New developments in the Christmas Eve gunplay between Gilbert Arenas and Washington Wizards teammate Javaris Crittenton seem to come out every hour.

Suffice to say, if Arenas violated the law by bringing guns into the District of Columbia to keep them at the Verizon Center, he should go directly from the basketball court to a court of law.

If he is found guilty, Arenas — and any others who have violated the law in this incident — should be required to serve punishment up to and including appropriate jail time.

If media reports are accurate, on top of violations of the law and NBA policy, Arenas also likely violated at least two of the four fundamental rules of responsible gun ownership, the first of which is to remember that “all guns are always loaded.”

Even a casual reading of the news across the nation shows that assuming a gun is unloaded is a recipe for disaster.

• A Texas father thought his weapon was unloaded before he accidentally shot his 2-year old daughter with it.

• A Florida radio personality accidentally shot his wife and his dog with a weapon he believed was unloaded.

• An Ohio teenager accidentally shot and killed a friend with a firearm he believed was unloaded.

The principle here is that guns are not toys.  Guns are designed for killing people — and are used to do so over 30,000 times every year in America.  They should never be treated as a joke.

As captured in a now-iconic photograph, the fact that Arenas and his teammates would laugh while Arenas pretended to gun them all down shows that this message hasn’t even begun to sink in.

Washington Post columnist Dan Steinberg put it best, saying of this spectacle:

What a monumental, colossal, skull-crushingly bad idea that was.

An NBA player who is reckless with firearms is far from the role model that the parents of thousands of his young fans expect him to be.

To that end, NBA Commissioner David Stern was right to suspend Arenas for his behavior, but much more needs to be done.

It is time for America’s athletic community to use its clout and prestige to push for positive reforms in our nation’s gun laws as well as the way American culture addresses — or too often, fails to address — its horrific gun violence problem.

Perhaps as part of his restitution, Gilbert Arenas — like Michael Vick and other athletes before him — could become part of that reformative process.

(Note to readers: This entry, along with past entries, has been co-posted on bradycampaign.org/blog and the Huffington Post.)

If the National Rifle Association’s leaders want to help suspected terrorists get easy access to guns, bucking the wishes of their own membership, they should come out and say so.

Instead – even in the wake of the Fort Hood shooting massacre – NRA bosses cloak their opposition to legislation that would close the Terror Gap in our nation’s gun laws with misdirected readings of the Constitution, as if our founding fathers said anything about the “rights” of suspected terrorists to arm themselves before slaughtering innocent Americans.

To the contrary, as U.S. Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson wrote 60 years ago, the Constitution is not a “suicide pact”:

No liberty is made more secure by holding that its abuses are inseparable from its enjoyment… The choice is not between order and liberty. It is between liberty with order and anarchy without either. There is danger that, if the Court does not temper its doctrinaire logic with a little practical wisdom, it will convert the constitutional Bill of Rights into a suicide pact….

Justice Jackson wrote this in a First Amendment case. Yet while many may disagree over how to apply his principle to questions of free speech, the issue should be clear when it comes to access to firearms.

Speech is used to express ideas. Firearms are used to kill over 30,000 Americans every year and wound another 80,000.

What the NRA’s leaders ignore is that America has always been about striking a balance between order and liberty, rather than always favoring one over the other. By sacrificing public safety at the altar of an “any gun, anywhere, any time” dogma, NRA bosses attempt to wreck this balance.

There is no room for this sort of mindset in America, especially after 9/11, and most recently, the Fort Hood shooting.

Making it easy for suspected terrorists to buy the weapons they would use to attack us on our own soil – just to adhere to some fundamentalist reading of the Second Amendment that even the founders, as well as the current Supreme Court, would not recognize – is dangerous and suicidal.

According to a recent survey by Republican pollster Frank Luntz, most NRA members agree. Luntz found recently that 82% of NRA members favor prohibiting people on the “Terrorist Watch List” from buying guns. The NRA’s bosses, however, are either unaware of their members’ views on this issue or they don’t care.

When it comes to protecting our communities from terrorism, Americans do not read the Constitution as a theoretical exercise. We live it and breathe it every day. So while the Second Amendment protects an individual right to own a gun in the home for self defense, we also know that it isn’t a “suicide pact” that requires us to allow suspected terrorists to easily acquire all the weapons they desire.

Most Americans – including NRA members and gun owners – reject the NRA leadership’s false choice between order and liberty.

We choose both.

(Note to readers: This entry, along with past entries, has been co-posted on bradycampaign.org/blog and the Huffington Post.)

At a recent social gathering, I was approached by a gentleman who had heard I had written a book about the gun control issue. “I am a gun owner,” he began. I braced myself for the usual lecture on the sacrosanct Second Amendment and the futility of gun regulation. What he said next, however, left me surprised and relieved. “I can’t stand the NRA,” he continued. “I quit them years ago. They are so extreme.”

My initial assumption, that a gun owner would simply parrot the NRA line, likely reflects the thinking of many politicians on the gun issue. They simplistically fear that any vote to impose new gun regulations will be seen as an attack on their gun-owning constituents. I should have known better. Opinion surveys have long shown broad gun owner support for a range of stronger gun laws.

But a new survey, by Republican pollster Frank Luntz and commissioned by Mayors Against Illegal Guns, a coalition of over 400 mayors, even more dramatically contradicts the conventional political wisdom on the gun issue. Not only does the NRA not represent the views of gun owners on major issues of gun policy; it doesn’t even represent the views of its own membership.

For example, the Luntz survey found that 69% of self-described NRA members agree that all gun sellers at gun shows should be required to conduct criminal background checks on prospective buyers, a reform that would close the infamous “gun show loophole”. Luntz found that 82% of NRA members support “prohibiting persons on the terrorist watch lists from purchasing guns.” Seventy-eight percent of NRA members support “requiring gun owners to alert police if their guns are lost or stolen.” All of these measures are vehemently opposed by the NRA.

The Luntz poll struck a raw nerve at NRA headquarters, which immediately issued an ad hominem attack on Frank Luntz. The gun lobby’s problem, of course, is that no one can credibly accuse Luntz of bias in favor of progressive positions, given his outsized reputation for putting Democrats on the defensive through his effective messaging for Republicans. Moreover, Luntz found that a majority of NRA members strongly support the Second Amendment and oppose some gun control proposals, results that reinforce the credibility of his survey as a whole.

The Luntz poll isn’t the first to indicate a cleavage between the NRA’s policy positions and its members. Indeed, in 1993, researchers from the Harvard School of Public Health, using data from a 1989 Time Magazine/CNN survey, found that “when gun owners are asked about specific regulatory requirements, they often support the regulation, disagreeing with the stated position of the organization [the NRA]. This holds true for both NRA members and nonmembers.” I suspect that the Luntz results, however, coming from a pollster who has spent much of his career devising messages to support conservative Republicans, will have an impact no prior survey has had.

Let’s hope the Luntz results will open some eyes in the political leadership of both major parties. It seems undeniable that the opposition to reasonable steps to reduce gun violence is driven by a cadre of ideological extremists who obsessively communicate their views to Congressional offices, state legislators, newspapers, talk radio hosts and anyone else who will listen (including the Huffington Post!). When the NRA opposes extending Brady background checks to all gun show sales, or other sensible reforms, it is speaking for them, and only for them. The Luntz poll is the most compelling evidence yet that these extremists are both a minority of gun owners and a minority of NRA members.

The Luntz results reminded me of an insightful comment made back in the summer by Tennessee Governor Phil Bredesen as he spoke out against an NRA-supported bill passed by his state’s legislature allowing holders of concealed carry permits to carry guns into bars and restaurants that serve alcohol. (Last month the law was struck down by a Nashville judge as unconstitutionally vague.) “This is an issue which is being driven by a few thousand people in the state who are very passionate about this issue,” he said, “but I think there are tens of thousands or millions of people who . . . particularly in cases like the guns-in-bars are just shaking their heads and thinking it’s craziness.” He added that there are “about 3,000 to 3,500 people out there who always engage on these (gun) issues, are constantly there, e-mailing everybody on the issue.” Governor Bredesen understood that it was his duty to serve the majority of his constituents, not simply pander to the noisy few.

How much gun craziness must our nation endure before more of our politicians start standing up to the extremist minority to enforce the common aspiration of the majority of Americans, including NRA members, for reasonable gun laws to protect the safety and security of our families and communities?

For more information, see Dennis Henigan’s new book, Lethal Logic: Exploding the Myths that Paralyze American Gun Policy.

One would think that the massive health care reform package hammered out in the back offices of the Capitol over recent weeks would have kept Senators busy with issues focused on better health, but they still found time to bend over backwards for a non-healthy conspiracy theory from the Gun Owners of America (a gun lobby organization even more extreme than the National Rifle Association).

At the behest of GOA, Sen. Charles Grassley was able to get a little-noticed provision tucked into Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s “manager’s amendment” (the compromise version of the health care reform bill coming out of the Senate) which takes pains to say:

A wellness and health promotion activity implemented under [this bill] may not require the disclosure or collection of any information relating to –

(A) the presence or storage of a lawfully-possessed firearm or ammunition in the residence or on the property of an individual; or

(B) the lawful use, possession, or storage of a firearm or ammunition by an individual.

I wonder if Sen. Reid recalls the words of his colleague from Nevada, Sen. John Ensign, who in September recognized (albeit accidentally) the high costs of gun violence in our health care system, relative to much of Europe.  Sen. Ensign said:

If you take out accidental deaths due to car accidents, and you take out gun deaths — because we like our guns in the United States and there are a lot more gun-deaths in the United States [than Europe] — you take out those two things, you adjust those, and we’re actually better in terms of survival rates.

Sen. Ensign was right about the high number of gun deaths in America relative to Europe.  Every year, 30,000 people in America are killed by gunfire, while another 80,000 are wounded.  (By contrast, England and Wales have about 200 gun deaths total in a year, including 60 gun homicides, with a gun homicide rate over 30 times lower than ours.)

I wonder if Sen. Reid is aware that, as far as Nevada is concerned, the Silver State has the fifth highest overall gun death rate in America, including the 11th highest gun homicide rate, according to the latest government figures.

I wonder if Sen. Reid knows that states with the highest levels of gun ownership have 114 percent higher firearm homicide rates and 60 percent higher overall homicide rates than states with the lowest gun ownership.

I wonder if Sen. Reid knows that the risk of homicide is three times higher in homes with firearms; the risk of suicide is three to five times greater; and that a gun in the home is 21 times more likely to be used against the homeowner or family member in a completed or attempted suicide, a criminal assault or homicide, or an unintentional shooting death or injury, than used in self defense.

I wonder, finally, whether Sen. Reid knows that among gun-owning parents who reported that their children had never handled their firearms at home, 22% of those children, when questioned separately, said that they had, and that of youths who committed suicide with firearms, 82% obtained the firearm from their home, usually a parent’s firearm.

Regardless of whether it was even conceivable that health care providers could “require” disclosure of a firearm in the home under health care reform – and it never was – the research is clear that keeping a gun at home increases the risk of serious injury or death to those inside.

Doctors and health professionals asking patients about firearm ownership and safe storage practices is just common sense in the full evaluation of risks to their health.

On this issue at least, it seems clear that some Senators were more concerned with pleasing the extremes of the gun lobby and less concerned with the actual health of American children and families.

(Note to readers: This entry, along with past entries, has been co-posted on bradycampaign.org/blog and the Huffington Post.)

Those following news reports this year will not be surprised by this sad figure.

From AP today:

…Across the nation, 2009 was a particularly perilous year for officers involved in gun disputes.

The number of officers killed in the line of duty by gunfire increased 24 percent from 2008, according to preliminary statistics compiled by the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund, a national nonprofit organization that tracks officer-related deaths.

As of Saturday, 47 police officers have died nationwide this year after being shot while on duty, up from 38 for the same time in 2008, which was the lowest number of gunfire deaths since 1956, according to the data.

Over the past decade, small spikes in gunfire deaths have been common, but experts say they are surprised by the number of officers this year who have been specifically targeted by gunmen.

“There’s an increasingly desperate population out there,” said Eugene O’Donnell, a professor of police studies at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York. “Other than in rare cases for ideological reasons, we really haven’t seen people taking on the cops head-to-head. Something is amiss. It should be cause for grave concern.”

Contributing to this year’s spike are cases in which several officers were shot and killed in groups — the four officers last month outside Seattle; the four officers in Oakland, Calif., in March; three officers in Pittsburgh in April; and two officers in Okaloosa County, Fla., in April….

[more]