Monday letters: Pick of the day
Now, how to arm more Virginians
Now that our leaders in Richmond have passed virtually everything on the wish lists of our gun lobbies, it’s time to think ahead. What now?
Gun lending libraries, open 24/7 and located throughout the commonwealth, should be our next priority.
March 5, 2012 - 6:06 AM
Bob is one unhappy camper. Don’t like guns? Then don’t own one! Problem solved. As for me, I want to be free to carry a gun for self-defense everywhere I go. My choice, not yours. You worry about your security, I’ll worry about mine.
Some just live to constantly look over their neighbor’s fence. It’s that busy-body mentality that is forever after all of our rights.
Yep, some just live to constantly look in their neighbor’s uterus. It’s that busy-body mentality that is forever after all of our rights.
Phil, Bob Dickerson is not only unhappy, he is utterly, hopelessly WRONG! “Richmond has passed virtually everything on the wish list of gun lobbies”. Bob, ARE YOU EVEN PAYING ATTENTION? Top of our list, Campus Carry. Pocketed until the last week of the House, assigned to an assassination committee, and the committee was quietly rescheduled from Thursday morning to Monday afternoon. We only found out about it by accident. Top issue, DEAD. Second, the repeal of One-a-Month. Slid that one by. Ta-da! Next Constitutional (permitless) Carry. NEVER even assigned to a committee. Never got a hearing. Issue III, DEAD. Issue IV, state agancy preemption, pulled without a hearing. DEAD. Issue V, protection of personal information on permit applications. Killed by Tommy Norment in the Senate Courts of justice Committee. We are one for five folks. Removal of fingerprinting, oops, got another one. Permit recognition from other state, DEAD. Carry in pick-up area of airports, DEAD. State Police out of the redundant background checks, DEAD. Removal of the $2 fee that is NO LONGER paying for our background checks, DEAD. Natural Emergency protection, oops, got that too. Got the penalty for leaving your home reduced to a fine, one more. Buy-up ordinances, got that too.
Let’s recap. Call it tier I and Tier II. Tier I, we are 2-6. Tier II, we are 3-1. All told, that’s 5-7. Doesn’t even get you into the playoffs. Heck, it’s not even breaking even. I can deal with the defeats, it’s part of the job. Ignorant people telling me that I’m having everything handed to me when I’m going 2-6, that’s just annoying. Bob (et al), GROW UP. Stop whining about how “easy” the gun nuts have it. You couldn’t be less informed if you buried your head in…oh, let’s go with the sand.
By the way, SANDI, I happen to be 100% in agreement with you. The G has even less business in your uterus than in my gun safe. Glad personhood got killed. Let’s hope that ultrasounds follow suit. I’;m in your corner on this one. Hope it doesn’t make you feel like you need a shower.
No sir, in fact Robert S. it makes me believe you actually are about rights and not just guns. Good for you.
Now, how DO we get or keep guns out of the hands of those who should not have them? (felons, criminals, gang members, mentally unstable) Coming from a long line of gun advocates, I want desperately to believe the laws you want repealed or changed would aid in that goal, but I just don’t see it. What laws make sense to you regarding guns?
Obviously, we need more gun laws that criminals will not follow. Then we can keep the discussion alive about how we need more progressive, and progressively more, gun laws that criminals will not follow. After all, when you’re in the bottom of a hole, keep digging.
I have not called for any new gun laws 89Hoo. I am asking people who are as fluent in gun issues as any people can be, what THEY think will work. It is patently obvious that what we have is not working. It does nothing to further dialog or solve the problem to put words in someone’s mouth.
Sandi, The answer is not passing laws to keep felons, criminals, etc. from getting guns. There are already laws against murder, rape, robbery (armed or otherwise) and a slew of other things. Laws don’t stop crime they only serve as a means to prosecute criminals.
The key here is personal responsibility. We, as citizens, must take charge of our destiny. IOW, we are responsible for our own wellbeing and safety. Law enforcement is not charged with preventing crime. They cannot (nor would we want them to be able to) arrest someone who has not yet committed a crime. And criminals will and do think twice when there is reason to believe that the intended target will not be a “willing victim”. Therefore I choose not to follow the published advice of, “give the criminal what they want and they will leave you unharmed.” This is often not true and only serves to empower the criminals. It is time that the mindset of civilized man returns to one of self sufficiency and not dependence on the nanny-state.
BTW, I agree with you about the government not having any business dictating my choices in health-care as well. As both you and Robert S. point out, the legislature has no business in our uterus or our gun safe.
As for the premise that gun shows have special rules of “no questions asked”, the laws of the state of Virginia apply everywhere…gun shows included. There is no such thing as a gun show loophole. Maybe Mr. Dickman should do a little fact check before he makes fictitious claims about Virginia law.
Sandi, I wish that i had a pat answer for you. I’d propose one, if I did. The core of the problem is the straw purchase. It short circuits every ban it touches. Philip gets horribly demonized around here, but I can assure you all that we are always looking for a solution, if for no other reason than to make our OWN lives hassle free. It seems like an impossible problem, but we keep looking. We just can’t justify throwing law abiding gun owners under the bus. I support the prohibited purchaser list, and what used to be called “Project Exile”, felon has a gun, it’s an automatic five years. I’m afraid that I categorically reject all other controls, because only the law abiding will obey them. Thugs and lunatics go blithely about their business, doing whatever they please. Why? Strawmen and burglars. If you wiped every gun or hi-cap magazine off the map, smugglers would fill the void. The puzzle is GUN control or SELF control. I’m not a lawyer, a psychiatrist, or a social worker, so I’ll leave behavioral control to someone more qualified. But I’ ALWAYS looking for a solution.
Damn, 4:00 news is reporting that ultrasound passed. Again, let’s hope that the Gov feels the pressure. WTF? The protesters were arrested because “the steps of the capitol are private property”. HOW IN THE NAME OF GOD CAN THE SEAT OF GOVERNMENT BE “PRIVATE PROPERTY”?
A guarantee to keep guns out of the wrong hands? You won’t accomplish that – not ever. Not on a state wide basis, national basis or international basis. Best we can hope for is to reduce the damage that they might do by rapid interdiction and punishment.
We have thousands of laws on the books. Keep those laws that punish the evil doer; enforce those existing laws that are effective; do not punish the legal, honest citizen on non-harmful technicalities. Remember that laws only keep honest people honest.
I appreciate the replies but are you all really saying there is nothing to be done except to accept mass shootings, accidents and all other attendant fall out for guns used inappropriately?
That is so counter-intuitive. It is human nature to look for solutions and a better way. When a tornado hits, we look at how structures should be built, same for earthquakes, hurricanes, floods, fires etc. When we have a medical issue, we research and look for ways to have better outcomes. Industry accidents cause new policies and procedures. When we have political errors, we look to fix the problem (granted, sometimes making it worse).
I mean what about education? What about training? What about restraining orders mean gun removal? Not even those are measures you can think appropriate? The first few years I applied to be a Notary, I had to have signatures of two registered voters and be sworn in by a court clerk, and you want NOTHING to be able to carry a gun in public? Really? I had to pass a test to get a driver’s license…have to carry insurance or pay a fee to drive my car…carry insurance for what might happen at my home…agree to pee in a cup on demand to keep my job…allow my employer to check my credit, previous employment records…give a valid email to blog online…even abortion, though legal, has restrictions and regulations…and you want NOTHING to carry a gun in public?
I freely admit that I do not know how to balance a right with public safety, but I do know that too many people get shot, and too many die of gun shot wounds. You folks are all over this issue and only want to assure your rights apparently. It looks like the twain will never meet.
10 – Sandi, the Founding Fathers gave us the means to amend the constitution when needed. Any change…correction…clarification…etc….must be accomplished via that process. Else it would be, well, unconstitutional.
We cannot pick and choose which parts of the Constitution we like and enforce and which we do not. We cannot tell public schools that they cannot post sacred religious texts of the American Indian because they violate the First Amendment, and at the same time tell a gun owner we can infringe* on his right to own guns. We either accept the whole Constitution and its process or we throw the whole thing out. Otherwise, we would be hypocrites.
* the term ‘infringe’ is a bit nebulous, but the preceding “shall not be” in the 2nd Amendment are not. In any ambiguity, error should be made on the side of maintaining, ensuring, and increasing liberty, not limiting it.
So, what about a constitutional amendment?
With regards to education, the biggest provider of gun safety is the NRA, who provide training not only in firearm usage, but in storage, and safe handling, and vigorously promote the use of safes and trigger locks. I am convinced that laws limiting law-abiding access only work on the law-abiding who, after all, are not the ones to worry about.
Yeah well, “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,” is not “nebulous” either, but it is ignored as it gives a context gun advocates do not want to admit.
I agree that an Amendment nullifying the Second Amendment would be a better idea than the hodge podge of “gun laws” and restrictions we have now, but I also do not see how that solves the problem, which is a bigger issue IMO. Why would an amendment fix anything?
12 – Sandi, I don’t think an amendment WOULD fix anything, as it would only make constitutional the restrictions on legal gun ownership. I would vigorously oppose such as amendment (on those grounds and others), BUT, I would forced to acknowledge that any gun restrictions passed under such an amendment would be constitutional, as opposed to now, when they clearly are not.
As to how to solve the crime problem, there ARE other things we can do. Stiffer penalties, better community policing, not trivializing the law, economic policies that actually strengthen the economy and give people the chance to move out of poverty and crime. All of those address either the law-breakers or the cause of the law-breaking without penalizing the law abiding.
As an aside, Sandi, what does the phrase “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state” mean to you? I agree it’s unambiguous, but suspect I see something different than you do, which might lead another to call it ambiguous.
Hi Sandi. I think that you hit the nail on the head in #10…EDUCATION! Our problems go back to the sixties. First the assassination of JFK, bookended at the end of the decade with the murders of RFK and MLK. The tidal wave of resentment and paranoia that followed drove guns underground. When you marginalize, familiarity is lost. When you demonize, you create prejudice.
I grew up in NJ, gun bigotry capital of the nation. When I moved here, I was hopelessly ignorant on guns. Never even saw one up close until I enlisted. Imagine my surprise to learn that in the late sixties and early seventies, kids went hunting in the morning, BROUGHT THEIR GUNS TO SCHOOL, AND LEFT THEM IN THEIR LOCKERS! After class, they went back out and made their bag limit. Oddly enough, when guns were just part of the furniture, there WAS no such thing as a school shooting. Guns were driven out of schools, familiarity was lost. No one was talking about it, and the only place kids learned about guns were bullet-riddled movies, Grand Theft Auto: Vice City, Gangsta Rap, and ratings driven media hype. And we wonder why kids don’t know how to behave.
Guns need to be discussed openly, ESPECIALLY with kids. Problem is, schools have a zero tolerance policy. Heck, SOCIETY has a zero tolerance policy. Gun owners are the last socially acceptable prejudice in America. I’m German, call me kraut, you’re ignorant. Same goes for calling the Jewish the K word, women the B word, gays the F word, GOD HELP YOU if you call an AA the N word. AND RIGHTFULLY SO! But consider the UGLY things hurled at anyone who defends the right to firearms. Bloodthirsty, trigger happy, insert your favorite generalization here.
Sandi, I hope you don’t think that I’m not looking for solutions. EVERY act of violence involving guns make my job a thousand times harder. And NO! None of us are saying that there is nothing to be done. The headache is that we keep focusing on ACCESS instead of BEHAVIORAL MODIFICATION. Laws that limit access are simply ignored by the very group they mean to impact. Change the way people think AND ACT, and I believe that we can make some real changes. Problem is, access laws are easy, changing behavior is a monster. Can we take on the tough problems, or are we going to keep taking the easy road that makes no meaningful impact. Let’s take on the headaches. I’m game, who else is in?
89Hoo makes a great point. Stiffer penalties? BINGO! Community policing, DEFINITELY! Economic policies, GREAT. Hoo, by “not trivializing the law” I assume that you mean not using gun charges as bargaining chips? Does ANYONE, anti-gun OR PRO, realize how rarely gun charges even come into play. Prosecutors USE them to leverage pleas. Most criminals take PARKING TICKETS more seriously, because they know gun charges are the first to go. “Take the plea, and we’ll drop the gun charge.” The beauty of “Project Exile” (it goes by another name now, it’s still law) is that there IS no judicial discretion. Felon plus gun, five year bid. laws mean NOTHING when they are bargained away.
15 – trivializing law – yes, not using gun laws as bargaining chips, but also not cluttering the system with ineffectual, ineffective and/or unconstitutional laws. For example, police departments dedicate whole weekends to catching grandmothers without seat belts (cheerfully dubbed “Click It or Ticket!”), when they COULD be out stopping real criminals.
I think we agree on very much in fact Mr. Stadler. I also think that the “gun community” could do a lot to help make some of the stigma go away by promoting more “open carry”. By offering to go into schools and have programs on gun safety, hunting, self defense etc, with not just the students but families. Start a “marksman club”. Education and competence are two of the biggest keys to fighting gun accidents and mishandling IMO.
I also think as more people see their good friends, neighbors, and people they already know and trust open carrying a gun, much of the “criminal” and “sinister” element is removed. It certainly is a wide open telegraph to the criminal you are trying to avoid as well.
While the majority of gun owners I know are very much competent, law abiding and honest enough not to sell a gun to someone who might not be, I know others of whom the same cannot be said. We have GOT to start hammering someone who sells a gun to anyone who could not purchase it legally. Have gun buyback programs for folks who want to sell their guns instead of taking it to the street.
I think if we actually put our heads together we could come up with some good, common sense ideas that might have to start small but could grow big and have a real impact. But I agree, it is hard work and many are not willing to even give it a try. If anyone is waiting on the anti carry folks to meet you half way, this is never going to get better, we are going to go on fighting over it and people are going to continue to be shot and killed.
If we could make it a comfortable norm for competent people to have guns and only uncomfortable for abnormal, incompetent or criminal people to have them we might get some where. We will never get anywhere by pretending straw purchases and illegal sales don’t happen or that incompetent people do not have guns.
#17 – “By offering to go into schools and have programs on gun safety, hunting, self defense etc, with not just the students but families. Start a “marksman club”.”
Oh, sure, that’s gonna go over real well in this day and age of little kids getting expelled for simply drawing a gun in class.
Making the offer and the classes available to the community is what is important here. This is not a one way street.
19 – Sandi, something like this?
http://www.nrahq.org/safety/eddie/
#19 – I see your point, Sandi, but sadly, the anti-gunners would have a fit over it. “OMG! Look at this! Now they want to put guns in the hands of our children!!!”
I do not doubt for a moment it would be a steep uphill climb, as Mr. Stadler said, “changing behavior is a monster”. I agree that a lot of the objection to concealed carry in public is due to the 24-hr news cycle that keeps those “if it bleeds, it leads” stories in front of us which adds to the fear. Also, and you all know this is true, in any gun discussion, people inevitably get angry, insulting and pedantic and that too makes people leery of the idea of them carrying guns.
We are not necessarily narcissistic but we are all innately selfish and self centered. For myself, it just feels like we are admitting the bad guys have won. But everyone lumps me in as an “anti-RKBA” the moment I open my mouth to question anything. That is also not helpful.
I freely admit I do not have the answers and I think people who make gun rights the hill they will die on (literally), should give some more thought to how they can get guns out of the wrong hands too, as it can only benefit them and their efforts in the long run.
I am well aware of Eddie Eagle® and that too is a good opening.
Offer a Saturday morning, or afternoon class for parents and children. Explain what different guns are, what they are used for, their value, their safety features. Start small and work it up nationally. You HAVE the infrastructure.
Offer to meet with the community and answer questions and start a dialog on what people think will work. Bring all those charts and statistics that prove that the laws we have enacted are not effective and what might be. You have the infrastructure and the people who can articulate the message. Again, start small, hell, have “home parties” (Tupperware), I don’t care, but if the issue is fear and distrust, words alone are not going to alleviate it.
IMO, the gun rights people are among the most closed off, and unwelcoming of all advocacy groups, second only to pro-life groups in their messages and memes. I swear I do not mean that to be an insult, I am saying that is the way many of them come across and that is no way to influence people or allay the fears you think we all have. If I were to advise them, I would say, engage with severe diplomacy (even if it strangles you), wear down the critics with logic, facts and analogies to whatever rights they might hold dear. Gun rights folks hit the right notes, they just hit them too harshly and with the anger that is also part of our “fear”. IOW, gun advocates (like long winded bloggers named Sandi) are their own worst enemies.
The heritage and pride that I KNOW exists in families as they teach their children to hunt, to use, clean and maintain and finally hand down their guns is seldom even touched on in a conversation here and heritage is a big deal in the South.
The value and differences in guns and the incredibly interesting things about them and collecting them is glossed over like we all just KNOW that stuff. Hint: we don’t.
The arguments that some use are just not helpful either, but I think I have given more than enough ammo to folks who should already know this stuff.
If you are fine with only talking to gun advocates and fighting for every inch, then by all means keep up the good work. If you want to change what is wrong and work for gun rights to be respected and defended even by non users like me, help me make the bad guys be the only ones who lose. That is, honest to God in Heaven, ALL I want.
Michael gets sarcastic in #17, but he’s absolutely right. Schools, like so many other places, are hopelessly bigoted. Two years ago, Del Lynwood Lewis (D-100) proposed and got through a bill to put the NRA’s Eddie Eagle education program into public schools. I had such high hopes. Once the dept of Ed got involved, they derailed Eddie Eagle, and put in place a thoroughly anti-gun propaganda program that teaches NOTHING about safety, but talks about assassination and injury.
I’m not a big fan of Open Carry FOR MYSELF. Should I find myself in a defensive situation, I want my attacker to get a surprise. You are, however, absolutely correct about the “inoculation effect”. “opencarry.org” does regular breakfasts and dinners for precisely that purpose.
I have no problem with buy-ups, as long as genuinely valuable firearms are sold to reputable dealers, instead of being automatically tossed in the furnace with the junk. Such a bill DID pass this year.
It is monumental hard work. It is not going to be easy. And there is NO waiting for the antis to come to us. But a solution is needed. I’ll take on the headaches if others will pitch in.
What a great discussion! Very pleasantly surprised to find opposing viewpoints discussed politely. Would expect that from Philip and Bob (whom I know from VCDL), and glad to see Sandi and Hoo meeting that standard also.
We DO need to do something to modify behavior. In general, I’m opposed to any mandatory-minimum-sentence laws, but I must admit that Project Exile was pretty effective here in Richmond Virginia. I would support mandatory minimums for using a firearm in a crime, but would oppose them for mere illegal possession (absent any misuse). After all, what rational reason is there to deny self-defense to someone who was convicted of growing some pot plants in his window-box back in the seventies?