The First 100 Days and Guns

During the past 100 days, our nation has once again been shown the "price of freedom" as defined by the National Rifle Association.

Increasing violence on the U.S.-Mexico border -- much of it fueled by semiautomatic assault weapons purchased on the U.S. civilian market and trafficked into Mexico.

Eleven law enforcement officers shot and killed in just five separate incidents across our nation since mid-March.

The lives of entire families extinguished in gun-fueled murder-suicides amidst a growing concern that the economic crisis is playing an increasingly catalytic role in such events.

A series of shootings from mid-March to early April that should shock in their number and scope, but merely stand as the latest reminder of our nation's unique collective indifference to gun violence:

Alabama -- In a multi-town shooting spree, an unemployed 28-year-old man kills 10 people, including his mother and a toddler;

North Carolina -- A gunman shoots and kills seven residents and a nurse at a nursing home;

California -- Six people are shot and killed in a murder-suicide in an upscale Silicon Valley neighborhood home;

New York -- Thirteen people are shot and killed in a shooting rampage at an immigration services center in Binghamton.

Each of these incidents are just discrete examples of the estimated 84 Americans who die on average each day in our nation from guns.

Yet on Capitol Hill and in the White House, the response remains for the most part muted. Citing the perceived power of the National Rifle Association, calls for increased gun controls are dismissed on Capitol Hill as being unrealistic. With the selection of Eric Holder as Attorney General and Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State, President Obama made it clear that his cabinet choices would not be determined by who the NRA attacks on the covers of its magazines. And the administration did derail an NRA-backed effort to allow the carrying of concealed handguns in national parks. But now even AG Holder finds himself in the surprising position of citing the NRA's catch-all solution to gun violence: enforce the gun laws on the books.

Even within these perceived political limits, the administration could do a lot more to stop gun violence through administrative actions. Yet the Washington headquarters of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) -- as opposed to its agents in the field -- remains an NRA beachhead, the primary concern of the agency's leadership never offending its "customer," the gun industry. For not having utilized many of the administrative powers already available to it, the administration's 100-days grade cannot rise above a C.

During the presidential campaign, then-candidate Obama specifically endorsed two policy goals toward which the administration could immediately make dramatic progress.

The first? Restricting the availability of semiautomatic assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines. The U.S. gun industry has zealously embraced the enhanced lethality of military-style weaponry with little concern for the real-world impact such heightened firepower has beyond the gun store counter. In an op-ed that appeared in the New York Times this past Sunday, President Jimmy Carter wrote, "An overwhelming majority of Americans, including me and my hunting companions, believe in the right to own weapons..." Carter then added:

But none of us wants to own an assault weapon, because we have no desire to kill policemen or go to a school or workplace to see how many victims we can accumulate before we are finally shot or take our own lives. That's why the White House and Congress must not give up on trying to reinstate a ban on assault weapons, even if it may be politically difficult...

A majority of Americans also support banning assault weapons. Many of us who hunt are dismayed by some of the more extreme policies of the National Rifle Association, the most prominent voice in opposition to a ban, and by the timidity of public officials who yield to the group's unreasonable demands."

From 1989 up until the George W. Bush Administration, foreign-made assault rifles were banned from import into the United States. Under the Gun Control Act of 1968, the executive branch has the power to ban the import of non-sporting firearms under what is commonly know as the "sporting purposes" test. Under the George H.W. Bush Administration, in the wake of increasing drug-related violence, then-drug czar Bill Bennett led the charge to ban the import of foreign-made assault weapons like the UZI, AK-47, and numerous others. In response to gun industry efforts to circumvent the import ban, the measure was reviewed and tightened under the Clinton Administration. It was then promptly abandoned by the George W. Bush administration. Right now, the Obama administration could, with the stroke of a pen and without legislation, reinstate the ban (which is separate from the now-expired federal assault weapons ban) and end the import of these guns.

The second? Repeal the Tiahrt Amendment. This spending prohibition contained in the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives' appropriations language restricts the agency from releasing comprehensive crime gun trace data. Up until 2003 this comprehensive information had been available to law enforcement, policymakers, researchers, and policy organizations under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Information is the foundation of effective public policy. And the lack of it is one of the gun lobby's greatest allies. Now we don't even know what the top crime gun is in America. Details of the President's 2010 budget have not yet been made public. But language fully repealing the Tiahrt Amendment, with strong White House support, would go a long way in ensuring that this information is once again readily available.

Enforce the gun laws on the books? Please do!

Comments

[pat8942]

115 more or less people die in traffic accidents every day and nobody is advocating outlawing cars.

[STG 44]

The last time the central government tried to disarm Americans it led to a successful revolution.

Congress and the President; Please take note.

[Vance1]

Thanks God for the NRA!
If liberals had their way, criminals would run rampent!!!!!!!

[Vance1]

Our Forefathers made absolutely sure without a douht to make sure we all could have the right of self protection. The liberals have fought for yrs, to take that right away from the american people.
I personally am a lifetime member of the NRA, we the people need someone to stand up for us.
liberals want us all to be unarmed and weak.
Criminals prefer unarmed victums.
Dont tread on me!!!!!!!!!!

Thanks Vance
http://wwwamericanpatriot-vance.blogspot.com/

[Toonadude]

Calm down Vance. George W. Bush is no longer the President. His gun grabbing Gonzales/Lautenberg Bill is no longer a threat to our guns although you may have made into the federal data banks as a gun owner if you were a victim of Bush's warrantless wiretapping program.

Yes --- our Forefathers gave us many tools to protect our rights .. but we elected Bush twice anyway. They could not build good judgement into the Bill of Rights. And they should not have needed to.

[molonlabe]

"It's Bush's Fault! *skritch* It's Bush's Fault! *skritch* It's Bush's Fault! *skritch*

[djkrlsn]

hopefully now Tunafud can post something other than Bush/Cheney/Palin did it

[tmbetterrnan]

...after thinking this over quite thoroughly, folks like Thirdpower and OdinsEye are absolutely correct. I have been a fool to think otherwise

[OdinsEye]

Not a fool. Just misinformed on and misunderstanding a few things.

[Toonadude]

You really do need to calibrate your facetious-o-meter

[Toonadude]

I checked tmbetterrnan' profile page and his/her above post is the only one ever made. What exchange is being referred to by him/her and you?

[Ohio9]

Guess what Josh, law enforcement strongly supports the Tiahrt amendment!

The Fraternal Order of police, which is the nations largest police union, is all for it:

http://www.grandlodgefop.org/servlet/display/news_article?id=441&XSL=xsl_pages%2Fpublic_news_individual.xsl&nocache=11941152

The fact of the matter is that gun trace data can't be used to form policies because not all crime guns are traced by the ATF, and some guns traced turn out not be involved in crimes. So their numbers are misleading. It's useful for certain police investigations, but that's not an issue since in legitimate criminal cases, the police can access this information.

The only people who benefit from release of trace data are gun control lobby groups and their rich lawyers seeking to line their pockets by bankrupting the gun industry with groundless lawsuits. That's why they want the trace data, and that's why the data was restricted.

[dan-o]

Thank God the Netherlands has such tight gun laws otherwise someone might kill people while trying to kill their queen. Oops, someone did.

[Willbill]

Josh, all rifles combined which include those scary looking AR-15s, AKs, SKS Etc. which you call “Assault Weapons” account for only three percent of murders nationwide. In 2007 the total was 450. That comes to less than two murders per day nationwide. This not only means that no one in your state will be murdered with a rifle today tomorrow or the next day but this week, the next week, and yes even the week after that. In fact, four times as many murders are committed knives or other cutting instruments, and more murders are committed with blunt objects like baseball bats, hammers, clubs Etc. or hands, fists, feet, Etc. than with all rifles combined. Since these weapons are so rarely used in crime the government has no compelling reason to reinstate the so called “Assault Weapons” ban.
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_07.html

[WasteNJ]

When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.

Outlaws don't apply for permits.

[Thirdpower]

Legally they don't have to. Self-incrimination.

[Altx]

Like most of us here, I expect , at this point there's absolutely no argument -- however 'persuasive' -- or statistic -- however 'conclusive' -- that's going to get me to budge on this issue, so I won't waste your time or mine trying to budge you.

But please help me understand one thing : how come the hunting community and other legitimate gun owners aren't just as determined as us non-gun-owners to keep guns out of the hands of those that either don't know how to handle them or intend to abuse the great privilege that our Constitution allows us? Because if anyone would know how to go about doing that, it's you, not us.

As it is, every firearm accident, suicide, homicide or rampage now tends to get blamed on the NRA and 'those crazy gun nuts out there', whereas any gun owner I've ever met has generally been as serious, responsible and family-loving as anyone I know. And since you're the only ones that currently have the clout and credibility on this issue at the government level, you're the ones that should be leading the fight on gun safety, not us 'candy-assed liberals'. So we beg you to fully engage and take on those that are causing all the agony and ruining both your and America's reputations, instead of wasting your energies and resources fighting us and the well-meaning, if hopelessly outmaneuvered, Brady Campaign. Appreciate you listening if you managed to make it this far!

[OdinsEye]

"how come the hunting community and other legitimate gun owners aren't just as determined as us non-gun-owners to keep guns out of the hands of those that either don't know how to handle them or intend to abuse the great privilege that our Constitution allows us?"

It is a faulty assumption that we are not.

"And since you're the only ones that currently have the clout and credibility on this issue at the government level, you're the ones that should be leading the fight on gun safety, not us 'candy-assed liberals'. "

The NRA has been the leader for over 100 years and continues to be the leader.

[Altx]

"It is a faulty assumption that we are not".

Good to hear. I'm just not aware of any gun-lobby-driven legislation or campaign that would help prevent those that shouldn't have guns from getting one , the primary focus seeming to be the blocking of any restrictions on what kind of weapons can legally be sold. But I'd be very happy to be wrong.

[molonlabe]

Altex-

The problem is that those leading the crusade against civilian disarmament spend all of their finite resources attempting to regulate inanimate objects instead of attacking the social problems which contribute toward violent crime. the Brady Campaign spends not one dollar toward education for promoting AWARENESS of firearms and their potential danger if used inappropriately. Does the BC promote, fund, or lobby for gun safety education in schools? No. Do they advocate for stiffer penalties for felons convicted of firearm crimes? No.

Josh Sugarmann goes as far as stating that gun safety education is a "conspiracy theory":

"The primary goal of the National Rifle Association's Eddie Eagle program is not to safeguard children, but to protect the interests of the NRA and the firearms industry by making guns more acceptable to children and youth..."

http://www.vpc.org/fact_sht/eddiekey.htm

You'll find that the reluctance to "fully engage" in this violence issue is not the gun owners. Why in the world should we support legislation which infringes upon inalienable rights when those on the other side continue a manipulative agenda??

[Altx]

"education for promoting AWARENESS of firearms and their potential danger if used inappropriately. ..... fund, or lobby for gun safety education in schools...... advocate for stiffer penalties for felons convicted of firearm crimes....."

All great ideas. If the NRA supports all these, then you've made me feel much better. If not, they should. Thanks.

[Okay]

The way to circumvent all U.S. law allowing private possession of guns is to have the President sign a U.N. firearms possession treaty which restricts the private possession of firearms. Being that international treaties become the supreme law of the land upon agreement all Federal and state laws would become subordinate to the UN treaty. Additionally such treaties render the U.S. Constitution moot on the subject. No more guns. This according to our U.S. Constitution - Article 6.

It's a great way to bypass the American voter and attempts to pull out of any treaty is pretty tough thing to successfully accomplish. Future of administrations would have a devil of time reversing such a move. Just think then all our gun laws would be controlled by an outside entity and we would have to argue about them anymore.

[OdinsEye]

Uh... no.

[molonlabe]

A New World Order supporter are ya?

Oye.........

[tnkeating]

And tell me again how the UN will take my guns ? The UN is as worthless as tits on a bull, they don't have the where-with-all or the cohoneys to try. Seems to me this is the best way to do away with the UN.

[Thirdpower]

Here's a list of the various NRA safety programs for youth, hunters, police, women, etc.

http://www.nrahq.org/safety/index.asp

Can you show me anything equivalent from the Brady Campaign or VPC?

Can you show me a program by the 'well-meaning Brady Campaign' that is focused on actual criminals and not on more restrictions for 'legitimate gun owners'?

[ChangeNow]

The problem is that this issue, like many others, has been framed by extreme positions on both sides. Brady and VPC versus NRA. If there was a centrist organization that didn't have an agenda to ban guns entirely, or didn't have the agenda promote the firearms industry at all costs, most gun owners would gravitate there. Lots of gun owners I know have joined the NRA, not because they particularly care for the organization, but because there is nobody else to push back against guys like Josh and Paul.

[OdinsEye]

" didn't have the agenda promote the firearms industry at all costs, "

Which is not the NRA agenda.

[Thirdpower]

What's funny and ironic is the part of the op-ed that Josh DIDN'T use:

"I have used weapons since I was big enough to carry one, and now own two handguns, four shotguns and three rifles, two with scopes."

Why wouldn't he mention that? Might it be because not only does Josh advocate banning Jimmy's two handguns but also advocates banning those "two (rifles) with scopes" as "intermediate sniper rifles"?

http://daysofourtrailers.blogspot.com/2008/02/for-hunters-who-dont-believe-theyre-on.html

[WasteNJ]

I guess the reasoning is that a pistol is concealable so it's dangerous, a rifle can kill from a distance so it's dangerous. Snipers and Hunters are doing the same thing with different game, so why would the equipment be different?

I guess we won't all be safe until everything that can kill us is illegal.

[djkrlsn]

Sorry--after Heller that dog don't hunt and that birdie sure don't fly

[diak0n0s]

But on the other hand, no Nation, whose citizens have the right to protect themselves (read 2nd Ammendment) have ever been overthrown by their Government.

There are 307,000 million people in America. People die from everything under the sun.

What would we ban next?

[WasteNJ]

How about driving on the cell phone?

[ChangeNow]

Here here.

[djkrlsn]

no problem here--since that is another variation of driving while impaired

[tmbetterman]

This country is in serious trouble from within, there are many problems with our current gun laws, let me tell you a story:
My son was murdered at the age of 19 in 1999, he had never touched a gun in his life. His "friend" who had mental problems and a felony record (as a juvenile), they were only 19, shot my son, and then he shot himself. This gun was a 9mm and had been sold 4x, and never had a background check associated with any of the purchases. Every sale was perfectly legal. The shooter also used armor piercing bullets, which I am sad to say, are also still perfectly legal. These "gun Enthusiasts" every member of the NRA in my opinion, are all just scared, fearful people. They are operating the same way racists and bigots operate, they don't think, they just react, because they are so full of fear. Until these people can deal with their fear, the violence will not stop.

[Thirdpower]

"Every sale was perfectly legal. "

Not to a felon it wasn't.

"The shooter also used armor piercing bullets, which I am sad to say, are also still perfectly legal. "

No they aren't. What difference would it have made anyway?

If you're going to throw out the insults. Try telling the truth.

[tmbetterman]

I am not sure where you live, but where I live, it was all perfectly legal. Did you read the details? He was a JUVENILE felon, he had been in a JUVENILE faciltiy until he was 19!

I hope something this tragic and life altering never happens to you

[ChangeNow]

I am sorry for the tragic loss of your son.

I agree completely that background checks should be done for all transactrions retail or private.

Handguns were not legally available for sale to anyone under 21 years of age in 1999. Felons have never been allowed to own guns. None of the sales were perfectly legal.

There has never been 9mm armor piercing ammunition. It does not exist. There is not enough powder in the cartrige to achieve the velocity to penetrate steel plate. The ability to penetrate an amount of steel plate is the definition of "armor-piercing". 9mm ammunition is stopped by nearly all bullet proof vests as well. True armor piercing ammunition is banned in most states, even the rabidly gun-friendly Florida.

As for the NRA, I agree that many of their membership appear to be too eager to dig a bunker and wait for the breakdown of civilization. I dont like the NRA, any more than I like the Brady Foundation, because they are both basically dishonest. Most gun owners are hunters, clays shooters, and target shooters, and the only thing they are afraid of is having their right to enjoy those activities taken away.

[tmbetterman]

You need to really do your homework. I could show you pictures of the gun, and where the bullet, after it went through son, left a 1/2 inch deep dent in a steel door. (the apartment he was shot in was a remodeled factory, turned into apartments). After the shooter commited suicide by shooting himself in the head, the bullet entered through a wall into shower (through tile). I have never been a gun person, but I think you have been terribly misinformed.

[OdinsEye]

"Handguns were not legally available for sale to anyone under 21 years of age in 1999."

Incorrect. The minimum age for handgun possession or transfer by a private person is/was 18. Dealers cannot sell them to anyone under 21.

[molonlabe]

1st of all, sorry for your loss.

However, your story illustrates how people who have been affected by violent crime involving firearms assess the issue through emotionalism rather than practicallity, like Josh Sugarmann does on a consistent basis. You immediately turn to generalizations about gun owners and NRA members, and give our ineffective judicial system a free pass (go look up statistics regarding criminal recidivists and the correlation to violent crime.) You're citing moot issues like "armor piercing bullets (go look up ballistics and see that the majority of cartridges have the ability to penetrate most body armor.)

What killed your son was a person. Not the firearm. Your assumptions about the "legal sales" and racism and bigots are just a scapegoat, and not accurate.

I lawfully carry a weapon on my person every day, because i value my right to protect myself and my family. Not because i live in fear.

Our society will never rid itself of violent crime. But a good start would be to start addressing the social problems associated with it, and our judicial system's inability to keep people behind bars.

[Okay]

I can tell you that it is not our laws alone that are the failure - we have lots of laws that would prevent many tragedies were they properly enforced. I'll tell you a story back - I had an illegal alien pull a gun on me once.

When he was checked out at the local jail the gun was stolen and attempts to remove the serial number had made them almost unreadable. Both such items are felonies and the fact that he was confirmed to be illegally in the U.S. should have either put this character away or sent him back to his place of origination. Instead he was freed by the county prosecutor on all charges "nolo contendere" and shot a Police officer several months later in a separate criminal action.

We have the laws to manage most incidents we encounter - the last thing I want is for local law enforcement to have more laws - they need to learn to use the ones they already have on the books and stick to them.

[Alterion]

Its hard to sympathize with the NRA when their leaders are nuts. Waving a gun in the air and saying, "From my cold dead hands!" , or the recent dude saying, "People with the guns make the rules."

They are looney tunes. They are winning in Washington because they have lots of money and powerful influence, not because they have guns.

Then think democrats want to take their guns, but I've never heard any serious legislation to ban self defense handguns or hunting rifles. If you want a fully automatic, you might have difficulty getting one.

Then there's republicans.

What they let you keep: You guns.

What they took: Your 401k, your job, your house.

[Thirdpower]

"I've never heard any serious legislation to ban self defense handguns"

Um. Try Chicago and, until recently, Wash. DC.

"or hunting rifles"

Better talk to Josh about that. He published a report advocating that that was funded by the Joyce Foundation while Obama was on the board.

[OdinsEye]

"If you want a fully automatic, you might have difficulty getting one."

Full-autos have been severely restricted since 1934 and by subsequent laws in 1968 and 1986. However, the 1994 AWB had notthing to do with full-auto firearms.

[molonlabe]

"They are winning in Washington because they have lots of money and powerful influence, not because they have guns. "

Don't forget about the 4 million members it has as well.

[Thirdpower]

Compared to the VPC's zero.

Plus about 50% of their funding goes to Josh's and the other 3 or 4 employees salaries.

What a nice scam.

[molonlabe]

you forgot "It's Bush's Fault!(tm)

[ChangeNow]

As a gun owner, I support reasonable gun control measures. I don't want criminals, mental defectives, drug abusers, or wife beaters to have guns. When those people get guns, their actions end up threatening my right to own guns through guilt by association. The problem is that Josh Sugerman and Paul Helmke have a dishonest agenda. Their writings are willfully inaccurate, conflating semi auto and automatic weapons, pistol shootings with rifle shootings, etc., all in an effort to confuse the issue and fire up the emotions of their base. When I read their blogs here, I find myself in the unfortunate position of having to decide if they are willfully dishonest or woefully incompetant. As such, I have a hard time trusting either of them to define or limit their agenda to "common sense gun control".

[tmbetterman]

ChangeNow, are you aware of the statistic that if you own a handgun for your own "protection" the chances are much higher that YOU will become a victim of that weapon, than that you will actually use that weapon to defend yourself?

[Thirdpower]

Are you aware that that number was created by an anti-gun advocate whose research has been debunked as nonsense?

[ChangeNow]

That may be true - I have not looked into that statistic. However by making your comment, you have made my point.

[OdinsEye]

Sorry, but that study was thoroughly debunked and discredited.

[dcaven]

Tmbetterman,

I think that statistic is bunk. Even if it isn't, it doesn't mean that every individual will fail in their attempt at self defense. Should I fail, I would rather die on my feet fighting than watch my wife or children be raped or murdered in front of me.

"Cowards die many times before their deaths. The valiant never taste of death but once."
Julius Caesar