WE Blog » Guns

Do guns at Obama rallies threaten violence?

Rhonda Holman — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 16:41:52 +0000

It may be lawful for demonstrators outside President Obama’s appearances to be armed with guns, but it’s wrong, argues Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne. “Our freedoms rest on a moral consensus, enshrined in law, that in a democratic republic we work out our differences through reasoned, and sometimes raucous, argument,” he writes. “Free elections and open debate are not rooted in violence or the threat of violence. They are precisely the alternative to violence, and guns have no place in them.” Besides, he adds, the gun-toters are making us look “foolish and lawless” in the eyes of the world, and he doubts that conservatives would have welcomed armed, angry leftists at public events for Ronald Reagan or George W. Bush. He concludes: “Will some group of responsible conservatives, preferably life members of the NRA, have the decency to urge their followers to leave their guns at home when they go out to protest the president? Is that too much to ask?”

Why not let Congress carry?

Rhonda Holman — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 11:03:50 +0000

It’s an old, sarcastic argument but an interesting one, especially considering how ubiquitous metal detectors and purse searches are throughout Washington, D.C., and how many friends the National Rifle Association has in Congress: Why should Second Amendment rights stop at the Capitol steps? “Congress seems to think that gun restrictions are for wimps,” wrote Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne. “It voted this year to allow people to bring their weapons into national parks, and pro-gun legislators have pushed for the right to carry in taverns, colleges and workplaces. Shouldn’t Congress set an example in its own workplace?”

Lawmakers backed national rule on guns

Phillip Brownlee — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 11:04:20 +0000

Kansas GOP Sens. Sam Brownback and Pat Roberts both supported a measure narrowly defeated in the Senate Wednesday that would have allowed a gun owner to carry concealed weapons across state lines if he have a valid permit from his home state, even if he didn’t meet the permit requirements in the other state. Brownback’s spokesman said the law change was “common sense” and would have made it “easier for the 48 states with similar conceal carry laws to offer reciprocity.” But former GOP Rep. Tom Davis of Virginia argued that forcing states to comply with weak permitting laws in other states “flies in the face of federalist principles” regularly espoused by Republicans.“As conservatives, we usually oppose nationalizing what is best left to the states,” he said. But not when it comes to guns.

Jackson: Blame it on the guns

Rhonda Holman — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 11:03:01 +0000

The Rev. Jesse Jackson connects the dots from the alleged crimes of Scott Roeder and James von Brunn to their weapons of choice, also decrying the new law allowing concealed guns in national parks and the lack of political will to plug the gun-show loophole or bring back the assault weapons ban. “Hunters do not need assault weapons to kill deer,” Jackson wrote in the Chicago Sun-Times. “Honest gun owners have a huge stake in policing the sale of guns so the nuts and haters have a hard time getting them. But instead of strengthening our laws after 9/11, we have been weakening them. The majority is getting rolled by a mobilized minority. Only leadership can turn that around.”

Pro-con on lifting ban on firearms in national parks

Phillip Brownlee — Sat, 06 Jun 2009 11:02:13 +0000

There’s concern that lifting the ban on firearms in national parks will result in a bunch of irresponsible yahoos taking potshots at any animal that looks at them with even a hint of hostility. Give me a break. Most people licensed to carry a sidearm understand the responsibility involved in doing so. People who have permits to carry guns commit very few crimes. They also understand that most concealed-carry handguns are chambered in calibers and come in designs that are not suitable for “hunting” animals. I believe most people licensed to carry handguns are reasonable and disciplined individuals. These are not the kind of people who will start shooting up animals or each other in national parks. The main reason I support letting permit holders carry in national parks has to do with two-legged predators. Robberies, rapes, murders and drug-related crimes are on the rise. Think about it. A young couple enjoying a nature hike comes across four thugs who don’t care about park rules in a remote area. Without a way to protect themselves, that’s a recipe for tragedy. — Joseph Smith, AmericanThinker.com

Like many other Americans, every time I take my family to a national park I find myself thinking: “Wow! If I only had a gun.” Now, thanks to Congress and President Obama, all of us will soon be able to carry loaded firearms into national parks and wildlife refuges. Even concealed weapons will be allowed, for those who have state permits. It’s about time. The one element that’s been missing from the outdoor experience in Yellowstone and Yosemite was the adventurous possibility that the drunks at the next campsite might be fooling around with a loaded .357. The battle to put loaded guns back in the hands of American vacationers wasn’t easy. Efforts to revoke the Reagan rules fell short even when Congress was controlled by the Republicans and George W. Bush was president. But Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., slyly attached the controversial parks measure as an amendment to the credit-card reform bill, which he knew was certain to be passed and sent to Obama. The president was pushing to sign it by Memorial Day. Democratic leaders couldn’t figure out how to separate the gun issue from the credit-card issue, and again found themselves outfoxed and outmaneuvered. — Carl Hiaasen, Miami Herald

20,000 carrying by 2010?

Rhonda Holman — Thu, 28 May 2009 11:03:11 +0000

Just as the Obama presidency has been a stimulus package for gun dealers, it has stepped up requests for concealed-carry permits in Kansas — to an average 45 per working day in 2009, compared with 23.6 per day in 2008 and 26.4 per day in 2007. “They are concerned about a lot of things and want to get a license before someone changes the law again,” Topeka concealed-carry instructor George Petersen told the Topeka Capital-Journal. So far, more than 4,000 of the 21,000 concealed-carry applicants to the Kansas Attorney General’s Office have been men ages 50 to 60, but six women older than 80 have sought permits. As of last week, the office had issued 19,100 licenses. That means the state is on track to have 20,000 concealed-carry permit holders by 2010.

Pro-con: Should concealed handguns be legal on college campuses?

Phillip Brownlee — Mon, 04 May 2009 11:04:24 +0000

University of Maryland researcher John Lott has shown a distinct correlation between the introduction of concealed-carry statutes and a decrease in violent crime in the affected communities, and has pointed out that those public locations that suffered mass shootings were all areas in which concealed-carry weapons were banned. What path of logic leads one to believe that possession of a gun will automatically make one a criminal? If you are a criminal, what would lead you to legally buy a gun at higher cost, and then put yourself on the grid further by obtaining permission to carry it into the places where you plan to commit crimes? As a student of the University of Missouri, I am proud of the concealed-carry provisions passed by the Missouri House of Representatives. I am glad that they, if not some of my peers at MU, trust me to know right from wrong, know danger from anger and make the right decisions should a potential tragedy show its ugly face. — Nick Haynes, the Maneater (Mizzou student newspaper)

The claim that rankles me the most is that if more people carry guns with them on college campuses, then disasters such as the 2007 shooting at Virginia Tech will be avoided. Legislating based on extremely rare, hypothetical events is misleading and illogical, not to mention incredibly speculative. It’s like saying that because one human is killed by a shark out of the millions of people swimming in the ocean every year, beachgoers should be allowed to secretly carry hand grenades. Arguments that imply concealed-weapons carriers are only capable of making campuses safer also (irritatingly) suggest that every single permit holder is the flawless version of Wyatt Earp, the type of shooter who will brandish a firearm only to uphold the law and protect helpless saloon girls from the whims of psychotic banditos. If the only reason for carrying guns is protection, why aren’t we discussing less lethal means of defending oneself? Why does a woman scared for her safety need to have a gun instead of a can of pepper spray? — Katy Steinmetz, the Columbia Missourian

Pro-con on whether U.S. guns are fueling Mexican drug war

Rhonda Holman — Sat, 18 Apr 2009 11:01:00 +0000

A new study released by my organization, the Violence Policy Center, looks at U.S. court records from southwestern states and clearly shows that illegal gun traffickers involved in smuggling firearms to Mexico seek semiautomatic assault weapons, armor-piercing handguns and .50-caliber anti-armor sniper rifles from U.S. gun shops. Many of these guns are imported, underscoring the urgent need for the Obama administration to use its executive powers to strictly enforce existing restrictions on the import of such nonsporting weapons. Of course, this is a case of “enforcing the gun laws on the books” that the NRA would rather ignore. The NRA’s unsubstantiated claims are allowed to gain a toehold because of the information vacuum created by a federal measure backed by the organization known as the Tiahrt amendment. Up until 2003, comprehensive crime gun trace data was available under the Freedom of Information Act. This all changed with the Tiahrt amendment (named after its sponsor, Kansas Rep. Todd Tiahrt), a spending prohibition that bans the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives from releasing such information. Now, we don’t even know the top crime gun in America. Bad for public safety. Good for the NRA, gunmakers and criminals. Right now a battle is being fought to repeal the measure — an action endorsed by President Obama during the campaign. — Josh Sugarmann, the Violence Policy Center, on the Huffington Post

Nobody can substantiate claims that U.S. guns cross the border “by the thousands” or “account for 95 percent of weapons used by Mexican drug gangs.” Because it isn’t true. In Senate subcommittee hearings, William Hoover, assistant director of field operations at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, said, “The investigations we have, that we see, for firearms flowing across the border don’t show us individuals taking thousands of guns a day or at a time flowing into Mexico.” Everything Mexico’s murderous thugs are doing is already illegal. At issue is not the absence of law, but the absence of political will to enforce the laws that both nations already possess. Those that make possible Mexico’s colossal corruption wear the garb of not only drug lords and gun runners, but also of too many city mayors and police chiefs, state bureaucrats and military officers. A $40 billion criminal enterprise could not exist without the complicity of these powerful co-conspirators. And these cartels are being abetted by American media and politicians who blame our freedoms for it. We should seal the border. Punish the guilty. And use existing gun and drug laws against violent drug syndicates here and in Mexico. But leave American freedoms alone. — Wayne LaPierre, National Rifle Association, on CNN.com