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

Sunday, December 4, 2011

Guns for fun and airport security

Why on earth does a 17 year old girl want a purse with a gun design on it that looks so real that airport security detained her? This teen was traveling from Virginia to Florida with a purse that has a design that looks like a real gun embedded in it. Take a look and tell me what you think.



There are a host of questions here. Why should there even be a purse with this design? Where do you get purses like this anyway? ( in case I want to buy one) I checked here, here, and here with no luck. Oh well. Maybe she got her purse at this site which seems to be having problems. It says that the site may be harmful to my computer. I wonder what that means? But then, here , I may have found something similar to the purse in question in the story. Great. But I digress. What is the purpose of carrying such a purse around? Is it to provoke people? To make a statement? To let people know that they should not mess with you? Is it just for fun? Why does a young girl think this is a good idea? Did her parents know about this purse? Who bought it for her and what were they thinking? Does it seem appropriate to you? The teen is pregnant so one has to wonder what role model this will be for her young child? There's a message here and it's not one of "peace on earth, good will towards men." It's the holiday season- just thought I'd throw that in.

It's amazing though how many guns or replica guns people do try to get through airport security. Having flown recently, I am so aware of what I can and cannot put into my carry-on bag and what I can and cannot wear when going through the security area. When someone says that it was a mistake when a gun is found in their carry-on, I say nonsense. If you own a firearm and intend to travel with it, you should know the rules. Even the NRA has good advice for people when traveling with their guns. There are plenty of warnings about firearms on planes for anyone who can read. Here's a recent stupid mistake involving a gun in a carry-on in Arkansas. Why would this man have forgotten about his gun? Maybe it's this:" In some cases, Hastings says people with concealed carry permits forget to leave their guns at home when preparing to travel." Many conceal carry permit holders think that guns MUST be with them at all times even though they really don't need them everywhere they go. But they have so convinced themselves that they are "naked" without their guns that they actually forget that they have them in clothing or a box or a carry-on. I have written many times about accidental gun discharges when this happens. Oops- I forgot my gun was in my jacket pocket and when I put it down at a restaurant, it fired and hit a woman in the back causing her life-long medical issues. Or, oops- I forgot about that gun in a box and when we were moving it, the gun discharged and hit and injured someone. Or, oops, I forgot that I had my gun in my purse and when I put it down, the gun discharged and fired, narrowly missing a person nearby. Oops, I forgot that my gun was in the glove compartment and tragically, now my child is dead from the gunshot injury.

Seriously folks, these things have actually happened. This is the problem with a culture where some people believe they need their guns everywhere they go. Haven't they learned that there are places where people shouldn't have guns and where they are prohibited? Haven't they learned that some of us, the majority actually since only 2-3% carry their guns around in this country, don't want those guns around in public where we gather?  Sometimes people who can't be trusted want to take guns and other weapons or methods of killing innocent people on airplanes or in other public places. This TSA blog post talks about a recent claim of a woman being strip searched and the reasons for what some people claim are invasive searches at airport screening. The blog refers to the arrest of some elderly Georgia men who had plans to attack innocent people with various forms of destruction, including guns, ricin, and explosives. I blogged about that incident when it happened. Still, though, guns and other prohibited items make it through TSA screening in spite of efforts to the contrary. The fact that the screeners at the Virginia airport wouldn't allow the purse with a real looking gun in the design get on a plane makes me hope that they won't miss the real thing when someone has it.

This TSA blog is an interesting read about what screeners find ( or don't find) in carry-ons at airports.  "Sometimes after reading the incident reports, it‘s as though they’re having a gun and knife convention at the airport. " Grenades? Loose ammo? I thought these folks who carry their guns around in public were responsible law abiding citizens. That's what they tell us. That's what they have told our legislators all over the country. Just trust us. We law abiding citizens don't do anything wrong with our guns. We are trained ( or not since some states have no hands-on training for permit holders or even permits, for that matter) with these lethal weapons. We won't do anything wrong with our guns. Until of course, someone does Where is common sense?

47 comments:

  1. "A gun design on it that looks so real that airport security detained her?"

    Yikes, sounds scary, doesn't it.

    But isn't this the same TSA agency that asked a 95 year old woman to remove her adult diaper to complete a search?

    Why does a 95 year old woman need a wheelchair and undergarments that look so much like something a terrorist would wear that airport security would detain her?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Our pro-gun culture glamorizes guns in every way, including on purses and apparel, and markets it to kids. No surprise. It's disgusting.

    I would have hoped the TSA could have told the difference in that case with just a quick scan, but then I don't have the highest regard for them. Still, their purpose is an important one.

    The other stories you hear about people sneaking or accidentally bringing real guns through security, however, are far more alarming. Despite what the gunnies say, gun owners AREN'T any more law-abiding than other citizens, and unfortunately they are armed when they make bad decisions. I would feel very uncomfortable to know that fellow passengers not associated with law enforcement were armed and ready to make untrained, "snap" decisions when lives are at stake (including mine).

    ReplyDelete
  3. "Take a look and tell me what you think."

    Concisely;

    I think if it took the TSA agent more than 5 seconds to figure out that that is 1/2 a crappy fake pistol embroidered into a purse, with a MOLDED fake cylinder, trigger and cartridge ejector, that is obviously not made out of metal, and the wrong size for a cowboy revolver, then the agent does not have sufficient mental capacity to be in any position of authority. Much less be on the front lines at the airport where we need security to be able to identify actual weapons. The supervisor should have fired the agent on the spot and apologized to the customer for the delay.

    Long version;

    Sequence should have gone like this..

    10 seconds to run the the bag through the x-ray and have the person go "what the heck? That's shaped like a gun.."

    Pull the purse. Look it it.. "roll eyes" send it on..

    Elapsed time 20-30 seconds..

    Here is a real replica .357 http://ep.yimg.com/ca/I/replicaweaponry_2185_12030987

    If you tried to take THAT through security, then the response would be justified.

    Did you watch the video?

    Do YOU actually think that looks like a real gun?

    "What is the purpose of carrying such a purse around? Is it to provoke people? To make a statement? To let people know that they should not mess with you? Is it just for fun? Why does a young girl think this is a good idea?"

    In a free society, who cares? Remember "free speech"? Sometimes we carry images, signs and wear tee-shirts "To make a statement" in PUBLIC. After all that is the whole point of the 1st..

    How may times have you seen someone wearing a stupid tee-shirt or wearing an offensive hat? This is no different. It is an embossed IMAGE, not a real thing.

    Should that be illegal?

    Should the people wearing the V for vendetta t-shirts be questioned as possible terrorists and forced to change tee-shirts before they fly?

    You support that and you get THIS http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=a65_1212433176&comments=1

    "Brad Jayakody, 30, was told he had to change his T-shirt if he wanted to catch his flight from Heathrow's Terminal 5.

    His top showed the Transformers film character Optimus Prime holding a gun."

    Pick your metaphor.

    "Kafkaesque" is sometimes described as "marked by a senseless, disorienting, often menacing complexity."

    Does that not fit the TSA's arbitrary enforcement totally? After all, she had been flying with that purse several times before with no problems.

    Should the previous TSA agents that let her pass be fired?

    You absolutely can not have it both ways.
    Either there are clear rules (and limits on the TSA) or you get room 101.

    This is the same TSA that spilled a handicap man's urine collection bag IN PUBLIC. The same TSA that strip searched an 84 year old woman wearing depends, made a breast cancer survivor remove her foam breast from her bra and touched traveling children in ways that would get anyone else arrested and charged with being a pedophile.

    The same TSA that tried to claim that even RECORDING their actions made you subject to arrest.

    You want to get behind them making it up as they go?

    You are welcome to them..

    Because you get the whole show and it's not just about images on purses.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I consider it a badge of honor that Ms Peterson apparently feels that Im not fit to be a parent since my duaghter ( now age 7 ) has been shooting firearms since age 5, got her own rifle at 6 and has expressed interest in competitive shooting. She's also accompanied me to various Counter Demonstrations of various Anti Gun Groups, including one where she very proudly carried my newly purchased shotgun out to my truck in full view of the Anti Gun Protestors.

    Despite the best efforts of Ms Peterson and others, my daughter will NEVER be left defenseless at the hands of a predatory criminal.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Its really sad that a young girl would walk around with a purse that glamorizes violence. It saddens me. Your right japete it makes no common sense.

    ReplyDelete
  6. The TSA, like all the other government alphabet soup agencies, isn't known for it's common sense or critical thinking skills.

    Let's think about this logically. If someone were intent on taking a gun onto an airplane, are they going to keep it in plain site, stuck to the side of a bag? And that's ignoring the fact that the gun stuck on the bag isn't even the size of a real gun.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Baldr writes: "Despite what the gunnies say, gun owners AREN'T any more law-abiding than other citizens, and unfortunately they are armed when they make bad decisions"

    I know you wish that was a fact, but the actual facts do not at all support your decision.

    We can look at the annual reports for the states of Florida, Minnesota, Texas, and others that show the number of permit holders who commit crimes versus those that do not -- and then we can compare that against the general crime rates in those states.

    In Minnesota, for example, individuals holding a permit to carry commit crimes at a rate far *far* below the rate of the general population.

    Bryan

    ReplyDelete
  8. And we can look at this one from the Violence Policy Center-http://www.vpc.org/ccwkillers.htm I have been posting about CCW folks who have killed others or whose guns have been used improperly, sometimes injuring themselves and others. The point is that these "law abiding" gun owners and permit holders have made public claims that if they are allowed to carry their guns around in public, we will all be safer. That hasn't happened.

    ReplyDelete
  9. You're right, it hasn't happened to any noticeable degree. The flip side of that coin is that there's no detriment to society when the law abiding carry guns. As Linoge @ Walls of the City has proven time and time again, there is no correlation between the two. It's a flatline. However, the rate of crimes committed by those legally allowed to carry guns is a far shorter list than the rest.

    ReplyDelete
  10. You're missing the point, japete. Your personal opinion about an individual who wants to have a purse with a pistol design on it is irrelevant.

    The question is whether an individual carrying a design of a pistol on a purse should be subjected to that much scrutiny by the TSA. The answer is plainly no.

    ReplyDelete
  11. You’re way off on the parenting comment.

    I started shooting firearms at the age of 4, under the supervision of my father. He had a gun cabinet full of guns, and the day he saw me showing interest/curiosity in them was the day he sat me down and had 'the talk.' Nope, not the "if you knock up the neighbor's daughter...." talk. I'm talking about 'the talk' which drilled into my young brain that guns, while having many legitimate, sporting, recreational purposes, also have the potential to be deadly if misused. I was immediately taught the 4 rules of safe gun handling. Every weekend I'd beg him to take me out to the range to do a little plinking with the .22. As a grew older, my shooting sessions evolved into larger caliber weapons, trap shooting, hunting, etc... Through it all, my dad's words reverberated through my head: Always be sure of your backstop, always treat a gun as if it's loaded, never point the muzzle at anything you don't intend to kill or destroy....

    Now, some 30+ years later as a man, waking up every day and putting on my shirt and tie, going out to my professional job, earning money to support my family, and still in love with shooting sports, there are some things in my life which are apparent. My parent's guidance had a big impact on shaping the person I have become. Specifically regarding firearms, they taught me that the most important variable is the character of the person holding the implement, not the implement itself. It's one's moral compass which guides the individual through life and instills proper decision making abilities. You need to have respect for yourself before you can ever begin to respect other human beings. You need to have AWARENESS of potentially dangerous situations which life presents you so you can make appropriate and safe decisions.

    My dad was faced with a choice: to shelter me from firearms under the false hope that the non-exposure would somehow magically keep me from ever being exposed to firearms and the potential dangers from misuse they pose. Or raise awareness in a young impressionable mind as a means to provide me with the ability to make proper decisions when faced with them on my own.


    As a climbed down out of my tree stand this year after harvesting a buck, heart pumping out of my chest, knees wobbly, head spinning, adrenaline rushing, there was only one voice I heard...my dad's voice in my head telling me to "take a few minutes to calm down, take a deep breath, and make sure my gun was unloaded before I climbed down."

    You'll lose every time if your argument is predicated upon the ridiculous notion that parent's success in raising their children is commensurate to how well they can shield their children from life situations.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Molon- I don't share your views, obviously. Somehow, I raised my children in a different way than you raised yours and they have turned out quite well. I was raised in a hunting family and learned to respect guns from that perspective. My Dad tried to get me to hunt but I was not interested. My brother was and is a big hunter. My husband has hunted a lot but doesn't much any more. My kids were not interested. That is just the way it is. What I said about the purse in question is what I said. It is my opinion and you obviously don't agree. So be it.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Some of you have questioned the VPC stats about permit holders. Here's one to add- http://chronicle.com/article/Handling-of-a-Murder-Suicide/129989

    ReplyDelete
  14. Oh, my God! One molonlabe says he started shooting at 4?? Another commentor says he started teaching his daughter at age 5?? What the hell is wrong with this picture?? A sure sign that we are dealing with pro-gun extremists here.

    I have a 6 yo and a 7 yo. They are just now getting to the point where they have the dexterity and good judgement to use a knife to cut meat, for crying out loud, much less launch a deadly projectile! There is absolutely NO WAY I would let them handle a weapon intended to kill, at that age!

    ReplyDelete
  15. lol.. @japete said...
    "And we can look at this one from the Violence Policy Center-http://www.vpc.org/ccwkillers.htm I have been posting about CCW folks who have killed others"

    i guess you haven't looked at the stats for "killer cops" because the CW folks arnt even a blip on the radar compared to the over use of no knock warrants on wrong houses and use of SWAT that has killed innocents not to mention

    11% of police shootings kill an innocent person - about 2% of shootings by citizens
    kill an innocent person.
    per a 1994 study
    : In Florida, a state that has allowed concealed carry since late 1987, you are twice as
    likely to be attacked by an alligator
    as by a person with a concealed carry permit

    last study done in TX showed this..
    People with concealed carry permits are:
    • 5.7 times less likely to be arrested for violent offenses than the general public
    • 13.5 times less likely to be arrested for non-violent offenses than the general
    public

    A different study concludes that the four year violent crime arrest rate for CCW
    holders is 128 per 100,000. For the general population, it is 710 per 100,000. In other
    words, CCW holders are 5.5 times less likely to commit a violent crime

    ReplyDelete
  16. Yup. That's what he said. That is a prime example of the vast difference between common sense and nonsense.

    ReplyDelete
  17. You haven't provided any references for you studies. No telling if they are credible, Russ.

    ReplyDelete
  18. japete writes: "and we can look at this one from the Violence Policy Center-http://www.vpc.org/ccwkillers.htm I have been posting about CCW folks who have killed others or whose guns have been used improperly, sometimes injuring themselves and others. The point is that these "law abiding" gun owners and permit holders have made public claims that if they are allowed to carry their guns around in public, we will all be safer. That hasn't happened. "

    I'm posting aggregate numbers showing trends over a period of time in large scale populations. The issue with the VPC report is it's cherrypicking data in order to reach a preordained conclusion in line with their policy goals.

    On which should we base public policy?
    B

    ReplyDelete
  19. Baldr Odinson

    "I would let them handle a weapon intended to kill, at that age! "

    Could you expand on this thought please ?

    Ive always been fascinated by the rationalization that an inanimate object, incapable of doing anything other then lie there without the input of a human being can possibly be described as having " intent"

    ReplyDelete
  20. We've gone around about this before Bryan. As you know, my point is different from yours. Permit holders commit murders and other crimes. There is an assumption that all permit holders are law abiding and should be trusted with their guns in all public places. We are into prevention. If guns are not carried in all public places we will see fewer shootings and accidental incidents such as the ones I am blogging about. Whether permit holders commit fewer crimes overall than everyone else is your issue. We are talking about shootings and gun deaths and you seem to be talking about overall crime. Further, since we can't get often get information about permit holders and crime by some state laws, we don't actually know for sure. It is clear by the VPC stats that permit holders have shot a good number of people since they started keeping track. It is clear from the incidents I have blogged about that permit holders have been involved in more than a few crimes and even accidental shootings in public places. The example of the Texas man who's gun was in his jacket and discharged when he put it down in a restaurant is one glaring example of how things can go wrong when loaded guns are carried everywhere. The woman who was shot by that particular gun ( and in this case, guns injure people) is suffering from life long injuries. This can be prevented if loaded guns are not carried around in all public places. That, as you know, is my point. That man's gun was not used for self defense. It was used to shoot an innocent person.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Those inanimate objects have done a lot of harm to many thousands of people in America and all over the world for that matter. Your argument is specious and ridiculous. Trot out something else that makes sense. Those inanimate objects sit around in places where young kids pick them up and shoot themselves and others, intent or not. I blog about this all the time.

    ReplyDelete
  22. japete writes:
    "We are talking about shootings and gun deaths and you seem to be talking about overall crime. "

    No, I was referencing shootings and gun deaths.

    The facts don't fit your hypothesis.

    In any event, I was specifically responding to your claim made in a previous comment.

    "If guns are not carried in all public places we will see fewer shootings and accidental incidents such as the ones I am blogging about. Whether permit holders commit fewer crimes overall than everyone else is your issue"

    Do you have evidence that supports this hypothesis?

    "It is clear by the VPC stats that permit holders have shot a good number of people since they started keeping track. It is clear from the incidents I have blogged about that permit holders have been involved in more than a few crimes and even accidental shootings in public places"

    Sure, no one denies this. The question though requires a more rigorous analysis than just pointing out a limited set of examples. A good criminologist is going to look at this across the entire population - and then draw conclusions from that information. That's the data I'm referencing- rather than cherrypicking examples (flawed, in some cases) that support a specific policy belief.

    b

    ReplyDelete
  23. Just out of curiosity Bryan, do you think any data from Brady, VPC,LCAV or any other source I use is valid or do you reject it out of hand just because it's not your side of things or your data?

    ReplyDelete
  24. If it saves just one person, right japete?

    ReplyDelete
  25. "Just out of curiosity Bryan, do you think any data from Brady, VPC,LCAV or any other source I use is valid or do you reject it out of hand just because it's not your side of things or your data? "

    VPC isn't doing research in their "CCW Killers" report - they're compiling news articles. There's no environmental scan, no analysis of the data, it's just a compilation of articles. They also take a very wide view of what a "CCW Killer" is - a view that supports their policy viewpoint.

    Is this research?

    The NRA publishes a monthly column called the Armed Citizen - it's a set of stories about the defensive utilization of handguns. Think of it as the NRA's version of "CCW Killers" from the other angle. Armed Citizen is about as much of an academic study as "CCW Killers" is from the VPC.

    Neither represents a scientific study worth using to support a policy position.

    I don't dismiss factual information - but I want the see the raw data and have the research methodology outlined - as a good researcher should. After all, if the hypothesis and conclusion are valid, the methodology sound, then my analysis of the data should reach the same conclusion.

    B

    ReplyDelete
  26. @ "son": Apparently you're dense. Most guns are made for the express purpose of being used to kill. You don't let small children handle lethal weapons of any sort, particularly one that takes only the twitch of a finger to kill someone. I'm not, as you infer, trying to give an "intent" to an inanimate object, duh. That's the NRA talking for you.

    ReplyDelete
  27. That said, the assumption is still that any data/research that supports my side is flawed. I know that to be true because I always get that fro you guys. You didn't really answer my question.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Baldr

    "@ "son": Apparently you're dense. Most guns are made for the express purpose of being used to kill. You don't let small children handle lethal weapons of any sort, particularly one that takes only the twitch of a finger to kill someone. I'm not, as you infer, trying to give an "intent" to an inanimate object, duh. That's the NRA talking for you."

    Hey, Im only pointing out the flaw in your claim, something that is VERY common from the Anti Gun side, that the object itself is somehow capable of doing something on its own.

    And no good sir, ANY firearm is not " designed for the express purpose to kill "

    Firearms are designed to send a projectile in an accurate manner into a specific target via the chemical reaction and explosive gases released as a result of that reaction of the primer charge being ignited.

    That specific target can be ANYTHING. That that target is at times another person is solely the responsibility and choice of the person holding it and has nothing to do with the firearm itself.

    Now, an ICBM IS " designed for the express purpose to kill" as clearly it cannot be used for any other purpose. Hardly the same thing as a firearm.

    There must be millions of defective firearms around the Country in your view, since the majority of them have never killed anything at all.

    ReplyDelete
  29. japete

    "That said, the assumption is still that any data/research that supports my side is flawed. I know that to be true because I always get that fro you guys. You didn't really answer my question."

    I've submitted at least two posts highlighting huge problems with the VPC study you support and yet neither of the submitted posts have been published.

    You cant ask for people to provide specific examples of suspect data you contend supports your view and then when they do just that, refuse to publish the posts and then turn around and claim the moral highground that no one has been able to disprove the data.

    ReplyDelete
  30. I have not published those because they are not worth arguing about. Your assertion about the VPC study is false.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Son- your assertion is false and specious. That is like saying that a pen is not for writing it's that it's an instrument for applying ink to a tip or a ball in order to spread said ink. Your description ignores what a gun is for but rather how ie works. We all know that guns were not designed for target practice. They were invented to kill people and animals for varying reasons. You are wrong, son.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Then by all means you should be able to clearly explain why it is that 10's of millions of firearms have NEVER killed ANYTHING.

    ReplyDelete
  33. japete

    "They were invented to kill people and animals for varying reasons."

    Sorry Joan, but thats simply not true, and repeatedly claiming it is doesnt make it more true and demonstrates ignorance of the developmental history of firearms and the various purposes for which they were designed.

    Here's just a single example.

    The Barrett M82A1 .50 cal rifle was conceived and designed from the outset for use by long range competitive TARGET shooters at the Camp Perry Nationals. It was created exclusively for the CITIZEN Target competition market.

    It was only AFTER seeing its capabilities in that venue that the Military expressed an interest in it. After the Military got ahold of it, for the first decade or so of its use in service it was used exclusively as an Anti Material Weapon NOT for use by snipers against human targets. It was only AFTER extensive use of the rifle against other objects and NOT people , that the Military Hierarchy realized its potential for use by snipers at extreme ranges to engage human targets.

    So, for the vast majority of its developmental history and evolution, this particular firearm was designed, used and INTENDED for use against targets OTHER then people.

    That at some point along the evolutionary ladder someone recognized its capabilities for use on human targets says nothing at all about what its original design and intended use was.

    Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, no one is entitled to their own facts. And these are the facts, like it or not.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Only after you explain why the US continues to tolerate about 30,000 gun deaths a year taking more lives than all of the wars in the 20th-21st centuries combined.

    ReplyDelete
  35. So you are claiming that the original guns were designed for fun and recreation- target shooting? Really. You are wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  36. japete

    "Only after you explain why the US continues to tolerate about 30,000 gun deaths a year taking more lives than all of the wars in the 20th-21st centuries combined. "

    I thought we had gone over this already in previous posts, but I'll be happy to explain it again, even though you wont like it and I question if you will have the courage to publish my reply.

    To answer your question. The US " tolerates it" for any number of reasons.

    1) The total of 30,000 a year is ( as I already pointed out in a previous post ) less then 1/2 of one percent of the population annually.

    2) When you eliminate suicides and accidents from the 30,000 number. Which by the way you never answered my question previously about why it is anyones business but immediate family when someone chooses suicide, but I digress. When you subtract the accidents and suicides from the 30,000. What your left with is roughly 12 to 13 k a year as homicides, the vast majority of which are criminal on criminal violence, further reducing the true number of honest to goodness innocent people being killed by firearms annually even lower then the aforementioned 1/2 of one percent of population.

    Put more simply, the majority of the Country realizes that while tragic to be sure, the problem is no where near as large and pervasive as Gun Control Groups like to claim it is.

    3) People inherently recognize that with freedom and liberty ( what this Country was founded on ) comes instances where that freedom will have tragic outcomes, yet recognize that those outcomes, while regrettable are not sufficient to give up freedom.

    4) People ( other then Anti Gun Groups ) inherently recognize that the proper response to a criminal act is to punish the PERSON responsible and NOT vilify the object they used to commit their act. When a drunk driver wipes out a family, NO ONE calls for blaming the car manufacturer or banning or severely restricting the vehicle itself, they assign blame where it rightly belongs, with the irresponsible acts of the person involved.

    5) People inherently recognize that the foundation of our entire Country and Justice system is based on the idea that we punish people AFTER they violate a law, not before they do, or because they might or they have the ability to do so, but judgement is reserved for when they actually DO something illegal, as it should be. Its that whole pesky prohibition on " prior restraint " something there is ample case law to support is Un Constitutional and rightly so.

    How many more examples would you like ?

    ReplyDelete
  37. That's more than enough to know why I oppose your line of thinking and why the majority agrrees with me. Thanks. No more please. It makes me sad and ill.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Son. Have a nice day. I'm done arguing with you.

    ReplyDelete
  39. japete

    "I oppose your line of thinking and why the majority agrrees with me."

    Thats an awfully bold and provably false statement to make considering the results of the October Gallup Poll on Gun Rights.




    http://cs.infospace.com/ClickHandler.ashx?ru=http%3a%2f%2fwww.examiner.com%2fgun-rights-in-seattle%2fgallup-most-americans-support-gun-ownership&ld=20111209&ap=1&app=1&c=esnips1&s=esnips1&coi=239138&cop=main-title&ep=2&euip=173.72.108.219&npp=1&p=0&pp=0&pvaid=cebbf21db5014bbb991bec6582150110&hash=76B9AD72EEC9540AF972AB5491E2055C

    And Gun Control Groups and their supporters cant figure out why they have no credibility ??

    Here's proof right here. The "majority" clearly do NOT support you, yet you claim the exact opposite.

    japete

    "Son. Have a nice day. I'm done arguing with you. "

    You as well. Although I reject the contention that we are " arguing". In order to argue, both sides have to harbor at least some level of anger or animosity towards the other. Thats simply not the case here, at least not as far as Im concerned. Im not at all " angry " with you. I thought we were having a relatively intelligent debate on the merits of each sides positions. Now, if people asking pointed questions about positions you support and asking for and expecting rational, logical explanations for those positions is something that makes you angry, then that says significantly more about you then it does me.

    I am able to separate emotion vs logic and support my views with facts and dispassionate reasoning.

    ReplyDelete
  40. I've seen that one. It doesn't say anything about support for background checks, assault weapons bans, carrying guns in public, etc. as does this one
    http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/html/media-center/pr038-11.shtml and this one- http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/html/media-center/pr020-11.shtml and this one- http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/downloads/pdf/advisory_6_arizona_poll.pdf and this one http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/downloads/pdf/luntz_poll_questionnaire_and_responses.pdf and this article about the Luntz polling http://www.jsonline.com/news/opinion/82436102.html and this article http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dennis-a-henigan/frank-luntz-culture-war-o_b_447881.html No one said here that you can't own guns.

    ReplyDelete
  41. japete writes: "That said, the assumption is still that any data/research that supports my side is flawed. I know that to be true because I always get that fro you guys. You didn't really answer my question. "

    Sure, I did. I told you that I don't dismiss factual information that has adequate research-based backing.

    That's why I dismiss the VPC "CCW Killers" report - because it's just a collection of articles - one easily refuted by articles from the NRA's "Armed Citizen". Neither represents research.
    b

    ReplyDelete
  42. japete writes:
    "Only after you explain why the US continues to tolerate about 30,000 gun deaths a year taking more lives than all of the wars in the 20th-21st centuries combined. "

    Your claim is completely incorrect - and way off the actual numbers.

    Wars - Deaths
    -------------
    WW1: 15m-65m
    WW2: 40m-72m
    Korea: 2.5 - 3.5m
    Vietnam: 2.49m - 6.02m
    Second Congo War: 3.8m

    There are many other wars, but we'll just use these for illustrative purposes. Adding up the low estimates gives us 63.79m.

    Even if the rate of 30,000 gun deaths a year was accurate for the 111 period from 1900 - 2011, that's only 3.33m deaths -- far below the number of deaths in warfare.

    Bryan

    ReplyDelete
  43. And they state as much Bryan, and the reasons why they can only do collection of articles. But the articles don't lie. If permit holders ( or known permit holders) shot someone, it becomes part of the facts that we know. There are plenty of other research based articles on their site.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Bryan, if I didn't say so, I meant to say that I am talking about Americans who have died in those wars to compare American gun deaths.

    ReplyDelete
  45. japete: "And they state as much Bryan, and the reasons why they can only do collection of articles. But the articles don't lie. If permit holders ( or known permit holders) shot someone, it becomes part of the facts that we know. There are plenty of other research based articles on their site. "

    The fact remains that permit holders commit crimes, including violent and firearms based crimes, at a rate far below that of non-permit holders.

    b

    ReplyDelete
  46. The fact remains that you guys said that would not happen. We should just trust those permit holders. They are law abiding. The fact remains that permit holders are involved in accidental discharges in public places, some of which are not counted anywhere because they don't kill people- just injure them. Sometimes they don't injure anyone, they are misses which could have easily hurt someone. Some permit holders have shot themselves while taking their guns out of holsters or the guns drop out of their waistbands,etc. These things are happening fairly regularly.

    ReplyDelete