Welcome to Common Gunsense

I hope this blog will provoke some thoughtful reflection about the issue of guns and gun violence. I am passionate about the issue and would love to change some misperceptions and the culture of gun violence in America by sharing with readers words, photos, videos and clips from articles to promote common sense about gun issues. Many of you will agree with me- some will not. I am only one person but one among many who think it's time to do something about this national problem. The views expressed by me in this blog do not represent any group with which I am associated but are rather my own personal opinions and thoughts.

Saturday, September 4, 2010

Ad Hominem comments?

Ad hominem abuse (also called personal abuse) usually involves insulting or belittling one's opponent in order to invalidate his or her argument, but can also involve pointing out factual but ostensible character flaws or actions which are irrelevant to the opponent's argument. This tactic is logically fallacious because insults and even true negative facts about the opponent's personal character have nothing to do with the logical merits of the opponent's arguments or assertions." 

Well, it has been an interesting few days reading and responding to some comments made on my last blog post. I guess I hit a nerve. To set the record straight to one of the people who chose to make comments about me on his own blog, he incorrectly wrote that I would automatically not publish his or any one else's comments. I actually get few comments on my blog. I have published most of them. So, to the person who wrote this, I say, you're wrong: " Now first up I’ll point out that this blogger has a very strong habit blocking ANY comments from people who disagree with her. As a matter of fact I’ve looked over months of blog posts and found This one was the ONLY one with comments from a pro-rights advocates. Joe brought her blog to my attention in mid-August, you’d think there would be more comments. Hell I dropped a few polite rebuttals there and they were all removed. You’re running against the tide from the get-go, hon. Oh also note that Curt has the lion’s share of rebuttals there and she instead is choosing to change subjects, and move goal posts. This is not the first time we’ve seen behavior like this."  

Hon? Really? What a put down and demeaning comment. It is also sexist and implies that I am just a little woman who knows nothing. And "behavior like this" ? What does that mean? When I express my thoughts and opinions and decide what to do with my own blog, it's "behavior like this"? Oh well. I guess some people will never be able to talk rationally without Ad Hominem attacks. 

I actually did block one of this man's previous comments. I found them to be in the nature of name-calling and actually not polite at all. I guess one person's view of what is polite is different from another's. There are just simply some people who cannot agree to even disagree. The gun issue is so incredibly contentious. It will be difficult to bridge the divide. And yet, I know, as I have said, that the majority is with me. Battling the NRA is very difficult. Battling with people who accuse you of things you don't do, don't think or don't feel is impossible. I will continue to write and I will continue to seek some "common ground" with people who realize that we can work together. There are many of those out there. I know quite a few of them. But whenever they dare to speak up, they are taken to task in a hateful manner by those who hate the idea of reasonable solutions to stop the shootings. I have no need to define reasonable and common sense as some want done. It speaks for itself. "Killing the messenger" doesn't kill the message. 

As long as 30,000 people a year die from gunshot wounds in this country, I will do what I can to stop that from happening. I have been abused verbally and threatened  for years now. Accusations about my sincerity, my facts, the Brady Campaign, etc. keep coming. I can take it. It won't bring my sister back. Maybe I can keep the sister, brother, child or grandchild of one of the people who hate what I stand for from being shot. I have often wondered if walking in my shoes would change what those people think. Sure, they say they're sorry about it, but then go on to tell me that she would have died anyway if my brother-in-law had had a knife. Or they tell me she could have defended herself if she had had her own gun. Or,or,or, or....what??

So, Happy Labor Day week-end everyone. I intend to enjoy mine without reading any more comments to my blog. Most comments are published by me. A few are not. The one from the guy who called me "hon" was not. Someone out there is going to quote me and say I don't know what I'm talking about or that I'm wrong. It doesn't matter. I believe in what I'm doing. I know I don't know everything. I do not feel a need to justify what I say to those who mock me. That's it for now.


  1. Hmmm.

    I didn't accuse anyone of "ad hominem abuse", so why would you attempt to link that version of the definition to our comment thread?

    If you read the entirety of the Wikipedia article that you excerpted, you will find that "ad hominem" is latin for "to the man".

    An ad hominem argument is one that avoids the message by dismissing the messenger.

    Admittedly, ad hominems generally take the form of insults and abuse, but they don't have to and that's not what I claimed.

    For a perfect example of an ad hominem that isn't necessarily abusive...from our earlier comment thread:

    "I wouldn't waste much time with sailorcurt. I've gone around with him before - learned that he likes to hear himself debate, and has no problem with convicted felons and the mentally ill and dangerous buying pistols and assault (read high capacity magazine) weapons at gun shows. He just doesn't believe the BATF when they call gun shows a major trafficking source of illegal guns. (Or says he doesn't believe) And now that there is more of crackdown on straw buyers, none-FFLs at gun shows should have an up-tick in business. (Those poor "unwary" sellers who would be criminalized by a background check requirement)"

    Note that the commenter didn't address any of the substantive points that I raised in previous comments, but advised you to dismiss my points for no other reason than because they came from me.

    Then the anonymous commenter (later identified as "Shooter"...a person whom I don't recall ever having an encounter or debate with before) proceeded to tell you what I believe, offering no substantiation for these charges or evidence of same, just accusations. Which, by the way, were either misrepresentations of my positions, or are just flat out false.

    As I said...a classic example of...how did I say it again?...Oh yes: "unsupported ad hominems".

  2. Almost all anti-gun blogs moderate comments, while few pro-gun blogs do. Many claim to only moderate for civility, but there is usually evidence that content plays a big part as well--extremely rude anti-gun posts are allowed to stand, while relatively trivial or nonexistent transgressions are cause for deletion if the content is pro gun.

    We call it "reasoned discourse", taken from a blog whose idea of reasoned discourse was deleting the majority of pro gun posts. I won't accuse you of this, but based on experience with most other blogs like this, it is not unreasonable to be suspicious.

    I agree that 30,000 people dying is too many--but somewhere between 2/3 to 3/4 of those people directly contributed to their own death. Ignored are the crimes that were thwarted because of guns, or the crimes that were not even attempted because the criminals were afraid of being shot. 192,000 women a year stop a rape with a gun. Rapists succeed more than 10 times as often when their victims are unarmed. According to a brief filed in the McDonald vs. Chicago supreme court case, when Orlando Florida police announced that they would offer gun training to women rape decreased to a fraction of its previous total--while rising in the rest of the state, and the rest of the country.

    The people who follow the rules are rarely the problem--but the rules affect us disproportionately. When someone breaks a bunch of existing laws and commits a gun crime, somehow the solution is to add yet another law for us to follow and the criminal to ignore.

  3. Your previous post claimed to be asking for dialog, yet it was filled with things that aren't true, laws that cannot do what you claim they will do, and lastly you block comments from people actually attempting to discuss the issues.

    You behavior comes off as disingenuous.

    I am indeed sorry for your loss, but it in no way makes your arguments logical, nor does it make you appear open for any sort of discussion.

    Also while this comment likely won't be approved, I welcome you to my blog that you linked if you are truly interesting in discussing the issue.

    As for "Behavior like this" I am simply referring to the dishonest nature of gun control supporters (Such as your suffering to the M1 as a "High Capacity Military Weapon", or saying that "Closing the Gunshow Loophole" will prevent "Prohibited people from buying firearms on the secondary market", ect ect, and the entire lack of debate or dialogue on the anti-gun side of the aisle.

  4. WHy does'nt that bell toll for the people who get stabbed, strangled, beaten or murdered in other ways besides being shot? Don't those people count or do anti-gun individuals simply not care because they have an agenda to push?

    And sorry- I dont have a link to any of those profiles so had to hit anon- the name is Mike

  5. Hello,

    I've read y our post, along with the post of the fellow who you disagree with.

    I would love a discourse, and am hoping that you will find my questions to be intelligent, thought-provoking, and food for reflection.

    My first query is thus: At what point do we stop banning *things*, and start to incarcerate VERY HARSHLY those human beings in our midst that cannot be part of civil society? Guns, along with knives, baseball bats, thick tree limbs, 2x4 lumber, hammers, screwdrivers, shards of pint glasses, tire irons, hatchets, rope, guitar strings, chairs, iron skillets, duct tape, dry cleaners plastic sleeves, pneumatic nail drivers, and even cars, have all been used in the commission of a violent crime which resulted in the death of the crime victim.

    I understand the thought process of *we have to start somewhere*, and I also realize that a gun is the lowest hanging fruit in the quest to start *somewhere*, but my question isn't about where we start...its about where we *end*. Because really, a human being who desires to take something from another human being by physical force will do so with whatever means available. And as I just listed above (all of those, by the way, have documented cases where they were used to commit murder) if you take away one thing, a societal dreg will just use something else.

    Gun supporters (such as the fellow on the other blog, as well as myself) aren't so much supporting *guns*...we're supporting our inalienable right to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness that is enshrined in our Declaration of Independence, and Constitution. We, as a whole, chose to carry, and if need be, use, the most effective tool that we can to thwart an attempt on our Life, Liberty, or Happiness.

    Second query: At what point to we make the Police responsible for our safety? I ask this because a governmental authority, no less than the Supreme Court itself, has decreed hat the Police are under no obligation to protect you *from* a violent crime...their job is to stop a crime in progress, and failing that, to investigate said crime, determine the perpetrator, apprehend said perp, and bring him before the Courts so that justice in accordance with the law can be meted out.

    When its your life on the line, and seconds count, the police are just MINUTES away. I'm sorry, but I'm not going to *do as the criminal says*, and hope against hope that this person who is already showing that they care not about me (after all, they accosted me with ill intent) will decide that I can live. Also, I would not expect a woman who is about to be raped to just *give him what he wants*, lay back, open her legs wide and try to enjoy herself. On the contrary, I would expect her to fight with all her being, claw, scratch, stick her fingers into his eye sockets and pull out his eyes if necessary, and yes, even shoot him if she has the ability to.

    In closing, I must point to Great Britain, which has successfully banned guns. The result was that their violent crime rate skyrocketed. They had to then ban knives, Cricket Bats, rope (under a certain length...I believe its 3 feet...) and a host of other normal, mundane everyday items, because criminals were getting quite creative.

    Shouldn't we stop blaming an inanimate object for *killing* someone, and start blaming the uncaring human being who *used* the inanimate object to commit said violent crime?

  6. And yet, I know, as I have said, that the majority is with me.

    Hmm . . . "the majority is with" you?

    That's odd--I wonder why you haven't succeeded in your agenda of forcible citizen disarmament yet. If you have a "majority" on your side, what's stopping you?

    Oh--the power of the "gun lobby" (which, I strongly suspect, you equate with the NRA, superb work by other groups, far less willing to compromise gun rights away notwithstanding--am I wrong?), right? But what is the source of that "gun lobby" power? Apparently not our millions of members--you say the "majority" is on your side. So what is it then--"gun lobby" wealth? But how could that be? The Violence Policy Center says that gun ownership (and thus gun industry revenue) has been declining steadily for decades. The VPC's Josh Sugarmann would appreciate it if you ignore the fact that while the percentage of gun ownership has declined, the number of gun owners has steadily risen--the number of people who choose to render themselves defenseless has grown faster than the number of people who choose the the course of freedom, independence, and personal empowerment, but that doesn't mean there aren't quite a few of us. But if Josh is telling the truth (are you saying he's not?), it's hard to imagine how the gun industry is financing the defense of armed liberty. Is the money coming not from the gun industry (although the Brady Campaign's position appears to be that it is gun industry money that has blocked much of the forcible citizen disarmament lobby's agenda), but concerned gun owners? If so, why are the "majority" not simply outspending us?

    I suppose you could argue that the forcible citizen disarmament supporters are the economically downtrodden, and can't match the money of the evil (and apparently wealthy) gun rights activists. To do that, though, you'll have to give up on the stereotype of gun rights advocates as unemployed (unemployable, due to our slack-jawed ignorance), trailer-dwelling (and poorly endowed in the male reproductive anatomy department--can't forget that gem--even if it has nothing to do with the subject at hand) degenerates. Are you ready for that?

    So, again, why is there not a federal ban of so-called "assault weapons," why are private gun sales not outlawed, why, in summation, are there still dozens of anti-liberty atrocities that the forcible citizen disarmament lobby salivates for, but has been unable to pass?

    Given your "majority," the only conclusion I can reach is that you folks are pretty weak in your activism. Why would that be? Lack of passion on your part? Understandable--what kind of sick individual is passionate about suppressing freedom and self-defense?

    Here's my advice: since forcible citizen disarmament advocacy apparently fails to spark your real passion (and for that, I suppose you deserve to be commended), consider finding a new hobby. A hobby, perhaps, that doesn't involve enabling tyranny, or placing obstacles between people and their ability to defend themselves.

    Don't thank me--I'm happy to help.

  7. Despite what several commentators say, you seem to me to be a brave, committed, tireless advocate for victims of gun violence. The "Hon" and "(find) a new hobby" comments suggest that you have attracted individuals who are not seriously trying to solve this problem. Find a "new hobby" must be particularly nettling since your "hobby" started after your sister was murdered by her gun-enthusiast husband. I have a feeling that most of your commentators have not experienced anything like what you have. They seem merely to be frightened individuals who are intently trying to frighten everyone else. Your fight has less the feel of a hobby than a courageous battle. Here's my advice: carry on!

    One more comment: it seems to me that often the statements made by your opponents are not supported. I realize that this is not the place for scholarly commentaries and footnotes, but it would be nice to look up where such assertions as the one about 192,000 gun toting women foiling rapes comes from.
    There is a somewhat famous Hubert Humphrey quote that was printed in a 1960 edition of GUNS magazine which illustrates his passionate commitment to the second amendment. The thing is, after months of trying, the only place in the universe that I can find that quote is in that issue of GUNS, where is is asserted without any indication of when he said it, where, and to whom. Even the HHH Institute at the U of Minnesota knows of that quote only from the magazine. It is so unlike Humphrey's usual fine liberal outlook that I have a problem swallowing it without at least some shred of evidence that he actually said it.

  8. Dragon made an interesting comment. After naming 17 none-firearm items used to commit murder, Dragon said "We, as a whole, chose to carry, and if need be, use, the most effective tool that we can to thwart an attempt on our Life, Liberty, or Happiness." Could that be why it is the gun that is the focus here? Effective in the hands of the bad guys, too, and chosen by them for the same reason.

    Touching on the M-1 issue, I have no idea why the Obama administration chose to stop their import unless it is the sheer numbers that might be of concern. The Remington 7400 is potentially more dangerous because high capacity magazines could be mfg'd for them. I see no practical way to convert an M-1 Garand to accept a high capacity magazine.

    One of the commenters earlier seemed to insist that closing the gun show loophole would necessarily involve gun registration. Not any more so than any sale by a FFL. Do I need to explain that?

    A general theme also seems to be that japete's side wants to ban guns. Come on folks - we're talking the banning of LEGALLY PROHIBITED PERSONS ONLY from obtaining guns. What's so hard about that to understand? Probably 99.99% of all firearms are mfg'd and sold lawfully (not sure how straw buyers affect that percentage). Otherwise it is the "law abiding" gun owner, and the secondary market which is the source of crime guns.

    If the law abiding would secure their guns from theft, and careless handling (accidental shootings) that would go a long way in reducing gun violence. There already are laws concerning the latter.

    If the loophole-at-gun-shows were closed, that would be another substantial step. In my state there are a minimum of two dozen major gun shows annually, attracting many thousands of attendees. There is a serious crack-down on straw buyers going on now in my state. That has to divert significant illegal purchases to non-FFL gun sellers at gun shows. Why should one argue with the BATF's conclusion that gun shows are a major trafficking source of illegally distributed guns?

    It is always brought up that determined criminals will find a way to get guns. It is up to responsible, law abiding gun owners to make that very, very difficult. Sometimes it takes a law to make the law abiding responsible.

    Two last points: #1, my object is to PREVENT gun violence. It's too late for the victims when the perpetrators are being sought, prosecuted, and incarcerated - all at serious tax-payer expense.

    #2 (I repeat) The cost of recovery from a gun shot has no comparison, on average, with the recovery from assaults by other means. I can't give you stats on this, but any major hospital will back me up. And, virtually all gun shot recoveries come at tax-payer expense, especially the gang bangers and others who we have little sympathy for. (So far, there's been zero response to this).


  9. Dragon made an interesting comment. After naming 17 none-firearm items used to commit murder, Dragon said "We, as a whole, chose to carry, and if need be, use, the most effective tool that we can to thwart an attempt on our Life, Liberty, or Happiness." Could that be why it is the gun that is the focus here? Effective in the hands of the bad guys, too, and chosen by them for the same reason.

    Very true...but you also have to consider demographics.

    What demographic best describes the criminal element in this country?

    Young, fit males between the ages of 16 and 29 (stats from FBI Uniform Crime Reports.

    So...assuming you could be successful in getting rid of guns (which every country that has ever tried demonstrates is impossible), who would benefit the most? The young, fit criminals who will prey on the weak, young, old and infirm...who now no longer have available the most effective means of self defense...or their victims?

    This is precisely WHY the violent crime rates (including gun violence) have increased in the UK throughout the entire, decades long process of gradually tightening gun regulations (that whole "slippery slope" thing) that culminated in the virtual ban of gun ownership by the general population in that country.

    The bottom line is that passing laws only disarms those inclined to follow them...which is exactly the demographic most in need of the most effective tools available in order compensate for disparities in physical capabilities between the typical attacker and their specifically targeted victims.

    The cost of recovery from a gun shot has no comparison, on average, with the recovery from assaults by other means. I can't give you stats on this, but any major hospital will back me up.

    I posted this in reply to this unsupported assertion on the other thread but it hasn't made it past japete's moderation queue yet.

    According to the CDC, from 2001 to 2008 (the years available in their "wisqars" reporting system), there were 408,052 non fatal firearm injuries.

    During the same period, there were 12,919,263 violence related, non-fatal "cut/pierce" and "struck by/against" injuries reported.

    That would mean that, in order for firearms to have had a more significant impact on society, the average violent non-firearm injury would have to have incurred a cost some 32 TIMES higher than the average gunshot injury.

    And that's just to reach parity. It would have had to have been significantly more than that to rationally justify focusing "anti-violence" efforts solely on guns.

    In other words, I find your claim to be dubious at best.

    You admittedly have no statistics to back up your assertion which means it's based upon nothing more than your "feelings"...a notoriously unreliable source of hard data.

  10. "I can't give you stats on this"

    No you can't. Stats support the logical side of this argument. While I respect your emotions "Shooter" and Japete, they aren't much good unless they are rooted in facts.

    I used to be as anti-gun as all of you, then I did a little research into the issue, and found I was running on some misconceptions. So I did some more research (Can you blame me? Its hard to admit what you stand for is wrong) and eventually I was left with two choices.

    -Ignore the truth and lie to protect my pride and my agenda

    - Embrace the truth and switch sides to support the right of lawful people to own arms, and instead focus on known criminals who cause the lion's share of the problems that you are misrepresenting with that 30,000 number.

    The debate style shown here and every other gun-control blog or spokesperson is consistently dishonest, and illogical. I would assume that most of you had made the same discoveries I have...but chose a different path.

    Correct me if I'm wrong.

  11. Let me re-phrase: The cost of any one gun shot injury recovery is greater, on average, than the average knife/blunt instrument recovery.

    Let's get off the "anti-gun" rhetoric. The issue, which you all know very well, is "anti-prohibited person".

    What we're saying is not based on emotions, but on common sense.

    So far I've seen only stats used to try to "win" a debate. This is too serious for just a debate. How about some positive effort to prevent the gun violence? You all just want to flap your gums or actually accomplish something positive?


  12. one gun shot injury recovery is greater, on average, than the average knife/blunt instrument recovery.

    Do you happen to recall the context in which that original point came up?

    japete framed gun violence in terms of "public health, public safety" and "social justice".

    In defending that position and to rationalize the focus of "gun violence" organizations on guns rather than violence, you asserted that the costs of gun violence to society are higher than the costs of other forms of violence.

    Now, all the sudden, it's not about costs to society, but about individual costs?

    Basically, you're so emotionally wedded to your position, that you'd rather be intellectually dishonest than to take a truly critical look at the basis for that position.

    I'm thinking that true, honest discussion is not exactly at the top of your priority list.

    Let's get off the "anti-gun" rhetoric. The issue, which you all know very well, is "anti-prohibited person".

    Then perhaps you'd like to explain why the Brady Campaign is opposing the importation of perfectly legal guns back into the country, for sale by licensed dealers after conducting background checks to ensure that they are not sold to "prohibited persons"?

    Perhaps you'd like to explain why the Brady campaign opposes demonstrably law abiding (not "prohibited persons") citizens carrying guns in public for self defense?

    Why the Brady campaign opposes law abiding (not "prohibited persons") citizens in Chicago and DC even being allowed to keep guns in their own homes for self defense?

    Why the Brady campaign opposes the ownership of modern sporting rifles (what they like to call "assault weapons") by law abiding (not "prohibited persons") citizens?

    Perhaps you actually are concerned not with gun ownership per se, but with preventing "prohibited persons" from getting them.

    But the Brady Campaign has proven again and again that it's not about being "anti-prohibited persons" at all. For that organization, it's clearly about being "anti-gun", pure and simple.

    Considering that the violent crime rates in this country have been steadily declining since their peak in 1991, during which time, concealed carry laws have been becoming increasingly liberal throughout the country, protections for victims who use firearms in self defense have been expanded, and hundreds of millions of new firearms have been purchased by law abiding citizens, I'd say we ARE doing something...and its working.

    As honorable and righteous as the cause of "reducing violence" is, gun control simply does not do that.

    I'll stop "flapping my gums" in opposition to proposals that have no hope of achieving their stated objectives as soon as you stop "flapping your gums" supporting them, and the Brady Campaign et. al. stop "flapping their gums" making them. Deal?

  13. Yes, please do stop "flapping your gums" and provide some facts. That reference you made, I acknowledged in my new post and then went on to look further into it. I found that homicides and suicides by firearm rank right up there as the leading causes of death among 2 age groups- clearly a collective cost to all of us. I would venture to say that the stitches my kids received as young children cost a lot less to society than the removal of a bullet or the surgeries to repair gunshot wounds or the long-term disabilities caused by gun injuries. I don't believe there is a comparison, Curt. I don't know how you can, either. Gun deaths have gone down since the 90s. Let's see- the Brady Law was enacted in 1994- any relationship there? Oh, the Assault Weapons Ban took place right around then. I wonder if that is related? Gun deaths and injuries have held at about the same level of plus or minus 30,000 for some years now but are not going below that. That's a lot of public safety, public health and social justice cost to the country. I would think it would be a lot more traumatizing to the community when someone is shot and injured or killed than when my kids go into the E.R. for stitches. I'm just saying....

  14. Could that be why it is the gun that is the focus here? Effective in the hands of the bad guys, too, and chosen by them for the same reason.

    Bad guys have more options, because they can schedule their crime. They can temporarily use a weapon that is impractical to carry daily, they can carefully select a victim that is smaller and weaker, they can team up.

    One of the commenters earlier seemed to insist that closing the gun show loophole would necessarily involve gun registration. Not any more so than any sale by a FFL. Do I need to explain that?

    The Brady's solution to the gun show loophole is to require all sales (not just gun show sales) to go through an FFL, and be recorded in their permanent bound book. This would allow the government to find the owner of every gun ever legally sold--how does that end result differ from registration?

    we're talking the banning of LEGALLY PROHIBITED PERSONS ONLY

    The Brady Campaign wants to use the terrorist watch list to declare someone prohibited--no due process, no recourse, just a clerk putting names on a list. Disabled veterans seeking treatment for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder get to choose between treatment or gun rights. I know someone who plead guilty to slapping her sister, because the fine was about 10% of the retainer her lawyer wanted to take it to trial--only to find out many years later that subsequent passage of the Lautenberg Amendment means she can't own guns.

    I won't argue against the idea that gun owners should take reasonable steps to prevent theft and accident--but that isn't the same as legally mandating how or what steps they take. Different people have different needs and different risks--and many of the solutions do nothing to prevent theft, they merely punish the victim.

    When you jail the violent, it is indeed too late for THOSE victims. However, there are a relatively few people responsible for the majority of violence. If you keep them in jail, or convince them that violence will have sufficient consequences, violence will drop. If you let the violence go with no consequences, you'll get more of it.

    Gunshot victims are expensive--so restrict guns. Using the same twisted logic, AIDS treatment is expensive, so restrict sodomy.

  15. Well, I can see we're not finished yet. " When you jail the violent, it is indeed too late for THOSE victims. However, there are a relatively few people responsible for the majority of violence. If you keep them in jail, or convince them that violence will have sufficient consequences, violence will drop. If you let the violence go with no consequences, you'll get more of it. " Are you kidding me? It was too late for my sister, that's for darn sure. My brother-in-law had absolutely no remorse once jailed. Since he killed my sister in 1992, did that stop others from pulling the trigger? No, no and no. That is total nonsense. It's like saying that cutting taxes for the wealthy will have a trickle down effect. It hasn't worked that way at all and won't. Neither will the idea that being put in jail work to stop criminals and law abiding citizens from shooting people. Remember, or have you conveniently forgotten, that most gun homicides are among people who know each other- domestic in nature. The random shootings are less than the domestic or shooters who know the victim shootings. In the heat of passion, mental illness, under the influence of drugs or alcohol, I would submit that someone intent on killing doesn't stop and say, "Maybe I should think this through. I might go to jail if I pull this trigger." Nonsense. I know how this works- I've been there.

  16. I'm very sorry about your sister. I haven't been reading long enough to know the details, and your blog isn't set up to make it easy to go back.

    But anecdotal evidence works both ways. When my wife was a child, one night she was home with her mom and sisters. A man started beating on the door of their trailer and wouldn't leave. Mom got a gun, and when the man kicked the door in, she shot him. He left, collapsed bleeding in the street until the cops came and took him away.

    My point was that relatively few murderers go from law abiding to murderer in one jump-the overwhelming majority are first convicted of some lesser felony. We could make at least a little progress in containing violence if we kept the violent out of society longer.

  17. Well, my brother-in-law and many of the others I know and know of were not convicted of anything before they decided to murder their wives/girlfriends or the daughters of several friends of mine. They were law abiding until they weren't. One or two bullets and they became instant criminals. How did your mother live with the idea of having shot someone, by the way? I have read many stories about police officers and others who have had a terrible time after they shot someone. There was an article in the Star Tribune a few years ago about a young man who shot the ex husband of his wife when he tried to break into their house. He had tried before and made threats. He shot the guy when he broke in once again in self defense and was not charged as it was a clear cut case of self defense. He said in an interview some time later that he had nightmares and was having a very hard time with the fact that he had shot and killed someone. In your mother's case, the burglar was not killed. But it is an awesome responsiblity to shoot someone. Shootings are so violent and so unexpected. I chose not to see my sister's body at the funeral home where the family could visit before she was cremated. I couldn't bear seeing her face after she was shot point blank in the head. I wanted to remember how beautiful she was. I have a picture of her posted on the blog I wrote on Aug. 5th, the anniversary of her death. I will look into how people get to see previous posts, by the way. Thanks for letting me know.

  18. Yes, please do stop "flapping your gums" and provide some facts.

    You're kidding right? Have you even been reading my comments? That blue text that accompanies many of my points? Those are called "links". They take you to the source of the data provided.

    I actually had been hopeful that you were going to keep the conversation civil like you claimed you wanted...unlike "shooter"...who's tone was dismissive and insulting right out of the gate and has remained that way since.

    I guess that hope was misplaced.

  19. Yes, Curt. I understand what the blue links are. I have referred to your links in my newest blog. Many of them are unsupported by facts. If I read absolutely everything everyone is sending and demanding me to read before we can engage in a discussion, I would be able to do nothing else with my life. Get a grip. This is just a blog.

  20. For sailorcurt: My initial comment about the cost of gunshot injuries: "The cost of recovery from a gun shot has no comparison... " I never made a comparison with gun shots (plural) with other injuries.

    Also, I don't answer for the Brady Campaign, so you can get off that, too.

    I'm beginning to believe that the commenters who insist that "gun control" (whatever that is) doesn't work, or that it puts undue burdens on the law abiding, must themselves be either "prohibited persons", or among the unlicensed private parties selling guns at gun shows. Why else do they fear background checks at gun shows? I've never had a problem buying a firearm from a FFL, or making a trade with a FFL, or just outright selling a gun to a FFL. And, I'm only one gun short of what I need.

    Our country relies on FFLs as firearm distributors. They're all fine people, in my experience. And, they deserve a level playing field at gun shows.

    Let's have a poll: Presently, federal law and the laws of many states allow non-FFLs to sell guns to anyone over 21, without a background check. A "don't ask, don't tell" policy. The question is "Do you agree that unlicensed gun sellers at gun shows should be legally able to sell firearms to convicted felons, the adjudicated mentall ill and dangerous, and those convicted of certain domestic abuse crimes? Yes or no. Other answers are invalid.


  21. Yes and a mini poll, unscientific, was just taken at the Minnesota State Fair. It was a survey put out by a non-partisan group and appeared at the Minnesota House of Representatives booth. The response to the question asked above: 85.2% of those who answered the survey questions agreed that background checks should be required on all gun sales at gun shows. We had nothing to do with this poll, by the way. Also, I need to say that, though I am associated with the Brady Campaign, they do not tell me what or how to think. I am free to express my own opinions and speak for what I think is right. We are not "sheeple" in any way.

  22. Let's have a poll: Presently, federal law and the laws of many states allow non-FFLs to sell guns to anyone over 21, without a background check. A "don't ask, don't tell" policy.

    This is false. IT IS A LIE!

    Japete, why do you support lying on this site in order to further your cause of restricting gun ownership? Do you have any personal integrity at all?

  23. Again with the lying claim. Nonsense. I support the truth. If you can't handle the truth, stop reading my blog. It appears that every time someone who expresses an opinion different from your own or presents facts from credible sources or uses actual stories from the media, you get your "undies in a bundle" Chill. Take a deep breath. No one is taking your guns away and no one plans to. This is about finding a way to stop people who shouldn't have guns from getting them. If that affects you, then I worry about you. If it doesn't, relax.