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

Tuesday, October 18, 2011

The NRA's problem

Cross posted at Media Matters Gun Facts

Of late, the NRA has been pushing so hard for their extreme positions that the organization, its' leaders and its' followers have twisted themselves into knots to defend their unwarranted and paranoid views. Some of my blogging friends are hitting the "nail on the head" with their analysis of the NRA. Here is the latest post from my friend, Bladr Odinson, over at New Trajectory.
The pro-gun crowd likes to pretend that only hardened criminals and gangbangers are shooting up our communities, insisting that those who have concealed weapons permits don't murder people.  They portray themselves as absolutely law-abiding, patriotic, and only interested in self-protection. 
And yet, all the time, I see reports of previously law-abiding gun owners who commit gun-related crimes, including murder, with those guns they supposedly purchased for self protection.  This includes concealed carry permit holders. 
Speaking the truth about the NRA and going up against the gun rights extremists is not an easy job. From Baldr again:
Yesterday I got another anonymous threat posted as a comment to this blog, this time threatening to hunt me down at home.  Yawn.  This dufus didn't even know what city I live in.  To Mr. Anonymous, please note that, like all comments sent to me, I now have your IP address.  This is yet another example to me that people who spend their time and mental energy preparing themselves to kill people are all too often only a shade away from being criminals themselves.
This same thought has occurred to me. What kind of folks are trolling through the gun control blogs making ugly, sexually explicit, threatening, inappropriate, insulting and down right ridiculous comments? Can't they just write a comment and then let the "discussion" pursue on its' merits? Instead, there is hatred and false accusations and name calling. It's unbecoming. Are we hitting a nerve? Are they afraid we might actually change the conversation and change the minds and hearts of elected leaders because we have logic and facts on our side? When NRA Executive VP Wayne LaPierre gets himself so foamed up about gun rights that he says this:
"This is the biggest cover-up since Watergate and it's time to ask the Watergate question. Who authorized Fast and Furious and how high up does it go?" LaPierre asked during his speech.
In his speech, LaPierre also accused President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder of "stonewalling" the two Congressional Investigations into the operation.
Really? That's quite an accusation. As another of my fellow bloggers down at Random Musings points out,
While some of the criticisms are certainly justified, the loudest critics seem to have selective memories.
Just a few years ago, during the previous presidential administration, another very similar BATFE effort called Operation Wide Receiver did much the same thing - allowed weapons to cross the border with Mexico, ostensibly to use the weapons to track criminal organizations there.
Can LaPierre make these kind of accusations when his own organization and supporters just didn't report on the same operation from the previous administration ? Let's hope that now that the word is out that the Bush administration was involved in an operation similar to the one the House Subcommittee is investigating, they will stop their attacks on Attorney General Eric Holder and President Obama. But hypocrisy concerning committee business doesn't seem to matter to some these days. Silencing the voices of those in the minority or those who disagree will come back to haunt those who promote them. They should instead turn their efforts into something that would produce actual results- trying to do something about all of the weapons purchased in the U.S and trafficked to Mexico. From this editorial piece by Sylvia Longmire,a former special agent with the Air Force Office of Special Investigations former senior intelligence analyst and border security expert for the California Emergency Management Agency:
That leaves two major players in the weapons trafficking debate who will never back down from the fight and will never admit they might be wrong. Unfortunately for the American and Mexican people, that translates into a stalemate under which no effective policy or strategy can be formed to address a problem that neither side can deny exists.
That is the scandal. Both sides continue with their rhetoric while innocent lives are being lost. Let's put our heads together and solve this problem. It can be done if common sense prevails.

But when the NRA Executive VP Wayne LaPierre appears to get crazier and crazier, what are we to think about the goals of the organization? How are we to work together when the message in this video featuring LaPierre is so over the top?



No hyperbole or paranoia here! The statements were made in an interview with Newsmax. It is just another example of the increasingly desperate and crazy talk- or stupid and dangerous, as I have said before- coming from the NRA in this election season. If this is the talk now, what's coming up? I can't wait to hear how the rhetoric ramps up closer to the actual election. Get ready. I'm sure it's going to be good.

My two blogging friends have hit on something important here. The NRA will say and do anything to get its' way and to lobby and protect politicians who do their bidding. They are caught in a hypocritical trap of their own making. That is what happens when extreme ideology trumps reason and facts.

(This post is written as part of the Media Matters Gun Facts fellowship. The purpose of the fellowship is to further Media Matters' mission to comprehensively monitor, analyze, and correct conservative misinformation in the U.S. media Some of the worst misinformation occurs around the issue of guns, gun violence, and extremism, the fellowship program. The fellowship program is designed to fight this misinformation with facts.)

43 comments:

  1. Seems like every month the NRA's stances get more extreme, and it is reflected in the comments from their most ardent followers and board members who comment at New Trajectory. I hear the same bumper sticker statements, paranoia, and wild exaggerations. And there has certainly been an up-tick in foul-language and threatening comments posted on my blog, including the one I mentioned in your quote. I even had one where the commenter threatened to beat me up. All of this because I want to keep guns out of the hands of those would abuse them.

    The NRA encourages this sort of behavior with their inflammatory rhetoric and uncompromising politics, and it needs to end. Everyday people that they claim they represent overwhelmingly disagree with such language. It's time for NRA members to demand their organization move away from such extremism, and it's time that all citizens demand their representatives in Washington stop the violence with stricter controls on firearms.

    ReplyDelete
  2. "The NRA encourages this sort of behavior with their inflammatory rhetoric and uncompromising politics, and it needs to end."

    Say rather that it's the NRA's long history of compromise that needs to end. We've been compromising for 80 years - most of that under the NRA's leadership.

    We're done with it.

    ReplyDelete
  3. One wonders who are the "we" who are "done with it" in jdege's comment above. As is usual with extremists, this sounds vaguely menacing. When Mr. LaPierre made his famous assertion that the guys who have the guns make the rules, he didn't mean that their ability to make the rules grows out of the strength of their arguments. I think he meant they make the rules because they carry with them the means of force and intimidation. In this, he appears to agree with Chairman Mao's even more famous assertion that political power grows out of the barrel of a gun. Considering how much American extremists enjoy wrapping themselves in the flag and announcing their devotion to freedom, that similarity is ironic, isn't it?

    The many nasty comments directed at japete and Baldr carry with them these same threats. I congratulate you for your dedication and tireless work to make our society safer, more just, and more peaceful.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "One wonders who are the "we" who are "done with it" in jdege's comment above. As is usual with extremists, this sounds vaguely menacing."

    That's easy. The NRA membership has grown tired of the NRA's willingness to compromise on an enumerated right. The "we are done with it" is directed at the NRA leadership and no where else.

    You all think the NRA is an extreme organization. (talking about the NRA-ILA here) We think it is far too willing to make deals where none are needed and to insert itself at the front of a parade where it was not invited.

    It we be the same as the VPC changing it's stance on armed women and you saying "we're done with it"

    It doesn't mean you are going violent, it means that you are going to start voting in people that better represent your views.

    Same for us. We want more freedom, not less, and demand that our organizations reflect that.

    When I say "I'm done with something" it means I'm leaving it or changing it.."

    Any "menace" is you projecting your own fears.

    ReplyDelete
  5. 18 Echo. That is your opinion of course just as you claim about anyone friendly to my views.

    ReplyDelete
  6. This article http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=141364631 shows this: "The 2007 probe operated out of the same ATF office that more recently ran the flawed Operation Fast and Furious. Both probes resulted in weapons disappearing across the border into Mexico, according to the emails. The 2007 probe was relatively small — involving over 200 weapons, just a dozen of which ended up in Mexico as a result of gun-walking. Fast and Furious involved over 2,000 weapons, some 1,400 of which have not been recovered and an unknown number of which wound up in Mexico." and " Documents and emails relating to the 2007 case were produced or made available months ago to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, though the Republicans on the panel have said little about them. In the congressional investigation, committee chairman Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., has focused on the questions of what Obama's Attorney General, Eric Holder, knew about Fast and Furious, and when he knew it.

    The 2007 probe began when an ATF agent identified several suspects from Mexico who bought weapons from a gun shop in Phoenix over a span of several months." and this: " "Would like your opinion on a verbal approval from the US Attorney in Phoenix re the firearms walking," Hoover emailed ATF's senior legal counsel for field operations on Oct. 5, 2007. "This is a major investigation with huge political implications and great potential if all goes well. We must also be very prepared if it doesn't go well.""

    ReplyDelete
  7. Thank you, Alan. Among the names that the extremists have called us is "coward" (presumedly because we encourage non-violence instead of deadly force), and yet our opposition includes armed, militaristic, and very enraged people willing to make (cowardly) anonymous threats. It takes bravery to oppose these guys.

    ReplyDelete
  8. 18Echo, you would have a good point if jdege's comment was seen in isolation. However, the vile and violent comments directed toward japete and baldr more closely resemble an avalanche than an isolated incident.

    With respect to projected fears, may I say that I do not carry a gun. Mine stay locked up except when I'm hunting. I think carrying a gun bespeaks a fearfulness all out of proportion to the real risk involved. Your assertion is a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

    ReplyDelete
  9. The NRA IS an extreme organization. Haven't you been reading all the articles and blogs about their Board members and the extreme positions they have taken on many issues? And, concerning "violent" talk coming from the NRA and the gun rights extremists- it is plain for all to see what the NRA is saying. "The guys with the guns make the rules" That's pretty plain to me. And if I published the many many comments that are written on this blog, it would make your hair stand on end. You gun rights extremists literally gang up on me and say just about anything you want without regard to what your words are meaning or what the effect of those words are. It is not pretty from this side of things. But it will not stop me from blogging nor intimidate me. Thanks, Alan, for the support. Not too many people with common sense dare to wade into the debate because they are roundly and rudely insulted.

    ReplyDelete
  10. "if I published the many many comments that are written on this blog, it would make your hair stand on end"

    That is sad.

    I think I've been clear that I stand with you in repudiating anyone that speaks to you disrespectfully. We may disagree on most, if not all, things but I endeavor to disagree with your ideas and provide counter argument, never to attack you personally.

    I'd rather stop replying here at all than offend you personally. It's not like either of us are going to have an epiphany and say "OMG! he/she is right!"

    ReplyDelete
  11. "I think carrying a gun bespeaks a fearfulness all out of proportion to the real risk involved. Your assertion is a case of the pot calling the kettle black."

    I think we were talking about feeling "vaguely menaced" but ok..

    At an attempt at light heartedness.. That reminds me of a joke in "my" circles (short version)

    A cop pulls a guy over and asks "do you have any guns in the car"
    The guy replies. "I carry a .45, have a Glock in the glove box, an AR and a shotgun in the trunk.. Oh and my .38 in an ankle holster."

    The cop asks. "Oh my.. What are you afraid of?"

    He answers. "Not a darn thing."

    Let me share a few things..

    I live in a town that has a major drug/gang war problem and home invasions are not unheard of. My wife (ER doc) routinely refuses to give drugs to drug seeking addicts, and has threats like "I'll be waiting for you in the parking lot" tossed at her at least once a week. (That's to her face japete) The "security" at the hospital is more than willing to walk her to her car but they are armed with pepper spray. Ever see a meth addict "run" through being sprayed? Pepper spray is just a condiment to them when they are crazy. Now imagine one with a knife or gun waiting in the parking lot for you. Sure 99% of the time it's an idle threat from a drug addled mind but that other 1% is a serious problem.

    So unless you are in a profession that has the shooter (being stabbed and dying) and the person that was shot handcuffed to the next gurney.. All the while in "lock down" because the gang members said they were leaving to get help, you don't know what my risk level is.

    No offense Alan, but I think that I am in a better position to calculate the risk to me and my family and take additional precautions that you may find unnecessary in your life. I think that is the case for everyone. You too.

    I'm good with that. I'm glad you can make that choice.

    Half the time all we end up arguing about here is the right to make that CHOICE and what risk it brings to others.

    I calculate MY risk as being way above zero.. Is it " all out of proportion to the real risk involved"

    Man I hope so.. I'm just not willing to bet my life or my wife's life on it.

    ReplyDelete
  12. "I calculate MY risk as being way above zero"

    Joan is very quick to judge the risk of people she's never met, and about whose circumstances she has zero knowledge.

    I don't claim that everyone needs a gun. I don't even claim that I need a gun.

    I simply claim that the person best suited, the person most well-informed about a person's circumstances, and thus the person who should be making these decisions, is that person herself.

    It's about freedom, not guns. And who it is who gets to make fundamental life-or-death decisions about an individual.

    ReplyDelete
  13. And this is my problem, jdege- " And who it is who gets to make fundamental life-or-death decisions about an individual. "

    ReplyDelete
  14. I live in a generally peaceful, calm town. Yet I still feel the need to carry. I fully understand that 99.9% of the time, it's probably an unnecessary precaution, but that other 0.1% is the part I worry about. We've had two fatal shootings this month alone, one within a quarter-mile of my home. We have "Occupy [City]" protests in town that have been getting less and less "protest" and more and more "riot," complete with arrests, less than two blocks from my workplace.

    Short answer: I don't feel you (or Baldr, or 18Echo, or anyone else here) have any proper perspective the relative danger my family and I face, and therefore shouldn't have any voice in what measures are appropriate for my personal protection. That decision lies with me and me alone.

    Sorry japete, but 18Echo and jdege are 100% correct. The choice of whether or not to carry a defensive firearm is - and must remain - an individual choice, made by someone who understands and accepts such a profound responsibility.

    Politics aside, that "life-or-death" decision lies with me, inasmuch as it involves myself and my family. Others might call it unnecessary or paranoid, but I refuse to leave the "life-or-death" decision in the hands of a person who - by their very actions - shows less regard for my life than the contents of my pockets.

    I don't mean to sound too snarky; I'm asking this in all seriousness. If it were up to you, who, exactly, would you have make those decisions for us?

    May Peace favor you.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Archer-" We have "Occupy [City]" protests in town that have been getting less and less "protest" and more and more "riot," complete with arrests, less than two blocks from my workplace."
    As I said, these folks have been peaceful so far. There have been instances of arrest and a few folks who have caused problems. But don't start saying that you are afraid of these Occupy Wall Street folks. Were you afraid of Tea Party gatherings where people actually showed up with guns? I think I know the answer. As to the rest, you have confirmed my belief that you really don't need your guns where you live. You just want them. And your last question, as you recall there are restrictions in place as to who gets guns in the first place, who can sell them, etc. I'm sure you would love a totally restriction free system of gun ownership which would, of course, lead to more problems and danger than we could imagine. But you already live with restrictions that are very minimal compared to most other countries in the industrialized world. I know you likely hate the government but we have governments for a reason- and one of the things it does is to keep the public safe.

    ReplyDelete
  16. By the way, Archer, I think it would be instructive to know if you are actually saying you would fire on the Occupy Wall Street people in your town.

    ReplyDelete
  17. @ Archer: Paranoia is never a good thing, but as long as you are not a criminal or dangerously mentally ill, it's your right to be paranoid and carry concealed (with a permit).

    This guy with a legal conceal carry permit thought so too, and brandished his weapon against some of those peaceful protesters in Portland: http://goo.gl/GBSs6 . I'm getting the impression, Archer, that you'd do the same.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Interestingly enough he was not charged with brandishing nor does the article you posted say that that is what he was doing. I really think we need better reporters though that actually put details into a story.

    ReplyDelete
  19. "A witness says he was filming inside tents without permission on Wednesday, and after protesters told him not to, he displayed the gun, more than once.

    Police said 32-year-old Jason Parker was charged with disorderly conduct. He had a license to carry the concealed handgun."

    Given the way the law is usually written, these days, showing a gun as a way of discouraging unwanted attention is generally a bad idea. He'd have been better off, legally, had he waited for them to attempt to assault him, and then to shoot them in the attempt.

    ReplyDelete
  20. japete writes:
    "By the way, Archer, I think it would be instructive to know if you are actually saying you would fire on the Occupy Wall Street people in your town. "

    Baldr writes:
    "I'm getting the impression, Archer, that you'd do the same. "

    He's said absolutely nothing of the sort that would even indicate that he would take this sort of action.

    The same use of force laws apply in a protest as they do in other circumstances.

    B

    ReplyDelete
  21. Come on jdege. You can't be serious!

    ReplyDelete
  22. "Come on jdege. You can't be serious!"

    What do you mean, I'm not serious? I am serious. And I'm right. The law in every state, with limited exceptions, allows for the use of deadly force only in response to imminent threat of death or grievous bodily injury.

    And in most states, any use of a firearm is considered to be a threat of deadly force. So while shooting someone who is attacking you is legal, pointing a gun at someone in order to convince him not to attack you is not.

    The first is justified self defense, the second is aggravated assault.

    I agree it makes no sense, but it is the state of the law, right now.

    Which is why carry instructors are pretty much unanimous on teaching that you should only draw when you intend to shoot.

    So yes. He was legally in the wrong, in displaying his gun in response to a threat.

    He'd have been in a better legal position if he'd waited until they'd decided to act, and then shot them.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Heh. Bryan beat me to it. The use-of-force-in-self-defense laws don't change during a protest. And I believe I stated that as emotions boil over, it's less "protest" and more "riot."

    Yes, I do live with the restrictions. Some, like background checks, I can agree with. Others I'm against: registration, bans on cosmetic features or normal-capacity magazines (and probably not for the reasons you think). But they are the law of the land, so I must abide by them until they can be changed. The lovely thing about our system of government is that the laws can be changed by the will of the People, within the limits of the Constitution.

    And believe it or not, I don't hate the government. They do have a valid purpose, and I agree with you that part of that purpose is to ensure public safety. However, judging by the budget and staffing cuts most police and fire departments are undergoing, public safety is a much lower priority than it should be. With fewer officers patrolling or "on-call," it's increasingly up to us as citizens to protect ourselves, our families, and our property; to look out for our neighbors and communities; and to uphold public safety (I'll expand on that if you like, but it's beyond the scope of this post).

    May Peace favor you.

    ReplyDelete
  24. @Baldr: You can call it "paranoia" if you want; I prefer "awareness." And thank you for acknowledging my right to carry if I so choose, just as I acknowledge your right to not carry if you so choose. Whatever makes you happy.

    ReplyDelete
  25. jdege-here is what your comment looks like to anyone reading this blog- you are saying, if I have this right, that the man with the gun who was videoing the Occupy Wall Street group, should have pushed the folks there to "act"- whatever that means-so he could shoot at them. IF that is what you mean, you are encouraging people with guns to provoke people without guns so the people with the guns can then claim self defense and shoot them. This is dangerous talk. I need to know whether you mean this as I have stated. If so, we have a problem.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Well Archer- since the far right legislators and those in Congress who refuse to fund police and fire departments have succeeded in making communities less safe, you guys have a point. Now you can claim that you must have your guns for self defense since there are fewer police. This is a circular and dangerous argument.

    ReplyDelete
  27. "jdege-here is what your comment looks like to anyone reading this blog- you are saying, if I have this right, that the man with the gun who was videoing the Occupy Wall Street group, should have pushed the folks there to "act"- whatever that means-so he could shoot at them."

    I didn't get that from what Jdege said. What I got is that the offender felt threatened and brandished his gun. That was illegal. If he had waited until he was actually attacked he could have legally shot his attackers. He could not legally try to prevent an attack by showing his gun but he could legally respond once the attack began. I saw absolutely nothing in any of Jdege's comments that even implied "provoking."

    ReplyDelete
  28. Robin- jdege was saying the guy with the gun should wait until someone acts. That assumes that someone will act because you guys assume that the Occupy Wall Street group is dangerous, so they will likely "act". What does that mean? To me it means that if guys with guns just show up at the Occupy movements they can provoke "action" and then shoot. This is a very sick and twisted philosophy. I'm not sure it could be taken any other way. But it's nice that you guys stick together to defend your ridiculous assertions.

    ReplyDelete
  29. I don't agree with 18Echo's comments, but I do think you present a scenario (your wife and her dealings with drug-seekers) where it would be appropriate to carry a weapon or have armed security. I'm a physician, too, and work in an outpatient clinic where I deal with the same problem. It happens that I never get threatened when I refuse to give out narcotic Rxs, but that's maybe just a regional difference (and an important one). The ER is a much higher tension situation and I can pretty easily imagine your wife being threatened. Also, as she knows better than me, people high on meth and bath salts and the like can be almost impossible to control, even with powerful IV medications, let alone pepper spray.

    I agree that people in special situations like this should be free to protect themselves. I disagree with the extremist position, so often articulated in the comments here, that we need to completely saturate our country with weapons (in bars, colleges, maybe Nursing Homes next? Kindergarten?) in order to ensure the safety of people in these special situations. That position is based on an unhealthy, distorted view of reality and a miscalculation of the actual risks the majority of us are exposed to.

    ReplyDelete
  30. japete:
    "jdege was saying the guy with the gun should wait until someone acts. That assumes that someone will act because you guys assume that the Occupy Wall Street group is dangerous, so they will likely "act". What does that mean? To me it means that if guys with guns just show up at the Occupy movements they can provoke "action" and then shoot."

    I don't get that from what jdege is posting at all - he's explaining the law - not outlining a course of action for people to follow.

    In any event, if we transpose this situation to Minnesota, deliberately provoking a deadly force situation removes the "reluctant participant" element that is a requirement under Minnesota law to use deadly force - it would not at all be a legal use of force in that situation.

    The best course of action with the occupy protests would be to just stay away from them if one believes that there's a potential violent situation. The first rule of being safe is not goto places where bad things are more likely to happen.

    B

    ReplyDelete
  31. The comments above illustrate the flaw in the gun rights extremist's arguments. The case of the ER Physician is one where "May Issue" laws to issue permits made sense. If someone can prove a need for carrying that gun, they got a permit to carry. Now, however, we have people who have even admitted on this blog that they likely don't even need to carry- it's a 1% chance that they would ever need to use that gun. Meanwhile, the 2%ers who are carrying are showing that there has not been a demonstrated need. They don't need their guns. They want their guns. And as to Bryan's comments, it's great that you guys come to the defense of your commenting trolls but jdege has said something quite instructive here. So Bryan, you are saying that people cannot claim self defense if they provoke something. It's too late once some is shot. So that is why I'm saying- leave your guns at home and leave them for self defense of your home and your family if that is what you want to do. Carrying them in public can cause an unnecessary and potentially lethal situation from which no one can feel good once something happens. Prevention is the best medicine as Alan and 18 Echo's wife can attest. Bryan offers good advise. Listen to him. Stay away from the Occupy Wall Street groups. They are unarmed and mostly peaceful. No need to get in their faces and provoke them. And certainly no need for guns. Ramping up the fear of the groups will only lead to major problems.

    ReplyDelete
  32. "That assumes that someone will act because you guys assume that the Occupy Wall Street group is dangerous, so they will likely 'act'"

    The guy clearly felt threatened. Whether that threat was reasonable or not, I can't say. It seems unlikely to me, but I wasn't there.

    But as to the idea that these kumbaya types create peaceful communities when they get together ... history has demonstrated this to be false.

    What is going on in those camps is exactly what would be expected to be going on in those camps - by anyone who had any understanding of human society and behavior.

    http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_19150644?nclick_check=1

    http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2011-10-19/news/bs-md-ci-occupy-baltimore-rape-20111019_1_sexual-assaults-sexual-abuse-report-crimes

    ReplyDelete
  33. jdege- the first link was broken- the 2nd deals with potential sexual assaults within the group of which there have apparently been some but not many. How does this prove that someone from "your side" who is not within the group needs a gun to protect themselves from the group? These are unarmed people. The guy who claimed he was threatened- that's his claim. Did the folks who confronted the angry tea partiers, who actually carried guns in some cases, feel threatened? Most likely. Guns are not the answer here. Leave them at home. You won't need them if you just stay away from the Occupy groups who are, for the most part, peaceful. And don't send me any links about the arrests. Yes, some arrests have happened. I have not denied that.

    ReplyDelete
  34. "The case of the ER Physician is one where "May Issue" laws to issue permits made sense. If someone can prove a need for carrying that gun, they got a permit to carry"

    I thought you were adamantly against the carrying of guns in hospitals. I fail to see how a ER Physician would be helped with a gun locked up in a car.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Oh Anthony- you are so literal. I assume that if an ER doctor carries they don't carry at work but rather on their way to the car? I have no idea. Perhaps she locks it up and gets it out on her way to the car? 18 Echo claims that his wife carries- ask him how it works. In Duluth no one can carry in hospitals.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Yep I tend to hold people to what they say. Your position on March 10th was that hospitals should be posted. This would obviously include the DR. you speak of so they would have to leave it locked up in the car. Even Dr can not just lock it up in their office if the hospital was posted like you want them to be.

    As to how his wife can carry the hospital has to have the ability to post and meet all the applicable law to do so (if in MN). If they chose not to do so then you would be allowed to carry.

    ReplyDelete
  37. "In Duluth no one can carry in hospitals. "

    Under what law is this prohibited?
    b

    ReplyDelete
  38. "So Bryan, you are saying that people cannot claim self defense if they provoke something. It's too late once some is shot. "

    You can claim any sort of defense that you want to claim - as is your right. However, the courts in MN have held that you must be a reluctant participant in order to use deadly force. State v Baker (1968 - MN Supreme Court) and State v Bastings (1997 - MN Supreme Court) would be the two most relevant cases for more information.

    Unfortunately our statutory language is far less clear - we attempted to fix that in this past legislative session. We'll try again in 2012.

    All that said, no one has said anything threatening in this thread - there's been some hypothetical discussion about how these situations could have been different. Believing this to be anything other than that couldn't be further from the truth.

    Most permit instructors in MN are going to tell their students to avoid situations like this -- carrying a firearm does not make it safer for you to take greater risks. If you believe that the occupy MN/ny/etc protests are dangerous - or that a particular restaurant is dangerous, etc... just don't go.

    B

    ReplyDelete
  39. Good grief. Quit nit picking. I have not changed my position.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Bryan- signs are posted. I welcome you coming to Duluth and carrying your gun in a holster in one of the hospitals.

    ReplyDelete
  41. "Bryan- signs are posted. I welcome you coming to Duluth and carrying your gun in a holster in one of the hospitals. "

    It's not a crime to carry a firearm past a sign.

    b

    ReplyDelete
  42. Good luck with that, Bryan.Have a nice week-end and don't go carrying your guns around in your holster past too many signs,

    ReplyDelete
  43. I didn't say my wife carries at work. I didn't/wouldn't say either way in any case.

    The hospital has a policy against weapons (directed at "civilians, for lack of a better term" entering the hospital).

    I will say that almost all of the ER doctors, residents and a number of the administrators (in charge of enforcing that policy) have carry permits and leave it at that.

    At the hospitals request I train the incoming residents every year on firearm safety, terminal ballistics of various calibers and other related topics and then take them to the local range to familiarize then with a wide assortment of firearms.

    Hospital policies do vary from hospital to hospital however and there is nothing that "forces" a hospital to post a no firearms policy.

    One Doctor we know is the only doctor in a rural ER overnight, ( remote hospital, no security and he is often the only male in the ER for the entire shift)

    He OPEN carries. He has been doing that ever since meth became such a problem for rural hospitals. I'll be honest and say that hearing that surprised even me, but he says it's never been an issue and the nurses are all for it.

    ReplyDelete