All hope is lost. DU gun debate shows that America isn't ready for real reform.

[rgbecker]

I'm sickened each morning as I read the latest DU posts concerning gun control, or lack thereof, in America. The level of discourse shows that it would take a miracle to move the debate into the realm of thoughtful discourse required to reduce gun violence in our poor country. More innocents will die and the 30,000 dead each year of gunshots will increase even though the Newtown massacre brought attention as never before.

I suggest a good movie showing the young Adam blowing his way into the school and shooting the 26 in full graphic horror will be the best way to keep this issue which lacks any true thoughtfulness in the news enough to get something meaningful done.

Turn the whole thing over to the emotions.

[uponit7771]

1. fudr trolls most of them, they have GOP memes down pat

[FarPoint]

27. Exactly.......

Paid gun nut trolls have occupied DU....

[AgingAmerican]

124. Yeah

When someone has 9 posts and they are totally belligerent about guns, it makes you wonder how they got here.

[Michigan Alum]

130. I've never been asked to serve on as many DU juries because of the gun "fans" being sensitive.

What do they expect when they post about how much they like guns and the merits of assault-style weapons? Sort of like someone posting sexist, racist or anti-gay types of posts here. Go post on a gun forum or something. To me - it seemed like a lot of it was attention- seeking behavior.

[AgingAmerican]

157. What gets me

Is that some Democratic gun owners buy into RW gun madness. I will never understand that.

[dembotoz]

2. tend to agree

nra cult deeper than religion

[Scuba]

3. Disagree. The NRA's power is an illusion and as the People are now awakened change will come.

This despite the best efforts of the gun lobby which apparently pays more folks to troll DU than any other body.

[farminator3000]

5. part illusion and part bribes!

if there was just some way to get all of their paid stooges out of the House of Reps.

i say make laws TODAY, ones that work, and maybe by 2014 they'll look as scummy as they are, and go away.

not just about guns, there are some awful awful people that were elected (by the same illusion)

i've gotta read animal farm again!

[HereSince1628]

6. I think ban on sale of high capacity magazines is doable as is extending database surveillance

I'm not real keen on the later and its challenges to civil rights, but I think it has support from 'The Agencies' and conservative minds. I expect it has already gone to committees seeking to extend and expand post-911 "security".

I know that a ban on sale of high capacity magazines falls far short for many who want much more. But it's a common sense response that Obama will support.

[Scuba]

10. I suspect the NRA's intransigence on this topic will result in a backlash that goes far beyond ...

... what is reasonable and necessary.

IMHO, the NRA long ago abandoned gun owners to become a political tool for the far right.

[shintao]

17. Indeed, correct.

The NRA is only in this to keep its members dues coming in, and recruit more fools to their failed cause. When Bush controlled all three branches of government, the right & NRA wrote more gun laws, and rescinded nothing in the 2nd.



There is nothing reasonable about infringing on the 2nd, and not addressing the issue of mental illness and securing our children's schools from assaults.

[Starboard Tack]

55. It really isn't about 2A or mental illness or securing schools

It's about proliferation and access to specific kinds of weapons combined with a lack of accountability.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

4. It already has been turned over to emotions

Which is why discourse is difficult. When one side leads mostly with the F word for the first few days and some are still does, it makes conversation difficult.

Most DUers who oppose the various bans have offered some suggestions on tightening thing up...yet they are called rabid gun nutters with blood on their hands. That does not sound like dialog to me.

[loli phabay]

9. there is no dialog as there seems to be extremes on both sides

Its not the guns that are problem its the criminals and psychos who use them. I look at cars the same way as in they are a tool or something people enjoy but can be used to hurt maim or kill.

[HereSince1628]

28. I think intentionally colorful language is often inflammatory for combustible topics.

It conflates risks across broad categories whose members rightfully feel they are being suspected to be guilty by an association that is extremely tenuous.

Moreover people tend to look at risk only in a way that supports their position.

Most of the mass-shootings of late are suicides associated with multiple homicides.

Most mentally ill aren't suicidal and most of those suicidal aren't psychotic even if 90 percent of suicides are associated with a mental illness (most usually a condition associated with depression which isn't a psychosis). 17,000 gun suicides out of 63 million people rounds off to about .03% of the mentally ill in the US.

Most legal gun owners aren't suicidal although almost all the 17,000 annual suicides by gun guns are done with guns owned legally by someone in the household, usually them self. If just for the sake of argument we look at the 17,000 gun suicides compared to the population of legal gun owners, the risk of any randomly considered gun owner being associated with a gun suicide in their household is about .02%.

Similarly if we accept that 92% of the mass shooters since 1981 showed ex post facto recognized signs (about 50%) or had diagnoses of diagnoses any previous mental illness (about 49%) as typical, and assign that rate to the 6 mass shooters of 2012 that is a risk of 0.0004% of mass shooting for any randomly drawn mentally ill person in the United States.

Neither gun owners or the mentally ill want to be considered risks by association with a class which actually has such small relationships.

[Starboard Tack]

64. With respect, opinions like yours are a huge part of the problem

Firstly, there will always be criminals and psychos. Secondly, guns are nothing like cars and the comparison is insulting, as well as being a classic NRA meme.
The problem is access and lack of accountability.

[laundry_queen]

75. Yep

That poster does the false equivalency 'extremes on both sides' and then spouts a talking point from the NRA - an extreme fringe group.

[loli phabay]

92. no my guns like my cars are tools that i use everyday. both have the ability to be misused

If i was careless or drunk or just went of the deepend. Its the user that is the problem not the tool. I am in a position that i see the misuse and good use of both everyday so i dont get emotional over the actual object rather the idiot users.

[Starboard Tack]

95. If you see cars and guns as the same, maybe you should have neither

Here's a hint.
Cars are a mode of transportation. That's what they are designed for and when used correctly, that is what they do.
Guns are killing tools. That's what they are designed for and when used correctly, that is what they do.

[loli phabay]

96. my cars transport me and my guns feed me and allow me to protect my crops and livestock

Also to euthanize sick animals and to protect life and limb.

[Starboard Tack]

97. Exactly. One transports you and the other kills for you.

Very different types of tool. Many tools can be used for killing, but few are designed specifically for that purpose.

[loli phabay]

98. so its still a tool like my vehicles and both can be dangerous if misused

We have different opinions and neither of us are going to change each others mind.

[Starboard Tack]

99. Of course it's a tool. A killing tool

Let's be honest here. The fact they are both tools is completely irrelevant and making a false equivalency is merely an attempt to obfuscate.

[loli phabay]

100. no its a tool i use to kill stuff with and they do it well

Same as my car is a tool i use to get places. Some people dont need a car and some dont need a firearm but there are people who need and use both on a daily basis.

[Starboard Tack]

105. I have no argument with any of that.

My issue is with this statement
" I look at cars the same way as in they are a tool or something people enjoy but can be used to hurt maim or kill."

You must be aware that this is a classic NRA meme, which attempts to put guns in the same category as cars, knives, smoke detectors, fire extinguishers and seatbelts.
I doubt that you see your guns in the same light as you see your cars, any more than you see your smoke detector in the same way you see your lawn mower. The fact that they are all tools is irrelevant.
Only one of them is designed and manufactured with killing in mind and, as such, needs to be treated differently in terms of responsibility and accountability.

Unless you accept this difference, you will be unable to engage in a productive conversation about guns in relation to public safety.

[loli phabay]

108. well seeing as i see more deaths and injuries involving cars and the idiotic stuff people do

Than i see from lawful peoples guns then i think my point is well made.

[Starboard Tack]

113. No, because your point is fallacious.

BTW, I think the latest figures indicate that gun deaths are projected to exceed highway fatalities by 2015.
When you consider that 100+million vehicles are on the roads at the same time 24/7, all being driven, the purpose they were designed for. All those vehicles share the highways with pedestrians and cyclists, Safety measures mandated on vehicles has saved millions of lives and it keeps getting better.

99+% of vehicular deaths are unintentional homicides.

99+% of gun deaths are intentional homicides

There lies the false equivalency. Apples and oranges.

[rbixby]

106. A car is a tool which requires a license

How about a firearms license too?

[loli phabay]

110. depends on the rules governing it. still not going to stop criminals though

[rbixby]

116. Makes 'em easier to find though

Find a gun, no license...there's a criminal

[Kingofalldems]

139. Wow. Looks like you agree with the republicans

and the NRA.

[Erose999]

155. Criminals steal cars all the time, but few criminals use cars for killing sprees.

[Crackinrocket]

111. It's all subjective.

Maybe for you a car is really important, maybe even essential. The same could be true of a gun for someone else. Used irresponsibly ,either can cause bodily harm.

[Starboard Tack]

118. Actually, it isn't subjective.

The comparison is false. Irresponsible use of anything is always irresponsible. The correct use is what we're talking about here. The correct use of a car is transportation. The correct use of a gun is killing. That's what they are designed to do. Period.

[rl6214]

133. And when cars aren't used correctly and people die you just say

Oh we'll, what a tragedy but its really no big deal because guns aren't made to kill.

So what if there are 30,000 to 40,000 auto related deaths annually.

[Recursion]

147. Cars run on petroleum. Our addiction to that kills a lot more people than our addiction to guns

Guns aren't like cars: guns don't require us to keep a constant military presence in the Middle East.

[Starboard Tack]

156. 2 wrongs don't make a right

[Kingofalldems]

120. A gun is not a tool. It is designed to kill.

Not fooled.

[baldguy]

143. Right. Emotion has no place in this debate.

[backwoodsbob]

7. what discussion?

I have tried as a gun owner to have a discussion on things that would make a real difference and I just get called a murderer and a nra apologist.

People don't want discussion,they want a cheering section.

[KittyWampus]

14. This is what I've seen. I do not own guns but know people who hunt for food they need

I've seen responsible gun owners continually attacked with virtually no support for hiding it by juries.

I'll go further- many DU'ers don't want discussion or a cheering section. They want a virtual lynch mob where they can scapegoat anyone who dares suggest the issue of gun ownership doesn't boil down to "pure evil".

The OP'ers idea that MORE emotion might help is so off base.

[loli phabay]

15. yup and basing laws on emotions has always worked out well

And yet this seems to be the theme.

[atreides1]

72. It isn't only about gun owners

There is one poster who tends to belittle people who disagree with his views on a certain religion, and another who launched an attack on the military.

In some cases it's difficult to tell the difference between DU and FR...just an opinion.

[Eleanors38]

150. You summed it up.nt

[SpartanDem]

62. +1000

[spanone]

8. in a country of 300+million the nra has less the 4 million members....

they are a popcorn fart in society that has bribed congress to pay an inordinate amount of attention to their proposals.

the majority of gun owners are NOT nra members

[Scuba]

12. +1

[spin]

83. The majority of the 80 million gun owners do not belong to the NRA but ...

a very high percentage do not wish to see any ban that might effect the firearms they own.

They also vote. Most will not vote for any politician who wishes to ban firearms.

In many homes the husband may buy the firearms and be the "owner" but his wife and children may also enjoy the shooting sports. The members of such families that are old enough to vote may show up at the polls to vote out any politician who wishes to ban firearms even though they would not be considered to be gun owners.

Voting gun owners are the true power of the gun lobby. The media uses the NRA as a whipping boy for its failure to convince voters to elect politicians that support strong gun control.

However most gun owners are willing to improve the gun laws in our nation so that it is far more difficult for a violent criminal or a person with a severe mental problem to legally purchase a firearm. Many do not totally agree with the NRA on this issue as the NRA opposes any and all changes. Consequently it is possible that a law requiring an NICS background check for the purchase of any firearm might actually pass which would close the "gun show loophole."

If our party overreaches and tries to impose draconian gun laws we may lose many seats in Congress after the midterm elections.

[NightWatcher]

11. if nothing else we'll prob get a modest AWB and a ban on high cap clips

The Gabby Giffords shooter was a relative amateur shooter and was tackled by citizens when he stopped to reload. As it is now, some handguns hold 15-1 bullets (or as much as 20-30 that extend below the grip). If the ban is passed that existed in the mid '90's, that will be limited to only 10. Hopefully this will limit some of the carnage.

The public is calling for some kind of reform (even though it may not appear so here). I believe some kind of reform will happen. Newton was a shock to our soul and Congress has said that on Day one something will be introduced.

Fret not over the gnashing of teeth on DU.

[shintao]

21. And the problem is,,,,,,,,,,,

You might limit bullets to ten, so the shooter uses two guns and that is 20-30 rounds.

Secure the schools, work on mental health.

[Jenoch]

25. I believe you are correct,

but if history is an indication, whatever new gun control legislation is passed will have little to no effect on crime. The 1994 ban on high capacity magazines only banned the sale of NEW magazines. There are millions in circulation so they were always available for purchase. I don't have any answers other than changes in mental health information and treatment and stiffer penalties for gun crimes. If the penalty for a first time straw purchaser was 10 years without early release the availabilty of new guns to criminals would be reduced significantly. Of course the average gun used in a crime is seven years old.

[LAGC]

85. Where are the votes for it?

Nothing is getting through the House, and its doubtful there will even be 60 votes in the Senate.

The only proposed legislation is Feinstein's bill, but its way more extreme than even the 1994 ban, which barely passed, and only then with a 10-year sunset clause which was allowed to expire in 2004.

[rl6214]

134. He didn't stop to reload, he stopped when his gun jammed because of

His shitty hi capacity magazine thank God.

Eta...the Va tech murderer fired 170 shots using the 94 compliant 10 rd magazines, reloading 17 times and killing 32 people. The 94 ban did absolutely nothing.

[KittyWampus]

13. The level of discourse? I've seen perfectly reasonable gun owners virtually lynched here on DU.

True there's a number of DU'ers spouting straight NRA dogma. Some are persistent and others come-go.

But the over-wrought attacks upon responsible liberal gun owners here on DU over the last week or so are appalling. And entirely based upon DU'ers reacting emotionally with no ability to see anything other than black and white.

And yet you think we need to "turn the whole thing over to the emotions"?

And a tv movie depicting the carnage?

[OnionPatch]

34. I've been afraid to even post an opinion.

I've seen the insinuation that all gun owners harbor a secret desire to kill a human being. And if you don't believe in an outright ban on all handguns, etc., you're "part of the problem" It's pretty weird.

It also really disappoints me that so many liberals will not even entertain the idea that there are other things in our culture/society that promote this kind of violence. Like children playing blood-bath video games all day couldn't possibly cause any problems. I know the right wants to blame it completely on cultural things like movies instead of guns and I disagree with that as well. I think both are factors.

[morningfog]

48. There are lots we can and should do in addition to gun control.

There is a lot if gun reform between nothing and banning all handguns. If you oppose all of them, as many here do, you are the problem.

[OnionPatch]

89. I don't oppose gun control at all!

I support a ban on assault weapons, tighter background checks, closing gun show loopholes, etc.

My point was that I saw a lot of posts where that was not even enough (they want a total ban) and attacks on anyone who owns a gun or anyone who mentioned any problem in our society that might lead to this kind of violence.

[nadinbrzezinski]

91. And those are fringe

Having a clue on that helps.

[Straw Man]

121. Really?

And those are fringe

Having a clue on that helps.

They are an extremely vocal fringe, then. Shall we say "over-represented"? Having a clue on THAT helps.

There's a lot of what I can only call hate-speech going on. It's inherently hypocritical to demonize all opinions that aren't identical to one's own while simultaneously decrying the lack of compromise.

[nadinbrzezinski]

125. Yes, they are very vocal, but seriously

anybody who has a clue of how politics works and all that realizes that banning gun ownership in the US will not happen without a shooting civil war first. The art of the possible is what politics is.

So yes, they are very much fringe, as fringe (and loud, but not as well organized) as the NRA stance of a gun in every household. And yes, the NRA is in the business of selling guns, nothing less or more to be exact.

[Recursion]

141. People like NB here are much more common but much less vocal

I find keeping that in mind helps, personally.

[G_j]

16. certain guns are mass killing mechanisms

and there are people who call themselves "responsible" gun owners who believe it is an essential right of citizens to own them. In my mind, I cannot picture anyone who thinks that way as responsible (or even sane). There are far too many who think that way, and many see the government and "liberals" as the enemy. I really think I would like to move to another country in my later years.

But having said that, I think there are many NRA shills around the internet injecting their talking points into conversations. If this disheartens people then they have succeeded to a degree. Don't forget many are here for that very reason.

[Chorophyll]

18. Thanks for this cheerful, helpful post.

I guess I'll just sit down and do nothing now.

Just like people did during the civil rights movement when the going got tough, right?

[MadHound]

19. You're tossing it all in based on a biased, poorly representative sample

Of less than one thousandth of one percent of the population?

Perhaps you shouldn't give up so easily. DU is nowhere near representative of the national population as a whole, which has shown that the majority of Americans are in favor of better gun control, especially coming off the latest gun shooting tragedies.

Or perhaps you're simply looking for an excuse to give up?

[ecstatic]

20. The movie idea is the worst thing we could do...

The reason why Americans show little collective sympathy for victims older than 7 years old is because people over 7 are "fair game" in our violent movie culture (apparently all ages are fair game in video games).

If you notice, you rarely see young children being attacked in movies, and when we see it, we're appalled and shocked. The moment those types of killings become mainstream in movies, people will barely bat an eye at the next Newtown type massacre.

[shintao]

22. There doesn't have to be a next one: Secure Schools nt.

[HockeyMom]

151. When a child witnesses a real life

gun murder up close, it will affect them for the rest of their lives. Fake movie violence is just not the same thing. I say this from my own experience, and my brother-in-law has said the same.

[closeupready]

23. I started a thread asking about taking guns from law enforcement officers.

I received zero responses. Bumped it. Still no responses. Bumped it twice more. Still no responses.

Finally, it did receive some responses after someone else bumped it, but what that indicated to me is this:

That, yes, few people on either side want a frank discussion about gun control.

Not sure what else there is to say.

[Jenoch]

35. It is highly likely that

you got no response because nobody who saw your post thought it is a good idea to disarm police officers. Since I did not see your post, why do you believe police officers should be disarmed?

[closeupready]

40. I'd appreciate it if you'd stop making assumptions about me.

Further, I believe law enforcement officers and civilians should be treated equally under the law.

[bettyellen]

44. so you think gun owners should take a six month training course like cops do? And have their

guns registered, with lots of rules enforced about how and when they can use them? And serious penalties if they do not?

Love it- best idea ever!

[rrneck]

24. DU runs on emotions.

The bulk of responses you see here are emotional. Add to that members who revel in stroking emotional responses for their own aggrandizement or amusement. Cool headed rational discourse makes for boring reading and compromise demands members venture outside the conventional wisdom of their tribe. Add to that that the fact that we are largely anonymous and there is no real accountability for anything we say. And you get, well, what we've got.

[TheDebbieDee]

26. Circumvent the 2nd Amendment crap.....the best idea I've heard is to

TAX the hell out of the ammo. We may have the right to bear arms but there's nothing in the constitution about making the ammo affordable. Make the ammo so expensive that gun nuts will have to go broke re-stocking their ammo after they use it all up at the firing range.

A comedian - I think Chris Rock, came up with this idea several years ago as a joke - but it's a great idea.

ETA: This may even slow down the sale of new weapons as people may not buy weapons if they can't afford the ammo for them......

[closeupready]

29. that's not circumventing, that's infringing on 2nd Amendment.

Not explicitly, but effectively.

[TheDebbieDee]

30. But it's legal and wouldn't involve amending the constitution.......

By taxing the ammo instead of banning it, we wouldn't be filling our prisons with more created criminals and we might be able to use the tax dollars to fund more social programs, mental health centers, etc.

[closeupready]

32. Making 'ammo' unaffordable through government taxation infringes on the 2nd Amendment.

I'm 100% for reducing gun violence. And it's interesting to think and talk about how that can be achieved. But this route is unlikely to withstand judicial scrutiny, in my humble opinion.

[TheDebbieDee]

33. As I said before, taxing ammo doesn't infringe on one's right to bear arms in the least.

If that were the case, then there would be no sales tax paid on the legal purchase of weapons, would there?

[closeupready]

41. You're not just taxing it, you're are taxing it to make it unaffordable.

Obvious infringement of the 2nd Amendment. Good luck with that argument.

[Eleanors38]

152. Try it. Get legal advice. Form a group. Read 24A. Wait for a SCOTUS ruling.

[doc03]

37. That is the stupidest idea I ever heard, make it so only the rich can buy ammo. Some people

Last edited Sat Dec 29, 2012, 05:38 PM - Edit history (1)

hunt for food you know. How could anyone think a joke from that foul mouthed moron would be a good idea?

on edit: Nothing personal, some people may think Chris Rock is funny, I don't. But there is no way gun owners would go for that. I grew up with guns, I think I got my first shotgun when I was about 12. Myself I wouldn't have a problem if they licensed (all) semi autos the way they do full autos. I don't remember ever hearing of anyone shooting people with a licensed full auto. I would also be in favor of a 10 shot limit on all center fire magazines and license those too. Put a 5 shot limit on unlicensed weapons. All of us gun owners are not nuts. I have never had any desire for an AR-15, if I wanted to kill people I would have stayed in the Army.

[backwoodsbob]

80. You cant do that

it is a defacto gun ban and would get struck down as unconstitutional.

[LAGC]

86. People would just reload their own ammo.

Price new ammunition very high and home reloading becomes much more economical.

[rl6214]

135. I bought a new reloading press tonight that will reload 700 rds per hour

[Indykatie]

31. The Gun Debate on DU is Not Different Than Other Major Issues

and is proof that there are always various opinions though some think everyone should always hue to one single opinion. I don't find this alarming since I accept that not all Dems hold the same view on issues. As I have gotten older I have come to accept that not all Dems are as liberal as I am on some issues and expect others to accept that I am not as liberal as they think I should be on others. I would like to see very strong gun control measures but that may not be the majority opinion. I would like to see a strong emphasis on access to mental health services as part of any changes too. This is indeed a complex issue and we should all at least be able to accept that fact as we think about what we think should and can be done in the short and long term.

[aikoaiko]

36. And DU is likely much more ready to embrace increase restrictions than the general public.

For what it is worth.

[Zax2me]

38. I know. Check out all the defenders of Dick Gregory.

How are we going to enforce tough gun laws when we cannot get support of the lightest gun laws - DISPLAYING gun magazines?
Good luck getting the actual guns!

[etherealtruth]

39. Hope is not lost

There is a cadre (very new, new and some old) posters that swarm the board at the mere mention of "guns." Most are well practiced in the "arguments" made by the NRA and will repeat them over and over.

The vast majority of posters want guns controlled (admittedly there is a range of controls (from banning "assault" weapons to banning guns completely0. To see evidence of this look at the greatest threads, the numerous polls .... etc. here at DU over the last several weeks. When perusing the threads note the diversity of posters on the gun control side (look at user names in polls) .... when looking at the other side, not there is a comparatively low number of posters.

[derby378]

42. For all this talk about "having a conversation" about gun laws in America...

...most of what I've seen over the past two weeks has been over-the-top. Everything from conspiracy theories about paid NRA shills infiltrating DU to calls for setting fire to the Second Amendment and throwin the burning parchment at the feet of the Statue of Liberty.

There have been a few more reasoned voices looking for some sort of happy medium, and I appreciate that. I am open to new ideas on how to reduce gun-related crime. But I have said from the get-go that I will active oppose any ideas on how to reduce gun ownership. That includes magazines that hold more than 10 shots and any semi-automatic firearm. But that still gives us plenty of room for discussing other ideas.

[morningfog]

47. Utter fucking bullshit. You oppose the most important

Solution. You are what we call a bad faith negotiator.

[derby378]

51. I'm not willing to negotiate our rights away, that is correct

If banning or outlawing guns is your "most important solution," it's time to evolve a new solution set.

[morningfog]

57. You are blocking the evolution.

We aren't even talking about banning all guns. You'll still have your Babies, your toys. We are talking about limits, safety measures. You don't have an inherent right or a need for larger magazines or assault weapons. Grow up, get out of the way and let us evolve.

[derby378]

60. When in doubt, belittle the opposition

"Toys?" Aren't you the folks who constantly insist that guns are not toys?

I've been seeing a lot of that on the "Intertubes" as well. Come on.

[morningfog]

63. It was to ridicule the obscene value your ilk give them.

My point stands in spite of your inability to get past that word. You are blocking us moving forward. You do not have an inherent right to assault weapons. Nor do you have a legitimate need for one.

[derby378]

67. Nice to know that you have the ability to tell me what my "rights" and "needs" are

Good luck with that one.

[nadinbrzezinski]

52. You'd better get busy

Limits on mag size are indeed coming out of DC

[derby378]

58. If you're talking about Feinstein's upcoming bill, I don't think it'll gain much traction

The provisions of this bill are seriously over-the-top - no way it'll pass the House, even if it does clear the Senate.

I may hate myself for suggesting this, but if a bill was introduced that only restricted magazine sizes, it might have a better chance for passage. I wouldn't care for it much, but if the President signed it into law, further debate on magazine limits would become the responsibility of the judicial branch.

[nadinbrzezinski]

70. Actually talking the Presidential Commision

What they are talking is exactly what some of us expected. Actually a tad more.

An AWB. The limits on mags, and the big one, closing the gun show loophole. Yup, 100% background checks.

Anything else is fantasy. I'd like to see mandatory smart guns once we reach deployment...but this is what I expected.



Get busy...the NRA is losing it's bark.

[LAGC]

87. Don't count on it.

Nothing is getting through Congress. The 1994 ban barely passed, and only then with a 10-year sunset clause which was allowed to expire. And we paid holy hell for it -- Republican sweep of Congress.

There is no appetite in this current Congress for an even more extreme ban. Not just the House Republicans, but many rural Democrats who aren't eager to lose their jobs as well. Emotions will fade from this current tragedy and people will move on. By the time Biden presents his "recommendations," few will be that concerned about any legislative action on guns any more.

[nadinbrzezinski]

90. So after a few more mass shootings a march on DC is in order

And the more mass shootings the more the people will be in the mood to actually do more radical things.

I hope the gun nuts realize this.

I just hope none here are members of the Molon Labe sub-set...but the way some, very few, post...would not surprise me.

[Recursion]

142. Why tie a ban on high-cap mags to a ban on rifles with pistol grips?

It doesn't make any sense to me, and it makes the much more important magazine ban much less likely to pass.

This is still why I am furious about the AWB, all these years later: people are fixated on it, it does absolutely no good, and it makes us spend political capital on doing things that don't actually solve a problem at the expense of avoiding things that would.

[datasuspect]

43. DU gun debate shows Uhhhhhmmerican adults are barely ready for coloring books

.

[ZombieHorde]

45. The reason debate is so difficult is because the issue is already very emotional.

The various sides of the issue, especially the extremes (not meant to be derogatory), have a deep, emotional attachment to their own point of view.

[morningfog]

46. Fuck the regressive obstructionist anti-regulators.

It is time to force it on them.

[alcibiades_mystery]

49. Indeed...they still think we should "have a 'reasonable' conversation" with them

Fuck them. Their supposed 'reasonable' and 'constructive" conversations are nothing but stalling techniques: utter bullshit from ideological assholes. Oh, then there are the sob stories about when they bought their first gun. Fuck you and your bullshit story, I say. Oh, the "emotionalism!" Emotionalism is their code word for people finally being fed up with their bullshit - their whole strategy is to wear you down and make you indifferent, while their ridiculous hobby causes a public health crisis. Minutia. Extended discussions of firing pins and synthetic stocks, as if their technological knowledge is some kind of trump card. Statistical trends that mean nothing while we continue to bury our children. Propaganda directly from the gun manufacturers.

I'm done fucking "conversing" with these fuckers. And so should you be. We don't need a "national conversation." We need a long term movement and short term goals to solve a public health crisis, whether the people causing it like it or not.

Oh, but you're only hurting your own side! they squeal like the fucking pigs they are. We'll fucking see, assholes.

[backwoodsbob]

81. posts like this are why I quit bothering to try

go for your over the top emotional solutions...they will be meaningless.

I could explain how to reduce gun violence by 75% but you would call me a murderer or whatever for it so why bother

[loli phabay]

93. yup i figure its no point even trying to talk anymore. so i will wait and see what pols say what

And then use my vote accordingly. All the arguments on DU really mean nothing in the big picture.

[Eleanors38]

153. Boy, if any post is ripe for "shill payment" it is you's.

[oldhippie]

104. A nice example of an "adult conversation" here on DU ....

... about this topic. It isn't going to happen. Let's get over it and quit pretending that it is even possible.

[morningfog]

114. And just duke it out? Or bar the anti-Dem/anti-safety/anti-regulators?

I'm down with either.

[oldhippie]

115. Yup. Just proves the OP's point ...

The country is not ready for it.

[morningfog]

117. Bullshit. The NRA and its fans obstruct it.

You cannot dent it.

[rl6214]

136. And if the republicans said the same thing about abortions or gay rights

That would be ok with you

Because that sure as hell wouldn't be ok with me

[morningfog]

145. Repubs are the regressive obstructionists.

When the legislation is progressive and moves the country forward, not backward, yes. Ram it the hell down the throats of anyone standing in the way.

[Glaug-Eldare]

146. That's a remarkably dangerous position to take.

"Ram it the hell down the throats of anyone standing in the way" is not a statement generally made by those who move ANYTHING forward, let alone countries.

[morningfog]

148. When a party proves themselves effective at implementing their objectives, their support grows

when those objectives are supported.

Not dangerous, it is practical. And it is what the repubs do when they are in power. It is what the Dems should do as well.

[ileus]

50. Turn the whole thing over to the emotions.

yup

[Boomerproud]

53. According to a story on a local TV station here in Ohio

A firearms club is offering teachers free target and "defense" classes and teachers are lining up for them. Is there any more proof needed that we are beyond help.

[Riftaxe]

84. Clearly irresponisble people signing up.

There is no need to learn how to defend yourself, the sky faeries will do that for you.

And only fools do not realize that boomsticks are instruments of magic and no amount of knowledge will overcome their inherent evil intentions forged into their sentience at creation.

[Lady Freedom Returns]

54. America isn't ready for real reform in any direction.

But as many start to wake, status que will break.

[dkf]

56. Exactly what would be your recommended suggestion and how many less gun deaths do you think it would

Result in?

Would there be confiscation involved? What compensation would you offer?

[Taverner]

59. We need to stop using weasel words

Registration does not mean confiscation

Banning Semi-Autos does not mean a gun grab

Banning specific kinds of bullets is not a gun grab either

[donco]

61. Kinda looks like

your attempt at ginning up more gun debates is falling on deaf ears seeing as you have zero recs.I guess i am not alone in thinking... give that old dead horse a rest.

[Skittles]

65. lots of ignorance and cowardice in America

disturbing how many gun nuts cannot take being called names but think the occasional massacre is just something we have to put up with to keep their delusions going

[L0oniX]

66. The anti-gun movement is having an opposite effect ...record sales of guns and ammo.

Maybe there is a better way than attacking all gun owners. How about mandatory psych tests like they give police and or security guards before a legal gun purchase ...along with a mandatory gun safety course with tests.

[derby378]

69. I like the idea of a gun safety course

When I bring it up, however, the most common objection I hear is, "How can you make it Constitutional?" I just don't see where a course that teaches you how to safely handle your firearm runs counter to the whole "well-regulated militia" deal.

I've never been involved with the Civilian Marksmanship Program, but I'd like to see what their model is on a gun class, since it's government-chartered.

[L0oniX]

73. You have to take a drivers course to get a license so I don't think it would be that bad to require

a gun safety course but I really think there needs to be a psych test such as law enforcement has as well. I don't believe this will solve all the problems with guns but I do believe it will do a lot of good and make a real difference. IMO it would be a lot easier to get this passed than anything that smacks of gun confiscation.

[backwoodsbob]

82. psych tests?

unless the government is paying for them that would be unconstitutional and even then it would be iffy

[L0oniX]

94. The gov didn't pay for my psych test when I went thru security guard training.

[Glaug-Eldare]

131. There's no guaranteed right to be a security guard n/t

[Crackinrocket]

109. This is probably the best idea.

You can own whatever gun you want as long as you prove you're not cuckoo.

[rl6214]

137. As soon answer also get a mandatory psych test before voting

[Skip Intro]

68. Niether America nor DU, as a whole, is ready for an honest and sincere discussion

of this issue, and many others.

People on either side respond with ridicule and name-calling and character-assassination when presented with views that oppose their own.

DU is a great example of this phenomena.

Any expression on the topic of guns that doesn't mirror the, "let's ban x,y and z," position is met with accusations of the author being an NRA propagandist or gun nut, etc. Hesitant about infringing on the 2nd Amendment? You must be a right-wing troll.

The issue of Guns is just one of many to befall this fate here.

There is little interest in an honest and sincere discussion.

We must instead demonize and foment hatred toward those who disagree with us.

Over and over again.

[datasuspect]

71. you can't really have conversations with most people anymore

or most people who watch television. or own a smartphone.

[H2O Man]

74. The Sky Is Falling !!!!!!

cluck-cluck-cluck-cluck

[stevenleser]

76. That is what I have been saying all along. 20 dead first graders isnt enough to break through

the NRA stranglehold. It will take a lot more blood, unfortunately, before meaningful change comes.

[Buzz Clik]

77. In my view, anyone who advocates using assault weapons for hunting ...

... is completely unhinged.

[Deep13]

78. bullshit. we're just talking here. nt

[Jim Warren]

79. "DU gun debate shows that America isn't ready for real reform."

It's far too small a sample if your opinion is based solely on what is seen here.

[JoeyT]

88. The main problem is

the two extremes are so busy chest thumping everyone else just kinda gives up and wanders off. There are maybe five people from each side that show up in every thread and scream bloody murder at one another and everyone else.

That's the trouble with holy wars, anyone that isn't religious quickly learns not to get between them.

Yeah, what this argument needs is more emotion like the Titanic needed more water.

[Honeycombe8]

101. Reasonable people can differ on what effective gun control means.

For you it means certain things. That doesn't mean what you think is the answer, is the only answer, and anyone who has different ideas is wrong.

Maybe that's where your discouragement is coming from.

Some thoughts I've read, such as confiscating all guns in the U.S., just aren't practical. That is not gonna happen. And I don't think that you would want Nazis breaking down your door and searching through your underwear drawers and digging up your back yard looking for guns that aren't there.

But most people in DU seem to agree on some basics....like no sales of assault weapons (however you define that), full background checks even at gun shows, a waiting period between application and picking up the weapon.

And some posters don't want to look at anything else that might contribute to this phenomena of mass killings that started a couple of decades ago. Something changed a couple of decades ago. What was it? If a DUer doesn't want to discuss anything BUT gun control, then I wonder if the goal is to save lives, or if the goal is simply to get rid of guns.

[Crackinrocket]

107. Effective gun control is this:

Keep guns away from those who would use them to harm others while respecting those that use guns for legal purposes.

[Honeycombe8]

112. But how does that translate into procedures? The devil is always in the details, isn't it?

For one thing, there is nothing that will 100% of the time keep guns away from those who would use them to harm others.

In a free society, or in any society, there is nothing the govt can do to control a person's behavior 100% of the time. So we start with that - that no gun control will prevent all killings. That's not realistic.

What we are after right now is preventing mass killings. Even if we ban sales of assault weapons, there are still lots of them in the public.

The most we can hope for, it looks like, is to lessen the mass killings and the copycats.

[AldoLeopold]

102. You can always join IGNOREFEST 2012-2013

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1240197701

[TheDebbieDee]

103. A lot of people on our side want to avoid bringing those Sandy Hook victims

into the "gun reform" mix for fear of appearing as though we are working/milking/exploiting the situation.

I think that the ends justifies the means......if we have to make the people that can make gun reform/weapons control happen feel guilty by referring to those poor , that's what should be done.

Repukes kick a horse til it's dead and they get what they want..........but we don't want to run the risk of looking bad/silly. That's why we spend our time trying to undo what the repukes have gotten done.

[LP2K12]

119. What is your definition of real reform?

A lot of us are for reform...

*Require background checks and mental health certification. This must be renewed every X amount of years.
*Close the loophole on gun show sales.
*Require private sales to go through a dealer with both the seller and buyer getting a new background check.
*Limit the capacity of magazines.
*Limit the amount of ammo an owner could have on hand in the home.
*Limit the amount of firearms a person can own at any one time.
*Require training and make it longer than 8 hours. Make it longer than a day. Create a new standardized training that takes the NRA out of equation.
*Implement voluntary buy-backs for those who want to dispose of their firearm(s).
*Create insurance policies for firearm owners, work to make them mandatory at some point. Provide discounts to those with certified safes in their home. Inspections must be done to verify the equipment, ammo on hand and firearms.
*For those who have firearms passed down as family heirlooms and don't shoot them offer a program that provides an incentive to make it non-operable.
*Remove the option for plea bargains on gun crimes. All offenders will serve the full sentence.

These are just some of the bullet points myself and other firearm owners are willing help get passed. They are not the end all, be all.

[DainBramaged]

122. My ass

Why is it ONLY NOW YOU and your gun buddies are willing to help get passed.......

[Straw Man]

123. Ladies and gentlemen ...

My ass

Why is it ONLY NOW YOU and your gun buddies are willing to help get passed.......

... I give you "thoughtful discourse."

[DainBramaged]

127. Right, you wouldn't BE HERE if we didn't have an NRA stooge forum

[Straw Man]

129. Sorry, man ...

Not going to take your hate bait. Have fun.

[LP2K12]

138. Who wouldn't be here?

Take a look at my profile... because I have sooooooooo many posts in the gungeon. /sarcasm

Favorite forum: General Discussion, 217 posts in the last 90 days (46% of total posts)
Favorite group: Gun Control & RKBA, 5 posts in the last 90 days (1% of total posts)

Also, I've always been willing to discuss and reform firearm ownership and laws. I'm only 26 and I cancelled my membership to the NRA that my parents purchased for me when I was a child.

You're not helping the cause by lumping all gun owners into one group.

[Dems to Win]

132. This all sounds eminently reasonable, and I thank you for your contribution.

A question:
My uncle has a collection of hundreds of guns. Could collectors keep the firing pins of all these guns in a vault at a firing range, with the ammo, and bring their chosen guns to the range to fire that day, replace the pins and use them, then leave the pins at the range when they go home? This way, if thieves stole the entire collection, they wouldn't get any functional guns.

I'm especially pleased with your suggestion that ammo at home should be limited. This could have greatly limited the damage done by A. Lanza, since he was unable to buy anything for himself and had to use the ammo on hand in his home. Target ranges should have vaults with safe deposit type boxes for each user to keep most of their ammo in.

I know that a lot of rural people shoot at outdoor ranges that are not really commercial enterprises. I've seen it suggested that the ammo and/or guns should be locked up in vaults at these sites, with a group of gun owners sharing responsibility for the vault and vouching for each other as part of the group. Maybe the ammo vaults at these ranges could require 2 adult members to be opened.

I would hope that all guns sold in government buybacks are melted down. No recycling them back into American homes. We need to reduce the numbers of guns out there.

In order to prevent the next Sandy Hook, if we look at the Lanza situation, gun licensing would need to take into account the mental stability of all members of the household, not just the legal gun owner. I know this goes beyond what many have suggested, but it does seem like a necessary safety measure that we have to discuss.

Also, it's not just strictly mental health that must be clear. The recent case in Maine of a 74 year old landlord shooting and killing 2 teenagers in a dispute over snow clearing of parking spaces involved a gun owner who had had a stroke. Just as driving a car becomes hazardous for many older people, the physical health losses we suffer in old age make owning a gun more dangerous as we get elderly. Doctors will need to be able to revoke gun licenses, as they can revoke drivers licenses today.

I'm far from ready to give up hope that America can dramatically reduce the gun deaths we currently suffer. If we want to do it, we can. Other countries have shown us the way.

[LP2K12]

140. Agreed.

I would hope that all guns sold in government buybacks are melted down. No recycling them back into American homes. We need to reduce the numbers of guns out there.

Yes, the overall goal is the reduce the amount of firearms available to criminals and untrained individuals.

Gun licensing would need to take into account the mental stability of all members of the household, not just the legal gun owner.

As an owner, I have no issue with this as a requirement either. I'd also like re-evaluations every few years to make sure everything is in order.

Doctors will need to be able to revoke gun licenses, as they can revoke drivers licenses today.

I brought this up in another thread comparing it to a patient with epilepsy who is no longer allowed to drive unless their seizures are under control for six months and approval from a physician. Fantastic idea.

[MADem]

126. DU is not a microcosm of America, and the Gungeon is loaded with wingnut trolls and people who just

LOVE to argue. Some will take an opposing view they don't hold, I believe, just to have a rip-roaring FIGHT with someone. It's how they know they are alive, I suspect.

I can't understand why you would look at a website the size of this one (not big, in the overall picture, really) that consists of a very specific subset of people (progressives and the trolls that love them) and find anything indicative of an "American trend" here on the topic of guns.

[madrchsod]

128. did you think america is actually ready to do something?

i doubt any real reform will ever happen

[Hippo_Tron]

144. DU is not a representative sample of America

Nor is any internet forum, for that matter. Even on liberal forums, you will have a huge oversample of people who think that they need guns because in a few years they'll have to form a rebel alliance to fight off an evil empire.

[Douva]

149. NEITHER side wants intelligent discourse.

Neither side wants intelligent discourse.

The gun rights side wants to change the subject as quickly as possible because that's the surest way to kill momentum for gun control legislation.

The gun control side wants to keep the rhetoric simple and emotional because they know that most of their proposals can't survive intellectual scrutiny (http://www.AssaultWeaponTruth.com).

[Erose999]

154. I don't think DU is particularly representative of "America". We're a trolling destination for all

the PaulBots, Lyndon LaRouchers, the Alex Jones crowd, and just gun nuts in general. The gun nuts are very vocal, but they're also a very small percentage of the population.