Gun Violence Prevention And Obama's First 100 Days: Incomplete

Trying to "grade" President Obama's first hundred days with respect to gun violence prevention is like grading a student who has registered for class, done a good job with preparations, but has put off attendance and test-taking to the next semester.

Over the last 100 days, the nation has suffered a string of mass shootings taking the lives of 57 people in less than a month -- including seven police officers, thirteen aspiring citizens and eight senior citizens (not to mention the other approximately 3,100 murdered by gunfire since January 20 whose deaths didn't make national news).

We have also learned that a large percentage of the firearms traced at crime scenes in Mexico come from the United States, including military-style assault weapons used to murder police and innocent bystanders in Mexico's drug war. The nation also marked the somber anniversaries of the Virginia Tech massacre (two years ago) and the Columbine school shooting (10 years ago).

The president's direct response to this gun violence -- a public safety and public health issue more lethal than pistachios, spinach or peanut butter crackers -- has been minimal.

On the one hand, the president has appointed people with strong records on gun violence prevention to his cabinet and administration, including Attorney General Eric Holder, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Secretary of Education Arne Duncan, and Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel.

The White House Web site continues to show the president's commitment to requiring criminal background checks for all gun sales at gun shows, childproofing guns, making crime gun trace data accessible so law enforcement can fight the illegal arms trade, and permanently banning military-style assault weapons.

The president sent "thoughts and prayers" to the victims in Binghamton on April 3. In his April 16 news conference in Mexico, he said that we need to deal "with assault weapons that... are helping fuel extraordinary violence" and that "tracing of bullets and ballistics and gun information" needed to be accessible to law enforcement.

The Obama Interior Department wisely decided not to appeal our lawsuit to block the last-minute Bush administration rule allowing loaded, concealed guns into our national parks.

On the other hand, the gun violence prevention movement is disappointed that -- in the face of a problem that takes the lives of over 30,000 Americans a year, an average of 84 Americans a day, including 32 by homicide, and injures another 70,000 each year -- that the administration is not doing more now to keep dangerous weapons out of the hands of dangerous people.

The president should strongly support the bill introduced last week to require Brady criminal background checks for all gun purchases -- something that should not concern any legitimate gun owner, but something that would make it harder for dangerous people to get guns easily.

The president should oppose efforts to permit almost anyone to have .50-caliber sniper rifles and military-style assault weapons, particularly in our nation's capital.

The president should make it clear that efforts to disrupt trafficking in illegal guns and stockpiling of private arsenals are not a threat to law-abiding gun owners.

While the Obama administration has been unwilling so far to be tested on popular gun violence prevention policies -- over 80% of Americans favor criminal background checks for all gun sales, including at gun shows, with solid majorities in favor of banning military-style assault weapons -- we are optimistic that in the coming months the White House will take common sense steps to reduce the staggering toll that gun violence takes every day on American communities.

Note to readers: This entry, along with past entries, has been co-posted on bradycampaign.org/blog and the Huffington Post.

Comments

[shedances]

Thirdpower asks: "What about non-violent boys? What family situations are they in in comparison? What economic factors are involved?" Molonlabe adds following my response: "Bwahahahahaha! You tell me' = "Na na na nana na. Na na na nana na." I can' thear you." "I can't hear you." And the always civil djkrlsn chimes in: "Actually he did a very good job of imitating your usual response Kelli."

Like I said fellas, I don't have an answer to Thirdpower's question. 'Non-violent boys' aren't a social ill, as far as I see it; & my interest is (and has obviously been...) in youth violence problems where it concerns the general topic at hand of gun abuse.

However, you all did get me to thinking yesterday of examples of strong & good MEN who were non-violent as boys as is apparent from their writings & life endeavors/work, including the following: Nelson Mandela; Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.; Mahatma Gandhi & his grandson, Rajmohan's, work on peace/non violence; U.S. President Barack Obama; former U.S. Presidents Bill Clinton & Jimmy Carter, etc.; Brady Campaign President Paul Helmke & Dennis Henigan, Doug Pennington & others with the Brady Center; my own husband, and many other wonderful men I've had the privilege to meet or know or work with!

That's all the time I've got for the progun questions. Hope that helps!

[OdinsEye]

Gandhi? The one who said that one of the gravest affronts the Britsh ever did against the Indians was disarming them?

[djkrlsn]

KElli--with your emphasis on disarming the law abiding citizens and early release for violent felons you are the very definition of UNREASONABLE GUN BANS

[kaveman4]

Nelson Mandela???

You mean the guy who carried a gun?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/5133156.stm

[MorgansRifles]

Kelli:

What do you think of this one? Should the student who shot the bad guy have waited to se if they really were going to rape and kill the other students?

Michael

College Student Shoots, Kills Home Invader


COLLEGE PARK, Ga. -- A group of college students said they are lucky to be alive and they’re thanking the quick-thinking of one of their own. Police said a fellow student shot and killed one of two masked me who burst into an apartment.

Channel 2 Action News reporter Tom Jones met with one of the students to talk about the incident.

“Apparently, his intent was to rape and murder us all,” said student Charles Bailey.



http://www.wsbtv.com/news/19365762/detail.html

http://www.ignatius-piazza-front-sight.com/2009/05/07/ignatius-piazza-try-disputing-this-sarah-brady/

[djkrlsn]

It is better in the view of the BC, Kelli and Leifrakur that innocent victims be hurt or killed by criminals than the victims have a gun to defend themselves

[MorgansRifles]

djkrlsn:

I didn't think whe would reply. She might have to admit that there is a legitimate reason for the average person to have access to firearms for defensive purposes and that conceal carry does stop crimes.

Michael

[Thirdpower]

Youth and firearms, the truth:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCIkJ0tKyRU

[MorgansRifles]

I have posted this before. It is from the 1771 Encyclopedia Britannica and shows the definition of "militia" at the time.

MILITIA, in general, denotes the body of soldiers, or those who make profession of arms.

.....In a more restrained sense, militia denotes the trained bands of a town or country, who arm themselves, upon a short warning, for their own defence. So that, in this sense, militia is opposed to regular or stated troops.

.....For the direction and command of the militia, the king constitutes lords-lieutenants of each country.

There is a scan of the original at the link.

http://www.jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/militia.htm

Michael

[shedances]

Thirdpower's most recent comment about youth & firearms reminded me of a former statistic: "27% of adolescents carried a weapon in 1997," according to the Centers for Disease Control. Does anyone know how that figure has changed in recent years?

[djkrlsn]

And usually the ones that are doing so are drug dealers or gangbangers--so sorry Kelli-- you lost the debate absolutely with Heller--people that are inclined to do evil will do evil with or without guns, especially since firearms cannot and do not put the Imperious Curse on ANYONE

[shedances]

Read more about youth violence. I can't help you out any further than that advice, DJ. Good luck!

[shedances]

I don't have the exact book title in front of me today; but if this website is still up & correct, Dr. Garbarino has authored work on youth males who engage in violent behaviors in modern-day society ... another excellent read!

http://www.psychpage.com/family/library/garbarino.html

Shedances offline.

[kaveman4]

"This makes sense in many ways, as the poor inner-city population faces the greatest number of risk factors, including poverty, lower IQ, crime, crowded and poorer living quarters, fatherless families… The list goes on and on. Garbarino does not make any statements about causes for the violence yet; he only points out how serious and complex a phenomenon it is."

Yet according to the BC, the problems is very simple...GUNS

You destroy your own arguments.

[shedances]

Lt. -- per your question, the link is right above you; however, I must express surprise that you aren't already familiar or even remotely knowledgeable about all such writings regarding youth & deadly violence & weapons carrying. I would've thought it was Old Hat for several of you here! Be that as it may, more specifically this excellent book is titled "Lost Boys, Why Our Sons Turn Violent & How We Can Save Them," by James Garbarino ~ a PhD who has worked with incarcerated youth offenders, as well as authored a number of books on adolescent psychology, etc.

Hope that helps.

[shedances]

Per kaveman 4's response: The Brady Campaign has said numerous times that part of the problem is too easy gun availability to the wrong people, as well as other related & important issues. Their work focuses on gun issues & problems specifically. I suggest learning to read Paul's blogs correctly; and then perhaps you'll be able to quote accurately, kaveman.

[molonlabe]

Way to convolute the issue. 'Firearms' and 'weapons' cannot be used interchangably in the position you are trying to defend.

[kaveman4]

Carried a weapon for what purpose?

Crime, protection, hunting?

[OdinsEye]

I recall it was a claim amount kids carrying firearms to school.

[LtBromhead]

First, that was 12 years ago, and we all know how Paul feels about anything over 6 months old, when it's convenient.

Secondly, I find it extremely hard to believe that over one quarter of ALL adolescents carry a weapon, then or now.

I wonder where those fondly remembered "statistics" came from?

[djkrlsn]

When it disagrees with Paul--yesterday is WAY TOO OLD--and yet when it agrees with him 150 years ago is just fine

[molonlabe]

"In fact, looking a little deeper, we find that the Gallup numbers over the last fifty years show support for handgun control declining at a fairly constant, if slow, rate with occasional upticks in support, the last really large one coming in 1980–2:

One theory might be the continuing demonstration of the inefficacy of gun control relative to crime. People certainly pay attention to whether they feel safe, and periods of increased gun control (like the Clinton-era “assault-weapons” ban spoken of so highly by the Attorney General) have not provided them with any greater sense of security."

http://www.newmajority.com/ShowScroll.aspx?ID=775e17a0-598b-45d3-9daa-8c1adc3bc519

Interesting piece. I realize this is a conservative site, but It is interesting and at least deserves some consideration.

[shedances]

As far as 'feelings' go (which you bring up in terms of feelings of safety & security...), people ~ violent boys studied, in particular, I believe ~ have been found to go by the flawed notion of 'what feels good is good' when having guns & to internally validate such violence behaviors. When they are caught or punished, any remorse is sometimes more that they were caught doing something wrong, than a moral responsibility of wrong-doing or sense of accountability of their actions towards others!

[djkrlsn]

Sorry Kelli--your argument is ALL FEELINGS--namely law abiding civilians with guns scare the SH*T out of you

[Thirdpower]

What about non-violent boys? What family situations are they in in comparison? What economic factors are involved?

[molonlabe]

Where in the link i have provided does it say anything about 'violent boys' being the studied sample?

Try again. Here, I'll give you another shot:

"Another cause might be that the proliferation of concealed-carry laws of varying degrees of liberality may in itself have driven down support for gun control. Forty-eight states (all but Illinois and Wisconsin) allow law-abiding citizens to carry concealed handguns under various circumstances. These laws were mostly passed over the past twenty years, and in the run up to passage in most states, opponents warned of dire and bloody consequences: gunfights breaking out over fender-benders and the like.

The fact that none of these dire predictions came to pass, and in some places crime actually dropped (whether related to the law or not), may have created a consciousness that gun control doesn’t affect crime."

What say you?

[mike102]

"When they are caught or punished, any remorse is sometimes more that they were caught doing something wrong, than a moral responsibility of wrong-doing or sense of accountability of their actions towards others"

Wait.

Are you seriously trying to lay the blame for criminal actions at the feet of the very criminals who committed these transgretions? Am I reading correctly? Are you sure it isn't somehow blamable on guns?

Could it be that they are less sorry than they might be, if they weren't pretty sure that bleeding hearts throughout the anti-2nd Amendment, and like-thinking submissive fringe, would bleet until they were released prematurely, because "prison overcrowding" just sounds sooo unpleasant (and , oooh, dirty)?

If someone commits a violent crime with a weapon, keep them in jail long enough to make them sorry for real.

[Thirdpower]

Even in Illinois firearm rights continue to progress:

A group of young people Tuesday night chimed in on the old debate over gun control.

And the message they stressed during a Second Amendment forum at Wheaton city hall was that gun-control measures won't reduce firearm-related violence.

"Additional laws and taking away the rights of the people to bear arms simply will never work," said Christos Dimoulis, a 15-year-old South Barrington resident.

http://www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=291613

[shedances]

FWIW, I think people need to be more careful (the media included, in this case) when drawing conclusions from responses by youth/boys on guns & rights & matters of related violence.

[Thirdpower]

You had no problems w/ Chicago Public School students being taken out of class to be used as pawns for anti-gun bills.

[djkrlsn]

Then why do you spread it all over the Internet when a poll purports to support gun bans?

[molonlabe]

So all those heart-wrenching stories of personal loss from children which the MMM and other anti-gun organizations use to bash gun ownership should be discredited too?

Good to know.

[OldSFMJT]

Keli,
As you often inclined to do, you misinterpret Thirdpower’s comments. He spoke about how young people in a given area were being politically active. Specifically, they were actively supporting a Constituti­onally-gua­ranteed right. If these same young people were rallying for, say, greater freedom of speech, I’m certain you’d be all a’twitter!

Secondarily, some time ago, I spent a considerable amount of time outlining a method to properly instruct, teach and train youngsters regarding firearms. Your response was a snarky, ignorant dismissal of everything I had said.

Perhaps it is YOU who should be more careful when drawing conclusions!

Old SF MJT
(Martin)

[molonlabe]

Paul,

If the Brady Campaign doesn't start kicking it into high gear and changing the trend of these polls (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/6409891.html), those IN FAVOR of gun control are going to become the new "domestic extremists!"

http://daysofourtrailers.blogspot.com/2009/05/youre-extremist-im-extremist-were-all.html

Will of the People(tm), Paul. Will of the People(tm).

[ProGunAmerican]

I Chicago's gun ban works so well, then why do the police need M-4 carbines?? lol! That alone is pretty much an idictment to its absolute and massive failure.

[Thirdpower]

The word is getting out:

"Amid a wave of publicity about drug-related gun violence along the Mexican border and police killings in U.S. cities, more Americans than ever oppose new government efforts to regulate guns."

"Rep. John Culberson, R-Houston, called diminished public support for gun control measures “a good thing.” He said the recent poll findings would help lawmakers “resist pressure from this administration to pass more gun control legislation.”

“The NRA is in a pretty good position, public-opi­nion-wise,­” Newport said.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/6409891.html

But remember, According to a certain poster, neither Gallup, CNN, nor Pew are 'reputable'.

[molonlabe]

"Even an assault-weapon ban is not the political “sure thing” it once was. An April poll by NBC News and the Wall Street Journal found that support for curbing the sale of assault weapons and semiautomatic rifles has dropped from 75 percent in 1991 to 53 percent today."

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/6409891.html

I think we're going to have to ask Paul Helmke to redefine his interpretation of "solid majority."

[shedances]

As far as the NRA goes, I think we should balance such declarative, one-sided statements by Thirdpower here with a different perspective (via a good commentary by U.S. News & World Report editor/blogger Bonnie Erbe last month):

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/erbe/2009/04/06/the-nra-is-wrong-guns-do-kill-people-as-the-pittsburgh-shootings-show.html

Not an easy topic to read about; but necessary!

[Thirdpower]

"AK-47"? Nope.

"Sophisticated weaponry"? Nope.

Emotional tripe and ignorant rhetoric? Yep.

[molonlabe]

"There is no reason in the world why any American should be allowed to own an assault weapon, much less a meandering loser who was booted out of Marine boot camp for throwing a tray at an officer (an indication of his violent proclivities). But if the charges are true, Poplawski should serve as a poster child for the NRA:"

Wow. An attack on the NRA (as if the NRA condones this type of behavior) and a purely emotional statement about "assault weapons" without a shred of fact to support the wild claim.

Where have we seen that before?

[djkrlsn]

Kell--you do know that Kali's AWB and "approved gun lists" are both in danger of going down HARD--since the team that won Heller is taking them both on. Also Kell--you have yet to give any valid reason to ban semiauto carbines in 223 Remington and 7.62X39 other than you think they look "superscawy"

[OdinsEye]

Egads, not Bonnie "I hate guns" Erbe.

[djkrlsn]

To Leifrakur--you and your friends definitively lost the collective right/militia argument with Heller and were on shaky ground for a long time before that

[Leifrakur]

The Supreme Court has been known to change its mind. Truth is a survivor.

[djkrlsn]

SCOTUS has been stating that the RKBA is an individual right since at least the Dred Scott decision--don't hold your breath--especially since ALL 9 justices agreed that the 2nd Amendment protected an INDIVIDUAL RKBA

[OdinsEye]

The truth is the right to arms exists, period, with or without a militia. The militia does not exist without arms.

The US Supreme Court, in approximately 38 of the 40 cases which referred to or quoted fully or in part, the Second Amendment or the right to keep and bear arms, has supported the individual right reading.

[OdinsEye]

The grammatical subject of the sentence which is the Second Amendment is "the right". The subject is shown to belong to "the people" and is defined as "to keep and bear arms". The entire statement, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" comprises a complex subject. As the subject of the sentence, it exists. It is not created by the sentence. The predicate of the sentence is "shall not be infringed". Together, the subject and predicate make up an independent clause. It stands on its own. The first 13 words are a phrase, actually several phrases making up a larger phrase. This larger phrase is called an absolute phrase. They contain an object and a participial phrase, but since they lack a true verb, they are not a clause. Absolute phrases exist outside the grammar of the main clause they accompany. They do not modify, restrict, create, limit or act on the subject of the main clause. They do act adverbially to give some background information regarding the main clause, but again are not restrictive. In this case, the first 13 words do not show us why or when the right exists, but rather a primary reason that the right "shall not be infringed".

You can find more in Fowler's Modern English Usage, Harper's English Grammar, Websters' Writer's Guide, Strunk and White, and The Little, Brown Compact Handbook.

[shedances]

I agree 110% with your interpretation of the historical context of the Second Amendment, Leifrakur; & feel the majority Justices were wrong in the Heller decision. I had held out hope until the last, that they would not rule as they did.

[molonlabe]

Note to the anti's:

You might want to try a teaspoon of sugar with the Heller decision to make it more palatable. I see you're still having trouble swallowing it.

[Leifrakur]

I'm afraid a teaspoon of sugar won't make me agree with you on Heller. You might try spitting out the lead shotgun pellets before swallowing your duck. As Ben Franklin pointed out, "lead taken inwardly" endangers the brain.

[molonlabe]

Aw, c'mon, Leif! No need to be salty! Luckily, there were 9 slightly more important people than yourself who beg to differ......

[twogunmojo]

dear leifrakur...you continue to beat that dead horse all you want...the scotus has said that the rkba is an individual right separate from the militia reference...and you have no evidence to lead credence to the idea that colonists were too poor to afford firearms...to the contrary as far back as the mid 1600s both the colonists and the local aboriginals were armed...with "guns"...the start of king phillips war really began when metacom...the son of massaoit...was forced to surrender his guns at what was supposed to be a parley...almost 400 years has gone by but things haven't changed much...you and shedances and paul helmke and doug pennington and the others are still trying to disarm the free man...

[djkrlsn]

And in fact Bellisles lost both a prestigous award AND a tenured position because of how faulty the claims were in Arming America (which claimed firearm ownership was rare)

[Leifrakur]

"and you have no evidence to lead credence to the idea that colonists were too poor to afford firearms."

You must have me confused with someone else, twogunmojo. I've never argued that colonists were too poor to afford firearms. But the early Congresses are full of debates in which representatives argued that militiamen should not be required to furnish their own weapons because of not being able to afford them -- and many militiamen were in fact not armed.

Horses die, but the truth lives on.

[djkrlsn]

Leifrakur--if truth lives on--why do you keep beating the same dead horse?

[djkrlsn]

Bellisle's Arming America agreed with you on many of your points--and the author lost a prestigous award AND A TENURED PROFESSORSHIP for his crappy research--you need new material

[Thirdpower]

"and many militiamen were in fact not armed."

Sorry Leif, you've been shown to have been wrong on that one as well. We've been over that out of context quote of yours before.

[twogunmojo]

so tell me shedances...if we removed the things that increase the risk of self-murder...like trains and bridges....will that lower the rate of self-murder in japan...and how would you go about that...it seems to me that in our country where we basically have one gun per person we have an extremely low rate of firearms related death....

[OdinsEye]

"I don't recall asking you about machine gun technology; but if you've got nothing better to do, by all means ... fire away! I'm all ears." - shedances

BTW, here is a great example of what I mean by people not knowing what they are talking about.

Today I was browsing headlines across the US. I saw:

1. One firearm referred to as a Tec-9, TEC-9, and Tech-9 (correct info = TEC-9)

2. Described as a semi-auto pistol, a machine pistol, and a sub-machine gun (Correct info = semi-auto pistol or 1 trigger pull = 1 bang. The others are full-auto or 1 trigger pull = bang, bang, bang, ...)

3. Labeled as 9mm and and .9mm (Correct info = 9mm. A .9mm would be exceptionally small. )

4. Said to be "a handgun, but which can be outfitted with high-capacity magazines" (Correct info = it IS a handgun, specifically a semi-auto pistol. ALL semi-auto pistols "can be outfitted with high-capacity magazines")

5. Singled out as being particularly powerful. (Correct info = the TEC-9 is no more powerful than any 9mm pistol. All fire the same 9x19mm cartridge, which is primarily what determines power.)

Most of these errors are in regards to the same incident. Several of the errors are attributed to cops and district attorneys.

Do you really think these people would understand what they are responding to in polls or voting for regarding gun control?