You really should read this short article by The Political Animal‘s Martin Longman which discusses the implications of the Missouri legislature’s override of Governor Nixon’s veto of SB656 (deregulated “constitutional” carry)> and the Voter ID (voter suppression) bill. As Longman sees it, this type of legislation is dangerous in more than the obvious ways :

I could go into more detail on the merits and pitfalls of both bills, but I’d rather focus on the message they send. In making it much harder to vote at the same time that they make it much easier to carry a firearm, the Missouri GOP is inviting the conclusion that political disputes are best settled (and perhaps can only be settled) with violence.

That might sound extreme, but using the legislature and referendums to enact unconstitutional restrictions of your political opponents’ power is delegitimizing to representative government and therefore eats away at the consent of the governed. What you’re saying is that we need less democracy, less dissent, and more guns. It’s almost a recognition that, in undermining the legitimate governmental function of the state, you’ll need to arm yourself for protection.

I agree with Longman, and would suggest that what we see in this spate of increasingly extreme and weakly justified gun proliferation and voter suppression laws is part of the same phenomena that includes both the destructive, fantastical rhetoric and the hitherto unimaginable levels of legislative obstructionism on the part of Republican politicians.

These strategies are employed as tools by elected officials, often to further the goals of wealthy interests , the Citizens United crowd, who now expect to freely purchase government, and who saw the election of Barack Obama as antithetical to that end – and who view Hillary Clinton as the same type of threat. Combine that impetus with the latent racism stimulated by the election of the first black president, and you’ve got the situation that Longman describes, “when people lose faith in the ballot box and turn to the gun” in order to “arrest the march of history.”

Given the pervasive emphasis on guns in recent elections, there seems to be a lot of such people in Missouri. As we have seen, it has been fertile ground for the NRA. And, given recent state-level polls, not a bad place for growing Trumpkins.

I implied in an earlier post earlier today that havoc (or some related type of unpleasantness if you find “havoc” too hyperbolical) might ensue if our elected officials decide to ignore the preferences of most of their constituents and override Governor Nixon’s veto of SB656, legislation that would largely deregulate gun ownership as well as decriminalize impulsive gun violence via a stand-your-ground provision. I quoted reports that the NRA views this legislation as a big stakes issue, a reasonable stance since the organization’s purpose is to lobby for the gun industry’s bottom line and widespread adoption of legislation like SB656 would surely promote that goal.

But who else stands to gain? How does the NRA and their favored politicians get so many every day, never-gonna-get-rich-off-guns citizens to take the bait?

The key to that question might lie in a consideration of some jaw-dropping remarks that Kentucky’s Republican Governor, Matt Bevin, made yesterday. Bevin implied that, in the words of TPM’s Allegra Kirkland, “there will be a bloody clash between ‘tyrants’ and ‘patriots’ if Hillary Clinton wins this year’s presidential election”:

I want us to be able to fight ideologically, mentally, spiritually, economically, so that we don’t have to do it physically,” the tea party politician said in a Saturday speech at the Values Voters Summit, an annual gathering of religious conservatives. “But that may, in fact, be the case.”

Bevin said he was asked in a recent if the nation could “survive” a Clinton presidency, and he responded that it would be “possible” but at a great “price.”

“The roots of the tree of liberty are watered by what?” Bevin continued. “The blood, of who? The tyrants to be sure, but who else? The patriots. Whose blood will be shed? It may be that of those in this room. It might be that of our children and grandchildren.”

Bevin tried to soften the impact of these words later, but we’ve heard them before. They’re the meat and potatoes of much of the 2nd amendment crowd, especially the well-armed patriot militias – which have proliferated in Missouri as in many red states after the election of the first black president.

And if we are to believe reports, the image of violent revolution that these words elicit reflect the paranoia, anger and racial anxiety that fuels many  Trump supporters. Trump’s advisor, Roger Stone, echoed the theme as he reinforced a Trump campaign effort to delegitimize a potential Clinton presidency by suggesting a conspiracy to “rigg” the election:

“If there’s voter fraud, this election will be illegitimate, the election of the winner will be illegitimate, we will have a constitutional crisis, widespread civil disobedience, and the government will no longer be the government,” Stone said. He also promised a “bloodbath” if the Democrats attempt to “steal” the election.”

Another word for this projected bloodbath? “Civil war,” “treason,” “sedition,” “subversion,” “mutiny,” or just run of the mill “criminal,” as in the Bundys’ armed takeover of a nature preserve in Oregon – you choose.

Essential ingredient for such a bloodbath? Guns.

What kind of people poke at the sore spots of poorly informed rightwing hysterics for personal and political gain? Could they be deplorables?

A few hours ago The Missouri Times posted an article about how the NRA is working the upcoming “veto” session in the Missouri legislature:

The National Rifle Association will make the override of Senate Bill 656 their top priority in the country this week as the omnibus gun bill continues to gain momentum as the most high-profile legislation at stake on Wednesday.

The pro-gun group will launch a once-in-a-decade lobbying effort to override Gov. Jay Nixon’s veto of a bill that has drawn fervent support and opposition from all corners of the country.

As part of their efforts, the NRA has flown in several staffers to help lobby lawmakers, launched television ads, and sent mailers to key targeted districts. Whit O’Daniel, who lobbies on behalf of the NRA, said he’s been texting the entire Republican caucus to inform them that the NRA ranks SB 656 as the biggest priority in the country. It’s also their biggest priority in Missouri since 2003.

Imagine that! The NRA thinks that giving any and all Missourians unregulated rights to buy, own, sell guns and shoot their neighbors at will (as in stand-your-ground) is one of the biggest priorities in the nation. It’ll be good for NRA sponsors I suppose, as in the get-rich-quick kind of good.

Just to provide a little counterpoint,  I also want to share  this tidbit  from an article posted on the Turner Report:

A former Tarkio R-1 High School student who brought a loaded semi-automatic pistol to school, causing the school to be locked down, pleaded guilty in federal court today to illegally possessing a machine gun that was found at his residence.

[…]

According to court documents, Knoth – who came to school on Feb. 11, 2016, wearing military-style clothing, boots and ballistic body armor – displayed a fully loaded magazine to another student that day. That student alerted a teacher, and the school contacted the Tarkio, Mo., Police Department. School officials then discovered a loaded Glock 9mm semi-automatic pistol in Knoth’s backpack, along with four loaded 9mm pistol magazines, three loaded .223- or .556-caliber magazines, a spring-assisted knife, a seatbelt cutter and a window punch.

Knoth was arrested and handcuffed. The school was placed on lockdown.

Investigators searched Knoth’s vehicle, which was parked in the school parking lot. They found two loaded 9mm magazines and 15 loaded .223/.556-caliber magazines.

Investigators also searched Knoth’s residence. During a search of the southwest bedroom, investigators found a loaded machine gun in the closet – an AR-style .223/.556 pistol, containing no visible serial numbers or manufacturer stamp. They found a second machine gun, an UZI-style 9mm firearm (unknown manufacture), in the dresser. Investigators also found numerous rounds of ammunition and numerous loaded .223/.556 and 9mm magazines throughout the residence.

So are unstable young men with a fetish for guns and violence among the persons whose priorities the NRA is spending so much money to supprt? You  better bet they and their ilk will be among the beneficiaries.Of course, if the NRA gets its best-of-all-world druthers, teachers and administrators, along with each kid in Knoth’s school would all be sporting “good guy” guns in order to ward off attack. Possible outcomes? Draw  your own conclusions.

From an AP news article:

A Utah elementary school teacher who was carrying a concealed firearm at school was struck by fragments from a bullet and a porcelain toilet when her gun accidentally fired in a faculty bathroom on Thursday, officials said.

The sixth-grade teacher had a concealed-firearm permit and was within her legal rights to carry a gun while in a school in Utah, which, as the same article points out, is one of the few states to permit concealed carry in schools.

Wanna know what kind of fools think it’s a good thing to arm teachers? You don’t need to worry  about Utah. Just look no further than our own home state where legislators think that the only way to forestall a potential St. Valentine’s day massacre in our schools is to enable a repeat of the gunfight at the OK Corral instead. Missouri has been among the states permitting teachers the “privilege” of concealed carry for some time, but, as of this week, the state went further to institutionalize guns in public schools when the legislature overrode Governor Nixon’s veto of SB656 which encourages public schools to train and arm designated personnel. Just let me point out in passing that the teacher in Utah had undergone firearm training which is mandatory for concealed carry in Utah, and which has been given free of cost to many teachers there.

I’m sure many will dismiss the Utah occurrence with the bromide that accidents happen, adding that it’s worth the risk in order to enable an armed “good” guy to counter those “bad” guys when they show up. Even if one accepts this highly questionable formula (which, incidentally, seems to be the entire rationale for casually carrying guns), the idea of guns in schools raises several questions that go beyond the issues involved in adequately training teachers – itself a veritable minefield: Will teachers also go through mandatory mental health screening? Can the authorities guarantee that no teachers with anger management issues will be armed in schools? Do schools mandate that guns are locked up while teachers are in class – rendering the good guy response moot – or are they left accessible to children in purses, lockers, desk drawers, or, better yet, on the desk tops where they are to-hand when that bad guy appears? Doesn’t it stand to reason that when you fill schools with guns, there will be gun related accidents? After all, accidents happen. And it’s an obvious fact that accidents with guns have a high probability of inflicting harm.

But let’s get back to that good guys with guns with guns vs. bad guys with guns argument. There are certainly true stores about armed good guys thwarting bad guys with guns – just as there are also anecdotes about situations where armed good guys are either ineffective or make the problem  worse. So lets look at what happens when folks try to analyse the issue  systematically:

One of the largest and most recent studies on gun violence in America concludes that widespread gun ownership is the driving force behind violence. The study compiles data from all fifty states between 1981 and 2010 to examine the relationship between gun ownership and homicide. After accounting for national trends in violent crime as well as eighteen control variables, the study concludes, “For each percentage point increase in gun ownership the firearm homicide rate increased by 0.9%.” This research is consistent with evidence showing that even in “gun utopias” such as Israel and Switzerland, more guns means more violence.  

Another large study compared 91 case workplaces with 205 control workplaces and found that workers whose job sites allow guns are about five times more likely to be killed on the job than are those whose workplaces prohibit all firearms.

Given the weight of evidence demonstrating the danger of carrying guns in public settings, it is extremely unlikely that more guns would make schools safer.

And in case statistics don’t convince you that arming random citizens to fight madmen and criminals is a bad idea:

A 20/20 segment, “If I Only Had a Gun,” showed just how hopeless the average person is in reacting effectively to high-stress situations. In the segment, students with varying levels of firearm experience were given hands-on police training exceeding the level required by half the states in order to obtain a concealed carry permit. Each of these students was subsequently exposed to a manufactured but realistic scenario in which, unbeknownst to them, a man entered their classroom and begin [sic] firing fake bullets at the lecturer and students.

In each one of the cases, the reaction by the good guy with a gun was abysmal. The first participant, who had significant firing experience, couldn’t even get the gun out of his holster. The second participant exposed her body to the assailant and was shot in the head. The third, paralyzed with fear, couldn’t draw his weapon and was shot by the assailant almost immediately. The final participant, who had hundreds of hours of experience with firearms, was unable to draw his weapon and was shot at point blank range.

Of course SB656 goes a lot further than just encouraging schools to arm personnel:

It also allows anyone with a concealed weapons permit to carry guns openly, even in cities or towns with bans against the open carrying of firearms. The age to obtain a concealed weapons permit also will drop from 21 to 19.

Looks like we’ve got two choices: welcome to the wild, wild West, or sayonara Missouri. Personally, I’m considering the latter. There’s something less than compelling about remaining in a state about which a commentator can write that “if there were a competition to see which Republican-led state legislature can govern in the least responsible way possible, Missouri would have to be considered a credible contender.”

 

Numbers tell stories. Based on statistics from 2010, 24/7 Wall St. ranked Missouri eighth for overall gun violence. Missouri had 14 gun injury deaths per each 100,000 people – only 11 states had a higher rate: Louisiana (19.2); Alabama (16.2); Mississippi (16.1); Montana (15.4); Wyoming (15.1); New Mexico (14.9); Nevada (14.5);Arizona (14.6); Arkansas and Oklahoma (14.4); West Virginia (14.1). The story these numbers tell isn’t surprising. Almost all of these states are poor, Southern or Western and deep red or getting redder. Missouri isn’t quite as poor or – maybe – as red as some, but given the inclinations of the Republicans who run our legislature, we’ll soon be charter members of the hard-scrabble, hand-to-mouth, red-state contingent. (You want to see what red-state economic theory does in action, read about the Kansas experiment – which our own GOPers are eager to emulate).

This is true when it comes to rational gun policy as well. Like Missouri, none of the states listed above require permits to purchase handguns or, for that matter, most other types of guns. In Missouri, under the rubric of an almost universally misunderstood 2nd amendment, the good ol’ boys in the state legislature take turns trying to see who can introduce the most extreme laws to deregulate gun ownership. Governor Jay Nixon just vetoed this year’s iteration, Senate Bill 656, which would have “forced Missouri cities to allow teenagers to carry loaded firearms in public, would have allowed school districts to arm teachers, and would have made it impossible for parents to find out if someone is carrying a concealed firearm in their children’s classrooms.”

The bill would also have denied local jurisdictions their current right to forbid open carry which, in the absence of local restrictions, is legal for those who hold a concealed carry permit. Gun religionists claim with – some justification – that a patchwork of local laws can lead to confusion, but more often they just repeat the 2nd amendment mantra and scoff at the fearful reaction that most sane people have when they see guns casually displayed in a commercial setting, often taking major umbrage at what they characterize as “the indoctrinated response in America” to notify the police when folks are scared. I suppose the unindoctrinated response to fear would be to pull out your own gun and start shooting. Somehow, it doesn’t strike me as preferable.

Just for funsies take a look at this trio who were arrested in Cape Girardeau while wandering around a mall sporting holstered handguns. These folks look basically normal if a bit on the hard side and they may be pussycats once one gets to know them, but if I met any of them (including the baby gunsel) in the aisle of a local store with guns on their hips, I’d quickly go the other way and call the police asap. Better safe than sorry. I’ve seen Natural Born Killers – and those folks were downright pretty. There’s something about a carrying a gun in a non-threatening, non-sporting environment that brands the mildest seeming folks as paranoid fools.

You want to get an idea about who belongs to the Missouri gun culture, just note the reaction of some citizens of Lake Ozark when the city recently decided to prohibit open carry in the interest of not scaring away tourists, the main source of local prosperity:

The city should not be treading on the Second Amendment for any reason, said Alderwoman Betsey Browning, who voted against the ordinance. “There are bad people in the world, and by golly if I need a gun I’m going to have a firearm at my side or in my purse,” Browning said. “I’m absolutely against this.”

Audience member Gail Maeder was even more direct.

“Just because somebody felt scared is not a good enough reason to pass an ordinance that violates the Second Amendment,” she said.

Now I would be interested in just how Alderwoman Browning knows that she is surrounded by so  many bad people that she has to go armed, what criteria she employs to recognize them so that she can shoot them, and when or if she ever actually encounters an aggressive bad person, I wonder whether said bad person’s badness will have been enhanced by the ready availability of guns just like that carried by the alderwoman. I seem to read of a constant stream of innocent people who are mistakenly shot when people like Alderwoman Browning get themselves worked up (see, for instance,  here). And guess what else happens in states with lots of guns:

People of all age groups are significantly more likely to die from unintentional firearm injuries when they live in states with more guns, relative to states with fewer guns. On average, states with the highest gun levels had nine times the rate of unintentional firearms deaths compared to states with the lowest gun levels.

Makes you feel real secure knowing that Alderwoman Browning has that gun, doesn’t it?

I ask you, do you want these folks, with their rigid, comic-strip understanding of the 2nd amendment, coupled with their total lack of respect for others, running around playing at being tough guys and gals in public places, not to mention dictating decisions about perfectly legal, 2nd amendment-compatible restrictions of gun ownership? Thanks to Governor Nixon, and barring an override of his veto, we have staved off the flood of gun craziness for one more year – or to put it more accurately, it won’t get any crazier than it is now – but unless something changes in Jefferson City, that may not continue to be the case and Missourians could find themselves regularly taking shelter from myriad shoot-outs of the O.K. Corral variety.

Next to last paragraph restored after being inadvertently omitted.