We've been talking on the show lately about a new dynamic in the movement for gun reform. Until now, the game has been for the NRA to absorb the public heat over gun violence. You're supposed to hate NRA boss Wayne LaPierre, and not think too much about his manufacturing patrons. The strategy served to protect the status quo, until it didn't anymore.
In his new book "Salt Sugar Fat: How the Food Giants Hooked Us," Michael Moss tells the story of another movement that went to the supply side. From his excerpt in the New York Times Magazine:
A Finnish label for a healthier choice.
In the late 1970s, the Finns were consuming huge amounts of sodium, eating on average more than two teaspoons of salt a day. As a result, the country had developed significant issues with high blood pressure, and men in the eastern part of Finland had the highest rate of fatal cardiovascular disease in the world. Research showed that this plague was not just a quirk of genetics or a result of a sedentary lifestyle -- it was also owing to processed foods. So when Finnish authorities moved to address the problem, they went right after the manufacturers. (The Finnish response worked. Every grocery item that was heavy in salt would come to be marked prominently with the warning "High Salt Content." By 2007, Finland's per capita consumption of salt had dropped by a third, and this shift -- along with improved medical care -- was accompanied by a 75 percent to 80 percent decline in the number of deaths from strokes and heart disease.)
In Finland, forcing the manufacturers to change led to healthier outcomes overall (pdf).
In the U.S., we're now seeing gun makers protest new laws and the ideas of new laws about their wares, with threats to move their companies from states that pass new regulations and the refusal to sell products banned for civilian use to law enforcement. This debate over gun reform is still too new to know whether we'll see change, and at what level of government. If the response from gun makers is any indication, the kind of change their fear is uncomfortably close. (H/t Vanessa Silverton-Peel.)
(On the show: NRA as heat shield.)
Leave a Comment:
They can't have thought that last one through.
Refusal to sell law enforcement their products: wait a minute, are they threatening to withhold their products from customers, who can easily get equivalent products with other manufacturers? Oh no! What a diabolical threat!
So why don't we just place a 15% transaction fee on every sale of a firearm, accessory, or ammunition.
Dedicate the money to finance the establishing of that national registry of people who shouldn't get guns.
US GDP is about 16 trillion dollars
Gun manufacturers are at about 12 billion (1000th of all economic activity)
They earn about a billion in profits
11,000 annual gun homicides for a billion in profits-so the gun industry profits about $100,000 for every homicide
Talk about outsourcing costs to society. What does a murder trial cost society. What are the medical expenses to pay for gun shot victims?
We are going broke supporting the damage these greedy bastards do to our citizens.
The gun manufacturers haven't done anything but provide jobs and tax revenue. Don't like it? Too bad. Deal with it.
Companies that create knives and other sharp utensils make about 4 million in profits during 2009.
So in 2009 when 1800 people in the US were killed by knives, the companies made $2,000 in profits for every homicide. Where is the moral outrage at that?
What? No hammer statistics?
Shooter
Does the name Phillip Morris ring a bell? They provide jobs and tax revenue too....
At what point does their right to market their product infringe on the security of society at large, think about it...
This isn't even a right/left issue...it's a truth in marketing issue, and before you go on about "Unfettered markets" I would like to remind you of the Tec 9 and all the mayhem that caused
When was the last multiple homicide by a knife nut? Guns are weapons of destruction-they have no other purpose-they are made to destroy life.
Cars kill a lot of people too but that is not their sole purpose.
The gun manufacturers are profiting from death. Period
When was the last multiple homicide by a knife nut? Guns are weapons of destruction-they have no other purpose-they are made to destroy life.
Uh the same day of Sandy Hook!
A man in China murdered a classroom full of school kids using only a knife.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/15/world/asia/man-stabs-22-children-in-china.html?_r=0
Really? Try to get your facts straight. Did you really think no one would actually read the article you linked to? You said a man in China murdered a classroom full of school kids with just a knife. While there were 22 victims, there were no deaths, only nine admitted to the hospital and only two serious injuries. Where did you come up with all those deaths? You just lied, and figured nobody would catch it.
I'm pretty sure that eating too much salt is a lot different from practicing the second amendment. Maybe a better (valid) argument should have been used.
They have no valid argument.
Whenever I think about this I remember two things...one is Philip Morris and how attitudes about smoking changed in this country over the last 20 or so years and the other oddly enough is South Africa...
The Apartheid government hung on for years in the face of massive public opposition and sanctions but it wasn't until business and banks started divesting themselves of their interests that their capital dried up and they were forced to change...
point being if you can get at someones money then you definitely have their full and undivided attention
And yet politicians keep cigarettes alive for their tax revenues. Who is the enabler here?
I didn't know that smoking was one of our Rights? The government can take away your driving license because it is a privilege, they can take away smoking (in public) because it is a privilege. Owning a firearm is a Right. That's the difference.
Quite so.
Amber, precisely. No one can argue that smoking is beneficial to anyone under any circumstance. But if anyone thinks they can change people's attitudes about guns the same way we changed people's attitudes about smoking, well, go ahead and try. Any effort at this would fail and fail badly.
Gun ownership is not universally harmful. It is used to protect others, prevent crime, and save lives. And more than that, it is an inalienable right. You can no more change people's attitudes about the inalienable right of gun ownership than change people's attitudes about the inalienable right of free speech.
People simply don't like their rights being taken away. They don't like their union rights taken away, they don't like their right to reproductive freedom being taken away, and they don't like their right to defend themselves being taken away either.
But no one is trying to take away your guns . . . just trying to keep them out of the hands of those who should not have them (criminals and the mentally ill).
I have yet to hear a reasonable objection to background checks.
damskippy-
Don't we already have background checks? Yes.
Even at gun shows and other private sales?
If so . . . what has LaPierre's panties in such a wad?
I distinctly remember when the last election rolled around and EVERYONE'S panties were in a bunch about voter I.D. laws. People were saying that it was a right and the 'government' was impeding on it. How is this right any different? Yeah, you can buy a gun. That's the difference. People break laws. There's nothing that can really be done about it. People that CAN'T buy guns legally, will still get them. By putting these restrictions on purchasing a gun, makes it harder for LEGALLY buying citizens to get one. What about the people that LEGALLY own a gun with over 10 rounds in the clip? What about people that LEGALLY own a gun that is now considered 'military grade'?
Amber
That's utter nonsense and hyperbole no one is taking anyone's toys away so stop making up crap.
Well, Amber . . . god forbid that you be inconvenienced just because it might save a few lives.
RE: #4.5
damskippy, pay closer attention to what the gun control crowd is actually doing. YES, there are efforts to actually take away people's guns. No, I'm not being paranoid. In the state of Missouri, House bill 545 would categorize any weapon the state doesn't approve of as an "assault" weapon, and would force gun owners to turn over their weapons in 90 days or be considered a Class C felon. Read the legislation for yourself. Make sure to read to the bottom of the page.
http://www.house.mo.gov/billtracking/bills131/biltxt/intro/HB0545I.HTM
In Washington state, Democrats have proposed a law that would allow the police to enter your home at any time without a warrant to check and see if your firearms are being stored as they see fit.
We're not talking about just a violation of the 2nd amendment here. These proposals, if enacted, would be a wholesale violation of the 4th amendment right to be free from searches and seizures, and the 5th amendment right to be secure in your property. It destroyed thee rights not to have your property taken away without due process of law and just compensation, and it violates the Constitutional prohibition against ex-post-facto laws and bills of attainder. Furthermore, it violates the common law right to be assumed innocent before proven guilty and treats all gun owners as common criminals.
Pay closer attention to what your side is actually proposing. They're getting nuttier by the day, the Constitution be damned.
Someone took away these peoples rights:
Charlotte Bacon, 6
Daniel Barden, 7
Rachel D’Avino, 29
Olivia Engel, 6
Josephine Gay, 7
Ana Marquez-Greene, 6
Dylan Hockley, 6
Dawn Hochsprung, 47
Madeleine Hsu, 6
Catherine Hubbard, 6
Chase Kowalski, 7
Jesse Lewis, 6
James Mattioli, 6
Grace McDonnell, 7
Anne Marie Murphy, 52
Emilie Parker, 6
Jack Pinto, 6
Noah Pozner, 6
Caroline Previdi, 6
Jessica Rekos, 6
Avielle Richman, 6
Lauren Rousseau, 30
Mary Sherlach, 56
Victoria Soto, 27
Benjamin Wheeler, 6
Allison Wyatt, 6
and 11,000 others in the last year.
The right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness has been taken from them all. And the families they leave behind lose happiness also.
All so some fearful men with little dicks can feel a little bigger.
@amber1992 I buy a gun from a shop background check, I buy a gun from crazy uncle ernie no background check. Background check is not done digitally but manually and is so old school. Keep your guns just universal background checks is all I ask on a national data base.
So what about the over 200 people that got killed last year in Chicago??
Guess they had no rights in your view....
Or better yet the over 50,000 Americans that died in Vietnam, thanks JKF & LBJ...
How about that list of names....
Pat,
We live in a dangerous world. There are millions of things that could cut a life short. It is the responsibility of a child's parents to keep their child safe. In a school environment, it is the responsibility of those looking out for the children to keep them safe.
As adults, it is our own responsibility to keep ourselves safe. The police have no responsibility to keep you safe. You're an adult, that's your job. Mommy and daddy aren't there to hold your hand anymore. Your own safety is your responsibility. The safety of your kids, if you have any, is your responsibility. If you fail to keep your children safe, then it is you who have failed. That is not an argument to take away the rights of others who take the responsibility to keep themselves safe simply because you have failed to do so.
RE 4.11 - Alva . . . you should oppose against any laws that you think are unreasonable.
In the meantime, I will support laws that I think are reasonable, including those requiring universal background checks.
The majority will decide what is best for society as a whole.
RE 4.15 - I find it extremely offensive that you blame the Newtown kids' parents for failing them. I suppose the teachers who died trying to protect them failed too.
Be careful that your staunch position on guns doesn't completely erode away any humanity you might have left. It may already be too late.
Most "gun shows" require no back ground checks. With many ID is not even required. those are the loop holes they want plugged.
Alva,
Yes we do, and it is purposely made that way by greedy people.
US GDP is about 16 trillion dollars
Gun manufacturers are at about 12 billion (1000th of all economic activity)
They earn about a billion in profits
11,000 annual gun homicides for a billion in profits-so the gun industry profits about $100,000 for every homicide
Talk about outsourcing costs to society. What does a murder trial cost society. What are the medical expenses to pay for gun shot victims?
We are going broke supporting the damage these greedy bastards do to our citizens.
I can't keep my children safe alone, We need to keep our children safe by passing reasonable laws.
RE: #4.16 Damskippy, I find it very offensive that anyone would conflate me as a gunowner with someone who murders school children. It is incredibly offensive when my only desire in owning a gun is to protect myself and my family to be said I have lost all my humanity. If Newtown has taught us anything, it should teach us that we need to keep children safe. That isn't going to happen on it's own. It's a dangerous world out there. Modern civilization hides this harsh reality from most of us, but it doesn't make it any less true.
Putting your body in front of bullets is no way to protect anyone. While I can't tell you how much respect I have for the teacher who hid her students and gave up her life doing so, had she been carrying concealed she could have saved many more children.
RE: #4.17 Larry, how many gun shows have you been to? I have been to more than I can count and I have never been to one where background checks weren't performed. In many cases you can't even get the insurance clearance to put on a gun show unless you have universal background checks.
RE: #4.18 Pat, you're conflating military spending with gun ownership. I am all for cutting military spending. I think we should cut the Defense Department by 50%, and look for additional cuts from there. Defense spending costs people their lives, it costs money to store the weapons, and as a result we end up selling unused weapons, which drives up more defense costs. Defense spending means you also have to pay for veterans, and when you make an investment in a bomb, and it explodes, your investment has just been flushed down the drain. That's why I call it the Pentagon Toilet. It's the biggest waste of money and lives on the planet.
However, that is entirely different from individuals protecting themselves from harm. The civilian gun industry is only worth some 38 million dollars. Given how the homicide rate has continually dropped for the last 20 years as concealed carry laws have expanded, there is no way to link the value in the number of lives saved with guns.
Even the dreaded "assault rifles" can save children's lives instead of taking them.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-q2zHIovOE
Most "gun shows" require no back ground checks. With many ID is not even required. those are the loop holes they want plugged.
Make it up as you go...
Larry74, the dude that claims he did, what was it 3 or 4 tours in Vietnam..
Then by that analogy, if you put a label on new guns that says "This firearm has been known to cause death" then gun violence should go down.
I am still waiting for a non-stupid response to reasonable gun safety laws...
You have heard plenty of non-stupid responses year in and year out. You just choose to ignore them.
You will never understand the reason behind legal gun ownership.
I will use my firearms to protect my family, myself, my house and property against anyone who intends to do me harm.
Without them i am essentially defenseless against those with guns. Criminals will always have guns, no matter how tight of prohibition you pass.
The Federal government has bought up hundreds of millions of rounds to distribute to branch such as NOAA and Social Security administration, why? because of that very reason. Self protection.
The American branch of Beretta is in Maryland, and they're thinking of moving, but the move is unlikely. Ugo Gussalli Beretta has said there's always issues with Maryland, and that's nothing new. One company that may move is Smith & Wesson, which are located in Springfield, Massachusetts.
In Chicago, Rahm's plan for pension funds to divest from guns has backfired, as Mutual Funds are seeing purchasing stock in guns as a sure bet, considering how fast guns are flying off the shelves.
http://www.guns.com/2013/02/20/chicago-mayors-plan-didnt-work-mutual-funds-invest-in-gun-companies-anyway/
Of course, this is pretty flimsy comparison at best. Comparing processed foods to guns makes about as much sense as comparing guns to pollution. You might as well compare Sponge Bob Square Pants to raisins.
Suing gun companies is against the law. In 2005, Bush signed the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which prohibits gun manufacturers from being sued in most cases for how their products are used. There are attempts to get the law overturned. In one case, a boy took his father's Beretta pistol (his father is a police officer) and pointed it at a friend thinking it wouldn't harm him. The boy was shot and killed.
It's seems bizarre that anyone would try to sue the gun company for the gun working exactly as it was designed to. It didn't fail. That police officer just behaved in a manner that was irresponsible. I suspect, even if you could sue the company, it would get thrown out of court.
While a lot of people on the left keep making a fuss about guns, ultimately, on a nation-wide level, gun rights are expanding, not contracting. Just last December, one of the biggest hurdles to start to lower the crime rate in Chicago was eliminated when a federal appeals court struck down Illinois ban on conceal carry. Illinois was the only state that had a complete ban on conceal carry, and the federal appeals court has ordered the Illinois legislature to rectify this.
http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2012/12/12/court-strikes-down-illinois-concealed-carry-ban/sNkhO9Ok1WjifkN9BPxm8J/story.html
Who do u work for ?
saddler, I'm not here representing any organization. I'm not a member of the NRA or the Gun Owners of America, or any other pro-2nd amendment advocacy group. I'm not even a conservative. I'm a progressive. I voted for Nader in 2000, and Obama in '08 and '12. My job is completely unrelated to my comments here.
Alva,
I seem to understand that you believe we just do nothing and let the slaughter of the innocents continue?
Only 2000 or so since Sandy Hook. We responded when terrorists took 4000 citizens lives, why do we do nothing about this.
Pat, I never said we should do nothing. But we should address the actual cause of this problem.
Firearm homicides can be separated into 2 categories. The overwhelming bulk is related to crime. And then there is the rare event where a mentally ill armed person goes on a shooting spree.
With the former, we can save thousands of lives just by ending the drug war. Gun violence was a problem when we enacted prohibition in the 30's, and it's a problem here too because it creates a dangerous black market. The Mexican drug cartels would lose probably 85% or more of their business if we legalized marijuana alone.
However we should recognize that gun crimes happen primarily in impoverished neighborhoods. There's a reason why guns are a problem in Chicago and Camden but not in Beverly Hills. We need to address income inequality and that will go a long way to saving lives as well.
You can even see this in the data. During the economic boom of the 90's, firearm homicides plummeted. When we hit a mild recession in '99 and 2000, firearm homicides increased again.
With regards to the occasionally mentally ill person, I think we need to have a Presidential Commission to study the effect of SSRI's in young people. We need to investigate and see if each of these mass shooters were on SSRI's.
The reasons for this is complicated, but suffice to say that I've studied what's called Abnormal Psychology (the study of mental illness) extensively, and I believe that SSRI's are inducing a sort of psychopathic behavior in teens and young adults.
I think we should concern ourselves far less with the 38 million dollar firearm industry than the 268 billion dollar pharmaceutical industry.
Ultimately, we need to do a far better job of treating mental illness in this country. And we need a change in attitudes about it as well. No one gets judged for having ulcers or high blood pressure. But people who have a mental illness are. That needs to end.
The Finns are reasonable people when it comes to understanding that they are a "society", Americans are individualistic and proud of that and are in no way willing to "compromise" what they want as individuals to reason, logic, empathy for "others" unless/until it affects them personally.
I just don't see the evidence that the NRA is essentially an astroturf front for gun manufacturers, rather than a genuinely grassroots organization of gun nuts.
The link says "The Violence Policy Center has estimated that since 2005, gun manufacturers have contributed up to $38.9 million to the NRA." That sounds like a lot, but if the NRA has 4 million members paying annual dues of $20 each, it's pulled in $640 million in dues from 2005 to the present.
That's a guesstimate, but still, we're talking a difference of an order of magnitude.
So I'm still looking for the smoking gun (sorry, couldn't resist!) that says the real driver of resistance to gun control is the gun manufacturing lobby, and not the millions of rather passionate gun nuts. And I'm still not seeing one.
There are 79 million gun owners in this country. That's about 1 in every 4 Americans. It's pretty hard to take away the rights of a quarter of the population of the country.
The real driver of resistance to gun control, is the mere mention of gun control, every time they bring it up, gun sales go through the roof before any lobby has the time to say one word about it.
No one is talking about taking away the rights of every gun owner in this country (unless they're all felons and/or mentally ill). You know that, Alva, so why do feel that you must exaggerate to make your argument? Because you know it's not a reasonable one?
damskippy, pay closer attention to what your side is actually proposing. What would be the point of going after gun manufacturers if not to cut of the entire supply of guns? That is what this very blog post is proposing!
Who the hell is going after gun manufacturers? Nobody! All of your arguments on this subject are either total fabrications or unlikely worst-case scenarios.
Plus, after your post at 4.15, I have no more interest in anything you have to say.
So you don't think we should govern in a manner that avoids worst case scenarios? Isn't that the point of addressing climate change?
damskippy, life is harsh. Every creature on this earth struggles day in and day out just to survive. That's just mother nature. Those who succeed in protecting themselves from the dangers in the world live to have offspring. Then there are those who don't.
It's not my job to keep you safe. It's not the police's job to keep you safe. The Supreme Court has found that cops have zero responsibility to keep your safe. It's not your neighbor's job to keep your safe. It's not your local representatives job to keep you safe. It is your job to keep yourself safe. If you have kids, your job as a parent is to keep you children safe. How is this in any way remotely controversial? It's a universal law of nature.
Leave the gun debate for another time. I want to know more about how the Finns dropped their fatal cardiovascular disease rate 75%. They passed regulations that forced manufacturers to actviley communicate that that their food was extremely high in sodium. Why can't we do that here? I mean we have complicated charts on the sde of every food package, but nothing that really tells people, "if you eat our food be prepared to die of a heart attack."
Annually lots more people die of heart attacks than gunshots.
"refusal to sell products banned for civilian use to law enforcement."
That is a two way street, boys.
The government buys quite a few guns every year, from pistols, M-16's, SAWs, M-60's and up- including tanks, missiles, and 155 mm artillery. ALL manufactured by American firearms companies. How much again is the DOD budget each year?
The Declaration of Independence says we have the right to life and the Constitution gives us the right to have something that has no purpose other than to end life.
Life it self is a sort of timed release method of death.
Agian guns have yet to kill anyone, it's man that kills man..
Next when you look at the stats about gun deaths, the lion share are suicides.
2011 just over 31,000 gun deaths in the USA, over 18,000 were suicides...
Now compear that to the over 41,000 killed in vehicles/cars...
It is possible for a gun to kill someone. For instance, it's possible for a gun to malfunction and result in someone's death. Luckily, guns are so well made these days, that never happens.
Or save a life if need be.
Funny thing about all guns,,, it takes a human to make the thing work/fire....
But according to the liberals, guns are evil not humans...
Salt & guns.......
What bull$hit, thanks MSLSD..
Apparently you guys missed Fareed Zakaria's excellent interview with former Australian PM Howard. He discussed the results of their mandatory gun buy-back program in greatly lowering gun violence in Australia. Check it out at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_CbkKYdWiS0
That dude got his ass in hot water.... Good ole' Fareed..
The NRA is, first and foremost, a firm of professional lobbyists for the gun industry hiding in the costume of a nonprofit. It is a great racket: for providing minimal benefits and overblown "2nd Amendment protection" plus mendacious fear-mongering to its everyday members, the NRA persuades them to subsidize the lobbying campaigns of the gun industry. Of course, the NRA doesn't call it an industry subsidy, but that it what it is. The more the NRA cranks up its members' paranoia, the less the gun industry itself has to spend on lobbying. And, because the NRA is a nonprofit, the actual money the gun industry spends on lobbying is TAX DEDUCTIBLE!!!
The general public and the government is getting raped from every orifice by the gun manufacturers and the NRA.
With laws like Florida's "gun anyone down law", you would think sells would be up.
If you have lost a child in your family, you never get over it. The parents in Connecticut will not rest until something is done about our gun laws. They will succeed,
I still can't believe that NRA speech seconds after the last child was buried. When that guy dies, he will need sunglasses were is is going. In my opinion he is one truly evil person.