Gun Control & RKBA
Related: About this forumAdvice to the Gun Control Crowd from a Liberal
Here is a good read. It's a recap of how the gun control debate went down.
Some of this may be new to a few of you guys. It contains a lot of links that are worthy of archive.
Dear Gun Control Democrats: 6 Ways to Make a Better Argument
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Laelth
(32,017 posts)Here's this liberal's advice--don't argue for gun control, at all.
It's a losing argument for the party in this political climate, and advancing gun control right now seriously undermines other liberal policy goals.
We need gun-toting Americans to vote for us in all 50 states. It's that simple.
-Laelth
mwrguy
(3,245 posts)Most of the country does want more gun control, and we need to hammer the rethugs for obstructing it.
virginia mountainman
(5,046 posts)beevul
(12,194 posts)Nor do poorly/misleadingly worded polls.
Its another "I don't know anyone that voted for...", in a slightly different package.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Still have to better define what a 'transfer' is though. Handing a gun to my brother to go use at the range for a day doesn't constitute a 'transfer' in my mind.
CreekDog
(46,192 posts)don't lie.
http://www.pollingreport.com/guns.htm
Bjorn Against
(12,041 posts)Candidates with F ratings from the NRA did quite well on the other hand.
virginia mountainman
(5,046 posts)Myself and others have been saying very same things here.
spin
(17,493 posts)holdencaufield
(2,927 posts)What a shame that no one in the "other group" will read this. They will dismiss him as a base toter, shill for the NRA, and potential domestic terrorist.
After that, they will denigrate his home state and the people therein as "Untermensch" compared to the more enlightened liberals of Illinois, New York and California.
JohnnyBoots
(2,969 posts)and we're the 'delicate flowers'? That other forum is a real bubble for delusional people.
holdencaufield
(2,927 posts)Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)
holdencaufield
(2,927 posts)... they're just tuckered out from a busy day of doctrinal purity tests, dogmatic purges and good old fashioned shunning.
They've all gone to Bedfordshire
JohnnyBoots
(2,969 posts)children sticking their fingers in their ears and yelling non-sense with regard to that group. They are willfully ignorant and fearfull of an even sided, honest debate. It's facts versus thier delsuions and they know they can't win. It's all a bit cowardly if you ask me. It's probably best they have an ivory tower to hang out in where no differing opinions are allowed, cause that's the way the real world is...They are truly the most tolerant people on this board.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)rl6214
(8,142 posts)It's not worth my trouble going over there just to see one big circle jerk.
hack89
(39,171 posts)only nine more to go.
JohnnyBoots
(2,969 posts)Is there an over/under of when they reach 30?
hack89
(39,171 posts)
robotevil
(3 posts)Which makes this line:
If you then win the election, do not go on to fully support gun bans in two US cities – Chicago and D.C. – in which law-abiding citizens are disarmed, citing them as models for gun policy while trying to convince the rest of the country that you really aren’t interested in banning their guns. (Guess which two US cities you’re most likely to be killed by a gun in.)
Not only is this factually completely false as most cities in the South have much higher gun crime and homicide rates, but I also love how these guys will argue for "States Rights" until they are blue in the face... Unless of course it's not a "state right" they support, then they go running to the federal government they claim to hate to force their version of "freedom and liberty" on people who don't want them.
Anyway:
Dear NRA followers,
If you want us to take your article seriously, please make sure it is at least somewhat factually correct. The minute I see the NRA talking point about Chicago, I glaze over. It's easy to verify, there are literally hundred of sources that this talking point is false, period. The fact that the author didn't take two seconds to verify his "facts" lets me know this entire article is bullshit.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)While NOLA is at the top, the next five are not in the south, or at least not former CSA states. Miami is the only Florida city listed that is higher than DC or Chicago. The rest of Florida and all of Texas and Nebraska is lower.
Your point isn't very well taken.
robotevil
(3 posts)There are 13 cities above Chicago for violent crime and homicides. Making his statement false. Also most of those cities are in the south. That is as fact. That can be seen in the link I pointed and sorting by "homicides". Use the sort function yourself before claiming "Your point isn't very well taken".
DonP
(6,185 posts)Whew! What a relief that we're not at the top of the list in gun violence.
The families of the 508 people killed last year will be consoled by that news too, I'm sure. 
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)four are in the South (I define as being in states in the former members of the CSA.) If you include former slave states that stayed in the Union, you add St. Louis, Kansas City, and Baltimore bringing the total to seven. The qualifier was "with a gun". Firearms are the murder weapons in 67 percent of US murders. It is about 80 percent of Chicago murders. Without a break down by weapon from those other cities, your point isn't supported.
Since we are talking about murder/non-negligent manslaughter, no point in bringing up other violent crimes. Besides, guns are used in a small percentage of them.
DemDealer
(25 posts)For explaining to a guy why gun enthusiasts need to be included in the debate, and that actual compromise should be on the table if we're going to demand reform.
I dislike sounding stereotypical, but they really do want their little echo chamber in there. It seems they seek solutions to two problems - one spoken and another hidden. The first is they want reform on gun laws as we do, but their other, seemingly equally important quality, is that whatever reforms they want are required to offend and screw over gun owners and give them a big middle finger. Having the first part without the second is unthinkable.
"Culture warriors" indeed. It makes me genuinely depressed.
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)RedstDem
(1,239 posts)I really thought the background checks would go through, since it was basically window dressing anyway.
Never thought any other part would go through.
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)"I wish I had a dollar for every Democratic politician and commentator that has looked into a television camera over the past few months and said, “No one is trying to take your guns away!”
"Allow me this humble suggestion: The best way to convince the American public that you’re not interested in taking guns away is to stop talking about taking guns away.
"Gun policy is not really as partisan a debate as mainstream media would suggest. There are plenty of left-leaning citizens and Democratic voters who love our guns. Some of us are in the south, some of us are out in Colorado, and some of us are right in the middle of New York City. Some of us not only like the process of shooting guns, but actually think that it’s important to know how. Some of us hunt to supplement food/income. Some of us believe that the safety of our selves, families, communities and yes, even our nation are our own responsibility as citizens. It’s not such a radical thought.
http://kontradictions.wordpress.com/2013/04/20/dear-democratic-gun-control-lobby-how-to-get-better/
IMO, none of his sensible advice, nor the sensible advice of others, will be taken by those who want the public to be agitated by the latest "bright shiny object" while they cut Social Security, social safety nets, and continue to benefit the right and the super-rich.
