[Update] OK, I tried to have that conversation.

The gun grabbers always say they want a conversation, but somehow that rarely seems to work out.

Ms. Lori N. DiPersio, Executive Director of the Women’s Resource Center in Rhode Island has a solution to the domestic violence problem. Referencing the Sutherland Springs asshole, a prohibited person able to purchase weapons because the Air Force failed to obey the law, she wrote:

Despite all of these warning signs and a well-documented dark past for such a young person, he was able to amass a gun collection that he used to kill dozens of innocent souls – including those of a pregnant woman, her unborn child and numerous children. If you knew what you now know about this shooter, would you have in good conscience had any part in selling him a gun? If he could beat up a puppy and an infant with his bare hands, what would he have done with a gun in his possession? Unfortunately, we – and the 26 dead, the numerous injured, their families and our grieving nation – know the answer.

It’s time we stop putting guns into the hands of those who cannot handle themselves. Support gun legislation to stop the violence and protect innocent lives, before it happens again.

Right off the bat, she violated Rule 1a: If you are proposing a solution to a specific incident, the proposal should address characteristics of that incident.

You might also note the lack of a specific… heck, any proposed solution; just “gun legislation.” I figured an “Executive Director” ought to know how to get things done. Maybe her letter just got edited down for space. So I asked her. To start that conversation.

What gun legislation are you proposing; a new law requiring agencies to report convictions as the law already requires?

True, a little sarcastic; but I’d already hit “send.” But really; I want to see if she’s come up with something workable.

An answer!

I’m not proposing a specific gun legislation but would totally support whatever can be done (current or future legislation) to prohibit guns from getting into the hands of those who cannot handle themselves. Any legislation that can keep guns away from those who would use it senselessly in a domestic violence situation is great!

So that would be totally (whatever, is she a 16yo Valley Girl?)… No.

So much for the conversation.

So basically you have no idea what current laws are, or how effective they might be, or what news laws you want, but you do want more of what you don’t know.

Thank you for clarifying that.

I’ve had more profound discussions with a cat.

And bless your heart, Lori; that confidentiality disclaimer on your email? Pretty useless. You’re not my attorney, I’m not your client, and we have no contractual relationship. But I can certainly understand why your employer might want your… carefully considered thoughts on issues kept quiet.

Update: I waited for another reply before I posted this, but not quite long enough.

I do know what the new laws are and how they still are not strong enough. Our local government is still trying to figure it out as well.

I dunno… if they don’t work, maybe it isn’t that they aren’t strong enough. Perhaps, they’re 1) the wrong laws, and 2) targeting the 99.9814% of millions of gun owners who aren’t the problem.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinteresttumblrmail

5 thoughts on “[Update] OK, I tried to have that conversation.”

  1. I bet she things Concealed Carry Reciprocity must be defeated because it would force states to allow violent felons, domestic abusers, and stalkers to carry concealed firearms in all 50 states.

    Y’know, those dangerous people who, under current federal law, aren’t allowed to touch — let alone possess or carry — a firearm in ANY state. We’re seriously expected to believe that CCR will overturn decades old “prohibited person” statutes, just by requiring states to honor other states’ CCW licenses (for which the referenced “prohibited persons” are ineligible in all states)?

    The anti-gun groups must have a hard time recruiting new employees, considering they require valid credentials and experience, along with the logical reasoning skills of a toddler and an IQ at or below room temperature — qualifications that are usually mutually exclusive.

    1. “The anti-gun groups must have a hard time recruiting new employees, considering they require valid credentials and experience, along with the logical reasoning skills of a toddler and an IQ at or below room temperature — qualifications that are usually mutually exclusive.”

      Not really. Just someone willing to lie for a buck. Like a stay at home mom professional public relations manager. Ignorance of the subject is of no consequence because they make it up as they go, and the targeted demographic are those who never cared enough to educate themselves on RKBA; they won’t catch the lies, and if the grabbers can instill sufficient panic in them, the truth may never get through to them. Shannon Watts is the epitome of the the targeter, while Lori DiPersio is more likely the targeted.

  2. Ya know, I put a lot of stories up that involve women who are alive because they had a gun. The latest was a woman who shot her over 6 foot 300 lb husband in what is believed at this time to be self defense. I always wonder, why doesn’t Shannon T.Watts like this woman? Why would Ms. Lori N. DiPersio, Executive Director of the Women’s Resource Center, want to deprive her of the very resource she needed to save her life? What an embarrassment she is for us. Yesh.

    1. “Why would Ms. Lori N. DiPersio, Executive Director of the Women’s Resource Center, want to deprive her of the very resource she needed to save her life?”

      That’s something I’ve never understood, just as I’ve never understood Jews supporting victim disarmament. I suspect the cases are closely related. And if I could grasp it, I might find better ways to reach those people.

      One tactic that has seen some positive result was asking a woman if she would shoot someone to protect herself.

      No, she couldn’t bring herself to take a life.

      What if the person was threatening to kill your child?

      That’s different!

      So… what if you wouldn’t protect yourself, and your child was left defenseless once you were gone?

      Thoughtful silence.

      May not have changed her mind in the long run, but at least she started thinking about it.

      And I’m really tired of hearing, “Oh, no; an attacker will just take that gun from the woman and use it against her,” as if women never successfully defend themselves. Just cases I know of personally:

      1. Violent husband attacks. Wife is tired of shit and grabs a .410 shotgun and fires. Misses, but for some strange reason he left, and kept his distance enough for her to escape that situation permanently.

      2. College coed had night classes and had to walk across the dark campus alone. But it’s a gun-free (was; fixed now) campus, and she wasn’t sure about using a weapon. We set her up with a good grade of OC spray. Walking across campus, she kept in her hand. One night, someone grabbed her from behind pinning her upper arms to her body and muttered, “Try to get away.”

      She lifted her forearm and sprayed over her shoulder. Thug let her go. And he was curled up in a ball, screaming. it was a classmate, who claimed it was only a practical joke to see how she’d react. She felt bad about spraying him…

      …until we explained that he’s only a classmate, not a close friend; maybe it was a joke, but maybe it would have been more; and either way, he succeeded in finding out how she’d react. (And if a joke, he should be proud of his very convincing act.)

      3. Woman’s abusive ex threatened to kill her. She couldn’t afford a gun, so I provided a loaner (until she could get the money for something that suited her better) and some training. Ex-hubby found out. Ex-hubby never came back around. With no shots fired.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *