The ‘Post of the Day’ takes on the Virginia Citizens Defense League
Grafic by Dan
Note from Dan: The mini-rant below is from regular poster Warren, it comes from this thread, and it takes aim at the Virginia Citizens Defense League, the commonwealth’s dominant gun lobby. Warren was responding to the line he quotes below from the person who posts under the handle “Alfred.”
#95: “A holstered gun is not much of a defense”
Alfred, the Va. Citizen’s Defense League (the VCDL), by both what’s in their public agenda and what’s not, manifestly disagree with you. For example, while loud in their praise of hidden handguns, they do nothing to address private ownership of .50-caliber sniper rifles, thus they’re manifesting a belief that a hidden handgun is a good defense from them. Same with most other Second Amendment implements — despite their pious assertions about the 2A they selfishly take no position on anything except guns (mostly handguns).
Like Grover Norquist pretending that he’s been chosen to speak on behalf of all Congressional constituents, the VCDL, even in its name, seems to pretend it’s been anointed to speak for the “defense” of all Virginia citizens. But they’ve done little else except lobby for concealed carry-permit loosening.
Well, to be fair, they’ve also made it easier for ostensibly legal buyers with any particular motivation to buy more than one handgun a month (VCDL apparently believes gun users are safer firing multiple guns at once) and to prohibit police from having fingerprint data on file. But as for addressing the ways that unsavory aspects of gun culture have harmed public health, or ways to put the worst in human nature at a disadvantage, the VCDL can’t be bothered to contribute anything unique and positive beyond advocating “more guns in more places” with simplistic bumper-sticker sloganeering.
So if a Virginia citizen thinks they need .50 caliber sniper rifles or weaponized lethal chemicals for protection, the VCDL, despite its name, takes no position-hardly a profile in the courage that the VCDL likes to flatter its own member CCP holders as having, and which exposes it as just another narrow single -issue interest group with a misleading name.
But, if you believe the best response to someone falsely yelling “fire” in a crowded theater is to encourage others to join in falsely yelling “fire”, then you’ll find many like minded friends in the VCDL. And if you’re only bothered by gun violence when it occasionally hits too close to home, but otherwise can ignore it except to fantasize about the odds of emerging from a shootout with only the initiator harmed, you’ll like the VCDL.
And if you’re loading groceries or pumping gas when a sniper opens fire on you, use the strategy that both the actions and inactions of the VCDL endorse as the best: depend on your own handgun for protection. Because after all, the sniper might be using a gun the VCDL won’t dare tell legislators to treat any differently than a handgun.
December 5, 2012 - 3:21 PM
Really. That’s the Post of the Day? A post that demonstrates ignorance of numerous documented acts of self-defense and then u-turns into some blather about the dreaded .50 rifles, which are never used in crime and have legitimate purpose as target rifles.
This post sure covers a lot of different topics:
VCDL
.50 cal rifles
handguns
concealed handgun permits
gun purchase limits
CHP regulations
Grover Norquist
snipers
second ammendment
What is not addressed is:
violence both domestic and randon
mental illness
revolving-door prisons
drug use
degradation of moral values (thou shalt not kill)
laziness (why work when you can rob and kill)
declining civility
entitlement
Maybe someone will post a rant about some of the issues not
covered by this one.
Post of the Day indeed! Well said Warren and true to the bone. Gun advocates are so willing to accept the carnage and the ill-will. When was the last time any of them offered substantive efforts, advice or support for anything that might help solve the gun culture problem? Their answer, repeatedly, is that there is no problem and stop trying to take their guns.
Jason is one of the very, very few, who actually is willing to admit that the gun culture is a problem and that there needs to be efforts made to change that. I do not think he can point to a gun advocacy group that has advocated for any of the changes needed but he is honest enough to acknowledge them and admit we need to be working on them. I respect that immensely.
It is so darned dishonest for gun carry advocates to always pretend we just want to take their guns, ban guns, make them sitting ducks. It is the red herring stuffed with straw going down a slippery slope of denial!
The Founders and many a legislature since them, have already deemed our rights to have limits, responsibilities and even ways to lose them. This idea that every discussion is an attempt to take something you believe you have a God-given right to is just plain childish. Not to mention counter-productive and useless.
I’m the president of VCDL. Warren seems to be all over the map, but let’s look at a few items. VCDL’s primary focus is firearms. We support concealed carry, open carry, handguns, rifles (including those chambered in .50 BMG, AKs, and ARs, too), shotguns, and machine guns. We support other weapons that are commonly used for self-defense, such as knives. We have worked to protect all of the above over the last 17 years.
Warren is using an old and absurd anti-gun argument that goes like this: since the Second Amendment is about “arms,” and not just firearms, perhaps we need to allow all arms to be in the hands of citizens. It’s the old, “Guns? Well what about atomic bombs, chemical and biological weapons, tanks, surface-to-air missiles?”
If Warren wishes to push such an agenda to further expand the reach of the Second Amendment, I suggest he form his own group and go for it!
In the meantime VCDL will worry about the more mundane types of arms.
Philip Van Cleave, welcome back to the blog! But how dare you suggest the founding fathers’ phrasing was “absurd?”
If they had wanted guns in the constitution, they would have had guns. They debated the words that are in it at length.
I want a cruise missile for Christmas
Re: Philip Van Cleave @ 5:10 pm
“We support other weapons that are commonly used for self-defense, such as knives.”
Vs.
Dan Casey @ 5:15 pm
“I want a cruise missile for Christmas.”
—————–
Looks as if Dan is up to the old straw-nman on a slippery slope clutching at a red herring, yet again.
“Gun advocates are so willing to accept the carnage and the ill-will.”
Ms. Saunders: (#3)
I read your posts regularly and have concluded that you are educated
and very articulate. (you are probably a better typest than me also)
I know you are a better speller, that should be random in my post.
In my post I listed a number of issues that contribute to gun violence
that were NOT addressed.
I may or may be or not be a “gun advocate” that is not germane to this
post.
Would you please use your education, research skills and command of
the English language to address some of the issues that I noted were
NOT addressed?
I hope you do not mis-interpet this message as snarkey, that is not
my intent. I really believe the issues I listed are contributory
to the gun violence problem, yes I agree it is a real problem.
Responsible people like you and I really are concerned about this
real problem. I don’t know the answers, maybe you can find some.
I for one am not willing to accept the carnage.
Dave Hicks you left off the big fat smiley face I put at the end of that sentence to indicate I was joking.
Sandi-
“Post of the Day indeed!”
Thank you for the kind words you later wrote, but come on. What in the world was in Warren’s post that was well-thought out or even made any sense? He simply demonized weapons that he is ignorant of (at least in terms of their role in violent crime) and more or less said that all of the people who have successfully defended themselves despite already having a gun pointed at them either don’t exist or don’t count.
Also, it’s funny that pro-gunners get the, “You don’t support ANY limits,” thing flung at us, but when we say that no, we don’t support civilian ownership of cruise missiles or chemical/nuclear weapons, we are not recognized for agreeing with you. Instead, we are accused of being hypocrites via a straw man.
And even hard core pro-gun people are in favor of limits. I don’t think you’ll see any objections to denying violent felons, the adjudicated mentally ill, those with restraining orders against them, or minors outright freedom to purchase or carry firearms (I’m not counting when a kid might “carry” his rifle at a range). The NRA pushed for the instant check system that became NICS.
So cut out this “no limits” garbage, it’s a lie and you (and Dan) know it.
I have no doubt the victims are always glad to here they were only shot with a “mundane types of arms”.
You can obfuscate his point all you like, his premise is solid. The gun advocacy groups are ONLY about promoting and protecting the gun and the gun owners. They KNOW that so much of what feeds the gun culture works against their efforts and they apparently do not give a tinker’s damn.
Like the saying goes fellas, “You either lead, follow, or get out of the way”. I think you will find that not leading has not served you well in the years to come. Hunters are already feeling it and given the daily dose of crimes with guns, you will continue to abide behind the “eight-ball”.
Jason, prescription drugs have “legitimate purpose”, but we still regulate them and restrict them. Cars, motorcycles, airplanes, cranes, armored tanks, rocket launchers, and a well stocked arsenal all have “legitimate purpose”, but we still regulate and restrict them.
OK Rob T, I don’t think any post can cover all of the issues under the gun rights banner, but I will try to address your concerns not mentioned with my own perspective garnered from a life lived with the hunting, collector, and self defense use of guns as well as a keen awareness of the inequality in our nation.
FWIW, I consider all the things you mentioned as being ‘left out’ to be included in the “gun culture” I spoke of in the Costas thread. They are not necessarily about or related to gun control IMO.
I do think the gun advocacy organizations add to the gun culture by not using their bully pulpit to fight so much of what is wrong within the gun culture. Much like the stars of Hollywood and the Music Industry making PSA’s against drug use and for education, gun advocacy should include such efforts to make guns less machismo laden.
1-violence both domestic and randon: Nothing can remove violence from the planet or our communities, it is often domestic which means people often KNOW what is happening and choose to look the other way and it is sometimes random and has no cause other than plain heathen meanness. BUT: We can try to change the ideas that guns are macho, convey power, stature and attractive machismo. Look how we have ostracized smokers. We should work to do the same for those who carry guns for the cool factor and intimidation, not to mention crime.
2-mental illness: Undiagnosed or untreated mental illness and substance abuse are beyond doubt part of the problem in the many domestic abuse cases and the shootings of spouses. Again, we cannot stop mental illness. BUT: We can certainly better fund mental health screenings and treatment and not brand people and ruin lives with felony convictions instead of treatment.
3-revolving-door prisons: Sadly this one is also self-fulfilling. If we house non-violent offenders with violent offenders what do they learn? If we brand someone with a felony conviction what do they still carry out into society when they leave prison? A return ticket. There are no jobs in an economy like this one for felons, people on the sex offender list or those with a chip the size of Colorado on their shoulders. BUT: We can start jobs programs and help these people gain a trade, a chance and maybe a better choice.
4-drug use: Like alcoholism, drug use has a role in the gun culture for certain. If you are selling, or buying drugs, everyone knows you need a gun. It is just a given. The drug/alcohol use will then cause your judgement to be impaired when you choose to use that gun. BUT: We can offer treatment, alternative sentencing, half-way houses with job training, and other supportive efforts to help them get and stay clean. Lock up dealers for life IMO.
5-degradation of moral values (thou shalt not kill): Certainly the free and easy, I am an island, I answer to no man ideology that is so prevalent in our society has caused a true decay in morality. All of the above and poverty, greed, jealousy, few opportunities and the movies, music, even clothing designs contribute to the lack of respect, disintegrating family structure and the herding of people into poverty, crime and drug infested communities and we expect them to live there and be successful? BUT, we can stop building tenements and housing projects and create communities and have cultural, civic and activity centers that help people value their community and the security to see that it stays that way.
6-laziness (why work when you can rob and kill): I dispute that as a real cause, but it is a symptom of the way we treat and herd the poor, the uneducated and the mentally weak. We are not born lazy and without hope, goal setting or desires for better. We learn that from uncaring or ineffectual parents, failing schools, terrible housing projects, lack of infrastructure, opportunity, support and mentors. We create these folks. BUT: We can turn that around too with early intervention, family stewards, community based outreach and police on the beat. “Teach a man to fish”.
7-declining civility: Interesting that you think that has any real bearing. I have encountered some of the least civil, most overbearing, bullying and disrespectful people in high class places so I do not see that on the same level as the other problems. I take your point that it is part and parcel of a mentality but it too is taught, allowed and has as the root cause an innate lack of respect for others. The truth of gun control being born in racism is a real issue. From freed black men after the Civil War to the Black Panthers in California in the 60-70′s, we have made some serious mistakes with profiling, arresting, felony convictions and “branding” of too many men.
8-entitlement: I guess I know what you mean by that one. IMO, any problem that arises out of being in need or being “on the dole” is our fault for the way we give assistance, the way we herd poor people, immigrants and minorities into isolated (even in the big city) housing projects and failing schools and keep expecting better results. BUT: We can change this too.
As you may have noticed, none of the issues you mention has a quick or easy fix. Self esteem, respect for others and motivation can be taught, but not at the same time we are beating people down with poverty, lack of resources and living wage jobs and support. ALL of the “fixes” for the gun culture and poverty and ignorance and dependency will cost more than just money and it will cost a lot of both.
WHEW!
“I’m the president of VCDL” and I got nothing. That is basically what Mr. Van Cleave said. You sir, have a bully pulpit that could be doing a LOT to change attitudes and opinions on gun rights and the gun culture and this is what you choose to offer? You try to malign the messenger instead of honestly accounting for either what you do or why you do not do it? That, sir, is pitiful IMO. Pitiful. I can mount a better defense of gun rights AND a better message to clean up the problems than you can. That is just plain sad. Between you and that loon at the NRA, gun rights are absolutely in danger.
Ok…mental illness. Are any of the gun people willing to say they feel the mentally ill should be prevented from having guns? And as follow up…if so, where is that in the constitution?
It’s almost as if Sandi is expecting one of us to say “there is a problem, and we want to help fix it.”
Well, I, personally, do see a problem, and I am working diligently to fix it.
The fact that I have to pay money and ask the government for special permission to exercise a Constitutionally protected right is a problem. I’m working on that.
The fact that I had to leave at home the tools that may be necessary to defend my life or the life of those I love because I chose to go to my son’s middle school wrestling match is a problem. I’m working on that.
The fact that tens of thousands of people in Virginia have to choose between pursuing a higher education and being able to defend themselves is a problem. I’m working on that.
Sandi wants me to decide that the things that I think are important aren’t and jump over to help her solve her own imaginary problems. Not going to happen. I do not believe that there is such a thing as a “gun culture.” And if there is, I don’t think it’s a problem worthy of any real effort to change. If you think differently, then do something about it.
I will be taking a day off from work in January to go to Richmond to speak with my lawmakers. If you want to join me, you’re welcome to come. I offer a ride.
Sandi,
Amen right back at ya’!
Jason, Warren’s point that the gun advocacy organizations support guns to the exclusion of even common sense controls is spot on IMO. Maybe I just understand him better but I did think it was well written and has a solid and provable point.
His point was not even about “demonized weapons”, it was about the truth that gun advocates ignore the blatant fact that we already established there should be controls we are merely haggling over the price.
You and anyone else here is free to show us the efforts that gun advocates have made to curb ANYTHING about the gun culture. Did they condemn Nugent or his ranting, gun imagery or killing references? Except for you has ANY gun advocate ever called out PePe LaPierre, no matter what the nut says? Has ANYONE on the gun rights advocacy bandwagon ever admitted that some weapons are not good for mass consumption? What efforts have any of them made to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill? To make restraining orders mean something? Those two are truly no-brainers and would enhance public opinion IMO.
Many “pro-gunners” do not support ANY limits, and you know that. Nothing funny about it either. But I did not say that. Agree when the question is asked and there is no straw involved.
I think you are giving them way more credit than is remotely deserved to say that “The NRA pushed for the instant check system that became NICS”. I think we know better.
http://www.txstate.edu/cpm/hobby/Publications/contentParagraph/01/content_files/file74/National_Rifle_Association.pdf
Whether we like it or not, the gun culture is not going anywhere nor is it likely to significantly change anytime soon. The gun culture created this country and is woven within the very fabric of its being. An armed populous has been a determining and continuing factor in our continuous sovereignty, as well. No one dares invade a country that not only possesses a mighty army, but has a citizenry with the right to be armed, too.
I was also unaware that there was a rash of .50 caliber rifle shootings. At $2500++ [used] for the weapon and approx. $2.75 per round, that’s a bit of an expensive way to go on a murderous rampage. Now if there were such a plague of .50 cal crimes, I’d be on board with restricting ownership of them. As the debate stands now, I see it this way: I can kill someone with a .50 cal, yes, but I can also kill someone with a pair of safety scissors. Shouldn’t they both be regulated more heavily using this potential-threat-exists logic?
Why would the VCDL need to speak out against .50 cal ownership? There is no .50 cal menace to fear.
“Ok…mental illness. Are any of the gun people willing to say they feel the mentally ill should be prevented from having guns? And as follow up…if so, where is that in the constitution?”
Kristen, correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t believe that there’s any prohibition on the possession of guns by convicted felons in the constitution, either.
Funny how the .50 is now the target of this thread. If you’re going to go on some kind of murderous rampage I cannot think of a less cost-effective or practical modern firearm to use.
There is also no right to vote in the Constitution.
Sandi – I use a bully pulpit all the time to educate people about our right to keep and bear arms. Give me a clear, concise question and I’ll give you a clear, concise answer. A nebulous question gets a nebulous answer. Sorry, but you have to give me something to work with – Warren was all over the place, jumping from topic to topic, throwing out vague and odd tidbits (such as wanting a lethal chemical weapon) and then moving on to the next vague tidbit. I am not maligning Warren (I don’t even know him). But I am criticizing the way he wrote his complaint about VCDL. If he wants answers, then give me a short, concise, and clear question for each item and I’ll respond similarly. But do keep in mind that I know I’m being baited.
# 14 Well said!
Thanks Dan you have inspired me to join the VCDL.
Ok…mental illness. Are any of the gun people willing to say they feel the mentally ill should be prevented from having guns? And as follow up…if so, where is that in the constitution?
Comment by Kristen — December 5, 2012 @ 7:52 pm
First, you have to define mentally ill, or more properly, where you draw the line on it. There are many mental illnesses described in the DSM-IV and many of them don’t make the people dangerous to others. If they’ve been determined to be a danger to others by a doctor or the court system, of course they shouldn’t be allowed to possess a firearm.
The where-in-the-constitution argument is immaterial, IMO. The constitution is a framework document. It is not, nor was it ever intended to be, a canon or be-all-end-all comprehensive manifest. It’s silly to think that the founding fathers wanted every single man, woman and child to possess a gun just as it’s silly to think they wanted to pick and choose who got to have them. They just wanted it to be known that they believe in the citizenry’s right to arm themselves, mainly so that future generations would have the means to fight oppression and authoritarianism – two things that were catalysts in our creation in the first place. The legislative and judicial branches were created to deal with emergent issues in that framework we call our Constitution.
I believe that if the people who penned that document were alive today, they would be appalled at far more important things that we seem to have forsaken than a person’s wish to own a powerful rifle. In fact, they’d probably be appalled that gun control was such an issue at all.
Dan, I think “shall not be infrInged” includes violent felons, mentally ill, cognitively incapacitated…..everyone. Blind. Dementia victims. Why not 5 year olds?
And if you consider yourself “pro gun” and take issue with any of the above populations keeping and bearing arms….you’re pro gun control. You just draw the line at a different place is all.
I disagree vehemently that “The gun culture created this country and is woven within the very fabric of its being“. Either we are speaking of two very different things, or this thread has seriously jumped the shark.
Quit getting hung up on the .50 caliber gun and get the point of what Warren was saying.
I do not believe that the carnage of a mass shooting fazes the gun culture or the gun rights advocates. And I pray God that they are not the same thing!
The legislators are as clueless as you are Jack, you go and waste your time, I will not.
Sandi’s suggestions to cut back on illegal gun violence:
1: PSA’s that suggest having a gun is “uncool”… (surely that will work)
2: Lets go easy on the nut’s that commit crimes (might they move to #3)
3: hire convicted felons (perfect solution, everyone wants a felon working for them)
4: give drug abusers jobs (maybe looking after felons)
5: build a community for felons; abusers and uncool persons. (sandi and her friends have jobs for all)
6: change “policing” to “stewardship” and have the officers “teach a man to fish”. (maybe ex felons could be the police or “stewards”)
7: ? (incoherent)
8: “herd” everyone in to really “good” schools. (of course we already know that all felons graduated from really “bad” schools.
I am not sure why anyone has not thought of this before.
It is simply Einstein genius…
Sandi at #3 and #11: A true display of liberl lies and hypocrisy…LYPOCRISY. Gun owners, by accepting the personal responsibility to keep and bear arms for self defense and the defense of others are doing far more than you in bringing about positve change.
Would you like some cheese with that whine hypocrit? How can a brown nosed follower of the Messiah Obama believe in abortion and throw off quotes like “thou shalt not kill”? Guess you feel rightous suggesting someone else, like gun owners, do something about the myriad of problems in our society of which many been created by liberal policies particularly the high crime and poverty area of the inner cities which have been governed by liberals for decades. You reap what you sow and just mouthing off about problems reaps no solutions. Actions speak louder
than words. What, Sandi, will you do?
When do we call for the banning of knives, screwdrivers, 2×4’s, baseball bats, rat poison, shredded glass, crossbows, shives,.. etc… that people use to commit murders?
Ok…mental illness. Are any of the gun people willing to say they feel the mentally ill should be prevented from having guns? And as follow up…if so, where is that in the constitution?”
Kristen, correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t believe that there’s any prohibition on the possession of guns by convicted felons in the constitution, either.
Comment by Dan Casey — December 5, 2012 @ 8:29 pm
Constitution here is not relevant. State law governs. In Virginia, convicted felons cannot own firearms or vote. Those under restraining orders are also prohibited from purchasing firearms.
I’m going to preemptively apologize to anyone I attached to quotes incorrectly. This one was long and I might have screwed that up.
Sandi-
“You can obfuscate his point all you like, his premise is solid. The gun advocacy groups are ONLY about promoting and protecting the gun and the gun owners.”
Setting aside the questionable tactics of the NRA, what exactly is a “gun rights” group supposed to do except zealously defend gun rights? Particularly when 99.9% of the gun control proposals make no sense and would not work? The ACLU isn’t expected to defend “reasonable” restrictions of the First Amendment. NARAL isn’t expected to advocate for “sensible” restrictions on abortion. Gun rights advocates should not be expected to support new restrictions that make no sense, and that’s damn near all of them.
“Like the saying goes fellas, “You either lead, follow, or get out of the way”. I think you will find that not leading has not served you well in the years to come. Hunters are already feeling it and given the daily dose of crimes with guns, you will continue to abide behind the “eight-ball”.”
The trend in surveys, the popularity of guns, and legislative action all prove you are wrong. Prior to 20 years ago, less than half the U.S. was shall issue for concealed carry, now it’s 41 states. Good god, we turned Wisconsin! The Democratic party is literally afraid of bringing up the topic and have smacked down officials that shot off their mouths about it. I agree that the NRA engages in counterproductive behavior, but the notion that we are in danger of back firing our cause is laughable. Look how many prominent gun crimes have occurred, and virtually no new restrictions have come. And even gun rights groups are in favor of the few that have been proposed (improving the NICS system with regard to the mentally ill).
We’ve been “behind the eight-ball” for two decades and gun crime and murders have dropped by a third. “Our way” may not be responsible for that drop, but it sure as hell hasn’t hurt.
“Jason, prescription drugs have “legitimate purpose”, but we still regulate them and restrict them. Cars, motorcycles, airplanes, cranes, armored tanks, rocket launchers, and a well stocked arsenal all have “legitimate purpose”, but we still regulate and restrict them.”
Point being, he said they didn’t. And why do we need to regulate something that has been around for a long time and has caused no problems?
“We can try to change the ideas that guns are macho, convey power, stature and attractive machismo. Look how we have ostracized smokers. We should work to do the same for those who carry guns for the cool factor and intimidation, not to mention crime.”
Give me an example of an ad that would ostracize only the people who carry guns for psychological reasons that you don’t like. How do we distinguish between the legal concealed carrier who carries strictly for self defense from the legal concealed carrier who does it as a penis extension?
“Undiagnosed or untreated mental illness and substance abuse are beyond doubt part of the problem in the many domestic abuse cases and the shootings of spouses. Again, we cannot stop mental illness. BUT: We can certainly better fund mental health screenings and treatment and not brand people and ruin lives with felony convictions instead of treatment.”
Sign me up. It is an unfortunate coincidence that the pro gun movement has been dominated by conservatives and therefore, this proposal stands little chance of being enacted. But I love it and would strongly support it.
“Sadly this one is also self-fulfilling. If we house non-violent offenders with violent offenders what do they learn? If we brand someone with a felony conviction what do they still carry out into society when they leave prison? A return ticket. There are no jobs in an economy like this one for felons, people on the sex offender list or those with a chip the size of Colorado on their shoulders. BUT: We can start jobs programs and help these people gain a trade, a chance and maybe a better choice.”
See my last response. Great idea, but it’s not realistic to expect the NRA or GOA to advocate this when they are pretty much wings of the Republican party. Hell, the GOA thinks the NRA is too liberal.
“Like alcoholism, drug use has a role in the gun culture for certain. If you are selling, or buying drugs, everyone knows you need a gun. It is just a given. The drug/alcohol use will then cause your judgement to be impaired when you choose to use that gun. BUT: We can offer treatment, alternative sentencing, half-way houses with job training, and other supportive efforts to help them get and stay clean. Lock up dealers for life IMO.”
I’d take this over what we are doing now, but I’d prefer to just end prohibition. I disagree with life sentences for dealers whether drugs are illegal or not.
Kristen-
“Ok…mental illness. Are any of the gun people willing to say they feel the mentally ill should be prevented from having guns?”
Yes. The law already makes it illegal for anyone who has been adjudicated mentally ill to own a firearm. The problem is how do you catch the ones that are mentally ill but haven’t been involuntarily committed without causing a chilling effect on treatment? What is the criteria you’d use other than involuntary commitment?
“Jason, Warren’s point that the gun advocacy organizations support guns to the exclusion of even common sense controls is spot on IMO.”
No, it’s not, because virtually every proposal isn’t common sense and often makes no sense.
“Maybe I just understand him better but I did think it was well written and has a solid and provable point.”
And I think you are provably wrong.
“His point was not even about “demonized weapons”, it was about the truth that gun advocates ignore the blatant fact that we already established there should be controls we are merely haggling over the price.”
He’s the one that brought up a specific type of gun that is in no need to be controlled. That’s what I mean by “not common sense”. The fact that you or he thinks a gun law makes sense doesn’t mean it does. And again, I’m the one using facts to back that up. All you have is baseless fear.
Sandi-
“Did they condemn Nugent or his ranting, gun imagery or killing references?”
I and many gun owners did. I can’t help that we got drowned out. Nugent is an idiot.
“Except for you has ANY gun advocate ever called out PePe LaPierre, no matter what the nut says?”
Yes. See my last answer.
“Has ANYONE on the gun rights advocacy bandwagon ever admitted that some weapons are not good for mass consumption?”
Which ones?
“Many “pro-gunners” do not support ANY limits, and you know that.”
You’re wrong. I do not know a single gun owner who thinks that violent felons should get their gun rights restored. I don’t know one who thinks that adjudicated mentally ill people should. I don’t know anyone that thinks ten year olds should be able to walk into a gun shop and purchase one. I can keep going, but hopefully you get the point.
“I think you are giving them way more credit than is remotely deserved to say that “The NRA pushed for the instant check system that became NICS”. I think we know better.
http://www.txstate.edu/cpm/hobby/Publications/contentParagraph/01/content_files/file74/National_Rifle_Association.pdf”
You really got me. As long as you don’t read the stuff you quoted. Emphasis is mine:
“In an effort to kill the bill, the NRA abandoned its earlier opposition to “gun control” laws and SUPPORTED INSTANT BACKGROUND CHECKS AT THE POINT OF SALE…”
And kudos for the up to date source. It was written before the Brady Bill was even passed. Which means it also leaves out when the NRA got hammered by gun owners for supporting further enhancements to the Brady Act. Jesus, look what you’ve done, you’re making me DEFEND the NRA. Thanks a lot!
Well thank god. The constitution doesn’t matter. Which means we can just start regulating the hell out of guns…without the “second amendment” cudgel, why not?
Sandi:
“I disagree vehemently that “The gun culture created this country and is woven within the very fabric of its being“. Either we are speaking of two very different things, or this thread has seriously jumped the shark.”
Were it not for militias and assorted other armed citizens, do you honestly think that the colonies would’ve been successful in defeating the British?
Quit getting hung up on the .50 caliber gun and get the point of what Warren was saying.
He mentioned .50 cal rifles twice and a sniper shooting once more. What other point did I miss? That he meandered his way around an anti-VCDL rant? He also mentioned “weaponized lethal chemicals”, as well, but you can purchase lethal chemicals at the grocery store and weaponize them yourself surprisingly easily. He gripes about the VCDL not supporting control on .50 cal rifles, yet supporting relaxed concealed carry laws. How are the two mutually inclusive?
I do not believe that the carnage of a mass shooting fazes the gun culture or the gun rights advocates. And I pray God that they are not the same thing!
Do you honestly think that I, or other gun rights advocates, aren’t affected by mass shootings? I still cry every single time I walk past the memorials along the drill field at VT. I cringe every time I see another shooting reported on television. To imply that owning and advocating ownership of guns somehow makes one apathetic to human tragedy is insultingly assumptive. For goodness sake, there were no gang members dancing in the streets after the Aurora massacre, either, were there? You’re better than that, Sandi. Please tell me I misunderstood what you meant.
@Sandi: “The legislators are as clueless as you are Jack, you go and waste your time, I will not.”
I’m not sure where you are expecting your changes to come from. Oh yes, now I remember. Never mind.
@29 Constitution here is not relevant. State law governs. In Virginia, convicted felons cannot own firearms or vote. Those under restraining orders are also prohibited from purchasing firearms.–Comment by Leon
So, if state law can trump the 2nd amendment and prohibit gun ownership by a convicted felon, what’s to stop the state for prohibiting it for everyone?
Mike O, there are very good reasons to hire felons. Employers may receive tax incentives for hiring felons (it’s called being part of the solution), hiring felons helps them reintegrate productively into society, and keeping felons in the community is significantly less costly than incarceration.
Effectice policing often involves good stewardship. In fact, it is accepted in law enforcement that community policing (officers establishing a presence in the community, walking a consistent beat) is very effective a reducing crime. Unfortunately, local departments don’t always have enough money to hire enough officers to implement community policing. Good stewardship is laudable no matter your occupation.
All felons are not violent. Chances are, you know or work with someone who is a felon. Many felons fulfill their sentences and lead productive lives. A felony conviction carries with it the loss of certain civil rights, namely the right to vote and the right to possess a firearm. A felony conviction does not carry with it the loss of basic humanity.
“You’re wrong. I do not know a single gun owner who thinks that violent felons should get their gun rights restored. I don’t know one who thinks that adjudicated mentally ill people should. I don’t know anyone that thinks ten year olds should be able to walk into a gun shop and purchase one. I can keep going, but hopefully you get the point.”
Jason,
I’m sure there are some zealots who believe felons, the adjudicated mentally ill and children should be able to buy guns. But they’re few and far between, and I accept that you don’t know any.
Having said that, the current political environment all by itself demonstrates well that what almost everyone knew was crazy 4 decades ago now passes for sane in a large segment of the population.
Hell, 45 years ago the NRA was the leading national advocate for gun control. The point is that guns for felons, kooks and kids may seem radical now. But that doesn’t necessary mean it won’t be in the gun-rights mainstream a little ways in to the future.
I predict that Leon will shortly eat his words about the 2nd Amendment not being “relevant.”
I’ve known plenty of felons and been friends with a few. Perhaps the biggest difference between them and nonfelons is the felons got caught doing the same thing that a hell of a lot of (never caught) nonfelons were doing, too.
In other words, the felons were stupid and/or unlucky.
Sandi Saunders:
“Post of the Day indeed! Well said Warren and true to the bone……[blah, blah, blah]”
I’m surprised two other posters got a chance to post before she could do her predicatable sucking up.
“Look how we have ostracized smokers. We should work to do the same for those who carry guns for the cool factor and intimidation, not to mention crime.”
Really? I thought it had to do with their second hand smoke encroaching on my clean air. My gun encroaches on NO ONE!
“Like alcoholism, drug use has a role in the gun culture for certain.”
Pull that one out of your ….?
“I can mount a better defense of gun rights AND a better message to clean up the problems than you can.”
Then do it.
J.M. White:
“Why would the VCDL need to speak out against .50 cal ownership? There is no .50 cal menace to fear.”
J.M. White, the antis are all about making solutions IN SEARCH OF problems. Just like when Sheila Jackson proposed an amendment requiring 24 hour notification for CHP holders to cross state lines… just WTF is that supposed to be solving?!
Philip Van Cleave:
“I am not maligning Warren (I don’t even know him).”
Warren doesn’t know me, but that’s certainly never stopped him.
Maloof:
“Thanks Dan you have inspired me to join the VCDL.”
It’s a fantastic organization, Maloof. We are growing all the time! Ironically, I have reruited a couple of members from this blog.
Sandi Saunders:
“The legislators are as clueless as you are Jack, you go and waste your time, I will not.”
Then why don’t you run for office. I would enjoy speaking at a committee meeting against one of your gun control bills, then watching it go down in flames.
Leon:
“Actions speak louder
than words. What, Sandi, will you do?”
I predict she’ll whine on this blog and nothing more.
Re: Sandi Saunders @ 9:00 pm
“The legislators are as clueless as you are Jack, you go and waste your time, I will not.”
——————
So what form of goverment do you support, Sandi?
Alfred:
“So, if state law can trump the 2nd amendment and prohibit gun ownership by a convicted felon, what’s to stop the state for prohibiting it for everyone?”
Alfred, there are all kinds of state-imposed Second Amendment restrictions that I think are unconstitutional. In fact, there was a 32 year virtually total blackout of the Second Amendment in Washington DC. It’s just barely any better now. Illinois still denies everyone the right to bear arms as they have no provision to carry open or discretely.
“Brian Hardman, 22, pointed a gun at Leonard Turner, who was putting air in his tires at a Detroit gas station, and demanded his car. Turner, 47, a former middleweight boxer, grabbed Hardman’s trigger finger and shot off the gun until it was empty, then threw Hardman to the ground. “He got up,” Turner recounted, “and said, ‘Give me my gun back. I got a CCW (carry concealed weapon permit).’ Then I hit him with the gun.”
At Hardman’s trial, defense attorney Jonathan Jones argued that his client shouldn’t be charged with carjacking because he didn’t have the gun on him. “The reason he didn’t have the gun on him,” Judge Shannon A. Holmes noted, “is because the defendant got his butt whipped, and Mr. Turner took the gun from him.” (Detroit News)”
. . .Combat City, a shooting range in Orlando, Fla., lets its customers fire at each other to test whether they have what it takes to shoot another person if their life depends on it. Owner Dave Kaplan greets customers, searches them for concealed weapons and ammunition, and modifies their weapons to fire only a soft rubber bullet. Participants then enter the range wearing protection for their head, neck and private parts. Even so, the rubber bullets hurt, more so than being shot with a paintball. “There is supposed to be a degree of pain,” Kaplan explained, “so that you do learn from it.” (Orlando’s WKMG-TV)
http://www.csindy.com/coloradosprings/stranger-than-fiction/Content?oid=2594904
So, if state law can trump the 2nd amendment and prohibit gun ownership by a convicted felon, what’s to stop the state for prohibiting it for everyone?
Comment by Alfred — December 5, 2012 @ 11:19 pm
Some states have, and are, trying. . .CA. . .NY. . .place with the highest violent crime rates. BTW, the 2nd amendment describes a right which the SC has affirmed is an individual right. . .which the government
cannot just take away.
Alfred, BTW. . .I’ll choose 45 cal over 50 cal everyday. . .only 50 cal gun I have is a Black Powder model. Military snipers do not generally use
50 cal. . .too heavy to hump. Your post definitely not a “post of the day”; just an example of Dan’s poor judgement and liberal bias against guns.
@Dave Hicks: “So what form of goverment do you support, Sandi?”
Oh, Dave Hicks, my friend… the silly things you ask. We all know what kind of government Sandi would support… her. We’ve heard it here once.. heck, we’ve heard it here a few dozen times. She is the one who gets to decide who does what based solely on how she feels about it.
Gee, only two days after the last anti-gun column. What a surprise. Cue the retort – ‘I’m only opposed to concealed carry laws, despite all evidence to the contrary provided by columns like this’ in 3… 2… 1…
Dan:
“Turner, 47, a former middleweight boxer, grabbed Hardman’s trigger finger and shot off the gun until it was empty, then threw Hardman to the ground.”
So according to Alfred, a holstered gun is no defense because we’re already drawn upon, but we’re all supposed to be as agile as a boxer and try this. No thanks! I won’t depend on being able to do this.
Dan-
What the hell is the point of post 43?
The first post is about an idiot with a CCW who committed a crime. This proves zero, particularly when “good” CCW stories outnumber “bad” by a wide margin. No one has ever said that permit holders are perfect.
And what are you saying regarding the simunition range?
Firearms threads are a lot like threads discussing abortion. Everyone is very well dug into their respective positions, and trade jabs from time to time, but in the end, nothing really changes…it’s just a waste of time. And that’s why, this will be my lone post on the matter. I enjoy my firearms, and holding a CHP. My wife does as well.
Homicides by firearms are at near 20-year lows in this country, from the data I’ve been able to locate. The bigger problem are firearms-related suicides, whose rate is far higher than the homicide rate…and among countries reporting that data, the highest in the world.
But, that does not paint the whole picture. Not many countries report firearms suicide data from what I can find (or even accidental firearms-related deaths), and there’s a good chance that even with restricted firearms access, the suicide rate might not change much…only the means used.
@48 “So according to Alfred, a holstered gun is no defense because we’re already drawn upon, but we’re all supposed to be as agile as a boxer and try this. No thanks! I won’t depend on being able to do this.–Comment by John Wilburn
So John are you making my case for me? Are you saying that you won’t attempt to draw your gun when one is being held on you? Surely grabbing a guys hand is faster than drawing a pistol.
Right to Bear Palms…
http://blogs.star-telegram.com/crime_time/2012/12/man-79-disables-rifle-toting-intruder-with-karate-chop.html
Jason, who cares what the gun owners you “know” think? What does it matter whether or not they “feel” felons should have their gun rights restored, or that the mentally ill be precluded from gun ownership? It’s a matter of LAW and constitutional RIGHT. Their feelings are irrelevant. It’s either in the constitution or it’s not, and if it’s not, it’s gun control. And if they’re good with it, they’re good with gun control.
They won’t want to call it “gun control” because they’re going to want to call it “common sense” or whatever, but that changes nothing. It’s gun control and as all things just a matter of degree.
” An armed populous has been a determining and continuing factor in our continuous sovereignty, as well. No one dares invade a country that not only possesses a mighty army, but has a citizenry with the right to be armed, too.”
Why would they even bother? Thanks to “gun culture” we’re doing an excellent job thinning our own numbers. Never get in the way of your enemy when they’re busy killing each other off.
OJ, perhaps we need a federal law banning the collection of suicide-via-gun data by the federal government. I know the NRA has gotten behind laws banning the collection of other gun information in the past.
Why don’t you whiny ___ pansies, too scared to face the streets without your gun, kiss my big fat ___ I pull things out of?
I despise trying to discuss anything with you people, but guns is always the worst.
Rob Thommins, ASKED me to respond to what he felt was “left out” of Warren’s comments. I said straight off that it was my own perspective. I did not say it was legislation I was supporting. I did not ask any of you to support it.
Go ahead and let the brain-trust that is Leon, Maloof and Mike O (All hiding in the safety of anonymity to attack people) lead this brilliant discussion forward.
Funny that you can only malign what I say, not refute it.
“Why don’t you whiny ___ pansies, too scared to face the streets without your gun, kiss my big fat ___ I pull things out of?” Sandi Saunders
My name is, Justin True, and I approve this message!
Dan, I’m going to say no. I’m not a fan of the NRA anyway, and I think most of their efforts wind up being counter-productive.
Who here is “too scared to face the streets without [their] gun”?
I, for one, am not, Sandi.
Jason, you are king at obfuscation! Both the ACLU and NARAL, PETA and many other very vocal and activist groups do indeed new ideas and solutions that do not interfere with their goals. They advocate and will help anyone come up with a better plan, a better law or a better policy and you KNOW that. Why should gun rights activists NOT do the same? You constantly shoot down and decry all gun control laws and efforts but never offer any solutions to the very real problems presented by the gun culture.
You also KNOW that the link I offered did speak to the history of the NRA and their opposition to background checks until they had to get on board.
“The NRA has waffled a lot on these issues for the last several decades, particularly on waiting periods and background checks. In the mid-seventies, the NRA published a firearms control pamphlet in which they said “a waiting-period could help in reducing crimes of passion and preventing people with criminal records or dangerous mental histories from acquiring guns.”
By the early 1980s, the NRA took a strong stand against criminal background checks, charging that they were an invasion of privacy and diverted police from real crime to paperwork.
The Brady Bill requires a seven-day waiting period to buy a pistol. When the U.S. House of Representatives was considering the bill in 1988, the NRA opposed a waiting period. In an effort to kill the bill, the NRA abandoned its earlier opposition to “gun control” laws and supported instant background checks at the point of sale–requiring an expensive and non-existent federal computerized system of criminal records to be created and be accessible by gun dealers.
Talk about invasion of privacy!
Of course, the NRA’s real objective was to pass a measure that would be impossible to implement. It would take at least ten years and hundreds of millions of dollars to develop and install such a system.“
JM White, I think that you and I are absolutely talking about two different things when we say “gun culture”. I am not talking about the Revolutionary War or the fact that survival often depended on a reliable gun. I am not talking about self-defense of home or person even.
I am talking about the message, music, video games, movies and real life experiences of too many children and young people who are growing up with no sense of humanity, no real value for any life, comfort or freedom except their own and the dependence, reliance and use of guns as casually as some use hats.
Homeowners awaken to an intruder in their bedroom…use a handgun to hold the would-be burglar at bay until police arrive. Would-be burglar calls 911 reporting he was being held at gunpoint…while the homeowner was also on the line with 911 reporting the break-in.
http://crimeblog.dallasnews.com/2012/12/burglary-suspect-calls-911-after-springtown-homeowner-holds-him-at-gunpoint.html/
Yeah, they’re not helpful at all.
Are you saying that you won’t attempt to draw your gun when one is being held on you? Surely grabbing a guys hand is faster than drawing a pistol.
Comment by Alfred — December 6, 2012 @ 9:31 am
That depends on whether the person holding the gun on you is stupid enough to get in arm’s reach of me or not. Within arm’s reach, the assailant is an idiot and can be disarmed faster than he can react – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_1y7VZ9BQxY . Out of arm’s reach, you find cover or a distraction and draw your own weapon. If a man holds a gun on you in military style or a Weaver stance from 6-8 feet away with no cover available, you’re better off just doing what he says and hoping for a distraction.
I prefer edged weapons, which means you counter-intuitively close the distance between yourself and the assailant. Once within arm’s reach, the tactic is similar to the Krav Maga technique demonstrated in the video, except you go up in the struggle for the gun, draw your edged weapon and go for the armpit of the weapon arm with repeated stabs, or alternately if you keep your blades very sharp, through the bicep of the weapon arm from the elbow toward the shoulder, fileting through the brachial artery, followed by throat strikes.
Regardless, the man holding the gun on you is unlikely to give a flying fornication about any gun regulations in any form. Projectile weapons are a primitive technology and can be easily made. When they outlawed pistols in the Philippines, the citizens just started manufacturing their own. What resulted were some of the most beautifully crafted high-quality revolvers of the late 20th century. Firearms aren’t going anywhere and tighter regulations will in no way influence or affect those who use them in an illegal/illicit manner.
The problem isn’t the weapons or the culture that comes with them, the problem is the killing. Until we find a way/reason to stop killing one another, the tool by which it’s performed is irrelevant. We’ll always find more effective, creative ways to kill our enemies, guns or no guns. The problem is us and always has been.
Sandi, we kill each other by the thousands each and every year, many of those occurring without the use of firearms. I don’t the gun culture is as responsible as the killing culture. Global media exposes us to the tragedies that used to not be reported on the 6 o’clock news. We’re a violent race and that violence is most definitely a problem. I simply don’t think that any particular tools are at the root of that problem.
I believe we’re on the same page when it comes to the fact that we need to fundamentally change our ways. I fear the tool-users while you often come across as fearing the tools. We have the same the destination, we just travel different paths.
@ John Wilburn. If you can do all that stuff J.M. White talks about in post no. 62, I retract the question from post no.51
Sandi, re: “…too many children and young people who are growing up with no sense of humanity, no real value for any life,…”
I agree with your point… think “abortion” where we have conditioned our children that it is OK to “kill” their own offspring.
Yes, the videos, games and movies do indeed glorify and make abortion look like a good time. I see your point Mike O.
Other John:
“in the end, nothing really changes…it’s just a waste of time….I enjoy my firearms, and holding a CHP. My wife does as well.”
If VCDL had that attitude in 1995, you would not have a CHP right now!
Alfred:
“So John are you making my case for me? Are you saying that you won’t attempt to draw your gun when one is being held on you? Surely grabbing a guys hand is faster than drawing a pistol.”
Not “grabbing a guy’s hand”; grabbing his hand and manipulating his trigger with his own finger. Never mind having uncertain control of the discharge of the weapon he is holding. Did you read what all was done there. I can draw much quicker than that.
I know I’ve been posting quotes from others lately, but here’s another that happens to be one of my favorites from Pres. Dwight D. Eisenhower. He’s my kind of Republican.
“Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. This is not a way of life at all in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron. ”
Dwight D. Eisenhower, From a speech before the American Society of Newspaper Editors, April 16, 1953
Joe:
“Right to Bear Palms…”
That’s great and fine, but the gun is a great equalizer that put handicapped folks or the otherwise physically disadvantaged on a level or superior playing field with their attacker.
Sandi Saunders:
“Why don’t you whiny ___ pansies, too scared to face the streets without your gun, kiss my big fat ___ I pull things out of?”
LOL! That made my day.
“I despise trying to discuss anything with you people, but guns is always the worst.”
You choose to do so. It must suck having to constantly create logic to back your positions.
“I am talking about the message, music, video games, movies and real life experiences of too many children and young people who are growing up with no sense of humanity, no real value for any life…”
Guns aren’t at the root of this. Guns are just popular, effective tools for good guys and bad. There are many people who life and have guns as part of theirs. They just value their own life and that of thier family more than some criminal who doesn’t.
J.M.White:
“Until we find a way/reason to stop killing one another, the tool by which it’s performed is irrelevant. We’ll always find more effective, creative ways to kill our enemies, guns or no guns. The problem is us and always has been.”
+1
Ron May – here’s a favorite of mine:
“The modern conservative is engaged in one of man’s oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.” – John Kenneth Galbraith
“The gun is a great equalizer that put handicapped folks or the otherwise physically disadvantaged on a level or superior playing field with their attacker.”
–Coment by John Wilburn
JW, very topical!
Assuming, of course, that the offender actually is an attacker. When she is not, the gun at times can be the great penalizer — as in, putting this handicapped man in prison for a long stretch. NO QUESTION that he wouldn’t be going there if he hadn’t had his gun and killed someone with it.
Dan:
“NO QUESTION that he wouldn’t be going there if he hadn’t had his gun and killed someone with it.”
The story didn’t describe the motorist’s actions at all! I’m curious what more there is to the story.
JM White, I am sorry if I come across as fearing guns. I do not. I grew up in a family that loved, collected and hunted with guns. My dad taking care of his guns is still a vivid memory and the smell of gun oil reminds me of him; my brothers are the same. My husband has and uses guns. I do fear the tools, but not guns.
I think in the end, it is the attitude that raises my dander. In truth, I can defend guns as easily as decry their abuse. I truly have come to enjoy making them attack me and show their colors as it were.
The idiocy that everyone who does not worship at the altar of public carry everywhere is “anti-gun” is just so Pavlovian.
Sandi:
“The idiocy that everyone who does not worship at the altar of public carry everywhere is “anti-gun” is just so Pavlovian.”
What about the idoicy of people who think there is any freakin’ difference between carry in the county government center and the county courthouse or the difference between carry at city hall and the post office or the difference between carry in the General Assembly Building and a university administration building. All of the formers honor the right, but none of the latter. That is idiotic.
JW, in 1995 I was 14 for most of the year, concerned about my sophomore year in high school and preparing myself for a run at college. I’m thankful for the efforts of others in the political arena…I haven’t the stomach nor the patience for it.
Other John:
“I’m thankful for the efforts of others in the political arena…I haven’t the stomach nor the patience for it.”
Thanks for recognizing such. It’s not always easy, but is rewarding work that needs to be done. Even though you were not participating then doesn’t mean that you cannot be supportive of our efforts now. We’ve come a long way, but have a lot more to do.
I know you miss the irony, but thanks for the laugh to sleep on.
JW,
Here’s another news account. It appears from that that the driver didn’t see the guy in the wheelchair, almost hit him (but didn’t) as she pulled into the gas station parking lot, proceeded to try to buy gas, and that the guy in the wheelchair shot her in the head as she did that.
While I understand your argument that a disabled person has a lot better chance of defending himself from a threat if he’s armed with a gun, if this guy had not had his he:
1) would not have been injured;
2) would not be in jail; and
3) an innocent woman would be alive.
Dan,
It said he shot her in the chest, not the head. It certainly sounds like the carrier acted inappropriately and in an unlawful manner, but there still are some important details missing, just enough that it remains fuzzy whether or not there could have still been a threat to the carrier of some kind or if the threat had passed. If I may speculate…I think she probably did darn near run him over but likely because she either didn’t see him or is simply a bad driver. I doubt it was malicious, which is only important to whether she might have been a threat which had already passed or one which is still present (if she was a threat in the first place).
The possibility exists that she could still have presented a threat unintentionally. Let’s say after she nearly ran him over that she stopped, got out of her car, stood there as he approached, and apologized. This would be very different than nearly running him over, stopping, putting her car in reverse, and backing up even with the intent of backing up to his position to park, get out, and check on him. The latter could be very scary for the carrier as a car nearly ran him over and is now backing toward him!
Again, there’s a lot missing here, but on the face of it, it sounds like he acted after the threat had passed, which is wrong.
So for your three points, I don’t know where you get 1. 2, you’re right. 3, you’re right… provided she was innocent.
So do you think we would be better off with disarming the population as a whole including innocent people who get raped and innocent people who get killed in exchange for keeping the rare incident like this from happening?
thanks for the info on the vcdl looks like a group i would like to join
If she hadn’t had a car she would still be alive, too.
JW…please don’t mistake my disdain for political involvement to be a lack of support for those who do. At one point in my life, I was heavily involved in politics…working on campaigns at the local, state, and Federal levels…doing phone banks, mailers, letters, door-to-door canvassing…you name it. Most of it was for various candidates in the GOP, but a few times it was also over specific issues that I felt strongly about. I burned out on it though, so while I won’t engage in things like that again, I do support those who do because it’s important that someone takes up the banner. We do subscribe to and support the VCDL.
Wow Dan, that is a terribly sad story! The bottom line is that too many unstable people have guns. How we change that, I have no clue, but her also having a gun would have changed what?
Not for nothing but folks in those motorized chairs are the bane of modern existence and I am not joking. Several times in Vinton I have come upon someone using one in the highway, at night, with no reflective anything and no lights on it at all. It is dangerous.
Dan
What if she had hit him with her car? What would you say then?
Henry,
He would have said nothing, because he doesn’t despise cars and cars don’t have minds of their own like guns do.
“What if she had hit him with her car? What would you say then?”
Henry, hit him and what? You’re leaving so much information out that it’s impossible to answer the question.
The people in those motorized chairs act as though they’ve got right-of-way wherever they are. There’s a guy who cruises the Greenway in one and he plants his cart on the lefthand side of the path and refuses to move to oncoming bikers/runners/walkers. I don’t think motorized vehicles should be allowed on the Greenway at all, but that’s a different story. Since the companies started shilling these things on TV and extorting the cash from Medicare, they’re everywhere.
So if she had accidentally hit him with her car, he would have been justified in shooting her? Seriously?
John Wilburn, you can honestly say that you can think of no “freakin’ difference” in people coming armed into some “county government center and the county courthouse”? Between “city hall and the post office”? Between “the General Assembly Building and a university administration building”? Really? I do see idiocy, I just see it in a different place than you do.
#85 Man, if she had hit him with her car I’d say he’d be justified in pulling the RPGs. Blast that woman to bits.
stephen:
“thanks for the info on the vcdl looks like a group i would like to join”
stephen, I will pay $5 of your fist year’s dues to VCDL if you take my CHP class http://chpclass.com. It’s a great organization and I welcome you to join!
Dan:
“Henry, hit him and what? You’re leaving so much information out that it’s impossible to answer the question.”
Which is true of the whole piece.
Sandi Saunders:
“John Wilburn, you can honestly say that you can think of no “freakin’ difference” in people coming armed into some “county government center and the county courthouse”? Between “city hall and the post office”? Between “the General Assembly Building and a university administration building”? Really?”
I purposefully didn’t say “courtroom” as to limit it to the regular administration part of the building. Yes, there is NO difference. All of them are just brick and mortar with people working in them.
Tell me how they’re different from a gun prohibition standpoint.
Kristen,
Re: “Since the companies started shilling these things on TV and extorting the cash from Medicare”
I agree with you 100%, I see these ads all the time, along with the newest “talking diabetes” monitor or hundreds of the “newest catheters” (the numbers of which you can receive dwarfs any normal person’s monthly output). All of which are supported by taxpayer’s funds thru medicare. These are the types of abuses to the system, that should be “reigned in”.
Sandi, I would really like to know how those six places are any different and why some would be posted where others aren’t and why.
John Wilburn, here is my take on the different locations you mentioned.
County Government Center and County Courthouse: a courthouse houses judges and their staff, conducts legal proceedings both civil and criminal, and in criminal proceedings, brings sometimes violent people into the premises. The legal proceedings are often adversarial, and emotions run high. Allowing the public to carry in a courthouse would certainly compromise the safety of all therein.
City Hall and U. S. Post Office: I think it is against federal law to enter a federal facility with a firearm.
General Assembly and University Administration: am I correct in surmising that the same lawmakers who deem it legal to carry in the General Assembly deem it illegal to carry in a University Administration Building? From my point of view, firearms have no place at an institution of higher learning because they do not add to the educational environment. Do you think high school aged kids should be able to being guns onto a high school campus?
Well then John Wilburn, I would suggest you ask the people who made those distinctions.
I am happy to offer a guess. I would say the difference is someone coming into a “county government center” is not likely to encounter either law enforcement or the enemies about to testify and send your posse to the pokey as they might at the “county courthouse”. As to “city hall and the post office”, my guess is that has something to do with federal vs local control. Ever heard of “going postal”? And finally my guess between “the General Assembly Building and a university administration building” is that the popularity of law makers is a heck of a lot lower than any college admin office and being unpopular can make anyone unsafe. I cannot tell you if those guesses have any bearing on the decisions actually made to accept or deny gun carry and install metal detectors, or if the actual yea and nea matches my choices.
Happy now?
@Nosaj: “From my point of view, firearms have no place at an institution of higher learning because they do not add to the educational environment.”
Neither do iPods. Come to think of it, shoes don’t add anything to the educational environment, either.
#97 Shoes, Jack? That was silly. Tell you what, try studying or listening in class with freezing or bleeding feet. Get back to us after your experiment.
I’m hoping my son will be allowed to bring a bazooka to class soon. That would be great.
Oh, and, Jack, some students use their i-pods to help them concentrate when they’re studying. Sounds weird to me, but then I used to write with a dozen different conversations and police scanners going all at the same time.
Jack, in fact, I think shoes are a great source of education. Try walking a mile in someone else’s shoes and you may learn something quite valuable.
Silly, maybe.. but that seemed to be Nosaj’s litmus test. Guns shouldn’t be allowed because they add no educational value. If that’s the case, there are many other things that shouldn’t be allowed, either… that is, unless you want to come up with a better reason for now allowing them.
My apologies, Jack. I left out the part about how I think handguns in the classroom create fear, anxiety, and danger – none of which promote learning, and most probably, impede learning.
Many things that add no educational value are indeed “not allowed”, guns are hardly the unique exception. Millions upon millions of people go through their days, even their lives and never have, use or encounter a gun. They are literally not the be all you folks seem to think.
Craig Allen Loughrey, 7, Shot To Death At Gun Store
Yes, that is a one steep learning curve.
I am not a pro-gun person, but this was a terrible accident.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/08/craig-allen-loughrey-7-sh_n_2264183.html
Nosaj:
“County Government Center and County Courthouse: a courthouse houses judges and their staff, conducts legal proceedings both civil and criminal, and in criminal proceedings, brings sometimes violent people into the premises. The legal proceedings are often adversarial, and emotions run high. Allowing the public to carry in a courthouse would certainly compromise the safety of all therein.”
This is why, for the sake of discussion, I EXCLUDED the courtroom. There are all kinds of other general offices in the courthouse that aren’t “sensitive” at all.
“City Hall and U. S. Post Office: I think it is against federal law to enter a federal facility with a firearm.”
Wrong on the first. Right on the second. The question is WHY carry is okay for City Hall, but not okay under federal law for the post office. Again WHY should carry be banned there?
“General Assembly and University Administration: am I correct in surmising that the same lawmakers who deem it legal to carry in the General Assembly deem it illegal to carry in a University Administration Building?”
No, it is the public universities’ own powers that be, their boards of visitors, who craft regulations that have the force of law. The General Assembly doesn’t make that call.
“From my point of view, firearms have no place at an institution of higher learning because they do not add to the educational environment.”
Rapes and murders don’t add to the educational environment. I think the biggest crime of all is asking someone to check their security at the border to go to a taxpayer-funded public university. Why should these ADULTS be forced to compromise their safety? There is nothing protecting these students in the fanciful utopia inside a university’s practically unidentifable borders.
“Do you think high school aged kids should be able to being guns onto a high school campus?”
No. Not unless it were part of a school rifle team or sanctionaed activity and also under proper supervision. I do think the parents and teachers absolutely should not be denied their right to carry.
Sandi Saunders:
“Well then John Wilburn, I would suggest you ask the people who made those distinctions.”
I do. I’m not asking them now; I’m asking you.
“As to “city hall and the post office”, my guess is that has something to do with federal vs local control.”
Yes, that is the difference, but again I ask WHY?! What on earth is the reason carry is banned one building with people moving papers around and not banned in the other building with people in it moving papers around?
“And finally my guess between “the General Assembly Building and a university administration building” is that the popularity of law makers is a heck of a lot lower than any college admin office and being unpopular can make anyone unsafe.”
See, it’s so arbitrary and un-intuitive, that you are confused which bans and which doesn’t. It’s not your fault; neither make sense.
“Happy now?”
I appreciate your response.
Nosaj:
“I left out the part about how I think handguns in the classroom create fear, anxiety, and danger – none of which promote learning, and most probably, impede learning.”
Okay, then, for the sake of discussion, if concealed carry ONLY were permitted in the classroom, would you consider that a fair compromise? This way, no one’s hoplophobia would impede their studies.
Sandi Saunders:
“Millions upon millions of people go through their days, even their lives and never have, use or encounter a gun.”
But the few who need it, need it more desperately than anything they have ever needed in their entire life. Millions upon Millions never encounter the airbag in their car either. That doesn’t mean they should just put the car seat in the front or let kids ride on their lap.
There is nothing morally superior about being willfully unprepared.
“This is why, for the sake of discussion, I EXCLUDED the courtroom. There are all kinds of other general offices in the courthouse that aren’t “sensitive” at all.” John Wilburn
No need to shout that you excluded the courtroom from your courthouse example. I saw that very clearly. The problem I see is that folks doing business in the courtroom (judges, lawyers, plaintiffs, defendants, witnesses) are milling about in the courthouse. It is not practical nor safe to allow you to carry a handgun in Room 402 but not in Room 205, the courtroom.
“Rapes and murders don’t add to the educational environment. I think the biggest crime of all is asking someone to check their security at the border to go to a taxpayer-funded public university. Why should these ADULTS be forced to compromise their safety? There is nothing protecting these students in the fanciful utopia inside a university’s practically unidentifable borders.”
I do not share your view that the only thing protecting these students from rape and murder is a handgun. Our state universities have put in place many things (phones marked with blue lights, better lighting, increased security presence) that have made our campuses safer. Adding handguns to that mix, in my mind, does not increase safety. It increases the likelihood that the handgun will be used and someone will be killed.
On the issue of handguns in high schools, you said, “No. Not unless it were part of a school rifle team or sanctionaed activity and also under proper supervision. I do think the parents and teachers absolutely should not be denied their right to carry.”
I fail to see the difference between the educational environment at a high school and a university. If you are in favor in one location, why not the other? Anyone carrying handguns in high schools is a recipe for disaster.
“Okay, then, for the sake of discussion, if concealed carry ONLY were permitted in the classroom, would you consider that a fair compromise? This way, no one’s hoplophobia would impede their studies.”
Fair to whom? JW, I think handguns are instruments of death. It is what they are designed for – to kill quickly and efficiently. The fewer guns present, the fewer deaths. That is the premise of all that I post here on this subject. So, no, concealed carry only would not be fair – not fair to fellow students, to professors, guest speakers, administrators, or anyone else that visits and institution of higher learning. You presuppose that those carrying handguns, especially concealed carry, will act reasonably. I think handguns embolden people in the throes of conflict, and they do things they would not normally do. In the absence of handguns, fewer people would lose their lives.
I do not feel morally superior, and I am certainly not willfully unprepared. That is a construct that you throw out to support your position. We each choose a method of preparation that best suits us. I don’t agree with your choice, but I respect the thought you’ve put into it.
Nosaj:
“No need to shout that you excluded the courtroom from your courthouse example. I saw that very clearly. The problem I see is that folks doing business in the courtroom (judges, lawyers, plaintiffs, defendants, witnesses) are milling about in the courthouse. It is not practical nor safe to allow you to carry a handgun in Room 402 but not in Room 205, the courtroom.”
I’m not shouting. In fact, if you met me, you would know that I’m not much of a voice raiser at all. Bold or italics would have been better, but there’s is no quick way to do so using the text box. Sorry, the caps thing isn’t really my style.
Why stop at the courthouse, Nosaj? Why not expand your imaginary halo of legislative protection to the whole town or county? I live in the same town as prosecutors and judges. What if a lawful carrier were to encounter one of them in the grocery store… My God, the bodies would be stacked in the isles! Get a grip. I might be willing to concede the courtroom, but there’s no reason for the rest of the courthouse, especially considering that other states allow it and there have been ZERO problems. Michigan may get it passed this year too. Virginia can uneventfully do the same.
“I do not share your view that the only thing protecting these students from rape and murder is a handgun. Our state universities have put in place many things (phones marked with blue lights, better lighting, increased security presence) that have made our campuses safer.”
The rapes and assaults pour in on the crime reports despite all of the pseudo security. Why on earth can an 18 year old go fight for this country, then come home, use the GI bill, and be stripped of his right to defend himself here. That’s a disgrace.
“Adding handguns to that mix, in my mind, does not increase safety. It increases the likelihood that the handgun will be used and someone will be killed.”
So how many well established rapes and murders are acceptable collateral damage to you versus your fear of something that we haven’t seen or maybe seen once or twice? We know one IS happening, but want to disarm everyone to calm our fears that the other MAY happen? That is not an intelligent solution, IMO. Never having been given the chance to prove themselves, you want to strip them of their arms? That is guilty until proven otherwise and runs contrary to the principles our country was founded on.
Would you be willing to allow ex-military, ex-law enforcement, instructors, or others well qualified to prevent accidents and have a track record of keeping their firearm secure carry if they were students? I know several students who carry in classrooms very discretely. Bet you had no idea. Though not kosher with the university, discrete carry is already working unbeknownst to those in the ivory towers.
“I fail to see the difference between the educational environment at a high school and a university. If you are in favor in one location, why not the other?”
You said STUDENTS. I am not in favor of unsupervised children bearing arms unsupervised, but if one is old enough to serve in the military, vote, marry, sign contacts, etc., he or she is old enough to carry. The educational environment was never the question and I’m not sure why you tried to make it so.
“Anyone carrying handguns in high schools is a recipe for disaster.”
No, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold carrying guns into a school was a disaster. Amongst other things, teachers disarmed by politically correct policy allowed that to become as bad as it did. Do you really not trust high school teachers, who our trusted with our children, to carry? Also, the same parents who carry all the time when with their children when the kids aren’t in school do not suddenly become a threat from 8:30 to 3:30. You are imagining something that you have no evidence to suggest would happen. We heard the same things about guns in restaurants that serve alcohol, shall-issue CHPs, local government preemption (guns in public parks, libraries, government buildings, etc.), the General Assembly Building, State Parks, National Parks, etc, etc, etc. None of the carnage predicted came to pass and K-12 schools and public universities would be no different. Don’t forget it was armed students who stopped the murderer at the Appalachian School of Law. Sure wish those armed students had been in Norris Hall 5 1/2 years ago.
Regarding CC only (no OC) in classrooms:
“Fair to whom? JW”
The girl who doesn’t want to get raped leaving class.
“The fewer guns present, the fewer deaths.”
The fewer keyboards present, the fewer cases of carpal tunnel we would have.
“So, no, concealed carry only would not be fair – not fair to fellow students, to professors, guest speakers, administrators, or anyone else that visits and institution of higher learning. You presuppose that those carrying handguns, especially concealed carry, will act reasonably.”
You talk you really believe that laws and regulations physically prevent guns from coming on to campus.
“I think handguns embolden people in the throes of conflict, and they do things they would not normally do.”
I would much rather have read where a student was emboldened to save his life with a gun versus read about those students who were executed by a lone killer. I actually heard that happen at Virginia Tech with my own ears, by the way.
“In the absence of handguns, fewer people would lose their lives.”
Yet with the explosion of exponential growth of carriers over the last 17 years, violent crime has gone down. I’m not necessarily saying the guns are responsible for the drop, but you darn sure can’t claim that more and more and more guns everywhere have been a problem.
“I don’t agree with your choice, but I respect the thought you’ve put into it.”
Likewise, but can we agree that your position is based more in emotion than history, statistics or reason?
I hear the “ZERO problems” meme a lot on this blog from guns-rights activists. You really gotta put the blinders on to say that. It’s a problem when gun carrying vigilantes play cop like that guy Zimmerman did and end up killing unarmed teens. Or when 4-year-old boys kill their 2-year-old brothers with daddy’s handgun, like what happened in Minneapolis this week. Or when men kill their 7-year-old sons outside a gun store, accidentally, because the dad had no idea there was a bullet in his semi-auto’s chamber. Or when concealed carriers fire into cars because of words exchanged over too loud music.
There may not be easy solutions to these problems. But the problems exist.
Dan:
“It’s a problem when gun carrying vigilantes play cop like that guy Zimmerman did and end up killing unarmed teens. Or when 4-year-old boys kill their 2-year-old brothers with daddy’s handgun, like what happened in Minneapolis this week. Or when men kill their 7-year-old sons outside a gun store, accidentally, because the dad had no idea there was a bullet in his semi-auto’s chamber. Or when concealed carriers fire into cars because of words exchanged over too loud music.”
Not one of those was attributable to expansion of carry anywhere that mentioned. Expansion of whom, on the other hand, has resulted in problems number far, far, fewer than the percentage of expansion would suggest. Truth is, the numbers aren’t in your favor.
“There may not be easy solutions to these problems. But the problems exist.”
Sure do. Rape could all but become extinct if more and more women carried. Assault would fall out favor too. Murder will always be here, ut it would become more and more difficult to do. We have a lot of other societal problems, but face it, the armed society does work.
John Wilburn, you only show your limited thinking ability when you make statements like this one: “I think the biggest crime of all is asking someone to check their security at the border to go to a taxpayer-funded public university. Why should these ADULTS be forced to compromise their safety? There is nothing protecting these students in the fanciful utopia inside a university’s practically unidentifable borders.”
You assume that the only security is a gun and that is literally not the truth. There are many ways to be safe, responsible and secure your own security without involving guns and like I said, millions upon millions do it every day.
You have every right not to go to a university or business that does not appreciate your level of security, but you have no right to pretend it is the only level of security available.
Sure for a victim of a crime, like assault, rape or robbery, a gun MIGHT have made a difference, but just as money can save someone from hunger, it is not what you wish you had, but what you have at the moment that matters. There is always more than one way to secure yourself and guns do not carry an especial guarantee of survival.
If you cannot argue for guns without trying to scare or blame people into them, you have lost the argument IMO.
Well argued Nosaj! You are a great addition to this blog! I agree with all you said, yes. But I also appreciate the way you articulate your thoughts.
Sandi Saunders:
“Well argued Nosaj! You are a great addition to this blog! I agree with all you said, yes. But I also appreciate the way you articulate your thoughts.”
…
…even if it is an emotional argument based purely on feelings without the interference of reason. Your bias is over the top!
And note that there still hasn’t been any explanation of how gun free zones are supposedly working in any of these supposed “gun free zones”!
Bring some facts already! Every story of a kid shooting himself because of an irresponsible parent or finding those one or two bad apples within the 9 million+ CHP holders (a record better than cops) doesn’t at all make your case.
What is the reason carry should be banned in any of these places when every re-expansion of carry thus far has not only NOT shown to be a problem, but coincided with a near perfect overlap of the graph of declining violent crime?
You guys argue so passionately against a less infringed right to carry, but have yet to offer anything but solutions in search of problems that we do not have and you cannot show evidence of.
@Nosaj: “I left out the part about how I think handguns in the classroom create fear, anxiety, and danger”
Speak for yourself. I, on the other hand, welcome them in the classroom, as do many other like-minded people.
@Nosaj: “The fewer guns present, the fewer deaths.”
Wow, I cannot believe that you actually believe that. With police departments across the country full of people with guns, why are there not more murders in police departments?
@Nosaj: “…not fair to … guest speakers, …, or anyone else that visits and institution of higher learning.”
I’m sorry I missed this little gem. The guest speakers and other visitors do get to carry. It’s just students and faculty/staff who do not get to carry.
I am not a Virginia Tech student, so I can carry there if I want to…. at least outside. Even openly, if I want.
JW,
“Likewise, but can we agree that your position is based more in emotion than history, statistics or reason?”
Sort of. You are correct that emotion drives my decision-making process in this and every situation. By the way, are you saying that using my emotions to make a decision is inferior? It certainly appears so in this response to a post by Sandi, “…even if it is an emotional argument based purely on feelings without the interference of reason.” In my emotional mind, reason does not interfere. Reason and logic inform me. The more information I get, the better decision my emotions make. JW, people make decisions in very different ways. It is, thankfully, what makes us all unique. Imagine this blog if we all saw things through the same filter.
However, that does not mean that I am devoid of reason or that I ignore history. Statistics may well be in your favor. You continue to equate the drop in violent crime with the increase in concealed carry. Maybe that is true, maybe it is not. Time will tell. As for history, it appears to be replete with folks killing each other intentionally and accidentally with handguns. I am sure there are instances where handguns deter crime, too. Quite simply, you think that more handguns make people safer. This is evidenced by your statement in response to Dan, “Rape could all but become extinct if more and more women carried. Assault would fall out of favor too. Murder will always be here, but it would become more and more difficult to do.” I think more handguns make people less safe. Reason and history sadly tells me that human beings, rape, assault, rob, and murder no matter the weaponry. As I have said before, the use of a handgun makes it easier to kill. I don’t think that fact is in dispute.
As we have gone back and forth, I think I have softened my stance in oppostition to concealed carry. It is inevitable that people will carry handguns, so I would rather they be permitted and trained. That said, I do not yield on restricting locations where concealed carry is not allowed. Schools, universities, courthouses should be handgun free for good reason.
JW, your posts make me think, and for this, I am appreciative.
Sandi, thanks for your kind comments! I certainly enjoy the debate, though I sometimes get myself in over my head. Learning not to jump into every thread.
nosaj:
“You are correct that emotion drives my decision-making process in this and every situation.”
Thank you for letting us agree on this.
“By the way, are you saying that using my emotions to make a decision is inferior?”
No disrespect intended, but on this particular topic, which is literally a life or death decision made for everybody, yes.
“I do not yield on restricting locations where concealed carry is not allowed. Schools, universities, courthouses should be handgun free for good reason.”
You realize that the first two have no security against anyone, criminal or otherwise, carrying anyway, right? That throws “gun free” right out the window in reality.
All this healthy and constructive banter aside, I would love to have you in class sometime. One of the regulars here may be taking my next class. The classes are not at all political and offer a lot of information on everyday carry. Please let me know if you’re interested.
Jack:
“I am not a Virginia Tech student, so I can carry there if I want to…. at least outside. Even openly, if I want.”
Picnic on the drillfied? Sounds like a good idea for spring!
Oddly we agree to a point, on “this particular topic, which is literally a life or death decision” in some cases, you have no more say in that decision than the people who believe gun control measures are also literally a life or death decision. Every law, regulation and policy on the books for over 200 years has been made by “everybody” and lived with by “everybody”. That is what a representative republic is. None of us totally gets our way in most situations and on most issues. Nothing makes you special.
Like many other rights and plain English in the Constitution, even the founders almost immediately tweaked, or ignored them as they set precedent and moved forward. Every court, including the SC recognizes that famous “stare decisis”. Your rights have the ignoble standing to have been infringed very early on and nothing is going to change that. You can fight it, you may win inches here and there, but overall, there will be gun control, there will be places guns are not allowed, there will be cases where restrictions will be enforced.
I do not ask you to like it, or see the logic you refuse to see by calling it “emotion”. It is quite enough that it exists. If there is a “win” in this scenario, it will not be yours. The statistics of death by gun will always mean controlling people and guns.
Sandi and nosaj are both members of the more-restrictions on the RKBA, but nosaj gets my point. Sandi once admitted it to Dave Hicks, but I guess pride her distaste for me won’t let her admit the very same now.