Gabby Giffords Gun Violence Initiative

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bicker

I said that I don't understand why we need to allow anyone to have simultaneous possession of more than one or two guns.

---

But if the topic is to reduce or eliminate mass shootings (and this is the Gabby Gifford thread about just that) then what difference does it make how many guns a person owns? In most cases these kinds of shootings are done with only one firearm - perhaps one of the 2 you would willing allow people to own. The same shootings could have been done with other firearms almost as easily. So unless you want to institute a complete ban on ALL firearms in this country (and that includes anything used for hunting like a rifle or shotgun - heck even BB guns and crossbows!) and seriously beef up weapons anti-smuggling enforcement from the air, land and sea, then allowing people to have one or 2 firearms means that you are not eliminating any mass shooting threat. Especially in case such as Sandy Hook where the shooter wasn't even a gun owner. Or in the case of Colorado where the shooter wasn't ever a gun owner until a short time before the shootings. So I ask this as a simple question with no snarkiness meant and respect for your opinion even if it differs from mine, what logic do you find in your belief that allowing people to own even one gun will reduce the amount of mass shootings like at Sandy Hook? In my estimation it won't, as I feel that these are aberations from the norm that the 99.9% of miillions of gun owners (with 300 million legally registered guns) in this country do with their firearms in their lifetimes.

As an interesting side note, I went to Wal-Mart for dog food today. Dog food is right by the sporting good section. There was a line at the sporting goods counter and everyone in it appeared to be buying ammunition, mostly shotgun shells from what I could see. I spoke with a stocker in my section and he said that whenever they get a shipment of ammunition in it usually sells out in a day. Makes me wonder if they all know something I don't! I bought a couple boxes just in case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan

I've looked back over the entire thread and I would suppose the criteria you mention are the following list:
Criminal Background checks
Ban semi-automatic weapons
ban high capacity magazines
Prohibit Carrying concealed weapons
Regulate the sale of bullets

I, and others, have attempted to engage you in a discussion about these various items, without response. I will try again.

I believe most of us have agreed on the criminal background checks on all gun purchases.

On the ban of semi-automatic weapons, I'm curious about the rationale for that one. Is it because you consider a semi-automatic pistol or rifle to be more dangerous?

High capacity magazines, I addressed a question regarding this earlier and several others have as well, what do you consider high capacity and what do you hope to achieve by banning them given the knowledge that lower capacity magazines can be changed out so quickly that there is practically no distinction between the two.

I, and several others, have asked about the prohibition on the carrying of concealed weapons, can you provide a response?

The final item you mentioned was the regulation of the sale of bullets and I've previously asked what that would entail. Would it be a limit on the number or a limit on specific ammunition characteristics? In each case, would it be a daily limit, weekly limit, monthly limit, annual limit or perhaps lifetime limit?

---

These are the issues I'd like to see addressed as well. I think having a rational disscussion on this topic is very important and whether we agree or not on the issues, I'd like to see all sides opinion respected and their posts answered without a lot of character thrashing and snarky comments based on nothing more then the single fact that I (and others) own guns. I am more then a gun owner, I'm a whole person, and don't believe I or other's fall into a one-size-fit-all characterisation of how "we are violent cowboy wanna bes bent on subjectating others to our wills" (she says as a peaceful-law-abiding-non-violent-anti-hunting-vegan-animal-rights-avocate-member-of-PETA... and the NRA) ;-)!

I also don't understand why other's feel the need to limit ammo amounts. They can be bought and stockpiled over a period of time box by box. In any case, I just bought a box of 100 rounds for target practice. That one box would be enough to kill a lot of people by itself, so what is the purpose of limiting ammo sales if your goal is to reduce mass shootings? Maybe having a waiting period for any new ammo purchases would serve better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gregg

As an interesting side note, I went to Wal-Mart for dog food today. Dog food is right by the sporting good section. There was a line at the sporting goods counter and everyone in it appeared to be buying ammunition, mostly shotgun shells from what I could see. I spoke with a stocker in my section and he said that whenever they get a shipment of ammunition in it usually sells out in a day. Makes me wonder if they all know something I don't! I bought a couple boxes just in case.

---

They are probably buying shotgun shells because that's all that's left on the shelves! I bought the last box of .357 mag they had at Walmart and the only ammo left was for shotguns. Like Bae pointed out, back when I use to work in the field I practiced a lot more then now and had my own re-loading stuff (hubby got it in the divorce), so anyone with reloading equiptment could in effect make tons of unregulated ammo if they want.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spartana

Maybe having a waiting period for any new ammo purchases would serve better.

---

Several additional thoughts on ammunition for you, Spartana:

- I used to work quite a bit with battered/abused people who were attempting to avoid the attentions of their pursuing ex-partner. These folks responded quite well to training in use of force, but I found that waiting periods for purchasing firearms definitely impeded their ability to defend themselves. They didn't need a tool in 3 days, or 2 weeks, or after the next scheduled certification class. They needed it, well, now. I suspect ammunition waiting periods would serve mostly to inconvenience law-abiding citizens, and have little measureable effect on crime. I frankly suspect inconveniencing is really the goal of some, to slowly-but-surely make firearms ownership and practice such a pain in the patoot that the firearms culture is stamped out. Judging from the demonization of gun owners that I constantly see, this is really about culture, not crime.

- I currently buy almost all of my ammunition mail-order, for several reasons. I live in a remote spot, and it requires at least 12-14 hours of my time, and about $50 in expense, to travel to the nearest store that sells ammunition. Mail-order prices by the case are lower than 1-box-at-a-time retail pricing, and it is far easier to procure ammunition in some of the obscure calibers I use, which WalMart typically doesn't carry. There is a de-facto waiting period in simply having to order the stuff, and waiting a week or two for UPS to remember to deliver something.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bae

Now though I cheat when I carry a revolver:

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-J...0/img_0325.jpg

---

Me too :-)!

For those who don't know what a speed loader is, there's a photo. It's to reload revolvers rapidly. They are small and you can carry many of them on your person at once and reload a standard revolver fast and multiple times thus making it almost as if you have a large capacity magazine. These would not be part of any kind of ban anymore then pinned magazines would be (reducing a 30 round magazine to a lower number like 10 or less). So the semi-auto ban is really nothing more then a band aid offered by the government to make people FEEL safer when in reality everything really stays the same and nothing gets done about looking into the cause of these kinds of shootings. To me, it's the equivalant of banning larger vehicles from everyone in the country to try to eliminate deaths and accidents by drunk and distracted driver. It doesn't deal with the real issues, but makes people feel safer because, of course, drunk and distracted drivers can't kill you if they are driving sedans. Umm...yep they can and do.

http://www.simplelivingforum.net/att...5&d=1357847550

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spartana

These are the issues I'd like to see addressed as well. I think having a rational disscussion on this topic is very important and whether we agree or not on the issues, I'd like to see all sides opinion respected and their posts answered without a lot of character thrashing and snarky comments based on nothing more then the single fact that I (and others) own guns.

---

Well, there's always a discussion here about the effects of advertising, or its cohort, propaganda. I think our Attorney General laid out the strategy to be used against guns, and their owners, pretty well back in 1995.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0nM0asnCXD0

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spartana

Rob - Canada is not a firearm free country. The only difference between it and the USA is the requirements to buy, own and carry certain firearms. Firearms are more restricted but they are there:

ACTUAL NUMBER OF FIREARMS IN CANADA

In 1945, despite massive non-compliance, the RCMP managed to register nearly 2 million firearms, comprised of 1.7 million rifles and shotguns and the remainder handguns. Add to this the nearly 8 million firearms imported between 1945 and 2000 and you get 10 million firearms.

Please note that to arrive at this figure of 10 million firearms we did not:

Add any portion of the more than 6 million firearms manufactured in Canada from the 1920s to present; or
Subtract up to one-quarter of a million guns destroyed by the RCMP between 1978-2000, or
Subtract the 1.6 million firearms exported between 1970-1998. The National Firearms Association Estimate of the Number of Firearms and Owners in Canada.

The National Firearms Association has come to conclusion there are approximately 7 million owners with 21 million firearms


According to Wikipedia, Canada is ranked number 13 of all countries in gun ownership per 100 people (approx. 31 guns /100 people in Canada). That is lower then the US (number one with 88/100) and such countries as Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, Finland, and France - all in the top 10 of gun ownership per 100 people. All of those countries have very low death by firearms in all cases: crime, accidental, suicide, or mass shootings.

---

Hi Spartana! Thanks for posting - I always like it when you respond to my posts (smiley face here). I did know that Canada was not completely free of firearms - and also I have been in touch with one of the posters on this board who has told me there are those who are into the gun culture in Canada, too - so I know that crossing the border to the North is not going to get me completely away from this. OTOH, I sure prefer 31 guns to 100 people in Canada over 88 guns to 100 people in the US. To me that is 57/100 less chances overall of guns getting into less stable hands. ( I do know from taking statistics in college that this simple math here won't necc. hold up - I put this here only to illustrate my point.) BTW - learn something new every day - I did not know those Scandinavian countries I so respect were so heavy on gun ownership.....Rob

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spartana

But it takes time for society to do anything. Just like in the Oklahoma city bombing, it took time to decide what was the best course of action to reduce or eliminate that kind of thing. The solution was to change the way people could enter the building, park near by, and some "attractive" concrete barricades to prevent vehicles from just driving up to ther front doors. That and more asrmed security. I don't think that it will do much good due to the extent of these kinds of bombs, but it is a reasonable solution.

The Oklahoma blast claimed 168 lives, including 19 children under the age of 6,[1] and injured more than 680 people.The blast destroyed or damaged 324 buildings within a sixteen-block radius, destroyed or burned 86 cars, and shattered glass in 258 nearby buildings[

---

I still remember very vividly that day, and the shock and horror of it.

In today's USA Today, on the front page, there is an article to the effect that there may be some changes coming up soon about gun ownership, perhaps the kind of changes I personally would like to see. Gotta tell you though, there is a part of me that dreads such changes to the gun laws - don't mean to go 180 on anyone or bat for the other team BUT I am not looking forward to the outcry from certain quarters if such laws were enacted. I just don't know how some folks would react and I'm not sure I want to find out just yet.

But I do think some change of some kind is coming soon - as I said yesterday, it remains to be seen what kind of change it is. Rob

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spartana

Be careful if you go to Mexico Rob!! This from todays Huff Post: A total of 34,612 people have died in drug-related killings in Mexico in the four years since Mexican President Felipe Calderon declared an offensive against drug cartels, officials said Wednesday. A

I know you've talked often of moving to Mexico, but like many places in the USA there is gun violence there too - and not just drug related killings but a high number of other crime, accidental, and suicides. And Mexico has very tough gun laws and a fairly low ownership/capita of legal firearms. So the gun violence there is probably much greater then here in terms of shootings and death. So while I DO support gun regulations, I feel that we need to look into other causes of gun violence and mass shootings then merely "what kind of gun did the person have?" hope I'm convincing you to stay around awhile longer :-)!

---

Hi Spartana! I really respect you for your concern and for the last line of your post above - Thank You. Very kind of you.....

About Mexico, I'm not going to deny that you don't have somewhat of a point. OTOH, the whole country is not how the US media would have you believe it is. There are parts that are - don't get me wrong. I would not want to be in Juarez, or Saltillo, or Monterrey, or San Luis Potosi, or anywhere in Sinaloa (including Mazatlan now) or Michoacan states. Add Durango - both the city and the entire state to this, or Veracruz, both the city and the state. Here you will find your US media images of Mexico.

Leave these areas and it gets much safer, though I do realize this can change, too. I bring this up as remember Medellin, Columbia in the late eighties and nineties? And how dangerous it was and how the murder counts were just insane? During that whole mess there were folks living quite safely and inexpensively in other parts of Columbia - and I remember reading accounts of such people being grateful for the media coverage scaring people away as it kept things cheap for them there. Now Medellin is actually marketing itself as a place for North Americans to retire as there have been changes since those days and it is much safer there now than it was.

Point being, about places like Mexico, gotta do the research if you want the option to go and have a less stressful life.....Gotta dig beyond the media and find out if there are places that are safe, where they are, and how close they are to the drug routes. I would personally still live in Mexico, but not in any of the above places I have listed. Rob

PS I came back to add that I would avoid Acapulco and most of the state of Guerrero, too.....