Gabby Giffords Gun Violence Initiative

[peggy]

Your George Zimmerman reference is insulting and misplaced.

Hummm...What a difference a day makes! You defended Zimmerman quite forcefully, and defended his actions, even though it was pretty obvious to most what the situation was. You defended his right to carry, and was quite certain, CERTAIN I tell you, that he was innocent. (Because we all know that someone who went through training with guns, and who carried to 'protect' his neighbors couldn't possibly be drawn into such a horrible abuse of gun rights/training)
I assumed you admired the guy.

[Alan]

Hummm...What a difference a day makes! You defended Zimmerman quite forcefully, and defended his actions, even though it was pretty obvious to most what the situation was. You defended his right to carry, and was quite certain, CERTAIN I tell you, that he was innocent. (Because we all know that someone who went through training with guns, and who carried to 'protect' his neighbors couldn't possibly be drawn into such a horrible abuse of gun rights/training)
I assumed you admired the guy.

Yes, what a difference a day makes! (Now I'm humming that)

I recall as if it were only yesterday how you vilified him as a racist and an irresponsible, murdering cowboy. I'm glad to see that when you referenced myself and bae with his name, your opinions had changed. Maybe you weren't being insulting at all.

Sing it with me:

What a difference a day makes
Twenty-four little hours
Brought the sun and the flowers
Where there used to be rain

My yesterday was blue, dear
Today I'm a part of you, dear
My lonely nights are through, dear
Since you said you were mine

What a difference a day makes
There's a rainbow before me
Skies above can't be stormy
Since that moment of bliss, that thrilling kiss

It's heaven when you find romance on your menu
What a difference a day made
And the difference is you

What a difference a day makes
There's a rainbow before me
Skies above can't be stormy
Since that moment of bliss, that thrilling kiss

It's heaven when you find romance on your menu
What a difference a day made
And the difference is you

[DocHolliday]

Furthermore, these standard-capacity magazines (or "high cap" as the trendy seem to call them) are quite useful for law-abiding citizens.
...

People who tell you 6 or 10 rounds are "sufficient" simply are unaware of modern firearms training curriculum, and do not understand the dynamics of the reactive fight. I as always am happy to suggest reliable instructors to any who PM me.

There's a case in the news the last couple of days about an intruder at a home outside of Atlanta who searched for and found the homeowner and her children who were hiding. She shot him 5 times and her gun was empty. He left and wrecked his car, that's where the police found him.

http://loganville.patch.com/articles...-several-times

[DocHolliday]

Self-defense is a red herring for most of what is being discussed today. A semi-automatic weapon is not required for personal protection. A 30 round magazine clips is not required for personal protection. Personal protection doesn't require the ability to buy bullets (or guns, for that matter) anonymously.

What you have the right to do is indeed limited and subject to regulation, whether we're talking about free speech (yelling "fire" in a crowded theater), free exercise of religion (polygamy), freedom of the press (publishing top secret documents), or Second Amendment rights.

A semi-auto may not be "required" for personal protection, but it may very well be the best possible tool for the job. I don't see police, secret service, or the military using revolvers these days...

Yes, there are defininitely restrictions on our Second Amendment rights. We can't just walk right in and buy a machine gun, less than 16" barrelled rifle, less than 18" barrelled shotgun, or suppressor like we can with "regular" firearms.

[DocHolliday]

With all due respect, I am going to disagree with you.....Out of respect to the innocent schoolchildren in Connecticut, I disagree with you. These 20 children that recently lost their lives are ample reason - to me, anyway - that something needs to be done. We could discuss all day long what that something is, and I don't myself know what that will eventually look like, but to let 20 children die like that with nothing being done - is that an America that you wish to continue living in? For what purpose/reason if so? And what does that say about the US as a country if the majority disagrees with this? Food for thought. Rob

What we're seeing right now looks like a rush to judgment to me. In the aftermath of the shooting, there was talk about mental health, violent video games, guns, and sensationalistic media coverage. When the politicians returned to Washington, the other aspects seem to have fallen off the map or are being ignored. All that has came out so far that we've heard about is gun control. Why is that?

[DocHolliday]

Ban sales of semi-automatic weapons except to individuals

How do you define "semi-automatic weapons"? Semi-automatics have been around since the late 1880. Do semi-auto hunting rifles and shotguns fit into your definition?

[DocHolliday]

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.

Seems like there's a story every couple of weeks about an officer shooting a chained up or fenced-in dog. Shoot first ask questions later...

[Midwest]

No it isn't; we restrict the rights of people who aren't causing problems all the time when they are in a population that includes people who do cause problems - the population in question in this case is "gun owners".

I was responding to you specifically advocating additional restrictions against CCW holders (among your other proposals). If your objective is to prevent gun violence, it makes little if any sense to target a group who, statisically speaking, is the cause of few problems and for the most part are law abiding citizens. In my state, a training course and an FBI background check is required to receive a CCW. We have had very little in the way of problems with the group.

Your proposal to single CCW holders out because they are gun owners is like banning the Amish from a road because the road a problem with people speeding. Sure they use the road, but the chances of the Amish speeding are fairly low. Guess it works if you don't like Amish, but probably makes more sense to target the problem (ie the people in cars).

On a lighter note, I generally agree with 2 of the 3 points proposed by Giffords. More background checks and investigating mental health issues. The devil could be in the details, but if we actually want to solve problems we need to find common ground.

[Spartana]

I remember back in 1993 reading of an American who had fled Brooklyn - actually fled is a very melodramatic word - he immigrated - to Canada to get away from guns. I can see now why someone would do this - the aggressive rhetoric about guns - an instrument that can indeed harm, maim and kill - really has me wondering - is this acceptable? Is this what I want?

Beyond what I have just posted, is it acceptable that there will most likely never be a civil resolution about this issue, either? Rob

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.

[Spartana]

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)

All these already exist in Calif (and several other states) yet have done nothing to curb gun violence or mass shootings.

And what do you mean by banning semi-auto's except to individuals? I have semi-auto rifles and handguns (as most pistols are) with Calif legal magazine capacities yet I can re-load them rapidly from as many pre-loaded 8 round (10 rounds in the case of a rifle) magazines in less then a second - thus firering many many rounds rapidly. So I don't understand the need to ban a certain type of firearm or even limit the magazine capacity to prevent a rapid fire mass shooting kind of situation. The same thing can be done with most any handgun. And as other's have pointed out in different threads - carrying several handguns and many magazines is easily concealable.

ETA: I finally caught up with all the posts and see that several other's mentioned the ease to to cahnge out mags fast. Also I understand Bicker meant "ban semi-autos for all individuals - not except for them. Next time I'll read it all before posting. I know..I say that every time and never do ;-)!