Taking the gun debate to the people: Many want common ground
PORTLAND, Ore. – People in the Portland area have strong feelings about the new initiative that former U.S. Rep. Gabby Giffords and her husband, retired astronaut Mark Kelly, launched Tuesday to curb gun violence.
Giffords was shot in the head two years ago after a gunman opened fire in a supermarket parking lot. She nearly died. Six people were killed and 13 were wounded.
The couple is launching a campaign against the gun lobby after the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School.
Even though the opinions are strong on both sides and the emotions are high, many people in the Portland area are hoping to find common ground on the issue.
In a restaurant and a barber shop Tuesday, some people said they’re not sure new gun laws are the answer while others are afraid what will happen without them.
"I'm a constitutionalist," said Tim Schilz while eating lunch at Tom's Pizza and Sports Bar in Gresham with his friend Don Staab. "I believe in what the Constitution says, and our rights guaranteed us by the Constitution delivered to us the freedom and the right to bear arms."
Schilz wondered aloud whether guns should be taken away from people or whether more help should be offered to the mentally ill. And between slices of pizza, he spoke about the idea of tougher laws.
"So take those people. Put them together in a room and write a bill that makes it hard to get a weapon. And if you have any history of mental illness or if you have any history of violence – even if you hit your wife – you don't get a gun. Period."
Staab wondered how to enforce the gun laws.
"To take the guns away, how would you enforce that? How would you go get them? In what capacity? Would you say, 'Everybody turn your guns in?' That's not going to work. To me, it’s a difficult situation to talk about," he said.
Sitting in the chair and getting his haircut at The Barbers in Northeast Portland, Oliver Raskin said, "You have to kind of meet people halfway, I think. People have the right to own guns. ... It's very polarizing, right? People have legitimate points on both sides; though I do not agree with the fact that we need to have them because it is a constitutional right."
Raskin said he does support stronger gun laws.
"I feel like guns are like drugs," said Cassie Packard while cutting 19-year-old Collin Wiederstiel's hair. "If people want them then they're going to find them."
For his part Wiederstiel said he thought it was societal.
"Maybe we need should be questioning how much we glorify guns in our society," he said.
But both doubted whether anything will change.
Regardless of what will happen with gun control in the future, right now Oregon counties are inundated with applications for concealed handgun licenses.
In Lane County the number of applicants tripled in December. It's the same story in Linn County and at a shooting range in Albany instructors are seeing a similar spike.
Governments kill indiscriminately, so why shouldn't their citizens?
Â
What needs to change is society's valuation of human life.
So long as ANY human life is disposable, it will have no value.
Â
How about the common ground being that we control the out of control people that are causing problems?
Inanimate objects are not committing any crimes.
It is not the law abiding citizens doing these deeds of atrocity.
It is the criminal element and the crazy people that need controls, not the tools that they choose to do these crimes.
We need common Ground like what these 2 are speaking about.
It won't work by taking the guns away.
What is so sad scrolling through these ignorant selfish comments is lack of fact, nobody claims to be on the make to take all guns! We just want a reasonable law in place to protect the public, we are a nation of laws, we live in a world of laws, in most of that world folks do just fine without battlefield weapons loosed on their streets or neighborhoods, the fact is gun lobby has demonstrated no desire to collaborate or have reasonable law govern the sale and ownership of "those weapons"; Â "every tub sits on it's own bottom", responsibility comes with maturity, and the knowledge we work together to effect a positive outcome, the framers were not endorsing weapons that could kill hundreds of defenseless people, putting the public in jeopardy, those insisting it is their "right", need to volunteer more and educate themselves to what brings dignity to life and grants peace. We who have folded the flag in 3 corners and handed it to a Mother or Wife or Father, who have grown a family and now enjoy grandchildren want a world built with honor, so all the sacrifice of those who have given their lives has not been in vain; we want peace. We want it now, we can disagree on how we get there, but it will come, because we are the free and the brave, and that is how you must live your life, with honor, the gun does not convey honor, we live in a new era, connected, time to look out for everyone's dignity and practice peace, the best defense for a life well lived.
 @Social Glimpse Just why would you believe that passing more laws will stop, or even slow down, any one that is bent on breaking the law? People that break the law just don't care if it is a new law or an old law. How can anybody believe another law will make a difference to those people?
Â
Â
We need to control the people that break the law, not the tools that they choose to utilize.
 @Social Glimpse Explain to me how banning weapons based on cosmetics will have any effect whatsoever, when it comes to people willing to steal or otherwise break the law in order to obtain those weapons?  This was the case in the last two mass shootings.  Do you think banning weapons will be any more effective towards those types of people than the ban on certain recreational drugs has been?  What it comes down to is, do you want to reduce violence, or do you just want to ban guns and call it good...??  We had an assault weapon ban for ten years, the data is there.  It didn't help.  No, we have to look at the real causes of the violence.  My disgust is that many will ban guns and claim victory, while the real causes of violence get ignored while my personal rights get trampled.  And nothing improves.  Guess that's what passes for vision and leadership these days.....sad times.
Last I checked, the constitution didn't say anything about: "The president may override this document as he sees fit" or "May be infringed just a little bit"
Â
The 2nd amdt was not about hunting. It was about defense of both home AND country, "against all enemies - foreign and domestic."  Specifically, it was meant to guarantee that tyrants and despots could never again disarm or degrade the rights of the people. It was meant to protect the people from a dictator imposing his own set of laws against the will of the people - the very people that have flocked to gun shows and shops out of fear that King Saetoro and his minions might do exactly that.
"Choose Your Own Crime Stats" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ooa98FHuaU0
 @ChrisJ82 That was an interesting tid bit.
IMO if people continue the crazy talk of all guns being banned,a meaningful discussion is futile.
 @noneofyourbizzness Tell that two members of the Connecticut legislature which are talking exactly that. A new law that would ban the weapon from being owned or possessed that can hold the fire more than one shot. So in other words 99.9% of the weapons people owned or might want to own would be illegal.
Â
Ya tell me that 10 to 20% of our nation's leaders wouldn't take all guns in a heartbeat if they could get away with it...
@FreedomRocks As a gun enthusiast,I'm not worried about it.What are they going to do bust into my house and take away my guns? I think some new regulations will be put in place but the extreme proposals will never fly.Too many people on extreme sides of this issue.Middleground needs to be established somehow although I have no answers.
@FreedomRocks You must have it registered? None of my guns are registered.I only own two handguns however and I'm not worried at all about them being taken away or becoming a criminal.
 @noneofyourbizzness Well they could make you a criminal for having what you own like they did in California and leave it up to you to take the chances of being arrested or not.
Â
I own a very nice AK-47 with bayonet that I got from California relatives who were fearful that the law would catch up with them.
Â
Once they turn you into a criminal then it becomes even more difficult to be armed.
What I was saying in my previous post is that people in the media should go through the same process as a concealed weapons permit holder i.e. criminal background check, photo i.d., fingerprinting , etc. then post the names, home addresses, phone numbers, etc. on the web just like CCW permit holders.
Â
I'd also like to see microphones, cameras, computers (used by the media) serialized and put into a database just like firearms. If a reporter does a live feed, stand-up, editorial, etc. without all of the permits in place slap the cuffs on them, put them in county lock up and charge them with a crime. Remember the media will often use "concealed" microphones and cameras to entrap people.
Â
I don't understand why the media is allowed to hide behind the First amendment and snipe at the Second amendment. Any restrictions applied to the Second amendment should also apply to the First.
 @PeterAWolf You can be sure that when the second amendment is gone, so is the first!
I find it ironic that an overwhelming majority of Americans are against gun control, yet over half voted for Obama/Biden. Â If you want to keep your guns, don't elect for gun grabbing democRats.
@Hellbilly - in the most recent Gallup/USA Today poll, 58% of Americans support stricter gun laws. http://www.pollingreport.com/guns.htm It's " ironic" that most Americans support stricter gun laws and Congress won't act.
Yea and 77% of America don't trust Congress to do anything....
 @cpt.iceman Actually I think about 85% of Americans just don't trust Congress. Does not matter if the trust them to do anything...
Â
I think the latest poll I saw Congress was rated lower than cockroaches, France, bedbugs, and a few other nasty things.
 @blotto From your poll 74% majority: " However, views toward banning semi-automatic guns or assault rifles are unchanged, and -- possibly reflecting Americans' desire to defend themselves "
I have to side with commenters here, quoting people for saying things like "taking away guns" or even asking people what they think about "taking away guns" is sensationalistic reporting and completely fanatical, purely designed to be divisive.
Â
 @deejm2112 Yet members of the Connecticut legislature which are talking exactly that. A new law that would ban the weapon from being owned or possessed that can hold the fire more than one shot. So in other words 99.9% of the weapons people owned or might want to own would be illegal.
Â
Don't forget we have Ginny Burrdict in our state and she is equally as loony as the people in Connecticut and would easily take all of your guns away if she could get away with it.
Â
Already hearing big-time talk about California cracking down even more in next to Connecticut and a few other states they are already the strictest in the nation.
Â
They already have no person-to-person transfers without going through a FFL and background check. Weapons that are semiautomatic with the magazine have to have a magazine lock that requires a cumbersome and awkward tool to release the magazine. The intent here is to keep people from being able to quickly reload. They also have a 10 round magazine limit in place. The list of restrictions goes on and on including a list of which guns are legal to buy and own in California. You almost have to be a lawyer working for the Justice Department if you want to be sure you're not breaking one of their laws.
Only idiots and imbeciles believe that more gun control laws will stop or slow down crime!
 @Freedom1267 We should ban Meth and Crack !!!!!
 @fweep Exactly! If the simple act of passing laws kept criminals from breaking laws we wouldn't have any problems at all.
Â
The reality is that criminals and crazy people just don't care about breaking the laws, new or old.
@Freedom1267 only doo doo heads believe having a system where crazy people can get assault weapons and gun down children prevents crime.
 @blotto  It is illegal for crazy people to possess fire arms now! It is also illegal to commit murder! Those two existing laws don't have any effect in stopping those crimes! Why would any reasonable person believe that another law will stop those crimes?
Â
Perhaps if you were not blotto you would understand!
I know of a Police chief who was in the nutt house before he become a chief of police.Tell me again how nut cases can not have guns????
http://townhall.com/political-cartoons/2013/01/08/106274
Now, it's time to ban hammer.
Not sure where these reporters get their notions, but I don't want any compromise. Nor do I want their "middle ground".
I say we run background checks on members of the media and require them to cary photo ID to prove they have a right to exercise their rights. Then we need to register and limit the number of microphones, cameras and computers to stop their hate speech and assault media. I work across from Clackamas Mall. The Media circus stretched for over a mile (I still have photos).
 @PeterAWolf Well...they do have to carry a photo ID already.
We all would like to end gun violence, especially gun owners and the NRA. As long as it approached in that manner and not through gun control. We need to look at our sentencing requirements for gun related crimes, and our mental health programs. Nothing can be solved by going after the law abiding citizen who owns guns. If we do only the criminals will have them. As a gun owner I have stepped up my responsibility and have secured my weapons to make it more difficult for anyone but myself to access them.
Â
We have had too many of our rights taken away in the name of terrorism to allow this assault to the Constitution to continue. I'll get off my soap box now.
 @MadMax64 "Nothing can be solved by going after the law abiding citizen who owns guns."
Which is why it's not gun control, it's victim disarmament.
Â
"sentencing requirements for gun related crimes"
I'm going to nitpick here, gun-hyphen-crimes actually shouldn't be treated any differently. Someone is no less dead if they are murdered with a different tool. What we need to do is focus on the crime, and punish that more severely if necessary.
Â
Otherwise very well said.
I think bring back public executions..
KATU is no different than most news media. Â They are controlled by the left wingers and will do everything and anything they are told to do, then try to justify it. Â Either than or KATU is run by amateurs, which from what I've seen lately, is the case.
gun laws work, look at Mexico. Its a safe place with no gun deaths.
@iamright555 How about Japan?
@noneofyourbizzness you must also consider the vast differences between our cultures.
 @noneofyourbizzness  @iamright555 Japan has a totalitarian government with absolute authority over it's citizens. Comparing gun deaths in the US to Japan is like comparing free speech here to free speech in Iran.Â
 @noneofyourbizzness  @iamright555 Check Japan's suicide rate lately?  Is that the country you want us to role model...??
Good morning. Banning guns will work about as well as making murder illegal. Laws cannot stop cocaine, heroine, human trafficking or rape. I am of the opinion that responsible gun ownership be promoted throughout the country. Not only would some of these murderers think twice about shooting, but some of them would be dead sooner in an armed society. I dont have a gun. Never have, but soon will. Legal or not.
 @rnm Would "responsible" gun ownership be owning a gun if it wasn't legal? Your words...
 @mikeyb123  @rnm I've got a really nice Chinese made AK-47 with the original bayonet compliments of the California government. My California relatives were fearful of getting thrown in prison over owning it so I bought it from them along with half a dozen 30 round magazines.
Â
Have to say I have yet to actually shoot the thing though even though I've owned it for 20 years.
Â
Sure looks nice though and is a great collectors item until the crazy liberals make it illegal for me to own as well...
Actually what People want is a reduction in violence. Â Gun control is a quick, easy, "we did something good this time" way for lazy politicians to look like they are doing something. Â Tell me again how gun control will have any effect on criminals or the just plain crazy people that are willing to steal guns or buy them on the black market. Â Tell me again how criminals or the insane follow the law. Â It's just absurd....gun control will be just as effective and just as profitable for the criminal element as the war on drugs has been at keeping drugs off the street.
Â
The real tragedy here is that the real causes, the real reasons behind these horrific events won't be researched and analyzed.  The real reasons and the real solutions will be ignored, swept under the rug.  Guess this is what passes for leadership and vision these days.  Well done politicians, well done.
If they can't buy one then they will make them...
 @cpt.iceman Would not really be that difficult to make a low-budget low accuracy firing weapon. Making it multiple shots might be a challenge if you aren't a good machinist though. Although if they take your guns will also be taking your ammo...
Oh my God...KATU, are you for real, you call this NEWS???? Who in the world are the two dudes eating pizza??? Do you mean to tell me that their options on gun control is news worthy? I am blown away that this station would run such a meaningless, waste of time, "news story". Between stories like this and want-a-be actress doing her sitcom titled "crime stoppers", I really have to wonder where the funding comes from to take KATU on the air.Â
I wonder if black people during the civil rights movement should have had 'conversations' with Democrats George Wallace and Bull Connor, you know, to find common ground. After all it's not like they actually need those rights, they'd been surviving just fine with out them.Â
P.S. for the slow or intentionally obtuse, that is dripping with sarcasm, but still an accurate analogy to the victim disarmament's arguments.