Your thoughts about Steve's essay

[Todash]

I was all set to get the essay until I saw who is getting the benefit of the donations from the sale of Guns. I don’t quite see how the Brady Campaign donations constitute "a charity to benefit victims of gun violence." And since I disagree on much of what the Brady Campaign does... I won’t purchase the King piece in order to further fuel their agenda. Alas, I was so looking forward to discussing King's piece once I had read it.

Do you have Amazon Prime and a Kindle (or know someone who does)? If so, you can read it for free, because you can "borrow" one book a month, and that qualifies.

[Moderator]

At the time of the first posting with that language, he was still considering which of a number of charities to give the money to. Originally it was the victims of the Sandy Hook tragedy but there had also been other gun-related massacres this past year. There were three major organizations that are focusing on legislation to change current gun laws, but it was his feeling that supporting the efforts of the Brady Campaign was the best way of preventing future victims of gun violence.

I find it interesting as well as ironic, that so much animosity is directed toward the Brady Campaign which came about as the result of the shooting of Jim Brady during the attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan, a man protected by trained and armed members of the Secret Service who still were not able to keep the President from being shot.

[Wildcat]

See, this is the benefits of a reasoned, thoughtful discussion: two perspectives that can point out weaknesses in each other and hopefully produce a stronger idea! Imagine the possibilities!

Testify! I agree; it's odd that this isn't mentioned more. I think all guns should be registered, transferring them illegally should be a crime in and of itself, AND there should a law that states that the last person who registered a gun used to commit a crime (and did not report it stolen) is automatically doing jail time. Sure, there would still be illegal weapons, but they would become painfully expensive. (NOTE: With all the illegal guns out there, it would take time for this to have an impact, there could be a transition period where people could either register their guns or, if they did not wish to do that, turn them in in some sort of buyback program. After that brief period, owning or using an unregistered gun would be illegal.)

It is. And once you do get them committed, the bar they have to clear to get out is VERY low. The rights of the mentally ill are important, but it's silly to pretend that they don't have compliance issues.

The assault weapon/large clip ban will not make a big dent in numbers of people killed, I agree. But it should impact the numbers and impact of the mass shootings that have been escalating for the past several years. The guys that go barging into schools and malls and such picture themselves as visiting vengeance upon ... who? Someone. And they go loaded for bear. Did you know that Jared Lee Loughner was subdued when he stopped to change clips? I wish he hadn't been able to kill six people and injure 13 others before he had to reload. (It is also my contention that 10 years is not a very long time to determine if something makes much of a difference or not when you consider the number of those weapons out there already ... but I tend to agree with you that, in and of itself, an assault weapon ban will not greatly impact the numbers of people killed, since that is about 30,000 per year. But as part of an overall strategy, it will make a difference. If someone made me choose, though, I would choose mandatory, MANDATORY registration with severe consequences for trafficking over an assault weapon ban.)

I also understand what you say about the teachers, but teachers have a very tough time of it already. If you give a teacher a gun, they become a protector first, educator second. They also have to somehow have that gun at the ready and yet make sure none of the kids is able to get their hands on it. One strong, angry, adolescent boy could turn that into a nightmare VERY quickly. None of the teachers I know (and I have several just among my immediate family, aunts, uncles, and cousins--and most of them are politically quite conservative) want to go that route. You want to station cops at schools? That might be workable, but think about this: even if such a strategy worked perfectly, it would not really make much of a dent in the numbers of people killed annually, and ... well. Somebody is going to have to pay for it. (O noes, taxes!)

Hear, hear!

I'm in perfect agreement on the mandatory registration and trafficking issues! I think that could be better in the long run over a ban. I might be willing to reconsider the magazine limit. As for schools, you make good points on teachers. I'm not as sold on that concept as I am armed security. I just list it as a possibility to consider. Armed security I am in support of. I'm not talking about old men either (as Mr. King alluded to in his essay); I mean well trained and in good shape. Yes, that means taxes. But I would argue that it should be taxed at the state level (with federal accountability). I'm normally not in favor of higher taxes (it comes with being typically conservative ) but when it comes to protecting our children I am. We can always cut elsewhere (I know a lot of pork spending w pay for we can cut to make up for it ). It would be better than the zero presence we've seen in schools with these tragedies thus far.

[exzel]

At the time of the first posting with that language, he was still considering which of a number of charities to give the money to. Originally it was the victims of the Sandy Hook tragedy but there had also been other gun-related massacres this past year. There were three major organizations that are focusing on legislation to change current gun laws, but it was his feeling that supporting the efforts of the Brady Campaign was the best way of preventing future victims of gun violence.

I find it interesting as well as ironic, that so much animosity is directed toward the Brady Campaign which came about as the result of the shooting of Jim Brady during the attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan, a man protected by trained and armed members of the Secret Service who still were not able to keep the President from being shot.

Okay. But if King wanted to open up dialog, why wouldn’t he pick a charitable organization considered to be neutral to the controversy and supported by both factions, or even as you noted… victims of Sandy Hook tragedy? I think everyone would have been fine and dandy with that. Are there really none out there that helps victims of gun violence, that doesn't have a policital agenda? Sorry, just doesn’t seem like sound judgement to me.

[exzel]

Do you have Amazon Prime and a Kindle (or know someone who does)? If so, you can read it for free, because you can "borrow" one book a month, and that qualifies.

Yup, but I have always purchased King's works. I even purchased that first ebook thing he did online when it came out, which never worked for me and I never got to read it (don’t even remember the name of the piece anymore). I will not read Guns by slight of hand. He can take a stand, and so can I. Probably my loss... but still my choice.

[Todash]

Want to read something else about ol' Ronnie that's a little more food for thought? http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/reaganak47.asp

[Sepia and Dust]

AND there should a law that states that the last person who registered a gun used to commit a crime (and did not report it stolen) is automatically doing jail time.

I couldn't get behind that for even an instant. Guns are loaned out all the time for perfectly valid reasons. Occassionally, a borrowed gun is used to commit crimes of passion or of opportunity, but that's not the owner's fault.

[Moderator]

Okay. But if King wanted to open up dialog, why wouldn’t he pick a charitable organization considered to be neutral to the controversy and supported by both factions, or even as you noted… victims of Sandy Hook tragedy? I think everyone would have been fine and dandy with that. Are there really none out there that helps victims of gun violence, that doesn't have a policital agenda? Sorry, just doesn’t seem like sound judgement to me.

And you are entitled to your opinion. However, is it really a political agenda that bothers you or the fact that it is an organization with a political agenda aimed at a differing outcome than what you would like regarding guns. I've seen several people advocating for the donation to have been given to the Second Amendment Foundation whose primary purpose from what I can see is only to advocate for gun ownership and to make sure that there are no restrictions on it. Is that any less a political agenda? Not to mention that it would be counter to what Steve is suggesting in his essay, i.e. not doing away with second amendment rights but not that it should be a carte blanche right for gun ownership either.

[Todash]

Okay. But if King wanted to open up dialog, why wouldn’t he pick a charitable organization considered to be neutral to the controversy and supported by both factions, or even as you noted… victims of Sandy Hook tragedy? I think everyone would have been fine and dandy with that. Are there really none out there that helps victims of gun violence, that doesn't have a policital agenda? Sorry, just doesn’t seem like sound judgement to me.

I think any organization that purports to help victims of gun violence is going to be seen as having a liberal agenda, because any organization that purports to help victims of gun violence is going to focus on reducing the number of future victims. That's just the way it is. I really do see what you're saying, but do you have a name of an organization that you think would be acceptable to all?

Anyway, I'm curious: what is it that you find so objectionable about the Brady Campaign? I admit I don't know a whole lot about the organization, but on looking at their website, I didn't see anything really "out there."

[exzel]

And you are entitled to your opinion. However, is it really a political agenda that bothers you or the fact that it is an organization with a political agenda aimed at a differing outcome than what you would like regarding guns. I've seen several people advocating for the donation to have been given to the Second Amendment Foundation whose primary purpose from what I can see is only to advocate for gun ownership and to make sure that there are no restrictions on it. Is that any less a political agenda? Not to mention that it would be counter to what Steve is suggesting in his essay, i.e. not doing away with second amendment rights but not that it should be a carte blanche right for gun ownership either.

I agree with some of the Brady Foundations ideas, like the one involving background checks. But I also feel they go too far. I also think it would be a mistake to give the money from the sale of Guns to the NRA, who’s idea of arming people in schools (willing and able teachers in my opinion) would do the most to protect our kids from gun violence going forward. I thought the idea of the money going to victims of gun violence was a great idea. Giving the money to the Brady Campaign or even the NRA for that matter... NOT!

Anyway, I don’t know that something would be counter to what Steve is suggesting in his essay... I haven’t gotten through the looking glass.