 |
| logo from the mayors against illegal guns website please visit this site if you have any interest in the Arizona shooting |
One of the biggest and most dangerous myths in American politics has just been busted.
After the tragedy in Tucson, we’ve heard the same old argument from Washington and the media that Americans are “hopelessly divided” on the issue of guns. But when you get outside the echo chamber and talk to ordinary people, the consensus on guns is clear.
That’s what Mayors Against Illegal Guns did with our recent poll1, conducted jointly by a Democratic and a Republican firm. The data shows that the general public and gun owners agree that we have to take common sense steps to prevent future gun crime.emphasis added is mine - DG
Check out the polling results below and help spread the facts by forwarding this email to your friends and family.
The truth is, Americans overwhelmingly believe that we can respect the rights of law-abiding gun owners while doing more to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people.
Now, we’re counting on supporters like you to help spread the word. Please let your friends and family know where our country stands on guns by forwarding this message and sharing on Facebook and Twitter.
Thanks for getting involved,
Mayors Against Illegal Guns
1Poll conducted jointly by Momentum Analysis and American Viewpoint between January 11 and January 13, 2011. Results of the poll available here (PDF).
**************************************************
I would also refer our Penigma readers to this letter from the Mayors Against Illegal Guns calling for funding to keep the underfunded NCIS data base current . The recent tragic events in Arizona highlights the problems with our current efforts to keep people from illegally gaining access to guns.
This report mirrors conversations I've had with gun owners as well. Most support common sense controls being in place, such as mandatory background checks for ALL gun purchases, banning assault weapons by civilians, and better update of NICS. The NRA and pro-gun lobby don't want the public to know this, preferring instead to push an extremist view. Our legislators need to see past that cloud and represent the views of the people who elected them, for the sake of public safety.
ReplyDeletenewtrajectory.blogspot.com
I think I'm seeing a bit more of this idea that most gun onwers are actually on the gun control side. This is encouraging.
ReplyDeleteWelcome Baldr Odinson to Penigma, and thank you for commenting here!
ReplyDeleteAll of us, including gun owners, shooting sports participants, hunters, etc. are safer if the people who are criminals, or who have dangerous mental illness issues, children, in sum those we have legislated are not allowed to own guns don't have them.
However useful someone might believe it to be to have the immediate capacity at all moments of the day or night to shoot back at someone....it is still safer for all of us if the criminal, dangerously mentally ill, child, etc. NOT have a gun in the first place.
I was shocked to read that many states do not fund and have not supplied the NCIS data base with the names of people who would be prohibited from buying a gun by the background check. Nine states have submitted NO NAMES at all in the time period the NCIS data base has been in effect! NONE! ZERO! Zip!
How safe is that?
The NCIS data base, courtesy of how the NRA lobbied btw, purely voluntary. No surprise, the biggest gun owning states, like Arizona, tend to be the ones that participate the least in the data base, if at all.
Sadly, most people erroneously believe that the data base problems were corrected after the Virginia Tech shooting. They were not.
This is the thrust of my position in writing these blog posts - to correct the drive-a-semi-through-loopholes and gaps.
Not banning all legal guns.
DG,
ReplyDeleteI think the perception is that because you've spent 4 or 5 consecutive posts on gun control, you appear to be pro-gun control. Since many who are pro-gun control have little regard for the 2nd amendment, you therefore are lumped into that pool by perception, rather than by direct comment.
Let me be clear, and come to your defense to a degree.
DG (and I) have no issue at all with someone, whether due to a joy of hunting, a sense of security provided by ownership, or really for most any other reason, choses to own a gun. Hunting is a necessary component of our society given the destruction of natural predators. I don't ejoy it, but don't begrudge anyone who does (except if they are killing predators - they may enjoy it, but it's just flat out bad for the environment and they make horrible eating).
Likewise - I don't begrudge someone wanting to own a gun because they simply enjoy shooting. There is a rush associated with shooting sports, I know, I have at various times participated.
Yet, there clearly is a problem when access to a gun is easier for the mentally disturbed than it is for them to drive a car, get to vote and far easier than getting access to the care they need to ensure any violent tendencies they may have are treated.
Further, there is a problem when we (fatuously) claim that 30 round magazines are for preserving our "John Locke" right to change our government.
ThoughtsofEternity said in another thread that the days where the populace could change the government by force have "largely passed." This is a kind understatement. Let me be more clear, there is a 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001% chance that the civilian popultion of a nation could, through violent revolution, topple the government if the armed forces of that nation remained loyal to the government. Civilians don't have automatic weapons, grenades, real artillery, tanks, warplanes, not to mention chemical or nuclear weapons. Civilian populations (armed or not) which have attempted to resist modern armies have been violently and bloodily repressed without real exception since 1900. It may seem "cool" to think you are Randy Weaver at Ruby Ridge, but Weaver was SAVED only by the restraint of a government desiring to avoid bloodshed, had he been a French resistance fighter in World War II, the Germans would have machine-gunned his house for 5 minutes, tossed in handgrenades and shot anyone who was still alive afterward without blinking. Civilian resistance to modern armies leads to civilians being mowed down like cordwood, and NOTHING else.
Consequently, items like 30 round pistol clips, which are effectively useless in warfare anyway, are certainly not needed. They aren't hunting items, nor are they necessary for personal safety. The only real use for such an item outside novelty, is for putting a lot of rounds through a weapon quickly, and the only practical application of such an act (outside entertainment) is in a roomful of unarmed people. It is a non-existent right that you be able to kill a roomful of unarmed people or even to entertain yourself with firearms. you have the right to own, and it cannot be reasonably infringed, but this is both a reasonable and ethical limit. The magazines are wholly unnecessary to defend the rights clarified in US v. McDonald (or Heller) and THAT is what DG and I both suggest and support should be reasonably limited.
People may not be able to overthrow an entire government Pen, but they can if they choose assassinate those elected representatives to Congress, the Senate, or who serve on the judiciary with whom they disagree, and accmoplish something similar to an armed revolt.
ReplyDeleteThat appears to be what these 2nd Amendment tea party crazy extremists have in mind.
The NRA has framed the arguments so relentlessly that there is no chance to discuss any regulation of fire arms, good bad or indifferent. Those who want to see guns effectively banned, or nearly so, have the right to their opinion, too. That's why we have votes, that is why we have courts.
That doesn't make totally banning guns MY view. But it has debarred any rational discussion going forward, creating an utterly irrational moral panic of hysterical paranoia.
I'm sick of it. I deplore bullies, and that is what those who threaten are.
Forgot to add - thanks for the vote of confidence, Pen, in seeking a middle ground.
ReplyDeleteDG's last comment is exactly what is meant by the slippery slope. While most people do not want those who have mental illness to possess a firearm if they are a danger to themselves or others, many mentally ill people pose no danger to themselves or others.
ReplyDeletePenigma pointed out that there is a slim if non-existent chance of people rebelling against their government, (the basis for the 2nd amendment), DG then proceeds to imagine that we should ban firearms because someone might be incited to assassinate a politician, judge, etc. A political assassination can happen whether the assassin is complete sane or mentally ill. The assassin can be someone with no prior history of violence.
Gun bans of the type often wished for by gun control advocates are ineffective in keeping guns out of the hands of those who want to acquire them for illegal purposes. So too, are background checks. Those who want a gun or an illegal purpose aren't likely to walk into a firearms dealer and submit to a background check. The same goes to most felons, (except for the most stupid of them). Felons know that they can't buy a gun, and unless they think that somehow they have gamed the system, aren't going to try to buy from someone who will do the background check.
A better solution to gun violence is to increase the penalties for crimes committed with firearms, enforce the laws on the books, and perhaps restrict the prosecutor's ability to plea-bargain away certain fire-arms based crimes.
I think its interesting that every time there is a tragedy involving guns, there is a rush to introduce new legislation: the fact is, the legislation on the books is sufficient to deal with these crimes if enforced by a government with the will to enforce it. If the government isn't willing to enforce existing law, there isn't any reason to suggest that more draconian laws will be enforced even more so.
Sigh.......let's try this again... one more time.
ReplyDelete1. I have not once advocated banning guns. I'm a gun owner myself. I don't want to forego my gun ownership rights. I have advocated banning extended clips.
2. The NCIS data base that identifies people who ought not to be permitted a gun - dangerous mental illness, criminal convictions, drug use - is useless as it stands now.
Thanks to the NRA lobbying. because if NCIS were mandatory, fewer people would be able to legally buy guns. That would be the WRONG people would be unable to buy guns, but given how gun manufacturers fund the NRA - fewer sales of guns, and ammo, etc.
NCIS is unfunded / underfunded (depending on the state in question). Thanks to lobbying by the NRA, it is optional, not a requirement - something that very few people, including legislators, seem to know.
Nine states have not supplied a single name to the NCIS. Twenty three states have supplied only a few - in some cases less than 100 names. Arizona is one of those - some 3,000 (I erroneously reported 4,000 earlier) out of 122,000.
That means that out of 50 states and DC, 32 haven't kept participated or not significantly participated to prevent people prohibited by law from buying all the guns they want.
So, when all of these figures, politicians, lobbyists, pundits, talk about how safe we are because we are preventing the wrong people from buying guns - it's a bloody, bloody joke.
We screen drug users for gun purchasing by just asking them if they use drugs; it is on the honor system. So any pot-head, any meth, crack or opium addict who has illegal intentions for using a gun, can simply lie to buy a gun. Lying is characteristiclly a problem with addicts. Raise your hand if anyone - anyone - expects a drug addict to admit they use a controlled substance, if they know it will prevent them from buying a gun, when they want to buy one?
Anybody? Nobody?
3. I want us to ban extended magazines that hold 31 bullets. I want us to
4. I want us to close the gun show loophole, fund the NCIS, and make it mandatory, in order to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, drug addicts, the dangerously mentally ill, or illegal immigrants.
So? That is NOT banning guns. it would make us all safer, gun owner and non-gun owner alike.
And it would make it more difficult for someone to legally buy a gun who shouldn't have one - like oh......Jared Loughner. Loughner allegedly attempted to assassinate Gabrielle Giffords with a legal gun, and a lot of other people. The Virginia Tech mass shooter used a legally purchased gun. That shouldn't have happened.
Our current way of doing things is stupid. Lots of people have guns in Canada; they don't have the gun violence problem we do.
We put too many people in prison now; THAT is more draconian than having a gun check data base that is adequate. And jailing more people for longer is a heckuva lot more costly as well.
The hosts of this blog are good examples of why the gun-control movement, as opposed to the gun-rights movement, is the right one and will eventually succeed. Recent polls indicate that most gun owners want better regulations. One can easily get a different impression reading the gun blogs.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I don't consider myself an extremist, for example I don't agree with those who say guns should only be for the police and military, I do believe their ownership among civilians is not easily justified.
Of course, since we live in a free country, just wanting to own guns is enough. In fact, and this is where I differ from many gun control folks even, I don't believe in the 2nd Amendment. I think it has no relavence in our modern society and has been distorted throughout our history into something unrecognizable, convenient for gun apologists to fall back on, but unnecessary.
The idea that the 2nd Amendment is what prevents total gun confiscation is ludicrous paranoia. If there were no 2nd Amendment or if it gradually receded back into irrelavence, honest and good responsible people would still be able to own guns if they wanted.
The thing no one is mentioning here is even if Arizona fully participated in the NCIS database Loughner would not have been in it and could still have purchased a gun. He had never before committed a violent crime, or if he did he did not get caught. The local police and sherriff apparently gave him a pass on the pot smoking, I don't know about AZ but in Texas a drug conviction, even misdemeanor will get you rejected for that gun buy. And since he was over 18 and not doing anything obviously dangerous all the people who knew he was nuts could do was stay away from him. The way the law currently is, and not just the gun laws the laws about committment for mental illness, there is not much you can do if the first time the person snaps and does something against the law is the time he gets a gun and shoots 20 people. A lady I met here in Texas had a son that was schizophrenic. Apparently pretty bad and she got him committed at 16. When he turned 18 they let him go saying as long as he took his meds he was not dangerous. She spent 3 yrs and most of her savings trying to have him committed again and telling the local police and sherriff he was not taking his meds and was dangerous. No one did a thing until he invited a couple guys to a cabin in the woods for a weekend of drinking and sex and then killed them in their sleep. I think he was executed about 4-5 yrs ago.
ReplyDeleteOn the subject of the large clips you are right there is no need for them. The problem is clips fit the handle of a gun and each gun holds a different amount of ammo. A 22 will usually hold between 16 and 20rounds depending on the model. A 9 millimeter holds 13-17 rounds. A 45between 7 and 9. So what do you set the limit at? McCarthy was going way to far setting the limit at 10 and making it illegal to own a clip that held more, as soon as that passed every owner of a pistol between 22caliber and 9 millimeter would be breaking the law. Do you say the clip cannot extend below the grip of the gun? That still means some guns will hold close to 20 rounds and I have a couple friends who use clips that extend about an inch below the grip because they have big hands and the gun is more comfortable that way. Either way I agree there is no need for 30 round clips but where do you set the limit and how?
ReplyDelete