I'm still trying to wrap my head around so many staunchly pro-gun folks on DU

[Pretzel_Warrior]

We, as liberals/Democrats/progressives seem to be with the science on things like global warming caused by humans (and such belief means we probably all of us support restrictions on carbon emissions).

We, as liberals/Democrats/progressives seem to be with science on evolution and a host of other conclusions derived from empirical data and scientific method.

So why is it when there are so many compelling studies, statistics, and medical research on gun ownership correlation with gun injuries and death do so many on here vehemently defend the notion that NOTHING should be done to restrict gun ownership or provide tracing of guns and close loopholes. NOTHING should be done according to this group despite the evidence that such actions would result in reducing deaths in this country.

http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1487470

[onehandle]

1. They are a small, small minority. They're just louder.

And their sockpuppets too.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

2. I hope so.

[MjolnirTime]

26. and incredibly stubborn. obtuse even.

[Mojorabbit]

220. 40 percent of Democrats are armed

Owning firearms has nothing to do with party. Not so small a minority

[bongbong]

253. False

That is a, well, I don't want to use the "L" word, but it's a falsehood. The Gallup poll results, that include this graph, says that 28% of Dems own guns.

Why do NRA Talking Points, after being rebutted in thread X (which I did to this one in a previous thread) just keep popping back up?

The Delicate Flowers love their Preciouses so much!

[Mojorabbit]

257. You will notice that in a household with the Dems interviewed

Fourty percent of households with the Dem interviewed had a gun in the house
-- Forty-seven percent of American adults currently report that they have a gun in their home or elsewhere on their property. This is up from 41% a year ago and is the highest Gallup has recorded since 1993, albeit marginally above the 44% and 45% highs seen during that period.

[bongbong]

259. Take your NRA Talking Points somewhere else, maybe Freeperland

Go read the poll results. It stated very clearly 28% of Dems own guns, not 40%. Learn to read!

[Mojorabbit]

260. I suggest you read it again

If a house hold has a gun then I consider that household armed. and the number is 40 percent. Every thread you have been in you have sang," nra talkng points, nra talking points "which shows me you are not serious about any discussion. I am a woman, a retired nurse, and do not belong to the nra. I have no idea WHAT their talking points are.

[bongbong]

261. LOL

I'll repeat it for you, typing slowly this time, so perhaps you'll finally get it. Ready?

I-F Y-O-U G-O T-O T-H-E O-R-I-G-I-N-A-L G-A-L-L-U-P D-A-T-A I-T S-A-Y-S O-N-L-Y 2-8-% O-F D-E-M-O-C-R-A-T-S O-W-N G-U-N-S

As for your personal details, they are irrelevant to political discussions, although they might be valuable on Facebook or other time-wasting websites.

[Mojorabbit]

262. Look again. 40 percent of dems interviewed had a weapon in the house. nt

[bongbong]

264. LOL

You claimed that 40% of Dems "are armed", which is false.

Sorry, I'm going to call NRA-bots on their lies.

[Mojorabbit]

266. I am repeating what my posting of the graph said

Forty percent of households which had a responder leaning or self iding as a Dem were armed.
Calling someone an NRA bot is second grade behavior. You need not bother responding. I will not waste any more time on you.
You come off as someone very young and callow.

[NickB79]

3. Very few people here have said NOTHING should be done

That's a strawman argument. Many here who are pro-gun have offered up ideas to address gun violence and gun accidents, including increased gun control measures. I myself would be willing to see the old Assault Weapon Ban re-instated. I can live with 10-round magazines for my guns, a ban on the purported gun show loophole, etc.

The problem is that many people here on DU have in recent days called for a complete ban on ALL guns and/or a repeal of the 2nd Amendment. People who own guns, even those who own nothing more than an old deer rifle, have been vilified, called NRA shills, enablers of murder, etc. That makes otherwise reasonable, sensible people who own guns a bit defensive on the subject of gun control.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

4. I have no problem with your stance on the matter as you describe it

if everyone posting here had something in that level of balance, we'd all be better off. I think the reason some have said "get rid of 2nd Amendment" which seems virtually impossible in our current political climate is because so many have used it as an excuse to say nothing can be done about guns.

I guess "pro gun" doesn't mean "owns a gun" in my book. "Pro gun" people seem to parrot a lot of slippery slope language of the NRA where they will attempt to drown out ANY discussion of gun control on this, a Democratic forum.

[NickB79]

12. I can understand that

Confession time: I used to be an NRA member back in the 1990's, when I was a teenager. When I went off to college and broadened my horizons, I came to see that a lot of what I was taught as a kid by my conservative family was bullshit. That included the stream of NRA propaganda I read in their incessant newsletters and requests for more donations. It was just a step above UN invasion/black helicopter paranoia. I finally kicked them to the curb when I voted for Gore in 2000, and never looked back.

I can understand why some people are so frustrated that they go for the nuclear solution of saying fuck the 2nd Amendment. The gridlock and polarization in Washington is enough to make someone tear their hair out. Knowing how the NRA operates, though, is one of the reasons this current situation scares me. They've told so many people for so long that "the liberals are gonna take your guns!" that unless a very careful, well-thought-out approach is taken now, it will vindicate everything they've been saying in the minds of many gun owners, even those who aren't NRA members. And far from sounding their death knell, a badly implemented gun control bill could pump new life into them as gun owners decide to send those donations once again. At the least, it could drive the millions of moderate gun-owning Democrats in Southern, Southwestern and Midwest states to simply abstain come the next election cycle.

[derby378]

167. You've touched on one of the reasons why people like me are so stubborn on the gun issue

I am a liberal, gun-owning Democrat in one of those states you mentioned (Texas), and I've been working hard with my fellow precinct chairs and other activists to support Democratic candidates for local, state, and Federal office. We've been making slow but steady gains throughout Texas over the past six years. If the national party pushes hard for new anti-Second Amendment legislation, I fear that everything we've worked so hard for in Texas will be pissed away overnight. Just look at what happened in 1994 if you want to see what happened the last time the Democratic Party signed off on a sweeping gun ban.

Now, just because I own one of those "scary black rifles" complete with 30-round magazines doesn't mean that I cannot see opportunities to improve public safety while still respecting our Constitutional rights. I'm in favor of improved NICS checks, civilian armories, and a greater emphasis on diagnosing and treating those who suffer from hidden mental illness. But in all fairness, do you think a Republican-dominated House or Senate will ever lift a finger to implement any of these? I seriously doubt it, and I'm one of those folks who came in from "the other side."

[Jenoch]

188. While Minnesota is solidly blue,

for the first time in 20 years we have both houses in the state legislature and the governorship. If the gun control issue blows up big time it will be a problem for our state level Democrats not to mention the federal office holders.

[derby378]

229. Exactly - this is going to be a national problem that hounds Democrats for years to come

All this fuss over a magazine that holds 11 shots instead of 10. What a reason to jeopardize Social Security.

[cantbeserious]

35. I Am Pro 2nd Amendment Repeal Because I Am Tired Of Living In A Concealed Carry World Where I

Fear gun owners going postal on any given day.

I have personal experience in this matter and my mind is set.

[the_wozneer]

87. Yes!

I agree I am also afraid of things and want them banned

[thucythucy]

98. Another incredibly callous remark,

presumably from a pro-gun advocate.

The poster says he or she has had "personal experience" with guns which make him or her staunchly anti-firearms. She could be a woman raped at gunpoint, a man whose child was killed by a gun, a brother whose sibling committed suicide with a handgun--indeed, there are many many possible ways to be hurt by guns, and many DU'ers who have shared their experiences.

But the response here is snark.

Not that there isn't snark on both sides, but in cases like this it seems especially insensitive, and hardly helpful to the discussion.

I suppose this is simply the way some people relate to the world. That is: simply.

[cantbeserious]

126. Yes, I Am A Simpleton - Guns Kill And I Don't Want To Die At The Hands Of A Gun Owner

Repeal the 2nd Amendment and outlaw guns now!

[Lizzie Poppet]

138. Agreed: snark and insult do nothing to help resolve this issue.

They just shove people ever more firmly into their respective camps and make them less amenable to compromise.

Sure, some members of both camps have no desire to compromise...but I think it can be taken as a given then those people are not going to get what they want. The rest of us will hammer out a solution that will probably truly satisfy no one, but will hopefully do some good.

FWIW, I also have (one) personal experience with the sort of scenario in question, in my case a legitimate, clear-cut DGU (no shots fired, thankfully). Like the poster cantbeserious, that incident has probably made me unwilling to consider solutions that require me being disarmed. But I am willing to consider many other proposed regulations, and in fact advocate some of them.

[cantbeserious]

222. Well Wozneer - Not Everything In This World Is Designed To Kill As Its Primary Purpose

One would assume that you know this but then again maybe not.

[forthemiddle]

154. Exactly how many concealed carry holders have gone "postal" in the past year?

I am not against some common sense regulations, but it's hyperbole like the above that make the "pro gun" side dig in their heels.

I live in a part of Wisconsin that I can safely say has 80+% gun ownership. During the past election I personally warded off cries of "Obama is gonna take my guns away", yet now those cries are becoming increasingly more likely. I am not saying they will happen (especially given the make up of the House), but it is getting harder and harder to stand up for the Dem party, when forums like this are openly calling for that.

In Wisconsin, concealed carry passed last year. As far as I know, with one notable exception, no cc holder has been involved in any shooting. Yet over a million licenses have been issued. Don't write things that are so easily disproved.

[cantbeserious]

170. Matters Not To Me; I Lived In Fear Of One Concealed Carry Holder For 18 Months

eom

[GreenStormCloud]

184. So you blame all 10 million of us because of the actions of one? N/T

[cantbeserious]

221. Yes - You Are Part Of What Makes The Gun Culture Thrive And You Become Equally Responsible Each Time

Someone like me has to live in fear because I now have to fear you as well.

[hack89]

224. What are your views on the alcohol culture?

I drink beer - am I responsible for drunk drivers?

[cantbeserious]

230. False Equivalency - Nice Try Using The NRA Talking Point

eom

[hack89]

231. So people don't use alcohol in an irresponsible manner

that endangers lives?

Or is it because the deaths are spread out they are more acceptable?

In my town of 60,000 there have been 2 fatal shootings in 15 years. Alcohol related traffic deaths are unfortunately a common occurrence.

Rare horrific events horrify. Common horrific events not so much it would appear. I know what the biggest threat to me and my family is and it is not guns.

[cantbeserious]

234. That's Why We Have DUI Laws - Nice Try On The Misdirection

eom

[hack89]

236. So we should pass laws against shooting other people?

excellent idea - suprising no one thought of this sooner.

[cantbeserious]

241. No - We Should Pass Laws Outlawing Firearms

eom

[hack89]

247. But not laws outlawing alcohol?

are you always this consistent?

[Jenoch]

233. Without too many specifics,

why did you fear one particular CCW holder for 18 months?

[cantbeserious]

235. Can't Provide Too Many Details - Legal Reasons - Disgruntled Employee

eom

[PeaceNikki]

5. I shed no tears for you. You have the NRA and PLENTY of support from people with money and power.

I would argue the same as you, only opposite. Very few are calling for banning or repealing anything.

If I had to pick a side of one extreme or the other today, I would not side with the NRA.

[NickB79]

9. You need to think beyond picking either extreme

The vast majority of people, both gun owners and non-gun owners, would be amiable to sitting down and discussing ways to reduce gun violence, be it through social welfare reforms, education, increased law enforcement, and new gun control measures.

One little quibble: I would point out that there is plenty of money and power on BOTH sides: Mr. Bloomberg, for example, is strongly in favor of new gun control measures, and he's not exactly hurting for money or clout to throw around.

It's when you think you HAVE to pick one extreme side or the other that problems start to arise. Fuck the NRA. Fuck the Brady Campaign. Both are so far outside the mainstream that their opinions should be irrelevant to reasonable, intelligent Americans in this debate.

[lexw]

28. non-gun owner here...

I was walking with my dog, and passed by two men who were talking outside of their garage with a four-wheel drive truck parked out front (the garage was filled with off-road equipment). I caught a few sentences of their conversation: they were talking about guns. I thought to myself "Here comes the hateful NRA talk." However, the topic on hand was that they were convincing themselves that they were "hobby" owners of guns.

One guy said "I have a such and such pistol and this and that..."
The other replied, "See? It's a hobby for you."

I was shocked. I thought for sure they were going to be pissed about the anti-gun movement, instead, they sounded embarrassed by the folks who own arsenals.

I should be ashamed, as I guess I was profiling.

Happy New Year, DU'rs.

[Warren Stupidity]

141. If you talk to our gungeoneers you quickly realize that there is no

new meaningful regulation of guns that they support. *sometimes*, like when 20 small children get executed by a person wielding exactly the type of weapon we have been saying for decades now needs to be taken out of circulation, a few will feign reasonableness, but they will continue with the same well rehearsed debate strategies derailing any conversation here and making it obvious to pretty much everyone here except the gungeoneers, that there aren't two extremes and a middle, there are a bunch of gun extremists and there is everyone else, including lots of non-extremist gun owners. The Brady Campaign is not the equivalent of the NRA.

[Jenoch]

190. How exactly do you intend to take

any gun out of circulation? This is a serious question. I don't know how it could be done in the U.S.

[Warren Stupidity]

191. 1) stop selling new ones.

2) strictly regulate the sale of existing weapons.

[rrneck]

194. Wow.

That's a brilliant plan Warren if I understand it correctly.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

201. What is wrong with that plan?

[rrneck]

203. Oh, it's a great plan. It just won't work.

Warren: "Stop selling guns".

Firearms industry: "Oh, okay."
Ammunition industry: "Oh okay".
Eighty million gun owners: "Oh, okay'.

Guns are here to stay.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

208. The law can shut them down from selling certain kinds of guns and this is

What should happen. Until we throw gun dealers, gun company execs, and other accessories to gun crime in jail for what they do, we are not serious about gun control.

Just like I'm waiting for some rat bastards besides Madoff to land in jail for their rape of the world.

[rrneck]

211. When you get that law passed get back to me.

[Warren Stupidity]

226. Notice the tack from wont work to wont get passed.

Typical.

[rrneck]

232. Notice the literalism in the service of facile ideology.

Typical.

[Warren Stupidity]

237. Obviously legislation would work. I'll accept that.

The hilarity of a gungeoneer sneering at the literal meaning of words, when their all time favorite debate tactic is "diversion by technical minutiae" is probably lost on the vast majority of du members who never go to the gungeon.

[rrneck]

238. First, you have to get the legislation passed into law.

To get that done, even nowadays, that legislation has to bear some relation to the reality of people's lives. Legislation that only serves to stroke partisan ideology never works.

You want a law to get rid of all guns? Fine. Find a replacement for the guns. Do you have a better means of self defense than a gun? That's the question people want answered. The rest is just an indulgence for ideologues who confuse citizenship with smart shopping.

[cantbeserious]

171. I Am Tired Of Living In Fear Of Gun Owners And Gun Enablers - Repeal The 2nd Amendment

eom

[GreenStormCloud]

185. It only takes 13 states to block a constitutional amendment.

It would be extremely easy to find 13 strongly pro-gun states. Instead of stomping feet and having a useless tantrum, it would be better if you joined the logical discussion on finding real-world solutions.

[cantbeserious]

245. There Is A Real World Solution - Repeal The 2nd Amendment - See This DU Thread For The Horror Of SH

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022089320

http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/mother-youngest-sandy-hook-victim-gives-wrenching-interview

"And in a harrowing description of Noah’s corpse laid to rest, some idea is given of the damage the assault weapon wrought on his young body:

The family placed stuffed animals, a blanket and letters to Noah into the casket. Lastly, Veronique put a clear plastic rock with a white angel inside — an “angel stone” — in his right hand. She asked the funeral director to place an identical one in his left, which was badly mangled. Noah’s famously long eyelashes, which she spoke about in her eulogy, rested lightly on his cheeks and a cloth covered the place where his lower jaw had been."

[GreenStormCloud]

246. Repealing 2A is not going to happen.

You need 38 states to agree to it. You can easily find 13 states that will block the repeal. All you are doing is having a temper tantrum.

[Jenoch]

243. How many disgruntled former employees

do you have?

[cantbeserious]

244. The One With The Concealed Carry Permit - During The 18 Months The Threats Were Subtle But Real

eom

[UnrepentantLiberal]

6. Most are Republican trolls.

[oddoneout]

40. so the majority

of democratic gun owners are republican trolls? That is not a very educated statement...but to each is own.

[UnrepentantLiberal]

41. I didn't say DU gun owners.

I meant the ones who constantly argue right wing, NRA talking points on DU.

[oddoneout]

42. i own a few

and if I defend my right to own them, then I am just talking right wing, and NRA talking points?

[UnrepentantLiberal]

44. .

Statistics and Information
Account status:
Active Member since: Wed Dec 26, 2012, 10:36 AM
Number of posts: 6 Number of posts, last 90 days: 6

Please.

[oddoneout]

45. OK

thank you for posting my statistics, What exactly is your point?

[Robb]

50. Snap.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

62. Lol.

[AgingAmerican]

65. What's up with the sudden influx of newbie gun defenders?

Seem to be tons of them with under 100 posts since the last mass shooting.

[UnrepentantLiberal]

68. Some are returning banned trolls.

Trolling DU is a hobbie for posters to a website called the Conservative Cave.

[billh58]

84. The breeding stock

for the Gungeon.

[barbtries]

102. are you sure

some of them aren't paid by the NRA?

[UnrepentantLiberal]

110. Anything is possible.

I think its more likely that they just get a kick out of annoying liberals.

[barbtries]

111. i dunno.

i never go out of my way to annoy conservatives or visit their pages. someone would have to pay me a LOT to pretend to be one of them.

we'll probably never know.

[UnrepentantLiberal]

113. This is true.

I agree with all of that. I already know what they think and how they think. I have no desire to hear more of it.

[AgingAmerican]

183. They make a whopping $.05 per post

with a guaranteed $5 per month minimum!

http://www.payperpostforum.com/old/index.php

Pretty lucrative!!

[GreenStormCloud]

186. I seriously doubt that DU pays people to post here.

I was curious so I looked at your link. To get the nickel the web forum that will be posted on has to be signed up as a paying web site. By getting more post they can sell more advertising. DU doesn't need to do that.

[AgingAmerican]

217. Of course not

But I would not be surprised if the NRA and it's backers do.

There are many similar sites on the net. Some pay as low as 2 cents per post and some as high as ten cents.

[rl6214]

198. That's pretty interesting

I don't think that's an NRA site though

[AgingAmerican]

218. What sites like that do

Is find people to post for organizations like the NRA. There are a lot of similar sites that offer the same service.

The funny thing is nobody is swayed by them. If anything they repel people.

[billh58]

77. They are being recruited by

the Gungeon from other right-wing sites, and are a part of the NRA Rapid Response Team. You can recognize them by the camo fatigues they wear, and secret handshake they use.

[AgingAmerican]

182. Yeah, it's pretty obvious

n/t

[billh58]

76. If you argue against any

and all forms of regulation, yes. If you argue that it is your "right" to carry guns in public, yes. If you argue that guns should not be subject to accountability and tracking regulations, yes. If you argue that more guns equals more safety for all, yes.

Yes, you have a right to own guns, but you do not have an absolute "right" to have any type of gun you want, or to carry them anywhere you want.

Once again, no one wants to take away your precious killing machine, but the American public has reached a point where they are saying enough is fucking enough. The 2nd Amendment, like ALL Constitutional rights come with responsibilities and can be restricted for the public good. No "right" is absolute, nor should they be because there are always a few assholes who will abuse them.

So, to answer your question, yes you can defend your right to own a gun, but no you can't use NRA talking points to mount that defense. Incidentally, posing that particular question IS an NRA talking point.

[shadowrider]

165. Let me ask you an honest question.

What defense of guns would be acceptable to you that you would NOT consider an NRA talking point?

Just curious because from what I've seen, any defense is immediately branded an NRA talking point.

[Jenoch]

193. I have NEVER been a member or supporter

of the NRA. I have been accused of posting NRA 'talking points'. I wish I knew how they got those talking points to me.

[DainBramaged]

252. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

goner yet again


Bye douche Freeper

[Pretzel_Warrior]

272. This thread seems to attract them

[farminator3000]

7. money

must be involved somehow. they have plenty to waste! LePew makes almost $1 million a year for being inhuman. what a job!

[Whovian]

8. +1 nt

[Bozita]

23. Trolling for dollars - a rather popular program in places like DU!

[farminator3000]

31. its really kind of awful!

does it happen with any other 'issue' on this board?

would someone post the same thing over and over 20,000 times(literally) for fun?

but....

WHY? what is the point?

[lolly]

134. To disrupt the board

Get everybody upset and angry. Goad us into responding to the same inane, illogical talking points over and over again.

Ultimately, I think the idea is that it will make it unpleasant to hang out or post here, so people are less likely to feel a sense of community or purpose here.

A handful, perhaps, may even believe the crap they are posting, and think they will convince other people to believe that more guns=safer world or whatever.

[billh58]

157. And the NRA/Gungeon dwellers

just keeps sending them over. I guess that they don't realize just how transparent they are...

[farminator3000]

164. organized resistance!!

good afternoon, sir!

i imagine you looking like Col. Potter. but you type like Hawkeye!

[farminator3000]

161. you nailed it!

[former-republican]

10. I'm done supporting any changes

[AgingAmerican]

66. Any changes in what?

There have been no changes in gun laws, if that's what you mean.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

11. Do not fall into the "no true Scotsman" fallacy as other here have

The studies are not as solid as some would have you beleive. One that was being pushed here recently relied on the solid science of random number telephone polls...sort of like Gallup.

Few if any posters want NOTHING done. Everyone I can recall posting here supports some changes. Its a broad spectrum.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

13. the studies are far, far more obvious than you seem to want to admit

[ProgressiveProfessor]

15. There are several key data points the studies cannot cover

Most of them revolve around Defensive Gun Usage. A truly unobtainable metric.

[bettyellen]

124. especially with SYG laws, "self defense" claims have doubled in some states.

Anyway, I'm comfortable citing all gun death stats, not just the ones gun owners claim are righteous.
Petty crime is a much more deadly proposition because we are steeped in guns. There is no sane reason for this.

[PavePusher]

248. Can we see some actual cites to your claims, please? n/t

[bettyellen]

249. Deaths Nearly Triple Since “Stand Your Ground” Enacted (in Florida)

According to state crime stats, Florida averaged 12 “justifiable homicide” deaths a year from 2000-2004. After “Stand your Ground” was passed in 2005, the number of “justifiable” deaths has almost tripled to an average of 35 a year, an increase of 283% from 2005-2010.

“The Legislature needs to take a look at Stand Your Ground,” Florida Sen. Oscar Braynon, D-Miami Gardens told CBS4 news partner The Miami Herald, “This is a perfect case of where it goes awry. This could only be the beginning of more problems down the road. It has unintended consequences.”



http://miami.cbslocal.com/2012/03/20/deaths-nearly-triple-since-stand-your-ground-enacted/

[bongbong]

254. And the NRA bots march on

Same old pattern, repeat so that Liberals waste their precious time.

......

Liberal #1: "Guns cause XXXX problem!"
Gungeoneer: "Let's see your figures. PROVE IT!"
Liberal #1: "Here is the link I spent 5 minutes finding: http:......"
Gungeoneer: (AWOL)

......

Another gun thread the next day....

Liberal #2: "Guns cause XXXX problem!" (same one as the previous example)
Gungeoneer: "Let's see your figures. PROVE IT!" (same gungeoneer disputing the evidence/fact he was given already)
Liberal #2: "Here is the link I spent 7 minutes finding: http:......"
Gungeoneer: (AWOL)


......

I've seen this pattern repeat itself so often it sickens me. Guns are, or cause, a mental illness.

[PavePusher]

268. Meaningless stat unless you can show that individual cases were decided incorrectly.

It could mean that otherwise innocent people were being wrongly prosecuted.

In other words, you'll have to show some evidence that something is actually wrong with the process.

[Yo_Mama]

75. I agree - no one likes crime/violence

Everyone I know supports at least some gun control.

I don't think the huge dichotomy exists the way people think it does - but perhaps there is a strong rural/urban culture gap?

The vast majority of the public is going to have opinions in the middle zone between "confiscate them all" and "everyone who's not a felon should carry".

[The Straight Story]

14. I actually have a reason why, it is my own opinion though (and I, to some, pro-gun)

As I have noted elsewhere I do not own a gun and no real plans on getting one (though I have owned one in the past for work).

It is the reaction to events that cause this strife, ala 9/11.

After that event we went overboard with the TSA, hatred and distrust of Muslims and anyone from the middle east. We left civil liberties go by the wayside and approved wire tapping, reading your emails, etc and so on....

Everyone was a potential terrorist. We, the people, became the enemy the government needed to watch - all the while that same government has been waging wars, implementing sanctions that kill people, arming our enemies, and corporations got away with laundering money.

Millions upon millions of gun owners in this country do no harm to others. But the few that do make it so that the many are now seen as 'bad', 'nuts', etc and so on.

We want to stop another enemy as we see them. Time and time again we get pitted against each other.

Government kills people ad hoc? No one goes to jail, they get a pass. Corporations profit from death, laundering, etc, no problem and we barely even talk about it (although DU does a good job on that front to some degree).

A few citizens go off killing and we look to blame guns, gun owners, the mentally ill, and so on while - as is so often the case - the actual perp gets generally ignored and rarely talked about.

We want to put our faith in the few in Washington even though they often appear corrupt and care only about the wealthy and corporations.

I am reminded of my many times reading USNPL.com - which links to papers in each state, and seeing how many churches actually help out in those little local places. The homeless, the sick, the hungry - but so many gravitate to those in churches who are idiots and do bad things and we become biased against them all.

I have worked in the gun industry. Seen the many good people who happen to own guns and shoot for sport, for fun, and just enjoy going out - like some do for golf and hitting a little ball around - shooting a target, loading their ammo different ways, and experimenting.

When we fear the many based on what the few do we usually call that bias. And when we give the few a pass and blame what they used over them I call it a shame.

Learn why people do what they do and look for solutions there. But that takes time, which does not go well with knee jerk reactions. And it can be hard work and might show us something we don't like.

Adam Lanza killed those people. We know, and get how. Would that we had so many threads trying to learn the why's. Maybe because we don't care about why.

[Fla_Democrat]

54. Bravo

A very thoughtful post. With out coloring this reply with my own bias, or attempt at humor, I will just say, interesting read, well done.

[derby378]

168. Well said (n/t)

[Toronto]

256. Hi fellow human being...

I was beginning to think we were few and far between. I've been reading so much histrionic hyperbole. People who who think guns are the ONLY reason for this dangerous society or conversely think owning more guns is the ONLY solution. Some reasonable arguments in between that are attacked like they are spouting blasphemy.

Sure, unimpeded access to weapons does exacerbate the problem of violence in society, but it is not by itself the only problem, but really more of a symptom. The condition of society is what we as people have let it become by sweeping all of the unpleasant truths under the carpet and assuming that because we may be OK, everyone should be equally satisfied with the status quo. Just so long as it doesn't affect our personal bottom line.

People aren't born aspiring to become criminals or the next spree shooter. Something is happening with increasing regularity that is twisting people in this world and you only have to open your eyes to see it. It may seem cliche, but follow the money. Everything that is wrong with society, whether it be the environment, health, crime or the economy can be traced back to greed and in particular corporate greed. People wonder why mental illness is not properly addressed - heck, a huge proportion of society has no health care of any kind. Mental health gets short shrift on the priority totem pole, when people are literally dying for lack of health care. There are no daily reports of those people in the news or how many former tax payers have become bankrupt due to a major illness in the family.

Nor does Eyewitness News show up at the doorsteps of all the people whose homes are being reposessed because they have lost their jobs and are contemplating how to house their family in a minivan. Nobody particularly cares about the people trying to decide between paying rent or feeding their family, when their jobs have be shipped to some other part of the world where people work for pennies.

Meanwhile advertising of consumer products on television is surplanting the television programs to the point where during an average program, at least half of the viewing time is devoted to commercials. People have responded to that advertising like well conditioned lemmings and continuously feel compelled to buy things that they don't need, even if it means they won't ever be able to pay off that debt - to the point that you no longer have a monetary system based on capital, but one based on debt.

Children in schools are bullied and marginalized for not wearing the most fashionable clothes or having the most recent gadgets. Is it any wonder that some children are lured by gangbangers who promise those things that their parents can't provide? All they want is to be accepted. Unfortunately they get drawn into a downward spiral of depraved behavior. The concept of delayed gratification is unknown in this society because people have been brainwashed to be excellent consumers.

People in general are becoming more selfish, less compassionate and less empathic and more willing to close their eyes to the obvious. This isn't happening as a natural evolution of the species, because it's really a devolution, it's happening because it's in the best interests of the corporate oligarchy who have no vested interest in any state or any country. If all of the dispossessed people in society turned into an angry starving mob and killed each other off, the corporate interests couldn't be happier, because that would leave more resources for them to acquire.

Unfortunately people seem to be blind to the fact that their elected government representatives do little to help society at large, but instead continually pander to corporate interests. (Any who try are completely shut out.) How else could people ignore the complete conflict of interest in having a President whose family represents vast oil interests and yet wants to take the country to war to look for the illusive WMD, in a country known for it's oil supply. No big surprise - no WMD, because it was a ruse from the very beginning.

Universal healthcare is vastly unpopular because the people are told that it will take money out of their pockets - because the HMO's have a very powerful lobby. No one wants to talk about the fact that there is an economy of scale in the centralized purchasing of medication and equipment - business 101. No one accounts for the cost to society for the absence of universal healthcare - how much it costs in other ways.

People close their eyes to the fact that the first world never involves itself in any civil strife or warfare in places where there are neither strategic or corporate interests (as these are often the same things) and yet trillions of dollars are dedicated to supporting a military whose primary purpose is to advance the interest of corporations. Of course you are told that the reason is to defend your freedom.

It's ironic that the Founding Fathers of America did their level best to create a society where amoral monarchies would have no place, but they never imagined that faceless corporate entities could so insidiously take their place and so threaten the freedoms that they tried so hard to preserve.

[Eleanors38]

265. Thank you so much. NT

[rrneck]

16. The problem that millions of Americans are trying to solve

is not gun violence on a national scale. It's the disparity of force between themselves and an assailant. The best solution for that problem is a gun. Firearms are a solution first developed in 12th century China. "Modern" firearm designs are about 150 years old. They aren't going away until somebody comes up with something better.

Are there too many guns in this country? Nah. Are the guns that Americans own too "tactical/fancy/far out/black/super"? I guess. The character of armament in American hands is more a function of consumerism than love of guns or fear of government. Just like lots of people justify buying all kinds of things with convoluted logic, they buy products called guns for the same reasons. Unfortunately, telling consumers in the United States they can't have something is a sure fire way to see to it they will do everything in their power to get it just to spite you.

[The Straight Story]

17. Reminds me a bit of the east side here

They told people you cannot smoke in bars.

They still do. No ashtrays, they use old beer bottles with a ring around them.

Cops here know about it, and ignore it. I have been in the one bar when cops came in because someone stole a purse.

Nothing was done about the people smoking. Folks who don't like it go to other bars that are more strict, but most just don't care. Especially in the dead of winter.

Restricting choice does not work. Doing so in intelligent ways can make a world of difference (ie, you have to go to hospitals, not bars, so restrict smoking at one and not the other).

The same goes for guns - people will own them, make them, etc. Wanna restrict them at some places and have some meaningful regulations - fine. But when people break those laws don't blame the law that was already there as not doing enough and ask for more laws that won't work (already illegal to walk into a school with one, already illegal to shoot others, etc).

Find common ground with an outlet for people and you will get further.

[kwassa]

139. Restricting choice does work. There is no smoking in bars around here. Or restaurants. Or places of

employment.

It is called enforcement of the laws. Around here there is little public support for smoking. A blue county in a blue state.

[Festivito]

18. You've only been on DU for a mere COUPLE OF WEEKS, of course you don't understand.

This is the best place to get information on which guns to buy. Sensible gun control is okay. Even to a gun nut! Ask one: Do you want felons to have guns. They say: No. Okay, we both want gun control.

The idea that Democrats want to take your guns is a stereotype that makes the gun manufacturers a fortune every time they pull it out of their behinds. So, they'd pay trolls to call other posters trolls.

Look at how many hidden posts there are behind some of the supposed Democratic gun control support just on this thread.

Sure, there's science. If we regulated guns and cars more, we'd have fewer deaths. But, some things require trade-offs. And, that's where cars and guns are alike.

[jody]

19. I support the Democratic Party Platform. If you oppose the Second Amendment you don't. nt

[Warren Stupidity]

58. So you support an assault weapon ban?

We can focus on effective enforcement of existing laws, especially strengthening our background check system, and we can work together to enact commonsense improvements—like reinstating the assault weapons ban and closing the gun show loophole—so that guns do not fall into the hands of those irresponsible, law-breaking few.

http://www.democrats.org/democratic-national-platform

[jody]

72. I support the Platform, do you support the Second Amendment? nt

[Warren Stupidity]

91. I support the platform. I do not support the current interpretation of the 2a by

The most rightwing court in more than 70 years.

But you did not answer the question: do you support the awb?

[jody]

100. I support our Platform. You admit supporting PART of our Platform. In Heller, both opinion & dissent

acknowledge US v. Cruikshank (1876) that rights pre-exist our Constitution and do not depend upon it.

Both majority and minority recognize PA(1776) and VT(1777) constitutions and their declaration of "natural, inherent, inalienable/unalienable" rights that include "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state".

Today, forty-four states have constitutional guarantees on the right to keep and bear arms.

DUers who call for repeal of the Second Amendment that obligates government created by We the Protect to protect the right of law abiding citizens to keep and bear arms for self-defense as an enumerated right ignore the simple fact that if the Second did not exist, RKBA that pre-existed our Constitution would then be protected as an unenumerated right under the Ninth Amendment.

[Warren Stupidity]

120. You continue to not answer the question.

Do you support the awb?

I support the 2a, just not the radical rightwing Scalia version of it.

[jody]

121. Answered but not read or comprehended. That's your personal problem. nt

[Warren Stupidity]

122. There is no direct support explicitly for the awb in anything you have written.

Your refusal to explicitly state your support or lack thereof is obvious. I answered your demand explicitly. It is your turn.

Nice personal attack though.

[jody]

133. See #100 nt

[Warren Stupidity]

140. You are unable to answer the question directly. Post 100 is a non answer.

Do you support the reinstatement of the awb as stated in the party platform.?

[derby378]

169. I support the Constitution, which trumps any party's platform

Party platforms are subject to change on a fairly regular basis. If you want to make an argument for changing the Constitution, think it over carefully and consider the long-term effects - just look at how Prohibition blew up in everyone's faces.

[Warren Stupidity]

174. Oh tag teaming, cool.

Lets refresh. Up thread jody issued a purity test regardng the 2012 platform and the 2a. I countered with the equivalent (and equally inane, but I digress) purity test regarding the 2012 platform and reinstating the awb. Following so far? Good. Jody demanded that I answer explicitly regarding supporting the 2a, and I did so. I demanded, in fairness, that jody answer explicitly regarding the awb, and <crickets>.

Now you jump in. No sorry, this subthread is strictly about the idiocy of platform purity tests. However, "support the constitution" is just blowing smoke. I think you mean you are an RKBA absolutist happy with the sharp right turn Scalia et al took on the 2a. When the court's composition changes and the weird stuff Scalia et al did gets rolled back, your support of the new interpretation of the constitution will get a lot less unconditional.

[derby378]

175. "Tag-teaming?" Try "reality check" instead

One that was aimed at both of you, by the way, to help prevent the subthread from devolving into how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. You're welcome.

[bettyellen]

128. So, it appears you are against an assault weapons ban.Why are you afraid to clearly state this?

Why play stupid games?

[Warren Stupidity]

145. He'd fail his own purity test, so now it is a matter of honor.

[barbtries]

104. an absurd statement.

the second amendment is far from being the only item on the democratic party platform.
i'm a liberal democrat and part ways with my party in this respect.
i'm still a liberal democrat supportive of my party.
incidentally i only oppose it symbolically since i know it's not going anywhere, certainly not in my lifetime.

[jody]

107. barbtries see #100 nt

[DisgustipatedinCA]

178. I don't support the 2nd Amendment as it's been interpreted

I support some of the Democratic Party platform. I'd repeal the second amendment if I had the power to do so. I don't see anything holy or necessary about it.

Is there some requirement here that we now must support the 2nd Amendment, and support all planks in the platform?

[JI7]

20. yup, just look at this

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022077292#post32

[jal777]

21. I'm a democrat have been raised around democrats and guns my whole life. What's your point? nt

[AgingAmerican]

22. It's when they adopt Republican talking points and Wayne La Pierre talking points

I was raised with guns too and I own guns, but I think the GOPs gun positions are sheer madness.

[jal777]

27. I'm not up to date with their talking points. But....

I have been called a sociopath, killer, murderer, ect on here because my hobby is shooting semi-auto rilfes at targets and because I belive in the right to defend myself. It sucks.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

29. Who has called you a murderer for target shooting?

Unless you attach your targets to live trees in which case, "murderer!!!!!".

[jal777]

30. Several posters are saying that the...

Only purpose of a semi-auto rifle is to murder others and that's the reason owners buy them for. I am one of these owners and am being accused of things that I would never do. I have never done anything un-lawful with any gun in my life.

[AgingAmerican]

32. By semi auto do your mean assault rifle?

I believe assault rifles should be heavily regulated.

Do you think all guns in civilian hands should be regulated and registered?

[jal777]

33. here you go...

1. "By semi auto do your mean assault rifle?"

I mostly shoot .22lr semi auto's and a ruger mini 14 ranch rifle. I don't consider these assult rifles since they are legal semi auto and they can't fire full auto. As far as I know there is no legal definition of an assult weapon.

2. "Do you think all guns in civilian hands should be regulated and registered"

I passed a background check for evey firearm that I own. I think that registering a gun will lead to UK style gun laws that make it too expensive to shoot through licensing. I am your average joe that is not rich. I think we should lock up career criminals and lock up straw purchasers for min 20 years in club fed.

[JohnnyBoots]

38. Could not agree

More.

[AgingAmerican]

53. Then I agree with you

It is your defiant tone that had me asking.

I do, however believe all guns should be registered. This isnt the UK, we will never have UK style gun laws.

[billh58]

82. All "by the book"

NRA talking points. What else you got...?

[friendly_iconoclast]

199. "NRA talking points", again? Why not toss in "Gruss Gott" or "Inshallah" while you're at it?

Reflexive responses are just that, not a refutation.

[the_wozneer]

88. Agree

certain forms of hate speech can be just as deadly, I was made to cry once.

[jody]

118. Assault rifles are tightly regulated under the National Firearms Act of 1934. nt

[Eleanors38]

267. Assault Rifles are full-auto. There are few & highly regulated.

[billh58]

81. Then why do you

need a semi-automatic rifle?

[GreenStormCloud]

187. The U.S. doesn't have a Dept. of Needs.

Free citizens can buy whatever they want without having to convince a bureaucrat of their need, unless the item is banned.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

101. One has often said "all gun owners have blood on their hands"

[bettyellen]

132. and a few have claimed they would shoot LEO officers if they tried to take their weapons...

So they are willing to bloody their hands. If you want to broad brush, there you go.

[billh58]

78. What's yours? eom

[Captain Boomerang]

24. I like guns because it scares Righty

... to see a Liberal with mad shooting skillz like myself.

I don't own an assault rifle, but if I needed one, I would like to be able to get one from a reputable dealer.

I don't think I would need a 30 round magazine, but when I was ten years old I didn't think I need my penis either.

[Jenoch]

195. If you wish to buy an

assault rifle, you better plan on spending about $25,000. There have been no new legal assault rifles registered in the U.S. since 1986.

[The CCC]

25. I'm still trying to wrap my head around so many staunchly pro-gun folks on DU

I'm neither a pro-gun nut nor an anti-gun nut, but I am against the nut behind the trigger. Show me a way to effectively limit access to guns from people whom have no legitimate right to have them, while preserving our rights to have them. I'll listen.

[dschmott]

34. If there is a sane rationale for allowing private ownership of assault weapons I've yet to hear it

It is a simple fact that there are crazy people in the world. And stupid people. And people who lie. And people who make mistakes.

Sure, as long as the guns exist, crazy, angry, power craving folks will find a way to get them. It seems reasonable that we do everything possible to discourage easy access? Sorry to offend some of you folks but is it not kind of crazy, stupid or dishonest to put so much false import into owning weapons that are so easily or accidentally converted into weapons of mass murder?

Is it not true that the folks who own these kind of guns are indeed the ones who generally should not own them? We can make a reasonable exceptions for those in law enforcement/military to possess these types of weapons on the job. But do we really need all the risk that goes along with allowing Adam Lanza's mother and Wayne LaPierre types to have them for target practice purposes?

I'm not a constitutional expert but does this "right to bear arms" really include the right of the gun industry to promote and market very dangerous weapons to a 'gun crazy' population. Sorry if I'm profiling, but is anyone else nervous that the folks you see walking into WalMart are also solicited "weapons of mass murder" in the same aisle as paint ball and bb guns?

What benefit does one person gain (an no a false sense of security does not count), or more importantly how does society benefit by allowing and dare I say actively encourage these weapons to be out there?

[Honeycombe8]

63. The OP isn't restricting his post to assault weapons. He's talking about ALL guns, owned by anyone,

for any purpose.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

73. Because I believe hand guns should be restricted

More than they are.

[jody]

119. Over 810,000 LEO choose handguns for self-defense. Why shouldn't law-abiding citizens? nt

[Pretzel_Warrior]

204. By LEO you mean law enforcement officers? They use them in their job to fight crime

And provide safe, peaceful neighborhoods. They shouldn't carry them off duty. In my opinion.

[Flyboy_451]

255. You are certainly welcome to your opinions

But allow me to offer you a slightly different perspective. For the average street cop, our sidearm serves the primary purpose of a personal defensive tool. Exceptions to this are tactical or SWAT units executing dynamic operations and entries. Generally speaking, law enforcement is reactionary, meaning we react rather than act overtly.

As for not being allowed to carry while off duty, this is another situation that you may not have fully thought through. Most large departments require that you live in the city for which you work. This means that you stand a very good chance of coming into contact with people that you have had prior "professional engagements" with. Imagine that you are a cop, out with your family, and you just happen to run across someone that you have arrested, testified against and helped to convict. Would you really want to be disarmed by mandate, so that that person, who very likely holds a grudge, knows that you have no real means of defense?

In over 16 years of law enforcement work, I have been in that situation more than a few times. On one occasion, it resulted in a physical confrontation because they saw me before I saw them. Would you prefer that I would have had to defend myself, my wife and my daughter with nothing more than physical strength and harsh language? For those of us that put on a uniform every day, we are never off duty. There is always a very real chance of being in a situation that we must be able to defend not only ourselves, but our loved ones as well.

Just as a side note, even if such a mandate were passed, the rate of compliance would e very close to zero.

JW

[Demo_Chris]

36. If so many people that you otherwise respect disagree with you...

It might be time to consider what they have to say. None of us have all the answers, particularly on topics as delicate as this one. That's what I am doing at any rate.

[Upton]

37. 40% of Democratic voters..live in a household that has a gun..

you want us all just to shutup?

[eallen]

60. That's the $64 question. The NRA wants to steer gun owners to the GOP.

Some Democrats seem eager to help them.

We don't share the wack-a-doodle views of the NRA. But neither do we feel that our hair is on fire, because there is a gun in the house.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

210. "Some Democrats seem eager to help them." Respectfully, I think that it is some alleged Democrats.

We don't know whether they are Democrats or not. From their actions, however, we can see many of them engage in name-calling and seek to squelch rational discussions while saying that others should follow their authoritarian-type solutions.

[Safetykitten]

39. I can't wrap my head around so many pro-violence game Democrats. But

kids will be kids.

[sendero]

43. I love it when..

.... people try to equate their OPINION with science. No one would argue the simple statistics that X people died of gunshot.

What that statistic actually means and what can ACTUALLY be done about it fall into the realm of OPINION and please do not insult my intelligence by trying to claim otherwise.

Let's turn this on its head and see how CONSISTENT DUers are, because the insanity here is starting to wear thin.

Almost nobody really NEEDs an abortion. Why should they be legal? Innocent lives are lost! See how that feels? Like having other people tell you what to do? If you think there is no analogy there you are incapable of being honest with yourself.

[sendero]

49. Well thanks for posting it..

... I had not seen it yet.

I'm quite serious, the extreme anti-gun folks are no different than the "pro-life" crowd. Not ONE OUNCE DIFFERENT. They think THIER VIEW OF HOW THINGS SHOULD BE trumps any and all "rights".

[Pretzel_Warrior]

67. What. The. FUCK!

Even more disgusting shit than gun nuttery.

Abortion nuttery.

Proof your side is losing the gun control debate.

BIG TIME.

These posts only reinforce the point of my original post.

[lolly]

137. Exactly.

+1

[Eleanors38]

269. There are many millions of armed liberal Democrats...

Calm down, and REALLY try to get your head around that hard fact. Maybe then we can reason.

Incidently, the Zombies had charted all their hits before gun-control was even mentioned in a Demo Party Plat.

[WilliamPitt]

71. I think you're in the wrong place.

I think you've finally made that crystal-clear.

[Call Me Wesley]

135. The wrong place he might call 'home,'

given all the years spent on here ...

[lolly]

136. The NRA position on guns is explicity anti-science

They have successfully lobbied to prohibit research into causes of gun violence and preventative measures:

But as Congress considers new laws, the scientific research we need to craft the best policies is in short supply. This is by design.

In the 1990s, politicians backed by the NRA attacked researchers for publishing data on firearm research. For good measure, they also went after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for funding the research. According to the NRA, such science is not “legitimate.” To make sure federal agencies got the message, Rep. Jay Dickey (R-Ark.) sponsored an amendment that stripped $2.6 million from the CDC’s budget, the exact amount it had spent on firearms research the previous year.

But last summer, Dickey recanted. No longer in office, he wrote an editorial stating that “scientific research should be conducted into preventing firearm injuries and that ways to prevent firearm deaths can be found without encroaching on the rights of legitimate gun owners.”

How Congress Blocked Research on Gun Violence:
The ugly campaign by the NRA to shut down studies at the CDC.

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2012/12/gun_violence_research_nra_and_congress_blocked_gun_control_studies_at_cdc.html

[Resonance_Chamber]

46. It is the new normal

as the Democratic Party has steadily move right more and more Pubs join the party and weaken it.

[Zorra]

48. I think part of it is a divide between urban and rural folks.

From my POV, urban and suburban folks generally tend to look at firearms as weapons for killing people. They have little real life experience with them unless they are gangsters or are/were in the military, and fear firearms, and maybe justifiably so, because in their environment, they are primarily used to harm human beings.

Most people raised in the country grew up around firearms, and view guns as a means to get food and/or a means of recreation.

I've lived rural area all my life and guns were just there. Everybody had them, mostly for hunting, and nobody ever went off the rails and shot anybody.

We live in different times now, I suppose.

[Puzzledtraveller]

51. Has gun ownership always been a Dem litmus test?

Or is it a progressive/liberal one? Sincere question.

[Warren Stupidity]

59. Ownership? No. RKBA absolutism is a rightwing political position.

[beevul]

214. If we allow you to define the term, perhaps.

"RKBA absolutism"

A person that supports every currently existing federal gun law, for example, is by any rational definion, is not engaged in ""RKBA absolutism".

But that wont stop you from trying to apply the label, and the stigma that goes with it, will it.

[Warren Stupidity]

225. Absent an appalling massacre event, the gungeoneers haven't met a serious

Proposal for gun regulation that they will support, and almost universally they celebrate the rightwing nutjob courts reinterpretation of the 2a. Further they celebrate the expansion of gun law deregulation beyond the scope of the 2a, into areas like concealed carry and stand your ground murder permits. RKBA absolutists is what they almost all are, and if they were being honest, or on the gunnut boards they also frequent, they would agree. But if you prefer gunnut to RKBA absolutists, feel free to do the substation yourself. I use either interchangeably.

[whistler162]

92. It is one of many litmus tests.....

Don't worry if you passed this one there is one or more you/me/everyone is sure to fail. Just keep posting and we are sure to discover/make one up in time.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

212. Thanks.

There's always some truth behind wit.

[Eleanors38]

270. See #269 for the "history" of gun control in the Party.

[Odin2005]

52. Hell, I'm a gun owner and these gun nuts drive me crazy.

It's why I never visit the Gungeon.

[Warren Stupidity]

55. My guess is less than 14% of our members.

They are a very vocal and very small minority here.

[liberal N proud]

56. The Gun Nut forum has been here a long time

Most of us just avoid the discussions until recently when the time has come that we stand up for our children against the gun nuts.

[MichiganVote]

206. Yup. Deal breaker.

[leveymg]

57. There was a decision made by the PTB to welcome them. Now DU is GU (Guns Underground)

Try stuffing that genie back into the bottle.

[Honeycombe8]

61. I haven't seen any posts by gun owners who are against any type of controls...Names, please.

This is a broad accusation that I haven't seen any basis for. Let's have some names, please. Because I don't think they exist, except maybe in your mind.

I think you see a post against removing the 2nd Amendment or against confiscating all guns, house to house, by law enforcement, or against banning guns used for protection or hunting...and to you, that seems like a post against gun control. But I wouldn't see it that way. That's not what such a post is saying at all.

Sometimes our prejudices cause us to see things a certain way that may not be factually correct. Sometimes I hear someone on Faux say something...I say "aha!"....what a rightwingnut way to put that! Then I switch to MSNBC, and a liberal there will say the same thing. Then I realize there was nothing wrong with saying that in the first place; it was my prejudice and expectation that made me think so. Granted, usually Faux DOES present things in a rightwingnut way, or intentionally does NOT include all the facts.

[MightyMopar]

64. Much of it is very well organized Astroturf. ALEC has lot of money!

[AgingAmerican]

69. It's the adoption of NRA crackpot gun positions that gets me

Whenever you see someone defend the NRA, remind them of this:

NRA backs legislation allowing homeowners to shoot police officers

[uponit7771]

79. +1!

[neverforget]

192. Holy shit!

And the comments on that piece too!



This nation is dying.....

[DanTex]

70. I've had many discussions with pro-gunners, and they basically do not believe in science.

As you point out, there have been many studies linking gun ownership to increased rates of homicide and suicide, but trying to explain this to a pro-gun person is like trying to convince Glenn Beck that carbon emissions truly are causing temperatures to rise. They are full of conspiracy theories, and they will repeat talking points from gun blogs that claim to "refute" the peer-reviewed science.

The implication is clear: there really is no intellectually honest way to defend the current gun laws in the US. If there were, the "pro-gun progressives" on DU would be doing it. But you don't actually see that here. The pro-gunners are pretty much making the same arguments you'd read on FreeRepublic: that gun control is just a precursor to government tyranny, that the studies simply represent "anti-gun bias", that a gun is just a tool, etc.

[the_wozneer]

89. Following

some studies have show that alot of people dont know whats best for them and we need a law telling them what to do and how to do it. I cant stand how small our government is

[billh58]

94. And yet another NRA

recruit sent by the Gungeon to spout anti-American slogans and warn us about our scary government and its all-volunteer military. You know the ones, our families, friends, relatives, and sons and daughters. Yep, they are coming to get us...

Twits.

[GoneOffShore]

115. The Wozzer has left the building.

[billh58]

117. I have a feeling that its

replacement is being recruited as we speak...

[GoneOffShore]

127. Recruited or revived?

Lots of walking dead these days.

[DanTex]

97. This post is a great example of what I was talking about.

[RC]

74. Very few on this thread acknowledge the real gun problem in this country.

Or even that there is a problem.
Too many easily obtained, loosely regulated firearms of any and all types.
Anyone can get a hold of a gun in this country. It is easy. Way too easy. Even toddlers can do it.


The basic purpose of guns is to kill things. No other legal item, whose basic purpose is to kill, is in such wide spread use, as they are in this country.
Trying to distract from the bloody trail of death caused by guns by comparing guns to cars, or blaming perpetrators with faulty mental health, or anything else, are just straw man arguments. The obscene proliferation of guns in this country, whose basic design is for killing, is the root of the problem.
Other than hunting rifles, the rest, assault style weapons and hand guns are designed for killing human beings. And many here admit that is why they bought them. Well, that is their primary purpose.
You say you only use yours for target shooting? Well good on you. But that gun you use was was most likely designed to kill your fellow human being, which it is very efficient at doing.
Only guns have the designation of "Weapons". While other items can be used as weapons, that is not their primary purpose, as is with guns. That is the distinction.
The real problem here is a vast over supply of vaguely regulated guns.
The current reasoning seems to be that we need more easily obtained guns because so many people have guns. Anyone else see the problem here? By that reasoning, if we get rid of the guns, no one would need any.
For starts, we should look at Canada and their gun laws.

Would Canadian Laws Prevent Mass Murders in the US
[Canadian laws require registration of all people who own guns and registration of all guns. Applicants for gun permits are screened through a background check and a gun safety course where an instructor must sign off that the applicant successfully took the course. Finally, a mandatory 28-day waiting period is imposed on first-time applicants.

In addition, Canada has special laws against the use of non-hunting firearms. Individuals are granted permission to use such arms only when the individual has genuine needs for restricted firearms or prohibited handguns that include a need to protect the life of that individual or of other individuals where

( a ) the life of that individual, or other individuals, is in imminent danger from one or more other individuals;

( b ) police protection is not sufficient in the circumstances; and

( c ) the possession of a restricted firearm or prohibited handgun can reasonably be justified for protecting the individual or other individuals from death or grievous bodily harm.
https://www.impartial-review.com/stories/would-canadian-laws-prevent-mass-murders-in-the-us

a, b, and c do not, as in this country, include simply wanting a hand gun. You have to prove your case first. It is registered and you are registered. And you and it get checked up on.


There are 7 billion people in the world.
There are 311.6 million people in the united States.
There are around 600 million guns in the world.
There are almost 300 million guns in the United States.
The United States has less that 4.5% of the worlds population.
The United States has the world's highest gun death rate.
So why do we have or need almost one half of the worlds supply of guns? How can this not be a problem?
Shouldn't 4.5% of the world's supply of guns be enough?

[EX500rider]

142. "The United States has the world's highest gun death rate."

Not even close.

14th over all for firearm homicides, right above Costa Rica.

(of course actually further down the list but some semi-failed countries can't keep count like Somalia or Congo)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

[billh58]

150. You really think that we

can't see what you did there? You must be the Gungeon "statistics" expert, and you must have learned how to use them in a debate from reading the NRA manifesto.

The quoted stats for the real gun death rates, compare the USA to its counterparts in the developed world, and not to Third World, or under-developed countries. In other words, we have the resources to cure the fucking gun problem, but the NRA has bought enough politicians to deny Americans the right to be free from gun terrorism by spreading fear and misinformation. That is coming to an end, and the NRA is on its way out as a political player now that it has been exposed.

"ATLANTA -- The United States has by far the highest rate of gun deaths -- murders, suicides and accidents -- among the world's 36 richest nations, a government study found.

The U.S. rate for gun deaths in 1994 was 14.24 per 100,000 people. Japan had the lowest rate, at .05 per 100,000. "

http://www.guncite.com/cnngunde.html

[EX500rider]

159. I see...

"world's highest gun death rate" actually translates as "highest among the 36 richest countries" Who knew?

[billh58]

160. I realize that it's hard for you

guys to understand, but apples-to-apples comparisons are so much more representative of reality. Now, run on back to your NRA puppet-masters and tell them that you need better "talking points."

[EX500rider]

162. Gotta ya..

...so when you say "highest in the world", you mean out of 36 other countries, just ignore the other 159 countries. Allrighhhtyyy!

[billh58]

166. And being number 14

out of ALL countries (even though there is no real comparison) is better than being number 1 among comparable societies? The 36 richest have the resources to cure their social ills. Most Third World and under-developed countries either don't have the gun problem in the first place, or don't have the resources or infrastructure to address the violence their culture produces.

But I'm sure that you understand this all too well, and are just trying to jerk our collective chains in order to agitate and disrupt. That's okay though, because you're helping to expose the desperation of the Gungeon crowd in the aftermath of the American public awakening to the depth of the gun problem in this nation.

Thanks for all you do...

[Sarah Ibarruri]

80. We have found in the past that some of them are right wingers

In fact, some DUers have posted proof.

Sure, not all are, but definitely there is proof that some have been, and are.

[musical_soul]

83. I don't even own a gun.......

but I think the hysteria that says that banning all guns to stop most to all violence if flawed. It's not going to stop violence. To me, this is simplistic. Simplistic thinking is one of the reasons why I became a liberal to begin with. I thought conservative thought was too simplistic. Now, I realize that the far left can be simplistic as well and that not all conservatives are simplistic. Imagine that.

It's our culture that needs to change.

First, we need to put a lot more emphasis on the funding of mental healthcare. I do think it's ridiculous how it's so hard to get mental help when you need it and can't afford it, but yet a gun store is right there.

Next, we need to encourage people with the belief that they are responsible for their own actions. Lots of people have mental problems, play violent video games, own guns, were whipped too hard, were not disciplined enough, got bullied in school, are autistic, or whatever. You don't see most of these people killing people.

Also, we need to start praying more. I know. Some people think that will do no good. It won't hurt.

I am for restictions on who can have a gun. Anybody convicted of a felony or declared mentally incompetent shouldn't have a gun. I do believe in gun registration.

[the_wozneer]

90. We dont like your kind here

and if anyone can find mentaly unstable people its government...oh and get that logic off our site

[billh58]

95. Are things really that dull over

at FR that you feel the need to come all the way over here to DU to make an ass out of yourself? Have fun...

[Electric Monk]

109. Just ignore this PPRd wozneer troll. He speaks for nobody. nt

[sellitman]

130. Pepperoni or Mushroom?

Another FR asswipe bites the dust.

or a paid NRA Troll.

[the_wozneer]

85. Huh?

what do you suggest to do to stop other forms of death?

[billh58]

96. Does mommy know

that you're in the basement playing with her computer again?

[Rex]

86. Because they love their guns more than they value your life

or mine.

I believe this cartoon says it all about them,

[closeupready]

93. Not that complicated. Maybe you're just not interested

in having a dialogue.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

103. No. I have no problem having dialogue; however

The crap spewing forth from some people when presented with facts about guns is stunningly anti intellectual.

It resorts to sloganeering and false analogies to make sure nothing gets between them and unlimited access to guns and ammo.

Plenty of gun owners on here have been more than willing to discuss honestly. I don't get the feeling you belong to that group.

[closeupready]

129. If you say you want dialogue, I believe you.

I have no reason not to believe you.

Others on DU (most, in fact), I would not believe, if they claimed they wanted to have a dialogue. This board's reason for existence has become, in the last two weeks, All Gun Control, All The Time. Which is fine, but when I signed up for Democratic Underground, I signed up for a better balance in discussion of issues.

If the administrators here are changing the board's mission, then I feel it's obligatory on them to inform us.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

216. Hopefully we proceed in the weeks ahead with more level headed discussion

On the topic.

[Shrek]

99. Trade-offs have to be balanced

For example, I'm pretty sure science would agree that highway deaths would plummet if the speed limit was no more than 10 mph. Yet we've decided that the current death toll is an acceptable trade-off for being able to legally drive at a higher rate of speed.

For similar reasons, a subset of gun owners believes that the number of gun-related deaths doesn't currently justify additional regulations on firearms. Those beliefs are more likely to change in proportion to any rise in the number of correlated deaths. Example: very few gun owners, if any, support the private ownership of nuclear or biological weapons. If guns were at comparable levels of lethality, I expect support for strict regulation or outright prohibition would be universal.

[Recursion]

105. Being skeptical of gun control isn't the same as being "pro-gun"

I don't own guns and haven't for years, I don't post gun porn, I don't particularly like guns (I associate them with hours of tedious cleaning, and I hate cleaning). I'm not particularly interested in people's "rights" as far as guns go; I think the Federal and State governments have pretty significant leeway to do whatever the hell they want (Heller didn't actually say what its proponents or opponents seem to think it did).

I also think attempts to ban small, easily produced, easily transported, easily concealed things that people want have always gone badly in this country, and that disarming the portion of the population that's willing to be disarmed won't help very much.

So why is it when there are so many compelling studies, statistics, and medical research on gun ownership correlation with gun injuries and death

When people stop harping on about centerfire rifles (1% of homicides) and focus on handguns (75% of homicides, including the majority of mass shootings) we can start looking at stats. Basing policy on double-outliers (mass shootings that use rifles) is a few too many sigmas for me to support.

But, ultimately, yes, it's not something you're going to wrap your head around any time soon. It's a culture war thing. It's tribalism. "Our side" doesn't like guns, "their side" does. But tribalism isn't particularly accurate when you start interacting with individuals.

[Chico Man]

197. Good post

Couldn't have said it better.

[Skittles]

106. NRA propaganda works on fear and ignorance

and there is plenty of that in America

[graham4anything]

108. there are only about 10-15 different pro-gun or pro-NRA fans on the gun section.They are loud

I know as I have been arguing against them on the gun forum for months.

They are loyal to the issue and each other.

[the antigun]

112. I agree

This may be my first post but I have been lurking around here to a while now. Why is it that people cannot see how dangerous and destructive guns can be? It just seems so obvious that they should be banned. Times have changed since the second amendment and we need to change too. My heart goes out to those in New town.

[Recursion]

114. Welcome to DU!

[billh58]

116. This all sounds strangely familiar...

No one is calling for a total "ban" on all guns, or a repeal of the 2nd Amendment, but the NRA and its Gungeon followers are trying to ascribe that diversionary bullshit position to gun control proponents in order to agitate for no regulation of guns at all.

While that may not be your purpose for posting this, keep in mind that the "total ban" mime IS an NRA talking point in the same vein as "they want to take all of our guns away." They use fear and misinformation to divert attention away from the real issues of the easy availability and lax oversight of guns. The NRA is a profitable gun manufacturer representative (see their corporate sponsorship list) and a marketing organization that uses fear in order to sell even more guns to anyone who wants one.

Don't feed the beast...

[EX500rider]

143. "No one is calling for a total "ban" on all guns, or a repeal of the 2nd Amendment"

Actually I have seen many post lately calling for exactly both those things.

[billh58]

146. As has been pointed out repeatedly,

no one in a position of actually introducing or passing the legislation required to accomplish a ban has called for anything of the sort. I also suspect that most of the calls for a total ban are coming fromNRA/Gungeon "plants." The smart money is on tightening up gun control regulation and responsibility.

That does not necessarily mean a compromise, because the NRA and many of their Gungeon supporters have never, and most likely will never, agree to ANY regulation which will address the easy access of guns or restrictions on their sale and tracking.

So, sorry to deny you your NRA talking point, but a few calls for a total ban are in no way equal to the Gungeon calls for the "cold dead hands" mantra.

[EX500rider]

147. So you didn't really mean "no one" n/t

[billh58]

148. Yes, I did mean

no one. No one of consequence is calling for a total ban. Keep trying to plant this false NRA talking point in your attempt to spread fear, because you have nothing else to offer. You and your Gungeon buddies are finally on the receiving end of public scorn, and your fear of sane regulation being associated with gun control is showing.

[EX500rider]

149. "no one" & "no one of consequence" not the same thing..

Pointing out you being incorrect also not the same thing as "spreading fear".

Me & my "gungeon buddies"?

lol, i have 10 posts there in the last 90 days.

[billh58]

151. Yeah, right Bubba.

Out of a total of 280? You are an NRA/Gungeon spokesperson, and you are using all of the standard talking points. I still maintain that no one is calling for a total ban on guns, or of taking away your precious killing toys.

You may now have the last word, because I'm sure that you have much more misinformation to recite from your NRA/Gungeon scipt. I see a pizza in your future...

[EX500rider]

153. Snort....lol...

Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player, that struts and frets his hour upon the stage, and then is heard no more; it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing....

[billh58]

163. I couldn't resist...

If you prick us, do we not bleed? if you tickle us, do we not laugh? if you poison us, do we not die? and if you wrong us, shall we not revenge? If we are like you in the rest, we will resemble you in that...

[AnotherMcIntosh]

213. Too funny.

And you get right to the point.

Thanks for the laugh.

[DollarBillHines]

123. Some of us live in the country

We have rattlesnakes, mountain lions, feral hogs, meth heads, Mexicans growing pot on our hillsides, etc.

A stick ain't gonna cut it. Venturing out, un-armed, on our Mendocino property would be akin to walking down the middle lane of 101.

I cannot stand the NRA, but I have to be realistic about where and how I live. That doesn't make me 'pro-gun', just realistic.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

125. Which means you're not who I was talking about.

I've owned guns in my youth, shot guns at things....I don't have an unhealthy fear of guns. But I don't have an unhealthy fixation on and affinity toward guns. Sounds like you don't either.

Just can't stand NRA talking points spouted ad nauseum on DU.

[PeaceNikki]

131. I'm amused by the ones screaming about how they're 'vilified', 'everybody's being MEAN to them'...

Oh, you poor, poor oppressed gun owners.

[Taverner]

155. +100

[PoliticalBiker]

144. Because we Liberals...

... are NOT against owning guns.
We are however, against the free and unrestricted ACCESS to any gun regardless of type.
Gun ownership is and should be protected, but not for the reasons the NRA or the various nut-job militias around the country would think or believe. The reason the 2nd amendment was there in the first place was because the United States didn't have a national army and it was intended as a means to protect THE GOVERNMENT from unlawful attack from external AND internal threats. NOT as a means to overthrow said government. However...
Restrictions and sometimes very heavily restrictive regulations need to be put in place governing the ACCESS to those guns in an effort to protect us from ourselves.

This is a discussion we need to have across this country. It needs to happen, but by reasonable and intelligent people, not the brain cavity challanged, knee-jerk oversized gonads that populate the NRA and the TeaBaggers.
We need to find a way to keep the guns out of the hands of those that shouldn't have them while allowing responsible owners access.

[MFM008]

152. Im not 'pro-gun'

Im pro-MY gun. My 1 gun. registered, liscenced. Im trained. We dont need bazookas, machine guns suit case nukes.

[GreenStormCloud]

189. Bazookas are completely legal.

A bazooka is nothing more than an empty pipe, a battery, a couple of wires, and an off/on switch (commonly called "the trigger&quot . It is the rocket that it launches that is tightly controlled as a destructive device.

[doc03]

156. When you have been around here for a while you will find many

of them only come out of the woodwork when a gun thread appears. They also like to start threads promoting guns as flame bait to advance their agenda. I think some are trolls for the NRA.

[billh58]

158. And it's comical how they

all sound the same, like they're quoting from a prepared script. The Gingrich/Atwater neoconservatives introduced a scripted playbook along with their "Contract With America" bullshit, and the NRA must have something similar.

[KittyWampus]

172. The number of posters who say "nothing" (your words) should be done is vanishingly small.

In fact, it's such a small number, I think your OP is basically a matter of not being able to discuss an issue where others have slightly different perspectives.

[customerserviceguy]

173. You can show me all the scientific studies you want

about auto accidents, especially in crowded areas of the Northeast (where I live) and I'm still going to drive to work every day.

[bowens43]

177. the 'what about the cars argument' is one of the dumbest made by the death mongers.

seriously , if you have to stoop to that, we know you have you no valid argument.

[customerserviceguy]

180. I'm talking about

how people evaluate risk. I'm not trying to compare cars to guns, just people's attitudes and feelings regarding using things that might pose a danger to oneself. Many of us decide that the risks are small, and the rewards are large.

[bowens43]

176. I think it may be a form of mental illness....

just like the global warming deniers , facts and statistics mean nothing to them. Truth means nothing.

They have an intense , undeniable need or craving to be able to kill people easily and quickly, whether or not they intend to actually do this. Maybe it's just fear.

[Chico Man]

207. I don't own a gun

So, if I don't believe additional gun control will make any noticeable difference in violence, how can you explain that? Am I also mentally ill? Or maybe you should rethink your position?

[Jenoch]

179. I am from a solidly blue state (Minnesota)

that is also solidly pro-RKBA. The right to hunt and fish is in our state constitution. There are many pro-RKBA DUers here who are not against all proposals to reduce gun crime. I for one am in favor of stiffer penalties for straw purchases of guns. I also am in favor of using the NICS database for all gun sales. I am skeptical that any gun or magazine ban will have any effc on crime. The 1994 AWB had zero effect on crime. (Rifles of all types are used in less than 4% of all gun crime). If I thought givng up the seven guns that I own would save someone else's life I would do so in an instant.

[applegrove]

181. Because the NRA has little ro"bots" that go around the internet and tell

them whenever somebody posts a pro gun-control OP. They they show up and obfuscate.

[MightyMopar]

228. Yep, that's whats happening!

[Chico Man]

196. I'm not actually staunchly pro-gun

But I was told I had murderous and suicidal fantasies and that I would rather murder my grandmother than accept any form of gun control.. Here on DU. It was fairly outrageous actually.

I think the pro gun folks here make a hell of a lot more sense than the reactionaries.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

200. The question is.....what form of gun control over and above our current laws

Are you ok with to reduce guns and gun violence in this country?

[Chico Man]

202. That is a very complicated question

With no clear answer.

I simply believe an increase in compassion would reduce violence more than a decrease in guns.

Unfortunately neither looks like something our government could accomplish.

[SoCalDem]

205. Contrarians who happen to own guns..and who love talking about them more than almost anything else

When a real news story "happens" they all flood upstairs to talk guns with people who never visit them in the gungeon

On the flipside though, if Israel "the place that shall not be named" ever bombs Iran, the subsequent posts will, no doubt, be directed to the I/P dungeon in a NY minute..

[Chico Man]

209. So many members rejecting the DU line

Are not gun owners, including myself. Take a step back from the group-think dynamic and you'll quickly realize gun control is full of more holes than Barbara Mandrells shooting range.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

239. We don't know for sure because the US is

Hostage to gun companies who are merely an extension of the military industrial complex.

We SHOULD tell those companies to fuck off and join the 21st century of civilized humanity.

[Eleanors38]

271. Gun cos. Are not a very big sector in this economy

We can discuss the mil. Indus. Complex ipossiblef you wish, and you may ave an argument about it holding us hostage and all, but civilian gun cos. are small potatoes.

Another thing to wrap around. Since tens of millions of Americans own guns, it might be just a little possible they exert a lot of power, corporations not withstanding.

You've read this thread, tell me: Am I an NRA troll? Am I sufficiently liberal? Am I breeding new gungeoneers? Are you ready to tag the scarlet letter "N" to all my arguments pro forma?

Let's talk.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

215. I think it's two-fold...

a) there is conflicting "science". Some studies show facts supporting gun control while other studies show facts supporting gun ownership... and the only thing that ever seems consistent between the two opposing studies is the fact that a study end up supporting the advocacy group paying for it (gee, what a coincidence). So now you have people who have personal beliefs and all you need to do is give them pieces of real evidence supporting their belief and all of a sudden their beliefs become "fact"; contradicting evidence be damned. I believe the only way any evidence actually scientifically supports one argument or another depends on the framing/context of the debate.

b) People are human. There is a natural urge to survive and protect life. In this nation there is also a social urge to be free and protect that freedom. I don't think for 2A supporters that it is so much about the gun in the physical sense. The steel, the lead, the powder and the intricacy/harmony of mechanical design... it's what the power of the gun represents. Guns are powerful tools and, to put it bluntly, people don't like having power removed from them. I think on a baser lever, people will always gravitate towards more freedom and power even if those attributes, to some extent, come at the expense of others.

Neither of these two things is mutually exclusive of voting for a democrat or voting for a republican.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

219. Yay! I had a post tweeted by a conservadork!

Thank you, @sybilll ... I feel special. Wonder if she/ he has a handle here.

[JI7]

223. i don't think most of them are progressives/liberals or even Democrats

i don't really see them on other threads or discuss other things.

[valerief]

227. NRA employees gotta do what NRA employees gotta do. nt

[backscatter712]

240. Amazing what comes out from under the bridge (or inside the Cave)...

[Pretzel_Warrior]

242. Lol. Yikes! Gross. Arrgghh.

[bluestate10]

250. One DUer really surprised me. That poster is a way our Progressive member.

I am a Centrist. I don't own a gun, nor do I need one. The Progressive was pining love for owning an assault weapon.

My position on guns is that a person should not own a gun that they can't shoot on their lawn. I am ok with people shooting assault weapons and other powerful weapons, but that shooting should happen at professionally managed shooting ranges, which the Federal and State governments can set up, then sell to private owners for a small transfer fee - the ranges would be regulated for safety and to insure that the owners aren't unreasonably gouging customers. There is a president to governments building shooting ranges, some of the nation's best golf courses were built by governments, as were many of the nations best monuments and parks.

[Skittles]

251. they are skeered

they cannot live without their weapons

[cherokeeprogressive]

258. I guess it's a MUCH bigger tent than you thought it was, huh?

Just imagine how many OTHER people are in it whose personal beliefs you might not agree with...

I love posts like this: "We, as liberals/Democrats/progressives..." going on to describe the poster's idea of what we as a group should be.

[L0oniX]

263. YAwn n/t