Navy Yard shooting near U.S. Capitol unlikely to spur new gun laws

[Jefferson23]

By Michael A. Memoli

September 17, 2013, 3:13 p.m.

WASHINGTON – A leading advocate of stricter gun safety laws argued earlier this month that momentum had not stalled in Congress and cited one “inevitable fact” as proof.

“There will be another mass shooting. And when it happens, members of Congress will have a lot of explaining to do,” Mark Glaze, director of Mayors Against Illegal Guns, said in an interview.

That shooting occurred Monday, claiming 12 lives at a secure facility about a mile and a half from the Capitol. And yet sponsors of gun legislation expressed doubt about whether the Washington Navy Yard shooting would change the stubborn political reality that led to the defeat of a bipartisan proposal in April.

“It is unclear if yesterday’s tragedy changes the atmosphere sufficiently to yield a different outcome,” said Sen. Patrick J. Toomey (R-Pa.), who drafted an amendment to expand checks with Sen. Joe Manchin III (D-W.Va.) that failed to muster the 60 votes needed to be adopted.

remainder: http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/politicsnow/la-pn-navy-yard-new-gun-laws-20130917,0,7210039.story

[Rex]

1. If only Congress cared enough to do something about it.

Sadly they are living under the thumb of lobbyists.

[Jefferson23]

4. What is the number, does one exist that will turn the NRA money useless..I don't know.

How many need to die in one mass shooting to get action, as the collective number over the last few years
has not been devastatingly high enough.

[Rex]

5. Maybe ten times the number?

I really don't know either, gun violence is completely out of control in this country yet Congress only seems to speak in dollar signs.

[Jefferson23]

8. I think we have no confidence that such a number exists for the NRA's stranglehold to unwind.

Creepy beyond words.

[golfguru]

17. Gun violence is actually down

[Weiter]

19. Not to mention some very vocal constituents...

[Rex]

20. True many have to depend on votes by NRA members in their state.

nt.

[gopiscrap]

22. Welome to DU

[derby378]

2. All I'm asking for is an improved background check system

It's good that the article mentioned Manchin and Toomey; I was in support of their proposal when they brought it before the Senate.

An improved check system would have stopped Alexis and Cho in their tracks. This would have been a good thing.

[former9thward]

15. The Manchin/Toomey proposal would have done nothing about Alexis.

He had no criminal record. I don't remember enough details for the Cho case.

[PoliticAverse]

26. The state didn't pass Cho's mental illness info to the feds so Cho was able to pass NICS checks.

[Eleanors38]

29. Frankly, the only way to slow down mass killings in

the short term is to drastically overhaul the security situation at any potential site with measures unique to each site. Will Americans want to do this? The firearm type, even the weapon itself (bomb in the case if the OK mass killing) are increasingly irrelevant when one considers the manical dedication of a few sociopaths.

They hate society, yet they want the recognition of society even as they destroy it and themselves.

[rl6214]

39. By improved background are you talking specifically mental health reporting

And is the reason this is not being reported the fault of the medical community, the states or the background check system.

[derby378]

40. Maybe all three share the blame for this

If you're going to have a background check system in the first place, that system is subject to scrutiny any time another Aurora, VTech, or Navy Yard happens.

This guy obviously had enough of a police record to warrant caution, but yeah, I'd want some mental health reporting in any revamped NICS program, too. We don't want it to turn into a witch hunt for any prospective gun owner who's had a few "black cloud days" in the past (who hasn't?), but if there's a genuine mental disorder in play, that's where NICS needs to step in for a closer look at the purchase.

[malletgirl02]

3. Unbelivable!

This happened not to far from their own Capitol building, and congress still isn't going to do something about gun laws?

[Skittles]

6. it's just collateral damage

fear and ignorance trumps all

[Llewlladdwr]

7. What new laws would have prevented this? nt

[HooptieWagon]

9. Better background checks.

With his history of violence and mental illness, there should have been all kinds of red flags.

[Duckhunter935]

11. Just include

GOOD data in the current background check would have helped. However I do not have a big issue expanding them.

[HooptieWagon]

14. In his case, ANY data...

...would have prevented purchase. Previous firearm use, violent history, mental illness history.

[Adam-Bomb]

23. Exactly right.

[Jefferson23]

10. In the past four years, the NRA passed 99 laws making guns easier to own and conceal

from the government...we have to work backwards now before we can even move ahead.

That was over 37 states btw.

[xfundy]

12. As long as there is a population, many of them kept ignorant

there will always be corporats that can make money fomenting hate, division, and death, for big profits.

[NightWatcher]

13. no shit. If 20 dead 1st graders in NJ didn't get it done, nothing will

[Bake]

16. Granted, we don't want mentally ill people able to buy guns.

But you run into the problem of HIPAA if you put every person with a history of mental illness (and how do you define that, anyway? Half the US population takes some kind of antidepressant/anti-anxiety medication) on a no-gun database.

Bake

[Jefferson23]

21. I don't support changes to HIPAA. Open carry, gun show sales and a host of other laws

the NRA passed need to be addressed before the vulnerable should have to lose their privacy.

[AlinPA]

18. It will spur a lot more gun sales, especially shotguns.

[X_Digger]

24. Only if DiFi proposes AWB 5.0 (Now with Remington 870 Pump action bannage!) n/t

[Eleanors38]

28. I used a walnut & blue steel model in the dove field last wk. Got 10.

[geomon666]

25. Well of course not

Killing school children didn't, why would this? At this point I'm convinced that someone could literally wipe out an entire city worth of people and nothing would change.

[Eleanors38]

27. Here are some possible reasons for little change:

1) Over the last 6 months, Congress and other politicians got the measure of the contending groups involved in the gun debate, including most importantly, the levels of activism and intensity, and found one "side" decisively wanting;

2) Controller/banners typically lead-off debate by casting aspersions upon gun-owners, and the consequent response is ever more intense, from tens of thousands waiting on-line at gun shows all over the country, to the staggering communications sent to pols by 2A advocates. And make no mistake about it: Those people were and ARE making a political, up front statement, and it wasn't all about the latest ban proposal); and

3) Speaking of bans, which is the other preferred approach to a mass shooting, and not expanded b.g. checks: On the occasion of the Navy Yard tragedy, the same old "ban the AR" tack was being readied (even here on DU) when it was revealed that the weapons used were a c.1951-designed Remington 870 shotgun, and apparently the service handguns of shot security.

If gun control "activists" want to be taken seriously, take the 3 above points to heart.

[badtoworse]

30. Of course, you're correct, but it's easier to just blame the NRA for everything

ETA: You forgot to mention incrementalism. Gun owners are well aware of how that game is played and know that whatever concessions they might make would never be enough. The controllers/banners would be back in a few years using the same insults and making yet more demands.

[Eleanors38]

32. That "incrementalism" is the consequence of puritanical prohibition...

and goes well beyond the issue of guns. The instant thing, status, or behavior to be prohibited is seen in a moral light (secular or religious), not a public policy light, hence the singularity of this approach. Extremism is built-in.

But I remain convinced that some measures, like universal b.g. checks, can be accomplished in a constitutional manner, and may have some effect on crimes involving guns.

[badtoworse]

36. It would help if both sides were open to a deal.

One thing I don't ever recall hearing from the controller/banner side is "We'll give on this if you give on that". I'd like to see changes in firearms regulations and I could get comfortable with universal background checks, but I'd like to get somethings as well. I don't see why a deal could not be made.

[Eleanors38]

46. Like the NRA, the controllers have a tiger by the tail....

They can't let up on both the language of "debate," and the terms: bans on gun types & accessories, lest they be seen as less than whole in the eyes of other controller/banners. The NRA is in a similar situation, having to backtrack on universal b.g. checks (since the 1990s) in order to stay hard core with their self-created and extremist leadership.

[badtoworse]

47. Good summary. It's why nothing constructive ever gets done.

[Jefferson23]

35. I would appreciate knowing what level of gun control reform you support.

What concessions have gun owners made in your opinion that should be reversed?

[badtoworse]

37. Concessions? That implies an option to say no.

I can't think of any gun control measures that have been enacted where compliance was optional, so concessions is not the right word. Here are a few examples of laws that I think are bad:

New York's 7 round limit in detachable magazines. If your gun can hold more, it's illegal to put more than 7 rounds in it. Does anyone honestly believe a bad guy would pay attention to that? BTW, the law, as passed, did not exempt LEO's - I don't know if that's been corrected.

California is looking at banning detachable magazines period. Most modern firearms incorporate such magazines and such firearms are widely owned and used.

"May Issue" with respect to carry permits. In most states, carry permits are issued on a "Shall Issue" basis meaning that the presumption is that you should be issued the permit and the onus is on the state to demonstrate why the permit should be denied. In a "May Issue" state, the onus is on you to convince the state you need the permit. No other civil right requires you to justify a need to exercise it. This should be rectified.

Reciprocity between states. I legally own a target pistol in NJ where I'm a resident, and I have a vacation home in the Adirondacks. I can't bring the pistol into NY to use at a local range where I'm a member without breaking NY law. That's ridiculous - why shouldn't NY recognize my NJ permit (it's just a permit to own; it doesn't entitle me to carry).

I'd be willing give on magazine limits, universal background checks and maybe some other things for considerations in line with the above and I've suggested it in other posts. Responses I've gotten range from "no way" to crickets. if there are any folks on the gun control side willing to trade, it's news to me.

[Jefferson23]

38. Concessions is a word you used in your previous post. That is why I asked

you what concessions you felt you were asked to accept under current gun laws.

Here: Of course, you're correct, but it's easier to just blame the NRA for everything

Last edited Wed Sep 18, 2013, 06:06 AM USA/ET - Edit history (1)
ETA: You forgot to mention incrementalism. Gun owners are well aware of how that game is played and know that whatever concessions they might make would never be enough. The controllers/banners would be back in a few years using the same insults and making yet more demands.


You seem to be speaking very clearly from previous rights you had but no longer possess.

[badtoworse]

41. Concessions was meant in the context of not fighting tooth and nail against new gun control measures

Lets say gun owners said we won't oppose universal background checks and we'll put up with a ten round magazine limit. That wouldn't be the end of it because those measures would have little impact on gun violence. When they didn't work, the gun control crowd would be back looking to ban detachable magazines altogether and limit the amount of ammunition you can own or buy. Given that, why would you not fight new gun control from Day 1?

One continuously making new demands is just as unreasonable as the other side opposing everything. The only solution is a deal where both sides give some things and get some things.

[Jefferson23]

42. If those measures would have little impact on gun violence, what do you propose would

decrease gun violence that you would support?

[badtoworse]

43. They would be in the mental health areas and eliminating reasons why people resort to gun violence

I would try to do something about the violence that is rampant in the media as well. I believe that the root cause of the problem is a lack of respect for human life. Changing that is critical if the problem is going to be solved.

[Jefferson23]

44. HIPAA would need to be compromised, that is something the present administration is

writing. I don't support that compromise to privacy. The lack of respect for human life, is that the reason so many
laws, 99, by the NRA over the last few years has rolled back restrictions? It is not an insidious circle in your opinion?
Criminal use of guns is more prevalent than self defense use, they're all mentally ill/impaired?

I do appreciate your candor and civility; I don't generally speak about this issue on DU.

[badtoworse]

45. Most semi-automatic handguns today are based on the .45 cal M1911 pistol developed for the military

Last edited Thu Sep 19, 2013, 08:07 AM - Edit history (1)

Numerous variants are around in a variety of calibers with 9mm being the most popular. The technology has been around for more than 100 years, but it's increasingly frequent use for mass murder is a relatively new phenomenon. To me, that indicates that the root cause of the problem is not the gun's technology. The real issue is why is the technology being misused so much more frequently today compared with a few decades ago? In my opinion, the answer to that is a culture that does not value human life and sees violence as an acceptable answer to problems. If that aspect is not dealt with, more gun restrictions will do little to reduce the violence.

[Jefferson23]

48. So how would the NRA's roll back on laws help curb the violence? Are you suggesting

the alternative to gun control measures is addressing a moral dilemma Americans have?

I'm failing to see how you separate the two, if you are indeed correct regarding your
hypothesis. I recognize you support background checks and magazine limits but you
added these measure would not do much in your opinion to curb violence.

What I do not understand is the suggestion, if I understood you correctly, that a deal
be made between the two opposing sides. Yet as I stated, the NRA has already rolled
back many laws making it even easier than in the past to secure who gets to own
a gun legally. I fail to see what it is gun reform groups could give back, when they
already are not on an equal footing.

[badtoworse]

49. First off, what laws has the NRA rolled back? I'm unaware of any.

There are hundreds of millions of guns in circulation in the US and probably billions of detachable magazine, many of which can hold 30 or more rounds. I think the genie is out of the bottle in terms of controlling gun violence by making guns difficult for law abiding people to obtain. A bad person will get a gun if he wants to commit a crime I'm pretty skeptical about this approach accomplishing much other than pissing off a lot of law abiding citizens.

On the mental health side, it needs to be more available to people who need it and there needs to be some legal way of documenting a situation where a person's mental health disqualify him from owning a firearm. If nothing else, there needs to be better coordination between agencies so mental health issues get found during background checks.

As far as the deal part goes and gun control groups not being on an equal footing, I have to disagree, at least on the federal level. With respect to federal law, I don't believe either side has an advantage or could get legislation passed without a buy-in from the other side. What you have now is a situation where neither side trusts the other side and neither side will give one inch on anything. As a result nothing happens despite the fact that both sides would like to see changes. I've been in situations like that in business - the only solution is a good faith effort to make a deal. There are changes I would like to see in firearms regulations to make them fairer but a suggestion to do that would be rejected out of hand by the gun control side. They want universal checks and magazine limits but haven't been able to get those things in spite of all the recent violence. I'd concede those things to get what I want. That's the only way any progress will be made.

On the state level, it's a lot more complicated and I don't want to get into that now.

I still don't know what you're talking about rolling back regulations - how about some examples.

[Jefferson23]

50. I have a link for you about the NRA laws that have made it much easier for gun rights

activists.

I do not understand the need nor fascination with guns. I would agree, the
number of guns is staggering. I agree mental health care should be readily available
to all who need it.

Why I said there is not an equal footing:


The NRA Surge: 99 Laws Rolling Back Gun Restrictions
In the past four years a barrage of measures across 37 states have made it easier to own, carry, and conceal firearms.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/09/map-gun-laws-2009-2012

[badtoworse]

53. I had hoped to respond this morning, but Mother Jones crashes my computer at work.

I did read the Mother Jone piece last. It's definitely a biased presentation, but there are some interesting points to discuss. In a way, the map proves my point. More on Monday.

[NickB79]

31. He used the most popular hunting shotgun in America

Pretty hard to propose a new gun or magazine ban based on the firearm used.

[Eleanors38]

33. According to Remington, over 10,000,000 produced.

I have 2 for hunting purposes.

[Jefferson23]

34. I do believe in the US we have a collective list of all types of gun control options

we could be putting on the books to counter the laws passed by the NRA..especially
those laws they helped pass the last few years.

[piratefish08]

51. if a school full of dead 5 year olds didn't spur change, why would anyone think this tragedy would?

we are hopelessly fucked when it come to gun laws in this country.

[99Forever]

52. Gee, what a fucking surprise.

The ONLY things that suck more than our government, is the NRA and gun humpers.