So, its no surprise to any living, breathing American that our government officials and private corporations are far too cozy.
Republicans might be the most egregious offenders, but Democrats work hard to keep pace. After all, how else could Rahm Emmanuel leave his job in the Clinton administration and get a job that paid him millions at a bank, with absolutely no banking experience?
Merely the latest in a steady stream of politicians cum lobbyists is the now-former FCC Commissioner Attwell Baker. She is leaving her position to join Comcast's lobbying group based in Washington DC.
Nice, so the person who previously was in charge of regulating companies like Comcast, now works on their behalf pressuring congress and presumably whoever takes her old position.
I'd love to just rail away at Ms. Baker for being a person with no principles, and to a degree I feel that way. But why attack one person? The entire system is so hilariously broken its not even funny.
We have ex-Congressmen and staffers stepping into jobs at the companies they passed legislation in favor of. We have countless government employees, both appointees, and rank and file who leave their government jobs to then lobby the very people who took their place. We have ex-military getting hired by arms companies and "security" companies to cajole their still in service pals to buy their new weapon or hire their mercenaries, er, contractors to help defend the next "humanitarian" mission.
As if it isn't bad enough that corporations can now donate with impunity to elections we allow those who make policy decisions to step away from their jobs and instantly step into their counterparts role.
Our government needs moratorium periods on certain workers before they can take certain jobs. If you want to leave your post to go run a college, or a company, ok. But if you are leaving your post to take a job where your sole purpose is to use your insider information to unduly influence a decision in your new employer's favor? I'm sorry, you'd need to wait at least 2 years MINIMUM before doing that. I'd prefer a waiting period of 5 years.
Go get a real job for a bit. Actually produce something possibly. Or, am I asking too much out of the money machine that is federal politics?
Sunday, February 16, 2014
The system worked, but no one won
So the verdict came down in the Michael Dunn case. Convicted on three counts of attempted murder and one count of illegal firearm discharge Mr. Dunn is going to be going to jail for a long time. The first degree murder charge against him for the death of Jordan Davis resulted in a hung jury and mistrail. It will most likely be retried.
The case came about after Mr. Dunn approached a Dodge Durango filled with 4 black teens complaining their music was too loud. Mr. Dunn was carrying a weapon as allowed by Florida law. The teens, being teens, ignored Mr. Dunn's request and probably said some things that were rude and they shouldn't have said.
Mr. Dunn then thought he saw a gun in the vehicle which prompted him to pull his weapon and fire 10 times into the car, three of the bullets striking Jordan Davis killing him.
No gun was found in the vehicle, though it did initially leave the scene (I'm fairly certain I would've as well if some crazy person was shooting at me.) They did return to the scene and if a gun was ever in the vehicle, there was no evidence of it. All there was evidence of was a dead teenager and a man who ruined many lives, including his own.
We'll never know if there was a gun in that Durango and honestly I feel it doesn't matter. Mr. Dunn was not a law enforcement officer. He had no official capacity to enforce gun laws. If he felt threatened, he probably should have done what most people would do and back down from a hostile situation.
But no, not in our modern American. Not in a land where "Stand Your Ground" laws exist because those pesky criminals have too much power.
We have guns and we should be able to carry them where we wish and we can protect ourselves when we feel threatened.
Except, doesn't that kind of leave a lot of open space? I mean, "feeling threatened." That's pretty damn vague. So vague that it led a man carrying a gun to fire into a vehicle with four teenagers inside. It also allowed a man to fire at another in a theater who was texting and threw popcorn at him.
I don't mean to make my blog about guns or gun violence, but its been weighing on me heavily lately.
Lives are being ruined all over this country by America's blind love of guns in any and all situations.
Do I think Michael Dunn is some monster? Someone who was just looking for an excuse to kill? Of course not. I think he was probably a pretty normal person. However, pretty normal can change when you're carrying a gun. Its unfortunately, but too many people view guns as some kind of panacea.
I have to wonder, as I do in most of these situations, if Mr. Dunn would have approached the Durango if he had not been armed. Why he felt the need to be the enforcer of public decency, I'm not sure. Were the kids being disrespectful with their loud music? Quite possibly, they're kids, it happens.
But, so what? Its annoying. How many things in life are annoying? I could start a list that never ends. How many of them are worth killing or dying over? List just got a whole lot shorter.
However, the gun lobby has done an excellent job of instilling fear in Americans making them think that carrying a weapon is needed to live in safety.
One can only hope cases such as this, with one life lost, and other lives mangled, will be the aberration, not the norm going forward.
The case came about after Mr. Dunn approached a Dodge Durango filled with 4 black teens complaining their music was too loud. Mr. Dunn was carrying a weapon as allowed by Florida law. The teens, being teens, ignored Mr. Dunn's request and probably said some things that were rude and they shouldn't have said.
Mr. Dunn then thought he saw a gun in the vehicle which prompted him to pull his weapon and fire 10 times into the car, three of the bullets striking Jordan Davis killing him.
No gun was found in the vehicle, though it did initially leave the scene (I'm fairly certain I would've as well if some crazy person was shooting at me.) They did return to the scene and if a gun was ever in the vehicle, there was no evidence of it. All there was evidence of was a dead teenager and a man who ruined many lives, including his own.
We'll never know if there was a gun in that Durango and honestly I feel it doesn't matter. Mr. Dunn was not a law enforcement officer. He had no official capacity to enforce gun laws. If he felt threatened, he probably should have done what most people would do and back down from a hostile situation.
But no, not in our modern American. Not in a land where "Stand Your Ground" laws exist because those pesky criminals have too much power.
We have guns and we should be able to carry them where we wish and we can protect ourselves when we feel threatened.
Except, doesn't that kind of leave a lot of open space? I mean, "feeling threatened." That's pretty damn vague. So vague that it led a man carrying a gun to fire into a vehicle with four teenagers inside. It also allowed a man to fire at another in a theater who was texting and threw popcorn at him.
I don't mean to make my blog about guns or gun violence, but its been weighing on me heavily lately.
Lives are being ruined all over this country by America's blind love of guns in any and all situations.
Do I think Michael Dunn is some monster? Someone who was just looking for an excuse to kill? Of course not. I think he was probably a pretty normal person. However, pretty normal can change when you're carrying a gun. Its unfortunately, but too many people view guns as some kind of panacea.
I have to wonder, as I do in most of these situations, if Mr. Dunn would have approached the Durango if he had not been armed. Why he felt the need to be the enforcer of public decency, I'm not sure. Were the kids being disrespectful with their loud music? Quite possibly, they're kids, it happens.
But, so what? Its annoying. How many things in life are annoying? I could start a list that never ends. How many of them are worth killing or dying over? List just got a whole lot shorter.
However, the gun lobby has done an excellent job of instilling fear in Americans making them think that carrying a weapon is needed to live in safety.
One can only hope cases such as this, with one life lost, and other lives mangled, will be the aberration, not the norm going forward.
Monday, February 3, 2014
Boycott Coke? Really? This is the crushing issue facing you people?
I'll try to keep this post from degenerating to bitter and spiteful ad hominem attacks on those I disagree with. Its gonna be tough, but I'm pretty sure I can do it.
Apparently a slightly sappy, slightly touchy, seemingly out of place, yet overall innocuous Coke ad has the racists up in arms. I'll admit, I love when people get upset about stuff like this because it lets me know who I can pretty much write off their opinion about anything.
The ad, oh the horrible, terrible ad, featured "America the Beautiful" a song sung by Queen Latifa not more than 90 minutes prior to the commercial. Why the fuss? Because, HORRORS, the song was sung in many languages, NOT JUST ENGLISH!
Oh no! Whatever shall we do? How can we face the fact we're a multi-racial, multi-lingual, extremely diverse country? I know what we should do, we should take to Twitter and Facebook and blogs like mine nobody reads and react as racist and xenophobic as possible!
"In my 'Murkah we speak English gash darn it!"
Well, frankly America has never been a nation of one language, not should it be now. Prior to Europeans landing there was a plethora of Native American languages being spoken. The first European language spoken was Viking (yeah, I have no idea what language they spoke, some old form of Danish?), the second, Spanish. Then French, THEN English.
Sure, the English crown came to rule the 13 colonies who in a fit of tea party pique decided to rebel and instead of becoming more like Canada allowed us to become the joke we are today, but even then, all sorts of languages were being spoken, daily, across the continent.
Immigrant groups came, and came, and came and somehow America trudged along, getting along with these strange newcomers and their odd accents and culture. They slowly assimilated, keeping some traditions, sometimes keeping a langauge (rarely) but mostly becoming more or less American.
Now though, somehow this is a threat. All these people that don't look like me, don't talk like me and don't dress like me, they're dangerous and scary. And Coke is putting them in a commercial and goshdarnit Coke you gave me diabetus and made me require a Hoverround but I am quitting you over this. For good. Big KKK, er Big K is my drink of choice now. Or Shasta. Or a good American drink like Sam's Cola from them nice folks at Wal-mart (speaking of commercials to make you hurl....)
Get over it people. America has always been, will always been, and SHOULD always be diverse! And goodness, a multinational company selling things all over the world (including pretty much the only functioning factory in Somalia) is probably all about the diversity don't you think? Oh, but that only applies elsewhere. Got it.
If you want to get annoyed about anything, get annoyed by the faux patriotism tied to every sporting event now. I get it, most of the country is watching football (I love football), but there's nothing inherently patriotic about a sporting event no matter how many times we butcher the anthem, no matter how many flyovers we do, or how many times we show the troops in some far off country that don't need to be in watching the game at god knows what hour of the night instead of being home with their families watching it.
The Coke ad, which I found a bit sappy, was an accurate portrayal of America as it is now, as it has been and how it should and will be, regardless of how much you racist hillbillies want to pretend otherwise.
So, go buy your cheap beer brewed by a foreign company, purchase it at your local sprawlmart paying subhuman wages and importing everything possible from China, whine about how hard the white man has it in America and continue to believe giving more money to rich people and deporting everyone who doesn't learn English in a timely fashion is going to solve your problems. You are the anachronism and you are the problem. Not the person with the accent, the funny clothes or the different colored skin.
Apparently a slightly sappy, slightly touchy, seemingly out of place, yet overall innocuous Coke ad has the racists up in arms. I'll admit, I love when people get upset about stuff like this because it lets me know who I can pretty much write off their opinion about anything.
The ad, oh the horrible, terrible ad, featured "America the Beautiful" a song sung by Queen Latifa not more than 90 minutes prior to the commercial. Why the fuss? Because, HORRORS, the song was sung in many languages, NOT JUST ENGLISH!
Oh no! Whatever shall we do? How can we face the fact we're a multi-racial, multi-lingual, extremely diverse country? I know what we should do, we should take to Twitter and Facebook and blogs like mine nobody reads and react as racist and xenophobic as possible!
"In my 'Murkah we speak English gash darn it!"
Well, frankly America has never been a nation of one language, not should it be now. Prior to Europeans landing there was a plethora of Native American languages being spoken. The first European language spoken was Viking (yeah, I have no idea what language they spoke, some old form of Danish?), the second, Spanish. Then French, THEN English.
Sure, the English crown came to rule the 13 colonies who in a fit of tea party pique decided to rebel and instead of becoming more like Canada allowed us to become the joke we are today, but even then, all sorts of languages were being spoken, daily, across the continent.
Immigrant groups came, and came, and came and somehow America trudged along, getting along with these strange newcomers and their odd accents and culture. They slowly assimilated, keeping some traditions, sometimes keeping a langauge (rarely) but mostly becoming more or less American.
Now though, somehow this is a threat. All these people that don't look like me, don't talk like me and don't dress like me, they're dangerous and scary. And Coke is putting them in a commercial and goshdarnit Coke you gave me diabetus and made me require a Hoverround but I am quitting you over this. For good. Big KKK, er Big K is my drink of choice now. Or Shasta. Or a good American drink like Sam's Cola from them nice folks at Wal-mart (speaking of commercials to make you hurl....)
Get over it people. America has always been, will always been, and SHOULD always be diverse! And goodness, a multinational company selling things all over the world (including pretty much the only functioning factory in Somalia) is probably all about the diversity don't you think? Oh, but that only applies elsewhere. Got it.
If you want to get annoyed about anything, get annoyed by the faux patriotism tied to every sporting event now. I get it, most of the country is watching football (I love football), but there's nothing inherently patriotic about a sporting event no matter how many times we butcher the anthem, no matter how many flyovers we do, or how many times we show the troops in some far off country that don't need to be in watching the game at god knows what hour of the night instead of being home with their families watching it.
The Coke ad, which I found a bit sappy, was an accurate portrayal of America as it is now, as it has been and how it should and will be, regardless of how much you racist hillbillies want to pretend otherwise.
So, go buy your cheap beer brewed by a foreign company, purchase it at your local sprawlmart paying subhuman wages and importing everything possible from China, whine about how hard the white man has it in America and continue to believe giving more money to rich people and deporting everyone who doesn't learn English in a timely fashion is going to solve your problems. You are the anachronism and you are the problem. Not the person with the accent, the funny clothes or the different colored skin.
Saturday, January 25, 2014
What does it take?
So, today, there was another mass shooting/shooting spree/murder suicide at a mall. Last night a shooting on a college campus. There's almost shootings in major cities around the country. In Peoria, IL last year, there were 65 shootings, or a little more than 1 a week on average.
I could keep spouting off stats on the number of children killed or wounded by gunfire (usually accidental from idiot family or friends have loaded guns accessible) but obviously facts don't appear to matter.
So, what is it going to take for America to understand it has a problem with guns? The rest of the developed world thinks we're insane for our gun laws. Before I go any farther, I want to state, I'm not in favor of banning all guns. In fact, I'm not in favor of banning any guns (more on that in a bit). I am in favor of putting the power back in the hands of our elected officials and out of the hands of the gun lobby.
But back to my title question: Is there any atrocity large enough for Congress to pass some sensible national gun safety laws?
Columbine happened in 1999. Virginia Tech 2007. NIU Shooting 2008. Aurora Colorado 2012. Sandy Hook 2012. To say nothing of the day to day violence that goes on in cities across America. Shootings in Chicago's south side happen pretty much daily, but it took an honor student who'd recently visited the White House getting shot to bring any light on the problem because, lets be honest, white America at large doesn't care much if minorities are getting shot as long as its not in their neighborhood.
Now, violent crimes in general are down over the last 25 odd years, and murders are down a lot (due in a large part to better medical facilities, especially in inner cities). One would think this weakens the argument for an armed populace though it inevitably gets twisted into a "no, criminals are scared of robbing folks because that guy might have a gun." Yes, because old west style shootouts over holdups are common, especially compared to accidental shootings.
The real problem is access to weapons. It is hilariously easy to get a gun. And once you have a gun, thanks to the fact that many states do nothing to register a gun TO the purchaser, well, who knows what you do with it.
Once upon a time it was relatively difficult for criminals to acquire guns. Then the 80s came along and we saw the first wave of weapons designed with no other purpose than to be used in the urban combat zones some of our cities became.
Weapons like the Tec-9, Mac-10 and various others served 2 purposes: 1) to put a large amount of bullets in a general area quickly and 2) line the pockets of gun companies profiting on death and mayhem.
Eventually the situation became dire enough that laws were passed limited automatic or assault-style weapons, certain types of high capacity magazines and certain types of ammunition. (This law has since been allowed to lapse due largely to the efforts of the NRA lobbying for the gun companies who want to sell such weapons.)
Now, we face such a crisis again. Gun companies have flooded the market with cheap handguns, many which have magazines holding 8-13 rounds and cheap military styled rifles with clips holding 15-30 rounds. While most gun crimes are committed with the first type of gun, numerous high profile cases have involved the latter. (And I'm sure every citizen armed with their Glock or Springfield is going to want to go up against a nut-case with an AR-15 or SKS.)
We are allowing people to profit off mayhem. Now, I know our gov't does it every day, it sickens me there too, but that's an issue for another blog. We, as a country are stupidly allowing a small cabal of companies to make our country MORE dangerous while promoting the idea of more guns being needed for protection. It boggles the mind doesn't it? Obviously flooding society with more weapons, easily accessible by the mentally ill or mentally distraught, easily stolen during home invasions, easily sold with little to no oversight by anyone in authority to God knows who.
You don't believe me? In IL, this is what it takes to buy or sell a gun privately:
"A buyer is required to show his Firearms Owner’s Identification Card (FOID) when purchasing any firearms or ammunition. Any seller is required to withhold delivery of any handgun for 72 hours, and of any rifle or shotgun for 24 hours, after the buyer and seller reach an agreement to purchase a firearm. The waiting period does not apply to a buyer who is a dealer, law enforcement officer, or a nonresident at a gun show recognized by the Illinois Department of State Police. The seller must retain for 10 years a record of the transfer, including a description of the firearm (including serial number), the identity of the buyer, and the buyer’s FOID number.
A federally licensed dealer must contact the Department of State Police for a background check, for which there is a $2.00 fee. Any sales at gun shows, including dealers and private parties, must contact the state police for a background check.
Private parties selling firearms at gun shows must ensure the buyer has a FOID card and the buyer must undergo a background check. It is unlawful to sell or give any handgun to a person under 18, or any firearm to a person who is not eligible to obtain a FOID."
From http://www.nraila.org/gun-laws/state-laws/illinois.aspx
Cause yeah, that's easy to enforce.
So, here are the problems. Any sane person should be able to see them. What do I propose? Well, many things, none of which include banning guns.
1. Every gun, EVERY SINGLE GUN, is registered to the purchaser BY serial number. Now, where on the gun? That would be something to hammer out in the law because people like to upgrade/modify their weapons. If the law would cut into that sector, tough.
2. Every gun sale occurs at a licensed facility. You pay $15, $5 to the dealer to sign off on the deal, $10 to the state to register the gun in the new owners name. You have go TWICE. Once to officially start the deal, then again after the waiting period to finalize the deal.
3. All gun show exceptions shall be done away with. Gun shows will be subject to the same laws as any other gun sale. They have your address, they can ship it to you.
4. Any and all gun accessories, that pertain to the functioning of a weapon, from grips, to actions, to firing pins, to magazines, to trigger assemblies may only be produced by licensed ATF builders. Tough. Can't get a license? You can make holsters or gun cases or something.
5. Any magazine holding more than 8 rounds cannot be kept in your home. Along with all military style rifles, such items can only be used at licensed ranges. Ranges will be licensed by the state. Anyone is free to join a range (and the range can be free if they want) but to take advantage of the higher capacity magazines or military style rifles, you must pay for a higher class of FOID card. Much like the license required to drive a car is different than a semi, the license required to own a .22 target pistol is different than an AR-15.
There would be a 6 month grace period for those already owning said items to register them with a licensed range. If you are transporting the weapon to a different range, you must sign it out with the range it is currently registered at and have 72 hours to register it at the new range. If you do not, you are fined. If this happens on three separate occasions you lose the right to these items.
The time period is waived if the item is shipped directly from one range to another.
6. If your gun is stolen you can be held liable for crimes committed with it if you do not report its loss. This would encourage more people to keep their damned guns locked up so that during home invasions its difficult for them to be stolen. Oh, and also means your kids can't get their hands on it.
7. To concealed carry a weapon you must pass rigorous tests on a yearly basis. ANY citation, be it seatbelt, speeding, parking tickets, etc. causes you to lose the right to concealed carry for 6 months. Any misdemeanor loses the right to concealed carry forever. Anyone found violating a private "Weapons not allowed" sign will lose their right to carry forever.
8. These are the NATIONAL laws. States can pass stricter requirements if they like.
Do I believe these would stop gun crime? Of course not. Do I think they'd be a step in the right direction to begin minimizing the gun violence plaguing our society? Yes.
It is a fact, a cold hard fact, that making crimes even slightly harder to commit causes a significant drop in crime. Making it slightly more difficult for criminals to get their hands on guns, many of which are legally bought and then illegally resold on the black market would help minimize the damage.
People who like guns can still have their guns, possibly not in their home, but they can still have them. People who aren't as fond of guns can be a little more assured there is an actual process to getting and keeping a gun. Yes, it'd be more strenuous to own a weapon, but why is it as easy if not easier to own a gun then a car? Weapons for hunting would hardly be effected by this at all.
This isn't going to happen, I know it, you know it, everyone know its. But some of it NEEDS to happen in some form. We NEED to slow down the flood of guns into everybody's hands. I'm sorry, but not everyone needs or should have a gun. And making it a bit harder to get, and keep, your guns isn't a bad thing. Also it could help cut down on minor violations as well if people could lose access to their guns. People sure seem to love their guns.
I could keep spouting off stats on the number of children killed or wounded by gunfire (usually accidental from idiot family or friends have loaded guns accessible) but obviously facts don't appear to matter.
So, what is it going to take for America to understand it has a problem with guns? The rest of the developed world thinks we're insane for our gun laws. Before I go any farther, I want to state, I'm not in favor of banning all guns. In fact, I'm not in favor of banning any guns (more on that in a bit). I am in favor of putting the power back in the hands of our elected officials and out of the hands of the gun lobby.
But back to my title question: Is there any atrocity large enough for Congress to pass some sensible national gun safety laws?
Columbine happened in 1999. Virginia Tech 2007. NIU Shooting 2008. Aurora Colorado 2012. Sandy Hook 2012. To say nothing of the day to day violence that goes on in cities across America. Shootings in Chicago's south side happen pretty much daily, but it took an honor student who'd recently visited the White House getting shot to bring any light on the problem because, lets be honest, white America at large doesn't care much if minorities are getting shot as long as its not in their neighborhood.
Now, violent crimes in general are down over the last 25 odd years, and murders are down a lot (due in a large part to better medical facilities, especially in inner cities). One would think this weakens the argument for an armed populace though it inevitably gets twisted into a "no, criminals are scared of robbing folks because that guy might have a gun." Yes, because old west style shootouts over holdups are common, especially compared to accidental shootings.
The real problem is access to weapons. It is hilariously easy to get a gun. And once you have a gun, thanks to the fact that many states do nothing to register a gun TO the purchaser, well, who knows what you do with it.
Once upon a time it was relatively difficult for criminals to acquire guns. Then the 80s came along and we saw the first wave of weapons designed with no other purpose than to be used in the urban combat zones some of our cities became.
Weapons like the Tec-9, Mac-10 and various others served 2 purposes: 1) to put a large amount of bullets in a general area quickly and 2) line the pockets of gun companies profiting on death and mayhem.
Eventually the situation became dire enough that laws were passed limited automatic or assault-style weapons, certain types of high capacity magazines and certain types of ammunition. (This law has since been allowed to lapse due largely to the efforts of the NRA lobbying for the gun companies who want to sell such weapons.)
Now, we face such a crisis again. Gun companies have flooded the market with cheap handguns, many which have magazines holding 8-13 rounds and cheap military styled rifles with clips holding 15-30 rounds. While most gun crimes are committed with the first type of gun, numerous high profile cases have involved the latter. (And I'm sure every citizen armed with their Glock or Springfield is going to want to go up against a nut-case with an AR-15 or SKS.)
We are allowing people to profit off mayhem. Now, I know our gov't does it every day, it sickens me there too, but that's an issue for another blog. We, as a country are stupidly allowing a small cabal of companies to make our country MORE dangerous while promoting the idea of more guns being needed for protection. It boggles the mind doesn't it? Obviously flooding society with more weapons, easily accessible by the mentally ill or mentally distraught, easily stolen during home invasions, easily sold with little to no oversight by anyone in authority to God knows who.
You don't believe me? In IL, this is what it takes to buy or sell a gun privately:
"A buyer is required to show his Firearms Owner’s Identification Card (FOID) when purchasing any firearms or ammunition. Any seller is required to withhold delivery of any handgun for 72 hours, and of any rifle or shotgun for 24 hours, after the buyer and seller reach an agreement to purchase a firearm. The waiting period does not apply to a buyer who is a dealer, law enforcement officer, or a nonresident at a gun show recognized by the Illinois Department of State Police. The seller must retain for 10 years a record of the transfer, including a description of the firearm (including serial number), the identity of the buyer, and the buyer’s FOID number.
A federally licensed dealer must contact the Department of State Police for a background check, for which there is a $2.00 fee. Any sales at gun shows, including dealers and private parties, must contact the state police for a background check.
Private parties selling firearms at gun shows must ensure the buyer has a FOID card and the buyer must undergo a background check. It is unlawful to sell or give any handgun to a person under 18, or any firearm to a person who is not eligible to obtain a FOID."
From http://www.nraila.org/gun-laws/state-laws/illinois.aspx
Cause yeah, that's easy to enforce.
So, here are the problems. Any sane person should be able to see them. What do I propose? Well, many things, none of which include banning guns.
1. Every gun, EVERY SINGLE GUN, is registered to the purchaser BY serial number. Now, where on the gun? That would be something to hammer out in the law because people like to upgrade/modify their weapons. If the law would cut into that sector, tough.
2. Every gun sale occurs at a licensed facility. You pay $15, $5 to the dealer to sign off on the deal, $10 to the state to register the gun in the new owners name. You have go TWICE. Once to officially start the deal, then again after the waiting period to finalize the deal.
3. All gun show exceptions shall be done away with. Gun shows will be subject to the same laws as any other gun sale. They have your address, they can ship it to you.
4. Any and all gun accessories, that pertain to the functioning of a weapon, from grips, to actions, to firing pins, to magazines, to trigger assemblies may only be produced by licensed ATF builders. Tough. Can't get a license? You can make holsters or gun cases or something.
5. Any magazine holding more than 8 rounds cannot be kept in your home. Along with all military style rifles, such items can only be used at licensed ranges. Ranges will be licensed by the state. Anyone is free to join a range (and the range can be free if they want) but to take advantage of the higher capacity magazines or military style rifles, you must pay for a higher class of FOID card. Much like the license required to drive a car is different than a semi, the license required to own a .22 target pistol is different than an AR-15.
There would be a 6 month grace period for those already owning said items to register them with a licensed range. If you are transporting the weapon to a different range, you must sign it out with the range it is currently registered at and have 72 hours to register it at the new range. If you do not, you are fined. If this happens on three separate occasions you lose the right to these items.
The time period is waived if the item is shipped directly from one range to another.
6. If your gun is stolen you can be held liable for crimes committed with it if you do not report its loss. This would encourage more people to keep their damned guns locked up so that during home invasions its difficult for them to be stolen. Oh, and also means your kids can't get their hands on it.
7. To concealed carry a weapon you must pass rigorous tests on a yearly basis. ANY citation, be it seatbelt, speeding, parking tickets, etc. causes you to lose the right to concealed carry for 6 months. Any misdemeanor loses the right to concealed carry forever. Anyone found violating a private "Weapons not allowed" sign will lose their right to carry forever.
8. These are the NATIONAL laws. States can pass stricter requirements if they like.
Do I believe these would stop gun crime? Of course not. Do I think they'd be a step in the right direction to begin minimizing the gun violence plaguing our society? Yes.
It is a fact, a cold hard fact, that making crimes even slightly harder to commit causes a significant drop in crime. Making it slightly more difficult for criminals to get their hands on guns, many of which are legally bought and then illegally resold on the black market would help minimize the damage.
People who like guns can still have their guns, possibly not in their home, but they can still have them. People who aren't as fond of guns can be a little more assured there is an actual process to getting and keeping a gun. Yes, it'd be more strenuous to own a weapon, but why is it as easy if not easier to own a gun then a car? Weapons for hunting would hardly be effected by this at all.
This isn't going to happen, I know it, you know it, everyone know its. But some of it NEEDS to happen in some form. We NEED to slow down the flood of guns into everybody's hands. I'm sorry, but not everyone needs or should have a gun. And making it a bit harder to get, and keep, your guns isn't a bad thing. Also it could help cut down on minor violations as well if people could lose access to their guns. People sure seem to love their guns.
Saturday, March 2, 2013
Congress is Useless
So, sequestration starts today. Maybe this will be the necessary step that leads us to vote every last incumbent out of office next election. Lets create a completely artificial problem to force us to deal with a larger actual problem and then be so dysfunctional to not even deal with the artificial problem we created which, oh, by the way, is barely a drop in the bucket anyway.
I'm sick of the Senate Democrats not putting forth a budget. I don't care if it gets voted down, filibustered, whatever, DO YOUR JOB AND COME UP WITH A BUDGET!
I'm even more sick of the Republicans living in bizarro world where the federal government isn't a massive economic engine.
Bear with me here because whether or not you are a Keynesian, there is some truth to what I'm going to say.
Like it or not, the Federal government, directly, through Federal employees, or indirectly through secondary industries like defense, employees or helps pay for hundreds of thousands if not millions of employees.
Randomly cutting 10% off the budget, does not fix any problems, it just puts less money into the economy. All those people getting furloughed every so often? That's less money they can spend. All those companies relying on gov't contracts? That's less money coming in, less hiring, and less money getting spent on good to make products and goods purchased by employees.
Am I predicting a return to recession because of this? Not necessarily, though I could see it happening if it goes on long enough. I am saying that our economy, for the average person, is not overly strong. Our wages aren't going up and prices are.
This stupid "sequestration" isn't solving the debt crisis but it certainly could set back the slow recovery we've been having.
Brilliant Congress. Brilliant.
I'm sick of the Senate Democrats not putting forth a budget. I don't care if it gets voted down, filibustered, whatever, DO YOUR JOB AND COME UP WITH A BUDGET!
I'm even more sick of the Republicans living in bizarro world where the federal government isn't a massive economic engine.
Bear with me here because whether or not you are a Keynesian, there is some truth to what I'm going to say.
Like it or not, the Federal government, directly, through Federal employees, or indirectly through secondary industries like defense, employees or helps pay for hundreds of thousands if not millions of employees.
Randomly cutting 10% off the budget, does not fix any problems, it just puts less money into the economy. All those people getting furloughed every so often? That's less money they can spend. All those companies relying on gov't contracts? That's less money coming in, less hiring, and less money getting spent on good to make products and goods purchased by employees.
Am I predicting a return to recession because of this? Not necessarily, though I could see it happening if it goes on long enough. I am saying that our economy, for the average person, is not overly strong. Our wages aren't going up and prices are.
This stupid "sequestration" isn't solving the debt crisis but it certainly could set back the slow recovery we've been having.
Brilliant Congress. Brilliant.
Saturday, December 22, 2012
NRA out of touch
Yeah, this is also going to be tangentially related to gun-control because yesterday the NRA finally showed its face and held a press conference. It probably would be better for them if they hadn't, but hey, why keep silent when you can say something stupid.
The NRA, as I'm sure you've heard by now, called for armed guards in every school in America because this is going to somehow prevent horrific tragedies from occurring. Yes folks, the answer to solving violence committed by legal guns is to give more people legal guns. Amazing isn't it?
Let's begin by looking at the latest shooting. A young man, fully committed to murder, planned an assault on a school. His mother worked at the school, so he knew it fairly well. We're to believe that an armed guard was going to be anything but the first victim? Ok, so lets assume the armed guard isn't the first victim, the gunman goes in a different door and possibly only kills maybe 6 or 8 people before....what?
A gunfight with the officer ensues with him having a pistol and something to live for versus someone who cares nothing for their own life or the lives of others armed with a semi-automatic rifle with a 30 round magazine? Ideally the guard takes out the shooter and the tragedy is "only" 6 or 8 dead instead of 28. Better? I suppose, but it still did nothing to PREVENT the tragedy from happening. It merely mitigated the damage and while in my hypothetical scenario 8 dead is better than 28 its a far cry from NO dead. Which is what we want!
So, outside of the problem that merely having armed guards does nothing to prevent disturbed individuals from getting their hands on powerful weapons, let's go to the second issue. Who's going to pay for this? Now, if the NRA wants to step up and do so, that's fine by me. But, otherwise, many schools can't afford enough staff as is. Where are they going to get the money to pay for armed guards? Even if the local police department provides the guard, the money still has to come from somewhere to pay their salary.
And, schools aren't just in use from 7:30 to 3:30 M-F. Is there going to be an armed guard on premises any time the school is in use? It seems like such a simple thing, but simply from a logistical standpoint its not.
The NRA is out of touch with the average American gun owner. They portray themselves as staunch defenders of gun owners rights, when in reality its basically a lobby for gun manufacturers. The NRA wants its members to buy as many guns as possible, hence the constant scare tactics and fear-mongering, because this brings in hefty amounts of cash from the companies benefiting from the gun purchases.
The government isn't going to come into your house to take all your guns away. But maybe, just maybe, its time to put some logical safeguards in place that might help prevent the next Sandy Hook or Aurora. In a country that has almost 1 gun for every person you can't realistically do away with guns. But if you can start to minimize the opportunity for disturbed people to get their hands on guns in legal methods, its a start.
So please, gun owners. If you are NRA members, it might be time to rethink that. The NRA don't care about you or about the best interests of gun owners. They care about your money and the best interests of the gun sellers. There are organizations out there that can support your right to own firearms that do it in a sensible and humane manner.
We also need some radical reform of our mental health services in this country, though while it appears the Sandy Hook killer possibly had some mental illness, his actions were completely pre-meditated. He just didn't care what he did in his final act, he just wanted to cause as much pain and suffering to as many as possible on his way out because mommy wasn't giving him what he wanted anymore and was scared of him.
Apparently not scared enough to get the freaking guns out of the house, but hey, we can't speak ill of the dead right?
The NRA, as I'm sure you've heard by now, called for armed guards in every school in America because this is going to somehow prevent horrific tragedies from occurring. Yes folks, the answer to solving violence committed by legal guns is to give more people legal guns. Amazing isn't it?
Let's begin by looking at the latest shooting. A young man, fully committed to murder, planned an assault on a school. His mother worked at the school, so he knew it fairly well. We're to believe that an armed guard was going to be anything but the first victim? Ok, so lets assume the armed guard isn't the first victim, the gunman goes in a different door and possibly only kills maybe 6 or 8 people before....what?
A gunfight with the officer ensues with him having a pistol and something to live for versus someone who cares nothing for their own life or the lives of others armed with a semi-automatic rifle with a 30 round magazine? Ideally the guard takes out the shooter and the tragedy is "only" 6 or 8 dead instead of 28. Better? I suppose, but it still did nothing to PREVENT the tragedy from happening. It merely mitigated the damage and while in my hypothetical scenario 8 dead is better than 28 its a far cry from NO dead. Which is what we want!
So, outside of the problem that merely having armed guards does nothing to prevent disturbed individuals from getting their hands on powerful weapons, let's go to the second issue. Who's going to pay for this? Now, if the NRA wants to step up and do so, that's fine by me. But, otherwise, many schools can't afford enough staff as is. Where are they going to get the money to pay for armed guards? Even if the local police department provides the guard, the money still has to come from somewhere to pay their salary.
And, schools aren't just in use from 7:30 to 3:30 M-F. Is there going to be an armed guard on premises any time the school is in use? It seems like such a simple thing, but simply from a logistical standpoint its not.
The NRA is out of touch with the average American gun owner. They portray themselves as staunch defenders of gun owners rights, when in reality its basically a lobby for gun manufacturers. The NRA wants its members to buy as many guns as possible, hence the constant scare tactics and fear-mongering, because this brings in hefty amounts of cash from the companies benefiting from the gun purchases.
The government isn't going to come into your house to take all your guns away. But maybe, just maybe, its time to put some logical safeguards in place that might help prevent the next Sandy Hook or Aurora. In a country that has almost 1 gun for every person you can't realistically do away with guns. But if you can start to minimize the opportunity for disturbed people to get their hands on guns in legal methods, its a start.
So please, gun owners. If you are NRA members, it might be time to rethink that. The NRA don't care about you or about the best interests of gun owners. They care about your money and the best interests of the gun sellers. There are organizations out there that can support your right to own firearms that do it in a sensible and humane manner.
We also need some radical reform of our mental health services in this country, though while it appears the Sandy Hook killer possibly had some mental illness, his actions were completely pre-meditated. He just didn't care what he did in his final act, he just wanted to cause as much pain and suffering to as many as possible on his way out because mommy wasn't giving him what he wanted anymore and was scared of him.
Apparently not scared enough to get the freaking guns out of the house, but hey, we can't speak ill of the dead right?
Rambling on Gun Control.
So, I've held off on this for a few days, but the statistics being bandied about are just making me crazy. For the record, I do not support banning guns. However, I do support tighter gun control, making it harder to get guns, and limiting or banning certain types of guns and accessories.
But on to some thoughts on statistics. The hilarious thing about using statistics to say how we don't need tighter gun controls is how it also utterly disproves the point of needing a gun for protection.
Yes, statistically the number of murders committed by legally owned guns is fairly low (though they make up a surprising number of the guns used in mass murders). And the number of murders and violent crimes in general in the US are still fairly low compared to most points in the last 50 years.
But, if those things are the case, why do so many people need guns for protection? Statistically your chances of being in a situation where you NEED a gun to defend yourself is almost 0, maybe, MAYBE 1 time in your life. (And the chances of being in a situation where you need a high capacity magazine or an AR-15 to defend yourself IS zero Unless you want bullets punching through a home invader, through the walls of your house and ending up god knows where.) Fear is good for gun sales though, which merely creates the potential for MORE gun violence as there are more guns out there to have accidents with, to get stolen, etc.
The interesting thing about guns for protection as well (outside of that being the EXACT SAME REASON gang members and drug dealers need guns, funny how that mentality is shared isn't it) is that with the chance of needing it being SO LOW that its mostly going to escalate non-violent or non-lethal situations into violent or lethal ones.
Florida currently has at least 2 cases, the Travon Martin case, and a second case where, because of Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law, legal concealed carry folks killed unarmed citizens after confrontations escalated. Would those confrontations have happened if the antagonist hadn't been armed? I don't know. Maybe, but for SOME (not all) knowing they are carrying gives a false sense of security or invincibility.
I am not saying all gun owners are trigger happy fools, most aren't, very few are. BUT, again, guns are a force multiplier beyond knives, baseball bats, and pretty much anything outside of explosives. Why do we need anyone besides highly trained professionals carrying them on a daily basis? (I believe a citizen can be a highly trained professional, they just need to prove they are before they are allowed to concealed carry and they must go through tests yearly to keep their card.)
Since overall violence is down, why do those guns (semi-auto military styled rifles and high capacity magazines) need to be out there?
Sure, they are fun. I'm even for people being able to own them, they just must be kept at gun clubs where you go to shoot them. You don't get to have them at home. You can still have hunting rifles, even semi-auto hunting rifles, but nothing with a clip holding more than 10 rounds. (I'd say 6, but would settle for 10.)
One more piece of false logic the pro-"all guns all the time" folks trot out there. "Oh, there's too many of these guns out there, we can't put the genie back in the bottle." This type of broken thinking is how we are in the debt mess we're in as a nation. Sure, there is no instant fix, but that means we shouldn't do anything? Maybe we should apply this logic to cancer! "We can't cure ALL cancer and it costs a lot of money to fight cancer, so we should just stop trying." Hmmm, doesn't make much sense there does it?
I think its pretty simple. Ban sales of high capacity magazines NOW. No more sales of them, at ALL. (To you screaming BUT WHAT ABOUT THE COMPANIES THAT SELL THEM! JOBS!! I would say 1) stop being merchants of death 2) after legislation is passed, the magazines can be sold to the gun clubs, who can then sell them to members for use ONLY at the gun club.)
Then, work out the details of how to get them out of people's homes. Don't make it a ridiculous offense. If someone has a FOID card, but still has now illegal weapons in their home, they can 1) register the weapons with whatever local agency will be registering weapons now (I have to register a car, why do I not have to register every single gun I own by serial number?) and then take the weapon to the local gun club or 2) turn the weapon over to the local agency and get paid fair market value for it (paid for by registration fees). There would be a five year window where you could do these things for free (only new guns would require registration fees). After that five year period, if you could show your FOID card, you'd pay a small fine and then be allowed to register your weapons. and pay a fee.
See, people can own guns, it will just be more costly. You can still shoot your guns, just certain types have to be shot at certain places. This is NOT rocket science.
Will this stop gun violence or the next massacre? Of course not, evil people or ill people can still find a way, but it will make it harder to do so and that DOES help prevent crime. (There are actual statistics to back that up too.)
If you think this is the gov't taking away your rights, I don't care. You can still own guns, you just have to do it in a way that makes sense. The way we currently do it MAKES NO SENSE and needs to change.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)