Posts Tagged ‘gun control’
Medicaid-defrauder and deveined gulf shrimp Rick Scott, fresh from
pulling out voluntarily removing America’s Wang from all non-mandatory provisions of the Affordable Care Act, suddenly cares about the sick people of his state again, provided they’re packing heat:
The 2011 “Firearm Owners’ Privacy Act”—one of a series of NRA-backed, aggressive pro-gun laws passed by Florida’s conservative Legislature in recent years—aims at keeping physicians from gathering information on patients’ weapons while discussing their health risk factors. (Decades of studies have shown that even law-abiding, responsible gun owners and their families have higher risks of death by gunshot when they keep a firearm in the home.)
“Patients don’t like being interrogated about whether or not they own guns when they take their child with a sore throat to a pediatrician, nor do they like being interrogated in an emergency room when their Little Leaguer broke his leg sliding into first base,” the NRA’s gun for hire in Florida, longtime firearms lobbyist Marion Hammer, told the Tampa Tribune last fall.
Scott and co. are right: patients don’t like being forced to endure ideologically-based, medically gratuitous obstacles to their health care. Now that we’re clear on that, I’m sure Scott’s conservative governor brosephs will be vetoing certain legislation immediately. (via Wonkette)
Calguns Foundation, which appears to be one of those wonderful organizations that fights any legislation related to guns, lest a couple of laws slip through that might momentarily inconvenience gun nuts to prevent mass shootings, wonders semi-seriously if waiting periods are hurting the environment:
Earlier today, Calguns Foundation filed a federal lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Calfornia’s 10 day “waiting period” (which is really just a dressed-up 10-day ban on law-abiding gun owners’ ability to exercise their fundamental right to keep and bear arms). This is a significant piece of litigation that we’re very optimistic about; I think it’s safe to say that gun buyers and transferees have been making two trips for one gun far, far too long. (I wonder how big the 10-day ban’s carbon footprint is…)
Later in the same post, the author notes that waiting periods discriminate against those reliant on public transportation. If Second Amendment organizations won’t stand up for the poor and the earth, who will?
It took Glenn Reynolds a full 24 hours to post this, but you know it was the first thing he thought of:
Related: The 6 Sikh temple shooting victims identified; Satwant Singh Kaleka died trying to fight off shooter. Heroic. But it’s too bad he didn’t have a gun.
It is either a) chance or b) the inevitable result of a society with absolutely dysfunctional relationship to guns that the occurrence of one mass shooting is drawing media attention away from the processing of a prior mass shooting, which, until Sunday afternoon, had been the mass shooting story of the day. (We have those now!) What are the odds that both mass shooting stories would hit in the same 12-hour period? Answer: increasingly great. The last mass shooting was two weeks ago in Aurora, CO; since then, two different attempts have been foiled; the mass shooting previous to Aurora occurred only three days before; that one didn’t even get coverage, as no one was killed, though more than a dozen were injured.
If these shootings keep up, we’re gonna need a bigger media just to report on them all.
Also: As usual, the internet’s way ahead of us.
Also: gun control, anyone?
Breaking, via WaPo:
Authorities have arrested a man who referred to himself as “a joker” and threatened to shoot people at his former workplace in Prince George’s County, investigators said Friday.
“I am a joker. I’m going to load my guns and blow everybody up,” the man said over the phone to a man at Pitney Bowes, according to a warrant.
[...] Police there found more than 20 rifles and handguns and 40 steel boxes of ammunition at his home, the investigators said.
The day he was arrested, he wore a T shirt that said “Guns don’t kill people. I do.”
Photo on the right shows the guns found in Mr. Joker’s house. They’re for hunting and target practice, I’m sure.
So it’s good to know that the NRA’s bumper-sticker argument against gun control is now being used as a bragging right of people who would attempt mass shootings. I would love to hear the NRA’s response to this, except they’ve somehow gotten a pass on saying anything about mass shootings; to my knowledge, the organization has yet to speak so much as a word about the Aurora, CO, shootings, including any comment on the fact that all of James Holmes’s weapons were purchased legally. So somehow the organization most responsible for people like James Holmes and our new friend having possession of automatic weapons used in mass shooting is also the organization held least responsible for the consequences. How does that work, again?
This is the second guy in a week to be arrested with an arsenal in his possession. He’s the second guy in three days to be stopped in the midst of planning a shooting following the Aurora spree. Have things maybe—maybe?—gotten to the point at which we can begin to put pressure on the NRA to explain, if they’re going to so aggressively fight any form of gun restrictions, whether they have any ideas on how to reduce gun violence, and if not, whether it might be time to reevaluate their influence in the gun debate?
The NRA is one of the most powerful lobbying groups in the country, but even their power must have limits. Take a look at the photo above. Can we please make that the limit?
Here’s the headline:
Obama calls for more steps to curb violence, including gun control
Holy crap, he did?!?
Here’s the body:
Acknowledging sensitivity of the issue, he said he nonetheless believes that even gun owners would agree “that AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers, not in the hands of children.” He offered no specific proposals but referred to background checks to prevent criminals and fugitives from purchasing weapons, and preventing guns from getting into the hands of the mentally unbalanced. Previous efforts to do the same have been thwarted by political opposition and the reluctance of sympathetic elected officials to take on the National Rifle Assn., among the nation’s most potent lobbying forces.
So, no, he didn’t. Back to work, everybody. (via LA Times)
According to the Denver Post (ht NPR),
“Between Friday and Sunday, the Colorado Bureau of Investigation approved background checks for 2,887 people who wanted to purchase a firearm — a 43 percent increase over the previous Friday through Sunday and a 39 percent jump over those same days on the first weekend of July.”
Which of course answers Jon Stewart’s alarm over the conservative push-back against gun control. It is definitely NOT time to talk about gun control, say the pundits, well at least until they get back from the gun store.
Good side note about the gun control debate:
Second, if the world is full of loons who want to kill their fellow man and we are not allowed to take away their guns (indeed, we are required to give them every possible tool for upping the body count) then I have an alternative. Congress should pass a law that anyone in the U.S., resident or otherwise, can present himself at any hospital, religious institution, or police/fire department and request immediate inpatient psychiatric care at no cost and with legal protection against job loss for missed time. People don’t snap and become killers overnight; it is usually a long process of isolation, depression, plotting, and desensitization to violence. Why not attempt to intervene when they first have the thought, “Maybe I should kill a bunch of people in a theater” rather than letting it progress to the point that the idea is palatable, even normal? Of course this wouldn’t help everyone. There are those who would not accept mental health treatment even at no cost. However, it would stop a few people who might otherwise become violent. Seems like it might be worth the cost, no?
The “guns don’t kill people, people kill people” argument assumes a functional apparatus for treating mental health problems; we don’t have that. But if, as some governors would have us believe, mentally unstable people will kill no matter the weapons, then shouldn’t we be focused on treating the mentally unstable people? If the NRA was serious about its own logic, this would be the next step, no? So we’ll be waiting for their proposal to fund advancements in mental health treatment as a means of reducing gun violence, which I’m sure is imminent. (h/t Gin and Tacos)
Colorado guv John Hickenlooper on whether stricter gun regulations could have stopped the Aurora shooting:
If there were no assault weapons available and no this or no that, this guy is going find something, right? He’s going to know how to create a bomb.
There you have it: if a regulation on the sale or purchase of a firearm won’t 100% stop all gun massacres from ever occurring, it’s invalid. Never mind that ordering the ingredients necessary to build a bomb is a good way to draw attention to the fact that you’re up to something, and that the government uses these exact methods to prevent terrorist plots all the time, and thus the fact that restricting sales of assault weapons would force would-be shooters into more nefarious areas would actually be a good way to stop their attacks. Nope: that James Holmes could have conceivably killed 12 people in one fell swoop using an explosive device that exists only in John Hickenlooper’s imagination means he gets all the assault weapons he can hold at one time.
One of two things is at play here: either Hickenlooper doesn’t understand the concept of incremental reform, which would make him a pretty lousy executive, or he understands it just fine and also knows he’s a Democratic governor of a swing state during a recession, and the last thing he wants to do is piss the NRA off. So he makes a blatantly ridiculous statement and everybody nods as if he had just advanced a cogent argument. This is exactly how the proverbial emperor comes to wear no clothes.
Roger Ebert goes full despair over the depressing unlikelihood that a single aspect of our gun laws will change as a result of the Aurora shootings, while E.J. Dionne gives an excellent rundown of the exact ways the NRA will deflect even the most basic charges against gun ownership. Both are protesting more in sorrow than anger; neither thinks anything will be accomplished (and neither do I, frankly; what follows is less an actual theory than thinking aloud).
But! Buried way below the lede of the Dionne’s piece is this:
Sure, there are some dissenters. Many of the nation’s mayors, led by Mike Bloomberg of New York and Tom Menino of Boston, have tried to organize a push for carefully tailored laws aimed at keeping guns out of the wrong hands. But they are the exceptions. President Obama has done little to challenge the NRA, and yet it attacks him anyway.
Catch that last part? Since before even taking office, Obama has the NRA’s enemy #1. The NRA even set up a website called GunBanObama.com, which warned that Obama would be “the most anti-gun president in history.” In response, guns sales skyrocketed in the months leading up to Obama’s inauguration—by 60% in some states—despite the fact that nobody in their right mind thought Obama would go anywhere near gun control.
And he didn’t: in fact, Obama has actually loosened gun laws while in office. To deal with the cognitive dissonance that was destined to result from Obama doing the opposite of what the NRA warned everybody he would do, the organization pulled the classic cognitive dissonance move and doubled down: Obama, according to the NRA, will be in his second term what they feared from his first. NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre recently warned of a “conspiracy to ensure re-election by lulling gun owners to sleep.” Conspiracy is his word, not mine, but it’s a necessary one: the amount of statergery necessary to maintain a pro-gun first administration only to mollify enemies in order to sneak attack them in the second is worthy of parody, and has already received it. Yet, in one of the only instances in the past four years in which Romney has spoken unequivocally about something, he endorsed this nonsense:
Mitt Romney drew a warm reception from the National Rifle Assn. on Friday as he attacked President Obama for “employing every imaginable ruse and ploy” to restrict gun rights, which Romney pledged not to do if elected in November…“In a second term, he would be unrestrained by the demands of re-election,” Romney told a crowd estimated at 6,000 in the cavernous Edward Jones Dome. “As he told the Russian president last month when he thought no one else was listening, after a re-election he’ll have a lot more, quote, ‘flexibility’ to do what he wants. I’m not exactly sure what he meant by that, but looking at his first three years, I have a very good idea.”
Long crazy short: the NRA already thinks Obama’s going to go for gun control in his second term; they’re already mobilizing their base over this theory; they’re already supporting some candidates and attacking others under this theory. The political landscape, for all intents and purposes, is currently operating under the assumption that Barack Obama will go nuts on gun restrictions in t-minus six months. Which raises the question: what exactly do Obama and the Democrats have to lose by not going after gun control?
Obama’s presided over a lot of mass shootings. Fort Hood, Tucson, Chadron, Seal Beach, now Aurora, to name just the ones off the top of my head, for a total of 42 dead and 114 wounded. That’s 1.25 major mass shootings per year of his presidency, minimum, and Aurora now counts as the biggest shooting in American history. And these are just the mega shootings, to say nothing of the thousands of gun deaths a year as a result of run-of-the-mill crime, accidents, or stupidity. The Brady Campaign’s list of mass shootings under Obama’s administration is 41 pages long. The most recent shooting listed happened in Tulsa, OK, with 17 people injured. It occurred three days ago.
Doesn’t a president who loosened gun restrictions at some point bear some responsibility for the gun deaths under his tenure? Obama’s gotten a complete pass on gun deaths 2009-present for a variety of legitimate reasons—one being, yes, that the executive has little actual control over gun laws, which are congressional and state affairs—paramount of which is that the gun control argument is presumed so lost that nobody believes he could do anything about it if he wanted to.
That was then. We’ve suffered a lot of shootings since 2009. There may be a bigger stomach for gun restrictions now than there was in 2009. There’s the fact that the Aurora shooter’s guns were all purchased legally, driving home that our laws really are enabling the preparations of these shooters. And, perhaps most important, there’s the fact that, unlike the Fort Hood shooting, which was largely marginalized as a intra-military event, and the Tucson shooting, which was seen, rightly or wrongly, as political act, the Aurora shooting was a populist affair: we all go to the movies, and most of us are going to see The Dark Knight Rises. The Aurora shooting, more than any others recently, is reminiscent of the Oklahoma City Bombing in its “it can happen anywhere” quality.
That quality may make the real consequences of gun violence felt more palpably across the general populace. This is no longer a school campus issue, or a military problem, or an issue of political rhetoric. Regardless of what James Holmes’s motivations turn out to be, movie theaters—a “home” of a “joyful pastime” in Christopher Nolan’s inadequate words—have been weaponized, legally, and with the full support of the NRA, whose “guns don’t kill people” argument now has to contend with the fact that James Holmes would have shot approximately 1/15 of those people without an AK-47-type firearm.
Consider also that, assuming Obama is reelected and the Democrats hold on to the Senate, early 2013 will be the furthest removed from electoral politics as one could get; if there’s a time to test the waters on gun control, that’s it. Here’s Dionne on the sub-presidential politics:
There are many reasons for this politics of timidity, not the least being a United States Senate that vastly overrepresents rural voters relative to suburban and urban voters. (The electoral college overrepresents rural voters, too.) Add to this a Republican Party that will bow low before any anti-government argument that comes along, and a Democratic Party petrified of losing more rural support — and without any confidence that advocates of tougher gun laws will cast ballots on the basis of this issue.
I don’t know well enough the specifics of gun control at the district level to tell if Dionne is simplifying this; I imagine gun politics are more complicated and influential than “a rural side issue.” It’s true that gun rights barely registers as an issue voters care about in 2012 polls, but that may be because the NRA has so effectively neutralized it as a political issue; it might also be because the economy is overwhelming. But in 2013, electoral politics will still be 1.5 years away. Yes, the NRA and plenty of money and will to remind voters in October of 2014 how a Democratic legislator voted on gun control in January 2013. But if Dionne is right, and the NRA has maxed out the marginal utility of people who vote on gun issues, the Democrats might not actually suffer very much from a vote on gun restrictions.
All of which is to say that the NRA may have overplayed its hand the past few years. The organization has potentially hit the ceiling of its electoral support; a scared gun owner can purchase multiple weapons out of fear, but he can only vote once. And since the NRA is acting as if Obama has already passed the restrictions he hasn’t even proposed, they may have given him an opening to become the exact type of gun control proponent they have spent so much time convincing people he is. If the political landscape in 2013 is one in which 100% of the NRA’s members are already 100% against Obama, he has nothing to gain in catering to them. Rather than prod Obama with reasons to continue to appease their lobby, they’ve granted him every excuse to ignore them completely.
The variable that’s left is whether the public is fed up enough with mass shootings that they’re willing to entertain some modest gun restrictions without freaking out about tyranny and the rest—in short, without being susceptible to the NRA’s yelling <paranoid>Second Amendment</paranoid> on every street corner. In this sense, Dionne’s and Ebert’s articles are good starts. The more people speak out about not only the sorrow of the tragedy but its agonizing preventability—the fact that it didn’t need to have happened if only we were slightly smarter and more cautious about firearms—the more gun control becomes a reasonable response rather than a pipe dream. If this line is repeated as much as cries of “Second Amendment” are, we might return this issue to the realm of debate.
It’s a long shot, but it’s just possible that January 2013 could see the exact intersection of public support, electoral willpower, and NRA impotence that makes the revival of gun control a reality.
Addendum: Neat, depressing fact: gun sales have grown so much under Obama’s administration that when Perry was in the lead of the GOP primary, some gun manufacturers began to fret that Mr. I Shoot Wolves While Jogging would actually be bad for business.