Liberal Outrage Is All about Getting Votes
The Vegas shooting has brought the topic of gun control front and center once again. Within mere hours after the event took place, countless liberal politicians and celebrities were prattling on in their best sanctimoniously outraged voices about the evil of guns and the need for more gun control laws. We need to do "something," they said. Disgraced former NBC anchorperson Tom Brokaw said, "It's time for a national dialogue on guns," and late-night host Jimmy Kimmel opined that the "GOP should be praying to G-d for forgiveness" (at the 4:59 mark) for basing their national policy on the wants and needs of the NRA.
There were lots of vague statements from these same liberal sources about the U.S. having more mass shootings than other countries, with the thinly veiled implication that they are all the fault of white male conservatives. (Historical facts need not apply. Disregard the Asian Virginia Tech shooter, Seung-Hui Cho, or the Muslim shooters at Fort Hood [Nidal Hasan], San Bernardino [Syed Rizwan Farook], and the Orlando nightclub [Omar Mateen]. We have a political narrative to put forth here, and we're not about to let any random facts stand in our way.)
There is also widespread liberal praise for the gun buy-back programs that have supposedly been effected in Britain and Australia. The lower proportional numbers of mass gun violence in these countries are presented by the anti-gun lobby as an evidentiary component of the value of having an unarmed civil populace. It's a risibly simplistic, unprovable causality, but it's unquestionably a convenient statistic for them, to be sure.
No one – absolutely no one – is saying or implying that any normal, rational person doesn't and shouldn't feel genuine sorrow and compassion for the victims of gun violence. But as Rahm Emanuel once said in his early days in the Obama administration, "[liberals should] never let a good crisis go to waste."
Indeed, they never do. The entire liberal community – the liberal mainstream media, politicians and celebrities – has been quick to paint this as just the latest in a string of disastrous shootings brought about by conservatives' unwarranted, blind, inhumane support of the NRA-led gun-owners' lobby. The liberal message is clear: don't vote for them! Conservatives support policies that kill your children.
When pressed for details to define the "something" that must be done, liberal pundits and politicians come up heavy on clichéd platitudes but very short on specifics. Private ownership of fully automatic weapons is extremely difficult and expensive to effect, as is the conversion of a semi-automatic weapon into a fully automatic version. And a new law would not have prevented Stephen Paddock's action. He was not on any federal, state, or local watch list or database. He had no history of mental illness or any noteworthy criminal background or prior convictions. He had no known association with terror groups, nor any documented travel to terror hotspots. Paddock didn't espouse allegiance or belong to any extremist organizations. There were no missed red flags. His inner thoughts are apparently to blame, and it doesn't appear that there is a specific law or pre-emptive action that is opposed by conservatives that could have prevented the attack.
So what, specifically, should be done? Liberals usually say only "something," but then they cover up their lack of specific proposals by implying that conservatives are fine with occasional mass shootings, because they (conservatives) consider such shootings to be the "price of freedom." Yet when asked to recommend actual new laws and policies that would have prevented this – or any other – mass shooting and to specify how the new law would have done so, liberals get often just get mad at the questioner and resort to the "something" line. Or is it the "now's the time" line? Or the "we've had enough" line?
Nonetheless, while the entire country mourns the senseless loss of life and is justifiably angered by the heinous actions of a madman, half the country – the liberal half – is concurrently scheming and strategizing to co-opt a national tragedy and turn it into political advantage by explicitly blaming conservatives for creating the circumstances and conditions that enabled the event to take place.
Brokaw, Kimmel, Chuck Todd, Hillary, Bernie, Chris Matthews, Chris Cuomo, Whoopie, Ellen – all the usual liberal talking heads are seemingly more concerned with pinning fault on conservatives, thus rendering them unworthy of election by any intelligent, lucid, humane individual, than they are understanding the motives and reasons for the crime itself.
This is yet another example of liberals' mastery of media manipulation when it comes to influencing public opinion. It may be distasteful to attempt to ply a domestic tragedy into tactical political leverage, but the liberal side knows its strengths. Liberals know they'll be afforded cover by the mainstream media when they use a grievous national heartbreak and attempt to court naked political advantage.
It may not work. Many people will be repulsed by liberals taking blatant advantage of an appalling occurrence. But in some instances, with some people, it will work. Liberals are gambling they'll win more supporters by blaming conservatives than they'll lose from appearing crass and distasteful. For liberals, it's always about the votes.
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/10/liberal_outrage_is_all_about_getting_votes.html#ixzz4urivjoUY
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook
Tags
Problem is, blaming conservatives just isn't going to work anymore, as for votes, good luck to libs/dems getting them in 2018 and 2020.
Better luck will be needed in 2018 by Republicans if the SCOTUS say "so long" to Gerrymandering.
Good luck with that. Democrats aren't losing nearly as much by gerrymandering as they are by just putting up really poor candidates. It also doesn't help that they treat so many working and poor people with total contempt instead of take a moment to talk to them and find out what concerns them.
Unless Democrats learn these lessons, they'll continue to lose no matter what else they want to blame it on.
Good luck with that. Democrats aren't losing nearly as much by gerrymandering as they are by just putting up really poor candidates. It also doesn't help that they treat so many working and poor people with total contempt instead of take a moment to talk to them and find out what concerns them.
Partly agree, partly disagree.
When a candidate receiving more votes than an opponent, still loses the election because of gerrymandering, democracy has been bastardized.
I'd say you're doing better than most to at least realize that you're not losing just because of gerrymandering.
On that issue, I'm in California and we knocked gerrymandering out. We passed an initiative in 2010 that has an independent commission draw our state and Federal representative districts. We were gerrymandered as hell before that. I'd like to see more states do that it's been great for us.
I'd still clearly contend that Democrats stopping this deranged idiotic tendency to insult working class and poor people and leaving them feeling like something bad they just stepped in is the best most effective way to win elections. I'd also add that Trump is a master at exploiting that and if Democrats don't get it together, Trump will be back in 2020. Fixing gerrymandering is a good move, but a side issue by comparison.
"It's time for a national dialogue on guns,"
Uh huh. We actually have this conversation all the time. The Leftists just don't like what sensible people have to say about it.
How about a national dialogue on why some people feel so frustrated, desperate, or deranged that they feel their only option is to kill someone? How about a national dialogue on why young people think joining a gang is a better idea than focusing on school or getting a job? How about a national dialogue on the value of being a moral people? How about a national conversation on why there are so many single-parent homes in the city? How about a national dialogue on how we identify and respond to mental illness?
The US has the highest murder rate in the developed world with or without guns.
It also has one of the highest percentages of single-parent families in the industrialized world.
There are 1.4 million people in 33,000 criminal gangs in America.
1 in 10 American high school students drop out, and the ones that do graduate are dead last in technology skills compared to other developed countries .
The US is one of the most depressed countries in the world.
But lazy Leftist legislators (LLLs?) want to imagine they can solve our problems with some new gun control law.
How about a national dialogue on why some people feel so frustrated, desperate, or deranged that they feel their only option is to kill someone? How about a national dialogue on why young people think joining a gang is a better idea than focusing on school or getting a job? How about a national dialogue on the value of being a moral people? How about a national conversation on why there are so many single-parent homes in the city? How about a national dialogue on how we identify and respond to mental illness?
Even as a liberal, I agree with much of what you say … but not all and not entirely.
I take you at your word and assume that it's "dialogue" you want, so, I will engage you in one.
The mass shootings in recent years are not perpetrated by single mothers, the chronically unemployed, gang members or those who have, at the time of the mass shootings, recently dropped out of school.
Shootings in the inner cities (for which I offer no justification nor apologies) are typically perpetrated by individuals with illegally acquired hand guns from unregulated sources.
Every societal problem you cite is real and the need for dialogue regarding each one … along with sincere and viable efforts to "fix" them … are warranted.
Realistically … most perpetrators are young males who act alone after carefully planning the event. They often have a longstanding fascination with weapons and have collected large stores of them. The shootings usually occur in a public place and during the daytime.
Individual case studies involving psychological autopsy and a careful analysis of the often copious communications left behind suggest common psychological themes. The mass murderer is an injustice collector who spends a great deal of time feeling resentful about real or imagined rejections and ruminating on past humiliations. He has a paranoid worldview with chronic feelings of social persecution, envy , and grudge-holding. He is tormented by beliefs that privileged others are enjoying life’s all-you-can-eat buffet, while he must peer through the window, an outside loner always looking in.
Since satisfaction is unobtainable lawfully and realistically, the mass murderer is reduced to violent fantasy and pseudo-power. He creates and enacts an odious screenplay of grandiose and public retribution. Like the child who upends the checkerboard when he does not like the way the game is going, he seeks to destroy others for apparent failures to recognize and meet his needs. Fury, deep despair, and callous selfishness eventually crystalize into fantasies of violent revenge on a scale that will draw attention. The mass murderer typically expects to die and frequently does in what amounts to a mass homicide-personal suicide .
The Mass Murderer in America tends to be, not a minority, rather an angry, deranged white male whose mental illness has been fed, in part, the notion that minorities, immigrants and i.e. feminists have kept him from wherever it is he otherwise "deserves" to be.
_______________________________________________
I'd be interested in your response, if any.
The thing is that my focus is not on mass murderers. Scenes like we had in Vegas are dramatic and they grab everyone's attention, but they are a tiny percentage of homicides in this country. 58 people were murdered in Vegas and it's a national crisis. But, coincidentally, exactly 58 people were shot and killed in Chicago (just the one city!) in the month of September. Where is the outrage? Where is the call for dialogue?
Something like 11,000-12,000 people are murdered every year in this country. Maybe 1% of that is mass shootings (depending on how you define such a thing). To me, that is a much bigger problem that we just ignore day after day.
A single mass murderer will have his own individual issues, but the thousands of other murders have more systemic roots like the ones I outlined above.
The US has the highest murder rate in the developed world with or without guns.
Yet your own link clearly states:
Compared to 22 other high-income nations, the United States' gun-related murder rate is 25 times higher. And, even though the United States' suicide rate is similar to other countries, the nation's gun-related suicide rate is eight times higher than other high-income countries, researchers said.
So it's pretty much WITH guns...
So it's pretty much WITH guns...
Not so. The number of guns actually does not correlate well with murder in this country.
We have more guns than ever in this country, but the murder rate is actually the lowest it has been in 60 years.
Other countries, like Canada, the UK, and Australia, which now have strict gun laws, did not always have such laws. But their murder rates were always lower than in America and they did not go down dramatically as a result of those new laws.
In America, the murder rate does correlate well with a sense of community, national identity, confidence in the economy and our systems of justice.
the nation's gun-related suicide rate is eight times higher than other high-income countries
Should it really matter to us how someone commits suicide? Or is it more important that they feel it necessary in the first place? You'd be hard pressed to find a single gun in all of Japan, but they have one of the highest suicide rates in the world.
Other countries, like Canada, the UK, and Australia, which now have strict gun laws, did not always have such laws. But their murder rates were always lower than in America and they did not go down dramatically as a result of those new laws.
This 2011 peer reviewed study refutes your claim, at least about Australia:
In 1997, Australia implemented a gun buyback program that reduced the stock of firearms by around one-fifth (and nearly halved the number of gun-owning households). Using differences across states, we test[ed] whether the reduction in firearms availability affected homicide and suicide rates. We find that the buyback led to a drop in the firearm suicide rates of almost 80%, with no significant effect on non-firearm death rates. The effect on firearm homicides is of similar magnitude but is less precise [somewhere between 35% and 50%].
In America, the murder rate does correlate well with a sense of community, national identity, confidence in the economy and our systems of justice.
That's pretty funny because didn't you just say:
We have more guns than ever in this country, but the murder rate is actually the lowest it has been in 60 years.
So we have the lowest murder rate in 60 years YET the consensus is that Trump was elected precisely because so many felt no sense of community, national identity, confidence in the economy or our system of justice.
Your posit doesn't seem to pan out.
I'm probably unusual in that on gun control, I'm really in the middle. I'd also add that I find the viewpoints by both the left and the right to be crazy. I think the middle gets it right.
Liberals and the left want to ban any ownership and use of any firearm. We can start with the extreme impracticality of that - there are more than 4 firearms in the US per person. The only way I'd know to reduce that is to literally take the firearms from the people granted you'd need to compensate the people for it, but it should be extremely obvious that it would be looked at as a precursor to a repressive regime even if it's not.
Also I grew up around rifles and other firearms. It's obvious enough to me that someone who is well trained and raised with respect for firearms isn't going to be a danger to anyone and it would be wrong to take the firearms away from them.
And with the availability of firearms, anyone who is willing to commit a serious criminal act like the Las Vegas shooter can get all the heavy duty firearms they want. His ability to buy them legally made it a bit easier, but if they weren't legal it would not have deterred him. Not really.
One more point on the liberal side - one of the suggestions I've heard is greatly tightened security. That would work but the cure would be worse than the problem. You should be careful what you ask for - I'm not ready to live in a society where punks like Trump "protect" me. Conservatives would be more than willing to be accommodating on this one.
On the other side, I'd never support anyone who wants a firearm can get anything they want. Part of growing up with firearms is I've seen way too many people who are stupid with them and have no business owning something like that. We do have background checks which is good - to me anyone with a criminal history, a history of domestic violence, or a history of mental problems should never have a firearm. I'd say one reform we should have is to have more extensive background checks.
It's also absurd to me that someone can go buy a heavy duty assault rifle. For the ostensible purpose of home defense, these types of firearms are absurd.
I've also never adhered to the idea we need guns to prevent a government takeover. In the real world, if it was our trained military against the people, the people would lose quickly. But it's a nonexistent scenario on the face of it because if the government tried to take our republic away in favor of a dictatorship, the people who attempt that would be fighting our military. They'd never side with the government they'd side with us. Our military will always always side with us. There are probably a few sociopaths who will try to fight for the government but the rest of our military would put them away pretty fast.
So I see firearms solely for target shooting and home defense. You don't need an assault rifle for that. I'd never take your right to own one away but if it's all the same to you, I'd feel more comfortable if you know how to actually use it and take safety seriously.
Liberals and the left want to ban any ownership and use of any firearm.
Do you have some kind of supportive data for that statement. I know a crap load of liberals who are gun owners.
Unless and until we stop with this 'no grey area' BS we won't get anywhere.
I think I'm one of the ones to advocate strongly for the "gray area". The polarization on both sides is a big part of why we can't even start on talking about a solution.
Yes I overstated to say "all liberals want to ban firearms". I'd say most do but I know some liberals myself who own firearms.
We do have background checks which is good
Except WE don't have background checks. Here in Indiana, I can go to a gun show and by any freaking weapon I want without a background check or an ID. This is one reason why the BS about Chicago is just that, BS. Cross the city border and there are dozens of gun shops in every direction that are NOT so regulated. Or just come on over to Indiana and get whatever you want. Hit 94 and be back for lunch...
Yes we have background checks. I'm in California and we have them. One of the proposed solutions which I think would help is to have a more extensive background check. To me, if you have a criminal background, a history of spousal abuse, or a history of mental health issues you should not have a firearm.
history of spousal abuse
If judges followed the law and required those who are found guilty of domestic violence to turn over their weapons it would help.
I seriously think that we need to nail more people for child endangerment too. If laws are supposed to be a deterrence, a couple of people going to jail if their kids get a hold of one of their guns may save some children's lives.
I myself am for registration and tracking of every weapon. Thousands of more ATF agents. Gun dealers inventoried every two years and licenses pulled for improper documentation or for allowing straw sails.
They need to computerize the system too. Right now law enforcement has to sift through boxes of paper files to track a weapon. It's BS.
I'd say you're doing better than most to at least realize that you're not losing just because of gerrymandering.
On that issue, I'm in California and we knocked gerrymandering out. We passed an initiative in 2010 that has an independent commission draw our state and Federal representative districts. We were gerrymandered as hell before that. I'd like to see more states do that it's been great for us.
I'd still clearly contend that Democrats stopping this deranged idiotic tendency to insult working class and poor people and leaving them feeling like something bad they just stepped in is the best most effective way to win elections. I'd also add that Trump is a master at exploiting that and if Democrats don't get it together, Trump will be back in 2020. Fixing gerrymandering is a good move, but a side issue by comparison.
Who is online
93 visitors
I'd say if the effort was to get votes, they're wasting their time. We can easily observe that the issue of gun control is highly polarized. Liberals aren't going to persuade anyone who doesn't favor gun control to look at it differently. And they are otherwise preaching to the choir.
I'm sure they know that. Unless they're oblivious - my guess is most are not but a few are.
Without a doubt, whenever there's a great tragedy like this we want to find something we can do about it. I don't think liberals are as guilty of trying to get votes as they are of trying to come up with the easy solution.
Unlike conservatives though, I do think there are some rational solutions that can help if thoughtful people who realize real problems are much more difficult to solve than they first appear put their heads to it. This is not a "cost of doing business" thing. We should tackle the problem.
I want to do something about it too. We all do. Part of the little bit of wisdom I've gotten now that I'm old is that solutions aren't easy.
Ahhh another kumbaya article ! And all the comity you promote, all the while bashing the "left" and the "liberals" and the "progressives" with your stupid articles.
Utter hypocrisy
The right says that the shooter had a right to all of his guns, and that may be true, but the medical care to take care of his 500+ victims is merely a privilege. That's some very strange logic.
E.A What does the LAW say, and does one " Follow the Law " or is it " Make it as you Go"?
Lets say he only had THREE Guns, what Difference would that have made?
Now lets be More realistic How many of his GUN Killed any one, without His Presences?
As to " KILLERS " what Kills More in the US of A Viri or Guns? so what does this says about " Mental State "
Since we KNOW that Pathogens kill more and are magnitudes more deadly for the Future, what does it say about " Shadow Followers "?
Just out of curiosity, why do you put that at the beginning of almost all of your posts?
Simple so that the Moderators and Perrie have an easier time telling the difference between the Quoted part and the Answer
E.A See the Difference?
Actually, no. If you highlight the text you want to quote, and hit reply, it block quotes for you.
Well since multiple survivors stated that they made their escape between 'volleys', it's quite possible that a lot fewer people would have been killed and injured.
E.A Could have might have, So how many Guns were Used?
Now Place those guns and a Human side by side, remove the Human, how many would those Guns Kill?
Now Get a Gun and a Virus, place then side by side, which one will kill more NOW and the indefinite Future, so which are the ones spreading More Pathogens?
Your 'point' is moot. Every gun used is attached to a human.
The seed and the topic are weapons, not pathogens. One would think that the plethora of seeds you've made on the subject would have sated your constant need to deflect from every other subject to your obsession with viruses.
Thank you, Unlike yours for guns
I don't have an obsession for guns. I own under 10 weapons, all of which have different uses. The ONLY obsession I have for guns is my long time desire to own a 22/20 over under. Got one for sale cheap?
Liberals usually say only "something," but then they cover up their lack of specific proposals by implying that conservatives are fine with occasional mass shootings, because they (conservatives) consider such shootings to be the "price of freedom."
Gun Safety & Public Health: Policy Recommendations for a More Secure America
Preventing High-Risk Individuals from Accessing Guns
Doctors, Guns, and Medical Gag Laws
Systematic Blocks to Research, Analysis and Data Collection: Removing Impediments
Restricting Unusually Dangerous Firearms
Design Safety Standards for Firearms
Locking Devices and New Technologies to Reduce Child and Unauthorized Access to Guns
Responsible Gun Ownership: Training and Licensing
Holding Industry Accountable
Regulating Gun Dealerships
The Gun Industry’s Immunity from Lawsuits
Conclusions and Recommendations: The Role of the Medical Professional in the Gun Debate
Appendix A: Sampling of Statements from U.S. Physician Organizations Related to Gun Violence
Appendix B: Annotated Bibliography for Academic Literature on Gun Violence and Public Health
And yet, Trump cancelled the law preventing "Sick, Demented People" from buying guns!
Q: Did President Donald Trump repeal a rule that aims to block some people with mental disorders from buying guns?
A: Yes. The Social Security Administration is no longer required to submit the names of certain mentally disabled beneficiaries to a federal agency that conducts gun background checks.
FULL QUESTION
Is it true that President Obama passed a bill that prohibited mentally ill people from purchasing a gun and that President Trump rescinded this bill?
FULL ANSWER
The deadly mass shooting in Las Vegas has again brought attention to legislation signed by President Donald Trump that eliminated a Social Security Administration reporting requirement regarding beneficiaries deemed to have a mental impairment.
FactCheck.org readers have asked about the measure, and comedian
“President Trump … spoke this morning, he said he was praying for those who lost their lives,” an emotional Kimmel said. “You know, in February, he also signed a bill that made it easier for people with severe mental illness to buy guns legally.”
The late-night host was referring to H.J.Res. 40 , which became law on Feb. 28.
That joint resolution didn’t affect all “people with severe mental illness,” as Kimmel’s comment may have suggested. It rescinded a Social Security Administration rule requiring the agency to report to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System disability applicants unable to manage their finances due to a mental health condition.
The rule applied to “a narrow group of people who have been determined by the Social Security Administration to lack the capacity, on the basis of a mental disorder, to manage their affairs, specifically their benefit payments,” wrote Lindsay Nichols , federal policy director for the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, in testimony to Congress in February 2017.
First, let’s look at how the background check system — which was launched in November 1998 — works.
Under federal law , individuals “committed to any mental institution” or “adjudicated as a mental defective” by a court, board, commission or other lawful authority are prohibited from purchasing or possessing a gun.
Adjudicated as a mental defective means people who — “as a result of marked subnormal intelligence, mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease” — lack the mental capacity to manage their own affairs, or are a danger to themselves or someone else. It also includes people found insane by a court in a criminal case, or found incompetent to stand trial, or not guilty by reason of lack of mental responsibility.
States can report those individuals to the NICS database used by federally licensed firearms dealers to screen for prohibited gun buyers. As of Dec. 31, 2016, there were more than 4.6 million active records in the NICS database for people with “adjudicated mental health” issues, according to FBI data .
When a customer applies to buy a gun from a federally licensed firearms dealer, the seller initiates the required background check by phone or online. NICS then runs the would-be gun buyer’s name and other identifying information against several nationally held databases to determine if the applicant is legally permitted to buy a gun. In addition to mental health records, those databases contain criminal records, court records (such as warrants and protection orders), as well as immigration and naturalization records if the applicant is not a U.S. citizen.
The dealer can complete the sale if there is no match for the applicant in the system. But if there is a match, the gun purchase can be delayed for up to 72 hours while examiners review the case and determine if the person is indeed prohibited from purchasing a weapon.
The SSA’s final rule , which was issued in December 2016, was created to comply with the reporting requirements mandated by the NICS Improvement Amendment Act of 2007 , which was signed into law in January 2008 by President George W. Bush. The law required federal agencies to report individuals prohibited from acquiring guns to the NICS.
After the 2012 mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School, President Barack Obama issued a presidential memorandum advising the Justice Department to make sure that federal agencies were complying with the 2008 law by reporting relevant records to the national background check system.
As of December 2015, more than 3.5 million people were receiving benefits because of a mental disorder, according to Social Security’s annual report on the disability insurance program. Not all of them would have been reported to NICS for inclusion in its database – only those who met certain criteria.
The Obama administration estimated that the reporting requirement would cover “approximately 75,000 people each year who have a documented mental health issue, receive disability benefits, and are unable to manage those benefits because of their mental impairment, or who have been found by a state or federal court to be legally incompetent.”
Trump opposed the rule, the White House said , because it “could endanger the Second Amendment rights of law abiding citizens.” Other critics of the SSA’s rule included the National Rifle Association and the American Civil Liberties Union, two groups that are usually on opposite sides on gun-related issues.
In a Feb. 20 blog post , Vania Leveille, ACLU senior legislative counsel, and Susan Mizner, ACLU disability counsel, wrote that the rule was unfair and ineffective. “The thousands of Americans whose disability benefits are managed by someone else range from young people with depression and financial inexperience to older adults with Down syndrome needing help with a limited budget. But no data — none — show that these individuals have a propensity for violence in general or gun violence in particular.”
The rule included a method for affected individuals to petition for the ability to obtain a gun, provided they could demonstrate that they posed no threat to the public.
And even with the repeal of the reporting requirement, it’s possible that some beneficiaries with mental disorders would be reported to the NICS by another agency, Nichols told us by phone.
A total of 47 states have laws requiring or authorizing the reporting of some mentally ill people either to the NICS or a similar state database, according to the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence. That includes 16 states that require the reporting of individuals who have been “appointed a guardian because they lack the capacity to manage their own affairs.”
There is “some overlap” in the reporting, Nichols said, but no one knows how much.
Sources
Las Vegas Sun. “ At least 59 dead, 527 injured in mass shooting on Las Vegas Strip .” 2 Oct 2017.
“
H.J.Res.40. Public Law No: 115-8 . 28 Feb 2017.
Social Security Administration. “ Implementation of the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007 .” Federal Register. 19 Dec 2016.
Social Security Administration. “ Annual Statistical Report on the Social Security Disability Insurance Program, 2015 .” Oct 2016.
Federal Bureau of Investigation. Active Records in the NICS Indices by State . 31 Dec 2016.
Federal Bureau of Investigation. About NICS . Accessed 5 Oct 2017.
Nichols, Lindsay. “ Examining the Social Security Administration’s Representative Payee Program .” Written testimony before the U.S. House of Representatives Social Security Subcommittee to the Committee on Ways and Means. 7 Feb 2017.
NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007. Public Law No: 110-180 . 8 Jan 2008.
Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence. Mental Health Reporting . Accessed 5 Oct 2017.
Krouse, William, et al. “ Gun Control, Mental Incompetency, and Social Security Administration Final Rule .” Congressional Research Service. 13 Feb 2017.
Nichols, Lindsay, senior attorney, Americans for Responsible Solutions Foundation and the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence. Interview with FactCheck.org. 4 Oct 2017.
Hypocrite! More human beings sacrificed on the altar of the NRA!