TALKING PAPER: Addressing Gun Violence in America

Problem

More people in the United States are killed, or kill themselves by firearms than in any other advanced country in the world. There are more mass shootings in America than in any other country in the world.

Factors

The 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban outlawed 19 types of military-style assault weapons, but expired in 2004 and was not renewed.

In 1996, Congress effectively blocked government agencies from data collection and research on gun violence.

The AR-15 semi-automatic, assault-style rifle has been used in five of the six deadliest mass shootings in the last six years in the U.S.

Gun laws and their effective enforcement vary from state-to-state, background checks are uneven, and the FBI National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) is flawed.

Recommendations

Make mandatory reporting by states and federal agencies to the NICS of all required data on those prohibited from purchasing firearms, including those adjudicated to be mentally ill, and increase incentives and/or penalties for compliance or non-compliance.

Establish a national universal background check system that effectively closes the gun show and on-line purchase loophole.

Promulgate standardized national qualification requirements and waiting periods for firearms purchases.

Impanel a “firearms policy advisory committee” to develop a comprehensive report for Congress on firearm purchase and ownership policy changes aimed at both keeping firearms out of the hands of people who shouldn’t have them, and reducing the confusing, bureaucratic hassle of purchase and ownership for law-abiding citizens.

Fund research by the CDC into firearms related death and injury, as the major health crisis it is.

Background

The Epidemic of Gun Violence in America

More Americans have died from gunshots in the last 50 years than in all of the wars in American history.

More people in the United States are killed, or kill themselves by firearms than in any other advanced country in the world. Compared to other such countries:

• Gun homicide rates were over 25 times higher
• For young Americans 15- to 24-years-old, gun homicide rates were 49 times higher
• Gun suicide rates were 8 times higher
• Unintentional gun deaths were over 6 times higher

Gun homicide is the 3rd-leading cause of death for American men 15 to 29.

There were 61,527 incidences of gun violence in America in 2017 (not including suicides), accounting for 15,593 deaths, an average of 1300 per month. There were 346 mass shootings.

There are more mass shootings in America than in any other country in the world.

There are twice as many suicides by gun in America as homicides, and suicides are a leading cause of death in America (see chart). More than a third of women who commit suicide use a firearm; over 55% of men use a firearm.

Firearms and Gun Control

The 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban (FAWB), signed by then President Clinton, outlawed 19 types of military-style assault weapons. A clause directed that the ban expire in 10 years unless Congress specifically reauthorized it, which it did not.

Going back to 1982, more semi-automatic handguns have been used in mass shootings than semi-automatic rifles, like the AR-15. However, the AR-15 has been used in five of the six deadliest mass shootings in the last six years in the U.S.

Under federal law, one must be 21 to buy a handgun from a firearms dealer. Eighteen year-olds can buy an AR-15.

Gun laws and their effective enforcement vary from state to state. There is a 3-day waiting period in Florida to purchase a handgun, but no waiting period to purchase an AR-15 -- the weapon used in the MSD High School mass shooting on February 14, 2018.

The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (Brady Act) of 1993 mandated that Federal Firearm Licensed (FFL) dealers run background checks on their buyers.

In 1998, the FBI launched the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) “to instantly determine whether a prospective buyer is eligible to buy firearms.”

Background checks are only required if a firearm is purchased through an FFL, which includes retailers and some individuals. Background checks are not required if a firearm is purchased online, through a gun show, or through some private sales. A recent estimate is that 22% of sales take place in this way. Some states (including Washington) have passed new laws expanding Brady background checks to all gun sales.

Mental illness in and of itself is not necessarily a disqualifier for firearm purchases. Furthermore, reporting on mental illness by states to the NICS is voluntary, and spotty.

Washington Gun Laws

Washington gun laws require a 5-day waiting period before purchasing handguns. No such waiting period is required for semi-automatic rifles, such as the AR-15.

A current bill before the Washington Senate, SB 6620, would require the same background check procedures to purchase semi-automatic rifles as is currently required for handguns, and would raise the age for purchase to 21.

The Washington Senate passed SB 5992 on February 27, 2018, banning bump stocks, an accessory that allows semi-automatic rifles to simulate automatic fire.

In 2016, Washington voters approved Initiative-1491, Extreme Risk Protection  Orders. It is now  7.94 RCW. It temporarily prevents individuals who are at high risk of harming themselves or others from accessing firearms by allowing family, household members, and police to obtain a court order when there is demonstrated evidence that the person poses a significant danger, including danger as a result of a dangerous mental health crisis or violent behavior.I-1491 passed 70% to 30% state wide, but by narrower margins in the 4th Congressional District. WA is currently one of only five states to have adopted such “red flag” laws.

In 2014, Washington voters approved I-594 by a vote of 59% to 41%, Universal Background Checks for Gun Purchases. The measure applies currently used criminal and public safety background checks by licensed dealers to all firearm sales and transfers, including gun show and online sales. The measure was defeated in the 4th CD, 42% to 58%. An opposing measure, I-591, which would have prohibited the restrictions imposed under 594, was defeated state wide, but approved 56% to 44% in the 4th CD.

Lack of Data and Research Impede the Development of Comprehensive Strategies to Reduce Gun Violence

In 1996, a Republican-controlled Congress in effect banned research on gun violence by cutting the CDC’s funding by the exact amount that was used for gun-related public health research at that time. In 2015, a GOP-led panel blocked a proposal within the House Appropriations Committee that would have reversed the ban.

The newly passed Omnibus Spending Bill H.R. 3354, says the CDC can't use taxpayer funds to promote gun control, but also states the CDC can still conduct research. It remains to be seen whether funding for such research will be provided.

The government’s antipathy towards gun violence research has cast a pall over topic as a health issue. In relation to mortality rates, peptic ulcers are researched more than gun violence. Gun violence research was the least-researched cause of death and the second-least funded cause of death after falls.

Without better data on guns, gun owners, gun deaths, gun injuries, the nexus of mass shootings and mental illness, guns and gangs, the “gun culture,” and any number of other factors, the explosion of proposals for curbing gun violence that come after yet another incident of carnage is essentially shooting in the dark.

What We Know

Too many states, and some federal agencies (e.g., military) fail to submit records to the FBI’s NICS that establish someone is prohibited from owning a firearm under current law, either due to criminal history or adjudicated mental illness.,

Universal background checks appear not to be enforced aggressively in some states (including Washington). Eleven states and the District of Columbia have adopted universal background checks.

Straw purchase of firearms is a significant source for illegally acquired firearms, defeating the purpose of background checks.

Mass shootings by people with serious mental illness represent less than 1% of all yearly gun-related homicides, and perpetrators of mass shootings are unlikely to have a history of involuntary psychiatric hospitalization (their illness has not be adjudicated). Thus, databases, such as the NICS, intended to restrict access to firearms and established by firearm laws that broadly target people with mental illness will not capture this group of individuals.

States with right-to-carry (RTC) concealed handgun laws have seen an increase in violent crimes by 13 to 15 percent within 10 years of the law’s enactment.

The Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act, H.R. 38, passed on Dec 6, 2017, amends the federal criminal code to allow a qualified individual to carry a concealed handgun into or possess a concealed handgun in another state that allows individuals to carry concealed firearms. Rep. Newhouse (R-WA4) was a co-sponsor.

Twenty-three states have adopted “stand your ground” laws since Florida implemented its law in 2005. A study released in 2016 showed that the implementation of Florida’s stand your ground law was associated with a 24.4% increase in homicide and a 31.6% increase in firearm-related homicide.

Washington State law (RCW 9A.16.060), includes a “Castle Doctrine,” which permits the use of deadly force under certain circumstances, e.g., against intruders, but is limited to real property, such as one’s home, yard, or private office; there is no duty to retreat.

The NRA is Rallying its Members

The NRA is rallying its members to vote against Clinton and Kaine, because both favor sensible gun control measures. Something the NRA has fought no matter what. As long as they can continue to hold the Republican-led congress hostage, they will get their way. And their members are single issue voters.

What's going to motivate your vote; narrowing the wealth/income gap, strengthening Dodd-Frank, getting big money and dark money out of politics, reducing student debt, filling vacancies in the Federal and Supreme Courts, women's rights, LGTB+ rights, climate change -- any number of things, probably. Some of you may decide your vote on the basis of your anger over what you see as an unfair Democratic nominee selection process.

In the meantime, NRA members are going to vote for the candidates that get their "A" Grade on the issue of the 2nd Amendment. The NRA and their members know what motivates them, and it isn't any of your progressive values, and it isn't dead or wounded Americans. They don't give two hoots in hell about your values or your hurt feelings. They care about their guns.

Should We Ban "Assault Rifles" or Cap Magazine Capacity?

COMMENT
A ban on "assault rifles," if attempted, has to address speed of firing, magazine capacity, and ease of conversion, because the AR-15 semi-automatic isn't an "assault rifle" in military terms. That being said, what's available now at your friendly neighborhood gun shop, or show, or on the Internet is more than adequate for killing a "mass" of people very quickly (the weapon can fire as fast as you can pull the trigger, with skill, 3 - 5 rounds per second, 180 - 300 rounds per minute). These sort of firearms should be banned.

RESPONSE
I would like to make a technical comment as a PhD Mechanical Engineer. Recoil reload is the simplest mechanism in small arms (nearly all semiauto pistols and many submachine guns use recoil reload) and very fast and efficient. For larger cartridges, gas reload is the mechanism. This includes most high powered assault rifles such as M-16, AK-47, etc. AR-15 is an M-16 variant without a selector switch.

These mechanisms are all either incredibly simple or very simple. The only practical way to regulate is on magazine capacity and how easy it is to change a magazine. Faster reload mechanisms are mechanically forced such as on modern Gatling guns for example (up to 4000 rounds per minute in cannons on aircraft and close in weapon systems to shoot down missiles about to strike a naval vessel). If you make it illegal to manufacture quick change box magazines of any size (obviously include belt or chain magazines as well), the problem is partially solved. The box, belt and chain, reload devices were invented for military purposes and frankly have no other purpose (it's not necessary for any use that doesn't require high volume "suppressing fire"). Regulation of magazines is an Achilles heel of the "assualt rifle" market.

COMMENT
I agree that both magazine capacity and ease of changing the magazine would have to be addressed. Otherwise, shooters intent on murdering people simply bring extra magazines. However, it's not clear to me how to change the process of loading a second (or third or fourth) magazine to make it hard enough to interdict the shooter.

I-591 vs I-594

With no good reason for passing Initiative-591, and defeating Initiative-594, the gun lobby resorts to the well-worn but widely accepted NRA shibboleths; registry and confiscation.

Let’s get somethings straight. Despite the inflammatory rhetoric incorporated in Philip Watson’s 8/31/14 argument for passing I-591, the much needed Initiative-594 would not create or enable a gun registry, nor enable future confiscation of lawfully owned firearms. Firearms cannot be seized without due process, and I-594 does not change that. Law enforcement is not now permitted to “enter your home and search your bedroom...without a warrant or court order,” nor would they be so authorized under I-594, no matter what the object of the search. There is no sensible reason for not passing I-594, and no good reason to pass I-591, which would prohibit Washingtonians from determining their own future.

I-594 is straight-forward. “All firearms sales or transfers are subject to background checks unless specifically exempted by federal or state law.” This requirement applies to all sales or transfers in whole or in part in Washington, including sales and transfers at gun shows and online. There are numerous exemptions that serve to protect Second Amendment rights, including the fact that gifts between family members are exempt from the background check.

I-594 is a step forward in protecting us from gun violence by criminals and the mentally ill. I-591 is a leap backward.

Vote "YES" on I-594. Vote "No" on I-591.

One Cold December Day

One cold December day one year ago twenty kids aged 6 - 7 were shot dead by a twenty year-old severely disturbed young man whose mother thought she could bond with her son through guns and shooting. He shot and killed her on that fateful day, then went to Sandy Hook elementary school, shot his way in with the Bushmaster semiautomatic his mother taught him to shoot, and then, moving inexorably down the hall and into classrooms, shot the kids and their teachers multiple times using the semiautomatic and its extended magazine. Then he shot himself in the head with his mother’s Glock 20 pistol.

One year since that cold Saturday morning, December 14th, 2012, at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, when an unimaginable tragedy was visited upon parents and loved ones preparing to celebrate a blessed holiday. One year ago, and every year after, the shock, the pain, the grief, the loss will be felt again, and again, and again, forever. 

One year ago an outpouring of shared grief and sympathy was followed by outrage and  angry calls for more effective gun control measures. Ninety-percent of Americans favored tougher gun control measures, but a Senate bill, co-sponsored by a Republican and a Democrat, that would have strengthened the background check system was met with strident opposition by the National Rifle Association (NRA), and other gun rights organizations. It was blocked by Senate Republicans -- all but 4 voted against the bill -- joined by 4 Democrats. They voted “nay” because they were afraid -- not afraid that the bill didn’t do enough to protect more kids from gun violence, but afraid that voting for the bill would hurt their chances of being reelected.

Fear is the lingua franca of the NRA and the gun lobby at large. They have demonstrated their power at the ballot box, most recently when they successfully orchestrated a recall of two Colorado legislators who voted to strengthen Colorado’s gun laws. Their threat is explicit and credible; go against us and we’ll throw you out of office.

More disturbing perhaps than the gun lobby’s campaign of intimidation towards lawmakers is their campaign to change the very core of America’s culture of openness and generosity of spirit. The NRA and its ilk have convinced their adherents that we live constantly under threat -- threat of rape, robbery, and murder; threat of natural disasters that turn into bloody anarchy; and the threat that a tyrannical government is bent on wresting their treasured guns from their “cold, dead hands.”

The NRA has made manifest this dystopian view of America in the laws it sponsors. Teaming with the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), it crafted the infamous “stand your ground” law that allowed George Zimmerman to go free after he followed, confronted, and shot 17 year-old Trayvon Martin. Not to be confused with Castle Doctrine, this law allows individuals to use deadly force if they feel threatened anywhere they have a legal right to be without any attempt to retreat. It’s the embodiment of the “shoot first, ask questions later” attitude, and it has resulted in a significant increase in homicides across the 26 states that have enacted such laws. Some of the other cases in which the stand your ground defense has been used successfully beggar the imagination.

As of this writing, 11,413 gun deaths have been reported since Sandy Hook. The toll is undoubtedly much higher, close to 33,000, largely because suicides by gun are rarely reported. As a nation, we have done nothing to stop the mayhem. But we Washingtonians can do something to at least demonstrate our commitment to stem the tide here in our own backyard -- pass Initiative 594, the Washington Alliance for Gun Responsibility’s background check proposal (info@wagunresponsibility.org)

The gun lobby will fight this with lots of money geared towards feeding the paranoia of gun rights activists, fearful of losing their guns, and legislators afraid of losing their elected office. The rest of us, afraid of losing our children, must fight back by ensuring I-594 gets on the ballot and then voting it into law.

One year ago, and every year after, the shock, the pain, the grief, the loss will be felt again, and again, and again, forever. Let us do this small thing, take this small step to say, We are with you.

Universal Background Checks

Universal background checks wouldn't have stopped
the Navy Yard mass shooting, or the
Hialeah apartment shooting

Santa Monica rampage

Pinewood Village Apartment shooting

Mohawk Valley shootings

Newtown school shooting

Accent Signage Systems shooting

Sikh temple shooting

Aurora theater shooting

Seattle cafe shooting

Oikos University killings

Su Jung Health Sauna shooting

Seal Beach shooting

IHOP shooting

Tucson shooting

Hartford Beer Distributor shooting

Coffee shop police killings

Fort Hood massacre

Binghamton shootings

Carthage nursing home shooting

Atlantis Plastics shooting

Northern Illinois University shooting

Kirkwood City Council shooting

Westroads Mall shooting

Crandon shooting

Virginia Tech massacre

Trolley Square shooting

Amish school shooting

Capitol Hill massacre

Goleta postal shootings

Red Lake massacre

Living Church of God shooting

Damageplan show shooting

Lockheed Martin shooting

Navistar shooting

Wakefield massacre
or the...

SUPPORT GUN CONTROL!

The GOP's Impeachment Talk -- Criminally Negligent

Texas Representative (R-27) Blake 'Fat Face' Farenthold recently told constituents at a town hall meeting that there would be enough votes in the House to impeach President Obama, but the bill would  die in the Senate. A swell of disappointment rumbled across the crowd, many of whom were wondering why, if the House could vote to overturn 'Obamacare' for the umpteenth time, they couldn't go ahead and waste more time and money voting to impeach Obama.

Farenthold in his PJs -- what else would you wear at a pajama Party?

Fat Face isn't the only Republican congressman talking impeachment. It's a real crowd pleaser at conservative/Tea Party town halls across the country during this year's August recess. And representatives like Fat Face and Kerry "You're just a paycheck to me" Bentivolio (R-MI), who told a constituent that he'd "love to write the bill" impeaching Obama. Bentivolio, who invented a new territory called "American Somolia," gave up his part-time gig playing Santa Claus to run for congress and is now looking for something fun to do.

Bentivolio with his Reindeer

House Republicans shouldn't give up hope. At least two Republican senators, Ted Cruz (TX) and Tom Coburn (OK) believe the President must have done something "perilously close" to impeachable.

The impeach Obama movement actually has traction with conservatives, and not just the fringe nut jobs. Regular middle-of-the-road Republican nut jobs are on the impeachment band wagon, some hanging from highway overpasses waving their impeach Obama banners.

Of all the wacko House Republicans riling up their constituencies over President Obama's "unprecedented attack on the American constitution," perhaps the most egregious is Representative Steve Stockman of [you guessed it] Texas (R-36). Stockman issued a statement following President Obama's promise to take up gun control after the mass shooting at Sandy Hook, saying, "I will seek to thwart this action by any means necessary, including but not limited to eliminating funding for implementation, defunding the White House, and even filing articles of impeachment." Stockman is an ignorant blowhard, but unfortunately so are many in his base and his message resonates with them.

Stockman with BFF Ted Nugent

So as Republican congressmen make the rounds during their break from doing absolutely nothing while in session, and speak to Tea Party and gun group rallies across the nation, some in the enthusiastic crowd, especially those with concealed carry permits, may be fingering their weapon of choice and mumbling, "If it were up to me..."

God help us if one of these Second Amendment fanatics takes it upon himself to attempt to "impeach" President Obama from the barrel of a gun. If that were to happen, members of congress who are trumpeting this impeachment bullshit should be tried for criminal negligence, censured, and banned from political office for life.

SUPPORT GUN CONTROL

An indictment of us all

I write this prior to knowing the outcome of the George Zimmerman trial, because for me, the outcome is immaterial. Why? Because it isn’t Zimmerman who’s on trial in Sanford, FL. It’s us, all of us, and the culture reflected in what we believe and how we act on those beliefs.

The Trayvon Martin case is an indictment of an American gun culture steeped in a vigilante ethos made manifest in “stand your ground laws,” infected with a paranoia so severe that Second Amendment fanatics would rather see guns in the hands of the mentally ill, criminals, and terrorists than accede to universal background checks, and tolerated by a US Congress more interested in their reelection prospects than in the safety of their constituents.

Finally, this case is an indictment of all of us who fail to act to overcome the influence and intransigence of the NRA and the cowardice of Congress. If we do nothing to prevent the shooting death of another child, another adult, another human being, then we will all be found guilty.

SUPPORT GUN CONTROL

Trust in the LORD with all thine heart?

But I say to you who hear, Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you. To one who strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also, and from one who takes away your cloak do not withhold your tunic either. [Luke 6:27-29]

According to Brendan Fischer of PR Watch, Florida's 2005 Stand Your Ground law changed criminal justice and civil law codes by giving legal immunity to a person who, according to the statute, uses "deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm." It goes beyond the common law notion of self defense by establishing presumption in a shooter's favor. This means prosecutors must disprove a killer's assertion that they felt threatened, as opposed to the shooter having to establish they acted reasonably and in self defense. It also bars the deceased's family from bringing a civil suit.

Marion Hammer at Jeb Bush's right hand as he signs Florida's Stand Your Ground Law

Florida's Stand Your Ground law was drafted by the former president (1995 - 1998) of the National Rifle Association, Marion Hammer, the NRA's first female president, and now a lobbyist for the NRA and the gun industry. Hammer worked with the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) to make the Florida law a model for other states, and the NRA and ALEC have made it a priority to promulgate the law nationwide.

The NRA, with ALEC's help has been eminently successful in seeding the United States with stand your ground, or as it's called in some states,"castle doctrine" laws. Twenty-three states have such 'shoot first' laws, and all but 5 states and the District of Columbia have laws that permit deadly force against an intruder in the home or workplace, or in the case of Alaska, "any place a person has the right to be," which in effect, makes it a stand your ground law.

In 2012, the Tampa Bay Times conducted a study of Florida's stand your ground law and called its findings "shocking." Of those who invoke "stand your ground" to avoid prosecution, nearly 70 percent have gone free. Of defendants claiming "stand your ground" 73% of those who killed a black person faced no penalty compared to 59 percent of those who killed a white. In nearly a third of the cases the Times analyzed, defendants initiated the fight, shot an unarmed person or pursued their victim, and still went free.

A nationwide study by two Texas A&M researchers showed that stand your ground laws do not deter burglary, robbery, or aggravated assault. In contrast, they lead to a statistically significant 8 percent net increase in the number of reported murders and non-negligent manslaughters.

On the night of February 26, 2012, 28-year-old George Zimmerman, a neighborhood watch coordinator for a gated community in Sanford, Florida, pursued, confronted, and shot and killed 17-year-old Trayvon Martin, a black teenager. Martin was visiting his father's fiancee and her son at the gated community, something he'd done several times previously. Zimmerman told the police he followed Martin because, "he looked suspicious," and claimed he shot Martin in self-defense. After questioning Zimmerman, the Sanford police released him without charges based on their interpretation of Florida's stand-your-ground law.

Young George Zimmerman was raised a Catholic and served as an alter boy at his church, so why was he carrying a gun during his neighborhood watch detail, why did he pursue Trayvon Martin, and why did he shoot and kill the teenager? What happened to "Thou shalt not kill" [Exodus 20:13]. What happened to 'turn the other cheek?' And what is happening across the nation? Are we seeing a shift away from the sense of community and the common good, and towards an 'us-versus-them' mentality? Is the NRA's strident 'shoot first' message more powerful than the church's message of peace and love?

Interestingly, the states quickest to implement stand your ground laws are in the so-called "bible belt." When asked what they felt could be done to reduce gun violence, only 8% of evangelical christians said gun control. Most (36%) said putting more emphasis on God and morality was the most important thing that could be done. But apparently not the God for whom Exodus 20:13 meant what it said.

As President Obama said in an unguarded moment, the people in the bible belt do indeed "cling to their guns and bibles," but it is their guns in which they place their trust.

Culture War: Taking the Fight to the NRA

Jim Porter, the NRA's New President

I hardly ever agree with anything the National Rifle Association says, but the organization has elected a new president, James W. Porter II, an Alabama attorney, and he said that the NRA and its masters and minions are in a “culture war” with the rest of America. I agree with that.

The culture that Porter is defending is one that doesn’t accept the result of the last two presidential elections and sees Barack Obama as a “fake president” intent on imposing a “European socialistic, bureaucratic type of government,” and denying patriotic Americans their constitutional rights. It is a culture that tellingly, doesn’t accept the result of the Civil War, or as Porter calls it, “the War of Northern Aggression.”

Porter is rallying to the defense of a culture that believes the Second Amendment means exactly the same thing today as it did more than two centuries ago when, lacking a standing army, a federal law, the Militia Act of 1792, mandated every eligible man purchase a military-style gun and ammunition for his service in the citizen militia. The purpose of the militia was to protect the United States from invasion from any foreign nation or Indian tribe. Today, the NRA promotes itself as arming its members with “standard military firearms” not to defend our country against foreign aggressors, but to use against our own “tyrannical” government. No wonder they won’t accept any limits on what firearms they can own.

The NRA is well known for its ability to mix myth with faulty logic to argue against any incursion in what they see as the inalienable right any individual American to bear arms of any kind, anytime, anywhere, and ‘stand their ground’ no matter how many Americans are killed every year (about 32,000). It doesn’t matter whether it’s a mass shooting of children at Sandy Hook, or an accidental shooting by one 5-year-old of his 2-year-old sister in Kentucky, the NRA’s response is always the same. This deplorable gun violence is a necessary cost of the right to bear arms unfettered by even the most reasonable gun control measures. Dead kids are collateral damage for the NRA and members of a culture where facts are considered a hindrance to a belief system permeated by paranoia.

From a Children's Defense Fund Report

But it would be a mistake to see the NRA as crazy extremists. They are more than that. The NRA is a shill for a gun industry whose only moral imperative is profit. That’s one of the reasons the NRA opposes the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty. Despite NRA rhetoric, the treaty doesn’t dictate domestic gun laws and would have no bearing on Americans’ Second Amendment rights. But it might effect the $70-billion international arms trade, and American arms dealers, who dominate the market, don’t want to have their dealings with warlords and their child soldiers, and terrorists who turn their US weapons back on Americans, subject to governmental scrutiny.

So I say, yes Mr Porter, we Americans who believe in ‘life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,’ who want to see our children grow to be productive members of a society of people who care about each other, rather that a society of ‘us against them,’ we Americans are in a war with you and your organization and we intend to win. And we’ll win at the ballot box, without guns, because that’s the American way, Mr. Porter.

SUPPORT GUN CONTROL

The NRA Now Fighting Wars on Two Fronts

The NRA elected a new president last Monday (4/29/2013), James Porter, an Alabama attorney and former NRA first vice president. Porter immediately announced that the organization was now fighting a "culture war" against those who would deny patriotic Americans their right to possess any kind of damned firearm needed to fight tyranny. He claimed that it was "revenge" that was motivating President Obama's "unremitting attacks on gun owners today."

This means that the NRA will now be fighting a war on two fronts, because in a speech in 2012, Porter indicated that the "war of northern aggression,"which most Americans thought of as the Civil War, was apparently still going on. Most Americans thought we, the United States of America, won that war. Apparently not. Porter was speaking against the reelection of Barack Obama, who is one of the unfortunate consequences of the north winning that costly war.
 Porter told the audience at a 2012 New York Rifle and Pistol Association that the NRA was "fightin, scratchin, head buttin" to protect Second Amendment rights. He stood there on the platform looking as if his pants, straining to constrain his ample girth, were on fire, telling his noisy audience that the NRA was established to "teach and train civilians in the use of the standard military firearm...so when they're ready to fight tyranny they're ready to do it." Tyranny being the black guy in the White House.

Porter told his appreciative audience that he gets "sick and tired of all these people with this fake president," saying that Obama hasn't done anything harmful to gun owners. "Let me tell you," he said, "his entire administration is anti-gun, anti-freedom, anti-Second Amendment." Porter went on to claim that the president believes that animals have rights and "if you go out there and hunt them they oughta have the right to sue you for aubusement (sic); that's the kinda thinkin they are" (I'm not making this up -- look at the video, if you can stomach it).

The NRA's agenda under Porter won't be limited to protecting Second Amendment rights, not by a long shot. And speaking of shot, Porter tells his audience in 2012 that the organization is on the war path with the EPA (a third war front?) to protect hunters' right to use lead shot. Lead shot is deadly to wildlife in ways that have nothing to do with sport hunting, but the NRA doesn't want anyone telling them what kind of ammunition they can or can't use -- it's the principle of the thing.

Porter also took US Attorney General [and African-American] Eric Holder to task as "rapidly anti-gun, rabidly anti-American." And Porter went on to include on the NRA's enemies list the United Nations and [at the time] Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who signed the UN arms trade treaty, which arms traders vehemently oppose, because it hurts business. The NRA claims the treaty will deny Americans their Second Amendment right to bear arms. In fact,the treaty applies only to international transfers of conventional arms and specifically reaffirms “the sovereign right of any State to regulate and control conventional arms” within its territory. In other words, the NRA is lying (surprised?), but why? Because they are in bed with the arms industry. The gun lobby is not just a bunch of paranoid Second Amendment crazies, it’s a coalition of organizations that make a lot of money manufacturing and selling guns and ammunition, including to kids.

I have to agree with James Porter on one thing. The American people are in a culture war with the NRA and their minions, and cohorts, and promoters, and backers, and those who only stand and wait with their hands out, the complicit Congress. It's a war against fear and paranoia, against belligerence and intimidation, against greed, racism, ethnocentrism, and ignorance. It's a war that must be won to prevent the senseless slaughter of thousands of Americans -- men, women, and children -- who are shot and killed or injured every year, year after year, because those of us on the side of light have been so far unable to overcome the forces of darkness. That has to change.

Support Gun Control

Genocide and Gun Control

Let me get this straight. If the people of United States of America, the land of the free and the home of the brave (and well-armed), allow any further regulation of the gun industry and gun owners, we will become Cambodia under the Pol Pot regime. Or the Jews under Nazi Germany, or the kulaks under Stalin, or, you name it, any group in any society in any country that suffered mass murder, purges, or genocide under the authoritarian regime of some brutal dictator. That’s the message of today’s NRA and its Second Amendment ideologues. Genocide is the gun lobby’s Patronus Charm, the positive energy force that defends against the dark forces of gun control.

Clearly, the people who make these claims are bat shit crazy, but a lot of gun nuts who aren’t crazy believe them. Why? Because they’re stupid, ignorant (there is a difference), or obstinate, i.e., they’re going to believe what they believe. Period.

Of course there are people who make these claims who are neither stupid nor crazy; they’re actually quite crafty, if undeniably crass.These are the people who manufacture and sell guns, and the people, like Wayne LaPierre, who make a lot of money helping them to continue their chosen field of endeavor, unfettered. And let’s not leave out the members of Congress who pander to the legions of gun freaks who buttress their voting base.

A considerable amount of effort has gone into refuting and defending the view that gun control leads to or sets the groundwork for genocide, especially regarding Nazi Germany and the Holocaust. Any person even superficially knowledgeable about the Holocaust would laugh off the argument that gun control “played a major role” in the “eradication of German Jewry,” as argued by one pro-gun lawyer (Stephen Halbrook, 2000). Still, others have gone to great lengths to examine in detail the firearms policies of Germany under the National Socialists (Nazi Germany), and those of the preceding Weimar Republic (which actually had more restrictive gun control laws; see Bernard E. Harcourt, 2004).

All of this literature and rhetoric is “sound and fury signifying nothing.” Any attempt to distill genocide into any single cause or constituent is an exercise in absurdity. The only constant in the historical context of ethnic, religious, tribal, societal, or sexual genocide is man’s inhumanity to man. But the debate plays nicely into the hands of the NRA and gun lobby.

The juxtaposition of genocide and gun control is a red herring thrown into the gun control debate in order to deflect attention from the real issue of how to reduce America’s appalling prevalence of gun violence. This fish is well past its ‘use-by’ date, it stinks, and it should be thrown in the garbage along with members of Congress who refuse to address the will of the people on strengthening gun control.

NRA Shibboleths

Let’s talk about one of the NRA’s favorite shibboleths about those of us who support gun control. It’s the one where we leftist liberals plan to tie universal background checks to gun registration and follow that up with gun confiscation (that is, if the UN doesn't get their guns first).

The NRA has been promoting this myth for decades, ever since the Branch Davidian Massacre in Waco, Texas, some twenty years ago. Wayne LaPierre tells his rapt audience that, “jack booted government thugs” will come in the night and take their guns, leaving their family defenseless against the hordes. One of the things LaPierre fails to mention in his diatribes against the ATF and FBI is that they were trying to protect children against the sexual abuse visited upon them by the psychotic leader of the Davidians, David Koresh. Never mind, the NRA has shown itself immune to the suffering of children, as their response to the slaughter at Sandy Hook amply demonstrates.

Those of us who demand gun control, believe that universal background checks, as one of half a dozen or so gun control measures, would help keep lethal weapons out of the hands of criminals and the criminally insane. The measure that Senate Republicans recently prevented from coming to a vote -- The Safe Communities, Safe Schools Act of 2013 -- called for universal background checks, but waived such a requirement for transfers between family members and it expressly forbid a gun registry. This was pointed out by one of the bills co-sponsors, Republican Pat Toomey, but this didn’t stop the NRA and gun industry from lying about the bill's provisions. They are shameless and have shown themselves to be shameless over and over and over again.

My recommendation for members of the NRA is to: 1) read the fucking bill yourself, don’t trust what the NRA tells you; and 2) resign your membership in the fucking NRA, and join Ducks Unlimited. 

Response from Sen Pat Toomey (R-PA)

I wrote to Sen Pat Toomey, Repubilcan of Pennsylvania, to thank him for his bipartisan effort to enact universal background check legislation in the Senate. Here's his response.

April 29, 2013

Dear ___

Thank you for contacting me about national firearms policy. I appreciate hearing from you on this important issue.

Like many Pennsylvanians, I have long been a supporter of the Second Amendment. Americans have an individual right to bear arms for self-protection, hunting and recreation. In fact, during my tenure in the House of Representatives (1999-2005), my record of supporting gun owners' rights earned me an "A" rating from the National Rifle Association (NRA). 

As important as Second Amendment rights are, our society recognizes that these rights do not apply to criminals and the dangerously mentally ill. Writing for the conservative majority in the landmark Supreme Court case, District of Columbia v. Heller, in which the court struck down the D.C. gun ban, Justice Antonin Scalia stated, "Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill...or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms." In other words, Justice Scalia affirmed that laws preventing criminals and the dangerously mentally ill from obtaining firearms do not infringe on the Second Amendment.

As you know, I recently introduced an amendment, along with Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV), to the Safe Communities, Safe Schools Act of 2013 (S. 649). Our amendment had three parts. The first was to improve state compliance with the existing National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). The second part was to expand background checks to commercial sales at gun shows or through the internet. These first two parts of our amendment were designed to make it more difficult for criminals and dangerously mentally ill persons to acquire firearms. The third part would have provided law abiding citizens with expanded opportunities to exercise their Second Amendment Rights.

With regard to the first part of the amendment, NICS relies on states to provide records of persons who should not possess firearms. Compliance varies greatly with some states providing very few records. The amendment requires states to completely participate in NICS in order to be eligible for certain types of federal grant funding.

Full state participation in NICS would help prevent the kind of tragedy that took place at Virginia Tech in 2007. Prior to that mass shooting, in which 32 people were murdered and 23 were injured, shooter Seung Hui Cho had been found mentally ill by a Virginia judge. However, Virginia did not submit that court record to NICS. The absence of this critical information in NICS enabled Cho to pass a background check and purchase the handguns he used for the shooting. This is one example of how the threat of gun violence can be reduced through improvement of the NICS system, a salient objective of the Manchin-Toomey amendment.

The second part, expansion of background checks to other venues such as gun shows, is not a new idea. In the aftermath of the Columbine High School tragedy in 1999, the NRA supported expanding background checks at gun shows during consideration by the House of Representatives of the Mandatory Gun Show Background Check Act (H.R. 2122). I agreed with the NRA then, and so did many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who voted in favor of this legislation.

Current law already requires a background check through NICS for all sales conducted through a federally licensed gun dealer. The Manchin-Toomey amendment would have required individuals seeking to purchase firearms from a non-dealer at a gun show to undergo the same background check as required for purchases from licensed dealers. The amendment would not have mandated "universal" background checks. Personal, non-commercial transfers would not have required background checks.

The third part of our amendment would have been achieved through a number of measures. These measures included allowing active duty military service members to buy a gun in their home state and providing a new legal process for restoring the Second Amendment rights of veterans who, under current law, can be unfairly prevented from acquiring a firearm. Another benefit included protecting law abiding gun owners from arrest or detention by fixing interstate travel laws.

Contrary to some reports, the amendment would not have created or enabled a national gun registry. I have always strongly opposed a gun registry, so our amendment prohibited the creation of a registry and would have established a new felony offense, punishable by a 15-year prison sentence, for any official who attempted to create a federal registry.

Senator Manchin and I posted the text of our amendment on our websites on April 11, 2013, thereby providing six days for our colleagues and the public to review the 49-page measure before a vote. On April 17, 2013, despite bipartisan support and a 54-46 vote in favor, the amendment was defeated due to a 60-vote threshold that was agreed to by unanimous consent.

[The correct thing to say about this is that the amendment was defeated by filibuster. It's a little tricky, but that's the essence of it. The UC agreement under which the amendment (and all amendments to this bill) is considered requires 60 votes; that's agreed to in order to avoid a cloture vote, which is necessary because of the standing GOP plan to filibuster everything. It is wrong to say that "Senate procedure requires 60 votes." Senate procedure only requires 60 votes in case of filibuster. Which, under current conditions, means in virtually all cases. Manchin-Toomey is defeated by filibuster (from, A plain blog about politics).]

I acknowledge that some will disagree with the Manchin-Toomey amendment. I am under no illusion that the amendment would necessarily prevent a determined criminal or dangerously mentally ill person from acquiring a firearm. No system can be 100 percent effective in denying firearms to those that should not have them, but that does not mean we should not try to improve the current system. In my view, keeping guns out of the hands of these people is not gun control, but common sense.

Thank you again for your correspondence. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future if I can be of assistance.

Sincerely,

Pat Toomey
U.S. Senator, Pennsylvania

Mitch McConnell on Gun Control

Gun control? You're kidding, right?

An Open Letter to those US Senators who voted against Safe Communities, Safe Schools Act of 2013 (S.649)

April 26, 2013

Dear Senator:

Lamar Alexander (TN); Kelly Ayotte (NH); John Barrasso (WY); Roy Blunt (MO); John Boozman (AR); Richard M. Burr (NC); Saxby Chambliss (GA); Daniel Coats (IN); Tom Coburn (OK); Thad Cochran (MS); Bob Corker (TN); John Cornyn (TX); Michael Crapo (ID); Ted Cruz (TX); Michael B. Enzi (WY); Deb Fischer (NE); Jeff Flake (AZ); Lindsey Graham (SC); Chuck Grassley (IA); Orrin G. Hatch (UT); Dean Heller (NV); John Hoeven (ND); James M. Inhofe (OK); Johnny Isakson (GA); Mike Johanns (NE); Ron Johnson (WI); Mike Lee (UT); Mitch McConnell (KY); Jerry Moran (KS); Lisa Murkowski (AK); Rand Paul (KY); Rob Portman (OH); Jim Risch (ID); Pat Roberts (KS); Marco Rubio (FL); Tim Scott (SC); Jeff Sessions (AL); Richard Shelby (AL); John Thune (SD); David Vitter (LA); Roger Wicker (MS); Max Baucus (MT); Mark Begich (AK); Heidi Heitkamp (ND); Mark Pryor (AR).

Subject: SAFE COMMUNITIES, SAFE SCHOOLS ACT OF 2013 (S.649)

Please reconsider your opposition to gun control. Surely reasonable people can agree on gun control measures that will reduce the appalling prevalence of gun violence in America. Are we so divided that as honorable persons we cannot devise measures that will reduce the eye-blink destruction of innocent lives in mass shootings, reduce the tragedy of young lives lost in senseless violence, and address the unfathomable grief of parents and loved ones?

I’m sure you’re familiar with all the myriad arguments against gun control and it is not my purpose to examine that sad litany of paranoia, faulty logic, and myth, nor the reasons, admittedly emotional as well as rational, supporting gun control. I simply wish to say that refusing to take up the matter in a reasonable debate on the floor of the Senate, refusing to bring the matter to a vote, is not just ignoring the will of the vast majority of the American people, it is an assault on the bedrock principle of democracy and representative government, “the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the Government for redress of grievances.”

Noah Pozner, 2006 - 2012

Senator, we the people grieve. We grieve for Noah Pozner, shot to death three weeks after his sixth birthday, and his nineteen classmates, who died with him, and the six people who tried to protect these children, and the thousands of Americans shot to death just since Newtown. We grieve for them senator, and we petition you for a redress of our grievances. Senator, please reconsider your opposition to gun control.

Sincerely,

RVBadalamente

Richard V Badalamente, LtCol, USAF (Ret.)

3302 W 42nd Pl

Kennewick WA 99337-2794

The United States of America