Respectfully submitted by Lawrence E. Rafferty (rafflaw)- Weekend Contributor
It has happened again. A mass killing at the hands of a person armed with knives and three semi-automatic handguns and 400 rounds of ammunition. This time the alleged shooter stabbed three to death and then went on a shooting spree that ended with at least three more dead and a total of 8 injured/wounded people from gunshot wounds and 5 more injured by his knives or by being hit by his car.
The family of the alleged shooter requested a police intervention prior to the killings and the police did speak with the young man, but they did not have cause to search his apartment. The police had other interactions with Elliot Rodger, age 22 and he later expressed concern that they did not find his weapons.
“Deputies also encountered Rodger earlier this year when he accused a roommate of stealing three candles, and in another case in which he claimed to be beaten but deputies suspected he was the aggressor.
Rodger detailed his plans in an extensive 141-page manifesto released Saturday and said he narrowly missed being found out when the officers knocked on his door.
Rodger expressed relief that his apartment wasn’t searched because they would have found his weapons and his writings. When recounting his thinking about whether he should kill his father, Rodger expressed a sliver of acknowledgment that his plot, which included killing other family members, was wrong.
“I didn’t want it to come to this,” Rodger said. “I desperately wanted a way out.” He then immediately talks about his mother giving him a new car — a BMW coupe.” USA Today
This latest shooting spree is not the reason for this article. It is merely one more example of why common sense gun control measures that could save innocent lives are needed. When recent polls seem to indicate that a majority of Americans agree that common sense gun control regulations are needed, the NRA continually stands in the way of possibly life saving legislation. However, the NRA is not just working to prevent any gun control legislation from proceeding, it is also standing in the way of attempts to have the Center for Disease Control (CDC) do research on gun prevention measures.
“But this past week we’ve seen the other side of the coin. How the NRA works to suppress information that would lead to treating a public health catastrophe that claims over 30,000 lives per year and injures over 100,000 as that very thing, while fighting to ensure we have as little access to information as possible that might help save lives.
The simple fact is, much like with their friends on the right from the tobacco industry to the oil industry to the megachurch, science and information are the enemies of the NRA. They have proven they will do whatever it takes to make sure we have less of it, and more Santa Barbaras.
The clearest example, of course, is the NRA’s labeling a bill sponsored by Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) and Senator Ed Markey (D-MA) to allow the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) to once again use its considerable expertise to research gun violence prevention, “unethical.” Yes, they actually said that.
Because anyone who does statistically significant research on a public health problem from the angle of helping people and not profiting from misery, and again and again finds obvious truths such as owning guns makes you more likely to get shot, is not someone the NRA and its allies will countenance without smearing. I debated one of these types from the Second Amendment Foundation on NPR recently regarding the CDC. It is amazing how tongue-tied they get when you present them with irrefutable information.” Reader Supported News
In what world is it “unethical” to research ways to prevent deaths? Would the NRA consider it unethical to study ways to prevent automotive deaths? Or deaths caused by contaminated food? In the NRA’s world, massacres like the ones that happened in Santa Barbara, Sandy Hook Elementary, Northern Illinois University, Virginia Tech, Columbine and countless others, can only be prevented by good guys carrying guns everywhere and anywhere.
When an organization like the NRA labels an attempt to investigate ways to reduce deaths as unethical, I have to wonder if this lobbyist organization has lost touch with reality. How can we as a country not look into ways that we could possibly prevent some of the 30,000 deaths and 100,000 injured from gun actions? How much longer can the United States of America go on allowing a company/lobbying organization to spend millions to block any and all reasonable actions that may save lives?
Shame on the NRA for blocking reasonable gun control legislation and for even trying to stop research into ways to reduce deaths from guns. Shame on us for allowing it to continue. How much longer will we, as a nation, stand by and watch innocents die? How much longer until we listen to our hearts and our heads and stand up and insist that something be done? Our lives and the lives of our children are at stake. Our moral standing as a nation is also at stake.
Richard Martinez, the father of one of the Santa Barbara victims may have said it best as he reacted to the death of his child. “Christopher Ross Michaels-Martinez, of Los Osos, California, was the last of six people killed by suspect Elliot Rodger before the gunman apparently shot and killed himself, authorities said.
Martinez choked back tears as he spoke, then grew angrier as he talked about gun laws and lobbyists.
“The talk about gun rights. What about Chris’ right to live?” Martinez said. “When will enough people say: ‘Stop this madness! We don’t have to live like this! Too many people have died!” MSN News
How much longer until we heed Mr. Martinez’ plea?
“The views expressed in this posting are the author’s alone and not those of the blog, the host, or other weekend bloggers. As an open forum, weekend bloggers post independently without pre-approval or review. Content and any displays or art are solely their decision and responsibility.”
accuate = accurate
Wow, so how many people have Arizona cops killed?
Annie – they seem to be fairly accuate, unlike police in other states.
Yes, but how many have they killed?
Annie – don’t you read the links you post?
Bob, Esq.
Elaine,
I hate to break it to you, but the title of this thread is “The NRA Has Blood On Its Hands.”
You, like Rafflaw, have chosen to exploit a tragedy to push forward a political agenda that is in no way logically connected to what happened in California.
It’s just as intellectually dishonest as it was to associate 9/11 with Iraq.
And like always, rather than concede anything, you keep coming up with additional questions and comments, having nothing to do with the original topic, until you’ve regained the semblance of an appearance that you’re right again.
*****
Bob,
Still pounding your fist on the table because I refuse to play by your rules? Am I limited by blog rules as to what I may write in my comments? Am I limited as to the number of comments that I can post? I have addressed some of the points Larry wrote about in his post. You call that being intellectually dishonest.
The NRA pushes its agenda all the time–in the halls of Congress. It uses its money to push its agenda. It’s a powerful organization.
You keep writing comments accusing me of being intellectually dishonest and of exploiting a tragedy. It seems that you think by repeating those accusations you have proved that I’m intellectually dishonest and have exploited a tragedy. So sorry that I haven’t conceded anything as you believe I should have.
Mespo, Police are some of the biggest 2nd Amendment haters.
Paul:
The NRA made a conservative $70 million from the gun industry. They won’t tell us exactly how much they take from these manufacturers. That tells me who is bought and paid for. I suspect the interests of the gun manufacturers and the American public –even the armed public — aren’t identical. Even the police don’t countenance the NRA’s outrageous obsession with all guns, all the time. Can you imagine why any group would oppose the cops in permitting armor piercing ammo on the streets? I can’t — unless you’re the seller of it.
http://www.theiacp.org/portals/0/pdfs/IACPFirearmsPositionPaper.pdf
mespo – do not understand the following
mespo – just because the NRA has industry connections does not mean its hands are dirty in this mess. You should be calling out the APA, the police, the women who turned him down, Hollywood, liberal attitudes about sex, etc. You are blaming the only innocent in the whole bunch.
Karen S:
I think that’s right. I’m just calling out the NRA for what they are: an industry lobbying group masquerading as a flag wrapped, grass roots organization.They’re a lot like MADD which is the insurance industry’s “grass-roots” organization or Big Tobacco’s “National Smokers Alliance.” I don’t mind an industry group lobbying for what they want. I just detest the subterfuge and flag waving to make money. It’s crass and wrong.
You can read about the organized subterfuge here in Business Insider:
http://www.businessinsider.com/gun-industry-funds-nra-2013-1
http://247wallst.com/special-report/2013/04/15/states-with-the-most-gun-violence/3/
Top ten states with the most gun violence. Arizona is at number 4. Oh how polite.
Annie – those numbers include suicides and people killed by police.
mespo:
The majority of Americans support the 2nd Amendment and the right to own firearms. Both Democrats and Republicans often take views that reflect the will of their constituents. Dems who represent high gun ownership areas are pro-2nd Amendment, or they don’t get elected. Dems who represent low gun ownership areas are more anti-gun. We have often seen recalls and election results that punish politicians who fail to understand their constituents.
That doesn’t meant they are in the pocket of the NRA. That means that the NRA’s pro-2nd Amendment stance coincides with the will of the majority of Americans.
I am not a member of the NRA, and do not follow them closely. So I have no idea how many of their policies I agree or disagree with. I am referring only to the right of private citizens to keep and bear arms.
leecarroll:
I used the DOJ figure, which is used exactly because of the discrepancy in statistics. It is neither the lowest nor the highest, and is the closest thing to an official figure.
The problem is the lack of uniformity in tracking. One of my posts contained a link about the 13 studies which detailed all of the challenges with existing statistical models, as well as what needs to be done to arrive at uniformity.
According to the CDC (a 52 page document of which is in one of my posts above) there are approximately 2200 non-gang-related gun homicides a year. There are a lot more lethal and non-lethal defensive gun uses. Are you going to doom those people?
I support serious measures that will address our broken mental health system. Both of the mass murders at Isla Vista, 2001 and 2014, were perpetrated by disturbed young men whose families had tried to get them help. That is a problem that must be addressed. One used a car for his carnage. One used knives, a car, and a gun. Millions of people lawfully own guns. A few mentally ill people have used guns in mass murders of unarmed people. Other mass murderers use arson, poison, vehicles, knives, etc. This is a mental health issue. Detracting from that issue with an agenda does no one any good.
Isla Vista was in 2001. NOTHING has changed in the mental health system. Because here we are, in 2014, and a family was unable to get their troubled son help before he did a similar crime.
Most states fail to report mental health cases to the guns database, as they are mandated. He was under the care of TWO therapists. Was yet another red flag missed that should have been sent to the database?
Annie – your study is out of date for this.
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/local/articles/20100729arizona-concealed-weapons-law.html
Karen I assume you are referring to the study done in 1994?
“There are approximately two million defensive gun uses (DGU’s) per year by law abiding citizens. That was one of the findings in a national survey conducted by Gary Kleck, a Florida State University criminologist in 1993. Prior to Dr. Kleck’s survey, thirteen other surveys indicated a range of between 800,000 to 2.5 million DGU’s annually. However these surveys each had their flaws which prompted Dr. Kleck to conduct his own study specifically tailored to estimate the number of DGU’s annually.
Subsequent to Kleck’s study, the Department of Justice sponsored a survey in 1994 titled, Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms (text, PDF). Using a smaller sample size than Kleck’s, this survey estimated 1.5 million DGU’s annually.
There is one study, the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), which in 1993, estimated 108,000 DGU’s annually. Why the huge discrepancy between this survey and fourteen others? ”
So first it was done, and the one above over 10 years ago. The numbers from 13 surveys are all over the place so which has validity – the one that you want to use to proves your point, that goes for anyone using the numbers.
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdguse.html
https://www.gunowners.org/sk0802htm.htm
http://archive.azcentral.com/community/pinal/20110127arizona-gun-death-rate-nations-worst-sev.html
This polite Paul?
Lest you think I’m a card-carrying NRA member, let me also give you my take on the NRA leadership as opposed it its rank and file. The group is a gun manufacturer sponsored group whose impassioned defense of the Second Amendment masks its real love – gun sales. This industry group has too much sway over Congress and Republicans in particular. The leadership are radical capitalists who would advocate selling whatever widget they made to the detriment of anybody or anything. I have no love for the NRA, and as for their much lauded but, in my view, feigned patriotism, I find them to be much like Samuel Johnson found the flag wavers of his day.
http://www.samueljohnson.com/patrioti.html
leecarroll:
According to the DOJ, guns are used in self defense 1.5 million times annually.
California has one of the most restrictive gun laws. They did everything the anti-gun establishment asked of them. The NRA does not hold sway over CA. It might sound daring and grand to blame the NRA, but it does not change the facts: CA has restrictive gun laws. Elliot Rogers had legal weapons. His parents tried to get him help but for some reason the police failed to view his YouTube rants until after the shooting. That would have triggered a hold for evaluation at a mental facility. Because of our mental health laws, it is difficult to hold someone for long against his will.
My heart is broken for the victims and their families, and for Elliot’s parents, who tried to help him and then tried to stop him. This is a time of mourning and support, not a time for “never letting a crisis go to waste.”
I am very familiar with the Santa Barbara area, and IV. It is a lovely coastal town, full of young people learning and having fun. They are grieving.
http://www.armedwithreason.com/less-guns-less-crime-debunking-the-self-defense-myth/
•Statistically speaking, guns are rarely used in self-defense, and thus cannot be defended on the grounds that they can reliably defuse crimes while they are happening.
•The NRA bases its claim that guns are used millions of times a year in self-defense on a discredited study from 1995 that has not been validated in a single academic paper.
•Concealed Carry Laws are not associated with decreases in crime, and sophisticated analyses show that, in some cases, there is an increase in aggravated assaults associated with concealed carry laws.
•The best studies to date, using proxies to estimate gun availability, show that more guns lead to more crime.
leejcaroll – your studies mix apples and oranges.
Mespo – thank you for the link.
RTC – I would like to hear your opinion. If your comment cannot be found, please repost.
Bob – excellent link to DC v Heller. Justice Scalia, in the Majority Opinion, nicely dealt with Justice Steven’s minority opinion, and all those who claim that the right to bear arms was temporary, or merely limited to the militia.
And in addition to demanding a guarantee of self defense against confrontation, the Founders would have a clear memory of the plight of those in England unable to hunt. The Crown and landowners kept the land for themselves, with an occasional grant of a Commons. This restricted a population from providing for themselves when times were hard, leading to starvation and oppression. The right to hunt for themselves was also historically cherished in the New World.