What did Arizona Republicans learn from the events in Tucson more than a week ago?
What did Arizona Republicans learn from the events in Tucson more than a week ago? That more guns are the answer. Lawmakers in the state legislature that brought you such goodies as the “papers, please” law, the elimination of multicultural studies in schools across the state, and the right to carry guns in bars and concealed without a permit – are at it again.
Republicans plan to introduce laws during this session that will: allow individuals to carry firearms on college campuses – allow the display of gun for purposes of self-defense (whatever that means), and prevent homeowners and landlords from forbidding people residing on their properties the “right to bear arms”. Of course – an expansion of gun rights has been widely proven to not increase safety.
The National Research Council published a study in 2004 that showed states with Right-to-Carry laws saw absolutely no decline in violence. In fact – a study published last year by Stanford Law School found that states with Right-to-Carry laws may actually seen an increase in aggravated assault cases. But these numbers – and the horrific consequences of easy access to guns – don’t seem to bother the GOP in their effort to have guns outnumber people in this country. After all - why let any crisis go to waste for their gun lobby friends, right?
Remember that Arizona rancher who was shot last summer, and how it lead to heated debate on the issue of "illegal" immigration? What was even more significant about the murder of Robert Krentz was the timing of it. Obama was notching one legislative victory after another, and with the passage of health care reform, right wing pundits and Republican law makers were actively inciting acts of violence against Democratic lawmakers.
When the press reported on Krentz's murder, the official story was that someone had crossed the border at Mexico, walked 20 miles to his ranch, killed him, and then walked 20 miles back over into Mexico. Here' the problem I have with that story. When Krentz's body was found, he was found slumped over in his ATV, with the motor running. Does anyone else see anything wrong with that official explanation? I have found an interesting website page that lends some support to my own suspicians. http://www.aztlan.net/minutemen_will_kill_again.htm
Have you heard anyone – ANYONE – express surprise that this recent national tragedy occurred in Arizona? Stay tuned...
Those of us originally from California will never forget November 27, 1978, when Dianne Feinstein, President of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, announced that Mayor George Moscone and Supervisor Harvey Milk had been assassinated by former Supervisor Dan White. Allowing people to go wherever they want packing heat will inevitably cause trouble of the worst sort. If we do not learn the lessons of the Tucson Massacre, there will inevitably be another such tragedy and the only question will not be if, but when, it will happen.
*sigh* It doesn't matter.
Jurisdictions which had prohibited concealed carry have changed over to permitting it. Net change in gun crimes? Zero.
Jurisdictions which had permitted concealed carry have changed over to prohibiting it. Net change in gun crimes? Zero.
"Why let any crisis go to waste?" That question could be equally well asked of both sides when it comes to "gun control".
The only people it matters to are the interest groups on both the left and the right that use each other as demons to gin up more contributions from their followers. It's a general waste of time for everybody else.
What they should have learned was that why. Why the push for CCW liberalization in the eighties, why people who normally would not own a gun are applying for CCWs. Fear. First Lady Roosevelt and some of the other freedom riders who packed really did have their life in danger, but someone who never leaves the suburbs? I remember when liberal Vermont was the only state where it was easy to carry concealed. When I was a kid in Wyoming, if you walked around with a holstered pistol, people would laugh at you. It was perfectly legal, but not done. From 1887 until they jumped on the liberalization band wagon in 1995, it was almost impossible for a Wyomingite to get a CCW for even a knife or sword cane (given the crime rate in my birth state, what would the point of getting one?)
One thing I noticed, and maybe Thom's brother and Ed Shultz have noticed the same thing, if you went to a gun show back before Regan the Sierra Club, National Wildlife Federation etc all had booths because they were geared for outdoors people. The only military stuff there was if a collector showed up with a couple of antique Thompsons. Thirty round magazines for a pistol? Would never sell, the free market had it banned. Then Reagan’s war on education and the middle class came along. I started to see John Muir being replaced by John Birch and crazy people pretending they were army rangers.
..."states with Right-to-Carry laws may actually seen an increase in aggravated assault cases."
Poor grammar aside, this statement is void of any substantial...anything. Do you know what a "Right to Carry law" is, or is it being used here as a general catch-all? "May" have seen? What does that mean?
Fact: States with more lenient gun laws (i.e. those that have the fewest restrictions on Second Amendment rights) have less violent crime per capita. These are not hard statistics to look up. Compare Idaho, Alaska, Montana and Vermont (to name a few) per capita statistics to those of Illinois, New York, New Jersey and California. See what numbers you come up with.
In response to "garyej"....wow. I don't even know where to begin. "The free market had it banned" is, to put it mildly, an intellectually hollow argument. And devoid of any rational thought. Thirty round magazines (the catchphrase of the week, I guess) have been available for decades. Now they are more prevalent. Kinda like personal computers. Technology does that. Get used to it.
On this issue, I think you're full of beans. when a burglar knows he might face an armed resident, he's less likely to try to burglarise a particular home. Also, go look at what happend in Kennesaw. The crime rate went DOWN after they made it law that all residents had to have a gun and ammunition that fit it. I am a Blue-Steel Democrat. I am fully in favor of everyone who isn't a nut to have a self defence weapon. you should be for all the amendments, including the second. it's what made Tojo discount the idea of assaulting the mainland of the USA. he said: A RIfle behind every blade of grass.
We should take that to heart, Thom.
Gun Laws need to be revised
Guns are every bit as lethal if not more so, than cars and trucks. In order to own and operate a vehicle in the US one needs to have registration for the vehicle and an operators license - of course the laws vary by state but every state has this requirement. No such laws exist for owning or operating a gun. It is about time that we required both registration and an operators permit for gun owners, if not at the state level, certainly at the national level.
There should be a minimum age for acquiring a gun and there should be a required test to prove that the owner knows how to clean and operate a gun safely. There should be a complete background check on every individual and all states need to update the national database of persons who are mentally ill or suspected of being mentally ill.
More guns, less guns, it's basically the same issue - a divide and conquer strategy that keeps people fighting with each other and not paying attention to what is being done to them. Try this:
But the laws aren't set up to weed out "everyone who isn't a nut" and there you have the fundamental flaw in your simplistic solution. When everyone can get a gun everyone becomes a target to the whims, inclinations & varying degrees of sociopathology lurking within each person whose finger is on the trigger. But let's do it – arm us all. We'll end up with a million WalMart warriors who get their basic training on YouTube mixed in with a few truly well trained professionals. Following your solution, Winterbeastie, the scenario In Tucson perhaps might have been different with fewer rounds fired by one deranged individual but likely resulting nonetheless, with as many, or more, people hurt, killed or maimed in the crossfire of all those amateur gun toters defending their rights to listen to their favorite politician in a public forum. That's not a world I want to consider.
9/11 Baby of Hope killed at age 9 in 2011. Bad, bad sign.
Thom, I believe that showing a weapon for self-defense is the same as the formerly criminal act of "brandishing" a weapon.
Look at the reaction to the murders and attempted murders in Arizona because of a young Neo-Con Manchurian Candidate who yielded the trigger. We have how many Manchurian Candidates in phony trumped up move the goal post occupations in Iraq and Afghanistan? Troops and mercenaries involved in the collateral damage justified by the fact that in America we view our lives as exceptional over other lives removed far away from view. The presidents speech was great and heartfelt in regards to this horrible act acted out for the media circus to floss its teeth with. Where is the outrage to the drone attracts making us and our world less stable. The president has authorized more drone attacks in his first nine months in office that King George Bush did in his entire stent as war chief and war crimes expert. Iraq has 50,000 troops and maybe 70,000 contractors, Afghanistan has about 150.000 troops as many contractors maybe. It is obvious who runs the show, the military they even make policy, hell they take 70% of our tax money. Gun nuts most of them and a good majority are Neo-Con American Jesus Republican Police State Lovers of Freedom....what a joke! Or is it just MIND CONTROL....! Where is the pain and loss as described in the wiki-leaks. Innocent children and people buy ten times being snuffed by our weapons of death.
Is Palin continuing to use stochastic terrorism?
"We never ever, ever intended it to be gun sights...It's a surveyor's symbol" --Rebecca Mansour, an aide to former Alaska governor Sarah Palin. This was the initial response on the ads targeting Rep Gilffords' district. But, in her recent interview with Hannity, Palin admitted that the symbols were indeed crosshairs. Did she go back to the crosshairs reference as a wink to her most "extremist" followers?
What did Arizona Republicans learn from the events in Tucson more than a week ago? Not a blessed thing!
"In 2004, the National Academy of Sciences reviewed 253 journal articles, 99 books and 43 government publications evaluating 80 gun-control measures. Researchers could not identify a single regulation that reduced violent crime, suicide or accidents. A year earlier, the Centers for Disease Control reported on ammunition bans, restrictions on acquisition, waiting periods, registration, licensing, child access prevention and zero tolerance laws. CDC's conclusion: There was no conclusive evidence that the laws reduced gun violence."
Facts are fun.
There are so many other ways people get murder everyday without guns! I can name many > The fingers are always pointed at the average people? Meanwhile everyday thousands vanish nobody notices. Their are cover ups. (Money exchanges, kept secret ) Change laws to suite the crime. If we only had laws in this country perhaps things would clear up and the laws should apply for everyone. The writing are on the wall. Its a crying shame !
On the extream left , they want firerarms banned, On the extream right they want to arm themselves and take the guns away from the crazys, crazys being liberals. Overstated but generaly speaking ----------. JMHO
Pilots can carry fireams too.