"Now is not the time for a gun debate"

[tjdee]

I haven't posted here in some time, but after the Aurora shootings and now the Sikh shootings, I had to.

I'm getting really tired of hearing the MSM tell me that it is "not the time" to discuss gun violence. It would seem to me that after an incident of gun violence, we should probably talk about.... gun violence.

It isn't like they talk about it AT ALL. So when is a good time?

What disturbs me most is that the media is flat out telling me, onscreen, what I should be thinking. I realize they do that behind the scenes, but brazenly telling me to my face what appropriate thoughts should be--unbelievable. Yet completely expected.

[leveymg]

1. KNR

[Laurian]

2. I know! I just had to turn off CNN when that Margaret Hoover

insisted that now was not the time to discuss gun control! If not now, when? If someone in my family had just been killed in such a way, you can damn sure bet I'd want a discussion of the gun addled culture that was the major contributor to that death......

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

182. Don Lemon, a CNN host went on and on about the same thing yesterday

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

3. Why is now "not the right time":

Because banning guns, talking about gun control, and discussing the statistics of gun homicides is unpopular. More people currently favor gun rights than favor gun control. More states and more people than ever are licensed to carry guns in public.

Politicians discussing something that would have a percieved negative impact on so many people (more people than any time in the past) is a political loser. The reason you don't see the Obama or Romney campaign even TOUCH the issue gun control (even in the wake of two mass shootings) is that they know it will not help their election ratings. The only politicians even talking about hte issue have constituencies where support for gun control is wildly popular.

The only goal of our elected officials has been for the last 30 years has been to keep to getting reelected, political party being irrelevent. It's an election year. Get ready to witness all of our politicians take no difinitive actions or stands on anything even remotely polarizing.

[tjdee]

4. Oh I don't expect to hear Obama say a peep.

That doesn't mean that we as citizens have to sit in back rooms to discuss an issue of this importance.

If it's true that more people favor having a gun than controlling guns--and addressing gun violence--in this country, I should probably think more seriously about leaving it. The America that I thought I was living in may not exist.

[Scuba]

6. "More people currently favor gun rights than favor gun control." Gotta citation for that claim?

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

7. Here's a link

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/07/30/pew-poll-little-support-for-new-gun-control-regulations-after-aurora-shooting/

I believe the figures are from research done by the Pew Charitable Trust, which is generally reliable.

After the shooting of Gabrielle Gifford in Tuscon, a majority of people actually favored protecting gun rights. But it was very close and possibly within the margin of error for the poll.

The fact is there is no overwhelming national consensus that stricter gun laws are necessary.

THAT BEING SAID, I think that if you set forth some specific, common sense controls (like requiring background checks for all purchases and no purchases off the internet), you'd probably get some majorities who favor that.

[AllyCat]

48. We can protect gun rights while still having some meaningul restrictions/regulations

This does NOT mean any of these will be FAILSAFE. But it should not be this easy for people to get guns (cue the people saying it's not easy...)

In the meantime, kindness and civility towards others would go a long way towards bringing people into the community and limiting isolation.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

61. But when you're paranoid, FAILSAFE is the only option...

Look at how much we spend on the military compared to the rest of the world. We're a nation that is scared to death, and we think that more and more weapons are the only solution.

[Scuba]

64. Yeah, but all that military doesn't make me feel any safer. Medicare for All would though.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

120. You and your rational thinking....(nt)

[Raster]

192. We are a nation that is scared to death because it benefits those that manufacture....

...weapons and other components of the death infrastructure. They purposely do everything they can to scare people to death, thus creating more demand for their products.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

193. Absolutely...

Look at the relentless sales job the small arms manufacturers engage in. You have murder rates at historic lows and a President who really doesn't seem interested in gun control, yet people are buying guns as though there is (literally) no tomorrow.

Buy Now! FEAR!! Buy Now!

...and sales go through the roof.

[Hoyt]

69. There are "gun rights" and "gun abuse." We've been protecting the latter too long.

[Trunk Monkey]

133. No purchases off the internet

What's the point? if you purchase off the internet the gun must be shipped to a federally licensed firearms dealer who is required by law to submit a background check before turning the gun over to the buyer.

If the buyer is denied the gun goes back to the original federally licensed firearms dealer that shipped it and since the firearm had to be signed in to the shippers records another background check must be done before the gun is returned to the original owner.

I think if most of the folks that are calling for stricter gun laws understood the laws as they are now they'd realize the laws we have are sufficient

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

145. I was referring to ammunition sales

Shoul have been more clear about that.

[Trunk Monkey]

188. How about instead of a ban we just check up on anyone that purchases a ridiculously high amount

say, 40k rounds at once.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

189. Umm...

So if I purchase 35,000 rounds of ammo, that shouldn't be reported? 35-fucking-thousand rounds of ammunication purchased by one guy at one time shouldn't raise a red flag?

Look, I'm a shooter and I'll buy in bulk when the price is good. But seriously?

If you're too much of a lazy ass to drag your butt to the sporting goods store to by your ammunition, then you don't deserve to buy it at all.

[Trunk Monkey]

201. Dragging my but to the sporting goods store

Yesterday afternoon I wanted to pick up some .380 for my wife Wal Mart wanted 1 dollar a round for Federal Hydro shocks. if I can get it cheaper if I buy in bulk on the internet why shouldn't I?

In all of these shootings the shooter has fired less than 200 rounds before it's over that's 10 boxes of rifle ammunition and 4 boxes of pistol.

How low do you set the bar and once you do how long before the online bulk retailers are selling rounds in packs of one less than your red flag level?

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

224. Why shouldn't you?

I can name a half dozen families in Milwaukee tonight who could give you a pretty fucking good reason.

Your convenience is really not that important...

[friendly_iconoclast]

229. That's not a good enough reason. And btw, I rather doubt they appointed you as their spokesperson

[Trunk Monkey]

241. My convenience is really not that important

Please tell me, what did online ammunition sales have to do w/ the shooting in Milwaukee and how would an ban on such sales have prevented the shootings?

How about you come up w/ a law that actually does something (besides inconvenience law abiding gun owners) then we'll talk about it?

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

242. Waaa! Waaa Waa!

Typical gun lunatic answer. There's NO gun control measure that is acceptable because it would "inconvenience" somebody. Nothing short of unquestioned 24/7 access that an unlimited supply of guns and ammo is acceptable.

Go pound sand.

[Trunk Monkey]

244. Go pound sand

Can I assume that this is an admission that your proposed ammunition ban would have had zero effect on either Milwaukee or Aurora ?

I mean if you can show how such a law would actually reduce crime I'll support it

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

246. No you won't...

As a confirmed gun lunatic, you will find any reason at all to oppose even the slightest degree of regulation. Here's the little logical Catch-22 that you use...

Me: Here's a small, baby-step, approach that we could use to limit gun violence
You: Why, that's ineffective and I won't support it.

See how it works? My attempt to NOT do something big like ban handguns altogether gets met with "that won't be effective." So you really leave me with no alternative than to propose something big like banning handguns -- since you've rejected every less-draconian method.

Pretty fucking stupid approach, if you ask me.

Because society is going to reach a tipping point. There will come a time when the next mass shooting will be the straw that breaks the camel's back, and we'll get some kind of highly-restrictive gun regulation. And we'll get that highly-restrictive regulation because every reasonable, incremental step at regulation has been stonewalled by the gun lunatics.

Nice strategy, genius...

[Trunk Monkey]

254. Wow, it didn't take long for the "I'm a gun owner too" cloaking device to come off

and revel the Klingon/Grabber underneath did it?

The problem w/ your " reasonable, incremental steps" is that they are incremental. You take half of what you want now, wait a bit and take half of whats left an so on until we have no rights left at all.

How about instead of proposing some bullshit, do nothing, feel good law that does nothing to reduce crime you get behind something that might actually do something like, maybe

no plea deal on weapons charges period, actually prosecuting straw purchasers, actually following up on persons who are denied via the NCIS?

Maybe we work on some of the root causes of crime like better access to mental health care in America?

You get behind some of that then we'll talk

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

263. Thank you for proving my point....

Any attempt to make even the slightest restriction on gun ownership gets met with 100% resistance. And anybody who suggests a compromise must be a "gun grabber" intent on leaving you with no rights at all. For your information, dumbass, I own three rifles and a shotgun and have been a hunter for forty years.

And we'll never be able to do what you suggest becuase you and lunatic friends in the NRA actually OPPOSE prosecuting strawman purchases, because you OPPOSE using background checks and tracing guns from their point of purchase. No ballistic fingerprinting, no gun show restrictions. Any measure that might even slightly restrict the free-for-all arms trade, including restricting exports to other nations, is met with fierce opposition. In other words, when you helpfully suggest that other methods might be used, you're lying through your teeth because you're opposed to those methods, too.

You say that we should work on the "root causes" of crime, but don't want to do anything about firearms. So guns are not the root cause of gun violence? Really? Seriously?

It's because of your kind of bullshit that an over-reaction is going to happen, and then you'll piss and moan about your rights being violated.

[friendly_iconoclast]

272. So what? Most (circa 80%) of gun owners don't hunt.

I think the first two definitions explain your attitude nicely:

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=fudd


And as for your claims in the second paragraph, one of the leading gun control advocates here pegged it:

"When you quote something like that, it is customary to give a link to the source."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/117249755#post15

Cites trump hearsay.

[X_Digger]

291. Compromise? What are you giving up?

[rDigital]

286. Every time

I take a new student to the firing range, I'm taking another straw OFF of that camel's back. The US is probably more Pro-2A now than it has been in the last 80 years.

You'll never get your gun ban. Keep dreaming. At the rate we're going, the NFA registry is probably going to be re-opened in the next 20 years. Currently, there's a pending agreement to remove police sign off for suppressors.

Luckily the 2A shall not be infringed and is backed up by the 14th amendment. You don't want reasonable gun control laws, you want total infringement a bite at a time. Keep on truckin'.

[rDigital]

285. You can't expect to have a proper

conversation when you insult people and call them names. Take it down a notch, these people aren't your enemies.

[tiny elvis]

230. Dragging my but to the sporting goods store

Dragging my but to the sporting goods store


1 dollar a round for Federal Hydro shocks


1 dollar a round for Federal Hydro shocks


I buy in bulk on the internet
why shouldn't I?


I buy in bulk on the internet
why shouldn't I?


the shooter has fired less than 200 rounds before it's over


the shooter has fired less than 200 rounds before it's over


How low do you set the bar


How low do you set the bar

[friendly_iconoclast]

233. 7/10. A somewhat effective appeal to emotion. One question, though:

Did you post that with a quill pen or a printing press?

[tiny elvis]

236. rub the gun

just for luck

it's not weird

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

243. One massively stupid question...

You know what you and most mass killers have in common? A complete lack of empathy. You don't give two shits who suffers just as long as you get what you want. Six dead people in Milwaukee? Twelve dead people in Aurora? Not your problem. As long as you get your way, you have absolutely no interest in who gets hurt.

[friendly_iconoclast]

269. Where *did* you get your degree in telepsychology? And are you currently licensed to practice in WI?

BTW, you own more guns than I do (which is none), so by your own proclaimed standards, YOU are a greater 'threat' to society than I am.

Let us know when you've passed your next psych eval to see if you're a suitable gun owner...

[rDigital]

284. Knee jerk reactions do no one any favors.

No laws in the world would have prevented these murders. Mad dog killers exist and as long as we live in a free society they cannot be stopped. It's very disturbing and saddening.

Our firearms laws are nowhere near as restrictive as Norway and they had the worst mass shooting in world history, 69 dead.

The 14th or 2nd Amendments to the US Constitution will have to be repealed to do what you want to do. That pesky US Constitution and all that.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

8. Here's a couple polling snapshots:

Granted, the data is almost a year old... the trend directions are pretty clear.
It's the most recent I can find, if you can find newer data, feel free to post.
Webpage: http://www.gallup.com/poll/150341/record-low-favor-handgun-ban.aspx

[Scuba]

24. Neither this poll nor the other one cited by Jeff in Milwaukee back up your claim.

One refers to new controls, the other to banning handguns.

Now if you can cite a study that shows more American favor gun rights than gun controls, let's have it. I find it very hard to believe that most Americans favor gun rights over any controls at all.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

38. I believe it does...

Particularly the second graph. Nearly twice as many people favor enforcing current laws over enacting new ones.

Sorry, but there's no groundswell of support for stricter gun control. I don't understand it myself.

[Scuba]

41. Your claim is that more Americans favor gun rights over gun controls...

... not over new gun controls.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

55. Not my claim...

I'm just providing some data...

What I've been saying is that there is no overwhelming desire by voters (based on the polling data that I've seen) to enact stricter gun control laws.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

44. The last two polls decisively show that "most Americans do not favor MORE gun control".

Perhaps that is how I should have phrased it. In my first post whan I stated, "More people currently favor gun rights than favor gun control" ... what I meant to convey was that more people currently favor gun rights (as they exist now) than favor gun control (new additional laws/restrictions). I guess I could have made my statement more clear - nevertheless, the message I was trying to convey and the polling data hold true.


43% of people want more gun control... 55% of people want the status quo or less gun control:


Only 35% of people would like new gun control measures... 60% of people just want to see our current laws better enforced.

[Scuba]

49. Better, thanks.

[primavera]

50. I hate to admit it, but it makes a certain amount of sense

The more afraid people are, the more they want to cling to the illusion that they can protect themselves. The more they succumb to that temptation, the more guns there are and the more random, senseless acts of violence there are, fueling a new wave of fear to guns to violence to fear again. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy that gets worse every day.

[davepc]

60. Violent crime is at it's lowest nationwide since the 60's.

[primavera]

75. Yet the perception remains

Every time we get another gun massacre, gun sales go through the roof. Overall violent crime rates drop as we incarcerate an ever increasing percentage of our population, but the number of random shooting sprees goes up and so the public still does not feel safe and they have to go out and buy more guns so they won't be the only ones in the theatre unarmed.

[AlbertCat]

99. Violent crime is at it's lowest nationwide since the 60's.

HOW INTERESTING!

But what does that have to do with gun rights?

I wonder if they could be made to go EVEN LOWER!

[davepc]

107. It would probably drop to pre-prohibition levels if we ended the War on Drugs. Quickly too.

[primavera]

183. Yep, I'll go along with that - n/t

[PavePusher]

179. "the illusion that they can protect themselves"

Ummm, who is going to provide my security, if not myself? You?

[AlbertCat]

62. Seems to me....

.... a majority of Americans didn't want women to vote... blacks to vote.... schools to be segregated....

Majority...schajority.... (well, sometimes)

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

81. Segregation, the right to vote, women's rights, etc...

Those are all civil rights and the costitution works to protect them. Unpopular rights require protection to avoid tyrrany imposed by majority. Despite what the majority wants, these rights are protected.

The public opinon support for gun rights is quite irrelevent because... Guess what else is a constitutionally protected right...

[AlbertCat]

101. Guess what else is a constitutionally protected right...

To own a flint lock if you're in a militia?

[Spitfire of ATJ]

106. Ahem,...that's a well regulated militia....

And you know how much Republicans are into deregulation...

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

127. Ask yourself:

"Does my right to free speech ONLY pertain to 18th century methods of communication?"

If you believe that our rights conform to modern technologies, why is the 2nd Amendment any different?

[clffrdjk]

131. Just how are you posting with your quill and ink?

[AlbertCat]

164. Just how are you posting with your quill and ink?

And how many laws are there addressing "new" media?

And so there should be many laws addressing the "new" arms.


Y'all fell for it right away!

[davepc]

174. The laws written in the 1930s and 1960s address firearm designs from the 1850's just fine.

The line has been drawn at one pull of the trigger = one discharge of one bullet. Those types of arms have been around since before the Civil War.

[clffrdjk]

177. I do not know please inform me

What is the ratio of laws controlling what forms of media I can use/possess to laws controlling what types of arms I can use or possess?

But please justify how one constitutional amendment must be limited to the tools of the time but the rest should not.
What exactly have we fallen for, you still haven't made a rational point?

[AlbertCat]

248. you still haven't made a rational point?

Last edited Tue Aug 7, 2012, 09:21 PM - Edit history (1)

That's right.... play the confused card.

I'm beginning to think that gun worship actually kills brain cells. But as with all cults, logic flies out the window.

Maybe an adult not suffering from Second Amendment Syndrome will explain it for you.


I'll start with the basics:

Quills and ink (and the printing press....but we'll ignore that) were all the FF knew

as the decades progressed, new laws were (are) needed to keep up with the technology

Flintlocks were all the FF knew

as the decades progressed, new laws were (are) needed to keep up with the technology


So it's time for the gun laws to rise up to the very BIG gun problems we have today. Yet we keep hearing how we don't need any gun laws or the old ones are fine. Yet we get some argument about freedom of speech.... which has nothing to do with quills. And speaking of speech: Gun nuts still ignore the very 1st words of the amendment....which has nothing to do with technology. If the 2nd part is sacred....so is the 1st part.

Why am I bothering?

[clffrdjk]

273. And we have another dodge.

Oh crap some one called me out on the ridiculousness of my post, and I can't possibly prove my claims what shall I do??
I know dodge the point toss out one or two more vague baseless claims and a thinly veiled insult too that will show him.
Boy am I good at this online debate thing.














Let me know when you get that ratio I truly am curious.

[AlbertCat]

278. I explained it clearly

as I said... why bother? Gun nut blindness runs deep.

[rl6214]

226. A flint lock was state of the art technology back then, as is an AR15 now

As for your militia statement, that's already been decided by the SCOTUS.

[Hoyt]

85. Maybe it's time to reverse that trend like we did for views on tobacco; bank fraud; pollution; etc.

Do we really want to continue coddling folks like this?

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

129. In addition to reversing public opinion... don't forget to repeal that one amendment in the BoR.

Good luck. I know you're doing so much more than just griping on the internet to further your cause.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

34. "Why is now "not the right time""

Because they'll lose.

....and they know it.....

[SecularMotion]

123. That's a myth

Myth: There is decreasing public support for policy solutions to curb gun violence.

Fact: The majority of Americans support common-sense measures to prevent gun violence. For example, 86% of Americans support a measure requiring all gun buyers to pass a criminal background check, while 63% of Americans support a measure banning military-style assault weapons. In fact, even 74% of NRA members and 87% of non-NRA gun owners support requiring criminal background checks of anyone purchasing a gun. While public opinion polling by Gallup has shown decreasing support for "stricter gun laws," other polls show that Americans overwhelmingly support specific gun policy solutions.

http://www.joycefdn.org/myths-and-facts-about-gun-violence-in-america/

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

139. Keep saying it... maybe that'll make it true someday! LOL...

If the internet were like a book store, The Joyce Foundation and Brady Campaign would reside squarely in the middle of the "Fictional Comedy" section.

I think the NRA would either be in "Fiction" or "Religion"

[rl6214]

227. You know if you have to resort to quoting from the joyce foundation

you have a losing arguement.

[Mojorabbit]

219. It is never good to set policy while emotions are running high

That is how we got the patriot act and the Iraq war.

[LeftinOH]

5. Chris Christie was recently grandstanding in this very manner:

He was referring to the (now old-news) shootings at a Colorado cinema:

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2012/07/christie_says_nj_has_enough_gu.html

....the Republican governor said he was offended by what he called the swift politicization of the killings. "People were just killed over the weekend," he said. "Can we take a deep breath before politicians start sending out press releases? Can we allow the people to be mourned appropriately by their families before you have opportunistic politicians out there trying to make political points in an election year? I'm not going to get into the gun control issue while these people are still waiting to be buried," he said. "And it may not offend you or bother you, but it offends me and bothers me."


What. A. Dick. Let's wait long enough, and there'll be another mass shooting.. then another one after that, and another after that. But let's NOT use any one of these opportunities to discuss the gun debate.

[davepc]

9. What debate is there? Heller and Miller are settled law.

The Roberts court is not going to overturn its own decision in Heller.

The only way to get actual gun control would be to repeal the 2nd amendment, or replace the chief justice and get a court that would overturn the stare decisis of Heller.

[Warren Stupidity]

14. there is no right to manufacture guns and there is no right to purchase ammunition.

[davepc]

16. You can't infringe on rights by doing end arrounds on them.

Read up on what the decisions were in the cases where large taxes were levied on printers ink sold to newspapers.

[Warren Stupidity]

21. It would not be an end run on the right to bear arms

We already regulate the manufacture of ammunition, expanding that regulation to further limit the types of ammunition that may be manufactured for non-military use would not confiscate your guns or limit your ability to use and purchase small arms in general, just specific types of small arms.

The 2nd amendment does not state a right to purchase any small arms weapon your heart desires, unless like Scalia your are simply nuts on this topic and think we should go mogadishu on weapons and permit rpgs, handheld sams, etc. to be sold over the counter to any nut not known to be a felon.

Oh never mind. There is no possibility of dialog. There is no sensible regulation your side supports. There also seems to be no rate of gun massacres that will put a dent in your armor plated rationalizations for why this mess you all have created is not in need of a fix.

[davepc]

31. How would that wash with Miller exactly?

There is no difference in between ammunition made for military or non-military use.

The military and police won't limit their ammunition choices, so the overlap with civilian firearms would remain.

I have no problem with dialog, but I won't ignore the law and the Constitution when talking about issues.

Square banning ammunition or intrastate manufacture of firearms with the Supreme Court decisions, otherwise it's contemplating the number of angles dancing on the head of a pin.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

160. You are right on many things,

but some people may think that there is a difference in the ammunition if you consider APs.

You are, of course, right that Heller and Miller are settled law and the Roberts court is not going to overturn its own decisions. Even if a logical argument could be made that those two opinions should be overruled, it's not going to happen. There may also be another reason why any excessive restriction is doomed to fail, no matter how the restrictive legislation is worded.

It seems that a number of passionate anti-gun people are not and never will be influenced by the Court's Heller and Miller holdings. Even in this string, there are people who insist, contrary to Heller that the Constitutional protection only extends to owning a "flint lock" if the owner is a member of a "well regulated militia."

Such persons appear to be relying upon legalisms but they won't read the Supreme Court's Heller and Miller decisions. Some don't even acknowledge their existence. No matter what documentary evidence is available, they seem to want to argue over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

But just as there are passionate anti-gun people who are not actually influenced by leagalisms, there are people who are passionate about being able to defend themselves. Millions of them. Although all of them have heard about the Second Amendment, and although many of them may never have heard of John Locke (the Father of Classical Liberalism), they inherently know that they have an inherent right to defend themselves. No amount of name-calling or expression of vitriolic hatred by the anti-gun crowd is going to influence them. No legalistic arguments over the particular words in the Second Amendment is going to influence them.

Since Heller and Miller are already the decided law, it is, of course, not necessary to also interpret the particular words within the Second Admendment. The Court has already done that. But why should anyone limit their discussion to the Heller and Miller decisions and the Second Amendment. Why not expand it to include the Constitutional protections of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments and John Locke? People with common sense already know that they have an inherent right to protect themselves.

Gun owners with common sense already know that they have an inherent right to protect themselves with firearms. No matter what legislation is proposed, or passed, that knowledge cannot be taken away from them.

[Pacafishmate]

167. If I can only own a flintlock,

Then your freedom of speech is limited to a quill pen. The founding fathers could never have imagined the internet, therefore freedom of speech doesn't apply. The people who hold such logic have some serious cognitive dissonance going on.

[friendly_iconoclast]

231. If "sensible regulation" means "new regulations that *I* want", you are very likely correct...

[Spitfire of ATJ]

39. "You can't infringe on rights by doing end arrounds on them"

That's what Republicans have done with two years of Abortion Laws.

[davepc]

45. They would have a harder time of it if reproductive rights were explicity added to the Consitution.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

88. They don't CARE about the Constitution

As Dubya put it, "It's just a goddamn piece of paper."

Want PROOF?

The Roe v Wade decision found an inherent right to privacy in the constitution. The whole point is it's not the governments business.

Ever since that decision all the Republicans have done is ignore that ruling and MADE it their business.

They also say there is no right to privacy.

[rDigital]

287. Gun prohibitionists don't care about the Constitution either. nt

[hack89]

17. De facto bans are unconstitutional. This is basic constitutional law. nt

[Warren Stupidity]

22. it would not ban your guns

it would ban the manufacture or import of new guns of specific types. There is nothing unconstitutional about that.

[hack89]

33. At least you have given up on the "no right to buy ammo" argument.

making some progress.

Yes - it may be constitutional to ban ban the manufacture or import of new guns of specific types. However, any such law must meet the three requirement of strict scrutiny to pass constitutional muster. This is where most gun control laws fail.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

42. If ammo was scarce people wouldn't be able to plink away every weekend.

That would make them crazy,....right?

[hack89]

47. Define scarce. Give me some numbers. nt

[Spitfire of ATJ]

90. Why? Are you a really bad shot?

[hack89]

114. I am an excellent shot because I shoot a lot. nt

[Spitfire of ATJ]

148. Sounds like you need a woman.

[hack89]

159. She's standing right next to me shooting as well. Both my kids are with me too. nt

[Spitfire of ATJ]

194. The family that shoots together,....shouldn't argue....

[hack89]

196. Funny enough - we don't. nt

[Spitfire of ATJ]

197. Ever consider bowling?

[hack89]

199. We do that. We also camp and hike. And geo-cache. And shoot. nt

[Spitfire of ATJ]

204. What,...no skydiving?

[hack89]

205. What's your issue with how my family spends their time?

why is it a big deal?

[Spitfire of ATJ]

207. Just trying to see if you can picture a life beyond guns.

[hack89]

208. Guns are a very small part of my life.

and why would I want to have a life beyond guns? They represent no threat to you or anyone else.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

212. "They represent no threat to you or anyone else"

Ya know,...it's not the Homer Simpsons of the world that concern me. It's the Ned Flanders types that have a long history of flipping out and going on a rampage.

Please tell me you like donuts and beer.

[hack89]

213. I am surprised you are able to walk out of your house in the morning

don't you find such fear and paranoia crippling after awhile?

If I was you, I would pay more attention to that teenager down the street with his brand new license - he is the real threat to your life. Or his mother who had one to many cocktails at her book club meeting.

Yours is common attitude - irrational fear of the rare and uncommon while ignoring the mundane daily threats that surround you.

I feel you you.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

215. LOL!!! I gave up fear LONG ago.

Believe me, it makes life an adventure.

[hack89]

216. I agree. nt

[spin]

259. Do you wear a seat belt?

If so why? Are you paranoid?

Do you have fire extinguishers or alarms in your house?

If so why? Are you paranoid?

I could go on but you probably get the drift of my argument. Some of us like to try to be prepared for any eventuality. (Of course that is impossible.) I've been in accidents and found seat belts are a good idea. I used a fire extinguisher to put out a fire years ago.

Other people prefer to take chances.

People differ. That's what makes the world interesting.

[ellisonz]

225. Given the amount of time you spend...

...bickering about this issue your first statement is clearly false. As to the second, that's obviously incorrect, guns by their very nature are dangerous. Stop bullshitting.

[hack89]

245. It takes two to "bicker"

your obsession is noted.

Getting in my car is more dangerous than shooting - in my circle of shooting friends not one has ever been shot or has been shot. Several, on the other hand, have been hurt in car accidents. Of course we live in a low crime area so we are not around dangerous criminals with guns.

[ellisonz]

265. So you're not denying your gun ownership imperils my liberty? n/t

[hack89]

266. Nothing I do imperils your liberty.

your strait jacket is your irrational fear.

[ellisonz]

267. Strait jacket? WTF

I think it might be time for you to head over to that other website you like to post on - - good day

[hack89]

270. When I see people so consumed by fear that they can't trust their fellow man

I have to wonder why. Fear is a strait jacket.

[ellisonz]

271. I'll leave trusting Wade Michael Page and James Holmes to you...

...I for one, don't trust these gun nuts or their NRA policies.

[hack89]

274. But you don't limit your fear to just them

you seem to fear pretty much everyone who owns a gun. That is pretty irrational, don't you think?

You are more likely to be killed by a drunk driver - do you fear every American who owns a car? Or do you recognize that most are safe drivers?

[ellisonz]

275. I fear what your bizarro-land logic is doing to my society.

James Holmes and Wade Michael Page were law abiding gun owners until the minute they shot someone - a psychotic and a Neo-Nazi.

Or do you recognize that most are safe drivers?

I live in Los Angeles. My brother was rear-ended on the freeway by a girl in an SUV doing her make-up. His seat-belt saved his life. Hell yes I fear other drivers. To not have some fear would be foolish...

You're ignored. You're just too foolish to spend anymore time on - nice try though, but really your arguments are one-dimensional.

[hack89]

276. When you fear record low rates of gun violence that continue to decline

then it would appear that you are the one in bizarro-land.

[PavePusher]

187. That was several different kinds of vile bigotry and slander and sexism.

You need to delete that.

[AllyCat]

51. Just make the price of a bullet $6K. You can have as many as you want though.

[davepc]

53. Unconsitiutional. Minneapolis Star Tribune Company v. Commissioner

[Spitfire of ATJ]

100. "Minneapolis Star Tribune Company v. Commissioner"

Who won the duel?

[davepc]

108. I don't understand the question.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

112. Think Hamilton vs Burr

Another fine example of gun control.

[davepc]

118. What does that have to do with positing an unconsitutional solution to a problem?

Taxing ammunition for the purpose of making it too expensive to afford infringes on the 2nd amendment just as taxing ink for the purpose of making it too expensive to print newspapers is an infringement on the 1st.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

134. Sorry, I get tired of reruns

You know,...like mass murder?

Bunch of people get killed, we hear the SAME DAMN THING over and over again.

Face it. Ya got nuthin new.

Hell, some of this stuff goes back 20 years.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

95. I have some shells locked up from ten years ago.

Ya know what? I have no urgent need to use them.

[Warren Stupidity]

96. good for you.

Swamp drainage takes time. The sooner one starts, the sooner it gets done.

[Trunk Monkey]

137. Since 2008 there have been over 1 BILLION rounds of ammuntion a year sold in this country

You're going to have to work pretty hard to make that scarce

[Spitfire of ATJ]

146. Ya wanna know what's funny?

I just replied to a post speculating that the reason people in Red States might be so messed up in the head is because of lead in the environment. You may have just hit on the source.

[Warren Stupidity]

52. ammunition manufacture is also regulated and that regulation can be expanded.

I never said "no ammo". I said that the manufacture of guns and ammunition is not protected by the 2nd amendment and can be and is regulated. We can increase that regulation to enact sensible regulation that might just make it more difficult for people to commit mass murder on a regular basis. We should do that.

[davepc]

56. Could you provide an example of what this sensible regulation might look like?

[hack89]

63. So what ammo regulation would have stopped any of the recent shootings?

it is not like you need a lot of ammo to kill a bunch of people.

And you are wrong - the manufacture of guns and ammunition is protected by the 2nd amendment. A de facto ban is still a ban.

[Warren Stupidity]

72. reply to self: no I will not provide details. The details will be cross examined for inaccuracies.

If and when the absolutists accept that such regulation could be sensible and that we should sensibly regulate access to weapons, I am not interested in going any further.

[davepc]

79. There is broad support for sensible regulations.

The 1934 National Firearms Act and The Gun Control Act of 1968 for example. Even bodies like the NRA fully support them.

[Warren Stupidity]

91. translation: no new laws will be viewed as sensible.

[slackmaster]

110. Your ridiculous plan would have the immediate and dramatic effect of making guns unavailable...

...to poor people.

[Warren Stupidity]

143. no they would continue to have access to sensible small arms.

But nice try to cast gun control as racist/classist/whatever.

As I have said repeatedly, the absolutists reject all proposals for sensible regulation. The new NRA talking point is that "of course we support sensible regulation", but they just can't think of any and any that are proposed are rejected.

[slackmaster]

154. The term "sensible small arms" sounds way too much like "sensible shoes"

Who decides what qualifies as "sensible?"





But nice try to cast gun control as racist/classist/whatever.

You reap what you sow.

[Warren Stupidity]

180. yeah its a fucking joke. I get it.

"you reap what you sow"

I'm sure the irony of that remark is lost on you. All of you.

[friendly_iconoclast]

232. "Sensible" = "what I, WS, thinks is suitable for others to own". We've seen this before:

[rl6214]

228. What are "small arms" to you?

9mm, .40 ca, .45acp, .223 and 7.62x39 are all considered to be small arms. What callibers would you regulate?

[joeybee12]

23. Nothing is settled law...Citizens United proved that...SCOTUS does

change its mind from time to time...the Second Amendment is a relic from Revolutinary Times...rational people see that, but the immaturity of far too many people keep crying gun rights and bullying others.

[davepc]

36. What Roberts court decision did the Roberts court overturn in Citizens United?

My point wasn't that the court never reverses itself EVER, but I can't think of a single instance going back to John Jay where the court has overturned a decision that same court had already ruled on.

[jillan]

210. Where in our history of laws does it say that corporations have the same rights as citizens?

Where in our history was a law passed saying that corporations can spend whatever they want to influence elections?

What the Roberts court overturned was 100's of years of precedence.

Surely you know that.

[lastlib]

67. Bad law can be overruled--Plessy v. Ferguson, Dred Scott v. Sanford...

...it will take time, but Heller and McDonald can be knocked down by a more sensible court.

[davepc]

70. A long time, if history is any guide.

It took 60 years for Plessy to be reversed and Dread Scott was never reversed, the 14th Amendment rendered it irrelevant.

[DanTex]

77. Heller and Miller only "settled" that handgun bans are unconstitutional

I agree that, as long as there is a 5-4 right-wing majority on the court, those decisions are not going to be reversed. But there are plenty of things that can be done short of an outright handgun ban. For example, banning high capacity magazines, background checks for private sales, renewing the assault weapons ban, waiting periods, one-gun-per-month laws, mental health screening before a gun purchase, a licensing requirement, national handgun registration, background checks for ammo purchases, microstamping, etc. are all things that would be constitutional even after Heller.

[Pacafishmate]

247. And none of those things would have any impact on crime, whatsoever.

All they would do is make it more difficult for gun owners to own guns. But we all know that's what you really want.

[Hoyt]

92. "Settled" to some degree -- "Reasonable" guns in home, is about all those cases addressed.

And, a change in Court would make a big difference since the decision were 5/4.

[liberalmuse]

10. In-between shootings is the time...

...to discuss how gun owner's rights have started to trump the rights of those of us who choose not to own and worship the Almighty Gun. After all, we anti-2nd amendment, unAmerican folk are unable to think rationally about guns fresh off of a massacre.

[PavePusher]

80. Please, explain how the firearms in lawful hands has "trumped" any of your rights...

and list which ones. Thanks.

[stonecutter357]

138. Shootings in the united states.

https://www.google.com/#hl=en&safe=off&rlz=1C2CHFX_enUS436US455&sclient=psy-ab&q=Shootings+in+the+united+states.&oq=Shootings+in+the+united+states.&gs_l=hp.12..0i30j0i5i30l3.634.634.2.6096.1.1.0.0.0.0.83.83.1.1.0...0.0...1c.v7u9I4yvePI&

[stonecutter357]

140. holmes bought guns lawful.

[PavePusher]

178. You have not answered my questions.

Please explain how your rights have been "trumped" by my lawful exercise of one of mine, and then list which of your rights has been "trumped".

[aikoaiko]

11. Two reasons -- one practical and the other philosophical

Last edited Mon Aug 6, 2012, 11:21 AM - Edit history (1)

Practical: Gun restrictions is a wedge issue in some states that are still up for grabs. States like Colorado (9 electoral votes), Florida (29), Iowa (6), Nevada (6), New Hampshire (4), North Carolina (15), Ohio (18) and Virginia (13) are currently close calls.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/2012_elections_electoral_college_map.html

Philosophical: Proposing laws in the grief of a tragedy sometimes leads to unhelpful laws. For example, after the Aurora shooting many DUers were pushing for eliminating private sales that don't require NICS checks, but that issue had nothing to do with the shooting because the shooter passed NICS checks to by his weapons. Other's claimed that if the AWB had been reauthorized the shooter wouldn't have been able to purchase his weapon and that was true. One could buy AR-15s during the ban -- only without certain features that had nothing to do with shooting 5.56 ammunition.

I think we should at least find out more facts about a shooting before proposing laws that may or may not have any impact on future shootings.

[Warren Stupidity]

13. yeah we need more facts.

that's the ticket.

[aikoaiko]

15. Well, maybe you don't need facts to make an argument.

[joeybee12]

25. Maybe any facts that come your way you will just deny...

So sick of the 2nd amendment "experts" denying any rational argument.

[aikoaiko]

98. Uh. I'm the one who said lets wait to see what happened in WI to determine how to deter it.

Is that what you mean by denying a rational argument?

[Warren Stupidity]

109. And after we wait and see, you will reject any argument to increase regulation.

You know that is true, why do you act like it isn't? Is this the new NRA talking point, that really you all are all for sensible regulation, you just have met one since 1968?

[aikoaiko]

149. Actaully, the NRA worked with us to reinforce the NICS system after Virginia Tech.

Why do you act like gun rights supporters are opposed to any regulation?

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-2923101.html

With the NRA on board, the bill, which fixes flaws in the national gun background check system that allowed the Virginia Tech shooter to buy guns despite his mental health problems, has a good chance of becoming the first major gun control law in more than a decade.

"We'll work with anyone, if you protect the rights of law-abiding people under the second amendment and you target people that shouldn't have guns," NRA chief Wayne LaPierre told CBS News Correspondent Sharyl Atkisson

[friendly_iconoclast]

234. "Why do you act like gun rights supporters are opposed to any regulation?" They're not what HE wants

and it makes us look unreasonable...

[AnotherMcIntosh]

104. x2

[Warren Stupidity]

12. It is never the time, and there are no sensible regulations.

There is no discussion to be had. They've won the debate because our team folded on the issue. The least they could do is to have the courtesy to at least own the massacres.

[slackmaster]

18. Rates of violent crime have been on a downward trend for almost 20 years now

The last four years are no different.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/preliminary-annual-ucr-jan-dec-2011/data-tables/table-3

[joeybee12]

26. Yeah, but that's because we're aborting black male fetuses...

One is not necessarily connected to the other.

[slackmaster]

30. "If it saves just one life..."

Back at you.

[lastlib]

89. I'm sure the folks in Aurora are orgasmic over it.

"Your son/daughter/husband/wife/ is dead because some raving lunatic had a high-capacity magazine, but the trend is down.".....

Yeah, I'd be comforted.

Until you tell us how else to stop the killing, you have no argument.

[slackmaster]

111. Until you show us that the killing is getting worse, you have no argument

The numbers show just the opposite.

[lastlib]

217. Tell the parent of a murdered child that it has to get worse before we act.

How do you live with yourself?

[slackmaster]

218. Appeals to emotion and scorn don't make a sound argument

The facts show clearly that the country is becoming LESS violent as time goes by.

[friendly_iconoclast]

235. What if the parent of a murdered child disagrees with you?:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=355418

[lastlib]

280. he'd rate as a sociopathic douchebag in my book.

If his child is that unimportant to him, I can't regard him as much of a human being, much less a father. If other people's children aren't worth saving to him, then I'd probably tell him to go home, curl up in his fetal position and fellate his gun barrel to his heart's content until he gets it to come. problem solved.

[friendly_iconoclast]

282. Oh, I don't think *he's* the douchebag here:

Saving other people's children, you say?

http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2011/01/tucson_shooting.html?p1=News_links

Father: Tucson shooting victim's organs donated to Boston girl

By John M. Guilfoil, Globe Staff

The legacy of Christina Green, the youngest victim of the Tucson shootings, will endure through helping another child, according to her father who said some of her organs were donated to a young girl in Boston.

‘‘That really lifted our spirits,’’ said John Dallas Green, in a phone interview from his Tucson home. ‘‘We’re proud parents once again of our daughter who has done another amazing thing in this lifetime.’’

Christina was one of six people killed during the Jan. 8 shooting at a supermarket in Tucson during an event held by US Rep. Gabrielle Giffords. Giffords, who was shot in the head and seriously wounded, was among 14 people injured....

...‘‘Don’t know the back story about how this little girl was helped or saved or what organs were used,’’ he said. ‘‘We got a phone call that it had occurred.’’

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2011-01-13-christina-taylor-green-funeral_N.htm

Thousands come out for Ariz. girl's funeral


A calm John Green stood before nearly 1,700 people and talked about the sweet, sassy life of his little girl, Christina-Taylor Green, killed in the massacre near Tucson on Saturday.

Christina-Taylor liked to pick blackberries and hit baseballs and dance around the house to loud music with her mother to welcome him home from business trips, said Green, a scout for the Los Angeles Dodgers...

...She was precocious and tenacious and is probably giving someone directions in heaven right now, he said.

Sometimes, Green smiled while he spoke; sometimes, his voice shook, and sometimes he talked directly to Christina-Taylor's red-oak casket.

"I can't tell you how much we miss you," he said. "I think you affected the whole country.

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2011/12/28/20111228hope-through-tragedy-christina-taylor-greens-death-inspires-children-work-better-world.html

Hope through tragedy: Christina-Taylor Green's death inspires children to work for better world

...Christina-Taylor is gone, shot to death in the parking lot of a Safeway grocery store north of Tucson almost a year ago. Five other people died that day as well, and 13 were injured, including Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, who was shot in the head.

So it now falls to her parents, John and Roxanna Green, to continue the kind of things their little girl might have done. Such as sponsor a toy drive at Christmas, buy backpacks and school supplies for kids who can't afford them, and fund a new playground and interactive white boards at her elementary school, all through their non-profit, the Christina-Taylor Green Memorial Foundation.

"We choose this focus to stay positive, so we just wouldn't shrivel up in our despair, and Christina wouldn't be forgotten," John Green says. "These projects keep her spirit alive."...

(note: added on edit)

http://abcnews.go.com/US/parents-girl-killed-jared-loughner-recall-ordeal-meeting/story?id=15288414#.UCHyItUbbqd

Parents of Girl Killed by Jared Loughner Recall Ordeal, Meeting with Gabrielle Giffords and Mark Kelly

...The Greens met with Congresswoman Giffords and her husband, Mark Kelly, over the Thanksgiving holiday, they said. Giffords and Kelly gave the Greens' son, Dallas, a model rocket signed by Kelly, an astronaut.

"We just kind of hugged each other and supported each other and said, you know, we're all in this together," John Green said. "We wanted to make sure they didn't harbor any guilt."

"It was nice to tell her in person that, you know, we love her, we're praying for you, and we hope you get better every day," Roxanna Green said...

http://www.usatoday.com/USCP/PNI/NEWS/2011-12-07-pni1207met-tucson-kellyPNIBrd_ST_U.htm

...On Tuesday, Kelly appeared at a Mesa Verde assembly to give the children their well-traveled yearbook and answer their questions about how astronauts brush their teeth in space and what Earth looks like from above. ("Water," he said. "We should have named it the planet Water.&quot

Christina-Taylor's parents, John and Roxanna Green, attended, and Kelly wore Christina-Taylor's trademark pink baseball pin on the collar of his blue NASA jacket.

"It was especially important to me to do something on that space-shuttle mission that I nearly didn't fly on," Kelly said to reporters after the assembly. "Christina-Taylor Green was a very special little girl."

She and five others were killed in the mass shooting Jan. 8 outside Tucson. Giffords and 12 others were injured, and Kelly considered giving up his job as pilot of Endeavour's final voyage, which launched May 16.

You are an ugly, ugly person with a shriveled soul for having written what you wrote.

[friendly_iconoclast]

283. I took a screengrab of that post- it illustrates how 'liberal' gun controllers can be...

[Hoyt]

97. Yet, the gun culture is still promoting arming up as the only way to "protect" yourself.

[4th law of robotics]

19. America seems to have matured a bit on this and no longer goes in for hysterical anti-gun

measures pushed in the immediate aftermath of some high profile shooting.

[TwilightGardener]

27. Yeah, maturity. Or numbness and hopelessness that anything will ever change to make us safer.

[4th law of robotics]

29. Since those bans have been shown to be quite expensive but don't make us any safer

I'd call it maturity.

[TwilightGardener]

35. If a ban saves one life, it's worth it. But don't worry, pal. Arm yourself to the teeth. We only

want what makes the gun nuts happy.

[4th law of robotics]

37. It doesn't.

There is no evidence that, for instance, the AWB saved any lives.

[TwilightGardener]

43. Proving that something DIDN'T happen is hard. That doesn't mean it didn't work in some cases.

It's common sense. No one needs that shit to hunt or target shoot or protect the domicile.

[4th law of robotics]

58. If murder rates had gone down that would be seen as conclusive proof that it worked

even if you could show (and you could) that the weapons banned by the AWB were almost never used in crimes.

If murder rates don't go down . . . well you can't prove a negative so it probably worked anyway somehow.

Pro-tip: if you have to fall back on "it's common sense" after it can be mathematically displayed that your plan didn't work then perhaps you're on the wrong side of things.

Trickle-down economics is "common sense" to some people. And sure it can be shown not to work but . . . maybe it did work because who knows it could have been worse without it.

Strong or weak argument?

[TwilightGardener]

71. There's a lot of places where you can't own large wild animals, such as tigers. Most people have

never, and will never, be mauled by a tiger. Do the laws work? It's hard to say. Do I still want them on the books? Yeah.

[4th law of robotics]

73. I didn't realize Tiger-assaults were such a major problem in the US

prior to such laws.

How many thousands died each year at their claws before they were regulated?

[TwilightGardener]

78. Do you think people should just be allowed to own whatever dangerous item they want?

[4th law of robotics]

82. Yes, I think everyone should own a fusion bomb

with a deadmans switch just be to safe.



We have "sensible" gun laws on the books in most places. They need to be A) enforced and B) coupled with competent mental health facilities.

We don't need more laws to be safe when it's clear the ones we have aren't being enforced (like no gun zones that don't seem to deter shooters)

[TwilightGardener]

102. Well, why shouldn't we be allowed to own tigers, bombs, etc.?

Before someone takes that right away from us, they should have to PROVE that there's an imminent threat to public safety from MY tiger, with boatloads of recent data showing a decline in tiger-related maulings as a direct result from prohibition of tiger ownership. Common sense doesn't enter into it, right?

[4th law of robotics]

113. Hard to use a tiger or atomic bomb for personal defense

don't you think?

Suffice it say when you're to the point of arguing that the 2nd amendment needs to go to save us from tiger attacks that you've kinda gone off the deep end.

[TwilightGardener]

122. I think a tiger would make an excellent home defense.

Plus, it can be a companion! Not arguing for overturning the 2nd. Just saying that it ought to be harder for people to own the stuff that threatens public safety the most (with no obvious purpose or benefit to society).

[4th law of robotics]

125. Really?

How do you aim it? How do you put the safety on? How do you put it away when not in use so it's stored safely?

A tiger =/= a gun.

[TwilightGardener]

128. See, now, I didn't think this was necessary:

[Warren Stupidity]

105. Scalia thinks that RPGs are covered by the 2A.

He has a point. Interpreting 'bear arms' to mean 'small arms that can be held' means RPGs, handheld SAMs, all sorts of modern military weapons that an individual soldier can 'bear' should fall under the 2A admonition to not infringe. And the limits on automatic weapons really ought to be re-examined. Plus as we've learned here today regulating ammo is just an end run around the 2A, so lets get armor piercing rounds back on the open market. The sooner the better.

[Pacafishmate]

249. Finally, we can agree on something.

[Warren Stupidity]

253. poe's law.

[hack89]

54. Are bans your solution to drunken driving? Or drug abuse?

Prohibition II? Or are you using the War on Drugs as your model? Because we know from experience just how well bans work, don't we?

[Warren Stupidity]

83. we regulate cars and drugs

sometimes the regulation is too much, for example the ridiculous war on drugs that are actually rather less harmful than ones that are regulated but legal, but we regulate both. The absolutists are busy dismantling all gun regulation and expanding the legal use of guns in public.

[hack89]

121. And we regulate guns. A lot.

Please point out anyone demanding that all gun regulations be dismantled.

As for more guns in public, since the expansion of CCW in America has not led to an increase in shootings, I am not sure what your concern is. I would be more concerned with illegal use of guns by people not allowed to possess guns - they are responsible for the bulk of the gun violence in America.

[Warren Stupidity]

151. you all are busy deregulating as fast as you can.

And the one new sensible regulation in the last 30 years that is still in force, the background check, is a damn joke due to the huge loophole that exists. The other one, the AWB, died a sad death by neglect. And you and the rest of the NRA talking points spouting gun enthusiasts can't think of one new regulation that you could support, and reject out of hand any proposals made here.

[hack89]

163. You do know that the NRA supported the strengthening of the background check after Va Tech?

The AWB went away because it was useless - manufacturers made cosmetic changes and kept on selling semi-automatic rifles. And it had no impact on gun violence:

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention studied the "assault weapon" ban and other gun control schemes, and found "insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws reviewed for preventing violence."[4] A 2004 critical review of research on firearms by a National Research Council panel also noted that academic studies of the assault weapon ban "did not reveal any clear impacts on gun violence" and noted "due to the fact that the relative rarity with which the banned guns were used in crime before the ban ... the maximum potential effect of the ban on gun violence outcomes would be very small...."[5]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban#Expiration_of_the_ban

Rifles are are least used murder weapon - more people are killed with fists and feet than they are with rifles.

[TwilightGardener]

93. It's an item that serves no purpose other than to kill multiple people at once.

If it's used the way it was intended and designed, there will be a number of casualties. Edit to add: when cars are used properly and as intended, there's a benefit to the public.

[hack89]

126. What purpose does alcohol serve other than to intoxicate?

why do we allow people to consume it in view of the resultant death toll?


I have been shooting guns for 40 years. My entire family shoots. Between us we have yet to kill a single person. So why are we the problem?

[TwilightGardener]

135. It's a refreshing beverage that doesn't intoxicate in moderation.

Anything used improperly can be harmful. Did I say you or your family were a problem? No, I didn't. My husband owns a shotgun, BTW. I'm asking for common sense re-examination of the most lethal weaponry, and common-sense re-examination of who should own firearms.

[hack89]

142. So why not look at the weapons that actually kill the most people

instead of those that have the potential to kill more but in reality are seldom used to kill anyone?

In other words, stop worrying about scary looking rifles and focus on hand guns. They are real killers.

[TwilightGardener]

147. Hand guns can be used for personal protection without having the added capacity

to spray bullets upon large numbers of people in very short order. There are varying degrees of potential harm that require varying degrees of consideration and control, IMO. Gun nuts fear the slippery slope above all else, but that prevents rational discussion and action.

[hack89]

156. So how many bullets are enough for self defense?

Can we use the police as a standard? They carry guns for self defense and have a lot of experience in what is required.

[TwilightGardener]

168. That's a good question, and should be open for public debate.

IMO, the ability to gun down large numbers of people before they have a chance to react or escape (sitting ducks) should be illegal.

[hack89]

169. So you want to ban most every gun in America. Good luck with that. nt

[TwilightGardener]

170. If that's the way you want to interpret it, that's fine.

[hack89]

171. Semi-automatic handguns and rifles are the norm.

they have been the most popular selling firearms for decades now. What weapons are you talking about if not these?

[TwilightGardener]

176. Should they be the norm? I don't give a shit about what's popular.

That doesn't sway my opinion. Should we be able to shoot at more than 10 victims, to set an arbitrary number, without pausing to reload a weapon? Have we shown, as a society, that we can be trusted with increased firepower beyond the ability to guard the castle from a burglar or bag a deer? Shouldn't there be more hurdles for average people to possess such items? Obviously, our standards for who should be allowed to own and use such items are too relaxed, or we wouldn't all be having weekly post-incident reviews.

[hack89]

184. Yes they should.

As for "have we shown, as a society, that we can be trusted with increased firepower beyond the ability to guard the castle from a burglar or bag a deer?" - why yes we have.

In case you haven't noticed, gun violence has been steadily declining for 30 years and is presently at historically low levels. We have cut the number of gun deaths in half even as gun ownership has skyrocketed.

Those "average people" seem to handle the responsibility of modern firearms just fine.

[TwilightGardener]

190. Violent crime in general is down. Does that mean there is nothing to be addressed, when

there are weekly shootings with random multiple victims? Has the public safety issue surrounding gun ownership been solved, or is there more we can do? I think some re-examination of current laws are in order, frankly--there should be debate.

[hack89]

191. Here is my solution to gun violence

1. Decriminalize drugs and treat it as a public health problem. It will remove the financial incentive that drives so much crime.

2. Empty the prisons of non-violent drug offenders. It will save billions that can be spent on education, health care and social services.

3. Focus the justice system on like a laser on violent crime. Use a gun in committing a crime and go to prison for a very long time.

4. Single payer health care with mental health coverage.

My plan would actually address roots causes.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

172. "use the police as a standard"? How many rounds do they own in their homes?

Just ask them. See if they'll tell you.

[hack89]

173. We are talking about how many bullets their guns hold. nt

[Warren Stupidity]

152. if the only problem with guns were suicide you might have a point. nt.

[hack89]

166. Alcohol contributes to drunk driving, domestic abuse, child abuse, suicide, etc

it is a major cause of injury and death. Why wouldn't a ban be a proper response to the carnage?

[4th law of robotics]

132. Same with cigarettes, booze, recreational drugs, fatty foods, processed sugars, etc

plus a great many activities that carry a risk to the individual and possibly bystanders that serve no real purpose. People die at air-shows from time to time. What's the point of that?

Swimming pools kill far more kids in the US than guns. What purpose do they serve other than fun?

[Hoyt]

222. Yes. And society needs to view guns like tobacco, pollution, fatty foods, confederate flags, etc.

The sooner we quit glamorizing guns, the better.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

68. Quantitatively not true.

How much monetary wealth would you expect the government to spend to "save one life"? How much political capital would you expect the government to spend to "save one life"?

There is a limit and/or numerical figure and it is not, "Unlimited... If (it) saves one life, it's worth it." That logic, economically and rationally, is laughable. That's just not how the real world works. Everything, even people's lives, have a cost/benefit worth.

Laws need to have positive return on investment whether that investment is monetary, political capital, or freedom-based. IMO, bans or regulations (not only about the subject of guns) that do nearly nothing to actually provide a quantifiable benefit (safety, in the case of gun laws) yet tax on the freedom/liberty of millions of other Americans are not "worth it". And I will vote that way on the ballot everytime.

[TwilightGardener]

74. How does it tax your freedom and hurt us economically by a gun nut not being able to

own one particular type of weapon that can kill lots of people in a short amount of time?

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

116. To refer to such a narrow example, you'll need to provide specifics...

I assume you refer to "assault weapons" (AR15, AK. etc.) or similar AWB legislation?
If not, please clarify with specifics.

The AR15 for example is a rifle that, with respect to target shooting, competitive shooting, and recreational shooting is fun to shoot as a gun enthusiast. Banning such a firearm would impact the potential enjoyment of millions. This is a cost to American's freedom to own something. It's also the most popular rifle in America... banning the AR15 would cause political turmoil. This is a political capital cost. Now, are you only banning future sales (grandfathering AR15 rifles) or are you outright prohibiting AR15 possesion? The former leaves literelly tens of millions of AR15 rifles on the used market (easily available) and the latter requires government confiscation with due compensation (consider billions of dolars spent in total compensation).

Costs: Personal freedom to own, lots of political capital, (optional) bilions of dollars.

Return on investment...
With most gun crime/deaths caused via use of handguns (with are not assault-style rifles) and relatively deaths few caused by rifles/shotguns themselves, does such a costly ban do much to combat "gun crime"? Do you think shooting instances (mass shooting or otherwise) in which these AR15 or assault-style rifles are used could have been perpetrated by different weapons that do not fall under the AWB? Was the assault-style rifle necessary for the perpetrators to commit such crime?

Personally, I don't believe the AWB can systematically solve or prevent any crime, let alone a significant portion of crime. As written, there were too many already freely in circulation after the ban went into effect and simple reconfiguration of banned rifles produced equivalent performing legal post-ban rifles. Even with a total ban and seizure, the assault-style rifle is replacable in urban terrorization by the shotgun or other semi-auto non-assault-style rifle.

Basically I don't see any, let alone appreciable, return on investment for an Assault-Style Rifle ban. So I would oppose it.

[TwilightGardener]

141. You could argue that almost any dangerous item should be allowed until it is proven to cause

a threat to public safety. But then you would need to consider the BENEFIT to society of ownership of that item, as well. At some point, an item becomes so inherently dangerous to society (because of its very design, and because of the nature of people who wish to own such an item), with so little benefit to society, that it makes sense to prohibit it. There is a difference between owning a handgun for personal protection and owning an arsenal. There is a difference between fireworks and bombs. To pretend that it's all equal, and thus NONE of it should be considered off-limits without hard data of use against society, is asinine.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

150. I mostly agree with everything you said.

However, owning an arsenal versus owning a few guns is irrelevent. At most, a person can only use two or three guns at a time (which hardly anybody would consider an "arsenal&quot . Any additional arsenal such a person has is irrelevent to the damage they can cause to society... so the grounds for such legislation is pointless since there is no social benefit. The arsenal of weapons and ammo found at Holmes' appt was irrelevent to the destruction he caused since the destruction he caused was not contingent on his owning an arsenal. I can't think of any other civilian-committed crimes that required an arsenal either.

FWIW, I wouldn't consider a number of weapons under around 10-15 to be an "arsenal". One can easily assemble ten or so weapons for 10 unique sporting purposes without the intent to own an "arsenal".

[TwilightGardener]

162. In terms of owning an arsenal or stockpile of ammo, I think the chief threat there

is the ability to hold off or overwhelm local law enforcement, as well as the threat of having a very large number of weapons/ammo stolen in a single burglary. I also have to question the mental health of anyone who indiscrminately amasses a large number of weapons/ammo (as opposed to enthusiasts and collectors of certain types of firearms). This is not an easily drawn line, but it's silly to pretend there's no difference between three guns and three dozen and three hundred in terms of potential consequence to public safety.

[Warren Stupidity]

198. "This is not an easily drawn line" = actually it is.

If you want to own more than a very small number of guns, you should have to register as either a gun dealer or a gun collector, and all of your guns should then be under tighter control and regulation than the casual gun owner. We can argue about where exactly that line is, but that is a trivial detail. The line exists, it is easily drawn.

[friendly_iconoclast]

237. "The line exists, it is easily drawn." Then draw it, O Wise One- but support your work.

Frankly, I don't think you can. I seem to have missed the studies showing that guns have a 'critical mass',
or give off G-rays that somehow induce wrongdoing.

"I, the Great and Powerful Warren Stupidity deem it so" just won't cut it....

[AlbertCat]

40. Since those bans have been shown to be quite expensive but don't make us any safer

Y'know.... investigating, hunting down and locking up murderers is soooo expensive. And it doesn't work. People are murdered every day! So that doesn't make us any safer. We should just decriminalize murder, doncha think? That would be the mature thing to do.

[4th law of robotics]

46. Analogy fail

one is punishing a crime after it is committed.

The other is punishing pre-crime by going after the weapons least likely to be used in such a crime.

Hypothetical question: if you're trying to prevent murders and you have a finite amount of money to do so how much should you dedicate to programs that are proven not to work but make some people feel good? Don't you think our resources would be better spent on things that at the very least haven't been proven useless?

[AlbertCat]

117. Don't you think our resources would be better spent on things that at the very least haven't been pr

...that at the very least haven't been proven useless?"

Like background checks and bans on assault weapons, licenses and proof you know what you are doing?

[4th law of robotics]

119. The AWB couldn't be shown by even its most ardent supporters

to reduce gun crime.

So yeah, that would be one of those expensive things we tried that was proven not to work.

We could keep wasting money, resources, and political capital on something *we know* will fail.

Or we could try something else that might not fail.

Which is it: expensive failures or possible success?

[joeybee12]

28. Talk about arrogance...

Patehtic.

[sibelian]

206. Spin...

spinspinspin

transparent as glass...

[barbtries]

20. that was a big reason i quit watching the news years ago.

it drove me crazy that they seemed to want to dictate my feelings or reactions to the news. fuck that, just give me the news and i'll respond as i see fit.

[99Forever]

32. Here's the thing.

I'd like to know what my elected officials propose to do to end this reign of terror by the gun wackos, BEFORE I vote. None of them has the guts to stand up to the Domestic Terrorist Weapon Suppliers Front Group AKA The NRA. The alternative is not to vote, which isn't an option at all.

It is disgusting. Where the fuck is OUR representation?

[Pacafishmate]

250. The problem is that the gunphobes are such a small group.

I'm sure somewhere there's a group of people who think that squirrels are the supreme beings of the universe ranting about how they don't receive representation. Tons of people with illogical and antiquated views don't receive representation.

[99Forever]

252. What is that supposed to mean?

Squirrels?

That's your argument?


Wow!

Well, alrightie then.

[Pacafishmate]

255. My argument is that fringe groups can't expect representation.

The westboro baptists can rant and rave all they like, but their views are so far out there that they won't be seriously considered. So it is with gun control. It's been decided that the second amendment codifies a prexisting right to keep and bear arms. This means that any of your draconian schemes ( taxing to the point of unafforability, regulation designed to prevent firearms ownership etc..) is unconstitutional. You can't expect to have a group of 50,000 gunphobes' voices be placed ahead of the voices of millions of gun owners.

Let me put it simply, because apparently you can't understand analogies.

You are losing because there are more people that support gun ownership than there are people who support banning guns.

[99Forever]

257. Ahhh yes...

.. tyranny of the majority! Got it.

We should just shut up and quit trying to have a society that we don't have to wonder if someone we love is going to be gunned down at the theater or school or church or mall by a member of the "majority" gone psycho.

I understand it now.

[Pacafishmate]

260. You know what I've never gotten?

Alot of people here always harp on conservatives for being fearful ( often rightfully so). Then these same people proclaim their fear of being gunned down in the street by a rightwing nut. Doesn't make sense. Are you afraid or are you logical?

[99Forever]

261. Did I say I...

... feared "being gunned down in the street by a rightwing nut?"

Next NRA nonsense talking point please.

[Pacafishmate]

277. That's the gunphobe talking point.

What does it have to do with the NRA? I always see people say " we need to ban guns so we can watch a movie without fear of being shot". Statistically, there are a number of other things that are more likely to kill you than guns. Like cars, pools and fatty foods. Why the fear of guns?

[99Forever]

279. "There's lies, and there's damn lies, and then there's statistics."

Save it for the gun cult.

Bye.

[tjwash]

57. Why? Too soon after the last massacre?

[allan01]

59. re:"Now is not the time for a gun debate"

now is the perfect time for a gun debate . we need several debates on several items. thanks for the post

[stonecutter357]

65. K&R...

We need UN peacekeepers.

[Comrade_McKenzie]

66. Translation: "We don't care if people continue to die. Be quiet." nt

[4th law of robotics]

76. Edited for accuracy:

We don't care to give up our rights for vague claims of safety that historically have not panned out.

[DanTex]

87. You must be joking!

The claim that there is no empirical evidence supporting gun control is one of the strangest right-wing talking points I've seen. Every other industrialized nation except for the US -- every single one -- has much tighter gun laws than the US, and also has far less gun violence. There have been numerous academic studies finding that gun availability is a significant contributor to homicide (and suicide) rates.

A lot of factors affect crime rates, so it's easy for propagandists and ideologues to pretend that guns have nothing to do with gun violence, but that doesn't change the fact that the statistical evidence for tightening gun laws is strong.

[Warren Stupidity]

94. guns and mortality: the data is not subject to debate.

keep a gun in the house and you are more likely to die from a gun.

[4th law of robotics]

115. Do we really have to do this again?

Find, within the US (since as you say there are countless factors that affect crime rates), a correlation between gun ownership and violent crimes.

Also be honest and do not include suicides with murders.

[DanTex]

130. OK. Here are a few:

This paper examines the relationship between gun ownership and
crime. Previous research has suffered from a lack of reliable data on
gun ownership. I exploit a unique data set to reliably estimate annual
rates of gun ownership at both the state and the county levels during
the past two decades. My findings demonstrate that changes in gun
ownership are significantly positively related to changes in the homicide rate, with this relationship driven almost entirely by an impact
of gun ownership on murders in which a gun is used. The effect of
gun ownership on all other crime categories is much less marked.
Recent reductions in the fraction of households owning a gun can
explain one-third of the differential decline in gun homicides relative
to nongun homicides since 1993.

http://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu/faculty/dranove/htm/dranove/coursepages/Mgmt%20469/guns.pdf

This paper provides new estimates of the effect of household gun prevalence on homicide rates,
and infers the marginal external cost of handgun ownership. The estimates utilize a superior proxy
for gun prevalence, the percentage of suicides committed with a gun, which we validate. Using
county- and state-level panels for 20 years, we estimate the elasticity of homicide with respect to gun
prevalence as between +0.1 and + 0.3. All of the effect of gun prevalence is on gun homicide rates.
Under certain reasonable assumptions, the average annual marginal social cost of household gun
ownership is in the range $100 to $1800.

http://home.uchicago.edu/~ludwigj/papers/JPubE_guns_2006FINAL.pdf

That said, for the large majority of
households, having a gun in the home
will not provide either health benefits or
costs this year. However, for those households where having a gun or not will matter this year, the evidence indicates that
the costs will widely outweigh the benefits. The benefit–cost ratio is especially
adverse for women and children in the
household. Indeed, after weighing the scientific evidence, the American Academy
of Pediatrics (AAP) decided that guns do
not belong in households with children:
The AAP recommends that pediatricians incorporate questions about
guns into their patient history taking and urge parents who possess
guns to remove them, especially
handguns, from the home.

http://www.iansa.org/system/files/Risks%20and%20Benefits%20of%20a%20Gun%20in%20the%20Home%202011.pdf

Beyond that, there are the international comparisons, which you chose to ignore, but which are nevertheless important datapoints. Like I said, the US has far looser gun laws and far more gun violence than any other wealthy nation? Do you think that's just a coincidence?

Positive correlations were obtained between the rates of household gun
ownership and the national rates of homicide and suicide as well as the proportions of
homicides and suicides committed with a gun. There was no negative correlation
between the rates of ownership and the rates of homicide and suicide committed by
other means; this indicated that the other means were not used to "compensate" for the
absence of guns in countries with a lower rate of gun ownership.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1485564/pdf/cmaj00266-0071.pdf

[Pacafishmate]

251. Are you seriously insinuating that guns cause people to murder?

That is without a doubt one of the stupidest things I've ever read. How can an inanimate object cause someone to want to murder? If I want to murder, it's because of jealousy, greed, hatred, lust etc etc, not because of the availability of a lump of metal. Please actually try to form a coherent arguement when you post.

As far as the studies go, I propose the following. Michigan prevents local governments from enacting laws stricter than state law. If gun ownership guided the murder rate, one would expect for all counties in Michigan to have a relatively equal homicide rate. However, the homicide rate in Detroit is significantly higher than all other areas of Michigan. Homicides occur for a variety of reasons, but firearms prevalence is not one of them.

For the suicide issue, I will admit that firearms are often the number one choice of method due to ease of use and high likelyhood of success. I don't see this as a problem however, because I see suicide as an extension of self determination. I have a right to die if I so choose.

[DanTex]

292. Umm... the statistics don't lie.

You can keep living in your fantasy world and repeating your silly talking points as long as you want, but if you ever become interested in the truth about the relationship between gun availability and murder and/or suicide, the statistics and the studies will still be there for you and anyone else.

Specifically about the "guns don't kill people" talking point. First of all, most murders aren't committed by people that are hell-bent on killing. They are committed either during the course of another crime, or else during an escalating conflict or a moment of anger. In all these cases, a gun makes an enormous difference, because assaults committed without guns are much less likely to result in death than assaults committed with guns. But even for people who are determined to kill a lot of people, gun availability makes a difference, because it's simply much harder to kill a lot of people without a gun. Yes, it's still possible -- even countries with strict gun laws still have some murders, but they have far fewer murders than the US.

About suicide, most suicidal impulses are temporary, and so the availability of easy and lethal means is a significant factor in determining whether a person will actually commit suicide, or either just have a passing suicidal impulse or a non-lethal suicide attempt. And this is particularly true for young people and teenagers. Now, I'm sure that, to you, if a 13-year old gets hold of a gun and blows his head off, that's just an "extension of self-determination", but outside the NRA bubble, that's a tragic and preventable death.

[friendly_iconoclast]

293. Congratulations, you got three fails in just one post.

True, statistics don't lie- but they don't support your claims, either:


1) I don't know if anyone has ever told you this, but correlation does not equal causation.

2)

Yes, it's still possible -- even countries with strict gun laws still have some murders, but they have far fewer murders than the US.

Yeah, about that:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Office_on_Drugs_and_Crime

UNODC murder rates most recent year

Jamaica 52.2 1430

Mexico 22.7 25757+

Cuba 5.0 563

United States 4.2 12996

Question for the class: Which country above has the least strict gun laws?

3)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_rate

Unless otherwise stated all statistics are from WHO: "Suicide rates per 100,000 by country, year and sex (Table)". World Health Organization. 2011. Retrieved 2012-01-26.

Numbers are Male, Female, Total, Year

7 Japan 33.5 14.6 23.8 2011

31 Cuba 19.0 5.5 12.3 2008

41 United States 19.0 4.9 11.8 2008

How does that "gun availabilty" thing work, again?

[liberallibral]

84. I'm Fine With A Debate...

But THIS liberal is keeping HIS guns... Criminals, sickos and evil people are always going to be able to get their hands on firearms, if they truly desire to do so...

Cities like NYC, Baltimore and Chicago have the strictest gun laws on the books, and it's done absolutely nothing to curb gun-related violence in those areas. I believe it's better to have armed citizens than sitting ducks, when it comes to folks being able to defend themselves.....

Prayers for the victims and their families, from yesterday's awful shooting...

[AlbertCat]

124. it's done absolutely nothing to curb gun-related violence

Proof?


And no one is trying to take your security blanket.... er.... gun away. Unless of course you have an assault rifle.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

158. Re: inner city gun violence.

The problem there is, the city itself might have strict gun control laws. But unfortunately, it may be located on the border of a state or jurisdiction that has lax gun laws, allowing for the easy purchase of guns.

DC and Baltimore are prime examples of this. Both cities have strong gun control laws. But trigger happy and trigger handy Virginia is a short drive away, with plenty of easy gun access.

So that doesn't speak to the failure of gun control measures, it speaks to the ability of other states to trump the safety of their neighbors by refusing to enact similar measures.

[humbled_opinion]

86. Exactly when should we discuss this?

Apparently when it is too late.

You know I had a conversation yesterday with a teahead where I work. He flat out stated that Liberals had opened Pandoras box when they decided that it was more important to give the three branches of government power to rule our lives than to disagree with their boy Obama and that by agreeing with the individual mandate in the healthcare law liberals have now set a precedent for government control of our lives. I asked what does that have anything to with gun control, and he said look don't you realize that by giving Obama this power you idiots on the left have just given a President Sarah Palin the ability to create a future law that says, All Americans must arm themselves in the name of self defense and peace, if you fail to purchase and register a firearm for your protection than you will be subject to a new TAX until such time that you do.

at first I thought he was an idiot, but than I saw how deeply the gun lobby, gun manufacturers are immersed in our politics and how many people are hypnotized into believing that any conversation about limits on firearms is a conversation to take away their second amendment rights... I am convinced a law like the aforementioned would have broad appeal to the wingnuts and even some moderates...

[Hoyt]

103. NRA and gun culture want us to put it off another decade -- another 100 million guns to deal with.

Keep putting it off, and the gun culture will keep demanding more guns.

Then, when something really happens to make people take notice, the gun lobby will say -- too late, there are too many guns to do anything about it now.

[onehandle]

220. The Rightists are already saying that here in our 'librul' home. nt

[friendly_iconoclast]

238. And who would these "Rightists" be? Have you alerted on them?

[hfojvt]

136. Wow, it has been a long time

My old girlfriend.

The operative word being "old"

Now IS probably not a good time. Why not?

Because instead of rational arguments, there will be one side waving a bloody turban and screaming "see what guns do?" and the other side in full metal paranoia that "you are exploiting a senseless tragedy to try to take away my constitutional rights". Neither side behaving rationally, both dug in and emotionally invested in their case.

Heck, you could see it in the rational discussions we had on DU after the Aurora boring analysis. Then again, that does tend to be "as the GD turns", as I remember we had a huge blow up over Anna Nicole Smith.

[Warren Stupidity]

144. because mass murder and anna nicole smith are equivalent issues.

or something.

"This is not the problem you should be discussing" - jedi warrior on DU.

[hfojvt]

165. no, because we had a ballroom blitz about guns

proving my point that we cannot have a rational discussion about guns.

But since I am an economist, I said, to counter my own argument. "On the other hand" we also had a ballroom blitz about Anna Nicole Smith. So the ballroom blitz about guns may not prove anything except that some people really like to fight. Although I am fairly sure that the conflagration about guns burned a little bit hotter than the one about Ms. Nicole-Smith.

[drm604]

153. If not now, then when?

This is so stupid. When disasters or accidents occur, we talk about what could have been done to prevent it, and what can be done to prevent it in the future. That's how it always happens. Why are guns any different?

After the Titanic sank: "Now is not the time to talk about shipping safety."
After 9/11: "Now is not the time to talk about national security".
After a record breaking summer: "Now is not the time to talk about climate change."

See how stupid it sounds?

[samsingh]

155. it's like when Jon Stewart said: 'who doesn't want to play the blame game?'

those that are to blame.

[ProgressoDem]

157. Two days ago was the right time to talk about guns.

Failing that, today is.

[JoeyT]

161. Now's a good time.

When there hasn't been a mass murder is a good time too, as far as I'm concerned.

The problem comes when everyone sits down and says "What sensible regulations should we enact?" and two groups immediately launch into RAGE!!! mode at each other.

It would be possible to get the public behind tighter restrictions. Even the NRA would be hard pressed to stand against them. Or they would be if it weren't for people yelling for an outright ban or demanding things that amount to an outright ban. (Which never fool anyone, but let them pat themselves on the back.)

I'm personally in favor of further reasonable restrictions that are harshly enforced.

[canEHdian]

175. "Those aren't the guns I would have used"

[patrice]

181. Those RANCID. PESTILENTIAL. MORONIC. WHORES!!! and their suppurating BLABBER! How dare they!!!!!!!!

How goddamned DARE they tell anyone what to think about the deaths of these innocent saints?

Media doesn't deserve to use their names, let alone tell anyone what to think about this.

Those burnt-out ego addicts SOLD this country into War on Iraq WITH LIES and THEY KNEW it.

They ARE putrid whores of Moloch and we should tell them to SHUT. THE. FUCK. UP.

[rDigital]

288. Who is this Moloch? nt

[patrice]

294. Ancient god to whom children were sacrificed. Link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moloch

If you've ever seen Fritz Lang's movie Metropolis, he uses an image that represents Moloch in that, which image was later borrowed by Madonna, btw, for one of her videos back in the 90s, i believe.

[rDigital]

295. I appreciate your reply. I thought it was something like that (evil)

BTW Metropolis is a classic.

[patrice]

296. Great! movie. I've seen it a dozen times and still enjoy it every time.

I know I'm not supposed to, but I also like the Giorgio Morodor version with Pat Benetar doing the love theme "Hearts on Fire" and also Freddy Mercury and Adam Ant on the sound track. I realize it is a bastardization, but it's a good one.

[lunatica]

185. You should post more often

[spanone]

186. the nra will never allow this debate. they own too many congress critters

[patrice]

202. And that IS one of the things that DROVE this country into an ILLEGAL & IMMORAL war against Iraq ...

that, Oil, Media, Religion, Racism and some Democrats' weak-kneed inability to STAND against them.

[jillan]

211. If we keep telling ourselves that, we are giving up power to the NRA. If enough of us stand

stand up against them, congress critters will start listening.

[bongbong]

195. Nice thread

I get to read all the same NRA Talking Points (AKA, Big Lies) that were posted over 'n over 'n over 'n over 'n over 'n over after the Aurora shooting. Kind of a bit of insta-nostalgia.

You'd think the gun-relgionists would come up with something new, but all the lead they handle has eroded their higher brain functions. They are left largely as feeble, scared-to-leave-the-house-without-packing, semi-functional humans. Logic & reasoning are gone for them. Parroting the NRA is much easier.

[DainBramaged]

200. all the lead they handle has eroded their higher brain functions. They are left largely as feeble,

scared-to-leave-the-house-without-packing, semi-functional humans. Logic & reasoning are gone for them.


What a perfect description

[Trunk Monkey]

203. IMO the reason right now isn't the time to be debating gun control

is because a lot of Americans have already made their opinion quite clear w/ their pocketbooks.

Every time some politician starts talking about banning larger than normal capacity magazines or scary black rifles people snap the existing supply up.

I have a hard time believing that the same people are going to support a gun ban.

[jillan]

209. If enough of us start making alot of noise, they will have to listen to us.

We have to get on our senators and congress reps to do something about this - and stay on their backs about it.

McCain is one of my Senators and there will not be a day when I don't bug him on this.
I have been emailing because they are on vacation. But when he gets back to work - I will be calling, daily.


The media is trying to control us. I'm not going to let them.

[onehandle]

214. Cue our resident Rightists and their sockmonkeys. nt

[hack89]

221. A battle of sockmonkeys? Ok nt

[friendly_iconoclast]

239. "Rightists" = "Those that don't agree with me"

[Skittles]

240. no

it's assholes who believe rightwing whackjob NRA BULLSHIT

[Pacafishmate]

256. The fact that you need to bring the NRA into any gun arguement is telling.

You need someone to hate, somewhere to focus your anger. Try moving beyond that primal urge and into the realm of logic and reason. It's quite nice.

[99Forever]

258. Uh huh.

Mass shootings are the height of "logic and reason." AND oh so nice too.

(Do I need to use the sarcasm smilie?)

[4th law of robotics]

264. The 2nd amendment is popular on both sides of the aisle

in fact gun-grabbers are the fringe extremists judging by how most every election/vote on the subject seems to go.

[IndyJones]

223. First of all, I hate guns, period. But the latest shootings have shown that the individuals were

mentally imbalanced, yet were still able to legally purchase guns. Clearly, there is something wrong with the background check system.

[spin]

262. Bingo!

Let's work together to improve it!

I differ from you as I have enjoyed shooting for over 40 years and I have a concealed weapons permit.

Perhaps we also need to look at our mental healthcare system.

I have personally seen the tragedy that firearm ownership can cause. A member of my family, who was suffering from depression and also was legally drunk, shot herself in the head and died. It might have been a stupid accident or just because she simply was overwhelmed by the problems she was facing and decided to end it all. She was in the middle of a fight with her husband over finances. She had done her best to find a job but jobs are largely unavailable in our Great Recession.

She had suffered sexual abuse from a relative in her youth. She did see a psychiatrist and the sessions helped but they were so expensive that she had to stop attending. There was also a long history of depression on one side of her family. Her mother, her grandmother and her great grandmother all suffered from this disease. Her grandmother and her great grandmother were institutionalized and her mother spent years in treatment and still is taking prescription drugs to control the disease.

The simplistic approach to solving the problems caused by firearms in our society is to impose draconian gun laws or to ban such weapons. This is largely politically impossible at this time and might not actually do much to solve the problem. We have many underlying problems in our society that we need to address and mental healthcare is one of the most important. Still, improving the NICS background check would be a good start and might actually help.

[friendly_iconoclast]

268. +1

[rDigital]

289. The $64,000 Question

How does on make sure mentally disturbed individuals do not have access to firearms without affecting the rights of the law abiding?

It's a bear of a problem to wrestle with.

[spin]

290. I agree. ...

I suggest we start by getting the names of those legally adjudged to have serious mental problems into the NICS background check system. This would not require any legislation as it is already the law. The problem is getting certain states to provide the information.

FBI Data Show Gun Background Checks Still Undermined By Information Gaps Six Months After Senate Probed Flaws
press release
May 25, 2012, 2:49 p.m. EDT

NEW YORK, May 25, 2012 /PRNewswire via COMTEX/ -- National "Do Not Sell" Database Still Missing Millions of State and Federal Records On Seriously Mentally Ill Individuals, Drug Abusers

***snip***

Many states and federal agencies are still failing to share records about dangerous individuals with the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), leaving dangerous gaps in a database designed to keep firearms from falling into the wrong hands, according to new information from the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

***snip***

Documents describing the contents of the database on April 30, 2012 show that the system remains dangerously incomplete. Twenty-one states and the District of Columbia have reported fewer than 100 mental health records, with 16 of those states reporting fewer than ten and three states reporting none at all.

Of the 61 federal agencies for which the FBI keeps data, 52 have not submitted mental health records to the NICS database. In the last six months, only three federal agencies reported new mental health records: The Department of Veteran's Affairs (VA), the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Secret Service. The VA was responsible for nearly 100 percent of federal records submitted in the past six months.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/fbi-data-show-gun-background-checks-still-undermined-by-information-gaps-six-months-after-senate-probed-flaws-2012-05-25

This is totally inexcusable! Improving the background check system has bipartisan support in Congress and even the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) supports the improvements.

I would also like to see the a NICS background check required for the sale of all private firearms. This would be difficult legislation to pass in Congress but I feel it could be done. It could also do much to stop the tragedies that individuals with severe mental problems have caused