Welcome to Common Gunsense

I hope this blog will provoke some thoughtful reflection about the issue of guns and gun violence. I am passionate about the issue and would love to change some misperceptions and the culture of gun violence in America by sharing with readers words, photos, videos and clips from articles to promote common sense about gun issues. Many of you will agree with me- some will not. I am only one person but one among many who think it's time to do something about this national problem. The views expressed by me in this blog do not represent any group with which I am associated but are rather my own personal opinions and thoughts.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thursday, December 29, 2011

If you take a gun to Starbucks.....

If you want to go to Starbucks for coffee or a treat, you might think it's a safe place. If you think it's a safe place, you won't be worried about needing a gun. If you think you need a gun at Starbucks, you are thinking there is danger in every nook and cranny. So if there is danger lurking at a Starbucks store, some might think they need to carry a gun to a Starbucks store. If you take a gun to Starbucks, you will need to carry it somewhere. When you carry it, you will want to make sure it won't discharge. Otherwise you might have some trouble. When you have some trouble, you'll be thinking you should have been more careful. Then maybe you will re-consider carrying that gun to Starbucks. If you re-consider carrying a loaded gun in your purse, your purse won't "go off." If your purse doesn't "go off" then there won't be danger at a Starbucks store. If there aren't people carrying guns in Starbucks, customers will be safe from purses "going off". If a bullet discharges from that purse and misses innocent Starbucks customers, then you are lucky. If a bullet discharges and hits somebody you are not lucky. If you are a 17 year old girl who shouldn't be carrying a loaded gun around in public in the first place, you are unlucky that your "purse went off" in a Starbucks store. If police officers are sitting at the Starbucks where your purse "goes off" you are again unlucky. It the police decide you shouldn't have been carrying that loaded gun in the first place, you are unlucky and in trouble. If the police officer gives the gun back to your parents, your parents are lucky that is all that happened. If your parents think it's O.K. for you, as a 17 year old, to carry a gun around in your purse, then they have not used good judgement. If 17 year old girls carry guns in their purses at Starbucks, then we are all less safe. If Starbucks would post signs saying guns are not allowed in their stores, perhaps 17 year old girls with loaded guns would think twice about bringing guns to places where other people hang out and don't need their guns with their lattés. When people don't need guns with their lattés, there will be fewer guns in public places. When there are fewer guns in public places, there won't be so many accidental and intentional shootings of innocent people. When there are fewer shootings of innocent people, our communities will be safer. When our communities are safer, fewer families will grieve over lost loved ones or suffer from life-long gun injuries. When there are fewer families grieving, America's health and safety problem with guns will be less concerning. When people feel safe from other people with guns at Starbucks they won't need to carry their guns at Starbucks when they go for a coffee or a treat.

I love the books written by Laura Numeroff and illustrated by Felicia Bond. It started with "If you Give a Mouse a Cookie" and the others followed.

So above was my version based on this disturbing story about a 17 year old girl whose gun discharged in a Wyoming Starbucks store:
After the round fired, the girl said, “I think my purse went off!”
According to the Cheyenne Police report about the incident, the girl, whose name is being withheld because she is a juvenile, dropped her purse around 6:45 a.m. Monday while she was at the cash register at Starbucks, 1112 Central Ave.
Two Cheyenne Police officers were in the coffee shop at the time. Once they heard the gunshot, they drew their pistols and scanned the shop.
(...) According to the report, the bullet missed John Basile, 43, by about 12 inches. After nearly missing Basile’s head, the bullet hit the west wall of the store, bounced back to the east and rolled under the coffee counter.
The officers had the teen call her parents, who responded to Starbucks shortly after the incident.
The girl’s father said he had given the teen the pistol and encouraged her to carry it while traveling for her protection.
The girl said she keeps the gun in her room and had it with her because she was going to visit friends in Laramie.
And more from the story:

The teen’s mother told police that she doesn’t particularly like firearms because they “may just go off.” She said she knew her daughter had a pistol and encouraged her to point it at a “bad person” if she was ever in trouble.
The gun was returned to the teen’s parents.
The girl was issued a city summons for possession of a firearm by a juvenile, which carries a $750 bond and a “must appear in court” stipulation.
City ordinance stipulates that individuals must be 18 years old to carry any type of firearm within city limits.
Wyoming state statutes state that a person must be 21 years old to carry a concealed weapon.
According to federal law, individuals must be 21 years old to buy a pistol and 18 to buy a rifle or shotgun.

Too many questions are raised by this incident:
  • Who gives their 17 year old a gun to carry around in public?
  • Why does a 17 year old need a gun for self defense in public places?
  • Why does Starbucks allow guns in their stores?
  • Why does the gun lobby think this is a good idea ( check the comments on the original story)?
  • Why do so many loaded guns "accidentally discharge" in public places?
  • Why are so many people allowed to carry loaded guns in public places?
  • Why had the parents of this girl allowed her to carry a loaded gun around with no training whatsoever except for her mother telling her to point the gun at a "bad person" if she got into trouble.
  • Why doesn't Starbucks post signs not allowing loaded guns inside of their stores? Who are they afraid of? Remember the flap about California and Washington open carry folks staging protests at Starbucks and other places to make a point that loaded guns in stores would be safe? 
  • Why can you order products that say: " I love guns and coffee."? I'll take my coffee without the bullets, thank you. 
  • Where is common sense?

64 comments:

  1. Not a legal carrier of a handgun in this circumstance. She should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, as should her parents for providing it to her.

    ReplyDelete
  2. A loaded derringer? No proper holster? Neither of those are safe. A modern firearm in a holster will not just go off, and virtually any made nowadays are also drop safe.

    Sounds like the parents made some terrible decisions, and could use some firearms education themselves.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Would posting a sign have stopped this incident? She was already carrying illegally - what would the sign have done?

    In many jurisdictions, the sign carries little to no legal weight anyways. For example - Minnesota.

    ReplyDelete
  4. And that's a sad commentary on our gun laws. Let's enforce the laws on the books. If someone doesn't want guns in their place of business, they should be able to stop people. People should obey the law. This was not a law abiding individual but her parents were. We need gun laws with teeth to stop this from happening but you, Bryan, and the NRA folks in Minnesota, made darned sure that the conceal and carry law would allow you to carry even if signs are posted. That is reprehensible.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Gun laws with teeth?!? She violated the law already -- how would another one stop her? I'm thinking signs wouldn't have stopped her either.

    By the way, people CAN stop folks from bringing firearms onto their own private property in MN...that hasn't changed.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Bryan has told me that he can carry in places where signs are posted. What's that all about then?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Signs don't stop illegal carry. Crooks will ignore the sign. Therefore, signs are useless and disarm only the law-abiding.

    The girl, a minor, should not have had the gun. The parents and child should both be charged and prosecuted appropriately. If they are allowed to continue to own guns, all involved desperately need to become educated.

    Lets answer your questions.

    * Who gives their 17 year old a gun to carry around in public? Idiot parents.

    * Why does a 17 year old need a gun for self defense in public places? For the same reason that any human might need one. But they are restricted in carrying one.

    * Why does Starbucks allow guns in their stores? Because they realize that firearms in the hands of law abiding citizens is not a problem and they believe in liberty.

    * Why does the gun lobby think this is a good idea ( check the comments on the original story)? Gun lobby? The Gun lobby is commenting on this or is it just readers? Do you equate all gun owners as the "gun lobby?"

    * Why do so many loaded guns "accidentally discharge" in public places? They don't. Some are negligently discharged and others are improperly handled or carried, as was this firearm.

    * Why are so many people allowed to carry loaded guns in public places? Because they have a right to "bear arms."

    * Why had the parents of this girl allowed her to carry a loaded gun around with no training whatsoever except for her mother telling her to point the gun at a "bad person" if she got into trouble. Because the parents were negligent and idiots.

    * Why doesn't Starbucks post signs not allowing loaded guns inside of their stores? Who are they afraid of? Remember the flap about California and Washington open carry folks staging protests at Starbucks and other places to make a point that loaded guns in stores would be safe? And they were. Especially California. Those guns were unloaded, by law. All Starbucks is doing is allowing citizens to utilize their rights.

    * Why can you order products that say: " I love guns and coffee."? I'll take my coffee without the bullets, thank you. Then don't order the products. Or the bullets.

    * Where is common sense? Define common sense.

    ReplyDelete
  8. "Bryan has told me that he can carry in places where signs are posted. What's that all about then?"

    I thought that'd have been clear by now.

    How many shootings do we have, every year, in places where there are "no guns" signs?

    ReplyDelete
  9. japete writes:
    "If someone doesn't want guns in their place of business, they should be able to stop people. "

    I agree. And Minnesota law allows you to do so. However, simply posting a sign doesn't do it.
    b

    ReplyDelete
  10. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  11. MN's law is extremely well-written, and eliminates the "gray" areas that get permit-holders in other states subjected to arbitrary and capricious laws.

    In MN, since the line between public and private property can sometimes be blurry and not clear cut, and since people stray onto private property by mistake all the time, and since signs fall down, and/or are obscured -- a property owner must notify someone personally and demand compliance with their policies.

    Doing it this way protects both parties -- Property owners don't have to worry about posting every single entrance with tacky signs - and permitted carriers don't need to worry about arbitrarily being prosecuted for not seeing an imaginary line.

    Works for both! Thank heavens! We all know how much good signs prohibiting weapons do against the criminal element.

    ReplyDelete
  12. " they realize that firearms in the hands of law abiding citizens is not a problem and they believe in liberty." Law abiding citizens shoot people accidentally and intentionally in restaurants and coffee shops. I have written about such many times before. Law abiding citizens are sometimes a problem. And when you have a gun and a shooting, a problem turns into something else all together. And they believe in liberty? Please.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Do you know the answer to that jdege or are you being annoying?

    ReplyDelete
  14. Bryan, since you asked, the cartoon is on clipart.com to which I have a subscription.

    ReplyDelete
  15. japete writes:
    "Law abiding citizens shoot people accidentally and intentionally in restaurants and coffee shops"

    And they do so at a rate far far less than the rest of the population. Again, the law abiding aren't the problem.

    b

    ReplyDelete
  16. "... and since signs fall down, and/or are obscured -- a property owner must notify someone personally and demand compliance with their policies."

    I'd like to point out that there is nothing unusual in this - many of Minnesota's trespass laws have the same requirement:

    Minn. Stat. 609.605 Subd. 2:

    Whoever trespasses upon the grounds of a facility providing emergency shelter services for battered women, as defined under section 611A.31, subdivision 3, or of a facility providing transitional housing for battered women and their children, without claim of right or consent of one who has right to give consent, and refuses to depart from the grounds of the facility on demand of one who has right to give consent, is guilty of a gross misdemeanor.

    ReplyDelete
  17. japete writes:
    "Bryan, since you asked, the cartoon is on clipart.com to which I have a subscription. "

    I ask only because I happen to know this cartoonist and his rather particular interest in taking legal action against folks illegally using his art. Glad to see it's properly licensed.

    ReplyDelete
  18. japete writes:
    "People should obey the law."

    We agree.

    "This was not a law abiding individual but her parents were."

    She was carrying illegally. I can't speak for the laws in her particular state, but in some states providing a firearm like this to a minor is a crime.

    "We need gun laws with teeth to stop this from happening but you, Bryan, and the NRA folks in Minnesota, made darned sure that the conceal and carry law would allow you to carry even if signs are posted. "

    Stop what from happening?

    I wasn't here in 2003 when the current MN carry law was passed, I was a resident of Massachusetts. I had nothing to do with the current law.

    I can tell you though that it is a model law that is very well written - and one that has influenced a number of state laws.
    b

    ReplyDelete
  19. If said "law abiding" citizens are law abiding, then they are NOT shooting people intentionally. If they do it accidentally, they are still law abiding. Apparently Starbucks sees that the statistics show that CCW's are more law-abiding and safer than the general public.

    Said 17 year old girl was NOT law abiding nor a legal carrier. Thus, she was in the wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  20. They are a problem when people who are "law abiding" continue to shoot people accidentally or intentionally in public places. In addition, if we would make sure that felons, adjudicated mentally ill people, domestic abusers and minors have a harder time getting their guns, we would have fewer prohibited people shooting people in public places.

    ReplyDelete
  21. And what's the point again, jdege, about signs?

    ReplyDelete
  22. Bryan, are you watching out for me or are you trying to catch me doing something wrong? Just wondering.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Cargosquid- they are law abiding until suddenly, they are not.

    ReplyDelete
  24. "Why doesn't Starbucks post signs not allowing loaded guns inside of their stores? "

    Starbucks made a corporate decision to honor the laws of the state they are in, and allow concealed carry where permitted. People are totally free to patronize them (or not) based on that decision.

    In Ohio, we (meaning gun folks) keep a "do not patronize" database of places that do not allow concealed carry and we very often leave this http://secure.ohioccw.org/store/i/is.aspx?path=/images/no_guns_cards.gif so they will know that they are losing business because of their decision.

    Why don't you all do the same? Simply stop doing business with any company that allows concealed carry on their premises.

    Boycotts etc, are totally proper public responses to a company behaving in a manner, of which you you do not approve.

    BTW: My kids loved to have me read "If You Give a Moose a Muffin" to them.

    ReplyDelete
  25. "And what's the point again, jdege, about signs?"

    Signs don't stop people who choose to ignore them.

    If you want to keep guns out of a place, you need to check everyone who enters.

    ReplyDelete
  26. There has to be a way we can all agree to denounce gun violence and criminals without portraying all firearm owners are crazed lunatics, right?

    ReplyDelete
  27. Japete, everyone is law abiding until suddenly they are not.

    ReplyDelete
  28. I used the books in my work and love them. I love the cadence and I have some of them on audio as well. They are funny to listen to.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Now there's an idea. Perhaps we should have metal detectors in all places of business. That would be a sad state of affairs.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Yes, Pat. That is exactly right. I am not denouncing all gun owners. I am denouncing gun violence and how often it happens and it does happen fairly often by law abiding gun owners. So what I am denouncing is a culture where guns are seen as something to be used in arguments or in rage or when under the influence. I am denouncing the fact that more guns do not necessarily mean we are all safer. I am not saying people should not have guns for self defense if they so choose. I would love it if we could agree on something, Pat.

    ReplyDelete
  31. So you do not differentiate between murder and self-defense, Japete?

    ReplyDelete
  32. What makes you ask that question?

    ReplyDelete
  33. japete writes:

    "I am not denouncing all gun owners."

    But you don't think individuals (the law abiding) should carry a firearm outside of the home

    "I am denouncing gun violence and how often it happens and it does happen fairly often by law abiding gun owners."

    We all denounce gun violence.

    It happens far less by law abiding gun owners - it happens much MUCH more frequently by criminals.

    The focus should be on criminals, not the law abiding.

    "So what I am denouncing is a culture where guns are seen as something to be used in arguments or in rage or when under the influence."

    We would all agree on this.

    "I am denouncing the fact that more guns do not necessarily mean we are all safer."

    The crime data points in this direction though - particularly with permit holders.

    "I am not saying people should not have guns for self defense if they so choose. "

    But no one should carry a firearm? That's what I get from reading your posts.

    B

    ReplyDelete
  34. Bryan- I guess you didn't read the links about gun deaths happening in a greater percentage by acquaintances than strangers. You are wrong. Gun deaths are more frequent among people who know each other than total strangers. I am working to get felons, adjudicated mentally ill people ( many of whom are considered law abiding or not prohibited because their names are not in NICS) domestic abusers, minors and others from getting guns. That should be a given but it isn't. There is not a linear connection or proof that connects crime data and number of permit holders .

    ReplyDelete
  35. japete:

    "I guess you didn't read the links about gun deaths happening in a greater percentage by acquaintances than strangers."

    I'm quite familiar with the academic work in this area - including the studies you previously referenced.

    "There is not a linear connection or proof that connects crime data and number of permit holders "

    What do you mean by this?

    There's certainly a significant amount of information available around this topic - from state studies in Texas, Florida, and Minnesota - to a recent analysis published in the Connecticut Law Review. Each indicates that permit holders commit crimes at a rate far below that of the general population.

    Or are you referencing something else?

    ReplyDelete
  36. Also, I am not saying individuals with permits should not carry their guns in public if they so choose. But you guys have a problem because a fair number of you are making serious mistakes in public or even at home. There are too many avoidable accidents that result in injury or death or close calls. That is because guns are lethal weapons. Here is yet another stupid law abiding gun owner shooting someone --- http://www.yourhoustonnews.com/pearland/news/pearland-gun-owner-accidentally-shoots-uncle-in-the-leg/article_20fdb370-7230-5236-975d-3a36d6c3ff46.html

    Why do these things keep happening if law abiding gun owners are so careful and should be trusted with their guns. It's a problem that your side will have to deal. That is why I have a problem. I read about and write about too many of these incidents. What is your answer? And don't tell me that accidents just happen or it's just life. It's a problem.

    ReplyDelete
  37. "But you guys have a problem because a fair number of you are making serious mistakes in public or even at home."

    A "fair number" compared to whom? The American Public at large has far more "serious mistakes" than permit holders as a whole.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Bryan- I thought by this statement-" The crime data points in this direction though - particularly with permit holders" that you were linking overall crime rates ( which are down in some places) with increased number of permit holders.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Sigh- Pat, I have been over this one before. As long as permit holders are doing stupid and dangerous things in public places with their guns, we all have a problem. Whether or not they are doing them at a more or less frequent rate than everyone else is not what I am talking about. Yes, there are people without permits who shoot people in public places. But you are the guys who have convinced legislators all over the country that people with permits will be safe in public. That has not always been the case. As long as you have made those claims, you have to live with what is happening out there. I am interested in preventing shootings- whether someone has a permit or not.

    ReplyDelete
  40. You say you "denounce gun violence". I have to wonder if you mean only criminal gun violence or are you including righteous gun violence in that grouping?

    ReplyDelete
  41. The thing you seem to like to do (like in the post above) you say CCW people make mistakes in public then you post about a guy that nowhere in the news article mentions a CCW permit accidentally shooting his uncle in his house to bolster your point. Also as no charges were filed he remains law abiding.

    There are over 250 million guns and 613 accidental deaths a year a tragic but small percentage.

    ReplyDelete
  42. What the heck is "righteous gun violence"?

    ReplyDelete
  43. Apparently you didn't notice that I also mentioned non permit holders who shoot people in public and in private. Have a nice night Anthony.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Righteous gun violence would be acceptable uses of violence, i.e. self-defense or defense of others. Are you factoring that in when you "denounce gun-violence", or are you only denouncing criminal gun violence?

    ReplyDelete
  45. That's an interesting question. I am generally a person who believes in non-violence but I do understand that there are justifiable situations of self defense.

    ReplyDelete
  46. And justifiable situations of self defense occur in public places hence why CCW permitting is increasing. Permit holders have convinced legislators because they have the facts to back them up. Permit holders are responsible for a vanishingly small percentage of the criminal use of guns compared to the general public and even law enforcement officers.

    ReplyDelete
  47. " Permit holders are responsible for a vanishingly small percentage of the criminal use of guns compared to the general public and even law enforcement officers. " I don't think so.

    ReplyDelete
  48. japete writes: "I don't think so."

    The data clearly disagrees with you and supports the point made by James. See the annual reports from Minnesota, Texas, and Florida for examples of this.

    Are you asserting that this government provided data is false?

    ReplyDelete
  49. Was there data provided by James? I didn't see any links to a report.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Few minutes with Google and...

    Texas
    http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/chl/convrates.htm

    2009
    http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/chl/ConvictionRatesReport2009.pdf

    Michigan

    http://www.michigan.gov/msp/0,4643,7-123-1591_3503_4654-77621--,00.html

    Florida

    http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/stats/cw_monthly.html

    You'll notice several trends in the data. In the Texas set which breaks down crimes committed and those committed by CCW permit holders you'll notice that the CCW permit holders are fractions of 1% of the totals. In the Florida set that covers a period from 1987 - 2011 that out of the 2,031,106 permits issued, only 6,421 have been revoked for any cause. That is 0.32%. Of those 6,421 only 168 were related to firearms offenses. That is 0.00083% over a nearly 24 year period. The incidences of criminal and negligent firearm usage among the law enforcement community is considerably higher than what is seem by CCW permit holders. I'll dig up the hard numbers but in Florida the crime rate among CCW holders was 0.02% while the rate among sworn LEO's was 0.06% (2009 data).

    ReplyDelete
  51. If you have been reading what I write, I have never said that permit holders commit more crimes than the public in general. What I am saying is that there are enough instances of permit holders who have shot and killed people either intentionally or accidentally or whose guns have discharged in public places to be of concern. What I have continually said is that as long as these things happen, we have a problem. The gun rights community convinced legislators that there would be no problems. That has not happened. My side made a lot of noise about our country becoming the wild west and people shooting at each other in public- that has not really happened. There are plenty of shootings, most of which are not committed by permit holders. The number of gun deaths and injuries have not changed much in the last 5 years.

    We disagree about the need for guns in public places. I have not changed my mind nor have most of you who respond. But the public in general does not see the need for guns in public places and don't really want them. More on this later.

    ReplyDelete
  52. "But the public in general does not see the need for guns in public places and don't really want them."

    Well, except for the HUGE increase in carry permits when its allowed, the huge increase in the amount of gun laws being liberalized, the huge increase in areas being pro-gun, and the HUGE increase in gun sales, you would be right.

    ReplyDelete
  53. And none of that has anything to do with public opinion about gun and gun policy. it has to do with the uber influence of the NRA.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Public in general? I'm sorry but I have never seen an accurate and conclusive study that supported that notion. You might be able to say that for certain parts of the country but certainly not the whole. Why the focus on permit holders and not on cultural issues that are the cause of the vast majority of violent crimes in general? I know it easier to get laws passed that affect small numbers of law abiding citizens rather than tackling socioeconomic problems on a large scale but it seems the latter would result in more positive progress. Why do you not decry rap artists who portray illegal and irresponsible firearm usage to teenagers?

    ReplyDelete
  55. For the record, James, the polls have been taken amongst Americans from all over the country and consistently show support for reasonable gun laws without taking away rights. Most people have indicated that they support this. I don't support rap artists portraying illegal or irresponsible firearm usage to teenagers? I have not written a lot about that. I support all kinds of measures to keep people from getting guns. I support programs to work with mentally ill people; I support keeping offenders in prison longer; I don't like the plea bargaining that lets some felons off lightly, etc. But I think the easy access to guns by people who shouldn't have them has to be in the mix. And that is what I have chosen to write about in my blog.

    ReplyDelete
  56. This is a complicated subject.What I mean by complicated is we could talk till we're blue in the face for the for's & against...and throw examples out there to back up both sides in proving a point.

    We use past incidents such as this ordeal with the 17 year old carrying a gun to a Starbucks.

    It just sounds strange with a 17 year old who's breaking the law to begin with,and state laws sure do vary state to state in how the ending of this story turned out.

    Accidents happen,just as everytime hunting season starts.Always some idiot who shoots himself,or shoots another occurs.

    Personally..I think a good majority of those who have that permit to carry,obide by the laws,and never have to use it.

    I feel a buisness,or an establishment has the right to not allow those who carry into the store,or whatever type establishment it may be.

    Odds are it'll be just the cops,or some criminal then going out for some coffee...and cops accidently kill people too...I read alot of stories as well,with someone getting caught in the cross fire,or a cop being overly aggressive,and some of these people are shot a couple dozen times!

    I think now,and more than ever before we need our rights to obtain,and own firearms.

    I don't think adding more red tape in purchasing a gun is going to help,nor screening a person till no end,or these waiting periods really overly save us.

    My feeling is to rid the rights,which some of these anti groups do,is a threat to my freedom,a threat that maybe the day will come when we need to protect myself,or take up arms..that a gun won't be there for me.

    To many things trump more gun laws for me.

    I've had a loaded gun in my home for 20 some years now,and haven't shot nobody yet accidently.Nor while hunting,or transporting it.Same goes for most gun owners.

    There are more things killing people out there than those who have permits,or carrying one in public.

    I've worked in liquor stores and the owner was packing.

    Why?..Because a few years back a 8 month pregant cashier was robbed at knife point,and was slapped.

    Thank God if it ever happenes again,and yea...he'd love for that same guy to try that again.

    We have the right to protect ourself..a right to feel safe for if the time comes.

    All these anti-gun laws scare me.

    I think in most cases it's criminals who end up killing others in the crossfire.

    This is a very good article,and love the blog!!!

    Keli

    ReplyDelete
  57. Yes, you have that right. No one wants to take it away from you. No one wants your guns. You are wrong about what gun violence prevention advocates want and don't want but you likely won't believe me.

    ReplyDelete
  58. For record, I've never seen one of these polls where the term "reasonable" is suitable defined. Terms like "reasonable" and "common sense" are thrown out with little thought to what they actually mean. It's an attempt to frame an argument so those terms hold little weight with those of us who have studied this issue for years. I know groups like VPC don't want my guns but in the same breath they have supported legislators that have attempted outright bans in their communities. Hennigan has stated that portraying the Brady Campaign as anti-gun is a mischaracterization. Yet he supported an outright ban in California city some years ago after it initially passed (later struck down in the courts). I'm not a NRA member but they exist because there has to be a balancing force in this debate.

    ReplyDelete
  59. James can you be more specific? Are you talking about the assault weapons ban? As you know, the Supreme Court took any idea of bans on guns in people's homes off the table.

    ReplyDelete
  60. "No one wants to take it away from you. No one wants your guns. "

    Yet you want to prohibit possession of assault weapons (whatever those are) and high capacity magazines ("assault clips" your organization calls them) - am I correct?

    ReplyDelete
  61. That appears to be off the table at the moment. I am in favor of not allowing the sale and importation of some assault weapons. That does not mean someone is coming to get yours.

    ReplyDelete
  62. Research "Proposition H" enacted by San Francisco in 2005. I'm sorry it wasn't Henigan but Michael D. Barnes that said "...passage of San Francisco's Proposition H helped make Election Day 2005 a positive one for supporters of "sensible" gun laws." That law cost tax payers hundreds of thousands of dollars which could have gone to sensible things like schools and programs to keep kids out of gangs.

    ReplyDelete
  63. I am not familiar with Proposition H.

    ReplyDelete