The Liberal Gun Club Forum

Specifically, WBUR in Boston. Tom Ashbrook's show "On Point" was looking for someone to come on his show to talk about a hi-cap ban. I talked to the producer for a while and it was potentially going to be me, Helmke (sp?) of the Brady Campaign and Robert Levy of the Cato Inst. They told me they wanted me as the voice of someone who was strongly pro-2A but could consider a hi-cap ban. I told them that our membership had a wide variety of political views concerning this issue - some that could get behind it and some that could not. I mentioned the reasons why one might consider a hi-cap ban but pointed out that none of those reasons would have made much of a difference here because this guy got his gun legally and if he wanted to he could have easily found 'pre-ban' magazines to buy. I said that many communities already have a ban - MA and CA for example. I said that if people wanted to have a reasonable discussion about hi-cap bans they should not have them at this moment because I didn't think it was an appropriate response to this particular tragedy - and its only going to be a debate fueled by emotion rather than reason. One appropriate response to this tragedy is increased funding/access to mental health care and a revamped NICS check.

Today they let me know that they are going in a slightly different direction.

The producer was a very nice guy who I enjoyed talking to. I also offered him a free LGC gun safety course if he was ever interested I think I will send him a hat while I am at it

So... we won't be on, but it seems that there is likely going to be something on Monday's show about the hi-cap limit. Check it out: http://www.onpointradio.org/

Good PR - LGC is becoming known. It's not just be a local NPR affiliate, WBUR and WGBH are big affiliates that provide programs to NPR. Producers are always looking for contacts and experts in different fields for stories so you'll get more calls.

highdesert wrote:Good PR - LGC is becoming known. It's not just be a local NPR affiliate, WBUR and WGBH are big affiliates that provide programs to NPR. Producers are always looking for contacts and experts in different fields for stories so you'll get more calls.

Oh yeah, its a big show. I listen to it every day

Very cool man. I sure hope they are still intersted in having a rational conversation after everyones emotions have cooled.

I guess my rebuttal would have been "I don't see anything wrong with NPR minds having Fox News firepower."

Zapp Brannigan wrote:I guess my rebuttal would have been "I don't see anything wrong with NPR minds having Fox News firepower."

HA... I like it.

"One appropriate response to this tragedy is increased funding/access to mental health care and a revamped NICS check"

Typical liberal response.

Mark,

Very cool you're getting that well known; couldn't have happened to a nicer guy.

Sounds like they are going with Mcarthy (sp?) and a lawyer. I may call in.

I bet Doug or I would be happy to show that producer something about firearms

I spent a lot of time thinking about the question you asked me (mark asked me) after you got the call. I don;t have a fully formed opinion yet, but have played thorugh a lot of devils advocate positions on the subject.

Lets say they ban anything over 10 rounds (which is already the case in MA, with caveats for pre-ban magazines). It would affect me in nop funcitonal way, I carry a 5 round revolver and a speed strip. Even when I carry my sig, I carry it with its MA legal 10 round magazine and 2 spares. No effect whatsoever.

So I would be "ok" with a ban if I thought it would have changed things. I don;t think it would have. I am kinda ok with it as a talking point for a possible compromise, though. Might as well have something, albeit inconsequential, on the table to negotiate with. Start with a ban, end up with it being regulated in some way, people "feel better" but you really haven't changed anything.

Mental health, real updates to the NCIS, with a REAL functional way to correct misinformation or no longer true information. Brady denials are already a little silly at times, one person I know lost her ability to get a permit because of a simple assault charge from 25 years ago (where the judge and the police decided to teach a lesson to change a life, that sort of thing). So any system of improved reporting needs checks and balances, but the reporting needs improved. This guy should have been tagged early.

They just announced a caller named Mark from SC.

I had hope you called in, but alas, NOT you

Listen live:
http://www.wbur.org/

They found someone who would say its ok to regulate them:

http://thewell-heeledshooter.blogspot.com/

She's going to get a lot of hate mail

Her suggestion was to regulate them like we regulate suppressors. I am "kinda ok" with that, at least as a discussion point.

You can also catch the podcast later on.

I guess I wasn't ready enough to pounce on the hi-cap ban. Oh well

http://www.onpointradio.org/

The comments are very interesting. I liked this one

There are two points I’d like to raise about this “debate,” such as it is. 1) There is a single wing of a single political party in favor of stricter gun control; the remainder of our elected officials are more or less pro-gun, and 2) there is a single, very powerful anti-gun control lobby. We call it the NRA, and somehow, its long-term campaign that “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people,” continues to resonate. Sure, people kill people, but as Eddie Izzard noted, I think the gun helps…

California or as it is referred to on the "other" boards, the Peoples Republic of Kalifornia (PRK), has had 10 round mags for many years except LEOs. The wingers rant and some get larger ones out of state when they travel. Someone who is intent on violence can find bigger magazines on the black market or just take more guns to whatever they are planning.

I support increasing access to Mental Health services and background checks. With budget cuts in all states Medicaid services are being slashed and Arizona has had major cuts. At this time in California unless an individual has their own health insurance or Medicaid (MediCal) they won't be seen at public mental health agencies, so sometimes it's put them on a 72 hour hold for evaluation (5150) or do nothing. Mental health patients have civil rights unless they are modified by a judicial order. I don't think there is any simple answer to every Loughner type among us.

I have made no secret about the fact that I DO NOT favor any sort of magazine capacity limits or capacity based bans. At all., period.

The closest thing that I could support is what mark has mentioned in the past, and that would be sales through FFL dealers must be accompanied by a NICS check, with one NICS check being sufficient to cover all purchases in a day. That said, I still disagree with that, and I don't think that it would ultimately serve to solve anything, except to make that small margin of "antis" feel better. However I believe that just as in the 90's, this would be a horrible thing to do from a political standpoint. I completely agree with Mark's initial statement that right now is not the time to have this particular conversation, and having it now publicly, and in our legislative houses is a REALLY bad idea.

mark wrote:Specifically, WBUR in Boston. Tom Ashbrook's show "On Point" was looking for someone to come on his show to talk about a hi-cap ban. I talked to the producer for a while and it was potentially going to be me, Helmke (sp?) of the Brady Campaign and Robert Levy of the Cato Inst. They told me they wanted me as the voice of someone who was strongly pro-2A but could consider a hi-cap ban. I told them that our membership had a wide variety of political views concerning this issue - some that could get behind it and some that could not. I mentioned the reasons why one might consider a hi-cap ban but pointed out that none of those reasons would have made much of a difference here because this guy got his gun legally and if he wanted to he could have easily found 'pre-ban' magazines to buy. I said that many communities already have a ban - MA and CA for example. I said that if people wanted to have a reasonable discussion about hi-cap bans they should not have them at this moment because I didn't think it was an appropriate response to this particular tragedy - and its only going to be a debate fueled by emotion rather than reason. One appropriate response to this tragedy is increased funding/access to mental health care and a revamped NICS check.

Today they let me know that they are going in a slightly different direction.

The producer was a very nice guy who I enjoyed talking to. I also offered him a free LGC gun safety course if he was ever interested I think I will send him a hat while I am at it

So... we won't be on, but it seems that there is likely going to be something on Monday's show about the hi-cap limit. Check it out: http://www.onpointradio.org/

Well said, nicely put. I think you made a lot of sense in your display of words. Could be the difference in direction they're looking for.

I love OnPoint, excellent program.

"One appropriate response to this tragedy is increased funding/access to mental health care and a revamped NICS check"
couldn't agree more..

About the hi-cap bans.... wouldn't that create a race to buy hi-cap mags? Look at what happened with AK/AR sales during the '08 elections; or Glock sales after the AZ shooting.