Minnesota Network for Progressive Action

About Comments
The mnpACT! blog welcomes all comments from visitors, which are immediately posted, but we also filter for spammers:
  • No active URLs or web links are allowed (use www.yourweb.com).
  • No drug or pharma- ceutical names are allowed.
  • Your comment "Name" must be one word with no spaces and cannot be an email address.
You should also note that a few IP addresses and homepage URLs have been banned from posting comments because they have posted multiple spam messages.

Please be aware we monitor ALL comments and reserve the right to delete obvious spam comments.



 
Politics Blogs - Blog Top Sites

Listed on BlogShares

 
site search

Site Meter
 
  Progressive Political Blog

Progressive Politics in Minnesota, the Nation, and the World

Obama's Actions On Guns Are Not Excessive - Not At All

Category: Guns
Posted: 01/05/16 13:47

by Dave Mindeman

An emotional Obama put forward his executive actions on guns today. As I listened, I could not fathom why these statements could be controversial in any way. But they already are.

Increasing background checks is supported by a solid majority in this country. It is not even close, yet gun advocates keep opposing expanding what responsible gun owners already are subject to - extensive background checks.

And Obama also is ordering an expansion of mental illness reporting into the background check system. Yet, this is being opposed by gun rights enthusiasts as an unnecessary invasion of privacy. These are the same people that contend that mental illness is the problem, not guns.

Even improvements to gun safety technology gets criticism, for reasons I still do not understand. Trigger locks and fingerprint tech seem like a no brainer when we have children killing children in their own homes.

Anything that Obama mentions on guns is met with outrage from the gun lobby and their minions.

How can we ever have a substantive discussion about reducing gun violence if even the kind of issues that Obama discussed today are dismissed out of hand?

I have talked to gun advocates. Some of them have well reasoned arguments and I can see their point on some things. But intelligent advocates are far outnumbered by angry and often verbally abusive whackos....who oppose everything and refuse to listen to any kind of common sense suggestions on guns.

Obama has made it very clear that he is not looking to infringe on 2nd Amendment rights - and I think most Americans are not looking to alter the responsible gun owner environment. But we do need to address the gun violence in this country. We are the only advanced country with this kind of problem.

It is true that we will never be able to stop all instances of this kind of tragedy. But we can work to reduce it. As Obama said, we do not give up on highway safety because we cannot reduce accidents to zero. So it is with gun violence. We have to try. We have to do what we can.

And maybe it will have to be the responsible gun owners who lead the way.
comments (0) permalink

Comparison Of Latest Shooting Incidents

Category: Guns
Posted: 12/06/15 20:19

by Dave Mindeman

Let's do a straight up comparison here.

1. San Bernardino.

A. Although fundamentalist religious ideology was involved, these two people do not seem to be part of any broader group.
B. They purchased their guns and ammunition legally.
C. They targeted a vulnerable group - although there is evidence that these people were chosen specifically.
D. They fought with police and brought casualties.
E. Reaction from left has been to voice concern about guns.
F. Reaction from right has voiced concern about policies on radical Islam.

2. Colorado Springs.

A. Shooter had fundamentalist religious ideology, but did not seem to part of a broader group.
B. He purchased his weapons legally.
C. He targeted a vulnerable group - and he chose his target specifically.
D. He fought with police and brought casualties.
E. Reaction from left has been to voice concern about guns.
F. Reaction from right was.....silence.

No comment.

comments (2) permalink

More Discussion On The Gun Argument

Category: Guns
Posted: 12/05/15 13:54

by Dave Mindeman

My conversation with a conservative blogger and gun rights activist (Mitch Berg) has given me a lot of things to consider and think about. At least the dialogue has been policy based and that is a good thing.

But I'd like to discuss a few of the ideas put forward....

1. Violent crime is down sharply.

Mitch wanted to make sure this was clear...and it is correct. Violent crime is down from 20 years ago. He noted a Pew Research study that stated this and the dates involved were between 1993 and 2013. The notoriety of the mass shootings that have been so prevalent lately has masked or distorted this statistic. But it is also worth noting that 1993 was the peak.. the Brady Bill passed in 1993 and the Assault Weapons Ban passed in 1994. According to Pew, 1993 had 7 firearm deaths per 100,000 population. It dropped down to 3.8 by 2001, but has remained fairly constant since that time. It is worth noting that the Assault Weapons ban expired in 2004. Of course, it is hard to correlate any direct cause and effect analogy, but with the advent of the Brady Bill, background checks became law. Would universal background checks be better? You decide.

2. "The "355 mass shootings" statistic is a canard."

At least that is what Mitch is telling me. He doesn't dispute the idea that there may have been 355 incidents in which 3 or more people were shot, but he believes it is a distortion to count "drug deals gone bad, gang-bangers killing off rivals, bar fights gone bad, crimes between people who know each other".. I'm not sure why these horrific events should be classified as not relevant - it is still guns. I don't care what the reasons (if there can be valid reasons) are for these incidents - but the common factor is weapons are in use and the people using them have no hesitation to keep shooting.

3. "The vast majority of mass shootings AND terror attacks are *planned* to take place where nobody can resist".

This is a favorite point for gun advocates. They love to talk about gun free zones being sought out by mass shooters. I have looked at several studies that look at this issue specifically...and there are studies that make claims both ways. A few mass shooters have sought out a "gun free zone" but the evidence seems to indicate that it is generally a non-factor. That seeking such a location is not part of the planning. John R. Lott, a gun advocate, put together a deeply flawed study which indicated gun free zones are always sought by mass shooters. But his data was so selective as to be held meaningless. The flawed studies go the other way as well. I think it is just another gun rights talking point that has been latched onto to enhance the talking points. Do you know what places are "gun free zones"? I don't.

4. And the "Gun show loophole" is a chanting point. There IS no "gun show loophole...the "Gun show loophole" refers to private transfers - outside gun shows, between private individuals.

I have to respectfully disagree. Gun shows have some private dealers that are not subject to Federal jurisdiction. The states make the regulations and they vary as widely as the NRA influence will allow. But, frankly, private, local transfers ARE a problem. There is no way to know about these transactions....and "family" transfers can have a pretty broad definition. As far as I am concerned, ALL gun sales need to go through the proper legal requirements. If you are going to have a private sale, then it needs to go through a licensed dealer as an intermediary.

5. The "watch" and "no fly" lists are secret lists, compiled by a process that is utterly opaque by law and has no due process to get on or off. Entire groups can be put on the list with no knowledge, and little reason.

I can agree with "no due process" aspect of that statement. But even though a list might be wrong, there are still a number of people on that list that are on there for a good reason. Stopping them from flying, but letting them purchase a gun just sounds crazy. And even if there are a few people on that list by mistake, why is stopping a gun purchase the bridge too far? I realize that correcting that mistake will be hard, but they should be trying to fix it - and having gun purchases correlate directly with that only makes sense.

I do not own a gun. I do not know the details of weapons and ammunition. Yes, I am probably susceptible to disinformation....but we have to acknowledge that this country has a disproportional problem. I have no desire to take guns away. And I don't wish to stop legal purchases.

I know that criminals will still find a way to get a gun, but that is why we have law enforcement. However, it would be nice if we didn't add to that police burden with suicide investigations, lethal domestic violence, mental illness shootings, etc...etc. There are things we can prevent or make more difficult.

We don't just have to accept what we have now. It needs to be addressed. Absolutely.
comments (10) permalink
« First « Previous

Calendar

« May 2016 »
Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun
1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30 31


Latest posts


Archive

(one year)

Categories


Comments



Links


RSS Feeds

RSS 0.91
RSS 2.0

 
 
 
Powered by
Powered by SBlog
 
Copyright © Minnesota Network for Progressive Action. All rights reserved. Legal. Privacy Policy. Sitemap.