U.S. Public Wants Stricter Gun Laws

 

The charts above reflect the results of the Economist / YouGov Poll -- done between September 8th and 10th of a nationwide sample of 1,626 adults, with a 3.3 point margin of error.

The Inaction Of Congress On Gun Violence Is Shameful

 

The chart above is from the Gun Violence Archive. It shows that (as of August 8th) 26,784 people have died from gun violence, and 420 mass shootings have occurred in this nation. Both of those numbers mean we are likely to set new records this year in both gun deaths and mass shootings.

Why do we continue to allow this epidemic of gun violence to continue year after year? Why don't our national leaders in Congress take some action to protect citizens. Protecting the Second Amendment of the Constitution is the reason usually given, but that is a flawed argument. There are things that could be done to curb the amount of gun violence that do not violate the Constitution.

One of these is to plug the holes in the current background check law. When the law was originally passed, it did not mandate background checks for private gun sales or for sales at gun shows. These loopholes allow anyone that wants a gun to buy one -- even those who could not pass a background check. And it is estimated that as much as 40% of gun sales are currently done without a background check.

The NRA (and gun manufacturers) oppose plug the holes in the background check laws. But both are out-of-step with the wishes of the public. Poll after poll has shown that huge majorities of the public want to require a background check for private sales and at gun shows. And as the chart below shows, this includes gun owners (including Republican and Democratic gun owners).

That means there would not be a political price to be paid for improving the background check law. That leaves only one reason for Congress not to act. They, especially the Republican members, like the money they get from the NRA more than they want to prevent the deaths of citizens. That's Shameful!

This chart reflects the results of a Pew Research Center survey -- done between April 5th and 10th of a national sample of 5,109 adults, with a 2.1 point margin of error.

Gun Sales Have Risen Every Month Over Previous Year

The chart above is from the FBI. It shows the number of background checks done every month for the last two years. These background checks are one of the best ways to see how many guns were sold. Note that in every month of the past year, gun sales (as determined by background checks) was higher than in the same month the previous year.

This is not a good thing in a nation that has three mass shootings every two days (about 1.5 per day), and is again on track to record more than 40,000 gun deaths for this year.

NOTE -- the figures for gun sales are probably even higher, since many sales do not require a background check be done.

Public Still Overwhelmingly Supports Background Checks

This chart shows the results of the new NPR / PBS NewsHour / Marist Poll -- done between July 15th and 17th of a national sample of 1,346 adults, with a margin of error of 3.5 points.

It shows that an overwhelming majority of Americans (89%) continues to support requiring a background check on all gun sales -- including at gun shows and on all private sales between individuals.

Democrats know this. That's why the House passed a bill back in February that would close the loopholes in the background check law. Unfortunately, Senate Majority Leader McConnell opposes the law (even though 84% of Republican adults favor it). He still places money from the NRA above the lives of Americans -- and he refuses to allow the House bill to be debated or voted on in the Senate. And other Republicans in the Senate refuse to join Democrats and overrule McConnell.

This is one more reason (among many) to vote against McConnell and all Republican senators in the next election.

Huge Majority Still Favors Plugging Background Check Holes

It has been said that Congress won't plug the gaping holes in the background check law for gun buyers because they lack the political courage. They are afraid the voters will punish them if they do that. That's pure bullshit!

No politician would be punished for closing the holes in the background check law (which still allow 40% of all gun sales to be done each year without any background check). About 77% of the public wants that to be done, while only 12% oppose it -- and that is true of every group, even Republicans (where only 14% would oppose it).

Any politician could easily defend passing such a law. It doesn't require political courage -- only the willingness to forgo getting campaign money from the NRA. Unfortunately, too many in Congress (in both political parties, but especially Republicans) have sold their vote to the NRA (which is now controlled by gun manufacturers -- not gun owners).

Closing the holes in the background check law simply makes sense. It would not violate the Second Amendment, and it would not keep law-abiding citizens from buying and possessing a firearm. What it would do is save American lives.

The chart above reflects the results of a new Economist / YouGov Poll -- done between November 12th and 14th of a random national sample of 1,500 adults (including 1,281 registered voters), with a 3 point margin of error.

NOW IS THE TIME To Talk About Gun Control

(The image above is from the Facebook page of Lalo Alcaraz.)

It took the White House less than 24 hours to repeat the tired old mantra that we hear after every mass shooting -- that this is a time for prayer and mourning, and not the time to talk about gun control. Bullshit! This is exactly the right time to talk about gun control, when the horror of not doing anything is fresh in our minds. We should have had this discussion (and taken action) after Tucson, Columbine, Aurora, Newtown, and Orlando -- but we didn't, and now we have Las Vegas. How many more must happen before it's time to do something?

I don't know if the murderer in Las Vegas was a domestic terrorist or just an idiot who thought it would be fun to kill as many people as he could. At this point, it really doesn't matter. What does matter is that he should not have been able to get his hands on the weapons he had -- assault weapons that were either bought with an automatic fire feature, or were modified to allow automatic fire.

Assault-style weapons were designed for military use -- and their only purpose is too kill as many human beings as possible in the shortest time possible. There is no legitimate civilian use for them. Some say they are good for hunting. Bullshit! There are much better rifles for hunting. Some say they are good for home defense. Bullshit! A shotgun is a much better home defense weapon.

These assault-style military weapons have no place in our civilian society, and they should be outlawed (as they used to be). Some will whine about the Second Amendment. That's nonsense. Our courts have held that banning assault weapons is NOT a violation of the Second Amendment.

The idot shooter in Las Vegas would not necessarily have been unable to kill people if he had not been able to get assault weapons -- but it is a fact that he would not have been able to kill as many people as quickly as he without those weapons.

And while banning assault weapons makes sense, and should happen as soon as possible, it is not the only sensible thing that should be done. We also need to close the gaping loopholes in our background check laws for gun purchasers. Currently, anyone (even criminals, known terrorists, and the dangerously mentally ill) can buy any kind of gun they want without going through a background check -- and about 40% of the guns sold each year are sold without a background check being done. That should never happen. No gun (even from one individual to another) should ever be sold without a background check being done first.

They aren't all as big as the Las Vegas shooting, but a mass shooting happens nearly every day in the United States. Over 30,000 people die every year from gunshots. We probably can't eliminate them all from happening, but we could pass some sensible legislation that would save many lives -- and not doing so is morally reprehensible, and in my opinion, criminally negligent.

Most People Think It's Too easy To Buy A Gun In U.S.

Last year, when Rasmussen asked this question, only 44% said it was too easy to buy a gun in the United States. That has now climbed to a slim majority of 51%. Maybe Americans are finally waking up and realizing that we bring the thousands of gun deaths each year on ourselves -- with laws that make it easy for anyone (including criminals and terrorists) to buy a gun.

The least we could do is make ALL gun buyers pass a background check (something that over 80% of Americans would support). That would not affect law-abiding citizens, but would make it much harder for criminals and terrorists to get a gun -- and it would NOT violate the Second Amendment of the Constitution.

The chart above is from the Rasmussen Poll -- done on April 25th and 26th of a random national sample of likely voters, with a 3 point margin of error.

A Huge % Of The Public Still Wants Background Checks

Donald Trump has said he wants to make it easier for Americans to buy and carry a firearm. And the Republicans in Congress have repeatedly blocked all efforts to further restrict the access to guns. Both even oppose the most reasonable of proposals -- background checks on all gun buyers, which would keep terrorists, convicted criminals, and those with a dangerous mental illness from legally buying a gun.

They cite the Second Amendment as the reason they oppose the background checks. That is a disingenuous argument. The Supreme Court has already ruled that making gun buyers go through a background check does NOT violate the Second Amendment to the Constitution.

Also making their position nonsensical is the fact that the American public overwhelmingly supports closing the loopholes in the background check law (that allows about 40% of gun purchases to be made without a background check each year). Poll after poll has shown this, and now a new poll shows that is still true.

The new survey is from Public Policy Polling, and was done on December 6th and 7th of a random national sample of 1,224 registered voters (with a margin of error of 2.8 points).

That survey shows that 89% of the general public favors closing the loopholes in the federal background check law, while only a minuscule 8% opposes it. And that support crosses all gender, age, racial, and political lines (with the lowest support be among Republicans at still a healthy 79%).

This means there would be no political cost to voting for a better background check law. It would require no political courage -- only a bit of political decency. But don't expect to see it happen soon. The Republicans have sold out to the NRA leadership and the gun manufacturers, and they will continue to block common sense efforts to save American lives.

House Democrats "Sit" To Stop Gun Deaths Of Americans

(This photo of House Democrats sitting on the House floor is from cnn.com.)

Like their GOP colleagues in the Senate, House Republicans have demonstrated that they care more for the profit of gun manufacturers than the lives of their fellow Americans. They continue to spit in the face of about 85% of the public, who want universal background checks on all gun purchases and who want those on the terrorist watch list and no-fly list to be banned from purchasing guns.

Those Republican congresspeople say they are protecting the Second Amendment and the right of citizens to own a gun. That is a LIE! neither universal background checks nor banning terrorists from buying a gun violates the Second Amendment -- and neither would bar law-abiding Americans from purchasing or owning a firearm. They would simply keep terrorists and criminals from legally buying a gun.

But the House Republican leadership have refused to even bring those bills to the House floor for a vote. They don't want to have to explain to their constituents why they voted to allow terrorists and criminals to continue buying guns legally.

House Democrats have had enough of this GOP refusal to take any action on gun violence. Led by civil rights activist and American hero Rep. John Lewis, House Democrats staged a sit-in on the floor of the House of Representatives -- and they have vowed to maintain that sit-in until the House leadership allows a vote on the gun bills.

Speaker Ryan was embarrassed by the sit-in, and did his best to quell the sit-in. He even ordered the microphones and cameras to be shut off in an effort to keep the American people from witnessing what was happening in the House through C-SPAN. His efforts failed. C-SPAN (to their credit) broadcast a feed of the sit-in from Rep. Scott Peters (using the Periscope app), and when they app starting to freeze due to so many people watching, they switched to a live feed from Facebook by Rep. Beto O'Rourke (D-Texas). C-SPAN is to be commended for bringing Americans this newsworthy event over the objections of the House GOP leadership.

And the House Democrats are to be commended for their actions to protect the lives and safety of their fellow Americans (and so are the Democratic senators who joined them in the sit-in). They all make me very proud to be a Democrat.

Most Still Want Background Checks For All Gun Buyers

The Republican Congress still refuses to even consider closing the loopholes in the background check law -- even though 40% of all gun buyers in this country purchase their guns without any kind of background check each year. This means any criminal, terrorist, or dangerously mentally ill person can buy any kind of gun they want (including assault weapons) any time they want.

That is insane, and the American public wants it changed. A new poll shows that 83% of all Americans want every gun buyer to have to go through a background check before being able to buy a gun. And that cuts across all gender, political, racial, and age demographic lines -- including members of the Republican base (79%).

It shows that the GOP Congress is ignoring reality in favor of kowtowing to the National Rifle Association (NRA). They know that over 30,000 are killed by guns in this country every year, and the country averages more than one mass shooting every single day (an incident in which four or more people are shot). They claim they would not be re-elected if they voted to close those background check loopholes, but that is just political greed. The poll shows that the people would support such a law. The politicians just don't want to give up the NRA money (in other words, they have been paid off by the NRA).

This is just one reason among many why the Republicans currently in Congress must be voted out next November.

The chart above is from a recent Public Policy Polling survey -- done between May 6th and 9th of 1,222 registered voters, with a margin of error of 3.2 points.

Most Americans Likely To Support Obama's Executive Order

As you probably know by now, President Obama is issuing some executive orders to curb the gun violence in this country. The most important of these would redefine what constitutes a "gun dealer". This would force many of those who sell guns online or through gun shows to perform a background check before selling a firearm to anyone. This wouldn't close all of the loopholes in the background check law, but it would close many of them -- and it would make it harder for criminals, terrorists, and the dangerously mental ill to legally buy a gun.

As expected, the NRA and their Republican sycophants are loudly whining over the president's actions. They are dragging out all of their old arguments -- that this is a violation of the Second Amendment and will result in the confiscation of guns from law-abiding citizens. Those are ridiculous lies.

The real question is what does the American public think. Poll after poll has shown that about 90% of Americans want the holes plugged in the background check law (including significant majorities of Republicans, NRA members, and gun owners). But will they support this being done through a presidential executive order?

The answer is likely to be YES. The only poll on this issue I have found so far is the Greenberg-Quinlan-Rosner Research Poll taken between November 16th and 19th (when the idea of an executive order on the issue was first being discussed). They questioned a random national sample of 850 likely 2016 voters, and the margin of error was 3.4 points.

That survey showed 73% (about 3 out of every 4 Americans) would support an executive order to close background check holes, and a majority of 53% would strongly support that. Only 25% would oppose an executive order, and only 19% would strongly oppose it.

It looks like the Republican officials speaking against the executive order could well be hurting themselves with the American public. Americans are tired of criminals, terrorists, and other dangerous people being able to easily and legally buy a gun (including assault weapons) -- and they want it stopped.

Senator Warren Backs The Executive Orders On Gun Sales

President Obama is issuing some new executive orders -- the most prominent of which will redefine who is a gun dealer. This will make many of the gun sellers at gun shows perform a background check before selling a gun to anyone.

Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Massachusetts) wasted no time in backing the president's action, and wants to go even further. She wants Congress to act, and make sure no guns are sold in this country without a background check.

Here is her latest message to her supporters:

The Republicans who control Congress have had all the time in the world to do something about gun violence in America.

I mean that. If the GOP spent a teeny, tiny fraction of the time they waste voting again and again to repeal the Affordable Care Act or defund Planned Parenthood on sensible gun reform, more mamas and daddies would be tucking in their kids tonight.

But massacre after massacre, the Republicans have offered thoughts and prayers – but no solutions. Every time Democrats have said enough is enough, every time we’ve tried to get even the smallest reforms passed, the Republicans flatly refuse. Nothing. Never. No way.  

If the Republican Party would rather work for the NRA than the American people – and if they won’t do their jobs to keep our children safe – then somebody else has to step up.

That’s why I strongly support President Obama’s actions to use the existing laws on the books to close background check loopholes, increase mental health treatment and reporting, and improve enforcement of our gun laws. These steps are smart, reasonable, and well within the President’s constitutional power. And most importantly, they will make a life-or-death difference for some children and their families. Fewer funerals, more good-night kisses.  

This is an important move, but I don’t kid myself: We’re not done here. The President took a good first step, but Congress still needs to take action to ban assault weapons and high capacity magazines. Congress needs to make gun trafficking a serious federal crime. Congress needs to make President Obama’s actions permanent so that a future Republican President can’t reverse them on Day One.  

It won’t be easy. The NRA and their Republican friends have fought hard against sensible gun reform – and they’re going to keep fighting us every step of the way. Just look at what the Republican Senators – three Republicans running for President – said about President Obama’s executive order:

• Senator Rand Paul said: “We should be advocating for more concealed carry ability for law abiding Americans and an end to unconstitutional gun free zones, not spending tax dollars on enforcing pointless gun laws that do not improve the safety of this nation.”


• Senator Marco Rubio said: “It undermines the Second Amendment and it will do nothing to keep people safe… This executive order is just one more way to make it harder for law-abiding people to buy weapons.”


• And Senator Ted Cruz? He responded to the announcement with a contest to win a shotgun engraved with his campaign logo. Seriously.

But President Obama showed us yesterday that change is possible. The majority of Americans are with us on this. We just have to keep fighting.

I’m ready to have that fight for gun reform – right here, right now. Congress owes it to the people we represent, and we all owe it to our children and grandchildren.

Thank you for being a part of this,

Elizabeth

President Explains His Executive Orders On Gun Violence

It has become very obvious that Congress is not going to do anything to curb the atrocious gun violence in this country. Nearly all Republicans (and sadly, a few Democrats) have shown us that they value guns more than the lives of American citizens -- and are willing to defend the ability of terrorists, criminals, and dangerous psychotics to easily and legally buy any kind of gun they want.

These politicians are trying to defend their ridiculous position by scaring people into believing that President Obama wants to take their guns away from them. That is ludicrous.

President Obama is ready to issue some executive orders regarding gun violence -- but those orders don't take away anyones guns. They will make it harder for terrorists and criminals to legally buy guns -- a move that is both reasonable and constitutional.

On Tuesday, the president gave a speech. In that speech, he outlined what his executive orders will do, and why they are needed. Here is much of that speech:

Every single year, more than 30,000 Americans have their lives cut short by guns -- 30,000.  Suicides.  Domestic violence.  Gang shootouts.  Accidents.  Hundreds of thousands of Americans have lost brothers and sisters, or buried their own children.  Many have had to learn to live with a disability, or learned to live without the love of their life. . . 

The United States of America is not the only country on Earth with violent or dangerous people.  We are not inherently more prone to violence.  But we are the only advanced country on Earth that sees this kind of mass violence erupt with this kind of frequency.  It doesn't happen in other advanced countries.  It’s not even close.  And as I’ve said before, somehow we’ve become numb to it and we start thinking that this is normal. . .

I’m not on the ballot again.  I’m not looking to score some points.  I think we can disagree without impugning other people’s motives or without being disagreeable.  We don't need to be talking past one another.  But we do have to feel a sense of urgency about it.  In Dr. King’s words, we need to feel the “fierce urgency of now.”  Because people are dying.  And the constant excuses for inaction no longer do, no longer suffice. . .

Now, I want to be absolutely clear at the start -- and I’ve said this over and over again, this also becomes routine, there is a ritual about this whole thing that I have to do -- I believe in the Second Amendment.  It’s there written on the paper.  It guarantees a right to bear arms.  No matter how many times people try to twist my words around -- I taught constitutional law, I know a little about this -- I get it.  But I also believe that we can find ways to reduce gun violence consistent with the Second Amendment. 

I mean, think about it.  We all believe in the First Amendment, the guarantee of free speech, but we accept that you can’t yell “fire” in a theater.  We understand there are some constraints on our freedom in order to protect innocent people.  We cherish our right to privacy, but we accept that you have to go through metal detectors before being allowed to board a plane. It’s not because people like doing that, but we understand that that’s part of the price of living in a civilized society. 

And what’s often ignored in this debate is that a majority of gun owners actually agree.  A majority of gun owners agree that we can respect the Second Amendment while keeping an irresponsible, law-breaking feud from inflicting harm on a massive scale. 

Today, background checks are required at gun stores.  If a father wants to teach his daughter how to hunt, he can walk into a gun store, get a background check, purchase his weapon safely and responsibly.  This is not seen as an infringement on the Second Amendment.  Contrary to the claims of what some gun rights proponents have suggested, this hasn’t been the first step in some slippery slope to mass confiscation.  Contrary to claims of some presidential candidates, apparently, before this meeting, this is not a plot to take away everybody’s guns.  You pass a background check; you purchase a firearm. 

The problem is some gun sellers have been operating under a different set of rules.  A violent felon can buy the exact same weapon over the Internet with no background check, no questions asked.  A recent study found that about one in 30 people looking to buy guns on one website had criminal records -- one out of 30 had a criminal record.  We’re talking about individuals convicted of serious crimes -- aggravated assault, domestic violence, robbery, illegal gun possession.  People with lengthy criminal histories buying deadly weapons all too easily.  And this was just one website within the span of a few months. 

So we’ve created a system in which dangerous people are allowed to play by a different set of rules than a responsible gun owner who buys his or her gun the right way and subjects themselves to a background check.  That doesn’t make sense.  Everybody should have to abide by the same rules.  Most Americans and gun owners agree.  And that’s what we tried to change three years ago, after 26 Americans -– including 20 children -– were murdered at Sandy Hook Elementary. . .

How did this become such a partisan issue?  Republican President George W. Bush once said, “I believe in background checks at gun shows or anywhere to make sure that guns don’t get into the hands of people that shouldn’t have them.”  Senator John McCain introduced a bipartisan measure to address the gun show loophole, saying, “We need this amendment because criminals and terrorists have exploited and are exploiting this very obvious loophole in our gun safety laws.”  Even the NRA used to support expanded background checks.  And by the way, most of its members still do.  Most Republican voters still do. . . 

Each time this comes up, we are fed the excuse that common-sense reforms like background checks might not have stopped the last massacre, or the one before that, or the one before that, so why bother trying.  I reject that thinking.  We know we can’t stop every act of violence, every act of evil in the world.  But maybe we could try to stop one act of evil, one act of violence. 

Some of you may recall, at the same time that Sandy Hook happened, a disturbed person in China took a knife and tried to kill -- with a knife -- a bunch of children in China.  But most of them survived because he didn’t have access to a powerful weapon.  We maybe can’t save everybody, but we could save some.  Just as we don’t prevent all traffic accidents but we take steps to try to reduce traffic accidents.

As Ronald Reagan once said, if mandatory background checks could save more lives, “it would be well worth making it the law of the land.”  The bill before Congress three years ago met that test.  Unfortunately, too many senators failed theirs.

In fact, we know that background checks make a difference.  After Connecticut passed a law requiring background checks and gun safety courses, gun deaths decreased by 40 percent -- 40 percent.  Meanwhile, since Missouri repealed a law requiring comprehensive background checks and purchase permits, gun deaths have increased to almost 50 percent higher than the national average.  One study found, unsurprisingly, that criminals in Missouri now have easier access to guns. . . 

But think about this.  When it comes to an inherently deadly weapon -- nobody argues that guns are potentially deadly -- weapons that kill tens of thousands of Americans every year, Congress actually voted to make it harder for public health experts to conduct research into gun violence; made it harder to collect data and facts and develop strategies to reduce gun violence.  Even after San Bernardino, they’ve refused to make it harder for terror suspects who can’t get on a plane to buy semi-automatic weapons.  That’s not right.  That can't be right.

So the gun lobby may be holding Congress hostage right now, but they cannot hold America hostage.  We do not have to accept this carnage as the price of freedom.

Now, I want to be clear.  Congress still needs to act.  The folks in this room will not rest until Congress does.  Because once Congress gets on board with common-sense gun safety measures we can reduce gun violence a whole lot more.  But we also can't wait.  Until we have a Congress that’s in line with the majority of Americans, there are actions within my legal authority that we can take to help reduce gun violence and save more lives -– actions that protect our rights and our kids.

After Sandy Hook, Joe and I worked together with our teams and we put forward a whole series of executive actions to try to tighten up the existing rules and systems that we had in place.  But today, we want to take it a step further.  So let me outline what we're going to be doing. 

Number one, anybody in the business of selling firearms must get a license and conduct background checks, or be subject to criminal prosecutions.  It doesn’t matter whether you’re doing it over the Internet or at a gun show.  It’s not where you do it, but what you do. 

We’re also expanding background checks to cover violent criminals who try to buy some of the most dangerous firearms by hiding behind trusts and corporations and various cutouts.

We're also taking steps to make the background check system more efficient.  Under the guidance of Jim Comey and the FBI, our Deputy Director Tom Brandon at ATF, we’re going to hire more folks to process applications faster, and we’re going to bring an outdated background check system into the 21st century.

And these steps will actually lead to a smoother process for law-abiding gun owners, a smoother process for responsible gun dealers, a stronger process for protecting the people from -- the public from dangerous people.  So that's number one.

Number two, we’re going to do everything we can to ensure the smart and effective enforcement of gun safety laws that are already on the books, which means we're going to add 200 more ATF agents and investigators.  We're going to require firearms dealers to report more lost or stolen guns on a timely basis. We're working with advocates to protect victims of domestic abuse from gun violence, where too often -- where too often, people are not getting the protection that they need.

Number three, we're going to do more to help those suffering from mental illness get the help that they need.  High-profile mass shootings tend to shine a light on those few mentally unstable people who inflict harm on others.  But the truth is, is that nearly two in three gun deaths are from suicides.  So a lot of our work is to prevent people from hurting themselves. 

That’s why we made sure that the Affordable Care Act -- also known as Obamacare -- that law made sure that treatment for mental health was covered the same as treatment for any other illness.  And that’s why we’re going to invest $500 million to expand access to treatment across the country.

It’s also why we’re going to ensure that federal mental health records are submitted to the background check system, and remove barriers that prevent states from reporting relevant information.  If we can continue to de-stigmatize mental health issues, get folks proper care, and fill gaps in the background check system, then we can spare more families the pain of losing a loved one to suicide.

And for those in Congress who so often rush to blame mental illness for mass shootings as a way of avoiding action on guns, here’s your chance to support these efforts.  Put your money where your mouth is. 

Number four, we’re going to boost gun safety technology.  Today, many gun injuries and deaths are the result of legal guns that were stolen or misused or discharged accidentally.  In 2013 alone, more than 500 people lost their lives to gun accidents –- and that includes 30 children younger than five years old.  In the greatest, most technologically advanced nation on Earth, there is no reason for this.  We need to develop new technologies that make guns safer.  If we can set it up so you can’t unlock your phone unless you’ve got the right fingerprint, why can’t we do the same thing for our guns?  If there’s an app that can help us find a missing tablet -- which happens to me often the older I get -- if we can do it for your iPad, there’s no reason we can’t do it with a stolen gun.  If a child can’t open a bottle of aspirin, we should make sure that they can’t pull a trigger on a gun.  Right?

All of us should be able to work together to find a balance that declares the rest of our rights are also important -- Second Amendment rights are important, but there are other rights that we care about as well. And we have to be able to balance them.  Because our right to worship freely and safely –- that right was denied to Christians in Charleston, South Carolina.   And that was denied Jews in Kansas City.  And that was denied Muslims in Chapel Hill, and Sikhs in Oak Creek.  They had rights, too. 

Our right to peaceful assembly -– that right was robbed from moviegoers in Aurora and Lafayette.  Our unalienable right to life, and liberty, and the pursuit of happiness -– those rights were stripped from college students in Blacksburg and Santa Barbara, and from high schoolers at Columbine, and from first-graders in Newtown.  First-graders.  And from every family who never imagined that their loved one would be taken from our lives by a bullet from a gun. 

Every time I think about those kids it gets me mad.  And by the way, it happens on the streets of Chicago every day.

So all of us need to demand a Congress brave enough to stand up to the gun lobby’s lies.  All of us need to stand up and protect its citizens.  All of us need to demand governors and legislatures and businesses do their part to make our communities safer.  We need the wide majority of responsible gun owners who grieve with us every time this happens and feel like your views are not being properly represented to join with us to demand something better.  

And we need voters who want safer gun laws, and who are disappointed in leaders who stand in their way, to remember come election time.

I mean, some of this is just simple math.  Yes, the gun lobby is loud and it is organized in defense of making it effortless for guns to be available for anybody, any time.  Well, you know what, the rest of us, we all have to be just as passionate.  We have to be just as organized in defense of our kids.  This is not that complicated.  The reason Congress blocks laws is because they want to win elections.  And if you make it hard for them to win an election if they block those laws, they’ll change course, I promise you.

And, yes, it will be hard, and it won’t happen overnight.  It won’t happen during this Congress.  It won’t happen during my presidency.  But a lot of things don’t happen overnight.  A woman’s right to vote didn’t happen overnight.  The liberation of African Americans didn’t happen overnight.  LGBT rights -- that was decades’ worth of work.  So just because it’s hard, that’s no excuse not to try. . .

If we love our kids and care about their prospects, and if we love this country and care about its future, then we can find the courage to vote.  We can find the courage to get mobilized and organized.  We can find the courage to cut through all the noise and do what a sensible country would do.

That’s what we’re doing today.  And tomorrow, we should do more.  And we should do more the day after that.  And if we do, we’ll leave behind a nation that’s stronger than the one we inherited.

It's Time To Plug The Holes In The Background Check Law

I have to agree with the words of Hillary Clinton above. It seems that the Republicans, all of them have surrendered on the issue of trying to save American lives by passing some reasonable (and constitutional) gun laws. They have decided that the profits of gun manufacturers, and the campaign money they get from the NRA and those manufacturers, are more important than saving the lives of Americans -- even children.

I understand that "gun control" is a hot-button issue in this country, and many Americans have been frightened by the propaganda of the right claiming the government (i.e., the Black President) wants to take away all their guns. It's not true, but they believe it.

But their is one gun issue that is popular with almost all Americans (including gun owners and Republicans) -- that we should close the loopholes in our background check law for those wanting to legally purchase a gun. Americans want EVERYONE trying to buy a gun to have to pass a background check. They don't think terrorists, criminals, and other dangerous people should be able to legally purchase any firearm.

But currently those dangerous individual can legally buy any kind of gun they desire. They can do it at a gun show, over the internet, or from an individual. And currently, about 40% of all gun sales are done this way -- without any kind of background check. Why do we allow this to happen? Closing these loopholes wouldn't affect any decent and law-abiding individual. They could still purchase a gun. It would just make it much harder for those dangerous individuals to buy a gun.

This is an issue whose time has come -- and the beauty of it is that there would be no political price to pay for any politicians voting for it. I posted last week about a Quinnipiac University Poll that showed slightly more than 90% of Americans would support closing the loopholes in the background check law. Now there is a new survey (by Public Policy Polling) that shows virtually the same thing -- that 88% of Americans want anyone buying a gun to have a background check done.

We must start putting more pressure on our elected officials (of both parties) to close the background check loopholes. It wouldn't completely eliminate gun deaths, but it would save many American lives -- and that is definitely worth doing. We must not surrender!

Guns Are Rarely Used For Self-Defense In The U.S.

(Cartoon is by David Horsey in the Los Angeles Times.)

The tragic murder of nine innocent people in Charleston by a felon, who legally purchased a gun without a background check, should spur our Congress to close the loopholes in the background check law -- a law that currently allows 40% of all guns sales to be done without a background check. This makes it easy for criminals and the dangerously mentally ill to legally buy any kind of gun they want. But if the murder of 6 & 7 year olds in Connecticut didn't do that, I doubt this set of murders will either.

The sad fact is that when it comes to guns, our Congress is controlled by the NRA (through campaign donations, threats, and a pretty effective propaganda campaign). A majority of those in Congress have either been bought off, are afraid the NRA will support an opponent, or they actually believe the lies of the NRA. One of the biggest of those lies is that Americans need to own a gun to protect themselves.

But the fact is that by owning a gun a member of the household is far more likely to be injured or killed with the gun than a criminal. That's the opinion of the non-profit Violence Policy Center as reported by Yahoo News. Here's what they say:

Contrary to what the gun lobby argues, personal firearms in the United States are rarely used for self-defense, a gun control advocacy group said Wednesday.

In an analysis of FBI and other federal government data, the non-profit Violence Policy Center said Americans are far more likely to hurt themselves or others when handling a lethal weapon.

In 2012, it said, only 259 "justifiable homicides" involving a private citizen were reported, compared to 8,342 criminal homicides committed with a gun.

Put another way, for every justifiable homicide involving a gun, 32 criminal homicides carried out with a firearm occurred. And that does not take into account "tens of thousands" of gun-related suicides and unintentional shootings.

The influential National Rifle Association contends that "guns are necessary for self-defence," said Josh Sugarmann, executive director of the Violence Policy Center in Washington.

"But this gun industry propaganda has no basis in fact," he said in a statement.

"In fact, in a nation of more than 300 million firearms, it is striking how rarely guns are used in self-defense."

Now you may be telling yourself that while the number of self-defense cases is incredibly small, there are still some -- and taking guns away from Americans would prevent that. The problem with that argument is that no one is asking for guns to be taken away from law-abiding citizens, or that they be prohibited from buying a gun. All we are asking is to close the loopholes on the background check law -- so criminals and others too dangerous to own a gun cannot buy one legally. This is not an undue burden on law-abiding citizens, and has already been declared to be constitutional by the Supreme Court. It is time we got it done.

Gun Ownership Is NOT Increasing In The United States

(Cartoon image above is by Jen Sorensen at jensorensen.com.)

As all of us have seen, there has recently been a spate of individuals carrying guns openly into restaurants and other establishments. Put that together with the fact that there is nearly one gun in circulation for every American, and since the election of President Obama there has been an increase in gun sales, and one might think that most Americans own a firearm (and the number of people owning firearms is growing).

But that would not be true. Those carrying guns into business establishments are just a tiny fringe element of a minority of Americans who want to see "open carry" become legal and/or commonplace. They are not even smart enough to know they are hurting their own cause -- by terrifying other customers (who have no way to know if they are there to shoot people or just demonstrate). These actions are already creating a backlash among the general public.

The large number of guns in circulation and the increase in gun sales are also misleading. It turns out that that large number of guns are owned by a minority of Americans, and the increase in gun sales is going mainly to that minority that already own guns (and who are now just stockpiling guns). As a New York Times article tells us (see chart below), gun ownership in the United States is actually decreasing -- and the number of households with at least one gun has dropped by 18 points in the last 40 years (from 50% in 1970 to only 32% in 2010).

That means that two out of every three American households do not own or keep a gun in their home. These people know that a gun in the home is far more likely to be used against a member of their family than a criminal -- an unpleasant fact that the NRA doesn't want people to know. Frankly, this restores my faith in the commonsense of most Americans.

NOTE -- My remarks above should not be interpreted to say I believe guns should be confiscated from law-abiding Americans (or even registered). Unlike some of my progressive brothers/sisters, I read the Second Amendment as guaranteeing the right of individual Americans to own a firearm (regardless of what our Forefathers might or might not have intended).

But the Supreme Court has found repeatedly that the right to own a firearm (like many other rights) is not absolute -- and cities and states can make reasonable restrictions on that right (like denying criminals and other dangerous individuals the right to possess a gun). I do believe closing the loopholes in our background check law would be a reasonable and constitutional action that should be done. It simply makes no sense that criminals (and other dangerous individuals) can buy a firearm without any background check.

Domestic Violence And Guns Don't Mix - And A Better Background Check Law Could Save Women's Lives

There are a few facts that are beyond debate. That women in the United States are 11 times more likely to be murdered with a gun than women in other high-income countries. That the presence of a gun in a domestic violence situation increases the risk of homicide for women by 500%. And that the majority of women murdered with a gun are killed by their spouse or intimate partners (either current or ex) -- which means a woman is more likely to be killed by her domestic partner than by a criminal.

These facts are why a federal law was passed preventing someone with a domestic violence conviction (even a misdemeanor conviction for domestic violence) from owning or possessing a gun. Recently, gun rights groups tried to use a Tennessee case to weaken that federal law. A man, who had been buying guns and selling them on the black market, was arrested and charged with possession of a gun by a person convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence. He tried to get his conviction overturned by claiming the Tennessee law on domestic violence (which he had pled guilty to) didn't specify domestic violence had to include physical force.

But the United States Supreme Court wasn't buying his ridiculous argument. They reinstated his conviction (which had been tossed out by a lower court judge). Writing for the majority, Justice Sotomayor said it was sufficient that he had pled guilty to having "intentionally or knowingly caused bodily injury to" his child's mother. This decision removes any doubt as to whether a misdemeanor domestic violence conviction is sufficient to deny the right to possess a firearm, and if the federal law is enforced it should save a lot of women's lives.

One of the best ways to enforce this constitutional law is to make sure a background check is done before a gun is sold. These background checks will expose any convictions for domestic violence -- and between 1998 and 2012 some 143,852 gun sales were denied because of domestic violence convictions or restraining orders.

The problem though is that far too many gun sales in this country are done without a background check (over 6.6 million in 2012) -- and that makes it easy for a domestic violence abuser to get his hands on a gun. This happens because many gunshot sales, sales between private individuals, and internet sales are not subject to a background check (thanks to the refusal of Congress to plug these glaring loopholes in the background check law).

Domestic abusers have already shown they are prone to violence -- and if they are violent to those they claim to love, then how much more violent could they be to someone else if angered? The law restricting their purchase or possession of a firearm should be strictly enforced -- both by the swift action of law enforcement and by a good background check law.

The Supreme Court has done its part. Now it is time for Congress to do its part -- and plug up the holes in the background check law. The people want this because they know it will save countless lives. And the inaction by Congress to fix the background check law is inexcusable.

Gun Sales In January 2014 Much Lower Than In 2013

There is already an extraordinarily large number of guns owned by private citizens in the United States -- about one gun for every citizen (man, woman, or child). That's more than 300 million privately-owned guns, and that figure continues to rise. Probably because the NRA (shilling for the gun manufacturers) has been able to use the election of President Obama to scare people into increasing gun buying in this country. Even the massacre of twenty 6-7 year-olds and six teachers in Connecticut in December 2012 didn't slow gun sales. In fact, sales increased greatly that next month due to fears that some reasonable gun laws might be passed.

Of course, no new laws regarding guns were passed on the federal level -- not even an extension of background checks to prevent convicted criminals and the dangerously mentally ill from buying guns. American politicians seem content to let more than 30,000 people die each year because of the proliferation of guns (combining murders, suicides, and accidents).

But there is a small bit of good news. It looks like gun sales may be slowing in the United States. While we don't have figures for actual gun sales, a pretty good guide to how many guns are being sold can be seen from looking at the number of background checks done by the FBI for gun dealers. And the number of background checks has dropped significantly in the last year -- from 2,495,440 in January of 2013 to about 1,660,355 in January of 2014 (a drop of 835,085, or about 33.5%).

That is good news, but we must remember that only about 60% of the gun sales in the United States are done through dealers who must perform a background check before selling a gun. The other 40% of gun sales (at gun shows, on internet, or by private individuals) are done without any background check at all -- which means any criminal or dangerous individual can easily purchase a gun, and do it legally.

Personally, I don't understand why we allow the sale of a single gun without the seller performing a background check on the buyer (regardless of who the seller is or how the sale is being made). It would not only save many lives each year, but would not impinge of the right of law-abiding citizens to own a firearm. It is simply inexcusable that our federal politicians can't pass a comprehensive background check law (which has already been deemed constitutional by the Supreme Court, and not a violation of the Second Amendment) -- especially since this is supported by a huge majority of the American people.

Insurance Carriers Say Guns Increase Risk

One of the primary arguments used by the right-wing to deny that gun laws need to be strengthened is the idea that having more guns in the hands of more people will increase the safety of everyone. The idea is that someone carrying a gun can prevent a criminal or madman from killing innocent people.

This flies in the face of reality. The truth is that in many mass shootings there have been people with guns, and that prevented nothing. A good example is the shooting a while back in Phoenix (that killed several people and seriously wounded Rep. Gabby Giffords). Several people in the crowd had guns, but the shooter was stopped by unarmed civilians acting quickly -- and not by anyone in the crowd with a gun. The same is true of most other shootings.

It also denies the findings of statistics, which clearly show that the rate of gun deaths goes up with the rate of gun ownership in a society. The United States, which has the highest rate of gun ownership (and easy availability), also has the highest death rate due to guns. While the idea of a heroic armed citizen defending people may sound good, the truth is that it just doesn't work that way in the real world (where it is far more likely that armed citizen will shoot an innocent person, probably even a family member, than shoot some criminal/madman). And those who deal daily with reality know that.

In Kansas, a state controlled by right-wing Republicans, the legislature recently followed the logic that more guns means more safety. They passed a law that would allow school employees (teachers, custodians, etc.) to carry guns in the state's schools. But while the legislature believed this would make schools safer, those who insure the school districts believed just the opposite. EMC Insurance, which insures nearly 90% of the state's schools, said they would refuse to renew insurance coverage for any school that allowed the carrying on guns on school property.

The insurance company said their decision did not involve politics. They simply believed it would substantially increase the risk of someone getting shot on school property (and therefore them having to pay out a huge sum for that shooting). In short, the insurance companies risk assessors are convinced that more guns means more risk -- not more safety.

This should not come as a surprise to anyone who thinks clearly. I believe even the right-wingers who oppose gun laws know this. They just refuse to publicly admit it, because the "safety" argument has been effective for them in opposing stricter gun laws -- and they don't want to give it up.

There is a way for the safety of innocent people to be enhanced, and that is to force all gun buyers to undergo a background check (even in private sales, gun show sales, and internet sales). This is supported by most Americans (even most gun owners), and it should be done without delay.

And schools should remain gun-free.

NRA Represents Gun Makers/Sellers -- Not Gun Owners

The National Rifle Association (NRA) likes to proudly claim that they represent the wishes of America's millions of gun owners. Is that really true? Why then do they oppose reasonable restrictions on gun sales that are wanted, not only by the general public, but by the huge majority of gun owners?

We know that 90% of the general public, and around 85% of American gun owners (and nearly as high a percentage of NRA members want to see background checks required of all people trying to buy a gun -- including those who are trying to buy that gun from a private individual. Why then, does the NRA so rabidly oppose a law requiring background checks? Could it be that they don't represent gun owners at all -- but only gun makers and sellers?

The charts above (from Mother Jones) show something that most Americans don't realize. The NRA gets a lot of its funding from gun makers/sellers -- and a lot of those gun companies are not even located in this country. These companies shipped over 3.9 million guns to the United States in 2009 (16 times more guns than the U.S. exported). The lack of gun restrictions in this country make us a great market for these foreign gun companies (who have much stricter regulations on guns in their own countries). They don't want to see the laws tightened in the U.S., because that would hurt sales of their guns (and they could care less how many deaths are caused by our lax laws).

The NRA may trumpet that they support gun owners in America, but what they really support are the gun companies. They don't want to lose the funding provided by these gun companies, so they oppose any new gun law at all -- regardless of what the American people (or gun owners in the U.S.) want to see done.