Bizarre, Congress, Constitutional Law, Courts, Criminal law, Justice, Politics, Society, Uncategorized

The Connecticut Effect

AR-15_Sporter_SP1_Carbine

Respectfully submitted by Lawrence E. Rafferty (rafflaw)-Guest Blogger

In the weeks since the school shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, the call for more action in controlling military style guns and large capacity magazines has increased, but as of yet, nothing concrete has been done on the national level.  In fact, the NRA was recently quoted as suggesting that nothing will be done, once the country gets over the “Connecticut Effect”!  “The National Rifle Association will wait until the “Connecticut effect” has subsided to resume its push to weaken the nation’s gun laws, according to a top NRA lobbyist speaking at the NRA’s Wisconsin State Convention this weekend.” Think Progress 

I did not realize that anyone ever could “get over” the shameful massacre of 20 small children along with 6 staff members of the school they attended.  Is this kind of statement from the NRA just hubris or is it indicative of a disgusting level of ambivalence to the violence wrought upon citizens when semi-automatic guns and large capacity magazines are allowed and allowed in the wrong hands?  I know we have discussed the gun control issue many times here, but when I read statements like the one quoted above from a Wisconsin NRA official, my head explodes.

The Think Progress article linked above also discussed further statements made by Wisconsin Lobbyist, Bob Welch, that indicate that he has little or no concern over the violence of that sad day in Newtown, but rather is sad that there has been a delay in the progress of the NRA’s agenda since the Newtown shootings.  “Welch went on to bemoan the fact that the public’s focus on Newtown was preventing the NRA from pushing such bills through the legislature, but his remarks soon turned to braggadocio about the NRA’s legislative influence. He relayed an anecdote about how, following the Connecticut shooting, a pro-gun Democrat in the legislature had mentioned his desire to close the gun show loophole. “And I said [to him], ‘no, we’re not going to do that,” Welch boasted. “And so far, nothing’s happened on that.”

WELCH: We have a strong agenda coming up for next year, but of course a lot of that’s going to be delayed as the “Connecticut effect” has to go through the process. […] What’s even more telling is the people who don’t like guns pretty much realize that they can’t do a thing unless they talk to us. After Connecticut I had one of the leading Democrats in the legislature—he was with us most of the time, not all the time—he came to me and said, “Bob, I got all these people in my caucus that really want to ban guns and do all this bad stuff, we gotta give them something. How about we close this gun show loophole? Wouldn’t that be good?” And I said, “no, we’re not going to do that.” And so far, nothing’s happened on that.”
Think Progress

I was glad to read that the NRA’s massive amounts of money donated to politicians may not have as large an impact on the election process that they claim.  “The answer is no, because once again, though the NRA may spend a good deal of money in total, it spreads that money to multiple races across the country. In the last four elections, the median NRA House independent expenditure has spent less than $10,000, and the median Senate IE only around $30,000 – numbers too small to have a real impact.

All right, but is the organization spending token amounts on a large group of friendly candidates, but putting its real weight behind a few high-profile races and producing results? Yet again, the answer is no. In the last four elections, the NRA spent over $100,000 on an IE in 22 separate Senate races. The group’s favored candidate won 10 times, and lost 12 times. This mediocre won-lost record, however, tells only part of the story. Let’s take one example, the largest IE the NRA conducted over this period. In 2010, they spent $1.5 million on the 2010 Pennsylvania Senate race between Republican Pat Toomey and Democrat Joe Sestak. Toomey won by 2 points, but could the NRA claim credit? Toomey’s campaign spent just under $17 million, over twice as much as Sestak’s $7.5 million. The NRA was one of a remarkable 62 outside groups that poured a total of over $28 million into the Pennsylvania race. Put another way, in the NRA’s single largest independent expenditure over this period, the group accounted for less than 3 percent of the money spent in the race.” Think Progress Justice

Maybe the NRA is spinning its wheels because the Newtown shootings finally tipped the scales of public opinion in favor of sane and reasonable gun control measures.  I, for one, would hope that is the case.  In light of the vast amounts of weapons being purchased since the shootings, and the continued violence, I am not so sure. The latest totals that I have seen show that at least 1822 people have died due to gun violence since the Newtown shootings in December of 2012!  Reader Supported News

Does the NRA really have a significant influence on the political process?  Will the Newtown shootings force Washington to do something about the gun violence in this country?  What do you think?  What do you think should be done?

159 thoughts on “The Connecticut Effect”

  1. I have one major concern. That is the demagoguery on both sides of the argument. The “fix” for violent crime is to focus on the cosmetics of a specific type of firearm according to some.

    There is no material difference between a hunting rifle and a so-called assault rifle. Neither of them are submachine guns. Only one round is fired by each pull of the trigger. As for large capacity magazines, they are about as useful as hip pockets on a hog. They are prone to jamming and are hard to change out when empty. And BTW, are used in less than .003% of gun crimes. The war on assault rifles is as empty as the war on terror and war on drugs.

    Automatic submachine guns have been illegal for public use since 1934. A true assault rifle is a submachine gun, and has a “select fire” switch. It can be changed from fully automatic to semi-automatic with a flip of a small lever.

    If we are serious about reducing gun crime, let us get serious about reducing the number of drug crimes. I do not care one whit if somebody wants to smoke weed. It is less dangerous than alcohol. And there are more alcohol related deaths than by firearm in the US, if we include the number of people who die of liver failure and Korsakoff’s dementia. That is in addition to the number who die in ETOH related accidents, not to mention the number of drunks who use guns to shoot people in an alcoholic rage.

    Mental health care in the US is a joke. I have written on this topic before. If I did not have to get a report out for a lawyer tomorrow, I would write a long piece about the broken mental health system. If the amount of money proposed for law enforcement that will not work were spent on mental health, it would go a lot further in solving the problem of violence in our society.

    As for understanding “assault rifles” versus ordinary hunting rifles, take ten minutes of your life to watch this brief video:

  2. Steve and Paul —

    If you two don’t soon stop making sense, the resident free speech customers are going to start calling you crazy conspiracy theorists
    and anti-Dentites. Did either of you get your ideas from MSNBC
    or HuffPo? No? How about the NYT? Then they MUST have come
    from some anti-semetic loonytunes that most people here don’t follow, and that means your ideas must be cuckoo.

  3. Is it just me, or does it seem as though every time someone posts a piece discussing some sane solutions to reducing gun violence the initial response is a reasoned discussion, but soon (very soon) commenters start pouring in who are doing the arm-flapping and scary-government screed? They’re all parroting the same talking points. And I’m inclined to suspect a few on the NRA payroll are spending vast amounts of time monitoring centrist and progressive websites and jumping in on every discussion. Watch this space. Watch for vehement retorts in 3-2-1……

  7. We have a “War on Terror” and a “War on Drugs”, together spending 100s of $ Billions/year and kill tens of thousands. And now we have this tragedy where 20 kids are killed by a crazy man and the answer to fix this is take guns away from law abiding citizens. Yea, makes sense to me, NOT.

    The purpose of the “War on Terror” is to scare you, not wage war on a perceived threat. You should be very afraid that some foreigner with an AK47 in the desert half way around the world is such a threat to you and your family that you need to relinquish your 2nd amendment rights so the government is more secure in securing your safety. Right, and I have a bridge that I will gladly sell you that connect NY with London.

    People don’t trust our government, that is why they are buying record amounts of guns and ammunition. The answer to this is not more laws to further restrict our freedom, rather the answer should be to regain our trust. Something I fear our “leaders” know nothing about.

  8. rafflaw:

    Don’t know who demilitarizes first, but take NY State – cops are currently equipped with military weapons (including machine guns which are not allowed for any civilian and grenades). Civilians are now restricted to 7 round mags. Do you really think that the cops will ever give up their military weapons?

    There is a demonization of law abiding civilians who want weapons (aside from an outright banning of their favorite weapons), and a complete pass on the militarization of police forces.

    Like to see a little balance in your column; not being personal, but until I see balance in your argument, you do not have much credibility.

  9. Dredd,
    I agree with the goal of demilitarizing the police forces. However, the semi-automatic weapons and large capacity magazines gives them an argument why they need some of the hardware.

  10. “Does the NRA really have a significant influence on the political process? Will the Newtown shootings force Washington to do something about the gun violence in this country? What do you think? What do you think should be done?”

    The government should stop scaring the people who do not trust government.

    That would start with the demilitarization of the police forces, dismantling of Homeland Security, and decommissioning SWAT teams of for instance the department of Education:

    The Departmenheret of Education is disputing a local news report that it sent a S.W.A.T. team to knock down the door and search the house of an individual because he defaulted on student loans.

    Stockton, Calif. resident Kenneth Wright told the local ABC affiliate that on Tuesday, approximately 15 officers stormed into his home at 6 a.m., placed him in handcuffs and kept him in a squad car for nearly six hours while his three young children remained inside the house.

    Wright said one of the individuals grabbed him by the neck and led him outside to his front lawn.

    “He had his knee on my back and I had no idea why they were there,” Wright said.

    The initial report said the U.S. Department of Education “issued the search and called in the S.W.A.T for his wife’s defaulted student loans,” although that story has since been taken down and replaced with an updated version that did not contain the claim about the raid being connected to student loans.

    (DOE Swat Team). Leadership in this instance would be concerned that the burst of gun sales once the government started talking gun laws recently means that substantial numbers of folks do not trust the government.

    That is the fault of government, not the people who are afraid of the government.

    The government is the number one weapons peddler on Earth by a big margin, killing people around the world every day, and they want the people to stand down.

    Crazy, like the NRA.

  11. “Bloomberg is putting his money to work for a worthwhile cause.”

    In your opinion. Overturning the 2nd Amendment might well lead to banning
    all kinds of things. How would you like it if a wealthy Baptist decided that alcohol causes more problems than guns, and so s/he starts putting their money to the worthwhile cause of alcohol prohibition. Would you also support THAT? Can you explain why or why not?

  13. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/02/15/obama-and-bloomberg-together-may-unarm-the-nra.html Looks like Bloomberg’s PAC is stepping up to fight the NRA ‘s PAC money. Previously, those that were for gun restrictions were outspent by wealthy NRA donors and gun manufacturers. The pro NRA candidate is now behind in the primary to replace Jesse Jackson Jr due to Bloomberg’s help. Bloomberg is putting his money to work for a worthwhile cause.

  14. RWL –

    I agree that most “elites don’t care”…which I assume you mean to be saying that they don’t care about disarming Americans. PROVIDED that enough loopholes are left so that THEY and their security guards will still be able to own guns. The rich – and the government, in my opinion, do not want the 47% to be able to own guns.

    Like most other people that know something about major events of the past 50 years – and have studied the recent Sandy Hook incident, I am about 98% convinced it was a hoax, complete with PAID professional actors.

    No doubt there’s one or more people who that will say they personally knew one of the victims, or someone who knew one or more of them.

    Yes, and Ted Olson’s wife is named Lady Booth, but on 9/11, her name was Barbara Olson.

  15. RWL,
    The Supreme Court already approved reasonable restrictions on the Second Amendment.
    nick,
    Here is a quote from a Think Progress article that responds to your statement: “Moreover, when you compare different states with different gun laws at the same time, you find states with tighter gun regulations (including assault weapon bans) have significantly lower rates of firearm death. This suggests that, independent of whatever good fortune the United States has seen the past decade, better gun laws could significantly accelerate decline in lives lost to gunfire.” http://thinkprogress.org/gun-debate-guide/
    Furthermore Nick, the murders would likely to be even greater in Chicago if more weapons were allowed into the city. Take a look at the murder by firearm rates by state and you will see that Illinois, including Chicago, is not at the top of the list.

  16. Interersting! I was watching Lou Dobbs (he was more bipartisan when he was with CNN), and he stated that since the Sandy Hook tragedy, there has been more than 500 people murdered due to gun violence.

    I am confused. I don’t have any ‘workable’ solutions to end gun violence. There are more than 300 million guns on the “streets'(Lou Dobbs Show, referenced). How do you create legislation for these guns or gun owners without violating certain laws or their rights?

    In my opinion, I don’t think the Elites care; (as long as the guns aren’t aimed toward them or their families).

  18. Why don’t we hear anything about the drugs that have been given those who have committed the mass murders? I wonder how much the pharmaceutical lobby is paying to keep the focus off their side of the street?

    With the government capturing all our internet and phone messages, the greatly expanded use of drones, a Presidential kill list, the burning alive of someone not even indicted of a crime….. basically, the only thing left of the Bill of Rights is the 2nd amendment. That’s scary.

  19. Larry,

    How sad is it that these people view the deaths as a “mere effect” that hurts their agenda. This has all the traces of sociopathy.

Comments are closed.