The families of the victims killed and wounded in the Virginia Tech massacre do not come close to having such clout. For the tragedy’s fifth anniversary next week, they are having a hard time securing meetings with Washington politicians to fix the law that promised a more complete and up-to-date federal list of the mentally ill, who should be barred from buying guns. But two dozen states have submitted fewer than 100 mental health records each when tens of thousands should be entered, according to Mayors Against Illegal Guns, a national gun reform group. Financing to help state reporting efforts was supposed to be $1.1 billion over the last four years, yet Congress appropriated only $51 million. So goes the nation’s utter failure to deal with the gun menace.
Why do you think there's such a discrepancy between the power of the gun lobby and the gun control movement? Wouldn't you think that the million or so people affected each year by gun violence, that's the friends and family of gun-shot victims, would raise their voices against the dangerous expansion of gun rights? Over the last ten years there would have been 10 million people directly affected by it. Where are they? Why are those who do raise their voices so outnumbered by the gun-rights advocates?
Here's my theory. Indirect victims of gun violence, spouses, children, friends and loved ones, usually do not unite with others in the movement to stop that violence. Theirs is a lonely world of pain and loss. They suffer silently.
The gun-rights movement, on the other hand, is a natural magnet for enthusiastic gun owners. It provides the perfect justification through numbers for activities and behaviors that would otherwise be difficult to justify. It's got that perfect combination of resisting the impending tyranny of the government, a danger that exists only in their minds, and fighting tooth and nail against the "gun-grabbers," who in reality are the powerless ones themselves.
All this resistance feeds into their fantasies about being the underdogs in a cataclysmic battle of the titans. Depending on the personality type, some gun owners imagine glorious triumph over the enemy, these are the truly delusional ones, others picture themselves going down in a blaze of glory. I call that mania "grandiose victimism."
There's much more. There's the flag-waving pseudo-patriotism of the 2nd Amendment distortions and bastardizations. There's the god-given-rights angle, which combines that peculiar right-wing Christianity unique to the US with guns. And, of course, there's the empowering that comes with gun use and ownership. This is perhaps the single most active motivator in the entire gun-rights movement. Fearful, insecure men, find a type of delusional power and safety in guns.
How could the gun control movement, which is grounded in common sense and reason, compete with all that?
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
Wait, why are they asking for 1.1 BILLION dollars to send a list of names to the FBI?
ReplyDeleteWhere is their proof that there are tens of thousands of people adjudicated mentally ill, and not reported? I believe there could be errors in reporting, but I’d like to see their source. This seems exaggerated.
MikeB: “Here's my theory. Indirect victims of gun violence, spouses, children, friends and loved ones, usually do not unite with others in the movement to stop that violence. Theirs is a lonely world of pain and loss. They suffer silently.”
It is also possible that they simply don’t see gun control as the answer.
For kicks, which one of those fantasy groups do you put me in?
I think you're in a class of your own, TS. I mean that as a compliment.
Delete"Why do you think there's such a discrepancy between the power of the gun lobby and the gun control movement?"
ReplyDeleteMainly due to grass roots. The anti's don't have any.
I just left St. Louis and 70,000 enthusiastic patriots that defend the 2A. How many were at the Brady Annual Meeting this year? 6 maybe? Does their board even meet?
60,000 is not a lot of people or a lot of votes. Take the entire membership of 4 million. Remove the apathetic ones and those who actually support reasonable restrictions. What's that leave, a million or two, less than ONE good sized city.
DeleteWhen you talk about the really passionate, those who attend rallies or write pro-gun blogs, you're talking about even fewer.
You're not winning because of the numbers, which would be there if your agenda were really wholesome, you're winning because of the powerful interests behind your voices.
It'll all change in Obama's second term. I think the carney hustler La Pierre is right to be afraid.
"The gun-rights movement, on the other hand, is a natural magnet for enthusiastic gun owners. It provides the perfect justification through numbers for activities and behaviors that would otherwise be difficult to justify. It's got that perfect combination of resisting the impending tyranny of the government, a danger that exists only in their minds, and fighting tooth and nail against the "gun-grabbers," who in reality are the powerless ones themselves."
ReplyDeleteThere are some other groups that have similar underpinnings (and likez them teh gunz). One was started in Pulaski, Tennessee in May, 1866--a year after the end of the War of Southern Treachery. Another was founded by a former painter in 1919*.
"Where is their proof that there are tens of thousands of people adjudicated mentally ill, and not reported? I believe there could be errors in reporting, but I’d like to see their source. This seems exaggerated."
This:
"For new estimates, the NIMH is asking Americans questions in an annual drug-use survey to estimate the number of people who have serious mental illness, which the agency defines as one that substantially interferes with major life activities. Fewer than 5% of Americans have such an illness.
Some distinctions are made for reasons other than the latest science. For instance, in the U.S. substance-abuse disorders such as alcoholism generally aren’t included in counts of the mentally ill. “It’s not a very clean cut, but it’s one we follow, given our institute structure,” said an NIMH epidemiologist, referring to the NIH’s separate institutes for drug abuse and alcoholism. An NIMH spokesman declined to comment.
Another key question for those who would bar gun ownership among the mentally ill is whether mental illness is linked to violence. Bruce Link, an epidemiologist at Columbia University’s Mailman School of Public Health, said that even if there are elevated risks from some people who are mentally ill, they are no higher than for other differences in society, such as between high-school dropouts and college graduates. “If you really want to protect yourself, go to England or hang out with old ladies,” he said.
Ronald Pies, a psychiatrist affiliated with Tufts University School of Medicine and SUNY Upstate Medical University, wrote in an email that “a diagnosis of ‘mental illness’ by itself should not necessarily be a ‘disqualifying’ condition for possessing a firearm. I would be more interested in fine-tuning the screening process,” for instance barring sales to people with a history of involuntary institutionalization for violence or aggression or people who have been expelled or suspended from colleges or other schools for violent behavior."
is from that notorious lefty rag, the WSJ (http://blogs.wsj.com/numbersguy/how-many-people-suffer-from-mental-illness-1025/).
If we accept that ONLY 5% of the U.S. population is "seriously" mentally ill we are still talking about 10-12M individuals. If we only think that 5% of those folks are genuine dangers to the public, we're looking 5-600K**. As the numbers are unknown (and unknowable without a comprehensive program being followed by ALL states it is impossible to get any verifiable statistics assembled. That sort of difficulty in obtaining information is a feature, not a bug, of the obfuscatory machinations of the NRA and other "gunzrightz" organizations.
As for the 1.1B cost of implementation over 4 years, according to the NYT's editorial, less than 5% of the monies estimated to cover the cost of implementing the program have been approved by Congress. That's about $1M per state--a pisshole in a snowdrift.
* Mr. Hitler actually co-opted a group and made it the highly attractive organization that sought to destroy those it disliked.
** Like mikeb302000's "famous 10%", I think the numbers are much higher and would welcome a thorough study that either confirmed or refuted my thinking.
My answer is simple: We have common sense and reason on our side, and we share the American value of freedom. Your side has nothing.
ReplyDeleteBwahahahahahaha and you're whistling in the dark.
DeleteDemocommie, that's all well and good, but doesn't show a lack of reporting those adjudicated mentally ill (as in they are already in the state system, but they are not sharing with the Feds). I would expect a big difference between estimates of mentally ill and adjudicated mentally ill (those who have entered the legal system because they did something wrong).
ReplyDeleteA million dollars per year per state is 125 people working full time at 20 dollars per hour... And this is to take names from their database and pass them to a federal organization. That's a lot of milk. How much would they need to implement a national registry and licensing plan? 600 billion dollars?
"A million dollars per year per state is 125 people working full time at 20 dollars per hour...
ReplyDeleteIs that new math?
125 (people per state) x 40 hours per week = 5,000 hrs. per week per state x $20/hr = $ 100K/week per state x 52 = $ 5.2M/annum per state x 50 (disregarding U.S. Territories and dependencies) = $260M/annum for a national program. Feel free to correct my math, I'm not good at it. So, if the program was funded at the level that you suggest it would take 5 times more money per YEAR than the total, thus far appropriated, by the congress. These figures, btw, are for wages only w/o benefits of any kind or Medicare/FICA.
"And this is to take names from their database and pass them to a federal organization. That's a lot of milk. How much would they need to implement a national registry and licensing plan? 600 billion dollars?"
It would be a fairly simple procedure for any admitting authority at any clinic for mental health to compile lists of those individuals who have been involuntarily committed. It's not as if they don't already do so.
One of the favorite "Catch 22's" of the ReiKKKwing (and I definitely include folks like the NRA, ALEC, the KKKristianists and their followers in that grouping) is to surmise that some program will be impossibly complicated or too expensive to be of any value--as a justification for refusing to implement it. That it's a bullshit set of excuses never embarasses the true believers.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteSpeaking as a gun violence victim myself, and knowing many others or the surviving families, I'd say you are right on. They don't want to relive their trauma by dwelling on it, preferring to move on. And the gun control organizations, like Brady, don't want to reach out to them for fear of being accused of "using" victims for political purposes. So the only option is for the victims to reach out on their own, which isn't likely to happen in most cases. The few that do become advocates, such as myself, or Colin Goddard, or Jackie Rowe-Adams are roundly attacked by the gun lobby and their bulldogs as being "cowards" (as they have accused Colin) or "shills" for liberal organizations (as they have accused me) or being misled (as they have accused Jackie) instead of actually listening to victims and taking their perspective to heart.
ReplyDeleteHere is one (extremely rare) example of a gun lobby leader actually listening (though no actual change came of it):
http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/uptown/harlem-mom-lost-sons-gun-violence-nra-chief-clash-reach-understanding-article-1.1061796
There's a view among some groups that merely by "raising consciousness," good things will happen. But, of course, we know that your side doesn't just want us to listen. You want guns removed from good citizens. We won't agree to that, and we won't agree to any of your attempts to get the same result by passing one regulation after another that individually doesn't look so bad. What else do you have to say to us?
DeleteBaldr, you're one of my heroes.
DeleteApparently you're into reading minds now, Greg.... badly. Your paranoia is showing.
DeleteThanks, Mikeb.
Greg said, "You want guns removed from good citizens."
DeleteThat's exactly what I don't want to do. I've told you that before. Why do you keep saying it?
Mikeb, I've told you before, your proposals individually are a little of this and a little of that, but add them all up, and it comes to near total disarmament of private citizens. If you don't want to disarm private citizens, why do you keep making proposals that would achieve that goal?
Delete"You want guns removed from good citizens."
ReplyDeleteI see that, despite you're having been informed--as recently as yesterday--that the comment above is aFUCKING LIE, you continue to repeat it. This sort of stupidly defiant intransigence is what makes you, a LIAR.
If you can't understand the difference between a statement of fact and a statement of interpretation, why do you expect people to believe your assertions about lies? I interpret the proposals here as adding up to the disarmament of private citizens. As I've said, if you can show that I've knowingly claimed something to be a fact that I knew was not, I'll leave and never return. You can't do that.
DeleteI have to agree with Greg. That was not a lie, that was a prevaricating and mendacious interpretation.
DeleteThen show me how the practical effect--not the intended effect, not your hopes and dreams, but the practical effect--of your proposals doesn't add up to disarmament of private citizens. What you propose would make guns and ammunition too costly to buy, would make qualifying for permission to own guns and ammunition too difficult to achieve, and would make most uses of a firearm beyond a target range illegal.
DeleteGreg, you're making stuff up just to disagree with my proposals. Why don't we tighten up just enough to affect a few, the worst of the worst. This way we leave the vast majority alone and eliminate the most dangerous guys.
DeleteThanks for the correction, Democommie. The "1" in front of the "25" was a typo.
ReplyDeleteYour got caught in your own catch 22. It is your side that is saying it costs billions of dollars for something simple
Could it be that most people realize the gun control laws that have been passed have done nothing to decrease crime. In fact even as the number of gun owners continues to climb crime rates continue to fall. Gun control is a miserable failure. More people are licensed to carry sidearms today than at any other time in the history of our country. All the dire predictions from the gun control crowd have failed to happen.
ReplyDeleteCorrelation does not causation make.
DeleteI'll tell you one of the dire predictions of the gun control crowd that continues to happen. The US continues to have a disgraceful intentional homicide rate compared to other developed countries.
We've discussed the comparison of homicide rates and shown you that we're not that far off from similar countries. We've also shown you that gun control doesn't change the homicide rate, since some countries and regions with strict control still have high rates of murder, while other countries and regions with good gun laws have low rates.
DeleteI think there are three main reasons to explain the disparity between gun-rights and gun-control movements.
ReplyDelete(1) A person who obtains, trains with, and carries a firearm for self defense is proactive. Many such people would also proactively support organizations that advocate for their continuing ability to defend themselves. On the flip side a person who does not proactively prepare to defend themselves from attack does not proactively support gun control either.
(2) Regardless of what gun control proponents have proclaimed or intended, the reality is that many citizens without criminal records or mental illness have been unable to purchase, possess, and/or carry firearms. And for many citizens who own firearms, gun laws have been annoying with no obvious benefit. Gun laws have also increased the cost of firearms ... again with no obvious benefit. That has pushed many people who own or wish to own firearms to reject gun control policies. With something like 80 million adult firearms owners and who knows how many more that want to own firearms, there is simply a much larger pool of people. A larger pool of people will have more supporters than the smaller pool of people that support gun control.
(3) I think many people no longer trust the gun control movement. As a result many people who historically supported gun control no longer support it.
There are a few inescapable facts that play into number (3) above. More and more people are realizing that animal or criminal attacks happen unexpectedly without warning -- and can instill life-threatening injuries in a few seconds. Since law enforcement response times are in minutes, not seconds, more and more people want the option to defend themselves effectively. Since gun control policies often interfere, support is waning. Additionally, more and more people are realizing that criminal repeat offenders, drug/gang disputes, and domestic abuse accounts for almost all violent crimes ... and gun control policies have virtually no impact on the attackers in those groups. But gun control policies do diminish the ability of citizens (who are many of the victims of those groups) to defend themselves. So again, support for gun control is waning.
Mikeb, I'm not making anything up. I've read the proposed restrictions and regulations here. I can draw a reasonable conclusion about the effect that those would have. Look at the process for getting a legal handgun in D.C., for example. The laws there are just about what you want, and the burden for law-abiding citizens is so high that few bother with it. Criminals don't care, of course.
ReplyDeleteBut you asked why I won't go along with some "tightening" of the laws. The reason is that I only compromise with people who are willing to come as far my way as I am to go theirs. That's not a joke. Until the gun control side shows some willingness to give up something, my side can't believe that you're acting in good faith.