Subscribe via RSS Feed

If Only Reasonable Moderate John Kasich Had Won the Election!

[ 183 ] December 21, 2016 |

images-washingtonpost-com

Oh Reasonable Moderate John Kasich, why can’t you save us from Donald Trump?

Three weeks after a student plowed a car into a crowd at Ohio State University and attacked people with a butcher knife, Governor John Kasich signed a bill that dramatically expands the number of places people with conceal carry licenses can bring firearms.

The new law, which takes effect in 90 days, lifts a blanket ban on carrying firearms on college campuses and into daycares, part of airport terminals, and government buildings. It also requires that businesses allow employees to stash their weapons in their vehicles while at work.

The legislation marks the most significant expansion of gun-carrying rights in the U.S. since September, when the Missouri legislature enacted a “stand your ground” law and a measure allowing people to carry concealed guns in public without a permit. In August, Texas implemented a law extending gun rights to colleges campuses.

Since taking office in 2011, the governor has not vetoed a single pro-gun bill passed by the legislature.

The legislation was born in the middle of the night. At 3:10 a.m., on December 9, Ohio state lawmakers scrambled to pass a series of gun measures that had variously been opposed by the state police chiefs association and the chamber of commerce. As The Trace reported last week, one bill, in its original form, sought to extend civil rights protections to workers with concealed carry permits who want to leave their guns in their cars while at work.

The civil rights provisions were dropped, but a version that would still make illegal for employers to ban guns from their parking lots survived. An investigation published by The Trace earlier this year found that the number of guns stolen from parked cars in many cities is on the rise.

Boy, Donald Trump would never sign such a reasonably moderate bill!

FacebookTwitterGoogle+Share

Comments (183)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Aimai says:

    They really don’t get that loosening gun restrictions means that terrorists will simply use more guns, or take them from people at the school, do they?

    • Just_Dropping_By says:

      terrorists will . . . take them from people at the school

      One can argue for gun control for many reasons, but in how many terrorist attacks on US soil in the last, say, 40 years have the terrorists used guns that they took away from civilians, or otherwise stole, at the site of the attack? I’m not holding my breath for an example. (They might carry more guns, but that doesn’t seem to make a difference — if one actually pays attention, mass shooters already often carry multiple other weapons that they never actually use during the shootings.)

      • jim, some guy in iowa says:

        so in other words you’re good with the students carrying weapons

        • Quaino says:

          No, he think it’s a stupid argument to support gun control because terrorists might take them away from students as their primary means of terrorism. There are a variety of reasons why gun control is a good idea, on campus, otherwise (like fights escalating, drunk kids with firearms, etc.)

          You’re not really doing yourself any favors if you consider it a purity test to never question any argument that is made in favor of your desired goal.

        • Just_Dropping_By says:

          I have no problem with universities or any other institutions/businesses/individuals/etc. banning people from carrying firearms on their properties and I think laws compelling institutions/businesses/individuals/etc. to allow other people to carry firearms on their properties violates their property rights (although it’s probably not unconstitutional under modern takings jurisprudence).

          I just don’t believe that there’s any evidence that increasing the number of firearms carried by people at a particular location is likely to lead to terrorist seizing those weapons to use them as part of their terrorist attacks. As far as I’m aware, there’s no such instance of that happening in the United States. If you want to have laws that restrict gun rights, base them on reality and not silly hypotheticals.

      • BobBobNewhartNewhartSpecial says:

        One can argue for gun control for many reasons, but in how many terrorist attacks on US soil in the last, say, 40 years have the terrorists used guns that they took away from civilians, or otherwise stole, at the site of the attack?

        Well, there was that one assassination attempt on Trump. But that didn’t go so well for the attempted assassin, so it’s unlikely many others will follow that strategy.

      • cpinva says:

        “if one actually pays attention, mass shooters already often carry multiple other weapons that they never actually use during the shootings.)”

        if one actually pays attention, one would recall that one of the main reasons police strongly urge against would-be “citizen warriors” from keeping guns for self-protection, is that a good many of those guns end up being taken away from the “citizen warrior”, and used against them. now, it’s possible that, like pot as a gateway drug to heroin, the police just made this up, but I’m guessing not, there’s really no benefit to them to do that. no, my guess is that they’ve come upon many a crime scene, where the “citizen warrior” ended up having his own gun jammed up his ass, by the criminal, because the “citizen warrior” had no fucking clue what he was doing, and had no training in handling tense situations. it’s why they train soldiers and police, before sending them out on their merry way.

        • Just_Dropping_By says:

          (1) WTF is up with the “citizen warrior” $h!t? (2) The frequency of people being shot with their own weapon by a terrorist is the relevant issue here, although I would note that the extremely popular talking point about “your own gun being more likely to be used against you” depends almost entirely entirely on suicides, accidental shootings, and domestic violence incidents to get to that result.

    • BigHank53 says:

      There was a clickbait article a few weeks ago in which a bunch of convicted burglars were interviewed. They all loved NRA bumperstickers: that meant there were a lot of guns in the house. Wait for the owners to go to work, and it’s payday!

      More guns in general means more stolen guns, and more criminals with guns. If you’ve been spending your life fantasizing about defending your family from a “bad man”, though, this is a good thing. Your chances just went up!

  2. waspuppet says:

    Thank God they waited 11 whole days, otherwise they could be accused of politicizing tragedy like nasty shrill Democrats always do and Republicans never do.

  3. D.N. Nation says:

    I remember quite a few heated classroom debates in college and thinking to myself, know what would make this more productive? Guns!, so I welcome this development.

    • Snarki, child of Loki says:

      “Good morning students, and welcome to Applied Nuclear Physics 101. Those of you who decided to take advantage of the ‘open carry’ policy should be aware that I have a nuclear warhead *right here*, triggered by a dead-man switch. If you feel pissed off about your midterm score, and want to take a shot, you probably won’t even notice as everything within 10km is vaporized.

      Now on to chapter 1..”

    • tsam says:

      Having been raised by a cop, and hearing how scary it is to breach a building without knowing what’s inside, I feel like it’s a big help to law enforcement to add a whole bunch more guns to any shooter situation. Of course it’s really easy to tell the good guys from the bad guys, you just ask them.

      • Steve LaBonne says:

        I’ve heard many individual cops point this out, including when the employees of the county I work for were given ALICE training. But cops as a group don’t push back very hard at all against this craziness even though it endangers them. Why? Conservative tribalism, I suppose.

        • BigHank53 says:

          Not every cop is a gun nut, but it’s hard to be a cop and not at least get exposed to the gun nuts: you work with one or you’re trained by one or the local shooting range you practice at is infested with them. (All shooting ranges are infested with gun nuts.) And the cops very much do not want to be on the wrong side of the gun nuts.

        • tsam says:

          Cops, as a group, don’t like to be seen trying to influence policy (as a general rule), which I think is a good thing. But then I think I’d rather have them make it clear that a bunch more guns in a school is endangering an exponentially greater number of lives: Those carrying, and the cops that are tasked with breaching these buildings with a tiny bit of shitty intel to work with.

      • rea says:

        “Are you a good guy or a bad guy?”

        “I’m a good guy.”

        “That’s just what a terrorist would say!” [Bang!]

        • Hogan says:

          “Guilty people always say they’re innocent.”

          “What do innocent people say?”

          • Lost Left Coaster says:

            Well, if they drown, at least we know that they were not witches.

          • Breadbaker says:

            As I learned doing legal aid 40 years ago, the only people who answer “yes” to the question, “are you an alcoholic?” are recovering alcoholics.

          • tsam says:

            All I know is if I’m a cop going into that situation and I see a male with a gun, he gets about one second to ground that weapon or he’s dead. If he says “no, I”m the good—” Too late. I’m not waiting around to sort out who the good guys and bad guys are. You have a gun, you’re the bad guy if you’re still in possession of it and in the line of sight of a police officer.

            • DAS says:

              I’ve even wondered about the “if worse comes to worse, fight back” advice you see given about dealing with an active shooter. If a cop sees two people fighting, how does the cop know which one is the shooter?

              • tsam says:

                Well, that would be a situation where you aren’t armed, and if you’re likely to be shot, try fighting back and maybe you’ll get lucky. By this point, adding a cop to the mix doesn’t change the calculus because you’re as good as dead anyway. For me, I’m looking to stay hidden and find something I can stab with and hope for the best. The odds are in my favor if I can surprise the shooter, but any hesitation means I’m dead…but I’ve likely accepted that reality already–I’m just trying to take this fuck with me.

            • BobBobNewhartNewhartSpecial says:

              All I know is if I’m a cop going into that situation and I see a male with a gun, he gets about one second to ground that weapon or he’s dead.

              It’s probably good you’re not a cop, then.

              • tsam says:

                It’s probably exactly WHY I’m not a cop. But then if I was a cop, I’d have combat training instead of talking shit on the internet, so….

                But on the other hand, putting myself in the shoes of a cop, you have a building. You don’t have a good description of the shooter. You see a male with a gun. What would YOU do?

      • addicted44 says:

        The legislation was born in the middle of the night. At 3:10 a.m., on December 9, Ohio state lawmakers scrambled to pass a series of gun measures that had variously been opposed by the state police chiefs association and the chamber of commerce.

        • los says:

          chamber of commerce

          Why? How do these laws threaten CEOs? A few actually profit from paranoid gun buying hysterias.

          • lunaticllama says:

            They don’t want angry employees they fire immediately returning to the workplace armed to the teeth and pissed as hell. They made it illegal for a business to prohibit an employee from keeping guns in the car he or she drives to work.

            • so-in-so says:

              So, there IS and upside to this legislation!

              I look forward to Ohio companies being afraid of firing employees.

              Of course, the CEO won’t be the one delivering the message, and he’ll probably lay off a few more workers to hire private security for himself…

          • wengler says:

            I assume these pro-gun laws make businesses’ insurance go up.

      • kateislate says:

        My recollection is that this was one of the cases made for the Canadian long gun registry (no longer existing) – it allowed police to know if there were likely guns in a house before they entered (e.g. in responding to a domestic violence call).

        • BobBobNewhartNewhartSpecial says:

          What are Canadian gun laws like, relative to the US? Similar, significantly more restrictions? And how does gun ownership compare?

          • You’re allowed to own guns, but the restrictions are quite a bit tighter (for starters, everyone who wants one is required to pass a criminal background check), and the gun ownership rates per capita are barely even a quarter what they are here. IIRC, most people who own them there have them for hunting, which makes sense given the kind of terrain that makes up much of Canada. They also used to have a firearms registry, but that seems to have been eliminated from 2012-2015.

      • efgoldman says:

        I feel like it’s a big help to law enforcement to add a whole bunch more guns to any shooter situation. Of course it’s really easy to tell the good guys from the bad guys, you just ask them.

        These, of course, are the same klowns who hate all of us hippies because we hate the cops (we don’t).
        Every fucking LOE organization in the country, especially the chiefs, hates every damned one of these bills, and all these “blue lives matter” and “support your police” RWNJ TeaHadis JUST DON’T GIVE A SHIT.
        I know, I know: when you decide to register as a Republiklown you have to have an empathy-ectomy at the same time as they implant the hypocrisy chip.

  4. postmodulator says:

    My standard line on this every time it has come up has been that I would be more comfortable with college students having guns if I hadn’t spent almost ten years trying to help them use their laptops.

  5. Snarki, child of Loki says:

    If only these 2nd Amendment friendly laws had been passed before the GOP convention in Cleveland. Oh well.

  6. Joe_JP says:

    A Republican was going to win eventually and there was a good chance it would be an unsavory option. But, yeah, rather Kasich win over Trump. Suffice to say, much rather a Democrat, even one of the bad ones that some see as not much better than Republicans.

    • Erik Loomis says:

      Yeah, sure, I’d rather have Kasich too. But not by that much. And that’s the point–Trump is mostly a bog-standard Republican in terms of policy.

      • CaptainBringdown says:

        Domestic policy? Yup, pretty much. Foreign policy? We’ll see.

      • libarbarian says:

        Of course, the things that make Trump dangerous are not merely “policy”.

        Basic Republicans don’t use Twitter to sick their Red Guards on people who displease them.

      • Joseph Slater says:

        Kasich said he wasn’t even going to vote for Trump (or Hillary). He has been pretty hard on him.

      • efgoldman says:

        I’d rather have Kasich too. But not by that much.

        He is an asshole first class with oak leaf clusters, but he is sane – unlike Tangerine Torquemada, who is a perfect textbook example of narcissistic personality disorder.

      • njorl says:

        Trump makes me feel worse about my countrymen. I could see large numbers of people sleepwalking through an election pulling the lever for Kasich out of habit. Trump winning leaves no doubt at all that a lot of people in this country are malevolent. It’s more apparent that there are many who delight in hatred and look forward to the pain that will be inflicted.

        • DAS says:

          I think it’s an artifact of where I live and who I know, but many people I know personally who voted for Trump voted for him in part because they were confident he’d govern as a bog standard Republican.

          OTOH, if the race came down to Kasich vs. Sanders, I know a lot of die-hard Democrats who would switch parties and vote for Kasich because “Sanders is a left wing socialist who wants to redistribute wealth, which means my clients will have less money which’ll decrease my firm’s revenue is economically disastrous, and who hates Israel … Kasich may be a Republican, but at least he’s not as far to the right as Sanders is to the left”. I dunno if it would be enough to put a state like NY, NJ, CA or CT into the GOP camp, but it would make it too close for comfort.

          Still, the Trump voters who hadn’t really participated in politics until Trump threw red meat at them and got them out to vote are frightening. But at some level I knew certain people thought a certain way, so I didn’t doubt the malevolence of all too many people: c.f. the election night skit from SNL and the reactions of Dave Chappelle and Chris Rock about the level of doubt we should have as to the malevolence of certain people in this country.

    • Rob in CT says:

      Yes, I would in fact trade for Kasich instead of Trump.

      Though I can understand if someone takes the other side of that, arguing that maybe Trump won’t prioritize rolling back abortion rights (which I think is a dubious argument, but I suppose you never know). Kasich is a proven hardcore anti-abortion asshole.

      • Joe_JP says:

        Kasich would sign into law the abortion shit but the deplorables in Congress are going to pass it. Few Republicans are going to veto anything except that patently unconstitutional or crazy there (as he did with the heartbeat bill). The same would apply to guns etc. Romney etc. would act this way.

        The “not much” seems questionable to me given qualified non-sociopath or whatever assholes are a certain quantum level better. There is a non-zero chance Trump is going to by his incompetence etc. cause a helluva lot of harm beyond policy issues. His attraction to generals also seems something Kasich would avoid. And, Kasich seems non-Pence on gay issues. Again, obviously don’t want him to win.

        • lunaticllama says:

          I don’t know whether this is true, but I suspect a federal abortion bill could be filibustered (under current rules.) It would be a good hill for the Dems to stand on. Also, I’m still not sure when or if McConnell will push to change the rule. Everyone is saying the filibuster going to die fast, but McConnell is saying he doesn’t want to do it, along with a bunch of other Republican old-timers. And, generally, McConnell is pretty open about what he intends to do. I wonder what would cause these Senators to change positions – I really don’t know.

          • Phil Perspective says:

            I’m still not sure when or if McConnell will push to change the rule. Everyone is saying the filibuster going to die fast, but McConnell is saying he doesn’t want to do it, along with a bunch of other Republican old-timers.

            Do you really think Yertle the Turtle is going to advertise this early that he’d change it? I don’t think so. He likely doesn’t want to change it unless he has to. Why? Because it’s gone for good once it’s changed. My guess is that it at least partially depends on how obstructionist the Democrats are. The Democrats could filibuster everything, if they had the courage to. We’ll see.

            • Rob in CT says:

              On one thing we agree: the Dems have to force McConnell’s hand on this. Make him nuke it. The answer is “no.” What was the question again?

              • cpinva says:

                “On one thing we agree: the Dems have to force McConnell’s hand on this. Make him nuke it. The answer is “no.” What was the question again?”

                to be at all effective, the D answer on everything has to be “no”, including whether or not to change brands of tp in the bathrooms.

      • BartletForGallifrey says:

        As someone whose main issue is reproductive justice, I don’t see a damn bit of difference.

    • SatanicPanic says:

      To get all nerdy, Kasich is lawful evil. Trump is chaotic evil. I’d go with lawful evil every time.

    • No Longer Middle Aged Man says:

      Agree. Just because W Bush has a strong claim for “worst President ever” does not mean that Cheney would not have been considerably worse.

      And probably Kasich over Pence as well: smarter, less fundy, strongly disliked by many on his own side so maybe (whistling in the dark here) a little more open to an occasional small scale friendly gesture to political opponents.

  7. Rob in CT says:

    Sort of OT:

    I wonder if a good case could be made that the Dems’ strong gun control stance post-Sandy Hook was a key factor in the election loss?

    I only bring it up because I think it’s been ignored in all the fighting over economic anxiety vs. “identity politics” (though to me Gun Rights are a form of ID politics) and Putin/Wikileaks, Comey/emailz.

    And I recall a couple of our Midwestern posters saying that the NRA and winger PACs were running lots of ads on the usual issues, with gun rights in particular being a big one.

    • humanoid.panda says:

      I recall that as early as 2013, 538 was writing about Obama’s approval collapsing in Iowa, and that might signal trouble for 2016. Hard to correlate this with anything but the guns issue, as Black Lives Matter hadn’t emerged yet.

      • mds says:

        I recall that as early as 2013, 538 was writing about Obama’s approval collapsing in Iowa

        Which just goes to the ever-increasing level of crazy in Iowa, since during my childhood gun nuttery didn’t seem to be a big deal. Hunting, yes. Desperate need to be packing heat in suburbia, no. Hell, in the 2010 gubernatorial election, the incumbent Democrat was the one with the NRA endorsement, and it didn’t count for shit. During that election, defeating the enablers of the subhuman homosexual filth was what was important. So I suspect that it’s whatever shibboleth is most convenient at the time.

        • jim, some guy in iowa says:

          the NRA has a lot of money to throw around and they did, just as a lot of other conservative groups did, and it added up to a kind of “everything including the kitchen sink” approach to scaring out their base. I also think it worked to depress D turnout (at least I found them horribly oppressive after a while and quit listening to the radio) because there was probably 4 R ads for every 1 D- and those few D ads didn’t come out til the last two-three weeks after the Rs had been running for a month or better. I bring it up from time to time as an example of all this outside money coming into downticket races and drowning out whatever message the Ds are trying to get out

          • humanoid.panda says:

            All this might be true, but it doesn’t explain why 2012 was a decent year for Dems in Iowa, and things went of a cliff in 2014/16.

            • jim, some guy in iowa says:

              edit: I had an answer but upon reading it in an actual comment it seems like too many words. I think the state is getting old and just going downhill in general, is all

              • cpinva says:

                “. I think the state is getting old and just going downhill in general, is all”

                that could describe a fair number of mid-western states. the children left years ago, for jobs and a better climate, weather and culture wise. their parents stayed put, and are now the dominant demographic. older tend to be more conservative, and they also tend to vote on a more regular basis than the younger ones do. so yeah, that makes sense.

    • dl says:

      NRA was going to do its worst to fuck Democrats simply because of SCOTUS (and on principle). And I’m not really sure what the “Dems’ strong gun control stance post-Sandy Hook” even was. NY and CT passed a mild law that’s about half-enforced?

      • Rob in CT says:

        Obama said some things. Chris Murphy performed filibustering, and got a lot of Dems to join in. HRC said some things.

        None of it amounted to policy, but then the Dems were in the minority in congress. They obviously couldn’t pass anything.

        It was rhetorical (stance) not policy. And yes, the NRA is always going to bang on about perfidious liberal gun grabbers. I just wonder if it was slightly more effective this cycle (not least because Scary Black People were Doing Things).

      • BobBobNewhartNewhartSpecial says:

        NRA was going to do its worst to fuck Democrats simply because of SCOTUS

        This doesn’t seem to be getting a lot of attention, but for gun-issue voters, this was a do-or-die election with the empty Scalia seat. I’m sure the NRA had no problem getting out its supporters to vote Trump, regardless of what any of these people may have otherwise thought of him.

    • BigHank53 says:

      I think this one goes in the “fake news” column as well. The actual policy put forward–enhanced background checks–had pretty high support in the population, even among Republicans, rural voters, and NRA members. The “policies” that the NRA assured its members were forthcoming (mandatory registration, magazine limits, confiscation, jack-booted thugs, etc) were terrifying, hallucinatory, and succeeded in motivating a tiny minority to shriek until they got everything they ever wanted.

      • dl says:

        magazine limits,

        the horror!

        • Warren Terra says:

          The fact that we don’t already do this – that we, almost completely unregulated, sell machines whose only designed purpose is not even mere murder but actual mass murder – continues to amaze me.

          • tsam says:

            We did, at least for pistols. There was a 10 round limit on pistol mags for a long time. Gun nuts STILL haven’t shut up about it to this day. It sunseted with the Brady Bill.

      • Warren Terra says:

        Yeah, this. Slightly inconveniencing well-documented nutters wanting advanced weaponry was a response the gundamentalists endorsed until Obama came out for it.

        Gun sales iirc doubled under Obama as the gun worshippers were fed a constant diet of paranoid fantasies that Obama was coming for their fetish objects, not to mention the whole ATF “gunwalker” mishegas that was somehow Obama’s fault although it was started under Bush.

      • Dilan Esper says:

        Bear in mind there’s a fair number of voters who support moderate gun controls in theory but get easily convinced that the politicians who propose them are going to take their guns.

        • humanoid.panda says:

          Yes, this. While opinion polls consistently show super-majority support for background checks, they also show that this one of the few issues were voters prefer GOP to Democrats.

        • efgoldman says:

          but get easily convinced that….

          – Their boy children are going to be forced to wear dresses.
          – Their neighbors are going to be forced to sell their houses to ni[clangs] and spics
          – The army has secret re-education camps underneath abandoned WalMarts
          – Vaccines cause disease
          – Citron McRapey Cheetoh can/will fix things

          • Just_Dropping_By says:

            Yes, it’s just like those examples, except that prominent national Democrats actually have talked about how they wish they could outlaw private gun ownership. See, e.g., Dianne Feinstein in her own words:

            “If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them — ‘Mr. and Mrs. America, turn ’em all in,’ I would have done it.”

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NeRR7MwllH8

            • efgoldman says:

              I do too. Have you seen me get a bill enacted? All kinds of politicians say all kinds of things, you ass.

              • Just_Dropping_By says:

                The point is that fearing some piece of legislation is going to be passed is a lot more rational when real, live, sitting members of Congress say they want to make it happen as compared to your Alex Jones-worthy examples. Plenty of gun control opponents would acknowledge that Congress is not likely to dramatically expand gun control laws, but they would also argue that’s because they work against politicians who would pass such legislation.

            • JMP says:

              Considering that we absolutely should ban private gun ownership in the US, and to oppose it is absolutely idiotic and causes the outrageously high murder rate in this country, I fail to see how that’s supposed to be a problem.

              • humanoid.panda says:

                There are 300 million guns in the US. There is simply no way to ban private gun ownership without a massive social disruption- even if, like me, you strongly dislike that fact. Path dependency is a thing.

    • mds says:

      I wonder if a good case could be made that the Dems’ strong gun control stance post-Sandy Hook was a key factor in the election loss?

      The only federal bill that was ever seriously considered was co-sponsored by Pat Toomey, and he won re-election just fine.

    • los says:

      Gun Rights are a form of ID politics

      Gun Justice Warriors.
      “Identity Politics” is another “projection” crop, farmed by Foxda Ministry of Truthy Real News.

    • njorl says:

      I used to think we should just give up on gun control. The things that have a prayer of passing wouldn’t save very many lives anyway. But Republicans would never simply accept victory. They pass laws like this to push more and more guns into more hands.
      If we don’t keep fighting them, as much as it costs us electorally, they’ll pass “open carry subsidies” – tax credits for citizens who defray the cost of law enforcement by openly carrying guns!

      • Rob in CT says:

        I’m not sure, honestly. But when I think of ways Democrats can do better with suburban & rural white voters, this is one subject that comes to mind.

        And it might be one thing to play defense against absurd open carry laws than it is to press for restrictions.

  8. SP says:

    Daycares? WTFF? There are dozens of stories every year about kids under 5 accidentally killing each other (or shooting their parents) because they find a gun sitting around. When some kid pulls one out of a purse left on the ground and shoots a classmate, does that mean we should send pictures of the bloody corpse to Kasich because that’s what you’re supposed to do when you’re “pro-life”?

    • Warren Terra says:

      Obviously any responsible gun owner will get their car modified like drug smugglers do, installing secret compartments that can only be opened using the right combination of buttons and switches. Otherwise a burglar or little Timmy can all too easily reach into the gun glove compartment and discover the Glock Manhood Metaphor.

      • so-in-so says:

        Recall the gun-nut Mom in Florida who was shot in the car by her toddler? Maybe six months ago?

        They are all “responsible gun owners”, until they aren’t.

        • tsam says:

          My Beretta pistol has languished in a safe every day except for the 10 or 12 days I’ve taken it out to go shooting. That’s responsible. There were no toddlers anywhere near me when I was handling it. This lady was completely mystified by the fact that her gun ended up in the back seat with her toddler. HOW IN THE FUCK DOES THAT EVEN HAPPEN?

          • Rob in CT says:

            Talk about failing to respect it.

            I thought that was supposed to be the idea: “the moment you fail to respect this, it kills you.”

            But whatever, gun nuts, rock on.

        • JMP says:

          The gun nuts so often prove that there is no such fucking thing as a responsible gun owner.

    • Sev says:

      Well, hopefully they will only allow guns without any small parts which could present a choking hazard.

      • njorl says:

        The choking hazard posed by bullets is why you should only let your toddler have a large gauge shotgun.

      • efgoldman says:

        hopefully they will only allow guns without any small parts which could present a choking hazard.

        My three y.o. granddaughter was going to take a .22 to nursery school, but her parents couldn’t find a shoulder holster in size 4T.

    • BartletForGallifrey says:

      When some kid pulls one out of a purse left on the ground and shoots a classmate, does that mean we should send pictures of the bloody corpse to Kasich because that’s what you’re supposed to do when you’re “pro-life”?

      I’ve wondered if America would feel differently about gun control if we actually saw what not having it looks like. I’ve told my friends and family that if I’m ever shot, I want the pictures published everywhere.

      As for pro-life people, on twitter I respond to their staged fetus pictures with a picture of a used tampon. It works quite well.

  9. Warren Terra says:

    It also requires that businesses allow employees to stash their weapons in their vehicles while at work.

    Well, obviously. How else is a car supposed to protect itself against burglars?

    An investigation published by The Trace earlier this year found that the number of guns stolen from parked cars in many cities is on the rise

    Obviously we need smarter, better-armed cars to prevent this.

    Dialing the snark back a bit:

    1) Surely the place you least need a gun is in your car? You can’t safely fondle the firearm while driving, so it’s hardly ready to hand, and in your car you’re armored with a couple tons of steel, plastic, and collision-survival systems, you’re capable of fleeing danger at over 80 miles an hour, and in a pinch you can try to run down your enemy. You are (hopefully) awake, and you even have a horn with which to cry for help!

    2) The possible rash of gun thefts from cars speaks to a pet peeve of mine: we don’t regulate firearms manufactured with the sole purpose of killing human beings with half the seriousness we regulate automobiles, or even storefronts. If we’re going to say people can legally own guns, we need to make them responsible for the manner in which they do so, including requiring them to carry insurance, one part of which will be steep price hikes if you do something dumb like regularly store your gun in an unsecured manner, such as in your damned car.

    • mds says:

      You can’t safely fondle the firearm while driving, so it’s hardly ready to hand

      ? The cellphone normally only needs one hand, so there’s still a hand free for one’s firearm.

    • Peterr says:

      1) Surely the place you least need a gun is in your car? You can’t safely fondle the firearm while driving, so it’s hardly ready to hand, and in your car you’re armored with a couple tons of steel, plastic, and collision-survival systems, you’re capable of fleeing danger at over 80 miles an hour, and in a pinch you can try to run down your enemy. You are (hopefully) awake, and you even have a horn with which to cry for help!

      But . . . but . . . but . . .

      That Guy cut me off. He swung into my lane, without even signalling. He’s driving like this is the Daytona Motor Speedway. How am I supposed to Teach Him a Lesson, without my trusty sidearm? How am I supposed to Make An Example of Him for all those other idiots, to keep them from being tempted to try passing me?

      What’s that you say? Road rage, me? No, I’m fine thanks. Why do you ask?

      Say, are you one of That Guy’s buddies? Hmmm . . . I’ve got my eye on you, so don’t make any sudden moves.

    • efgoldman says:

      If we’re going to say people can legally own guns, we need to make them responsible for the manner in which they do so

      Ah, but Sancto Tony Ciccione said there’s a right to a gun. There’s no right to a car.

    • Just_Dropping_By says:

      Surely the place you least need a gun is in your car?

      I don’t know, talk to this guy:

      An Uber driver, confronted by a robber who had a pair of guns, shot the man dead on Sunday [Dec. 18, 2016] next to a causeway near the Aventura Mall, police said.

      http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/miami-dade/aventura/article121628207.html

      • Rob in CT says:

        An anecdote! Very convincing.

        One can probably make a case for gun ownership/carrying out for personal defense in particular cases (and yeah, cabbies/uber drivers might be the particular folks for whom it makes some sense). But picking 1 story really isn’t the way to do it, and I have no doubt whatsoever that you know this.

        • Just_Dropping_By says:

          Take it up with Warren Terra. He didn’t offer any statistical evidence for his position that a car is where “you least need a gun.”

          • (((Malaclypse))) says:

            I didn’t read the long list of reasons he offered for his position either.

            • Warren Terra says:

              To be fair, I was playing with the idea that you would find your gun a valuable addition to your safety within your car, which is an absurd notion even if there is some anecdote about an Uber driver managed somehow to shoot a passenger who already (supposedly) had him at gunpoint.

              Obviously the guns are merely being stored in the cars, for the convenience of toddlers and of interested burglars, and also so the car owner can strap on their hand cannon and feel safe on the dangerous trek from the parking lot to the front door of the supermarket, or even within the supermarket. Supermarkets are dangerous places full of fatty foods, sharp cheeses, and cigarettes, which will kill you given a chance. You probably need a gun in there just for the protection it offers.

        • Just_Dropping_By says:

          As I’ve noted elsewhere, unless your position is that there should be a complete ban on private ownership of handguns (which is a logically consistent one), incidents like the Uber spree shooter are basically irrelevant because he wasn’t stopped by police until after he’d shot a bunch of people.

  10. Crusty says:

    I don’t get the tone or framing of this post. Is this a bad and stupid thing? Sure. Is kasich 100 times better than trump on general authoritarianism and competence or lack thereof? Yes. And the point that they’re all alike serves to normalize trump and let people think hey, he’s just a republican, we’ve survived them before, no big deal.

    • libarbarian says:

      BINGO!

      I’m fucking sick of listening to these fucking useless fools complain about the “threat” Trump and Trumpism poses only to continue to insist of remaining totally disarmed.

      Right now, any liberal who doesn’t own a rifle is not fucking serious.

      • postmodulator says:

        I acquired around twenty guns after the election, but that was honestly a very odd coincidence.

      • Linnaeus says:

        Spot me a few hundred and I’ll get right on that.

      • Or else is prone to mood disorders and knows that owning a firearm greatly increases one’s likelihood of committing suicide. That’s also a possibility

        • (((Malaclypse))) says:

          Or one has a child who 1) understands that even a 4-digit combo lock has only 10,000 possible combinations, and she can be patient; 2) has been known to hunt for and try keys in locks, and 3) is more than a bit obsessive.

          Or one merely knows that however big an arsenal one acquires, one is never ever gonna outgun a determined police force, although it does increase dramatically the odds that one may die trying.

          • libarbarian says:

            Well, I was speaking broadly, and I don’t expect people with histories of suicidal thoughts or uncontrollable kids to have guns.

            However this is such a massive fucking strawman:

            Or one merely knows that however big an arsenal one acquires, one is never ever gonna outgun a determined police force, although it does increase dramatically the odds that one may die trying.

            I wasn’t talking about an immediate “rebellion”, let alone a stupid suicidal stand in some bunker.

            But if you think the Trump-led Republicans are above whipping up local “vigilantes” to do their violence for them, then you haven’t been paying attention. Trump knows what he is doing with Twitter & Social Media. He is practicing the Mao technique of pointing out some enemy and then sitting back and watching, with “clean hands”, as his rabid followers attack that person. And it’s going to get worse than “harassment” or even “doxing”. Or you could equate it with a moe deniable version the ISIS strategy of inspiring “lone wolf” terrorists. The endgame for him is the same – the ability to leverage social media and direction connection with his fans to enable him to intimidate critics with a credible, but deniable, threat to their safety and lives.

            And the thing is … the exact kind of people who would love to his bidding n that regard knows that we liberals have largely utterly disarmed ourselves and completely rely on the Police to protect us. And there are a lot of Hispanics, Blacks, liberals, etc. living in places where the police or the people who control the police are sympathetic to Trumps goals.

            So, yeah, if I lived in one of those places I would re-evaluate my risks. Because I don’t think we have really seen how far this fucking traitor is going to take things.

    • Shantanu Saha says:

      No, the framing is this. Even bog-standard Republicans have gone so far off the deep end that the prospect of any Republican, even the “reasonable” Kasich, at the head of a government under unified Republican control, is a clear and present danger to the survival of the Republic.

      • Just_Dropping_By says:

        Except that nothing Kasich just did even vaguely approaches being “a clear and present danger to the survival of the Republic.”

        • humanoid.panda says:

          Kasich is a long term advocate for a Balanced Budget Amendment, which, if enacted would be a real threat to the Republic in the case of an economic downturn.
          There is also the tiny issue of global warming denialism.

    • JKTH says:

      I can’t speak for Erik but I think it’s more that Trump’s insanity has made hard-right Republicans somehow look like moderates by comparison, so people like Kasich get a halo put above their head.

  11. Morbo says:

    Three weeks after a student plowed a car into a crowd at Ohio State University

    Well clearly between this and the European trucks, guns won’t be enough. I demand legal open carry of RPGs and ATGMs.

  12. Doug Gardner says:

    One hopes that customers of a day care will “vote” with their wallets by refusing to enroll their kids in a place that allows guns on the premises. However, this strategy presupposes that the proportion of gun-averse parents is higher than those who are gun-hungry; this may assume facts not in evidence.

    • Breadbaker says:

      I haven’t read the legislation, but it sounds to me like the day cares will have no choice about allowing guns on premises. It’s a Second Amendment right, after all.

      • so-in-so says:

        Exactly.

        “Rights” only belong to the RWers, not those they oppose.

        2nd Amendment means you can open carry on my private property (although I guess if I feel threatened I can “stand my ground”).

        1st Amendment means Fundies can discriminate without recrimination, but forbid you from saying ANYTHING against their chosen religious nuttery.

  13. Sebastian_h says:

    Complaining about gun control politics is one thing. Framing it in comparison to Trump is actively bad.

    Yes, people we disagree with will tend to do things we disagree with. We typically won’t agree with them when they do the things we disagree with.

    Framing it as “Trump is just another Republican” isn’t the right way of getting ready to deal with Trump AT ALL. He isn’t just a typical politician that we disagree with. You’re playing right into the normalization of Trump, right when we don’t need to be normalizing Trump.

    For any given Republican politician, we can probably find all sorts of things where on an individual thing analysis they are comparable to Trump.

    But none of them, not Rubio, not Kasich, not even Pence are as dangerous to US democracy as Trump. Framing it like this is just going to let people off thinking “See they talk about ALL politicians they don’t like just the same way they talk about Trump. They are probably just exaggerating again.”

    Don’t “Cry Wolf”.

    We ABSOLUTELY would be better off if Kasich had won.

    This is like the third party thing all over again–people not understanding the dangers of what they are doing. If you are preaching that all Republicans are pretty much interchangeable with Trump you are ACTIVELY hurting our chances of surviving this presidency.

    • No Longer Middle Aged Man says:

      This. I think better framing is “Trump will go along with anything the worst of RWNJs favor, in particular restricting voting rights, as long as they don’t interfere with him grifting and taking a wrecking ball to any random thing he doesn’t like.”

    • tsam says:

      This is a good point–and I hadn’t thought of it that way before.

      • efgoldman says:

        This is a good point–and I hadn’t thought of it that way before.

        Think of it this way: Kasich, Brave Brave Sir Wonder Boy Marco, ?jeb?, Snotty, Mittster, etc are all bog-standard RWNJ Republiklowns. No empathy, sucking up to money (if not rich themselves), fuck regulations, etc…
        Nectarine McRapey Nutbag is an actual, clinical narcissistic sociopath, which is much scarier.

        • tsam says:

          Yeah–I guess there may still be a bit of denial on my part going on–I keep wanting to think we’ll be OK, even though I fully acknowledge that we have a genuine legitimacy problem now, and that this guy has no filter, no limits, is perfectly unqualified for the job, and clinically stupid.

          ETA: On the other hand, I don’t want to feed any bright ideas about letting Republicans get away with disowning Trump as one of them. This is a rather tricky line to walk.

    • Rob in CT says:

      I am going to have to reluctantly agree with Sebastian on this point, yeah.

      There are actual differences between Trump and other Republicans, even though other Republicans have by and large gone batshit (and Trump is the culmination of the degeneration of the GOP).

    • Sebastian_h says:

      I want to be clear that I don’t mean this as a general slam on Erik. This is a matter of tactics and strategy. You can’t play over the top rhetoric against people we need.

      You don’t have to like Kaisch, but we probably need him. I’m not saying that you can’t criticize Kaisch for doing stupid things on guns.

      I’m only saying that it is dangerously counterproductive to say things about normal Republican politicians that can be interpreted as equating them with Trump when they aren’t doing things that are cooperating with the things that makes Trump especially dangerous.

      When they are doing things that are actively dangerous to the survival of our democracy–restricting free speech, setting up private armies, crushing free press (all things which I fear may happen) THEN you frame it as “going along with the most dangerous things about Trump”.

      If you convince enough people that the general Republican is pretty much like Trump–that is when we have probably lost the war. People are tribal. Don’t help people exercise their normal tribal loyalties with Trump.

      • Rob in CT says:

        I agreed with you above, but I want to throw in one thing to chew on:

        Hillary tried this in the campaign – Trump over here, decent Republicans over there. It didn’t work very well (it did work a little, in certain places that unfortunately didn’t help much).

        Republican voters overwhelmingly “came home” to Trump. So…

        • Sebastian_h says:

          It is a dynamic. I can’t guarantee outcomes, but I can talk about how not to play into the dynamic.

          The dynamic you set up by things like the title of the post is to put Trump under the normal protection of the Republican tribal dynamic. The title of the post suggests that we might as well have Trump, because a normal Republican doing normal wrangling on the NRA is doing bad things.

          That is a horrible dynamic to play into because you’re activating all the normal tribal politics where one side is skeptical of the other side, where each side dismisses the petty but real stupidities of their side, and where each side magnifies the stupidities of the other side.

          Note especially the last one.

          This is not a time to be seen as someone who magnifies the stupidities of Republicans as part of the normal political dynamic. Trump is going to do things well outside the normal political dynamic. We can’t be helping him guard those with the normal tribal dynamic.

    • I think I have to agree with Sebastian on this. I don’t see the neo-Nazis coming out of the woodwork in a Kasich presidency or a Rubio presidency or a Cruz presidency or even a Pence presidency. That’s a unique consequence of the overly racist and antisemitic campaign the shitgibbon ran. Similarly, none of those lead to the normalisation of sexual assault. Or any of a number of other horrid consequences I could name.

      On policy, I will grant, the shitgibbon really isn’t that much different from a bog-standard Republican. But unfortunately, policy is not the only thing that matters in politics. The shitgibbon is an existential threat to the country in a manner in which no other occupant of the clown car would have been. This is because of who he is and the norms he has broken. While, I’ll grant, Republicans haven’t cared about norms for a long time, the shitgibbon has still broken a lot more of them than other Republicans would have. You don’t put that genie back in the bottle.

      Given a chance to trade the shitgibbon for Jeb! or Rubio or Cruz or Kasich or any of the other occupants of the clown car, I’d do it in a heartbeat. At least those guys don’t bring the neo-Nazis out of the slime, and don’t cause “The president grabs pussies, so I can too” to be an actual thing people say, and don’t cause a spike in hate crimes or sexual assaults among schoolchildren.

      The shitgibbon is not normal. Pretending he is places a lot of people in grave danger.

  14. Lurks says:

    Wasn’t Einstein’s definition of insanity something like “doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results”?

    In this case it is the clutching of pearls and calling for the fainting couch every time one of these loosening of gun restrictions happens. Check Kos or DU or wherever, there are the predictions of bloodbaths, the “I’m never going to that state again” proclamations and so forth. And on cue, we have “I wouldn’t send my kids to that university” here at LGM, like commenter parents were actually thinking “Gee I really wanted to put money in Kasich’s coffers by sending little Jimmy to OSU, but that new gun law suddenly makes Ohio unattractive. Now I have to reconsider my opinion of Ohio as a progressive, well-run state that I want to send tuition dollars to.”

    Fetch the fainting couch.

    I mean, it would not be so embarrassing if something happened to show that the naysayers were in fact right. But it hasn’t happened yet as far as I know. And no, I’m not hoping for it, but at least it would give the hair-on-fire types their dearly longed-for “we told you so”. If they scream loud enough and often enough I’m certain they’ll get their stopped clock anecdote incontrovertible proof.

    And for reference, most polls that check these things put gun ownership by Democrats somewhere in the 30-35% range, with decidedly liberal niche groups like the LGBT Pink Pistols. So blanket condemnations of or unqualified insults towards gun owners are, no pun intended, shooting ourselves in the foot. Unless of course the success of the Democratic master plan relies on the step “alienate 30% of Democrats on the topic they are most likely to be single issue voters about”.

  15. Downpuppy says:

    After Tamir Rice & John Crawford, Ohio’s open carry law was obviously untenable.

    So they made it worse!

  16. Donna Gratehouse says:

    At the 2011 mass shooting in Tucson in which Gabby Giffords and several others were wounded or killed, there was a man at the shopping center who was armed with a concealed carry. He said he ran to the scene and hesitated to draw his weapon. It was good that he did because Jared Loughner’s weapon had been wrestled away from him and he was on the ground and a bystander was pointing it at Loughner’s head. The guy with the concealed weapon couldn’t have known that at the time. He told the news he no longer carries.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.