Skelton: The gun lobby can’t have its cake and eat it too

There's an awkward misfire in the illogic of weapons worshipers. They regurgitate the old bromide that 'guns don't kill people, people do.' But they block attempts to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people.

We saw that in Congress on Monday as Republican tools of the gun lobby rejected Democratic bills aimed at preventing bad guys from purchasing firearms.

Of course, Democrats — eager for election ammunition —- also rejected the GOP's very weak counter-offers, apparently not even trying to compromise. Such is the dysfunction of our polarized Congress.

Regardless of the 'people kill' banality, guns in the hands of bad guys — be they radical Islamic terrorists or white American-reared nut jobs — do indeed kill.

That's why one necessary step toward reducing mass killings is to ban the most lethal weapons so they don't fall into anyone's hands. That includes citizens who are law-abiding until they're not — until they get fired and shoot up co-workers, or their spouse cheats and they unload on the entire family, or a professor gives a lousy grade and they spray bullets all over campus.

Some of this stuff no one can see coming. So why not just restrict the arsenal? Allow 10 shots max. Outlaw possession of any ammunition magazine holding more than 10 rounds.

But if you insist on arguing it's not the gun's fault, it's the gun owner's, at least be consistent. Don't let dangerous people buy any guns.

One rejected bill in Congress could have prevented the Orlando, Fla., nightclub killer from legally buying his weapons, a semiautomatic assault-style rifle and a handgun.

The measure, by Sen. Dianne Feinstein would have barred any person on a government terrorism watch list from purchasing a firearm. It failed in the Senate, 47 to 53.

Under the bill, Feinstein argued, Omar Mateen could have been denied his guns because he'd twice been placed on watch lists. He used the newly purchased weapons to kill 49 and wound 53.

The National Rifle Association and Republicans complained that Feinstein's bill would penalize people wrongly listed as terrorist suspects, such as the late Sen. Ted Kennedy.

'There are problems with the list — OK, fine,' says Dr. Garen J. Wintermute, longtime UC Davis gun violence researcher. 'If the list isn't good, get a better list.'

The sloppy list, I suspect, is just an excuse to protect everyone's so-called right to buy any firearm they can pay for. Gun manufacturers cling to their market and the NRA provides their foot soldiers.

Another failed Democratic bill would have expanded background checks to include sales at gun shows and on the Internet. Seems like a no-brainer. Background checks already are required when firearms are purchased from licensed dealers.

But with Congress firing blanks, several states and cities have been targeting risky people and the most lethal weapons. California has some of the tightest gun controls. But they can be undermined by loose laws in Nevada, where Californians can load up.

Same thing in Chicago. It has tough gun laws but is vulnerable to lax regulations in downstate Illinois and neighboring Indiana. Ditto Washington, D.C., and northern Virginia. That's why national gun restrictions and universal background checks are needed.

Wintermute says that gun deaths nationally have remained roughly the same in recent years, but have fallen more than 20 percent in California since 2000. That's true for both homicides and suicides, he says.

'Why is that?' he asks rhetorically. 'What are we doing right? Are we not doing something wrong that's being done in other states? We need to know.'

We won't find out from the federal government. The NRA persuaded Congress to kill off federal firearms research two decades ago, arguing the studies amounted to a gun control plot.

Finally, the state Legislature last week allocated $5 million to create a firearm violence research center at the University of California, the first such state entity in the nation. Gov. Jerry Brown has promised to OK the budget item.

A dozen gun bills are expected to be voted on next week in the Legislature.

Brown has been noncommittal, but spent nearly an hour Wednesday discussing the proposals with Senate leader Kevin de León, D-Los Angeles, and Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon, D-Lakewood. The governor, a gun owner, was curious about details.

Among the most controversial is a bill that would outlaw possession — not just the manufacture or purchase — of magazines that hold more than 10 rounds. Owners would need to sell their large-capacity magazines to dealers or people out of state, or turn them in to law enforcement.

Another bill would ban semiautomatic rifles with 'bullet buttons' that allow the exchanging of ammo magazines. Brown previously vetoed a similar measure.

A De León bill offers a simple way to require one-time background checks for ammunition buyers. There'd be no requirement for an ammo license, as in earlier proposals.

Under this bill, a bullet buyer would swipe a driver's license, which would signal whether there'd been a previous background check for a gun purchase. If not, the customer would need one background check and pay a nominal fee.

The info would be electronically updated if the buyer ever got on some bad guy list.

The gun lobby can't have it both ways and be credible. It can't claim it's all the fault of the killer while helping to arm the killer.

When it does, the gun lobby is mainly at fault — along with Congress.

George Skelton is a columnist for the Los Angeles Times.