be more restrictions coming soon – always for our own good, always called “reasonable”.
We should not have to justify why we want to keep all of our rights under the Bill of Rights.
I find it concerning that the city’s trying to push this ordinance through while at the same time restricting public comment. I believe Alexandria and Arlington allow for the citizens to call in and have their 3 minutes on a video chat or over the phone live. Why can’t our little city? If we want to be like Alexandria, and Arlington with the gun laws why can’t we have the same public comment their citizens do.
I saw the city allows for the big guy land developer call in and talk to the council during the work session. We don’t have the technology for this but have a hundred million to spend on a high school? Zoom is a free software FYI.
FALLS CHURCH CITY is not allowing live video public comment or voice public comments on this issue at this time.
Please see the following email correspondence.
I am looking for more information about public comment during the upcoming Council meeting.
How do people speak or sign up to speak at public comment? How does it work?
Thanks in advance,
David Kutchma II
City Council meetings are being held virtually because of COVID. You can view the livestream at http://www.fallschurchva.gov/CouncilMeetings and on FCCTV (Cox 11, RCN 2, Verizon 35).
Public comment is accepted at all regular meetings via e-mail (email@example.com) during the meeting. I read the comments received during the public comment period, which happens around 8 p.m. I will also read any additional comments received about specific items during the discussion of those items. Comments for advertised public hearings are accepted in the same way until the end of the public hearing. Let me know if you have any questions.
Thanks for responding so quickly. Two quick questions.
1. I would like to speak at the next meeting. I would really like have my voice heard. How does that work? Do I call in? Video call?
2. Will my letter that I have sent in be read word-for-word or summarized?
Thanks for your time,
“We don’t have the technology for in-person testimony. You can leave a voicemail at the number below, but I have to transcribe and read those comments. I generally read all of the content of comments for legal public hearings and paraphrase others received during the meeting. I can read all of your comment (within the three-minute time constraint) if you specifically request it in your e-mail. Hope this helps. We are all learning with this new reality. I do know that Council still wants to hear what people have to say. … but comments on any issue are accepted at any time. Let me know what I can do help you get your message to Council. Thanks.
I was watching the work session and I saw that a land developer was able to call in and speak via video chat/link.
What platform or program is being used for these meetings now?
Is the full council, Mayor, Vice mayor and city attorney all fine with this arrangement of not providing a way for people to speak via video link? Please let me know.
I do not agree that transcribing a voice mail or reading a submitted letter is a sufficient substitution for public comment given that the city is trying to limit a Constitutional Protected civil right.
I will share this with City Council and the City Attorney.
A few my interesting opinions and thought-provoking thoughts…
What is thought-provoking is how some of the council members showed up like the ordinance was a wrapped arrangement. It appeared like they were just going through the formalities as some called for the 1st reading next week during the meeting. Interesting… How could you call for the 1st reading of the ordinance next week when this is the 1st time “officially” it was being presented to the public? Seems like there were some backroom conversations going on *cough* that this was talked about not in the work session. Bad council members that’s bad! Has this been mentioned in previous meeting minutes? I checked I don’t see anything. Control+F is a wonderful thing folks. This issue was placed on the agenda and posted I believe 4 days before the Monday meeting! I kid you not ladies and gentlemen 4 days before the Monday night meeting! So sneaky! Then a 1st reading is called for without public comment on a constitutional issue in this city. You call for a 1st reading when the city attorney “in my opinion” looked and acted like a deer in the headlights when basic questions were asked. “I’ll get back to you on this” is what she said I believe. Even with that said let’s move to 1st reading. Officer Dimitri had better answers then our city attorney. Weird. Strange. 200,000$ a year for “I’ll get back to you on this” or what ever useless phrase it was. Someone forgot to do their homework it seems. Meeting participation C-
I mean really… really? In a town full of lawyers, politicians and lawsuits? Wait one of those may fit later.
I should note as a fun fact I looked up the word ramrod, the second meaning of the word means: force a proposed measure to be accepted or completed quickly. Seems fitting I’d say for the shenanigans of what took place last night. Considering the 1st meaning of ramrod might not be legal here anymore soon.
No facts, well I guess there was a chart with some numbers on it. Did we talk about those numbers? Oh, right I bet we’d pass this if there was 0’s all over that chart. I am disappointed really that the chart did not go back to 1861 or 1776. If it had, we would have had a lot more gun deaths in Falls Church to push this with. No real hard-hitting questions on how this will or could go magnificently erroneous. Some members sounded like a kid on Christmas. Yes, I finally get my dream gift. I get to take the toys away from the gun owners. Some happy now to put up some NO GUNS AND NO CRIMES ALLOWED signs. Others, oh look the cool kids are doing it so I should do it too. * cough cough cough* Alexandria and Arlington are the cool kids for those who don’t get it. Someone once told me not to give into peer pressure once, oh well.
I am entertained of what took place, typical one-sided government pushing team insert your teams colors agenda.
One member puzzled me fantastically on how incidents that took place in DC are somehow relevant to our city. Look buddy, using Richmond’s crime rate would have made a better example *cough* same state same laws. You fool, now someone can quip about how the District of Columbia has one of the most restrictive set of gun laws in the country and how gun laws don’t work. You fool again, Yes really, they do. Google it. Wait.. Maybe if DC put up a bunch of signs that would work… Someone should tell them that’s their “issue”.
As the colloquial saying goes “what does the price of tea in China have to do with it.”
Sounds like they are avoiding the hard questions and wanting to shoot this though under the cover of Covid-19 no pun intended or maybe I do intend the pun. As of right now with the world falling apart at the seams, people may not be paying attention, thus cannot show up in mass to comment in person and voice their dissent or approval. I was looking forward to seeing the two sides of a room being split apart. Both sides rallying to their talking points, flags waving, eagles flying, Gun owners on one side of the room and well, you get the point. The city website says they only take public comment by email and letters. I am dejected, no town hall debate, no opposing viewpoints on the main stage under the spotlights. Now there won’t be anything for the You-tube.
I guess we now know why the post office still in business…this kind of stuff.
This is a divisive issue. I get it. Some people don’t like guns, and some do. Abraham Lincoln said, “A house divided against itself, cannot stand.” I find it interesting how some can pick and choose what amendments they like and cast the rest aside. Again, the second amendment is treated like a bastard stepchild. In the end the lawyers will win. Wait did someone mention lawsuits I forgot…
I would like to point out the CDC data on the defensive use of a firearms.
From the CDC
“Although definitions of defensive gun use vary, it is generally defined as the use of a firearm to protect and defend one’s self, family, others, and/or property against crime or victimization.
Estimates of defensive gun use vary depending on the questions asked, populations studied, timeframe, and other factors related to the design of studies. The report Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violenceexternal icon indicates a range of 60,000 to 2.5 million defensive gun uses each year.”
This is good data. Did the city council look over this kinda data? I would like to add on to this. Here are some more facts.
Roughly 15,498 murders were committed in the United States during 2018. Of these, about 11,280 or 73% were committed with firearms.
In 1995, the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology published the results of a 1993 nationwide survey of 4,977 households. It found that over the previous five years, at least 0.5% of households had members who had used a gun for defense during a situation in which they thought someone “almost certainly would have been killed” if they “had not used a gun for protection.” This amounts to 162,000 such incidents per year and excludes all “military service, police work, or work as a security guard.”
Based on survey data from the U.S. Department of Justice, roughly 6.9 million violent crimes were committed in the United States during 2018. These include simple/aggravated assaults, robberies, sexual assaults, rapes, and murders. Of these, about 600,000 or 9% were committed by offenders visibly armed with a gun.
Based on survey data from a 2000 study published in the Journal of Quantitative Criminology, U.S. civilians use guns to defend themselves and others from crime at least 989,883 times per year.
Based on data from a 1993 survey published in the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, at least 3.5% of households had members who had used a gun “for self-protection or for the protection of property at home, work, or elsewhere” over the previous five years. This amounts to 1,029,615 such incidents per year and excludes all “military service, police work, or work as a security guard.
A 1994 survey conducted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that Americans use guns to frighten away intruders who are breaking into their homes about 498,000 times per year.
In 2013, President Obama ordered the Department of Health and Human Services and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to “conduct or sponsor research into the causes of gun violence and the ways to prevent it. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention asked the Institute of Medicine and National Research Council to “convene a committee of experts to develop a potential research agenda focusing on the public health aspects of firearm-related violence….” This committee studied the issue of defensive gun use and reported:
“Defensive use of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed….”
“Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million….”
“[S]ome scholars point to a radically lower estimate of only 108,000 annual defensive uses based on the National Crime Victimization Survey,” but this “estimate of 108,000 is difficult to interpret because respondents were not asked specifically about defensive gun use.”
“Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was ‘used’ by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies….”
A 1982 survey of male felons in 11 state prisons across the U.S. found:
34% had been “scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim.”
40% had decided not to commit a crime because they “knew or believed that the victim was carrying a gun.”
69% personally knew other criminals who had been “scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim.”
This is the data we need to look at to make a sound decision for this ordinance. My .02
I simply can’t find any situation in which ANYONE is made safer by enacting this legislation. What’s the goal here? What will this accomplish???
It’s about control. This is just one step closer to taking your guns away. The city attorney never mentioned it was unconstitutional. I would recommend contacting John Lott. He wrote a great book about the myths of Gun Control. This is brief description of his book: Lott blows away one false myth about gun ownership after another. As Andrew Pollack’s Foreward notes; “Learn the actual facts that debunk them.” From myths about mass public shootings to suicides to gun ownership rates and crime to gun free zones, Lott addresses the claims you frequently hear in the media and explains what is wrong with those claims. “John Lott has been giving us the facts about guns for decades. Finally clear to all that one party in America has an anti-Second Amendment platform and wants to disarm you. Now you need to arm yourself with the Truth. Buy and read Gun Control Myths today. Before it’s too late.” Sebastian Gorka Ph.D.,host of AMERICAN First, former Strategist to President Trump “John Lott shows that the media and many politicians are biased against guns. For example, many stories are written in the media about shooters, but very few about defensive uses of guns. Similarly, he shows that some gun control policies are actually counterproductive. Shooters seek out gun-free zones. If we banned “assault” weapons, shooters might shift to larger hunting guns. The book is copiously footnoted. It is full of statistical and graphical analysis, so that his points are easily grasped and persuasive. Anyone who advocates gun control and does not seriously consider John’s work is negligent.
This is not about safety. The City council dosen’t care about gun owners. They are attacking women’s rights with this ordinance and they don’t even know it.
I understand you are considering 2 Amendment (2A) Sanctuary resolution at your meeting on Monday, July 20, 2020.
I want to encourage Falls Church Leaders to pass this resolution to show your support for the US Constitution and the 2nd Amendment.
Today it’s seems fashionable for people in and out of government to shred the United States Constitution and thus not allowing our citizens right to protect our homes, state and country from those who would do us harm.
With the senseless violence going on in Seattle, NYC, Baltimore, Chicago, other cities and states going now, the 2a is required to protect ourselves.
Please pass this resolution and send a message to those in Richmond and Washington, DC who wish to eventually take away our rights and the 2A is the keystone of those rights.
May God bless you.
Virginians have enjoyed a significantly lower rate of violent crime compared to our neighbors in Maryland and DC for many, many years. One of the major reasons for this is that criminals know that a lot of Virginians are likely armed and will be shooting back if they try to commit a crime here. Maryland has 4 times more crime and DC has 10 times more crime. Based on these statistics, I can only conclude that the politicians proposing this legislation are either 1) very ill-informed or worse, 2) don’t mind if crime rates in Falls Church start looking like those in Maryland or DC. Which is it?
If measures are passed restricting law-abiding concealed carries it will make the city and large gatherings in it more inviting and safe for criminals and less inviting and safe for law-abiding citizens. Why? Because criminals and crazy people who carry out mass shootings are attracted to gun-free zones. Please don’t do things that attract criminals to Falls Church and make the city more safe for them and less safe for the rest of us.
The premise that gun control reduces crime has been proven to be a failure for the last twenty years. The only people who will obey these laws are the law abiding citizens who are a threat to no one. If criminals obeyed the law they would not be in the criminal justice system.Your ideas are as illogical as taking cars away from sober drivers to stop drunk drivers. Look at areas with extreme gun control laws like NYC, Baltimore, Chicago, NJ and CT. Any of those jurisdictions would love to have the low crime rate that we have here in NOVA
Thanks for allowing me to express my opinion
”. Local gun control ordinances would limit the inalienable rights of citizens of the Commonwealth. Please keep in mind that we all want to reduce gun violence perpetrated by criminals. I, however, am not a criminal, nor will my gun be used to commit a crime. Any ordinance you pass limiting the rights of law-abiding citizens will be ignored by a criminal bent on committing a crime. I can offer a 100% guarantee of that.
I can further offer the data that approximately 90% of mass shootings take place where the God given rights of law-abiding citizens to protect themselves have been abridged.
Punishing one group of citizens who obey the law, because of a group of criminals who do not obey the law is illogical and unreasonable. Think about it. Would you punish one of your children who is obeying your direction because another of your children has broken a rule? Of course not, but that is what is being considered.
Southern Maryland and DC have very strict, unconstitutional laws which limit what their citizens can do to protect themselves from danger, yet Maryland and DC have four times and eight times respectively, the murder rate of Northern Virginia. Doing something which has produced a negative result over and over, while expecting a different outcome could well be the definition of insanity. I can’t imagine that your Board considers themselves to be insane.
I do not cast any aspersions on your Board. But I ask you to consider the points I have made and ask yourselves why you would consider passing laws limiting the presence of guns in your public spaces when you know data proves that they will be ineffective against criminal intent. Given the points I have made I can only conclude that if you pass these limitations you do so because you believe it will afford you a political benefit. If this were true, that position would be unconscionable considering the public trust you hold.
Sgt. J. Weiss (Ret.)
I implore you not to implement anymore gun control. It’s less than useless against criminals who don’t follow laws. Minor fines and charges don’t have any impact on criminals, as they stand to be prosecuted for murder.
I live in the area and vote!
Gun control is rooted in racism. Democratic legislators did not want newly freed slaves to have access to firearms. So, they passed laws to keep non-white people from owning/carrying/using guns. Sad but true.
New gun ordinances in Falls Church will do nothing to reduce crime and will punish law-abiding gun owners and make it harder to protect yourself and your family. Don’t fall for it. Tell the city council NO to more useless gun control.
Let us be completely clear and honest, these new anti-gun proposals are democratic politics and nothing more. Seventeen years of incident stats and air rifles are the largest category. With limited government resources and businesses being impacted by imposed restrictions, time is being devoted to passing non-impactful new restrictions. This is a solution looking for a problem that just is not there. When there was a riot in progress and televised, not one voice could be heard from these same government officials. Think about that for a moment and it becomes obvious where true priorities exist.
Back six months ago thousands of law abiding citizens showed up in Richmond, most of which were carrying every kind of firearm known to man, to protest new gun laws. No one was shot, no one was hurt, not a single shot was fired, as a matter of fact they cleaned up after themselves. Over the past month we’ve seen people killed at protest all over the nation. The difference isn’t guns it’s evil. Guns don’t kill evil people do. Evil is what needs to be legislated and punished. The strictest of gun legislation still hasn’t curbed the evil. So lay off the guns and start getting the evil people off the streets.
One would think that while the nation is in the middle of a passionate debate about institutionalized racism in our criminal justice system obviously discriminatory proposals such as this would never see the light of day let alone go to vote.
Just looking at the stats for Falls Church sited in the article most of the illegal firearms use was by criminals while robbing their chosen victims. Obviously the law against armed robbery did not deter the criminals so why would a new law have criminals shaking in their boots? Answer, it will not. The actual intent of this law is to make lawful carriage of a firearm increasingly difficult. A relevant historical parallel would be Virginia’s unconstitutional poll-tax laws used to disenfranchise African-American voters after the Civil War.
According to VA State Police crime stats from 2019, there were 428 murders and non negligent manslaughter’s in VA (or .005% of VA population). Out of those 200, happened in a home or private residence, this law would prevented exactly 0 of those deaths. Ironically, 2019 was also the year of the VA Beach Municipal Center shooting. Murder is already against the law, how come the government couldn’t protect its own employees? Is this new law going to change that? Answer, No! Instead it’s going to encourage criminals to target areas where they know the citizens have been disarmed (over 90% of active shootings happen in “gun free zones”; like VA Tech and the Navy Yard). Which in turn will result in increased racial profiling and stop-and-frisk tactics. Why? Because, crime stats also indicate African Americans are more than twice as likely to be the offender in a Murder or Non-Negligent Manslaughter than whites.
This law only serves to; further institutionalize discrimination and racism in our legal system, punish law abiding citizens attempting to exercise their Constitutional rights, and strips citizens of their God given right to self defense.
I write in opposition to more controls on the use of firearms for self defense. I stand against more restrictions on those of us wishing to responsibly carry firearms.
Respectfully may I ask, if you are not allowing me to defend myself, then who will? Are you going to insure that no harm will come to me or my family as I am disarmed in your “gun free zone”? How will you (you) make that assurance?
During the 2020 Lobby Day gathering in Richmond, VA I felt very safe among so many responsible gun owners. Per the news reports it’s estimated that 22,000 people showed up to the event. There were about 6,000 people on Capitol Square and about 16,000 guests were outside the square. That is a feeling that I wish you could experience as it requires trust in yourself and others around you to do the right thing with firearms when the need arises. Any single crazed individual shooter would think twice at that sort of event or be dealt with quickly. I felt safe knowing that others were armed as well. It was a peaceful gathering as you recall.
Imagine the analogy of the great dry forest containing an arsonist surrounded by a crowd with each person in the crowd carrying a fire extinguisher. No fire expected! Now imagine an an arsonist surrounded with fire extinguisher labels and no smoking signs. No reason to think a fire is actually prevented? No gun zones seem to be the same sort of space filled with meaningless signs and no actual protection.
How do you propose to protect me and my family?
Let’s see here…Liberal democratic cities are currently on fire,being looted,physical assaults on innocent people (including law enforcement),destruction of property,and even children and babies being shot and killed.All these areas have one big fat common denominator.Anybody wanna guess?Ok you give up so I’ll tell you.THEY HAVE SOME OF THE MOST RESTRICTIVE GUN LAWS IN THE COUNTRY!!
I’m not gonna beat my head against the wall over this.I only go through Falls church a handful of times a year and will carry no matter what.We were told when we were kids if your friend jumped off a bridge would you do it too?well just because Alexandria jumped on the tyranny train doesn’t mean Falls Church has to follow along.
Are they going to install metal detectors at the community center? How much is this all going to cost? Will they be installing panic buttons in the parks? I know people with restraining orders against somebody how will they be safe in fallschurch?
No more anti 2nd amendment, gun control. It is futile to try and control violent criminal with an ordinance. Below is a list of why any more gun control should NOT be passed in Chesterfield or anywhere else in Virginia:
Criminal activity does not justify taking away the right of citizens to be able to defend themselves or their families
Gun-free Zones are where over 90% of public mass-shootings occur in the U.S.
The ordinance creates a victimless crime that places innocent lives in danger, since police cannot be everywhere at once and the victim has no means to protect themselves
The ordinance will increase unnecessary interactions between the police and the public
Southern Maryland has severe restrictions on firearms and has over four times the murder rate of Northern Virginia. DC’s murder rate is eight times that of Northern Virginia. Let’s not become like those areas! Data: https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/local/homicides/
Tracking D.C.-area homicides
Mapping homicides in the District and the surrounding suburbs since 2000.
No more anti 2nd amendment, gun control. It is futile to try and control violent criminal with an ordinance. Below is a list of why any more gun control should NOT be passed in Falls Church or anywhere else in Virginia:
Criminal activity does not justify taking away the right of citizens to be able to defend themselves or their families
Gun-free Zones are where over 90% of public mass-shootings occur in the U.S.
The ordinance creates a victimless crime that places innocent lives in danger, since police cannot be everywhere at once and the victim has no means to protect themselves
The ordinance will increase unnecessary interactions between the police and the public
Southern Maryland has severe restrictions on firearms and has over four times the murder rate of Northern Virginia. DC’s murder rate is eight times that of Northern Virginia. Let’s not become like those areas! Data: https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/local/homicides/
Tracking D.C.-area homicides
Mapping homicides in the District and the surrounding suburbs since 2000.
I will add my voice to those opposed to any more infringements on the 2nd amendment. Ironically, the 2nd amendment is the ONLY amendment that forbids the government from offering ANY infringements on the right it protects! So many others here have already posted great statements of fact with plenty of supporting evidence.
I will highlight a couple of my favorite websites with factual information on firearms and the 2nd amendment:
Finally, I’m very tired of being treated as if I am a danger to others simply because I choose to protect myself by exercising one of my God given and enumerated civil rights. A good man/woman walking down the street with an actual bazooka is a threat to absolutely no one; An evil man/woman walking down the street is a threat to all with just their balled fists.
…the right of the people to KEEP and BEAR arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!
I will not comply!
As a veteran of the Armed Forces and a law-abiding Virginia, I will never take my family to visit Falls Church anymore if the city council passes its own unconstitutional local gun restrictions. I want me and my family to feel safe and secure, especially with all the lunacy that is going on in areas closer to Democrat-run cities that think defunding police is a good idea. Bearing arms is a right just like voting—should we go back to restricting voting rights, too? Let’s be honest—“academic” liberals do not want minorities to have guns and they are willing to deny themselves that right to give more power to the State. Pretty Marxist.
Seems to me Falls Church is a pretty safe place already – Is City Council looking for a tremendously expensive solution to a problem that doesn’t exist ? Why would that be ?
The new Virginia laws restricting of firearm owners’ Rights is at conflict with the following: (1) The U.S. Constitution, 2nd Amendment, (2) The Virginia Constitution, Art 1, Sect. 13, and (3) the facts. The laws violate our Rights as a free and honest citizenry (conflicts #1 and #2). The laws do not make us safer and in fact, reduce public safety in many ways. For those looking for safety, the ability of Americans (including Virginians) to provide for their own self-defense is critical. None of the statistics shown reflect the number of times every year a firearm (or the presence of one) is critical to defense of self and others. Instead, the Legislature’s misguided laws this year restrict Virginians ability to exerice their Rights without any evidence that these laws really make society safer. Some were previously tried, and proved to not have a positive impact. Now, local governments consider actions that will even further restrict people AND make laws different city to city and county to county. This will not make us safer, but will increase the chance of inadvertant criminals being created. Please, do not restrict our Rights!
Cities with the most restrictive gun laws in the country are currently under siege. They are on fire, and being vandalized and looted. There are physical assaults on citizens and law enforcement.These citizens are not being protected by anyone. My safety and my family’s safety is my responsibility. If you pass more restrictions on gun ownership and carry, I will be forced to avoid your city. I will not spend one dollar of my money in your small city. I do not support this tyrannical infringement.
This patchwork of gun laws is going to affect minorities the most. Minorities are already felt a heavier hand when charged with a crime as compared to non- minorities. So, what FC is doing, is creating a tangled legal web that is going to hurt marginalized citizens the most.
Law-abiding citizens are not the problem when it comes to violence in Virginia. In fact, responsibly-armed citizens are a major deterrent to crime.
If the city issues onerous regulations all it will accomplish is to put violent criminals on notice that everyone around them is unarmed and ready to be a victim.
I will not visit Alexandria since they imposed such dangerous restrictions on my rights in that city. I certainly can live without visiting Falls Church if they choose to do the same.
If you think “gun-free zones” deter crime then you have learned nothing in the past several decades. Katherine Nixon died in the Virginia Beach massacre precisely because the city government denied her the right to carry to work on the day she and others were murdered by someone intent on murder who wasn’t going to bother with a “gun-free zone” sticker on a door.
Respect the right of self-defense for Virginians.
A noted by others who have clearly done more research than the council on this, it seems blatantly obvious that there is no data to support the notion that this ordinance will make us safer. Also, it is clear that there will be costs incurred by all of us for enforcement as well as for fighting the inevitable lawsuits, not to mention the possibility of an uptick in crime once criminals understand that citizens who are traveling through areas covered by this ordinance will be defenseless. This appears to be a political move that has as a goal the brazen curtailment of a right enshrined in our constitution – the very same constitution that all council members pledged to defend when sworn in. Further, I understand the council intends to fast track this. Why the urgency? It appears you intend to ram this through to ensure there is little time for the citizens to react to this infringement. I think it is an outrage!!! Your first responsibility is to protect us, but this will make us less safe. Please pull the plug on this disgraceful proposal at once.
I’m sick of being told where I can and can’t protect myself and my family. The police have no legal duty to protect you. This is insanity how can the council do this to its citizens. I will no longer be supporting Falls Church City. I will be taking my business elsewhere.
Gun legislation for what reason? With the recent exception of Alexandria City, Virginia follows the U.S. Bill of Rights and Virginia Constitution. Now Falls Church City Council wants to introduce a firearms ordinance violating those rights? For what reason? To show citizens you’ve done something just like the misguided General Assembly did this year? How many homicides or attempted homicides has FC had in 17 years, unfortunately 5. But hardly a crime wave to justify passing restrictive firearms ordinances. In the current political climate, what with defunding the police and politicians allowing criminals to freely roam and riot destroying public and private property, restricting a citizen’s right to freely obtain and bear firearms isn’t the best of laws to be considering at the present time. I hope Falls Church isn’t playing follow the leader so they don’t feel out of step with Alexandria City; better to be in tune with the Constitution and a citizen’s right to protect themselves.
I strongly oppose the infringement of any civil right, 2nd Amendment, or otherwise. The sworn duty of those who serve in public office is to uphold the Constitution, not to weaken it.
As a lifetime resident and law-abiding citizen, I am at a loss for this measure or the need for such a measure. It has been proven that our public schools are soft targets for the criminally bent. It has been proven that gun free zones, are not gun free!.
In a fully occupied City building, if the City desires to openly advertise, post that this facility is a soft target, that places all responsibility on them. The responsibility of ensuring that all who enter will be fully protected from any harm. The City can post additional resources, at taxpayers expense, to do so.
Even then, the City has no skin in the game as any lawsuit will be at the taxpayers expense.
So please, anyone who signs this to become law, personally create an escrow for liability suits to follow, as we the taxpayers have been burdened enough!.
Regarding parks, streets, open areas and permitted events? What is it that this ordinance is trying to address and how culpable will the City taxpayers be to any and all adverse conditions caused by this ordinance?
I was taught in the Falls Church public school system that criminals are not law-abiding
Our family lives in Arlington very close to the Falls Church border; we (used to) go out to eat more in Falls Church than Arlington itself, pre-COVID.
IMO, This ordinance opens the door to a tacit “Stop and Frisk” policy that requires police to make unwarranted contact with citizens in order to enforce the ordinance. Accordingly, if passed the City Council should expect Falls Church to incur financial liability from settlements unless there is 100% equity in where/how the law is applied (which is impossible to guarantee).
The Falls Church City Council should also be sensitive to the history of other ordinances passed that had a negative impact on commerce, growth and equity. For example, Falls Church passed a segregation ordinance in 1915 that was only repealed in…1999!!!
I would argue that if passed, this ordinance would go down in history with similar ignominy.
I believe it’s better to adhere to the consistent, universal application of law across the Commonwealth. I think it’s also worth polling your small business/retail sector, who doubtless derives a considerable percentage of their revenue from those living outside of Falls Church who might otherwise spend elsewhere out of caution of violating this ordinance.
Someone post on another site.
A fundamental philosophical problem I have (one of many) with these particular gun carry prohibitions is that they further separate the idea of public property from the people.
i.e. – they essentially are saying that all “public” property is essentially “governmental” property, as opposed to shared space for the public.
And while I might (maybe) have somewhat less objection to prohibiting firearms in workplace areas (e.g. administrative buildings), I have a huge objection to prohibiting lawful carry in shared spaces, like parks, Or particularly permitted events, which have commandeered very common spaces like streets.
I carry (discreetly) in parks. For self defense – I have seen everything from feral dogs, rabid foxes, bear, not to mention sketchy two-legged predators in parks around NoVA. A blanket prohibition of lawful carry in parks is contrary to public safety.
A blanket prohibition of carry into the county or city tax office? Annoying, since our own tax dollars are paying for the operation. I’ll might concede that it is a workplace, and they should be allowed to set rules like any other employer.
But it only further reinforces the idea that these government bodies consider themselves separate from the citizens … “them” vs. “us”. The “administrative state” vs. “we the people”.
The elected Bloomberg proxies in power in Falls Church, Arlington, Alexandria, and Fairfax don’t get that dichotomy. They are happy to rule, and to be ruled. They seem to be comfortable with an administrative state with limited liberties. I don’t think they are intellectually capable of understanding how so much of what they are doing conflicts with the fundamental principles upon which Virginia’s Commonwealth and the country in general were founded.
This is why it is important citizens are able to arm themselves and protest. Look up the Mulford Act and the racist history of gun control. Not needing to arm yourself is a privilege that most of you enjoy. Don’t take your privilege for granted and take other peoples rights from them when they need them most
I want to let you know that I, and thousands of other 2nd Amendment advocates, will not be patronizing any of the businesses in Falls Church if they pass any ordinance that restricts the rights of peaceful gun-owners to carry a firearm for self-defense, while doing nothing to lower crime.
Why do you simply hate Law-Abiding Firearms owners, and to such an extent that you must make up crime statistics and a false narrative and need to stronger firearms laws?
People who have a Concealed Handgun Permit have gone through both a State/County AND a federal FBI background check before being issued the permit.
It might interest you to know that the vast majourity of CHP holders have considerable more time on the range than the average uniformed Police officer.
It is past time to STOP penalizing and criminalizing those people who HAVE gone through such background checks, simply because you do not like firearm owners.
The ACTUAL facts about gun violence in America
There are about 30,000 gun related deaths per year by firearms, this number is not disputed. (1)
U.S. population 328 million as of January 2018. (2)
Do the math: 0.00915% of the population dies from gun related actions each year.
Statistically speaking, this is insignificant. It’s not even a rounding error.
What is not insignificant, however, is a breakdown of those 30,000 deaths:
• 22,938 (76%) are by suicide which can’t be prevented by gun laws (3)
• 987 (3%) are by law enforcement, thus not relevant to Gun Control discussion. (4)
• 489 (2%) are accidental (5)
So no, “gun violence” isn’t 30,000 annually, but rather 5,577… 0.0017% of the population.
Still too many? Let’s look at location:
298 (5%) – St Louis, MO (6)
327 (6%) – Detroit, MI (6)
328 (6%) – Baltimore, MD (6)
764 (14%) – Chicago, IL (6)
That’s over 30% of all gun crime. In just 4 cities.
This leaves 3,856 for for everywhere else in America… about 77 deaths per state. Obviously some States have higher rates than others
Yes, 5,577 is absolutely horrific, but let’s think for a minute…
But what about other deaths each year?
70,000+ die from a drug overdose (7)
49,000 people die per year from the flu (8)
37,000 people die per year in traffic fatalities (9)
Now it gets interesting:
250,000+ people die each year from preventable medical errors. (10)
You are safer in Chicago than when you are in a hospital!
610,000 people die per year from heart disease (11)
Even a 10% decrease in cardiac deaths would save about twice the number of lives annually of all gun-related deaths (including suicide, law enforcement, etc.).
A 10% reduction in medical errors would be 66% of the total gun deaths or 4 times the number of criminal homicides.
Simple, easily preventable, 10% reductions!
We don’t have a gun problem… We have a political agenda and media sensationalism problem.
Here are some statistics about defensive gun use in the U.S. as well.
Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million (Kleck, 2001a), in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008 (BJS, 2010).
That’s a minimum 500,000 incidents/assaults deterred, if you were to play devil’s advocate and say that only 10% of that low end number is accurate, then that is still more than the number of deaths, even including the suicides.
Older study, 1995:
The most technically sound estimates presented in Table 2 are those based on the shorter one-year recall period that rely on Rs’ first-hand accounts of their own experiences (person-based estimates). These estimates appear in the first two columns. They indicate that each year in the U.S. there are about 2.2 to 2.5 million DGUs of all types by civilians against humans, with about 1.5 to 1.9 million of the incidents involving use of handguns.
[r/dgu](https://www.reddit.com/r/dgu) is a great sub to pay attention to, when you want to know whether or not someone is defensively using a gun
https://247wallst.com/special-report/2018/11/13/cities-with-the-most-gun-violence/ (stats halved as reported statistics cover 2 years, single year statistics not found)
NOVA Citizen: I think it’s pretty clear that this law is not about anything driven by data. It’s not about increasing safety, and logic has been run out of town as well.
The main problem is that a great deal of gun problems are rooted in deep societal/economic/cultural issues that are not addressed by gun laws at all. The main source of gun violence is gang activity. Gangs arise when you have young, poor and oppressed groups with little or no hope of success or advancement. Addressing that would require enourmous expeditures and public will over a long period of time. We just aren’t disposed to that kind of planning as a country. Other sources of gun violence have similarly difficult root causes and similar problems of disinterest in creating real solution.
As for school/mass shootings? While horrific and spectacular, they are an extremely small percentage of gun violence. It’s very hard to see how any gun laws would have any kind of impact on such events as the vast majority of the weapons used are acquired legally or they are stolen from those that have acquired them legally.
Aside from ban/confiscation, no gun laws will have any kind of effect on those incidents.
A ‘decent’ gun law would be one that actually accomplishes something and isn’t simply a symbolic and impotent act that unduly burdens law-abiding citizens that wisht to own gun. It’s fairly obvious that most guns laws are simply designed to discourage gun ownership. To make the process of legally acquiring a firearm so onerous that some percentage of people just won’t bother. The politicians know that if they go too far, the law will be challenged and ruled against thereby setting a precedent and basically accomplishing the opposite of what they were trying to accomplish.
Banning weapons is the most white privildge idea ever. Rich liberals scoffing at the idea that a person might need to defend their own life is a tower so ivory you can’t look at it in direct sunlight. It’s the personal safety equivalent of “just have the maid do it.”
Income Data from Falls Church City
Average Household Income $181,724.00
Median Household Income $124,796.00
This ordinance fits this city and those who vote for it.
What is the source for that data? Wow!
I retired from the Federal Aviation Administration after 42 years. The states are constantly seeking to pass rules contrary to the Federal Statutes. The FAA does not allow this because it is too hard to police and could cause chaos in it’s implementation.
If we want to change the laws it must be done on a state wide basis, not local piecemeal. Otherwise honest citizens will be inadvertently caught breaking the law with no intent to do so.
In 2020 we should not be governing by means of anything other than data.
Expensive waste of money.
@Jason – they are governing by feelings/emotions and disregarding data. I expect more from our government officials. Falls Church City does not have a crime problem related to gun control. We DO have a problem with speeding, pedestrian safety, education costs that are getting higher with worse educational outcomes, etc. They should focus on actions that have impact on the community.
Hi Fellow Comrades of Falls Church City! It seems like our “leaders” are trying to control our behavior yet again by trying to take our rights away. Their logic is they will make FCC safer by limited where guns can be transported and carried. NEWS ALERT: law abiding citizens that live in FCC DO NOT commit gun crimes! They will continue to be lawful citizens. City Council wants to control our actions when no control is necessary nor legal. Their time would be better spent making FCC a better city by 1) getting a control on traffic calming, 2) being financially responsible and cut expenses especially now with COVID, 3) helping small businesses get on the feet again, 4) helping the schools educate our children better for less money, 5) stop spending money on COVID signage to remind us to wash our hands, 6) find ways to decrease the real estate tax so more people of all income types can stay in FCC, 7) fix pot holes, 8) give tax breaks to people who don’t have kids in the system so they are likely to stay in FCC after their kids leave the schools.
City Council – stop this ridiculous ordinance right now and concentrate on really making this city better. This is just virtue signaling and has no value at all.
Lyn, the city is full of virtue signalers. That’s what they do….put out signage and fake ordinances instead of doing real work.
I agree with you. The city should not put in any more gun control measures. FCC does not have a gun issue and empirical data shows that cities with the most restrictive gun control measures have the highest crime rates. Why does FCC want to spend time on this when there are so many other issues during this time of COVID?
There are many progressives on City Council and they are following the game plan of restricting more and more rights of individuals. Their goal is to shred the constitution in order to gain more power. They are elitists that believe they know better then the people they represent. Hear us City Council – we know how to carry guns safely and don’t need a special ordinance in FCC! Law suit forthcoming if they pass this. Taxes will go up in order to pay for all the attorneys. Hold on to your wallets.
According to an attorney that worked in other jurisdictions with similar ordinances, cities/counties pay upward of $250,000 in attorney fees to defend newly implemented ordinances. Falls Church City has better use of their funds – pay for more teachers, pay for more law enforcement training, implement better and more widespread traffic calming, etc.
As a Falls Church City citizen, I hope that City Council does not approve this worthless ordinance and concentrates on policies and procedures that matter! Hear us.
Yes, the City has little discretionary funds. City officials have leveraged itself to the max by going down the path of an expensive high school and other capital projects that have incurred cost overruns. Combine that with the pandemic and economic downturn, the City is in a bind. Taxes are already very high. And on top of it, some want more funding or re-directed funds to help fund increased social program funding. So, if they are financially prudent (which is no guarantee), they would want to avoid outside legal fees to possibly get this through…..but who knows.
I have always found Falls Church to be a very pleasant location for day trips from home. We have visited numerous restaurants and shops in Falls Church and always enjoyed our time there. However, if these new ordinances are passed, which will leave my Family and me defenseless while there, or unknowing if I am violating the law or not. I will simply never visit the area again and not patronize their businesses. Virginia has many other quaint villages to spend the day, which are welcoming to law-abiding gun owners.
Taking away our gun rights is not going to make the U.S. safer. The more people that are armed, the more each has respect for the other. ITs a proven fact the crime rates rise in gun banned areas. What do criminals have to worry about if they know that law abiding and innocent citizens are unarmed. Its like spearing fish in a barrel. The constitution provides us the freedom to protect ourselves. Do the right thing, stand up and honor what the majority has to say. Its a waste of tax payer money. No gun bans for Falls Church.
The bottom-line up front is that this proposed ordinance is arbitrary and capricious. It is problematic and unsalvageable, and I am vehemently opposed to it. To be clear, there is absolutely no data to hint that it serves a compelling public interest that would justify infringing on our 2nd Amendment rights. To describe this proposed ordinance as “solution in search of a problem” would be a grave understatement.
Aren’t laws/regulations that restrict all gun owners from carrying a gun on government owned land and in government buildings equivalent to total gun control? Isn’t that a violation of the Constitution? Please hear me out. According to the most restrictive proposed ban put forth in Falls Church City Council, when anyone leaves a gun shop with a gun and crosses a sidewalk (government owned) to get in a vehicle on a road (government owned) especially if the car is in a public parking lot (government owned), even if they are merely buying a gun and taking it to keep for protection at home — they’re a criminal. If they take similar steps across a sidewalk at home or on a road to take their gun to a gun safety class they are also breaking this most restrictive proposed ban being considered by the Council.
With at least one Council member being a gun owner, I hope they’re prepared to turn themselves in as a criminal and serve jail time if they move a gun off their property. On their property they’re at least already prepared for personal protection. I guess you’re just saying “too bad” to those of us who aren’t owners before anything like this gets passed. In this case, gun owner(s), please keep your doors unlocked so I can run over and into your house when I’m threatened and need protection. Just don’t shoot me when I run in. Thanks.
As a 25 year resident of the City Of Falls Church, I would not like to see the City or this Council extend any additional effort on “Feel Good” proposals to restrict citizen’s rights. If the City sees it self as a truly independent City, it should NOT follow the People’s Republics of Alexandria and Arlington path of unwarranted actions. Action not wanted by or support by any rational community.
As support for Police falls away in cities all around us, we should be reminded that self protection of my person, family, or home should not be a right taken away by the council.
It is this right that allows free men and women to walk the streets, pathways, and travel throughout our city and country in peace and security.
Forcing citizen to become criminals simply by living near or using a public pathways while lawfully jogging or walking alone while being a licensed concealed gun owner, opens up the City to liabilities and will provide NO safety increase what so ever.
It is time to stop this unwanted action and to follow State law, Federal law on this issue and other unrelated issues that the council “feels” it should.
No gun control whatsoever!
And the BB gun incidents are likely way down since the state finally removed the power of municipalities to prohibit BB gun use in a safe manner.
All those laws prohibiting use of BB guns fell away.
Gun facts post 1:
Did you know school shooting are incredibly rare. An average of 17 people are killed every year in school shootings from the last 5 years. There are 50.76 million secondary to post-secondary school age children. That is about a 0.000033% chance, or 1 in 2.99 million of any given child being killed in any given year in a school shooting.https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j…
Mind you The odds of becoming a lightning victim in the U.S. in any one year is 1 in 700,000
That’s why there’s a number of studies and opinion pieces on active shooter drills are actually doing more harm than good.
Gun facts 4: There is 0 that is “zero” or “no” data provided by the city’s presentation that supports banning concealed carry holders.
The crime rate is this city is incredible low.
Look at the chart http://fallschurchfacts.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/FCC-crime-data.png
They don’t care about facts.The facts just tear apart the gun grab agenda.If Michael Bloombergs feet were made of ice their tongues would be stuck to them.
Gun facts 6: Some questions some people have been asking.
How safe is a handgun? How do they work? Check out the 3 safeties that this glock has built into it. Remember your holster covers the trigger would be a 4th level of safety. Your finger off the trigger is a 5th level.
The safeties part starts at 1:25
Remember conceal carry firearms typically have multiple levels of safeties. Thats why 10’s of millions of people carry every day for their entire lives without an issue. Think about all Police officers who carry a firearm every day with out issues. Firearms are designed with common sense and are safe.
Gun facts 7: NOTED CRIMINOLOGIST JOHN LOTT FOUND THAT,
as a group, concealed carry permit holders are some of
the most law-abiding people in the United States. The rate
at which they commit crimes generally and firearm crimes
specifically is between one-sixth and one-tenth of that
recorded for police officers, who are themselves committing
crimes at a fraction of the rate of the general population.
Between 2007 and 2015, murder rates dropped 16 percent
and violent crime rates dropped 18 percent, even though the percentage of adults with concealed carry permits rose by 190 percent. Regression estimates show a significant association between increased permit ownership and a drop in murder and violent crime rates. Each percentage point increase in rates of permit-holding is associated with a roughly 2.5 percent drop in the murder rate. PS:#Maskssavelives
—————————————Gun facts answer on myths 8:—————————————
Myth: Police and prosecutors are against concealed carrying by citizens
Fact: In a survey of 15,000 officers, 91% said concealed carry should be permitted citizens “without question and without further restrictions.” 41
Fact: 66% of police chiefs believe that citizens carrying concealed firearms reduce rates of violent crime. 42
Fact: “All the horror stories I thought would come to pass didn’t happen …I think it’s worked out well, and that says good things about the citizens who have permits. I’m a convert.” 43
Fact: “I … [felt] that such legislation present[ed] a clear and present danger to law-abiding citizens by placing more handguns on our streets. Boy was I wrong. Our experience in Harris County, and indeed statewide, has proven my fears absolutely groundless.” 44
Fact: “Virginia has not turned into Dodge City. We have not seen a problem.” 45
Fact: “The concerns I had – with more guns on the street, folks may be more apt to square off against one another with weapons – we haven’t experienced that.” 46
Fact: “… to the best of my knowledge, we have not had an issue. I had expected there would be a lot more problems … But it has actually worked out.” 47
Fact: “Coming from California [where he was on the Los Angeles police force for 28 years], where it takes an act of Congress to get a concealed weapon permit, I got to Maine, where they give out lots of carrying concealed weapon permits, and I had a stack of CCW permits I was denying; that was my orientation. I changed my orientation real quick. Maine is one of the safest places in America. Clearly, suspects knew that good Americans were armed.” 48
Fact: Explain this to the Law Enforcement Alliance of America, Second Amendment Police Department, and Law Enforcement for the Preservation of the Second Amendment, all of whom support shall-issue concealed carry laws.
(41)Gun Policy & Law Enforcement, PoliceOne, arch 2013
(42)National Association of Chiefs of Police, 17th Annual National Survey of Police Chiefs & Sheriffs, 2005
(43)Glenn White, president, Dallas Police Association, Dallas Morning News, December 23, 1997
(44)John B. Holmes, Harris County Texas district attorney, Dallas Morning News, December 23, 1997
(45)Jerry Kilgore, Virginia Public Safety Secretary, Fredricksburg Freelance Star, February 2, 1996
(46)Chief Dennis Nowicki, Charlotte-Mecklenburg North Carolina Police, News and Observer, November 24, 1997
(47)Lt. William Burgess of the Calhoun County (Michigan) Sheriff Department, Battle Creek Enquirer, January 28, 2005
(48)Detroit Police Chief James Craig, Detroit police chief: Legal gun owners can deter crime, The Detroit News, January 3, 2014
—————————————Gun facts answer on myths 9:—————————————
Fact: The results for the first 30 states that passed “shall-issue” laws for concealed carry licenses are similar.
Fact: In Texas, citizens with concealed carry licenses are 14 times less likely to commit a crime. They are also five times less likely to commit a violent crime. 22
Fact: People with concealed carry licenses are: 23 5.7 times less likely to be arrested for violent offenses than the general public 13.5 times less likely to be arrested for non-violent offenses than the general public
Fact: Even gun control organizations agree it is a non-problem. One said about Texas, “because there haven’t been Wild West shootouts in the streets”. 24
Fact: Of 14,000 CCW licensees in Oregon, only 4 (0.03%) were convicted of the criminal (not necessarily violent) use or possession of a firearm.
Fact: “I’m detecting that I’m eating a lot of crow on this issue … I think that says something, that we’ve gotten to this point in the year and in the third largest city in America there has not been a single charge against anyone that had anything to do with a concealed handgun.” 25
Fact: In Florida, a state that has allowed concealed carry since late 1987, you are twice as likely to be attacked by an alligator as by a person with a concealed carry permit. 26
(22) Texas Department of Public Safety and the U.S. Census Bureau, reported in San Antonio Express-News, September, 2000
(22)An Analysis of the Arrest Rate of Texas Concealed Carry Handgun License Holders as Compared to the Arrest Rate of the Entire Texas Population, William E. Sturdevant, September 11, 1999
(23)Nina Butts, Texans Against Gun Violence, Dallas Morning News, August 10, 2000
(24)John Holmes, Harris County [Houston, TX] District Attorney, In Session: Handgun Law’s First Year Belies Fears of ‘Blood in the Streets,” Texas Lawyer, December 9, 1996
(25)Concealed Weapons/Firearms License Statistical Report, Florida Department of State, 1998 – Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, December 1998
————————Gun facts answer on myths 10: Myth: Concealed carry doesn’t prevent crimes:————————
Fact: News reports tell many stories of armed civilians preventing mass murder in public. A few selected at random include:
A citizen with a gun stopped a knife-wielding man as he began stabbing people in a Salt Lake City store.
Two men retrieved firearms from their cars and stopped a mass murder at the Appalachian School of Law.
Citizen takes out shooter while police were pinned down in Early, Texas.
Citizen stops apartment shoot-up in Oklahoma City.
Fact: The FBI documents 1 that 3.2% of active shooter events were stopped by CCW holders. However, other researchers claim the FBI undercounts the number of incidents (e.g. excluding events that were precipitated by a grudge) and the on the high end the number is 16.5% 2.
(1)Active Shooter Incidents in the United States (2014-2014 and 2016-2017), FBI
(2)The Problem With the FBI’s ‘Active Shooter’ Data, Lott, Real Clear Politics, October 2018
————————Gun facts answer on myths 11: Myth: Concealed carry doesn’t prevent crimes:————————-
Myth: Concealed guns in bars will cause violence
Fact: In Virginia, in the first year where CCW holders were allowed to carry in bars, the number of major crimes involving firearms at bars and restaurants statewide declined 5.2% The crimes that occurred during the law’s first year were relatively minor.
(28) Gun Crimes Drop at Virginia Bars And Restaurants, Richmond Times-Dispatch, August 14, 2011, reporting data from the Virginia State Police
————————Gun facts answer on myths 12:————————
Myth: Schoolyard shootings are an epidemic
Fact: “Compared to other types of violence and crime children face, both in and outside of school, school-based attacks are rare. While the Department of Education reports 60 million children attend the nation’s 119,000 schools, available statistics indicate that few of these students will fall prey to violent situations in school settings.” 12
Fact: Over an eight year period, in states without “right to carry” laws, there were 15 school shootings; however, in states that allow citizens to carry guns, there was only one. 13
Fact: The five school shootings that occurred during the ’97-98 school year took place after the 1995 Gun-Free School Zones law was enacted, which banned guns within 1,000 feet of a school. 14
CHILDREN AND GUNS – Prevent Sandy Hook Style Mass ShootingsFact: Schoolyard shooting deaths are not rising, rather; they have been falling through most of the 1990s: 15
Fact: Only 10% of public schools reported one or more serious violent crimes during the 1996-97 school year. 16
Fact: In Pearl, Mississippi, the assistant principal carried a firearm to the school until the 1995 “Gun-Free School Zones” law passed. Afterwards he began locking his firearm in his car and parking at least a quarter-mile away from the school. In 1997, when a student began a shooting rampage, the assistant principal ran to his car, got his gun, ran back, disarmed the shooter, and held him on the ground until the police arrived. Had the law not been passed, the assistant principal might have prevented the two deaths and seven shooting-related injuries.
Fact: Similar prevention occurred at a school dance in Edinboro, Pennsylvania, the Appalachian School of Law and during classes in Santee, California.
(12)Threat Assessment in Schools, U.S. Secret Service and U.S. Department of Education, May 2002
(13)Multiple Victim Public Shootings, Bombings, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handgun Laws: Contrasting Private and Public Law Enforcement, Lott J, Landes W; University of Chicago – (covers years 1977 to 1995)
(14)Multiple Victim Public Shootings, Bombings, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handgun Laws: Contrasting Private and Public Law Enforcement, Lott J, Landes W; University of Chicago – (covers years 1977 to 1995)
(15)Violence and Discipline Problems in U.S. Public Schools, National Center for Education Statistics,1996-97
(16)Principal/School Disciplinarian Survey on School Violence, Department of Education, March 2000
————————Gun facts answer on myths 13:————————
Myth: Trigger locks will keep children from accidentally shooting themselves
Fact: 31 of 32 models of gun locks tested by the government’s Consumer Product Safety Commission could be opened without the key. According to their spokesperson, “We found you could open locks with paper clips, a pair of scissors or tweezers, or you could whack them on the table and they would open.” 17
Fact: 85% of all communities in America recorded no juvenile homicides in 1995, and 93.4% of communities recorded one or no juvenile arrests (not convictions) for murder. 18
Fact: In 1996, before laws requiring trigger locks and when there were around 80 million people who owned a firearm, there were only 44 accidental gun deaths for children under age 10, or about 0.0001%. 19
Fact: California has a trigger lock law and saw a 12% increase in fatal firearm accidents in 1994. Texas didn’t have one and experienced a 28% decrease in the same year. 20
Fact: Children as young as seven (7) years old have demonstrated that they can pick or break a trigger lock; or that they can operate a gun with a trigger lock in place. 21 Over half of non-criminal firearm deaths for children over age seven are suicides, so trigger locks are unlikely to reduce these deaths.
Fact: If criminals are deterred from attacking victims because of the fear that people might be able to defend themselves, gun locks may in turn reduce the danger to criminals committing crime, and thus increase crime. This problem is exacerbated because many mechanical locks (such as barrel or trigger locks) also require that the gun be stored unloaded.
(17)Washington Post, Feb 7, 2001, Page A01 ↩
(18)Crime in the United States: Uniform Crime Reports, Federal Bureau of Investigation, 1996 ↩
(19)CBS News web site, Prof. John Lott, March 20, 2000 ↩
(20)National Center for Health Statistics, 1995 ↩
(21)Accidental Shootings: many deaths and injuries caused by firearms could be prevented, United States General Accounting Office, March 1991 ↩
Gun facts answer on myths 14:
________________________________________________________Assault Weapons Part 1______________________________________________________________
Assault weapon” is an invented term. In the firearm lexicon, there is no such thing as an “assault weapon.” 1 The closest relative is the “assault rifle,” which is a machine gun or “select fire” rifle that shoots rifle cartridges. 2 In most cases, “assault weapons” are functionally identical though less powerful than hunting rifles, but they are cosmetically similar to military guns.
Myth: Assault weapons are a serious problem in the U.S.
Fact: In 1994, before the Federal “assault weapons ban,” you were eleven (11) times more likely to be beaten to death than to be killed by an “assault weapon.” 3
Fact: In the first 7 years since the ban was lifted, murders declined 43%, violent crime 43%, rapes 27% and robberies 49%. 4
Fact: Nationally, “assault weapons” were used in 1.4% of crimes involving firearms and 0.25% of all violent crime before the enactment of any national or state “assault weapons” ban. In many major urban areas (San Antonio, Mobile, Nashville, etc.) and some entire states (Maryland, New Jersey, etc.) the rate is less than 0.1%. 5
Fact: Even weapons misclassified as “assault weapons” (common in the former Federal and California “assault weapons” confiscations) are used in less than 1% of all homicides. 6
Fact: Police reports show that “assault weapons” are a non-problem:
Los Angeles: In 1998, of 538 documented gun incidents, only one (0.2%) involved an “assault weapon.”
San Francisco: In 1998, only 2.2% of confiscated weapons were “assault weapons.”
San Diego: Between 1988 and 1990, only 0.3% of confiscated weapons were “assault weapons.”
“I surveyed the firearms used in violent crimes…assault-type firearms were the least of our worries.” 7
For the rest of the nation:
Between 1980 and 1994, only 2% of confiscated guns were “assault weapons.” 8
Fewer than 2% of criminals that commit violent crimes used “assault weapons.” 9
Fact: Only 1.4% of recovered crime weapons are models covered under the 1994 “assault weapons” ban. 10
Fact: In Virginia, no surveyed inmates had carried an “assault weapon” during the commission of their last crime, despite 20% admitting that they had previously owned such weapons. 11
Fact: Most “assault weapons” have no more firepower or killing capacity than the average hunting rifle and “play a small role in overall violent crime.” 12
Fact: Even the government agrees. “… the weapons banned by this legislation [1994 Federal Assault Weapons ban – since repealed] were used only rarely in gun crimes … There has been no discernible reduction in the lethality and injuriousness of gun violence, based on indicators like the percentage of gun crimes resulting in death or the share of gunfire incidents resulting in injury.” 13
(1) It is worth noting that there are numerous different ‘legal’ definitions of “assault weapons”. A report from the Legal Community Against Violence showed no fewer than eight jurisdictions, anywhere from 19 to 75 banned firearms, six differing generic classification schemes and several legal systems for banning more firearms without specific legislative action. In other words, an “assault weapon” is whatever a politician deems it to be.
(2)Small Arms Identification and Operations Guide, U.S. Department of Defense. The exact statement from their manual is “short, compact, select-fire weapons that fires a cartridge intermediate in power between submachine gun and rifle cartridges.”
(3)Based on death rates reported by CDC and FBI Uniform Crime Statistics and estimating from state-level reporting on the percent of crimes involving types of firearms
(4)FBI Uniform Crime Statistics, Uniform Crime Reporting Statistics – UCR Data Online, 1995-2012 ↩
(5)Targeting Guns, Gary Kleck, Aldine Transaction, 1997, compilation of 48 metropolitan police departments from 1980-1994 ↩
(6)Based on state-level reporting from various states in 1993 during debates concerning the bill. ↩
(7)S.C. Helsley, Assistant Director DOJ Investigation and Enforcement Branch, California, October 31, 1988 ↩
(8)Targeting Guns, Gary Kleck, Aldine Transaction, 1997, compilation of 48 metropolitan police departments from 1980-1994 ↩
(9)Targeting Guns, Gary Kleck, Aldine Transaction, 1997, calculated from Bureau of Justice Statistics, assault weapon recovery rates ↩
(10)From statewide recovery report from Connecticut (1988-1993) and Pennsylvania (1989-1994) ↩
(11)Criminal Justice Research Center, Department of Criminal Justice Services, 1994 ↩
(12)House Panel Issue: Can Gun Ban Work, New York Times. April 7, 1989. P. A-15, quoting Philip McGuire, Handgun Control, Inc., ↩
(13)Impacts of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban: 1994-96, National Institute of Justice, March 1999
DAVID KUTCHMA II 2 HOURS AGO PERMALINK REPLY
Gun facts answer on myths 15: Assault Weapons Part 2
Myth: Assault weapons are favored by criminals
Fact: Only 6% of criminals use anything that is classified (even incorrectly) as an “assault weapon,” 21 and fewer than 2.5% of criminal claimed to use these firearms when committing crimes. 22
Fact: Criminals are over five times more likely to carry single shot handguns as they are to carry “assault weapons.” 23
Fact: “Assault rifles have never been an issue in law enforcement. I have been on this job for 25 years and I haven’t seen a drug dealer carry one. They are not used in crimes, they are not used against police officers.” 24
Fact: “Since police started keeping statistics, we now know that ‘assault weapons’ are/were used in an underwhelming 0.026 of 1% of crimes in New Jersey. This means that my officers are more likely to confront an escaped tiger from the local zoo than to confront an assault rifle in the hands of a drug-crazed killer on the streets.” 25
Thoughts: “Assault weapons” are large and unwieldy. Even misclassified handguns tend to be bigger than practical for concealed carry. Criminals (who, incidentally, disregard concealed carry laws) are unlikely to carry “assault weapons” and instead carry handguns, which are more easily concealed.
(21)Firearm Use by Offenders, Bureau of Justice Statistics, November 2001 ↩
(22)Firearm Use by Offenders, Bureau of Justice Statistics, November 2001 ↩
(23)Firearm Use by Offenders, Bureau of Justice Statistics, November 2001 ↩
(24)Deputy Chief of Police Joseph Constance, Trenton, NJ, testimony – Senate Judiciary Committee in Aug 1993 ↩
(25)Deputy Chief of Police Joseph Constance, Trenton, NJ, testimony – Senate Judiciary Committee in Aug 1993 ↩
DAVID KUTCHMA II 2 HOURS AGO PERMALINK REPLY
Gun facts answer on myths 16: Assault Weapons Part 3
Myth: The 1994 (former) Federal Assault Weapons Ban was effective
Fact: Murder rates were 19.3% higher when the Federal assault weapons ban was in force. 29
Fact: ” … we cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation’s recent drop in gun violence.” 30
Fact: The ban covered only 1.39% of the models of firearms on the market, so the ban’s effectiveness is automatically limited.
Fact: “The ban has failed to reduce the average number of victims per gun murder incident or multiple gunshot wound victims.” 31
Fact: “The public safety benefits of the 1994 ban have not yet been demonstrated.” 32
Fact: “The ban triggered speculative price increases and ramped-up production of the banned firearms … prior to the law’s implementation,” 33 and thus increased the total supply over the following decade.
Fact: The Brady Campaign claims that “After the 1994 ban, there were 18% fewer ‘assault weapons’ traced to crime in the first eight months of 1995 than were traced in the same period in 1994.” However, they failed to note (and these are mentioned in the NIJ study) that:
“Assault weapons” traces were minimal before the ban (due to their infrequent use in crimes), so an 18% change enters the realm of statistical irrelevancy.
Fewer “assault weapons” were available to criminals because collectors bought-up the available supply before the ban.
(29) An examination of the effects of concealed weapons laws and assault weapons bans on state-level murder rates, Applied Economics Letters, Vol 21, No. 4
(30) An Updated Assessment of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban: Impacts on Gun Markets and Gun Violence, 1994-2003, National Institute of Justice, June 2004
(31)Impacts of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban: 1994-96, National Institute of Justice, March 1999
(32)Impacts of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban: 1994-96, National Institute of Justice, March 1999
(33) Impacts of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban: 1994-96, National Institute of Justice, March 1999
Gun facts answer on myths 17: READ please
Myth: Accidental gun fatalities are a serious problem
Fact: Firearm misuse causes only a small number of accidental deaths in the U.S. 1 For example, compared to being accidentally killed by a firearm, you are:
—Five times more likely to burn to death
—Five times more likely to drown
—17 times more likely to be poisoned
—17 times more likely to fall to your death
—And 68 times more likely to die in an automobile accident
Fact: In 2007, there were only 54 accidental gun deaths for children under age 13. About 12 times as many children died from drowning during the same period. 2
Fact: In 2007, there were 999 drowning victims and 137 firearm-related accidental deaths in age groups 1 through 19. This despite the fact that firearms outnumber pools by a factor of more than 30:1. Thus, the risk ratio of drowning in an available pool is nearly 100 times higher than dying from a firearm-related accident for all ages, and nearly 500 times for children ages 0-5. 3
Fact: Medical mistakes kill 400,000 people per year – the equivalent of almost three fully loaded Boeing 747 jet crashes per day – or about 286 times the rate of all accidental firearm deaths. 4 This translates into 1 in 6 doctors causing an accidental death, and 1 in 56,666 gun owners doing the same.
Fact: Only 2% of gun deaths are from accidents, and some insurance investigations indicate that many of these may not be accidents after all. 5
Fact: Around 2,000 patients each year — six per day — are accidentally killed or injured in hospitals by registered nurses. 6
Myth: Handguns are unsafe and cause accidents
Fact: Most fatal firearm accidents involve long guns, which are more deadly. These are typically hunting accidents. 7
Fact: Handguns have triggers that are difficult for small (child) hands to operate, and are rarely the cause of accidents. 8
Myth: Innocent bystanders are often killed by guns
Fact: Less than 1% of all gun homicides involve innocent bystanders. 9
Myth: Citizens are too incompetent to use guns for protection
Fact: About 11% of police shootings kill an innocent person — about 2% of shootings by citizens kill an innocent person. The odds of a defensive gun user killing an innocent person are less than 1 in 26,000 10 despite American citizens using guns to prevent crimes almost 2,500,000 times every year.
Fact: Most firearm accidents are caused by people with various forms of poor self-control. These include alcoholics, people with previous criminal records, people with multiple driving accidents, and people who engage in other risky behaviors. 11
Myth: Gun accidents are flooding emergency rooms
Fact: The rate of gun accidents is so low that the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission doesn’t even mention them in their annual safety reports.
Myth: “Junk” guns are dangerous and should be banned
Fact: In the history of the state of California, not one lawsuit against a gun maker had been filed (until 2003) based on a weapon being defective or poorly designed. 12
Myth: Guns should be made to conform to product liability laws
Fact: Guns are already covered under product liability laws. If you have a defective gun that does not operate properly, you can sue the gun maker.
(1)WISQARS Injury Mortality Report, Center for Disease Control, 2007
(2)WISQARS Injury Mortality Report, Center for Disease Control, 2007
(3)National Center for Health Statistics, and the National Spa and Pool Institute
(4)Medical death statistics, Gun deaths, Dr. David Lawrence, CEO Kaiser Permanente, CDC report 1993
(5)Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control, Gary Kleck, Aldine de Gruyter 1997 at 293-324
(6)Chicago Tribune report, Sept 10, 2000
(7)Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control, Gary Kleck, Aldine de Gruyter 1997, at 293-324
(8)Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control, Gary Kleck, Aldine de Gruyter 1997, at 293-324
(9)Stray bullets and ‘mushrooms’, Sherman, Steele, Laufersweiler, Hoffer and Julian, Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 1989
(10)Shall Issue: The New Wave of Concealed Handgun Permit Laws, C. Cramer, and D. Kopel, Independence Institute Issue Paper. October 17, 1994
(11)Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control, Gary Kleck, Aldine de Gruyter, 1997, at 307, 312
(12)California Trial Lawyers Association, 1998
Gun facts post 18:READ please
In response to a council members who uses this article quote “in contrast to the data that actually shows guns may give a false sense of security. They are rarely used successfully in self defense and may actually increase a victim’s injury or lead to unintentional accidents.” : https://lawcenter.giffords.org/gun-laws/policy-areas/guns-in-public/concealed-carry/
That quotes”The most comprehensive and rigorous study of concealed carry laws found that in states with weak permitting laws, violent crime rates were 13% to 15% higher than predicted had such laws not been in place. by (John J. Donohue, Abhay Aneja, and Kyle D. Weber, “Right‐to‐Carry Laws and Violent Crime: A Comprehensive Assessment Using Panel Data and a State‐Level Synthetic Control Analysis,” Journal of Empirical Legal Studies 16, no. 2 (2019): 198–247. )
Fact: This rather miserable working paper is a wellspring of bad methodology, which might explain why it was not (as of July 2017) published in a peer reviewed journal.
PUBLICATION: Working paper
DATE: July 2017
AUTHORS: John J. Donohue, Abhay Aneja, and Kyle D. Weber
Claims Right To carry (RTC) laws increase violent crime from 13-15%.
Uses mathematical modeling to “predict” what crime rates might have been without RTC.
Uses limited pairing of non-RTC states (2-4 states) with study states.
Control states often have no cultural, population or geographical similarity. For example, Texas was studies by comparing it with California, Nebraska and Wisconsin.
Studied only aggregate violent crime, despite RTC being a public function and certain forms of violence are not generally public (i.e., rape).
Quote from https://lawcenter.giffords.org/gun-laws/policy-areas/guns-in-public/concealed-carry/ “Seven states require CCW permit applicants to demonstrate good cause or a justifiable need to carry a concealed weapon.”
Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. applied for a concealed carry permit in a “may issue” state and was denied. Was that Common Sense? Do I need to explain more? Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. I guess did not have or “demonstrate good cause or a justifiable need to carry a concealed weapon”
There are many many things wrong with the https://lawcenter.giffords.org/gun-laws/policy-areas/guns-in-public/concealed-carry/ ”
It is not worth my time to go through it all. People who actually know anything about firearms , know how bad that is. For the uneducated about firearms and non-gun owners who read that it sure makes “common sense.” For those who are like me who have a over decade of knowledge about firearms this is the blind is leading the blind. This would be the equivalent of going to the Flat Earth website for science facts. This would be the equivalent of going to the Trump website for immigration reform facts.
QUESTION!? Did you ever think? Why all the Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America videos on youtube have their “Comments turned off” It wouldn’t be to censor out all the facts? People pointing out the fallacies in the arguments? People pointing how wrong and the outright lies that some of these videos have?
Every single one of them I checked. (Thank you macro for grabbing all of these)
PS Gun videos have their comments on
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NIwf3d7hP9g You should watch this
A larger problem with the FFLs forced to run NICS checks for private sales is that it violates the Federal law for access to NICS checks.
§ 25.6 Accessing records in the system.
(a) FFLs may initiate a NICS background check only in connection with a
proposed firearm transfer as required
by the Brady Act. FFLs are strictly
prohibited from initiating a NICS
background check for any other purpose.
That will make this State Law invalid on its face.
My email sent to city council. How shameful it is that “representatives” are not representing!! The mayor flat out stated that even if the citizens are overwhelmingly against these measures being taken, he will still vote and pass them regardless.
I am writing to all of you to implore you to keep and maintain the present firearm carry laws that are presently in place.
I was a resident of Falls Church from infancy all the way through my late twenties and it was a great place to grow up. I am the son of a Law Enforcement Officer and we were taught to listen to and respect LEO’s. I was also taught that the constitution is the highest law of the land, and now we have rights being trampled on all because of “feelings”, lack of knowledge or just plain lack of “common sense” and political vindictiveness when it comes to our CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS. We have one amendment and ONLY one, that clearly states “shall not be infringed” and it is that one that protects and defends ALL of the others amendments, yet so many, from the Governor all the way down to city council members, feel the need to punish law abiding citizens for exercising those rights, and wanting to live within the freedoms we are promised and afforded by our GOD and upheld by our Constitution.
Do you want Falls Church to jump up to southern Maryland’s or DC’s crime rates? Let your citizens be free and stop imposing onerous regulation on a segment of your population that just want to be able to protect themselves and their loved ones. Be the example of freedom and REAL “common sense” gun policy by NOT INFRINGING on your citizens. Don’t be the lemmings following other localities In limiting rights, but rather be an example and the great City I grew up in, and lead by example!! PLEASE do not impose ANY MORE gun restrictions on your citizens and the citizens of the Commonwealth that may pass through or visit.
Thank you for your time,
Hi @PeterDroujinsky, Thanks for sharing your great letter. It seems that the representative government has turned into the elitist government – they think they know what is best for us. They are tearing up the constitution because they personally don’t like guns!
If you are on facebook, follow these two sites:
Thanks again for sharing your letter. Let’s hope City Council listens to the people and abides by the Constitution which they took an oath to uphold.