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 19, 2011

Where are the victims?

The NRA has the clout. Unfortunately, we have the victim/survivor stories. Should victims speak out about gun violence? Do they have any expertise? Do they have standing to support legislation? Meet a victim who has now decided to speak out. Her story is compelling. Does it make a difference? Here is how she ends her story: " It could just as easily be you, or someone you love. And if it were, would it be enough then? When is enough, enough? Please, please, let it be NOW. "

And in commemorating Black History month, this writer reminds us that Martin Luther King Jr. is still amongst us with his words of non-violence. Black youth and young men are at great risk in many parts of our country of being shot to death. We love our guns and as a result, we have more victims than any other civilized country in the world. These are victims- people who were one minute living, breathing human beings with families and friends, and the next, their lives snuffed out by bullets. From the article: " And not surprisingly, America has the world's highest gun-related death rate, with nearly 100,000 people shot or killed with a gun each year. Over a million Americans have been killed with guns since King and Robert F. Kennedy were assassinated, according to the Childrens' Defense Fund. Moreover, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence says that America's homicide rate is 6.9 times higher than rates in other 22 advanced nations combined. And among 23 high-income countries, 80 percent of firearms deaths occur in the U.S". Shameful and senseless.


New York City Mayor Bloomberg's efforts with Mayors Against Illegal Guns are now literally moving across the country with the message that 34 Americans a day die from gun homicides. Since 9/11, when 2752 people were tragically killed by the terror attacks, 270,000 Americans have lost their lives to bullets. These are somebody's mother, father, sister, brother, son, daughter, niece, nephew, friend, spouse or partner. Now their names grace the list of victims of gun homicides. They are memorialized by their families at events to get the attention of our national leaders to do something about the carnage. Their faces and silent voices are powerful. They make people uncomfortable because if our leaders or pro gun people acknowledge their deaths, they might just have to do something about them.


Yet, here is what some who comment on my blog say about victims:
  • This one says that she has also been a victim: "I was a victim once when I was powerless. Now I hold the power of the gun - and I won't be a victim again. Unless of course you put me into prison for my common sense anti-rape precautions."
  • "You speak, think, and act like a victim. That's why we say you are naive. "
  • ..."  I'm guessing that 1/3 of the victims were shot with the first 11 rounds and the next 2/3 victims were shot with the rest. If that is the case, then 4 murder victims might have not been murder victims due to this case. That's out of 13000 a year is it? How many others are there? " ( about the Tucson shooting victims and high capacity magazines)
  • Likewise Rep. McCarthy may or may not be "stupid". I wouldn't have chosen those words. However losing her husband in a shooting provokes sympathy but has no bearing on a discussion of her mental capacities."
  • Rep McCarty was elected as a sympathy vote. And she knows it otherwise her son wouldn't be at all the campaign rallies. "
  • "Likewise, people who are victims of tragedies are entitled to privacy in their grief. However, the moment that they choose to enter the marketplace of ideas and advocate political change, then consideration -- including criticism -- of their ideas becomes valid. And if they choose to use their personal experience as evidence to support their ideas, then it also becomes valid to examine and question the nature and relevance of that personal experience."
  • No, those stories are not "inconvenient" (your word). They are tragic losses, especially if preventable, and hopefully we can honor the memories by learning from those stories. But that doesn't give victims or survivors a free pass to push for any policy they want without critical examination of their claims."
  • And while I do feel sorry for McCarthy and what happened to her family, that doesn't give her the right to attack law abiding people and take things away from them. Plus she knows absolutely nothing about guns whatsoever, so what kind of authority is she to determine what guns or features are necessary or not?"
  • The argument isn't that victims have no standing, it's that being a victim doesn't make someone fully qualified to make the right decisions. The example of McCarthy is that she was shown to have absolutely no knowledge of firearms whatsoever."
  • She is certainly qualified to say "We have a serious problem with gun violence in this country, I lost part of my family to it, we have to do something." I can agree with that, but I can not agree with her making policy for something which she knows absolutely nothing about. It's fine if McCarthy wants to bring public attention to the problem and try and find solutions, but it's not fine for her to go making up laws on a topic she doesn't know."
  • Ok, McCarthy and those who wrote her magazine bill, have no experience with the shooting sports, do they? Have they gone to the range to shoot targets for fun? Have they ever taken part in shooting competitions? Have they ever had to fight off attackers trying to rape them or otherwise threaten their well being? What is the rate of shootings occurring with "high capacity" magazines, versus shootings occurring with 10 round or smaller magazines?"
I could go on but you get the idea. These comments were written about a post that wasn't even dealing with victims or even H. R. 308 to ban high capacity magazines sponsored by New York Representative Carolyn McCarthy. But, alas, that is how things go with the pro gun folks. They are off on a tangent in a second and we are arguing something about which we have no idea where it started and is completely off topic from the original post. That, of course, works well for the pro gun folks. They like to divert, especially when it comes to shooting victims. Representative McCarthy has a compelling story to tell. She lost her husband when a crazed gunman on the Long Island Railroad opened fire and killed him and permanently disabled her son. Her husband was one of 6 killed and her son one of 19 injured in a senseless mass shooting in 1993. Does she know what she is talking about? She's been there. Sometimes experience counts.

But you can see here, by the comments I selected, that the pro gun people want victims to be experts on guns and gun terminology when they speak. And while I can understand that view to a point, the gun guys are not willing to grant that many of us have not been steeped in the gun culture as have they. We understandably have an aversion to dealing with guns and the terminology and have chosen other paths to get to the end result. As victims, we are not experts. We rely on a lot of other folks with whom we associate such as law enforcement, lawyers, legislative staffers, gun owners and hunters, etc. to help with writing the laws. That does not mean we can't speak about gun laws or promote measures to keep guns away from those who should not have access. On a gut level, we know the issue. We know our stories and we know how it feels to lose a loved one. We are a passionate group who are going on with our lives missing someone dear to us. When we speak, legislators and those in Congress take notice. They know we have a special and different voice in the conversation. We often ring bells or place flowers in memory of lost loved ones. These activities have a legitimate place in the overall discussion.

According to David Love who wrote the commentary linked above ( about gun victims in the U.S.): "This is a travesty and an embarrassment in the industrialized world." The problem we have is that we are not embarrassed by our lack of will to address the moral and legal problem of too many shootings and too few sensible gun laws. That is why victims/survivors voices are so important. If we embarrass our leaders with our stories, so be it. Hear again, the words of Virginia Tech shooting survivor Colin Goddard as he takes his experience as a victim in the country's worst school shooting around the country. We will continue to tell our stories and urge our leaders to do something about the gun violence in our country.

As it turns out, victims are everywhere and anyone. When you least expect it, you get a phone call which changes everything forever. To that end, listen to the words of Dallas Green, grandfather of 9 year old Christina Green, shot in the Tucson massacre. Feel his pain as he remembers his beloved granddaughter and listen to his words about guns and magazines. He knows about guns and now he knows about grief and becoming an instant victim of a shooting. I will let him have the last word.






117 comments:

  1. One million killed by guns since Kennedy and Dr. King? That would be more than the total killed by everything. Even Bloomberg says that number is 400,000. Your 270,000 since 9/11 comes from Doonesbury doesn't it? If it is real, that means that only 130,000 were killed between 1968 and 2001. That puts our rate per 100,000 for those years well below that of any other industrialized nation.

    ReplyDelete
  2. We like to divert - and you like to dance in the blood of the victims.

    Those two sayings are "nonsense" from both sides.

    ReplyDelete
  3. FWM- Nope I got it from the facts. Around 30,000 have been killed by a bullet a year since 9/11 so that would make close to 300,000. That includes suicides, homicides and accidental gun deaths. Since in some years in the 80s and 90s the number was closer to 40,000 a year, the figures are accurate within a few on either side.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Pat- can't you guys think of something else to say? Dancing in the blood of victims? Really? Most reasonable people know that doesn't ring true. It is another diversion.

    ReplyDelete
  5. There is nothing that can be said nicely over this post, therefore I will heed momma's word.

    ReplyDelete
  6. So you can't even be nice about victims. How sad but whatever.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Tell me - do you ever get tired of exploiting other people's tragedies to enact your authoritarian pipe dreams? Any shame? Any twinge of regret? Anything at all?

    ReplyDelete
  8. People are telling their stories willingly, anon. There is no exploitation- only in the eyes of people who don't understand or empathize.

    ReplyDelete
  9. "People are telling their stories willingly, anon. There is no exploitation- only in the eyes of people who don't understand or empathize."

    I can empathize with the pain and suffering. I understand the desire to use power to try to force the world to conform to ones utopian fantasies. I can't empathize with that though as I don't do it and won't do it. I know that doing so won't solve any problem and will make the existing problems worse and that it will create many new problems.

    ReplyDelete
  10. It could just as easily be you, or someone you love. And if it were, would it be enough then? When is enough, enough? Please, please, let it be NOW. "

    When will there be enough drunk driving victims to prohibit alcohol and cars?

    When will there be enough victims of the pharmacutical companies to prohibit prescription drugs (at least 100,000 people die from those drugs every year. Vioxx alone killed no less than 27000 after the company and FDA knew it was deadly.)

    When will there be enough victims of doctor's mistakes to prohibit doctors? (the FDA estimated well over 100,000 people die every year due to doctor's mistakes).

    When will there be enough victims of tobacco to prohibit tobacco? (over 400,000 a year)

    When will there be enough victims of over the counter pain meds to prohibit them? (over 7000 people die every year)

    When will enough be enough? When will enough victims be enough to ban everything?

    Losing loved ones is no excuse for prohibition. Tragedy just not justify tyranny. Any consistent application of the "principle" of prohibition that you support illustrates immediately how foolish your folly is.

    ReplyDelete
  11. " Tragedy just not justify tyranny" Really??? Hmm. So because I have had a tragedy in my life, I am justifying tyranny? Your logic is truly faulty and amazing. And now I am foolish and full of folly. I wonder if you guys really think through your responses to me before you commit them to writing.But have a nice day anyway.

    ReplyDelete
  12. “This shouldn’t happen in this country, or anywhere else, but in a free society, we’re going to be subject to people like this. I prefer this to the alternative.”
    – John Green, father of nine-year-old Christina Green
    (http://hotair.com/archives/2011/01/10/video-slain-girls-father-says-attack-the-price-of-a-free-society/)

    John Green is as much of a victim as Dallas Green. But, if we are not allowed to critically examine the policy suggestions of victims, then how do we reconcile Dallas' preference for gun control and John's preference for a free society?

    Since rational comparison of policy alternatives is clearly a personal attack on the Green family, and because regardless of what policy we choose we wouldn't be able to implement the policy ideas of both victims, and because the policy ideas of all victims are equally valid, maybe we should just flip a coin. Can you propose a better way to reconcile them? (Sarcasm)

    In all seriousness, both men suffered a terrible loss. No parent (or grandparent) should ever have to put their child into the ground. However, it is not mocking their loss or grief to critically question political claims.

    You seem like a liberal socially progressive type person. I'm guessing that you probably support the right of Muslims to build a mosque near the WTC site and pray peacefully (I do). It may not be the most sensitive idea, but our freedom of religion and private property rights are important principles to me. Yet, there are "9/11 families" who lost family members on 9/11 who strongly believe that the government should prevent the mosque from being built. Is my view a personal attack on those victims? I don't think so, myself, but by your reasoning, it appears to be.

    Cheers,
    Chris from AK

    ReplyDelete
  13. Yes, Chris,

    You are right about my political persuasions. And I support the Mosque near the sight of the terror attack. I sort of understand the views of some of the victims' families but don't think that the Islamic Center ( not just a Mosque as it was made out to be) would be something that would violate those victims. I don't consider it a personal attack on them because I view it differently however. As to Christina Green's father, I have seen that video and understand that his views may be different from those of his father. Not everyone in my family agrees about guns either but they do support my doing what I am doing in the name of my sister. I am sensitive to that and sometimes call up a few of them to let them know I will be doing an interview or writing something just so they know ahead of time.

    ReplyDelete
  14. DO you read the comments before you reply?

    My comment was indicating that saying we're diverting isn't any more true than saying you're reveling in violence to make your point.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Representative McCarthy has clearly shown in the past that she doesn't even understand the technology or terminology of firearms (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rGpykAX1fo).

    For her to sponsor and support any bill with language banning certain "terms" is looney tunes.

    For starters, the bill bans certain collectible antiques which haven't been used to commit a crime in th last 50 yrs.

    HOW is this "Common Sense" Joan?

    ReplyDelete
  16. Yes Pat. I have been sent that one many times. It has nothing to do with common sense. Perhaps McCarthy should have known what a barrel shroud was but she didn't. That didn't make the bill any better or worse. And Tucker Carlson was clearly trying to "get her" in this interview. I have found that quite a few legislators on both sides of the aisle do not completely understand the legislation they sign on to. Most of the time, staffers do the work. Sometimes they don't even know or remember that they have signed on as a co-signer to bills. We have found that as well. But you guys grab on to the details and don't let go.

    ReplyDelete
  17. "But you guys grab on to the details and don't let go."

    Because we should allow ill-informed public officials to make decisions for us??!?!??!!

    ReplyDelete
  18. Yes, that's it. Why didn't I think of that? I always know more than my elected officials. Well, maybe only sometimes. O.K. I admit it. They are all a bunch of stupid know nothings. I don't know how they get elected anyway.

    ReplyDelete
  19. " Yes Pat. I have been sent that one many times. It has nothing to do with common sense. Perhaps McCarthy should have known what a barrel shroud was but she didn't."

    Common sense says you should know what you are trying to prohibit. I've read the comments of hundreds of different people who support McCarthy's new bill. I really should have kept a collection of the "quotable quotes", such as the guy who said they should ban the cartridges that hold 30 bullets. Common sense people who haven't ever seen something, don't understand what it is, don't understand how it works, don't understand it's function and purpose, and don't know even know what it is called should not be deciding to outlaw it. Common sense says ignorant people shouldn't be playing king (or queen).

    "And Tucker Carlson was clearly trying to "get her" in this interview."

    Correct. He was trying to "get her" to display her ignorance and lack of understanding of her own legislation.

    "I have found that quite a few legislators on both sides of the aisle do not completely understand the legislation they sign on to. "

    Correct again. It is common for politicians to be ignorant and for them not to understand what they are saying, writing, or voting for. The fact that this is a common thing is no reason for accepting it.

    "Most of the time, staffers do the work."

    We are supposed to have a representational republic. If unelected people do most the work most of the time, how is it that we can have a "duly elected government" as you have claimed? Answer: we don't, we have a government run by unelected lobbyists and unelected staffers. We do get to elect the spokespeople for the lobbyists though, the politicians.

    "Sometimes they don't even know or remember that they have signed on as a co-signer to bills"

    Again, how is this a "duly elected government" when our representatives exercising the powers delegated exclusively to them?

    "We have found that as well. But you guys grab on to the details and don't let go. "

    The devil is in the details. That's why the devil loves ignorant people - they don't know he's there so they will work tirelessly to advance his cause.

    ReplyDelete
  20. " " Tragedy just not justify tyranny" Really??? Hmm. So because I have had a tragedy in my life, I am justifying tyranny?"

    Correct.

    "Your logic is truly faulty and amazing."

    It's "truly" so? Can you please explain exactly where I am wrong?

    It seems to me, and please correct me if I am mistaken, that you suffered a tragedy and then became an outspoken advocate of tyranny, as your "policy positions" are in fact tyranny. This is no matter of debate or opinion:

    1: oppressive power ; especially : oppressive power exerted by government

    You wish to use oppressive power to prohibit modern box magazines, which are literally an invention of the mind of man. You wish to use the oppressive power that is exerted by the government - to use the tyranny of a police state to persecute any who dare buy, sell, trade, inherit, loan, borrow, manufacture any spring loaded box that exceeds a certain arbitrary capacity. That's tyranny.

    Where is my logic "truly faulty"?

    "And now I am foolish and full of folly."

    It doesn't appear to be a recent development. These are not insults. It is not an insult to point out someones flaws. I am showing considerable restraint in saying as little as nicely as I have. Normally I am brutally honest but since you make an effort to engage in dialogue I am tempering my posts to no small degree.

    "I wonder if you guys really think through your responses to me before you commit them to writing.But have a nice day anyway."

    Does extensively evaluating my comments for historical accuracy, factual correctness, and moral legitimacy count as thinking them through? And I agree - have a nice day.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Frankly I have no idea how rep McCarthy got electedon anything other than a sympathy vote. She had no political experience at all when elected.

    http://carolynmccarthy.house.gov/index.cfm?sectionid=223&sectiontree=4,223

    Her own bio shows no prominence in any area of government and her prior life skills were as a nurse

    She has actively increased her net worth considerably while in congress

    She has sponsored 151 bills only 5 have ever been passed out of committee and enacted. If my hired representative had that track record I would certainly want someone more effective.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Appeal to Authority
    Explanation

    An appeal to authority is an argument from the fact that a person judged to be an authority affirms a proposition to the claim that the proposition is true.

    Appeals to authority are always deductively fallacious; even a legitimate authority speaking on his area of expertise may affirm a falsehood, so no testimony of any authority is guaranteed to be true.

    However, the informal fallacy occurs only when the authority cited either (a) is not an authority, or (b) is not an authority on the subject on which he is being cited. If someone either isn’t an authority at all, or isn’t an authority on the subject about which they’re speaking, then that undermines the value of their testimony.
    Example

    (1) Marilyn vos Savant says that no philosopher has ever successfully resolved the problem of evil.
    Therefore:
    (2) No philosopher has ever successfully resolved the problem of evil.

    This argument is fallacious because Marilyn vos Savant, though arguably an authority, is not an authority on the philosophy of religion. Her judgement that no philosopher has ever successfully resolved the problem of evil therefore carries little evidential weight; if there were a philosopher somewhere that had successfully resolved the problem then there’s a good chance that Marilyn vos Savant wouldn’t know about it. Her testimony is therefore insufficient to establish the conclusion of the argument.
    --------------------------------------------

    Victims of gun violence are authorities on what it's like to be victims of gun violence. They are not automatically made into criminologists, political scientists, historians, or psychologists. Their stories are valuable for the purposes of raising awareness of the issues. What is done with that awareness is up to ACTUAL experts in those fields and the democratic process.

    And that's the beauty of democracy.
    You can disagree with the 9/11 victims,
    and we can disagree with you.

    ReplyDelete
  23. "They are all a bunch of stupid know nothings."

    Not all...but simply because one is an elected official doesn't make one an expert. They should at least know enough to speak intelligently about a topic they're apparently "passionate" enough to sponsor.

    ReplyDelete
  24. "As to Christina Green's father, I have seen that video and understand that his views may be different from those of his father. "

    Do you understand Christina Green's grandfather doesn't want this to be a free country? Do you understand that you don't want this to be a free country? Do you understand what will happen if this is not a free country?

    ReplyDelete
  25. How do you decide that the families "will not be violated?"

    Watch this video and tell me that those families don't feel violated:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fIlCiX0LIqA&feature=player_embedded#at=24

    I don't know how you can say that this isn't something that "would be something that would violate those victims." They clearly feel violated.

    I personally happen to agree with you on this specific subject -- that allowing the mosque to be built, while it may be insensitive to some of the families, it consistent with more important national values. However, I don't have any illusions about the real pain that some of the families have over this issue. I don't dismiss their concerns as "Oh, they won't be violated, and if they do feel violated, then they are just irrational hysterical victims."

    My broader point is that we don't give victims who are suffering real grief the right to dictate policies to the rest of society. When there are competing victims on both sides of an issue, both with legitimate pain, we use some sort of rational process to evaluate their arguments and weigh the available evidence. Or at least, I do. It isn't a personal attack on 9/11 survivors to listen to their concern, evaluate their argument in the light of all the other available evidence, and then make a rational decision. And it isn't a personal attack on you or anyone else who has experienced gun violence to do the same on that issue.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Are pro-gunners human? I don't think they are. They don't feel emotions and they can only deal with statistics and numbers.

    I think they are machines.

    ReplyDelete
  27. There is no exploitation...

    Using their stories to leverage additional legislation is the very definition of exploitation.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Here's the problem with highlighting a few actual honest-to-God innocent victims of gun violence and following that with statistics in the hundreds of thousands. You are indirectly implying that there are hundreds of thousands of innocent victims.

    Mourning friends and families? Undoubtedly. Unfortunate? Absolutely. An epidemic of violence? Sure.

    Innocent victims? Not anywhere NEAR all of them.


    Here's five "victims"

    http://www.wsaz.com/news/headlines/12285251.html?storySection=comments

    According to court documents, all five people involved in the early-morning shootings in Charleston Saturday have criminal backgrounds.

    -------------------------------------------

    Here's seven "victims" and one ACTUAL victim (a generous assumption made on the lack of a criminal record) who made the mistake of being with them.

    http://www.buffalonews.com/city/article168979.ece

    7 of 8 shooting victims had criminal past
    Some suggest lifestyle, associations may have put them in harm's way

    --------------------------------------------

    Here's my favorite- this "victim" was back out after being sentenced to six years for shooting a 13 month old toddler during an armed robbery. Outstanding. Let's not forget his partner, who was already a felon and got caught brandishing a firearm in a car.

    http://www.vindy.com/news/2010/dec/06/shooting-victims-austintown-have-criminal-records/

    Wellington had been released from prison in 2007, after serving five out of six years for the Sept. 2, 2000, shooting of Kyreese Haymon, who was 13 months old at the time. He pleaded guilty to aggravated burglary, aggravated assault and felonious assault charges...

    The second victim, McLendon, of Lansdowne Boulevard, was indicted by a Mahoning County grand jury for illegal gun possession and improperly handling a gun in a motor vehicle in 2008, and in July he was arrested and charged with receiving stolen property.


    http://ltf1090.tam.us.siteprotect.com/news/2002/apr/23/warren-man-on-trial-in-shooting-of-baby/

    -------------------------------------------

    http://www.abc26.com/news/local/wgno-news-lower-garden-district-shooting-20110214,0,6132859.

    1 Shooting Victim Dead, Four Others Shot in Lower Garden District

    New Orleans Police say the three men involved in the shooting, one of which has died, all had extensive rap sheets with the NOPD:

    ----------------------------------------------

    For a group of people that like to talk about the cycle of violence, gun control advocates sure seem to have a problem recognizing it. Or is that ADMITTING when they recognize it?

    "... A lot of the things that have happened lately are related to shootings or killings that happened months ago."

    http://www.buffalonews.com/city/article102839.ece

    Gang dispute apparently sparked shootings...
    Police also are trying to determine whether the City Grill shootings are linked -- either directly or indirectly -- to several other recent city shootings.

    --------------------------------------------

    A ten round magazine limit didn't do this guy any good. But you already know about him.

    http://www.theprovince.com/news/Vancouver+shooting+targeted+victim+with+known+gang+connections/4305823/story.html

    Vancouver shooting was targeted hit on victim with known gang connections



    Tell me again how guns are the problem...?


    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A6615-2004Sep8.html

    Yesterday, Cosby told his critics, "Come at me all you want." To those who criticized him for blaming the victim by preaching personal responsibility, he said: "I know a victim when I see one...And so do we all recognize victims. But some victims you can look at and say, 'Get up.' "

    Shifting the blame to inanimate objects does NOTHING to help someone pick themselves up.

    ReplyDelete
  29. "The gun rights lobby consists of a grass-roots membership who are gun enthusiasts. The gun control lobby consists mainly of the family members of crime victims. And the number of gun enthusiasts dwarf the number of victims." - Jim Kessler, the co-founder of Third Way and a former official at Americans for Gun Safety

    And that's from someone on your side. So it's not just pro-gun people who have noticed the victim pimping. The gun control/ban movement depends on victims.

    Luckily for everyone involved, the gun control/ban movement will never have enough victims to outnumber those of us who legally and peacefully own and use firearms.

    ReplyDelete
  30. A few thoughts:

    1) "most reasonable people" aren't commenting on this blog

    2) there is a short list of regular folks on the "gun violence prevention" side (Japete, Mikeb, Baldr, Laci...)

    3) there are a few prominent gun rights bloggers who regularly post

    4) the rest seem to be private people, reading the work of #3 in their spare time (like me)

    Unfortunately the gun control lobby has to compete for the same hearts and minds as the "save the polar bear" lobby.

    For gun guys, this is often issue #1.

    ReplyDelete
  31. "We rely on a lot of other folks with whom we associate such as law enforcement, lawyers, legislative staffers, gun owners and hunters, etc. to help with writing the laws."

    I can't agree with this very much, because we gun owners are trying to give you input on what would be good for laws to reduce gun violence, but you won't hear of it and instead accuse us of caring too much about our guns to try solving problems. What if someone who wasn't even a gun owner, was completely opposed to your suggested policies and suggested different methods? What would you accuse them of then? Do we have to agree with you entirely, to be on board with violence prevention? Is this a with us or against us thing?

    I can't understand this, we want to stop gun violence too, but apparently your way is the only way?

    And yea, some politicians aren't that smart or good, just because you got elected doesn't make you a very smart and good person. Many if not most politicians are concerned primarily with their career, whatever can keep them moving up, whether right or wrong. DA Rice in Nassau County NY can lie to the public about gun dealers "flooding the streets" with dangerous 'assault weapons', and go do undercover stings on gun shops that are following the law, and have a press release about all these 'dangerous assault weapons' they kept off the streets (to my knowledge, no 'assault rifle' has ever been used in a Nassau County shooting). The majority of the public doesn't know any better and thinks that DA Rice is doing good and making their neighborhoods safer, meanwhile we gun owners know better, and see it for what it is; a disgusting publicity stunt for her to further her political career. Meanwhile, where is the press release about busting an actual gun runner actually selling weapons to the gangs? Hmmm. A politician can sign any gun control legislation and appear to be doing good to their constituents, especially if their constituents don't know any better.

    You said yourself that nobody can know everything, when we complained about incorrect terminology and not knowing various historical points. So why is it when we criticize a politician and their staff on problems with a bill, they're suddenly superior people to us and apparently know what they're doing?

    You criticize lawmakers who pass gun laws that you are opposed to, as being crazy or careless or catering to the gun lobby, so we can certainly say the same about law makers who pass gun laws that we oppose.

    And as far as discussions going off on a tanget, I don't know about you, but when I have a discussion with people, usually the discussion wanders around the general topic and we discuss various points and subjects. I've never had a dialogue that stuck to one very specific point, the discussion moves. What do you do when you are having a face to face discussion, and somebody starts to talk about something very closely related, but not on the exact point that the discussion began with? Cut off the conversation with them and walk away? I get what you're saying, but the nature of discussion is to branch out to various points and subjects within a particular topic. You can't call it diversion when the discussion starts to move in another direction, that's what discussions do!

    -DHS

    ReplyDelete
  32. Quote: The NRA has the clout. Unfortunately, we have the victim/survivor stories.

    Here's some survivor stories:
    http://thearmedcitizen.com/
    Over 4000 survivor stories, in fact.

    You don't have to think too hard to find times when there were people who knew how to use a firearm but weren't allowed to have one to protect themselves with. All the soldiers at Ft. Hood immediately come to mind.

    At the VA Tech incident, I immediately think of Kevin Granata:
    "Kevin Granata had heard the commotion in his third-floor office and ran downstairs. He was a military veteran, very protective of his students. He was gunned down trying to confront the shooter." Another man with military experience, not allowed to carry a defensive tool.
    http://www.pulitzer.org/archives/7811

    You could also start looking at women raped by larger male assailants, gays beaten to death in the Bible Belt by gangs that outnumber them, and so on. Aren't they victims too? Aren't their stories relevant? Or do you not care because they suffered at the bare hands of a larger attacker or were threatened by a gang or knife?

    The policies you advocate have costs. There are costs to making it illegal for off-duty cops to carry a firearm within 1000 feet of a school like you support (the GFSZA). There are costs to prohibiting military veterans, former police officers, and other law abiding adult citizens from carrying firearms on colleges. There are costs to preventing 20 year old young women who have to live and work in high crime areas from carrying handguns.

    Maybe your side doesn't have all the stories after all.

    ReplyDelete
  33. ILP- " outspoken advocate of tyranny" This is ridiculous on so many levels and also insulting and provacative not to mention totally false.Your rhetoric borders on hysteria. Enough said.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Yes, P. We have a lot of those now serving in Congress recently elected as Republican tea partiers. My own new Rep. had absolutely no political experience- he has served in no office ever and has only lived in my state for a few years. But hey- he was elected anyway.

    ReplyDelete
  35. You know, ILP- your comments are bordering on lunacy. I am considering not publishing any more from you.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Dear readers, This discussion is now irrelevant and out of control. What some on this blog are saying is straining credulity and common sense not to mention logic and acceptable discourse. Please stop writing your incendiary comments about victims. They are insulting. To even intimate that victims are "dictating" policy is so ridiculous I hardly know where to begin. No one is dictating anything. The last time I checked, we are living in a Democracy where bills get hearings and the majority wins. If victims are sponsoring legislation or supporting it, that is their right just as it is your right to oppose it. What are you all so afraid of here?

    ReplyDelete
  37. Aztec Red- " victim pimping" great comment which says more about you than it does about me. As to the link you provided, Jim Kessler did not mean that comment as a criticism. He was stating a fact albeit his fact was not correct. There are many more people who have not been victims on my side than those who have been. You did not prove one thing with this link but thanks anyway.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Thanks, Chris, for this link to the VT article. I had not read that one. The quote you chose to highlight : ""Kevin Granata had heard the commotion in his third-floor office and ran downstairs. He was a military veteran, very protective of his students. He was gunned down trying to confront the shooter." " I believe this proves how a gun would not have helped even this military veteran. It did not say that he confronted Cho with a gun. I assume you believe that if only this guy had a gun surely he would have saved lives. You cannot say with assurance that that would have been the case.

    ReplyDelete
  39. To one of the anons, above, who provided links to victims- I find it really interesting that what you take from those articles that people could have defended themselves had they only had guns with mags of over 10 rounds. You just can't logically infer that from what I read. I am not sure what your point was with providing me with the 2004 Bill Cosby article. Did you think he meant that Black youth should defend themselves with guns with high capacity mags? Or that people shouldn't continue to allow themselves to be victimized? You took one thing from this article, which I don't understand or agree about. I took this one: " "As I said in church on Sunday, the big problem is young people who can't control their tempers, who use violence to settle their problems instead of talking," Pridgen said. "If people would just think before they react, we'd have a lot less people in the Holding Center."" From that quote, I take that using guns in anger by gang members or whoever, is not a good idea. If we found ways to stop access to guns to people who can't handle them responsibly, we would be able to reduce the violence suffered by the people in the articles you provided links for.

    ReplyDelete
  40. "As I said in church on Sunday, the big problem is young people who can't control their tempers, who use violence to settle their problems instead of talking," Pridgen said.


    Hm. We must be seeing things differently somehow.
    I interpreted that as meaning that people were the problem not guns, as evidenced by this-

    "...the big problem is young people..."

    Moreover, that these particular people have certain behavioral traits that are a direct cause of violence, as evidenced by this part here-

    "...who can't control their tempers, who use violence to settle their problems instead of talking..."

    I'm not sure how the means by which people lose their tempers and use violence to solve their problems has anything to do with either what was quoted, or in the solution to the problem of violence.

    ReplyDelete
  41. "ILP- " outspoken advocate of tyranny" This is ridiculous on so many levels and also insulting and provacative not to mention totally false.Your rhetoric borders on hysteria. Enough said."

    I wrote a very detailed explanation of why you are supporting tyranny, but you can only deny it. Can you explain exactly why I am wrong, why your policy positions are "reasonable restrictions" instead of "tyranny"?

    As for hysteria, have you read of the Arizona pending legislation that prohibits "high capacity" magazines? Unlike McCarthy's bill there is absolutely no grandfathering. That means if it passes then perhaps at least 1 out of 4 people in Arizona (or many more) will be subject to being arrested and convicted of a felony, facing 2.5 years in prison plus their right to vote and right to keep and bear arms will be disabled. And of course they will have massive lawyer bills and lose their house and car in many cases. There is no provision to destroy or turn the magazines, no amnesty period, just suddenly a huge percentage of the population will be committing a felony by taking no action at all with no means to comply. That is hysteria.

    Another example of the insanity of McCarthy's bill (would apply to the Arizona one too) is that it prohibits ammunition feeding devices even if they can't be used. If you make a 11 round magazine that doesn't fit into any firearm it's still a violation. There is no requirement as I can tell for it to even be functional. I could make one out of paper and scotch tape and that would be a felony. Actually, since I have a little paper folding skill, I could just make one out of paper. Won't work in any gun, can't be used at all, but for that I should go to prison? It's true that the bill doesn't talk about paper magazines that fit no gun, but it doesn't have to as prohibition doesn't follow any sort of logic.

    ReplyDelete
  42. "I believe this proves how a gun would not have helped even this military veteran. It did not say that he confronted Cho with a gun. I assume you believe that if only this guy had a gun surely he would have saved lives. "

    An unarmed man has little chance against an armed man. It is very likely that the veteran would have been able to stop Cho. Cho might or might not have still killed him, but the death toll would most likely have been much less.

    "You cannot say with assurance that that would have been the case."

    Very true. However, it is also true that you cannot say with assurance that would not have been the case. You most certainly can't say it will never be the case, or that it will never be the case that 11+ round magazines in the hands of citizens will never save lives. However, you are willing to act as though you have perfect assurance that this will never be the case.

    Please continue to advocate for this legislation though. It sells the magazines and puts them into more responsible hands, and it removes credibility from your cause, and it alienates many who would be supportive of the other measures you support.

    ReplyDelete
  43. "If we found ways to stop access to guns to people who can't handle them responsibly,"

    Facts:

    1 There are a small number of people who can't handle firearms responsibly.

    2 There are large numbers of people who can handle firearms responsibly.

    3 There are large numbers of firearms.

    I hope you agree with these facts stating the size of groups of different types of entities.

    The question then is: what is to be done to keep group 1 away from group 3?

    Your solution is to keep group 1 and group 2 away from group 3 through a series of restrictions and prohibitions.

    This is analogous to peanut allergies.

    1 There are a small number of people who are deathly allergic to peanuts.

    2 There are a large number of people who aren't deathly allergic to peanuts.

    3 There are a large number of peanuts and peanut products.

    What is the most effective way to keep group 1 away from group 3?

    Is it to prohibit "large capacity peanut bags" and imprison anyone who buys, sells, trades, loans, borrows, or holds "large capacity peanut bags" even though even 1 peanut or peanut product with a tiny amount of peanut will kill the allergic? Is it to require that group 2 pass a background check proving they aren't allergic? Is it to fund the CDC to demonstrate that yes peanut allergies that kill can in fact kill people who are allergic to peanuts?

    What you support hasn't worked with guns or drugs and it clearly won't work with other problems. Why use the least effective means possible to try to accomplish our mutual goal of reducing gun violence?

    You say we can't do nothing, but doing nothing is better than doing something incredibly expensive and inefficient, as then the resources aren't wasted and can be used efficiently in the future.

    ReplyDelete
  44. "The last time I checked, we are living in a Democracy where bills get hearings and the majority wins."

    You should check again, ma'am. This country was founded as a republic, not a democracy. The difference being that our rights may not be curtailed by the whims of the majority. By your reasoning, would you accept as legitimate a law that banned womens' voting rights, if it had the support of, say, 85% of voters? Polls on gun restrictions are all very well and interesting, but they quite frankly don't mean a thing (although it is heartening to see the pro-gun standpoint always seems to come out on top).

    I was also intrigued regarding your reference to Dr. King and the high rate of "gun deaths" by inner city blacks. Coincidently enough, the NRA just published an article titled "Jim Crow and the Racist Roots of Gun Control" in their March 2011 issue of "America's 1st Freedom." It is very enlightening, and I urge you to do some research as to the nature of the original cause of gun control laws in this country.

    ReplyDelete
  45. ...what you take from those articles that people could have defended themselves had they only had guns with mags of over 10 rounds.


    No ma'am. I apologize for being unclear.

    The cause of a significant number of gun deaths is criminals who have chosen to make their living at the point of a gun. It is misleading to cite statistics that make no distinction between the victim of a violent home invader (an actual victim), and two rival gang members who shoot each other dead in a turf war (not victims) and then make the claim that all 100,000/270,000 deaths were victims of senseless and tragic gun violence.

    A victim of society, or a victim of economics, or a victim of subculture, or a victim of their own choices? Those are all defensible statements.

    That they are all victims of guns is not. Unless you are suggesting that criminals would stop being criminals if they didn't have guns, which will mean we'll have to start talking about England again.

    The Bill Cosby quote was to show that when an accomplished Black American with a doctorate in education publicly says that parents need to supervise their kids and make them get an education, most will agree with him. But there is a percentage of the population, both black and white, that insist on placing the blame for individual choices elsewhere. According to Bill Cosby, that doesn't help victims "get up".

    Now, in the interest of absolute clarity, that IS NOT to say that all problems of the inner city would be solved if black parents got their acts together. That is merely to show how people don't like blaming perpetrators, they like to blame things. And it doesn't help people who are actively contributing to their own demise to shift blame from their choice to live a life of crime to the tools that they use to commit crimes. That is a distinction that Mr. Cosby is all too familiar with.

    I hope that is clear.

    ReplyDelete
  46. A few thoughts:

    1) "most reasonable people" aren't commenting on this blog

    2) there is a short list of regular folks on the "gun violence prevention" side (Japete, Mikeb, Baldr, Laci...)

    3) there are a few prominent gun rights bloggers who regularly post

    4) the rest seem to be private people, reading the work of #3 in their spare time (like me)

    Unfortunately the gun control lobby has to compete for the same hearts and minds as the "save the polar bear" lobby.

    For gun guys, this is often issue #1.


    I don't understand this post. I typically don't read blogs, I just stumbled onto this one. Just in case you're saying that because we own guns we don't do anything else, I've spent WAY more on building shelters and feeding feral (fixed) cats. And I think the gun rights side is saying much the same thing because we are citing the same sources. Not the NRA, but rather actual historical documents and violent crime trends.
    Oh, and logic.

    ReplyDelete
  47. He was gunned down trying to confront the shooter." " I believe this proves how a gun would not have helped even this military veteran.
    It did not say that he confronted Cho with a gun.

    So you're saying that a man who confronted a crazed gunman completely unarmed would not have had ANY effect on deterring the crazed gunman? A man who was brave enough to look down the wrong end of a gun barrel COMPLETELY UNARMED would not have had the ability or mental capacity to even slow down the progress of the shooter?

    Hypothetical-
    You're Cho. You're methodically kicking in doors and killing people, safe in the knowledge that no one can stop you. Suddenly, you are confronted by someone peeking around a corner pointing a gun at you and telling you to stop.

    You are now going to-

    A) kill more people
    B) kill fewer people

    -than if you were completely unhindered.

    ReplyDelete
  48. I believe this proves how a gun would not have helped even this military veteran. It did not say that he confronted Cho with a gun. I assume you believe that if only this guy had a gun surely he would have saved lives. You cannot say with assurance that that would have been the case.

    Once again I ask what should he have done to stop the shooter? It is true that he may or may not have been able to stop the shooter but being not armed did not seem to work so well in this instance.

    ReplyDelete
  49. ILP_ I'm glad that you aknowledged you could not predict that someone could shoot to kill given the chance as in the VT shootings. Neither of us can say for sure what would happen in the situation. You would likely get shot in either scenario. The slight chance that you could "save the day" as you all imagine yourselves doing in similar situations, is slim. The chance that you might shoot the wrong person or have your own gun taken from you or that you would escalate the situation is more than slim.

    ReplyDelete
  50. ILP- do you lay awake at night coming up with false analogies? For that is surely what the peanut allergy to guns anaology is.

    ReplyDelete
  51. alcade- I believe most people refer to our country as a democracy. As to your argument that gun control is racist- perposterous but more on that later.

    ReplyDelete
  52. " alcade- I believe most people refer to our country as a democracy"

    That is true, but most people are ignorant of the meaning of the word. There hasn't been a democracy since the Greek city-state democracies met their demise.

    "As to your argument that gun control is racist- perposterous but more on that later. "

    You might want to make the effort to first read about the history of gun control before you write about it...or support it. It used to be a tool of racists for controlling the people they hated so much. Does expanding the policy of hateful racists make the policy no longer racist? No, it just means that instead of being against the black race or the Jewish race you are against the human race. Is that the sort of "progress" you really to engage in?

    ReplyDelete
  53. "alcade- I believe most people refer to our country as a democracy. As to your argument that gun control is racist- perposterous but more on that later."

    It really doesn't matter what most people call our country, if it's wrong it's wrong. If most people referred to the Earth as being flat, that would not make it so. Perhaps you could point to one sentence in our constitution or declaration or independence that refers to democracy? If you read much of the writings regarding the political philosophy of the founding fathers, they abhored democracy and realized it was at best mob rule.

    And I was not implying that you were a racist because you favor gun control, but history doesn't lie and the first gun control laws of our country were in fact aimed at disarming freed blacks so they wouldn't be able to defend themselves against the Klan. I realize that your motives are different, but the first gun control laws were for a different purpose.

    ReplyDelete
  54. ILP- I reject your extremist remarks.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Yes sir alcade- I'm sure you know more than anyone and your view is inherently correct. Mine then, supported by the majority of Americans, by your reasoning, is inherently wrong. Stunning that you are arrogant enough to believe that. As to the racism stuff- be careful what you say about it- there are real implications coming from your side calling us all kinds of names. Racist seems to be entering the arena of rhetoric coming from your side. Such allegations are dangerous, hyperbolic and totally false.

    ReplyDelete
  56. One element in this success [against the KKK] was that a "younger generation of blacks--led by soldiers returning from World War I, familiar with guns and willing to fight for the equal treatment they had received in other lands--had to be painfully reintroduced to the forces of social control."[84]

    Those forces of social control included restrictive gun laws directed against African-Americans. Over a period of two centuries gun control laws played an indispensable part in Southern control of slaves and--after the Civil War--of freedmen.[85] This legacy to the Second KKK from the triumph of the First Klan was enlarged when in 1911 New York followed Southern states by conditioning handgun ownership on obtaining a police license. The purpose of this requirement was to disarm Italians, Jews, and other supposedly criminous immigrant groups.[86]

    [83.]See generally NANCY MACLEAN, BEHIND THE MASK OF CHIVALRY: THE MAKING OF THE SECOND KU KLUX KLAN (1994).

    [84.]See Don B. Kates, Jr., Toward a History of Handgun Prohibition in the United States, in RESTRICTING HANDGUNS, supra note 31, at 7, 19 [hereinafter Kates, Handgun Prohibition]; see also MACLEAN, supra note 83, at 28-29 (describing assertiveness of African-American veterans after experiencing alternative to Southern life).

    [85.]As the Florida Supreme Court justice frankly avowed in denying the application of such a law against a white appellant: "[T]he Act was passed for the purpose of disarming the negro laborers[.] . . . [It was] never intended to be applied to the white population[.]" Watson v. Stone, 4 So.2d 700, 703 (1941) (Buford, J., concurring). Southern gun laws from the eighteenth through the early twentieth century are discussed in Robert J. Cottrol & Raymond T. Diamond, The Second Amendment: Toward an Afro-Americanist Reconsideration, 80 GEO. L.J. 309 (1991); Robert J. Cottrol & Raymond T. Diamond, "Never Intended to Be Applied to the White Population": Firearms Regulation and Racial Disparity--The Redeemed South's Legacy to a National Jurisprudence?, 70 CHI. -KENT L. REV. 1307 (1995); Kates, Handgun Prohibition, supra note 84.

    [86.]For the history of New York's Sullivan Law, and its purposes, see Kates, Handgun Prohibition, supra note 84; see generally also Don B. Kates, Jr., The Battle Over Gun Control, 84 PUB. INTEREST 42, 43-44 (1986); LEE KENNETT & JAMES LAVERNE ANDERSON, THE GUN IN AMERICA: THE ORIGINS OF A NATIONAL DILEMMA 165-86 (1975).

    ReplyDelete
  57. "Mine then, supported by the majority of Americans, by your reasoning, is inherently wrong."

    Actually, according to Rasmussen and Gallup, you are not supported by a majority of Americans. See: http://www.opposingviews.com/i/poll-majority-of-americans-against-stricter-gun-control

    "Stunning that you are arrogant enough to believe that"

    Come now, let's be civil here.

    "As to the racism stuff- be careful what you say about it- there are real implications coming from your side calling us all kinds of names."

    If I may beg your pardon here, but saying just about anything against Obama's policies has gotten "my side" called racists since before he was even elected. I'm pretty sure the left does quite a sufficient job of smearing anyone on the right as a racist now that they have a black figurehead.


    "Racist seems to be entering the arena of rhetoric coming from your side. Such allegations are dangerous, hyperbolic and totally false. "

    I will reiterate what I said in my last post. I Do Not believe you are a racist for your beliefs, I do believe your motives are different. But history shows that the first gun control laws in this country were aimed at keeping freed blacks from arming themselves. But don't take my word for it, there is a plethora of information on the internet available to research. I'd also be willing to snail mail you my copy of the NRA article, if that was your wish.

    ReplyDelete
  58. I disagree with your remarks alcade. See these polling results: http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/downloads/pdf/maig_poll_01_18_2011.pdf

    http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/downloads/pdf/luntz_poll_questionnaire_and_responses.pdf

    http://pewresearch.org/assets/pdf/gun-control-2011.pdf

    ReplyDelete
  59. Even the most carefully executed scientific poll isn't guaranteed 100% correct. Different polls are going to have different results on the same questions. We could cite various polls all day to 'prove' two different positions.

    One thing I find interesting, are the poll results to the poll from last month done by American Viewpoint and Momentum Analysis, which you have linked from the MAIG website, Joan. Especially considering that it was conducted almost immediately after the Tuscon shooting. I'd like to see what the results would have been before the shooting, and what they will be a couple months after.

    51% thought laws covering the sales of guns should be more strict
    39% said keep them the same

    79% believed the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right
    14% believed it guarantees a state militia's right

    While 41% want stricter laws overall, 8% want less strict laws, and 46% feel the laws are fine as they are.

    48% felt it was just as important to protect citizen's Constitutional right to own a gun as it was to keep guns out of the wrong hands

    44% thought that there should be a ban on 'high capacity' magazines (Still below majority, though way too close for comfort to me. Show me all the examples of 'high capacity' magazines being so commonplace in gun violence.)

    54% believed there should be a national gun registry. (That one scares me, I don't trust the government to manage to put the right people behind bars, I certainly don't trust them knowing every firearm I own. And it is incredibly obvious that criminals are not going to register their guns, and will deface all numbers on stolen guns just as they already do.)

    77% think all gun purchases should include a background check. (We've been over why we think this is pointless and ineffective already so I won't repeat.)

    To me, those numbers show that most people feel the laws are for the most part, good enough, they just need strengthening in certain ares, without taking away guns or banning anything. Whether those numbers are very accurate or not I don't know, for all we know some numbers got fudged a bit to more closely follow MAIG's policies. Or they could have randomly hit a higher number of pro-gun people than is the national average. I doubt either, but it's possible.

    I am actually confused by the large number in favor of a national gun registry, it should seem obvious that criminals aren't going to use registered guns with intact serial numbers. It's common knowledge that criminals frequently deface serial numbers on guns to prevent tracing them, isn't it? I can't fathom how a gun registry would be expected to work in preventing crime anyway, it must assume that the criminal would have a traceable gun that was already in the registry, which would assume that the criminal is following the law until they commit their crime.

    I sort of understand the desire for 100% background checks, but we went over how criminals already obtain guns from people who wouldn't do a background check, so I don't really see how that would do much, if any, good. Once somebody can't pass the check, then they just go straight to the street dealer, or theft, their primary sources anyway.

    -DHS

    ReplyDelete
  60. It is indeed sad the number of victims in this country. 100K a year. But let us also not forget the unshot victims: the family and friends of those who were shot, and the lives that are torn apart and traumatized. When, as a child, my friend killed himself with a handgun, it ripped apart his family, including extended family, and left us, his friends, with an emptiness and sadness. When, a few years later, I witnessed one boy shoot another to death, it was two families that were affected (the victim's, and the shooter's), and the dozens of children that witnessed it like myself were traumatized, and *their* families had to deal with that as well. Violence at that level has ripples throughout a community.

    ReplyDelete
  61. I always shake my head at the accusation of "dancing in the blood of victims" leveled at those who campaign to reduce gun violence.

    When we state our case for the need to more strictly control firearms availability and access, the pro-gun extremists challenge us to name examples where violence occurs, accusing us of exaggeration. But when we name those examples of shootings and the victims they produce, and rightly point out how regulation and common sense would work to reduce such violence, suddenly we are accused of exploiting the victims for our ends by "dancing in their blood." As if the victims would mind being championed! They only expose themselves as being divisive and violent in their own right when they use phrases like that.

    ReplyDelete
  62. Chris, who believes anything that supports his argument, said,

    "Here's some survivor stories:
    http://thearmedcitizen.com/
    Over 4000 survivor stories, in fact."


    The fact is some of those are stories of guys who got away with manslaughter, manslaughter disguised as a legitimate DGU. They're still survivors, I suppose, but don't try to whitewash it.

    ReplyDelete
  63. Joan,
    We all know that gun control is racist. They target low income, minority neighborhoods that police seldom patrol. The goal of said sad legislation is to tell single mom’s they have no right to defend themselves against drug dealers and gang members.
    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jul/6/racist-pols-go-straight-back-to-disarming-blacks/
    It is common sense that both the administrations of Chicago, Washington and New York meter out police protection to keep low income family’s under control and voting correctly. Having low income families, most of whom are single mom’s, able to defend themselves, lets them out from under the tyrannical control of these administrations. Those in wealthy areas in Washington are arming because the laws are designed to keep the unwashed masses under control while allowing those who can afford the application fees, the background checks, the travel to the range and the range time to protect themselves.
    http://dailycaller.com/2011/02/08/post-handgun-ban-wealthy-d-c-residents-stock-up-on-firepower/
    So, yes Joan gun control is both tyrannical and racist.
    Gun owner and carry concealed carry applicant, Martin Luther King Jr. said, "Freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed." Help us please in our civil rights struggle against tyrants like Dailey, Bloomberg and Gray as we fight for the rights of the oppressed to exercise their God given rights to protect themselves. Only tyrants would, when openly rebuked twice by the Supreme Court of the United States, enact NEW city ordinances specifically to allow only those they choose to exercise the civil right of self protection. We all understand that you, Mikeb and heck even Baldr wouldn’t deny civil rights based on income level, race or sex like the aforementioned tyrants.

    ReplyDelete
  64. Wait....you are quoting MAIG..now that is rich. Like the VPC, MAIG is notorious for manufacturing "facts". Joan seriously, that is laugh out loud funny. If the majority is in favor of stricter gun control then you and the Brady Bunch should have no problem amending the Constitution versus the typical incremental, death of civil liberties by paper cuts, modus operandi you folks typically pursue. Heck take a run at the Second versus the typical, gutless chicanery like banning lead ammo through the EPA, or putting some gun grabbing poser as the head of the BATFE, or having the CDC declare gun violence as a "public health hazard". Joan you are constant source of amusement.

    ReplyDelete
  65. Although I was tempted to pull a play from your playbook...

    japete said...

    Thanks for the link. This is surely unbiased fact, though I haven't had time to read the almost 100 pages of stuff. I did, however not (sic) this: "Politics: Guy Smith (writer, songwriter, political provocateur) is a civil libertarian. Because the 2nd Amendment is the only civil right under perpetual attack, Guy has chosen to make gun owner rights the focal point of his political activism." Hmm. So thanks, but no thanks. I don't think you have proven a thing here.
    February 14, 2011 8:48 AM


    ...instead I gritted my teeth and downloaded something tainted by the presence of a man who blatantly disregards federal law not just outside of his city, but outside of his state. Illegal guns indeed.

    Anyway, here's what I found, even in these "unbiased" polls-

    http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/downloads/pdf/maig_poll_01_18_2011.pdf
    3. In general, do you feel the laws covering the sale of guns should be made more strict, less strict, or kept as they are now?
    More strict 51
    Kept as they are now 50


    http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/downloads.pdf/luntz_poll_questionnaire_and_responses.pdfIn general, do you feel that the laws covering the sale of guns should be made more strict, less strict, or kept as they are now?
    KEPT AS THEY ARE NOW
    NRA 48%
    NON–NRA 53%

    At best, depending on how questions are worded, calls for more gun control in general gets 60% approval. Instead, what you're consistently getting is about a 50/50 split.

    The Pew Research poll looks like a more genuine poll, and has good information. Still 50/50 though. And really, the real question is how much does each 50% really care? As you know, there's a big difference between pressing a button on a phone and getting someone to give money, write carefully worded letters, and make phone calls to representatives' offices, as I'm sure you're well aware.

    And I still maintain that the premise that just because the majority believes it doesn't necessarily make it a good idea. I shouldn't even have to provide examples of that, but if you would like, I will.

    ReplyDelete
  66. japete said...

    "alcade- I believe most people refer to our country as a democracy. As to your argument that gun control is racist- perposterous but more on that later."

    "If you call a tail a leg, how many legs has a dog? Five? No, calling a tail a leg don't make it a leg."
    Abraham Lincoln

    ReplyDelete
  67. I am amused by the latest comments critical of the polls I provided. It should actually make you all feel better. These polls show that people are not interested in taking away your rights. They, indeed, support your right to own guns but say that at the same time, we should have stricter laws to restrict easy access to guns by those who shouldn't have them. That's what this is all about but you all insist on making it about your own rights. Pollilng does not show you to be right.

    ReplyDelete
  68. Why don't you do a poll that is preceded by a listing of the myriad of 20,000 individual firearms laws that are already on the books -- and a plain english version of the GCA and FFA while you're at it (ie. explain the FEDERAL laws already in effect).

    THEN ask people if they think there are enough laws on the books.

    THEN be prepared for the people to ask why existing laws are ineffective at preventing crime.

    Sheesh...talk about push-polling an uneducated demographic. japete content filter in...3...2...1...

    ReplyDelete
  69. That's a good idea, Pat. Why don't you do that poll?

    ReplyDelete
  70. 10-4 -- Challenge accepted.

    If I create said document - would you (after review of course) post for voting?

    ReplyDelete
  71. "The fact is some of those are stories of guys who got away with manslaughter, manslaughter disguised as a legitimate DGU. They're still survivors, I suppose, but don't try to whitewash it."

    Since it's a "fact", I'm sure that you can provide specifics instead of casually labeling more than 4000 people as not only unethical (in your opinion), but actual criminals as well.

    That shouldn't really be too much to ask.

    ReplyDelete
  72. If I am going to do a poll, it will have to be a scientific random poll. If you did one, you would alert your gun guy friends and that would pollute the results. That is why I like the MAIG and Frank Luntz polls - because they were scientific and asked the right questions. For example- if you did a poll, you would need to ask the public whether they are in favor of felons, dangerously mentally ill people, minors, domestic abusers and drug abusers should have guns. If not, how would they think those people should be stopped from having them? Then you should ask whether people actually want to have people with loaded guns in schools, campuses, churches, bars, public meeting places, shopping malls, soccer games, etc. The answers would come out like they always do- a majority would answer no. If you then would ask whether it is a good idea for all gun purchasers to have a background check, they would answer yes, as they always do over many years- in fact, about 80% would answer yes no matter who does the polling.

    ReplyDelete
  73. Why does your audience finding out the truth about the depth and breadth of existing firearms' laws scare you Joan?

    If I did the poll I was proposing -- I would start the entire thing off with a litany of the existing laws already in place to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals. No agenda other than a simple reciting of existing law.

    Then I would proceed with questions such as you've posed above.

    ...and if the grass-roots and widespread nature of your opposition "pollutes" the poll then you should consider your fellow Americans as having spoken! :)

    ReplyDelete
  74. Do your own poll on your own blog. I will not be doing your poll for you. Any polling, in order to be believed, needs to be done by a firm that does it scientifically or the results are not to be considered valid. So if a gun guy does a poll, you think that would be reliable data? Will you account for margin of error and other statistical measures used in polling? Will you make sure to poll equal number of people on both sides of the issue? Will you have enough people in the poll to make sure it is a random sampling?

    ReplyDelete
  75. Any poll would have to be independent, I agree. A poll on a blog ("all the authority of a hobo mumbling to himself", no offense) will not be believable on either side. It's not a popularity contest, that's what elections are for.

    But Pat's point is that when you compare the public who does not know about gun laws to gun owners who do, the results are predictable. In CA it would be enough to just show a picture of the state firearms regulations which is a stack of paper the size of a phone book.

    I still say we work on reducing the amount of criminals.

    ReplyDelete
  76. "So if a gun guy does a poll, you think that would be reliable data?"

    So if an "anti-gun guy" does a poll, its results also shouldn't be taken as valid?

    ReplyDelete
  77. 30) The term ‘large capacity ammunition feeding device’--
    ‘(A) means a magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar device that has a capacity of, or that can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition; but
    ‘(B) does not include an attached tubular device designed to accept, and capable of operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition.’


    I own a Ruger P-89 with a standard 15 round magazine. This legislation effectively bans my weapon.

    How?

    ANY magazine for this weapon limited to 10 rounds would necessarily be the standard length; i.e. 15 rounds. To take up the extra space, a spacer would be inserted. It would have to be removeable, because as you probably don't know, magazines, like the weapons must be maintained; that means disassembled, cleaned, lubed, etc. This the block must be removeable.

    That also means that ANY magazine for that weapon necessarily "can be readily restored or converted to" larger than 10 rounds. Thus, my weapon is effectively banned. And my weapon, as you have learned, is hardly unique.

    I'd like to think that such a result is unintentional, and given Ms. McCarty's usual ignorance on the subject that's entirely possible (and yes, I don't care if she's a victim; she chose to play in the public arena, as did you, and if she does or says stupid things, she'll get called on it). However, the hoplophobe side has no reservoir of good will here. It is equally entirely likely that the law is written intentionally to trap as many gun owners as possible; prosecutors with an agenda will certainly use it in that way.

    Given all that - tell me again, even were I a "common sense" gun owner, why I should support this legislation?

    ReplyDelete
  78. Either way, if you want something polled, it has to be conducted by an unbiased research group. Even if you know yourself that you got an excellent sampling group of random people and didn't get any bias, nobody is going to give your poll any credibility because you conducted it and you want a specific answer. It might be worth the time to contact a group like Pew Research with a poll proposal and see if they'd be willing to conduct your poll, but you're going to need resources to research all the laws for your questions, and to pay for it.

    -DHS

    ReplyDelete
  79. So anon- we are equally afflicted. We have hoplophobia and you have paranoia. And I'm sure the law was written as a trap for gun owners which, if we are ignorant as you claim, would nullify that claim. We want as many of you as possible behind bars so that our hoplophobia doesn't get out of control!

    ReplyDelete
  80. Pew just did a poll DHS. It came out about 50-50 for gun rights vs. gun control.

    ReplyDelete
  81. So anon- we are equally afflicted. We have hoplophobia and you have paranoia.

    Your "hoplophobia," in my opinion, is largely born out of ignorance.

    As to the "paranoia," the difference, of course, is that history has shown that there is a basis for that "paranoia." Many of your allies have made their ultimate aim known for decades - am I to believe that suddenly said position has changed? And why would I embrace ANY steps toward that position?

    ReplyDelete
  82. So a fairly liberal leaning organization came out with a poll that shows no clear majority ( which you have been claiming on here forever) nationally for gun control. It shows a split.

    Read between the lines. Look at the content. They are saying its NOT worth the political or fiscal capital to pursue right now. If someone is politically astute, they can ask what were the reasons for this organization spending money on this poll. The simple answer is some one put in a grant request and the Pew Memorial Trust needs to determine if the grant has merit. So they run a poll. And it comes back divided. Interesting. Directly on the heels of a National event where gun control has been hyped and spawn on MSNBC NBC ABC CBS CNN the nation goes meh.

    ReplyDelete
  83. "And I'm sure the law was written as a trap for gun owners which, if we are ignorant as you claim, would nullify that claim."

    Your side (and you) are not as ignorant as you like to pretend. The law is intentionally designed to do exactly that which we accuse it of doing.

    This represents more of the backdoor type legislation your side always proposes, and why we continue to object to any attempts to restrict our sport.

    ReplyDelete
  84. Put did Pew read all of the already existing gun laws before asking the questions, as Pat wants to try? That was my point, he needs an independent third party research group to conduct his poll if he wants it to be usable, I just used Pew as an example.
    -DHS

    ReplyDelete
  85. The invectives and adjectives keep coming. What else will you come up with? I can hardly wait.

    ReplyDelete
  86. Be careful there, Pat. Your side wants to see us as ignorant. If you change your mind about that you might be admitting that we are actually intelligent human beings who know what we are doing. And, of course, that means, by default, to you guys, that we are coming for all of your guns.

    ReplyDelete
  87. Joan - your continued discourse, in its usual flavor, quantity and form, make me start to think otherwise! No one could continue on the way you do and NOT be intentionally in it to deceive.

    ReplyDelete
  88. ...and I, for one, have never officially called you "naive".

    ReplyDelete
  89. Pat- honestly, that would be the last thing anyone would say about me. But I am not dealing with people who believe anything from my side so I'm not surprised that you have added yet another adjective- deceptive.

    ReplyDelete
  90. I've heard you speak...and why is it that you can reference your history as a main talking point every single time (even most recently in the Star Tribune)...but no one can question you about it? (P.S. I'm not starting, since that would get me banned.)

    ReplyDelete
  91. You certainly do inspire vehement opposition, and activism though...

    ReplyDelete
  92. Pat- of course I am not saying that just because I am a close family member of someone who has been shot to death, people should listen to me. I am not a fool. And you can question my facts if you want or my assertions but perhaps you would all be seen as more reasonable if you didn't make attacks because of my status as a victim. I have spent many years educating myself, studying this issue, going to workshops and conferences and being on Boards. I have spoken to public groups of people, I have testified at the legislature, I have lobbied in D.C., locally and in Minnesota. I have had many T.V. , radio and media interviews as well as organizing events and panel discussions. So when someone attacks me and calls me all sorts of names and demeans or dismisses me because I am a victim, it riles me all the way to my core. That is why I fight back so hard. I have a distinct feeling that some on this blog have no respect for anyone on my side. I do have respect for people who give me good arguments and actually may even get me to nudge a little. But going on the attack does not serve the intended purpose. My way or the highway is not a good plan. That is why the Governor of Wisconsin has been met with such resistance. When people feel as if someone is unyielding and won't even come to the table, that gets the hackles up and forces the other side to make noise and defend themselves. I see many of you that way- totally unreasonable and unyielding. You may actually see me the same way but I am actually a very reasonable but principled person who just wants something done to keep people from being shot. I have no ulterior motives and really hate it when you accuse me of that.

    ReplyDelete
  93. Pat- am I such a threat that you guys have to be so vehement? You don't you know.

    ReplyDelete
  94. Yes.

    (though not you personally)

    ReplyDelete
  95. Going back to our original point...

    Dear readers, This discussion is now irrelevant and out of control. What some on this blog are saying is straining credulity and common sense not to mention logic and acceptable discourse. Please stop writing your incendiary comments about victims. They are insulting. To even intimate that victims are "dictating" policy is so ridiculous I hardly know where to begin. No one is dictating anything. The last time I checked, we are living in a Democracy where bills get hearings and the majority wins. If victims are sponsoring legislation or supporting it, that is their right just as it is your right to oppose it. What are you all so afraid of here?

    You have stated, quite strongly, that any political dissent with the political advocacy of someone who claims victim status is a direct, personal attack on the victim. You say above that "it is our right to oppose it;" if you really believe that, then stop labeling us as "mean" or vile when we do so!

    If you had your way, and the political beliefs of individuals who claim victim status were allowed to go unchallenged and implemented as policy, then yes, that would be "victomacracy" (rule by victims).

    The really interesting thing happens when victims disagree (as in the case of John Green and Dallas Green, or 9/11 survivors). You apparently find it difficult to oppose what any victim advocates for using logic or ethics, because you seem to view any such disagreement as a vile and direct personal attack. There are only a few ways out of such a conundrum.

    One is to claim that the alleged victims aren't really victims. After all, if someone isn't really a victim, then you can challenge their beliefs without being mean. MikeB does this when he tries to paint all the "Armed Citizen" survivors as murderers that "got away with it." I don't know about you, but when a 44-year old woman confronted with three armed, masked biker gang cons in her home shoots one of them, that sounds like justifiable homicide. And if she was wounded in the fray and psychologically traumatized, she sounds like a victim of crime to me. But to Mike, she's a criminal that got away with it.
    http://standardspeaker.com/news/home-invasion-intruder-killed-1.1102011

    Another method is to claim that the victims are confused and don't know what they're asking for. You do this with the WTC folks when you say, "I kind of understand what they're saying..." The implication is that they aren't communicating clearly, and thus you can say, "well, I oppose what I think they're saying, but I'm not being mean because maybe they actually mean something else or their words are being perverted."

    There's also the method of just ignoring victims. I think that is one reason why you steadfastly refuse to even think a little bit about non-gun crimes; to you, a young woman raped in a gun-free zone or a military vet with firearms training who is killed in a gun-free zone don't seem to count. But if they don't exist for you then you don't have to critically evaluate what happened to them or what they advocate.

    Of course, the view I take -- that it is acceptable to debate the policy suggestions of victims (often based on pathos) using rhetoric of ethos and logos if the victim chooses to enter the political fray -- doesn't require me to dismiss the traumatic experiences of others, or believe victims with opposing viewpoints are poor communicators or confused like your side apparently does. I personally think that it is far more offensive to say, "You aren't a real victim -- in fact you're a criminal! -- , so your trauma doesn't count!" than it is to disagree on a policy proposal. That is exactly what MikeB just said.

    I really don't know how to reconcile this disagreement. It seems like a very difficult bridge to cross.

    ReplyDelete
  96. Chris- your points have been made. No need to continue to harangue me with them. You are wrong about most of them and I have pointed that out many times before. No need to keep saying why.

    ReplyDelete
  97. Look I think we can compromise guys, hear me out. From now on anytimejapete wants to post anything be it a blog post or a comment she needs to go through a background check and fill out paperwork that should take her about 30 minutes and she should also get some sort of journalistic liscense that including "training" and the fee the state charges should come out to around 300 dollars every couple of years. And also because some of her post are offensive, and I did take offense to the tangent thing by the way, with her license all of her post and comments have to be private so that it doesn't offend those of us with delicate sensibilities. Sound fair, japate? If all of the "antis" are willing to go through that and have their free speech impeded in that manner (everything has to be said in private so that no one is offended) then sure I won't have any problems with a license to carry my firearm or the background check and paperwork that is kept on file about me. Deal?

    ReplyDelete
  98. We are not being vehement, frankly we are trying as hard as we can to civil

    Your statement about your need for respect for hour arguments struck me. I have to say I doubt that will happen. I respect you for at least being willing to try to come up reasoning behind your POV but. Respecting your position on guns is very difficult because I see it as a direct attack on my lifestyle. The fact that you repeatedly state you don't want to impact me as a legal gun owner yet you want legislation that will do exactly that. Despite hearing that we have distinct fears about the law as written we are called alarmists and told the results are needed no matter what our fears.

    Our rights have been being attacked for nearly three quarters of a century. We have seen the damage and seen NO benefits result from our loss of rights. We keep standing on the mountain top screaming No More but we are called extremists or alarmist.

    Our fears of your intentions are real and salient. We have decided that the line in the sand has been drawn and surprisingly we have been joined by an overwhelming majority of people from so many different walks of life who have seen the erosion of rights and have seen no positive trade offs and only losses. Citizens have decided it's time to say no.

    ReplyDelete
  99. Sure, why not? But the rules are the same for all- no offensive comments. I could pass a background check and actually have when I worked for the school district so that would not be a problem. Paperwork- that was my life as a special education educator in the public schools. I spent my life filling out paperwork on and off duty. Training? Hmm- I've been to an awful lot of classes and workshops and lectured in a Mass Media class which was a success by all accounts. $300.00? I don't know about that one. But if you guys are willing, so am I.

    ReplyDelete
  100. But P, I represent the majority. That's likely why you get so upset about what I write. I understand that you think I am attacking your way of life. I'm not but I can't dissuade you otherwise. So we are left with our differences and at an impasse.

    ReplyDelete
  101. You just said a liberal poll on the heels of a major push for gun control by the media came back 50-50. That is not the majority.

    It's a weak minority all factors taken into account.

    You are actively attacking those things I hold dear. How can it be my fault to call your goals antithetical to mine?

    ReplyDelete
  102. "So when someone attacks me and calls me all sorts of names and demeans or dismisses me because I am a victim, it riles me all the way to my core. That is why I fight back so hard."

    Perhaps if you could manage to not go on the defensive you would understand more our points instead of dismissing and ignoring them.

    "I have a distinct feeling that some on this blog have no respect for anyone on my side."

    If I knew you as an individual, I would probably respect you for many parts of your individual character and nature. I don't know you that way though. I only know you as an advocate for tyranny (or in your language, "reasonable restrictions", but I prefer the English language to your Orwellian tongue, no offense intended).

    I don't respect anyone who demands that peaceful people (who won't ever hurt another person except in lawful self defense and then only with the most sincere of regrets) be treated like violent criminals. Respect is a two way street. You treat me like a gangster or mass murdering lunatic, I'm gonna treat you like a tyrant. Does that make sense?

    "I do have respect for people who give me good arguments and actually may even get me to nudge a little."

    I urge you to take some time and really think about the magazine ban. It doesn't make any sense to imprison people because of the volume of space contained in a spring loaded box when the spring is compressed.

    The magazine ban allows people to keep their magazines, even if they hold 100 rounds, and many magazines do hold that many. If ten rounds is the magic number where by the threat to the public is somehow reduced, shouldn't all magazines be required to hold only 10 rounds?

    I saw a Romanian sniper rifle for sale today. Ten round magazines because that is what it uses. Far more powerful than any Glock and anyone with no training can shoot at distances twenty times what they could with a Glock. It makes the magazine ban look as ridiculous as it is. The rifle came with ten magazines. Think about it - why imprison Julie for her 15 round Glock magazine and let the next Loughner be able to buy that? It doesn't add up.

    ReplyDelete
  103. "But P, I represent the majority."

    Survey says, "No, you don't!"

    Restriction of civil liberties is a topic which will earn you no points with the American people.

    ReplyDelete
  104. Most people do not find reasonable restrictions on guns or who can access them to restrict their civil liberties.

    ReplyDelete
  105. Frank Luntz is a good at scientific polling HAHAHHAHAHAHA

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=If9EWDB_zK4

    ReplyDelete
  106. Yes they do Joan. When people are shown factual data they side with us. Hence the lack of a Gun Control plank in the DNC agenda. Hence the recent elections. Hence Dems who are winning are running on a gun rights platform. Rep Giffords was elected BECAUSE she ran on Gun rights.

    The Tea Party movement may upset you but upsetting you does not cancel out that it lives because people have had enough of Govt taking and giving nothing in return.

    All of the States voting for carry does not show a majority of people demanding further restrictions.

    48 states installing a States Constitutional right to firearms ownership is not a rampant majority clamoring for more anti gun legislation.

    All 50'states have recently passed hunters rights legislations.

    Again. Show me the ground swell of demands for gun control. And don't pull some AstroTurf group funded by a Billionaire from NYC who needs to spend more time doing his day job as mayor instead of telling other states how to run their own business.

    Fienstien and Schummer owned the house for a few years and they couldnt get anything passed.

    Their own constituency begged them and the Obama administration to leave guns alone. They knew it was a lightening rod. They would rather have argued Social Security cuts than bring up guncontrol.

    ReplyDelete
  107. "Most people do not find reasonable restrictions on guns or who can access them to restrict their civil liberties."

    True. But most people are unaware of what our current restrictions are, and when informed of what they are recognize that they went far beyond "reasonable" more than forty years ago.

    ReplyDelete
  108. And most people probably have no comprehension of what kinds of effects these laws would have. You can't take a vote on something when the voters don't fully understand what they are voting on. How many people are familiar with all of the existing firearms laws, what they mean, and what penalties they incur? How many are familiar with all of the different firearms that exist and what the laws actually say about them?

    If for the sake of argument, you equated magazine capacity restrictions to automobile engine size restrictions, I imagine you would have a huge uproar from the majority of the population, many people who owned or wanted to own sports cars, trucks, SUV's, etc. Or if you required registration of every vehicle you owned, even if you only drove it on the race track or private land, and people knew that there were a lot of supporters of a ban on such vehicles.

    I feel like my civil liberties would be violated if the government wanted to know what I own, especially when I know a lot of people want to take away certain things that I own. I feel like my civil liberties are being violated when I must be treated as a potential criminal, I think most people would complain if they felt they were being treated this way for pursuing a hobby they enjoy.

    -DHS

    ReplyDelete
  109. P- it's not because they don't agree with us. It's because the NRA and it's vocal members are so noisy, ugly and difficult. Follow the money. The Dems who agree with us are afraid they won't be re-elected because the NRA makes such a fuss during elections and threatens to make sure they won't get elected. That is not true, of course, but the NRA has convinced them that it is.

    ReplyDelete
  110. Actually jdege, when people are informed about the laws proposed the NRA, they get mad and act. That happened recently in Minnesota when a group of folks came to the legislature en masse for a day at the Capitol and when told about that the legislature was planning to repeal Mn. local background checks, they were quite angry and astounded. I believe they talked to their legislators about this when they went around the Capitol to discuss their other agenda.

    ReplyDelete
  111. Anthony- thanks for the video of Frank Luntz. It was amusing. I see your point here. But I also don't think the video proved what you thought it did. When he asked the man the questions about Immigrants it showed the problem with making a sweeping statement about something without going into the details. It's like Health Care. The public has said they don't want the health care bill. But when asked about the particulars, they like it. They like having no pre-existing conditions. They like having their kids be able to stay on their insurance until age 26. So when asked the general question about whether we should have more or less gun control and the public divides about in half on some polls, that is what people say without thinking through the particulars. But when Luntz asked only the gun owners, divided into NRA members and non NRA members the particulars, they agreed with my side. They want background checks on all gun sales- they want even registration. They want restrictions on assault type rifles, etc. If this poll were an outlier, I would tend to agree with you. But since it was consistent with most polling that, when broken down into the particular measures, shows that the public is with my side, then I say it was a valid assessment of where the public is on the issue.

    ReplyDelete
  112. Sorry if this was already addressed in the one- hundred-eleven (111) previous comments: Funny that you mentioned Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. He owned guns. Google "Deacons for Defense and Justice" -- these proud black men knew that nothing can protect and save lives like firearms against thugs trying to suppress one's civil rights... Even the Dalai Lama has been quoted as saying, “If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun.” (Seattle Times, May 15, 2001). It's not the gun that's the problem -- it's the _intent_ of the person _behind_ the gun.

    ReplyDelete
  113. Ah yes, we've gone around about that one, too. MLK finally got a gun for self protection since he had so many threats against his life. Of course, it did not save his life in the end. As to the Dalai Lama-I doubt that he has a gun for himself since he is such a peaceful gentleman. I will look up that quote however. I suspect there is more to it.

    ReplyDelete
  114. Here is the full quote from the Dahli Lama- " Students, in a question-and-answer period, asked some hard questions.

    One girl wanted to know how to react to a shooter who takes aim at a classmate.

    The Dalai Lama said acts of violence should be remembered, and then forgiveness should be extended to the perpetrators.

    But if someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, he said, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun. Not at the head, where a fatal wound might result. But at some other body part, such as a leg."

    Something different than what I think you were trying to say. Also from the article: " His message resonates in an era when schools must be on guard against violent acts by gun-toting students. Included in the audience were some 35 students from Thurston High School in Springfield, Ore., where Kip Kinkel went on a May 1998 rampage in which his parents and two students were killed and 24 other students were wounded." This is from http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=20010515&slug=dalai15m0

    Thanks for the information. I had not heard this quote before.

    ReplyDelete
  115. Taking shooting advice from the Dali lama is pretty silly. Ask your "reasonable shooting buddies" how difficult it would be to shoot an active shooter In the leg. And then what. You have an armed but wounded individual who still is motivated to keep shooting.

    There is only one way to deal with an armed threat, to shoot and keep shooting at the biggest target until the threat is stopped. This is current police and military teachings on a selfdefense shooting, there have been many many police and soldiers shot or killed by opponents they have shot first who were still able to shoot back.

    Ask your local chief.

    The threat must be snagged until it is no longer a threat. Period. It's not TV, no one yells "cut" after the first shot.

    Making suggestions otherwise is blatantly wrong. Constructively dangerously wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  116. Chris, What's wrong with you, man? How can you say something like this?

    "MikeB does this when he tries to paint all the "Armed Citizen" survivors as murderers that "got away with it.""

    If you really had the right (as in correct) on your side why would you resort to such mendacious crap as that? Wouldn't you just object to what I really did say? Yes, you would if you really thought you were right. But you know better.

    What I actually said is this: "The fact is some of those are stories of guys who got away with manslaughter,"

    "SOME" and "MANSLAUGHTER," get it?

    ReplyDelete
  117. Mike-

    Anyone one of those 4000 that read your statement will take it personally, just like if someone said "some victims of violent crime had it coming". It may actually be the case, but without specifics it is an inflammatory and irresponsible thing to say.

    And I for one am still waiting for those specifics.

    ReplyDelete