OP-ED | NRA is the New Definition of Chutzpah
by Sarah Darer Littman | Jan 11, 2013 9:32am
(32) Comments | Commenting has expired
Posted to: Civil Liberties, Law Enforcement, Opinion, Newtown
In the six weeks since Sandy Hook, 695 people have been killed by guns in the United States. Twenty seven were teenagers, seven young children.
Even as Vice President Joe Biden held a press conference on Thursday to discuss some of the proposals under consideration, (such as universal background checks, a renewed ban on assault weapons, and a ban on high capacity magazines) a troubled teenager with a shotgun walked into Taft High School in California and shot two people, leaving one student in critical condition.
The shooter wasn’t killed by an educator packing heat — he’s alive and in custody. He was persuaded to put down his weapon by a teacher and an administrator. The armed deputy sheriff who is normally on duty at the school was prevented from getting to work by weather conditions.
When the NRA met with Vice President Biden later that afternoon, they ignored the Taft incident and instead repeated the same tired talking points.
“We attended today’s White House meeting to discuss how to keep our children safe and were prepared to have a meaningful conversation about school safety, mental health issues, the marketing of violence to our kids, and the collapse of federal prosecutions of violent criminals. We were disappointed with how little this meeting had to do with keeping our children safe and how much it had to do with an agenda to attack the Second Amendment . . . We will not allow law-abiding gun owners to be blamed for the acts of criminals and madmen. “
In Yiddish, we have a word for statements like this — chutzpah. The classic definition of chutzpah is killing your parents and then claiming that you’re an orphan as a mitigating circumstance.
Why do I say this? Because the NRA lobbied for legislation blocking the very things that would help keep guns out of the hands of “criminals and madmen” while pushing legislation that prohibits mental health professionals from doing their jobs.
Example: Florida Gov. Rick Scott’s 2011 Firearms Privacy Act prohibits physicians from asking about the presence of guns in the home. Offenders face fines of up to $10,000 and the possible loss of medical license. U.S. District Judge Marcia Cooke blocked the law on the basis that it interfered with physicians’ First Amendment rights, but Scott has vowed to appeal.
Gov. Scott has an “A” rating from the NRA.
Along with 20 other states, Florida also passed a version of the Stand Your Ground Law championed by the NRA and ALEC. Research from Texas A&M found “significant evidence” that such laws lead to more homicides. “Estimates indicate that the laws increase homicides by a statistically significant 8 percent, which translates into an additional 600 homicides per year across states that adopted castle doctrine.”
Then we have the Tiahrt Amendments, named for their sponsor, Rep. Todd Tiahrt, R-Kansas, attached to every U.S. Department of Justice Appropriations Bill since 2003. These amendments are opposed by a coalition of 350 mayors and 200 police chiefs because they hamper the ability to restrict the flow of illegal weapons to criminals.
Rep. Tiahrt has an “A” rating from the NRA.
In our own state, we have the Board of Fire Arms Permit Examiners, which is appointed by the Governor from candidates nominated by the Commissioner of Public Safety, Connecticut Police Chiefs Association, the Commissioner of Environmental Protection, the Connecticut State Rifle and Revolver Association Inc., and Ye Connecticut Gun Guild Inc.
As retired Norwalk Police Chief Harry Rilling explained, “Many times, police officers have personal knowledge of individuals that should be used to refuse them a firearm permit, which is communicated to the police chief who will review and decide whether to approve an permit application. If refused, the individual has a right to appeal. Most do and all too often, despite clear and convincing evidence the refusal should be upheld, the Firearms Appeals Board will overrule the Chief’s decision. The reversal is normally justified by pointing out the charges against an individual have been nolled, dropped, or the person has applied for and received, accelerated rehabilitation. As a result, there are many individuals who, in the minds of the local law enforcement agency are unstable, legally carrying firearms on the streets of our communities.”
Yesterday, a distinguished group of doctors, psychiatrists, and professors from a diverse range of disciplines sent a letter to Vice President Biden with two major policy recommendations. Recognizing that there is a huge economic cost to gun violence — in the order of $100 billion a year — they recommend two things: 1) removal of the current barriers to firearm-related research, policy formation, evaluation and enforcement efforts, and; 2) Making direct investments in unbiased scientific research and infrastructure, such as implementing the CDC’s National Violent Death Reporting System in all 50 states.
When you look at the chart below it’s apparent that NRA lobbying has led to restrictions on funding for research on gun violence. As a post-Newtown op-ed in the Journal of American Medicine pointed out: “Criticizing research is fair game; suppressing research by targeting its sources of funding is not.”
Sarah Darer Littman is an award-winning columnist and novelist of books for teens. Long before the financial meltdown, she worked as a securities analyst and earned her MBA in Finance from the Stern School at NYU.
Tags: Sarah Darer Littman, gun violence, gun control, regulation, Newtown, taft high school, California, NRA, lobbying, biden, dh
(32) Comments
posted by: Reasonable | January 12, 2013 4:07pm
It is ironic that gun violance is being reported here at $100 billion dollars per year—but the deaths and wounded casualties surpasses that of the Aghfanistan and Iraq Wars. American is a continual daily war zone. More people are being killed than in the Civil War. We are facing financial and moral failure, thanks to taking God and prayer out of schools. Who is showing that they really care? “No one!” God bless America, but unfortunately, we removed HIM from office.
We should be removing some of our derelect elected politicians from office, instead. But our people do not show that they care.
We appear to be destroying ourselves from within.
posted by: Paul Bartomioli | January 13, 2013 10:38am
You forgot one item. Obamacare has the same restriction on not divulging firearm ownership.
You do not believe that someone who has paid their debt to society via the legal system should not enjoy their rights and privileges restored?
posted by: sofaman | January 14, 2013 1:10am
Good grief, two responses: 1. Not enough god in public schools is to blame; 2. Obamacare, and the absence of “Rights” of those the police themselves feel shouldn’t have a gun are “violated.” It is indeed a long road ahead for reason and common sense to steer this conversation.
posted by: Greg | January 14, 2013 9:54am
I am curious why anyone is surprised that a gun LOBBYING group is opposing restrictions for guns, which is why it exists in the first place. Does anyone truly expect the NRA to roll over on their policy position and work against itself? Policy disagreements are perfectly fine, after all this is America, but the media getting all in a huff that the NRA isn’t lobbying against itself and against its core mission is laughable.
posted by: Reasonable | January 14, 2013 11:43am
We are being controlled by the billionires who own Pres. Barack Obama. Until Obama leaves office or we have “another real Boston Tea Party” don’t expect the decline of gun violence—as our new control group will not allow it—as they have us designated for out current direction of unrest and decline. We did it to ourselves—for voting in our current “snow job on America. “Too many people voted for something for nothing—and we are ending up by being stuck in a cleverly designed-spider-web.”
posted by: DrHunterSThompson | January 14, 2013 1:58pm
I think the NRA is the most effective lobbying firm in this country. 21 gun salute to them!
Twist one up, let’s go shooting!
HST
posted by: saramerica | January 14, 2013 2:55pm
“The media” is pointing out the NRA’s hypocrisy when it tries to blame “mental health problems” for incidents like this, yet it has pushed legislation that makes it difficult for doctors to do their job to prevent people from having guns in the home. NRA - and YOU - CANNOT HAVE IT BOTH WAYS.
posted by: Longtime NHResident | January 14, 2013 3:01pm
I really hope our politicians can see the forest through the trees.
Too bad NHI censored this offensive comment. Hope Ct news posts it.
posted by: saramerica | January 14, 2013 4:07pm
Hunter S Thompson - I hope you’re equally as proud of the NRA and its bought members of Congress for contributing to the high suicide rate of returning soldiers.
Perhaps you missed the part about military suicides outpacing combat deaths in 2012?
And how that provision was added to NDAA because of lobbying from NRA?
posted by: Disgruntled | January 14, 2013 4:37pm
Question?
How would all the anti-dealth penalty folks feel about Adam,had he lived?
Would he get a shot at parole in fifty years when this was all put behind us? Or had a chance to escape? Or would he have been able to take the easy way out and been put on drugs in a mental institution?
We are getting what we deserve in this country and we have worked hard to get where we are. Enjoy it!
posted by: Reasonable | January 14, 2013 4:39pm
sofaman: You criticeze two responses—Yet you offer none yourself?
posted by: Joe Eversole | January 14, 2013 4:47pm
Let’s address the items individually, and then we can really determine who it is here that has the Chutzpah. The law prohibiting physicians from inquiring about firearms is meaningless. Even if a physician determined that a person had access to firearms, he/she is bound to keep this information confidential. Doctor/Patient confidentiality isn’t voluntary. The Stand Your ground research includes non-negligent manslaughter in it’s statistics. That means the attacker/perp are the one’s that die as a result of the doctrine. The flip side to that is, a criminal willing to die for his criminal act is most certainly willing to kill for it. If the Castle Doctrine is repealed then we have the same number of deaths, but the victims are the innocent citizen, not the criminal. The Tiahrt amendments allow the flow of information from the BATFE to law enforcement. It doesn’t allow the information out to the general public, nor is it admissible in Court. That means that people get to keep their private business that the Federal Government is tracking private. They are required to provide the information to the BATFE. If it was admissible in court, then they would be compelled to renounce their fifth amendment right to no self incrimination. I am sure Cops and Prosecutors would love this. All the rest is just static. You dear author have chutzpah for trying to frame the issue around an advocacy group that is merely exercising the First Amendment right to freedom of expression and association. But hey, lets talk about reasonable limits on that first…......Sorry, couldn’t hear you over all the crickets.
posted by: Greg | January 14, 2013 5:33pm
Assuming I’m the “and YOU” here…
The NRA doesn’t want it “both ways”; they want it their way. I don’t see it as hypocracy; the NRA is going to lobby for its interests, which is pretty obvious to anyone following the debate. NRA = more guns. Period. Was there an expectation that their intent would be different?
Disagree? Fine, have the debate as the country is doing now and the legislation will fall where it may. I just don’t see how the NRA doing what it says it’s going to do (and has done for some time) is at all hypocracy. They’ve been singing the same tune for decades.
As for the whole concept of gun violence being a public health issue, are other types of violent crime (stabbings, beatings, domestic abuse, rape) also considered to be “public health concerns” as is gun violence? I ask out of ignorance because i simply don’t know. What would make gun violence medically different than any other form of violence, and are other forms of violence studied in the same manner? Again, I don’t know the answer to this.
posted by: gutbomb86 | January 14, 2013 6:10pm
@JoeEversole - which crickets Joe? You can’t possibly hear the crickets over the millions of voices decrying the NRA. It’s been a long time coming but the NRA has now been identified for what it is - an organization that proliferates firearms where they don’t belong and which enables mass murder through the non-stop proliferation of firearms. Maybe it’s time to get the crickets out of your ears.
@greg - I can help here. The NRA for many years was an organization dedicated to gun safety and the group still claims to be about promoting gun safety and responsibility. The hypocrisy is in the NRA’s unannounced ( and later overtly announced ) activities since the 1980s, when it became a the political arm of the gun manufacturers. Since that time the NRA has quietly and effectively pushed evil language into every piece of legislation it possibly could in an effort to promote the proliferation of firearms into our society. The NRA has fought to kill common sense gun control legislation every chance it could. All the while claiming to be the “voice of reason” about guns and other nonsense.
Does that help? That’s what Sarah pointed out very clearly. They claim to be about gun safety but yet they fight to make sure doctors can’t even put up a red flag to say “this guy shouldn’t have access to guns because he’s mentally ill and is fantasizing about killing people.”
The NRA and the gun manufacturers want to sell guns to everyone, including the mentally ill. Some of their best customers are mentally ill and delusional. Just read the comment threads on this website.
Here’s something hideous but true: The gun industry benefitted from the Newtown shooting. Millions of dollars in new sales since Dec. 14. Shelves were cleared at most gun shops. Someone is laughing all the way to the bank at the expense of our safety. We don’t need 300 million firearms floating around in the hands of so-called “law abiding” citizens who have proven that, statistically speaking, a portion of them can’t be trusted to safeguard their weapons.
posted by: Reasonable | January 14, 2013 8:45pm
With the current influx of gun sales—gun control is a moot point. People are afraid of Obama’s control of firearms and are buying them off the shelves—like they are going out of stock. Also,we have to worry about Adam Lanza copycats coming out of the woodwork.
posted by: NoNonsense2013 | January 14, 2013 9:28pm
I find the anti-gun-control arguments interesting: banning certain weapons or high-capacity clips won’t prevent another Newtown. OK, let’s say you’re right, so what? We should do nothing? Because any one particular law won’t completely solve a problem or stop every event, let’s not even try? Really? That’s what you’ve got? There are laws against murder, but people get murdered anyway. Should we get rid of the ban on murder? Rape? Robbery? Drunk driving? All those things happen. Does that mean we shouldn’t have laws against them?
posted by: sofaman | January 15, 2013 12:29am
Everything you need to know about the NRA happened after the Oklahoma bombing. Words courtesy of that radical hW Bush.
posted by: Paul Bartomioli | January 15, 2013 5:47am
As a proud member of the NRA, and a firearms owner, I considered having a discussion on this post. However, after reading the comments posted here, it is futile.
The NRA wants to sell guns? The NRA wants “everyone” to own guns? The NRA is responsible for returning soldiers committing suicide? Ad nauseum.
Drink your white whine, eat the brie, and congratulate yourselves for having “done something,” totally useless, to address this issue.
The criminal violated about 20 state and federal laws BEFORE he arrived at the school. That is a fact.
It is also a fact the people posting here have their minds made up.
posted by: Joe Eversole | January 15, 2013 6:54pm
@Gutbomb86
The millions of voices who are decrying the NRA? Perhaps you are confused, and mean the 250000 new members who recently added their names to the 4 million or so who were already NRA members. Proliferation? You mean the rapid increase in numbers as defined by Websters dictionary. How exactly does the NRA, a non-manufacturing organization rapidly increase the numbers of firearms? How is it then proliferating them where they don’t belong? Where is it that they don’t belong? In the hands of criminals who aren’t members of the NRA? Why is the support of a Constitutional right improper? As to the crickets, that’s the noise heard when someone suggests making reasonable changes to the first amendment to “journalists” who decry the second amendment to the Constitution. I mean words hurt, or so the enlightened authors of these columns keep telling us…....
posted by: ALD | January 15, 2013 11:43pm
“We don’t need 300 million firearms floating around in the hands of so-called “law abiding” citizens who have proven that, statistically speaking, a portion of them can’t be trusted to safeguard their weapons.”
I don’t own any guns, nor would I ever want to. But I do find simplistically myopic comments like the one above, to be less than helpful in this matter.
We live in a world where it is a sad fact of life that by simply writing laws we cannot totally protect ourselves, from ourselves.
Do we say we can’t sell beer or wine to millions of “law abiding” citizens because “statistically speaking” a portion of them cannot be trusted to not drive after having too much to drink? Those people kill far more innocent people each year than guns do.
A sad example just happened in my home town a couple of weeks after Newtown, but no CT Washington politician showed up there. I guess no TV cameras, no politicians.
Do we outlaw cell phones because thousands of other wise “law abiding” people who would never think of picking up a gun for any reason what so ever, don’t give a second thought about texting daily while driving?
Do we outlaw automobiles because statistically speaking far too many of us refuse to drive within posted speed limits resulting in far more innocent deaths per year than guns do?
This sort of list here is almost endless, and just as simplistic as the one I am referencing above…....... Is the root cause problem, and therefore the ultimate solution, the gun, the bottle of booze, the cell phone, the car, or is it something much deeper?
If you take away the gun from the person intent on committing an act as unimaginable as we saw in Newtown are we then supposed to think that same person will not find some other even more unimaginable way to carry out his unimaginable act?
Yes, we badly need common sense reform regarding gun issues, and I totally support any reasonable effort that will produce those reforms. However, while it is one thing here in a general discussion on this subject to accept a certain amount of simplistic logic from those of us willing to speak our minds, I will not accept that same simplistic thinking, and logic, from those we send to Washington. I will not accept any one dimensional, politically convenient, “solution” to a far bigger social problem, as a job well done. Or, as a job done at all.
The current problems in this country run far deeper than just types of guns and clip sizes. They are only part of a much bigger set of issues that should be getting just as much attention as guns are.
The gun, like everything else here is only one side of the equation. It is not the root cause problem. To focus only on them, and the NRA when the real problems goes far deeper and has many more roots, to me is the very definition of Chuztpah.
posted by: gutbomb86 | January 16, 2013 1:16am
@ALD - “myopic” is a lack of foresight or discernment : a narrow view of something.
Doesn’t fit here. It was myopic and pound-foolish to think that we could allow the NRA and the gun manufacturers to convince our leaders that it was OK to flood the countryside with nearly 300 million firearms over the last few decades, placing guns into the hands of anyone who could fill out the right paperwork or find a gun show where they could take advantage of a loophole.
It’s myopic to think that 300 million guns don’t represent a massive amount of unnecessary risk. You appear to be ignoring that and treating guns as if they are the same as cars or cellphones. That is ridiculous.
Make no mistake about it, if people used their guns as often as they do their cellphones or vehicles, we’d probably all be dead.
Save the “cars kill more people” argument for someone who doesn’t know what myopic means.
I’m waiting for a solution from you that will quantify the human decision making process once and for all, so that we can continue operating as though we can change people’s behavior more easily than we can manage the number of available firearms.
A complicated problem comes down to a pretty basic equation. Fewer guns in the hands of nutjobs and criminals, fewer shootings of innocents. Hard to accomplish but certainly something that can be addressed. Hopefully you’re not in the “stay the course” camp. That’s no longer acceptable to reasonable people.
posted by: wmwallace | January 16, 2013 1:38am
How about minimum sentences for those who commit crimes with a gun. If they use an illegal gun in a crime they should do 20 years minimum.
I love the talk of the left about too many guns, but never talk about too many criminals on our streets. Just look at the murders in the inner city. Most don’t care about those deaths which are done with illegal weapons. That is a problem in our country.
posted by: gutbomb86 | January 16, 2013 1:48am
@wmwallace - it’s a good idea and it’s already in place in a lot of states. In fact I don’t remember anyone arguing against mandatory minimum sentencing for gun crimes. I’m not sure about CT but I seem to remember, not too long ago, a court or prosecutor or two were dedicated to gun crimes here. But I don’t know what kind of results they got or if there were mandatory minimums on the table. Likely they left some leeway. I am curious though now that you’ve mentioned it.
posted by: Paul Bartomioli | January 16, 2013 8:28am
Such a law exists. Penalties are quite strict, and quickly add up to several life sentences, with no parole or plea bargain. You die in prison; that should make the anti-death penalty people happy.
Project Exile. The Boston Gun Project. Back in the late 80s and early 90s these two programs were advertised and enforced in Richmond, Virginia and Boston, Massachusetts. Quite simply: Use a firearm in a crime, mandatory 10 years, no parole, no plea. Now, firearms are useless without bullets. So, 10 years for each bullet in the possession of the criminal, in addition to the firearm penalty. A revolver, with no extra ammo is 70 years. Magazines? Speedloaders? Add ‘em up and multiply by 10. Glock, with a standard 15 round mag, is 160 years.
The law this is based on has been on the books since 1968. With minor changes, it is the reason for the 4473 and other hoops to buy firearms legally.
Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you the “Gun Control Act of 1968.” Now, contact the political trough feeders, state and federal, and ask these former lawyers why they do not enforce this law? Be prepared for the BS of “state vs. federal jurisdiction,” and my favorite: The 10th Amendment, from a “progressive.”
posted by: Greg | January 16, 2013 10:38am
Gutbomb- You said: “The NRA and the gun manufacturers want to sell guns to everyone, including the mentally ill. Some of their best customers are mentally ill and delusional. Just read the comment threads on this website”
That’s an incredibly offensive statement to make just because someone has a different opinion than you. You talk about “common sense” gun laws and reducing violence and whatnot, but in the same breath you label anyone who owns a gun as delusional and mentally ill; the same manner of discourse that one would see the gun enthusiasts calling your type “commie”, “gun grabber”, and the like.
You also told another poster to “get the crickets out of his ears” after he made a rather factual statement about law and statistics.
How is this reasonable discourse for what is a necessary debate on violence in our society? As you state, there are 300 million privately owned guns in this country with approximately half of households owning at least one gun, thus half of Americans are mentally ill? I suggest you go to Hoffmans or Cabelas and tell the massive hordes of middle-upper middle class, middle aged white suburban men (and a fair amount of women) there that they’re mentally ill for wanting to get their arms of choice before legislation makes it difficult and see if insults promote your cause. If you’ve got the fortitude to write it on a news site under an anonomous handle, I would imagine you have the fortitude to go direct to these mentally ill people and inform them of their condition.
Want a reasoned debate on guns, on violence, on mental illness? Stop the insults.
posted by: Greg | January 16, 2013 10:46am
As for the argument that police cannot intervene and sieze guns from someone who is mentally ill, CT had a law in effect since 1999, as reported by Jon Lender in the Courant:
http://www.courant.com/plus/hcp-lender-column-gun-seizures-newtown-shootings-1-20121223-21,0,7186753.column
I recall an article in the Courant some time last year or two(which i can’t find) noting that the Town of West Hartford used that particular law the most out of any other municipality in the state. This law is not obscure and would have been a solid addition to this column should the author have known or chosen to use it.
posted by: ALD | January 16, 2013 12:25pm
Gutbomb, I appreciate your interest in real solutions to the problem being discussed here. But when I chose that word myopic I did so for exactly the same reason you define it as: A narrow point of view.
I will not accept any one sided solution, to a problem in our society, that goes far beyond just the NRA and guns.
I would ask you to take a moment to re read my post. You ask a question that I would have thought would be very clear to anyone who does not have a narrow point of view…......
I made it clear I do support changes to current gun regulations in this matter. I made it clear I do not own guns myself, nor would ever want to. I also made it clear that I will not accept from those we send to Washington any solutions to a very complex problem that is limited to guns. Did I in any place say I support the NRA, or suggest we doing nothing?
Now I am sorry if you want to believe that we can simply legislate ourselves into any real solution here by simply blaming guns, or the NRA, for the obvious decay of our society. That I will suggest to you is very myopic…......Yes and I am using your definition when I say that.
But just to be 100% clear for you. I fully support a ban on assault weapons. I fully support limiting clip sizes, I fully support much more extensive background checks as well as stronger enforcement of existing laws and closing any loop holes in them. I expect I will fully support whatever the President has to say on this matter latter today.
But I will be demanding from the people we send to Washington far more than only that. All of that will only be a small but reasonable first step. But I stress, a first step only.
So it would seem to me you and I agree in many areas. I offer my comments above to you as my evidence that I am not one who believes we can just “stay the course” on this matter.
Unlike you however, I will not let myself in any way believe any of those measures will stop a nutjob, or criminal, from doing what they plan to do in many other ways.
I will not let my personal disinterest in owning a gun in any way allow me to think more laws that restrict them to a largely law abiding public, are more than just a first step to dealing with a much bigger social issue. But I’ll take what I can get for a first step. Just as long as we all understand that is all it is.
Lastly I have not heard from you or anyone else how any new laws in this area will keep those determined to break them from doing just that…..But I suspect you will probably tell me to save that argument as well!!! Which I will. For now anyway.
posted by: gutbomb86 | January 16, 2013 2:25pm
@ALD - I can see how you would read the thread and assume no one was interested in addressing mental illness or mental health services, but the truth is there’s not a lot of argument about that. I think we all agree on it. It’s just part of the necessary response.
But a lot of gun advocates are loudly arguing against common sense gun control and that’s why there’s a focus on that. It’s not myopia.
posted by: gutbomb86 | January 16, 2013 2:44pm
@joe Eversole - Was it 250,000 or 100,000 new members? Did they join because they agree with LaPierre or are they trying to change the organizations ridiculous, insane policies from within? And where does that figure stand with respect to the nationwide wave of disgust with the organization? You can offer some numbers about NRA membership but even if the group doubled in size it would still be outnumbered by the rest of us. And we know a big portion of the NRA’s existing membership doesn’t even agree with the clowns who run it.
As to your question about how the NRA proliferates firearms, it’s really pretty simple. The NRA is the lobbying arm of the gun manufacturing community and the organization has very publicly fought any and all attempts to limit access to firearms and has managed to lobby in all kinds of loopholes that have allowed the wrong people to buy firearms in many states.
@Greg - I’ll tell you what is incredibly offensive, the NRA managed to get language inserted into healthcare legislation that prohibits doctors from asking patients whether they possess firearms, including people whom they’ve diagnosed with mental illness or suicidal impulses, etc.
Explain to me how that is anything but the NRA’s tacit complicity in making sure firearms remain in the hands of folks who shouldn’t have them.
And yeah, the tone sucks but that’s what we get when people make up nonsense or offer terms like “crickets” to suggest that there’s no response to his argument when we all know that is simply not the case.
Greg you’re also suggesting that I’ve labeled all gun advocates as one thing or another, but have been speaking specifically about the folks who are posting on this site and making little sense. There are plenty of responsible gun owners, but risk is quantifiable and it is very clear that even the most responsible gun owners are all at some level of risk for their firearms to be used illegally or accidentally or what have you.
The point I’m making about all this is that too many firearms are in the wrong hands and if I have been a little rude about it in the face of being tagged with partisan labels, then you have my sincere apology. But the point stands.
posted by: Reasonable | January 16, 2013 3:29pm
sofaman: you are strictly a rabble-rouser—not a problem-solver—when you interject an ailing former Pres. George H. W. Bush into the current gun control issues. If you haven’t noticed—this problem escalated in the Pres. Barack Obama Hussein Obama administration,not under Pres. George H. W. Bush. Be honest—sofaman.
posted by: ALD | January 16, 2013 11:38pm
gutbomb, What we really are discussing here is doing what we can do to try prevent another atrocity like we have seen so many times now across this entire country. I must assume that we all agree on that, no matter what the difference of opinion is between us all on what that would take
You say there is not a lot of disagreement about the mental health issues in this matter, so for that reason they are not being discussed. I wish I could share you conclusion.
What I do know for certain sure is no sane person, using gun, or using anything else, would ever commit one of these acts.
Our nightly news is filled with gun control stories and we have many heated discussions focused on guns and their role. However, on everything else…...... Mostly silence…..... Almost as if the gun did the deed all by itself. It’s just not that simple.
Following your logic that silence would signify there is agreement in what needs to be done in the areas not spoken about. I see it as until we have the same heated discussions that we have had regarding guns, in those other contributing areas, we have no idea of what we agree, or disagree on.
Following your logic, should I also assume that even though I have hardly heard much at all, that there is also little disagreement that something should be done about eliminating the violence flooding our homes each night on TV? Should I assume we agree that something needs to be done about so many of the violent video games our children play? Should I assume we all agree that the violence coming out of Hollywood plays a role? Should I assume that we all understand that the gun is just the last piece in a puzzle that has many parts?
Or, should I assume the worse?? That we are really foolish enough to think that the relentless decay in our society plays no role, and we are content to allow it to continue. Just as long as we limit clip sizes and so many other just as ineffective measures. Fine, limit those sizes, etc. I agree!!!! Just don’t fool yourself into thinking you have dealt with the problem!!
I recall just a few months ago so many liberal Democrats from CT happy to point out Linda McMahon’s connection to a violent form of entertainment. Where are those same voices today on some of those same matters I bring up? If she were our senator today, I suspect we would be hearing plenty!!!
This is not an issue like the joke we are seeing being played out in Washington regarding the “fiscal cliff”. This is no time to allow those we send to Washington to once again grab the TV spot light and reach for the low hanging fruit, then wiggle off the hook when the real work needs to be done and the TV cameras are long gone.
What I am saying to you gutbomb is that just like, the fiscal cliff problem is a combination of spending, taxes, and other matters, the violence that has invaded our society is a combination of just as many components.
I for one will not accept from those we send to Washington anything less than a full effort on this matter. If their focus is only guns then they have once again failed us. To be honest sadly it seems these days for those we send to Congress, failure is the only option.
posted by: gutbomb86 | January 17, 2013 1:38am
@ALD - you know you’re 100% correct. It’s actually easy to talk about limiting access to firearms because they are limited in their purpose and this is the issue people are most vocal about. We’re tired of murder. But it certainly will be just as complicated and difficult to start limiting access to some of the hideous violent entertainment available for free or cheaply. Parents who buy Grand Theft Auto games for their kids - that’s just sick. And the mental health component is complicated as well.
I was encouraged by the President’s remarks today because he said he needed Congress to act on certain pieces of the plan and he specifically mentioned some really obvious things beyond better managing the sale of firearms… he talked about eliminating the ban on studying gun violence, eliminating the prohibition on doctors speaking up about mentally ill individuals with access to firearms, etc.
There’s a lot of good things on the table. Yet a lot of paranoid delusionals are taking to the web and the airwaves in an effort to foment unrest. Disappointing but not entirely unexpected.