Opposing Views: NEWS: Brady "Guns & Hate" Report-Weak Gun Laws Arm Violent Extremists

Brady "Guns & Hate" Report-Weak Gun Laws Arm Violent Extremists

By The Brady Campaign , To Prevent Gun Violence - July 02, 2009

Comments(7) | (0)

WASHINGTON --- On the ten-year anniversary of the neo-Nazi shooting spree that terrorized the Midwest over the July 4th weekend in 1999, a new report released by the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence points to a new wave of hate-motivated gun violence by extremists armed by our nation's tragically weak gun laws.

The report explains how loopholes in our gun laws that have fueled hate shootings since 1999 still remain. The report also highlights how the National Rifle Association has repeatedly used incendiary, extremist rhetoric that has been reflected in statements made by several of these killers.

On the weekend of July 4, 1999, the nation witnessed a horrible rampage of hate-motivated gun violence. Over the course of three days, a white supremacist killer drove across Illinois and Indiana, randomly targeting African-Americans, Asian-Americans and Jews. The killer murdered two former Northwestern University basketball Coach Ricky Byrdsong and Indiana University graduate student Won Joon Yoon - and left nine wounded.

"This Brady Center report illustrates the awful toll taken by armed racists and other extremists who never should have had access to firearms in the first place," said Paul Helmke, President of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence. "There would be no better way to honor the victims of these hate killings than for our elected officials to act now to prevent other families from having to suffer such senseless loss."

The report issued today, Guns and Hate: A Lethal Combination, is available at
http://www.bradycenter.org/xshare/pdf/reports/guns-hate.pdf.

The report points to a series of recent hate shootings by violent extremists who exploited loopholes in the nation's gun laws, including:

-- The shooting death of Officer Stephen Johns by a white supremacist at the Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, DC on June 10, 2009;

-- The shooting death of one soldier and wounding of another at a military recruiting station in Little Rock, Arkansas at the hands of a Muslim extremist on June 1, 2009.

-- The shooting deaths of three Pittsburgh police officers at the hands of a white supremacist armed with an AK-47 on April 4, 2009;

Regarding Article

NEWS: Brady "Guns & Hate" Report-Weak Gun Laws Arm Violent Extremists

I have to defer my opinion on this matter to those who know

In the book Rachels tears you learn about the hate of God and religion when a Columbine teenager is asked if she believes in God and then when she says yes two fellow classmates shoot her. Rachel Scott was her name and her father says it better than I ever could so I defer how I feel about guns to someone who should know. Here is a poem by Rachels dad and is found in book.
Your laws ignore our deepest needs

Your words are empty air

Youve stripped away our heritage

Youve outlawed simple prayer

And precious children die

You see for answers everywhere

And ask the question, "WHY?"

You regulate restrictive laws

Through legislative creed

And yet you fail to understand

That God is what we need!

BY Darrel Scott father of Rachel Scott American Christian Martyer

- Hope7 July 2, 2009 3:35PM

Reply to this Recommend (1)

Thank You for your Comment

We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
- That book was a lie, though
  
  That was a fictional book. The whole event never happened.
  
  - quantummechanik July 3, 2009 10:54AM
  
  Reply to this Recommend (2)
  
  Thank You for your Comment
  
  We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Part 1

I read the report referenced here. While I could have been long winded (just kidding, I was) I chose a few interesting passages to illuminate here.
"At the same time, political leaders in Washington have failed to enact the laws needed to protect Americans from gun-wielding extremists."
To what laws exactly are they referring? Time and time again they say this. Yet they can never show how any laws restricting the freedoms of law -abiding citizens at the same time restrict criminal access to guns . And that is what is at the heart of the argument. They Brady campaign does not want to make it harder for criminals to get guns. They want to make it impossible for you and me to get guns. And when that happens, the criminals will be bolder, and violent crime will increase.
In their report, the use Benjamin Smith, white supremacist who went on a shooting rampage in Illinois and Indiana as an example of "our weak gun laws ." What kills me is they state that say he was not LEGALLY able to buy a gun, but exploited loopholes in our gun laws to get the guns. And what loophole was he able to exploit to get his guns? He purchased them illegally, from a man named Donald Fiessinger who was later arrested for illegal gun trafficking. I don't have the time to do the research, but it was obviously already done by the Brady Campaign, so I'm asking openly for them to show me in the law the loophole that says it's OK to buy from illegal gun traffickers. And while you're at it, show me another law that would have prevented Smith from illegally purchasing his guns elsewhere on the black market, or from gangs.
They go on to point out that Fiessinger was buying his guns from a "reckless licensed firearms dealer." The dealer later admitted they suspected that Fiessinger was illegally reselling the guns, but did not stop selling to him. This is indeed a travesty, and dealers like this should be more responsible. But the truth is that they are the minority. I have talked to several gun dealers who have flat out refused to sell someone a gun, even after passing a background check, because they suspected the gun was either a straw purchase or going to be used or sold illegally.
It is also pointed out that Fiessinger was able to purchase 72 inexpensive, small, easily concealable firearms from the dealer, and that no state or federal law prevented it. And as long as he has not been convicted of a crime, it shouldn't. Now that he has, it does. But if he wants them, 10,000 laws and all the bans in the world will do nothing to stop him. Just ask anyone who has ever smoked a joint, done a line of cocaine , or shot up with heroin.
There is a section that demonstrates what the Brady Campaign believes are laws that would have prevented Smith from getting guns. They are:
1) Closing the private sale loophole - They point out that Smith was able to purchase his guns because private sellers are not required to do the same background checks that FFL dealers do. This is partly true. The part that is wrong is the word "required." Private sellers are not allowed to do those checks. Open that system up to me, and I'll gladly, even enthusiastically do that same check on anyone to whom I sell a gun. Until then, stop complaining that I'm not required to do so.
2) Limiting purchases to one handgun a month - Like so many suggestions from the Brady Campaign, this will only limit law-abiding people's access to guns. Criminals will still buy them by the truckload if they want.
3) Strengthening Law Enforcement - Their points here reference limits on the number of spot checks allowed by the ATF on licensed dealers per year. I must admit I am ignorant as to the history and ramifications of these laws, so hopefully someone else can shed some light here. Though in principle I agree that corrupt gun dealers should definitely have the full force of the law brought down on them.
There are a few more examples of hate crime shootings, including of course, the recent Holocaust Museum shooting. Tragedies, every single one of them. No sensible pro-gun supporter will argue otherwise. But limiting my access to firearms would not have saved any one of these people.

- LagerHead July 2, 2009 5:01PM

Reply to this Recommend (5)

Thank You for your Comment

We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Part 2

"The gun lobby claims that individuals with permits to carry concealed weapons are ' law -abiding,' and that increasing the number of such individuals reduces crime . Yet Richard Poplawski was given a permit despite his checkered past."
First, I like how they put quotes around "law-abiding" as if it's some industry term, or made up. This is a fact that is indisputable. Permit holders are convicted of crimes at a much lower rate than the general public. Let's use the state of Florida as an example (they have more carry permit holders than any other state, so they are often chosen as a good example). Florida has a population of approximately 18,328,000. Of those, about 8%, or 1,500,000 have a permit to carry a firearm. Of that 1.5M, since 1996 166, or a little over 1/100 of 1% of the total have had them revoked after the fact due to crimes committed. And that's over a ten year period. That's 16 per year for those of you without a calculator handy.
During the last 10 years, the average crime rate in Florida is over 890,000 crimes per year, meaning that on average, roughly 5% of Florida's general population (if there were 1 crime per one person, an admittedly flawed number, but useful in making the point) commits crimes. Even given the flaw in the number, let's assume that it's actually much lower, like 1%, and that they commit multiple crimes (like many often do). That's still a rate more than 1000 times that of permit holders. And again, that is a conservative estimate. So if you want to put up your silly quotes, Brady Bunch, it should have read that the general public is "law-abiding."
Second, the fact that Poplawski was able to get a gun is a flaw in the background check system, not the law .
"A recent report (since withdrawn) by the Department of Homeland Security found that "the consequences of a prolonged economic downturn," as well as "the election of the first African American president," could “create a fertile recruiting environment for rightwing extremism and even result in confrontations between such groups and government authorities."
The reason the report was withdrawn is that was complete left-wing fear-mongering garbage. It painted everyone who owns guns , has served in the military , believes in God, or thinks that abortion is wrong as a potential terrorist. It was not only insulting, but had very little basis in fact. If the report had any basis in reality, I would be on the terror watch list for meeting at least 9 of their criteria for being a terrorist. Therefore, everything in it can be, and was by most, considered irrelevant and horribly biased. The Brady report mentions this report several times, though it can be completely ignored since it has very little to do with reality.
"These loopholes enabled a gun trafficker to acquire over 70 cheap handguns from a corrupt gun dealer[.]"
How exactly would closing a loophole affect this? He's corrupt. He doesn't care about laws and loopholes.
"[T]he gun lobby should rein in its rhetoric, and speak more truthfully and responsibly."
This statement had me in tears. From laughing so hard. One definition of rhetoric is "Loud and confused and empty talk." I interpret "empty talk" as being void of fact, i.e. most everything put forth by the Brady Campaign. They produce no studies or statistics that show we would be safer if we banned guns, then accuse the pro-gun folks of rhetoric despite the fact that can back up their "rhetoric" with numerous studies supporting their position. They lambast the NRA, Gun Owners of America, and anyone else that is pro-gun for praying on people's fears, then turn out reports like this.
Now I'm not saying that the hate crimes in these reports are not something we should work toward eliminating, but we must do so in the context of the overall problem. First, they point out that hate groups display their propaganda at gun shows . While this is apparently true (not at the gun shows I have attended, but they have pictures of some in Virginia), the fact is that they are doing so within the limits of their 1st Amendment rights. You don't have to like what they say (and the vast majority of pro-gun people do not) but you have to love a country that allows you to say something that is distasteful to probably better than 99% of the population. Second, the ratio of hate crimes to all others is very, very small. For example out of a total of 23,390,528 crimes reported in 2004 ( http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/offenses_reported/offense_tabulations/table_02.html ), 7,145 were classified as hate crimes ( http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/offenses_reported/hate_crime/index.html ). That's somewhere in the order of .03%. The reason the Brady Campaign has chosen this particular segment is because it is so incendiary.

- LagerHead July 2, 2009 5:02PM

Reply to this Recommend (5)

Thank You for your Comment

We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Part 3

What they don't tell you is that the majority of gun crimes are gang related. And many of the most violent gangs in the United States are comprised of illegal aliens (MS 13 anyone?). I would be willing to bet my Springfield XD that there are more gang related killings by illegal aliens in a month than by hate groups or their members in a year. So where oh where is the report of "Guns and illegal aliens"? Of course this country has become so supportive of our...ahem...."undocumented migrant workers" or whatever their politically correct moniker is this week, that a report alluding to that problem would cause an uproar in the left-wing media upon whom the Brady Campaign and anti-gun lobby has become so dependent. So you will never see it come from them. And if we do, I'll eat my hat. With sour cream. And I hate sour cream.
"The connection between hate groups and extremists and the easy availability of guns can only be ignored at our peril."
More lies. The implication that if you get rid of guns, you get rid of hate groups is obvious, and ridiculous. And in this report they show examples where these nuts have resorted to illegal means after being denied legal access to guns after background checks.
This report is meant to be incendiary. And it is. But not only for the reason the Brady Campaign intended. Its implications that gun rights supporters enable and even encourage hate groups is wrong and insulting to anyone with half a brain. It would be similar to someone on the right saying that groups like the Student Peace Union during the 1960's were responsible for terrorist acts committed by Bill Ayers and the Weather Underground. Both are untrue and unfair.
Finally, the Brady Campaign, as is always the case, has presented half-truths, outright lies, and some truly scary stories to preach its agenda. But have we really come to expect anything else?

- LagerHead July 2, 2009 5:09PM

Reply to this Recommend (4)

Thank You for your Comment

We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Outstanding

Nicely written LagerHead. You are correct, for all the good it will do to convince an anti that they are wrong, have always been wrong and will continue to be wrong. Gun control advocates are right about one thing, it is not about guns , it is about control. Their control over us.

- moby clarke July 30, 2009 1:36AM

Reply to this Recommend (1)

Thank You for your Comment

We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
And Yet...

We have increasingly liberal laws that allow even the poor to keep and bear arms, rather than just rich, white, liberal elitists with their $10,000 Beretta shotguns (Mr Biden, I'm talking to you).

Crime continues to decrease overall, so that almost every nation in Europe has higher contact crime rates than the US.

Every time the existing laws are challenged, the Brady Bunch trots out the droolingly imbecilic canard that "blood will run in the streets," but it never does.

Mr Bellesiles wrote a book that alleged that the American Revolution was won without use of firearms , that was so laughably false he was stripped of his tenure and his Bancroft Prize revoked.

The "withdrawn" report mentioned was withdrawn because it made bigoted and unprovable assumptions--that conservative veterans were "likely" sources of potential terrorists, when any quick search shows that most violent terrorists in America are "liberals"---the Weathermen, the Black Panthers, the Friends of the Earth, the Unabomber...

The Supreme Court has stated there is an individual right to keep and bear arms, and will shortly rule that this applies to states and local governments as well as to the federal government.

Shortly, then, the Brady Bunch will be recognized for what it does and what it is. It conflates law abiding citizens with criminals, it tries to arouse public outrage against law abiding citizens based on their culture and lifestyle. It is, in fact, a hate group, and should be placed alongside the Klan and the Aryan Nations and laughed at, rather than treated as something relevant.

- Michael Z Williamson September 22, 2009 3:16AM

Reply to this Recommend (0)

Thank You for your Comment

We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.