Showing posts with label Gun Policies. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Gun Policies. Show all posts

Monday, May 15, 2023

After a mass shooting, GOPers move to protect...gun makers

Just when one thinks that GOPers can't get any lower, they pull out their shovels.


From Politico -

After school shooting, Tennessee governor signs bill to protect gun firms

Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee has signed off on additional protections for gun and ammunition dealers, manufacturers and sellers against lawsuits within a bill that lawmakers passed after a deadly school shooting in March.

The Republican governor quietly signed the legislation Thursday. Its provisions kick in on July 1.


Wednesday, December 11, 2013

Gun deaths total in AZ: All about a malicious attitude

And the "malice" isn't just on the part of the shooters...

There's a couple of gun stories going around that, on the surface, are unrelated.  However, they are probably more closely related than "Second Amendment activists" (a euphemism for "gun nuts") would care to admit.

First up: an "effect".

From Mother Jones, written by Dana Liebelson and Stephanie Mencimer -
Back in December, not long after the massacre at Sandy Hook school massacre in Newtown, Connecticut, Bloomberg News published a study suggesting that by 2015, guns would kill more Americans than traffic accidents do.

The comparison struck a nerve, and the factoid has become a talking point in gun control debates on Capitol Hill. But it's clear from the data that the prediction wasn't just a hypothetical. A number of states have already hit this grisly milestone.

From the story, Arizona's shameful numbers -



Yes, in 2010, there were already more gun deaths than traffic deaths in Arizona.

Yet, while there are scads of laws regulating the use of motor vehicles in AZ, there are many fewer such laws regarding the use of firearms in AZ, and those laws are made fewer and weaker seemingly every time the Arizona legislature meets.

Now, a cause (or at least, a contributing factor):

Why this counterintuitive approach to this public health crisis masquerading as a political disagreement?

Attitude.

The Arizona legislature is controlled by Arizona Republicans, who consider possessing and using firearms without restriction a "right" that is more sacrosanct than the right of others to live.

From KPHO, written by Lindsey Reiser -
The season of holidays gatherings is upon us but the raffle prize at one holiday party has some scratching their heads.

District 26 Republicans get together once a month, and also during the holidays. The holiday gathering also happens to be four days before the anniversary of the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School.
"We don't do raffles hardly at all,  mainly for Christmas and for shock value," joked Craig Ray.
{snip}

"To raffle off an AR15, a military-style assault rifle, the same rifle used to murder those children almost a year ago, is completely inappropriate," said District 26 Democratic committee chairman Randy Keating in response. His group is collecting money for a group called Arizonans for gun safety.
{snip}

The chairman of the Republican committee, Raymond Jones, said it's pure coincidence and wasn't malicious.
Sad to say, this sort of this can no longer really be called "shocking".  
And they have a tough case to make to prove that raffling off the type of weapon used to massacre children and teachers in Newtown, CT is "pure coincidence".
From a 2011 ABC News story, written by Amy Bingham -
Forget quilts and cookies, the Pima County Republican Party in Arizona is auctioning off a handgun at their next party fundraiser. And not just any handgun, the same series of pistol that was used in the Tucson shooting of Rep. Gabriel Giffords in January.

“Help Pima County get out the vote and maybe help yourself to a new Glock .45. Get yourself a new Glock 23 .40 cal handgun for just 10 bucks- if your name is draw. That’s right for just 10 dollars this gun could be yours,” reads the Pima GOP’s flyer that was sent to supporters Aug. 26.

{snip}

“This raffle shows a stunning lack of judgment and sensitivity in raffling of the same make of weapon used in the January shooting,” said Jeff Rogers, the chairman of the Pima Country Democratic Party. Pima County includes Tucson. “It’s a slap in the face of a grieving community.”
Well, no one can accuse them of being them of being inconsistent.
However, given their track record of trafficking fundraising from the same types of weapons used in infamous mass shootings, we can all accuse them of being malicious, no matter their protestations to the contrary.


To contribute to Arizonans for Gun Safety, go to the LD26 Democrats' donation page.

Thursday, November 14, 2013

Santa's gonna need body armor when he visits the homes of Valley Republicans this year...


Normally, I'm not one to give free publicity to a GOP fundraising effort, but this one is way too juicy to accord a free pass...

As the calendar closes in on the end of the year, many groups are looking to do one last major fundraising effort before the election season fully ramps up.  While there is always pressure to raise funds felt by political groups, the ideal is to have most of the money needed to pay for outreach/campaigns raised early, because as election day gets closer, campaigns prefer to focus on spending, not raising, money.

Occasionally, that leads to some "colorful" fundraising efforts.

Like this one, from the Legislative District 26 Republican Party, based in Tempe and Mesa here in Arizona -























We are approaching Christmas (December 25), a time supposedly about sharing peace and love, and the one-year anniversary of the mass murder of 26 students and teachers in Newtown, CT (December 14), and the LD26 Rs want to make money off "sharing" a weapon similar to the one used by the killer in Newtown.

Take note of the delicious bit of insanity in the way that they are conducting background checks on potential recipients of the assault rifle that they are raffling off.

Hint: it's the kind of "background check" that even someone like Jared Loughner could pass.

I know that I'm a Democrat and we are talking about Republicans here and we don't agree on much of anything, but at what level of raging misanthropic insanity is this appropriate?

Maybe they're trying to appeal to the "let's stock up on reindeer meat so we can save our money to buy more meth" crowd?

To be fair to the LD26 Rs, this may not be a holiday fundraiser for them.  There's no date listed for the drawing, which may mean that this is a "forever" raffle where they are going to keep this going until they stop making money from it.

Something that would be worthy of a post of its own...and possibly a fraud indictment.

PS - If Santa decides to brave the skies over AZ, perhaps he should see if State Rep. Bob Thorpe can hook him up with some state-of-the-art gear.  Thorpe "knows" some people...


Picking nits part of the program:

Whoever runs/maintains their website needs to learn to spell, or at least how to use spell check -






Friday, June 21, 2013

Maybe they should take some of the proceeds from the fundraiser to buy a clue...

We live in Arizona, a place where we've seen incidents where...

...six people are murdered and more than a dozen others injured, including now-former Congresswoman Gabby Giffords, in a mass shooting in Tucson...

...a four-year old shot and killed his father in Prescott Valley with a gun left out in the house of a family friend...

...6700 acres (and counting) burn up near Prescott in a wildfire apparently caused by some target shooters who carelessly disposed of some spent shells...

And more, many more; the litany of gun-related tragedies seemingly never ends, with a new one grabbing our attention even before the echoes of the last one fade from our hearing.


Most of America realizes that a problem with firearms exists here, and the problem isn't that there is too little shooting and too few guns.

Most of America.

From the website of the LD26 Republicans -













{snip}














Gun movies (I'm not certain of their meaning of the phrase "constitutionally correct", but I expect that it is somewhere close to "propaganda"), "cute" guns, "interesting" guns, prizes, and goodies - it seems like "guns as entertaining toys" will be the event's theme.

Not "gun as dangerous tools".

Wonder if they are going to invite former state legislator Lori Klein to give safety instruction?  If that doesn't happen, maybe she can enter her pink pistol in the "Cutest Firearm" contest.

You know, the one with a laser sight and without a safety.  The one that she pointed at a reporter, just to show it off.

Hmmm...on second thought, if she attends the event, maybe *teaching" gun safety should take a back seat to *learning* gun safety for now.

Sunday, June 16, 2013

Gun violence: It's a health crisis. Treat it that way.

This has been a tough post to write.  Not because there is nothing to say, but because there is so much to say, it's been difficult to keep it down to a readable length.  However, since there have been more than 5000 gun deaths since the mass shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, and nothing has been done...

In the wake of December's mass shooting in Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, there were a number of ideas floated to stem the epidemic of gun violence sweeping the country - reinstituting the assault weapons ban, closing the gun show loophole in background check laws, and banning ammunition magazines/ammo clips that are larger than a certain size, among many others - all of which have been strenuously opposed by the gun industry's lobbying group, the NRA, and most of which won't become law.

Witness Sen. Jeff Flake (R-AZ) and 44 of his colleagues banding together to block a proposal to close the "gun show loophole" in the federal law requiring background checks for firearms purchases.

Even though 90% of Americans, across all demographics - Ds, Rs, gun owners, liberals, conservatives, whatever - supported the common-sense move, 45% of US Senators were cravenly swayed by the NRA's campaign contributions.

In addition, in states where the NRA's tools hold sway over the political structure, they've actually passed laws to put more guns on the streets of America.

Witness Arizona Governor Jan Brewer signing HB2455 into law.

HB2455 requires municipalities and counties, with a few very specific exceptions, to sell any firearms that come into their possession.  The bill is targeted at gun "buyback" programs, where gun owners turn in weapons, usually for a small financial compensation, and then the local or county police agencies have the weapons destroyed.

This offended the tender sensibilities of the gun industry, their lobbyists in the NRA, and their lackeys in the Arizona so much that they passed a law to override the wishes of gun owners and to usurp local control.

The proposals that have been offered up in an effort to reduce the number of gun deaths will help, but all have the same underlying flaw that would ultimately limit their effectiveness, if any of them are ever enacted -


None of them seek to address the underlying causes of the epidemic of gun violence that's sweeping the country - a societal affinity for using violence as the first, not last, resort for resolution of conflict.

Nor do they address the "guns as toys" mentality that suffuses the gun subculture in America.


While easy access to firearms is a significant contributing factor in the torrent of violence, a bigger factor may be the attitude that firearms are toys that can be used or handled in any way without the user bearing any responsibility for the results of their handling or use of the firearms.

That can, and should be, addressed in a way that doesn't infringe on anyone's "rights".

Even if the gun fetishists (who, it should be noted, are not part of the group of *responsible* gun owners, who make up the majority of gun owners) don't like it, and they sure as hell won't.

Perhaps the people who are leading the efforts to reduce the number of gun deaths should take a page from the way that a previous behavioral health crisis was address.

That previous crisis?  Drunk driving.


In the early 1980s, when the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration started tracking the numbers, more than 21,000 people per year died as a result of alcohol-related motor vehicle accidents.

By 2011, that number had dropped to a little less than 10,000.



Why did that happen?

In large part due to a concerted effort, started in the early 1980s, to reduce both drinking and driving and the social acceptability of drinking and driving.

That effort included raising the legal drinking age (at the time, most states set that age at 18) to 21, changing the culture of enforcement (bars that served people until they were so intoxicated that they could no longer drive safely would lose their license and be subject to lawsuits, and police officers who let drunk drivers go with a warning would be held financially liable when one of those drivers would later get into an accident after being released) and increasing the penalties for those convicted of driving while under the influence (license suspensions became almost mandatory, as did jail sentences and hefty fines.  And that was even in cases where there were no injuries or property damage).

In short, the problem was addressed by addressing irresponsible behavior.

Drinking alcoholic beverages wasn't outlawed (they tried that with Prohibition.  It didn't work.  In fact, it failed miserably.).

Driving a motor vehicle wasn't outlawed (good luck with that one, not that anyone I know of is crazy enough to even suggest that, much less try to implement it).

Drinking and driving, on the other hand, while already against the law, was no longer winked at.  Because of the death toll that they inflict upon society, drunk drivers are now treated like the danger to society that they are.

To be sure, deaths due to intoxicated drivers haven't been reduced to zero, and won't be, but a huge dent has been made in the problem.

A similar approach may be the most effective way to address the epidemic of gun violence in the United States.

Completely banning guns, and no one with any credibility is pushing that as a solution, wouldn't "solve" the problem, any more than banning alcohol during Prohibition stopped all production and consumption of alcoholic beverages (or any more than the so-called "War on Drugs" has done anything to reduce the availability or use of narcotics, but that's a topic for another, very long, post).

However, there are a few approaches that can be taken that will address anti-social behavior without diminishing civil rights.  Though the gun industry, NRA, and gun fetishists will scream otherwise.

Offered, but not in any order of importance -

1. Roll back the legal shields created for gun manufacturers. If they start having to pay for their actions to make it easier for people who shouldn't be allowed near firearms to gain access to them, perhaps the industry will think twice about mass manufacture and mass marketing of handheld weapons of mass destruction such as the Bushmaster rifle and large capacity magazines.

2. Place as much emphasis on the *responsibility* that goes with possessing firearms as the NRA places on the "right" to possess them in the first place.  As with the example of drunk driving, intent to harm others wouldn't be relevant - everything from accidental discharge of a firearm with no harm to humans or property thru accidentally causing the death of another human should result in prison time.  Leaving a firearm in position, and condition, where it can be found and fired by children, should also result in prison time.  Incidents where such a firearm is actually fired would result in more prison time, and incidents where someone is actually harmed would result in even more prison time.

3. Quit messing around and expand background check requirements to cover all sales of firearms, not just those involving licensed dealers.

Some will argue that it is unfair to criminally and civilly punish people and businesses for accidents or for acts made in "good faith".

I would argue back that even if it is, it's less unfair than sacrificing the lives of thousands of innocent men, women, and children every year upon gun fetishists' (and profiteers') altar of fear of civil society.

Wednesday, April 17, 2013

"Shameful"

Earlier today, 46 US Senators, including Arizona's Jeff Flake (R), kowtowed to the NRA and blocked a measure to expand background checks for firearms purchases to all sales of firearms, not just those involving federally-licensed gun dealers.

It was a slap in the face of all of the victims of gun violence and their families, and President Obama took the unusual step of immediately calling out the senators for their craven cowardice (my words, not the President's).

He was incredibly eloquent in expressing the anger and outrage of millions of Americans; I know he was far more eloquent that I would be.  When I first heard of the Senate vote today, my instinctive response could be summed up in two words directed at the senators who voted against common sense, who placed gun industry profits ahead of the lives of innocent men, women, and children.

Hint: the second one was "you".



The text of the President's remarks (emphasis added) -

A few months ago, in response to too many tragedies -- including the shootings of a United States Congresswoman, Gabby Giffords, who's here today, and the murder of 20 innocent schoolchildren and their teachers -- this country took up the cause of protecting more of our people from gun violence.
Families that know unspeakable grief summoned the courage to petition their elected leaders -- not just to honor the memory of their children, but to protect the lives of all our children. And a few minutes ago, a minority in the United States Senate decided it wasn't worth it. They blocked common-sense gun reforms even while these families looked on from the Senate gallery.
By now, it's well known that 90 percent of the American people support universal background checks that make it harder for a dangerous person to buy a gun. We're talking about convicted felons, people convicted of domestic violence, people with a severe mental illness.  Ninety percent of Americans support that idea. Most Americans think that's already the law.
And a few minutes ago, 90 percent of Democrats in the Senate just voted for that idea. But it's not going to happen because 90 percent of Republicans in the Senate just voted against that idea. 
A majority of senators voted "yes" to protecting more of our citizens with smarter background checks. But by this continuing distortion of Senate rules, a minority was able to block it from moving forward.
I'm going to speak plainly and honestly about what's happened here because the American people are trying to figure out how can something have 90 percent support and yet not happen. We had a Democrat and a Republican -– both gun owners, both fierce defenders of our Second Amendment, with "A" grades from the NRA -- come together and worked together to write a common-sense compromise on background checks. And I want to thank Joe Manchin and Pat Toomey for their courage in doing that. That was not easy given their traditional strong support for Second Amendment rights.
As they said, nobody could honestly claim that the package they put together infringed on our Second Amendment rights. All it did was extend the same background check rules that already apply to guns purchased from a dealer to guns purchased at gun shows or over the Internet. So 60 percent of guns are already purchased through a background check system; this would have covered a lot of the guns that are currently outside that system.
Their legislation showed respect for gun owners, and it showed respect for the victims of gun violence. And Gabby Giffords, by the way, is both -- she's a gun owner and a victim of gun violence. She is a Westerner and a moderate. And she supports these background checks.
In fact, even the NRA used to support expanded background checks. The current leader of the NRA used to support these background checks. So while this compromise didn't contain everything I wanted or everything that these families wanted, it did represent progress. It represented moderation and common sense. That's why 90 percent of the American people supported it.
But instead of supporting this compromise, the gun lobby and its allies willfully lied about the bill. They claimed that it would create some sort of "big brother" gun registry, even though the bill did the opposite. This legislation, in fact, outlawed any registry. Plain and simple, right there in the text. But that didn't matter.
And unfortunately, this pattern of spreading untruths about this legislation served a purpose, because those lies upset an intense minority of gun owners, and that in turn intimidated a lot of senators. And I talked to several of these senators over the past few weeks, and they're all good people. I know all of them were shocked by tragedies like Newtown. And I also understand that they come from states that are strongly pro-gun. And I have consistently said that there are regional differences when it comes to guns, and that both sides have to listen to each other.  
But the fact is most of these senators could not offer any good reason why we wouldn't want to make it harder for criminals and those with severe mental illnesses to buy a gun. There were no coherent arguments as to why we wouldn't do this. It came down to politics -- the worry that that vocal minority of gun owners would come after them in future elections. They worried that the gun lobby would spend a lot of money and paint them as anti-Second Amendment. 
And obviously, a lot of Republicans had that fear, but Democrats had that fear, too. And so they caved to the pressure, and they started looking for an excuse -- any excuse -- to vote "no."
One common argument I heard was that this legislation wouldn't prevent all future massacres. And that's true. As I said from the start, no single piece of legislation can stop every act of violence and evil. We learned that tragically just two days ago. But if action by Congress could have saved one person, one child, a few hundred, a few thousand -- if it could have prevented those people from losing their lives to gun violence in the future while preserving our Second Amendment rights, we had an obligation to try.
And this legislation met that test. And too many senators failed theirs.
I've heard some say that blocking this step would be a victory. And my question is, a victory for who? A victory for what? All that happened today was the preservation of the loophole that lets dangerous criminals buy guns without a background check. That didn't make our kids safer. Victory for not doing something that 90 percent of Americans, 80 percent of Republicans, the vast majority of your constituents wanted to get done? It begs the question, who are we here to represent? 
I've heard folks say that having the families of victims lobby for this legislation was somehow misplaced. "A prop," somebody called them. "Emotional blackmail," some outlet said. Are they serious? Do we really think that thousands of families whose lives have been shattered by gun violence don't have a right to weigh in on this issue? Do we think their emotions, their loss is not relevant to this debate?
So all in all, this was a pretty shameful day for Washington
But this effort is not over. I want to make it clear to the American people we can still bring about meaningful changes that reduce gun violence, so long as the American people don't give up on it. Even without Congress, my administration will keep doing everything it can to protect more of our communities. We're going to address the barriers that prevent states from participating in the existing background check system. We're going to give law enforcement more information about lost and stolen guns so it can do its job. We're going to help to put in place emergency plans to protect our children in their schools. 
But we can do more if Congress gets its act together. And if this Congress refuses to listen to the American people and pass common-sense gun legislation, then the real impact is going to have to come from the voters. 
To all the people who supported this legislation -- law enforcement and responsible gun owners, Democrats and Republicans, urban moms, rural hunters, whoever you are -- you need to let your representatives in Congress know that you are disappointed, and that if they don't act this time, you will remember come election time. 
To the wide majority of NRA households who supported this legislation, you need to let your leadership and lobbyists in Washington know they didn't represent your views on this one. 
The point is those who care deeply about preventing more and more gun violence will have to be as passionate, and as organized, and as vocal as those who blocked these common-sense steps to help keep our kids safe. Ultimately, you outnumber those who argued the other way. But they're better organized. They're better financed. They've been at it longer. And they make sure to stay focused on this one issue during election time. And that's the reason why you can have something that 90 percent of Americans support and you can't get it through the Senate or the House of Representatives.
So to change Washington, you, the American people, are going to have to sustain some passion about this. And when necessary, you've got to send the right people to Washington. And that requires strength, and it requires persistence. 
And that's the one thing that these families should have inspired in all of us. I still don't know how they have been able to muster up the strength to do what they've doing over the last several weeks, last several months.
And I see this as just round one. When Newtown happened, I met with these families and I spoke to the community, and I said, something must be different right now. We're going to have to change. That's what the whole country said. Everybody talked about how we were going to change something to make sure this didn't happen again, just like everybody talked about how we needed to do something after Aurora. Everybody talked about we needed change something after Tucson.
And I'm assuming that the emotions that we've all felt since Newtown, the emotions that we've all felt since Tucson and Aurora and Chicago -- the pain we share with these families and families all across the country who've lost a loved one to gun violence -- I'm assuming that's not a temporary thing. I'm assuming our expressions of grief and our commitment to do something different to prevent these things from happening are not empty words. 
I believe we're going to be able to get this done. Sooner or later, we are going to get this right. The memories of these children demand it. And so do the American people. 
Thank you very much, everybody.
 Note: I would like to personally thank all of the senators who voted for the measure, especially the four Republican who did so - 

Mark Kirk, John McCain, Susan Collins, and Pat Toomey.

Note2:  I'd like to make that a "WOW! Thank you!" for McCain; I thought that the 'maverick" John McCain was long gone, subsumed by the "cranky old man" John McCain who came to the fore once he started running for president.



Saturday, January 12, 2013

AZ House Speaker Tobin calls Chad Campbell "insincere" and "immature"...

...and says Campbell should have cleared his proposal to address the epidemic of gun violence sweeping the state and nation with Tobin first.

On Sundays here in AZ, like most of the country, local TV stations broadcast their political or public affairs programming, usually early in the morning.

Phoenix station KPNX (Channel 12 to those folks who aren't into alphabet soup early in the morning) broadcasts a program called "Sunday Square Off" at 8 a.m. local time.  The host is Brahm Resnick, a recently naturalized Canadian immigrant.  He's pretty even-handed, letting his guests say what they're going to say without interfering with them, but not afraid to press someone for details when they are being vague on an issue (given that he usually deals with politicians, that happens.  Frequently. :) ).

The show, while aired on Sunday, is recorded on Friday, which means that Resnick and his station can post teasers and previews on Saturday.

Which they did this week, here.

A transcript of the relevent part of the teaser -

Resnick - Now do you doubt his sincerity?

Tobin - Oh well sure, this is about him running for governor.  I'm very disappointed and it's immature..."here's my plan" and all you press guys show up and they put microphones in his face.  So he gets attention and that's OK.  Well how about picking up the phone and saying "hey Andy, what about something like this?"

Something tells me that the upcoming session of the lege will be a long and contentious one, judging by the fact that the Republican leadership is already resorting to name-calling.

Oh, and the leader of the caucus that barely acknowledges the existence of, much less deigns to speak to, Democratic members of the House and their constituents, whining about it when somebody doesn't talk to *him*?

Is there such a term as "operational hypocrisy"?  If not, there is now, and Tobin is serving up a big steaming pile of it...



Saturday, December 15, 2012

Another horror, this time in Connecticut

Pardon my cynicism, but another mass shooting (in an elementary school this time) and another call by certain folks to turn schools and the rest of society into an armed encampment?

Must be a day ending in "y"...

There are people who are writing about this far more eloquently, far more heart-wrenchingly, than I can.

All I can ask is the same question that I asked in the aftermath of the movie theater shooting -

What's the magic number? 

How much blood has to be spilled before mindless rhetoric takes a back seat to reasoned discussion?  How many innocent people must die before our elected "leaders" stop quaking in fear of/sucking up to the gun industry and its lobbyists/cheerleaders at the NRA?

A couple of observations:

1.  The people who argue that the best way to prevent gun violence in schools is to arm teachers have as much credibility as someone who says that the best way to prevent drug use in schools is to require that meth is on the school cafeteria menu. 

2.  Wouldn't it be ironic if the gun fetishists'/enthusiasts' absolute intransigence in the face of calls for a discussion of reasonable measures to address America's epidemic of gun violence leads to the passage of unreasonable measures?


BTW - It's official; GOP Prez-wannabe Mike Huckabee is an idiot.


BTW2 - As short as this post is, it has taken hours to write; every time I get rolling, the grief, frustration, and yes, anger, well up, and I have to stop writing.

With that, time to stop writing.  For tonight...




Wednesday, November 30, 2011

Santa with an automatic weapon? What's next? Frosty with a flamethrower?

The ongoing effort to desensitize children and others to guns and weapons in society in general is, well, "ongoing"...and continuing apace...

From the Daily Mail (UK) -
I want an assault rifle for Christmas or the reindeer gets it! Gun club invites children to pose with Santa... and their choice of firearm

It's definitely one way of making sure Christmas goes off with a bang.

A gun club in Scottsdale, Arizona is inviting children to pose for pictures with Santa Claus – and a high-powered firearm.

Each family member carries their choice of weapon, from pistols to $80,000 machine guns.
From the website of the Scottsdale Gun Club, the organization at the center of the latest controversy to subject Arizona to ridicule -

















The Daily Mail ran some additional pics from the Scottsdale Gun Club's Facebook page, including a couple with an infant and another with a small child, but those particular pics seem to be missing as of this writing.

Still, it seems that children are the target of this move, much like the tobacco industry used the cartoon character "Joe Camel" to market cigarettes to children and pre-teens.

It's simply propaganda, making firearms and weapons seem "warm and fuzzy" by associating them with Santa Claus.

In addition to efforts like this, working to associate firearms with something positive, they, through the NRA, also work to fight efforts by others to "de-weaponize" childhood, as shown in this column from an NRA bigwig from Christmas 2010.  In it he admits that their "fight" for guns is a "cultural" one right after decrying a toy gun exchange event (turn in a toy gun, get a non-gun toy in return).

While the legislative push is meant to make it easier for their members to be able to obtain and carry almost any weapon without regulation, the cultural push is aimed mostly at younger Americans to "help" them grow into adulthood wanting to possess and carry (and use?) more and bigger firearms.

Another aspect of their effort is to introduce people to "gateway" weapons that are one step (OK, maybe two or three) above the toy guns that the NRA so ardently defends.

Like NRA-branded pepper spray (from the website of the vendor) -













Pepper spray may be "non-lethal" (yeah, right) and more socially acceptable than firearms (semi-automatic pistols with high-capacity magazines won't fit on a keychain anyway :) ), but it's still a weapon.  And the introduction of weapons of any variety into stressful social situations can lead to chaos.  Witness this year's Black Friday:

...A woman in California who pepper-sprayed other shoppers in a Wal-Mart to gain an advantage over those other shoppers in pursuit of one of a limited number of discounted video game systems


...A group of men who shot and critically wounded a shopper at another California Wal-Mart to rob him of his Black Friday purchases...


...At a Fayetteville, NC mall, two men who fired shots near people gathering for Black Friday "deals." No one was hurt and the motive is unknown as of this writing. But hey, at least it wasn't another Wal-Mart..
 
 

Think of the opportunities with other holidays!

How about -

"Make your St. Patrick's Day parade the talk of the town...and the county morgue!  Hire our leprechaun with a double-barreled shillelagh to lead your parade and work DUI checkpoints!  It's better than a breathalyzer!"

"Your children will squeal with delight when they wake up Easter morning and find that the Easter Bunny has left them a basketful of mini-grenades, now in a wide variety of colors, covering the entire Easter palette!"

"Celebrate the New Year with your handy, dandy, .40 caliber noisemaker*!  *Except in Arizona.  Remember to write to your legislator about repealing the crazy law that was enacted because some darn teenaged honor student got in the way of somebody else's celebratory bullet."


This post is written as part of the Media Matters Gun Facts fellowship. The purpose of the fellowship is to further Media Matters' mission to comprehensively monitor, analyze, and correct conservative misinformation in the U.S. media. Some of the worst misinformation occurs around the issue of guns, gun violence, and extremism, the fellowship program is designed to fight this misinformation with facts.

Sunday, November 13, 2011

Guns in homes: A triumph of ideology over science

An article on the website of the Arizona Republic today struck a deep note inside of me, not because it was a "once in a lifetime" story or because it was an "only in Arizona" story, but because variations of it are written almost every day all over the country.

From the Arizona Republic -

Surprise child injured by gun; possible accident
A 4-year-old boy in Surprise suffered facial injuries while apparently playing with a handgun Saturday morning, police said.

Police responded to a report of an injured child around 11 a.m., said Surprise police spokesman Sgt. Bert Anzini. When officers arrived, they found a 4-year-old boy with injuries to the face.
My initial response to the article was to glance at the headline, think to myself "ho hum" and start to move on to the next article.


In mid-click, I realized that was a disgustingly blase attitude towards something that brought harm to a child.

The thing is, it's not just me. Most of us are just as blase when it comes to gun "accidents." We are so used to reading and hearing about them, we just tune them out.

Unfortunately, that "tuning out" is an opening exploited by certain people and groups to enact policies that actually make the situation worse, leading to more incidents to be blase about.

Over the years, there have literally been scores of scientific studies documenting the fact that guns in homes tend to decrease, not increase, the safety of the occupants of such homes.  This has led to the practice of many physicians adding firearms safety questions and information to their discussions of risky behavior with their patients and their patients' families.

One such study was released earlier this year.  In it, the author, David Hemenway PhD of the Harvard School of Public Health, found that the presence of firearms in the home increased the likelihood of violent death or injury, especially to women, children, and seniors.

Most of the studies have found that, in spite of the claims of the NRA et. al., most firearms in homes are not used for self-defense when they are used.

Pro-gun lobbying organizations like the NRA have spent thousands of hours and millions of dollars attempting to refute the studies or at least undermine the credibility of the scientists involved.

When that has failed (as it usually does), they've resorted to simply trying to silence their critics and advocates for gun safety and knowledge.

In Florida, shortly after the release of the above study (a coincidence, I think), the legislature passed and the governor signed into law HB155, the rather innocuously titled Privacy of Firearms Owners bill (legislative analysis here).

The title of the bill was innocuous, but the text of the bill wasn't - it barred health care providers from asking about or talking to patients and their families about guns.

It was shepherded through the legislative process by the NRA and its proxies, who sent the "big gun" among its lobbyists, Marion Hammer, to personally and directly exercise her influence.

The measure has since been overturned by a federal judge who found, among other things, that the provisions of the measure violated doctors' free speech rights.

Note: After the court's ruling, HB4015 was filed in the Florida House of Representatives.  If passed into law, it would repeal the offending language of the earlier measure (bill summary page here).  It has been assigned to committee and awaits the start of the 2012 session of the Florida legislature for any action on it (in the news article linked to the word "filed", the sponsor of HB4015 indicates that he does not expect his bill to see any consideration, much less passage).

Expect more moves like this in more legislatures - when the facts (aka - the science) don't support their desired policies, the NRA et. al. pushes for policies that ignore the facts.

Still, it's not a total tragedy - the four year old child in the article cited at the beginning of this post apparently suffered only "non-life-threatening" injuries.

Unlike the victim here, from New Mexico...

Unlike the victim here, from Pennsylvania...

Unlike the victim here, from Virginia...

Unlike the victim here, from Georgia...

Unlike the victim here, from Indiana...

Unlike the victim here, from North Carolina...

Unlike the victim here, from Washington (state)...

Unlike the victim here, from Tennessee...

Unlike the victim here, from Alabama...

Unlike the victim here, from Michigan...

The list is long and will continue to grow longer so long as there are places that base public safety and public health policies on ideology rather than reality.


This post is written as part of the Media Matters Gun Facts fellowship. The purpose of the fellowship is to further Media Matters' mission to comprehensively monitor, analyze, and correct conservative misinformation in the U.S. media. Some of the worst misinformation occurs around the issue of guns, gun violence, and extremism, the fellowship program is designed to fight this misinformation with facts.

Sunday, October 16, 2011

The NRA, Fast and Furious, and Wide Receiver: What a difference a few years makes

By now, most people have heard of the "Fast and Furious" scandal, stemming from an operation conducted out of the Phoenix office of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE).  During that sting, a number of guns were allowed to "walk" across the border to Mexico in order to allow BATFE to track an organization of "straw" gun buyers.

The operation became a scandal when some of the guns started turning up at Mexican crime scenes, and even were involved in the killing of a Border Patrol agent in southern Arizona.

The operation has come in for criticisms from many quarters and is the subject of Congressional investigations.

While some of the criticisms are certainly justified, the loudest critics seem to have selective memories.

Just a few years ago, during the previous presidential administration, another very similar BATFE effort called Operation Wide Receiver did much the same thing - allowed weapons to cross the border with Mexico, ostensibly to use the weapons to track criminal organizations there.

It failed, not as spectacularly as Fast and Furious, but it still failed miserably.

At the time in 2006, it pretty much escaped notice.  Certainly, many of the critics of Fast and Furious now ignored Wide Receiver then.

The NRA is a good example of this. 

They started criticizing BATFE and the Department of Justice over this in February, following up in February again, February (yet again!), March, March (again), April, May, JuneJune (again), June (yet again!), JulyJuly (again), July (yet again!), July (one more time for good measure), August, and September.

That list is just the NRA's press releases that directly reference the operation.  It doesn't include the anti-Mexico/Central America propaganda spouted by the NRA's communications shop.  They spent the spring trying to deflect attention from the inconvenient fact that most of the crime guns in Mexico come from the United States.

In addition to the press releases, Wayne LaPierre, the NRA's executive vice president and the primary voice and face of the NRA has been ranting into any microphone that somebody puts in front of him ("Biggest cover up since Watergate" is my personal favorite).

By comparison, the NRA's press releases on Operation Wide Receiver -





[crickets chirping]





Now, I'm not accusing the NRA of engaging in anything illegal here.  However, if they ever want to regain some credibility in civil society, they need to become more than a partisan press release generator/marketing agency for gun manufacturers and retailers.

Jay Bookman of the Atlanta Journal Constitution has a more in-depth column on Fast and Furious here.


This post is written as part of the Media Matters Gun Facts fellowship. The purpose of the fellowship is to further Media Matters' mission to comprehensively monitor, analyze, and correct conservative misinformation in the U.S. media. Some of the worst misinformation occurs around the issue of guns, gun violence, and extremism, the fellowship program is designed to fight this misinformation with facts.

Saturday, October 08, 2011

Stalking state laws: the NRA and its lobbyists work slowly but inexorably

The NRA is proving that when it comes to lobbying state legislatures, persistence is almost as important as money, as is the patience to take small bites.  (Not that lots of money hurts. :)  )

Perhaps it's the old saw about repeating a lie often enough that it becomes fact (Goebbels?) or maybe it's just familiarity breeding...familiarity, but persistence and patience have worked very well indeed for them.

When they try to grab a big bunch of policy ground in one chunk, that is when they experience most of their setbacks, as happened in Arizona this year where a governor who is a strong supporter of the NRA vetoed a "firearms omnibus" bill that contained all sorts of NRA wish-list items (like allowing guns in schools).

Many of its recent legislative successes, such as the raft of "guns in bars" bills that have passed state legislatures in recent years, are rooted in efforts that began years ago.

Here in Arizona, the first "guns in bars" bill (that I can find, anyway) first appeared in 2003.

Then in 2004.

And in 2005.

And, after a couple of years to catch their breath, in 2008.

And again in 2009.

Finally, later in 2009, the measure was passed and signed into law.


Of course, that doesn't compare to efforts to weaken local control of firearms.  In many states, the ability of local municipalities to pass gun control measures to bolster public safety has been curtailed or even eliminated.

Those efforts have been relentless, starting in the mid-1990s.

Despite the fact that municipal governments are the "retail" level of government and know best what works for their cities.

Here in Arizona, the legislature passed or considered measures affecting local firearms control in...

...1999.  The measure was vetoed, but would have barred political subdivisions (aka - counties and municipalities) from enacting ordinances affecting or participating in lawsuits against firearms manufacturers

...2000.  Decreased the ability of political subdivisions from enacting ordinances affecting firearms.  Enacted into law.

...2001.  Failed in the Arizona House, but would have completely removed the ability of political subdivisions to enact or enforce *any* rule or ordinance relating to firearms.

...2002.  In a switch, the NRA lobbied against a bill.  They killed a measure that would have required the establishment of a task force of local, county, state and federal agencies to trace crime guns.

...2003.  Barred local regulation of gun sales in their jurisdiction.  Enacted into law.

...2006.  Barred political subdivisions and state agencies from enacting ordinances and rules relating to the storage of firearms.  Enacted into law.

...2007.  Barred a political subdivision from prohibiting a peace officer from carrying a firearm, except under very specific conditions.  Enacted into law.

...2009.  Barred employers, both public and private, from enacting or enforcing policies prohibiting their employees from storing weapons in the cars.  Known as the "guns in cars" bill.  Enacted into law.

...2010.  Further diminished the ability of municipalities to enact any ordinances or rules relating to firearms.  Enacted into law.

...2011.  Barred political subdivisions from restricting hunting within city limits.  Enacted into law.

That pattern of diminution of local control was also evident in the firearms omnibus bill mentioned earlier.  It featured a clause barring universities and other schools from adopting and/or enforcing policies restricting the possession of weapons on their campuses.

The NRA, through its lobbying arm, the Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA), regularly rallies its members to swamp state legislators with phone calls and emails in support of (or opposition to) legislative proposals.

They also aren't shy about directly lobbying legislators.

From the Arizona Legislature's events calendar -






















And that wasn't an isolated day - the NRA, its proxies (like the Arizona Citizens Defense League above), or both, lobby the legislature on a nearly daily basis.
















Above, Dave Kopp of the Arizona Citizen Defense League, testifies February 14, 2011 before the Senate Judiciary Committee in support of a "guns in schools" bill.  A short while later, a lobbyist directly employed by the NRA spoke in favor of the same bill.

Kopp is so friendly with the people running the Senate that when he walks into the Senate building, its almost like he entering his own office.

Seriously.  I've seen it many times.

He walks behind the reception counter, puts his briefcase on top the counter, and starts going through papers and agendas and other things back there like he owns the place.

And given how successful the NRA and its proxies have been at the Arizona Legislature and in many legislatures across the country, maybe they do.

This post is written as part of the Media Matters Gun Facts fellowship. The purpose of the fellowship is to further Media Matters' mission to comprehensively monitor, analyze, and correct conservative misinformation in the U.S. media. Some of the worst misinformation occurs around the issue of guns, gun violence, and extremism, the fellowship program is designed to fight this misinformation with facts.

Sunday, September 18, 2011

The NRA Board of Directors: time for a little sunlight

A new website, Who is on the NRA Board?, from the the Educational Fund to Stop Gun Violence, highlights backgrounds of the members of the Board of Directors.

Some of the names on the board are very familiar to the nation -

Grover Norquist, the anti-tax zealot/corporate lobbyist

Oliver North, one of the primary players in the Iran/Contra scandal

Ted Nugent, the "gonzo" 70s rock star and current "gonzo" radio talk show host

Tom Selleck, the famous actor

There are also a number of former and current politicians as well as former professional athletes, most of whom have fame of a more regional nature (though NBA Hall-of-Famer Karl Malone's fame is somewhat greater than "regional").

However, the majority of NRA board members have public profiles that a low or nonexistent outside of the gun culture.  Still, they have an outsized influence on politics and legislation, especially in comparison to average citizens.

In many cases, they have more political influence than most of their more well-known colleagues - with the notable exception of Grover Norquist.

Here in Arizona, we have seen prime examples of that phenomenon in action.

- For instance, last year, wealthy businessman and NRA board member Owen "Buz" Mills is well-known as the owner of Gunsite Academy, a financially lucrative weapons training school near Prescott.

- Former NRA president and current board member Sandy Froman has been very active in certain circles, and, even after her term as NRA president, has frequently served as the face of the NRA when it needs to project a “softer” image.

In other words, while both Mills and Froman are low-profile, they do have some notoriety outside of the NRA.

The "big gun" for the NRA in Arizona, however, has received almost no public notice.

Board member Todd Rathner's low name recognition in Arizona belies his influence, particularly with the Arizona Legislature.  He has helped turn the state's legislature into an ideological petri dish, promoting the passage of extreme gun "rights" laws and blocking the passage of common sense safety regulations.

Like Mills above, he has profited from promoting the NRA's ideology.

In addition owning and operating a company that sells safari hunting trips to Africa, Rathner is the owner and primary employee of a lobbying firm, Rathner and AssociatesThe name says "Associates," but according to the Arizona Secretary of State, Rathner is the only active employee of his company, in terms of lobbying activities.

His lobbying activities have included working for the NRA in pushing for the passage of 2009's SB1113, the infamous "guns in bars" bill (passed just in time to commemorate a 2009 NRA meeting in Phoenix).

This past session, he worked for Colt's Manufacturing to help pass SB1610, naming the Colt Single Action Army Revolver as the state firearm.

Rathner has such a low profile that the website doesn't include any "colorful" (read: "contoversial") quotes or activities for him the way that it does for most of the other board members, but that doesn't mean his views and actions aren't as extreme as the other members of the NRA board.

Witness his Twitter feed.  Not something he uses frequently (19 tweets total), but what it lacks in volume, it more than makes up in "interesting."

He has used it to bring attention to an Arizona Republic article that covered how much influence that the gun lobby has in Arizona.  Being a gun lobbyist, he seems rather pleased with that. 

He has used it to criticize Tucson Unified School District over its ethnic studies program.

He has used it to spout other opinions that are, well, "interesting" -





































This post is written as part of the Media Matters Gun Facts fellowship. The purpose of the fellowship is to further Media Matters' mission to comprehensively monitor, analyze, and correct conservative misinformation in the U.S. media. Some of the worst misinformation occurs around the issue of guns, gun violence, and extremism, the fellowship program is designed to fight this misinformation with facts.