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.

Sunday, December 2, 2012

The shootings just keep coming

There's been another police officer shooting in my home state. An officer in Cold Spring, Minnesota was shot to death in an ambush by a suicidal man :
"Decker, 31, was shot and killed late Thursday night after responding to a call about a man thought to be suicidal, authorities said. They described the incident as an ambush.
On Friday, Decker was remembered as a jokester and a "great kid" who was serious about his job.
"He was a chief's dream," said Cold Spring Police Chief Phil Jones at a news conference Friday morning. "We're going to miss him."
Cold Spring Mayor Doug Schmitz told MPR's The Daily Circuit that many people in the community didn't hear about the incident until Friday morning.
"There's a lot of people in shock wondering how we could lose such a nice young officer," Schmitz said. "Tom was a very well-liked kid."(...)
Schmitz said Decker led firearms training for the city's fire department, and would often joke around with the participants.
"He kept everybody loose, you know, took his job serious but was kidding around to keep the people feeling like they're just loose, you know, they're not stressed out," Schmitz said.
He was a Rocori High School graduate, and a 2002 graduate of Alexandria Technical College, receiving an A.A.S. Degree in Law Enforcement. Decker served as a police officer first in the City of Isle, in Mille Lacs County, in 2002. He moved to Watkins in Meeker County in 2003, and then to the Kimball Police Department in 2004. In 2006, Decker joined the police department in Cold Spring and Richmond. (...) 
Larson had lived in nearby Rockville recently, and the BCA and a crime lab were in town Friday afternoon. Authorities said they were conducting interviews around the state in connection with the case.
Larson has had some other run-ins with the law, including a misdemeanor disorderly conduct charge from 2009. A spokeswoman for St. Cloud Technical & Community College told The Associated Press that Larson was a second-year machine tool student.""
A misdemeanor does not prohibit someone from carrying a gun in Minnesota. From another article:
A Cold Spring police officer was fatally shot late Thursday when he and his partner were answering a call about a suicidal person at an apartment near a Main Street bar, Stearns County authorities said Friday morning.
Authorities identified the shooter as Ryan Michael Larson, 34, of Cold Spring.
Tom Decker, 31, was the officer who was killed, said authorities, who described his death as coming during an ambush.
Decker, a father of four, was wearing a protective vest.
It turns out that the shooter was a "law abiding" gun permit holder. Or was he? You decide:
Ryan Michael Larson, 34, is being held in Stearns County jail on suspicion of murdering a police officer. Larson was known to carry a handgun, though there had been only hints of violence in his past. Several guns have been located that belonged to Larson, authorities said.
It's the second time in a decade that violence has jarred this town of 4,000. A 2003 shooting left two students dead at Rocori High School, Decker's alma mater.
"With the school shooting not that many years ago, and now this, it's hard on a small town," said Kurt Kubasch as he loaded groceries in his car outside Teal's supermarket.
Late Friday, the slain officer's mother, Rosella Decker, was still busy receiving visits from reporters and grief-stricken relatives and friends at the family's 200-acre dairy farm, where she and her husband, John, raised their eight children.
"We just want people to know how good Tom was," she said, smiling through tears. "He was such a good husband and so good with his kids -- even-tempered, cool."
The farm, with its white clapboard house and barn, is where Tom Decker grew up and still stopped to visit, lend a hand with work or have a piece of his mom's meatloaf, one of his favorite foods.
While the town grieved the loss of a popular young officer, some details began to emerge about Larson. In 2009, court documents show, an ex-girlfriend requested a protective order after "he got very angry and aggressive and agitated," charging and spitting at her and bruising her arm. He paid a $383 fine for disorderly conduct in that misdemeanor case.
Jeff Scoles, who with his parents owns Winners bar, said Friday night that Larson had a permit to carry a handgun and regularly carried a Smith & Wesson .40-caliber semi-automatic pistol. Larson rented an apartment above the bar and acted as fill-in bartender while going to school to be a machinist.
"He liked guns, but he's very cautious with them," said Scoles, who added that Larson also owned an AR-15 assault-style rifle. "He's not the type of person who would go out there like a monster. 
Cold Spring was the site of another high profile shooting in 2003 when a student brought a gun from his own home (where his law enforcement father admitted to having 20 guns) to school and shot and killed 2 students. Why was that gun so accessible to a teen-ager? I have another question. Should people like Larson, with a misdemeanor charge for disorderly conduct and a protective order be able to get a permit? Isn't it time to take a new look at the laws that allow people like this to get permits to own and carry guns? "He liked guns, but he's very cautious with them,.." "He's not the type of person who would go out there like a monster." Really? How many times do we hear that about shooters? And yet, they do go out there like monsters and they aren't so cautious after all. Guns make it too easy.

The officer was wearing a protective vest but was allegedly shot in the face. Now 4 more children are without a father and another officer is down. The shootings just keep coming. In a shocking incident, a Utah 9th grade student shot himself at school in front of his fellow students.
A Utah town is in mourning after a teen shot himself on the campus of his junior high school in front of other students as they left school on Thursday.
Shellshocked students at Bennion Junior High, in Taylorsville, 20 minutes south of Salt Lake City, said the friendly, polite boy was tormented by bullies, The Salt Lake Tribune reported.
The ninth-grader wasn’t named in local press reports.
"He was one of the sweetest guys I’ve ever known," said Hunter Evensen, a classmate, told the newspaper.
Authorities said the boy left school at around 1:30 p.m. with his mom, but returned at around 3:00 p.m., just as classes were letting out.
After meeting up with some other students on a bridge near campus, the teen pulled out a gun and shot himself, cops said.
He was pronounced dead later at Intermountain Medical Center. (...) 
Local police were still investigating how he got the gun, but they believed he may have taken it from a locked case at his home, according to local reports. 
Classmates said the boy didn’t show any signs of trouble on Thursday.
"I was talking to him today," ninth-grader Brandon Newby told Deseret News.
"We were joking at lunchtime, and he seemed happy. I wouldn't have expected it."
At a candlelight vigil on Thursday night, hundreds of students gathered on the bridge to weep and pray together for both the victim and the students who witnessed the tragedy.
The student likely got his gun from a locked cabinet in his own home. Even locked, guns at home when children are in the home can be dangerous and potentially deadly. We have a gun problem in our country. Too many people have access to guns who shouldn't.

Speaking of students with guns, this article was also in my local paper today:
At a brief meeting of the Cloquet School Board on Monday night, the board voted in closed session to expel a student for a violation of the district’s zero-tolerance policy on weapons.
The student, identified only as “Student 112612” because of minor status and data practices concerns, was suspended for up to one year.
“The incident that led to the expulsion involved a weapon,” Superintendent Ken Scarbrough said. “We also want to note that students were never in danger at any time.”
Scarbrough added that expulsion can happen for any number of offenses, but they are rare.
“We average an expulsion or less each year, and it’s usually less,” he said. “They are very rare. I don’t think we average one a year.”
Scarbrough said a repeated pattern of assaults or violation of weapons rules are the main reasons students are expelled.
“It also could be any one of a number of things,” he added. “Repeated indolence, tardiness or absence, all those things carried to the extreme where warnings have been issued.”
“Each event is going to stand on its own and it has to be severe enough to warrant that action,” Scarbrough added. “If there is an offense that warrants expulsion we make sure the student is informed of the charge, and they have a right to know what the charges are and who is making them.”
This bears repeating from the article: "Scarbrough said a repeated pattern of assaults or violation of weapons rules are the main reasons students are expelled." Really? Is this acceptable? Where are kids getting their guns? Why are they bringing them to school? Check out the Kid Shootings blog if you want to gain a better understanding of how ubiquitous the problem of kids and guns really is. What are we doing about it? The Cloquet school district was lucky that the student didn't act when violating that weapons rule. We all know how often that happens.

And then there's the Kansas City Chiefs football player who killed his girlfriend and then showed up at the Chiefs' office and shot himself in front of others. One has to wonder why suicidal people with guns shoot themselves in front of others? It is a tragic and violent thing. From the article:
A 25-year-old Kansas City Chiefs player fatally shot his girlfriend early Saturday, then drove to Arrowhead Stadium and committed suicide in front of his coach and general manager, police said.
Police spokesman Darin Snapp said the player killed his girlfriend and then went to the team practice facility, where he shot himself. He did not identify either the player or his victim.
Before turning the gun on himself, the player thanked Chiefs general manager Scott Pioli and Romeo Crennel for all they had done for him, Snapp said.
Authorities received a call Saturday morning from a woman who said her daughter had been shot multiple times at a residence about five miles away from the Arrowhead complex.
"When we arrived, a lady informed us that her daughter had been shot multiple times by her boyfriend, by the daughter's boyfriend," Snapp said. "She identified him as a Chiefs player."
Here's another article identifying the player:
Kansas City Chiefs linebacker Jovan Belcher fatally shot his girlfriend Saturday, then drove to Arrowhead Stadium and committed suicide in front of his coach and general manager, thanking them for all they'd done before turning the gun on himself.
Authorities did not release a possible motive for the murder-suicide, though police said that Belcher and his girlfriend, 22-year-old Kasandra M. Perkins, had been arguing recently. The two of them have a 3-month-old girl who was being cared for by family. (...) 
Kansas City Mayor Sly James said that he spoke to Pioli after the shooting.
''I can tell you that you have absolutely no idea what it's like to see someone kill themselves,'' James said. ''You can take your worst nightmare and put someone you know and love in that situation, and give them a gun and stand three feet away and watch them kill themselves. That's what it's like.
''It's unfathomable,'' James said. ''It's something you would love to wash away from your mind, but you can't do it. There's nothing like it. I don't what else to tell you. Think about your worst nightmare and multiply it by five.''
And the nightmares continue. Are we going to sit back and watch this continue or are we going to put our heads together and do something about these senseless shootings? Is the NRA going to start talking differently about guns in light of these tragedies? Or are they going to continue to encourage so many people to buy guns as they have during and after the recent election of a Black President? Why does the NRA tell lies about what President Obama is going to do as President? (They spent a lot of money and lost big in 2012 in spite of the lies). Why else is this President the most threatened of any in American history? Why so much hate, fear and misinformation? It's enough to make us despair about our country.

Before I go, let me end with this account from Ohh Shoot about a tragic accidental shooting- one that should never have happened:
18-year-old Patrick Goddard, of Strafford, Missouri, was hanging out with a group of friends Monday night. According to Brockwell Rostam, one of the teens present, "We were in my room and he [Patrick] had a little handgun. He starts showing us it and passing it around and it was scaring Haley, because she doesn't like guns. So I threw it down on the table because she was so upset about it. And when I did, it just exploded; I didn't even see where it hit him. And everyone just freaked out and we thought he was faking or something."
Patrick was hit with the single bullet and died at the scene. 
Police are investigating the incident but no charges in the death are filed.
"I always thought guns were to protect you," said Brockwell. "But all they did was take away our best friend and so I'll never touch another gun as long as I live. That's a promise." 
Did you read that line in the last paragraph? A gun is a deadly weapon designed to kill someone, not to pass around a room full of young people to show it off. And kill they do. If you read more posts in the blog you will see many more incidents like the one described above. It is time for the gun rights extremists to admit that their own are causing more than a few shootings. It's time to put our heads together to find solutions for this national public safety problem. If we don't, we will continue to live with the daily carnage and incidents like those I write about on this blog. Ramping up irrational fear is not the solution to this problem. And it is definitely time for NRA Executive VP Wayne LaPierre to stop his ludicrous rants.

Mr. LaPierre, I have an idea. Start speaking up for victims of gun violence and stop your rants. There are too many victims. Name calling, paranoia, demeaning and attacking victims ( daily occurrences on gun blogs) is just not the way out of this problem. I'm waiting for the gun rights extremists to come up with some solutions that don't involve more people having access to guns and carrying them in more places. That is just not working. Meanwhile, while I'm waiting, I will be blogging about incidents like those above because they just keep coming.  Let me review for my readers, again, the incidents in just this post alone  (many others I didn't write about): 1 Minnesota police officer killed by a gun permit holder; 1 Utah 9th grade student shoots himself in front of his class; 1 NFL football players shoots and kills his girlfriend, the mother of his child, and then shoots himself in front of his management team; 1 Minnesota student violates a school district weapons rule and is suspended from school; and last but not least, 1 18 year old is shot and killed when a loaded gun is casually passed around a room full of young people. Does any of that matter to the gun rights extremists? Surely we are better than this. I mourn with the families of the victims of the latest shootings. Their lives will never be the same.


  1. japete writes: "A misdemeanor does not prohibit someone from carrying a gun in Minnesota."

    There are a number of misdemeanors and gross misdemeanors that prohibit a person from owning a firearm under federal law - and others that prohibit the issue of a permit to purchase or permit to carry.

    In addition, the Sheriff has discretion to deny a permit to carry under MN 624.714 and the local police have discretion to deny a permit to purchase under MN statute as well - but they may have to defend that position in court. The Sheriff can also suspend and revoke a permit to carry under MN 624.714.

    Disorderly conduct is a very minor misdemeanor that is used frequently across a wide variety of cases. Being noisy and boisterous in public is disorderly conduct under Minnesota law.

    That's far too minor of a crime to deny someone a permit on -- the real issue here is that this individual should never have been allowed to plea bargain what looks like a domestic violence case down to disorderly conduct.

    The Sheriff could also have used his discretion and refused to issue his permit or suspend/revoke his permit when this behavior surfaced. This option is available to him under Minnesota law.

    I'm not blaming anyone here other than the shooter, who made the decision to end someone else's life who was only there to check on his welfare.

  2. "In 2009, court documents show, an ex-girlfriend requested a protective order after "he got very angry and aggressive and agitated," charging and spitting at her and bruising her arm. He paid a $383 fine for disorderly conduct in that misdemeanor case."

    It is illegal for a person with a protective order to possess weapons or to get a carry permit. There are two possibilities, either the order was lifted or expired, or the court didnt grant her request.
    Misdemeaner convictions dont disqualify you from getting a permit. However it sort of sounds like Larson might have gotten a plea deal, such as 5th degree assault dropped down to plea guilty to disorderly conduct. The conviction on the assault charge would have disqualified him from both getting a permit and possessing firearms. Why it happened would be a question to ask the county attorney.
    In this case though, the carry permit had nothing to do with the shooting, any more than he likely had a driver's license also.

    1. "Misdemeaner convictions dont disqualify you from getting a permit."

      Misdemeanor domestic violence convictions bar one under federal law from possessing a firearm.

      There are a number of other misdemeanors in Minnesota that would prohibit one from receiving a permit to carry as well.

  3. And,Bryan, that is why we should have "may issue" laws so Sheriffs can use discretion for people like this. If course we blame the shooter. But laws matter.

    1. The carry permit allowed him to buy and carry guns LEGALLY. One is supposed to be law abiding to get a permit. I submit, and I said as much, that "shall issue" laws are bad for public safety.

    2. "Sounds like Lawson might have gotten a plea deal"

      I'll let you in on a little secret--lots of criminal court cases are settled by these "plea deals" for lesser crimes--and if there isn't a disqualifying offense--guess what?

      The person can get a gun!

      We can add in things such a charges withdrawn, nolle prosecui, and other dispositions which are not acquittals, but the lay person might call "getting off on a technicality"--they aren't convictions.

      In fact, they are quite likely expungable.

      Someone could have a lengthy record of this kind--yet they are able to get a CCW permit in a shall issue state.

      Does that make sense?

      I can go into more of the absurdity of this type of thing, but I hope you get the idea.

    3. A carry permit isnt required to purchase a firearm. And while it permitted him to carry a handgun, it didnt allow him to legally carry the shotgun he is reported to have used to murder Officer Decker.
      The Sheriff could have denired or revoked Larson's permit on the grounds that he was a danger to himself or others.

    4. The sheriff could have denied his permit, or suspended it, or revoked it - he has that ability under MN Law (see 624.714).

      I've lived in a may issue state - the only people who get permits there are politicians and those connected to the Mayor, Sheriff, or Police Chief.

      Constitutional rights should not depend on the whims of an elected or public official.

    5. Sheriffs will tell you that the burden is on them and they often get taken to court when they deny permits. That is what the law allows. With the "may issue" laws, that wasn't a problem.

    6. ssgmarkcr writes: "And while it permitted him to carry a handgun, it didnt allow him to legally carry the shotgun he is reported to have used to murder Officer Decker."

      In Minnesota, a person holding a carry permit may carry handguns or long guns - there is not a restriction. See MN 624.718.

    7. I don't call it a whim when a sheriff denies a gun to someone who shouldn't have one or to not want a lot of people carrying loaded guns around in public.

    8. Sounds to me like you Minnesota gun guys had better get your stories straight.

    9. Sorry, I typoed that above. Should be MN 624.7181.

  4. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2225280/Jeanette-Goodwin-Police-slammed-failing-mother-stabbed-death-lover.html

    Explain to me again about how everyone should be disarmed and only needs a cell phone and 911? This woman lived in the anti-rights cult paradise and was attacked. Fortunately it was only with a knife so she isn't really dead because only gun deaths count.

    Interestingly, in the US of A twice as many people are killed with fists as rifles of any kind including "assault weapons." But according to you getting punched should be acceptable. Neither the permit holder in Texas or Zimmermann should have objected to being punched. Knives account for about a quarter as many dead as guns but they aren't as serious as being "gun dead."

    Being as this occurred in the formerly Great Britain she had no right to defend herself either. Fortunately she had a panic button installed so the police could save her.

    1. You lie Robin. Find me information to support your false claim that fists kill more people than rifles if any kind. Good luck.

    2. Actually Robin is correct in his claim. In 2011, 728 people were murdered using what the FBI calls personal weapons (hands, fists, feet, etc.), during the same period, 323 people were murdered by rifles of all types.


    3. Seriously Mark and Robin? Are we going to now differentiate between gun deaths by type of weapon as an excuse for not passing reasonable gun laws? What's your point? Everyone knows that guns in general take the lives of between 10,000 and 11,000 people per year in the U. S. of A. To try to excuse it by isolating the gun types and claim that fists take more lives is ludicrous.

    4. They back up their claims.as demanded and you still go on the attack. Joan, even with a battered NRA, our side wins the logic debate- we aren't going to lose.

    5. Officially, the numbers look like this:

      Weapons 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

      Total firearms: 10,129 9,528 9,199 8,874 8,583
      Handguns 7,398 6,800 6,501 6,115 6,220
      Rifles 453 380 351 367 323
      Shotguns 457 442 423 366 356
      Other guns 116 81 96 93 97
      Firearms, 1,705 1,825 1,828 1,933 1,587
      (type not stated)
      Personal weapons 869 875 817 769 728
      (hands, fists, feet, etc.)[1]

      [1] Being pushed is included in personal weapons.

      Unfortunately, the numbers used under “firearms, type not stated” would determine whether the total number of long gun deaths is greater than that of personal weapons, which includes more than just "fists".

      Somebody say something about "lies, damned lies, and statistics?"

      This is using numbers without understanding or explanation for trying to minimise the effect of gun violence on society. That's a part of the reason they mention these numbers. The other being they are ignorant of what the numbers actually are or where they came from.

      Please read the material before commenting. Thank you

      "Personal weapons" account for far less deaths than do firearms: especially in total.

      Also, Robin uses a scare journalism source--the actual report dealt with the fact that the police were underfunded and considered that call to be a low priority--less of an argument for keeping a firearm and more of an argument against austerity spending--especially for public safety.

      That's what this is really about--and no matter how you cut it the current firearm regime in the US costs far more than it is worth to peddle the concept of "gun rights".

      of course, that type of statistic is hard to come by since the gun rights crowd want to keep this discussion based upon nonsensical figures and ideas such as fists cause more deaths than rifles.

    6. Your side is winning the logic debate? Where can you support that one? What a ludicrous claim. When poll after poll after poll show that the majority or Americans, including gun owners, support reasonable gun laws, that is winning the logic debate. What your side is winning is the political power and influence paid for by lots of money and fear and paranoia.

    7. "Somebody say something about "lies, damned lies, and statistics?"

      Groups on both sides of this debate use statistics to further their respective arguments. Either cherrypicking data that supports their claims, or leaving data out completely and hoping no one notices. That's why I tend to view data from pro and anti gun sources skeptically.
      There are many locations in the United States who's circumstances conflict with assertions on both sides of this debate. So, there are issues besides gun laws that affect gun violence in the United States.

    8. That is an interesting use of the term "logic" since we have shown that the "gun right side" uses deceptive statistics to bolster their arguments.

      Add in discredited studies such as Kleck and John Lott.

      To make it easier to control the dialogue, there are laws that prevent accurate data from being collected which is important to the debate.

      That's not logic--that's the propaganda technique of stacking the deck: manipulate audience perception of an issue by emphasizing one side and repressing another. Such emphasis may be achieved through media bias or the use of one-sided testimonials, or by simply censoring the voices of critics.

    9. That is why I provide links and sources in my posts. I try to use neutral source but I have found that sources on my side of the issue are usually well researched and documented. I have not found that to be the case for the pro gun side.

    10. Really, Mark, you look at both sides skeptically?

      Yet, you repeated the nonsensical proposition without actually checking the source?

      Are you aware that the "pro-gun" side has long worked to defund any study or data which shows the detriments of firearms in the US?

  5. I see Robin Chooses to use an article from the Daily Mail--a newspaper with a pretty shoddy record of being realistic and objective journalism. The Daily Mail has been involved in a number of notable libel suits.

    It was Britain's first daily newspaper aimed at the newly literate "lower-middle class market resulting from mass education, combining a low retail price with plenty of competitions, prizes and promotional gimmicks". Sort of a print version of Fox News.

    Attained historical notoriety in the 1930's when the Mail's owner/controller, Lord Harold Rothemere, used it as an editorial vehicle to support the British Union of Fascists, Hitler and Mussolini (link, not an unbiased article but pertains to preceding). This public stance was reversed after the Nazi invasion of Prague.

    Modern editorial content is usually classed as slightly to the right of Genghis Khan with rabid attacks on the Dear Leader, WMF and the continued failings of the Neu Arbeit regime. Not to mention the machinations of the evil denizens of the European Commission and insane rantings about the way that Britain is being taken over by Poles, Muslims, paedophiles, gypsies, communists, gangsters, murderers and the politically correct. Also popular are house prices, teachers, fire fighters, armed forces kit (whether lack of, wrongful issue of, wrongful use of or just about anything else of), soliders, Tories and more. Whoever their defense correspondent is, he is either lazy, stupid or both. A recent article about a new weapon the Army has bought consisted of a picture (of the wrong gun) and nine lies of text. Of these nine lines, one was correct, two were factually correct but misleading in the context of the weapon itself, and the remaining six were all incorrect.

    Given three years and enough encouragement the Daily Mail would be calling for a final solution. In fact a final solution for any problem really, just as long as it doesn't affect house prices in Tunbridge Wells.

    If you should ever want to confuse a daily mail reader, tell them paedophiles are the natural prey of immigrants.

    In short, it has as much credibility as a supermarket tabloid such as Weekly World News.

  6. By the way, Minnesota gun laws are so complex that even many lawyers and sheriffs can't understand them all. That is by design of the people who write them- namely the NRA. They are often confusing and obtuse and take years of possible law suits and case law to get them straight. If you keep everyone confused, you can do whatever you want. You can fool legislators, the media and the press into thinking the laws are acceptable. Meanwhile, people are dying.

    1. We attempted to do this in the last legislative session - as I recall, you were opposed to those changes at the time.

    2. To what changes are you referring?

  7. Joan, your side is desperately trying to paint gun ownership as a terrible thing through hype and beating the drums of cases that have yet to see a courtroom- the Martin shooting being one of them.

    You say we are winning through fear and paranoia? I live in one of the smartest states in the union- are you suggesting that the spike in sales of arms and ccw applications.are due to fear? Doubtful.

    More than likely its tge result of your campaigns of fear that have awakened a spirit of resistance in smart people who know history and dont necessarily place the same blind faith in a government to "protect" us. We saw how government "protected" louisianans post Katrina.

    This idea that we are to give up the notion of individualism in favor of collectivism is so offensive that more and more embrace resistance over fealty.

  8. There's no fear and paranoia when writing about actual shootings and real people dying. There's no paranoia in posting about actual law abiding citizens shooting real people. Your last statement says it all. If that isn't fear and paranoia I don't know what is. It's just Libertarian/ extremist jargon that is espoused by a minority is people in this country. The last election should prove that the majority of Americans don't buy that crap and hyperbole.

  9. Your blog says "... No comments that demean, debase, attack, call names, or are generally impolite, rude and offensive will not be published..." Where does "You Lie, Robin." fit into your rules of civility. BTW, if you have a problem with the statistics take it up with the FBI. Funny, how when the FBI stats say what you want them to say they are acceptable.

    1. Really Robin? You are lecturing me about civility. Just go to the gun blogs and see what is said about me. When someone lies, they lie. If it's a fact that they lie, it's not demeaning. Read the comments above for why what you sent is not relevant.

    2. No, I am not lecturing you on civility. It is your blog and you can say whatever you want. I was just curious as to how you would justify what you said. I didn't lie as you can tell by the link. I can also see that as long as anyone said something you didn't like about you, you can say anything you like about anyone else.

    3. But you were, Robin. I don't like it, as you can tell. Technically, you didn't actually lie. You just cherry picked a stat and I still don't know why you did so. Guns clearly kill more people than any other kind of weapon, including hands and feet. You know that right? Why single out a certain kind of gun just because one of the shooters used a rifle? The others used hand guns I believe. They are all firearms. They all kill with bullets. Who cares? The people are dead just the same and in much larger numbers than people who die from hands and feet. Most people would understand that. But you guys purposely avoid the larger picture and the main point of the blog and pick away at details to try to distract from the problem. That is what angers me actually. I would love it if you would agree that too many die from bullets shot by any kind of gun and that you would recognize that fact publicly. Then we can go from there as to what we should do about it. But when you are in denial and trying to distract, it does nobody any good. So stop doing it. When you send ridiculous comments, they deserve to be scrutinized and criticized. You have done it often enough on this blog that I lose patience with you. Actually, I should just ignore you but I publish you anyway. Who knows, maybe I'll stop publishing your commets when they are so off topic.

  10. And your talk of a majority is what's crap. Obama won only because Romney was.such a joke nit because of his record and even less because of his stance on gun control.

    What matters is the midterm elections- the folks on my side will make sure, that if these hacks want to keep their jobs, they'll do well to stay away from our civil liberties. We aren't the powerless minority you and the likes of Bloomberg make us out to be.

    Why do you never talk about the lawlessness of downtown Chicago or Detroit? Why us your bias solely targeting the statistically small amount of ccw incidents and not.tge near Mogadishu status of once great American cities? Could it be because youd have to admit that the demicrat notions of wars on poverty, extreme union power and minority pandering is what destroyed those cities in the first place?

    1. Oh dear. Now we're into fantasy land. It is the policies of the party that are the problem to the minority. And all of the GOP candidates were either crazy or just plain out of touch with the real America. I do talk about the violence in those cities. When have I not? And many of those shootings are also law abiding citizens. But what is your side doing to try to keep guns away from gangs and criminals? NADA. That is a problem for you all. And we will disagree heartily about your last statement. Don't send any more of those political statements. You and I are on polar opposite sides so it's no use even taling about. I won't be printing any more of your extreme political positions. They are ludicrous and nonsensical and don't fit with facts and reality.

  11. You said "Sheriffs will tell you that the burden is on them and they often get taken to court when they deny permits. That is what the law allows. With the "may issue" laws, that wasn't a problem."

    It is called "due process." It is so important to people who respect the law that it is in the Bill of Rights twice. Once in the Fifth and once in the Fourteenth Amendments. The Text in the 14th is as follows.

    Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

    Citizens should always have recourse to appeal unreasonable actions or abuses of authority.

    1. I would say that when a citizen is shot to death by another law abiding citizen, the abuse and unreasonable actions fall onto that law abiding gun owner who shot another human being just for being Black or just for playing loud music. I want to appeal the unreasonable actions of those law abiding gun owners who shouldn't have had permits in the first place. The laws have allowed for them to get them. See George Zimmerman. See Jared Loughner See Cho.

    2. Cho and Loughner had permits? When was Zimmerman convicted? Or in your world are trials no longer necessary? Isn't murder still against the law? Can't we convict those people of that? When did The Minority Report become real?

    3. Robin- I have now had enough of you. Loughner had a "permit" because in Arizona you don't need to technically have a permit to get a gun. Cho didn't have a permit- excuse me- he was not listed as a prohibited person and should have been. If he had applied for a permit, he would have been able to get one. Zimmerman shot someone. He had a permit. That's what I said.

      I've had enough of you for one day. Have a nice evening Robin. Go read someone else's blog.