Finally, and most importantly, incorporating considerations of gun suicide into policy-making decisions is necessary because it would lead to different policy outcomes. One of the main focuses of the gun-control debate revolves around limiting the types of firearms that can be purchased, which could work to decrease the casualties of individual mass shootings, but would do little to prevent gun suicide, which requires only one bullet. Instead, focusing on mental health screenings, making it take longer to buy guns, making it harder to buy guns, and eliminating guns altogether would prove much more effective.
March 8, 2017 Suicide: Gun Control Advocates’ More Pressing Problem
[McCann thinks it’s perfectly reasonable to “eliminate guns altogether” (Maile, are you taking point on that task?) because some people wants to exercise their own “right to chose”. Even if 100% of those decisions were easily and conclusively known to be wrong decisions (I know of suicides where one can make a decent case that it wasn’t an unreasonable decision) the decisions other people make for themselves cannot give some government entity the power to infringe upon the rights of the population as a whole.
And don’t ever let anyone get away with telling you that no one wants to take your guns.—Joe]
someone stopped by searching for “key question about gun control.”
Inspector of Police Colin Greenwood of the West Yorkshire Constabulary, (Rtd) , in a report to Parliament tells of flying to Australia for an international conference of Criminologists. Everyone before his scheduled speaking time was high on the myriad virtues of gun control, so the Inspector scrapped his prepared notes and, stepping to the podium asked the hall full of criminologists if they knew of a single case in which gun controls had reduced crime rates, made anyone safer, or done anything else a sane person would consider “good.” No one did.
Inspector of Police Greenwood’s question is the key question about gun control.
After 20 years of active duty military experience and nearly 30 years involved with professional civilian handgun training I have observed that:
1) Handguns are at best of tertiary interest to the Army.
2) The criteria used to select a handgun for the military includes several factors of very limited value to the civilian self-defense practitioner and fails to address several other factors which are critical to that user.
3) Only a VERY small minority of all military members EVER fire a handgun.
4) The training provided to the majority of military members who do fire a handgun is extremely rudimentary. (InSights General Defensive Handgun course is far more in depth and the material in our Intermediate Defensive Handgun course is not found in the military training system other than a few special operations schools.)
Based on the above observations it is my opinion that:
What handgun the Army has chosen for standard issue should have exactly zero impact on what handgun a civilian should consider for self defense use.
I ran over in my mind every property by which she was distinguished, not only from other animals, but from those of the same genus or class of animals, endeavoring to fix some meaning to each, not wholly inconsistent with common sense.
I recollected that her eye excelled in brightness, that of any other animal, and that she has no eye-lids. She may therefore be esteemed an emblem of vigilance. She never begins an attack, nor, when once engaged, ever surrenders: She is therefore an emblem of magnanimity and true courage. As if anxious to prevent all pretensions of quarreling with her, the weapons with which nature has furnished her, she conceals in the roof of her mouth, so that, to those who are unacquainted with her, she appears to be a most defenseless animal; and even when those weapons are shown and extended for her defense, they appear weak and contemptible; but their wounds however small, are decisive and fatal. Conscious of this, she never wounds ’till she has generously given notice, even to her enemy, and cautioned him against the danger of treading on her.
It’s not that the permitting standards of these states are any more effective in screening out dangerous applicants. It’s that concealed carry permits in those states are treated as the exclusive domain of the wealthy and the connected. The idea that “common” people would have the same rights simply offends the ruling elite’s sense of entitlement.
But another part is that anti-gun people who understand sociology and psychology know that they cannot let the right to keep and bear arms be seen as normal. The more people who openly keep and bear arms the more ordinary it becomes and once it becomes commonplace they will have lost.
We are winning the battle to carry handguns in public and getting reciprocity in all 50 states will probably be the last significant “coffin nail” in that battle. There will be “cleanup” of things like carry in Post Offices, schools, government buildings, and on airplanes, but it will very, very tough for them to regain the ground they have lost with so many people carrying so many guns so much of the time. It will also give us traction in the anti-gun states like New Jersey, Hawaii, California, and New York to repeal some of their repressive gun laws. This, I suspect, is the big fear of the anti-gun people.—Joe]
The chances of meaningful gun legislation either nationally or in more than a handful of states is remote for the foreseeable future. Nor can anyone expect a national public health campaign comparable to the “Friends Don’t Let Friends, Drive Drunk” government effort that played a key role in reducing drunk driving deaths by 50% over the past 30 years.
Fascitelli compares gun ownership to drunk drivers? Yes, that’s really what he thinks of you.
So, he wants to talk about accidental death reduction over the last 30+ years? Okay, I’m game. Here is the data I downloaded from the CDC on accidental firearm deaths.
From 1985 to 2015 the total number deaths dropped from 1649 to 489. A decrease of over 70%. And if we look at the death rate instead of total deaths it went from 0.69 to 0.15 per 100,000. That’s a drop of over 78%. And that’s without a government program.
I can’t say that it is cause and effect but the NRA Eddie Eagle program (gun safety for children of any age from pre-school through third grade) was developed in 1988. And there was a big push for more NRA firearms instructors in the mid 1990s.
But don’t expect Fascitelli to want to talk about the successes of the private sector or gun organizations. It’s not about safety. It’s about government control.—Joe]
I have many concerns on the use of firearms in the city. It is really starting to become out of hand. These children need to be raised with a life without guns. We really need a full citywide ban on all firearms.
Barry Macalkner Vacaville February 27, 2017 Gun control should be a must for all cities [And where does he draw the line? At the city limits? Check out the FBI crime statistics on Washington D.C. and Chicago compared to their neighboring cities when they had complete bans on guns.
The limits will never end at the city, county, state, or country level. They will always want it all.
Don’t ever let them get away with banning such things past the limits of their own private property. And don’t ever let someone get away with telling you that no one wants to take your guns.—Joe]
Illinois Gov. Bruce Rauner recently signed a new gun control law that imposes harsher penalties on those who bring in guns from out of state to sell and do not have gun-owner ID cards. Illinois already has some of the strictest gun-control laws in the nation however it’s done little to stem the violence.
Last year, marked the deadliest year the city has seen in nearly two decades with a reported 762 homicides.
President Trump has been suggesting he will send in troops to put an end to it. I think sending in Federal Marshals to arrest those passing and enforcing gun control laws, followed by self-defense handgun training for the average person, would work far better and be far cheaper.
But these people have spent so much time living in an alternate reality they would rather be killed that face the truth.—Joe]
As part of the peaceful protest, pop singer Madonna, a keynote speaker, called for blowing up the White House. No arrest was reported. Signs carried by the protesters were the most vicious, vulgar, obscene, profane, pornographic, disgraceful, disgusting, expletive-laced, hysterically funny and unfit for broadcast ever seen in a demonstration, gleefully published by lamestream media and widely available on the web, proving once again that everything the left accuses everyone else of — is psychological projection of themselves.
Adding more innocent Americans to the National Instant Criminal Background database because of a mental disability is a disturbing trend — one that could be applied to voting, parenting or other rights dearer than gun ownership. We opposed it because it would do little to stem gun violence but do much to harm our civil rights.
ACLU senior legislative counsel
ACLU disability counsel
February 20, 2017 ACLU: Gun control laws should be fair
[If only they would recognize the same logic could be successfully applied to all weapon ownership laws.—Joe]