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

Wednesday, February 29, 2012

The silence from the NRA is deafening

As the 50 mph winds swirl the snow around outside of my windows, the world is a bit quieter today in my neck of the woods. There is no school and even the Universities have closed down- a rare event. Cars are not moving much. So even though the wind is noisy outside, inside my house it feels quiet and when it's over the snow will blanket the ground. In the last few days many bloggers, media outlets, tweets, radio programs, etc. have commented about the Ohio school shooting have been noisy and at the same time disquieting. I have found some amazing articles and also found that the conversation is turning a lot to "gun control" after the school shooting. Most are wondering how yet another school shooting has occurred and wondering also why we put up with these regular events of violence and terrorism against our children? Good questions all.

What do the gun rights extremists and the NRA have to say about the pain now suffered by the family and friends of the 3 young people who died because of a senseless shooting? We don't know about the injured yet and the future they face. We do know that Daniel Parmeter does not have a future and his parents' future is the pain of their memories of a child who will not go to college, get a job or do the things parents think their children will do in adulthood. From the words of his parents in a T.V. interview:
"I have think about going to a funeral home, picking out a casket. What is that, picking out a casket for your son? We're supposed to go and pick out colleges and supposed to go visit Ohio State next month. I'm mad now. I'm mad," Dina said.
"I know my life will never be the same again. I will get better, but right now, I'll never be, there will always (be) something missing," Bob said.
Danny's parents say they want their son to be remembered as "a funny, loveable kid who would help you with anything."
"He was 16 years old. He doesn't get to live his life. It was taken. He didn't do anything to anybody. He just didn't deserve it," Dina said.
Instead we have pro gun guys mocking victims and mocking victim vigils. They mock candle lightings and bell ringings. Why? Because vigils and remembering victims make them uncomfortable. This one is particularly offensive:
" A dead child is a small price to pay to protect our 2nd A rights to stop unjust laws and keep out forgeign invaders!"
Yes, dear readers. It's true. This comment exposes a sick underbelly of American gun rights advocates whose loud voices have managed to shape our country's gun laws. We have actual victims and this is the reaction? It belies the fact that of all industrialized countries not at war, we are doing little to make sure guns and their owners are regulated better. But never mind any of that. This comment from the linked blog above, refers to a man who sent me a video link which I chose not to publish because it was so inane and irrelevant. I did, though, share it with others in the gun violence prevention movement who are working to expose this culture. From the blog ( about the comment to me):
Finally, Joan received the following comment from a pro-gun activist Dan Roberts (AKA "Son of the Revolution") at her blog "Common Gunsense." Roberts was responding to a blog Joan posted reagarding the shooting at Chardon High School, in which she wrote, "We can pass more gun laws and we should. Making parents responsible for children getting their hands on guns would help. 28 states have some form of Child Access Prevention laws. Laws requiring mandatory reporting of lost and stolen guns may stop gun owners from being careless with their guns. Safely storing guns should be of utmost importance to keep guns away from the hands of children and teens as well as theft. Guns in the hands of children must first pass through the hands of an adult." Roberts saw this as an opportunity to boast about his six-year-old daughter's proficiency with a bow and gun.
You can see the video and read more about what the gun guys had to say after the Ohio shooting and recent victim events on the blog above. The thing is, people become victims of gunshot injuries in the instant it takes to pull a gun's trigger. And then, suddenly, a real human being is a number. The numbers show that America's rate of gun deaths per 100,000 far exceeds that of other industrialized countries not at war. Do we want to live in a country that tolerates a certain number of victims as collateral damage in order for the gun guys to keep all the guns they want and claim, falsely, that their rights are being infringed? If so, shame on us for letting this happen. Shame on us for allowing  pro gun extremists to keep us from doing the right thing and protecting our children from being safe in their schools. The answer is not to arm teachers or school employees. Teachers are busy keeping the kids safe once the shooting begins as they put their lock down plans in place. Some of the gun rights extremists have suggested arming cafeteria workers. Right. Ask them how that would work out in the real world instead of their fantasy world.

On this blog, the usual commenters are staying away and remaining quiet except for "son of the revolution" who sent me the above linked video. What can they say? They can claim nothing could have been done to stop this shooting or all of the other school shootings in America. They can claim that if only a teacher or someone had a gun, this would not have happened. They are wrong. Or maybe they know that most guns used in school shootings come from the home of a family member or friend of the shooter. That upends the idea that more guns make us safer. From this article about the alleged source of the gun in the Ohio shooting and where school shooters get their guns comes a partial list of school shootings and gun sources. This one from a Minnesota school shooting caught my eye:
March 21, 2005: With his own .22-caliber handgun, and his grandfather's Glock handgun and 12-gauge shotgun, Jeff Weise, 16, shot and killed his grandfather, a policeman and his grandfather's girlfriend at their home, then went to his high school, also on the Red Lake Indian Reservation in northern Minnesota, and fatally shot eight people, including himself.
An earlier(2003) school shooting in Minnesota, in Cold Springs/Rocori High School, also was the result of a teen taking his father's gun from his own home (father was a Sheriff's deputy) , resulting in 2 dead teens and a young man sitting in prison. We should be making guns less accessible to kids, not more accessible. Adults must be more responsible with their own guns if they have them. What happened to the responsibility part of the second amendment? Most rights come with responsibilities. In our current gun culture, the cavalier and careless way with which some adults treat guns in the home and their gun rights, for that matter, needs to change. Changing laws and changing our culture is the answer- not more guns or easy access to guns.

This blog by "spocko" caught my attention because it put into writing all of the things I have been experiencing and noticing about the gun rights extremists. From the article:
This preemptive rush to deny people a chance to talk about making changes is an acknowledgement that this event is their most vulnerable time.  They know that when emotions run high is exactly the time when change can take place. They also know that the media won’t do anything beyond their standard, “views differ on the shape of the world and the truth lies somewhere in the middle” stories.
The Guns Everywhere folks are still smarting from the time Ronald Reagan and James Brady were shot and some changes were actually made.  But they have learned their lesson. No gun show loophole laws in Arizona were closed after the Gabby Gifford shooting.  
(...) I’ve suggested before that following yet another tragic shooting I wanted to bring together on TV/video the people who want to bring guns everywhere with victims of gun violence.   I don’t want the trained professionals of the NRA to have a discussion with some random “anti-gunner.” I want to get the people populating the comments section of local and national media to talk to someone who can personally explain how cruel or ridiculous their ideas are based on personal experience.
And then the writer of this piece sets up a fictional scenario where this happens. A gun rights extremist gets together with the wife of one of the police officers shot in the ambush in a Tacoma, WA coffee shop. Here is how he sets a scene that turns this whole argument into the practical real life of every day shootings and not the fantasy world of the gun nuts:
Following our discussion we will be going to a local school where, for the next two weeks, you will be taped teaching while waiting to see if someone may or may not surprise you and shoot you. The shooter may or may not be one of the students in your classroom.
If you fail the test, your job for the rest of your life is to convince people who thought just like you how ridiculous your fantasy is. You agree to set up these same kind of trainings to disabuse others of your dangerous fantasy.
If you win, and successfully shoot the shooter before they can shoot you and others — and don’t accidentally shoot a innocent student — you can spend the rest of your life implementing your current fantasy, which you are already doing. Now you will have proof.
Will you accept this challenge?
And speaking of the real life fantasy world, in the midst of the news about yet another school shooting, states are taking up laws to loosen our gun laws instead of strengthening them. For instance, in the state of Virginia, Governor McDonnell signed the bill to repeal the one handgun a month law. On the day after the Ohio school shooting with heightened awareness about guns and shootings, the Governor decided it was in the best interest of residents of his state to let them all buy more guns. 66% of Virginians were opposed to the bill. But whatever. The NRA knows better about public safety in the state where the worst school shooting in our country's history took place- that being the shooting at Virginia Tech. Victims and survivors of the Virginia Tech shooting met with the Governor to ask him not to sign the bill. Never mind victims. Who are they anyway compared to the influence of the NRA and the minority of gun owners who simply must be able to buy more than one gun a month for some inexplicable reason? The second amendment does not protect the number of guns that can be purchased. Insanity reigns. They go too far. We are not going away.Where is common sense?

The Minnesota Senate and House have also passed a bill that will allow people with guns to shoot others under the subjective presumption that someone could do them bodily harm. It has not been signed into law by Governor Mark Dayton yet. According to the Protect Minnesota (working to end gun violence) organization:
" It eliminates the rule of retreat in all locations -- which is the guide in current law that makes killing a last resort, only when necessary. Without the rule of retreat in public places, this is "Shoot First, Ask Questions Later." People can already defend themselves and their families in their homes, without any rule of retreat. This bill expands the home to include the yard, cars, tents, boats, driveways. People can already defend themselves in these locations; this bill radically changes what is justifiable. It creates a legal presumption that anyone who has tried to enter the yard, for example, intends harm and can be shot. This endangers teenagers and neighbors who enter people's yards, or disoriented people going to the wrong door. As pointed out by police chief David Kolb, a minor entering a yard by stealth to steal apples could be shot to death. Police officers pointed out that they enter yards by force or stealth often, as part of their work, and that this bill endangers them. All of the major law enforcement organizations in Minnesota oppose the bill. Police testified that it makes the prosecution of murder nearly impossible."
Further on the day after this horrendous shooting just one state away, this pro gun rights extremist just had to rub someone's face in the fact that he has rights to carry his gun wherever he goes- even in the voting booth in a Michigan school, of all places. He was wrong, of course. Shame on him for flaunting his gun in a school and being a show-off with his gun. If he thought this was cute or daring or whatever, he is sadly mistaken. It's time for these folks to stop this junk. People do not want guns in schools. The extremists think they can do anything they want. Never mind common sense or the law. These are the things that should turn people away from the NRA and its' minions.

Each of the articles or news stories has questioned why in the world our country should tolerate regular school shootings? It's not time for those of us who believe in common sense to be quiet. It's time for some noise. This woman decided not to be quiet:
What has happened to our world that I find myself methodically explaining to my 9-year-old what to do in the event of gunshots at his school?
Like every parent everywhere, I tense up each time I hear of a school shooting, then exhale heavily, relieved that it didn’t happen in my kids’ school, in our school district, in our city.
Monday’s burst of gunfire in Chardon, Ohio, which left three high school students dead and two hurt, was just the latest grisly chapter in what has become an unnervingly commonplace occurrence: a disaffected child — in this case a student at a school for at-risk kids who was alternately described as a “bullied outcast” and a “very normal, just teenage boy“ — unleashes his frustration and aggression on his classmate.
I hate to leave you with this, but sometimes pictures speak volumes of words. Thus is this one of a gun rights activist. In light of the incidents of the last few days, it bears repeating that the gun rights extremists are just not into thinking about victims. It's all about them and their love of guns. For me, it's about love of life and wanting to keep children and our communities safe. Which picture do you like? An almost naked ugly and scary looking dude surrounded by his guns and gun paraphenalia in a provocative pose or children learning and playing in a safe school? I bet I know the answer.

42 comments:

  1. One more article- http://blogs.ajc.com/momania/2012/02/28/ohio-shooter-it-could-have-been-anyones-child/?cxntfid=blogs_momania

    ReplyDelete
  2. More updated figures for gun deaths per 100,000- Nov. 2011 http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-states

    The link I provided was from 2003. This should clear up a few things.

    ReplyDelete
  3. This link contains a brief quote from an NRA spokesperson and a more thoughtful statement from the Buckeye Firearms Association- http://news-herald.com/articles/2012/02/29/news/doc4f4e7cfcc4fff623522298.txt

    ReplyDelete
  4. The death of innocents is inconvenient to the "more guns = less crime" fantasy that the gun guys put forth. Projecting sympathy for victims and having any outrage for the ease with which shooters get their guns reflects too badly on their fetish and sounds too much like "gun control" to them. So the only ways they have left to respond is either with silence or with mocking.

    What's needed is for average people to stand up and proclaim that enough is enough, and to demand that our legislators pass reasonable reforms, such a mandated safe storage of guns in homes with children (which would have prevented the Ohio shooting, where the shooter got his gun from his grandfather's collection -- it would have made too much sense to remove the guns entirely from a home with a troubled, at-risk teen, but I digress...).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Baldr", not his real name, writes: "mandated safe storage of guns in homes with children (which would have prevented the Ohio shooting, where the shooter got his gun from his grandfather's collection -- it would have made too much sense to remove the guns entirely from a home with a troubled, at-risk teen, but I digress...)."

      There's no guarantee that a safe storage law would have prevented this from happening since there's no guarantee that the gun owner would have followed the law to begin with.

      In general, I don't have an issue with safe storage laws as long as they are written in a way that leaves the gun owner with the ability to quickly access and use the firearm in a defensive situation. My preference, though, is that the law be written in a way that holds the owner accountable if the firearm can be accessed by a child through negligence on the gun owners part - this is how the current Minnesota law is written.

      Delete
  5. You well know by now that my family was a victim of gun violence ( my great grandfather being murdered in his own home, and personally since I was robbed at gun point. I will accpet openly and publicly ANY challenge those on your side wish to lay down, and I have said it for years. I'll meet with and publicly debate ANY gun control activists, anywhere, anytime. I've challenged Bryan Miller (CeaseFire ) to that for years, which he has avoided. And I will absolutely accept the hypothetical " school shooting " scenario, as Im sure many, many others would. The problem is, your side lays down such challenges, and when people respond ready, willing and able, it never goes any further then that. Why ? Because your " challenges arent anything your side actually wants. To much of a chance someone might prove your wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Dan, thanks for responding. Your comment is simply hogwash. We don't debate with people who demean us, are offensive, rude, leave us sexually explicit remarks, accuse us of things we have not done or said, attack victims, etc. Lying about our motives just never works. Since the majority of Americans agree with us in polling after polling, we have been proven right time and time again. As long as there are shooting victims and innocent children are getting killed senselessly, we will be here to tell the truth and to make sure we raise awareness and raise the voices of sensible people who agree that we have too many victims.

    ReplyDelete
  7. "The silence from the NRA is deafening"

    The NRA is a national gun rights organization.

    This shooting is a local gun wrong individual act.

    Why should the former speak out about the latter? Do you expect a national car manufacturer's organization to speak out against some drunk driver in Ohio who killed some people?

    ReplyDelete
  8. The main reason we have so many safety features in our cars today is because car manufacturers were sued by people whose family members were killed or injured due to unsafe vehicles. It worked. We now have mandatory seat belts and seat belt laws, air bags, mandatory child car seats and other safety features. What a great thing. If that happened with guns, we would likely have more safe communities.
    Easy access to guns by kids is a serious problem in this country. There are too many guns in America and too many people who do not take their responsibilities to keep those guns away from people who shouldn't have them. It needs to be called out. The NRA is in part responsible for the fact that we have failed to pass sensible gun laws that could make guns harder to access by criminals, kids, domestic abusers and others who should not have them. The NRA hides behind rights to deflect talking about any responsibilities.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Further- more to "Patrick's" inane remarks- http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/46580398/ns/us_news-christian_science_monitor/t/why-gun-owner-ohio-school-shooting-wont-be-held-accountable/#.T0_2f3JWpu-

    ReplyDelete
  10. Georgia gun nut makes threats against legislator- http://savannahnow.com/news/2012-03-01/rep-ann-purcell-gets-death-threats-over-gun-bill#.T0_83XJWpu9

    I guess anything goes for some gun nuts. Don't mess with their perceived rights to do anything they want with their guns.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I try to take a moderate position:

    In response to this shooting, I would support a law if...

    I heard a convincing argument that it would have prevented this shooting, and...

    It did not unduly infringe upon the right to own guns for legitimate purposes.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Okay. Here's one, JayF: Ohio does not have a Child Access Protection law, requiring gun owners with children in the home to store their guns locked and unloaded. This has been shown in studies to significantly reduce child shootings, as well as reduce suicides in both teens and adults. It wouldn't restrict ownership of guns. The gun used by T.J. Lane, the shooter at Chardon, was stored unlocked by the grandfather (some reports said uncle), so a CAP law may have possibly stopped the shooting. Thoughts?

      Delete
    2. You're talking about this 17 year-old as if he is a child. This is a young adult whom the state trusted to operate a motor vehicle. This young man was intent on killing someone. Had he not had a firearm, he certainly could have used his car.

      Delete
    3. You can't be serious, Bill. In what alternate world do you live? Tell me how someone injures 2 and kills 3 with a car- on purpose. This was a troubled teen- not an adult by anyone's standards. Comments like yours only expose the nonsensical denial of the fact that kids and teens have easy access to guns and do indeed use them to kill themselves and others on an almost daily basis. If you guys have to admit it, you might actually have to do something about all of those loaded guns sitting around ready to shoot someone who you perceive to be a threat while the real threat is a child or teen will get their hands on a gun and do stupid and dangerous things. Are you a parent? Are or were your 17 year olds adults? NO. Denial of the fact that bullets from guns kill almost as many people every year as car accidents. And I do say ACCIDENTS. Cars are rarely, if at all, used in homicides.

      Delete
    4. You can't be serious, Bill. In what alternate world do you live? Tell me how someone injures 2 and kills 3 with a car- on purpose.
      Seriously? You don't think he could have just plowed his way across campus during a recess? Here, Here and Here are examples of people using an automobile to kill. Automobiles used to strike and kill people are rare indeed, but certainly a plausible alternative to shooting someone.

      This was a troubled teen- not an adult by anyone's standards
      But certainly not a child.

      a child or teen will get their hands on a gun
      Yes, like This child, This child and This child. I'm curious, will the gang banger get a candle?

      And I do say ACCIDENTS
      So it's ok for a 17 year old to accidentally kill someone with an automobile, but not accidentally kill someone with a firearm? (no, i'm not indicating that the school shooting was an accident).

      Cars are rarely, if at all, used in homicides.
      Examples above of cars used as a weapon. CDC indicates between 1999 and 2009 automobiles were intentionally used to kill an average of 480.5 people per year.

      Delete
    5. Good grief, Bill. Get a life. I didn't actually find any instances of someone mowing people down with a car in the links you sent. I did find this one though about another mass shooting in a nightclub in Arizona last night- http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/crime/two-in-critical-condition-after-nightclub-shooting-in-2214458.html

      thanks for that. Accidents? What the heck are you talking about? Who said it was O.K.? Not me. Car accidents happen all the time. That is why we have put in so many safety features and why teen-agers can only drive with one other person in the car and have to be off the roads by 10:00 or so in my state. We know that a teen behind the wheel lacks the same judgement as an adult. We know that they are distractible and that their brains are not developed to the point of thinking through consequences in the same way as adults do. Same is true with teens and guns. They shouldn't have them, period. They don't need them and they shouldn't be able to get their hands on them. Adults need to take more responsibilities. If they are hunters, fine. Go hunting with your kids and teach them gun safety. But if you have a troubled teen at home, for goodness sake, do not let them get their hands on loaded guns. It's a bad idea. Guns are used on average to kil people in homicides over 10,000 times a year. 30,000 a year total are killed by guns. From Wikipedia re: vehicular homicide- " In the Model Penal Code there is no separate category of vehicular homicide, and vehicular homicides that involve negligence. Both are included in the overall category of negligent homicide." You have no citation for your source about people killed in vehicular homicide so I tend to doubt you are right. I did find this one though in searching- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rampage_killers
      I found 7 cases in the U.S of vehicular manslaughter from 1980- 2010 in the charts. From those,most killed only 1 person. One was listed as having killed 7 people. If you check out the school shootings you will find the numbers to be much much higher.Some vehicular homicide is from drunk driving which, in many cases, was not done intentionally to kill people but irresponsible driving while drinking killed people in the resulting accident. That is why MADD formed. We now have stricter laws regarding DUIs and legal limits for alcohol in the blood while driving. People use designated drivers or don't drive. I have had this discussion before on this blog with you gun nuts. You are in denial over the fact that guns actually kill a whole lot of people in this country and you are uninterested in doing anything about it. I am blogging about gun deaths and injuries and trying to prevent them. If you are not interested in that, go leave your insidious comments on some other blog or blog yourself about vehicular homicides. I'm sure you'll have a huge readership.

      Delete
    6. I didn't actually find any instances of someone mowing people down with a car in the links you sent.

      My sincere apologies, Here are the references without markup

      http://www.kentucky.com/2012/02/27/2086395/nj-man-pleads-not-guilty-to-running.html

      http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2011/11/22/20111122arizona-man-fatally-runs-over-daughters-boyfriend-police-say.html

      http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/crime/man-charged-with-murder-after-running-over-guests-572673.html

      Car accidents happen all the time.
      and yet you are so nonchalant about that.

      Same is true with teens and guns. They shouldn't have them, period.
      I don't understand the logic. It's ok for a teen to operate a motor vehicle but not a firearm even though cars kill more than firearms?
      You have no citation for your source about people killed in vehicular homicide

      I'm sure I mentioned it was the CDC, yep, I just checked.

      1999 - 2009, United States Homicide Transport Deaths 3,586
      The number in my first comment included suicides as well, this number is strictly homicides and does not include unintentional deaths (such as drunk driving accidents). I don't usually use wiki for my primary source of information.

      You are in denial over the fact that guns actually kill a whole lot of people in this country

      Not at all. I'm fully aware that in 2010 we had 12,996 murders. I'm also aware that of those 12,996, 67.5% (8,772)were committed with a firearm.

      Delete
  12. "What a great thing. If that happened with guns, we would likely have more safe communities. "

    It already has happened. That's why guns without manual safeties still have three or more safeties.

    "Easy access to guns by kids is a serious problem in this country."

    There are many kids with easy access to guns who never pose a problem. I think the problem is too many kids aren't raised properly. How many farm kids have gone on a school shooting even though they have rifles at home, in the family truck, etc? I do believe the answer is zero.

    "There are too many guns in America and too many people who do not take their responsibilities to keep those guns away from people who shouldn't have them. "

    Well, I'm doing my part by acquiring as many guns as I can to keep them off the streets.

    "The NRA hides behind rights to deflect talking about any responsibilities."

    We aren't responsible for the criminal actions of other people. They are. That's why they get arrested and we don't.

    "Further- more to "Patrick's" inane remarks- "

    The kid stole a gun. He's a criminal, a low life, a mass murderer. And we should blame one of his victims? No thanks, I don't play that game.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "I think the problem is too many kids aren't raised properly."

      I can't tell you the number of shootings I've seen where kids who grew up hunting or target shooting had nonetheless shot themselves or others, either unintentionally or intentionally.

      There was one in the first week of January, here in Eugene, where a boy shot his older brother to death unintentionally. They LIVED on the grounds of the Emerald Empire gun club, and their family tended the club. He grew up with guns as a primary focus of his family. Yet still it happened.
      http://kidshootings.blogspot.com/2012/01/boy-living-at-gun-club-accidentally_10.html

      Delete
  13. I published Patrick's comments to point out why we have so many differences and why a reasonable debate is just not possible with some people. I do thank Jay for his more reasoned and reasonable response.

    ReplyDelete
  14. "Police officers pointed out that they enter yards by force or stealth often, as part of their work..."

    So do criminals. Perhaps police officers should stop acting like criminals.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Your hate of law enforcement is showing.

    ReplyDelete
  16. "store their guns locked and unloaded"

    Didn't the Supreme Court, in deciding Heller, criticize DC's storage law as being over-restrictive of the right to access a firearms for self defense (a legitimate purpose)?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Find the language, Jay. And so what? Is it a good idea? Every day kids get their hands on guns that are not stored or left unloaded. Is that O.K. with you?

      Delete
  17. I am not OK with a remedy that would be over-restrictive of the right to access a firearm for self defense (a legitimate purpose of firearms ownership).

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

    (3) The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hello Jay? Handgun bans are not in the mix for discussion. That was taken off the table by the Supreme Court in 2008. So why do you keep bringing it up? Did you guys forget that we have moved on from any talk like that which my side has really not been talking about anyway. You guys just have to have a demon. If someone wants to leave their loaded gun around in the house for their kids to get their hands on, that is up to them. Just hope it won't end up being used in a school shooting or to shoot a sibling or to shoot him or herself which happens fairly frequently. With rights come responsibilities. I hope you will be responsible. Trigger locks make a lot of common sense but you guys don't seem to believe in common sense.

      Delete
    2. japete writes:
      "Trigger locks make a lot of common sense but you guys don't seem to believe in common sense."

      I'm all for securing firearms when there are children or others present that shouldn't come into contact with a firearm. As a NRA Certified Instructor, however, I would not recommend a trigger lock - too much potential for pulling the trigger while trying to engage or disengage the lock. That opens up the possibility of a negligent discharge if the firearm happens to be loaded.

      Locks that have a secure cord that goes up through barrel and the magazine well and keep the firearm from being loaded are just as effective and much safer. Even better is a gun safe or enclosed storage device - many of which can be secured to a bed, nightstand, dry wall, etc, leaving the firearm available for use in a defensive situation through digital locks, and so on.

      Delete
  18. I want to be open-minded -- if there is a safer way of keeping a gun for self-defense, I would like to consider it.

    However, I am concerned that "locked and unloaded" may not meet reasonable criteria for having a gun available for self-defense in a timely manner.

    GVP folks have often assured gunowners that they do not wish to disallow the right of self-defense by gun (despite praise for some other countries who do just that).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jay- since we come from 2 entirely world views, I just don't get the idea that you fear something is about to happen to you at any moment so you need a loaded gun around you just in case. I've lived all of my life without thinking that way and the only thing that has happened is that a loaded gun sitting around in the home of my brother-in-law was used in a moment of anger and passion and he killed my sister with it. That's what I think of loaded guns sitting around available all the time. The chances of your having to use that gun are slim to none. The chances that it will be used in the heat of the moment or will be stolen or will be used by a curious kid are greater.

      Delete
  19. To Bill- your arguments are getting sillier and sillier. I'm done with them.

    ReplyDelete
  20. By the way, Bill- your report includes 10 years worth - 1999 - 2009, United States Homicide Transport Deaths 3,586
    The number in my first comment included suicides as well, this number is strictly homicides and does not include unintentional deaths (such as drunk driving accidents). I don't usually use wiki for my primary source of information.

    In 10 years, more than 100,000 people have been killed in gun homicides. That does not include suicides or accidental shootings. If we included those, the number goes to at least 300,000. As you can see, no comparison. I have never heard anyone try to argue that more people die from vehicular homicides than guns. That is because the argument is ridiculous. It's never come up on this blog before and it is not worth the bother to argue about it. Have a good night.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have never heard anyone try to argue that more people die from vehicular homicides than guns.
      Neither have I and I don't think anything in my comment would suggest that. I was just pointing out that intentional homicide with an automobile occurs, on average, almost once a day. It was in response to "Tell me how someone injures 2 and kills 3 with a car- on purpose."

      Bill- your report includes 10 years worth
      Yes, because I was wanting to demonstrate and annual average.

      Delete
  21. japete writes: "Are or were your 17 year olds adults?"

    17 year olds are adults in several states. I do not know what Ohio law says on this matter, but, for example, in Illinois the criminal code treats 17 year olds as adults.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Do you treat your 17 year olds like adults? In my house, they were my kids. They were juniors in high school and not of majority age for drinking, or legally. This boy may be tried as an adult because of the nature of the crime. But he is a kid- a troubled teen ager.

      Delete
  22. japete writes: "The Minnesota Senate and House have also passed a bill that will allow people with guns to shoot others under the subjective presumption that someone could do them bodily harm."

    This does not at all accurately represent the content of HF1467 - currently awaiting the governor's signature or veto. Mere bodily harm does not satisfy the use of deadly force provisions in this bill.

    "Further on the day after this horrendous shooting just one state away, this pro gun rights extremist just had to rub someone's face in the fact that he has rights to carry his gun wherever he goes- even in the voting booth in a Michigan school, of all places. He was wrong, of course."

    Except he wasn't wrong - it was legal for him to carry a firearm into that voting booth. The prosecutor made that announcement yesterday.

    It's legal to do this in Minnesota, by the way, unless your voting location happens to be a place otherwise prohibited (such as a K-12 school in which you have not obtained permission to carry).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I repeat- he rubbed other's noses in it. He even said as much. He was testing out the law. He was a jerk who should not have carried that gun openly into the voting place in a school the day after a school shooting.

      Delete
  23. japete

    "He was a jerk who should not have carried that gun openly into the voting place in a school the day after a school shooting."

    It is STUNNING how it completely escapes you and others on your side that using your EXACT language, substituting the subject/person (gun carrier) and replace with " negro" , "black", or "homosexual" and the underlying bigoted attitude is EXACTLY the same argument used against " those people " How dare that , "negro", "homo" , "black person" do something completely LEGAL that makes others uncomfortable !

    And then Ladd and others go onto ridicule the idea that your side arent open bigots. Thanks, I'll be building my next article around that quote of yours and revealing just how revolting the mindset is of those on the Gun Control side

    ReplyDelete
  24. japete

    "??????????"


    Really ? Drop the phony " I dont get it " Joan. Because no one is buying it. Give me a couple days to work up the piece and I'll get the link to you and I'll set out examples that you apparently dont understand. See, unlike you, I dont get paid by various groups and foundations for my writing and activism. I do it because it my passion, my reason for being on this Earth, because those that have the strength and skill to fight, to do so for those that cant or wont. But I also have a full time job , plus having to raise two kids, so sometimes circumstances demand I take more time then usual to do my research, put something together and get it posted.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Can't wait to see it. I don't get paid to do my blog or my work with gun violence prevention. I do it because it is my passion, my reason for being on this Earth, because those that have the strength and the skill to fight, to do so for those that can't or won't.

      Delete