The Top Four Reasons Rick Perry Toured a Gun Factory the Day After a Mass Shooting

Categories: Politics

perrygunfactorytour.jpeg
Talk Radio News Service
You are a governor of a big state. Someone just shot and killed more than a dozen people in the nation's capital. Question: Should you tour a gun factory the next day?

If you're Rick Perry, the clear answer is yes. As part of his job-poaching tour in Maryland, he took a look Wednesday around the Beretta USA factory in Accocek, Maryland, just a short hop from the site of the D.C. Navy Yard shooting. Sure, there were some in the liberal media who critiqued the visit as insensitive or tactless, but the governor had his reasons.

There were four of them, to be exact, which we have compiled below:

1. Some companies are really good at making guns
Beretta recently threatened to leave Maryland if the state passed an assault weapons ban. In an anti-climactic twist, the ban passed, but Berretta is still there. "Beretta has been a great manufacturer in Maryland, and they feel not only underappreciated, they feel under attack," Perry told reporters in a news conference. Just not under strong enough attack to actually leave Maryland.

2. A Maryland gun factory is the only logical place to boast of Texas exceptionalism
"If you want to live free, free from over-taxation and free from over-regulation and free from over-litigation, a place that's got a great skilled workforce, move to Texas," Perry told a group of rapt Marylanders. Texas doesn't need to be told it's great. It already knows. It's the other states that are in need of instruction.

3. Guns don't kill people. They create jobs.
"As part of his longtime job creation and economic development efforts, the governor has been reaching out to firearm manufacturers across the country this year to tout the advantages of doing business in Texas," a Perry spokeswoman told NBC. Presumably, because guns are helpful at snuffing out the competition.

4. Re-scheduling gun factory tours is a total pain in the ass
At the end of her jobs spiel, Perry's spokeswoman added, "This private meeting was planned long before this week's tragedy." Perry could have presumably delayed his visit until the next time he was in the D.C. area, but by then, he'll probably be bungling another presidential run.


Sponsor Content

My Voice Nation Help
78 comments
AnthonyWeiner
AnthonyWeiner

That's not a pic of my penis, I swear…oh wait..maybe it is.

ebailey75057
ebailey75057

I'm hoping Perry decides to run for President again.  Laughter is a wonderful thing, and Captain OOPS provides an endless stream of comedy.

ragetweets
ragetweets

If you are so anti gun, maybe you should move to another state instead of pushing your agenda on those of use that cherish our 2nd amendment RIGHT.

ebailey75057
ebailey75057

You have to have a heart to be sensitive, Our distinguished Governor lacks that critical component.  Its all about the Benjamins with Perry.

animas
animas

"3. Guns don't kill people.  they create jobs",-- a fact not lost on the  German Wehrmacht which took over  Beretta's operations in northern Italy in WW II. (1940-1945)  Guns and fascists--the gift that just keeps giving!

garlandreallysucks
garlandreallysucks

clearly the answer to any problem is more guns and more of you super left and neo con nuts! thanks for ruining this country

jeffcoley
jeffcoley

This is a stellar example of when to "reject the premise".

The assumption is that guns caused the shooting, therefore touring a gun factory is in bad taste.  Completely stupid, and typical of the sort of intellectual vapidity that characterizes the gun control argument.  

yrlibsnaive
yrlibsnaive

Hey Silverbergsteinwitzmann - So when will you be putting a big "PROUD TO BE A GUN-FREE HOME" sign on your front door?

TexMarine
TexMarine

"What difference does it make?" H.R. Clinton

People die in mass shootings in Chicago, DC, etc every day, but yet I don't see why it should effect the itinerary of anyone. Only those who have oversensitive sheep (re: anti-anythings) who rail against guns while ignoring any action against the root cause of violence.

mavdog
mavdog topcommenter

6. Perry was going for a jog the next morning and he had an idea there were coyotes in Maryland. He wanted to be prepared like the last time a coyote crossed his running path...

ruddski
ruddski

I've been traveling and not keeping up, but as I understand it, a weapon in the hands of a black liberal went amok and killed a bunch of people, because Rick Perry.

bmarvel
bmarvel topcommenter

I'm just surprised those libtard Marylanders can put together a decent gun.

slicemaster19
slicemaster19

It is a horrible tragedy, and the families and survivors deserve our prayers and thoughts. But, the world does go on. Do we cancel tours of auto plants if someone gets killed in an accident? Do we pull all the children out of the pools when someone drowns?

It is unfortunate, but bad things happen some times. Stop trying to project motivations in to things and people you can't possibly know.

And if Perry had delayed his tour, you would be jumping out of your skin about the wasted dollars he spent traveling to Maryland. Absolutely nothing the man could do would please you anyway.

Grow the h&^k up, children.

Daniel
Daniel

@garlandreallysucks There is no "super left" in our country, aside from a  few dozen nutcases in Berkeley. And the neo-cons have been usurped by the Tea Partiers -- a very different, but equally dangerous, kettle of fish.  

CogitoErgoSum
CogitoErgoSum topcommenter

@jeffcoley Actually, I think the premise is the populace is polarized over the issue of access to guns. For millions of people, this is a very sensitive issue. Further, politicians often try to be cognizant and tactful when speaking or acting with regard to said issues. For Perry, none of that matters, cause, y'know ... he's from Texas!

ruddski
ruddski

Buncha Muslims slaughtered buncha Christians over the weekend, yet Representative Keith Ellison of Minnesota will likely go to work as though nothing happened.

CogitoErgoSum
CogitoErgoSum topcommenter

@yrlibsnaive So, besides racist, let's add anti-semitic to your illustrious list of character flaws. Poor, angry miscreant.

observist
observist topcommenter

@TexMarine  Perry's a double-winner in that case, because he ignores both the violence AND the root cause of violence.

Threeboys
Threeboys

Don't forget the NRA, though there is no evidence he was a member.

Daniel
Daniel

@bmarvel  I know you're joking, but for the record, Maryland has the same urban/rural political divide one sees in many states these days. Hell, on the Eastern Shore, people put Confederate flags in their windows.

observist
observist topcommenter

@slicemaster19  Ever wonder why pools aren't marketed names like "Drownmaster  - now with new undertow generator for more drowning power!".   Because the drownings are 99.99% accidental.  Same with automobile deaths.  There's a difference between an accidental death that is incidental to the use of a product, and a product designed solely for killing.

RTGolden1
RTGolden1 topcommenter

@Daniel @garlandreallysucks Ah Daniel, perspective is everything isn't it?  To one person, this country is full of super left leaning pinko commie deviants, to another it is filled with a new breed of exceedingly dangerous far right Tea Party activists, to yet another, there will be curses of equal proportion from both sides of the political spectrum afflicting the Republic.  Then again there are others who look at all this political antagonism and think "Ain't America Grand!".

jeffcoley
jeffcoley

@CogitoErgoSum @jeffcoley 
Precisely the reason to reject the premise.  The sensitivities of ignorant people should not dictate everybody else's words and actions.  

Some other sensitive issues for millions of people (in no particular order) -

civil rights for blacks

interracial marriage

gay marriage

abortion



mavdog
mavdog topcommenter

@ruddski 

even for you (and the low bar that sets) the reference to Ellison is beyond the pale. how juvenile.

yrlibsnaive
yrlibsnaive

When are you going to put a big "PROUD TO BE A GUN-FREE HOME" sign on your front door? Otherwise STFU about your gun control agenda you hypocrite.

ruddski
ruddski

Those voices he heard? Wayne LaPierre.

bmarvel
bmarvel topcommenter

@Daniel @bmarvel My joke wasn't at the expense of Marylanders. I was one of them for nine years. My object was the slack-jawed blog-barkers here who habitually think the East is a vast nest of left-wing vipers and who, to make themselves look even more stupid, still use the word "libtard" as though it means something.

slicemaster19
slicemaster19

@observist @slicemaster19And pools are used for recreation, but firearms are used 500,000 to 3.5 million times EACH YEAR defensively (CDC study published this year).  As compared to 11,078 homicides, which by the way do include the justified use of firearms by police and civilians. So they are used 16 to 120 time MORE OFTEN defensively than to kill someone.

Strangely enough, the reason the CDC numbers have such a wide range is that only about 1% of defensive gun uses actually require firing a shot, and people don't tend to report crimes that DON'T happen very well.

Plus, with 350 million legal guns in society and only 11,078 deaths last year, only around 0.003% of guns actually killed anyone. Even if you include suicides and non-fatal injuries, it is around 0.02% of guns being used.

But you are right, they must ALL be bad and every gun owner is a murderer. Face it, it isn't NRA members and law abiding gun owners shooting up schools and playgrounds. So why is the only possible solution to restrict the people who are causing almost NONE of the carnage? Try ignoring the tool for a minute, and concentrate on the PEOPLE; gang bangers, drug dealers and other criminals who police tell us are responsible for well over 80% of the violence.

Any other bright ideas you read on a MAIG or Moms Demand Action press release?

ruddski
ruddski

Basically, every time a nut uses a gun instead of any other device, gun owners are expected to express their personal shame, for the benefit of weird lefties and their feeeelings.

Yet many will visit a shopping mall today, with no shame about what a mall recently did to a bunch of innocent Kenyans.

Reportedly, some Somali-Americans are involved with al-Qaida, who do YOU think they voted for? And the dude went golfing!!

CogitoErgoSum
CogitoErgoSum topcommenter

@jeffcoley @CogitoErgoSum Who's to say they're ignorant? I'd argue that many are well-informed and thoughtful -- on both sides. All are concerned about the deaths of innocent people at the hands of bad people with guns. This is what Rick Perry chooses to ignore.

RTGolden1
RTGolden1 topcommenter

@CogitoErgoSum @mavdog @RTGolden1 @jeffcoley The only problem with that is that mental health issues are a key indicator of potential for going Rambo in a schoolyard.  Not all, or even a majority of, mental health sufferers commit spectacular gun crimes, but most of the spectacular gun crimes are committed by those displaying mental health issues.  I can't help but think that mental health service reform is the key to this issue.  Access and affordability of mental health care is a crucial necessity in this country, not just to lower the incidence of gun crimes, but for reducing family violence, sexual predation, addiction, etc.  The only reason this libertarian was against the ACA is that it didn't go far enough, in my opinion, and institute a single payer system.  I would have gladly taken an increase in taxes to cover it.  That increase would have to be pretty drastic to reach the premiums I have been paying anyway.

CogitoErgoSum
CogitoErgoSum topcommenter

@mavdog @RTGolden1 @jeffcoley I'd mostly agree, but with the order. First, implement universal background checks and improve standards of reporting to the NICS. This could help immediately limit access to those with red flags. Then -- or even concurrently -- address mental health issues.

mavdog
mavdog topcommenter

@RTGolden1 @mavdog @jeffcoley 

then we agree RT.

The first step is improving the mental health dynamic, starting with improving access coupled with turning around the current negative connotation that our society attaches to those who seek care. With an improved climate of acceptance of those receiving care the ability to integrate the reporting systems can be implemented.

after those steps universal background checks can be better implemented, which would not in any way infringe the ability of law abiding citizens to own firearms.

RTGolden1
RTGolden1 topcommenter

@mavdog @jeffcoley Haven't seen many logical, rational steps proposed by the gun-control side.  Any serious discussion about reducing violent crime, ALL violent crime, is going to have start at identifying and figuring out how to deal with violent people, not the tools they use.  I don't know that answer, but I know we have to start there.  Fixing our mental health system would be a good start.  I'm not opposed to common sense gun control measures that don't restrict the rights of law abiding citizens to own and use firearms for recreation or self-defense.

mavdog
mavdog topcommenter

@jeffcoley

you're missing the point if you believe that was the intent of that post.

what reflects "badly on the gun industry" are attempts by them to oppose logical, rational steps to limit the access by bad actors to the weapons they produce.

jeffcoley
jeffcoley

@mavdog @ruddski You're missing the point.  Just as the actions of a group of Muslims does not reflect badly on Keith Ellison , the actions of a deranged shooter don't reflect badly on the gun industry.  

Unless you're an ignorant fool, that is. 


animas
animas

It's absurd -but I did kind of enjoy seeing a Fukushima level troll meltdown earlier today by "yrlibsnaive".  Mr. second amendment became totally unglued, and wierd...

RTGolden1
RTGolden1 topcommenter

@yrlibsnaive In other words, you have become that which you profess to despise.  You claim to have this deep seated dislike of progressive advocacy journalists, yet you are obviously advocating for your particular point of view in your comments, which are a form of journalism, even if from the laity.

Imagine for a second, that progressive advocacy publications ceased to exist.  Would you still exist?  Would there still be a valid reason for you to exist?  How would you then define your existence, since your apparent reason for being is to be the VOICE against progress?

yrlibsnaive
yrlibsnaive

I learned to write with such hostility and vehemence from the "progressive advocacy journalists" at the Dallas Observer, The Village Voice, Gawker, Jezebel, Salon, Slate, etc etc etc. Libtard "journalists" can dish it out but they sure can't take it.

RTGolden1
RTGolden1 topcommenter

@yrlibsnaive Dude, try decaff.  Even though I don't agree with the gun-control agenda, I recognize their right have an agenda and proclaim it.  When I see such outright hostility and vehemence coming from the side of the 2nd amendment supporters (advocating at the expense of the 1st amendment???), I start to question whether I want some of those people owning firearms anyway.
Being the conductor on the crazy train isn't helping your argument much.

yrlibsnaive
yrlibsnaive

Bull shit liar, you absolutely do not have a big "PROUD TO BE A GUN-FREE HOME" sign on the front door of your home, and I seriously doubt you have one at your business (if you really even own a business at all). Where is your business and what is it called? I want to see your mythical sign for myself. If you are so proud to be a gun-free business and really have a sign proclaiming such, then you should be proud enough to reveal the name and location of your imaginary business.

animas
animas

What's wrong with you?  Amy's an excellent writer.  This is an interesting and -given the subject matter -timely article.  FYI my business(and yes there is a big sign) and home are gun free zones.

observist
observist topcommenter

@slicemaster19 @observist 

"And you have a nice collection of numbers to try to confuse people, but the simple matter is you are only looking at crimes committed WITH a firearm. There is no requirement for defense with a gun taking place only when the perpetrator has a gun. Second, it is NOT unlikely that a single gun owner may have multiple experiences needing their gun for defense in a year."

The math!  It hurts!  The point is to compare how often guns are used in the commission of crime vs. the prevention of crime, not just gun crimes, but any crimes, and the answer according to any source but Kleck is at least 4 to 1.  While it is certainly true that some unfortunate souls may have to use their guns for defense multiple times per year, it is impossibly unlikely that a majority of armed self-defenders have to do so multiple times per year, which is what your inflated numbers suggest.

"Guns are the tool here. Guns don't shoot people by themselves."  

This tired line of bullshit is repeated like a mantra.  No, guns don't shoot people by themselves, they just make it really, really easy for people to kill other people.  They are so effective that they enable people to injure or kill in ways they could not or would not do otherwise.  This is why drive-by stabbings have never been a big problem.  People have a decent chance to fight off or flee from someone with a knife, bat, or swimming pool (since gun people are constantly bringing their lethality)  but there's little defense against a gun.  As seen in other countries, people will be violent, but without guns they just can't kill as easily, which is why the US has comparable rates of violence, but multiple rates of murder.  American murderers have much more effective murder tools readily available, and there's a large powerful lobbying organization that constantly fights to keep it that way.

slicemaster19
slicemaster19

@observist @slicemaster19To begin with, the CDC report clearly states that the number of defensive uses is difficult to pin down. It says while the Kleck work was of a small sample, it says the Cook work actually never asked questions about defensive use. It was wholly extrapolated from data take for different purposes. Also, the Cook work was done in 1997, which may as well have been the Middle Ages in terms of gun ownership and attitudes. Many states had concealed carry laws at that time, but very few people actually had permits (unlike today).

And you have a nice collection of numbers to try to confuse people, but the simple matter is you are only looking at crimes committed WITH a firearm. There is no requirement for defense with a gun taking place only when the perpetrator has a gun. Second, it is NOT unlikely that a single gun owner may have multiple experiences needing their gun for defense in a year.

I would also be leery of your gun ownership numbers. This information is often taken from non-gun related surveys, and even if questions are asked directly many people are not going to truthfully reply to a stranger calling about whether or not they have a gun in their house. And for carry outside the home, you also forget that many states either do not require a permit for carry, or at least not for carry in your car or vehicle.

You mention 1.2 million violent crimes reported last year (the lowest number in some time), which is true according to FBI numbers. But I again submit, does every citizen report an ATTEMPTED crime? In fact, the BJS says "During the period from 2006 to 2010, 52% of all
violent victimizations, or an annual average of
3,382,200 violent victimizations, were not reported to the police.". So, if we take the 1.2 million reported and add in the 3.4 million NOT reported, we have 4.6 million violent crimes each year roughly. So maybe the high end number of Kleck is hard to believe, but it would NOT be a stretch to imagine 500,000 being accurate.

The NRA receives around 50% of their money from average citizens as well. Why would the NRA do anything to jeopardize those donation to appease the gun industry? Tthe gun industry HAS a trade group, called the National Shooting Sports Foundation, coincidently headquartered in Newtown, CT.

More numbers you like so much; 80% off inmates who used guns in their crimes got them either from the black market (uncontrollably by legislation), theft (already illegal) or from friends or family (straw purchases are already illegal, as is transferring in any manner to a prohibited person). So exactly how are any of your grand schemes going to change things, by making it double secret illegal? 

I'm not sure you could call it a 10 point plan, but I think you will find most gun owners would get behind: 1)enforcing laws already on the books, 2) prosecuting people who attempt to commit fraud when buying guns, 3)have the 22 states that have reported less than 100 mental health records to the NICS system get with the program, 4)require severe mandatory punishment for criminals who use firearms in their crimes and 6)eliminate the "gun free" zones where all but 1 mass shooting has happened in the US since 1950

Guns are the tool here. Guns don't shoot people by themselves. In most states, over 50% of violent felons have 10 arrests or more.  And a small percentage of criminals (estimated at 10-15%) are responsible for 50% of the violence. How about targeting this group of individuals? Wouldn't this bring the best ROI, or are you going to insist that harassing legal gun owners while you PRETEND to do something about violent crime?

observist
observist topcommenter

@slicemaster19 @observist

First, the CDC study was a survey of research already published.  The 500k-3.5m estimate is extrapolated entirely from the surveys of one guy, Kleck, with ~5000 respondents.  The National Crime Victimization Survey, with 40,000 respondents, puts the estimate between 60k-100k per year.

 Second, you're comparing a vague definition of "defensive use" to a narrow subgroup of gun crimes resulting in murder.  If you include injuries (gunshot wounds) and threats with guns (i.e. rape at gunpoint, etc.)  There are about 400,000 crimes committed with guns every year.  (from BJS)   So, using reputable numbers in an apples-to-apples comparison, there are 4-6 times more gun crimes than defensive uses. 

Aside from just questioning sources, let’s just do a little math.  There are 1.2m violent crimes and 8.9m property crimes committed in the US every year.  If Kleck's 3.5m number were true, that would mean 1 in 4 crime attempts in the US - including burglaries and petty thefts - was actively deterred or countered by a victim or bystander with a gun.If guns prevented 25% of all crimes, the US should have lower crime rates than all those other gun-restricted pussy countries in the OECD, right?Alas, no, we have a murder rate 3-4x higher than the OECD average, and comparable non-murder violent and property crime rates.Nonetheless, let’s forge on…

About 33% of households own guns, but only about 23% of all violent crimes happen in the victim's home (of which only 8% are committed by strangers to the victim).  So, 77% of violent crimes happen outside the home.  How do gun owners use a gun to fend off crimes outside their home?  They'd have to have the gun on them – and to do that, they need a concealed carry permit, right? Even in gun-happy Texas only 1 in 50 residents has a concealed carry permit.  So, how does 2% of the population go around preventing 19% of crimes?  (i.e. 1 in 4 attempts of the 77% of crimes committed outside the home)   Either the same few gun carriers are constantly being assaulted and defending themselves, or they’re like an army of vigilante heroes defending other people against crimes!  Except, well, they're shitty citizens because if your/Kleck's assertions about under-reporting are true, the vigilante heroes don't even bother to report all the crimes they gallantly prevent.Or maybe, just maybe, the gun owners Kleck surveyed over-reported their “defensive uses”?

 Notice that nowhere in this post or the previous post did I say ALL gun owners are MURDERERS, or suggest that law-abiding gun owners and NRA members are shooting up schools.However, the NRA does receive half its revenue from gun manufacturers who obviously have a vested interest in stoking fears and preventing any measure that would add even a little friction to gun purchases and transfers. I haven't seen the "NRA & law-abiding citizens' 10-point plan for crime reduction", other than MOAR GUNZ!!! of course.

http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=dcdetail&iid=245

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/vvcs9310.pdf#Page=5

http://www.nij.gov/topics/crime/gun-violence/

 

RTGolden1
RTGolden1 topcommenter

@slicemaster19 @observist They have to focus on the tool, because to focus on the person using the tool is too uncomfortable for the left.  On the left, people aren't responsible for their own actions, unless they beat a dog, then it's 'String 'em Up' time.  Otherwise, it is always a corporation, or a tool, or a tool manufactured by a corporation that does the bad things, somehow influencing the poor misguided soul into carrying out the diabolic deed.

TexMarine
TexMarine

@ruddski Liberals are only unarmed when they're without a boogie man and a victim, preferably a class of victims.

Now Trending

Dallas Concert Tickets

From the Vault

 

General

Loading...