60 Minutes Concealed Carry Segment

Share Button


I watched the 60 Minutes special report on the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act last Sunday (February 11, 2018). Superficially, it looked good: reasonably balanced interviews with articulate people on both sides, all of it hosted and narrated by Steve Kroft, earnestly doing his best to appear impartial. And no matter what, it certainly was a step up from Katie Couric’s so-called “Under the Gun” documentary in which footage was deliberately and unethically edited to misrepresent the Virginia Citizens Defense League (a pro-gun group) to make them look both stupid and dishonest. So progress is being made—to an extent.

In case you are unfamiliar with the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act (also known as House Bill 38), it is bill that would amend Title 18 of the United States Code so that all states would be required to recognize the validity of concealed carry licenses from other states and allow license holders to carry handguns from one state to another, across state lines, without fear of prosecution. Right now, each state has its own, frequently conflicting, laws, and some states have conflicting regulations from city to city, resulting, as Steve Kroft himself put it, in a confusing hodgepodge of contradictory laws. The bill has passed through Congress, and now languishes, waiting to be brought to a vote in the Senate.

The people on the pro-gun side were Tim Schmidt, founder and CEO of the US Concealed Carry Association, and Representative Richard Hudson, Republican, of North Carolina. On the anti-gun, anti-HR Bill 38 side were Robyn Thomas, Executive Director of the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, Cyrus Vance, New York District Attorney for Manhattan, and James O’Neill, New York City Police Commissioner. There were also some sound bites from other people on either side.

Let me give you a quick rundown of what was presented.

Robyn Thomas accurately stated that passing this bill would allow a concealed carry license holder to carry a sidearm into metropolitan areas in other states that might have far more stringent laws. She cited Los Angeles and San Francisco, two California cities where concealed carry licenses are automatically denied, regardless of circumstances, except in the cases of the very wealthy and/or well-connected who have the clout to transcend the law. But what Ms. Thomas did not mention, is that to obtain a concealed carry license, even in the most gun-friendly state in the nation, Arizona, a complete and thorough background check is conducted, one that goes well above and beyond the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). Nor did Steve Kroft point that out, nor was anyone on the pro-gun side given a chance to point that out. Why that omitted detail is important—apart from the obvious reasons—will become clear.

Cyrus Vance and Police Commissioner O’Neill boiled their argument down to “more guns equals more violence.” They also, according to Steve Kroft, are worried specifically about more suicides, even though countless studies have shown that guns no more cause suicide than spoons cause obesity.

Vance and O’Neill have formed a coalition of prosecutors and police chiefs, from nearly every big city in America, to lobby senators to vote against the bill. Representative Hudson, when confronted with the list of cities across America whose police chiefs oppose this potential change in the law, graciously put it down to differences in opinion by “good people” on both sides. Again, I will return to “more guns equals more violence” and to the question of police chiefs in major metropolitan areas shortly.

When Representative Hudson said the licenses should be treated the way drivers’ licenses are treated, Steve Kroft responded with an argument that is often used as a specious comparison to gun ownership, namely that to obtain a driver’s license, one must pass a test demonstrating proficiency as a driver, knowledge of the law, and establish that you’re not going endanger other people. (That last one is highly questionable and open to debate, but I’ll let it go.) Rep. Hudson, to his everlasting credit, pointed out that driving is a privilege; the right to self defense is just that, a right, protected and ensured by the Constitution. Car ownership and driving are not.

Robyn Thomas denied the right to carry a gun outside the home on the grounds that the Supreme Court has not specifically ruled on that aspect of the Second Amendment. I would argue that the word “bear,” as in the phrase “the right of the people to keep and bear arms…” has meant “to carry” for over 1000 years (Beowulf is the first written example cited by the Oxford English Unabridged Dictionary), so anything the Supreme Court might or might not say about the matter is largely moot. Tim Schmidt pointed this out, albeit in different, more politic words.

Rep. Hudson also pointed out that both gun ownership and concealed carry license holders have increased exponentially over the last two decades, even as violent crime numbers have dropped to historic lows. Which brings me to the most dishonest portion of this program.

First, Steve Kroft presented the argument that states with highly restrictive or draconian gun laws have lower violent crime rates than states with lax gun laws, in other words, “more guns equals more crime.” And, superficially, if you choose only to look at selected data, that is somewhat correct. (It is not true of all states.) But what Mr. Kroft either did not know, or chose not to reveal, is that all of the studies that purport to prove this have neglected to remove drug distribution centers from the equation. Take Arizona as an example of a state with the most relaxed gun laws in the nation: if you look at the violent crime statistics for the state, it’s not as bad as some, but it’s not good. It has almost the exact same rate of violent crime as California, a state where both gun ownership and concealed carry are extremely difficult and getting more so every day. I could make an argument that the similarity in crime stats doesn’t speak well for draconian gun laws, but anti-gun advocates present it as proof that guns do not have an effect on reducing crime.

But now take Phoenix out of the equation. Phoenix and Tucson are both drug distribution centers, where Mexican cartels funnel their products through to other parts of the country. No Democrat will ever admit it, but drugs equals gangs equals violence regardless of gun laws, and if you remove Phoenix from the equation, Arizona becomes one of the safest and most peaceful places on earth.

And now we come to Milwaukee Police Chief Edward Flynn. Dave Workman, senior editor at The Second Amendment Foundation’s publication, The Gun Mag (www.thegunmag.com), reminded me of Chief Flynn’s reaction a few years ago to Wisconsin’s right-to-carry law: “My message to my troops is if you see anybody carrying a gun on the streets of Milwaukee, we’ll put them on the ground, take the gun away, and then decide whether you have a right to carry it.” Keep that reaction in mind, and remember that it is a violation of both the Law Enforcement Oath of Honor, the oath to “support and maintain the Constitution and laws of the United States,” and the established legal principle of innocent until proven guilty, so one might question why 60 Minutes would have put such a thug on the air in the first place. But since they did, here is Chief Flynn’s comment, carefully aired near the very end of the segment so it would remain in viewers’ minds:

“Every year since that law was passed in 2011, every year, nonfatal shootings have gone up, gun related homicides have gone up, and the number of guns seized from the streets by our department has gone up, that’s what our cockamamie law has done here.”

Passionate stuff. What’s wrong with it?

Police chiefs, unlike sheriffs, are political appointees. Does it strike you as odd that former Milwaukee Sheriff David Clarke’s every utterance about firearms and crime is diametrically opposed to Police Chief Flynn’s? That’s because Sheriff Clarke was elected by the people of Milwaukee County, and was answerable only to them.

Police Chief Flynn, as a political appointee, like every other major metropolitan police chief, has a very different agenda. Every word of his, and every action he takes, is intended to reflect the wishes of the men and women (he is appointed by the Mayor and the City Council) who gave him his job. Milwaukee is a Democrat stronghold. In fact, Milwaukee has been run by Democrats for more than a century, except for a few years when it was controlled by Socialists. (I’m not making that up.) Name a Democrat in office today who is pro-gun. Now name a major metropolitan area in the United States that is not run by a Democrat government. All those Democrat-run cities appoint their chiefs of police. For a good example of how the mayoral-police chief relationship works, or not, read LA Noir, by John Buntin, a brilliant and eminently readable history of the police force of Los Angeles, CA.

But beyond the liberal leanings of the Milwaukee Mayor and the city council, and beyond Chief Flynn having to lick the hands that feed him, listen to his words again: “Every year since that law was passed in 2011, every year, nonfatal shootings have gone up, gun-related homicides have gone up, and the number of guns seized from the streets by our department has gone up, that’s what our cockamamie law has done here.”

The words may or may not be true (I haven’t done the research), but it would be just as accurate and just as meaningful if Chief Flynn had stated: “Every year since the residents of Milwaukee switched from cable to satellite TV, every year, nonfatal shootings have gone up, gun-related homicides have gone up, and the number of guns seized from the streets by our department has gone up, that’s what the switch from cable to satellite has done here.”

Two events that occur simultaneously are not necessarily related, Mr. Flynn.

What about causation? Have drug-related arrests gone up or down in that same period? Is there a greater or lesser gang/cartel presence in Milwaukee since the law was enacted? Were the nonfatal shootings committed by concealed carry license holders? Were the gun-related homicides committed by concealed carry license holders? Were the guns seized from misbehaving concealed carry license holders?

To answer the last three hypothetical questions, government studies and independent studies have both shown that, as a group, the approximately 16-million concealed carry license holders in America are more law abiding than the general public. That should hardly be surprising, seeing how thoroughly they are checked and vetted and investigated before being issued a license. Want another factoid? Studies have also shown that concealed carry license holders commit fewer violent crimes than police officers.

Chief Flynn might want to cogitate on that fact before railing against the law-abiding citizens of his city. And the senators being lobbied by Mr. Vance and Mr. O’Neill might want to cogitate on it too.

Share Button

39 thoughts on “60 Minutes Concealed Carry Segment”

  1. Well written. It is too bad that this was so onesided. I don’t know why people think those who own guns are crazy or something, when you pointed out that gun owners go through a background check. I don’t know what the beef is with guns because you can kill with many things, rocks, vases, lamps, letter openers. I read that in China a man ran over an elementary school in a bulldozer. And another one knifed several people (including kids) before he was overtaken. I mean really guns are a relatively new piece of warfare in this world &crime still ran on even in the ancient times.

  2. Wären ein Umdenken für schärfere und einheitliche Waffengesetze, sowie einheitliche Kontrollen doch sinnvoll , damit, wie zum Beispiel bei den aktuellen furchtbaren Ereignisse in Florida, das so nicht passiert kann ….

    1. Es wäre sinnvoll zu überlegen für strengere Kontrollen und Waffengesetz , dass das, wie aktuell in Florida nicht so einfach passiert….

    2. My German is no longer good enough for me to express what I wish to say in German, but the problem is that gun laws only control the tool, not the person who commits the crime. In the case of drugs and gangs, it is easy to identify the people involved and, if federal and local governments had the will, to control that problem through a re-thinking of drug laws, one way or the other. In the case of the unspeakable tragedy in Florida, it appears, as it too often does, that the shooter had given all kinds of signs and clues that he had psychiatric issues, yet no one wanted to be the one to step forward and report him to the authorities. And no politician wants to enter the hornet’s nest of mental health and privacy laws. The kind of control and discipline that my generation grew up with seems to have been replaced with smart phones and texting, social media and video games, where the player can pretend to kill and maim and misbehave however he wants. It is not and never is the tool; it’s the person behind the tool.

      1. Entschuldigen Sie bitte, weil mein Englisch so schlecht ist und ich in Deutsch schreibe …..Danke für Ihre Antwort, die ich sehr schätze und auch gut verstehen kann … Gott schütze Sie.

      2. I am also from Germany. I think there (in USA) should be more than these gun laws if they just control the tool. Here in Germany we are not frightened about shootings in schools or somewhere else. Because we have no guns. They are not legal and so it is very very seldom that someone get shot.
        I am not that person who says forbid all weapons. That never would work. But I have one question. Why is it legal to buy gun mashines? And for what do a private person need a gun mashine???


        1. ….nein Angst um eine Schießerei an einer Schule in Deutschland müssen wir weniger haben….zum Glück und Gott sei Dank ist dies äußerst selten, dass das hier vorkommt ….aber auch hier bei uns in Deutschland gibt es viel zu viel kriminelle Energie, im Moment sind Messerangriffe zu oft zu hören…man kann nicht in den Kopf eines Menschen hinein sehen, wie er/sie tickt…auf deine beiden Fragen weiß ich wahrscheinlich leider auch keine korrekte Antwort…. ich denke die Waffen werden im eigentlichem Sinne verantwortungsvoll als Selbstschutz und Selbstverteidigung genutzt und die Gesetze geben es in den USA her…..in Deutschland undenkbar….

        2. Sue, that is a reasonable question and I will do my best to answer it.
          Without getting too technical, the semi-automatic rifle used in the school shooting is not a machine gun. The word “semi” implies that the trigger must be pulled for each bullet to be fired; it is more accurate to call such a rifle “self-loading.” True machine guns, which are fully automatic, are very strictly controlled in America. It is possible for a private citizen to own one, but only with a special, very expensive license that takes a long time to get, and there are very few of those in private hands, none of which, to my knowledge, have ever been used in a crime.
          The self-loading rifle used in the Florida school shooting is the same rifle that was used in the Nevada shooting, and the same rifle used in the Texas church shooting. It is also the same rifle which a private citizen used to bring an end to the Texas church shooting, so I would emphasize that it is not the tool, but the person behind the tool who determines whether it is used for good or for ill.
          Why would anyone want a self-loading rifle? For the same reasons that police routinely carry them nowadays: they are highly accurate; they can reach out accurately farther than a handgun; they are easy to control; and–believe it or not–the bullet an AR15 fires (5.56mm or .223) is less likely to pass through the target or a wall and injure someone else unintentionally. Ladies, in particular, find them much easier to shoot than handguns, largely because of the much lower recoil. They are extremely fun to shoot at a range, and while I would never use one for hunting big game such as deer (the bullet is too small) they are very useful on farms and ranches to control predators and the ubiquitous wild pigs that do so much damage and cost farmers so much money.
          One last comment: it is horrible when such a tragedy occurs, just as it is horrible when an Islamic terrorist drives his car down a sidewalk and kills dozens of pedestrians. But just as there are many millions of safe and responsible drivers who would never dream of deliberately injuring anyone, so too there are millions of semi-automatic rifles in households all across America, and the number of them used in criminal acts is microscopic compared to the numbers that are used safely and responsibly. It’s never the tool; it is always the person behind the tool, and in this case, it appears from the early news reports that any additional blame should be assigned to the FBI who were apparently warned about this man and did not follow up on finding him.
          I hope this helps answer your question.

  3. I have a suggestion where you should conceal your gun Mr. Parker. Straight up your right wing nutter ass. When it’s about half way up, pull the fucking trigger and make the world a better place. The sooner the NRA pigs like you die, the sooner we can evolve as a society. The only thing America has that other countries do not, five guns for every man, woman and child. Go straight to hell, and rot in your grave clutching your guns, the blood of those children is on your hands as one of the scum bags who spout all the above garbage.

      1. JP, Someone like that person, would think NRA is responsible for those teenagers deaths. Of course they are not!!!! Chicago has very strict guns laws. Look at all the murders that occur there. The hunters are suppose to understand why far left doesn’t want guns. But far left never wants to listen to the importance of gun rights to the hunter. Both don’t want school shooting happen. I worked at both elementary and Jr High schools and anyone can basically walk right in. They were even aware of this kid and had security at the school and still didn’t help. Melissa

      2. The above commenter, he or she would qualify as the other extreme, the opposite side of your coin JP. May I indulge myself, and take up for both of you? As a fellow gun owner, having a shotgun and a pistol at this very moment less than 5 feet from me, I would say I would be counted as one of the safe gun owners you speak of. I’ve never taken them up in anger or delusion. But the angry person above gives me pause, because as a former NRA card carrying member, and someone who took hunter’s safety in high school, what have I done to help fix the problem we have today? Do I have a bit of that blood on my hands too? I must cop to a bit of anger myself, and it is directed at folks like myself, my friends, and it would include you JP, because the argument you keep making is very much what they are all making. It’s one I would have made. You say that a gun is only a tool. Well, in some respect, that’s true. But in a larger sense, it’s B.S. because it is not a tool, we don’t pound nails with them, and we don’t fix things. A gun is made to kill, and that is it’s primary purpose since the first inception of guns. A gun is not a tool, it is a weapon, and an instrument of death. You do a bit of a bait -n- switch by calling it a tool, because it sounds better. It was made to kill, not it’s sole purpose, but it is it’s primary one, and it’s intended one until sometime in the last couple hundred years we moved on to killing animals for sport, and shooting cans because we were bored. And the objective of many years of refinements has to make them more effective in that purpose of killing. More efficient, and lethal has been it evolutionary track.

        So let us examine that analogy further, and see if it holds water. The weapon is not the problem, it is those who wield it. True. But awfully and utterly wrong as a defense of guns. Guns kill efficiently, and wholly more lethal than your stated car/truck scenario of ISIS using it in a crowd. Or my dear friend Jacob, who said much the same today. “They’ll just take knives, or sticks, or bombs, or (insert whatever you like).” Yes, they would, that is what a killer would resort to, congrats, you have won the argument. Wait, no. If they take any other weapon, who’s primary purpose was not designed to efficiently and effectively kill, and put me in a school, or a kitchen 10 feet away, and I’ll take my chances with the knife, or a stick. My survival chances have increased exponentially without a firearm in the equation. I can run away from a knife. I can get stabbed and live. I can get a bad bruise from a stick and laugh about it later. The fallacy in equating the destructive power of modern weapons with knives, clubs, trucks, or even bombs which are far less practical, is not an argument, it’s a diversion. Let’s not ignore 6739 gun incidents last year, 1859 deaths. It’d be a hard math problem to quantify how many less we’d have if we started to restrict access to guns in meaningful ways, but for the sake of argument, and to head off your response I’ll say 2 less kids die. Just two. And then I’ll say, we’ve done something, and it was worth it. Continuing to do nothing is sick. Continuing to pretend we don’t have a gun problem is sick. To continue on the “from my cold dead hands” mentality, and refuse to give an inch is sick. To do as you have, and many of my friends have, arguing the “slippery slope”, (I read back on this blog) when the subject of checks on the mentally ill was raised as an idea, well, it put’s some of those kid’s blood on you hands as the commenter above so grossly stated. That’s straight from the NRA handbook, who buys their politicians at the same store as big pharma, and big tobacco, and the like.

        To keep making the same tired arguments means we keep having said argument. We have plenty of necessary safe guards in place that we accept, and we must find a path to a safer society. I can’t drive a tank to work every morning, because, well, rules. I promise to stay in my lane and everything! Nope. Can’t do it, because reasonable people came up with reasonable guidelines for how our society can work. Yes, we have plenty of gun laws, but they are inadequate, and clearly not working. Please spare me those arguments, because it is also the fact we have 300 million guns at the ready. They are literally everywhere. They are at the ready for any domestic or normal argument that escalates, within easy reach when things get heated, and maybe only a punch get’s thrown if there is no gun. They are on dad’s shelf when junior is sick of the bullying he is getting at school. There are 100’s of them on every corner in Chicago, because they are easier to get than proper mental health care in this country. There are weapons that can fire at wholly astonishing rates and be reloaded with clips that can hold many, many rounds. Because they are fun. Because. They. are. Fun. Let that sink in. We are trading the lives of children, because we think it’s fun to mow down targets on a range.

        You know how we lose your right to bear arms? Keep being “that guy”. Keep saying “not one inch”. Keep pretending there is nothing we can do. That is when the draconian laws will come, because society is going to demand we drop all guns to the bottom of the sea. That would fix things in a pretty meaningful way, and lessen the deaths by an awful lot. We will still have crazy, and there will still be murders, but not at such an awful rate, and the tipping point is here. We need to have the tough conversations we haven’t been willing to have, or it’s going to be had by people who govern like I draw (for crap). I’ll give up my guns today to bring back any one of those sweet kids of Florida, or the kids of the next tragedy. Go ahead and call me a fool, but I can’t keep seeing the faces and pretend I’m helpless.

        1. Guns have nothing to do with killing children. And giving up your guns will not being it then back. Also some one could have neutralized the threat but you can’t have guns on schools. Also the world from ancient times has had its share of murders long before guns were used as a weapon. Also there is a difference between killing and murder, a huge diffetence. There are many effective ways to murder people, you can murder with a hammer, a nail gun,. I would suggest you take a look at ancient warfare, you might be suprised.

        2. Unlike the person with the anger management problems above, you have clearly given this some thought and you have refrained from threats, obscenities, and name calling. I thank you for that. Let me see if I can address some of the issues you raised.
          I’ll cop to more than just a bit of anger; I’ll cop to a lot of anger, most of it toward the shooter, some toward both the FBI and local law enforcement, if the reports of multiple warnings being ignored are true. I’ll also cop to a hell of a lot of sadness as well. Like you, I would happily give up my guns if it would bring those children back and ease the horrible pain of those poor parents. Unfortunately, it won’t.
          But the argument “if it saves just one life…” works both ways. Even the most conservative study of legitimate (i.e. justified, legal, and effective) defensive gun use (defined not as just the firing of a gun, but also a situation where the presence of a gun either ended or prevented a life-threatening scenario) found approximately ten times more lives saved by guns every year than are taken by every form of firearms-related homicide combined: murder, justified homicide, police shooting, accidental shooting, suicide. More realistic studies put the estimate much, much higher: one as high as thirty times (if I’ve done my math correctly, which is always questionable); another higher still. So where is the greater benefit—in law-abiding citizens having guns and being able to protect themselves, or in an unarmed populace? The violent crime rate in Great Britain would suggest an unarmed populace does not work. And all the research shows that legal gun owners commit a statistically negligible number of crimes. Two of the worst shootings in American history appear to have been exceptions to that rule (Nevada, and this school shooting), but punishing the innocent to pay for the sins of the guilty smacks too much of the Argentinean “disappearances” during their junta.
          Like you, I have never picked up a gun in anger or delusion, nor do I intend to. On the other hand, some people, like the angry person above, clearly have anger management problems and should not own guns. But how do we determine the who-should-who-shouldn’t? You said that guns are easier to come by than mental health care, and I agree with that. The problem then becomes one of balancing individual liberty and mental health. If a “slippery slope” means a return to the days when people could be involuntarily committed on very shaky grounds indeed, then I would fight against it. Have you ever read the truly horrifying autobiographical (I think) account of the movie star Frances Farmer’s involuntary incarceration, one that was, even by the standards of her day, completely uncalled for? That’s an example of the slippery slope I wish to avoid. Some years later, if I have my facts right, then California Governor Ronald Reagan signed into law a “patients’ bill of rights” that resulted in a flood of mentally ill people on the streets and in the state’s prisons, precisely because there was insufficient care available outside the state system. Two years later, he reversed himself, and the trend gradually reversed. As president, Reagan repealed Jimmy Carter’s federal Mental Health Systems Act, pushing the responsibility for the mentally ill back to the states, which is where it should be, IF the states could be relied upon to fulfill their mandate. Some did, but some didn’t, or possibly couldn’t, because federal funds declined, but no matter which state, there was and still is insufficient care available. And that is pretty much where we are today.
          The point is that this is an extremely complex issue with stacks of all the unforeseen consequences and minutia and potential for abuse that ride attendant on every issue. All that must be worked out.
          I disagree with you about the NRA, which has a specific mandate that they very properly try to adhere to. However, you said two things I couldn’t agree with more, and I salute you. “We need to have the tough conversations we haven’t been willing to have.” Absolutely! That conversation should include mental health care, possibly additional funding for law enforcement, drugs (though that doesn’t appear to have been a factor is this particular atrocity), the effect and the responsibility of social media, and well-trained armed teachers and/or administrators in our schools. Please write your congressman and tell him that; even more, use your Constitutional franchise to compel him to have that conversation. You also asked, “What have I done to help fix the problem we have today?” Your comments, your concern about the issue, your willingness to take the time to express those concerns, your thinking about the issues and trying to come to grips with them, those are all a start, and kudos to you. Yes, you are right, none of us have done enough, but perhaps by having civilized conversations—and holding our representatives’ feet to the fire with dialogue and our votes—we can accomplish something.
          I will try to make some intelligent suggestions in my next blog, but there are far better heads than mine out there who need to weigh in as well, with open minds and open hearts.
          Thank you.

          1. Herr Parker, Sie müssen sich für NICHTS rechtfertigen und auch keine Wut von anderen auf sich nehmen und müssen dies auch nicht dulden auch, wenn sich das andere wünschen würden ….NEIN !!!! …. da sie an nichts Schuld sind, sie haben diesen Abzug an der Waffe nicht betätigt, sondern ein geisteskranker abartig böser Mensch. Sie benutzen Ihre Waffen verantwortungsvoll und kontrolliert und diszipliniert. Lassen Sie die Boshaftigkeit anderer bitte nicht an sich heran….viele Grüße Manuela

          2. What?? Arm the teachers? That’s not compromise, that is doubling down on the insanity. Your answer is more guns. That is precisely the “my cold dead hands” mentality that means we keep doing this. You don’t want compromise or meaningful dialog, you want to rearrange the chairs on the deck of the Titanic whilst the band plays.

      3. JP, Thanks for giving us an example of the kind of fowl mouth garbage you get, “well reasoned” and offensive as it is. Looks to be just more proof that the real bigots and knuckle draggers are the hoplophobes. They seem to be by far most violent and dangerous too.

        1. Maybe, If someone at the school had a gun some of the teenagers would still be alive. Do I think every single teacher shouldn have a gun no. But some other type of plan needs to be looked at.

    1. ….wüste Beschimpfungen und persönliche Beleidigungen sind wenig geeignet und auch nicht zielführend für eine vernünftige Diskussion/Debatte, um vielleicht zu einem Ergebnis/ Lösung zu kommen und ehrlich gesagt finde ich es ziemlich unzivilisiert ….. Grüße aus Deutschland …Manuela…

    2. ….und außerdem sollte ein respektvoller Umgang (in Wort/Schrift oder Tat) der Grundstein für ein vernünftiges Miteinander der Menschheit sein !!!! …..Mal bitte Nachdenken Anonymous !!!!….. Manuela

    3. This letter is the greatest proof why the 2nd Amendment and the right to self defense are fundamental and critical to America and why it MUST NOT BE INFRINGED!!!.

      The vast majority of firearms are never used for murder or other crimes. The NRA and its members aren’t committing murder. I challenge the fool who wrote this excrement to disprove that!!

      The fear of ignoramuses like this “author” is almost understandable, but the irrational and knee jerk responses including calling for the murder of anyone who doesn’t share that irrationality proves how evil and dangerous their side really is.

      Apparently in the new world they are hoping to “evolve” to anyone who doesn’t share their emotionalism and desire for control of anyone they don’t like (I imagine this includes anyone who doesn’t also support Socialism, Marxism, Communism, Climate Change Religion, Divinity of Obama, or whatever else falls under the “Progressive” movement) should be put to death. Gee are they going to build gas chambers to eliminate the millions who are their enemy once they disarm them? Or are the just going to shoot all of us?

      Sounds like a wonderful utopia this fool is dreaming for!

      I wish this idiot would come and visit me and tell me to my face what was far too easy for a coward to say anonymously from a keyboard.

      Boise, ID

  4. JP, My husband and I, ran into the situation of what to do with his hunting guns way back in 2009. At the time he was driving from South Dakota to live in California. He was really concerned about getting a felony. He just had hunting guns and no hand guns. California was the State that was bothering him him the most. You also had to figure out the city laws. He decided that it wasn’t worth the chance of getting a felony. While we were in CA he just left them at his mom’s. South Dakota is a much less restrictive state. You can have your hunting guns driving in town, but not loaded. Very sad what happened in Florida. I agree it is not the gun. It is the person behind the gun. I am flying to Los Angeles on Saturday in Burbank. It’s snowing today. Melissa SD

    1. Putting aside the tough winters SD is paradise compared to CA. I can’t imagine living in CA (said as someone who is 3rd generation Californian and lived there for over 20 years). I escaped to a Red state 30 years ago. I can’t imagine living in CA (heck I can barely stand to visit the place anymore).

      1. I agree with you. South Dakota has many more positives. I knew there had to be a reason why,
        “Little House on the Pairie” was one of my favorite shows. My parents are still there. Plus have take care of appointments. I have not heard one traffic since I moved here. JP,I knew nothing about fishing and hunting. Now I can catch, and clean fish. I know a lot about lures. I can clean and cook Pheasants. The fishing’s is much better than CA. In South Dakota it is cheaper to live. Flight still looks good for tomorrow. Hope I don’t get stuck in Denver. I have a 41min layover. Melissa

  5. I’ve been lurking and reading your blog and not commenting as much for the past several months. But I figured I would jump in on this latest post with my 2 cents.

    I try to avoid traveling to the more populated regions of Wisconsin (Madison, Milwaukee). Luckily I live in the NorthWest part of the State where people aren’t afraid of inanimate objects, but rather concern ourselves with individuals… good or bad.

    I’m all for concealed carry reciprocity. My WI state driver’s license lets me drive in any State of the Union. I could do a lot of damage with my SUV.

    Currently I have licenses to carry from WI, MN, and UT. It would be nice to just have one, from WI.

    Lots of garbage in the news lately, mud slinging and domestic horrors. I’m going on a solo canoe trip into the BWCA in the spring for some trout fishing and seclusion when ice is off. Can’t wait to get away from the world for a week.

    TD Bauer

  6. The sad thing is, gun laws or not, there are sick demented people out there who will manage to find a gun if they want to do harm. The Florida situation is very tragic not just because of loss of life, but the fact that so many people knew about the kid, yet no one did nothing! In Washington last week a grandmother turned in her grandson because she found his journal with his plans to do the same thing to his school, and last night, another one in Tennessee doing the same, but someone turned him in. Where are KIDS getting guns I would like to know, a family member, a neighbor?? Why don’t parents see this, or know what is happening with their kids? How do they walk into a school with an AR15, a big gun, and no one sees it?? Is it time parents finally started paying attention to their kids life instead of ignoring it? is it time to search kids or have equipment detectors at schools?? where does the fault lie? The gun is not the problem, life style is, how they were raised or not raised, outside activities, violent games, parents just looking the other way, you name it. I have been around guns and shot guns since I was 12, my father taught me the rights and wrongs of guns, went through hunters safety, my family all hunted. Guns in our family were meant for hunting game, killing varmints, etc. My dad was so strict with guns he would of beat my butt if I touched one without him or my brother being present. We had rules, and we followed them. It was a strict up-bringing for all us kids, and we still follow rules to this day, thank God I had a dad who taught me right from wrong and molded me into what I am today.If we buy guns, we go through background ckecks, and follow the law. But there are always gong to be people out there who could care less about the law, and will find any means to do the harm they want regardless of laws, which they will never follow. They will never be law abiding citizens, and this will never change no matter if guns are taken away and made illegal, they will always find a way, the evil will never change.

    When I was a kid, there was a man who threatened to kill my dad, our whole family and burn our house down, every one knew the guy was not right in the head. He got right in my dads face and said this. My dad always carried a hand gun, but he did not shoot the guy. He went to the police, filed the complaint so it would be on record if something happened and asked the police what to do legally if he pursued with his threats. We lived an hour out of town, we had no phones, no way to call for help, we were cattle ranchers out in the middle of no where. Anyway, the policeman, I forget his name, told us all in the police station point blank, if he comes inside your door armed, you have the right to shoot him, he is an invader trying to kill you. My dad said he wanted to ask their advice because of the legalities etc, and let me tell you those next 6 months of watching over your shoulder, looking for the guy to show up was terrifying and a terrible way to live your life. Like I said there are evil people out there all the time, and more so today.. Anyway the guy never showed up, but did the same thing to someone else and they shot him in their house. So, I will always stand up for the right to bear arms for this reason.

    Well that’s my two cents worth anyway. Thank you.

    1. Ich möchte bitte noch eine Frage stellen, wie kann ich mir das vorstellen, darf jeder bei euch, wenn er 18 Jahre alt ist eine Waffe kaufen und tragen ….egal, ob Kurz-oder Langwaffen, ….und einfach so tragen , egal ob zum Beispiel beim Einkaufen, in der Handtasche, beim Essen gehen mit Freunden oder bei anderen Unternehmungen….werden die Leute beim Kauf der Waffe im Umgang mit der Waffe eingewiesen und in der Handhabung geschult (unter anderem auch der Aufbau einer Waffe ) und werden vor/beim Kauf (und auch danach) Schießübungen absolviert ….müssen die Waffen richtig gelagert werden , zum Beispiel in dafür vorgesehenen Safes (auch unterladen Munition getrennt von der Waffe) …. kontrolliert das eine Behörde oder kann jeder machen wie er möchte ? …Bitte entschuldigt meine vielleicht etwas naiven Fragen, aber hier in Deutschland ist das per Gesetz ganz anders geregelt….. Manuela

      1. The American Constitution is the only one where all citizens have the right to keep and bear (carry) firearms. After that, it gets more complicated, because America has fifty states, and those states have the right to pass their own laws as long as those laws do not conflict with federal law, nor infringe nor diminish the constitutional rights of the people. The result is a frequently confusing patchwork of laws from state to state. Some states have no laws about how a gun is stored, or who may carry a gun; other states have very strict laws that make it difficult (not impossible, because that would be unconstitutional) to buy or carry guns. These are all issues that need to be resolved, along with many others (mental health issues and privacy issues, for example) that have an impact on our rights to own guns.

        1. Vielen Dank Herr Parker für Ihre Antwort, dass Sie mir dies geduldig etwas erklären …als “Außenstehende” sind die Waffengesetze in den USA ziemlich verwirrend….Manuela

  7. Public school teaching qualifications need to be revised to a higher standard, along with the pay scale. Qualified teachers should be paid a wage that would allow a man to at least support a family of four comfortably. We need to attract more men into the K-12 teaching positions. Many of today’s students lack any form of a positive male role model. We also need to provide the ability & incentives for teachers to become properly trained & equipped to carry a concealed weapon. That is the ONLY way to protect their students.

    1. I worked for, “The Los Angeles Unified School District” for over 15 years as a special needs asstiant. A big problem schools have is security. Anyone can very easily walk right in. The school secretaries don’t really watch who is coming in. Most of the time their desk aren’t near the doors. Even more easy to come in when school is starting. The gates in Jr High Schools are wide open in the morning.
      The school I worked at in Sherman Oaks got locked down once. It was because of that Bank of America shoot out that happened at long time ago. Yes they need more male role models
      as teachers. I think all staff need to be more aware.

Comments are closed.