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, December 5, 2011

Honest differences of opinion?

The differences between the sides on the issue of gun policy are sometimes wide and diverse. Are they honest differences of opinion? This video taken at Virginia Commonwealth University clearly shows the gulf between the sides but also, some statements that should be examined for veracity.



So "adding more laws on top of other laws on top of other laws"- "it's not going to make a difference" is what the man from VCDL says. So then, why pass H.R. 822? What difference would that law make given the statement in the video by the pro gun guy? States already have their own laws about who can carry guns, requirements for permits and where they can carry them. Do we need another law on top of those? Hypocrisy in action.

Then another VCDL member says that the "government should not be the enemy of honest people and that's the situation we've got here." Really? Is that the situation? The fact that the Universities do not want loaded guns to be carried around on their campuses, as actually the majority of people agree about,  does not make them the enemy of honest people. What the heck does that mean anyway? Can you just say stuff like that and get away with it? So anyone who wants to have reasonable gun laws is the enemy of honest people. How can you explain that with any facts behind the statement? Dishonesty in action.

So the man who talked about sexual assaults on college campuses is right to bring up that problem. But what does it have to do with the gun debate? He didn't say. He must be implying that women should shoot their attackers dead. I'm not sure that's the way to solve that problem and campuses have other programs in place to deal with sexual assault even though this guy is claiming that campuses are sweeping the problem under the rug. What proof does he have of that? Hyperbole in action.

.."VCU and the people who support banning guns inside the buildings trust a criminal. Period. There is no other way to look at it." Really sir? I think there are many other ways to look at it. Because the University wants to keep guns off of its' campus, it trusts criminals? Can you back that up with any facts or is that an emotional statement? And then this man goes on to say, .."and stereotyping people who are gun owners, I think many people know what those stereotypes are.." "For one, I've never hunted a day in my life...."  So was anyone saying that all gun owners are hunters? Rather this man was doing what he was railing against- stereotyping the people who don't want guns on campus as trusting criminals. Period. Hyperbole in action.

"You hear people say it's an emotional topic. It's not an emotional topic. It's a logical topic." And then, at 4:19 on the video, the man who made the previous statement said some curious things that I can't say I understand. I think he is implying that the people who don't want guns on campus are saying that he and others like him are considered to be violent criminals because they want to carry their guns on campus. It's the other way around. The people who think students should have guns on campus seem to be thinking there is a violent criminal lurking in every shadow necessitating their need for a gun wherever they go. But, oh well. This is not an emotional topic. It's logical, right? You can watch the rest of this video with the face to face "discussion" between the VCDL members and the students and others who don't want guns on campus. Exaggeration in action.

Here's another example of the gulf between the sides of the gun issue. Now that Newt Gingrich is soaring in the polls, many are critical of his views and his character. This one is coming from an unlikely source- the NRA- who makes claims about the Brady Law that are simply not true in order to criticize Gingrich.
A Robo-call in Iowa Friday accuses presidential candidate Newt Gingrich of having “an anti-gun record.”
It says it was paid for IowaGunOwners.org, a no-compromise gun rights group that Osceola County resident Aaron Dorr founded in 2009 to work to change state gun laws, and the National Association for Gun Rights.
“Newt supported the anti-gun Brady bill that created a national gun registry,” a male voice says.*** “Newt also supported the Lautenberg law that takes away gun rights for crimes as simple as spanking your child.”
Really? The Brady Law is a national gun registry? No it's not. And the Lautenberg amendment  (keeping guns away from domestic abusers) means taking away gun rights for spanking your child? Not true. But that doesn't stop them from saying this stuff. Do they have any proof to offer for those "logical" statements? Lying in action.

And we disagree about a lot of things but it sure is hard to disagree about the fact that when guns are available in times of stress, sometimes people shoot others they love and even themselves. This story should be bold printed in every newspaper in the country. How desperate do you have to be in times of economic stress to kill yourself and your children?
State officials say Grimmer applied for food stamps in July but was denied because she didn't turn in enough information.
Authorities said Grimmer told negotiators about a litany of complaints against state and federal government agencies during the standoff at a Texas Department of Health and Human Services building.
It's hard to imagine that level of desperation. We just got an appeal from our local food shelf and homeless shelter. Here is a quote: " According to the National Center on Family Homelessness, families with children are the fasted growing population among the homeless. Children now make up 40% of the homeless population". Don't even get me started about this national disgrace. Actually gun deaths pale in comparison to what is happening to the poor and middle classes in this country. Shame on all of us for letting people starve, go homeless, or become so desperate that they think of shooting their families and themselves to avoid the suffering.

It is possible to have honest discussions and honest disagreements based on facts. But when crudity and incivility get in the way of any honest discussion stops in its' tracks. It must be said that I rarely read anything said about me on the gun blogs because it is so hateful. But the pro gun folks have come unglued by my last post for some reason. It has caused them to post crude, rude, offensive, inflammatory, ugly, false and derogatory statements about me on one of their own blogs- pagunblog. And all over a purse. Whatever. I must be doing something right, though, when the undies of the gun guys are all in a bundle over the "ramblings" of a poor woman who  is actually "insane". Other comments about me: " strident, nonsensical, and desperate", "delusional", "hysterical", "despotic"... oh yes, I live in a "bizarre personal world" and I'm in serious need of therapy. Whew!! That's a lot. Really all, you've described me to a tee. This is how all of the people with whom I associate view me for sure. This is why I have been members of many community, state and national boards and committees ( not just about the gun issue). This is why I was elected to public office in my city. This is why people listen to my views and respect them. It's how my family sees me and boy, do they have a time dealing with me. It's funny they haven't committed me yet to a mental facility. Perhaps those who write these things, thinking they are being so clever or for whatever reason people write these things, should look in the mirror.

Obviously our world views are quite different from each other. But attacking those with whom you disagree with insults, derision and hateful language is immature and small to put it mildly. I prefer my world where common sense and decency leads my thoughts and my actions. I prefer to hang out with people who don't call each other demeaning names and belittle others on blogs. I prefer to associate with people who have integrity, honor, are polite and tolerant and care about their fellow citizens enough to want them to be safe from being shot to death. Because I believe this is possible without carrying guns around on my person wherever I go or have an arsenal in case of a tyrannical government take-over, does not mean that I am desperate and despotic. Because I believe that common sense legislation can help prevent people from being shot does not mean I am delusional. What some of my readers have written says more about them than it does about me. One person wondered why there weren't as many comments on my blog lately. You can see why. I just don't publish this stuff for obvious reasons. I'm thinking some of my readers could benefit from the lesson of now dead Columbine student , Rachel Scott, whose message is still resonating. Check it out here.
After hearing Scott's story, Kecoughtan students were given five challenges: Look for the best in others, dream big, choose positive influences, speak with kindness, and "start your own chain reaction."
The final challenge is based on Scott's theory that "if one person can go out of their way to show compassion, then it will start a chain reaction of the same."
And from the website that describes more of the legacy of Rachel Scott and the mission of the organization: " Create a safe learning environment for all students by re-establishing civility and delivering proactive antidotes to school violence and bullying." Good idea.


104 comments:

  1. The Brady law isn't a registry, but it should be in order to trace guns used in crimes. The gun guys will do anything they can to handcuff investigators.

    - Sandy

    ReplyDelete
  2. Sandra,

    There is nothing in the Brady law, or any other law on the Federal level that I am aware of, that will prevent law enforcement from tracing a gun used in a crime.

    ReplyDelete
  3. And so you don't want crime guns to be traced as a way to stop further crimes and arrest felons? I thought you guys didn't like felons with guns. And tracing crime guns is not gun registration g

    ReplyDelete
  4. The gunloonz would rather see 1000 murders go unsolved than give up a trivial amount of privacy.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I disagree fat white man. We register every car on the road, and if you want to have a toy that sends a 150 gram cop killer bullet at 2800 miles per hour, it's just common sense that we need to register them.

    ReplyDelete
  6. As a fellow blogger against gun violence, I feel your pain. The extremists are ugly in their comments, and go to great lengths to demonize anyone who disagrees with their views.

    I serve up as example the following statement that one recently put on his own blog comments about me:

    "Still remember this is from the mouth of a blood-dancer. He would actually PREFER more people become victims because victims can be paraded out for more laws that cause MORE victims."

    Pitiful. Our attempts to bring peace to the community and reduce gun-related deaths brings out that gem of hatred and ugliness from them. Never mind that they oppose any and all regulation to reduce gun-related deaths and injuries, which makes them pro-criminal and only increases deaths.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Thanks for sharing this video, Joan. From our perspective, we sincerely appreciate your efforts to engender civil discourse on this issue. Keep up the great work!

    ReplyDelete
  8. wow a few other anti gun extremists have show up! I hope this will lead to more conversation about the issues.

    BTW congrats on over 200,000 views

    ReplyDelete
  9. Thanks. Indeed- the "anti gun extremists" are reading my blog but choose not to comment because you guys just go on the immediate attack and try to intimidate and bully them. I don't blame them. I'm sure you would not like it either.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Japete said:Indeed- the "anti gun extremists" are reading my blog but choose not to comment because you guys just go on the immediate attack and try to intimidate and bully them. I don't blame them. I'm sure you would not like it either.

    I will agree some persons who comment here go overboard, but most try to get the "anti gun extremists" to give a "reasoned" response instead of an "emotional" response.

    When one makes claims, all anyone wants is factual, documented citations which others may link, to read as well. Just saying something is so and providing no proof - be it good or bad - will always get others to dismiss your ideas.

    ReplyDelete
  11. So I guess attack is pointing out when people are incorrect about the unit of measurement they use to describe why we should register all handguns?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Whoever wrote the above comment-you are wrong. The gun violence prevention folks are reasoned and reasonable people. You don't see the comments I don't publish that are not only offensive, but very emotional in their attacks and arguments. Many of the gun rights folks provide little or no documented citations or links or sometimes they are links to articles that are not relevant or extremely biased. I most often provide links. Some are from unbiased sources. Some are from sources more on my side of the issue. Most of the ones I receive from your side are from gun rights type sites. So I don't need any lectures from any of you about proof or facts.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Further- did you read the post? The people speaking provided no proof for their claims. That was my point, of course.

    ReplyDelete
  14. To Anthony- What? What do you mean?

    ReplyDelete
  15. "Many of the gun rights folks provide little or no documented citations or links or sometimes they are links to articles that are not relevant or extremely biased." japete

    "Since the fall semester of 2006, state law has allowed licensed individuals to carry concealed handguns on the campuses of the nine degree-offering public colleges (20 campuses) and one public technical college (10 campuses) in Utah. Concealed carry has been allowed at Colorado State University (Fort Collins, CO) since 2003 and at Blue Ridge Community College (Weyers Cave, VA) since 1995. After allowing concealed carry on campus for a combined total of one hundred semesters, none of these twelve schools has seen a single resulting incident of gun violence (including threats and suicides), a single gun accident, or a single gun theft. Likewise, none of the forty ‘right-to-carry’ states has seen a resulting increase in gun violence since legalizing concealed carry, despite the fact that licensed citizens in those states regularly carry concealed handguns in places like office buildings, movie theaters, grocery stores, shopping malls, restaurants, churches, banks, etc."

    http://concealedcampus.org/common_arguments.php


    Retort?

    ReplyDelete
  16. Have there been any instances of someone actually using a gun for self defense- documented somewhere- not anecdotal- at the campuses in Colorado? Those states that have permits to carry also have not seen a decrease in gun violence. And there have been plenty of accidents as I have been reporting on a regular basis.

    ReplyDelete
  17. japete,

    It's your contention that more guns = more crime which, statistically speaking, clearly isn't the case. I never argued that more guns = less crime (although there are studies supporting that position.)

    So again, why are anti-gun orgs wasting so much finite time and financial resources combating a non-issue? Where's your stance on gun safety education (which to my knowledge, NO anti-gun org supports) and addressing gang/drug violence and the individuals responsible for it?

    ReplyDelete
  18. As usual Anthony will argue gun nut minutiae, saying he only loads his mercury filled hollow points to 2700 mph. Or that his beta magazine only holds 250 bullets, not 300 so it's ok for untrained civilians to have. All the while ignoring the fact that the beta assault clip gives you enough power to punch through armor plating with your Glock.

    ReplyDelete
  19. molonlabe- we offer many suggestions about kids and guns and keeping kids safe from guns. We are not in the business of training people about guns. The NRA seems to do that well.

    ReplyDelete
  20. For info. about gun safety- http://newtrajectory.blogspot.com/2011/02/asking-saves-kids.html
    http://www.protectmn.org/sites/protectmn.org/files/protectmnbrochure.pdf
    http://life.familyeducation.com/child-care/home-safety/48126.html
    http://www.protectmn.org/content/safe-storage-firearms-can-save-lives
    http://www.nrahq.org/education/guide.asp

    ReplyDelete
  21. another "law abiding" gun owner gone awry. http://www.courant.com/community/waterbury/hc-waterbury-janitor-gun-1208-20111207,0,3013374.story

    ReplyDelete
  22. Jared Loughner was a legal gun owner/permit holder in Arizona- where, of course, they don't require permits- just be 18 and pass a background check, which he shouldn't have.

    ReplyDelete
  23. japete said...
    To Anthony- What? What do you mean?

    The comment that pointed out the difference between Feet per second and MPH and the difference between grains and grams that you did not publish.

    Sandra I would not oppose a law that registered a handgun that could shoot a 5 oz projectile at 4 106.66667 feet per second
    Both you and Sandra are correct though considering I do expect you to use the correct terms and I do point out when you are incorrect. Words do have meanings and the differences between what you say things mean and what they actually mean can be as different as grains and grams (15.432 grains in one gram) I also expect people that craft new laws to know what the terms they use mean and what the laws they create will do. I guess sometimes I expect too much.

    ReplyDelete
  24. What does this have to do with the fact that 30,000 Americans a year are shot by bullets from gun homicides, suicides and accidental gun deaths? Arguing over minutia like this will not solve one problem. Take a rest Anthony. I'm done with your comments about this. Have a nice night.

    ReplyDelete
  25. japete writes: "Those states that have permits to carry also have not seen a decrease in gun violence. "

    In our shared home state of Minnesota, violent crime and homicide is down significantly in both real numbers (total crimes) and per capita rates (per 100,000 population) from 2002 (the year before shall issue was passed) and 2010 (the most recent year that full data is available).

    The data is in the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports and is publicly available.

    B

    ReplyDelete
  26. japete: "The gun violence prevention folks are reasoned and reasonable people. "

    Some are, some aren't. Just like some folks on my side of this issue are reasoned and reasonable people - and some aren't.

    b

    ReplyDelete
  27. Sandra writes: "All the while ignoring the fact that the beta assault clip gives you enough power to punch through armor plating with your Glock. "

    I'm relatively sure you meant this in jest, but you're not going to be shooting through armor plating with a round from a Glock. And in any event, it's the round or bullet that would be hitting the armor plating, not the actual pistol (Glock)
    B

    ReplyDelete
  28. So, less then 1/2 half of one percent of the population dies annually and this is some huge, gut wrenching problem ? Not to mention the fact (since the claim is ALL facts are given equal weight ) that of the 12 to 13k homicides annually, the majority of them are criminal on criminal violence, this is supported by DOJ Stats.

    And anyone should care if two gang bangers want to off each other ? If criminals want to kill each other in the course of their criminal lifestyle, then so be it, just one less oxygen thief the taxpayers have to pay to house and feed in prison.

    More then three times as many people die annually from preventable medical malpractice then do from ALL causes of firearm related deaths.

    And yes, I come from a family that has experienced violent crime committed with firearms. My Great Grandfather was murdered( after being beaten for hours ) by two criminals that wanted his SSI Checks in 1981 and I was robbed at gunpoint by two co workers when I was 19.

    Cops didnt ( and more importantly couldnt ) save my great grandfather, nor was a cop able to teleport to my location instantaneously to prevent two criminals from robbing me and threatening ( and demonstrating the ability ) to kill me if thats what they decided to do.

    Thankfully, in my case they didnt ( obviously ) but I will never again be forced into a position of State Mandated Victimhood at the hands of a criminal who the Justice System has demonstrated they are unable to rehabilitate or control.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Bryan- in general, here are some stats- http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/01/11/20-deadliest-gun-states-from-mississippi-to-arizona.html

    http://www.lcav.org/concealedcarry/

    ReplyDelete
  30. I have a good idea. Let's just let what will be will be. Let's not make any attempts to stop medical malpractice deaths ( which do claim more lives per year than gun deaths). I'm sure that would be O.K. with you. Let's just let the practices that lead to these deaths continue and not do one thing about it. Let's just let people drive drunk and without seat belts and airbags and drive as fast as they want. So what if tens of thousands a people die from car accidents. Let's not look for cures for breast cancer. So what if your 45 year old sister died from breast cancer. Let's not advocate for colon cancer screening. So what if your Dad died from it , you shouldn't worry about it yourself because, well, "que sera sera". Let's just let 30,000 people a year die from their gun injuries. So what if your ( my) sister was shot to death. It's just life.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Anthony,
    It's not the regular bullets that are of concern, it's the guys in their basement who reload their bullets with two or three times the amount of gunpowder that factory bullets have.

    ReplyDelete
  32. First japete,

    Since I have never spoken to you before, I should be polite enough to offer my condolences for what happened to your sister. As I mentioned I have experienced the same thing, the death of a family member as a result of a criminal act committed with a firearm. In that we share something that I honestly and sincerely wish we didnt.

    Where we part ways is in the manner of going about doing something about it.

    I support early childhood education and safety lessons, hard time sentences for criminals that commit violence with a firearm ( no pleading out ) and other things of a similar nature, including a public policy putting those that would commit crimes against persons on notice that their intended victims may be armed and will not be prosecuted criminally, nor bankrupted in a civil suit because they defend themselves from criminal predators.

    From what I know of Anti Gun Groups in general ( after LONG experience ) is that they are not generally interested in doing whatever it takes( such as childhood education and safety lessons) but only in what they feel is appropriate.

    I just gave a two and a half hour interview to a graduate student doing work at Eastern University. The fact is the various Gun Control Groups have a well established and documented history of only ever supporting further restrictions, which only effect those already predisposed to follow the law. Even in cases where there is ample evidence to show the control side is provably wrong.

    A study put out a couple years ago by the National Academy of Sciences found that over the last twenty years, not a SINGLE " gun control " program that has been tried has had any statistically provable impact on violent crime.

    We've been trying it the way the Pro Gun Control Groups support for more then twenty years with not clear result other then to infringe on the rights of people and subject them to victimization.

    Indeed, I have no problem with doing something about the issue, but doing something that actually works, while zealously guarding the rights of people ( even when we dont agree).

    We cannot have an honest debate until there is a willingness to embrace honesty, even in cases where the facts oppose on side or the others views. A start would be the BC and VPC acknowledging that the majority of firearms homicides occur between criminals.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Some of the gun guys are having fun with my comments. They can joke all they want about the speed of these triple charged bullets having a muzzle speed of 90000 watts, but they dodge the issue of nearly a million Americans killed by guns since WWII.

    ReplyDelete
  34. no japete,

    You missed the point. Which was, if the goal truly is only to " save people ", which is what the various Gun Control Groups always publicly state, then logic would dictate that one would apply their resources and energies to tackling those areas of life that result in the most people dying, Malpractice, Cancer, Motor Vehicle Accidents, drowning ( in the case of kids) before they focus on an issue that effects a vanishingly tiny segment of society.


    If you goal is to save lives, you tackle the issues that take the most lives and put them at the head of the priority list, thereby actually saving more people in the long run.

    Cold hard fact of life ( after years in Fire Rescue and EMS ). Triage happens all the time. You prioritize your limited resources on cases where people can actually be saved, not waste them on people that are to far gone to help. It sucks, but its true. I wont bore you with the gory details of the nightmares I've had over the years of people ( including children ) that I couldnt do anything to save and had to " let go " to focus on those I could.

    So, since criminals by definition dont follow the law, policies supporting further gun control dont actually result in saving as many lives as possible, but in a cruel twist actually ( perhaps unintentionally ) only further and enable the victimization of people by seeking to disarm them, while simultaneously running rough shod over peoples rights.

    If the stated policy goals actually worked, then you might be onto something and we could have the discussion. But they dont, and plenty of studies bear that out. Thus, doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result is the definition of insanity.

    Which is exactly what the Pro Gun Control movement has engaged in for the last thirty years. Now, in 2011, we have the DOJ reporting that violent crime as at a historical low, while simultaneously firearms ownership and carry is at record highs. Yet the " death rates " from all firearms related incidents have remained relatively static for years.

    If the problem was to tool, how do you explain this apparent dichotomy ?

    ReplyDelete
  35. japete,

    Since all we need to do is look at Japan to prove that guns have absolutely nothing to do with suicide (since they have basically a ban on civilian ownership of firearms, yet a suicide rate double that of the US), what 'common sense gun laws' do you believe will not only stop the 17,000 out of the 30,000 'gun deaths' which are suicides, but also not infringe upon law-abiding gun ownership?

    ReplyDelete
  36. Dear son of the revolution- " I just gave a two and a half hour interview to a graduate student doing work at Eastern University. The fact is the various Gun Control Groups have a well established and documented history of only ever supporting further restrictions, which only effect those already predisposed to follow the law. Even in cases where there is ample evidence to show the control side is provably wrong."

    I fail to see how supporting background checks on all gun sales to prevent criminals, domestic abusers, adjudicated mentally ill people, drug abusers, and minors from getting guns would restrict your rights. Are you a member of one of these groups? If not, you will be just fine. If so, you shouldn't have a gun, period. We haven't actually tried things that would really work since the NRA and people like you resist any sensible legislation claiming it will restrict your rights. You have not proven that that is the case with any facts. If we fail to try, we will never know. Other countries have passed much more restrictive gun laws and guess what, their gun deaths are a mere fraction of ours. I guess what they are doing is working. We should try it to see. Maybe people like my sister and the many others I know of who have been shot to death wouldn't be dead today.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Yes, Sandra. The gun guys love to fun at our expense. They do it well and find it to be cute and clever. They ignore the many who lose their lives every day to bullets. They claim that any reasonable gun law will affect them. If they are not felons, domestic abusers, drug users, minors, or adjudicated mentally ill, they will not be affected. But never mind- that doesn't stop them from trying to bully and intimidate anyone who dares to disagree with them or have a different opinion. Thanks for hanging in there. It's a dirty job but......

    ReplyDelete
  38. Son of the revolution- we have about reached the end of any reasonable "discussion" here. I am into saving lives from bullets. I have blogged about this many times. Since you are new here, you just don't get that I am not involved in MADD right now though I don't like people dying from drunk drivers. I give money to breast cancer prevention programs- my mother had it. That is not what I am blogging about. There are groups who work on those things. I am working to prevent gun violence. Don't try to change the subject and tell me I should just go away and work on something else. That is rude and disengenuous. Maybe you should work on those things if you care that much about them. Violent crime is one thing. Gun deaths are another. Don't confuse them. 30,000 people a year die from gun injuries and another 70,000 live but many suffer life long problems from their injuries. See my response further up for the rest of your question. You can quit harrassing me now. I have answered these questions a thousand times on this blog. What you read is what I think. You will find my views in my blog posts.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Molon- last comment about this from you- I am living in America, as are you unless I got something wrong. In America, guns are the most common method of suicide as I have blogged about ad nauseum. So if you want to move to Japan and work to prevent suicides there by whatever method they are using, go ahead. I will continue working on educating people about the dangers of guns in the home where kids and even older adults continue to shoot themselves in gun suicides. Safely store those guns. Keep them away from kids and teens. They know how to find them. It's a tragedy and preventable. A gun in your home is much more likely to be used against you or someone in your home than in self defense.

    ReplyDelete
  40. To my readers- some of you are raising old issues that I have been responding to over the past 18 months of my blog writing. They are the same tired old questions and comments. You will have to read my blog posts to find answers to some of your questions. One more before I close down this conversation for a while- yes some states that have strict gun laws have a lot of shootings- CA, and DC. Guess where the guns come from? States around them with less strict gun laws. That is why we need background checks on all gun sales so people can't buy guns in one state where laws are less strict about that and bring them easily into other states. There are many factors that contribute, of course, to the stats. Concentration of population, rural vs. urban, etc. But I am not going to answer all of that here since I have answered it many times over before. We disagree on much of this. We disagree on how to get to fewer gun deaths. We disagree on policy. Maybe some of you didn't get that that is why I wrote the post.

    ReplyDelete
  41. For anyone who wants to talk about stats and flawed stats- please read this one- http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2011/12/foghorn/the-truth-about-the-nssfs-hunting-safety-claims/#more-85393

    ReplyDelete
  42. japete,

    Im curious about something. Why do you personally feel it is your responsibility to insert yourself into the business of others that choose, for whatever reason, to end their lives ? That is THEIR choice to make, and no one, not the government , not you, no one other then their immediate family have any stake in the matter. Is it tragic ? sometimes yes. Sometimes, particularly in quality of life issues when people are in chronic, debilitating pain from medical issues, death is actually a relief. Im really, sincerely not trying to be argumentative. Frankly I find the psychological aspects of these discussions fascinating. I just cant understand why anyone (outside immediate family) feels compelled or that they have some moral superiority to insert themselves into a very personal issue that has nothing to do with them.

    A gun in your home is much more likely to be used against you or someone in your home than in self defense.

    Here's a perfect example of the disngenuousness of the Pro Gun Control crowd.

    This mantra comes from a " study " known as The Kellerman Study " which has been soundly debunked, even by some of Dr Kellermans colleagues, for its sloppy methodology among many other flaws.

    The Pro Control Side cant expect to have any credibility when they keep referencing as support for their views " studies " and other statistics that are readily and provably false.

    I am baffled how the simple truth escapes the Gun Control side of the issue. When you keep insisting things are "X " when they are really "Y", is it any wonder the message is suspect and strains credibility in any other commentary ??

    ReplyDelete
  43. Good grief, son of the revolution- you are making all kinds of false accusations and false assumptions and setting up all kinds of "what ifs". I do not have the time to answer all of your questions. I don't need any lectures from you about how I handle comments. When someone sends me copious and lengthy responses and questions and then demands they be answered or else I am not having a discussion, that tends to make me not want to answer. I have other things happening in my life and I hope you do, too. They are happening right now and through the week-end so you can tell your buddies that I am not responding or shutting off discussion if you so choose or you can just wait until my next post and go do something else. For now, you have sent me enough comments.

    ReplyDelete
  44. "In America, guns are the most common method of suicide as I have blogged about ad nauseum."

    So your solution is to regulate the method, and not the root cause?

    Interesting.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Japete: “I fail to see how supporting background checks on all gun sales to prevent criminals, domestic abusers, adjudicated mentally ill people, drug abusers, and minors from getting guns would restrict your rights. Are you a member of one of these groups? If not, you will be just fine.”

    Fail to see? We’ve had these conversations dozens of times- several times with me, and dozens upon dozens of times with other people. I have showed you how this affects people other than criminals, domestic abusers, etc. And I believe you have acknowledged some of these concerns in the past. Yet every time it comes up again, we are right back to where we started. It is like these conversations never happened. One more time:

    There are two sides to any transaction: the buyer and the seller. In your above statement you are only talking about the buyer (who might be a criminal). What about the seller? Every single person who owns a gun (outside of the few states that already have this law) is affected by your above proposal. You are adding criminal repercussions to something which is currently legal. It would become a crime for two people who are legally allowed to owns (i.e neither of them are criminals, domestic abusers, adjudicated mentally ill people, drug abusers, or minors) to make a cash transaction or trade of their firearms. And that happens all the time in this country. That is millions and millions of people not meeting your criteria who are affected. So please, listen to us and stop saying things like, “If they are not felons, domestic abusers, drug users, minors, or adjudicated mentally ill, they will not be affected” because that isn’t true. That doesn’t mean you can’t continue pushing for these policies, but if we are to have an honest discussion on the issues, you should at least listen to what we have to say and address our concerns.

    ReplyDelete
  46. And we just had another shooting at Virginia Tech.

    This time, it was a cop and someone else who were shot and killed.

    How much longer is this going to go on before something is done about this situation.

    ReplyDelete
  47. How would a seller become criminal if he follows the rules and does the proper background checks? Are you saying that private sellers eon't flow the rules? It works fine in states that have the laws. Private sellers are not being arrested.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Stray bullet from gun shop employee goes through wall and injured children's gymnastics coach. bit.ly/ssVKOC

    In other news gun owner kills 2 at Virginia Tech.

    ReplyDelete
  49. How would a seller become criminal if he follows the rules and does the proper background checks? Are you saying that private sellers eon't flow the rules? It works fine in states that have the laws. Private sellers are not being arrested.

    Under your proposal, how do you plan to address the problems of.

    The criminal history system is statutorily limited ( as it should be ) to official access only ?? Private Citizens not only do not have access to the NCIC database, giving them access to such information is fraught with issues, the least of which is the potential privacy violations. Hell , even Law Enforcement isnt allowed to run a name through the system without an official reason to do so.

    Where will the money come from to pay the costs of all this new access, upgrades to databases/servers/phone lines, etc to handle all the increased traffic ?

    What mechanism do you propose to handle the " temporary denials" based on mistakes in the database, people with similar names, downtime on the system, etc ?

    How do you justify this further restriction when the DOJ/ATF's own stats have repeatedly shown that only 3 to 4 percent of criminals/crime guns originate from private sales at gunshows ?

    Again, I am doing the best I can to remain both respectful and to challenge you, in order that you can explain to the public how you propose to handle these issues

    ReplyDelete
  50. Are you saying that private sellers eon't flow the rules? It works fine in states that have the laws.

    japete,

    Please name the States that allow or require private citizen access to criminal history databases for the purposes of conducting background checks in the furtherance of a private firearms transaction.

    I know you wont, because it cant be done, because it doesnt exist. But your statement reads as if certain States do have that system in place. What your actually talking about is States that require both buyer and seller to use the services of a third party ( a licensed dealer ) for a significant fee, to make a 5 min phone call to the NCIC System Operator. The involvement of the third party means such a transaction is no longer "private"

    ReplyDelete
  51. FFLs do the background checks. It works. Many of your side have said they think NICS should be available to private sellers. I agree with you. It should not

    Where did the money come from for processing of CCW permits in states that passed the laws? If we found it for that we can find it for background checks

    I don't know

    I don't consider background checks to be further restrictions. Most people have to have them to get a job these days. Even volunteers. Not a huge problem.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Nope I won't answer any more questions from toy sor. I'll not be taking your test. You are now harassing.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Japete: “How would a seller become criminal if he follows the rules and does the proper background checks?”

    A private seller is not allowed to do the proper background checks, remember? Millions of people do private cash transactions of firearms right now. You want that activity banned and replaced with a mandate for the transactions to be processed by a federally licensed dealer. That affects millions of people who are not felons, domestic abusers, drug users, minors, or adjudicated mentally ill. Can you agree on that statement? If they did the cash transaction anyway like they used to (say they didn’t even know about the law change), they could be held criminally liable for breaking the law. That is a huge affect on their lives. Making something against the law that used to be perfectly legal affects people.

    Japete: “It works fine in states that have the laws.”

    Maybe from your point of view. It defiantly affects me. It affects me financially through transactions, plus the market devaluing of all guns I currently own. It has prevented me from buying a gun that I wanted to buy- too much of a hassle, and fees doubling the price of a low cost gun. It was not worth buying at that point. Most people can buy a gun and try it out, and if for whatever reason they don’t like it, they can sell it without incurring a loss. Not it California. It has also prevented me from selling a gun that I wanted to sell. My friend (who is not a felon, domestic abuser, drug user, minor, or adjudicated mentally ill) wanted to buy from me, but when I told her what we needed to do she said “forget it”. Yep, works fine.

    Japate: “Private sellers are not being arrested.”

    Didn’t you just do a post about gun sellers in NY being arrested for not conducting background checks? Regardless, are you suggesting a different punishment for those who don’t comply with your law? What if two legal people make a transaction without a background check on the buyer? What should happen to them?

    ReplyDelete
  54. Japete: “Many of your side have said they think NICS should be available to private sellers. I agree with you. It should not”

    The simple solution to privacy concerns is to have the buyer initiate the check for themselves. So it is not that anyone can lookup whomever they want through the NICS, but rather the buyer has a “pass” voucher that is good for X number of days to buy a gun from a dealer or private party. If they fail, only they will know.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Good grief. You guys are amazingly annoying. Of course private sellers who don't do background checks, if required, should be arrested. But they are not being arrested for doing their proper jobs. Enough said.

    ReplyDelete
  56. All I am looking to do by “annoying you”, is to get you to admit that this has repercussions outside of criminals who want to buy guns. By restricting anyone who sells a gun, it ends up affecting the entire gun culture. One of the neat things about guns is that they last a long time, and their technological advancement moves at a snails pace (gun designs from 100 years ago are still very popular). Combine that with nostalgia, and you get a very strong collector’s circuit. People are free to invest a lot of money in a collection because they can recoup most if not all of it by selling in a robust private market. If they make smart buys, they could even make money with appreciating firearms (and blow it away on ammo). So do you see how it affects more than just criminals?

    So do you think next time you bring this up you can talk about it from the seller’s perspective as well (which is the 80 million people who own a gun and might ever want to liquidate)? I don’t expect you to want to help preserve the gun culture, but by saying this issue is ONLY about criminal buyers seems to be an effort to defame us all- because all we care about is making sure lunatics can buy firearms, right?

    ReplyDelete
  57. I know several gun collectors who work with our group. They have no problem with background checks.

    ReplyDelete
  58. japete writes:
    "They claim that any reasonable gun law will affect them. If they are not felons, domestic abusers, drug users, minors, or adjudicated mentally ill, they will not be affected. "

    Your proposed ban / restrictions on "assault weapons" and "assault clips" will impact me - and millions of others.

    B

    ReplyDelete
  59. Japete: “I know several gun collectors who work with our group. They have no problem with background checks.”

    And you understand that they would be affected by your law- more so than me if they are avid collectors. I am sure they have passed guns to other collectors in their circle countess times. Whereas they used to buy/sell, and trade guns with their buddies, they now have to travel to an FFL fill out paper work, pay the dealer a fee, and maybe even wait 5 or 10 days (like some states require), and then go back to the dealer to pick it up. They can be all for that, I don’t care, the point is it AFFECTS them, and if they are avid collectors who swap guns a lot it affects them quite often, and will cost them a lot of money. And now the repercussions for continuing to sell guns as they did before, is prison. So it does not just affect felons, domestic abusers, drug users, minors, or those adjudicated mentally ill after all.

    For the record, as you are well aware, I am not against background checks either so long as they could be done privately. So maybe, just maybe, these gun collectors would see it my way. If they got increased background checks, but still get to swap guns with their friends at the range, or buy estate collections from the spouse of a deceased collector, or buy a gun for the express purpose of re-selling it for a profit (which is harder to do when the government and dealer take a bite of the pie TWICE)- then maybe they would prefer that over the Brady Plan.

    ReplyDelete
  60. "Many of your side have said they think NICS should be available to private sellers. I agree with you. It should not "

    Why not? NICS is not NCIS. Why couldn't a simple web app be built that would allow you to put in both the purchaser and seller's driver's license and it would return a yes or no answer with a transaction id? Seller copies down the transaction id and if he wants the buyers dl# and it is over. Same result as going through the FFL except no 4483 and no fee added to the transaction cost. I know you are going to oppose this but at least explain why.

    ReplyDelete
  61. "They have no problem with background checks."

    If the bills that you have backed did nothing more than impose background checks, they'd have passed long ago.

    ReplyDelete
  62. japete

    "I know several gun collectors who work with our group. They have no problem with background checks. "

    So that means that their views are or should be representative of the whole ?

    ReplyDelete
  63. "But they are not being arrested for doing their proper jobs. Enough said."

    Didn't a large number of "illegal sellers" just get prosecuted in New York State? Amazing what happens when existing laws are actually enforced.

    ReplyDelete
  64. They understand that. It does not bother them at all. There is no prison. In Minnesota private sellers don't need to do background checks. If the law passed no sellers would go to prison if they follow the rules and require background checks. I don't get why you keep saying that. Follow the rules and all is fine.

    ReplyDelete
  65. Nope. That is not going to happen.

    ReplyDelete
  66. That's all they would do. You are wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  67. Actually their views do represent the majority. Consistently 80% of people support background checks. The Luntz poll= 69% of NRA members. You are in the minority.

    ReplyDelete
  68. Yup, Pat. NY has a background check law different from Minnesota's as you well know. If you sell without getting background checks you have violated the law.

    ReplyDelete
  69. ...and enforcing existing laws works to remove criminals from the public?

    ReplyDelete
  70. "How so Bryan? "

    If you're referencing my earlier comment about your support for the "assault weapons" ban and the "assault clips" ban - both impact me.

    I own firearms that you have previously outlined as an "assault weapon" and I own many "assault clips" as your organization calls them.

    Depending upon which version of those bills you would support, either my ability to make future purchases of said weapons or clips - or my current ownership of said weapons or clips would be prohibited.

    So yes, the sort of laws endorsed by organizations that you are affiliated with - and personally support - would impact me.

    b

    ReplyDelete
  71. japete

    "Actually their views do represent the majority. Consistently 80% of people support background checks. The Luntz poll= 69% of NRA members. You are in the minority."

    You mean the Luntz Poll that has been shown to be intentionally worded in such a way as to produce the desired result ?

    Something that Frank Luntz has hardly hidden. His book is called " The Word Doctor " for a reason.

    ReplyDelete
  72. "Thanks. Indeed- the "anti gun extremists" are reading my blog but choose not to comment because you guys just go on the immediate attack and try to intimidate and bully them. I don't blame them. I'm sure you would not like it either."

    "intimidate and bully" = disagree, with more facts and reason to back up assertions.

    This is why you lose, and will continue to lose. You need to make a case for your position. It's sad when I think I could make a better case for your position than you all could.

    ReplyDelete
  73. Just checking to see if you agree that enforcing existing laws works or not

    ReplyDelete
  74. Are you a collector or why do you need all of these assault rifles? Why do you need those clips/magazines? Are you planning for the tyrannical take-over much predicted by your side?

    ReplyDelete
  75. Luntz polling is consistently with nearly all others taken over many years. I guess they are all doctored. You are in the consistent minority.

    ReplyDelete
  76. I'd love to see it Keith. No matter what we say you guys would be against it. And yes bullying and intimidation is different from not agreeing. Did you read my post? Perhaps you all think calling people names and saying they are insane is merely disagreeing. You are wrong. The only reason you guys win is because you bully and intimidate and you h ave bought and paid for elected leaders. It's not because your ideas make sense. See other industrialized countries not at war for how sensible gun laws actually work to prevent gun tragedies like we see every day in this country.

    ReplyDelete
  77. Snarky Pat. And not nice or necessary.

    ReplyDelete
  78. No snark, just pointing out an inconsistancy in the information.
    You still didn't answer, or is this a case of it works when its in my favor, but not when it doesn't.

    ReplyDelete
  79. When you ask questions knowing the answer just to play "gotcha", they don't deserve an answer.

    ReplyDelete
  80. "Are you a collector or why do you need all of these assault rifles? Why do you need those clips/magazines? Are you planning for the tyrannical take-over much predicted by your side?"

    The COTUS right of The People to keep and bear arms is not contingent upon need.

    How many pairs of shoes to you have, japete? Technically, you should only NEED about 2 pair, right?

    ReplyDelete
  81. You've answered just fine, thanks again!

    ReplyDelete
  82. Well is that sincere, Pat? First you said I didn't answer and you offered a snarky comment. Now you say I answered just fine.

    ReplyDelete
  83. Sincere enough. You and I don't agree, that's no surprise. I was simply pointing out the inconsistencies of one of your various assertions. Regular readers of your blog will know this isn't a "gotcha".

    ReplyDelete
  84. japete

    "Are you a collector or why do you need all of these assault rifles? Why do you need those clips/magazines? Are you planning for the tyrannical take-over much predicted by your side?"

    Please point to anything in the Founding Documents, The Bill of Rights or ANY of the writings of the Founders that say anything about " need " and its connection to RIGHTS.

    Since words have caused the deaths of more people in history then every weapon ever devised perhaps we should require someone show their " need " to exercise their 1A Rights ?

    Perhaps people should have to demonstrate a " need " to be protected from unlawful search and seizure under the 4th Amendment ?

    I've never understood where Gun Control Advocates ever got this idea that " need " has any connection to practicing RIGHTS and further, where they become the anointed ones to decide what anyone else " needs ". Arrogance on display to be sure.

    Since " need " is such a big theme, then Im sure all the Control supporters would publicly and vocally support that no one in the Country needs to buy any vehicle capable of exceeding the speed limit.

    But to answer the question. Yes I DO need to own, collect and use semi automatic rifles which are NOT " assault weapons ".

    I need to have them to appreciate their mechanical design and function.

    I need to have them to shoot competitively

    I need to have them to fulfill my obligations under US Code Title 10 as a member of the unorganized militia.

    I need to have them to fulfill my desire to own pieces of history.

    There are all kinds of reasons why I " need " to have semi automatic rifles. But even if I didnt have a need to, I have the RIGHT to.

    ReplyDelete
  85. Molon. It seems that it's OK for you guys to badger me with your questions, some of them snarky and ridiculous and then when I don't answer them all, you claim I am avoiding your question. But when I ask a question it's not OK.

    By the way, I own about 20 pairs of assault shoes. Shoes kill people every day. Haven't you heard? A new group is forming- CASV- Citizens Against Shoe Violence. We will be having a rally soon in DC. We will ask for background checks for all shoe buyers. In addition they should have a license to wear and register their shoes. We have a right to wear shoes- it's one of those inalienable rights- God given. When we are ready with our confiscation plan we will be coming to the homes of suspect shoe owners with our jack boots. If I were you I would get a good shoe safe. Also you might want to stock pile the most powerful shoes you can get in case of a jack boot attack. For sure, President Obama is on board with this one. If people start stock piling their shoes, it will increase shoe sales and help the economy.

    ReplyDelete
  86. "Consistently 80% of people support background checks"

    Which is why if the Brady Bunch had ever offered a bill that imposed background checks, it'd have passed, regardless of whether I or those like me thought it was a good idea.

    What they've done, though, is to offer bills that used the gun show loophole [sic] as a stalking horse to impose restrictions that go far beyond just requiring background checks.

    And when those additional restrictions have been stripped, they've turned around and opposed the result. Every time a clean bill has been offered to require background checks at gun shows, without additional restrictions, the Brady Bunch has opposed it.

    ReplyDelete
  87. I a consistent on this blog. Just because you don't like what I say doesn't mean inconsistency Pat. Don!t be congratulating yourself about always being consistent and factual. You know that I find plenty of false assertions and factual errors coming from your side of the issue. Differences of opinion are one thing. You can't have your own set of facts as many of you try to get away with

    ReplyDelete
  88. "The only reason you guys win is because you bully and intimidate and you have bought and paid for elected leaders."

    The most important reason is that gunowners will usually vote against elected leaders who act against gunowners' rights.

    Believing otherwise is like believing that NRA members don't support the NRA or that gun ownership is significantly decreasing. It may be useful propaganda, but the more that you actually believe it and act accordingly, the more ineffective you are.

    ReplyDelete
  89. jdege Please provide me with an example of your false assertion.

    ReplyDelete
  90. "Why do you need those clips/magazines?"

    For the same reason that most police do: It's the best type when using a gun for self-defense.

    Gun control advocates must think that most police expect that one officer will need to shoot it out with 15 opponents. That rarely happens. Most police gun use occurs defending against a single opponent --- the same as most civilian defensive gun use.

    It's not hard to hit a target during practice, but even trained police have found that when one is actually being shot at, one's aim becomes so impaired that it often takes more than ten shots in order to hit one's assailant just once. The same goes for civilians using a gun for self-defense.

    ReplyDelete
  91. I would hazard a guess that you won't be in situations similar to what police face every day. At least I'm not. Very few people ever are. But if that is how you imagine your dangerous life then so be it.

    ReplyDelete
  92. "I would hazard a guess that you won't be in situations similar to what police face every day."

    Police and military generally wear gear - belts and vests with which they can keep spare magazines readily available. A typical infantryman carries six spare 30-round magazines. A typical police officer carries two spare pistol magazines.

    Civilians generally can't. They're usually limited to what they have in the pistol.

    Which is why it is far more important that civilians have the ability to carry large-capacity firearms, than it is for military or police.

    ReplyDelete
  93. Part 1

    I personally have never badgered you for not answering any of my questions, although I am a bit disappointed you moderated a few of my retorts to Baldr on your previous post, which were not inflammatory at all. I suppose after he called me an extremist for taking up shooting sports at a young age, and I countered with what I actually do in my spare time (volunteer at our Greyhound rescue 4x more per month than I go to the gun range)that it made his argument look silly. And Sandra appears to get a free pass with personal attacks (gunloonz [sic] ring a bell?) But hey, it's your house, your rules.

    Now, to your point.....

    When I do get to go to the gun range, I find it very cumbersome and time consuming reloading one magazine after it's emptied. I'm not sure if you've ever loaded a magazine before, but aside from eating up range time, it can be a bit brutal on your thumb. Shoving rounds into the mag past that sharp lip starts making your thumb sore. Since I also play guitar (I know, definite insurrectionist hobby right there!) I'm definitely pro-anything-easy-on-the-fingers. That's why I prefer to have about 8-10 mags preloaded when I get there. Some people may have other reasons. Nope, no wild shootout fantasies, no bandolier strapped across my chest at the dinner table....convenience.

    The problem your side has, constitutionally, legally, and logically, is justifying broad sweeping bans which seek to regulate what I, as a law-abiding citizen, do with my constitutionally protected firearms. The glaring problem is that these proposed regulations give a free pass to the actual root causes of violent crime, and those committing it. Have you ever done research on the US's criminal recidivism rate? Have you ever wondered why, time after time, we see front page news of murders committed by violent felons out on early release or parole? Have you ever wondered why we don't attack gang violence which is responsible for what, about 80% of violent crime in the US?

    What you're asking gun owners to do is to give up constitutionally protected rights without addressing the more significant issues first. Sorry, but you're never going to get compromise that way. Especially when the only compromise coming from your side has to be done so by litigating you into submission.

    ReplyDelete
  94. Part 2

    Call me a conspiracy theorist, but I actually believe there's a specific reason for this. While there are those who truly believe that less guns = less crime (I'd put you into that category) and oppose gun ownership because of personal convictions, I believe there's a fiscal component to the political side. We all know that in order to really attack violent crime, we would need to spend BOATLOADS of money addressing the social and socio-economic disparities in society which are most likely the root causes of violent crime. Why do people steal? Rob? Murder? Rape? Turn to gang culture? I contend that it's the breakdown of the family sphere, poor education, poverty, lack of solid male role models, etc....

    But Mr./Ms. Politician needs to get elected. And Mr/Ms Politician only knows one way to generate money to attack these problems...taxes. Mr/Ms Politician knows that raising taxes = getting crushed at the polls. But it doesn't cost anything to pass gun control legislation (or significantly less than it would to address the aforementioned.) So Mr/Ms Politician can toe party lines and support gun control and appear to be "tough on crime" and "concerned about public safety" all without doing what is really needed to address these problems. Gun control for a politician (other than being political seppuku, i.e., the '94 elections) is a win win. Appear tough on crime, bow to your party's ideology, and not raising taxes to combat the actual problems.

    I have a feeling that you'd elicit more constructive dialogue and less snark from pro-gunnies if we were addressing these kinds of issues instead of dissertations about 'assault shoes'.

    ReplyDelete
  95. The Supreme Court did not state that there is a total unfettered right to own guns. They qualified that restrictions can be made on types of guns, who may carry them and where they may carry.

    ReplyDelete
  96. I am addressing the issue of gun deaths and injuries. That is why I write my blog. If Mr./Mrs. Politician care about public safety and crime, they would clearly vote in favor of sensible gun legislation proposed by reasonable people on my side. But instead, they are afraid to stand up to the uber powerful NRA and its minions who threaten ( yes threaten) intimidate, bully and give lots of money. That is the bottom line. Follow the money.....

    ReplyDelete
  97. "The Supreme Court did not state that there is a total unfettered right to own guns. They qualified that restrictions can be made on types of guns"

    Correct! The Supreme Court stated that guns that were "in common use" were the types of guns that could be owned. If gun control advocates would acknowledge that, we can move on to discussing just what other restrictions may be permitted.

    ReplyDelete
  98. Explain what the guns in common use are. And did anyone say that you guys can't own guns? No. It happens that we don't think some assault type guns, ammunition and features are a good idea.

    ReplyDelete
  99. This brings up an interesting problem legislators have with describing what they want to ban "assault type guns, ammunition and features" it seems that a "sniper rifle" would ban most popular hunting rifles bigger than a 22. "Cop killer ammunition bans" would target most if not all the ammunition commonly used to hunt with. During the Assault weapon ban when the features were limited to comply with the law the Brady Campaign (or before June 14, 2001, Handgun Control, Inc according to Wikipedia) complained that manufactures were exploiting "loopholes" even though they omitted the features per the law.

    You are correct about the SCOTUS ruling as you know they commented on the case at hand and did not describe what was allowed/not allowed by the 2nd amendment in totality. There are a few cases that seem like they might reach SCOTUS that if accepted will continue to further clarify what can and can not be regulated. Add to that the BATFE seeming regulating things as they seem fit without congress and that adds another dimension.

    ReplyDelete
  100. Variations on the AR-15 design are one of the best examples of guns in common use in the US. You can think all you want that they are not a "good idea," but the Supreme Court stated that guns that were in common use were not to be prohibited.

    ReplyDelete