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.

Monday, March 21, 2011

Gun laws in Spain

I will be on a trip to Barcelona and not blogging for a bit. From all I have heard, it is an exciting and very unusual city and I can't wait to explore it. Before I go, I wanted to take a look at gun laws in Spain. I found this synopsis of gun laws in some European countries. Here is a short summary of gun laws in Spain:
  • Gun owners must be licensed and undergo strict medical and psychological tests. No one is permitted to own more than six hunting rifles and one handgun.
  • Firearms must be registered and inspected annually.
  • Machine guns and submachine guns are banned, as are imitation pistols.
Spanish people live with strict gun laws. Are they at a disadvantage or less free than folks in the U.S.? Let's compare the rate of gun deaths per 100,000 to the U.S. and see how many people die every year in Spain from gun injuries? From this source, we learn that the gun homicides per 100,000 in Spain are .25 compared to the U.S. at 2.97. Here are more updated figures (2006) showing the gun homicides per 100,000 to be .14 with the total for 2006- 60 gun homicides.

Of course, there are other crimes and most especially, the risk of having your money stolen while walking the streets. Pick pockets are ubiquitous in many foreign countries and when we travel we are as careful as we can be to keep our money "close to the vest" and avoid very crowded places, if possible. Barcelona is apparently known for the large number of pick pockets. While there, I am hoping to have some conversations with local folks about their view of the American gun culture and what they think of their own country's laws. I'll be reporting on it when I return. I have a feeling they have a lot more common sense than we do in this country.

Meanwhile- "hasta luego" or more commonly, "hasta la vista". Stay safe out there.


  1. "Are they at a disadvantage or less free than folks in the U.S.?"

    Spain was a fascist dictatorship, not so very long ago. The dictatorship is gone, but the gun laws are still in place.

    Are they less free than folks in the US? With respect to guns? Yes. With respect to everything else? Yes.


    US: 5
    Spain: 31

  2. Have a good time. It sounds like a nice trip.

  3. I don't share the same definition of freedom that jdege and some others like so much. Being permitted to own guns has less to do with freedom than being able to walk the streets without fear of guns in the hands of other people who might not be fit. In Barcelona, when you go the the shopping center or the outdoor market or the sidewalk cafe, you can bet you'll be freer and safer.

  4. Enjoy the trip, I hope no ill befalls you, including being touched inappropriately by the TSA.

    It makes sense that they have less gun violence. What about the non-gun violence?

    1. The type of crime that exists in Barcelona and Spain overall is mostly non-violent: burglaries, car break-ins, pick-pockets, and what might be referred to as white collar crime and crimes involving abuse of privilege (this is distinctive from abuse of power in terms of in that privilege usually involves using ones' position or power to illegally funnel benefits to yourself or to your "friends." Abuse of power might include those things but in addition generally oppresses someone else in the process i.e. improperly prosecuting someone because you're the prosecutor and doing so will benefit (monetarily) you or someone in your friend circle). Actual attacks, muggings, rapes, etc. are, esp. compared to the US, quite rare.

      Pickpockets.. for the traveler are the most pressing concern.

  5. Thanks Baldr. I think I will be safer there as well-at least from gun injuries. I accidentally deleted your comment- iPhone fingers

  6. Thanks Stew. No inappropriate touching from TSA-no touching at all in fact. I will check on non gun violence while there

  7. Only one handgun? That's like telling my wife she can only own one pair of shoes.

    I still want to visit Barcelona sometime. Enjoy.

  8. Enjoy your trip. I have not visited Spain personally, but everyone I know who has visited, say nothing but good things about the experience.

  9. "In Barcelona, when you go the the shopping center or the outdoor market or the sidewalk cafe, you can bet you'll be freer and safer."



  10. Just spent hours on Las Ramblas with no problems. But it is very crowded with all sorts of people around with their wares. I csn see how easy it would be to have something stolen. It's an amazing place by the way--like a circus.

  11. Hope you're having fun.

    I was in Barcelona about eleven years ago with the high school band. Still have the pic from it.

    If you get the chance, try and see a fireworks show. We were lucky enough to see one the night we arrived. The Spanish make them an art form.

    Sorry bout the lack of gun related discussion, but I figured a little happy conversation can't go wrong.

  12. Thanks Guy
    I am having a great time. Barcelona is truly a beautiful and amazing city. I am falling in love with it already.

  13. An armed society is a polite society.

    "Why doesn't your site warn people of the risk of thieves targeting cars in Barcelona? If there had been a mention of this frequent activity (4/5 reports each day at one police station alone) then we would have taken precautionary measures.

    They slash visitor's car tyres whilst they are queuing at traffic lights and then wait for the tyre to go flat.

    Then a gang of four or five men steal from the car whilst the driver is trying to change the tyres."

    Did you know that more people in the US die of "car related deaths" than "gun related deaths"? I am starting a campaign to ban cars, would you care to join me?

  14. Hello, anon- you must have missed that I am talking about gun violence here and not theft or tire slashing- 2 totally different things.

  15. As on-topic as it gets (Spain & gun laws):

    There was recently a multiple shooting in Spain (see link). When something similar happens here, japete and other gun control advocates will usually respond with calls for more gun control laws. But as japete has pointed out, Spain already has strict gun control laws. So what will be the response in this case?

    Why, more gun control laws of course! (also see link) Those of us who closely follow this subject know that no matter how much gun control is already in place somewhere, shootings will still occur and politicians and gun control advocates will usually respond by attempting (often successfully) to enact still harsher sanctions upon law-abiding gunowners.


  16. Jay- you must have missed the part about Spain only having 60 gun deaths per year. Gun laws are very strict in Spain but, of course, that does not mean 0 gun deaths just as it won't in the U.S. But it sure beats what we have going on in our own country where just yesterday( I am reading the local paper via computer) there were 3 shootings in my area.

  17. Not at all -- I saw the part about Spain only having 60 gun deaths per year. And of course strict gun laws won't mean 0 deaths from gun use.

    But that helps make my point: Even when there are strict gun laws and only 60 deaths from gun use per year, what is the usual response from gun control advocates and politicians? No matter how strict the existing gun laws and no matter how low the deaths from gun use, they will usually respond by attempting (often successfully) to enact still harsher sanctions upon law-abiding gunowners, going beyond the "common sense" laws they previously espoused.

  18. Hey Joan! Long time reader, first time poster.

    Have a great time in Spain, I spent two happy semesters in Barcelona and Seville!

    I have a quick question...Mr Helmke indicated during a speech recently that he is for prohibiting "military style" weapons and ammunition.

    Could you describe what "military-style" means in terms of guns and ammunition? I googled the terms and couldn't see much besides rocket propelled grenades and mortars...

  19. Thanks, Jen. Here is from the Brady Campaign web site-" Opponents of banning assault weapons argue that these military-style weapons only “look” scary. Assault weapons look scary and are scary because they are equipped with combat hardware. Combat features like high-capacity ammunition magazines, pistol grips, folding stocks, and bayonets, which are not found on sporting guns, are designed specifically to facilitate the killing of human beings in battle.

    These combat features include:

    A large-capacity ammunition magazine which enables the shooter to continuously fire dozens of rounds without reloading. Many assault weapons come equipped with large ammunition magazines allowing more than 50 bullets to be fired without reloading. Standard hunting rifles are usually equipped with no more than 3 or 4-shot magazines;
    A folding stock which facilitates maximum concealability and mobility in close combat (which comes at the expense of the accuracy desired in a hunting weapon);
    A pistol grip which facilitates spray-fire from the hip without losing control. A pistol grip also facilitates one-handed shooting;
    A barrel shroud which enables the shooter to shoot many rounds because it cools the barrel, preventing overheating. It also allows the shooter to grasp the barrel area to stabilize the weapon, without incurring serious burns, during rapid fire;
    A threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor which allows the shooter to remain concealed when shooting at night, an advantage in combat but unnecessary for hunting or sporting purposes. In addition, the flash suppressor is useful for providing stability during rapid fire;
    A threaded barrel designed to accommodate a silencer which allows an assassin to shoot without making noise;
    A barrel mount designed to accommodate a bayonet which allows someone to stab a person at close quarters in battle."

  20. Wow! Thank you!

    But what about the "ammunition" portion of the statement? What's "military style...ammunition?

  21. I'm not surprised we have more gun deaths than in Spain, we have more guns. You realize of course that this is like comparing the amount of automobile deaths in the US to that of a third world country where there are hardly any cars.

    It seems as if you'd trade (as an example) one gun death per thousand people for three knife deaths per thousand.

    Just so long as we got the "gun" metric out of the equation.

  22. Rather than address everything in your 1:53 AM post, I'd like to take this sentence: "an advantage in combat but unnecessary for hunting or sporting purposes"

    This is one reason why we are so adamant about not compromising about the 2A - all your proposals rely on the erronous notion that firearms rights have to do with sporting purposes. History shows us otherwise, as has been pointed out before.

    The second amendment isn't about duck hunting.

    I'm also interested to hear of the Spanish opinion of our "gun culture." A few years back I met a Brazilian friend for the first time, and I took her shooting. Funny, once someone with preconceived notions of firearms ownership actually has the mystique taken away, they usually seem to enjoy themselves. At least that's been my experience.

    Have a nice time in Spain.

  23. Jen wrote: Mr Helmke indicated during a speech recently that he is for prohibiting "military style" weapons and ammunition.

    Thanks for explaining the "military style" weapons part. Could you now tell us what "military style" ammunition Mr Helmke wants to prohibit?

  24. Jay- I'm sure you can answer that yourself since you guys are all talking about what Paul Helmke and my side of the issue are saying. I can't speak for Paul Helmke. I am assuming he is referring to large capacity ammunition magazines- the 30 round types.

  25. Alcade-"I'm not surprised we have more gun deaths than in Spain, we have more guns. You realize of course that this is like comparing the amount of automobile deaths in the US to that of a third world country where there are hardly any cars."- you have to be kidding me. You have just made my case. Of course there are more gun deaths in our country BECAUSE we have more guns. I couldn't have said it better myself. Thanks for making my case. As to auto deaths what are you talking about? Sometimes I wonder about your reasoning. It's total nonsense.

  26. I agree with japete: We have more deaths from gun use in this country (in part at least) because the American traditions of gun ownership and other freedoms result in more guns.

    So, those like japete obviously intend to reduce gun ownership in the US as a "solution" and American gunowners know that, which is why they resist many other proposals from the same folks -- because they realize that their guns are in line to be reduced.

    When too many gunowners come to that realization, gun control advocates will try to claim that the reduction will come from the bad guys. But contradictory statements and actions by gun control advocates, as well as examples of gun control in other countries, make that foolish to believe.

  27. I really enjoy how you guys make things up about what us gun control advocates are going to do. Keep sending me these comments. They are amusing.

  28. Are you going to answer the question about the "military style ammunition" or do you intend to sweep it under the rug?

  29. Pat et al, I'm going to sweep it under the rug. Why does it make such a difference to you all? We have already had this discussion many times but now you want exact answers to questions that can't be answered. As I said, I can't speak for Paul Helmke.

  30. Well it might be some concern because the most popular hunting round is also a military round the 30.06. I am sure though that he did not mean to alienate all hunters he just meant the less powerful military rounds :-/

  31. You know, all, on my last night in Spain, I realize that you - the small minority that you are- just plain think that anyone who doesn't see guns in the same way as you or talk about them in the same way- since most people are not interested enough in guns don't have the exact terminology down- are very intolerant. You mock those who don't get the terms exactly right. You are snarky in calling out those who don't give a hoot about whether it is a magazine or a clip or whether it is military style or just plain scary; you dare those who aren't in the same place as you are about guns to come up with a term that you can agree with and you demand that the Brady Campaign or I or anyone else who happens not to agree with you, to come up with answers to questions that are asked in a demeaning way. Frankly, being in a country where none of this matters is refreshing. It makes what you guys stand for seem petty. In the end, people are shot to death every day in large numbers in the USA and the rest of the world finds us all to be ridiculous when it comes to guns. You guys take a breath now and quit demanding that the terminology fit your specifications. It just doesn't matter. Buenos Noches.

  32. Joan,

    We gun owners are extremely specific about gun terms because we HAVE to be. Laws that regulate firearms directly impact our use and ownership of guns. If we do not abide by those laws, we will go to JAIL, usually the federal kind, and will forever be prohibited from owning firearms (among other things). As such, the letter of the law must be exact and completely unambiguous.

    You may very well have an idea in your head what constitutes "assault" or "military-stye" or "sniper" weapons, but that's not sufficient to pass legislation on.

    I would additionally like to point out that weapon used in the Reagan assassination attempt, from which the Brady campaign draws its very name, was a humble .22 revolver with NONE of the features you seek to ban.

    Lee Harvey Oswald's rifle, that he used to kill President Kennedy, was a "sporting" bolt action rifle with none of the features you seek to ban. (well, it might have had a bayonet lug)

    Harris and Klebold did the Columbine massacre with a variety of weapons, none of which have any of the features you seek to ban.

    Cho did the Virginia Tech massacre with two pistols, neither of which had any of the features you seek to ban.

    Loughner's pistol did have a high capacity magazine. Ironically, Loughner was tackled when he was attempting to reload with the large, cumbersome magazine.

    It seems common sense to me that bad people will use any weapon they can get their hands on to accomplish their depraved intentions. Imposing an endless list of restrictions on me and people like myself will never do anything to reduce crime.

  33. Regarding your list of gun features:

    High capacity magazines do indeed allow more shots before reloading. I take issue with your statement that hunting rifles have a three or four shot capacity. The vast majority of hunting rifles will have 6-11 round capacity. In Ohio, where I live, guns must have aftermarket magazine SHORTENERS installed to lower their ammunition capacity.

    A folding stock does indeed increase the mobility of the firearm. This can be of paramount importance when defending one's home. Furthermore, an adjustable stock allows the safe and ergonomic use of a single firearm by multiple people (such as me and my much smaller wife)

    A pistol grip on a rifle is simply a different way of grasping the weapon. It does not reduce the overall length of the rifle. On a shotgun, a pistol grip grants greater mobility, which is again good for home defense. On neither weapon system does a pistol grip promote "spray fire". Firing a fully automatic weapon with one hand is not ideal no matter the grip. Additionally, fully automatic weapons are NOT available to the general public.

    A barrel shroud does NOT cool the barrel in any way. It is simply a device that prevents the user from burning a hand on the otherwise exposed barrel. Even my three-round, bolt-action shotgun from 1953 gets painfully hot to the touch after just a few shells. "grasping the barrel area" is nothing more than firing a rifle in the correct manner.

    Flash suppressors do NOT conceal the user at night. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NTnmn4wZFXs for proof. It controls the flare from the muzzle to keep it from obscuring the sights of the weapon, so the user can see what he's shooting at.

    Sonic suppressors ("silencers") are primarily used to remove the requirement of hearing protection when shooting. Suppressors are used while training by several military forces. Suppressors are extremely beneficial in indoor ranges. Suppressors cut down on noise pollution at ranges, benefiting surrounding areas. The vast, vast, majority of ammunition is supersonic, propelling the bullet faster than the speed of sound. This produces a loud crack that cannot be silenced. No assassinations have ever taken place in the United States with a suppressed gun, as far as I can tell.

    Bayonet mounts allow a knife to be attached to the front of a firearm. They are an obsolete technology from 1700-1945 warfare. I do not have any figures as to bayonets on a gun being used to commit a crime, but I would be shocked if it was anything more than zero.

    I am not trying to bully you, nitpick, or be juvenile. You are entirely factually incorrect on all but one of the features listed, and bayonets are not used in crime. Why would you seek to regulate any one of these features?

  34. We gun owners are extremely specific about gun terms because we HAVE to be. Laws that regulate firearms directly impact our use and ownership of guns. If we do not abide by those laws, we will go to JAIL, usually the federal kind, and will forever be prohibited from owning firearms (among other things).

    Red, from the point of view of japete et. al, that's a feature, not a bug.

    I laughed as japete noted the list of military features. She's simply factually wrong on most of them, and frankly I don't know why others seem to be a concern. It's those drive-by bayonettings, I guess . . . ;-)

    The one which really made me laugh was the pistol grip to "facilitate spray-fire from the hip." Japete's obviously seen too many movies. The pistol grip has NOTHING to do with "spray-fire." The reason an AR-15 has a pistol grip has entirely to do with the barrel being in line with the stock. Wanna guess WHY the barrel is in line with the stock, japete? Try shouldering a traditional rifle, then an AR. You'll understand pretty quickly.

    I laughed at the silencer paragraph too. Again, Hollywood, not facts. Yeesh.

    This kind of ignorance comes from refusing to learn about what they seek to regulate. There's no ignorance like willful ignorance, I guess. As long as poor Jen doesn't think that japete is some kind of authority. She isn't.

    - A. Lawyer.

  35. All- I hope you are having a great time making fun of what I posted. These things are on the site of the Brady Campaign. Everybody there, of course, is incompetent and stupid. Not a one of them is worth their salt. They are just a bunch of idiots who make things up as they go with no concern for facts. That's us. And we know that you all have the all the facts and know everything about guns and gun policy. You are all well versed on everything and have done all the research for the rest of. For that we thank you!!!

  36. "This kind of ignorance comes from refusing to learn about what they seek to regulate. There's no ignorance like willful ignorance, I guess."


    I'm not concerned by ordinary folks, who have no interest in guns, not being up-to-snuff on the details of terminology or technology. it doesn't bother me at all.

    What irritates me is when people who purport to know how we should best deal with the problem of gun violence demonstrate, by their own language, that they are fundamentally ignorant of what guns are and how they work.

    You'd think, after decades of involvement in the issue, they'd learn the basics. If just by having the gun guys correct them all the time.

    But they continually demonstrate a persistent ignorance that can only be willful.

    They don't want to know - because they are afraid that if they actually learned anything, they'd not be able to retain their ideological purity.

  37. Yup- also ignorant, or did I say that all ready?

  38. Well, it's either thick headed or intentional misstatements of the facts. One or the other.

    I would prefer to believe that you are not willfully lying to people with some underlying agenda, but you seem to be quick enough to have learned some of these facts and details somewhere along the way.

    Again. Our side has been consistent and truthful in pointing out factual errors as they show up. We can and do supply links or resources to back our statements on such simple things as nomenclature. Yet you keep repeating the same mistakes and retell the same platitudes saying "this isn't what we mean" and "we are not coming for your guns". Frankly we don't believe you.

    Again, is it thick headed or intentional misstatements? At this point there are no other visible Options

  39. You will believe what you must in order to make it fit with your world view.

  40. The world is as it is. It's your belief that gun controls will suddenly start working, if we just make them stronger, that is contra-reality.

    It's never worked before.

    Homicide in the US is primarily driven by prohibition. If you want to reduce homicide, legalize drugs.

  41. Joan,

    Belief has nothing to do with this. Facts are facts, no matter what you believe. The features on firearms you seek to ban have very specific purposes. Modern weapons are designed to be precise and controllable. Nobody manufactures firearms for the purpose of wildly spraying uncontrollable bullets everywhere. Even if they did, I would have no interest in that gun whatsoever and honestly could be convinced to support a ban on it.

    I hope you recognize that I'm not trying to make fun of you. I'm not mocking your beliefs. I honestly believe from the bottom of my heart that gun violence is a serious problem that needs correcting.

    What I AM questioning is your proposed fixes. Regulating safety features and components of modern firearm design for law-abiding gun owners simply will not reduce gun crime or violence.

    I am furthermore questioning your refusal to participate in reasoned discourse. Again, I don't mean this in a mean or insulting way, but you do not seem to know a lot about firearms. You also seem unwilling to learn. Responding to the information I presented with sarcastic posts about "oh we must all be idiots with no regard to the truth" does not advance the discussion.

    If we are to have common sense, we must first have intellectual honesty.

  42. Red- as one of the gun guys commented here- Pot- meet kettle. Since when have I refused to participate in reasoned discourse? I have found that that it the M.O. of those on your side of the issue. I am interested in what you think is my refusal since I am blogging constantaly and one of the few in the blogosphere to allow comments and to comment back.

  43. "Since when have I refused to participate in reasoned discourse?"

    You have refused to answer questions of mine. You usually accuse me to "baiting," or trying to "get you." You've also refused to say whether you'd find a hypothetical compromise to the FL doctors' office law agreeable.

    There is no question I won't answer, or try to find a solutiont to.

    You may call that reasoned discourse, but I disagree.

  44. Reasoned discourse does not include answers to questions demanded by you guys. I can't answer questions that are looking for concessions or compromises to national legislation since I am only one person. My blog posts tell you what I think about the issues and I provide you with links to support what I am saying. When you ask me for some kind of negotiation of a piece of legislation or if I would agree to something you propose, how can I do that? Of course, you know I can't and so you keep asking and then claim that I do not engage in reasonaed discourse. The pot calling the kettle black again.

  45. "When you ask me for some kind of negotiation of a piece of legislation or if I would agree to something you propose, how can I do that? "

    Why not? Can't you sit and think about the issue and say "Hmm... I'd agree to that." I'm not asking for an official Brady Campaign stance.

    I'm more than willing to discuss proposed legislation and determine if it is workable. As an example, you've mentioned trying to get better reporting of mental health records to NICS. You've also talked about the "terror gap." I've stated that I'd probably be in favor of that if it didn't exclude due process rights.

    Sounds like "discourse" to me.

  46. Joan

    I made no mention of beliefs. I was asking why factual information presented by us is ignored.

    We are not asking for the Brady Campaign to comment or accept a point, we are asking YOU. Do not sweep simple, clear ,and concise questions aside by feigning reliance upon the Brady groups agenda. This is your blog and your beliefs being discussed.

    No one is asking the Brady Campaign for answers here. We are asking you to comment and respond to legimate questions regarding our fears of a worst case scenario in this matter.

  47. Indeed, Alcade, that is honest discourse and I'm willing to engage in such. But then comes a provacative question asking me to agree to a certain interpretation of the second amendment or "dealing" about a proposed law as if I can do that. I am, to be frank, suspicious that anything I say in writing will be used by you all to attack me, my positions, and the organizations to which I belong. I am cautious for good reason. But if you want to talk about getting better records to NICS and the terror gap, I would be happy to have that discussion and find out how you think that could be workable for both sides by way of a compromise.

  48. Sorry, anon,, I don't find some of your questions to be legitimate. It is the way they are worded with a sort of "dare" me to answer tone to them. Whenever I quote the Brady Campaign, you guys go on the attack as if anything coming from the organization is not legitimate or credible. That immediately sets up a situation where I am not willing to discuss. As long as you don't find my positions to be legitimate or credible, that is a conversation stopper. I find your positions to be deeply held and based on a world view that I simply do not share. But I know you are sincere in your positions. I just don't happen to agree with them. You could say the same to me. You don't agree. But attacking the credibility of my positions just doesn't work for any sort of discussion. We have differences of opinion and sometimes differences of facts. Occasionally you guys find that I am legitimately wrong and I have admitted to that. I have occasionally found that you guys are legitimately wrong and every so often one of you admits to that. Back and forth we go. Do we get anywhere? The problem lies with our suspicions of each other's motives. I will continue writing and you guys will continue to go on the attack. I'm up for it. Someone wondered why you guys allow comments on your blogs and most on my side don't. It is simple. People on your side have been known to be extremely rude and obnoxious and even threatening in comments to people on my side. It's pretty rare for anyone on my side to get on your blogs to comment. Your blogs are mostly fielding comments from others who agree with you. The ugliness stops folks from my side from wanting to allow comments or even make comments for fear of the vitriol that comes forth. You all know that that is the case on this blog. I have published some of these comments and most I have not. It is not pretty. And it is pretty one sided. I don't know how to say it any other way.

  49. All questions pertaining to issue at hand ARE legitimate. Remember there is no such thing as a stupid question if asked in good faith.

    Worl view has nothing to do with fact. Facts are are not dependent on position,'orientation or viewpoint. Opinions are based on position, viewpoint, and orientation.

    I would ask you if you would consult with your husband who hunts about the following list.

    .223 Remington
    .308 Winchester
    .30-40 Krag
    .303 British
    7mm Mauser
    8 mm Mauser
    6.5 swede
    .38 colt long
    .38 special
    .38 S&W
    9 mm Luger
    9mm Kurz
    .32 acp
    .45 Colt
    .45 ACP
    12 gauge

    Ask him if they are not a list of perhaps 90% of the most popular chamberings in shooting sports and then ask him if it is not true that they are also ALL military chamberings.

  50. I am aware that some of these guns are guns that were used in war time and therefore sometimes considered military type weapons. I am also aware that these are commonly used guns by those of you who have chosen to own them for hunting and self defense. These are not generally the guns that are in question. It is the large capacity magazines that are in question at the moment- the number of rounds not needed for hunting or self defense but more commonly used and needed in military situations or other situations such as SWAT teams, etc. And I'm sure you know that many, if not most of these, were not included in the now expired assault weapons ban. So what's your point?

  51. "It is the large capacity magazines that are in question at the moment- the number of rounds not needed for hunting or self defense but more commonly used and needed in military situations or other situations such as SWAT teams, etc."

    You continually get things backwards.

    Military and police generally operate with gear that allows them to carry spare magazines, and to exchange magazines quickly and easily.

    Ordinary civilians generally do not.

    When I was in the Army, I routinely carried seven 30-round magazines, with additional ammo in my ruck. As a civilian, I carry my sidearm with just the one magazine. My nearest spare is out in the car.

    It should be clear to any rational person that the availability of large capacity magazines is more important to the ordinary civilian than to military and police, because the civilian is much less likely to be able to carry a spare.

  52. Joan,

    In an earlier comment you said:

    You have just made my case. Of course there are more gun deaths in our country BECAUSE we have more guns. I couldn't have said it better myself. Thanks for making my case.

    So what is your solution to "more guns" unless it is to get rid of the firearms?

    Under your logic "more guns = more death", there can only be one solution wouldn't you agree?

    And that solution is fewer firearms.

  53. That list is not a list of guns that is a list of different ammunition types. It also is some of the most popular types for both hunting and self defense. It is a list that apparently the Brady Campaign wants to ban according to Mr Helmke

  54. Sorry jdege- you are the one who has things backwards.

  55. Anon- you forgot that my friends and I are coming for your guns. That is how we will stop all the shootings. More guns=more shootings. That is my ultimate solution!!

  56. Joan,

    I realize that you are attempting to use sarcasm (personal advise -- stop, you aren't good at it) in order to deflect the question but how about an honest answer.

    If the reason Spain has fewer gun deaths is less firearms and more guns = more deaths; What do you propose to do other than get rid of firearms?

    And how will you get rid of the millions of firearms in existence?

  57. Anon- you forgot that my friends and I are coming for your guns. That is how we will stop all the shootings. More guns=more shootings. That is my ultimate solution!!

    Well, yes, we understand that. That's why we oppose you.

    And yes, I know you were attempting to be sarcastic - but the truth is the truth. I take you at your word. And I don't doubt it.

  58. Anon- of course one thing I am doing is getting people to read my blog so they will act and get more involved in the issue. I do whatever I can to reduce and prevent gun violence. I am proposing common sense gun laws, as you know. Let's see- how will I get rid of all those firearms in existence? Why do you ask? You are egging me on. So again, I plan to come and get them, of course. How else will we get them from you? You all are so convinced that that is our plan, we might just as well start the process as soon as we can. Thanks for compliment, by the way. Sarcasm apparently only works for you guys but never for me,

  59. Every single one of those chamberings is or recently was, military issue. They are most of the most popular hunting and selfdefense calibers.

    Thus when you support the Brady campaign and it's mission to ban Military ammo, well, suddenly we are looking at having a very large percentage of our guns made useless. No ammo=wall hangers ,It scares us that this is the true intent. You say you are not interested in taking our guns away. I see it the same taking gasoline away from cars. I am coming to believe that despite your "aw shucks, I'm a granny from duluth" persona that you know exactly what these plan is and have exactly the intent to undermine the Constitution by subterfuge.

    You love to change the topic in mid blog back and forth when cornered, oh it's not about freedom it's about magazines, it's not about military style points it's about reasonable discussion. No it's not.

    It's about the Constitution, Human rights, liberty and the fact that human nature is such that controlling hardware will never change behavior. Slavery existed at the time of the Pharaohs, genocide since before Jericho, murder since the Garden of Eden. Believing that a seventeen ounce piece of hardware somehow causes evil in man is ludicrous. Evil is in mens hearts, not their pocket or holster.

  60. And this, anon, is exactly what I'm about. " intent to undermine the Constitution by subterfuge." You have me all figured out all right. You guys are so clever. I can't fool you at all can I?

  61. To be fair, you would have to include the violent crime rate per 100,000. There are clearly less guns available to commit crimes in Spain, but I'd be willing to bet the bank that Spain has a significantly higher violent crime rate than the US. It's common sense that you don't need a gun to commit a crime or to murder someone.

    1. Richard- though your comment is about 2 years too late and I usually don't respond to comments made that far our from the posting date, I will say this. I am writing this blog about gun deaths, not overall crime rates.

  62. Just to clarify. In Spain, rifles and shotguns must be inspected every five years, Pistols, every 3. With my F licence, I have six handguns (2 of 9 mm Pb, one of 357 magnum, one of 32 and 2 of 22, plus another barrel of 22 to use with the 32 one). On top of that, I have 6 rifles and 6 shotguns. (Licences D and E). People older than 65 must have their health condition (physical and mental) inspected every 2 years. Older thant 70, every year, But in these cases you only have to submit your medical tests, not to take the firearms to be inspected.