Remembering Arnulfo Crispin and Officer Scotty Richardson

[ellisonz]

11. So what do you propose specifically in detail?

Otherwise, it's a do-nothing policy.

I resent the implication that this is somehow inevitable and totally related to hoodlums and what not - which has been made by numerous other posters and not challenged. Even when I show they're wrong with statistics and cogent sociological arguments they continue to doubt my intelligence and sincerity. What more can I do than try to shock them into realization? I seem to have gotten to you and that's a good thing - this is exactly the debate we need to be having, because I assure you the right-wing is going to attack us on guns no matter what we do or say and that it's better to have a strong, reasoned stance.

Listen to the Bloomberg tapes, those aren't hoodlums on the phone - those are average Joe's not giving a damn who they sell their weapon too, even when they're told they can't probably pass a background check. Another poster here, aikoaiko had that exact situation and he did the right thing and demanded proof of lawful ownership, what's wrong with that? What's wrong with taking other steps to reduce the illicit gun supply and close the loopholes on reporting and screening? Other nations don't have the problems we do, why is that? They aren't that different. Why is it that most of the posters here have either trigger locks or gun safes? Why shouldn't we mandate safe firearm practices?

I think my schematic has been pretty uniform and clear - it's basically a European model. I also think you ought to take a good hard look at what some of the others who sought to attack me in the Bloomberg thread are engaged in rhetorically and how it is intellectually dishonest to the actual words of the Constitution. Warren Burger is right about it not being an individual right.

I'm not trying to be a total bastard about it. Frankly, if I had received an honest discussion instead of a wall of denialisms about how safe we are I wouldn't still be posting.