From National Public Radio:
Senate Democrats say they are bringing Senate business to a halt in an effort to force some action on gun control. Sen. Chris Murphy of Connecticut said on Twitter that he was prepared to “talk about the need to prevent gun violence for as long as I can.”
“For those of us that represent Connecticut, the failure of this body to do anything, anything at all in the face of that continued slaughter isn’t just painful to us, it’s unconscionable,” Murphy said, referencing the shootings at an elementary school in Newtown, Conn. “I can’t tell you how hard it is to look into the eyes of the family of those little boys and girls who were killed in Sandy Hook and tell them that almost four years later, we have done nothing, nothing at all to reduce the likelihood that that will happen again to another family.”
Full story here.
My position on Senator Murphy, Senator Blumenthal and Rep. Himes before this action was I was strongly against all three of these men getting reelected. Now with this historic act and speaking out I’ve changed my position.
So what about the laws Himes wants to pass would have stopped THIS guy from getting THAT gun or another gun? He was on the no-fly list at one time. So what? He was not accused of a crime and flying is a privilege. Gun owning is a right. In a fit of anger you post some anti-Obama rhetoric on Facebook. You end up on some list. The thought control cops can now limit your rights?
If I get drunk and kill someone while driving my car would you want laws on car control? And if you want to talk about saving lives by making sure the operator is mature, trained and competent enough to own the product, you would still save more lives by focusing on cars than guns.
We are about to spent millions of tax dollars that we do not have to focus on a subject that only exists in our heads. I mean, it happens but people get eaten by alligators as well. We are going to pass unproven laws based on hypothetical theories that have as much chance of making things worse as making them better. That is why it is important for these politicians to strike while the irons are hot. Once we calm down and come to our senses we will be able to see the issue with clearer heads.
And remember, the Newtown kid stole the gun he used. How would these laws have stopped him?
For the first time ever in the U.S. Senate there was a filibuster on gun control, that’s a big step toward to start the dialog on guns.
BOE SPY–“If I get drunk and kill someone while driving my car would you want laws on car control?” Uh, yeah. It’s called DUI. Duh.
Yes, that is a punitive action against me as the driver, not the car as a product. I.E., you pass a law that all cars need to have breath-a-lizer ignition cutouts or you outlaw some cars because of the frequency that they are driven by drunks.
Duh.
You guys went from the Three Stooges to the Three Amigos overnight.
Let’s hope Trump doesn’t put a wall around CT.
Great job!
Senator Murphy: Filibusters have their place in politics and can be effective, but how about collecting your Congressional supporter colleagues and coordinating a national gun control/public safety initiative that has some registered names/numbers behind it–an NRA/National Shooting Sports ‘antidote.’ Maybe it is a propitious, opportune moment to coordinate a massive march on Washington to promote measures toward ending gun violence and mass killings involving guns.
The NRA and Shooting Sports supporters have the benefit of a united, well-financed effort, whereas the anti-gun violence advocates are fragmented, unorganized, and woefully underfinanced. It would seem this election year presents an opportunity, in the context of the continuation of the trend of worsening gun violence and mass killings in this country, for the creation of a massive, focused, unified, well-financed anti-gun violence movement in this country.
Senators Murphy and Blumenthal and Congressman Himes; it would seem the time is right to lead the way in the creation of massive, permanent, well-financed anti-NRA/Shooting Sports movement that will allow commonsense gun-control measures to be enacted and implemented in this country. Talk is cheap, even in the form of Senate filibusters. It is time to show some real nuts-and-bolts leadership.
Anti-gun efforts are underfunded? We spent a TRILLION dollars on anti-terror efforts. The NRA spends millions on gun safety efforts and gun locks. Obama spent $500-plus million on new gun legislation last year. Registering assault weapons and high-capacity magazines cost CT millions.
Heart disease is the leading cause of death in the US with around 611,105 deaths each year. 1 in 4 deaths in the US are from heart disease. Coronary heart disease costs the US $108.9 billion and guns get a Trillion-plus for 13,286 deaths?
It is not that we do not spend enough. It is that we spend it in stupid, ineffective ways. That seems to be a trend in government spending. Look at education, social services, defense or health care. They spend money in careless, ineffective ways and when that does not work, they spend more.
13,286 people were killed in the US by firearms excluding suicides. That is ~0.0035% of all the deaths in the US.
According to the Tracker’s data, which defines a mass shooting as an incident in which at least four people are killed or wounded (including the shooter), there were 372 mass shootings in the U.S. in 2015, killing 475 and wounding 1,870.
If you change the definition of mass shooting to five people killed excluding the shooter, how many ‘mass’ shootings did we have last year? Maybe 10?
This is all media hype. Sure it is terrible but is it preventable? Are their bigger problems we could actually solve with a trillion dollars? With 13,286 gun death (only 0.0035% of all the deaths in the country) and only 475 of those being from (not so massive) mass shootings, should we even try to spend or do more?
Gun deaths are not worse than they have ever been. They are actually a little lower than their high point in 1993 but tend to hover around 35K per year including suicides. With all the gun control spending there has not been a significant change in gun deaths.
theincidentaleconomist.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/gun-auto-fatalities.jpg
Here is something interesting. Of the 880 guns traced, only 72 or 8.19% were purchased out of state, the rest were purchased within the state legally.
www .ctpost.com/local/article/Feds-traced-880-Connecticut-guns-in-2015-8237965.php
Also note the pictures. How many of the guns are assault rifles? I think I see two.
Himes is busy in Washington worrying about national gun laws when CT’s gun problems come from CT. At least 91.81% of the time they do.
The Washington Post fact-checked three specific claims made by two Democratic senators, and found that, at least in these instances, there’s more political rhetoric being stated than veracity.
Claim No. 1: More Gun Control = Less Gun Crime
“What we know is that in states that have imposed those reasonable limitations, there are less gun crimes. There are less homicides.”
Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) made this statement Wednesday during a speech on the Senate floor.
Murphy’s staff told the Post that he was referring to a chart published by the National Journal in 2015, which shows the states that had the most “gun-related deaths” in 2013, the most recent year for which data were available, and whether those states require background checks, permits, waiting periods or have so-called “stand your ground” laws.
But because of how Murphy worded his claim, referring not to “gun-related deaths,” which would include suicides, but to “gun crimes” and “homicides,” the Post gave the claim three Pinocchios.
Claim No. 2: Expiration of Assault Weapons Ban Led to Hike in Mass Shootings
“AR-15-style weapons weren’t legal in the United States until 2004 after being banned for 10 years. It is not coincidental that there was a massive increase in mass shootings in this country after 2004.”
The problem with this claim, also made by Murphy on the same day as his previous statement, is that his staff couldn’t point to any specific data to back up his assertion. In fact, the Post pointed to a 2004 report by the Justice Department, which found that impact of the decade-long ban on so-called “assault weapons” was minuscule.
It further found that if the ban were to be renewed, as some in the Democratic Party, including President Barack Obama, are now calling for, the “likely effects on gun violence are likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement.”
For this reason, the Washington Post gave the claim three Pinocchios.
Claim No. 3: Al Qaeda Spokesman Was Right, Machine Guns Are Easy to Get in the U.S.
“America is absolutely awash with easily obtainable firearms. You can go down to a gun show at the local convention center and come away with a fully automatic assault rifle, without a background check, and most likely without having to show an identification card. So what are you waiting for?”
Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), quoting an “al Qaeda spokesman,” made this statement Wednesday during a speech on the Senate floor. Indeed, the Post dug up the clip of al Qaeda spokesman Adam Gadahn saying this in 2011. Gadahn was later killed in a 2015 drone strike.
Here’s the thing: Terrorists are known to lie. And when politicians quote terrorists without offering any clarification, it usually doesn’t end well. This case is no different.
As the Post rightly pointed out, you really can’t buy a “fully automatic assault rifle” at a gun show. In fact, the Gun Control Act of 1968 already strictly regulates these purchases. Thus, Reid likely meant to say “semi-automatic” weapons, which are different from “full-automatic” firearms, in that semi-automatics require the shooter to pull the trigger once for every bullet.
The Washington Post assigned this claim two Pinocchios.
Are you trying to say they make up and twist ‘facts’ to support their claims?
One of my favorites is when they point out that states with lenient guns laws (Alaska, Kentucky, Montana) have a higher rate of gun crimes. The most prevalent ‘gun crime’ in these states is poaching. I do not think stopping a good-ol-boy from shooting at some food is the gun crime that gun laws are designed to curb.