GOP Response

   It is good to see that the Delaware GOP is not allowing the Delaware Democrats and the Governor get too far out in front of them in doing nothing on gun violence.

   This morning I heard that the Delaware Republicans in Legislative Hall have come up with their own set of proposals, and while I am at work and have not been able to actually study them in-depth, from what I am hearing reported these will be as worthless as the democrat proposals.

  it seems that the Republicans  think that by simply increasing the penalty for existing laws, that this will some how deter insane people from acting insane. Really? This is the best we can do?

  I still fear that we are working towards a compromise that will boil down to nothing but increased background checks, that will boil down to nothing but increased numbers of law-abiding citizens being denied gun ownership.

  As Senator Dianne Feinstein stated in her presentation announcing her sweeping gun ban bill, the intention is, “to dry up the supply of these weapons over time.”. I believe that the background checks being proposed are intended to aid in this “drying” up of those who will be able to legally purchase guns.

  One other proposal was for a “panic” type button, much like banks use to be pushed in the case of an event. I can see the usefulness of this in quickening the response time of law enforcement, and I see more merit in this as opposed to the “panic’ doors previously suggested.

  I am glad that there is give and take on both sides here, my only concern is the final outcome and how it will negatively affect gun ownership.


20 Responses to “GOP Response”

  1. Laffter Says:

    I thnk the outcome will be the law- abiding may have a hoop more to jump thru….
    I doubt they will be denied the right to own a gun

    The public will just have to adjust

    Didn’t used to need a passport to go to Mexico or Canada , now u do…..a DL was easier to get …not the REAL ID act makes it tougher
    Didn’t need to be at the airport 2 hours ahead,,,, now u do

    And we allow it because otherwise we could die…….folks will have to plan

    Why should anyone need access to a gun – at this very second
    Why can’t they wait? A gun should not be an impulse purchase- ever

  2. FrankKnotts Says:

    Laffter, we are not even talking about a waiting period. My concern is a new mechanism for complete denial. As for the things you listed above, do any of those really make us safer? The passport does not stop the person who simply crosses the border in a place away from the check points. The real ID may make it harder to falsify an ID, but does it stop the well funded terrorist from aquiring fake documents?
    Yes I know that we will never stop “ALL” these things, but restricting law abiding citizens the right to own a gun in my opinion is not the way to stop any of them.

    • Laffter Says:

      And I simply disagree and that is ok too Frank

      I agree all the rhetoric and saber rattling makes purchases soar. And that is what the gun lobby wants because the end is near for them

      But like banning smoking in restaurants in DE was ballyhooed, everyone will survive and adjust

      And ban/ restrictions is enviable and the sooner we stop bellyaching the better of we will be

      Bitching about Roe v Wade has changed nothing…..but doctors have been shot and killed over it- and others too- and that is never worth someone’s life either..

      They way I feel is if it gets to a point that I don’t lke the laws here, I will leave , but I don’t kill folks over their legal right to do things

      Guns like drugs, cars, planes, chemical need restriction coz bad people are bad people. Someone will always sake the edges of the law and get away with it, but in general it will work

      And it’s proven- look at the UK and others than instituted restriction, it’s proven to work. So why not?

  3. waterpirate Says:

    I agree with lafter, there is a big differance between restriction, and responsible compiance for law abiding citizens. All this saber rattling has only caused a run on CCDW permits, gun shortages, and skyrocketing costs for ammunition.

    Talk of restrictions and bans has had the exact opposite of the intended purpose. It increased the number of guns in circulation, that will be grandfathered to law abiding citizens.

  4. FrankKnotts Says:
    This is for all those who keep sighting the UK as an example of how restrictive gun laws lower crime rates.
    Take special note of where it is stated, “In the UK, there are 2,034 offences per 100,000 people” and then, “The U.S. has a violence rate of 466 crimes per 100,000 residents”.
    There are also stats that show that while the number of murders by guns has gone down since the UK instituted its strict gun laws, the over-all number of murders is virtually unchanged, showing that if guns are not available, people will find a way.

    • Laffter Says:

      That’s disingenuous Frank….it’s VIOLENT CRIME. not GUN CRIME the article is about.

      Lets get the stats on GUN CRIMES in both countries and compare……:-)

  5. Laffter Says:

    Ok Frank….lets look at this

    The UK comprises Scotland, England and WALES, Are we talking one of these countries or all three

    Now, it says violent crimes, not specifically GUN crimes…if we took the VIOLENT crime stats from the US and UK and compared them then we might see a difference.

    But we must compare apples to apples and oranges to oranges.

  6. Laffter Says:

    I have it….basically the US has TEN TIMES the gun related DEATHS per 100,000 in population that the UK or Ireland. Throw in Germany and France and even the Middle East like Qatar (very safe)

    The countries WORSE than us? Central America, and Africa.- wonderful company we keep…….

    The stats prove it Frank. Only in countries with drug Cartels and roving warlords and drug lords do we see rates like ours with gun violence

    It’s past time to dial it down .

  7. Laffter Says:

    The other thing that is soooooo sad…..look at what is driving our rate up.

    It’s suicides……by gun. Not murder.

    If u compare the suicide rates vs the murder rate it becomes very sad. What does that tell us. People r using guns to kill themselves. Maybe if guns were not so available, it would,be a bit harder for them to accomplish that task

    We are using guns Ro kill ourselves not each other.

    So lock up the guns or tax them so much that gun purchases pay for mental health counseling . We do that with casinos, marriage fees, fines for criminals in court etc……seems that the gun lobby needs to start forking out for mental health too.

  8. FrankKnotts Says:

    Laffter, you are smarter than your last few comments. The point is that removing guns from the equation does nothing to stop violent crimes, and may actually add to them. What is the point of lowering the number of murders by guns, if the number of murders overall stay the same? it means that while you have changed the way people are murdered, you have not changed the fact that they are still being murdered. The same goes for your example of suicide. Do you truly believe that if a person does not have access to a gun, that they will not find another way to kill themselves?
    You are falling prey to the age old, and wrong, idea that it is the gun that kills people and that if only there were no guns, then there would be no wrongful deaths.

    • Laffter Says:

      Thanks for the “smarter” comment :-). …… Lol. But My point is simple…I just didn’t articulate it well.

      Yes, you r correct, if bad people want to do bad things they WILL find a way. That said, if someone in an instant picks up a gun to kill themselves or another…”it’s done, that fast, one shot.

      But, stabbing, beating another to death takes a little longer and is WAY more personal and gorey. I only even saw one person who stabbed themselves to death, it took over 30 self- inflicted wounds to do the job, and one cannot beat themselves to death.

      Point is a gun is quick and instanteous, knives, hammers, clubs, bats, drugs poison, hanging, strangulation, take way longer.

      One really has to be committed to the act. With a gun, just pull the trigger

      That was my point.

      • FrankKnotts Says:

        Laffter, I understand your point, it is however simply a matter of degrees. What the UK stats show is that even without guns, the murder rates hold steady. If the solution we are seeking is fewer people being murdered, then gun prohibition does not seem to be the answer.
        As for suicide let’s look here at home, lets look to the CDC
        notice that firearm related suicides account for 19,392 deaths, the next two choices, suffication (includes hanging and cars in garages I would assume) and poisoning combined account for 16,092, a difference of 3,300. Statistically not a large number of the overall number of suicides. But what I see is that nearly as many troubled people chose a form of suicide other than a gun. Now of course we have no way from these stats to know if these people had any access to a gun, but to hear our political leaders speak and you as well, there is a gun on every street corner just waiting to be bought and used to kill someone or to committ suicide.

      • Laffter Says:

        Not sure if asyphixiation (suffocation and chemical) is hanging / and gassing to death either.

        However. What IS clear is that fewer guns / tighter restrictions/ regulations, coupled with more mental health counseling may bring those very sad statistics down and like the pro- life crowd that considers one life saved at any cost worth it, this is something we can do to save a life without costing someone else theirs…..

      • FrankKnotts Says:

        Okay, I will give you one gun for every abortion denied. The difference being, in my opinion, every abortion performed causes the death of a human life, while not every gun sold causes a death, nor will every gun prevented from being sold will prevent a death, though every abortion avoided will save a life.

      • Laffter Says:

        That is patently not true…..recently a young woman who was miscarrying was denied an abortion, on religious grouns.

        She was admitted to the hospital as the fetus still had a heartbeat.
        Even after the fetus died, they still would not do an abortion

        The mother died of septic shock- horrible, and painfully.

        Is this what u invision for women? ……it’s a fair question

        Here are the links to the stories:

        As while there are always exceptions to the rule….in general they two don’t equate

        Guns are meant for one thing- killing….abortions may also be used to save a life. After that life is no longer.

        I don’t know anyone that would kill to protect a dead body….kinda dumb I would think.

  9. Laffter Says:

  10. FrankKnotts Says:

    That case does not make my statement false. If the baby was already dead then it is not what we are talking about to abort the baby. The baby had already been aborted naturally and of course I would not be opposed to having doctors assist in removing the remains from the body of the mother, as I have been through this exact experience with myself and my wife when we lost our second child.
    But you exception to the rule only proves my point about guns. You show that there are no absolutes when it comes to the word abortion, I believe that there are no absolutes when it comes to gun restrictions.
    And I personally don’t care what an organized religion say about much of anything.

  11. Laffter Says:

    Oh and an abortion is when the fetus is expelled…removing the fetus is an induced abortion

    So the hospital refused to remove the baby, because it still had a heartbeat Nd even after it didn’t

    So so sad, in effect they actually murdered that mother to ensure the live of the fetus. And both die…..where is the justice or reason or logic in that mess….

    And my condolences on your loss

  12. kavips Says:

    it is safe to remove deaths by suicide from the equation. It is safe to remove deaths by domestic violence from the equation. These happened before guns were invented, and most likely, will continue because they can happen in private areas where there is no one to intervene. Seriously. we will always have weapons; if we were to ban all guns, we would all wear swords….

    What we are really trying to do, is to find a way to cut down on deaths in mass killings. Very Few of us here are afraid of getting killed by our spouse or children. Very Few of us here are afraid of getting killed because we are in an illegal business and someone else wants in on our action. Some of us may be afraid of home invasions, and we should have a right to defend ourselves against that.. But all of us are vulnerable to someone in the mall who begins shooting, or who decides to spray a gas station and drive away…

    We need to eliminate that threat. If someone cracks up and walks into a mall with a six shooter, then the odds of one of those bullets hitting any single person drop way down from if he was using the other extreme of 100 round magazines.

    The thoughtful approach is work from both ends to make sure a crazy can’t unload enough metal to kill large numbers of people. We do that by working both ends to the center. We work on making sure only very stable people will be in possession of assault weapons, as in law enforcement, and we work to make sure that when we miss one of the unstable ones, they can only get access to something with just a few rounds and hopefully someone can subdue them while they reload….

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: