You know I am still way more troubled over the killing of those little children

[malaise]

and their teachers/administrators at Sandy Hook than over the 'beheadings' or burning people alive in war zones that we Westerners ignited. And the lack of reining in the gun lovers is even worse than the slaughter of innocents.

[ChosenUnWisely]

1. the bottom line is that not enough white kids have been killed or maimed

due to gun violence

Once enough rich white kids get popped things will change, until then invest in funeral services, cemeteries and casket makers, might as well make a few bucks.

[whathehell]

17. "not enough white kids have been killed or maimed due to gun violence"?!

What a load of offensive swill, especially coming on the heels of the Newtown reference, where

at least 98% of the victims were white.

[ChosenUnWisely]

34. Has gun violence stopped since Newton? Nope, INCREASED. I rest my case.

[whathehell]

42. I think you misunderstand me, I am appalled at our country's gun laws

and absolutely sickened by the deaths at Newtown, the killing of Trayvon

Martin and ALL the innocents whose lives are needlessly taken by "stand your ground"

laws and our insanely dangerous gun culture.

[Major Nikon]

39. Black Americans are more than twice as likely to die from gun violence than whites

If the gun homicide rates for whites was the same as it is for blacks, there wouldn't be a gun control debate in this country.

[whathehell]

43. If true, I stand corrected -- In any case, I despise the LACK of sensible gun laws in this country.

It's despicable.

[bravenak]

52. I'm with you.

It's disgusting.

[ChosenUnWisely]

61. 100% Correct another alternative to waiting for more people to die is for lots of non white

Americans to buy guns and open carry in groups.

Another way to fast track the gun control debate.

[itcfish]

55. Newton, Columbine

Mostly white kids. Bullets are color blind my friend.

[ChosenUnWisely]

62. Like I said not enough yet

especially not enough rick white kids.

Sorry to be so direct but that is just the way this country works.

[JI7]

2. they were all horrible. but our reaction to sandy hook is worse

Because a bunch of kids were shot and killed in their class and seven that did not bring any change in gun laws.

[Shamash]

8. Thank goodness France has strict gun regulation and a total assault rifle ban

Otherwise, who knows what might have happened if a couple crazies took offense at what some journalists had written.

To be less snarky, if >99.9% of gun owners are not part of the problem, then laws predominately affecting them are not part of the solution. If you want the support of gun owners in reforming gun control laws (remembering that >30% of Democrats are gun owners), then a good start would be to propose laws that do not presume gun owners in general are the problem.

Otherwise you are in the same moral position as someone who wants to restrict all men because a tiny minority are violent rapists, restrict all religions because a tiny minority are violent extremists or stop & frisk all young black men because a tiny minority are violent criminals. What happens? You instantly lose the support of that entire group and any politician who thinks they need that group to keep getting elected. In the case of guns, potentially 30% of the Democratic vote.

So, if you aim your ire at the actual problem rather than at all of "those people who look different than you", you won't get 25% of Senate Democrats voting against your proposed solution, which is exactly what happened with the Feinstein assault weapon ban last time it came up.

The knee-jerk "we gotta do something!" reaction that affects all gun owners hurts Democrats and helps Republicans. The Colorado recall election in 2013 proved that. Democrats outspent Republicans 6 to 1 and showed up at the polls with a 3 to 2 advantage over Republicans, in a recall election against two Democratic legislators from Obama+20 districts. And both Democrats lost their jobs. On a gun control issue.

Because moderate Democrats who owned guns voted against them.

We also lost Mark Udall(formerly D-Co), contributing to the new Republican Senate majority in Congress, and the Colorado legislature is now majority Republican. And the very first thing they did was put forth a bill to repeal Colorado's new gun laws. It won't pass, but only because we kept a Democratic governor by a 90,000 vote margin for a population of 5.4 million.

So I'm not exactly sure how the current tactic of demonizing all gun owners (especially here at DU) is reaping rewards in terms of a) keeping liberals in office and b) getting useful gun control measures passed.

[Hoppy]

10. Of what, would such a law consist?

[CTyankee]

11. no, progressives are not demonizing all gun owners.

We now have more guns but in the hands of fewer gun owners. And to rely on one incident of terrorism to conflate the relative gun safety in a Western European country with what gun safety laws we have in this country is just silly. International terrorism is a huge problem but it is a separate one from the gun safety debate in this country.

[LanternWaste]

38. seeing that the U.S. has the highest absolute number of gun owners in the world

Seeing that the U.S. has the highest per capita gun ownership rate in the word, and seeing that the U.S. has the highest absolute number of gun owners in the world, your martyrdom in regards to gun ownership comes off as both stale and self-serving.

[Shamash]

47. How exactly is pointing out intolerance...martyrdom?

Let's try your judging standards with some other group and see how it sounds:

Seeing that the U.S. has the highest per capita number of homosexuals in the world, and seeing that the U.S. has the highest absolute number of homosexuals in the world, your martyrdom in regards to gay rights comes off as both stale and self-serving.

Wow, if you had said that to a gay DU member complaining about constant insults from other DU members, you would be a complete and utter dick. So I guess it is a good thing you didn't say that and only said it about gun owners, because they're the all-purpose DU punching bag where anything can be said without any logic, consistency, evidence or justification and it will never be counted against you.

Oh look, there's Brother Ivan saying that this country is unsafe for everyone except gun owners! See previous statement about logic...

[Bjorn Against]

63. People are born gay, nobody is born a gun owner

In your hidden post above which you had to yell out the N word for all to hear you showed you don't know the difference between being a vile racist and saying things that make gun owners sad. Now you are doing the same thing to gays.

A person's race or sexual orientation is part of who they are, nobody is born with a gun in their hand however.

Comparing racism and homophobia to ownership of a material object is just plain stupid and offensive.

[BrotherIvan]

40. Sounds just like the Christians who wail about being persecuted

Every 2A Extremist I have ever seen on this board will write on a thread about dead kids that easy, unlimited access to guns should not be curtailed in any way. Your dead kids don't trump my rights!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Gunners are the ones who are advocating for a status quo that means more dead innocent people and kids. You want to make this country unsafe for everyone but you. And you're whining about being called bad names? Oh please.

[Shamash]

46. Ecological fallacy

A logical fallacy in the interpretation of statistical data where inferences about the nature of individuals are deduced from inference for the group to which those individuals belong.

example: "You are a gun owner so you are part of the gun violence problem."

[BrotherIvan]

48. You are crying about being called bad names

while you are advocating for a system of gun ownership which is the most statistically violent in the world. You don't see the irony in that? You don't understand why some would have more sympathy for those murdered by guns than those who care so much about them?

If gun owners didn't pull a Charles Heston after every tragedy and proclaim, "From my cold, dead hands!" holding their guns high in victory and spitting on the graves of the dead, then gun control advocates such as myself would be more civil. But I have yet to witness this from any gunner.

But your whining--and you're not the only one--is really a bridge too far.

[Shamash]

59. I'm guessing you are only allowed to read a certain number of words each day

Otherwise you would have seen in the comments directly below where I advocate for reform in the laws that would not be acceptable to "2A Extremists".

Presuming that "gun owners" as a monolithic block pull a Charles Heston is exactly the logical fallacy I just pointed out. I might even say that you classing Gabrielle Giffords, Harry Reid, Patrick Leahy (all of whom are "gun owners&quot or Rachel Maddow (a self-described gun enthusiast) or 30% of all Democrats (the percentage who own guns, like this) as someone who is "spitting on the graves of the dead" is...what's the term I'm looking for? Oh yeah, "a bridge too far". Even when the logical fallacy is shoved in your face, the very first thing you did was repeat it. At least your arguments are flawed in a consistent fashion.

And please refresh my memory. When was the last time you were civil to any liberal gun owner here at DU? Because we're the moderate ones and I would have thought that being civil should be the default for someone worried about other people's impulse control.

See also this. It seems appropriate enough for the issue of extreme gun control advocates and their authoritarian conservative counterparts.

[malaise]

60. Very well stated

[CANDO]

12. So take the time to remind us what solutions you are proposing...

And also what the NRA's solutions are. More guns sure as hell can't make any of us safer. You had quite a long post about the issue, but offered no possible solutions.

[Shamash]

18. I have no idea what the NRA's solutions are

Since I'm not an NRA member, never have been and don't follow them online. As for guns making people safer, the CDC says that more guns are used by civilians to defend themselves against violent crime than are used by criminals in committing violent crime. If you have a problem with accepting that, take it up with CDC. You just don't hear about it at DU because the gun owners here do not comb the headlines and post an example every other day like the gun control supporters do with shootings.

As far as solutions, I have posted them elsewhere and repeatedly. But to recap, my view is:

• Firearm licensing should require a competency and legal exam, just like your driver's license does. Wouldn't you feel better knowing that everyone who does choose to own a gun had to know proper use, safety procedures and the laws about firearm ownership and use?

• Firearm carry laws should have a national standard. Again, driver's license. A state-issued license in Utah is good for driving through Ohio. I have no problem with this from a liberal standpoint. I want my marriage license to be good in all 50 states, too. A national standard means that someone could not go "state shopping" to find the least stringent one for a carry permit. As an aside, I do support carry permits as a general concept (which would have separate, more stringent requirements than a general ownership permit).

• Background checks should be available to everyone who wants to make one. I don't think a person should have to jump through government hoops to sell a used item to a neighbor, but most everyone I have talked to on the gun side of things thinks it would be a great idea if they could call up a number just like a gun store does and check out a potential purchaser. And no, I don't think having all private gun sales going through a gun store is a good or practical idea. The geographical distribution of gun stores being one reason, but there are others (note that interstate sales of used firearms already have to go through a gun dealer).

• A rebate, subsidy or tax incentive for home gun safes, to both make theft more difficult and to keep them out of the hands of children. I don't support it as a requirement because it would smack too much of a "poll tax" (an extra financial burden for exercise of a right). But I would support measures that give an incentive to buying such storage measures.

Those things deal with improving safety among the 99.9%, and would hopefully decrease the number of accidents involving children and improperly stored weapons and weapons getting into criminal hands. Regarding the .1% that are the majority of the firearm crime problem, see this.

They cut the gun deaths in the city by 40%, in one year. And did not ban a single "assault weapon" or "high-capacity magazine" to do so. And it did not require new laws being passed, nor Republican consent. But I have found that because it did not ban anything, the strident gun control supporters do not seem to care for it, despite its proven and dramatic results.

[haele]

36. FYI, the NRA and Gun Lobby actively opposes most of those solutions.

Take National Firearm Carry Standards - those are anathema, because "Second Amendment" or "State's Rights", or "It's really stealth Gun Control, and they'll take away all our guns when they change the standards after they get those standards into law", or some other such talking point.
Background checks - the Gun Lobby's position (and the position of many of the posters here on DU), is that they don't work, and never will work - because criminals will always get around them. So why even have background checks?
Licensing is against the 2nd Amendment, don't you know? According to the NRA, the 2nd amendment gives you the requirement to bear and right to own whatever firearms you want; it's not a "privilege" to own them.

Look, there's many fighting against Gun Control for various reasons - from the individual who doesn't know much about any Gun Control movement other than "they're all a bunch of idiot pacifist Gun-Grabbers", to the strongest group with the best anti-Gun Control propaganda (the gun manufacturers, with their lobbying arm, the NRA), who profit off the spread of Fear, Uncertainty, and Dread.

While your "solutions" are reasonable to probably 90% of the posters on DU, there's always the posters who will reject them outright and call you either a Gun-Humper or a Gun Grabber depending on where they fall in the opinion on firearms spectrum.

To that 10%, it's either all or nothing.

Haele

[Shamash]

44. I think you're misinformed on one of those

National carry standards are opposed by Democrats, mostly from the states with extremely restrictive carry policies. A national standard would undoubtedly be less strict than the strictest state, which would have the net result of weakening that state's carry laws. Face it, can you imagine a D-Congressman whose district included Chicago or NYC voting in favor of a national concealed carry standard that would preempt local laws?

H.R. 822 (112th): National Right-to-Carry Reciprocity Act of 2011 - Passed House with 229 R and 47 D

The Democrat-sponsored Senate version never got out of committee, which of course at that time was D-majority. So, national carry standards are supported by Republicans, which I suppose means that Democratic gun control advocates automatically oppose it.

To that 10%, it's either all or nothing.

Unfortunately for them, candidates know these people are way-the-hell-left, will always vote D and if they have to choose among Democrats, will vote for whoever mumbles "gun control" the loudest. The candidates also know that they will never have to follow through on it, because hey, what are the gun controllers gonna do, vote for the other side? It's pretty much the same thing Bush did with the pro-life crowd.

Gun control extremists who are disproportionately loud in comparison to their numbers are the best thing that ever happened to the NRA.

[haele]

67. That's a reciprocity act, not a national standard act.

A federal law that would establish "well, whichever state has the loosest gun ownership and right to carry standards sets the standards across the country" - pretty much like the fugitive slave laws. And we saw how that part of history ended...

An actual National Standard is something the Gun Lobby and the NRA does not want, because to be Constitutional (that pesky "well regulated militia" clause), it would require registration standards and possibly training standards that, despite the lip-service to "responsible gun ownership" the Gun Lobby spouts to the general public, they have vehemently opposed in their conventions and gatherings to the point that most of the good ol' boys (and gals) honestly believe that registration and a national database is the first salvo in the UN plot to take away all the guns from all the upright responsible gun-owning citizens.

Look, the arguments over the Second Amendment are complex, especially when considering who benefits - and who profits - over lashing up public opinion on what that comma actually means and what part is the actual subject. What really needs to happen is a big sit down and honestly hash it out, but there's a lot of money on the line as well as lives and public good - and sadly, money has a louder voice than actual people or logic does.

I have a marksman's ribbon from my time in the Navy. I've been shot at, and unhappily had to deal with the aftermath of shootings - and I'm not afraid of guns. I know that the purpose of guns in to kill, and very little else - you don't pull out a gun outside of a range unless you intend to pull the trigger and kill someone.
So, again - how important is government's role in public safety? Is it more important than a paranoid's fantasies? Is it more important than the quarterly profits of gun manufacturers and their lobbying arms?
Can we sit down like grown-ups and actually talk about the issue rather than try to protect our perceived positions of power in society?

I doubt it, because, again - to Extremists, there can be "no weakness" that would come from a discussion that requires actual diplomacy.
You aren't going to get the "Ammo-sexuals" and the "Gun Grabbers" to talk, because neither are going to put down their arms long enough to talk. And the rest of us suffer, our friends and families are needlessly killed, and the mentally unstable still will be able to easily get weapons that allow them to spread mayham and destruction more quickly than most any other method available.

Haele

[upaloopa]

57. Here is what I am hearing you say.

We need to accept tragedies like Newtown because there isn't anyway to prevent them and allow everyone their right to own a gun. Gun owners will sit smug on their asses and obfuscate until hell won't have it and they can because the gun lobby outspends any opposition and has the power to destroy elected officials to the extent they will not support anti gun legislation.
Notice I did not advocate the taking of yours or anyone else's guns.
If ever the time comes when the gun lobby along with the NRA loses it's power there will be gun control. I don't know when that will be but I do believe the time will come.
I also don't recognize your attempt to label gun owners by political party.
If you are a one issue voter and that issue is gun rights you are of little use to progressives because there are far more important issues you are voting against so you may as well be on the other side.

[RiverLover]

3. I'll never get over it, or how the media & the NRA quickly doused national outrage & horror

Such an easily manipulated public.

And I agree, to me its worse, more horrific. But all of it is tragic. What a messed up world. The "civil" is leaving civilization.

[mountain grammy]

4. Fox will show the violence of ISIS without batting an eye..

but how about the carnage and violence in our own country. Do we need to see the wasted bodies of 6 and 7 year olds to believe this happened and to do something about it. No, sadly, even that wouldn't help.

American legislators are fine with arming criminals and killers to the teeth in our own country, but are ready to go to war when they see it in another country.

[malaise]

6. You are so right and MSGreedia pays little attention to the home grown racist barbarians

I remember the slaughter of James Byrd as well

Brewer and two other white men kidnapped the 49-year-old black man on the night of June 7, 1998. They chained him by the ankles to the back of a pickup truck and dragged him for 3 ½ miles down a country road near Jasper, Texas. Byrd died when he was decapitated after he hit a culvert.

Prosecutors said the crime, which they described it as one of the most vicious hate crimes in U.S. history, was intended to promote Brewer's fledgling white supremacist organization. During his 1999 trial, they called Brewer a racist psychopath.

Brewer was a former "Exalted Cyclops" of a racist prison gang affiliated with the Ku Klux Klan. He spent most of his adult life in prison for burglary, cocaine possession and parole violations.

http://edition.cnn.com/2011/09/21/justice/texas-dragging-death-execution/

I don't remember Fox calling them barbarians.

[mwrguy]

7. Maybe gun safety protesters should start making signs with the pictures

Like anti-choice protesters do with pictures of fetuses.

[Hoppy]

9. The difference is that Issa doesn't have an office on K street to bribe their sorry asses.

N.R.A. does.

[TBF]

14. You nailed it. nt

[Ed Suspicious]

15. +

[marble falls]

5. Me, too. Way more troubled.

[madokie]

13. Without a doubt

My wife and I discussed buying a shot gun for home protection and an older gentleman friend offered me a side by side double barrel 20 gauge for a pittance. Pretty gun that probably haven't been shot more than a few times but it felt so weird in my hands. We, my wife and I, decided we really don't want a gun in our home so I passed it up.
I seen all the damage a gun can do to a human body all those years ago and can't make myself embrace one all these years later. Still.

If you pray pray for the children its them that are the innocents

[whathehell]

16. It doesn't have to be an "either or"...All are horrifying.

[randome]

20. Genital mutilation, public floggings for 'insulting' Islam. Did we 'ignite' that violence, too?

Face it, the Eastern Hemisphere is fucked up. The only people responsible for this level of slaughter is the people doing the slaughtering.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Aspire to inspire.[/center][/font][hr]

[Laxman]

21. An Intersting Observation....

as always from you Malaise. I hesitate to quantify the murder of one person as more heinous or vile than the murder of another. However, I tend to agree with you. The Newtown shootings took place in a supposedly safe location and occurred in the context of our purported functional society. How could such a thing happen in the course of our "normal" lives? There is a certain expectation that violent radicals in a war zone will behave violently and there is a risk inherent with close contact. We don't want to acknowledge the former and can't turn away from the latter. When you inject politics and political aims into each scenario we end up trying to bury the memory of one and obsess on the other. We now expect our society to do nothing to prevent the next Newtown but everything in its power to prevent the next ISIS killing. That's pretty troubling.

[ileus]

22. We seem to want more school shootings by ignoring Security.

Only in our school systems do we ignore the safety and security after repeated attacks. Notice other government building and employees aren't as easily attacked.

So the only obvious answer is TPB want shootings to further an agenda. They're willing to accept attacks until hopefully one day something will happen to trigger willing bans on firearms.

[Fumesucker]

29. In your view what percentage of the current education budget should go to security?

There are a lot more schools than virtually any other government buildings, if you are planning a serious security staff full time at all schools it's going to cost a very great deal of money.

Good security is damn expensive and bad security is worse than no security at all.

[ileus]

37. Tell me about it.....I submitted a 3k quote to a local school

3 years ago....a simple door strike, camera, DVR, and bell. One...just one door.

I drive by it every few months and always look to see if they're ever done anything. Nope...nadda.

One little door, no real protection even with a mag lock but it would beat nothing.

[Dreamer Tatum]

23. "the lack of reining in the gun lovers is even worse than the slaughter of innocents"

You'd rather that innocent people die then a gun nut possess a gun?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

24. But you've praised Angela Davis who supplied guns to violent criminals.

[leftyladyfrommo]

25. More people died from gunshot last year in KC

thank died from traffic accidents. And a lot of those deaths were suicides.

How did our society ever come to this?

[Shamash]

26. Which KC?

I've spent some time there. Two very different cities.

[leftyladyfrommo]

50. KCMO

but the trend is also state wide.

[Act_of_Reparation]

27. Media-fueled paranoia, institutional economic inequality...

...and a side-order of "fuck you, I got mine" Reaganomics.

[leftyladyfrommo]

51. I just can't believe how paranoid a person would have to be to

feel like they needed to carry a gun to Walmart.

I will leave my items and leave the store if I see someone carrying a gun. I want no part of that stuff.

[Act_of_Reparation]

58. If you really want to know, watch the YouTubes.

Listen to the kind of insanely fearful shit they brew up to justify their need for a goddamned assault rifle.

I remember one quite clearly:

In response to Joe Biden's "buy a double-barreled shotgun for home defense", one wizened gun owner replied, "The double-barreled shotgun only holds two rounds. The AR holds 30."

Who the fuck is he expecting to attack his home? The Red Army?

[Act_of_Reparation]

28. I lost classmates at Sandy Hook.

I grew up 12 miles away from Sandy Hook Elementary. I graduated high school with one of the teachers who was killed.

If it's alright by everyone else, I find both scenarios abhorrent and worthy of due criticism.

[In_The_Wind]

31. I'm very sorry for pain you are feeling.

[Fumesucker]

32. Yeah, but we ~must~ simply do something about the one

And have done and will do nothing about the other.

[Act_of_Reparation]

33. I completely agree.

But there's no reason we can't talk about both. And trying to quantify which of them is worse than the other? Come on.

[BrotherIvan]

41. +1

So sorry for you and your community. It must be so hard to have so much grief.

[whathehell]

45. My condolences to you..

I believe it was the most atrocious act of gun violence to happen in my lifetime,

and yes, I agree, it's not an "either- or" situation, it is ALL horrific.

[nruthie]

30. I totally agree. Good point.

[Peacetrain]

35. My dear Malaise.. I just do not understand

I have such deep respect for you.. I look for your posts.. I just do not understand why we cannot be equally horrified, and troubled over the killings. I just do not understand.

[malaise]

64. I am not equally horrified

If me and mine invade and occupy someone's home or land, we can expect blow back and if they can't catch us, they'll catch someone related. On the other hand those children were slaughtered for no good reason except that some demented entitled scumbag wanted revenge for whatever.

[melman]

49. Why the scare quotes on beheadings?

[randome]

53. Maybe they were staged and everyone's drinking scotch with Elvis and Bin Laden?

[hr][font color="blue"][center]"The whole world is a circus if you know how to look at it."
Tony Randall, 7 Faces of Dr. Lao (1964)[/center][/font][hr]

[Jefferson23]

54. Lobby money, lots of lobby money keeps the NRA where they are and has cultivated a

gun culture. I live in Connecticut and I like many people wondered if we as a society
had reached the number of dead children that would bring about a reverse course.

I don't know what that number may be..if it even exists.

[itcfish]

56. What kind of Society do

We live in, that after the Newton shooting all people worried about were "Oh no Obama is going to come and take my guns"???

[ManiacJoe]

65. Is there a need to make illegal acts more illegal?

Folks seem to forget that Sandy Hook was easily preventable had the attacker's mother done the right things in the first place.

Due to his mental problems, it was illegal for the attacker to have unsupervised access to any guns. His mother fucked up by giving him illegal access to her guns by either leaving the gun safe unlocked or by giving him the keys or lock combination so that he could open the safe himself.

Had the mother not been the first one he killed, she would be in jail now as an accessory to the crime.

[billh58]

66. +100 n/t