The NRA's Post-Tucson Contortions

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dennis-a-henigan/the-nras-post-tucson-cont_b_824580.html

In the National Rifle Association's carefully constructed parallel universe, the governing narrative is that "good people with guns" prevent harm from "bad people with guns," unless misguided gun control laws disarm the "good people". It is revealing to watch the NRA twist itself into contortions trying to fit the Tucson mass shooting into this narrative when everything about the shooting contradicts it.

NRA leader Wayne LaPierre put his parallel universe on full display last week in his address to the annual Conservative Political Action Committee meeting. According to LaPierre, the killing of six and the wounding of thirteen in Tucson on January 8 proves that "government failed" and gun laws don't make us safer. Why? Because, he asserted, the shooting occurred in a government-mandated "gun-free school zone," where presumably the shooter did not have to fear that a law-abiding citizen might confront him with a gun.

LaPierre was referring to the federal law barring possession of a gun within 1,000 feet of a school, a law that the NRA adamantly opposed. He said the sidewalk in front of the Safeway in Tucson where the shooter struck was within 1,000 feet of a school located across the street. Even if this were true (and there appears to be a charter school nearby), LaPierre was wrong that gun carrying on that Safeway sidewalk in Tucson was illegal. The NRA appears to be unaware that the federal gun-free school zones law does not apply "on private property not part of school grounds," like Safeway's sidewalk and parking lot. It also does not apply to individuals lawfully licensed to carry guns, of which there are many in Arizona, due to the State's ridiculously permissive laws.

In other words, the Tucson shooter had every reason to expect that Arizonans carrying concealed weapons might be present at the site of his attack. Yet he attacked anyway. In fact, even if the Safeway sidewalk were a "gun-free zone," LaPierre's argument fixing blame on the gun-free school zones law assumes that Loughner chose to attack Rep. Giffords and her constituents at that location because he knew it was "gun-free". Is it really plausible to believe that Jared Loughner knew about the federal law, knew about a nearby school, believed that the Safeway was within a "gun-free zone," and therefore assumed that he would not be challenged by a law-abiding Arizonan with a gun?

<more>

Wayne LaPierre is fuckingf asshole

yup

YUP

YUP

YUP

Everyone should be empowered to conveniently snuff out anyone else? Even several at a time?

If we don't think it was a good enough reason, we will punish them after the fact?

That doesn't sound normal to me.

It sounds diseased.

At least in RW world.

Sounds like something from Lewis Carroll.

"The NRA appears to be unaware that the federal gun-free school zones law does not apply "on private property not part of school grounds," like Safeway's sidewalk and parking lot."

Heh, interesting information. I didn't know this either. I guess that totally annihilates all the arguments I've been hearing about this 1000 foot radius.

"Annihilate. You keep using that word."



Because while 18 USC §922(q)(2) does indeed make that exemption, La Toscana Village strip mall is entirely surrounded by public thoroughfares, all of which fall within the 1,000-foot exclusion zone around Edge High School Northwest (http://www.edgehighschool.org/northwest.html). Unless you want to contend that Loughner bothered to transport his Glock 19 unloaded in a locked container, and didn't remove and load it until he parked on at La Toscana Village.

Moreover, LaPierre didn't say that "the shooter did not have to fear that a law-abiding citizen might confront him with a gun" or words to that effect (see the speech http://home.nra.org/pdf/WAYNE_LAPIERRE_CPAC_2011.pdf); that's Henigan editorializing. I find it hard to credit that LaPierre wouldn't be aware that 18 USC §922(q)(2) also makes an exemption for individuals licensed to carry by the state the school zone is in. Rather, LaPierre simply pointed out that this was yet another example of a mass shooter ignoring a "gun free zone" (as Loughner did not possess an Arizona CCW permit) in force on all public thoroughfares surrounding the mall and its parking lot.

Now, let me hasten to point out that I don't agree with the tenor of LaPierre's speech overall (to put it mildly), but that doesn't alter the fact that Henigan's argument addresses a straw man; he spends several paragraphs debunking something LaPierre didn't say.

And I'm highly curious how the exemption for private property "totally annihilates all the arguments" you've been hearing about the 1,000-foot exclusion zone. Not just annihilates a little bit, but totally; and not just some of the arguments, but all of them. As Charlie Brooker would put it, "But does it really? Does it really? Really, does it?"