America’s gun laws are shot through with irony and illogic. Some would want you to believe that our national attitude regarding guns reflects a reverence for the Second Amendment. In reality, the gun laws passed—or should I say, not passed— in Congress and state legislatures are based less on ideology and more on the purely mercenary goals of the gun and ammunition manufacturers who are the true drivers of the NRA.

So, instead of a sane approach that acknowledges that gun deaths are a public health problem, we have an irrational patchwork of laws that often defy logic and do nothing to protect us. I’ve compiled some bullet points to illustrate the insanity of our gun laws:

• As we recently learned, via the Parkland tragedy, in Florida, you cannot buy a beer until you are 21. You can buy an assault weapon at 18.
• Florida and other states also have implemented strict ID requirements for voting, but none for buying an assault weapon.
•  You must be 25 to rent a car. You can buy an assault weapon at 18 in many states.
• In Iowa and other states, you must be 21 to by a scratch-off lottery ticket. You can buy a rifle in Iowa at 18, without a state permit.
• State legislatures have passed laws allowing guns in schools, churches, bars and public parks, while at the same time barring guns from the legislative chambers of their state capitols.
• In most states, you need a license to: use a scissors to cut people’s hair or trim their toenails; use a nail file to perform a manicure or pedicure; use a razor to shave a customer; use your fingers to braid someone’s hair. But you do not need a license to wield a weapon that, used for the purpose for which it was designed, can kill multiple people.
• In many states, you can bring a gun into a bar, but you cannot serve alcohol without a state license.
• In many states, under open carry laws, you can brandish a weapon openly, but if you are driving a car, you cannot have an open container of alcohol with you. By law, your child must be secured in a safety seat, but you can have a loaded gun concealed in the glove compartment or the console.
• Federal product-safety laws mandate safety standards for baby strollers and cribs, to prevent them from pinching a child’s finger or enabling a child’s head to get stuck between the crib slats. Similar protections—such as trigger locks on guns—are not required for guns in a bedroom drawer, in a purse, or in a closet.
• You can sue McDonald’s for serving too-hot coffee; you can sue a toy manufacturer, a food company or a lawn-mower company if you are accidentally injured by their product. You can sue a doctor or a hospital for malpractice if they prescribe the wrong dosage. Gun manufacturers and gun stores are protected, by federal law, from lawsuits stemming from injuries caused by their products.
• You need a state license to perform a healing massage, but—in many states—you do not need a permit to carry a gun into a spa.
• Right-wing, anti-LBGTQ fanatics consider the act of selling a wedding cake to a gay couple as tantamount to participating in the wedding, thus violating their religious “rights.” Selling a gun to someone who uses it to kill people is not seen as participating in murder.
• If you want to fly a drone or a model airplane, you must register it with the Federal Aviation Administration. No federal registration is required for buying or shooting a gun.
• After a would-be terrorist was found to have a non-functioning bomb wired into his shoes, the Department of Homeland Security mandated that all travelers have to remove their shoes for inspection at TSA checkpoints. After mass murderers armed with military assault weapons succeeded in killing of hundreds of people, laws regarding AR-15s and other semi-automatic weapons remained unchanged.
• Pharmacies and supermarkets limit the number of Sudafed cold tablets you can purchase. You can buy as much ammunition for your handguns, rifles and assault weapons as you want to.
• Supermarkets now keep Tide detergent pods locked up, to protect children from swallowing them. After a scare in which Tylenol tablets were found to be contaminated, drug manufacturers were required to package over-the-counter and prescription drugs in “child-proof” packaging. Congress and state legislatures continue to reject the notion of mandatory gun locks that could prevent children from accidentally discharging guns.

This list is far from comprehensive—unfortunately. I welcome additions that further demonstrate the hypocrisy and madness. We live in a country where even the deaths of 20 first-graders don’t move the needle even one centimeter on gun laws. This is just plain crazy.

The post Gun laws: the irony, the agony, the insanity appeared first on Occasional Planet.

As we reel from the carnage in Las Vegas, Congress is contemplating a bill that would make it easier to purchase silencers that would make it easier to shoot people without making a lot of noise or damaging the killer’s hearing. And guess who thinks this is such a great idea that he made a promotional video on behalf of silencer manufacturers? None other than that great intellectual, big-game killer Don Trump, Jr., son of the guy who, after Las Vegas, said, “We’ll talk about guns later,” meaning, of course, “never.”

Disguised and hiding behind the laughable euphemism, “The Hearing Protection Act,” the provision is, according to US News and World Report:

…tucked into the bipartisan Sportsmen Heritage and Recreational Enhancement, or SHARE Act, [which] would eliminate restrictions on silencers and instead treat them as ordinary firearms. Under the National Firearms Act of 1934, suppressors – along with “destructive devices” such as grenades or rocket launchers, “sawed-off” shotguns and machine guns – require federal registration and a special license to own, as well as a $200 tax stamp to purchase that would also be repealed under the proposed law.

… Proponents of the Hearing Protection Act say suppressors are unfairly maligned and make it harder for hunters to hear their surroundings, potentially endangering them and others.

But gun control advocates have slammed the measure as a boon to manufacturers of silencers, whose sales have been slumping in recent years. They also point out silencers would make it much more difficult for law enforcement to stop shooters like the one who opened fire on an outdoor music in Las Vegas, killing at least 50 and injuring hundreds of others Sunday night.

Law enforcement and military experts oppose the bill. Kris Brown, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, said this in a statement after the bill passed out of committee:

There are very effective hearing protection devices already available on the open market…Keeping guns out of dangerous hands and stopping school shootings, ambushes of police and other mass shootings before they can start is the priority for the American people – not making it harder to detect a shooting once it starts.

But that’s not how Don Jr. sees it. In a video released in December 2016, Junior—in a business suit—gleefully fires off a rifle equipped with a silencer, and then shoots a hand-gun similarly tricked out. “I think it’s great,” he says. “I love your product.” Then he calls silencers a “public-health issue,” and “about safety,” that would also be just dandy when “getting little kids into the game.”

But don’t just read my excerpts, witness his testimony in all of its gun-blazing, beyond-belief,  insane illogic. Ready. Fire. Aim. No need to cover your ears, though.

The post The silence of the guns: Don Trump Jr. edition appeared first on Occasional Planet.

We’ve all heard the tragic stories about parents who just look away for one distracted second while disaster strikes their helpless toddler. There’s the kid who got into the gorilla enclosure at the Cincinnati zoo, or the children in Texas who drowned while their mother was occupied with her cell phone. When I think about the damage that is being done to our society by the latest evolution of our gun culture, I can sympathize with those parents.

The post Gun crazy: Senator Roy Blunt edition appeared first on Occasional Planet.

A person in New York is less likely to die by a gun (murder, suicide, or accident) than in Missouri. Are the behaviors of a person so divergent according to where they live, or could the differences in gun laws play a part? (I’m a Missourian myself, so I can attest that the state isn’t filled with violent gun-toting miscreants.) This infographic shows a look at all firearm deaths by state and provides a bit of insight as to how easy (or hard) it is to procure a gun there. Infographic found at https://img.njdc.com/media/media/2015/10/05/firearm-mainchart-oct5-3.png

The post Infographic: A look at gun deaths and permits appeared first on Occasional Planet.

After the most recent mass shooting–at Umpqua Community College in Oregon–President Obama urged Americans to look into where their Congressional representatives stand on gun-control legislation. With surveys showing that most Americans support common-sense gun laws–including universal background checks–you have to wonder if Congressional representatives’ attitudes coincide with prevailing public opinion. The following article, originally posted just after the Sandy Hook mass shooting in 2013, offers many still-relevant insights into public opinion and Congressional attitudes toward guns…

It’s been just over two months since twenty children and six adults were brutally gunned down at Sandy Hook Elementary School.  Since then thirty-three people have died in gun violence every single day across this country. Tragically, it’s too late to save those 2,145 mothers, fathers, daughters, sons, brothers, sisters, grandparents, and friends.

The question is are we going to save the next 2,145 or are we going to pretend that there’s nothing to be done?

Contrary to the rantings of the NRA and right-wing media, the majority of us do not share their claim that the unfettered right to bear arms trumps the rest of our rights. For a majority of us, unregulated gun ownership takes a backseat to our right to safety, the safety of our children, and the right to live in our homes,  walk our streets, and interact in public places without fear of harm.

The truth is that public debate over what experts agree is the most effective method to decrease the killing—universal background checks—is settled.  The problem is that our elected representatives haven’t gotten the message.

Recent polls tell a lopsided story

According to Politifact.com, the latest Quinnipiac University poll in January/February showed that 92% of all of us support background checks for all gun owners.  Among those in households with a gun on the premises, 91% of us support universal background checks.

The Pew Research poll in January concurred:  85% of non–gun-owning Americans and 85% of gun owners favor requiring private gun sales and sales of guns at gun shows to be subject to background checks.

Other polls drawing the same conclusions keep rolling in. The CBS News/New York Times poll in January concluded that 92% of all Americans and 85% of those living in households (yes, your eyes aren’t failing you!) with an NRA member support universal background checks.

With poll numbers like these, on the one hand, and overwhelming Republican opposition to universal background checks, on the other, surely the only conclusion to be drawn is that we, the people, have lost our ability to influence our elected officials.  And when our elected representatives ignore the will of the people—as they surely are right now—then we are well on the way to losing the democratic compact as well.

For those old enough to remember, there used to be a public-service announcement that asked, “It’s 10:00.  Do you know where your children are?”  It’s time to rephrase the question. “Thirty-three precious lives are snuffed out by guns every day.  Do you know where your representatives stand?”

Where does your representative stand?

The staff at The Daily Beast has decided to help us answer that question.  By tallying the statements, voting records, ratings from the NRA and the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, as well as reports of campaign contributions by the gun lobby for every member of Congress, The Daily Beast staff has assessed the likely votes of your elected officials on gun legislation. They call their graphic “This is Your Representative on Guns.”

According to their tally, 287 senators and representatives oppose gun reform. One hundred and eighty-eight support reform.  Thirty-six members have an unclear position, and twenty could be considered swing votes.

Click here,  and take a look at the list.  You’ll find out whether your representatives are working for you on this issue. And if you find they are not, then search your conscience and ask yourself these two questions:  Do I care that thirty-three people will be killed today?  And if I do care, can I not find the time to make a call, write an e-mail, or compose a short letter to remind my representatives that it is their solemn duty to protect and defend us—the people—and not the interests of the gun lobby.

The post How does your representative vote on gun control/gun rights? appeared first on Occasional Planet.

There are times when words fail. The news that a nine-year-old child accidentally shot and killed 39-year-old Charles Vacca, an instructor at a shooting range in White Hills, Arizona, represents one of those times.

There are no words that adequately capture the tragedy of such an unnecessary loss of life and the trauma that will plague this young girl for the rest of her life. What words can describe the poor judgment of the parents and the instructor? With what words could we possibly address the surfeit of responsibility on the part of individuals, businesses, the gun industry, and government?

There’s only one relevant word I can find. And that word is “why?” Why was a child of nine allowed to fire a weapon at a shooting range? Why did the instructor believe that a child would have the strength to control a weapon capable of firing off six hundred rounds per minute when set on automatic mode? Why are shooting ranges in the majority of states allowed to adopt their own minimum-age policies? Why are there so few states with laws setting minimum-age requirements for rifle and shotgun possession? Why are military-style weapons readily available in the first place?

In truth I don’t believe there are any words that even begin to answer questions like those—those horrible after-the-fact questions.

Still, there’s one more question that begs to be asked. “Why would parents and the operators of a shooting range put into the hands of a child a powerful and deadly military-style weapon?”

Every answer to that question is ridiculous, absurd, or completely crazy. But here are a few.

• Because the name Uzi sounds like a cool toy a kid might want to cuddle up with at night?

• Because the child wanted to know what it feels like to be a soldier fighting in the Six-Day War, the Vietnam War, the Sri Lankan Civil War, or the Falkland Islands War?

• Because the young girl heard about the adventures of the Mexican drug cartel and their preference for the Uzi and she imagined she might one day want to join them?

• Because the parents got bored with the slow slog of observing wildlife in Red Rock Canyon and wanted a more memorable activity for their daughter?

• Because the young girl’s mom and dad wanted to see if the money and time spent on ballet and karate had given their daughter the strength of an adult?

• Because the child’s math teacher gave her a summer-vacation assignment to practice counting to six hundred in one minute?

• Because the young girl was feeling the normal pull of peer pressure and had heard other nine-year-old Arizonans at the hotel pool bragging about firing Uzis since they were eight?

• Because the parents just couldn’t wait another year, when the child would turn ten, for her to be able to try out weapons at a shooting range in her home state of New Jersey?

These are crazy answers, aren’t they? But isn’t it also crazy that federal law prohibits handgun ownership by any person under the age of eighteen—but there’s no federal minimum age for possession of rifles and shotguns? Isn’t it crazy, too, that in thirty states it’s legal for a child of any age to possess a rifle or a shotgun?

And isn’t it crazier still that we’re outraged when this kind of tragedy happens but then we shrug it off and do nothing until the next tragedy inevitably comes along?

The post The 9-year-old and the Uzi: What were they thinking? appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Another NRA-backed, bonehead idea has passed the Missouri legislature. On the last day of the 2014 session, the Missouri legislature passed a bill that would authorize school districts to allow selected teachers to keep guns in their classrooms. The identities of the selected teachers would be kept secret, presumably to make it harder for intruders to know who to kill first, and to enable teachers to be surprise heroes.

According to the Kansas City Star:

Under the Missouri legislation, a school board seeking school protection officers would hold public hearings but then could act behind closed doors. Teachers or administrators would apply to the superintendent, submit to a background check, show proof of a conceal carry permit and completion of a school protection officer training program.

Parents would NOT have to be notified as to which teachers are carrying.  I’ve put that in bold type, because it is such a shocking aspect of this bill.

What’s wrong with this thinking? Let me count the ways:

-All the the regulations and ostensible safeguards won’t guarantee that a teacher would be in the right place at the right time to prevent gun violence. And, by the way, don’t teachers have enough responsibility as it is? Do they need to be armed cops, too?

-As a parent, I would absolutely want to know if my child’s teacher had a concealed weapon in his/her classroom, and I would absolutely want my child transferred out of that classroom. Under this law, parents would be kept in the dark, as schools put their children at risk.

-The risks of having a concealed weapon in a classroom would far outweigh the so-called advantages. We have all read the sad stories that show how many children are injured or killed every year in accidents involving guns ostensibly kept for self-defense. The likelihood of a classroom invasion by a “bad guy” is much smaller than the likelihood of a child discovering the teacher’s gun and pulling the trigger.

-More guns are not the answer. We have enough guns. Passing a bill that adds more guns in more public places does not make anyone—especially our children–safer. The argument touted by the NRA—that the “only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun”—is not about safety, it’s about selling more guns and ammo. How about: The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is for people not to have access to so many guns. You can put as many locks on classroom doors as you want; you can limit visitors to your school; and you can have a lockdown drill every week, if you want. But as long as people have easy access to guns—and use them for what they are designed to do—there’s going to be gun violence. Bottom line: We need fewer guns and less access to them, not laws that expand gun ownership and turn schools into armed camps.

Did I mention that this bill also lowers the age limit for concealed carry permits from 21 to 19, and that is prohibits health care workers from asking patients whether they have access to a firearm, even if the person shows signs of mental illness?

Missouri Governor Jay Nixon has not yet signed this gun-crazy bill. He—and, I think, most of the people who voted for this misbegotten idea—must know, deep down, that it’s the wrong thing to do—but they’re all so afraid of the NRA that they just go along. Let’s hope that Governor Nixon stands up for sanity and vetoes it.

UPDATE: September 11, 2014:  Nixon vetoed the bill. But today, the Missouri legislature has over-riden Gov. Nixon’s veto.

The post Missouri wants to “protect” your kids by secretly arming their teachers appeared first on Occasional Planet.

As reported by Think Progress: Georgia Gov. Nathan Deal (R) just signed a law former congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords’ (D-AZ) organization described as “the most extreme gun bill in America.”

The new law allows guns in bars, churches, nightclubs and libraries. It eliminates criminal charges against people who accidentally bring guns into airports or other buildings where guns are prohibited. It expands Georgia’s Stand Your Ground law so that felons may invoke this defense. And it permits certain schoolteachers and administrators to carry firearms inside their schools.

The new law is actually more moderate than an earlier draft of the legislation, which would have limited the punishment for carrying a gun on college campuses and which did not include a provision requiring people who want to bring a gun to worship services to obtain permission to do so. Nevertheless, the bill demonstrates how rapidly gun politics shifted to the right in Georgia. Last year, a less comprehensive bill allowing guns in bars and places of worship passed the Georgia house but failed to clear the state senate.

The provision authorizing guns in bars is especially likely to result in an uptick of violence. According to Washington State University Sociology Professor Jennifer Schwartz, “40% of male [homicide] offenders were drinking alcohol at the time” of their offense, and about one in three female offenders were also drinking.

Guns in airports. Guns in bars. In what universe do these provisions promote safety? And, by the way, it’s my understanding that Georgia state lawmakers, while putting virtually everybody else in harm’s way, made sure to protect themselves by not allowing guns on the floor of their own workplace– the state legislature.

Unfortunately, this is the kind of extreme legislation that, once passed in one state, tends to get passed around–often by ALEC. That’s exactly what happened after Florida passed its “Stand Your Ground” law. Stay vigilant.

The post Georgia’s new “guns everywhere” law: A new low appeared first on Occasional Planet.

It’s been a long hard winter here in the Northeast.

Extreme cold fatigue set in months ago. Roadside piles of once-pristine snow have turned to filthy gray sludge. Heating oil and propane costs are exploding household budgets. Electricity rates are on the rise and hovering somewhere in the stratosphere. After digging out twice from snow dumps of up to two feet, Northeasterners recently endured an overnight coating of ice that froze doors shut and left surfaces more suited for the ice skate than the boot.

It’s been tough. Even winter-sports enthusiasts, standing knee-deep in crusty snow, are screaming “Enough!” In short, as we crawl toward the official first day of spring and continue to endure the vagaries of this transitional season, the misery index is off the charts.

Not surprisingly, there’s much talk of the Sunshine State. It seems the balmier clime has become the new Promised Land. The longing is intoned with almost religious fervor. “Next Year in Florida” embraces a nearly universal fantasy. I can imagine the scene next autumn: a massive muster of snowbirds in an open field the morning after Turkey Day. Amongst them might be more than a few of my neighbors, gingerly trying out the lift capability of their newly acquired wings and testing the nascent navigational skills they’ll need to keep them tracking south toward the Florida border.

Not for me that fantasy. I say to those who gaze longingly south and imagine life perfection as a Floridian, think carefully about the easy seductions of eternal sunshine and warmth.

Yes, it gets tiresome shoveling driveways and sidewalks and worrying about the heating system. And yes, more often than not the bite of cold gusts of wind leaves one begging for mercy. But everything changes eventually. Seasons follow upon one another with comforting predictability. The seasons mark the passage of time and help us discover how complex and adaptable we are as individuals when we are forced to change not only our clothing but also our habits and our thought processes. Living with the wrenching drama of distinct seasons, we northerners fine-tune our emotions to each one: the bitterness of winter, the ecstasies of spring, the mellowness of summer, and the splendor of fall. Even as I write this, the snow piles are receding in the nearly spring light. Patches of grass are emerging. And as the gloom of winter begins to lift, so do my spirits.

Unlike those who dream of their sunny Shangri-La, I chart the difference between our northern climes and Florida in ways other than what can be measured by the heat or cold index. Comfort, after all, is not solely measured by the thermometer’s gauge.

As a political creature, I see comfort more as a function of the social contract than of how many days there may be of temperatures above 60 degrees. True comfort resides in the belief that my rights are as important as my neighbors’ and that our responsibilities to one another and for one other’s safety are expressed through the conception and writing of commonsense laws. And so I must admit that I am more comfortable in the cold climes of New York than I am in the heat of Florida.

With apologies to the sensibilities and beliefs of socially conscious Floridians, let’s remember that Florida is the poster child for elevating the unfettered rights of some—that is, the right of the minority to bear arms—above the right of the majority to be safe. It is in sunny Florida that there are no registration or licensing requirements for owners of rifles and shotguns. No permits nor registration papers are required to purchase and own handguns. Want to purchase and own a semi-automatic assault rifle, or two or three or fifteen? Florida welcomes you with open arms. Want to buy from an online dealer an arsenal of ammunition worthy of a war zone and stash it in your open-air garage? The Sunshine State couldn’t care less.

And under Florida’s sharp blue skies it’s gotten just a bit harder to feel safe in the landscape of perfectly manicured public spaces after the state passed its Stand Your Ground law. What comfort does this law ensure? This is the law that invites individuals to employ deadly force and use “stand your ground” as a defense when they believe themselves to have been under threat, no matter how minor or disputed the altercation. The law certainly has not brought comfort to the wife and daughter of the father who was murdered in a movie theater after tossing a container of “deadly” popcorn in the face of a bully who chided him for texting a baby sitter before the movie had begun. There is no comfort, too, for the family of Jordan Davis who was shot and killed and whose only “threat” was that he refused to turn down the music in his car in a parking lot. There will never again be comfort under the sun for the mother and father of Trayvon Martin, whose only “threat” was that he was walking home in the dark wearing a hoodie after buying Skittles and soda and then was unlucky enough to be in the wrong place at the wrong time and encountered a stranger threateningly following him.

The contrast up here in the colder climes could not be more dramatic. Although many of my Upstate New York neighbors despise the new SAFE Act, I couldn’t be more grateful and proud of the passage of this commonsense law shortly following the tragic events at the Sandy Hook Elementary School. The law bans the sale of semi-automatic rifles, regulates the sale of ammunition, bans Internet ammunition sales, establishes instate criminal background checks at the time of gun sales or transfers, and involves mental-health professionals in the identification of patients who pose a potential threat to themselves or others.

So let others escape to the fantasy of a more comfortable life under perpetual heat and blazing sun. I’ll endure the cold and feel safer for it.

The post Guns in the sun vs. safety in the snow appeared first on Occasional Planet.