Pro-Gun Comments On Huffington Post Show Wide Gulf

Here's an actual exchange from the "comments" section of a recent HuffPost entry about guns (monikers mine):

Gun Obsessive: You do understand, I hope, that shotguns have a very limited range?

Not Gun Obsessive: I understand that if shotgun pellets are continuously being found in your backyard that those guns were being fired too darned close to the backyard.

Gun Obsessive: Just because they might be found in your backyard does not mean they are able to cause injury.

This back-and-forth shows a sharp distinction. First, there's the modern gun obsessive, a decided minority who believe their rights trump damn near all else. Then there's the rest of us who know better, whether or not we own a firearm.

I say "modern" gun obsessive because this wasn't the view a generation or two ago. My parents grew up on a small-town farm. One could literally hunt quail out the back door. The absolute rule of thumb, laid down by adults, was that if shotgun pellets rained down anywhere near the house, someone was sure to meet the business end of a hickory switch.

Today, the gun obsessive seeks to justify an expansion of their reach: "Just because they might be found in your backyard does not mean they are able to cause injury."

This is a change, culturally, from the past. It illustrates a lessening of safety, values and respect for others.

Another HuffPost exchange concerned a controversial bill pending in the Texas legislature. As things now stand, if law enforcement pulls you over (at say, 2:00 AM after a night of drinking), and you have a permit to carry a concealed weapon and are packing heat at that moment, you're required to show the officer the permit. This way, he/she can at least know the potential of the situation on their hands.

The new legislation, strongly supported by the Texas State Rifle Association (a wing of the NRA), will remove the requirement. This means the citizen can keep this information a secret from the officer. Many in the "protect and serve" community consider this change misguided, or worse.

One commenter agrees that a permit holder should remain obligated to inform the officer, for safety's sake:

Not Gun Obsessive: You're not opposed to that, are you?

Gun Obsessive: I'm not opposed to it or in favor of it. It's just something that's completely pointless and runs the risk of creating a false sense of security where officers can get hurt.

Get that? The logic is that knowledge somehow places an officer in greater danger. The poor cop, according to this reasoning, is better off not knowing if a loaded gun is in the car, even legally. In fact, all laws are written with an acknowledgement that even the law-abiding can -- and do -- go off the rails.

The so-called gun enthusiast adds that "the truly dangerous people aren't exactly going to be forthcoming with a permit or even have a permit."

In other words, because a criminal with an illegal firearm will certainly keep the police in the dark, a permit holder should therefore be allowed to do likewise?

This makes no sense, and reflects muddled thinking. Fortunately, there's some consolation.

It comes from Antonin Scalia, the conservative Supreme Court justice who wrote the 5-4 majority decision last June declaring the Second Amendment an individual right. He pointedly added this in his opinion:

"It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.....The court's opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."

Thank goodness for that morsel of sanity. It shows a recognition that guns kill anywhere and in anyone's hand (and from Scalia, no less, who probably needed it to get Justice Kennedy's fifth vote).

Due to easy access, the United States has by far the highest rate of gun deaths -- murders, suicides and accidents -- among the world's 36 richest nations, according to our own Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. This study has been widely known for 10 years.

No American should be proud of such a statistic. From shotgun pellets landing in the backyard while the children play, to the latest tragedy in Binghamton, New York, things ain't that pretty at all, as they say.

Comments

[MarsAmbassador]

Guns aren't the problem. Americans are the problem.

[Flavor]

Mr. Williams I find your article intresting, the one thing you failed to add was drugs, you see when you and I grew up we were taught, trained not to bother others property ect... We have a generation who has grown up by themselves, got their own way of doing things and basically follow no law. Drugs came in it is a billion dollor industry, and to keep rolling, the thugs are going to buy the weapons by any means, in the last 25 yrs look at what we have allowed and now we are reaping our reward. Guns are not the problem people are, the thinking of a life means nothing to this genaration. Also, some have mental problems that are not always easy to detect. The man who dressed up like santa claus this past christmas showed no sign of a problem he even went and ushered the weekend before the killings. People want more laws I say enforce the one's you already have. Guns don't scare me, people are scary. It is what it is.

[HisXLNC]

"Gun Obsessive: I'm not opposed to it or in favor of it. It's just something that's completely pointless and runs the risk of creating a false sense of security where officers can get hurt."

That's my comment and it's absolutely true. Too bad you only nitpicked my comment to get the parts that serve your agenda. Here is the full conversation:

YOU: Currently, those carrying have to show their permit so the officer at least knows the full potential of the situation he or she is dealing with.

ME: Any smart LEO knows not to assume someone is unarmed, simply because they don't show a permit. And the truly dangerous people aren't exactly going to be forthcoming with a permit or even have a permit.

THIRD PERSON: You're not opposed to that, are you?

*now please note my entire comment*

ME: I'm not opposed to it or in favor it. It's just something that's completely pointless and runs the risk of creating a false sense of security where officers can get hurt.. There isn't a single (intelligent) cop who is going to walk up to a car @ 2am with his guard down so low that if the person in the car does or does not presents a permit, he'll be more or less cautious.

Mr. Willians, just because this is HuffPo, it doesn't mean you can throw journalistic integrity out the window. Or maybe it does...

[CanisLatrans]

Mr. Williams, I think part of the problem is when someone who as access to a Huffington Post position such as yours picks and chooses, specifically, a post from a pro-gun person that is unreasonable and tries to pass that off as a representative of all gun owners. Demonizing-- or at least making the hint that all gun owners are drooling nutcases-- does nothing at all to help address those things which need to be done.

I have been following gun control arguments in HuffPo for a long time, and there are plenty of intelligent, insightful, and well-thought posts you could have chosen to represent the pro-gun side of the debate. But no, you choose one that is easy to pick apart to use as your example of the pro-gun side. Lazy and dishonest.

[OdinsEye]

Not to mention him misrepresenting what I said.

[BCubedReg]

Canis, "Lazy and dishonest"--- not really.

You are correct in that there are responsible pro-gun owners and well articulated arguments (by HuffPo poster's) for the pro-gun position. The point you fail to acknowledge, however is there are far too many people out there like "Gun Obsessive" that own guns and are a potential hazzard to society either intentionally or unintentionally.

A person who dies from an accidental discharge is just as dead as someone you intend to shoot.

It might be time to have a responsible intelligent conversation about gun ownership, but there are alot of Mr. "Gun-Obsessive" (s) out there seriously detracting from your argument.

I think that was Mr. Williams point of this article.

[OdinsEye]

"The point you fail to acknowledge, however is there are far too many people out there like "Gun Obsessive" that own guns and are a potential hazzard to society either intentionally or unintentio­nally."

Gun Obsessive is a retired military combat vet, current law enforcement officer, former arms instructor, and current certified armorer.

"A person who dies from an accidental discharge is just as dead as someone you intend to shoot."

We prefer to call them negligent discharges (NDs) as they are almost never accidents.

[1johnf]

Why focus on the inanimate object that is the gun? I think the focus should be on the animate behavior of the possessor of the gun. Didn't Michael Moore make a devastating point in "Bowling for Columbine" that Canada exceeds the US in the numbers of guns per capita, yet has incredibly lower rates of gun violence. It's not about militias it's about culture and the lack of restraint on the part of individuals.

Shouldn't the NRA launch a multi-million dollar ad campaign that targets the reduction of behavior that results in gun violence? Shouldn't those who are fearful of their guns being taken away unite to create responsible gun ownership? So far, gun advocates have been remarkably irresponsible to the commonweal.

[OdinsEye]

"Shouldn't the NRA launch a multi-million dollar ad campaign that targets the reduction of behavior that results in gun violence? "

Do you know what the purpose of the NRA is?

[CanisLatrans]

The national instant background check was championed by the NRA; the biggest loophole in it is that it isn't allowed to access mental health records to prevent the unstable from buying a gun.

People who are undergoing treatment for dangerous psychiatric disorders can still by guns as long as they have not committed any crimes (or, at least, crimes that would disqualify them for gun ownership). That needs to be addressed.

[EgyptianMysterySchool]

Anyone who stands under the false pretense that gun laws will protect you and gun rights should be removed needs to look at this chart from 2002...

http://www.statehealthfacts.org/comparemaptable.jsp?cat=2&ind=113

Simplified here...

http://www.statemaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir-death-rate-per-100-000

The state w/ the highest death rate from guns per 100,000 citizens is Washington D.C. - which at the time had a total handgun ban and the strictest gun control laws in the country. While way down at ranking #45 is New Hampshire - which has/had some of the leanest gun control.

The problem isn't unrestricted rights, the problem is crime - get that through your thick, pansy-fied skulls. Taking away people's gun ownership rights didn't work in D.C. and it's not the answer to fighting crime, because no matter which laws you pass the criminals don't care.

[Jackson Williams - Huffpost Blogger]

Thanks for providing a link to a list of state-by-state firearms death rates http://www.statemaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir-death-rate-per-100-0000).

You've cited just two: Washington D.C. (#1), with the highest rate of gun deaths despite very strict gun control laws, and New Hampshire (#45), with a low rate of gun deaths despite far less stringent gun control laws. This, and only this, leads you to conclude that gun control laws don't have an impact on stopping gun deaths.

In truth, the state-by-state list reveals something different, strongly suggesting that D.C. and New Hampshire are anomalies, exceptions rather than the rule.

After all, the five states at the VERY BOTTOM, the states with the absolute fewest gun-related deaths, are New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Hawaii. All have fairly strict gun control laws, and yet all have the fewest gun-related deaths.

Other than D.C., the top 20 states on the list -- those with the highest incidence of gun deaths -- are almost exclusively states with much less gun control.

Citing only D.C. at the top and New Hampshire near the bottom flat-out ignores the overall pattern that this list plainly reflects.

Again, thanks for the link. My blog entry was mainly observational and not some clarion call for massive gun control, but you've inadvertently made a strong case for it. Good work!

[EgyptianMysterySchool]

Actually J.W. you couldn't be further from the truth - but thanks for trying.

The states w/ the strictest gun laws are Washington D.C, Illinois and Wisconsin which rank #1, #31, and #39 respectively. The states w/ the least stringent laws are New Hampshire, Vermont and Alaska which rank #45, #34 and #2 respectively. So it's obvious that if you actually look at the facts, instead of trying to be cleverly funny, the state-by-state list reveals that ranking and position have absolutely nothing to do w/ gun laws.
http://www.statemaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir-death-rate-per-100-000

http://www.usacarry.com/concealed_carry_permit_information.html

Even when the D.C. ban was lifted U.S. Supreme Court Justice Breyer cited the comprehensive study of Gary Kleck, a professor at Florida State University’s College of Criminology and Criminal Justice. Professor Kleck did a comparative study of D.C. and Baltimore and concluded that the gun ban had no effect.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/29/weekinreview/29liptak.html

http://www.criminology.fsu.edu/p/faculty-gary-kleck.php

Oh and by the way Justice Breyer was one of the dissenters. Try citing research before spouting off unsubstantiated opinions. This is why bloggers have little credibility, because they rarely have research to back up their opinions.

You've inadvertently made a strong case for research - Good Work!

[GoodGuysandBadGuys]

man I've had several "conversations" with gun nuts who comment on this site.

they all hide behind the 2nd amendment. apparently people have no use for brains when they can just fall back on something that was written hundreds of years ago in a completely different time in the evolution of this country.

[JulieSA]

This country is still governed by the Constitution, even though you think it's obsolete. We are a nation of the rule of law, not the rule of men.

[GoodGuysandBadGuys]

the 2nd amendment became obsolete when we authorized a professional military.

[Toonadude]

Try telling that to Dick Cheney.

[OdinsEye]

Same holds true for freedom of speech and press.

[GoodGuysandBadGuys]

yes but speech is not a killing machine.

apples and oranges in that respect.

[wb8591]

Mr. Williams, you are correct when you point out that a minority of gun owners are obsessive to the point of irresponsibilty. I am a private security officer contracted to protect federal employees and property, and one thing I have learned is that to responsibly control a firearm it is required that one looks deep inside and reflects legally, morally, even spiritually on the use of deadly force in order to defend one's life or the life of others. I agree with you that concealed weapon carriers should display their permits to law enforcement when stopped, and people should not fire weapons in populated area where others could be injured. You and some of your readers might find it ironic that much of my consciousness raising occurred reading publications and taking training classes with the NRA - many law enforcement officers and private citizens alike have similarly received good, pro-social firearms training through this organization.

[JulieSA]

"...minori­ty who believe their rights trump damn near all else"

They are your rights, too. It's in the Bill of Rights. You should be glad someone stands up for your rights, since you won't.

[MarineBugler]

I guess you belong to a militia.

[OdinsEye]

The right belongs to everyone regardless of belonging to a militia.

[djkrlsn]

Please look up how the militia is defined--if you an adult male U S citizen who is not active duty military, in the merchant marine or a postal clerk--you are in the militia

[Jackson Williams - Huffpost Blogger]

JulieSA, I'm afraid you've misunderstood my sentence you're quoting. It states that some believe their gun rights "trump damn near all else," which plainly means that some believe their gun rights supercede other rights their fellow citizens are entitled to, as in the example I cited in the immediately preceding paragraph.

The sentence does not say anything else, and it certainly doesn't suggest that I somehow won't stand up for my rights.

No constitutional right is absolute. Not the first amendment (you can't libel or slander, or yell fire in a crowded theater as the old example goes). The second amendment is not more sacrosanct than other constitutional rights.

Indeed, Justice Scalia made it blatantly clear in the decision he wrote, and which I plainly quote: "It {meaning the second amendment right} is NOT a right to keep and carry any weapon WHATSOEVER in any manner WHATSOEVER and for WHATEVER purpose."

Perhaps your beef is with Scalia.

We have over two centuries of jurisprudence that define and sets limitations on the free exercise of our rights. After all, we were a tiny nation of fewer than 4 million citizens 220 years ago; today we're over 300 million strong and growing, largely urban and suburban, packed together. Negotiating these rights is a continuing process, as it should be.

Thanks for reading.

[OdinsEye]

"No constitutional right is absolute. "

None of us have said it is. That is a strawman argument you have created on your own.

[SDonaldson]

He's right: America is an urban nation, except for:

Most of Vermont, northern California, Maine, New Hampshire, a lot of Connecticut, western Pennsylvania, most of Ohio, ALL of West Virginia, both Dakotas, Montana, Wyoming, everything in Colorado not on the Front Range, most of Kansas, Michigan becomes more rural every day, everything in Arizona not called Phoenix, most of New Mexico, most of Washington, eastern Oregon, Alabama, most of Louisiana, northern Florida, ever been to Idaho?, Iowa (there's an urban paradise), southern Illinois, western and southern Virginia, eastern North Carolina, most of South Carolina, everything in Georgia not called Atlanta, Arkansas, ever been to western Texas?, Oklahoma, most of Missouri, anything in Nevada outside of Vegas, most of Kentucky, nearly all of Tennessee.­..you get the point. You have to wonder whether a guy like this has ever been west of Missouri, where you basically don't hit large cities until you reach Denver, and after that until California. Also, there is the small problem of Census data, which shows that America was indeed becoming more urban up to the year 2000, and since then the trend has started to go the opposite direction. 18 of America's top 25 metropolitan areas have lost population recently. Except for the D.C. conglomerate, which just keeps GROWING and GROWING. Wonder where all that money comes from??

[JulieSA]

Jackson, thanks for allowing a free discussion. It's hard to get comments through on a lot of the other blogs at this site.

I think the restrictions we already have are enough, or too much in some cases. We don't need more. In my state, crime as been decreasing as more people get their carry permits, and as restrictions on our gun rights have been loosened. That's why I joined the TSRA, who are a really nice bunch of folks, btw.

I see it as a feminist issue too. Men greatly benefit from laws that enable their self-defense, but women, the disabled, and the elderly benefit even more from being able to keep and bear an equalizer. Also, check out pinkpistols.org.

[JulieSA]

Why do you use the term "gun obsessive". Right off the bat you start with a loaded, insulting epithet.

Is this anyway to conduct a mature discussion? People whose politics you disagree with are "obsessives"?

[OdinsEye]

Because I asked him some questions he could/would not answer.

[JulieSA]

Oh, I see. I guess "obsessive" is supposed to be a synonym for "knowledgeable".

[RachelMc]

lol...i dont own a gun and never have and i know no1 that owns a gun EXCEPT my grandmother who just happen to inherit it through my grandfathers death.. However I dont support an all around gun band. how can a law stop would be criminals from being criminals if they already have the intent on being one? will they all of a sudden say, " aww i forgot about the gun ban, maybe i wont go rob a store or bank." or "awww the gun ban just came into effect, guess i cant go murder some1." i just dont see it that way. i dont think gun bans will solve anything. but i guess that makes me a right wing nut, gun toting, loon huh?

[JulieSA]

In Texas, and many other states, it's legal to have a gun in your car even if you don't have a concealed carry permit.

So the requirement to produce your permit doesn't make the police safer. Anyone (with a few exceptions) can have a gun in the car, but the ones with the CCW permits have undergone FBI background checks, so they're the least likely of any group to give a police officer any trouble.

[MarineBugler]

So the only answer is to have officers call for back-up and draw down on EVERYONE.

[OdinsEye]

We do not draw unless there is a reason to. We will approach with our hand on our pistol, but it will be still holstered and strapped. If we see anything which might give us a little more concern, we will kick off the strap. If an officer draws without justification they we be disciplined or fired.

[JulieSA]

Also, when the police officer runs your drivers license, which they always do, your CHL permit shows up, so it's not a secret.

[Rog49Thomas]

Brother Jackson, apparently, you don't understand the need for guns in the USA.

Guns are required to protect decent Americans from

(1) Their own government - Wayne LaPierre referred to certain Federal officials as "jack booted thugs".

(2) A possible raid by the Cherokee or Sioux who might carry off the women folk.

(3) A potential revolt by the erstwhile Nat Turner on the plan ta tion down the road.

(4) Russki paratroops (they might sneak pass the eagle eye of that courageous woman in Alaska).
Venezuela paratroops, Red Chinese, Grenadians, Cubans. The dangers are as wide as one's imagination.

(5) Terrorists who might follow one home or perhaps to work or school.

(6) Other assorted and dangerous domestic criminals.

[OdinsEye]

"(1) Their own government - Wayne LaPierre referred to certain Federal officials as "jack booted thugs"."

First used to describe that agency by members of Congress. The agency in question ended up being investigated three times in less than ten years for abuses of power. The agency, a tax agency, tried forming its own paramilitary law enforcement arm with SWAT style teams. And oh yes, some of them wore what were essentially "jack boots". It took a botched raid by that agency and more investigations before they were finally stripped of the power to have paramilitary teams and relegated back to being a tax and forensic agency.

[OdinsEye]

Correction:

"(1) Their own government - Wayne LaPierre referred to certain Federal officials as "jack booted thugs"."

First used to describe that agency by members of Congress. The agency in question ended up being investigated three times BY CONGRESS in less than ten years for abuses of power. The agency, a tax agency, tried forming its own paramilitary law enforcement arm with SWAT style teams. And oh yes, some of them wore what were essentially "jack boots". It took a botched raid by that agency and more investigations before they were finally stripped of the power to have paramilitary teams and relegated back to being a tax and forensic agency.

[Rog49Thomas]

Mr. LaPierre's comments are on the record.

I have not quoted extensively from his scurrilous remarks.

Besides the Second Amendment, the Constitution as I recall also provides for the crime of treason.

And as I noted in our earlier exchange, prior to Herr Goebels becoming editor of the Volkischer Beobachter Julius Streicher was. Because Herr Streicher said some stupid things is no excuse for Herr Goebels to repeat them.

[Tridoxies]

I just have to ask when will the suicide bombers begin in America. So many depressed people are now taking victims with them that someone is going to want to make a name for themselves. To be remembered as having blown away X number of people. Canada has lots of guns too. You do not hear of them killing each other in mass. Are we too self-centered? Do we all think that we are owed something? We work hard. We play hard. We struggle to get by. We wonder if we will be allowed to retire or will the bankers and hedge fund managers decide we all should just drop dead of old age at the work site. Perhaps our society needs to return to a "we" society instead of a "me" society? It might help prevent that first person hopeless and past their wits-end from straping on those explosives or picking up their guns.

[OdinsEye]

Was basically already tried by the Columbine shooters. Luckily most of the bombs failed to go off.

[WorkingClass]

You wont find anti-gun people among the working poor. We need guns for self defense. Take all the illegal guns off the street. Then I will gladly give up my legal weapon.

[lungfish]

It seems to me that if you have a conceal and carry permit that you should not be obligated to disclose a weapon....­. at the same time an officer should be able to know immediatly upon an ID check that you have a conceal and carry permit and then he can ask you if you are armed.....
However, I think that if an officer asks you if you are armed you should be required to respond truthfully regardless of your permit....­..

Bottom line is that being a liberal doesn't mean that one is suicidally pascifistic. I prefer the right to bear arms as liberally interprete­d.... and I think that with the type of system we have in America we have some burdons that come with our freedoms. Just like legal drugs, we pay a price for legal guns and that is to be expected. I would rather have firearms if I choose to...

[JulieSA]

You are a true liberal, in the very best sense, in that you stand up for your rights.

And you're correct that when the police officer runs your DL, your CHL shows up anyway, in Texas at least. I know that from personal experience.

[OdinsEye]

"at the same time an officer should be able to know immediatly upon an ID check that you have a conceal and carry permit and then he can ask you if you are armed..... "

In most states we can. In fact, in most states we will know when we run the plates if one of the registered owners has a CCW, but we will definitely know when we run the D.L.

"However, I think that if an officer asks you if you are armed you should be required to respond truthfully regardless of your permit....­.."

Yep. If we ask "are there any weapons in the car", then tells us you have a CCW and where the firearm is.