Before I get to the responses - Iâve got a question. Be honest: how many of
you know that *gun homicides are down 50%* in the past 20 years?
Iâm going to guess that none of you do - or that those who do are doing their
damnedest to obfuscate the fact.
This thread - which isnât supposed to be about gun control - shows why itâs
impossible to have a rational discussion about gun control.
No, just just Alan and Graceâs bigoted ramblings, which are beneath intelligent
contempt and deserve no civil reply.
But youâd hope someone whoâs actually within spitting distance of making policy
like Tom Goldstein would be better.
Hope is not a plan, unfortunately:
> On Mar 26, 2018, at 6:59 PM, TOM GOLDSTEIN <<email obscured>> wrote:
>
> No gun legislation is "going after responsible gun owners.â
Linda Slocumâs HF3022 goes after *nothing but* responsible gun owners - as does
the new bill released in the Senate today. Both bills classify the vast
majority of civilian firearms as âAssault Weaponsâ; the semiautomatic skeet
gun high school competitive skeet shooters use, the pistols that many Saint
Paulites keep to scare off burglars, Grandpaâs M1 Garand or Carbine from World
War 2 - all of them would be confiscated, now or after their current ownerâs
passing.
Tom, you have to be either ignorant or dissembling not to see that not only do
these legislative excrescences go after responsible gun owners - they ONLY go
after responsible gun owners! NOT ONE POINT in either bill will inconvenience
a single criminal. More on that below.
> Requiring the
> reporting of all gun sales and maintaining a database of that information
> --something that is not even in the cards right now--is not depriving
> anybody of their rights, any more than registering your car every year
> does so.
Tom, this is just comical. âUniversal Background Checksâ are security
theater, even more mindlessly pointless than TSA screenings at the airport.
Why?
Criminals use guns obtained from the black market (youâll no doubt be surprised
to learn selling a gun to someone with a criminal record is a felony!) or from
âstraw buyersâ with clean records who buy guns and sell them to criminals
(which is a *FEDERAL felony*!). People who are already breaking state and
federal law arenât going to start taking background checks.
But as you noted, Tom, while no criminal gun or buyer will ever get checked, it
WILL create a database of guns and their owners - which will be useless at
fighting crime, but essential for confiscating guns.
And since Linda Slocum and Dave Pinto have pretty much made it clear thatâs
their goal, letâs cut the pollyanna crap, shall we?
> And denying private ownership of an AR-15 or other "assault"
> weapon is not going after responsible gun owners, either, any more than
> making it illegal to own a machine gun.
Tom, there are between 7 and 10 million AR15s (and 2-3 million AK 47s) in
civilian circulation in this country. The AR15 is used *less* often, per
capita and per piece, than any other firearm - in a typical year, theyâre
involved in a few dozen crimes. Thatâs lower per-capita criminal use than any
other class of weapon.
AR15 owners are *more* responsible than the average gun owner - and the average
gun owner is, conservatively speaking.
Your stance is purely faith-based, an emotional knee-jerk based on slanderously
false information (perhaps from your buddies at Everytown?), and has no basis
in reality.
> Nobody is talking about limiting the ability of people
> to buy a gun for self-defense, notwithstanding all the data that shows
> having a gun in the home is far more dangerous than not--particularly when
> it comes to suicides and children gaining access to those weapons.
There are NO credible stats that show any such thing (suicides and self-defense
are not interconnected in any way).
And yes, Tom - you ARE talking about limiting guns for self-defense. Linda
Slocumâs magazine limits directly affect self-defense. Itâs why police donât
use revolvers anymore. Ask the Mayor.
> But the
> long overdue attempt to regulate what type of firearms may be sold in the
> private market is at most an inconvenience for some; and denying access to
> the kind of firepower that is being used in mass shootings has a chance of
> saving lives.
No, Tom, it does not.
The âassault weapon banâ of 1994 did *nothing* to affect crime rates. Even its
proponents said so. The reason was that âassault weaponsâ are, statistically,
almost never used in crimes. Be honest - none of you can name more than three
crimes where an AR was used, can you?
Up next, Tom shows us why we can never trust Big Left to take care of the
Constitution:
> because the 2nd
> Amendment "right to bear arms" is silent about how many arms a person can
> bear,
Itâs also unclear on how much free speech you can use, how much privacy youâre
entitled to, how much due process - because rights are *rights*, not
entitlement programs.
> and even the conservative SC which ruled the 2nd Amendment applies
> to private citizens made it clear that right is not unlimited and can be
> regulated.
You all keep pointing to Scaliaâs dicta in âHeller vs. DCâ, clearly while never
having read them.
Scaliaâs restrictions involved keeping guns away from felons, and selling
military weapons,
(The AR15 is NOT a military weapon).
Tell you what, though, Tom: why donât you get out in front of a crowd, on
camera, and make sure the whole world knows exactly what you think should be
done, and especially what you seem to think of gun owners. The MN Gun Owners
Caucus could use another burst of members.
Christopher Mitchell, on the other hand, had some good points. Twin Cities
media goes in fits and starts when it comes to honest reporting on the gun
issue; a few years ago, the Pioneer Press did some decent reporting. Iâm going
to guess their current myopia is related to turnover in management, if weâre
being charitable. (to be less charitable, itâd be worth finding out if
theyâre getting any money from the Joyce Foundation, like MPR News has).
Mitch Berg
The Midway