Gun Control & RKBA
Related: About this forumGun control for, "wealthy, white individuals who wish to be safe" Wow, just frickin' wow!
http://www.mcall.com/news/local/allentown/mc-allentown-gun-law-repeal-20150204-story.html"Michael Donovan, a former member of (Allentown PA) city council who supported the lost and stolen gun law, said Allentown should be joining other prominent Pennsylvania cities in their fight against the state law.
"Allentown is the third largest city in the state," he said. "It is claiming a renaissance for wealthy, white individuals who wish to be safe. I believe the mayor has a responsibility to join the fight against this law."
Surprisingly Mr. Donovan did not offer his personal checkbook to fight the laws repeal and as a show of his sincerity and good faith.
Long article about Allentown repealing illegal local gun laws, due to state preemption, rather than go to court and run up six figure plus legal bills and still have to repeal the law. This little gem of a quote was buried near the bottom.
So it's either a case of letting that "high moral ground" mask slip once in a while, or maybe he's an anomaly. Yeah right.
Anybody want to take bets on whether Donovan lives in a "gated community"?
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
riversedge
(70,299 posts)...Allentown was one of several municipalities to pass the lost and stolen law in 2008, taking aim at "straw purchasers," a term for those who buy guns legally and sell them to felons who are prohibited from owning firearms. When those guns are used in a crime, they are traced back to their legal owners, who often tell police they were lost or stolen.
The repeal passed Wednesday axes the ban on weapons in parks, removes "firearms" from the prohibition of weapons on city property and removes the lost and stolen registry. New exceptions were added to protect the use of weapons in self-defense and to note that the law does not apply to lawful hunting and trapping of wildlife.
Councilwoman Jeanette Eichenwald, who voted in favor of the lost and stolen law when it first passed, said she did so to send a message to state officials that cities need help protecting their residents from guns. The state has done the opposite in making it easier to get sued, she said.
Veganstein
(32 posts)What is this, the 60's?
Here in Tulsa, we had to duke it out with the city attorney to get the "no guns" rule taken off city park signs on the grounds of state preemption. It's kind of satisfying biking past a sign and seeing that white tape over what was once the unlawful ban.
I once stopped at a booth to pay the weekend entrance fee, and the other attendant came barreling out of the other booth shouting that guns weren't allowed. I simply told her she was incorrect and pedaled off after getting my change from the friendly lady helping me. We exchanged eye rolls while the lady kept screaming at me.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Veganstein
(32 posts)Her supervisors trained her that way, and didn't ever revise the training when the ban was struck down. I printed off an article about the change to share with her the next weekend, but I never encountered her again.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Veganstein
(32 posts)Differences make fun discussions. 
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)incongruent...
Straw Man
(6,625 posts)"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)It's downright ironic!
Straw Man
(6,625 posts)That's OK. Mistaking your preconceptions for "common sense" is not uncommon.
Veganstein
(32 posts)To collect all the nonsensical, contradictory things that comprise common sense. It always seemed to me that "common sense" was the term applied to anything someone insisted on without any logical justification.
But then, maybe that's because I lack common sense, as I've often been told. 
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)but supports the killing of humans....makes PERFECT sense!
NOT!!
Veganstein
(32 posts)I think you've misjudged me, and all gun rights supporters, if you think that we support the killing of innocent people. I can see why you'd not want to get along with us if that's what you think we're about! But it obviously is not.
You say that my name is incongruent with my position on gun rights, but I invite you to discuss with me, come to know me, and see why it isn't.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Firearm homicides
Number of deaths: 11,208
Deaths per 100,000 population: 3.5
hack89
(39,171 posts)which must mean that nearly every gun owner uses guns for some purpose other than killing people.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)destroying life....thats what!
Babies are dying!
beevul
(12,194 posts)300 million guns, in the hands of 80 million plus people.
So 1/10 of a percent of gun owners, give or take, misuse firearms to cause homicide, while 99.9 percent don't.
That doesn't exactly bolster your argument.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)beevul
(12,194 posts)What do you propose, that will play well with the American voter, that will prevent such things?
NoJusticeNoPeace
(5,018 posts)absolutely do not need guns to kill animals, other than a few isolated people here and there who probably do need rifles to survive.
I just cant believe it is 2015 and we still have this attitude about guns.
Even if the incorrect interpretation of the constitution done in Heller was correct, and it isnt, it doesnt mean you HAVE to have guns everywhere killing people, a mature society would be against that.
beevul
(12,194 posts)The preamble to the bill of rights, penned by the framers, says:
THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution
http://billofrights.org/
In modern language, that says "We who have come together to form the federal government, at the time we adopted this constitution, desire, in order to prevent government from misconstruing or abusing the power we are granting it, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses be added, to keep it in check.
We know the bill of rights is a negative charter of liberties. It doesn't GRANT rights, it PROTECTS them from governmental interference.
Those two facts eliminate any possibility except the individual rights interpretation being the correct one.
Congress was already granted power regarding the militia in the constitution, so it would be entirely redundant to grant it again in the bill of rights, on top of being an "authorization" on the second line of a governmental "hands off" list, if you and those that believe as you do were correct. But you and they are not.
But go ahead, keep on beating that dead horse.
The president is wrong, the supreme court is wrong, 76 percent of Americans are wrong...but you're right, right?
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)that is called "Sensible Gun Regulation"
beevul
(12,194 posts)People who live in towns should have their guns held by the sheriff?
I doubt you'd even get 50 percent agreement with that in a GD poll.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)first, county sheriffs did not run the town, the city councils did. Tombstone Arizona required a permit to carry in the town, but not to own. While out of town visitors were expected to check their guns in that town or leave them in the hotel room etc.
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/earp/ordinances.html
People didn't generally carry pistols because there was no reason to. Even today, where open carry has always been legal in places like Wyoming, it simply isn't customary and never was. The concept began with TV Westerns. In the eastern cities, concealed carry was very common, especially among middle class women. In fact, holsters were built into hand muffs and small pistols like this were marketed to urban women.
?v=8CCA6026C8FB4E0
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)now if you want to hunt....you could prove as such...and be licensed and tested and insured to do so!
MOST people however have guns to KILL PEOPLE not dinner!
Facts are facts
NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)If I were killed by a knife-wielding lunatic, you might take the time to tsk-tsk. If I were to shoot said maniac before he could kill me, you would demand my prosecution. Forgive me if I don't exactly see you taking the moral high ground.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)twice as many as Cancer....
Let THAT soak in for a moment....we can't cure cancer...
NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)and it doesn't change anything I said.
Straw Man
(6,625 posts)"Guns are only for killing humans," blah blah blah. Simplistic, reductive, and wrong.
Who "supports the killing of humans"? No one that I've seen in this thread.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)I am afraid without my gun....
Most guns today are used for killing PEOPLE not animals....don't you agree?
And babies are dying...
Day three of this thread....nearly 16 of them have died so far and we are working on 23.43 by the end of the day....
Tick Tock...Tick Tock...Tick Tock...
blueridge3210
(1,401 posts)To date the only thing the pro-control side has done is to propose another 'Assault Weapon Ban"; which is the type of weapon least likely to be used to commit a crime.
Again, you logic fails. You propose nothing to address the people who are misusing firearms; your proposals are all aimed at people who legally own firearms and use them in a responsible manner.
Had your approach been taken to address DUI deaths the response would have been to regulate mag wheels and limit the horsepower in engines rather than address the bad actors who were operating a motor vehicle while impaired.
Straw Man
(6,625 posts)Doesn't sound accurate to me. Have you got a cite for that? Is this nationwide or worldwide? Are you including deaths in military action?
Day three of this thread....nearly 16 of them have died so far and we are working on 23.43 by the end of the day....
Do you have a cite to back up your contention that 16 infants have been killed in accidental shootings in the past three days? If so, please provide it.
Veganstein
(32 posts)I don't believe in causing unnecessary harm to any animal. If the animals targeted happen to be myself or my family, I'm willing to use a gun to prevent that unnecessary harm.
I know several other vegetarians and vegans who carry as well. It's less common than among omnivores, but I don't really see a close enough relation between the two to say that, if you believe a certain way on one, you must believe a certain way on the other.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Wow...just wow! Unbelievable!
from the CDC
Firearm homicides
Number of deaths: 11,208
Deaths per 100,000 population: 3.5
UnRealstein...
Veganstein
(32 posts)I'm committed to allowing humans to defend themselves against deadly violence.
According to the National Crime Victimization Survey, conducted by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, guns are used in self defense roughly 100,000 times each year. Other studies have returned much higher figures, but I chose to cite the lowest.
And harming a violent criminal in defense of an innocent life is, in my estimation, absolutely necessary.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Number of deaths: 11,208
Deaths per 100,000 population: 3.5
If a product like baby cribs killed that many every year.....would you still support it too?
Think that is a bad analogy...
Over 7,000 children are hospitalized or killed due to gun violence every year, according to a new study published in the medical journal Pediatrics. An additional 3,000 children die from gun injuries before making it to the hospital, bringing the total number of injured or killed adolescents to 10,000 each year.
http://www.msnbc.com/the-last-word/the-toll-gun-violence-children
But guns don't kill humans "unnecessarily" do they? I guess children don't count!
Straw Man
(6,625 posts)As long as we're making analogies, how many do cars kill? Alcohol? Do you "support" them?
Nobody said that guns don't kill humans "unnecessarily." Thanks to negligence and criminal activity, there is a lot of unnecessary death. What Veganstein said is that he doesn't support such killing. Much as you're probably unwilling to admit it, guns have other uses than killing, and can also save lives. Furthermore, lives, both of children and adults, are taken with means other than guns every day.
Veganstein
(32 posts)The statistics bear out my position, as cited in my previous post. I acknowledge the figure that you've now cited twice: 11,208. I am actively working in two local communities to reduce those deaths, and deaths by knives, beatings, and drug overdoses.
I also cited the NCVS figure for instances of guns being used to protect people from being killed, which was nearly ten times greater, and was a lowball number.
How can you acknowledge the harm done by guns while ignoring the number of times they are used to save lives?
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)the number of times they are used to save lives.....a shit load less than the number of children dying from them....you can take that to the bank
but of course YOU are much more concerned about animals being killed unnecessarily than you are children dying multiple times every single day that much is obvious.....because you need to justify owning your "precious".
Veganstein
(32 posts)That says the number of times guns are used to save lives is nearly ten times greater than the number of gun deaths you quoted.
The number of people saved by guns is over 100,000 annually. The number of annual gun deaths is 11,208.
100000 / 11208 = 8.922 (rounding to the nearest thousandth)
So I apologize for my inaccuracy before. The number of defensive gun uses is only about nine times greater than the number of gun deaths.
I still choose to believe you're sincerely concerned for the wellbeing of innocent people, and that's why you've come to the position you hold. But in ignoring the facts I'm presenting to you, you're discounting the value of tens of thousands of innocent lives. Those people, including several of my loved ones, would have died without access to handguns for self defense.
I've responded to your arguments with respect and consideration. I invite you again to give the same consideration to the facts I've presented to you.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Defensive gun use is MUCH less than the number of children KILLED with those guns bought to supposedly defend.
FACT you cannot deny!
but of course....ANIMAL deaths are much more important than children's deaths right?
...eight out of 10 of the deaths occurred in places where children are supposed to be coddled and safe: their homes or in homes of relatives, or in the family car. Basic childhood curiosity appears to have been behind many of the disasters, particularly of boys, with 77% of the victims and 82% of the shooters being male.
The ages of two to four, and 10 to 13 are particularly perilous in terms of gun deaths.
Two-thirds of the incidents involved guns that were legally owned by family members, usually a parent. In almost half of those cases, no charges were brought against the gun owner for negligence or other reckless behavior....
Veganstein
(32 posts)Defensive gun uses far outnumber gun deaths.
That is a fact you keep denying, while providing data that supports my own assertions.
You quoted me the CDC number of firearm homicides. To be absolutely fair, let's include all firearm deaths, including accidents and suicides.
Total firearm deaths(CDC): 33,363
Total defensive gun uses(NCVS): 100,000
The number of defensive uses is still three times greater than the number of deaths. The numbers indicate that the statement you presented as undeniable fact is entirely false.
In order to make a credible argument, you have to acknowledge that fact, or challenge the accuracy of these numbers. To ignore them and continue to assert something I have demonstrated to be false is going to hurt your argument further.
I'm here to share ideas. Insisting on something that isn't true gets in the way of honest conversation, and I don't think either of us wants that.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Denial??? My god!
100,000 bullfuckingshit!!! and you know that...
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)In 1992, Gary Kleck and Marc Getz, criminologists at Florida State University, conducted a random digit-dial survey to establish the annual number of defensive gun uses in the United States. They surveyed 5,000 individuals, asking them if they had used a firearm in self-defense in the past year and, if so, for what reason and to what effect. Sixty-six incidences of defensive gun use were reported from the sample. The researchers then extrapolated their findings to the entire U.S. population, resulting in an estimate of between 1 million and 2.5 million defensive gun uses per year.
The claim has since become gospel for gun advocates and is frequently touted by the National Rifle Association, pro-gun scholars such as John Lott and conservative politicians. The argument typically goes something like this: Guns are used defensively “over 2 million times every year—five times more frequently than the 430,000 times guns were used to commit crimes.” Or, as Gun Owners of America states, “firearms are used more than 80 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives.” Former Republican Sen. Rick Santorum has frequently opined on the benefits of defensive gun use, explaining: “In fact, there are millions of lives that are saved in America every year, or millions of instances like that where gun owners have prevented crimes and stopped things from happening because of having guns at the scene.”
It may sound reassuring, but is utterly false. In fact, gun owners are far more likely to end up like Theodore Wafer or Eusebio Christian, accidentally shooting an innocent person or seeing their weapons harm a family member, than be heroes warding off criminals.
http://www.armedwithreason.com/debunking-the-defensive-gun-use-myth/
Total fucking bullshit and You know that!
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)Kleck and Gertz simply verified 15 previous studies, all of which were higher than the Census Bureau's NCVS.
The only known critic is gun prohibition activist David Hemenway, who speculated on why the number would be so high without providing any evidence. He also made baseless claims about Gertz's employees. In short, Hemenway's "rebuke" had no scientific merit what so ever.
https://www.saf.org/journal/11/kleckfinal.htm
As for this guy claiming to "This is a blog dedicated to academically refuting pro-gun myths, and providing a scholarly defense of gun control" he fails because he doesn't actually read any of these studies (and honestly) or even understand them, nor is he doing it objectively.
Veganstein
(32 posts)Last edited Sun Feb 8, 2015, 08:04 PM - Edit history (1)
You're debunking a study I never quoted, and ignoring the one that I did.
Please, if you have any interest in carrying on an honest conversation, or even if you just really want to shut me up and make me look foolish, address the NCVS figure of 100,000 defensive gun uses, and provide evidence to support your claim that it's false, or acknowledge that it is true.
EDIT: This post came off sounding more confrontational than I wanted. You might have simply made an honest mistake, instead of intentionally misrepresenting what I said. If that's the case, I understand. We all make mistakes like that and I don't think anybody here would think the less of you for it.
jimmy the one
(2,708 posts)veganstein: if you just really want to shut me up and make me look foolish, address the NCVS figure of 100,000 defensive gun uses, and provide evidence to support your claim that it's false, or acknowledge that it is true.
Allow me.
veganstein's #22 post: I also cited the NCVS figure for instances of guns being used to protect people from being killed, which was nearly ten times greater, and was a lowball number. How can you acknowledge the harm done by guns while ignoring the number of times they are used to save lives?
Those 100,000 defensive gun uses in no way saved 100,000 lives, they likely didn't save but a hundred or so. Most of those dgus were scaring away real or imaginary criminals.
veganstein: Total firearm deaths(CDC): 33,363 Total defensive gun uses(NCVS): 100,000
The number of defensive uses is still three times greater than the number of deaths. The numbers indicate that the statement you presented as undeniable fact is entirely false.
The only argument which is entirely false is vegansteins. None of the dgu studies, even the ridiculously high fabricated ones, indicate anywhere near 10,000 lives saved per year from legitimate defensive gun use.
veganstein: In order to make a credible argument, you have to acknowledge that fact, or challenge the accuracy of these numbers. To ignore them and continue to assert something I have demonstrated to be false is going to hurt your argument further.
Eat your own words now & some crow as well.
Insisting on something that isn't true gets in the way of honest conversation, and I don't think either of us wants that.
Eat your own words now & some crow as well.
vegan: How can you acknowledge the harm done by guns while ignoring the number of times they are used to save lives?
VanillaRhapsody ....its hypocritical... the number of times they are used to save lives.....a shit load less than the number of children dying from them....you can take that to the bank
vanilla rhapsody: and I gave you homicide and chilrens deaths from gunshot statistics from the CDC...SO???? Defensive gun use is MUCH less than the number of children KILLED with those guns bought to supposedly defend.
Last sentence above, vanilla in context is speaking of dgu's saving children (since she earlier outlined her position in the previous paragraph), & children gun-deaths do outnumber dgus wherein children's lives are saved.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)read your own link!
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)Gun use and safety research based on gun ownership being a health issue is going to be done now that we have a Surgeon General who agrees with that research.
Actual peer reviewed research, not ghost research by the NRA.
Things are definitely gaining critical mass for sensible gun control, same as critical mass was gained for gay marriage...the time will come.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)These sorts of biases, which are inherent in reporting self-defense incidents, can lead to nonsensical results. In several crime categories, for example, gun owners would have to protect themselves more than 100 percent of the time for Kleck and Getz’s estimates to make sense. For example, guns were allegedly used in self-defense in 845,000 burglaries, according to Kleck and Getz. However, from reliable victimization surveys, we know that there were fewer than 1.3 million burglaries where someone was in the home at the time of the crime, and only 33 percent of these had occupants who weren’t sleeping. From surveys on firearm ownership, we also know that 42 percent of U.S. households owned firearms at the time of the survey. Even if burglars only rob houses of gun owners, and those gun owners use their weapons in self-defense every single time they are awake, the 845,000 statistic cited in Kleck and Gertz’s paper is simply mathematically impossible.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)I'll take Marvin Wolfgang's opinion over yours.
http://www.amazon.com/tribute-opposed-response-Violence-Symposium/dp/B00093SA82
Here is the first paragraph
criminologists in this country. If I were Mustapha Mond of The Brave
New World, I would eliminate all guns from the civilian population and
maybe from the police. I hate guns-ugly, nasty instruments designed
to kill people.
The last paragraph
exercise and the elaborate nuances they examine methodologically. I
do not like their conclusions that having a gun can be useful, but I cannot
fault their methodology. They have tried earnestly to meet all objections
in advance and have done exceedingly well.
jimmy the one
(2,708 posts)Johnston, citing wolfgang: I'll take Marvin Wolfgang's opinion over yours.
wolfgang: I do not like their conclusions that having a gun can be useful, but I cannot
fault their methodology. They have tried earnestly to meet all objections
in advance and have done exceedingly well.
What nerve you have, Johnston, to spin the same misleading half truth you were corrected on in the past month.
Johnston is under another misconception, embellishing kleck using marvin wolfgang, when wolfgang did indeed criticize kleck's dgu study:
what wolfgang actually wrote regarding kleck's dgu study: “The usual criticisms of survey research, such as that done by Kleck and Gertz, also apply to their research. The problems of small numbers and extrapolating from relatively small samples to the universe are common criticisms of all survey research, including theirs.
I did not mention this specifically in my printed comment because I thought that this was obvious; within the specific limitations of their research is what I meant by a lack of criticism methodologically.”
So what wolfgang was ostensibly saying is they conducted the phone survey of ~5,000 sample well enough, asking proper questions & dismissing uncertain or bogus respondents. BUT, wolfgang also recognized that extrapolating small results into larger data was tenuous, & could be based on falsehoods, & could not be reliably reported - & he thought this was obvious to knowledgeable readers.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=159707
beevul
(12,194 posts)"wolfgang also recognized that extrapolating small results into larger data was tenuous, & could be based on falsehoods, & could not be reliably reported - & he thought this was obvious to knowledgeable readers."
We'll look forward to hearing from you next time the "40 percent" lie, based of a poll of 500ish respondents, is repeated.
Let me guess, that's different. 
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)5K is actually a large poll sample compared to political polls. The larger the number, the smaller the margin of error. Political poll fewer people.
http://whyfiles.org/009poll/math_primer.html
The square root of 5K is 70.7106781187. Let's round it up to make it an even 71. 1/71=0.014 or 1.4% margin of error. The average poll has smaller samples and larger margin of errors.
No, that isn't what he was saying. That is what you wish to think he said. Besides, Kleck simply verified 15 previous studies. If he said that, then all telephone polls are bullshit, including the ones with results you like.
beevul
(12,194 posts)"If a product like baby cribs killed that many every year.....would you still support it too?"
What percentage of "children younger than 20" sleep in cribs?
From the link at your link:
"A review of hospital records found that firearms caused 7,391 hospitalizations among children younger than 20 during 2009, the most recent year for which records are available, said Dr. John Leventhal, lead study author."
A page right out of the brady campaign playbook, right there.
You guys really shouldn't wonder why nobody trusts you anymore, when you repeatedly try pulling crap like this.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Geebus....no wonder gun lovers cannot see the forest for the trees!
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Cribs was just a metaphor!
Like I said....stop examining the tree....and take a look at the forest!
Straw Man
(6,625 posts)Geebus....no wonder gun lovers cannot see the forest for the trees!
Remember?
--http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=160336
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Straw Man
(6,625 posts)And the bad taste in your mouth comes from your own analogy being used against you.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)why don't you?
we HAVE in fact recalled many cribs because they in fact HAVE killed innocent babies.....and guns kill many many more of them...day after day...year after year...
and this was ABOUT the hypocrisy of being Vegan and hating the killing of animals and the use of the words "unecessarily killing" AND simultaneously a gunlover, when guns "unnecessarily" kill innocent children day in and day out thousand and thousands fo them.... Please try to keep up!
Straw Man
(6,625 posts)You evoked the image of helpless infants when you made your "crib death" analogy. But the gun death stats that you cite define children as "up to the age of 20." That means that your "crib death" analogy was not only not germane, it was downright misleading -- some might say deliberately so.
I can understand why you would want to walk away from your statement, but don't try to pretend that there's something wrong with my drawing attention to it.
I know full well what this argument is about. I would just hope that you'd have the integrity to stand by your statements or disavow them.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)and you came to this game late...
and this was ABOUT the hypocrisy of being Vegan and hating the killing of animals and the use of the words "unecessarily killing" AND simultaneously a gunlover, when guns "unnecessarily" kill innocent children day in and day out thousand upon thousands of them.... Please try to keep up!
Straw Man
(6,625 posts)Was the thread closed? No.
You said this already. It's no more relevant the second time.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)How do YOU know what is relevant...THIS wasn't YOUR conversation to begin with!
I was talking to a VEGAN....are you Vegan?
I was pointing out the irony and hypocrisy of caring about the "unnecessary killing" of animals....and being a gungeoneer!
Straw Man
(6,625 posts)Your "stats" are cooked up by gun control activist groups. They are as suspect as the NRA's.
Because I can read. It's anyone's conversation. Perhaps you should read the TOS. It's not up to you to decide who can and can't participate in a given thread.
I'm sorry, but I'm a bit confused. Are non-vegans incapable of understanding what veganism is and what its ethical ramifications are?
That irony exists only in your mind. It's a fallacy based on ignorance and prejudice. I suggest you divest yourself of this particular fallacy. It reflects poorly on you and your cause.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)someone who seems to care about the unnecessary killing and eating of animal protein....
while simultaneously not giving a fat rats ass about how many kids in AMERICA that are killed by guns....
Kids don't seem to have quite the same problem getting killed by mommy and daddy's toys in other countries oddly enough!
http://www.minnpost.com/second-opinion/2014/06/more-us-children-killed-accidental-shootings-you-might-think
Straw Man
(6,625 posts)Here's the basic flaw in your formulation:
while simultaneously not giving a fat rats ass about how many kids in AMERICA that are killed by guns....
Dietary choices notwithstanding, there is no connection between arming oneself for self-defense and "not giving a fat rats ass about how many kids in AMERICA that are killed by guns." Accidental shootings are eminently preventable through education in, and practice of, gun safety.
I'm a certified instructor in home firearms safety. I submit to you that I have personally done more to reduce the accidental deaths of children than all the anti-gun internet bloviators combined.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)The bloviators are the gungeoneers who deny reality!
The reality IS that in America...where we have an abundance of guns...CHILDREN DIE from them....as many as 9 every single day. There is no denying THAT fact....
Oh and Eric Holder and Harry Reid and the Democratic Senate too...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026199118
Straw Man
(6,625 posts)The bloviators are the gungeoneers who deny reality!
Shall we see what the CDC has to say?
Defensive use of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed (Cook and Ludwig, 1996; Kleck, 2001a). Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million (Kleck, 2001a), in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008 (BJS, 2010). On the other hand, some scholars point to a radically lower estimate of only 108,000 annual defensive uses based on the National Crime Victimization Survey (Cook et al., 1997). The variation in these numbers remains a controversy in the field. The estimate of 3 million defensive uses per year is based on an extrapolation from a small number of responses taken from more than 19 national surveys. The former estimate of 108,000 is difficult to interpret because respondents were not asked specifically about defensive gun use.
A different issue is whether defensive uses of guns, however numerous or rare they may be, are effective in preventing injury to the gun-wielding crime victim. Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was “used” by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies (Kleck, 1988; Kleck and DeLone, 1993; Southwick, 2000; Tark and Kleck, 2004). Effectiveness of defensive tactics, however, is likely to vary across types of victims, types of offenders, and circumstances of the crime, so further research is needed both to explore these contingencies and to confirm or discount earlier findings.
--http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=18319
The CDC seems to recognize the utility of armed self-defense. Why can't you?
Notice that their lowest estimate of defensive gun uses is 108,000, up 8,000 from the 100,000 that you called "bullfuckingshit" in this same thread. Would you care to retract that characterization?
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)I am talking about KIDS! and a Vegan....Please try to keep up...
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/06/25/death-child-unintentional-shooting/11324717/
Seems the CDC's stats are a bit low...
You can try to deny the facts....but it won't do you any good...FACTS are FACTS
1.7 million — The number of kids under age 18 who lived in homes with a loaded and unlocked firearm in 2002. (CDC)
31 — The percentage of U.S. households with at least one child and a gun in the home in 2012. (General Social Survey)
1,337 — The number of American kids under age 18 who died from gunshot wounds in 2010. This is trending down from 1,490 in 2005 and 1,544 in 2000. (CDC)
7,391 — The number of American kids and teens under age 20 who were hospitalized from firearm injuries in 2009. That means that on average a child or teen is shot almost every hour. (Yale School of Medicine)
98 — The number of American kids under age 18 who died from accidental shootings in 2010. This is trending down from 150 deaths in 2000 and 417 deaths in 1990. (CDC)
85 — Roughly the percentage of accidental shootings of children where the shooter was also a child in 2003-2006. (Catherine Barber, MPA, Harvard School of Public Health)
80 — The percentage of accidental shooting victims who were boys in 2010. (CDC)
72 — The percentage of parents (both gun owners and non-gun owners) who say they have spoken to their children about gun hazards. (ABC News/Washington Post poll, May 2000)
14 — The number of states, along with the District of Columbia, that currently have laws that hold adults criminally liable if they fail to store guns safely, enabling children to access them. These states include California, Connecticut, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Carolina, Rhode Island, and Texas. (Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence)
1 — The number of states with a law requiring gun owners to lock up their firearm. That state is Massachusetts. (Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence)
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2014/01/kids-and-guns-by-the-numbers/
A New York Times review of hundreds of child firearm deaths found that accidental shootings occurred roughly twice as often as the records indicate, because of idiosyncrasies in how such deaths are classified by the authorities. The killings of Lucas, Cassie and Alex, for instance, were not recorded as accidents. Nor were more than half of the 259 accidental firearm deaths of children under age 15 identified by The Times in eight states where records were available.
As a result, scores of accidental killings are not reflected in the official statistics that have framed the debate over how to protect children from guns.
The police investigation report in the Cassie Culpepper case indicates that her brother, Nicholas, shot her accidentally. But the state medical examiner classified her death as a homicide, a common practice for unintentional firearm deaths in which one person shoots another.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/29/us/children-and-guns-the-hidden-toll.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
Since 1996, when a small CDC-funded study on the risks of owning a firearm ignited opposition from Republicans, the CDC's budget for research on firearms injuries has shrunk to zero.
The result, as we've detailed, is that many basic questions about gun violence — such as how many Americans are shot each year — remain unanswered.
http://www.propublica.org/article/democrats-push-to-restart-cdc-funding-for-gun-violence-research
Guns in the Home and Risk of a Violent Death in the Home: Findings from a National Study
Linda L. Dahlberg1, Robin M. Ikeda2 and Marcie-jo Kresnow3
+ Author Affiliations
1 Division of Violence Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA.
2 Epidemiology Program Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA.
3 Office of Statistics and Programming, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA.
Next Section
Abstract
Data from a US mortality follow-back survey were analyzed to determine whether having a firearm in the home increases the risk of a violent death in the home and whether risk varies by storage practice, type of gun, or number of guns in the home. Those persons with guns in the home were at greater risk than those without guns in the home of dying from a homicide in the home (adjusted odds ratio = 1.9, 95% confidence interval: 1.1, 3.4). They were also at greater risk of dying from a firearm homicide, but risk varied by age and whether the person was living with others at the time of death. The risk of dying from a suicide in the home was greater for males in homes with guns than for males without guns in the home (adjusted odds ratio = 10.4, 95% confidence interval: 5.8, 18.9). Persons with guns in the home were also more likely to have died from suicide committed with a firearm than from one committed by using a different method (adjusted odds ratio = 31.1, 95% confidence interval: 19.5, 49.6). Results show that regardless of storage practice, type of gun, or number of firearms in the home, having a gun in the home was associated with an increased risk of firearm homicide and firearm suicide in the home.
http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/160/10/929.full
The CDC also says that having a gun in the house....makes you MORE likely to get shot! You cannot deny SCIENCE!
Straw Man
(6,625 posts)However, you seem to be ignoring quite a lot.
I notice that you didn't respond to my quotes from CDC. Instead, you threw in a bunch of unrelated stats, and then presumed to lecture me about sticking to the topic.
As for some of your other links, the Times' methodology is highly suspect. For example:
They want us to consider that as an underreporting of accidental firearms deaths. If that is their position, then it must also be considered and overreporting of homicides. Surely you wouldn't be suggesting a statistical double-dip, by which it counts as both an accidental firearms death and a homicide? That would be ... dishonest.
I feel really bad that the CDC doesn't get to spend my tax dollars on gun-control advocacy. If they had engaged in legitimate and unbiased research in the first place, they wouldn't have lost their funding. Meanwhile, no one is preventing research by private universities and foundations. Isn't Michael Bloomberg throwing some of his billions at the issue?
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)The CDC said no such thing...
Here is the summary from YOUR link
Individuals use firearms legally for a variety of activities, including recreation, self-protection, and work. However, firearms can also be used to intimidate, coerce, or carry out threats of violence. Fatal and nonfatal firearm violence1 poses a serious threat to the safety and welfare of the American public. Although violent crime rates have declined in recent years, the U.S. rate of firearm-related deaths is the highest among industrialized countries. In 2010, incidents in the United States involving firearms injured or killed more than 105,000 individuals; there were twice as many nonfatal firearm-related injuries (73,505) than deaths. Nonfatal violence often has significant physical and psychological impacts, including psychological outcomes for those in proximity to individuals who are injured or die from gun violence. The recent, highly publicized, tragic mass shootings in Newtown, Connecticut; Aurora, Colorado; Oak Creek, Wisconsin; and Tucson, Arizona, have sharpened the public’s interest in protecting our children and communities from the effects of firearm violence.
More bullshit facts from a gungeoneer!
Straw Man
(6,625 posts)The CDC said no such thing...
Really? They commissioned the study, at the President's request. If it's not theirs, whose is it?
--http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/09/09/1236553/-Center-for-Disease-Control-Addresses-Gun-Violence
--http://sites.nationalacademies.org/DBASSE/CLAJ/Firearm_Related_Violence/index.htm
You need to remove the word "bullshit" from your vocabulary. It just gets you in trouble.
You're welcome.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)as I have pointed out over and over.....
Children are dying so that YOU can have your toys!
Straw Man
(6,625 posts)as I have pointed out over and over.....
Children are dying so that YOU can have your toys!
Your "bullshit" accusation was in re the CDC report. Have we now abandoned that topic? Interesting that you think it's OK for you to change topics after all your indignant accusations that I was doing the same thing.
My right to self-defense has nothing to do with "toys" and nothing to do with the death of children, despite your desperate and wrong-headed attempts to conflate them. Sorry -- no points for the evasions and slurs.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)THE original subject was the hypocrisy of a vegan who opposes the unnecessary killing of animals...while embracing and glorifying guns and ignoring the unnecessary killing of innocent children!
Are you a vegan too?
Straw Man
(6,625 posts)Now you don't want to talk about it anymore.
If you want to talk about hypocrisy, let's talk about people who engage in the same behavior that they find fault with in others.
Nobody's ignoring anything. That's just another baseless accusation. Just because people don't subscribe to your particular brand of extremism doesn't mean that they are unconcerned with the problem.
I'll say it.
Its deliberately misleading.
And it follows published gun control pusher talking points:
#1: ALWAYS FOCUS ON EMOTIONAL AND VALUE-DRIVEN
ARGUMENTS ABOUT GUN VIOLENCE, NOT THE POLITICAL
FOOD FIGHT IN WASHINGTON OR WONKY STATISTICS.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023396665
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Yes in fact they are....2/3rds in their own homes where they SHOULD be safe from such!
beevul
(12,194 posts)Are we talking about "children", or are we talking about what ever you and your cronies can attempt to make fit that definition?
Children who are not adolescent, dieing from firearms, number in the hundreds yearly, if memory serves...in a nation where 80+million people are in possession of over 300 +million guns.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)and the poster admitted it was because he hates the "unnecessary killing" of animals....
but the unnecessary killing of children.....eh...not so much!
beevul
(12,194 posts)And stop authoring checks that reality can't cash.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Tell us again how much you care about the children.
beevul
(12,194 posts)"gun lover".
I haven't bought a gun in over ten years.
I own no so called "assault weapons, and have no desire to own any.
And I don't carry a gun.
You can call me a "gun lover" to your hearts content, but the reality is, I'm a rights lover, and a restrictions on governmental exercise of power lover. As in the bill of rights.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Game of Thrones....BET ON IT!
You are a rights lover....but one that doesn't care about children's rights to LIVE....just so you get to keep your toys unfettered!
beevul
(12,194 posts)I'm not the one that sees only those two alternatives.
That would be you - you just said so.
You just outed yourself as an anti-gun extremist.
As such, nothing you deem "reasonable" is anywhere close to meeting the definition of the word.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)I am a save the children from "responsible gun owners" activist is what I am!
"responsible gun owners" because I never met a gun own who ever admitted that he wasn't one!
beevul
(12,194 posts)Tell me how much you support common sense gun safety training for all Americans.
I wont hold my breath.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)How does that grab you?
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,482 posts)When's the last time you needed a BGC to buy a car?
You really want to eliminate any mandatory BGCs?
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)and you also MUST buy insurance...You also need to have said car inspected in many places...and cars are not created solely for the destruction of life...therefore BGC not necessary. You damn skippy I want my convicted abusive ex husband never to own a gun!
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,482 posts)There is no BGC, insurance, registration or license required if the car stays on your property.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)bullets do not stay in your gun either....and children are dying.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,482 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)that is what guns are for....and children are dying..
and THIS conversation was about a Vegan Gungeoneer being hypocritical.....do try to keep up!
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,482 posts)...I infer that you really meant that all of the current gun laws remain and that an analogous set of laws be created that mirror motor vehicle restrictions. Would that be what you meant?
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Are you a vegan?
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,482 posts)Can't admit mistakes, don't play well with others...
Nope not a vegan.
beevul
(12,194 posts)No background checks to own.
No license to own.
No background checks buying used.
No insurance requirement to own.
Able to use in public with a provisional license at ages raging from 14 to 16.
No requirement for New guns to be sold by FFLs.
People can take them to school without issue.
Build your own for without violating the law.
No laws regarding fully automatic weapons, as there are none federally for building high horsepower engines for cars.
Edited to add, just for you: Domestic abuse convicts can own a car.
And those are just off the top of my head.
I had no idea you were so pro-gun. Hell, you're more extreme than any of us regulars.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)but I think you should be tested....present said weapons and have to buy insurance...
You can try to find "gotchas" all you want....cars are not created solely to destroy life...
beevul
(12,194 posts)You said "I support gun ownership being treated exactly like car ownership..."
Convicted domestic abusers are not forbidden from owning cars.
Yet, later, you said:
"You damn skippy I want my convicted abusive ex husband never to own a gun!"
Make up your damn mind, eh?
NoJusticeNoPeace
(5,018 posts)we would see a future of one or the other:
Future A : prettty much everybody is either already dead or everybody has tons of guns, lives behind barred windows and locked doors, nobody trusts anybody and life is one long trust issue
Future B : guns are no longer a part of society in anyway other than controlled for recreational use, but personal ownership whether at home or on the hip (Jesus, how immature do you have to be to not be a cop or have dangerous job/money carrier and carry a fucking gun on your person)
It wont be a middle ground because that is what we have now and there is far too much death and destruction.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)and the discussion was about being a vegan concerned about the "unnecessary killing" of animals...while ignoring the "unnecessary killing" of children...
NoJusticeNoPeace
(5,018 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)I need children to stop getting shot!
and I don't even have children!
Straw Man
(6,625 posts)and the discussion was about being a vegan concerned about the "unnecessary killing" of animals...while ignoring the "unnecessary killing" of children...
Who's ignoring anything? Just because someone doesn't doesn't accept your futile and misdirected solutions to the problem doesn't mean he or she is indifferent to the problem. You've got a great big ... wait for it ... straw man there.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)certainly not ignoring the "unnecessary killing of children" unlike some in this group!
Straw Man
(6,625 posts)Please show me anyone in this thread saying that they don't care about the "unnecessary killing of children."
Then look up the rhetorical term "straw man" and let us know if it rings any bells.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)I ain't looking up shit....
children are dying while you cling to your dangerous toys!
Why don't you look up "dead children from gunshot wounds"!!!
Straw Man
(6,625 posts)You just keep clinging to that "it's the truth" meme to justify any kind of ad hominem you wish to sling around. It merely marks your for the propagandist that you are.
Guess what? If had melted down every gun I own into plowshares, it would have no impact whatsoever on the death toll of children or anyone else. And that's the truth, in case you were no longer able to recognize that particular phenomenon.
No, you "ain't looking up shit," because you're really not interested in learning anything. That much is clear.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,482 posts)I really don't want to further upset you.
Be seeing you. 
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)but our children are still dying....some will die tonight while you sleep!
Sleep tight curled up next to your cold blue steel!
and remember...KARMA!
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,482 posts)...nothing I do tonight will change any of that.
BTW, the only obvious steel nearby is white. My hotel has a microwave and a minifrige. 
krispos42
(49,445 posts)Gun-related deaths are, by a huge margin, either the result of suicide or the result of homicide. A tiny fraction of gun-related deaths a year are due to genuine product failures such as mechanical malfunction or failure. A dropped gun discharges, perhaps, or a gun slam-fires, or something equally rare.
The overwhelming majority of gun-related deaths are either from being used as a tool of suicide, or a tool of homicide. It is not a design or manufacturing flaw that causes the depressed or the terminally ill to wrap their lips around a gun and pull the trigger, or the callous criminal to gun down a store clerk for the contents of a cash register.
Conversely, crib deaths are due to very small children having fatal accidents due to some design flaw in the crib. Baby murders are not being enabled because cribs are the preferred choice for infanticide, nor are toddlers committing suicide with cribs.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)and I am talking about CHILDREN!
and its worse than that!
That number is about one higher than reflected in government statistics, which show that 14,258 children through age 19 were killed by gunshot wounds from 2007 through 2011. That works out to an average of 7.81 deaths a day.
http://www.politifact.com/children-die-day/
Twice as many as Cancer....
Keep trying....
This thread has continued for 2 days so far....thats nearly 16 dead kids already!
krispos42
(49,445 posts)Right. Moral panic. Got it.
Of course, you use numbers that include adult or nearly so "children", and that number includes homicides, suicides, and accidents.
Because, of course, an angry or depressed parent couldn't kill their young children without a gun. 
Look, your hysteria is part of the problem.
Your side's desperate attempt to change the culture in the same way it was changed about, for example, smoking, isn't going to make the kind of societal changes needed to bring about noticeable change.
Sorry, it's not. You keep hoping that one day, soon, a huge chunk of the 80 million or so gun owners in the country will just decide that guns, like smoking, is no longer socially acceptable and get rid of them. Your side pushes this every change it gets, with culture-war legislation such as "assault weapon" bans and magazine limits and whatever the hell California is doing.
Of course, "assault weapon" bans are targeted towards the types of guns (rifles) that are LEAST used to murder... about 300 people a year a murdered with rifles of all kinds.
20 times that number (TWENTY TIMES!!!!) are murdered with handguns. But your side focuses on a segment of the least-used-to-kill-people kind of guns... 
So, your culture war results in two things: 1) even when fully enacted, zero lives are saved by the laws you get passed. The assault-weapon ban that Connecticut enacted in 1989 sure as hell didn't save those 20 kids and six teachers at Sandy Hook, now did it?
And 2), it puts fucking conservatives in political office.
Conservative economic policies kill far more people than any magazine-capacity limit could hope to save. Look at what's happening with Obamacare... conservative states are opting out, resulting in thousands of more annual deaths per year in states like Texas and Florida and Alabama and Georgia.
Preventable deaths, if given proper medical care like routine screenings and prompt treatments.
But those thousands of people a year are going to DIE because you, somehow, some way, think that banning rifles with protruding pistol grips is going to save lives.
What's making the rick richer, and the poor poorer?
Conservative economic policies.
What's keeping the entire country from getting universal single-payer health care?
Conservative economic policies?
What's keeping the prison-industrial complex alive and well?
Conservative economic policies.
So you need to wake up and realize that your side is expending the maximum amount of political capital for the least amount of political and real-life success. You're causing far more harm than good.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)You don't give a shit....
as long as you can sleep with your blue steel teddy bear....no children dying is of any concern to YOU!
As long as you have your toys....
this dead infant doesn't matter..
15.62 humans under 19 have died in the two days this thread has existed....
(twice as many as have died from cancer....but they are not "unnecessarily killed animals" so they don't count)
Sleep tight!
krispos42
(49,445 posts)You lost the debate.
You have nothing except emotional displays. Why don't you invoke 9/11 somehow?
Conservatives will continue their murderous economic policies because your side shits their pants if they see a gun made after 1938.
Children will die from lack of medical care because you're scared of pistol grips.
Children will continue to be born into persistant grinding, violent, conservative-created poverty because you think gun technology should be frozen at 1906 levels.
Children will continue to be killed by the drug gangs that proliferate from conservative anti-drug laws and efforts because you think heat shields on parts of guns that get HOT are some kind of outrageous affront to humanity.
Children will be poisoned by toxic chemicals in their air and water and food because of conservative deregulation... all because you think the mechanism that Eugene Stoner thought of 60 years ago is evil and scary.
But go ahead... be on the side of a few tens of thousands of annual children's deaths per year. I'm sure the one or two or five or zero deaths annually prevented by banning folding rifle stocks is totally worth it.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Concern for the "unnecessary killing" of animals while ignoring the unnecessary killing of our children in in this country (note how many other countries do NOT have this problem) is just downright odd.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)P.s. I notice we gun control extremists have a lot more Valentines than our opponents..isn't that nice?
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)but cannot let go of the "precious" even if it means children dying....but now hamburger..THATS a tragedy!
Straw Man
(6,625 posts)So only meat eaters should have a right to effective self-defense? How very regressive.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)are!
And their children are not dying from them either!
2/3rds of them in their homes with their parents the "responsible gun owners" guns!
Straw Man
(6,625 posts)It would be interesting to see where you came up with that.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)According to the scientific literature, American children face substantial risk of exposure to firearm injury and death. Following are relevant gun violence statistics:
Guns in the home
There are more than 310 million guns in circulation in the United States — approximately 90 guns for every 100 people.
In 2010, 2,711 children (age 0 to 19 years) died by gunshot and an additional 15,576 were injured.
Those people that die from accidental shooting were more than three times as likely to have had a firearm in their home as those in the control group.
Among children, 89 percent of unintentional shooting deaths occur in the home. Most of these deaths occur when children are playing with a loaded gun in their parent’s absence.
Suicide rates are much higher in states with higher rates of gun ownership, even after controlling for differences among states for poverty, urbanization, unemployment, mental illness, and alcohol or drug abuse.
Among suicide victims requiring hospital treatment, suicide attempts with a firearm are much more deadly than attempts by jumping or drug poisoning — 90 percent die compared to 34 percent and 2 percent respectively. About 90 percent of those that survive a suicide attempt do not go on to die by suicide.
In states with increased gun availability, death rates from gunshots for children were higher than in states with less availability.
The vast majority of accidental firearm deaths among children are related to child access to firearms — either self-inflicted or at the hands of another child.
Studies have shown that states with CAP laws have a lower rate of unintentional death than states without CAP laws.
Domestic violence is more likely to turn deadly with a gun in the home. An abusive partner’s access to a firearm increases the risk of homicide eight-fold for women in physically abusive relationships.
http://injury.research.chop.edu/violence-prevention-initiative/types-violence-involving-youth/gun-violence/gun-violence-facts-and#.VNmLd_nF_x8
OH and twice as many children die from guns...than do from cancer
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/04/11/guns-child-deaths-more-than-cancer/2073259/
Straw Man
(6,625 posts)You can barrage us with cut-and-pastes all day long, but you cited a rather vague and unsupported figure. Could you please clarify? Where does your 2/3 figure come from? Two-thirds of what?
Articles that focus on toddlers dying in accidents and then cite stats that include intentional murders of 19-year-olds are fundamentally dishonest. From your article:
— In 2010 in the U.S., 606 people died from an unintentional shooting.
In other words, 2,105 died as a result of criminal behavior. Yet the gist of the article is to decry US levels of gun ownership -- not levels of criminal activity. I call this dishonesty.
The unintentional shootings are the ones that could be remedied by safe-storage laws, stricter licensing, and the like. But the bulk of the problem is the other behavior: the type that you don't seem to care about.
So again: 2/3 of what?
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)Most of them were from non peer reviewed "studies" by public health types that are, to quote Lawrence Southwick, about as "as scientific as NRA propaganda".
First, 19 year olds are not children. Children are 0-12. Basically, it is inflating the numbers by putting 16-19 year old gang members engaged in mutual combat on the street in the same category as accidental deaths of children, which are about 62 per year according to the CDC.
The USA Today "article" is based on a single source: Source: Brady Campaign to End Gun Violence
right at the bottom of the page. The Brady Campaign is pretty good at making shit up and doctoring statistics. But what about this guy's critical thinking skills (or yours for that matter)? But what about his competence and integrity as a journalist? How about the level of incompetence and the low standard of journalistic ethics standard of USA Today? None of his data comes from any government source such as the FBI, no valid peer reviewed studies.
http://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Federal data from the Centers for Disease Control indicate that between 2007 and 2011, an average of 62 children age 14 and under were accidentally shot and killed each year.
But our analysis of publicly reported gun deaths, highlighted in “Innocents Lost: A Year of Unintentional Child Gun Deaths,” shows that the federal data substantially undercount these deaths:
From December 2012 to December 2013, at least 100 children were killed in unintentional shootings — almost two each week, 61 percent higher than federal data reflect.
About two-thirds of these unintended deaths — 65 percent — took place in a home or vehicle that belonged to the victim’s family, most often with guns that were legally owned but not secured.
More than two-thirds of these tragedies could be avoided if gun owners stored their guns responsibly and prevented children from accessing them.
http://everytown.org/article/innocents-lost/
full report:
http://3gbwir1ummda16xrhf4do9d21bsx.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Innocents_Lost.pdf
All those "responsible" gun owners with kids.....tsk tsk tsk!
Straw Man
(6,625 posts)Last edited Tue Feb 10, 2015, 01:56 AM - Edit history (2)
Took you long enough to get to the point. Let's look, shall we?
About two-thirds of these unintended deaths — 65 percent — took place in a home or vehicle that belonged to the victim’s family, most often with guns that were legally owned but not secured.
More than two-thirds of these tragedies could be avoided if gun owners stored their guns responsibly and prevented children from accessing them.
--http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2014/01/kids-and-guns-by-the-numbers/
It appears that there was a sharp decline over 20 years, but that has levelled off since 2010. The numbers for 2010 and 2013 are substantially the same.
Sixty-five percent of 100 is 65. I wonder if increased safety education efforts would be able to reach these 65 households. It's possible that there is an irreducible core of residual stupidity out there that renders some people impervious to education. But it's certainly worth a try.
Or we could just try to disarm the entire US population. That would work.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)"responsible" gun toting parents own.
Have YOU ever known a gun owner to admit he wasn't a "responsible one"? Yet their babies die EVERY day....How responsible is THAT?
beevul
(12,194 posts)Do you oppose universal firearm safety training?
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)But until you guys pony up and make sure EVERY Damn one of you have MANDATORY gun safety education....I stand pat.
beevul
(12,194 posts)How about you?
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)YOU guys pay for it!
Besides those are children....they don't need to own guns! They don't need guns to get a job....
beevul
(12,194 posts)"Gun control, for the children...but I don't want to pay for firearm safety training that would reduce the deaths and injuries I like to complain about so frequently, loudly, and obnoxiously".
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)why should I? Because YOU want to indoctrinate children THAT's why! Its sickening and stomach churning...and pathetic. You want your guns...PAY to get training...every year...just like a barber or beautician does!
beevul
(12,194 posts)Why should you pay for it?
For the same reasons you pay for all other public education, that's why.
The rest of your lunatic idea are just that, lunatic ideas.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)because not everyone SHOULD carry a gun....thats why!
You just want to indoctrinate more children.....
My ideas you call LUNATIC.....are used ALL over the world....and their babies aren't dying full of holes!
I think YOUR ideas are the lunacy....even in the old West....sheriffs made gunslingers give up their guns upon entering town!
Straw Man
(6,625 posts)... and then you want to pretend they mean nothing. Any death of a child is a lamentable tragedy -- the challenge is to make it a preventable one. What is your prescription? Mine is safety education. Given the tone of your responses, I'm guessing that yours would be total prohibition, which in my estimation is not only unworkable, but also unconstitutional.
Babies die every day? Sixty-five percent of 100 is sixty-five. Sixty-five unintentional shootings per year of people under the age of twenty in the home: there's no way in the world you can stretch the truth of that to "their babies die every day." Your hyperbole does nothing for your credibility.
Now you get to rear up and call me indifferent to the deaths of children. Go ahead: indulge yourself. Doesn't that rush of self-righteous moral indignation feel good?
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)You okay with YOUR teenager getting shot?
Yes babies are dying!
9 mos...6 mos...2mos...
What are your age preferences?
What age is okay to die for you?
What age makes you feel all snug and cozy and lets you sleep at night?
Straw Man
(6,625 posts)No. What a ridiculous question. But let's call a teenager a teenager and a baby a baby, OK? Otherwise we might be accused of misleading people.
9 mos...6 mos...2mos...
What are your age preferences?
Preferences for what? What is this supposed to mean? I don't want anyone to be shot, obviously. That doesn't mean that I subscribe to your extremist views on gun control. That's a false dichotomy.
What does that mean? Even as a personal attack, it makes no sense. Now you're just ranting. Well, you have been all along, actually.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)Bloomberg's propaganda? Even CNN and Politifact busted them for inflating the number of school shootings, and now they are getting sued for one of their bogus "background check free guns on the internet" scams.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172160188
Holy shit man, at least use half way decent sources. At least we don't insult you with claims made by Ted Nugent or the NRA.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)we can all smell his pants shitting stench from here!
and a Pedophile to boot....real representin' you got in THAT guy!
He SOOOO cares about babies dying!
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)I think what he told some writer for High Times about shitting his pants is about as true as his exploits as a cop are, not at all. But hey, you have an authoritarian, racist, and sexist billionaire with a string of sexual harassment complaints bankrolling your cause.
Babies dying? Come on, almost all of the 15-20 year olds are gang members in places like Chicago, Oakland, Newark, Camden, Detroit, and NOLA. They weren't accidents and they didn't get them from mom and dad's gun cabinet. Sometimes they are gang owned community guns, or they got them from another street dealer. All of them bought with the proceeds from someone wanting to fill their bong or nose full of coke. So, your "babies dying" is as dishonest and almost as disgusting as the anti choice zealot throwing fake blood on a 13 year old just going to get her first pap smear.
As for me, I have a lot of items to add to Krispos' list of real solutions, none of them can be obtainable if you make the party a regional party of just the coasts.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Over 7,000 children are hospitalized or killed due to gun violence every year, according to a new study published in the medical journal Pediatrics. An additional 3,000 children die from gun injuries before making it to the hospital, bringing the total number of injured or killed adolescents to 10,000 each year.
<snip..>
“This study reinforces what we know from the mortality data,” Daniel Webster, the director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research, told NBC News. “We have an extraordinary health burden in our youth associated with firearms injuries.”
In the 2009 Kids’ Inpatient Database (KID), 7,391 children under the age of 20 had been hospitalized for injuries from firearms and the majority of those gunshot injuries —4,559—resulted from intentional firearm assaults. 2,149 of those injured were accidents, and 270 were suicide attempts. Of the children who were hospitalized, 453 – 6% – died from their injuries.
<snip..>
The American Academy of Pediatrics wrote in 2012 that “firearm-related deaths continue as 1 of the top 3 causes of death in American youth.”
http://www.msnbc.com/the-last-word/the-toll-gun-violence-children
Damn that Lawrence O'Donnell and his damn statistics!
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)and the asses out of gun control advocates. The "John Hopkins Center" does shill studies funded by Bloomberg. Public health gun studies are rarely peer reviewed and often debunked by criminologists. O'Donnell is a dishonest and loud mouth bigot. Nothing he says is worth listening to. Chances are he is parroting Bloomberg or Brady Campaign. O'Donnell ranks up there with Ted Nugent for despicable assholeness. He isn't a journalist or any more than Rush is.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Ted Nugent? The fucking Pedophile Pants shitting Draft Dodger...OH he is is one of YOURS! He is ALL yours!
aint nothing as vile and low down as Creepy Uncle Ted. You gun humpers cannot wash the stench of Ted Nugent...your Hero off that easily!
Stupid entering HIM into this conversation about Babies being killed! (and vegans to boot!)
beevul
(12,194 posts)"children under the age of 20"
Again, this is why you guys can't be trusted.
Most people, stop thinking of them as "children" at around 14, and start thinking of them as "young adults", since they can do things like drive, and get part time employment.
If your "studies" characterized and categorized honestly, those numbers wouldn't be so deliberately artificially inflated.
But then, you knew that.
If it wasn't for equivocation and outright dishonesty, you guys wouldn't have much to say at all.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)but they can sure as shit own guns huh?
beevul
(12,194 posts)Explain to them, how its all fine and good that they can't buy alcohol, but can be drafted to fight in a foreign war using GUNS, but that you don't want anyone to own guns at home.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)so dishonest....it gives gun owners a bad name!
beevul
(12,194 posts)As such, you uttering the word "dishonest" breaks the irony meter.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)you picked up on one phrase and think that was the entire study! its dishonest...
Federal data from the Centers for Disease Control indicate that between 2007 and 2011, an average of 62 children age 14 and under were accidentally shot and killed each year.
But our analysis of publicly reported gun deaths, highlighted in “Innocents Lost: A Year of Unintentional Child Gun Deaths,” shows that the federal data substantially undercount these deaths:
From December 2012 to December 2013, at least 100 children were killed in unintentional shootings — almost two each week, 61 percent higher than federal data reflect.
About two-thirds of these unintended deaths — 65 percent — took place in a home or vehicle that belonged to the victim’s family, most often with guns that were legally owned but not secured.
More than two-thirds of these tragedies could be avoided if gun owners stored their guns responsibly and prevented children from accessing them.
beevul
(12,194 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Federal data from the Centers for Disease Control
indicate that between 2007 and 2011, an average
of 62 children age 14 and under died each year in
unintentional shootings.4 By this measure,
American children are sixteen times more likely
to be killed in unintentional shootings than their
peers in other high-income countries.5
But our analysis of publicly reported gun deaths
in the twelve months after the mass shooting in
Newtown, Connecticut, shows that the federal
data substantially undercount these deaths:
FROM DECEMBER 2012 TO DECEMBER 2013, AT LEAST
100 CHILDREN WERE KILLED IN UNINTENTIONAL
SHOOTINGS — ALMOST TWO EACH WEEK, 61 PERCENT
HIGHER THAN FEDERAL DATA REFLECT. And even
this larger number reflects just a fraction
of the total number of children injured
or killed with guns in the U.S. each year,
regardless of the intent.
ABOUT TWO-THIRDS OF THESE UNINTENDED DEATHS
— 65 PERCENT — TOOK PLACE IN A HOME OR VEHICLE
THAT BELONGED TO THE VICTIM’S FAMILY, MOST
OFTEN WITH GUNS THAT WERE LEGALLY OWNED BUT
NOT SECURED. Another 19 percent took place in
the home of a relative or friend of the victim.
MORE THAN TWO-THIRDS OF THESE TRAGEDIES COULD
BE AVOIDED IF GUN OWNERS STORED THEIR GUNS
RESPONSIBLY AND PREVENTED CHILDREN FROM
ACCESSING THEM. Of the child shooting deaths
in which there was sufficient information
available to make the determination,
70 percent (62 of 89 cases) could have been
prevented if the firearm had been stored
locked and unloaded. By contrast, incidents
in which an authorized user mishandled
a gun — such as target practice or hunting
accidents — constituted less than thirty
percent of the incidents.
While our analysis finds these tragedies to be
far more common than previously reported,
it also gives reason for optimism. First and
foremost, it shows that unintentional child gun
deaths can be prevented: if fewer gun owners
left their guns loaded and unlocked, fewer
children would lose their lives.
So what makes you think this was ONLY a study of those under 20 yrs old? Where did you get that notion....
Denial is NOT a river in Egypt.....and babies are dying...
read it all for yourself...
http://everytown.org/documents/2014/10/innocents-lost.pdf
hack89
(39,171 posts)I have never killed a living thing in 40 years of shooting.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)because that is what I was addressing.
Straw Man
(6,625 posts)... until you tried to make it so. In fact, it seems say that you are harassing a member solely on the basis of his dietary choice. I'm not sure why you think that's OK.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)and its a thread within a thread...I started out by pointing out the hypocrisy of caring for animals but not children...
Straw Man
(6,625 posts)and its a thread within a thread...I started out by pointing out the hypocrisy of caring for animals but not children...
... so "thread within a thread" excuses digressions? Was it not in force when you were accusing me of straying from the topic?
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)the "unnecessary killing of animals"
the "unnecessary killing" of our children....meh....not so much!
beevul
(12,194 posts)No more a hypoctit than a gun control zealot that can't stay on topic, yet feels morally righteous to lecture others about it.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)whats the matter can't you process more than one idea at a time?
I CARE about babies dying....YOU not so much....as long as you get to keep your cold blue steel toys...you could care less!
beevul
(12,194 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)can't take the heat?
Its okay....Gun control....just like Winter...its coming!
beevul
(12,194 posts)Not being able to take the heat, is better than not being able to behave, and abide by the rules of this group.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)and babies are still dying....and what are the gun lovers doing? NOTHING thats what!
beevul
(12,194 posts)"and babies are still dying....and what are the gun lovers doing? NOTHING thats what"
Says the poster that doesn't want to pay for firearms safety training.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)what are YOU doing about the babies dying.....paying for it is the LEAST you could do!
but no...YOU want children indoctrinated!
beevul
(12,194 posts)"YOU want children indoctrinated!"
Says you.
That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.
Your argument is thus, dismissed.
We live in a country with 300 million privately owned guns. In another decade, it will probably be 400 million. Its also a constitutionally protected right, which many people WILL exercise. It is not unreasonable, that people should be taught firearms safety, considering those facts.
Which definitely reflects on you, and your "for the children except when I don't want to" arguments.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)why should I PAY for you to keep your cold blue teddy bear?
You want dangerous toys....Pony UP!
I want FEWER people owning them....so I want those few to pay for it themselves...YOU want ME to pay to indoctrinate our children...like this is North Korea!
beevul
(12,194 posts)In fact, you have exactly zero input in the matter of whether I own a gun or not, monetarily or otherwise.
Get used to that.
The thing in question, was universal training which incidentally, has exactly nothing to do with me keeping a gun or not.
It would save lives, but you're against it.
That tells me and everyone else, just how much you care, as opposed to how much you claim to care.
I'd stay away from mirrors for a while, if I were you...and I'd avoid the use of the word "hypocrite" for a while too.
"If it saves just one life I'm all for it, except when I'm not".
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)you know...all those "responsible" gun owners whose kids die every day....what are the gungeoneers doing about that?
Jack SHIT thats what.....and why Gun Control IS coming!
beevul
(12,194 posts)As to the rest, pack a big lunch, but don't hold your breath:
Two years after the mass school shooting in Newtown, Conn., a majority of Americans say it is more important to protect the right of Americans to own guns than for the government to limit access to firearms, a Pew Research Center survey conducted this month found.
The center said that it was the first time in two decades of its surveys on attitudes about firearms that a majority of Americans had expressed more support for gun ownership rights than for gun control.
Fifty-two percent of respondents said it was more important to protect gun ownership rights, and 46 percent said the priority should be controlled access to firearms.
In a 2000 Pew survey, 29 percent chose gun rights over gun control, and in a 2013 survey conducted a month after the Newtown shooting, 45 percent favored gun rights.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/12/us/gun-control-gun-rights-pew-survey.html?_r=0
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Fifty-two percent of respondents said it was more important to protect gun ownership rights, and 46 percent said the priority should be controlled access to firearms.
back atcha!
Like I said...Gun control IS coming!
beevul
(12,194 posts)Please.
And get back to me on whats coming, when you're crowned dictator.
Right now, the majority is against you.
You DO believe in Democracy, right?
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)and one was a vast majority of Democrats to boot!
Gun control IS coming!
beevul
(12,194 posts)Of course we do.
I doubt you'll be seeing anything more for quite some time.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)but in countries with fewer guns....not so much!
beevul
(12,194 posts)Not teenagers, not adolescents, babies.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)You keep telling yourself that....hope it keeps you warm at night while you cuddle your cold blue steel teddy bear!
beevul
(12,194 posts)Good grief.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)are you seriously going to say its okay for 14 yr olds to die of gunshot wounds in your world view?
and yes...BABIES are dying....
http://www.wfla.com/story/27907688/child-shot-in-pinellas-deputies-say
How many do I have to show you before you finally become uncomfortable with it?
beevul
(12,194 posts)Both were put through firearms safety education.
My world view says that that makes them less likely to be shot accidentally.
Yours resists the idea.
I guess your worldview is the one that says its ok for 14 years olds to die of gunshot wounds that could be avoided through education.
How many times do I have to say that before you become uncomfortable with it?
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)
The Office of the Chief Medical Examiner has released a cause of death for two of the victims of Wednesday's quadruple homicide, including that of a 6-month-old
Still think babies are not dying?
beevul
(12,194 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)beevul
(12,194 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)and did YOUR children stop being your babies?
and YES babies ARE dying!...infants too!
9 mos...6mos...2 months....but you think THEIR stories are old and boring and stale....because you are afraid!
beevul
(12,194 posts)Oh, that's right, you did, by opposing universal gun safety training.
Its your ballpark loose use of terminology, which is the subject of discussion, at this point.
"and did YOUR children stop being your babies?"
As a matter of fact, they did. They became separate living entities with wants, needs wishes and goals of their own. They're still my offspring, but they ceased being my "babies" a long time ago.
Now please, tell me how wrong I am, poster with no children.
"but you think THEIR stories are old and boring and stale"
I never said that. Kindly keep your words in your own mouth and out of mine, thanks. I said your TACTICS are old and stale.
And ineffective.
And they are.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)You said that 14 yr olds were not "babies".....so I guess its okay if they die instead! As long as its not "infants" right?
Who just so happen to ALSO be torn to shreds by guns...
Do you know one of the Sandy Hook mothers didn't do a closed casket of her son that had his jaw shot off? Because SHE wanted you gun humpers to see the damage your toys do!
beevul
(12,194 posts)"You said that 14 yr olds were not "babies"...."
Well, they aren't. My 14 year old was driving to school at 14.
Seen any babies driving lately sport?
"so I guess its okay if they die instead"
Which I never said.
"As long as its not "infants" right"
Again, something I never said.
I was questioning your use of the term "babies", but you know that and are just here to play games, rather than discuss or debate in line with our SOP.
One can only wonder how many instances of such behavior we'll need before you get blocked from this group.
"Because SHE wanted you gun humpers to see the damage your toys do!"
My guns haven't EVER caused damage to another human being.
I guess she must have done what she did for someone elses benefit.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)My car has never run over anyone either..YET there are lots of safety controls I HAVE to deal with to own one!
beevul
(12,194 posts)To own?
Not so much.
Not that I'd expect you to know anything more in that arena than you do about the gun debate.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)what weird twisted logic gungeoneers have!
I cannot really use my car in my living room....
beevul
(12,194 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Do you still shoot yours?
beevul
(12,194 posts)Strait from the book.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Guess what...its 8pm....do you think all 7.81 children have died of gunshot wounds already today?
Wonder if one or two died while you argued against fixing what killed them?
wonder how long before the next baby dies?
like this one did...
beevul
(12,194 posts)That's no tiny minority.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)imagine that!
beevul
(12,194 posts)That doesn't mean that any "majority" of Americans agree with your particulars.
What do you propose that will stop "babies" from being killed by gunshot?
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Elmo) -- A 9-month-old infant has died after suffering a gun shot wound to the head Monday morning in northwest Missouri.
According to the Nodaway County Sheriff's Office, a 5-year-old boy shot his 9-month-old brother around 8:58 a.m. at 101 S. Scott in Elmo. Nodaway County Sheriff Darren White tells KMA News the Sheriff's Office received a call from Alexis Wiederholt, the mother of the two children.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Prayers poured in from around the country for Jonylah Watkins, the six month-old baby girl who died this morning here after being shot five times. Her father, Jonathan Watkins, was standing next to the family's minivan, parked on a Woodlawn neighborhood street, changing Jonylah's diaper when a gunman opened fire, according to media reports. The father was shot twice and was the target of the attack. He is in the hospital in serious-critical condition.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)A team of local investigators spent the Christmas holiday probing the shooting death of a 2-month-old East Lampeter Township girl.
The baby was killed on Christmas Eve by a single gunshot wound sustained inside an apartment at 2165 Old Philadelphia Pike.
The girl was shot just after 2 p.m. by a family member, an adult male, who was home alone with the child, according to officials.
beevul
(12,194 posts)Your "collective guilt" tactics, are old, stale, and boring.
And ineffective.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Yeah...those babies think their deaths are old stale and boring huh?
Ineffective because you have a heart of stone....and a cold blue steel teddy bear!
beevul
(12,194 posts)"Ineffective because you have a heart of stone....and a cold blue steel teddy bear!"
You know precisely nothing about me.
Ineffective because I wont be guilted into anything by someone the really doesn't care in the first place, and is just here to stir shit, and has had predetermined solutions in mind the whole time.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)owning a gun is not a mandatory need....
You want to own one....YOU pay for it!
Not everyone NEEDS gun safety training because MOST of us are NOT afraid and need our binkys!
Lets just show teenagers the autopsy pictures of dead children with gunshot wounds....that should do the trick!
beevul
(12,194 posts)"owning a gun is not a mandatory need.... "
Neither is owning a car. Yet we teach drivers ed in school.
"You want to own one....YOU pay for it!"
You don't want to own one? Don't. And leave those of us that do the hell alone until and unless we infringe directly on the rights of others.
You know, due process.
"Not everyone NEEDS gun safety training because MOST of us are NOT afraid and need our binkys!"
Yep, like I said, you aren't here to discuss. You're here to stir shit.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)haven't had a problem....I am not afraid to live like you!
I wouldn't want to live askeered like you all....I pity you really! Overcompensating for "short-comings"!
beevul
(12,194 posts)I'm sure you wont be blocked in the other group.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)quite telling actually....sensitive about one but not the other!
beevul
(12,194 posts)Now please, act surprised.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Dead babies you can live with.....but not bad behavior dammit!
beevul
(12,194 posts)So how would you know what bothers me or not?
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)fixed that for ya!
beevul
(12,194 posts)You're trying the age old tactic of trying to shame others into capitulation and/or silence.
That's not an argument, its a tactic. Strait from the gun control pusher handbook. And every time you employ it, you only strengthen my resolve, and that of many many others. I have emotions just like anyone else, but I will not let them be used against me by the likes of you.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)so you can keep your cold blue steel teddy bear!
like this cutie pie...RIP little one..
beevul
(12,194 posts)So I guess you're wrong.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)and its what makes you not afraid....thats what teddy bears are for!
and 7.81 children die because of them every day!
Twice as many as cancer in fact!
America....the land of the free and the home of the brave???
beevul
(12,194 posts)But hey, you're welcome to spend a night...just 1 night...in my back yard with a teddy bear.
You wont be afraid, right, because you have the teddy bear?
You can tell us all how well it worked out in the morning, assuming theres enough of you left to utter a syllable.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Yeah Coyotes are roaming all over Americans backyards threatening them!
Cool story bro!
7.81 kids dying because YOU might need a gun for the coyotes!!
I think if you are in desperate need of a gun....for *ahem* coyotes....then you could take yearly gun safety classes and pay for them yourself!
I don't think your friend the "Vegan" will be too happy with your trigger happy response to coyotes...
here just for you...
http://www.coyotesmarts.org/what-to-do/
beevul
(12,194 posts)And because the second amendment to the constitution of the United States of America, as well as 40 + state constitutions, protect the right to own them, from people like you who have no interest in any other means of reducing gun deaths except elimination of the right to own them.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)they should just have them?
Why not personal nuclear warheads?
Are you allowed to just carry around sticks of dynamite? How about a truckload of fertilizer? Just because "you want them"?
You are already being "regulated" my friend.
"Just wanting something" is not a good enough reason to own something that DESTROYS LIFE!
If I "want" to boobytrap my yard with landmines....is that okay too?
How about Ricin for everybody! Why not some Plutonium in the fridge?
beevul
(12,194 posts)"and if people want a Sawwed off shotgun...or a rocket fired grenade launcher"
Both are legal to own under the national firearms act of 1934.
"Why not personal nuclear warheads? Are you allowed to just carry around sticks of dynamite? How about a truckload of fertilizer?"
Are you proposing they should?
Comparing those things to self loading semi-automatic weapons is a huge stretch, though its not the first time we've seen the nuclear strawman hereabouts.
The debate is over non-automatic firearms which have been generally available to people for over 100 years.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)my ex faced a 15 yr sentence for that...
So thanks for agreeing with my point....YOUR weapons CAN be regulated!!!!
and it works
"I want it"
Pathetic excuse for looking the other way while 7.81 children die every single day!
Karma man....Karma.
beevul
(12,194 posts)Your ex faced 15 years for not jumping through the hoops and doing it lawfully.
If you think Americans will tolerate that level of regulation on commonly owned average every day firearms, I got a piece of AZ oceanfront property to sell you.
On edit: If you think I'm wrong, see the CT registration law and the massive noncompliance which resulted from such foolishness.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)thanks AGAIN for proving my point....
Do you think another kid has died since you started trying to justify their deaths yet?
beevul
(12,194 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)fewer kids would die...FACT!
Other countries with fewer guns prove that! 75% of kids dying of gunshot wounds in the industrialized world...lived in the United States...
tick tick tick....only minutes or hours until the next child dies..
beevul
(12,194 posts)I'm not one of those people.
Like another poster said, You have nothing except emotional displays, which are talking point number 1 in the gun control extremist handbook.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)meanwhile...children DIE at twice the rate of Cancer!
75% of them in wealthy countries....lived RIGHT here.....obviously we have a lack of regulation problem!
beevul
(12,194 posts)"meanwhile...children DIE at twice the rate of Cancer!"
Only if you catagorize young adults as children, which most people don't.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Yeah...under 19....teenagers!
what age would you cut it off and say their deaths were okay?
beevul
(12,194 posts)"Yeah...under 19....teenagers1"
Um...13 and under are "children".
14 and up are young adults, and 18 and up are legal adults.
"what age would you cut it off and say their deaths were okay?"
I wouldn't say their deaths are "ok" at all.
On the other hand, padding "child gun death" statistics with deaths of young adults to legal adults is dishonest to begin with, and you quoting them in an effort to shame me is simply doubling down on that dishonesty.
beevul
(12,194 posts)Guns don't "just destroy life".
Furthermore, where firearms are concerned, under our system of law, it IS all that's necessary.
Your opinions are binding on absolutely no one, and very likely to stay that way for your entire life.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)and most other countries sawed off shotguns are not as strictly regulated as they are here. In fact, they are less regulated than hunting rifles in New Jersey. In Canada, not only can any 18 year old with an unrestricted PAL (which is like an IL FOID) any 12 year old can possess it unsupervised and buy ammo for it with a minors permit, which only requires taking a safety course.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Photo illustration by Slate. Photo by Joerg Koch/AFP/Getty Images.
Caroline Starks was 2 years old. Her 5-year-old brother was playing nearby with his birthday present: a .22-caliber Crickett rifle. His mother stepped outside for a moment, certain the gun wasn’t loaded. She was wrong. Caroline was pronounced dead a few hours later at the Cumberland County Hospital in Kentucky.
Despite harrowing tragedies like Caroline’s death, the National Rifle Association is committed to expanding firearm ownership among children. The NRA’s recent convention in Indianapolis included a “Youth Day” to promote firearms for children, an event from which the media was banned. For years, gun manufacturers and the NRA have marketed firearms to children ages 5 to 12, insisting that programs such as the Eddie Eagle Safety Program ensure the safety of children. If they truly believe this, they are mistaken.
The overwhelming empirical evidence indicates that the presence of a gun makes children less safe; that programs such as Eddie Eagle are insufficient; and that measures the NRA and extreme gun advocates vehemently oppose, such as gun safes and smart guns, could dramatically reduce the death toll. Study after study unequivocally demonstrates that the prevalence of firearms directly increases the risk of youth homicide, suicide, and unintentional death. This effect is consistent across the United States and throughout the world. As a country, we should be judged by how well we protect our children. By any measure, we are failing horribly.
The United States accounts for nearly 75 percent of all children murdered in the developed world. Children between the ages of 5 and 14 in the United States are 17 times more likely to be murdered by firearms than children in other industrialized nations.
Children from states where firearms are prevalent suffer from significantly higher rates of homicide, even after accounting for poverty, education, and urbanization. A study focusing on youth in North Carolina found that most of these deaths were caused by legally purchased handguns. A recent meta-analysis revealed that easy access to firearms doubled the risk of homicide and tripled the risk for suicide among all household members. Family violence is also much more likely to be lethal in homes where a firearm is present, placing children especially in danger. Murder-suicides are another major risk to children and are most likely to be committed with a gun.
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/medical_examiner/2014/06/gun_deaths_in_children_statistics_show_firearms_endanger_kids_despite_nra.html
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Quinnipiac University. June 24-30, 2014. N=1,446 registered voters nationwide. Margin of error ± 2.6.
"Do you support or oppose stricter gun control laws in the United States?"
Support Oppose Unsure
% % %
6/24-30/14 50 47 3
CBS News/New York Times Poll. Feb. 19-23, 2014. N=1,644 adults nationwide. Margin of error ± 3.
"In general, do you think laws covering the sale of guns should be made more strict, less strict, or kept as they are now?"
6/13 & earlier: "In general, do you think gun control laws should be made more strict, less strict, or kept as they are now?"
More
strict Less
strict Kept as
they are Unsure/
No answer
% % % %
2/19-23/14
54 9 36 1
Republicans
33 15 51 1
Democrats
77 3 19 1
Independents
49 10 39 1
Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)beevul
(12,194 posts)You're confused about which group you're posting in.
This group isn't the one where you get to creatively interpret the SOP.
Ours actually means something.
If you actually cared as much as you try to appear, you'd be the first to point out bad behavior.
Rather than excuse it.
Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=about&forum=1172
beevul
(12,194 posts)How many posts would you like me to link to where no attempt at discussion was made eh?
That's no more of a stretch than the way you read the SOP of the other group.
On edit: Why should anything you say matter, eh? You who call others "glib sociopaths" so freely. I doubt very much your definition of "discussion" as it applies to our SOP comes anywhere near that of a dictionary.
Do you think calling people "glib sociopaths" qualifies?
hack89
(39,171 posts)I don't understand your logic.
blueridge3210
(1,401 posts)Just a lot of emotional outrage and broad brush smears of lawful gun owners and futile attempts at establishing a false equivalence between those who own guns and abide by the law and criminals who illegally possess firearms. Business as usual.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)he said he was a vegan who is concerned about the "unnecessary killing of animals" PERIOD!
YOUR logic is what is flawwed.....meanwhile our babies DIE to protect your right to your toys!
blueridge3210
(1,401 posts)I'm responsible for my actions; no one else. I am not responsible for the actions of others. As a law-abiding firearm owner, I have no responsibility for criminals who illegally possess firearms or for irresponsible people who legally posses firearms.
Following your "logic", anyone who consumes alcohol in a responsible manner bears full responsibility for the carnage caused by those who operate a vehicle while intoxicated. Not. Gonna. Fly.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)but supports OWNING the thing that IS UNNECESSARILY killing babies IS hypocrisy at its finest...a GUN is designed to DESTROY Life and for no other reason!
End of story!
As a matter of fact...a VEGAN doesn't even USE animal products....that is HOW concerned they are about animals!
but children dying of gunshot wounds day in and day out.....Meh...not a problem!
beevul
(12,194 posts)"but a person who IS a V.E.G.A.N. and concerned with the "unnecessary" killing of animals but supports OWNING the thing that IS UNNECESSARILY killing babies IS hypocrisy at its finest..."
The THING that is unnecessarily killing others, is other people. Nobody hereabouts owns other people.
I have yet to see a gun that killed anyone without being directed to by a life form, whether deliberately (murder which is a crime) or accidentally - which gun safety training would without question, mitigate.
Remind us why, again, you resist mitigating children dying of gun shots through education.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)beevul
(12,194 posts)So much so, that I believe in educating every American on gun safety.
You don't, so you really haven't a leg to stand on.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)because THAT is the ONLY way to cut down on their deaths!
Other countries have fewer babies with bullet holes than we do! The difference...fewer guns!
beevul
(12,194 posts)"because THAT is the ONLY way to cut down on their deaths!"
You'll get nothing and like it...or not...with an attitude like that.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)that?
"Don't worry Gertie....I won't let any dead babies come between us"!
another .326 children have died in the last hour.....
almost 16 since this thread started.....
beevul
(12,194 posts)Like I said, and you've given more evidence of, you're not here to discuss or debate, you're here to stir shit.
beevul
(12,194 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)sorry but YOU are wrong!
They would love to STOP people from eating meat...
You do know the difference between a Vegan and a Vegetarian right?
beevul
(12,194 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)babies....not so much!
You do know the diff between a Vegan and a Vegetarian right?
hack89
(39,171 posts)he never said he supported killing babies. That is just your broadbrush smear conflating legal gun owners with murderers.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)He supports gun ownership that IS killing babies!!!!
they don't seem to have near the problem in all the rest of the world? Their babies aren't dying of gunshot wounds.... Why do YOU think that is?
and he is a VEGAN who cares about the "unnecessary killing of animals" .....you cannot make this shit up!
hack89
(39,171 posts)do you realize how stupid that sounds?
beevul
(12,194 posts)That makes all that blathering about lives lost a bit hollow.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)do you understand math?
Do you understand how stupid it sounds not to be able to put 2 and 2 together and figure out why that is!
hack89
(39,171 posts)is that really your logic?
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)BECAUSE we know for a fact....what is killing our babies...because 75% of them in the industrial world that die from gunshot wounds...live right here. And the difference IS they other countries have fewer guns among them...
Easy peasy.
hack89
(39,171 posts)Care to share some details?
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Here are three ideas from The Nation magazine
Banning assault weapons and large capacity magazines.
Better mental health screenings for weapons purchases.
Tracking large-scale ammunition purchases.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)1. Requiring criminal background checks on gun owners and gun shop employees. 82 percent of all gun owners and 74 percent of NRA gun owners support the former, and 80 percent and 79 percent, respectively, endorse the latter.
2. Prohibiting terrorist watch list members from acquiring guns. Support ranges from 80 percent among non-NRA gun-owners to 71 percent among NRA members.
3. Mandating that gun-owners tell the police when their gun is stolen. 71 percent non-NRA gun-owners support this measure, as do 64 percent of NRA members.
4. Concealed carry permits should only be restricted to individuals who have completed a safety training course and are 21 and older. 84 percent of non-NRA and 74 percent of NRA member gun-owners support the safety training restriction, and the numbers are 74 percent and 63 percent for the age restriction.
5.Concealed carry permits shouldn’t be given to perpetrators of violent misdemeanors or individuals arrested for domestic violence. The NRA/non-NRA gun-owner split on these issues is 81 percent and 75 percent in favor of the violent misdemeanors provision and 78 percent/68 percent in favor of the domestic violence restriction.
hack89
(39,171 posts)there has to be due process. There is no due process with the terror watch list nor is there any way to appeal being put on it. Remember how Ted Kennedy ended up on it?
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)especially Democrats.
Now if they ever invent a Disintegrating gun....that just vanishes the victim....do YOU think you should be allowed to own that too?
Do you think you should be allowed to own Nuclear Weapons?
See that is what "Common Sense Regulation is about". There is NO need for you to own every kind of weapon....YOU and your pea shooters cannot win against the Military might of the American Govt. Do you know why? THEY HAVE Nuclear weapons....your Assault Rifles and large mags will NEVER save you from them. BET on that!
hack89
(39,171 posts)what ever gave you the idea I have any grudge with the government?
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Do you have trophies? Can you prove it? See there can be exceptions....but Average Joe Sixpack Teabagger DOESN'T need one!
hack89
(39,171 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)figures...
hack89
(39,171 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)You have no business owning one....
Now this thread has been running for 3 days....23.43 babies have or are about to die.....
tick tock...tick tock...tick tock...another day another 7.81 of them!
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Common Sense Gun regulation?
Argue against the Terrorist Watch List....and HELP remove dangerous weapons from our streets! But no you would rather get your shorts in a bunch because YOU think somebody wants to take away your toys
Join the fight....use common sense! Not everyone should have guns!
hack89
(39,171 posts)I don't like people like you.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)We need more people like me...shaming people like you...because YOU are doing NOTHING!
Get on the right side of history!
hack89
(39,171 posts)you are not doing anything meaningful. Berating anonymous posters on an anonymous discussion board is worst than useless.
beevul
(12,194 posts)Surely you haven't been ignoring the tremendous gains that tactics such as the ones she uses have led to for the gun control extremist crowd, over the last couple decades.
Me, I think she should ask operation rescue how many hearts and minds those same tactics have converted to their equally rancid cause.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)Kills more than guns
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)gejohnston
(17,502 posts)which is really a meaningless term to cherry pick, and isn't really relevant. Europe had the same low murder rates when they had zero gun control laws. They passed the laws, as did UK, because of the red scare. After World War one, they feared something like the Russian Revolution or OWS. My guess that is why Billionaires like Bloomberg, Allen, and Gates are astroturfing your movement now. We are the highest in the number of guns, first or second to number of households of privately owned guns (some studies put Finland higher than us) but we are 112th in the world for murder rates.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Or do you want to throw in with those? Is that really what you aspire to? I think not! But of all the wealthy countries...75% of them live right here. WHY IS THAT you think? Do you know what mathematics is? Can you connect dots?
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)One more thing:
https://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security-technology-and-liberty/numbers-tell-story-our-governments-watchlisting-binge
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Would you have a problem if a woman shot one?
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)
virginia mountainman
(5,046 posts)If you look at the leaders and financiers of the gun control movement, you will find that it is very "wealthy" and very white... very VERY elitist.. And they tend to have their own armed bodyguards..
spin
(17,493 posts)As you pointed out they have their own armed bodyguards. Still they may have some fear as all too often they take advantage of their workers and currently the very rich are not all that popular in our nation.
They would love to become like feudal lords with their armed knights and be able to oppress the peons. They already have bought and own our elected officials.
We seem to be headed on a course where there will only be two classes in our nation, the rich and privileged and the poor who work for them. The middle class is becoming an endangered species.
The rich may be smart enough to foresee unrest in our nation. An armed popular uprising could overthrow our government and consequently endanger the lifestyle of the rich by passing new laws.
At this time the Republicans appear to support RKBA but beware of a future time when another Sandy Hook occurs and there is a Republican President and both Houses are under Republican control. Truly draconian legislation may pass and become law. I know the Democrats are now known as the Gun Control Party and the Republicans are supported by most gun owners. But Republicans may decide to throw gun owners under the bus in a heartbeat if their rich masters wish it and they sense a political value. Remember Ronald Reagan supported the passage of the Brady Bill and Bush the Younger was for extending the Federal Assault Weapons Ban.
jimmy the one
(2,708 posts)donp remarked: Surprisingly Mr. Donovan did not offer his personal checkbook to fight the laws repeal and as a show of his sincerity and good faith. So it's either a case of letting that "high moral ground" mask slip once in a while, or maybe he's an anomaly. Yeah right.
I think you're the anomaly.
Donovan was the only person who addressed council that was applauded, when he said: “I would love to see the city of Allentown join the lawsuit.”
That spurred council president Ray O’Connell to warn the audience that clapping and cheering are not appropriate at a City Council meeting. O’Connell threatened to end the meeting if it happened again. “I’m not trying to be mean or disrespectful,”
http://www.wfmz.com/news/news-regional-lehighvalley/allentown-repeals-local-gun-laws-to-avoid-tea-party-lawsuit/31108696?item=1
'I'm not trying to be mean or disrespectful', O'connell said to the audience. Yeah, right - to sarcastically quote donp.
Almost everyone who addressed council objected to Allentown’s firearms laws being weakened by the state. “This makes no sense,” city resident “Do not repeal this {existing guncontrol} law.”
“I find it really offensive that the NRA [National Rifle Association] can bully us,” said resident .. “This is insane, absolutely nuts.”
DonP's tea party hero to the rescue: very different opinion offered by city resident.. a Lehigh Valley Tea Party member .. “If you want us to obey your laws, you should obey the state laws...
Donovan said he was offended that a member of the Tea Party “comes from out of town and basically threatens the city…and tells us what we should or should not do.”
But DonP stands side by side with the tea party on this. Yuck. I'm ashamed to be on the same board as this alleged democrat, donp.
The new {progun} state law, Act 192, allows individuals or organizations to sue municipalities if they have gun laws that are stricter than state laws. Philadelphia, Pittsburgh and Lancaster, as well as some state legislators, already have filed their own lawsuits in Commonwealth Court to overturn Act 192 —which went into effect on Jan 5, 2015.
DonP
(6,185 posts)So you don't favor state preemption?
So you like the idea of every town, village and city being able to make up their own laws and ignore state laws?
State preemption is fine for voting rights. property rights and all the other areas that might impact civil rights?
Or is it just on those evil guns?
(That none of your well meaning, high moral ground, "shove it up the gun owners ass" http://www.democraticunderground.com/12628061#post4 folks can't seem to do jack shit about anyway. LoL. You guys are such a class act.
There's a reason we made sure we made sure our Dems had state preemption as part of our concealed carry laws, because we knew a-holes like Rahm would make up their own laws and ignore the state law if we hadn't.
I feel sorry for the cities that are dumb enough to use up taxpayer dollars fighting court battles they won't win.
But who knows, maybe someone besides the gun control groups will finally come up with some actual proof that the "lost or stolen" laws, magazine limits and one gun a month, have ever done anything to stop a crime or reduce gun violence.
Now be sure and mail a check to Bloomberg ETFGS/MDA this week to prove your Activism cred.
jimmy the one
(2,708 posts)donp: So you like the idea of every town, village and city being able to make up their own laws and ignore state laws?
I have few objections when it goes against what majority of residents want, & at the same time is forced thru by rightwing republican legislators backed by nra & nra money.
You in bed with rightwing republican legislators a lot it seems. Ever think of switching parties? then you could drool thinking of future rightwing gun successes.... you really aren't going to alter any elections or cost democratic seats, no matter what the election season propaganda says.
What you pejoratively ask is what the gun crowd used to do a lot themselves. Ignored gun laws & kept illegal guns hidden. Were you one of them?
Most else in your post seemed an apoplectic rant.
DonP
(6,185 posts)But keep adding straw to the idea that only right wingers care about gun rights. It's pretty funny.
It's done such a great job in the last couple of mid-terms.
Buh bye
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)DonP
(6,185 posts)You do know that Dems in every state provided support for the concealed carry wave of legislation right?
Here in Illinois Dems wrote and sponsored the entire "shall issue" concealed carry bill.
Then they passed it with supermajorities when the former Governor tried to rewrite it.
Now they're working on repealing several other old Jim Crow era gun laws.
The problem for people like you is your version of "sensible" doesn't match up with how the rest of the world defines that term.
That blind spot is why you've gone over 2 decades with no new gun legislation passing and why you are reduced to saying "it's coming soon ... really this time we mean it" as your fall back claim for a decade or more.
Been hearing that BS for the last 10 years here on DU. Ain't gonna happen.
Oh, by the way, last week in Chicago, one of your 13 year old "babies" shot and killed one man and wounded 2 others. He'll be tried as an adult. That's why it sounds so stupid to use the "baby" label indiscriminately to anyone living in the real world, as opposed to a full time residency on Fantasy Island.
jimmy the one
(2,708 posts)donP: ... thanks to Dems we now have 50 state concealed carry ... You do know that Dems in every state provided support for the concealed carry wave of legislation right?
That's speciously nutty thinking, as if the straw that broke camels back is on a par with the logs it was carrying. And only around 41 states have shall issue, ~8 or 9 still have 'may issue' which is considered 'guncontrol' & approx. 90 million people live in those 9 states for about 30% of the population still has 'may issue' gun control. Duh, donP fails the concealed carry test. Or rather he misrepresents it.
Overall, public opinion (& especially democrats by large margins) opposed shall issue in every single state prior to around 2000, but were overpowered by republican legislatures which rammed thru shall issue ccw once they got in charge (often by gerrymandering). Not one state prior to 2000 (& beyond probably) polled even a simple majority for shall issue, iow THEY DID NOT WANT SHALL ISSUE, despite the blathering BS from donP.
donP: Here in Illinois Dems wrote and sponsored the entire "shall issue" concealed carry bill.
Here the deceptive donP fails to note that Illinois dems were end played into supporting shall issue AGAINST THEIR WILLS after 2010 McDonald ruling, or else have to accept some other pro gun legislation along with it, maybe open carry iirc.
donP: The problem for people like you is your version of "sensible" doesn't match up with how the rest of the world defines that term.
The rest of the world? The rest of the world prefers gun control by a large margin, what an idiotic thing to say. The predominance of the rest of the world thinks America's gun policy makes for ugly americans, like you.
DonP
(6,185 posts)Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)When did you vote yourself to be the judge of what a true liberal is?
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)Then
are you doing here posting?
bluestateguy
(44,173 posts)Always a vague way to cook up some charges on poor or black and Hispanic people.
