The Gun Is Never The Problem: A Guide To Right-Wing Responses To Mass Shootings

[SecularMotion]

When a mass shooting occurs, conservative media rush to blame mental health, video games, a lack of armed people present, and even liberal values -- anything but the fact that the shooter was able to get a gun.

But the single proximate factor in all mass shootings, and in all gun violence really, is that it is easy for dangerous people to access high-powered firearms. Lack of access to firearms typically makes it difficult for would-be mass murderers to carry out their plans. For instance, experts say mass stabbings are extremely rare in the United States. To the contrary, 69 percent of all homicides are committed with a gun. Of 37 public mass killings since 2006, 33 involved firearms, while the Boston Marathon bombings, an incident involving a car, and two cases of arson accounted for the other four incidents.

Furthermore, academic research has linked the easy availability of firearms to homicide. According to numerous studies, "where there are more guns, both men and women are at higher risk for homicide, particularly firearm homicide." Compared to other high income nations which typically more strongly regulate the availability of firearms, the United States' gun homicide rate is 19.5 times higher, leading to an overall homicide rate that is 6.9 times higher. Research has also shown, "across developed countries, where guns are more available, there are more homicides. These results often hold even when the United States is excluded."

Following the April 2 shooting at Fort Hood that left three victims dead and 16 others wounded, conservative media have refused to acknowledge the role of easy access to firearms in shootings and have instead claimed mass shootings are caused by video games, mental health problems, the "culture war," and by a deficiency in the number of firearms carried by the general public.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/04/07/the-gun-is-never-the-problem-a-guide-to-right-w/198768

[billh58]

1. K&R!

GOP = Guns Over People.

[Sancho]

2. Even though I'm sure to have the same debate again...

This is my generic response to gun threads. For the record, I grew up in the South and on military bases. I was taught about firearms as a child, and I grew up hunting, was a member of the NRA, and I still own guns. In the 70’s, I dropped out of the NRA because they became more radical and less interested in safety and training. Some personal experiences where people I know were involved in shootings caused me to realize that anyone could obtain and posses a gun no matter how illogical it was for them to have a gun. Also, easy access to more powerful guns, guns in the hands of children, and guns that weren’t secured are out of control in our society. As such, here’s what I now think should the requirements to possess a gun. I’m not debating the legal language, I just think it’s the reasonable way to stop the shootings. Notice, none of this restricts the type of guns sold. This is aimed at the people who shoot others, because it’s clear that they should never have had a gun.

1.) Anyone in possession of a gun (whether they own it or not) should have a renewable license. If you want to call it a permit, certificate, or registration I don't care.
2.) To get a license, they should have a background check, and be examined by a professional for emotional and mental stability appropriate for gun possession. It might be appropriate to require that examination to be accompanied by references from family, friends, employers, etc.
3.) To get the license, you should be required to take a safety course and pass a test appropriate to the type of gun you want to use.
4.) To get a license, you should be over 21. Under 21, you could only use a gun under direct supervision of a licensed person and after obtaining a learner’s license. Your license might be restricted if you have children or criminals or other unsafe people living in your home.
5.) If you possess a gun, you would have to carry a liability policy insurance policy specifically for gun ownership - and likely you would have to provide proof of appropriate storage, security, and whatever statistical reasons that emerge that would drive the costs and ability to get insurance.
6.) You could not purchase a gun or ammunition without a license, and purchases would have a waiting period.
7.) If you possess a gun without a license, you go to jail, the gun is impounded, and a judge will have to let you go (just like a DUI).
8.) No one should carry an unsecured gun (except in a locked case, unloaded) outside of home or when transporting it to a shooting event without demonstrating a special need. Their license should indicate training and circumstances beyond recreational shooting (security guard, etc.).
9.) All guns should be registered. If you buy, sell, give away, inherit, or the gun changes hands by any other transaction, the registration should be recorded. Ammunition should be tagged.
10.) If you accidentally discharge your gun, commit a crime, get referred by a mental health professional, etc., you should lose your license and guns until reinstated by a serious relicensing process (if ever).

Most of you know that a license is no big deal. Besides a driver’s license you need a license to fish, rent scuba equipment, operate a boat, or many other activities. I realize these differ by state, but that is not a reason to let anyone without a bit of sense pack a semiautomatic weapon in public, on the roads, and in schools. I think we need to make it much harder for some people to have guns.

[etherealtruth]

3. If only all gun enthusiasts (and the nuts in the NRA) were like you!

[dilby]

4. So only weathly people should own guns?

Everything you describe will basically make it so the wealthy will be the only ones who are able to exercise their 2nd Amendment. Kind of reminds me of a Poll Tax.

[flamin lib]

9. Ya know I get really tired of this excessively stupid meme.

I've been background checked by the BATF&E, FBI, Texas DPS, Tarrant Co. , and Arlington Police. It cost me $30.

If you can afford a gun and the ammo to learn to use it you can afford the rest of the package.

[dilby]

11. You must have missed the rest of the OP's requirements.

If it was just a background check at $30 that is fine, what they are listing is more like Thousands of dollars.

[flamin lib]

17. I didn't miss a Goddam thing.

If you can afford the fucking gun you can afford the rest of the package. If not the fridge probably empty and ya should be spend ing your money on better things.

[dilby]

22. Guns are cheap, they are not in the thousands of dollar range.

And making the requirement to own one expensive directly affects the poor. So you support a system where rich people have more rights than poor people.

[flamin lib]

23. I've got all that shit and it didn't come anywhere close to a $Grand.

If you can afford the fucking gun you can afford the rest of the package. If you can't you don't need the fucking gun.

[derby378]

10. It certain wouldn't pass 2A muster, anyway (n/t)

[BrotherIvan]

13. These suggestions in no way violate the 2A

Gunners seem to believe that the 2A guarantees easy access to as many guns as possible. The suggestions here fit with that part you keep forgetting about in that very text: WELL REGULATED.

[NutmegYankee]

15. That means a militia that operates in good order and understands their arms.

As opposed to the militias often fleeing the battlefield in the War of American Revolution. Something our founding fathers were very aware of. The Constitution wasn't set up to maintain a standing army. Citizens of our country were expected to own arms and practice use as a civic duty similar to what Switzerland did. However, a brilliant artillery officer from France made the concept of unprofessional armies non-workable with his tactics, and the rest is history. Even the National guard isn't militia - It's professionally trained like the reserves of other countries.

[Hoyt]

53. So is this a militia?

[derby378]

16. And we already are, thank you very much

There's a lot of people who seem to think we only read the latter part of the Second Amendment, and that routine is getting old.

Instead of taking 30-year-old solutions out of the Brady Campaign/MAIG playbook, maybe it's time to evolve new ideas. We've tried to discuss a few on DU in the past.

[flamin lib]

21. I think reply 2 was an idea. nt

[beevul]

20. Mudock v. Pennsylvania

"A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution and that a flat license tax here involves restraints in advance the constitutional liberties of Press and Religion and inevitably tends to suppress their existence. That the ordinance is non-discriminatory and that is applies also to peddlers of wares and merchandise is immaterial. The liberties granted by the first amendment are and in a preferred position. Since the privilege in question is guaranteed by the Federal Constitution and exist independently of the states authority , the inquiry as to whether the state has given something for which it cannot ask a return, is irrelevant. No state may convert any secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it"

That pretty well refutes...well...all of this nonsense.

Gunners seem to believe that the 2A guarantees easy access to as many guns as possible. The suggestions here fit with that part you keep forgetting about in that very text: WELL REGULATED.

And anti-gun absolutists tend to forget that they do not get to define amendment 2 for everyone else.

[Sancho]

26. This has nothing to do with the 2nd...you can have your gun...

Do you think unstable and dangerous people should possess guns? If not, then there has to be controls.

[beevul]

30. What part of " No state may convert any secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license...

What part of "No state may convert any secured liberty into a privilege and issue a license and a fee for it" do you not understand?

"Do you think unstable and dangerous people should possess guns? If not, then there has to be controls."

Absolutely. Control the dangerous and unstable people, and leave the rest of us the hell alone.

[Hip_Flask]

45. There is well established precedent that is not the case...

90% of this would fail on its face...

[Sancho]

25. What does it cost for all the deaths?

What it costs you in a license fee is just like any other sport....and as it cost society more and more for the violence, the cost to be safe goes up.

You can always elect someone to put a tax on everyone to share the cost. That's not the issue.

Do you think unstable and dangerous people should possess guns? If not, then there has to be controls.

[Eleanors38]

36. "unstable and dangerous" in accordance with 5A...

Unless you have a problem with the Fifth Amendment.

[Paladin]

8. Suits me. (nt0

[BrotherIvan]

12. All of these suggestions are sensible if we at least want to start somewhere

I would add that one must have an approved safe storage for all guns as many of these accidents happen with unsecured guns.

I also feel there should be some sort of limit. The idea that anyone can build an arsenal if they so choose is madness. We're talking about lethal weapons, not stamps or coins.

But then again, I think we should adopt Canadian or Australian gun laws or any sane restrictions because what we have now is absolutely horrifying.

[badtoworse]

18. Not going to waste my time with this BS again

[Sancho]

27. good...then answer the question....

Do you think unstable and dangerous people should possess guns?

[Eleanors38]

37. See #36

[beevul]

24. Conflation. Typical.

"Most of you know that a license is no big deal."

Murdock vs Pennsylvania says different.

"Besides a driver’s license..."

You don't need a drivers license to own a car or to use one on private property.

"...you need a license to fish"

But not to own a fishing rod.

"...rent scuba equipment..."

But not to own it, or the compressor which refills the tanks.

"operate a boat"

Maybe in some places, but not in most.


Conflation. Of ownership versus usage in public. Typical.

[Sancho]

28. or register to vote, fly a plane, etc., etc...

Do you think unstable and dangerous people should possess guns?

Please answer the question.

[Eleanors38]

38. See #36

[Eleanors38]

43. "Not debating legal language." See #36

[Oakenshield]

55. Well said.

Couldn't agree more.

[Bryce Butler]

58. Sensible solution

[pscot]

5. kick

[Nuclear Unicorn]

6. Yet, as gun ownership proliferates the murder rate is trending downward.

Here's an academic study that says "shall issue" CCW states have a lower murder rate and it notes that other studies conflate homicide with murder.

[Jgarrick]

7. +1

[beevul]

14. Add to that, that the gun control absolutists...

Add to that, that the gun control absolutists ignore the other hundred million people who own 300 million guns, who didn't and won't be shooting anyone accidentally or deliberately within their lifetime...

Other than to blame them and the guns they own for it when someone bad in a country of 300 million does something bad with a gun.

[flamin lib]

19. Murder overall, murder by gun not so much.nt

[Bazinga]

46. So you would rather have more people killed, as long as they aren't killed with guns?

Isn't it considered "worth it" if it saves just one life?

I've never understood why the focus is gun crimes, gun suicides, or gun murders. Shouldn't the focus be on lowering the total of all of these?

[flamin lib]

50. Don't be silly. The inference was that because there are more guns there are fewer

Murders. While murders overall are down, murders with guns are flat, hence guns are not linked to a decrease in murders.

More guns means more death by gun just as more swimming pools means more drownings in pools.

[Bazinga]

61. You discount the deterrent effect of CCW.

Guns in the right hands apparently is linked to a decrease in murder. I'll admit that it is just as post hoc as "states with the tightest gun laws have the fewest gun crimes." But it certainly doesn't support more guns = more crime (a much more relevant relationship than more guns = more gun crime)

The swimming pool analogy has this weakness; while guns can be and have been used to prevent shootings, no swimming pool has ever been used to prevent a drowning.

[Bazinga]

66. Also, You may want to look at that study again.

You don't have to read past the abstract to find this;

"Using data for the period 1980 to 2009 and controlling for state and year fixed effects, the results of the present study suggest that states with restrictions on the carrying of concealed weapons had higher gun-related murder rates than other states."

Emphasis mine.

[lancer78]

57. We could "save"

hundreds of thousands of lives each year if we just ban abortion. Gun grabbers and pro-lifers both have the same mentality.

[Sancho]

29. which is not the issue....

Do you think unstable and dangerous people should possess guns?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

32. Which OP are you replying to? because the one I replied to said guns = murder.

[Eleanors38]

42. Sorry, missed one. See #36

[jeff47]

31. Except gun ownership isn't proliferating.

The number of households with a gun are at an all-time low.

[Lizzie Poppet]

35. I seriously doubt that, actually.

Surveys w/o physical verification of the accuracy of responses depend entirely on the veracity of the respondents. In today's socio-political climate (at least in many parts of the country), I would be very surprised indeed if a good-sized portion of the people surveyed weren't unwilling to tell a stranger that they had firearms. Assurances of anonymity frequently fall on deaf ears. Would gun owners who lie to researchers account for the majority of the "decline" in gun-owning households I strongly suspect so. Gun sales are up enormously in recent years...and in my view this increase is too large to be accounted for my a vast increase in sales to a shrinking customer base.

[jeff47]

63. Yes, and the election polls needed to be unskewed. (nt)

[Lizzie Poppet]

64. Um, okay.

I suppose that was at least somehow relevant to my reply. Kinda...

[jeff47]

65. It's the same argument conservatives used to argue that Romney was winning

They wanted a result, and when polls did not show that result, they made up reasons for the polls to be wrong.

Households with a gun is at a 40-year low (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/10/us/rate-of-gun-ownership-is-down-survey-shows.html).

You are arguing that this result is due to massive, widespread paranoia. Because that fits the narrative you want.

You are also ignoring how this fits nicely into other surveys showing that the surge in gun purchases over the last few years is mostly due to people buying a 2nd+ gun. To make this fit with your claim, people are lying about gun ownership in the first survey, but telling the truth in other surveys.

[Lizzie Poppet]

67. I'm ignoring nothing, actually.

I'm aware of the research indicating many "2nd gun" purchases. I'm not ignoring that it fits with the research claiming to show a significant drop in percentage of households with guns...because if the theory of underreporting gun ownership to curious strangers is valid, then that correspondence would be expected.

My analysis of the reliability on unverified sampling research has nothing to do with my preferences in the matter, nor it it remotely an uncommon objection to that methodology. Anyone with even the slightest grounding in statistical methodology is aware of this problem with survey polling.

[DanTex]

71. I've yet to come across a pro-gun person with the slightest grounding in statistical methodology.

They do seem pretty good at dropping buzzwords as an excuse to ignore scientific research though.

[sarisataka]

33. Unlocking

Hosts reconsidered this as newsworthy.
Unlocking for further discussion.

[Lizzie Poppet]

34. Seriously?

[Eleanors38]

40. Of course. Dated doctrine re-inked on the mimeograph. Good 'nuff 4 GD.

[Lizzie Poppet]

41. SecMo drive-bys go viral!

[Bazinga]

48. It was mentioned once,

That the ratio of threads started to total posts should be something worth consideration. In SecMo's case it would tell you all you really need to know about his contribution to the "conversation."

[derby378]

52. A hint of desperation, perhaps? (n/t)

[CreekDog]

51. sorry you're disappointed, obviously you don't want people to talk about certain subjects

where your opinion is in the minority.

but good luck with that.

[Lizzie Poppet]

59. Congratulations: you're 100% wrong.

Woo hoo! Perfect score!

[Eleanors38]

39. Mediamatters still using armed bodyguards?

[Puzzledtraveller]

44. guaranteed

[CreekDog]

56. do you not like Media Matters?

seems like it.

[Hip_Flask]

60. He may just be against hypocrisy...

[Eleanors38]

69. Not the particular crap-in-your-pants hypocrisy on guns.

[CreekDog]

73. why don't you post a source for your unproven accusation

all the ones i found were right wing stuff, and i have my doubts about those sources.

do you read and believe a lot of that stuff? do you enjoy the Daily Caller?

[alp227]

62. what does that have to do with this story?

It's been discussed on DU already, having originated in right wing media like Fox News and Daily Caller, the very media that Media Matters dissects. http://www.democraticunderground.com/117215542

When has David Brock or the "gun control left" ever wanted to ban armed guards?

[Hip_Flask]

68. I think the point is not that they should be banned...

... but rather that they are usually left entirely out of the conversation so that the elite will still have access to them.

'Cause they're super duper important and not a part of the lowly mob who have no need...

[Eleanors38]

70. Credibility & believability. Like Sly Stone raising $ for the Bradys...

while being licensed to carry handguns in CA, no mean feat.

[alp227]

74. I thought one viewpoint of gun control **was** licensed carry. Am I wrong?

I thought gun control advocates supported licensed and regulated possession of firearms hence the "well regulated militia" portion of the 2nd amendment.

[Eleanors38]

75. I think you are off on 2 parts of the Constitution.

RKBA is a recognized right of the people; the "well regulated militia" clause is the government's limited statement of interest in that individual right, not a conditioning of it. And in the context of the time, "well regulated" meant that citizens in a militia should have knowledge of how to use a firearm suitable for military service. (Training beyond that is outlined in Article 1.) So if I were called out for militia duty, I would report with a suitable, working weapon & ammunition which I knew how to use.

A constitutional right is not restricted by treating different classes of people unequally. Stallone's getting a license under a "may issue" system is an example of unequal treatment as he is likely able to get one while some poor shmuck in Los Angeles who must walk a dark street for blocks to get to work is unlikely. The schmuck is not accorded his Second OR his Fourteenth Amendment rights. Feinstein got her CCW as well in SF of all places.

The corrupted may issue system is a creature of post Civil War Southern state laws. Shall issue licenses in states where issued are constitutionally fair.

[alp227]

76. Then get rid of "may issue".

Anyone who demonstrates competence of using a gun, knowledge of safety rules, and has liability insurance should be able to get a permit.

[Eleanors38]

77. "may issue" is collapsing faster than I can speak against it.

I support competency testing and knowledge of the law as it pertains to the carrying of weapons. This probably puts me at odds with some 2A defenders, and residents of Vermont, Alaska, etc. who allow carry without testing/permitting, but that is a state's prerogative I don't go with liability insurance requirements for exercising a constitutional right. If someone causes unlawful damage/injury by use of a gun, let him/her be sued.

I'm not sure what the disagreement is, other than the insurance suggestion. Am I missing something?

[alp227]

78. why did you bring up the David Brock armed bodyguard story in the first place? nt

[Eleanors38]

79. Raw hypocrisy goes to credibility. MM has a credibility problem.

The gun control outlook is highly elitist, and that breeds hypocrisy and consequential credibility problems. Moore, Feinstein, Stallone, Edward Kennedy, Mediamatters, and others evidently see little problem with hypocrisy. Elitism will do that.

[AcertainLiz]

47. Guns don't kill people, people with guns kill people.

[Iggo]

49. SAVE THE GUNS!!!

[Calista241]

72. One of these days...

The court is going to weigh in on what it means to "bear arms." Who knows what they're going to say when that happens.