The man who allegedly shot and killed his estranged wife and one bystander, while critically wounding another, was captured on Tuesday.

The New York Times published this story yesterday:

A Californian who killed his wife and an unrelated man and wounded a third person in a church in Clifton, N.J., on Sunday morning has confessed to the killings and said he would have killed all the worshipers if he had had a machine gun, the police said on Tuesday.

…

In his confession to the police in Georgia, Mr. Pallipurath said that the Indian community was to blame for the breakup of his marriage to Reshma James, whom he wed in India a year ago, according to Detective Capt. Robert Rowan of the Clifton Police Department.

Ms. James died on Sunday at St. Joseph’s Regional Medical Center in Paterson, N.J., from a gunshot to the head. Another church member — whom the police identified as Dennis John, 25, but who is listed in a church membership roster as Dennis John Malloosseril — died early Monday from a shot to the head. A third victim, Silvy Perincheril, 47, who is related to Ms. James, was in critical condition at St. Joseph’s on Tuesday, also from a head wound, the police said.

After surrendering in Georgia, Mr. Pallipurath said “that if he’d had a machine gun, he would have massacred everyone in the church,” Captain Rowan said, adding, “Luckily, he didn’t make good on that threat.”

[more]

Except that “luck” had exactly nothing to do with Mr. Pallipurath not possessing a machine gun last Sunday.

As perhaps the most successful example of gun control in America today, Federal law has highly regulated machine gun possession since 1934, with newly manufactured machine guns virtually banned from the civilian market since 1986.

In fact, every machine gun legally owned in America is registered with the Federal government.  As a result, their use in crime is negligible.

Machine guns existing before 1986 can still be bought and sold in America, but only under very tight conditions.  As we saw recently (and tragically), however, even small children can be the victims of an explosive mix of a machine gun and the absence of sound adult judgment.

Regardless, were it not for the strict Federal regulation of machine guns, such weapons could be as easy to purchase today as their semi-automatic cousins – assault weapons which still accept 30-100 round magazines with rates of fire only slightly longer than the fully automatic versions (about 6 seconds to empty a 30-round magazine from the shoulder) – available for purchase in unlimited quantities with only a background check and the money to buy.

What is truly “lucky” is that Mr. Pallipurath was apparently unaware of this frightening fact.

Earlier this week we released the results of a poll on the gun issue, taken by the prominent Penn, Schoen & Berland firm, of 1,083 confirmed Election Day voters.

Before discussing the responses that may come as a surprise to some, I wanted to highlight the analysis of Rob Green, a principal at PSB, who evaluated the new political status of gun violence prevention after this election:

These findings suggest that sensible gun legislation provides a unique opportunity for the new Administration to build a bridge to moderate voters in both parties. It is no longer plausible for opponents of gun legislation to assert that gun laws will somehow lead to a total gun ban.

In fact, these results show that voters support a variety of basic safeguards for the public safety when it comes to keeping guns out of the hands of dangerous people.

This support is strong in every region of the country, among voters who own guns and those who do not, across partisan and ideological lines – and even in the “New Blue” states (states that George W. Bush won 2004 but that voted for Barack Obama in 2008).  These “New Blue” states are a cross-section of America, including Colorado, Florida, Indiana, Iowa, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, and Virginia.

First consider the poll’s general findings:

• 76% of all voters “support the passage of laws placing reasonable restrictions on guns“; 78% of “New Blue” state respondents support reasonable gun restrictions; 66% of gun owning voters also agree;

• 79% of all voters say the views of the NRA were not important to their vote for President; 78% of “New Blue” state respondents agreed; 74% of gun owning voters agreed.

Now, compare these results with voter attitudes on a few specific gun control policies:

• 83% of all voters favor criminal background checks for all gun sales; 87% of “New Blue” state respondents favor them; 84% of gun owning voters favor them (virtually identical with voters overall);

• 68% of all voters favor the registration of gun sales and licensing of gun owners; 70% of “New Blue” state respondents favor registration and licensing; even 60% of gun owning voters favor registration and licensing;

• 65% of all voters favor a waiting period of five days for handgun sales; 73% of “New Blue” state respondents favor a waiting period; 64% of gun owning voters favor this waiting period;

• 65% of all voters favor banning military style assault weapons: 68% of “New Blue” state respondents favor banning them; 60% of gun owning voters favor an assault weapons ban.

• 54% of all voters favor limiting the number of guns that can be bought at one time: 57% of “New Blue” state respondents favor such limits; just 42% of gun owning voters favor these limits, however.

What explains this strong, across-the-board, support for policies once considered controversial?

Perhaps the Supreme Court decision last June that Americans have an individual right to own a gun for self defense in the home, but that other reasonable restrictions are “presumptively lawful,” helped lay the groundwork here.  Law-abiding citizens’ guns are safe.

This position is consistent with those taken by candidate Barack Obama, as well as the Brady Campaign post-Heller.  Because of the Supreme Court decision, the gun violence prevention debate has shifted from the extremes to the middle.

We saw in this election that candidates who favor sensible gun laws won across the country, while those favored by the National Rifle Association lost races at all levels across the country to Brady-endorsed candidates.

These results indicate that we may be experiencing a sea-change in the politics of gun violence prevention.  Rather than driving a wedge between voters, common sense gun laws may instead help elected officials find a sensible middle ground that protects American families and communities while gaining the support of most voting groups.

After so many years of division, that would be a welcome change, indeed.

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

The elections two weeks ago reflected significant advances for the cause of gun violence prevention.  Meanwhile, with stories of fear-driven gun sales emerging since the election, the shallowness of the gun lobby’s divisive approach to America’s problems has never been more apparent.

The Brady Campaign produced a well-documented report examining the November 4 results and exploring what the election means for the future of the gun violence prevention movement: Guns & The 2008 Elections: Common Sense Gun Laws Won, The NRA Lost, & What it Means.

The key observation in the report is that guns were not a wedge issue in this election, and instead took their place among the many challenges facing our country.  Not surprisingly, candidates endorsed or “A” rated by the NRA suffered losses in every region of the nation, up and down the ballot, losing not only the White House, but also at least six crucial races for the U.S. Senate, and many more in the House of Representatives.

Even before the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling on the Second Amendment in late June, we predicted that most law-abiding citizens would realize that the Court wouldn’t let their guns be “taken away,” regardless of who was victorious on Election Day.  At the same time, we thought that voters now would be more likely cast their ballots for candidates willing to do something to reduce the 100,000 deaths and injuries from guns which occur every year in America, and make it harder for dangerous people to get guns.

President-elect Obama has consistently supported common sense gun laws in the U.S. Senate and in the Illinois State Senate, along with supporting an individual right to own a gun for self-defense in the home.  Vice President-Elect Biden, one of the original authors of the 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban, has been a leader in gun violence prevention throughout his distinguished career. The Brady Campaign’s choice was clear.  In the middle of October, Jim and Sarah Brady and the Brady Campaign issued a strong endorsement of the Obama-Biden ticket.

By endorsing Sen. John McCain, the NRA was left backing someone they used to call “one of the premier flag carriers for the enemies of the Second Amendment.”  The NRA promised to spend millions of dollars trying to defeat then-Senator Obama in battleground states across the nation.  By Election Day, the NRA had spent 30 times the amount of money against President-elect Obama than they’d spent against Al Gore in 2000.  NRA bosses spent millions on television ads, campaign literature and Web sites screaming that Senator Obama would be “the most anti-gun President in history.”

What happened (other than an increase in gun sales by those who believed this propaganda)?  Over 64 million voters rejected the NRA’s campaign of division and agreed with the Brady Campaign’s choice for President.  Barack Obama won the NRA’s home state of Virginia – the first time any Democrat for President carried the Old Dominion since 1964 – and went on to win a cross-section of states from Florida to Indiana, Pennsylvania to Colorado, North Carolina to Nevada, Iowa to Ohio, and New Hampshire to New Mexico.

Even more indicative of the gun lobby’s weakness, NRA bosses Wayne LaPierre and Chris Cox personally campaigned in the swing states of Colorado, Pennsylvania, Minnesota and Nevada.  Judging by the election returns, that may have been a mistake.  President-elect Obama carried Colorado by almost 8 points, Pennsylvania by 10 points, Minnesota by 10 points, and Nevada by 12 points.

Beyond the Presidential campaign, the NRA lost at least six critical races for the U.S. Senate to moderate candidates who favor common sense gun laws:

• In Colorado, the NRA endorsed former Rep. Bob Schaffer in his losing campaign against Rep. Mark Udall (C-rated by the NRA).  Udall won by 12 points.

• In Louisiana, the NRA endorsed State Treasurer John Kennedy in his losing campaign against Sen. Mary Landrieu (C-rated by the NRA).  Landrieu won by six points.

• In New Hampshire, the NRA endorsed Sen. John Sununu in his losing campaign against former Governor Jeanne Shaheen (F-rated by the NRA).  Shaheen won by over six points.

• In New Mexico, the NRA endorsed Rep. Steve Pearce in his losing campaign against Rep. Tom Udall (C-rated by the NRA).  Udall won by a whopping 22 points.

• In North Carolina, the NRA endorsed Sen. Elizabeth Dole in her losing campaign against State Senator Kay Hagan (F-rated by the NRA).  Hagan won by over eight points.

• In Oregon, the NRA endorsed Sen. Gordon Smith in his losing campaign against challenger Jeff Merkley (F-rated by the NRA).  Votes are still being counted, but Merkley won by at least three points.

What’s more, returns coming in from Alaska now show that the NRA could lose Alaska’s incumbent Senator Ted Stevens to Anchorage Mayor Mark Begich.  There will also be a run-off election in two weeks in Georgia between Jim Martin and Sen. Saxby Chambliss, the outcome of which is hardly predictable.  Finally, depending on the results of a recount, NRA may yet lose the Senate seat in Minnesota to F-rated Al Franken, now held by Sen. Norm Coleman, who is currently leading by just 215 votes.

The NRA’s efforts in key U.S. House races were no more successful.  In the 24 races that Democrats have picked up from the Republicans so far, the NRA endorsed in 20 campaigns and lost 19 of them.  In addition, of the four seats picked up by Republicans this year, the NRA endorsed three Democratic incumbents and lost all three, including Rep. Cazeyouz in Louisiana and Rep. Lampson in Texas.

The Brady Campaign, on the other hand, endorsed candidates in eight House races picked up by the Democrats, and won seven of them (losing only Republican Rep. Chris Shays in Connecticut).  All seven of these victories – including Kosmas in Florida, Dahlkemper in Pennsylvania, and Peters in Michigan – were in head-to-head match-ups against candidates endorsed by National Rifle Association leaders.

At the state level, among other losses for the gun lobby, the NRA also lost control of the New York State Senate for the first time in two generations.  This victory could mean a great deal for advocates of gun violence prevention in the Empire State whose efforts have been blocked for decades.

What all of these results mean for the cause of gun violence prevention is that pragmatic elected officials who favor common sense gun laws won across the country on Election Day, while the gun lobby took a crushing defeat.  There is much more work to do, however, and we at the Brady Campaign urge you to join us.

Every year in America, 100,000 people are killed or wounded by gunfire.  Now is the time to reach out to America’s newly elected officials and tell them that requiring criminal background checks on all gun sales just makes sense.  Tell them that cracking down on corrupt gun dealers to cut illegal gun trafficking just makes sense.  Tell them that protecting our police by taking military-style assault weapons off our streets just makes sense.

In the words of President-elect Obama, we can uphold the Second Amendment and keep guns out of the hands of criminals at the same time.

Lives are at stake, and it just makes sense.

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

This is the America we live in today.

The one where no gunfire is news.

From the AP:

Virginia Tech police say there were no gunshots fired near a residence hall on campus.

Authorities locked down a dorm Thursday afternoon after two people reported hearing something that sounded like gunfire. Police are still investigating.

A university spokesman said the sounds may have come from a construction site nearby.

Police from Virginia Tech and nearby departments searched every room of Pritchard Hall, a dorm on the Blacksburg campus that is home to 1,000 students. No one was allowed in or out of the dorm, but the entire campus was not locked down.

In 2007, 32 people were killed by a gunman on campus who later killed himself.

Some things you just can’t make up.

First, from the AP (via TPM):

A Republican congressman from Georgia said Monday he fears that President-elect Obama will establish a Gestapo-like security force to impose a Marxist dictatorship.

“It may sound a bit crazy and off base, but the thing is, he’s the one who proposed this national security force,” Rep. Paul Broun said of Obama in an interview Monday with The Associated Press. “I’m just trying to bring attention to the fact that we may — may not, I hope not — but we may have a problem with that type of philosophy of radical socialism or Marxism.”

Broun cited a July speech by Obama that has circulated on the Internet in which the then-Democratic presidential candidate called for a civilian force to take some of the national security burden off the military.

“That’s exactly what Hitler did in Nazi Germany and it’s exactly what the Soviet Union did,” Broun said. “When he’s proposing to have a national security force that’s answering to him, that is as strong as the U.S. military, he’s showing me signs of being Marxist.”

…

Broun said he believes Obama would move to ban gun ownership if he does build a national security force.

Obama has said he respects the Second Amendment right to bear arms and favors “common sense” gun laws. Gun rights advocates interpret that as meaning he’ll at least enact curbs on ownership of assault weapons and concealed weapons. As an Illinois state lawmaker, Obama supported a ban on semiautomatic weapons and tighter restrictions on firearms generally.

“We can’t be lulled into complacency,” Broun said. “You have to remember that Adolf Hitler was elected in a democratic Germany. I’m not comparing him to Adolf Hitler. What I’m saying is there is the potential of going down that road.”[more]

Discussing this episode over at Reason Online, David Weigel described Rep. Broun’s, er, position as:

…another fringe position, but it’s one egged on by the NRA, which warned gun owners that a President Obama would literally rip their firearms from their warm, living hands.

Jake Tapper, in that last link, calls this “Obama Derangement Syndrome.” I think this is some of the first anti-Obama wackadoodlry that isn’t specific to the candidate. This was the language used to scare the fringe right about the last Democratic president, too. It’s incredibl[y] dumb and off-putting, not to mention wrong….

Feeling some of the heat his comments had ignited, yesterday Rep. Broun went on WGAC radio to express “regret” for his comments.

Via the AJC:

BROUN: I regret saying it that way. Yes, I do. I apologize to anybody that’s taken offense at that.

The point I tried to make is that he is extremely liberal, he has promoted a lot of socialistic ideas, and it just makes me concerned.

I’m hoping he’s going to govern differently from the way he’s stating things as a candidate…I’m taking a wait-and-see attitude. I’m not throwing any stones.
…

BROUN: In fact, when the lady at the Rotary Club took me to task for saying that Obama was a Marxist, I tried to correct it at that point, and [the Augusta Chronicle reporter] didn’t ever make the point that I made — that I thought that he had a Marxist position on a lot of issues, and I’m just concerned about it.

Perhaps at this point, Rep. Broun could:

(1) Consult a University in his district to learn why “Marxist Nazi” is an oxymoron; and

(2) Switch to decaf.

Here’s Keith Olbermann on the subject (at about 1:47):