General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forums20 years of data show Austrailias gun control laws work
http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKCN0XP0HGSYDNEY (Reuters) - Australia on Thursday marked the 20th anniversary of a mass shooting which led to strict gun controls that have in turn led to a huge decline in gun murders, undermining claims in the United States that such curbs are not the answer.
The chances of being murdered by a gun in Australia plunged to 0.15 per 100,000 people in 2014 from 0.54 per 100,000 people in 1996, a decline of 72 percent, a Reuters analysis of Australian Bureau of Statistics figures showed.
In 1996, Australia had 311 murders, of which 98 were with guns. In 2014, with the population up from about 18 million to 23 million, Australia had 238 murders, of which 35 were with guns.
It was the April 28, 1996, shooting deaths by a lone gunman of 35 people in and around a cafe at a historic former prison colony in Tasmania that prompted the government to buy back or confiscate a million firearms and make it harder to buy new ones.
The country has had no mass shootings since.
The figures directly contradict assertions of most leading U.S. presidential candidates who have either questioned the need to toughen gun laws or directly denounced Australia's laws as dangerous.
SNIP
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)Cherry picking numbers again I would guess
Major Nikon
(36,814 posts)zappaman
(20,605 posts)Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)Major Nikon
(36,814 posts)Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)You really do miss the big picture: Some countries have experienced similar drop offs in homicides, gun laws or no.
The similarity in this drop, when Australia and the U.S. are compared, is "almost stark." (My quote .)
You know I have used the expression "post hoc, ergo propter hoc" so often today, it seems like I am belching in public. Sheesh.
Major Nikon
(36,814 posts)Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)Major Nikon
(36,814 posts)Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)Major Nikon
(36,814 posts)rock
(13,218 posts)Well, you've got to admit (or do you?) that the other way round (before it, therefore because of it) is pretty silly. Although the phrase does not prove the assertion, it is a necessary condition for the assertion, and is NOT a disproof of the causal relationship and does NOT attack the argument at all. So in a phrase, it's pretty vapid. And you say you repeat it a lot do you? Hmmm.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)A bald reality: The notion that "More guns = more crime" has not been proven. Yet, that assertion filled MSM, and flew from the mouths of anti-gun politicians like religious dicta for years. (Hear-tell, some folks still push that line.)
Over the last 20+ years both Australia and the U.S. have enjoyed big drops in so-called "Gun Violence©". Yet we both know our respective experiences with guns ànd gun policy have been Yugely different. It would seem that in some cultures the laws vis à vis guns -- and even the number of guns -- doesn't mean squat when looking at gun-related crime.
Prism
(5,815 posts)I'm pro gun control. I was just curious about America's statistics and came up with this link:
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/10/21/gun-homicides-steady-after-decline-in-90s-suicide-rate-edges-up/
It jives with the overall reduction in violent crime since the beginning of the 90s. I'm intensely curious to know why that has occurred. I know there are theories, some crackpot (unleaded gasoline and things), but still. Something seems to have shifted in the last 20 years.
Major Nikon
(36,814 posts)The result was an increase in the incarceration of 60% more people in a country that already had a massive incarceration level.
The claim was "that rate of decrease is similar in other countries, like the U.S."
50% is not really all that similar to 72%, and even if it was I know of no other country that comes close.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)sarisataka
(18,220 posts)you weren't supposed to notice that...
sarisataka
(18,220 posts)But it appears Australia's decrease in gun homicide rate began prior to the 96 law and following it continued at approximately the same rates men has continued to reduce at a lower rate for the last 10 years or so.
That is essentially identical to the change in the US gun homicide rate.
So it could be said of the 96 law had no effect on Australia's gun homicide rate.
Albertoo
(2,016 posts)Travis_0004
(5,417 posts)If gun control laws are solely responsible for the decline, shouldn't US murders have gone up?
I would argue there are a number of variables responsible in both countries, and to single out any one statistic to a single law just doesn't make sense.
Victor_c3
(3,557 posts)There is probably more at play than strict gun control.
The economist who wrote the book freakanomics postulated more than a decade ago that the sudden reduction in murder had to do with Roe versus Wade nearly 20 years earlier. If you haven't heard of the book, then I can't recommend it enough. It is a truly fascinating read.
You are absolutely correct that correlation is not necessarily causation. The scientist in me can take a tough look at what I hope is true.
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)Naw - that was a bad thing, right?
More likely reduced levels of lead? (just don't drink the water)
Human101948
(3,457 posts)Australia is .93 gun deaths per 100,000. Wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that we are awash in guns would it?
EX500rider
(10,532 posts)Human101948
(3,457 posts)We still have Australia beat by a huge margin.
EX500rider
(10,532 posts)....at 22 per 100,000
Human101948
(3,457 posts)And the gun death rate of the US is stil far above Australia.
EX500rider
(10,532 posts)Lee-Lee
(6,324 posts)If you use the same time period and standard here in the US murder rates are way down, and during that period we got rid of the Federal assault weapons ban and more than doubled the number of states with shall issue concealed carry.
Using the exact same standard the OP does one would conclude that loosening restrictions on gun ownership and carry works to reduce murder.
But I am sure they would reject that even though it's the same standard applied to the same period of time....
hack89
(39,171 posts)and they have more than replaced all the guns that were destroyed in the gun buy backs.
One million guns were destroyed in the 1996 buyback in Australia, but theyve been replaced with 1,026,000 new ones and that number continues to soar.
After gun imports dropped to a record low in 1999, they began climbing again, reaching unprecedented heights last financial year, when 104,000 firearms were shipped into the country.
http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/real-life/more-guns-and-bigger-arsenals-than-ever-australias-not-out-of-range-yet/news-story/5ac9fd189627c27cee0edaebd20b4a55
I thought more guns = more gun deaths.
Old Crow
(2,212 posts)You know, the one that comes immediately after the last one you quoted, that puts the paragraphs you quote in context?
hack89
(39,171 posts)we are constantly told that fewer Americans own guns but gun owners are buying multiple guns.
Indydem
(2,642 posts)I don't know anyone who says that confiscating, by force if necessary, every firearm in America wouldn't significantly reduce gun crime.
The issue is, we have this little thing called "The Constitution" and more specifically, "The 2nd Amendment" which prevents such a thing in America.
If you would like to propose repealing the Second Amendment, then we can talk about these kinds of laws.
But that is NEVER going to happen, so give up on the pipe dream.
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)Then gun owners would be constitutionally required to belong to "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." The half of the amendment that doesn't seem to apply?
If you're a "Constitutionalist."
hack89
(39,171 posts)when hasn't private ownership of guns outside of the militia been the norm in America? We have always had private ownership of guns regardless of militia service, correct?
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)why should we enforce it?
Why is half the amendment considered "God's word" and the other half is as if it doesn't exist?
A well regulated militia necessary to the security of a free State.
If someone can purchase a modified battlefield-designed M-16 which is ultimately used to slaughter elementary schoolchildren, I'd say we need a little more regulation?
hack89
(39,171 posts)why didn't they simultaneously write the laws to enforce it?
The BOR was added to the constitution specifically to protect individual rights. Every right in the BOR is an individual right. We know the history of the BOR, we know what the writers debated when they wrote the BOR. Your interpertation of the 2A has no basis in history.
The 2A doesn't stop you from passing strict gun control. AWBs, registration, magazine size limits are all perfectly constitutional and legal. Lets not forget that CT had an AWB prior to Sandy Hook and Lanza's gun was both legal and registered. So stop blaming the 2A. The problem with strict gun control is that there is little widespread public support for it.
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)against the most powerful empire in the world. Independence was not assured.
An armed militia in each state was anticipated.
The rights? The British were not going to come and take our guns away.
3rd Amendment?
"a response to Quartering Acts passed by the British parliament during the build up to the American Revolutionary War, which had allowed the British Army to lodge soldiers in private residences."
The "Bill of Rights" was not handed to us on tablets!
hack89
(39,171 posts)Last edited Fri Apr 29, 2016, 01:48 PM - Edit history (1)
it was a not a radical new concept. Lets not forget that the founding fathers were fighting to protect what they deemed to be their historic rights as Englishmen. Interestingly enough, the English Bill of Rights specifically mentions the right to keep and bear arms as well.
MrModerate
(9,753 posts)hack89
(39,171 posts)if you don't like the 2A then that is your only real remedy.
deathrind
(1,786 posts)None of the founding fathers could have foreseen the technology in firearms evolution to come.
Had they be able to see that in the future a person would be able to own a firearm with a hundred round drum that could expend all those rounds in under a minute they would have reworded the 2nd. Even though Flintlocks and Muskets were the top of the line firearm in that day they still understood that training and regulation were needed. Had they be able to watch a Dillon Precision video the 2nd would be worded very differently. Controls work they always have be them applied to cars, planes, finance, building...etc.
Interesting opinion.
There was the puckle gun, and simple cannons too, both privately owned.
The framers were no stranger to advances in tech OR powerful arms.
Rex
(65,616 posts)Separation
(1,975 posts)The framers also could not have known about the Internet, 24hour news, telephones, etc.
Should these be protected by free speech? I mean, they couldn't ever have imagined that one person could talk and be heard around the world.
ieoeja
(9,748 posts)I will probably not present this as well as that person did. And it took me a couple hours ruminating on it to decide that person was correct.
I. "right of the people peaceably to assemble" A person does not assemble. People do. This guarantees the right for groups to form political entities such as parties, activist groups, etc
II. "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms"
IV. "The right of the people to be secure in their persons" A bit tricky because of the mix. But in this instance people refers to all persons having this right, but the right itself is defined for "in their persons" and thus an individual right.
V. "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime...". No individual shall be....
IX. "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." ... retained by the people as a body
X. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." ... or to the people as a body
If "rights of the people" means "rights of the individual" in the ninth and tenth amendment, then Cliven Bundy should not be in jail. The sovereign citizens movement is hinged totally on that argument.
hack89
(39,171 posts)right now the accepted meaning is that it refer to individuals.
ieoeja
(9,748 posts)hack89
(39,171 posts)it is your opinion.
Rex
(65,616 posts)so anything they type is meant to be laughed at imo.
hack89
(39,171 posts)deathrind
(1,786 posts)Clearly delineates between the individual and the people.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)There are no communal rights anymore than John C. Calhoun's "states rights."
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)refers to a group in service to or reliant upon the government. They are all distinct from the government. That could just as easily lead us to believe that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is not contingent upon service to the government but as a group separate from the government.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)The present-day Pennsylvania Constitution, using language adopted in 1790, declares: "The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned."
Vermont: Adopted in 1777, the Vermont Constitution closely tracks the Pennsylvania Constitution. It states "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State.."
Kentucky: The 1792 Kentucky constitution was nearly contemporaneous with the Second Amendment, which was ratified in 1791. Kentucky declared: "That the right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State, shall not be questioned."
Alabama: The Alabama Constitution, adopted in 1819, guarantees "that every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state"
The ninth amendment certainly protects individual rights. See Roe V Wade, e.g.
TeddyR
(2,493 posts)It doesn't. The Amendment doesn't state a militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of "the militia" to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It states that the right of "the people" -- i.e., everyone -- to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The drafters of the Bill of Rights certainly could have said the right of "the militia" to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed if they meant to limit the Second Amendment's reach. The fact that the first clause of the Second Amendment states a purpose doesn't mean that is the only purpose and doesn't change the fact that the Amendment forbids the government from infringing the rights of "the people."
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)Well - Regulated in 18th century parlance means properly working - not burdened by regulations and rules (or regular), as you would have it defined.
A militia is a armed force pulled from the civilian population to assist the regular army in a time of crisis.
So civilians having guns is the point.
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)I don't live in the 18th century and your so-called right is depriving us of our lives!
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)No, it's not. A responsible gun owner can no more be responsible for crimes and accidents committed with guns than a than someone who drinks but stays home can be responsible for deaths caused by drunk drivers.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)beevul
(12,194 posts)If you're a "Constitutionalist."
Read the preamble to the bill of rights:
http://billofrights.org/
Amendment 2 restricts only government and authorizes nothing.
Congress was granted powers over the militia in the constitution.
treestar
(82,383 posts)If sticking to it causes so much death. It is 18th century in intent and nature. The country did not know then what would happen in 200 years and that guns would be completely different as far as their place in people's lives.
hack89
(39,171 posts)AWBs, registration, magazine size limits are all perfectly constitutional and legal. Lets not forget that CT had an AWB prior to Sandy Hook and Lanza's gun was both legal and registered. So stop blaming the 2A. The problem with strict gun control is that there is little widespread public support for it.
Indydem
(2,642 posts)Let's waive the whole Bill of Rights.
They just get in the way anyway.
How much safer would be without the press stirring things up?
How about if we could just force people to testify against themselves- then we could get the truth!
Unreasonable search and seizure? Waive that one too!!
Orrex
(63,086 posts)As far as I know, there haven't been too many mass killings being caused by peaceable assembly or redress of grievances.
beevul
(12,194 posts)Travis_0004
(5,417 posts)Just get 3/4 of the states to agree on it.
good luck!
Orrex
(63,086 posts)if they simply admit that they don't really give a shit about the thousands and thousands and thousands annual murders and suicides. It's abundantly clear that they place more value on a deliberate misreading of an anachronistic throwback to frontier times than on actual human life.
And your smug, cavalier attitude merely proves it. Well done.
Travis_0004
(5,417 posts)Im sure we can agree on that.
Orrex
(63,086 posts)And I'm sure that we can agree on that, too.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)Therefore, your respect for (or lack of respect for) them is irrelevant
TeddyR
(2,493 posts)Is responsible for murders and suicides? What constitutional provision is responsible for the suicides in Japan, which outpace those in the US, or of Guyana, which greatly outpace those of the US?
Orrex
(63,086 posts)Why don't you think about it a bit, rephrase your question, and ask it again?
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)if they simply admit that they don't really give a shit about the thousands and thousands and thousands annual murders and suicides. It's abundantly clear that they place more value on a deliberate misreading of an anachronistic throwback to frontier times than on actual human life.
Best not to attempt to serve a dish that you yourself wouldn't eat.
dionysus
(26,467 posts)murders were done with legally purchased guns vs murders done with illegally owned ones, because no law we could ever pass will stop criminals from illegally obtaining a piece.
perhaps it could cut down on the suicides and murders performed with legally bought firearms. I'm all for background checks.
our biggest problem, IMO, is that we are a sick people who resort to violence way too much.
Orrex
(63,086 posts)I would argue, therefore, that the last thing we need is a minimally controlled right to keep and bear arms.
DonP
(6,185 posts)So over 20,000 existing .Federal, State and Local gun laws are "Minimal"?
You have an "interesting" concept of what is minimal.
Orrex
(63,086 posts)Especially considering that those laws are generally redundant from one jurisdiction to another, as well as the fact that gun apologists never seem to shut up about how those laws are either "toothless" or directly contradictory to the sacrosanct 2nd Amendment.
Minimal.
DonP
(6,185 posts)And what are you doing to make that idea happen?
And while we're at it, what are you doing, besides complaining online, about gun control in the real world?
Joined any dues paying gun control organizations?
Contributing to them out of your own pocket, or just letting Bloomberg pick up the tab?
Taking time off work to go to protests in the state capitol, meet with legislators or local zoning meetings or town halls where it's on the agenda?
Orrex
(63,086 posts)Tell me what would convince gun apologists that the tools of murder that they worship are not, in fact, necessary for their survival.
Since I'm sure you'll have nothing to offer on that front, let's start with this:
Get rid of Heller, and recognize that "a well-regulated militia" does not equal some individual fool with a gun.
If it weren't for the Scalia court (and a surprising number of Scalia-friendly DU members), that stupid ruling would be recognized for the travesty that it is. Getting rid of that extremist rightwing interpretation of that ancient amendment would be very helpful.
DonP
(6,185 posts)But we can compromise on some things
We'd probably trade National Concealed carry reciprocity for Universal Background checks at the Federal level. Whadddya say?
But I'm guessing you really don't do much of anything but whine online about guns and gun owners. That might explain why gun control hasn't achieved jack or shit in almost 20 years.
Keep up the good work.
Orrex
(63,086 posts)It is clear that gun zealots don't give a shit about thousands upon thousands upon thousands of murders, and they care only about their beloved Guns! Guns! Guns!
Here is the compromise I will accept:
Universal background checks, with the results kept permanently on file and publicly accessible.
A 100% federal sales tax on all guns purchased in the US.
Full registration for all guns currently owned or purchased in the future.
This registration is permanent and publicly accessible at all times.
Ballistic fingerprinting of all guns manufactured in or imported into the US from this date forward and kept permanently on file and publicly accessible at all times.
Any gun that is not registered will be impounded and destroyed upon discovery, with a 10-year jail sentence for the owner for each gun impounded.
Any gun owner who fails to report the loss or theft of a gun within 24 hours of the theft is an accessory to any and all crimes committed with that gun.
Any conviction of assault or domestic violence--even if only a misdemeanor--renders the guilty party permanently ineligible to own or use guns.
Reply or don't. The opinions of gun zealots don't mean shit to me.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)Your post is a prime example of what gun control advocacy has devolved into:
"It is a tale...Full of sound and fury. Signifying nothing."
Fortunately, you will do nothing to bring what you want about aside from
wearing out keyboards proclaiming your moral superiority.
Demonizing your enemies is easy; real-world politics is hard.
Attitudes like the one on display above will ensure that gun control will become
the 21st century version of the Women's Christian Temperance Union
DonP
(6,185 posts)It's all you have going for you on this issue.
You have nothing to offer and thankfully do nothing to make your wishes become reality in the real world. All of which probably makes you a leader in the area of gun control.
As usual, you've proven once again that gun control fans aren't only disdainful of the 2nd amendment, they aren't too happy with the 1st, 4th or 5th either. They don't like messy things like Due Process, that whole self incrimination thing, medical privacy would all go right out the window, if people like you had their way.
But ... thankfully we can all continue to ignore anti gun and anti gun owner zealots like you, because they tend to be too cheap to use their own money, too lazy to use their own time and too dim to come up with any viable ideas to further their objectives and their "deeply held beliefs".
Much easier to talk a big game online than do anything in the real world, isn't it?
EX500rider
(10,532 posts)Yes guns only for rich people, very progressive idea....lol
beevul
(12,194 posts)Because they most likely were.
Lets be clear here. The only people that think its a choice of guns or thousands of murders in this discussion, is you.
Unconstitutional. See Minneapolis Star & Tribune Co. v. Minnesota Commissioner of Revenue, 1983:
http://law.jrank.org/pages/12734/Minneapolis-Star-v-Minnesota-Commissioner-Revenue.html
Theres another one of those non-starters you mentioned.
Many states have spend millions on that, with zero crimes solves to report.
What part of "no registration" do you not understand?
That's already federal law.
That's a swell way to win people to your side. Not.
So what are you offering up in return for any of these things you want?
Or were these demands, and you're not interested in 'compromise'?
Marengo
(3,477 posts)Orrex
(63,086 posts)What purpose does that serve?
Given the proven lethality of guns, it seems entirely reasonable to me that the public should be able to determine where such deadly machinery is likely stored.
And it certainly doesn't violate any privacy concerns, because (as noted) my home's ownership history is freely available online. If that's fair game, then there's no reason why gun ownership shouldn't equally be accessible.
Marengo
(3,477 posts)your home? Firearms are portable personal property which can be vulnerable to theft. Can your your house be carried off in a burglary? Such a public record is a potential threat to the owner. But, I rather imagine you're okay with that. Maybe your home ownership record should list all the personal property in your home. After all, who knows what you might be up to.
Orrex
(63,086 posts)Last edited Sun May 1, 2016, 12:18 PM - Edit history (1)
And when a gun zealot dismisses something as bullshit, that's usually a pretty solid indication that it's a good idea.
Hell, while we're at it, why should one's criminal record be a matter of public record? Why should the possession of an insurance license be a matter of public record?
If we were foolishly to pursue your silly line of reasoning, then there would be no public record of anything. Bravo!
Marengo
(3,477 posts)Which is precisely my point. The structure itself, no. But firearms contained within, if know to the general public, possibly.
"Why would you insist that the security of your property be outsourced to others"
Why would you insist on compromising the security of my home by making the firearms contained within public knowledge? The fact that I have firearms is not public knowledge, so the risk at present is quite minimal. Your concept would dramatically increase the risk of the theft of those firearms, and increase the risk to public safety. I am amazed you cannot grasp this simple concept.
"If the homeowner is known to be an art enthusiast, the public record of address might lead a burglar to the enthusiast's home!"
Were you intentionally trying to reinforce the point of my objection? Replace art with firearms as a matter of public record.
"Hell, while we're at it, why should one's criminal record be a matter of public record? Why should the possession of an insurance license be a matter of public record?"
Can a criminal record or insurance policy be stolen and used as a weapon against another person?
"If we were foolishly to pursue your silly line of reasoning, then there would be no public record of anything. Bravo!"
What's foolish is your assertion that making firearms ownership a matter of public record somehow enhances public safety.
Orrex
(63,086 posts)I reject the notion that your guns in your home will make you a target for burglary because gun zealots themselves routinely refute this fantasy by broadcasting their gun ownership. Anyone who open-carries, or who has an NRA bumpersticker, or who has an "I don't dial 911" sign on their house is telling the world that there are likely guns on the premises. Why aren't these gun owners as terrified as you are? What do they know that you don't?
Again, if you don't keep your guns secure, then you frankly aren't responsible enough to own them.
Marengo
(3,477 posts)Kindly provide the quote of me stating such a thing in this exchange. You are making preconceived judgments based on your prejudice against gun openers
"I reject the notion that your guns in your home will make you a target for burglary because gun zealots themselves routinely refute this fantasy by broadcasting their gun ownership"
Personally, it's my opinion anyone who engages in such broadcasting is an idiot. It's also not a majority, at least among the gun owners I know. I know quite a few, Having been a competitive target shooter for several decades. Those of us who don't, do not do so for a reason. We do not want random persons knowing we have firearms. To provide an anecdote, an idiot cousin of a coworker proudly displayed his rand new AR-15 on Facebook. Guess what happened? Yep, stolen within 48 hours of the posting. The thief was caught, and take a wild guess as to where he told the investigating officers where he learned the idiot cousin had purchased the AR-15. Facebook. The perp knew the guy and his address, so made his move. Seems to me one might consider Facebook as widely accessible to the general public.
Again, if you don't keep your guns secure, then you frankly aren't responsible enough to own them.
What do you know of my gun storage system?
Why do you imagine that your guns deserve special, private protection?
Good lord, if they are such the threat to humanity as you apparently believe, than why would you wish to expose their precise location to the public at large? This simply makes no sense. Wouldn't it be in the public's interest to keep information about where they are stored as secret as possible?
Orrex
(63,086 posts)friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)In any event, even if they weren't fallacious your points would be still be moot as >99% of gun control opponents don't do anything other than "wear out keyboards posting on the internet."
Even if you yourself were the very model of real-world activism, the sheer mass of slacktivists
that comprise the bulk of what currently passes for gun control advocacy make your
efforts futile (yet mildly amusing).
I very much doubt your interlocutor actually fears what you claim they do. The right has
moral panics about restrooms and other peoples' reproductive systems. Too much of the left
has moral panics about guns and gun owners
Marengo
(3,477 posts)I'll ask again, provide a quote or acknowledge this is a false assertion. Is your integrity in good, working order? We shall see.
"Your entire argument is based in the fear that someone will break into your house to steal the precious guns guns guns that you can't be bothered to secure. That's fear."
Any storage system, for any valuable items, can be defeated by a determined thief given the time and opportunity. The point is, why remove the added security layer of privacy? Perhaps you should set an example by posting your property address and a detailed list of its contents in your reply to this post. After all, it's apparently no big deal to you if that might attract a far greater amount of attention from thieves. How do you secure the deadly items in your home?
Orrex
(63,086 posts)You also want me to have transparent walls. Creepy. In addition to being a gun zealot, you're a fantasizing voyeur with a rectum fetish.
For various reasons--not least because I don't believe you capable of objectively engaging the subject--you're not worth a more sophisticated response, because it would be wasted on you.
Reply or don't. There's always room on my Ignore list for another gun zealot.
Marengo
(3,477 posts)Only derision and vitriol.
"You also want me to have transparent walls. Creepy."
That is what you have wanted of me from the very start of this conversation. Creepy indeed, as such a thing could potentially increase the risk to the safety of my person and property. Yet, you have dismissed this concern as unimportant to the supposed value of a publicly accessible list of my personal property.
For various reasons--not least because I don't believe you capable of objectively engaging the subject--you're not worth a more sophisticated response, because it would be wasted on you.
Uh huh, the reason is quite clear. You don't have a valid counter argument. That's the end of it.
Sophisticated? As in...
"What's even more foolish is your deliberate choice to live in fear, not to mention your foolish fantasy that your top secret guns guns guns keep you safe"
Don't you mean the sophistication of false assertions and the writing style of twelve year old?
Marengo
(3,477 posts)beevul
(12,194 posts)Following close on the heels of 'gun zealot'.
Physician, heal thy self.
Marengo
(3,477 posts)along with your name and street address. Why is that? I thought no rational personal had a reason to be concerned about publishing that information.
Marengo
(3,477 posts)Do you publish lists of the valuable items contained within your home in public venues? Yes, homes contains things, but the public at large doesn't know what specifically those things are. Some homes contain nothing of real value, others the opposite. Some of the equipment I use in competitive target shooting has a high dollar value on the secondary market. I'd rather this information not be known to the general public.
"If you're so sloppy about keeping your guns secured, and if they're so dangerous and so easily vulnerable to theft as you fear them to be"
You are missing the point entirely, either from willful obtuseness or a profound lack of comprehension. It is my assertion that publishing a list available to anyone may possibly make my home more vulnerable to attempted theft, and therefore a greater threat to public safety. It that sense, your proposal place the safety of my person and property in greater danger. Nearly any storage system, for any any type of valuable item, can be defeated by a determined thief if given the time and opportunity. That being the case, why strip the added layer of security of privacy?
"...then the public absolutely has a right to know that you can't keep control of your deadly property."
I've asked you once, now I will try again. What do you know of my storage system?
...your ownership of your precious guns guns guns is no more a privileged matter of secrecy than is any random homeowner's address
And once again I will ask you does your home ownership record include a detailed roster of the items contained within that property?
If not, apparently your assertion is incorrect.
beevul
(12,194 posts)Your problem with heller is based on your misunderstanding of the bill of rights, and how it works.
Oh, you're just sour that scalia interpreted amendment 2 in line with the intent and purpose and function of the bill of rights.
Here, read this:
http://billofrights.org/
Now read this:
Justice Robert H. Jackson of the Supreme Court 1943
You're welcome.
EX500rider
(10,532 posts)Who, Americans or humans in general?
Because US citizens are below the both the median and average murder rate amoung countries:
dionysus
(26,467 posts)violent than hellholes, but with all we have going for us I'd hope it was even better.
beevul
(12,194 posts)No more or less a 'throwback' than amendment 1. And, anti-gunners are the ones deliberately misreading amendment 2.
Everyone else understands that amendment 2 restricts only government, just like amendment 1.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)3/5th of person was a bad thing as well, but as the irrational might say of its nullification (because consistency in all things, even the absurd, is most righteous)...
They just get in the way anyway.
How much safer would be without the press stirring things up?
How about if we could just force people to testify against themselves- then we could get the truth!
Unreasonable search and seizure? Waive that one too!!
(inset irrelevant distinction lacking relevant difference below)
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)It would go from being expressly protected (an enumerated right) to being an implicitly protected (unenumerated) right via the ninth amendment.
Indydem
(2,642 posts)When you are willing to repeal an amendment in the BoR to satisfy your argument, you lose.
Next thing you know, it will be the other 10.
Botany
(70,291 posts)After one of the saddest days in our countrys history, the shooting of 26 innocent little children
and teachers at Sandy Hook Elementary School at Christmas time republicans have passed more
laws that make it easier to get and carry guns. Fuck em!
hack89
(39,171 posts)fewer guns in America since the early 90's?
Botany
(70,291 posts)hack89
(39,171 posts)certainly there is more we can do but the reality is that you have never been safer.
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)2016 to date - 4,184 dead. Exceeded 9/11 already this year!
http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/
hack89
(39,171 posts)which is the real problem here. A strong national anti-suicide campaign along with better mental health care is what is needed.
If someone wants to make the choice to end their life, we have no business interfering.
A free society lets someone decide when their life no longer has meaning; even if that is a bad decision.
But to lump those decisions in with murders for political posturing is dispicable.
hack89
(39,171 posts)they have to with violent crime falling so much.
Indydem
(2,642 posts)I just hate to have the solution to that be "suicide is bad, we need to treat these people until they understand life is wonderful!"
Sometimes, it is time to go. We as a free society should make that process dignified and without pain - not terrifying and violent.
Do that and gun suicides will plummet.
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)My God.
hack89
(39,171 posts)now I don't have any problems giving mental health professional the tools to recommend that guns be temporarily taken away from people that are a threat to themselves or others. But it is hard to see how gun control will reduce suicides.
TeddyR
(2,493 posts)Has different causes and requires different solutions than a murder using a gun. Taking a gun out of the hand of a suicidal person doesn't prevent suicides. As others have mentioned in different posts, there are almost no guns in private hands in Japan yet the suicide rate is much higher than that in the US.
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)If I don't have a gun, my option is not an even more fatal method of suicide or murder.
There is no reconsideration after pulling the trigger. No chance to change your mind. No remorse or regret.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)"Do I really want to do this?," to be discovered and saved, to change your mind in the preparation, to change your mind and call for help - all different than pulling the trigger.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)But you knew that already.
Go on, admit it, you're just anti-gun. Period.
stone space
(6,498 posts)cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)stone space
(6,498 posts)Raise that Blue Tarp of Freedum!
beevul
(12,194 posts)Your mistake.
beevul
(12,194 posts)And there is with a rope?
deathrind
(1,786 posts)The disconnect is...well...
res ipsa loquitur...
Perhaps that should be put under firearm utilization not violence...
beevul
(12,194 posts)As long a suicide by hanging is 'rope violence', and overdoses are "pill violence", and suicide by fall is "bridge violence" or "skyscraper violence".
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)we're not created for killing.
There is only one use for a gun.
What do you think you are accomplishing here? Argument for the sake of argument?
beevul
(12,194 posts)Last edited Thu Apr 28, 2016, 07:32 PM - Edit history (1)
Guns in America are not sold for suicide, nor were they created for it. The astute observer will note, that the sights on handguns and rifles which can only be used from BEHIND the gun, kind of give it away, IF you're talking about what guns were created for.
Try a better non sequitur next time. Or maybe even try being factual.
zappaman
(20,605 posts)That's their purpose.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)For what purpose? To end lives?
Waldorf
(654 posts)Mine have been used at the range for the last couple decades punching holes in paper.
beevul
(12,194 posts)The sights and how they're designed to be used, prove it.
Next?
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)National Rope Association to justify suicide by hanging.
Fact - suicide with a gun is gun violence. That is a fact.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)Your opinion does not equal fact, no matter how much you wish it to be true.
beevul
(12,194 posts)Since the Violence Policy Center doesn't actually consider any other kind of violence except gun violence.
No. Its an opinion. One which does not mesh well with reality, at that.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)And honest in the argument?
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)regarding gun control is observed over and over and over whenever and wherever the issue comes up.
You have lost all credibility when you scoff at the notion that shooting yourself with a gun is not gun violence.
You are a minority opinion, and getting smaller everyday.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)Calling suicide by gun "gun violence " but not calling suicide by razor blade "razor violence" speaks volumes about you agenda and tells me you're not an honest broker on this issue.
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)Your obfuscation is appalling.
When you buy your gun and a family member accidentally or deliberately shoots themselves or another member of your family, you want to qualify and categorize it as something other than gun violence.
You want to make guns safer for all of us by not recognizing what we do with guns.
Ever tried shaving with a gun?
Ever tried making a tire swing with a gun?
Ever tried relieving congestion with a gun?
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)My only objection has ever been your calling suicide by gun "gun violence" but not calling suicide by razor "razor violence".
Careful now, your agenda is showing.
beevul
(12,194 posts)You're projecting.
And now you're trying to muddy the waters in the hopes that nobody sees you trying to pivot while trying to attribute to another poster, a viewpoint which they had not expressed.
Lets break it down for the reader sitting on the fence:
Note how the poster expands into accident territory while his/her interlocutor was speaking about suicides...
And then expands into shooting others while his/her interlocutor was speaking about suicides...
And then lays it all at the feet of his/her interlocutor, who had been speaking strictly of suicides.
That's anti-gun ethics in action, folks. That's what they call honesty.
Anyone want to know why nobody trusts them anymore?
Beuller?
You're the one that wants to keep everyones glasses off and/or very dirty, by blurring the different causes and the very obviously different solutions, when it comes to homicide versus suicide.
Yup. Let that sink it. That's all on you. What you don't seem to understand, is that it betrays your motives.
And, in spite of your insistence that we recognize "what we do with guns", what you really mean is "what we do bad with guns", because you wont talk about what we do with guns that isn't bad, now will you? No, I didn't think so.
Ever tried making an argument with honesty?
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)Let's do what we can to curb gun violence.
The OP reports splendid results from Australia!
Why would anyone be opposed to trying things that work?
beevul
(12,194 posts)Your motive is that you're anti-gun. You've already given that away whether you realize it or not.
Because you are only interested in things that are anti-gun whether they work or not.
Example: Assault weapon ban. Do you support it? If so, I rest my case.
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)I am for regulation - and restriction of some designs - I am for responsible gun ownership, manufacturer and distribution liability, extensive restrictive background checks for purchases made by any means, instituting gun safety measures as we have technological advances which could reduce suicide and accidental discharge, and anything else a civilized society can come up with.
We are not taking your guns away!
beevul
(12,194 posts)And you don't hide it well.
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)You can carry your gun on airplanes, airports, courthouses, political rallies and appearances by elected officials, schools, banks - open carry anywhere you want, bars, restaurants, grocery stores, discount stores, liquor stores - your mother's kitchen table?
Come on.
It already is a regulated privilege.
beevul
(12,194 posts)I sure could if I carried. Ever heard of a private plane?
People generally carry in the unsecured areas at airports across the nation. I don't carry personally, nor do I have any desire to.
Nobody wants to carry in a secured courthouse. You, on the other hand, would like to see most of America treated like a courthouse.
First amendment, meet second amendment. Equal protection and all that.
Secret service takes care of that.
What do I want in schools now? Lets see how well your crystal ball works, since I haven't said anything about them.
More of that anti-gun honesty we've heard so much about, eh?
Banks are private property, and I support their right to make their own rules for their own property where gun carry is concerned
Do you?
Oh, now I'm an open carrier.
In your dreams.
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)We'll see what the next set of judges think of that "right."
sarisataka
(18,220 posts)More than once that a gun owner's suicide (or other firearm related death) is simply "one less ammosexual"
Is that the majority opinion?
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)Using an AR-15 to slaughter children is the opposite of well regulated.
To suggest there is nothing we can do about this is horrifying and unseemly.
sarisataka
(18,220 posts)"Doing nothing". I actually have put forth several ideas for regulations in the past.
But you didn't answer the question, are gun owners simply ammosexuals and their deaths not as important as other people?
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)The OP is about the reduction of gun deaths in Australia.
The ad nauseum argument came about that gun control had no impact on gun violence. That the Constitution does not include "well regulated" mandate as a basis of gun ownership. And what we "call" gun violence shouldn't include death and injury from broad categories of gun-inflicted acts.
How you twist this into some weird accusatory idea that bad things should happen to gun owners?
sarisataka
(18,220 posts)A simple question leads me to believe you stand with this poster- http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=1430094
The victim BTW was not the gun owner but is apparently ammosexual by association.
When an elderly black man was attacked by a younger white man because he noticed the black man was legally carrying a pistol, the suggestion from the pro-gun control side was the white man "should have broken his damn arms."
It seems violence is acceptable as long as it is not gun violence.
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)Your innuendo that I personally wish some kind of violence on someone?
Sorry - I am not a gun owner.
sarisataka
(18,220 posts)Just straightforward questions.
For the record I don't wish violence on anyone. I believe in valuing all lives equally.
beevul
(12,194 posts)And you peoples insistence on treating a right as if its a privilege is also observed over and over and over whenever and wherever the issue comes up.
You have lost all credibility when you insist that suicides and homicides are the same thing and therefore require the same solutions.
Whatever you have to convince yourself to help you sleep at night. Let me know when the brady or the VPC or any of your other anti-gun groups get close to the nra or any other pro-gun group, when it comes to favorability with mainstream American.
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)is the only majority group impeding common sense gun reform.
You can tell a lot from the company you keep.
You do know this is a Democratic website, or is it too confusing right now?
beevul
(12,194 posts)Let me guess, you don't like them very much.
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)Yes I have.
beevul
(12,194 posts)N/T
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)It has no resemblance to my liberalism.
beevul
(12,194 posts)friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)...not self-appointed political officers.
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)But 'discussion' will do nicely
You are, of course, free to call it what you like...
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)Pure non-topical snark is another standard tactical response.
You all are like... professionals or something?
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)I do realize that 'true believers' are reluctant to accept that they might not, in fact,
be the sole and only repository of Truth. I get that.
It's when they go past that and start getting into 'false consensus effect'...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False-consensus_effect
Additionally, when confronted with evidence that a consensus does not exist, people often assume that those who do not agree with them are defective in some way
...that I start to worry about the poor dears.
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)I don't mind arguing about guns.
Arguing about nothing is pointless.
You don't think this shtick is familiar? It's why we don't often engage with y'all.
We know it goes nowhere.
beevul
(12,194 posts)I'd have better odds expecting of it raining cookie dough ice cream on the 4th of july.
EX500rider
(10,532 posts)yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)Ever tried crossing a river on a gun?
EX500rider
(10,532 posts).....but you still would not say jumping off a bridge to kill yourself was "bridge violence" because you would sound stupid.
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)I couldn't find anything on "bridge violence"?
I'll keep an eye out for the creation of a National Bridge Association to deflect bridges as being responsible for deaths - and to tell everyone we actually need more bridges!
EX500rider
(10,532 posts)No, any more then if I hold a gun to my head and pull the trigger.
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)and marketed to be the best at what you just did with it?
Drunk or sober.
And once more - I don't drive a gun to the grocery store.
beevul
(12,194 posts)Explain how a gun with sights designed to be used from behind, is "designed and marketed" in any way shape size or form, for suicide.
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)You don't have to aim a barrel pressed against your head.
The "design and marketing" has to do with the original purpose and the "lethality."
I know of no guns designed and marketed to just slightly injure or inflict just a flesh wound.
beevul
(12,194 posts)Bzzt. I'm sorry. Bullets don't just 'lock' on to a target. Guns are designed to be AIMED.
Do you actually believe that suicide is proper use of a firearm?
Really?
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)You go off on tangents, and then try to conflate it all.
You all practice this tactic all the time!
Using a gun to commit suicide is the fulfillment of the design and marketing of the gun.
It is a weapon designed and marketed for its lethal force. When it is used to kill, it did its job.
beevul
(12,194 posts)For example:
No gun is marketed or or designed for suicide.
That's a fact in spite of whatever spin you come up with, but tell you what, lets have a contest:
You keep saying that "Using a gun to commit suicide is the fulfillment of the design and marketing of the gun", and I'll keep replying with "No gun is marketed or or designed for suicide".
Lets make a spectacle of it and see who looks more the fool, k?
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)If you use a gun to shoot or kill someone - including yourself - you have fulfilled the purpose of the gun.
I understand you can't accept that.
I don't know anyone who buys or owns a gun that hasn't imagined the possibility of using it on another human being.
We know what they are for.
beevul
(12,194 posts)Guns are made for shooting, not for suicide.
Just like pills for for medication, not for suicide.
Just like razor blades are made for shaving, not for suicide.
Just like rope is made for fastening things, not for suicide.
Just like buildings are made for housing people and things, not for suicide.
Just like bridges are made for crossing things, not suicide.
I understand you can't accept that.
I don't know anyone who buys or owns a gun that hasn't imagined the possibility of using it on another human being.
I don't know anyone that manufactures or markets a gun for suicide.
We know what they are sold and marketed for, and suicide aint it.
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)I am completely unaware of what the gun will do. It was made to just shoot.
And it won't be a violent act.
And we go round and round and round pointlessly.
I don't know. Maybe you are. You've done a good job avoiding reality thus far.
In ones heart, the point of suicide is to end ones life, not to "commit violence". Are you going to sit here, with a strait face, and say to me and the rest of DU that hanging ones self is a violence free act? Or jumping off a building? Or setting ones self aflame? Puhleeze.
The reason you lot stopped using 'murder' and started using 'gun violence' was specifically to include suicides to inflate numbers. Nothing more nothing less. You know it. We know it. Everyone knows it. This ludicrous line of argument is of yours was crafted and exists solely to support that.
The unwillingness of people like you to differentiate between murder and suicide where guns are concerned, combined with the stated intentions and the track record of the anti-gun crowd, is all the proof anyone needs, and its right out in the open for all to see.
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)as an act of gun violence.
20,000 dead annually by your assertion is no problem? Nothing we can do?
They don't even count.
Well, I am so glad I don't live in your world.
And in my world, we are working on solutions! I think mine is the better world.
beevul
(12,194 posts)Last edited Fri Apr 29, 2016, 02:32 AM - Edit history (1)
Which assertion would that be? No problem? Wait, are you saying that its either a gun problem or no problem at all? Because that is sure what it sounds like.
Oh? Who said that? Oh, I see. That's you conflating the inability to enact draconian gun control with the inability to do anything about gun violence in general.
This is a defining characteristic of those interested ONLY in gun control. A tell, in other words.
Sure they do. As suicides where no violence against another person was intended. Not as murders where violence against another was intended.
Well, I am so glad I don't live in your world.
Oh but you do.
Because gunz.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)A rope is not a gun.
Do you tie down stuff in your truck bed with a gun?
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)I can't find any reference to "rope violence"? I guess it's not a thing.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)Since you find them authoritative, no doubt you'll accept that one as well...
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)If you got something, bring it!
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)Or did you have the day off yesterday?
You see, we already covered "rope" over and over again already.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)What time zone are you in? I can keep track of what time you come on.
I'm going to be posting Hillary's position on guns soon, and some of her common sense solutions.
I'm sure we are nearing another mindboggling mass murder event since it is so frowned upon to do something to stop them. Obama is doing what he can, but it takes Congress to fix it effectively.
We'll get there!
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)I've said before that I'm all for those sorts of gun laws, in the thread
"NRA talking points"? How about anti-gun talking points?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023396665
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023396665#post29
I'm all in favor of sensible gun laws. That's only reasonable, after all.
In fact, I'd go so far as to say that every gun law I support is sensible. It's only
common sense, after all.
What was that quote from the OP again? Oh, yeah:
ARGUMENTS ABOUT GUN VIOLENCE, NOT THE POLITICAL
FOOD FIGHT IN WASHINGTON OR WONKY STATISTICS.
#3: CLAIM MORAL AUTHORITY AND THE MANTLE OF FREEDOM.
And then there's:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172117894
The next time someone advocates for "common sense" gun laws...
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/apr/1/the-war-on-marriage-and-motherhood/
In defiance of biology, nature and common sense, the administration argues that children need neither a father nor a mother and that having two fathers or two mothers or more is just as good as having one of each.
ANYONE that appeals to 'common sense' is bullshitting you...
So you see, your schtick is nothing new and previous uses of it were
discussed and deconstructed long before you even joined DU...
yallerdawg
(16,104 posts)With some kind of homophobic analogy?
Not taking your toys away from you!
Doing what we can to make our communities safer and keeping guns out of the wrong hands!
Straw man purchasing? Internet sales? Gun show background checks? Include terrorist watch list bans?
Complete background checks including mental health reporting?
Same rules for everyone?
This is common sense.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)Last edited Sat Apr 30, 2016, 04:03 PM - Edit history (1)
I merely pointed out that you employed the same fallacy as a bigot did-
'the appeal to common sense'. I also pointed out that you are far from the first to use it.
Is insulting and belittling people part of 'doing what we can'?
Which is ...what, exactly? What are you doing, aside from posting here, to get what you claim
to desire?
What monies have you donated to gun control organziations? What political events
and hearings have you attended?
Already a federal crime, one not prosecuted nearly often enough
Interstate sales must already go through a federally licensed dealer, and online intrastate
sales are no different from any other intrastate firearm sales
Licensed dealers at gun shows must already do this. Non-dealers cannot, by federal law.
Many gun show operators (and, IMO, all the ethical ones) provide onsite FFL dealers
to perform them for vendors not licensed to do so. Some states and localities
already require this, and I have no problem whatsoever with that.
No. They are arbitrary, capricious, and are no basis for denial of any right.
Already extant:
https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics
The National Instant Criminal Background Check System, or NICS, is all about saving lives and protecting people from harmby not letting guns fall into the wrong hands. It also ensures the timely transfer of firearms to eligible gun buyers.
Mandated by the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993 and launched by the FBI on November 30, 1998, NICS is used by Federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs) to instantly determine whether a prospective buyer is eligible to buy firearms. Before ringing up the sale, cashiers call in a check to the FBI or to other designated agencies to ensure that each customer does not have a criminal record or isnt otherwise ineligible to make a purchase. More than 100 million such checks have been made in the last decade, leading to more than 700,000 denials.
NICS is located at the FBIs Criminal Justice Information Services Division in Clarksburg, West Virginia. It provides full service to FFLs in 30 states, five U.S. territories, and the District of Columbia. Upon completion of the required Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) Form 4473, FFLs contact the NICS Section via a toll-free telephone number or electronically on the Internet through the NICS E-Check System to request a background check with the descriptive information provided on the ATF Form 4473. NICS is customarily available 17 hours a day, seven days a week, including holidays (except for Christmas). Please be advised that calls may be monitored and recorded for any authorized purpose.
They're called "shall-issue" laws, and are heartily disliked among certain
members of the gun control community, apparently because said laws do not discourage gun ownership enough for their tastes.
It is what you *believe* to be common sense. It is not axiomatic that this is so.
MillennialDem
(2,367 posts)y more than 2 guns per perpetrator) are extremely rare.
hack89
(39,171 posts)MillennialDem
(2,367 posts)rate that is the problem.
For an extreme example, the number of guns would sky rocket in my town if a rich WWI and WWII gun collector moved into my town and he had 126 guns. The gun ownership rate would barely be a blip on the radar. It wouldn't move at all if he bought someone's house and said person owned one gun.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)Botany
(70,291 posts)n/t
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)...most any means. It's probably been that way for a long time, no?
The Japanese seem to have no problem with gun-less suicide, given their higher rates than in the U.S. Must be the tall buildings, but they were warned!
Botany
(70,291 posts)I lost a friend to a gun murder about 25 years ago and a Columbus policeman was shot and later died
about 1 mile from my house in early April. The 2nd amendment has been twisted and used in such a way that
our country is seeing too much unneeded bloodshed.
BTW I have hunted and owned guns for years too.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)It appears more to do with culture and history than weapons policy.
Frankly, this blow up over guns is, in the words of ome DUer some 10 years ago, "a culture war by proxy." I would add that there is a huge frustration among progressives because of their inability to counter in any significant way the forces of state corporatization and oligarchy; so we choose the most photogenic enemy: Middle (and former middle) class and poor whites (largely abandoned by the Democratic Party), and labeled them as racist gun nuts. This serves to distract progs from their former values of improving society through programmatic changes in education, job security, health care, etc., in favor of ban/control of an object. And corporate interests see this gift as better than distracting the enemy. It is a defacto affirmation that the RW was right all along: Just criminalize something and rely on their one favorite social policy: Arrest and imprisonment.
Good hunting! I always look forward to dove, then deer seasons here in Texas.
dreamnightwind
(4,775 posts)I hate guns, but they are not one of the major problems right now, we hav far more important issues to deal with, and even if we were dealing with gun violence, I think we'd do better to deal with by addressing the ways we let people fall through the cracks of society, ostracize and outlaw them in the process, have little social support for those that aren't making it, have a violent warrior culture stoked by militarism, I'd look at those kind of things before I'd go after people's guns.
But what I liked in your post was this:
I would add that there is a huge frustration among progressives because of their inability to counter in any significant way the forces of state corporatization and oligarchy; so we choose the most photogenic enemy: Middle (and former middle) class and poor whites (largely abandoned by the Democratic Party), and labeled them as racist gun nuts. This serves to distract progs from their former values of improving society through programmatic changes in education, job security, health care, etc., in favor of ban/control of an object. And corporate interests see this gift as better than distracting the enemy.
Precisely.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)TeddyR
(2,493 posts)Thankfully firearms murders are way down in the US too, AND we have the Second Amendment to protect the right to keep and bear arms from those who want to take away our civil rights.
Orrex
(63,086 posts)Of course, the per capita gun murder rate in the US exceeds that of the next seven or eight nations combined, and the suicide rate is about equal to the next three nations combined.
So clearly the beloved Guns! Guns! Guns! amendment isn't sufficient to protect us from Guns! Guns! Guns! after all.
TeddyR
(2,493 posts)Which as I just mentioned have different causes and solutions than murders. And the US is actually 50th in the world in suicide rates - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate. Japan has MUCH higher suicide rates than the US but almost no private firearms. On edit, what's going on in Guyana - that country's suicide rates are appallingly high.
But again, if you don't like private ownership of firearms then work to repeal the Second Amendment, then work to repeal the provision in your state constitution that almost certainly prohibits government interference with firearm ownership (a handful of states do not have such provisions in their constitution), then convince your state government to outlaw the ownership of firearms. Of course, the only people that won't own guns in your state are those who obey the law, while criminals will continue to rob and murder with the firearms they aren't supposed to have.
Orrex
(63,086 posts)Tell me a solid, verifiable way to get people to stop murdering themselves and others with guns that doesn't involve a reduction in the overall number of guns in our fine nation.
Take your time--I've asked this question many, many times, and so far no gun advocate has come anywhere close to answering. At best, they'll make some sort of vague and tepid suggestion along the lines of "greater access to mental health care," but when it comes to specific recommendations, they don't have anything to offer beyond the NRA's talking points.
TeddyR
(2,493 posts)It isn't the tool that matters but the fact that someone was killed. And you know as well as I do that a murder has vastly different underlying causes (usually) than a suicide, and that each murder also has vastly different causes - the person who robs and shoots someone for his wallet isn't committing the crime for the same reason as someone who shoots his wife because he's abusive. But if you have some solutions that will help lower crime and prevent suicide then I'm all for it. But blaming "gunz" is both illogical and ignores the real issues - a gun didn't jump off the couch and shoot someone and the existence of guns isn't causing gang members to shoot and kill other gang members or civilians (and here in the Northern Virginia area the gang members are killing each other with knives and rocks when they don't have guns). Nor are guns causing depressed people to kill themselves.
You say you want to reduce the overall number of guns. Reduce to what? What do you think is acceptable? Is everyone limited to a single firearm, or five? How do you determine who does and does not get a gun?
Orrex
(63,086 posts)It fails on just about every level, and this is in fact so obvious that I can't believe that you ask it seriously.
Gun apologists endlessly cite the number of gun murders as a small percentage of the overall number gun of guns. Maybe so. But the the overall number of knife murders is much smaller than the number of gun murders, while the number of knives vastly outnumbers guns in the US, by at least several orders of magnitude. Therefore, by the gun apologists' own measurement, the number of knife murders is so infinitesimal as to be nonexistent.
Further, the number of fatal knifing sprees is far smaller than the number of fatal gun sprees. If you disagree, then please post a tally of the mass knifings so far in 2016 (and why not include 2015 while you're at it?)
In addition, it's much harder to kill someone with a knife than with a gun. If you dispute this, then please give me a list of armies worldwide that have abandoned firearms in favor of knives as the preferred field weapon.
Beyond that, knives has a great many functions beyond killing. Yes, guns can be used for target practice, but that's essentially a surrogate for killing. If you object, then please give me an analogous activity undertaken with knives, and tell me how common "stabbing practice" is by comparison. Or let's equate the two. That means guns have two purposes, while knives have dozens or hundreds.
As for your question, it matters whether the murder is committed with a gun or a knife because guns are used for murder far more commonly, are far easier to use for that purpose, are lethal far more often, are more conducive to multiple murders in one episode, and are much more likely to inflict collateral injury or death along the way.
Therefore I ask you a question in return: on what possible basis do you equate gun murders and knife murders?
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)That's how. We have a violence problem, not a gun problem.
EX500rider
(10,532 posts)Orrex
(63,086 posts)My monitor won't display the names of the countries on that graph. It would be interesting to see where we rate against other so-called developed nations. And is that homicide by gun?
And I'm sure that the families thousands dead annually will be comforted to know that other people are murdered too.
EX500rider
(10,532 posts)Orrex
(63,086 posts)The US has the worst murder rate. And you consider this good?
EX500rider
(10,532 posts)Orrex
(63,086 posts)You shouldn't measure the US against undeveloped nations with failed governments and no infrastructure--I would sure as hell hope that we rate better than Sierra Leone, for fuck's sake!
Rate us against other "developed" nations and see how we stack up. Why shouldn't we rate better than Finland or Germany or Canada? What are they doing right that we can't seem to manage?
EX500rider
(10,532 posts)Finland has a homogeneous population and no narco-state on their southern border and no gang problem, which is where about 80% of US murders spring from. Neither does Germany or Canada.
Orrex
(63,086 posts)then why do we need hundreds and millions of guns adding to the danger?
EX500rider
(10,532 posts)....if there was the US would have the highest homicide rate on the planet instead of being below the average and median rate.
Places where guns are basically outlawed have a murder rate many times the US's like Jamaica & Mexico.
Heck, the Hutu in Rwanda managed to kill about a million Tutsi in 100 days using mostly machetes and the homicide rate in pre-gun history was many times the current rate.
Orrex
(63,086 posts)If gun zealots are going to set the bar that low, then I suppose that gun murders in the US do look awesome by comparison.
You should work for the tourism industry:
[font size=4]Come to America! We're not quite as bad as the Rwandan Genocide[/font]
EX500rider
(10,532 posts)And over 30,000 people die every year by falling.
Over 38,000 in unintentional poisonings.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)...and their survivors?
As I pointed out upthread, if you stripped out murders via gun from the US murder rate,
we would still have a higher murder rate than Australia's.
jtuck004
(15,882 posts)Fuck pistols. In a time when our relations with China are strained his could help ramp up a war, maybe even end the world we live on.
Good job, Australia. And France appreciates the boost. At least you didn't buy any handguns.
What submarines?
hack89
(39,171 posts)Violet_Crumble
(35,954 posts)davidn3600
(6,342 posts)Even with the mass shootings, the FBI reports that deaths by guns has not only dropped in the US but has been dropping steadily since the early 1990s.
MillennialDem
(2,367 posts)g, not growing in the US.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)when purchasing a gun, not just merely register the gun.
These states have had a big boost in citizen registration.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)Proportionally, Massachusetts has half again as many concealed handgun licensees as Texas
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172181919
Us Massachusetts rednecks sure love us our shootin' irons!
<SARCASM MODE> to <OFF>
beevul
(12,194 posts)First time buyers every single one.
DonP
(6,185 posts)That's over 400,000 new gun owners in just 2 years.
That's from the Illinois State Police who issue the FOID Cards, not the NRA.
beevul
(12,194 posts)Thats very interesting Don. It seems very contrary to the whole "more guns in less hands" talking points that we're constantly bombarded with by the usual suspects.
I think it worthy of discussion, what can be reasonably extrapolated from that, when it comes to other states, such as:
Is it reasonable to believe that any less has happened in other states? Gun friendly states?
Is it reasonable to believe that Illinois and Massachusetts with their strict gun laws are the only states in which guns are sold to first time owners?
I don't think so lol.
DonP
(6,185 posts)Every state in the union has shrinking gun ownership, ... except the two that actually can measure new gun owners with state issued ownership/registration cards for purchase.
When in doubt choose the estimate that best fits your agenda and world view.
It's an article of their religious level belief that they are really in the "mainstream", the Gallup and all those other polls that show a growing acceptance and approval of ownership are all wrong and guns are fading from the scene, just not quite fast enough for them.
Millennials, women and minorities just aren't interested in guns or the shooting sports, "Because I said so dammit!!" Of course it doesn't match with the make up of the CCW classes I've been teaching for the last 2 years either. But they all know better.
Of course that also means the three new large, and expensive ranges/stores/shooting clubs opening up, just on the Southwest side of Chicago alone, are really very poor business people willing to lose millions of $ opening a business with a shrinking demand.
That says it all, right there.
The question is, do they themselves, actually believe the shit they're shoveling?
HuckleB
(35,773 posts)jmg257
(11,996 posts)"Between 1993 and 2000, the gun homicide rate dropped by nearly half, from 7.0 homicides to 3.8 homicides per 100,000 people. The rate was 3.4 in 2014.
What did we do right?
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)rifles similar to that used at Sandy Hook. When are we going to bit the bullet like Australia?
Sick white -- that is, racist -- gun fanciers lined up to add an assault rifle like Adam Lanza used to their collection just a few days after Sandy Hook:
sarisataka
(18,220 posts)By the color of their skin. How Progressive of you.
TeddyR
(2,493 posts)Violence is limited to white kids? And all white gun owners are racist? Are black gun owners also racist?
jmg257
(11,996 posts)Hoyt
(54,770 posts)to go to the store.
jmg257
(11,996 posts)It's a very strong motivator.
Whether tucked in their pants, or at home, for defense or for sport, its a huge number of people with a huge number of guns.
Tough thing to expect for all those people to just give up a drastic number of them.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)sendero
(28,552 posts)...show that those kind of laws are never going to happen here.
Turbineguy
(37,212 posts)It would save too many lives.
Albertoo
(2,016 posts)That an armed citizenry less at risk of being oppressed by a dictator.
Pol Pot's genocide would have been a bit harder with an armed citizenry.
Fair weather statistics teach us nothing about avoiding hurricanes.
onehandle
(51,122 posts)Gun nuts are outgunned by our government, a million times over.
[img][/img]
Albertoo
(2,016 posts)A Pol Pot schtick just wouldn't stick.
Violet_Crumble
(35,954 posts)Y'know, I always wondered why after 1996 everywhere I go people talk in hushed whispers about how we can no longer be like those brave Americans lugging high powered weaponry around shopping centres and defend ourselves against all those brutal dictators and genocidal maniacs just itching to overrun a country that's got itself sensible gun laws. Now I know better. There I was all this time thinking that the key point was that after a few years with multiple mass shootings there's been none since 1996.
Clearly we need to ditch those oh so oppressive gun laws we've got and follow the stellar example set by the US where gun enthusiasts are all prepared for any imminent genocide!
Albertoo
(2,016 posts)History is full of wars and demagogues. I like knowing the citizenry is empowered.
Violet_Crumble
(35,954 posts)Do you realise how, uh, weird it sounds to try to gloss over Americas problems with mass shootings by pretending there's a bigger issue of potential genocide in the US or Australia? Because that's kind of weirder than weird.
Albertoo
(2,016 posts)So the extra mortality of weapons in normal times fades by comparison to the massive potential cost of an unarmed citizenry. Hope I clarified my point of view so as to make it un-weird.
Violet_Crumble
(35,954 posts)Both the US and Australia are stable democracies where any risk of a genocidal dictator taking power is totally microscopic. Unless I missed the spate of genocidal dictators appearing in both countries in the 20th century? To say that the deaths due to mass shootings fades in comparison to some bizarre belief that there's a risk of genocide and dictatorship in the US is just as fucked up as the American on another forum who informed me in all seriousness that he felt sorry for me because unlike him I'm not allowed to store an arsenal to protect myself against my government.
Here's the reality. The US has a massive problem with regular mass shootings. Australia used to have a similar problem which stopped when the Commonwealth and state and territory governments all got on the same page and introduced gun control legislation. Have you read the laws that we have in Australia? I'd be interested to know what if anything you object to in them, and why. I've posted a link to the legislation for where I live as the legislation is very similar in all states and territories.
http://www.legislation.act.gov.au/a/1996-74/current/pdf/1996-74.pdf
If that one's a bit hard going seeing it's lengthy and very dry, there's a very succinct summary of the laws here:
http://www.loc.gov/law/help/firearms-control/australia.php
Albertoo
(2,016 posts)Really?
Stable democracies?
The US is 200+ years old and has known 2.5 major wars on its soil: Independence, Texas, Civil War. Australia was a penal colony and has been a country for only 100+ years.
any risk of a genocidal dictator taking power is totally microscopic? How do you know that?
Who would have guessed the highly developed Germany could produce extermination camps?
Or that the business astute Chinese could produce a Mao?
Look back a few hundred years, and you will see the world is far more unstable you imagine it to be. By comparison, the few hundreds extra deaths due to a free citizenry having weapons is a life insurance policy.
stone space
(6,498 posts)WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)WDIM
(1,662 posts)Especially to dictators.
No more suppling guns to the middle east.
Banning assault rifles from the entire globe
Then talk about gun control here at home.
It is purely hypocritical to say you want gun control here in the US but are for arming dictators and rebel forces overseas.
Increase in guns obviously does not increase deaths by guns. Gun ownership is the highest it's ever been in this country and violent crime continues to decrease.
Prohibition and bans usually have more negative effects and more violence and create black markets and crimes.
Albertoo
(2,016 posts)WDIM
(1,662 posts)The first American-made Kalashnikovs are now for sale!
"AK-style rifles are manufactured all over the world, including in the U.S. But this is the first time official Kalashnikov-brand guns have been produced in the U.S."
USA exporting Terror since 1960!
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)Those are made for the US domestic market, and paramilitaries and cartels can get
the fully automatic OG versions for far less...
Albertoo
(2,016 posts)sarisataka
(18,220 posts)should the government spend on Australian type action? Their law was a mandatory buyback program.
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)After you anti-gun people take away the 2nd Amendment what amendment will you go after next to make us "safe"?
This is the key thing the anti-gun authoritarians are incapable of understanding, that for many of us freedom is more important than safety.
Skittles
(152,965 posts)more like paranoia is more important than either one
Orrex
(63,086 posts)This is the key thing the anti-gun authoritarians are incapable of understanding, that for many of us freedom is more important than safety.
beevul
(12,194 posts)Or had you forgotten Iraq?
Rex
(65,616 posts)Less guns means less gun violence and death.
Darb
(2,807 posts)Gross.
Marengo
(3,477 posts)Darb
(2,807 posts)All the while hiding in their clubhouse when a thread pops up that points out the obvious denigration of our society by the pollution of it by ever more powerful and dangerous guns in the hands of idiots and fools and clowns and unstable people.
Sensible gun control is imperative. Try to start a discussion on it and you will get swamped by the bloody hand club, flooding you with ridiculous excuses and complications. Try it. You will see, it is all about their toys.
beevul
(12,194 posts)Lets get one thing strait here. The gun forum is an open group where discussion is allowed and encouraged. Theres no 'hiding' about it. If you aren't interested in visiting or debating with people who know the subject matter in and out, that's on you.
A more 'reasonable' or 'sensible' definition of hiding, would be if we ran our group like an ideological echo chamber, and blocked everyone who did not share our views on guns.
Kind of like bansalot does:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1262
Tell me again, who hides " in their clubhouse"?
Spoken like a true anti-gun ideologue. Firearms technology really hasn't grown in in terms of "power" or "dangerousness" in decades.
As another poster wisely said: I'll believe the gun control lobby is primarily concerned about criminal violence when they stop targeting the lawful and responsible.
Whats 'sensible' to people who hate guns, isn't 'sensible' to me, or to mainstream America.
Ahh yes. "The bloody hand club". The astute reader will note that this refers, not to those that misuse firearms resulting in death or injury, but to those who enjoy their rights where firearms are concerned, and therefore oppose gun bans.
Me, I think that says about all that needs saying.
Darb
(2,807 posts)There is blood on them.
Your slip is showing like a billboard.
beevul
(12,194 posts)Tell me more about how I'm the problem with blood on my hands, in spite of being a responsible gun owner.
Funny how people with viewpoints as extreme as yours never actually mention the shooter when it comes to whos got blood on their hands.
But not 'funny haha'.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)TeddyR
(2,493 posts)And how will it lead to fewer deaths? I'd be interested to know exactly what you propose that respect the Second Amendment (since you aren't proposing a complete gun ban).
Darb
(2,807 posts)If you are on the side of the fascist five then you've got a lot of splaining to do ricky.
How about making it much harder for someone to buy a gun, smart guy. Start there.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)Darb
(2,807 posts)"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
The superior statement, of the amendment as a whole, is "A well regulated Militia shall not be infringed."
The subordinate statements are "being necessary to the security of the free state" and "the right of the people to keep and bear arms".
The subordinates are there to define and support the superior. the reason for the amendment is the right of the people to form a militia. The bearing arms part is all in terms of the military.
Sorry gun humpers, the 2nd amendment does not say:
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".
Is that plain enough for you? Now twist your self like Scalia to help your confederate comrades arm themselves for when they don't get their way.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)I don't mind arguing with someone that insists on 'virtue signalling':
https://www.google.com/search?q=virtue+signalling&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8
but it *does* help greatly when that person does not a) misrepresent what is plainly written:
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html
and, b) has the manners of a poorly socialized middle schooler.
Good luck on overturning two or three Supreme Court decisions, but if you're
feeling up to it, the following would be a good place to start
https://www.loc.gov/law/help/second-amendment.php
Darb
(2,807 posts)to suit your needs.
Bloody handed apologists deserve to be treated politely? Those days are gone. Your side is belligerent and dangerous and wholly disinterested in any form of debate. It is obfuscation and distraction and outright dishonesty.
The worshipers of a misinterpreted 2nd are a danger to our democracy. Honest and decent gun owners know that more regulation is needed. Not the rest and not the Republican Party, who you seem to be allied with in this case. How many others?
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)Gun owners (and I) are no more 'bloody handed' than those who don't support reinstating
alcohol prohibition are responsible for drunk driving deaths.
There's a word that describes what you're doing: demagoguery
Impassioned appeals to the prejudices and emotions of the populace
But by all means, keep up the moral posturing and collective guilt-tripping...
Darb
(2,807 posts)Own it.
And quit crying. Comparing drunk driving with gun violence is a stupid analogy and you know it. You got nothing except your worship of the misinterpreted second, backed only by the fascist five. You are on the wrong site I think. There are plenty of humper sites that attract many, many like minds. go enjoy.
I am a gun owner and am not bloody handed. People like you, that are preventing the sensible control of weapons that should not be easily acquired by idiots are aiding and abetting the mass shooters. Own it.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)Judging from your bile-filled replies, you seem to have gotten the erroneous notion that
"disagreeing with Darb" = "allying with the NRA".
It seems all that self-righteous anger has fucked up your research skills-
I was dissing the NRA at DU years before you even blew in here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=57629
My "buddies" at the NRA? No James Randi money for you- I think of them almost as poorly as you do.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/117222584
http://www.democraticunderground.com/117250142#post163
So what is it, Hoyt? Poor research skills or deliberate falsehood on your part?
Here's my reply to another self-appointed zampolit that tried the same routine:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=53805
-*The NRA* for becoming (as I said before) a hypocritical right-wing political movement with a bitchin' gun club...
-*You* for trying to spread faith-promoting rumor and slandering a fellow DUer when called on it. You don't like the NRA? Fine- but hate them for real reasons instead of some half baked CT.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172116375
'Allies' with the Republicans? Horseshit:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=51231
You distort the true history of Rosa Parks and of the civil rights movement in general.
Not that such revisionism is anything new:
http://www.onthemedia.org/2010/aug/27/tabula-rosa/transcript/
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php/http:/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x337407#337605
14. More on Timothy Tyson, Robert F. Williams, and armed African-Americans:
Edited on Tue Aug-31-10 12:30 PM by friendly_iconoclast
....In 1998, Tyson published an influential article in the Journal of American History, "Robert F. Williams, 'Black Power,' and the Roots of the Black Freedom Struggle." The following year, his Radio Free Dixie: Robert F. Williams and the Roots of Black Power, published by UNC Press, won the Frederick Jackson Turner Prize for best first book in U.S. history from the Organization of American Historians, as well as the James A. Rawley Prize for best book on the subject of race. "Radio Free Dixie" provided the foundation for "Negroes with Guns: Rob Williams and Black Power", a documentary film made by Sandra Dickson and Churchill Roberts at the University of Florida's Documentary Institute and broadcast on national television in February 2007. "Negroes with Guns," for which Tyson served as lead consultant, won the Erick Barnouw Award for best historical film from the Organization of American Historians....
An interview with Robert F. Williams:
Another interview with Williams:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5457524655277645843#
You can buy the DVD of "Negroes with Guns: Rob Williams and Black Power" here:
http://newsreel.org/nav/title.asp?tc=CN0178
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=331645&mesg_id=331645
Remembering Robert Hicks and the Deacons of Defense
http://www.thesouthernshift.com/news/2010/04/remembering-robert-hicks-and-deacons-defense
Submitted by Southern Shift on Mon, 2010-04-26 11:32
The story around Robert Hicks and his group Deacons for Defense have all but been erased from public consciousness. You check on familiar touch points like YouTube and there's nothing there. Pictures are hard to find and articles are scant. The thought of armed Black men standing up to the KKK and successfully protecting lives and propert during the harsh days of the Jim Crow South is a scary thought for many. The truth of the matter is many African Americans did not sit back and just allow themselves to be beaten and terrorized by the KKK. Hicks represented an underplayed part of our history..
The passing of Robert Hicks will not be acknowledge on the same scale as the passing of Guru, Dr Dorothy Height and Benjamin Hooks but he is no less important. We tip our hat because he did what many have come to belive was the unthinkable.We also encourage folks to try and pick up a copy of the movie that stars Forest Whitaker
-Davey D-
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/25/us/25hicks.html?scp=1&sq=robert%20hicks&st=cse
Robert Hicks, Leader in Armed Rights Group, Dies at 81
The Klan was furious that Mr. Hicks, a black paper mill worker, was putting up two white civil rights workers in his home. It was just six months after three young civil rights workers had been murdered in Philadelphia, Miss.
Mr. Hicks and his wife, Valeria, made some phone calls. They found neighbors to take in their children, and they reached out to friends for protection. Soon, armed black men materialized. Nothing happened.
Less than three weeks later, the leaders of a secretive, paramilitary organization of blacks called the Deacons for Defense and Justice visited Bogalusa. It had been formed in Jonesboro, La., in 1964 mainly to protect unarmed civil rights demonstrators from the Klan. After listening to the Deacons, Mr. Hicks took the lead in forming a Bogalusa chapter, recruiting many of the men who had gone to his house to protect his family and guests....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deacons_for_Defense_and_Justice
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Deacons for Defense and Justice is an armed self defense African American civil rights organization in the U.S. Southern states during the 1960s. Historically, the organization practiced self-defense methods in the face of racist oppression that was carried out by Jim Crow Laws; local and state agencies; and the Ku Klux Klan. Many times the Deacons are not written about or cited when speaking of the Civil Rights Movement because their agenda of self-defense, in this case, using violence (if necessary) did not fit the image of strict non-violence agenda that leaders like Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. preached about the Civil Rights Movement. Yet, there has been a recent debate over the crucial role the Deacons and other lesser known militant organizations played on local levels throughout much of the rural South. Many times in these areas the Federal government did not always have complete control over to enforce such laws like the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or Voting Rights Act of 1965.
The Deacons are a segment of the larger tradition of Black Power in the United States. This tradition began with the inception of African slavery in the U.S. and began with the use of Africans as chattel slaves in the Western Hemisphere. Stokely Carmichael defines Black Power as, The goal of black self-determination and black self-identityBlack Poweris full participation in the decision-making processes affecting the lives of black people, and recognition of the virtues in themselves as black people.[1] Those of us who advocate Black Power are quite clear in our own minds that a non-violent approach to civil rights is an approach black people cannot afford and a luxury white people do not deserve.[1] This refers to the idea that the traditional ideas and values of the Civil Rights Movement placated to the emotions and feelings of White liberal supporters rather than Black Americans who had to consistently live with the racism and other acts of violence that was shown towards them.
The Deacons were a driving force of Black Power that Stokely Carmichael echoed. Carmichael speaks about the Deacons when he writes, Here is a group which realized that the law and law enforcement agencies would not protect people, so they had to do it themselves...The Deacons and all other blacks who resort to self-defense represent a simple answer to a simple question: what man would not defend his family and home from attack?[1] The Deacons, according to Carmichael and many others were the protection that the Civil Rights needed on local levels, as well as, the ones who intervened in places that the state and federal government fell short.
Your research would be much easier if you actually donated and helped Democratic
Underground, which you have not done as yet
Of course, that's typical of gun prohibitionists as they are prone to extreme stinginess...
Matrosov
(1,098 posts)These threads always attract the usual suspects who are quick to point out things like "Oh, my gun has never killed anyone." or "The Constitution guarantees my right to keep and bear arms, not your right to be free of gun violence." or "If the confiscation starts, are you going to volunteer for the job?"
ALL gun owners have blood on their hands.
beevul
(12,194 posts)266. Those of the enablers
These threads always attract the usual suspects who are quick to point out things like "Oh, my gun has never killed anyone." or "The Constitution guarantees my right to keep and bear arms, not your right to be free of gun violence." or "If the confiscation starts, are you going to volunteer for the job?"
ALL gun owners have blood on their hands.
I'll gladly repost the same thing over and over
hack89
(39,171 posts)Can't argue with your logic.
Matrosov
(1,098 posts)How many people drink and drive for the sake of killing someone?
Not all gun owners have firearms because they hope to kill someone, but it's certainly the reason that many criminals have guns.
hack89
(39,171 posts)seems pretty straight forward to me. Why not change it to "ALL criminals have blood on their hands."
Matrosov
(1,098 posts)Let's say I have never even had as much as a traffic ticket. I should be able to go down to the local gun store and pick up the firearm of my choosing. The NICS system? Ha, I'd have no problem passing that test!
So what do I get? An AR15 from Bushmaster? An AK47 from Arsenal? Maybe just a 9mm from Smith&Wesson or a .45 from Springfield or Kimber. Or a nice bolt action from Remington or shotgun from Mossberg?
What kind of current gun control would stop me from going down to the nearest school and taking out as many kids as possible. What kind of 'common sense' gun control would stop me?
NONE!
Even if I had been convicted of a felony, what would stop me?
NOTHING!
I could always go to the house of a 'resonsible' gun owner and rob them. Or I could find a 'resonsible' gun owner willing to do business with me, and have them purchase a firearm on my behalf.
On the other hand, if private gun ownership weren't even possible... it wouldn't magically remove all the firearms off the streets, but it would start making it much more difficult for criminals to acquire murder weapons.
hack89
(39,171 posts)What is stopping me from buying a six pack, getting drunk and killing innocent people? Alcohol contributes to death, disease, suicide, domestic violence, child abuse, etc.
If private consumption of alcohol was not legal how many lives would we save?
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)Special pleading can be against something, as well as in favor:
https://www.google.com/search?q=special+pleading&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8
TeddyR
(2,493 posts)On a piece of glass when I took out the trash a few weeks ago. Bled pretty impressively. That's the only blood I'm aware of on my hands. Do you think that the founding fathers who drafted the Second Amendment have blood on their hands? Pretty sure those individuals owned a gun. Gabby Giffords owns a Glock 9MM - does she have blood on her hands?
Matrosov
(1,098 posts)They originally adopted the Second Amendment as a way for the people to organize and stand up to a tyrannical government, whether American or British.
Our current gun culture is far, far, FAR away from that, even if there are a few gun nuts who have wet dreams about 'voting from the rooftops' and think that every Democratic politician is trying to stick them into a reeducation camp, North Korea style.
sarisataka
(18,220 posts)Matrosov
(1,098 posts)Those pictures are usually photo opportunities meant to appease the gun owners. Sadly, after 1994, many Democrats lost the intestinal fortitude to fight gun violence and stand up to gun owners.
sarisataka
(18,220 posts)If it is they are simply doing photo ops. They are gun owners so in your words they have blood on their hands.
Matrosov
(1,098 posts)Just because they are also Democrats does make them immune from criticism.
sarisataka
(18,220 posts)Who wrote These bloody-handed officials into office do they have any responsibilities?
Matrosov
(1,098 posts)Not everyone has perfect foresight. If you vote for a Democrat who claims to be anti-gun and then changes their position, that's one thing. If you vote for a Democrat who is obviously pro-gun, that's another thing.
sarisataka
(18,220 posts)I am not a single issue voter. Even if the candidate is anti-gun we are still likely 95% in agreement.
Are you saying you would not vote for a pro-gun Democrat even if you agreed on all other subjects?
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)pablo_marmol
(2,375 posts)Your failure is both massive and obvious.
Matrosov
(1,098 posts)As I said in another post, NOBODY ever drinks in the hope of killing someone. As irresponsible and destructive as drunk drivers are, their actions are not deliberate.
On the other hand, whether it's the repeat offender or the previously 'responsible gun owner,' people who kill others with guns make a conscious decision to do so.
Here is an easy test. We once tried to prohibit alcohol, with the justification that the actions of the drunkards outweighed those of the responsible drinkers. It was a monumental failure. On the other hand, how many of the countries that have restricted gun rights for the sake of clamping down on gun violence have actually seen a huge spike in gun violence?
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)Did you not think we'd notice your changing goalposts? Your own words describe what
you're attempting:
pablo_marmol
(2,375 posts)Your word salad notwithstanding, you haven't demonstrated how the purchase of firearms by non-criminals somehow "causes" criminals to use guns to commit violence. And you never will.
You're so utterly blinded by your hate you can't see that even if it were possible to immediately disarm the small percentage of gun owners (criminals!) who misuse guns, they could rearm themselves almost overnight.......given the OBVIOUS fact that demand creates its own supply.
And of course your team NEVER puts forth any concrete plans on how "restriction" would be accomplished in the first place. Flailing and failing -- it's what y'all are known for.
Gun restriction is DONE. Put a fork in it. Ten years ago the #1 reasons for purchasing guns related to hunting & sporting purposes. Self defense was secondary. Now that equation is reversed -- and since citizens vote their own interest, you controllers are essentially (and very haplessly!) attempting to push a very heavy boulder up a steep incline. Good luck with that.
pablo_marmol
(2,375 posts).......people guilty of the great "crime" of enjoying target shooting, hunting, or simply want the ability to protect themselves and their families share guilt with vicious criminals who misuse guns?
Congratulations. Your brazen dishonesty succeeds ONLY in pushing voters to the GOP.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)"They're ALL Guilty".
They could alternate blaming their particular boogeymen, and use the title as
a chorus- they both already know the tune by heart...
pablo_marmol
(2,375 posts)Darb
(2,807 posts)Sick and twisted? Damn, you've got a strange definition of sick and twisted. Not the tools that whine about their right to own an AK with a 30 round mag, they're not twisted. The people that don't want idiots owning them are. Right, got it.
Purchase a clue when you run across it.
pablo_marmol
(2,375 posts)Last edited Tue May 3, 2016, 02:04 AM - Edit history (1)
Purchase yourself a clue.
Your ilk doesn't seem to care in the slightest that it's those with criminal backgrounds that commit the VAST majority of gun-related crimes.
But by all means --- keep the smears coming. They've worked so well for you thus far!
Matrosov
(1,098 posts)Because as long as 'responsible' gun owners keep pushing for the right of everybody to own a firearm, criminals will take advantage of that.
Those 'responsible' gun owners know it full well, and yet they keep making excuses like, 'Well, my gun never killed anybody.' No, but your insistence on being able to own murder weapons has killed countless people.
pablo_marmol
(2,375 posts)Show us the data connecting the raw number of guns in the U.S. to the rate of gun violence. You simply ASSume a connection, purposefully avoiding the logical fallacy involved in doing so.
Edited to add for the logically challenged: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation
No, but your insistence on being able to own murder weapons has killed countless people.
Prove it. "Because I say so" doesn't cut it.......and only demonstrates your arrogance and dishonesty.
For any two correlated events, A and B, the following relationships are possible:
A causes B; (direct causation)
B causes A; (reverse causation)
A and B are consequences of a common cause, but do not cause each other;
A causes B and B causes A (bidirectional or cyclic causation);
A causes C which causes B (indirect causation);
There is no connection between A and B; the correlation is a coincidence.
Derp!
They should just own it. I own guns and recognize that there is a problem and I am part of it. Not an Uzi part of it though. A hunting gun part of it.
Marengo
(3,477 posts)Notice Matrosov said "ALL gun owners have blood on their hands."
Marengo
(3,477 posts)Matrosov
(1,098 posts)I've been to the shooting range for the sake of keeping an open mind. I've shot everything from .22 LR to 7.62 and Mauser calibers. I can tell you the difference between an AR15 and a AK47 variant. Part of it is also that the people I deal with in every day life tend to be hardcore RKBA advocates.
Many progressives aren't willing to go to such lengths. I find it important to always challenges my beliefs.
But after challenging those beliefs once again, I've realized that more guns aren't the answer. The NRA says that in order to combat gun violence, we need MORE gun owners. My answer is that we aren't going to stop gun violence until we outlaw firearms completely.
Marengo
(3,477 posts)Eat meat? Use of consume any product of animal origin? Transport yourself in a petroleum fueled vehicle? Participate in and thereby assist to perpetuate a bourgeois social, economic and political system? The list is nearly endless.
Kang Colby
(1,941 posts)Gun ownership is a right, plain and simple.
Darb
(2,807 posts)go shopping.
You must not have had your coffee yet.
Response to Kang Colby (Reply #299)
pablo_marmol This message was self-deleted by its author.
Takket
(21,425 posts)Well, I threw this article up figuring it would generate a few comments, but never expected this! Reading some of the comments on here I find it hard to believe the supposed stats that Americans are in favor of some forms of gun control. Doesn't look like it reading this site, and if this is the message board of the left, I find it hard to believe the percentages are any better elsewhere.
Gun violence here is clearly enabled by the ease of access the weapons. But, at the same time, it is something more deeply rooted that that. It is cultural. If you gave a gun right now to every man woman and child in Australia, I am willing to bet their murder/suicide rates would not eclipse ours. Guns have become our way of dealing with problems in our lives, and of glorifying our anger with others, whether that be your ex-wife, the government, or the kids that pick on you at school.
We need to do something. We need to improve mental health coverage in this country, and we need to control guns such that people can defend themselves, enjoy their sport, but not have the ability to use weapons offensively.
pablo_marmol
(2,375 posts)Meticulously cited article on how one of those who has screamed the loudest has screwed up the most......
http://213ajq29v6vk19b76q3534cx.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Special-Feature-K-Harris.pdf
You'll know The Controllers by their tactics -- the only strategies for reducing deaths by guns that they embrace are those that involve hapless attempts to restrict the raw number of guns in the U.S.
pablo_marmol
(2,375 posts)........despite the obvious lesson of Prohibition and our failed war on drugs:
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/07/22/1090464799535.html?oneclick=true
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2013/11/19/home-built-m11-submachine-guns-seized-australia/
Also, there really is no scholarly consensus re. the worthiness of Australian gun policy. In the "Gun Control" & RKBA group one of the rights advocates posted a pdf article by an Australian scholar who presented the case that the Aussie gun confiscation accomplished nothing. I'll try to find it.
Response to Takket (Reply #287)
pablo_marmol This message was self-deleted by its author.