Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Takket

(21,425 posts)
Thu Apr 28, 2016, 07:30 AM Apr 2016

20 years of data show Austrailias gun control laws work

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKCN0XP0HG

SYDNEY (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
342 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
20 years of data show Austrailias gun control laws work (Original Post) Takket Apr 2016 OP
What was the rate 30 years ago? Duckhunter935 Apr 2016 #1
I guess you're wrong Major Nikon Apr 2016 #14
well done. zappaman Apr 2016 #69
If you are into post hoc, ergo propter hoc. Eleanors38 Apr 2016 #89
Sorry, that rate of decrease is similar in other countries, like the U.S. Eleanors38 Apr 2016 #72
What country is similar to 72%? Major Nikon Apr 2016 #93
"similar to 72%": You want specific similarity? Eleanors38 Apr 2016 #98
So I'll take your response as you can't provide one Major Nikon Apr 2016 #103
How bout that drop in the U.S. rate, Major! And guns... increased. NT Eleanors38 Apr 2016 #205
... Major Nikon Apr 2016 #206
Play as you may, what Was the U.S. drop? Significant? Related to guns in any way? Eleanors38 Apr 2016 #207
I asked you first Major Nikon Apr 2016 #209
"post hoc, ergo propter hoc" rock Apr 2016 #172
Ergo, my point is proper. Eleanors38 Apr 2016 #204
America's has dropped by 50% Prism Apr 2016 #118
America also implemented a massive crime bill in 1994 Major Nikon Apr 2016 #150
So, the drop in crime was due to incarceration, not guns or gun laws? Eleanors38 Apr 2016 #211
Psst, sarisataka Apr 2016 #217
Perhaps I am looking at it wrong, sarisataka Apr 2016 #83
Gun control did not visibly change the trend of the curve of homicides in Australia Albertoo May 2016 #334
US gun murders are down 50% since 1993 Travis_0004 Apr 2016 #2
As a realist, I agree with what you are saying Victor_c3 Apr 2016 #23
The 1994 Crime Bill? yallerdawg Apr 2016 #24
Here's an interesting statistic...US gun deaths are 10.54 per 100,000 Human101948 Apr 2016 #198
That US rate includes suicides....Australia's suicide rate is 12 per 100,000-not including murders. EX500rider Apr 2016 #256
America's suicide rate is 13 per 100,000 with approximately half by gun... Human101948 May 2016 #259
If guns drove suicides rates then Japan's wouldn't be amoung the highest in the world..... EX500rider May 2016 #271
I was talking aboutstripping out the suicides... Human101948 May 2016 #292
The US non-gun murder rate is above Australia's murder rate. EX500rider May 2016 #312
How does the US stack up for the same item period? Lee-Lee Apr 2016 #3
Yet last year was a record year for gun sales in Australia hack89 Apr 2016 #4
You forgot a paragraph. Old Crow Apr 2016 #5
Didn't the same thing happen in America? hack89 Apr 2016 #8
It isn't that "It Doesn't Work" Indydem Apr 2016 #6
I'd be happy if we enforced the 2nd Amendment. yallerdawg Apr 2016 #11
An honest question for you. hack89 Apr 2016 #13
Your question is since we never enforced it... yallerdawg Apr 2016 #17
If the people who wrote the 2A meant to restrict gun ownership to militias hack89 Apr 2016 #21
The colonies had just conducted a revolution... yallerdawg Apr 2016 #28
The BOR was based on the English Bill of Rights hack89 Apr 2016 #32
Perhaps because the founding fathers weren't omniscient? n/t MrModerate Apr 2016 #29
They were smart enough to allow the Constitution to be changed if needed. hack89 Apr 2016 #30
👆 This. deathrind Apr 2016 #56
Wrong. beevul Apr 2016 #63
Please stop messing with other peoples fantasies, after all what would the Founders know about war? Rex Apr 2016 #234
ROFL beevul Apr 2016 #237
Then I would say this Separation May 2016 #320
I used to make the "individual rights" argument until someone educated me on people being plural. ieoeja Apr 2016 #45
You have to look to case law, not your friend, for the legal definition of "the people" hack89 Apr 2016 #48
If you prefer to win an argument to seeking out the truth, then yes, you are absolutely correct. n/t ieoeja Apr 2016 #50
Just pointing out that your argument is not universally accepted so it is not "the truth" hack89 Apr 2016 #51
That one there blamed Bill Clinton for 9/11 Rex Apr 2016 #235
No I didn't. nt hack89 May 2016 #273
The Constitution deathrind Apr 2016 #58
In the Fourth "The people" "parcularly describes" "the persons." Sorry, individual. Eleanors38 Apr 2016 #79
Even taking your friend's definition at face value no single instance of "the people" Nuclear Unicorn Apr 2016 #80
Yet those same framers went back to their respective states and protected an individual right? X_Digger Apr 2016 #192
Explain to me what part of the Second Amendment limits firearm ownership to militia members TeddyR Apr 2016 #47
"Enforce?" "Enforcement" has happened, just not the way you think. Eleanors38 Apr 2016 #76
Stop. Indydem Apr 2016 #31
You stop. yallerdawg Apr 2016 #38
"your so-called right is depriving us of our lives!" Nuclear Unicorn Apr 2016 #82
Game, set, match. Eleanors38 Apr 2016 #81
Read the preamble... beevul Apr 2016 #62
We should waive the Second Amendment treestar Apr 2016 #20
The 2A does not stop strict gun control laws hack89 Apr 2016 #26
Well by all means. Indydem Apr 2016 #35
Let's just get rid of the amendments that results in 30,000 deaths annually Orrex Apr 2016 #40
How about several million dead iraqis and the voting that led up to it? N/T beevul Apr 2016 #64
Fine by me Travis_0004 Apr 2016 #114
I'd respect gun apologists more Orrex Apr 2016 #119
I dont care about your respect. Travis_0004 Apr 2016 #125
You're a gun apologist. I know what you care about. Orrex Apr 2016 #165
You do not, in fact, know what they care about. You *believe* you know what they care about friendly_iconoclast Apr 2016 #173
So the Second Amendment TeddyR Apr 2016 #135
If you want me to respond, then don't make up opinions and assign them to me. Orrex Apr 2016 #164
Upthread you 'asssigned' feelings to an entire group of people, most of whom you've never met friendly_iconoclast Apr 2016 #175
how is the 2A responsible for all of that? as far as murders go, you'd need statistics on how many dionysus Apr 2016 #176
"our biggest problem, IMO, is that we are a sick people who resort to violence way too much." Orrex Apr 2016 #184
"minimally controlled right" DonP Apr 2016 #200
That's about 1.5 deaths annually per law, so yes. Minimal. Orrex Apr 2016 #214
So what law, that will still pass SCOTUS review, do you propose? DonP Apr 2016 #218
Since you've got all the answers, tell me what would work. Orrex Apr 2016 #224
Typical control fan, not a practical idea in your head, just whining DonP Apr 2016 #226
I have proposed many ideas, and gun zealots call all of them non-starters Orrex Apr 2016 #227
They *are* non-starters, as they are demands and not compromises friendly_iconoclast Apr 2016 #229
Just go back to making angry, silly posts online and make yourself feel good DonP Apr 2016 #230
"A 100% federal sales tax on all guns purchased in the US." EX500rider Apr 2016 #239
Because they most likely were. beevul Apr 2016 #240
Why publicly accessible? What purpose would that serve? Marengo May 2016 #260
Why is the record of my home's ownership publicly available? Orrex May 2016 #262
Nice try, but bullshit. Does that public ownership record list all the personal property inside... Marengo May 2016 #264
You're silly. Orrex May 2016 #265
Yet another bovine bowl movement... Marengo May 2016 #267
Why are you so frightened? I find that pitiable. Orrex May 2016 #269
With no rational counterpoint, you resort to emotion... Marengo May 2016 #272
Now there's a tepid response. Orrex May 2016 #277
It was sufficient to counter your repeated arguments by assertion friendly_iconoclast May 2016 #288
As I expected, extracted fully formed from your rectum... Marengo May 2016 #300
You seem very interested in my rectum. Why is that? Orrex May 2016 #301
As I expected, no valid counter argument to support your position... Marengo May 2016 #302
What is your definition of a "gun zealot"? Marengo May 2016 #303
Holy projection Batman. beevul May 2016 #305
Oh, I noticed you forgot to post a detailed list of the personal possessions in your home... Marengo May 2016 #309
Are the walls of your home transparent? Marengo May 2016 #298
Your problem with heller is based on your misunderstanding of the bill of rights... beevul Apr 2016 #242
"our biggest problem, IMO, is that we are a sick people who resort to violence way too much." EX500rider Apr 2016 #238
i'd say humans in general. since we're the best joint on the block, i'd expect us to be less dionysus May 2016 #336
Anti-gunners are the ones deliberately misreading amendment 2. beevul Apr 2016 #215
3/5th of person was a bad thing as well, but as the irrational might say of the constitution... LanternWaste Apr 2016 #78
Repealing the second wouldn't remove the right, either. X_Digger Apr 2016 #190
I'm just trying to get them on record. Indydem Apr 2016 #197
More Guns = more gun deaths Botany Apr 2016 #7
So how do you explain a 50% reduction in our murder rate? hack89 Apr 2016 #9
I have hunted and owned guns for years and I'm sickened by the bloodshed caused by guns Botany Apr 2016 #15
Ok. So you must be happy that gun violence continues to decline. hack89 Apr 2016 #16
Never been safer. yallerdawg Apr 2016 #18
Two thirds of which are suicides hack89 Apr 2016 #25
Why? Indydem Apr 2016 #27
Gun control advocates have always padded the numbers with suicides. hack89 Apr 2016 #33
I am aware. Indydem Apr 2016 #36
Suicide using a gun is not gun violence? yallerdawg Apr 2016 #37
It is a personal choice. hack89 Apr 2016 #39
Suicide using a gun TeddyR Apr 2016 #49
The gun creates the opportunity. yallerdawg Apr 2016 #53
If guns create the opportunity, then so do ropes and razorblades. cleanhippie Apr 2016 #54
The survival rate and opportunity to say wait... yallerdawg Apr 2016 #55
None of that have to do with "creating the opportunity" to kill oneself. cleanhippie Apr 2016 #74
Go on, admit it, you're just a gun-worshiper trying to push your religion on others. Period. stone space Apr 2016 #231
Go on, admit it, you're just a gun-grabber trying to push your religion on others. Period. cleanhippie Apr 2016 #232
"Gun-Grabber"??? Seriously??? On a Democratic Board??? WTF??? stone space Apr 2016 #236
Did you think "Democrat" and "anti-gun" ran hand in hand? beevul Apr 2016 #243
And there is with a rope? beevul Apr 2016 #66
I know... deathrind Apr 2016 #59
Sure, as long a suicide by hanging is 'rope violence'... beevul Apr 2016 #65
A rope, a pill, a height... yallerdawg Apr 2016 #67
Guns in America are not sold for suicide, not were they created for it. beevul Apr 2016 #68
Guns were created to end life. zappaman Apr 2016 #70
Yet, every enforcement of gun control laws involves people carrying guns. Nuclear Unicorn Apr 2016 #85
If that is their true purpose, then 99.9% of gun owners are using them wrong. Waldorf Apr 2016 #105
Not of the user. beevul Apr 2016 #122
I'll keep my eye out for a... yallerdawg Apr 2016 #71
Because you said so? cleanhippie Apr 2016 #77
Right, and we'll keep our eyes open for the Rope Violence Policy Center... beevul Apr 2016 #130
You want an anti-gun person to be factual? cleanhippie Apr 2016 #75
You peoples obsession with opposing any measure of common sense... yallerdawg Apr 2016 #90
Nothing you've said is common sense. cleanhippie Apr 2016 #91
A gun is not a razor or a rope or a pill. yallerdawg Apr 2016 #99
I'm obfuscating? suicide by gun, pill, rope or razor is exactly the same thing: suicide. cleanhippie Apr 2016 #128
Who said they were? beevul Apr 2016 #137
My motive is simple. yallerdawg Apr 2016 #141
Bullshit. beevul Apr 2016 #144
Bullshit my ass! yallerdawg Apr 2016 #152
You are for treating gun ownership as a privilege rather than a right. beevul Apr 2016 #154
Is this an inviolable right? yallerdawg Apr 2016 #156
Its a constitutionally protected right. beevul Apr 2016 #159
Some judges interpreted it as a restricted "right." yallerdawg Apr 2016 #161
It has been posted here sarisataka Apr 2016 #96
Well regulated is the majority opinion. yallerdawg Apr 2016 #100
I never suggested sarisataka Apr 2016 #102
I have no idea what you are talking about. yallerdawg Apr 2016 #104
Your refusal to address sarisataka Apr 2016 #106
Still no idea what you are talking about. yallerdawg Apr 2016 #107
No innuendo, sarisataka Apr 2016 #117
And you peoples insistence on treating a right as if its a privilege... beevul Apr 2016 #126
The Republican majority in Congress... yallerdawg Apr 2016 #132
Ever heard of a classic liberal? beevul Apr 2016 #140
Also known as a Libertarian? yallerdawg Apr 2016 #143
And people say repukes are trying to make "liberal" a dirty word... beevul Apr 2016 #145
You said "classic liberal." yallerdawg Apr 2016 #147
Shit. My mistake. I didn't realize you were the arbiter of all that is liberal. beevul Apr 2016 #149
When, exactly, were *you* made zampolit here? Discussion at DU is up to the management... friendly_iconoclast Apr 2016 #178
You call this discussion? yallerdawg Apr 2016 #180
I *could* call it "slacktivist culture warriors attempt to sling bullshit, and get called on it" friendly_iconoclast Apr 2016 #182
Well, your adding so much to the conversation. yallerdawg Apr 2016 #186
"You all are like... professionals or something?" CT? Really? That's a reach even for you lot friendly_iconoclast Apr 2016 #188
This has what to do with the OP or thread? yallerdawg Apr 2016 #191
I know. beevul Apr 2016 #123
Is jumping off a bridge to kill yourself "bridge violence"? EX500rider Apr 2016 #108
A bridge is not a gun. yallerdawg Apr 2016 #109
A bridge isn't a lot of things... EX500rider Apr 2016 #110
The American Psycholological Association... yallerdawg Apr 2016 #111
If I get drunk and mow down a bunch of kids in my car is the car responsible? EX500rider Apr 2016 #113
What about if the car was designed... yallerdawg Apr 2016 #116
Explain how a gun with sights designed to be used from behind... beevul Apr 2016 #142
Sights are used for distance. yallerdawg Apr 2016 #146
Bzzt. beevul Apr 2016 #148
This is about considering suicide an act of gun violence? yallerdawg Apr 2016 #151
This is about holding you to account for the obviously untrue things you say. beevul Apr 2016 #153
What are guns for? yallerdawg Apr 2016 #155
They're for shooting, not for suicide. beevul Apr 2016 #157
So when I shoot the gun pressed to my temple... yallerdawg Apr 2016 #158
LOL beevul Apr 2016 #163
So we are right back to not counting suicide with a gun... yallerdawg Apr 2016 #166
You can't help it can you... beevul Apr 2016 #174
No more than suicide via hanging is "rope violence"... friendly_iconoclast Apr 2016 #177
One more time. yallerdawg Apr 2016 #181
"A rope is not a gun" Yet if one commits suicide with that rope, you are just as dead friendly_iconoclast Apr 2016 #183
From wiki: yallerdawg Apr 2016 #187
A Wikipedia cite! Cool- I've also got one , in post #188 friendly_iconoclast Apr 2016 #189
Except I don't wander around looking for some post. yallerdawg Apr 2016 #193
Is hanging rope violence? Duckhunter935 Apr 2016 #208
Shift change? yallerdawg Apr 2016 #210
"Shift change?" More conspiracy theory? One's just as likely as the other... friendly_iconoclast Apr 2016 #219
Oh, I see. NOW is the shift change. yallerdawg Apr 2016 #221
"I'm going to be posting...some of her common sense solutions" Are they sensible and reasonable? friendly_iconoclast Apr 2016 #222
Again with the anti-gun rhetoric. yallerdawg Apr 2016 #223
Let's go over your post, as it could stand a good fisking: friendly_iconoclast Apr 2016 #228
Less people have guns. The ones that do have guns have more of them. Multiple gun murders (especiall MillennialDem Apr 2016 #41
Just like Australia. Imagine that. nt hack89 Apr 2016 #42
I think the true thing people are saying is that it's not the number of guns, but the gun ownership MillennialDem Apr 2016 #43
Your OP title is the precise contention that has been Hammerated, prima facie. nt Eleanors38 Apr 2016 #84
How many gun murders happen in Japan? Botany Apr 2016 #86
Probably few. And few by knife. And few by beating. And few by club. And few by... Eleanors38 Apr 2016 #92
They have almost none because they don't have all these fucking guns like we do Botany Apr 2016 #97
I just don't see the Japanese killing 300,000 fellow citizens with machetes, as in Rwanda. Eleanors38 Apr 2016 #101
Great points, though I disagree on guns dreamnightwind Apr 2016 #196
Thank you for your views. Eleanors38 Apr 2016 #201
Good for Australia TeddyR Apr 2016 #10
Yeah, way down to a mere 30K per year. That's almost zero! Orrex Apr 2016 #46
2/3 of those gun deaths are suicides TeddyR Apr 2016 #52
Well you can't have it both ways Orrex Apr 2016 #57
Why do you care if the murder is committed with a gun or a knife? TeddyR Apr 2016 #60
As always, that question is a red herring Orrex Apr 2016 #61
Because the US *non-gun* murder rate is higher than Australia's entire murder rate, guns included friendly_iconoclast Apr 2016 #179
And yet the US murder rate is below both the world average & median: EX500rider Apr 2016 #244
Link, please. Orrex Apr 2016 #245
link: EX500rider Apr 2016 #246
So, among the nominally stable developed world... Orrex Apr 2016 #248
Do I consider the US being below the worldwide avg and median for murder good? yes. EX500rider Apr 2016 #249
That's a silly and ill-considered standard Orrex Apr 2016 #250
Finland? lol, population 5 million-NY city has about 8 million EX500rider Apr 2016 #253
If we're such a shithole of diversity in your opinion... Orrex Apr 2016 #254
Not much correlation between gun ownership rate and murder rate.. EX500rider Apr 2016 #255
You're right: 30K per year is better than catastrophic genocide Orrex Apr 2016 #257
Except we don't have 30k gun murders..under 9,000 in a country of over 300 million EX500rider May 2016 #258
"And is that homicide by gun?" Who cares? What difference does the method make to the victims... friendly_iconoclast Apr 2016 #247
From a country that just ordered new submarines from us, to deliver death from a distance. jtuck004 Apr 2016 #12
Huh? treestar Apr 2016 #22
The Australians have decided to go with French submarines. nt hack89 Apr 2016 #34
Sous-marins français sont beaucoup mieux que les sous-marins américains n/t Violet_Crumble Apr 2016 #169
Correlation doesn't equal causation davidn3600 Apr 2016 #19
The number of individuals and households owning guns (at least per capita/percent) has been shrinkin MillennialDem Apr 2016 #44
This may not be true, as some states require citizens to register themselves... Eleanors38 Apr 2016 #88
From November 2015: "Gun Ownership in (Massachusetts) Increases 66% since 2010" friendly_iconoclast Apr 2016 #185
Not only that, how many new FOID cards issued in Illinois in the last few years? beevul Apr 2016 #195
Increase of Illinois FOID Cards from 1.6 million to over 2.0 in 24 months DonP Apr 2016 #203
Thats very interesting Don. beevul Apr 2016 #212
It's very important to their faith based POV, that Illinois be seen as an anomaly DonP Apr 2016 #213
ROFL beevul Apr 2016 #216
K and R! HuckleB Apr 2016 #73
US rates dropped from 7.0 to 3.4 for the same period. jmg257 Apr 2016 #87
Yet, the gun fanciers keep snapping them up. Here's gun lovers lined up to buy Hoyt Apr 2016 #112
Stereotyping and judging people sarisataka Apr 2016 #120
So now you think TeddyR Apr 2016 #136
I don't think we will. Things may change, they may not, but this is not Australia. n jmg257 Apr 2016 #160
Probably true, we have too many sick little losers who need a gun in their pants Hoyt Apr 2016 #167
Yep. Can't underestimate the number of folks who feel safer with guns then they do without. jmg257 Apr 2016 #168
Australia decided those types are a blight on society, hopefully we will too. Hoyt Apr 2016 #170
200 years of history... sendero Apr 2016 #94
We'd never go for that. Turbineguy Apr 2016 #95
20 years of data on Australia's gun control miss the key point Albertoo Apr 2016 #115
Nothing to do with 'merica. onehandle Apr 2016 #121
It's got everything to do with America Albertoo Apr 2016 #127
Thanks for cluing me in on that so obvious key point! Violet_Crumble Apr 2016 #131
I take a longer view than opinion polls Albertoo Apr 2016 #133
That key point I mentioned isn't opinion. It's a fact. Violet_Crumble Apr 2016 #134
What I'm saying is that 'mass' shootings are a blip compared to upheavals Albertoo Apr 2016 #138
Nope. Still weirder than weird. Violet_Crumble Apr 2016 #162
I suppose you are not keen on History Albertoo Apr 2016 #171
Raise that Blue Tarp of Freedom! stone space Apr 2016 #202
that's because they allow concealed Great Whites. WinkyDink Apr 2016 #124
Lets start by banning foreign gun sales WDIM Apr 2016 #129
Most distributed weapon in the world = AK47. Not US made. Albertoo Apr 2016 #139
Yes it is! WDIM Apr 2016 #199
"USA exporting Terror since 1960!" Not with *those* guns, it isn't. friendly_iconoclast Apr 2016 #220
OK, OK, but the world market of AK47's is predominantly out of US hands. Albertoo Apr 2016 #241
How much money sarisataka Apr 2016 #194
How much of the Bill of Rights do you want to take away to make us safe? Odin2005 Apr 2016 #225
LOL Skittles Apr 2016 #251
How many other amendments actively enable thousands of murders annually? Orrex May 2016 #270
Voting rights enabled the deaths of millions... beevul May 2016 #274
Well of course it works, the nation decided to destroy the majority of their guns! Rex Apr 2016 #233
Lots of bloody hands in this thread. Darb Apr 2016 #252
Whose hands are bloody? Marengo May 2016 #261
Those that insist upon defending the indefensible at every turn. Darb May 2016 #263
Well, spewing falsehoods isn't helping your case. beevul May 2016 #275
Quit pretending and wash your hands. Darb May 2016 #293
Tell me more... beevul May 2016 #304
"(W)ash your hands...There is blood on them." Got your rhetoric from Pamela Geller, did you? friendly_iconoclast May 2016 #306
What do you think is "sensible gun control" TeddyR May 2016 #278
Firstly, the second doesn't say what you think it says. Darb May 2016 #294
OK then- in your own words, tell us what *you* think it says? friendly_iconoclast May 2016 #307
Exactly what it says, and how it was written. Darb Jun 2016 #337
The end of it *does* say "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" friendly_iconoclast Jun 2016 #338
You just ignored the whole amendment Darb Jun 2016 #339
I'm sure you feel better after spouting that, but your logic is still faulty friendly_iconoclast Jun 2016 #340
Yes you are, you and your allies, the Republican Party and the NRA. Darb Jun 2016 #341
I see you're sticking with the demagoguery schtick, and adding misrepresentation (or ignorance) friendly_iconoclast Jun 2016 #342
Those of the enablers Matrosov May 2016 #266
Preserved for posterity. beevul May 2016 #276
No need Matrosov May 2016 #281
Just like all drinkers have blood on their hands. hack89 May 2016 #308
False analogy Matrosov May 2016 #321
"ALL gun owners have blood on their hands." hack89 May 2016 #324
Because gun owners enable criminals Matrosov May 2016 #327
But drinkers don't enable DUIs? hack89 May 2016 #329
Thanks for pointing out that ones' 'special pleading': friendly_iconoclast May 2016 #331
I cut my hand TeddyR May 2016 #279
I doubt the founding fathers could've ever foreseen the current gun violence Matrosov May 2016 #282
ALL gun owners have blood on their hands. sarisataka May 2016 #280
I'm not going to apologize for them Matrosov May 2016 #283
It is irrelevant sarisataka May 2016 #284
Yes, they do have blood on their hands Matrosov May 2016 #285
What about the people sarisataka May 2016 #286
Depends on their motive Matrosov May 2016 #322
I vote Democrat because sarisataka May 2016 #328
Fuck your Pamela Gellerish theory of collective guilt- same tune, different lyrics friendly_iconoclast May 2016 #290
Just as those who drink responsible have the blood of DUI victims on *their* hands, eh? pablo_marmol May 2016 #317
Uh, no Matrosov May 2016 #323
Uh, yes- you've blamed the >99% of gun owners that have never shot anyone and never will friendly_iconoclast May 2016 #330
Tap dancing and dodging, as FI has pointed out. pablo_marmol May 2016 #332
So in your sick, twisted upside-down world....... pablo_marmol May 2016 #289
*That* one should consider forming a duo with Pamela Geller, and releasing a single titled: friendly_iconoclast May 2016 #291
* pablo_marmol May 2016 #314
Didn't push you anywhere I'd bet. Darb May 2016 #296
You're correct -- it didn't push me anywhere since I don't vote GOP. pablo_marmol May 2016 #313
Yes. YES. YES!! Matrosov May 2016 #325
No. NO. NO!! pablo_marmol May 2016 #333
BINGO. Darb May 2016 #295
Are you owning it? Are you agreeing that you have bloody hands? Marengo May 2016 #311
How about your hands, are they blood free? Marengo May 2016 #310
They are Matrosov May 2016 #326
Blood which stains the hands may originate from many sources, not just guns... Marengo May 2016 #335
I disagree. We need to repeal restrictive gun laws, and continue making progress. Kang Colby May 2016 #268
Not any gun. Darb May 2016 #297
Huh? Kang Colby May 2016 #299
This message was self-deleted by its author pablo_marmol May 2016 #315
wow......... Takket May 2016 #287
On mental health -- here's how Kamala Harris has fumbled **BIG TIME**: pablo_marmol May 2016 #316
Demand creates it's own supply. The Controllers haven't figured this out....... pablo_marmol May 2016 #318
This message was self-deleted by its author pablo_marmol May 2016 #319
 

Eleanors38

(18,318 posts)
98. "similar to 72%": You want specific similarity?
Thu Apr 28, 2016, 04:06 PM
Apr 2016


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.

rock

(13,218 posts)
172. "post hoc, ergo propter hoc"
Thu Apr 28, 2016, 10:29 PM
Apr 2016

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)
204. Ergo, my point is proper.
Fri Apr 29, 2016, 01:32 PM
Apr 2016

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)
118. America's has dropped by 50%
Thu Apr 28, 2016, 06:38 PM
Apr 2016

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)
150. America also implemented a massive crime bill in 1994
Thu Apr 28, 2016, 08:55 PM
Apr 2016

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.

sarisataka

(18,220 posts)
83. Perhaps I am looking at it wrong,
Thu Apr 28, 2016, 03:36 PM
Apr 2016

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.

 

Travis_0004

(5,417 posts)
2. US gun murders are down 50% since 1993
Thu Apr 28, 2016, 07:50 AM
Apr 2016

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)
23. As a realist, I agree with what you are saying
Thu Apr 28, 2016, 09:18 AM
Apr 2016

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)
24. The 1994 Crime Bill?
Thu Apr 28, 2016, 09:18 AM
Apr 2016

Naw - that was a bad thing, right?

More likely reduced levels of lead? (just don't drink the water)

 

Human101948

(3,457 posts)
198. Here's an interesting statistic...US gun deaths are 10.54 per 100,000
Fri Apr 29, 2016, 08:34 AM
Apr 2016

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?

 

Human101948

(3,457 posts)
259. America's suicide rate is 13 per 100,000 with approximately half by gun...
Sun May 1, 2016, 06:41 AM
May 2016

We still have Australia beat by a huge margin.

EX500rider

(10,532 posts)
271. If guns drove suicides rates then Japan's wouldn't be amoung the highest in the world.....
Sun May 1, 2016, 01:34 PM
May 2016

....at 22 per 100,000

 

Human101948

(3,457 posts)
292. I was talking aboutstripping out the suicides...
Mon May 2, 2016, 07:03 AM
May 2016

And the gun death rate of the US is stil far above Australia.

 

Lee-Lee

(6,324 posts)
3. How does the US stack up for the same item period?
Thu Apr 28, 2016, 07:58 AM
Apr 2016

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)
4. Yet last year was a record year for gun sales in Australia
Thu Apr 28, 2016, 08:16 AM
Apr 2016

and they have more than replaced all the guns that were destroyed in the gun buy backs.

There are more firearms in the country than ever before, more are imported, and owners are amassing larger arsenals in their homes.

One million guns were destroyed in the 1996 buyback in Australia, but they’ve 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)
5. You forgot a paragraph.
Thu Apr 28, 2016, 08:28 AM
Apr 2016

You know, the one that comes immediately after the last one you quoted, that puts the paragraphs you quote in context?

However, the rise in the number of guns in Australia has come along with population growth of five million, or 23 per cent, meaning there are fewer firearms per capita.

hack89

(39,171 posts)
8. Didn't the same thing happen in America?
Thu Apr 28, 2016, 08:34 AM
Apr 2016

we are constantly told that fewer Americans own guns but gun owners are buying multiple guns.

 

Indydem

(2,642 posts)
6. It isn't that "It Doesn't Work"
Thu Apr 28, 2016, 08:28 AM
Apr 2016

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)
11. I'd be happy if we enforced the 2nd Amendment.
Thu Apr 28, 2016, 08:46 AM
Apr 2016

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)
13. An honest question for you.
Thu Apr 28, 2016, 08:48 AM
Apr 2016

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)
17. Your question is since we never enforced it...
Thu Apr 28, 2016, 09:06 AM
Apr 2016

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)
21. If the people who wrote the 2A meant to restrict gun ownership to militias
Thu Apr 28, 2016, 09:17 AM
Apr 2016

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)
28. The colonies had just conducted a revolution...
Thu Apr 28, 2016, 09:34 AM
Apr 2016

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)
32. The BOR was based on the English Bill of Rights
Thu Apr 28, 2016, 09:39 AM
Apr 2016

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.

hack89

(39,171 posts)
30. They were smart enough to allow the Constitution to be changed if needed.
Thu Apr 28, 2016, 09:36 AM
Apr 2016

if you don't like the 2A then that is your only real remedy.

deathrind

(1,786 posts)
56. 👆 This.
Thu Apr 28, 2016, 10:55 AM
Apr 2016

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.

 

beevul

(12,194 posts)
63. Wrong.
Thu Apr 28, 2016, 01:48 PM
Apr 2016
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.


Interesting opinion.

Even though Flintlocks and Muskets were the top of the line firearm in that day...


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)
234. Please stop messing with other peoples fantasies, after all what would the Founders know about war?
Sat Apr 30, 2016, 12:51 PM
Apr 2016

Separation

(1,975 posts)
320. Then I would say this
Tue May 3, 2016, 05:10 AM
May 2016

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)
45. I used to make the "individual rights" argument until someone educated me on people being plural.
Thu Apr 28, 2016, 10:19 AM
Apr 2016

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)
48. You have to look to case law, not your friend, for the legal definition of "the people"
Thu Apr 28, 2016, 10:25 AM
Apr 2016

right now the accepted meaning is that it refer to individuals.

 

ieoeja

(9,748 posts)
50. If you prefer to win an argument to seeking out the truth, then yes, you are absolutely correct. n/t
Thu Apr 28, 2016, 10:34 AM
Apr 2016

hack89

(39,171 posts)
51. Just pointing out that your argument is not universally accepted so it is not "the truth"
Thu Apr 28, 2016, 10:38 AM
Apr 2016

it is your opinion.

 

Rex

(65,616 posts)
235. That one there blamed Bill Clinton for 9/11
Sat Apr 30, 2016, 12:53 PM
Apr 2016

so anything they type is meant to be laughed at imo.

 

Eleanors38

(18,318 posts)
79. In the Fourth "The people" "parcularly describes" "the persons." Sorry, individual.
Thu Apr 28, 2016, 03:28 PM
Apr 2016

There are no communal rights anymore than John C. Calhoun's "states rights."

Nuclear Unicorn

(19,497 posts)
80. Even taking your friend's definition at face value no single instance of "the people"
Thu Apr 28, 2016, 03:30 PM
Apr 2016

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)
192. Yet those same framers went back to their respective states and protected an individual right?
Thu Apr 28, 2016, 11:58 PM
Apr 2016

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)
47. Explain to me what part of the Second Amendment limits firearm ownership to militia members
Thu Apr 28, 2016, 10:25 AM
Apr 2016

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."

 

Indydem

(2,642 posts)
31. Stop.
Thu Apr 28, 2016, 09:39 AM
Apr 2016

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.

Nuclear Unicorn

(19,497 posts)
82. "your so-called right is depriving us of our lives!"
Thu Apr 28, 2016, 03:33 PM
Apr 2016

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.

 

beevul

(12,194 posts)
62. Read the preamble...
Thu Apr 28, 2016, 01:45 PM
Apr 2016
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."


Read the preamble to the bill of rights:

THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution

http://billofrights.org/


Amendment 2 restricts only government and authorizes nothing.

Congress was granted powers over the militia in the constitution.

treestar

(82,383 posts)
20. We should waive the Second Amendment
Thu Apr 28, 2016, 09:16 AM
Apr 2016

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)
26. The 2A does not stop strict gun control laws
Thu Apr 28, 2016, 09:21 AM
Apr 2016

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)
35. Well by all means.
Thu Apr 28, 2016, 09:41 AM
Apr 2016

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)
40. Let's just get rid of the amendments that results in 30,000 deaths annually
Thu Apr 28, 2016, 10:00 AM
Apr 2016

As far as I know, there haven't been too many mass killings being caused by peaceable assembly or redress of grievances.

Orrex

(63,086 posts)
119. I'd respect gun apologists more
Thu Apr 28, 2016, 07:23 PM
Apr 2016

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.

 

friendly_iconoclast

(15,333 posts)
173. You do not, in fact, know what they care about. You *believe* you know what they care about
Thu Apr 28, 2016, 10:33 PM
Apr 2016

Therefore, your respect for (or lack of respect for) them is irrelevant

 

TeddyR

(2,493 posts)
135. So the Second Amendment
Thu Apr 28, 2016, 08:05 PM
Apr 2016

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)
164. If you want me to respond, then don't make up opinions and assign them to me.
Thu Apr 28, 2016, 09:57 PM
Apr 2016

Why don't you think about it a bit, rephrase your question, and ask it again?

 

friendly_iconoclast

(15,333 posts)
175. Upthread you 'asssigned' feelings to an entire group of people, most of whom you've never met
Thu Apr 28, 2016, 10:41 PM
Apr 2016
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=7788304

119. I'd respect gun apologists more

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)
176. how is the 2A responsible for all of that? as far as murders go, you'd need statistics on how many
Thu Apr 28, 2016, 10:41 PM
Apr 2016

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)
184. "our biggest problem, IMO, is that we are a sick people who resort to violence way too much."
Thu Apr 28, 2016, 11:10 PM
Apr 2016

I would argue, therefore, that the last thing we need is a minimally controlled right to keep and bear arms.

 

DonP

(6,185 posts)
200. "minimally controlled right"
Fri Apr 29, 2016, 12:47 PM
Apr 2016

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)
214. That's about 1.5 deaths annually per law, so yes. Minimal.
Fri Apr 29, 2016, 04:49 PM
Apr 2016

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)
218. So what law, that will still pass SCOTUS review, do you propose?
Fri Apr 29, 2016, 06:41 PM
Apr 2016

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)
224. Since you've got all the answers, tell me what would work.
Fri Apr 29, 2016, 10:21 PM
Apr 2016

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)
226. Typical control fan, not a practical idea in your head, just whining
Fri Apr 29, 2016, 11:40 PM
Apr 2016

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)
227. I have proposed many ideas, and gun zealots call all of them non-starters
Sat Apr 30, 2016, 12:16 AM
Apr 2016

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)
229. They *are* non-starters, as they are demands and not compromises
Sat Apr 30, 2016, 01:18 AM
Apr 2016

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)
230. Just go back to making angry, silly posts online and make yourself feel good
Sat Apr 30, 2016, 01:40 AM
Apr 2016

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)
239. "A 100% federal sales tax on all guns purchased in the US."
Sat Apr 30, 2016, 01:16 PM
Apr 2016

Yes guns only for rich people, very progressive idea....lol

 

beevul

(12,194 posts)
240. Because they most likely were.
Sat Apr 30, 2016, 01:19 PM
Apr 2016
I have proposed many ideas, and gun zealots call all of them non-starters


Because they most likely were.

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!


Lets be clear here. The only people that think its a choice of guns or thousands of murders in this discussion, is you.

A 100% federal sales tax on all guns purchased in the US.


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

Full registration for all guns currently owned or purchased in the future.


Theres another one of those non-starters you mentioned.

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.


Many states have spend millions on that, with zero crimes solves to report.

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.


What part of "no registration" do you not understand?

Any conviction of assault or domestic violence--even if only a misdemeanor--renders the guilty party permanently ineligible to own or use guns.


That's already federal law.

Reply or don't. The opinions of gun zealots don't mean shit to me.


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'?

Orrex

(63,086 posts)
262. Why is the record of my home's ownership publicly available?
Sun May 1, 2016, 10:30 AM
May 2016

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)
264. Nice try, but bullshit. Does that public ownership record list all the personal property inside...
Sun May 1, 2016, 11:16 AM
May 2016

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)
265. You're silly.
Sun May 1, 2016, 11:30 AM
May 2016

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.

Does that public ownership record list all the personal property inside your home?
Is my home likely to be stolen and used in a murder?

Such a public record is a potential threat to the owner.
Bullshit. Obviously a responsible gun owner will know at all times where all of his guns are, and those that aren't on his person or under the stewardship of a responsible party will obviously be locked up and secured. Only a dangerous lunatic would leave implements of murder laying around unsecured, and such a person can't reasonably claim concern for the security of those items. Why would you insist that the security of your property be outsourced to others?

Maybe your home ownership record should list all the personal property in your home. After all, who knows what you might be up to.
Another silly objection that doesn't address the issue. Why should the ownership history of one's home be publicly accessible at all? A potential stalker might use that information to track someone down! If the homeowner is known to be an art enthusiast, the public record of address might lead a burglar to the enthusiast's home!

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)
267. Yet another bovine bowl movement...
Sun May 1, 2016, 12:51 PM
May 2016
"Is my home likely to be stolen and used in a murder?"

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)
269. Why are you so frightened? I find that pitiable.
Sun May 1, 2016, 01:09 PM
May 2016
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.
I'm amazed that you're so terrified of everything! No wonder you think that you need guns guns guns to keep you safe. And if you can't keep your guns secure, then the "risk to public safety" is entirely your responsibility.

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.

Were you intentionally trying to reinforce the point of my objection? Replace art with firearms as a matter of public record.
I'll type it more slowly for you this time: your ownership of your precious guns guns guns is no more a privileged matter of secrecy than is any random homeowner's address, because presumably most homes have something inside, so the revelation of ownership is a siren's call to burglars who might want to obtain something. Why do you imagine that your guns deserve special, private protection? 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, then the public absolutely has a right to know that you can't keep control of your deadly property.

What's foolish is your assertion that making firearms ownership a matter of public record somehow enhances public safety.
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.
 

Marengo

(3,477 posts)
272. With no rational counterpoint, you resort to emotion...
Sun May 1, 2016, 01:50 PM
May 2016
No wonder you think that you need guns guns guns to keep you safe

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)
277. Now there's a tepid response.
Sun May 1, 2016, 02:17 PM
May 2016
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.
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.

What do you know of my gun storage system?
I know that it can't be very secure if you're so afraid of theft that the mere knowledge of your guns guns guns would be a public health risk.
 

friendly_iconoclast

(15,333 posts)
288. It was sufficient to counter your repeated arguments by assertion
Sun May 1, 2016, 07:33 PM
May 2016

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)
300. As I expected, extracted fully formed from your rectum...
Mon May 2, 2016, 09:49 AM
May 2016
"No wonder you think that you need guns guns guns to keep you safe

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)
301. You seem very interested in my rectum. Why is that?
Mon May 2, 2016, 10:03 AM
May 2016

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)
302. As I expected, no valid counter argument to support your position...
Mon May 2, 2016, 10:29 AM
May 2016

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?

 

beevul

(12,194 posts)
305. Holy projection Batman.
Mon May 2, 2016, 01:21 PM
May 2016
...I don't believe you capable of objectively engaging the subject...



Following close on the heels of 'gun zealot'.


Physician, heal thy self.
 

Marengo

(3,477 posts)
309. Oh, I noticed you forgot to post a detailed list of the personal possessions in your home...
Mon May 2, 2016, 06:25 PM
May 2016

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)
298. Are the walls of your home transparent?
Mon May 2, 2016, 09:33 AM
May 2016

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)
242. Your problem with heller is based on your misunderstanding of the bill of rights...
Sat Apr 30, 2016, 01:25 PM
Apr 2016
Get rid of Heller, and recognize that "a well-regulated militia" does not equal some individual fool with a gun.


Your problem with heller is based on your misunderstanding of the bill of rights, and how it works.

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.


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:

THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution

http://billofrights.org/


Now read this:

“The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One’s right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.”

Justice Robert H. Jackson of the Supreme Court 1943



You're welcome.




EX500rider

(10,532 posts)
238. "our biggest problem, IMO, is that we are a sick people who resort to violence way too much."
Sat Apr 30, 2016, 01:13 PM
Apr 2016

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)
336. i'd say humans in general. since we're the best joint on the block, i'd expect us to be less
Tue May 17, 2016, 02:00 AM
May 2016

violent than hellholes, but with all we have going for us I'd hope it was even better.

 

beevul

(12,194 posts)
215. Anti-gunners are the ones deliberately misreading amendment 2.
Fri Apr 29, 2016, 05:44 PM
Apr 2016
a deliberate misreading of an anachronistic throwback to frontier times


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)
78. 3/5th of person was a bad thing as well, but as the irrational might say of the constitution...
Thu Apr 28, 2016, 03:27 PM
Apr 2016

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)
190. Repealing the second wouldn't remove the right, either.
Thu Apr 28, 2016, 11:54 PM
Apr 2016

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)
197. I'm just trying to get them on record.
Fri Apr 29, 2016, 07:11 AM
Apr 2016

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)
7. More Guns = more gun deaths
Thu Apr 28, 2016, 08:31 AM
Apr 2016

After one of the saddest days in our country’s 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)
9. So how do you explain a 50% reduction in our murder rate?
Thu Apr 28, 2016, 08:35 AM
Apr 2016

fewer guns in America since the early 90's?

hack89

(39,171 posts)
16. Ok. So you must be happy that gun violence continues to decline.
Thu Apr 28, 2016, 09:05 AM
Apr 2016

certainly there is more we can do but the reality is that you have never been safer.

hack89

(39,171 posts)
25. Two thirds of which are suicides
Thu Apr 28, 2016, 09:20 AM
Apr 2016

which is the real problem here. A strong national anti-suicide campaign along with better mental health care is what is needed.

 

Indydem

(2,642 posts)
27. Why?
Thu Apr 28, 2016, 09:34 AM
Apr 2016

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)
33. Gun control advocates have always padded the numbers with suicides.
Thu Apr 28, 2016, 09:40 AM
Apr 2016

they have to with violent crime falling so much.

 

Indydem

(2,642 posts)
36. I am aware.
Thu Apr 28, 2016, 09:44 AM
Apr 2016

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.

hack89

(39,171 posts)
39. It is a personal choice.
Thu Apr 28, 2016, 09:58 AM
Apr 2016

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)
49. Suicide using a gun
Thu Apr 28, 2016, 10:31 AM
Apr 2016

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)
53. The gun creates the opportunity.
Thu Apr 28, 2016, 10:41 AM
Apr 2016

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.

yallerdawg

(16,104 posts)
55. The survival rate and opportunity to say wait...
Thu Apr 28, 2016, 10:51 AM
Apr 2016

"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)
74. None of that have to do with "creating the opportunity" to kill oneself.
Thu Apr 28, 2016, 03:17 PM
Apr 2016

But you knew that already.

Go on, admit it, you're just anti-gun. Period.

 

stone space

(6,498 posts)
231. Go on, admit it, you're just a gun-worshiper trying to push your religion on others. Period.
Sat Apr 30, 2016, 07:28 AM
Apr 2016
Go on, admit it, you're just anti-gun. Period.

cleanhippie

(19,705 posts)
232. Go on, admit it, you're just a gun-grabber trying to push your religion on others. Period.
Sat Apr 30, 2016, 12:48 PM
Apr 2016
Go on, admit it, you're just a gun-worshiper trying to push your religion on others. Period.
 

stone space

(6,498 posts)
236. "Gun-Grabber"??? Seriously??? On a Democratic Board??? WTF???
Sat Apr 30, 2016, 01:05 PM
Apr 2016
Go on, admit it, you're just a gun-grabber trying to push your religion on others. Period.




Raise that Blue Tarp of Freedum!


 

beevul

(12,194 posts)
66. And there is with a rope?
Thu Apr 28, 2016, 01:56 PM
Apr 2016
No chance to change your mind. No remorse or regret.


And there is with a rope?

deathrind

(1,786 posts)
59. I know...
Thu Apr 28, 2016, 11:16 AM
Apr 2016

The disconnect is...well...

res ipsa loquitur...

Perhaps that should be put under firearm utilization not violence...



 

beevul

(12,194 posts)
65. Sure, as long a suicide by hanging is 'rope violence'...
Thu Apr 28, 2016, 01:54 PM
Apr 2016

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)
67. A rope, a pill, a height...
Thu Apr 28, 2016, 02:00 PM
Apr 2016

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)
68. Guns in America are not sold for suicide, not were they created for it.
Thu Apr 28, 2016, 02:07 PM
Apr 2016

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.

Nuclear Unicorn

(19,497 posts)
85. Yet, every enforcement of gun control laws involves people carrying guns.
Thu Apr 28, 2016, 03:37 PM
Apr 2016

For what purpose? To end lives?

Waldorf

(654 posts)
105. If that is their true purpose, then 99.9% of gun owners are using them wrong.
Thu Apr 28, 2016, 04:47 PM
Apr 2016

Mine have been used at the range for the last couple decades punching holes in paper.

yallerdawg

(16,104 posts)
71. I'll keep my eye out for a...
Thu Apr 28, 2016, 02:16 PM
Apr 2016

National Rope Association to justify suicide by hanging.

Fact - suicide with a gun is gun violence. That is a fact.

 

beevul

(12,194 posts)
130. Right, and we'll keep our eyes open for the Rope Violence Policy Center...
Thu Apr 28, 2016, 07:50 PM
Apr 2016

Since the Violence Policy Center doesn't actually consider any other kind of violence except gun violence.

Fact - suicide with a gun is gun violence. That is a fact.


No. Its an opinion. One which does not mesh well with reality, at that.

yallerdawg

(16,104 posts)
90. You peoples obsession with opposing any measure of common sense...
Thu Apr 28, 2016, 03:48 PM
Apr 2016

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)
91. Nothing you've said is common sense.
Thu Apr 28, 2016, 03:52 PM
Apr 2016

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)
99. A gun is not a razor or a rope or a pill.
Thu Apr 28, 2016, 04:11 PM
Apr 2016

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)
128. I'm obfuscating? suicide by gun, pill, rope or razor is exactly the same thing: suicide.
Thu Apr 28, 2016, 07:48 PM
Apr 2016

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)
137. Who said they were?
Thu Apr 28, 2016, 08:15 PM
Apr 2016
Your obfuscation is appalling.


You're projecting.

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.


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:

When you buy your gun and a family member accidentally or deliberately...


Note how the poster expands into accident territory while his/her interlocutor was speaking about suicides...

shoots themselves or another member of your family


And then expands into shooting others while his/her interlocutor was speaking about suicides...

you want to qualify and categorize it as something other than gun violence.


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 want to make guns safer for all of us by not recognizing what we do with guns.


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 a tire swing with a gun?


Ever tried making an argument with honesty?

yallerdawg

(16,104 posts)
141. My motive is simple.
Thu Apr 28, 2016, 08:20 PM
Apr 2016

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)
144. Bullshit.
Thu Apr 28, 2016, 08:24 PM
Apr 2016

Your motive is that you're anti-gun. You've already given that away whether you realize it or not.

Why would anyone be opposed to trying things that work?


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)
152. Bullshit my ass!
Thu Apr 28, 2016, 09:07 PM
Apr 2016

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)
154. You are for treating gun ownership as a privilege rather than a right.
Thu Apr 28, 2016, 09:08 PM
Apr 2016

And you don't hide it well.

yallerdawg

(16,104 posts)
156. Is this an inviolable right?
Thu Apr 28, 2016, 09:24 PM
Apr 2016

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)
159. Its a constitutionally protected right.
Thu Apr 28, 2016, 09:37 PM
Apr 2016
You can carry your gun on airplanes...


I sure could if I carried. Ever heard of a private plane?

airports


People generally carry in the unsecured areas at airports across the nation. I don't carry personally, nor do I have any desire to.

courthouses


Nobody wants to carry in a secured courthouse. You, on the other hand, would like to see most of America treated like a courthouse.

political rallies


First amendment, meet second amendment. Equal protection and all that.

appearances by elected officials


Secret service takes care of that.

schools,


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


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?

open carry anywhere you want


Oh, now I'm an open carrier.


It already is a regulated privilege.


In your dreams.

yallerdawg

(16,104 posts)
161. Some judges interpreted it as a restricted "right."
Thu Apr 28, 2016, 09:42 PM
Apr 2016

We'll see what the next set of judges think of that "right."



sarisataka

(18,220 posts)
96. It has been posted here
Thu Apr 28, 2016, 04:01 PM
Apr 2016

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)
100. Well regulated is the majority opinion.
Thu Apr 28, 2016, 04:22 PM
Apr 2016

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)
102. I never suggested
Thu Apr 28, 2016, 04:27 PM
Apr 2016

"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)
104. I have no idea what you are talking about.
Thu Apr 28, 2016, 04:41 PM
Apr 2016

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)
106. Your refusal to address
Thu Apr 28, 2016, 04:51 PM
Apr 2016

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)
107. Still no idea what you are talking about.
Thu Apr 28, 2016, 05:18 PM
Apr 2016

Your innuendo that I personally wish some kind of violence on someone?

Sorry - I am not a gun owner.

sarisataka

(18,220 posts)
117. No innuendo,
Thu Apr 28, 2016, 06:24 PM
Apr 2016

Just straightforward questions.

For the record I don't wish violence on anyone. I believe in valuing all lives equally.

 

beevul

(12,194 posts)
126. And you peoples insistence on treating a right as if its a privilege...
Thu Apr 28, 2016, 07:42 PM
Apr 2016

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.

You are a minority opinion, and getting smaller everyday.


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)
132. The Republican majority in Congress...
Thu Apr 28, 2016, 07:57 PM
Apr 2016

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?

 

friendly_iconoclast

(15,333 posts)
178. When, exactly, were *you* made zampolit here? Discussion at DU is up to the management...
Thu Apr 28, 2016, 10:49 PM
Apr 2016

...not self-appointed political officers.

 

friendly_iconoclast

(15,333 posts)
182. I *could* call it "slacktivist culture warriors attempt to sling bullshit, and get called on it"
Thu Apr 28, 2016, 11:01 PM
Apr 2016

But 'discussion' will do nicely

You are, of course, free to call it what you like...

yallerdawg

(16,104 posts)
186. Well, your adding so much to the conversation.
Thu Apr 28, 2016, 11:31 PM
Apr 2016

Pure non-topical snark is another standard tactical response.

You all are like... professionals or something?

 

friendly_iconoclast

(15,333 posts)
188. "You all are like... professionals or something?" CT? Really? That's a reach even for you lot
Thu Apr 28, 2016, 11:46 PM
Apr 2016

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

In psychology, the false-consensus effect or false-consensus bias is an attributional type of cognitive bias whereby people tend to overestimate the extent to which their opinions, beliefs, preferences, values, and habits are normal and typical of those of others (i.e., that others also think the same way that they do).[1] This cognitive bias tends to lead to the perception of a consensus that does not exist, a "false consensus"...

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)
191. This has what to do with the OP or thread?
Thu Apr 28, 2016, 11:58 PM
Apr 2016

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)
123. I know.
Thu Apr 28, 2016, 07:37 PM
Apr 2016

I'd have better odds expecting of it raining cookie dough ice cream on the 4th of july.

EX500rider

(10,532 posts)
110. A bridge isn't a lot of things...
Thu Apr 28, 2016, 05:33 PM
Apr 2016

.....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)
111. The American Psycholological Association...
Thu Apr 28, 2016, 05:49 PM
Apr 2016
Gun violence is an urgent, complex, and multifaceted problem. It requires evidence-based, multifaceted solutions. Psychology can make important contributions to policies that prevent gun violence. Toward this end, in February 2013 the American Psychological Association commissioned this report by a panel of experts to convey research-based conclusions and recommendations (and to identify gaps in such knowledge) on how to reduce the incidence of gun violence — whether by homicide, suicide, or mass shootings — nationwide.

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)
113. If I get drunk and mow down a bunch of kids in my car is the car responsible?
Thu Apr 28, 2016, 05:53 PM
Apr 2016

No, any more then if I hold a gun to my head and pull the trigger.

yallerdawg

(16,104 posts)
116. What about if the car was designed...
Thu Apr 28, 2016, 06:00 PM
Apr 2016

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)
142. Explain how a gun with sights designed to be used from behind...
Thu Apr 28, 2016, 08:21 PM
Apr 2016

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)
146. Sights are used for distance.
Thu Apr 28, 2016, 08:32 PM
Apr 2016

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)
148. Bzzt.
Thu Apr 28, 2016, 08:44 PM
Apr 2016
Sights are used for distance.


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)
151. This is about considering suicide an act of gun violence?
Thu Apr 28, 2016, 08:59 PM
Apr 2016

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)
153. This is about holding you to account for the obviously untrue things you say.
Thu Apr 28, 2016, 09:07 PM
Apr 2016

For example:

Using a gun to commit suicide is the fulfillment of the design and marketing of the gun.


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)
155. What are guns for?
Thu Apr 28, 2016, 09:17 PM
Apr 2016

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)
157. They're for shooting, not for suicide.
Thu Apr 28, 2016, 09:27 PM
Apr 2016

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)
158. So when I shoot the gun pressed to my temple...
Thu Apr 28, 2016, 09:35 PM
Apr 2016

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.

 

beevul

(12,194 posts)
163. LOL
Thu Apr 28, 2016, 09:50 PM
Apr 2016
So when I shoot the gun pressed to my temple I am completely unaware of what the gun will do.


I don't know. Maybe you are. You've done a good job avoiding reality thus far.

And it won't be a violent act.


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)
166. So we are right back to not counting suicide with a gun...
Thu Apr 28, 2016, 10:00 PM
Apr 2016

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)
174. You can't help it can you...
Thu Apr 28, 2016, 10:34 PM
Apr 2016

Last edited Fri Apr 29, 2016, 02:32 AM - Edit history (1)

20,000 dead annually by your assertion is no problem?


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.

Nothing we can do?


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.

They don't even count.


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.

And in my world, we are working on solutions! I think mine is the better world.


Because gunz.

yallerdawg

(16,104 posts)
187. From wiki:
Thu Apr 28, 2016, 11:36 PM
Apr 2016
Gun violence is violence committed with the use of a gun (firearm or small arm). It may or may not be considered criminal. Criminal gun violence includes homicide (except when and where ruled justifiable), assault with a deadly weapon, and suicide, or attempted suicide, depending on jurisdiction. Non-criminal gun violence may include accidental or unintentional injury or death. Included in this subject are statistics regarding military or para-military activities, as well as the actions of civilians.


I can't find any reference to "rope violence"? I guess it's not a thing.
 

friendly_iconoclast

(15,333 posts)
189. A Wikipedia cite! Cool- I've also got one , in post #188
Thu Apr 28, 2016, 11:49 PM
Apr 2016

Since you find them authoritative, no doubt you'll accept that one as well...

yallerdawg

(16,104 posts)
210. Shift change?
Fri Apr 29, 2016, 02:08 PM
Apr 2016

Or did you have the day off yesterday?

You see, we already covered "rope" over and over again already.

yallerdawg

(16,104 posts)
221. Oh, I see. NOW is the shift change.
Fri Apr 29, 2016, 07:23 PM
Apr 2016

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)
222. "I'm going to be posting...some of her common sense solutions" Are they sensible and reasonable?
Fri Apr 29, 2016, 07:54 PM
Apr 2016

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:

#1: ALWAYS FOCUS ON EMOTIONAL AND VALUE-DRIVEN
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...

...ask them if their "common sense" would be the same "common sense" as Tim Huelskamps "common sense":

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)
223. Again with the anti-gun rhetoric.
Fri Apr 29, 2016, 08:30 PM
Apr 2016

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)
228. Let's go over your post, as it could stand a good fisking:
Sat Apr 30, 2016, 01:03 AM
Apr 2016

Last edited Sat Apr 30, 2016, 04:03 PM - Edit history (1)

With some kind of homophobic analogy?


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.

Not taking your toys away from you!


Is insulting and belittling people part of 'doing what we can'?

Doing what we can to make our communities safer and keeping guns out of the wrong hands!


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?

Straw man purchasing?


Already a federal crime, one not prosecuted nearly often enough

Internet sales?


Interstate sales must already go through a federally licensed dealer, and online intrastate
sales are no different from any other intrastate firearm sales

Gun show background checks?


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.

Include terrorist watch list bans?


No. They are arbitrary, capricious, and are no basis for denial of any right.

Complete background checks including mental health reporting?


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 harm—by 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 isn’t 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 FBI’s 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.

Same rules for everyone?


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.

This is common sense.


It is what you *believe* to be common sense. It is not axiomatic that this is so.







 

MillennialDem

(2,367 posts)
41. Less people have guns. The ones that do have guns have more of them. Multiple gun murders (especiall
Thu Apr 28, 2016, 10:05 AM
Apr 2016

y more than 2 guns per perpetrator) are extremely rare.

 

MillennialDem

(2,367 posts)
43. I think the true thing people are saying is that it's not the number of guns, but the gun ownership
Thu Apr 28, 2016, 10:09 AM
Apr 2016

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)
92. Probably few. And few by knife. And few by beating. And few by club. And few by...
Thu Apr 28, 2016, 03:53 PM
Apr 2016

...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)
97. They have almost none because they don't have all these fucking guns like we do
Thu Apr 28, 2016, 04:03 PM
Apr 2016
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/07/a-land-without-guns-how-japan-has-virtually-eliminated-shooting-deaths/260189/

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)
101. I just don't see the Japanese killing 300,000 fellow citizens with machetes, as in Rwanda.
Thu Apr 28, 2016, 04:26 PM
Apr 2016

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)
196. Great points, though I disagree on guns
Fri Apr 29, 2016, 06:45 AM
Apr 2016

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.
 

TeddyR

(2,493 posts)
10. Good for Australia
Thu Apr 28, 2016, 08:37 AM
Apr 2016

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)
46. Yeah, way down to a mere 30K per year. That's almost zero!
Thu Apr 28, 2016, 10:20 AM
Apr 2016

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)
52. 2/3 of those gun deaths are suicides
Thu Apr 28, 2016, 10:38 AM
Apr 2016

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)
57. Well you can't have it both ways
Thu Apr 28, 2016, 10:57 AM
Apr 2016

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)
60. Why do you care if the murder is committed with a gun or a knife?
Thu Apr 28, 2016, 11:53 AM
Apr 2016

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)
61. As always, that question is a red herring
Thu Apr 28, 2016, 12:17 PM
Apr 2016

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)
179. Because the US *non-gun* murder rate is higher than Australia's entire murder rate, guns included
Thu Apr 28, 2016, 10:55 PM
Apr 2016

That's how. We have a violence problem, not a gun problem.

Orrex

(63,086 posts)
245. Link, please.
Sat Apr 30, 2016, 01:42 PM
Apr 2016

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.

Orrex

(63,086 posts)
248. So, among the nominally stable developed world...
Sat Apr 30, 2016, 06:13 PM
Apr 2016

The US has the worst murder rate. And you consider this good?

Orrex

(63,086 posts)
250. That's a silly and ill-considered standard
Sat Apr 30, 2016, 07:59 PM
Apr 2016

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)
253. Finland? lol, population 5 million-NY city has about 8 million
Sat Apr 30, 2016, 09:59 PM
Apr 2016

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)
254. If we're such a shithole of diversity in your opinion...
Sat Apr 30, 2016, 10:24 PM
Apr 2016

then why do we need hundreds and millions of guns adding to the danger?

EX500rider

(10,532 posts)
255. Not much correlation between gun ownership rate and murder rate..
Sat Apr 30, 2016, 11:24 PM
Apr 2016

....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)
257. You're right: 30K per year is better than catastrophic genocide
Sat Apr 30, 2016, 11:32 PM
Apr 2016

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)
258. Except we don't have 30k gun murders..under 9,000 in a country of over 300 million
Sun May 1, 2016, 01:15 AM
May 2016

And over 30,000 people die every year by falling.
Over 38,000 in unintentional poisonings.

 

friendly_iconoclast

(15,333 posts)
247. "And is that homicide by gun?" Who cares? What difference does the method make to the victims...
Sat Apr 30, 2016, 04:10 PM
Apr 2016

...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)
12. From a country that just ordered new submarines from us, to deliver death from a distance.
Thu Apr 28, 2016, 08:48 AM
Apr 2016

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.

 

davidn3600

(6,342 posts)
19. Correlation doesn't equal causation
Thu Apr 28, 2016, 09:10 AM
Apr 2016

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)
44. The number of individuals and households owning guns (at least per capita/percent) has been shrinkin
Thu Apr 28, 2016, 10:10 AM
Apr 2016

g, not growing in the US.

 

Eleanors38

(18,318 posts)
88. This may not be true, as some states require citizens to register themselves...
Thu Apr 28, 2016, 03:44 PM
Apr 2016

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)
185. From November 2015: "Gun Ownership in (Massachusetts) Increases 66% since 2010"
Thu Apr 28, 2016, 11:15 PM
Apr 2016
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172181197

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)
195. Not only that, how many new FOID cards issued in Illinois in the last few years?
Fri Apr 29, 2016, 02:36 AM
Apr 2016

First time buyers every single one.

 

DonP

(6,185 posts)
203. Increase of Illinois FOID Cards from 1.6 million to over 2.0 in 24 months
Fri Apr 29, 2016, 01:18 PM
Apr 2016

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)
212. Thats very interesting Don.
Fri Apr 29, 2016, 03:02 PM
Apr 2016
That's over 400,000 new gun owners in just 2 years.


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)
213. It's very important to their faith based POV, that Illinois be seen as an anomaly
Fri Apr 29, 2016, 04:32 PM
Apr 2016

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.

 

beevul

(12,194 posts)
216. ROFL
Fri Apr 29, 2016, 05:50 PM
Apr 2016
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.




That says it all, right there.

The question is, do they themselves, actually believe the shit they're shoveling?

jmg257

(11,996 posts)
87. US rates dropped from 7.0 to 3.4 for the same period.
Thu Apr 28, 2016, 03:40 PM
Apr 2016

"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)
112. Yet, the gun fanciers keep snapping them up. Here's gun lovers lined up to buy
Thu Apr 28, 2016, 05:50 PM
Apr 2016

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:

 

TeddyR

(2,493 posts)
136. So now you think
Thu Apr 28, 2016, 08:12 PM
Apr 2016

Violence is limited to white kids? And all white gun owners are racist? Are black gun owners also racist?

 

Hoyt

(54,770 posts)
167. Probably true, we have too many sick little losers who need a gun in their pants
Thu Apr 28, 2016, 10:04 PM
Apr 2016

to go to the store.

jmg257

(11,996 posts)
168. Yep. Can't underestimate the number of folks who feel safer with guns then they do without.
Thu Apr 28, 2016, 10:13 PM
Apr 2016

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.

 

Albertoo

(2,016 posts)
115. 20 years of data on Australia's gun control miss the key point
Thu Apr 28, 2016, 05:59 PM
Apr 2016

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)
121. Nothing to do with 'merica.
Thu Apr 28, 2016, 07:29 PM
Apr 2016

Gun nuts are outgunned by our government, a million times over.

[img][/img]

Violet_Crumble

(35,954 posts)
131. Thanks for cluing me in on that so obvious key point!
Thu Apr 28, 2016, 07:56 PM
Apr 2016

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)
133. I take a longer view than opinion polls
Thu Apr 28, 2016, 07:58 PM
Apr 2016

History is full of wars and demagogues. I like knowing the citizenry is empowered.

Violet_Crumble

(35,954 posts)
134. That key point I mentioned isn't opinion. It's a fact.
Thu Apr 28, 2016, 08:03 PM
Apr 2016

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)
138. What I'm saying is that 'mass' shootings are a blip compared to upheavals
Thu Apr 28, 2016, 08:17 PM
Apr 2016

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)
162. Nope. Still weirder than weird.
Thu Apr 28, 2016, 09:43 PM
Apr 2016

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:

The sale, possession, and use of firearms are regulated by the Australian states and territories, with cross-border trade matters addressed at the federal level. In 1996, following the Port Arthur massacre, the federal government and the states and territories agreed to a uniform approach to firearms regulation, including a ban on certain semiautomatic and self-loading rifles and shotguns, standard licensing and permit criteria, storage requirements and inspections, and greater restrictions on the sale of firearms and ammunition. Firearms license applicants would be required to take a safety course and show a “genuine reason” for owning a firearm, which could not include self-defense. The reasons for refusing a license would include “reliable evidence of a mental or physical condition which would render the applicant unsuitable for owning, possessing or using a firearm.” A waiting period of twenty-eight days would apply to the issuing of both firearms licenses and permits to acquire each weapon.


http://www.loc.gov/law/help/firearms-control/australia.php
 

Albertoo

(2,016 posts)
171. I suppose you are not keen on History
Thu Apr 28, 2016, 10:27 PM
Apr 2016
Both the US and Australia are stable democracies where any risk of a genocidal dictator taking power is totally microscopic.

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)
202. Raise that Blue Tarp of Freedom!
Fri Apr 29, 2016, 01:04 PM
Apr 2016
That an armed citizenry less at risk of being oppressed by a dictator.


WDIM

(1,662 posts)
129. Lets start by banning foreign gun sales
Thu Apr 28, 2016, 07:49 PM
Apr 2016

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.

WDIM

(1,662 posts)
199. Yes it is!
Fri Apr 29, 2016, 10:02 AM
Apr 2016
http://money.cnn.com/2015/06/30/news/companies/kalashnikov-usa/
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)
220. "USA exporting Terror since 1960!" Not with *those* guns, it isn't.
Fri Apr 29, 2016, 07:15 PM
Apr 2016

Those are made for the US domestic market, and paramilitaries and cartels can get
the fully automatic OG versions for far less...

sarisataka

(18,220 posts)
194. How much money
Fri Apr 29, 2016, 12:09 AM
Apr 2016

should the government spend on Australian type action? Their law was a mandatory buyback program.

Odin2005

(53,521 posts)
225. How much of the Bill of Rights do you want to take away to make us safe?
Fri Apr 29, 2016, 11:12 PM
Apr 2016

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.

Orrex

(63,086 posts)
270. How many other amendments actively enable thousands of murders annually?
Sun May 1, 2016, 01:12 PM
May 2016
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.
I guess that that anti-gun authoritarians hate you for your freedom! Golly! That kind of thinking could land you the 2004 GOP Presidential nomination!
 

Rex

(65,616 posts)
233. Well of course it works, the nation decided to destroy the majority of their guns!
Sat Apr 30, 2016, 12:49 PM
Apr 2016

Less guns means less gun violence and death.

 

Darb

(2,807 posts)
263. Those that insist upon defending the indefensible at every turn.
Sun May 1, 2016, 11:01 AM
May 2016

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)
275. Well, spewing falsehoods isn't helping your case.
Sun May 1, 2016, 02:11 PM
May 2016
All the while hiding in their clubhouse...


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"?

...ever more powerful and dangerous guns...


Spoken like a true anti-gun ideologue. Firearms technology really hasn't grown in in terms of "power" or "dangerousness" in decades.

...idiots and fools and clowns and unstable people.


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.

Sensible gun control is imperative.


Whats 'sensible' to people who hate guns, isn't 'sensible' to me, or to mainstream America.

Try to start a discussion on it and you will get swamped by the bloody hand club, flooding you with ridiculous excuses and complications.


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)
293. Quit pretending and wash your hands.
Mon May 2, 2016, 08:50 AM
May 2016

There is blood on them.

Your slip is showing like a billboard.

 

beevul

(12,194 posts)
304. Tell me more...
Mon May 2, 2016, 01:18 PM
May 2016

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'.

 

TeddyR

(2,493 posts)
278. What do you think is "sensible gun control"
Sun May 1, 2016, 02:24 PM
May 2016

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)
294. Firstly, the second doesn't say what you think it says.
Mon May 2, 2016, 08:52 AM
May 2016

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.

 

Darb

(2,807 posts)
337. Exactly what it says, and how it was written.
Thu Jun 16, 2016, 02:46 PM
Jun 2016

"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)
338. The end of it *does* say "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"
Thu Jun 16, 2016, 02:59 PM
Jun 2016

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)
339. You just ignored the whole amendment
Thu Jun 16, 2016, 03:57 PM
Jun 2016

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)
340. I'm sure you feel better after spouting that, but your logic is still faulty
Thu Jun 16, 2016, 05:18 PM
Jun 2016

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

de-mə-gäg-ə-rē/ noun


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)
341. Yes you are, you and your allies, the Republican Party and the NRA.
Fri Jun 17, 2016, 07:52 AM
Jun 2016

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)
342. I see you're sticking with the demagoguery schtick, and adding misrepresentation (or ignorance)
Fri Jun 17, 2016, 01:19 PM
Jun 2016

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.

And have said so more than once:

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

And again, pointing out *your* specious claim is not a defense of *them*. A pox on both your houses!

-*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

I like the term "National Republican Armory". Feel free to use it!


'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/


BOB GARFIELD: In that same Washington Post obituary there was, it seemed, a palpable sense of disappointment that the myth is, in fact, a myth. Why are we so reluctant to let it go? TIM TYSON: There's a sense in which Mrs. Parks is very important to our post-civil rights racial narrative, because we really want a kind of sugar-coated civil rights movement that's about purity and interracial non-violence. And so we don't really want to meet the real Rosa Parks. We don't, for example, want to know that in the late 1960s, Rosa Parks became a black nationalist and a great admirer of Malcolm X. I met Rosa Parks at the funeral of Robert F. Williams, who had fought the Ku Klux Klan in North Carolina with a machine gun in the late 1950s and then fled to Cuba, and had been a kind of international revolutionary icon of black power. Ms. Parks delivered the eulogy at his funeral. She talks in her autobiography and says that she never believed in non-violence and that she was incapable of that herself, and that she kept guns in her home to protect her family. But we want a little old lady with tired feet. You may have noticed we don't have a lot of pacifist white heroes. We prefer our black people meek and mild, I think.




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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_Tyson

....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


Remembering Robert Hicks and the Deacons of 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


Someone had called to say the Ku Klux Klan was coming to bomb Robert Hicks’s house. The police said there was nothing they could do. It was the night of Feb. 1, 1965, in Bogalusa, La.

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


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-identity—Black Power—is 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)
266. Those of the enablers
Sun May 1, 2016, 11:51 AM
May 2016

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)
276. Preserved for posterity.
Sun May 1, 2016, 02:13 PM
May 2016
Matrosov

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.
 

Matrosov

(1,098 posts)
321. False analogy
Tue May 3, 2016, 01:01 PM
May 2016

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)
324. "ALL gun owners have blood on their hands."
Tue May 3, 2016, 01:13 PM
May 2016

seems pretty straight forward to me. Why not change it to "ALL criminals have blood on their hands."

 

Matrosov

(1,098 posts)
327. Because gun owners enable criminals
Tue May 3, 2016, 01:28 PM
May 2016

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)
329. But drinkers don't enable DUIs?
Tue May 3, 2016, 01:34 PM
May 2016

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?

 

TeddyR

(2,493 posts)
279. I cut my hand
Sun May 1, 2016, 02:32 PM
May 2016

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)
282. I doubt the founding fathers could've ever foreseen the current gun violence
Sun May 1, 2016, 04:01 PM
May 2016

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.

 

Matrosov

(1,098 posts)
283. I'm not going to apologize for them
Sun May 1, 2016, 04:03 PM
May 2016

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)
284. It is irrelevant
Sun May 1, 2016, 04:04 PM
May 2016

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)
285. Yes, they do have blood on their hands
Sun May 1, 2016, 04:09 PM
May 2016

Just because they are also Democrats does make them immune from criticism.

sarisataka

(18,220 posts)
286. What about the people
Sun May 1, 2016, 04:11 PM
May 2016

Who wrote These bloody-handed officials into office do they have any responsibilities?

 

Matrosov

(1,098 posts)
322. Depends on their motive
Tue May 3, 2016, 01:05 PM
May 2016

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)
328. I vote Democrat because
Tue May 3, 2016, 01:29 PM
May 2016

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?

pablo_marmol

(2,375 posts)
317. Just as those who drink responsible have the blood of DUI victims on *their* hands, eh?
Tue May 3, 2016, 01:50 AM
May 2016

Your failure is both massive and obvious.
 

Matrosov

(1,098 posts)
323. Uh, no
Tue May 3, 2016, 01:12 PM
May 2016

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)
330. Uh, yes- you've blamed the >99% of gun owners that have never shot anyone and never will
Tue May 3, 2016, 03:28 PM
May 2016

Did you not think we'd notice your changing goalposts? Your own words describe what
you're attempting:

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.

pablo_marmol

(2,375 posts)
332. Tap dancing and dodging, as FI has pointed out.
Wed May 4, 2016, 03:21 AM
May 2016

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)
289. So in your sick, twisted upside-down world.......
Mon May 2, 2016, 02:34 AM
May 2016

.......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)
291. *That* one should consider forming a duo with Pamela Geller, and releasing a single titled:
Mon May 2, 2016, 04:00 AM
May 2016

"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...

 

Darb

(2,807 posts)
296. Didn't push you anywhere I'd bet.
Mon May 2, 2016, 08:57 AM
May 2016

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)
313. You're correct -- it didn't push me anywhere since I don't vote GOP.
Tue May 3, 2016, 01:34 AM
May 2016

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)
325. Yes. YES. YES!!
Tue May 3, 2016, 01:15 PM
May 2016

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)
333. No. NO. NO!!
Wed May 4, 2016, 04:06 AM
May 2016

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!

 

Darb

(2,807 posts)
295. BINGO.
Mon May 2, 2016, 08:54 AM
May 2016

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)
311. Are you owning it? Are you agreeing that you have bloody hands?
Mon May 2, 2016, 06:30 PM
May 2016

Notice Matrosov said "ALL gun owners have blood on their hands."

 

Matrosov

(1,098 posts)
326. They are
Tue May 3, 2016, 01:20 PM
May 2016

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)
335. Blood which stains the hands may originate from many sources, not just guns...
Tue May 10, 2016, 11:40 PM
May 2016

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)
268. I disagree. We need to repeal restrictive gun laws, and continue making progress.
Sun May 1, 2016, 12:54 PM
May 2016

Gun ownership is a right, plain and simple.

Response to Kang Colby (Reply #299)

Takket

(21,425 posts)
287. wow.........
Sun May 1, 2016, 04:31 PM
May 2016

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)
316. On mental health -- here's how Kamala Harris has fumbled **BIG TIME**:
Tue May 3, 2016, 01:44 AM
May 2016

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)
318. Demand creates it's own supply. The Controllers haven't figured this out.......
Tue May 3, 2016, 02:13 AM
May 2016

........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)

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»20 years of data show Aus...