Gabby Giffords Gun Violence Initiative

[gimmethesimplelife]

You know what I find upsetting and off-putting here? There seems to be a consensus to harp on facts, logic, statistics, proof, etc. I am not going to totally discount the need for this - but what about the consequences of the 26 deaths in Sandy Hook and so many other recent shootings, what about the further fraying of US society, what about the further fraying of trust in everyday life and the increasing fear and wariness of being out in public in America today? Lots of good debate here BUT it does not seem as if anyone is addressing the consequences of the problem or has any real respect - that I have seen mentioned anyway - for the victims. Rob

[bae]

Your George Zimmerman reference is insulting and misplaced.

Indeed, deliberately so. I have shared details about my family's personal circumstances before on this forum and the previous one that bear directly on why my wife and I choose to be armed. And why, for us, waiting for the "appointees" to arrive on scene would likely be a poor plan for us.

And yet Peggy predictably drops in with the personal insults.

Shameful.

[peggy]

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.

Perhaps you are one of the very few, but i still contend that the vast majority who feel they need to 'pack heat' are under some delusion of 'citizen protector' or 'everyone is out to get me'.

If you are still in that job, then obviously your job requires it. If you are no longer in that position, do you still carry a loaded gun? Where? Why?

The George Zimmerman reference applies to the vast majority of gun owners who feel they 'need' to carry everywhere, anywhere, any time.

[bUU]

"Reasonable". I don't think that word means what you think it means.

It does, and your comments here seem to indicate that you don't care to show any respect for reasonable people who disagree with you, which is what I postulated earlier. Let's just admit it at this point and move on.

Concealed carry is now legal in almost every state in the USA.

And that raises the risks, not lower them, even if you disagree with it.

Civilian permit-holders, as a group, tend to misuse their firearms at a lower rate than trained, sworn law enforcement officers.

Did the NRA teach you to say that? Our society deliberately asks law enforcement officers to put themselves in situations where they are subject to scrutiny regarding their gun use orders of magnitude more often than others.

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

Why should I do so much work to dig out the contrary studies, and copy and paste them into the thread, when you'll only disagree with the conclusions? None of the gun advocates in this thread have shown any sincere interest whatsoever in viewing anything from the lens of the reasonable people who disagree with them. There hasn't been any indication of any sincere interest in learning why we support the proposals of folks like the Brady Campaign. Yet you are trying to make it sound like there is. That's pretty a nasty deception you're trying to perpetrate there.

Your George Zimmerman reference is insulting

I think the insults have been flowing freely from those who oppose gun control in this thread, so any claims of affront in the other direction, at this point in the thread, is ridiculous. How about everyone start respecting perspectives that they disagree with? As I've offered quite a number of times before, let's be reasonable people agreeing to disagree. I disagree with you but haven't insinuated that your preference is unreasonable - just that it is just your preferred way of looking at the issue, and a preference we don't share - so don't insinuate that we who disagree with you aren't reasonable. It's patently and inexcusably offensive on your part to do so, and I think I and others have been exceedingly patient with the insults that have been liberally and scurrilously thrown our way.

[bae]

You know what I find upsetting and off-putting here? There seems to be a consensus to harp on facts, logic, statistics, proof, etc.

Gosh, what a poor way to craft policy.

Let's just *do something*, *now*, for the children....

We can sort out if it actually works, if we can afford it, if it causes more problems than it is worth, or if it impedes the freedoms of others later! Well, unless American Idol comes on, then we'll all just go watch that!

:-)

I'll ask you, Rob, what have you, personally, done about this event? I have attended two active shooting seminars at a regional law enforcement training facility, and worked with our local law enforcement/emergency services/schools to do training/planning drills on-site here, joined the local fire department and am undergoing my firefighter/emt training.

[Midwest]

Why should I do so much work to dig out the contrary studies, and copy and paste them into the thread, when you'll only disagree with the conclusions? None of the gun advocates in this thread have shown any sincere interest whatsoever in viewing anything from the lens of the reasonable people who disagree with them.

Reasonable people attempt to write laws to produce a given outcome (ie reduce gun crime). Unreasonable people write laws due to fear, paranoia and ignorance of the facts and ignore the negative consequences of the laws they are attempting to pass.

I agree with one of the proposals floated. That's a start for some common ground.

[gimmethesimplelife]

Gosh, what a poor way to craft policy.

Let's just *do something*, *now*, for the children....

We can sort out if it actually works, if we can afford it, if it causes more problems than it is worth, or if it impedes the freedoms of others later! Well, unless American Idol comes on, then we'll all just go watch that!

:-)

I'll ask you, Rob, what have you, personally, done about this event? I have attended two active shooting seminars at a regional law enforcement training facility, and worked with our local law enforcement/emergency services/schools to do training/planning drills on-site here, joined the local fire department and am undergoing my firefighter/emt training.

Fair question Bae, though you might not like the answer. I have further thought about leaving the US - due to just not having any hope for resolution to this situation. I don't see any compromise coming down the pike between those who defend gun ownership and those who want gun control and I don't know that incidents like Sandy Hook can reasonably be prevented - so I take it to a place it doesn't seem like others here do. I.E. - is this citizenship viable for the long term and etc. Will leaving prevent Sandy Hook like incidents - no. I admit that. But I wonder if staying is indeed akin to condoning them in a way. But I do think that's great that you are getting training, I give you that. Rob

[Yossarian]

then what are you doing?

Well, I was trying to understand what you want to and why. It's not that complicated and really no need for all the conspiracy theory.

Some differences of opinion are reasonable. The only way to tell is to have people explain. 30,000 people die in car accidents a year. If I lived in NYC maybe banning cars or imposing a national speed limit of 10 mph might seem reasonable.

As it stands I think most of the proposals are maybe well intentioned but poorly reasoned. C'est la vie.

[Yossarian]

I have further thought about leaving the US

Well Rob if I remember correctly one of the places you were thinking about going was Mexico. I think they have very restricitve gun laws so hopefully you can live there without any gun issues to worry about.

[Alan]

Criminal background checks on all gun sales

I agree with background checks on all gun sales

Ban sales of semi-automatic weapons except to individuals

I'm not sure what that means.

Ban sales of high-capacity magazine clips

I keep hearing about 30 round magazines being the enemy. I think this is not based on reason. If I have three 10 round magazines I can fire 30 rounds nearly as fast as if I had a 30 round mag. With practice, it takes just about a second to reload, without practice it takes maybe 2 or 3 seconds. Without making a practical difference, I don't see the value of that ban.

Expand laws prohibiting carrying concealed weapons

You'd have to elaborate more on this. There are laws in virtually every jurisdiction prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons by felons, mentally impared, domestic abusers, persons under 21, etc. Are you suggesting that these laws be expanded to people who have never committed a crime, been adjudicated as dangerous, etc?

(Better) regulate sales of bullets (such as Assembly Bill 48 in California)

I haven't read Assembly Bill 48 in California, perhaps you could elaborate again? Are you talking about regulating quantity of ammunition or regulating certain characteristics of specific ammunition?