The Winning Gun Safety Message

Here is the gun safety message we have to do our best to communicate to the public.

No one is proposing to take away all guns. No one is proposing to repeal the Second Amendment. If that is what you believe the GOP and the NRA have succeeded in doing what they set out to do, which was to brainwash you.

What is being proposed is what a vast majority of Americans, including Democrats, Republicans, independents and even gun owners already agree with. First, background checks for everyone who buys a gun, no exceptions. That means no guns for terrorists, felons and the violently insane. Second, no military weapons of war. That means no machine guns or "bump stocks" that turn ordinary rifles into machine guns. It also means no AR-15, Kalashnikov or Uzi-type firearms (military assault rifles) with muzzle velocities so high that bullets don't just pass through internal organs but turn them into surgically-unrepairable mush. Third, no magazine capacities higher than nine or ten rounds.

That's about it. With these laws in place the possibility of mass slaughter will be sharply reduced. Australia put these kinds of rules in place after a massacre in 1996 and hasn't had one since. 

Three Cheers for Congressional Democrats

I'm very proud of congressional Democrats, who staged a sit-in in the well of the House floor to protest inaction and call for a vote on urgent gun safety measures favored by super majorities of the American people. Led by civil rights icon John Lewis of Georgia, they refused to heed a "moment of silence" for the Orlando shooting victims, shouting "We will no longer be silent!"



Specifically, they demand a vote on two measures. The first is to require all gun purchasers to pass a background check. This is supported by 92% of Americans, including majorities of Republicans and even NRA members. The second would make it illegal to sell weapons to people on the terrorist "no-fly" watch list. This proposal is favored by 85% of the American  people.

33,000 Americans died last year from bullets shot by guns. It would be easy to take a few common sense steps to help stem the carnage, but congressional Republicans remain at the mercy of the extremist leadership of the gun lobby. With majorities like these, some time in the not too distant future I can foresee a tipping point on these gun questions like the one we've recently seen with respect to LGBT equality. And when the tide turns the groundswell will be just as great a pleasure to watch. 

Latest Outrages Renew Gun Safety Debate

With the terrible Orlando massacre on everyone's mind thoughts turn again to ideas for stemming the bloodshed. One of the finest explanations debunking gun-nut fears and in support of taking some common sense action was provided by President Obama when he fielded a gun control question at a PBS town hall in Elkhart, Indiana on June 1 of this year. You can watch it here. It lasts 5 minutes and 36 seconds.

General Stanley McChrystal ran an op-ed in the New York Times saying, among other things, that "Our communities should not feel like war zones" and that we must take action to keep guns out of the hands of "felons, domestic abusers and terrorists." A Democratic filibuster led by Sen. Chris Murphy of Connecticut has apparently forced a vote on a law banning the sale of guns to people on the FBI terrorist and "no fly" watch lists next week. Some Republican lawmakers are actually saying now they think terrorist shouldn't be able to legally get guns and ammunition in America, but this vote has been held before and Republicans voted it down then, so we'll see if they change their tune now. I wouldn't hold my breath.

Perhaps the most cogent appeal I've seen comes from retired Army officer M. Thomas Davis. He wrote a recent op-ed, "Strirct Military Gun Control Should Be Our Model." Read it in its entirety here. He holds  that we ought to take the same care in civilian life that the military does with respect to lethal weapons. He believes the intelligent steps would be to 1) renew the assault weapons ban, 2) ban magazines above eight rounds for pistols and five for rifles, 3) conduct thorough background checks of everyone seeking to purchase a gun. He feels "a heavy tax on arms and ammunition, particularly the latter" to discourage their purchase "serves a clear public good." "the revenue generated could be used to enhance background checks and hire more agents for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives."

Obama Does What He Can on Guns

I am often reminded how proud I am to have voted for President Barack Obama twice. He invariably pursues a course trying to serve the needs and interests of the American people as a whole. Today was again one of those days. This morning he addressed the nation to present common sense Executive actions he is taking to enforce the laws and stem the carnage visited upon America by gun violence, a plague that kills some 30,000 Americans every year. These actions fall under four steps.

The first is to tighten up the currently required background check system. Anyone selling firearms must get a license and conduct background checks. This will effectively close the "gun show loophole" problem. In order to facilitate this, the computer system will be upgraded and more workers will be assigned to do the checks. "Anyone selling firearms must get a license and conduct background checks or they will be indicted and prosecuted," the President said.

The second is also about beefing up enforcement. The President directs that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms hire and train 200 new agents. The new regulations will require and the additional agents will make possible the more rapid reporting of lost or stolen guns, and empower greater scrutiny and enforcement against offenders convicted of domestic violence.

Step three comprises more resources for mental health. It includes the redirection of $500 million into expanded access for mental health treatment. The Affordable Care Act already provides the framework for delivering these services, and most of the mass shooters of recent years have been seriously mentally disturbed. This directive also requires that such mental health records be reported to those doing the background checks and to state agencies as well.

The fourth area is about requiring safety technology in guns. 500 shooting deaths a year come from accidents, many involving children, and hundreds of murders are committed with stolen guns. The President observed that phones can be protected so the owner's fingerprint is needed for activation. Why not for guns? Through GPS we can locate an iPad wherever it is. Why not a gun? Aspirin tablets have childproof caps. Why not gun safeties or triggers? New regulations will be forthcoming on such specifics.

These are all eminently sensible safeguards, already permitted by law and supported by the vast majority of the American people. The President teared up when going over the list of school shootings, including the first graders at Newtown. "Every time I think about those kids it gets me mad," he explained. He wants more steps too, but frankly admitted they won't be enacted during his presidency by this Congress, and called on citizens to make their voices and votes known. Connecticut, for example, has seen a 40% reduction in gun deaths since enacting 100% mandatory background checks, and Missouri has seen its spike to 50% above the national average since getting rid of theirs.

He concluded, "The gun lobby may hold Congress hostage but they can't hold America hostage. Yes, they are well organized, but we need to be just as organized in defense of our kids. If they know it's going to be harder to win elections if they keep blocking these laws they'll stop blocking these laws, I promise you." CNN will host a Presidential Town Hall on gun issues Thursday at 5:00 P.M. PST.

Obama, Tired of Games, Demands Budget

President Obama held a remarkable press conference yesterday. He served notice that he's not finished addressing gun violence, but of potentially even greater importance, the President gave congress what amounts to an ultimatum to work with him on getting a permanent budget in place with a deadline of December 11.

First, on the latest gun massacre he made a couple of good points in a new way. He compared the ongoing carnage to reducing auto accident deaths. He admitted that yes, the types of common-sense laws that have been proposed won't end all gun deaths, just as things like seat belts, air bags and better car and road engineering haven't ended all auto crash deaths. But they have reduced the rate by 75%. To say that because we can't save every life means that we should not try to save any lives or as many as we can is fatalistic and not in the normal American character. His other point on this topic was that to make headway the majority who favor these common sense improvements will need to make them a voting priority in order to get congress to change. That's because the minority of intransigent pro-gun voters are single-minded in that way and their intensity must be matched by the other side if they want to win. The President vowed to keep speaking out on the issue.

In what may have been his most important statement, President Obama laid down a marker regarding the budget. Referring to the stopgap continuing resolution to keep the government funded for 10 weeks through December 11, the President said he would not sign another such bill. He is going to insist that congress produce an actual budget. The national budget is frozen at sequester levels "temporarily" agreed to four years ago. They are pegged to the 2006 budget. Since then our population has grown 8% and the national economy has grown 12%. Many things need more money to provide the same service, some things need increases to meet new needs, and some things should be scaled down or cancelled, since they either don't work or have achieved their objectives. The resulting straight jacket produces a spending pattern that is increasingly out of sync with national needs. He was right to call it irresponsible. He is ready to negotiate on taxes and spending priorities and calls upon the Republican leadership in congress to do likewise.

Also relating to the budget, Obama put some things off limits. First, the debt ceiling needs to be raised even before December 11. There will be no negotiation on this; congress just needs to do it. Second, he will not give in to blackmail over Planned Parenthood. Some in the GOP are threatening a new shutdown over it. Obama said he understands their intensity of feeling on the matter, but it is inadmissible to jeopardize the entire economy and the full faith and credit of the USA over it. He said he feels the same way about the importance of gun legislation, but would never use that as a lever to threaten to wreck the American economy and hurt millions over an unrelated issue. Imagine, he said, if I threatened to crash the American economy if I didn't get my way over gun laws. It would be crazy. For them to threaten to do so over the debt limit for money they've already spent, or on the budget itself, is nothing less.

In our constitutional system, the President concluded, neither he nor congress can work their will without the other. They need to confer and negotiate. Because they have differing views, there will need to be compromises. He is tired of the posturing, resolute about rejecting blackmail, and ready to talk and get something done. He's right. Enough extremism is enough, it's time to govern.

Time for a New Memorial Day

The drumbeat of killings goes on.  In the past few days we have seen random shootings take place in Santa Barbara, Las Vegas and Troutdale, Oregon.  If this seems to be practically a weekly occurrence, that's because it is.  In just the case of school shootings, for instance, there have been 74 in the 18 months since the horrific massacre of first graders and staff at Newtown, Connecticut.

These deaths are tolerable, even necessary, we are told by gun enthusiasts, as part of the price we pay for the right to bear arms.  A friend of mine has an admirable idea about this.  Louie Campos proposes we celebrate a new Memorial Day.  Just as we reserve the last Monday of May to honor  members of the armed services who have given their lives in defense of our country and constitutional rights, we should set aside April 20 or December 14 to honor those who have lost their lives to gun violence so that others can enjoy their right to guns.  As Louie put it, "If that unfettered right is their idea of freedom then they need to recognize those who are making the sacrifice for their freedom."  Well said.


The April 20 date would commemorate the mass murder at Columbine High School on April 20, 1999.  The December 14 date would do the same for the Sandy Hook Elementary rampage of December 14, 2012.  But of course the sacrifice is ongoing, and the remembrance would be for those and for the many who give their lives every day so that others will have the crucial right of unhindered access to machines that fire lethal projectiles.  We lost 4,486 service members in Iraq and 2,187 in Afghanistan.  Yet these figures are dwarfed by the losses here at home to our own guns.  Every year American gun deaths top 30,000.  Over 105,000 are shot every year, an average of 289 a day.  Of these 86 die: 30 of them murdered, 53 by suicide, 2 by accident and 1 at the hands of police.  Between 2000 and 2010 335,609 Americans died after being shot by guns.  That is more people than live in St. Louis or Pittsburgh.  Stretch that out to 2013 and the number comes to over 400,000, or more Americans than died in World War II.

It is only fitting that the hundreds of thousand of Americans whose lives have been forfeited for the rights of others should be remembered.  That's the American way.        

New California Laws for 2014

After spending the past week visiting family and vacationing in Southern California, I'm back home and ready to alert you California residents to some information you can use. Here are some of the new laws passed in the Golden State last year that took effect on January 1.  I'm listing some I feel you might likely encounter in daily life.

Pocketbook Issues
• Minimum wages go up by $1 to $9 an hour on July 1 and by another $1 on Jan. 1 2016 to $10.
•  Computer software, or “bots,” used to buy blocks of tickets before regular consumers get access will be outlawed, making it more difficult for scalpers to hoard the best seats.
•  Domestic workers, such as in-home aides, housekeepers and nannies, will be eligible for overtime and other benefits.
• Starting July 1, workers will be able to use the current paid family leave program to care for a seriously ill grandparent, grandchild, sibling or in-law.                                                                           • Workers in outside jobs will be guaranteed recovery periods to cool down or employers can be penalized.                                                                                                                                                  • Businesses must act to protect workers who are victims of domestic violence and cannot fire them.

On the Road
• Low-emission and zero-emission vehicles without a passenger may continue to use car pool lanes until 2019.
• Drivers who park at broken meters cannot be ticketed.
• Teenagers under the age of 18 may not text while driving, even if using “hands free" devices that use voice-command messages.
• Owners may order a special $50 “Snoopy” license plate to raise money for museums. 
• Motorists must leave three feet of space when passing bicyclists.

Education
• Districts must adopt policies allowing transgender students to use the restrooms and locker facilities of their choosing, as well as play on the sports team that matches their gender identity. (There is a referendum gathering signatures in an attempt to overturn this law.)
• Veterans who served at least one year in California and file an affidavit declaring their intention to become permanent California residents will be exempt from higher out-of-state tuition when enrolling at a California State University.
• Schools may discipline students who use social media to harass others — called “cyberbullying” — even if it occurs off-campus.

Immigrant Rights
• Unauthorized immigrants will be eligible for a driver’s license by the end of the year or sooner, once DMV adopts the regulations.
• Local authorities can no longer turn unauthorized immigrants over to federal authorities for deportation if they are suspected of only minor crimes.
• Employers could be fined up to $10,000 and lose their business license if they report or threaten to report the nonlegal status of a worker who files a complaint over unsafe conditions or sexual harassment.
• Those without proof of legal status may practice law, under certain conditions.
• Non citizens may work at polling places if they are permanent legal residents.

Guns
• The Department of Justice will start keeping records of long-gun purchases.  Previously those documents were destroyed within five days.
• Conversion kits can no longer be sold if they allow a gun to shoot more than 10 rounds.
• Purchasers of long guns will have to pass a written safety like the one now required for handguns.
• People found guilty of making violent threats will have to wait five years to own a firearm.
• Gun owners who do not keep their weapons securely stored can face criminal penalties if the gun is used in a shooting involving a child. 
• Hunters cannot use lead ammunition. This goes into effect no later than July 1, 2019, but likely much earlier, as soon as Fish and Wildlife writes the regulations.

Senate Gun Vote Exposes Democracy in Crisis

The word "dysfunctional" barely begins to describe the operations of congressional government in Washington, D.C. these days.  Yesterday's defeat in the Senate of simple and reasonable proposals to reduce the nation's gun carnage are but the latest demonstration of the sham our democracy has, in many ways, become.  A series of massacres in recent months were not enough to spur action from what some have styled the world's greatest deliberative body.  It may once have been so, but those days have long since receded into the distant past.   

The first point of dysfunction is that the representatives do not represent.  That is, they refuse to enact the wishes of the great majority of the American people.  Let me reprise a paragraph from my January 16 blog on the people's views.

According to the ABC News/Washington Post Poll and the Pew Research Survey the people are with the President on his ideas, often overwhelmingly so.  Universal background checks are favored by an average of 85% in the two surveys.  76% support background checks on even ammo purchases in the ABC Poll.  An average of 69% are for a federal gun database.  Banning assault weapons is favored by a margin of 17%, and banning the high capacity magazines is favored by an average of 22% in the two surveys.  

Even the smallest of these margins, the 17% majority for banning assault rifles, would be considered a landslide in an election contest.  It only got 40 votes.  46 senators voted for limiting magazines to reasonable levels to make a mass murder more difficult.  One could understand a Senate that voted against the people's preferences when they were say, 55-45.  But 85-10?  76-18?  69-25?  In what sense is a nation to be considered a democracy when eight to one and three to one majorities of the popular will are ignored?

The second point of dysfunction is the "filibuster."  The background check provision got 55 votes in the 100-member body.  That is a majority, as required by the Constitution for the passage of legislation.  Yet the Senate has its own rule that it takes 60 votes to bring something to the floor.  This tactic by the minority to derail a vote on something they didn't like used to be employed only rarely.  But the Republicans in the Senate have used this tactic 109 times in the last two and a half years of the Obama presidency, stopping virtually all action.  By what principle of democracy does the will of the 41 prevail over the will of the 59, or the 45 over the 55, as happened yesterday?  A government that cannot act is a government in name only.


The third point of dysfunction is the reason why the overwhelming will of the American people was thwarted.  Everyone understands what happened, and that it is emblematic of how Washington operates in contemporary times.  The countervailing power  strong enough to outweigh the will of the voters was a wealthy industry, the firearm manufacturers, and their lobby, the National Rifle Association.  Legislation favored by 260 million Americans was stopped by an organization of 4 million members backed by an interest group that spends $3 million a year on 29 full-time Washington lobbyists, 14 of whom have previously worked in government jobs, and threw $20.5 million into political campaigns in 2012.  Source.  It was fear of losing their contributions, and fear of those same contributions being given to others to spend against them, that motivated the senators' votes.

So long as our politicians and their campaigns are funded by private interests intent on their own profit we will continue to get the best government that money can buy.  There has never been a starker example of that principle in operation than the votes taken yesterday on the floor of the United States Senate.
 

Obama Opens Fight for Sensible Gun Controls

This morning President Obama, declaring, "This is our first task in society: keeping our children safe" signed executive orders putting 23 directives on gun-related issues into effect and called on congress to take action on seven others.  See his presentation here.  Extensive public opinion surveys by two highly-regarded organizations, Pew Research and the ABC News/Washington Post Poll, indicate a strong majority of Americans support him.  In accepting Vice President Biden's recommendations for gun safety in the wake of the Newtown, Connecticut Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre, the President vowed to "use whatever power this office has" to fight for passage of his agenda, and called on Americans to communicate their support to their representatives.  We will now see to what extent the will of the majority can prevail on an issue against a determined minority backed by the organized money of one of Capitol Hill's most powerful lobbies.

Among the items included in the 23 presidential directives are instructions to law enforcement to share felony and background check information with other jurisdictions and gun dealers, to help school districts that so desire to hire additional "resource specialists" and to make it easier for mental health providers to warn of dangerous individuals.  He is also directing the Center for Disease Control to research the causes of murderous behavior, including violent video games.

Among the items the President wants from congress are:

Money to implement the research and the other measures, about $500 million.  Require a universal background check for anyone buying a gun, thereby closing the gun show, online and personal sale loopholes.  A ban on military-style assault weapons.  Limiting an ammunition magazine to ten rounds.  Severely increase the penalties for those who flout the requirements or who buy weapons to provide them to criminals.  Confirm Acting Director Todd Jones as Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, a position congress has refused to fill for six years.  Provide funds and a program to help localities hire more police.

According to the ABC News/Washington Post Poll and the Pew Research Survey the people are with the President on his ideas, often overwhelmingly so.  Universal background checks are favored by an average of 85% in the two surveys.  76% support background checks on even ammo purchases in the ABC Poll.  An average of 69% are for a federal gun database.  Banning assault weapons is favored by a margin of 17%, and banning the high capacity magazines is favored by an average of 22% in the two surveys.    

President Obama described the effort saying, "We can respect the Second Amendment while keeping guns out of the hands of an irresponsible few."  Emphasizing "It's time to do the right thing," he pointed out that action is urgent because, "In the month since Sandy Hook 900 more Americans have died at the end of a gun."   He granted that "no law" can prevent all violence but, referring to children who had written him on the stage with him, to survivors and parents of victims in the audience, held that "if even one child's life is saved" that we must act. 

The President is under no illusion the task will be easy.  He called on the membership of gun rights organizations to call on their leaders to support these sensible steps, and on Americans in general to communicate their support to their representatives.  "The only way we can change is if the American people demand it.  They have to say, enough!" he said.  He recommended finding out if your congressional representative is for background checks and limiting assault weapons.  If not, "Ask them why not.  What's more important, getting an A grade from the gun lobby and money for their campaign, or giving parents some peace of mind when they drop their children off for first grade?"          

    

Mass Murder: No More Excuses, It's Time to Act

It already seems like more than three days since Sandy Hook Elementary School and the hamlet of Newtown, Connecticut first entered our consciousness.  This most recent in our nightmare series of massacres, the thirtieth since Colorado's Columbine High School (see list here) in 1999, is just one more, just the latest. And yet it isn't.  This time it's different.  We have watched the growing frequency of these rampages, but now a line has been crossed with the slaughter of twenty little children.  Now, finally, the ground seems to have shifted.  Now, at last, there is a sense that action will be taken.  The question is, what?

The problem is complex.  There isn't just one reason the United States has fifteen times the per capita gun deaths of the other industrialized countries.  No one solution will solve the carnage on its own.  And make no mistake, no matter what we do, there will be more of these mass murders in the future.  But the fact that we cannot eliminate the problem completely no longer means that we should do nothing and put up with the evil as it gets steadily worse.  We haven't eliminated road fatalities either, and yet actions we have taken--seat belts, air bags, reinforcement bars, cars designed with crumple zones, better road engineering, lighting, signage, and a societal sea change against drunk driving to name some--have resulted in cutting the number of fatalities significantly over the years.

Major voices are speaking out again.  It started in the New York times with Nicholas Kristof.  Mayor Bloomberg added his voice.  President Obama's remarks yesterday at Newtown's interfaith memorial service, that "We can't tolerate this anymore.  We aren't doing enough and we will have to change," made it clear that business as usual is not acceptable, and that the weight of the presidency will soon be engaged.  The consensus for action is spreading.  This morning conservative Republican Joe Scarborough repudiated his previous thinking and spoke at length about the imperative need to take action.

Here's what need to be done.  First, we have to reimpose the assault weapons ban, that is, we must get rid of automatic and semiautomatic rapid fire weapons.  That includes a program to buy back as many as we can that are already out there.  We have to restrict rounds in magazines and clips to some reasonable number such as 9 or 10.  A massacre is only possible when the killer has a weapon capable of perpetrating one.  Along with that, we have to make sure everyone who buys a gun has a background check.  Forty percent of gun sales (at gun shows) need not be screened.  That has to stop.  We don't excuse 40% of drivers from having to take the tests necessary to get a driver's license.  We don't neglect to screen 40% of the passengers getting on a plane.  Next, all the security lists have to be coordinated, brought up to date and put online for all dealers and law enforcement agencies to see.  A person on a terrorist watch list who is not allowed to get on a plane should not be allowed to buy explosives or a gun, either.  As these things are done, gun owners have to be included and have a say in the conversation at the table.  They must be reassured that no one's hunting rifle or target or personal protection pistol is being taken away.  The vast majority of gun owners are decent and law-abiding citizens.  They don't want criminals with military assault weapons either.  They don't go dove, quail or deer hunting with AK-47s and AR-15s.

We also have to do a much better job of identifying and treating people with dangerous psychological conditions.  Read this piece for one woman's chilling account of trying to control her violently delusional son.  Mental health services have been cut too much.  Too many people are not getting the help they need.  Too many families are overwhelmed and have nowhere to turn until crimes are committed and the justice system is left to deal with the wreckage.  Yes, people have rights.  But society has a right to be protected, too.  Where is the line?  There needs to be one.

Finally, what in society is fostering a climate of death and mayhem?  Is there an eroticism of the power of violence?  Are violent video games, movies and music contributing?  If so, to what extent?  Who is vulnerable?  Are we making things worse by publicizing the names and pictures of the authors of these heinous atrocities?  Can the social climate itself be changed?  Look at what has happened over the years to the former acceptability of such practices as drunk driving, smoking and racial and gender discrimination.  When society decides that something is not cool, but contemptuous, real changes in behavior, changes for the good, can take place.  It's time to engage the  findings of the behavioral sciences to sort these things out.  Let's get to work.     

  


    

Another Mass Murder

Another mass murder, this time in Pennsylvania. A man who had trouble getting girlfriends went into a fitness center and randomly shot twelve women, three of whom died, before turning the gun on himself. After a couple of days the story subsided. Ho hum, just another day in what passes for normal in the U.S.A.

I was interested to know how common this kind of thing is around the world. I mean, not counting war and terroristic murders perpetrated for some political end, are other societies having this kind of problem with homicidal individuals going over the edge and the American press just isn't reporting about it here, or what?

I googled the issue and it seems we really are in a class by ourselves in terms of serial and mass killers. The United States has 76% of these kinds of murders. We have 4.6% of the world's population but 76% of the world's deaths at the hands of maniacal murderers. Does that sound healthy to you? No, not to me either.

There seems to be precious little discussion about it. Some of the facts we know are that 90% of the killers are men and 68% of the victims female. Bob Herbert of the New York Times wrote an op-ed August 8 attributing much of the carnage to misogyny.

There is some evidence the problem is getting worse. Mark Kopta, psychology chair at the University of Evansville in Indiana, presented a paper on the topic at the recent Midwestern Psychological Association meeting in Chicago. Defining a mass killing as causing "the deaths of at least five people," including the killer's suicide when that is part of the toll he found only three such incidents from 1930 to 1970, three in the 1970s, ten in the 1980s, seventeen in the 1990s and 25 in the 2000s, which still have a year and a half to go. Six occurred in 2008 alone, and eight in a little over half a year so far in 2009.

You would think there would be a lot of interest in determining the cause or causes of such a development, but such does not appear to be the case. Economic and racial explanations do not seem to hold up. The mass killing rate was not high in the 1930s, for instance. It went up both in the 1990s when the economy was good and the 2000s when it was bad. In terms of race, 84% of the killers and 89% of their victims have been white.

Misogyny could be a factor. So could the ease with which mentally ill individuals can get their hands on weapons capable of killing many people. What about the prevalence of violence and the sexual exploitation of women in the entertainment media, including music, film, advertising and video gaming? Two common elements in the phenomenon are rage and firearms. As Dr. Kopta says, "Anger is the most seductive emotion of all. When people get angry, they don't want to stop being angry."

We as a society really ought to be talking about this. Behavior like this is extremely sick. Other societies are not experiencing it. That tends to indicate there is something seriously amiss here. Are there ways to better prevent such antisocial attitudes from developing and to identify individuals who are exhibiting the telltale signs, to get them the psychological help they need or to protect the rest of us from them? Or do we just shrug and accept is as the new normal? The answer to this question will say a lot about the state of American society these days.

Second Amendment Decision's Surprise Results

Back on July 24 I commented on the Supreme Court's important ruling that the Second Amendment should be interpreted as conferring a personal right to gun ownership rather than merely authorizing militias to be armed. The justices thereby struck down Washington, D.C.'s ban on handguns. You can see that commentary here.

Gun rights proponents saw the ruling as an opportunity to overturn practically every gun restriction in the book. There have since been sixty challenges to various and sundry gun restrictions brought to federal courts in the past five months. And surprisingly, as UCLA Law Professor Adam Winkler sums up:

There have been suits against laws banning possession of firearms by felons, drug addicts, illegal aliens, and individuals convicted of domestic violence misdemeanors. The courts have ruled on the constitutionality of laws prohibiting particular types of weapons, including sawed-off shotguns and machine guns, and specific weapons attachments. Defendants have challenged laws barring guns in school zones and post offices, and laws outlawing "straw" purchases, the carrying of concealed weapons, possession of an unregistered firearm, and particular types of ammunition. The courts have upheld every one of these laws.

You can read Winkler's article here.

Winkler points out that the basis for these rulings is contained in the July decision. To whit,

The basis for most of these lower court rulings upholding gun control is a paragraph near the end of the Supreme Court's decision that, at the time, seemed like a throwaway. The Supreme Court wrote that "nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions on the commercial sale of arms."

As it turns out, just about all the state and local gun restriction laws fit into one or more of these categories. What seemed at the time a potentially momentous ruling has instead not changed much at all. After losing sixty straight cases, gun rights advocates have got to be pretty disappointed with how this is turning out.

Supreme Court Gun Ruling

I've been asked to comment on the recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling on the Second Amendment, the right to bear arms. For the first time, the high court definitively clarified its Constitutional understanding of the Amendment, albeit in a narrow 5-4 decision split right down the middle of its customary conservative-liberal ideological divide. The short synopsis of the ruling is that individuals have an inalienable right to possess firearms, though reasonable regulations can be imposed on that right. Washington D.C.'s ban on gun ownership was ruled unconstitutional.

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

The crux of interpreting these 27 words has always hinged on the militia reference. Gun control proponents have stressed "a well regulated militia" in their arguments, holding that the right is a collective one pertaining to a state militia. Gun ownership proponents have minimized the militia reference and concentrated on "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" as definitive in itself in establishing an individual right.

The majority opinion written by Justice Antonin Scalia last month comes down on the side of the latter, that individuals can own guns whether or not as part of a militia. Scalia wrote, "The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with a militia..." He qualified this some by continuing, "Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapons whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose." There can still be bans on automatic weapons and sawed-off shotguns, and on carrying firearms into schools or government buildings. But his opinion did also overturn the D.C. requirements that guns at home must be disassembled and/or equipped with a trigger lock. (Some guns in the District were still legal, having been grandparented in when the ban was originally passed.)

Justice Stephen Breyer, in his dissent, said, "In my view, there simply is no untouchable constitutional right guaranteed by the Second Amendment to keep loaded handguns in the house in crime-ridden urban areas." The two views are characteristic of the long-running debate. By 5-4, Scalia's view is now the law of the land.

Some research into the intentions of the founders reveals a difference of opinion about the motives for the Amendment between Eighteenth Century Republicans and Federalists. Those of a Republican bent agreed with Thomas Jefferson's "Democratic-Republicans" that national government power should be kept weak so as not to become a threat to the people's liberties. To this end, James Madison, Noah Webster and Patrick Henry wrote and spoke in favor of the Second Amendment as a means to keep state militias well-armed against the possible encroachments of a national army and potential federal government tyranny.

On the other hand, Federalists, who favored a powerful national government and feared that democracy might degenerate into "mob rule," wanted a strong, well-armed militia handy to put down possible insurrections. Prominent Federalists such as Alexander Hamilton and John Adams wrote and spoke for the Amendment for these reasons. What we therefore see is a convergence of interests between two viewpoints that happened to favor the same remedy for essentially opposite purposes, both connected to the "militia" concept. In popular usage and understanding, however, the Second Amendment has generally meant the right to personal gun ownership for personal reasons to the majority of Americans, and it is this view the Court has ratified.