Divemedic

The following is an electronic discussion I had with an anti gunner. The topic is the shooting in Tucson and how gun control will help or not help. This is the mentality we are dealing with: (He is in blue, and I am in red)

(note that he says waiting for people to actually break the law before punishing them is reactionary. They should be punished before they get the opportunity to harm others-DM)

Divemedic: We could not be farther apart on this. The Second Amendment and Fourth Amendment both make your suggestions unconstitutional. We are at the middle ground now. Until 1934, it was legal to own whatever you want, including artillery and machine guns. Compromise ended that. Until 1968, it was legal to order guns by mail with no restrictions, including felons. Compromise ended that. No more compromise. Gun control is a failure. 

This post is in response to the laws as they pertain to repossession in Florida. Many of these laws are based upon the UCC, but since I am not aware of the laws of every state, your mileage may vary. This is my (non lawyer) opinion of what the law says. As usual, my advice is worth what you paid for it.

In Florida, statute 493.6118 prohibits a repossession agent from carrying a weapon:

9. Carrying any weapon or firearm when he or she is on private property and performing duties under his or her license whether or not he or she is licensed pursuant to s. 790.06.

In response to my post about SB234, I received the following Email: (all spelling errors are his)

I wonder with the recent shooting in Tuscon will these bill to be meet so hard times in becoming law? I love guns and shooting for pleasure and would like to take up hunting for boar and turkey for hobby in the near future but, I dont have a need to sling on my 6 shooter and walk down the street. The time of tumble weeds and horse drawn carriages are gone, the need for a weapon is now purely hooby intent.

Here was the reply I sent to him:

The shooting in AZ appears as if it will have very little effect, as most Americans realize that the shooter was a mentally unbalanced drug abuser, and was already prohibited from owning a firearm. This shooting is a statistical aberration, and is not an indictment of all gun owners. It is unlikely to have a great effect on this legislation. The shooter in the recent AZ case is the exact reason why I (and many others) carry a weapon, because no matter how many restrictions you put on gun ownership, criminals will ignore those laws and get guns anyway. In the case of SB234, the question is not whether or not citizens should own or carry firearms, as that has already been settled in Florida, but whether or not a citizen who is already permitted to carry a weapon concealed may also carry that same weapon unconcealed.
I disagree with your assertion that the ownership of firearms is restricted to being a hobby. There are those who could just as likely claim that in this time of easy food availabilty there is no need to go into the woods and blow away defenseless animals. Firearms are a tool, no more, no less. The fact is that private citizens use firearms to defend themselves millions of times a year, many times without firing a shot. I am not alone in this opinion, as even the Supreme Court of the United States is in agreement (see District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S.; 128 S. Ct. 2783; 171 L.Ed.2d 637 (2008)) “The Court concluded that the prefatory clause [of the second amendment] described the purpose of codifying the [second] Amendment, which was “to prevent elimination of the militia” by taking away citizens’ arms. Self-defense, however, remained the “central component” of the [second] Amendment.”
The canard of the “wild west” is a fallacy that was brought about by fantasy fiction. The “wild west” was much tamer that today, and shootings were almost unheard of. Cities and towns in the west frequently went years without a single shooting. Even the infamous “OK Corral” shootout scandalized and shocked America when it was reported.
Using vitriolic rhetoric is not a way to make a logical argument. Using terms like “sling on my six shooter” and “tumble weeds and horse drawn carriages” does not advance the debate, nor does it bolster your argument. If you would like to talk about this based on facts, and not emotion, I would be happy to debate facts with you.

 Regardless of what the media will have you believe, guns are not a statistically significant cause of death in the United States. From the 2007 CDC National Vital Statistics report: (2007 is the latest year available to me)
The top ten causes of death account for 79% of all deaths in the US: 

1. Diseases of heart (heart disease)
2. Malignant neoplasms (cancer)
3. Cerebrovascular diseases (stroke)
4. Chronic lower respiratory diseases
5. Accidents (unintentional injuries)
6. Alzheimer’s disease
7. Diabetes mellitus (diabetes)
8. Influenza and pneumonia
9. Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome and nephrosis (kidney disease)
10. Septicemia
11. Intentional self-harm (suicide)
12. Chronic liver disease and cirrhosis
13. Essential hypertension and hypertensive renal disease (hypertension)
14. Parkinson’s disease
15. Assault (homicide) (less than .8% of all deaths)

The fact is, life expectancy in the US has been increasing. There are plenty of intrusive laws that would save more lives than gun control. Outlaw fatty foods, salt, tobacco, artificial foodstuffs, sugar, sweets of any kind, cars, alcohol, pointy objects, tall buildings, and then talk about guns. Perhaps we could outlaw obesity.

In 2007, 31,224 persons died from firearm injuries in the United States, accounting for 17.1 percent of all injury deaths that year. 55.6% of these deaths were suicides. Gun control would not prevent suicide, unless you also outlaw sleeping pills, tall buildings, and any other means by which a person could take his or her own life. 

Homicides are statistically insignificant at less than 1% of all deaths, especially if you are not part of the at risk demographic of being an African-American (5.7 African Americans were murdered for every Caucasian.) drug dealing male (3.8 males were murdered for every female) gang member between the ages of 15 and 25, who has never been married. That demographic accounts for nearly one quarter of all firearm homicides in the United States. Perhaps we could outlaw drug dealers, gangs, males, or African Americans. (<—That is SARCASM for those of you unfamiliar with the term.)

Even at that, firearms only accounted for 40.5% of all homicides. Overall, the rate of death by assault is only 6.1 per 100,000 for all demographics, and less than 5 per 1,000,000 for Non-Hispanic Caucasians. This small number is likely greatly decreased if you are not a drug dealer or a gang member.

A total of 38,371 persons died of drug-induced causes. This category includes not only deaths from dependent and nondependent use of legal or illegal drugs, but also poisoning from medically prescribed and other drugs. Perhaps we could outlaw drugs, or at least control access to them. Oh wait, we already do that.

I went to the shooting range yesterday. While I was there, I had a discussion with the clerk about SB234. For those of you who are unaware, SB234 changes Florida’s laws concerning firearms and weapons in the following way: (full text of the bill here)

1. People with a license to carry a concealed weapon will be exempt from Florida’s prohibition against the open carrying of weapons. In essence, a Concealed Weapons permit will become a Weapons Permit.
2. Colleges and Universities are no longer off limits to Permit Holders  (Removed by an amendment to the bill)
3. 790.28, the statute allowing the purchase of Rifles and Shotguns in contiguous states requires that such purchases comply with Federal law and the laws of both the state of Florida and the state where the sale takes place. SB 234 would remove the requirement for such a sale to comply with Florida law, as long as the purchaser is subject to a NICS check.

When I mentioned this to the staff at Reig’s Guns, the clerk responded by saying that this was a scary proposition, that College students would have the legal ability to bring guns to school. I pointed out that I am a college student, and asked why I should have the ability to defend myself with a firearm everywhere I go, except college. Does crossing an imaginary line to enter College campus make me immune from attack, or is it that I somehow become less trustworthy?

I patronize Reig’s, because they are more firearm friendly than the Oak Ridge Gun Range, which prohibits customers with loaded weapons, even customers who are carrying concealed with a permit. I used to spend a large amount of money in the Oak Ridge store, until they discovered that I was carrying a weapon and berated me for it. Reig’s Gun Shop has a sign that says, “No loaded weapons allowed inside, except for concealed weapons. Remember that concealed means concealed.”

Seriously, you work at a gun store. How can you be so obtuse when it comes to guns and gun rights? Are there any gun stores that respect your rights? How can a gun store support gun owners, and talk about how gun owners are a trusty bunch, and then turn around and hypocritically ban them in their store?

I am in school, and I have been tasked with writing a paper about public policy. Here is the assignment:

The first step in the policymaking process is the identification of a problem. While many problems exist in society today, only those for which people desire government action can lead to public policies. Furthermore, Professor Aaron Wildavsky has observed, “A problem is a problem only if something can be done about it”. With this in mind, interest groups work to bring about government action on their pet issues and often have specific proposals for legislation (the “something” to be done about the perceived problem). However, for particularly controversial issues, how the “problem” is defined by various interest groups can vary significantly. Anderson points out that when there is disagreement over the definition of a problem or the remedies for it, the likelihood of action is reduced.
Choose one of the controversial issues below and examine how different interest groups define the problem. How do the groups define the problem? Are the definitions different? What remedies does each group propose? Do the groups disagree over the correct remedy for the problem, and if so, how? Has the disagreement of the groups prevented the government from instituting policies in the subject area? If you were a policymaker, what kind of policy would you try to enact after hearing each side, and why?

Here is the issue I have chosen:

Gun Control
The website for the National Rifle Association, the largest gun owners’ interest group in the US.
The website for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, one of the leading gun-control groups.

This ought to be good.

One of my pet peeves is the poor language skills displayed by people on a daily basis. Confusing words like “your” and “you’re.” The proper use of apostrophes also seems to elude many. Contrary to what some people seem to think, an apostrophe does not mean, “Look out! There is an ‘s’ coming!”

This is not limited to the general public. People who make their living through the English language lack knowledge of the toolbox of their profession. A good example of this is this story, in which it is reported:

Most of the fish were mullet, ladyfish and catfish, and not the valuable sporting fish called snook that died in mass during a cold spell last year.

 The phrase is not “in mass,” which would imply that they died during worship services in a Catholic Church, but rather “en masse,” meaning that they died in a group. Also, there should be a comma following the word “ladyfish.”

 Also, I would point out to all that:

“Your” is possessive, as in “Is this your blog?” , while “you’re” is the contraction of “you are”
Possessive pronouns like “its” “Yours” “his” and “hers” do not get an apostrophe.
“Breath” is the word that rhymes with “death” and is a noun, as in: “He has bad breath.”
“Breathe” is the word that rhymes with “seethe” and is a verb, as in: “He is choking and cannot breathe.”

I was looking at my hit counter and noticed a hit from another blog, a Disney related one. I decided to mosey on over there and take a look. Here was the opening paragraph from the most recent post:

The bag checks at the entrance to each of Disney World’s theme parks makes me feel good.  I enjoy knowing that my (and your) safety is top concern.  For this reason I do not scoff or eye roll upon entering the bag check.  I am ready as soon as I walk up to the gates.  I thank the security guards and make my way to the magic. 

The post went on to describe how to be courteous to your fellow visitors and get through the bag check by being polite to the security people as the search through your belongings, and ended with this paragraph:

Raise your right hand.  I’ll wait. Good, now repeat after me 🙂

I promise to get it together before I get to the bag check.

I will have my bag ready for inspection.

I won’t be impatient. Instead I’ll wait my turn and appreciate my safety is taken seriously.
I will repack at the repacking table, even if I have a mega super Swiss Army style bag.
Going through the bag check keeps Disney World safe. Be kind to the security guards. Thank them. Think of how many bags they go threw each day be patient and let them do their job! They are actually very sweet!

I left a comment that said:

The bag checks do not make Disney safe, they simply are there to make people FEEL safe. There is a lot of crime at Disney. They are just very good at controlling the dissemination of information. For example: There was an armed robbery at EPCOT center where the robber caught employees entering a backstage area with a large amount of cash. He got away with over $20,000.


There were several rapes in the Magic Kingdom employee parking lot in 2003. More than one Disney employee has been arrested for pedophilia related charges.


Disney is not alone. The other parks have similar issues. Theme parks are a target rich environment for criminals. The large amounts of cash carried by tourists, combined with the lack of situational awareness that being on vacation spawns, and this is a field day for criminals looking to prey on easy targets.


For that reason, I use my concealed weapons permit to legally carry a pistol every single time I am on Disney property. Before you freak out, remember this: A person who has been fingerprinted and passed an FBI background check to legally secure a weapons permit is not the guy that you have to worry about shooting up the place.

 My comment was deleted. So much for reasoned discourse, eh?