Colin Goddard’s documentary, Living for 32, was shown Monday for a group of 100. At the end, he received a standing ovation. Goddard is one of 7 survivors out of a class of 17. We haven’t heard the last of this film or Goddard’s efforts to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill. He is a man on a mission.
The film heads to Sundance Film Festival this weekend.
We, as a society, are going to have to discuss some limits on guns. Everyone cannot have one. There are compelling reasons.
There’s a theory out there that if everyone owned a gun, we would be a more polite society. I doubt that very much. There are too many mentally ill people and people with trigger fingers to believe that theory. Look at the old west, for example. They were always knocking each other off. Do we want to return to that? I know I don’t.
When everyone has a gun, that means at any given moment anybody around you has the power to end your life as soon as your guard is dropped.
With swords, at least you know an opponent must be within close proximity to have a chance to take your live, giving you time to plan and enact your defense.
With a gun, a killer does not need to be in close proximity to the target. You could be armed the entire day, only to get home, greet the wife an kids and get shot in the back of the head from a sniper who was watching your actions from afar the entire day.
You cannot trust anybody in a lethally armed world.
Where there is no trust, paranoia fills the vacume. Paranoia causes stress an over time unresolved stress errodes reason.
A society completly armed with lethal wepons promotes mental instability.
A mentally unstable society will fail to survive.
And a disarmed society will be sitting ducks for the next armed and unstable crazy who can easily overtake a classroom, a subway station, a crowd in a mall or a museum. Criminals (being criminals) will always find a way to get their hands on banned goods (or simply produce their own). You put up a “no guns allowed” sign and you are telling such a crazy that he/she can act unimpeded in committing heinous acts against a defenseless group.
I’d rather take my chances with law-abiding folks having guns, too.
No one is suggesting disarming society. That is not what Goddard is hoping to accomplish.
Emma, when you can assure me that all those law-abiding people 1. are law abiding 2. sane then I will draw in my horns on this.
Reasonable checks and balances on gun ownership is not unreasonable or taking away anyone’s rights, other than criminals, the young, and the mentally ill. I am ok with that.
Was surpised to see a WaPo article yesterday that noted a policy
put in place by Janet Reno, Bill Clinton’s AG, didn’t allow the Army
to alert the FBI to Jared Laughner’s drug use – which would have put
him on the gun no sell to list. Reno’s rational was that someone should not
be penalized for taking a voluntary drug test.
Liberal drug rules and conservative gun laws both played a role in this horror.
Plus, and this hits home for me, everybody, especially Pima College,
is petrified of being sued for any practive action and, sadly, with good reason.
Speak no evil, see no evil, say no evil — protects evil, but it keeps
you out of court.
When we have addressed the proper care of the mentally ill and reversed the tide of de-institutionalization that occurred in the late 60’s and early 70’s, then the problem of the mentally unstable possessing guns would seem to resolve itself as much as is legally practical.
Look at the problem of tuberculosis. Like polio and smallpox, it should have been eradicated in the US given the advances in medicine. A generation or so ago, one would be confined to one’s home while a public-health nurse would ensure that one was taking the appropriate meds to be allowed back into society. But running around with active tb has become a civil right, and no one can be confined anymore until they are noninfectious. And DHS wants to tell us they’re on the ball when it comes to bioterrorism?
It might seem like I’m going on a tangent, but I do see issues of public health as very much related to issues of mental health.
@Emma
“And a disarmed society will be sitting ducks for the next armed and unstable crazy who can easily overtake a classroom, a subway station, a crowd in a mall or a museum. ”
Well Emma, there were plenty of armed citizens at the Safeway in Tucson, but not one pulled out a gun and shot Jared. An older, unarmed woman grabbed the magazine he dropped and then others wrestled him to the ground. So much for all those folks packin’ heat.
I think health issues have to be handled differently than mental health issues. Historically, the prejudices are extremely different.
Background checks are a good place to start, regardless of where someone buys a gun.
Actually, there was no armed person at the Safeway. The one person that showed up with a gun, did so from another building and got there after the attack. The woman grabbed his extended magazine as he attempted to reload. If it had been a standard mag, she would not have been able to grab it.
Do you support background checks when guns are given as presents or inherited? Who pays for the background check? Who provides the liability insurance for the checker, especially if he is not the one making the profit? Saying background checks for all guns sounds nice, but Cho and Loughner went through background checks.
And who determines the reasonableness of the “checks and balances”? The NRA, The Brady Campaign, The Violence Policy Center? The idea of universal background checks sounds nice, but how do you enforce it without registration?
There is a question asked by one Gun Blogger, Joe Huffman of The View from North Central Idaho: Can you demonstrate one time or place, throughout all history, where the average person was made safer by restricting access to handheld weapons?
http://blog.joehuffman.org/2004/12/15/JustOneQuestion.aspx
If you believe you have an answer that says Yes, and here is my evidence, he’s happy to post it.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/13/stewart-gun-bans-_n_808427.html
I’m surprised this clip didn’t make the blog?
Mr. Goddard is an extremist.
Joseph Zamudio was in a walgreens, and heard the shooting. He came around teh corner and confronted a man holding the gun – who was not loughner. Luckily, Joe made the right decision (in a 1 or 2 second decision). http://www.foxnewsinsider.com/2011/01/10/one-of-the-men-who-subdued-loughner-had-a-gun-and-he-was-ready-to-use-it/ Joe has not had any formal gun training – and admits that it was close to being another tragedy.
cargo – you bring up a good point, but as you have pointed out in the past, proving a negative can be difficult – what I can say is this, even well trained individuals can make a mistake, and fire there weapons accidentally – just look at Fairfax county – they just paid out $2 million yesterday because a member of the SWAT team mistakenly fired and killed an unarmed man.
MH, I don’t think we should treat mental health issues any differently than we do health issues. Why? Well first, the brain is part of the body, so why make the distinction? Second, there are probably just as many medical conditions we don’t associate with mental health that affect whether or not someone should carry a gun. I am thinking of Parkinson’s disease, epilepsy, arthritis, paralysis, etc. which would inhibit proper handling of a gun.
In addition to background checks, getting a license to carry should require a psych and medical exam. And of course, gun carriers should be mandated to take gun safety courses and renew those credentials often.
I absolutely agree with Pinko that the separation of mental health issues from physical disease is the prime reason why those illnesses are so stigmatized and why people who suffer so terribly from such curable illnesses as depression are hesitant to seek help and take medications. As a nurse, I believe strongly that you simply cannot separate mind and body, as both impact disease and healing. Disease is disease, and should be treated as such.
But let’s say that someone is getting good treatment for any kind of disorder. If they are under good control with their meds, are we going to deny them the right to own a firearm for the rest of their lives? And how far into a person’s medical history should we be allowed to go for gun ownership? The devil is in the details.
BTW, I just renewed my driver’s license with about three mouse clicks–no vision test, no skill test. Has anyone done a background check on some of the lunatics hurtling around the Beltway today? They cause more damage and destruction than all of the gun owners in America.
@marinm
I don’t think we can call anyone an extremist who survives a massacre.
You might want to rethink that one.
Moon,
Of course you can call him an extremist if he holds extremist views. If he was calling for the removal of all restrictions on carrying guns as opposed to adding them, the gun control crowd would be calling him an extremist.
He’s been trying to get the “gun show loophole” closed for years. One – there is no loophole. Two – it has nothing to do with VA Tech. Three – he’s aligned himself with gun control extremists.
Getting a psych and medical exam to carry? Can we get psych and medical exams on those that use the 1st Amendment too. There’s alot of people out there that cause more violence through speech. And what happens when the doctor’s don’t agree with carrying guns? Pysch evals can be very subjective.
And about that training, there’s a saying in the gun blog world about police, etc. They are the “only ones.” As in the only ones “trained to carry a gun and use it, yet they are constantly in the news with negligent discharges and shooting the wrong people, nor can they seem to hit what they aim at.
All that medical testing and training costs time and money. So you now limit gun ownership to rich people with time.
What other rights should we have tests for? Heck, how about increasing the requirements for a driver’s licence?
My point is that unless there is a “shall issue” law for carrying, any authority will take that power and use it to restrict ownership or carry at their whim. Would you want MLK to have to jump through those hoops? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/adam-winkler/mlk-and-his-guns_b_810132.html
or someone that needs protection quickly, like a stalking victim, etc?
I’ve taken a moment to let the words sink in and think about it.
I’m not wrong. He’s an extremist.
Pinko, what’s your position on abused women having access to firearms? Is that OK? Does getting treatment for that abuse change your position?
Should marriage counseling disqualify a man and wife? How about couples counseling?
Cargo is right… If we don’t have poll taxes any longer to keep minorities from voting why are we suddenly ok with the idea of increasing the cost of handgun ownership as it’ll have a negative effect on minority gun ownership.
@marinm I’m imagining a women who gets treatment for severe depression and self-esteem issues after finally leaving her abusive partner not being able to get a handgun to protect herself, and I am horrified at the thought of her abusive partner knowing she’s a sitting duck thanks to the mental health treatment.
Marin and cargo, I expect that you would call my son and me extremists also, even though we both are gun owners.
I haven’t seen the film so I am not sure why we have Goddard drawn and quartered already. I don’t know if I agree with every word out of his mouth but I do know this: He has had an experience I have not had that gives him the street cred to speak to the issue.
He is not for removing guns. He is for making it more difficult for the mentally ill to acquire weapons.
There will always be a yes …but out of some gun enthusiasts who feel that any restrictions at all somehow impose on them. However, there are many gun owners out there who feel that some limitatons make it safer for everyone.
Most people think they are sane. They aren’t all.
@Emma
Historically, mental diseases have been separated. 40 years ago schizophrenia was thought to be mostly because of environmental issues–how you were raised. Clinicians mostly blamed the mother for her child rearing practices. The fact that twins had a higher incidence of schizophrenia than siblings or general population only meant they were raised identially by a mother the same age. Now we know that is all BS but…40 years ago…that belief was accepted on many campuses and university. You aren’t going to stomp out other old beliefs over night. Start merging them –but no overkill.
Goddard readings
http://livingfor32.com/press.html
@Cargosquid
What evidence do you have Cargo that there were no folks there with a gun? Are you basing your comment on the Fox piece that Zamudio was the only guy anywhere around with a gun? I’m not prepared to accept that, particularly since Faux published it.
Nothing is going to change with guns and gun control until someone figures out that the Second Amendment does not say what the NRA says it does. Somewhere I have a shotgun–I don’t even know where it is and even if I did I don’t have any shells nor do I intend to buy any. I can find no reason whatsoever for anyone to own an automatic weapon or any weapon that is used by the military. Collectors be damned.
@Moon-howler Unfortunately, the “mainstream” medical thinking is controlled pretty much by the AMA, and the DSM-IV classifications for mental health disorders are often very superficial and often politicized. So much of that guide is based on social norms, anyway, judging from how long it took to get homosexuality removed as a mental disorder.
Not to pat myself on the back, but I think many, many nurses have a much more realistic and holistic view of medicine than what passes for “mainstream” these days. I know I managed to get myself in trouble a few times by speaking up against the almighty doctor when I felt my patient was at risk from a medical judgment. I can think of a particular instance where a doctor made a big public stink about my going up the chain, and he kept harassing me about it for months. If I could do it all over again, I would not have changed a single thing I did.
Any realistic healthcare reform needs to embrace doing away with this sort of demagogue model of healthcare.
@Moon-howler
I agree with you MH–marinm wasn’t there and didn’t survive a massacre–what right does he/she have to name anyone an extremist? I might take the position that marinm is an extremist of the worst sort.
@Cargosquid
Huffman’s question is like the old conundrum–Have you stopped beating your wife? While not perfect, Britain’s restriction on gun ownership has been pretty good. Even in the most restrictive regimes, people get guns. So there is no answer to Huffman’s question. In some ways I think that makes it a dumbass question. Again Cargo–have you stopped beating your wife?
@marinm
“Pinko, what’s your position on abused women having access to firearms? Is that OK? Does getting treatment for that abuse change your position?”
I am not sure I understand your question, Marin. An abused woman isn’t necessarily mentally ill or incapable of using a firearm safely.
“Should marriage counseling disqualify a man and wife? How about couples counseling?” I think you are confusing counseling with mental illness. True mental illness is at least partly biological and is treated with medication just as a general medical condition is (and thanks, Emma, for adding your medical expertise to this conversation). Mental illness can be controlled and the symptoms managed, but there is no cure. For example, the symptoms of schizophrenia can be controlled. But the disease–which is visible on a brain scan–cannot be cured. Are people with schizophrenia permitted to get a driver’s license? I don’t believe they are.
Anyone can need counseling. Counseling is communications, cognitive management and education, IMO.
Here is what MD does:
Customer Self-Report of a Medical Condition
Bookmark and Share
Maryland law requires drivers to notify the MVA if they are diagnosed with any of the following conditions:
1. Cerebral palsy;
2. Diabetes requiring insulin;
3. Epilepsy;
4. Multiple sclerosis;
5. Muscular dystrophy;
6. Irregular heart rhythm or heart condition;
7. Stroke, ministroke, or transient ischemic attack (TIA);
8. Alcohol dependence or abuse;
9. Drug or substance dependence or abuse;
10. Loss of limb or limbs;
11. Traumatic brain injury;
12. Bipolar disorder;
13. Schizophrenic disorders;
14. Panic attack disorder;
15. Impaired or loss of consciousness, fainting, blackout, or seizure;
16. Disorder which prevents a corrected minimum visual acuity of 20/70 in each eye and a field of vision of at least 110 degrees;
17. Parkinson’s disease;
18. Dementia, for example, Alzheimer’s disease or multi-infarct dementia;
19. Sleep disorders, for example, narcolepsy or sleep apnea; or
20. Autism.
A driver must report the problem when it is diagnosed, or when he or she is applying for a driver’s license or renewing an existing driver’s license.
How do I notify the MVA of my diagnosis?
You may report your diagnosis in by email, phone, mail or fax to the MVA Driver Wellness and Safety Division, or to any MVA branch or express office. Please be sure to include:
* your full name,
* date of birth,
* current mailing address,
* driver’s license number, and
* nature of reportable condition.
What will happen after I report my diagnosis?
When you have reported a condition, the Driver Wellness and Safety Division (DW&S) may send you several forms to complete. They also may send you a form for your physician to complete. After you return the forms, the DW&S Division then will make a decision about whether your situation should be referred for an opinion from the Medical Advisory Board (MAB). The MAB is a group of doctors who works with the MVA in analyzing customers’ driving abilities. If the MAB is involved, they (the MAB) may ask you for more information, or to attend a meeting.
More at…http://www.mva.maryland.gov/About-MVA/INFO/26200/26200-11T.htm
Now, I have been saying that people need to have a psych test and physical exam to get a gun license. I maintain that position.
Pinko, my appologies I should’ve made clear that a battered woman under Virginia law could be denied access to purchase a firearm and to getting a concealed handgun permit.
http://www.vsp.state.va.us/Firearms_PurchaseEligibility.shtm
9.Have you ever been acquitted by reason of insanity?
10.Have you ever been adjudicated legally incompetent or mentally incapacitated, or adjudicated an incapacitated person?
11.Have you ever been involuntarily admitted to a facility or involuntarily ordered to outpatient mental health treatment?
12.Have you ever been the subject of a temporary detention order and subsequently agreed to voluntarily admission for mental health treatment?
Those eligability criteria triggered my question. Is it fair that a woman, who is more prone to abuse in a relationship, be denied access to a firearm because she was battered by her partner?
Emma picked up on the gist of my question. The law leaves a battered woman defenseless. If she has sought out or been ordered to treatment she can kiss her guns goodbye. Now, she’s only got a piece of paper that says her partner can’t get within x feet of her and there is more than sufficient information on the interwebs to show how useful those documents are.
The marriage counseling question stems from the change DOD made to exempt marriage counseling (as you pointed out it’s not the same as mental illness) from a disqualifier for a security clearance because couples were avoiding counseling because of the impact to finances. So, if we explore the issue in the context of firearms… Will people be less or more apt to get “help” if they know that their doctor will turn the data over to the state or federales and take away a family gun. Ms. Reno was stuck with a like question with regards to voluntary drug tests (as posted above by someone else).
I appologize for not fully disclosing the question (I was lazy – my bad). But, Emma did a great job of picking up on what I had intended. 🙂
George, while your urinating on my grave will you also use your same ‘extremist’ test on this blog? Notice the tags on the right part of the screen. There is one for “extremist”. Care to call out the blog operators for not having the “right” to call someone an extremist? I didn’t think so.
I am not sure at all I approve of that form.
Huffman’s question is clear. It is not a trick question. Was the average person made safer by restrictions? I state no, because as you say, weapons have always made it past restrictions and only the law-abiding are disarmed. Notice, he did not say firearms…..
Britain’s violent crime rate has soared. As has Australia’s. All the cities with de facto gun bans have high crime rates and gun crimes. Only the law abiding are disarmed.
I didn’t watch any of the coverage of the shooting on Fox. I got my info from the internet and CNN. There was no report of any other firearms. Just because Arizona has eased its gun restrictions does not mean that everyone carries. Why do you insist that there was in the face of a lack of evidence?
The 2nd Amendment is quite clear. It only becomes complicated when people try to find exceptions to its statement. Its not what the NRA says it means, but what the Founders did. And SCOTUS, recently, partially said. Unfortunately, SCOTUS seems to never want to overturn precedent. It is not the ownership of arms that should be unlawful, but the misuse.
Just because the government has abrogated its responsibility to regulate the militia, does not mean that my right to a firearm can be infringed. It is the private citizen that makes up the militia. Militias are double edged swords. They were used to enforce the law, hold the peace, and defend the locale. They also enable the citizenry to be an organized, trained band of men able to defend their own rights. That was found to be an impediment when government over-reached. The right to arms is not dependent upon the government to organize. All it does is provide the government with able bodied men. The security of a FREE state is dependent upon an armed citizenry able to defend their rights.
In the more modern, recent interpretations, automatic weapons are quite restricted. The laws that made them so, still did not ban them. The 1934 law was done to prevent poorer people from owning the firepower to challenge the authorities. The 1968 law was a reaction to the race riots.
While the 2nd is not about personal self-defense against crime, that is its most recent emphasis. And in no case has the restriction of firearms resulted in increased safety of the general populace from overall violent crime.
@Moon-howler
Colin Goddard works with the Brady Campaign. The Brady bunch want to ban guns. His pet peeve is the non existent “gun show loophole” and continually tries to end it. Of course, he doesn’t admit that to do that one must background check all owners of all guns and the only way to do that is register all firearms. Otherwise, how would you track private transactions?
Once guns are registered, its much easier to get rid of them for “the good of the populace.”
Thats why I call him an extremist. He uses his experience to add weight to his wish to restrict my rights. If he doesn’t want to own a weapon fine…..leave mine alone.
@Cargo
The Brady Campaign does NOT want to ban guns. (perhaps certain guns from the population–I don’t follow them)
I thought we all got past that misconception 25 years ago.
Of course he works with that organization. It is the most influential of the organizations who are trying to stop gun violence.
Do you feel background checks violate your rights?
@Posting as Pinko What crazy person in their right mind would self-report?
Emma, maybe thats the point of the form! 😉
Emma, apparently Loughner and Cho didn’t…..and did you mean to make a joke?…..”right mind” indeed…..
@Cargosquid yes–I forgot to add the 😉 to make that clear.
You know, all this talk of gun rights…such violent rhetoric. I feels that there is a need to target such rhetoric and destroy its influence. We must …here’s some bullet points:
1) Cease firing off our mouths
2) Unload the weaponry of our language
3) Stop dropping such rhetorical bombs on our opponents
With peace in our sights, we must march towards the victory in our campaign of killing off our violent rhetoric. We must not mean mean things when we use words that mean what others think. Our highest aim must be to put a bullseye on such words. Even harmless words can set off crazy people like a bomb and can ignite a frenzy of vitriol attacking those that meant nothing violent. We must state what we mean and mean what we say, unless we have to cut out any possible imagery, that might upset someone. Thus the “jobs-killing bill” becomes the safe description of “the jobs-destroying bill.” Much nicer. Everyone must stop shooting off at the mouth, writing incendiary prose, use sharp imagery, or explosive sound.
Be civil.
Or else.
😉
Not every massacre survivor is an extremist. Take J. Eric Fuller, for example. He escaped the Tuscon tragedy with a minor wound, and he’s about as mainstream a lefty as you’ll ever run across. I look for him to become the left’s Sarah Palin!
Fuller’s opinions were not formed by that Safeway shooting. He was what he was before that day ever happened. It might also be a good time to remember that the is a fully disabled American vet. It doesn’t excuse any behavior but it makes it more understandable. I am also not so sure he is an extremist. Why do you classify him as an extremist?
Goddard is a little different.
@Emma
Was reading a couple of forums on this. The people commenting said they lied. Why wouldn’t they, right? They also said they felt stigmatized. Others said so long as they take their meds, they can keep their licenses. So this all goes back to mandating psych and med tests. Since no one in his/her right OR wrong mind is going to self-report, then there should be something in place to protect the public. I’m sure it would never happen, though. Too many people screaming about their rights being infringed upon. Then they scream when an addict runs over their friends or someone having a psychotic episode fires into a crowd. We just can’t win, eh?
@Pinko
How different is that from lying when someone is an occassional mj user?
@Cargosquid
Heh heh. Nice one, Cargo. 🙂
Squid,
I havent looked up current research for my response, but I remember from earlier readings that countries like England or Japan(?) where firearms are not common dont have as high a murder rate . I am sure there are others.
i missed your comments squid which address my questions. I don’t know if it is true or not.
Just having an armed person at the Safeway is no silver bullet. Many people haven’t had the training to react to a situation like that. The young man who was coming out of Walgreen’s admitted that there was a split second there where he could have shot the wrong person.
We also don’t know who was really packing and who wasn’t.
I have lots of friends who are forever telling me they would have done this or that. They are generally blow hards and have been for years. However, they pay their dues so someone gives a crap what they say….just not me.
@Moon-howler
Not much different. People lie all the time. The state is just trying to cover its ass but that doesn’t protect the public.
@marinm
I see what you are saying, Marin, and thanks for clarifying. I think the state is once again confusing counseling with mental illness which is unfair. All they are doing is disseminating a stereotype and misinformation.
I am not totally against carrying guns (though I am quite uncomfortable with guns in the hands of anyone but military and police) and I sure as hell wouldn’t tell an abused woman she couldn’t have a gun in her house if it were properly stored. I do think the laws are too liberal, however, and there are those who wag their guns around just because they can. I feel this is public intimidation. To boot, I have at least one family member who bragged about carrying, and I wouldn’t trust that person to tie my shoes. Let’s just say there are some brain cells that have been burnt to a crisp.
And yeah, the DOD used to have a pole up its ass when it came to counseling. Employees and service people could go to EAP and have it held against them which makes one wonder what the EAP is there for. Just for show?
DOD has had to confront its approach to mental health, especially when so many are coming home with PTSD, depression, etc. never mind what happens to families of the deployed. It’s also common for Vets to turn to alcohol to self medicate. Making a little bit of a leap here (but only a little), it’s important to note how many street people are Vets AND alcoholics, drug addicts, etc. Clearly, something is wrong with the system.
On a related note:
Spike in suicides for Army Guard and Reserve
BY PAULINE JELINEK
Associated Press
WASHINGTON (AP) — Suicides among active duty soldiers dropped last year for the first time since 2004, the Army said Wednesday, but the improvement was overshadowed by a sharp increase in suicides among National Guard and Reserve troops.
After working much of the past decade to stem the rise of suicide in its ranks, the Army said that 156 active-duty soldiers killed themselves in 2010, down from 162 in 2009. Army Vice Chief of Staff Gen. Peter Chiarelli attributed the progress to improved training and counseling programs that help soldiers deal with stress, including from the repeated wartime deployments common for soldiers in an Army still fighting two wars.
But the number of guard and reserve troops who killed themselves while not on active duty jumped to 145 from 80 the previous year. Officials said some of that increase may reflect the difficulty in getting help to people scattered away from military bases and back at their civilian homes and jobs.
“They are often geographically separated, removed from the support network provided by military installations,” Chiarelli said. “They lack the ready camaraderie of fellow soldiers and the daily oversight and hands-on assistance from members of the chain of command experienced while serving on active duty.”
Guard suicides rose to 101 last year from 48 in 2009 and in the reserve to 44 last year from 32 the previous year.
More at http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/M/MILITARY_SUICIDES?SITE=INSID&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
@Moon-howler
The citizens that used physical force to take down the Safeway shooter were probably not trained in hand to hand or close quarters combat. Instinct was enough. And it worked.
The Safeway incident also demonstrates that when the fecal matter hits the fan there may not always be a cop around and that citizens may have to defend themselves until help can arrive. If a citizen wants to use a sword, a machette or a gun…good on them. The life they take may save countless more.
Pinko, “wag”ing a gun (I’m assuming you mean waving or otherwise brandishing) is illegal. Simply having a firearm in a holster on your thigh, armpit or hip is nothing more than having a hammer in a toolbelt or mace in a purse.
http://elimeirkaplan.com/blog/?p=165 Marie Claire UK did an article on open carry by females in Virginia. Does Caitlin look intimidating? To me she looks like a young adult that refuses to be robbed, raped or murdered.
I think an intelligence test or a writing test or many other tests that may be proposed will unfairly target the minority population and limit access to firearms. If I can’t support a poll tax or a literacy test to vote I cannot support such an examination for access to purchase and carry of a firearm.
The Brady Campaign does want to ban guns. In fact, they are jumping onto the latest gun control bill to ban “high capacity” magazines that will affect weapons like the 20 round Winchester lever gun. They were behind the idiotic “Assault Weapons” ban. Both the Brady Campaign and the VPC are very careful with their words. But they support every law that removes or restricts ammo or guns.
Handgun Control, Inc (now the Brady Campaign) petitioned (in 1974) the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) to ban, not handguns (since Congress specifically exempted firearms from CPSC jurisdiction to avoid the potential of a few regulators banning firearms manufacture), but handgun ammunition in “interstate commerce with the exception of use by the military, police, security guards, and gun clubs.” THIS is what they see as “reasonable” and “common sense.”
Here’s a quote:
We Are NOT “Gun Banners”-and never have been… Handgun Control, Inc., has never advocated banning firearms used for legitimate purposes such as hunting and recreation.
So, apparently, all other purposes are illegitimate. Self -defense is not mentioned.
The Brady Campaign and the Violence Policy Center are the tools that gun-banners use. Schumer, McCarthy, other Congressmen, have all used their services to advance ever more restrictive gun control.
If anyone is interested:
#ttp://www.corneredcat.com/ Women’s self defense
#ttp://girlsguidetoguns.com/ Another
#ttp://www.handgunlaw.us/ laws
#ttp://olegvolk.livejournal.com/ photographer and gun rights activist
#http://michaelbane.blogspot.com/ TV host and gun rights
#ttp://armsandthelaw.com/ 2nd amendment lawyer
I thought these links might be of interest. Just put the “h” back. I modified the link to prevent moderation.
@ Cargo
you want no restrictions on any guns. I do. Yes. the Brady bunch wants to ban some guns. I don’t have a problem with that.
Too bad it comes down to who owns the most marbles rather than what is common sense to most people.
I don’t mind people being armed. I mind an absolutist attitude. I also mind having to look at other people’s weapons while I am trying to enjoy an evening out. I don’t want to go into a restaurant and see someone’s heat. Hide it. I don’t mind if it is there. I mind having to look at it.
@marin
Again, this is probably an area where there is no room for compromise. I have a couple of those myself. Most deal with VRS and reproductive rights.
Moon, actually the concealed idea is what we want. It was the STATE that mandated open carry at restaurants.
Our problem with banning guns is: 1) who decides? 2) what good does it do? 3) Sets a bad precedent.
“rather than what is common sense to most people.”
If you see which direction the gun control argument is leaning, you would notice that “most people” seem to agree with having more lenient gun laws.