Political Commentary: Joan McCarter
The Cynical Gun Debate
The most extreme version of a bill to allow guns back in national parks overturns a Reagan-era rule.By Joan McCarter, 5-18-09
 |
|
 | |
|
That opportunity is actually right before us, or, more specifically, in front of Congress. Here’s some of what pending credit card reform legislation could do for American consumers:
- Ban interest rate hikes on existing balances unless a card holder was 60+ days behind, and then would require the rate to be restored to its previous level if payments were on time for six months.
- Consumers would have to be notified of rate increases 45 days in advance.
- Companies would not be allowed to charge late fees if they were late in processing a payment.
- Statements would have to be mailed 21 days before payment was due.
- It would be more difficult to provide cards to those under age 21.
- Rates on new accounts could not be increased within the first year, and promotional rates would have to be in force for at least six months.
- Ban companies from charging fees due to payment source (over the phone payments, for instance), charging interest on fees.
- Force companies to reveal the length of the payment schedule (based on minimum balance).
It’s not the bill it could have been. Originally, the bill’s author, Senator Chris Dodd, would have banned all interest rate increases on existing balances, but in the give and take process of getting a bill that could garner enough support to overcome a Republican filibuster, some of the provisions got watered down.
What no one was expecting was the attack to come from the far right in the form of Tom Coburn, who seemed to be doing the bidding of both the banks and the NRA simultaneously by attaching the most extreme version of an already controversial bill to allow guns back in national parks, overturning a Reagan-era rule. That’s where the cynicism comes in--tying such a hot-button issue as guns (one which Democrats have no interest in pursuing) in it’s most extreme form to a bill that is important to helping Americans.
Coburn’s bill goes far beyond what the Bush administration tried to do, which was to allow loaded, concealed weapons in parks for people with concealed carry permits. That was disturbing enough to former park officials and park rangers, and for a federal judge who blocked implementation on the rule because none of the required environmental review had been done before the government tried to enact it. Coburn’s bill goes as far as to allow openly carried rifles, shotguns, and even semi-automatic weapons in parks, depending on whether the weapon is in compliance with state law.
Coburn’s stated purpose for the bill is “to protect innocent Americans from violent crime in national parks and refuges,” and about allowing park visitors to protect themselves from attacks from other visitors and animals. This is a somewhat specious argument considering “crime statistics indicate the rate of violent crime in the parks comes to 1.65 per 100,000 park visitors. The national crime rate comes to 469.2 per 100,000 people.” On top of that, the proposed law does not alter the current prohibition on shooting wildlife in national parks and refuges.
Not surprisingly, a coalition of groups have organized against the effort, sending a letter to President Obama asking him to halt the bill. The National Parks Conservation Association, The Humane Society of the United States, Violence Policy Center, Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, and the Legal Community Against Violence are among the groups signed onto the letter. Most compelling is the argument from Scot McElveen, a retired chief park ranger and current president of the Association of National Park Rangers, which represents 1,200 current and former park rangers.
“Park wildlife, including some rare or endangered species, will face increased threats by visitors with firearms who engage in impulse or opportunistic shooting,” said Mr. McElveen.“One of our members reported to me that in Yellowstone National Park, rangers found an 11-year-old kid on the side of the road illegally shooting at squirrels with his dad. When confronted, his dad said, ‘I always carry a loaded pistol, and these are just squirrels.’ If he had not been carrying a readily-accessible, loaded firearm, I don’t think this incident would have happened,” he added.
“The presence of a loaded weapon is one of the only clues available for rangers to discover and prosecute those who illegally kill wildlife,” said Wayne Pacelle, president and CEO of The Humane Society of the United States. “Allowing loaded weapons in national parks will put wildlife—and possibly park visitors—in the crosshairs, as well as create even more law enforcement challenges for already overtaxed park rangers.”
What President Obama could, or would be willing, to do at this point is unclear. He wanted a clean bill reforming credit cards on his desk before Memorial Day. The House has already passed a version of the bill, one without such “poison pills” attached. President Obama could insert himself into the debate, and attempt to get the conferees to drop the provision, but it would be an unprecedented move from a President who as of yet hasn’t even leaned on Democratic Senators to get them to line up behind his administrative nominees. It’s possible that he’ll inject himself into this debate, but it’s unlikely.
Democrats, at least those in the Senate, showed that they really don’t want to have this debate, which means one good thing for Americans: the banks didn’t get the help they wanted from Coburn, so that cynical ploy failed. And nobody will care until park rangers or park wildlife start getting mowed down.
Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.
Comments
The simple fact is, the gunsinparks proposal was a perfectly reasonable thing to do in the face of thin law enforcement and increasing lawlessness, not just in the pristine, wild, capital-P parks, but in the urban units of the National Park system.
I mean, Mister Squirrel Genius and others of his ilk don't suddenly become model citizens when they cross the park boundary, do they? Nope.
This is a matter of decent people being able to protect themselves against scumballs, especially in light of the fact that law enforcement does NOT have a duty to protect, and can not be held liable for failure to properly protect citizens even if a crime is under way and cops are present. I don't understand why you would have an objection to such a thing.
Too bad the usual suspects couldn't be reasonable, what with Brady et al trotting out a handful of their hardliners to file a specious lawsuit before a culpable judge. So, Congress responded in the way it usually does. But that's okay with me in this particular case, even if the vehicle, sticking it to the plastic-mongers, probably isn't the best way to go about it.
Never mind that 65 Cong Dems told the President that dragging the "assault weapons" carcass out of the closet was not a good idea. So I suspect the provision will survive. Hope it will, anyway.
Therefore, we have a right to carry arms into National Parks, and it is fair to use any method available to rescind any unconstitutional rules against that right.
Personally, I walk with a cane and cannot run from an attacker. Therefore, I don't venture into places where my sidearm is outlawed. Because of that, I can't visit National Parks and preserves, which I have a right to do. I will be extremely happy when these bad rules and laws are stricken from the books.
And by the way, when it comes to cynicism, let me crib from that Tulsa story like you did:
Snip --
"McElveen did not challenge Coburn’s crime statistics but said what they really prove is how safe national parks really are.
He said national parks draw about 300 million visitors a year, adding crime statistics indicate the rate of violent crime in the parks comes to 1.65 per 100,000 park visitors. The national crime rate comes to 469.2 per 100,000 people, McElveen said."
This is completely specious garbage on McElveen's part, propaganda math at its worst. The crime rate is based on a YEAR worth of exposure for ALL citizens versus a DAY worth of exposure for a park day-tripper, who is in the park for one day, perhaps a little more.
If you ANNUALIZE the rate so that everyone spent an effective year in the park environment, then the crime rate is much, MUCH higher. 1.65 times 365 is, um, 602.25.
Guess what? That makes sense considering that parks are public spaces versus private...most crimes on the person, of the nature we are discussing, occur in public spaces, do they not?
Perhaps you should go back to Mr. McElveen and ask him what the number of days each park visitor spends on average, THEN run those numbers again so they compare apples to apples.
Otherwise, we're talking manipulation...um, CYNICAL.
Right Joan, you just keep your head in the sand. In the mean time, I'll be responsible for the safety of my family when we hike. I think there were 14 rapes just last year in these "safe" parks. Good luck with your whistle.
"I carry a gun because I can't carry a whole cop."
The international studies are also quite clear on this point. Nations that don't vary in terms of violent crime rates in general (i.e., assault, robbery, etc), do vary in terms of homocide rates when you add the presence of legal private-gun ownership. That is, the U.S. doesn't really differ from other comparable European nations in violent crime rates, but we do have higher homocide rates. That difference is attributable to the easy availability of guns. They are easy to use as well as very lethal.
Consider the facts regarding the high-homocide rates in the U.S.(FBI Criminal Statistics). Males are responsibile for about 90% of homocides in the U.S., the weapon of choice mainly guns. Ninety percent of female homocide victims are murdered by males, again, many with firearms. Many of these guys probably thought of themselves as responsible gun-owners before they murdered their wives or girlfriends.
The public policy issues involved are similar to the ones raised by passive smoke and industrial pollution. I have lived in the Wild, Wild West all of my life. I have known perpetrators and victims of gun violence, including responsbile gun owners who end up shooting their relatives, friends or neighbors.
It just defies logic that you guys can continued to expect us to believe buy this NRA manufactured ideology of "private gun ownership = security." The presence of guns increases the risk of serious injury and homocides associated with guns. Why are you being so obtuse on this point. It certainly doesn't sway the 70% of Americans who advocate strengthening the regulation of private gun-ownership.
We can continue to debate the policies regulating private ownership of guns and their legal uses. But please don't pretend that you don't know that private gun-ownership is correlated with increased risk of homocide and injury.
Those who are legitimately concerned by the NRA's campaign to get guns into Public Spaces like the National Parks need to be respected. They are certainly correct to think that the increased presence of guns in National Parks will produce an increased risk of gun-related, criminal violence in National Parks.
I did further analysis. Go to NPS, they have visitation stats. You will find several interesting things. First, not that many visits are to Parks, but to other units, many of which are urban in nature, public.
274 million visits.
Total visit-hours, 1.2 billion. Average visit length, 4.4 hours.
Now, let me splain this to yah. The crime rate is for one person living one year in all environments and exposures...about half a percent chance you will get violated in some form each year.
You are only in the Park System for four hours a year, and have a 1.65 per 100,000 visit crime rate, but you'd have to visit 1978 times to make it a whole year. THEN you would have a fuller read on the operative, per-exposure-hour crime rate. The per-100,000 and per-100,000-visits are two completely different creatures. It appears that crime, especially in the more-urban or more-developed NPS units, IS in fact rather significant. After all, these ARE public spaces, and Central Park isn't the safest spot in the world, is it? Why should Ellis Island or Independence Hall or Gettysburg or the Parkway be any different?
So while I really didn't care too much about "gunsinparks," that's because I was pretty lazy about the issue. Now that I understand the makeup of the NPS real estate a bit better, I'm thinking that perhaps the public environment of NPS units is in fact less than ideal from a public safety standpoint.
By placing this ridiculous firearms amendment (Coefficient of necessity and timely legislation = 0.025 ) onto a major overhaul of egregious crippling Credit Card practices ( Coefficient = 97.5 ), it is precisely what the title of this articles says it is : CYNICAL. Grossly cynical. Beyond Cynical, actually . No NRA member or gun enthusiast or armchair aptriot can claim even a whiff of a victory here...because YOU and the NRA had tor esort to sobterfuge and politcal chicanery to achive this. It was the act of a desperate lobby using nothing short of parasitical legislation to achieve something wholly out of context with the meaningful and necessary regulation it has attached its bloodsucking teeth to. The National Parks Gun Amendment is just the little Remora fish stuck on the body of the Great White Shark that is doing the good work of stalking the major credit card issuers. It's a PARASITE.
And you are proud of this ? How low can you go , Mr. Gun Nut ?
Or let me phrase it this way , in the familiar haiku of the MasterCard advertising:
Glock 9mm pistol........ $ 465.00
Balance currrently owed on Cabela's store credit card.... $ 7,300.00
Being able to carry my gun in Yellowstone... SHAMELESS
BlasterCard.
The main reason for firearms restrictions has been to try to reduce poaching. The cynical ploy by the NRA and the far, racist right in attaching this amendment to the credit card bill coupled with the cynical, manipulative fear-mongering is only pathetic because it works so well with paranoid freaks who can't go outside without a loaded weapon.
Actually yes I do contend that there is no correlation between gun ownership and murder rates for a number of reasons.
1. There is no statistically significant correlation between per capita gun ownership and crime rates if you look at it state-by-state. There are high gun low crime states, high gun high crime states, low gun low crime states, and low gun high crime states. If the availability of guns directly contributed to crime wouldn't you always seen states with more guns having higher crime rates?
2. According to the FBI, overall violent crime has been trending down for decades and gun ownership is at an all time high. (at least post WW2)
3. Not a single state that reformed their concealed carry laws over the last few decades has seen a jump in shootings like the gun control groups were always predicting. If anything, they saw a reduction in crime.
4. There are far to many cultural and environment facts that must be considered. For this reasons I don't put much faith in the validity of counting to country comparisons. For example, Japan has fewer gun deaths but a much higher suicide rate, and the Swiss own a lot of guns but their crime rate is fairly low.
5.You can't simply say "well there are more guns and more crime so the guns are causing the crime". Anybody who has taken Statistics 101 knows that correlation does not necessarily mean causation.
As to your figure of 70% of Americans supporting more gun ownership, I don't know where you're getting your numbers. There have been countless news stories since Obama took office that public support for gun control is trending down.
Urban parks, no matter WHO owns them, have social problems. Central, Needle, Rock Creek parks...would you dare walk the Mall at 2 AM on a nice summer night? Central Park? I'd love to.
Furthermore, we could bang around crime venues and the crime rate all year. People who stay home are probably safest of all. Those who spend a lot of time in heavily-trafficked public areas at all hours have a certain amount of additional "exposure" which, if the data actually exists, is probably pretty obvious.
Another thing that annoys me, besides Joan's letting her politics blind her to the real issue, is how this "parks" issue is being presented as Park parks when so much of the NPS network is rather un-Parky. Here we are screaming about poaching grizzly bears with, as Sarah Brady's bunch is SO fond of screaming, "AK-47s." Gee, I HAVE an AK clone, and the thing is not only made of lead, it's the LAST thing I'd choose for such nefarious purposes.
But all the blather about bears skips the central issue, that the NPS Police are clearly unable to be all things to all people from a public safety standpoint. Rather than have the class to admit it, their guy fabricates hooey statistics out of thin air -- ironically completely SPECIOUS...and THEN there aren't any "real" reporters industrious enough to perhaps poke around in the numbers, nor are there any "journalists" with the intellect to figure out which numbers matter. That's what people should be cynical about.
Thanks to Tom Coburn, and the 67 other senators with either good common sense and respect for citizens' right to self defense OR a good healthy fear of the National Rifle Association. Either works for me.
People who see guns as religion lack some very basic life skills.
With that said you never see anyone just haphazardly shooting any animals.
Also the people in the Parks who will hurt or endanger other people are caring weapons (THEY DONT CARE ABOUT THE LAW) except to say they hope it does not pass so it will be safer for them to hurt inocent people.
Run the numbers yourself. All it takes is a calculator and a few minutes. You DO know how to operate a calc, right?
After reading your posts here at New West the last few years, I can tell that you are a water-carrying yes-man for corporations from gun and ATV manufacturers to the insurance industry who apparently has a lot of time on his hands to create convoluted statistics and silly lies on behalf of organizations who do not even pay you. Your stats are meaningless and so are you.
Some states require a permit to carry a concealed weapon, others don't. So if Wyoming does not require a permit, anybody could pack a concealed weapon in the Wyoming portion of Yellowstone Park. If Montana does require a permit, you'd have to have a license to carry a concealed weapon in the Montana portion of Yellowstone Park.
An NRA press release on the gun bill said it will allow people to defend themselves from human "predators," which doesn't bother me at all. But the NRA also mentioned "animal predators," including grizzly bears, and that's alarming. Easy to claim you had to shoot a bear/buffalo/wolf in self-defense; almost impossible to prosecute and convict someone who makes the self-defense claim.
"Real" Mike, your attacks and insults would be more effective were they backed by a real name. Last name doesn't start with an R, I hope.
And I am gratified that you find my work "damaging," I presume to your philosophical and cultural plans?
The crime of NPS units has indeed risen, but most of that crime is vandalism and theft--not usually associated with self-protection, nor would it be stopped by rednecks pulling guns on teenagers peeing into geysers.
Your crime argument doesn't hold up--there are a lot of straw man arguments floated around these here discussion threads at New West: yours isn't as good as some of the other ones.
Washington Post, "Federal Eye: Keeping Tabs on the Government," 5/22/09
Neither do your mouthoffs about "gun freaks" hold up as an argument. Do the right thing and concede...after all, that's what Congress and the President did.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/22/AR2009052202489.html
...including these excerpts...
"The measure, adopted by wide margins in the House and Senate, allows licensed gun owners to bring firearms into national parks and wildlife refuges as long as they are allowed by state law."
With regard to the delay in implementing the measure until next February, "Bryan Faehner, associate director of the National Parks Conservation Association, applauded the Interior Department's decision. 'We are pleased, because that provides more time that our parks will remain safe and free from shotguns, rifles and semiautomatic weapons,' Faehner said. 'We hope that the American public and members of Congress will have more time to understand the far-reaching repercussions of this outrageous and disturbing law that has nothing to do with credit cards and will only put park visitors at risk,' Faehner said."
Bryan, along with everyone at NPCA are very careful to guard their credibility; the mention of "shotguns, rifles and semiautomatic weapons" indicates that this measure is not just about concealed weapons.
Again, this will end up as struggle for park law enforcement to contain a redneck free-for-all, like trying to police West Yellowstone in the winter, just like the NRA likes things. And, again, you can't both be a genuine conservationist one minute and support anti-conservation organizations, their programs, and propaganda the next. You have to grow up.
The Bush Administration rule required among other things that:
The gun owner have a concealed carry license.
The gun owner carry a handgun concealed.
The state in which the park was located had to allow carry in state parks. (Not 100% sure about this).
The Brady Campaign sued and successfully blocked this in the federal courts.
Coburn’s amendment goes much further:
The Secretary of the Interior shall not promulgate or enforce any regulation that prohibits an individual from possessing a firearm including an assembled or functional firearm in any unit of the National Park System or the National Wildlife Refuge System if–
(1) the individual is not otherwise prohibited by law from possessing the firearm; and
(2) the possession of the firearm is in compliance with the law of the State in which the unit of the National Park System or the National Wildlife Refuge System is located.
Thus Arizonans without a license can now carry any firearm openly in their national parks and Texans can now carry rifles and shotguns openly (and handguns in their cars without a license) in their national parks since those activities are in compliance with the law outside the Park.
DS---break down your crime numbers for us. You haven't addressed my point about what sort of crime has risen in National Parks. Do the tried-and-true NRA thing showing us how if only citizens had been armed in National Parks they could have protected themselves.
If you believe that the means to exist in a civil, democratic society is to carry weapons wherever you see fit, then you are gun-freak.
Well, this is NRA sausage, for sure. If this is what the NRA and its lemmings need to do to get favorable bills passed, again I have to say in the strongest possible terms YOU HAVE NOTHING TO BE PROUD OF HERE. The Coburn Guns in National Parks amendment is utter cyncical political hypocrisy. Both political parties are culpable. This bill would likely not have stood on its own merits.
What say you , armchair patriots, 2nd Amendment advocares, and vociferous gun nuts? Are you proud of "your" accomplishment here?
The Secretary of the Interior shall not promulgate or enforce any regulation that prohibits an individual from possessing a firearm including an assembled or functional firearm in any unit of the National Park System or the National Wildlife Refuge System if--
(1) the individual is not otherwise prohibited by law from possessing the firearm; and
(2) the possession of the firearm is in compliance with the law of the State in which the unit of the National Park System or the National Wildlife Refuge System is located.
I'm not 100% positive, but I think that means rifles and shotguns are allowed. The anti-gun crowd would have been better off with the Bush rule, which only allowed concealed weapons. Instead, the anti-gun crowd won a court battle to block the Bush bill. Now this. The anti-gun crowd won the battle, lost the war.
"For decades, regulations enacted by unelected bureaucrats at the National Park Service (NPS) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) have prohibited law abiding citizens from possessing firearms on some federal lands. The enactment of these rules pre-empted state laws, bypassed the authority of Congress, and trampled on the Constitutional rights"
True/false quiz for real mike:
1) "For decades, regulations enacted by unelected bureaucrats at the National Park Service (NPS) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) have prohibited law abiding citizens from possessing firearms on some federal lands." T/F
2) "The enactment of these rules pre-empted state laws" T/F
3) "The enactment of these rules . . . bypassed the authority of Congress" T/F
4) "The enactment of these rules . . . trampled on the Constitutional rights" T/F
"shill"
"armchair patriots"
"gun nuts"
"redneck"
How is it, the left always riffs on "civility" yet can't refrain from pejorative adjectives?
As for the idea of ramrodding legislative concepts that would otherwise not stand on the merits, let us consider something here. The Democratic leadership would never allow Coburn's provisions past the first step of the committee process, much less onto the floor for an up-or-down. Why not? Gee, I think 67-29 kind of tells the story there.
Never mind all the "withoutobjectionsoordered" voice votes for various and sundry nasties. Your indignation falls rather flat, Dewey. Slagging crummy legislation through procedural trickery is a BIPARTISAN thing.
I must also say I find it cute how the bureaucrats plan to drag their feet until the last possible minute. And thanks, Dave, for dredging up the unintended consequences of Coburn's language versus the original proposal.
As for number-crunching, CF, you'll have to wait for my column in the Beacon on Wednesday. Try to be civil there, all right?
It may come as a surprise to you that I do not oppose the legislation itself or its intentions, only the corrupt manner in which it was fostered. I myself have carried a Grizzly equalizer Ruger .41 magnum on many an occasion of backcountry Yellowstone horsepacking trips since 1975 in full violation of the regs at the time, before during and after the Reagan years when this first came up. And never once fired it. I presently own no guns but have no truck with responsible , nonparanoid gun owners.
And do stand by my choice of adjectives andmonikers, especially as far as you are concerned. I'm actually showing some restraint here, Skinner.
Perhaps this is the point to interject what Nietzche said, " there is no nut like a gun nut..."
NRA=bullies=cowards
I'd hate to think that you believe that you have the "right" to carry weapon into a school full of children? Or a church? Or even a legislative body? And what do you mean by "are you planning to change that?
On December 19, 2007, Majority Leader Reid entered into the record the following unanimous consent agreement:
“UNANIMOUS CONSENT AGREEMENT--S. 2483 -- (Senate - December 19, 2007)”
“Mr. REID. ‘Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to Calendar No. 546, S. 2483 , the energy lands bills, at a time to be determined by the majority leader, following consultation with the Republican leader, and that when considered, it be considered under the following limitations: that the only amendments in order be five related amendments to be offered by Senator Coburn; that upon disposition of all amendments, the bill be read a third time, and the Senate proceed to vote on passage of the bill.’
“The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. ‘Without objection, it is so ordered.’”[4]
This agreement permitted five related amendments to an omnibus bill that included dozens of bill that modified national park service lands. The parliamentarian ruled legislation allowing for firearm possession in national parks in accordance with state and federal law was related and in compliance with Senator Reid’s requirement. Instead of honoring this agreement, however, the Majority Leader pulled the entire bill from the floor and reintroduced a nearly identical measure to technically “honor” the unanimous consent agreement without allowing for a vote on related firearm legislation.[5]
Repeated attempts to bring this bill to the new bill were thwarted. Consequently, a version of this bill was included at a Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee markup along with a package of lands bill. This amendment was adopted as a stand-alone measure by an 18-5 vote[6] with the understanding that this bill would be included with the package of lands bill approved during the same markup. Despite a letter signed by five Senators on the Committee asking the chairman of the committee, “to honor this agreement and the bipartisan will of the Committee by including S. 3499 in the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2008,”[7] this measure was excluded yet again.
Cort, I'm not avoiding your insulting arguments, I'm ignoring your argumentative insults. There's a difference. Just log on Wednesday and you can rant all you want...but make sure everyone knows you're a professional "community organizer" and the nice, nice people you organize for.
And Dewey, guess what? I can see your restraints from here...the ones with the buckles in the back, mmm?
As I mentioned above, Jim Webb was loud and clear on his support for the Coburn amendment. It's in the Cong Record if you so desire. I don't know whether or not Webb really heartfelt what he said, or if he's simply afraid of the NRA, but I don't really care. The law has been changed for the better, and I'm cool with that, even if the method is dishonest. But then again, this is Congress.
I agree with you that yep, the Republicans were just as spineless as the Dems are now, on the "core" issues. Like the AW ban just dribbling off into the sunset rather than brought to a vote?
But there is a difference upon which we will never, ever agree. I'm perfectly happy with a party or a philosophy that means "NO" when it comes to greater intrusions into citizen's private lives, wallets, civil liberties and whatnot. That's a darn good kind of no.
And to head off your inevitable yeahbuts, don't get to thinking I support stuff like the Schiavo fiasco or some of the invasive "social conservative" guff, either. I have a problem with both political wings that want to harness the brutish power of a metastasized government (and a crummy, dysfunctional Congress that writes crummy, dysfunctional rules under which government has to malfunction) in order to trash the rights of the other side.
Finally, I must say, I'm looking forward to seeing you exercise your restraint in person some day.
Seriously, Dave, if this knowledge about me is any demonstration of your research prowess, then I have my doubts about your grand statistical unveiling. Also, the main reason I don't read the Beacon is that I have never heard of it and don't know what or where it is, but if it takes you seriously, then I have a pretty good idea WHAT it is.
I'll be too busy tomorrow not being an armchair patriot, shilling for the NRA. Or are you simply exercising your healthy fear of the NRA.
And since you're spying on me, I really hope you don't show up at my house....eeww.
My guess is that it will pretty much go the same way as in January, when the predicted bloodbath and carnage failed to materialize. Surely a day of great rejoicing for those who are truly worried about handgun violence.