Gabby Giffords Gun Violence Initiative

[bae]

Incidentally, the policians seem to be focused on taking certain guns from the common man and leaving them only in the hands of police/military (and of course their bodyguards)..

On this point - there was a time when I lived in California when my family had received credible death threats from specific individuals. I was at the time licensed to carry a firearm, one of the < 20 "normal" citizens in a county of ~1.25 million people to have been able to jump through the hoops. This wasn't all that helpful though - I could not be with my family 24x7 however, and my mother and father lived in a different location in CA and had also been specifically threatened with death.

Luckily, I wasn't a "common man", and was simply able to avail myself of the same solution available to all California politicians and wealthy folks: I hired several armed protective teams to watch the people at risk. It was just money. Lots of money. (Sometime I'll post the hilarious story of the poor random burglar who picked the wrong day to try to break into my mother's garage during this time period...)

I'll always be able to protect myself, with teams of trained guys with plenty of weapons, wherever I go, just by throwing money at the problem.

The rest of you...may not. Good luck with that.

[bae]

I wasn't aware that any of the shooters in the recent tragedies was a CCW holder or for that matter that CCW holders (as a group) were causing significant problems.

Actual data indicates in the USA that CCW holders (as a group) are more responsible with their firearms than law enforcement officers.

Facts aren't the order of the day though.

[peggy]

It looks like bae beat me to the punch and he is exactly right.

I spent over 30 years of my life carrying weapons in every possible combination of buildings, crowds, events, cities and states, all for the purpose of defense, mine and others. Why would you or anyone else want to strip me of that ability and what interests are served by doing so?

And who, exactly, appointed you, and bae, and all the other 100,000 George Zimmermans Sheriff of Nottingham? LOL

In my opinion, there are only a very few out there who truly need to carry a gun where ever they go. The rest enjoy a rather inflated sense of importance, or are paranoid. Or both!

Or maybe they just watch too much TV. These street corner shoot outs don't really happen in every day life of average America.

[bUU]

The proposed CCW restrictions I've heard discussed allow transporting guns and bullets to training grounds. They restrict concealed carrying of loaded weapons. You may wish to ignore the relative risks associated with people carrying loaded concealed weapons, but reasonable people disagree with you about those risks.

[Yossarian]

Are you unaware of the details of the proposals I referred to earlier in the message you replied to? Or are you yet again just looking for an excuse to post a reply ignoring the existence of reasonable disagreement to that which you believe?

I'll test which is the case, by providing this list for you, and seeing whether you respond by acknowledging that reasonable people disagree with you, or by refusing to acknowledge that reasonable people disagree with you. (And I find it rather disappointing that your rhetorical tactics in this thread force me and other who disagree with you to post in such a manner, me clearly outlining this dichotomy for you, and others almost-deferentially apologizing for disagreeing with you.)

Criminal background checks on all gun sales
Ban sales of semi-automatic weapons except to individuals
Ban sales of high-capacity magazine clips
Expand laws prohibiting carrying concealed weapons
(Better) regulate sales of bullets (such as Assembly Bill 48 in California)

I'm sorry, I have no idea what history you are talking about. I looked back over your posts in this thread, maybe I missed it twice somehow, but this is the first time I see what you are proposing. How do you think those ideas would have prevented the Sandy Hook shooting?

[Midwest]

The proposed CCW restrictions allow transporting guns and bullets to training grounds. They restrict concealed carrying of loaded weapons. You may wish to ignore the relative risks associated with people carrying loaded concealed weapons, but reasonable people disagree with you about those risks.

Reasonable people would have facts to back up their position. CCW holders haven't been a problem, but let's infringe their rights regardless.

Unreasonable people take rights away from others because it bothers them for no logical reason.

You proposed several points. I completely agree with you regarding background checks on all transactions.

The problem is certain parties, including you, wish to impose a whole new set of restrictions many of which have already been proven ineffective and or are non-starters (ie semi-auto bans).

The Feinstein bill, as written, will go no where and proves my point that this has nothing to do with solutions and everything to do with trampling the rights of law abiding citizens.

[bUU]

I'm sorry, I have no idea what history you are talking about. I looked back over your posts in this thread, maybe I missed it twice somehow, but this is the first time I see what you are proposing.

I'm not proposing anything. I'm supporting what others are proposing. I referred to the folks who are making such proposals in the very same message you replied to! If you're not going to read the messages you reply to, then what are you doing? It seems to me that you're just throwing things up against the wall to try to find some way of dodge or evading the points being presented to you. Reasonable people disagree with you. Get over it.

How do you think those ideas would have prevented the Sandy Hook shooting?

Why do you think that each and every proposal must utterly and completely eliminate the possibility of any random event that you choose to focus on in the moment? That rhetorical tactic is a pretty cynical way of trying to evade the points being made, regarding reducing risk (which you disagree with, but reasonable people disagree with you about that, something which you still haven't clearly acknowledged, despite several invitations to do so). With every new rhetorical game you play, you're underscoring the basis for the concerns that reasonable people who disagree with you have about the grounding of your advocacy.

[bae]

The proposed CCW restrictions I've heard discussed allow transporting guns and bullets to training grounds. They restrict concealed carrying of loaded weapons. You may wish to ignore the relative risks associated with people carrying loaded concealed weapons, but reasonable people disagree with you about those risks.

"Reasonable". I don't think that word means what you think it means. (But I rather suspect you are simply throwing it out there constantly as a Lifton-esque thought-terminating cliche...)

"Reasonable" people look at the data. And they "reason".

Concealed carry is now legal in almost every state in the USA. The streets are not awash in the blood of innocents killed by trigger-happy cowboys with legally-carried firearms.

Civilian permit-holders, as a group, tend to misuse their firearms at a lower rate than trained, sworn law enforcement officers. This too is supported by fact, not "opinion".

[Yossarian]

You may wish to ignore the relative risks associated with people carrying loaded concealed weapons, but reasonable people disagree with you about those risks.

Can you provide the evidence behind that risk assessment so we can all test whether it's reasonable?

[Alan]

And who, exactly, appointed you, and bae, and all the other 100,000 George Zimmermans Sheriff of Nottingham? LOL

I wasn't appointed, I was employed in corporate security with emphasis on executive protection. Over a career, I carried weapons in the performance of my duties with hundreds of politicians, celebrities and high level executives. Your George Zimmerman reference is insulting and misplaced.