The Gun Fetishists Are Going MAD

To contact us Click HERE
A Gun Policy of Mutually Assured Destruction?
Ken O’Brien

The Rambo wannabees pontificate to stall progress

Every one of thirty-oneU.S. Senators characterized as “pro-gun” refused an invitation to appear onSunday’s Meet The Press.
Seeking to get their viewon the tragedy in Newtown, CT, the program tendered the invitations. Meet thePress producer Betsey Fischer Martin tweeted:


While these Washingtonsolons are keeping their counsel at this time, others are speaking out.

Appearing on a special FoxNews Sunday dedicated to the tragedy in Newtown, Connecticut, Rep. LouieGohmert (R-TX) said that an armed teacher or principal could have taken thekiller’s “head off before he can kill those precious kids”:

GOHMERT: Having been ajudge and reviewed photographs of these horrific scenes and knowing thatchildren have these defensive wounds, gun shots through their arms and hands asthey try to protect themselves, and, hearing the heroic stories of theprincipal, lunging, trying to protect, Chris, I wish to God she had had anM-4 in her office, locked up so when she heard gunfire, she pulls it out andshe didn’t have to lunge heroically with nothing in her hands and takes him outand takes his head off before he can kill those precious kids. [...]


The “distinguished” memberof Congress is not alone in espousing this point of view. Other gun advocatesare responding to the tragedy by demanding more guns, arguing that had schooladministrators or teachers been allowed to carry guns into Sandy HookElementary, the tragedy could have been prevented:

– “Gun controlsupporters have the blood of little children on their hands. Federal andstate laws combined to insure that no teacher, no administrator, no adult had agun at the Newtown school where the children were murdered.” [LarryPratt, Gun Owners Of America]

– “Had Connecticut not hadthe no guns in school laws….Had the principal, the maintenance man, ateacher, been allowed to keep a gun in their office, maybe just maybe, thiswould have come out differently.” [Bob Irwin, The Gun Store]

– “I only wish thekindergarten teacher and principal in Connecticut had been armed.”[Dr. Keith Ablow, Fox News]

– “[S]o looking at thistragedy that happened with K-12, we might have to have an armedemployee at the schools, that’s a measure, that’s a measure.” [MicheleFiore, Nevada Assemblywoman]

– “Look at what hashappened, all these attacks this year have occurred where guns arebanned.” [John Lott, author of More Guns, Less Crime]
 – “Well, I believe thoseof us who are licensed to carry, are responsible people, shouldn’t beprohibited from carrying in schools or other places.” [Steve Dulan,MichiganCoalition of Responsible Gun Owners]
These views are what gaverise to my choice of the word MAD in this post’s title.
While the obviousinference is that it refers to a form of insanity (a conclusion with which Iwill not disagree), the real purpose was to refer to an historical acronym fromthe annals of nuclear deterrence.
That MAD was the policy ofMutually Assured Destruction.
It was a policy thatinvoked the concept of a “balance of terror” between the United States and theSoviet Union during the era of the cold war. Any invocation of nuclear warfarewas to be met with swift and total retaliation that would, inevitably lead tothe total annihilation of both parties.
Over time this form ofinsanity has given rise to a slow but gradual acceptance of the need for mutualand verifiable disarmament. The consequences of the slightest miscalculationcombined with the wasteful and burdensome social costs of the programsinvolved, led to the adoption of the current prevailing philosophy. One of theprimary advocates of this shift that cemented its acceptance on a bipartisanbasis was President Ronald Reagan.
The response beingadvocated by those quoted is nothing less than a form of MAD on a domesticlevel. What is really needed is a policy encouraging and enforcing civiliandisarmament while respecting the legitimate rights of those who seek gunownership for sporting and competitive purposes as well as justifiableinstances of self-protection.
The first step is a returnto the assault weapons ban of the 1990’s as well as restricting the availability of high capacity magazines.
It is argued that the endof the assault weapons did not lead to an increase in violent crime.
That is not the point. Thefirst thing to address is the rise in mass killing incidents. As the followingchart from Mother Jones illustrates, use of these high capacity weapons has dominated in suchincidents.
The next logical step isto expand the requirement for background checks and proper documentation inprivate sales and gun show sales of firearms. Forty percent of gun sales in theU.S. are done without a background check. We maintain more comprehensiverecords on vehicles than we do on guns.
Gun rights advocates havean almost theocratic litany of criticisms of such steps – and most of them arefalse. Among the most widely cited are:  #1: More guns don’t lead to more murders. A survey by researchers at the HarvardUniversity School of Public Health found strong statistical support for the ideathat, even if you control for poverty levels, more people die from gun homicides in areas withhigher rates of gun ownership. And despite what gun advocates say, countries like Israel andSwitzerland don’t disprove the point.  #2: The Second Amendment prohibits strict guncontrol. While the SupremeCourt ruled in D.C. v. Heller that bans on handgun ownershipwere unconstitutional, the ruling gives the state and federal governments agreat deal of latitude to regulate that gun ownership as they choose. As theU.S. Second Court of Appeals put it in a recent ruling upholding a New York regulation, “The state’sability to regulate firearms and, for that matter, conduct, is qualitativelydifferent in public than in the home. Heller reinforces this view. In strikingD.C.’s handgun ban, the Court stressed that banning usable handguns in the homeis a ‘policy choice[]‘ that is ‘off the table,’ but that a variety of otherregulatory options remain available, including categorical bans on firearmpossession in certain public locations.”  #3: State-level gun controls haven’t worked. Scholars Richard Florida and CharlottaMellander recently studied state-to-state variation in gun homicide levels. They found that “[f]irearm deaths are significantly lower in states with strictergun control legislation.” This is backed up by research on local gun control efforts and cross-border gun violence.  #4: We only need better enforcement of thelaws we have, not new laws. Infact, Congress has passed several laws that cripple the ability for current gunregulations to be enforced the way that they’re supposed to. According toresearchers at the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research, a series of federal laws referred to as the Tiahrt amendments “limitpublic access to crime gun trace data, prohibit the use of gun trace data inhearings, pertaining to licensure of gun dealers and litigation against gundealers, and restrict ATF’s authority to require gun dealers to conduct aphysical inventory of their firearms.” Other federal laws “limited the ATFcompliance inspections” and grant “broad protections from lawsuits againstfirearm manufacturers and retail sellers.”  #5: Sensible gun regulation is prohibitivelyunpopular. Not necessarily. Asthe New Republic’s Amy Sullivan reported after the series of mass shootingsthis summer, a majority of Americans would prefer both to enforce existing lawmore strictly and pass new regulations on guns when given the option to choose both ratherthan either/or. Specific gun regulations are also often more popular than the abstract idea.
In addition, there are anumber of sensible steps that are supported, not only by the gun-owning  public, but by members of the National RifleAssociation. Among these are:

1. Requiring criminal background checks on gun owners andgun shop employees. 87 percentof non-NRA gun-owners and 74 percent of NRA gun owners support the former, and80 percent and 79 percent, respectively, endorse the latter.2. Prohibiting terrorist watch listmembers from acquiring guns. Support ranges from 80 percent among non-NRA gun-owners to 71percent among NRA members.3. Mandating that gun-owners tell thepolice when their gun is stolen. 71 percent non-NRA gun-owners support this measure, as do 64percent of NRA members.4. Concealed carry permits should onlybe restricted to individuals who have completed a safety training course andare 21 and older. 84percent of non-NRA and 74 percent of NRA member gun-owners support the safetytraining restriction, and the numbers are 74 percent and 63 percent for the agerestriction.5.Concealed carry permits shouldn’t begiven to perpetrators of violent misdemeanors or individuals arrested fordomestic violence. TheNRA/non-NRA gun-owner split on these issues is 81 percent and 75 percent infavor of the violent misdemeanors provision and 78 percent/68 percent in favorof the domestic violence restriction.
Once these reasonablesteps have been taken, a next step toward reducing the number of guns incirculation would be gun buyback programs. Many of these around the countryhave proven very successful.
Worcester MA
Since the program's inception in 2002, the Goods for Guns Program have collected 2,200 guns in exchange for giftcertificates.Haverhill MA
Police say residents turned in 24 handguns, 15 rifles and shotguns, 15 non-workingguns, about 200 rounds of ammunition, including some armor-piercing bullets, aswell as the Vietnam War-era grenade.Boston MAFrom July 12–14, 2006,the BostonPolice Department offeredUS$200 Target gift cards in exchange for a handgun, with orwithout ammunition. Rifles and shotguns were accepted, but had no reward.Los Angeles CAThere has been a gunbuyback program in Los Angeles that offered prepaid cards (Visa or Ralphs) in exchange.San Fransisco CAOn December 15, 2012 ananonymous donor funded a gun buyback event, where 425 guns were purchased byauthorities. This followed the mass shooting in Connecticut. Detroit MIA Detroit church hosted a gun buyback event as part of the city police department'songoing efforts to remove dangerous weapons from the streets. Guns must beunloaded. Up to $50 is to be paid for an operational weapon, up to $100 for twoor more operational weapons and up to $100 for assault weapons. Dallas TXThe Stewpot gun buy back program has collected and destroyed over 400 pistols, rifles, shotguns andsemi-automatic assault weapons since its inception. After the guns arecollected, they are ground down and the metal is recycled.Tuscaloosa ALIn less than an hourSaturday morning, the Tuscaloosa Police Department pulled more guns off area streets than it usuallydoes in an entire month…. At least20 rifles and shotguns were turned in, along with 14 handguns.Schenectady County NYThe Schenectady CountySheriff’s Office has successfully completed our first Gun Buyback Program in Schenectady County…. During our first event we have collected 16 handguns and 12 rifles and shotguns.Gary IN
The Gun Buyback program hosted Aug. 18 by the Gary Police Department isbeing called an “overwhelming success.” According to Police Chief Wade Ingram,129 guns were turned in in exchange for Wal-Mart gift cards. Local churchespartnered with police to serve as the turn-in locations.
These are only a smallsample of such programs all across the United States. The fact is, we can limitthe consequences of gun violence and we can make progress on disarmament. Wecan end this headlong rush toward Mutually Assured Destruction.
What is needed is awillingness and courage on the part of our lawmakers to “Stop The MADness.” 

Contact them and let them know that they have your support to stand up to the firearms lobby.