For now, we must stay ever vigilant.
Meanwhile after the loss Obama showed the emotion we expected of a leader after Newton, Boston, Benghazi…but never got. I wonder why?
Given his record, there’s every reason to believe that what’s really bothering him is the fact that red-state Dems denied him an easy chance today to demagogue Republicans as the party of child murder or whatever, which he was hoping to use next year as a way to retake the House. Then, once he had a Democratic Congress again, he could pass some new horrible permutation of ObamaCare or immigration or the minimum wage or some other liberal wishlist item that has nothing to do with gun control. Just like in his first term! That’s what he’s mad about, that a political bludgeon was essentially taken out of his hands before he had a chance to use it to achieve unrelated goals.
Poor widdle President Stompy Foot.
This angry little man is the man we don’t see behind the scenes. He cannot tolerate dissent, cannot tolerant anyone who doesn’t agree with him…in short the definition of a bad leader.
See author page
@Tom: That’s the ol “I’m not picking your purse” statement . . . while you watch your purse bet picked. It only is meant to prevent those already indoctrinated from having the spell broken (the indoctrinated being told by Obama’s “endorsement” on who to vote for in 2016. If you pay around 2 billion to buy the oval office, you might as well get as much out of it as you can.
@Nathan Blue, #51:
There’s something almost cult-like about the way right wing media is attempting to inoculate those under its sway from possible ideological contamination by other information sources. They’ve got their adherents believing that everyone else is the victim of excessive Kool-Aid consumption.
@bburris:
I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding on the part of many of the more enthusiastic gun owners about what is driving attempts at gun regulation. People like to frame this in terms of taking something from them, infringing on their rights, playing politics: have you ever actually contemplated why someone might support measures like universal background checks on a personal level? Where I grew up, guns are not deeply embedded into the way of life. Most people don’t have a history with or affinity for target practice or hunting, or whatever else you do with them. Since I don’t have a gun, in my world guns aren’t a source of protection. Guns, to me, are only a potential source of violence against me and my family. And this is a fairly common sentiment. I know very few people with guns and almost all of them are law enforcement. From a purely selfish standpoint, having millions of people, many of them untrained, or not careful, or simply criminal, run around with guns has no upside for me, just downside. I can conceptually tolerate it because I know they’re not going anywhere, and – more or less – this will continue to be part of the makeup and fabric of America, but I don’t have to like everything about it. If you’re wondering why those parents from Sandy Hook have been so outspoken, maybe they share my experiences and outlook with guns, except for them, that potential downside actually hit home. Do you really thing something so abstract as “you’re impinging on my Second Amendment rights” is going to register with those parents? Do you think the argument that more guns everywhere will make a community like theirs safer will register? How should they receive the fact that gun enthusiasts and the gun lobby cannot compromise on one simple issue, and not only that, they preen and celebrate that fact? Perhaps it was an overreach by the NRA this time. There is a baked in level of tolerance Americans who don’t own guns have for guns and their inherent risk to life and limb, but I can see that curdling very quickly when it registers that their fellow citizens really could care less about their safety concerns. Just something to think about while your popping the champagne.
Corruption reigns…
Blogger Raided by FBI:
FBI Raids Blogger Over Obama Ineligibility Evidence
Tom, having you speak openly has no potential upside for me either. I don’t see how people who are willfully ignorant, irresponsible and antagonistic should be allowed to express such views as they are meaningless to me, and whole lot of people like myself. So, why should people like you be free to speak in public? Why can’t we just all agree that you need to give up some of your 1st amendment rights…so that the rest of us might sleep better at night?
That’s not how “rights” work and why they are inherently different than your needs, wants, and desires. If we applied the same logic to the first amendment…..you’d be in your apt with tape over your mouth and no computer access.
I personally had no problem with expanded background checks and updated check lists to include better reporting on dangerous mentally ill persons. (ie., the actual problem), as well as better enforcement when people “did” commit a supposed felony by attempting to purchase a firearm and lieing on the form. But, the legislation just never got to the point that it could meet the threshold without bending things too far the other way, or including things that had no bearing on the issue. I would add, the ACLU didn’t like the bill either for the same reasons.
MataHarley
it’s still a dirty trick
is in it, they treat the STATES GOVERNOR as a inferior under their power,
using money as an incentive,
IT’s okay with CHILDREN you want to force into the right action or correct
using the money,
but to GOVERNORS is dirty,
I would send them to hell with their money,
bye
@Greg: I don’t watch any “right-wing” media, so I couldn’t tell ya. I only know the 90% figure is fallacious, and the mime of “we’re the majority by a long-shot” has taken root with too many people . . . just as was hoped.
Wall Street Journal’s Review and Outlook: Gun Control Meltdown: The President’s agenda fails in the Democratic Senate:
Obama:
Las Vegas KNTV news reported that Harry Reid said he voted “No” because the bill did not include mandatory registration The Wall Street Journal notes:
Now, after having won his re-election due to their support, Harry has stabbed these campaign supporters in the back, and oddly stated that he supported the bill and ALL the amendments. (It is not clear in his “all” statement if he was including the Republican amendments or only the Democrat ones.)
The Scolder-In-Chief Is In a Snit, You Guys
Obama said:
He is absolutely right, That is what conservatives need to do to protect our Bill of Rights from power-hungry Democratic Nanny-state politicians like Cumo and Bloomberg.Next on the agenda, remove oath-breaking Republican Senators like Toomey, who collaborated with far-left senators to infringe on our second amendment rights.
This is not over by a long-shot. The bill has only been shelved, and it wouldn’t surprise me for Reid to bring it up in the dead of night or without warning to try to shove it through when Republican’s and the pro-2nd amendment folk are least expecting it. Obama claims that “a minority” stopped the bill from going through. The last I checked, 60 out of a 100 Senators is not a minority, but this is not the first time that Obama has had trouble with even the most minor of concepts of a mathematical nature.
Expanding background checks to catch criminals is a waste of time, money and effort as criminals don’t do background checks on other criminals. Creating an expanded, vague new mental health evaluation component to background checks that allows for widely subjective psychological evaluation by those without adequate training, introduces a chaotic non-standard whereby a person can (without due process or appeal) have their constitutional rights violated. This is in it’s unconstitutionality, not unlike a requiring of an independent intelligence quotient evaluation via faceless bureaucrats before a person would be allowed to vote or to exercise their 1st Amendment right to free speech. This was an underhanded and devious Federal legislative power-grab intended to easily enable the infringement of a constitutional right by the Federal government and Executive department interpretation could have used executive orders and administrative powers to dictate the meaning of mental disability for disqualification.
@Dc:
So it’s going to be like that, eh?
I’m enjoying this tortured metaphor. My discussing why people might feel strongly about gun background checks is somehow the equivalent of walking all over your 1st Amendment rights because apparently not loving guns is un-Constitutional.
Ugh. I hope you don’t think you’re being original. How many times do I have to see this same hysterical, illogical jump to the absurd as a defense against discussing measures that aren’t even remotely un-Constitutional. God forbid people have an honest discussion without the angry cliches being trotted out.
Don’t let that stop your from getting off your chest all the problems you have with my feeling that way.
Your Right-wing talking points are dated. Maybe next time.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2013/04/15/aclu-toomey-manchin-bill-would-make-national-gun-registry-less-likely/
The GOP has proven themselves once again to be on the wrong side of history and worthless. Say hello to a Dem controlled house in 2014.
Ditto
what a good read, thank you
we have some positive actions,
but HE is stuck on that, now he declare war, it’s only the first round, he said,
get ready CONGRESS, you now need a weapon to fight his war.
like the SEQUESTRER it will be mean,
aus armes citoyens,
marchon, marchon, la la lala, la victoire est arrivee,
THIS ONE you’re John,
oops you’re in trouble,
No, child. He asked me to pick one and stay. This one, is it.
Nice victory…for corporate America;
Gun lobby funded all but three senators who voted against background checks
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/04/18/gun-lobby-funded-all-but-three-senators-who-voted-against-background-checks/
This was sunk by DNC senators from red states. And they did to “keep” their jobs…not lose them. You’ve got it backwards….2014 may cost the DNC. Not the other way around.
If you believe the NRA and the republicans are the only one’s spending money and playing politics with this issue…or that only RNC members have business and lobby ties…..I dont’ know what to say to you. You’re either an idiot or a complete partisan hack.
The problem was…everybody saw through it. (ie., closing loopholes that don’t exist). Internet retail sales “already” go through a lic firearms dealer near you, where you pick it up and do a background check. And private sales have always been exempt…because there is NO WAY TO TRACK THEM without having the very kind of data base that they “claim” they were not creating. And finally, NONE of this would have prevented the tragedy in Conn.
And despite some of you maybe not giving a shit about what effect or impact any of this has or doesn’t have on 2nd amendment rights of others…or whatever your “opinion” might be about what rights people should or shouldn’t have….IT”S NOT UP TO YOU to decide for everybody else. You are free to do what you want.
My 1st amendment example was “meant” to be absurd. The SCOTUS has upheld that if something is “speech”, then it is held to a much higher standard when considering whether and how to limit it or not…ie., how it is regulated. It’s not that it can’t be regulated. But, that such regulations that seek to restrict or curtail it…be of a higher standard. The 2nd amendment is no different in how it should be approached/treated. And these latest attempts obviously didn’t hit that mark. I’m not saying that I don’t think they ever can. I’m just saying these…didn’t.
You can’t yell fire in a theater because it is not speech. It is a criminal act intended to cause bodily harm….just as we already have laws governing the “use” of a firearm. You can’t legally “shoot” people in a crowded theater either. Nobody is arguing what Adam Lanza did is “legal” or should be. We are asking that any regulation you seek to restrict such rights…or impose on citizens who are otherwise exercising their 2nd amendment rights be done with the same high standard; that it respects the privacy and rights of individual gun owners and law abiding dealers, business, etc. (regardless of whether you agree or disagree) in the same manner. I don’t think these bills made it to that level. And I “certainly” dont think the discourse (ie., demagoguery) even by the POTUS himself did.
In NYC, they had a West Indian parade in Brooklyn. 6 people got shot. Bloomberg was on TV next day trashing gun industry, legal gun owners, shooters, etc…as causing the deaths’ of those people by perpetuating the problem under the guise of the 2nd amendment. In fine print..somewhere in the back of the reporting was the statement that the guy who did this had 3 priors for shooting people and gun violations. He was on parole from his last gun conviction and violent felony. “”” crickets.”””” . You see, we want to be “sure” that we dont’ violate Mr Shooters rights…despite the fact that he’s rather violent or we may all disagree with his lifestyle and choices. So our solution is to remove the guns from otherwise law abiding citizens…enough so…that we might just make it more difficult for Mr 3x loser shooter…who isn’t supposed to have one…to get his hands on a gun.
And btw…I’m not a republican. Never have been. Another miscalculation.
DC, per the roll call vote on S. Amendment 715, the background checks amendment, only five Dems voted against it. The vote was 54-46. Had all five Dems voted yea instead of nay, it would still have failed. It had to get 60 votes.
The Grassley Amendment S.725, dealing with expanding NICS, mental health etc, wasn’t even that close. That was a 52 yea-48 nay vote, again falling short of the 60. On that Amendment, only one GOP voted nae and the rest were Dems. Nine Dems voted with the GOP on a yea.
You can view all the votes/Amendments here. It had many votes, and many varied degrees and stages of fail.
@This one:
Democrats want to claim they are only thinking of the children. Not so.
http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/pacgot.php?cmte=C00314617&cycle=2008
And who was one of Planned Parenthood’s top recipients of dirty money? Why, none other than Gabby Giffords. It seems babies, be they human or seals, are not safe around Giffords and her tax cheat husband.
Thought I’d add Obama’s recent words to North Korea:
Ironic n’est ce pas?
Mata, ….thank GOD. And where were those DNC senators from?
Montana? AK? North Dakota? ie…”fly over states”?
How about the vote on this amendment to protect the 2nd amendment rights of veterans and their families?
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=113&session=1&vote=00102
Dc, tisn’t rocket science that the more “blue dog Dem” types are from either fly over or southern States. They not only represent their mixed bag of constituents, but they are a mixed bag themselves. I wouldn’t expect a Democrat representative from urban sprawl States like NY or NJ to vote the same way as a Democrat from a more rural state like AR or MT… especially when it comes to gun measures.
My point was only to address your observation that it was the Dems, themselves, that “sunk” the Manchin-Toomey background check Amendment vote. Since they do not have a supermajority, even putting every Dem in the yea column still wouldn’t guarantee passage, and didn’t. It would take enough defecting Republicans to do so. Those are the ones conservatives should be paying attention to.
Summary, on that particular amendment, three minority party Republicans defected to stand with the Dems – Toomey and Kirk (both co-sponsors of the Amendment), and McCain. All the rest of the GOP Senators voted nae. Five majority party Dems defected to stand with the Republicans.
Feinstein’s attempt for “assault weapon” ban went down in flames big time… only 40 Senators voting yea. Only one, predictable, Republican voted for that… Kirk from IL. But then, many states are busy doing that on their own. I’m tapping my toes, waiting for the lawsuits to be filed, as they should.
I tend to believe that the Heller decision has really driven home the point that Congress can’t do as much as some gun control advocates may like them to do. Registries, classes of common weapons, mandated trigger locks… all unconstitutional. And I suspect that medical records may not pass constitutional muster either.
@Nathan Blue, #59:
Since you’ve apparently rejected polls as a source of information, how do you arrive at this conclusion?
I’m going by the results of a recent Quinnippiac University poll and a recent CBS News poll. A recent CNN/ORC poll found that 86% of the public favor increased background check requirements. A recent ABC News poll asked “Would you support or oppose a law requiring background checks on people buying guns at gun shows or online?” Once again, 86% stated they would support this.
In all of these, the samples were large and the margins of error were low.
The snapshots each provide of public opinion are clear and consistent. Add to that the fact that nobody has mainstream poll results that suggest anything different. To my mind, there’s only one reasonable conclusion: The results of the recent Senate vote run contrary to the will of nearly 90 percent of the American public.
The elected officials who are responsible for this result had better celebrate their victory now. They may not be feeling so celebratory about it in the near future.
@Greg:
Greg, as you might know, the bill was not a simple background check bill.
It was a comprehensive monstrosity including a new concept of background check.
This bill piggybacks on the Biden ideal of inserting doctors into the gov’t side against their own patients.
Remember there are some doctors who think the very idea of wanting a gun is a sure sign of mental illness!
Remember big sis once said all veterans were too mentally ill to be allowed guns.
So, a simple bill about a simple background check is apples-to-oranges different from THIS bill.
The ”90%” has nothing to do with THIS bill.
Nan G
yes the snooping on other to give their names by people
was horrible to think of making it a law,
can you envisage the OBAMA’s own crowd those mark in his book from all corners,
hunting those who don’t belong and are not written in the blue book,
AMERICANS AGAINST AMERICANS, like he has it fixed,
and now aren’t people happy to have their gun to protect them and own family
with this situation going on right now, hunting for a killer,
we have the proof right here,
I hope they leave the people alone and stop scaring and threatening them to haunt them
because they own a gun.
and concentrate on welcoming stable jobs creator with the freedom to do what they know best
that is create jobs,
and OBAMA cannot do it,
he only hire for the GOVERNMENT public jobs paid by the hard working citizens,
not created by anyone except the UNIONS
IT’s clear as crystal now that OBAMA want total control on people and he use the weak
and hurt and wounded in their sorrow to impliment his total control,
the CONGRESS will have to be vigilant so to prevent him from it, and watch those in CONGRESS sold to OBAMA to be unable to support his nefarious agenda,
GREG
you’re sources on polls are bogus,
they lost credibility from the readers
try the FOX POLLS
Best Gun Control Ad:
http://www.buzzfeed.com/copyranter/the-best-gun-control-commercial-ever-produced
Victory?
42 or 25 Senators who Voted Against Gun Reform Receive Money from Gun Lobbies:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/apr/18/pro-gun-groups-donated-senators
States with stricter gun laws have less violent crime. In 2006, the NRA successfully lobbied Congress to prevent the co0llection of data related to gun sales and crime and to de-fund the ATF. It has been without a Director until last month. They also believe those on the terror watch list should be allowed to have guns.
Law Enforcement More Likely To Be Killed In States With Weak Gun Laws, Study Finds
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2013/04/08/1835021/law-enforcement-more-likely-to-be-killed-in-states-with-weak-gun-laws-study-finds/
Study: States with more gun laws have less gun violence
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/03/07/gun-violence-study-chicago/1969227/
Guns in homes pose greater risk to families than to intruders, data show
http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/purple-wisconsin/184209741.html
Gun Lobby Helps Block Data Collection by Crimefighters
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-02-13/gun-lobby-helps-block-data-collection-by-crimefighters.html
Americans, even NRA members, want gun reforms
http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/31/opinion/glaze-gun-control
Chart: Before and after the assault weapons ban
http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2012/12/26/16169576-chart-before-and-after-the-assault-weapons-ban?lite
@Tom:
Right now, there are reports that the State of New York is issuing subpoenas for health records in their SAFE Act. Then they will determine who is and who isn’t mentally fit to have a weapon.
I don’t personally know anyone that doesn’t feel for the Sandy Hook parents. What happened was horrific. But a gun was just a tool used in their deaths; their deaths were caused by a lunatic. And I can relate to the Sandy Hook parents. I lost a son six years ago in a car accident. The person he was driving with was speeding on a winding road. It wasn’t the car’s fault, it was the idiot that was speeding that killed my son. Was I mad? Damn right I was mad. If I could have gotten my hands around the little jack asses throat at the time, I would be writing this from prison. But I didn’t seek to ban cars or winding roads. I did make sure the jack ass that was driving got jail time though.
I understand exactly what you are saying about not being around guns, therefore not being able to sympathize with those that feel their 2nd amendment rights might be taken. That’s why States should decide for themselves. Connecticut has some of the toughest gun laws in the country; it didn’t stop Sandy Hook. Connecticut wants to strengthen their gun laws; that is their right as a sovereign State. I don’t agree with it, but it’s their State. If New York, Massachusetts, or any other State wants to have tougher gun laws, more power to them. If my State tries it, I will do everything in my power to prevent it.
@This one:
Oh hell yeah! Chicago is the safest city on the planet. /sarc
@Aqua:
As is all those other stringent gun law cities like Detroit, St. Louis, Washington, D.C., Los Angeles, all Democrat run cities.
And then Greggie gives us the Quinnipiac poll thinking that boosts his argument. Ooooops. Quinnipiac polled 1,722 people, from Pennslyvania, New Jersey, New York, Connecticut, Ohio, Florida and Virginia. Seven states. Where are the other 50 states represented in that poll? CNN weights its poll heavily toward Democrats, as did the Quinnipiac poll, and all the other polls Greggie listed.
You know, funny you mention that. It’s a somewhat glamorous, if not misleading, title to an amendment. Below is the entire text of SA 720, the “protect veterans and their families” amendment. Odd thing is that similar language is already in the bill as to adjudication. Nor does it single out veterans and their families in particular. So I’m not sure what it was supposed to accomplish in the large scheme of things.
But since the whole exercise was a big fail, it’s all moot. Which is exactly why it should have been brought to a vote.
@MataHarley:
That bill.
Didn’t it get to a cloture vote in the Senate?
I read that Harry Reid tabled a gun bill.
It wasn’t this one, was it?
Nan G, all I know is the Thomas website updates that I provided to Dc below. Here it is again.
According to that, there were two more amendments voted on yesterday… both passed. Harkin’s SA730, according to the summary, is just another spending bill from what I can see. The intent is “To reauthorize and improve programs related to mental health and substance use disorders.” One thing both parties can generally agree on is feel good spending measures. Sailed thru 95 yea – 2 nae.
The other amendment, WY-R Burasso’s SA 717, was also agreed to 67 yea – 30 nae. That amendment is to withhold funds from a particular federal program to state and local governments who release confidential info about gun owners and victims.
So if S.649 has been tabled, it sure wasn’t yesterday. There are five related Senate Bills. No clue which answers your question.
Thanks Mata. My assumption that the Dems sunk the bill was based on the fact that they hold the majority in the senate and it didn’t pass. I didn’t realize it took a 3/5th majority to pass. Thank you for pointing that out and providing the link.
My other comments were directed at responding to “This One’s” comments which implied that only GOP senators vote this way or receive corporate/lobby money, Or that the NRA is the only lobby/money in washington surrounding this issue. Didn’t do a good job of it. Sorry. Really touchy about it lately and tired of being called a republican and put in a box because I feel the way I do on this issue.
I also want to apologize to Tom. I was trying to make a point by being ridiculous to show the difference between a “right” and a need, etc., using the first amendment as an example and it just came out wrong. Probably for the same reason. Tom, I’m sorry. I appreciate your view and thought you expressed it well. There are LOTS of people who grew up in cities never been exposed to guns at all. Used to, there would be boy scouts, or other sporting and hunting trip events where people might be exposed or introduced to firearms in a safe and responsible manner. But, those things have pretty much gone away…mostly demonized and run off if you ask me.
I just believe that the 2nd amendment was put there (ie., “second”) for a good reason and is not to be taken lightly. I also believe that it is “still” just as relevant today as it was then. Times were different then for “everything”, speech included, not just guns. I don’t think the fact that such dangers against suppression are different or less in some instances…negates the 2nd amendment anymore than it does the first. That’s more the point I was trying to make with my sarcastic rant.
Dc, you’re welcome. And if you keep tabs on the link I provided, and again to Nan G above, you can keep up on the progress via Thomas. What I found odd is that I couldn’t get to the text of the Harkin mental health program expansion in my brief search. But then, I didn’t spend much time since I’m multitasking business as well.
@Aqua:
I agree it was a lunatic ultimately responsible. The point of my post wasn’t really anything more than trying to provide a little insight into how the other side thinks, whether logical or not. A little perspective. Perhaps it was a facile, pointless attempt. But here is a perfect example of what pisses people like me off. As someone in the area, someone who couldn’t go to work today because of the developments in Boston, who has lived within spitting distance of every major site in this investigation, and someone who knows a family member of one of the victims, I would gladly smack the snot out of this pissant, Nate Bell, for his callous condescension. I’m sure he’s stupid enough to think the police would love it if people were aiming high powered rifles out their windows in a small area of Watertown right now, as the authorities sweep house to house.
That’s terrible to read. My deepest condolences.
I appreciate your continued civility and empathy with those who you don’t necessarily agree with.
@Dc:
.
You have nothing to apologize for. I’ve been on a hair trigger this week and I tend to blow my top now and again. You are well within your rights to express your feelings. I appreciate your perspective and this is an emotional topic.
@Tom:
“Where I grew up, guns are not deeply embedded into the way of life. Most people don’t have a history with or affinity for target practice or hunting, or whatever else you do with them. Since I don’t have a gun, in my world guns aren’t a source of protection. Guns, to me, are only a potential source of violence against me and my family.” Oh, I see. This explains why your reasoning on the subject is so deeply flawed; you don’t have a background of knowledge on the issue and, therefore, have no foundation on which to understand why some wish to keep their 2nd Amendment rights intact. I would follow up with… how often have you and/or your family been assaulted by law-abiding gun owners?
I argue with so many that claim that they live in mortal fear because of all the guns owned by citizens, yet, as I stated and as you, along with a long list of others, ignore, the overwhelming evidence is to the contrary; obviously, more gun owners has not led to more violence, more CHL holders has not led to wild shoot-outs in public and, in fact, all indications are that these two developments have, quite possibly, led to a reduction in crime and violence. No supporter of gun bans and more extensive infringement is willing to even acknowledge these truths, much less explain their “desire for safety” by undoing what has, apparently, been making us safer and safer.
I have come to conclude that safety is not the primary concern; eliminating private gun ownership is, even if it makes us less safe (Chicago).
I fully sympathize with the Sandy Hook parents (as opposed to employing them as tools for my cause), but I fully realize that there is no way I or anyone else could expect them to accept my point of view. That, however, doesn’t matter, because the senseless deaths of their children has nothing to do with the freedom of thought or the Constitution. Less to do with the 2nd Amendment, since the blockage of a law that would (WOULD) have put Adam Lanza out of commission is the actual cause of death; not the legal ownership of firearms. Another “inconvenient truth” no gun control zealot will address, much less explain.
You nor anyone else has to “tolerate” my guns; however, you HAVE to accept my ownership because it is my RIGHT. As long as I do not break laws with my guns, no one has any right to infringe on my bearing of arms; no one has the right to make my ownership more expensive, more difficult or in any way a shame to me. It is a Constitutional right and, in some cases, a civil duty.
STUDY: States With Loose Gun Laws Have Higher Rates Of Gun Violence
CHART:
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/04/03/1811311/study-states-with-loose-gun-laws-have-higher-rates-of-gun-violence/
This One aka John with Capital J, I’m not sure what point you are trying to make. Because if you think that the main issue of background checks is your ace in the hole as strong gun control, you are sorely mistaken.
While it’s difficult to pin a number on how many legal gun owners there are per state (something I’ll bring up in a minute…), The Daily Beast compiled a list of states ranked by the volume of NICS/background checks submitted in the year 2012 back in December. Just in case that goes over your head, that means which states had the most background checks.
Oddly enough, the states your ThinkProgress report as having the highest gun violence states, are also the same states that have the highest amount of background checks.
How’s that working out for you? LOL
And about that report…. if you want to look at gun violence, lumping accidents and suicide into criminal activity using guns is somewhat misleading. Yes, suicide is a “crime”, but it’s also a crime with the victim being the same individual as the perp. And if they didn’t commit suicide with a gun, they’d simply find another way to do so.
So looking at the individual report (you did do that, yes? Or did you just copy/paste your education from the summary?), let’s go over a few numbers, shall we?
Pg 11 – Homicides: National avg, 3.59 per 100K populus. LA is the highest with 9.53 per every 100,000 individuals. That’s .0000953% of all their population. woof…. *major* problem. Louisiana ranks 25th in the amount of NICS background checks performed.
Pg 15 – Homicides against women: National avg, 1.21 per every 100,000 person. Alabama is the highest with 2.39 per every 100,000 individuals. Another *major* problem that just begs for federal intrusion on law abiding citizens, eh? Alabama ranks 11th in the nation for the most background checks.
Pg 17 – Childrens deaths (accidents included): National average, 1.95 per every 100,000 children. Alaska has the highest with 5.85 per 100,000 residents. Stands to reason, yes? The last of the great American wilderness, and more kids handle guns for sporting, animal control, etc. I think you’ll have to agree that the more people that use any given item, the greater the chance any statistic involving that item will be. Alaska is probably one of the highest gun ownership states in the nation. But yet, including accidental deaths, that’s still 5.85 children out of every 100,000. BTW, Alaska ranks as the fifth highest state in running NICS background checks.
Pg 19 – LEO deaths with felonious gun users: National average, .02 out of every 100,000 individuals. Highest state was Louisiana again with the huge number of .53 per every 100,000 people.
Pg 21 – Assaults using guns: National average is 51.13 per every 100,000. Highest state? Tennessee holds the record here with 137.58 per 100,000. But then Tennessee ranks #19th in the amount of NICS reports run, or about 7,638 NICS run per 100,000. Out of the 7,638 avg NICS run, 137.58 of them were involved in an assault using a gun… if acquired legally. That’s less that 2% of all the NICS checks run. Not exactly a wild fire problem.
Pg 23 – Gun crime exports (aka the states with the highest incidents of being the point of origin for a gun used in a crime): National avg, 14.1 per 100,000 residents. Winner of the most? West Virginia, with 46.8 per 100,000. Hope you’re sitting down…West Virginia is the 4th highest state with the most NICS background checks run, averaging 11,670 background checks for every 100,000 people. Let me repeat that. WV runs more NICS background checks than 46 other states, *plus* the District of Columbia. Again, how’s that working out for ya?
Pg 25 – short time to crime statistics. That’s the time elapsed from gun sale to recovery at a crime, and whether it was a “strong indicator” or illegal trafficking. Mind you, that’s not proof of illegal trafficking. Just an “indicator”. National avg is 22.6%. Missouri was the highest with 40.2%, yet they are ranked 13th in the states with the highest background checks.
So let’s get back to that gun ownership per state issue. As I said, the more people that own guns, the more likely anything can happen with a gun involved… whether accidental death or crime. Just as the more cars per capita, the more accidents on the road are likely to occur. Not rocket science.
There is, nor should be, any actual gun ownership records. However the “About” search engine took a stab at 2007 figures, mostly for electoral purposes. Have no idea what they used as a source, but when you look down the list, it’s not far fetched to believe the pecking order is not far off. The urban sprawl states aren’t nearly as likely to have % of gun owners as the rural states. And with more guns as a percentage of your population, you’re also likely to have a higher percentage of events.
But then, these same states also run the highest amounts of background checks. Then look at the states with the lowest ranking on NICS run… which includes the District of Columbia as the least NICS run. All of them are in the “lowest gun violence” in your Think Progress report. So if they have the “strongest” gun control (especially with the subject being NICS/background checks), just why are they running the least amount of NICS checks, and how is it that the most violent states actually implement those checks in larger volume?
Or is it that there are less people in these populous states that even want to own a firearm?
So what’s your point about how this nonsense will be the saving grace of gun violence again? All statistics belie that, using even your own cited studies. What you *should* be paying attention to is the low percentage of incidents to the high percentage of law abiding gun owners… then move your penchant to strip others of Constitutional rights elsewhere.
@bburris:
It’s pointless for me to debate with a person who can’t acknowledge the statistically obvious fact that guns are a real factor in violence in America. Do you really think gun violence has no correlation to the number of guns in circulation, who has them, or how easily they are procured? The stark variance in the rates of gun homicides, accidental fatalities, and suicides – not to mention injuries – in the US vs. other developed countries with more gun regulations, this is something you can’t see? I think an interesting debate can be had with people who are willing to acknowledge the downside, the cost, that goes hand in hand with the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms. And I’m willing to listen to the upside. That’s a discussion where there’s at least a chance – perhaps slim – at arriving at a plausible middle-ground. But for people who fetishize guns to the degree they refuse to see them as anything but wonderful tools that only help the good guys and punish the bad, that never contribute to random, senseless pain – what would be the point of debating with a person who thinks like that?
@Tom:
There is a downside to the standard kitchen pressure cooker.
Do you also want to require background checks on any housewife, or her family member, that wants to purchase a pressure cooker?
What about hammers? Axes? And more people are killed with vehicles than guns. Want to restrict driver’s licenses to only those who can pass a background check?
The largest mass murder in the history of our nation was committed with airplanes. Shall we out law planes?
We either live in a free society, taking the bad with the good, or we just start calling ourselves the USSA.
@retire05:
So you want to go in this direction and box yourself into inanity. Fine by me. You’ve outlined your argument well. And what it means is that you believe we have a right to own any object, regardless of potential lethality, because objects don’t kill, people do. By bringing up a host of obviously variably lethal objects and putting them all in the same category as guns, you underline in bold your refutation that an object in and of itself is dangerous and can and should be regulated. So it follows that you must believe private citizens should be allowed own 30mm cannons, anthrax, chemical weapons, nuclear warheads, anything. If you deny this, you’re admitting that your argument is flawed, or that you’re a hypocrite. Interesting choice for you.
@Tom:
“It’s pointless for me to debate with a person who can’t acknowledge the statistically obvious fact that guns are a real factor in violence in America.”
It is, indeed, pointless, as you are not willing to address the FACT that, despite the dire predictions by those who, out of ignorance, predicted wild shoot-outs in the streets should CHL’s become widespread, not only has that not happened, but crime has gone down, and in areas with an abundance of CHL’s, gone WAY down. Also, address this: since Obama took office, there have been over 65 million gun sales, up about 50% from the Bush administration; has gun crime gone up 50%? No, it is down over 10%.
Now, if you happen to live in Chicago (a gun-ban city), you would be wise to fear the gun. This is because only the criminals have them; the authorities have denied them to the law abiding that might wish to protect themselves. Add to that a liberal justice system that sympathizes with the criminals, mostly minorities, and utilizes the “catch and release” program. Thus, gang punks do not fear being caught and they do not respect innocent life. Add to that a depressed economy, ravaged by liberal policies of taxing the economy to its knees while granting entitlements to most. There you have the perfect storm of, not a gun culture, but a violence culture. The same was mostly true in D.C., while the gun ban was in effect; since the lifting of the ban, crime there has fallen.
You can be deathly afraid of guns all around you, real or imagined; that’s your problem. However, examine what these fears are based on, evaluate if they are well-founded, but don’t ignore the facts and expect everyone to surrender their rights based on your prejudices.
The U.S. cannot be compared to other countries and their gun laws; we are a different people. Other nations are used to subjugation. We are (well, some of us) are independent and responsible. But, take note of this: when guns were banned and confiscated in England, violent crime INCREASED…. just not with guns. You blame the gun rather than personal responsibility, whereas the gun is simply the means to an end. As we have seen recently, something as benign as a pressure cooker can be weaponized, to much greater effect. Are you supporting a pressure cooker ban, registration and restrictions? If not, why not?
Punish the criminals, enforce the laws that restrict and punish crime, not legally enjoying a right.
Tom,
The last SCOTUS case on this pretty much made it clear that the 2nd amendment is an “individual” right including the right of self-defense using a weapon. That inherently means you might shoot somebody, wound them, and/or kill them in the process (all subject to judicial review after the fact). I think it was well understood that firearms can be dangerous even at the time it was written. (ie., the second amendment)
@Greg: When the polls stop supporting your agenda, we’ll see how much you defend them.
I’m merely saying that I don’t trust the polls–it’s too easy for those in charge to skew them, and the propaganda factor is too high.
You’re running off thinking your will is the “will” of the majority, the people. That thinking is dangerous.
Prove to me that 90% of the millions of Americans agree with all of the points you contend.
You simply can’t do it.
I’d like to see how you would view the polls if they said 90% of people were against gun control. I’m sure you’ve swallow that and say “the people have spoken.”
Not likely.
@Tom: #3
No, it’s not tough at all. the gun proposal would have no effect on the people that use guns to commit crimes. Restricting the rights of law abiding citizens to have firearms available to stop criminal acts of those that are clearly disobeying laws will not only not increase public safety, it would decrease public safety. As long as the borders are wide open to humans, it is even more wide open to illegal goods, drugs and guns, for example. As long as illegal guns can cross the borders by the thousands, gun crimes will not decrease. Increasing the penalties for persons using guns illegally will decrease the incidence.
He only gets mad when things aren’t going his way. Since everything else is going his way, he doesn’t get mad about the other stuff. (increasing national debt, unemployment, hiring an average of 200 federal employees per day since he was elected the first time, military cuts, the growth of extreme Islamists, etc., etc., etc.
@Tom:
Politicizing a position. Both sides are guilty of that, and it usually happens by idiots. Just like the guy from the New York Times that blamed the bombings on the GOP and the sequester. It doesn’t anything useful to the debate on either side.
My thoughts and prayers remain with the people of Boston. When we are on this forum or any like them, I think conservatives just look at Boston as the center of liberalism. I forget how many friends I had in the Air Force from Boston. Craziest people I ever met. They all wanted to fight at the drop of a dime. Also the most loyal friends you can have.
As I recall, when Gabby Giffords was shot by Loughner (?), the first thing the MSM pounced on was to blame the Tea Party and Sarah Palin for the shooting. They continued to debate that…and talk about how the republicans had just gone too far in debate and politics and that it was pushing their members to violence. When it came out that Loughner was crazy as bat shit and had no such political agenda, nor was he republican, nor a Tea Party member, that didn’t apparently matter to the “fact checkers” and editors, and etc…and “journalists” who continued to push this. Eventually, people got the right information. But, not before it left a scar in people’s minds connecting rightwing/gun violence together. It’s something they’ve been doing for a while. To teach people to fear their neighbors who are openly religious, or have guns, conservative in opinion/views, etc.
I also believe that when this happened in Boston, that some of the people from CNN and MSNBC were on the edge of their seat just hoping this turned out to be some white, Christian, redneck Tea Party rightwinger. They were already preparing the meme/gallows for it. Now, they are prepping the meme that this event had nothing to do with the boys conversion to Islam, ethnicity, or political affiliation. I guess it’s all just a mystery that we’ll have to wait to find out.
At least the president didn’t send out someone to go on all the morning talk shows and insist this was some kind of protest gone wrong or something other than it was…and pretend we dont’ know what it was until it just goes away. (ie, Hassan, Benghazi).
Aw…someone still needs his Benghazi binky! How cute!
However, Dc, in Obama insisting that the federal gov’t (read Holder et al) be in charge of both the prosecution AND the defense on the Boston bomber’s case, he can control exactly what comes out to the public.
This will be worse than the Nidal Hasan case (if it even ever happens).
And Benghazi?
Obama has managed to stonewall on that for over 7 months now.
He will do the same on this for at least 3&3/4 years.
@Greg: #54
and of course, by ‘everyone else’ you mean the Libtards and Dimocrats.
@Tom:#90
This is one of those arguments that can use statistics to prove what you want to prove. Do you think auto accidents are correlated to the number of autos in circulation? Do you think that the more autos there are in circulation makes it easier to acquire one?
I would prefer a statistic that correlates with how many criminals obey gun laws. How does the sentence of a criminal that uses a gun in the commission of a crime compare to the sentence of a person that chokes a person to death? If it is the same, then there is no reason to not use the gun because it would be much quicker and easier. Do you believe that if you had to write an essay that proved that a person can write an essay to prove anything that they wanted to prove that you could write an essay to prove it? That is what you are doing with your selective hypothesis on why gun violence is higher in some places than in others.
@bburris:
Thank you for bringing Chicago up. I know Conservatives bring that situation up as an example of how ‘gun regulation’ doesn’t work, and on this rare point, I agree. Chicago is a perfect illustration of the failure of local gun laws, because guns are so easily transferred across municipal boundaries. While you trumpet Chicago as an example of the failure of local regulation, in reality it’s the prime example of why regulation needs to comprehensive and federal to work. You want to blame criminals and crime as the reasons for gun violence in a place like Chicago, but unfortunately you don’t have facts on your side.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/guns.html
@Dc:
That’s very true. Of course, people on the Right, people on this very website, were clearly hoping the perpetrator was Muslim. I find either approach awful for the same reason: when a terrible crime is committed, we should hope we catch who actually did it, not who we hope did it. It’s horribly selfish and disrespectful to the victims to hope the perpetrator of a violent crime will fit your political agenda so that you can feel better ranting about it subsequently.
@Tom:
Furthermore, isn’t it interesting that now that the alleged culprit is identified as Muslim, this site, and others on the Right, will engage the crime as real and use it as a launching pad for anti-Muslim rhetoric (that’s already begun), whereas if it had been a white supremacists or anti-government domestic white person, the same people would have jumped on the false flag conspiracy bandwagon? Think about it: the same law enforcement personnel are either honest heroes or dishonest conspirators, and it’s all down to who was in that boat.