- Do you believe that criminals and domestic abusers should be able to buy guns without background checks?
No. This is, however, implying that after we mandate background checks, they will no longer be able to get their hands on guns ever, which is like saying after we said no one is allowed to have alcohol, people stopped having alcohol.
- What is your proposal for keeping guns away from criminals, domestic abusers, terrorists and dangerously mentally ill people?
You can’t. Not all of them, anyway. Two subsets of gun used for crimes here, guns owned by criminals used for crime and guns owned by normally law-abiding good people that criminals get their hands on. To prevent the second group, make whoever the gun is registered to pay a fine if someone they know uses their gun for crime. There is no way to keep guns away from the first group because #1, so really, any gun control plan is incomplete unless it also deals with what to do about those who slip through the cracks – that is, what do you do when a bad guy with a gun shows up.
- Do you believe that a background check infringes on your constitutional right to “keep and bear arms”?
Not if it’s just one at the time of purchase and it’s done in a quick and snappy manner.
- Do you believe that I and people with whom I work intend to ban your guns?
I don’t know you, so I can’t comment for you. But yes, a sizable proportion of the gun control crowd would like to ban guns.
- If yes to #4, how do you think that could happen ( I mean the physical action)?
Frog boiling. The default state of America was that civilians could own the same guns as the military. Eventually, you gradually enacted more and more nerfs on the armaments that law-abiding gun owners can have, nerfs that are often unreasonable and ineffectual (banning bayonet studs and barrel shrouds? really?), to the point where NY now only allows you to have magazines that hold a maximum of 7 rounds. Keep in mind that 10-30 rounds per magazine is industry standard, and that criminals by their nature do not follow these laws, so they will still have their normal sized magazines while law-abiding citizens now only have their nerf mags. And you do it sufficiently gradually, so that each generation thinks the gun law limits in their day are normal and reasonable, and then you say that you’re just taking a little bit more because compromise.
- What do you think are the “second amendment remedies” that the tea party GOP candidate for Senate in Nevada( Sharron Angle) has proposed?
Armed insurrection against a government that no longer represents the interests of its people, which is how this country was founded in the first place. That said, anyone with a brain should be finding it blindingly obvious that Angle doesn’t actually mean we should up and overthrow the US government of which she is a part right now, or even just Harry Reid for that matter. It’s generally not a good idea to issue gun threats when you are surrounded by lots of people who have guns themselves.
- Do you believe in the notion that if you don’t like what someone is doing or saying, second amendment remedies should be applied? I believe in proportionality. If we disagree on great taste vs less filling, then no. If we disagree on whether my TV that I bought from Best Buy is actually his TV that he bought from my home using a five-finger discount, then yes, second amendment remedies are just what the doctor ordered.
- Do you believe it is O.K. to call people with whom you disagree liars and demeaning names?
I believe in calling a spade a spade. If they are lying, then it’s ok to call them liars. If they are factually incorrect or applying faulty logic, then I should be allowed to make unflattering remarks to their intelligence while pointing out how they are wrong. It should be noted, however, that ad hominem is more often used by gun control advocates, since between them calling gun owners callous and gun owners calling them violators of the Constitution, at least the latter is true.
- If yes to #8, would you do it in a public place to the person’s face?
I believe the proper term for someone who speaks poorly about someone behind their back but not to their face is “whiny punk-ass bitch.”
- Do you believe that any gun law will take away your constitutional rights?
The ones that nerf the capabilities of gun owners who use their weapons for self defense compared to the threats they are likely to face do.
- Do you believe in current gun laws? Do you think they are being enforced? If not, explain.
Current being the initial Firearms Control Act back in 1934, sure. As to whether they are being enforced, I’ll get back to you once I buy my first piece (have been shooting friends’ weapons all this time).
- Do you believe that all law-abiding citizens are careful with their guns and would never shoot anybody?
I believe most are careful and would not shoot anybody that did not threaten them first, and should not be subject to further limits due to the actions of a tiny subset who are not.
- Do you believe that people who commit suicide with a gun should be included in the gun statistics?
No. Killing yourself is incredibly easy. It doesn’t matter if guns are twice as easy as stabbing yourself in the chest or cutting your wrists down the highway or tossing a radio in your bathtub is still really easy. Furthermore, if you believe suicide is a personal choice, you should not be restricting someone’s access to methods by which he/she may accomplish that choice. If you believe suicide is a mental illness, your focus should be on that, not guns.
- Do you believe that accidental gun deaths should “count” in the total numbers?
They count already in any number crunching I do.
- Do you believe that sometimes guns, in careless use or an accident, can shoot a bullet without the owner or holder of the gun pulling the trigger?
Without anyone touching the trigger? I do not believe this is possible. Even if it is, that is a tiny tiny minute miniscule freak occurrence that is highly irrelevant.
- Do you believe that 30,000 gun deaths a year is too many?
Not compared to, at the minimum, over 60K successful gun defenses per year, and like a million at max. Also, keep in mind lower death rate in other countries that have total gun bans is also because the criminals there no longer need a gun to establish force superiority over you. A knife will do. So really, this gets into how much you believe in “millions for defense, not a cent for tribute.” Also also, there are actually 10-15K gun *casualties* (injuries and deaths combined) per year.
- How will you help to prevent more shootings in this country? Again, two subsets. Against surprise guncrimes using weapons owned by good guys, make the currently registered owner partially liable for them in the form of fines, thus incentivizing them to secure their weapons properly. Against guncrimes committed by criminals, let people who already carry concealed (that is, we trust them already to not shoot people) do so everywhere. It takes, at minimum, 2-3 minutes for police to respond (source: I was an orientation advisor for the University of Texas. This is a 40-acre area with its own dedicated police department. The response time will only be longer elsewhere). In a “gun-free zone”, your chances of survival unarmed in that 2-3 time period is 0. Your chances armed is, at the least, greater than 0. You can easily google countless cases that all support one conclusion: the best way to prevent a violent person from commit violence, or at the least minimizing the damage he can do, is to have someone present with similar or greater force capability. Do keep in mind that the Aurora shooter skipped over two movie theaters that were closer to him in favor of one that had a “NO GUNS” sign.
- Do you believe the articles that I have posted about actual shootings or do you think I am making them up or that human interest stories about events that have happened should not count when I blog about gun injuries and deaths?
Statistically, for every one of your articles about guncrime there are at least six stories of guns being used to save lives. Furthermore, deciding policy based on knee-jerk reactions to singular events is a classic case of missing the forest for a tree. Mass shootings account for a very tiny proportion of guncrime, and the common thread is that those take place in gun-free zones. Far more likely is that you will be home-invaded and need something to defend your life, if not your property, from criminals before the cops arrive.
- There has been some discussion of the role of the ATF here. Do you believe the ATF wants your guns and wants to harass you personally? If so, provide examples ( some have written a few that need to be further examined).
I think if gun control thinks need is so important, then they should justify why ATF needs my personal information if I am a law-abiding human and our country supposedly runs on presumption of innocence. Or at the least, if they are also so big on prevention, cite cases where having the shooter’s information would have helped prevent the shooter or mitigated the damage.
- Will you continue a reasonable discussion towards an end that might lead somewhere or is this an exercise in futility?
I am interested in reasonable discourse. What about you? Will your people be discussing practicalities, or will it be the same “think of the children”/”we have to do *something*” well-meaning but at best useless, at worst harmful rhetoric? Because, really, of all the literature I’ve read, it’s the gun owners who think about things like what it would take to actually prevent bad guys from getting guns and police response times and difference between active shooter situations where there was someone present with a gun vs no one present with a gun and such, while it’s mostly control advocates who advocate either bans or completely useless measures that are a waste of time and taxes. Really, if anyone is causing the debate to be an exercise in futility, it’s not the NRA.
Well, that was fun.
Gun Control 20 Questions! (written by failsauce activist)