Nothing will happen.
I anticipate we will see reduced restrictions on gun control actually, as the NRA and its allies push back against the Tucson tragedy. That means no laws requiring gun registration, closing private sale and gun show loopholes, reinstating the ban on extended clips, eliminating open carry laws, better background checks, etc. That’s just not the way gun proponents roll, regardless of the tragedy. After all Columbine had no effect, nor did the Virginia Tech shooter. Why should we expect the Tucson Massacre to be any different.
As for civility, well I expect the result to be similar. Maybe some moderation by a few Republicans (especially those who knew Congresswoman Giffords well) but not from the big boys in the conservative media (Fox, Limbaugh, Talk Radio in general), or from Sarah Palin, or the from newer Tea Party members in Congress and elsewhere. Attacks on Obama and the oppressive “Democratic tyranny” and the “Nanny State” and etc. will resume shortly. Thuggish behavior and violent rhetoric and threats will be even worse next year during the election campaign.
In short, I think this song by Nancy Sinatra sums it up quite nicely:
I have to agree. The right wing has spent the last couple of days distorting DailyKos posts just to give themselves cover to keep doing the same thing.
I know. It would be pathetic except for the fact that so many people will believe the lie rather than accept the truth.
What we need is a candidate in a marginal seat willing to make this an issue. The NRA controls a small proportion of the vote – 10%? The middle is not convinced one way or the other. Make it an issue, and talk about the killings.
I think that it could be a winner.
Until someone takes on the NRA AND WINS, the NRA will continue to believe that America is anti-any restriction, and will continue to promote that view.
In my watching of the NRA for the last, oh, 2.5 decades, I’d have to say that you’ve got how they operate exactly backwards.
The NRA doesn’t “believe that America is anti-any restriction” – the NRA spends a metric fuck-ton of money to create the impression that Americans are anti-any restrictions while simultaneously trying to convince Americans to actually BE against any restrictions. They may use the rhetoric of “Americans believe” but that’s because it’s a good rhetorical point to make. If tomorrow the American public suddenly shifted its views to an overwhelming “only state militias and law enforcement should be allowed to have guns” the NRA would change their message one whit.
Replace what you say above with “the oil industry” – do you think lobbyists for the oil industry really care what “Americans believe”? No – they care about what affects their bottom line. The NRA may have hunters and sportsmen in its membership rolls, but it is a (very successful) industry lobbying group that uses those folks for extra cash and to present themselves as a “Real American” group.
The way to change the discussion on this is to create a protracted negative publicity campaign against the gun industry – in the way that was done with cigarettes. Best if you can find whistleblowers in the major gun corporations who have documentation that the industry is counting on sales to criminals to prop up their bottom line – casual disregard for life is what turned people against the cigarette industry, it would work against the gun industry as well. That turns the “personal responsibility” arguments around and points them back at the gun industry. And if there’s one way that has historically worked to get Americans on your side it’s to be able to play the “personal responsibility” card in your own favor.
I’m struck
That there is an element of our American population who, when they run into opposition they turn first toward a gun for resolution.
That a young man who was obviously mentally troubled was still able to perceive through the fog of illness that a gun was his resolution of choice.
That often when something horrendous like this happens the first response is so telling of an inner being. The Left came out with a many pronged list of questions of how this could happen; the Right came out swinging that we were oversensitive; and Sarah Palin came out on the day of the memorial to infer that she was a victim of greater proportions than anyone was recognizing.
And then there was Boehner, sobbing in public but choosing not to go to the memorial but to go to a fund raiser instead. How does one reason and negotiate with a Palin who doesn’t have the intellect to get it or Boehner who doesn’t have the light of integrity to choose people over money?
There are a few things to consider about controlling handguns, things that resemble other contraband commodities like booze and drugs.
There already is a large, well-established black market for guns in this country, a result of the Clinton-era assault weapons ban that went legal when that ban expired. And there are too many informal gun shows to police even if effective laws were passed.
There are estimated to be 270 million firearms (and growing in number) in the US (population 300 million). How are you going to sort out the illegal weapons from the legal ones or the “bought when they were legal” ones from the “bought after they became illegal” ones?
The assault weapons ban showed that writing strong firearms laws is very difficult. If they are too general, they don’t pass Constitutional muster (even without a stacked Supreme Court). If they are too specific, it is easy for gun designers to design around the law. And there are dual use parts that are common to weapons that are available to both law enforcement and the general public. It’s the same technical problem of keeping Ford Interceptors out of the hands of criminals without banning the entire model. (Maybe this is an obsolete example.)
And all of this assumes that Congress would pass a law in the first place and that the Supreme Court would uphold it.
So what to do?
Focus on reducing the reasons that the US is more violent than most developed countries. Here are some starting points. And they require progressive policies in areas outside of law enforcement.
Adding to the number of weapons in society is not a viable deterrent; thirty years of hype by the NRA have shown that to be true. Any politician who advocates this approach should be examined by a psychiatrist for dangerous mental problems; yes, I mean you Louis Goehmert. I would hate to think what these gun advocates would do if they were caught in a real situation of violence. Lord knows, the law enforcement officers who are intensively trained aren’t always on their game when it comes to sorting out who the bad guy is.
But gun control laws? That door is slammed shut and sealed for at least a generation or more. The irony is that it is most enforceable when it is least needed. Sorta like speeding laws.