After a month of silence following the horrifying Tucson shootings, the NRA's "top gun", Wayne LaPierre, returned to his same old talking points before the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in Washington, D.C. this week. His speech consisted of a string of opportunistic arguments for even weaker gun laws, ignoring completely the tragic reality of what actually happened on January 8th outside that Safeway store.
"If Tucson taught us anything, it taught us this: Government failed. And when they tell you that a ban on assault weapons can make you safer, don't buy it," LaPierre raged. "These clowns want to ban magazines? Are you kidding me?
"Their laws don't work, their lies aren't true. By its laws and lies and lack of enforcement, government policies are getting us killed," LaPierre told the audience that gave him a standing ovation.
I'm not surprised that LaPierre misstated the facts and that he and his disciples missed the true lessons of yet another mass shooting. They've got their act of blindness to commonsense down to a science. It helps them with their agenda: any gun, for anybody, any place, and any time.
But Americans who are seeking answers and who are willing to learn from tragedies can see clearly from Tucson that it's time to do something now to keep weapons out of the hands of the dangerously mentally-ill, drug abusers, and other dangerous and irresponsible people who shouldn't have such easy access to guns, or the high capacity ammunition magazines that allow them to fire over 30 rounds in just 15 seconds.
The Tucson shooting did not occur in a state or city with restrictive gun laws, Mr. LaPierre, or in one of your so-called "gun-free" zones. The killer was not deterred by Arizona's policy of allowing any gun owner to carry loaded guns in public without a permit, and was not stopped by the nearby citizens with guns at the shopping center -- he was stopped when his ammo magazine emptied, something that would have happened 20 bullets earlier if the 1994 ban on those killing tools had not been allowed to expire in 2004.
Last Sunday was the 100th anniversary of the birth of former president -- and conservative icon -- Ronald Reagan. Nowhere has that celebration been more evident than at CPAC, whose members desperately seek to clothe themselves in the mantle of Reagan's legacy. Speaker after speaker evoked the memory and wisdom of the nation's 40th president in honor of his 100th birthday. Considering those sentiments, it is odd that LaPierre would go to CPAC to spout insults, such as "clowns" and "liars" to denounce government policies endorsed by very man CPAC and conservatives across the country have spent the week honoring.
President Reagan was a life member of the NRA who often expressed his belief in an individual's right to bear arms. But he demonstrated in his words and by his actions that he had a common sense understanding that there should be reasonable restrictions on the availability of guns. For example, in contrast to the NRA's current push for more guns in more hands in more places, Reagan administration policy kept dangerous weapons out of national parks.
Regarding calls for sensible gun laws in the wake of Tucson, LaPierre told CPAC attendees that "political elites" were trying to fool Americans into believing that "if we just pass another law or two we can stop a madman bent on a streak of violence."
It appears obvious that, unlike LaPierre, Ronald Reagan learned a much different lesson from a mass shooting involving an elected official. Expressing a view diametrically opposite LaPierre's, Reagan, whom no CPAC member would associate with the political elite, sent a letter in 1991 to Time Magazine titled "Why I'm For the Brady Bill."
Ten years after being wounded along with three others, including his Press Secretary James Brady, in an assassination attempt by a mentally-dangerous individual, Reagan wrote:
"This nightmare might never have happened if legislation that is before Congress now -- the Brady Bill -- had been law back in 1981."
Following Tucson, many people in our country hope to stop the recurring nightmare of mass shootings by limiting access to high-capacity ammunition magazines. Thanks to a high-capacity magazine, the deranged Tucson shooter managed to kill six people and wounded 13 others, including Congresswoman Gabby Giffords, in a matter of seconds. Even so, LaPierre suggested to CPAC that banning assault weapons was some kind of joke.
Reagan, despite being known for his sense of humor, didn't find the concept funny at all. In May 1994, the former president asked Congress to pass a ban on assault weapons.
"We urge you to listen to the American public and to the law enforcement community and support a ban on the further manufacture of these weapons," read a letter from Reagan along with former Presidents Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter. "While we recognize that assault-weapon legislation will not stop all assault-weapon crime, statistics prove that we can dry up the supply of these guns, making them less accessible to criminals."
Ronald Reagan applied common sense, reason and respect for the sentiments of the American people on the issues of guns and gun violence. LaPierre, who even ignores the opinions of the majority of NRA members who favor reasonable restrictions on guns, doesn't come close to applying Reagan's wisdom.
Even if LaPierre can't grasp the true lessons of Tucson, perhaps in the midst of the celebration of Ronald Reagan he can learn something about the steps true leaders are willing to take to curb gun violence in our country.
Paul Helmke is president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. Follow the Brady Campaign on Facebook and Twitter. This entry, along with past entries, has been co-posted on The Brady Campaign site.
Thirdpower: Southwest and Far South Chicago adolescentÂs ages 15 to 19 have
very high hospitalizÂation rates due to firearm injuries at 139.3 per
100,000 and 134.1 per 100,000 respectiveÂly (Table 2).
Thirdpower: So in other words, economicalÂly depressed areas with high levels of crime have more gun violence. Water is wet and bears defecate in the woods.
Econimically depressed urban areas have higher rates of violent crime. Do you have a problem with that? Have you ever been anywhere?
Have you ever been to South or West Chicago, or Newark or Camden NJ (despite draconinan gun laws), or any other big, nasty city?
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4069761537893819675
very low in most of Illinois, with numbers generally too low to
compute rates.
The rates of firearm hospitalization and death in Chicago are at least
four times higher than any other region in Illinois (Figure 4).
Southwest and Far South Chicago adolescents ages 15 to 19 have
very high hospitalization rates due to firearm injuries at 139.3 per
100,000 and 134.1 per 100,000 respectively (Table 2).
So in other words, economically depressed areas with high levels of crime have more gun violence. Water is wet and bears defecate in the woods.
http://daysofourtrailers.blogspot.com/2010/08/medical-liturature-and-gun-control.html
Come on RP. You're the one claiming firearm laws need to be stricter to reduce violence. Why is Chicago so high then?
Firearm ownership is in all demographics, all ideology, all education levels, and in all professions. Shielding your kids from the reality of life and from such knowledge is a tragedy waiting to happen.
Our kids play in the homes of neighbors and friends. I doubt most parents ask if firearms are stored safely (as you point out, 61% do not). Its even doubtful that a neighbor or friend would necessarily admit such a thing when questioned.
A burglar who ditched his loaded gun in your front yard, a parent with an unlocked loaded bedside gun, the natural curiosity of children are all a recipe for disaster without some basic knowledge. The question is do your kids know what to do in the unsupervised presence of a loaded firearm? Have you raised your kids to not touch, find an adult, etc. Refusing to bring up the subject doesn't make your kids safer, let alone teach them what to do in the presence of a loaded firearm.
I find this more to do with lack of knowledge on safety then anything else. Instead of blaming inanimate objects, focus on parental responsibility.
The article says children and youths.
I decided to reply to replies & to reply to other comments only 1 time / post.
Foe economy & better blogging...
The readers don't have the time & the desire to follow private endo-post debates...
Key StatisticsÂ: From January 1, 1996 to October 9, 1997 Texas concealed handgun license holders were arrested for 946 crimes. Of these, 263 were felony arrests, including: six charges of murder or attempted murder involving at least four deaths; two charges of kidnappingÂ; 18 charges of sexual assault; 66 charges of assault, including 48 cases of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon; and, 42 weapon-relÂated charges. Six-hundreÂd eighty-thrÂee were misdemeanoÂr arrests, including: 194 weapon-relÂated charges and 215 instances of driving while intoxicateÂd. In the first six months of 1997 (the most recent complete data set available)Â, the weapon-relÂated arrest rate among Texas concealed handgun license holders was more than twice as high as that of the general population of Texas aged 21 and older.
Texas conviction rate of CCL holders is so low that the column in the state statistics was deleted from the annual report. It went for years having only 0 or 1 or 2 convictions of those arrested for weapons related offenses. It is considered a non problem in TX.
http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba324
Figure 1 in that artcle clearly shows that the authors used the wrong base, either accidentally or deliberately. The Authors use the genral population as the base for all crime categories, but should have used to different bases. - One for the general populatedm the other for licensed firearms carriers.
As they say, there are good statistics, bad statistics, and damned lies. I think I know what this one is.
Notwithstanding your misleading quotation, the "clowns" comment, was made during a completely different part of is speech, and was in reference to the cutting of law enforcement budgets all over the country.
I have never felt the need to carry a gun for protection and find those who do to be slighlty (or more) on the paranoid side- seeing boogey-men around every corner. I am prone to laugh at them and even on occaision show them the idiocy of thier postion by bating them to anger. On one occaision, I had my father-in-law so flumixed that he actually drew his gun and pointed it at me.
That showed me how ill prepared gun owners are at using their brains to asses threats and they regress to the simple reptilian parts of their brains. That is why gun safety courses are a dismal failure at a reducing gun violence - they simply do not address the underlying causes of violence. If evaluations of the propensity for viiolence were made most would fail at some time or another. Evaluations would have to be yearly.
I do have to take issue with the idea that gun owners are paranoid, or have some irrational fear of violent crime. While this may be the case in your personal experience, in my experience there are a lot of gun owners like me; people that just like to shoot. Most of the guys on my shooting teams are as liberal as I am.
I don't carry a gun or live in fear of some imaginary threat. I just find shooting to be a rewarding and challenging hobby. Millions of Americans shoot for recreation every day and you have to admit the tragedies, sad as they are, happen extremely rarely. This should count for something.
My experience with paranoia is not as isolated as my example was extreme. I've seen it almost every person in Texas that I have talked to over the last 15 years. Typiaclly when the discussion turns to race, crime, immigration, etc, It isn't a true statistical cross-section but there is great fear in their lives that arises form some irrational place. When asked none have ever experienced a personal crime against them. If you read the works of Dan Arielly on irrationality you come away with the conclusion that given a situation peoplle will gravitate to an irrational presentation of it, and act accordingly. Irrationality is not a minority affliction, it is a majority one.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/14/maksim-gelman-claims-hes-_n_822769.html
And it's a lot harder to get a gun in California than in Arizona, but they basically have the same homicide rate.
and now Carolyn McCarthy is proposing and even more restrictive version of the old bill which I can only imagine what McCarthy new bill will cause the democrats trouble with.
The only credible statistics are the BEFORE / AFTER type,or the WITH / WITHOUT...
We should imagine / hypothesize if murders in Britain,Ireland Can,Aus,NZ,,in F,D,I,J,CH,
would increase or decrease ,if they adopted USA laws...
Same nation,with or without,same people with or without...
That would make sense,because the primary factor of any change would only be the guns...
http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2011/feb/09/vickie-graves-shoot-intruder-testify-bill/?partner=popular
people so fearful that they have locks upon locks and a good man is dead.