Discussing Gun Violence Prevention in Indiana, Ohio and Tennessee

Over the last five weeks I've had the opportunity to speak about gun violence in this country to audiences in Indianapolis (IN), Columbus (OH), and Martin (TN).

I've been pleased at how many people on all sides of the gun violence prevention issue appear willing to find some common ground on some issues, while agreeing to disagree on others. In many ways, my experiences have been the exact opposite of the contentious "town hall" protests we've seen on television over the summer.

I traveled to Indianapolis in mid-August and spoke at an event sponsored by Hoosiers Concerned About Gun Violence. Before I went inside to give my speech, I visited with some folks protesting the event outside the lecture hall, talked with them about their concerns and invited them to the presentation. While we didn't agree on gun policy, we did have a cordial conversation and I was glad to hear their arguments and address some of their concerns.

The discussion inside the lecture hall focused on the real life consequences of weak gun laws nationwide and in Indiana. I was pleased to see people come out to talk about gun violence prevention on a Saturday night - during the Indiana State Fair, no less.

A couple of weeks later I traveled to Columbus, Ohio to honor Mayor Michael Coleman and City Council President Michael Mentel at an event sponsored by the Ohio Coalition Against Gun Violence. These two elected officials were awarded for their efforts to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people at the local level - efforts which have been stymied at the state level.

Though the city of Columbus had adopted restrictions on access to military-style assault weapons, the Ohio General Assembly passed a law pre-empting local firearm ordinances that invalidated the Columbus assault weapon law. Sadly, just days before the OCAGV event, two Columbus police officers were shot by an attacker reportedly armed with a 9mm handgun and an AK-47, after he fled a traffic stop.

A number of rounds were fired by the attacker, with one bullet traveling over a football field in distance. Another bullet was barely stopped by the officer's bullet-resistant vest. Luckily, both officers survived, but that tragic event reminds us how difficult the work of policing is, and how easy we make it for dangerous people to get guns in this country.

Finally, earlier this week I participated in a debate about the Second Amendment, held at the University of Tennessee at Martin, which included Nashville attorney Adam Dread, NRA-ILA Grassroots National Director Glenn Caroline, and recent UT-Martin and Drake University law school graduate Kevin Teets.

Our event happened to be competing with "rush" night at the school, but roughly 50 students and community members came out to listen to the discussion the four of us had about a number of topics, including a recent Tennessee law pushing restaurants to mix guns and alcohol by requiring them to allow guns in their establishments.

We also discussed the nature of the Second Amendment after the Heller decision and how most gun violence prevention laws appear likely to withstand scrutiny under Justice Scalia's majority opinion. One of the big stories in Tennessee, by the way, is also the move by approximately 70 cities and towns to opt out of Tennessee legislation forcing guns into parks.

My travels this summer affirmed my belief that the debate over gun violence prevention is moving toward the middle ground and away from the extremes since last summer's Supreme Court decision. There are a number of things we can do to make it harder for dangerous people to get guns while respecting the Second Amendment.

On behalf of the Brady Campaign, that is the message I'll continue to take across the country.

(Note to readers: This entry, along with past entries, has been co-posted on bradycampaign.org/blog and the Huffington Post.)

 

 

Comments

[legaleagle 45]

"My travels this summer affirmed my belief that the debate over gun violence prevention is moving toward the middle ground and away from the extremes since last summer's Supreme Court decision. "

The problem Paul, is that your group represents one of those extremes.

[djcrsn]

And he keeps pretending that he is a moderate and interested in "reasonable" and "moderate" gun control-with reasonable defined to as close to complete civilian disarmament as he can get.

[OdinsEye]

"Unfortunately we can't ask her, because she and all of her posts are gone." - mike102


I have noticed that the mods have removed several posters in the last week or two.

We should probably all be on notice that ad hominems, insults, name calling, hate speech, off-topic sniping, and so forth can result not only in having one's posts deleted, but also may lead to being banned by name or by IP address. I recommend we make a concerted effort keep it clean and above board as much as possible.

[vespasian1]

Well said OdensEye, but I'm afraid it has apparently already fallen on deaf ears.

Without ad hominem, most of the antis would be mute.

[joependleton]

I wish all my students were as well-behaved as you two. I think I see hall monitor material.

[molonlabe]

Hey look! NJ's one-gun-per-month law is already working........

LAKEWOOD, N.J. (AP) - Gunfire erupted as a police tactical squad executed a no-knock search warrant in a New Jersey suburb Thursday, leaving four officers and a suspect shot.

One Lakewood police officer who was shot in the face and another who was shot in the foot were taken to a hospital, Deputy Chief Michael Mohel of the Ocean County Prosecutor's Office said. Two others sustained minor injuries when they were struck in their bulletproof vests.

http://www.mcall.com/news/all-nj-shooting-092409-cnap,0,3003118.story

[molonlabe]

Remember folks, Paul Helmke and the gang think that only LEO should be able to carry a concealed weapon because of their extensive training, judgement, and, well, because they're just plain better than the rest of us:

"CANTON TOWNSHIP, Mich. (AP) — Police say an off-duty Detroit officer who fatally shot his wife in the parking lot of a suburban library before killing himself left a note at his home.

Police say Williams fatally shot 33-year-old Patricia Catherine Williams, also a Detroit police officer, Tuesday morning outside the Canton Public Library."


http://www.mcall.com/news/nationworld/sns-ap-us-library-shooting-mich,0,6854223.story

[joependleton]

Odie, perhaps you should field this one.

[molonlabe]

Give it a shot, joe. I could use a little entertainment this morning.

[shedances]

Anyone, anyone can abuse a firearm, molonlabe. Nowhere have gun control advocates said differently. But it is certainly not wrong to expect better (much better) from those in uniform. And that includes those in military uniform, as well: "Bob Fowler, F Company's popular ... commander, had bled to death after being hit in the spleen. His orderly, who adored him, snatched up a [weapon] and unforgivably massacred a line of unarmed Japanese soldiers who had just surrendered," William Manchester (Goodbye, Darkness).

[mike102]

Uh oh. DW's back. ; )

[mike102]

Such things happened frequently during WWII, on both sides. More often on the other one.

The Japanese used Allied POWS; Englishmen, Australians, Americans, Canadians, etc., as Guinea Pigs, in the same type of horrific medical and weapons experiments that the Nazis were performiong on Jews, Poles, and Russians. I won't even tell you what they did to the people of Northern China, including women and children. You would not sleep well for a long time.

During the Battle of the Bulge, at a Belgian town called Malmede, the Waffen SS machine gunned 81 unarmed, American POWs, who had surrendered. They were mowed down in the snow, like dogs. The Army was digging up frozen corpses for weeks thereafter.

What's your point?

[OldSFMJT]

Adding to Mike's comments: Read William B. Breuer's book "The Great Raid." It will enlighten you tremendously as to why the young orderly you mention might have been moved to do what he did! All that said, acts committed in time of war are in no form, fashion or manner analogous to those of LEO’s or legally armed civilians!

It’s also been repeatedly pointed out (by actual LEO’s among others!) that legally armed civilians have a much lower rate of both unlawful and negligent conduct with firearms than their LEO brethren! Please note that I am in no way impugning LEO’s. There are many factors contributing to this. They are in a very difficult & stressful profession which most of us likely could not/would not do! Still, the numbers don’t lie! The scenario outlined above by “molonlabe” is more likely to occur among LEO’s than among legally armed civilians.

Old SF MJT

[djcrsn]

But criminals do so far more regularly than the lawabiding--so your first focus should be on dealing with the criminal while leaving the law abiding ALONE. What firearms I own is NONE of your business

[OldSFMJT]

SewaneeLeftist - From pontificate to bloviate and back again!

Old SF MJT

[joependleton]

Rockin' the thesaurus eh, Old SF?

[OldSFMJT]

Just for you, Joe! Just for you!

[SewaneeLeftist]

Thanks to all who worked so hard to prove all my points. You always come through.

[Thirdpower]

Tag, you're it.

[Dimensio]

You have made no substantive arguments. Thus far, you have provided no statement that could be "proven".

[djcrsn]

SL has made no substantative points in regards to firearm policy--just a variation on the churchman's "kill them all, G*D will know his own", although with SW--it is ban them all

[Berettasskeeter]

Would you mind laying out your points? You haven't yet, and so we can't tell who may have validated what?!
Semper fi

[SewaneeLeftist]

A paradox of published poetry, say love poetry, is that of audience. How can the audience be the loved one if the poem gets published? The loved one is the audience among a larger audience? The loved one isn't the audience UNTIL the poem's published?

The same paradox applies to posting here. Here at HuffPo, the attraction for me is the powerful articles and the excellent progressive bloggers. When I answer them, it's a public response but still the answer aims at a specific audience -- the equivalent of the love poet's beloved -- and those who can understand, empathize, sympathize. Generally, love poets don't write to an audience incapable of love or which admires hatred.

Of course, by my answers to my intended audience appearing here, they fall prey to the word-count specialists and echo experts who evidently perch, waiting like hawks for me to write. Flattering though that is, I answer them only to the same degree that a love poet is saying he loves every reader when he publishes a poem to his or her beloved. Yeah, it applies to the greater audience, but...

So all readers are the audience, but not all readers are the beloved.

And despite the interesting reactions of all those readers, to the writer, the reactions of the haters and those who can't understand matters little except to the degree, at least in my case, that they always, always live up to expectations.

And they always, always do.

[Dimensio]

I am curious. Are you able to actually reference any facts that substantiate the assertions that you have made, or is your position based entirely upon unsubstantiated conjecture? Do you refrain from responding to criticisms of your statements because you are incapable of supporting your stated position with any actual evidence?

[djcrsn]

It is obvious that SL can not back up his positions so he is trying to baffle with bovine droppings

[mike102]

Wouldn't it be easier on everyone's BS meter, if you just backed up some of your statements with a fact or two once in a while, or gave an occasional straight answer to a question?

[LindaCat]

I saw a bumper sticker today that read

ESCHEW OBFUSCATION

Anyone know what that means?

[LtBromhead]

LOL. Good one.

[mike102]

It means 'avoid abiguous BS'.

The opposite of 'espouse elucidation', a trait I'm sure we'd all be happy and grateful to see SL adopt.

[mike102]

Oops. Make that 'ambiguous'. Coffee hasn't kicked in yet.

[OdinsEye]

I think it is a legume. I could be wrong though.

[Wilson333]

"ESCHEW OBFUSCATION"

Gesundheit !

[SewaneeLeftist]

NOT answering gun nut attacks, fallacious arguments, or confusion about what an ad hominem argument is (when your behavior IS your argument, reveals your reasoning, outlook, and reasons for the behavior, IT'S NOT AN AD HOMINEM ARGUMENT. But by all means, parrot away), but clarifying for those who might accept actual experience and reasoned opinion, an explanation or two.

Military school has about as much to do with the real military as ping pong does with tennis, which is why I don't claim to be a marksman because I achieved a certain grouping on a military academy rifle range.

In '83 in NYC, I was mugged by two guys who jumped me on the way to work one morning. If I'd had a gun,I would have had as good a chance of being shot as the criminals. (Don't bother with your slanted, manipulated stats, please.) What turned the tide was an elderly lady walking her dog who started shouting for help and neighbors calling the cops.

Them's the facks, and otherwise, it's all my opinion. None of the sophomoric jibes, the paranoid and insecure reasoning will affect that. You're all welcome NOT to echo yourselves any more than you already do. I won't answer you, so you're also welcome NOT to answer me.

But I expect you will.

[OdinsEye]

"NOT answering gun nut attacks,"

LOL... Is THAT why you address issues we brought up? OK... Whatever.

"If I'd had a gun,I would have had as good a chance of being shot as the criminals. (Don't bother with your slanted, manipulated stats, please.) "

Yah, even if they do come from DoJ sources.

"But I expect you will."

Can't let your arrogance and ad hominems go unanswered.

[mike102]

"I won't answer you, so you're also welcome NOT to answer me."

Oh, is that what you're not doing?

[Dimensio]

"NOT answering gun nut attacks, fallacious arguments, or confusion about what an ad hominem argument is (when your behavior IS your argument, reveals your reasoning, outlook, and reasons for the behavior, IT'S NOT AN AD HOMINEM ARGUMENT. "

Dismissing reasonable rebuttals to your unjustified assertions because they are made by individuals whom you term "gun nuts" is, in fact, an appeal to the "ad hominem" fallacy.


" If I'd had a gun,I would have had as good a chance of being shot as the criminals."

Please substantiate this assertion.


" (Don't bother with your slanted, manipulated stats, please.)"

It would appear as though you are appealing to the "poisoning the well" fallacy, nor have you justified your initial premise.


"Them's the facks"

On the contrary; you have not yet demonstrated that your assertion that you would have been as likely to have been shot as would the criminals who attacked you had you been armed is factual. That claim remains an unsubstantiated assertion.


"I won't answer you,"

Refusing to address meaningful rebuttals to your unjustified assertions does not constitute a logical demonstration of your claim.

[Thirdpower]

So basically you are incapable of answering even the most basic questions asked so have to pursue another multi-paragraph rant that has nothing to do w/ the other posts.

Tag you're it.

[djcrsn]

I wonder if SL would be willing to use a firearm to defend a grandkid, niece or nephew under 10 from a Charles Manson or Jeff Dahmer?

[Ohio9]

Just because you feel you are incapable of defending yourself with a firearm doesn't mean everyone else isn't either.

Sounds like you are guilty of the classic case of "projection".

[OdinsEye]

"NOT answering gun nut attacks"

Just coincidentally answering issues we "gun nuts" brought up. Right? Sure.

"If I'd had a gun,I would have had as good a chance of being shot as the criminals. (Don't bother with your slanted, manipulated stats, please.) "

Yah, even if those numbers come from DoJ sources.

[mike102]

"I've been violently mugged, but I've never needed a gun in my life. From my own experience, philosophy, and 21st century conditions, I see no need for any American privately to own a gun." SewaneeLeftist

Thank you for starting off with what for most people, would sound like a contradiction. Perhaps you were not mugged violently enough. Perhaps you didn't feel a healthy amount of indignation after your experience. I was violently mugged also. After that, I started carrying a gun when I went into the city.

"I see millions of reasons FOR banning private ownership. ALL pro-gun arguments seem inadequate, even irrational, paranoid, or from deep insecurities."

Really Professor, "millions" of reasons? How about 80,000 reasons. That's all one should need. One man's insecurity" is another man's precaution.

If you own a fire extinguisher, does that mean you are paranoid or insecure by acknowledging the fact that your house could burn down?

I don't even want to comment further. I probably should have let the absurdity of your post stand on it's own altogether.

I wasn't a Psych major, but it seems to me that there is something unnatural about lacking the will to defend yourself. Hell, plants do it.

And I really do thank you for that comment.

[SewaneeLeftist]

This weekend, my wife and I went out for dinner here in TN. Our restaurant had a sign asking patrons not to bring in firearms.

I grew up on the Cumberland Plateau. I've been around guns all my life. I've sat on my porch, screened by trees, a gun has gone off about fifty yards away from me, and my warning shout has been answered with more shots. In military school, technically, I was a marksman. In NYC, I've been within twenty feet of cops who've drawn their weapons for a brawl and for an undercover drug bust. I've been violently mugged, but I've never needed a gun in my life.

From my own experience, philosophy, and 21st century conditions, I see no need for any American privately to own a gun.

I see millions of reasons FOR banning private ownership. ALL pro-gun arguments seem inadequate, even irrational, paranoid, or from deep insecurities. None are enough reason for anyone to accept the deaths, especially of kids, from gun violence. Some poster last week told a mother that she should blame her dead son rather than want guns regulated, showing me that gun nuts are not subject to normal human emotion or thought. Therefore, TO ME the right of public safety outweighs any personal ownership of guns.

The need for strict regulation grows each time a zombie brings a gun to a public place. Especially legally.

[djcrsn]

Need has nothing to do with constitutional rights. Los Angeles would have suffered far more damage in the Rodney King riots if people did not have firearms to protect themselves, their families/f­riends/cow­orkers and their homes/business

[OdinsEye]

"This weekend, my wife and I went out for dinner here in TN. Our restaurant had a sign asking patrons not to bring in firearms."

OK. Private property, owners make the rules. No one here will have a problem with that.

"In military school, technically, I was a marksman. "

Technically? Is that like being kind of pregnant?

"I see millions of reasons FOR banning private ownership."

I see zero.

"ALL pro-gun arguments seem inadequate, even irrational, paranoid, or from deep insecurities."

As a cop, a trainer, and a retired combat vet, I see plenty of valid, rational, reasonable arguments to own firearms. And I even have files from former students who have successfully and legally used firearms defensively and usually the threat of serious bodily harm or death to them was demonstrable. I even have one who came to the aid of a cop.

"None are enough reason for anyone to accept the deaths, especially of kids, from gun violence. "

The number of childrens deaths involving firearms has been stedily declining for decades despite the number of firearms in circulation increasing and the number of children killed involving firearms is thankfully very low.

[Jadegold]

Being an NRA trainer is like being a Mars explorer--anyone can claim it.

[Toonadude]

"In military school, technically, I was a marksman. " "Technically? Is that like being kind of pregnant?"

No, Odie.

Technically speaking, G.W. Bush "earned" a Masters in Business Administration from Harvard.

Get it now?

[OdinsEye]

"Some poster last week told a mother that she should blame her dead son rather than want guns regulated, showing me that gun nuts are not subject to normal human emotion or thought. "

Ad hominem. And her son was shot while committing a crime. She even said the the evidence pointed to that. Since CCW holders very rarely shoot except when the situation warrants it, the problem does not appear to be the gun laws, it appears to be her son. Put the blame where it belongs -- on the criminal.

[SchecterDV4]

"This weekend, my wife and I went out for dinner here in TN."

If someone was 'violently mugging' your wife, would that get normal reaction out of you, or would you lay down for that, too?

[MajorTom125]

"Some poster last week told a mother that she should blame her dead son rather than want guns regulated, showing me that gun nuts are not subject to normal human emotion or thought".

You took one small sentence out of context, and completely ignored everything else the man said, including his expression of sympathy, as well as the condolences of others. You surprise me.

We don't have much to go on, but the woman said the "so-called evidence" pointed to his guilt. We have to assume, for lack of any further information, that since the shooter was not prosecuted, this was a justifiable homicide.

It's sad. I feel terrible for the lady. That has nothing to do with the guilt or innocence of her son.

[OdinsEye]

Exactly.

[HitnMyths]

One last item. If these clowns bring their gun to the town meeting, you know, for self defense, and
I take that gun away from him, is he responsible for the havoc created by my exercise of my 2nd amendment rights or am I? As the concealed or open carry principal is he responsible for all resultant
actions of the machine? If not, why not?

[OdinsEye]

You are criminally responsible. You stole his property and used it to commit further crimes. He committed no crimes.

[Ohio9]

If you drive to the townhall meeting, you know, to get there, and I steal your car to use as a getaway vehicle in a bank robbery, resulting in a pedestrian being run over during the escape, are you responsible for the havoc created by your vehicle or am l?

As the owner of your car, are your responsible for all resultant actions of your machine? Why or why not?

[mike102]

Where does the 2nd Amendment say you have a right to steal guns?

[mike102]

Well, first off, the machine has no brain, not unlike .............never mind.

[LtBromhead]

Clowns?

How does your committing the felony of firearms theft equate to exercising your 2nd Amendment rights? Was that supposed to be serious?

Clowns?

[HitnMyths]

Gun heads have particular blind spots and this is a good example of a few of them. They seem
to never understand that I do not want to trust your judgement as a gun carrier. All the gun toters insist there is no danger from those packing their legal weapons and point to the criminals that "make" them carry for defense. Fact is, to me you have already shown a huge lack of judgement and fair amount of delusion by convincing yourself of the need to be armed. Sad thing is you're so insecure and afraid you'll endanger others to assuage your paranoid fears and delusions. Guns in church - of course - just in case. You're delusional.
Let's look at gunguy's wet dream for a minute. I was doing my route when I pulled into Columbine HS;I heard the shots and the cries. I grabbed my Peacemaker and burst into the hallway just in time to blast - the janitor. Oops. How about another - here in Colorado they passed a law called the "Make my day" law. If an intruder (or anyone actually) is on my property - usually characterized as breaking down the door while threatening - and I FEEL My Life is threatened - deadly force is justified. Only by
your FEELING at the moment you can kill this guy and are legally protected from prosecution. Real
helpful claim if you shoot someone - "But I was afraid!"

[OdinsEye]

"to me you have already shown a huge lack of judgement and fair amount of delusion by convincing yourself of the need to be armed"

Which is only your opinion and without reference to anybody's situation, character, or abilities.

"Guns in church - of course - just in case. You're delusional."

And yet there have been several attacks in churches. If a church does not want firearms on its property, it can always post it. Some people simply want to not have to disarm when going into a church.

"Let's look at gunguy's wet dream for a minute. "

Nice try, but we don't think that way. However, your imagination indicates that you are not the kind of person who should own a firearm.

[djcrsn]

Jeanne Assam is a prime example

[mike102]

"Sad thing is you're so insecure and afraid you'll endanger others to assuage your paranoid fears and delusions. Guns in church - of course - just in case. You're delusional."

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-na-shoot11dec11,0,570583.story

And this recently happened in Colorado. Enough said.

"Fact is, to me you have already shown a huge lack of judgement and fair amount of delusion by convincing yourself of the need to be armed."

There are 80,000,000 gun owners in the US. There are 80,000 (at least) defensive uses of firearms every year (FBI).

So, half of the adult population of the US is "delusional"?

"here in Colorado they passed a law called the "Make my day" law. If an intruder (or anyone actually) is on my property - usually characterized as breaking down the door while threatening - and I FEEL My Life is threatened - deadly force is justified."

If someone is breaking down your door, and you don't feel like your life is threatened, I wouldn't be calling anyone else "delusional".

[SchecterDV4]

The link isn't right. Are you talking about Jeanne Assam, and the fact that she saved many lives by having her gun in church?

http://www.buzzfeed.com/buzz/Jeanne_Assam

[OdinsEye]

"How about another - here in Colorado they passed a law called the "Make my day" law. If an intruder (or anyone actually) is on my property - usually characterized as breaking down the door while threatening - and I FEEL My Life is threatened - deadly force is justified. "

I have reviewed the Colorado "Make My Day" law. It is what is also known as the "Castle Doctrine". It says that if a person illegally enters your house with the intent on commiting ANY further crimes (other than the trepass/br­eaking&ent­ering), lethal force is authorized. Fear of assault need not be present. Outside of the house, the intent to kill or inflict serious bodily harm must be present along with the capability and opportunity.

[SewaneeLeftist]

I came to this late, but what a wonderful article, Mr. Helmke. In particular, you provided one of my favorite links of the day, thanks:
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/08/21/taking_liberties/entry5258192.shtml?tag=contentMain;contentBody)

As a persuasion/rhetoric issue, and NOT interacting with the NRA handbook, one of my favorite zombie arguments I'm hearing these days is the reduction to minutiae tactic to avoid addressing the large issues of an argument. This involves arguing that the caliber of a round somehow has to do with the argument whether or not personal ownership of guns can be regulated, (as the link so well shows is entirely legal, even with the activist, bench-legislating decisions of Heller). To me, this is just exactly like the argument the defense in the Rodney King police officers trial, where they slowed down the video to a frame by frame analysis by which they showed, as they put it, that KING was controlling the action and determining how the police would hit him. It was a breathtakingly hypocritical argument, and is just like the zombie argument: when you get microscopic enough you can make the real issue disappear -- in the King case that a bunch of cops were beating the stuffing out of him, and in the NRA case that guns need regulation no matter what distinction you're making about the caliber, type, or the manner in which you transport them.

[OdinsEye]

The Second Amendment itself may not pose a roadblock for registration, but the Fourth and Fifth could. Additionally, there are the questions of "What would it accomplish" and "how can it be enforced".

The Fourth Amendment right to privacy means the government has little power to know what I do and do not own. This right to privacy regarding property is not comparable to the mentioned requirement to register to parade, gather or speak - IOW activities. The closest thing to it is registration of vehicles, but as we have noted numerous times in the past, this is only required if the vehicle is going to be on public roads. If it stays on private property, it does not have to be registered.

The Fifth Amendment comes into play because the Supreme Court has clearly stated that a convicted felon cannot be prosecuted for failing to register a firearm as such registration would violate his protection against self-incrimination. Therefore, if a felon cannot be forced to register a firearm, applied via the equal protection and immunities provision, a non-felon cannot be forced to register a firearm.

Cont....

[OdinsEye]

Cont...

Now, what would registration accomplish? It will not prevent crimes. Someone using a stolen firearm or black market isn't going to register it. Someone intent on killing someone really does not care if the firearm is registered or not. Basically, all regsitration accomplishes is to create a list of who owns what. And the cost of keeping up such a list is incredble, as Canada found out. Additionally, the potential for abuse of such a list is very high.

How about enforcement? Well, consider that there are roughly 300 million firearms in the US. Now figure that probably less than 10 million are registered. How exactly are you going to get even half of the remaining 290 million firearms registered short of resorting to door to door searches? This is why most places which have established registration in the last 20 years have only seen about 20% compliance.

[OdinsEye]

"This involves arguing that the caliber of a round somehow has to do with the argument whether or not personal ownership of guns can be regulated,"

LOL... One small problem: No one has made that argument!

[djcrsn]

I think Sewanee Commie is talking about the cartridge because several of us have pointed out that the 223 Remington and 7.62X39 found in faux "assault weapons" are not the uber powerful rounds the Brady Bunch claims

[Thirdpower]

You do realize what you've posted is just one giant ad hominem and strawman, right?

[LindaCat]

Your reduction to 'minutiae tactic' observation is interesting - thanks, I'll keep an eye out for it.

You make the presupposition that if regulation is possible - it is justified. Discussing the possibility of regulation is OK if you allow the introduction of results of experimentation and data from analysis of firearms related incidents. For example, the results of Concealed Carry legislation passed over the past few decades and the the FBI and BJS data on demographics and other aspects of firearms related matters.

[mike102]

Marry me.

[45superman]

Says Paul: "Sadly, just days before the OCAGV event, two Columbus police officers were shot by an attacker reportedly armed with a 9mm handgun and an AK-47, after he fled a traffic stop."

The perpetrator sounds JUST like the kind of guy who would have, if the Columbus "assault weapons" ban had still been in place, obligingly obeyed the law and not brought the banned firearm into town.

Does the gun rights deprivation lobby even listen to itself?

[OdinsEye]

They figure the public isn't smart enough to see past the smoke and mirrors.

[Toonadude]

Reminds me of the good old days .... you know .... 1/20/01 to 1/20/09.

[OdinsEye]

I get a kick out of this meaningless comment, " with one bullet traveling over a football field in distance." ANY firearm can accomplish this. Heck, my pellet gun can do this. So can a bow and arrow. So what exactly is this supposed to tell us?

[45superman]

Maybe Helmke supports Rebecca Peters' and IANSA's advocacy of a ban on rifles with a range over 100 yards.

[OdinsEye]

Could be.

[Thirdpower]

Well the Brady Campaign is a member of IANSA.

[mike102]

I have a slingshot that's good for 2.25 football fields.

It's also black and scary looking.

[djcrsn]

And a heavy battle longbow (150+lb draw) has an aimed range that long