Blowin' in the Wind

What with yet another mass murder tragedy, and the news media pointing out the comparison of 12,000 gun deaths last year in the U.S. to a handful of deaths during the same time period to deaths related to terrorism, conservative politicians afraid of invoking the wrath of the corporate-owned NRA have been falling over themselves trying to explain away the blood on their hands without having a heavy-enough detergent.

The "guns don't kill people" line has lost a lot of its zip over the years, what with semi-automatic weaponry in the picture, firing rounds of ammunition faster than crowds can duck for cover.

"Keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill" still seems to have a few fumes left in the tank, though not as much as before to keep anything chugging along fast enough.  After all, 12,000 deaths in one year alone is a whole lot of mentally ill people to explain away.  And after all, if guns don't kill people, why do you have to keep them out of the hands of the mentally ill.

So, the last resort that seems to be making the rounds among the far right is that "New laws won't have any impact since, after all, if people want guns they'll find a way to get them."

Oh, gee, swell.  That's a good one.  And from the Party of Law and Order, no less.

Seriously, folks, that's the best you can come up with?  Why even try?

Why have laws against robbery?  If people want your money, they'll find a way to get it.

Why have speed limits?  If people want to drive fast, they will.

Why have laws against assault?  If people want to hit you, they'll take a swing.

Why have laws against abortion?  If people want to end a pregnancy, they'll find a back room.

Why have laws against abortion?  If people want to end a pregnancy, they'll find a back room.  (Yes, I know I said that already, but it's such a good one.  It bears repeating.)

Why have laws against libel?  If people want to lie about you, they'll say whatever they want.

Why have laws against underage drinking?  If people want to get alcohol, they'll find a way?

Why have laws against hate crimes?  If people want to hate and hurt people, they'll always do it.

Why have laws against drugs?  If people want to get high, they track down a supplier.

Why have laws against abortion?  If people want to end a pregnancy, they'll find a back room.

Why have laws against fraud?  If people want to cheat, they will always do so?

Why have...oh, you get the idea.

At this point, I was initially going to answer that question that conservative gun protectors have been asking in a hope that they'd flim-flam the public, but then I decided...no.  I'm not going to play that game.  This isn't a debate anymore.  The public is hugely in favor of stricter gun laws at this point.  In fact, polls show that even gun owners are in favor of stricter background check laws.  So, it's no longer a case of trying to "win" the argument.  The argument is over.  When you have 12,000 gun deaths a year, when you have 97,000 gun shot injuries a year -- that's 250 each and every day -- there's no "argument."  Let the defenders of mass murders and gun deaths keep making their screed and sound smaller and smaller with each syllable.  The point now isn't to "debate" such people, but point out how complicit they are.

If people want to insist they're "pro-life," then prove it with living people, too, and fight to protect them as much as unborn zygotes.

We already accept limitations on the right to bear arms -- from automatic weapons and missiles and bombs that  are against the law, and from people who aren't allowed to purchase guns, like children and the mentally ill and convicted felons and people convicted of domestic abuse and anyone with a dishonorable discharge from the military and more.  So, the "argument" of how sacred the Second Amendment is and can't be limited is long gone and laughable.

Martin O'Malley (D-MD) is a presidential candidate for the Democratic nomination.  He's profoundly far behind in the polls, so his battle can at best be called "uphill."  However, he's long been an advocate of strong protections against gun violence and the other day released a lengthy proposal, which you can find here.  Given his position in the polls, it seems unlikely that he'll end up being in a position as president to put them into action, though perhaps his positions can gain some traction with his rivals on the campaign trail.  Many seem quite interesting, but one in particular leaped out at me --

The federal government is the largest purchaser of firearms in the country.  So Mr. O'Malley is proposing that  the government use the heavy weight of its procurement contracts to push gun safety.  As he writes -- he "will require manufacturers that seek federal contracts to make simple design changes that advance gun safety and improve law enforcement’s ability to trace firearms. These include hidden serial numbers that cannot be defaced, microstamping, magazine disconnect mechanisms, and other safety improvements."  (Microstamping is basically creating fingerprints on ammunition allowing you to track it after being fired.)

It would seem that if manufacturers wanted to retain those hugely-lucrative government contracts and re-tooled their products with such safety laws, then those changes would carry over to all their products, since it's far more cost-effect to have one, single standard in your production center than several.

Whatever. He has many interesting proposals.  So do others.  The point is that they are now on the table, and the voices pushing for them are going stronger.

Meanwhile, as 12,000 more people die each year from guns, the far right defenders of these deaths are left with standing there and saying -- New laws won't have any impact since, after all, if people want guns they'll find a way to get them.  So, why change things?

Oh, okay, I'll answer one debate question.

Why?  Because 12,000 people die from gun violence every year.  And every life, we are told, is precious.

And after all, why have laws against abortion?  If people want to find a way to end a pregnancy, they'll find a back room.
​
When will they ever learn?