While driving on Interstate 410 in San Antonio this morning, I noticed a big sign hanging over the roadway that said "Constitutional Carry is not legal until 9/1/2021". Constitutional Carry is the euphemism for permitless guns. Seems like we need Constitutional Driving and Constitutional Fishing now so we don't have to deal with any pa…
While driving on Interstate 410 in San Antonio this morning, I noticed a big sign hanging over the roadway that said "Constitutional Carry is not legal until 9/1/2021". Constitutional Carry is the euphemism for permitless guns. Seems like we need Constitutional Driving and Constitutional Fishing now so we don't have to deal with any paperwork or fees or training or rules. Anyone can fire a gun so what is the problem. Haven't you ever had an intruder enter your house after dark? I have. Neither of us had a gun fortunately. But, as soon as I saw the burglar, a whopping amount of adrenaline shut down my higher brain functions. Fortunately, the burglar said "Yep" and ran out the door when I said "Get out of my house" in the most authoritative voice I've ever used. One of the hardest things I've ever had to do in my entire life is dial 911 because of the effort it took to overcome the adrenaline in my body. The Police came, they captured it turns out two burglars and they were convicted on my testimony. Two years probation. The police were thrilled to get any kind of conviction. Think what that would have been like if both of us had had guns. Which one of us would have died? More guns and less regulation is not the solution to gun violence.
My story, and it seems a lot of us have one, is that a few years back, my niece and I heard a disturbance in the garage. It was very early evening and the garage door was up. I jumped up, ran like a cat into the garage, see an intruder with hand on door handle about to come in house. I yell, in the same authoritative voice you describe, Cathy, GET OUT, scaring the bejeezuz out of us both. It’s a what looks like an older teen who turns and flees. I’m in some kind of way. Do I call the police? No. Like an idiot, I grab my “gun” (which, for me, is a worn Louisville slugger I keep at the door going out to garage) and take off running after the burglar yelling “oh no you don’t, don’t let me catch you” and whatever until ny niece catches up with my ass and pulls me back yelling…Auntie, what are you doing? Let’s call the police! Adrenaline is a funny thing and not a good mixer with guns. It was such a fight or flight thing with me in that moment. I can just remember I needed to protect my niece and NOT let the intruder in.
So same question…what if one or two guns had been present in the situation? We called the police. Runner and friend apprehended later that night in another neighborhood. I was called to identify.
My Louisville slugger is still by the door. And one under the bed.
I live in NY & have a baseball bat (slugger??) by my back door - also always have a dog. Never had to use the bat but its till there! I agree guns escalate - period. The more of them - the higher the escalation. So far, barking dogs are the best bet.
Not to stir things up but both of these "issues" are the same kind of hot button no compromise issues right now. BOTH sides have to give a little. A LITTLE! Do I agree with all that has been said here about abortion? Absolutely. But the rhetoric on both sides of guns and abortion also tend to escalate. Which does not help any of us.
Cats work, too, sometimes. Someone kicked in my back door in Seattle a few years back, but he turned tail and took off when my very large black Maine coon cat fluffed all his fur, hissed, and then yowled. His name (the cat's) was Adam, but we called him the Butcher of Wallingford for his hunting and guarding prowess.
I guess there is a story - not being a big baseball fan (or sports fan for that matter) probably a lot I dont know. However whatever my bat's "history"is - I think it will serve the purpose if I need it!
Your burglary tale has a rare positive outcome. Bravo!
I live in Central Texas. Even before Covid, I avoided going to the nearby metropolitan areas, if only to avoid the traffic. Yet after 9/1/2021, no one is safe anywhere. Open carry is the next logical step after concealed carry.
Treat guns like cars, boats, and buildings: register guns, tax guns, and require insurance.
Background check, license, insurance, yes to all of those, but I think required ongoing training is needed, too, along with a certain number of hours at a range to be met monthly to instill familiarity and muscle knowledge in its use.
I also believe that there should be a required yearly class in which a video is played, showing the reality of what a gunshot will do to the human body (not Hollywood style, but something realistic appearing) so people have an understanding of the deadly potential of a weapon. We Americans have been desensitized to the fact that humans cannot shake off a gunshot, get up, and keep fighting as we consistently see in movies, television, and videos. That false belief needs to be challenged and addressed if someone is to own a gun.
I live in Central Texas too. When we consider where the mass shootings have occurred lately (and even those which are not considered "mass"), there's really no place at all that might be safe. Even in one's own home, a person with an assault weapon can drive by and shoot straight through the walls where one is supposedly "safe." I don't live in terror, but I drastically have altered my lifestyle and am on constant alert whenever I go out. I've only had to duck and cover and dash into my house once so far, thanks to the able assistance and immediate recognition of a good friend when a blast of gunfire went off just a couple of blocks away. This is a small town too.
Good comment, Cathy. Just think: after dark, unarmed burglars, unarmed home-owner, enough adrenaline to light up the state of Texas and no one got killed or injured. Sounds like a happy fairytale, but in any normal country where the possession of firearms is limited and regulated, in which "normal" means, "A gun? No, of course I don't own a gun!" this is the likely outcome of encounters between burglars and their victims. Two years probation, lessons learned. Perhaps the burglars won't try that again. Getting caught may have been the best thing that ever happened to them. You, Cathy, must have at least considered installing better locks or other security devices against further intrusions. Everyone's life went on.
What frustrates me about the whole gun issue is how many different compromises between NO GUNS and GUNS FOR EVERYONE there could be if the gunners and the no-gunners could accept less than everything they want. It's all or nothing and every argument becomes a slippery slope. Of course, the GOP believes it can continue to hold power only by backing the guns-for-everyone position. And the wrong interpretation of the Second Amendment by the SCOTUS makes this possible.
There are other issues that are similarly divisive in America that could be largely resolved by compromise. I believe abortion is one of these issues, but neither side wants to give an inch. At the risk of opening a can of worms, I wonder if other HCR readers would like to debate this.
Excuse me while I scream David Herrick. And how odd you’ve brought abortion to a gun fight.
As a non gun owner, it appears gun owners have long had the upper hand in preventing reasonable gun laws requiring registration, background checks and banning semi/automatic weapons. How much more compromise would you want?
As for abortion, Roe v Wade was a compromise. It allowed women the right to terminate a pregnancy in the first trimester without restrictions. Later term abortions required some compelling reason. States have been chipping away at that right ever since.
My problem with calls for “compromise” is that it’s rarely offered in good faith by Republicans. First they use every trick in the book to drag us to the right and when we finally get a foothold, they plea for compromise. When we agree, the obstruction just wears a different outfit.
For this fleeting moment, we’re in power, barely. We’d better make the most it.
Not all guns owners are like this. I am a gun owner and I think we need strict gun laws. Complete, nation-wide background checks that are updated regularly, registration that is updated regularly - like driver’s licenses, regular training on how to use, safely store and be accountable for the type of firearm one is purchasing and absolutely no assault weapons of any kind outside of the military.
Those of you who know me by my posts know that I am a veteran. I was trained to use several types of firearms/weapons. I know how to do so safely and responsibly because of that training (and because I am not a stereotypical gun crazy idiot - sorry to resort to such a phrase but they do exist - including in Congress). I find target shooting to be a skill that I enjoy keeping in good stead. Firearms can be owned responsibly and safely. Required training and accountability laws would enable that to be the case most of the time.
I also know what it is like to look at the damage a bullet will do to the human body - both in the military and from losing a sibling to gun violence. Another human being decided to kill my sibling. Why? Because they wanted to and had a gun. No license was required in their state, no background check. Nothing. The murderer had to get a license to drive their car but not to buy the firearm that took my sibling’s life at the age of 23.
We absolutely need strict, consistently administered gun laws in this country.
I have written, called & emailed my Congressional reps about this topic but they (both senators & house rep) aren’t interested in common sense firearm laws. I think what is needed is more grassroots engagement. Talks, symposiums, classes for the masses, if you will, on the basics of firearms and on the realities of. Classes given by nonpartisan people who don’t want to ban firearms entirely but who insist on strict laws.
I think if we (society in general) had more of this kind of available education on multiple issues, it would be a good thing. (Classes on firearms, finances, parenting, starting a business, taking care of a household, owning a vehicle, how to vote, having pets... Basic information classes, no politics allowed.)
The frustration you experience with trying to get through to your members of Congress points to the crux of the problem. I have read (but am too lazy right now to look this up) that the majority of gun owners agree with you that the laws need to be stricter, enforcement consistent, and education widespread. The problem is with the huge amount of money from pro-gun lobbyists and PACs that goes to politicians who ignore the wishes of the vast majority of Americans.
Wasn't intending to lay responsibility at your feet to get the word out. But, unlike me, you come with personal experiences that would have more weight (to me at least) than someone who can only speak hypothetically.
All good ideas! I worry that the common sense ship has sailed. I think we won't get any movement on gun regulation until the economy tanks like it did with Covid because there are so many mass shootings people are more afraid to go out anywhere . We might destroy ourselves before that happens though. 3.8 million dead of Covid, 600K Americans, and still so many won't get vaccinated.
Sorry if this is a repeat, I hit something on my computer and my response vanished to me. I am so sorry for your family's loss from gun violence. I am not a military Veteran, but did serve my community for 35 years in law enforcement. I have a more lengthy response to my position on gun control more immediate to the original post than this.
I like prudent opinions on this gun control issue from people that have experience and background to have an informed opinion. Thank you for your service. And your compassion. Blessings.
I’m so sorry about your brother, and I agree with your opinion, Kasumii. Once upon a time the NRA used the dues gun owners paid to finance gun safety clinics across our country. Their goal was to educate the youth on the safety and responsible use of handguns and rifles. This dwindled away away very quickly by the 1980’s. Now the classes cost huge amounts and are directed at conceal carry permits of late.
Some years ago I attended an NRA class out of curiosity and was disgusted at how the class wasn’t about responsible gun ownership at all but about how to get around the laws.
My heart goes out to you. The good news is the NRA is not as powerful as it once was. The bad news is gun legislation is not relevant without enforcement.
Abortion and guns are two sides of the same coin. The far right want total control of women's bodies and holding us down, whilst they do not want ANY controls against their weapons of mass destruction that kill. Abortion, in their minds, kills a human being, whilst automatic weapons kill or maim multiple people in one fell swoop. Demonstration of lack of critical thinking skills, again. That is what is killing our democracy. Lack of critical thinking skills. And learning real history.
For me the connection is clear every time I see the big billboard in my town that proclaims "Abortion stops a beating heart", and I think, so does a bullet.
Forgive me if I sound like a troll — I’m not. But this conversation has finally morphed in my head to wonder if there is a connection to “no abortions” and fear of laws that might be passed to make condom use on guns mandatory. No offense, Penelope — it’s just my mind putting the other side of the same coin! 😉
Oh, I think you likely have hit the nail squarely on the head of the connection between the two. There must be no inhibition of the ability to pro-/e-ject at will.
Although I've been called a fairly rabid feminist/feminazi more than once, in my house, it is my husband who would be the first to point out this equating of firearms with penises.
Patricia-- you really had me there for awhile. I came in with sunglasses on to get a drink and quickly glanced at your comment and went away wondering what the heck you meant. I just returned and saw the "condoms" on guns and lost my water all over my computer! I had not seen that critical word! Hahahahah! That would be some mighty strong condom material! I love how your mind morphs!
Have you mistaken me for a gun owner, or gun rights sustainer? I would ban guns altogether if I were king. I have never owned a gun or fired one outside of a firing range at Ft. Leonard Wood, MO in the summer of 1972. People carrying or wearing guns make me nervous. I have had to explain why I was taking a tourist photo of a dam across the upper Nile to 4 Ethiopian soldiers pointing Kalashnikovs at me and my wife while our Ethiopian driver was on his knees begging them not to kill us. I was held up at gunpoint once while driving a taxi in Colorado Springs. My sister and her husband were terrorized by two gun wielding creeps who just walked through the unlocked front door of their Portland OR house and didn't believe there was no wall safe. Talk about adrenaline! And I have lost friends to pistol-in-the-mouth suicide, too. I detest guns.
Guns and abortion have only one thing in common: the far right - a substantial share of all Republicans - loves guns and hates abortion. They are united around these issues, sucking in the supposedly Christian right, and they help elect lying imbeciles like Donald Trump and Mitch McConnell.
I'm wondering if by taking some of the fervor out of their abortion-hating and gun-loving they might not take a new look at a few other issues and find there is some common ground to be shared with the rest of us. You know, the economy, climate change, income inequality, healthcare etc., etc. I'm not hoping to change anyone's mind, just how some people vote.
Another reader here accused me of feeding her a red herring. Another unwitting day of hole-digging, I guess.
Then why in heaven’s name would you call for more compromise on these issues? My point is that we’ve compromised endlessly and are only loosing ground. Enough!
Yes, you can try to compromise, but we are trying to do it with a party that totally refuses to compromise, and if they do, they will vote it down. Talk all you want, the Republicans have decided to destroy America and vote as they please. And remember that these Republicans are a white, male, conservative majority who are terrified of losing those characteristics.
Buy a can of wasp spray and keep it by your bed. It shoots about 20 feet and disables an intruder. Perhaps we can create some wasp spray shooting ranges for self-defense practice?
I am strongly pro-choice, and in favor of women being able to have abortions when they feel they need to do so, except beyond viability. But in all the recent reductions of abortion rights, I haven't seen anything on how the existence of medical abortion will affect women's ability to make their own choices in the relevant states. I did some googling, and figuring that others might have the same questions, found this from the Mayo Clinic, the gist of which is that medical abortion becomes much less feasible as pregnancy progresses. https://www.mayoclinic.org/tests-procedures/medical-abortion/about/pac-20394687
Like it or not, neither of us controls the comments. I'm trying to be helpful to others. Could we please try to treat each other with decency, and respect, and without yelling? (If not I would much appreciate not hearing from you, and I will likewise stay away from you.)
How is the issue of abortion to be resolved by compromise? It is every woman's right to decide what she wants for herself. The government should not be involved in this very personal and private decision.
Tell that to the former party that used to be called republicans and is now the party of Sedition. They boasted they want smaller government. Our larger government is needed because many Americans need protections from the all-knowing white supremacist patriarchy.
Diana, thank you very much for your question and a brief but clear statement of your position regarding abortion.
First of all, I share your position 100% and have ever since I first gave it any serious thought (in high school? Not sure, surely no later than freshman year of college). I believe babies become babies the moment they are born, but until then they are fetuses. Once they are born they enter society and acquire rights. Before that they are part of the mother's body and are -- or should be -- the mother's responsibility, or problem as the case may be. Companions and fathers have a role to play, but women do the heavy lifting, and this is not mere anthropology but biology. Thinking of abortion as simply another way to accomplish contraception strikes me as selfish, and I suspect almost all women -- before aborting -- give it a lot of thought and experience uncertainty, anguish, even feelings of guilt and self-loathing depending on their upbringing, religion and culture. But for human beings a certain amount of selfishness is a survival mechanism and is unavoidable. In any case, I seriously doubt many women, learning that they are unexpectedly pregnant, think to themselves, "Oh, no big deal, I'll just get an abortion". More likely they are thinking, "Bummer, I could have avoided this" or something similar. But this is just a guy shooting his mouth off about things he has not and will never experience, so it is not for me to judge.
All that said, while I agree with you, our position on abortion is extreme, which is to say that in this discussion there is no position any farther out on our side of it. We agree that abortion is a woman's business, not society's, or the government's, or some church's, or the husband's or the cute guy who is the likely father, or Mom or Dad's business. We believe this and are sure we're right. And we are!
But.... unfortunately there is another extreme (which also does not consider itself extreme, but is) and we know it. And because ever since Roe vs. Wade became the law of the land, abortion has been legal, and the decision about aborting or not has - in fact - been left to women, men and women at the other extreme in our amazingly diverse country have been fighting to have the decision overturned. Again, you probably know more about the details of this than I do, almost certainly.
So, your question: "How is the issue of abortion to be resolved by compromise?" Well, the short easy answer is, "Like any other issue about which there are strong disagreements, each side will have to give a little to get a little. And to find a point where there might be -- not agreement -- but acceptance of the importance of not letting this issue (and guns) dominate all others, as it arguably has for many years, one side (ours) must accept some limitation on a woman's right to chose, while the other side must accept a limitation on their "right" to impose their religious beliefs on others. I suspect that some combination of time limits within which abortions must be done and guarantees of cheap contraception and abortion services to all women who need them is the way to go. The devil will be in the details, of course.
I have other ideas about this, but I have to go pick up my wife and take a walk. I would like to know in greater detail what you think about all this, so I'll check my mail in a couple of hours.
David, many women, myself included, feel our hackles rise when a man tries to guide a conversation on abortion. Especially a man we don’t know personally. Let’s just not go there, please, in a thread about gun control.
I think it is fine for David to start this conversation. I wish more men would try to understand what it is like to have the government violate your body. They start to get it when I say convicted rapists should have penectomies. And, I like what Barbara Bush said about abortion -- that God will take care of that soul no matter what.
Yes, I think men should talk about these things-- but stand on the side of women to make the decisions. After all they are half the responsibility for pregnancies. They should get vasectomies once they have decided they do not want more children and provide women with freedom from unwanted pregnancies, too.
And I believe there is s direct line with guns and abortion. It is all about power over another's life or a fetus (potential life). I do not think you can be pro-life (against abortions) and pro WMDs in the hands of civilians.
I appreciate David trying to have discourse and understand women's points of view on this topic. Bravo, David!
Hi Kathy! Well, I was trying to start a conversation. I'm not sure how I could actually guide one. I do take exception to the idea that men should not express their opinions about abortion or any other issue, given everyone's total freedom to respond to or reject or ignore any arguments at all here. How are things going?
Agreed - we can all have our opinions 🙂. I’m doing well! Recovering from surgery, pathology was very good, transitioning to surveillance mode! Excellent news. We’re hoping to get to Italy in the fall; my husband has a conference on Capri that we would like to attend. We miss our family and I’m dying for some mozzarella!
How this got to abortion from the original story about an attempted burglary and guns is not clear. Can this be on another day as you originally suggested, David???
I used to love it whenever a witness tried to evade answering a question by bringing up some other topic, only to have the lawyer double down by re-asking the same question; not quitting until he got an answer TO THE QUESTION!
Do you think abortion and gun control are just emotional issues the right extremists are using politically to increase buy in from voters? Rational arguments such as on this forum are not meaningful to Republicans who are using the issues as weapons to force their racist and misogynistic views but I surely love the responses here. I learn much. Thanks for taking the time to post.
Hello Kathy Clark. Well, clearly gun control and abortion are emotional issues, and while I am way left on both issues and believe we have much better arguments for our positions, folks on the left can get pretty emotional, too.
I hope there are a few Republicans and people who have not yet made up their minds about certain issues reading HCR's Letter, but apart from a handful of readers who are trolls or even Russian agents (according to Roland and several others) there seems to be a lot more agreement here than discord. Getting left and right to engage in well-reasoned debate about the emotional issues is a rather tall order these days.
"Thinking of abortion as simply another way to accomplish contraception strikes me as selfish, and I suspect almost all women -- before aborting -- give it a lot of thought and experience uncertainty, anguish, even feelings of guilt and self-loathing depending on their upbringing, religion and culture. But for human beings a certain amount of selfishness is a survival mechanism and is unavoidable. In any case, I seriously doubt many women, learning that they are unexpectedly pregnant, think to themselves, "Oh, no big deal, I'll just get an abortion". More likely they are thinking, "Bummer, I could have avoided this" or something similar."
Now - what shall we do about men, who are the CAUSE of the problem, of the unwanted pregnancy and unplanned for child? Without men, there would be no pregnancy. So men should have the privilege of just sleeping around or having sex when they want to, and then force women to have the child just because they inadvertently became pregnant? (And what will be the quality of life for this unwanted/unplanned for child? - - I won't even go there. . . .) Make men sterile? Maybe vasectomies should be in order for every man and adolescent, and then when the women want to have a child, do a reverse vasectomy.
How irresponsible of you to put it off onto women.
Great idea, Diana! Boys/men can save their sperm in a sperm bank (for future intentional use by women who shop a sperm bank catalog and choose the best potential genetic material for their child) and then have vasectomies! No reversal even needed! Just a turkey baster. It could be the new male rite of passage.
I am astounded that you - apparently - willfully misunderstand what I have written. Please re-read it. I have ascribed no such privilege to men as "just sleeping around" or remotely suggested that men should "force women" they have impregnated to "have the child". I absolutely support a woman's right to abort. It is her personal choice, as it should be. I suggest that most women upon discovering they are pregnant are either happy because they had been intending to become pregnant or unhappy because they had not wanted to get pregnant. I do not imagine either getting pregnant or having an abortion is a small thing in the lives of most women. I further imagine also that most women would prefer not getting pregnant over aborting to end a pregnancy, and they would prefer avoiding pregnancy through contraception over having to end a pregnancy through abortion.
I did not address contraception for men, but why should I bother if people like you will not make a minimal effort to read carefully?
There was no willful misunderstanding. And, as I read your comment again, and for a third time, I stand by my position. Your statement began with the phrase, "Thinking of abortion as simply another way to accomplish contraception strikes me as selfish . . ." Selfish?
This implies that you, along with other gop right-wing men, believe that the female sex's primary purpose is to produce children. Are men viewed as selfish because they deposit sperm everywhere and have no accountability for it?
Selfish to whom? The fetus or the impregnator? Is it selfish for a woman to want to pursue a career, have fun in life, or is she selfish just because she does not want to have children (does not want to be a baby-making automaton)?
Or perhaps the wish to abort by the woman, or the couple, is due to not having financial resources to give a child a good life? Maybe even to feed it? (I notice that republicans and right-wing christians care about the fetus until it's born. After it's born - don't give it welfare - let it starve - let it freeze - let it live on the streets! Forget needed medical care. What?! It was born with a birth defect? It deserved it! Conservatives care about the fetus until the day it's born. Period. How Christian is that????)
And then look at the double standard. (In this century, I shouldn't even have to say this.) Men aren't viewed as selfish if they want to pursue a career, or not have children, or if they want to run away from paternity tests. Most men aren't held accountable for underpaying or not paying child support, and they aren't held accountable because the court system looks the other way, ignores the problem that so harms women and children. Child support laws are written to favor men!
Your view of women as "selfish" really is a psychological/ sociological position that could have a book written on it.
"suggested that men should "force women" they have impregnated to "have the child"."
This is the exact consequences that anti-abortion groups are wanting to do, David. I would alter it to include women and men forcing women to have the child.
In NH the gop majority has slipped the latest unpopular with the people abortion bill into the state budget as they are confident the gop pro-life governor who pretends he is pro-choice will be okay with it. Certainly he would never veto the budget bill over abortion rights. This bill would ban abortion after 24 weeks with no provision at all for cases of rape, incest, severe fetal anomalies. A "compromise" on the part of the gop involved forcing a woman to have an ultrasound prior to the abortion even if there was no medical reason to do so. See now why we're not interested in compromising?
One is either pro-choice or pro-life, and currently each can do as she chooses. States can't be allowed to make that choice for any woman, and neither should anyone else. This evil idiocy needs to be squelched by the courts, up to and including the Supreme Court! The "religious" right won't tolerate aborting a fetus, but has no problem with capital punishment, war, or fomenting civil war, with accompanying casualties. If there's a Hell, we can have a pretty good idea of who will be occupying it.
I would put evangelical beliefs as anti-abortion and not pro-life by your very own observation. They say no to any abortions, but have no problem with what you stated.
Beth, thank you for your reasoned response to my comment. If you have read the rest of this string, you know that I have upset, irritated and/or angered a number of other commenters, several of whom have -- apparently -- assumed that I am on the anti-abortion, anti-choice side of this issue. This is not the case and nothing could be further from the truth.
I was trying to make a different argument, which is that it might be possible to diminish this issue and other extremely divisive issues as rallying points for the religious right, and possibly extract a few voters from the clutches of the GOP.
But, given the danger that Roe v. Wade may be overturned by the current SCOTUS, thus sending the whole question back to each state legislature, resulting in enormous injustice, pain, anguish and untimely death for women in those states where abortion would surely be outlawed, my argument is clearly a fool's errand, and I should have thought better of raising the issue here.
In other words, abortion on demand must be easily available to all women in every state, and it would appear that the only way to guarantee that is for ROE v. Wade to survive and continue to be the law of the land. So, it seems that the "compromise" I stupidly suggested is, in fact, Roe v. Wade, which -- as I understand it -- allows abortion on demand in the first 24 weeks, but is less clear about what is allowed in later stages of pregnancy. This lack of clarity has given the religious right too much room for maneuver, and they tend to be one-issue voters, ignoring other issues that are of "existential" importance for our species as a whole. I'll narrow these down to the continued existence of nuclear weapons and impending climate change, either of which could snuff us all out, one sooner, the other a bit later.
Anyway, I greatly appreciate that your response to my post was to provide me information about troubling developments in NH of which I was not aware, not dismiss me as if I were an incorrigible misogynist.
No reason you should be aware of what's going on in NH. Most of the people who live here are not aware. We're distracted, as most Americans are, by the basic efforts to get through our days and meet our immediate responsibilities. Just the way the gop likes us.
David, I'm going to offer you some unsolicited advice and I apologize in advance.
You're a good writer and your thoughts, opinions and questions are as valuable here as anyone else's. Everyone's nerves are raw and people feel passionately about things. We don't always pause, think, reconsider before typing. People are insulted here; it's happened to many of us. Sometimes the insult is projection, as you said, often there's a tiny grain of truth in it that's worth self-examination. Defending yourself feels good in the moment but no one really cares about your defense. Sometimes it's best to let the insult just.........land and ignore it. Trust me, others see it for what it is too. No one else is judging you based on the insult hurled at you. If they are, fuck 'em. Second, third, fourth + chances are freely given here. So relax, breathe, pause (even when others don't); it's good practice for life, I'm finding.
I'm not digging, and I find it tiresome to be told that I am. We probably agree on almost everything. If you do not like my posts, that's okay, it's life.
I'm sorry, David. I just don't see much room for compromise on abortion. It's a hot button issue. While I believe that only the woman can decide how to handle it, I also believe that it is unfortunate that some choose to use it as an alternative to birth control. Simply, if a woman decides that having an abortion is the best choice, she should be able to do so. If her belief is opposed, then rule out the option, but don't dictate to others. I realize that you're hoping to find some way to turn down the heat, and that's admirable, and I shouldn't have been dismissive.
To the question of guns: In my career, I had the opportunity (beginning in 1987) to talk with people who had been burglarized. Often times, I was asked for an opinion about whether they should get a gun for "protection". My response to that question was shaped over time (and experience), but was simply along two lines. Most burglaries are for property, and is it worth killing someone over your TV/computer/coin collection? If you're talking personal protection, how familiar are you with firearms, and can you kill someone? Most times the answers were 1. not and 2. no, I'd just wound them. My advise to most of these folks were that killing someone extracts a personal mental and emotional cost, one which troubles cops and soldiers alike, and we've "done the work" of training and mental preparation for taking a life; it isn't easy. I would recommend a golf club, a baseball bat, or other improvised impact weapon for self protection. Most of my contacts were "one and done" so I don't know to what degree my advice was followed.
My suggestion for gun control is this: Codify the NRA's "Range Safety Rules" and pair them with the vehicle code requirements for licensing, registration, insurance, and responsibility. Take any vehicle code you choose, and substitute "firearm" for "vehicle" and you'll get my drift here.
Personally, as a retired cop, I own three handguns; two for concealed carry and one for maintaining proficiency. I carry less now than I did immediately after my retirement (8 years ago) and I still have occasions where I do carry. I am a gender non-conforming lesbian who rides a motorcycle. I can't engage in unarmed combat effectively any longer, and I am at personal risk for assault.
Regarding abortion, I have a fundamental belief that those who carry a baby are the ones who should be deciding the issue. A woman (excluding a multiple birth) can have one baby in a 365 day period, A man could father substantially more, and bear none of the personal impacts that having a baby makes. Our society is so male centric that the likelihood of that happening are non-existent. Just my opinion on that component. I also have the unicorn fantasy that what would be fabulous is that with access to birth control across the board, medical and pre/postnatal care, and financial support the need for abortion would decrease to the medically necessary ones for fetal and maternal survival. But that will get me as far as I can ride a unicorn.
How telling that the same people who oppose abortion also oppose sex education, birth control, universal health care and increased minimum wages. They care nothing for the living. “All passion and no mercy” Joni Mitchell.
The small group of quite elderly men (older than me anyway, and I'm 66) who take their folding chairs and "pro-life" banner to sit outside the Planned Parenthood in my town don't look like they get many opportunities any more to impregnate anyone. Perhaps the fear is less about unfamiliar people, places and things, and more about losing their positions of dominance.
I think those elderly men get a stipend or some reimbursement for sitting there day after day. I don't know for fact, but they get something out of it besides their religious values.
Ally, this is brilliant, in my opinion: "My suggestion for gun control is this: Codify the NRA's "Range Safety Rules" and pair them with the vehicle code requirements for licensing, registration, insurance, and responsibility. Take any vehicle code you choose, and substitute "firearm" for "vehicle" and you'll get my drift here."
Ally, I found your post. I understand what you mean by being unable to engage in unarmed combat and being at personal risk for assault. I think certain groups in our society are automatically at increased risk just by being who they are, sadly.
I also own several firearms, one of which is under a conceal carry license - which I suppose is moot now that my state decided anyone can open carry. I only carry it (concealed) when traveling and I do so for self-defense. (Years ago when driving long-distance at night I was forced off an deserted stretch of the highway by a man intent on harm. What saved me was having a firearm and being ready to use it if need be. He said “that little toy pistol won’t hurt me, especially since you’re too stupid to know where the safety is”. When I calmly flipped the safety off and kept it aimed at him he chose to leave in a hurry. At the next off-ramp/gas station I reported what happened (including a description of him, his truck & his license #) but have no idea if anything was done. [This was pre-mobile phones.]) It was my training and familiarity with firearms that allowed me to do that.
If only this country would treat firearms like they do licenses for driving. Hell, even for fishing.
Oops! Forgot to add the 2nd half of a sentence. I meant my conceal carry license is probably moot now - or will be soon - because my state allows open carry - and is pushing through a law to allow conceal carry for anyone. It looks like it will pass too - which is absolute insanity.
When I was young and in the Air Force stationed at Ft. Meade, I started collecting firearms and had a friend who went to the range with me to shoot. I had about 5 modern pistols & 2 rifles a cap&ball pistol and a flintlock pistol. I loved the engineering and steelwork of them. And, I was a member of the NRA - but it was different in the mid 1960s. When I dropped out in 1970 I got rid of all my guns.
With the near daily shootings nationwide and in South Florida the reality of unregulated firearms in the hands of crazy ppl is appalling and the modern NRA is complicit with this carnage.
My last job during a heated office debate with my supervisor, he point blank asked me if I owned a gun. I knew exactly what that meant as a couple of workplace murders happened here in the past few days. I assured him I did not, but the writer in me made an essay about it, which is now posted on twitter for those interested.
My sister & brother-in-law in Las Vegas have firearms and when I visited them, we went out to a firing range and did some target shooting - first time I fired a gun in half a century. That evening when we got in we discovered it was the same day of the Las Vegas mass shooting, Oct 1, 2017.
I remember all the years in North America, driving everywhere but always having at the back of my mind "What does the guy in the car annoying me have in his glove compartment? It makes one both cautious and very "polite" when one has to be. I've never owned a gun and in France I would ban hunting in all its forms. I'm rooting fro the wolves and bears that are being re-introduced! Living in the country, you know when the "season" has started as the animals and birds know. They are gone and total silence reigns....until you start to hear the shots in the woods. You stop walking your dog in most places very quickly as "accidents" happen, especially after they've consumed a "festive" lunch! The government publishes every year the figure for the number of hunters killed by their colleagues....a good day!
Getting hand guns legally in this country would be next to impossible. getting Kalashnikovs illegally is apparently....and seeing their frequent use on the streets of poor quarters in drug "fight-outs"...very easy!
One small question that came to mind, after very much appreciating your very personal text, is perhaps somewhat off-subject and "light"....What sort of bike do you ride?
PS: Female "homosexuality" was never illegal in England as Queen Victoria refused to believe it existed...she had Albert. She obliged her Prime Minister to take the clause out of the Bill from which poor Oscar Wilde suffered so dearly. Two spinsters sharing a cottage was part of the normal landscape and hardly source for comment.
I have ridden two types of motorcycles over my life; cruisers (Yamaha V Stars and Honda Shadows) and standards (Yamaha FZ1). Sadly, the hips no longer allow these rides (and have negated bicycle riding as well.) I used to tour the west coast with one or several friends. Group rides were always better than a solo ride, with most of those being more or less local.
David, the gun manufacturers benefit by supporting the more guns the better position. Most ppl I know are not “no guns.” And some pro-life groups will never “compromise” on abortion. That takes away their principled, righteous stand, their political raison d’etre, their ability to control women’s bodies, etc., etc.
I would not normally respond to this post, because it is almost entirely a red-meat issue for religious conservatives, based on dogmatic speculations following from certain religious beliefs that many -- or even most -- of us don't subscribe to at all. This then turns into the Handmaid's Tale anti-abortion laws crafted by right-wing (male) legislators who are apparently dumb as rocks, which serve as excellent examples of some of the worst-crafted laws in the world. The whole topic is a polluted sewer.
What I find fascinating, however, is that the same conservatives who have an apoplectic fit over a "mask mandate" -- during a pandemic -- that curtails their "individual freedom" are the first to say that an individual woman can be forced to carry an inviable fetus to term, and die (horribly) in the process. Oh, well.
One of the points I did see on social media was interesting. The state cannot legally take my bone marrow to save a child's life without my explicit permission. It cannot take it even if I am dead, and have no further use of it. I don't have to give a reason or a justification for declining my permission. My reason could be trivial, or it could even be malign. That makes no difference at all. My body is mine.
A woman's uterus is no different than my bone marrow. The state cannot legally force a woman to contribute her uterus to saving a child's life, whether that is a two-cell zygote, or an almost-ready child that just needs a week or two in a host mother's uterus. She doesn't have to give a reason for declining. It could be trivial, or even malign. That makes no difference at all.
To change this inviolability of the person's body to allow more efficient use of it as a resource for "the social good" is a huge step toward some of the most nightmarish dystopian fiction ever envisioned. Medical experimentation without consent. Forced organ donation. Soylent Green.
These are fucking AWFUL laws, written by religiously self-righteous morons.
Yes, guns and abortion are the two issues for single issue voters. I'd like having a discussion on abortion. Basically, it is a religiously biased issue and I want the government to stay out of my body.
I agree with Cathy. I recommend seeing the 2020 movie entitled "Never, Rarely, Sometimes, Always." It's about a 17-year-old young woman who is pregnant and doesn't want her parents to learn. She gets a classmate young woman to accompany her to NYC so she can get an abortion.
"...how many different compromises between NO GUNS and GUNS FOR EVERYONE." Exactly. They just keep harping on the singular getting their guns taken away.
These days it varies a lot by state and probably will continue to do so unless and until the Supreme Court makes a ruling. There is always the possibility of medical abortion during that first trimester to evade the new ridiculously restrictive laws in some states, but it becomes less feasible as the pregnancy progresses https://www.mayoclinic.org/tests-procedures/medical-abortion/about/pac-20394687
What I would love ❤️ to see is people applying their rules to themselves first. But no one seems to be able to remove the metaphorical plank from their own eye.
Well, we can certainly do that or at least give it the old college try, but the big issues will require agreement of some sort sooner or later. Better sooner.
Yes, David, I think that is the problem. It's hard to reason when that requires setting aside emotions and long-held dogmas, but given our divided politics and the apparent danger this represents to our as yet imperfect democracy, I think we might do well to engage in an "agreeing to disagree" exercise regarding certain less existential issues. If we can find compromise on a few of the hot-button, my-way-or-the-highway issues, we might be able to set them aside and address the REALLY BIG ones: IMHU democracy, wealth inequality and -- the biggest -- global warming. Sure, some folks view abortion and guns as existential issues, but neither is likely to lead directly to the extinction of our species. So that's what I mean by existential.
As a believer in a woman's right to choose and a supporter of strict limits on gun ownership, I nevertheless see a lot of space between my positions and the "abortion-is-murder" and "gun-ownership-is-a-Constitutional-right" positions where compromise might be found. Reaching satisfactory resolutions of both issues might allow a rebirth of at least minimal trust between left and right, which we will need in order to agree on the really big stuff. I don't see any of this being resolved by infinite polarization, unless civil war is our immediate objective.
Good post - but as long as compromise continues to be a "dirty word", not sure how we get there. Sort of the same as "bi-partisan" which is almost non-existent. Hearing someone actually SAY they see space between their position & the opposite position is sort of a breath of fresh air. Sadly, doesnt seem to come up in our elected officials conversations, does it? Just keeps tipping towards civil or uncivil war!
He not only gives it a bad name - he has no comprehension as to the fact that it exists! Frankly, as long as hes in office - I dont see any sign that things will change. Unless, ALL the Dems finally pull their heads out of wherever & DO something.
Oops. There it is again. “Unless civil war is our immediate objective”.
Ummmmmm. Quite subjective comment. This started out as Cathy’s story, which you ended with assuming she of course got new locks on her doors and good fairytale ending and no guns and whatever else you said before somehow you launched on the other “existential” issue abortion????
Christine, if you read what I said more carefully you will see that I do not include either abortion or guns on my short list of existential issues. And I believe life would be rather dull without a bit of discord to keep us on our toes.
I feel you observation is a bit biased. No one that I know or have read about holds the stance of “no guns.” I’m sure there is a tiny amount somewhere in America. This same exists with border legislation. No one seeks totally open borders yet the people screaming for closed borders yell that their opponents are the extreme opposite. It is a propaganda technique to state what you want, and then scream opponents seek zero control. As for abortion. There is law on the books allowing women to choose the medical procedure best for them. Yet opponents to this existing law want zero medical choices for women and are even seeking punishment for women for natural abortions. There are concepts and topics that can be negotiated, and then there are some that we shouldn’t even be allowing government to legislate.
Wow, your red herring alarm is set to super-sensitive. Are we at the point discussion of issues such as abortion and guns (I chose these because of their extreme divisiveness and because they line up pretty well on the left-right scale) is impossible? Please tell me what makes my comment a red herring, and for what reason do you think I am baiting you?
Diana, women are as capable of being both mistaken -- and rude about it -- as men are. I asked Annie to explain her comment, but I have not received an answer. I will recheck my inbox.
In this context, your use of the term "misogynistic" is uncalled for. I am not remotely misogynistic and there is nothing I have posted here that would reasonably lead you or anyone else to think so. I will not try to characterize you or your comment, as I do not know you, but I will add that "gas-lighting" is to some degree in the eye of the beholder.
David, I won't give an inch on abortion, and certainly don't believe that ANY man has the right to dictate a woman's choice. The decision is the woman's alone. Those who are opposed have that right to do as they choose, but not dictate to others.
It seems to me that the gunners and the pro-lifers have more in common than anyone else. Neither of them want to compromise one bit. I don't even know who the no gunners are you're referring to, and the abortion rights people are just trying to hang on to the rights they already have.
I'm a no gunner. In some European countries, and I think Canada, not even the cops carry guns. They do just fine. Lower crime rates. Lower death rates. And people feel safer than they do here. There is absolutely no reason why a civilian needs a gun. And cops shouldn't carry them either.
I have supported both sides of the abortion debate. I want Roe V. Wade to stay as it is. I am an old woman who wants young women to have a choice. I also do not support eugenic abortion mills like Planned Parenthood.
I think you're a bit wrong about Planned Parenthood being a "eugenic abortion mill." Planned Parenthood provides annual exams, help with contraceptives, pregnancy testing, men's health exams, HIV testing, and more. It sounds like it provides a variety of medical services for those in need, at little to no cost.
That event happened years ago in Massachusetts where owning a gun is not prevalent. Here in Texas you assume everyone has a gun. My understanding is at the gun class to get your license to carry you are taught to shoot to kill a trespasser on your property. I do home design and it is a standard question to ask if you need a gun room/safe. No, I already had an alarm on the house from the first time my house was robbed. The alarm was off because I was at home taking a bath! And, no I did not intentionally confront the burglar.
There have been a number of shootings here in Atlanta recently. On one post I read the comments were littered with, Protect our guns and that is why everyone needs to carry a concealed weapon... I asked one of the commenters, exactly what would you have done in this instance to have made this situation better if you had been present with your concealed weapon? Of course there was no answers, but why do they think this would help? I don't understand this at all.
What I have found interesting about our epidemic of gun violence...why haven't the police unions been the loudest proponents of gun regulation? Does that strike anyone else as inexplicable?
In TX, some of the loudest voices against concealed carry were the numerous police forces--both civic and university police. Made no difference. None. At. All.
Thanks for this info about TX police against concealed carry. Where is the opposition coming from? Is it all about money from gun manufacturer lobbyists?
My very good friend who IS trained to use a weapon has told me countless times that when armed untrained and unskilled people are attacked, THEY are usually the ones who die. I have never had a gun in my home and never will. I know exactly what you mean about that adrenalin. I have a pretty good "stage voice" that can sometimes be effective when I'm cornered. It's much safer for everyone concerned. It's just a voice and the worse for it will be a little rasp afterwards. I congratulate you on your success in getting those burglars convicted and for having survived a terrible situation!
I have been awakened in the dark by a burglar riffling thru a dresser drawer at the foot of my bed. As soon as he knew I was awake (WTF!) he split, with me jumping up and giving chase with my machete and yelling at my wife to call 911. This was Miami 1984 when I had no guns. When I was younger in New Orleans, 1968 and a security guard, a young woman neighbor woke me because someone was in her apt. I went back with her armed with a .22 cal. semi automatic. I carried an ancient .38 cal. revolver at work, but didn’t want to use Pinkerton’s gun if it came to firing off duty. There was no one in the apt., she called the police and I stayed with her until they got there. Having a gun in that instance gave me some security with a possible confrontation. (OMG, a “both sides” account).
My goodness what a story! I'm so glad you were OK. I too encountered a burglar but mine didn't end with any kind of conviction. I can't imagine if the person had had a gun.
While driving on Interstate 410 in San Antonio this morning, I noticed a big sign hanging over the roadway that said "Constitutional Carry is not legal until 9/1/2021". Constitutional Carry is the euphemism for permitless guns. Seems like we need Constitutional Driving and Constitutional Fishing now so we don't have to deal with any paperwork or fees or training or rules. Anyone can fire a gun so what is the problem. Haven't you ever had an intruder enter your house after dark? I have. Neither of us had a gun fortunately. But, as soon as I saw the burglar, a whopping amount of adrenaline shut down my higher brain functions. Fortunately, the burglar said "Yep" and ran out the door when I said "Get out of my house" in the most authoritative voice I've ever used. One of the hardest things I've ever had to do in my entire life is dial 911 because of the effort it took to overcome the adrenaline in my body. The Police came, they captured it turns out two burglars and they were convicted on my testimony. Two years probation. The police were thrilled to get any kind of conviction. Think what that would have been like if both of us had had guns. Which one of us would have died? More guns and less regulation is not the solution to gun violence.
My story, and it seems a lot of us have one, is that a few years back, my niece and I heard a disturbance in the garage. It was very early evening and the garage door was up. I jumped up, ran like a cat into the garage, see an intruder with hand on door handle about to come in house. I yell, in the same authoritative voice you describe, Cathy, GET OUT, scaring the bejeezuz out of us both. It’s a what looks like an older teen who turns and flees. I’m in some kind of way. Do I call the police? No. Like an idiot, I grab my “gun” (which, for me, is a worn Louisville slugger I keep at the door going out to garage) and take off running after the burglar yelling “oh no you don’t, don’t let me catch you” and whatever until ny niece catches up with my ass and pulls me back yelling…Auntie, what are you doing? Let’s call the police! Adrenaline is a funny thing and not a good mixer with guns. It was such a fight or flight thing with me in that moment. I can just remember I needed to protect my niece and NOT let the intruder in.
So same question…what if one or two guns had been present in the situation? We called the police. Runner and friend apprehended later that night in another neighborhood. I was called to identify.
My Louisville slugger is still by the door. And one under the bed.
I live in NY & have a baseball bat (slugger??) by my back door - also always have a dog. Never had to use the bat but its till there! I agree guns escalate - period. The more of them - the higher the escalation. So far, barking dogs are the best bet.
Not to stir things up but both of these "issues" are the same kind of hot button no compromise issues right now. BOTH sides have to give a little. A LITTLE! Do I agree with all that has been said here about abortion? Absolutely. But the rhetoric on both sides of guns and abortion also tend to escalate. Which does not help any of us.
I've said my piece now - done.
Cats work, too, sometimes. Someone kicked in my back door in Seattle a few years back, but he turned tail and took off when my very large black Maine coon cat fluffed all his fur, hissed, and then yowled. His name (the cat's) was Adam, but we called him the Butcher of Wallingford for his hunting and guarding prowess.
I always have a cat (sometimes its been multiple) but my Juliette (!) would go hide. Your Adam sounds really tough! Good for him.
I firmly believe gun control issues can be negotiated and should be.
I do too - but really hot button issue even here! Seems everything is an issue anymore. Common sense on one side & the other ? not.
Louisville slugger. Always a story behind the name. https://www.sluggermuseum.com/about-us/our-history
I guess there is a story - not being a big baseball fan (or sports fan for that matter) probably a lot I dont know. However whatever my bat's "history"is - I think it will serve the purpose if I need it!
Absolutely.
Your burglary tale has a rare positive outcome. Bravo!
I live in Central Texas. Even before Covid, I avoided going to the nearby metropolitan areas, if only to avoid the traffic. Yet after 9/1/2021, no one is safe anywhere. Open carry is the next logical step after concealed carry.
Treat guns like cars, boats, and buildings: register guns, tax guns, and require insurance.
Background check, license, insurance, yes to all of those, but I think required ongoing training is needed, too, along with a certain number of hours at a range to be met monthly to instill familiarity and muscle knowledge in its use.
I also believe that there should be a required yearly class in which a video is played, showing the reality of what a gunshot will do to the human body (not Hollywood style, but something realistic appearing) so people have an understanding of the deadly potential of a weapon. We Americans have been desensitized to the fact that humans cannot shake off a gunshot, get up, and keep fighting as we consistently see in movies, television, and videos. That false belief needs to be challenged and addressed if someone is to own a gun.
Don't forget there are us hunters out there who need our guns for bring down big game and birds or other small game for eating.
I just have to ask, doesn't the grocery store work? Animals get attached to one another, same as humans.
A subsistence lifestyle has indeed been replaced by a cash economy. Meat in the store comes from somewhere, as does fish.
Makes total sense to me. I have a driver's license, proof of insurance, and get a safety check every two years. So, what's the big deal?
I live in Central Texas too. When we consider where the mass shootings have occurred lately (and even those which are not considered "mass"), there's really no place at all that might be safe. Even in one's own home, a person with an assault weapon can drive by and shoot straight through the walls where one is supposedly "safe." I don't live in terror, but I drastically have altered my lifestyle and am on constant alert whenever I go out. I've only had to duck and cover and dash into my house once so far, thanks to the able assistance and immediate recognition of a good friend when a blast of gunfire went off just a couple of blocks away. This is a small town too.
"I've only had to duck and cover and dash into my house once so far..." - that gives me shivers of apprehension for you.
The best solution to a bad guy with a gun, is not a good guy with a gun. A much better solution is not to allow the bad guy to have a gun.
Bazinga! I'm still waiting for one instance of a good guy with a gun saving the day.
Wholeheartedly agree. Let background checks keep psychotics and depressives from owning a gun.
Terrifying. Your burglary, and Texas'.
Good comment, Cathy. Just think: after dark, unarmed burglars, unarmed home-owner, enough adrenaline to light up the state of Texas and no one got killed or injured. Sounds like a happy fairytale, but in any normal country where the possession of firearms is limited and regulated, in which "normal" means, "A gun? No, of course I don't own a gun!" this is the likely outcome of encounters between burglars and their victims. Two years probation, lessons learned. Perhaps the burglars won't try that again. Getting caught may have been the best thing that ever happened to them. You, Cathy, must have at least considered installing better locks or other security devices against further intrusions. Everyone's life went on.
What frustrates me about the whole gun issue is how many different compromises between NO GUNS and GUNS FOR EVERYONE there could be if the gunners and the no-gunners could accept less than everything they want. It's all or nothing and every argument becomes a slippery slope. Of course, the GOP believes it can continue to hold power only by backing the guns-for-everyone position. And the wrong interpretation of the Second Amendment by the SCOTUS makes this possible.
There are other issues that are similarly divisive in America that could be largely resolved by compromise. I believe abortion is one of these issues, but neither side wants to give an inch. At the risk of opening a can of worms, I wonder if other HCR readers would like to debate this.
Excuse me while I scream David Herrick. And how odd you’ve brought abortion to a gun fight.
As a non gun owner, it appears gun owners have long had the upper hand in preventing reasonable gun laws requiring registration, background checks and banning semi/automatic weapons. How much more compromise would you want?
As for abortion, Roe v Wade was a compromise. It allowed women the right to terminate a pregnancy in the first trimester without restrictions. Later term abortions required some compelling reason. States have been chipping away at that right ever since.
My problem with calls for “compromise” is that it’s rarely offered in good faith by Republicans. First they use every trick in the book to drag us to the right and when we finally get a foothold, they plea for compromise. When we agree, the obstruction just wears a different outfit.
For this fleeting moment, we’re in power, barely. We’d better make the most it.
Not all guns owners are like this. I am a gun owner and I think we need strict gun laws. Complete, nation-wide background checks that are updated regularly, registration that is updated regularly - like driver’s licenses, regular training on how to use, safely store and be accountable for the type of firearm one is purchasing and absolutely no assault weapons of any kind outside of the military.
Those of you who know me by my posts know that I am a veteran. I was trained to use several types of firearms/weapons. I know how to do so safely and responsibly because of that training (and because I am not a stereotypical gun crazy idiot - sorry to resort to such a phrase but they do exist - including in Congress). I find target shooting to be a skill that I enjoy keeping in good stead. Firearms can be owned responsibly and safely. Required training and accountability laws would enable that to be the case most of the time.
I also know what it is like to look at the damage a bullet will do to the human body - both in the military and from losing a sibling to gun violence. Another human being decided to kill my sibling. Why? Because they wanted to and had a gun. No license was required in their state, no background check. Nothing. The murderer had to get a license to drive their car but not to buy the firearm that took my sibling’s life at the age of 23.
We absolutely need strict, consistently administered gun laws in this country.
I applaud your words, Kasumii. Particularly, having proper training and periodic reviews of competence to operate a gun.
It seems to me, we need to hear more from folks like you to build stronger gun legislation.
I'm so sorry for the loss of your sibling. I am grateful for your service.
Thank you.
I have written, called & emailed my Congressional reps about this topic but they (both senators & house rep) aren’t interested in common sense firearm laws. I think what is needed is more grassroots engagement. Talks, symposiums, classes for the masses, if you will, on the basics of firearms and on the realities of. Classes given by nonpartisan people who don’t want to ban firearms entirely but who insist on strict laws.
I think if we (society in general) had more of this kind of available education on multiple issues, it would be a good thing. (Classes on firearms, finances, parenting, starting a business, taking care of a household, owning a vehicle, how to vote, having pets... Basic information classes, no politics allowed.)
The frustration you experience with trying to get through to your members of Congress points to the crux of the problem. I have read (but am too lazy right now to look this up) that the majority of gun owners agree with you that the laws need to be stricter, enforcement consistent, and education widespread. The problem is with the huge amount of money from pro-gun lobbyists and PACs that goes to politicians who ignore the wishes of the vast majority of Americans.
Wasn't intending to lay responsibility at your feet to get the word out. But, unlike me, you come with personal experiences that would have more weight (to me at least) than someone who can only speak hypothetically.
All good ideas! I worry that the common sense ship has sailed. I think we won't get any movement on gun regulation until the economy tanks like it did with Covid because there are so many mass shootings people are more afraid to go out anywhere . We might destroy ourselves before that happens though. 3.8 million dead of Covid, 600K Americans, and still so many won't get vaccinated.
I’m so sorry for your loss. And grateful for your service and your writing.
Thank you.
I am so sorry for your loss, Kasumii. That is an unspeakable horror.
Thank you for your condolences.
It was. Time blunts the edges of grief so we can keep living but the loss never fades.
I don't imagine it could fade. That type of loss leaves a hole in your heart and in your family. 😔
Sorry if this is a repeat, I hit something on my computer and my response vanished to me. I am so sorry for your family's loss from gun violence. I am not a military Veteran, but did serve my community for 35 years in law enforcement. I have a more lengthy response to my position on gun control more immediate to the original post than this.
Thank you for the condolences.
35 years in law enforcement is quite a career. I will look for your other post.
What a senseless loss and a terrible tragedy. My heartfelt sympathy.
Thank you.
I like prudent opinions on this gun control issue from people that have experience and background to have an informed opinion. Thank you for your service. And your compassion. Blessings.
I’m so sorry about your brother, and I agree with your opinion, Kasumii. Once upon a time the NRA used the dues gun owners paid to finance gun safety clinics across our country. Their goal was to educate the youth on the safety and responsible use of handguns and rifles. This dwindled away away very quickly by the 1980’s. Now the classes cost huge amounts and are directed at conceal carry permits of late.
Thank you.
Some years ago I attended an NRA class out of curiosity and was disgusted at how the class wasn’t about responsible gun ownership at all but about how to get around the laws.
My heart goes out to you. The good news is the NRA is not as powerful as it once was. The bad news is gun legislation is not relevant without enforcement.
Thank you. I agree with you. We would need strict enforcement of any laws pertaining to firearms - far better than we have now.
Abortion and guns are two sides of the same coin. The far right want total control of women's bodies and holding us down, whilst they do not want ANY controls against their weapons of mass destruction that kill. Abortion, in their minds, kills a human being, whilst automatic weapons kill or maim multiple people in one fell swoop. Demonstration of lack of critical thinking skills, again. That is what is killing our democracy. Lack of critical thinking skills. And learning real history.
For me the connection is clear every time I see the big billboard in my town that proclaims "Abortion stops a beating heart", and I think, so does a bullet.
Forgive me if I sound like a troll — I’m not. But this conversation has finally morphed in my head to wonder if there is a connection to “no abortions” and fear of laws that might be passed to make condom use on guns mandatory. No offense, Penelope — it’s just my mind putting the other side of the same coin! 😉
Oh, I think you likely have hit the nail squarely on the head of the connection between the two. There must be no inhibition of the ability to pro-/e-ject at will.
Although I've been called a fairly rabid feminist/feminazi more than once, in my house, it is my husband who would be the first to point out this equating of firearms with penises.
Patricia-- you really had me there for awhile. I came in with sunglasses on to get a drink and quickly glanced at your comment and went away wondering what the heck you meant. I just returned and saw the "condoms" on guns and lost my water all over my computer! I had not seen that critical word! Hahahahah! That would be some mighty strong condom material! I love how your mind morphs!
Have you mistaken me for a gun owner, or gun rights sustainer? I would ban guns altogether if I were king. I have never owned a gun or fired one outside of a firing range at Ft. Leonard Wood, MO in the summer of 1972. People carrying or wearing guns make me nervous. I have had to explain why I was taking a tourist photo of a dam across the upper Nile to 4 Ethiopian soldiers pointing Kalashnikovs at me and my wife while our Ethiopian driver was on his knees begging them not to kill us. I was held up at gunpoint once while driving a taxi in Colorado Springs. My sister and her husband were terrorized by two gun wielding creeps who just walked through the unlocked front door of their Portland OR house and didn't believe there was no wall safe. Talk about adrenaline! And I have lost friends to pistol-in-the-mouth suicide, too. I detest guns.
Guns and abortion have only one thing in common: the far right - a substantial share of all Republicans - loves guns and hates abortion. They are united around these issues, sucking in the supposedly Christian right, and they help elect lying imbeciles like Donald Trump and Mitch McConnell.
I'm wondering if by taking some of the fervor out of their abortion-hating and gun-loving they might not take a new look at a few other issues and find there is some common ground to be shared with the rest of us. You know, the economy, climate change, income inequality, healthcare etc., etc. I'm not hoping to change anyone's mind, just how some people vote.
Another reader here accused me of feeding her a red herring. Another unwitting day of hole-digging, I guess.
Then why in heaven’s name would you call for more compromise on these issues? My point is that we’ve compromised endlessly and are only loosing ground. Enough!
I see your point. Well taken.
Yes, you can try to compromise, but we are trying to do it with a party that totally refuses to compromise, and if they do, they will vote it down. Talk all you want, the Republicans have decided to destroy America and vote as they please. And remember that these Republicans are a white, male, conservative majority who are terrified of losing those characteristics.
I always wanted to know what people would use to drive out intruders and marauders. I don't own a gun. Perhaps bug spray?
Buy a can of wasp spray and keep it by your bed. It shoots about 20 feet and disables an intruder. Perhaps we can create some wasp spray shooting ranges for self-defense practice?
So well said! Thank you for pointing out that Roe v Wade was a compromise!
I am strongly pro-choice, and in favor of women being able to have abortions when they feel they need to do so, except beyond viability. But in all the recent reductions of abortion rights, I haven't seen anything on how the existence of medical abortion will affect women's ability to make their own choices in the relevant states. I did some googling, and figuring that others might have the same questions, found this from the Mayo Clinic, the gist of which is that medical abortion becomes much less feasible as pregnancy progresses. https://www.mayoclinic.org/tests-procedures/medical-abortion/about/pac-20394687
CAN WE PLEASE LET THE ABORTION ISSUE ABERRATION DISAPPEAR FROM HERE TODAY?
Like it or not, neither of us controls the comments. I'm trying to be helpful to others. Could we please try to treat each other with decency, and respect, and without yelling? (If not I would much appreciate not hearing from you, and I will likewise stay away from you.)
Authoritarian.
I used to live in Chicago. Guns were outlawed. The outlaws and the kids had them though.
That's because they could go to the next town to buy them.
How is the issue of abortion to be resolved by compromise? It is every woman's right to decide what she wants for herself. The government should not be involved in this very personal and private decision.
Agree, Diana. Not sure how abortion is brought in as a comparable “compromise” issue like gun control???
Tell that to the former party that used to be called republicans and is now the party of Sedition. They boasted they want smaller government. Our larger government is needed because many Americans need protections from the all-knowing white supremacist patriarchy.
Diana, thank you very much for your question and a brief but clear statement of your position regarding abortion.
First of all, I share your position 100% and have ever since I first gave it any serious thought (in high school? Not sure, surely no later than freshman year of college). I believe babies become babies the moment they are born, but until then they are fetuses. Once they are born they enter society and acquire rights. Before that they are part of the mother's body and are -- or should be -- the mother's responsibility, or problem as the case may be. Companions and fathers have a role to play, but women do the heavy lifting, and this is not mere anthropology but biology. Thinking of abortion as simply another way to accomplish contraception strikes me as selfish, and I suspect almost all women -- before aborting -- give it a lot of thought and experience uncertainty, anguish, even feelings of guilt and self-loathing depending on their upbringing, religion and culture. But for human beings a certain amount of selfishness is a survival mechanism and is unavoidable. In any case, I seriously doubt many women, learning that they are unexpectedly pregnant, think to themselves, "Oh, no big deal, I'll just get an abortion". More likely they are thinking, "Bummer, I could have avoided this" or something similar. But this is just a guy shooting his mouth off about things he has not and will never experience, so it is not for me to judge.
All that said, while I agree with you, our position on abortion is extreme, which is to say that in this discussion there is no position any farther out on our side of it. We agree that abortion is a woman's business, not society's, or the government's, or some church's, or the husband's or the cute guy who is the likely father, or Mom or Dad's business. We believe this and are sure we're right. And we are!
But.... unfortunately there is another extreme (which also does not consider itself extreme, but is) and we know it. And because ever since Roe vs. Wade became the law of the land, abortion has been legal, and the decision about aborting or not has - in fact - been left to women, men and women at the other extreme in our amazingly diverse country have been fighting to have the decision overturned. Again, you probably know more about the details of this than I do, almost certainly.
So, your question: "How is the issue of abortion to be resolved by compromise?" Well, the short easy answer is, "Like any other issue about which there are strong disagreements, each side will have to give a little to get a little. And to find a point where there might be -- not agreement -- but acceptance of the importance of not letting this issue (and guns) dominate all others, as it arguably has for many years, one side (ours) must accept some limitation on a woman's right to chose, while the other side must accept a limitation on their "right" to impose their religious beliefs on others. I suspect that some combination of time limits within which abortions must be done and guarantees of cheap contraception and abortion services to all women who need them is the way to go. The devil will be in the details, of course.
I have other ideas about this, but I have to go pick up my wife and take a walk. I would like to know in greater detail what you think about all this, so I'll check my mail in a couple of hours.
David, many women, myself included, feel our hackles rise when a man tries to guide a conversation on abortion. Especially a man we don’t know personally. Let’s just not go there, please, in a thread about gun control.
I think it is fine for David to start this conversation. I wish more men would try to understand what it is like to have the government violate your body. They start to get it when I say convicted rapists should have penectomies. And, I like what Barbara Bush said about abortion -- that God will take care of that soul no matter what.
Yes, I think men should talk about these things-- but stand on the side of women to make the decisions. After all they are half the responsibility for pregnancies. They should get vasectomies once they have decided they do not want more children and provide women with freedom from unwanted pregnancies, too.
And I believe there is s direct line with guns and abortion. It is all about power over another's life or a fetus (potential life). I do not think you can be pro-life (against abortions) and pro WMDs in the hands of civilians.
I appreciate David trying to have discourse and understand women's points of view on this topic. Bravo, David!
A bit like stepping in a nest of yellowjackets. Just kidding!!!
I agree. Whack it off. After due process of course.
Hi Kathy! Well, I was trying to start a conversation. I'm not sure how I could actually guide one. I do take exception to the idea that men should not express their opinions about abortion or any other issue, given everyone's total freedom to respond to or reject or ignore any arguments at all here. How are things going?
Agreed - we can all have our opinions 🙂. I’m doing well! Recovering from surgery, pathology was very good, transitioning to surveillance mode! Excellent news. We’re hoping to get to Italy in the fall; my husband has a conference on Capri that we would like to attend. We miss our family and I’m dying for some mozzarella!
Just not today. Topic was not in forum. I think it’s diversion.
My Bella di notte didn’t germinate :(. I found some seeds though, and will try again.
Agree, Kathy. My original request.
How this got to abortion from the original story about an attempted burglary and guns is not clear. Can this be on another day as you originally suggested, David???
I used to love it whenever a witness tried to evade answering a question by bringing up some other topic, only to have the lawyer double down by re-asking the same question; not quitting until he got an answer TO THE QUESTION!
My niece says in Scotland they call it "whataboutery".
Christine, please feel free to ignore me if you wish.
Again, you suggest I can be quiet. You are a very authoritarian character.
Do you think abortion and gun control are just emotional issues the right extremists are using politically to increase buy in from voters? Rational arguments such as on this forum are not meaningful to Republicans who are using the issues as weapons to force their racist and misogynistic views but I surely love the responses here. I learn much. Thanks for taking the time to post.
Hello Kathy Clark. Well, clearly gun control and abortion are emotional issues, and while I am way left on both issues and believe we have much better arguments for our positions, folks on the left can get pretty emotional, too.
I hope there are a few Republicans and people who have not yet made up their minds about certain issues reading HCR's Letter, but apart from a handful of readers who are trolls or even Russian agents (according to Roland and several others) there seems to be a lot more agreement here than discord. Getting left and right to engage in well-reasoned debate about the emotional issues is a rather tall order these days.
Thank you, too, for taking the time to post.
I am astounded at your position.
"Thinking of abortion as simply another way to accomplish contraception strikes me as selfish, and I suspect almost all women -- before aborting -- give it a lot of thought and experience uncertainty, anguish, even feelings of guilt and self-loathing depending on their upbringing, religion and culture. But for human beings a certain amount of selfishness is a survival mechanism and is unavoidable. In any case, I seriously doubt many women, learning that they are unexpectedly pregnant, think to themselves, "Oh, no big deal, I'll just get an abortion". More likely they are thinking, "Bummer, I could have avoided this" or something similar."
Now - what shall we do about men, who are the CAUSE of the problem, of the unwanted pregnancy and unplanned for child? Without men, there would be no pregnancy. So men should have the privilege of just sleeping around or having sex when they want to, and then force women to have the child just because they inadvertently became pregnant? (And what will be the quality of life for this unwanted/unplanned for child? - - I won't even go there. . . .) Make men sterile? Maybe vasectomies should be in order for every man and adolescent, and then when the women want to have a child, do a reverse vasectomy.
How irresponsible of you to put it off onto women.
Great idea, Diana! Boys/men can save their sperm in a sperm bank (for future intentional use by women who shop a sperm bank catalog and choose the best potential genetic material for their child) and then have vasectomies! No reversal even needed! Just a turkey baster. It could be the new male rite of passage.
That's a great idea, Beth! I love it! A new business!
I am astounded that you - apparently - willfully misunderstand what I have written. Please re-read it. I have ascribed no such privilege to men as "just sleeping around" or remotely suggested that men should "force women" they have impregnated to "have the child". I absolutely support a woman's right to abort. It is her personal choice, as it should be. I suggest that most women upon discovering they are pregnant are either happy because they had been intending to become pregnant or unhappy because they had not wanted to get pregnant. I do not imagine either getting pregnant or having an abortion is a small thing in the lives of most women. I further imagine also that most women would prefer not getting pregnant over aborting to end a pregnancy, and they would prefer avoiding pregnancy through contraception over having to end a pregnancy through abortion.
I did not address contraception for men, but why should I bother if people like you will not make a minimal effort to read carefully?
Get a grip.
There was no willful misunderstanding. And, as I read your comment again, and for a third time, I stand by my position. Your statement began with the phrase, "Thinking of abortion as simply another way to accomplish contraception strikes me as selfish . . ." Selfish?
This implies that you, along with other gop right-wing men, believe that the female sex's primary purpose is to produce children. Are men viewed as selfish because they deposit sperm everywhere and have no accountability for it?
Selfish to whom? The fetus or the impregnator? Is it selfish for a woman to want to pursue a career, have fun in life, or is she selfish just because she does not want to have children (does not want to be a baby-making automaton)?
Or perhaps the wish to abort by the woman, or the couple, is due to not having financial resources to give a child a good life? Maybe even to feed it? (I notice that republicans and right-wing christians care about the fetus until it's born. After it's born - don't give it welfare - let it starve - let it freeze - let it live on the streets! Forget needed medical care. What?! It was born with a birth defect? It deserved it! Conservatives care about the fetus until the day it's born. Period. How Christian is that????)
And then look at the double standard. (In this century, I shouldn't even have to say this.) Men aren't viewed as selfish if they want to pursue a career, or not have children, or if they want to run away from paternity tests. Most men aren't held accountable for underpaying or not paying child support, and they aren't held accountable because the court system looks the other way, ignores the problem that so harms women and children. Child support laws are written to favor men!
Your view of women as "selfish" really is a psychological/ sociological position that could have a book written on it.
A common response to women after a firm rebuke and or counterpoint.
"suggested that men should "force women" they have impregnated to "have the child"."
This is the exact consequences that anti-abortion groups are wanting to do, David. I would alter it to include women and men forcing women to have the child.
In NH the gop majority has slipped the latest unpopular with the people abortion bill into the state budget as they are confident the gop pro-life governor who pretends he is pro-choice will be okay with it. Certainly he would never veto the budget bill over abortion rights. This bill would ban abortion after 24 weeks with no provision at all for cases of rape, incest, severe fetal anomalies. A "compromise" on the part of the gop involved forcing a woman to have an ultrasound prior to the abortion even if there was no medical reason to do so. See now why we're not interested in compromising?
One is either pro-choice or pro-life, and currently each can do as she chooses. States can't be allowed to make that choice for any woman, and neither should anyone else. This evil idiocy needs to be squelched by the courts, up to and including the Supreme Court! The "religious" right won't tolerate aborting a fetus, but has no problem with capital punishment, war, or fomenting civil war, with accompanying casualties. If there's a Hell, we can have a pretty good idea of who will be occupying it.
I would put evangelical beliefs as anti-abortion and not pro-life by your very own observation. They say no to any abortions, but have no problem with what you stated.
Beth, thank you for your reasoned response to my comment. If you have read the rest of this string, you know that I have upset, irritated and/or angered a number of other commenters, several of whom have -- apparently -- assumed that I am on the anti-abortion, anti-choice side of this issue. This is not the case and nothing could be further from the truth.
I was trying to make a different argument, which is that it might be possible to diminish this issue and other extremely divisive issues as rallying points for the religious right, and possibly extract a few voters from the clutches of the GOP.
But, given the danger that Roe v. Wade may be overturned by the current SCOTUS, thus sending the whole question back to each state legislature, resulting in enormous injustice, pain, anguish and untimely death for women in those states where abortion would surely be outlawed, my argument is clearly a fool's errand, and I should have thought better of raising the issue here.
In other words, abortion on demand must be easily available to all women in every state, and it would appear that the only way to guarantee that is for ROE v. Wade to survive and continue to be the law of the land. So, it seems that the "compromise" I stupidly suggested is, in fact, Roe v. Wade, which -- as I understand it -- allows abortion on demand in the first 24 weeks, but is less clear about what is allowed in later stages of pregnancy. This lack of clarity has given the religious right too much room for maneuver, and they tend to be one-issue voters, ignoring other issues that are of "existential" importance for our species as a whole. I'll narrow these down to the continued existence of nuclear weapons and impending climate change, either of which could snuff us all out, one sooner, the other a bit later.
Anyway, I greatly appreciate that your response to my post was to provide me information about troubling developments in NH of which I was not aware, not dismiss me as if I were an incorrigible misogynist.
No reason you should be aware of what's going on in NH. Most of the people who live here are not aware. We're distracted, as most Americans are, by the basic efforts to get through our days and meet our immediate responsibilities. Just the way the gop likes us.
David, I'm going to offer you some unsolicited advice and I apologize in advance.
You're a good writer and your thoughts, opinions and questions are as valuable here as anyone else's. Everyone's nerves are raw and people feel passionately about things. We don't always pause, think, reconsider before typing. People are insulted here; it's happened to many of us. Sometimes the insult is projection, as you said, often there's a tiny grain of truth in it that's worth self-examination. Defending yourself feels good in the moment but no one really cares about your defense. Sometimes it's best to let the insult just.........land and ignore it. Trust me, others see it for what it is too. No one else is judging you based on the insult hurled at you. If they are, fuck 'em. Second, third, fourth + chances are freely given here. So relax, breathe, pause (even when others don't); it's good practice for life, I'm finding.
David, please stop digging.
I'm not digging, and I find it tiresome to be told that I am. We probably agree on almost everything. If you do not like my posts, that's okay, it's life.
I'm sorry, David. I just don't see much room for compromise on abortion. It's a hot button issue. While I believe that only the woman can decide how to handle it, I also believe that it is unfortunate that some choose to use it as an alternative to birth control. Simply, if a woman decides that having an abortion is the best choice, she should be able to do so. If her belief is opposed, then rule out the option, but don't dictate to others. I realize that you're hoping to find some way to turn down the heat, and that's admirable, and I shouldn't have been dismissive.
The right has to be supported and protected by an unimpeachable source. Compromise is not relevant here.
To the question of guns: In my career, I had the opportunity (beginning in 1987) to talk with people who had been burglarized. Often times, I was asked for an opinion about whether they should get a gun for "protection". My response to that question was shaped over time (and experience), but was simply along two lines. Most burglaries are for property, and is it worth killing someone over your TV/computer/coin collection? If you're talking personal protection, how familiar are you with firearms, and can you kill someone? Most times the answers were 1. not and 2. no, I'd just wound them. My advise to most of these folks were that killing someone extracts a personal mental and emotional cost, one which troubles cops and soldiers alike, and we've "done the work" of training and mental preparation for taking a life; it isn't easy. I would recommend a golf club, a baseball bat, or other improvised impact weapon for self protection. Most of my contacts were "one and done" so I don't know to what degree my advice was followed.
My suggestion for gun control is this: Codify the NRA's "Range Safety Rules" and pair them with the vehicle code requirements for licensing, registration, insurance, and responsibility. Take any vehicle code you choose, and substitute "firearm" for "vehicle" and you'll get my drift here.
Personally, as a retired cop, I own three handguns; two for concealed carry and one for maintaining proficiency. I carry less now than I did immediately after my retirement (8 years ago) and I still have occasions where I do carry. I am a gender non-conforming lesbian who rides a motorcycle. I can't engage in unarmed combat effectively any longer, and I am at personal risk for assault.
Regarding abortion, I have a fundamental belief that those who carry a baby are the ones who should be deciding the issue. A woman (excluding a multiple birth) can have one baby in a 365 day period, A man could father substantially more, and bear none of the personal impacts that having a baby makes. Our society is so male centric that the likelihood of that happening are non-existent. Just my opinion on that component. I also have the unicorn fantasy that what would be fabulous is that with access to birth control across the board, medical and pre/postnatal care, and financial support the need for abortion would decrease to the medically necessary ones for fetal and maternal survival. But that will get me as far as I can ride a unicorn.
How telling that the same people who oppose abortion also oppose sex education, birth control, universal health care and increased minimum wages. They care nothing for the living. “All passion and no mercy” Joni Mitchell.
I think they are afraid of unfamiliar people, places and things.
The small group of quite elderly men (older than me anyway, and I'm 66) who take their folding chairs and "pro-life" banner to sit outside the Planned Parenthood in my town don't look like they get many opportunities any more to impregnate anyone. Perhaps the fear is less about unfamiliar people, places and things, and more about losing their positions of dominance.
I think those elderly men get a stipend or some reimbursement for sitting there day after day. I don't know for fact, but they get something out of it besides their religious values.
Could be.
Ally, this is brilliant, in my opinion: "My suggestion for gun control is this: Codify the NRA's "Range Safety Rules" and pair them with the vehicle code requirements for licensing, registration, insurance, and responsibility. Take any vehicle code you choose, and substitute "firearm" for "vehicle" and you'll get my drift here."
Ally, I found your post. I understand what you mean by being unable to engage in unarmed combat and being at personal risk for assault. I think certain groups in our society are automatically at increased risk just by being who they are, sadly.
I also own several firearms, one of which is under a conceal carry license - which I suppose is moot now that my state decided anyone can open carry. I only carry it (concealed) when traveling and I do so for self-defense. (Years ago when driving long-distance at night I was forced off an deserted stretch of the highway by a man intent on harm. What saved me was having a firearm and being ready to use it if need be. He said “that little toy pistol won’t hurt me, especially since you’re too stupid to know where the safety is”. When I calmly flipped the safety off and kept it aimed at him he chose to leave in a hurry. At the next off-ramp/gas station I reported what happened (including a description of him, his truck & his license #) but have no idea if anything was done. [This was pre-mobile phones.]) It was my training and familiarity with firearms that allowed me to do that.
If only this country would treat firearms like they do licenses for driving. Hell, even for fishing.
Oops! Forgot to add the 2nd half of a sentence. I meant my conceal carry license is probably moot now - or will be soon - because my state allows open carry - and is pushing through a law to allow conceal carry for anyone. It looks like it will pass too - which is absolute insanity.
When I was young and in the Air Force stationed at Ft. Meade, I started collecting firearms and had a friend who went to the range with me to shoot. I had about 5 modern pistols & 2 rifles a cap&ball pistol and a flintlock pistol. I loved the engineering and steelwork of them. And, I was a member of the NRA - but it was different in the mid 1960s. When I dropped out in 1970 I got rid of all my guns.
With the near daily shootings nationwide and in South Florida the reality of unregulated firearms in the hands of crazy ppl is appalling and the modern NRA is complicit with this carnage.
My last job during a heated office debate with my supervisor, he point blank asked me if I owned a gun. I knew exactly what that meant as a couple of workplace murders happened here in the past few days. I assured him I did not, but the writer in me made an essay about it, which is now posted on twitter for those interested.
https://twitter.com/roboyte/status/1405243288202928135?s=20
My sister & brother-in-law in Las Vegas have firearms and when I visited them, we went out to a firing range and did some target shooting - first time I fired a gun in half a century. That evening when we got in we discovered it was the same day of the Las Vegas mass shooting, Oct 1, 2017.
I remember all the years in North America, driving everywhere but always having at the back of my mind "What does the guy in the car annoying me have in his glove compartment? It makes one both cautious and very "polite" when one has to be. I've never owned a gun and in France I would ban hunting in all its forms. I'm rooting fro the wolves and bears that are being re-introduced! Living in the country, you know when the "season" has started as the animals and birds know. They are gone and total silence reigns....until you start to hear the shots in the woods. You stop walking your dog in most places very quickly as "accidents" happen, especially after they've consumed a "festive" lunch! The government publishes every year the figure for the number of hunters killed by their colleagues....a good day!
Getting hand guns legally in this country would be next to impossible. getting Kalashnikovs illegally is apparently....and seeing their frequent use on the streets of poor quarters in drug "fight-outs"...very easy!
One small question that came to mind, after very much appreciating your very personal text, is perhaps somewhat off-subject and "light"....What sort of bike do you ride?
PS: Female "homosexuality" was never illegal in England as Queen Victoria refused to believe it existed...she had Albert. She obliged her Prime Minister to take the clause out of the Bill from which poor Oscar Wilde suffered so dearly. Two spinsters sharing a cottage was part of the normal landscape and hardly source for comment.
I have ridden two types of motorcycles over my life; cruisers (Yamaha V Stars and Honda Shadows) and standards (Yamaha FZ1). Sadly, the hips no longer allow these rides (and have negated bicycle riding as well.) I used to tour the west coast with one or several friends. Group rides were always better than a solo ride, with most of those being more or less local.
Oh, Ally, this is excellent! May I copy and post your first 2 paragraphs on gun use and control? It all makes perfect, informed sense!
Any time you want! Get the word out about how to have a workkable system!
David, the gun manufacturers benefit by supporting the more guns the better position. Most ppl I know are not “no guns.” And some pro-life groups will never “compromise” on abortion. That takes away their principled, righteous stand, their political raison d’etre, their ability to control women’s bodies, etc., etc.
I would not normally respond to this post, because it is almost entirely a red-meat issue for religious conservatives, based on dogmatic speculations following from certain religious beliefs that many -- or even most -- of us don't subscribe to at all. This then turns into the Handmaid's Tale anti-abortion laws crafted by right-wing (male) legislators who are apparently dumb as rocks, which serve as excellent examples of some of the worst-crafted laws in the world. The whole topic is a polluted sewer.
What I find fascinating, however, is that the same conservatives who have an apoplectic fit over a "mask mandate" -- during a pandemic -- that curtails their "individual freedom" are the first to say that an individual woman can be forced to carry an inviable fetus to term, and die (horribly) in the process. Oh, well.
One of the points I did see on social media was interesting. The state cannot legally take my bone marrow to save a child's life without my explicit permission. It cannot take it even if I am dead, and have no further use of it. I don't have to give a reason or a justification for declining my permission. My reason could be trivial, or it could even be malign. That makes no difference at all. My body is mine.
A woman's uterus is no different than my bone marrow. The state cannot legally force a woman to contribute her uterus to saving a child's life, whether that is a two-cell zygote, or an almost-ready child that just needs a week or two in a host mother's uterus. She doesn't have to give a reason for declining. It could be trivial, or even malign. That makes no difference at all.
To change this inviolability of the person's body to allow more efficient use of it as a resource for "the social good" is a huge step toward some of the most nightmarish dystopian fiction ever envisioned. Medical experimentation without consent. Forced organ donation. Soylent Green.
These are fucking AWFUL laws, written by religiously self-righteous morons.
And with that, I am disengaging from this topic.
Yes, guns and abortion are the two issues for single issue voters. I'd like having a discussion on abortion. Basically, it is a religiously biased issue and I want the government to stay out of my body.
I agree with Cathy. I recommend seeing the 2020 movie entitled "Never, Rarely, Sometimes, Always." It's about a 17-year-old young woman who is pregnant and doesn't want her parents to learn. She gets a classmate young woman to accompany her to NYC so she can get an abortion.
"...how many different compromises between NO GUNS and GUNS FOR EVERYONE." Exactly. They just keep harping on the singular getting their guns taken away.
Well the fact that abortion is illegal after the first trimester (hopefully I'm right about that) is a compromise.
These days it varies a lot by state and probably will continue to do so unless and until the Supreme Court makes a ruling. There is always the possibility of medical abortion during that first trimester to evade the new ridiculously restrictive laws in some states, but it becomes less feasible as the pregnancy progresses https://www.mayoclinic.org/tests-procedures/medical-abortion/about/pac-20394687
I don’t know much about debate. It seems to drop so rapidly into hurt feelings as so few of us can stand to give up on our beloved dogmas.
What I would love ❤️ to see is people applying their rules to themselves first. But no one seems to be able to remove the metaphorical plank from their own eye.
Well, we can certainly do that or at least give it the old college try, but the big issues will require agreement of some sort sooner or later. Better sooner.
Would love to solve the world’s problems over coffee with you.
And that’s how compromise begins. Sitting down with someone and having a conversation. 🙂
I'd love to sit down with a cup and that conversation.
Doubt if the two Davids can devise abortion “compromise” over a cuppa’ coffee.
Yikes.
May I join? Especially if we make it wine instead of coffe!
Yes, David, I think that is the problem. It's hard to reason when that requires setting aside emotions and long-held dogmas, but given our divided politics and the apparent danger this represents to our as yet imperfect democracy, I think we might do well to engage in an "agreeing to disagree" exercise regarding certain less existential issues. If we can find compromise on a few of the hot-button, my-way-or-the-highway issues, we might be able to set them aside and address the REALLY BIG ones: IMHU democracy, wealth inequality and -- the biggest -- global warming. Sure, some folks view abortion and guns as existential issues, but neither is likely to lead directly to the extinction of our species. So that's what I mean by existential.
As a believer in a woman's right to choose and a supporter of strict limits on gun ownership, I nevertheless see a lot of space between my positions and the "abortion-is-murder" and "gun-ownership-is-a-Constitutional-right" positions where compromise might be found. Reaching satisfactory resolutions of both issues might allow a rebirth of at least minimal trust between left and right, which we will need in order to agree on the really big stuff. I don't see any of this being resolved by infinite polarization, unless civil war is our immediate objective.
Good post - but as long as compromise continues to be a "dirty word", not sure how we get there. Sort of the same as "bi-partisan" which is almost non-existent. Hearing someone actually SAY they see space between their position & the opposite position is sort of a breath of fresh air. Sadly, doesnt seem to come up in our elected officials conversations, does it? Just keeps tipping towards civil or uncivil war!
Compromise became a dirty word when only one side acted in good faith. Mitch McConnell gave compromise a bad name.
He not only gives it a bad name - he has no comprehension as to the fact that it exists! Frankly, as long as hes in office - I dont see any sign that things will change. Unless, ALL the Dems finally pull their heads out of wherever & DO something.
Oops. There it is again. “Unless civil war is our immediate objective”.
Ummmmmm. Quite subjective comment. This started out as Cathy’s story, which you ended with assuming she of course got new locks on her doors and good fairytale ending and no guns and whatever else you said before somehow you launched on the other “existential” issue abortion????
Harbinger for discord, not discourse on this day.
Christine, if you read what I said more carefully you will see that I do not include either abortion or guns on my short list of existential issues. And I believe life would be rather dull without a bit of discord to keep us on our toes.
Don’t tell me to read more carefully. I am very existentially aware of my comprehension skills.
Double down.
I feel you observation is a bit biased. No one that I know or have read about holds the stance of “no guns.” I’m sure there is a tiny amount somewhere in America. This same exists with border legislation. No one seeks totally open borders yet the people screaming for closed borders yell that their opponents are the extreme opposite. It is a propaganda technique to state what you want, and then scream opponents seek zero control. As for abortion. There is law on the books allowing women to choose the medical procedure best for them. Yet opponents to this existing law want zero medical choices for women and are even seeking punishment for women for natural abortions. There are concepts and topics that can be negotiated, and then there are some that we shouldn’t even be allowing government to legislate.
No. Red herring. I hate being baited.
Wow, your red herring alarm is set to super-sensitive. Are we at the point discussion of issues such as abortion and guns (I chose these because of their extreme divisiveness and because they line up pretty well on the left-right scale) is impossible? Please tell me what makes my comment a red herring, and for what reason do you think I am baiting you?
Accusing her of being super-sensitive is gas lighting, and, well, misogynistic.
Diana, women are as capable of being both mistaken -- and rude about it -- as men are. I asked Annie to explain her comment, but I have not received an answer. I will recheck my inbox.
In this context, your use of the term "misogynistic" is uncalled for. I am not remotely misogynistic and there is nothing I have posted here that would reasonably lead you or anyone else to think so. I will not try to characterize you or your comment, as I do not know you, but I will add that "gas-lighting" is to some degree in the eye of the beholder.
Totally agree Annie. Frustrating.
David, I won't give an inch on abortion, and certainly don't believe that ANY man has the right to dictate a woman's choice. The decision is the woman's alone. Those who are opposed have that right to do as they choose, but not dictate to others.
I totally agree.
Your voice is powerful! By the way, Windex works on bugs. Maybe it works on intruders.
It seems to me that the gunners and the pro-lifers have more in common than anyone else. Neither of them want to compromise one bit. I don't even know who the no gunners are you're referring to, and the abortion rights people are just trying to hang on to the rights they already have.
I'm a no gunner. In some European countries, and I think Canada, not even the cops carry guns. They do just fine. Lower crime rates. Lower death rates. And people feel safer than they do here. There is absolutely no reason why a civilian needs a gun. And cops shouldn't carry them either.
I have supported both sides of the abortion debate. I want Roe V. Wade to stay as it is. I am an old woman who wants young women to have a choice. I also do not support eugenic abortion mills like Planned Parenthood.
I think you're a bit wrong about Planned Parenthood being a "eugenic abortion mill." Planned Parenthood provides annual exams, help with contraceptives, pregnancy testing, men's health exams, HIV testing, and more. It sounds like it provides a variety of medical services for those in need, at little to no cost.
That event happened years ago in Massachusetts where owning a gun is not prevalent. Here in Texas you assume everyone has a gun. My understanding is at the gun class to get your license to carry you are taught to shoot to kill a trespasser on your property. I do home design and it is a standard question to ask if you need a gun room/safe. No, I already had an alarm on the house from the first time my house was robbed. The alarm was off because I was at home taking a bath! And, no I did not intentionally confront the burglar.
I know I should be focusing on the terror of a robbery when you are in the bathtub. But, You do home design?!!! Coo-uhll!!
There have been a number of shootings here in Atlanta recently. On one post I read the comments were littered with, Protect our guns and that is why everyone needs to carry a concealed weapon... I asked one of the commenters, exactly what would you have done in this instance to have made this situation better if you had been present with your concealed weapon? Of course there was no answers, but why do they think this would help? I don't understand this at all.
What I have found interesting about our epidemic of gun violence...why haven't the police unions been the loudest proponents of gun regulation? Does that strike anyone else as inexplicable?
In TX, some of the loudest voices against concealed carry were the numerous police forces--both civic and university police. Made no difference. None. At. All.
Thanks for this info about TX police against concealed carry. Where is the opposition coming from? Is it all about money from gun manufacturer lobbyists?
Sanity’s such a simple concept!
Keyword: concept
My very good friend who IS trained to use a weapon has told me countless times that when armed untrained and unskilled people are attacked, THEY are usually the ones who die. I have never had a gun in my home and never will. I know exactly what you mean about that adrenalin. I have a pretty good "stage voice" that can sometimes be effective when I'm cornered. It's much safer for everyone concerned. It's just a voice and the worse for it will be a little rasp afterwards. I congratulate you on your success in getting those burglars convicted and for having survived a terrible situation!
I have been awakened in the dark by a burglar riffling thru a dresser drawer at the foot of my bed. As soon as he knew I was awake (WTF!) he split, with me jumping up and giving chase with my machete and yelling at my wife to call 911. This was Miami 1984 when I had no guns. When I was younger in New Orleans, 1968 and a security guard, a young woman neighbor woke me because someone was in her apt. I went back with her armed with a .22 cal. semi automatic. I carried an ancient .38 cal. revolver at work, but didn’t want to use Pinkerton’s gun if it came to firing off duty. There was no one in the apt., she called the police and I stayed with her until they got there. Having a gun in that instance gave me some security with a possible confrontation. (OMG, a “both sides” account).
Dang, love your stories, good sense and wit. Last comment made me laugh for second time today in forum. Thank you Rob!!!
Great personal example. Your point is well taken.
Cathy, you are so correct. I'm sure your big Texas voice scared the shit out of the burglar!
Terrifying
My goodness what a story! I'm so glad you were OK. I too encountered a burglar but mine didn't end with any kind of conviction. I can't imagine if the person had had a gun.