United States of NRA
July 23, 2012 7 Comments
Nice piece from Tomasky on the amazingly out-sized political influence of the NRA (a long, but worth it, excerpt):
But please. The idea that honest efforts to keep guns out of the hands of potential killers and mentally unstable people poses any rational threat to my friends or America’s hunters and collectors is completely preposterous. This is such a con. Rock-ribbed conservatives usually don’t show a great deal of sympathy for our country’s mentally ill, when the question involves social spending on their behalf; but by God try to deny them to right to bear arms, and watch how quickly and feverishly the right wing rallies to their side, linking arms as if the famous “slippery slope” would lead inevitably from the mentally ill to law-abiding citizens…
It is of course LaPierre’s National Rifle Association that has hyped this slippery slope and made it so omnipresent in the minds of its members. Give him credit: Twenty or so years ago, the NRA was losing ground. At the time, when some nut shot up a post office or a McDonald’s, we actually had the conversations about gun laws we no longer bother with, and laws were passed like the 1994 assault weapons ban. Then the NRA got to work on three fronts. First, no accommodation or compromise. Second, it built an enviable track record of defeating incumbents who opposed it. And third, it developed an expert vocabulary for stoking gun-owners’ anxieties about liberals’ desire to take their guns, as we’ve seen recently in the Fast and Furious “controversy,” which gained traction on the right pretty much entirely because the NRA persuaded its partisans that the whole program was a stalking horse for a dark conspiracy to rid America of firearms…
The net effect is that we have laws no one wants—not cops, not the military, not even most gun owners themselves—except the NRA [emphasis mine]. Earlier this year, the Indiana state house passed—with NRA backing—a bill spelling out when citizens could kill police officers. Some prominent military leaders wanted military personnel to be able to discuss gun safety with troops as a way of trying to stem military suicides, many of which are committed with personally owned guns. The NRA was having none of it. Finally, as to gun owners, I will never forget the late 2009 poll—conducted by Frank Luntz, no less—that found that 69 percent of NRA members back closing the gun show loophole. That poll produced a series of fascinating findings that showed NRA members to be pretty reasonable people in private on the telephone. But alas, in the political arena, in Wayne they trust, I guess…
So this will happen again. And again, and again. In fact, as I said above, we are likely headed for a day in this country like the following. At a movie theater, in a mall, at a commuter rail platform, in a restaurant—some glory-seeker opens fire. Most people duck and scatter, but a decent percentage of them produce their pieces. The gunman goes down like Warren Beatty in Bonne and Clyde, but, since “most people” aren’t marksmen, maybe a few other people do too, and maybe, oh, a three year old. But hey. There’s always a spoilage factor. Rights are sacred. From their cold, dead hands. . . .
One of the things that has amazed me (okay, not really all the surprised, but still…) in reading various FB conversations this weekend is the people who defend any and all gun ownership at all costs. Can they not even agree that ordinary citizens should not be owning powerful military semi-automatic machine guns with huge ammunition magazines? Sure, some people will find other ways to commit violence, but there’s a good chance it will be less deadly ways. A number of commenters remarked, “well, they’ll just build a bomb or use poison gas” or things to that effect. Yet, of all these other nations with stricter gun laws and many fewer mass murders, there’s not exactly a rash of bombings and poisoning to match our rash of mass shootings. Quite simply the easier you make it to be a mass murderer, the more mass murder you’ll get. And allowing virtually anybody to legally buy this kind of weapon and ammunition is about as easy at it gets.
And, on the subject of NRA absolutism, this is one of my favorite cartoons ever (from Bizarro):
About Steve Greene
Again you set up a straw man and then knock it down. Assualt rifles are rarely used in mass killings and machine guns practically never. You could ban all assualt rifles and machine guns and as I said before a pump shotgun is very lethal when loaded with double ought buckshot or rifled slugs and you will NEVER BAN SHOTGUNS
What’s the straw man? Didn’t some lunatic just murder 12 people and injure dozens more with an assault rifle 3 days ago? Doesn’t the NRA support policy positions that even many of its own members consider extreme?
Well assault rifles are rare in mass murders. It does not differ substantially from a semi automatic deer hunting rifle. Ban assault rifles and the killers will use high powered deer hunting rifles, most killings are with pistols. As I said in a previous post, most killings are done at close range and the semi automatic shotgun or pump shotgun is very lethal when loaded with double ought buckshot or rifled slugs
“Ban assault rifles and the killers will use high powered deer hunting rifles”
Sounds like a good idea, let’s give it a go.
Perhaps you missed the fact that they are both semi automatic weapons and just as deadly itcchy or are you just on a quest of incrementalism first assault rifles and then deer rifles
Not sure that it’s a fact, but, no, I did not miss your statement. If they’re equally deadly, then we do not need both. (We may not need either, but we don’t need both.)
I would say, ban assault rifles since there is no reasonable use except to kill lots of people easily. If deer rifles are then used by nuts to kill bunches of people — which doesn’t follow just because you said so — then weigh any valid, non-human-violent uses for them against the harm.
I don’t believe laws covering weapons are all-or-nothing. I agree with you that each restriction has to be weighed on both sides: Will banning this weapon result in fewer deaths? Will it unnecessarily limit a freedom that we should reasonably expect an individual to have in our society?
We already do this, as does every other nation. I’m proposing nothing different. It’s just an argument over where to draw the lines.
The military assault rifle was designed for medium to close in work. That is why it has both a short stock and a short barrel.
As I have stated, yes, a semi automatic hunting rifle is basically the same. Just cut down the barrel and the stock. Of course, the modern assault rifle is purpose designed to be smaller and lighter. But then you also have to add on that 50 to 100 shot drum magazine. Or a two 25 shot long magazines taped together for a quick change. That’s what really makes the big difference. No modern military goes around with a hunters 5 round magazine. You want a big clip with plenty of rounds when you are killing people.
I don’t know about what the favourite killing machine is for your average US psycho, but I do know that many of the latest have used high capacity magazines for many of the weapons they have carried including their pistols. Up to 30 shots for a single pistol magazine. Some pistols are designed high capacity, I believe 18 rounds right from the manufacturer. Now the Beta Company is taking pre-orders for a C-MAG for the 9mm Glock. A 100 round drum magazine for a 9mm Glock pistol.
California has a ban on high capacity magazines and Californians are limited to 10 rounds. A short drive to Arizona will get them some high capacity magazines.