Transcript from my show, how to move the needle on Gun Control

[stevenleser]

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/lesersense/2012/12/31/making-sense-with-steve-leser--week-in-review

Typing the word “shooting” in a google news search today yields stories of nine separate shootings in the last 24 hours just on the first page of that search.

This is part of what we need to consider in the wake of Sandy Hook. There is a massive level of gun violence in this country to which we have become so desensitized we just gloss right over most reports of it in the news. That’s one of the big problems.

Folks, stop being desensitized to everyday gun violence. That is the first thing we have to do to start changing things. As horrific as it was, I am telling you now as I have on my last couple of shows, Sandy Hook is not going to be enough to force any kind of meaningful change. It’s going to take more. It’s going to take a constant reminding people of all of the carnage that happens on a daily basis in this country.
.
.
.

That is why I say that meaningful gun control is going to take a lot of awareness raising and unfortunately a lot more carnage before it happens. This is something that is frustrating for people in the inner cities, particularly people of color in the inner cities because they have been experiencing this first hand for decades and desperately trying to raise awareness about it.

Take the important step, and this is for everyone who hears this show, take the step at least a couple of days a week and go to Google, click on the News menu tab at the top and then in the search field type the word “shooting” and click the little blue magnifying glass button and check out the results. Do this a couple of times a week and post at least one or two of the shooting articles of the last 24 hours on your facebook or twitter page or mail it to your friends. Get as many other people that you know to do the same.

I did it for the first time today. If enough of us just do this simple thing, I promise you, we will be on the short road to meaningful gun control in this country.

[peacebird]

1. Good idea, will do so

[L0oniX]

2. Google "gun defense" too. n/t

[GoneOffShore]

4. Just did and that's a lot of NRA talking points.

[stevenleser]

5. That is the intent of that poster, to derail this OP nt

[L0oniX]

8. ...because fair and balanced is not just for Fox news. n/t

[stevenleser]

9. How unsurprising that cheap shots would be taken by a gun enthusiast. nt

[L0oniX]

10. Again with the fair and balanced Fox news twist ..."gun enthusiast"

All gun owners are "gun enthusiasts" huh. So by your rational the US military is also a "gun enthusiast".

[stevenleser]

11. You tell me. You seem to know a lot more about Fox News than I do. You agree with hosts there

I disagree and argue with them.

[L0oniX]

13. I know this ...the gun debate on DU is totally one sided ...and that is not a debate of any sort.

"You seem to know a lot more about Fox News than I do. You agree with hosts there I disagree and argue with them."

hmmm irony or hypocrisy?

[stevenleser]

16. That a huge percentage of your fellow DUers disagree with you ought to give you pause.

I am all for standing by your principles if you are sure about them. But I am also about re-examining them to make sure you are right if enough of the right people disagree with you.

Then again, someone who relies on red herring logical fallacies like you do isn't likely to be swayed by logic.

[L0oniX]

18. Going along with the gang is not always the right thing to do but it sure does make...

them feel right. I am for a balanced discussion on gun control. Twist that or reframe that however you want.

[farminator3000]

56. if it isn't right why are you doing it? you are a drone!

There are some problems with these government numbers, beginning with the fact that they are based on data from the early 1990s, when crime rates were much higher than they are today. The number of criminal attempts has declined 30% to 40% since then, and one would expect the number of occasions for self-defense to decline correspondingly.

For gun advocates, however, the main problem with the government estimate is that it is not nearly high enough to support their case that private gun ownership is the best way to stop crime. Many of them prefer another statistic, this from a study published in 1995 arguing that Americans use guns in self-defense some 2.5 million times a year, or once every 13 seconds. A Google search finds more than 1 million citations of this study posted online.

You can read the study here.

The trouble is that this claim of 2.5 million defensive gun uses is manifestly flawed and misleading.

Let's review the ways:

http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/30/opinion/frum-guns-safer/index.html

near end-
"To be clear: I'm not disputing that guns sometimes save lives. They must. I'm certainly not disputing that the Constitution secures the right of individual gun ownership. It does. I'm questioning the claim that widespread gun ownership makes America a safer place. The research supporting that claim is pretty weak -- and is contradicted above all by the plain fact that most other advanced countries have many fewer guns and also many fewer crimes and criminals."

[stevenleser]

12. P.S. thanks for kicking my OP on gun control, and demonstrating your right wing viewpoints. nt

[L0oniX]

14. Wanting balance is now "right wing viewpoints". OK n/t

[farminator3000]

57. #56

[Berserker]

20. Particularly "people of color" in the inner cities

Who really talks like that ummmm let me think Oh yeah I know. And calling people who don't agree with you Right Wing and you have a talk show go figure. You don't want to debate on gun control you just want to argue and name call. Have fun.

[farminator3000]

36. whaaaa????

he meant 'kick' the thread? bump? move upwards? hello?

what do YOU want to do?

[Warren Stupidity]

21. Apparently you would prefer gun nut, or perhaps gungeoneer?

[stevenleser]

28. Exactly. Why is "Gun Enthusiast" considered a slur now? Isn't that what they are?

What was it that Tom Tomorrow called them? Delicate flowers? Are their sensibilities so easily offended?

[spin]

54. In passing, neither term bothers me in the least ...

I spend a lot of my time on DU in the Gungeon so I would take no offense at being called a gungeoneer" and I have been called a "gun nut" for probably 30 years.

Be aware that there is a web site for "gun nuts" at http://gunnuts.net/ It provides information on shooting and firearms to those interested in the sport.

For some reason it appears that those who dislike firearms feel it is an insult to call a person who owns several guns and enjoys shooting a gun nut but many gun owners are actually proud to be considered one.

I realize that you were not replying to me but to another poster. I can't for the life of me understand why a real gun nut would take any offense at being called a gun enthusiast.

[rl6214]

62. At least he didn't say gun nut or gun fetishist or

Any of the other childish insults they like to throw around

[bongbong]

79. I feel sorry for you

I'm using the mildest, most sensitive term I can think of. As formulated by Tom Tomorrow in his homage to super-sensitive gun lovers.

> Any of the other childish insults they like to throw around

Delicate Flower. I know you're not talking about that phrase.

Would you like me to use a different term? Maybe "Super Sensitive, Super Manly, Rambo-like Gunnies"?

I look forward to hearing what the gun-religionists prefer. One of my New Year's Resolutions is to be more sensitive to others.

[rl6214]

112. Back to your bong I see

[L0oniX]

7. So is the 2nd amendment. n/t

[farminator3000]

39. if you are seriously trying to say the NRA owns the 2nd amendment, or has any frigging regard for it

whatsoever, you are what? being paid by them? any person who can put two paragraphs together knows they are EVIL! i know the link is from 1994, so what?


Emblazoned across the front of the NRA headquarters in Washington, D.C., is half of this amendment--the second half. It's a testament to how well the NRA does its job that most Americans probably don't know about the first half, with its clunky and inconvenient dependent clause. But that's how the Founding Fathers wrote it. The NRA's reasons for focusing on its backside are fairly obvious, but what do the courts say about the Second Amendment?

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/1994/01/seconds-missing-half

[AnotherMcIntosh]

80. Google "home invasion" might be more accurate

Some examples from a 1/1/2013 Google News search prior to posting:

Three people charged with assault, home invasion in Taney County ...
http://articles.kspr.com/2012-12-31/home-invasion_36084957

Man Pistol Whipped During Home Invasion In San Francisco's ...
http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2012/12/31/man-pistol-whipped-during-home-invasion-in-san-franciscos-mission-district/

Two shot, one arrested in Galva home invasion
http://qctimes.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/two-shot-one-arrested-in-galva-home-invasion/article_9eab089a-53a4-11e2-9067-0019bb2963f4.html?comment_form=true

Jewelry Store Robbery Began with Bethlehem Home Invasion
http://bethlehem.patch.com/articles/jewelry-store-robbery-began-with-bethlehem-home-invasion

Arrest made in south Fort Myers home invasion, stabbing
http://www.news-press.com/article/20121231/CRIME/121231025/Arrest-made-south-Fort-Myers-home-invasion-stabbing

2 men accused in Prescott home invasion
http://www.sfgate.com/news/crime/article/2-men-accused-in-Prescott-home-invasion-4158320.php

Help sought in solving home invasion, robbery, murder
http://www.news-gazette.com/news/courts-police-and-fire/2012-12-31/help-sought-solving-home-invasion-robbery-murder.html

Top 10 Stories of 2012: Brutal Home Invasion Attack Leaves Bedford ...
http://bedford-nh.patch.com/articles/top-10-stories-of-2012-brutal-home-invasion-attack-leaves-bedford-residents-on-edge

Home invasion suspect steals wedding rings from couple
http://www.winknews.com/Local-Florida/2012-12-31/Home-invasion-suspect-steals-wedding-rings-from-couple

Police: Men Arrested After Home Invasion
http://northbrook.patch.com/articles/police-men-arrested-after-home-invasion

An honest discussion would include a consideration of these. Those who wish to squelch an honest discussion may want to call these reports or any references to them "right-wing talking points" or "NRA talking points."

[L0oniX]

105. Just like FOX ...they are not interested in fair and balanced. n/t

[stevenleser]

107. Thanks for the kick of my pro-Gun Control OP! nt

[Eleanors38]

3. I would suggest looking at the causes of crime, and addressing those.

The Democratic Party used to do this.



Now, it's just gun-control.

[Hoyt]

6. No, we want to look at both. The solution is multi-faceted with guns being part of solution.

Sorry, your guns need to be restricted, no matter what other steps are taken.

[farminator3000]

70. here's an good article (old) about the causes of murder. from 1957 - hardly ANY GUNS

http://www.all-about-forensic-psychology.com/murder-article.html

Because of its mixture of races and cultures, and its extremes of wealth, New York City supplies a rich sample of modes in murder. A study of 320 murders in 1958 showed that about half the killers used knives or other cutting instruments. They used hand guns only half as often and blunt instruments only a fourth as often. They killed with their bare hands only one time in eight. Far down the list were rifles, shotguns, poisons, and the automobile.

and now guns and cars kill around 30,000 a year.

cause?

[Blanks]

15. More attention should be paid to the 'well-regulated' part of the 2nd amendment.

If people want to possess weapons on their property; there should be necessary training and refreshing intervals.

The right of 'the people' to keep and bear arms means that the Feds cannot pass a law preventing the Kansas Army National Guard from having weapons in their armory.

It makes sense if we get away from the NRA talking points and pay attention to what the framers actually said.

It would be a lot easier for people to defend themselves if there weren't so many people running around with dangerous weapons.

[stevenleser]

17. I agree, and the point of that part of the gun control segment on my show is, getting to the point

where a majority of the country agree with meaningful additional regulation is going to require raising awareness to show just how bad things are, just how frequent the shootings are.

[hack89]

19. Did your show discuss how we have reduced gun deaths

from murder and manslaughter by 50 % since 1992? Perhaps identifying how we did that would help guide the discussion.

Gun violence is at historic lows and steadily declining so we must be doing something right.

[Warren Stupidity]

23. We reduced the proportion of male youths aged 16-26 in the population and that is what tracks

the decrease in the crime rate, and you know it, and your implication that the flood of guns is somehow correlated is bullshit.

[hack89]

25. More guns did not decrease gun deaths.

the issue is much too complex to even consider that. All we can say with any certainty is that more guns did not result in more gun violence.

[Warren Stupidity]

27. umm actually it has resulted in more gun suicides.

[hack89]

30. Since we slashed criminal gun violence without strict gun control

there is no reason to believe we can't do the same with suicides.

Suicide is a mental health issue - proper healthcare is the solution. We need to spend billions on healthcare, not prisons.

[libodem]

151. Thank you, Warren

Most excellent point!

[farminator3000]

71. right, more guns "did not decrease". THEY INCREASED murders. they do it EVERY DAY 18.8 times

All we can say with any certainty is that more guns did not result in more gun violence.

all i can say to that is-
farminator3000
59. and? isn't it odd how you never even mention the NRA for some reason? as if it doesn't exist?

20 Deadliest Gun States
Jan 10, 2011 8:13 PM EST
You're five times more likely to die from a gun in Arizona than Hawaii. In the wake of the Giffords massacre, The Daily Beast ranks which states have the worst record of gun fatalities.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/01/11/20-deadliest-gun-states-from-mississippi-to-arizona.html

***

From murders to suicides, Arizona is consistently among the most deadly states in the nation for gun violence, federal records show.

Over a nine-year span, the state's rate of gun deaths of all types ranked seventh in the United States and sixth for gun-involved slayings, according to an Arizona Republic analysis of death reports compiled by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The rankings are based on data from 1999 to 2007, the most recent statistics available from the CDC.

Overall, violent-crime rates in Arizona are not far from rates for the U.S. as a whole, but the rate of deaths specifically tied to guns surprises national experts.

Crime-victimization patterns that measure factors such as age and racial demographics suggest that Arizona would figure to be among the states with a lower risk for violent crime.
http://www.azcentral.com/community/pinal/20110127arizona-gun-death-rate-nations-worst-sev.html

and? you were saying something about guns are safe?

[farminator3000]

33. did your post contain a link or any truth, AT ALL? i think not- "The simple truth is that more guns

equal more death.

An analysis this year from the Violence Policy Center found that “states with low gun ownership rates and strong gun laws have the lowest rates of gun death.” The report continued, “by contrast, states with weak gun laws and higher rates of gun ownership had far higher rates of firearm-related death.” According to the analysis, Massachusetts, Hawaii, New Jersey, New York, and Connecticut had the lowest per capita gun death rates. Each of those states had “strong gun laws and low gun ownership rates. On the other hand, “ranking first in the nation for gun death was Louisiana, followed by Wyoming, Alabama, Montana, and Mississippi.” Those states had “weak gun laws and higher rates of gun ownership.”

What’s more, deaths may be a misleading statistic that minimizes the true breadth of gun violence. Another report this year by the Violence Policy Center, using data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, found that while gun deaths remained relatively flat from 2000 to 2008, the total number of people shot went up nearly 20 percent since 2001. Why the difference between rates of shootings and deaths? “Advances in emergency services — including the 911 system and establishment of trauma centers — as well as better surgical techniques,” the report said. "
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/22/opinion/blow-guns-smoke-and-mirrors.html

[hack89]

37. Go read the DOJ and FBI Uniform Crime Reports

where you will see year after year a decline not only in murder rates but absolute numbers.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr

Here is a small sample:

2006 - 10,225 gun murder victims

2010 - 8,775 gun murder victims

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10shrtbl08.xls

Edit: Link to table with numbers and rates from 1991 to 2010

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10tbl01.xls

[farminator3000]

40. i've seen all that, thanks

hack89 (18,114 posts)
19. Did your show discuss how we have reduced gun deaths

from murder and manslaughter by 50 % since 1992? Perhaps identifying how we did that would help guide the discussion.

i'm guiding the discussion. 50% you say? do tell! wasn't there a ban on guns from 1994-2004 or something?

[hack89]

42. Let me show you an AWB legal "assault weapon"

The present California AWB is stricter than the original AWB - this weapon is legal in California:




http://www.coltsmfg.com/Catalog/ColtRifles/ColtCaliforniaCompliantRifles.aspx

The original AWB had so many holes in it that it banned nothing - in fact sales skyrocketed.

[hack89]

43. Rifles and shotguns combined account for about 3% of murders.

the AWB could not possibly account for such a huge drop.

[spin]

58. There was never a ban on guns during the expired AWB ...

Certain cosmetic features on some firearms was banned and the production of magazines that had a capacity of more than 10 rounds was stopped after a certain date.

Semi-automatic riles and handguns were available during the AWB as the manufacturers merely removed certain cosmetic features and continued to produce them. In fact the publicity about such firearms caused their sale to skyrocket just as the threat of another AWB is causing a six month backlog for anyone wishing to get one.

Hi-cap magazines were also available as the manufacturers of these devises simply ramped up production prior to the cut off date. They were expensive but most of the shooters who bought a black rifle or a semi-auto pistol had several.

[farminator3000]

59. and? isn't it odd how you never even mention the NRA for some reason? as if it doesn't exist?

guns are gonna get more expensive, because their are WAY TOO MANY!

more laws, too. the people who have all the guns are a MINORITY.

the NRA is to blame for any problems with previous laws, any sane human being knows that.

i've known it for 35 years, wake up.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/22/opinion/blow-guns-smoke-and-mirrors.html


about BATF-
One immediate task for Vice President Joseph Biden Jr., who is heading the new White House group on gun violence that will report recommendations in January, is to focus on dismantling the senseless obstacles impeding the bureau’s day-to-day functioning.

The bureau — which should have a lead role in protecting the nation from gun crimes — has been severely hindered by an array of N.R.A.-backed legislative restrictions. For example, a 1986 law prohibits A.T.F. agents from making more than one unannounced inspection a year on a gun dealer, a rule that serves no purpose other than protecting unscrupulous dealers. (As it is, a lack of agents means that a gun shop can go years between inspections.)

The same law makes it extremely difficult to pull the licenses of rogue gun dealers. The government must show not just that the conduct was intentional but that the violator knew it was illegal.

Language included in every A.T.F. appropriations bill since 1979 has prohibited the bureau from putting gun sales records into a central computer database. That means workers at the bureau’s tracing center often must call gun makers and sellers and go through paper files to identify the buyer of a gun linked to a crime.

Finally, the so-called Tiahrt amendments, attached to federal spending bills, require the federal government to destroy the background check records of gun buyers within 24 hours of approval. That makes it very hard to identify dealers who falsify sales records.

[spin]

61. Well there are going to be a lot more firearms in civilian hands in the immediate future. ...

12/19/12
Local News

Gun Sales Skyrocket Amid Fear Over Stricter Control

LOS ANGELES (KTLA) — It’s happening across the country, including at EM and M Jewelry and Guns in Orange County.

Demands for stricter gun control laws and talk of reviving an expired ban on assault weapons has people swamping stores to buy weapons.

“The spike in business has doubled, tripled,” said Emily Atkinson, the Orange County store’s owner.

“People are not just afraid of some bad guy breaking in they’re scared they won’t have the right,” she said.

Atkinson said she sold $20,000 worth of guns and ammunition on Wednesday alone.

Read more at http://ktla.com/2012/12/19/gun-sales-skyrocket-amid-fear-over-stricter-control/#ZfDRbkS7AGK5w4v0.99

This is exactly the same thing that happened prior to the last AWB. Bans rarely work and often have unintended consequences. Had it not been for the last ban military style semi-auto rifles would be nowhere as popular as they are today.

The gun control movement has done far more to increase the sales of firearms than the NRA ever could. If your proponents merely suggested making some sensible changes to our laws instead of constantly using the "ban" word we might actually reduce the number of firearms on our streets.

I should point out that unlike the majority of my shooting friends I have never bought an assault style rifle nor do I own any semi-auto pistols with a magazine capacity of more than 10 rounds. I currently have no reason to buy one as I see no need.

You point out that gun owners are a minority in our nation but I will point out in return that the 80,000,000 gun owners and the members of their families who are of voting age are a significant minority as many are strong supporters of gun rights. They will show up at the polls to vote against any politician who supports "banning" firearms. In many Red states they will send pro gun rights candidates to Congress and that will guarantee that no real gun bans occur during my life time.

Still you might just be right and I might be wrong.

Time will tell.

[farminator3000]

69. civilians are running out of hands for the damn guns. do you shoot with your feet?

yeah great, so if there's 80 mill. gun owners, and 300 mill. guns. that's 3.75 GUNS PER OWNER.


The gun control movement has done far more to increase the sales of firearms than the NRA ever could.

i actually agree with you except, i wouldn't blame gun control. i think your statement shows exactly what is going on- the NRA makes everyone paranoid about their right to a gun, and every time a new law is mentioned, all the members go on a buying spree, even though they already have 3.75 guns!

the NRA is a multi Million dollar gun lobby, um, they aren't just target shooting, y KNOW?


instead of constantly using the "ban" word we might actually reduce the number of firearms on our streets.

THIS, I AGREE WITH!!! WE AGREE!!! i will leave that as is...

I should point out that unlike the majority of my shooting friends I have never bought an assault style rifle nor do I own any semi-auto pistols with a magazine capacity of more than 10 rounds. I currently have no reason to buy one as I see no need.


YOU ARE COOL! i like that part, too.

[spin]

101. I have never bought into the NRA propaganda that the feds will confiscate my guns ...

unless I donate to the NRA-ILA.

If I had, I would own at least one semi-auto military style rifle and several pistols with magazines that hold more than 10 rounds.

[farminator3000]

108. good for you!

don't waste your money.

donate here!:
http://www.charity-charities.org/charities/FL.html

(not all, of course!)

[spin]

110. That's a good link.Thanks. (n/t)

[farminator3000]

60. no. read this.

Government figures from the National Survey of Criminal Victimization suggest 100,000 uses a year of guns in self-defense against crime, the vast majority of these uses being the display of weapons to deter or dissuade.

There are some problems with these government numbers, beginning with the fact that they are based on data from the early 1990s, when crime rates were much higher than they are today. The number of criminal attempts has declined 30% to 40% since then, and one would expect the number of occasions for self-defense to decline correspondingly.

For gun advocates, however, the main problem with the government estimate is that it is not nearly high enough to support their case that private gun ownership is the best way to stop crime. Many of them prefer another statistic, this from a study published in 1995 arguing that Americans use guns in self-defense some 2.5 million times a year, or once every 13 seconds. A Google search finds more than 1 million citations of this study posted online.

You can read the study here.

The trouble is that this claim of 2.5 million defensive gun uses is manifestly flawed and misleading.

Let's review the ways:
http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/30/opinion/frum-guns-safer/index.html

***

"The simple truth is that more guns
equal more death.

An analysis this year from the Violence Policy Center found that “states with low gun ownership rates and strong gun laws have the lowest rates of gun death.” The report continued, “by contrast, states with weak gun laws and higher rates of gun ownership had far higher rates of firearm-related death.” According to the analysis, Massachusetts, Hawaii, New Jersey, New York, and Connecticut had the lowest per capita gun death rates. Each of those states had “strong gun laws and low gun ownership rates. On the other hand, “ranking first in the nation for gun death was Louisiana, followed by Wyoming, Alabama, Montana, and Mississippi.” Those states had “weak gun laws and higher rates of gun ownership.”

What’s more, deaths may be a misleading statistic that minimizes the true breadth of gun violence. Another report this year by the Violence Policy Center, using data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, found that while gun deaths remained relatively flat from 2000 to 2008, the total number of people shot went up nearly 20 percent since 2001. Why the difference between rates of shootings and deaths? “Advances in emergency services — including the 911 system and establishment of trauma centers — as well as better surgical techniques,” the report said. "
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/22/opinion/blow-guns-smoke-and-mirrors.html

[hack89]

66. 1992 - 24,703 deaths. 2010 - 14,748 deaths

that is how much we have cut deaths due to murder and manslaughter.

Hard facts you cannot refute.

[hack89]

67. And yet all those states with lax gun laws saw declines in gun violence

over the past 20 years. How is that possible?

[farminator3000]

72. that is complete BS- the 5 states with worst laws=most deaths,5 with best laws=least deaths- read it

hack89 (18,125 posts)
66. 1992 - 24,703 deaths. 2010 - 14,748 deaths
that is how much we have cut deaths due to murder and manslaughter.
Hard facts you cannot refute.

hack89 (18,125 posts)
67. And yet all those states with lax gun laws saw declines in gun violence
over the past 20 years. How is that possible?

it IS NOT POSSIBLE. IT IS THE SAME NRA "talking point" you post over and over. it is patently UNTRUE


ny times-
“ found that while gun deaths remained relatively flat from 2000 to 2008, the total number of people shot went up nearly 20 percent since 2001. Why the difference between rates of shootings and deaths?
Advances in emergency services — including the 911 system and establishment of trauma centers — as well as better surgical techniques,” the report said. "
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/22/opinion/blow-guns-smoke-and-mirrors.html


http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/01/11/20-deadliest-gun-states-from-mississippi-to-arizona.html


http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/22/opinion/blow-guns-smoke-and-mirrors.html

[hack89]

82. Statistics give you problems don't they?

simple question - did those states have more or fewer gun deaths in 1992 compared to now?

[farminator3000]

84. they are a problem when you don't provide any, slappy

i have better things to do than waste time looking up crap to dispute something which is meaningless.

so YES deaths have gone down- this is what civilized societies do- work to lessen SENSELESS DEATHS

gun deaths and car deaths are going down since the 1990s, of course. like i SHOWED you, this is because of better EMT care and medical reasons, also drunk driving laws AND gun safety laws that WORK.

you're "idea" that it is all because of more guns is PREPOSTEROUS and SELFISH.
also PROPAGANDA that maybe you are being fed, and don't even realize, so i don't blame you.
does that part in BOLD look anywhere near your magical 50%???

18.8 people EVERY DAY. getting shot. i'd think you'd be a little more mature, don't you have kids?

http://www.azfgs.com/the-facts/deaths.aspx

Deaths

Arizona’s gun violence death rate is among the highest in the nation. Arizona ranked 10th out of the 50 states in its rate of violence-related gun deaths in 2003. (Violence refers to suicides, homicides, and legal intervention.) Arizona’s violence-related gun death rate of 14.7 per 100,000 was considerably higher than the national rate of 9.9 per 100,000.
A total of 8,815 Arizona residents died from the misuse of guns in the last decade (1995-2004). Fifty-seven percent of these deaths were the result of suicide; 37% were the result of homicide; 3% were the result of accidents; 2% were the result of legal intervention; and 1% were from an undetermined cause.
Although generally decreasing over the decade, gun-related deaths jumped 4% in 2004. These deaths increased from 834 in 2003 to 873 in 2004 -- but overall gun-related deaths decreased from an all-time high of 1,010 in 1995.
Well over half of all homicides and suicides are committed with a gun. In 2004, 68% of all homicides and 59% of all suicides were committed with a gun.
Minority groups are disproportionately impacted by gun violence. African Americans had the highest gun-related death rate (24.9 per 100,000) and the highest gun-related homicide rate (18.8 per 100,000) among racial/ethnic groups in 2004. Latinos had the second highest gun-related death rate (17.3 per 100,000) and the second highest gun-related homicide rate (11.1 per 100,000). In contrast, whites had a lower gun-related death rate (14.1 per 100,000) but a gun-related suicide rate twice that of minorities (10.6 per 100,000).
More than 5 times the number of Arizona residents died from gun violence (873) than from HIV/AIDS (156) in 2004.

[hack89]

87. I gave you a whole web site of official crime reports

the fact that you refuse to read it says it all as far as I am concerned.

Thanks for the link showing Arizona has fewer gun deaths than they had in 1995. Looks like I was right.

[farminator3000]

90. and cherry picked ONE number from that site, stop wasting my time look at post #88

there are LOTS of official reports. they don't mean anything if you just look at one.

Overview

An estimated 1,417,745 violent crimes occurred nationwide in 2006.
There were an estimated 473.5 violent crimes per 100,000 inhabitants.
When data for 2006 to 2005 were compared, the estimated volume of violent crime increased 1.9 percent. The 5-year trend (2006 compared with 2002) indicated that violent crime decreased 0.4 percent. For the 10-year trend (2006 compared with 1997) violent crime fell 13.3 percent.

Thanks for the link showing Arizona has fewer gun deaths than they had in 1995. Looks like I was right.

Did your show discuss how we have reduced gun deaths
from murder and manslaughter by 50 % since 1992? Perhaps identifying how we did that would help guide the discussion.

last time i checked, 800 is about 20% less than 1,000, so WHERE DOES THIS 50% BS come from again?

who is not reading?

the great thing here is, if someone who is undecided about gun control is reading this, you kind of look like
a mindless zealot, and you are giving your people a bad name!!!

thanks!!

[hack89]

98. You are looking at one state

look at the entire country from 1992 to 2010.

[farminator3000]

124. you are looking at one number and saying it is proof for a bunch of hoo-hah

ny times-
“ found that while gun deaths remained relatively flat from 2000 to 2008, the total number of people shot went up nearly 20 percent since 2001. Why the difference between rates of shootings and deaths?
Advances in emergency services — including the 911 system and establishment of trauma centers — as well as better surgical techniques,” the report said. "

and completely ignoring the bold part there (aka EVERYTHING)

[hack89]

126. No - I am looking at multiple tables spanning decades

you really need to look at the FBI data.

[farminator3000]

132. look at this and post #130

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1963761,00.html

[hack89]

135. So a single NY Times article trumps decades of FBI statistics?

OK

[farminator3000]

146. see #145

got it?

[Hoyt]

55. If it's so low, why don't the gun cultists hang up their friggin guns.

[hack89]

65. Because we don't only have guns for self defense.

my guns are used for target shooting.

Besides, pissing you off is reason enough to keep them.

[Hoyt]

68. And, there are other reasons gun cultists don't admit, sometimes to themselves.

[farminator3000]

74. they can't admit it if they're being brainwashed!

It was an appalling display of deflection and deception. So much smoke and so many mirrors.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/22/opinion/blow-guns-smoke-and-mirrors.html

[farminator3000]

73. then why do you keep saying they are so necessary and vital for your protection

your last statement pretty much says it all

what you said sounds to me like
"i don't care if there are mass murders and 18.8 people shot a day, i want to have fun and wayne told me i can"

really, that's what it sounds like. i assume you are a grown man, so...

lame

[hack89]

85. I shoot purely for recreation.

Last edited Wed Apr 18, 2018, 02:20 PM - Edit history (1)

I live in a safe area so I don't need a gun constantly handy for self defense.

I don't care what you think. Nothing personal but you are just another ill informed person on the internet. Fun to fuck with but nothing more.

[Hoyt]

91. You can always take up a hobby that is better for society.

[hack89]

97. My hobby has never hurt a single person. nt

[Hoyt]

99. Maybe not directly, but yes it does hurt indirectly. I'm sure you don't care, though.

[hack89]

102. Should I stop drinking beer?

because as a member of the alcohol culture I must be indirectly responsible for the carnage wrecks on society.

[Hoyt]

103. Definitely, also taking prescription meds that affect judgement, while around your lethal weapons.

[hack89]

104. Can I drink if I have no guns?

I would not then be indirectly responsible for alcohol related deaths?

[aikoaiko]

22. I did what you asked.

And I can see how someone who already wants to expand restrictions would find motivation in those google results.

At the same time, someone who already owns a firearm for self-defense will see lots of reason to keep and bear arms.

[farminator3000]

34. you can keep your gun.

Requires that grandfathered weapons be registered under the National Firearms Act, to include:

Background check of owner and any transferee;
Type and serial number of the firearm;
Positive identification, including photograph and fingerprint;
Certification from local law enforcement of identity and that possession would not violate State or local law; and
Dedicated funding for ATF to implement registration

http://dailycaller.com/2012/12/27/alert-sen-diane-feinstein-releases-gun-ban-summary-for-2013/

[derby378]

136. Not falling for it

The only way you can keep an NFA weapon is if you let the ATF confiscate it first, then you go through the fingerprinting, photographing, interview with Federal agents, plus a $200 tax stamp for your trouble, and a 60-day waiting period.

What, you think the Feds are going to let me hold onto an NFA weapon without a permit in hand? This is a gun grab.

[Warren Stupidity]

24. Wow Steve, you rang the gungeoneer bell on this one.

K&R.

[stevenleser]

26. Give them props for at least recognizing the danger what I propose poses to their precious guns.

If people are confronted by the extent of the nationwide carnage on a regular basis, it will move the needle enough for meaningful reforms to take place. I 100% believe that.

Everytime one of us posts something about restrictions on guns the blather we here back from the gun enthusiasts about their 'precious' guns reminds me of this:

[hack89]

31. I think people are very much aware how much gun violence has fallen

in the past 20 years.

Gun crime is at historic lows and steadily falling - they know that they have never been safer. There is a reason why gun control fails time and time again. People are not fools.

[farminator3000]

35. really? twice in the SAME THREAD???

see #33.

who is a fool?

[hack89]

38. Go see #37. Then go study some actual data. nt

[farminator3000]

41. ha ha ha ha ha! stealing my trick are ya? #40, right back at ya! woo hoo!

good luck, there, hombre/hombrette!

[hack89]

44. Go back and read both my answers. nt

[farminator3000]

49. i did. they don't mean a thing.

hack89 (18,118 posts)
19. Did your show discuss how we have reduced gun deaths
from murder and manslaughter by 50 % since 1992? Perhaps identifying how we did that would help guide the discussion.

ny times-“Advances in emergency services — including the 911 system and establishment of trauma centers — as well as better surgical techniques,” the report said. "
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/22/opinion/blow-guns-smoke-and-mirrors.html

bold is all you:


Gun violence is at historic lows and steadily declining so we must be doing something right.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/crime/2012/12/gun_death_tally_every_american_gun_death_since_newtown_sandy_hook_shooting.html

the issue is much too complex

All we can say with any certainty is that more guns did not result in more gun violence.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/22/opinion/blow-guns-smoke-and-mirrors.html

Since we slashed criminal gun violence without strict gun control

ny times:while gun deaths remained relatively flat from 2000 to 2008, the total number of people shot went up nearly 20 percent since 2001.

Suicide is a mental health issue - proper healthcare is the solution. We need to spend billions on healthcare, not prisons.

does this suggest putting suicidal people in prison? WOW THATS A GREAT IDEA!!!

then-

I asked you why deaths are down:i'm guiding the discussion. 50% you say? do tell! wasn't there a ban on guns from 1994-2004 or something?

you: all of a sudden, big ugly gun and blah blah rifles.

who said rifles?

43. Rifles and shotguns combined account for about 3% of murders.
the AWB could not possibly account for such a huge drop.


regular rifles and shotguns have ZILCHO to do with the AWB

so-

ny times-“Advances in emergency services — including the 911 system and establishment of trauma centers — as well as better surgical techniques,” the report said. "

you- There is a reason why gun control fails time and time again. People are not fools.

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_Control_Act_of_1968

who's the FOOL NOW. YOU HAVE NOTHING.

[hack89]

50. Your ignorance regarding the AWB is showing

43. Rifles and shotguns combined account for about 3% of murders.
the AWB could not possibly account for such a huge drop.

regular rifles and shotguns have ZILCHO to do with the AWB

"Assault weapons" are classified as rifles - there is no separate category for "assault weapons" in the UCR they are considered rifles. And they don't kill many people.

I asked you why deaths are down:i'm guiding the discussion. 50% you say? do tell! wasn't there a ban on guns from 1994-2004 or something?

you: all of a sudden, big ugly gun and blah blah rifles.

who said rifles?

The 1994 AWB was aimed at semi-automatic rifles. YOU are the one who brought up guns by bringing up the AWB.


This is particularly idiotic on your part:

Suicide is a mental health issue - proper healthcare is the solution. We need to spend billions on healthcare, not prisons.

does this suggest putting suicidal people in prison? WOW THATS A GREAT IDEA!!!

No - it suggests giving suicidal people the health care they desperately need.

The FBI UCR are the official government statistics on crime in America - and it shows a drastic and steady decline in gun violence since 1992.

[farminator3000]

51. i thought i used it pretty well to confuse the crap outta ya!

i said-

wasn't there a ban on guns from 1994-2004 or something?

you started off on some sort of odd tanget, nonsensical, really-

hack89 (18,118 posts)
43. Rifles and shotguns combined account for about 3% of murders.
the AWB could not possibly account for such a huge drop.

then?


The 1994 AWB was aimed at semi-automatic rifles. YOU are the one who brought up guns by bringing up the AWB.

so..the AWB (which i never mentioned) has nothing to do with regular rifles, or that 3%, um, and guns don't kill that many people, so they have nothing to do with the amount of deaths, neither do laws, health care is the answer.
hack89 (18,118 posts)
30. Since we slashed criminal gun violence without strict gun control

how did we do that, exactly? it makes it seem like we are cutting criminals with knives now? is this really true?

[Straw Man]

63. What an incoherent mess.

If you weren't talking about the AWB, then what "ban or something" that was in place from 1994-2004 were you referring to? Of course it had nothing to do with "regular rifles" -- just that subset that the legislation restricted. And of course, rifles are a subset of all firearms. So you are contending that a limitation -- it wasn't an outright ban, remember -- a limitation on a subset of the class of firearms that were responsible for 3% all homicides somehow caused a 50% drop in overall gun deaths? Strains credulity, it does ...

[farminator3000]

75. i agree, this guy is paid WAY too much. making you look bad, really...focus, now...

i am contending that guns had NOTHING to do with the drop in murders, in fact they cause MORE.

What’s more, deaths may be a misleading statistic that minimizes the true breadth of gun violence. Another report this year by the Violence Policy Center, using data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, found that while gun deaths remained relatively flat from 2000 to 2008, the total number of people shot went up nearly 20 percent since 2001. Why the difference between rates of shootings and deaths? “Advances in emergency services — including the 911 system and establishment of trauma centers — as well as better surgical techniques,” the report said. "
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/22/opinion/blow-guns-smoke-and-mirrors.html

i said "wasn't there a gun ban?" because i knew it would cause him to start posting foolishness, and dig his fox hole even deeper.
of course the AWB did nothing- it sucked because the NRA gave it NO CHANCE of working, with all the loopholes and BS

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/01/11/20-deadliest-gun-states-from-mississippi-to-arizona.html

i am saying that MORE GUNS= MORE PEOPLE BEING SHOT.

LESS LAWS= MORE PEOPLE SHOT -- 18.8 people a day is the current rate!

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/crime/2012/12/gun_death_tally_every_american_gun_death_since_newtown_sandy_hook_shooting.html

[hack89]

64. The only gun ban from 1994 to 2004 was the AWB

And, as I pointed out, the FBI groups "assault weapons" with rifles and shotguns. And rifles and shotguns kill few people. So there was no gun ban that significantly impacted gun violence.

[farminator3000]

77. how could a GUN BAN lower violence when VIOLENCE HAS NOT ACTUALLY GONE DOWN?!?!?

just give up, really, you have no argument whatsoever.

[hack89]

81. The FBI and DOJ disagree with you.

take it up with them.

[farminator3000]

88. no,they don't,you are using ONE number from 1 of their pages,and not using it very well, i'm afraid

see how you just "picked" 1992 there, so your "facts" would "sound good"?

so really, the rate is the same as 1985, there was a downward trend after reagan being shot, and

oh WHOOPS after the AWB BAN BAN BAN, also a big drop, hmm.

get some real facts and DON'T come back...

[hack89]

89. Can you at least try to understand what you post?

the big drop is in handguns - which the AWB had nothing to do with.

See that other line called "other guns"? Nice and smooth with not huge drop? Those are where you find assault weapons.

[farminator3000]

92. isn't UNDERSTNDING YOU more important? i know what i'm saying, do YOU?

still trying to understand down by 50% because of more guns.

can't. isn't true.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/crime/2012/12/gun_death_tally_every_american_gun_death_since_newtown_sandy_hook_shooting.html

[hack89]

96. I never said it was down because of more guns

I merely proved using FBI data that gun violence is down. I never gave a reason.

[farminator3000]

93. to make your "50%" thing correct, you'd say...

"deaths have gone down FROM A NEAR HIGH in 1992 back to the same level as before.
the high was probably caused by the NRA's influence on reagan, then there was the AWB, and levels are back to "normal""

[hack89]

95. So tell me how the AWB impacted deaths due to handguns

considering the AWB had nothing to do with handguns.

[farminator3000]

133. i won't because it didn't. again, post #130...

[farminator3000]

76. i think you are trying to brainwash people about gun violence and you should stop

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/crime/2012/12/gun_death_tally_every_american_gun_death_since_newtown_sandy_hook_shooting.html

***
#1, Mississippi
Gun deaths per 100,000: 18.3
Permissive gun laws: 4th out of 50

#2, Arizona
Gun deaths per 100,000: 15
Permissive gun laws: 1st out of 50

#3, Alaska
Gun deaths per 100,000: 17.6
Permissive gun laws: 11th out of 50

#4, Arkansas
Gun deaths per 100,000: 15.1
Permissive gun laws: 7th out of 50

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/01/11/20-deadliest-gun-states-from-mississippi-to-arizona.html


so to answer your question, medical care is the cause of the reduction in gun deaths, shootings are increasing, and guns are the main problem!

next?

[hack89]

83. Too bad you have no hard facts to back up your opinion. nt

[farminator3000]

111. (Fact#1 states with least gun laws=more deaths)+(Fact#2 states with most gun laws=least deaths)=

Fact#3 guns cause more deaths.

[hack89]

113. Fact 4: all those states saw significant reductions in gun violence

over the past 20 years even as more guns were sold and as gun laws were relaxed

[farminator3000]

117. i don't think you can call it a "fact" when it is just some words you type.

Data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show that Arizona, for example, exceeded the national rate for gun-involved slayings every year from 1994 until 2007, the latest year available. It has exceeded the national rates of gun-involved suicides and of overall gun-involved deaths every year since at least 1981, when officials began collecting data.

http://www.azcentral.com/community/pinal/articles/2011/01/27/20110127arizona-gun-death-rate-nations-worst-sev.html?nclick_check=1

***

how many times do i have to post the below before you read it?

"The simple truth is that more guns
equal more death.

An analysis this year from the Violence Policy Center found that “states with low gun ownership rates and strong gun laws have the lowest rates of gun death.” The report continued, “by contrast, states with weak gun laws and higher rates of gun ownership had far higher rates of firearm-related death.” According to the analysis, Massachusetts, Hawaii, New Jersey, New York, and Connecticut had the lowest per capita gun death rates. Each of those states had “strong gun laws and low gun ownership rates. On the other hand, “ranking first in the nation for gun death was Louisiana, followed by Wyoming, Alabama, Montana, and Mississippi.” Those states had “weak gun laws and higher rates of gun ownership.”

What’s more, deaths may be a misleading statistic that minimizes the true breadth of gun violence. Another report this year by the Violence Policy Center, using data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, found that while gun deaths remained relatively flat from 2000 to 2008, the total number of people shot went up nearly 20 percent since 2001. Why the difference between rates of shootings and deaths? “Advances in emergency services — including the 911 system and establishment of trauma centers — as well as better surgical techniques,” the report said. "
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/22/opinion/blow-guns-smoke-and-mirrors.html

[hack89]

118. No - there are actual hard facts provided by the FBI

you just refuse to look at them.

[farminator3000]

125. the FBI would be the 1st to say they aren't in the 'facts' business. those are numbers that you are

using to back up a point which is fundamentally not true.

why do you do this?

if you actually even believe that more guns=less deaths, you are just plain wrong.

do you think there's a reason they don't allow guns on the Survivor tv show?

[hack89]

128. 2006 = 10,225 deaths by firearm. 2010 = 8,775 deaths

Murder Victims by Weapon, 2006–2010

2006 = 10,225 by firearm

2010 = 8,775 by firearm

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10shrtbl08.xls

[farminator3000]

130. that sure ain't 50%, says nothing about where the deaths were or what the gun laws were in place

Murder Victims by Weapon, 2006–2010

2006 = 10,225 by firearm

2010 = 8,775 by firearm EQUALS 14.1 %

just a number. means nothing really.

tell me, what word is MISSING below?

i mean, TIME MAGAZINE has a horrible rep. and all, but...

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1963761,00.html


"By 1991, the murder rate in the U.S. reached a near record 9.8 per 100,000 people. Meanwhile, criminologists began to theorize that a looming generation of so-called superpredators would soon make things even worse.

Then, a breakthrough. Crime rates started falling. Apart from a few bumps and plateaus, they continued to drop through boom times and recessions, through peace and war, under Democrats and Republicans. Last year's murder rate may be the lowest since the mid-1960s, according to preliminary statistics released by the Department of Justice. The human dimension of this turnaround is extraordinary: had the rate remained unchanged, an additional 170,000 Americans would have been murdered in the years since 1992. That's more U.S. lives than were lost in combat in World War I, Korea, Vietnam and Iraq — combined. In a single year, 2008, lower crime rates meant 40,000 fewer rapes, 380,000 fewer robberies, half a million fewer aggravated assaults and 1.6 million fewer burglaries than we would have seen if rates had remained at peak levels.

There's a catch, though. No one can convincingly explain exactly how the crime problem was solved. Police chiefs around the country credit improved police work. Demographers cite changing demographics of an aging population. Some theorists point to the evolution of the drug trade at both the wholesale and retail levels, while for veterans of the Clinton Administration, the preferred explanation is their initiative to hire more cops. Renegade economist Steven Levitt has speculated that legalized abortion caused the drop in crime. (Fewer unwanted babies in the 1970s and '80s grew up to be thugs in the 1990s and beyond.)

The truth probably lies in a mix of these factors, plus one more: the steep rise in the number of Americans in prison..."

[hack89]

134. You don't read very well, do you?

the 50% was reduction in deaths from murder and manslaughter since 1992.

Don't for get - you have never been safer.

[farminator3000]

145. i don't even have to read to know you are full of it

you are picking the worst year IN HISTORY for murders, and counting down, of course it looks good, but it is obviously a statistical cheat.

1992? why that year? oh right, its the highest so your numbers sound good.

its just so obvious.

[hack89]

148. Yet with more guns and laxer laws the rates fell for 20 years.

how is that possible? Wouldn't more guns at least keep things constant?

[farminator3000]

149. more guns means nothing- what about the number of gun OWNERS going down? means less guns in public

A study published in the Injury Prevention Journal, based on a 2004 National Firearms Survey, found that 20% of the gun owners with the most firearms possessed about 65% of the nation's guns.

A 2007 survey by the U.N's Office on Drugs and Crime found that the United States, which has 5% of the world's population, owns 50% of the world's guns.

The number of households owning guns has declined from almost 50% in 1973 to just over 32% in 2010, according to a 2011 study produced by The University of Chicago's National Opinion Research Center. The number of gun owners has gone down almost 10% over the same period, the report found

The concentration comes, in part, because guns are "marketed by and large to people who already own guns," Lizotte said.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/31/politics/gun-ownership-declining/index.html

all more guns means is people are hoarding guns

[hack89]

150. So we are on the right track it would appear

fewer gun.owners and fewer deaths. With murder rates still on the decline looks like we are on the right track.

[farminator3000]

152. but it has nothing to do with more guns. remember that part.

more guns, fewer owners has nothing to do with reduced death rates.

death rate not really reduced, just stable, non- lethal shootings up.

more cops, better doctors- less deaths

got it.

[hack89]

153. You would be wrong about non- lethal shootings being up

When you shoot someone and they survive, the crime is aggravated assault instead of murder. Aggravated assaults are down too.

1991 - population 252,153,092 - Aggravated assaults 1,092,739 - Aggravated assault rate 433.4

2010 - population 308,745,538 - Aggravated assaults 778,901 - Aggravated assault rate 252.3

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10tbl01.xls

Notice also that I added population figures and crime rates - 55 million more people, 300,000 fewer assaults and a 40% reducing in the rate.

Now that is good news don't you think?

[Fresh_Start]

29. The press needs to stop shielding the public from the victims of gun violence

show the children with their faces blown away.
Maybe that would get to the mom's in the gun nutters households even if the gun nutters are a lost cause.

[spanone]

32. thanks steve!! great work

[farminator3000]

45. check this link out

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/crime/2012/12/gun_death_tally_every_american_gun_death_since_newtown_sandy_hook_shooting.html


How Many People Have Been Killed by Guns Since Newtown?
Slate partners with @GunDeaths for an interactive, crowdsourced tally of the toll firearms have taken since Dec. 14.
By Chris Kirk and Dan Kois
Posted Monday, Dec. 31, 2012, at 9:00 AM ET

my math here:
321 dead divided by 17 days = 18.8.. PER DAY!

i see you are from nyc, i was thinking the same thing as you when i posted this:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022094575

whoa! they caught the guys already!
http://online.wsj.com/article/APaa742a9cd468476198ba0ec8c9d6759a.html

thanks!

[regjoe]

46. Your problem is with the Constitution

not a lack of awareness.

So, what "meaningful gun control," that is Constitutional and not already on the books, do you think can be enacted that will prevent "gun violence?"

Registration and confiscation are the only things that will prevent "gun violence," so when your personal opinions on "meaningful gun control" fail, are you prepared to take the next step and push for a total re-interpretation or even outright removal of the 2nd Amendment?

[stevenleser]

47. No, that is what I am talking about. Moving the needle so we can amend it. nt

[farminator3000]

52. no, you might have a problem with Scalia's latest, though

remember SCALIA wrote this, not me

"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment , nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.26"

so what were you saying about your guns again?

[regjoe]

114. I never mentioned my "guns"

Nor did I claim that the 2nd Amendment was unlimited.

What I did mention, however, is that the biggest hurdle for the anti rights people when it comes to arms is the 2nd Amendment.
From our nations founding and all throughout our history, the 2nd Amendment has guaranteed the right of the people to keep and bear arms. There has been numerous attempts to reinterpret, amend or even get rid of it, but it has always prevailed.
You can harp all you want about your personal opinion of what the opinion of a conservative justice "really" meant, but that does not change the history of the issue.

The anti rights movements best action is to amend or nullify the 2nd Amendment and the writer of this OP, Lesser, agrees.

So, what were you saying about the opinion of a conservative justice and how it supports your fears?

[billh58]

121. Your continued use of the term

"anti rights" is laughable when one considers the "rights" of the children of Sandy Hook, or the other 30,000 people who die needlessly in this country every year.

Your statement, "From our nations founding and all throughout our history, the 2nd Amendment has guaranteed the right of the people to keep and bear arms," is yet another half-truth used by the NRA and Gungeon absolutists to distort the true intent of the 2nd Amendment. Justice Burger summed it up nicely when he wrote:

"Americans also have a right to defend their homes, and we need not challenge that. Nor does anyone seriously question that the Constitution protects the right of hunters to own and keep sporting guns for hunting game any more than anyone would challenge the right to own and keep fishing rods and other equipment for fishing – or to own automobiles. To "keep and bear arms" for hunting today is essentially a recreational activity and not an imperative of survival, as it was 200 years ago. "Saturday night specials" and machine guns are not recreational weapons and surely are as much in need of regulation as motor vehicles." — Ex-Chief Justice Warren Burger, 1990

This is the aim of necessary gun control, and has absolutely nothing to do with your, and the NRA's claim that the 2nd Amendment gives anyone an absolute right to own and carry ANY type of weapon. The "all or nothing" approach that you are using as a very weak NRA argument is only designed to instill the false fear in our society that "they are coming for our guns." No, we are coming for your obscene killing machines which were designed for no other purpose than to murder other humans. We are demanding that you be accountable for your guns, and that you "keep" them responsibly. We are demanding that you "bear" them only when necessary, and only where you have a need to bear them, especially in public -- unlike your hero Zimmerman.

Your goal to disrupt DU with obscene NRA half-truths and outright lies will not work.

[regjoe]

143. Interesting OPINION

Tell me something: Do the original writings of the 2nd Amendment and the subsequent rulings on it favor your opinion of it being a priviledge that is to be limited and controlled? Or does it more favor others opinion that it is an individual right?

I am not using an "all or nothing" approach. What I am telling you is that there are already tons of laws already on the books and that there has been tons of legislation attempted that did not pass the Constitutional test. That your best bet is to do what Lesser is trying and amend the amendment, or to repeal it.
Why are you guys so afraid to call for amending or repealing the 2nd Amendment?

I have posted no "outright lies" or "half-truths," but I would be more than willing to address any that you can provide.

BTW: I do not own any "obscene killing machine," but even if I did, what you "demand" has no teeth and means nothing.

[billh58]

100. Spoken like a true NRA

clone. "The 2nd Amendment gives me the right to own as many guns as I want, to own any kind of gun that I want, and to carry them anywhere that I want."

Here's some news for you -- no it doesn't. Not even close. The 2nd Amendment does not prohibit gun control, only the NRA prohibits gun control. They have bought and intimidated politicians all across this country, and have managed to infest the USA with a gun epidemic. Even the bullshit neoconservative, Republican partisan 5-4 Heller decision recognized that gun regulation is necessary, and entirely Constitutional.

The American people are beginning to see the folly of this gun worship cult-like behavior, and they WILL demand that many of these SYG and concealed-carry bullshit laws be repealed, or strictly regulated based on need, and not "want." The American people will demand more accountability and responsibility from gun owners.

Those gun owners who are already responsible will have absolutely nothing to fear from these measures. The gun "nuts" who frequent Internet boards and shout about their "freedoms," and call for the "tree of liberty to be watered with blood," will find their arsenals dwindling, and their excessive gun habits becoming more and more expensive.

[regjoe]

115. Sigh

The fear, hostility and inability to comprehend on the part of the anti rights crusade is why there is no meaningful debate going on.

I did not state support for any of the anti rights talking points you parroted. What I did say however, is that the 2nd Amendment has been your biggest obstacle in getting legislation that will calm your fears and that you need to amend or remove it from the Bill of Rights.
Until that happens, your fear based opinions and demands mean nothing.

[billh58]

120. Of course you

stated support for the "pro-rights" bullshit that the NRA and its followers parrot. No one with an ounce of credibility believes that repealing the 2nd Amendment is an answer to anything. Using that NRA basic talking point gives you away from the git-go.

Going back to sane regulation and demanding accountability and responsibility from gun owners is the goal of what you call "anti-rights" Americans. We are not "anti-rights," but pro-gun control, although the NRA clones like you can't seem to comprehend that distinction. We are not "anti-rights" but pro-sanity and anti-NRA. To repeat, the 2nd Amendment does NOT prohibit gun control -- only the NRA prohibits gun control through bought and paid for politicians.

And contrary to your belief that "there is no meaningful debate going on," there is a shitload of meaningful debate going on right here on DU. It may not be to your, and your Gungeon buddies liking, or fit your interpretation of "meaningful," but it IS happening. The recent mass murders using weapons that should never have been sold or introduced for civilian consumption in this country is being discussed at all levels of our society now. That is meaningful, and not "anti-rights," but anti-stupidity.

[regjoe]

122. As expected, and quite typical

your lack of comprehension skills is quite obvious.
If we were speaking face to face I would have to speak slower.

1. The history of this issue, the rulings made and the support for the 2nd Amendment amongst the people, dictate that amending or repeal of the 2nd Amendment is what it will take to sate your fear. In other words, measures to register, ban, limit etc... have already failed on a national level because they did not pass Constitutional muster. That means changing or getting rid of the amendment is your best chance.
Even the writer of this OP admits his idea is to amend the amendment.

2. Support for the 2nd Amendment or daring to disagree with your fearful opinion does not make everything an NRA talking point. Your constant use of that meme is nothing but a weak atttempt to ignore what you don't want to hear.

3. I do not know one person who does not agree with the need of "gun control." Nor have I read anyone here on DU advocating such a thing.

4. The meaningful debate going on is mainly happening between those of us who understand the history of the 2nd Amendment, the history of our nation and what it will actually take to get meaningful legislation. The nuts who think we can do anything we want without respect to any of that are no better than the nuts who think any gun control is an infringement on their rights.

5. IF you think you have a solution that could pass Constitutional muster, is not already on the books and would effectively halt gun violence, I would love to hear it. Renew the AWB? Won't stop it, but I am fine with doing that. Tougher background checks? Won't do much, but I'm all for that also. Stricter "gun free" zones? Proven ineffective, but go for it.

[billh58]

123. Typical NRA response:

When you run out of viable arguments, substitute a juvenile personal attack about your opponent's "comprehension skills," and intellect. Sad, really sad.

As far as being "fearful" of guns, I spent two combat tours in Vietnam, so in a way I am a little fearful because I've seen what they are designed to accomplish up close and personal. The "NRA talking point meme" is very real, and appears with regularity by far-right posters on DU -- most of which end up eating pizza.

Now run along and pay your NRA dues, and go brag to your Gungeon buddies how you "really told those DU Lefties a thing or two."

[friendly_iconoclast]

131. "NRA" is an incantation, not a refutation.

[derby378]

137. True dat

Right out of the Brady Campaign playbook, I'll bet you - if someone supports the Second Amendment, they have to be marching in lockstep with Wayne "Call me crazy" LaPierre, right? Am I right? Anyone? Bueller?

[regjoe]

142. What is sad

is that you scream "NRA talking points" about everything that does not fit into your little box, rather than attempt to debate the merits of the argument being presented.

I in fact did present a very viable argument, one that the writer of this OP stated was the reason behind his post: to amend the 2nd Amendment.
I also gave you the chance to explain what effective legislation could be passed that would not require amending or repealing the 2nd Amendment.

I don't have to "brag" about telling anti 2nd Amendment DUers anything in order to give merit to my argument, your hostility and lack of facts does it for me.

[billh58]

144. You are still spewing

NRA talking points, and the NRA is the organization which has perverted the 2nd Amendment through bought and paid for politicians. You and the NRA are attempting to spread fear among the American public by screaming "they are coming for your guns." It isn't disrupters like you that we need to defeat, but the NRA and other right-wing anti-American organizations which spread death for profit.

And of course you need to brag about your attempts to subvert the discussion on DU, and turn it into an anti-Constitutional fuck fest.

Now go on back to your personal attacks, because that's all you got...

P.S. I'm placing you on ignore now, because I have more important things to do like donate to the Brady organization and MAIG. Your NRA talking points are just too repetitive to deal with, and you obviously have nothing else to offer.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

48. Raising awareness this way could incite fear and uneasiness.

You could very well just end up driving more people to feel the need to seek protection (get their own gun). People don't act rationally when acting out of fear. Plastering every shooting and killing all over social media will just give people a sense of being unsafe.

That's how we got to this mess to begin with. The media playing violent headlines over and over... if it bleeds it leads, so to speak. Fact is that despite people feeling more unsafe than ever, they've never been more safe in recent history. Violent crime is at 40+ year lows with a decade of downward trends... our modern media just has WAY more coverage of these events than it ever has shown. IMO, the media & public disconnect with reality is big enough to question whether there is a motive involved involved here somewhere

I don't think fear will lead to meaningful reform... people need to be logical reasoned with to achieve meaningful reform.

Interesting article on the need for a paradigm shift in crime reporting: http://www.niemanlab.org/2012/06/new-and-better-models-for-crime-reporting/
Similar blurb article from 2008: http://www.utexas.edu/features/2008/crime/

[farminator3000]

53. just awareness, thanks, you are the scared, uneasy one...

Plastering every shooting and killing all over social media will just give people a sense of being unsafe.

what a crock. pretned it isn't happening. go ahead, you can if you want. mind your own business, then. go sell more guns, while you still have a chance.

Violent crime is at 40+ year lows with a decade of downward trends...


http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/crime/2012/12/gun_death_tally_every_american_gun_death_since_newtown_sandy_hook_shooting.html

18.8 a day. deal with it.

[spanone]

78. kick for stevenleser

[GoneOffShore]

86. And another kick for the OP.

The Delicate Flowers haven't been able to close it down and I wish I could add another rec.

[farminator3000]

94. No Shortage Of Gun Violence At Start Of New Year (Huff Post) we only made it 30 minutes into 2013...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/01/new-years-homicide_n_2392665.html

PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA

The "City of Brotherly Love" could easily be christened the city of bloodshed following the events of early 2013.

Philly's first homicide occurred at about 12:30 a.m., when a 17-year-old boy was shot and killed. According to published reports, the shooting happened during an argument at a house party in West Philadelphia. No suspects in that case have been named.

Roughly two hours later, an unidentified man was shot and killed in the Frankford section of the city. Authorities suspect the shooting occurred after a fight.

A third shooting occurred in North Philadelphia at about 3 a.m. In that case three unidentified people were shot. One of the victims died at the hospital, according to police.

***

LANSING, MICHIGAN

The "Heart of Michigan" made it approximately two hours into the New Year before its first homicide.

According to Lansing police, one man died and four others were injured during a 2 a.m. fight at a north-side store. The fatality was a result of gun violence. Four others were injured and three of them are hospitalized in critical condition.

Authorities have not yet identified the victims. However, they are reportedly all local residents in their 20's. No arrests have been made.

***

cleveland, pueblo, indy, augusta....

[stevenleser]

106. Am going to repost this to the FB page of my show. nt

[farminator3000]

109. you certainly are correct about that google thing!

http://www.loscerritosnews.net/2013/01/01/update-one-killed-five-wounded-in-new-years-eve-shooting-on-alburtis-avenue-in-east-lakewood/

http://www.kcra.com/news/Police-2-dead-3-hurt-during-Old-Sac-bar-shooting/-/11797728/17963494/-/owhnvn/-/index.html

http://www.wsaz.com/breaking/home/BREAKING-NEWS-Double-Shooting-in-Mason-County-WVa-185383731.html

http://www.enquirerherald.com/2013/01/01/2247155/1-dead-in-shooting-outside-houston.html

http://www.theindychannel.com/news/local-news/police-1-dead-2-injured-in-shooting-on-southeast-side

[stevenleser]

116. All we need now is enough people to do it. I posted your links last night.

I'm going to keep doing it. We'll see what happens.

[farminator3000]

119. don't cha love the internets? cool, thanks!

i'd say it's actually the LEAST morbid thing one could do...ignoring things certainly doesn't help!

393 shot since Newtown-

338 male/ 48 female
20 teens (13-17 yrs old)
6 children

Of course, this data is incomplete. Not all reports get caught by @GunDeaths’ news alerts or his followers. Suicides, which are estimated to make up as much as 60 percent of gun deaths, typically go unreported.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/crime/2012/12/gun_death_tally_every_american_gun_death_since_newtown_sandy_hook_shooting.html

[farminator3000]

127. Little Girls Survives New Year's Shooting (sic) (come on, ABC? sp. error in the actual web address?)

Little Girls Survives New Year's Shooting

http://www.abc24.com/news/local/story/Little-Girls-Survives-New-Years-Shooting/dtkW5hO2mEWDXvbNn4kP3w.cspx?rss=59

(my emphasis)

A look at the bedroom where she was shot told the story. It was easy to see where the bullet came through the wall, hit Ray Janae where she sat drawing, bounced off a carpet and went through a wall on the other side of the room, out into the stairwell.

The results were obvious. There were bullet holes throughout the interior, blood soaking the carpets and even more blood on the walls.

“When I saw the blood coming out of her leg, I just grabbed her,” Wright told abc24.com.

After recovering from the shock, Wright rushed Ray Janae to the hospital, where the news was good; the bullet that hit her right leg didn’t do serious damage.

[farminator3000]

129. 12:33 PM EST Jan 02, 2013 - Police: Man kills self after fatally shooting girlfriend-WTAE Pittsburgh

“About 2 a.m., they just began banging on each person’s door, asking them to leave the building,” said resident the Rev. Shawn Drummond.

http://www.wtae.com/news/local/allegheny/Police-Man-kills-self-after-fatally-shooting-girlfriend/-/10927008/17982342/-/o137o3z/-/index.html?absolute=true

[billh58]

138. You may want to check out

this OP:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022113850

It seems Slate is following your advice...

[stevenleser]

139. Great stuff. thank you! nt

[jody]

140. Did you explain to your audience that CRS reports as gun number increased, murder rate decreased?

"Gun Control Legislation” by the Congressional Research Service (Nov 14, 2012) reports:

- From 1994 to 2011, firearm number [font color = ff0000 size = 3]increased[/font] from 192 million to 310+ million.

- From 1994 to 2011, firearms-related murder rates [font color = ff0000 size = 3]decreased[/font] from 6.6 to 3.2 per 100,000.

[stevenleser]

141. Farminator has posted the links debunking this already. nt

[farminator3000]

147. did you happen to mention your 'CRS report' is 118 pages long and you posted 2 lines?

did you think about the number of gun owners going down?

http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/31/politics/gun-ownership-declining/index.html

[farminator3000]

154. Sandy Hook kids face 1st classes since shooting

"I'm not worried about her going back," he said of his daughter Cynthia. "The fear kind of kicks back in a little bit, but we're very excited for her and we got to see many, many kids today. The atmosphere was very cheerful."

http://www2.nbc17.com/news/2013/jan/03/5/sandy-hook-students-head-back-school-search-new-no-ar-2905562/

Sandy Hook kids face 1st classes since shooting

[billh58]

155. Another K&R to

keep this thread going, and in the face of the Gungeoneers...