We Win, They Lose. Now, Let's Get To Work

The elections two weeks ago reflected significant advances for the cause of gun violence prevention. Meanwhile, with stories of fear-driven gun sales emerging since the election, the shallowness of the gun lobby's divisive approach to America's problems has never been more apparent.

The Brady Campaign produced a well-documented report examining the November 4 results and exploring what the election means for the future of the gun violence prevention movement: Guns & The 2008 Elections: Common Sense Gun Laws Won, The NRA Lost, & What it Means.

The key observation in the report is that guns were not a wedge issue in this election, and instead took their place among the many challenges facing our country. Not surprisingly, candidates endorsed or "A" rated by the NRA suffered losses in every region of the nation, up and down the ballot, losing not only the White House, but also at least six crucial races for the U.S. Senate, and many more in the House of Representatives.

Even before the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling on the Second Amendment in late June, we predicted that most law-abiding citizens would realize that the Court wouldn't let their guns be "taken away," regardless of who was victorious on Election Day. At the same time, we thought that voters now would be more likely cast their ballots for candidates willing to do something to reduce the 100,000 deaths and injuries from guns which occur every year in America, and make it harder for dangerous people to get guns.

President-elect Obama has consistently supported common sense gun laws in the U.S. Senate and in the Illinois State Senate, along with supporting an individual right to own a gun for self-defense in the home. Vice President-Elect Biden, one of the original authors of the 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban, has been a leader in gun violence prevention throughout his distinguished career. The Brady Campaign's choice was clear. In the middle of October, Jim and Sarah Brady and the Brady Campaign issued a strong endorsement of the Obama-Biden ticket.

By endorsing Sen. John McCain, the NRA was left backing someone they used to call "one of the premier flag carriers for the enemies of the Second Amendment." The NRA promised to spend millions of dollars trying to defeat then-Senator Obama in battleground states across the nation. By Election Day, the NRA had spent 30 times the amount of money against President-elect Obama than they'd spent against Al Gore in 2000. NRA bosses spent millions on television ads, campaign literature and Web sites screaming that Senator Obama would be "the most anti-gun President in history."

What happened (other than an increase in gun sales by those who believed this propaganda)? Over 64 million voters rejected the NRA's campaign of division and agreed with the Brady Campaign's choice for President. Barack Obama won the NRA's home state of Virginia -- the first time any Democrat for President carried the Old Dominion since 1964 -- and went on to win a cross-section of states from Florida to Indiana, Pennsylvania to Colorado, North Carolina to Nevada, Iowa to Ohio, and New Hampshire to New Mexico.

Even more indicative of the gun lobby's weakness, NRA bosses Wayne LaPierre and Chris Cox personally campaigned in the swing states of Colorado, Pennsylvania, Minnesota and Nevada. Judging by the election returns, that may have been a mistake. President-elect Obama carried Colorado by almost 8 points, Pennsylvania by 10 points, Minnesota by 10 points, and Nevada by 12 points.

Beyond the Presidential campaign, the NRA lost at least six critical races for the U.S. Senate to moderate candidates who favor common sense gun laws:

· In Colorado, the NRA endorsed former Rep. Bob Schaffer in his losing campaign against Rep. Mark Udall (C-rated by the NRA). Udall won by 12 points.

· In Louisiana, the NRA endorsed State Treasurer John Kennedy in his losing campaign against Sen. Mary Landrieu (C-rated by the NRA). Landrieu won by six points.

· In New Hampshire, the NRA endorsed Sen. John Sununu in his losing campaign against former Governor Jeanne Shaheen (F-rated by the NRA). Shaheen won by over six points.

· In New Mexico, the NRA endorsed Rep. Steve Pearce in his losing campaign against Rep. Tom Udall (C-rated by the NRA). Udall won by a whopping 22 points.

· In North Carolina, the NRA endorsed Sen. Elizabeth Dole in her losing campaign against State Senator Kay Hagan (F-rated by the NRA). Hagan won by over eight points.

· In Oregon, the NRA endorsed Sen. Gordon Smith in his losing campaign against challenger Jeff Merkley (F-rated by the NRA). Votes are still being counted, but Merkley won by at least three points.

What's more, returns coming in from Alaska now show that the NRA could lose Alaska's incumbent Senator Ted Stevens to Anchorage Mayor Mark Begich. There will also be a run-off election in two weeks in Georgia between Jim Martin and Sen. Saxby Chambliss, the outcome of which is hardly predictable. Finally, depending on the results of a recount, NRA may yet lose the Senate seat in Minnesota to F-rated Al Franken, now held by Sen. Norm Coleman, who is currently leading by just 215 votes.

The NRA's efforts in key U.S. House races were no more successful. In the 24 races that Democrats have picked up from the Republicans so far, the NRA endorsed in 20 campaigns and lost 19 of them. In addition, of the four seats picked up by Republicans this year, the NRA endorsed three Democratic incumbents and lost all three, including Rep. Cazeyouz in Louisiana and Rep. Lampson in Texas.

The Brady Campaign, on the other hand, endorsed candidates in eight House races picked up by the Democrats, and won seven of them (losing only Republican Rep. Chris Shays in Connecticut). All seven of these victories -- including Kosmas in Florida, Dahlkemper in Pennsylvania, and Peters in Michigan -- were in head-to-head match-ups against candidates endorsed by National Rifle Association leaders.

At the state level, among other losses for the gun lobby, the NRA also lost control of the New York State Senate for the first time in two generations. This victory could mean a great deal for advocates of gun violence prevention in the Empire State whose efforts have been blocked for decades.

What all of these results mean for the cause of gun violence prevention is that pragmatic elected officials who favor common sense gun laws won across the country on Election Day, while the gun lobby took a crushing defeat. There is much more work to do, however, and we at the Brady Campaign urge you to join us.

Every year in America, 100,000 people are killed or wounded by gunfire. Now is the time to reach out to America's newly elected officials and tell them that requiring criminal background checks on all gun sales just makes sense. Tell them that cracking down on corrupt gun dealers to cut illegal gun trafficking just makes sense. Tell them that protecting our police by taking military-style assault weapons off our streets just makes sense.

In the words of President-elect Obama, we can uphold the Second Amendment and keep guns out of the hands of criminals at the same time.

Lives are at stake, and it just makes sense.

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

Comments

[donklinestiver]

We need serious psycological studies to understand the "gun nuts" Hunting rifles and things other than assult weapons don't bother me. In 44 years of the practice of medicine not ONE bad guy has ben hurt run off by a gun. Scores of fathers, spouses, children and parents have been killed by handguns. I have lost THREE patients to domestic violence with handguns in 7 months. Mentally impared people seem to have a particular affinity for handguns an IQ test that required a minimum IQ of just above average could save thousands of lives in my opinion. Its the old God created all men equal and Smith and Wesson made it so., that seems to be operative.

[EmilyU]

"We need serious psycological studies to understand the "gun nuts" "

Why?

"Hunting rifles and things other than assult weapons don't bother me. "

Do you know what an "assault weapon" is?

"In 44 years of the practice of medicine not ONE bad guy has ben hurt run off by a gun."

Yours is a rare practice.

"Scores of fathers, spouses, children and parents have been killed by handguns."

With, not by.

"Mentally impared people seem to have a particular affinity for handguns "

They have an affinity for a great many things. That does not mean that most or even a large section of people who have an affinity for such things are mentally impaired.

"an IQ test that required a minimum IQ of just above average could save thousands of lives in my opinion."

Just think of the benefits we could reap if we required an IQ test before voting, blogging, etc. How about a test on English grammar before blogging as well?

BTW, the "average" firearm owner is not a problem.

[HisXLNC]

No one knows what an assault weapon is as the definition varies from state to state and person to person. It's a completely subjective term dreamed up by politicians to scare the yuppies and soccer moms of the country. Most of these people have probably never seen a gun in real life, let alone handled one..

Yet they're armchair armorers who are experts in weaponry and know what you need and don't need for self-defense and hunting... Because they know the second amendment was written specifically to protect hunting and self-defense.

[donklinestiver]

Well Emly my presumptive diagnosis would be firearm obsessesd if not an NRA Employee. You have like 400 blog enteries and all are on firearms . Have you missed one post that had anything to do with guns. How can anybody with your record not be a tad peculiar. You certainly have the NRA talking points down pat. If I were doing your job I would have mixed in a few abortion issues or gay rights things to make people think I was not doing this for a loiving.

[donklinestiver]

Assult weapon:

Yes Emily I carried one in Vietnam

Rare practice:

I am a country doctor in West Virginia most of my patients and my two best friends are NRA members and gun collectors.

With:

Of my scores of patient deaths one was killed wit a table leg beaten to death but would have survived had the EMT's not been homophobic and transported him confused with a head injury. The perps were drunk and cranked out.

IQ:

All IQ's have guns I just beleive the majority of the problems come from those who do not percieve temporary anger can be so devestating when it does not have to.

Dont tell anyone but Ill read the NRA Bible if you will watch "Bowling for Columbine"

[drvck70]

Yeah, we need more common sense gun legislation, like Ted Kennedy standing on the floor announcing the 30-30 Win as a "cop killer" round, the most utilized hunting round of the last 100 years is now, in Teddys expert opinion, a cop killer. Can't tell ya the last time I've seen thugs rollin' with lever- action 30-30 Marlins poppin caps cowboy style, but hey if Ted says so. This is the problem with "common sense" legislation, THERE IS NONE.

[djkrlsn]

Too bad that so much of what Paul and Kelli support (like HR1022, "stupid gun" technology, ammo serialization) are anything but reasonable, common sense or moderate.

[Phearsclave]

The really funny thing is that if the Brady Campaign does manage to convince the new administration to reinstate the 1994 AWB, or if there's even a rumor to that effect, it's only going to cause a spike in "assault weapon" sales that's going to make the current one look tiny.

Given the way the stock and real estates markets are going, the smartest thing to do, several months ago, would have been to sell everything and invest in AR-15s, AK-47s, normal-capacity magazines, and 5.56mm NATO and 7.62x39mm by the pallet load.

[republifornian]

lol tthe gubmint cant deport the illegals which are in plain sight, but they really think they can control guns at all what a hoot, its pandoras box people you are never going to get even as much as 10% of a notion as to how many and what type of weapons are out there, heck I own a twin barrel .22 caliber gattling gun that I bought at a gun show way back when, no record, I have several guns from my father in law that are not registered and never will be. gun control what a hoot.

[shedances]

Comments like this one ~ about having firearms without proper registration or licensing & boasting about it ~ really only serve to hurt the pro-gun rights cause! Moreover, Paul Helmke's absolutely right: It's all too easy, after winning an important victory like this, to become somewhat complacent and allow gun & violence prevention issues to take a backseat.

[HisXLNC]

The backseat is where they belong until a politician is willing to take genuine steps toward reducing gun violence.

Here are a couple of hints: Banning guns and isn't a genuine step. Locking repeat violent criminals up for the rest of their natural lives most definitely is.

[EmilyU]

"about having firearms without proper registration or licensing & boasting about it ~ really only serve to hurt the pro-gun rights cause! "

Um... in most places you need neither a license nor to register your firearms. In California, which is where the poster appears to be, only handguns and "assault weapons" must be registered, and even then, only new handgun purchases and importations are registered -- if the handgun was previously owned before the passage of the law, no regisitration is required. The only license needed is if the owner wishes to carry concealed.

[Tencfan]

My guns are not regestered as it is not required in my state.

[djkrlsn]

Kell--do not forget what happened what happened what happened when the Clinton gun bill passed in 1994--it gave power to Republicans in Congress for the first time in 40 years and cost both Gore and Kerry the presidency. Don't forget that SCOTUS threw out the laws in Washington DC that you and Paul decreed were so reasonable and the Clinton gun did enough damage so that it would be a very good idea to be extremely careful (since most people do not think banning handguns and popular self defense carbines to be "reasonable" or "moderate"­--especial­ly since about 40 states have shall issue concealed carry permits (making Chicago and DC outliers in regards to handguns and not mainstream))

[dragn1]

Wow Shedances is at it again. All guns must be registered and you must never have them out in the open. Guess what except of that stupid form for the government no guns in Kentucky are registered. At least one or two of the girls get to go out and play at the range every week. My guns are for shooting and that is what my son and I do as often as possible.

[shedances]

And let's hope you keep these on your private property ...

[EmilyU]

Why?

[bayside]

We didnt win. Obama is picking Hillarys cabinet her dream team even putting her in position. Who is next MCCain in a cabinet position. Never mind we didnt vote for them, never mind us..Better not lose us Obama..

[texastrixie]

I don't know why people want assault weapons, but they do. Regular, good people. Many of whom want desperately to go to the gun range (or isolated property) and shoot up watermelons, etc. Who knows why.

I do kown this - the blue collar buddies of my husband gave as their primary reason they would not vote for Obama as, "He will take away our guns."

The country and the world is collasping. Think we could save civilization before we decide to make sure guys can't buy assault weapons to kill watermelons? BTW, from everything I read, it would be extremely difficult to outlaw enough stuff to make it impossible for weapons to be modified for assault purposes. Too many modification kits, etc. or instructions on the web.

I understand the reasoning, and I too would like to keep kids safe in the schools, and our workplaces. But I really don't remember any of these shootings as involving assault weapons. Seems like they all involved regular automatic handheld weapons or rifles.

[Ohio9]

I think you mean semi-automatic weapons. Fully automatic weapons are very hard to find and almost never used in crime.

Anyway, the reason people want "assault weapons" is because they are semi-automatic weapons that are reliable, effective, and accurate. They are not particularly dangerous, are rarely used in crime, and are only differentiated from other guns by a few cosmetic features.

[kyria]

I grew up in New York City when it had the highest crime rate in the world. Why? Because the Sullivan Law took guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens and left the thugs free reign to do whatever they wished to us. Every human being has a legitimate right to self-defense. There's a reason why a gun is called an equalizer.

[djkrlsn]

I would hope that gun control/ban supporters would look that little fact square in the face--the stricter the gun control (like DC, Chicago and NYC) the worse the violence gets in those areas.

[benEzra]

"Assault weapon" is just scare-speak for the most popular small-caliber, non-automatic target rifles and defensive carbines in America.

They aren't machineguns or military weapons; they are non-automatic civilian guns. And more Americans own them than hunt (not surprising, since only 1 in 5 gun owners hunts). They dominate centerfire rifle target shooting in the United States, both recreational and competitive.

Here's a instructive photo, of my Ruger mini-14 Ranch Rifle, a centerfire .22 (specifically .223 Remington caliber):

http://www.commongroundcommonsense.org/forums/uploads/1120356158/gallery_260_23_2123.jpg

Here's the same rifle with 3 different stocks:

http://www.commongroundcommonsense.org/forums/uploads/1120356158/gallery_260_23_33326.jpg

There's your difference between an old-fashioned rifle and an "assault weapon": a black plastic stock. With the second or third stocks, it would be banned in California and under proposed Federal bans on "assault weapons."

Given the fact that fewer than 3% of U.S. murders involve rifles at all (they are consistently among the least misused of all firearms), spending precious political capital to outlaw rifle handgrips that stick out is a really bad idea.

[neesy08]

The NRA and the GOP are a good mix. Both are clueless and out of touch. ere we are in a recession, facing the worse financial crisis since the great Depression, and what is the NRA concerned about? Whether or not Obama will allow them to keep their guns. This was not the year to have a one issue campaign. The NRA is just as narrrow-minded as the GOP.

[Thirdpower]

Yeah, an issue group talking about an issue.

How foolish.

[Sneaky]

They're a lobbyist group. Do you REALLY expect them to suddenly start lobbying for other things, like economic issues?

[Ohio9]

Is the BC any different? They are only concerned with guns to, just opposed to them instead of in favor of them. That's how lobbying groups work. They only deal with specific issues.

[Sneaky]

Isn't it something that Mr. Helmke says "We win, they lose" and then "this election wasn't about our pet issue anyway" in the same breath...?

[thedewd]

Wow, making the election only about guns is an interesting tactic. Does anyone think that the election was decided by whether the candidates were pro or anti gun? I would venture a guess that each of the candidates Paul mentions as having lost had an "R" after their names and were linked to the economy, the war in Iraq and Bush. Sorry, but there are bigger issues at work than the nominees stance on guns.

[lincheryl]

I am from Alabama and I know someone who voted based on two issues--guns and abortion. Really.

[djkrlsn]

Dewd--I do believe that you are correct that most of those changes were based far more on the economy/"change"/D vs R than on the gun issue.

[kikomnipotent]

Let's all agree that this election was about much more than the 2nd amendment, at least for those of us who don't work for the Brady campaign. Congressional Republican losses have more to do with the fact that constituents have seen the Republicans consistently back the Bush and right wing's trickle-down anti regulatory nonsense policies, making them poorer. This election was about the economy for the most part, and to a large degree about the last administration's emphasis on oil, oil, and more oil, with little consideration for alternative energy research. But let's go ahead & skew facts, use selective polling practices, and just plain make stuff up to say, Americans have finally spoken & we want the semi auto guns to be made unavailable. What a joke, I feel dumber now for having read your post.

[birdybird]

well said, kikomnipotent...

[ainuke]

Another absurdity: using a gun for home or personal defense.

In reality, if you do not train constantly with your firearm, you will neither be physically (draw speed, accuracy) nor mentally (presence of mind, emotionally ready to end a life) equipped to use it in time of need (that will most likely NEVER COME). Don't buy the (hero / justice / revenge) fantasy that Hollywood sells!! If you fear for your personal safety, spend your time and effort on self-defense / martial arts training, which can never be taken away and used against you.

Pepper spray is also VERY effective and won't kill a careless family member.

By all means, own and responsibly use a firearm; it's a great recreational activity, with wonderful people to be met (and yes, a few nut jobs; but I meet them at the local co-op market, too). But don't delude yourself into thinking that you'll ever NEED it.

Peace

[Thirdpower]

Now show me the statistics showing how often firearms are "taken away and used against you"? Can everyone learn martial arts? Should that 120 lb mother take on 2 or three 200lb intruders?

Even the low numbers have personal defense w/ a firearm over 100,000 times per year.

[JulieSA]

"spend your time and effort on self-defense / martial arts training,"

Worthless for disabled and elderly people, and petite women. Don't you care about people who are physically weak? Why would you take away their ability to defend themselves?

"Another absurdity: using a gun for home or personal defense. "

Utterly false. Millions of people every year use guns to stop attackers. Usually the gun is never even fired, but just brandished to frighten away the attacker, but sometimes the attacker is shot.

http://www.claytoncramer.com/gundefenseblog/2005_10_01_archive.html

[SuperChargerHeaven]

Do you have a reference for the "millions" you say defend their homes with a gun? That seems like a staggering number to me. Is that justification for the hundreds of thousands of deaths and maimings due to accidents?

[EmilyU]

Filled with mistakes.

Pepper spray often will just make an attacker angry.

While training is a darn good idea, it is not necessary to train constantly.

Martial arts training is what requires a lot of training to employ effectively.

It is extremely rare for a defensive firearm to be taken away and used against the defender.

[ainuke]

There are varying grades of pepper spray, delivered as either a stream or a fog-like spray. The higher concentrations most definitely incapacitate a grown man. Make him angry? Sure. And in need of a hankie.

Using a firearm for self defense requires: identifying an emerging dangerous situation, identifyin­g/prioriti­zing threats, finding/drawing your weapon from it's holster, deactivating the safety, aiming, hitting what you aim at, re-assessing situation for continued threat/action. All done in the adrenaline-spiked chaos of the fight-or-flight response. Any hesitation, fumbling, or lack of confidence in the seconds it takes your assailant to close with you decrease the chances of your success exponentially. There is no substitute for training in defensive theory/tactics, marksmanship, repetition of the draw/safety/fire sequence. Practice in these areas helps you (but don't guarantee that you'll) keep your cool in a situation.

For the purposes of self-defense, very little instruction is actually needed to discourage­/evade/inc­apacitate an assailant. Even aside from defense-specific courses offered at community centers, most martial arts students are at their most dangerous at the beginning of their training, before they've learned judgment and control (or been taught "you don't hit someone *there*, you'll be disqualified). It's not necessary to become Jason Bourne to evade and escape an assailant.

"It is extremely rare for a defensive firearm to be taken away and used against the defender."
And impossible if you're not carrying one. ;)

Peace

[molonlabe]

If the strength of an argument was solely measured by the degree of emotionalism and unsubstantiated talking points, ainuke would be the orator of the century.

But since we live and debate in a world other than ainuke's fantasy land, we should point out that statistically speaking, guns are used in self defense anywhere up to 2.5 million times per year (depending on the study), thus, completely invalidating ainuke's argument.

But by all means, continue. It was entertaining.

[ainuke]

"guns are used in self defense anywhere up to 2.5 million times per year (depending on the study)"

I've seen in the responses to my post numbers ranging from 100,000 to 3 million. Quite the spread. As I replied to another response, statistics can be made to conform to just about anything you have the patience to research. The Brady numbers seem to repudiate your view and support mine. I'm not claiming they're any more accurate than yours, just that we can go around and around in circles believing in whatever numbers we want, and ultimately not get any satisfaction.

The fantasy land I live in has me with 25+ yrs involvement with martial arts, uncounted thousands of rounds fired through my Mini-14 and other sundry rifles and handguns, and living in some less-than-desirable neighborhoods. I've never had to defend myself by any means. You're welcome to visit any time you want.

Peace

[Ohio9]

From a Department of Justice Study:

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/hvfsdaft.txt

"On average in 1987-92 about 83,000 crime victims per year used a
firearm to defend themselves or their property."

"A fifth of the victims defending themselves with a firearm
suffered an injury, compared to almost half of those who defended
themselves with weapons other than a firearm or who had no weapon. "

Far from being likely to injure yourself if you use a firearm for self defense, it's actually the SAFEST defense method with the least likely chance of injury.

If you think you could fight off multiple armed criminals with pepper spray or martial arts, by all means go right ahead. But don't delude yourself into believing the anti-gun propaganda that firearms are not good for self defense. The fact of the matter is that they are the best self defense tools in the world.

Also, you make it seem like you have to chose between guns and learning martial arts, In reality, there is nothing to stop you from picking both options.

[ainuke]

Also in the quoted study:

"Care should be used in interpreting these data because many aspects
of crimes--including victim and offender characteristics, crime
circumstances, and offender intent--contribute to the victims'
injury outcomes."

"Because the NCVS collects victimization data
on police officers, its estimates of the use of firearms for
self-defense are likely to include police use of firearms."

Statistics can be made to say just about anything you have the patience to research. I could point you to the numbers the Brady Center uses to justify its agenda, but we both know that would be fruitless.

I have nothing against anyone carrying a firearm, so long as they're responsible about it and don't go shooting it in public.

My point about choosing martial arts over a firearm is that if you're going to invest time in training, why not in something that you don't have to put in the glove box when you go into a school, post office, etc.

[Thirdpower]

Selectively cited numbers are the Brady Campaigns best defense. Here are real facts:

Illinois election results, by the numbers: Pt 2

In comparison to the ISRA:

The Brady Campaign endorsed a total of 22 people for the IL House and Senate. 17 and 5 respectively . They won all 5 in the Senate (100%) and 12 out of 17 in the House (70.6%)

The ISRA endorsed 68 candidates and had 21 'preferred' for the IL House and Senate. 17 in the Senate and 51 in the House endorsed. 7 and 14 preferred.

For endorsed candidates, all 17 won in the Senate (100%) and 50 won in the House (98%)

For preferred candidates, it was 6 and 12 respectively (85.7% each).

Now the head to head results:

There were zero Senate races w/ endorsements by both the BC and ISRA. Of 'preferred', there was one with a Brady endorsed candidate win.

Of House endorsements, there were three races w/ BC/ISRA endorsements. Two were ISRA wins and one Brady win. 2:1 for the ISRA.

Of House 'preferred', there were also three races. Same results as endorsed candidates. 2:1 .

The ISRA had a 2:1 success ratio against the Brady Campaign in head to head elections. 5:3 if you include 'preferred' candidates.

Broken down :

ISRA vs BC (preferred candidates)

IL Senate (0:1)
IL House 2:1 (2:1)

How did they 'win' again?

[ainuke]

Unfortunately, the government (regardless of party) is notoriously bad at writing "common sense" legislation. Prime example is the Assault Weapons Ban. It regulates military-"style" guns. The absurdity of it all is that the average "assault weapon" under the ban is functionally indistinguishable from the average hunting rifle (semi-automatic, magazine fed, high velocity ammunition), the differences are cosmetic (pistol grip, flash suppressor) or capabilities that are unused (unless gang-bangers are running around with bayonets or grenade launchers mounted on their AK-47s). True assault weapons (selective automatic/­semi-autom­atic fire) ARE ALREADY tightly regulated by the Federal government and their presence on the streets is virtually non-existent.

I would also point out that of the 100,000 killed or wounded by gunfire, as the article quotes, the OVERWHELMING percentage of incidents were a criminal action, or the result of one. That's the annoying thing about criminals: their total lack of respect for the law. Why expect them to obey ones pertaining to guns?

If you want to have a profound effect on public safety, enforce speed limits and driving laws!!
And just in case I get labeled as a right-wing nut case, let me just clarify by saying that I'm actually a left-wing nut case. :)

Peace

[NonLeftist]

Whatever kind of nutcase you are, you are my kind of nutcase! Enforce the laws already on the books. Criminals don't care what you ban or restrict. They ignore the law.

[BlackJAC]

Apparently normal and sane gun owners have woken up to the fact that the NRA is now the haven of Sean-Bean-in-RONIN types who were perpetually bullied and teased by classmates and teachers alike throughout their childhood. Why else would they want to bring MP-5s into day care centers just because?

[Thirdpower]

And your evidence for this is?

Or are ignorant stereotypes your standard?

[BlackJAC]

I cite the simple existence of the American Hunters & Shooters and Wayne LaPierre's refusal to debate their leader on the subject as hard evidence.
I cite the NRA's own online enemies' list, which includes the AARP and assorted teachers', police, and medical professionals' associations, as hard evidence.
I cite the fact that Tom Clancy, a gun-owning Republican, let his own NRA membership lapse as hard evidence.
I cite the fact that the state supreme courts of red states have overturned every single law allowing people to bring guns onto other people's private property without the landowners' permission as hard evidence.
I cite my own visit to NRA HQ back around 1989, and all the staffers at the time were quite polite and civilized, as hard evidence.
I cite the fact that people who grew up poor downplay that part of their lives as much as possible as hard evidence.
I cite the fact that the official biographies of the principal NRA leadership have them hitting the books rather than the weight room as hard evidence.

Save the politically correct self-righteousness for talk radio.

[EmilyU]

Horse manure

[BlackJAC]

Prove me wrong.

[JulieSA]

Bringing MP-5s into daycare centers is not an NRA position. Where did you get that notion?

[Thirdpower]

Deliberate ignorance.

[BlackJAC]

Apparently sarcasm and satire aren't part of the homeschooling curriculum. It doesn't change the fact that I have never felt the need to enter a business armed like Wayne LaPierre wants to be able to do.

[Sneaky]

How familiar are you with Israeli firearms policies?

[Denmark2]

With so many big issues out there, this can be allowed to rest peacefully at the status quo. During the second term, Obama should strategically appoint a heavy duty NRA supporter and a Brady Center oficial to come up with a new sensible set of regulations. If they do, all the old regulations can be taken off and this modern "bipartisanship" based law can be on the books. The NRA talks about gun safety etc., so I am going to assume they will come to the table. Otherwise, it will expose them for being a fringe group with an agenda unrelated to the 2nd Amendment.

P.S. I have no problem with gun ownership because banning them will only drive it underground and make things much much worse; sort of like the drug laws and its cost and failure.

[EmilyU]

"With so many big issues out there, this can be allowed to rest peacefully at the status quo. "

Then how do you explain the fact that his support of the Assault Weapon Ban was prominently displayed on his campaign websites?

"Obama should strategically appoint a heavy duty NRA supporter and a Brady Center oficial to come up with a new sensible set of regulations. If they do, all the old regulations can be taken off and this modern "bipartisanship" based law can be on the books."

What ever it is you are taking, I want to see the doctor's prescription.

[Phearsclave]

This is rather like proposing to appoint Fred Phelps to a panel tasked to come up with a new sensible set of rules on gay marriage, or appointing Dick Cheney to a detainees' rights commission...