I Shoot, I Support Gun Control

by: volleyboy1

Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 16:05:25 PM EST



Yep, that's right. Just like the Title says... "I Shoot" AND "I support Gun Control". Not Gun Bans (though I understand the call for bans on "Assault Weapons" and I can see why people do support this - I am agnostic on them leaning towards supporting the ban), but reasonable Gun Control.

I add this so that people have some context.

Understand.... I am no pacifist. At one point I thought I was. I was wrong. I practice a very aggressive style of Martial Arts called Krav Maga. I do abhor violence for the purpose of assault or other crimes and I would NEVER initiate violence for that purpose. But I do enjoy fight sports and enjoy sparring. I think people should be fully equipped with knowledge of how to defend themselves if the need arises

volleyboy1 :: I Shoot, I Support Gun Control
.

That said... I also enjoy shooting my pistol (A Glock 17 9mm)

I enjoy shooting. There is something about it that I just really enjoy. I take classes in Israeli Tactical Point Shooting - (which has an emphasis on dealing with terror situations and not criminal assault, rounds are not chambered until the gun is actually pulled). The more I go through these classes the more I realize just how powerful a gun really is, and how it should never be taken lightly or be a weapon of "first resort". The rhetoric coming from the NRA and hard-core supporters sickens me. In my opinion, when a gun becomes a response of "first resort", these are the people that should absolutely NOT have guns or any deadly weapon.

So I just want people to understand when I come out in support of the gun control laws I support, that people understand I don't want to take away peoples rights to sport shoot, hunt, or protect their family. What I do want is to regulate the availability of Guns and their destructive power.

When the horrible tragedy at Newton happened, the NRA and their supporters were out in force talking about how in Israel teachers are armed and that "They really know how to deal with Guns there." One Paulist acquaintance, claimed he was going to move to Israel IF the Feds "came after his guns". In response to this I wrote a diary titled: Israel to NRA and Tea Party: You have no idea what you are talking about

In that diary, I showed what were Israeli Gun Control laws, so I want to excerpt that part again:

Gun Owner Licensing

Genuine Reason Required for Firearm License:

Applicants for a gun owner's license in Israel are required to prove genuine reason to possess a firearm, for example, self-defense, hunting and sport

Minimum Age for Firearm Possession

The minimum age for gun ownership in Israel is 27 years and 21 years if served in the military

Gun Owner Background Checks

An applicant for a firearm license in Israel must pass background checks which consider health, mental and criminal records

Gun Owner Licensing Period

In Israel gun owners must re-apply and re-qualify for their firearm license every 3 years

Licensing Records

In Israel, authorities maintain a record of individual civilians licensed to acquire, possess, sell or transfer a firearm or ammunition

Limit on Quantity, Type of Ammunition

A licensed firearm owner in Israel is permitted to possess a limited quantity of ammunition.

NOW this is gun control that I can completely support. I firmly believe in raising the age requirement for ownership, Full background checks, limited ammunition, licensing every three years (like driving in the U.S. sort of). I see no problem with any of this.

So let's have the real argument... because from what I see, it all comes down to is that people want to keep their guns because they are afraid that our government will turn tyrannical and impose the second coming of the Third Reich, Stalinist Russia, or the Khmer Rouge.

People also have some misconception that they are going to be some heroes and valiantly stand up to whoever is oppressing them and every home is going to be "REMEMBER THE ALAMO". Well... that is a bunch of crap. Most people (including myself and I am trained to deal with this to a small degree) would be freakin' terrified to deal with this situation and most likely in real life say: "OK, here is my gun".

Could this happen in the U.S.? Yeah... it could but it is highly unlikely and honestly were it to happen, how the hell some shotgun or my Glock is going to stop it? Right... they won't.

So really, if we look at it closely, what is the gun here in most cases, but an extension of our inner desire to be tough or to not be "run over" by other people. I am not sure that is how I see it, since handling a gun does not make me feel tougher than anyone else (I am not sure I can describe how I feel but it is not "tough"), but, I do know many people who do feel as if a gun defines them (both male and female).

This is the thing... I think we need to be honest here. Why oppose any of the rules above? How do they hinder anyone from shooting, or learning to shoot? Here is another thing... If you like shooting "Assault weapons" (and I have fired M-16's and an HK Folding Stock Automatic rifle), I say no problem.. I like shooting them as well. So here is a solution, how about there be ranges that have special licenses (like in Las Vegas) where you go and can target shoot? It's all controlled, no guns leave the premises and you get to shoot as much as you like. Problem Solved.

Look, honestly, there can be very reasonable gun control and because guns are such powerful things they should be regulated and controlled. I am not sure I see the harm in that. No... I don't see the harm in that.

No, if you are that afraid of the government coming to take away your precious guns then just admit it. If you think it sounds a bit whacky and you are afraid to even tell people that, then you shouldn't have a gun - you won't be able to handle it. I like my gun because I like to shoot and it is nice to have extra protection in the house (though locked up and out of sight), just in case of an emergency but that is about it. I am not going to fight off the Black Helicopters and U.N. Troops with my pistol. Heh.

I think that the real issue is in how we see ourselves and where guns fit in that image. The thing is that the Gun is an "easy" accessory to solve problems with, it is an equalizer. You don't have to be big, or tough, or know things to have power you just have to have the will to pull a trigger. Until we understand that about ourselves this debate will rage and there will be more senseless gun violence. It really is as they say... "Guns don't kill people, People kill people... BUT... Guns sure make it a lot easier".

But in the end... I shoot, I support Gun Control. I want people to be safe and while you can't protect everyone from every harmful thing you can make it more difficult for people to be harmed. I don't see anything in Gun Control legislation that stops me from going to the range and shooting my pistol. I don't see anything unreasonable in what is being proposed.

Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

i shoot (2.00 / 22)
i own long guns (mostly antique hunting rifles, one kraag, two shotguns [the 20 gauge is my fave], one sig sauer .380.  i have no problem with gun control and see no reason to have any automatic or military type assault rifle.  i also have no problem with new laws regulating guns.  i have a concealed carry permit, i've had it for years, i don't always carry because i'm not putting myself in the situations in which i might need it.  i've taken many classes and am an excellent shot.  my safety training has been taught by my husband (a green beret) and police training officers.

it isn't a huge hobby, i keep in practice though and i can't even lift that kraag.  

i too support gun control and i also see no problem with it since my guns are really only used at the range also.  

so, what i'm trying to say Volleyboy, is that i agree with your diary completely.  

Does the morgue wagon come with the job?


Thanks Labwitch... Much appreciated. (2.00 / 20)


Vote for me and all of your wildest dreams will come true!

[ Parent ]
no problem (2.00 / 15)
some of us are sane.  maybe just two of us, but we are sane and we do have the utmost respect for the humanity and for the law.  

Does the morgue wagon come with the job?

[ Parent ]
too much to say, but that won't stop me from trying... (2.00 / 18)
Enforcement is an enormous issue.  I don't have any data (so you can stop reading here if you like), but I have the feeling that current regulations on background checks, which are currently required, are not enforced well.

The Brady Law today

From 1994 through 2009, over 107 million Brady background checks were conducted. During this period 1.9 million attempted firearm purchases were blocked by the Brady background check system, or 1.8 percent.[17] For checks done by the Federal Bureau of Investigation in 2008, felons accounted for 56 percent of denials and fugitives from justice accounted for 13 percent of denials.[18] In 2009, felons accounted for 48 percent of denials and fugitives from justice accounted for 16 percent of denials. Between 2000 and 2009, over 30,000 denials were reversed on appeal.[17] In April 2009, the FBI announced it had completed its 100 millionth NICS approval since its inception 10 years before.

Prosecution and conviction of violators of the Brady Act, however, is extremely rare. During the first 17 months of the Act, only seven individuals were convicted. In the first year of the Act, 250 cases were referred for prosecution and 217 of them were rejected.[19]

Beefing this up will cost money, and lots of it.  The people who are bitching and moaning about lack of enforcement of current laws (e.g., the NRA) as a means of putting off new laws are also, in many cases, the same people who wish to cut cut cut gov't spending.

Secondly, I think we have to differentiate the few mass murder tragedies like Sandy Hook from the larger number of lives ruined in gun violence in less dramatic circumstances.  Often the mass murder situations involve legally obtained large capacity guns, suggesting these could be mitigated with better laws of the type being discussed. While these are terrible tragedies, they are a small fraction of the gun deaths we see each year.  Something like 2/3 of gun related deaths in the US are suicides (around 20000 in 2012).  I don't see how to solve that problem without banning a lot of guns outright: I would guess most purchases that involved a subsequent suicide would not have involved neither the type of guns currently being considered for additional control nor the type of individual who'd trigger a rejection slip at background check time.

I really don't see any gun control law that would solve a lot of our gun problems short of banning all handguns and all guns that hold more than a few bullets or shells.  and I can't imagine a law at that level of restriction being able to pass.


Much to think about here... (2.00 / 15)
I get what you are saying regarding banning, but, I am not sure I agree with it. And I agree that in any case it wouldn't pass (nor what would I suggest will pass either).

BUT I think we need to have the discussion and I do welcome that.  

Vote for me and all of your wildest dreams will come true!


[ Parent ]
What we need is a sane look at the 30,000 deaths each year. (2.00 / 19)
Cold, rational. Numbers and facts.

What pisses me off is that the whole conversation always devolves into fanaticism. Primarily from the right, the left has lots of history of shouting too much but has gotten much better of late.

The NRA and the tiny-but-powerful Gun Lobby - as differentiated from gun owners - has successfully derailed any conversation for decades. Facts and figures are obfuscated at every turn.

How many people are killed and injured? What are the circumstances, and how do those break down to several levels? Is there anything that could realistically be done about each of the sub-causes?

Guns could be manufactured to be more safe, perhaps, to reduce accidents. It has worked overwhelming well with every other consumer product, it's worth researching.

Maybe we need to look at what we are doing to limit suicides. Maybe there is more resource that we could arrange, maybe there are more efficient and effective ways to do it. How are we doing it now? Is it just volunteer hotlines and not much else? I don't know.

What the hell do we do about guns and gangs? A fifteen year old girl who led a high school band during the inauguration was just shot to death in Chicago, WTF are we doing and what could we do better?

We need to talk, and to do so we have to take the issue away from the NRA and Wayne bloody (literally) La Pierre.


John Askren - "Never get into a pissing match with a skunk."


[ Parent ]
the nra leaned on the congress (2.00 / 10)
and we don't have good data or research on gun deaths from the CDC.  yet.  

[ Parent ]
asdf. (2.00 / 19)
if you have an idea that would reduce the gun suicide rate without major restriction on handguns, I'd love to hear it.  People do shoot themselves with rifles and shotguns, but the majority are (I think) handguns.  In fact I'd be willing to bet that of the 10000 or so murders-by-gun, the majority of those are handguns as well.

One of the executive orders I found encouraging is the charge that the CDC collect data on gun violence.  Finding out exactly where we are will be a help.

I'm a gun owner too...multiple types from hand to rifle to shot.  I grew up with them and understand the mindset of a lot of people that are called "gun nuts."  30000 gun deaths per year, 55000 gun related injuries (including deaths), these are high prices to pay for interpreting second amendment rights to include handguns.  The southern rock band lynyrd skynyrd (progressive rednecks...who knew?) famously sang

handguns were made for killin
they aint no good for nuthin else.

On the other hand, if we're supposed to be a well-regulated militia that can protect our homeland from foreign adversaries, seems to me we'd need 50 cals, RPGs... more significant firepower than an AR-15 provides even.

I dunno.  it's a tough problem.  but walking away without trying aint gonna solve it.


[ Parent ]
Honestly, (2.00 / 15)
I would take a handgun ban before an AR-15 ban if it was possible (it isn't). Heck, 50-cals and RPGs would not cause the quantity of deaths that handguns do.

Never fired a handgun, and while I would enjoy doing so someday on a range, they just have no use in daily life. But they fall into the "I need one for self protection" argument, and given the completely overboard fear that everyone (not at all only gun owners) have about life that just is a bridge too far.

Really looking forward to the CDC numbers.

John Askren - "Never get into a pissing match with a skunk."


[ Parent ]
I don't really have a suggestion on that front (2.00 / 10)
I think if there is any kind of weapon around I think people will find a way to kill themselves with them. But yes, guns do make it easier to kill oneself and yes, there is empirical data on that.

I do think that heavy regulation and background checks will help cut down the number of both suicides and homicides. I also think that making sure that there are adequate resources for mental health issues are important for society as well.

It is a very tough problem and it involves much more than simple gun control or gun bans.... You are very right... walking away will not solve it. We have to face the very question of "WHY" we have guns.  

Vote for me and all of your wildest dreams will come true!


[ Parent ]
Regarding Suicide (2.00 / 19)
I was listening to Thom Hartmann's show a while ago, and he mentioned that one of the countries that had mandatory military service (I think it was Israel, but I'm not 100% on that) used to have the service members take their guns home with them on the weekend.  When they started having the guns kept on the base instead, weekend suicides dropped by something like 40% (IIRC), and suicides during the week did not increase.  It suggested that having easy access to the gun made people more likely to act impulsively on suicidal thoughts.  For US regulations, I think a waiting period before obtaining the gun would serve a similar deterrent in this case.

[ Parent ]
It was Israel and the number of suicides dropped like 44% on (2.00 / 16)
weekends.

My mental health is reason #1 why I don't own a gun.  While I have always chosen to drink to excess instead of doing something violent I understand that I have the serious potential to do myself harm in the "right" frame of mind.

The problem is that I likely wouldn't show up on any "list."  I haven't sought treatment in years and I'm not on any medication.  What law accounts for me and guns?  I have no idea.  Does the answer lie in better treatment/less stigma attached to mental illness?  For me probably not; I'm stubborn and don't need no stinkin' doctor and I'm certainly not shy about telling folks I have issues (those that don't tell me first).  :)  

Anyhoo, I've gotten pretty far off the beaten path here.

"When Fascism comes to America, it will come wrapped in teh stupid and waving a gun" ~ Esteev on Wonkette


[ Parent ]
No you haven't... (2.00 / 10)
You haven't gotten far off the beaten path at all... Actually the discussion of mental health is very relevant. A discussion of attitudes and the way our society reacts to "good advice" is also relevant.  

This subject is needed to be faced on a number of "fronts".  

Vote for me and all of your wildest dreams will come true!


[ Parent ]
The "anti" position is pretty well all in the "shooting cops" (2.00 / 17)
or "I be Rambo" self-defense style.

I have had it with folks explaining that they need to be able to kill a lot of US soldiers. Plenty of adamant 2nd Amendment supporters - folks like Joe Scarborough, and others - have been pushing back on that madness, but still it persists.

Read your history. The first step is taking away guns. I need them to Protect Liberty from the Coming Fascist Government.

I'm sorry, that's barking mad. We need to divide that demographic away from the conversation, because there is nothing you can say to someone looking forward to killing American soldiers and police officers.

I would like to see the self-defense argument challenged more often as well. Bob Costas spoke well about the gun culture problem we have on The Daily Show the other night. Part of that is the belief so many people have that they need guns to protect themselves against this Dangerous and Evil World.

Horse hockey.

In conversation with my many gun friends I have been challenging that frequently of late. "Have you ever had to use your gun to protect yourself?" Do you know anyone who has? Do you really think it will work?

I have never had a weapon, and obviously never had one in a conflict situation. But I have been in lots of conflict situations, some potentially dangerous, and they have all been resolved peacefully using - dare I say - words.

The best I have come up with is two cases asking those things of friends is where someone showed their gun during a confrontation. While maybe that counts I would argue - and both have agreed - that the situation was just as likely to work out fine without one.

For all that I like guns. They are fascinating machines and firing them is fun. I like the fact that America tends to have the kind of society that trusts individuals, first, then grudgingly limits them as a last resort. That latter point is where most of my divergence with classic liberalism comes in.

I think this is a time when we can make some progress, though I do not know which bits of 'rules' will help. Mostly, I think we need to smarten up about the topic.

John Askren - "Never get into a pissing match with a skunk."


I have had (2.00 / 9)
what is called a defensive gun use mostly because I live in rural west Texas where danger is at your front door and the closest law enforcement is minutes away. It was not pleasant although I was surprised at how important all the training I'd had was and it was resolved with no shots fired. There was no brandishing but the would be offender was quite convinced that one more step towards me would not be a good idea. My dad had spent countless hours of my youth with me though so I was more trained than most people are. I really must emphasize that more than any kind of firearm training the most important training was that my dad taught me to be aware of my surroundings, exercise good judgment about people and read situations. Firearms were always the last resort because there is no going back from using them. It's how I was able to resolve my intruder situation without force, my attacker realized that I was quietly doing all the right things and I was indeed resolute. He wisely decided that he did not want me raising that weapon from its downward position nor putting my finger on the trigger because that would definitely end in my favor. And he knew as well I would be the one telling the story, the look on his face when he realized I was armed made a very deep impression on me. I did answer the question for myself though, in a situation of me or thee I vote thee. Since then I've been happily able to avoid being put in that situation because I didn't much appreciate the knowledge.

There's nothing like eavesdropping to show you that the world outside your head is different from the world inside your head.--Thornton Wilder

[ Parent ]
when i worked the ranch (2.00 / 11)
we were often alone, maybe with a truck, maybe with a horse.  there were no cellphones and no radio contact.  you carried both a handgun and a long gun just in case.  it was mostly in case you ran into a p'o'd javalina or hog or an injured animal that couldn't have been saved.  also rattlesnakes though mostly you could avoid them if you could hear them.  i've used them on coyotes that were out during the day and obviously ill, i've used them on animals that were beyond veterninary help.  i've not used one on a human but, i was accosted once and once the man realized i had it, knew what i was doing and his heart or possibly head, was in the way, he beat it fast.  this was in san antonio.  just after i was very nearly kidnapped in broad daylight on a main street during lunch hour on a weekday.  that guy ended up pistol whipping the guard at the bank where my office was.  so, even in the city, and even in a very crowded area, yes, i've been known to carry.  not recently as i stay out of the city mostly.  also, the local cop shop is just across the highway from my home.  criminals tend to try to stay away from the immediate area.  

also, as this is texas, if the threat is on your property, you know words, you're going to be hauled before the grand jury but likely no billed.  city or country.  still, you don't need a military assault rifle to protect your property unless you're trying to hold off a platoon of pissed off aliens with kalashnikovs.

Does the morgue wagon come with the job?


[ Parent ]
I don't think I could (2.00 / 7)
protect property with a firearm because anything you can buy with money can be replaced, lives not so. And things have never mattered much to me. I realize now that my dad loved someone who wasn't able to protect herself and devoted his life to teaching me not to be in that position, it is an attitude more than it is hardware when it comes to self-protection.He taught me it is much easier to stay out of trouble than it is to get out of it. My trouble came looking for me knowing I was alone and isolated. Now the funniest part is that he told everyone! So the criminal element was rightly afraid of me and cut me a wide berth. By the time the sheriff heard about it his only question to me was why didn't I shoot the guy when I could've! I couldn't do that, when he realized I was armed he immediately began backing up and no longer represented a threat. When that happened is actually when I got mad, before I was simply scared. Not afraid but reasonably scared because of the stakes.

There's nothing like eavesdropping to show you that the world outside your head is different from the world inside your head.--Thornton Wilder

[ Parent ]
Total city person a bit baffled, needing help understanding: (2.00 / 2)
 danger at your front door and closest law enforcement is minutes away/

I think you mean miles away....but I want to be sure...and it sounded that your intruder was wiser than the ppl who want their AK for "protection from riots," for example, Sen. Air Force Reserve G. Lindsay yesterday.....


[ Parent ]
it would have taken (2.00 / 2)
the sheriff at least 15 minutes to get to my house if they had a deputy available and someone threatening me with grave bodily harm was standing on my front porch.  

There's nothing like eavesdropping to show you that the world outside your head is different from the world inside your head.--Thornton Wilder

[ Parent ]
Well so much here to unpack (2.00 / 14)
The self defense argument is bunk. A years research in 1998 showed that for every defensive use of a firearm in the US, 23 died in homicide, suicide or accident

Much more profound is a uniquely Amerian distrust of the (federal) government"s monopoly of violence. It!s both the unique beauty and flaw of the American pioneering frontier myth that, from Birth of a Nation, through High Noon to Taxi Driver, so many of my American friends believe the ultimate conflicts will be sorted out in a retreat to Walden Pond, and an armed show down between the forces of good and evil

The p***artist formerly known as 'Brit'


[ Parent ]
well Peter (2.00 / 12)
as I always say, when it happens to you it's 100% and the odds don't matter. I have never entertained thoughts of waging war with my firearms because I'm not delusional and I would never have a militry style weapon or a high capacity magazine. My objections are aethestic as well as functional. Those guns are ugly and high cap mags jam. They serve absolutely no civilian purpose and people who tell you they are good for hunting are not right. They only hunting they're good for is trophy hunting because their rounds mostly destroy the meat. They also result in too many wounded animals who are not killed immediately. No one I know who actually hunts would hunt with someone armed with one because they are not sporting and hunting barely qualifies as that anyway. If you're not eating the meat it is just wanton killing. I was taught that was an offense against the universe to do that. So no all gun owners are not ravening fools but we sure have been outshouted by the ones who are.

There's nothing like eavesdropping to show you that the world outside your head is different from the world inside your head.--Thornton Wilder

[ Parent ]
The use of violence to protect yourself or those under your care I don't have a problem with. (2.00 / 11)
My experience has been that when faced with violent people it is sometimes necessary to let them know that violence can be bi-directional. While I haven't had a weapon in those moments in my life, I have on occasion made sure that the opposing force understands that.

I have not, however, been faced with the "intruder in my door" scenario. It seems statistically unlikely to happen, and while under those circumstances having a handgun wouldn't break my heart as a means for convincing that person to leave, it is one of the things I hope never to have to learn as to whether I would either use it to soon or not be able to at all.

While I side with the American view on the matter rather than the English - in general terms - it is an English author that I often think of as the proper measure on when and how to use force and firepower.

Dick Francis was a champion steeplechase jockey and went on to write dozens of novels, all somehow related to horse racing. In each, a protagonist is caught up in some criminal scenario and forced through trial to the extreme. Of course, in the end he always gets on top of the challenge, and often gets physical control of an antagonist who has been outrageously cruel to him.

In almost every case, the protagonist holds back the physical retribution as soon as the antagonist is no longer a threat. Guns are not common at these climaxes, but when they are the protagonist - in all but one story - restrains from using them the very moment the threat is under control. Notably, in Flying Finish, a brutal killer is at his mercy and he shoots him dead.

Francis was obviously a very bright man. His use of the nuance of this issue throughout his writing is wonderful. Life is complicated and not always pretty, but the mark of a person is their ability to withhold their capacity to use violence at the very moment when they can. But even then, not always. Sometimes you put the dog down.

John Askren - "Never get into a pissing match with a skunk."


[ Parent ]
it was always emphasized (2.00 / 8)
the heavy responsibility that comes with owning and using firearms. The results are not reversible so you had better be plenty sure what you're proposing to do. There is also the matter of proper storage, it is your responsibility to see that your firearms do not get into the wrong hands. I have never carried for a lot of reasons, mostly because I've never felt the need. Even a handgun is heavy and they all smell terrible, I wouldn't want that around me all the time. It's one thing to keep them in my home for protection but it's another altogether to take them in public. I understand people not wanting to be around armed folks because I don't particularly want to either. But I would not be comfortable at home where I am often alone unarmed. It wasn't as big an issue to me when we lived in the city but out here the circumstances are very different.

There's nothing like eavesdropping to show you that the world outside your head is different from the world inside your head.--Thornton Wilder

[ Parent ]
Sure, and as above these are complicated issues. (2.00 / 8)
As you and LabWitch stated well, there are times and there are times.

I don't know for certain that if you and I sat and talked in real time over cozy mugs we would agree to the finite end whether you really need one or whether I am being blase in not having one, but there are good points to both opinions.

At present I live in a heavily armed area, in a fairly remote place, where there is a lot of poverty and there have been break ins at least of the empty lake houses around. It is more than usually conceivable that I could find myself dealing with the intruder scenario, and that I could find myself deeply regretting my choice. But so far the closest I have come was living in a very remote area with far too many bears which were getting far too comfortable (Ontario, where outlawed bear hunting had led to massive overpopulation).

Given the complete magic wand that I will never be burdened with, I would not ban handguns. But I would restrict them to people competent to own them, and that would be far fewer than actually do.

John Askren - "Never get into a pissing match with a skunk."


[ Parent ]
I couldn't say which is better (2.00 / 6)
I can say it would be difficult for me to turn aside my upbringing. I do think no one should have a firearm without proper instruction. I've seen a few too many people move to Texas to let their freak flag fly from places where firearms were more difficult to obtain legally and become utter dangerous fools. I was exposed to firearms from the time I was very young and the lessons were unending about gun safety. My husband and I were talking about the other day, how when we were young we considered firearms to be a big hassle because of all the rules. And then when we were teenagers being determined to break the rules but also being so very careful because we knew we were breaking rules so that no disasters happened. It didn't take long to give up breaking those rules, it was easier to just do it right.  

There's nothing like eavesdropping to show you that the world outside your head is different from the world inside your head.--Thornton Wilder

[ Parent ]
I've been that person from Elsewhere. (2.00 / 6)
Not with guns, but with chainsaws, boat motors and other pointy things.

As a teen I started going Up North in Ontario, where we later lived. It blew me away that all these parents had raised their kids well enough that they could be trusted - alone, with beer - with so many dangers around. Pointy, powered, spiky things that today would raise alarm bells around every helicopter parent around.

Guns, too. The odd rifle or shotgun was around these cottages in those days. But, for just the reasons you mention, there was not a single instance where anyone thought it would be a bright idea to take one out and shoot at things.

I love that sort of responsibility training. It is something missing in much of the more "civilized modern world". Many of those same kids grew up into helicopter parents who don't give their own kids the training, trust and freedom their own did for them. I have often pointed this out to them, but for the most part they say "our parents were crazy!".

No. Your parents were smart.

John Askren - "Never get into a pissing match with a skunk."


[ Parent ]
When learning to use a gun as a young buck (2.00 / 3)
I was taught that a gun can protect you against one or two people, no more than that.

"By the time you fire the third bullet, you're already dead" I remember being told.

Which is why I laugh at the idea that we need high-capacity magazines for defense.  


[ Parent ]
Here's what I don't get (2.00 / 14)
For the people who think that ANY regulation is bad because

So let's have the real argument... because from what I see, it all comes down to is that people want to keep their guns because they are afraid that our government will turn tyrannical and impose the second coming of the Third Reich, Stalinist Russia, or the Khmer Rouge.

What exactly do they think having a few semi automatics or assault rifles or whatever is going to do about it??  The government/US Military has drones, tanks, and far more firepower than even a thousand civilians put together could hope to overcome.  And yet time and again, when I listen to gun debates on other programs or have gun debates with people I know, it keeps coming back to this.  I don't get it.


My take is... (2.00 / 11)
always keep people in fear of something.  

Then they can always claim its for self-protection.



[ Parent ]
Their slippery slope is already pretty steep, (2.00 / 13)
given that we have had a ban on automatic weapons for 80 years.  Damn!  Look how fascist we have become since then!

I am for the individual over government, government over big business and the environment over all. -- William O. Douglas

[ Parent ]
in an earlier career... (2.00 / 18)
i carried a gun every day to work.  By virtue of my job, I could carry it concealed off the job as well.

But I also had to qualify quarterly to continue to carry, had to go through training plus refresher training.

I loved going to the range to shoot - whether for practice or to qualify.  It was that challenge you had against yourself to hit the targe square on.

My previous job, my experience with guns - it made me respect the power of a weapon that could kill so easily.

We need some sort of uniform gun control in this country.  What changed my position on this was the massacre shooting on the Long Island Railroad in 1993.  Colin Ferguson killed 6 people with his legally obtained Ruger P-89 9mm pistol.  One of the victims was the wife of a co-worker.  This is the shooting that propelled Caroline McCarthy into politics.

Have we not learned YET?  Do we need to count all the senseless shootings including further massacres to see there is something seriously wrong with our gun laws?

and you know - with his wife murdered, his service weapon was immediately retrieved from my co-worker.  It was some time before he even felt he was ready to carry his weapon on the job again.


Thanks for this story - it is important. (2.00 / 14)
We should be having these discussions all around the country. Reasonable Gun Owners and Reasonable advocates of Gun Control.

It is serious response to a serious problem.  

Vote for me and all of your wildest dreams will come true!


[ Parent ]
To be noted... (2.00 / 15)
Ferguson purchased the gun in California... and did illegally transport it to NY.  However, he was able to legally purchase that weapon in CA... and I believe his travel back was not by plane, which would have revealed the weapon.

so for example, if you take the bus back to the east coast, who will be checking for weapons being carried over state lines??  

It's the easy availability to legally purchase guns that put these guns also on the streets illegally.

Another thing - the weapon I carried was a Smith and Wesson 357 magnum revolver.  It was before the weapon was changed to a semi-automatic (first glock, then H&K).  I left this job before the changeover, but did shoot the glock.

I was a good shot with the revolver, but I was an excellent shot with the glock.

Less power in the glock, but more bullet hitting the target dead on.

That is the power of a semi-automatic.  Pretty much anyone winds up able to shoot it well... and if you don't hit something dead on, just the sheer number of bullets released in a short period of time you will hit something.


[ Parent ]
Noted... That is why we need national laws that (2.00 / 13)
are universal to all 50 States.

Look, people are going to get weapons illegally and there is not much we can do about that. BUT, if we stop some of the violence with legal, sane, reasonable controls then it's worth it. You are dead on when you say this:

It's the easy availability to legally purchase guns that put these guns also on the streets illegally.

As for the Glock... I love it. I fired revolvers and I just don't like them nearly as much. I am still a fairly crappy shot so I figure that doesn't matter much. Heh



Vote for me and all of your wildest dreams will come true!


[ Parent ]
This is how i saw... (2.00 / 5)
With the introduction of a semi-automatic... And in the "legal" use of discharging and using the gun.

When the NYPD first began issuing the glock as their new weapon of choice, you had the explosion of rounds fired... With unwarranted shooting (and sometimes death) cases.  Amadou Diallo.  Desmond Robinson. Sean Bell

My point is not the legalities, but the use of a semi-automatic weapon and as guns evolve bring more concerns.  Cops wanted these types of weapons because they were already on the street.  They needed it to hit firepower with firepower.  But what about those who are killed or hurt in instances where cops merely thought they were being threatened. Their firepower now means certain death.

I dunno... I need to think through some more.  But it is why I think we definitiely need to curb the sale of all guns.  And absolutely it should start with high capacity magazines and those assault rifles.  Why the hell does anyone need to have that as part of their own personal arsenal?

Rambling....


[ Parent ]
I would love to see fewer guns, (2.00 / 8)
but those who would move this conversation forward need to be thoughtful of their goals, and how they are put forth.

Which is not, I hope, to follow a path like Dick Armey suggested for the GOP - to keep their goals but stop being honest about them in public.

Personally my goal is for a future America to retain its responsibility culture but refine the application of such as far as firearms. To embrace the responsible views of serious gun owners like LabWitch and volleyboy, who take ownership of both the means of carrying the responsibility for handling weapons and also the honest reality of using them.

There is a lot in that second part. It means being recursively honest about the end result of - ever - using a weapon on a human. Of being brutally frank with oneself about the actual, pragmatic situational need. To not allow paranoia to infringe no one's ability to own that responsibility.

In my imagined future utopia - where we have in fact further reduced risk far beyond the already historic extreme lows it is at today to a vanishingly small factor - parents intentionally put mechanisms in place where young people are appropriately and incrementally presented with the responsibility for real, physical, risk. Where we pass into a period where we realize "protecting our children" means more than isolating them but rather includes as a fundamental component inculcating them with comprehensive understanding that their actions bear deep responsibilities.

In the far (and perhaps not so far) future it will become impossible to keep the average person from being able to have access to incredible destructive force. The gun topic is one where I see an opportunity to work through how we mitigate that intrinsic risk, and the complex issues involved.

John Askren - "Never get into a pissing match with a skunk."


[ Parent ]
Maybe that is why... (2.00 / 7)
newtown hit  the nerves of so many...

That the average person was really seeing that destructive force... That this time it opened the eyes of more people.

I wish we cold go back to just through stones and sticks


[ Parent ]
but all guns are semi automatic (0.00 / 0)
every time you squeeze the trigger they shoot.  an automatic shoots so long as your finger is squeezing the trigger and the setting is merely how many bullets are fired per second.  a shotgun is semi-automatic.

Does the morgue wagon come with the job?

[ Parent ]
The closest I get to guns... (2.00 / 15)
...is on television programs. I just don't see the appeal.

But I don't begrudge you an activity that gives you innocent enjoyment - and I think if all gun owners/users were as sensible as you, we wouldn't really need to have such a very fraught discussion in this country, would we?

Thanks for the great post.

There are, in every age, new errors to be rectified, and new prejudices to be opposed. ~Samuel Johnson (1709-1784)


Thanks for the kind words... (2.00 / 14)
I appreciate your P.O.V.  

Vote for me and all of your wildest dreams will come true!

[ Parent ]
i didn't mean protecting the propety (2.00 / 10)
i should have made myself clear, i meant protecting your or your family's life.  the property can be destroyed for all i care, just let me have my animals and my family.

i was merely pointing out, that in texas, as you well know, private property means just that.  remember, this was cattle country and many of those laws have never been revised to my knowledge.  many people, not myself, and not you, take that to mean, if someone you don't want on your property enters it, you may take whatever deadly action you like.  one guy just down the street shot a man picking through his garbage cans. he was no billed as it was judged by the GJ that he was protecting his property.  the cans were not on the curb, they were next to the kitchen door.  it's merely an observation, not an agreement with the decision.

Does the morgue wagon come with the job?


It is unfortunate that we've largely become a shoot first/ask questions (2.00 / 12)
later society.

Look at the guy in Georgia who killed a young man who had pulled into the wrong driveway because the GPS had given the wrong location.  The young man hadn't gotten out of the car, and was apparently in the process of turning the car around, when the homeowner shot once in the air and then once in the direction of the car (killing the driver of the vehicle).  The house, according to the one picture I saw looked to be a bit secluded but most folks I know will back off when someone waves a gun around.  Based on known information there was no need to actually fire the weapon.

Or the guy in Florida (!) who took a gun with him to confront his neighbor about the loud music.  In my neck of the woods 1) you call the police and file a noise complaint and 2) you don't take a weapon to ask someone to turn down the music.  And, yes, the gun-wielding guy is claiming "stand your ground" because the neighbor was threatening.

Owning a weapon should come with the responsibility to use the weapon responsibly but somehow there is little accountability.

And I'm not suggesting your opinion.  My comment originally seemed to fit here.

"When Fascism comes to America, it will come wrapped in teh stupid and waving a gun" ~ Esteev on Wonkette


[ Parent ]
i wholeheatedly agree HappyinVT (2.00 / 9)
Owning a weapon should come with the responsibility to use the weapon responsibly but somehow there is little accountability.

i agree HappyinVT, but not just a little accountability, a LOT of accountability.

shoot first and ask later is fraught with tragedy.  just because i shoot and own guns doesn't mean i think they're the answer to much of anything.  it merely means i enjoy it responsibly.  my first impulse when anything looks to be going wrong or someone is possibly on my property without invitation is observation.  then, my cell phone.  only if i personally, or my family are personally threatened would i even think of those guns.  i've dealt with too much gun violence at the morgue to want anything like that to happen at my home.  if it's on my neighbor's property, the same applies, phone first!  

Does the morgue wagon come with the job?


[ Parent ]
I know people here (2.00 / 9)
who would use firearms to protect property, they also vote Republican so they're pretty uniform in bad judgment. It's crazy and I don't think any of them have considered the ramifications for their lives going forward after taking a life. I hope it never comes to that but if it does right now the state of Texas and it's R majority Lege has made it legal.  

There's nothing like eavesdropping to show you that the world outside your head is different from the world inside your head.--Thornton Wilder

[ Parent ]
yes words, so do i (2.00 / 5)
and yes they all vote R. none engage brain before acting.

Does the morgue wagon come with the job?

[ Parent ]
It's just nice to see civil conversation here. (2.00 / 9)
 I may  not agree with the things said, but at least the conversation stays away from insults, unlike the "other" place. When the rkba group there wrote 1 or 2 diaries a week, lots of people said they were sick of seeing so many, and now, every other diary is about guns. They can't seem to get enough of them. sheesh

civility is what's lacking in what should be (2.00 / 9)
a very serious conversation between Americans.  instead there's just screaming on both sides, except here.  meagert, you have the right to disagree with what i say, i respect you, the great part is you too respect me and understand that this is how discourse and intelligent problem solving works.  


Does the morgue wagon come with the job?

I am impressed with the public conversation from the left, (2.00 / 9)
as on Morning Joe just moments ago.

I am disappointed with the right, who stand back and allow the NRA and other "I need to kill US soldiers" survivalists to run their conversation. Senator Grassley was just on, and while not shouting like the NRA, he again sidesteps the issue and stands effectively mute to, I imagine, pacify the Tea Party End Timers he imagines keep him in office.

And he should know better. He has been in office since 1981, before the current extremists took over the GOP. Which also makes me thing of the generational issue we discussed earlier. Perhaps some of the GOP leadership still think it is the Cold War era.

John Askren - "Never get into a pissing match with a skunk."


[ Parent ]
i grew up during the cold war era (2.00 / 7)
so did my husband (he's older than i and fought as a green beret in vietnam).  while it shaped some of my thinking, it didn't make me nuts.  maybe because i realized that living in san antonio tx meant a bomb just a bit later than say a missile silo bomb, san antonio being the AF's basic training center, the heart (at the time of the army hospital training corps) BAMC, Brooks AFB, Kelley (sadly now defunct) AFB, Randolph AFB (basic fighter pilot training, Medina AFB (a shadowy rumor ridden base that did run spy planes and some say stored nukes.  i don't THINK it made me nuts like these current goppers.  i still think about it on occasion, but, there's no fear there.  there really wasn't fear then, i was young but understood the fallacy of a winnable nuclear war.  

you may be correct however, in that these new gop leaders must have a fear factor to utilize for control purposes, that is if i'm understanding you properly Chris.  

Does the morgue wagon come with the job?


[ Parent ]
Not just the fear factor, though that is part of it. (2.00 / 10)
We had a good sub-thread somewhere, I think just before you arrived, on the generational thing. It has been on my mind more often recently, the differing views of the Boomer/GenX/Millenial stack.

Boomers just have a particular set of ways of looking at things, as does every generation. They mark an historical crux and like every other such that comes with both positive and negative baggage on average.

GenXers (me: crux GenX/Boomer, 1965) are more interstitial tissue than an actual dramatic change, but as such enable the following generation which will really change things.

Millenials just see the world entirely differently. They don't on average care about their grandparent's issues, whether conservative or liberal, US or other. The Cold War was the last great Us vs Them imo, marking the change from the historical geolocated tribal bashing that goes back to the dawn of humankind.

They don't give a rat's butt about inter-racial marriage (97%). They never knew a time when Foreigners were unknowable and distant. Their minds see the world as it is going to be, more than as it was.

I can't wait to see them take over. If I get to be very old and see their kids moving into adulthood I expect to see them come up with answers we are not even able to conceive.

John Askren - "Never get into a pissing match with a skunk."


[ Parent ]
i'll try to look that up Chris (2.00 / 4)
thank you for the response and from what i read here, i see your point and agree with it.  i'm a '50s kid, so, i don't get  most of the current generations.  sometimes, they seem to connect, more often than not, i just can't fathom the thought processes.  even my kid who is 28 more often agrees with me than with his own generation although he's more tuned into them than i, naturally.  

i'll look for the subthread for context.  thanks again.

Does the morgue wagon come with the job?


[ Parent ]
Just a couple of thoughts, (2.00 / 9)
but first a statistic. 60% of the illegal guns confiscated by the DC police were traced back to just 40 gun dealers in VA. (FYI there are somewhere close to 250 licensed dealers in VA). The majority of guns confiscated by the NYPD come from the I-95 corridor south of DC.

So while an assault weapons ban certainly will not cut down on the day in and day out gun violence. (1400+ have died by firearm since Sandy Hook)

Maybe  making our gun laws universal will help so that there is not a patchwork of strict and lax laws state to state.

Maybe limiting the number of guns an individual can buy in a month, not the number of guns one can own, just the number one can buy in a 30 day period. This might help cut down on the gun running.

Hold gun dealer liable if  guns they sold keep showing up in crimes.

And finally background checks must be universal, states must be required to keep their data bases up to date in a timely manner and forwarded to the FBI. we can no longer permit 40% of all guns to be sold in this country without a background check.

Now will these changes make gun violence magically disappear? NO. However we don't pass laws in the hopes of a miracle we do in the hopes that they will make things just a bit better for our citizens over time.

" In the choice between changing ones mind and proving there's no need to do so, most people get busy on the proof. "


I fully agree with States recognizing all other States Laws (2.00 / 6)
In NC, my concealed carry license is recognized by some 30+ other States, I can travel freely between them. I cannot drive back to my home State of Ma., because of the patchwork of laws in places like NJ, NY, and Ma, etc.
The hard part of such reciprocity is the freer State laws vs. the stricter. A lot of that is due to geography, rural vs urban.
Part of the problem on instant background checks is the unfunded mandate. Federal law requires, but does not reimburse the States for compliance. There is resistance to that compliance because of it. The other problem is the Mental Health reporting vs privacy, and stigma.
This is all way more complicated than just legislating.

[ Parent ]
Doing what is right is never easy n/t (2.00 / 7)


" In the choice between changing ones mind and proving there's no need to do so, most people get busy on the proof. "

[ Parent ]
Whose definitions of Right should we use? (2.00 / 4)
 Apparently only the controlling of Rights is acceptable to some in the Democratic Party.
Within the firearms community, many of the President's recommendations are not considered onerous, or rather, they will not be vehemently opposed. The AWB is dead in the water.
Any laws introduced will have little effect. I'm not really concerned with some 10-20 year improvement of a small percentage, when an almost overnight improvement can be achieved with Social fixes. Single payer Health care, with a reinvigorated Mental Health component, ending the drug war, and improving job opportunities, thereby reducing poverty, in urban areas. I will strongly support these types of changes, and honestly believe them to be quicker,and more effective than any new gun legislation. I also believe that this whole kerfluffle has already lessened Democratic gains in '14, thereby reducing our chances to actually further a Liberal agenda.
 

[ Parent ]
I consider myself... (2.00 / 7)
Part of the firearms community, and still feel that changes must be imposed. I don't find the President's recommendations onerous. I also think some of his recs are a start, and not fully flushed out or formed.

But i do agree... Unfunded mandates on the background checks do have to change... Have to consider how to ensure the checks are done.  Do we pass it onto the consumer?  


[ Parent ]
No (2.00 / 7)
People who use firearms, and people who want to legislate should share the tax expense.
 

[ Parent ]
I look at the point... (2.00 / 5)
In the possible immigration proposal and who should be paying for background checks in that process.  Some are suggesting to pass this onto the potential immigrant trying to obtain a benefit.

If the FBI is responsible (as the repository for information used for background checks), maybe if their systems were upgraded, it would make it easier overall for the larger demand on their system and personnel who manage that end of things in their agency.


[ Parent ]
In other words (2.00 / 3)
everybody needs to pay.  

" In the choice between changing ones mind and proving there's no need to do so, most people get busy on the proof. "

[ Parent ]
I see what you did there (2.00 / 2)
But it's not a very big gotcha. If it's a problem for the entire population, then everyone should share the cost. If you think it's only a problem caused by perfectly legal and sane gun owners then you are wrong.
 

[ Parent ]
This was not a gotcha (2.00 / 5)
nor was it an attempt to gotcha. I think this is a problem, crisis that we all need to solve. So we all need to be willing to pay for the solution. Personally I would like the gun makers and dealers to pick a good chick of the costs, but that is just me.

And one final point, many of the people who end up killing others with a gun were legal, sane gun owners until they pulled the trigger.

" In the choice between changing ones mind and proving there's no need to do so, most people get busy on the proof. "


[ Parent ]
If I interpreted wrong, I'm sorry (2.00 / 4)
But the statement could be interpreted both ways.
If you agree we all share the expense, then that's a good thing.
As for your last sentence, they have yet to introduce legislation that might read minds. Wasn't there a movie about that?

[ Parent ]
The cost issue is an interesting one. (2.00 / 6)
On the one hand, it is a societal issue so there is an argument to have everyone bear the cost.

On the other, it is related to a specific set of commercial items, which many people have no contact with.

I could see it going in part down both roads.

My righthanded genes see it like automobile insurance, where if you want to buy a car you share the cost of risks involved, with your demonstrated likelihood of causing those risks to be realized factored in.

My lefthanded genes see a public health issue, related to mitigating suicides by all means as one example.

As long as we can keep our pies in our ovens we should be able to argue through the factors to a reasonable solution.

John Askren - "Never get into a pissing match with a skunk."


[ Parent ]
I think EVERYONE has to share the burden (2.00 / 4)
Gun Owners because they are insisting on having guns (and to be honest I think we (gun owners) should pay a bit a more) because of that.

On the other hand because non-Gun Owners insist on these regulations and they do protect society, I think they can chip in. Again to a lesser degree than Gun Owners but just something.

Just my thoughts.  

Vote for me and all of your wildest dreams will come true!


[ Parent ]
WHAT?!!!! (2.00 / 3)
Apparently only the controlling of Rights is acceptable to some in the Democratic Party.  

I am not even sure what this means.  

" In the choice between changing ones mind and proving there's no need to do so, most people get busy on the proof. "


[ Parent ]
depends (2.00 / 5)
oh whether it's your ox being gored how you'll see it. I don't know that I agree fully with the comment but I've seen vitriol coming from the far left that is virtually indistinguishable from that of the far right.

There's nothing like eavesdropping to show you that the world outside your head is different from the world inside your head.--Thornton Wilder

[ Parent ]
The biggest effect in any new gun laws (2.00 / 3)
will be felt by the non-criminal gun owners. But everyone seems to be in a hurry to "do something". I know there's a lot of people who think that gun owners don't want new laws, but that's not true. I think we want the current laws to be effectively enforced, and any new laws to be well legislated. Anything to do with registering, licensing ownership, banning semi-automatics, full background checks beyond NICS will be opposed.

[ Parent ]
How will (2.00 / 3)
universal background checks effect you to any greater degree than you are now being effected? It just expands  a practice that you now already experience to all gun sales.

And as far as current laws being effectively enforced. I hear this a lot with little supporting evidence that they are not being enforced to the best of everyones ability. And lets not leave the NRA out this problem since they have done an amazing job of ensuring that many of the current gun laws are fairly toothless

" In the choice between changing ones mind and proving there's no need to do so, most people get busy on the proof. "


[ Parent ]
NICS is fine (2.00 / 3)
We need to differentiate on back ground checks, between the Instant check at the FFL store, and full background checks like for a concealed carry permit.
The instant check needs to be improved, and made more compliant with better funding. It's not a big deal, and a good thing.
A full background check, however, every time I go to purchase is over legislating, a greater expense (cause we owners have to pay for it), and a big drain on law enforcement. Not to mention the use of these large databases (see TSA)

[ Parent ]
Completely disagree on full background checks with you (2.00 / 4)
They should be total and incredibly complete.

First of all, things change in between purchases. Maybe not for many but given the seriousness of gun violence and the power of the weapon, enough to justify.

If I have a pay a bit more - I am ok with that. This is a hobby I choose to have.  

Vote for me and all of your wildest dreams will come true!


[ Parent ]
Completely disagree on full background checks with you (2.00 / 3)
They should be total and incredibly complete.

First of all, things change in between purchases. Maybe not for many but given the seriousness of gun violence and the power of the weapon, enough to justify.

If I have a pay a bit more - I am ok with that. This is a hobby I choose to have.  

Vote for me and all of your wildest dreams will come true!


[ Parent ]
Background checks on special permits (2.00 / 3)
i.e. concealed carry, I have no problem with.I've gone through them. They were to  my benefit. I get the permit, and the Police trat me a lot better because they know I've already passed a check. They also have to be renewed occasionally.
A fully implemented and funded NICS would do exactly what you want for ordinary purchases, and there wouldn't be a permanent database to be abused.A FULL check every time would be a nightmare of costs, LEO time, and that much closer to a registration/database (again, see TSA, and try and get off their lists)

[ Parent ]
It might be an extra cost but that is the price of ownership I believe.. (2.00 / 5)
And while I get your concern with registration/database, I have no issue with it. None whatsoever. I don't think the government is going to turn totalitarian right away or in the foreseeable future and I don't think they are coming for me.

The government's job is to provide for the general welfare of the society, it should know where guns are.

I don't care if the government knows what I do or how I train. I don't think they care either to be honest.  

Vote for me and all of your wildest dreams will come true!


[ Parent ]
Trust the Government? (2.00 / 4)
 That's like totally Un-American...lol! I don't think you have actually considered the full repercussions to instituting full background checks for every purchase. But that's not my job here. We'll just disagree.
There needs to be checks and balances, not implicit trust.
I am not one of the people that worry about tyrannical government, but I also don't believe the government has any right to know what I own on my own property.
As for self-defense, at home, or in public, it's already been settled in Court that the Police are not Constitutionally bound to protect citizens. Response times vary in cities from 5 minutes to hours. I live in a rural area, and depending it can be a very very long time waiting for help here. You alone are responsible for your safety.
I understand your position. You are a moderate user, and do not see an infringement on what you already do. There are many more who participate in many other aspects of firearms,and want to own many more firearms than you. Sometimes it's hard for people to see all the sides.

PS: I'm done here, today. It's been fun, and civil. I liked it. But I have to go clean my guns...no...no , I mean get back to the bench and actually complete my orders...lol


[ Parent ]
Actually having full mental health and (2.00 / 4)
criminal background checks funded by a $10 tax on all firearms makes sense. I believe that people with mental health issues shouldn't be armed. It should be a federal mandate and every gun purchase should have to go through it.  

[ Parent ]
Well I don't trust the government.. .but I do trust our democracy (2.00 / 4)
As for self defense in a rural area.. Yea I get that, I don't blame you. I would want my gun for that. I see the self defense aspect of it and I live in the suburbs.

The thing is (and I can't stress this enough)... I get why people want to have guns and frankly I can see why they might want to have a collection of them. BUT... nothing I am proposing stands in the way of them having their guns. It may inconvenience them but it won't stop them unless they have issues that fail background checks or can't give a rational explanation for just why they need that gun.

Last night I went Rifle shopping - I am thinking of getting one. Why? I like shooting them, I want to go to the range with it, and I want to have one for a Tactical Point Shooting Class. So lets not go too far in what I am asking for.

I am asking for reasonable controls.

And yes it has been civil and nice - this is how the debate should be.  

Vote for me and all of your wildest dreams will come true!


[ Parent ]
Epic comment: (2.00 / 9)
However we don't pass laws in the hopes of a miracle we do in the hopes that they will make things just a bit better for our citizens over time.


John Askren - "Never get into a pissing match with a skunk."

[ Parent ]
I live in Utah (2.00 / 7)
which is proud of having one of the loosest requirements for a gun license (possibly even a concealed carry permit) in the country.  You don't even have to be in our state to get it, we'll provide it online.  You just have tell us you attended a gun safety class.  We won't even check, we'll take you at your word.

In other words, way too may whack-a-loons have guns with Utah's blessing.

For full disclosure, I own a Sig Sauer .380 and I shoot it regularly.  I'm a decent shot.  When I was in college, I was fully against guns, and I resisted learning to shoot.  But I have a not-so-hidden desire to emulate action heroines--at least in my mind--and I realized that the mystique of a gun is greatly dispelled by learning the limitations and abilities of the thing.  The derring-do is confined to the stories I write, but I am comforted by believing I won't panic at the mere presence of a gun.  I know people who become practically hysterical if they just think a gun is nearby.

I think guns should be more strictly controlled.  Too many people are making up for some sort of inadequacy with firepower.  I'm tired of going into family buffet restaurants and seeing some swaggering jackass with a gun on his hip who's sure he's going to get to play hero some day--if he doesn't slip and shoot himself in the butt or foot in the bathroom, as has happened around here.

I don't understand the sheer gut fear some people have about the very existence of guns.  Perhaps it's like my terror of big spiders, I just see pictures of them, and my stomach goes hollow and my brain goes elsewhere.  

I think gun opponents will make better arguments if they understand guns instead of just shrieking about them.  Gun supporters--rational ones--will have more respect for those arguments if there is some knowledge behind them.  The flippant statement that "it's the finger on the trigger that kills people, not the gun" has its truth, it can't be denied that that trigger could control weaponry that is ludicrous in its capabilities.

This is post is more disjointed than I wanted, but I'm glad for a place to get a rational hearing.


I live in gun friendly NH (2.00 / 6)
I don't own a gun, never wanted to own a gun and see no need to own a gun and they are not permitted in my home. That said NH is a very gun friendly state and yet I never ever see anyone with a gun, except hunters while hunting. The only other time  is when some dick swinger decides to strap is Sig. to his hip throw his Bushmaster over his shoulder and march off to a an Obama Rally to prove some absurd point while only proving that he is an idiot.

alg_obama_gun

All this said I wouldn't want to take a single gun away from  my neighbors that all love to hunt and I have to admit I love the fruits of their labors. Ah venison :) Then again my neighbors and the gun owners I know  don't understand why anyone needs an assault style rifle, they are lousy hunting rifles and not great for home protection nor why any one needs a 30 round clip. If you haven't hit your target in the first two shot you probably should be shooting.

" In the choice between changing ones mind and proving there's no need to do so, most people get busy on the proof. "


[ Parent ]
Personally I like shooting AR's and the like (as I said in the diary) (2.00 / 3)
but I get why people ask for them to be banned. I am not sure I agree but I get it.

As for this:

If you haven't hit your target in the first two shot you probably should be shooting.

Do you mean, you should probably NOT be shooting? If so, then I gotta disagree. I am not a good shot but I like to shoot at the range. Why do I have to hit the target to shoot?

Not really sure what you are trying to say here but I agree with the rest of your comment.  

Vote for me and all of your wildest dreams will come true!


[ Parent ]
Not be shooting (2.00 / 5)
And I wasn't talking about range shooting. I should have both proofed better and been clearer.

" In the choice between changing ones mind and proving there's no need to do so, most people get busy on the proof. "

[ Parent ]
Thanks for clarifying this - I get what you mean (2.00 / 3)
and yes... no one wants bullets spraying everywhere. Makes sense.  

Vote for me and all of your wildest dreams will come true!

[ Parent ]
Did this guy get into the rally? surely not into security perim? (2.00 / 2)
I know you NHers have sovereign citizens and don't tread on me types and laws that let them do what they do. I hope US secret service protocol overrides NH laws when Potus comes to town...

[ Parent ]
Did this guy get into the rally? surely not into security perim? (2.00 / 3)
I know you NHers have sovereign citizens and don't tread on me types and laws that let them do what they do. I hope US secret service protocol overrides NH laws when Potus comes to town...

[ Parent ]
No he didn't get in to the rally... It was broadcast though around (2.00 / 4)
he got about block away from the building where the President was.

They should have tossed him in jail immediately. Not just for carrying an Assault Rifle in public BUT the a-hole has a magazine in the gun.

It's idiots like this that ruin it for everyone.  

Vote for me and all of your wildest dreams will come true!


[ Parent ]
Lindsey Graham claims housewifes need large clips to fight off gangs (2.00 / 4)
of intruders, because states are going to continue to underfund police. Charles Grassley claims background checks will interfer with buying guns on Sunday. Another woman testified that women like AR-15's because they look badass, better to fight off those gangs of intruders.
  I still find it hard to have this discussion when a significant part of the population is lost in some parinoid dream and so many leaders are in the pocket of the gun industry.

It is hard to have the conversation (2.00 / 3)
through the delusion. On another site a friend and usually very reasonable guy talked about what if 100's of Neo-Nazi's, KKK members, or Rogue U.S. Military people were running wild wouldn't I like to have a gun?

That is just what some people have visions off, it's not real at this point but it is what it is.

Still, the conversation needs to be had.  

Vote for me and all of your wildest dreams will come true!


[ Parent ]
People are watching too much Walking Dead (2.00 / 7)
and other post-apocalyptic stuff.  The local gun stores have a brand of ammo called Zombie Killer, high-power ammunition specifically designed to cause maximum damage.

[ Parent ]
LOL.. I saw something like that the other day (2.00 / 6)
I am thinking about buying a rifle... As I said, I like to shoot and I saw something like that... There definitely is an uptick in interest in that genre (apocalyptic or future dystopia) of literature and film. I wonder if subconsciously we feel something coming?

That is a diary in itself.  

Vote for me and all of your wildest dreams will come true!


[ Parent ]
If there is a zombie apocalypse . . . (2.00 / 6)
I want a sturdy machete and some halbards.  I think we'd run out of ammo before we run out of zombies.

Oh, and learn to aim properly to hit them in the vulnerable spots instead of just blowing bits off.

What, other people don't idly plan out how to defend various locations against zombies?


[ Parent ]
Heh... I think it depends on if they are (2.00 / 4)
28 Days Zombies or George Romero Zombies.

If George Romero Zombies I am with you on the Halberd or an Axe (Read World War Z... Great book).

If they are 28 Days Zombies we are screwed. I am gonna vote for an Island with Wall build on the beach and a lot of High incindiery (sp?) devices. Vaporization is all we can hope for in this case.  

Vote for me and all of your wildest dreams will come true!


[ Parent ]
And the beat goes on (2.00 / 7)
ATLANTA (AP) - Atlanta fire official: 14-year-old shot in head at middle school, hospitalized. (20 minutes ago)

" In the choice between changing ones mind and proving there's no need to do so, most people get busy on the proof. "

I am anti-gun because their intent is to cause harm or death (2.00 / 6)
I am a nurse. Guns go against my ethos. The man I share a life with is in law enforcement. He is very pro gun. With his job there are 3 and soon to be 4 guns in this house.

I now live in Wyoming and everyone here is armed. The state legislature just passed a bill saying they would charge federal agents with a felony is they "came for the guns."

I would like to see guns registered and insured the same way cars are.  


Patti - I agree with that. (2.00 / 6)
Registered and Insured makes sense.  

Vote for me and all of your wildest dreams will come true!

[ Parent ]
Unfortunately a lot of pro gun people (2.00 / 4)
see registering guns as the first step to banning or taking them away.  

[ Parent ]
every one I know (2.00 / 5)
does and it is based on history. California required registration of certain weapons that were later banned. Those citizens who complied with registration felt duped to say the least and the NRA gleefully exploited this to sell themselves even further to the gun manufacturing business. It was not a wholesale gun grabbing but it might as well have been.

There's nothing like eavesdropping to show you that the world outside your head is different from the world inside your head.--Thornton Wilder

[ Parent ]
The danger of precedent. (2.00 / 5)
Just like CA to do that and mess up the whole thing.

Damn you, birth state!

John Askren - "Never get into a pissing match with a skunk."


[ Parent ]
don't laugh (2.00 / 4)
the die hard opposition isn't dead and they have a lot of money. My dad became one of those in his later years, we had many interesting discussions about it. He would have not followed the NRA to this point I don't think because he never gave up on reality and I was making some headway with the obvious hypocrisy in the NRA mailings we discussed. I am so glad I talked him out of that life membership-yikes they'd still be hounding me.

There's nothing like eavesdropping to show you that the world outside your head is different from the world inside your head.--Thornton Wilder

[ Parent ]
I am not laughing but honestly I don't have an issue with (2.00 / 3)
registration of my gun (soon to be guns). I get what people who oppose registration are saying but, such is life. Sometimes you have to sacrifice for the greater good and the greater good is that there are strict control on weapons.

I guess the thing is that I like having my gun and I enjoy shooting it, but, I am not attached to it as if it is an irreplaceable part of my life. It's just not.

And yes registration could be a first step towards taking them away, but, I don't see many people asking for a total ban on guns and I don't see the government trying to that so... rather than worry about what could happen, we need to deal with the problem of gun violence that IS happening.  

Vote for me and all of your wildest dreams will come true!


[ Parent ]
most gun violence is caused by handguns. (2.00 / 3)
They are cheap and pretty readily available. Prohibition doesn't work and would make guns only the property of the rich.  

[ Parent ]
Who here is talking about Prohibition? (2.00 / 3)


Vote for me and all of your wildest dreams will come true!

[ Parent ]
My sweetie is on a gun nerd site (2.00 / 4)
They are all concerned about the ebil gubmint taking their guns.  

[ Parent ]
Oh.. Tell them not to worry. Teh Ebilz Gubmint is not going to take (2.00 / 2)
their guns. It might make it harder for them to add to their collections, but, at least this Gun Control fan doesn't want to take away their guns.

I just want to do what the Israelis do wrt guns. It makes sense (Israeli gun control laws are in diary and linked too).  

Vote for me and all of your wildest dreams will come true!


[ Parent ]
that blithe dismissal (2.00 / 3)
will not work with these people. They need to hear from people they respect and most of them wrongly think that's the NRA. Besides there has been a huge hue 'n cry for outright bans even if you're not proposing them. Both sides have nuts and both are convinced they're all on the other side. I'm in my default position of not liking either one very much.

There's nothing like eavesdropping to show you that the world outside your head is different from the world inside your head.--Thornton Wilder

[ Parent ]
I agree, and that is what I like about the commentary by those highly visible on the left. (2.00 / 4)
They have obviously gotten the memo - in no small part led by the president's behavior - that the only message is a sane one.

No, we aren't talking about taking guns away. Period, done.

Yes, we all understand that American's have every right to have guns.

No, we don't believe that gun owners are crazy or paranoid.

Yes, many of those calling for conversation on the issue (Gifford and her husband, Claire McCaskill, Joe Scarborough,...) are gun owners.

I like the tone of debate the leaders on the Left are setting. It is very Moosey. In every chance we Little People have, we need to try to follow their lead.


John Askren - "Never get into a pissing match with a skunk."


[ Parent ]
Fortunately prohibition is not on the table. (2.00 / 4)
But making weapons very expensive - while also not going to happen - would actually decrease fatalities.

I like the Chris Rock bit about making bullets expensive instead.

"Motherfucker, I'm gonna get a second job, I'm gonna save me some money, and you a dead man!"

;~)

John Askren - "Never get into a pissing match with a skunk."


[ Parent ]
Hello Irish Patti, and welcome to the Moose! (2.00 / 8)
I have long been collecting your nation's greatest drink, the Irish Coffee, even if it was invented in San Francisco. A wee chip of a barmaid in Innes showed me how it is done in the emerald isle - and a beautiful thing it is - though a Yank named Hemingway created my favorite at a bar in Paris whilst drowning away the sorrows of an old man back from sea.

Make yourself at home, pull up a bench by the fire and give yourself a warm. Moose around here are apparently often as not armed themselves, which makes the hunt a more lively and sporting event for all involved.

Go dtite an bhaisteach go min ar do phairceanna, m'lass, and may it keep ya' whole and full o' health!

John Askren - "Never get into a pissing match with a skunk."


[ Parent ]
Love that picture, hate myself for being in paris often w/o drinking it (2.00 / 4)
do you have the recipe. of course my coffee would be bleh american, and the cream not creme fraiche, even if the whiskey was Irish.

It's easier with Scotch single malt. you just need a glass.


[ Parent ]
No recipe, (2.00 / 4)
but if you are there, the place is the Auberge de Venise.

It is going to be a regular stop for me from now on. Was there in December, hoping a business relationship we're working on solidifies for the sole reason of making myself a local at that restaurant.

Legend has it Hemingway and other notable tramps used to hang out there (it had a different name and owner) and he concocted this. Freaking awesome, and I've been sampling the things worldwide for twenty years.

John Askren - "Never get into a pissing match with a skunk."


[ Parent ]
Oye, original name? not the closerie de lilas, which i have been to (2.00 / 4)
They have Hemingway plaque at his seat.

once sat near to S. Beckett himself.

 


[ Parent ]
Can't recall, they told me the old name. (2.00 / 3)
But my french is pathetic, so it probably sounded like schwe de woowoo to me... :~P

John Askren - "Never get into a pissing match with a skunk."

[ Parent ]
i'm a doctor ph.d. former medical examiner (2.00 / 3)
while guns did cause a whole lot of the deaths that crossed my table, i am not anti-gun.  i am anti-military style guns.  

Does the morgue wagon come with the job?

[ Parent ]
The purpose of a gun is to cause harm or death. (2.00 / 2)
If you can change its purpose then I could get behind them. As you said, they caused a lot of deaths, that you were able to witness. As a nurse, it is part of my practice and my ethos to cause no harm.  

[ Parent ]
their purpose is also (2.00 / 2)
to save lives.  it's a double edged sword so to speak.  

Does the morgue wagon come with the job?

[ Parent ]
and my m.d. (yes, got that one too) oath (0.00 / 0)
states:  first do no harm, i too have ethics.

those ethics are extremely dear to me, and, i do not believe that nurses and doctors are in opposition on this point.  handguns also save lives, particularly when in the hands of police or the military.  perhaps we should remove all handguns from the police?  lives would truly be lost and then where would our ethics be?  



Does the morgue wagon come with the job?


[ Parent ]
My fiance is in law enforcement. (2.00 / 1)
In Japan the guns that the cops carry get rusted shut because they don't use them. If a cop or a soldier is taking a life, is that life less valuable than your or mine?  

[ Parent ]
Therein lies pragmatism more than value, I believe. (0.00 / 0)
If a cop or a soldier is taking a life, is that life less valuable than your or mine?

It isn't a matter of value, it is a matter of choice. Short of complete pacifism, there are clear cases where the ethical choice is to take a life to save one of more others and police and soldiers are in the profession of taking responsibility for those choices.

I had once called myself a pacifist, though later realized that isn't correct. True pacifism has no exceptions (and I'm not that non-contentious anyway).

While I would immediately render aid to someone who had to that very moment been a threat to my children's lives, until that moment I would not remove any option including taking that person's life. If can I accept that there are situations where I have no pragmatic - or ethical - issue with taking a life, then the means to do so become irrelevant.

Police and soldiers are in the role of enforcing order in the worst of situations. Situations where those very philosophical issues have specific practical applications. It is not likely that I would agree with removing from them in every case the option to choose to take a life of an aggressor to save the life of one or more victims. While some police forces do not provide firearms to some or many peace officers, all of these forces do both provide for unarmed officers to legally take a life in some circumstances, and do have armed officers who can be called to situations where their rules of engagement allow.

For all that it can be said that I approach your position, though we clearly do not occupy the same space. I believe that not only do the vast majority of private citizens have no need for - and are largely better off without - firearms, I believe most peace officers similarly do not need and would be better off without them. That is not to say that unarmed private citizens or police should not still be protected from legal risk in some situations if they are forced to take a life, just that firearms more often make a situation more dangerous than safe.

The Japanese police should either oil their guns or through them away, though. The only thing worse than a gun in a tense situation is one that does not work at the moment it would stop someone from taking other people's lives.

John Askren - "Never get into a pissing match with a skunk."


[ Parent ]
((Standing O all Moose [stand tall, Moose are very tall] for thread)) (2.00 / 6)
Model of the civility of conversation requested by the 12/14 dad who was heckled in Hartford and for the urban/rural

how appropriate that this blog has a print friendly view where others do not.

Unless Chris has managed to share the Hemingway coffee physically via F or Tweet with all of us, and it is all just a beautiful dream.....

Good night from EST....


A quick comment only (2.00 / 7)
since that's all I have time for: I essentially agree, more or less, and am in support of much stronger regulations.

Thus said, I absolutely would not support this without a strong systematic address of at least two issues which are not being addressed post-Newton:

1) If we want to demilitarize the public, we need to also demilitarize the police. The police are the public baseline for a "well-regulated militia." Without dealing with any asymmetry there, there will always be a strong 2nd Amendment backlash

AND

2.) We need to deal with the most underdiscussed demographic afflicted by gun violence in this all, a group we barely touch on whatsoever in discussions (and I feel these are white progressive liberal discussions, by and large), and that, my friends, is mainly African-American and Latino youth in urban environments (about 2/3rds of ALL gun-related deaths). To deal with this issue, we need to seriously deal with our drug laws. Our drug laws are why -- in a small nutshell, obviously -- so-called gang culture is perpetuated and exists. And these shootings are the vast majority of homicides. So anyone seriously concerned with this issue will absolutely and necessarily invest the bulk of their time making sure to work with this demographic of youth toward other solutions. Period.

I am in strong advocacy for gun control laws. I could entertain a great deal of reform, in fact, some pretty radical at that. But I have to wonder where this influx of concern post-Sandy Hook comes from when every year there are plenty of little black and brown kids nicked by stray bullets in urban areas, and why we haven't been talking about those kids?

Gotta run! Good diary. It's a start. Let's take it up a notch.


Word. (2.00 / 5)
Drug abuse deaths do not begin to make a scratch on drug-crime deaths.

The problems drug laws are meant to solve are made incredibly worse by those same drug laws.

I doubt there would be any measurable uptick in harm due to drug use if it was all legal and regulated, and the whole Prohibition Era crime wave and related gun violence would be gone (no money to buy guns with, no criminal syndicates to use them).

It really is such an overwhelmingly stupid part of the whole gun issue: that we would talk about guns without talking about the incredible damage done by all forms of drug laws. There isn't anything we can do with trillions in gun training and regulation what would save more lives than not spending trillions on drug laws.

Get rid of drug laws, sell and regulate almost all of them, save trillions of dollars, massively reduce gun deaths, produce trillions in tax revenue.

d-freaking-uh

John Askren - "Never get into a pissing match with a skunk."


[ Parent ]
if this is inappropriate for this diary i will write one of my own (2.00 / 3)
YES!  what a great President! photo Screen-Shot-2013-02-02-at-121510-PM_zpsd0af6bd2.jpg

my opinion:

1. it is not photoshopped
2. the glasses are skeet shooting glasses, make it easier to see the target by blocking out the light that would obscure it
3. it's a smack in the face to the NRA
4. wow, what great form
5. likely a low skeet tower or a hand operated launcher
6. yes, the trees are green at camp david even in august
7. these are not the guns the President is trying to regulate

any thoughts?

Does the morgue wagon come with the job?


From satellite pics it seems that the range has a raised shooting area (2.00 / 1)

It isn't a "rigged" photo at all, for any number of reasons. The first being that it would be harder and riskier to fake a pic than to just have him shoot a gun at an actual skeet. Faking it - other than being an insane idea - would just be stupid when in five minutes he could actually do it.

I have listened to Skeeters as much as I am going to, so I didn't know they were questioning the foliage now. Good lord, it's August. That's what August looks like.

John Askren - "Never get into a pissing match with a skunk."


[ Parent ]
i understand (2.00 / 1)
we just have differing opinions regarding the use of guns.  i do not advocate military style guns, i do not have a problem with long guns, or even handguns.  i do believe in MORE training for handgun purchasers (before and after the purchase) better and more stringent background checks, insurance, smaller ammo clips, and lots of other controls that would make it less likely for the people who should not have guns to get them.

also, i think parents who have guns should be required to have them in absolute security.  not just a gun safe, something harder to get into.  also, any parent who leaves a gun where a child can get to it should be severely dealt with, particularly monetarily, prison time wouldn't bother me either.

we're not as far apart as you may think.  my m.d. (i do have one of them too) states, first do no harm.  i did no harm, i'm sure of it.  

Does the morgue wagon come with the job?


most deaths are from handguns (0.00 / 0)
if we want to curb gun violence those are the guns that cause the most harm.  

[ Parent ]
that is in response to Irish Patty (2.00 / 2)
sorry, i'm having hand stiffness problems so things don't always show up where they should due to my inability to press the proper buttons.  i THINK i have pressed the proper reply button, but obviously i haven't pressed it so it actually engaged.  


Does the morgue wagon come with the job?

That happens all the time with last posts. :~) (2.00 / 1)
I do it constantly, hit "Post A Comment" instead of reply. It's a twitch response. ;~)

John Askren - "Never get into a pissing match with a skunk."

[ Parent ]
Search




Advanced Search
Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?


Blog Roll
Angry Bear
Angry Black Lady
Balloon Juice
Black Kos
Booman Tribune
Charles P. Pierce
Crooks and Liars
Daily Kos
Five Thirty Eight
Huffington Post
Juan Cole
Maddow Blog
P.M. Carpenter
Political Wire
RumpRoast
Scholars & Rogues
Smartypants
Stonekettle Station
Talking Points Memo
The Field
Washington Monthly
Wonkette
Moose With Blogs
Atdleft
Barr
BorderJumpers
BTchakir
Canadian Gal
Charles Lemos
Cheryl Kopec
Curtis Walker
Douglas Watts
Hubie Stubert
Intrepid Liberal
ItStands
Janicket
JoeTrippi
John Allen
LibraryGrape
MichaelEvan
National Gadfly
Peter Jukes
Senate Guru
Zachary Karabell




Back to Top

Posting Guidelines  |  FAQ  |  Privacy Policy  |  Contact the Moose  |  Contact Congress
Powered by: SoapBlox