Courageous Senators stand up to American people
Also: Right not to get shot faces uphill battle in Senate
Wednesday, April 24, 2013
Monday, April 22, 2013
A gun violence prevention town hall meeting
Last Saturday, I, along with about 100 others, attended a "town hall" meeting on gun violence prevention led by Congresswoman Anna Eshoo and Congressman Mike Thompson.
I did not have high hopes; Congress' approval ratings are low, and my opinion of it is even lower. Other attendees likely had similar thoughts; like myself, they glanced occasionally out the windows to admire the beautiful weather we were missing. Yet these two Representatives impressed me.
Anna's no gun expert, but Mike is. In addition to being the chairman of the House Gun Violence Prevention Task Force, Mike is a Vietnam veteran and the father of a police officer. Mike's task force released it's recommendations a couple of months ago. He gave us a brief gun tutorial using police-provided samples, including an AR-15, similar to the gun he carried in Vietnam, and an AK-47, similar to the gun carried by his adversaries there. He borrowed a "magazine" from a police officer, explaining how it's incorrect to call them "clips" or "cartridges." The tutorial continued, covering the difference between semi-automatic and fully-automatic, and more.
Mike (and Anna) emphasized that no single law or set of laws will ever eliminate gun violence, but we can pass laws that reduce it, and we can do so while respecting the Second Amendment. Mike explained how the 2008 Supreme Court decision known as Heller put to rest two extreme positions. At one extreme, it said that the government could not ban all guns. At the other, it said that the right to bear arms is not unlimited, just like the right to freedom of speech is not unlimited (e.g. you can't yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater). What you find in the Bill of Rights are fundamental rights, not absolute ones, and they are subject to restriction where it makes sense to do so. In writing for the Heller 5-4 majority, Antonin Scalia - as conservative a Supreme Court justice as you can find - explicitly cited the government's authority to (1) ban certain weapons, (2) ban certain people from owning any guns, and (3) ban all guns from certain areas.
Responding to a man who felt it was too difficult to get a permit to carry a concealed weapon, Mike pointed out that his concern pertained to state law, not federal. A chorus of boos erupted when another man, citing the NRA's current go-to line ("The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun"), advocated arming teachers. Anna, asking teachers in attendance to raise their hands, responded that they have neither the background nor the time to go through the extensive training needed. Moreover, as Blink author Malcolm Gladwell noted, even with extensive training, good guys with guns can make tragic mistakes.
At one point a man's voice broke as he described how he lost his son to a gun suicide. The most poignant for me, however, was someone who sat through the entire meeting without saying a single word, but who I knew had lost a brother in the 1993 massacre at 101 California Street in San Francisco.
When the conversation came around to last Wednesday's Senate vote on gun violence, neither Mike nor Anna minced words. Although 90% of the country is in favor of background checks, the Senate voted them down (54 voted for it compared to 46 against, but they needed 60 to overcome the filibuster). Mike said the task force had videos showing prospective gun show buyers asking if they could buy a gun even though they could not pass a background check; of course they could, some sellers said cheerfully. Legally speaking, those sellers who didn't have a federal license were right. An estimated 40% of all gun purchases do not currently require a background check.
The vote on background checks was shameful, but Mike pointed out it was by no means the most shameful vote. The Senate also voted down amendments to criminalize straw purchases - buying a gun for someone else who can't pass a background check - and gun trafficking. Who, Mike asked rhetorically, is in favor of gun trafficking?
Although I kept my mouth shut, I know who profits from gun trafficking: gun manufacturers. One way or another, manufacturers profit off every gun, including those sold to - or stolen by - criminals and others who can't legally obtain them. But every gun that lands in the hands of bad guys is extra profitable, because it scares law-abiding citizens, who are far more numerous, into buying more guns.
Background checks; criminalizing trafficking; criminalizing straw purchases. All I have to say is: duh. Unfortunately I didn't hear anything about another meritable idea: mandatory gun insurance. Guns are dangerous; it's projected that by 2015 more people in the U.S. will die by gunfire than by car crashes (this is already the case in ten states). If gun insurance were mandatory, free markets would encourage a whole host of practical ideas - trigger locks, gun safes, guns that won't work if stolen, etc. We now have cars that automatically call for help when an airbag deploys. What about a gun that can be configured to automatically call for help when cocked? What about a "LoJack" service for guns? People still die because someone doesn't realize a gun is loaded. Why can't we solve that design problem? If you think these are dumb ideas (I might agree with you, upon further reflection), suggest your own.
Or another idea: require gun thefts to be reported. Exercising the right to bear arms goes hand-in-hand with bearing arms responsibly.
While I'll have to wait before seeing mandatory gun insurance, Mike is optimistic that the U.S. House of Representatives will vote on background checks. I admire him for trying, and I'll give the House (including Speaker Boehner) one gold star if they do. They are staying in the dog house if they don't.
Update: The New York Times has a very interesting article on how the percentage of gun owners has declined.
I did not have high hopes; Congress' approval ratings are low, and my opinion of it is even lower. Other attendees likely had similar thoughts; like myself, they glanced occasionally out the windows to admire the beautiful weather we were missing. Yet these two Representatives impressed me.
Anna's no gun expert, but Mike is. In addition to being the chairman of the House Gun Violence Prevention Task Force, Mike is a Vietnam veteran and the father of a police officer. Mike's task force released it's recommendations a couple of months ago. He gave us a brief gun tutorial using police-provided samples, including an AR-15, similar to the gun he carried in Vietnam, and an AK-47, similar to the gun carried by his adversaries there. He borrowed a "magazine" from a police officer, explaining how it's incorrect to call them "clips" or "cartridges." The tutorial continued, covering the difference between semi-automatic and fully-automatic, and more.
Mike (and Anna) emphasized that no single law or set of laws will ever eliminate gun violence, but we can pass laws that reduce it, and we can do so while respecting the Second Amendment. Mike explained how the 2008 Supreme Court decision known as Heller put to rest two extreme positions. At one extreme, it said that the government could not ban all guns. At the other, it said that the right to bear arms is not unlimited, just like the right to freedom of speech is not unlimited (e.g. you can't yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater). What you find in the Bill of Rights are fundamental rights, not absolute ones, and they are subject to restriction where it makes sense to do so. In writing for the Heller 5-4 majority, Antonin Scalia - as conservative a Supreme Court justice as you can find - explicitly cited the government's authority to (1) ban certain weapons, (2) ban certain people from owning any guns, and (3) ban all guns from certain areas.
Responding to a man who felt it was too difficult to get a permit to carry a concealed weapon, Mike pointed out that his concern pertained to state law, not federal. A chorus of boos erupted when another man, citing the NRA's current go-to line ("The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun"), advocated arming teachers. Anna, asking teachers in attendance to raise their hands, responded that they have neither the background nor the time to go through the extensive training needed. Moreover, as Blink author Malcolm Gladwell noted, even with extensive training, good guys with guns can make tragic mistakes.
At one point a man's voice broke as he described how he lost his son to a gun suicide. The most poignant for me, however, was someone who sat through the entire meeting without saying a single word, but who I knew had lost a brother in the 1993 massacre at 101 California Street in San Francisco.
When the conversation came around to last Wednesday's Senate vote on gun violence, neither Mike nor Anna minced words. Although 90% of the country is in favor of background checks, the Senate voted them down (54 voted for it compared to 46 against, but they needed 60 to overcome the filibuster). Mike said the task force had videos showing prospective gun show buyers asking if they could buy a gun even though they could not pass a background check; of course they could, some sellers said cheerfully. Legally speaking, those sellers who didn't have a federal license were right. An estimated 40% of all gun purchases do not currently require a background check.
The vote on background checks was shameful, but Mike pointed out it was by no means the most shameful vote. The Senate also voted down amendments to criminalize straw purchases - buying a gun for someone else who can't pass a background check - and gun trafficking. Who, Mike asked rhetorically, is in favor of gun trafficking?
Although I kept my mouth shut, I know who profits from gun trafficking: gun manufacturers. One way or another, manufacturers profit off every gun, including those sold to - or stolen by - criminals and others who can't legally obtain them. But every gun that lands in the hands of bad guys is extra profitable, because it scares law-abiding citizens, who are far more numerous, into buying more guns.
Background checks; criminalizing trafficking; criminalizing straw purchases. All I have to say is: duh. Unfortunately I didn't hear anything about another meritable idea: mandatory gun insurance. Guns are dangerous; it's projected that by 2015 more people in the U.S. will die by gunfire than by car crashes (this is already the case in ten states). If gun insurance were mandatory, free markets would encourage a whole host of practical ideas - trigger locks, gun safes, guns that won't work if stolen, etc. We now have cars that automatically call for help when an airbag deploys. What about a gun that can be configured to automatically call for help when cocked? What about a "LoJack" service for guns? People still die because someone doesn't realize a gun is loaded. Why can't we solve that design problem? If you think these are dumb ideas (I might agree with you, upon further reflection), suggest your own.
Or another idea: require gun thefts to be reported. Exercising the right to bear arms goes hand-in-hand with bearing arms responsibly.
While I'll have to wait before seeing mandatory gun insurance, Mike is optimistic that the U.S. House of Representatives will vote on background checks. I admire him for trying, and I'll give the House (including Speaker Boehner) one gold star if they do. They are staying in the dog house if they don't.
Update: The New York Times has a very interesting article on how the percentage of gun owners has declined.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)