Emanuel To Banks: Stop Supporting Gun Makers
CHICAGO (CBS) — Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel is putting more pressure on gun makers to get behind his push for an assault weapons ban and criminal background checks for gun purchasers.
This time, he wants to go after their bottom line.
Emanuel is pushing two major financial institutions to stop their financial backing of gun makers, unless those companies support “commonsense reforms, including requiring criminal background checks on all gun sales.”
The mayor is urging that banks to stop lines of credit, financing for acquisitions and expansions and financial advising.
In a letter sent Friday to the CEOs of Bank Of America and TD Bank, Emanuel said: “In the past, the gun industry has stood in opposition to these safety measures. They opposed a ban on assault weapons on America’s streets, opposed a ban on military-style clips, opposed a criminal background check on all gun purchases and opposed any effort to crack down on criminal gun traffickers.”
Emanuel told CEO Bharat Masrani “to use your influence to push this company to find common ground” on an assault weapons ban and gun background checks…
Keep reading: Emanuel To Banks: Stop Supporting Gun Makers « CBS Chicago.
In case you missed Mish's article, he wrote an excellent summary expressing his thoughts on gun laws, which parallel mine.
Excerpts:
However, libertarianism is not anarchy. Rules exist to protect property. Reasonable legislation will prevent some of these incidents, and no amount of legislation will stop all of them. (Yes, it's a given, not a counterpoint to the argument for more restrictions. There are almost as many guns as people in the U.S., no amount of legislation is going to undo that fact, no amount of legislation is going to stop all gun violence, or any kind of violence. ~ Ilene)
Moreover, common sense says that encouraging average citizens or teachers to walk around with assault weapons or concealed guns (the actual remedy proposed by some gun advocates) would cause a lot of needless deaths and property damage as a result would-be John Wayne types trying to be heroes, but accidentally killing innocent bystanders. (Not only common sense but statistics too. ~ Ilene)
Reflections on the Constitution
…Regardless, the rights to bear arms to protect oneself certainly can and should have limits….
One does not need bazookas, hand grenades, missiles, assault weapons, armor-piercing bullets, or 10-clip magazines to defend one's person or one's house. Those items all need to be outlawed.
Gun advocates argue we need to enforce existing laws, while arguing against every law on the books. Meanwhile, state-to-state variations in laws make enforcement a nightmare, at best. (And see chart below ~ gun ownership in the states is positively correlated with the number of gun deaths.)
Now Is The Time
Obama says "now is the time". I agree but only where costs are low and benefits high. There are four (perhaps five) items out of nine on the president's agenda that meet that criteria. (Details here.)
Guns and Gun Deaths, State by State
By Steve Roth
The other day I looked at number of guns versus number of gun deaths by country, in countries like ours that have pretty good rule of law. The correlation is pretty clear: more guns, more gun deaths.
But I was also wondering about correlation within the U.S., by state. I’m pleased to find that Sam Wang’s got it:
I’d say that great minds think alike, but really: Sam — a professor at Princeton — has got it all over me when it comes to drawing valid conclusions from statistical data.* For instance: like Nate Silver, he called every state correctly in the recent presidential election. But his stated confidence level was way above Nate’s — between a 99.2 and 100% chance that Obama would be re-elected. That’s putting your reputation where your predictions are.
Read Sam’s post and the one preceding it. He makes all sorts of sense. He also gives us the sources, so I thought I’d show the data a couple of other ways. How about…red states vs blue states? Here you go:
Does anyone see a pattern here? Here it is on a map:
Though I find that Richard Florida has beat me to it on this one:
You can quibble all you want about correlation and causation, but the simple fact is: if you live in a red state the odds of your children dying of gun violence is 75% higher than if you live in a blue state.
That may help explain why, when Americans vote with their feet and choose where to live, only 38% vote for red states.
It may also help explain why people in red states want guns so much: it’sdangerous to live in a red state. They’ve got all those guns.
I’m still asking: would you rather “feel” safe, or would you rather be safe?
* “Prof. Sam Wang‘s academic specialties are biophysics and neuroscience. In these fields he uses probability and statistics to analyze complex experimental data, and has published many papers using these approaches. He is also the author of Welcome To Your Brain, a popular book about his field.”
Cross-posted at Asymptosis.
See also Scapegoat Hunter.
