The growing frequency of mass shootings has done little to change the political stalemate over guns in Washington, with gun rights and gun control groups each declaring that the latest massacre — for now, the one in San Bernardino — supports their diametrically opposed arguments.
In this environment, no one can predict the future of gun policy in America. But at least one thing is certain: The team of political consultants at Purple Strategies will get paid.
The partners at Purple Strategies — a bipartisan lobbying firm and consulting agency formed in 2008 through a merger of Issue & Image, a Democratic-led company, and National Media, a Republican campaign firm — have developed business relationships on both sides of the gun control debate, working with both the National Rifle Association and Everytown for Gun Safety, the umbrella organization for pro-gun control advocacy groups.
Everytown did not respond to multiple requests for comment. Officials from the NRA declined to provide a comment for this article — although they did ask us for more information about Everytown’s ties to Purple Strategies.
A spokesperson for Purple Strategies denied that the firm has relationships on both sides of the gun policy debate.
“Purple does not and has not worked for the NRA. Purple contracted with Everytown for one poll,” Kristen Morgante, the chief operating officer of Purple Strategies, said in an email to The Intercept.
We had asked Morgante to describe what appeared to be a close relationship between Purple and National Media, Red Eagle Media Group, and the American Media & Advocacy Group, all of which had done work for the NRA.
“The founding partners of Issue & Image and National Media Public Affairs founded Purple, however, Purple Strategies operates independently and does not share clients or employees with any other company that you referenced,” Morgante wrote.
Notwithstanding Morgante’s claims, however, documents and business filings reviewed by The Intercept show considerable overlap between National Media and Purple Strategies when it comes to clients, staff, office space, and leadership.
Consider how this works for gun-related clients:
Everytown and Mayors Against Illegal Guns, two groups heavily funded by billionaire Michael Bloomberg to enact gun restrictions, have relied on Purple Strategies’ Margie Omera and her firm, Momentum Analysis, for multiple polling services in 2014 and this year. Momentum Analysis was acquired by Purple Strategies in 2013. In a memo to Everytown, Omera identified herself as working for Purple Insights, “the in-house opinion research group at Purple Strategies.”
The NRA’s relationship with Purple and National Media is obscured through a network of affiliate companies. But documents filed with the Federal Communications Commission show that the NRA regularly buys political advertising through American Media & Advocacy Group and Red Eagle Media, two firms that share an address in Alexandria, Virginia, with Purple Strategies and National Media.
Records maintained by the Alexandria Circuit Court reveal that Red Eagle Media is an “assumed or fictitious” business created and owned by National Media. Robin Roberts, a co-founding partner of Purple Strategies and the president of National Media, registered the name.
FCC documents show that NRA ad buys made by Red Eagle Media and American Media & Advocacy Group were signed by Jon Ferrell, who is listed as an employee of National Media. Business filings show that National Media’s board includes Robin Roberts and Alex Castellanos, both of whom are founding partners of Purple Strategies.
The documents also suggest that the NRA has used National Media’s affiliates as significant media buyers over the last two campaign cycles.
From America’s Health Insurance Plans 990 Form 2009.
In her email to The Intercept, Morgante warned against confusing National Media Public Affairs and National Media Research Planning and Placement — intimating that they were entirely different companies. But the distinction between them is unclear. A 2012 biographical sketch of Purple Strategies co-founder Robin Roberts, for instance, said, “In addition to managing the 50-person staff and day-to-day business operations of parent company National Media Inc., Roberts oversees all activity of National Media Research, Planning and Placement Company, and National Media Public Affairs Company.” Another bio, from 2004, describes Roberts as the leader of both companies, with the former described as a “political and public affairs media company” and the latter as an “independent communications firm.”
Purple Strategies’ Morgante claimed that her firm moved to 815 Slaters Lane in 2011, and “once that happened, National Media moved into a separate building so we share a parking lot and a legal mailing address.” I visited the office in October, asking to speak to Morgante or any other officials at the firm. I was sent away, and Morgante has not responded to any subsequent requests for comment. The lobby of Purple Strategies’ building at 815 Slaters Lane is adorned with National Media memorabilia, including a sign celebrating George W. Bush advertising efforts.
Activists on both the right and the left have long complained of a consultant-lobbyist establishment that gets rich no matter who wins.
“It’s typical Washington bullshittery for a firm to pretend that there is a ‘purple’ middle ground on our issue, but Purple is cynically speaking out of both sides of its mouth,” said Jonathan Hutson, the former chief communications officer of the Brady Campaign and Center to Prevent Gun Violence. “You either want to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people or you want to put them in the hands of as many people as possible, whether they’re dangerous or not.”
Most here don’t trust government to watch our every move or record all our communications. Most know that governments can do great evil, and the US government is no exception. Yet somehow it’s a good idea to make sure the government’s enforcers always have us outgunned, now and in the future?!
Make up your minds: Do you or do you not trust the government to have absolute control over the population? (This refers to all future governments as well as the present one.) Because nothing skews the balance of power in favor of the government more than gun control.
If you think military firearms* in civilian hands are unacceptable because they are sometimes used for evil purposes, then you must also think privacy is unacceptable because it is sometimes used for evil purposes. Consistency demands this. Gun control proponents and the anti-encryption brigade are using EXACTLY the same logic.
So decide, once and for all, whether you value freedom with its inevitable risks, or subjugation with (the illusion of) security.
* Fun fact: Fewer Americans are killed with all varieties of rifle each year than are beaten to death with fists and feet.
“So decide, once and for all, whether you value freedom with its inevitable risks, or subjugation with (the illusion of) security.”
This the BIG central question for a Nation of laws and the rights of We the people. The government has made a power play since 911 that assaults Constitutional rights in many areas. If you think these rights are a menu were you pick the ones you like and weaken others, you are playing by a play book were all right are on the chopping block. This is a package deal that might look quite different under Trump or Hilary rule. Constitutional rights shield use from extremes. We weaken these rights to our peril. Ones “noble” cause against the second amendment can yield precedent to suppress the rest and no defense against it.
“the government’s enforcers always have us outgunned”
Standing armed forces, National Guard, Military armed Federal, State and local law enforcement and peripheral Federal agencies; too big to fail has become too big to fight. The question is not whether We the people are outgunned but which way the guns would point towards the people or the tyrant. For the extremes that wish for gun confiscation by force. America is much more likely to get” Seven Days in May” than May Day.
Our checks and balances are more likely to fail on the right neo-fascist than left neo-socialist . One should consider this before any action that further weakens the Constitution that protects us from extremes. Wedge issues that divided should be put on hold until we the people repair the sedition of our Constitution and restore a Republic where legitimate debate can occur protected by the rule of law not who outguns who
Only when our rights are fully restored have we the safety and strength to argue over them.
KAF commit: “For the record, I support closing the private sales loophole, ending the practices of straw buys and uncontrolled transfers of weapons, and giving added powers to law enforcement to address the issue of mental/emotional health and weapons. I dont however support further summary bans or simply stripping people of rights in secret.)”
All reasonable things to discuss; however, but this is a wedge issue that divides and reason is unwelcome from both extremes. There are too many people that drive the issue that do not know a butt from a barrel. On the other hand many states allow concealed carry without much training or evaluation. Most CC individuals are diligent and safe a very few are a danger to themselves and others, mostly due to lack of training. Only a minority would be up to “operating” in an active mass shooting situation. My option along with your suggestions is a National concealed carry with level of carry linked to level of ability and training much like a pilot’s license. Rights and responsibility should go hand in hand. States or localities could keep their own gun laws and CC permits and/or opt out on Federal CC, on gun control one size does not fit all localities or persons.
Sorry CAF commit
One of the sickest aspects of Gun Control, Inc, is that for the most part, these people are Hillary Clinton supporters. Ironically, these people preach against guns and gun violence while supporting a figure who:
* is running on George W. Bush’s foreign policy, and never met a war she didnt like,
* has supported large scale and egregious military actions in Iraq and Libya that have created a humanitarian catatrophe,
* is arguably the most militaristic and violence-embracing Democrat to have run for President since the Vietnam Era.
If you ask me, those issues are much more important to explore, and I wish that if gun control activists were interested in preventing avoidable violence we could discuss how dumping Hillary Clinton will likely save hindreds of thousands of lives worldwide that will otherwise likey be lost to imperialist/neoconservative wars of choice.
Why, we might even get a peace divident to help rebuild America.
You’re really reaching to use that as an argument against gun control. It would be like saying those who are fans of ‘No Gun Control Inc.’ are big fans of Charlton Heston. While they might or might not be, it doesn’t matter fuckall to the debate.
It wasnt positioned as an argument against gun control so much as an expression of dismay at the short-sightedness and, frabkly, foolishness of many gun control enthusiasts.
Whats more Heston isnt running for President on a platform that includes endless and expanding US military confrontation abroad.
Gun control is such a wedge issue, a huge distraction from incredibly important national issues, and gun control activists, sadly, rely often on dishonest numbers and public credulity. Thats a shame, and puts off people who would otherwise be open to some compromise.
So are you going to tell me how it is dishonest to call mass shootings eight or more instead of 4 or more?
Gun Control, Inc sensationalizes every occurence of a nut taking down the local theater, and then attaches to that event scary-sounding big numbers that lump gang wars and often all gun violence in with the rare cases of nut active shooters in order to scare the public with misinformation. That is incredibly dishonest.
The FBI considers 73 mass shootings to have taken place since 1982. The media arm of Gun Comtrol, Inc, is trying to scare the public by claiming there have been over 350 mass shootings this year, and attaching such a figure to reports of nut active shooters without explaining the controversial term definition that you are trying to use or why the number is so big or that official sources and measures put the real rate of mass sbootings a factor of 100 smaller than your contrived rate.
That is incredibly dishonest, and moderates on this issue such as myself are very put off by it. Furthermore relying on dishonesty and manipulation and hysteria to pursue your political agenda is shameful, and you should be ashamed of yourself for doing just that.
OK, I understand that you are very upset by the possibility of gun control, but you might want to take s step back and think about the possibility 33,000 gun related deaths a year is something to be upset about, too..
I’ll take your pathetic non-response as an acknowledgement that you cannot stand up and defend your lack of credibility and your dishonesty when they are exposed in front of you, and. I’ll inform you that I dont own any guns, but that I am alarmed whn extremist idelogues try to stampede the public into giving up any of our Constitutional rights while relying on misinformation (“lying”) and hysteria to do this.
When Gun Control, Inc demands that FBI officers be given the power to summarily and in secret strip US citizens of Constitional guarantees with no oversight or recourse simply by entering our names onto a top secret administrative list, you damn bet I react.
I dont like intrusions on any Bill of Rights guarantee.
Finally, dont forget to adjust 33,000 gun deaths per year downward because as you dont want pointed out the majority of gun deaths are suicides that would probably happen anyway, and once again have nothing to do with mass shootings. Unexplained numbers out of context again, when will you stop?
“When Gun Control, Inc demands that FBI officers be given the power to summarily and in secret strip US citizens of Constitional guarantees with no oversight or recourse simply by entering our names onto a top secret administrative list, you damn bet I react.”
Both extremes of the gun issue present their own spin, You see the big picture of setup a way to take one right and all rights are endangered.
Why do you keep saying that gun control advocates and the FBI are way out of agreement on rise or numbers of mass shootings?
And:
And:
“The FBI report, which includes 160 “active shooter” cases between 2000 and 2013, notes explicitly that it is not a study of mass shootings. Rather, it analyzes incidents in which shooters are “actively engaged in killing or attempting to kill people” in a public place, regardless of the number of casualties. But within the FBI’s 160 cases is a subset of 44 mass shootings (in which four or more were murdered) nearly identical to Mother Jones’ data set from the same time period. The Harvard researchers underscore that the FBI had access to law enforcement sources that Mother Jones did not: “That the results of the two studies are so similar reinforces our finding that public mass shootings have increased.””
Read the followup at this link, too: Rate of Mass Shootings Has Tripled Since 2011, Harvard Research Shows
What you are reporting – one study – is not the same as the typical claim being made publicly that there are over 350 mass shootings this year alone. Exclusions are important.
Clarifying: New York Times, CNN, etc. do not use that study. They rely on data from shootingtracker.com which aggregates all media reports of any shooting in which four or more people are injured, with no exclusions whatsoever. That is very different.
If a study involves metric that produces the FBI result, thats promising, though it begs the question of “Why dont wr just go with the FBI numbers?”
I oppose hysteria and misinformation from the Gun Lobby too, and I think there are sensible things to do on guns, but I am disgusted by misinformation campaigns.
F.B.I. Confirms a Sharp Rise in Mass Shootings Since 2000
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/12/04/opinion/how-many-mass-shootings-are-there-really.html
“On Wednesday, a Washington Post article announced that “The San Bernardino shooting is the second mass shooting today and the 355th this year.” Vox, MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow, this newspaper and others reported similar statistics. Grim details from the church in Charleston, a college classroom in Oregon and a Planned Parenthood clinic in Colorado are still fresh, but you could be forgiven for wondering how you missed more than 300 other such attacks in 2015.
At Mother Jones, where I work as an editor, we have compiled an in-depth, open-source database covering more than three decades of public mass shootings. By our measure, there have been four “mass shootings” this year, including the one in San Bernardino, and at least 73 such attacks since 1982 …”
Its quite true, what I claim. Thanks for making sourced replies. Incidentally none of our dialog yet concerns *why* term definitions are important, which includes the policy proposals gun control activists insist on, such as banning the scary black gun, or banning handguns, or banning modern ammunition, or giving the FBI carte blanch to secretly and summarily strip people of their rights, etc.
(For the record, I support closing the private sales loophole, ending the practices of straw buys and uncontrolled transfers of weapons, and giving added powers to law enforcement to address the issue of mental/emotional health and weapons. I dont however support further summary bans or simply stripping people of rights in secret.)
But there really is not enough data to be sure if that is an actual “drastic” trend or just random fluctuations. CAF is a lying idiot, but you really cannot say that the exact opposite of what he says is true.
You can keep your name-calling to yourself thanks. It says more about you than it does about me.
If you do not like the title of liar, stop lying.
Ok Mike. You are silly. Ill remember that in the future and ignore you. Be well.
Much of the work in that sort of business can be sold to both sides – following and analyzing the news, following politicians to see what their opinions are and what their constituencies’ opinions are, honest polling (if anybody wants that), finding how to get access to different news organizations.
Fundraising’s obviously different, because you target different audiences with different messages, and the sales pitches for organizations that have known positions are different, and so you have to interpret the same facts differently for them, but sharing the upfront work keeps costs down.
Cynical? Lobbying’s a business. Division of labor’s a tool.
Is this business model a form of diversification? Or monopoly?
Are those options mutually exclusive?
Unfortunately, no.
“Washington bullshittery”, nice. That sums it up doesn’t it? Setting that aside though; it’s good business to have one hand in two pots. Say, I’d like to invest in the future energy source so I’ll pick coal and solar to invest my money – since, who knows, maybe they are both winners?
One thing that’s obvious now is you can always find someone to say anything you want to say for a price. For the people getting paid the deal is all the sweeter if you can receive money from both sides saying about the same thing for each side’s benefit. Two sides of same coin = win for firm! Similar to political races.
We need to get something really clear. There is no “growing frequency of mass shootings”. The hysterical numbers showing up in mass media dont even rely on the accepted definition of “mass shooting” used by law enforcement, but instead rely on a controversial re-definition of the term coming frm shootingtracker.com.
Per the FBI, there have been 73 mass shootings since 1982. Per the FBI gun violence nationwide has been in marked decline for 20 years and has dropped by 50 percent this century.
There is no epidemic of gun violence. There is media hysteria when gun violence occurs and there is a lot of misinformation pushed by gun control activists who want to stampede people into voluntarily giving up our rights.
Well, I think you are dead wrong.
It looks to me as if deaths from mass shootings, defined as eight or more dead, are gradually increasing since the 80s. (http://www.globalresearch.ca/mass-shootings-in-america-a-historical-review/5355990)
As for rhetorical horseshittery, stating the number of mass shooting over time, and then stating that gun violence has been in decline is intended to imply that deaths from mass shootings are down. But it really does no such thing.
By the way, how many of these guns contributed to a well run militia?
That is a controversial definition not accepted as mainstream or used by law enforcement, but is instead a product of gun control activists. Ill stick with measures that dont lump multi-party gang turf battles in with single nuts who take down the local theater, thanks.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_shooting
So you are saying if we add up all the events with four killings, it has dropped by 50% in the last few decades? OK, show me.
And by the way, you failed to address all the points in my first response to you.
Try reading for comprehension – I said gun violence per the FBI has dropped 50 percent this century. You then substitute “mass shooting” and furthermore use a controversial and not broadly accepted definition. In short, you lie.
This is what you wrote:
You are the one who associated “mass shootings” with the 50% drop, not me.
You just proved what CAF just said. gun violence is not mass shootings. There are 2 separate statements of fact in his comment.
Further: the dorky reference to “well regulated militia” you make is another example of the manipulative dishonesty of gun control activists. You take a statement out of context and then pretend to define words in it according to your agenda not according to historical fact. The Framers had just finished fighting a bloody insurrection against a tyrannical regime that telied on an armed public that in time of dire emergency became a guerrila force. It was very much their intention that this check on tyranny be in place.
And no, they were not referring to the National Guard, which has been deployed to crush labor protests and strikes that tyrannical capitalist bosses opposed, and no they werent talking about the military or police either.
If you want to talk about the militia language you can only do that honestly if you provide context. And, sadly, extremists on this issue, be it the NRA, or Michae Bloomberg and Gun Control, Inc., have no interest in honesty.
You obviously have no idea what the constitution means, and therefore interpret as you want. You still have not adequately answered my first response to you.
First off all, violent crime of all kinds, including criminal shootings, has been steadily declining for about two decades, even though more Americans are armed than ever before. Quibbling about the definition of “mass shooting” doesn’t change the fact that the yearly number of American deaths from gun violence have been on the decline for many years. Whether X people are all shot at once or in separate incidents is quite irrelevant; the declining number is good news in any case.
Want the number of shootings to decline even further? End drug prohibition.
Furthermore, Mr. Sulzer, CAF knows exactly what the Constitution means, at least as far as the Second Amendment is concerned. The notion that the Second Amendment was intended to safeguard the right of a *government military force* to bear arms is beyond absurd. Not only does it fly in the face of common sense, but the self-evident purpose of the Bill of Rights was to limit government power. If this isn’t enough for you, then try reading the Founders’ own commentaries on the Bill of Rights. They are very explicit in stating that weapons are to be left in civilian hands for the purpose of preventing government tyranny.
Even if we had no Bill of Rights at all, citizens would still have the right to own firearms of any sort. The right to meaningful, effective defense against wrongful aggression, whether by common criminals or rogue government thugs, is NON-NEGOTIABLE. It can only be rightfully denied to those who have proven themselves incapable of exercising that right in a just manner.
The main problem here is that Lee Fang,
like the vast majority of people in the fake USA,
thinks that there are two different agendas – blue or red –
when it is glaringly in-your face
that blue and red are two tints which emerge while
whitewashing the corporate owned fencing.
When the “spokesperson” denied that Purple Strategies was
on both sides of an issue they were being honest because
they have no integrity and,
without integrity
there is no substance to anything you do.
How could they or their clients be in two places at once
when they are nowhere at all?
Looking at this group is the same as looking at any
democrat or republican.
No matter what they say, the accumulation of money and power
is the most sacred act within the church of capital.
They only pretend to be “purple” (the traditional color of royalty)
while their effects are more of a toxic yellow indicative
of the draining away of life upon which they depend,
just like the fake state of which they are a symptom.
This, again, is barely newsworthy.
This profiteering world is full of experts for hire, in a wide variety of professions, who are ready, willing and able to represent and campaign for any and/or all sides in a contest or conflict. It’s built into the system.
And the endless yammering about gun control constitutes, IMHO, a nearly-perfect tactic to distract public attention (on both sides of the debate) from fundamental issues that have much more impact on many more lives — by orders of magnitude.
As for, e.g., causes of death, assault (homicide) (with all weapons) don’t even make it to the list of the top 15 in the nation as a whole.
Assault (homicide) does appear in the top-15 lists of 14 states in the latest CDC numbers I could find.(PDF) Of those 14, only in Alaska, Washington, DC and Louisiana was assault (homicide) responsible for 1% or more of total deaths. DC was the “winner” — 1.9% of deaths due to assault (homicide).
This is dog whistle politics and journalism, on both sides of the divide.
BTW, iatrogenic illness is widely understood to be much more deadly than gun violence. The latest study I’ve seen, from the Journal of Patient Safety, estimates that between 210,000 and 440,000 people die every year due to in-hospital preventable medical errors. That would put iatrogenesis right behind heart disease and cancer in the leading causes of death list.
Agreed; I’ve posted several times that these articles about lobbying firms playing both sides of the aisle is not only ethical, it’s also not newsworthy.
While in comparison with advanced nations such as those of western Europe, the US does have a significantly higher homicide rate (5.0 vs 1.31 in France and 0.89 in Germany, for examples) the extremist arguments in favor of gun control are just as distorted as those of their corresponding opponents. For instance, on Friday’s ‘All things considered’ broadcast on NPR, the governor of Connecticut claimed that over 400,000 Americans have died from gun violence since 911, and the doe-eyed reporter did not bother to fact check him. The truth is that there have been about 400,000 homicides in the US, with a wide range of methods of implementation. (I use the words ‘methods of implementation’ deliberately; how can you ascribe throwing someone off a building to a weapon? So, whether the instrument was a gun, knife, axe, saw, blunt object, poison, drug, medication, explosive, incendiary, electricity, vehicle, or someone’s hands (among other causes) that actually caused the death, according to the Governor of Connecticut none would have happened if we banned all guns.
When a public official makes such an obviously incorrect statement, and the media don’t correct him, those favoring reasonable gun control are done a great disservice, because such statements play directly into the hands of the hard line opponents.
Using quick grabs of US Census total population numbers from the 2000 and 2010 censuses and averaging them, we get an average population over that period of about 295 million. Let’s call it 300 million, averaged, from 2000 to now, to take into consideration growth since the last census.
If 400,000 Americans have died in homicides since 9/11 (14 years ago), that gives us an average of 28,571 per year.
28,571/300,000,000 = 0.000095
Converting the above to a percentage we get 0.0095%. If we round up and convert to a common fraction, we find that about one one-hundredth of one percent of Americans are victims of all homicides annually.
Ooops. Forgot to do a common fraction. But still.
Wikipedia says about 33,000 deaths in US from fire arms (all causes) in 2013. I do not think that the governor of Conn. is all that far off.
In 2010, 67% of of homocides in US used fire arms.
Neither of you has any idea what you are talking about.
Neither of those numbers you cite in any way refutes what I & Jeff have said. They aren’t even relevant.
And, if you’d bothered to review the actual statistics and sources cited, and worked through the relevant math, you’d realize (if you have any intellectual honesty) that it is you who don’t know what you’re talking about.
I doubt that you’re either intellectually or emotionally capable of the necessary honest review; I think you have a misinformed, quasi-religious belief about guns and violence in America and that your response here is a classic example of the “backfire effect.”
So tell me, how is the the g. of Conn. wrong based on the number of 33,000 in one year?
1. It doesn’t matter, in terms of the points Jeff and I were making, whether the CT governor was right or wrong about the total number of 2013 firearms deaths from all causes, because it doesn’t address the subjects under discussion.
2. From my general, top-of-the head knowledge of the subject, the 33,000 number is probably pretty close, but . . .
3. Suicides, in an “average” recent year, account for 60% or more of all deaths by firearms in the US.
Now, you may think that the much smaller percentage (40% or less) of firearms homicides, or the the fact that shooting oneself is a convenient way to commit suicide, are sufficient reasons for the ongoing national hysteria about gun control, but I just don’t see that as rational, given the much more significant public health and safety issues we face.
If we take the 33,000 annual firearms deaths (all causes) as accurate, that makes it pretty close to the same number of annual deaths caused by accidental falls, traffic fatalities and unintentional poisonings. It pales into insignificance in comparison to a long, long list of the actual leading causes of death.
Note: WRT suicide. (a) I believe that the choice to end one’s life is a natural human right. (b) There is a long list of countries with much stricter gun controls (and lower rates of gun ownership) than the US that also have substantially higher suicide rates: Japan, Belgium, France, Hungary, Poland, Austria . . .
Misleading. 2/3rds of that 33,000 were suicides.
Mexico has very strict gun control, and its homicide rate is about four times that of the US. How do you explain that?
And don’t say, “They get all their guns from the US.” First, that’s simply untrue; the cartels get their weapons from a variety of sources, including bribery of police and military personnel. Many of their weapons are not legally obtainable on the US. Second, even if it were true, it would still illustrate the futility of gun control (as did the massacre in Paris). Also, if the Mexicans were getting their guns from the US, that still wouldn’t explain why the US murder rate is so much lower than Mexico’s.
Guns are NOT the cause of violence. Drug prohibition is the principal cause of violence, both in Mexico and in America’s inner cities. It was the same way with alcohol prohibition many decades ago.
“The growing frequency of mass shootings”
citation?
and yes, this was the most interesting part of Lee’s piece. that a lobbyist would talk out of both sides of their mouth for money should surprise nobody.
mass shootings not on the rise:
http://michaelsiegel.net/?p=5506
http://www.boston.com/community/blogs/crime_punishment/Mass%20Shootings%201980-2010.jpg
Your first reference is drivel, and you second is a plot supported by nothing.
I think the data are consistent with the idea that mass shootings have not changed much over the last 4 decades, maybe up a little, but what is the point?
That gun violence is OK?
drivel? if you have an issue with his data, then make an argument.
the point: Lee Fang’s assertion is not supported
Lobbyists , a Guy or Gal got to make a living only haggling about price here. I could easily see a knowledgably organization or person playing both sides of the field. This would be especially true if moderation were part of the issue it is not. Gun rights and control are one of the hot button issues used to keep the electorate separate and in their place, on the bottom. On gun rights common since solutions by left or right usually translates to accept my way anything else is insane.
This is especially dangerous if bad law that can bleed into suppression of other Constitutional rights such as religion or speak is push through on a hot button issue. If government list such as terrorist or no fly are applied to gun rights they could also be used to restrict other rights. The secret lists made with secret criterion by secret government officials would create blacklist on government demand. Anyone could be targeted for any reason to restrict any right. Of course if you have never done anything wrong or even made someone in authority mad and completely trust government and you like all ideas of all past and current politicians; then rule by blacklist should be no problem.
This is what happens when you hire mercenaries. They never pretended to be anything else, and it’s absurd to demand from them a loyalty they don’t have.
This is why we need to care about the ideas involved, and reject efforts to impugn people based on “opposition research”. In the age of the NSA, there is one master of opposition research to rule them all, and if we are willing to make our decisions based on ad hominem, there can be only one winner in any argument.
Yea, not about issues but divide and conquer so that the one ring of power is fitted to all our noses.
Wnt you are on a roll today. Thanks again
The problem of guns in America is the fact that the guns are held by Americans.
Guns don’t kill, Americans do.
America lives night by night with guns in their hands and hate in their hearts.
http://www.metrolyrics.com/night-by-night-lyrics-steely-dan.html
“It’s a beggars life”, Said the Queen of Spain
But don’t tell it to a poor man
‘Cause he’s got to kill for every thrill
The best he can
Everywhere around me
I see jealousy and mayhem
Because no men have all their peace of mind
To carry them
Well I don’t really care
If it’s wrong or if it’s right
But until my ship comes in
I’ll live night by night
When the joker tried to tell me
I could cut it in this rube town
When he tried to hang that sign on me
I said “Take it down”
When the dawn patrol got to tell you twice
They’re gonna do it with a shotgun
Yes, I’m cashing in this ten-cent life
For another one
Well I ain’t got the heart
To lose another fight
So until my ship comes in
I’ll live night by night
Well I don’t really care
If it’s wrong or if it’s right
But until my ship comes in
I’ll live night by night
Night by night
Night by night
Night by night
Night by night
It is pretzel logic America but you will be what you are with a gun.
With a Gun – Steely Dan – YouTube
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-yfDjpFSiA
The political establishment does excellent work at stage managing the gun control debate. The Intercept is like that annoying person who insists on explaining in great detail how the magician’s trick was actually performed. Or, the person at the puppet show who keeps pointing out the strings.
Each side needs an occasional small victory or an occasional small defeat to mobilize contributions and grass roots support. Over time, if the consensus shifts, there will be real changes in policy. The work of the lobbyists is necessary to orchestrate this process. Coordination of the work is best served by having the same lobbying firm do everything. That way, the message does not get lost in translation.
However, exposing the pre-arranged agreements may cause people to become cynical and apathetic. This is a real danger in a managed democracy. So it might be better, as a matter of public policy, for the lobbying firms involved to maintain more of an arms length relationship.
“‘Arms’ length position” indeed. Non-disclosure of funding by advocates on both sides of this issue is standard operating procedure. Controlling those who make a living at shaping public opinion is simply good business. For instance, the deep-pocketed elites control congress, congress controls the executive, and together they manage the judicial branch of government. In turn, the press is owned by the elites and managed by the CIA through a system of rewards and punishments for key personal. This arrangement works quite nicely for the top one %. However the issue of guns is a sticky wicket. On the one hand, gun sales are a very lucrative business; as is the prison industrial complex. But, on the other hand, the ownership of guns by the remaining 99% suggest a potential threat to those who hold the reigns of power. However, a permanent standing army is quite reassuring to those who have wisely given the military’s top brass an economic stake in safeguarding their collective interests; as is the ongoing militarization of civilian police forces throughout the country. Maybe this is why the Pentagon is never required to file a yearly balanced budget as is mandated by law.
Guns and ammunition manufacturing annual revenue: $11,000,000,000
Number of people employed by the firearm manufacturing industry: 35,165
Number of weapons and ammunition manufacturers in the U.S. : 465
Number of retail gun dealers : 50,812
Annual Federal tax dollars collected on firearm sales : $123,000,000
Annual number of hunting licenses, tags, permits, stamps sold : 31,625,161
Gross money for conservation from license sales : $525,753,481
http://www.statisticbrain.com/firearm-industry-statistics/
Indeed. Where is Milo Minderbinder now that we need him?
“So it might be better, as a matter of public policy, for the lobbying firms involved to maintain more of an arms length relationship.”
I’m no PR expert but my guess is nobody is sweating this story. Nobody will remember it a week from now. Their public policy is prolly just avoiding the spotlight and if the spotlight comes to just ignore it until the reporters get bored and move on.