Can DU, can this nation have a sensible discussion about gun violence

[rustydog]

minus the clip-art catch phrases: Guns don't kill people, people kill people!
Guns don't kill people, People with guns kill people...

This inane juvenile back and forth is getting us nowhere and people are dying daily in this nation due to gun violence. Hell, a police officer shot and killed his son thinking he was a burglar.
tens of thousands of people are shot in America every year...when does it stop, slow down, reduce a bit?

What, if anything, can we do? How do we have an honest, across-the-political-aisle discussion?

The smarmy smart-ass responses from both sides does not further the chances of a serious overdue discussion on what we need to do about this and it cheapens the lives of those devastated by these senseless shootings. Is the solution a state by state drive to have their laws uniform nation wide?
We'd need an organization just as well-organized and heavily-funded as the gun manufacturer-NRA connection.

This issue needs to be discussed, by both sides, calmly, factually and with the common welfare of the citizens at its heart. Can we have that discussion?

[Skittles]

1. no

for the same reason we cannot have a sensible political discussion with teabaggers

[Kaleva]

3. Well, that helps the discussion!

[Skittles]

4. alas, it is the truth

when someone operates strictly from talking points there can be no real discussion

[Kaleva]

19. Well, the hardcore on both sides do this.

When I read these threads and posts, there really are not that many who are entrenched in their beliefs to such a point that they won't budge an inch. It's many of the same folks who in thread after thread, say the same thing over and over again.

Some want no more restrictions and they refuse to consider other ideas. Others want nothing less then a complete ban on all semi-automatics and anything less then that is unacceptable.

[nadinbrzezinski]

53. Alas even 100% background checks

Are way too radical for a few folks...never mind is is common sense.

That's ok, after a few score more mass shootings there will be a are action to this...

See you anywhere from 12-24 months fr the next scheduled mass shooting, average is 14 months.

Copy and paste current posts.

[Kaleva]

62. True. Any little change is too radical

On the other hand, I'm not going to support a call for a complete ban on all semi-automatics either.

[nadinbrzezinski]

65. If we cannot agree on 100% checks

I can guarantee a backlash that you will not like...after a score, two, maybe more of these.

[DirkGently]

69. Computerized registration?

The gun lobby position on this is, I believe, that "the only reason to track guns is to GRAB guns." I humbly stifle snark, but ... really?

Part of the "Fast and Furious" faux scandal happened because ATF, already downsized and budget-slashed, has to go through every form by hand. We can't know who sold what guns to whom at the national level, because we can't trust our own government with that?

[nadinbrzezinski]

71. Oh that goes without saying

I usually ask them how do you collect 300 million guns? Do you use the men in black and neuralise all?

[soccer1]

119. You don't get rid of 300 million guns

But at least no more firearms, other than handguns for self-protection in the home, sport and hunting,would be inundating our nation. They will become relics, museums will be dedicated you our past intense relationship with firearms. Sounds good to me.

[nadinbrzezinski]

121. So you are talking of what one, two generations?

Assuming you made them all ilegal that is.

[soccer1]

124. I don't know how long....the guns here will remain .....

and I see handguns for self protection in the home, hunting and sporting guns (with limitations) being legal for a long, long time.

However, as I've said before, our nation is in it's infancy....and I assume it will be up and running for as long as our Earth remains and I imagine that will be for a very, very long time. So,we would adjust. I believe, over time, our nation's collective identity will shift course away from militaristic (fight force with equal or more force) ways of dealing with conflict at the community, state, and national levels. Conflict resolution without destroying one another. Now that's an idea I can embrace! And it's possible, but our nation being inundated with weapons owned by civilians just does not promote that kind of cooperative, humane society. It just does not. And it never will.

[nadinbrzezinski]

125. What you are then talking, and we both agree,

is a cultural change.

But at this point we both need to deal with the current reality.

The current reality there is support for reasonable laws... but we have a small number of very loud folks controlling the debate.

[soccer1]

129. People can be loud and express their opinions.....

on either side of the argument. I don't think that is what's preventing change that people say they support. If all non gun owners and gun owners, who are in favor of more reasonable regulations, contacted their elected officials and made their preferences clear, we would have more regulations....regulations that make sense. But, I'm not sure citizens have the will to want this from the fed govt.....more at the state level. I don't know. You know what? I think it's just not a priority issue for most Americans at this time. When Americans get their teeth into something they want to see changed, there is no stopping them until the issue is fairly resolved. Maybe the economy has to improve...I don't know. I wish I had more constructive ideas for change at this time, but I just don't.

[nadinbrzezinski]

130. Actually the issue is so bad that

candidates locally are INSTRUCTED not to even touch it... serious. We are at that point.

The power of a few people (and the NRA) has truly polluted the debate

[soccer1]

131. Yes, it is bad....

but that's because those who are in favor of more regulations don't contact their elected officials and make waves.

[nadinbrzezinski]

159. I can contact my elected officials all I want

when the DEMOCRATIC party instructs my candidates in the BACK COUNTRY NOT TO GO THERE... and even raise the issue... i know it is dead politically right at the moment and the NRA will drop millions, even in a reliable red district.

Things you learn from covering local politics.

On background even Rs will tell you that they are not really pro life and pro guns, but they need to run that way.

[soccer1]

163. Well, this is true.....

and it's really frustrating when we feel we're not being heard and the issue we care about takes a back seat with our elected officials.
That frustration is felt on both sides of any issue. But, we keep on voicing our concerns, pushing our politicians to pay attention to our views and eventually there will be some movement in a positive direction. Takes time.....so frustrating, at times.

[nadinbrzezinski]

164. Nah, it's to the point that next shooting

It will come, people need to massively take to the streets.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

74. No legitimate gun owner wants mentally illegible people to have firearms

We could certainly start there.

[nadinbrzezinski]

76. But the problem is that we had a few of our fans

go completely ballistic over that, which is more than just common sense. And I don't want my guns to end in the hands of non qualified individuals either, when I get rid of them.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

82. I focus on the gun owner

Are they a threat or not. If they are not, let them own what they want. It they are a threat, take away their butter knives.

We are a long way from an integrated data realm where all purchases could be tracked and funny patterns flagged, so that is not the answer in the short term

We are not going to get the sizable and growing number of gun owners to give up their guns, especially not those whose gun possession is illegal.

Lets stop the crazies as a starting point. Then maybe work of the causes of violence in society.

[nadinbrzezinski]

85. Who said a thing about giving up your guns?

When 100% background checks are feared...due to a propaganda campaign, we have buckus of a chance of change right now.

History tells me that the reaction, and how many mass shootings it will take I can't tell, will be what people like you truly fear.

Better to work now, but hey...whatever.

As long as I avoid the hail...I will continue to watch this collective insanity.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

92. I am for 100% mental competency checks for firearms

Only way to do that is to effectively register gun owners and I support that. Those that do not pass need to lose their access to firearms.

[nadinbrzezinski]

94. Damn, we agree

[soccer1]

152. What kind of screening process would you use

to determine if a person is so mentally ill they would use their weapon(s) to murder people? Who would administer those tests? Could some of those being screened test "false positive" for mental illness and some screened go undetected (psychopaths?)? I don't think that will work.

[soccer1]

117. Why not?

[Kaleva]

122. Some argue the domino effect.

If they give in on one minor point, then they'll be expected to give in on another and then another.

[soccer1]

165. Well, it depends how people believe ....

the "domino effect" will impact them. Certainly, handguns for self protection the home, hunting and sporting firearms will not be banned. If some people are concerned that military grade weapons and large capacity ammunition feeding devices will be banned, I have no sympathy for their concerns. Throughout the ages people have been concerned about how a new policy or law will have a "domino effect".....usually, I imagine, that fear proves to be unfounded, unless one's position is extreme on any issue.

[RKP5637]

77. That's about it, isn't it, save for a replay. It will repeat.

[nadinbrzezinski]

78. Given the average of occurrence yup

[orwell]

7. +100...It's a public forum...n/t

[AnotherMcIntosh]

55. Oh, good. Then stick with your position on the wedge-issue as the losing politicians did in 1994

and see how that works out.

Since you have posted, it appears that you are either anti-gun or otherwise.

Since you equate those on the other side of your position with "teabaggers," let me guess which side that you are on.

[CTyankee]

134. no, not even on DU any more.

[slutticus]

167. Are you referring to the "pro gun" nuts, or the "anti gun" nuts?

'cause you're all nuts. seriously. i mean listen to yourselves. different side of the same coin.....

[HockeyMom]

2. No

Because they are operating on fear and hormones.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

10. Exhibit A n/t

[Llewlladdwr]

5. No.

It seems to me that too many people have a visceral dislike of weapons that renders them incapable of calm, reasoned discussion.

For example, if we're going to discuss this rationally and calmly, we have to look at the total number of fatalities and decide if 12 dead people are worth restricting the rights of millions over.

To put it in perspective, on Sunday night 14 people were killed in a traffic accident just north of where I live. Why aren't we tearing our hair out about making our vehicles safer, enforcing our traffic laws more strongly, or passing a massive new traffic control regimen at the Federal level? Because very few people have the same visceral dislike of cars.

This is just one example. And I'll probably be told what a horrible, unfeeling bastard I am for providing it. Which just further proves my point. Calm, rational discussion includes being able to hear things you disagree with without melting down and calling the other side monsters.

[Skittles]

11. EXHIBIT NUMBER ONE!!!

[Llewlladdwr]

14. Could you elaborate a little? NT

[SickOfTheOnePct]

12. Well said n/t

[HockeyMom]

16. When your 6 year old child sees bus driver with his face blown away

with blood and guts all over, come back and talk to me.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

18. And you accuse gun owners of

"operating on fear and hormones." ?

[Llewlladdwr]

21. No disrespect intended HockeyMom...

but are you truly saying that since one (1) guy died one time we need to restrict the constitutional rights of millions (1,000,000's)?

[HockeyMom]

26. Have your child, or you, witness a gun death up close and personal

then come back to me.

[Llewlladdwr]

27. Hmmm. Okay then.

I see that you ARE in fact saying that one death justifies restrictions on the constitutional rights of millions.

And to that I say that I respectfully disagree.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

29. If you read her post you'll see that it isn't even the death itself

It's that the child saw it.

[HockeyMom]

35. That man was dead in a bloody horrible mess

Did he have a wife and children? I don't know. I only a little girl myself. I guess you are saying that I shouldn't have , or my Mom, been tramatized by it? Do you know what happened to the shooter? The people on the street, MINUS GUNS, ran after him and tackled him to the ground, until the 34th street NYPD came. NO GUNS!!!!!!! I saw all this too while Mom was trying to get a taxi to take us home. I slept in my parents bed that night, and never went to see Santa again. Doesn't matter what happens to a child, now does it? Just let parents make them shoot guns, right?

What is your PERSONAL story of gun violence?

[SickOfTheOnePct]

38. I never said you shouldn't have been traumatized

Of course you would be. But you want to deny a Constitutional right to millions of other people because of your horrible experience, and then you have the audacity to claim that gun owners are "operating on fear and hormones".

My personal story of gun violence is of going to my brother's house (he was 26 at the time, I was not quite 28) to take him lunch because he had stayed home from work sick that day. When I got there, he was in the bathtub, with a huge exit wound in the side of his head, and his blood and brains all over the tub and floor.

So yes, I know first hand what guns can do. The difference is that I'm not going to use what I saw as an excuse to deny people their Constitutional rights.

[Brisket]

133. Have you ever read The Turner Diaries?

If not, you should, then you can tell everyone how the First Amendment must be decimated because those writings were used to invoke violence against many people (including the maiming of hundreds including children, for example in Oklahoma City.)

[CTyankee]

137. Oh, it's not one death, believe me. There are many out there whose family has suffered such

a death. They are not here on DU. I am here to tell you this...

[SickOfTheOnePct]

28. You're basing your stance on emotion

Which is what you accuse gun owners of doing. And based on that emotion, you want to deny millions their rights.

How is that any different that anti-choicers running around with posters of aborted fetuses and trying to change minds on the abortion issue? The only difference I see is that you agree with one right, and disagree with the other one.

Thankfully, Constitutional rights aren't a popularity contest.

[CTyankee]

138. human emotions, how awful! How dare she? Why, that's unAmerican! Emotions! Nonsense!

dear god, man...

[SickOfTheOnePct]

140. No problem with opinions based on emotions

But if that's the case, then don't be a hypocrite and criticize the other side of the debate by saying they are basing their opinions on emotions.

If it's fine for her to do so, then she shouldn't be accusatory when she says the other side does the same thing.

Sauce, goose, gander, etc.

[CTyankee]

142. but of course I didn't do that...however...

[SickOfTheOnePct]

143. But of course I wasn't talking about you...since...

Your post was about HockeyMom and her emotions and since I referenced "her" rather than "you" in my response to you.

[CTyankee]

144. wrong. not about hockeymom as much as any other post I have made. wrong equivalency.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

145. If your post wasn't about HockeyMom

Then why did you respond to my response to her, referring to her emotions?

If it wasn't in reference to HockeyMom, then what was it in reference to?

[CTyankee]

146. i never said it wasn't in direct reference to her. you brought in extraneaous stuff...false

equivalencies...

[SickOfTheOnePct]

147. And what false equivalencies would those be?

Either it's OK for emotions to inform one's opinion or it isn't. But it's hypocritical for a person to base an opinion on emotions and then criticize opponents by saying their opinions are based on emotions.

Can't have it both ways.

[CTyankee]

148. the false equivalency being that our side is accusing your side of being "emotional."

I never did that. I don't know who you mean, but it wasn't me. Please.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

149. You didn't but HockeyMom certainly did

Post #2:

Because they are operating on fear and hormones

.

Fear being an emotion, you might want to at least check into what you're defending before you jump in and make baseless accusations.

[CTyankee]

151. welll, I don't think it is ALL fear and hormones. That doesn't go far enough in my book.

It goes to the mind. But I have expressed myself on this ad infinitum so you can find it in these threads. no use in repeating it here....my lack of belief in the 2nd amendment, etc...it's all there waiting for you...

[SickOfTheOnePct]

153. "lack of belief in the 2nd amendment"?

It's not the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy or Santa Claus. It isn't an issue of you "believing" in it, it's there, and it's a Constitutional right. Believing in it or not believing in it is irrelevent.

[CTyankee]

160. if my beliefs are so irrelevant and those of my fellow liberals, then you don't have to worry, do

you?

If it weren't so dangerous, I'd say the 2nd A. is irrelevant in a modern day constitutional democracy. We'd be much better without it.

However behind the rest of the civilized world the U.S. is with this 2nd A. atrocity, we are stuck with it for the time being. Perhaps this country will grow up someday and say Enough to the slaughter, but that will take some time.

[rustydog]

31. That is what I'm talking about. But the actual number is about 30-thousand a year

Is that bette rthan one? Does it take a loved one of yours before you begin to think this is an epidemic that needs at least DISCUSSION?

Is the constitutional right to own a 100 round ammo drum for your AK47? Where does the discussin begin?
Can we have a civil discussion?

[SickOfTheOnePct]

34. Probably not

For example, you cite the 30,000 number...how many of those were from illegally obtained guns? Do you think outlawing guns will stop criminals from using them? I mean, they're already breaking the law, why would they care about a gun violation?

So no, we probably can't have the calm, rational discussion that as a nation, we need to have.

[rustydog]

37. My point exactly, but other nations are armed, have strict gunlaws and their civilian deaths

are a pittance compared to America's?
Should'nt there be a compassionate, reasoned discussion on this problem and discussions on possible solutions?

What is wrong with trying to save lives, what is so gut-wrenchingly wrong in looking at possible solutions to preventing some of these senseless acts of violence?

[SickOfTheOnePct]

40. Because laws don't prevent senseless acts of violence n/t

[rustydog]

43. Then why are the numbers lower?

This is why we need a discussion and not knee-jerk defensive statements!

[SickOfTheOnePct]

45. "knee-jerk defensive statements!"

Yeah, I can't understand why we can't have rational discussions.

[TheKentuckian]

81. Better access to mental health care, less poverty, more labor protections, far less potential

for homelessness, different police culture, a thousand years of authoritarian rule in many places creating substantially different culture, far less rural territory, less history of proliferation, less bullying, less drug war. I'm sure there are many factors including the laws but there is lot more to it than that.

All things being equal, we'd still have a ton more gun crime for a long, long time without other societal changes and the other countries would have a far lower per capita rate with even less regulation than we have here.

[Mojorabbit]

22. I agree. This over the top attempt to make sense of senseless violence

is why we have the patriot act. No matter how many laws you pass, there will be a crazy person who will find a way to do what he wants to do.
Penalizing millions of people who are never going to harm another is not the answer. I totally agree with you.

[rustydog]

36. Do you mean side-impact protection mandated for all automobiles? Seatbelt laws?

mandatory air bags? DUI laws, license revocation statutes?

We regulate automobiles more than any firearm.

[Llewlladdwr]

50. Obviously those things aren't enough.

Fourteen people died.

Shouldn't we be doing more?

Couldn't the Federal government do more to improve auto safety?

Fouteen people died.

Don't we need to do SOMETHING?

[HuckleB]

99. So, you agree that we must do something to diminish gun violence?

Got it.

[HuckleB]

98. Nice red herring combined with a straw man.

Interestingly, society spends a great deal of time working to make automobile travel safer.

Somehow you're pretending otherwise.

Your post makes it clear that you don't want to engage in a discussion about how to decrease gun violence in this nation.

Pretending that it's "the other side" that is emotionally stuck does not change that.

[2on2u]

102. No one decides to have an accident, however everyone (almost everyone) who shoots

someone decides to pull the trigger. If you can make the human brain a safer place that would be a start.

[99Forever]

111. "...a visceral dislike of weapons..."

Wrong, gun worshiper.

How about a visceral disgust of lack of compassion as one group of everyday citizens after another, going about their peaceful, lawful lives, gets moved down when one of your "law-abiding, for my personal protection, gun toting, brethen " pops his or her cork and decides to go on a killing rampage. Saying, "Oh well, shit happens" ain't cutting it anymore. The "reasonable approach" is what got us here. Gun freaks "solution" is of the same caliber about guns, as Bushites solution for the economy. You are the problem that PREVENTS the solution.

[HooptieWagon]

6. No. one side has no clue what they're talking about,

and is firmly entrenched on an opinion based on emotion, not facts. Its like the all male republican committee that wants to ban womens access to birth control.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

15. I like this post

I have no idea which side you're talking about, because both sides of this argument have people that fit this description. It isn't one side full of crazies and the other side rational thinkers, in either direction.

Don't know where you stand on the issue, but I like the post.

[Llewlladdwr]

23. It does have a certain beautiful vagueness to it, doesn't it? NT

[Pholus]

8. My hands are not clean, and so weight this appropriately but

perhaps you could start by making some proposals. What do you think would make things better?

If you can get a pro and an anti to agree to one action item, no matter how trivial, it's a start!

[Texasgal]

9. No we cannot.

It will never happen here.

Too bad really. I have decided to keep my "gun" thoughts to myself. I posted on one thread and was chastised. No more for me.

I have an opinion, but I will not share it. It's too emotional a subject for some people.

[Kaleva]

13. I think there ought to be a limit on magazine capacity for one

But the devil is in the details. I saw one pro-gunners say that with semi-auto handguns, the limit ought to be that the magazine cannot extend down past the butt of the grip. This makes sense to me as it's simple for everyone to understand.

As for rifles and shotguns, many states place a limit on 5 rounds in a magazine for hunting. It's been that way in Michigan for decades and many gun owners who hunt or have hunted are used to that limit. The AR-15 with a 5 round mag is no more deadly then any other semi-auto with 5 round mag.

Further more, I think anyone who wants to own a gun or guns and buy ammo first should have to go thru a background check and complete a gun safety course. Then they'll be issued a permit to be able to buy such. After 5 years, they have to renew their permit.

[Lurks Often]

24. We do already

"I think anyone who wants to own a gun or guns and buy ammo first should have to go thru a background check and complete a gun safety course. Then they'll be issued a permit to be able to buy such. After 5 years, they have to renew their permit."

Federal law requires that anyone buying a gun from a licensed firearms dealer must pass a background check via the NICS. I won't say all, but most states require a 1 day safety course to get a permit as well.

Private sales in state between individuals is regulated by the applicable state law.

Some states do require a permit or id card to buy ammo, Massachusetts being one of them.

Now all of the posts I have seen from you have been polite and you don't push an emotion based agenda like some of the others. I am not trying to make this a personal attack, but your post is an example of why some of the pro gun people here and on other forums react so strongly. We see the same inaccurate statements on a regular basis, some, like yours are unintentional (I believe), but far more posters intentionally misrepresent things and outright lie. After a while it becomes "if they can't even be bothered to do some research before posting things they know nothing about, why should we be polite or even discuss things with them".

[Kaleva]

30. Not to the extent of what I've suggested

I was never required to attend and pass a gun safety course before purchasing the rifles I have. I did have to go thru a background check as I bought them from a gun dealer in Texas and they were shipped to a gun dealer near me. As for ammo, I just need to show my driver's license. No proof that I've been trained to safely handle guns is required. If I buy a gun from a neighbor, there isn't a background check done. With what I've suggested and how it'd affect private sales is that the background check would already have been done as one has a permit to prove it. No permit. No private sale.

[Lurks Often]

39. State law varies widely,

any attempt to cover every relevant state law would cause EVERYBODY's eyes, including mine, to glaze over long before everything was covered.

I think it is unlikely that we would be able to get all 50 states to agree on a uniform set of laws.

[Kaleva]

47. Make it a federal law

With the stipulation that individual states and local jurisdictions cannot impose greater or lesser restrictions then what the federal law requires. A resident of Chicago would have the same rights and restrictions as someone who lives in Montana.

The Federal govt. was able to force every state to adopt the 55 mph speed limit by threatening to withhold transportation funds. The federal govt. could do the same with gun laws.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

48. That particular weapon in the federal arsenal is most likely weaker now

Given the SCOTUS ruling on the ACA, in particular, the part of the ruling that says the federal government can't offer choices that really aren't choices (due to threats of defunding), I don't believe it will be nearly as easy to impose mandates by threat anymore.

[rustydog]

104. No we don"t this guy had a 100-round ammo drum!

Thanks to the repeal of the Brady bill (thank you GOP and NRA! I bought a Glock 17 9 mm in 2006 and received 3 of the once-restricted clips that allow me to shoot fifty-seven rounds a quickly as I can pull the trigger and dump and reload a clip.

I have owned handguns all my adult life and NEVERonce felt the need to pull the gun to save my llife or family. I've been threatened, my life has been threatened by bad guys and I never had the urge to start carrying for my protection...
We need to discuss this excessive gun violence problem rationally, samely and in an adult fashion or it willonly continue to get worse.

[Lurks Often]

114. I've never had to use a gun to defend myself

and I hope I never have to.

"excessive gun violence problem" Most states allow some form of CCW, the AWB has expired and yet crime continues to drop nationwide. According to the FBI violent crime is at a 20 year low. There doesn't seem to be a correlation between the availability of guns and an increase in crime.

We'll say you get your wish and 100 round drums magically disappear and when the next tragedy occurs, what will you want banned next?

[nadinbrzezinski]

127. Yes violent crime is down

mass shootings, on the other hand, are up.

You deal with that one.

And I will assume, that you are also opposed to 100% background checks.

At this point, if you are, I will also assume that you could not pass a background check.

[Lurks Often]

150. Don't make assumptions

Federal law requires a background check. CT state law only requires a background check on handguns. One can NOT purchase a handgun without a CT pistol permit.

State law is up to each state. If you don't like your state law, run for office and change it.

And since the shooter went through 3 or 4 separate Federal background checks, depending on if he bought the two handguns separately or together, background checks aren't the issue. The issue is why do some people apparently snap for no reason and with little or no warning.

And yes I've passed a NICS background check this year, several actually.

[nadinbrzezinski]

158. Sorry, but at this point I will assume such

the opposition is quite irrational and fire driven.

[Lurks Often]

162. Probably the one thing the both sides can agree on:

"the opposition is quite irrational and fire driven."

[Lurks Often]

17. No, the opposing viewpoints are generally too vast

and the history between the two sides is decades old and bitter.

Right now the President, the Supreme Court, Congress and courts, governors and legislatures across the country are recognizing that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right. Seems that's what the majority of voters want right now.

[rrneck]

20. The problem might be

that guns are about as regulated as they can get. But it's such a wedge issue, fueled by special interests on both sides, that partisan emotion feeds on itself.

[oldhippie]

25. No, it's like religion, or basic ideas of liberty ....

... ideas upon which even die hard progressives have far divergent opinions. Ain't gonna happen.

95% of the folks already have their minds made up. I know I do. Discussion is futile.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

59. "die hard progressives" have or should have different views on religion?

I didn't laugh out loud, but it did give me a smile.

[oldhippie]

66. From what I have seen around here ......

.... in the years I have been around, yes, there are different views. Some folks take their religion seriously. Admittedly the majority appear to be non-believers, such as myself. I don't spend a lot of time perusing the few religious threads I have come across, but there appears to be some diverging thought. (Though certainly not as diverging as the guns issue.)

[AnotherMcIntosh]

68. If anything, progressives are suppose to use their brains and think and not accept others' orthodoxy

When I was 3-years old and was told about an invisible Easter bunny, I believed it. I'm sure that all 3-year olds who were told that also believed that. If a 3 year old tells me today that he believes in the Easter bunny, I'm sure that he is telling the truth about believing in an Easter bunny.

If an adult tells me, even with a straight face. that they believe in an Easter bunny, I don't have to believe them because it is contrary to common sense.

Likewise, if an adult tells me with a straight face that he or she believes that there is a god that is a male bipod who looks like us except that he is invisible, I'll know that they are either engaging in a game of let's-pretend or that they have gone off the deep end. If they are connected with a tax-exempt organization, I'll even assume that it is the former rather than the latter. I likewise assume that other adults who profess religious beliefs are engaging in let's-pretend rather than being genuinely nuts.

And, yes I'm going to stay out of the forum with the religious discussions.

When religious people ruled Western civilization, it was called the Dark Ages.

[oldhippie]

72. It's called "faith" .....

Some otherwise intelligent people still have it.

Coincidentally, I am currently watching a six hour lecture series on DVD titled "Science and Religion" by The Great Courses. I just started it yesterday, but it looks very interesting.

Science and Religion

[Union Scribe]

87. Your point was quickly proven, wasn't it?

I agree with you, and would add that these are very emotional issues as well, which rarely lends itself to productive, calm discussion.

[HappyMe]

32. Not going to happen.

Take this back to the Gungeon.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

60. Yes! If it is not going to be a campaign or election issue. Otherwise no.

Even the mayors of some cities are reacting to this and have indicated that they are going to change certain practices.

E.g., Colorado Massacre to Justify Upcoming Stop-and-Frisk Practice in San Francisco (Plus Other Cities)http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021010444

[polichick]

33. No, because fear makes people irrational...

And nobody is as fearful as gun enthusiasts - while the rest of us are fearful about gun enthusiasts.

[Lurks Often]

41. You're a good example of why we can't have civil discussions

"And nobody is as fearful as gun enthusiasts"

You appear to be projecting your own issues on the rest of us. Your inability to comprehend why we own guns is not a justification for us to give up that right.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

42. Yep n/t

[polichick]

44. Nice try.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

46. Hey, if the shoe fits... n/t

[Llewlladdwr]

51. It's a valid point polichick.

If you've already decided your opponents are unable to discuss an issue because of a trait that YOU project on to them then we aren't going to have much of a discussion.

Funny that, eh?

[polichick]

54. Good grief, all you have to do is know a few gun enthusiasts...

They're fearful someone's going to take their guns - not to mention the fears that lead them to stock up in the first place.

And those of us who would rather not live in a locked and loaded society are afraid of the gun enthusiasts who are so extreme that they stand in the way of even an assault weapons ban.

Plenty of fear to go around.

[Llewlladdwr]

86. I actually know quite a few gun enthusiasts. Even have some in the family.

They don't seem to be especially fearful to me. Heck, I enjoy taking my one of my WWII-era Kar98K or Mosin-Nagants to the range to pop off a few rounds every now and then myself. And I can assure you I do not live in a state of constant fear.

[slutticus]

168. Yes. I fear the skeet.

It haunts me at night. OH THE HORROR!!! WHERE'S MY SHOTTIE!!!

You have a very immature view of this issue. You broad brush gun owners as "fearful", while also broad brushing advocates of gun control as "fearful". Jeebus..... Do you leave your house at all? Are you typing this from under your bed?

[polichick]

169. Yes, it's very mature to require a stockpile of guns in order to...

...function in the world.

All it shows is fear.

[nadinbrzezinski]

58. Hey, I got some

And I am all for....ready for this? Much tougher regulations than we have now.

[polichick]

67. I am too, but you can't even get Dem "leaders" to go there.

[IDemo]

49. Nope

It was shown in a study earlier this year (sorry, ain't gonna Google it for you) that humans trust their central ideological, cultural, religious sense more than they do factual proofs. It's why the majority of political beliefs remain unchanged by disastrous presidencies, for example. So-called discussions nowadays function primarily as forums for speaking-in-tongues with whatever talking points are enshrined in the minds of the participants.

See discussion threads beneath virtually any Yahoo news story.

[Raine]

52. No not going to happen, sorry. nt

[Rosa Luxemburg]

56. Gun smuggling is BIG business period

try to stop it!

[ProgressiveProfessor]

79. Try eliminating the demand

[baldguy]

57. Not until gun worshipers acknowledge two simple, indisputable facts;

1) Guns kill, and 2) Dangerous people are made more dangerous when they have guns.

We can solve our gun problem. I know because IT'S ALREADY BEEN SOLVED in most of the remainder of the industrialized world. It's not rocket science - the first step is getting rid of the guns.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

75. When you lead with the term "gun worshiper", it means you really don't want to discuss things

and are making the problem worse.

[Llewlladdwr]

83. You mean like in the UK?

That would be the same UK that has extremely strict gun laws. Gun laws which did nothing to stop Derrick Bird from killing 12 people and wounding another 11 in Cumbria, England on June 2, 2010.

[Llewlladdwr]

88. And then there's Van der Vlis from the Netherlands.

He managed to kill 6 and wound 17 at a mall in Alphen aan den Rijn on April 9, 2011.

[baldguy]

103. Things like this happen countries with strict gun control once in a decade

perhaps even once in a generation.

They happen in America once a year.

[Brisket]

136. I hope you're just uninformed instead of disingenuous...I suggest you Google

"gun violence in Jamaica", a country where guns are one hundred percent "banned."

[baldguy]

161. Is Jamaca part of the industrialised world? And where do you think those guns come from?

Why don't you look at the statistics for other industrialized western nations? Because gun crimes are unusual events there, and one of the reasons is that gun ownership is highly regulated.

[rustydog]

105. With all due respect, it is the catch phrases, that shuts down any hope of intelligent discussion

"Gun worshipers" "Gun nuts" and so on.
If we can drop the negative "tags" annd address the ISSUE. The senseless gun violence in this country that is killing and maiming too many people. People who will never see their children grow up, eople who won't be able to place their children ont heir grandparent's lap because they were brutally murdered...
When do we discuss the violence, not the people who buy guns?

Hell, I own firearms. a 30-30 and a 9mm. Unless it is stolen, it will never be used to rob a store, hijack a car or airplane or used in a gang-related shooting...

I still want to discuss this. want out Employees (CONGRESS!) to rationally discuss this and see if, IF, there is a solution, not a knee-jerk reaction!

[baldguy]

156. Gun worshipers should also grow up & stop with the histrionics.

[Brisket]

135. Your chance of 'getting rid' of the guns of Democrats is very very slim. Chance of taking them away

from Republicans is way less than zero. You might read up on tilting at windmills for a bit of wisdom in this.

[madrchsod]

61. no.......

never has been in the past and probably won`t in the future

[aikoaiko]

63. Yes, but not while people are being emotional.

But it can happen.

[ellisonz]

132. Yes Yes

Clearly the problem is too much soft-hearted emotion and not enough cold-calculating logic, we could all learn if we simply ignored our souls and crunched the numbers until we got the answer we wanted.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

64. You want gun control? A sensible way to push for gun and violence control is to push for economic

justice, more democracy, and conditions by which young men such as the shooter (and others) can envision a worthwhile future for themselves.

International corporations are inherently undemocratic. Corporate owners who are becoming a permanent creditor class of the children and grandchildren of the former American middle-class are ruining this country.

Remove the conditions by which young men are experiencing dispair and isolation, while shifting their energies to watching violent movies and playing violent video games. Do that and you will inherently reduce the violence. Don't do that but merely eliminate scary guns with black plastic parts, you will still have the Timothy McVeigh types. By the way, McVeigh didn't have a gun problem. He had a bomb problem. And an emotional problem from his sense of isolation and dispair.

[LadyHawkAZ]

70. ^this this THIS!

[nadinbrzezinski]

73. Damn by this logic I should have commited murder a few times

Yup, when young I enjoyed first person shooters.

[zappaman]

139. Is this were you were involved in "a few shootouts"?

Now, that makes sense!

[rustydog]

106. Exactly my friend. The issue isn't just firearms and the violence...it is a myriad issue

that requires sober, intelligent dialogue!

[RobietheCat]

80. Hopefully yes

If you look at the American Republic as a vast interesting experiment in politics, and the failure not only present but create considering the 'advances' in society and technology. Like guns, cars, and computers.

[demosincebirth]

84. No sensible discussion unless, some how, the NRA, disappears completely.

[nadinbrzezinski]

90. Or returns to it's roots

But pretty much.

[rustydog]

107. I agreewith you. Once it was a good organization and I was a proud member

[krispos42]

91. Probably not.

The anti-gun people have a standardized list of "reasonable" measures, and if you disagree, you're being unreasonable.

The pro-gun people have a standardized list of reasons why many of the "reasonable" measures have logical, technical, or legal problems, but if you use them, you're spewing right-wing talking points.


If you point out that everything the left has supported the past 20 years in terms of gun control wouldn't have stopped the shooting, that doesn't deter them from proposing them anyway.


Background check? The guy was clean. He passed at least three of them.

Prohibition on "assault weapons"? His rifle might have been considered one under the 1993 law. Solution: buy the exact same gun, but with a fixed instead of adjustable stock. Ta-da, no longer an assault weapon.

Prohibition on magazine size? Well, he could have gotten pre-1994 magazines of 30 rounds each, or just bought a bunch of 10-rounders. With some practice, the gun reloads very quickly.

Waiting period? He bought the guns months ago, far in excess of any waiting period.

One-gun-a-month? He bought a gun, a gun, then two guns. Again, over several months. No help there.

Ban on body armor? Nobody shot at him! The armor was untouched and just dead weight.

Ban on "cop-killer bullets"? Nobody in the theater was a cop wearing armor. Besides, Sideshow Bob using non-expanding bullets might have saved lives in this case. More wounds, but less death.

Registration? The cops knew pretty much immediately when and where he bought the guns; it was in the next day's news. So... no help there.

[Prism]

93. Newp. It's a topic partial to partisans and ideologues

No discussion is possible. It's just one of those things. Like religion, no amount of "argument" is going to make a dent in pre-set beliefs. Better to just stare at from afar. People will only change their minds based on experience, and that - in regards to the gun topic - really can go either way. Either you get people whose lives were saved by armed self-defense or those whose lives were changed by gun violence.

But convincing by argument alone?

No, not really possible. Culture never changes by argument. It changes by experience.

[spin]

95. I feel we can if both sides carefully listen to the other side's points and become educated ...

on the issue.

The news media has a very biased viewpoint on this subject and often publishes articles which favor the gun control side. For example many people who are unfamiliar with firearms believe that you can drive to a Mom and Pop gun store or to a gun show and buy a fully automatic military grade assault rifle. While it is true that you can own such weapons in 37 states, they are tightly regulated and require far more paperwork than other firearms. They also are extremely expensive sometimes costing $20,000 or more.

It is totally understandable why people would be against selling fully automatic firearms at a Walmart and this misconception gives a considerable amount of support to those who wish to implement laws such as another assault weapons ban.

For educational purposes I will post a video that describes the difference between an "assault weapon" and a true assault rifle. This video features a police officer who works for the San Jose Police Department and has 25 years experience on the force. If you have any interest in understanding this subject this is a very valuable video to watch. I feel that it is fair to both sides of the issue.

The video only covers one of the many misconceptions about firearms that the media loves to push.

Let's suppose that we had a discussion on DU about if a regular person should be able to own a car that would go much faster than the speed limits of an interstate highway. Such a discussion would be rational and worthwhile as most posters understand cars.

But suppose that only a third of the posters here owned a car and got most of their information from the media who had a dislike of fast cars. The media, because of its bias, would portray fast cars as 900 horsepower NASCAR stock cars which are not street legal. Obviously posters unfamiliar with automobiles would believe what the media said and would logically oppose allowing the average driver to own such cars.

I could point out that the majority of Americans distrust the media and probably for good reason. The main reason that I take everything that I see in newspapers or the cable news channels with a grain of salt is mainly their distortion of the facts about firearms. How firearms operate is a fairly simple subject to understand while economics is a very complicated field to comprehend. If the media can't get the facts on the difference between "assault weapons" and true military grade weapons correct, how can I trust them on any subject?

If all posters were willing to take the time to research firearms and firearm law then we might be able to have a rational and educational discussion on the issue of gun control. For example we might debate if allowing a civilian to own a semi-auto weapon is a good idea or if they should be limited to only bolt action rifles and revolvers. We wouldn't be wasting most of our time talking about apples and oranges like we often do here.

To have a fair and worthwhile discussion over this very controversial topic it might be wise to also try to be polite. On DU a pro-gun poster who lacks politeness is usually history in a very short period of time but they are often insulted by those who wish to say that they own guns because they are trying to compensate for the size of their penis or are irrationally fearful and cowardly. This may be great fun for those who strongly support gun control and also intensely dislike gun owners but the result is an infantile debate.

I support the pro-gun side of the issue but in my lifetime I have personally experienced both the tragedy that allowing civilians to own firearms can cause and the fact that they can save lives or serve as a worthwhile hobby.

While I chose to argue on the side of those who support gun rights I could easily present good arguments for the opposite side of the debate which would be far more effective than most I see on DU. In order to really discuss any subject with differing viewpoints it is wise to be able to argue for both sides.

The level of discussion on DU has largely degenerated into a food fight between both sides and this is sad. We can do far better.

[99Forever]

115. "Educate" me on the upside...

... of scores of dead and wounded innocent victims, murdered doing such risky things as going to school or out to eat or see a movie, at least once a year and becoming more frequent all the time, when some "law-abiding" gun FREAK pops his mainspring and goes on a rampage with his semi-automatic assault STYLE meatgrinder toy.

I'm all fucking ears.

[spin]

116. You suggest what I feel is a fair argument ...

and at least you describe the firearms you wish to discuss by using the correct terminology.

The title of the original post that started this thread was Can DU, can this nation have a sensible discussion about gun violence. I will also agree that it's fair to label individuals who run amok and kill many other innocent people as "freaks".

Why don't you start a thread on this subject either in GD or even in the Gungeon. If you wish a more polite discussion on this topic, I would suggest also that you eliminate the emotional term "meatgrinder toy." You should get at least some rational replies from people who have some knowledge of firearms to consider from both sides of the issue. You might be surprised but I suspect you would actually have support from some gun owners.

If your arguments for restricting the ownership or even banning the ownership of semi-auto assault style rifles or all semi-auto weapons are valid you should be able to hold your own against any who oppose your ideas without using emotion or exaggerating the lethality of the class of firearms being discussed. If you encounter a strong counter argument than rather of resorting to insults, do the research necessary to effectively reply. Carefully consider all responses and be willing to change or modify your views if necessary.

This is exactly what I would do if I was a supporter of stronger gun control. One of the best arguments for that side is that semi-auto rifles with a detachable magazine are far more lethal than other firearms.

Send me a PM if you do start such a thread so I can participate. This is the type of discussion that I would love to see on DU. At one time I used to post about firearms on far more conservative boards. It was somewhat entertaining as everyone agreed with my views on firearms but often I was so disgusted by the irrational negative comments about Democrats and liberals that I felt like taking a shower afterward.

I found DU to be a far more interesting place to post as I found my views on firearms challenged and I had to learn a lot more than I would have ever expected to respond effectively. My basic views on the subject haven't changed significantly but I have modified them. I also was able to read and respond in many other areas of discussion that I found interesting. Since I am a Democrat I found the DU experience far more enjoyable than when I was posting on more conservative forums.

The only problem with posting here in favor of RKBA is that often I have to suffer unnecessary insults. I realize that most liberal Democrats (not all) hate firearms and are very emotional often for good reason. Being on the pro-gun side of the debate on DU reminds me of when the Steelers have a football game with the Browns in Cleveland. The bleacher section of the Cleveland Browns stadium is called the "dawg pound" and is populated by some extremely zealous fans. DU is the home turf for many very progressive and liberal Democrats so I expect to get some crap thrown at me when I post in favor of gun rights and RKBA. I am not playing on the most friendly field for this subject.

[sendero]

96. Not as long as folks think that..

... there is a legislative solution to the problem, because there is , by definition, not one.

[HuckleB]

97. In other words, you would not participate in such a discussion.

Got it.

[sendero]

100. Not when..

.... the premise is ridiculous to start with, no.

People who kill people don't care about your silly assed laws, sorry if you don't get that.

The Aurora shooter filled his apt with illegal bombs, so much for your legislative solution.

[rustydog]

109. How can we find out if there is a solution to this insane violence issue

if we all refuse to try, simply TRY to have a rational discussion.rather than shut it down with your preconceived idea of the outcome of the discussion!

we need to see what the precipitating factors are to some of these issues. Why are there so many illegally owned firearms? Why can we regulate cars but if (and I am not advocating this) you ask to regulate guns, you are, figuratively, blown out of the water for thinking it.

We need to see if we are by nature or nurture a more violent society now. This is where we need intelligent dispassionate discussions to learn if there is a connection to ultra-violent video games that teach kids that violence answers all our problems, the escalation of gang violence, the wealth gap that is growing by leaps and bounds, the intent to kill public assistance and vilify the helpless in our society. the education gap, the assault on funding of everything...
Is there a connection, and what do we need to do to correct it. Can it be corrected? Do we want to correct it?

But at least have an intelligent, non-name-calling discussion.

[sendero]

166. rustydog..

.... I don't disagree with much you have said. Your post is thoughtful and sensible. But so many of the anti-gun deluninoids around here have worn me down, I am just not in reasonable mode any more.

Are there things we could do? Yes. Will they make a substantial difference? Probably not.

Sorry it is a subject that just engenders such visceral responses that it is impossible to have a logical reasonable discussion about. But I'm tired of my simple premise, that people who are willing to kill other people will ignore gun laws with impunity, being ignored. I'm just not interested in talking to people who are suffering from severe cranial - rectal inversion, period.

[Democracyinkind]

101. One thing is for sure: If Du can't this nation can't. NT

[Remmah2]

108. Gun violence discussion. No problem.

Gun violence is bad.

Don't do it.

Throw violent bad people in jail. Screen and keep the long term violent ones there.

Respect the peaceful non violent pro-2A people.

[uppityperson]

110. I was going to ask this yesterday but decided I didn't need the aggravation. Thank you for posting.

I am hoping that there is a vocal minority doing the back and forth insults and snark and most DUers I know and like are laying low.

It needs to be discussed but without the snark and insults.

[Arugula Latte]

112. Nope.

The mass gun worshipping psychosis in this country has infected even DU.

[shanti]

113. NO, that's why we have the Gungeon. n/t

[nadinbrzezinski]

118. Short answer NO

and trust me, I have tried

[MissMarple]

120. No. Not right now.

It would take a different political climate and pragmatic leadership. Those are both possible, but not likely in the near future.

[X_Digger]

123. I'll just leave this here..

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/07/24/for-obama-romney-and-america-gun-control-is-dead.html

[randome]

126. 'Sensible' is in the eye of the beholder.

[HockeyMom]

141. You need tear gas, armour, 6000 rounds

to protect YOURSELF????? Come on, now.

[-..__...]

128. Discussion?...

Sure... discuss it all you want, but I for one am not about to agree with any compromises, deals or concessions the gun control side has to offer.

[lynne]

154. What we need to be discussing is mental illness -

- how to identify and intervene on those who are a danger to themselves and others. We should be talking about gangs. And about drug violence. Also about poverty. Talk about these things and find a way to resolve some of those issues and gun violence will be greatly reduced.

Gun violence is the result of larger problems. We know that this guy was beyond smart and that his house was filled with explosives that he had made. He could have just as easily done as much if not more more death and destruction with one of his bombs instead of a gun.

We need to find out why people wish to harm each other no matter if by gun or by bomb or by airplane. Only then will we find a way to end the killing.

[EmeraldCityGrl]

155. From my local police blotter...

Change of heart

A Sammamish man turned in a handgun, BB gun and ammunition for disposal July 7. He told police he owned the guns for more than 17 years, but because his wife does not like guns and wanted the weapons out of the house, he turned them in.

[NewMoonTherian]

157. I'd like to, very much.

But to be honest, I doubt it would be very productive. The strong feelings on both sides leave very little common ground.

I'd like to discuss ways of reducing violent crime, without restricting civilian access to guns any further than it has been already.