Gun Violence Part 2: Thoughts and Prayers STILL Don't Work

[Ozlsn]

1 minute ago, SilverBeach said:

Something like this actually happened at a Republican baseball or softball game. Didn't make a bit of difference.

Obviously they need it to happen more than once to get the idea? 

[SilverBeach]

Just now, Ozlsn said:

Obviously they need it to happen more than once to get the idea? 

One can only hope. They seem impervious to change.

[Ozlsn]

Thinking out loud more about mandatory insurance - where I live car registration contains mandatory third party personal insurance (ie insurance against injury caused by that vehicle to people). The funds from that component are used to pay for the costs incurred by the victims from being injured (that are not covered in the hospital system - acute care is covered through that) - rehabilitation is a main one obviously - but also for awareness campaigns, research into improving road safety etc. Would something like that work with guns? Or is that still too much regulation?

[laPapessaGiovanna]

This article was written after Parkland. It could have been written yesterday.

What Explains U.S. Mass Shootings? International Comparisons Suggest an Answer

Spoiler

When the world looks at the United States, it sees a land of exceptions: a time-tested if noisy democracy, a crusader in foreign policy, an exporter of beloved music and film.

But there is one quirk that consistently puzzles America’s fans and critics alike. Why, they ask, does it experience so many mass shootings?

Perhaps, some speculate, it is because American society is unusually violent. Or its racial divisions have frayed the bonds of society. Or its citizens lack proper mental care under a health care system that draws frequent derision abroad.

These explanations share one thing in common: Though seemingly sensible, all have been debunked by research on shootings elsewhere in the world. Instead, an ever-growing body of research consistently reaches the same conclusion.

The only variable that can explain the high rate of mass shootings in America is its astronomical number of guns.

The top-line numbers suggest a correlation that, on further investigation, grows only clearer.

Americans make up about 4.4 percent of the global population but own 42 percent of the world’s guns. From 1966 to 2012, 31 percent of the gunmen in mass shootings worldwide were American, according to a 2015 study by Adam Lankford, a professor at the University of Alabama.

Adjusted for population, only Yemen has a higher rate of mass shootings among countries with more than 10 million people — a distinction Mr. Lankford urged to avoid outliers. Yemen has the world’s second-highest rate of gun ownership after the United States.

Worldwide, Mr. Lankford found, a country’s rate of gun ownership correlated with the odds it would experience a mass shooting. This relationship held even when he excluded the United States, indicating that it could not be explained by some other factor particular to his home country. And it held when he controlled for homicide rates, suggesting that mass shootings were better explained by a society’s access to guns than by its baseline level of violence.

Factors That Don’t Correlate

If mental health made the difference, then data would show that Americans have more mental health problems than do people in other countries with fewer mass shootings. But the mental health care spending rate in the United States, the number of mental health professionals per capita and the rate of severe mental disorders are all in line with those of other wealthy countries.

A 2015 study estimated that only 4 percent of American gun deaths could be attributed to mental health issues. And Mr. Lankford, in an email, said countries with high suicide rates tended to have low rates of mass shootings — the opposite of what you would expect if mental health problems correlated with mass shootings.

Whether a population plays more or fewer video games also appears to have no impact. Americans are no more likely to play video games than people in any other developed country.

Racial diversity or other factors associated with social cohesion also show little correlation with gun deaths. Among European countries, there is little association between immigration or other diversity metrics and the rates of gun murders or mass shootings.

A Violent Country

America’s gun homicide rate was 33 per million people in 2009, far exceeding the average among developed countries. In Canada and Britain, it was 5 per million and 0.7 per million, respectively, which also corresponds with differences in gun ownership.

Americans sometimes see this as an expression of deeper problems with crime, a notion ingrained, in part, by a series of films portraying urban gang violence in the early 1990s. But the United States is not actually more prone to crime than other developed countries, according to a landmark 1999 study by Franklin E. Zimring and Gordon Hawkins of the University of California, Berkeley.

Rather, they found, in data that has since been repeatedly confirmed, that American crime is simply more lethal. A New Yorker is just as likely to be robbed as a Londoner, for instance, but the New Yorker is 54 times more likely to be killed in the process.

They concluded that the discrepancy, like so many other anomalies of American violence, came down to guns.

More gun ownership corresponds with more gun murders across virtually every axis: among developed countries, among American states, among American towns and cities and when controlling for crime rates. And gun control legislation tends to reduce gun murders, according to a recent analysis of 130 studies from 10 countries.

This suggests that the guns themselves cause the violence.

Comparisons in Other Societies

Skeptics of gun control sometimes point to a 2016 study. From 2000 and 2014, it found, the United States death rate by mass shooting was 1.5 per one million people. The rate was 1.7 in Switzerland and 3.4 in Finland, suggesting American mass shootings were not actually so common.

But the same study found that the United States had 133 mass shootings. Finland had only two, which killed 18 people, and Switzerland had one, which killed 14. In short, isolated incidents. So while mass shootings can happen anywhere, they are only a matter of routine in the United States.

As with any crime, the underlying risk is impossible to fully erase. Any individual can snap or become entranced by a violent ideology. What is different is the likelihood that this will lead to mass murder.

In China, about a dozen seemingly random attacks on schoolchildren killed 25 people between 2010 and 2012. Most used knives; none used a gun.

By contrast, in this same window, the United States experienced five of its deadliest mass shootings, which killed 78 people. Scaled by population, the American attacks were 12 times as deadly.

Beyond the Statistics

In 2013, American gun-related deaths included 21,175 suicides, 11,208 homicides and 505 deaths caused by an accidental discharge. That same year in Japan, a country with one-third America’s population, guns were involved in only 13 deaths.

This means an American is about 300 times more likely to die by gun homicide or accident than a Japanese person. America’s gun ownership rate is 150 times as high as Japan’s. That gap between 150 and 300 shows that gun ownership statistics alone do not explain what makes America different.

The United States also has some of the weakest controls over who may buy a gun and what sorts of guns may be owned.

Switzerland has the second-highest gun ownership rate of any developed country, about half that of the United States. Its gun homicide rate in 2004 was 7.7 per million people — unusually high, in keeping with the relationship between gun ownership and murders, but still a fraction of the rate in the United States.

Swiss gun laws are more stringent, setting a higher bar for securing and keeping a license, for selling guns and for the types of guns that can be owned. Such laws reflect more than just tighter restrictions. They imply a different way of thinking about guns, as something that citizens must affirmatively earn the right to own.

The Difference Is Culture

The United States is one of only three countries, along with Mexico and Guatemala, that begin with the opposite assumption: that people have an inherent right to own guns.

The main reason American regulation of gun ownership is so weak may be the fact that the trade-offs are simply given a different weight in the United States than they are anywhere else.

After Britain had a mass shooting in 1987, the country instituted strict gun control laws. So did Australia after a 1996 shooting. But the United States has repeatedly faced the same calculus and determined that relatively unregulated gun ownership is worth the cost to society.

That choice, more than any statistic or regulation, is what most sets the United States apart.

“In retrospect Sandy Hook marked the end of the US gun control debate,” Dan Hodges, a British journalist, wrote in a post on Twitter two years ago, referring to the 2012 attack that killed 20 young students at an elementary school in Connecticut. “Once America decided killing children was bearable, it was over.”

TL;DR 

 

[RosyDaisy]

I have no words.
 

I live Alabama, this isn't shocking to me. Around here that's about the age fathers take their sons hunting. It's sickening!

[JMarie]

Frothy was on CNN this afternoon.  Blamed the massacres on broken homes and video games.

[Ozlsn]

24 minutes ago, JMarie said:

Frothy was on CNN this afternoon.  Blamed the massacres on broken homes and video games.

Because the rest of the world doesn't have broken homes and video games. 

Seriously I know they're playing to a home audience but do they realise how dumb they sound?

[neurogirl]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/gop-rep-michael-r-turner-of-dayton-backs-assault-weapon-ban-magazine-limits/2019/08/06/046b1206-b884-11e9-b3b4-2bb69e8c4e39_story.html

GOP rep from Dayton, who voted against gun control legislation as recent as this year, endorsed military weapons ban and magazine limit after his daughter was across the street from the Dayton shooting (she was ok). 

I'm glad his daughter was ok but...is THAT what it took for you to understand how people feel losing their loved ones to gun violence??? 

[fraurosena]

14 hours ago, GreyhoundFan said:

I have no words.

 

At the end she says "That is adorable."

Teaching toddlers to use weapons meant to kill his fellow human beings is adorable, according to his mother. 

Like @GreyhoundFan, words fail me.

[fraurosena]

Trump faces protests as he visits Dayton, El Paso

Quote

The president and first lady Melania Trump began their visit at the hospital where many of the victims of Sunday’s attack were treated. The White House Trump would be thanking first responders and hospital staff, as well as meeting with victims and their families

If I were one of those victims and Trump came into my sickroom and stood near my bed, I'd smile and gesture for the camera's to come in. I'd nod as he said whatever to me. Then I'd look into the camera's and say: "You white supremacist piece of shit, it's your bloody fault I'm lying here, with your incendiary rallies and hate filled rhetoric. Get the hell out of my room and go back to those arse-kissing gun-worshipping NRA lovers. Fuck off to your kiddie-rapist friends and Russian handlers, and take that robotic twatwaddle with you. Don't let the door hit you on your way out."

Quote

“My critics are political people,” Trump said, noting the apparent political leanings of the shooter in the Dayton killings and suggesting the man was supportive of Democrats. “Had nothing to do with President Trump,” Trump said. “So these are people that are looking for political gain.”

A Democrat would never lay out their guns to say 'Trump'. They would not write a hate-filled essay echoing your words. Your critics are every sensible and sane person in the American public. They aren't political simply because they are critical of you. 

Quote

He also denied his rhetoric had anything to do with the violence, claiming instead that he “brings people together. Our country is doing incredibly well.”

Bwahahahahaha... ahhhaaahahahahaha... *breathes* ... Hahahahaaahahahahahahahahaaaahahahahahaaa... *snort*

 

[GreyhoundFan]

"Trump says he sees ‘no political appetite’ to ban assault rifles"

Spoiler

President Trump said Wednesday that he is open to calling on Congress to return from recess to strengthen background checks for gun buyers but that he sees “no political appetite” for banning assault rifles.

Trump’s comments came as he left the White House for visits to Dayton, Ohio, and El Paso that risk stoking divisions rather than bringing the country together after a pair of mass shootings over the weekend.

Trump arrived in Dayton on Air Force One shortly before 11 a.m. and was greeted by Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine (R) and other politicians from both parties. His motorcade then headed to Miami Valley Hospital “to thank first responders and hospital staff, as well as meet with victims and families,” the White House said. Reporters traveling with the president were not invited into the meetings.

Speaking to reporters before he left Washington, Trump dismissed critics who have suggested that his rhetoric on race and immigration is partly to blame for a rise in hate-inspired violence such as that in El Paso.

“I think my rhetoric brings people together,” Trump said, adding that he is “concerned about the rise of any group of hate.”

“I don’t like it,” he said. “Whether it’s white supremacy, whether it’s any other kind of supremacy.”

He called his critics “people who are looking for political gain.”

Trump’s comments about possible legislative responses to the weekend carnage continued a pattern in recent days of advocating unfocused ideas without specifics — and a pattern that would face an uncertain path in Congress.

In tweets Monday, Trump called for “strong background checks,” but did not mention the idea in formal remarks delivered from the White House three hours later. On Wednesday, he said he supports “background checks like we’ve never had before.”

Trump made a similar call to strengthen background checks after a mass shooting last year at a Florida school, but he threatened earlier this year to veto bills passed by House Democrats seeking to do so.

Many Democrats, including much of the presidential field, advocate reinstating the now-expired assault weapons ban that was included in the 1994 crime bill.

“There is no political appetite for that at this moment,” said Trump, who has also voiced support in recent days for “red-flag” laws, which allow police to temporarily confiscate firearms from a person deemed by a judge as posing a risk of violence.

Recent polls indicate a majority of Americans support some form of ban on assault rifles, though there is a large partisan divide, and fewer than half of Republicans support such measures. A July NPR-PBS NewsHour-Marist poll found 57 percent of the public supported a ban on “the sale of semi-automatic assault guns, such as the AK-47 or the AR-15.” Fewer than 3 in 10 Republicans supported the proposal, rising to a slight majority of independents and over 8 in 10 Democrats.

As Trump arrived in Dayton, where a shooter killed nine people Sunday, protesters gathered in the city, with many chanting “do something” and some holding a “Baby Trump” balloon.

Trump is also expected to encounter protesters in the afternoon in El Paso, where 22 people died in Saturday’s massacre.

The White House has not released full details about the trip. Before leaving the White House, Trump said he would be “meeting with first responders and law enforcement and some of the victims.”

In another tweet sent just before midnight, Trump lashed out at former congressman Beto O’Rourke (Tex.), a Democratic presidential candidate and native son of El Paso, a city of about 683,000 with a largely Latino population.

Trump repeated a discredited claim that O’Rourke had changed his first name to appeal to Hispanic voters, mocked his low standing in presidential polling, and told him to “respect the victims & law enforcement — & be quiet!”

O’Rourke responded on Twitter, writing: “22 people in my hometown are dead after an act of terror inspired by your racism. El Paso will not be quiet and neither will I.”

The shooter in El Paso allegedly posted an essay online with language that closely mirrors Trump’s rhetoric, as well as the language of the white nationalist movement, including a warning about the “Hispanic invasion of Texas.”

Trump and his aides have denied any connection between his rhetoric — he frequently refers to illegal immigration as “an invasion” — and the shootings.

In another tweet Wednesday, Trump pointed to a report from a conservative outlet about the Dayton shooter having supported liberal political figures.

“I hope other news outlets will report this as opposed to Fake News. Thank you!” he wrote.

Police have not drawn any link between the Dayton gunman’s political ideology and the shootings, and his motive remains unclear.

In Trump’s later remarks to reporters, he brought up the Dayton shooter again, calling him “a fan” of Sens. Elizabeth Warren (Mass.) and Bernie Sanders (Vt.), two Democratic presidential candidates.

“I don’t blame Elizabeth Warren, and I don’t blame Bernie Sanders in the case of Ohio,” Trump said. “These are sick people, these are really people who are mentally ill, who are disturbed. It’s a mental problem.”

Trump also highlighted a controversy about a change in a New York Times headline on a story Monday about his remarks on the shootings. The paper’s original headline was “Trump Urges Unity Vs. Racism.” It was changed in later editions to “Assailing Hate But Not Guns.”

In a tweet, Trump alleged that the change came “after the Radical Left Democrats went absolutely CRAZY!”

“Fake News — That’s what we’re up against,” he added.

The Times has said the change was not prompted by criticism from Democratic political candidates.

O’Rourke and several current Democratic officials have urged Trump not to visit El Paso in the aftermath of Saturday’s anti-immigrant attack at a Walmart Supercenter.

Rep. Veronica Escobar (D-Tex.), whose district includes the El Paso Walmart and shopping center where the massacre occurred, said Tuesday that she had turned down an invitation from the White House to join Trump during his trip.

“I declined the invitation to accompany the President because I refuse to be an accessory to his visit,” she wrote in posts on Facebook and Twitter. “I refuse to join without a true dialogue about the pain his racist and hateful words and actions have caused our community and this country.”

On Tuesday, Dayton Mayor Nan Whaley (D) encouraged people unhappy about Trump’s visit to the city of about 140,000 to protest.

“I think people should stand up and say they’re not happy if they’re not happy he’s coming,” she told reporters.

Whaley said she isn’t sure whether Trump’s visit will be helpful.

“Look, I have no sense of what’s in President Trump’s mind at all, right?” she said. “I can only hope that as president of the United States, he’s coming here because he wants to add value to our community, and he recognizes that that’s what our community needs.”

 

[Dandruff]

He doesn't have the right to invade peoples' hospital rooms, does he?  I hope every one of the injured victims says no.

[fraurosena]

So this put a smile on my face. 

Trump booed and confronted with 'don't come here' rally while visiting survivors of El Paso shooting

Quote

Protesters booed Donald Trump as he was driven to a hospital in El Paso, Texas, to visit survivors of a mass shooting at the weekend in which 22 people were killed.

While supporters cheered his motorcade, they were outnumbered by demonstrators demanding action on gun control.

 

[fraurosena]

Amnesty International issues travel warning for U.S. over ‘high levels of gun violence’

Quote

Amnesty International issued a travel warning for the U.S. over “high levels of gun violence” following two mass shootings over the weekend that left 31 people dead in El Paso, Texas and Dayton, Ohio.

The human rights organization’s advisory urges travellers in the U.S. to “exercise caution and have an emergency contingency plan when traveling throughout the USA.”

On Saturday morning, 22 people were killed in a mass shooting at a Walmart in El Paso. Around 13 hours later, in the early morning hours on Sunday, a gunman opened fire on a crowd of people in Dayton’s Oregon District. It came less than a week after three people were killed in a shooting at the Gilroy Garlic Festival in California.

“Travellers to the United States should remain cautious that the country does not adequately protect people’s right to be safe, regardless of who they might be. People in the United States cannot reasonably expect to be free from harm — a guarantee of not being shot is impossible,” Ernest Coverson, campaign manager for Amnesty International USA’s End Gun Violence Campaign said. “Once again, it is chillingly clear that the U.S. government is unwilling to ensure protection against gun violence.”

The advisory also tells visitors to avoid places where large crowds gather like churches, schools and shopping malls, and to exercise caution when visiting bars, nightclubs and casinos.

“Depending on the traveler’s gender identify, race, country of origin, ethnic background, or sexual orientation, they may be at higher risk of being targeted with gun violence, and should plan accordingly,” the warning reads.

The countries of Venezuela and Uruguay issued their own travel advisories warning of violence and hate crimes earlier this week.

Wow. Travellers warned to avoid churches, schools and shopping malls. Particularly chilling is this quote:

"... the country does not adequately protect people’s right to be safe."

What a reputation to have as a country.

[fraurosena]

Oh yes, that'll surely help.  /s

Walmart removing violent video game displays following mass shootings

Quote

Walmart announced Thursday that it would temporarily remove advertising displays for violent video games following two shootings in Walmart stores in the past few weeks.

The retailer told USA Today in a statement that the move was done out of respect for victims in the two shootings and did not represent a "long-term" policy for the company.

“We’ve taken this action out of respect for the incidents of the past week, and this action does not reflect a long-term change in our video game assortment,” spokeswoman Tara House told the newspaper.

The decision comes after 22 people were killed in El Paso, Texas, at a Walmart near the city's Cielo Vista Mall on Saturday by a suspect who police say posted racist and anti-immigrant rhetoric in a manifesto online before his attack.

A separate shooting at a Walmart in Mississippi last Tuesday resulted in the deaths of two Walmart managers and was purportedly carried out by a disgruntled ex-employee.

Police in Missouri say a man was arrested Thursday night after allegedly showing up at a Walmart wearing a bulletproof vest and carrying a rifle. 

Earlier this week, 40 of the company's employees staged a walkout at an e-commerce office in California on Wednesday, urging the retailer to stop selling firearms in the wake of the shootings.

Democrats have called for action on gun control in the wake of the El Paso shooting as well as two other mass shootings within the past two weeks in Dayton, Ohio, and Gilroy, Calif., and have pointed to the white supremacist ideologies reportedly espoused by two of the shooters as a cause for federal action.

Some Republicans, including House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) and President Trump, have blamed the influence of violent media in recent days, accusing media of glorifying violence.

"We must stop the glorification of violence in our society," Trump said Monday following two shootings over the weekend. "This includes the gruesome and grisly video games that are now commonplace."

Huh. I wonder what the difference in profit margins is between video games and guns.

Plus, it's only a temporary measure, meant to placate the public until the furor dies down. I give it a month, at the most.

[GreyhoundFan]

"NRA chief sought purchase of $6 million mansion in wake of Parkland shooting"

Spoiler

The chief executive of the National Rifle Association sought to have the nonprofit organization buy him a luxury mansion last year after a mass shooting at a Florida high school, selecting a French country-style estate in a gated Dallas-area golf club, according to multiple people familiar with the discussions.

Wayne LaPierre, the longtime head of the NRA, told associates he was worried about being targeted and needed a more secure place to live after 17 people were gunned down at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla., the people said.

LaPierre and his wife, Susan, were intensely involved in the selection of the property, rejecting an upscale high rise in Dallas with numerous security features in favor of a 10,000-square-foot estate with lakefront and golf course views in Westlake, Tex., on the market for about $6 million, according to emails and text messages described to The Washington Post.

The couple wanted to secure a social membership at the exclusive golf club in the gated community, the messages show. They also sought the purchase of two vehicles and to keep the current owner’s “golf cart if possible,” according to one email. One aspect of the property that concerned Susan LaPierre was the lack of space in the men’s closet of the master bedroom, the emails show.

The discussions about the estate, which was not ultimately purchased, are under scrutiny by New York investigators. The transaction was slated to be made through a corporate entity that received a $70,000 wire from the NRA in 2018, according to the people, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the ongoing investigation.

The entity was created at ­Wayne LaPierre’s request by a law firm working for Ackerman McQueen, the NRA’s longtime ad agency, according to the people.

The origins of the idea to buy the mansion, its proposed purpose and the reason the deal never went through are now being fiercely disputed by the NRA and Ackerman McQueen, which are locked in a bitter legal fight.

In a statement late Tuesday night, Ackerman McQueen said LaPierre had sought the ad firm’s assistance with the real estate transaction, a proposal it said alarmed company officials. “Actions in this regard led to Ackerman McQueen’s loss of faith in Mr. LaPierre’s decision-making,” the firm said.

For their part, NRA officials said that the real estate purchase was suggested in early 2018 by Ackerman McQueen as an investment that would be managed by the ad firm’s top executives — and that it was ultimately rejected by top NRA leaders.

“The agency introduced Mr. LaPierre to its preferred local real estate agent, directed a tour of multiple homes, and established a company to manage the investment,” NRA spokesman Andrew Arulanandam said in a statement late Wednesday. “No matter, Mr. LaPierre ultimately rejected the opportunity and not one dime of the NRA’s money was spent on this venture.” The LaPierres did not respond to requests for comment.

The New York attorney general’s office is now examining the plan for an NRA-financed mansion as part of its ongoing investigation into the gun lobby’s tax-exempt status, in which it has subpoenaed the group’s financial records, the people said.

A spokesperson for New York Attorney General Letitia A. James declined to comment.

New York attorney Daniel Kurtz, an expert in nonprofit law, said such a home purchase could have violated New York charity law, which requires all transactions benefiting the group’s insiders to be “fair, reasonable and in the corporation’s best interest.”

“There’s no way they could defend a $6 million house for the chief executive as reasonable,” Kurtz said. “This is like the worst kind of corporate waste because buying the house does nothing to advance the interests of the NRA. How can you explain that? It’s not like he’s been underpaid.”

LaPierre received a salary of $1.37 million for his role as executive vice president in 2017, plus an additional $67,289 in compensation, according to the NRA’s latest tax filing.

Susan LaPierre, co-founder of the NRA Women’s Leadership Forum, a coalition of female philanthropists who support the Second Amendment, sometimes travels with her husband on NRA business and accompanied him to the Bahamas after the December 2012 shooting in Newtown, Conn., at Sandy Hook Elementary School.

On Wednesday, The Post sought comment on the proposed mansion purchase from the 73 current members of the NRA’s board, along with three who resigned last week. Most did not respond. The several who did rallied to the defense of Wayne LaPierre, accusing Ackerman McQueen of distorting details about the real estate discussions.

“It’s a total misrepresentation of the truth, but I can’t get into the details,” said Tom King, a board member and president of the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association. “It’s all bogus.”

“They were just trying to find a safe house to put him in,” said LeRoy Sisco, a retired businessman in Texas who has been on the board about 10 years. “Other people could use it, too. They were just saying that they needed to get him to a safe place.”

The LaPierres’ real estate hunt began after the February 2018 massacre in Parkland. Days later, LaPierre publicly attacked gun-control advocates as “elites” who “care not one whit about America’s school system and schoolchildren.”

Behind the scenes, LaPierre was telling associates that he was worried about his safety and that the location of his home in Virginia was easy for potential attackers to find, according to people familiar with the discussions.

The Wall Street Journal first reported that LaPierre asserted he needed a new residence for security reasons in the wake of the Florida shooting.

Around Easter, the LaPierres toured the mansion in the Vaquero golf club community and were impressed by the property, according to people familiar with their visit.

The four-bedroom, nine-bath home in a gated golf course community northwest of Dallas resembles a French chateau, with a stately boxwood-lined drive, a formal courtyard, vaulted ceilings and an antique marble fireplace, according to its online real estate listing.

The couple negotiated the furnishings they wanted to keep, among other details, according to emails and text messages.

In one May 21 email, an Ackerman McQueen staffer listed for Susan LaPierre all the issues she had said she wanted to resolve before closing.

“Susan, following are my notes from our conversation,” the staffer wrote, asking the NRA chief’s wife to “let me know if I missed anything from our conversation.”

The email mentioned her concern about the lack of closet space. According to the listing, the master bedroom has two walk-in closets with a custom closet system and sitting area.

“The men’s master bedroom and bathroom need some changes. There isn’t much closet space. Susan will have specific input here and can probably work with the eventual interior designer to get this accomplished,” according to the email.

The couple sought a July 1, 2018, closing so they could move in August, according to the people familiar with the discussions.

On May 25, the NRA wrote a check for $70,000 and wired it to the account of the corporate entity created for the purchase, according to the records turned over the New York attorney general.

NRA officials declined to comment on the emails or the wire transfer.

In a statement Tuesday night, William A. Brewer III, an attorney for the NRA, said the real estate purchase was pushed by Ackerman McQueen.

“The deal was vetoed by the NRA after its full terms — including Ackerman’s intent to spend NRA money — became known to Wayne LaPierre,” he said.

“Frankly, this is yet another example of Ackerman twisting the truth to promote a false narrative,” Arulanandam said in the statement. “These accusations against the NRA and Mr. LaPierre are just the latest installment of a smear campaign — a reputational attack designed to enable a small band of wrongdoers to avoid scrutiny of their own actions.”

Ackerman McQueen called the NRA’s assertions that the ad firm drove the effort to purchase the mansion “patently false.”

“The truth is that Mr. LaPierre decided to proactively propose his plan to leave his current residence and purchase a new residence,” the company said in a statement Tuesday night. “Acting outside the parties’ Services Agreement, Mr. LaPierre sought the involvement of Ackerman McQueen. Ackerman McQueen refused to proceed with this transaction.”

According to the people familiar with the real estate negotiations, the corporate entity created for the mansion purchase returned the $70,000 to the NRA on June 14, 2018.

Angus McQueen, the now-deceased chief executive of the ad firm, had learned about the location of the property and was furious about LaPierre’s claim that he needed the property for security reasons, the people said.

“He said ‘The scales fell from my eyes,’ ” said one person familiar with the discussions. “They were buying a Taj Mahal on a golf course with a social membership.”

In a statement last month, Ackerman McQueen said it decided to stop paying a series of expenses for NRA executives, including LaPierre, in 2018 out of concern they were “suspicious” and their true nature was concealed from the NRA board and members.

The firm said it believed “that NRA executives were intent on personal financial activity and transactions.”

In recent months, leaked documents have been published showing that the NRA paid $542,000 for private jet trips for LaPierre, including a trip to the Bahamas with his wife after the Sandy Hook shooting and an array of Italian designer suits, as well as the rent for a summer intern’s apartment.

The expenses were first paid by Ackerman McQueen, which then billed the NRA as part of its multimillion-dollar annual contract, according to people familiar with the arrangement.

Meanwhile, The Post has reported, 18 members of the NRA’s 76-member board received money from the group for services during the past three years, raising questions about the rigor of their oversight.

The discussions about the luxury house in 2018 came as the NRA was in deepening financial trouble: The nonprofit organization was on track to run a deficit for a third year in a row, had cut back dramatically on its core mission of gun safety and legislative work and frozen its employee pension plan.

Douglas Varley, an attorney whose practice focuses on tax-exempt organizations, said if the NRA had purchased a house for LaPierre, it would have had to justify to the IRS that he needed it to do his job. Otherwise, the NRA would have had to report the purchase in its tax filing as part of LaPierre’s compensation.

“Both of those strike me as extraordinarily high bars to get over,” Varley said.

Even though the real estate deal didn’t go through, Varley said, the activity around the house “says something about how the organization is being run and for whose benefit. These things are fundamental to nonprofit organizations.”

 

[fraurosena]

Two options here. Either he's cottoned on to the fact that passing such a law would finally garner him some positive news (and votes!) or this is him saying what he heard the last person who talked to him say on the matter, and he'll change his opinion as soon as Wayne LePierre calls him.

 

[Glasgowghirl]

4 hours ago, fraurosena said:

Two options here. Either he's cottoned on to the fact that passing such a law would finally garner him some positive news (and votes!) or this is him saying what he heard the last person who talked to him say on the matter, and he'll change his opinion as soon as Wayne LePierre calls him.

 

When Obama tried to launch a similar bill he got hate for it and failed to do it. Donald may win round some of the Congress but the NRA lobbyists will succeed, again.

[AliceInFundyland]

On 8/6/2019 at 10:57 PM, neurogirl said:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/gop-rep-michael-r-turner-of-dayton-backs-assault-weapon-ban-magazine-limits/2019/08/06/046b1206-b884-11e9-b3b4-2bb69e8c4e39_story.html

GOP rep from Dayton, who voted against gun control legislation as recent as this year, endorsed military weapons ban and magazine limit after his daughter was across the street from the Dayton shooting (she was ok). 

I'm glad his daughter was ok but...is THAT what it took for you to understand how people feel losing their loved ones to gun violence??? 

I read about that guy and I have to say.. It was mildly encouraging. Because I have lost hope. And that shows me that some ingrained middle American white Republidude can be persuaded to change his mind about something.

We need this. We need more and more of them. That's the only fucking way out of the hole.

I do not believe that all of our politicians really want to be as polarized as we end up being. I don't. The world is more centrist than that.

That's my semi-message of encouragement for the evening.

[neurogirl]

@Alice in Fundieland I believe that deep, deep down a lot of Republicans agree with gun control measures. Polls show that Americans favor certain gun control proposals by an overwhelming majority. But they're scared of their base and of the NRA in particular. I think this guy in Ohio was shaken up enough to put his beliefs over fear/party, and I hope that once the tide breaks and gun control becomes even more popular, more do the same. But I also hold on to that hope because everything feels like shit in the world today and I either have hope or wallow in depression.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-views-on-gun-control-have-changed-in-the-last-30-years/

[AliceInFundyland]

I agree. It's like pot or social rights or various other things. We all are more aligned than not, particularly the youth. I believe that our system is broken, not our people. But taking it back and turning it around is a difficult endeavor. Because we have a large country. And there is money and corruption at the top.

It's going to take some doing to turn it around. That is the problem.

[Dandruff]

On 8/9/2019 at 8:42 AM, fraurosena said:

Wow. Travellers warned to avoid churches, schools and shopping malls. Particularly chilling is this quote:

"... the country does not adequately protect people’s right to be safe."

What a reputation to have as a country.

If tourism were to drop substantially then maybe someone would pay attention.

[fraurosena]

 

Unless there are better gun laws, these kinds of things will keep happening.

ETA: 

 

Edited August 11, 2019 by fraurosena

[AliceInFundyland]

Jesus Christ. That would be the last extreme wouldn't it? A tourist - possibly an affluent white Western European family, or student type. Creating world wide hysterics and killing tourism. Maybe in Times Square or an amusement park. Ugh.

In the book Columbine the author has spent an amazing amount of with the story. I highly recommend it. I learned so much about Eric and Dylan. If that had gone as planned, it wouldn't have been a shooting. I wonder, and I think the author does as well, if this chapter in our history would be precisely the same.

He has come to use the term spectacle killings. I think it's fitting. Where we've become so immune that it only has impact because of the number or a significant change of scenery.

It's a very interesting book.

[fraurosena]

Poor kid. Poor, poor kid.