A Little Insanity: Troll Time With Gun Enthusiasts!

There’s an comment on yesterday’s post about the efficacy of gun safety legislation in the Nevada Legislature, but since the comment is so wonderfully exemplary of Gun Nuttery let’s give it the full treatment — what the heck, it’s Friday, let’s have some fun:

“(1)Doesn’t matter lawsuits against the state are in progress right now against stupid liberals who think his sort of dumb legislation does anything to stop gun violence , (2) hello ” bozo who knows nothing about guns and is afraid of them”  (3) you idiots who live in Murder ,rape ,gang,carjacking ,central ,who have the strictest laws THAT DON’T WORK think restricting law abiding citizens and penalizing them does one thing to stop gun violence are deluted.  (4) Crooks don’t turn in their guns in your stupid buy backs,you only unarmed the public and crooks laugh at you better than thou’s. (5) They don’t BUY guns,they steal or buy stolen guns. (6) You stupid idios letthem out of jail on parole so the unarmed citizen gets killed in city’s like Chicago.,Wash DC,LA etc,and you want to pass that assinnty on to Nevada.”

Where to begin? (1) Actually, no it doesn’t matter if there is litigation in the offing testing the definitions and constitutionality of any legislation enacted by any legislative body.  Since the ruling in Marbury v. Madison in 1803, the judicial branch has retained the authority to determine the constitutionality of legislation; and, the notion that a court might declare a statute unconstitutional doesn’t arbitrarily mean the statute should not have been enacted.  The courts could just as easily decide the statute IS constitutional — witness the Affordable Care Act decision by the current Supreme Court.

Further, if the intent of legislation is to reduce the level of gun violence in this country, especially violence associated with felons, fugitives, juveniles, undocumented aliens, and the dangerously mentally ill, then it would stand to reason that making firearm purchases by individuals falling into these categories more restricted would alleviate the problem.  The trap in this argument is the requirement that a single piece of legislation must solve the entire problem or be declared “ineffective” and less than useless.  Statutes against bank robbery aren’t 100% effective, but we still frown on felonious behavior in these instances.

(2) No, as a gun owner, I am not afraid of firearms.  However, I do respect them.  I know that the gun is statistically 22 times more likely to be the agent of a homicide or suicide than it is to be used in self defense.  That’s why it’s locked up.  Additionally, there are these cold statistics:

“Firearms were used to kill more than two-thirds of spouse and ex-spouse homicide victims between 1990 and 2005. Domestic violence assaults involving a firearm are 12 times more likely to result in death than those involving other weapons or bodily force. Abused women are five times more likely to be killed by their abuser if the abuser owns a firearm.” [LCPGV]

Even in the absence of any domestic violence in this homestead, I’ve no desire to compound someone else’s drama by leaving a loaded firearm in an insecure place so a theft could end up being the opening act in a full blown tragedy.  That’s why the ammunition is secured separately from the firearm.

(3) Actually, I don’t live in Car-Jack Heights, nor do I reside in Murder Alley.  I conform to the general profile of gun owners — white, educated, rural, small town, American. [NJIS]  However, if I were a resident of one of the urban areas in this state, I’d still not be arming myself to the rafters.  While I do dearly love the scripted TV melodramas, I am also aware that the “murder rate” in Reno, Nevada is 0.06 per 1,000 residents; the “rape rate” in Reno, Nevada is 0.13 per 1,000 residents, [TNS]  and those statistics aren’t sufficiently elevated to make me do much more than be aware of my surroundings, and lock my vehicle.

The statistics for Las Vegas, Nevada (CSI not considered) are the same in the murder department, i.e. 6 per 1,000 residents, and the rape stats are 0.44 per 1,000.  [TNS] Again, these aren’t high enough to make me believe there is a rapist and murderer in all the shadows … much less that there’s someone out to make Las Vegas, Nevada a replication of Cabot Cove, Maine in the murder numbers.  The numbers are high enough to make me lock doors, but certainly not enough to make me want to bother with carrying a firearm.

By the way, I don’t think this is a “deluted” state of mind.  I trust you meant “deluded” but I’d also hasten to assure you that my sanity isn’t diluted by watching all those scripted TV shows.   There’s one more point in part 3 of the rant that deserves scrutiny — the “strict laws don’t work,” assertion.  Contra:

“We covered the fact that the likelihood of homicide increases with a gun in the home. It is true however that the majority of gun crime occurs with illegal guns, but that number, as established, speaks loudly to our weak national gun laws due to interstate gun trafficking. Guns become illegal when they are bought in an area with lax laws and sold in an area with tight laws on the black market. Even then, as the number of legal guns increases, so too does the likelihood of a gun falling into the wrong hands, as shown by the Sandy Hook shooting.” [HuffPo]

The New York Post, not exactly a bastion of liberal media and thinking, reports rather directly on the relationship between illegal gun trafficking and the law enforcement issues in states with restrictive measures in place on firearms:

“New York’s tough-as-nails gun laws aren’t doing much to stop illegal weapons purchased in other states from getting into criminal hands here, according to a federal analysis released yesterday. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives traced 8,793 guns seized in New York in 2011 and found that just 1,595 were bought in the state. The rest came from places with less restrictive gun laws — primarily Virginia, Pennsylvania, North Carolina and Florida.” [NYP]

Thus, the assertion that strict gun laws in some areas are undermined by lax sales in others cuts both ways, as it could also be used to argue for more stringent restrictions nationwide to prevent the importation of illegal firearms into regions in which they are misused.

(4) True, most gun buy back programs end up with firearms people don’t want, not necessarily firearms criminals are willing to surrender.  However, that narrow point misses a larger one.  Buy back programs with their attendant publicity are an effective way to elevate  public awareness, and some neighborhoods have used the programs to attract more attention and resources for efforts that do work, like more overtime for police departments, or  protocols like  “focused intervention” policing. [USAT]  If the program makes a community more aware of gun violence problems, or a neighborhood more prone to support police operations — what’s the harm?

(5) “Criminals don’t buy guns…” I think we addressed that above, i.e. what they also do is buy guns from gun traffickers.  We do have a “stolen gun” problem:  “More than half a million firearms are stolen each year in the United States and more than half of stolen firearms are handguns, many of which are subsequently sold illegally.” [ATF] However, the notion that only stolen guns are involved in street crime misses another set of numbers:

“The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (“ATF”) issued a comprehensive report in 2000 detailing firearms trafficking investigations involving more than 84,000 diverted firearms, finding that federally licensed firearms dealers were associated with the largest number of trafficked guns – over 40,000 – and concluded that the dealers’ “access to large numbers of firearms makes them a particular threat to public safety when they fail to comply with the law.”³

According to ATF, one percent of federally licensed firearms dealers are responsible for selling almost 60 percent of the guns that are found at crime scenes and traced to dealers.”  [LCPGV] (emphasis added)

Take the stolen firearm problem and add 1% of the federally licensed firearms dealers who are raking in revenue from selling 60% of the guns found at crime scenes and traced back to dealers, and we have a better picture of the overall problem.  This situation could substantiate a call for better statutes at the state and federal level than a concept supportive  of less restriction.

(6) Recidivism is a problem for our corrections institutions.  However, once more the statistics are insufficient incentive for me to demand full term incarceration, or to open my check book at the local gun dealer’s establishment.

“During 2007, a total of 1,180,469 persons on parole were at-risk of reincarceration.  This includes persons under parole supervision on January 1 or those entering parole during the year. Of these parolees, about 16% were returned to incarceration in 2007.” [BJS]

So, are these  felons out committing murders?  Rapes? That would be a general “no.”

“Released prisoners with the highest rearrest rates were robbers (70.2%), burglars (74.0%), larcenists (74.6%), motor vehicle thieves (78.8%), those in prison for possessing or selling stolen property (77.4%), and those in prison for possessing, using, or selling illegal weapons (70.2%).”  [BJS]

What about the rapists and murderers?  Within 3 years, 2.5% of released rapists were arrested for another rape, and 1.2% of those who had served time for homicide were arrested for homicide. [BJS]  That’s correct — 2.5% of the released rapists, and 1.2% of those who committed homicide.   Yet again, these statistics aren’t going to induce me to spend any more money on arms and ammunition.   It might be “assinnty” to believe given the relatively low crime rates in Nevada, and the tendency of gun traffickers to be recidivists, that we don’t need better controls over who purchases firearms in the Silver State.

When all is said and done, the assumption that “law-abiding citizens” should be so fearful of their environment that unlimited access to all manner of firearms by all manner of people is disturbing in itself.  In recent years I’ve enjoyed the hospitality of cities like Washington, D.C. and ridden the Metro all over town — without feeling as though I should have added a firearm to my accessories.  I’ve spent weeks in San Antonio, Atlanta, and New Orleans — all the heat I felt I needed was from the climate.  I’ve spent time in Denver, St. Louis,  and Cleveland, and no, there was no reason in any of those cities to feel insecure without a lethal weapon.   In short, the author of the comment has my sympathy for his evident paranoia about residing in this country, but I can’t empathize with the debilitating fear which underpins the assumptions.

I’d like my fellow citizens to enjoy our hospitality in Reno, and in Las Vegas, feeling secure that we run background checks on everyone for every sale of a firearm, that we don’t countenance carrying assault style rifles with large capacity clips into our movie theaters or public spaces, and that we believe in keeping firearms out of the hands of those who are dangerously mentally ill, or who might be felons and fugitives.

I’d be pleased to see the day when it dawns on most sentient human beings that the  proliferation of firearms only serves to make us less safe, and less able to “form a more perfect union, establish justice, … insure domestic tranquility.”   We might be getting there:

“Both the Pew survey and a new Washington Post/ABC News poll found that support for the defeated Manchin-Toomey measure, which would have expanded background checks to all gun show and online purchases, is also widespread. In the Pew survey, 73 percent said the Manchin-Toomey proposal should be passed if reintroduced, while 67 percent of respondents to the Post/ABC poll said the Senate did the wrong thing in rejecting the legislation.” [HuffPo]

*Now that we’ve dispensed with the trolling, there is a troll notification test which should  have been inserted before all the text in this post. Enjoy.

A Little Gun Sanity in Nevada: SB 221 Passes Senate

 The Nevada Progressive has been following SB 221 (pdf) in the Nevada Legislature.  The bill to require background checks for gun purchases passed the State Senate on a party line 11-10 vote May 22, 2013.  The Legislative Counsel summarizes the core of the bill as follows:

 ”Existing law authorizes a private person who wishes to transfer a firearm to another person to request the Central Repository to perform a background check on the person who wishes to acquire the firearm. (NRS 202.254) Section 8 of this bill requires, with certain exceptions which are set forth in section 7.8 of this bill, that a private person who wishes to transfer a firearm to another person request that a federally licensed firearms dealer submit a request for a background check to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System.”  (Abstract here)

This shouldn’t be too difficult a bill to comprehend. There are just a few categories of individuals who cannot legally obtain firearms in this state: Felons, Fugitives, Dangerously Mentally Ill, Undocumented Persons, and Minors.  Someone should probably add “individuals on the Terrorist Watch List?”  Be that as it may — these categories preclude gun ownership in the interest of public safety, except of course if these self-same individuals avail themselves of gun show parking lots, Internet sales, and other gun sellers and traffickers who don’t want to be bothered or inconvenienced with background checks.

Objections range from the bizarre to the banal.  Ammoland calls for opposition based on fearmongering:

“SB 221 will in effect create a registration system of all firearms transferred privately. This bill also makes revisions to Nevada law regarding mental health.  An individual who fails to comply with the new background check transfer requirements would be prohibited from possessing a firearm for a period of two years after being found guilty of a gross misdemeanor.”

Actually, that would be “no” — there is no registration system established in the bill.   Weasel words, like “in effect,” simply allow the writer latitude to assert — without substantiation — that any background check will start the rock rolling down the declivitous slope to Registration.

The Daily Caller is a bit more rabid on the subject:

“SB 221 carries severe penalties for violations that could result in a loss of Second Amendment rights. An individual who fails to comply with the new background check transfer requirements would be guilty of a gross misdemeanor and prohibited from possessing a firearm for a period of two years. The second offense would be a felony, resulting in loss of Second Amendment rights.”

Yes, people who violate the law, whether the statute refers to a misdemeanor or a felony, usually lose rights.  Commit a felony in Nevada and a person loses all manner of rights. For example, felons must follow the provisions of NRS 213.155 in order to vote.   There is a large difference between “losing a right” and common sense restrictions on “rights” such that liberty doesn’t devolve into license.   This concept is often missed on the radical right during discussions of the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Flashback

There are no other rights specified in the U.S. Constitution which are not subject to common sense restrictions.   Free speech does not support slander. Free press does not allow libel.  Freedom of religion doesn’t allow a person to practice human sacrifice. Freedom of assembly doesn’t mean mobs can riot at will.  My home may be my castle — but if my neighbor sees stolen goods in my garage and calls the police none of my 4th Amendment rights are violated.  I can’t be tried twice for the same crime, but if I rob three different house the District Attorney may be pleased to try me for three separate crimes, and nothing in the 5th Amendment would prevent that.

The 8th Amendment says I can’t be subjected to “excessive bail,” but if I commit a truly heinous — Headline News worthy — crime of the century, nothing prevents the judge from assigning a bail for which I don’t have the funds in my checking account.

Even the 13th Amendment, the one prohibiting involuntary servitude, has limits.  Should I be convicted by a jury of my peers of my Headline News worthy crime of the month, then I can expect to be “serving” the state, if not breaking up rocks or making license plates, then in some other tasks assigned to me.

In short, as discussed previously,  there are no Constitutional rights which don’t require some level of personal responsibility.   Extrapolated to its conclusion the “Second Amendment” exceptionalism would reduce us to medieval entities, each armed to the maximum, each assured of perhaps not so much the righteousness of its cause but its efficacy in arms.  Even a rather conservative U.S. Supreme Court hasn’t taken the Second Amendment interpretation to these absurd extremes.

The Right Question

The essential question before the Nevada Legislature is whether or not we want  felons, fugitives, the dangerously mentally ill, undocumented persons, and juveniles to have convenient access to deadly weapons?

The sane answer would be NO.  The sane vote in the Nevada Assembly on SB 221 would be YES.

More News From Gun Land

Meanwhile the tragedies compound –

“The Lyon County sheriff’s office is investigating the shooting death of a juvenile in Dayton over the weekend.  Deputies say a preliminary investigation suggests it was an accidental shooting.  Officers say they were called to the scene on Riverpark Parkway about 11 a.m. Sunday. No other details have been released. The names of those involved are being withheld because of their ages.” [RGJ]

“Authorities were searching for at least two gunmen who walked up to the door of a Northern California home and opened fire, killing a 10-year-old girl and injuring her parents.

“Whoever these gunmen were, they were directly outside the front door,” Sacramento County sheriff’s spokesman Sgt. Jason Ramos said Sunday. “This was not a drive-by. These gunmen approached the house and shot inside.” [Las Vegas Sun]

New York Times columnist Joe Nocera has taken it upon himself to catalog incidents of gun violence in the U.S.  The entries are depressing, but informative.  If even a few of the tragic incidents logged in Nocera’s Gun Reports could have been prevented by expanding background checks then we would be able to reduce the level of the misery meter for families across this country.

Better still, if we could bring ourselves to (1) ban military style assault weapons, (2) limit ammunition capacity, (3) enact provisions in statute concerning the safe storage of firearms, and (4) prevent more gun trafficking from states with lenient to non-existent gun regulations to urban and suburban neighborhoods, then Nocera’s reports could be diminished significantly.  IF.

Guns and Numbers: Nevada Rankings

Before we get too comfortable with the idea that Nevada’s a safe place to live because we have lots and loads of guns, there are some numbers to consider.  {pdf}

There are some rankings in which we don’t look too bad.  For example, Nevada ranks 41st in the number of law enforcement personnel killed by firearms between 2002-2011; 2 or 0.08 per 100K population.  Granted that is two too many, but our ranking is certainly acceptable.

There are other rankings that aren’t so comforting.

Nevada ranked 25th in firearm homicides in 2010; 90 in 2010 or 3.3/100K population.  The ranking could be considered middling, but it’s still higher than should be considered acceptable.  Moreover, Nevada ranks 6th nationally in the number of firearm homicides among women from 2001 to 2010  with 214 or a 1.77/100k rate.

Nevada ranks 17th nationally in the number of aggravated assaults with a firearm in 2011.  1,301 or 53.30 per 100K population.  Again, this is a middle ranking, and we might speculate that it indicates a state with an essentially urban population, albeit with a relative small total population?

Nevada also ranks 17th in firearm deaths among children aged 0-17 between 2001 and 2010; 139 or 2.26/100k population.  A middle ranking among the 50 states doesn’t really cover this particular subtopic.  139 children lost in a ten year period means a statistical 13.9 lost each year.  Of course, these aren’t statistics — they were children with parents…

Now the rankings become more disturbing.  Nevada ranks 11th in the nation in the ATF “time to crime” statistics, or how short a time there is between the purchase of a firearm and its use in some criminal activity.   The assumption in their statistical model is that the shorter the time between the acquisition of a firearm and the time it is used in a crime suggests that there is gun trafficking going on. Or, as the ATF phrases it:

“Time-to-crime is the period of time (measured in days) between a firearm’s retail sale and law enforcement’s recovery of the firearm in connection with a crime. A short time-to-crime rate usually means the firearm will be easier to trace, and when several short time-to-crime traces involve the same individual/Federal firearm licensee, illegal trafficking activity is highly probable.” [UST]

What we have here is an “indicator” — not necessarily hard data — of criminals and those harboring criminal intent using Nevada’s relative lax gun regulation to procure and then to engage in gun trafficking to other states.   This doesn’t secure the proposition that Nevada is a “gun exporting” state, but it is highly suggestive that gun traffickers are taking advantage of the regulatory environment.

The gun export rate is more to the point, Nevada ranks 9th nationally in the “crime-gun export rate” in 2009; 808.  This means that we are 9th in the nation in the number of guns used in crimes in other jurisdictions which can be traced back to Nevada.

Nevada ranks 9th nationally in overall firearm deaths, 2010 — 395 or 14.63 per 100k population.  Nevada ranks 6th nationally in the number of firearm suicides in 2010; 289 or 10.7 per 100k population.   This time being in the top ten is not a good thing.  Being in the top five is truly not comfortable: Nevada ranks 5th nationally in overall firearm deaths 2001 to 2010, 3895 deaths or 15.92 rate per 100K population.

Illogical Fallacies

There have been several kinds of responses to these rankings, the most common was to attack the messenger.  The Center for American Progress, which published the study, was immediately attacked as a leftist organization of elitists fund by George Soros.  [C&L] This tactic obviated the need to address any of the numbers, or the sources of data, or to discuss the conclusions drawn from the analysis — it was enough for detractors to observe the study had to be part of a Great Left Wing Conspiracy to indulge in sweeping and manifestly impractical gun control actions.  Sometimes facts are just facts.

Another common response when facts and figures are introduced into the discussion of gun violence and safety issues is to infuse the numbers with interpretations and inclusions not part of the original data.  For example, when speaking of “gun homicides” gun enthusiasts assert that these numbers “must” incorporate villains shot by law enforcement, and therefore “the numbers are high.”  Cases of individuals shot by police officers are subject to review, and contrary to popular scripted television melodramas aren’t really all that common.  That explains why the incidents show up on the evening news — if such were common they wouldn’t be “news.”

The federal government doesn’t collect officer involved shooting statistics, and would require a Congressional mandate to do so, but we do know that one report assigns 387  justifiable homicides by the police in 2010, down from 414 the previous year. [LVRJ] The CDC reports 31,672 gun deaths in 2010,  so the percentage of death at the end of a service gun would be 1.22% of all gun deaths in the U.S. in 2010.   1.22% is hardly a sufficient number to skew the overall statistical reports.

A third tactic when dealing with uncomfortable facts and figures is to play and mix and match game with specific incidents and overarching generalizations.   If we color code the format it might look like this, using green for facts, blue for a disconnected assertion, and orange for an appeal to emotion:  Yes, the gun enthusiast may assert, in 2010, guns took the lives of 31,076 Americans in homicides, suicides and unintentional shootings, BUT background check expansion won’t solve that problem because it will only infringe on the rights of law abiding citizens.

A fourth strategy is to confound rational argument by extending the mixes and mismatches to apply to common problems and proposed solutions.  Consider the proposition that “increased background checks would not have prevented the Newtown, CT massacre.”  This contention requires the assumption that a proposal to close the gun show and Internet sale loophole for background checks was specifically intended to address that particular incident.  The assumption is not in evidence.  In this instance the contention is predicated on the conflation of the general public reaction to a  instance of gun violence with a specific proposal to make the acquisition of firearms by felons, fugitives, the seriously mentally ill, and undocumented aliens less likely.

When all else fails, there’s always the good old Gish Gallop in which assertions, distractions, extraneous statistics, and good old fashioned falsehoods are strung together in a verbal barrage of palaver such that there is no way to address the advocate’s “gallop” without literally shutting off the microphone at 15 second intervals.

It’s time to take a serious look at gun violence in this state and the other 49 — Without attacking messengers, without the infusion of muddled interpretations and extraneous information,  without the conflation of general incentives with specific incidents, and without the rambling rationalizations of the irrational.

Another Press Conference to Remind Us Why We Don’t Care About Press Conferences

Another Presidential press conference, and yet another reason to observe why presidents (of any political stripe) aren’t fond of press conferences.   There isn’t much reason for the general public to get exercised about these press Q & A’s either.

The topics were fairly predictable: The Civil War in Syria and the possible use of chemical weapons — by someone, sometime;  Benghazi; Immigration and our diplomatic and agency relations with Mexico; The implementation of the Affordable Care Act; The Boston Marathon bombing; The Sequester and the FAA fix; Guantanamo; Jason Collins.  Yawn.

Notice that not a single one of these questions addresses the single most important topic of interest to Americans — jobs and the economy.  The economy is polled at 40%; Budget and the national debt comes in at 6%; Immigration at 4%; Gun Safety at 3%; Health Care at 3%; Terrorism at 3%; and an unspecified “other” at 34%.   So, where were the questions about our unemployment statistics? Manufacturing?  Trade relations and implications?  Job creation legislation?  The effect of the Sequester on the GDP?  Crickets.

A second item of note is that the questions concerning foreign policy (Syria, Benghazi) were derivative.  The “red line” question was productive, but the follow up on the tragedy in Benghazi concerned a claim by Republican operatives, with dubious reputations for accuracy, that diplomats were not available for public comments.  This came  from the GOP lawyer who once opined that Valerie Plame couldn’t be “outed” because she wasn’t an undercover operative for the CIA — a patently false statement, from a patently unreliable source.

The Boston Marathon and national security question was a classic example of White House Press Corps self referencing:

“…There is also a series of senators — Susan Collins, Saxby Chambliss, Lindsey Graham — who allege that all these years after 9/11, there still wasn’t enough intelligence shared prior to the attack.  And now, Lindsey Graham, who is a senior member of the Armed Services Committee, has said that Benghazi and Boston are both examples of the U.S. going backwards on national security.  Is he right?  And did our intelligence miss something?”  [transcript]*

This must be what passes for research amongst members of the press elite — Senator Greenroom makes a comment on television, reporter watches the presentation, reporter asks the President (or other available public official) about Greenroom’s comments, the response is treated as “news.”

The reporter might have been able to answer her own inquiry had she some familiarity with the State Department’s annual terrorism report.  The report for 2011 is now available online.  It would seem that a person, supposedly adept in reporting national issues, would be aware of the annual reports and would know the reports are  statutorily mandated.

A more important question might have been raised about intelligence sharing had the questioner demonstrated a bit more nuanced understanding of the topic.  There could have been a question about both the possibility that the FBI and CIA are often loath to share information, the sharing of which would indirectly expose sources and methods — and another line of inquiry concerning the delicacy of cooperation with Russian police and intelligence sources.  How can we effectively and efficiently share information with the Russians without becoming a cat’s paw for Russian intentions in Chechnya, or without becoming entangled in Russian internal politics?  Or, on the other hand, without compromising Russian sources and methods when they are attempting to assist us?

Those lines of questioning died in the wake of the self-referential, inside the Beltway, Village approach to journalism.

Meanwhile back in the real world:  Not only was there not a single question about jobs and the economy, there were some other very obvious questions that weren’t voiced.

The current death toll in the factory collapse in Bangladesh now stands at 411.  The European Union is considering revising its standards for duty free and quota free trade from countries which do not implement and enforce work place safety regulations. [Reuters]  The U.S. Department of Commerce has not yet posted any comments on trade with countries with few, if indeed any, worker safety laws in evidence (May 1, 2013) — Question, Mr. President: Does the U.S. Department of Commerce intend to review our trade relations with nations which have very unimpressive implementation of worker safety regulations?  More crickets.

And, pertaining to gun safety?  How much more productive would it have been to avoid the realm of Theater Critics and observe that initial efforts to expand gun ownership background checks to gun shows and Internet sales failed (Didn’t you twist enough arms?) and to ask:  Mr. President — The Tsarnaev brothers were in possession of a 9mm Ruger semi-automatic hand gun, alleged to be the weapon that killed the MIT police officer, and we know that the older brother was placed on the Terrorist Watch List.  [GUK] Should we seek to close the gun show and Internet sale loopholes to preclude those who are on terrorist watch lists from obtaining firearms? Should we amend 18 USC 842 to include those on terrorist watch lists from legal possession of explosives?   If anyone with a computer can locate this information within a half hour from online sources, then why is the there such a paucity of background information on display during White House press conferences?

Nor did the White House press corps give evidence they’ve looked across the pond lately.  Eurozone unemployment has risen to a record high, and Italian unemployment is higher than it’s been in the past 20 years.  [IBT]  Question Mr. President:  With the current economic troubles in the Eurozone in mind, what implications might this have for U.S. manufacturing and service sector exports to Europe?  What would this mean for American workers?  Never asked.

In short, what we saw on our televisions was yet another unfortunate display of a Bubble Wrapped press corps, asking insider questions about insider issues.  And, all without so much as a nod to the economic problems besetting the American public — stagnant wages, continuing long term unemployment, increasing income disparity, and a still improperly regulated financial sector which gives no indication that they’ve learned anything from their last debacle in 2007-2008.  Crickets.

* the transcript link as of May 1, 2013 references another release, and if the link is corrected readers may have to click on the Speeches link on the website.

Bits and Pieces

The Nevada legislature continues to talk about taxation issues, and talk and talk and talk and talk. No bills yet from either side just more talk and talk and talk and talk.  Full story at LV Sun.

The Reno Gazette Journal has a map with the break down by party affiliation in Washoe County.   Democrats are just barely behind in total county numbers.

Whatever would we do without the Pahrump Valley Times continuing its soap opera series on the Nye County Commission and the Nye County Sheriff’s office?  Here and here.

Two men from Ely, NV have been charged as ex-felons in possession of firearms.  [Elko Daily Free Press]  One of the two arrested is an undocumented alien, now facing deportation.  Now, remind me why Senator Dean Heller was opposed to background checks at gun shows or for Internet sales to catch — FELONS, fugitives, undocumented aliens, the mentally ill, and minors to help prevent guns from getting into their hands?  This vote may not be helping Nevada’s junior Senator:

“Nevada Dean Heller has seen a more modest decline in his approval numbers, from 47/42 right before the election to 44/41 now. However with the independent voters who were critical to his narrow victory in November, his approval has dropped from 52/37 then to now 42/42.”  [PPP]

70% of Nevadans support expanding background checks to gun shows and Internet sales. [HP]

Meanwhile, Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) is advising us that we can’t amend our statutes to prevent those who are on terrorist watch lists from having free and easy access to firearms.  Hint: His “logic” is a repetition of The Criminals Won’t Obey the Law argument.  Of course, criminals don’t obey laws — that is why we call them Criminals.

The Republicans can’t seem to get their narrative straight on U.S. options available for dealing with the Syrian civil war.  There’s the full on Let’s Have Another Lovely War Crowd, and the No Boots on the Ground Crowd, augmented by the I’m So Confused I’m Changing Positions faster than popcorn in a microwave group.

There’s this bit of news (old by now) from the U.S. Senate:

“The Senate moved quickly Thursday evening to help ease the Federal Aviation Administration’s ability to handle automatic spending cuts set forth in the sequester. Senators unanimously approved the “Reducing Flight Delays Act of 2013″ — a patch to fix the deep cuts that have furloughed air traffic controllers and delayed flights across the country. The bill gives the FAA authority to spend up to $253 million of money already in the FAA’s budget — but not allocated to pay for other things — to keep employees on the job and make sure more flights a on time. It was passed by unanimous consent, which means no senator objected.”  [NBC]

For a group that usually moves with all the expediency and alacrity of molasses off a frozen spoon, THIS is amazing.  Now how about the 70,000 youngsters kicked off the Headstart rolls? The elderly cancer patients having reduced medical services?  The reduction in the food assistance programs?  The cut backs in long term unemployment benefits? —- Crickets.

But wait, there IS a topic on which two deficit chickenhawk allies ARE willing to spend more money — the Abrams Tank. The problem is that the Pentagon doesn’t want more Abrams tanks… more at Think Progress.  We ought to file this along side the dismal story of the F-35 production problems and spending issues. [Bloomberg]

What we haven’t been hearing much about are the problems related to the Other Disaster this month, the one at the West, Texas fertilizer plant.  The major media outlets gave it scant coverage.  OSHA records show the plant hadn’t been inspected since 1985. PHMSA did an inspection in 2011 and found the plant didn’t have an emergency plan. The EPA last looked at the plant in 2006 and levied a fine for the lack of a risk management plan.   Unfortunately, the list goes on. [TP]  Congressional Democrats are asking for work place safety hearings in the wake of the disaster. [Reuters] Neither the House Agriculture Committee nor the Education and Workforce Committee have posted scheduled hearings to date on the matter.   Deregulation, a popular theme amongst the GOP membership, has created a situation in which going to work can get a person killed.

Quick Hits

** The Las Vegas Sun has a quick list of bills that made it past the “Tuesday Deadline” for consideration in the Nevada Legislature.  Looking for bills that failed to meet the deadline? It’s here.  For information on other bills start with this link.

** Heads up: The Reno Gazette Journal will run an article on Sunday concerning the closing of the ATF office in Reno, NV, and how this has impacted the efforts to stop gun trafficking.  The Leahy-Collins amendment to curtail gun trafficking in the U.S. failed in the Senate on a 58-42 vote during which Republicans sustained their filibuster of the amendment. [TheHill] Senator Dean Heller (R-NV) voted to sustain the GOP filibuster. [Vote 99]

** Did we know? “Sixty-six Americans were killed in mass shootings by non-Muslims in 2012 alone, twice as many fatalities as from Muslim-American terrorism in all 11 years since 9/11.” [Politicususa] And, did we know that the NRA and Conservatives in Congress have made it more difficult to track or monitor non-Muslim extremists in this country since 2001?  Crooks and Liars posts a list of recent “eliminationist” attacks.

** It’s been a bad week for the Austerians.  First, comedian Stephen Colbert launched a devastating critique on the economic theorists.  Additionally, many others have piled on.  There’s Austerity as Flim-Flam.   There’s Who is Defending Austerity Now?  There’s rethinking austerity.   There’s the EU calling for diminishing austerian policies.  And, for good measure, there’s the choking effects of austerity policies in the UK.  Thus the House GOP budget plan is based on a seriously flawed study.

** What economic recovery? For 7% of this country it’s been a nice rebound, for the remaining 93% not so much.

“During the first two years of the nation’s economic recovery, the mean net worth of households in the upper 7% of the wealth distribution rose by an estimated 28%, while the mean net worth of households in the lower 93% dropped by 4%, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of newly released Census Bureau data.” [PewResearch]

Graph it out and it looks like this:

** Watch H.R. 1549 carefully. It would “Give sick people without insurance temporary access to crappy private plans at exorbitant rates as part of a strategy aimed at pulling the rug out from under them entirely at the end of the year, all the while mewling about one’s concern for sick people.” [WashMon]  When astro-turf organizations like Freedom Works and AMAC line up for something it’s time to head the other direction.  The best description for this legislation is “ruse and trap.”

** Republicans Behaving Badly.  Let’s start with the Tennessee legislator who thinks pressure cooker bombs are humorous.  Followed, of course, by his non-apology-apology.  His rationale is that advocates of sensible gun safety legislation should have stayed quiet after Newtown…  Then there’s the Conservative group that photo-shopped ethnic minority people from its mailer about voting restrictions.  And who could have missed GOP behemoth, Rush Limbaugh, comparing the Boston bombers to Trayvon Martin?  That Arkansas legislator who called for using “2nd Amendment” solutions to Medicaid expansion, “Most likely won’t kill lawmakers who support Medicaid expansion.”  Most likely? How nice.

** Lady’s Days:  Ann Coulter, scourge of all operative grey cells residing in every cerebral cortex, calls for women to to prosecuted for wearing the hijab.  So, do we tell nuns to refrain from wearing their habits?  A Washington state pastor tells women to submit to their husbands and not nag “like Chinese water torture.”  The adherents of the Church of Perpetual Intolerance (aka the Family Research Council) are trying to convince us that “many” experts believe Plan B contraceptives should not be available over the counter — there are a few critics, and those critiques tend to be based on religiosity not science.  Rebuffed last year, Ohio Republicans are taking another swipe at funding for Planned Parenthood women’s health care services in that state.

Heller’s Choice

There are at least 786 federally licensed firearms dealers in Nevada [link] ranging from major franchise retailers to individuals who are licensed sellers.    I’ve also wondered why small sporting goods dealers and retailers aren’t more critical of gun show and Internet sellers who don’t have to run background checks — unless, of course, the licensed gun dealers know that the Internet sellers and gun show folks are taking chances with their customers.  Chances they’d not be willing to take themselves.

This is not to contend that there aren’t a few rather bad actors among the licensed, such as the infamous case of the Las Vegas gun dealer who had prior convictions for domestic abuse and who was operating one of the nation’s largest sources for “Saturday Night Specials” back in 1999.  However, it’s logical to assume that most, if not nearly all, of our gun dealers are functioning within the law, and with acceptable record keeping and background check procedures.   So, if it isn’t an infringement on 2nd Amendment rights to have our federally licensed firearms dealers conduct background checks on prospective buyers, then why would it be an “infringement” for sellers on the Internet or at gun shows?

That said, we have Senator Heller on record saying: “I cannot support legislation that infringes upon the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms.”  The usual commentary accompanying this kind of statement is that background checks will only serve to make it more difficult for “law abiding” citizens to secure firearms.  There’s a problem with that statement:  Law abiding citizens can easily go  to one of their licensed gun dealers, pass the background check, and procure a firearm.  So, who would be inconvenienced by a background check?  Perhaps those who don’t think they’d pass one.

Among that less than commendable group of not-so-law-abiding citizens would be (1) felons (2) fugitives (3) minor children (4) the seriously mentally ill, and (5) undocumented aliens.

As of 2010 31,076 Americans died by guns in homicides, suicides, and unintentional shootings. [LCPGV]  2011 statistics show Nevada with 75 murders 58% of them by firearms, about 70 robberies committed by a felon using a firearm, and 53.3 assaults with firearms against individuals. [Guardian]  If nothing else, these numbers should be analyzed as not only policing statistics, but as public health problems as well.

“You should live so long” — deaths by firearm injury nationally are a younger person’s issue.  The CDC reports for injury related deaths (pdf) indicate that in the age group 15-24 gun violence injuries were the second leading cause of death, among those in the nation between the ages of 25 and 34 gun violence injuries were the third leading cause of death.  Thereafter, suicide by firearm moves up the rankings.  For those 35 to 64 suicide by firearms is the third leading cause of injury related deaths.

The health care costs related to gun violence are hard to discern, but they are worth consideration.  One study from the Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation (Miller) found that the average cost of medical care for a gun shot fatality was about $28,700.  When the study combined care for both fatalities and non-fatal firearm injuries the price tag was approximately $3.2 billion for 105,177 deaths and injuries in 2010.  [DFP] [USAT]

The Kaiser Foundation reports that as of 2009 Nevada’s death rate by firearms was 15.5/100K, as compared to a national rating of 10.1/100K.  The death rate for male Nevadans was 26.3/100K compared to a national rate of 17.8/100K.   Death by suicide (source not referenced) was 19.1/100K in 2009 compared to a national rate of 11.8/100K.  [Kaiser]  Nevada’s office of Suicide Prevention reports that as of the end of 2011 firearms were used in 58% of suicides in this state. [OSP pdf]  If we assume that the cost of medical services are somewhere close to the estimated $28,700 average for a fatal injury by firearm, then we’re running up some bills in Nevada for health care which aren’t doing anything positive toward health care cost containment.

These numbers raise questions about Senator Heller’s rationale.  IF the State of Nevada is experiencing a higher than national average of deaths by firearms, especially for men killed by firearm injuries, and if the State is looking at suicide rates (58% of which are by firearms) above the national average, then WHY would we not want to restrict gun sales to those who are willing to go to one of our reputable licensed dealers and undergo the required background check?

At some point we have to ask, why is a mere inconvenience more alarming to Senator Heller than our above average gun injury fatality rates, our above average suicide rate?  While we can estimate the monetary costs of treating gun injuries, we would be more hard pressed to specify the human toll in lost wages, productivity, health care costs, legal costs…and funeral costs involved in firearm fatalities in this State.

Why is it more important to protect the convenience of potential gun purchasers, who may have some very questionable reasons for avoiding a background check by a licensed dealer,  than it is to protect this State from its dismal rankings in terms of gun fatalities?

Quick Hits

** Good news and Bad news: Nevada’s Governor is good at finding money for state programs — on the other hand the money is flowing in because our economy is lagging. [LVSun]  Unfortunately, this comes with an ideological framework, which a person could suppose is meant to sound moderate: “We cannot cut our way out, we cannot tax our way out, we can only grow our way out.”   The phrasing sets up a false choice in which “C” is the sole useful option.  It’s commendable that the Governor acknowledges growth based solutions as the proper course for economic development; it’s not so commendable to see that increasing taxation on economic elements in Nevada who have not been paying their way isn’t part of the total package.

** The Nevada Legislature is looking at the issues related to severe mental illness and gun possession in two bills.  SB 221, which cleared the Senate Health and Human Services Committee with a Do Pass as Amended recommendation, upgrades the background checks required by Nevada law to include private sales, and specifically prohibits a person who, in the estimation of a psychiatrist or a licensed psychologist is likely to be a danger to self or others from “possession, custody, or control” of a firearm.  Once more with urgency:  The only people who would be “inconvenienced” by background checks under Nevada law are (1) felons (2) fugitives (3) minor children (4) domestic abusers, and (5) undocumented aliens.  Surely, it’s not too much to ask that those seeking to transfer “possession, custody, or control” of a firearm would want the recipient to pass a quick background check before selling a weapon to anyone in those categories?

** Those who managed to find a bit of time to keep up with economic news during the Week from Hell, have benefited from “Pete Peterson’s Fingerprints…” at Crooks and Liars.   The Austerians are, indeed, losing the narrative in the national economic debate, and this short article explains who is still promoting  illogical austerity pontification which passes for economic theorizing in Dante’s Fourth Circle of Hell.   For those inclined to get into the mathematical weeds of the R&R mess, Angry Bear has a handy post.  A more general critique is available from the EPI.   As for the prospective denizens of the Fourth Circle, see Naked Capitalism’s post in which Robert Johnson opines of the oligarchs, “they are all standing on the deck of the Titanic looking in each other’s eyes.”

** Republicans behaving badly: Second Amendment Solutions?  One GOP lawmaker in Arkansas would like to activate them in terms of the expansion of Medicaid under the terms of the Affordable Care Act. [Think Progress] Ohio legislators would like to prohibit instruction in health education classes about “gateway sexual activity.” [TP]  As if the kids haven’t  just about figured out the “gateways” already?  Texas state legislators dislike the meddling old EPA — and they have a blasted out neighborhood in West, Texas to prove it. [Politicususa] In the mean time, would someone explain to me how any Planning and Zoning Commission could possibly approve plans to build residential developments next to a fertilizer plant — or a fertilizer plant near a residential neighborhood? Much less in proximity to a junior high, a high school, and a nursing home?!

Heller Courageously Defends Domestic Abusers, Felons

On April 17, 2013 at 4.:04 pm Senator Dean Heller (R-NV) voted to sustain a Republican filibuster of S. 649, a bill sponsored by Senators Machin (D-WV) and Toomey (R-PA) to extend background checks to close the “gun show loophole.” The bill expressly prohibited the creation of any form of gun registry.  Notice that the bill did not expand the legal exclusions for gun ownership — it merely required the conduct of background checks to weed out those already excluded.  Who is excluded from gun ownership in Nevada?  Whose “constitutional rights” might be “impinged?”

Senator Heller’s press release offered his explanation:

“When it comes to national policy choices on issues such as Constitutional liberties, gun violence and public safety, the stakes could not be higher. The enormity of this issue has weighed heavily on me. While I was home this past weekend, my family and I ate at the Carson IHOP where four people lost their lives and several were injured. The survivors of that senseless shooting in the morning hours of September 6, 2011, deserve this debate.

“I believe very strongly that our current background check system needs strengthening and improving, particularly in areas that could keep guns out of the hands of felons and the mentally ill.  At the same time, I cannot support legislation that infringes upon the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms.  Despite the good faith efforts of Senators Manchin and Toomey, the onerous paperwork and expansion of federal power mandated in this legislation are too great of a concern. I believe that this legislation could lead to the creation of a national gun registry and puts additional burdens on law-abiding citizens. For these reasons, I cannot vote for this legislation,” said Senator Dean Heller.”

OK, Senator Heller understands that guns are not supposed to be carried by felons and the seriously mentally disturbed.  Now, we need to look at those exclusions in Nevada law which apply to those who may not possess firearms.

Domestic Abusers:  NRS 33.030 defines domestic abuse as understood in Nevada, and NRS 33.031 further explains that those who have an extended order (injunction) of protection from a court served on them may have to surrender their arms and may not procure replacements.   Spousal abusers, are by definition in Nevada, NOT “law-abiding citizens,” and if these individuals are subject to a background check if they went to a licensed gun dealer why would we not want them to be subject to a background check at a gun show or for purchases from Internet sources?

Minor Children: NRS 202.310 prohibits the sale of firearms to anyone under the age of 18.  If a person under the age of 18 cannot purchase a gun from a licensed firearms dealer, why would we not extend the prohibition to sales at gun shows or over the Internet?

Convicted or Indicted  Felon:  NRS 202.362  prohibits the possession of a firearm by anyone who is currently under indictment or has been convicted of a felony.  These people are obviously NOT law abiding citizens, and public safety should (and does) require that they not possess weapons.

Fugitives from Justice:  NRS. 202.362 also prohibits the sale to or possession by those who are fleeing court dates and are facing prosecution.  This category is equally obviously not inclusive of those law-abiding souls about whom Senator Heller expresses his concern.

Seriously mentally ill individuals: NRS 202.362 excludes from gun ownership those who have been adjudicated as mentally ill or have been committed to mental health institutions.  Did not Senator Heller state he believes we should keep firearms away from those who are mentally ill?  If so, then why would he join the filibuster of a bill to extend background checks to Internet sales and gun shows so mentally ill individuals who may well be a danger to themselves and others cannot procure weapons?

Undocumented immigrants:  NRS 202.362 also excludes those who are in this country illegally.

So, let’s review — anyone who purchases a firearm in the state of Nevada from a licensed gun dealer has to pass a background check.  Anyone who is a domestic abuser, a minor child, a convicted or indicted felon, a fugitive from justice, or is seriously mentally ill is not likely to pass a background check conducted by a legitimate licensed gun dealer.   Therefore, who benefits from the gun show and Internet loophole the Machin-Toomey bill sought to close? Domestic Abusers, Minor Children, Convicted and Indicted Felons, Fugitives, the Seriously Mentally Ill, and Undocumented Immigrants.

When Senator Heller proclaims, “At the same time, I cannot support legislation that infringes upon the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms,” is he speaking of protecting the rights of those already excluded by Nevada Revised Statutes from the ownership of guns?  Guns they could get without a background check over the Internet or at an unregulated gun show?

Surely not. However, Senator Heller is offering us his “slippery slope” NRA sponsored talking point:

“I believe that this legislation could lead to the creation of a national gun registry and puts additional burdens on law-abiding citizens.”

This is a carefully crafted sentence because Senator Heller is concerned the bill COULD lead to a national gun registry.  NOTHING in the Machin-Toomey legislation would have created a gun registry — in FACT the bill specifically prohibited the creation of such a registry.  The logic of Senator Heller’s position is tenuous, and redundant to the point of tediousness.  Only in the perfervid imaginings of arm chair knights of the out of kilter table is the Guv’mint coming to take anyone’s guns.  People who have adopted this delusion might want to remove Red Dawn from their DVD players long enough to engage in the reality of American life, unfiltered by Hollywood script writers…or the lobbyists for the gun manufacturers, so well represented by the NRA.

The adoption of the NRA delusional rationale for unlimited gun sales to anyone who can evade background checks isn’t Senator Heller’s only nod to boilerplate rhetoric.

It’s getting to be entirely predictable that should any bank, any manufacturer, any corporate interests be facing the prospect of regulation, Senator Heller will haul out his repertoire of Regulation Rhetoric.

Want to regulate the egregious behavior of irresponsible lending institutions in the wake of the Mortgage Meltdown,  that by Senator Heller’s lights is “onerous paperwork and expansion of federal power.”  Want to contain the damage done by exploiters and polluters? Senator Heller is sure to say that would be “onerous paperwork and expansion of federal power.”  Want to enhance the prospects of women in the workplace?  Expect Senator Heller to piously intone the Corporate Mantra, that would also be “onerous paperwork and expansion of federal power.”  The Corporate Mantra is now applied to the manufacturers of firearms.  There’s nothing new to see here.

What a shame.

*All links to Nevada Revised Statutes go to PDF documents.

Wants, Needs, and Pink Assault Rifles

One of the most basic lessons in economic education is the differentiation between Wants and Needs.  It usually shows up somewhere in the K-3 part of the curriculum.   The most basic expression comes as: “Needs are something you must have for survival.  For example, food and water.  Without food, you would not be able to live.  Wants are something that you would like to have, but it is not necessary, and you could do without it. ”   We have to be careful with this one in a consumer based economy because honestly there are lots of things we don’t need…as in most of the stuff being marketed to us.

However, for all the palaver expended on marketing, the fundamental concepts are simple: (1) Target the “right” market, identifying potential customers; (2) Provide “bait,” which can range from something like offering a Two For One sale or as complex as the psychologically based, focus group tested, campaign to sell luxury cars; (3) Utilizing appropriate media to get the message out.  For all the variations, the message is always the same — I’m selling something and I want you to buy it.

So, what can we learn about gun owners — or potential customers for more guns — from the statistics at hand?

If I were selling guns, I’d notice that 42% of Americans own at least one firearm, and of that 42% about 48% are male, and 57% of those males are Republicans.  Were I looking to expand my sales, I’d pay attention to the fact that only approximately 37% of women are firearm owners.

I’d notice that 55% of white Republicans are gun owners, and in the midwest and south Republicans comprise 62% and 56% respectively of firearm owners.  In terms of population density, it’s relevant to observe that 60% of rural Americans own guns, 42% of suburbanites are owners, and urban gun owners make up 30% of the total.   Age is often a marketing guide, so we’d want to note that individuals aged 18-29 have a 34% gun ownership rate, those aged 30-44 have a 42% rate, those people aged 45-65 have a 45% rate, and those over 65 have a 44% rate of gun ownership.   If we’re looking at trends by political affiliation the chart would look like the following:

From a marketing perspective, there is more of a potential market among women, independents, and Democrats — but there are also those declivitous slopes in their purchasing patterns.  This lends credence to the conclusion that “The household gun ownership rate has fallen from an average of 50 percent in the 1970s to 49 percent in the 1980s, 43 percent in the 1990s and 35 percent in the 2000s, according to the survey data, analyzed by The New York Times.” [NYT]  In turn, we come to another conclusion — there are more guns in fewer households.

Repeating an oft cited economic rule of life — If your business has an increasing share in a declining market You Are In Trouble.

One factor in the declining overall market is urbanization — those who might have owned firearms for hunting, predatory problems, and personal safety in rural areas find less compelling reasons for gun ownership in urban areas.   Hunting sports are trending downward as well, “only a quarter of men in 2012 said they hunted, compared with about 40 percent when the question was asked in 1977.” [NYT]  The aging of America may have some relationship to this as well; hunting is hard physical labor, and those over 70 may not find the activity as enjoyable as it was on 35 year old legs.

Thus, gun manufacturers are faced with some serious marketing issues.  Ownership trends in statistical terms, (not in anecdotal references to people who sign up for safety classes, or who make purchases of new models), are down.  Urbanization is increasing.  Women, less likely to buy a weapon, are 50.8% of the population.  Hispanic Americans, also less likely gun owners, are 16.7% of the population and increasing.  [Census]  How can gun manufacturers profit, if they can’t buck the trends in which (1) a gun is less likely to be considered a “need” and more likely in expanding  urban/suburban settings as a “want?”  Or, if the population trends are such that those elements (women, Hispanic Americans) who are less likely to own guns are increasing in the overall count?  In marketing, not shooting sport terms, — where are the targets?

Here’s one marketing ploy:

“A pink AR-15 will rock their world.  I don’t care if they are welcomed on unwelcome visitor, everyone will respect your choice in weaponry.  House guests love the look of your pink pink AR-15, and the bad guys will either bleed or run like hell.  Wolverine Tactical Firearms utilize a Duracoat finish for their pink AR-15, and the ceramic coating is both durable and attractive.  Yes we do purple as well.” [BTD.com]

The seller goes on to assure the potential buyer than a rifleman doesn’t have to explain why he or she would own a pink or purple AR-15 — the 2nd Amendment covers all that….  This assumes that one’s house guests are also shooting enthusiasts who won’t ask WHY you have a pink assault rifle.  So, how many middle-western or southern white males aged 34-65 are going to drive to the gun shop for a pink AR-15?  Or how many of their wives are likely to think this would be the sweetest Valentine’s Day present ever?  The marketing answer to these questions may very well be Not Enough to make these products (1) answer a felt “want” in an expanding market, (2) create enough demand to justify the expenditure of complex marketing research and subsequent campaigns, and (3) get a return on advertising investments anywhere near the tipping point.

If we’re looking for a reason why the National Rifle (Manufacturers) Association is putting up a frontal assault of its own against any and all gun safety and violence abatement legislation — we might well consider the marketing problems they are facing in this country.  Certainly, in light of the pink AR-15, they are.