another open letter to Senator Johnson

[truepenny]

Dear Senator Johnson:

First of all, please be aware that I know how much money you have received from the National Rifle Association. I know that you will not listen to my concerns. However, I cannot therefore in good conscience not express those concerns to you.

Mass shootings are an epidemic in America. No other so-called "civilized" country in the world has this problem, which says that it's something about us. Unfortunately, it's all too clear what that something is. Mass shooters are overwhelmingly (1) white (2) males (3) with a criminal record of domestic violence. Obviously, the necessary first step is to enact legislation to prohibit anyone with a record of domestic violence from owning a gun. This step has not been taken, and we all know why. It's because politicians like you accept the NRA's money and protect their interests, even as the death toll mounts and mounts and mounts.

This is shameful, Senator. It's even more shameful that we all know. We all know exactly what's happening. We all know why our friends and loved ones, our sons and daughters and sisters and brothers, fathers, mothers and spouses, are continuing to die at the hands of white men with an established record of violence.

It's because of you.

As I said, I don't expect this letter to make a difference to you. I don't expect you to change. One of your interns or staffers will read this, and I'll get a reply explaining to me why the thing I'm advocating for is foolish and/or unnecessary. This is what happens when I write to you, Senator, if I get a response at all. I wrote pleading for you to defend the ACA, and I got a response explaining to me why the ACA is bad and needs to be repealed. Please be aware that I recognize the degree of indifference that this pattern demonstrates. I don't expect better from you, and that's maybe the most shameful thing of all.

Sincerely,
Sarah Monette

[this letter has been sent to my tiny local paper and to the Capital Times]

Comments

[heresluck]

Fingers crossed for the Cap Times...

[julian]

Thank you for this letter, it is a good letter.

But also, I learned some things after Stafford Springs.

The Lautenberg Amendment actually does bar anyone convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence (or higher), or who is currently under a restraining order, from having access to guns. So technically, that step has been taken.

However! Several issues. A) As you know, there are freakin' zillions of people who get a restraining order but never push for an arrest, or if there is an arrest the case never goes to trial, or the person isn't convicted, or whatever. And then they're no longer under the restraining order, eventually, and can get access to guns back.

Seems to me there's an obvious answer there.

B) The military seems to have some other thing they charge people with, that is not technically domestic violence, and which doesn't fit under the Lautenberg provisions. (I am somewhat unspecific here. Pardon me.)

Also, c) the military doesn't seem to be reporting a lot of its domestic violence cases to the national database for these things, which is why the Stafford Springs shooter couldn't get a handgun per Texas law, but was able to get other guns and didn't show up in the Federal database.

And, d) the other thing is that private gun sales (including gun shows) aren't required to check the federal database/do background checks, which has an energetic Constitutional argument surrounding it.

[truepenny]

Yes. It's mostly that gun show background check loophole that drives me insane. That's how Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold got the guns they used at Columbine High School. In 1999..

[truepenny]

But you're right. I collapsed several steps into one, which is sloppy.

[julian]

Well, on the other hand, you at least KNEW about the Lautenberg Amendment, unlike me 20 days ago. (I mean, I've had training in domestic violence (awareness), I must've known about it hazily. I tell myself.)

[julian]

It is to be driven batty, yes. *fistshake*