The Aurora, Colorado Shooter and Shall Issue Regulation

It has now come to light that the college psychiatrist who had been treating the (alleged) shooter in the Aurora, Colorado theater showing the latest Batman movie had alerted law enforcement that James Holmes presented a danger to others weeks before the shooting.

Under 'may issue' practice, law enforcement can be more responsive to known dangers presented by the mentally ill acquiring firearms, and deny them permits.  Under 'may issue' regulation, denial of permits can be challenged, and law enforcement then has to demonstrate that they had a reasonable and justifiable basis for the denial. 

There has not been a problem with may issue regulation abuse of authority in denying permits to individuals who are stalkers, domestic abusers, criminals, drug users, or who have known patterns of behavior that are violent as part of mental illness.

 Under shall issue, law enforcement cannot prevent dangerous mentally ill individuals or other known violent individuals who have made threats to others from acquiring weapons.  Under 'shall issue' the requirement is a court proceeding, which is far less common and which can take a very long time to occur, and where the level of danger required for a decision is much more demanding and difficult to prove.

In the case of Jared Loughner for example, his college required him to withdraw, and not return unless he had obtained a psychiatric clearance that he was not a threat to himself or others.  Loughner withdrew rather than submit to a psychiatric examination.  Law enforcement had been made aware of the threat presented by Loughner, including sending not one, but two law enforcement officers to deliver the letter from the college to Loughner and his parents.  However, law enforcement could not prohibit Loughner from firearm ownership despite their knowledge of his presenting a danger to himself and others.
And of course, the NRA has made it a priority that the large capacity magazines favored by most mass shooters cannot be prohibited either.

Between January 8, 2011 when Jared Loughner shot and killed 6 unarmed, innocent people, and wounded another 13 in Tucson, Arizona and the shooting in Aurora, Colorado (allegedly) by James Holmes in July 2012, there were 60 mass shootings.

Many of those involved assault style weapons, expanded capacity magazines, accumulations of arsenals of weapons, body armor, and large quantities of ammunition, and individuals known to law enforcement to present a danger to others who law enforcement was unable to prevent legal acquisition of the weapons used in the mass shootings.

Both ordinary citizens and law enforcement are often the victims in those mass shootings by the dangerously mentally ill, as in the case of the shootings on New Years day 2012 where Benjamin Colton Barnes in Washington state shot multiple people at a party, and then subsequently shot and killed a park ranger and injured three others.  Barnes had been the subject of a restraining order, which included notifying the court that he was dangerously violent and had shown signs of PTSD.  Barnes had a personal arsenal of weapons, including multiple military assault-style weapons, large quantities of hand guns, ballistic protection.
Law enforcement under shall issue permitting is unable to prevent that acquisition.

In May 2012, Ian Stawicki, who had a long history of mental illness, and who was known to law enforcement to be dangerously violent, shot and killed five people in Seattle, Washington, and shot but only injured another, before committing suicide.  Stawicki had accumulated, legally, six hand guns prior to the shooting, including a high ammunition capacity pistol he used in the shootings.

An article below describes the frustration of those who know dangerously mentally ill people, but are unable to get them treatment when they resist that treatment as part of their illness.  It also describes how law enforcement is often aware weeks, months or even years in advance of mass shootings of the deterioration of the mental states of these people. 
It is ridiculous that law enforcement has their hands tied by NRA-pushed laws from preventing these obviously dangerous people from acquiring firearms legally - often the most lethal possible firearms, like assault rifles or high powered semi-automatic handguns with large capacity magazines that allow them to shoot a lot of people before stopping to reload.

from MyNorthwest.com (97.3 FM) on Stawicki and other dangerously mentally ill people; the title is as true of law enforcement as it is of the families of the mentally ill.:

Families of mentally ill forced to deal with 'ticking time bombs'

For Ian Stawicki, years of mental illness ended when he took his own life on a quiet sidewalk in West Seattle. He had just carried out a shooting rampage that left five dead and one in critical condition.

Over the years he had become increasingly violent and prone to fits of rage, according to family members who saw the warning signs but felt there was nothing they could do. A police report from 2008 seems to signal the start of his deteriorating mental state.According to the documents, Stawicki had given his girlfriend a bloody nose and destroyed most of her personal possessions.

"The victim thought that sometime in December the suspect suddenly changed his personality," the police report states. "Although the suspect always 'had a temper,' he began breaking the victim's belonging when he flew into his rages. This behavior frightened the victim and she resolved to call 911 if it continued."

But while those closest to Stawicki knew he was in desperate need of help, he refused to accept it.

"I know it can feel for people as if there is no help out there, and they have tried things and they haven't worked," said Karin Rogers with Sound Mental Health in Seattle. "And that is very frustrating and very scary."

Rogers said families often struggle for years to get through to loved ones, often to no avail.

Julia, who wished to have her last name withheld, has a sister who has struggled with mental illness since the two were children. She understands all too well what the family of Ian Stawicki must have gone through.

"I wonder how many of us thought, 'Yeah. Yeah, that would be my loved one,'" she said of Wednesday's massacre at the hands of Stawicki. "I can't even imagine how difficult it must be for them [...] They're not the only family."

Julia's sister has lived with bipolar disorder for years, she said. While the family was hesitant to accept that she had a mental illness, it became clear when she threatened to kill strangers.

"As much as I knew she had problems, I didn't realize they were that extreme," Julia said of her sister.

While the family convinced her to agree to a 72-hour psychiatric hold, the stay did nothing to improve her mental state. Julia's sister refused further help and refused to take medication.

"We can't make her do anything," she said. "Our resources are exhausted. We don't know what else to do."

It is all Julia can do now to protect herself and her family. She does not allow her sister to keep guns in her home, out of fear that she is capable of murder.

"If she was armed, we would all be gone," Julia said. She called her sister a "ticking time bomb."

It is the same way the family of Ian Stawicki must have felt. His younger brother, Andrew Stawicki, told The Seattle Times he could see the bloodshed coming.

"It's no surprise to me this happened," he told the newspaper. "We could see this coming. Nothing good is going to come with that much anger inside of you."

His father, Walter Stawicki, told The Times on Thursday he regrets the family didn't do more to intervene, even if it meant lying to get him committed.

These mass shootings don't come as 'a surprise', although the pro-gun crowd likes to feign both alarm and astonishment.  People know there are problems with dangerously mentally ill people in advance, often including law enforcement.  However there is usually nothing they are able to do legally about that knowledge.  That includes law enforcement being unable to prevent the dangerously mentally ill from legally acquiring firearms, under shall issue - people like Stawicki, Barnes, Loughner, and Holmes.

Shall issue is deficient and badly defective; pro-gun advocates look at these mass shootings, have it called to their attention the purchases of weapons and other gear were legal, and they try to blame everyone but the legislation they push through for shall issue.  They try to blame the mental health care system, which their right wing politics hamstring with inadequate funding.  They try to blame law enforcement, as they attack their public unions, and whom they hamstring with shall issue, putting law enforcement in direct danger when they have to confront these armed people as a result of these mass shootings.  They blame everyone else, but the real blame falls on the pro-2nd Amendment gun advocates for the shall issue rather than the may issue regulation.  They make it possible for the legal acquisition of these firearms by the dangerously mentally ill and others. 

Blame the NRA and blame ALEC, and blame the right wing politicians they buy and conservatives who blindly support them and vote for them.  Follow the money when looking to assign blame and responsibility; every time shootings like this occur, gun sales and ammo sales go up. That profits the gun manufacturers, and gun retailers like WalMart. They broke a system that worked, 'may issue', and replaced it with one that was more dangerous, but more profitable for them as a special interest.

Now it turns out that the psychiatrist at the college in Colorado had also alerted law enforcement that there was a very real danger to others and himself from James Holmes, prior to the period of time during which he legally purchased the ballistic protection, assault style rifle, expanded capacity magazine, Glock hand guns, thousands of rounds of ammunition, gas mask and other equipment used in the attack and in rigging his apartment to explode.

From the HuffPo and Reuters:

Lynne Fenton, James Holmes' Psychiatrist, Contacted Police Allegedly Before Aurora Shooting

James Holmes' psychiatrist contacted police before the Aurora shooting, according to ABC News report

The psychiatrist treating James Holmes told a University of Colorado police officer that she was worried about her patient weeks before he allegedly killed 12 people in an Aurora movie theater.

The allegation that Dr. Lynne Fenton warned authorities about Holmes' potential to harm others -- reported by ABC News -- is the second time she told others he was possibly dangerous.

Fenton, a member of the university's threat assessment team, reportedly told other committee members that Holmes, a Ph.D neuroscience student potentially jeopardized campus safety.

Though ABC's anonymous sources said Fenton took her concerns to the university officer "several weeks before" the July 20 rampage that wounded 58 others, it's unknown how the cop handled the tip.

Fenton talked with several members of the Behavioral Evaluation and Threat Assessment team, too, but the full committee never launched an investigation into Holmes because the 24-year-old dropped out of the doctoral program about six weeks before the attack.

Doctors in Colorado can break confidentiality rules with patients if they become aware of imminent risks to others, Reuters reported.

read the rest of the article here

When events follow a pattern, over and over, and when one group or one special interest area of business benefits over and over after these mass shootings, and when they make it possible for these events to happen the way they do, it cannot be considered a coincidence or accidental that we have these mass shootings occurring so often.  It happens for a reason, and that reason is profit. That ignorant and easily manipulated conservative voters are deluded into helping this happen is the shame and failure of their political ideology.  This is not a bi-partisan phenomenon. It is a conservative-authored problem.





Conservative Dementia: Deny Voting Rights to Legal Voters, But NOT Guns to Mass Murdering Shooters?

Today Jared Loughner was found sufficiently competent, although neither cured nor sane, to make a plea bargain deal in court for his life, agreeing to life in prison for the shooting of 19 people in Tucson, Arizona, including the attempted assassination of a serving U.S. Congresswoman, the injuring of 13, and killing 6.  Loughner had legally purchased the weapon, and ammunition, despite apparent dangerous mental illness issues well before he purchased a firearm.  Jared Loughner used a hand gun equipped with a large capacity magazine holding 31 rounds, consistent with the use of such magazines in many mass shootings.

Since that shooting in January 2011, in the United States there have been 60 OTHER mass shootings.  That's 60 mass shootings in the intervening 83 weeks since the shooting that killed 6, including a child and a widely respected judge.  Not quite a mass shooting every week, but given how many shootings occurred just last month, and the start we have on mass shootings in the first week of this month, taken with the prevention of the multiple planned Aurora Colorado copycat mass shootings where the people arrested possessed arsenals of weapons and ammunition, including assault-style weapons, large capacity magazines, a 50 caliber machine gun, we might manage a mass shooting a week soon.
The weapons used in mass shootings are overwhelmingly legally purchased, an estimated 75% of the weapons are legally acquired.  In an overwhelming number of the mass shootings, assault style weapons are most often used, and large capacity magazines are a significant preference.  These shootings include shootings committed by criminals, the dangerously mentally ill, domestic violence perpetrators, stalkers and harassers, and drug users, who are still able to legally obtain these weapons and related equipment.
There were six mass shootings just in the month of July this year, and another one in the first week of August, by a right wing extremist attacking a minority religious group.

July 20, 2012: 12 killed, 58 injured in Aurora Colorado;
                        legally purchased weapons and body armor including an
                        assault style weapon and large capacity magazine;

July 17, 2012: 17 injured in Tuscaloosa, Alabama, attempted murder of an 18th
                         legally purchased military assault style weapon used;
July 11, 2012: 4 children were shot while they played in a Chicago, Illinois park
                         the weapon or weapons have not been identified;
July  9, 2012: 3 dead, including 1 child, 2 wounded in a Wilmington, Delaware park
                        weapons were not specified;
July  6, 2012:  3 people were wounded in a Chicago, Illinois shooting
                        weapon or weapons not specified;
July  2, 2012:  1 killed, 5 wounded at a party in Seattle, Washington
                        20 to 30 shell casings were found at the scene, weapon(s) were not specified;
July  1, 2012:  1 dead, 2 wounded in a Chicago, Illinois shooting in a public park
                        weapon(s) not specified;
Planned mass shootings imitating the Aurora Colorado shootings, (as distinct from any other planned mass shootings) which were thwarted (NOT an exhaustive list):
July 27, 2012: Neil Edwin Prescott, Maryland, made phone threats intending a mass shooting
                        to a former employer, describing himself as the 'real Joker'; he had an arsenal of
                         2 dozen weapons, including assault style weapons, thousands of rounds
                        of ammunition and large capacity magazines; all appear to be legally purchased;
July 24, 2012: Timothy Courtois attended a Bat Man movie showing while armed, identifying himself
                        as 'the Joker', he intended to shoot a former boss, unknown others;
                         personal arsenal included an AK-47, a machine gun, assorted hand guns
                        and other long barrel weapons, and thousands of rounds of ammunition;
                        weapons appear to be a mix of legally and illegally acquired;

And just today, we have another possible copy cat incident, from MSNBC.com:
Man armed with gun, knives entered Ohio theater showing Batman movie, police say

By Vignesh Ramachandran

Police are trying to figure out why a man took a bag of weapons with him to an Ohio movie theater showing the latest Batman movie.
Authorities confirmed that 37-year-old Scott A. Smith walked into the Regal Cinemas movie theater in Westlake, Ohio, on Saturday night with several weapons, according to Cleveland's NBC-affiliate WKYC. An off-duty police officer and the theater manager became suspicious after noticing that Smith was carrying a beige satchel, WKYC reported.
Smith had bought a ticket for the 10 p.m. showing of "The Dark Knight Rises" at a Regal Cinemas about 16 miles west of Cleveland. He was the first and only person inside the movie theater and he sat in the center seat of the back row -- a position with "tactical advantage," police said, according to WKYC.
He was arrested by off-duty Westlake police officer Jeremiah Bullins, after it was discovered that Smith's bag contained a fully-loaded 9 mm pistol, two full magazines and three knives, according to WKYC. Bullins also found a fourth knife under Smith's clothing.
Smith drove a Toyota truck to the theater, which police impounded, finding a tactical vest inside, WKYC reported.
Except for traffic violations, Smith does not have a criminal record and police said he never made any threats. In Smith's home in the nearby town of North Ridgeville, Westlake police found about eight rifles and handguns, as well as gas masks and bulletproof vests, according to The Plain Dealer.
Smith is married with a young daughter. His wife told police she knew about this gun room but was not aware of his motives, WKYC reported.
Smith faces a minimum of four counts of carrying concealed weapons and more charges could come. He is expected to be arraigned Wednesday.


I find it odd that this guy went armed to a theater, alone; that he has accumulated an arsenal of weapons - a whole gun room? - and I'm waiting for the list available to the public to be expanded to include an assault-style weapon(s) and large capacity  magazine(s), and maybe some form of gas canisters.  No doubt he acquired all of these weapons and accessories legally, and it's better than even odds that this guy will also turn out to be a little crazy, if not a lot crazy, a proponent of the NRA ideas if not an actual member, and strongly conservative, including probably an Obama hater.

Because of course, you NEED that stuff for self defense, in case, despite the long term decline in crime, you have to shoot a lot of people.  Of course if the bad guys fail to accommodate your desire to shoot someone breaking in, you have to go looking for someone to shoot.  That appears to be the premise of the NRA sponsored and written Shoot First laws that ALEC and the NRA paid conservative legislators to pass for them.
Fanatics who distort the 2nd Amendment fear that if we restrict dangerous people from acquiring and carrying firearms, either open or concealed, that there will be a terrible, horrible, frightening assault on freedom and civil rights, as distinct from the terrible, horrible, frightening assaults on the lives and bodies of actual Americans and others in this country. 

These 2nd Amendment fanatics equate more guns with more freedom, regardless of the actual decrease in safety, and therefore freedom to pursue life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  A right to SAFETY, not lethal force or vigilanteism, is part of the more recent progress in our understanding of civil rights, as reflected in the 3rd right of the Universal Declaration of Rights. 

The same 2nd Amendment fanatics also tend to have an inaccurate knowledge and distorted understanding of the origins of any right to self defense and castle doctrines in western European law and philosophy.

In support of the maximum possible sales of firearms and ammunition, these 2nd Amendment, mostly extreme right wing fanatics also seek to restore the rights to firearms to convicted felons, even those who committed multiple crimes of violence with firearms, and who have known problems with violence.  These criminals have a poor track record with responsible firearms ownership, and frequently commit additional crimes of violence in the community.
There is in fact, NOT a demonstrable problem with voter fraud, but conservatives want to deny millions of LEGAL voters their right to peacefully engage in the most fundamental exercise of civil rights guaranteed to us by the U.S. Constitution, and by our respective state constitutions.  There is no factual basis to their fears, they can find no instance of voter fraud, or altered election outcomes from voter fraud. 

Conservatives oppose felons voting, or having their voting rights restored, despite those people having concluded their sentences - a position held despite every indication that when former felons - felons who have completed their sentences - DO vote, they are far more likely to become productive citizens who do not re-offend. This is a fantasy fear of voter fraud on the part of conservatives.  What they REALLY fear are losing elections where legal voters don't like their candidates.
It is quite common for the conservatives to point to the Coleman / Franken race; but the only instance of voter fraud in that election was a Republican who committed voter fraud for Coleman and McCain.  There IS no investigation whether conducted by conservatives, liberals, neutral academics, or bi-partisan organizations like the MN County Attorney's association which has EVER found a problem with fraudulent voting in elections. Zero, zip, NONE.  But it is a terrible fear, and the further to the right the individual, the greater that unfounded fear.  They don't need facts, they are not persuaded by facts; they hold tightly to that fear with both hands intransigently, no matter how overwhelming the evidence is to the contrary. 
They WANT to believe their fantasies, so facts are irrelevant - they're conservatives! Ideology replaces critical and analytical thinking, and induces them to not only ignore facts, but to actively oppose them.  This is the basis for my regular assertions that the more to the right a conservative is, the more they tend to have broken with objective reality.
In contrast, these same conservatives push for former felons, who are likely to be dangerous, to have their firearms rights restored.  There is an entire legal specialty that has grown up around it, in spite of the clear pattern of harm and danger and violence that results from it.  These are often NOT good candidates for firearms rights to be restored.  NOT giving felons legal access to guns reduces subsequent crimes by 20 to 30 percent.

Individuals convicted of crimes, even nonviolent misdemeanors, are on average many times more likely than law-abiding citizens to subsequently commit acts of violence.

We have more than seven times the gun violence of other countries. We have mass shootings almost every week, most of them with assault rifles, expanded magazines, and with legally purchased weapons. Many of the people who engage in gun crimes should have been denied firearms - and would have been under 'may issue' laws instead of 'shall issue'.  Gun advocates like to claim that we don't have blood in the streets as a result of their changes, but the reality is that we have far higher incidence of gun violence - blood EVERYWHERE - than any other civilized, developed countries with stricter gun regulation, which is pretty much ALL OF THEM.
So long as we have conservatives, especially the Republican, Libertarian, and Tea Partiers who are veering further and further to the right, and increasingly abandoning any connection to thinking based on facts, in favor of beliefs and fantasies and just plain delusions, in wanting to push for more lax gun laws but more restrictive voting laws, we will continue to have more violence, but far less freedom.
We will have, courtesy of the right, an intentional abandonment of the fundamental premise of self-government, representative government, and one man/one vote, in favor for armed criminals with assault weapons.  God forbid we give civil rights to people who are same sex oriented, or allow minorities, the military, the elderly and students to vote without onerous obstacles, even though we have more than adequate safeguards in place.  But suggest that we return to 'may issue' where there was not a problem with 2nd Amendment reduction, and there WAS a huge reduction in gun violence, or suggest that we restrict criminals, dangerously crazy people, domestic violence perpetrators, stalkers, or drug users from obtaining firearms legally and easily, including assault style weapons and expanded capacity magazines --- things which make ALL OF US LESS SAFE AND LESS FREE  -- and you will have the 2nd Amendment conservatives dementedly foaming at the mouth.
They can't demonstrate that anyone is improperly denied firearms under 'may issue'. The statistics are clear - shoot first laws result in an increase in homicides, but no reduction of crime.  Lax gun law states have far more gun violence, both non-fatal and fatal shootings, as well as more suicides with firearms and far more accidental shootings, especially of children.  There is ample documentation that conservative gun law changes have produced serious injury and fatalities, but they don't care. 
We need to hold conservatives to facts, we need to vehemently and legally oppose conservative delusions of ideology, and to force them through reason to return to objective reality.  Because they are increasingly becoming more extreme - and more dangerous to all of us, including themselves.
Their fears are misplaces, their terrors of others are wrong, and they have lost the ability to reason. 

Facts are their enemies more than any criminals who might harm them. 
Facts should be their friends, if we can stop their dementia.  But until the right returns to sanity and factual, objective reality, we have to stop their efforts to endanger us all.  We have to step up and confront them on their lies and factual inaccuracies about the Constitution, their failed gun culture, and their failed ideologies.

Our ACTUAL freedom, and our very lives are at risk from conservatives, their politics and legislation.
We need to deal with the real world, and we can begin by learning the lessons of facts, and making responsible changes, including emulating what has worked in the rest of the world.
The answer is fewer guns, less violence, less groundless fear, less right wing extremism, and more voters participating in representative government.  THAT would make us all more free, and be consistent with the U.S. Constitution.  We should renew the assault rifle ban, and ban expanded capacity magazines, and give felons the ballot, but not guns and bullets.
Ballots are not the danger; bullets are.

How Mass Shootings are dealt with in the USA

From the Daily Kos, which I am quoting in total since it is too accurate as to how these things are dealt with in the States:

Here we go again. Another mass shooting, this time a Sikh temple in Wisconsin.
Here's what's going to happen:
1. The police and the emergency respondents will do their absolute best to investigate the crime and assist the wounded. That's actually happening right now. The truth is, our police, although they have their issues, are generally pretty good at what they do, and our EMTs and emergency care facilities are excellent.
2. There will be substantial media attention, the extent of which will depend on the number of people who were shot. If enough people are shot, a special mournful dirge will be written (as it was with the Aurora shootings)
3. In a day or so, various politicians will state that "our hearts and prayers are with the victims and their families."
4. Many people will find themselves without medical insurance to cover their injuries, and will have to beg the community to pay for their bills, or the medical providers to reduce or waive them.
5. Some freakin' jackass like Allen West will claim that if he had been there packing heat, he could have shot the perpetrator dead. And there will be "other blame the victims for being unarmed"
6. The gun industry will benefit as sales of whatever weapon was used here will go up. The more people who are killed the better the sales will be.
7. People like me who criticize the ready availability of firearms capable of this type of mass killings will be criticized as "politicizing" the event.
8. The whole thing will be forgotten by the general public (but certainly not the victims) in two weeks, max.
9. Another massacre will occur. Repeat steps 1 through 8.

Update on the Sikh Temple Shooter

Here is a thought for consideration -  should military crimes and misconduct, and psychological discharges for that matter, be available to law enforcement for consideration in granting or denying gun permits?

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

The issue of hate group affiliation is another prickly one; some people who support and promote hate positions or belong to hate groups are quite violent; a case in point would be J.T. Ready in Arizona, who committed a mass shooting, including the execution shooting of a toddler in what has been categorized as a domestic violence murder / suicide.  He had a history of espousing violence, and a history of troubled action, including violence in the military.  The following, about J.T. Ready, neo-nazi, tea partier and Mormon brought into the faith by recalled former AZ majority leader rabid conservatives, does not sound like a peaceful, honest, law abiding citizien to me. Yet, Arizona is all about letting people like this not only acquire guns, but engage in possible domestic terrorism out in the desert with the arsenal, prior to his engaging in mass shootings and his suicide.  How logical, reasonable or sensical is that?
from Wikipedia:

Court martial

Ready was twice court martialed during his service. The first resulted in a demotion and three months imprisonment, the second resulted in six months imprisonment and a Bad Conduct Discharge from the Corps in 1996.^[8] Convictions in the court martials included theft, assault, failure to follow orders, and unauthorized absence.^[9] The revelation of this history caused him to be removed as the master of ceremonies for a Mesa, Arizona Veterans' Day parade in 2006.^[10]

J.T. Ready had no problem acquiring an arsenal of weaponry despite this background. He should have, but right wingers love guys like him.
Now we hear that this (alleged) shooter, Wade Michael Page has a similar hisotory with white supremacy hate affiliations, and a similarly bad past military record. WHY was this man allowed to legally purchase a firearm to commit a mass shooting?

 from MSNBC.com:

U.S. Army officials say Page was first stationed at Fort Still, then Fort Bliss and then Fort Bragg. He rose to the rank of sergeant while in the Army, but was given a dishonorable discharge in 1998, reduced in rank to a specialist for acts of misconduct.

And back in January, we had another vet with a blemished service record who committed a mass shooting in Washington state.  He also had, like J.T. Ready, a personal arsenal.  He was involved in domestic abuse allegations, and suffered from possible Post Traumatic Stress syndrome which caused her to fear for her life and for the life of her child with Barnes. 

From the HuffPo:

The mother of his toddler daughter sought a temporary restraining order against him, according to court documents.

She alleged that he got easily irritated, angry and depressed and kept an arsenal of weapons in his home. She wrote that she feared for the child's safety. Undated photos provided by police showed a shirtless, tattooed Barnes brandishing two large weapons.
The woman told authorities Barnes was suicidal and possibly suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder after deploying to Iraq in 2007-2008, and had once sent her a text message saying "I want to die."

In November 2011, a guardian ad litem recommended parenting and communication classes for both parents as well as a visitation schedule for Barnes until he completed evaluations for domestic violence and mental health and complied with treatment recommendations.

Maj. Chris Ophardt, an Army spokesman, told The News Tribune that Barnes had been stationed at Joint Base Lewis-McChord, near Tacoma, and was released from the Army in November 2009 after two years and seven months on active duty after charges of driving under the influence and improperly transporting privately owned weapons.

On New Years Day, in what was termed the Skyway shootings, Barnes shot and wounded 4 people at a party, then went on the lam, fatally shooting a park ranger, and shooting, but only wounding, three other park rangers.

WHY do we allow these people to legally purchase firearms at all, much less arsenals of weapons?  These are not good safety risks for firearms ownership, yet we prohibit our law enforcement from denying them access to legal weapons through may issue gun permitting.

This is stupid, this is DEADLY stupid.  We are the victims not only of our failure of a gun culture, but of our stupidity in failing to regulate guns in a sane and sensible manner.  And we are all the victims of the right wing politicians and the NRA for these policies.

Blame Republicans and the NRA: Why the NRA Is Responsible for Mass Shootings

Over the weekend I read a statistic which appalled me.  Three fourths of the guns used in mass shootings are legally purchased.  Most mass shootings involve assault-style weapons and large capacity magazines, which have been banned in the past, but are now legal for purchase.
We let a lot of dangerous people legally buy guns, people whom it is basic common sense should be prohibited by law enforcement from doing so - including previously convicted felons who committed violent crimes and crimes with guns.
From CNN:

We should not brush aside discussions of gun policy as too politically difficult to expect meaningful change, or "the price for our freedoms." Instead, we should reflect on why the U.S. has a murder rate that is nearly seven times higher than the average murder rate in other high-income countries and a nearly 20 times higher murder rate with guns. And we should consider how flaws in current gun policies contribute to this disparity. 

Standards for legal ownership and permits to carry a concealed gun are relatively lax in the U.S.

In most states, a person with a long history of arrests and convictions for misdemeanors (often pleaded down from felony charges), prior restraining orders for domestic violence and history of drug and alcohol abuse can own as many military-style weapons as he can afford to purchase, and can legally carry concealed guns almost anywhere.

Under federal law, anyone wanting to purchase a firearm from a licensed gun dealer must pass a background check. But in most states, the gun dealer who stands to profit from a gun sale, rather than a law enforcement agency, determines the authenticity of purchasers' identification cards. Gun dealers face little consequence if they fail to account for dozens of guns upon inspection.

No surprise, the ATF, which conducts those FFL inspections, has a skeleton staff, and has consistently had their funding cut by the Republicans, and are actively lobbied against by the NRA, to make those inspections as few and far between as possible.

from the same CNN article:

Data indicating which gun dealers sell the most guns linked to crimes are kept from public view and cannot be used in decisions about the dealer's license. Illogically, federal law and most state gun laws allow firearm purchases from private sellers with no background check or questions asked. As a result of these policies, it is far too easy for dangerous people to own, carry and ultimately use guns.

Yesterday, we had another mass shooting; this time in Wisconsin, which has recently made their gun laws much more lax in their gun laws, and is a 'shall issue' state, including for concealed carry. Shall issue, instead of may issue, means that except for the most extreme cases, people who want guns can get guns and carry them publicly. 

Wisconsin made it easier to obtain and carry firearms as part of the Republican legislative agenda after the 2010 election cycle, funded in part by the NRA through ALEC legislation, where the NRA as part of ALEC drafted gun-related legislation for Republican legislators, including the shoot first laws, rather than the legislation being drafted by Wisconsin legislators or Arizona legislators or Texas legislators.  The legislation is the almost word for word the same from one state to the next. The NRA sponsors and promotes these legislative bills, because it increases sales for their real constituents, the special interests they serve are the gun manufacturers, as well as major firearms retailers like WalMart, the largest seller of firearms and ammo in the nation.  It is not an accident that Jared Loughner bough his ammo at a WalMart the morning of that mass shooting; it was a statistical probability.

During the period after making their gun laws more lenient, there were decreases in crime reported, but increases in homicides, and increases in non-fatal shootings. The increases in cities like Milwaukee were largely attributed to domestic violence.  Domestic gun violence often takes the form of murder suicides, where more than one person is killed, or there is an attempt to kill; we average three or more of these murder suicides EVERY WEEK.

Six people are dead, others are hospitalized, including a law enforcement officer who has had multiple surgeries for 8 or 9 gun shot wounds, including to his neck. 

Not everyone should have a gun; those who are questionable because of known drug use, mental instability, or violence and anger control issues and domestic violence issues should not.  These are preventable crimes, these are avoidable crimes, these are crimes that other countries do not have with the frequency that we have.

Tomorrow, Jared Loughner is to plead guilty in a plea bargain deal.  He has been diagnosed with schizophrenia and bi-polar mental illness.  Jared Loughner had shown such marked mental illness well before he shot Gabby Giffords and 18 other people, six of them fatalities, that he had been forced by his college to either withdraw or get a mental health assessment that cleared him as a danger to himself and others.  At least one teacher and students indicated they feared he would become become a mass shooter, possibly a school shooter committing a mass shooting at that school.

And yet Jared Loughner passed the kind of background check allowed under shall issue, where because no court removed his gun rights, he had to be allowed to buy a gun and ammunition - when he was clearly a danger, and clearly had mental health issues.  Arizona had only submitted 4,000 names of the KNOWN, COURT DETERMINED VERY WORST CASE MENTALLY ILL PATIENTS; most were not submitted.  Many states have never submitted ANY of those names. 

They don't have to, because courtesy of the lobbying by the NRA, the NICS data base is optional, not mandatory.  Lots of states, especially the pro-gun Republican majority states don't submit ANY names for the prohibited categories of dangerous mental illness, felony convictions, or drug use.  An estimated 60% of gun sales goes through Federal Firearms Licensed dealers, who run an NICS data base check; but those checks are useless if less than half the known ADJUDICATED mentally ill people's names are in the data base, or most of the felons or drug users names are not in there either.

Law enforcement was aware of Loughner's mental health issues; two law enforcement officers delivered the letter to Loughner and his parents that required the mental health assessment for Loughner to continue at his local college, and which required a meeting wth the college between the school, his parents and Loughner. Law enforcement does not ordinarily deliver letters on behalf of the college to students and their parents. The college police had five separate encounters with Loughner when he was engaging in his mental health problem episodes, and they had discovered a video made by Loughner about the school which raised issues for them about his mental stability and the possibility that he would be a danger to the school, staff and students.  Local law enforcement also knew about Loughner's drug use, use which was sufficient to prevent Loughner from being accepted into the military at a time when it was not unusual for recruiters to waive having a criminal record to meet quotas based on admitted drug use by Loughner - drug use which would have turned up on drug testing.

Law enforcement knew about Loughner's deteriorating mental illness.  Loughner's parents knew.  But no one was able to deny Jared Loughner a firearm, which they would have been able to do in a 'may issue' state, because Arizona was a shall issue.  The NRA and pro-gun advocates hate 'may issue', but the bottom line is that it allows law enforcement to exercise the kind of judgment that would prevent people who obviously should not have weapons from getting legal weapons. 

There is a fear bordering on paranoia among the pro-gunners who are largely conservatives of some stripe, that law enforcement will prevent mentally healthy, non-violent people who don't have serious anger and violent impulse control issues, or mental health issues, from obtaining guns on mere whim.  There is no evidence to support that fear, but the right has a lot of unfounded crazy fears.  They are the conspiracy theory constituency.  The NRA opposes any limitations on what guns can be purchased, like assault-style weapons, or how many, or how much ammunition, or what capacity magazines or other accessories which make mass shootings easier for the shooter to carry out so as to wound the maximum number of people, and then they make it impossible for law enforcement to deny the purchase of those things by people who will be dangerous to themselves and others with them.

Copycat shooters to the Aurora, Colorado shooting were arrested in the past two weeks, both with arsenals of weapons and ammunition.  One man in Maine who wanted to commit a copycat mass shooting to the Aurora shooting had a machine gun in his arsenal.  Another man in Maryland with mental health issues who wanted to commit a copy cat mass shooting at his place of employment had mental health issues, and was sent by law enforcement for psychiatric evaluation when they took him into custody, after he threatened his former employers and co-workers. 

We have poor availability of mental health care in this country, especially for those who are mentally ill to the extent they cannot work in jobs that would provide health care.  Our gun-promoting conservative politicians cut what funds there are for mental health care and screening that would diagnose and identify these people who are dangerously ill.  The same conservatives want to repeal the ACA aka Obamacare, which would improve that mental health care and diagnosis for millions.

The shooter in Milwaukee has been linked to white supremacist hate groups; apparently his tattoos indicate issues related to those political views.  Another reason that NRA and their conservative political puppets resist legislation on quantity or types of firearms, is that it might impede the accumulation of arsenals of weapons and ammunition by their supporters - including the wacko militias and other paramilitary groups who love the sniper 50 cals and the assault style weapons and the high capacity magazines like the 100 round one used by Holmes in the Aurora mass shooting.

Making THOSE more difficult to purchase, for example by renewing the assault weapon ban, would cut into a lot of gun sales.  It would also make all of us safer from crazy people, especially law enforcement which has been seeing an increase in firearms deaths in their ranks.

But the right and the NRA and WalMart don't want to let law enforcement stop those dangerous people.  It would cut into their profits if states became may issue, but it would make us all safer, and more free, not less.  Blame the NRA.  Mass murderers more often than not use assault style weapons and large capacity magazines; the NRA is responsible for those being legal.  Mass murders most often use legally purchased guns; blame the NRA, they make it possible for people who should not be allowed to buy guns to do so, by making may issue states shall issue states where law enforcement has their hands tied behind their backs to stop people they have good reason to believe are dangerous.

Our mass shootings are largely preventable, except for the efforts by the NRA, who through ALEC buy and sell conservative politicians so as to profit gun manufacturers and retailers like WalMart.  Our laws should be consistent with the Constitution, they should respect 2nd Amendment rights, but that does not mean our laws should be stupid, or that we should deny law enforcement the authority the need to keep US safe, and themselves safe, from crazy people buying and carrying and using guns, especially assault weapon style firearms with large capacity magazines. 

Ban Them

Good Morning America recently reported that the shooter in Aurora, Colorado, had an AR-15 assault rifle, which can hold upwards of 100 rounds. The last report was that more than 50 people were wounded and 12 killed. While it is true that people kill people and that guns do not shoot themselves, it is also true that this kind of mass execution would not be possible without such high-capacity weapons. How many people have to die before we ban assault weapons?

That's why I created a petition on SignOn.org to Congress and President Obama, which says:

Congress should reinstitute the federal ban on assault weapons.

Click here to add your name to this petition, and then pass it along to your friends.

Thanks!

–Ellen Davis

This petition was created on SignOn.org, the progressive, nonprofit petition site. SignOn.org is sponsored by MoveOn Civic Action, which is not responsible for the contents of this or other petitions posted on the site. Ellen Davis didn't pay us to send this email—we never rent or sell the MoveOn.org list.

The NRA Is Out of Touch, and Simply Wrong

Changes to make our gun laws more sane and reasonable are more popular than the right wing extremists, including the NRA, would like people to know - including legislators.
A few examples from polls:

 - 86 percent support requiring all gun buyers to pass a criminal background check, no matter where they purchase the weapon or from whom they buy it. (January 2011 American ViewPoint/Momentum Analysis poll)

 - 63 percent favor a ban on high capacity magazines or clips (January 2011 CBS News Poll)

 - 69 percent support "limiting the number of guns a person could purchase in a given time frame." (April 2012 Ipsos/Reuters poll)

 - 66 percent support requiring gun owners to register their firearms as part of a national gun registry. (January 2011 American ViewPoint/Momentum Analysis)

 - 88 percent support banning those on the terrorist watch list from purchasing guns. (January 2011 American ViewPoint/Momentum Analysis poll)

We've had the right pushing paranoid gun nuts to buy more guns, more ammunition, because of a specious claim that 'Obama is coming for yer gunz' from the NRA and other crazies.  The NRA back in '77/'78 was taken over by pro-gun extremists, who were also extremist right wing politically.  That changed the NRA from being an organization that supported gun control and regulation to what we have now.  They began funding, in part the shift to the far right among conservatives where there previously had been normal moderate conservatives.

And of course we had the drastic dumping of the mentally ill pretty much on the street during the Reagan era.  While it was never a good idea to warehouse the mentally ill, state and local resources were not prepared to deal with the problem which simply put many mentally ill out on the street.  Others, while not on the street, have faced increasingly less and less in the way of any resources to deal with mental illness.

Part of that takeover, that shift to the far right, away from normal moderates, included steady, consistent, extreme reduction in the funding for mental health care.  In places like Seattle, Washington, where there has been a sharp increase in shootings, including mass shootings, the difficulty in trying to get care, especially involuntary commitments for the severely mentally ill has been noted as a factor in those shooting incidents.

The right would rather give the wealthy tax breaks and provide corporate welfare to their donors.  It is a bad priority, for all those who are not dangerous but need care; it is a dangerous priority for all of us when those who are dangerously mentally ill don't get care, but do get guns.

Pro-gun advocates would insist that this man, who clearly was a danger to himself and others, should not have been denied the purchase of a firearm, because his run-ins with law enforcement were dismissed. They rabidly deny law enforcement the option to keep people safe by denying dangerous people firearms.

Former press secretary Gibbs is wrong, in speaking here in January 2011 about the Gabby Giffords mass shooting incident; the right wing extremists DO pursue a position that make it possible, even EASY, for deranged minds to acquire firearms IS what they claim under cover of 2nd Amendment rights.
Any attempt to screen out people like Jared Loughner is resisted; any attempt to regulate what kinds of firearms are available, like the assault style weapon or the body armor accessories or the drum magazine that held 100 rounds that made it possible to shoot so many, many people in a short period of time, and which would have done terrible harm to law enforcement even with body armor is resisted; any attempt to regulate the amount of weapons and ammunition that has characterized not only mass shootings, but also domestic terrorism like that of the right wing extremist militias is resisted as well.
Ordinary citizens who want to enjoy firears for recreation, or for home defense, or for hunting do not require those items used by James Holmes or the quantity acquired by him. Ordinary citizens would prefer to see people like Jared Loughner, or the man who shot up the cafe in Seattle denied firearms, and to see drug users not have access to firearms, or former felons either, given the incidence of them using those firearms for subsequent violence.
We need to adequately fund mental health care, including screening and where necessary, involuntary commitment. Thankfully, the ACA is a step in the right direction in making mental health care one of the many kinds of health care that will be more accessible to people who need it. That in turn will facilitate having dangerous people diagnosed. I would also argue that we would benefit from having a thorough overhaul of the terrorist watch list, to remove the people who should not be on it; but those who remain should be considered on a case by case basis for firearm ownership, so as to remove those who present a danger from firearms. But you can bet that the right, and the NRA, will spend a fortune to obstruct any measures which would reduce our incidence of gun violence. They make too much money from it.

Mass Shooting at Milwaukee area Sikh Temple Being Called Hate Crime

As we wait for the facts to emerge, we know so far that it was a heavy set bald white guy who went in to this temple and started shooting it up.  We have too many people shooting up places, shooting up PEOPLE.  Fewer guns results in fewer events like this.
The odds are reasonable that this is another case where some ignorant ass didn't know the difference between Islam and Sikhism.  The two are frequently confused by ignorant Americans who think that Muslims all wear turbans.  It's being called a hate crime, and it has been stated the shooter was not a Sikh or otherwise connected with the temple.
from the ABC news report of the event:

According to information broadcast over police radio, a witness to the shooting told law enforcement the shooter was a white male, bald, with a heavy build. He was wearing a sleeveless T-shirt, according to Oak Creek Patch. He was last seen with two handguns.

From the Journal Sentinel:
 At least 7 dead, including shooter, at Sikh Temple

At least seven people were killed, including one shooter, just after 10 a.m. Sunday at the Sikh Temple in Oak Creek, police said.
Four of the dead were inside the temple at 7512 S. Howell Ave. and three of the dead, including a shooter, were outside the temple.
A police SWAT team entered the building before noon and brought uninjured people out of the building at 7512 S. Howell Ave.
They started removing injured people from the temple's prayer room.
SWAT team members were still sweeping the building about 1 p.m. and an explosion was heard from the building at that time. It was unclear what the explosion was.
The first officer on the scene encountered an active shooter and exchanged fire with him, according to Greenfield Police Chief Bradley Wentlandt who briefed media on the scene.
The shooter went down and is believed to be dead, said Wentlandt, who is acting as police spokesman for the incident. He said authorities had no evidence of a second shooter.
Wentlandt said the officer was hit multiple times, but is expected to survive. He said the officer was a 20-year veteran and "an extremely accomplished tactical officer." He was taken to Froedtert Hospital in Wauwatosa where he was in surgery just before 2 p.m.
Among those who were shot was the president of the temple, Satwant Kaleka, who was taken to a hospital.
Deepinder Dhaliwal said Kaleka, his brother in law, was shot in the back, but has now been taken to a hospital in St. Francis.
Dhaliwal said his sister, the president's wife, called him while hiding inside the building with a few other women.
Dick Katschke, a spokesman for the Medical College of Wisconsin, said three adult males were being treated at Froedtert Hospital in Wauwatosa. One of the three was undergoing surgery in the intensive care ward. Another is in an operating room. And the third is being treated in the emergency room, Katschke said.
All three were being treated for gunshot wounds. All are in critical condition, according to Froedtert.
People were in the temple as early as 6:30 a.m. Sunday and many more were arriving for a service that was to begin about 11:30 a.m.
There were reports that children were taken away from the area of the building where the shooting took place after shots were fired.
Someone who sent a text message to a Journal Sentinel reporter shortly before noon said that there were two shooters with children possibly as hostages.
And the head priest was locked inside a restroom with a cell phone and that there were as many as 20 to 30 victims.
One of the temple's committee members, Ven Boba Ri, said that based on communication with people inside the temple, the shooter was a white male in his 30s.
"We have no idea," he said of the motive. "It's pretty much a hate crime. It's not an insider."

From Patricia Maisch, the 60+ Year Old Woman Who First Tackled Jared Loughner in the Tucson Shooting

I admire this woman's courage in charging down a crazed mass killer holding a gun, who had just been firing at her.  She was the person who first stopped Jared Loughner from killing or injuring anyone else.  I wish there had been someone who had her kind of presence of mind and courage that could have found a way to intervene in the Aurora, Colorado shootings too.
Guns do not make anyone invincible, they only make it easier to kill more quickly.
We should all be able to come together to do MORE to stop the cycle of legal guns becoming ILLEGAL guns.  We should all be able to come together to do more to stop prohibited persons from acquiring legal guns, including the dangerously mentally ill.  At the time of the Tucscon shooting, Arizona had a terrible record of supplying the names to the NICS data base of the individuals who had been determined by a court proceeding to be dangerous to themselves and others; most states have poor records of submitting those names despite 2009 federal funding legislation for it, and have as bad or worse records of submitting the names of felons and convicted drug users.
Why? Because the NRA doesn't want those names added to the FBI maintained list - it might reduce their gun sales.  Drug users names drop off after just one year, even when the drug user is major drug cartel or gang member who has been sentenced for longer than that -- which enables those individuals to walk out of jail and right into a gun sellers place of business.  This, despite the efforts of organizations like the American Bar Association, to retain those names in the data base longer.

Who pushed for the names to be purged so quickly? Guess - the NRA and other pro-gunners.  Who pushes for individuals who are known to be volatile and dangerous, like Jared Loughner was known to be, to still be allowed to buy firearms in lax gun law states like Arizona, instead of allowing law enforcement the discretion to deny them permits? Three guesses, and they should all be the NRA, representing NOT lawful gun owners, but the manufacturers who want to sell more and more and more firearms, regardless of the dangers some of those sales represent.
If you object to events like the one where Patricia Maisch intervened, the direct blame and responsibility belongs to Jared Loughner. But beyond that, the organization that made it possible for Loughner to do what he did as easily, quickly and inexpensively as he did lies at the feet of the NRA, and squarely on the other corporations that belonged to ALEC, (like WalMart, that sold him the ammunition), for it to be possible.  ALEC has bought almost exclusively conservative politicians with money belonging to right wing special interest groups.  They have done so as an unregistered lobbying group that spends money to get local, state, and federal officials elected, and then pays for them (directly and indirectly) to pass legislation written by ALEC to benefit ALEC special interests.  ALEC operates in secret, contrary to the actions of legitimate organizations that are not afraid of the disinfectant, sunlight.
That is the very definition of corruption, and it is endemic among conservatives, including the tea partiers.  I don't know about you, but I don't want our legislation written by out of state, sometimes outside the country, big money for their benefit and against our state and personal interests.  I don't want a lot of corrupt right wingers, giving lip service to patriotism and freedom, engaging in wholesale corruption instead -- and that's what we have, and never more so than since the right wing assault on and auction of government of 2010.
Oppose special interest money, oppose illegal guns, oppose lax gun laws that enable prohibited people from easily and cheaply and LEGALLY acquiring them.  Support courageous people like Patricia Maish and Mayors Against ILLEGAL guns.  Prevent future mass shootings like Tucson, and like Aurora, Colorado.

From Patricia Maish and Mayors Against Illegal Guns:
            As a survivor of the shooting in Tucson, AZ last year, I have firsthand experience of the terrible effect that a mass shooting has on a community, and my heart goes out to the people of Aurora, Colorado.
Unfortunately, I also know what it feels like to wait for action from leaders who share words of comfort but seem to forget their promises. Eighteen months have passed since the shooting in Tucson, and it’s still just as easy for a dangerous person to amass an arsenal of firearms.
Our leaders gave us a moment of silence, but they haven’t given us a plan. That’s why I’m asking you to help Demand A Plan to end gun violence through a bold new TV ad.
It was recorded with several other Tucson survivors to demand concrete proposals from President Obama and Governor Romney.

Watch our new TV ad and please pitch in $25 or more to help make sure this important message is seen by as many people as possible.

No one should have to fear for their life when they walk across their college campus, go downtown to meet their member of congress, or simply go out to the movies.

That’s not the America I want for my family or community. And it’s time our leaders came forward with a detailed plan to do something about it.

We can’t wait until another mass shooting hits the headlines before we finally act. Please make a donation to help us keep our ad on the air and raise the pressure on the candidates to tell us what they’d do to end gun violence:

http://DemandAPlan.org/TVad

Thanks for speaking up,
Patricia Maisch
Tucson Survivor


One of the largest, leading organizations that should have their logo included among those on the right is the NRA, representing gun manufacturers. Guns which become illegally owned represent a significant part of the gun manufacturers sales every year; they oppose any legislation which would help track those transactions, such as microstamping.

Put up or shut up -- BOTH OF YOU

Either put up, or shut up - and a plague on both your houses, to borrow a line from Shakespeare.
Romney is hiding something; we won't know what so long as both sides of the Mitts on R-money / Harry Reid controversy are playing cutsie and coy.
There is a simple solution.  When pressed, Barak Obama revealed his birth certificate.  Let's see R-money do the same with the documents in question of his.  And if R-money puts up his taxes, dating back to 1999, when his residence and claims about his Bain activities are in question.  I have no reason to believe that if R-money answered the questions he has promised to answer, that Reid would come forward with his.  Lets have a level playing field here, lets have a single standard instead of the double standard and hypocrisy from the right for a change.

Lets hold BOTH Reid and the Mittens on R-money to the same standard of open honesty and ethics.
Apparently Sen. Reid isn't the only person making a claim about R-money. R-money is alarmingly OPAQUE. R-money has been caught before misrepresenting his tax status and apparently his residency before; he demanded that voters just trust him then as well --- and it was demonstrated the voters shouldn't trust him AT ALL then, so we shoudn't trust him NOW.

Watcha hiding Mitt? Watcha hiding?

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Franchise Chick-Fil-A Supports Gay Pride Fest

So it turns out that Chick-Failure isn't a monolithic and homogeneous business; there is laudable, applaudable rebellious diversity among the franchise owners.  This is significant, given that the founders and executive officers appear to have badly damaged their own brand with their intolerance and oh-so-public bigotry and brazen funding of known hate groups. 
Despite the one-day surge, as restaurants begin to lose money over a sustained period, it will be interesting to see how the other franchise owners react - will they remain silent, or will they also rebel and 'go rogue'? 

There is a pattern, documented in this article, of brands going strongly right in political donations and very strong public political/culture war positions, that have suffered damage they could not undo. As the article noted, old angry white people don't buy as much stuff as all the other pro-gay demographics do, and pretty much everyone else  is pro-gay/pro-marriage equality.

Opposition to gay marriage gets great numbers among the 65+ crowd (31% favor, 56% oppose) and conservative Republicans (75% favor, 16% oppose) but almost every other demographic group favors gay marriage, and Chick-fil-A’s position puts them well behind the curve.

It's not just  one article that sees that trend.  As the New York Times noted here, Chick-fil-A is going counter to the prevailing business trends, and THAT doesn't seem to be economically very successful. 

Chick-Fil-A takes perception dive with fast food eaters

by Ted MarzilliinBrandIndex Newsand Consumer  07/27/2012

Chick-Fil-A's perception with fast food eaters nationwide has taken a significant hit in most regions of the US, including the South where most of its restaurants are located, since president and COO Dan Cathy's perceived anti-gay remarks on July 16th.

On that basis, I think the franchise owners might have grounds to complain, maybe even sue, for the executives of the parent corporation damaging their investment, rather than the other way round, if other franchise owners instead of supporting the religious views of the corporate members goes the other direction, supporting and courting gay and pro-gay customers.  A good argument could be made that as a business, the executives owe their franchise investors a responsibility not to crash the business for them.  The execs need to decide if they want to be a church, or a business; if it is the latter, then they need to start separating their unpopular views from their corporate positions.

And too bad for Chick-failure-hey!, it looks like some of their FORMER customers are going the DIY route, and might not be coming back, AND the corporate executives appear to have turned their chain into a joke, besides.

An excellent example, from the SFGate / San Fancisco Chronicle:

Chick-fil-A: Manager goes rogue, Wendy’s fleeting support, kiss-in Friday

A rainbow flag is waved by same sex marriage advocates outside a Chick-fil-A restaurant Wednesday in Hollywood, California. (Robyn Beck/Getty Images)

Fans rallied around Chick-fil-A during an Appreciation Day on Wednesday, and same-sex marriage supporters are responding with a “kiss-in” Friday. The national debate stems from Chick-fil-A President Dan Cathy’s stance against gay marriage, and shows no signs of abating.
According to the Los Angeles Times, Friday’s “National Same Sex Kiss Day” is supported, though not organized, by GLAAD. The organization is also encouraging people to eat at KFC instead of Chick-fil-A.
Chick-fil-A rival Wendy’s briefly jumped into the fray when some restaurants in North Carolina and South Carolina posted signs saying “We stand with Chick-fil-A.” The company quickly asked for the signs to be changed and released a statement saying “This is one independent franchisee’s personal opinion.”
In New Hampshire, a Chick-fil-A manager might be causing his chain headaches. Anthony Picolia and the Nashua Chick-fil-A, the only one in the state, are supporting the New Hampshire Pride Fest on Aug. 11. In a statement, Picolia said “I would challenge people to come have a conversation with me before they make assumptions or boycott my restaurant.”

Loughner to Plead Guilty

I had expected, from earlier news releases, that Loughner was never going to appear in court, that he was going to be permanently too mentally ill to go to trail.  It is still possible I suppose that his defense might be that he was not competent at the time of the shootings, but isn't mentally ill / mentally impaired now. This article describes Loughner as suffering from a bi-polar disorder; previously at least some descriptions described him as schizophrenic.  He had been forcibly medicated under court order.

I wonder if he will describe any political opinions as part of his explanation for attacking innocent people, consistent with the writings found among his things after the shooting.

How does someone deal with accepting responsibility for killing so many innocent, complete strangers?  What medication can help a person cope with that horror?

From MSNBC.com :



Report: Jared Lee Loughner to plead guilty in Gabrielle Giffords attack

By Gil Aegerter, NBC News

Jared Lee Loughner is expected to plead guilty next week in the deadly shooting that left former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords severely wounded, the Los Angeles Times reported Saturday, citing unidentified sources.
The rampage in Tucson, Ariz., on Jan. 8, 2011, left six people dead and 13 wounded, including Giffords, who is still recovering from a head injury.
The Times said that mental health officials had determined that Loughner, 23, is competent to stand trial and that psychiatric experts will testify Tuesday at a hearing in U.S. District Court in Tucson that "he comprehends what happened and acknowledges the gravity of the charges, according to two sources who spoke on condition of anonymity because the case was still unfolding."

The Times said the terms of the plea remain unclear.

Loughner, who has been diagnosed with bipolar disorder, was forcibly medicated at a Missouri prison facility in an effort to make him mentally ready for trial.

The attack in Tucson came as Giffords was sponsoring an event to meet constituents outside a store. Among the victims who were slain were federal Judge John Roll; 9-year-old Christina-Taylor Green, who was born on Sept. 11, 2001, and Giffords staffer Gabe Zimmerman.

Giffords spent more than a year in Houston undergoing intensive physical and speech therapy in a recovery that doctors and family have called miraculous. But she was unable to fully return to Congress and resigned in January this year.

Ron Barber, a Giffords staffer who survived two gunshot wounds in the Tucson attack, won her seat in a special election in June.

What's Wrong with Using Leviticus and Romans to Attack Gays and Marriage Equality?

What's wrong with it is that it is dishonest to use Leviticus to cherry pick (or lemon pick) one aspect if you don't follow through supporting ALL of Leviticus. And the claims about the Romans quotation from the King James Bible used against gays and gay marriage, that is not what the actual, original wording said.

Claiming the Bible as the justification, foundation, or any other kind of basis for a variety of views is not factual or accurate, but rather selective distortions and dishonest substitutions.

The Bible doesn't oppose contraception; the Bible doesn't oppose abortion, and the Bible doesn't support marriage as between one man and one woman, it supports polygamy and concubinage and legal sexual slavery as forms of simultaneous multiple partner marriage. And lets not leave out the levirate marriage REQUIREMENT, the one that got Onan in trouble (coincidentally the part of the Bible that is incorrectly used to demonize masturbation). Levirate marriage REQUIRES that a man marry AND IMPREGNATE the spouse of his widowed brother; refusing to do THAT was what got Onan in trouble, not masturbation. So, unless you want to legalize polygamy, concubinage, and levirate marriage, don't be representing yourself as holding a BIBLICAL view of marriage - because that is what the BIBLICAL content on marriage holds. If you believe otherwise, you're entitled to your beliefs, but you're not entitled to claim your beliefs are supported by Biblical authority, because they are not. Biblical beliefs are what appear in the Bible, not whatever you feel like making up. In any case, we are a democracy, a secular representative government, not a theocracy, so what you believe in the context of religion has limited importance to the rest of us.

A better graphic of James Holmes's gear

According to Mother Jones, most mass shooters have bought their guns LEGALLY: "132 guns possessed by the killers, more than three quarters were obtained legally."

Note the "By looking closely at Holmes’ ammunition and equipment, it becomes clear the attack at the movie theatre could have been much worse."

This graphic comes from: news.nationalpost.com/2012/07/25/graphic-james-holmes-was-a-man-with-a-plan/

Now, isn't it wonderful that any maniac in the US can buy the gear to kill a large amount of people?

Even better, that people (you {should} know who you are) are willing to stop any attempt at preventing that carnage from happening in the first place?

Yeah, yeah, I know all the gun guys would have been able to have stopped the punk if they had been in that theatre--they would have been able to take clear shots through the haze of the CS gas.