So yesterday I posted a comment in which I asked my friends in Gun-control Nation to stop playing around and say what they really should say, namely, that they don’t like or want guns. I’m not saying I agree with them, by the way. I’m just saying that when it comes to guns in America, I would like to see an honest and open debate.
In case you’re interested, the 2nd Amendment says that Americans can keep a gun in their homes, but it doesn’t say they can buy a gun. Many of the guns that colonial residents brought with them when the joined the Continental Army were handmade or homemade, which is the reason that George Washington opened the arsenal at Springfield that made military-standard guns.
On Tuesday, the Governor of Oregon Kate Brown, signed a gun-control bill that has my friends in Gun-nut Nation all worried and upset. The bill is basically a CAP (child access prevention) law, which requires that guns must be kept locked, or locked away so that they cannot be used by kids or unqualified adults either to hurt themselves or hurt anyone else. Oregon is the 29th state to enact such a law.
What does this law mean to all those law-abiding gun owners in Oregon who want to keep a gun at the ready in case their home is invaded by some thug? According to the opponents of this new law, locking a gun up is exactly what will invite the bad guys to break int your home.
Unfortunately, what gun ‘rights’ groups are saying about this new law, a narrative which is being used to promote a 2022 ballot petition against the statute, happens not to be true. Because if you take the trouble to actually read the text of the law, here is what it says: “The liability imposed by subsection (3) of this section does not apply if: the person and the firearm are in the presence of the owner or possessor of the firearm.”
In other words, if you have a gun in your home and you leave your home to go to work or to go anywhere else, the gun has to be locked or locked away. If you are the owner of the gun and you’re sitting in the living room watching TV or snoozing in the bedroom, the gun can sit there next to you, unlocked and ready to be used.
This is exactly what I meant yesterday when I said we need an honest debate between the two sides about guns. But if the gun ‘rights’ gang tries to undo this statute in 2022 by claiming that it prevents Mister Joe Gun Owner from using his gun to protect himself, his beloved family, or the sanctity of his home, they are lying, and the debate won’t be honest at all.
At the same time, I think my Oregon friends in Gun-control Nation also need to know what they are talking about if they want to promote or pass laws that will reduce violence when someone shoots themselves or someone else with a gun. I notice that the new Oregon law requires gun owners to report the theft or loss of a gun to the cops.
That’s a good idea but what’s not so good is that the same section of the law says that the person reporting the missing gun “may include the serial number of the firearm.” May include? Are you serious?
How in God’s name will the cops track the movement of a gun from its owner to a criminal without the serial number? It can’t be done unless the gun has some sort of engraving or other unique identifying mark.
I’m really hoping that the petition to overturn this law and another petition being planned to ban assault rifles in Oregon make it to the ballot for 2022. I’m also hoping that both sides will try to argue for their positions with at least some degree of accuracy, never mind attention to the real facts.
Jun 04, 2021 @ 11:31:49
The New Mexico CAP law died in committee but it said the gun had to be in arms reach or locked up, which I guess is the common language because it pops up all over the place. My dry comment during hearings was that if you were cleaning a gun and had to take a leak, you either dragged the shootin’ iron to the loo or risked becoming a criminal (it was a misdemeanor, not a felony). The bill author backtracked, saying the law would be used after the fact if there was an incident. Keep your shades drawn….
That said, lock boxes, keyed, digital code, or biometric, are getting pretty cheap. I got one from Midway for about eighty bucks, far less than the cost of what is inside it, and its really quick to open. Some of this discussion seems to miss the point that what is being asked is what we should do anyway.
Oh, and there was a shootout in Florida. 14 year old and 12 year old runaways broke into a house and there was, apparently, ready access to an AK and a shotgun. In the resulting shootout with police, the 14 year old girl met her maker and the cops had to take cover from a hail of bullets.
That didn’t have to happen.
I long for the day when we can have a meaningful discussion rather than each flipping the other side off from the barricades or blocking. I am pretty mellow on Twitter, but Her Royal Highness, Chief of the Moms, blocked me almost instantly. If you are not willing to talk to your adversaries, Shannon, you are part of the problem,
Jun 04, 2021 @ 12:50:57
Mike, your over 76 years old and you’re hoping that both sides will try to argue for their positions with at least some degree of accuracy.
How do you expect accuracy when in your own blog you have a difficult time with the quality and state of being correct and/or precise in your terminology.
One example of many, you can’t even define “assault weapon” and “assault rifle?”
“Assault weapons ” is whatever a politician deems it to be and “assault rifle,” according to DOJ small arms identification manual states it’s a “short, compact, select-fire weapons that fires a cartridge intermediate in power between submachine gun and rifle cartridges.” In your post March 28, 2021 you gave “5 reasons why Mike the Gun Guy, a bone-fide gun nut, believes that assault rifles should be banned. Not regulated – banned.” all 5 reasons are false and misleading. You use the term “Assault rifles” when it should be “Assault weapons.”
In another post you can’t even define what a mass shooting is. You say it’s not the number of people killed and/or shot but it’s the number bullets fired.
And for misleading…your post on April 7, 2021 you quote the police saying “That’s what they always do.” What does that mean? Was the officer referring to people who shoot other people, or was it a reference to gang members?
As Obama said in June 2008, “Don’t tell me words don’t matter!”
W O R D S M A T T E R
Jun 04, 2021 @ 15:44:16
In a post on this blog, November 9, 2017 there were lengthy comments on definitions and terminology. The post was written by Thomas Gabor, a criminologist and international consultant, who has examined 1,000+ mass shootings in America in 2019-2020.
In one response Dr. Gabor said: “Mike has shown that there is a clear difference between military-style firearms and those designed for more conventional pursuits.” And in another response Dr. Gabor said: “I’ll leave it to Mike and others to jump in with regard to the definitional issues.” Now this is a man who has written numerous books on criminal behavior, patterns of different categories of crime, armed robbery, the science of predicting future criminal behavior, crime prevention, etc. When asked for clarifications and definitions of terms he wants to leave it to Mike and others to jump in with definitions.
Mike, you want an honest debate about guns…how can there be any honest debate when the “experts” can’t give definitions.
I have found whenever I talk with representative of organizations such as Everytown for Gun Safety, Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, The Brady Campaign and others, asking for definitions of terms I get a typical response like I got from Dr. Gabor on November 9, 2017 “I don’t think we should attack the credibility of a group’s research unless there is a sound basis for it.” People like Dr. Gabor and gun control organizations put those who ask questions and for clarification, in a category of “attacking the credibility” of others.
As I’ve said before, in the words of Colonel Nathan R. Jessep: “You can’t handle the truth!”
Jun 05, 2021 @ 01:49:00
You are asking the wrong questions. It is apparent you accept gun control as valid and now want to debate a lie and nit pick on an exact description.
Gun conrrol always has it roots in fear, those in power fear those with guns. The problem is nobody questions the validity of gun control claims. Instead they want to debate them and measure the results. If fact they look for proof in the results rather that the validity of gun control claims in the first place. There is no end to debating statistics and measurements of unrelated parameters. Parameters gun control spends its entire effort on creating a link and believed relationship.
Question if guns are responsible for crime how is this accomplished? There must be a provable logical explanation. Do you know what it is?
Jun 05, 2021 @ 01:34:55
Gun control has no facts. The gun control guy has proved that by refusing to explain how guns are responsible for crimes. Now it is impossible that there is not a logical explanation. Yet every time I request that explanation which goes to the heart of gun control there is nothing but avoidance or personal abuse. There people are morally bankrupt willing to endanger citizens lives because they believe guns will control them. Now either that is true or it is not. Physics has the answer of this question. Simply put what physical property of guns allows guns to control people. You are answer is?
I also asked how come the military, government and police are immune to guns power to control humans? Don’t hold your breath waiting for a reply from the promoters of inhuman and dangerous laws. These promoters of gun control do not have a single answer for logical questions on how it is possible for guns to be responsible.
It’s a physical impossibility they are responsible. That is not subject to debate is it. Yet here we are with a propagandist wanting to debate but refusing to answer a few simple questions that are totally reasonable. Until you can show validity for gun control you have nothing. It is a dangerous IDEOLOGY. A lie that is endangering public safety.
Jun 05, 2021 @ 10:57:35
You’re correct Mr. Moss. I’m sorry…I fell into that trap. However, I believe I am correct about definitions. Definitions are important in any debate.
Once again, sorry.