Where's Wayne?
Tonight in New York City, I'll be participating in a gun control debate hosted by Intelligence Squared, in partnership with National Public Radio.
I'll be joining Prof. John Donohue of Yale University and Seattle Police Chief Gil Kerlikowske to argue one side of the issue, while Prof. Gary Kleck of Florida State University, attorney Stephen Halbrook, and John Lott of the University of Maryland will argue the other side.
Notable by his absence, however, will be National Rifle Association Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre. Mr. LaPierre was expected to join us in this debate, but he backed out unexpectedly.
This is unfortunate. One week before the most significant election of our lifetime -- an election in which the NRA promises to spend $40 million across the country to defeat Sen. Barack Obama and other candidates who favor common sense gun laws -- we will be discussing the need for effective ways to prevent gun violence in America.
Mr. LaPierre could have used tonight's forum to explain why NRA opposes laws that help keep dangerous weapons from dangerous people, and why his organization tries to undermine candidates who support those common sense policies. Sadly, this is not to be.
For the record, however, it is worth noting that Mr. LaPierre's absence from tonight's debate fits into a pattern of NRA behavior.
Rather than confront their opponents face-to-face, we learned from reports this summer that the NRA hired a spy to infiltrate the gun control movement and collect information on gun violence victims and their families for over 10 years. When Mr. LaPierre was asked to explain these dishonorable tactics for the first time on national television last week, he ducked the question completely.
And now, rather than engage the voters in honest terms, NRA leaders are spending millions of dollars in false attacks against Sen. Obama on television ads and direct mail that CNN, Congressional Quarterly, The Washington Post, and FactCheck.org have called "misleading," "a huge stretch," "intentionally dishonest," "pants on fire wrong" and which "distort Obama's position on gun control beyond recognition."
The American people are seeing through the NRA's false attacks. Since the Supreme Court declared an individual right to own a gun for self defense in the home, NRA's campaign of division has fallen flat. Sen. Obama has said consistently that he believes in an individual Second Amendment right to own a gun with reasonable restrictions to protect public safety, and his message of finding a middle ground to solve America's problems has resonated across the country.
I'm looking forward to a vigorous discussion at tonight's debate about the need for common sense gun laws to protect our families and communities. The debate should be available online at a later time, and will likely be broadcast on NPR in the near future.
We will post it to www.bradycampaign.org/blog as soon as it becomes available.
(Note to readers: This entry, along with past entries, has been co-posted on bradycampaign.org/blog and the Huffington Post.)
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
"We don’t argue for gun bans.." - Paul Helmke from the debate transcript
Yet, the issue they get on the cross the most for is an assault weapons ban. They also supported the DC gun ban, the Chicago ban, and pretty much every other ban around the country.
"I’ve got no problems with folks owning guns for hunting, for collecting, for self-defen
What if I want to hunt with a Remington VTR, collect semi-automatic AK-clones, or defend my home with a 9mm AR based pistol? Apparently, Paul has a problem with me.
"And I think if you get that commonsense approach and realize we got gun bans off the table..." - Paul Helmke
Yet you keep pushing for new gun bans and support existing gun bans.
"That means I think some restrictions on these large-capacity clips, restrictions on machine guns, doing the background checks, limiting the number of guns you can buy at one time..."
Restricting large capacity "clips" will accomplish nothing. There are millions upon millions of them in distribution. Even if you managed to ban and confiscate all of them, people will just steal them from the police and military or make their own and sell them on the black market.
Obviously, machine guns are already highly restricted. Background checks are done (even at gun shows most of the time). Limiting the number of guns one can buy is pointless. Straw purchasers will just find another source.
"We don"t argue for gun bans.." - Paul Helmke from the debate transcript
But then in Paul's summation he says:
"The way to reduce crime is to do things like.... Say that some guns should not be in the hands of the civilian population
Well, according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, the word "BAN" is defined as:
"to prohibit especially by legal means" and "to prohibit the use, performance, or distribution of"
So Paul you don't support "gun bans", you just think that there are are some classes of weapons that the legislation should "prohibit the use and distribution of", right?
I thought it was very telling that NO ONE tried to rationally defend the BC's proposal to outlaw protruding rifle handgrips and adjustable rifle stocks.
It appears that someone did try to bring in the "AK-47" red herring, but it was quickly pointed out that real AK-47's are already tightly controlled by Federal law and always have been.
In regards to the DC handgun ban, Donohue stated:
You could still have a shotgun in your home. So if you needed to be protected in your home…
Deliberately avoiding the fact that that shotgun needed to be stored disabled w/ ammunition separate. For being a professor, he sure uses ad hominem's quite freely.
Paul and his allies conveniently forgot the ban on functional firearms in the home for self defense in DC.
All kidding aside, I would be remiss if I didn't say that for the anti side, it seemed like R. Gil Kerlikowske did have his stuff together. Helmke and Donohue just rambled about "emotional stuff", threw out some statistics which were easily refuted, and regurgitated some talking points. I though Lott could have been more aggressive. But the one who impressed me most was Gary Kleck.
Oh, and yeah...her
RESULTS
Before the debate:
For the motion: 13%
Against the motion: 60%
Undecided: 27%
After the debate:
For the motion: 27%
Against the motion: 63%
Undecided: 10%
Paul will undoubtedly use his "Overwhelming Majority(tm)" mantra for years to come, but look at the changes in opinion; almost all of the previously undecided went to the "for motion" side. Truly indicative of how the debate went, when you exclude those who already had preconceived notions.
Sorry, I meant Donohue had his stuff together. Kerlikowske is the police chief who really didn't add anything but opinion.
Sorry, I meant Donohue had his stuff together. Kerlikowske is the police chief who really didn't add anything but opinion.
Direct quote from the transcripts:
"Before the debate, 13 percent were for the
motion, 60 percent were against, and 27 percent were undecided.
After the debate, there was movement on all fronts but it looks as
though the motion— the side for the motion moved more of you.
27 percent agree with the motion that guns reduce crime, 64
percent of you disagree, and now only 10 percent of you are
undecided.
edge to those for the motion in terms of moving and changing
minds." (p 85)
Funny, a 14% pt gain for the "For the motion" side (us) and a 3% pt gain for the "Against the motion" side (Paul and the BC) is considered "a close call." But, at least the acknowledge our side victory "in terms of moving and changing minds."
"People don’t realize how weak our gun laws are in this
country. We basically allow almost anyone to get any kind of a
gun." -Paul Helmke
No comment needed for that gem.
"I'm not anti-gun. I’ve got my
NRA pro-marksmanship badge from when I was in sixth grade." -Paul Helmke
Yeah, and I'm not against eating glue-paste, I ate some when I was in 3rd grade.
Bwahahahah
"I do wonder a little bit about Justice Roberts’s comments
that he wasn’t, you know, he wanted to be able to shoot his gun
but he needed to turn on the light and put on his reading glasses
before that, and that’s the example Steve just gave and I thought
gee, if the Chief Justice needs to put on his glasses and turn the
light on before he can shoot maybe, he shouldn’t be shooting,
but— -Paul Helmke
I guess self defense is only a right granted to those with 20/20 vision, and in the daylight hours??
For those who haven't had a chance to read the transcripts, I'll provide a couple of telling quotes and exchanges:
JOHN LOTT
Is it true or is it not true that every regression, every estimate
that they had on right-to-carry and murder showed a drop. Is
there one estimate they showed that it didn't fall?
JOHN DONOHUE
Yeah—
JOHN LOTT
Statistically—
JOHN DONOHUE
Yeah, there are some, not— maybe not statistically significant,
but— [LAUGHTER] But, the bottom line, John, is, as the panel
suggested, the elephant in the room was crack cocaine. The
states that did not pass the right-to-carry laws were states that
had a big problem with crack cocaine which had an enormous
influence in running up crime.
Gotta say, I never heard the "crack cocaine" argument to discredit CCW statistics before. The audience even got a chuckle out of that one.
As a bit of a researcher myself (B.S. in Psychology and in Physics) I particularly like the admission that the studies/me
2nd posting--I read the transcripts to the debate and the gun control/ban brigade lost.
Link:
http://www
Paul Helmke also shows that his stories change with the telling. On Fox, he stated:
I also took away a deep respect for how dangerous guns were.
Yet in the debate he states:
Not only had I had the experience, when I was a teenager, of seeing a
friend get a bullet in the back because of the all too common
incident of, we found a gun, we didn't know it was loaded,
So he had so much 'respect' for how dangerous guns were that he played w/ one he found, not knowing if it was loaded or not.
Right.
The link must be down? I can't find the transcripts page.
Paul thinks 'city people' can't control themselves:
"If you're in the bayous of Louisiana, or the plains of Montana, a gun can be your defense against predators. When the police are far away, you may feel strongly about needing a gun for self-defense. And if someone says we should restrict guns, you worry.
But in urban areas like Philadelphia or South Central Los Angeles or even my home town in Indiana, guns may be best known for injuring young people as a result of gang violence, or police officers at a traffic stop or domestic quarrel. But when you say "we need to controls the weapons available on the streets," other Americans misinterpret you as wanting to limit their rights."
Paul, it might come as a shock to you that people in 'urban areas' also might 'feel strongly about needing a gun for self-defense' against that gang-violence or violent domestic. You want to lump them in the same category as the criminals and insane. You want to pass laws that effect not only 'city people', but everyone else as well.
Howabout we try and control the criminals that are on the streets?
"we need to controls the weapons available on the streets," other Americans misinterpret you as wanting to limit their rights."
How else should that interpreted, Paul? Laws only affect the law abiding and as such, you gun controls only limit the weapons available to law abiding.
Gun "controls":
1. One gun per month - hurts gun collectors when they find multiple "good deals" during a month
2. Assault Weapons Bans - hurts the law abiding that wants to own such weapons
3. No CCW - hurts law abiding that want to defend themselves against law breakers
4. "Gun free zones" - forces law abiding to be helpless victims to those that don't obey laws
5. Limitation of caliber size - again, hurts the law abiding that want to own such weapons
need I go on?
Paul ... it seems that every time you or others write or speak about regulations or violence prevention, it hits a raw nerve with this particular progun crowd (I know ... no real surprises there ... LOL). But locking up criminals ~ which is what is already universally accepted (so to speak) & which our country already is spending resources doing ~ is the only measure (& a 'reactive' one at that, I would argue) that they agree with ... though on a related note, when it comes to felons, they certainly don't all agree on whether or not these former inmates should/shouldn't be allowed to own guns post-convi
What hits a nerve is the dishonesty and deception that he and the BC have to use to push their agenda.
Yep, because misogyny and age discrimination are the perfect ways to prevent violence according to the Brady Campaign.
Kelli--you have already made it clear that you oppose keeping violent felons locked up and you would rather endanger law abiding citizens by preventing effective self defense by the same law abiding people and letting still violent felons out of prison early.
I think there is near-universal agreement that violent felons should forfeit their right to own guns (which is of course already reflected under current Federal law ).
I personally don't think writing a bad check 25 years ago should disqualify someone from owning a gun now, if they have committed no other crimes, so I think there should be a process for NON-violent felons to have their rights restored once they have paid their debt to society.
What hits a raw nerve, IMO, aren't so much the bona fide proposals to address criminal violence (the point-of-sale background check for purchase is an example). It is when criminal violence is used as an excuse to advance harsh restrictions on lawful and responsible gun owners, particularly when such restrictions have nothing to do with criminal violence.
Fighting to outlaw rifle handgrips that stick out, adjustable rifle stocks, etc., fall into the latter category.
I am with BenEzra--violent felons should be imprisoned for a long time and disarmed permanently with significant jail time for being caught with a gun. If the felony is nonviolent (whatever variation of fraud it happens to be), I am less opposed to restoration of rights (a Michael Milken or the guy with ZZZZBest should do their jail time--but they are far less dangerous to other people's lives than is a Charles Manson,
"Corruption trial begins for 'America's sheriff' [Hyperlink to article is below.]
". . . Prosecutors say many of those bribes came from Don Haidl, a wealthy businessman.
"In exchange, authorities say, [Orange County, CA Sheriff Michael Carona] made Haidl an assistant sheriff and put him in charge of a new reserve deputy program that allowed him to hand out badges and CONCEALED WEAPONS PERMITS in a pay-to-play scheme. . . ." [Capitalization added for emphasis.]
This is why the issuing of CCW permits should be taken out of the realm of "discretion" and put into the realm of a state's codified laws ("shall-issue"). I wonder how many of Haidl's buddies who received a CCW would not have qualified under objective "shall-issue" criteria regarding background checks and training? Which alternative is common sense(TM) in making Californians safer: handing out CCW's as party favors in a system of "discretionary" issue, or issuing of CCW's only to those who meet background check and training requirements under a codified shall-issue system?
http://new
Paul idea of "common sense(TM)" guns laws to make anywhere safer is to not allow CCW at all to anyone.
It is a good thing for Paul's agenda that all criminals in America will "turn over a new leaf" and obey the law preventing them from having a firearm, even as they break every other law in the book.
The kind of 'dangerous criminal' Paul wants to see stopped from owning firearms:
Delaware State Police stopped Alvina Vansickle from purchasing a .22-caliber pistol for self-defense because she was too old and a woman, said Superintendent Col. Thomas MacLeish.
Without so much as a traffic ticket, the 81-year-old Lewes resident should have sailed through the mandatory state police background check when she tried to buy a Taurus revolver from Charlie Steele's Lewes gun shop last August.
Problems started after Steele made the required phone call to state police for approval of the firearms transaction.
An employee in the state police Firearms Transaction Approval Program noticed Vansickle's age and gender, and brought the sale to an immediate halt.
http://www
So is age discrimination and misogyny exceptable reasons to stop a legal purchase?
Paul? Kelli?
I don't see any problem.
A. Vansickle wasn't an LEO and
B. Vansickle wasn't a celebrity.
What reason could she possibly have had to want to acquire a firearm??
Because she's an American? Free? Of age? She wants one? She needs no other reason under the Constitution!
Semper fi
Also, Vansickle is a WOMAN. Didn't you know that when a woman buys a gun, a red flag should automatically be raised?
This, According to Bob Ricker of the AHSA. Yes, THAT AHSA:
''There needs to be more pressure put on the gun industry," he said. Referring to one of the ways convicted felons fraudulently get their hands on guns, he said, ''Clerks in gun stores need more training. If a 21-year-old woman comes in and wants to buy 10 .44-caliber Magnum handguns, a red flag should go up."
http://www
Obviously he's never met Tam, Roberta, or Breda.
(3rd attempt)
Obviously this 'woman' is a potential criminal trying to exploit the "elderly female loophole" to obtain a death machine. This loophole must be closed... for the children.
What do you get when you pit a politician, a professor of economics, and a police chief who quotes from refuted studies against a professor of criminology and research, a professor of research in a variety of fields, and a practicing lawyer with a PhD in political philosophy?
How amusing that you wanted to use a forum for honest debate to pick apart "NRA motives", motives obviously in error because, by your own admission, they do not agree with yours.
Mr. Paul Helmke, you might've outdone yourself this time. I eagerly await Intelligence Squared to post this particular debate online. I have a feeling I'll enjoy it greatly.
Remember folks, Kelli believes that LEO and rich celebrities are the Only Ones(tm) who should be allowed to possess firearms because of their extensive training and high profile status....
"A newlywed killed by police after he stepped outside his home to confront suspected burglars was shot in a case of mistaken identity, police said.
Julian Alexander died after being shot twice in the chest by a police officer who was chasing four burglary suspects early Tuesday morning.
Police Chief John Welter said the officer ran into Alexander, mistook him for one of the four juvenile suspects and shot him."
http://new
I'm not being critical of the police officer, no one can comment on the events leading to a split-second decision during the course of their job. But this situation simply shows that using the "Only Ones(tm)" argument is completely bogus.
As is most of Kelli's arguments.
Speaking of Kelli and LEOs. She also wants to see police officers who recommend to private citizens that they consider a firearm to defend themselves until the police can arrive be fired for making such recommendations.
This is directly relevant to the incident she raised involving the murder of Jennifer Hudson's family. The death of Hudson's family was the result of domestic violence. I have little doubt that we will find a history of violence and threats before this incident.
Back in the early days of the Brady Blog, a police officer was addressing the subject of people living in fear of violence. He said that when the police are needed, they will respond as quick as they can, but far too often their quickest just isn't fast enough. He continued to say that he recommends to people in fear of violence that they consider legally obtaining a firearm to protect themselves until police car arrive to assist them.
Kelli's response to this police officer was a post saying that she hoped his superiors read his post(s) and fired him. Apparently, Kelli doesn't seem to care if people die because they are not allowed to legally defend themselves, if defending themselves involves a firearm.
Kelli has always seemed to advocate to protect the lives of criminals over the lives of the victims. I don't know about the rest of you, but I am a lot more upset when the victim gets shot than when the criminal get hurt/shot (in fact, I have no problem with a criminal getting hurt by a victim protecting him/herself).
(3rd posting attempt)
"Rather than confront their opponents face-to-fa
How many times, Paul, did you come into the Brady Blog comments sections to confront our factual claims and answer our questions to you? The answer is: Not once. Instead, you said we were the one's unwilling to engage in "reasoned discourse" and turned off comments to the blog, all together. Since then, you have even removed all of those past comments that you avoided (good thing we archived them). So much for "confronting your own opponents face-to-face," right Paul? I guess having to silence challenges to your side's position rather than answer these challenges says a lot for the (lack of) strength and validity of your position.
Then again, the BC/HCI people have never been very good at coming up with reasonable and common sense solutions to gun violence--
You claim that you only wish to keep dangerous weapons from dangerous people. Why, then, are you so concerned about the guns owned by people like me?
Even the AHSA, which you have endorsed many times, has recently acknowledged that the obsession with outlawing "assault weapons" was a mistake, and that the real issue should be keeping guns out of criminal hands, rather than keeping modern-looking ones out of the hands of the law-abiding.
Because Kelli has made it abundantly clear that law abiding Americans with guns than violent felons with guns.
My bad--that should have read that law abiding citizens with guns are more dangerous than violent felons
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
