Gun control frequently is referred to - alongside issues like abortion and gay rights - as a "cultural" issue. Indeed, it is fashionable in some quarters to refer to the cluster of cultural issues as "God, guns, and gays." The Obama Administration has taken some heat for its failure to show leadership on this set of issues. As the Boston Globe described it, Obama has declared a "cease-fire in the culture wars."
But is gun control inherently, and inevitably, a cultural issue? What makes it a cultural issue? I do not doubt the real and symbolic significance of gun ownership for millions of Americans. For many Americans, particularly in rural areas, guns embody important values of self-reliance and personal liberty. But it is also true that over 80% of gun owners support extending Brady Act background checks to private sales at gun shows. Even most self-identified members of the National Rifle Association support handgun registration and mandatory safety training before purchasing a firearm. Why is gun control considered a "cultural" issue, when those who value guns support various forms of gun control?
I suggest that seeing gun control as a cultural issue is but one way of framing the issue - and it is a frame that is highly beneficial to the gun lobby. If gun control is seen as an attack on the value systems of millions of gun-owning Americans, this allows the NRA to radicalize and mobilize those gun owners to oppose even modest changes in our nation's gun laws.
For the NRA, the key to this strategy is the "slippery slope" argument - that every incremental tightening of gun laws is but a step down the slippery slope to a general gun ban. Some years ago, the NRA's Wayne LaPierre described "the plan" which is "now obvious to all who would see: First Step, enact a nationwide firearms waiting period law. Second Step, when the waiting period doesn't reduce crime, and it won't, enact a nationwide registration law. Final Step, confiscate all the registered firearms." In the words of another NRA official, "What the opposition really wants is a total ban on the private ownership of all firearms."
If, on the other hand, the gun debate is seen as addressing only the efficacy of specific, practical proposals to reduce death and injury from gunfire, then the NRA is on shaky ground because even its own members do not appear to object to such proposals. Why, for example, should extending Brady Act background checks to private sales at gun shows raise a "cultural" issue, when such checks block gun sales only to convicted felons or other dangerous people, a policy that makes all of us safer, including gun owners?
For the NRA to be successful, it must frame the issue so that, whatever the specific reform being proposed, gun owners regard the debate as "really" about whether they should be allowed to keep their guns. For the NRA, it is all about generating fear - gun owner fear that the dark cloud of gun confiscation is looming on the horizon, and the fear of politicians that gun owners will retaliate for that next step down the slippery slope.
President Clinton was a master at frustrating the gun lobby's efforts to frame the issue as about "culture," while making the issue squarely about public safety. His pitch was always that stronger gun laws were a necessary part of an overall program of fighting violent crime. He marshaled the support of law enforcement officials, who speak with ultimate credibility about the real world danger of easy criminal access to guns. President Clinton's skillful handling of the issue was key to passage of the Brady Bill and the assault weapon ban in the early 1990s. He showed that the gun issue does not have to be just another front in the endless "culture wars."
There is little doubt right now, however, that the framing of gun control as an attack on the values of gun-owning Americans now paralyzes progress toward lifesaving reforms. The Congress and the President cannot give voting rights to the District of Columbia because the gun lobby insists that it can happen only if DC's gun laws are no more strict than Montana's. The Congress and the President cannot pass credit card reform unless it gives the gun lobby an absurd amendment that legalizes loaded AK-47s and concealed weapons in national parks. The President breaks his campaign pledge to repeal a set of Bush-supported appropriations riders (the "Tiahrt Amendments") that have weakened federal gun laws.
Gun owner fears of an Obama-inspired gun ban are spiking gun sales, even though Obama gives no hint of leadership toward even modest reforms and even though the Supreme Court, in last year's ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller, took such a ban "off the table," in Justice Scalia's words. The dominance of the "cultural frame" defies all reason and evidence.
It is critical that gun control advocates fight the phony "cultural" framing of the gun issue at every turn. This debate is not about the values of gun owners. It is about the safety of everyone. If the gun lobby is allowed to define the gun debate on its own deceptive terms, we face a future in which death and injury from gunfire will continue as part of the American landscape for as far as the eye can see.
For more information, see Dennis Henigan's new book, Lethal Logic: Exploding the Myths that Paralyze American Gun Policy.
Of course, we have the usual alarmist statements:
"Families should not have to stare down loaded AK-47s on nature hikes," said Brady campaign president Paul Helmke.
Didn't we hear similar non-sense when Florida's Marrion Hammer championed shall issue concealed weapons legislation in 1987? Weren't the gun control lobby groups just about promising that there "would be blood in streets" over parking spots?
Today people of all political party affiliations buying guns in record numbers.
People realize the courts have *repeatedly* ruled (Warren v. District of Columbia; DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services; Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Department; Riss v. City of New York) that the police have no duty to protect you.
(In Riss vs. NYC the lone dissenting judge wrote: "What makes the City's position [denying any obligation to protect the woman] particularly difficult to understand is that, in conformity to the dictates of the law [she] did not carry any weapon for self-defense. Thus, by a rather bitter irony she was required to rely for protection on the City of New York which now denies all responsibility to her.")
I think people are tired of hearing Brady and gang repeat, year after year: "But we just need to pass just a few more gun control laws and all be unicorns and ponies from now on!!!"
http://www.examiner.com/x-13590-New-Orleans-Conservative-Examiner~y2009m6d26-Public-enemiesNew-Orleans-Louisiana-gun-control-laws-are-the-worst-in-the-nation
"Guns don"t kill people, people kill people." Henigan counters with Ozzy Osbourn"s take on that: "If that"s the case, why do we give people guns when they go to war? Why not just send the people?"
http://www.bradycampaign.org/media/release.php?release=1148
Bwahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Now, while completely concede the fact that the self titled Black Sabbath album was arguably one of the best rock albums of all time, to say that Henigan "dismantles" anything with an Ozzy Ozbourne quote is one of the funniest things I've ever heard!
I hear that Big Bird and Snuffaluffagus are quoted on page 152.
Folks, you simply can't make this stuff up.
The same is true in reverse. If guns kill, then why does the government send people to war? Why don't they just send guns?
The government subsidizes the production of military ammunition and then sells the ammunition at cost. Swiss military ammo must be registered if bought at a private store, but need not be registered if bought at a range. Registration consists of entering your name in a log at the time of sale. No serial numbers are present on the individual cartridges of ammunition. Technically, ammunition bought at the range must be used at the range, but according to David Kopel "the rule is barely known and almost never obeyed."[2] Ammunition for long gun hunting is not subsidized by the government and is not subject to any sales control. Non-military non-hunting ammunition more powerful than .22 LR (such as custom handgun ammunition) is registered at the time of sale.[10]
The article goes on to say:
Purchases from dealers of hunting long guns and of small bore rifles are not even recorded by the dealer. In other words, the dealer would not record the sale of a .30-06 hunting rifle, but would record the sale of a .30-06 M1 Garand rifle.[2] According to chapter 2 article 10 of Swiss law, people over the age of 18 do not need a permit to purchase a rifle for use in hunting, off-duty shooting and sport-shooting events.[10]
http://blog.joehuffman.org/2009/06/24/MythBustingTheMythBuster.aspx
"I'm convinced that we have to have federal legislation to build on. We're going to have to take one step at a time, and the first step is necessarily — given the political realities — going to be very modest. Of course, it's true that politicians will then go home and say, 'This is a great law. The problem is solved.' And it's also true that such statements will tend to defuse the gun-control issue for a time. So then we'll have to strengthen that law, and then again to strengthen that law, and maybe again and again. Right now, though, we'd be satisfied not with half a loaf but with a slice. Our ultimate goal — total control of handguns in the United States — is going to take time. My estimate is from seven to ten years. The problem is to slow down the increasing number of handguns sold in this country. The second problem is to get them all registered. And the final problem is to make the possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition — except for the military, policemen, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors — totally illegal."
This Constitutional Lawyer for the Brady Campaign and the author of this piece, just happened to forget the words " Of The People" when quoting the Second Amendment.
Why would he do that?
Oh look, another paper by the gun control funded Hemenway. There's a reliable source on NRA members right there. *sarcasm*
Wow, 600 people. That's really going to give you an accurate picture of a group of 80,000,000.
And his 'skillful handling cost him congress in '94.
Good job there.
The knife has a rounded edge instead of a point and will snag on clothing and skin to make it more difficult to stab someone.
He said: “It can never be a totally safe knife, but the idea is you can’t inflict a fatal wound. Nobody could just grab one out of the kitchen drawer and kill someone.” "
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article6501720.ece
Plastic cutlery may not be too far off........
OdinsEye, how can anyone pull stats on the number of firearm transactions that occur when there is no record of them ever happening? It's impossible.
djkrsln, "The laws that Dennis Henigan has a history of supporting laws the effectively disarm the law-abiding (laws like the ones in DC that got tossed in the Heller case)"
So what you saying is since criminals never pay attention to the laws anyway, there shouldn't be laws that regulate the ownership or usage of firearms in that same area because it only affects the law abiding citizens? Do I have this right?
My response would follow that same logic:
Some people who drive in DC do not stop at stop signs or blow through red lights. So because some people do this, there shouldn't be stop signs or traffic lights because people will just disregard them anyway.
Should we remove these things because they wrongly target "law abiding" citizens? Hell no.
The argument that laws should be tailored to the actions of criminals is perverse. While criminals might not care about gun laws, they are not a separate class of people who live separate from us.
And yes, gun laws should be tailored to the actions of criminals. The issue isn't about whether or not they live separately from us, but how they use guns compared to how the rest of us use them. Responsible gun ownership harms no one, but criminal use of guns does. That's why gun laws should be aimed at the criminals, not the lawful.
After the fact information gathered from criminals. They admit that they get their firearms from gun shows only about 2% of the time. And from traces.
This information is then confirmed by police as part of their investigation.
And yes, you often can trace a firearm simply by going back to the original point of sale and doing some simple investigative work. That is how must firearms are successfully traced.
//signed//
A Cop
After the fact information gathered from criminals. They admit that they get their firearms from gun shows only about 2% of the time. And from traces.
And you can't "trace" a gun that is just handed off!
And yes, you often can trace a firearm simply by going back to the original point of sale and doing some simple investigative work. That is how must firearms are successfully traced.
//signed//
A Cop
Dennis Henigan, Paul Helmke, and the rest of the anti-gun platofrm have a serious problem: they are too busy wasting their finite resources attacking inanimate objects and law-abiding gun owners, while completely giving criminals and our lenient judicial system a free pass.
Is gun control a "cultural" issue? It damn well better be. The RKBA is a RIGHT unique to the foundation and culture of the US. And any attempt to infringe upon it will be met with vehement opposition.