http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2013/01/16/obama-lays-out-gun-control-plan Comments On: Obama's Gun Control Plan by Dominic Holden en-us Copyright 2013 The Stranger. All rights reserved. This RSS file is offered to individuals, The Stranger readers, and non-commercial organizations only. Any commercial websites wishing to use this RSS file, please contact The Stranger. webmaster@thestranger.com (The Stranger Webmaster) Tue, 18 Jun 2013 00:00:01 -0700 Tue, 18 Jun 2013 16:15:00 -0700 Foundation http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss
You pretend to support single payer health care, but can you explain why that's not a first step towards a total government takeover of the entire insurance industry? Of the entire free market economy? It is the same slippery slope, is it not?
Posted by Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn]]> Wed, 16 Jan 2013 17:08:27 -0800 The Stranger
Hey, phony liberal.

Sounds like you haven't looked at a poll in over a dozen years. There's overwhelming support for closing the gun show loophole. And banning large capacity magazines. And beefing up law enforcement, background checks, etc. And even the assault weapons ban.

And, if you've checked any polls recently, you'd know that even among gun owners these common sense changes have majority support. Many of them are even supported by the majority of NRA members.

Guess you're one of those "liberals" who not only never comments on any issue except gun control, you also have no idea what's being said at the Daily Kos or TPM or the New Yorker or even the New York Times. As in one of those "liberals" who is in fact conservative.
Posted by Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn]]> Wed, 16 Jan 2013 16:56:22 -0800 The Stranger
Indeed. The NRA is not the problem. Criminals are the problem.

The NRA doesn't derive it's power from the gun manufacturers. It derives its power from its members, who are active and vote.

That's the key.

The tobacco industry and other lobbying organizations derive their purported power from buying politicians. The only thing politicians fear are the voters.

Given the abysmal voter turnout rate in the U.S. four million committed single-issue voters is a big deal, especially if you get into the nitty-gritty of election math.

Given the number of pro-gun lefties like myself in Western states in addition to the predictable Republican vote, the math just doesn't add up.

Furthermore, let's look at history. We all know Al Gore won the election, but had he won his home state, there would have been non doubt. The numbers show that his anti-gun views cost him in the South. Next, look at the swing numbers in the 1994 midterms after the Democrats passed their ineffective, masturbatory 'Assault Weapons Ban' which had no effect on crime.

To summarize, their isn't enough far left-wing support from places like The SLOG and urban centers to offset the Republican vote and opposition from pro-gun liberals like myself. The math just isn't there.

Don't let me keep you from your rallying cry, but don't be surprised when high-capacity magazines and ugly black weapons with bayonet lugs aren't banned this year.

I prefer to support things like universal single-payer health care that includes comprehensive mental health treatment and identification of at-risk youth.

These are examples of specific ideas from The SLOG's so-called 'gun nuts' that can realistically have an impact on gun massacres. So there.
Posted by CPN]]> Wed, 16 Jan 2013 14:22:34 -0800 The Stranger
If they 'Won't do much realistically to change gun crime or murder rates." Then how the hell does it make 'sense?'

If it won't reduce gun violence, then what the hell is your point?

'Good first steps, I guess.'

First steps toward what? And therein lies the crux of your notion...
Posted by CPN]]> Wed, 16 Jan 2013 13:36:55 -0800 The Stranger
Those things you outlined are things that every lobbying group does, and all legislation is complex when you get to the nuts and bolts.

A big takeaway from the numbers I posted is that the tobacco industry, while spending almost five times the amount of the NRA, has almost no lobbying power on the hill. It is laughable how far the tobacco lobby has fallen. But why? They have just as many people, and spend lots more money.

It is because the public is against them. The public knows they are a public health nightmare, and exactly how toxic their products are. No amount of money can fix this. People have not realized that this is also true of the firearms industry, and so the public is not overwhelmingly against it. We have a public education and perception problem, not a lobbying problem. The NRA is not as powerful as everyone wants to believe. They are just a really, really, easy scapegoat that washes us from our faults of not holding legislators responsible and demanding action.

Don't get me wrong, fuck the NRA, but they are not the problem, not by far.
Posted by Theodore Gorath]]> Wed, 16 Jan 2013 13:27:59 -0800 The Stranger
The tracking of confiscated weapons and research into gun safety will do a lot more good. I'd like to see more emphasis on mental health benefits and treatment, especially for criminals, but maybe the improved "resources and discourse" will move in that direction.
Posted by wingedkat]]> Wed, 16 Jan 2013 13:24:13 -0800 The Stranger
Part of this structural; they spend a huge amount of money communicating with their individual members, who can be quickly mobilized to clog phone lines and fill congressional e-mail inboxes. And the legislation they favor does not require the complexity of that required for oil and gas leases, tax preferences, or drug approval.
Posted by rob!]]> Wed, 16 Jan 2013 12:40:47 -0800 The Stranger
These figures are the totals spent by each industry/group on lobbying during 2012. Now I am aware that I am arguing based upon a degree of influence, but that kind of is the point. I am not arguing that the NRA does good, or is not run but horrible people with horrible ideas. I am not arguing that the NRA does not exert some influence, or that they are not an obstacle to sensible gun laws.

Oil and Gas industry: $104,000,000
Agribusiness: $96,000,000
Tobacco: $14,000,000
NRA: $2,905,000

I am simply saying that as far as lobbying groups go, the NRA is objectively weak. They are slightly more powerful than their money suggests because the american public does not base votes on gun control issues. But blaming the NRA for this is nonsense. They do not even have the lobbying power of some individuals.

It goes deeper than money or lobbyists: we do not ask candidates their positions on gun control, and we do not vote based on it. This needs to change, and it is not the fault of the NRA. They are the definition of a paper tiger.
Posted by Theodore Gorath]]> Wed, 16 Jan 2013 12:17:11 -0800 The Stranger
1. You're a fascist. It isn't an ad hominem, it is an observation. Anybody who wants to discriminate against a minority population without due process and then use the power of the state to enforce it is, by definition, a fascist.

2. The rate of violence by those who have mental illnesses is no higher than that of the general population. There is no basis for mass commitment.

3. A quarter of the population has a mental illness and half the population will have a mental illness in their lifetimes. You will be attacking over a hundred million people in this country. Even if you only attack people that are classified as having a "serious mental illness" you are talking about 6 percent of the population, per NIH estimates. This group includes tons of child abuse and rape victims as well as servicemembers returning home from war. At least 20 million people will have to be locked up for your safety delusion.

4. Outpatient treatment is more effective, in general, than inpatient treatment. This is because the skills learned to live in a psych ward are not the same skills needed to live in the real world.

5. Only a third of people with mental illnesses get help and only half of people with serious mental illnesses get help. Your mass stigmatization program will reduce even those numbers.

6. The discrimination that people with mental illnesses face is profound (from personal relations, employment, places to live, etc.). You would make discriminating against people with mental illnesses the policy of the United States.

7. Your plans for mass commitment would break the bank. How are you going to pay for the locking up of tens of millions of people? A typical psych ward costs around $1000 per day for treatment.
Posted by delirian]]> Wed, 16 Jan 2013 12:13:43 -0800 The Stranger Posted by Theodore Gorath]]> Wed, 16 Jan 2013 12:04:52 -0800 The Stranger
That said, I personally hold out more hope for change from within the NRA and similar groups on this issue than for noticeable alterations in the makeup of Congress. And I picked the quote I did because it was the most concise historical recap I could find in a quick search regarding the mechanism of suppression, which was, after all, the actual point of my comment.
Posted by rob!]]> Wed, 16 Jan 2013 12:03:19 -0800 The Stranger
@49: True enough, and I can find no fault with that. But my point is, the NRA can not make legislation. The NRA can not vote on legislation. The NRA can not sign or veto anything, not can they solely elect politicians. Voters by and large do not base their votes on gun control, or reject candidates that make gun control a sentral part oftheir campaign. Polticians can count votes, trust me, and they know gun control is not a winning issue. That is our fault as the electorate.

Hopefully this will change, but single mindedly blaming the NRA, a group with little actual power, will not bring about that change. It is a distraction. We blame the NRA and pretend the legislators are helpless to stop them, allowing politicians to never address the issue.
Posted by Theodore Gorath]]> Wed, 16 Jan 2013 12:03:11 -0800 The Stranger Posted by Max Solomon]]> Wed, 16 Jan 2013 11:53:25 -0800 The Stranger Posted by Max Solomon]]> Wed, 16 Jan 2013 11:53:24 -0800 The Stranger -Mandatory incarceration for mentally illWhat?
Posted by delirian]]> Wed, 16 Jan 2013 11:48:53 -0800 The Stranger
It's like looking at car related deaths and saying that, well, antique cars, which make up some very small amount of cars on the road, but have quite a large pool of ownership should be banned because they look different and cause some number of deaths, just like all other cars, but a much smaller percentage of deaths per car owned. Also, no one needs an antique car. Compared to modern cars, antique cars are terribly unsafe.

The biggest problem is that an AWB based on cosmetic features is absurd.
Posted by randoma]]> Wed, 16 Jan 2013 11:47:07 -0800 The Stranger
I hate to quibble to your broader point.

I am no SCOTUS-ee or constitutional expert so my opinion means jack, but in my reading of the 2nd amendment, I have understood it to mean that the us congress - the federal govt in general - is expressly forbidden to restrict firearms. That power was intended to belong to each state. The feds can't take your gun if your state says it's ok for you to own it. RahRah states' rights!

Of course, SCOTUS ruled otherwise.
SCOTUS is wrong says little ole me.

Posted by NotSean]]> Wed, 16 Jan 2013 11:47:01 -0800 The Stranger
-Mandatory incarceration for mentally ill

-Increased sentencing for those abusing guns in the commission of a crime

Posted by Supreme Ruler Of The Universe]]> Wed, 16 Jan 2013 11:43:14 -0800 The Stranger
Because guilt by association attack ads don't work? If the NRA has a bad image, they become radioactive, and that will cost votes for those with an A+ NRA rating. Look at all the attack adds associating Obama with Bill Ayers, or connecting politicians with Acorn.

The NRA hasn't been this unpopular in years. People used to be fairly positive about them. Things have changed.
Posted by Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn]]> Wed, 16 Jan 2013 11:39:42 -0800 The Stranger Same with the TSA, I'm sure if you traveled back to the 50s and told them 'you can't smoke on a plane by the 80s and in the 21st century some assholes will fly a plane into a skyscraper' they'd probably say you're a paranoid idiot.
Posted by CbytheSea]]> Wed, 16 Jan 2013 11:37:21 -0800 The Stranger
If you're really going to get all high and mighty about how everybody else is reactive, then you're the one who needs to tell us how to be proactive.

Where's your plans to avert all the disasters that haven't happened yet? It's easy to take cheap shots, but not so easy to do any better yourself.
Posted by Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn]]> Wed, 16 Jan 2013 11:31:19 -0800 The Stranger Posted by delirian]]> Wed, 16 Jan 2013 11:30:13 -0800 The Stranger
That should have been @29, not 30. They renumbered.
Posted by Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn]]> Wed, 16 Jan 2013 11:28:23 -0800 The Stranger you're one of the people here claiming that no gun control measure will be effective and so there's no point in even trying? I never said that. I think plenty of gun control measures could be effective, I just haven't heard many yet. Well, not until very recently, at least. Probably because so few people seemed to give two shits about guns until a bunch of kids were shot. Then suddenly everyone is demanding immediate after-the-fact action. As usual. It's like a rush on people buying fire insurance AFTER their houses burn down.
Posted by Urgutha Forka]]> Wed, 16 Jan 2013 11:23:28 -0800 The Stranger
Freedom of the press doesn't mean you get to publish absolutely anything you want to. Libel, copyright and classified secrets are the most obvious limits on speech, but there are many.

The right to bear arms doesn't mean you get to have absolutely any arms you want. Somebody has to decide what the limits are. Because the "militia" is supposed to be "well regulated".

An absolute right to free speech, regardless of libel, copyright, or state secrets, would be chaos, and unacceptable. More specifically, it would put the right to free speech and the press in contradiction to other rights, like property, privacy, and life, to name a few.

Giving people any arms they like would overstep other rights as well. When different rights are in conflict, congress must make hard choices about where to draw lines.

This "handguns are sacrosanct" orthodoxy is a phantom. I don't even expect the assault weapons ban to pass (without help from gun nuts scaring the public with their crazy tantrums). But in the future, it is possible.
Posted by Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn]]> Wed, 16 Jan 2013 11:21:44 -0800 The Stranger