Category Archives: Gun Issues

Awash in NRA Money? What the U.S. House has on its agenda for gun laws in the U.S.

No NRA This country is “awash in guns,” and the current Congress is intent on granting the NRA just about everything on its wish list.  You don’t need to take this from me, here’s a list from a pro-gun site:

On May 15, the US House passed the Defense Authorization Act, the budget bill for the Department of Defense—HR3979. Included in this bill was an amendment by Rep. Mike Rogers to allow qualified applicants to purchase surplus M1911 .45 caliber handguns. Additional amendments included keeping lead ammunition from being regulated under the Toxic Substance Control Act. The Senate is working on a companion bill at this time.

.45 caliber handguns? Now where have we heard of this recently?

The FY16 CJS Appropriations bill was marked up in the House Commerce, Justice and Science Subcommittee.Current language in this bill includes a prohibition on forcing FFLs to report to ATF the sale of multiple long guns to one person, the government banning the importation of shotguns as a non-sporting firearm, and using taxpayer money to implement the UN Arms Treaty.

So, a person could purchase just as many “long guns” (presumably of the modern variety) as that individual desired?  Pardon me, but this sounds like the “Drug Cartel Protection Act.”  And, Heaven forefend we inconvenience gun traffickers by adhering to the Arms Treaty like other civilized nations.

Rep. Perry Scott (R-PA) introduced H.R. 2019, to prevent ATF from reclassifying ammunition as armor piercing.

So, if the ATF can’t call any type of ammunition designed to literally rip the heart out of a law enforcement officer, then it can’t regulate the sale thereof? Okay, if we can’t call the ammunition “armor piercing” how about we just call it “cop killing.”

S. 874 and H.R. 1701, to restore Second Amendment rights in the District of Columbia, to remove the authority of the DC Council to enact persecutory gun control, was introduced on Mar.

So, anyone – gang members included – can get easy access to firearms, but they can’t bring those items into the Capitol… because?  I guess the people are supposed to keep those guns on the streets…

S. 670 and H.R. 1316, the Veterans Heritage Firearms Act of 2015, allowing for a 180-day amnesty period for veterans or family members to register National Firearms Act firearms that were acquired before October 31, 1968.

H.R. 1365, the Ammunition and Firearms Protection Act, to prevent ATF from banning rifle bullets.

Here we go again. If it fits in a “rifle” it’s good to go flying off the shelves.

H.R. 1413, Firearms Manufacturers and Dealers Protection Act of 2015, was introduced by Rep. David Schweikert (R-AZ) on Mar. 17. This bill would “terminate Operation Choke Point and any similar program that attempts to infringe upon the Second Amendment or eradicate the manufacture and sale of firearms and ammunition.”

S. 477, Firearms Manufacturers and Dealers Protection Act of 2015, was introduced by Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) on Feb. 12. The legislation will entirely defund any activities associated with Operation Choke Point and prevent the Attorney General from reinstituting the program under a different name.

Now, these are beauties, with a very interesting twist.  Operation Choke Point is a DoJ initiative to investigate banks and the transactions they have with payment processors, payday lenders, and other companies who give every appearance of being prone to money laundering.  Aside from the anti-consumer attitude of the House Republicans, why would this appear under proposed legislation for firearms? 

Let’s guess that it is because on November 13, 2014 a Wisconsin firearms dealer’s account was closed by a bank cooperating with Operation Choke Point.  Some other dealers have drawn notice from the DoJ (remember this IS about money laundering) and then even the banks have taken fire, so to speak, from conspiracy theorists.  For example, Sun Trust Bank announced on August 8, 2014 that it had decided to discontinue banking with payday lenders, pawn shops, and dedicated check cashers.  Since pawn shops often sell guns the conspiracy cadre leaped to the conclusion that the Obama Administration was using a back door method to shut down gun dealers.  Witness the hue, cry, and wailing from Glenn Beck, et. al.   The Schweikert and Rubio bills can now be seen for what they are,  a sop to the conspiracy lobby.

Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) introduced the Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2015, S. 498, on Feb. 12. This legislation would ensure that states honor permits from other states similarly to drivers’ licenses. On the same day two similar house bills, H.R. 764 and H.R. 923, were also introduced.

The old reciprocity argument – interesting coming from those stalwart adherents of State’s Rights – the intent is obviously to make concealed carry permitting hold to the least restrictive standards. Or, a race to the bottom in terms of public safety.

On Feb. 5 Sens. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) and Martin Heinrich (D-NM) introduced the Bipartisan Sportsmen’s Act of 2015, S. 405, with 5 other original co-sponsors.

H.R. 697, to conserve elephants and regulate ivory, was introduced by Rep. Young (R-AK).

S. 263 and H.R. 578, protecting the rights of gunowners on lands managed by US Army Corps of Engineers has been introduced.

These are your basic “shoot anything anywhere” bills.  However, the next one should be a real bonus for those who are making straw purchases of firearms in loose regulation states and selling them in areas with tighter rules.

H.R. 131, introduced by Rep. Morgan Giffin (R-VA) would allow gunowners to legally transport firearms between two interstate locations as long as the firearm was encased and not readily accessible.

So, a trunk load of firearms in  sealed containers, and not readily accessible to the driver of this lovely load would be perfectly fine, dandy, and legal. Frankly, I can’t think of anything a gang of criminals would find more comforting than the knowledge that they could transport all the firearms they want to any location they want – and all they have to have are nice containers.

Little wonder the President is dismayed at the prospects of getting any useful, common sense, gun regulation out of this Congress.  Quite evidently, the lunatics have taken over the asylum.

Comments Off on Awash in NRA Money? What the U.S. House has on its agenda for gun laws in the U.S.

Filed under Gun Issues

Domestic Violence: When do the excuses stop?

Domestic Violence

This weekend a domestic violence issue in Texas transitioned into an assault on the Dallas Police Department. Early reports give every impression of a man, out of control in every way imaginable, extending his personal sense of outrage to his local law enforcement authorities.  “After the shootout at police headquarters, the suspect called 911 and gave a four- to five-minute rant, accusing of police of being to blame for him losing custody of a child,…” [CNN]

There was an incident in Montana last week that barely attracted much attention at all.  Augustine Bournes killed his wife and three children, June 11, 2015.  The children were all under the age of 6.  He set fire to their home, and then took his own life. [NYDN]   He was “anti-government and unhappy with his life.”  There’s a term for this pathology: Family Annihilators.  Pehaps the most tragic comment about the incident came from a relative: “People tried to tell him he needed to get help,” 35-year-old Starla Shannon said Wednesday. “He said he’d rather go to a vet than a doctor.”

There’s no question the Family Annihilators and the Public Attack Perpetrators are a distinct minority subset of those who commit or are involved in domestic violence.  However, they do set the peg for the extreme end of the spectrum.

The Excuses

Unfortunately for any rational discussion, the peg is inserted in swampy terrain, territory in which men are supposedly victimized by a culture that no longer provides Hollywood staple John Wayne-esque characters as role models (as if that were a model to be emulated), or fears of the expressions of male sexuality (as if ‘a little groping just happens naturally’ down at the garage), or Big Government obscures the origins of the “true source of oppression, (whatever in the world that might mean), or men’s natural expression of free speech is truncated by feminine criticism of those who don’t understand that ‘privilege’ begets a perspective which doesn’t necessarily include the lives of women or minorities.   There are other supposedly “pro male” excuses for male disaffection, such as the “lie” about equal pay; because it is said men work at more dangerous jobs? (Missing the point that the call is for equal pay for equal work, the last portion being conveniently omitted.

And then we get to the domestic arrangements – wherein women falsely accused men of rape, and women get the benefit of the doubt in court in terms of child custody and alimony or child support payments.

The Delusions

“There are people in every time and every land who want to stop history in its tracks. They fear the future, mistrust the present and invoke the security of a comfortable past, which in fact, never existed.” [Robert Kennedy, Chicago, 1963]

Okay, in 763 BC the Romans adopted the Law of Chastisement, allowing husbands to beat their wives, and in the 14th century the Church advised a little spousal abuse for her “spiritual improvement.”  However,  we also know that by 1600 there were shelters for women – they called them convents.  In 1871 both Alabama and Massachusetts declared wife beating a crime. [StM]   Thus, if a wife abuser is seeking a “comfortable past” be advised it hasn’t exists in the last 144 years.

Another useless excuse is that “they – meaning women – do it too!” The misogynists among us are fond of providing statistics which “prove” women are also engaged in spousal and domestic abuse.  The stuffing comes out of this straw man quickly.  No one is saying all spousal abuse is done by men – but a sizable proportion of it certainly is.

A study of the reports of intimate partner violence between 1994 and 2010 found that 4 out of 5 victims were female. [NDVH]  The American Bar Association’s study of domestic violence found that:

(1) “Access to firearms yields a more than five-fold increase in risk of intimate partner homicide when considering other factors of abuse, according to a recent study, suggesting that abusers who possess guns tend to inflict the most severe abuse on their partners.”

(2) “Of females killed with a firearm, almost two-thirds were killed by their intimate partners. The number of females shot and killed by their husband or intimate partner was more than three times higher than the total number murdered by male strangers using all weapons combined in single victim/single offender incidents in 2002.”

Therefore, we should rid ourselves of the delusions that (1) slapping the little lady around is good for them because the Romans did it; (2) it’s just as bad for men; and (3) a gun in the home will make things safer.

Home Not So Sweet Home

Nevada could do a much better job of preventing the instances of domestic and intimate partner violence, and violence against women and families in general. Our current statistics could use some improvement. The Nevada Network Against Domestic Violence reported that for 2014 there were 65,026 contacts; 40,927 were for the first time; 15,534 were repeats; and 8,565 were follow ups. 1,091 adults needed shelter for 22,040 ‘bednights.’ 1,178 children were sheltered for 26,390 bednights. Most of the adults sheltered were between the ages of 30 and 44. Among those sheltered 12,096 were Caucasian, 3,396 were African American, and 7,725 were Hispanic.  Those numbers provide some context for the trauma.  Other numbers illustrate the strain on the system

Law enforcement was contacted 12,999 times, arrests were made 6,830 times. In 5,589 incidents arrests were not made. Police reports were made 481 times, temporary orders of protection were issued 11,354 times.  There were 4,520 court appointments, and 18,540 individual counseling sessions.

Looking for Solutions

First, and foremost, let’s make an attempt to alleviate the problem of escalating domestic violence by enacting common sense gun laws.

Local law enforcement authorities should have the power to immediately remove firearms from any home in which they have been called to deal with an incident of domestic violence – for their own safety if nothing else. [TCJ] [KMGH]  And, for the safety of the spouses and children the firearms should be locked up in police custody during the period covered by an order of protection.

Background checks should be expanded to private and gun show sales, and should include any records of domestic violence, stalking, or harassment.  No firearms should be sold to any person who is currently under a restraining order – temporary or extended.

Funds should be appropriated to adequately staff those agencies which keep records of criminal behavior, including incidents of domestic violence, the adjudication of mental health status, and the approval of temporary and extended orders of protection.

The state should require that all firearms in a home be kept locked when not in the immediate process of being maintained.

If we can take some small steps to create a safer environment for women and children, then we can better consider how to develop strategies for improving our society.  It would be helpful if we’d think beyond the extreme forms of firearm violence (Columbine, Va Tech, etc. or Montana and Dallas) and improve the way we deliver the message about violence and its results in general terms.  For example, behaviors like bullying are unacceptable, whether it’s bullying members of minority groups, women, or children.  Period.  Every school, public and private alike, should be required to update and upgrade their anti-bullying policies.

Getting a better grip on history wouldn’t be a bad idea either.  Yes, 14th century Europeans were encouraged to “beat the women” but those aren’t the best role models.  Edward I of England was a fearsome warrior with a sound reputation on the battlefield, and a person known for being troublesome if not downright petulant.  However, when it came to his domestic life things were quite different.  His marriage in 1254 to Eleanor of Castile was by all accounts a genuine life-long romance. Her death at Harby in November 1290 left him devastated.  Some of the visible reminders of his love and loss can still be seen in that country – as in Charing Cross (Chere Reine, or Beloved Queen).  There are far better role models available throughout history, even European medieval,  than the thuggish peasant “improving his wife.”

At the extreme, the Montana family annihilator would rather have gone to a veterinarian than a psychiatrist – and that’s a sad tale in itself.  We’ve done a relatively poor job of diminishing the stigma attached to mental illnesses in this country. We could and should do better.  No one would sit around contemplating whether to get treatment for a broken arm – why would or should anyone not seek treatment for a broken mind?  We’d not let a person with a dangerously high fever stay away from a hospital – so why do we not have services immediately available for family members who are coping with a person who is experiencing mental instability?  And, those services should be provided in a setting which isn’t the county jail!

Stop letting the perfect become the enemy of the possible or even the pragmatic.  Opponents of common sense gun regulation, those who don’t wish to make the investment in mental health care services, and even those who have mistakenly analogized boorishness for masculinity, repeat the mantra that “it (whatever solution is proposed) won’t prevent tragedies from happening.  True. However, that doesn’t negate the improvements which could be made if we’d try.  Laws against bank robbery don’t prevent the criminals among us from trying, but they do provide for a place to put them when they are caught.  Increasing the number of mental health care facilities and programs will not provide 100% security – but it would be better than what we have at the moment. And, providing anti-bullying and anger management programs and projects at an early age won’t mean that some erratic person won’t engage in violent behavior – but the incidents prevented before they ever happen will reduce the strain on our educational, police, and health care services.

A productive perspective will do more to accomplish the reduction in domestic violence and related homicides than sitting stone silent wrapped in the fear a solution might not produce 100% success.  Franklin Roosevelt had two sentences for that:

“It is common sense to take a method and try it. If it fails, admit it frankly and try another. But above all, try something.”

Comments Off on Domestic Violence: When do the excuses stop?

Filed under Gun Issues, Nevada, Nevada politics, violence, Women's Issues, Womens' Rights

Gun Violence Awareness

Gun Violence Day 1

No, I’m not coming for your gun. I could not care less how you spend your disposable income, and if guns and ammo are your “thing” so be it.  However, I am tired of the civic conversation about firearm safety being driven by the arch-fanatics whose attachment to their weaponry verges on the pathological.

Responsible Sales

I am also tiring very quickly of those who argue that we need to “crack down on crime,” and then reverse course and proclaim that it is too great a burden to require gun sellers to prevent “straw man” purchases of firearms – wherein the real beneficiaries are the very criminals we’re supposed to “crack down” upon. [SGL.org]   Read your copy of the U.S. Constitution’s 2nd amendment one more time – it says we may “keep and bear arms”. It doesn’t say we can purchase as many as we want at one time.  There are common sense limits we can place on the quantity of such purchases; and, it’s agreed that “straw man” purchases can be regulated.  Even our conservative Supreme Court agrees on this point. [WSJ]

The ATF and the National Shooting Sports Foundation have coordinated the “Don’t Lie for the Other Guy” program which seeks to get the message out that “… buying a gun for someone who is prohibited is a federal crime punishable by up to 10 years in prison and a fine of up to $250,000.”  In Nevada that would be those who are fugitives, felons, adjudged mental ill, undocumented persons, unsupervised juveniles, and those under court order not to possess firearms because of incidents of domestic violence, who are prohibited from procuring firearms.

Background Checks

And, how do we know if a person falls into one of the prohibited categories? We require background checks.  In a better world we would require background checks for gun dealers no matter the setting, and this would include private and gun show sales.  I am not receptive to arguments that requiring a background check for all sellers is an infringement – on anything.  A truly responsible person would take every opportunity to insure that he or she is not involved in trafficking a gun to any person on the proscribed list.

Safe Storage

We’ve not done a particularly good job of collecting figures on unintentional firearm deaths among children.  We do know that in 2009 we lost 114 youngsters under the age of 20 in firearm related fatalities.  And, we know that 66 of those deaths were in the 15-19 age range. [AAP]  There’s also the matter of teen suicide:

“In 2009, suicide was the third leading cause of death for American youth 15 to 19 years of age. Firearms remained the most common method used for suicide in this age group, accounting for 736 deaths (3.4 per 100 000). Of all common methods used for attempting suicide, firearms are the most lethal, with approximately a 90% mortality rate.” [AAP]

If we can’t completely prevent these instances of homicide and suicide then we can at least make access to firearms by children more difficult.  Consider the implications of the following numbers:

21.7% of American gun owners with children at home under the age of 18 stored a loaded gun. 31.5% stored a gun unlocked, and 8.3% had at least one gun unlocked and loaded. Among those with children at home between the ages of 13-17 some 41.7% kept a gun unlocked, compared to those with children under 12, who kept a gun unlocked at a rate of 28.8%. [AAP]

It’s startling to think that almost 30% of youngsters under the age of 12 who live in a home with a gun could have access to that unlocked unsecured weapon.  That’s the origin of those incredibly sad headlines.  It’s also disturbing to note that the older the children the less likely the parents are to lock up the guns – even though suicide is the third leading cause of death among adolescents, and that those disturbed kids who use a firearm are “successful” 90% of the time.

Moving the Conversation

Responsible sales, reasonable background checks, and safe storage are not impossible goals, and there are ways to promote a more responsible society.

(1) Tell the hysterics to put a sock in it.  No one is coming after your gun. There is no “slippery slope” from gun show background checks to “confiscation.”  That the state may require safe storage of firearms doesn’t mean The Black Helicopters are going to swoop down and grab your Ruger.  Further, that the state doesn’t want someone selling guns to those adjudged seriously mentally ill who may be a danger to themselves (most often) and others upon occasion, doesn’t mean the End of the World As We Know It.  These hysterics get the press coverage because they are deemed “news-worthy,” i.e. they are dramatic, virulent, and very loud.  They’re not very rational, responsible, or right.

(2) Tell elected representatives that if they are wedded to money from the hysterics for their campaign coffers they aren’t your kind of candidate.  When senatorial candidate Sludgepump proudly announces his endorsement from one of the hysteric organizations, do let him know he’s lost the vote he was trying to get with the advertising money he’s collected.  When legislative candidate Loonybird says she’s 100% pro-gun, do tell her she’s 100% off your list of favorable candidates.   A quick telephone call, e-mail, or note will do nicely.

(3) Tell those organizations which seek to promote responsible gun ownership and use that you support them.  Better still, send them what reasonable donation you can afford to help them get their information and messages publicized.

(4) Stand up for yourself, and your children.   If the neighbor happens to be an ammosexual with unlocked firearms on the premises then he’ll be annoyed you asked if there are unsecured guns, but your child will be safer – and that’s one of the hardest parts of parenting.  If the neighbor is a responsible gun owner, one who doesn’t keep loaded and unsecured weapons about, then you should both be proud of your responsible parenting.

It’s good to have a Gun Violence Awareness Day … but then among responsible civic minded people every day should be one in which we remember that our safety and the safety of our children is a matter which should be based on sound information (not hysterical ranting) and civil discourse (not irrational fantasies).

Comments Off on Gun Violence Awareness

Filed under Gun Issues

GOP Far Away Land: Solutions in Search of Problems

Alien Planet guns

It’s like they live on another planet.  Republican legislators in Carson City appear to be marching to the same off beat drum kit as their Washington, D.C. counterparts.  Have problems with infrastructure? Education? Revenue? Income inequality? Unemployment? The solution is (staccato drum roll) Pass more laws on abortion! Allow more guns everywhere!

The Single Song Sallies of the Nevada GOP are absorbed by these two.  Assemblyman Ira Hansen (R-NV backwater) proposes the following:

“AN ACT relating to abortions; revising provisions regulating an abortion performed on a pregnant woman who is a minor or a ward; requiring notification of a parent or guardian under certain circumstances before a physician performs such an abortion; providing expedited procedures for petitioning a court for judicial authorization to proceed without such notification; providing civil liabilities and criminal penalties; and providing other matters properly relating thereto.”

How this bit of anti-choice legislation addresses employment, economic diversification, educational funding, transportation, infrastructure, local government resources, provisions for mental health services, or any other major issue facing the state is pure conjecture.  The nationwide abortion rate among those under 15 years of age is negligible for the period 1990 to 2007, and abortions for those aged 15 to 18 years has declined from 21,800 in 1990 to 16,200 as of 2007. [CensusCDC]  This decline mirrors the overall decline in teen pregnancies, which in turn is linked to economic considerations, more contraceptives, and more information (read: sex education). [Pew] However, Big Daddy Government Types exemplified by Assemblyman Hansen, won’t be satisfied until every woman has to carry every man’s fetus to term.  And for this, time is being taken from taxation and budget consideration in the Assembled Wisdom.

Meanwhile, Assemblywoman Michele “Take Baking Soda for your Cancer” Fiore (R-NRA) would be happy to attach her Guns Galore amendment to any bit of legislation she can find. [LVRJ]  She lost the vote, 24-18 in the Assembly, but she’ll be back before the end of the session on June 1. [LTN]

What makes coping with single issue ideologues like Hansen and Fiore so frustrating is that Nevada does have some serious issues which need to be addressed.  Education, which was supposed to be the central feature of this legislative session, has some problems. For instance, Nevada schools ranked 50th in “overall state grades,” and 36th in K-12 achievement, 45th in standards and assessments, and 46th in school finance. [leg.state.nv]  The American Society of Civil Engineering grades Nevada a C- in infrastructure.  We “earned” a D+ in dams, and we have 36 bridges which are deemed “structurally deficient.”  The Mental Health Association reports the following in regard to Nevada’s mental health services: “The five states with the highest prevalence of mental illness and the lowest rates of access to care were Louisiana (47), Washington (48), Nevada (49), Mississippi (50) and Arizona (51).”

Speaking to the income inequality issue, Nevada’s not in a very good position in that regard either:  “The states in which all income growth between 2009 and 2012 accrued to the top 1 percent include Delaware, Florida, Missouri, South Carolina, North Carolina, Connecticut, Washington, Louisiana, California, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Idaho, Massachusetts, Colorado, New York, Rhode Island, and Nevada.”

Now, can we please talk about something other than government so small it can fit inside every vagina, and guns galore?

1 Comment

Filed under abortion, Gun Issues, Mental Health, Nevada legislature, Nevada politics, Women's Issues, Womens' Rights

Zombie Guns Blazing in NV Legislature

zombie guns 2

This is the kind of news Nevada can do without:

“A “campus carry” bill believed to be dead in the Senate will be amended into another Second Amendment measure on Friday, Assembly Judiciary Chairman Ira Hansen said Wednesday.

Hansen said that because the Senate Judiciary Committee won’t hear Assembly Bill 148 that would allow those with concealed weapons permits to carry their weapons on college campuses, it will be amended into a Senate bill on the deadline day for committee action on most bills.” [LVRJ]

The bills in question is SB 175 and SB 240.  The Guns Galore crowd, championed by Michele Fiore (R-NRA) and Ira Hansen (R-Ammostan), wants those with concealed carry permits to be able to pack “heat” on college campuses.  Little matter that others may find this uncomfortable or downright dangerous.  Happily, there are some restrictions in place on concealed carry permitting in this state – not that the Ammosexuals wouldn’t like to eliminate those eventually.

The Current Requirements

In Clark County those wanting a permit must the a Nevada resident of Clark County, or an out of state resident who has received firearms training in Clark County; 21 years of age, not prohibited from firearms ownership by state or federal law; and must successfully complete an approved firearms course in Clark County.  [LVMPD]

The requirements in Washoe County are essentially the same. A person must be at least 21, provide documentation of competence with a firearm, meet the standards set forth in NRS 202, have no DUIs in the preceding five years or record of “substance abuse.”  [Washoe pdf]

Campus Numbers

The University of Nevada campus in Reno as of the Fall of 2013 had 15,694 undergraduates, of whom 47%, or 7,454 were male, 8,240 were female.  The average age of a UNR undergraduate was — 21 years of age. [CP]  There were 23,090 undergraduates enrolled in UNLV, 12,824 female, 10,275 male.  The average undergraduate age at UNLV was reported as 18 years. 23% were aged 25 or older. [CP]

One obvious feature of these figures is that there are a significant number of young males on both major college campuses in this state.  We do know from the CDC* and other sources  that firearms and young men aren’t a particularly good mixture.  Pew Social Trends reported:

“Men (and boys) make up the vast majority (84% in 2010) of gun homicide victims. The gun homicide rates for both genders have declined by similar amounts since the mid-1990s, though the male rate is much higher—6.2 gun homicides per 100,000 people in 2010, compared with 1.1 for females.”

… and …

“Males are the vast majority of gun suicides (87% in 2010), and the suicide rate for males (11.2 deaths per 100,000 people) is more than seven times the female rate (1.5 deaths). The highest firearm suicide rate by age is among those ages 65 and older (10.6 per 100,000 people).”

Thus, what the ammosexual alliance is proposing is to place more firearms in a setting in which there are significant numbers of already vulnerable individuals in the setting.

Individual Tragedy and Economic Costs

Aside from the human tragedy there are economic factors to consider before advocating any further proliferation of firearms and the situations in which those guns can be allowed.

In December 2012, Bloomberg Business news reported that gun violence was costing the American economy some $174 billion.  Forbes magazine reported in 2013 that gun violence was costing each American about $564.

And, then there is the “market” argument, which the Minneapolis Post analyzed as follows:

“Treating gun violence as an externality assumes that weapons markets are legitimate and that we must live with the consequences.  However, certain aspects of this market may not be legitimate. Markets do not exist in a vacuum.  They are created and designed by people, and societies can decide to modify or restrict markets depending on its values and goals.

Debra Satz, a professor of philosophy at Stanford University, addresses this in her book “Why Some Things Should Not Be for Sale: The Limits of Markets.” At the heart of her analysis is the concept of noxious markets, i.e. “markets that people find especially objectionable” and which should be curtailed or eliminated.

One important reason why societies deem some markets as noxious is that trade in these goods causes extreme harm to individuals and/or society.  Markets in assault rifles, large-capacity ammunition magazines and related items could be thought of this way. The damage caused by guns used to commit crimes is so great that we must regulate them and, in some cases, eliminate them.”

We know, for example that alcohol and tobacco products are often classified as “noxious markets.”  There are spill-over effects in society, in terms of public health costs, and other related expenses or losses.  Therefore, we regulate and use tax policy to curb the consumption and use of these items.  State legislatures are quick to add “sin taxes” to diminish the ‘noxious’ markets for some products, especially in the tobacco categories. However, they’re remarkably slow to consider taxing/regulating the use of guns and ammunition.  An amended SB 175 merely serves to advance a ‘noxious’ market, rather than curbing firearms proliferation which endangers young people – especially young men.

U.S. News and World Report was more blunt on this subject, when speaking of the economic costs of firearms and school security in America:

“However, the firearms industry has managed to avoid picking up the tab for its externalities. A recent proposal by Wayne LaPierre of the National Rifle Association shows the size of the problem. After the Sandy Hook school shooting, the NRA proposed that the best solution to gun violence in school is to have more guns in school. They argued that every school should post an armed guard (or several) to stop would-be shooters. Let’s set aside the constitutional and practical considerations and just consider the economics of this for a moment: It would cost nearly $5 billion per year to put a trained, equipped, armed guard in each of America’s 132,000 K-12 schools. That calls for a fee—let’s call it the “Schools Security Fee”—of $500 to $750 for every new and used handgun purchased in the United States. The fee is roughly the cost of a typical good-quality new pistol! If imposed, it would double the price of handguns and cripple the firearm industry. Yet it’s ironic that many of the folks who claim to hate taxes and government see no problem in proposing a $5 billion expansion in government, which necessitates taxes to pay for it.”

Whether viewed in macro-terms such as in the classification of firearms as a ‘noxious’ market, or in micro-terms as in a discussion of school safety officers, the message is essentially similar.  The manufacturers of firearms and their Ammosexual Allies are arguing that lethal weapons do not constitute a ‘noxious’ market and therefore should not be taxed or regulated even if the economic costs run into the $174 billion range.

Hostage Taking

While we can have socially oriented or economically based arguments over firearms regulations it must be admitted that there is an emotional factor to consider.  The positions taken by the Nevada Firearms Coalition which calls for legislation to “enhance personal liberty,” perceives proliferation as a ‘beneficial’ market, and a positive social good.**  “Armed” with this emotional attachment to firearms and their retail sales, the Guns Anywhere advocates are perfectly willing to hold other, and better, legislation hostage in order to advance their cause. Witness:

“As I reported earlier this week, Assembly Members Michele Fiore (R-Las Vegas) & Ira Hansen (R-Sparks) are retaliating against Senate Majority Leader Michael Roberson (R-Henderson) & Senate Judiciary Chair Greg Brower (R-Reno) for shelving their “Guns Everywhere” bill (AB 148) in Senate Judiciary. So they just amended SB 240, Roberson’s mental health & “voluntary background checks” bill, to include elimination of Clark County’s “Blue Card” handgun registry…”  [LTN]

Winston Churchill was right: “A fanatic is one who can’t change his mind and won’t change the subject.”

—————————————-

* Warning: Depending, of course, on your download speed this file can be very slow loading. (94.3 mb .zip format)

** See also: The 50 Caliber Institute.

Comments Off on Zombie Guns Blazing in NV Legislature

Filed under Economy, Gun Issues, Nevada economy, Nevada legislature, Nevada politics, public safety

The Ammosexual Assembly: Nevada Legislature and SB 175

NV Legislature wide A much amended SB 175 is still alive in the Nevada Legislature.  [LTN]  This “gun bill” contains several items on the ammosexual wish list, and with copious amendments got out of the Senate on a 14-5 vote.  There’s a subtle, but important revision in Amendment 136 which should given reasonable individuals some hope for sanity in an otherwise irrational session.  In the Kill At Will portion – otherwise known as Stand Your Ground – the language changes from “knew or had reason to believe” that the shooter was imperiled, to “reasonably believed” the victim of the shooting was in the act of perpetrating a violent crime.

This is improved language because merely because I have a reason to think a person is in the act of committing a felony doesn’t necessarily mean I have a good reason, or even a rational explanation.  The improved language now specifies that I must provide a rational explanation, something a reasonable person might believe.  The new language sets a higher and better standard.

The second change of note is that the aforesaid ‘knowledge’ must relate to the act of committing a violent crime, not merely any felony.  If a felonious action is all that is necessary then a person embezzling more than $650 may be said to be in the act of committing a Class C felony in this state – and who gets shot for embezzlement?  Or mortgage fraud? Or even running a chop shop?

The language is still a bit sloppy in the sections dealing with reciprocity of concealed carry permitting.  Existing law requires that the out of state permit be “substantially similar to” or “more stringent than” Nevada statutes. The new language merely says the state will describe any training, class, or program required by the initiating state.  That an issuing agency (sheriff’s department) knows the training level doesn’t necessarily mean it is an appropriate training level, or that the restrictions on an individual seeking  a concealed carry permit can be discerned from a description of training, classes, or programs.

The domestic violence issue is also barely resolved.  Here’s the portion, with the line reference numbers retained:

37 Sec. 5. Chapter 33 of NRS is hereby amended by adding thereto a new 38 section to read as follows: 39 1. If a court issues an extended order pursuant to NRS 33.030, the adverse 40 party shall not subsequently purchase or otherwise acquire any firearm during 41 the period that the extended order is in effect. 42 2. A person who violates the provisions of subsection 1 is guilty of a 43 category B felony and shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for a 44 minimum term of not less than 1 year and a maximum term of not more than 6 45 years, and may be further punished by a fine of not more than $5,000.”

Here’s the problem – notice that in line 39 the confiscation of firearms is associated with an extended order of protection.  The related statute is NRS 33.030 and 33.033.   It’s necessary at this point to look at the provisions of NRS 33.020 – which says there can be two types of protection orders: temporary and extended.  A temporary order of protection would not, under the language of SB 175, allow the authorities to confiscate firearms from the ‘adversarial party.’ AKA the abuser.  There’s a hair-splitting argument to be made that getting an extended order allows the abuser to have his or her day in court, and thus wouldn’t violate the 2nd Amendment.  This argument works if, and almost only if, the absolutist theory of the 2nd Amendment applies.

If the absolutist theory is attached to other elements in the Bill of Rights then perhaps one couldn’t be immediately arrested for yelling “Fire” in a crowded theater? Or, for indulging in the ancient Aztec religious ceremony of removing the ‘still beating heart’ to offer to the Sun God? One would have to have “his or her day in court” before any preventative measures could be taken to mitigate further damage? Yes, this is a silly argument, but nonetheless it illustrates the limitations of any absolutist theoretical framework. And there is evidence of ‘immediate damage.’

Nevada, Louisiana, Alaska, and South Carolina have the highest rates of homicide for women who are victims of domestic violence, all with a rate in the range of 2.00 to 2.50. [HuffPo] This is not the Top Four in the Nation category of which we should be proud.

We might be able to get out of this unfortunate ranking by inserting language which allows the removal of firearms from a premise if any order of protection is granted, until the expiration of that order.  The firearms have not been permanently taken from the rightful owner, they’ve just been removed temporarily from a volatile environment in which the two ‘adults’ may not be the only potential victims – bullets have been known for going through apartment walls.

If the ammosexual contingent in the Nevada Legislature can contain its enthusiasm for shootin’ up the state, we might want to have a serious discussion about whether we want the least restrictive statutes for firearm possession and ownership, or those which have the greatest potential for removing obvious threats to public safety.

Comments Off on The Ammosexual Assembly: Nevada Legislature and SB 175

Filed under domestic abuse, Gun Issues, Nevada legislature, Nevada politics

Tea Party Antics in the Assembled Wisdom

Tea Party Flag

There are 40 days left in the Nevada Legislative Session.  Not that the initial leadership struggles in the Assembly weren’t entertaining, but the decorum on the set appears to be degenerating into sniping sessions worthy of  an agitated  flock of mockingbirds. There’s something about a gun-packin’ right wing Mama telling a fellow member to “Sit your A___ down” which doesn’t quite fit into the image of Legislative debate. Granted, most of what passes for debate in many sessions is essentially soporific and would cure the most intractable insomnia, but Assemblywoman Michele Fiore (R-NRA) has perhaps ventured a step too far into the realm of the theatrical. But then we could muse that most of what passes for Issues in this session is just that – political theater.

There’s nothing fundamentally wrong with Political Theater, when used to good effect we get The Lincoln-Douglas Debates, the Nixon Checkers Speech, and the August 28, 1963 March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom.  It’s when the theatrical elements are endowed with more significance than the policy discussions that we get into difficulties.

At the point where posture becomes more important than policy we are treated to things like the offering of 11 gun bills in a single session of the Legislature.  Some of these bills were predictably extreme – guns galore and guns everywhere!  Posturing becomes problematic when the extreme bills are endowed with Sanctity and aren’t part of a compromise process.

In an age of sound bite politics it’s hard to get a good policy discourse going.  If all one side is willing to offer is a parroting of “No new taxes,” then discussions about equitable ways to raise revenue for essential public services is diminished.  If 2nd Amendment rights may not have any responsibilities attached thereto, then common sense legislation to control the proliferation of firearms and the attendant loss of life becomes a stalemate.

If one side is wedded to the notion that the only way to deliver public services is by corporate interests then nothing of much value gets accomplished.

Combining ideological posturing with election politics simply adds another layer of difficulty to an already delicate democratic process.  The fact that SB 169 – a vote suppression bill if there ever was one – was granted an exemption from the Legislature on March 10, 2015 should send chills down the spines of those who are watching the process in the current Legislative session.  It’s companion in the Assembly, AB 253, a photo ID bill which carries with it an unfunded mandate among other baggage, is still percolating through the Assembly.

A restricted electorate plus the sound bite politics of posturing isn’t a recipe for rational legislative decision making.

Comments Off on Tea Party Antics in the Assembled Wisdom

Filed under civil liberties, Gun Issues, Nevada legislature, Nevada politics, Republicans, Vote Suppression