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.
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."