Home Politics

Gabrielle Giffords’ husband smacks down Wayne LaPierre

chubascochubasco Posts: 18,390 Officer
By Greg Sargent , Updated: January 30, 2013

Perhaps the most important moment so far in today’s Senate Judiciary hearing on guns came when astronaut Mark Kelly directly confronted NRA head Wayne LaPierre over the shooting of his wife, Gabrielle Giffords. Between that exchange and another one involving Senator **** Durbin, LaPierre’s argument was completely unmasked for the sham that it is.

During the hearing, LaPierre repeatedly voiced the talking point that there’s no need to expand the background check system because criminals don’t cooperate with background checks. Kelly responded:

The Tuscon shooter was an admitted drug user. He was rejected from the U.S. Army because of his drug use. He was clearly mentally ill. And when he purchased that gun in November, his plan was to assassinate my wife and commit mass murder at that Safeway in Tucson. He was a criminal. Because of his drug use, and because of what he was planning on doing. But because of these gaps in the mental health system, in this case, those 121,000 records, I admit did not include a record on him. But it could have.

And if it did, he would have failed that background check. he would have likely gone to a gun show, or a private seller, and avoided that background check. But if we close that gun show loophole, if we require private sellers to complete a background check, and we get those 121,000 records and others into the systems, we will prevent gun crime. That is an absolute truth. It would have happened in Tucson. My wife would not have been sitting here today if we had stronger background checks.

There are two policy conundrums here. One is this: How do you ensure that people like the Tucson shooter are represented in the national database designed to prevent criminals and the mentally ill from getting guns? There are significant gaps in this database for a variety of reasons, including the failure of states to share info with the feds. Some of Obama’s proposals are designed to fix these problems, by encouraging states to share data, reviewing data collection procedures, and so on. The second question is: How do you expand the background check system so it screens more gun sales than it currently does? The Obama proposal would do this by closing the loophole that allows guns to be sold without background checks at gun shows and by private sellers. As Kelly notes, the likelihood is that someone like the Tucson shooter — even if he were denied guns by the currently functional part of the background check system — would then try to get guns via a private seller. Closing the loophole could block that.

There is no evidence for LaPierre’s suggestion that background checks don’t work. Indeed, as my Post colleague Glenn Kessler has shown, in 2010 alone tens of thousands of people with felony and criminal backgrounds were denied guns by checks. More broadly, over 1.5 million gun sales to people who are prohibited from having guns have been blocked by background checks. There is no way to know what would have been done with those guns had those sales gone through, since that is a counter-factual. But the question for those who oppose background checks remains a simple one: Do you think we would be better off if those sales had gone through, or is it a good thing that those sales were blocked?

And LaPierre’s suggestion fails the test of basic logic. If criminals don’t cooperate with background checks, and end up getting their guns from private sellers or gun shows, or from gun dealers who get them via such means, that is an argument for expanding the background check system, not an argument against it. Indeed, these loopholes are the very reason that gun crime persists even in areas that have strict gun control. The “gun rights” crowd likes to point to Chicago as an example of such a place. But as Senator **** Durbin put it during the hearing:

When you take a look at where these guns come from, 25 percent plus are sold in the surrounding towns around the city of Chicago, not in the city. Look over the last 10 or 12 years. Of the 50,000 guns confiscated in crimes, almost one out of 10 crime guns in Chicago came to that city from Mississippi. Why? Because the background checks there, the gun dealers there, are a lot easier than in other places. And they end up selling these guns in volume.

At the hearing, Maryland police chief Jim Johnson, who is also the Chair of the National Law Enforcement Partnership to Prevent Gun Violence, echoed the arguments of Kelly and Durbin almost to the letter, and said the law enforcement officials in his organization agree. So on background checks right now, here’s the score: It’s the NRA, the gun industry, and leading GOP (and a few red state Dem) officials on one side, and the nation’s law enforcement officials and the vast majority of the American public, Republicans, NRA households and gun owners included, on the other.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2013/01/30/gabrielle-giffords-husband-smacks-down-wayne-lapierre/

_________________________________


My personal feeling is that if comprehensive background checks with no loopholes stop just ONE killing (and no one with any sense can deny that it would do at least this) then we should be doing it. any lives saved after that ONE are a bonus.
Chubasco.jpg

Replies

  • SAENoleSAENole Posts: 11,187 AG
    You go, girl.
    Warning Level 2
  • WaterEngineerWaterEngineer Posts: 24,415 AG
    I smelled a rat in the first couple of lines of the post above. The use of highly inflamatory words and no direct quotes from Kelly (or Durbin).

    Chubs, bring a real piece of journalism or stay home. Thanks.

    Oh, and by the way, a quote about the blogger for the Washing Times website.

    "Greg Sargent writes The Plum Line blog, a reported opinion blog with a liberal slant -- what you might call “opinionated reporting” from the left."

    Sucks when your own link bites you in the ****, doesn't it Chubs?

    Thanks for playing and come again another day, when you think you have something interesting.
  • rodzrodz Posts: 668 Officer
    W.E. - normally you're very analytical about a topic. I'm guessing you missed the televised broadcast of the hearing. It's taped on CSPAN - please view so your comments will have more relevancy.
  • Conchy CrackerConchy Cracker Posts: 10,454 Officer
    I swear Chubasco, you could throw a bare rusty hook in the water and they will line up to gut hook themselves......

    You da man.
  • Conchy CrackerConchy Cracker Posts: 10,454 Officer
    Troll!

    I disagree a troll has to work at the craft, Chubs could start a post with a "?" and nothing else.... and the simpletons will fall over themselves trying to top the next in some sort of mind numbing frenzy of stupidity

    It is truly comical.
  • chubascochubasco Posts: 18,390 Officer
    I swear Chubasco, you could throw a bare rusty hook in the water and they will line up to gut hook themselves......

    You da man.
    I disagree a troll has to work at the craft, Chubs could start a post with a "?" and nothing else.... and the simpletons will fall over themselves trying to top the next in some sort of mind numbing frenzy of stupidity

    It is truly comical.


    You know, it's gotten so easy it's almost not even sporting anymore. First I mounted them, then I just took a picture with them with the lure in their mouths, then I was catching so many the neighbors didn't even want them any more. Is amazing how many get themselves butt-hooked though. I am a meat fisherman and this catch and release stuff just doesn't appeal to me. Thats why I had to buy a house with my own dock. Those fish and game guys seem to just hang at the public ramps.
    Chubasco.jpg
  • chubascochubasco Posts: 18,390 Officer
    When you take a look at where these guns come from, 25 percent plus are sold in the surrounding towns around the city of Chicago, not in the city. Look over the last 10 or 12 years. Of the 50,000 guns confiscated in crimes, almost one out of 10 crime guns in Chicago came to that city from Mississippi. Why? Because the background checks there, the gun dealers there, are a lot easier than in other places. And they end up selling these guns in volume.

    At the hearing, Maryland police chief Jim Johnson, who is also the Chair of the National Law Enforcement Partnership to Prevent Gun Violence, echoed the arguments of Kelly and Durbin almost to the letter, and said the law enforcement officials in his organization agree. So on background checks right now, here’s the score: It’s the NRA, the gun industry, and leading GOP (and a few red state Dem) officials on one side, and the nation’s law enforcement officials and the vast majority of the American public, Republicans, NRA households and gun owners included, on the other.

    true that
    Chubasco.jpg
  • seajay-1seajay-1 Posts: 4,736 Captain
    chubasco wrote: »
    By Greg Sargent , Updated: January 30, 2013

    Perhaps the most important moment so far in today’s Senate Judiciary hearing on guns came when astronaut Mark Kelly directly confronted NRA head Wayne LaPierre over the shooting of his wife, Gabrielle Giffords. Between that exchange and another one involving Senator **** Durbin, LaPierre’s argument was completely unmasked for the sham that it is.

    During the hearing, LaPierre repeatedly voiced the talking point that there’s no need to expand the background check system because criminals don’t cooperate with background checks. Kelly responded:

    The Tuscon shooter was an admitted drug user. He was rejected from the U.S. Army because of his drug use. He was clearly mentally ill. And when he purchased that gun in November, his plan was to assassinate my wife and commit mass murder at that Safeway in Tucson. He was a criminal. Because of his drug use, and because of what he was planning on doing. But because of these gaps in the mental health system, in this case, those 121,000 records, I admit did not include a record on him. But it could have.

    And if it did, he would have failed that background check. he would have likely gone to a gun show, or a private seller, and avoided that background check. But if we close that gun show loophole, if we require private sellers to complete a background check, and we get those 121,000 records and others into the systems, we will prevent gun crime. That is an absolute truth. It would have happened in Tucson. My wife would not have been sitting here today if we had stronger background checks.

    There are two policy conundrums here. One is this: How do you ensure that people like the Tucson shooter are represented in the national database designed to prevent criminals and the mentally ill from getting guns? There are significant gaps in this database for a variety of reasons, including the failure of states to share info with the feds. Some of Obama’s proposals are designed to fix these problems, by encouraging states to share data, reviewing data collection procedures, and so on. The second question is: How do you expand the background check system so it screens more gun sales than it currently does? The Obama proposal would do this by closing the loophole that allows guns to be sold without background checks at gun shows and by private sellers. As Kelly notes, the likelihood is that someone like the Tucson shooter — even if he were denied guns by the currently functional part of the background check system — would then try to get guns via a private seller. Closing the loophole could block that.

    There is no evidence for LaPierre’s suggestion that background checks don’t work. Indeed, as my Post colleague Glenn Kessler has shown, in 2010 alone tens of thousands of people with felony and criminal backgrounds were denied guns by checks. More broadly, over 1.5 million gun sales to people who are prohibited from having guns have been blocked by background checks. There is no way to know what would have been done with those guns had those sales gone through, since that is a counter-factual. But the question for those who oppose background checks remains a simple one: Do you think we would be better off if those sales had gone through, or is it a good thing that those sales were blocked?

    And LaPierre’s suggestion fails the test of basic logic. If criminals don’t cooperate with background checks, and end up getting their guns from private sellers or gun shows, or from gun dealers who get them via such means, that is an argument for expanding the background check system, not an argument against it. Indeed, these loopholes are the very reason that gun crime persists even in areas that have strict gun control. The “gun rights” crowd likes to point to Chicago as an example of such a place. But as Senator **** Durbin put it during the hearing:

    When you take a look at where these guns come from, 25 percent plus are sold in the surrounding towns around the city of Chicago, not in the city. Look over the last 10 or 12 years. Of the 50,000 guns confiscated in crimes, almost one out of 10 crime guns in Chicago came to that city from Mississippi. Why? Because the background checks there, the gun dealers there, are a lot easier than in other places. And they end up selling these guns in volume.

    At the hearing, Maryland police chief Jim Johnson, who is also the Chair of the National Law Enforcement Partnership to Prevent Gun Violence, echoed the arguments of Kelly and Durbin almost to the letter, and said the law enforcement officials in his organization agree. So on background checks right now, here’s the score: It’s the NRA, the gun industry, and leading GOP (and a few red state Dem) officials on one side, and the nation’s law enforcement officials and the vast majority of the American public, Republicans, NRA households and gun owners included, on the other.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2013/01/30/gabrielle-giffords-husband-smacks-down-wayne-lapierre/

    _________________________________


    My personal feeling is that if comprehensive background checks with no loopholes stop just ONE killing (and no one with any sense can deny that it would do at least this) then we should be doing it. any lives saved after that ONE are a bonus.

    As usuall with the left. Emotion over facts.
  • mustang190mustang190 Posts: 10,104 AG
    A armed man is called a citizen. A disarmed man is called a subject.
    Thats all you need to know.
  • Big BatteryBig Battery Posts: 20,592 AG
    Who gives a crap what the husband of an excongressman says about anything, anyway.
  • mustang190mustang190 Posts: 10,104 AG
    X2!
    Not to mention criminals like Durbin and others were there.
  • WaterEngineerWaterEngineer Posts: 24,415 AG
    rodz wrote: »
    W.E. - normally you're very analytical about a topic. I'm guessing you missed the televised broadcast of the hearing. It's taped on CSPAN - please view so your comments will have more relevancy.

    Weak, rodz, weak. My report was highly analytical. It emasculated the posted material to the point where Chubs has no reply.

    This thread is about the posted material, not whatever was on the tube. I am just sticking to the topic and not "drifting" the topic or going off topic.

    Sticking to the thread topic it the idea. Please try to keep up.
  • CaptBobBryantCaptBobBryant Posts: 5,716 Officer
    So Kelly's wifes shooter woudl not have been among those listed in the mentally ill data base....

    That's the take away here....for every mouse trap (and dissolution of everyone's rights) there will be a mouse that can't be caught....this is the nature of the game...
    If someone fails a back ground check, there are literally millions of folks willing to sell a gun for some crack money....
    We are failing at enforcing the laws we have....so of course let's make more laws we can't or won't enforce.
    We are failing to catch and keep criminals behind bars and the mentally ill in treatment facillities....so let's pass more regulations that of course the government wil fail at properly administering and enforcing...

    Am I the only one who sees how utterly stupid this is?

    Enforce the laws we have (yes even the ones that infringe on the 2nd)...keep criminals where they belong behind bars....and give the families of the mentally ill more tools to seek proper care for their mentally ill family members.....

    These are solutions....not the knee jerk...mommy's apron grabbers afraid of the big bad gun....GMAFB
    National Association of Recreational Anglers - Add Your Voice
    https://www.facebook.com/RecAnglers?notif_t=page_new_likes
  • Don BDon B Posts: 857 Officer
    Driving through out the day, listening on the Sat radio to C-span, and hearing both sides, and having lived through the loss of civil organized government (The land fall of Katrina) I decided to join the NRA, with lifetime memberships for me, my wife, and my son.

    I left the NRA 10 or so years back because I found them unable to compromise, I've now found that nether side will compromise, and both are to the extreme, so to protect my rights I must go with the NRA.
Sign In or Register to comment.