The NRA Amps Up Its Fight and Steams Down the Wrong Path

The NRA knows exactly what it’s doing. But it is dead wrong.

By pandering to its most radical members, those who see the collapse of the government, black-ops government enforcers kicking down doors to take guns from law-abiding citizens and such, it has dug itself a hole from which it may not, over the long run, recover. They have damaged themselves and perhaps critically wounded themselves in the eyes of those who have believed they provided positive safety courses, education and training.

Ask Republicans if pandering to the radical fringe works. They lost the presidential election despite hundreds of millions of dollars spent and their best hard right turn efforts.

Though President Obama’s announcement of new gun regulation proposals as well as a slew of executive orders has been heralded by some and roundly criticized by others, a quick look show they really aren’t onerous or all that ground breaking. Let’s remember, too, that both Presidents Bush (elder) and Clinton used executive orders to limit the types of weapons imported and available in the U.S.

One question for the NRA should be, “Why not require background checks for all gun purchases?” That would close the so-called loophole that allows guns at most gun show to be purchased without a background check.

While the assault-rifle ban will probably bring the most political heat, the previous such ban years ago produced mixed results and certainly didn’t show a dramatic drop in shooting crimes with such weapons. Remember, too, that rifles are seldom used in murders compared with handguns. Handguns are used in more than 90 of violent crimes involving guns . . . with rifles less than 7 percent.

Only by enforcing current laws and increasing penalties on weapons used in crimes can we start to address the overall gun issues throughout the country. With more people killed in Chicago last year than soldiers killed in Afghanistan, it deserves a closer look.

Expand mental health funding and reporting . . . enforce current gun regulations with mandatory sentencing for those found guilty of lying to buy guns or sell guns . . . mandatory background checks for all sales except family transfers . . . limit maximum clip sizes . . .

We live in a wildly diverse nation . . .  A place where guns abound. A place where gunds are viewed differently in Montana or New Hampshire than in Chicago or New York City. A place where many of us grew up around guns and using guns. But the world has changed a lot since then. If the NRA continues on its current path, it risks becoming irrelevant to the majority of gun owners and embraced only by the radical fringe it appears to be pandering to now.

In Gun Debate, Let's Remember That Even Good Guys Miss

It’s a lazy argument, really: Give more good guys guns and they’ll stop the bad guys.

On the face of it, of course, it sounds reasonable. After all, shooting back at bad guys might not only stop them, but perhaps it would at least slow them down, or, since they know good guys have guns, they’d stay away all together.

Crazy kid shoots his way into a school and the headmaster unlocks his or her gun safe, pulls out the school weapon and engages said crazy kid.

Yep, sounds good. And surely there are situations when it might work. But I get a little chill when I think of my second-grade teacher packing a Glock and laying down cover fire while we all flee out the back door into the playground.

But let’s look at a couple of “what ifs.”

What if the good guy misses? The FBI keeps statistics on police-involved shooting that show just 26 percent of the bullets fired by police hit their (human) targets. Now, let’s remember that there are a number of factors that must be looked at . . . distance to target, movement, surroundings, and a bunch of other stuff, including a huge pump of adrenalin. The vast majority of cops and other law enforcement types never have to pull the trigger during a crime . . . they shoot targets at a range for training . . . but that street gunfight is a whole different animal.

There could be people around on a crowded street . . . kids running down a hallway . . . people screaming and filling up exits at a mall . . .

The 2002 edition of Injury Facts from the National Safety Council reports the following statistics :

•In 1999, 3,385 children and youth ages 0-19 years were killed with a gun. This includes homicides, suicides, and unintentional injuries.

•This is equivalent to about 9 deaths per day, a figure commonly used by journalists.

•The 3,385 firearms-related deaths for age group 0-19 years breaks down to:

•214 unintentional

•1,078 suicides

•1,990 homicides

•83 for which the intent could not be determined

•20 due to legal intervention

Of the total firearms-related deaths:

•73 were of children under five years old

•416 were children 5-14 years old

•2,896 were 15-19 years old

So, to me, several things are clear. One, if there are guns in a house, they are often not properly secured . . . two, when guns are involved, damage is severe (this holds true in an accident or a shooting in anger) . . .

Duh.

2010 saw fewer people killed in auto accidents than in any year since 1949. Cars are faster, but safe . . . air bags, anti-lock brakes, seatbelt and traction control to start . . . but nobody bitches about that. We may not be able make a bullet flying out of a gun safer, but should we not examine what might make non-sports/target shooting and improper ownership of weapons less likely? And while everyone is focused on so-called “assault rifles,” note that of the 12,664 murder victims last year, just 323 were killed with rifles, according to the FBI.

Information is information, whether or not one side or another spins it to suit that side’s arguments. But whether we like it or not, there are sensible and reasonable things that can and should be done to limit misuse of weapons. Time to take a couple of those steps.