Recently, Conservatives have been making broad accusations that the Occupy Wall Street movement is “anti-Semitic,” despite no real evidence to indicate this is true. Understandably, many of the Occupy protesters—including Jewish ones—are outraged. To them, I can only say, “I know how you feel.”
I’ve worked in the gun violence prevention field now for 11 years. In September of last year, I published a blog at Waging Nonviolence that debunked an argument that has become fashionable in right wing circles—namely, that gun control is “racist.” Not long ago, you would have had to search the darkest recesses of the pro-gun movement to find anyone making this claim. But following the Supreme Court’s split ruling in McDonald v. Chicago—in which the Citizens United wing of the Court agreed with an African-American plaintiff that Chicago’s handgun ban was unconstitutional—it became all the rage.
While some moderate political commentators have flirted with the smear, the folks who are really pushing it are those you’d expect: the Washington Times, the National Review, self-employed pro-gun bloggers, etc. Which is why I was quite disturbed when I saw UCLA Law Professor Adam Winkler embrace the “gun control is racist” charge in his brand new book Gunfight.
I know Winkler. I’ve heard him speak in person and on the radio. I’ve read his articles. And he always struck me as a very intelligent, reasonable, and politically moderate guy. But that’s the point—Winkler’s central thesis in Gunfight, in a nutshell, is “The gun rights movement is extreme, the gun control movement is extreme, and I’m right here in the middle to show you how we should deal with this issue.”
The problem with that argument, as the New York Times Book Review pointed out, is it’s not really accurate:
[Winkler] suggests the debate over guns today is dominated by “strident groups: one set on getting rid of the guns; the other determined to stop guns from being restricted in even modest ways” and that both sides are vociferous and loathe to compromise. Mr. Winkler supplies a lot of examples of pro-gun extremism.
He quotes Ron Paul saying that…a “lack of respect for the Second Amendment” contributed “a whole lot to the disaster of 9/11.”
He also quotes Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the National Rifle Association, asserting that the “U.N. wants to impose on the U.S.” nothing less than “total gun prohibition,” a sentiment held by many militia-group members as well.
But Mr. Winkler implies that gun control advocacy is similarly defined by extremists—by people who would like to “eliminate all privately owned firearms—or, at least, make the United States more like England, where handguns are illegal and all other guns are rare.” And in doing so Mr. Winkler ignores or plays down the many reasonable, centrist arguments made, for instance, by Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York, and Mayors Against Illegal Guns, a group led by Michael R. Bloomberg of New York.
Personally, I’m still waiting to find out which gun control organizations in the United States are advocating that we “eliminate all privately owned firearms.” I’ve been working in this movement now for over a decade and I have yet to meet them. In fact, I don’t know of any “dominant,” modern gun control organization that has ever argued for any such thing. And Winkler, of course, is well aware that the Supreme Court’s 2008 D.C. v. Heller decision took bans of anything but “dangerous and unusual” firearms completely off the table (in the minds of the Citizens United Five, this would likely include fully automatic machine guns and possibly certain semiautomatic assault rifles, but nothing else). Gun bans are no longer a policy option even for select localities.
But that reality didn’t stop Winkler from throwing gun violence prevention advocates under the bus to sell books. And unfortunately, “extreme” isn’t the only label we were hit with. Because the gun rights movement is racist (Winkler notes that “one of the few places you can easily find virulent racist literature is at a gun show”), then the gun control movement has to be, too.
On this point his argument becomes even shakier. Winkler can cite no example of the contemporary gun control movement being racist. He even acknowledges that an overwhelming majority of African-Americans today support strong, strict gun laws. So his argument basically comes down to the fact that our Founders prohibited slaves from owning firearms and white supremacist groups like the Ku Klux Klan have disarmed blacks at times while brutalizing and killing them. And that somehow adds up to gun control having “racist roots.” At the same time, Winkler curiously acknowledges that “many other laws” have been used to oppress African-Americans throughout our history. No kidding.
Despite the whole thing being pretty nuanced and flimsy, the gun rights movement got a hold of Winkler’s “racist” argument and ran with it. All of a sudden, they had their moderate to hold up as proof that their ugly accusations (or should I say projections) were true.
Again, Adam Winkler is a smart guy. He must’ve known that pro-gun extremists were going to jump all over this. They might call him a “gun grabber” and heckle him in person (you see, there’s a lot of stuff Winkler says in Gunfight that gun rights activists flat-out don’t like), but the “gun control is racist” thing? Oh yeah, that’s like throwing chum into shark-infested waters.
As someone who’s worked extensively with gun violence survivors—people who don’t want other Americans to have to endure the personal tragedies they’ve experienced because of weak gun laws—I was a bit sickened by the whole thing. Who in their right mind would infer that these people are motivated by racism? So I showed up at a recent panel discussion that Winkler was participating in and asked him to clarify his argument. You can watch the full exchange in the above video or read this transcript.
While holding to his point that “historically gun laws have often been used to oppress racial minorities,” Winkler made it clear to me that he does not “think that it means gun control today, all gun control laws today, are racist.” He added, “I’m in favor of a variety of different kinds of restrictions,” and specifically cited “shoring up [gun buyer] background checks” and prohibiting gun sales to those on the FBI’s Terrorist Watch List as gun control proposals that are not racist. Winkler also reiterated that gun control laws are far from alone in having a history of being used in a discriminatory manner, saying, “I think in most areas of law we should continue to be skeptical of legislation where there is a history of race and racism, but gun laws are no different in that sense.”
It is therefore confusing that Winkler would assert, “I do think that gun laws historically have been tied to race and racism and we should take that seriously when we’re thinking about a gun control law today.” Why? If African-Americans have moved beyond the past and strongly support contemporary gun control proposals (which even Winkler acknowledges are not motivated by race), why should it be an issue? Winkler gave the current example of the race issue playing into voter suppression bills in state legislatures across the country, but—of course—the legislatures passing these anti-democratic bills are the same ones that take their marching orders on gun bills from the National Rifle Association, not gun violence prevention advocates.
The real gold nugget in my exchange with Winkler was easy to miss. Talking about the Founding Fathers barring slaves from owning guns, Winkler said, “I think that helps inform their idea that the Second Amendment was not a Libertarian license for anyone to have a gun anytime they want, but that they balanced gun rights with what they thought was appropriate for public welfare.”
That’s certainly an insight the pro-gunners will not be parroting.
Great article! I obviously haven’t read his book, but the argument he makes to this point seems really odd, and contradicts what he says in the video. He obviously did a lot of research on the mainstream gun rights organizations, but doesn’t seem like he wanted to speak too much about the mainstream gun violence prevention organizations – instead wanting to paint them extreme “gun control” advocates and say they’re on the fringe of society as well, when in fact these folks are quite reasonable.
The sad fact is that the CSGV is tiny in terms of money and influence compared to the Brady Campaign and even they are on a serious decline.
See for yourself…
http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/clientsum.php?id=D000024445&year=2011
It’s kinda sad that CSGV aspires to climb the ladder in order to achieve a lower level of failure.
Laddie, deep down, you know I’m right.
I should add that I would have provided a link to an opensecrets search for CSGV but alas, none exists.
CSGV is too small to even bother with.
But they are good for a laugh.
I do think there’s an important discussion to be had, though, about the role gun control laws actually wind up playing in their enforcement. They are used to target young, black men in poor areas while more affluent, white neighborhoods go unraided.
One could raise the same legitimate concern about the enforcement of drug laws. To be fair, part of law enforcement’s decision-making is driven by the crime rates in different communities.
I think that is a very legitimate point, in fact. Young black men are disproportionately affected by this nation’s absurd drug laws, while white people are more likely do get treatment rather than jail time.
Treatment by the law has alot more to with wealth than anything else.
Also we have extremely high incarceration rates in the USA. There are plenty of laws on the books you don’t even know about that can land you jail.
For instance try attending a shooting competition in New Jersey when you live and own firearms in Pennsylvania. Even a lawyer, who attends a steel competition by me, borrows his friend’s handguns due to the legal grey areas.
Should he choose to bring his own and stay over night in a hotel with his firearms he is technically outside of the excemptions provided for firearm possession and is committing a felony in the first degree.
Unless of course he contacted the state police at least 3 months prior to traveling to New Jersey, went to the head quarters Borderton and filled out the forms for a New Jersey Firearms Purchase Card and then went to an outsourced finger printing lab. And had two of his friends from New Jersey do phone interviews vouching for him as a responsible gun owner. And assuming that he purchases his firearms to be used in New Jersey as well. If he uses firearms purchased in PA there is a decent chance that they “could” be catagorized as “assault weapons” per NJ Law.
Now even if his firearm was legal to own in New Jersey and he had all the paperwork and for some reason he was stopped say for a traffic violation and let the officer know that he has unloaded and locked firearms in the vehicle he may still be in trouble. The officer may not know off the top of his head if the firearms in question are legal in NJ. Also the officer will have to deteremine if the firearms are being transported within the excemptions to be legal.
The exemption for traveling in NJ is only defined as being legal if within “reasonable” deviations. Reasonable is not defined and therefore in many cases criminal complaints and filed and resolved by judge at later date. The judge will decide if traveling from PA to NJ and stopping for gas and food was a “reasonable” deviation.
It actaully gets more confusing if you start looking at the cases that have happened regarding travel.
A relative of mine actaully stop a man from out of state in a routine traffice stop. The man disclosed the fact that he had an unloaded firearm in the trunk.
The handgun was locked in a case with two magazines neither inserted and no round in the chamber.
My cousin arrested the man, impounded the car and confiscated the firearm. The man had no idea until my cousin explained it to him that in NJ loaded magazines in the same container, even if locked, counts as transporting a loaded firearm. Which is a class 1 felony unless you have a NJ carry permit which is effectively unobtainable by the average citizen in New Jersey.
I agree that the discussion should be embraced, but I just have a hard time getting past the fact that Laddie is the spitting image of Jared Loughner.
It’s a stupid reason for not listening to someone, ya know, based on their looks. Which is why I choose to not listen to him because he’s totally full of shit instead.
But in the end, CSGV is little more than an entertainment spectacle for the world to see.
Stand on a street corner and ask 1000 random people 2 simple questions…
1. Do you know what “NRA” is an acronym of?
2. Do you know what “CSGV” is an acronym of?
CSGV is so far down the list of actual threats to the our Rights that they can be easily dismissed. The only people who pay them any attention are those who seek a cheap laugh at the sheer stupidity of the antis.
They are here to entertain us, nothing more.
You probably should read this:
http://www.georgiacarry.org/cms/wp-content/uploads/2007/11/racist-roots-of-ga-gun-laws.pdf
It describes how Georgia used gun laws to disarm Blacks.
During the period examined by this report, the entire spectrum of Georgia state law was discriminatory against blacks. Gun laws were not unique in any way, shape or form.
There’s no argument here that the United States has had racist laws in the past, particularly in the South.
Yes, and we viewed is as a moral imperative to get rid of those racist laws. Racist laws that happen to be about guns shouldn’t be excluded from this restoration of african-american freedom.
What current Georgia state gun laws are you referring to as “racist” and what evidence do you have that they are?
The one that MikeSilver referred to, and the evidence is in his link.
There’s no discussion of contemporary Georgia gun laws in GeorgiaCarry’s report whatsoever.
The most “current” the report gets is 1910.
Then I’m mistaken, and I apologize. But I’m very happy that the racist gun laws that plagued georgia in the past are off the books now!
The entire spectrum of Georgia state law was used to discriminate against African Americans during the period examined by the report. And I think we can all agree that important federal protections were provided in the mid- to late-20th century that began to roll back those laws.
The laws that are described in that report still apply in Georgia, with the exception of the Public Gathering Clause. After lots of lobbying, GeorgiaCarry.Org successfully got the PG repealed along with its horrible case law. Georgians today can carry in more places now that PG is gone.
Guns laws in many other states have racist origins. GCA 1968 was driven by race riots. California’s open loaded gun ban was in response to the Black Panthers.
Mike, I’m looking through Georgia’s gun statutes right now and I can’t find a single law that discriminates on the basis of race. Not one:
http://www.lcav.org/states/georgia.asp
Why don’t you tell me which specific Georgia gun laws today are racist.
Hey Laddie, ever wonder why form 4473 requires you to report what race you are when you go to buy a gun?
Do you think this is needed?
What is CSGV doing about it?
I know how you feel, but I fear you’re a little off base here. The focus seems to be entirely on motivations and intentions, and indeed you’re quite right that most contemporary gun control proponents are not motivated by racial hatred. But nowhere does winkler accuse people like you or the folks you represent of being active racists; rather, he is focusing on overtly racial motivations when gun control laws were enacted in the past, and incidentally racial outcomes in the present that may occur despite non-racial intentions.
Winkler’s not questioning your motivations, he’s questioning the motivations of those who in the past pushed for laws that you support today, and bringing attention to the fact that even well-meaning laws can have racially troublesome outcomes. For example, New York’s Sullivan Act which requires licensing of pistols and empowers local police departments to investigate applicants for suitability, was explicitly passed to disarm Italian immigrants. Today that intent is long forgotten, but the law has a disproportionately racial effect on different groups because the legal and financial hurdles it still imposes on handgun ownership are most burdensome to those of limited means, who are often non-white.
I lived in New York and I can attest to this. The problem is that at the same time it empowers good cops to deny a permit to someone who seems unstable but is not a criminal, it also empowers racist or corrupt cops to deny permits to black people or those who have not first made a “donation” to the police equipment fund. This kind of wide discretion is a two-edged sword, especially among minority communities where police misconduct tends to be a big problem.
Nathaniel, do you have any actual evidence to back up this assertion?
“Today that intent is long forgotten, but the law has a disproportionately racial effect on different groups because the legal and financial hurdles it still imposes on handgun ownership are most burdensome to those of limited means, who are often non-white.”
I’d ask the same question for the accusation you make about police corruption:
“It also empowers racist or corrupt cops to deny permits to black people or those who have not first made a ‘donation’ to the police equipment fund.”
I’ll reverse those questions:
1. Are you claiming that lengthy permitting processes, high fees, mandatory interviews and classes scheduled during work hours, and lengthy bureaucracies are just as easy for poor New Yorkers to manage as they are for rich New Yorkers?
2. Are you claiming that the police treat black people and latinos in exactly the same way they treat white people?
I think the answers to these questions are pretty self-evident.
If the answers are self-evident, then I’m assuming you have some actual evidence that African-Americans are being adversely affected by New York’s licensing and registration laws for handgun owners.
Do you, or do you not?
It’s really strange to hear you defending the police on this matter. I thought it was pretty common knowledge that black people were discriminated against by the police. Am I really reading correctly that you’re saying that the police don’t discriminate against black people?
What I’m saying is that if you are going to make a broad accusation about New York state legislators and New York law enforcements officers being racist, one would hope that you have some actual evidence to back up that charge, as it is a serious one.
So back to my original questions:
1) Do you have any evidence that New York’s licensing and registration laws concerning handguns have imposed significant “legal” and “financial” burdens on African-Americans in the state?
2)Do you have any evidence that “racist” and “corrupt” law enforcement officials in New York have denied permits to African-Americans who refused to make “donations” to the “police equipment fund”?
It costs nearly four hundred dollars, visit your local precinct, and at least one trip to One Police Plaza, NYPD’s headquarters, during business hours, to begin to legally possess a handgun in NYC.
This is a substantial burden on anyone, and falls more heavily on the poor, who are more likely to live in lousy neighborhoods and need to defend their selves and homes from predators.
More to the point of your question: The vast majority of pistol permit holders are white, and rich, famous, or politically connected. NYC’s Sullivan Act was racist in design and has remained racist in effect for a century.
Stew, what you’re stating here is your opinion. To my knowledge, there is not a single organization that represents African-Americans in NYC that has called for the weakening of New York’s licensing and registration laws for handguns.
If you have actual evidence that African-Americans are attempting to obtain handgun licenses and being prevented from doing so because of financial or other “burdens,” present that evidence.
Until then, you’re making a very broad (and serious) accusation that lacks entirely in substance.
If you really want, I can find evidence for you among the reams and reams of well-documented cases of racially-prejudiced cops oppressing african-americans. But it’s much easier to use logic to demonstrate this instead. Let me begin.
Do you acknowledge that racial profiling exists? Do you acknowledge that racially-motivated sentencing enhancement is a problem? Do you acknowledge that some laws (e.g. drug laws) disproportionately burden african americans?
If you acknowledge these examples of racially-motivated oppression of african-americans, then is is illogical to expect the perpetrators of these injustices to become perfect angels when it comes to pistol permit issuance.
The only way you can logically claim that the police generally treat african-americans fairly when it comes to permit issuance is if you claim that the police generally treat african-americans fairly everywhere; a deviation from this would be highly irregular and difficult to envision.
You can’t have it both ways. Either the police are perfect angels, in which case you need to explain away racial profiling and disproportionate police response against african americans, or else the police can sometimes act with racial prejudice, in which case pistol permit issuance becomes problematic due to the presence of racist cops.
So which’ll it be?
So, in other words, you have no evidence whatsoever to back up the claims you originally made in this thread.
It’s not incumbent on someone who is called a racist to defend him/herself when the person who made the accusation has no evidence to back it up.
It’s incumbent on the person who made the accusation to produce that evidence, or apologize for having made the accusation in the first place.
I just thought it was common sense knowledge that the police tended to be prejudiced against african-americans. Today I learned that this is an extraordinary claim requiring hard evidence! Tomorrow, perhaps I will learn that I need to prove that burning hydrocarbons causes air pollution.
Man, I can’t wait to tell my african-american friends that they’re all wrong, and that the police are out to help them and would never dream of acting in a prejudicial manner.
You might want to take your concerns to organizations in New York that represent African Americans, because not a single one has called for the weakening of the state’s handgun licensing and registration law.
I like how you demand that we discuss this with some amorphous group of “organizations in New York that represent African Americans.”
Do you seriously believe that the individual rights of African-American citizens are dependent upon the actions of groups that purport to represent them? Are you actually attempting to make the claim that rights are dependent upon membership in a group rather than deriving from Natural Law?
I’d pay good money to hear you make that argument in a court, much less the Supreme Court.
I’m arguing that there is no evidence whatsoever to indicate that African Americans in New York are upset about the state’s licensing and registration law concerning handguns. The folks who are upset about the law are typically white gun rights activists like the ones commenting here.
In reality, elected officials in districts in New York with large minority populations tend to be strong supporters of gun control. And for good reason – their constituents want it that way.
This is exactly why I keep asking my question about majorities. Should an electoral majority always get everything it wants, no matter what it is? Or are there some things that should be off-limits to public opinion?
There are some things that are off-limits to legislatures under the Constitution. But the licensing and registration of handguns ain’t one of ’em.
What makes you so sure? New York’s pistol permit isn’t for carry, it’s for mere possession. There’s nothing in the Heller dicta about possession, only carry. Heller established that ownership of a handgun for defense is a fundamental right; New York’s law subjects that right to a discretionary licensing procedure that includes significant monetary costs, months of waiting, and requires the applicant to justify his need for it. This cannot possible survive Judicial review any more than could a similar discretionary licensing procedure for the ownership of Bibles, Torah scrolls, or internet access.
Oh, I don’t buy that for a minute. The Conservative wing of the Court certainly could have addressed D.C.’s licensing and registration requirements for handguns in Heller. They chose not to.
Additionally, and tellingly, here is what the lower court decision had to say about licensing and registration in the Heller case (the D.C. Court of Appeals case was titled Parker v. District of Columbia):
“Reasonable restrictions also might be thought consistent with a ‘well regulated Militia.’ The registration of firearms gives the government information as to how many people would be armed for militia service if called up. Reasonable firearm proficiency testing would both promote public safety and produce better candidates for military service. Personal characteristics, such as insanity or felonious conduct, that make gun ownership dangerous to society also make someone unsuitable for service in the militia.”
So you are asking me to prove that a $400 fee to exercise a Constitutional right does not impact folks of limited means and curtail their ability to enjoy said right?
Yes. I’m asking you to demonstrate that African Americans in New York want to obtain concealed handgun permits but have been unable to because of the “financial burden.” Provide data, if you have any, that demonstrates this demand.
And once again, to reiterate, Justice Scalia made it clear in the D.C. v. Heller decision that there is no Constitutional right to carry a concealed firearm in public.
So you wonder how many folks looked at the price tag and said “when I can afford that.” Nice question. I can’t think of an honest way to find that out. Have ye some ideas?
By the way, this $400 is not to carry a pistol, this is to have one in your apartment or house, a place the Heller & McDonald decisions made clear is a place you have a right to keep arms.
Regarding the honesty question, I would think it’s more important to refrain from calling people racists until you actually have some evidence to back up that charge. It’s a serious one.
As for the issue of African Americans being frustrated about gun laws being too strict, every piece of data I’ve ever seen indicates exactly the opposite – that they support strong laws.
I don’t think most gun control supporters these days are racist. That gun control has a disparate impact on minorities is an accident, not a design, but that was not always so. The Sullivan Act of 1911 was racist in design: Members of the City council were unhappy at the successful resistance to their mobster supporters from Italian immigrants, so they disarmed the victims, to keep the gangsters safe. (This is the general pattern of gun control, but that’s also besides the point.)
That’s a nice theory, but you haven’t provided any actual evidence that gun control laws today are having a “disparate,” negative impact on minorities because they are too strict.
Meanwhile, survey data tells us that minorities (including African-Americans) strongly favor gun control.
So you’re saying $400 to have a pistol in your home discourages no one? I’ll just suggest that 95% of folks who look into legally owning a pistol stop after they find out that it costs $400. This is anecdotal, basis folks I know and chat with.
I’m deliberately ignoring your comment that “minorities want more gun control.” Their ignorance of gun control’s lack of efficacy as a means of reducing crime is not at issue here.
1. North Carolina has an expensive and onerous permitting process.
2. 68.5% of North Carolinians are white
3. more than 90% of all NC Concealed Handgun Permits are issued to whites.
Conclusion – The permitting process disproportionately prevents minorities from exercising their specific enumerated individual rights.
Squirm all you want, but whatever the motivation, the outcome is racist.
Same issue with faulty logic here. Do you have any actual evidence that African-Americans are attempting to get concealed handgun permits in North Carolina and being denied because the process is “expensive” and “onerous”?
Now you are blaming minorities for their lack of permits? If African-Americans can’t afford the time and money to get a CHP then, in your mind, it’s their fault? I never said “denied.” This isn’t denying them the permit they seek, it’s preventing them from seeking the permit in the first place because of expense, both in time and money.
I would think that the results speak for themselves, and if this was anything except Concealed Handgun Permits, you would scream racism.
What I’m doing is questioning whether you have any actual evidence to prove that “The [concealed carry] permitting process [in North Carolina] disproportionately prevents minorities from exercising their specific enumerated individual rights.”
For starters, the D.C. v. Heller opinion by the Supreme Court (2008) stated in specific terms that state bans on concealed carry are constitutional, so there is no “specific enumerated individual right” to carry a concealed weapon in public (“Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.
It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues.”).
With that question settled, the next one would be what evidence do you have to indicate that minority populations in North Carolina are attempting to obtain concealed carry permits and being “disproportionately prevented” from doing so?
Is there any actual evidence behind your charge?
Actually, Heller said
The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions …, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings,
It only says that people should not take the Heller decision to invalidate carrying in “sensitive places.” Are you suggesting that any street in any location is a “sensitive place?”
And there you go again, blaming African-Americans for not getting off their bottoms and spending money that, disproportionately, they don’t have in order to exercise their rights.
You keep pretending that unless the Sheriffs are systematically denying minorities their CHPs, racial charges can’t stick. Would you similarly argue that it was reasonable to demand payment of $200 for a 5 year license to vote? Or would you (rightly) scream bloody murder that high fees automatically disenfranchise poorer citizens. I trust that I don’t have to explain to you that minorities are disproportionately likely to live below the poverty line.
It seems to me that your argument is, #1. It isn’t a right, so we can limit it any way we want. #2. It isn’t infringed upon because the law doesn’t overtly discriminate, #3. citizens who can’t pay for the “privilege” are just out of luck.
Do you think those arguments will hold up in a court that has already made the determination that the proper way to judge restrictions on 2A rights is by comparing it to 1A rights?
So then you have no actual evidence to support your charge at the top of this thread.
And my quote was indeed taken from Heller (p. 2). Here it is again:
“Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues.”
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-290.pdf
The average white North Carolinian is 5 times more likely to have a CHP than the average non-white North Carolinian. Would you be satisfied if the average white North Carolinian was 5 times more likely to be registered to vote? Go to college?
The statistics speak for themselves.
Not really. You haven’t provided a shred of evidence that African Americans are trying to obtain concealed handgun permits in North Carolina and being prevented from doing so.
It’s well established from survey data that gun owners in America are predominantly white, male, and from the South and West regions of the country. That’s not news, Sean.
“The legislatures passing these anti-democratic bills [voter suppression] are the same ones that take their marching orders on gun bills from the National Rifle Association, not gun violence prevention advocates.”
Great point above!
Very well-written article overall and definitely a thought-provoking dissection of the issue of race and gun laws.
“Winkler’s central thesis in Gunfight, in a nutshell, is ‘The gun rights movement is extreme, the gun control movement is extreme, and I’m right here in the middle to show you how we should deal with this issue.’
The problem with that argument…is it’s not really accurate.”
Great insight in this article. I feel that too often we are forced to give both sides of debates waged in today’s political climate either too much or too little credit for the sake of being impartial.
Just because the NRA stands in front of a podium opposite of those who fight for sensible, reasonable gun REGULATIONS does not mean that the NRA is advocating selflessly and reasonably in response. The two groups are not equal counter balances that even out a scale.
“I’m still waiting to find out which gun control organizations in the United States are advocating that we “eliminate all privately owned firearms.”
They are uncompromising and and they use fear as a tool to pass laws that directly make American streets more dangerous and deadly.
Winkler’s reasoning shows an unfair portrayal of those victims and advocates who tirelessly work for a world where people won’t have to undergo the horrific tragedies we read about on a daily basis. The NRA could not be further from selfless or reasonable. Consider their consistent how they consistently advocate and assist in legislating against laws that NRA members themselves would like to see remedied.
–NRA members (69%) support requiring all sellers at gun shows to conduct criminal background checks of the people buying guns.
–NRA members (82%) support a proposal prohibiting people on terrorist watch lists from purchasing guns. Sixty-one percent of NRA members and 69% of non-NRA member gun owners strongly support this proposal.
–NRA members (90%) and Non-NRA member gun owners (93%) agree that irresponsible gun dealers who break the law by knowingly selling guns to unqualified purchasers should be held accountable to the maximum extent of the law. Seventy-two percent of NRA members and 79% of non-NRA member gun owners strongly agree with this concept.
–Eighty-two percent of NRA members and 85% of non-NRA member gun owners would support a requirement that gun retailers perform background checks on their employees to ensure they are not felons
–NRA members (78%) and non-NRA member gun owners (88%) support a proposal requiring gun owners to alert police if their guns are lost or stolen.
It is time that we see the NRA for what it is!
Thank you so much for sharing this insight
Thank you for sharing!
http://www.lcav.org/statistics-polling/Polling.asp
For reference on polling and statistics
Why is it so important what percentage of people support these policies? if 95% of the population supported making all gun owners wear a badge identifying them as such, would that be the right thing to do? What if it were Jews instead of gun owners? Majorities can do terrible things to minorities…
You’re comparing the gun policy proposals that Christian cited to the Nazi policy of forcing German Jews to wear the Star of David on their clothes??
That’s absurd and offensive.
This is the history of my people. I’m Jewish, and I have a special sensitivity to the great power that angered majorities can wreak on minorities. In this case, the answer is clearly, “no, even if 95% of the population thinks all Jews should be identified with badges on their clothing, it’s still not the right thing to do,” thus illustrating my point that not all decisions should be made on the basis of what the majority wants.
Or do you disagree with that?
I disagree with the use of the Holocaust as a political prop. When you blithely compare Nazi policies bent on targeting Jews to contemporary American gun policy proposals that are supported even by large majorities of gun owners/NRA members, you are indicating just how little respect you have for those who suffered under Nazi rule.
This really hits a nerve, doesn’t it? I have family members who were murdered by Nazis. I think I’m better positioned to talk about this history than you are, and I’d prefer that you not try to shut down the discussion by insinuating that I’m a bad Jew who lacks respect for his ancestors. It’s borderline offensive.
And in any event, I’m not actually comparing american gun policy to Nazi anti-semitism, as you seem to think I am; rather, I was using majoritarian Nazi violence against Jews to illustrate that not all majority-supported policies are moral and ought to be enacted—a point that I’ll note that you have yet to disagree with.
So are all majority-supported policies worthy of being enacted into law, or not?
It would hit a nerve for anyone with decency.
So now I’m someone who lacks decency? Let’s stop with the backhanded insults here. Are all majority-supported policies worthy of being enacted into law, or not? This is a really important question, and I think it deserves a serious discussion and a real answer.
Nathaniel,
Let me interject and ask you if you feel that in this instance, if YOU feel that requiring that all sellers at gun shows should administer the instant 2-minute background check when selling a weapon, closing the loophole that allows those on the terrorist watch list (who can’t even fly) to buy dangerous firearms, holding irresponsible gun dealers who KNOWINGLY break the law by selling guns to prohibited purchasers accountable to the full extent of the law, making employees at gun retailers undergo a background check to ensure they are not felons, and requiring gun owners to report when their guns have been lost or stolen are immoral policies that should not be enacted into law?
Or are they sensible measures to prevent deadly weapons from making their way into the hands of dangerous individuals?
That is the real question here and THAT deserves a REAL answer. Not an abstract distraction with open ended questions regarding Jurisprudence, but tangible and real situations, solutions and public opinion.
@ Christian Heyne
Yes, I believe those are immoral policies that should not be enacted into law. Obviously you don’t, and now we’re stuck.
But the gun control debate is interesting to me because it’s almost never just about guns; it’s nearly impossible to talk about gun control without getting into constitutional law and political philosophy, because the debate is framed by those constraints and informed by your views on them.
I ask the question about majoritarianism because it’s crucially related to this discussion. I find that among supporters of gun control, it often seems very important they they seek majority support for their political policies and welcome government action that enjoys popularity, while among pro-gun people, there is more wariness of the power of majorities and governments, and more emphasis is placed on constitutional restrictions on them. To me, this is an interesting difference, and, falling on the side that fears majorities, I always want to know what drives people on the other side. I intimately know my own opinions; know why I’m afraid of majorities. I want to know why you and Ladd and folks on your side don’t share my fears.
For the same reason our Founders who drafted and ratified our Constitution didn’t. Because they knew the judiciary was there to moderate in cases where laws has gone beyond the bounds of the Constitution.
It’s hardly a settled matter. I daresay that this is one of the the central divides in American civic life. The question of how much the majority should get of what it wants is what created the Federalist Constitution and its backlash, the Anti-federalist bill of rights. It was a central question in the civil war. And it’s back with a vengeance, informing both the tea party and the OWS movement.
And besides, can you really say that judicial review is strong enough to ensure that legislatures or executives can’t go too far? What about the Patriot act? Extrajudicial incarceration of foreigners and Americans accused of terrorism by the president? The drug war? Why has the Judiciary not righted these wrongs? If we’re going to rely on the Judiciary to slap down the Legislative and Executive branches when they go too far, we’d better hope that our judges are all are above the very temptations that they rule on daily.
I side with the Founders who drafted and ratified our Constitution on this one. I think the Judiciary works and works well. That doesn’t mean it’s perfect–and if you read The Federalist Papers, Second Amendment author James Madison and his colleagues never said the new system of government would be–but it’s still the best system devised by man to date.
I make that statement even though I feel Scalia’s D.C. v. Heller opinion was a complete and total perversion of history and Madison’s intent.
Also why are we to trust a poll crafted by a Group that is funded by the same group for which Ladd and yourself.
Especially when you look at the long history of ethical problems with Studies that were funded with Joyce Foundation Grants.
The 2009 poll in question was conducted by high-profile Republican pollster Frank Luntz through his group, The Word Doctors. The guy is one of the most respected pollsters/focus group organizers in the country:
http://www.luntzglobal.com/team.php
Do you have evidence that Luntz doctored the results of the 2009 poll that Christian cited, or any specific issues with the methodology that Luntz used?
Or is this a conspiracy theory?
Who hired Luntz to write and conduct the poll?
Also how did Luntz acquire his data set of NRA members?
Its not a question of conspiracy, its a simple question of ethics.
Its also a solid Modus Operendi: People who work for Joyce Foundation funded groups cite polls and studies created by other Joyce Funded groups.
Mayors Against Illegal Guns hired him. At this point in his career, Luntz has been hired by hundreds (if not thousands) of organizations from both sides of the political spectrum.
So what evidence do you have that Luntz doctored the results of this poll in a way that would calls his ethics into question?
“Do you have evidence that Luntz doctored the results of the 2009 poll that Christian cited,”
BWAHAHHHAHAHAHAHHA
He works for an org called the Word Doctors you fucking fool!
Frank Luntz is reknowned for conducting polls geared to validate the opinions of his employers.
He’s not “respected”. He’s simply a propagandist’s tool.
For reference – and from Frank’s own mouth – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=If9EWDB_zK4
So – yes. There’s evidence that Luntz doctored the poll. It’s his modus operandi.
MAIG is funded by the same group that funds the group that you work for.
Again do you have the survey questions, as well as how he got his study group?
My big point is blatant ethics violations. But you read that when I said it before.
Mayors Against Illegal Guns receives funding from a number of different sources.
So wait a minute…you are claiming ethics violations were committed with this poll when you know nothing about the methodology that it used?
Looks like you put the cart before the horse.
Needless to say, if Luntz was in the business of doctoring polls or doing subpar work with his focus groups he wouldn’t have the professional reputation he currently enjoys in that field.
You didn’t answer any questions about the poll, so you know as much as I do.
And again you are all funded by the same source as much as you wish to bob and weave.
I’m not one to accuse someone of ethics violations before I’ve looked at the facts.
I’ve said my piece. You’re paid not to agree with me nor admit to the ethical violations your employers engage in (and have done some extremely unethical things while on the clock yourself)
You’ve given me a platform to speak, as well as given some very textbook responses. That’s all I need.
Thanks
I would ask what evidence you have that my organization has engaged in “ethical violations,” but I suspect that is a conspiracy theory as well.
Well, the funny thing about “extremism” is that it’s always a characteristic of someone else.
Look … quite truthfully, I have a difficult time viewing gun rights advocates as extreme. After all, it’s hardly extreme for them to demand rights that were guaranteed by law more than 200 years ago. That the right to keep and to bear arms shall not be infringed.
Quite frankly, it’s easier for me to view folks who wish to infringe those rights as “extreme.” But that’s just me, and again “extreme” in this view necessarily is a characteristic of someone else. But perhaps a few folks agree with my view.
Also, I don’t know about New York, but there is an energized and growing gun-rights movement within the Chicago African-American community. So Ladd … even though the existence of rights doesn’t exist on the basis of interest groups who value them, give the African-Americans in New York a little credit. They might soon come around to value their right to arms as well.
In Chicago? I recall even McDonald v. Chicago plaintiff Otis McDonald admitting that he is basically the only African-American at the gun rights meetings he goes to in Illinois.
If you have a hard time seeing the gun rights movement as extreme or racist, take Winkler’s advice: Go to a gun show and check out the Nazi “memorabilia,” or thumb through a copy of the ultra-violent, ultra-racist TURNER DIARIES.
I told Mr. McDonald that little claim by gun control fanatics of what he allegedly said. He thought it was funny.
That’s great, Roy. If he wants to review his comments, he can find them at the following links:
“High Court to Define Reach of Gun Laws”
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/judicial/2010-02-26-gun-control-laws_N.htm
When he first got involved with the Illinois State Rifle Association, he was a rare voice from his South Side neighborhood. “I was probably the only black at that first meeting” in Springfield, McDonald says.
“Why Otis McDonald is Lead Plaintiff in High Court Gun Rights Case”
http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/why_otis_mcdonald_is_lead_plaintiff_in_supreme_court_gun_rights_case/
Gura chose four Chicagoans [for the McDonald v. Chicago case]; McDonald, a Democrat and a hunter, is the only black plaintiff. The others are a libertarian who is a partner in an options trading firm; a software engineer who keeps his gun collection outside the city; and the software engineer’s wife, a hypnotherapist. After McDonald was selected as lead plaintiff in the suit, he asked, “Why would you name it after me?” he told the Tribune. “Is it just because I’m the only black?”
“Chicago Man Stands Up for Right to Bear Arms”
http://www.aarp.org/politics-society/rights/info-05-2010/chicago_man_stands_up_for_right_to_bear_arms.html
The avid hunter got involved in the pro-gun rights movement when Illinois lawmakers were considering an assault rifle ban in 2005. Worried the ban might outlaw his hunting rifles, McDonald attended a gun rally in Springfield, the state capital. “I was the only black guy that I saw,” McDonald said.
That’s great Ladd. I’ve actually spoken to the man but you rely on secondary sources. Ones that you ignore statements like this:
“McDonald says he was joking,”
Dishonest to the last.
Oh, and btw, Colleen Lawson isn’t white either. Nor is Rhonda Ezell.
Actually, Roy, a direct quote from someone is a primary source.
Or, in this case, three primary sources.
Actually Ladd, the individual himself is THE primary source. I’ll take his word over your deliberate misrepresentations.
No comment on Colleen Lawson then?
Hey Laddie, seems that you like to report personal info about commenters?
Do you know that your home address is known? Do you know that you wife’s job location is known?
Do you know how much of a fuck-tard you are?
As for African Americans, I give them tremendous credit for supporting strong gun laws in overwhelming numbers. They’ve seen the unbelievable damage that weak gun laws have done to their communities – to generations of young African Americans now lost to us – and they want a change.
Yes, things have changed much in Chicago during the past year or two. One of the African-American state reps held two “concealed carry” town hall meetings recently, and they predominately attended by “pro rights” people. It seems like he’ll now vote in favor of a shall-issue bill there. You’ll be amazed when this enthusiasm starts trickling up to the state legislature. Things are certainly going to change in Illinois, regarding gun rights.
Now that you mention guns shows, I was recently at Knob Creek Gun Range in Kentucky for a biannual civilian machine-gun shoot. Perhaps the mother of all gun shows. I am not really into machine guns … they are loud and expensive … but can’t fault someone for liking them. To each their own. I had read Winkler’s quote and took time to look around for this “Nazi” memorabilia. I had a darned hard time finding any. It was almost all American memorabilia. Maybe the Los Angeles gun shows frequented by Winkler are racist, but it seems the Kentucky ones, not so much. I spied a few 98k mausers and German lugers for sale, and there were several MG42s on the firing lines. But I didn’t notice Nazi memorabilia or racist literature. Guess I was too busy noticing all the African-Americans in attendance.
If gun laws are weakened in Illinois, it certainly won’t be because African Americans or Chicago wanted it that way. They’ve been fighting the NRA in Illinois for decades now.
As for gun shows, in the Information Age it’s now well documented that Nazi/Confederate “memorabilia” and ultra-racist “literature” like THE TURNER DIARIES are available for sale at virtually every gun show in America:
http://www.ucdmc.ucdavis.edu/newsroom/images/Wintemute_gun_study9-2009/IGS6web.pdf
This was also documented at this year’s Knob Creek Machine Gun Shoot:
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2011/04/robert-farago/nazi-merchandise-on-sale-at-knob-creek-machine-gun-shoot/
http://mediamatters.org/blog/201104130021
It’s certainly not an environment in which African Americans (or Jewish Americans, or any minorities, really) would be made to feel comfortable or wanted.
It’s available through Amazon as well. They must be run by the Klan.
“available for sale at virtually every gun show in America”
Yeah. OK.
Goofy argument even by your standards, Third.
Amazon sells books. You can find Mein Kampf, Protocols of the Elders of Zion, Turner Diaries and all manner of controversial books at Amazon. You can also find virtually all religious books, the Harry Potter Series, home repair books, academic textbooks–you name it. Amazon probably has it.
Book stores cater to everyone: students, casual readers, children, hobbyists, researchers, professionals.
Gun show cater to gun enthusiasts. Just as computer shows cater to computer enthusiasts and car shows to car enthusiasts. If you find a book at a car or computer show–it will invariably be a maintenance or reference manual.
OTOH, gun shows aren’t book stores. They don’t have the latest John Grisham novel or Steve Jobs bio or celebrity cook book. They may have maintenance manuals and conversion manuals but they also carry white supremacist literature.
Ladd, ethics violations? How about libel? You’re as trustworthy as a politician. Good luck trying to fling poo back at me, either. Former Marine, Top Secret security clearance, worse crime ever was an insurance violation from driving. I’m a boy scout leader and father. Meanwhile, you work in lies to earn your paycheck.
Your job alone is an ethics violation.
Quick question there Laddie…did the CSGV argue in support for DC’s gun ban?
Just curious.
You guys still struggling to pay the electric bill?
Quick question Jared Loughner(oh, I mean Laddie, it’s so hard to tell you two apart) why are you such a fuck tard?
Is it because you have no money and therefore lash out against everyone with a real set of balls?
Just curious.
I see the NRA trolls are in full regalia today.
It’s pretty interesting to read the “gun control is racist” meme. It’s a pretty tough meme to try to defend since there’s so little evidence supporting it. Let’s look at a few facts, shall we?
Virtually every major black advocacy group is pro-gun control–the NAACP, the Urban League, etc. favor gun control. The NRA calls them “enemies”–not opponents but enemies. Similarly, every major Jewish group favors gun control but that’s another NRA meme altogether. Thus, our NRA friends would have us believe that all the major black civil rights organizations are, in effect, advocating for racism.
Such a charge would be laughable but given the fact of the NRA’s questionable ties to white supremacist groups, the often racist comments of NRA board members and leaders and the fact black membership in the NRA is rarer than black Republicans–it veers off to the absurd.
You have to feel some sympathy for our NRA cultists, though. Can you imagine having to base your argument on the premise that 98% of the black American population is too stupid to see they are being duped by their own organization? And that a group, littered with racists and whiter than most Scandanavian countries, is actually a champion of civil rights?
I’ve commented before in other articles but I have a question relating to this article.
Why should any group control or regulate man portable small arms commonly in use?
By man portable small arms commonly in use I mean; handguns, rifles, shotguns and light machine guns. (single shot, repeaters, semi-automatic and automatice)
NJ Acct: Presumably, you’re an accountant–no?
Let me ask why society should control or regulate the monetary system? As an accountant, you probably can think up quite a few reasons as to why such regulation might be a great idea.
The same idea applies to portable small firearms. It pretty much boils down to the public welfare.
Actually I can think of many times that financial controls have caused more harm than good.
Take a look at what the bail outs under GW Bush have caused.
Look at what caused the bailouts to be needed.
Certain income brackets could not find affordable homes. (major cause, over inflated home prices) Solution make loans available to persons normally not qualified due to risk by forcing lenders to make these affordable loans and give them incentives to do it. Problem solved people have better homes and the investors holding the underlying cash make a tidy profit on the interest.
The loans are at a much higher risk due to the income to debt ratios. Lenders need to profit in relation to the risk so the interest rates go higher. The lenders know that these loans will end up defaulting and want to reduce their risk. The lenders repackage the loans in mortgage backed securities hiding the individual loans and spreading them throughout that market. Problem solved the lenders have on paper limited their risks or passed them on to others and the investors holding the underlying cash make either lump sum profit from the sale of the securities or make money on the interest.
Housing market crashes for a multitude of reasons not the least of which is these affordable loans that have become intermixed with all the other loans. This drags nearly all of the major companies in the financial sector into possible default or at the least a dismal return for the next 20 years depending on their exposure. This is caused by the inability to isolate and write down the affordable loans or sell them off to risk hungry investors. Solution, bailout the financial sector. Pump cash into these companies and balance out their asset to debt ratios. The public fronts the cost in borrowed money and pays the interest. Problem solved crisis is adverted, the investors holding the underlying cash by and large get to keep it and get to collect interest (and additional interest since the same investors also hold the underlying cash that was used create the loans to the federal government to bailout the companies.)
Side problem, all these mortgages are still delinquent, under water or in default. People are losing or will lose their homes. The underlying investors will end up owning these homes through the lenders.
In the end all the money flows to those who held the assets in the first place and the poor are poorer and the rich are richer.
New problem wealth disparity, cue Occupy Where ever…
Your guess is as good as mine on where this goes.
I can write several books or point you towards a few already written by others with a much better grasp on this subject than this lowly accountant.
Now back to the topic.
Which I am still awaiting a discussion on.
Why should any group control or regulate man portable small arms commonly in use?
NJ Acct: That’s a strange bit of revisionism. After all, most of the current economic mess we’re in was caused by a lack of regulation–not by too much.
Inadvertently, you make a pretty strong argument for my thesis. No lender was ever “forced” to make a loan or mortgage he or she didn’t wish to make. These lenders made the loans because they were greedy and wanted badly to make the loans. I’d ask how loan institution officials are in jail or have been sanctioned for *not* making risky or dubious loans? Not only was there a lack of regulation on these lending institutions–actual enforcement of what few laws there were was virtually non-existent. For background, I’d suggest reading up on what are termed “Liar Loans” or the Alt-A loan market. Here’s a little background:
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/01/30/was-the-financial-crisis-avoidable/when-liars-loans-flourish
Note this situation wasn’t caused by over-regulation or too many controls–it was created by having virtually none.
Which parallels the gun violence problem we have today: little regulation and almost no oversight. As a result, the US–history’s most powerful, successful, and prosperous nation–has gun violence rates equal that of many third-world countries.
Again, the answer to your question re firearms is evident: the public welfare. It’s the same answer for why we don’t permit anyone to hang out a shingle and say they are an MD or to allow anyone who has an interest in flying to be called a pilot.
I respectfully disagree that over regulation did not play a role in the crisis.
The Community Reinvestment Act didn’t exactly force lenders to make the loans but it definitely added an incentive. Meet the CRA compliance or we won’t approve the merger or new bank branches and so on
I do agree that No Doc loans and forged pay stubs were a cause. This was exasperated by the greed of the investors.
I am not saying this was the only cause but I believe a large part of it in conjunction with repeals of other laws and that had been restricting lending. These regulations were used as substitutes for moral judgment and common sense by lenders, such as part of the Glass-Steagall Act being repealed. Having commercial banks and investment banks controlled by one company when they had not been since the 1930’s created a dangerous situation. Too much was given at once and greed took over.
This is the same reason I would say it would be terrible idea to allow constitutional carry in all 50 states effective tomorrow. Too many places like Southern New York, New Jersey, Illinois, Hawaii and parts of California do not have the established gun culture to ensure that completely untrained and inexperienced individuals decide it would be a good idea to get grab their gun that been sitting unused in a safe since they bought it and walk outside strapped.
To much deregulation too fast can cause much more harm than good in the short run.
The idea that the Federal Regulators can stop something like this crisis from happening is a joke. This is just the same as saying that a federal gun registry would do anything but waste time and money. The patch work of laws and loopholes for those laws (which were created and paid for I guarantee that) are almost impossible to navigate.
I believe it is the volume of regulation more often than not that makes it ineffective.
Act
Also over regulation of the medical field has been one of the contributing factors to rising medical costs outpacing inflation. (not the only reason)
So much so that without either mostly employer or state funded health insurance the vast majority of the population cannot afford what has become normal healthcare costs.
Hospitals and doctors have significantly reduced their carity in the form of medical service as costs related to regulation, litigation and bad debts pile up.
The whole joke with ARMs in they should really only be offered to those who have the financial security to absorb the variances in interest rates. Someone could end up saving money on a 25 year loan with an ARM if they can weather the downturns.
Marking them to the poor is predatory lending when they don’t understand what they are signing up for. And ends with the bank having your payments and the house.
Well we have more gun deaths because we have more guns and we have more crime when compared to 1st world nations.
When England created their registery and destroyed all but shotguns, rimfire and a select set of modified handguns this ha no positive effect on the countries murder or crime rates which were already low.
Canada’s registry had no measurable effect on crime or murder.
Australia’s registration and confistcation did not affect their trends either.
New Jersey’s one gun a month program has had no effect on the street price of a illegally purchased handgun in the state.
Thenew jersey assault weapon ban didn’t even affect the number of assault weapons use in crimes. (granted weapons that fell under this catagorization were rarely seen at in crime before the ban but makes a good example of useless regulation)
The problem is not addressing the underlying cause.
These arguments are literally ridiculous. Britain has a per capita gun death rate that is 30 times lower than the United States. Canada has a gun death rate more than four times as low. Australia has a gun death rate more than five times lower than the U.S. We also have far higher OVERALL homicide rates than these countries, because the presence of guns make violence so lethal in the United States.
And New Jersey has the fifth lowest gun death rate of the 50 states.
Is this because of gun proliferation in the U.S., specifically the fact that we allow people who are clearly violent and deranged to gain easy access to guns (sometimes without even undergoing background checks)?
Obviously.
Regulations and controls often forget what they were meant to do which is to foster common sense and morality in action.
Once in place those under them will seek out ways to circumvent them. While not moral or of good common sense in the long run they are legal or questionably legal anyway.
Creating controls and regulations often fails to address the underlying reason for the problem.
This is a familiar argument. It goes like this: since laws or regulations will not guarantee they won’t be violated and produce perfect results–let’s eliminate laws and regulations.
I’m not saying eliminate laws and regulations. Strong clear and adaptable laws are required in a society.
But I do believe that most laws and regulations are poorly designed and enforced. Often creating new problems which require new laws and regulations while forgetting the reason for the original.
For those of you wondering why some of the comments on this blog are non-substantive and inappropriate, let me explain…
“Kaveman” is Karl Hadley of Corvallis, Oregon. Karl is well known to those of us in the gun violence prevention movement as the co-author of the blog “Days of Our Trailers (http://daysofourtrailers.blogspot.com/). There, along with co-blogger Roy Kubicek (an Illinois militia member who goes by the screen name “Thirdpower”), Hadley has made countless personal attacks on gun violence survivors and others engaged in the fight to reduce gun violence in America.
Hadley has bragged of owning an arsenal of firearms and other military-style equipment (e.g., grenade launchers), is permitted to carry a concealed handgun in public in Oregon and 15 other states, and claims to have served with a paramilitary citizen’s militia in Oregon. He had at least one felony arrest in April 1994, when he was charged with manufacturing and/or dealing a controlled substance.
Normally, Hadley’s attacks wouldn’t raise many eyebrows, but on this occasion I did call law enforcement authorities to report the not-so-thinly-veiled threat he made here (regarding my home address and my wife’s office).
Hadley also left several other comments on this blog that weren’t published that were both profane and racist, such as the following:
http://www.csgv.org/HadleyComment
Hadley’s comments here are not unprecedented. He celebrated the threatened posting of the home address of Joan Peterson, a gun violence survivor from Minnesota (Joan’s sister was shot and killed by her husband three years into divorce proceedings) in a blog entitled, “The Most Dangerous Game” (http://daysofourtrailers.blogspot.com/2011/05/most-dangerous-game.html).
Why do you insist on debating Ladd?
I see people make the argument that expensive registration requirements present minorities, who tend to have less money, more than they do whites, who are statistically more likely to be able to afford the registration process.
What does Ladd say?
“To my knowledge, there is not a single organization that represents African-Americans in NYC that has called for the weakening of New York’s licensing and registration laws for handguns.”
This answers a different question, and shows how dishonest Ladd is when pinned down.
In other words, Ladd knows damned well that the cost of the laws will disproportionately inhibit minority registration.
So he instead points out that organizations purporting the represent the interests of African-Americans in NYC don’t feel blacks need access to firearms.
Who cares what the NAACP and Sharpton think? Surely they don’t represent the consensus opinion of law-abiding blacks in the city…
Alas, it’s just Ladd’s attempt to obfuscate the way to his desired goal, which is to argue that even blacks (via their high-powered surrogates) don’t want access to firearms.
Perhaps he’d be better off reading about Mr. Otis McDonald–albeit from Chicago, not NYC–but certainly black enough by Ladd’s criteria to reference in such a discussion.
Wow, people like Ladd scream institutionalized racism when ever it suits them and then when it’s clearly shown how the laws they want are biased towards a segment of society they all of a sudden are all… Where? I don’t see it. That is straight up school yard politics. If you think you can convince anyone other then your own delusional group of friends with this type of argument you are daft.
I am a moderate and I do see that both the NRA and people like your group here and the Brady Campaign seek extremes and have little desire for any compromise.
Your argument that no one is trying to get rid of all guns is hollow and you show the proof yourself. They don’t seek it now because the SCOTUS has already spoken on the matter and there is a clear tide of support for gun ownership in the US. But the leaders of groups you support have made individual statements like, “Private gun ownership is outdated and not needed in the US” and “Only the police need to have guns”.
Sorry but as a real moderate who lives in the inner city in Oakland CA I see gun violence every day. And I hear politicians talk about how they are going to get the guns off of our streets. Do you know how they intend to do that? By banning guns. Oakland already bans all guns stores and the sale of ammunition. However every 16 year old kid on a street corner has a gun. Why? Because prohibition NEVER works. It didn’t work for alcohol. I didn’t work for drugs. It doesn’t work for prostitution, and it does nothing to get guns away criminals.
Gun bans only serve to take guns away from law abiding citizens and the only people who don’t see that are far left types like you.
And keep in mind, I’m a centrist has never voted for a republican in his life.. But people like you and Obama (who I did vote for) are doing everything you can to change that.
Congrats.
I agree….Ladd is a tremendous pussy.