General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWhy gun control is doomed
NO NEW laws restricting access to guns will be passed as a result of Wednesday’s racist shooting rampage, which left nine dead at the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, South Carolina. Americans can be confident this is true for several reasons. For starters, Barack Obama more or less admitted it.
Americans need to reckon with the fact that other advanced countries do not have to face this sort of mass violence, the president said in a sombre statement at the White House on Thursday. “It is in our power to do something about it. I say that recognising the politics in this town foreclose a lot of the avenues just now. But it would be wrong for us not to acknowledge it,” he said, with visible frustration.
The president knows that if it were politically possible to pass new gun laws in Washington, it would have happened after the December 2012 massacre in Newtown, Connecticut. It is hard to imagine a tragedy more calculated to shock American consciences: 20 small children and six staff were gunned down in their elementary school in a quaint New England community by a disturbed young man, wielding a rifle from his mother’s gun collection. Various marginal tweaks to gun laws were tried and failed to gain traction in Congress. Finally, a bipartisan push was made to merely enforce existing laws better. This would have expanded the number of gun-buyers checked for histories of crime or severe mental illness. It failed, too."
Americans can be confident that South Carolina is not about to pass new gun laws, either. For evidence, they can start by contemplating this photograph, tweeted out by a local reporter:
Political awkward moment: Gov. Haley, Sen. Scott, AG Wilson sit during standing ovation after a call for gun control pic.twitter.com/gsb5VIhmZa— Andy Shain (@AndyShain) June 18, 2015
It shows the standing ovation that followed a call for gun controls at a vigil on Thursday, during which two Republican leaders remained seated, hands in their laps: Governor Nikki Haley and Senator Tim Scott."
*But to best understand why gun laws in this country are not about to change, one must also recognise the disproportionate power of the gun lobby. The NRA rallies supporters with a masterful use of fear and distrust of government, and intimidates Republican politicians by turning support for gun rights into a defining test of conservative values. The group consistently and successfully diverts attention away from guns to mental illness."
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2015/06/charleston-and-public-polic
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)You really went there?
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)And carry out a massacre.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)it is time we stop giving white terrorists a pass.
ed_shaw
(4 posts)The shooter's statement was that he was motivated, in part, by black on white crime.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)I know he self radicalized.
ed_shaw
(4 posts)It sounds like it, because his friends, both black and white, and his family, seem quite normal.
If you think about it, who is going to talk about stuff like that and encourage him? It sounds like
they put up with his rants. Probably happens more than we know, but how many actually do it?
Not many.
But if he pays attention and sees unbridled acts of violence, often random, against innocent white
that could appeal to his vigilante self. Somewhere, he got seriously twisted. That and being a basic
coward, and a basic satanic.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)he fits the profile.
I would never say he is nuts (that is the easy way), or a coward. But the path he took is not unlike that of a young person joining ISIS.
It is exactly the same path. It is just a different hate group. And it is high time the Feds stop fearing movement conservatives and actually reform the intelligence group that put out the 2009 report.
And that is the extent I will discuss this at this site.
Skittles
(153,164 posts)fucking cowards
SheilaT
(23,156 posts)gun confiscation, which is oddly unpopular. Can't begin to imagine why, unless indiscriminate killing is seen as a higher good.
Oh, it is? Never mind.
msongs
(67,413 posts)gun confiscation, which is oddly unpopular. Can't begin to imagine why, unless indiscriminate killing is seen as a higher good.
Maybe because most reasonable American's recognize that the majority of firearms owners are law abiding and will never use their firearms in an illegal or negligent way.
But keep pushing that culture war thingy, how well has it worked out so far?
SheilaT
(23,156 posts)There's a dangerous minority who use guns indiscriminately. Not to mention the toddlers who find Mom's gun in a purse, or Dad's gun in a drawer.
Please don't try to apologize for the "law abiding" gun owners. The problem is, pure and simple, that guns are far too readily available in this country.
Other countries don't have these sorts of mass murders by gun. And please don't bother to bring up Norway, because that was so far off from the norm, and please avail yourself as to what actually happened in that case.
Meanwhile, in our country, mass murders occur on a sickeningly regular basis, and all those who defend gun ownership (My rights trump your death) are fucking idiots, and I sincerely wish that all those who support this sort of gun ownership would reap the logical reward.
There's another readily identifiable minority in this country who FBI statistics say is far more likely to be involved in violent crimes than "right" people are (if you know what I mean). Would you by any chance be part of a group that wants to get rid of them as well?
I mean, there's no apologizing for the law-abiding ones and any of them who defend their rights to simply exist are fucking idiots, am I right? Of course I'm right, I'm agreeing with everything you just said.
Just curious, because based on your attitude and rhetoric I'm not sure there's any ethical daylight between you and this other group and I think you'd fit right in.
daleanime
(17,796 posts)
Shamash
(597 posts)I've consistently advocated for improvements in and better enforcement of violations in the background check system, training requirements, nationwide standards for licensing and improved education, safety and integration of mental health records with all of the above.
I've also consistently opposed knee-jerk measures that affect people who are not the problem in the vague hope of accidentally nabbing someone who is. Much like I oppose NYC's "stop & frisk" and Arizona's "papers please" laws.
Think about it. If the background check system showed the Charleston shooter had a conviction making it illegal to own a firearm, he would have been committing a felony just by trying to buy that gun, and the police could have arrested him that same day. Everything we needed to stop that shooting was already in place. Criminal records were there, a background check system was there. If the two had been connected and there was a will to do something, the NICS system could have called the Charleston police and he would have walked out of that gun store in handcuffs.
Go look up how many background checks are failed each year by felons dumb enough to walk into a gun store to buy a gun. Then see how many of them were actually prosecuted.
Get back to me on new laws after we implement the ones we have, ones which could and should have prevented this crime.
EL34x4
(2,003 posts)to flag Roof for his felony charge. NICS is charged with keeping all prohibited persons, as defined by the Gun Control Act of 1968 and the Lautenberg Amendment from being able to lawfully purchase a firearm.
The 1968 GCA includes as prohibited anyone under indictment for a felony. Roof was charged with a felony drug offense back in February.
The system failed. We need to find out where and how often. And we need to fix it.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)daleanime
(17,796 posts)and then refuses to do any thing. I don't even brother with them any more, just note my dissension and leave. Have a lovely day.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)The chief reasons gun laws are the way they are:
1). Nearly 75% of surveyed Americans believe 2A is an individual right
2). There are well over 80,000,000 gun-owners
3). Most Americans don't feel threatened by living near armed neighbors
4). The "gun rights" movement is Big, grassroots, is well funded by millions of people
The chief reasons the control/banner outlook is ineffective
1). It is neither grassroots based, nor funded from same
2). It depends on small elites in some big city political structures, a declining MSM, and by its own admission, a mass killing
3). It's main tactic is hatefulness toward gun-owners ( you need NO examples cited on DU)
4). It's main goal is prohibition, as it has Never seen a control measure it didn't like
5). It has little credibility and will for the long haul
So, I guess it is no wonder that this outlook has the hutzpah to expect the "pro-gun side" to carry its slop bucket. Even here, should you find an ally, the spokespersons for the controllers would never give up the sweetest of moral pleasures: Hatred and denigration of its "enemies", even if they should yield a significant "gain." Gun control (whatever the entity) is an increasingly impotent and extremist outlook.
I hope this sheds some light on any controversy.
CTyankee
(63,912 posts)Every time there is a shooting tragedy, here come the same "stats", the same "charts", the same rhetoric...and then, amazingly, we don't see many if any at all surfacing on other issues. I wonder why that is. But in a way it's kind of comforting in the sense that it's nice that we can go watch Old Faithful do its thing at Yellowstone National Park...only not as beautiful, but hey...
pipoman
(16,038 posts)Out comes the same outraged gun controllers flogging the same constitutionally impossible memes...they are ALWAYS the first to the scene...as on the case of this thread...you can't whine about this poster citing the info that disputes the information posted above in this thread....the same grave dancers and blood painters posting all over this thread...
CTyankee
(63,912 posts)over and over and over again and have for years...
pipoman
(16,038 posts)Of this tragedy whooping and hollaring about the same worn out memes as the last tragedy...we've all heard them, know they are going down in flames, but they'll be there as they always are in bloody tragedies making appeals for the impossible...they never disappoint
CTyankee
(63,912 posts)You know, during the 2nd WW the Seabees had a motto "CAN DO."
Your side seems to have one "CAN'T DO."
That's the spirit...
pipoman
(16,038 posts)Just most gun controllers don't want to hear what could be done..they're too busy pretending that the asked-and-answered constitutionally impossible is actually possible...you know, federally mandated ubc's, assault weapons bans, magazine limits, total confiscation, bullet control...you know, the impossible...
CTyankee
(63,912 posts)pipoman
(16,038 posts)The biggest opponents of the possible are gun control advocates..here's one thing that gun controllers hereabouts have repeatedly denied and argued against...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6871715
mythology
(9,527 posts)Even things like background checks the NRA opposes.
pipoman
(16,038 posts)Wouldn't need their approval...the NRA supported the Brady Bill/NICS in 1994...without their support we probably wouldn't have background checks today. The NRA really isn't half of what it is attributed...universal background checks will never be federal law, and that hasn't a single thing to do with the NRA.
CTyankee
(63,912 posts)pipoman
(16,038 posts)CTyankee
(63,912 posts)it is more whooping and hollering...see that connection?
pipoman
(16,038 posts)CTyankee
(63,912 posts)looking at the real problems which I have outlined here earlier.
pipoman
(16,038 posts)CTyankee
(63,912 posts)Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)CTyankee
(63,912 posts)and, like our president, I am bone tired of seeing this happen and yet the same excuses are put forward. Those arguments are what I have animosity against. I don't know you but since you are advancing those arguments I have to speak up about them with you. And again, like poor Obama who looked downright depressed , it is frustrating to the max to have to see the same old, tired lines being run through our DU. This is the definition of insanity...
I'll confess I haven't a clue what group you're referring to.
And I think I'll just point out that your gun rights should not be trumping my right to live.
Shamash
(597 posts)Does my "right to live" trump your right to have money in the bank? Because heroic measures can get really expensive and the demographics of the US population show the average age is getting older every year. And so I'd be more than happy to have my Medicare payments turn into 100x their value in services paid for by the tax dollars of younger workers. After all, my "right to live" is more important than any right you have that doesn't involve life and death. Right?
Or is it that some people's "right to live" is more important than others? And do you have any kind words about your rights for her family?
And you not having a clue is to be honest, kind of obvious. That you know next to nothing about an issue you feel strongly about is crystal clear to anyone who follows your comments.
SheilaT
(23,156 posts)Just don't complain or act the least bit surprised at the next mass murder. Or the next time a toddler shoots someone because of a gun left around.
Shamash
(597 posts)After all, mass murders are the absolute least likely type of murder, and toddlers are several times more likely to die from poisoning themselves with something under the kitchen sink than to shoot themselves (or someone else). So yes, I will be more surprised by less likely events than by more likely ones. Are you by some chance the opposite of this?
"Oh my god, the sun rose in the east! What a surprise!"
And I guess I just missed your outraged posts about irresponsible parents doing things that make their toddlers several times more likely to die than if they had a gun in the house.
pipoman
(16,038 posts)If you apply this same threshold to everything we will be living in a much, much different world....but it really isn't about the deaths or your concern for your own safety, is it now?
The Straight Story
(48,121 posts)It implies some form of desire/intent. If the 'minority' you are referring to isn't such then why are you comparing the two?
Shamash
(597 posts)
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)but even if you repeal the 2A, (not gonna happen) it won't ban firearms, it would revert back to the states to set their own firearms policies, that's all.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Alcohol leads to drunk driving which kills more people than guns. It fuels rape, domestic violence, criminal assault and other violent crimes reaching into the tens of millions of cases annually. The health problems associated with alcohol affect tens of millions more.
Yet, those of us who are law-abiding gun owners have a right to self-defense and hundreds of thousands of people do so annually. No one has a right to drink and while it may be fun no good thing such as self defense has ever come of it.
beevul
(12,194 posts)I would say that 80+ million gun owners downright disagree with that.
In fact, I think they feel, quite strongly, that it does matter. A lot.
Chan790
(20,176 posts)is working out quite well, thank you...please deposit your impermissible firearms in the receptacle by the door on your way out...oh..what? We're not to that point in Operation Gungrabber yet and the insta-destruct firearm receptacles are not yet functional...
Sorry, you'll have to hold onto your guns for another 6 months or so. I'm sorry about the inconvenience...we haven't quite gotten around to the first amendment of the 2nd Amendment yet. It's too bad...you should see these compulsory bear arms you're going to be issued for national defense.
Now that's funny.
Ghost in the Machine
(14,912 posts)no matter ho bad you wish it would. Who do you think is going to go door to door to EVERY HOUSE in the US and take away guns? By the time they hit one town, phones would be ringing all across the town and people could simply hide their guns. I have 15 acres, with a lot of woods. Do you think that someone is going to search every inch of every property in the US looking for guns?? it could take several days, or more, to search ONE 300 acre farm. Of course, the FIRST ones that they would come after is the *registered* firearms owners. Do you have any clue how many *unregistered* guns are in this Country??
I have gotten Poll calls before and have been asked if I owned any firearms. I ALWAYS tell them "NO". You don't know for sure if these are legitimate Polls, or a scam from someone looking for homes to rob! It's nobody else's business *what* I have in the privacy of my own home, not even the Government's.....
Peace,
Ghost
SheilaT
(23,156 posts)They took away the guns after a mass murder. Weird, isn't it? It actually worked. Do not tell me it's not possible. It has happened. Every single person who justifies gun ownership is also justifying every single mass murder by guns. Fuck you. You are, each and every one of you, responsible for Charleston and every single other mass shooting in recent years. You cannot hide behind platitudes about how terrible this is. If you support gun ownership, then you support all of these shootings. You cannot pretend otherwise.
davepc
(3,936 posts)
Violet_Crumble
(35,961 posts)
jonno99
(2,620 posts)When I was a kid, we had a shooting range for the gun club in the basement of our school (and this was Minnesota - not Texas), and nobody gave it much of a thought. Imagine that - kids bringing guns to school!
What has changed? Are guns scarier today (there were automatic weapons then)? Have guns evolved to act on their own?
No, it is PEOPLE and attitudes that have changed. We need to get to the root of this change. Clamoring for gun control is (imho), intellectual & moral laziness - and merely kicks the problem of the "why" - down the road...
SwissTony
(2,560 posts)Few of us have the knowledge and equipment to accomplish this.
Thank you for pointing this out.
SheilaT
(23,156 posts)
SwissTony
(2,560 posts)but he more than earned my respect with this measure.
John Oliver's 3-piece report for the Daily Show says lots.
Parts 1, 2 and 3.
Violet_Crumble
(35,961 posts)Here's a quote from him on the topic. Imagine an American RW leader saying something like this:
btw, that John Oliver segment is excellent stuff
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)Charleston was horrible- but it did not give you an excuse to go Pamela Gellar
on all gun owners.
We've seen the mindset in action before.
Why will your mooted Gun Prohibition work any better than the ones against
alcohol and cannabis?
Shamash
(597 posts)The gun ban resulted in approximately 700,000 prohibited weapons being turned in, which by government estimates was only about a third of the expected amount. And this from a people without an RKBA tradition.
If you look at Australia for the past 20 years:
• the number of guns illegally smuggled into Australia has gone up several-fold (and straight into the hands of criminals)
• criminals now have their own underground firearms manufacturing industry
• murders are down a little (they went up for several years after these 700,000 guns left circulation, but eventually dropped)
• armed robberies are unchanged
• kidnap and abduction is unchanged
• sexual assaults are way up
So remind us all again exactly how taking guns away from non-criminals helped the Australians as a whole.
Violet_Crumble
(35,961 posts)If you look at Australia for the past 20 years there's been no more massacres like Hoddle Street, Strathfield, and Port Arthur. We don't have people shooting each other in road rage incidents. We don't have toddlers getting into their mothers purses in a shop, playing with a gun and shooting their mum. We don't have dangerous idiots running round demanding they have a right to carry high powered weapons into shopping centres and restaurants. We don't live in fear that we're going to end up being involved in a mass shooting.
What do sexual assaults have to do with gun control anyway?
Shamash
(597 posts)Then crimes that might have been deterred by gun ownership are also fair game for correlation. You (presuming you are a woman) are 50% more likely to be raped than you were before the gun control law was passed. Your home is no less likely to be burgled, your children no less likely to be abducted, and your gun laws have created a thriving black market that caters exclusively to criminals who want to own guns. And two-thirds of the guns the government expected to collect after the ban simply disappeared into thin air. So ask yourself if maybe your government could have done things both differently and better...
Oh really? Try doing a search for "road rage shooting" with "australia". Limit it to just the past year. Even when you filter out the irrelevant hits, there are still plenty. Like this one from a couple of weeks ago:
Alleged road rage incident leaves man with gunshot wound north-west of Melbourne
Try not to let your preconceptions get in the way of the truth. You are entitled to your individual opinion, but you have to share reality with the rest of us.
And as has been asked elsewhere, why should there be any more outrage about 9 people killed with a gun in one place than 9 people murdered by any means in different places? Nine innocent people are still dead either way. To presume that society is lessened more by one group than the other, or to think the families of the one group grieve less than the other is irrational. You're just outraged because one of these incidents was in the news and the others were not. Not that the others didn't happen yesterday, won't happen today and won't happen tomorrow. You just don't care enough to say anything unless they all die in one place and you read it in a headline.
FYI, we didn't have this sort of massacre frequency back when guns were virtually unregulated (go check the history of mass shootings in the US). Which makes it difficult to argue that accessibility is the problem that needs to be solved.
And as far as fear goes, I am more afraid that I will win a multi-million lotto jackpot than I am afraid of being involved in a mass shooting. That's probably because I have a rational assessment of risk and my chances of winning the lottery are significantly higher.
Violet_Crumble
(35,961 posts)That's coz it has zero to do with the gun control laws. Same goes for a rise in sexual assault.
If you think that before the laws were introduced that Australians all wandered round carrying guns ready to repel criminals, yr wrong. It's never been like that here...
Interesting. I went and did a google and didn't find plenty at all, not unless you count two as plenty. My point was that the gun related accidents and violence that are almost a daily happening in the US don't happen frequently in other Western countries that have gun laws.
I don't know where yr getting some of those stats you've used in yr posts from, but what I do know is that when it comes to stats it's been very hard to measure if any rise or lowering of stats is connected with the gun buy back scheme. There's only one stat that's absolutely, concrete provable, and that's the fact that in the years leading up to the new laws there was on average one mass shooting a year. Since then there's been none. So, what was intended worked, which is good coz I feel like the extra 1% or so I paid on my Medicare Levy that helped pay for the scheme (the Constitution has this bit that says if the government takes private property it must give compensation) was money well spent. I'm the last person to praise a conservative government for anything they do, but the Howard government deserves praise for getting the states and territories on board and making it happen instead of doing all the pointless handwringing and weak attempts to maybe talk about possibly doing something that US politicians do every time there's a mass shooting. And they get to do that a lot...
I've got a question. Pretend for a moment that yr the PM of Australia back in 1996 in the aftermath of Port Arthur. You know something needs to be done. As you said that you'd do things differently and better, how would you have done that? I'd be interested in knowing...
Heh, I've never encountered anyone before who's afraid of winning the lottery. Me, I know someone who did. I also know someone who was involved in a mass shooting. There ya go...
Shamash
(597 posts)I'd ask myself what percentage of people who owned guns were committing violent crimes, and then compare that to other percentages of people committing violent crimes, like men, women, whites, blacks, asians, non-citizen immigrants, people with knives, people with blunt objects, people with prior convictions and so on.
And if the percentage of gun owners was at or near the top of the list, then I would have to agree that guns are a big problem when it came to violent crime and take extra measures to keep guns from getting into the hands of violent criminals. If not, then I would work on measures to reduce violent crime in general, which would reduce gun crime as well as all other violent crime.
Because you know, gun crime is a subset of violent crime, not the only violent crime.
Or I suppose I could bow to the emotional ranting of the uninformed in the wake of a tragedy, to pass feel-good measures that do little or nothing about the root causes of violence and which have all manner of unintended negative consequences that I wasn't bright enough to foresee despite having numerous historical examples to draw from.
Now that I've answered your question, which of those options do you think would be better for the country? Take your time with the answer. Preferably more time than you spent forming your opinions on the subject.
But as long as I'm PM, how did the Liberal party fare in the 1998 elections (first one after the 1996 gun laws were passed)? Did my party pick up a bunch of new seats in Parliament? What's that you say? It's 2015 and the Liberal party still has not gotten back to the number of seats it had before your gun laws were passed? Ouch.
And as far as not knowing where I'm getting my stats from, it is your own government's figures on the subject. But thank you for confirming that your opinions on violent crime in Australia are not based on knowing anything about them.
For the lottery? Do you feel your chances of winning the jackpot are so high that you are willing to change your daily habits because of it? If so, welcome to the world of gullible morons. Do you feel your less-likely chance of being involved in a mass shooting is so high that you are willing to change your daily habits because of it? Just asking.
Violet_Crumble
(35,961 posts)And they are. 'Fuck off! Port Arthur!'
Yeah, you remember Port Arthur? That thing you dismissed as 'emotional ranting of the uninformed'? It was the straw that broke the camel's back after pretty much yearly gun massacres leading up to it. Both sides of politics said enough's enough and instead of sitting round and doing what American politicians do and talking about everything else but how to stop something like that from ever happening again, they got off their arses and did something about it. And what they did worked. There hasn't been a gun massacre since. So what I think was best for my country was exactly what happened.
Oh, you think there's been some sort of long-term electoral backlash against the Liberal Party because of the gun laws? Gun laws haven't been an election issue in any federal election since then. Rob Borbidge, the Queensland Premier lost the next state election, but the backlash was at a state level and reasonably small. That's because the National Party (them and the Liberals make up the coalition) also backed the gun laws. So all the major parties were on the same page when it came to the gun laws, and that's why they've never been repealed. When it came to John Howard's government, there was a political backlash which led to him being the first PM in ages and ages to lose his seat at an election, but that backlash was over Work Choices. Personally one of the things I dislike most about US politicians and guns is that they're more worried about their political survival than keeping society safer...
Hold on. I never said anything about not knowing anything about violent crime in my own country. You just made that up. But seeing yr apparently so much of an expert on stats, now you can show me the stats that link a rise in sexual assaults to the gun laws.
People didn't change their daily habits when it came to the gun laws. My partner at the time surrendered a firearm that was banned under the new legislation and his daily habits didn't change at all. How do you think people's daily habits changed?
Here's something that Fairgo posted elsewhere in this thread. It's pretty fucking awesome...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6870164
Shamash
(597 posts)Which is better, dealing with the root causes of violence in society, or superficial measures that do not address those causes?
Take your time. A simple knee-jerk response won't be sufficiently embarrassing to the cause of gun control and I want to make sure you work yourself up to something that makes you look as intolerant, irrational, uninformed and emotion-driven as possible when it comes to demanding fear-based coercive measures against your fellow citizens.
That is, if you hadn't realized it, attitudes like yours are what drive gun sales in the United States. Because of fear-mongering by people like you in the wake of Newtown, people in the US went out and bought 1 million more guns than normal in the following month. The NRA made 6 million dollars from new memberships because of people like you. How much of that do you think would have happened if the voices calling for regulation had been reasoned and calm instead of emotional and outraged and demanding?
So go back to whatever comments you made in the wake of Newtown or any other event and give yourself a big pat on the back for anything that contributed to increasing the number of guns out there.
And thanks for the example. Your partner at the time had his life unchanged both before and after gun ownership. Or, after and before. Which means society had no problem with him as an individual either way.
Which kind of makes my point. Him losing his gun did absolutely squat to affect the gun crime rate in Australia because he was not part of the problem. Right? And as a liberal, you should err to the side of increased tolerance. Right?
Violet_Crumble
(35,961 posts)I answered. You just don't like the answer, so I'll say it again. The thing that was the catalyst for the introduction of the gun laws both at federal and state levels was the Port Arthur massacre, which was the last in pretty much a period of annual gun massacres. How totally fucked up would it have been for the PM to go: 'Hey, hold on. We've got a problem with drunk driving down in Tasmania. Let's forget the horror of Port Arthur and tell anyone who complains that they're just emotional and intolerant morons. Even better, let's say that to Walter Micac, who lost his wife and two young daughters at Port Arthur that he's being really intolerant getting out there in public and calling for stricter gun laws. And then because just like Americans who have a fixation on their guns, I'll tell everyone I haven't got time to deal with more than one thing at a time, and we're just going to have to do some studies on how best to lower the drink driving rate.'
Bullshit. Attitudes like mine and the vast majority of Australians have fuck all to do with why someone would go buy a gun because of all those kids being slaughtered in the US. I can't even begin to work out the logic of someone who goes 'Hey, someone just murdered a whole bunch of little kids. Time to go out and get me a gun!'
You still haven't produced any links to yr rather bizarre claims that a higher sexual assault rate here is connected with the introduction of the guns laws. I'd be interested in seeing them rather than seeing you get progressively nastier in each response.
I'm not sure why you think people's daily lives changed at all. You claimed they had. Nothing much changed. The laws were introduced. The buy-back scheme happened. Lots of people gave up their guns and life went on. And seeing you seem to keep ignoring the most important point of all, life went on without any more gun massacres.
btw, I'm not a small or large L liberal. I'm a socialist and I can be pretty fucking intolerant of a few things. Things like bigots, conservatives, racists, Maroon 5, sexists, and those who think there's nothing wrong with the sick gun culture in the US. I'm also intolerant of people in lifts who leave a fart cloud behind.
Response to Violet_Crumble (Reply #152)
Post removed
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)they just haven't used guns
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_mass_murders
aikoaiko
(34,170 posts)
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)That pesky 'takings' clause.
Ghost in the Machine
(14,912 posts)Yeah, right.... That's all your side has is insults, cussing and bullshit accusations. You're a bunch of "Keyboard Tough Guys" with minds absent of any logic, reason and critical thinking skills. You're unable to carry on an intelligent conversation/debate.
I can say that YOU are responsible for it all, since you're such a keyboard tough girl. WHY haven't YOU gone out and taken people's guns away from them any way you can?? What have YOU done to stop ANYONE??
Then I would suggest that you unregister yourself as a Democrat and, while I can't tell ANYONE to leave this board, you might want to consider posting somewhere else. The Democratic Party Platform clearly **SUPPORTS** the 2nd Amendment so if you are a registered Democrat, YOU "support all of these shootings. You cannot pretend otherwise."
Peace,
Ghost
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)As classy as it is rational and logical...
Ghost in the Machine
(14,912 posts)I actually alerted on it, and that was the first time I have EVER alerted on a reply to me as I have some pretty thick skin when it comes to Keyboard Commandos, and got an email saying that someone else had already alerted on it... and a jury voted 4-3 to let it stand! I guess there must have been some anti-gunners on the jury, or maybe some people who are part of her "clique", but I'm kind of glad now that it's out there for everyone to see. People can see for themselves how rude, vile, vulgar and mentally incapable of reasonable, rational, intelligent conversation/debate that these types really are.
I really didn't even care about the "Fuck You", hell I've been told that a blue billion times! IRL, I tell them "Fuck you even harder, and the piece of shit you rode in on", but I'm 6'3" & 220 lbs and was a bouncer in a biker bar for many years, as well as an 'enforcer'... meaning I used to get paid to collect debts, and hurt people if they didn't pay up. That was a different lifetime ago, though, but I still don't take shit off of anyone.
Peace,
Ghost
ed_shaw
(4 posts)The politicalization, I mean, if that is the right word. No joke, I am starting to think this whole thing might have been staged for effect. People have gone ripped sheets on me for suggesting this, but look at what is going on. And these are the intelligent Democrats, the literate ones.
LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)God help any politician who tries this in the US. There is near zero popular support for it. Those who are most fanatical about it are armed to the teeth: all military and ex-military, police, rural people, all fighting and killing for what they believe is their 2A rights.
It would end with a lot of dead politicians and their supporters. Possibly a second civil war.
So no, it can't happen here. It is delusional to portray this country as anything resembling Australia.
Lulu Belle
(70 posts)I don't think that they have any idea of the scope and scale of the inferno that they are flirting with.
Gun confiscation could cause a civil war that could last for decades and cost millions of lives.
beevul
(12,194 posts)Well, that changes everything.
'I'm coming around to your point of view, and starting to listen to your logic and talking points, because of your hate filled rant.'
Said no human being on any topic.
Ever.
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)I can't say I really mind the vulgarity (on a site with less biased moderation, my reply would scorch the paint off a ship), but the utter vacuity of the "logic" employed makes my head swim.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)insults to firearms owners are allowed to stand most time, some are just amazing to me.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)those guns have been replaced. Most guns were not banned. Many of those registered guns that were taken away from licensed gun owners were sold on the black market by sleazy cops and contractors. The worst state for that was Queensland. There is also the problem of smuggling and gangs making their own, including machine guns. The Australia does not have any federal laws, but John Howard managed to threaten the states with passing uniform laws, called the National Firearms Agreement. Guess what, mass murders still happen.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_mass_murders
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/drive-by-shooting-up-by-41-per-cent/story-e6frg6nf-1226329985537
http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/western-australia/sub-machine-gun-seized-from-gang-raid/story-fnhocxo3-1226659401117
When parliament asked the Federal Australian Police how many illegal guns there were (since no crime guns have been legally registered to anyone) the FAP didn't have a clue.
pipoman
(16,038 posts)You are responsible for the..(what is it? 3...4 times as many?) children killed?..dumb huh?
http://freakonomics.com/books/freakonomics/chapter-excerpts/chapter-5/
Your statements are ludicrous...
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)Also, force employers to not pay employees who refuse to give up their guns.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)...and not fight it tooth and nail?
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)Freeze 'em.
aikoaiko
(34,170 posts)There is no master list.
Ghost in the Machine
(14,912 posts)Also, force employers to not pay employees who refuse to give up their alcohol. (See how easy that is?) You sound like you should be living in some Communist State somewhere. Did you speak up and/or have a fit when the new "Healthcare Regulations" *required us to *purchase* a product from a *private corporation*?? If so, how can you advocate forcing corporations NOT to pay employees for work that they have done?? Like I just told the first person, who replied to my post with a personal attack, "You're a bunch of "Keyboard Tough Guys" with minds absent of any logic, reason and critical thinking skills. You're unable to carry on an intelligent conversation/debate".
Alcohol causes more problems in this Country than guns do, that's a well known fact. It causes us all to have to pay higher premiums for Auto and Health Insurance. Why should *I* have to pay for someone else's fuck-ups when I don't even drink?? I've only had one insurance claim in the past 20 years, and I wasn't even driving my vehicle at the time. I was out of town working, and the last thing I told my then fiancee' was "DO NOT let Xxxxxxx (her 16 year old son) drive my car while I am gone." I had a beautiful, mint condition 1994 Grand Prix that was candy apple red, had all the fender flairs, under-carriage flairs, rear spoiler and a sunroof. He was an inexperienced driver with a lead foot. I was gone for 2 days when I got a call saying Xxxxx just totaled your car! When I came home that weekend, I was so pissed that I actually broke up with her, packed my stuff and moved! Of course I was glad that no one was seriously injured or worse, but it was the point of her going behind my back and against my wishes. She had her own car, she could have let him drive it. Ok, I'm rambling off topic now so I'll stop..
Peace,
Ghost
delta17
(283 posts)What you're proposing violates at least two amendments. Not to mention it would be politically impossible.
Chan790
(20,176 posts)You say that one needs a permit to own a gun...then you refuse to issue permits and grandfather the current gun owners. Then you say nobody that doesn't currently own a gun that isn't police or national defense can own a gun and grandfather again. Then you restrict even legal gun owners from possession (which includes one's own home) in urban and residential areas. So on...chip chip chip.
It took like 40 years but the average gun-owner in Japan is now over 70 years old, lives in a rural area at-least 50km from a city...and there are less than 2000 of them. So few that most people mistakenly believe that guns are totally illegal in Japan. Within another generation...there will be no gun-possessing private citizens in Japan. Guns may not be inherited items...so when gun-owner grandpa dies...you either surrender the gun to the police or hire a craftsman to render it permanently inoperable if you want to keep it (more common with family heirlooms and collectable pieces)...it's not a gun anymore, it's a memento paperweight that cannot ever function as a gun again and that process cannot be reversed.
Get caught with an illegal gun in Japan...life sentence. Get caught with ammunition for a gun you can't own...life sentence. The sentence for gun-ownership is more severe than the sentence for murder most of the time.
SheilaT
(23,156 posts)It can be done, and I just don't agree with all the righteous "responsible" owners who continue to defend all of the gun homicides in this country.
Pooka Fey
(3,496 posts)Thanks!
calimary
(81,298 posts)Chip-chip-chip. Chip away at it. Little by little but resolutely. Until - 40 years later - uh-oh! Look what's happened!
I would LOVE to see gun "rights" chipped away until they're on the ropes - like Roe v Wade now is.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts) Ghost in the Machine
(14,912 posts)Go ahead, take your time and think about it, then please answer. The only catch here is this: Your answer cannot be "The right to keep and bear arms", since we already know that you are willing to give that up. Which OTHER Right, that is important to you, are you willing to give up??
Thanks in advance...
Peace,
Ghost
Chan790
(20,176 posts)I mean you use "communism" like it was a bad word...but since you clearly do not know what it means, I can't be impressed enough to stop laughing at you long enough to answer your question.
Response to Chan790 (Reply #79)
Post removed
beevul
(12,194 posts)Incrementalism is what the gun control lobby has been trying to practice for decades.
Its not a new approach, and it IS well known among gun rights supporters.
In fact, incrementalism is what "don't give them another inch" is an answer to.
tritsofme
(17,379 posts)appal_jack
(3,813 posts)I will oppose any gun control measure that I think could start us down this path.
I honor the American tradition of the whole Bill of Rights.
-app
Logical
(22,457 posts)calimary
(81,298 posts)I like to keep in mind a personal mantra at all times: "President Obama doesn't want to take away yer guns. I do."
rdking647
(5,113 posts)thats just simple reality.
and if you repeal the 2nd what to stop a repeal of the 1st amendment?
struggle4progress
(118,290 posts)and hard work; (3) If we decide nothing will change, and so do not spend lots of time doing hard work to change things, then it is certain that nothing will change
akbacchus_BC
(5,704 posts)difficult to institute any form of gun control. But some rules are easy to follow, in order to get a gun, you should be a home owner, be recommended by at least two people who can attest that you need a gun for protection.
The US is a huge country with over 300 million people and some people view their guns as manly, education needs to be put in place but most gun owners am sure, do not plan to kill people! It is the simpleton like Dylan Roof, 21 years old with a racist agenda. The authorities have no idea that these loners exist with malicious intent and even when they tell their friends they are planning something evil, their friends do not take them seriously enough to inform the authorities.
My question is -- how does the parents do not recognise that something is wrong? Mind you, am not blaming the parents, children have a way of not showing their true colours when it suits them!
LAGC
(5,330 posts)Only home owners should be able to get a gun? Kind of smacks of "only property owners should be able to vote", don't you think?
I don't think we want to back to those days where only the propertied class have rights and the "unwashed masses" are considered second-class citizens, if not barely more than serfs occupying land at the property owners' pleasure.
The "haves" have enough special privileges already. Last thing we need is to allow only them to have all the guns once they try to steal every last piece of land away from the 99% "have nots."
Shamash
(597 posts)Hating and fearing other people who have done you no harm and segregating, demonizing and stigmatizing them based on the worst possible stereotypes of "their kind" is the reason we signed up to be liberals.
At least that's what a new reader of DU would think liberals were about after perusing the discussions on this subject.
So remember the Party slogan: Anything that conservatives do, we can do better!
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)The fourth amendment is easier to dance around than the second.
If fear can be stoked up citizens will cry out for action and it will happen, we will move toward building a better matrix.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)Gun control is doomed because people tell themselves it's impossible, and then work to make it so.
They tell pollsters they're in favour of gun control to the tune of 90%, then turn around and elect RW bozos in Wayne LaPierre's pocket.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)I just don't get it.
I am likewise confounded by the number of Democrats who think that intolerance and coercion of individuals who have done them no harm is a liberal value.
laundry_queen
(8,646 posts)intolerance and coercion. Please.
beevul
(12,194 posts)http://www.democraticunderground.com/12629049
Intolerance, that really doesn't need a cite, now, does it?
Alternatively, what part of 'gun humper' sounds tolerant to you?
And coercion?
What precisely do you think laws are, if not coercion?
The suggestions upthread to freeze gun owners bank accounts. That's not a suggestion of coercion?
:shakes head:
laundry_queen
(8,646 posts)So much persecution. Aw.
beevul
(12,194 posts)laundry_queen
(8,646 posts)Your hurt feelings? Your hyperbole?
beevul
(12,194 posts)I never claimed to be a victim. Nor did I imply such.
That doesn't mean that I'm forbidden from pointing out hateful behavior, intolerance, and yes, people who argue in favor of the politics of coercion.
It also doesn't mean you're forbidden from denying it, as you have.
And so here we are...
laundry_queen
(8,646 posts)coming from the pro-gun side. The rest of what you see is called grief and mourning. It's only hate and intolerance in your own mind.
beevul
(12,194 posts)Whatever "hateful" behavior is coming from the pro-gun side, it PALES in comparison to its counterpart on the anti-gun side.
Anyone suggested freezing the assets of anti-gunners simply because they're anti-gun, yet?
Anyone accuse the anti-gunners of having blood on ALL their hands yet like they did to ALL gun owners?
That's not "grief and mourning". That's just plain hatred.
Yeah, that's how people such as yourself try to spin it when anti-gunners start threads before the bodies are even cold to complain about guns, and "throw it in the faces" of gun rights supporters.
Just because you "call" it grief and morning, does not make it so.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)it should be easy for you to post some links.
But as with every time I ask this, I truly expect crickets or you to try and change the subject.
laundry_queen
(8,646 posts)full of people grieving to parrot NRA talking points is hateful. In that same way my 'loving' mother gives me 'constructive' criticism by sending me links on cleaning after visiting my house (I'm a single parent with 4 kids and a full time job with a long commute) or links on the latest fad diet after I've been to the doctor with knee issues (my issues are overuse injuries from when I was thin and an active teenager). It's inappropriate, underhanded and, yes, hateful. It's not the time, or the place. It shows a lack of respect, understand and a complete lack of any semblance of empathy. You want an example? Any fucking thread talking about why we shouldn't have gun control at a time like this is an example. I expect you know how to use search.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)It should be so easy if it is so bad. So what NRA talking points are being posted? Could it just be something you disagree with?
laundry_queen
(8,646 posts)Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)I asked you for examples as you are the one that made the charge of the hate talk from gun rights supporters. Seems now you can not when challenged. Very sad and typical to make a baseless charge and not back it up.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)
jonno99
(2,620 posts)Other folks "have" guns because they hunt.
And then there are folks who "need" guns for their personal and/or family protection.
And then their are the psychos and criminals for whom guns are a means to an evil end.
In your gun control utopia, what are you going to do when the last group goes after those who are in the first three groups?
Those bent on evil generally don't give two hoots about laws. As I've written elsewhere on this thread the problem is not the guns - the problem is the "why"...
smirkymonkey
(63,221 posts)I despise guns. It's amazing how some of us have managed to get through life without ever owning a gun, isn't it?
Why do so many people insist that they need them? I really don't understand it.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)But since then I have never owned a gun and never felt I needed one.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)99Forever
(14,524 posts)Why gun bullies HOPE gun control is doomed.
No need to thank me, I understand how hard it is for gun bullies to be truthful.
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)because even a whisper about gun control after an incident of this nature is met with "They are going to take our guns" and people run out and buy guns.
Mass murder is good for the bottom line of weapons manufacturers.
calimary
(81,298 posts)bar patron goes out and tries unsuccessfully to drive home without incident -
WHY IS IT SO IMPOSSIBLE TO SUE GUN MANUFACTURERS for crimes that trace back to them because they made the gun that made the crime??????
WHY are they untouchable?
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)It would be like trying to sue Jack Daniels for the drunk guy plowing his car into you. (Good luck with that.)
If an irresponsible gun dealer (the proper analogous entity) sells a gun in contravention of the law (without running a background check, for instance)-- that dealer can be sued.
SwankyXomb
(2,030 posts)Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)it would be like trying to sue the brewery or distillery that sold to the bar, not the bar that sold to the individual.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)so-called "assault weapons" while in their respective offices. Now, I think such a ban is virtually impossible, but the casual observer of the political scene might be forgiven if he/she concluded that a ban was imminent; you certainly couldn't accuse them of paranoia, now, could you?
The AWB, even while in effect for 10 years, did not stop the legal sale of millions of -- voila! -- so-called assault weapons. BTW, the civilian arms industry is not a very big sector in the U.S.
valerief
(53,235 posts)For no-gun-control laws: give them money. For gun-control laws: well, you can figure that out.
We can't rely on "ethics," that's clear, else they'd be doing the right thing.
beevul
(12,194 posts)Theres nothing ethical about taking a situation where 10 thousand misuse firearms against others, and 20 thousand misuse them against themselves, and getting ridiculous on 80 million people about it.
A majority of those 80 million strongly disagree with doing such things, and vote accordingly.
Some people swear up and down that a majority of Americans want strict gun control, but the reality is, if that were really true, we'd have it.
hunter
(38,316 posts)When guns are no longer accepted by a community, when a community starts to respond to gun love as something distasteful, something a little sick and perverse, when "open carry" is seen as something no better and more dangerous than the creepy guy flashing his stuff at women and children in the playground, then the problem will go away.
Anyone who thinks of guns as something more than a tool for humanely acquiring meat for the dinner table, or for dealing with the occasional rabid skunk, probably shouldn't have a gun. The "protection" aspect of guns is just absurd. I've lived in very rough places, and been in some very rough situations, and can't imagine how having a gun ever improves the situation.
99% of the time the presence of a gun, in the hands of a bad guy, or a "good" guy, turns a bad situation into a potential tragedy. Reality isn't like a Hollywood action film or the fevered imagination of the gun fetishists.
I have no respect for gun fetishists.
damnedifIknow
(3,183 posts)This Christmas I want you to do the most loving thing and I want you to buy each of your children an SKS rifle and 500 rounds of ammunition.”
—A speaker at the 1995 convention of the U.S. Taxpayers Party. A few months later, Dobson endorsed their candidate for president, Howard Phillips.
earthside
(6,960 posts)It is just a hard, cold political fact: gun control is a political loser for Democrats.
Democrats should stick to one proposition -- extensive background checks.
Even the gun nuts I know concede the logic of background checks, even if the NRA and the Tea Party 'constitutionalists' take a hard line against that proposal.
Because ... if you go the extra mile and tell a gun-toter you will, for the sake of argument, accept the slogan that 'guns don't kill people, people kill people', then making sure that only sane, law abiding individuals have guns takes care of most of the rest of the contrived issues that the gun idolaters spout.
And, I believe, thorough background checks are supported by a vast majority of Americans.
Democrats are not going to get anywhere with 'assault weapon' bans, magazine limits, etc., that is picking around the edges of this issue -- keep it simple and logical and it will go a long way to neutralizing this losing issue.
So, it is essentially true -- gun control is doomed, unless Democrats, liberals and progressives get smarter about how to deal with guns.
hunter
(38,316 posts)... a criminal, or a danger to themselves or others in ANY circumstances.
I don't think most cops in the U.S.A. are qualified to carry guns, let alone most of the gun fetishists I've met.
replace the word "gun" with "children" -or- "automobile"
and "cop" with "people"
By all means though, keep the words "fetishists" and "perverts",.........
hunter
(38,316 posts)People are weary of fourteen year old "gangsters" shooting up the place.
A politician who speaks out against guns wins.
Like I said, one family, one community at a time.
I don't have any problem with responsible, environmentally sensitive hunting, especially of invasive species like pigs (most dangerous animals in the California forest!) or deer populations (once controlled by wolves), or non-native doves.
Myself, I'm mostly vegetarian to reduce my ecological footprint. But I have dogs too and I don't expect dogs to be vegetarian.
Guns as protection? Don't make me laugh. That's a fetish, a perversion. The really dangerous "bad" guys don't give a shit about the lives of others or their own lives. That's what makes them dangerous. And how often are guns used as a method of suicide, or in crimes of "passion," or "accidentally" used against innocent people, or found by little kids who shoot their siblings..? This history of gun love horrors is long.
Obsessing about tools of death, collecting them, admiring them, is a perverse sick fetish.
My family heritage is white matriarchal U.S.A. wild west. In that community any fool and his guns were soon parted.
My great grandpa here was a math geek and a dreamer.
Great grandma put meat on the table.
smirkymonkey
(63,221 posts)*THIS* !!
I thought I was one of the only people here who thought that way.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)and have recommendations to vote, and if they wanted a gun to protect themselves from night-riders, the high-sheriff's permission.
No problems during Jim (large, raucous black bird) days.
hunter
(38,316 posts)No Civil War stories in my family, although they were mostly long here in North America at the time.
I have a heritage of people not being where the wars and religious persecution was, which is how my ancestors ended up in America in the first place.
Looks like a good time to jump ship and swim and run away as fast as possible!
My last U.S. immigrant ancestor was a mail order bride to Salt Lake City. She didn't like sharing a husband and ran away with a conventional monogamous guy. The Mormons still don't talk to her descendants. I think they know we are not going to pay up on the debt.
My wife's Native U.S.A. American and immigrant British Isle Catholic ancestors escaped into Mexico and Canada when things got too hot for them here in the U.S.A., later re-establishing themselves back in the U.S.A. as Mexican and Canadian "immigrants."
My wife has an uncle who was killed in Europe in the last days of World War II. His family didn't know he was dead until after VE day celebrations. They thought he was coming home. His body was buried hastily in France, but later relocated to Arlington. My wife's grandma was never the same after that.
One of my grandfathers was a pacifist. They gave him a choice, World War II, prison or building Liberty and Victory ships. He built ships.
My other grandfather was an Army Air Force officer during the war. He wanted to fly, loved airplanes, but the military establishment decided to use him at home on the ground in the U.S.A. doing stuff he never talked about. I do know he had a big black government car and an enlisted driver and carried an official "Get out of Jail Free" card for misfits deemed essential to the war effort.
My grandfather's greatest pride was not whatever role he played in World War II, but as one of the many, many civilian engineers contributing to the Apollo project.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)My Dad's folks were second wave immigrants to Ellis Island. My Mom's folks left S. Carolina for FL just before the Civil War (wonder why), and because even "white trash" couldn't make a living from the slavery system. Poor farmers, but had enough food, a used T Model, and siblings who could pool dollar-a-day jobs to make ends meet. And in that era of FL history, they were lucky.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)hunter
(38,316 posts)... gun love fantasy.
The vote in the black community is still suppressed by more subtle means than literacy tests (when elections are not outright crooked) and any black person who threatened a racist white cop or even a racist white gun carrying citizen, would be dead or in deep, deep, shit. Meanwhile the same sort of cops who will savagely assault a fifteen year old black girl wearing a swimsuit for demanding her civil rights, are suddenly all professional and by-the-book with a white murderer.
It's like the 99% pure white community I grew up in. Restrictive covenants and redlining were long outlawed, but somehow the community remained white... and it was by subtle actions. The police made a sport of stopping people with "DWBs" (driving while Black or Brown), store security followed black people around (the white shoplifters invisible to them), and real estate agents and lenders were cold to non-white potential clients or steered them to the "bad" part of town where the drug addict adult children and "favored" housekeeping staff of the community resided.
The community is still cluelessly white, the sort of people who "have black friends," maybe even voted for Obama, and believe they've moved beyond racism.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)I definitely think black militancy was necessary in the background for King's movement to get traction (Gandhi and Mandela also "needed" -- and in Mandela's case founded -- armed militant groups to distinguish themselves from).
I don't know. Racism and gun control have a long history together in the US. Even today "hunting" is a dog whistle.
Chan790
(20,176 posts)In the case of this asshole, background checks wouldn't have kept him from acquiring a gun in most states. They wouldn't have stopped James Eagan Holmes. They didn't stop Jared Loughner. They did nothing to prevent Adam Lanza from executing nearly 2 dozen children.
They are simply not far enough...the objective need is to make restriction on gun-possession sufficient to make acquisition substantially more difficult to the point that the majority of applicants without legitimate need are rejected, anybody with so much as a speeding ticket or a DWI or an assault arrest is rejected, anybody with a felony conviction is not merely rejected but subject to gun confiscation...we're seeking gun-control because less than gun-control is an unacceptable state of affairs.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)Would *you* accept limitations on any other Constitutional enumerated right
because someone else didn't think you had a "legitimate need" for them?
Declarations that there is an "objective need" to restrict guns are just that- declarations-
not a demonstration that there is, in fact, such a need
Why not work on simply repealing the Second Amendment, instead?
It probably would not succeed-but at least it would be honest...
Chan790
(20,176 posts)There is simply no contemporary or ongoing need for RKBA. It has outlived its utility and as a living document, it is perfectly-legitimate to support repealing "the right to bear arms" just as the 21st Amendment repealed the 18th.
madville
(7,410 posts)Depending on who they are directed at. Restrict ownership for felons, convicted illegal drug users, alcoholics, people with mental disorders, people on mood altering medications, people convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence, stalking, child abusers, alcohol abuse-related convictions, etc.
People who demonstrate they are responsible, non-violent members of society can continue to exercise their current rights when it comes to ownership and use.
It doesn't have to be done in absolutes, different rules for different people is acceptable.
CTyankee
(63,912 posts)the opposite, as happened in my family. The presence of a gun in the house, easily grabbed, meant all the difference during a domestic argument, a drunk man and a loaded gun kept bedside for "protection" --- anger, alcohol and a legal gun owned by a legal gun owner spelled death for my niece...the man just started shooting and she was present...
Throd
(7,208 posts)
pnwmom
(108,980 posts)in our direction. And women and minority voters are far more likely to support gun control.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026872476
Arugula Latte
(50,566 posts)"civilized" countries, but we seem to be. There is some deep-rooted sickness at the bottom of our gun worship and tolerance for carnage.
smirkymonkey
(63,221 posts)I find it baffling, I really don't get it.
Shamash
(597 posts)when we had a Democratic White House, House of Representatives and Senate and did absolutely nothing on the issue, are exactly as intelligent and credulous as the folks who still believed in the promised pro-life land when Republicans had the White House, House of Representatives and Senate and did absolutely nothing on that issue.
Barnum said it best.
pansypoo53219
(20,978 posts)Aerows
(39,961 posts)The idea that the Sun did not revolve around the earth was doomed, too - to the point of Galileo being imprisoned, excommunicated and the Vatican only changing its official opinion in 1992
Yes, 1992.
I have little respect for what is "always" and I believe far more strongly in what can be.
MisterP
(23,730 posts)it from the Tychonian system--proof they had by the 1730s
Aerows
(39,961 posts)for espousing heliocentric "heresy".
The Tychonic system that advocated that the earth is the center of the galaxy, universe, whatever was what he opposed.
MisterP
(23,730 posts)Aerows
(39,961 posts)evidence of what, exactly?
Recursion
(56,582 posts)And the church acceptes heliocentrism a century before Galileo. They disliked his publishing in Italian, which let the Italian city states use his math to aim their cannons against Papal armies.
DonCoquixote
(13,616 posts)In the beginning, there was a place called Europe. Now, Europe is very anti gun now, but that was because they spent the 20th century shooting each other a lot, and causing a lot of Asians and Africans to get shot all in the name of "civilization" aka colonization. Before they did that, one of these countries, the English, was known for shooting a lot it's own people, especially the Irish and Scotch, and those pesky Calvinists who did not accept the Queen as supreme church head. Some in England got a good idea that instead of shooting these people that wanted land and well, the right not to be shot at, they would send them to those "Americas" the Spaniards found. They would then be told "here is your land, all you have to do is shoot a bunch of those red skinned people, and we even shot up a bunch of Africans and took the survivors so they could help you pick the cotton, tobacco and sugar we need you to send back to us. Oh, and here are guns to shoot these Africans if they get in the way, now chop chop, we need that cotton!"
The story gets a little better, because descendants of all those Celts and Calvinists said "Why don't we shoot these English bastards, it's not like they want us back in England, and we can do a better job of shooting red and black people than they could." They did. Then, these Americans figured out that if they shot at those Spaniards still left here, they could go from sea to shining sea. They did.
Then some time later, the Europeans engaged in two world wars which were a lot of them shooting each other, and they asked Americans to help them shoot at each other. They did. The came the Cold War which was a lot of Americans and Europeans wanting to shoot at each other, but instead, they got others to shoot at each other..Henry Kissinger called it diplomacy. But then, since Americans had stopped trying to find solutions that did not involve someone getting shot, they went to Vietnam and decided to shoot.
The moral of this is that Guns and America went hand in hand, and for all the wonderful nice stuff in the National scriptures, it was meant to reward people willing to shoot people, and indeed the whole idea of glorification of people who shoot people goes back to the fact that most Americans are descendants of people that got shot, whose lack of guns meant they were the ones to be shot at. In England, the archers that had land were called Yeoman, England liked them because they did not need much care from the government, so they could farm land, send taxes and grain to London, and shoot people the army would otherwise have to shoot.
When America came about, the Yeoman transformed into the cowboy, who could get land if he promised to shoot people. Never mind that many of these Scots-Irish sods never realized they were treating the Mexicans and Indians and Negroes the same EXACT WAY that England treated the Celtic people. It had all the sad, tragic horror of the child who was molested, who grew up to be a pedophile himself! learned, reinforced behavior just kept rolling, and the people getting rich from all the dying, both the white cowboys and the Indians, made sure that America would never, ever question whether shooting people was the best solution. This did two things: it made sure that every non white would have, from the time they were born, a fear of some white person shooting them, and it also made the white shooters convenient and disposable ammo whose actions could be blamed on himself. After all, to quote Maggie thatcher, "there is no such thing as society." This was said as England and America were waiting aiming at the USSR hoping for shooting matches, aka "the special relationship."
So, we have a society that was purposefully made of people that did not think of each other as a nation. Whenever attempts to focus more on talking to each other rather than shoot at each other were encouraged, there were clerics, bankers and robber barons that discouraged it, and used the myth of the Yeoman and his freehold, aka now the "cowboy" myth, to make sure the nation did not gel. This was true long before 1776, and is as true today. Sadly, even on the left, as much as there are some who hate guns, there is still the culture of "shoot the bastards" be it the romancing of folks like Che that shot a lot of people, or from the fringe, people like ted rall who keep saying nothing will get better until people start shooting each other. That is because the gun seems so final, much more so than the authentic heartbreaking, frustrating process of trying to talk to and work with people.
Like any addiction, shooting people was something that probably carried you through tough times when the people that should have helped you, your family, your city, your nation, just simply could or would not. That is why appeals to morality are USELESS. Morality is often proclaimed by people who have not had to live the life you did, who had not had to deal with fear that someone would hurt you. That is why, as much as there are genuine things to say about that damned stars and bars, using gun control to demonize Dixie will just come across as the self righteous prattling of people who just want to take their guns so THEY will feel safe.which by the way, is EXACTLY the same emotion many Black people will feel when those same suburban liberals ask them "why do ya need to carry a gun, why can't you be nice, like me?" If there were as encouragement of a true common culture, both the "redneck" and the "gangsta" would tell the suburban moralist that "hey, the people that get beat up on those COP shows you love to watch look more like us than they do you, and the people who get shot on the TV shows you watch look more like us than they do you."
And this is where Gun control will occur, not when the guns go away, but when this nation has a firm, HONEST commitment to make a SOCIETY where people do not need to feel the need to shoot people in order to make a living or avoid losing their lives. Yes, that includes making sure that the young urban African American and the young rural Scots-Irish American do not need to sell themselves to the army to go to college. It means actually spending money on SCHOOLS, SAFE SCHOOLS, where they can not only not have to worry about being shot, but can learn common bonds of culture, which yes, includes CLASS awareness, which for these two, will mean that they realize the suburban and rich urban types will NOT have their best interests always at heart, especially when they send them off to shoot people and get shot at. And oh yes, it means changing the economy and it's culture of "shoot first, ask questions later" that is the hallmark of American capitalism, one that was formed to serve the rich people, whatever culture or color they were, that depended on a lot of cannon fodder.
The addiction will only break not just when we hate it, but when we actually learn and know that there really are better ways to live. None of that will be done by the people who, instead of making a common ground, will shoot at each other over some "turf" that the rich batsards of the world have already carved up and will pick once our bodies stop bleeding and breathing.
