.

Blog: Welcome to the Pro-Gun Party!

If you own a gun, a handgun, a machine gun, any gun that fires bullets—the more the merrier—you’re welcome to the pro-gun party. As long as you remember, there is some danger involved.

Guests include Republicans, Democrats, people from blue states, red states, and criminals everywhere. To a pro-gun advocate, political parties are almost meaningless; the lines are nearly invisible. If you own a gun, a handgun, a machine gun, any gun that fires bullets—the more the merrier—you’re welcome to the party. As long as you remember, there is some danger involved. Other things to remember:

We are not talking about rifles, shotguns, skeet shooting, duck hunting, guns we use to protect domestic livestock, or thinning the herd. We are talking about weapons made to kill people.

Guns are often used in domestic violence against women. Men commit homicide 10 times more often than women. Their targets are often girlfriends, wives, or other female family members. In a fit of jealousy or anger, a man with a gun is a dangerous beast. He probably wasn’t so beastly when he bought the gun. He may have even passed a background check.

Will greater access to guns—handguns, automatic and semi-automatic weapons, larger clips, longer bullets—make women safer? Obviously not! This is not a tea party.

The Harvard School of Public Health reported, “Guns in the home are used more often to frighten intimates than to thwart crime.” I can vouch for the accuracy of that; an overwrought friend of mine once reached into the top drawer of his nightstand and began waving around his Glock handgun, threatening to shoot himself or anyone who tried to disarm him. I am used to being around guns, and so was my friend—there was little to do in such a situation. Sweat.

Most gun owners lack any training in handling or firing a handgun, much less an assault weapon. Most have a license to drive a car, but lack a license to carry. They don’t think a license is necessary. If they can load a gun, pull the trigger, and afford ammunition, they’re ready. I haven’t killed an animal for food in many years, and I never went hunting with a handgun. A handgun in every purse, a holster on every hip scares the hell of me. I’m frightened for my kids, for my wife, for my friend.

The gun party’s primary argument and excuse to carry is self-defense. That argument is not supported by the facts. Domestic violence, accidents, and suicides involving guns are far more numerous than acts of self-defense.

At least, I want to be as safe here as my friends are who live in England, Canada, and Australia. Our rate of gun homicides is exponentially higher than countries with less access to guns than we have. Greater access to guns does not mean greater safety for us.

If the only people with guns are criminals, they will be easier to spot by the people we elect, appoint, and hire to protect us. Enough with the crazies with assault weapons! Enough with handguns! Hire more cops.

We already have too many guns to get rid of, claims the NRA. So, we need more? Gun buybacks in Australia reduced gun violence down under. Why not here? Never happen, says the gun party; we have too many guns to buy back. But we have fought greater battles in our history: enrolling black children in white schools in the south, universal suffrage, electing a black President. We have had bigger challenges, never a better cause. It will take courage for members of Congress. They are afraid, scared they might lose their jobs, but they have no other ethical choice.

We have the magic bullets: our votes.

This post is contributed by a community member. The views expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Patch Media Corporation. Everyone is welcome to submit a post to Patch. If you'd like to post a blog, go here to get started.

tiny February 15, 2013 at 12:36 AM
The tell tale heart of a Liberal. Al Sharpton: "First lf all, if the gov't were to come to disarm you, you would not be able to use an automatic weapon to defend yourself. Let's be serious. We're in a world of drones now so the Second Amendment would not help you in that area. It is absurd to try to cite that". So to him having armed drones over US territory is ok and inevitable, but the 2nd Amendment is worthless.
Jac Flanders February 15, 2013 at 12:48 AM
I get your point, Jay. I'm just not as pesimistic. Perhaps as you have, I've been in one war, and I've been shot at in South Central LA. I'm just naturally suspicious of people walking adound with guns in their hands.
Jay Berman February 15, 2013 at 02:39 AM
Jac, I saw what the result was when a society colapses ... I was 18 and controlled air traffic out of Saigon (or attempted to) April 1975 Operation Frequent Wind ... I saw peole coming out knowing if they didn't get out they would be killed or sent to reducation camps ... left an impression .... I saw the result of the LA riots, saw some rioting too ... I see DHS doing things that make no sense, FEMA growing out of control from an agency that was supposed to help the states deal with disasters too big for the state to handle to an organization building massive camps around the country ... I'm not a conspiracy theorist nbut there is just too much that makes no sense Jac .. I don't understand why the massive spending that just hasn't worked, no budget for so manyyears ... it's almost like they plan on collapsing the dollar .. Bernanke running the presses with QE Whatever .... this can't go on, it can't work, something has to give ... so be prepared ...
tom February 15, 2013 at 02:53 PM
In house violence is normally weapons of opportunity,kitchen knifes frying pans etc. far outnumber guns.also falling down stairs count for large number of deaths.
David H. Cheresh February 15, 2013 at 07:14 PM
JAC:To the contrary, I'm just natirally suspicious of white guys walking around South Central.
David H. Cheresh February 15, 2013 at 07:40 PM
Ms. Mowed: Why are you censoring me? Everything I stated was on-point, and echoes the sentiments of my conservative brethren. You should be watching these off-the-wall libs with their incendiary and offensive posts. Go surfing, please.
tiny February 15, 2013 at 07:50 PM
Did you know Frank Snepp? He was there at the fall of Saigon in 75' and was with the CIA. He taught a summer school class a long time ago at Long Beach State that I took.
David H. Cheresh February 15, 2013 at 08:37 PM
I'm going out right now to purchase three glocks, with a 1,000 rounds of ammo, for me, my wife, and my five-year-old daughter. Our babysitter will NEVER get out of line, huh?
Jac Flanders February 15, 2013 at 10:07 PM
Was that you firing the AK47? When did you get out?
Jay Berman February 16, 2013 at 01:38 AM
Tiny, it was so long ago ... I was with TACRON-1 part of COMPHIBRON we were embarked on the USS Denver LPD-9 ... We also did Eagle Pull and the Maguez incident, both Cambodian ...
Roberto February 16, 2013 at 01:52 AM
Honestly, I don't care what liberals think. Their idealism runs from socialism and communism and in some cases, totaliarism and even anarchy.
David H. Cheresh February 16, 2013 at 02:34 AM
JAY and TINY: When I was in the Army Back in 68-69, I was RESPECTED BY SOME, AND FEARED BY MOST! Yeah, I was a stateside cook at Fort Ord!
Status Quo February 16, 2013 at 03:45 AM
'Jay' @ 4:32 pm on Thursday, February 14, 2013... No my friend, just another strict constructionist conservative - taking refuge in my Rights. My flippant side would retort... "do you know me?". I am a strict-constructionist conservative, not cut in Southern California cloth. I come mainly from two western conservative states, have utmost appreciation for the commercial(Madison's) representative republic we were handed - and generally detest unduly instituted Amendments to our original perfect document limiting the scope of Government in American's lives.
Jasper Downs III February 16, 2013 at 05:42 AM
I thought conservatives believed in a literal reading of the Constitution. "Militia" means the people? Perhaps it means "a militia" as in a State organized force like the National Guard. "Well regulated" means well supplied? Perhaps it means a well trained and disciplined force (in other words, not a bunch of rednecks running around with high powered firearms). Finally, the order of the amendments has nothing to do with their relative importance. The order reflects the section of the Constitution they would've modified had they been incorporated into the text. Good try though ...
tiny February 16, 2013 at 05:53 AM
You were only 18 and it was a big war. I was not ever in the military and so don't know what your codes are. But I think we understand one another idea wise.
Status Quo February 16, 2013 at 06:36 PM
Pg.1 of 2 'Jac's empirical evidence finds the status quo intolerable. The status quo of the Constitution seems an inconvenience to his liking and suggests, that conditions cry for further changes(unduly) to the once perfect document? 'Jac' insists "We are not talking about rifles, shotguns, skeet shooting, duck hunting, guns we use to protect domestic livestock, or thinning the herd. We are talking about weapons made to kill people." True, that in veiled non-sincerity his ilk(reactionaries) is attacking "handguns, automatic and semi-automatic weapons, larger clips, longer bullets" with a false premise of the protection of women in his mental chess-game, while other elements of his ilk attack ammunition and ammunition components in the deprivation of them. The recent military orders for ammunition, have skewed the markets in supply for the consumer or primers, powder and brass momentarily but with opportune timing.
Status Quo February 16, 2013 at 06:43 PM
Pg. 2 Pg. 2 of 3 This two-fold attack of the responsible gun owner community, is a concerted effort of the Liberal ilk for a shift of control from markets. Meant to expedite legislative efforts to undermine the prescribed Rights of Americans to defend themselves and preserve the status quo, rooted in self-reliance and Free Markets... the unwieldy counter-balance achieved over time and more in-line with the Founding Fathers' idea of liming Governments intrusions and overbearing in Americans' lives is an unwritten outcome. However... just the fact that 'Jac' is afraid enough to give up Rights preordained is somehow comforting, identifying him adequately as a proverbial sheep. I was in my secure storage bunker yesterday... rooting and sortin' through fifteen years of collecting and reducing double tools for sale... found a carton of high-end ammunition for my HK USP!!! What joy, I experienced in the find. Originally invested about $14.00 in about 1999... the same box today would be retailed at $36.00-40.00 for a single box. Had I interest in selling the carton, the main consideration would be... who could be in need and responsible enough to own it. Luckily, I I perceive personal need to retain the investment for myself considering the ruminations of 'Jac's ilk. This serendipitous find, reduces my desire to compete with the current market consumers who have come late to the party... not 'Jac's Party of prevarication.
Status Quo February 16, 2013 at 07:11 PM
Pg. 3 with a point, 'Jac's falsely premised Party, he places as entre'... the problematic small percentage of possessors of illegal guns... committers of crime as impetus to limit the hard-fought Rights of Americans. Is it the violence these criminals perpetrate or the lock-step gait of Liberal thought to have Government make a larger footprint on citizen's lives? We understand... the false fronting of the loss of innocent children as a standard and the Liberal drive to use them for their means. We understand... 'Jac's urgency and perceive his fear. This citizen is open to a full "conversation" regarding crime/criminals and relation to gun-control. However your false premise, is of no interest other than simple disparagement of your sheep-like position and Liberal disregard for the precepts and historical importance of the Constitution as our guideline. The bothersome nature of 'Jac's position, his espoused empirical evidence and seeming complicity in media to remain lock-step to the current regime is taken on-face and reasonable to counter in these pages. Many recognize the overbearing and attempt to control American's lives through 'Jac's premise offered. At root, is expanding footprint of Government and the seeming limitless agenda of the Liberal left. If I have incorrectly read 'Jac's position as somewhat Liberal and with a leftist lilt... my apologies sir. Please elucidate, if you have a different view within your premised previous remarks.
Ron Selkovitch February 16, 2013 at 09:10 PM
Be careful David. You are increasing the probability of a domestic tragedy.
David H. Cheresh February 17, 2013 at 05:08 AM
One could quickly die of boredom in this blog, so I'm going to fall on my sword within the minute! It's the only honorable thing to do!
Jay Berman February 17, 2013 at 06:27 PM
Code is simple ... "I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.[1]" That is forever ...
Arthur Spooner February 17, 2013 at 06:56 PM
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Bill Koelzer February 18, 2013 at 06:47 PM
You are so wrong about Snopes. Reader's Digest, the most conservative magazine in the US, wrote a favorable piece on Snopes.com, but Right Wingers, who hate how Snopes fact checks on their lies, naturally denounce Snopes. Yet, ALL the other fact checking sites say that Snopes.com IS legit and DOES tell the truth. These are all the other fact checking sites that agree that snopes is not "controlled by the liberal agenda." http://www.urbanlegends.com/ | http://www.geocities.com/healthbase/anti_quack_sites.html | http://www.truthorfiction.com/ | http://vmyths.com/hoax.cfm So how do you explain Readers Digest and all the COMPETING fact checker sites saying that Snopes.com is legit? Answer? You have been wrong all this time and Snopes IS a reliable source according to far more authoritarian sources than you are.
Bill Koelzer February 18, 2013 at 06:52 PM
TO THOSE WHO DENOUNCE SNOPES.COM'S FACT CHECKING SERVICE... You are so wrong about fact checking site, www.Snopes.com IN FACT, Reader's Digest, the most conservative magazine in the US, wrote a favorable piece on Snopes.com, but Right Wingers, who hate how Snopes fact checks on their lies, naturally denounce Snopes. Yet, ALL the other fact checking sites say that Snopes.com IS legit and DOES tell the truth. These are all the other fact checking sites that agree that snopes is not "controlled by the liberal agenda." http://www.urbanlegends.com/ | http://www.geocities.com/healthbase/anti_quack_sites.html | http://www.truthorfiction.com/ | http://vmyths.com/hoax.cfm So how do you explain Readers Digest and all the COMPETING fact checker sites saying that Snopes.com IS legit? Answer? You who say it is a left-wing tool, have been wrong all this time and Snopes IS a reliable source according to far more authoritarian sources than you are.
Status Quo February 19, 2013 at 05:03 PM
How'd that go for you 'DHC'? Hopefully your honor is intact.
Dan Avery February 19, 2013 at 06:33 PM
There was a time in this country when The Dumb and the Willfully Ignorant worked on assembly lines and wanted nothing more when they got off work other than "Miller Time," a woman with a retarded sense of morality, and a double=wide they could call "home." Then can downsizing, outsourcing, Bush the Second's devaluation of the dollar, and the economic collapse of 2008. Now The Dumb and the Willfully Ignorant are unemployable so they spend their days comment on the Patch. Even when the article deals with topics they know nothing of; they live to spew their ignorance and hatred. They don't use their real names because they claim speaking your mind can be dangerous. Tell that to Martin Luther King, Jr. Malcolm X, Nathan Hale, Thomas Paine... They are cowards and like all cowards they bully if you point out their complete lack of logic. They ruin online communication and any chance we may have had to learn from each other. They will continue to do so until we stand up and shout them down.
David H. Cheresh February 19, 2013 at 08:56 PM
TEXAS A&M DEBATE TOPIC. Be it resolved: If a parsley farmer declares bankruptcy, may we garnish his wages?
David H. Cheresh February 20, 2013 at 12:05 AM
Did Snow Summit ever refund the cost of Chris Dorner's all-day pass for the ski lifts? Heck, he probably could have taken a silver in the giant slalom, don't you think?
Old Sarge April 26, 2013 at 06:10 AM
You can kill a person just as dead with a simple rock as with an assault rock (remember Cain vs. Able). The firearm can only do two things: 1- Function; 2- Malfunction. The firearm in of itself CANNOT kill...it is the PERSON using the firearm that does the killing. Mολων Λαβε
Old Sarge April 26, 2013 at 06:15 AM
Jesse Jackson is an irrelevant racist idiot...as is Al Sharpton.

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something