Welcome to Common Gunsense

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

Monday, August 13, 2012

Yes we can prevent shootings

Some who read my blog claim that we can't do anything about certain people getting guns and shooting up public places so why try? That is, of course, a self fulfilling statement. If we don't do anything about shootings, they will continue and then gun rights advocates will have a reason to claim a need for guns for self defense against the people who shouldn't have gotten guns in the first place and shot up a bunch of people in public places. After mass shootings in our country, what do some Americans do? They rush out and buy more guns. That is just amazing and anathema to common sense. But we live in America where guns rule and the "guys with the guns make the rules." If we can't, as a country, get our heads together and start the conversation about making our communities safer by preventing shootings, there is something terribly wrong with us. Or maybe it's just that our politicians have shirked their own responsibilities in the face of the myths of the NRA. That needs to change. We can prevent people who shouldn't own or carry guns from doing so anyway. The NRA makes darned sure we don't. Here now, is a great article about how the conceal and carry training in some states (Ohio in this case) is either non-existent or flawed to the point of being ridiculous. From the article:
More than 600 concealed-carry licenses issued to gun owners in Franklin and surrounding counties are invalid because three men issued falsified training certificates to the applicants, Franklin County Sheriff Zach Scott said yesterday.
An investigation that began in the spring has resulted in felony charges against the men and letters to 613 people who obtained the certificates, which are needed to apply for the licenses. More licenses could be affected as the investigation continues, Scott said.
Deputies recently arrested Adam Chaykin, 41, of 2270 Medford Place on the East Side; Ken Fouch, 48, of 2410 Redrock Blvd. on the South Side; and John M. Marshall, 62, of 4988 Attica Dr. in Madison Township. Each is charged with one count of complicity to falsification to obtain a concealed-carry permit, though Scott said the men could face multiple counts when their cases go to a grand jury. A conviction on the fifth-degree felony could mean up to a year in prison and a $2,500 fine.
This was not supposed to happen when the conceal and carry laws passed in all but one state in our country. We were told that only law abiding citizens would get permits and that people with guns on our streets would know what they were doing with those guns. We were sold a lie. But the NRA keeps going with their lies because they can. The latest example of their over reach is in Florida where, after the two recent high profile mass shootings, the NRA wants to loosen the carry laws even more to allow for openly carried guns in public. Really? Yes, it's true:
The National Rifle Association will seek to pass a bill legalizing the open carrying of firearms in Florida during the 2013 session of the state Legislature, renewing a crusade for expanded gun rights that faltered last year, according to a longtime lobbyist for the group.
The envisioned legislation would make it legal for holders of concealed-weapons permits to carry exposed guns in public.
The lobbyist said the bill is necessary to protect such gun owners from harassment by police when they accidentally reveal concealed weapons in public.
A 2011 compromise that tweaked existing regulations to remove penalties for those who unintentionally expose a gun has not been sufficient protection, she said. As a result, the NRA has reverted to its original goal of open carry for concealed-weapons permit holders.
And more from this article:
Eric Friday is a Jacksonville lawyer who's also Florida Carry's lead attorney.
"This is Florida, people aren't always wearing clothes. It's hard to conceal a firearm. You have to wear a suit coat or a jacket to conceal a firearm in the summer," Friday said.
The announcement comes at a time when the subject of firearm restrictions is even more emotionally freighted than usual. In the past three weeks, troubled gunmen have carried out two of the worst shooting massacres in recent U.S. history, leaving a total of 18 people dead and 61 wounded at a movie theater in a Denver suburb and a Sikh temple in Wisconsin.
"I think it re-emphasizes our position. Our position is guns save more lives than take lives. Our position is it's better to have a gun in the hands of a law abiding carrier than in the hands of a criminal," Friday said.
More NRA lies and hyperbole. For just 3 hours of training and 45 minutes at a shooting range, you can get a Florida permit to carry. These are the "law abiding" people the NRA wants on our streets with concealed and now openly carried loaded guns. We already know about those folks. Think George Zimmerman. Think Jared Loughner. Both "law abiding" gun carriers. It's just plain dangerous to send people out on our streets with loaded guns with little or no training. Driver's training is much more rigorous, thank goodness. And by the way, if the reason people in Florida need to carry their guns openly is because they "don't wear clothes"( as was suggested by Friday, above), I suggest they put some on. I would love to see a woman in a bikini with her openly carried holster. What do fearful people who bring their guns with them everywhere they go do with their guns while at the beach or at a public pool? Can they do without them for a while and have fun without worrying about someone at the beach waiting to attack? Or do they actually carry with their swim suits on? Or are they just screwed? Or maybe someone will design a swimming suit with pockets for a concealed gun and a waterproof gun? Just asking. Carrying a gun is mighty inconvenient even if you are wearing clothes. That is why not very many people do it.

But I digress. Also please remember that the U.S. House has passed a bill that will force states with strict gun permit carry requirements to have to accept those from states with much looser carry laws. That is the NRA's vision for America. If you don't like the laws in one state, force that state to follow the laws you want anyway. It's one thing if the laws are good laws but when we have laws that allow potentially dangerous people to carry loaded guns in public, that law affects public safety. That is just plain irresponsible.

The far right and gun rights extremists love to talk about personal responsibility and freedoms. What is someone's responsibility when they know someone could be dangerous with a gun? What is your responsibility when you see someone with problems and you don't report it to anyone or do something about it? Check out what some friends of the Sikh temple shooter noticed about him and their regrets about not reporting it. Way too often, people do nothing. They shrug and believe there is nothing they can do. It's time for that to change. We can do something to prevent shootings.

We are just so different than any other country about our guns, our gun culture and our gun laws. We can do better. Other countries have done something. We have not. Check out the information in this chart. You will have to move the chart with your cursor and bar on the bottom of your screen to see the whole chart:

The NRA, because of the passage of loose gun laws, has managed to change the culture from one of people using guns mostly for hunting into one where people think they need guns for self defense and in public places. And speaking of the American gun culture, who needs NRA Board members like Ted Nugent out spouting dangerous rhetoric like this?:
Nugent is insanely confident and infectiously joyful. He has tons to be proud of, even besides the "ton of venison jerky he personally killed for the troops in Afghanistan." His guitars were crying the sweetest tones, and the crowd agreed with everything he thought. The band is tightly rehearsed; they hit the road for months straight, and "the rest of the year, I just kill shit," Nuge said. He attributes his youthful energy to that. 
He gave shoutouts to the godfathers of rock 'n' roll: Bo Diddly, Chuck Berry, Howling Wolf, and Wilson Pickett. After giving praise to the guitar heroes, he gave a giant salute to the American heroes in the crowd: the Army, Air Force, Navy, Marines, and Coast Guard. Right after that, he said, "I wanna get rid of the dirty cocksuckers in the White House! If there's justice, Barack Obama will end up being a communal worker in Cuba!" Everybody joyously hugged and high-fived.
If you get "youthful energy" from "killing shit", is that a problem? Words matter. We can prevent shootings but we need people like Ted Nugent to stop his poisonous and dangerous talk and just sing. He should not be invited to concerts if we want to be serious about doing something about preventing gun deaths and injuries. When someone like him says what he says, all it takes is for one mentally ill person or one neo-Nazi or one militia group member to decide to act on the words with a gun. These words were anemic compared to what Nugent said at the annual NRA meeting recently. "Any questions?" If you are a member of the NRA, you had better think twice about wanting Nugent on your Board. Nugent has endorsed Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney. Any questions?

Just the opposite of Nugent's rhetoric is this article about a public health approach to prevention of gun injuries and deaths. Medical professionals understand that treating gun violence as other diseases or accidents are treated could result in prevention. From the article:
It wasn't enough back then to curb deaths just by trying to make people better drivers, and it isn't enough now to tackle gun violence by focusing solely on the people doing the shooting, he and other doctors say.
They want a science-based, pragmatic approach based on the reality that we live in a society saturated with guns and need better ways of preventing harm from them.
One of the doctors who treated the injured and saw the dead after the shooting at the Wisconsin Sikh temple has been thinking about the issue from the public health approach. When you see actual bodies and actual injuries caused by bullets, your perspective just has to be different and more personal. When you see the blood, when you try to repair the damage done to internal organs and extremities, knowing that there could be life altering injuries, you just do understand gun violence differently than the pro gun extremists. Here is what this doctor had to say after seeing all of this last week:
"What I'm struggling with is, is this the new social norm? This is what we're going to have to live with if we have more personal access to firearms," said Hargarten, emergency medicine chief at Froedtert Hospital and director of the Injury Research Center at the Medical College of Wisconsin. "We have a public health issue to discuss. Do we wait for the next outbreak or is there something we can do to prevent it?"
Do we have to live with this? What a sad state of affairs. We have collateral damage from the bullet wars going on every day in our country because the NRA refuses to consider prevention. So for their individual rights, they are willing to allow a certain number of gun deaths. What is wrong with this picture? Plenty. As Americans we should have some responsibilities to our fellow human beings. If we can't do better than this, what kind of country are we? If we can't make an effort at preventing shootings, what kind of country are we? It's not that we can't, it's that we won't. This is wrong.

So let's take a look at what can be done from a public health approach. From the linked article above again:
Dr. David Satcher tried to make gun violence a public health issue when he became CDC director in 1993. Four years later, laws that allow the carrying of concealed weapons drew attention when two women were shot at an Indianapolis restaurant after a patron's gun fell out of his pocket and accidentally fired. Ironically, the victims were health educators in town for an American Public Health Association convention.
That same year, Hargarten won a federal grant to establish the nation's first Firearm Injury Center at the Medical College of Wisconsin.
"Unlike almost all other consumer products, there is no national product safety oversight of firearms," he wrote in the Wisconsin Medical Journal.
That's just one aspect of a public health approach. Other elements:
—"Host" factors: What makes someone more likely to shoot, or someone more likely to be a victim. One recent study found firearm owners were more likely than those with no firearms at home to binge drink or to drink and drive, and other research has tied alcohol and gun violence. That suggests that people with driving under the influence convictions should be barred from buying a gun, Wintemute said.
—Product features: Which firearms are most dangerous and why. Manufacturers could be pressured to fix design defects that let guns go off accidentally, and to add technology that allows only the owner of the gun to fire it (many police officers and others are shot with their own weapons). Bans on assault weapons and multiple magazines that allow rapid and repeat firing are other possible steps.
—"Environmental" risk factors: What conditions allow or contribute to shootings. Gun shops must do background checks and refuse to sell firearms to people convicted of felonies or domestic violence misdemeanors, but those convicted of other violent misdemeanors can buy whatever they want. The rules also don't apply to private sales, which one study estimates as 40 percent of the market.
—Disease patterns, observing how a problem spreads. Gun ownership — a precursor to gun violence — can spread "much like an infectious disease circulates," said Daniel Webster, a health policy expert and co-director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research in Baltimore.
"There's sort of a contagion phenomenon" after a shooting, where people feel they need to have a gun for protection or retaliation, he said.
That's already evident in the wake of the Colorado movie-theater shootings. Last week, reports popped up around the nation of people bringing guns to "Batman" movies. Some of them said they did so for protection.
You will remember, of course, that the NRA tried to stop doctors in Florida from talking to families about the dangers of guns in the home. The case was taken to court and the law was thrown out by a judge who understood what this meant; namely, silencing a group of professionals charged with keeping us healthy and protecting us from disease and accidents. Never mind. Florida Governor Rick Scott is sure he knows better. But then, he is a bought and paid for NRA politician. Here is the latest on this issue:
How far is Scott willing to go to protect the law? Far enough to spend a big chunk of public money on legal challenges. A report in the South Florida Sun-Sentinel shows that the same tea party governor who trumpets fiscal conservatism has spent north of $880,000 in taxpayer money so far to wage mostly unsuccessful court battles for the conservative agenda—including Docs vs. Glocks, voter suppression measures, drug tests for welfare recipients, prison privatization plans, and the Supreme Court challenge to Obamacare.
That approach defies sense, Dr. Bernd Wollschlaeger, a Miami doctor fighting the Docs vs. Glocks law, told McClatchy last month. "My fear is the state will appeal and keeping wasting money to fight windmills," he said. "This is an ideologically driven, politically motivated vendetta by the NRA that has to stop."
Indeed. The NRA's political agenda must be stopped before thousands more Americans die. The NRA doesn't care about public health and safety but rather only about their extreme agenda and protecting the sales of guns. There is something inherently wrong with that. The public does not agree with this approach. That's because it is wrong, wrong headed and dangerous for our families and our communities. Let's do the right thing and start the conversation. Let's listen to the people who know better and are not motivated by an extreme ideological agenda. Let's have some common sense.

Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett agrees with health care professionals and with advocates for prevention of gun deaths and injuries. Many people agree with common sense and know that the way we are dealing with the gun issue in America is just not working. We are seeing it newspapers and articles in other media every day. On what do we agree? That we can do something to prevent shootings. That we can agree on common sense measures to prevent shootings in America. Here is what Mayor Barrett had to say:
Ensuring background checks on all gun sales would close one of the major loopholes in our current gun laws and make it harder for criminals and those with mental illness to gain access to guns.
We should make it a felony to purchase guns for those who can't legally buy guns themselves. We need stricter penalties for those who refuse to abide by the provisions of the concealed-carry law. We should deny a firearm permit for habitual offenders who have three misdemeanors in a five-year period. We should strengthen criminal penalties for crimes committed with guns.
We should reinstate the national ban on assault weapons and have a serious review of Internet sales of large amounts of ammunition.
Obviously, our families, our neighbors and our law enforcement officers deserve and expect more than talk. Sooner, rather than later - not after the next mass shooting, not after the next fallen officer, not after the next neighborhood gunbattle - we must act.
Remember that even a majority of NRA members agree with these measures. I wrote about that in my last post and in many other previous posts. So, let's get started. We can do this. We are better than this and we can do better.


  1. I have a solution that will upset both the NRA and gun control proponents. I propose that the National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act be amended to require training that meets or exceeds the standards of the state with the best training while still being reasonable. Anyone who passes these new training requirements can conceal carry in all states that issue a permit including territories. Those that choose not to take the stricter test can only use their licenses with the same national restrictions that exist today for their state's license.

    My Oregon US Representative and US Senators are pro-gun control and always hide behind the 10th Amendment when rejecting my requests for their support on this legislation, which currently has no training requirements. They claim that we would allow people into Oregon who have inferior training and jeopardize the safety of our state. This is a nonsensical response, because Oregon has very weak training requirements compared to states like Utah and Nevada.

    1. You're right. I wouldn't support that one. There should be no reciprocity at all. What's reasonable training to you? We don't need more people carrying concealed guns around- we need fewer. Even with training, we would still have states like Arizona that allow people to carry with not permits.

    2. japete writes: "There should be no reciprocity at all. "

      Completely unreasonable. States with similar requirements already do honor each other's permits without any issues.

      Many states, such as Indiana & Wisconsin, allow nearly any other permit to be utilized in their states. Neither state has had any sort of epidemic of out of state permit holders shooting up the place.

      There's no data at all supporting your claim that this is some sort of problem.

    3. Japete writes: "We were told that only law abiding citizens would get permits and that people with guns on our streets would know what they were doing with those guns. We were sold a lie."

      Do you have some sort of data you'd like to point to that shows that permit holders are somehow more dangerous than the average citizen when it comes to committing crime? Because we already know what the actual data says.

      "The latest example of their over reach is in Florida where, after the two recent high profile mass shootings, the NRA wants to loosen the carry laws even more to allow for openly carried guns in public."

      The principal reason laws should allow for open carry is to prevent harassment and/or arrest of permit holders for inadvertently "printing" or unintentionally exposing a concealed handgun. In any event, I hardly see the issue in allowing open carry if concealed carry is already legal.

      Open Carry is legal in Minnesota and has been since 2003. I'm not aware of some sort of public danger that was suddenly created when open carry was legalized. Is there some data or criminal trend you'd like to point to?

    4. We don't need openly carried guns in our communities. People don't want them and don't want to see them. How will people know the difference between someone who intends harm and a "law abiding" person with a gun? With 3 mass shootings in 3 weeks people have reason to wonder. You guys just want to normalize it. It is a problem. Permit holders are killing people with increasing frequency in America. They are not all law abiding as you claim they are. More guns have not made us safer. The proof is in the recent shootings as well as the every day ordinary shootings. Permit holders happen to have guns and they happen to shoot people more than people who don't have guns and don't carry guns. Those people don't shoot anyone.

    5. The 2nd Amendment was found by the SCOTUS to apply ONLY to guaranteeing guns in the home for self-defense.

      There is NO 2nd Amendment right to carry your personal firearms around anywhere else. Public spaces should be protected by law enforcement. If you feel we have inadequate law enforcement, I suggest you support public unions that represent law enforcement so that they are paid well and have really good health care and insurance; instead of the right wing attacks against them; that you support the law enforcement position against both open and concealed carry, which puts us all at greater risk; and that you oppose the extreme right wing budget cuts that reduce the number of law enforcement officers.

      I'm sick to death of hearing about how law enforcement is not there when you need them. In point of fact, law enforcement has done an excellent job of steadily reducing crime in this country,.......EXCEPT for gun violence crimes of homicide and non-fatal shootings, many of which are by legal gun owners. If you have a gun in your home, you are far more likely to be hurt or killed by it; if you have a gun in your home, you are far more likely to have a child killed by it. On the up side......there is NO upside. Someone owning a gun does not in any way shape or form reduce crime or make you significantly safer compared to other measures -- like getting a dog, getting a burglar alarm / home security system, and better locks on your doors.
      If you want better public protection, if that is your claim to need a gun -- go with systems like we have here in Minnesota that triggers a police response by picking up gunfire sounds. Support more, not less spending on law enforcement, both the equipment and technology, and the personnel, not more idiots with guns running around shooting or shoot first laws.

      In Arizona, law enforcement KNEW that Jared Loughner was dangerously mentally ill, because LAW ENFORCEMENT in the form of not one but TWO police officers delivered the letter from his college that required Loughner and his parents to meet with them and which informed them that Loughner would need to provide an assessment from a psychiatrist that Loughner was not dangerously mentally ill - dangerous to himself AND OTHERS. That was after FIVE separate encounters with law enforcement for eratic behavior AND the review of his youtube videos by the college's mental health risk evaluators prompting them to identify him as a risk. Yet, under Arizona law, there was NOTHING -- NOTHING - they could do to prevent Jared Loughner from having as many guns as he wanted, or as much ammo as he wanted, or assualt-style weapons or expanded capacity magazines. Loughner DID use the latter in his mass shooting of Gabby Giffords and all those other people. Under Arizona carry law, even if law enforcement had been standing right next to Jared Loughner, had recognized him as a dangerously mentally ill person with a firearm, there was NOTHING they could have done legally to interfere with him having that gun and carrying it on the street corner where he shot those people.

    6. The number of legally owned and purchased weapons in mass shootings is around 75%. There has been a mass shooting roughly every week and a half in the interval since the Tucson shooting by Jared Loughner. Most of those mass shootings used either an assault-style rifle and/or an expanded capacity magazine. MANY of those who commited those mass shootings were KNOWN to be dangerously mentally ill weeks, months, sometmes YEARS before the shootings. In the case of Jared Loughner, he was specifically identified FIVE months before his mass shooting. In the case of James Holmes, it was 6 to 8 weeks. In the case of Stawicki in Seattle, it was years before. In the case of Barnes in the Mt. Rainier Ranger shootings, it was a matter of court records for about a year and a half.
      But thanks to the NRA gun laws, we can't stop people from getting those weapons, when family, friends and law enforcement predict well in advance that these events will happen.
      That is because guns are given more importance and value than people -- and that is wrong.
      All we need is the political will to stop the gun violence. We know it can be done. We know that without the lethality of guns, violence is substantially changed for the better. We know that other countries have rates of gun violence that are 1/40th per capita of ours. Not 1/10th, not 1/4th, 1/40th.

      We know OUR OWN gun violence rates have been much lower in the past, including the rates of mass shootings occurrences, school shootings, ALL shootings when we had fewer guns per capita, and much much much more stringent laws AGAINST all kinds of carry except those necessary.

      We are not a wilderness or frontier society anymore. It's time to be civilized. That means getting rid of guns and carrying in public.

  2. with regard to the falsified concealed carry...That doesn't negate the background checks that the LEO performed on those 613 people. The system worked, the police took the "class", saw it was fraudulent and took the necessary steps to correct it.

    I do think the people who took the class should have their permits revoked b/c they knew they didn't get the correct training.

    Jake W

  3. How do you NOT know you didn't get the training?

    How do we know what kind of background check the LEOs did - or did they rely on FFL checks?

    The system didn't work if this was happening, and the fact that we have the increase in gun violence, the huge amount of gun violence compared to countries with fewer guns PROVES our gun culture and firearms system doesn't work and our gun culture is a total and complete failure.

    We are not a frontier society any more; we are not a wilderness culture anymore. More people live in urban and suburban areas than live in rural ones.

    Just going back to the 2000 census, the ratio was roughly 80% urban / 20% rural; that trend was towards more urban, not less.


    Of those in rural areas, not much is really wilderness anymore. We aren't fighting territorial wars with native american populations.

    We can do hugely more than we are currently doing to make our nation safer - we have an entire academic specialty of criminal justice studies that does precisely that, figures out how to change what causes people to engage in crime. We could make the decision to stop privatizing our penal system, and make it less a system that sucks people into more crime. We could decriminalize pot, which would take a lot of money out of crime. Decriminalizing controlled substances has actually not only reduced a huge amount of government spending in other countries, it REDUCED drug USE rates -- no money left in trying to hook people on the stuff. The numbers showing that drop in use are staggering.
    There is a lot we could do, some of it common sense / or intuitive, some of it counter-intuitive but proven to be pragmatic and effective.
    The appeal of guns is not logical, it is emotional, and that has been true of ALL of the arguments made in support of more not less guns - emotional, not logical.

    1. so then who do you trust to do the background checks? it falls on LEO to do the check when someone *does* complete the required training..Why is it suddenly not good enough now?

      when I did all the paperwork for my ccp I had to sign that I'd sat in on the proper classes and had the prerequisite range time to satisfy the state's requirements. If I'd just bought my certificate I could've never put my name to something stating that I'd had the training..That would've been a flat out lie. Now, I don't know the wording of the paperwork these 600+ people filled out..But I'd wager it was similar and stated the requirements.

      Home defense is a logical reason to own a gun...Competition is a logical reason to own a gun...The emotional side as I see it is the anti-gun movement. Typically before the shell casings are cold people are calling for bans of so called "assault rifles" or high capacity "clips" instead of enforcing the laws on the books already or getting into the mental health aspect..Dr's need to be able to flag someone that could hurt themselves or others as fast as possible...It shouldn't be a permanent ban, mind you but something until the patients health can be fully assessed and treated.

  4. Japete, about putting on more clothes when carrying firearms... that is a public service.

    The typical NRA member or supporter is male, old, white, flabby and crabby. We don't need to be seeing hairy bare beer bellies, guns, and speedos.

    It is a public service, like Ladybird Johnson's beautification of America.

    It would not ONLY make us safer, it would make us a whole lot easier on the eyes to keep these people either covered up, or preferably covered up without guns.

    1. comments like this don't make it easier to push your agenda...That said, I'm fully aware that there's plenty of rhetoric coming from both sides..At some point stuff like this needs to stop, on *both* sides so a meaningful discussion can happen..Until then it will just be jabs back and forth on random blogs.

    2. And most of them come from your side, Jake. It would make you pale to see some of the comments I used to get when I allowed anonymous comments. Threatening comments are made every day on gun violence prevention blogs. You just don't find too many of those coming from the side of gun violence prevention. So yes, backs and forth jabs are not good. But I would say that your side needs to make sure they stop. Sometimes we fight back because we have to.

    3. japete, I'm a liberal, registered independent and I don't associate with the mouth breathers that leave those types of comments..You've obviously seen a dramatic drop in those comments since you don't allow anonymous comments anymore..They're blowhards who aren't willing to step up and stand behind what they say..Therefore, I ignore them and consider them irrelevant...However, I do call them on their nonsense when I see it on other blogs..I don't know how else to combat their nonsense and not be labelled as one of them.

  5. You said " There should be no reciprocity at all. What's reasonable training to you? We don't need more people carrying concealed guns around- we need fewer. Even with training, we would still have states like Arizona that allow people to carry with not permits. "

    Arizona also issues permits for those Arizona citizens that want to take advantage of reciprocity. No permit no reciprocity.

    I think however we have seen the truth about Japete with the statement "There should be no reciprocity at all." It isn't about safety at all, it is about Japete's feelings particularly that if the gun guys want it she is opposed.

    1. Right Robin. It goes both ways. If I want it, you guys are automatically opposed. This is the plain truth.

    2. No. Everything I have opposed that you put forward I opposed because either it has been tried before and didn't work or because it would increase costs or infringe upon my rights with no proven benefits.

      You want universal NICS checks on private purchases. Come up with a way that it doesn't add to the cost of my buying and selling guns and you can have it. It could be very easily done but you oppose it.

      You want better reporting on mental health issues to the NICS. I don't oppose that but I would like to see some changes. If a person voluntarily seeks help with an issue it should not bar them from gun ownership forever. You fought against this in Minnesota because it was attached to something gun owners wanted.

      You want people on the terror watch list banned. Put a mechanism in place to determine who gets put on the list and a method to appeal and get removed from the list and I have no problem. These should be put in place whether they are linked to gun purchases or not. Star chambers are antithetical to the America I want.

      Truthfully, we would probably not go to the walls if you just wanted to ban magazines significantly larger than the weapon came with but you have to over reach and try to use a 100 round magazine to justify banning everything over 10 rounds.

      Frankly, I don't want the federal government involved in reciprocity because there is nothing that they get involved in that they don't make worse and turn into a power grab. If you were smart you would push reciprocity with a standard level of training. That would be my greatest fear because then you could gradually screw it up.

      You want to ban assault weapons because they look scary. That is the only difference between the ones you don't want us to have and what you are willing to allow us to keeep.

      The problem is that your side has proven that you are unable or unwilling to be reasonable and no matter what compromises we might be willing to make you want more. You expect us to give you everything and you are unwilling to give us anything. So, since we currently don't need to give up anything, why would we?

    3. I actually want to ban assault weapons because they are killing way too many innocent people almost every day. It has nothing to do with how they look. It has everything to do with how they act when someone shoots and kills people.

    4. I have also stated that I was against the national CCW reciprocity for many of the same reasons stated above.