Universal background checks picked up another key demographic of support lately -- gun dealers. That was interesting enough to appear in the news last night. It's not as vast a majority as, say, Democrats, or even NRA members, or even tea partiers -- all of whom sport clear majorities in favor of background checks for guns.
What I did not hear yesterday on Rachel Maddow's show, well, it's news but I wouldn't call it breaking. The NRA tried to suppress this research, with a "consider the source" ad hominem so clear they couldn't have been more transparent about it. News but it ain't breaking; we can add this to the variety of ways the NRA has worked to prevent research into guns, gun laws, and gun violence, to stop the American people from knowing the facts that might swing public opinion against them.
Like learning that even gun dealers -- the ones who would have to perform more background checks -- support doing so.
So, there was this news piece that I caught last night, courtesy of Rachel Maddow.
it also turns out that gun dealers support expanded background checks. the people who are actually conceivably burdened by this the most, democrats are in favor, independents are in favor. republicans are in favor. tea partiers and nra members, gun owners and now we know gun dealers all in favor. and on the other side, not in favor. the leadership of the nra. not even the members of the nra just the leadership. they're the only ones against. which means -- they win? nothing could ever outweigh them. they get whatever they want, no matter if everyone in the country including their own constituency disagrees with them? how long does this last for?
Yeah, so that's news in itself -- the NRA doesn't have the support of either party, of the tea party, of its own membership, now gun dealers. Pretty much nobody but the NRA leadership itself, as Rachel points out. There are plenty of stronger gun laws that don't enjoy such widespread support but this is one that does. It also bears mentioning (and Maddow did) that the surveys went out in 2011, before many of the mass shootings for which we mourn and yet do nothing, thanks to the NRA.
What I found on ThinkProgress, however, was quite predictable, and yet it's amusing to 'consider the source'. The NRA was busted trying to stifle this research, urging gun dealers not to participate. Accusing researcher Garen Wintemute of being the tool of "anti-gun organizations". And Wintemute himself got to spill the beans on this suppression tactic, because he's an NRA member and got the mailer.
When the author began his survey in 2011, he says he received a warning from the National Rifle Association urging members not to participate. An NRA member himself, Wintemute showed Al Jazeera America the email sent, though it appears gun dealers did not heed the NRA’s warning:
If you are a federally licensed dealer in firearms, you may recently have received a survey questionnaire from gun control supporter Dr. Garen Wintemute, of the University of California, Davis.
Why is Dr. Wintemute sending the survey? Consider the source. Over the years, he has received hundreds of thousands of dollars from anti-gun organizations to conduct “studies” designed to promote gun control.
So, no, we can't have data. There can't be scientific studies that can be subjected to review and criticism and verification by the community. Now that it's done, it's fairly clear that the NRA had cause to be afraid of this research. And so, the NRA resorts to a textbook
ad hominem attack on the researcher, not on the merits of the data or the research group, but by pushing the bounds of defamation. We can't be allowed to know what gun dealers think about background checks. Because if we don't, then in that vacuum the NRA can claim whatever it wants about gun dealers. Or background checks, or stronger laws, or gun violence itself.
Apparently, enough gun dealers failed to obey the NRA, and the research got done anyway. So, now what? Does this change anything? I expect not, but the silence, the suppression, serves the NRA, so at the very least we can speak out about it. The NRA has said its piece on the matter, trying to prevent research that would undermine its claims to authority. They failed. Now it's our turn to speak.