A Liberal Case Against Gun Control

[bluestateguy]

I am a solidly liberal person. I don't run from the label, I embrace it. I also oppose gun control. I do so because as a liberal I believe that the things I believe in are best protected when Americans are allowed to arm themselves, free from government interference.

I support gay marriages, but if some homophobe/Freeper wants to bomb a wedding of two gay people, those folks have a right to defend themselves--with guns.

I support the right of women to choose to have or not to have an abortion. If some fundamentalistwacko wants to terrorize a reproductive clinic or a woman going to the clinic to get an abortion, that woman and her clinic escorts have the right to defend themselves--with guns.

I oppose racial profiling and hate crimes. If some Freeper wants to prove his "patriotism" by brutally beating up an Arab or a Muslim, that person has the right to defend themself--with guns.

On edit: I support voting rights for all. If some Republican "poll watcher" gets in the way of a black man at the polls that man has a right to defend his right to vote--with a gun, if necessary.

[metisnation]

1. agreed

Dems are the party of self-protection. Attack me and find out what type of bite this blue dog democrat has!

:kick:

[Toots]

2. Do we need police at all ... with guns.

:shrug:

[el_gato]

112. the origins of policing

the origins of the modern patroling police force is two-fold
to serve the needs of the merchant class, industrialization, and the need for cheap subservient labor and the other is in the enforcement of slavery, i.e. slave patrols (these two are not unrelated)

[coloradodem2005]

3. agreed.

I don't own a gun but I agree with you.

My stance is this: THere should be criminal background checks when one buys a gun but that is it. Nothing beyond that.

[FeebMaster]

16. So then

you'd support repealing the National Firearms Act, the Assault Weapons Ban, the unfortunate amendment to the Firearms Owners' Protection Act, and most of the Gun Control Act?

I must say, it's refreshing to see someone interested in getting rid of those particular laws.

[wuushew]

4. American mentality disappoints me time and time again

I don't think this country is enlightened enough to embrace a future of less violence. Given that I feel it is reasonable to embrace certain restrictions for the greater aggregate good.

[sendero]

10. Guns....

... are here and they are not going away. Reasonable controls, like background checks are fine with me. But anything more restrictive I disagree with.

[slackmaster]

94. It comes down to two issues for me

1. Reasonableness of restrictions - The perception of which differs from one individual to another, and

2. Return on investment - Precisely what greater aggregate good are we supposed to receive in return for what sacrifice of liberty?

Gun control advocates are often vague on both points, often crying "foul" when you try to make them accountable. A good example is the present US federal "assault weapons" ban, which did not really ban any guns but was a temporary moratorium on manufacturing certain items. Proponents wanted an outright ban with confiscation, but that would never have passed the Democratically controlled Congress of the time. So we worked out a compromise when it was passed in 1994: People could keep existing AWs and the ban would sunset in 10 years, at which time we'd take a close look at the results then decide what to do going forward. The record does not show any obvious improvement in public safety attributable to the ban. But to listen to the AW ban proponents hoot and holler you'd think the government is going to start handing out automatic weapons to everyone when the ban expires. (In fact it never had anything to do with automatic weapons, but you'd never know that if all you ever heard about it was propaganda.)

[PROGRESSIVE1]

5. After seeing how the Right Wing acts...

it's a good idea to have something to protect yourself with.

[metisnation]

6. Live free or Die!

I will not allow these fascist to take our freedom to be.

[Columbia]

7. Agreed

:toast:

[The Blue Knight]

8. I am far far left. I also agree we only need background checks.

[FeebMaster]

15. I'd argue that

even background checks aren't needed. Do you really think someone who intends to do harm is going to be stopped by a background check? If they don't have a criminal record, a background check isn't going to catch them. If they do, chances are they're not dumb enough to try to buy a gun where a background check will be performed. They'll just get the gun in an unregulated market.

[wuushew]

17. Many criminals are idiots

just turn on an episode of COPS and find out.

Also any Gestapo state that aims to make Amerika's borders Muslim and Mexican proof should have no problem reducing the thousands of firearms that flood into the black market.

[FeebMaster]

19. So maybe you'd catch a few

assuming they were prosecuted.

Also any Gestapo state that aims to make Amerika's borders Muslim and Mexican proof should have no problem reducing the thousands of firearms that flood into the black market.

Right. Just like they keep the drugs out.

[wuushew]

21. They have no interest in winning the unwinnable drug war

besides who has the guts to deny the CIA of one its most lucrative sources of revenue?

[Columbia]

23. So why start another unwinnable war?

That seems to be exactly what you want.

[FeebMaster]

25. If the war is unwinnable

then it doesn't matter how much interest you have in winning it. It simply can't be done. The United States has some long borders to guard along with two serious coastlines. You aren't going to prevent things you ban from coming into the country. Besides, guns are easy to make. Anyone with even a mediocre machine shop could do it.

[Columbia]

20. You think so?

"Also any Gestapo state that aims to make Amerika's borders Muslim and Mexican proof should have no problem reducing the thousands of firearms that flood into the black market."

You mean like how drugs don't exist in the United States because of the war on drugs? Certainly not a futile effort that creates a deadly blackmarket and organized crime underworld at all...

[mike1963]

9. I agree, even if you did swipe a quote from Dennis Miller.

:D

[CShine]

11. I support very strict gun control. I oppose banning guns.

Gun control will always be necessary. We cannot allow government to simply lift all gun controls and still have an effective law enforcement to deal with keeping guns out of the wrong hands. This is the real-world issue of gun control. It's where the rubber meets the road. There ARE people who need to be prevented from owning guns. There ARE good ways to do this without infringing on gunowner rights.

Too often, pro-gun types see gun control as an attempt to ban guns. That's not going to happen. Strict gun control is a very reasonable and very real-world approach. Despite all the protests of the pro-gun types, you'd actually be pretty hard-pressed to find cases where responsible citizens were denied the right to own guns. For all their bluster on the issue, the pro-gun camp really is NOT being persecuted.

Gun control is good. We need it. I will always support it because it makes good, real-world sense.

[Columbia]

12. Real World Criminals

don't care about gun control. In fact, they love it, because the fewer guns in good, law-abiding citizens hands, the better. Gun control only serves them more. You think criminals care one whit about breaking the law to get guns?

[FeebMaster]

14. Really?

Too often, pro-gun types see gun control as an attempt to ban guns. That's not going to happen. Strict gun control is a very reasonable and very real-world approach.

Bush banned a whole bunch of weapons from import in '89. Reagan banned an entire class of small arm from civilian production in '86. California has banned and confiscated a bunch of rifles. A number of cities have banned handguns. Maybe you could explain how strict gun control is reasonable and not an attempt to ban guns.

[lcordero]

13. I remember the late 1980s and the early 1990s in NYC very

vividly.
"Gun control" didn't prevent 2,245 murders in NYC in 1990.

Gun control doesn't prevent gun crimes...having a job, strict parent accountability, and strict parent supervision prevent gun crimes.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

18. 1990 was at the height of the crack epidemic, and a recession to boot

Boston had its highest murder rate ever that year, as did many large US cities. There was a crack epidemic in the inner city, coupled with a bad recession. The early '90s were horrible. Don't blame that on gun control. Blame the larger social issues that contributed to the high crime rate.

[Pithlet]

35. Exactly.

Poverty is a huge crime producer.

I don't understand why some are so up in arms about background checks. It still doesn't prevent you from owning a gun legally, unless you're a criminal. So, what is the big deal?

[FeebMaster]

36. And it doesn't stop criminals

from getting guns. So what is the point.

[Pithlet]

37. So, we dump the laws

that criminals break anyway? Because what is the point of having a law, if people are going to break it.

I don't understand that reasoning.

[FeebMaster]

38. No.

You dump laws that supposedly are there to stop criminals from getting guns but in reality only hassle honest citizens that follow the law in the first place. Either way, the criminals still get guns.

What is the point of having laws that are completely ineffective at keeping guns out of the hands of criminals?

I don't understand that reasoning.

[Pithlet]

39. Call me crazy

But I like the fact that any old whack job can't just walk into walmart and buy a gun. Criminals can get guns. Criminals can get just about any thing they want to. But I'll be damned if I think they should be able to just buy a gun like a stick of butter.

As someone who has enjoyed target shooting, and does not believe in banning guns from law abiding citizens, that "hassle" is worth it.

[FeebMaster]

40. No,

instead any old whack job can just buy a gun on the street. That's assuming said whack job can't pass a background check. If they can, well, then they can walk into walmart and buy a gun. Either way, your whack job still ends up with a gun.

You said it yourself: Criminals can get just about anything they want to.

[Pithlet]

41. Going in circles.

You still haven't convinced me that this "hassle" of a background check is worth dropping. Not all criminals and insane people have instant connections to get illegal guns. I'd much prefer they have to take the time and risk becoming more visible to law enforcement by having to search out and obtain illegal guns, then walk into any store that sells them, and buy one, no questions asked.

Sorry, but the "they can get them illegally anyway" argument just isn't that compelling.

[FeebMaster]

42. Right.

Not all criminals and insane people have instant connections to get illegal guns.

And not all people who decide they want some dope for the first time have instant connections to get illegal drugs, but they still get the drugs.

Sorry, I don't find the "maybe a background check will delay a criminal for a few hours" argument to be that convincing. Hell, toss in a waiting period and you can get a gun on the black market faster than buying it legally.

[Pithlet]

43. Funny.

I don't seem to recall mentioning a waiting period.

See, drugs aren't a weapon, as much as the anti-drug crowd may have you believe it. Nobody ever went back to the job they were fired from and offed everyone with a dime bag.

Let me get this straight; criminals can get guns anyway eventually, if they try hard enough, so lets just remove all barriers and make it even quicker and easier? I don't understand, sorry. Maybe there are some other arguments out there against background checks, and if there are, I'd love to hear them. This one just doesn't cut it.

[FeebMaster]

44. Fine.

See, drugs aren't a weapon, as much as the anti-drug crowd may have you believe it. Nobody ever went back to the job they were fired from and offed everyone with a dime bag.

The last time I checked, murder was still illegal. All those people who have gone back to the job they were fired from and offed everyone, did a background check stop them?

No you didn't mention waiting periods. I just think it's funny that in a place with waiting periods, you can buy a gun faster on the street than in a store.

How do you feel about waiting periods? Or are background checks your only sticking point. I'm a reasonable man and I'm willing to compromise. So, you're for removing the restrictions on machine guns and destructive devices, so a person could buy them with just a background check and no waiting period?

[Pithlet]

45. Not big on waiting periods.

But not because I think it is an infringement on anyone's rights, I just don't know if they're effective, since the only reason I can think of would be to allow for a more thorough background check, and I don't think that takes very long now.

How do we know if any were stopped because a person wasn't able to obtain a gun? Do you know for sure? We just know about the ones that have happened, because they were able to get a gun eventually.

Machine guns are a different matter. There are guns used for recreation and self protection, and then there are machine guns. I would be comfortable with very strict restriction against them, which definitely means more than just an average background check. I don't know what you mean by destructive devices.

I see background checks as part of being a responsible gun owner if one chooses to be so (I do not). There's nothing wrong with, if I choose to become one, the state making sure I'm not a criminal or mentally unfit. I certainly don't see it as a hassle, or an infringement on any right. I'd think that most people would be pretty darn glad that there's at least some sort of barrier, even if some incorrectly assume it is a sham, to gun ownership for criminals.

[FeebMaster]

46. Right.

How do we know if any were stopped because a person wasn't able to obtain a gun? Do you know for sure? We just know about the ones that have happened, because they were able to get a gun eventually.

Right. Because someone who wants to kill a bunch of people is going to get cold feet over buying a gun on the street. That's assuming he can't pass a background check in the first place.


Machine guns are a different matter. There are guns used for recreation and self protection, and then there are machine guns. I would be comfortable with very strict restriction against them, which definitely means more than just an average background check. I don't know what you mean by destructive devices.

Well machine guns are already heavily regulated with more than a basic background check involved in buying one. Interestingly, in 1986 Reagan banned future civilian production of machine guns, freezing the supply. When the last civilian machine gun breaks, they'll effectively be banned.

I see no point in continuing this background check discussion. Obviously you think they work and clearly the lack of gun crime in the United States backs you up. Feel free to get the last word in.

[Pithlet]

47. Last word.

Thank you for being so gracious.

I just don't think criminals have a right to purchase a gun legally the way I and any other law abiding citizen do. You haven't convinced me, that's all. I apologize if I've upset you in any way.

You don't have to answer, since clearly you seem to be done with me. But, just in case, I'll ask: What is it about background checks that bother you?

[FeebMaster]

49. I'm happy to answer.

I'm not upset. It's just that as far as I'm concerned, background checks are pointless. If a criminal wants a gun he can buy one on the street. Nothing can change that. If a law abiding citizen wants a gun, they can pass a background check. Who knows? Later that law abiding citizen might become a formerly law abiding citizen and murder someone with the gun they passed a background check to buy.

Anyway you slice it, background checks or not, some people are going to do unpleasant things with guns and anything else they can get their hands on. As far as I'm concerned, the rest of us who don't plan on violating all sorts of laws should be on equal ground as far as self defense is concerned.

[Pithlet]

51. Fair enough.

The way I see it, there is a difference between buying a gun in a store, and buying it illegally off the street. I don't think a law becomes pointless simply because there's a way for some to circumvent it. I don't believe that all have the capability to do so. I do get your point that it doesn't prevent all gun crimes. I don't think there is any law that can do that.

I think the reason I was sticking to my point was more out of a sense that it really isn't always about keeping law abiding citizens from guns. Sometimes I think that there are practical solutions that don't infringe on anyone's rights, and I see background checks as one of those, even if it won't prevent every crime. There are some who are anti-gun and would like to see them banned, but I think there are more people who see it more like I do. I wouldn't be so averse to groups like the NRA, for example, if they weren't so stubbornly against any kind of regulation at all.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

22. agree 100%

"Don't tread on me".

[Hippo_Tron]

24. I'm for responsible gun ownership and for reasonable controls...

As are many democrats

[Columbia]

26. What do you consider reasonable?

If I may ask. And who gets to decide what is reasonable?

[Djinn]

27. and back in the real world

I support gay marriages, but if some homophobe/Freeper wants to bomb a wedding of two gay people, those folks have a right to defend themselves--with guns.

I don't know if they've made a gun that can sniff out a bomb and defuse it - but I may be wrong not being too au fait with small arm trends

I support the right of women to choose to have or not to have an abortion. If some fundamentalistwacko wants to terrorize a reproductive clinic or a woman going to the clinic to get an abortion, that woman and her clinic escorts have the right to defend themselves--with guns.

if the whackjobs are yelling abuse I dont see how this helps; being called a vile hell bound slut still isn't fun. If said whackjobs are ALSO armed you just get a shoot out (a gun will only shoot someone else not protect YOU from bullets

I oppose racial profiling and hate crimes. If some Freeper wants to prove his "patriotism" by brutally beating up an Arab or a Muslim, that person has the right to defend themself--with guns.

this one's easy - the arab or muslim would INSTANTLY be beaten up and arrested and quite possibly sent to Gitmo. At the very least it'd give plenty of media outlets the opportunity to talk about the "resort to violence" of "these muslims"

On edit: I support voting rights for all. If some Republican "poll watcher" gets in the way of a black man at the polls that man has a right to defend his right to vote--with a gun, if necessary.

Amadou Diallo couldn't even get his wallet out his pocket but you think a black man would get away with shooting a republican "poll watcher" ??

[KG]

28. A Liberal Case for gun violence

gotta conflict? well, just shoot the mofo, conflict resolved.

how amusing.

[FeebMaster]

29. No one has

suggested making murder legal.

[Liberal Classic]

*stands ready*

To be punted to the dungeon. :)

[FeebMaster]

31. heh probably

I find the occasional gun thread in General Discussion refreshing. There are lots of reasonable people up here.

[DU GrovelBot]

30. ## Support Democratic Underground! ##

RUN C:\GROVELBOT.EXE
 
This week is our first quarter 2004 fund drive.
Please take a moment to donate to DU. Thank you
for your support.
 
- An automated message from the DU GrovelBot

Click here to donate.

[Vickers]

32. GROVELBOT looks armed

Good doggie.

I like guns. Founding Fathers liked guns.

I'll trust them.

[Sandpiper]

48. The Founding Fathers liked Slavery too

And didn't care much for voting rights for anyone other than white male land owners. The founding fathers did much that was good, but please don't try to make them into a bunch of all knowing oracles. They weren't.

[Vickers]

52. Yes, I'm sorry I called them all-knowing oracles

My bad, dude!

:eyes:

[Sandpiper]

98. I'm sorry for attacking your impeccable reasoning

What a compelling reason for opposing gun control:

The founding fathers liked guns, so I like them too.

:eyes:

Thank you for the insight Justice Scalia.

[Vickers]

109. Sorry dude, I trust their judgement more than yours

Still friends though, right?

[Sandpiper]

116. Of course

[K-W]

33. Thats about the worst argument against gun control Ive ever seen.

Your examples are absolutely ludacris. In all cases using the gun would result in a much worse situation for you then a nonviolent reaction.

Having the ability to kill anyone around you at your will may be fun, but im not sure its worth living in a society full of instantaneous death machines.

[el_gato]

85. insane to support gun control while the government is turning fascist

simple as that

[Muddleoftheroad]

34. The amendments

It is good to see someone who consistently supports the rights enshrined in ALL the amendments, not just most.

[guitar man]

50. I support gun control

sight picture,breath control and squeeze,don't pull or jerk,the trigger. that's good gun control,guaranteed to waste less ammo!

[OhioStateProgressive]

53. I disagree

We will never end violence in America until the guns go away.

[Fla_Democrat]

56. Yes, cause everyone knows

no one ever died before guns were invented. No military ever tried to conquer the known world with out guns. Unless you count those pesky Romans. :evilgrin:

[OhioStateProgressive]

57. hmmm

armed societies have higher crime rates than unarmed ones

[Muddleoftheroad]

60. Not necessarily cause and effect

In America's case, we are just a pretty violent group. As such, we are drawn to guns to protect us from each other. Perhaps the mere fact that we are an immigrant nation entirely AND founded (and secured) by violence make it so.

[OhioStateProgressive]

61. I don't buy that argument

not for one second...there is no justification to say we are a more violent group than other societies...they have just as much violence...but LESS guns

[Muddleoftheroad]

66. Not true

Take a look at our NON-gun murder stats sometime. They even beat other nation's murder stats. Then there are the massive numbers of assaults and such.

Face it, we do have a violent culture.

[Withergyld]

82. Incorrect

Accoridng to the UN ICVS The UK has a higher crime rate then the US.

http://www.unicri.it/icvs/publications/pdf_files/key2000i/index.htm
"The ICVS allows an overall measure of victimisation which is the percentage of people victimised once or more in the previous year by any of the eleven crimes covered by the survey. This prevalence measure is a simple but robust indicator of overall proneness to crime. The countries fall into three bands.
- Above 24% (victim of any crime in 1999): Australia, England and Wales, the Netherlands and Sweden
- 20%-24%: Canada, Scotland, Denmark, Poland, Belgium, France, and USA
- Under 20%: Finland, Catalonia (Spain), Switzerland, Portugal, Japan and Northern Ireland.
<snip>
Contact crime

An overall measure of contact crime was taken as robbery, assaults with force, and sexual assaults (against women only). The highest risks were in Australia, England and Wales, Canada, Scotland and Finland: over 3% were victims. This was more than double the level in USA, Belgium, Catalonia, Portugal, and Japan (all under 2%). In Japan the risk of contact crime was especially low (0.4%).

Robbery

Robbery was comparatively uncommon in all countries. Risks were highest in 1999 in Poland (1.8%), England and Wales, and Australia (both 1.2%). By far the lowest risks were in Japan and Northern Ireland (0.1%). On average, just over a third of victims of robbery said the offender(s) carried a weapon of some sort - in most cases a knife. There was a higher than average use of weapons in the USA, Catalonia, Scotland, and Portugal. Although not very statistically robust, the data indicate that guns were used relatively more often in Catalonia and the USA.
<snip>
Assaults and threats

Taking all countries together, 3.5% were victims once or more of assaults or threats in 1999. Risks were highest in Australia, Scotland, England and Wales (about 6%) and Canada (5%). Risks were lowest in Japan, Portugal, (under 1%) and Catalonia (1.5%). Offenders were known in about half the incidents overall. Men were less likely to know offenders than women. Weapons (especially knifes) were said to have been used (if only as a threat) in just under a quarter of incidents."
:hi:

[Mairead]

54. The socialist case against gun control: Bush, Ashcroft, Scalia, Rehnquist

[MrBenchley]

99. Funny, they're all opposed to gun control too

In fact, just about EVERY racist and scumbag that can be found is trumpeting this bogus "gun rights" crap...and just about every liberal organization you can think of ended up on the NRA enemies list.

[MadHound]

55. Thank you to committing yourself to making my neighborhood a living hell

That is exactly what is going to happen if we act on this starry eyed impulse of yours to be rid of gun controls. Why you ask? Let me tell you how the scam works.

Nervous, edgy mostly white suburbanites see the latest fear mongering new piece about street violence downtown, and finally get scared enough to go out and buy a gun. Of course being out in the 'burbs, these nice people don't have to deal with drive bys or street violence, so the fear gradually fades, and the gun fades from conciousness. Until a year or two later when somebody breaks into the suburban house while everyone is gone(the most favored time to break in). The housebreaker is cruising for whatever can be found, and sure enough, there in the hubby's underwear is that fine gun. And since hubby was a little insecure about his own package, when he went out gun shopping he went out and found himself a nice big .357 mag to make himself feel more secure about his manhood.

Well, yoiks, there goes that fine .357 down the hall and out the door. Through various convaluted passages that big old gun winds up in MY neighborhood, shooting up MY house, or MY family.

And you want restrictions gone? ARE YOU FUCKING NUTS?! The last thing we need is some insecure suburbanite getting nervous about both crime and his manhood, and then going out and getting an Uzi for "protection" All that will happen is that it will come back down to my neighborhood and kill me! Look people, life down here is rough enough with the weak gun controls that we have now. Don't you dare take what little restrictions there are away. You will be condemning millions to a living hell. If anything, make the restrictions tighter, thus making the black market price go up, thus making the guns shooting up my neighborhood much more scarce.

But hey, I guess everybody needs a penile compensatory mechanism now eh?

[moderate_hero]

59. Rather contradictory of you

Let me see if I get it, madhound. You don't want gun controls to go away because criminals might get guns illegally from those who got their guns legally. How would any gun controls stop that from happening?

I support all Amendments to the Constitution. I don't like anyone's free speech to be stopped as much as I don't like my Second Amendment rights "infringed" upon.

[OhioStateProgressive]

62. you have the right to join a well regulated militia

and to carry a gun when doing so...show me where the US Constitution gives you any rights otherwise pertaining to guns

[moderate_hero]

64. The militia you speak of

is all of us, individually. Ever read the Federalist Papers? Alexander Hamilton is quite clear what he meant by the Second Amendment in number 29. Also, where in the Second Amendment does it use the word "join"?

Why is it that the ACLU is quick to jump on any and every perceived notion that church has not been entirely separated from state, yet when it comes to gun control they are strangely silent on laws diminishing the Second Amendment. Again, just as I deplore religious rights to be infringed upon, I hate gun ownership to be infringed upon.

[Withergyld]

83. Title 10 section 311 of the United States Code defines "militia" as

"Sec. 311. - Militia: composition and classes
(a)The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b)The classes of the militia are -

(1)the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2)the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia"

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/311.html

Any questions on who is a member of the Militia??

:hi:

[MadHound]

70. Then let me put this in terms you can understand

If we do away with the gun controls we have now and the ever fearful suburbanites can go out and get any gun they wish, then most likely in the grand SUV macho tradition these testosterone challenged couch potatoes will promptly go out and get the biggest, baddest mofo gun they can get their sweaty little paws on. Since most criminals can't and won't buy their guns legally, they will instead swarm to the 'burbs and pick up all of these fine automatic weapons, and within a day I will have Uzis and AK-47s shooting up my neighborhood. Not a good thing.

Now then, if we banned all handguns(I mean really now, why do you need such a gun? Even the NRA has stated that the best gun for home defense is a 12 gauge, either pump or double barrel shotgun), insecure suburbanites will not be able to purchase them. Thiefs won't be able to steal what isn't there, and many fewer handguns will be shooting up my neighborhood. With such banning, the law of supply and demand takes over and black market handguns would become so expensive so as to price them right out of the reach of your ordinary criminal. Less gun violence in my neighborhood.

And its nice you support the Constitution, so do I. But I don't think that the Second amendment precludes having sensible gun control measures in place. If that was the case, then why not allow everybody to have an artillery piece? Or better yet, a nuke? So the question becomes where do you draw the line. We all certainly agree that artillery pieces and nukes are over that line. Most people agree that full automatics are over the line. And a growing group of people agree that handguns are over the line. Our country is grounded in the concept of majority rule. The majority of people in this country favor sensible gun control. They shouldn't be held hostage by a minority of fanatics who wish to subvert the will of the people.

[waylon]

71. Guns are illegal in Mexico

and its working out great down there! There are alot of (illegal) guns coming in from mexico. How do more laws stop that?

[MadHound]

73. Sorry, that's a suckers' arguement and you know it!

I mean c'mon, we all know how fine and upstanding Mexico's law enforcement forces are:eyes: Try a real example, like Britain, how many illegal guns do we have coming in from Britain?

And once again, if you ban certain classes of gun(and enforce it)s, you make them too expensive for the common criminal to own and use. Hence gun use goes down. Got that, or am I being too obtuse for you?

[waylon]

74. Not if you understand it

Its not a suckers argument, its a reality. Pass all the gun laws you want, cheap guns will always be available. Since we seem to agree that Mexico's enforcement of their gun laws is worthless, why do you think stricter gun laws here would stop the influx from south of the border?

What you propose is the same ole plea. Take away MY rights to own a gun knowing full well it wont have an impact on the "illegal" gun trade.

[MadHound]

81. Economics/Black Market 101

When you make something illegal and enforce the laws, the price for said illegal item goes UP, not down. To witness this in action all you have to do is observe the drug trade. Or if you want it in guns terms, go to your neighborhood black market gun dealer. Ask for a Kalashnikov or Uzi, and be prepared for your jaw to drop when he tells you that the price for said item is 2-5 times greater than it was when the weapon was legal. Very simple very basic, it is called the law of supply and demand.

And you worry about your rights, what about my right to live? You go out to your local gun show, buy a piece and then said weapon winds up in my neighborhood in the wrong hands being pointed at me. If you didn't have the gun in the first place, then I wouldn't have to worry about facing the business end of it. But NOOOOO, its always about ME ME ME with the gun freaks. Well, people like me, we a right to live, and quite frankly the right to live trumps the right to a gun anyday. Why should a person die just because you wanted a handgun?

[Name removed]

84. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[waylon]

87. Woops

My point was that neither the drug laws work nor did prohibition. Why would prohibition on guns work?

[slackmaster]

89. I think you are unclear on the black market in firearms

Your statement about how banning an item affects the price seems like sound economic theory on the surface, but you have not accounted for the global nature of the supply side for firearms.

...Ask for a Kalashnikov or Uzi, and be prepared for your jaw to drop when he tells you that the price for said item is 2-5 times greater than it was when the weapon was legal.

In fact there are a fixed number of selective fire (automatic) Kalashnikovs and Uzis that ARE legal to own in the US because they are registered under the provisions of the National Firearms Act, and their values are artifically high because of the finite supply. Some items like this M16 go for about 10 times what they would be worth in an unrestricted market.

http://www.gunbroker.com/auction/ViewItem.asp?Item=15772618

But that is not the whole picture. There is a black market where prices are substantially lower than on the legal one because they are being imported in significant quantities from countries like China, Brazil the Phillipines, and Eastern Europe. This includes illegal machineguns like the ones used by the infamous Los Angeles bank robbers, and counterfeits of popular handguns. Also many black market weapons were stolen from legitimate owners. Like any other black market item you can't demand full price because the items carry risk of arrest.

The bottom line is it's a global market. Nothing the US does internally will ever stop production of weapons of all kinds elsewhere in the world, and as long as there is a demand for them here supply will find a way. The situation is analogous to the illegal drug market.

...And you worry about your rights, what about my right to live? You go out to your local gun show, buy a piece and then said weapon winds up in my neighborhood in the wrong hands being pointed at me....

Your hypothetical scenario weakly attempts to place blame for a criminal act on someone who was in fact the victim of a crime. I store my weapons responsibly, but I will not be held responsible for the actions of a criminal who defeats my defenses and steals from me.

...Well, people like me, we a right to live, and quite frankly the right to live trumps the right to a gun anyday. Why should a person die just because you wanted a handgun?...

False dilemma. I can own a handgun without putting you at any significant risk.

[Sandpiper]

101. If gun control is so futile

Why is that Japan, with some of the strictest gun control laws in the world, has a rate of gun violence that is 100 times lower than that of the United States. That's right, you heard me. In Japan, you are 100 times less likely to be killed with a firearm than you are in the good old US of A.

Someone really needs to tell them that gun control doesn't work. :eyes:

[waylon]

104. Same argument works for swimming pool deaths too!

Should we ban swimming pools!

And yes, criminals in Japan still have guns

[Withergyld]

105. I has to do with culture NOT gun ownership

[Sandpiper]

106. I just knew someone was going

To trot out that old favorite NRA canard.

"I has to do with culture NOT gun ownership"

The U.S. has the most guns floating around of any first world nation. The U.S. also has the highest number and highest rates of total gun deaths, gun homicides, and gun suicides.

But of course, the one has nothing to do with the other. It's all cultural. Charlton Heston and the Washington Times told me so.
:eyes:

[waylon]

107. We also have the most illegal drug deaths

But of course, the one has nothing to do with the other

[Withergyld]

108. I don't need the NRA to figure this out

Take guns out of the equation and look at overall crime rates.
Some Gun Control Advocates claim that reducing access to firearms will reduce suicide rates.
Which country has a higher suicide rate? US , UK or Japan?
For men:
Japan, 25 per 100,000
US, 19.8 per 100,000
UK, 11 per 100,000
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/hea_sui_rat_mal
For women:
Japan, 12 per 100,000
US, 4.4 per 100,000
UK, 3.3 per 100,000
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/hea_sui_rat_fem

What about burglary rates??
Japan, 2.33 per 1,000
US, 7.48 per 1,000
UK, 13.99 per 1,000
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_bur_cap

Or lets look at the UN ICVS figures
http://www.unicri.it/icvs/publications/pdf_files/key2000i/index.htm
"The ICVS allows an overall measure of victimisation which is the percentage of people victimised once or more in the previous year by any of the eleven crimes covered by the survey. This prevalence measure is a simple but robust indicator of overall proneness to crime. The countries fall into three bands.
- Above 24% (victim of any crime in 1999): Australia, England and Wales, the Netherlands and Sweden
- 20%-24%: Canada, Scotland, Denmark, Poland, Belgium, France, and USA
- Under 20%: Finland, Catalonia (Spain), Switzerland, Portugal, Japan and Northern Ireland.
<snip>
Contact crime

An overall measure of contact crime was taken as robbery, assaults with force, and sexual assaults (against women only). The highest risks were in Australia, England and Wales, Canada, Scotland and Finland: over 3% were victims. This was more than double the level in USA, Belgium, Catalonia, Portugal, and Japan (all under 2%). In Japan the risk of contact crime was especially low (0.4%).

Robbery

Robbery was comparatively uncommon in all countries. Risks were highest in 1999 in Poland (1.8%), England and Wales, and Australia (both 1.2%). By far the lowest risks were in Japan and Northern Ireland (0.1%). On average, just over a third of victims of robbery said the offender(s) carried a weapon of some sort - in most cases a knife. There was a higher than average use of weapons in the USA, Catalonia, Scotland, and Portugal. Although not very statistically robust, the data indicate that guns were used relatively more often in Catalonia and the USA.
<snip>
Assaults and threats

Taking all countries together, 3.5% were victims once or more of assaults or threats in 1999. Risks were highest in Australia, Scotland, England and Wales (about 6%) and Canada (5%). Risks were lowest in Japan, Portugal, (under 1%) and Catalonia (1.5%). Offenders were known in about half the incidents overall. Men were less likely to know offenders than women. Weapons (especially knifes) were said to have been used (if only as a threat) in just under a quarter of incidents."

The UK has a higher overall crime rate, The US is in the middle and Japan has the lowest. Gun owneship in the US is common, however gun ownership in the UK and Japan is rare

What accounts for the difference in crime rates between the UK and Japan?? Obviously it is not access to firearms.

If it is not culture or firearms then what accounts for the differences in crime rates?

[beevul]

75. What you should be asking...

is how many illegal guns are going IN to Britain, not comparing it with Mexico-the country on the other side of that unguarded imaginary line in the desert 15 minutes from where I sit typing this.

[waylon]

76. Good point

[beevul]

79. They are testing...

this:

"And once again, if you ban certain classes of gun(and enforce it)s, you make them too expensive for the common criminal to own and use."

in Britain.

Heres one example of how thats working out:


"Father and son guilty of gun racket"


"William and Mitchell Greenwood denied selling the gun "kits"
A father and son supplied criminals with hundreds of deactivated guns and "kits" to convert them into live weapons."

"Police estimate as many as 3,000 weapons sold by the family were likely to still be in the hands of criminals."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/derbyshire/3416831.stm

[Spoonman]

100. WRONG!!!!!!

Guns are not illegal in Mexico!
I hunt down there frequently, and I can either do the pile of paperwork to take my gun, or I can use one of my friends guns down there.

[waylon]

115. Exceptoins aside.. guns are illegal in Mexico

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/smallarms/articles/2003/0413mex.htm

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

65. what sexist crap

Hey - we all like to make jokes in the weapons-as-penis genre. Why don't you get back to us when violence is eliminated, wealth is distributed equally, and our government isn't in the hands of fascists? Maybe in the fantasy world that some people live in, violence doesn't happen and you don't have to ever defend yourself.

"make the restrictions tighter, thus making the black market price go up, thus making the guns shooting up my neighborhood much more scarce."

Yes, only rich people should be armed. Are you going to demand that we close the borders and cancel NAFTA, which makes it easy, easy, easy to import guns illegally? Or would that disurb the profit margins of the yuppies that you seem to believe should be the only ones allowed to afford guns?

"But hey, I guess everybody needs a penile compensatory mechanism now eh?"

Those kind of jokes *are* funny, and I make them myself sometimes - but they are *jokes* and don't represent reality. Sorry.

[MadHound]

77. Hey, did you even read my post?

What I am advocating IS taking guns out of the hands of the suburbanites, what part of my post did you not understand? Rich scared 'burbians go out and buy guns. Guns are stolen, migrate through the usual channels and wind up in urban neighborhoods like mine, killing innocent people. Gee, don't you think that if we made handguns illegal, rich 'burbians would stop buying them(being the fine law abiding citizens they are), hence the supply would go down, thus the price becomes prohibitivly expensive for your common criminal, and my inner city neighborhood experiences less handgun violence. Is that clear enough for you, or do you simply off half cocked when somebody threatens your precious firearms?

And the reality of the matter regarding guns and penile compensation is a joke, but also the reality. Psychologists and sociologists from Freud down through today have always regarded guns as a sexual compensation mechanism. If you don't believe me, go to your local college book store and check out any second year psych book. Better yet, go to your local library and check out the literature on this subject there.

And yes, I would love to see NAFTA repealed, but that is material for another thread.

[waylon]

78. Wow, you get heated up

"And the reality of the matter regarding guns and penile compensation is a joke, but also the reality. Psychologists and sociologists from Freud down through today have always regarded guns as a sexual compensation mechanism."

If you are buying guns for some sexual compensation mechanism... BE CAREFUL!

}(

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

90. you're wrong on both counts

You just said you want to make guns more expensive - meaning that only the rich can afford them. As far as guns = penises - psychology and sociology are "soft sciences" meaning not a science at all. Sorry, it's a joke, NOT reality. Freud? NOT a scientist, he did NOT use the scientific method. Sorry.

[slackmaster]

91. I've read a lot of Freud but never seen evidence of your claim

That he ever regarded a gun as penile compensation.

Got quote or a link or cite to a specific work that I can verify?

[waylon]

92. Not that i am defending but...

Freud regarded everything as a fallic symbol. He lived in the upper crust Victorian world dealing with stuffy young women who were sexually frustrated.


If he didnt make that direct assertion, he probably would have in this day. Still doesnt make his/her argument valid but, it is Freudian

[slackmaster]

96. Sure, and Freud also said sometimes a cigar is just a cigar

There's a difference between a phallic symbol and a penis compensator. My challenge stands.

[FatSlob]

118. That doesn't make sense.

Punish the law abiding for the criminal misbehaviour of others? Anyway, I support background checks. Otherwise, I don't think any new laws will have effect on the problem. Open to more information and other opinions, though...so give them to me!

[alwynsw]

93. Drivel

Hey - we all like to make jokes in the weapons-as-penis genre. Why don't you get back to us when violence is eliminated, wealth is distributed equally, and our government isn't in the hands of fascists? Maybe in the fantasy world that some people live in, violence doesn't happen and you don't have to ever defend yourself.

The emboldened portion in particular. We worked our asses off for what we have and I'll be damned if I'm going to voluntarily divvy it up with the less industrious. As I recall, the Soviets tried that little tactic.

I'm not diving into the rest of your post because it seems to be getting the attention it deserves from others.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

97. no, the Soviets did NOT try that tactic

The Soviets never once in any way shape nor form tried to distribute wealthy equally - on the contrary, their rich class were people close to the state - just like ours.

"We worked our asses off for what we have and I'll be damned if I'm going to voluntarily divvy it up with the less industrious. "

Bwa ha ha. Yeah, all those CEOs living off of corporate welfare from my taxes "worked" to get it.

Put it to you this way - when you are printing your own money, paying for your own courts, building your own highways, and not pillaging other countries for cheap raw materials - then you can talk about "working your ass off". Sure you didn't mean "libertarianyuppieunderground.com"?

You know the GOP has the "Republican Liberty Caucus" for libertarian types, right?

[alwynsw]

120. Read the history

'nuff said.

BTW. Retired CEO here. Founder of the compay. Several millions in personal debt to get it afloat. All repaid. Public company. We never sought or accepted "corporate welfare". Narrow your diatribe. Not all fit your mold.

[beevul]

58. Definitely...

DUngeon material, complete with genitalic phallusy, and all.:evilgrin:

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

63. The problem is gun control advocates are liars

They tell us over and over again they "just" want background checks, they "just" want to keep guns out of the hands of criminals - and then they ban all guns - just like England, just like Australia, just like Nazi Germany. Thus leaving the criminals and cops armed, and citizens disarmed. What part of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" do you not understand?

Stop lying and maybe we'll cooperate.

[Muddleoftheroad]

67. It is impossible to negotiate when the enemy wants everything

Sometimes, even the NRA makes sense. In a normal society, perhaps we could make compromises and actually work out some agreements on ways to limit guns and be done with it. But, much like abortion, that can't be the case.

Just as there are anti-Choice forces out there seeking to ELIMINATE abortion, there are anti-gun forces seeking to ELIMINATE gun rights.

That means every compromise, every agreement chips away at the rights. Each time, the line of compromise is moved ever closer to losing those rights entirely.

I am pro-Choice. It is an issue of freedom.

I am pro-gun. It is an issue of freedom.

[Sandpiper]

102. How right your are

It is impossible to negotiate when the enemy wants everything.

The problem with the NRA is that they oppose any reasonable restriction on the purchase and sale of firearms.

[waylon]

103. I dont blame them necessarily

Its a slippery slope. The more rights the feds take away, the less free we are. Reasonable restrictions is a term neither side is familiar with!

[BradCKY]

68. Second Amendment

Let's stop at the background checks we already have, the second amendment is very clear about the right to bear arms.

[moderate_hero]

69. Absolutely

People scream about the "in your face" attack on rights that the Patriot Act entails, yet do not see the creeping attack of "gun control."

[sendero]

72. It never ceases to amaze me...

... that the same fine minds who accept and agree that drug prohibition will never work somehow think gun prohibition will.

Get a clue. I don't like our violent culture any more than you do but I prefer owning guns myself to curling up in the fetal position.

[MrBenchley]

80. Too funny...

That's your view of society...that we ought to have running gun battles at regular intervals? And the totality of the "liberal" argument against gun control turns out to be a series of Chuck Norris-type fantasies?

Holy Koresh forbid we do anything to keep loonies who might disrupt a gay wedding/women's health clinic/beat up Muslims from arming themselves in the first place...

Call me crazy but I think enforcing the Voting Rights Act might be a better idea than having a shoot-out at the polling place every ten minutes.

[el_gato]

86. typical straw man bench

nobody here is talking about having gun battles every ten minutes
but you can restate arguements in order to have something you would
rather argue against than deal with what was really presented if you want. Just don't get upset when I laugh at you.

[MrBenchley]

88. No straw man at all gato

All this "case" boils down to is a handful of puerile fantasies.

[el_gato]

110. your just upset

at the sight of another gun totin' liberal

[CO Liberal]

95. Not "Liberal" - More Like "Vigilante"

IMHO.

[el_gato]

111. too bad

you can always fall back on the all-gun-owners-are-racist-hatemongers line

[CO Liberal]

113. I Didn't Say That.....

I just said that the original post in this thread sounds too much like taking the law into your own hand for me.

[Columbia]

114. Actually

More like defending themselves from people who want to hurt them.

You wouldn't be against that would you?

[FatSlob]

117. I disagree

Self defense has nothing to do with vigilantism.

[CO Liberal]

119. There's a Thin Line...

...between "self-defense" and "taking care of your enemies".

[FatSlob]

121. I can see your point

but, I still disagree with you.

[Wickerman]

122. Locking this thread

closing this pantload up, too.

;)