Showing posts with label GunControl. Show all posts
Showing posts with label GunControl. Show all posts
Saturday, September 7, 2013
Tuesday, August 27, 2013
In March, I wrote an op-ed about how the common theme in Democrats push for gun control is to impose taxes on purchases or transfers of guns. Who do you think that such taxes primarily prevent from obtaining guns? The poor, and since a greater percentage of blacks are poor, these taxes primarily tend to disarm poor blacks.
Just in case that push to disarm poor blacks wasn't obvious to everyone, a new bill to tax guns and ammunition is being pushed by two Democrats in the House.
Just in case that push to disarm poor blacks wasn't obvious to everyone, a new bill to tax guns and ammunition is being pushed by two Democrats in the House.
A pair of Democratic lawmakers are proposing steep new taxes on handguns and ammunition, and tying the revenues to programs aimed at preventing gun violence.Called the “Gun Violence Prevention and Safe Communities Act," the bill sponsored by William Pascrell, D-N.J., and Danny Davis, D-Ill., would nearly double the current 11 percent tax on handguns, while raising the levy on bullets and cartridges from 11 percent to 50 percent. . . .Why do Democrats so fear poor law-abiding blacks from having guns? The taxes don't stop poor criminals from getting guns because they aren't going to be the ones paying these taxes.
Sunday, August 25, 2013
So much for the open discussion of ideas. Los Angeles City College apparently is planning banning the word "gun" from course catalogs.
The word “gun” conjures up a mental image of a gun. Guns kill people. Conclusion: the word must be banned from the college catalog for Los Angeles City College, the immense tax-funded community college with multiple campuses.
The NRA teaches a course on gun safety. That course is now banned.
There will be no guns on campus, except in theatrical productions.
If a book has the word gun in it, the book is not subject to the ban, but no mention of it must appear in the catalog. Otherwise, it would give the wrong idea.
Scott Svonkin, the Vice President of the Board of Trustees, introduced the ban. He explained his position. The school must not teach students how to use guns. The faculty must promote gun control.
“We should make sure that students don’t come to campus being afraid to run into somebody with a gun.” . . .The motivation for the ban is summed up here.
“A course on gun safety is a real threat,” he said. “I believe that the NRA’s goal is to promote gun ownership, and that guns lead to deaths. So, not having the NRA teach classes, not having the NRA classes on our campuses, is a good thing.” . . .Here was an example of something from 2009.
. . . Jonathan Lopez, who is working on his associate of arts degree at Los Angeles City College, quoted a dictionary definition of marriage as the union of a man and a woman and cited several Bible verses during a public speaking class in late November, his suit says. His professor, John Matteson, interrupted, called Lopez a "fascist bastard" and refused to let him finish his address, according to the suit.
The professor also refused to give Lopez a grade for the speech, telling him to "ask God" for his mark, the suit alleges. And when Lopez complained to college officials, Matteson threatened to have him expelled, the suit says. . . .
Friday, August 23, 2013
From Quinnipiac University:
. . . All voters oppose 54 - 40 percent the stricter new gun control laws which led to the recall effort. Democrats support the stricter laws 78 - 16 percent, while opposition is 89 - 7 percent among Republicans and 56 - 39 percent among independent voters. Women are divided on the stricter laws 48 - 45 percent, with men opposed 64 - 33 percent.
"With wide partisan and gender divisions, Colorado voters oppose the state's stricter new gun control laws, but they don't want to recall State Senate President John Morse or Sen. Angela Giron because they supported these laws," said Tim Malloy, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute. "Philosophically, voters don't want a recall election every time they disagree with a legislator. They'd rather deal with it every four years." . . .There is some disconnect between the individual parts of the gun laws and the overall feelings that people have to the new laws. Could it be that while they support background checks in principle, the fees for transfers aren't popular?
Colorado voters support 82 - 16 percent requiring background checks for all gun buyers. Support is strong among all groups. | |
Voters are divided 49 - 48 percent on a ban on the sale of high-capacity ammunition magazines that hold more than 15 rounds. | |
Colorado's new gun laws will make the state less safe, 40 percent of voters say, while 37 percent say the state will be safer and 16 percent say the laws won't make a difference. | |
Background checks and a limit on magazines could not have prevented the Columbine or Aurora mass killings, voters say 68 - 25 percent, and could not have reduced the number of people killed in those shootings, voters say 56 - 40 percent. . . . |
Wednesday, August 21, 2013
If you are unfamiliar with Ann's blog, she often has very insightful posts. Here she discusses the use of almost any incident to push more more gun control.
Tuesday, August 13, 2013
Here is the advice that the PR company hired by Mayors Against Illegal Guns. The bottom line is to take advantage of tragedies when they occur. Here are some quotes from their "playbook."
P. 40: The debate over gun violence in America is periodically punctuated by high-profile gun violence incidents, including Columbine, Virginia Tech, Tucson, the Trayvon Martin killing, Aurora, and Oak Creek. When an incident such as these attracts sustained media attention, it creates a unique climate for our communications efforts.The purpose of this section of our guide is to present some advice about how to make sure our communications are powerful, impactful and appropriate to these unique circumstances.We believe that the following nine guideposts should be helpful both when we encounter high-profile incidents that attract national attention – and when a similar dynamic occurs in a local community.
p. 40: #1: Don't hesitate to speak out
There can be a tendency to adopt a quiet “wait and see” attitude when a high-profile gun violence incident happens. The truth is, the most powerful time to communicate is when concern and emotions are running at their peak. While we always want to be respectful of the situation, a self-imposed period of silence is never necessary.
p. 41: #3: Don't assume the facts -- and don't wait for them.
Experience tells us that the specific facts of a high-profile gun incident are revealed over time. If we jump to conclusions about those details, we could find ourselves at odds with reality as events unfold.So, the smartest thing to do is avoid linking our message and arguments to any one set of partially-revealed facts. We shouldn’t assume the facts.But, we also shouldn’t argue ourselves into inaction while we await clarity about details.The clearest course is to advance our core message about preventing gun violence independent of facts that may shift on us over time. (“While we don’t know the specifics of this tragedy, we know far too many people are killed by weak gun laws in this country.”) Of course, once a fact is clearly established, it makes sense to rely on it to advance your case.
MY NOTE: BUT DESPITE THE LACK OF FACTS THEY ARE STILL SUPPOSED TO LINK THE CRIME TO GUN CONTROL ISSUES AND USE IT TO PUSH FOR GUN CONTROL PROPOSALS.
P. 42: #4: Ask hard questions.
One way to link our arguments to an event without being trapped by shifting circumstances is to ask questions – ones that point to approaches and policies that we favor, but that resonate with special emotional power at the time of a high-profile shooting.Where did the gun come from? Did the shooter have to undergo a background check before he got the gun? Did the shooter have a permit for the gun? Did the shooter own more than one gun? Did he have high capacity ammunition magazines with him? How many rounds did he have on him? Did the shooter have to observe any kind of waiting period before he got his hands on the guns? Or did he get them right away no questions asked?
p. 44: #8: Don't let policy speak drain the emotion from the moment.
There is often a compelling case to be made for immediate action, pivoting from the emotion of a high-profile incident to calls for legislative action or specific policy changes. Those who seek to make that pivot have to be careful not to drain the emotional power out of the moment.An emotionally-driven conversation about what can be done to prevent incidents such as the one at hand is engaging. A dry conversation about legislative process and policy is far less engaging.Choice of language, constantly connecting the policy to how it impacts people’s lives, and avoiding being dragged into the nuances of specific policy prescriptions are all critical here.
Sunday, August 11, 2013
From the San Jose Mercury News:
Public Safety Committee will hear bills already passed by the state Senate that would ban all semi-automatic rifles with detachable magazines, make it a crime to leave a gun unlocked when you're out of the house and require those who own high-capacity magazines to get rid of them.
And while a few bills -- such as a 10 percent tax on ammunition and a ban on using lead ammunition for hunting -- now seem less likely to advance, many others are waiting to be heard in coming weeks. So gun control will be at the fore even as lawmakers grapple with about 1,000 bills on such subjects as health care reform, fracking and environmental regulations.
"We're going to be open to amendments and suggestions from the administration and the Assembly, but we think we've hit the sweet spot in a lot of these areas," state Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg told this newspaper. . . .
Thursday, August 8, 2013
From Rasmussen:
Americans are evenly divided on whether the United States needs tougher gun control laws, but most still agree that existing laws need to be more strictly enforced.
Forty-six percent (46%) of U.S. Adults believe the United States needs stricter gun control laws, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey. But just as many (46%) say the country does not need stricter gun laws. (To see survey question wording, click here.) . . .
Wednesday, August 7, 2013
Apparently Bloomberg's Mayors Against Illegal Guns playbook has been discovered. From the Washington Examiner:
Newly uncovered Democratic anti-NRA talking points urge anti-gun advocates and politicians to hype high-profile gun incidents like the Florida slaying of Trayvon Martin to win support for new gun control laws. In talking points likely followed by top Democratic leaders including President Obama after the Sandy Hook Elementary School shootings in December, the anti-gun "guide" urged gun foes to speak out when a shooting "creates a unique climate" to shout down the National Rifle Association.
"The most powerful time to communicate is when concern and emotions are running at their peak," said the 80-page document titled "Preventing Gun Violence Through Effective Messaging," and produced by three Democratic firms led by the polling and research outfit Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research. . . .It is chilling how they want to use tragedies when the emotions are most raw to push their gun control program.
"The debate over gun violence in America is periodically punctuated by high-profile gun violence incidents including Columbine, Virginia Tech, Tucson, the Trayvon Martin killing, Aurora, and Oak Creek. When an incident such as these attracts sustained media attention, it creates a unique climate for our communications efforts," said the guide.
"A high-profile gun violence incident temporarily draws more people into the conversation about gun violence," added the talking points. "We should rely on emotionally powerful language, feelings and images to bring home the terrible impact of gun violence," said the guide, which also urged advocates use images of scary looking guns and shooting scenes to make their point. . . .
Thursday, August 1, 2013
As if New Jersey doesn't already have enough gun control laws, they apparently haven't had trouble coming up with even more proposals.
A3687: Bans those on the federal terrorist watch list from buying guns
S2468: Allows impounding motor vehicles if driver unlawfully has a gun
A3717: Requires state to submit data on those who should be barred from owning guns to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System
A3796: Gives those who possess illegal guns 180 days to dispose of them
A3797: Requires New Jersey enforcement agencies to report information on lost, stolen and discarded guns to federal databases
A3583/1613: Establishes School Security Task Force
A3788: Turns state regulation that firearms owner info is not public information into a state law
A3659: Bans the .50-caliber rifle — the most powerful weapon available to civilians
S1279: Upgrades penalty for unlawfully transferring a firearm to an underage person; permits transfer for instruction and training
S2430: Declares violence a public health crisis and establishes "Study Commission on Violence"
S2715: Requires Department of Education to prepare and distribute pamphlets on how parents can limit a child’s exposure to media violence
S2719: Enhances penalties for gun trafficking firearms offenses
S2720: Clarifies that information concerning the total number of firearms purchaser identification cards and permits to purchase a handgun issued in a municipality are public records
S2804: Makes unlawful possession of firearms a first-degree crime; increases mandatory minimum sentences under the "Graves Act"
S2723: Senate President Stephen Sweeney’s "centerpiece" bill on gun permits that would would encode firearm purchase permits on a driver's license or a photo ID card, create a system for instant background checks, require gun buyers to show they completed a safety training course and stiffen penalties for letting guns slip into the hands of minors. Four bills passed by the Assembly (A3510, A1683, A3645 and A3748) have been incorporated into this bill
Sunday, July 21, 2013
Jay R. Lassiter discusses his extraordinary experience in trying to buy BB guns for a nephew and niece. The piece (available here) is well worth reading. It contains everything from him not even being allowed to look at BB guns until he has obtained a license to the bizarre licensing process itself. While the piece mentions the delays in getting the license, the one point that I would have emphasized would be the impact of the delay on people's ability to get a gun for self defense.
Saturday, July 13, 2013
From Fox News:
Missouri schools will be encouraged to teach first-graders a gun safety course sponsored by the National Rifle Association as a result of legislation signed Friday by Gov. Jay Nixon.
The new law stops short of requiring schools to teach the Eddie Eagle Gunsafe Program. But by putting it in state law, Missouri is providing one of the stronger state-sanctioned endorsements of the NRA-sponsored firearms safety course, which the group says is taught to about 1 million children annually.
The legislation also requires school personnel to participate in an “active shooter and intruder” drill led by law enforcement officers. . . . .
Tuesday, July 2, 2013
With Gabrielle Giffords and her husband Mark Kelly doing their gun control tour this week, it is hard to miss that they have a hard task ahead of them. The latest Gallup survey shows that the issue of gun control no longer makes the top 15 list -- as late as April gun control was at number 9, though that was still only an important issue to 4 percent of Americans.
Thursday, June 20, 2013
I have often complained to the media after these mass shootings that the number of people "killed" includes the killers themselves. To me, it had always implied a very disturbing equivalency between the victims and the killers. From Fox News:
A gun control group that sought to raise awareness to their cause at a New Hampshire rally by reading off the names of 4,500 people killed by firearms since the Connecticut school shootings drew jeers when they included the name of Boston Marathon bomber Tamerlan Tsarnaev, according to a report.
Supporters of New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s Mayors Against Illegal Guns movement held the rally on Tuesday, in Concord. And while it is true that Tsarnaev was shot by police -- and then run over by his fleeing brother -- during a gun battle four days after carrying out the deadly terror attack, several in attendance questioned including him as a "victim" of gun violence, according to the New Hampshire Union Leader.
“He's a terrorist,” several gun rights protesters in attendance shouted, according to the paper. . . .In addition, they also include suicides in their inflated numbers. Is a suicide, where people would find some other way to commit suicide, the same as a murder? Is it really that necessary to inflate their numbers?
Saturday, June 8, 2013
What are the odds that an actress who is a strong Obama supporter would say: “anyone who comes for my guns will be shot in the face”? I would think that the odds of that would be close to zero. Given how much media coverage was given to Bloomberg over this threatening letter, where is the media coverage pointing out that the person who made this threat was an Obama supporter and unlikely to be pro-gun? Note that this nutty Obama supporter also sent a letter to Obama. From the New York Post on June 1st:
Guess, caring for her kids as authorities combed through her house, ripped her husband yesterday.
“He’s racist and hates Obama. Everyone knows that,” she said. . . .
Wednesday, June 5, 2013
The Pew Research Center has an interesting poll from May (it was similar to the another Pew poll from April). Another poll by Gallup shows that there is not a lot of interest in gun control generally. This is consistent with another poll that showed that most Americans would prefer that the Senate move on to issues other than gun control.
New York's sheriffs join the sheriffs in Colorado in opposing their new state laws. From MPNnow.com:
After the passage in January of tougher gun restrictions in New York, sheriffs across the state have joined a federal lawsuit challenging the legislation “to reinforce the sheriffs’ position that portions of the (legislation) need to be changed and have a potentially negative impact on law-abiding citizens,” said Ontario County Sheriff Philip Povero.
The New York State Sheriffs' Association and five individual sheriffs have added their position to the record in the lawsuit filed by the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association regarding the New York Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement (SAFE) Act of 2013. . . . .
Friday, May 31, 2013
My newest piece starts this way:
Gun control, an already difficult task, just got even more difficult.
The 3D printing revolution is well under way. This wonderful new technology will allow small companies and even individuals to manufacture a wide range of items, such as medical devices that fit each individual’s unique size and shape.
However, it is increasingly obvious that guns and gun parts can be made, even including entire assault weapons.
Unfortunately, the initial regulatory proposals will likely increase crime. As usual, new technology is hard to stop, and the Department of Homeland Security last week declared: "Limiting access [to 3D-printing to make guns] may be impossible."
Until now the stumbling block has been to design a gun that would be sturdy enough, something that can withstand the explosion when a bullet is shot down the barrel. In other words, you don’t want the gun to go off like a grenade in your hands instead of hitting the target. . . .
I just don't see why anyone would think that it is appropriate to go political, let alone heavy handed political, in a commencement speech. One is presumably supposed to give a talk about life's lessons. Yet, Oprah seemed to think her role at a commencement speech at Harvard was to give a political speech. The fact that she doesn't know what she is talking about almost seems besides the point.
Oprah Winfrey fired some political shots during a commencement speech at Harvard University on Thursday. . . .A discussion on the problems with background checks is here and a discussion on the political support for them is here. At least if one is going to go heavily political at a university, one hopes that the speaker has something deep to say, not warmed over generalities.
Winfrey went on to address gun control, arguing that “the vast majority of people in this country believe in stronger background checks.”
“Because they realize that we can uphold the Second Amendment and also reduce that violence that is robbing us of our children,” she said, referencing the Sandy Hook shooting last year. . . .
Moving on to immigration, the talk show host endorsed “a clear path to citizenship for the 12 million undocumented immigrants who reside in this country.” . . .
Wednesday, May 29, 2013
From the UK Telegraph, the proposal getting the most votes is:
Repeal the ban on hand guns and re-open shooting clubs, proposed by Colliemum. They write: "After all, why should only criminals be 'allowed' to possess guns and shoot unarmed, defenceless citizens and police officers?"Obviously, this isn't a scientific poll, but the fact that a whooping 83% of those participating preferred this proposal to any of the other ones. The proposal with the next highest support was a "flat tax."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)