Laws governing the psychotic/homicidal in gun purchases are a sick joke

Bloomberg News: Let’s say your mental landscape is similar to that of Colby Sue Weathers back in 2012: suicidal, homicidal, paranoid, schizophrenic. Oh, and with a drug and alcohol problem. You are too disabled by mental illness — schizophrenia was diagnosed in 2011 — and recurring hospitalizations to work. You are not great about maintaining your psychotropic drug regimen, which you administer inconsistently and sometimes to woozy excess. And you have an occasional hankering, occasionally satisfied, to consume a fifth of liquor. In other words, your life is utterly out of control.

One trouble you probably don’t have — provided you live in the U.S. — is gaining access to a lethal firearm. Thanks in part to the advocacy of the National Rifle Association and other gun-rights groups, and in part to the commitment of elected representatives in Congress and statehouses, you can buy a gun and kill someone, yourself included, almost entirely free of obstacles. In many cases, you can do so completely legally. Because in practice, the U.S. gun market generally does not discriminate against a wide array of pre-existing conditions, including madness.

There are no thorough background checks to determine whether you are mentally unhinged and a danger to yourself or others. No waiting periods to give the evil voices echoing inside your head time to decamp. No opportunities for family or friends or public safety officials to intervene in the firearm transaction. No meaningful commercial distinctions made between a skilled hunter eager for the approach of deer season and a dangerous psychotic with visions of blood.

I’m going to go ahead and point out something I’ve pointed out before, but perhaps no for a while: that guns in the hands of violent people is the best marketing campaign for guns as self-protection in existence. If you’re a firearms manufacturer/seller and you’re not particularly inclined to give a fuck — i.e., anyone making or selling mankiller assault weapons — you want monsters prowling the streets heavily armed. Not because you’re all that interested in selling to said monsters (they are just a few people), but because you’re interested in selling to people afraid of the monsters. Gun sales skyrocket after every mass shooting, so if you’re a marketer with a somewhat Randian/Libertarian/psychotic bent, you spend a lot of time hoping for mass shootings.

Gun manufacturers and the blood lobby don’t fight common sense laws regulating gun safety because they think they won’t work, they do it because they’re afraid they will. Because if gun laws really work (and they do), then the death merchants lose their best marketing gimmick — the dangerous armed criminal If it comes to a choice between you dying or their favorite boogeyman dying, then so long you.

It’s nothing personal, mind you, it’s just the way gun sellers do business.

[photo by Patrick Feller]

'An armed society is a polite society'

Nick Anderson, Houston Chronicle.

Cold Dead Hands

Lee Judge, Kansas City Star.

Parallel lines

Steve Sack, Minneapolis Star Tribune.

One way to get on the NRA's 'enemies list'

Apparently the NRA keeps an enemies list of “anti-gun” organizations and public figures, and of the 37 journalists named on it, 14 are editorial cartoonists. As a cartoonist and an American, I find this news deeply disturbing. I am getting on that fucking list.
-Cartoonist Tim Kreider

Colorado rescue mission

[via USA Today]

Prior to shooting, Navy Yard gunman broke no federal gun laws

Associated Press: The gunman in the mass shootings at the Washington Navy Yard, Aaron Alexis, had a history of violent outbursts, was at least twice accused of firing guns in anger and was in the early stages of treatment for serious mental problems, according to court records and U.S. law enforcement officials.

But Alexis apparently managed to exploit seams in the nation’s patchwork of complicated gun laws designed to keep weapons out of the hands of dangerous people. He was able to buy a shotgun in Virginia with out-of-state identification, even though that would have prevented him from buying a handgun.

It is illegal for gun dealers to sell handguns to such out-of-state buyers, but the Firearms Owners’ Protection Act, passed by Congress in 1986, opened up interstate sales for shotguns and rifles. Virginia gun laws require only that an out-of-state buyer show valid identification, pass a background check and otherwise abide by state laws in order to buy a shotgun in the state. Alexis was never prosecuted for the two misdemeanors involving guns.

Alexis bought the shotgun at Sharpshooters Small Arms Range in Lorton, Va. on Saturday, according to a statement from the attorney for the gun range.

But hey, no reason to tighten up any gun regulations, right? I mean, just because they don’t actually work is no reason to fly off the handle and do anything rash. Why, here in Wisconsin, Republicans are working on loosening up the very law that put a shotgun in the hands of a dangerously unstable individual, because why the hell not? What’s the worst that could happen?

Besides, if we stop being so soft on crime, it’ll cut into gun sales — and that would be a real tragedy.

The Republican Party: endorsed by unhinged mass murderers and the NRA. But I repeat myself.

[photo by AppleDave]

Who has America’s largest gun registry? The NRA

BuzzFeed: The National Rifle Association has rallied gun-owners — and raised tens of millions of dollars — campaigning against the threat of a national database of firearms or their owners.

But in fact, the sort of vast, secret database the NRA often warns of already exists, despite having been assembled largely without the knowledge or consent of gun owners. It is housed in the Virginia offices of the NRA itself. The country’s largest privately held database of current, former, and prospective gun owners is one of the powerful lobby’s secret weapons, expanding its influence well beyond its estimated 3 million members and bolstering its political supremacy.

That database has been built through years of acquiring gun permit registration lists from state and county offices, gathering names of new owners from the thousands of gun-safety classes taught by NRA-certified instructors and by buying lists of attendees of gun shows, subscribers to gun magazines and more, BuzzFeed has learned.

The result: a Big Data powerhouse that deploys the same high-tech tactics all year round that the vaunted Obama campaign used to win two presidential elections.

The first thing that jumps out at you is, of course, the hypocrisy. But the second is just how easy it is to create this kind of database without the consent or participation of gun owners. The idea that background checks are the foot in the door of a gun registry that could be used by government to track down gun owners and confiscate their weapons is obvious BS — and the NRA knows it. After all, government has access to all the info the NRA has. In fact, the NRA got a sizable chunk of that information from the government, presumably through open-records requests.

If the government really wanted to put together a gun registry, they could just do what the NRA did — and they could probably do it better. Part of the problem with the whole “background checks are a gun registry” conspiracy theory is that it could only be true if firearms transactions are done in secret. But they aren’t. They’re done in public, with a paper trail long enough to catch the attention of marketers like the NRA.

No, the NRA’s problem with background checks is that it means people would be denied gun and ammo purchases. The NRA represents an industry as soulless and cruel as Big Tobacco. They don’t give a damn who they sell guns to, they just want to sell guns. If some guy uses the gun he bought to rob a liquor store, well maybe that means they can sell a gun to the liquor store owner, too. For an industry that markets protection, armed criminals are the best marketing tools in the world.

The idea that the National Rifle Association gives anything remotely resembling a fuck about gun owners is a side-splitting, knee-slapping, cruel joke. And the people who fall for their BS are just colossal patsies and paranoid loons.

And the NRA has a big database of all of them, so they can keep feeding them the same stupid BS.

[photo by ZORIN DENU]

NRA’s completely dishonest defense of ‘stand your ground’ laws

ThinkProgress: The National Rifle Association has been silent since a jury acquitted George Zimmerman Saturday in the fatal shooting of Trayvon Martin. But it didn’t take long for the gun lobbying group to weigh in once Attorney General Eric Holder blasted the notorious NRA-backed Stand Your Ground laws that gained national attention in the aftermath of Martin’s death.

In an address to the NAACP national convention Tuesday, Holder criticized state Stand Your Ground laws for causing more violence than they prevent, and potentially empowering individuals to become vigilantes. “By allowing and perhaps encouraging violent situations to escalate in public, such laws undermine public safety,” he said. In response, NRA Institute for Legislative Action executive director Chris Cox elevated the controversial state provision to a “human right,” calling Holder’s opposition “unconscionable.”

The attorney general fails to understand that self-defense is not a concept, it’s a fundamental human right. To send a message that legitimate self-defense is to blame is unconscionable, and demonstrates once again that this administration will exploit tragedies to push their political agenda.

The NRA’s opposition to Holder’s statement is unsurprising. In partnership with the American Legislative Exchange Council, the NRA was behind the drafting and dissemination of these laws, ushered through legislatures in at least 22 states over the course of just a few years.

See what they’re doing here? They’re trying to trick you into thinking that the only reason self-defense is legal is because of these idiotic “shoot first" laws. “Stand Your Ground laws clearly go above and beyond a minimal self-defense guarantee, by authorizing not just the use of force, but the use of deadly force, without any duty to first attempt to retreat or mitigate the situation," the report goes on. “These provisions also authorize that use of force when one fears death, as well as severe bodily harm or even a forcible felony."

If we did away with Stand Your Ground today — and federal legislation could do exactly that, read your Constitution — self-defense would still be a valid legal defense in a court of law. Any right to defend yourself is totally independent of Stand Your Ground laws and anyone who says different is a liar.

Yet another lawmaker tries to hide his support of anti-background check filibuster

Steve Benen: In competitive states, we’re seeing two kinds of politicians: those who support new measures intended to reduce gun violence and those who pretend to support new measures intended to reduce gun violence.

In New Hampshire, Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R), shortly after voting to kill the bipartisan bill to expand background checks, benefited from new ads claiming she voted for “a bipartisan plan to make background checks more effective.” In Arizona, Sen. Jeff Flake (R), who voted the way the NRA demanded last month, this month is telling anyone who’ll listen how much he loves “to strengthen background checks.”

And in Nevada, as Jon Ralston noted today, Sen. Dean Heller (R) is sending out interesting correspondence to his constituents.

“Knowing your interest in gun control, I wanted to give you an update on legislation I have cosponsored and supported recently.”

Imagine how Nevadans felt when they received a letter that began that way from none other than Sen. Dean Heller, who voted against the Manchin-Toomey bill, saying he feared a creation of a gun registry despite his general support for the concepts in the measure. He was hailed by NRA types and blistered by gun control advocates.

I wonder how many folks who received that missive fell for the having-it-both-ways Heller approach.

Probably quite a few. That’s the point — politicians who do unpopular things have to cynically hope they can mislead voters, not by explicitly lying, but by taking advantage of public confusion over details.

It’s yet another sign that voting to do the NRA’s bidding is not something you proclaim proudly to the world, but something you can only survive through chicanery. All of these politicians have no interest in defending their votes — obviously because they’ve come to see their vote as indefensible. Instead, they’ll try to confuse voters into believing they did vote in favor of expanding background checks, when in reality they voted to sustain the filibuster against it. In fact, Ayotte’s helpful ad came from the NRA — meaning not even they are willing to stand by their own position on the issue. The vote was political poison.

This all might work now, but a good opponent would see the opening here a mile away. If Heller or Ayotte or Flake, etc., are so terrified of their own vote that they’d go to such lengths to hide them, then an election opponent would be a fool not to drag that vote out in the open and expose the lie.

And this is why common sense gun regulation will win in the end. The fact that these people feel they have to hide their votes proves we’re already winning in public opinion and that those who stand against us do so at their own electoral peril.

NRA loves Christie’s ridiculous non-plan to deal with gun violence

Talking Points Memo: Campaign finance reports filed this week by New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) show he has collected $3,000 in donations since March from a lobbyist with the National Rifle Association.

The latest of those reports became public Monday, just as Christie’s Democratic opponent in the Garden State governor’s race, state Sen. Barbara Buono, has been hitting him for having a weak stance on gun control.

“We’ve seen really exceptional leadership across the river with Gov. Cuomo and Mayor Bloomberg, but unfortunately, in New Jersey, Gov. Christie has not shown leadership,” Buono told TPM by phone on Monday evening.

“Her criticism has centered on a task force Christie launched in January to address violence following the school shooting in Newtown, Conn.,” the report goes on. “Buono has repeatedly described the recommendations issued by that commission as ‘shallow’ and accused Christie of using it to avoid the issue of gun control immediately after the shooting.”

“Shallow” works, but “a joke” would be good too. “He set up this commission right after Newtown. I’m not sure why he set up the commission considering Vice President Biden had already set up a commission,” said Buono. “It really appeared as though it was a delay tactic to delay and put it off hoping that people would calm down after the latest tragedy.”

The commission’s recommendations: criminalize the video games like “Call of Duty,” as well as mental illness. There’s even a call to ban the Barrett .50 caliber rifle — not because it’s been a problem in New Jersey, but because it’s featured in “Call of Duty.” The NRA is apparently cool with this ban, I suppose because it helps lay the blame for gun violence in America on video games and not the deep saturation of guns in our population.

Meanwhile, the state legislature is expected to pass legislation ignoring the panel’s recommendations and instead expanding background checks. That legislation may not have a bright future and this might explain why the NRA is shoring up Christie early — a veto of background checks legislation is pretty much the same as voting against it. Ask Kelly Ayotte how that sort of thing plays in the northeast these days.

Gun lobby, Ayotte clearly feeling the heat

Greg Sargent: A bit of a dispute has broken out over just how much pressure Kelly Ayotte is feeling over her vote against the Manchin-Toomey compromise to expand background checks. The gun control forces have organized to pressure her at town hall meetings and on the air, but conservative media have argued that the pressure on her from the left has been exaggerated.

It’s interesting, then, that the major efforts to defend Ayotte by gun rights groups and fellow Republicans tend to emphasize her supposed support for background checks. That seems like a pretty good sign of which way the political winds are blowing on the issue.

Here, for instance, is a new ad that Marco Rubio’s Reclaim America PAC is running in New Hampshire. It says this: “Safety. Security. Family. No one understands these things like a mom. Ayotte voted to fix background checks, strengthen mental health screenings and more resources to prosecute criminals using guns.”…

That message echoes a recent NRA ad that thanks Ayotte for her vote, but also says: “Kelly Ayotte voted for a bipartisan plan to make background checks more effective.” Ayotte herself recently defended her vote on the same grounds that she supports.

It’s hard not to notice that the thrust of these defenses center on Ayotte’s support for background checks, and not her opposition to expanding them.

In other words, the message here is “Kelly Ayotte? Voted against background checks? Why, you must be thinking of someone else!” They aren’t even trying to defend her vote. Instead, they’re trying to cloud the issue with bullshit. According to Sargent, what they’re pointing to is not the background check bill that was nearly universally popular, but instead “an alternative proposal, sponsored by Chuck Grassley, that would have beefed up state sharing of mental health data with the feds, without extending the background check to private sales via commercial portals on the internet and at gun shows.” So, not really a vote about background checks at all.

Sargent reports that “gun control groups believe the Grassley approach would actually undermine the overall background check system” and that voting for Grassley’s idea wouldn’t have prevented her from voting for voting for the background check expansion. They were separate issues, not competing proposals. In the end, Ayotte voted against expanding background checks and any other story isn’t even spin — it’s a lie.

But Rubio and the NRA know they’ve got the losing argument here, so they aren’t bothering to defend it. Rather, they’re just plain lying about Ayotte’s record to make it seem like she voted for gun control. This is so not going the way they’d hoped.

[photo by M Bergman]

5 year-old kills 2 year-old sister with gun ‘ideally sized for children four to ten years old’

ThinkProgress: On Wednesday, a five-year-old Kentucky boy accidentally shot and killed his two-year-old sister with a gun he’d been given as a birthday present. The weapon, a small rifle, was manufactured specifically for children’s use.

The boy’s weapon was a “My First Rifle” .22-caliber gun from Keystone Sporting Arms’ youth branch, Crickett. Crickett’s website markets itself “especially for youth shooters.” The firearms come in several neon colors, and the website even has a “kids corner” featuring pictures of small children with guns…

Crickett does not manufacture bullets. The company offers books for “Grades 2-3 and up,” and says their guns are “ideally sized for children four to ten years old.”

Yeah, this is real and there’s no shortage of morons who think this is “responsible gun ownership.” Teach the kids about guns early, the reasoning goes, and they’ll be safer gun owners. This same reasoning would put a five year-old behind the wheel of an SUV or in the cockpit of a plane.

Unfortunately, companies like Crickett can get away with selling these things to extremely stupid people because gun manufacturers are immune from liability lawsuits and no consumer safety laws apply to them. Why? Because the NRA, that’s why. They don’t give a fuck if some kid shoots his baby sister with a dayglo kid-gun. They’re just happy someone was stupid enough to buy the bullet.

Again, this is what the NRA and all the gun freaks out there believe is the very best America can do when it comes to firearm regulations. This is the very best way to deal with guns — to not deal with them at all. Look at those photos; some of those kids are basically babies and mom and dad stuck a gun in their hand because they’re that fucking stupid and because the gun culture promoted by the NRA and the Republican Party led them to believe that it was OK.

Do we need laws to protect people from themselves? Yes. And even more importantly, we need to protect children from their braindead, gun-happy parents. This is not the best we can do.

And fuck you if you think it is.

What makes a conspiracy theory too goofy even for the NRA?

Talking Points Memo: Republican lawmakers are pushing legislation aimed at combating a threat to gun rights that even the National Rifle Association has described as pure fiction.

A bill introduced late last week by Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) and Rep. Frank Lucas (R-OK) would ban federal agencies, excluding the Pentagon, from buying more ammunition during a six-month period if it currently possesses more than its monthly averages during the Bush administration.

The conspiracy theory that incubated the bill is that the Obama administration is trying to buy up bullets so ordinary Americans have less access to them in the marketplace.

“President Obama has been adamant about curbing law-abiding Americans’ access and opportunities to exercise their Second Amendment rights,” Inhofe said in a statement. “One way the Obama Administration is able to do this is by limiting what’s available in the market with federal agencies purchasing unnecessary stockpiles of ammunition.”

Only it’s false — as no less a pro-gun organization than the NRA declared last year.

Last fall, the NRA issued a statement saying the claim was being pushed in an “Internet rumor mill” and was designed to “stir up fear.” The “more incendiary authors,” the group said, “suggest that these government agencies are preparing for a war with the American people.”

Wait a minute, this should be right up the NRA’s alley; government conspiracy, stockpiling ammo, a big coming something or other requiring some Second Amendment Heroes standing up to a suddenly oppressive government… This thing’s got NRA crackpottery written all over it.

Except for one thing: the NRA doesn’t represent gun owners and it doesn’t protect anyone’s rights. It exists for one reason: to sell guns and ammo. If federal agencies were suddenly buying a whole bunch more ammo, the reaction at NRA headquarters wouldn’t be “OMG THE END IS NEAR!” The reaction would be to pop the champagne cork. If the background check vote proved anything, it’s that the NRA does not care where firearms manufacturers’ profits come from — police, criminal, or in between.

Unfortunately for the NRA, they’re right and the whole story is bullshit. But they never climbed on this myth’s bandwagon because they don’t want to encourage people in thinking that it would be wrong for the government to suddenly and drastically increase their consumption of ammunition. An increase in sales is an increase in sales — and that’s what the NRA is all about.

NRA: Soft on crime and hoping you'll forget

Adam Zyglis, Buffalo News.

New York Times editorial board tears NRA’s Senate stooges a new one

New York Times: For 45 senators, the carnage at Sandy Hook Elementary School is a forgotten tragedy. The toll of 270 Americans who are shot every day is not a problem requiring action. The easy access to guns on the Internet, and the inevitability of the next massacre, is not worth preventing.

Those senators, 41 Republicans and four Democrats, killed a bill on Wednesday to expand background checks for gun buyers. It was the last, best hope for meaningful legislation to reduce gun violence after a deranged man used semiautomatic weapons to kill 20 children and six adults at the school in Newtown, Conn., 18 weeks ago. A ban on assault weapons was voted down by 60 senators; 54 voted against a limit on bullet magazines.

[…]

Newtown, in the end, changed nothing; the overwhelming national consensus to tighten a ridiculously lax set of gun laws was stopped cold. That’s because the only thing that mattered to these lawmakers was a blind and unthinking fealty to the whims of the gun lobby.

The Times goes on to cite an article they published detailing how ridiculously easy it is to buy a gun online and how those unchecked purchases have resulted in violence. The idea that we can’t possibly do anything about this, the argument that the bloody, brutal, stupid status quo represents the very best that we’re capable of, is damning indictment of the gun lobby, their pet politicians, and the paranoid cowards who fetishize firearms and fantasize that every slightest regulation is an attempt to strip them of their sex toys Patriotic Tyrant Eradicators.

“It’s now up to voters to exact a political price from those who defied the public’s demand, and Mr. Obama was forceful in promising to lead that effort,” they write, “Wednesday was just Round 1, he said; the next step is to replace those whose loyalty is given to a lobby rather than the people.”

[photo by Elvert Barnes]

Boston bombing illustrates how the NRA and Congress hamstring law enforcement

MSNBC: One avenue of investigation is already closed off to forensic officials working the Boston Marathon bombing case due to efforts dating back decades by the National Rifle Association and gun manufacturers.

The FBI said Tuesday that gunpowder, along with pieces of metal and ball bearings, were packed into at least one pressure cooker and another device to make the crude bombs that killed three people—including an 8-year-old boy—and wounded more than 170 more during the Boston Marathon Monday.

But a crucial piece of evidence called a taggant that could be used to trace the gunpowder used in the bombs to a buyer at a point of sale is not available to investigators.

“If you had a good taggant this would be a good thing for this kind of crime. It could help identify the point of manufacturer, and chain of custody,” Bob Morhard, an explosives consultant and chief executive officer of  Zukovich, Morhard & Wade, LLC., in Pennsylvania, who has traced explosives and detonators in use in the United States and Saudi Arabia, told MSNBC.com. “The problem is nobody wants to know what the material is.”

Explosives manufacturers are required to place tracing elements known as identification taggants only in plastic explosives but not in gunpowder, thanks to lobbying efforts by the NRA and large gun manufacturing groups.

According to the report, the NRA did not respond to a request for comment.

Turns out the reason for this is predictably stupid; gunpowder manufacturers don’t want to risk liability lawsuits. If you don’t know where the gunpowder came from, you don’t know who to sue. For manufacturers, this ignorance is bliss. The NRA “has twice deployed its lobbyists to block the mandated use of identification taggants by gunpowder manufacturers.”

Once again, we see the NRA more concerned with protecting the interests of arms dealers than the safety of the American people. If there’s a buck to be made off bloodletting, the NRA is there to make sure you can make it.

[photo by Asitimes]

Wayne LaPierre v. Wayne LaPierre

Steve Benson, Creators Syndicate.

You know how background checks were supposed to be dead?

ThinkProgress: A bipartisan duo of senators with A ratings from the National Rifle Associated have reached a deal to expand background checks to private gun purchases that occur in commercial settings.

Sens. Joe Manchin (D-WV) and Pat Toomey (R-PA) will announce the details of the plan during a press conference Wednesday morning. Currently, only federally licensed gun dealers are required to conduct background screenings.

Under the Manchin-Toomey agreement, background checks will occur for sales conducted at gun shows, online, and through public advertisements with full record keeping, which advocates see as essential for enforcement and tracing crime guns. Friend-to-friend and family sales will be exempt from the requirement.

And while the plan stops short of the far more expansive background check provision offered by Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) — that measure would have extended background checks to all gun sales outside of close family transfers — the new agreement builds momentum for reform and may come as a blow to the 14 conservatives who have pledged to block debate of any new gun regulations.

And what about those 14 blood lobby puppets who’ve vowed to filibuster any gun regulation — how’s that going?

Talking Points Memo: Numerous Republicans said Tuesday they won’t vote to block gun control legislation from reaching the floor, making Senate Democrats increasingly optimistic that they’ll have the necessary votes to begin debating their bill, even though final passage remains uncertain.

Early in the day, Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-GA) told CBS he won’t filibuster the bill.

In the Capitol, Sens. John McCain (R-AZ) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) reaffirmed that they’ll vote to begin debate on the bill. Sen. Tom Coburn told TPM he’ll also vote for the motion to proceed to debate. Sens. Kelly Ayotte (R-NH), Dean Heller (R-NV) and Susan Collins (R-ME) similarly told reporters they won’t filibuster debate on the legislation.

“I do not understand — it’s incomprehensible to me that we would not move forward with debate and amendments on an issue this important to the American people,” said McCain.

“My hope is that we can have a full and open debate with amendments, and if that occurs then I will certainly vote to proceed,” said Collins.

So long story short, that filibuster’s over with before it ever began. The vote on the legislation could still go either way — I haven’t seen a whip count yet — but the fact that supporters of common sense gun regulation have gotten this far has got to worry the NRA. As I keep saying, we don’t have to win every battle, we just have to keep fighting.

Low-Capacity Magazine

Jim Morin, Miami Herald.