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, February 5, 2011

Gun disconnect

Things are booming in the gun world. It is just the opposite of what you would think should happen after a major mass shooting involving a sitting Congresswoman. Instead of the leaders of the country heading towards more common sense, they are retreating. And instead of thinking about fewer guns with smaller magazines and gun owners admitting that what happened in Tucson was outrageous, we have the gun shows selling more guns than usual and selling more lethal guns than ever.

And while all of this is going on, we have a new poll showing Arizonans wanting stricter gun control laws. This disconnect is what it's all about these days concerning guns and gun violence. How is that the gun world is buying more guns than ever and the average citizen is not buying it? They want stricter laws to keep those who shouldn't have guns from getting them. 55% of those polled wanted stricter laws about who should be able to buy guns in Arizona. " "That's a higher degree of support for increased gun control in the wake of last month's shootings in Tucson than national polls are showing. A recent CBS poll showed just 46% of voters across the country in support of tougher laws on guns and ABC and NBC both put the number at 52%.""

While over at the gun shows, private sellers continue as if nothing happened in Tucson- selling their wares to just anyone who shows up without requiring background checks if they can make the sale. This is a legal thing in Arizona and other states. I wonder when the two worlds will collide and result in actual changes? Some elected leaders just put their fingers in their ears and pretend not to hear the din coming from the side of gun control. If they ignore it, maybe it will go away and leave them alone so they won't have to face the ire of the NRA. Common sense should tell them that the only course open to them now is to stand up for what's right and pass some sensible laws.

75 comments:

  1. "Things are booming in the gun world. It is just the opposite of what you would think should happen after a major mass shooting involving a sitting Congresswoman."

    Someone in the government proposes banning popular item X. People interested in X rush out to buy it before the threatened ban. Makes perfect sense to me.

    ReplyDelete
  2. "How is that the gun world is buying more guns than ever and the average citizen is not buying it? They want stricter laws to keep those who shouldn't have guns from getting them. 55% of those polled wanted stricter laws about who should be able to buy guns in Arizona. That's a higher degree of support for increased gun control in the wake of last month's shootings in Tucson than national polls are showing. A recent CBS poll showed just 46% of voters across the country in support of tougher laws on guns and ABC and NBC both put the number at 52%."

    Obviously the polls are flawed.

    I was in a gun store today and lying on the counter was a newly arrived package that contained 6 33 round Glock magazines. The store owner says he can't keep them in stock and he rarely sold one before the Tucson shooting. People are afraid of all the talk of magazine bans. McCarthy is the biggest magazine pusher in the country.

    If McCarthy's bill had been written to only affect higher than standard pistol magazines such as the 33 round Glock, there would have been far less resistance. Since her ban was designed to outlaw magazines for handguns and rifles not at all involved in Tucson as well as banning some Civil War collector's rifles, it not only appeared opportunistic, which it of course was, but also has caused gun owners to galvanize in fear of another ban.

    I do not believe those poll numbers are accurate, however, regardless of how accurate or not they may have been when those polls were conducted, I am sure they predated the renewed talk of magazine and gun bans. It is easy for some to agree with a carefully worded question when there is no actual ban on the table but now that is not the case.

    ReplyDelete
  3. It seems to me that the gun extremists get so wrapped up in their gun-world that they can't see things objectively. Even tonight I got a comment at New Trajectory where a commenter couldn't understand why we are so concerned about gun violence as a subset of all violence. It just doesn't register to them that guns contribute so much to the violence death rate in the U.S. No statistic rings a bell in their mind, no matter how significant the numbers. They use any number of wild justifications to avoid seeing the big picture (such as arguing that the numbers of gun deaths quoted in studies are too high because they shouldn't include homicides or suicides -- only accidental shootings, or they argue that the numbers of "child shootings" shouldn't include anyone over 15, or they refuse to see assault weapons as any different from hunting rifles!).

    Average gun owners don't see the world through those gunpowder lenses. They agree for stronger regulation. It is THEY who need to speak out to their politicians and lobby groups and argue for common sense legislation. And the extremists who are so vocal only give a bad name to those moderate, majority gun owners.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I bought a 30 round magazine for my pistol at the gun show last weekend. I've never wanted one in the past, but I bought it because I do think they're going to get at least temporarily scarce because of the drumbeat of a few politicians and many news organizations for a ban on them (I seriously doubt that ban will happen, but I don't have a crystal ball).

    But how did I do anything wrong by buying that mag? Why should I feel bad? It doesn't matter whether I buy a pistol, a machine gun, a grenade launcher or a tank ... they are no danger to anyone else. I'm not a murderer, and it won't affect what happened in Tucson or whatever WILL happen in the next place some freak goes off the deep end.

    So why should I limit what I allow myself to own because of what someone else did? Someday I might want to have a 30 round pistol magazine, and if you and your ilk get your way I'll have to wait until we can get your new law repealed (or it sunsets) to buy one.

    As for the Arizona poll ... another poll crafted to get the preferred response. If you called me up and asked me if I'd like to see a law to keep someone like Loughner from getting a gun I'd probably agree to it as well, at least if I didn't realize the agenda behind the question. You'll notice they didn't ask if respondents supported a ban on magazines/guns over 10 rounds. Wonder why? Maybe because it would be a ban on the normal capacity magazines for about every full size handgun sold in the last 20 years? And would ban the new sales of something that exists in the 10's of millions (at least) in the civilian market.

    If there 's a proposal out there that would keep guns away from psychos that does NOT include gun registration and won't enable the government to track every gun in the nation, I am ready to listen. I've heard of no such plans, however. Everything I've heard has been either a ban on some specific type of gun/feature of a gun, or forcing every gun sale to go through the current NICs, which WOULD mean every gun is tracked in a database and WOULD mean national gun registration -- no matter what you choose to call it. A rose by any other name ...

    There are always some elected leaders who pretend not to notice that gun control laws have never worked to reduce violence, and that nothing being suggested will stop a future insane murderer like Loughner. Common sense should tell them that the only course open to them now is to forget about new gun control laws that have been proven ineffective, and look for a solution that will actually work.

    Even though that's harder than just banning a certain size of magazine, so the next shooter has to bring two guns or base his assault around having time to reload (less than 2 seconds even for a clumsy guy like me).

    ReplyDelete
  5. Yes, Baldr. I get the very same arguments on my blog. At least they are consistent.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Yadayadayada- and so it goes. Endlessly the same. No matter what poll or what those on my side are saying, you guys come back with the same old same old. It's getting "old". " another poll crafted to get the preferred response."

    Registration?- not mentioned. But if you guys keep up with your same old tired arguments and keep denying the reality of the situation, there will likely be more gun control measures than you want. If you agree that some restrictions are necessary for the good of the public- you know- being good citizens and in the interest of justice and liberty for all- then we might actually do something to prevent the shootings and you will be none the worse off.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Your perverse logic, Fat, would be in affect if I said the world was flat- you would say it's round just because I said it. The polls reflect what most people think. You can't handle the truth. So then you make up your own ideas about what the world looks like through your lenses.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Japete,

    I'm not disagreeing with you for the sake of disagreeing. You asked why, in spite of such polls, things were booming in the gun world and I offered two possibilities. First, the polls could be flawed and that high of a percentage doesn't really agree with more laws--maybe that is true, maybe not. Obviously I have no way of knowing that for sure. And secondly, you mention "ban" and gun owners overreact every time. McCarthy's bill is flawed and will probably never see a vote but the media has been pushing it into the spotlight regardless. As a result, she is responsible for more magazine sales the last two weeks than all the ads in all gun periodicals combined.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Dear Fat- I'm glad to see that you admitted that the data could actually be right. I still find it perverse that people run out to buy the things they think will be banned so they can own these types of ammo and guns. That is the problem- as long as you guys want them, so, too, do the criminals and those who shouldn't have them.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Count me among those who would support "stricter gun laws" -- one that might keep nuts like Loughner from passing background checks.

    Gun control advocates should not assume that gives them a blank check. My final support is dependent upon the wording of the law.

    For example: "Those who have been deemed by the courts to be mentally ill" meets my approval as cause for denial. "An anonymous neighbor said the applicant is weird" does't cut it. Something in between? Maybe -- let's see it.

    ReplyDelete
  11. There is no "disconnect". The poll results are not contradictory to the gun sales activity. Folks who want "stricter laws to keep those who shouldn't have guns from getting them" are simply wanting to ensure restrictions on *prohibited people* are in place. This is not the same as wanting restrictions on what and how much is available to *non-prohibited people*. That is why proposed restrictions on what is available to law-abiding citizens as far as magazines, for example, get little support, both popularly and politically.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Baldr Odinson: "they refuse to see assault weapons as any different from hunting rifles"

    I supported the Assault Weapon Ban as a reasonable compromise. One reason is that the law specifically listed 650 hunting rifles and shotguns as being exempt from the ban. Yet when legislation was proposed to "renew" the ban, the proposes legislation would have REVOKED the list of exempt hunting guns and would have expanded the law to specifically ban guns from the list of hunting guns that gun control advocates had promised NOT to ban.

    Baldr Odinson, if many gunowners "refuse to see assault weapons as any different from hunting rifles," one reason is because gun control advocates have themselves blurred any distinction.

    ReplyDelete
  13. @JayF: For years I followed the "gun control" movement because I thought they proposed reasonable measures as well tried to protect children from firearm violence. They lost me when instead they went after "sniper" rifles (hunting rifles) and "armor piercing" ammunition (full metal jacket practice ammo).
    Their goal is to eventually eliminate firearms from common usage - either through regulation or expense. There's no "common sense" anymore.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Pat - you should know better than to spread those lies

    ReplyDelete
  15. Lies?? We've had this discussion before...

    Does the gun control movement (Brady, VPC, etc) advocate for the banning of "sniper rifles"?

    Does the gun control movement advocate for the banning of "armor piercing ammunition"?

    Just answer those two questions. Nothing else...just answer those TWO questions.

    ReplyDelete
  16. @Stephen,

    How much did you pay for your's?? I don't even own a Glock and went out and grabbed a couple. I did find a really good deal though. If you join Glock Shooting Sports Foundation, $35 year one and $25 each year after that, you get a new Glock per year at the Law Enforcement prices! At those prices we could all chip in and get Joan one...though I'd be a little concerned because she's said in the past,"It’s just natural to want to shoot someone when you don’t agree with them or have a beef or you’re drunk and can’t quite think straight."

    http://www.commongunsense.com/2010/12/whats-natural-about-gun-rights.html

    ReplyDelete
  17. I'll answer thatPat when you tell me if you have any of the above named weapons or ammo and if so,why? Also tell me why anyone needs those. Not wants but absolutely must have and can't do without.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Thanks got the offer but don't want lenses a Glock. You guys are sweet to think of me though.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Here you go -- sums up my points/concerns/fears/passions precisely:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TkS2BRoCd2I&feature=player_embedded#

    Still waiting on you to answer my questions above as well...

    ReplyDelete
  20. "I'll answer thatPat when you tell me if you have any of the above named weapons or ammo and if so,why? Also tell me why anyone needs those. Not wants but absolutely must have and can't do without. "

    Anyone with a hunting rifle and hunting ammo has those. Either the gun control people who advocate banning "sniper rifles" and "armor piercing ammo" are incredibly stupid or they are trying to ban everyday hunting rifles and ammo by giving them a scary name just like they do with "assault weapons." Pat is trying to get you to admit to one or the other.

    So which is it?

    ReplyDelete
  21. You know what it reminds me of? Back in the 60s, pre-adolescent boys in the school yard would compare firecrackers. There were the kids who had the regular 2-inch firecrackers and then there were the cool guys who had the cherry bombs and the M-80s. This immature one-upsmanship combined with the threat of a government ban makes guys like Stephen run out to buy.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Let's get this straight dear readers. No one is trying to ban hunting guns and ammo. It's just plain hyperbolic for you guys to continue this lie. .50 caliber guns- whatever you call them- a rose by any other name?- is not necessary for anything. If you guys want to try to convince the general public that that is a hunting gun, go ahead. You will not have support for that. The FN Five SeveN on the other hand: " The key idea behind that ammunition and weapons is to provide good penetration against personnel, protected by modern body armour, while keeping weapons' weight, dimensions and recoil at the reasonable levels." Clearly that is not a gun or the ammo it uses that is a good idea for the average person given it's use, it's ammo type and the reasons for it's possession. http://world.guns.ru/handguns/hg/be/fn-five-seven-e.html On the website it's clear that this gun is designed for military and law enforcement use. Those are the types of guns we are talking about. I live in a hunting household. My relatives and friends hunt. I want them to hunt. I am not talking about hunting guns and ammo. You guys all know that but you are trying to make it seem as if those of us who want reasonable restrictions want ALL restrictions. You are wrong but if you want to live in that alternate world, go ahead.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Why do I need an "Assault Rifle"? Since the question of "Need" has been explained to you before and fallen on deaf ears, I will give you one of many examples of actual need.
    We remember that in 2005 Hurricane Katrina hit the Gulf Coast and the mayhem that New Orleans became. We in the Gun Culture also know what an unchecked government did disarming people and condemning them to suffer under the rule of the criminal mob that the police did not have the guts to go disarm. We know that so I won't repeat it.
    However what it was never mentioned was that Katrina, before going into the gulf hit South Florida and a month later we were once again hit by another Hurricane: Wilma.
    Yet, you never heard anything about bands of roaming criminals killing and stealing. Why? Was it because police did such a perfect job? Nope and they did work like crazy, but the truth is they couldn't be everywhere. There were up to a million and a quarter households without electricity for upward of a month. We are talking about dark nights, no lights anywhere but gas lamps and some generators. The few fools that attempted to go and rob people found out the hard way that Florida's Hurricane kits contained firearms of all shapes and sizes. Mine is a WASR 10, an AK clone that came real handy when 4 idiots decided that the older guy sitting in front of his house at 2 am was an easy target. The beauty was not one shot was fired, I just displayed my "Evil Black Rifle" and its characteristic silhouette with a 30 round banana magazine sent a message to the miscreants that maybe it was time to leave my neighborhood...and they did.
    A friend during the same time saw 2 uninvited individuals, one armed with what looked with a machete jump his backyard fence and approach his generator. He opened his second story window and shouted a warning for the men to leave. The unwisely ignored the warning which forced my buddy to retrieve his M4 rifle with a 30 round magazine and punctuate his earlier warning with 2 shots. The men literally jumped the fence without touching it.
    Nobody got wounded or died in the incident. If they were half ass smart, the individuals might have reconsider that a life of crime might not be so easy and in actuality it might downright prejudicial to their health. All in all property and lives were saved by those evil assault rifles. And I am sure those two stories were not the only ones that happened. If I recall correctly, there were only 5 incidents of looting for both hurricanes in the South Florida news.
    The people in New Orleans depended on the government for their security and got killed, maimed and raped. We depended on ourselves and our rifles. Other than the heat and the lack of electricity, our hurricanes were uneventful thank you to our guns, our assault rifles and our lack of dependency from the government.

    ReplyDelete
  24. "They want stricter laws to keep those who shouldn't have guns from getting them."

    So the proposed solution is to limit magazine sizes? There is the disconnect. People don't want those with mental health issues to be able to get guns. Limiting magazine sizes does nothing to solve that problem.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Also tell me why anyone needs those. Not wants but absolutely must have and can't do without.

    "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

    There are very few things that people need. Shelter and/or clothing to protect one from extreme temperatures and predators, food, and water. These are the things that preserve Life. You don't need a car, the furniture in your home, the music from a piano, and most of the products available at the mall, but in the pursuit of Happiness, a truth that is self-evident, we enjoy these things and more.

    As long as a law-abiding shooter is not interfering with somebody else's life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness then nobody can tell them that they can't pursue their happiness. It is their unalienable right.

    Now if your argument is that law-abiding shooters should make a personal sacrifice in the pursuit of their happiness for the greater good of society, then that is a different argument entirely, which must be vetted under the hypocritical shadow of countless teachers, law enforcement officials, and even entire government agencies that won't even do their jobs for that greater good.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Unless, Ruff, if you limit the magazine sizes for all, you limit the magazine sizes for ALL. That just might solve a problem with just anyone getting their hands on the large capacity magazines. If no one can have them, then no one can have them.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Miguel-this is actually the first time I have heard anyone have the nerve to say that there was less suffering from Hurrican Wilma than from Hurricane Katrina because of guys like you with guns. Interesting that that didn't make the news. " disarming people and condemning them to suffer under the rule of the criminal mob that the police did not have the guts to go disarm. We know that so I won't repeat it."

    Did people suffer during Katrina BECAUSE they didn't have guns? That's also a new one and a revisionist view of what actually happened. But nice that you can live in that fantasy world and make up stuff like this.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Cynical and simply not true, Migo. " countless teachers, law enforcement officials, and even entire government agencies that won't even do their jobs for that greater good. " Are there really a lot of teachers, government agencies and law enforcement officials who simplY WON'T do their jobs? Another first. You guys are great at making things up as you go along to justify your perceived NEED for your guns. For the life of me, though, I can't figure out what your statement that I quoted has anything to do with anything. When I was teaching, did I refuse to do my job to deny people some rights to freedom or liberty? NO, NO and NO. It gets more ridiculous the more you guys try to explain your way out of this. I love it. Keep it coming.

    ReplyDelete
  29. japete,

    The gap between what you may be intending to ban and what is actually banned comes from a disconnect in the legislation, not a disconnect between us. Often enough we know what you are calling for (when I say you I mean gun control proponents in general, not necessarily you) even if we do not agree. We at least know what you meant.

    You want to ban .50 BMG rifles. You say we do not need them. Okay, I disagree but at least I understand what you are referring to. When the legislation is actually written in places that the ban has been attempted, often time the bill will vaguely say "ban 50 caliber rifles" or something similar. Now you are including .50 and .54 caliber hunting muzzle loading rifles and all rifles from the Civil War and The American Revolution, etc.

    You want to ban the FN Five Seven pistol and its ammunition because it can penetrate body armor. However when the bill is penned, it says "any ammunition that can penetrate a bullet proof vest" or something to that effect. I don't know what your side thinks those vests are made out of but with that language you effectively ban all rifle and hunting ammunition.

    Your side takes issue with our nitpicking of terminology and nomenclature but there is a reason. A clip is not a magazine is not a clip. You have pointed out that many gun people even misuse the term repeatedly and you are very correct. However, laws must be interpreted as written, not as what you intended.

    Some of your side will confuse terms on purpose to confuse the issue such as calling any scary looking rifle an assault rifle or a machine gun. However, I do not think that happens all the time, at least not intentionally. I think most times the devil is in the details and the disconnect lies within the law as written, not as intended.

    I don't like McCarthy's magazine ban she has introduced--I'm sure I have made no secret to that fact. Do I think she intentionally wants to ban Henry repeating rifles from the Civil War? No, I don't think she intended to do that but as written, that would surely be the effect of the bill if enacted.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Actually Japete in the post Katrina days, lots of people were forcibly evicted from homes which were safe. Most of those people had their guns stolen by the police or other police agencies which were "helping" out. This was being reported almost immediately in many news outlets but but ignored by CNN.

    I personally know a young MD who lived with her husband in the French quarter who was forcibly "rescued" by California state police even though they were secure, had plenty of food and water, and were in no danger. They were stripped of the weapons and forcibly relocated. When they were finally able to return their beautiful old French lace house had been stripped to the bone.

    This is not revisionism. This is what happens when the police declare martial law and get power hungry.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Simple answer Joan. When it comes to fundamental civil rights, the onus is on the government to show a compelling reason to violate that civil right. There is none here. This ban will not prevent crime or criminals.

    ReplyDelete
  32. "Unless, Ruff, if you limit the magazine sizes for all, you limit the magazine sizes for ALL."

    Then the next shooter will just bring two guns with him. See you really haven't solved anything. I'd much rather the gun control groups got behind initiatives to help better screen for mental health issues. That's where you will find a lot of common ground with gun owners.

    ReplyDelete
  33. "When it comes to fundamental civil rights, the onus is on the government to show a compelling reason to violate that civil right."

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny

    "To pass strict scrutiny, the law or policy must satisfy three prongs:

    First, it must be justified by a compelling governmental interest. While the Courts have never brightly defined how to determine if an interest is compelling, the concept generally refers to something necessary or crucial, as opposed to something merely preferred. Examples include national security, preserving the lives of multiple individuals, and not violating explicit constitutional protections.

    Second, the law or policy must be narrowly tailored to achieve that goal or interest. If the government action encompasses too much (overbroad) or fails to address essential aspects of the compelling interest (under-inclusive), then the rule is not considered narrowly tailored.

    Finally, the law or policy must be the least restrictive means for achieving that interest. More accurately, there cannot be a less restrictive way to effectively achieve the compelling government interest, but the test will not fail just because there is another method that is equally the least restrictive. Some legal scholars consider this 'least restrictive means' requirement part of being narrowly tailored, though the Court generally evaluates it as a separate prong. "

    Imposing bans on the general citizenry fail the second part of the test.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Japete: “Let's get this straight dear readers. No one is trying to ban hunting guns and ammo. It's just plain hyperbolic for you guys to continue this lie.”

    I present you with Kevin DeLeon of Los Angeles. He just introduced CA SB 124 which takes the vagueness out of California’s existing “cop-killer ammo ban” by removing the word “primarily” from “ammunition primarily designed for use in a handgun”. This now means if it can be shot out of a handgun (any handgun)- it’s “handgun ammunition”. And if it can penetrate body armor- then it is a “cop-killer” (actually the law also says penetrating metal, but it doesn’t define how thick, what kind of metal, and defines body armor as any level of body armor). If passed, this will make felons out of citizens who own deer hunting ammunition in California. Handguns exist in just about every rifle caliber, especially when you consider Thompson Contenders. There is even a .600 nitro revolver- that’s a Rhinoceros hunting round.

    Below is a key excerpt from the bill. Below that is a link to the entire bill so you can read and judge for yourself: I’ll bold the part that specifically removes the original law’s exemption for rifle rounds:

    This bill would delete the word "primarily" and recast the above
    crime to be based on the immediate possession of ammunition for the
    firearm designed to penetrate metal or armor. The bill would further
    omit reference to ammunition primary designed for use in a rifle
    and
    instead define "handgun ammunition designed to penetrate metal or
    armor" to mean ammunition, except a shotgun shell, capable of
    penetrating a body vest or body shield when discharged from a
    handgun.


    http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/bill/sen/sb_0101-0150/sb_124_bill_20110126_introduced.html

    PS, there is still a lot of vagueness in the new bill, and the existing 20-some-year-old bill. Though it makes mention of projectile materials, it is not limited strictly to bullets harder than standard ball ammo. If you want to make a case for why this doesn’t ban traditional rifle ammo, I’ll listen. I don’t want to go to jail, Japete.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Joan, you keep making this personal. Good for you for the exemplary work you did as a teacher. I honestly believe your community is better for it, but not everyone does a job as well as you.

    If you look at my previous words, I don't claim that all guns are a NEED or a perceived NEED. Many guns are used solely in the pursuit of happiness which is historically perceived as an unalienable right. Typical citizens don't NEED a 50 BMG rifle, but there are many law abiding ways to pursue happiness with such a gun. A need doesn't have to be justified because there is no need.

    The other half of what I said has to do with asking gun owners to give up their unalienable right to pursue happiness for the greater good of society. It sounds like that is what you are really asking.

    I see that as a very difficult goal as long as society is tolerant of the non-gun-related actions that lead to such tragedies. There is no reason why a judge couldn't have put the Tucson shooter on the NICS list given his substance abuse AND threats at school AND local law enforcement being aware of his threats. There is no reason for the Fort Hood shooter to have even been at Fort Hood if the Army would have discharged or prosecuted him for having conversations with radical Islamic clerics. How many of our fine soldiers have private conversations with known radical Islamic clerics? How many law-abiding gun owners make threats to kill someone to a law enforcement officer? How could somebody do that and still be able to legally buy a gun at an FFL dealer? So the solution to all of that is to cap magazines at 10 rounds maximum?

    ReplyDelete
  36. Whatever, jdege. I believe you are wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Sorry, Migo- I do not believe that anyone has an inalienable right to kill someone with any type of gun they think they have to have. That carries things too far. The rest of us have an inalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Christina Green doesn't have that any more. Nor does Gabrielle Giffords unless she makes a full recovery.

    ReplyDelete
  38. "Let's get this straight dear readers. No one is trying to ban hunting guns and ammo. It's just plain hyperbolic for you guys to continue this lie. .50 caliber guns- whatever you call them- a rose by any other name?- is not necessary for anything."

    Correct me if I am wrong but didn't Rebecca Peters call for a ban on rifles capable of firing to or beyond 100 meters regardless of calibre? That would include all hunting rifles.

    "The FN Five SeveN on the other hand: " The key idea behind that ammunition and weapons is to provide good penetration against personnel, protected by modern body armour, while keeping weapons' weight, dimensions and recoil at the reasonable levels."

    A civilian in this country cannot buy armor piercing ammo for an FN Five Seven. So that makes the FN Five Seven a glorified 22 magnum.

    Problem is that gun banners say one thing and mean something else. You keep saying "No one needs a 33 round magazine!" but what you want to ban is anything over 10 rounds. Big difference.

    We only want to ban 50 caliber rifles (including muzzle loading hunting rifles) but you want any rifle that will shoot far enough to hit a deer.

    You just want to ban armor piercing ammo that isn't for sale anyway and sorry if that includes your hunting ammo.

    ReplyDelete
  39. You take what Migo just said and find a different meaning in it. Migo never said we have an unalienable right to kill people, he said we have an unalienable right to pursue happiness however we please, as long as we are not hurting other people.

    Why must you take someone's statement that they have a right to possess something, and turn it into having a right to kill? You wouldn't say that my choice of a big truck is bad because it's so effective at running people over, so why should you say that my choice of a big rifle for long range target shooting is bad? I am neither running people over nor shooting them, and I don't ever intend to.

    How about this, we all have an unalienable right to be protected from criminals and madmen. When the government can't protect us, we have no choice but to protect ourselves. The best way I can see for the government to protect us from madmen and criminals, is to reduce their numbers. It doesn't matter what weapons they can and cannot obtain, they are still the same criminals and madmen, they are just as much a threat to our well being.

    ReplyDelete
  40. You may believe jdedge is wrong, but that does not make it.so. Lots of people believed we had to relocate Japanese Americans from the west coast in WW2. That was proven a huge mistake. Lots of people believed that giving women the vote was wrong. That was proven to be a mistake. lots of people believed in Prohibition, that was proven to be a mistake. Lots of people believed in the AWB and that was proven to be a mistake. You can believe anything you want, that certainly does not make it a fact.

    Frankly most of your notions regarding this topic are erroneous. When presented with facts which can be backed up, you called the facts extremism or ridicule those who believe it. You love to change the subject and try to start anew when confronted with logic, empirical evidence and factual data. It gets tiring but people come here each day to correct the misinformation you distribute.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Yes, let's just call it as you say- I want to ban all of your guns no matter what they are. There, are you happy now? I am sickened by this ridiculous exchange that accuses me of something I do not want to do. It's what you say I want to do. Nothing I say makes a difference to your opinion so why bother even asking me what I think? If you are so sure that I want to ban all of your ammo and hunting guns, then that it what you will have to believe. By believing it, you can go on living in your fantasy world of fear and paranoia about me and organizations with whom I work have sinister motives and are out to get you all and take away your guns and your rights. That is the way the NRA stays in existence- to get you all to believe that.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Oh- that's where you are wrong, anon-" It doesn't matter what weapons they can and cannot obtain, they are still the same criminals and madmen, they are just as much a threat to our well being." It DOES matter what kind of weapons those who shouldn't have them obtain and use. That's the point of everything I do and say here. That is why I work so hard to get legislation passed to keep those very people from killing others. If everyone thinks they can have whatever they want then everyone will have them and thereby taking away the inalienagle rights of some to be live their lives as they should be able to. Killing people comes from granting rights to those who shouldn't have them. If they, too, have the inalienable rights to any gun they want and it results in a killing, then we have a contradiction of whose rights are more important.

    ReplyDelete
  43. " It gets tiring but people come here each day to correct the misinformation you distribute. " Ditto, P.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Whoa! I never said anyone has the right to kill! Even if you don't understand my arguments, please understand that they don't lead to the conclusion that anyone has an inalienable right to kill. A person loses their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of hapiness if they interfere with someone else's equal and inalienable right. That's a somewhat logical way to describe something we both know in our hearts is wrong.

    Now if two people both have the unalienable and equal right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and one person's right doesn't infringe on the others, then by what authority can one person remove the other person's right?

    ReplyDelete
  45. Japete, I don’t believe that you want to ban hunting ammunition. Kevin DeLeon does. Will you stand with me against SB 124 (California)? It would sure go a long way to defeating this bill by having a Brady Campaign board member renounce it.

    By the way, this isn’t about what some Australian woman said a long time ago about rounds that travel 100m, and this isn’t about what Ted Kennedy said, or even what Mr. DeLeon said. This is a submitted legislative bill that criminalizes possession of rifle/hunting ammunition. It is real. It is now.

    ReplyDelete
  46. japete: "No one is trying to ban hunting guns"

    That's why I supported the Assault Weapon Ban as a reasonable compromise. The law specifically listed 650 hunting rifles and shotguns as being exempt from the ban. Yet when legislation was proposed to "renew" the ban, the proposed legislation would have REVOKED the list of exempt hunting guns and would have expanded the law to specifically ban guns from the list of hunting guns that gun control advocates had promised NOT to ban.

    That's one of the things that pushed me more toward the pro-gunowner side than the pro-control side.

    ReplyDelete
  47. TS- not knowing enough about the California bill, I take no stand at this point. I assume it is supported by people like me but I haven't talked to any of them yet. I may just do that though, given that you seem so upset about it.

    ReplyDelete
  48. You know, Jay- you have said that twice now. I don't think it is true but will check on it.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Thanks Japete. Check it out when you have time. You'll find the link to the entire text above.

    ReplyDelete
  50. japete, let me know. I have details which I can provide when challenged.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Um, nobody here is saying that you want to ban all of our guns. What we keep repeating, is that the policies that you seek in order to ban certain guns, may end up banning many other guns as well, whether it is intended or not. We argue that the rationale behind banning certain firearms in order to reduce the lethality of criminals's actions, is flawed. Making something illegal is not going to make it unavailable to criminals, or stop criminals from being criminals.

    We are going to be opposed to anything that threatens our possession of firearms for legal uses. We will cooperate with you if you will consider the crime fighting policies that we suggest pursuing. This is where the big failure of gun control lies; the gun owners have suggested different means by which to stop gun violence, but the gun control side refuses to hear it. They label us the enemy and refuse to accept the concept that we are willing to work towards the same goal, but along different lines.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Hmmm- hard to believe, but whatever, anon-" They label us the enemy and refuse to accept the concept that we are willing to work towards the same goal, but along different lines."

    Your different lines unfortunately don't include anything to do with guns and mine do.

    ReplyDelete
  53. That's because criminals commit crimes. Guns do not commit crimes, they may be used for crimes, but they are not the cause of crime.

    We think focusing on criminals, and stopping people from even committing crimes in the first place, is a far more effective method. One that works without taking away any of the firearms that we enjoy and sometimes depend on.

    You may disagree entirely, which of course you are free to do, but that is the reason why we are in opposition instead of cooperation.

    ReplyDelete
  54. I think this would be a good start If implemented nation wide!

    Laws all ready on the books being used to stop crime.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Exile

    ReplyDelete
  55. There is not a single person here who wishes for any violent crime to happen to anyone(well, if someone punches out Will Ferrell or Pauli Shore, eh) we just do not accept that legislating against ANYTHING but the perpetrator is going to do any good.

    Criminals commit the crime. Lock them up. No one is debating that. When we see reports of nine arrests and no charges filed, we get angry when it's suggested that somehow a piece of hardware caused this to happen. B as in bull, and you can figure out the rest.

    Recent a man was arrested in Duluth for Drunk and Disorderly and it was discovered he was an illegal with three convictions for HOMICIDE in other States. Yet it's somehow a thirty dollar magazine that needs to be blamed and outlawed. Hello!?!? Howabout we get serious and start removing from the genepool people with, oh say, two convictions for homicide.

    Every single person on here wants to stop violent crime. No one is in favor of it. However there is not one single solitary iota of evidence that suggests drawing an arbitrary number which says below this is a safe number of rounds and above this will only lead to mass murder, will work.

    Putting criminals who engage in violent crimes into prison does work. Keeping them there a long time works better.

    Disrupting the youthful patterns which tend to lead to occupations as criminals works well too, and saves tax dollars. Banning objects does not.

    Removing the sources of incomes that drive gang violence works well.

    Empowering women with the skills and knowledge they need to get out of violent relationships works. Ignoring bruises and other signs does not.

    Calling tagging and gang signs no big deal does not work. Giving kids replacement allegiances works very well.

    Again. No One here is in favor of criminal violence.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Great idea, that. So in conjunction with reasonablel gun laws, we could actually make a difference.

    ReplyDelete
  57. One of the Anonymouses said, "Making something illegal is not going to make it unavailable to criminals, or stop criminals from being criminals."

    But, making something illegal will make it less available to criminals, and although that won't stop criminals from being criminals it will, in some cases, remove from them the best tools of their trade.

    All guns in criminal hands today started out legally owned. Think about that. That's your connection with the criminal world. You have some nerve, being responsible for the gun flow, to object to common sense laws that would help. And why, why do you object? Because you don't want to be inconvenienced. Shame on you all.

    ReplyDelete
  58. "Miguel-this is actually the first time I have heard anyone have the nerve to say that there was less suffering from Hurrican Wilma than from Hurricane Katrina because of guys like you with guns."

    Again a reminder that South Florida went through both hurricanes. And yes, you did not see anything in the news because there was no looting. Criminals down here know better than to loot after a hurricane since it tends to be dangerous to their health.


    People in New Orleans were victimized by both the criminals and the government and both instances have been clearly recorded. One quick solution to your lack of information would be the book "The Great New Orleans Gun Grab- Descent Into Anarchy" which tells of both cases. And they are on the record since there were several lawsuits against Major Nagin and the Chief of police for abuse of power, illegal confiscation of private property and whole slew of other charges.

    In the meantime, and for those who said gun confiscation would never happen in this country and that is not the goal, I present you Patricia Konie
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1Qx0cTze0M
    She was a resident of New Orleans, her house survived Katrina, she had food and water and even a 100 year old gun to defend herself. But even though she was committing no crime (refusing a mandatory evacuation was not and is not a crime no matter what the government says and the edict of martial law was invalid since there were and are no provisions in the laws of Louisiana for that), police broke into her house even though she refused to give them permission, she was tackled and forcibly removed from her home as you can see in the video. In case you haven't figured out, that was a blatant violation of the Fourth Amendment. Her gun was taken away and never returned: violation of the Second and Fifth Amendments. By the way, she was gravely injured during the takedown and she was not given any kind of medical assistance for days. To this day and even though New Orleans was sued to present the officers nobody came forward

    You see Japete, you are promoting a world of cupcakes and unicorns where the government knows better and all people are reasonable. However in the real world, things are unfortunately more aggressive and unforgiving. We may never know all the crimes that happened during Katrina in New Orleans because government not only failed miserably but behaved like the criminals. We South Floridians know what happened during Katrina and Wilma regarding looting because we were here, we lived it and we are happy to report that just the threat of armed civilians kept the peace whereas under your "common sense" approach used in New Orleans people were victimized.
    There is No Moral Superiority on being a Victim.

    ReplyDelete
  59. P= the more you say, the more my blog post fulfills the perception that you guys are divorced from the real world. " promoting a world of cupcakes and unicorns where the government knows better and all people are reasonable. However in the real world, things are unfortunately more aggressive and unforgiving. " That is exactly the problem, of course. I do not consider myself more morally superior than you no matter what you say. You can try to make it stick, but it won't. In the real world, people of good conscious and conscience believe in what I am doing. The majority, in fact. But you guys are making the most noise with your ridiculous assertions. As to the book, above- not very many reviews or readers, apparently. I wonder why. I did like this review, however: " I get a kick out of reading one sided books every now and then, and have a special interest in reading books on the effects of Hurricane Katrina and New Orleans.

    This book is important in understanding how many 2nd Admendment zelots can only see in terms of black and white, and the authors have chosen to address only those who rigidly hold to there opnion. As I read this further I kept expecting some historical aspect to be raised on past emegerency rule in riots or disasters, nor was what other rights or protections were lost as a result Hurricane Katrina discussed, and what of the Rit of Habeas Corpus, it too has been suspended in such times.

    No one's right to own a gun was revoked, nor was anyone arrested for owning a gun, the question this book should have asked and debated is, do the authorities, including the police who must try to keep order in a crisis, be allowed a wide lattiude in keeping civil order in such a disaster." My thoughts exactly. This is hardly a serious problem as it was made out to be by those who are not exactly unbiased. Come on- try again. This is unconvincing.

    ReplyDelete
  60. Japete. Your temper is showing.

    Criminal violence has nothing to do with guns. They are tools of the behavior. Trying to stamp out the behavior by removing a tool will cause the criminal to simply grab another tool in the toolbox.

    And yes, after Katrina a lot of people had their guns stolen by the police, a lot of people who were properly prepared to deal with their situation were forcibly removed from their property by over zealous and law breaking authorities. It happened. Denying it will not make it go away. The film by the NRA is way over the top, except that every single story related by the people is true. NPR had several stories about it on the news. Time magazine had an article.

    This is what frightens people. This assumption that 20-30-60 years of lawful and law abiding behaviors will suddenly leap to one of murder and mayhem just because of an object.

    If you want our support, drop the guns are evil mantra, and start looking at root causes and perpetrators.

    ReplyDelete
  61. P- do I have a temper?? Wow- I didn't realize that. I am just writing back to defend my side. Guns are deadly weapons designed to kill. The bullets that are shot from them kill people at an alarming rate every day in our country. I will not drop what I am saying about that. People with guns kill people every day. Other things surely kill people, it just happens that firearms contribute to many more deaths than most other "objects" That's if for now- I have other things to do on this beautiful day and will not let you spoil it for me.

    ReplyDelete
  62. GMC70 says:

    japete wrote: "I still find it perverse that people run out to buy the things they think will be banned so they can own these types of ammo and guns."

    Really? You don't remotely understand human nature, then. I'm not surprised at all. The moment you tell people they can't have soomething, they will want it.

    You wonder how the gun community got "radicalized?" It became radicalized when gun control was imposed on them; the Gun Control Act of 1968 (arguably unconstitutional). I remember well when owning and having a gun was not remotely unusual; when pickup trucks in school parking lots would routinely have a shotgun or rifle in a gun rack. Today, we'd throw that otherwise "A" student out of school to satisfy a perverse "zero tolerance" (i.e. zero common sense) policy because an administrator doesn't have the balls to do his job.

    Guns, and gun owners, became the boogieman, and the Brady Campaign's forerunner, Handgun Control Inc., openly touted its goal of complete handgun banning (and that hasn't changed).

    The NRA became the advocacy group it is, and gun owners the intransigent group we are, because we have been under attack for decades. No surprise.

    You clearly don't understand human nature.

    ReplyDelete
  63. Well- I'm quite sure you are an expert on human nature. I understand it all right. I still find it perverse.

    ReplyDelete
  64. "The NRA became the advocacy group it is, and gun owners the intransigent group we are, because we have been under attack for decades."

    Yep, a decades-long, slow motion hate crime.

    http://old.nationalreview.com/comment/comment080200a.shtml

    ReplyDelete
  65. paranoia comes to mind, jdege.

    ReplyDelete
  66. GMC70 says:

    jdedge, I had to go read it, and I offer the following comment: Indeed.

    japete, why do actual facts and historical examples constitute "paranoia?" And given those historical examples, why should we believe the gunbanners here when they deny seeking such a path?

    A little paranoia is a very healthy thing . . .
    especially when one understands that nature of governments, which left their own devices always trend toward tyrranny.

    Just demonstrates again jepete - you have no understanding of human nature. Your naivete is astouding (as is MikeB's)

    ReplyDelete
  67. What I actually find naive, dangerous and disturbing is this idea that our government is tending towards tyranny. That is paranoia.

    ReplyDelete
  68. "What I actually find naive, dangerous and disturbing is this idea that our government is tending towards tyranny. That is paranoia."

    Absolutely. I sometimes think it's a subconscious rationalization for the gun fetish. These paranoid types seem so sincere, but the mind can do amazing things, things that the person himself is often not aware of.

    Convincing oneself of the threat of tyranny serves several purposes. It justifies hoarding guns and excuses all the problems they "cause" (you know what I mean). It also feeds the fantasy of fighting to the death for the just cause. How many times have we heard those very works, to the death?

    ReplyDelete
  69. mikeb- since I have been told you live in Italy, maybe you could correct the lies submitted here about crime and guns and gun deaths in other European countries- Switzerland for one, Sweden has been mentioned and the UK though I did provide an answer for the UK lie that was submitted by a commenter.

    ReplyDelete
  70. "What I actually find naive, dangerous and disturbing is this idea that our government is tending towards tyranny."

    Every government is always tending towards tyranny, To believe otherwise is dangerously naive.

    "Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one: for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries BY A GOVERNMENT, which we might expect in a country WITHOUT GOVERNMENT, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer. Government, like dress, is the badge of lost innocence; the palaces of kings are built upon the ruins of the bowers of paradise. For were the impulses of conscience clear, uniform and irresistibly obeyed, man would need no other lawgiver; but that not being the case, he finds it necessary to surrender up a part of his property to furnish means for the protection of the rest; and this he is induced to do by the same prudence which in every other case advises him, out of two evils to choose the least. Wherefore, security being the true design and end of government, it unanswerably follows that whatever form thereof appears most likely to ensure it to us, with the least expense and greatest benefit, is preferable to all others."

    - the true Common Sense.

    ReplyDelete
  71. "Every government is always tending towards tyranny, To believe otherwise is dangerously naive." Really? You guys scare me.

    ReplyDelete
  72. Yes, indeed, they are scary guys. I can offer a link to a wonderful post my blogging partner wrote in December about Switzerland. Needless to say, the biased pro-gun folks, having so much to justify, are only interested in those, often false, stories which support their already decided opinions and which they keep repeating.

    ReplyDelete
  73. Ok mike. PROVE we are lying. Cites?

    ReplyDelete