Great Britain vs. United States in Gun Deaths

Last year there were 42 gun-related deaths in Great Britain.  This number includes homicides, suicides and accidental deaths.  

In 2005 (the latest year for which numbers are available) there were 30,364 gun-related deaths in the United States.  This number includes homicides, suicides, and accidental deaths. 

True, the United States has more people than Great Britain so you can’t really compare these two numbers.  Britain has about 61 million, while the United States has about 296 million, which gives the U.S. about five times the population of Great Britain. So, a better comparison of the numbers would be to multiple the British gun deaths by five.   

42 x 5 = 210

Now we can compare the numbers. 

Gun-related deaths for Great Britain (if given a population equal to the United States) = 210

Gun-related deaths in the United States = 30,364. 

210 vs. 30,364   

Wow.

2008 Election Results: NRA is the big loser

The 2008 elections results are in and the National Rifle Association is the big loser. The NRA declared that it intended to spend $40 million on the 2008 elections. Much of this money was specifically targeted toward efforts to defeat Barack Obama. The NRA sent out mailings and ran radio and television ads, warning that Obama would be “the most anti-gun President in American history.” They spent heavily in swing states that, despite their alarms, went decisively for Obama including Virginia, Pennsylvania, Ohio, New Mexico, Florida, Nevada, Wisconsin, and Minnesota.

As the New York Times pointed out in their December 1st editorial:

"The gun lobby has long intimidated politicians with its war chest and its trumpeted ability to deliver single-issue voters, especially in tight races. After this year’s election, those politicians should be far less afraid and far more willing to vote for sensible gun-control laws."

The editorial went on to point out:

"In Congressional races, the N.R.A. endorsed candidates in 20 of the 25 races where Democrats picked up seats from Republicans. We will not miss Florida’s Tom Feeney and Ric Keller, Idaho’s Bill Sali, Michigan’s Joe Knollenberg, Ohio’s Steve Chabot, Colorado’s Marilyn Musgrave and Pennsylvania’s Phil English — willing champions of an extreme agenda.
On the Senate side, the N.R.A. spent considerable sums to help Senator Elizabeth Dole of North Carolina and Bob Schaffer, the Republican Senate candidate in Colorado. Both were defeated."

The NRA also had a very poor showing in New England in both congressional and state house races.

In Massachusetts and Rhode Island every single winning candidate for the U.S. House and Senate received an “F” rating from the NRA. An “F” rating is given to candidates that, according to the NRA, are “true enemies of gun owners’ rights.”

In New Hampshire, “A” rated and NRA endorsed incumbent Republican Senator John Sununu lost to Democratic challenger Jeanne Shaheen. Shaheen is also considered a “true enemy” of the NRA having received an “F” rating. Connecticut appears to be overrun with “true enemies” with 58% of the winning state Senators receiving an “F” rating from the NRA.

In Maine the two seats that the Democrats picked up in the state Senate were both seats where the NRA endorsed the losing Republican incumbent candidate. Five of the seats the Democrats picked up in the state House were also seats where the NRA endorsed the losing incumbent Republican.

The NRA did better in Vermont, endorsing the winning candidates for both Governor and Congress. But even in Vermont, a state where no concealed weapons permit is needed to carry a gun, thirty percent of the winning state house candidates didn’t even bother to return the NRA’s election questionnaire. According to the NRA, failure to answer their questions is “often an indication of indifference, if not outright hostility, to gun owner’s rights.” How important can the endorsement of the NRA be when so many candidates didn’t take the trouble to return the questionnaire?

The NRA likes to scare legislators with the myth that they can turn out a significant block of single-issue, pro-gun voters. In the 2008 elections the NRA failed to deliver. And if you look back to the 2006 mid-term elections you will find that the NRA spent 80% of its money on losing candidates. Again, the NRA failed to deliver.

Americans want stronger gun laws. Survey after survey shows this. The majority of Americans believe it is possible to protect an individual’s right to own a gun while at the same time regulating the purchase, possession and carrying of guns. As President-elect Obama has said, “don’t tell me we can’t uphold the Second Amendment while keeping AK-47s out of the hands of criminals.”

The NRA doesn’t want you to look at how poorly their endorsed candidates did in this election. Instead, they want to continue pushing fear and pushing guns. But it is time for our elected officials to understand that Americans want to move beyond the fear tactics of the NRA. It is time for legislators to take a stand, join us, and support meaningful, common sense gun laws.

Tragedy at Massachusetts Machine Gun Shoot

I think machine gun shoots are pathetic events. Basically, it’s a bunch of guys who get together and blow things up. They are drawn by the chance to shoot a variety of fully automatic weapons at targets like cars (probably some sort of road rage release) and other things that look “cool” when they get shot and blow up. While these gatherings strike me as both sad and silly I understand that they are legal and that there are men who get a thrill from the destructive power of firearms. These events will, no doubt, continue to take place across this county.

This past weekend the Westfield Sportsman’s Club held a machine gun shoot. The event was billed as “Cocked, Locked, and Ready to Rock” and promised targets that included vehicles, pumpkins and “other fun stuff.” Children under 16 were admitted for free and there was no age limit or license required to shoot a machine gun.

A tragedy occurred when an 8-year-old boy accidentally shot himself in the head. The boy was allowed to shoot a fully automatic Uzi machine gun and according to the police statement “the force of the weapon made it travel up and back toward his head, where he suffered the injury.” The child died at the Springfield hospital.

The average 8-year-old stands just a little over four feet tall and weighs a scant 55 pounds. Even with two hands such a child would not have enough strength to control the recoil of an Uzi. While it’s one thing for grown men to get their jollies off shooting big, bad guns, it’s quite another thing to give a fully automatic machine gun to an 8-year-old. That is just irresponsible.

I hope that organizers of these pitiful events take a long hard look at what happened in Massachusetts and stop the foolish, immature, and reckless practice of allowing children to participate in machine gun shoots. If the adults at these events can’t exercise some common sense then policy makers should consider intervention. Next time the guys want to get together and blow things up they would do best to leave the kids at home.

The Ayes and the Noes of "Second Amendment Enforcement Act" House Vote

NECPGV would like to give a big HURRAH to all those members of Congress who had the courage and the fortitude to vote NO on the "Second Amendment Enforcement Act", a bill to override D.C.'s gun laws. In this election year all too many members of the House are kowtowing to the gun lobby and voting to protect guns instead of voting to protect the health and safety of the public.

We wish to thank all the House members from Southern New England who stood up to the NRA. Our deepest appreciation goes to Representatives Larson, Courtney, DeLauro, Shays and Murphy from Connecticut; Representatives Olver, Neal, McGovern, Frank, Tsongas, Tierney, Markey, Capuano, Lynch and Delahunt from Massachusetts; and Representatives Kennedy and Langevin from Rhode Island.

It is unfortunate that we must give a big RASPBERRY to all the House members from Northern New England. None of them had the courage to say no to the NRA. NECPGV sent the following letter to Representatives Allen and Michaud from Maine; Representatives Hodes and Shea-Porter from New Hampshire; and Representative Welch from Vermont:

Dear Representative ,

It is incredibly distressing to note your recent vote in favor of the National Rifle Association's latest sham the "Second Amendment Enforcement Act." Not only did you vote to override the democratic rights of the residents of the District of Columbia you voted to ignore the concerns of the District Police Department. This dangerous and irresponsible bill will gut D.C.'s gun laws, repeal the District's handgun registration process, destroy safe storage requirements, and legalize high-capacity assault weapons. It will also infringe on the D.C. Council's ability to enact firearm regulations in the future.

It should be noted that your vote defies logic when considering that in April 2008 two polling firms, the Democratic firm Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research and the Republican firm The Tarrance Group, conducted a national survey on behalf of Mayors Against Illegal Guns. Some of the key findings of the survey include:

· Stopping gun violence is a top goal for most Americans. 71 percent believe that stopping gun violence is a "very important" goal.
· 60 percent of Americans favor stricter gun laws. 33 percent think that gun laws should be kept the same and only 7 percent believe that they should actually be made less strict.
· 87 percent support requiring all gun sales be subject to a Brady background check.
· 70 percent support requiring every gun owner to register each gun they own as part of a national gun registry.

The result of this survey clearly demonstrates that many Americans overwhelmingly favor common sense gun laws. While many Americans also support the right to own a gun they see this as compatible with gun laws that target illegal guns and fight gun violence. This is, in fact, the essence of the recent Supreme Court decision in District of Columbia v. Heller.

The Heller decision clearly states that while the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm in the home for self-defense, the right is not unlimited. Justice Scalia, writing for the majority, held that "like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose." And while the court was split 5-4 on whether the right granted by the Second Amendment is tied to militia service, all nine Justices agreed that a wide variety of gun laws are presumptively lawful.

Next time you are faced with a key vote on the gun issue, please keep in mind that the majority of your constituents do not own a gun. The majority of your constituents favor stricter gun laws, including constituents who own a firearm. Despite this fact, you have disappointingly chosen to kowtow to the extreme wishes of the gun-pushers at the National Rifle Association. As one newspaper editorial put it: "This bill tramples on the district's right to govern itself and makes it harder for the police to protect streets traveled by local residents, government officials, diplomats and dignitaries. Voters also should remember this vote when their elected representatives piously declare their devotion to curbing the influence of rich lobbyists."

Who else supports the Second Amendment Enforcement Act? People on the Internet with tag lines that read: "The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives should be a store, not a government agency" and "I'm a Patriot, modern day Minute Man, and devout Enemy of the Left. There are way too many wasted bullets in this country. If you listen carefully you can hear the Angels sing and trumpets sound with each rebirth of another AK-47. Therefore I know I'm doing the Lord's work."

Hopefully, in the future, you will reclaim your courage by standing up to the gun lobby and vote to protect the safety and well-being of your constituents over guns.

Live Free or Die (Except if you live in Washington, D.C.) H.R. 6691 - A Bad Idea

I’ve always admired the New Hampshire motto Live Free or Die. It calls forth ideals of independence and self-government. Which begs the question, why are both of New Hampshire’s congressional representatives trying to strong arm and overrule the Washington, D.C. City Council? Don’t the residents of D.C. have democratic rights?

Both Congressman Paul Hodes and Congresswoman Carol Shea-Porter are cosponsors of H.R. 6691, a bill that would repeal D.C. gun laws, overturning provisions enacted by the District of Columbia City Council and endorsed by the residents of Washington, D.C. This bill is a shameless attempt by the gun lobby to interfere with local city rule and to push the NRA’s irresponsible and dangerous agenda. The D.C. Council does not need the NRA to draft their new gun regulations.

In June the Supreme Court overturned D.C.’s restrictive gun laws in the landmark decision D.C. v. Heller. While the Court ruled that the D.C. laws went too far in restricting access to handguns and that an individual right to bear arms is protected under the Second Amendment the court also ruled that this right is not absolute and that gun regulation is constitutional.

In response to this ruling and to bring the city into compliance with Heller, the D.C. Council passed an emergency resolution allowing the registration of handguns. They are currently working hard on crafting permanent gun legislation that will best provide for the public’s safety.

But the gun lobby is not satisfied with the D.C. Council’s efforts and is taking this opportunity to encourage Congress to meddle in local legislation. They are pushing hard for H.R. 6691, a bill that would not only repeal D.C.’s current gun regulations but also prevent the D.C. City Council from enacting any gun-related legislation in the future. It is an obscene attempt to prevent the residents of Washington, D.C. from governing themselves. How ironic that the only two congressional cosponsors from New England come from the state with the motto Live Free or Die.

H.R. 6691 has many dangerous provisions that go far beyond the requirements of the Heller ruling. H.R. 6691 would:

- Repeal D.C.’s ban on semi-automatic weapons, including assault weapons like the Tec-9 assault pistol and AK-47s.

- Allow D.C. residents to cross state lines to buy handguns in neighboring states. Current federal law bars gun dealers from selling handguns directly to out of state buyers because of the high risk this creates for interstate gun trafficking.

- Repeal D.C.’s registration requirements for firearms.

- Repeal D.C.’s safe storage laws.

- Prohibit D.C. from passing future gun regulations.

At a recent hearing on H.R. 6691 law enforcement officials testified that the bill would even permit people to carry loaded semi-automatic rifles such as AK-47s lawfully on the streets of D.C.

“Imagine how difficult it will be for law enforcement to safeguard the public, not to mention the president at the inaugural parade,” said Chief Cathy Lanier, chief of the District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department.

D.C. Mayor Adrian Fenty has asked Congress to demonstrate their "commitment to the democratic process" by allowing the city government to work on its own to comply with the Heller decision.

So why are Representatives Hodes and Shea-Porter so anxious to not only interfere with D.C. lawmakers but to enact legislation that will make it harder to protect residents and visitors of Washington, D.C.? Are they afraid that in this election year the NRA will work against them if they don’t cosponsor this legislation? Do they not understand the Heller ruling when it states “like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” How sad to see both New Hampshire representatives supporting this irresponsible and dangerous NRA agenda.

Man arrested for having gun at Obama rally

I just read a news article about a man who was arrested outside of a Barack Obama rally.  The man had come to the rally to pass out fliers on the right of Americans to carry guns.  The article didn’t say whether or not he was bitter and clinging, but he was carrying a bible and wearing a holster on his hip complete with a Glock handgun.

Before the rally he posted his intentions on the Pennsylvania Firearm Owners Association web site.  He said he wanted to test what would happen if he showed up at a rally for Obama openly wearing a gun.  Although he did admit that he probably would not “get within a mile of the rally” he nonetheless claimed his constitutional rights were violated when he was arrested.  

Say what?!?  A violation of his constitutional rights?  Seriously?!? 

In an effort to try and understand this thinking I went to the Pennsylvania Firearm Owners Association website.  I found a lively discussion of the incident in the “Concealed and Open Carry” group.

Support for this open carry bravado was overwhelming with little to no acknowledgement of the need to protect candidates, the threat posed by guns, or the history of political assassinations.  Instead the comments read:

 “you're fucking kidding me, right? tell me the rally was in a school or state park or something. seriously, i may not have had the balls to do what he did, but that's just me. some will say he did us a disservice by proving we're a bunch of gun toting bible thumping yahoos. that may be. but it doesn't excuse the fact that what he did, was in all likelihood, perfectly legal.”

 “The only crime committed was by local law enforcement. False arrest illegal search and seizure, and last but not least interrogating some one with out a lawyer present. This makes me sick and these assholes will not be held accountable for their actions, and that is the saddest part of it all.”

 “dont you wish things where how they used to be back in the old west when 90percent of the people were carrying incuding the politicians....”

 “In the founders time, this would have been considered an act of war. There is absolutely no question that the disgusting acts perpetrated by the officers involved are in direct violation of the Constitution. The Constitution does not get suspended for anyone, not even Obama. Period.”

 “I just don't know the words to express my outrage over this incident. An obvious violation of this mans rights.”

 “In the future, I think it would be a good idea to show up OC'ing (open carry)in numbers and organized... at least several dozens, if not hundreds... including our women and children in hand... guns, Bibles, and all... in order for a TRUE message to be sent.”

 “This is just a small taste of what will come if the Obama regime moves into Pennsylvania Ave.”

But the comment that really stood out was the one that referred to the bystander, John Atkinson, who notified police that there was someone with a gun. 

 “I hope he successfully sues the shit out of those who arrested him, and OASN, I sincerely wish that John Atkinson has a long, dragged out, excruciatingly painful, bout with stomach and colon cancer, and dies without pain medication.”

 

Open Democratic Platform Meeting

The message from the Obama campaign was exciting: Every four years, the Democratic Party assembles a platform that outlines the party's position on a number of issues. Traditionally, the drafting of the platform is not open to ordinary people. This year, that's going to change. For two weeks in July, people all across America will hold Platform Meetings in their own communities to discuss the issues and share their input. The outcome of these meetings will be reviewed by the Drafting Committee as it creates the final Platform.

Members of New England Coalition to Prevent Gun Violence, States United to Prevent Gun Violence, New Yorkers Against Gun Violence, Ceasefire New Jersey, Gun Free Kids, and Freedom States Alliance met to draft a Democratic Platform statement on gun violence prevention. We are extremely proud of our Platform statement and share it with you here.

………………………………..

The Democratic Party believes that all Americans have the right to be free from gun violence in our homes, schools, places of work and on the streets of our communities. Easy access to firearms by terrorists, felons, domestic violence offenders, violent teens, the mentally ill and many others who we all agree should not possess guns continues to put tens of thousands of Americans at risk every year for death or injury due to gun violence.

This significant ongoing threat to the safety of our communities across the country is due in part because more than 500,000 guns are sold or transferred each year without the simple and beneficial performance of background checks on the purchasers.

More than 30,000 Americans are killed each and every year with firearms. This is a staggering sum. In addition, guns wound and injure more than 70,000 citizens every year. Unregulated guns sold to unauthorized people are used daily to rob, intimidate, wound and kill law abiding Americans. It is the illegal trade in firearms that fuels the criminal market.

Without doubt, the devastation caused by gun violence and the illegal gun trade is a critical public health, safety, social and economic issue costing thousands of lives and billions of dollars every year. The Democratic Party can and must do more to prevent this tide of violence against law abiding Americans. Safe and secure barriers must be placed between firearms and terrorists, criminals and unlawful people who seek to possess guns.

The recent Supreme Court decision, District of Columbia v. Heller, supports this view and confirms that sensible regulation as to who may possess firearms, what kinds of guns may be possessed and other life-saving restrictions are acceptable under the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The decision clearly states that, while the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm in the home for self-defense -- the right is not unlimited.

Maintaining our current patchwork of local, state and federal laws and regulations leaves too many loopholes for terrorists and criminals to exploit. These loopholes grant too many opportunities for guns to get into the wrong hands. We must work to ensure that only law abiding Americans possess weapons, and that terrorists and criminals cannot utilize the current lax and unregulated secondary sales market for weapons to get their hands on guns.

Nothing herein is intended to restrict the law abiding American who has passed a Brady background check from possessing a weapon if he/she wishes. Therefore, we resolve to:

- Strengthen the national Brady background check system to incorporate all necessary records including criminal, domestic violence, and mental health records from all 50 states and all territories.

- Institute a universal background check system to ensure that all gun sales in all 50 states and territories are subject to a Brady background check.

- Fully fund the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms so that it can conduct regular and frequent inspections of Federal Firearms Licensed Dealers to prevent unlawful sales.

- Require that all persons who sell guns of any kind through employment at a gun manufacturer or through a Federal Firearm Licensed Dealer pass a Brady background check.

- Strengthen programs designed to trace crime gun purchases to shut down unscrupulous dealers.

- Remove the Tiahrt restrictions on the ability of local law enforcement to access important gun trace information and give police officers across the nation the tools they need to solve gun crimes and fight the illegal arms trade.

- Institute a national ballistics program to initiate microstamping technology on all weapons manufactured or sold in the United States, so that crime guns and casings can be traced quickly to the original sale.

- Support manufacturers who voluntarily develop and sell childproof handguns.

- Strengthen and make permanent the federal Assault Weapons Ban and the ban on large capacity ammunition magazines and clips.