What Bernie Sanders got wrong in the debate on gun safety legislation

[bigtree]

from Salon:


The senator who won’t shoot straight: What Bernie Sanders gets wrong about gun control

____Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) waffled during last night’s debate when he was asked about his gun control record, and despite the candidate’s widespread online popularity—especially on Reddit—the Internet definitely took note.

When criticized by Hillary Clinton for voting against the Brady Bill, Sanders replied that “when we develop that consensus, we can finally, finally do something to address this issue.” Shortly thereafter, when former Maryland governor Martin O’Malley talked about his success in passing gun control legislation—despite facing a large contingency of conservative Democrats in his own state—Sanders argued that “the views on gun control in rural states are different than in urban states.” In his opinion, a president’s job must be “to bring people together around strong, common sense gun legislation.”

While Sanders is correct about the need for strong gun control legislation, he fails to understand the nature of firearm politics in America today. The problem isn’t that gun control advocates aren’t willing to accept that their views on guns are different from those in rural communities. The biggest issue facing the gun control movement today is that the National Rifle Association is unwilling to compromise whatsoever when it comes to necessary reforms...

As a result of this political paranoia, it has become impossible for anyone who takes a centrist stance on gun control—that is, someone who falls between the extremes of either wanting to confiscate all guns or have virtually no regulations at all—to dispel the suspicions of the pro-gun community. Indeed, as Sanders correctly noted, he has a D- record from the NRA despite the number of occasions he has sided with them—all because, every now and then, he doesn’t...

All of those measures were supported by a clear majority of the American public—and in the case of mandating criminal background checks, more than 90 percent—but it sadly didn’t matter. Thanks to the NRA and pro-gun grassroots’ ironclad grip over Congressional Republicans and conservative Democrats, even this moderate measure wasn’t able to make it to the floor...

In addition to flubbing the origins of America’s current impasse on gun control, Sanders also failed to fully account for his own record on the issue. As both moderator Anderson Cooper and Hillary Clinton pointed out, Sanders voted against the Brady Bill of 1993, which would have established background checks on firearms and supported legislation that would have made it illegal to sue gun manufacturers and sellers when their firearms were misused. Although Sanders now supports background checks, he never explained why he opposed the Brady Bill at the time or how he has arrived at his current position.

Sanders was more forthcoming when it came to prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers and sellers, saying that he doesn’t think gun shop owners who commit legal transactions should be held responsible if “somebody goes out and does something crazy.” At the same time, he then conceded, “Where you have manufacturers and where you have gun shops knowingly giving guns to criminals or aiding and abetting that, of course we should take action.”

This statement conflicts with the facts on the issue: Leading legal scholars agree that the bill Sanders supported, Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, makes it impossible for even those manufacturers and shops to be held accountable. A product of the George W. Bush administration, Media Matters’ Sergio Munoz explains that the 2005 act “immunized gun makers and dealers from civil lawsuits for the crimes committed with the products they sell, a significant barrier to a comprehensive gun violence prevention strategy.” Munoz argues that the bill essentially “shields the firearm industry.”
advertisement

Perhaps the worst part of all this is that Sanders’ rural background isn’t as an excuse for his poor record on gun legislation. In fact, that history is what puts Sanders in a unique position to take a stand against pro-gun hardliners.

As historian Rick Perlstein recently wrote in an op-ed for Salon, Sanders’ message of economic populism is starting to resonate in many of the Red States that would otherwise never vote for a Democratic presidential candidate. When combined with the passionate support he commands among progressives, Sanders could conceivably break through the impenetrable wall of mistrust that has been built up by right-wing lobbies like the NRA.

Indeed, one of his opponents on that stage managed to do exactly that. When Sanders tried his “rural state” defense on O’Malley, the ex-governor reminded Sanders that the Eastern Shore and Western Maryland are very conservative on gun-related issues, yet “we were able to pass this and still respect the hunting traditions of people who live in our rural areas.”


read: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=post&forum=1251

[hack89]

1. Mother Jones: Gun Control's Biggest Problem: Most People Just Don't Care Very Much

But this is a bad misreading of what polls can tell us. There are (at least) two related problems here:

1. Most polls don't tell us how deeply people feel. Sure, lots of American think that universal background checks are a good idea, but they don't really care that much. In a recent Gallup poll of most important problems, gun control ranked 22nd, with only 2 percent rating it their most important issue. Needless to say, though, gun owners are opposed to background checks, and they care a lot.

2. Most polls don't tell us about the tradeoffs people are willing to make. In the abstract, sure, maybe a majority of Americans think we should make it harder to buy guns. But if there's a real-world price to pay how willing are they to pay it? A few months ago, a Pew poll that pitted gun control against gun rights found that gun rights won by 52-46 percent.

There are lots of polls, and some of them probably show a greater intensity among those who support gun control. A lot depends on question wording. But that's sort of my point: If you get substantially different responses because of small changes in question wording or depending on which precise issues you ask about (background checks vs. assault weapons, gun locks vs. large-capacity magazines) that's a sign of low intensity.

Atkins is certainly right that Democratic legislators won't act on gun control until voters are mobilized, but that puts the cart before the horse. You can't mobilize voters on an issue they don't really care much about in the first place. In this case, I think the folks who prioritize issue-area visibility and engagement probably have the better of the argument. Until voters who favor gun control feel as strongly as those who oppose it, all the field work in the world won't do any good.

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2015/10/gun-controls-biggest-problem-most-people-just-dont-care-very-much

[frylock]

6. And this is why you won't hear a word about gun control in the GE..

this is all posturing from Hillary because she has an issue that she can finally attack Sen Sanders from the left.

[bigtree]

7. making an appeal to the left

...in a Democratic primary campaign. That's not posturing for the general election, it's positioning for the Democratic vote in this primary campaign.

[frylock]

8. Right. campaign to the left in the primary, and back to the right for the GE..

like I said, you won't hear a word about gun control in the GE from Hillary if she wins the nomination.

[bigtree]

9. you'll hear about it from republicans

...and we'll see how she defends her positions.

[frylock]

10. We'll probably hear about how her granddaddy would take her shooting.

[bigtree]

11. that just might be all you hear

...of course, her actual remarks and speeches have more content and substance.

[frylock]

13. So did candidate Obama's..

I learned from that experience to read between the lines.

[bigtree]

14. well, given the choice

...between someone who's been openly ambivalent about the efficacy of gun safety legislation, and another who is openly advocating meaningful changes in the law, I favor the efforts of the latter.

[frylock]

17. How will repeal of PLCAA reduce gun violence?

[bigtree]

18. not as if that's all gun safety advocates are fighting for

...the issue of manufacturer accountability and responsibility for these weapons is still an important part of the gun safety debate.

[frylock]

19. Where specifically do Clinton and Sanders differ on gun control, aside from PLCAA?

And before you say Brady Bill, understand that Sanders supports universal background checks, restrictions on magazine capacity, and an AWB.

[bigtree]

20. well,

...Sen. Sanders's position on guns isn't as progressive as Martin O'Malley's own unapologetic support of gun legislation he helped pass in Maryland, making his state the strictest in the nation on gun control. The laws he shepherded through the Md. legislature and signed include:

- Ban on magazines (an ammunition storage and feeding device) that hold more than 10 bullets;
- Ban on 45 types of semiautomatic (weapons that reload automatically but fire only once when the trigger is pulled) rifles, classifying them as assault weapons;
- Requirement that people seeking to buy any gun other than a hunting rifle or shotgun to obtain a license, submit fingerprints to police, undergo a background check and pass classroom and firing-range training;
- Ban on any rifle that has two of three characteristics — 1) Folding stock, which makes the weapon more compact for storage or transport; 2) Grenade launcher; or 3) Flash suppressor, which protects the eyesight of the shooter in low-light shooting conditions.

Sanders has also voted against forcing states to respect concealed-carry permits issued by other states - to allow people to carry hidden guns around without a permit.

Indeed, in Sander's own state of Vermont, in gaining his first seat in the House, the senator once used his less than liberal record on gun control as a wedge against Peter Smith, the Republican incumbent he defeated, who supported a ban on assault weapons.

Although Sanders recently sided with the Obama administration, voting for federal bans on assault weapons and high-capacity clips, his rhetoric on the issue contradicts the sentiment behind such legislation. In 2013 Sanders was making an argument similar to the one he made in an NPR interview which aired on the same day as the ad by the pro-O'Malley pac where he stated that, “If you passed the strongest gun control legislation tomorrow, I don’t think it will have a profound effect on the tragedies we have seen.”

He echoed that ambivalence to gun control in the NPR interview, stating, "I think that urban America has got to respect what rural America is about, where 99 percent of the people in my state who hunt are law abiding people."

"If anyone thinks that gun control itself is going to solve the problem of violence in this country, you're terribly mistaken. So, obviously, we need strong, sensible gun control and I will support it. But some people think it's going to solve all of our problems. It is not," he said.

"I can understand that if some Democrats or Republicans represent an urban area where people don't hunt, don't do target practice; they're not into guns. But, in my state, people go hunting and people do target practice. Talking about cultural divides in this country, you know, it is important for people in urban America to understand that families go out together and kids go out with their parents and they hunt and they enjoy the outdoors and that is a lifestyle that should not be condemned."

Those comments were obviously aimed at the stance Gov. O'Malley had taken in the wake of the Charleston shooting where he declared how "pissed" he was at "special interests like the NRA." His statement was a courageous reflection of his successful effort to address the issue of gun violence in his own state:

I'm pissed that we’re actually asking ourselves the horrific question of, what will it take? How many senseless acts of violence in our streets or tragedies in our communities will it take to get our nation to stop caving to special interests like the NRA when people are dying?

I'm pissed that after working hard in the state of Maryland to pass real gun control—laws that banned high-magazine weapons, increased licensing standards, and required fingerprinting for handgun purchasers—Congress continues to drop the ball.

It's time we called this what it is: a national crisis.

I proudly hold an F rating from the NRA, and when I worked to pass gun control in Maryland, the NRA threatened me with legal action, but I never backed down.

So now, I'm doubling down, and I need your help. What we did in Maryland should be the first step of what we do as a nation. The NRA is already blaming the victims of yesterday's shooting for their own deaths, saying they too should have been armed. Let's put an end to this madness and finally stand up to them. Here are some steps we should be taking:

1. A national assault weapons ban.

2. Stricter background checks.

3. Efforts to reduce straw-buying, like fingerprint requirements.

Bernie Sanders' response was/is basically a strawman, suggesting that 'urban' advocates of gun control, like O'Malley' are somehow against responsible gun ownership and use. Nothing in the O'Malley gun control stance and record indicates anything of the sort. Nowhere has he 'condemned' gun owners for 'hunting' or 'target practice' as Sanders insinuated.

Not to mentioned that none of the recent atrocities happened in 'urban' areas.

More to the point, the line Bernie Sanders is attempting to draw between his own equivocation on gun control and liberal efforts over the years isn't progressive, it's more of a libertarian view than a Democratic one; in effect, straddling that fence on this issue of gun control. That may well be accommodating to moderate and conservative views on gun control, but it's hardly a progressive stance' - well out of line with his supporters' insistence that his politics are unabashedly progressive.

Now, Sanders is advancing his decidedly more progressive stance on gun safety. Good for him, but his record of support is well short of what gun safety advocates have been fighting for.

I'll leave it to Clinton advocates here to explain her views and record, at this point.

[m-lekktor]

15. yeah gun control is at the very bottom of my list of priorities.nt

[Scuba]

2. I'm disappointed in Bernie's stance (and response) on this ...

... but still find him far-and-away the best candidate for President in my lifetime. But then I'm only 67 years old.

[bigtree]

5. that's fair

...this wouldn't stop me for voting for him as nominee, but it's important to set the record straight and keep the gun safety debate out of the muck the NRA created to muddy the issue.

[JaneyVee]

3. Most of these mass shootings occur in rural communities...

Or at least suburban, from Columbine, to Sandy Hook, to Roseburg, etc etc etc

[sadoldgirl]

12. Nonsense, Columbine is in Littleton, which

is part of Denver!

[JaneyVee]

16. 142 school shootings since Sandy Hook.

0 in "urban areas".

[hack89]

4. 538 explains the political calculus behind gun control

Democrats get dyspeptic trying to understand why, despite the large majorities of Americans who favor specific gun control laws, Congress has done nothing. But the answer to that conundrum also explains why Hillary Clinton felt free to propose stronger gun controls than Bernie Sanders has. Earlier this week, she said she would prevent those convicted of domestic abuse from buying guns, close the “gun show” and “Charleston” loopholes,1 and work to repeal a law that helps gun manufacturers avoid legal consequences from the criminal use of their products. She’s the second Democrat to propose tough new regulations. Martin O’Malley, the former governor of Maryland, goes even further than Clinton; he proposed a national firearms registry, among other new laws.

The bulk of support for stricter gun control comes from concentrated majorities in cities and in blue states. Opposition is distributed more widely across the country. That disconnect helps prevent gun control laws from passing Congress, but does nothing to discourage a Democrat campaigning for national office from pushing for gun control. The reason for the former is the undemocratic nature of the Senate; the latter is in part because of the winner-take-all nature of the Electoral College.

It turns out, moreover, that anti-gun-control voters, who tend to be whiter and older than the overall population, are generally more regular voters, so there’s an additional tug against politicians in states and districts that tend to split along red/blue lines fairly evenly. This also explains why Democratic candidates for president feel free to support gun control now, but members of Congress don’t, especially if they’re from rural states. Our system of government makes it much harder to dislodge strongly held cultural beliefs through legislation, in part because it gives beliefs that originate in rural, less-populous states disproportionate influence. To use another example, it doesn’t matter if majorities of voters support legislation to address climate change if the senators from enough small-population states don’t.

Will Clinton’s proposals complicate her electoral math in the general election? She doesn’t have to worry about most of the rural states that oppose gun control, which are unlikely to support her anyway. And the gun ownership rate in nine swing states is 29 percent, on average. The rate nationally: 29 percent.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/why-clinton-feels-safe-running-to-sanders-left-on-guns/

Excellent article on the political calculus behind gun control.