Posted by Kromey at 1:49pm Mar 17 '11More than two months after Representative Gabrielle Giffords and 19 others were shot in Tucson, Arizona, and now under the cloud of the "Fast and Furious"-aka-"Project Gunrunner" scandal, President Obama has finally addressed gun control, albeit in an op-ed the Huffington Post describes as "so under-the-radar that several gun-control activists said they hadn't been aware of its publication". So much for the big speech Obama's aides had promised us would come two weeks after the shooting...
But timing and choice of venue aside, what did he have to say? Well, there really isn't a whole lot of substance in it -- most of the piece is fluff and political hot air -- but he did make a few really good points.
Anyway, the rest of that is an excellent point -- the overwhelming majority of gun owners in America are highly responsible, as evidenced by the fact that fewer than one-tenth of one percent of guns in this country will ever be used in any crime, and that over 99% of crime guns were already illegal for some reason or other (e.g. possessed by a prohibited individual).
Moving on to the "meat" of his piece, what does Obama suggest that we actually do? 3 (4?) things:
Let's focus on enforcing the existing laws before we go saying we need new ones.
I'm willing to admit that I'm not intimately familiar with the system, but I just don't see how much more streamlined it can get. Still, I like the idea in principle.
Wait, where's the 4th action item? Well, he wasn't explicit, but this point immediately followed the third item:
I don't know if Obama is actually suggesting this, but it does sound awfully suspicious that he could be referencing gun shows as that "someplace else".
Link to Obama's entire op-ed piece in the Arizona Daily Star is below.
Also, here's the NRA's response (PDF), which, contrary to its representation in certain liberal circles, is not "OMG Black President's gunna git yer guns!"; rather, the NRA's response is that a focus on guns is misplaced, and that efforts to reduce gun crime should instead focus on the criminals, on getting them off the streets and keeping them off the streets. The NRA also points out that Obama's op-ed, in which he says he supports the 2nd Amendment's individual right to keep and bear arms, is mere lip service unless he actually follows through with it, and bucks a public service history littered with opposition to that right.
Finally, let me end with gun-control activist Jim Kessler, formerly of Americans for Gun Safety, quoted by the Huffington Post saying something I whole-heartedly and unequivocally agree with: "There will be a knee-jerk reaction among some who will say, 'Why no clip ban?' But I think on both substance and political grounds, a high-capacity clip ban is the wrong way to go. There were roughly 12,000 gun homicides last year, and I'll wager that less than 10 were caused by bullets 11 through 30 in someone's magazine. The problem is bullets 1, 2, and 3 -- not 11, 12, and 13." Indeed, the average number of rounds fired by criminals is a mere 2.53 (semi-auto; compare to 2.04 for revolvers), hardly anywhere near that magical 10-round threshold. [Source: Urban firearm deaths: A five-year perspective, Michael McGonigal, John Cole, William Schwab, Donald Kauder, Michael Rotondo, Peter Angood, Journal of Trauma, 1993.]
But timing and choice of venue aside, what did he have to say? Well, there really isn't a whole lot of substance in it -- most of the piece is fluff and political hot air -- but he did make a few really good points.
The fact is, almost all gun owners in America are highly responsible. They're our friends and neighbors. They buy their guns legally and use them safely, whether for hunting or target shooting, collection or protection. And that's something that gun-safety advocates need to accept. Likewise, advocates for gun owners should accept the awful reality that gun violence affects Americans everywhere, whether on the streets of Chicago or at a supermarket in Tucson.I don't know of a single gun rights organization that doesn't acknowledge the effects of tragedies on everyone, so I have no idea what Obama's point with that snide comment is. The NRA's response, for example, was repeated urgings not to politicize the Tucson tragedy but to instead offer prayers and support for the survivors and families of the tragedy; meanwhile anti-gun groups like the Violence Policy Center ("In the wake of these kinds of events, the trick is to move quickly") wasted no time in turning the tragedy into a political crowbar to try to wedge their agenda into the political mainstream.
Anyway, the rest of that is an excellent point -- the overwhelming majority of gun owners in America are highly responsible, as evidenced by the fact that fewer than one-tenth of one percent of guns in this country will ever be used in any crime, and that over 99% of crime guns were already illegal for some reason or other (e.g. possessed by a prohibited individual).
Moving on to the "meat" of his piece, what does Obama suggest that we actually do? 3 (4?) things:
First, we should begin by enforcing laws that are already on the books. The National Instant Criminal Background Check System is the filter that's supposed to stop the wrong people from getting their hands on a gun. Bipartisan legislation four years ago was supposed to strengthen this system, but it hasn't been properly implemented. It relies on data supplied by states - but that data is often incomplete and inadequate. We must do better.Yes. Jared Loughner never should have been able to buy that gun, if the no doubt dozens of people in a position to identify him as a potentially dangerous individual had taken it upon themselves to report him to the proper authorities, and if Arizona was in better compliance with the mental health reporting mandates Obama references here. Had those two conditions been met, NICS would have instantly denied Loughner a gun.
Let's focus on enforcing the existing laws before we go saying we need new ones.
Second, we should in fact reward the states that provide the best data - and therefore do the most to protect our citizens.Good idea, in principle. I'm not sure what "rewards" he has in mind, though, but I like the idea.
Third, we should make the system faster and nimbler. We should provide an instant, accurate, comprehensive and consistent system for background checks to sellers who want to do the right thing, and make sure that criminals can't escape it.Sounds like he's talking about NICS 2.0 here. I'm all for improving systems and have no doubt that there's room for improvement in NICS, but I'm going to hold off agreeing with him until I see something solid and concrete on this one -- after all, a NICS check already takes mere minutes to run, my own experience buying a gun showing that filling out all the paperwork and getting the NICS check took about 20 minutes total, including waiting on the clerk to go into the back and find the one I wanted. Why waste time, effort, and money to shave 2 minutes off that?
I'm willing to admit that I'm not intimately familiar with the system, but I just don't see how much more streamlined it can get. Still, I like the idea in principle.
Wait, where's the 4th action item? Well, he wasn't explicit, but this point immediately followed the third item:
If we're serious about keeping guns away from someone who's made up his mind to kill, then we can't allow a situation where a responsible seller denies him a weapon at one store, but he effortlessly buys the same gun someplace else.It sounds suspiciously like MAIG's talking point about the so-called "gun show loophole", the notion that any private citizen who dares to have the gall to sell an item of personal property to another private citizen must first either go through the expensive and onerous process of becoming a federally licensed gun dealer, or else go through the expensive and onerous process of making the transaction via a federally licensed gun dealer as a middle-man. Never mind that fewer than 3% of guns used by criminals are obtained at gun shows or via other private transactions like this, making such requirements a pointless and yet very heavy burden on law-abiding gun owners. MAIG's proposals even go so far as to make it illegal for Gramps to give his old squirrel gun to his grandson unless he does so through a federally-licensed gun dealer! (MAIG, by the way, is the same group that apparently felt it had to lie about the source of the guns used at Columbine to push its political agenda.)
I don't know if Obama is actually suggesting this, but it does sound awfully suspicious that he could be referencing gun shows as that "someplace else".
Link to Obama's entire op-ed piece in the Arizona Daily Star is below.
Also, here's the NRA's response (PDF), which, contrary to its representation in certain liberal circles, is not "OMG Black President's gunna git yer guns!"; rather, the NRA's response is that a focus on guns is misplaced, and that efforts to reduce gun crime should instead focus on the criminals, on getting them off the streets and keeping them off the streets. The NRA also points out that Obama's op-ed, in which he says he supports the 2nd Amendment's individual right to keep and bear arms, is mere lip service unless he actually follows through with it, and bucks a public service history littered with opposition to that right.
Finally, let me end with gun-control activist Jim Kessler, formerly of Americans for Gun Safety, quoted by the Huffington Post saying something I whole-heartedly and unequivocally agree with: "There will be a knee-jerk reaction among some who will say, 'Why no clip ban?' But I think on both substance and political grounds, a high-capacity clip ban is the wrong way to go. There were roughly 12,000 gun homicides last year, and I'll wager that less than 10 were caused by bullets 11 through 30 in someone's magazine. The problem is bullets 1, 2, and 3 -- not 11, 12, and 13." Indeed, the average number of rounds fired by criminals is a mere 2.53 (semi-auto; compare to 2.04 for revolvers), hardly anywhere near that magical 10-round threshold. [Source: Urban firearm deaths: A five-year perspective, Michael McGonigal, John Cole, William Schwab, Donald Kauder, Michael Rotondo, Peter Angood, Journal of Trauma, 1993.]
added on 1:50pm Mar 17 '11:
TL;DR: Teh Prez says we need to focus on enforcing existing laws and rewarding states that do that, and we should improve the speed and efficiency of NICS. I agree.