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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tuesday, September 7, 2010

Who the "gun guys" think I am

When I wrote my "Rights or Wrongs", "Guns, politicians and the State Fair" and "Ad Hominem Comments?" posts last week, I had no idea I would find out so much about who "they" think I am or what "they" think I'm up to, or what "they" think I should be doing instead of what I'm doing or why "they" know I am so wrong or misinformed or how "they" think I should just fold up my tent and leave well enough alone, or what "they" think I should have said instead of what I did say, or which facts "they"  know I have wrong, or which questions "they" think I had better answer in order to have a discussion with them. It was pretty interesting and enlightening. Here are a few examples:


1. " 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." The writer of this comment is pretty sure he is correct in his assessment and makes a statement of opinion as if it is fact. He's mistaken.


2. " 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." This is the same man who called me "hon" so I should have expected him to make more ridiculous claims and try to demean me. Note that I posted his comments.


3. " 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?"  Nonsense and I'm sure the commenter knows it. He is being provocative and changing the subject from gun deaths to other types of violent deaths. The Memorial Bell Garden, pictured on my post, is dedicated to Minnesota victims of gun violence whose numbers are higher than the other types of murders. It's the issue I have chosen to devote my time to and the Bell Garden was dedicated by people who specifically gave money for gun violence victims. I know there are groups that work on the other issues as well and I don't know whether they have bell ringings.


4. " 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." O.K. What? I really don't know what this commenter is getting at. A societal dreg? Not sure what that is. And a" human being who desires to take something from another human being by physical force"? This guy doesn't know me at all, obviously. I am not personally coming to take his guns away by physical force. Little old me? Not a chance.


5. " If you 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?" Again, what?? You can read my blog posts. You will not find any such words in anything I said. So this commenter was putting words in my pen. These are his words and his thoughts, not mine. He must want to project his own fears onto me and make it look like I am saying what he is thinking. I don't even understand what he wrote there. Do you? 


6. " Considering that such heinous violent criminals as those convicted of smuggling a single orchid in their luggage, or purchasing lobster tails packaged in clear plastic rather than cardboard boxes are deemed unworthy of gun ownership by the Brady law, I'd say that prevented sales is hardly a valid metric in evaluating the law's effectiveness." Hmm. Really? I wonder if someone who was convicted of smuggling a single orchid in their luggage is considered a felon? There must be more information here. Or is it really true? I know that the NICS includes names of felons and I'm sure those included must have committed a crime worth noting. I need proof of the above  descriptions of criminals by this commenter. He seems to be questioning the system that is keeping felons and others from buying guns. Why?


7. " No. I reject the idea that that the problems you see as "public safety and public health" and "social justice" issues are in any way related to guns." Well. Since gun injuries and deaths cost millions of dollars a year to the health care system and certainly cause public safety problems when they go off in public places or when someone is shot to death while minding their own business and gets caught in the crossfire, I wonder what this guy calls that? We will have to disagree on that one.


8. " I have no doubt that there were some abusive comments on the Brady blog...I've gotten them myself from time to time on my blog. The inescapable fact is that there are uncivil people on all ends of the spectrum. And people do tend to get heated when the discussion involves such controversial and emotional issues as criminal violence and constitutionally protected rights." No need for my comment on this one. It speaks for itself.


9. " The only real effect will be to complicate things for the law abiding and create instant criminals out of unwary, otherwise law abiding, citizens." That's what "they" always say. I need to know how that will happen. If an otherwise law abiding citizen had nothing to hide with a background check, how could requiring background checks on all gun sales at gun shows create instant criminals? If the buyer and the seller are not doing anything illegal, it won't be a problem.


10. " You and the Brady Campaign have exactly the same opportunities to lobby congress and to hold them accountable for not reliably representing your concerns as the NRA does, and if the majority supports you, you shouldn't find it all that difficult to get your agenda enacted." He's wrong here. We don't have the same opportunities as the NRA which is the most powerful lobbying group in D.C. It is well known that the NRA is extremely powerful, well-funded and influential which does, indeed, give it an unfair advantage. This person wonders why we don't have more money and more paying members. I wish we did. But the NRA  gives a lot of money to candidates and makes it clear that they will "score" votes and be watching how elected leaders vote. In addition, I know of legislators and members of Congress who have been threatened for taking votes against the gun lobby. We ( gun violence prevention groups) do not engage in that kind of behavior.


11. " A compromise requires concessions from BOTH sides of a disagreement. Asking for less than what you really want is not a compromise. What concession is your side offering in return, should we agree to background checks at gun shows?" Concessions? What could we offer? Do we have to offer anything? The gun lobby has had some victories of late in the Supreme Court and Congress. I don't know that they offered any concessions to my side of the issue. If someone can come up with a concession, let me know.


12. " Unless they can articulate a specific functional characteristic or feature of these rifles that make them particularly unsuitable for civilian use and ownership, then their opposition to their re-importation and sale simply defies logic." On this one, I admit to not knowing why exactly the administration opposes the re-importation other than their stated reasons of concern that importing that many guns of that type could lead to them getting into the wrong hands. Their concerns are not unreasonable. But I know we will have to agree to disagree on this one. We have a difference of opinion.


13. " One other issue: knives and bats can kill and maim, too. But, for those who survive a gun shot wound, the healing time and cost to the taxpayer has no comparison. Gun violence is definitely a public health issue - even when it's the bad guys being shot." This comment I can agree with.


14. " Approximately 1.7 million denials. How many of which were overturned on appeal? How many resulted in conviction of the person attempting to illegally purchase firearms? " I don't know the answer to these questions. I'm sure some have resulted in conviction and perhaps some have been appealed and overturned. So, what's the point?


15. " Now that I've given you more complete information...and if you still don't feel you have enough to form an opinion of your own independent of the Brady Campaign, I can give you even more details about these rifles, their capabilities and how they work...are you willing to look at the issue with an open mind and form an opinion based on the facts of the issue?" This commenter did provide me with lots more information about the M1 rifles I wrote about. Honestly, I have a problem with former military guns being used for hunting but I know people do use them. But an AK47, for example, for hunting? Yes, a "gun guy" told me he needed his AK47 to hunt. I don't think so. These guns were originally designed to be used in the military and then gradually made their way into the market place for use by anyone. It's a fact that the police feel "outgunned" on the streets because of more of this type of gun used by gangs, criminals and others. It seems to me that guns for self defense don't need to be AK47s and AR 15s or even M1s. For hunting, maybe. I need to be convinced.


16. " The bottom line is that it's not supposed to be a level playing field. The support...both in voters and in dollars...that platforms and agendas receive from the public are the measure by which support for those platforms and agendas are gauged. The court of public opinion has clearly reached a verdict." Really? Why not? Shouldn't it be? Shouldn't both sides of an issue be given equal opportunity to speak and present their positions and let the elected leaders decide after hearing from both sides on equal terms? Should money and loud talk be the influential factor in determining important issues of our times? The answer is obvious to me but I know the system doesn't work that way, unfortunately. I don't believe a "verdict" has been reached. 


17. " Is the BATF position that gun shows are a major trafficking source of illegal guns an "unsupported ad hominem? Is your apparent position that it's okay for dangerous prohibited people to buy guns at gun shows an "unsupported ad hominem" also? Is everything you can't respond to an "unsupported ad hominem?" This one, written by someone who supported my positions, asks good questions.


18. " Pretty hard when you don't answer the questions you do publish, and god knows how many more comments don't make it past your filter." Very few, actually, but a few of yours didn't. I didn't like your dismissing me in your own blog as "hon". I haven't called you any demeaning names nor will I.


19. " The phrase "Gun Show Loophole" is fundamentally dishonest. It is really the "private sale loophole", or the "unregistered guns" loophole,". Yes, good idea. Thanks.


20. " You'll have an answer on whether we can find common ground on the issue from your standpoint based on the comments I've read when you can explain the difference between the M1 Garand demonized by Dennis Hennigan and the Remington 7400 and why the M1 needs to stay out of civilian hands and but the 7400 is fine." Yes, sir! I'll study up for the test.


21. "  In almost every case, spree shooters act in places where guns are not allowed. In every case as soon as someone shoots back the spree is over and no more uninvolved people are shot. Sometimes the madman takes his own life, sometimes he is captured, and some have managed to shoot the good guy trying to stop them--but the spree is done. "  So what's the point here? If we had guns everywhere, then we wouldn't have shootings anywhere? A stretch.


22. " 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." I checked this one out and found that this commenter is correct. I wonder, though, what comprises "cut/pierce" and "struck by/against" injuries are exactly? One could assume that when each of my kids had to have stitches for cuts, that would count in the stats as a visit to the E.R. or an M.D. I would venture to say that these incidents did not cause long-term injuries such as the ones incurred by gunshot victims, many of whom are left immobilized or with shrapnel that moves around in the body and needs surgery after surgery. And yes, I know people who have suffered from said injuries. As to "struck by/against", I would think that could include a child who is struck by something thrown by another or a baseball player who is struck by a ball, etc. Sometimes these type of injuries cause long-term damage. But gunshot wounds, I think, speak for themselves. I also checked the same website as this commenter. Unmistakably, firearms are the leading cause of homicide and suicide deaths in almost all age category. I would recommend that you check this out for yourselves. If you click on the red "homicide" box in each age category, firearms are the leading cause. If you click on the green "suicide" box, firearms are the leading cause of death. The "unintentional injury" blue box varies by age but shows other causes rise to the top above firearms. So we can quibble about the types of injuries that are caused by various methods. But we can't quibble about the fact that firearms are the leading cause of both homicides and suicides at all age levels. In addition homicide and suicide are the #2 or #3 cause of death in the 15-34 age categories. Stunning. But let's not work on this issue since there are so many other causes of deaths and injuries. Who is changing the subject and trying to mislead?



23. " 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." Nice. Now I'm dishonest and illogical. No name calling or ad hominem attacks from this guy!! This is the same guy who called me "hon". 


24. " 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." Duh. This is a no-brainer, folks. Thanks for this comment.


25. " 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." I couldn't have said it better myself.


25. And finally, this one: " 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!"


I would note that these quotes are obviously taken out of context of the full remarks which you can find on my blog posts yourself. The misspellings or grammatical errors within the quotes are not mine but those of the commenter's. I meant this blog post to be a way of letting readers of my posts know what folks on the both sides of the gun issue are saying to me, about me, and about the issue. Can we find common ground? It's hard to see how based on these comments. But I do know a lot of people who are genuinely interested in common ground and working together. I will work with them and continue on with my "hobby." I have other hobbies, thank goodness, which fill my life. I hope the folks who wrote here do, too. I am trying to understand how some fairly simple laws can reduce gun injuries and deaths. That's what this is about. It is apparent that any law that is proposed, no matter how watered down, will not, as I said before, "pass muster" for some. 


And lastly, no wonder the Brady Campaign and other such organizations stopped posting comments on their websites. It's impossible to monitor them, let alone answer all of the questions and red herrings in the comments. And, I would say it borders on harassment. This type of behavior does not lead to discussion. In the future, I will be judicious about posting comments. I have other things to do with my time- "hobbies", I guess some of you would call them. I'm sure you would love it if I would just mind my own business and spend some time in the kitchen baking cookies and sweeping floors. I have learned that "if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen." I'm remaining in the kitchen with my blog and I'll bake some occasional cookies along with all the other things I spend time on. Expect to see more from "hon."





46 comments:

  1. Thanks for the post, highly illogical, totally irrelevant, and 100% devoid of facts.

    There's a reason why you have no support for your cause.

    Also loved your pitiful cries of victim-hood for one utterance of "Hon".

    I'd be embarrassed to have written what you have.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Yup. Pretty much everything you included in this post was out of context. Many of your "rebuttals" to the quotes you gave were already addressed in the comment thread in which it was originally posted.

    You list in the very header of your blog that the purpose of it is "thoughtful discussion". People trying to engage in that with you is hardly "harassment".

    Do some people get a little worked up on these issues? Absolutely. We're talking about constitutionally protected, enumerated rights here. If your blog were dedicated to restricting the rights protected by the First Amendment or Fourth Amendment any of the other rights protected by the Bill of Rights, I, for one, would be just as adamantly opposed to you.

    Some people's style of discussion you don't appreciate. I can understand that. I consider pretty much everything that "shooter" has posted to be insulting and demeaning...but I'm not about to throw down the victim card and use that as an excuse to avoid the points or arguments made.

    It's becoming increasingly obvious that "thoughtful discussion" is not what you're about at all. I apologize for wasting your (and my) time.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Thanks for all the nice things you said about me, "hon". I don't appreciate them. Please give it a rest. I'm done posting your comments.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Dear Curt,

    I call it harrassment when the same people comment many times a day about the same old stuff. I don't appreciate being harrassed by you guys. I'm not harrassing you. I am not on your blog writing comment after comment after comment. Let's get some new people involved. Maybe they would generate some new information and provide links that aren't based on innuendo. I'm sorry you don't like it. I don't believe you really had any intent on having a thoughtful discussion with me. You only wanted to point out to me that most everything I say is wrong as the commenter before you. I am 100% inaccurate? Really. And you all are 100% accurate 100% of the time? Hardly.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Point 25. Many others have also lost loved one's through the actions of a dispicable person through the use of a firearm. They took up the cause to make it easier for lawful citizens to carry protection since it appears with gun bans that only criminals will have them. If you want names, I can list them.

    The issue here is that banning guns does nothing to remove the action of the individual who murdered your sister. If he was that violent, that pent up, he would have found something else, a nice, a lamp, a hammer, [continue list].

    I am sorry for your loss, but from my point of view, you are having the wrong reaction. The snake is out of the bag. You cannot remove firearms from existence. If they can't be bought, they can be made. Ammo was made long before manufacturers started doing it commercially. The knowledge is out there.

    As to the original commenter of #25, it is ironic to me that you talk about how someone was murdered by someone in one sentence and then call those who would like to defend themselves as "frightened individuals".

    The point behind people not liking it being called "gun show loophole" is that I can privately sell a firearm to someone in a Walmart parking lot or.. in my home. It isn't a "gun show loophole" and to call it that is just trying to confuse the population who doesn't understand the issues. I've never seen a pro-criminal (those who want to take guns out of lawful people's hands) explain that these firearms can be sold anywhere, not just at gun shows.

    Also, if you were to somehow write legislation that would require a background check, would it only be at gun shows or 100% across the board? If the check costs money, that is also limiting lawful people the ability to transfer ownership of a firearm to another lawful person by causing undue financial stress. When you are selling a used weapon for much less than it would sell new, padding the transfer with undue charges is wrong.

    Also there is currently no way for a non-dealer (FFL) to perform a background check.

    I hope that was reasoned and polite enough for you. I might right up an article about your other points.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Patrick- " The issue here is that banning guns does nothing to remove the action of the individual who murdered your sister. If he was that violent, that pent up, he would have found something else, a nice, a lamp, a hammer, [continue list]." Did I ever say anything about banning guns? Have you seen that anywhere in what I have written? The answer is no. Wherever you have seen the words "gun banning", it has come from the commenters on my blog who insist that that is what I'm talking about.

    I do not need to hear from you or anyone else that my sister could have been killed just as easily with another weapon. Give me a break. I have had many years to think about this. And how obnoxious it is to have someone tell you that they are so sorry about the death of your sister. But, by the way, she would have died anyway if the shooter had had a hammer. Really? You've got to be kidding me. What is the actual number of deaths by hammer? Do you have those figures? Or nice lamps? How many people die from being hit with a "nice lamp"?

    There most certainly is a loophole in the Brady law that does not address private sellers at gun shows. That loophole allows anyone to buy any kind of gun from a private seller at a gun show without a background check. Usually, that is considered a loophole. Or maybe it's an omission. We could call it the gunshow omission if that makes you feel better. I am not talking about the guns sold in the Walmart parking lot though I have no doubt that that happens. I have said over and over again that I am talking about gun shows. Financial stress? How do these people buy guns from FFLs? I'm sure if they can afford the $600-$1000 for a gun, they can come up with the $10 for a background check. Causing undue financial stress? Come on. Do FFLs pad the transfer with undue charges? It would quite easy for an unlicensed seller to walk down the row to a FFL at the gun show to get the background check. That's how it works in the states where these laws exist. It is not rocket science. It's pretty easy and will take only a few precious moments of the buyer's time. If they don't want to take the time, what's the rush? If they don't want the background check, why not?

    I am waiting for your article about my other points but if you write it, I suggest you make sure you are writing about what I have actually said. And please leave my sister's death out of this. Others have tried that with me before. It is ridiculous and totally insensitive as well as provacative to challenge someone on that point. I don't appreciate anyone telling me that my sister would be just as dead if my brother-in-law had just used a hammer or a nice lamp.

    ReplyDelete
  7. 1. Not sure what I am mistaken about--my claims were of gun control blogs in general, not yours specifically. You do have moderation turned on, most gun rights blogs do not.


    6. Smuggling the wrong orchid can be a felony--or the right one without the right paperwork. So can shipping a lobster in the wrong bag, or oysters without tags. In some places a joint is a ticketable offense, others a felony.

    7. Guns are not pure evil--at least occasionally in the right hands they are a benefit--often without a shot being fired.

    9. This depends on the details of implementation. Is it just gun shows, or is it all private sales? If it is just gun show, how is a gun show defined in legal terms?

    10. If the Brady Campaign had real grass-roots support, they could do the same as the NRA. I'm sure the Brady Campaign would engage in that sort of behavior if they could back it up.

    14: Hardly any denials are even investigated--A fraction of a percent. That frustrates me immensely--A deny should automatically result in a call to the local police by the NICS people.

    15: What is the fundamental difference between a Remington 750 Woodsmaster hunting rifle and an AK47?

    16: It really depends on what you mean by present their positions--equal advertising time, even if they can't pay for it? Should Fred Phelps get the same "equal time" for his insanity?

    17: It is against the law for prohibited people to buy at gun shows. It is against the law to knowingly sell to them--but it is also against the law for non-dealers to use the NICS system.

    21: If we are going to make policy based on spree shootings, we need to reconsider making places off limits to people with licenses, We don't need more people armed, but we should use facts and history to determine which place should be off limits, not emotion.

    23: There is a ton of dishonesty among gun control blogs and spokesmen. In blogs it is understandable--you aren't an expert, you go to the experts on your side, and trust them to be at least truthful.

    I can imagine that this might feel like drinking from a firehose, your blog comments exploding out of nowhere, from bloggers you've probably never heard of.

    Many of us would like to find a way to have a real conversation with someone on your side. I would like to see if there is common ground, I'd like to understand what you believe and why--Especially what you think of the second amendment and how gun control fits with it. Whether some of your beliefs (or mine) are based on misinformation, and if we can find a credible source to agree on.

    I don't know if it can be done in a traditional wide open blog format, though.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I often wonder how someone such as you would react to the fact that my 17 year old son has his own AR-15, that he keeps in his room with 2 full mags, and that I have already bought him his pistol and holster rig. On top of that my son probably has more training then most cops since he comes with me to training sessions (i.e. combative pistol and carbine or how to shoot people who need shooting as efficiently as possible including multi-target engagements). I have no fear about me not being home- my son has the tools and knowledge to protect himself and the family (to include high stress decision making in a shoot/no-shoot scenario).

    Mike B

    (sorry I have to keep hitting anon but none of your profile buttons go to any area that I have an account)

    ReplyDelete
  9. It is so beyond belief that I can't even comment about your son. Good luck with that. I hope he never uses those guns on anyone or hurts himself or someone he loves.Kids and guns don't mix. Why does your son need to live in an "armed camp" at home? Does he have a life outside of guns? Does he spend time with friends or a girlfriend or does he go to football games with his friends? Or is he so afraid to go outside of the house that he doesn't have a social life? It's scary out there at high school dances, football games, basketball games, etc. You never know who's lurking in the shadows!

    ReplyDelete
  10. To all who are reading my posts: Mike W. has posted 6 of the most offensive and inane comments yet received by me on this blog. I will no longer post his comments but I will keep them in my files as an example of how rude and perjorative some of the gun guys get while trying to intimidate people about the gun issue. If any elected leader wants to know why they should not believe what they hear from the NRA, Mike is a prime example of the type of hyperbolic rhetoric that should not be considered valid in this "discussion".

    ReplyDelete
  11. I see reasoned discourse has broken out.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I don't know why I typed that. I didn't mean a nice lamp. You can see the comma. I meant ice pick. Not sure how that turned into "nice" from my brain to fingers. I'm sure that doesn't make it any better for you, but while you are looking at the tragedy up close, I am seeing it for what it is. A tragedy. I am sorry she died as I would be anyone killed for no reason. I can empathize with your pain. I have lost loved one's. If you want to be hurt by my comments, that is up to you. I say them with no callous intent.

    The fact that you are focusing on the item and not the person... That is the point. Why not work to stop domestic abuse? Nope.. go after the tool. And if it had been a screwdriver?

    And you are missing the point. I'm sure there are a lot of numbers out there for the murders by pick, lamp, and hammer. Bludgeoning is a very common way to kill someone. There are so many common tools to do it. Bat, golf club, tire iron, etc. The point is that he would have done what he was going to do whether he had a firearm or not.

    And no. I haven't seen anywhere you mentioned banning guns here, but that is the slippery slope and most gun control advocates start in one place and end up in another. Sorry if you are being picked on because we are use to dealing with the stereotypical lot of "you".

    And no.. That "loophole" isn't about gun shows at all. That loophole allows "certain" people [not felons, that would be illegal] to buy "certain" guns [automatics must go through a process involving an FFL because of the $200 ATF stamp, I believe] from a private seller ANY WHERE. You could CLOSE the gun shows and it would not stop these transactions from taking place. Why don't you get that? You ARE talking about the guns in Walmart parking lot because that is JUST as legal as doing it in the parking lot of a gun show. Like focusing on firearms instead of the murder, now you are focusing on the location instead of the problem. You want to keep felons from getting firearms? Keep them in jail. Stop letting them out for the 5th DUI. Stop letting them go after they have run over and killed their THIRD person [happened in MA]. Most felons cannot purchase firearms illegally in prison.

    The financial stress I speak of is in regards to the seller. He would have to pay for the cost of the background check and because HE is selling a USED firearm, he can't simply pad the numbers. An FFL can do that with a new firearm but he also has to compete with the dealer at the next table as well.

    And no, that is NOT how it works in the states that these laws exist because it is ILLEGAL for a private citizen [non-FFL] to use the NICS system and a dealer can lose his license for running people that he's not selling firearms too. Some states have STATE backgroudn checks, but they do not run through the NICS so it isn't Federal.

    I will get around to the article when I have time, although Sevesteen probably hit my points. I talk more than he does so I could probably flesh it out more and I might have a point or two he didn't make, but still.

    I only brought up your sister because you opened the door. I wouldn't have even KNOWN about it had you not mentioned it. There is no way you can expect to have a reasoned discussion if we can't discuss things, all things, including your sister. Her death is part of the reason you feel the way you do, so I don't know how you and I can avoid that pink elephant.

    I'll leave that alone though. I've said enough about the issue. I just wish you would focus on the ROOT of the problem and not the tool. And I'm sure you didn't appreciate my comment and it may have been brash but it doesn't change the fact that it is true.

    @Mike B. At the bottom of the "select a profile" is the standard Name/URL. That is the one I use as I still can't get openid to work. It's RIGHT above the anonymous.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Patrick- There is a lot to respond to here and there isn't space to do so nor do I have the time to address all of these. I will try to write a new post about some of the ideas you raised and answer some of your questions. But I will respond to your points. It is still pretty hard for me to believe that you could have typed "nice lamp" when you meant "ice pick" but I'll take you at your word and not attack you for saying the wrong thing as I have been attacked by so many of you guys. There is a point that I will make here now, though. You probably also don't know that I sit on the Board of the Domestic Abuse Intervention Programs, based in Minnesota, which is a model for how law enforcement and social agencies deal with domestic abusers. We do trainings all over the world and sell manuals to people world-wide. There is something called the Coordinated Community Response which is known to be very effective. The programs also work with men who abuse. It's a wonderful organization and I'm proud to be a part of it. I also volunteer at a Familly Justice Center of the Battered Women organization in my city. I do intakes on women who walk in the door having been abused and threatened by their spouse, boyfriend, ex-boyfriend, ex-spouse, etc. It is an eye opener to sit with these women and hear their stories. The legal advocates at the facility work with them to get orders for protection which hopefully will save their lives. And when a gun has been used as a threat, they ask the judge to order that the gun be taken from the abuser. The local law enforcement agencies have gotten better at taking weapons from them. But then we have a problem. The weapons need to be stored some place. The local police departement does not have room in the small place where they store weapons because they have so many crime guns, and guns temporarily taken from abusers, etc. So then they may ask family members to keep the guns for these guys. I think that is not a great idea, actually. The guns must be maintained and returned, if they are, in the same shape they were when taken. It stunned me to find out that the police department did not enough room to keep all the guns they have found or taken at crime scenes. It also stunned me to know how many women have been threatened with a gun or how many of the abusers own guns which makes it possible, given that they abuse, that they will use the gun on the women. continued next comment....

    ReplyDelete
  14. continued....
    The most dangerous time for a woman is when she has just left or just leaving. That was the case for my sister. She had not been physically abused by my brother-in-law but had been harrassed verbally and she had a restraining order. He was actually quite a gentle man who had some mental problems, undiagnosed. He was madder than hell about the protracted divorce and the money issues. Guns were very available to him. Since you didn't know the situation or either of the people involved, you couldn't possibly understand what I do. My sister was a strong and physically fit person and was accompanied to my brother-in-law's home by the man she was seeing after waiting years for a divorce. ( and yes, he was already seeing someone else as well). He also shot and killed her boyfriend. A gun can be weilded from a distance and aimed no matter where someone goes. He chased the man around his house with the gun and even re-loaded. I doubt that could have happened with an ice pick. My sister could have defended herself against an ice pick and was stronger than my brother-in-law. That's why people use guns. They are lethal and you don't have to get up close to the person you are killing. It is much less "personal" that way. I know what I know. I know about the crime scene. I know how it happened. So for someone else looking from the outside to question it and say what you said is disengenuous. It would be wise for you and others if we are to have this "discussion" for you not to question what I know about my sister and the situation of her murder. That stops discussion in it's tracks and doesn't lead to anything that can get us closer to the issue at end. It is what it is. Losing a loved one in so violent a way as this is difficult at best. But when people question the details, it is a show stopper. I will attempt to answer other of your questions and concerns later. I do appreciate your trying to explain what you meant and dialing it back a little. For the sake of productive dialog, that is the only way to go. And, by the way, I usually do not go into such detail for people about my sister's murder but if it helps the dialog, I will do so. It is very personal information.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Something else I did not mention in above comments: Guns are typically used in these cases because everyone knows they are lethal and powerful. When someone across the room from you is holding an ice pick or a hammer or a lamp and threatening you, can't you imagine that you can run away? But when they are aiming a gun at you, where can you go? You can try to get away but everyone knows a bullet can be fired from a distance and hit the target. That's the difference for me. And it is the truth that some murders happen with other types of weapons as you suggested. But the numbers pale by comparison to gun deaths. And that is the plain fact that cannot be disputed. So if I were you, when talking to a victim of a gun death, I wouldn't even bring that up. It just causes too many hard feelings. Also, please don't say you are sorty for my loss. I get the impression when people say that they really arent' because they don't know me. After you have heard my whole story and the stories of the many people I know because I am so involved, then you can say you are sorry. And if you heard all of these stories, you would be greatly affected by them. They are tragic leaving behind a community of victims trying to deal with the shocking and violent nature of the death of their daughters, sons, husbands, wives, sisters, brothers, close friends. I know too many of these people and have heard their stories. It is what motivates me, as you said. Truly listening to the stories may actually motivate you as well. But you would need to really listen and get to know the stories and not be judgemental about them. They are what they are.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Following this with interest. Congratulations to you for running opposing comments. Two suggestions about whose comments to print (and feel free to ignore them):

    1) Though Mike B's comment seems sincere, I feel that the story of his son and their home bespeaks a very unusual, almost deranged degree of fear. If someone feels that turning one's home into an armed camp and training one's children to kill effectively is an appropriate response to the risk of suffering an intrusion into one's home, then I feel it is very unlikely that person is going to be persuaded by a conversation like this. I think you'd be justified in not running comments from readers like this. If they are numerous, then we have a bigger problem than I thought.
    Now, I'd be as afraid as anyone if my home were entered. However, while I do think we have a very serious problem with gun violence when you look at the country as a whole, I don't think one's individual risk of suffering this is very high. It is certainly not high enough for me to do what Mike has done. I'd be too concerned that my son's view of the world was being distorted and that I or he might wind up shooting someone who really was just after our "stuff" and not our lives. As chicken as I am, I'd much rather give anyone any of my stuff than shoot him. There'd at least be a chance that the police could get my stuff back and, if not, at least I would not have killed or wounded someone who was not attempting to do that to me.
    From what I've read, shooting someone is not like taking a walk in the park. Besides the damage to a fellow human being (however in the wrong he was), there is the damage to one's self to consider.

    2) I have a lot in common with the gun enthusiast respondents in this blog. I hunt and consider a fine shotgun or hunting rifle a thing of beauty. A thing worth working for, paying for, and waiting for. Not being able to stroll to the nearest gun show or store and carrying off a weapon would not bother me. I'd gladly wait for a background check, for example.
    It seems to me the people who won't wait or feel it's an infringement on their freedom to wait feel that way not because of a sporting interest, but because they have convinced themselves it is essential to their safety and freedom to have immediate access to any gun, any time, anywhere.
    This brings me to another reason you might use to deny a comment: anyone who mentions, as Wayne LaPierre did, "jack-booted government thugs" is not going to contribute to or learn from an exchange of ideas like this. The current craze to characterize President Obama as a Nazi is akin to Mr. LaPierre's sentiment. It is a sentiment of those who have a trivial and bizarre notion of what Nazism was. Their notions trivialize the actual events of the Nazi era. It is a sentiment of those who feel it is their responsibility to frighten themselves and others around them with nonsense. The idea that our current government shares anything with Nazi Germany is simply wrong and deserves to be disregarded.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Bravo, anonymous. And thank you!!

    ReplyDelete
  18. If your sister had a gun she might be alive today

    ReplyDelete
  19. I was waiting for that comment. I'm surprised it hasn't come sooner. I suppose you think I haven't heard it before? You would be wrong, of course. Since I know the crime scene and how this all went down and you don't, it's ridiculous for you to assume anything. That being said, I have thought about that argument and rejected it. I don't need to share the crime scene with you because it is pretty personal. Suffice it to say that she would have no opportunity to pull out a gun. She had no purse where she was. Do women generally carry holsters around? It wouldn't have matched her outfit!! Come on you guys. You all picture yourself saving the day with your guns. Do you know anyone who has gone through the simulated police training? I know several. They have told me that they missed almost every time they tried to pull out their "weapon" because the adrenaline was flowing and things were happening so quickly. They were surprised when the guy with the gun came into view somewhere they didn't expect. Do you think my sister expected that my brother-in-law was going to shoot her that day? They were in a long and messy divorce process. There was some anger. But they were talking to each other and she was trying to complete the process so she could move on with her life? Did you know my brother-in-law? He was not an inherently violent person. He had a lot of guns around his house. I didn't know that. I don't know if my sister did or not. She can't tell me now. That was discovered at the crime scene. They were hidden in many places. He could grab one from any number of locations. So, in your scenario, a shoot out would have occured and she would have won. If only things worked out that way. Look at how many police officers get shot even though they have their guns. It just doesn't work the way you imagine it. So stop saying that to victims. It is counter productive and not useful information. "What if" scenarios don't add to the knowledge we need to make intelligent decisions regarding guns and gun deaths and injuries. That's what this is all about. More guns have not made us safer. If they had, we wouldn't have the largest percentage of gun deaths per 100,000 then other countries not at war. The facts are the facts.

    ReplyDelete
  20. "Do women generally carry holsters around? It wouldn't have matched her outfit!!

    Yes, most women I know who carry do so in a holster. Purse carry is not smart.

    "Do you know anyone who has gone through the simulated police training?

    Yes, I know several police officers who have done simunitions training and I've had the pleasure to watch said training in action.

    So, in your scenario, a shoot out would have occured and she would have won.

    NO. I did not say that. I said "MIGHT HAVE." A gun is not a magical talisman that protects you from danger, it is a tool that can be used to increase your odds of coming out on top in the case of a violent attack.

    "More guns have not made us safer."

    Please back up this statement.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Honestly, I have a problem with former military guns being used for hunting.

    Why? What rational basis do you have for that belief?

    ReplyDelete
  22. Raise your hand if you've seen women walking around in public with guns in holsters. I did back up my statement about more guns not making us safer. I have done so over and over in blog posts. But for some of you, that's not enough. If you keep asking the same questions and getting the same answers and still are not satisfied, that's your problem. If you don't like the answer, that's also your problem and a difference in opinion. As I have said, the facts are the facts. And, to the poster whose obnoxious comments I will not post- I have one of the most open comment section of most people who are blogging about this issue. Just stop writing- you have no idea what you are saying apparently. If I say black, you say white. If I say red, you say blue. If I say no, you say yes. If I say maybe, you say never. If I say above, you say below.

    ReplyDelete
  23. To the post above this one- it's an opinion, sir. It may not even be rational. I was offering my opinion just like you do. Some things are opinions and I say so. Some things are facts and I say so when they are.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Actually, my opinions may not be "rational" to you just as some of your opinions are not "rational" to me. If you present them as your feelings or your opinions, it's different than facts. Some people do not have problems with former military guns being used as hunting guns. It just happens that I do. It doesn't mean I'm right and you're wrong. It means we feel differently about that one.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Yes, but if your opinion has no rational, factual basis it should not be considered to have any credibility whatsoever.

    For example, you could say "I believe all whites are intellectually superior to blacks." This would simply be your opinion, how you feel.

    Sure, it'd be your opinion, but it'd also be demonstratably false, ignorant, bigoted, and without any intellectual credibility.

    If you have concrete facts on which you base your opinions they are credible. If you are simply spouting off ignorant tripe about "military weapons" with nothing to substantiate your position then your position is intellectually bankrupt and should be considered as such.

    A rational, intelligent person grounds their opinions in factual evidence. You fail to do so.

    ReplyDelete
  26. No name calling, sir-"ignorant tripe?" I said I had a problem with military style weapons being used for hunting. I don't like them because they are semi-automatic assault weapons that are designed to kill as many people quickly, as would be needed in combat.They can be carried on the hip and used to spray bullets and have large capacity magazines and other combat features that aren't used for hunting. The only reason I can see for having one is for shooting as many people as possible. That is how they tend to be used by people who have used them to kill police officers. They are the weapon of choice for the Mexican drug cartel who get most of them here in the U.S. ( yes, that is true and a fact). That's why I have a problem with them. They have the potential to wreck much more havoc and killing than other guns. They have been and could be used by terrorists, who can, by the way, walk into American gun shows and buy them without background checks. That is my problem.

    ReplyDelete
  27. WOW, speaking of "ignorant tripe." One only need read the entire comment above this.

    It's sad that you actually believe what you just typed, since it is ALL demonstratably false.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Now you will know why people and bloggers don't publish your comments, anonymous ( one of a few of you using that name). Did I call you a name? Did I demean you? Did I call you ignorant? Did I say that everything you have said is false? I suppose you think that would be great- if instead of having a discussion about issues and a back and forth with facts and a few opinions, you would prefer to just have a word fight and find the worst words you can call someone to intimidate and bully them into your position? Well, you are wrong. Now you will know why your comments will no longer be published by me. As you can see, I have opened up my blog to all kinds of commenters- the very thing you accuse most of us of not doing. The reason why is evident. Name calling is not the way to get your way. It's immature and bullying. I feel sad for you if you are like this in real life. Does your family like it when you call them names? Do your co-workers appreciate derogatory names when you are having a conversation? Is this how you write to your friends? There are some Bible verses about such things. Or don't you believe they are true either. Have a nice life. I hope you enjoy belittling, bullying, annoying, and intimidating others but it won't be me. Thanks for the good time, though.

    ReplyDelete
  29. No.. your comments about your sister are good and explains a lot of why you feel the way you do. And that you don't feel that I can say "I'm sorry for your loss" until I know the details is extremely rude and judges me. I can't have sincere feelings about another human's loss? I have lost nobody in my life so I couldn't possibly understand that feeling you might be going through until I know the details? That is condescending at best. I'm a human being and regardless of what you might believe, I do not want to see people killed (maybe bad people, who've given up their right to live by murdering others) and can sincerely say that when someone loses a love one, I feel for them. If you can't accept that, it's on you, not me.

    As for the latest comment about military weapons, I covered that in my blog post that went this morning. The M1 Garand battle rifle isn't possible to spray from the hip. It is a semi-automatic that cannot hold more than 8 rounds. That is the military weapon you are referring to about hunting. That is the military weapon in the news. Dennis doesn't know what he's talking about and you are mirroring him. That is why the previous commenter called it "ignorant tripe". It is not attacking you to attack your comments. He didn't say you were ignorant. He said the comments you made about that topic was ignorant. You would do well to learn the difference.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Dennis Henigan is a highly respected lawyer who has worked on gun issues for many years. He does indeed know what he is talking about. I am not mirroring him. I am not, as I said before, beholden to what the Brady Campaign staff is saying. I have my own opinions which I came to on my own. But I use Dennis and Paul Helmke, two men I greatly respect and know quite well, as models. They are doing the right thing. They are both fine men with a load of integrity and well respected in most circles. I know you don't respect them but that doesn't mean they are not respected by many many others. I am tired of you guys saying "I'm sorry for your loss" and then say but don't you think blah blah blah blah as if you all know something I don't. That is what I meant by that. So now that we have that off our chests, let's talk about other things.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Let's cut to the chase and zero in on some facts about what I believe is the main issue here at this time.

    Fact #1: Agree, or not, federal law and the laws of many states allow unlicensed, private persons (non-FFLs) to legally sell firearms to ANYONE over the age of 21 (18 in some states). That includes prohibited persons such as convicted felons, the adjudicated mentally ill and dangerous, and persons convicted of certain domestic abuse crimes. That is, it is legal for the seller if the seller has no reason to believe the buyer is prohibited.

    Fact #2: Is that fact #1 applies to public gun shows, as well as other private party sales.

    Fact #3: There are thousands of public gun shows throughout the U.S. that accommodate the selling of firearms by non-FFLs.

    Fact #4: there is no way to determine the numbers of guns illegally purchased by prohibited persons from non-FFLs at gun shows because those sellers are not required to keep records or report the sales.

    Fact #5: Approx. 1.8 million attempted gun purchases by prohibited persons from FFLs nationwide have been rejected since the Brady Background Check law came into effect.

    Opinion #1: I believe it is reasonable to assume that these prohibited persons make very few attempts at FFLs, once they have been rejected.

    Opinion #2: I believe it reasonable to assume that prohibited persons communicate with one another, resulting in a large number of prohibited persons who will not even attempt to buy from a FFL, making the total numbers out there a factor of several times more than the 1.8 million.

    Opinion #3: I believe it reasonable to assume that most of these prohibited persons (including the mentally ill and dangerous) are intelligent enough to discover that public gun shows offer the opportunity they seek to acquire a firearm.

    Fact #6: States can, by law, provide FFLs the legal means to do background checks on the prospective buyers from non-FFLs. One way it can be done is by requiring the assisting FFL to take the firearm in question into the FFL's inventory, then processing the sale as required by federal law.

    Opinion #4: FFLs at gun shows will likely comply, for a small fee (if any), because it will level the competition with non-FFLs.

    Fact #7: Gun shows can be defined as venues open to the public, in which at least X number of firearms are offered for sale by at least X number of persons offering X or more firearms for sale. The gun show "parking lot" issue can be resolved by making a certain radius out from the facility as part of the gun show itself. "Delayed transfer" issues can be worked out, as well.

    Opinion #5: While there will always be some wanting to thwart this regulation, most sellers are basically honest and will comply. Those who will not - do so at their peril. I believe that compliance with the requirements I have suggested would become as second nature as buying directly from FFLs has been for law abiding purchasers.

    I believe this lays out most of the issues that concern parties on both sides. Of course, some of us will argue that all this effort will make no difference. I argue that gun shows are numerous enough, and attract enough attention, that requiring background checks will make a difference worth the effort. I believe my "facts" are pretty much common knowledge. To seriously question them would manifest a certain naivete about the issue of firearm accessibility for prohibited persons.

    Finally, I believe there is no room to describe this effort as "banning" guns, except from prohibited purchasers. And, basic disagreement with this effort (there has been some) indicates a position that it is simply okay for dangerous prohibited persons to buy all the guns they can afford at gun shows. One can disagree with the laws that seemingly unfairly classify some as prohibited. But to dismiss the significance of all prohibited persons on those grounds is difficult to understand.

    Shooter

    ReplyDelete
  32. Amen. Watch out now. These guys on the blog are going to attack you and say your facts are all wrong and that you just don't know what you are talking about. That is the M.O. here. Facts don't seem to be important. Even when I provide them, they are not enough. Even when I answer a question, it is not enough. So we can expect a lot of comments about your post. Thanks for posting it. It's accurate and good information plus it's correct.

    ReplyDelete
  33. And yet it isn't facts that you are spouting. So stop calling them that. It IS against Federal law to knowingly sell to someone who is "prohibited". But we LEGALLY don't have access to find out if someone is prohibited or not.

    Say that a close friend of mine who I have known for years is fine to purchase. Today he gets a court ordered protection notice. He doesn't tell me. I know this man and know he hasn't been convicted of a crime and he tells me that he wants to purchase a weapon from me... that one we've been talking about. I sell it to him. He broke the law but I didn't because I didn't knowingly sell it to him.

    You don't present all the facts and you gray most of them. And the reason Japete could make that call about what "we" will do is because SHE knows that her facts are wrong. The fact that you stick up for known liars like Paul and Dennis says a lot about you Japete. I've read both of them many times.. I've seen Paul in interviews and he will lie straight to the camera with his snarky grin, KNOWING that he is misleading the public to get his agenda pushed.

    Why do you not have more members in your fight? Because most people know the blood isn't running in the streets.. the blood that Brady projected would happen with each passing of pro-gun laws.

    I'm done with this. Keep posting your lies and I will keep shining the light on them.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Patrick,

    I can't say that I'm sad to see you go. When you can post remarks like this:" The fact that you stick up for known liars like Paul and Dennis says a lot about you Japete. I've read both of them many times.. I've seen Paul in interviews and he will lie straight to the camera with his snarky grin, KNOWING that he is misleading the public to get his agenda pushed.", I don't want you to post any more. Thanks for the good time.

    ReplyDelete
  35. I would remind everyone that I have not once called any of you a liar or another name. And yet you continue. I would love to raise the level of discourse here but it just doesn't seem possible. It's pretty low when so many of you keep offering up your opinion that I am a liar and don't provide enough facts for you. Just because you don't like the facts I present doesn't mean they are not facts.

    ReplyDelete
  36. "tripe"? Hmm, that sounds like MikeW has snuck back in as an anonymous poster.

    I moved my blog to wordpress because I could block users by IP address. Of course, that reduced the amount of comments.

    Unfortunately, I don't see the "progun" crowd as being prone to reasoned discussion for the reason you mentioned in your last sentence:
    "because you don't like the facts I present doesn't mean they are not facts".

    ReplyDelete
  37. Thanks. Yes, I'm on to him. I have even allowed a few of his comments in spite of his deception. It's a good idea to block by IP address. But I can at least read what these guys are saying and use it later as evidence that they are hysterical and lying about people like me taking away their guns and their rights. I intend to show some of these, and already have, to my own elected officials so they understand what the "other side" is saying and how they are operating to block any sensible measures that don't affect them anyway.

    ReplyDelete
  38. That's it, Patrick? "And yet it isn't facts you are spouting. So stop calling them that."

    If I said the sky is blue, and grass is green, you need a link with that? Or, what?

    Come on, people. I tried to lay out specifics for discussion. So that we're not calling anyone liars, or comparing ice picks with guns.

    Japete's blog is about trying to prevent dangerous prohibited people from obtaining guns. There are no fail proof ways that I know of, but presently gun shows are "candy stores" for prohibited people. Are our 2nd Amendment rights so sacred that there is no room to try to work this out? That background checks are a complete infringement on the right to keep and bear arms? The Supreme Court has most recently said otherwise, and their say is the law of the land.

    I think we can agree that dangerous prohibited people having guns is a problem. Who wants to be part of the solution?

    Shooter

    ReplyDelete
  39. Shooter - How about we keep violent offenders in jail where they belong? Violent predators are no danger to society when they're not free to walk among the rest of us.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Mike W. is back to posting comments. They will not be published, at least for the moment. Nice try, Mike.

    ReplyDelete
  41. I allowed one of Mike W.'s comments to be published because it makes so much sense!!! Duh.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Mikey, locking them away for ever would violate the 8th Amendment.

    Too bad these folks only think they know the Second Amendment. Unfortunately, that doens't allow for deadly weapons for private purposes (up until it was judicially amended by Heller).

    The founders intended on the Second Amendment to protect us from the establishment of standing armies by having a Swiss style military.

    Lot's of talk about standing armies in the primary sources and rare mentions of private uses.

    ReplyDelete
  43. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Yes, I know this post. Hypocrisy as far as the eye can see. Given an opportunity, the NRA will can the gun laws that actually work and try to make it even easier for criminals to get guns and for "bad apple" gun dealers will get away with "murder"? Note that one of the gun dealers is an NRA member. Talk about protecting your own. Thanks for the comments. I enjoy reading them. We have lots of gun owners who believe as we do and even work with us. We appreciate it when they are willing to speak out for reasonable laws because they understand that those laws will not affect them. Some people can think it through and are not threatened by gun laws.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Okay, Mike W. You keep working on that. And I'll keep trying to keep guns out of their hands.

    Shooter

    ReplyDelete