One week after the Aurora theater shootings in Colorado and our government has been utterly lackluster in its response. Will Americans be safer going forward? Likely not. Why? Because while President Barack Obama has mentioned that assault weapons belong in the hands of US soldiers and not on the streets of America, he has left it to Congress to move forward on an assault weapons ban or a ban on high capacity magazines like the ones allegedly used by James Holmes.
That's too bad because Congress isn't remotely close to doing anything beyond a resolution condemning the violent act. In fact, Senate Democratic Party leader Harry Reid has eluded the debate entirely, even dismissing the Senate's revisiting of the issue one year from now. House Republican Party leader John Boehner acknowledged this week that he welcomes "other" ideas around gun control, which means that the ones on the table -- e.g. bans on assault weapons and high capacity magazines -- are null and void in his opinion.
The few in Congress who have been vocal -- from US Senator Frank Lautenberg to US Representatives Jim Moran and Mike Honda -- are to be lauded for their courage at a time when even the progressive pundits are reticent to talk about the need for more gun safety in society. If more Members of Congress would be like New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg, the founder of Mayors Against Illegal Guns, who has been vocal in the last week about the need for tighter gun laws and better background checks. It is remarkable to see Mayor Bloomberg as the leading progressive voice on this issue.
Given the near silence in Washington, what should be done to stem the tide of nearly 100,000 firearm-related injuries each year, 30 percent of which result in death? What should be done to ensure registration and licensing on the nearly 300 million guns in the US (a figure which grew from 200 million in only 15 years)? What should be done to ensure that there are reasonable limits on handgun purchases per month so that we can stem the gun running and gun trafficking, which are rampant in the US? What should be done to ensure that states are giving mental health data to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) so that shootings like at VA Tech -- where Seung-Hui Cho was on Virginia's list but not on the national list because the state failed to provide the data -- are more preventable?
Here's what should be done. First, since there's the consensus around background checks, let's start there. Republican pollster Frank Luntz recently polled gun owners, many of whom were National Rifle Association members, and a good 80 percent of those polled support background checks. The problem with the existing background checks is that they primarily detect criminal records, missing important warning signs that fall short of what's criminal. On the mental health front, furthermore, it relies on states to provide data, which many fail to do, and the data is narrowly defined. Someone like James Holmes wouldn't be on that list because, despite having mental illness and despite encouragement by his family to have psychological treatment, he wasn't institutionalized or clinically diagnosed. That needs to change. We need better data on anyone who wants to buy a gun. Before the Virginia Tech shootings, the state of Virginia wasn't giving NICS its data, which is what ultimately allowed Cho to buy a gun. Thankfully, since that awful incident, Virginia is changing its laws on that front but more is needed.
Second, we need better gun data. We know more information about the interstate trafficking of bananas then we do about guns. Some basic registration, permitting and licensing would go a long way to ensuring better data on gun purchases and trafficking. We do all of the above for automobiles -- which are part and parcel of our American rights and freedoms but which can also be used as weapons -- and we should require this for weapons as well.
Third, it is reasonable for US policymakers to ask for a renewal of the assault weapons ban, which expired in 2004, as well as ban on high-capacity magazines. As Congressman Moran put it, Americans also have a right to live in a safe society. We must balance that right with the 2nd Amendment's right to bear arms. Anyone who claims that if we were all armed all the time that we'd be better able to defend the public against attackers is promulgating a fallacy. During the mass shooting at Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords' public event in Arizona, there were persons in the audience who were armed but even they failed to prevent the shooting. It took several persons tackling the shooter to eventually disarm the assailant. Perhaps a better tactic is to train everyone in martial arts.
Fourth, we must get the money out of American politics. Currently we have the best democracy money can buy, which is why the NRA has kept Congress largely quiet on this issue. While it is known that the NRA gives millions of dollars each year to Congressional campaigns, elected officials should follow a different financial equation. The cost of each homicide -- and keep in mind there were 12 in Colorado -- is $1.3 million according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. That's what it costs taxpayers in terms of medical, court and police costs. Never mind the longer-term costs of this violence to our society, in the billions of dollars, in terms of lost economic productivity, as those persons killed are no longer in the workforce.
Lastly, there's the question of social capital, which is harder to quantify than anything aforementioned. James Holmes was an isolationist. There were few people close to him to detect warning signs. Without question, and the data show this, more peaceful American states and cities have higher rates of social capital. That means levels of trust in the community are higher, perceptions of criminality in society are lower, and community involvement is higher. That's what we need to focus on. Any policies that improve the likelihood that any American doesn't feel marginalized or disenfranchised -- socially or economically - is critical.
That is where we need to head. It's not too late to lead one week later and we'll have a better America for it. Leaders, lead.
Michael Shank is the vice president at the Institute for Economics and Peace.
Follow Michael Shank on Twitter: www.twitter.com/Michael_Shank
"Assault weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully-automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons --anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun-- can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons." --Josh Sugarman
"Josh Sugarmann is the executive director and founder of the Violence Policy Center (VPC). Prior to founding the VPC, Sugarmann was a press officer in the national office of Amnesty International USA and was the communications director for the National Coalition to Ban Handguns."
"Josh Sugarmann... was the communications director for the National Coalition to Ban Handguns."
"...Ban Handguns." I continue to hear from some people that "nobody wants to take your guns away". I do not believe it.
[The term "Assault Weapon" is just as important as the ban itself. One is required to continue to use the term "assault weapon" when discussing the banned semi-automatic rifles. This allows the lie to perpetuate itself making it easy to keep the public confused and fearful of what they perceive to be machine guns.
Once the public is frightened into submission, gun-ban organizations will work to ban all semi-automatic rifles and eventutally all semi-automatic handguns. It is not uncommon, in fact, for a news anchor to refer to an ordinary semi-automatic handgun as an "automatic handgun." There is a huge performance difference between a semi-automatic firearm and a fully automatic machine gun. A fact that seems to make no difference to some in the news media, despite their occupation to keep the public informed of the facts.]
Jennifer Freeman is Executive Director and co-founder of Liberty Belles, a grass-roots organization dedicated to restoring and preserving the Second Amendment.
[The "Assault Weapons" ban, however, applied only to civilian semi-automatic rifles that possessed certain cosmetic features which had no effect on the performance of the firearm. Rather, the features were ergonomic or offered some other comfort to the operator.
Of the rifles that were banned in 1994, many others that perform in the same manner remain legal. It would be impossible, therefore, to claim any reduction in crime as a result of the ban. And yet, the disarmament society has done exactly that.
The gun-ban elitists want you to believe that America's streets will be flooded with killer machine guns if the "Assault Weapons" ban sunsets this September. They predict blood, mayhem, and societal chaos if law-abiding citizens are "allowed" to purchase these rifles, despite the fact that rifles of this sort have been commercially available since 1896.
In fact, gun-ban organizations need blood and mayhem in order to further their agenda and justify their existence...] --Jennifer Freeman
[By 1988, gun banners had finally figured out that Americans were not going surrender their firearms willingly. The only way they were going to achieve their goal of total disarmament was through mass dissemination of misinformation and by infiltrating both the legislature and mainstream media.
By 1994, the disarmament crowd had succeeded in banning the sale and manufacture of many commonplace semi-automatic rifles. They called it the "Assault Weapons Act of 1994" and they achieved it by frightening the general public into submission.
The "Assault Weapons" ban was written to apply to a select group of semi-automatic rifles possessing certain features that made them look menacing. Features that would allow gun-ban organizations to confuse the public into the thinking that the rifles were fully automatic machine guns, despite the fact that the import and manufacture of machine guns for civilian use was banned under the National Firearms Act and Gun Owner Protection Act.
Prior to 1994, the term "assault weapon" was used to describe a military rifle that allowed the operator to choose semi-automatic or fully automatic firing of ammunition. The disarmament society erroneously labeled a select group of semi-automatic civilian rifles as "assault weapons" in a further attempt to confuse the public into thinking the ban applied to machine guns...] --Jennifer Freeman
http://www.libertybelles.org/articles/awscam.htm
Witness thinks someone let gunman inside Colorado movie theater
Friday, July 20, 2012
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger
According to news reports, this sudden violent rampage was completely out of character for James Holmes, who was described as "shy."
There is already conjecture that James Holmes may have been involved in mind-altering neuroscience research and ended up becoming involved at a depth he never anticipated. His actions clearly show a strange detachment from reality, indicating he was not in his right mind. That can only typically be accomplished through drugs, hypnosis or trauma (and sometimes all three).
Holmes was clearly provided with exotic gear (and bomb-making skills)
Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/036536_James_Holmes_shooting_false_flag.html#ixzz21rT837Zn
Federal registration of Title-I firearms is prohibited by the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986. Federal registration of firearms is opposed because firearm registries have demonstrably been utilized to effect subsequent efficient confiscations of classes of firearms from registered owners; such confiscation efforts have occurred in New York and in Cook County.
Your statement is false. Prohibiting civilian ownership of popular and rarely criminally misused classes of firearms is not "reasonable". Establishing an arbitrary limitation upon magazine capacity -- typically, when set by civilian disarmament advocates, far lower than the standard capacities of most factory firearm magazines -- when most criminal shootings involve fewer than ten shots fired is not "reasonable".
Your assertion is false; the only armed civilian who responded to the shooting was not present during the actual shooting and arrived only after Mr. Loughner had been restrained.