Emily Got Her Gun

[Neon Gods]

67. And yet those gun control orgs rammed through a[n]..."assault weapon" ban in 2013 in Maryland"

Yes, they did, didn't they. Given the power and reach of the NRA - even in Maryland - and the chance to present testimony to what you claim, the MD lege passed the bill. Maybe there was an overriding reason they felt the need for the law. Texas does their thing, Maryland does our thing. I was not involved.

"I have yet to read of a gun control organization saying such bans are wrong or misguided or should be opposed, just sometimes that they're not practical nationwide "yet" so they're not a priority "for now"."

I do believe some gun control groups would ban future sales of the stereotypical assault weapons if they were a class of their own and banning them would be effective, and that it wouldn't unduly restrict ownership of rifles used primarily for hunting, but experience shows this is not possible. It's a bit like wanting to test all welfare recipients for drugs, it sounds good to the average person, but experience shows it's a waste of time, if not unconstitutional. I merely said that is not where most of their energy is focused at least on the Facebook postings I see (and I see a lot of them).

"If he [the co-worker] were calling a gun dealer to ostensibly buy a gun in order to commit a crime, doesn't that imply that he didn't already own same? "

The co-worker was a gun enthusiast. He wore a NRA jacket to work (at least it had a big NRA log on the back). Of course he was reported to law-enforcement and he freely admitted what he did. He said he called because he was angry and wanted his supervisor to feel threatened. I don't know what, if any punishment was meted out, but I was told a year later that he still had his firearms in his possession.

Did you know that well in excess of 90% of drunk drivers (almost certainly closer to 99%) make it home just fine each time they drive drunk? You must feel incredulous that society puts so much effort into identifying them on the road and ticketing them, and even taking away their driver's license in some cases. How can society justify picking on a class of people who successfully, albeit with little memory of the fact, make their trip from point A to point B with no injuries to themselves or others? Why would we "stereotype" drunk drivers as dangerous when such a small percentage end up injuring or killing others? If you understand this, then maybe you will understand why we're not stereotyping, we are trying to protect ourselves from the small percentage of people who, in certain circumstances, will kill. I'm sure you are aware that the man who shot the three college students in cold blood in Chapel Hill had a concealed carry permit, and that he had threatened them earlier confronting them and raising his shirt so they could see that he was armed, but because he had the permit, the police could do nothing, and the students ended up shot dead. That's dead as in DEAD. Forever.

"...but if your aim is to reduce violent crime and save lives, it seems to me that focusing on those who are not the problem isn't going to help one iota,..."

Okay, but that assumes you, or someone, knows how to identify those who are the problem from those who are not. Of course, those who exhibit severe mental illness and those with a long history of violent crime are easy to spot, but much of the gun violence I read about are like the Chapel Hill shooter, they snap and shoot and kill. How does one identify the Craig Hicks?