Common Gunsense  A blog to advocate for sensible gun legislation

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

Saturday, January 14, 2012

Pro gun guys- have you no shame?

Here is a message to the pro gun extremists who have mocked the candlelight vigils. Have you no shame? Here are just a few of the personal attacks against me and other victims from a pro gun blogger who writes his own blog, titled, Too Many Victims ( clever, no?)- Oh before I start, this man thinks I was in a snit over what the pro gun extremists thought about our vigils for victims. He would be wrong. It's not a snit. It's just pointing out how tasteless, offensive , boorish and ugly the pro gun extremists can be. But I digress. Here then are some of the comments from this blog:
  • You want to talk about victims? How about A Girl and Her Gun who was mugged, and now carries a gun so she won’t have to be at the mercy of a monster ever again. How about Sarah and Cee who sent a home invader packing with a 9mm JHP? Or Caleb who was glad to have more than just a cup of coffee when he encountered a knife-wielding mugger. Or Robb, who rather than posting a picture of his snazzy Glock 20, or his new M&P40, or his limeted edition Gunblog 45…he posted his Dan Wesson .357.
  • No we talk about victims too, Joan. We also don’t Mock, as you claim. We respect, but where we part ways is we talk about SOLUTIONS. Joan will PRETEND to talk solutions. She’s talked about her murdered sister when talking about background checks, gun bans, magazine bans, carry bans, and mental health reporting, among other things. Not yet has she ever mentioned a law, proposal, or idea that if implemented before the time of her sister’s murder would have done a damn thing.
  • Sorry Joan, we show respect for the victims, you dance in their blood.
And then, of course, the small minded commenters got into the action and weighed in:
  • from Jack- She’s jealous and angry that some “no name” person like you can eclipse her organization and subvert her attempt to wave the bloody shirt. The anti’s are quite class conscious and they would see your actions as “being above your station.” The average people (unless they’re in the sanctified victim class) are not supposed to lead protest movements anymore than they’re supposed to own guns. 
  • from Dwight Brown- Absolutely correct, for once. That’s what this is all about. We’re trying to prevent people from becoming victims. Joan and her ilk like victims and want to make more of them for their own political ends. 
  • from Critter- These are the cries of little children who are screaming and pounding their little fists in a tantrum trying to get the adults to let them have their way, nothing more. Infantalization is a major tactic in the leftist playbook. They want to keep all of us as dependent children of the State and so show us they way by acting childish. Thank you Ms. Peterson, but I had to grow up a long time ago. 
  • from William- I think Joan wants to inflict pain on others. Her sister was killed and now she wants our loved ones dead so she is not alone in her pain. She is a ghoul and a vulture. Her sustenance is death. She cannot tolerate any effort to deprive her of the food and fame she won by standing on her sister’s corpse. 
  • from Phil Wong- Maybe it’s just me, but this quote seems like a glimpse behind the veil – victims DO matter, but as a means for the anti-gun-rights/anti-self-defense movement to acheive their goal of a disarmed, controlled, regimented, regulated populace; and the more pitiful and pathetic(in the classic sense of being “fraught with pathos,” not in the pejorative sense) the victims are seen to be, the more effective they are as a means toward the end goal…
And then there's this blog written by a woman who says her name is Jennifer. Let's see what's in her head. For starters, there's this: 
"So I ask you, Joan. Where’s the candle for Lydia?That’s right, there’s no room for her in your vigil.  You would have all of us at the   mercy of the stronger, more powerful, violent Travis Forbes of the world. Her life is worth defending. She needed an equalizer.  Her fingernails weren’t enough.But you love victims so much you wish there were more of them. You want to parade them out to prop up your agenda rather than even attempt to find a solution to the problem of violence. "
So Jennifer thinks no one would light a candle for Lydia? Who says? Why didn't Jennifer come to one of our vigils and light a candle for Lydia? Because she would rather attack the vigils which were in honor and memory of shooting victims. So, Jennifer-sorry you missed our vigils. We would welcome you. But on Jennifer's blog come these comments: 
  • a girl and her gun says this: " That is more powerful than anything Joan or the likes of her could ever say.You are the one I admire. The one who fights for the victims and for the fight against violence. I am immensely thankful I am getting to get to know you. Also, Joan is stupid."
  • from Dirt Crashr ( offensive language)- " Joan is beyond stupid – she’s an assclown-monkey who flings poo upon herself."
  • from Robert Slaughter-"One big difference — Lydia forgave her attacker, and Joan is still caught in anger (third stage of grief) with her brother-in-law. AGanhG said: “Also, Joan is stupid.” I don’t think so — I think she is trapped in a constantly-repeating mental loop she will not let go of. See above.
So there you have it dear readers. These are the people who read my blog and then go and comment on other people's blogs. These are the people who the NRA represents. These are the people who think they can threaten, demean, name-call, abuse, belittle, and mock. During and after the candlelight vigils  to honor victims of gun violence, the gun rights extremists ramped up their rhetoric. Victims make them nervous. They don't like victims. They say we are "dancing in the blood of victims" when we light candles and ring bells. What's that all about anyway? It's a statement made often. What these folks don't see is that their rigid resistance to any common sense gun laws that might actually prevent some of the shootings in this country results in more victims. Do they want more shooting victims? It's odd that they don't see how failure to do something has resulted in more victims. And then, cynically, they try to find their own victims. The truth is that there are too many victims and they know it. So to the pro gun bloggers who find it amusing to mock victims and survivors of gun violence, your words are here for all to see and they aren't pretty. They portray a group of people who seem to believe that anything can be written with no consequences. Their voices represent a few loud, obnoxious and offensive people who are attempting to influence public policy in our country. Shame on anyone for listening to the voices of these people. We should all be offended. 


And one last thing- I wonder how the bloggers and the people who comment on them would like to see things like this said about them in public? It's something to consider before posting offensive things about another person. Do people like this think they can say anything on the internet? Do they know the person on the other end of the offensive and rude comment are humans with feelings and families and friends who fear for them when they see stuff like this? There's the thing about "turning the other cheek" and there's the thing about "doing unto your neighbors". Those are things I learned in my church and practice every day. I also wonder if these folks have mothers, sisters, children, brothers who see what they write and what they would think about their father, brother, son or daughter writing such vile things on the internet for all to see. At least I know that my integrity is in tact because I don't choose to deploy tactics such as these. No comments will be published from pro gun activists on this post. 




Posted by japete at 3:17 PM
Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
vention, Open Carry, gun violence victims, Memorials to gun violence victims, NRA, pro gun bloggers, rude and offensive comments

18 comments:

  1. UnknownJanuary 14, 2012 at 6:12 PM

    Joan,
    My candle was for Lydia and women like her. Jennifer is my real name, the one on my birth certificate. My parents wanted it to be normal since there's weren't. My grandfather was an immigrant from the Philippines.
    I know you won't publish this. That's fine. It's your space. But I give you my word that I won't censor you on my blog. And I do plan to publish my comment on my blog. Probably repeatedly.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
      Reply
  2. japeteJanuary 14, 2012 at 6:24 PM

    I have made an exception since Jennifer appears to want to stop the crude and ugly stuff. Thank you Jennifer. Let's hope others can follow your lead. Enough now.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
      Reply
  3. Baldr OdinsonJanuary 14, 2012 at 6:36 PM

    I hear you, japete. I blogged on the vigil we had in Eugene, Oregon. It was a very touching ceremony, particularly given the emotions of the families of victims who were present and taking part. If our vigils were "dancing in the blood of victims", then why would victim families (including a family that took care of the local gun club) be taking part? I posted pictures at my blog post:
    http://newtrajectory.blogspot.com/2012/01/too-many-victims-candlelight-vigils.html

    But the pro-gun extremists, feeling cornered by the attention that shootings and victims are getting from this nationwide event, are lashing out now with profane and horrible responses. The deaths of innocents are inconvenient to their "more guns in more places" argument.

    One extremist is attempting to spread my personal information to his extremist buddies. Another took a picture of me holding a candle and wrote a blog post, with the picture, saying that I was a cult leader with "Million Mom Sacrifice" and comparing it to a picture of a satanic ritual. Others have engaged in blatant name-calling, as if they were still 10 years old. These bullies have no shame, and they exhibit it daily. Instead of finding solutions to the violence with us, they instead glorify violence in their fantasies of self-defense and sneer at our attempts for peace.

    According to every poll I've seen, moderate gun owners, including NRA members, agree with most of our solutions. They need to speak up and stop letting the extremists dominate the discussion.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. BorepatchJanuary 15, 2012 at 1:11 AM

      Baldr, I'm not quite sure that I agree that moderate gun owners agree with most of your policies. I do think that most of us agree with your *motives* - I think that everyone wants to see a reduction in gun violence.

      There is a wide gap on the policies, though. Perhaps I'm more tuned in to this than many, as I'm not only a new gun owner, but my wife has (surprisingly to me) also become one. She sees gun rights - by responsible people - as women's rights, which is what attracted her. I'd extend that to gun rights are Gay rights - the gay man walking down the street at night shouldn't have to fear the car full of yahoos with baseball bats.

      Thirty or forty years ago, gun rights were Black rights, at least in the South. The "Deacons For Defense" decided that they were tired of the KKK and the yahoos keeping them "in their place" via a monopoly of violence.

      I think that we can agree that none of these groups - Blacks, Gays, and Women - are responsible for a wave of gun deaths. I think we can all agree that these are citizens who are part of what we hope is the social order. I actually see myself as part of that.

      If there's a way to bridge the divide between the two sides of this debate, I believe that this is the key problem. There is a problem - as everyone admits - with unlawful gun violence, often by felons and domestic abusers who are already prohibited persons. I don't know anyone on the "pro gun" (for the lack of a better term) who thinks of these people as anything but lowlife scum.

      But my wife isn't one of them. Her gay friend isn't one of them. I'm not one of them. I think that there is indeed common ground, but it requires looking at the person, not the tool. As long as it's "gun violence" instead of "violence against women" or "violence against gays" or just plain "violence", a lot of people will suspect that the policy will inconvenience them without stopping the violence. That's the great divide, as you know.

      Offered in the spirit of reaching out for discussion without name calling. Joan, I'm very interested to see if this makes it past your moderation.

      Delete
      Replies
        Reply
    2. Brad K.January 16, 2012 at 2:12 PM

      Baldr,

      Aside from societal control of minorities, gun control that "inconveniences" law-abiding citizens threatens something else. National security.

      I have read that at the beginning of WWII Japan considered a direct attack on our West coast, and decided against -- mostly on the reputation of Americans for being armed. That is a case where no one believed the nation was at risk, that there was no time to prepare for something that didn't happen, and that armed deterrence did in fact preserve countless lives.

      As for "inconvenience", we have South Africa's example of using registrations for firearms and firearm owners to track down and disarm selected populations. As the above attack from Japan that didn't happen, once it does it would be too late. That is one reason I am appalled that Sec'y State Clinton has been active in the UN proposition to disarm civilians regardless of Constitutional protections; the NICS background checks that have amassed a national database of firearms and owners. And there has never been a database at the Federal level that hasn't been compromised, lost, stolen, or misused. That is before hackers. The ATF illegal transport of guns that lead to deaths in Mexico and of a US agent shows, clearly, that some are willing to go to extralegal and extraordinary means to enforce their own agenda. The only way to "protect" a comprehensive list of gun owners, for the security of communities as well as the nation, is to not allow it to be gathered in the first place.

      As for victims of gun violence, such as at the shopping mall in Nebraska, the shooters at college campuses, and other mass shootings -- the presence of "guns not allowed" policies seems to create the situation as much as the gunman. I could wish that more people had been armed last year in Tuscon, so that fewer victims would have needed to die before the shooting stopped.

      I understand your vigil centers on victims of gun violence. Blessed be to you and all you hold dear. There are other ways that what you propose; FBI reports show that over the last ten years, communities that have required all homeowners to own and possess a firearm, and states that have broadened concealed carry and open carry practices, have each seen reductions in all forms of violence. That, to me, relates *responsible* gun ownership means fewer victims, even of accidental shootings.

      (Well, darn. I wanted to close with "Take care" or "Luck!", but I don't want to sound like anything but respectful and wishing you all the blessings there are.)

      Delete
      Replies
        Reply
    3. japeteJanuary 16, 2012 at 2:35 PM

      Well Brad, it is simply not true that communities that "require" people to own guns have fewer crimes nor is it true that in states where more people carry or own guns, there are fewer gun deaths. It is, in fact ,the opposite. The idea of imposing gun ownership on home owners is so repugnant that I can't even go there. For people who hate the government and government interference, as so many of you claim to do, it's hard for me to to believe that you support any such thing. As for Japan- that is nonsense, of course. Provide me with a link to an actual article saying that the Japanese did not attack because Americans owned guns. They attacked Pearl Harbor by air. it didn't matter if anyone on the ships or homes had guns or not. That is a ludicrous assumption. THere is no UN resolution to disarm citizens- that is a lie. But I know you guys love to believe it. I could not disagree with you more on almost every point you made. But Bless you for trying to make them.

      Delete
      Replies
        Reply
    4. Kid ShootingsJanuary 16, 2012 at 10:15 PM

      @ Borepatch: After your last post about me on your blog, wherein you repeatedly use foul language to describe me, and try to bully me into a juvenile contest with you, please forgive me if I don't take you seriously when you say, "Offered in the spirit of reaching out for discussion without name calling."

      In any case, the right to own a gun for self defense is hardly comparable to the civil rights movement for African-Americans, Women's rights, or gay rights. American culture is generally very pro-gun, so I don't think you have anything to worry about there. No one, in the modern century, is denying gun sales based on sex, race, or sexual preference. Coming from a mixed-race family, and having close friends who are gay/lesbian, I am particularly sensitive to such silly comparisons. Your comparison is specious. It's nothing more than a justification used to hide a more extremist agenda.

      Delete
      Replies
        Reply
    5. Reply
  4. japeteJanuary 15, 2012 at 7:56 AM

    Not one of the bloggers for gun violence prevention believe that the groups you mention are the problem. We do recognize, however, that there are law abiding people who own guns and carry guns who, in the heat of a moment, use their guns anyway to injure or kill someone. The ease with which guns are thought of as only "tools" by many on the side of gun rights while failing to realize how often that "tool" is used by children in accidental shootings, in suicides, in domestic disputes ( as in my sister's case) by that "tool" that was purchased by someone who thought it was there for their protection or just because they like to own guns, is our problem. We live in America where gun deaths and injuries are many many times higher than in any other industrialized country. Americans own more guns than most other countries. But in countries where gun ownership is high, like in Canada or some of the Scandinavian countries, there is recognition that laws should be strict to keep people from shooting each other. It sends a message to the public that public safety is more important than anything else. We may differ on how that happens but that is what I am about.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. BorepatchJanuary 15, 2012 at 11:19 AM

      Joan, thanks for the thoughtful reply. I agree that the core motivation is the same. My family had a suicide attempt (fortunately unsuccessful). I didn't get a gun until that whole situation was entirely addressed. A gun would have made that attempt final.

      I think where we diverge from this common motivation is in the analysis of the policies we've seen over the last 30 years or so. My background is in engineering and economics, and so cost-benefit analysis is a regular tool of my trade.

      I don't think that any on my side disagrees that restricting access to guns has benefits - your arguments are correct there. However, there is a cost side, too - one that IMO is not measured well in the Justice Department crime statistics but which we can intuit.

      For example, a woman with an abusive ex-husband gets a restraining order. Laws in many states (I used to live in Massachusetts) make it hard for her to get a gun to protect herself from him.

      I think that the turning point for my wife was when she met a woman gun owner and asked her how she'd gotten into the whole gun nut thing. The woman replied that she'd been violently raped, and it wasn't going to happen again. It made a big impression with my wife.

      The question for all of us, I guess, is what's the balance. Certainly nobody objects to keeping guns away from children, or violent felons, of the mentally ill. But law is a blunt instrument, and the key to successful (effective) policy is a well thought out understanding of both the benefits and the costs.

      My $0.02, anyway.

      Like I said, thanks for your thoughtful answer. We need less talking past each other.

      Delete
      Replies
        Reply
    2. Reply
  5. japeteJanuary 15, 2012 at 1:39 PM

    Since a few of you mentioned gun laws in other countries- here is a synopsis of Canadian gun laws- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Canada A great model for the U.S. Check out the low crime rate and low incidence of gun injuries and deaths. Yes, laws matter. Culture also matters. We need to change both in my view. Canada ranks 13th in gun ownership behind some countries at war and Scandinavian countries and Switzerland who have strict gun laws and a different gun culture. They also have low rates of gun deaths and injuries. I believe there is a pattern here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_gun_ownership

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
      Reply
  6. JamesJanuary 15, 2012 at 2:30 PM

    Canada is a poor model. Remember, Americans have the right to use a firearm in self-defense as per recent SCOTUS rulings. According to the Wikipedia link you posted "The Firearms Act of 1995 and the Criminal Code of Canada provide limited recognition for self-defence as a reason to acquire or possess a firearm in Canada." Limited recognition being the operative term here.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AlanJanuary 15, 2012 at 5:06 PM

      James's reply offers no insight into whether Canada is a poor model or not. Given its low rates of gun violence, my intuition is that it would be a good model. Merely the use of the terms "limited recognition" does not make it a poor model. Where is the quote from, James? I'd like to see for myself what the terms mean.

      Further, given the kind of discourse that jpete describes in this post, it seems unlikely that 2A ideologues would find a good model in any other civilized country on earth.

      Delete
      Replies
        Reply
    2. Reply
  7. japeteJanuary 15, 2012 at 3:04 PM

    That does not mean that we can't have reasonable restrictions.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. abnormalistJanuary 17, 2012 at 10:13 AM

      Japete,

      Can I ask what you consider reasonable restrictions?
      Do they do things to actually keep firearms out of the hands of felons and the mentally/emotionally impaired?

      I don't think many of the Gun Rights Groups have much against such restrictions if they don't impede honest law abiding citizens as well. The problem we have, is almost a knee-jerk reaction to gun control laws, where historically they haven't proven effective, and at this point we feel the model is flawed.

      The real problem we have with gun laws, gun free zones, and other restrictions, is they require the individual to follow and respect them. Right thinking law abiding citizens follow the law. We don't steal, we don't rape, we don't murder. We don't buy firearms that are forbidden in our area. In short and being repetitive, we follow the law. A person who is planning on stealing, raping, murdering, etc, is already planning on breaking the law. Big, serious, important laws. Breaking a small law to them, such as buying a gun illegally is a non issue.

      How would the reasonable restrictions you propose change this? How would they not impact those of us who enjoy shooting, hunting, or would like to have a weapon to defend ourselves and our families?

      Mind you, I'm honestly interested, I'm not trying to mock, belittle, or anything else.

      Delete
      Replies
        Reply
    2. Reply
  8. JamesJanuary 15, 2012 at 4:49 PM

    Well, when you can define "reasonable" in terms that will do more to affect criminals than the law abiding I'll be all ears. If I thought Canada's or Switzerland's, or Italy's or England's gun laws were truly reasonable then I would have spent many more years in Europe than I did. I believe that the right for a person to defend themselves and property to be a fundamental human right. Ireland seems to have waken up and realized that, again.

    http://www.irishcentral.com/news/Irish-homeowners-now-have-legal-right-to-shoot-intruders-in-their-homes-137373588.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. japeteJanuary 15, 2012 at 5:30 PM

      Hmmmm. And yet- http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/cp/ireland

      " Ireland has some of the least permissive firearm legislation in Europe. In order to possess a limited range of hunting and sport-shooting firearms,1 gun owners must renew their firearm certificates every three years.2 3 Although small arms-related death, injury and crime remain relatively low, rising rates of gun violence and firearm ownership in the Republic ― in particular the possession and misuse of handguns ― have become sources of national concern.4 In 2009, the private possession of handguns was curtailed. Licensing of all pistols and revolvers using centrefire ammunition was capped through 'grandfathering,' with new licences restricted to a limited range of small-calibre .22 rimfire handguns and .177 air pistols.3 5 The possession and use of realistic imitation firearms in a public place is prohibited.6 7 Ireland is an active supporter of the United Nations process to reduce gun injury (UNPoA).8"
      " With a confirmed firearm possession rate of 5.6 private guns per 100 population,19 civilian gun ownership in Ireland has yet to reach one-third the rate of 17.4 firearms per 100 people calculated across 15 countries of the European Union.20 In a 2007 UN survey, 12.4 per cent of Irish respondents reported that they, or someone else in their household owned a firearm or an air rifle.21"

      Delete
      Replies
        Reply
    2. AlanJanuary 15, 2012 at 10:27 PM

      Good info, japete. Also, I followed James's link and found a description of the incident that triggered the change in Irish law:

      "The change in law follows major national debate in the case of traveller John Ward, who was shot dead while trespassing on the Mayo property of farmer Padraig Nally in October 2004."

      I do wonder about the description of Ward as merely a "traveller". He was a thief and had assaulted people and likely had previously been stealing from Nally.

      The comment section on this article, nevertheless, contains the predictable barbaric ones along the lines of:

      "Come into my home uninvited I will kill you.END OF STORY.WHAT IS THE PROBLEM.DO NOT COME INTO MY HOME."

      Also, almost as predictably, a commenter said there were extenuating circumstances in this case. Extenuating circumstances sort of require that we not adopt the first impulse that comes over us when we're confronted by other people.

      "John ‘Frog’ Ward was NOT shot dead while trespassing in the property. He was shot, but was able to escape to the adjacent roadway. He was retreating down the road when he was again shot, in the back, and killed. It was argued that as he was no longer a threat, he was in fact executed. As a traveller with a long criminal record, there was little sympathy for him in the area. There are a number of uncomfortable ‘what ifs’ to think about with this policy. What if the ‘intruder’ was a plain-clothed cop, and the ‘householder’ was a major drug dealer, can he use this ruling as a defence? Kenneth Noye did use just such a defence in the UK, and was acquitted of killing a cop. Not the panacea it’s being portrayed as, imo…"

      Eerily similar to the case of that brave, presumably freedom-loving Joe Horn, no? But apparently, not everyone in Ireland has awakened to the fact that all intruders are eligible to be done instantly to death.

      Delete
      Replies
        Reply
    3. Reply
  9. japeteJanuary 16, 2012 at 12:16 PM

    Have a nice day, James. As always, you are beating a dead horse.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
      Reply
Add comment
Load more...

Newer Post Older Post Home
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Memorial Bell Garden for Minnesota victims of gun violence

Memorial Bell Garden for Minnesota victims of gun violence
The bell tolls for lost lives

Blog Archive

My Blog List

  • Walmart Shootings
    Walmart halts sales of handgun ammo, handguns, and open carry
    1 year ago
  • New Trajectory
    Music: Somewhere In America by The Alternate Routes
    1 year ago
  • Ohh Shoot
    Woman laying in bed shot in head when bullet comes through row house wall
    2 years ago
  • Armed With Reason
    A Lott of Lies about guns in the New York Times
    2 years ago
  • Mikeb302000
    Blog Status
    4 years ago
  • Kid Shootings
    3 year old Missouri girl killed in accidental shooting
    6 years ago

Popular Posts

  • Can guns "go off" without someone pulling the trigger?
    In my blog post that has stirred up the "gun guy" blogosphere, "Where there is an open mind...." , one of the questions ...
  • Gun laws in Greece
    I will be away from my blog for a few weeks because of a trip to Greece. My husband and I and another couple are traveling to mostly the...
  • On-line gun sales a problem
    I hope you are checking out my newer blogging site on Wordpress. I think you'll like the different format. I have been blogging there ...
  • " Where there is an open mind..."
    I saw this posted at the place where I exercise. "Where there is an open mind, there will always be a frontier". This is pretty ap...
  • Where are the victims?
    The NRA has the clout. Unfortunately, we have the victim/survivor stories. Should victims speak out about gun violence? Do they have any exp...
  • No we can't
    We simply can't do nothing about the daily toll of life from bullets. Particularly after the focus on what happened in Tucson has given ...

Follow by Email

Other sites of interest

  • A Law Abiding Citizen
  • Armed Road Rage
  • Brady Campaign to prevent gun violence
  • Campaign to Close the Gunshow Loophole
  • Coalition to Stop Gun Violence
  • Common sense for kids and guns
  • IANSA Women's Network
  • Kids and Guns ( brochure about safety in the home)
  • Legal Community Against Violence
  • Mayors Against Illegal Guns
  • Media Matters (gun facts)
  • Meet the NRA
  • My Inner Chick
  • NRA's safe gun use and storage information
  • Ohio Cease Fire
  • Protect Minnesota
  • States United to prevent gun violence
  • Students for gun free schools
  • Wisconsin Anti-Violence Effort
  • Women in Crime Ink

KEEP YOUR COMMENTS CIVIL PLEASE

Comments are allowed but are moderated for civility and decency. My blog is intended to change public opinion about the gun debate and all readers will not agree with me. No comments that demean, debase, attack, call names, or are generally impolite, rude and offensive will be published. In general, comments that are "snarky", mean, overly aggressive or harassing will not be published. Keep the language clean and respectful. Anonymous commenters are not allowed on this blog. Thanks to my readers for participating.

Search This Blog

Common Gunsense

Posts
Atom
Posts
Comments
Atom
Comments

Check out the Protect Minnesota Facebook Page

Protect Minnesota- preventing gun violence

Promote Your Page Too

Favorite books and movies about gun violence prevention and policy

  • "A Well Regulated Militia" by Saul Cornell
  • "America's Great Gun Game" by Earl E. McDowell
  • "American Gun"- movie about a shooting and how the gun was traced
  • "Balance of Power" by Richard North Patterson
  • "Beyond the Bullet" by Heidi Yewman
  • "Lethal Logic; Exploding the Myths That Parlalyze American Gun Policy" by Dennis Henigan
  • "Looking for a Few Good Moms" by Donna Dees-Thomases
  • "Nineteen Minutes" by Jodi Picoult
  • "Unintended Consequences" collected articles by the Violence Policy Center

Videos about gun shows and gun violence prevention

  • " The Good News", song by Sara Thomsen about a church shooting
  • Desription of a gun show from Ladd Everitt of Coalition to Stop Gun Violence
  • Do you need a background check to buy a gun? Ladd Everitt of Coalition to Stop Gun Violence
  • Gunshows- No Questions Asked
  • Jimmy Kimmel parodies Starbucks/Open Carry
  • Kids and Guns
  • NY City hidden camera video of gun shows
  • Rachel Maddow talks about April 19th gun rallies
  • The Young Turks talk about lawsuit against state of Texas by 18 year old
  • Video of Open Carry protesters in Wisconsin
  • Video of Seattle Starbucks press conference about Open Carry of guns
  • Video of Tracy Ullman at a gun show- satire
  • Virginia Tech shooting victim, Colin Goddard, tells his story and exposes gun show no background check sales

Translate

Total Pageviews

Travel theme. Powered by Blogger.