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

Thursday, July 14, 2011

Sequels and re-runs

Reruns get old after a while. Take, for example, incidents of people misusing alcohol and guns resulting in injury or death of innocent people. And why are these re-runs so often in Texas? Hmm. I wonder if it has anything to do with Texas gun laws. Oh, you might want to know that I am referring to this latest incident concerning a bar, an argument over changing the T.V. channel in the bar and an AR-15. Now one would think that a couple of guys could argue over which station to watch while having a beer. They might even get into a little shoving or maybe a punch or two. But if you have an AR-15 at the ready ( as surely everyone should) you can take care of the argument quite quickly and definitively. And now, yet another senseless shooting has occurred. One man is dead and another is in jail and will likely stay there for quite some time. Where is common sense?

Here's another "unsolved mystery" with new information for the re-run. Remember when I posted about the tourists who were shot and injured during a reenactment of a wild west shoot-out in the Black Hills of South Dakota? Here is information that changes the outcome more than a little. It turns out that one of the men shooting the guns which were supposed to have blanks in them is an actual felon; felons can't own guns or be around guns. So why did this happen? The Minnesota woman who was shot that day had this to day:" "If they had done a background check, they would have known he was a felon. If I want to go down to the senior center and volunteer in the office, I have to have a background check. So someone who is going to be using a gun, even if it's supposed to have blanks in it, and doesn't have a background check ... it's just boggling."" There is still a mystery about how and why live bullets were in those guns instead of blanks causing injury to 3 people. That may be for another sequel.


She's right. At my church and all churches, I assume, anyone who comes into contact with children must have a criminal background check for which the church pays. This is a no brainer. Bad people do bad things to young children sometimes. In order to prevent that, we make sure those bad people are not hired to work with our children. My son, who worked for a major accounting firm as a CPA in his first job out of college, had to have a criminal background check. I wonder why? Common sense tells us that those who deal with sensitive financial information of private and public firms should not be criminals- at least not when they begin their careers. As we all know, sometimes these folks become criminals. But that's another story and not for this blog. Teachers must have background checks. People who adopt pets at the local animal shelter in my home town have to have background checks, for goodness sake! Doing simple background checks on ALL people who buy guns or handle guns for a living should be a no-brainer and just makes common sense. Sadly, in America, common sense is lacking.

10 comments:

  1. japete - I'll apologize in advance for my last post; I was being glib and snarky.

    I have to say, however, re the Texas incident: Can you think of a single conceivable law that would prevent this?

    I can't.

    The killer was not a CC holder (if he were, I have no doubt the media would be all over it). He was not carrying in the bar - note, he left and came back in. He made a conscious, willful, and deliberate decision to kill. No law on the planet will make any difference in such a case. He went out and got a gun, but he could just as easily have stabbed him, or ran over the guy with his truck as he came outside, and he'd be no less dead.

    You take great pains to point out the weapon was an AR-15. Again - were it a .38, or a musket, or a flamethrower, would he be any less dead? More important, is there something inherent about the gun being an AR that's relevant here? It's not that he "sprayed from the hip," as he fired one shot. So why is the weapon being an AR relevant?

    I guess that while I understand your position, and any murder is a tragedy, I can't think of any conceivable law which will stop malicious people. You can't fix people. It is people who are dangerous.

    - Me Again

    ReplyDelete
  2. When we have a culture that makes carrying loaded guns around in your car or carrying them everywhere you go, I believe that people think they can just use those guns for an argument that, if a gun was not at the ready, would have been solved in a non deadly way. A fist fight would not have resulted in the death of an innocent man and another going to jail. When you guys all think that guns should be everywhere, they tend to get used in incidents such as the one I posted. That is my point, as you all know but don't agree with. That's fine. Some of you won't and don't agree. Most people, however, happen to agree with me that guns are not needed everywhere.

    ReplyDelete
  3. "When we have a culture that makes carrying loaded guns around in your car or carrying them everywhere you go, I believe that people think they can just use those guns for an argument that, if a gun was not at the ready, would have been solved in a non deadly way."

    The problem isn't "the culture", it's the individual who decided to pull the trigger.

    You're continued attempts to confuse, deflect, and share responsibility only makes things worse.

    There's one finger on the trigger, and one person who decided to pull it. No one else is responsible, and the decisions and behaviors of no one else is relevant.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "When you guys all think that guns should be everywhere, they tend to get used in incidents such as the one I posted. That is my point, as you all know but don't agree with. "

    Not only do I disagree with you - but there also isn't any data in "shall issue" carry permit states that supports this argument... is there?
    b

    ReplyDelete
  5. The commentor who said "you can't fix people. It is people who are dangerous." Hit the nail square on the head.

    That's why we have background checks - to try to keep dangerous people from getting guns. Neither japete nor myself are trying to keep guns from law abiding people.

    If you must carry a gun, take care of it. When you're not carrying it, take care of it. That's what it's all about.

    .45 Colt

    ReplyDelete
  6. Several of my readers have pointed out an error in this post. The shooting incident at the bar was not in Texas but rather in Pittsburgh. The shooter was a Texas man who came to the bar in his car with Texas license plates. My apologies for getting that wrong. These shootings happen in every state, obviously. That is a problem with so many guns are around in people's cars and in public places. Some people are so afraid of things happening to themselves in public places that they bring their guns everywhere- apparently even when they travel to other states. You never know when someone will go after you in a Pittsburgh bar. And when that happens, you just happen to have your AR 15 in your car to shoot someone who wants to change the channel. Again, my apologies for getting the place of the shooting wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  7. "Doing simple background checks on ALL people who buy guns or handle guns for a living should be a no-brainer and just makes common sense. Sadly, in America, common sense is lacking."

    I and other moderate gunowners might support INSTANT background checks. Common sense suggests a compromise toward that goal. Sadly, in America, common sense is lacking.

    ReplyDelete
  8. It's interesting to me that you guys keeping saying there is no data to show that permit holders are shooting people in the states ( 49) that allow people to carry guns in public. The very fact that any permit holders shoot someone in public is enough to know that having too many permit holders with guns in too many public places can be a danger to innocent people. I realize that some of you who comment here are so far not involved in any of those shootings and you all claim to be safe. I would imagine that is what some of the people who accidentally discharged a loaded gun in public thought as well. And the ones who intentionally shot someone? Did they plan it ahead or act on the spur of the moment? The shooter of the Pittsburgh police officers planned his massacre ahead of time. He shouldn't have been a permit holder nor should he have had guns. But he did and he killed 3 police officers. We are coming at this from a totally different point of view.

    ReplyDelete
  9. "The very fact that any permit holders shoot someone in public is enough to know that having too many permit holders with guns in too many public places can be a danger to innocent people."

    You have to balance, against the handful of permit-holders who committed an act of violence with a firearm they were carrying under the terms of a permit with the number of crimes that were not committed because the individual who was considering the criminal act decided not to, because he feared that his victim might be armed.

    (Note - acts of violence committed by permit holders with other than a firearm, or with a firearm carried where no permit was required are irrelevant, with respect to this question, since the permit had no bearing on the incident. And on the other side, we need to consider not just criminal acts that were stopped by a permit holder, but those criminal acts that were deterred by the knowledge that the intended victim might be a permit holder.)

    On the one side we have maybe a half-dozen well-publicized incidents. On the other we have hundreds of thousands of crimes that never happened.

    I've said it before - when it comes to fundamental rights, I'm opposed to the utilitarian principle. The acts of a free individual cannot be allowed to be infringed based on considerations of likely harm to society that are based on other than the specific documented behavior of the individual in question.

    But even if you do buy into the "greatest good for the greatest number" clap-trap, it's clear that the benefits of widespread carry far outweigh the harm.

    ReplyDelete
  10. "It's interesting to me that you guys keeping saying there is no data to show that permit holders are shooting people in the states ( 49) that allow people to carry guns in public."

    You are clearly misunderstanding what is being said. No one is saying that no permit holder ever shoots someone. We are saying that it is very, very rare. The data has been posted on the blog. The crime rate for permit holders (for ANY crime, not just firearms crimes), is several orders of magnitude less than the general public.

    ReplyDelete