July 2012 Shooting Report: 121 dead, 387 wounded, in 508 shootings

July was another banner month for shootings with 508 compared to June’s 361, a 40.7% increase.  Those wounded also skyrocketed with 387 in July versus 233 in June, again a whopping increase of 66%.  The only bright spot was that gun deaths dropped by 7; July was 121, June 128.  And this, although a total of 12 were killed by James Holmes in the Aurora, Colorado massacre.  If the latter, along with this monthly report doesn’t encourage more gun control, what will?

There were 105 shooting incidents in July, the same as June.  Chicago leads the way with a total of 22 incidents, Arizona next with 10.  Other hot spots included Baltimore, Detroit, New Orleans, New York and St. Louis.  It is notable that there was only one shooting incident in Los Angeles, the second largest city in the U.S.  Phoenix, Arizona is the sixth largest city and it had 7 incidents.  If Congress and the American public can’t see a problem here, we are in terrible trouble.

Following is the July report but first, a reminder that these figures are based on news coverage of shootings across the country and do not reflect the grand totals which are more fully reported by the Center for Disease Control (CDC) which you can see here.  The Nasty Jack Monthly Shooting Report is meant to show the wide array of shootings nationwide that occur on almost a daily basis.

July Nasty Jack Monthly Shooting Report:

DATE	CITY/STATE	DEAD	WOUNDED	SHOOTINGS
7/1/2012	Chicago, IL	1	5	6
7/1/2012	Bremerton, WA	2	0	2
7/1/2012	Phoenix, AZ	1	0	1
7/1/2012	Spartanburg County, SC	0	2	2
7/1/2012	Greeley, CO	1	0	1
7/2/2012	Spartanburg, SC	0	1	1
7/2/2012	Cleveland, OH	1	1	2
7/2/2012	Greeley, CO	0	1	1
7/2/2012	Chicago, IL	1	3	4
7/2/2012	Atlanta, GA	2	0	2
7/2/2012	Chicago, IL	4	2	6
7/3/2012	Chicago, IL	0	15	15
7/3/2012	Indianapolis, IN	1	2	3
7/4/2012	Chattanooga, TN	0	3	3
7/4/2012	Portland, OR	0	2	2
7/4/2012	Two Grey Hills, NM	1	1	2
7/4/2012	Chicago, IL	5	22	27
7/4/2012	Washington, DC	1	5	6
7/4/2012	Philadelphia, PA	0	2	2
7/4/2012	Boston, MA	0	3	3
7/4/2012	New York, NY	1	16	17
7/4/2012	Portland, OR	0	2	2
7/5/2012	Carlisle, PA	0	1	1
7/5/2012	McAllen, TX	0	1	1
7/5/2012	Tucson, AZ	0	1	1
7/5/2012	Chicago, IL	4	19	23
7/5/2012	Tucson, AZ	1	0	1
7/5/2012	Chicago, IL	3	7	10
7/5/2012	Las Vegas, NV	0	3	3
7/5/2012	St. Louis, MO	0	1	1
7/5-7/6/2012	Chicago, IL	3	7	10
7/6/2012	Pendleton, OH	0	3	3
7/6/2012	Oakland, CA	2	0	2
7/6/2012	Chicago, IL	0	11	11
7/6/2012	McKeesport, PA	1	1	2
7/6/2012	Newton Falls, OH	5	0	5
7/6/2012	Baltimore, MD	0	2	2
7/6/2012	Durham, NC	0	2	2
7/6/2012	Augusta, GA	0	6	6
7/7/2012	Chicago, IL	0	7	7
7/7/2012	Jersey City, NJ	0	2	2
7/7/2012	St. Louis, MO	1	7	8
7/7/2012	Los Angeles, CA	1	1	2
7/7/2012	Detroit, MI	1	3	4
7/7/2012	Queens, NY	3	0	3
7/8/2012	Patterson, NJ	0	2	2
7/8/2012	Dover, DE	3	2	5
7/8/2012	New York, NY	0	2	2
7/8/2012	Rochester, NY	0	2	2
7/9/2012	Wilkinsburg, PA	1	1	2
7/9/2012	Chicago, IL	0	8	8
7/9/2012	Phoenix, AZ	1	0	1
7/9/2012	Omaha, NE	3	0	3
7/9/2012	Laveen, AZ	1	0	1
7/9/2012	Oxnard, CA	1	1	2
7/9/2012	St. Louis, MO	0	3	3
7/9/2012	Baltimore, MD	0	1	1
7/9-7/10/2012	Chicago, IL	1	10	11
7/10/2012	Chicago, IL	0	2	2
7/10/2012	New Orleans, LA	3	1	4
7/10/2012	Chicago, IL	0	1	1
7/11/2012	Chicago, IL	0	8	8
7/12/2012	Baltimore, MD	0	1	1
7/13/2012	St. Louis, MO	0	1	1
7/13/2012	Falls Church, VA	2	0	2
7/13/2012	Pitt County, NC	2	0	2
7/13/2012	Lenawee County, MI	2	1	3
7/13-7/14/2012	Chicago, IL	0	9	9
7/14/2012	Memphis, TN	2	2	4
7/14/2012	Tulsa, OK	2	0	2
7/14/2012	Ellicott City, MD	0	2	2
7/14/2012	Tampa, FL	1	1	2
7/14-7/15/2012	Chicago, IL	4	16	20
7/15/2012	Martinsville, IN	1	0	1
7/15/2012	Newark, NJ	2	0	2
7/15/2012	Detroit, MI	2	2	4
7/15/2012	Manatee County, FL	0	3	3
7/15/2012	New Orleans, LA	2	0	2
7/17/2012	Tuscaloosa, AL	0	17	17
7/17/2012	Peoria, AZ	0	1	1
7/17/2012	Phoenix, AZ	0	1	1
7/17/2012	Pensacola, FL	0	1	1
7/17/2012	Milwaukee, WI	1	3	4
7/17/2012	Flint, MI	2	1	3
7/17/2012	Phoenix, AZ	1	0	1
7/18/2012	Chicago, IL	0	6	6
7/19/2012	Chicago, IL	2	4	6
7/20/2012	Aurora, CO	12	58	70
7/20/2012	Phoenix, AZ	1	0	1
7/21/2012	Phoenix, AZ	1	1	2
7/21/2012	Chicago, IL	0	6	6
7/22/2012	New York, NY	1	0	1
7/23/2012	Chicago, IL	0	6	6
7/23/2012	Little Rock, AR	1	0	1
7/23/2012	Haverhill. MA	2	2	4
7/24/2012	Phoenix, AZ	0	3	3
7/27/2012	Lawrence, IN	0	1	1
7/27/2012	Pendleton, IN	2	2	4
7/27/2012	Las Vegas, NV	1	1	2
7/27/2012	New Orleans, LA	4	0	4
7/28-7/29/2012	Chicago, IL	0	12	12
7/29/2012	Miami, FL	0	3	3
7/29/2012	Columbus, OH	2	2	4
7/30/2012	Oxford, MS	2	1	3
7/30/2012	Quincy, PA	3	0	3
		121	387	508

Prior reports: March, April, May, June.

Hispanic demographics and voting aspirations remain strong for November

President Obama is winning the Latino vote by 70 percent to 22 percent for Mitt Romney going into the final months of the 2012 election.  When you break this down, Spanish dominant Hispanics come in 76 percent to 15 percent, foreign born 72 percent to 19 percent, Spanish dominant 76 percent to 15 percent and 66 percent to 28 percent of those English dominant.  In other words, if you are Latino and for Mitt Romney, you are simply out of the loop.

To begin with, I cannot understand how any Hispanic could think the Republicans have anything to offer them.  Look at the record.  The GOP is against anything Latino and has been for years with absolutely no evidence of changing.  And this is due to a constituency that borders on racism as confirmed by the Tea Party faction, emphasized by the emails of ousted state Senator Russell Pearce of Arizona.  He is also the author of the state’s anti-immigration bill, SB-1070.

In a study done at Arizona State University, the long contemplated impact of the Hispanic vote is expected to be felt this Nov. in the state, and there is reason to believe this could evolve nationwide.  Arizona is important for several reasons.  One, it will be necessary to convince even some legal Latinos that they are not in danger of being arrested when registering to vote, convincing others nationwide.  Two, the numbers are awesome, possibly changing Arizona from red to blue.

President Obama talks about Mitt Romney and Hispanics:

In an earlier post, I reported that Arizona’s Hispanic voting-age population has jumped from 455,000 nine years ago to 845,000 today, 19 percent of the state’s population eligible to vote. Taking Arizona in 2012 is not really that far-fetched considering Obama won 45 percent of the state running against McCain in 2008, coupled with the increased strategy of Latino activists to get out the vote. 

Democrats are hoping to register approximately 300,000 new Hispanics to vote prior to November 2012.

The Latino Decisions Poll says considering, “…voters with a validated vote history in 2008 Obama leads Romney 72% to 20%, and Latinos who reside in one of 13 critical battleground states (AZ, CO, FL, IA, IN, MI, MO, NC, NV, OH, PA, VA, WI) lean very heavily towards Obama, 71% to 21% for Romney.  The question is no longer just whether the general voters of swing states will come out for Obama, but also how many Hispanics those states can register.

As an example, the four swing states with the highest percent of Latino population are Arizona, 29.6 percent, Colorado, 20.7 percent, Florida 22.5 percent and Nevada 26.5 percent.  When you add up the five and ten percent states across the country, you begin to realize the potential of the Hispanic vote.  16.3 percent of the nation’s population is Latino and growing daily.  It is beyond me how the GOP can argue with these demographics.

I have a friend here in Arizona that I talked with just a week ago who is Hispanic and I asked her if she was going to vote.  Unfortunately she hasn’t achieved citizenship yet which means she can’t.  She indicated her husband would definitely vote and her daughters are out knocking on doors to help bring out the vote.  My friend is also actively advocating for Latinos to vote as well as her husband when he has the time.  My point here is…it is beginning to happen.

Is gun control impossible based on the number of weapons on the street?

Florida will soon pass the one-million-mark in gun worshippers carrying concealed weapons.  They are the first state in the country to reach that firepower.  If Florida’s population wasn’t three times that of Arizona, I’d bet the latter would have been first.  But then, Florida is where the NRA’s own graying granny Marion Hammer hails from, a little old lady we can thank for the Stand Your Ground law plus others like it designed to kill off the American population.



Guns on the street

Gun sales in Florida have likewise soared 96 percent from 2002 through 2011.  But comparable sales remained only stable after the Aurora, Colorado movie massacre.  Considering gun nuts never think they have enough guns, go figure.  In Colorado they jumped 43 percent.  There is a graphic showing mass shootings since 1999 that is significant since in many of these incidents, either assault weapons or high capacity magazines were used.  Readily available.

There are at least 270 million guns out there in the U.S., 2.84 per 100,000 population.  Firearms account for 67.52 percent of all murders nationwide but Illinois, even back in 2010 (the latest figures) it was 80.35 percent.  It has only gotten worse with the recent gang wars that have caused hundreds of deaths in Chicago.  Loose guns everywhere, compliments of the national Rifle Assn. (NRA). 

It is hard for other developed countries to understand why the U.S. has so many murders due to guns.  We have almost 13,000 a year, 8,775 of them caused by firearms.  As an example, Great Britain has around 600 murders a year which makes this fact startling even considering the smaller population.  The difference in the proliferation of guns in the two countries is equally amazing; GB has only 3.4 million firearms out in the population.

Another gun proliferator is the Tea Party, known for demonstrations in Washington, D.C., blatantly with guns in the hands of members as a show of arrogant force.  If TPers hadn’t lost most of their effectiveness in recent months, you could almost rank them up there with the NRA in their fanaticism.  They are the cheerleaders for virtually unrestricted gun rights using ringed targets of President Obama to prove their point.  Double-digit IQs at best.

What is frightening is the fact that some are touting the fact that gun control is not to be considered, at least in the near future, even after Virginia Tech, Tucson and Aurora, Colorado.  Jonathan Mann writing on CNN wants to know, “What is it about Americans and guns?”  An obvious reference to worship by gun nuts of their weapons, plainly over valuing human life, which is so often taken by firearms.  He quotes the same numbers I use above but continues in analysis.

He says, “The laws are being driven by politics, and the politics are being driven by groups such as the National Rifle Assn.  The Washington Post estimates that the NRA succeeded in helping elect four out of every five candidates it endorsed in the most recent congressional election.”  He quotes NRA head, wacky Wayne LaPierre saying, "When they tell you that a government ban on certain firearms will somehow make you safer, don't you believe it, not for a second, because it's a lie just like the lies they've told you before."

Mayors Against Illegal Guns
Where the guns are

Mann also quotes New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg when he commented on both Obama’s and Romney’s reactions to the Aurora shooting, “You know, soothing words are nice, but maybe it's time that the two people who want to be president of the United States stand up and tell us what they are going to do about it, because this is obviously a problem across the country."  As a matter of fact, soft rhetoric is all we have been hearing on gun control for years.

The problem of this post persists, ‘Is gun control impossible based on the number of weapons on the street?’  With over 270 million guns out there in the hands of who knows who, you’d never gather up even a small portion of them because the NRA has made sure the government doesn’t know where they are.  And maybe that is where we start.  Demand the registration of all firearms so we can at least know who the good guys are, making it easier to locate illegal guns.

So maybe it is a doable situation, huh?  Oh no, I forgot about wacky Wayne LaPierre.  Maybe Obama can deal with him in his second term.

Did Mitt Romney change the way corporations are run?

If you are running for president, especially as a Republican, you get to change the laws, or at least the interpretation of them, to fit your particular situation.  Like running for president.  And you can even make this retroactive to whenever you want.  John Adams said years ago, “facts are stubborn things” and he should know as our second president, a founding father, and a leader of American independence from Great Britain.



ummmm...What did I do?

 But as stubborn as some facts are, Mitt Romney insists that he didn’t run Bain Capital after 1999, although he was still president, CEO and its only shareholder.  The AP reports, however, that Romney stayed in “regular contact” and was personally involved with the signing or approval of legal documents well into 2001.  He claimed to have left Bain in 1999.  He also argues that he didn’t even visit Bain during the period in question.

Following 1999 Bain was investing in companies that shipped jobs overseas; actually, pioneering the practice.  Putting Americans out of work is not something that goes over well with middle class Americans, but fits perfectly in with Romney’s philosophy of putting corporations ahead of the general public.  Obviously the campaign reacted fiercely to defend the candidate.

But in mid-July the Boston Globe said Romney had signed official documents claiming to be president and CEO of Bain Capital as late as 2002, in the middle of the period it was developing firms that were outsourcing jobs.  This was sworn to on Securities and Exchange Commission filings.  Not only did Romney deny everything again, he demanded a retraction from the Boston Globe which he didn’t get.

Good video on Romney flip-flops:

Donna Brazile, a contributor to CNN and a Democratic strategist says, despite what the candidate’s campaign claims, this whole issue is about getting to the bottom of their complete diversion of the facts.  To support all the accusations of burying facts and potential lies, there is the tax returns issue.  The general policy of most presidential candidates is to release 12 years of tax returns…unless you have something to hide. 

Mitt Romney’s father, George Romney, did just that in his run for president in 1968.  The elder’s effective tax rate at the time was 37 percent.  The son’s similar tax rate was under 15 percent in 2010, the only year he has released.  He promises 2011 when completed.  John McCain released only 2 years of tax returns when he ran against Barack Obama in 2008 and look what happened to him.

Brazile sums it up eloquently: “If Romney won't stand by his record at Bain, just like he won't stand by his record as governor of Massachusetts, how exactly is the American public supposed to evaluate the candidate?”  Romney did a flip-flop on both his health care plan and gun control laws as governor.  The answer to Brazile: if you mix Bain Capital with no additional tax returns, plus reversals in policies on major issues, the real question is can we trust Romney?

Who’s for? Who’s against? Gun control

It looks like gun violence has finally gotten the attention of the two presidential candidates.  Barack Obama told an African-American group in New Orleans on July 26, that we’re lax in the control of weapons and wants to work with lawmakers to rectify this.  Mitt Romney, in the perfect National Rifle Assn. (NRA) profile, said changing laws on the issue wouldn’t prevent future incidents like the Aurora, Colo. movie shooting where 12 died and 58 were injured.

Obama and Romney on gun control

First of all, the President should be infuriated over gun violence; along with the Aurora massacre, his hometown of Chicago is currently going through the worst episodes in decades, almost exclusively within the black community.  He wasn’t.  Romney’s lame answer comes from cow-towing to the gun lobby for the votes of gun nuts.  He even mistakenly said many of the weapons used by James Holmes were obtained illegally.  They were all legal, including the ammunition.

The New Trajectory blog does an excellent job of covering the “semi-switch” in President Obama’s views on gun control with quotes from his speech.  Baldr Odinson ends by challenging the President now to turn those words into action, echoing a question many of us have about what the next steps of The White House will be.

So who’s for and who is against gun control?  You will be surprised at some that are in favor and others who aren’t.

• Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ), has already prepared a bill to limit the sale of high-capacity magazines like the one used by James Holmes when he killed 12 and injured 58 in the Aurora, Colo. movie theatre.

• Arch conservative Bill Kristol said that people do have a right to handguns and hunting rifles but doesn’t think they have the right to assault rifles.

• House Rep. Kevin McCarthy, number three Republican from California, sounds open to discussions on gun control but wants to have more facts first.

• Another House Rep., an Oregon Democrat, feels the U.S. has given up on gun control.

• Sen. Barbara Boxer from California says that Congress must pass sensible gun legislation.

• Former Democratic Sen. from Connecticut, Christopher Dodd, called for more restrictions on guns and questions why Americans should be able to buy assault weapons.

• Mitt Romney, of course, has put his support firmly behind the 2^nd Amendment, a move no doubt orchestrated by wacky Wayne LaPierre of the NRA, and thinks new gun laws would not have made any difference in the Aurora tragedy.

• New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg has challenged and chastised both presidential contenders on not coming out stronger for gun control.  He comments: “I can tell you I don’t think there’s any other developed country in the world that has remotely the problem we have.

• California Sen. Dianne Feinstein wants to have a “sane” discussion on gun control and ban assault weapons.

• Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ) is in favor of a ban against large capacity ammunition clips.

• Fox TV’s ultra-conservative Bill O’Reilly called for Congress to pass a law requiring the registration of all "heavy" weapons to be reported to the FBI because it "makes sense.”

• Lauren Fox in US News said, there is no evidence to indicate that any existing gun law would have prevented James Holmes from doing what he did in Aurora, Colo.

• House Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY) wants President Obama to go around Congress using his executive authority to enact better gun laws.  Her husband was killed in the
  1993 Long Island Rail Road
  shooting massacre.

• Michael Moore, Academy Award winning filmmaker’s statement says it all: "We have to see that we're a part of each other, and we have to take care of each other. The reason why they have universal health care in Canada and Britain, these other places? Because they believe if one suffers, everybody suffers," he tells the "Piers Morgan Tonight" host. "That is not our mentality, our mentality is 'I got mine, you get yours, and the hell with everybody else.'" 

Great statements on gun control by Michael Moore:

 



Jason Alexander


• Jason Alexander of Seinfeld fame tweeted that he believes there should be some kind of gun control in the U.S. so that not just any “Joe Schmoe” could walk into a Walmart and purchase a weapon.

• And it should be noted with interest that just days following the Aurora massacre, the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) gathered in Salt Lake City behind closed doors to formally continue their support for the ownership and sale of assault weapons.  Read more here about the participating companies you should boycott.

• And last, but certainly not least, there is Barack Obama’s views on gun control which have mellowed significantly since he was a Senator from Illinois.  The President must get reelected; another GOP administration in the White House and control of Congress would lead to a disaster for the U.S. in my mind.  If Obama is cooling it until his reelection in November, after which he plans to lower the boom on the NRA and pass gun control, that’s fine with me.  Only if.

It would appear that we have accumulated more than a modicum of support for gun control following the bloodbath in Aurora, Colo., which in itself is a tragedy that this issue continues to be forced into the forefront by the killing and injuring of innocent individuals.  All because of NRA head Wayne LaPierre and his leadership of lackeys and a fear-mongering reign over the organization’s membership.  But maybe this is the year and we should all be ready.

The real American terrorist and the war over guns

There are two distinct issues here.  The new American terrorists are the James Holmes, the Jared Loughners, the Seung-Hui Chos and the other gun massacre artists that came before them and those who will follow.  Yes, many will continue the trend because they are given the means so readily to accomplish their goals.  Any kind of mass killing device their heart desires, compliments of the National Rifle Assn. (NRA) and its leader, Wayne LaPierre.

And the war over guns will continue, not just on the street, but also at the White House, the U.S. Congress, and in the minds and hearts of the American people.  It is a battle that has been going on since the late 1970s when wacky Wayne took over the NRA and made a fight for the 2^nd Amendment his platform to power and riches for himself and his organization.  He has amassed a claimed 4.3 million membership that has in the past literally licked the man’s boots.

In this war the American public is losing, as is the case in Aurora, Colorado most recently.



James Holmes the terrorist that no one knew



Bill Schneider writing for Politico says in his glaring headline, “NRA is real winner on gun laws,” continuing, “Nothing will happen. That seems to be the consensus among policy experts after the senseless tragedy in Aurora, Colo., last week.”  That line of thought pretty much follows the overall atmosphere of two presidential contenders and the chicken-hearted Congress we have been left with.  But I do see an inkling of hope, which I will cover in a later post.

The author says Americans have lost confidence in gun control measures. In 1959, a Gallup poll said 60 percent wanted it; in 2011 26 percent were in favor.  And in the fight to re-ban assault weapons, just last year a majority in the U.S. said no.  What we don’t hear from these polls is “why” these respondents reply as they do.  I am no expert in polling but my gut tells me all the NRA propaganda has thoroughly confused the American public, in their favor.

Schneider believes the opposition to gun control is due to the fact that people see no evidence that it works.  And why is that?  Because there are no valid statistics available to prove that regulations on firearms do work.  And why is that?  Because the NRA and its leadership have made sure that a minimum of records are kept on guns in this country simply to cover up their lies and brazen and flawed doctrine on gun rights.  All thanks to a cowardly Congress.

John Horgan in Scientific American wonders "How many massacres will it take for politicians to stand up to gun nuts?"  He uses the term “gun nut,” which I also use frequently, to describe the kind of person that loves his or her guns more than they do life.  He describes Obama, the Illinois Senator in favor of some gun control, to the presidential candidate who came out strong for defending the 2^nd Amendment.  A fact that has soured many progressives.

 

Easily available weapon of choice 



The Brady Center reports a total of 100,000 Americans are wounded by firearms each year in the U.S.  Of those, 31,347 are deaths according to the CDC, and Brady adds that more than a million Americans have been shot to death since 1968.  The gun nuts cry that self defense makes a gun necessary; the fact is that “a gun is 22 times more likely to be used in a suicide attempt; criminal assault or homicide; or unintentional shooting death or injury than for self-defense.”

Come on America.  What makes you people believe such garbage that spews from wacky Wayne LaPierre and his minions?  Don’t you have a mind of your own?  Anyone who cannot sit down and quickly analyze a situation like the Aurora move theatre killing which took 12 lives and injured another 58, and not come up with the conclusion that assault weapons should be banned, has a real problem with logic.  This isn’t rocket science, folks, it’s common sense.

NRA members defy organization’s leader wacky Wayne LaPierre

MAIG's Mayor Bloomberg

The National Rifle Assn. (NRA) membership told Mayors Against Illegal Guns, via pollster Frank Luntz, that they support sensible gun control.  This must have sent CEO Wayne LaPierre into the atmosphere; this fanatic is and has had a no-negotiations position for years.  Even on assault weapons and high capacity magazines.  Even after Virginia Tech, Tucson and now Aurora, Colorado.  The CrooksandLiars blog calls it a “real split” with “rabid” NRA leadership.

I have regularly put down NRA members because it seemed to me that they were as rabid as old Wayne and his minions but, hopefully, I am wrong.  Most of my conclusions were based on comments I have received when writing about gun control; many are absolutely unprintable, and that does say something for at least a portion of the members.  Also, I was crucified by NRAers when I posted on Daily Kos, eventually being thrown off the site for my views on gun control.

MUST SEE Young Turks video on Frank Luntz poll:

Here’s what New York Mayor Richard Bloomberg’s MAIG group found out:

87 percent of NRA members agree that support for 2nd Amendment rights goes hand-in-hand with keeping guns out of the hands of criminals.

There is very strong support for criminal background checks:

• 74 percent support requiring criminal background checks of anyone purchasing a gun.
• 79 percent support requiring gun retailers to perform background checks on all employees – a measure recently endorsed by the National Shooting Sports Foundation, the trade association for the firearms industry.
• NRA members strongly support allowing states to set basic eligibility requirements for people who want to carry concealed, loaded guns in public places. By contrast, the NRA leadership’s top federal legislative priority – national reciprocity for concealed carry permits – would effectively eliminate these requirements by forcing every state to allow non-residents to carry concealed guns even if they would not qualify for a local permit.

NRA members support many common state eligibility rules for concealed carrying:

• 75 percent believe concealed carry permits should only be granted to applicants who have not committed any violent misdemeanors, including assault.
• 74 percent believe permits should only be granted to applicants who have completed gun safety training.
• 68 percent believe permits should only be granted to applicants who do not have prior arrests for domestic violence.



NRA's idea of gun control

• 63 percent believe permits should only be granted to applicants 21 years of age or older.

If you have been reading this blog, you know that a great majority of what I have been advocating is included here.  It is also written about in other blogs like New Trajectory and Common Gunsense.  The Coalition to Prevent Gun Violence, States United to Prevent Gun Violence and the Brady Campaign all support similar types of regulation.  The only issue not addressed is the banning of assault weapons and high capacity gun magazines.  See the Luntz poll here.

Wacky Wayne will no doubt find countless things wrong with the poll, probably even attacking pollster Frank Luntz, most assuredly Mayor Bloomberg and the mayors Against Illegal Guns.  But maybe the time has come to challenge

Wayne LaPierre and his NRA leadership on the grounds that most all of the absurdity he has spouted in the past is just plain garbage and we are finally fed up with it. 

Read my two-part series on the fact that the NRA’s influence on political elections is virtually nil here and here.

It’s all fiction: NRA has no effectual control over elections - Part 2

In Part 1, Paul Waldman’s first and second studies on the effects of the National Rifle Assn. (NRA) on political elections in relation to money contributed to candidates and the organization’s influence on the outcome of the elections, covered the NRA’s (1)“Ineffective Spending,” and its (2)“Overrated Endorsements.”  The conclusive evidence of Waldman’s study confirms that, “The NRA has virtually no impact on congressional elections.”

Today in the third and fourth studies the author covers the sources of the myth that the NRA wields unlimited power in getting congressional leaders and presidents elected and then the contemporary status of guns in America.  Waldman seeks to literally knock out the foundations that provide “…the mistaken reading of history that allows the NRA to continue to make legislators live in fear of taking on the gun lobby.  In other words expose the NRA lies.

As NRA mythology goes, it all started in the early 1900s, during Bill Clinton’s first administration where the omnibus crime bill was passed in 1993 banning the sale of assault weapons.  Clinton even commented that the fight for the assault weapons ban cost 20 members their seats in Congress.  He added that the NRA was the reason that Republicans controlled the house.  Actually this wasn’t true as the study found a minimum impact on the 1994 election from NRA support.

“Republicans won the House in 1994,” Congressional scholar Gary Jacobson  wrote, “because an unusually large number of districts voted locally as they had been voting nationally,” or, they voted for Congress as they had for president.  It was highly partisan politics where some Democrats suddenly found themselves in trouble in GOP-leaning districts.  It probably had nothing to do with gun legislation, more likely to have been affected by Clinton’s health care reform.

NRA head, wacky Wayne LaPierre even said in speaking to the group’s annual convention in 2002, “You are why Al Gore isn’t in the White House.”  Many experts say, if Ralph Nader hadn’t run, Al Gore would no doubt have won.  And when Waldman looked for evidence that Gore’s stance on gun control cost him decisive votes, he found none.  He even carried states like Pennsylvania, Michigan, Minnesota and Iowa on the issue.

Waldman reiterates: “the National Rifle Association didn’t win Congress for the GOP in 1994, and it didn’t deliver the White House to George W. Bush in 2000.”  He also comments on a common theme that seems to surface during the analysis, “what the NRA claims credit for usually turns out upon closer examination to be nothing more than elections in which Republicans do well.”  Two glaring examples, Pres. Obama’s and Pres. Clinton’s election wins.

The NRA was in their blustering, bumbling profile while waving the flags over 1994 and 2000 victories, but were completely silent when the Democrats won in 2006 and 2008.

NRA caught with their pants down

 In Paul Waldman’s fourth study, he addresses the current status of “guns in America,” which has been experiencing a long, steady decline over the years.  We’re down to around 32 percent of U.S. households (37,349,213) owning guns, so this raises even more red flags in my mind.  If you do the math, the actual number of guns per households is 8, based on approximately 300,000,000 firearms in the country.  Now here’s the question:

Based on recent reports that gun sales have surged due to the Aurora, Colo. movie carnage, similar to past incidents of gun massacres, are these new guns going into the same households or are they new purchasers?  Either way we are putting more guns on the street thanks to the National Rifle Assn. (NRA).  But, if they are going into the same gun nut households, it is yet another example of an out-of-control nation that loves its guns more than it does its citizens’ lives. 

And that is how we are viewed worldwide.   

 The actual decline in gun sales dates back to 1977 when 54 percent of American adult households owned weapons, but by 2010 the number had fallen 22 percentage points to 32 percent.  Young adult, African American, Hispanic and Asian households have low percentages of gun ownership.  The right to own firearms has become more popular recently in the U.S., along with a majority of Americans that believe in reasonable gun controls.

Watch a not-too-accurate video on NRA lobbying:

Assault weapons, what James Holmes used in the Aurora movie theatre shooting, is another thing.  A CBS/New York Times poll in January 2011 found 63 percent of respondents favoring a nationwide ban on the sale of assault weapons, almost unchanged from the 67 percent that favored such a ban in March 2000 (and even a majority of gun owners favored an assault weapons ban), as reported by Waldman.

Two-thirds of Americans believe in the rights of the 2nd Amendment, but 86 percent want waiting periods to buy a gun.  79 percent support registration while 51 percent think we should limit the number of guns a person can own.  70 percent want gun permits and 85 percent of all gun owners, 69 percent of NRA members support mandatory background checks at gun shows. 

What is it about these numbers that President Obama and the Congress don’t understand?    

Paul Waldman closes by saying, “…the NRA’s vaunted power to determine which politicians win and lose at the ballot box is a myth, one that the group and its allies work hard to sustain. If more legislators understood that fact, it would become more likely that future debates about guns reflect Americans actual habits and beliefs.”

I’m hoping, that seeing this study, gun control advocates like The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, The Brady Campaign and States United to Prevent Gun Violence, would make certain copies of all four studies from Paul Waldman get in the hands of President Obama and every Senator and House Representative.  The Aurora, Colo. massacre was a tragedy, but if we use this and other gun violence to initiate stronger gun controls, we will pay honor to the victims.