OP-ED | Don’t Let the Gun Lobby Change the Subject
by Susan Bigelow | Feb 1, 2013 12:13pm
(16) Comments | Commenting has expired
Posted to: Civil Liberties, Law Enforcement, Opinion, Newtown
Gun lobbyists, manufacturers, and gun rights supporters would like you to believe that firearms had nothing to do with Newtown. They would like nothing better than to change the subject to video games, mental illness, or anything else that gets them off the hook so they can get back to the lucrative business of selling firearms and ammunition. We must not let them.
Gun control opponents have slowly been shifting the conversation away from guns. “Stepping up enforcement of existing laws and improving school safety . . . makes sense,” said Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tennessee, before adding, “But our greatest challenge may be improving our mental health system and addressing the mentality of those who commit mass killings.”
Republican Texas Gov. Rick Perry wants society to have “a broad-based conversation” about “what were the drugs of all these people been involved, whether it’s been in Connecticut or Colorado . . . how they were being impacted from a medical standpoint.”
Rep. Virginia Foxx, R-N.C., said that “new laws will do us no good if they burden responsible gun owners and small businesses but fail to stop sick people before they turn to evil.”
The NRA has called for a national database of the mentally ill, while Republican Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tennessee, suggested that be thinks “video games are a bigger problem than guns, because video games affect people.”
This is nothing but misdirection. Now, it’s absolutely true that mental health parity is a huge problem in this country, and addressing this woeful gap in our health care system should be a top priority. However, mental illness is not why 31,672 people died from firearms in 2010. Mental illness should not take the blame for the fact that, as of Thursday evening, 1,470 people in the United States had been killed by guns since the Newtown shootings. Twenty-three of them were children.
In Kansas City this month a boy picked up a five-shot revolver he found under a coat on a chair and accidentally shot a girl named Trinity Ross in the head. She died a week later, just four years old. In Chicago, an honor student and majorette fresh from performing at the inauguration of President Obama was shot to death by a gunman as she took shelter from the rain. Her name was Hadiya Pendleton, and she was 15. In Memphis, Alfreddie Gipson was killed after he found his father’s gun on Christmas Day, 10 years old. In New Haven, just last week, a store owner named Abdul Rawas was shot and killed in a robbery by a teenager who then shot and murdered Lonnie Starr a few hours later in an attempted hold up. The list goes on and on, and each person who died had a face, a story, a life, and loved ones they left behind. None of their deaths had anything to do with mental illness, and there are thousands every year just like them.
The NRA has all kinds of excuses. Criminals will find ways to get guns. We have a culture of violence inspired by video games. Responsible gun owners don’t let this happen. Now they have the mentally ill to blame as well, and conservative lawmakers are using this as an excuse to back away from stronger gun control measures. How wonderfully comforting it must be for gun rights activists and lobbyists to place the blame somewhere else. It ought to be, since they’ve been doing it for decades.
But there’s a single thing linking all these deaths; each was caused by a firearm. After a hard two years of one horrific mass shooting after another, Americans finally seem ready to embrace change. A new UConn/Hartford Courant poll showed national support for each of the five gun control measures polled, including an assault weapons ban (57 percent in favor) and banning clips with more than 10 bullets (53 percent in favor). A December Gallup poll found 58 percent in favor of stricter gun sale laws, compared with 43 percent in 2011. There is broad support for President Obama’s gun control package, and many state legislatures are swiftly moving towards tighter controls.
I hope that once this debate is done, conservatives like Gov. Perry and Sen. Corker continue to support broad mental health parity at all levels, even outside the context of gun control. But for now, the American people shouldn’t let them change the subject. We must keep the focus where it belongs, even when it’s not comfortable to do so. We owe the thousands and thousands of Americans who die from firearms every year nothing less.
Susan Bigelow is an award-winning columnist and the founder of CTLocalPolitics. She lives in Enfield with her wife and their cats.
Tags: gun control, gun laws, mental health parity, Newtown shooting, Susan Bigelow, Rick Perry, Obama, Lamar Alexander, Bob Corker, Virginia Foxx, dh
(16) Comments
posted by: Hugh TalkingToMe | February 1, 2013 6:34pm
Which of your constitutional rights are you willing to surrender, knowing that you will never get it back?
Freedom of speech?
Freedom of association?
Freedom of religion?
Freedom of the press?
Protection from unreasonable searches and seizures?
No unwanted soldiers living in your home?
Right to due process?
Right to a speedy trial?
Right to a trial by jury?
No cruel and unusual punishments?
Having other rights not spelled out by the constitution?
Citizens retaining rights not delegated to the government?
Of course not!
Why then should gun owners surrender their second amendment rights
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
It is pathetic that the progressive media, dare I call them socialists, use the straw man of business interests that provide services to law abiding gun owners as evil. I guess capitalism is evil too. Just like buying your Starbucks brew every day or the salad and quiche at Au Bon Pain.
The whirling cyclone of emotion arising from the criminal act of a demented evil young man will not be addressed by diminishing my constitutional right to arms. Fixing the problem will require delving into mental health issues and getting past
the silly squeamishness of having school security. The unwillingness to face this is really pathetic
posted by: BMS | February 2, 2013 11:26am
The vast majority of gun violence is committed with handguns. The vast majority of handgun violence is committed by criminals. The laws being proposed only affect the legal, sane, responsible gun owner. We do not take away free speech because someone yells fire in a movie theater. We go after the person that jeopardized public safety.
posted by: ALD | February 2, 2013 12:20pm
To me if the NRA, or conservative Republicans, are being at all successful in forcing the conversation here to go just beyond guns, I say more power to them.
I have no idea how anyone can remotely think that 1470 people being killed by guns ( I assume of all kinds) since Newtown does not suggest a far bigger issue with our society and it’s many problems than just guns….... Are we to believe that ALL those who did these killings were just normal people, maybe just having a bad day???
If we take the guns away and 1470 people are beaten to death by tire irons instead of guns are we supposed to think that is progress??
Yes, I agree, we need much stronger gun control laws, even if just how effective they maybe really be is hard to tell…... But if we allow ourselves to believe that all this violence in our society is only rooted in guns, then we will have lost a best chance we have seen in years in being honest with ourselves, and that would be very tragic.
posted by: Noteworthy | February 2, 2013 11:52pm
The circular argument proposed in this column provides the real insight and rationale to much of the new gun legislation being proposed. Excuse me, but we are having these discussions now so that “Newtown never happens again.” Right? Wrong.
The left is simply using the blood and bodies of the Newtown dead to promote an agenda it has had for as long as Ive been alive - namely to eliminate gun ownership in America. Meantal healthcare parity is important as the writer correctly notes, but then she goes on to denigrate that as a misdirection to the real problem: gun ownership. Owning a gun is not the issue - illegal owning of a gun is; unlawful use of the gun is a problem and so are the underlying problems associated with its use. Known nutcases with gun caused the mass murders and in each case, people closest to the nutcases didn’t recognize the potential for violence or knowingly did absolutely nothing about it. Those closest to the rest of the shooters, who may or may not be nutcases, largely knew that person had a gun and refused to do anything bout it. I see a pattern.
posted by: sparkplug | February 3, 2013 4:52pm
>>
But there’s a single thing linking all these deaths; each was caused by a firearm.
<<
These malice-filled hunks of metal need to be stopped now! The only “reasonable” thing to do is to pass even more laws to restrain the actions of these monstrous weapons of destruction!
I wonder if these anti-gun nuts ever take the time to actually listen to what they’re saying.
I posted this once before but evidently it needs to be posted again. It’s called “Do guns kill people?”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7zQ83fhKQ0M
posted by: sanecitizen | February 4, 2013 10:52am
This is a very simple conversation and its not as complex as the anti gun lobby would have you believe. Look to the UK for your future:
People are still killed by guns and accidents still happen, albeit at a far lower rate.
That being said, the UK has the second highest crime rate in all of Europe and still almost hits the top ten in homicide. The anti gun lobby is asking you to trade guns for exploding numbers of rapes, robbery, assaults and home invasions. The UK is rapidly increasing in bladed weapon crime and accidents.
When one weapon was banned a second was simply substituted.
Great deal you say? No more mass killings in exchange for vastly increased amounts of other violent crime? Not really a good deal because on top of the increased crime rates they still have mass shootings (Cumbria 2010).
But yeah, let’s focus on the guns because it will magically solve all out problems.
posted by: Chien DeBerger | February 4, 2013 11:40am
“Vice President Joe Biden acknowledged that new gun laws would not “fundamentally alter” the likelihood of another mass shooting, though he insisted there has been a “sea change” in American views on guns in the wake of Newtown.” (http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_…
Out of the mouth of the babes….
posted by: DrHunterSThompson | February 4, 2013 2:11pm
Like many of your columns, this is a bit naive and disjointed. I wonder if you, like many people, understand what gun control is. Sure, too many innocent lives are lost to gun violence and accidents - we all know that, but lets talk intelligently about trying to limit the number of people that are victims.
When too many kids were dying in car crashes we raised the drinking age, required seat belts, lowered the speed limits, began crash testing, etc.
Now, guns are not cars, or some type of alcohol or drug, or a motorcycle, or partially hydroginated oil, however, those who are looking at a holistic approach to the issue are the only ones worth paying attention too because that is where the real solution will emerge.
HST
posted by: Joe Eversole | February 4, 2013 7:05pm
Actually, all of the issues cited by the author of this piece go to the exact arguments the NRA is making. In Kansas City and in Memphis, the tragedies would not have occurred if the Gun Owners had been responsible with their firearms. The other incidents were caused through criminal action. Why exactly would someone who is willing to gun down a 15 year old Majorette be concerned with an Assault Weapons ban? Short of taking every gun away, and somehow waving a magic wand to eliminate any and all remaining illegal firearm out there, this incidents will continue to occur. The willful ignorance on the part of author concerning Mental Illness and it’s direct link to mass shootings is laughable on it’s face. But, this isn’t about enacting legislation to curb gun violence for the author, it’s about eliminating guns in toto.
posted by: sightover | February 5, 2013 8:02am
Psychology students study projection bias; the author here would ascribe her feelings of denial to the big bad firearms industry who wants to “get back to [their] lucrative business…” of selling in demand products to legal buyers.
Private gun ownership is the barometer of individual rights, but firearms are tools. Like cars, chainsaws, and certain petroleum products they are dangerous, but not impossible to wield safely.
The fact is that the deranged killer could just as easily crashed a car through the school wall and started tossing gasoline bombs. Maybe the CO theater killer would have preferred an aerosol attack with a simple fruit sprayer and chemicals. The Bath School bombing killed 38 students and 6 adults. Evil will always find a way.
The author, and many involved in this debate, hate guns and harbor deep bias against “typical” gun owners. Legislating away someone’s rightful property and individual NATURAL RIGHTS won’t prevent tragedy, but it will set at ease minds who can conceive of nothing better than using the deaths of innocent children to make progress on their collectivist agenda.
posted by: ALD | February 5, 2013 8:10am
I read this in my local paper this morning:
“Democratic Rep. Minnie Gonzalez Monday called for increasing Connecticut’s maximum speed limit on state highways to 75 mph, saying the current limit is being ignored.”
“She also told the General Assembly’s Transportation Committee that statistics she has found show the number of accidents decrease with the higher speed limit.”
HMMMM!!!! COOL!!! Well then why have a speed limit at all?????
So yesterday we find some of the same people up in Hartford who are considering what new laws they might impose to limit gun violence also talking about raising our speed limits because existing laws are being ignored.
They are also talking about raising the fines for talking on cell phones while driving because that law is being ignored as well….... Given the number of people I see talking on phones while driving I’d have to agree, it is being ignored….... As well as not being enforced, just like existing speed limit laws.
Nice to know what kind of thinking is going on up in Hartford by those looking to reduce gun violence in this state…..........
Let’s give every driver in the state a bigger clip size!!!!!!
To me this makes clear my concerns. You don’t fix problems in this world if you ignore the root cause of the problem. Anyone seriously interested in ending gun violence in this country cannot just pick which part of the problem to rally against, as this article has done.
By the way these are the same people working on our budgets…......... But that is another story!!!
posted by: DRG | February 5, 2013 10:03am
While every death, regardless of cause, is to be mourned, why single out fatalities caused by guns? There are far more deaths caused by medical mistakes, alcohol, smoking, auto accidents and drug use to mention just a few. How about a interactive act of those deaths or that of the aborted babies, 54,000,000 since Roe vs Wade? Legal gun owners are already have their 2nd Amendment right heavily regulated. Would you be able to apply your freedom of speech as easily as you do if you were subjected to a permitting process and background checks? If you really want the gun control you seem to seek, petition Congress to repeal the 2nd Amendment.
posted by: NoNonsense2013 | February 5, 2013 11:54am
Well, Susan, most of the cocmmenters here have certainly proved your point about misdirection, haven’t they? So, because no gun law will be 100% effective at preventing firearm-related deaths, we shouldn’t even try. Yes, there are many gun deaths caused by criminals who don’t give a rat’s rear end about laws. But how many people who commit gun violence were law-abiding citizens… until they weren’t? That’s not to say that everybody’s guns should be taken away, so don’t you all get your knickers in a twist. But sensible, reasonable gun-control measures IN CONJUNCTION with other measures mentioned… that’s where the solution lies.
posted by: SaveCT | February 5, 2013 1:58pm
“Everyone to their hideouts, Obama and the Socialists are coming for your guns!” I totally agree Susan! The NRA hysteria machine is blowing more smoke than the factories of China. You don’t think there is hysteria? Take a look at some of the comments of gun advocates, they’re beyond reality. If the second amendment is ever repealed it will be because of the NRA. If common sense measures aren’t passed we are going to have another massacre, maybe much bigger next time. At that time people will be so fed up that they will demand repeal of the second amendment, and it will be because groups like the NRA, and its largest funders, the gun manufacturers, refused to listen to the people.
posted by: sofaman | February 5, 2013 11:21pm
Like so many issues, the Right uses FEAR and fear alone as its weapon. It’s hilarious that people use the UK or other countries as examples of “the problems” of rational gun measures. Those countries still have insanely lower murder rates than we do.
These responses are tragically misguided. The “they want to take away your guns” is typically scare-mongering. There’s no doubt the real issue is the polarized Right vs. Left gridlock this country faces.
posted by: sightover | February 6, 2013 8:08am
NoNonsense2013 misses the point. EVEN IF gun laws were 100% effective they wouldn’t stop wicked acts.
CT already has some very good firearms laws, and some like the AWB, which are entirely UNREASONABLE and act as punitive measures on a class of people (gun owners) who certain people despise. We will certainly end up with more unreasonable, punitive laws by the end of session.
When you feel that “something” must be done - that we “have to try” - you are acting out of fear. It is irrational, and lawful citizens become your whipping boys. One cannot blame them for growing tired of it.