William Rivers Pitt | An Open Letter to Lovers of the Gun

[CreekDog]

Friday, 24 January 2014 10:00 By William Rivers Pitt, Truthout | Op-Ed

Two students were shot by a student at the Delaware Valley Charter School in Philadelphia on Monday. According to reports, an 18-year-old graduate of the school gave a 17-year-old student the gun that was used.

A 16-year-old student at Albany High School in Georgia was shot at approximately the same time as the student at Delaware Valley Charter was shot. The victim is expected to survive.

...

I said this on New Year's Day: "In 2010, by comparison, there were nine school shootings in America that killed seven people. In 2011, there were eleven school shootings that killed nine people. In 2012, there were fourteen school shootings - including the massacres at Sandy Hook Elementary and Oikos University - that killed 43 people. In 2013, there were twenty-three school shootings that killed nineteen people. Nine, then eleven, then fourteen, then twenty-three. If the trend holds, we can look forward to maybe thirty or forty school shootings in 2014."

I was wrong. Seven school shootings in the first month of the year means we are on pace, if this keeps up, to have no less than 84 school shootings by the end of December.

You.

Yes, you, who love your guns.

You.

I would ask what is wrong with you, but I already know: you love your guns more than you love your child, or his child, or her child, or my child. You love your guns, period.

Prove me wrong, because you haven't yet.

...

It is not the anti-gun people who are going to make this right. It is the pro-gun people who know better, who see this slaughter for what it is, who will make this right.

Seven school shootings in 24 days.

See. Be disgusted. Do something.

Read the rest at:

http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/21422-william-rivers-pitt-an-open-letter-to-lovers-of-the-gun

[Todays_Illusion]

1. You are correct Mr. Pitt, but the Democratic elected/candidates need to drop this,

It has been for several election cycles a rope the dope, get out the vote game for the Republicans.

The Republicans, conservatives and NRA, and every conservative talk radio fear and hate monger created this violent gun slinging crowd.

You are right, they own it, and they are where the legislation to stop it must originate. Republican/conservative.

Fact is the conservatives and Republicans are more afraid of their gun slinging tribe than any Democratic person must be, leave the dismantling to them.

[Skip Intro]

2. Hey, CreekDog posts a gun thread in GD!

Rules? He don't need no stinkin' rules!

[WilliamPitt]

4. U Mad Bro?

[Skip Intro]

7. nah, not really

thanks for asking, though.

[CreekDog]

44. LOL, that's funny

[Jamaal510]

223. LMAO

[JTFrog]

5. I like cjeekdog! n/t

[Electric Monk]

6. "I like CjeekDgg"

[billh58]

19. Great pic of

a typical Republican and NRA member...

[CreekDog]

25. Is your primary concern the "rules" (which I care about more than you, but I digress...) or...

is your primary concern stopping the discussion of guns where gun control is going to be the more popular opinion?

and that's a rhetorical question that your history and behavior here can be used by the rest of the readers to answer the question for themselves (if they desire to do so).

[CreekDog]

256. Skip, I'll bet in the past 5 years, you haven't gotten as many recommends as Will's column here did

so please spare us the lectures on what should and shouldn't be posted here.

posting something by Will Pitt is a lot closer to representing this community than almost anything you've posted since Obama ran for president.

[WilliamPitt]

3. I was going to post this

but wasn't sure of the rules.

Thanks. Let's see what happens next.

[Cali_Democrat]

9. The conservatives will alert on it

You can already see up thread that one of them got angry.

[CreekDog]

22. they have, there are two alerts on this already

one has registered complaints in this thread itself too.

[ReasonableToo]

145. I prefer to think of it as a "school shooting" thread primarily and...

...guns secondarily.

I hope it stays put in General Discussion.

Loopholes should be for the good guys too.

[Skip Intro]

11. The rules are pretty clear.

The adherence and enforcement, not so much.

[CreekDog]

21. you know the big rule --help Democrats, remember that one?

where are your alerts on that one?

just wondering. we'll wait for your answer.

[Skip Intro]

23. You want to talk about rules?

[CreekDog]

28. I could be insulted, but you're nicer to me than you have ever been to Obama

so say whatever you want.

[Skip Intro]

40. You can also be insuting, but that ain't news to anybody, is it? n/t

[CreekDog]

41. Not to Obama, not to Trayvon Martin...

how about you?

[Lost_Count]

118. Helping democrats would entail...

... Encouraging them to drop the proven loser of gun control.

[CreekDog]

80. you know what Will?

there are two militant gun advocates here.

and no matter how many people try to reason with them, they are intent on diverting whatever useful discussion can be had.

through every manipulation, changing the subject, introducing of red herrings and straw men, the intent is not to win the argument...

it's to make sure a proper debate doesn't happen.

it's no wonder that one of them alerted and complained that this thread even is allowed on GD.

they don't want the discussion to happen where it will have visibility and where the gun control point of view will be advocated.

short of that, they'll do whatever they can to disrupt the argument they couldn't stop from happening.

there's got to be an NRA playbook on how to do this, because the tactics are always the same.

[lisby]

183. Agreed.

Enough diversionary tactics.

[ileus]

8. Guns kill people.

[oldhippie]

186. Some people .....

... need killing. (Many people have said in various contexts.)

[Skip Intro]

10. Dear Mr. Pitt,

Since you have joined this thread, I hope you won't mind an observation and a question.

First, I doubt any gun-owners, Repub or Dem, freeper or DUer, wake up each morning overwhelmed by a desire to prove anything to you. Just an observation.

Second, what would you have all gun owners do about this tiny sliver of the actual gun violence problem in this country?

[WilliamPitt]

13. OK

First: whatever. Strawmen are always awesome until it gets windy.

Second: SECURE YOUR GUNS would be a good start. If I were able to spend a whole day spared the need to read a news article about a shot toddler who found a gun, I would dance the tango.

Your toys are dangerous. You seem to be the last group of humans on Earth who haven't figured that out yet. Put your guns away, please.

[Skip Intro]

18. Well, sir

you are the one who is asking others to prove something to you...

I would attempt to initiate a conversation about an inanimate object's inability to take action on its own, then focus on the perps who actually commit crime, but we both know that will go nowhere. Nonetheless, bad people do bad things, regardless of the law. Restricting the rights of those who respect the law will not change that.

I didn't see anything in your piece about securing guns, btw, though I do agree that gun owners should keep their guns secured.

[WilliamPitt]

24. "I didn't see anything in your piece about securing guns, btw"

Rilly.

"I am puking sick of reading every single day about how your baby, your toddler, your brother, your sister, your cousin, your niece, your nephew, blew their brains into their lap with a gun you left lying around, because freedom, or something."

Black and white.

[Skip Intro]

36. There was a sentence. My mistake on that.

Care to address the rest of the post?

[CreekDog]

38. Uh oh. You said "black and white". he's going to call that racist.

...against white people, of course.

[Voice for Peace]

120. a friend trying to follow the link to your article said the website appears to be blocked in Canada

in case that's true and useful information I am passing it along.

[jeff47]

26. :facepalm:

I would attempt to initiate a conversation about an inanimate object's inability to take action on its own, then focus on the perps who actually commit crime, but we both know that will go nowhere.

Yes, we really have to do something to stop those 2-year-olds. They certainly are criminal masterminds.

I didn't see anything in your piece about securing guns, btw

Why bother? Folks like you are talking about jailing 2-year-olds instead of gun owners being liable for not securing your guns.

[The Straight Story]

27. Well, if folks didn't blame/complain about all gun owners what would they have to do?

Less than one percent.

So over 99 percent don't shoot others, have kids find the guns and use them, etc.

66 kids are hurt a day by shopping carts. I could post roughly 3 stories an hour each day on this.

Then claim I am outraged by all of those stories and that damnit, we need to do something. For the kids. I could do the same with pools and drownings, etc and so on.

When people pretend the core of the problem is something else it leads to controlling others who are not responsible for what happened in the first place. But that is so much easier to do.

Pass a new law. And another. Keep passing them. You will end up with thousands of laws that those same people are going to ignore because the reason they are doing what they are is not what they own. Common sense laws that say don't rob, shoot, murder, etc have been in place a long time. We punish people who do those things. Now we want to punish people we think could possibly maybe do something that some minority of people do.

[jeff47]

31. Then why don't you solve the problem?

Less than one percent.

So over 99 percent don't shoot others, have kids find the guns and use them, etc.

You'd think if the problem was so small, the people who love their guns so much would solve it.

The percentages of households with a gun have been plummeting. It's not going to be very long before there's enough political power against gun ownership to ban them. Even if it takes a constitutional amendment.

So if you are so concerned about keeping your guns, you should probably solve the problem before we do.

[The Straight Story]

39. I don't own a gun.

I am not gay and not a woman, but I also speak up about gay marriage and abortion.

It is not guns people love so much, it is something called rights.

Other people only the george bush's and wealthy people of the world to have certain things, because they only trust them. Our fellow citizen is the new enemy/terrorist. We should fear each other. Let's take away all we can from each other and put it in the hands of the few cause that will make us much more safe.

[jeff47]

42. Argument is still the same.

If it's such a tiny fraction, you'd think you could solve the problem.

You don't solve it, we'll solve it our way. Even if you don't like our way.

[The Straight Story]

43. I don't like drunk drivers. Let's ban alcohol too.

Seems to be the method some prefer.

[jeff47]

46. Still doesn't change the argument.

You can solve the problem, or we will solve the problem.

You claim it's a tiny problem. So solve it. It's tiny.

However, people might notice that you're busy throwing about slogans instead of solving it.

[Skip Intro]

48. We must ban cars. Think how many lives would be saved!

Let only government officials and police have cars!

We must ban cars...for the children!

Anyone who opposes banning cars loves cars more than the lives of children!

[CreekDog]

57. Cars are regulated already

do you have a problem with cars being regulated?

[Skip Intro]

60. Do you value cars over the lives of children? n/t

[CreekDog]

77. how many different games are you trying to play in this one thread?

seriously.

you're trying to say we favor banning all guns (I don't), but since we don't favor banning all cars that we care about cars more than children?

this is such massive BS that instead of lecturing me on the rules, if I were you, I would pay attention to the Terms of Service.

this kind of BS gets you banned from DU.

seriously.

[Skip Intro]

84. CreekDog, you mad bro?

Last edited Fri Jan 24, 2014, 10:19 PM - Edit history (1)

Can't handle a tiny taste of your own medicine?

[lisby]

185. It's not medicine you're dishing, it's something else.

With two letters. And the first one is B.

Guns exist for one reason: to kill and injure.

Cars exist for many more reasons and are regulated nearly completely.

Toddlers and small children do not have access to car keys, nor go on joy rides on any regular basis.

Trying to conflate the two is problematic to your argument rather than helpful.

[Duckhunter935]

89. What guns do you want to ban?

[LittleBlue]

70. Aaaaaand this is where the argument breaks down

You make a good point. The banning of guns will be even less successful than Prohibition.

They are too much a part of our culture to ever be banned. Not to mention the constitution. It's silly talk.

[RetroLounge]

96. I hear the same thing from right wingers

RL

[CreekDog]

105. you just did

[RetroLounge]

108. LOL!

RL

[madinmaryland]

97. If we are going to ban cars, we have to ban ALL modes of transportation, including ALL horses.

Who the hell would have known that the only use for trains, planes, automobiles, horses, elephants is ONLY to kill people.

[Warren Stupidity]

49. both alcohol and motor vehicles are highly regulated.

analogy fail.

[The Straight Story]

52. Really? Do you have to keep alcohol locked up? Can anyone buy it?

And do those people who buy it give to kids (I am sure you have seen such stories).

How many people die because of alcohol? How many commit crimes while on it or attempting to get money for it?

Domestic violence, violence in general, including shooting people - all have ties to alcohol.

[Warren Stupidity]

55. I did not say "regulated identically" did I?

Guns in fact need to be locked up when not in use, and by law, not by best practice on your honor, and the failure to do so that results in any misuse of a gun ought to come with really serious penalties.

I'm sure you are able to look up the stats on alcohol fatalities. Not sure what your point is, we regulate alcohol. We don't regulate guns. We should regulate both, as they are both dangerous, appropriately.

[The Straight Story]

61. 45 million plus own guns. Do you favor daily house to house checks by the government?

And do we not regulate guns? How will you know if they are locked up? More laws so now we will have more people to jail? Oh - I see, then we will have more people breaking gun laws and we can label them criminals. Good idea. Let's get some of those wonderful cops who plant drugs, beat people, etc to go into the homes of people doing things we don't like so that we can 'feel' more safe.

Brilliant.

[spin]

229. Actually 40 to 45 million people in America own a handgun. 70 to 80 million own ...

a firearm.

source: http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

[Electric Monk]

53. You're playing chess with a pigeon

(to paraphrase another analogy I saw earlier today)

[billh58]

50. Due to the enactment of strict laws

and very active enforcement of those laws, there are far fewer drunk drivers now than there were a few years ago. Couldn't the same approach be used to reduce gun violence in this country?

[The Straight Story]

56. Already less than one percent of people with guns use them to harm others

That is in line statistically with other things (from pool ownership to cars etc and so on).

You will always have some people who will do what they will no matter the laws you make - so the point is now, since we already have a slew of laws, is to look at the causes for their actions.

If you believe owning a gun is the cause of the action then you would be mistaken as the numbers show the exact opposite. You could post over 40 million stories a year about people who didn't do anything at all wrong and own guns. Flood the news with it. But when all you hear is the negative about something it creates a bias and a stereotype in the mind.

You want the vast majority to comply with laws they already comply with. The problem is the few - try to understand why they don't conform instead of trying to make new things for them not to conform to.

[CreekDog]

59. and what is the percentage of people who don't have guns that use guns to harm others?

probably less than the 1 percent huh?

[The Straight Story]

63. If you inlcude tax payers who fund our military and vote?

Probably higher.

[CreekDog]

71. don't try to change the subject

one of the reason i generally don't engage gungeoners and the folks that argue as they do is that they are always working off the script, the talking points, moving the argument in a dishonest way away from not only what we were arguing about, but away from the facts of the topic they just shifted from.

nice try.

[billh58]

73. I agree with your assertion that

"you will always have some people who will do what they will no matter the laws you make," and the same is true for drunk drivers. I am not advocating imposing undue restrictions on law-abiding citizens, but focusing on criminals and irresponsible gun owners in the same fashion that we have used to steadily reduce automobile deaths.

I advocate automatic jail time for the illegal possession and/or carry of a gun, with much harsher penalties for the use of a firearm in the commission of a crime (extended minimum sentences). I advocate the same harsh treatment of those caught in the straw purchase of a gun for someone else. I advocate universal background checks, and a national database which includes mental health and criminal histories. I advocate gun registration and licensing for all handguns, and the mandatory safe storage of all guns.

I realize that these are all controversial subjects, and that there are good arguments both pro and con -- but we need to at least start the conversation somewhere. As with all compromise, each side must be willing to address the problem (gun violence) and negotiate a reasonable solution.

The right-wing NRA and other gun lobby groups have falsely framed the argument into an "us and them" shouting match by using fear tactics such as "the Democrats are coming for your guns." The Democratic Party platform does NOT advocate the confiscation of guns, and in fact states support for the Second Amendment.

http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/Democratic_Party_Gun_Control.htm

Let's start with the premise that guns are potentially very dangerous weapons, and are a public health menace when in the hands of criminals and the mentally incompetent, and work from there to find some common ground on how best to address a solution.

[NYC_SKP]

233. That's what most Second Amendment supporters advocate, UBCs and harsh penalties for lawbreakers.

But, failing that, we could look to other countries.

More than one country with close ties to America has harsh penalties without the gun free zone nonsense:

Here's a country with less than 1/5 our gun violence per capita:



Here's a tale about another country with similarly lower firearm related death rates:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/switzerland.asp

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/02/08/why-switzerland-has-so-many-guns/

In each country, gun are registered and training is required to keep most of these firearms, I believe.

Aloha.

[RetroLounge]

95. Perfect example of the same arguments used by the right-wing

RL

[The Straight Story]

125. So, in other words, the logic is sound so you play the 'rw does it too!' card

Some folks on the right said it was cold here in Ohio today. I guess I have to now say it is warm and magically it is.

Cute.

[RetroLounge]

192. Well, unless one paid attention to the history of one posting the same right-wing arguments

year after year after year.

One might have a point then.

RL

[former9thward]

62. "we'll solve it our way."

If you have the power to "solve it" then why don't you?

[jeff47]

65. Because we don't have the power. Yet.

As mentioned above, the number of homes with a gun are dropping, and there's no indication that the trend will stop. As a result, there's fewer and fewer voters who are passionate about guns.

So we'll reach a point in the somewhat near future where gun owners are sufficiently outnumbered that they can no longer dictate the terms of the debate.

[former9thward]

72. The number of people owning guns is not dropping.

Gun ranges have never been more crowded. More guns are sold every year than the year before. I would never tell the truth to some stranger calling and asking if I had a gun in my home. It would be like telling them I had jewelry or large amounts of cash in the house. Who would tell a complete stranger on the phone that information?

You also make the mistake that people who do not own guns do not support the rights of people who do.

Show me someone who shares your views and gets anywhere running for President.

[jeff47]

75. There's a reason I said "households" and not "number of guns sold".

The fact that you don't like the statistics does not change them.

I would never tell the truth to some stranger calling and asking if I had a gun in my home.

Good thing that's not how they do all the surveys then.

You also make the mistake that people who do not own guns do not support the rights of people who do.

Such people make up a small fraction of the non-gun owners. Also, the gun owners are still dictating the terms of the debate. As a result, people who want gun control are not given any real exposure.

Show me someone who shares your views and gets anywhere running for President.

Apparently you don't understand the term "yet".

[former9thward]

83. Yet?

Who is running (or potentially running) in 2016 that supports your position? The alcohol prohibitionists have never given up that their day will come again either.

[A Simple Game]

101. Finally a breath of fresh air, a gun owner that is honest!

I love how you admit that owning a gun is not a deterrent to being robbed, but is in actuality an incentive for thieves to rob you. Statistics also show that a gun in the house is more likely to harm a family member than to prevent a robbery. Makes little sense to have one, doesn't it.

It seems obvious to me that you also know that historically the vast majority of guns in America were used by their owners to rob people and not to defend their property.

I don't know about gun ranges, but you forgot to mention that people that hunt are steadily declining.

You really know people that don't own guns that want to see more guns in society? Why would they?

People running for President go to great pains not to alienate anyone, even gun owners.

Sadly the tipping point is fast approaching, gun owners have little time left to police themselves. Too bad.

[former9thward]

102. "the tipping point is fast approaching"

Yes and so is the second coming and the end of the world. Or so I am told. Always just around the corner...

[cherokeeprogressive]

126. "historically the vast majority of guns in America were used by their owners to rob people..."

Wut?

[A Simple Game]

190. With a user name like yours you should be able to figure it out.

Hint: How did the Europeans get most of the land in the United States.

[LittleBlue]

79. Cool story, bro. From a Gallup poll

It's actually been going steadily pro-handgun for over 50 years. Were you aware of this?

Anyway keep dreaming

[jeff47]

81. And already covered that.

But hey, someone as smart as you can actually read a thread before posting, right?

The gun owners have set the terms of the debate until now. That's going to change as the number of households with guns falls.

Now, most people understand what the future tense is.

[LittleBlue]

82. "I covered that"

You can't cover something that shoots your argument straight to hell

[cherokeeprogressive]

132. The "number of households with guns" is completely irrelevant.

The number of VOTERS who believe the Second Amendment prohibits the federal government from infringing upon the right of the individual to own one is.

I would point you to to Article V of the US Constitution.

Have at it. I will happily abide by whatever the citizens in 3/4ths of the states in the Union decide.

[lisby]

187. What I find really amusing here

is that you have managed to change the topic from securing your weapons to banning all your weapons by the usual spewing of diversions. The point Mr. Rivers was making was to secure your weapons and keep them out of the hands of children and others who can use them to hurt themselves and each other and YOU. You cannot seem to understand that there is a middle ground between banning all your darling weapons and merely acting like a responsible owner of these little death dealers and locking them up where your baby can't get them to blow his brother's brains all over your living room wall.

It all or nothing with you lot. It's hysteria-all-the-time-they're-coming-for-my-little-metal-buddies instead of just doing the right thing and then making excuses for it.

[Skip Intro]

100. SLAM! Thanks for the poll, LittleBlue. n/t

[NYC_SKP]

137. Interesting.

I hadn't seen that before.

[yuiyoshida]

220. Nor have I ...

Leave it to DU to come up with all kinds of great info.

[NYC_SKP]

221. Hey!

Unrelated to the discussion but since we are neighbors, aren't we lucky for the warmer weather, compared to the rest of the US?

But we need rain badly!

[yuiyoshida]

228. oh!!!

Its a LOVELY San Francisco day!!

[AtheistCrusader]

158. If we're already below 50% what's your holdup?

[spin]

231. How was it determined that the number of homes with firearms has dropped? ...

A surveyor came to the door of a home and interviewed the residents or they responded to a phone survey.

Many people that I know who are gun owners would NEVER tell a stranger that they had a firearm in their home. In some cases their neighbors and even members of their family don't know they own firearms. I know that they do own firearms as I shoot at ranges with them.

My daughter worked for the last census and she ran across a lot of people who refused to tell her how many people lived in their home or obviously lied about the number. She had a good number of doors slammed in her face as many people distrust our government so much that they had absolutely no desire to talk to a census taker.

Of course you can choose to believe the propaganda pushed by gun control advocates that fewer and fewer homes have firearms inside. I will just remind you that after the tragic school shooting at the Sandy Hook Elementary School, there were long lines at every gun show in the nation and gun stores sold almost every firearm they had on their shelves as well as all the ammo. Many buyers were purchasing their first firearm as they feared that it would no longer be possible in the future.

Gun sales hit new record, ammo boom to follow
Background checks show peak is reached after a record year
By David Sherfinski-The Washington Times Monday, January 6, 2014

Gun records checks, fueled by a post-Newtown boom of gun sales, hit a new high in 2013, and industry analysts expect ammunition to be the big seller this year as consumers catch up to all of those firearms purchases.

More than 21 million applications were run through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System last year, marking nearly an 8 percent increase and the 11th straight year that the number has risen.

Background checks serve as a proxy for the number of gun sales, which soared in the months immediately after the December 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shootings. But NICS checks plummeted in November and December compared with a year earlier, suggesting that the boom may be over.
“2013 was the best year for firearm sales (commercial, domestic) in history — period! That’s true for NH to Hawaii,” said Richard Feldman, president of the Independent Firearm Owners Association in Rindge, N.H. “Ruger alone sold well over one million guns this year.”
Read more: http://p.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jan/6/boom-for-guns-likely-to-trigger-rush-on-ammo/#ixzz2rShbJlUq

[AtheistCrusader]

157. What do you mean, 'if'.

Depending on which poll you believe there are between 45-60 million gun-owning households in the US, holding north of 300 million firearms total.

Do the math.

You have unrealistic expectations of 'solved'.

[madinmaryland]

94. "it is a right" That has been obscenely interpreted by the NRA and their gun-loving supporters...

Some who even post on DU.

[The Straight Story]

133. Always with the 'gun loving' from some folks, is that because

saying you are against the rights of people sounds bad or something?

It is not simply 'guns' it is where our rights end and the those of government start. You have a right to own to a car, though not to drive it. Anyone can buy one. And people can own guns as well - but guess what, they can't rob/kill with them.

You should be able to own and smoke pot but some people want to trust the government more than the people and they would rather put people in prison/jail for owning a plant because it is 'the right thing to do'. I don't smoke pot but still think it is the right of people to grow it, do you think the government, since it didn't mention it in the constitution/bill of rights/etc should be throwing people in prison for growing a plant? It is not a right! Didn't see the word 'pot' mentioned anywhere.

And abortion? Not mentioned either.

Guess we can conclude that we have inherent rights, or should we say we have only the rights we will allow those rich old white men in DC to have? They know best and if they say guns and abortion are bad for us kids we should listen to them and hand them over - and don't argue with them because the nra argues with them and if you do so than you are equal to them and all they believe and say.

Or something like that. Not sure how that logic works.

[madinmaryland]

154. What "right" are you referring to, my friend? The bastardized "right" that says that you can kill

someone that you don't like because of their looks or because you hate the sight of their back?????

The right that says a "well-regulated"...

Sadly, in this country, gun merchants and gun owners cannot even be held responsible for the misuse of the instruments of death, unlike most any other tool. You can thank the nra for that. Oh, and the "rich old white men" are beholden to the nra and would never do anything to put an end to the nra's nonsense.

[cherokeeprogressive]

211. What "right" says "well-regulated? What the fuck does that even mean?

Learn what The Bill of Rights is...

What it ISN'T is a statement of your rights. What it IS, is a statement limiting the power of the federal government.

I'm not even the brightest knife in the shed and I know that much. Jesus.

[oneshooter]

64. With the exeption of the one on my side, all of mine ARE locked up.

So what else do you want me to do?

[jeff47]

68. You're the one trying to keep the guns.

So you should probably be thinking about how to fix it before the political winds shift sufficiently towards our side.

[oneshooter]

91. You're not answering the question.

Are you scared to, or just don't have an answer.

[Warren Stupidity]

179. Make it a legal requirement with severe penalties for failure to comply.

[oneshooter]

194. And how do you propose to prove"failure to comply".

[Warren Stupidity]

195. Well, lets see, I suppose in Moar Gunz Wurld, door to door daily searches.

Or, for example, your toddler blows his brains out with your gun you left loaded by the bed because ZOMBIES, and you go to jail for a very, very long time.

As a gun grabbing librul I of course go for option 1.

[oneshooter]

197. So you only have insults and ignorence to answer with.

Typical.

[Warren Stupidity]

199. "So you only have insults and ignorence to answer with."

I rest my case.

[Electric Monk]

209. Is it wrong to laugh at the way he spelled 'ignorance'?

ig·no·rance
/ˈignərəns/

noun: ignorance

1.lack of knowledge or information.
"he acted in ignorance of basic procedures"

synonyms: incomprehension of, unawareness of, unconsciousness of, unfamiliarity with, inexperience with, lack of knowledge about, lack of information about; informal cluelessness about
"a statement that shows a complete ignorance of the regulations"

lack of knowledge, lack of education, unenlightenment, illiteracy;
lack of intelligence, stupidity, foolishness, idiocy
"both ignorance and poverty contribute to the growing problem of forced child labor"

[Warren Stupidity]

210. yes it is wrong, very very wrong.

But the irony is killing me.

[cherokeeprogressive]

222. Says the guy who spells more "moar", guns "gunz", and world "wurld". Irony you can cut with a knife.

[rdharma]

230. What do I want you to do?

Don't accidentally shoot yourself..... or some innocent person around you.

[CreekDog]

245. So you carry a gun while alerting gun threads in GD

Paranoid perhaps?

[oneshooter]

249. In my own home, on my own property, I shall do as I please.

And you shall have no say on what I do.

[Skip Intro]

252. Some here think you answer to them, you know.

But that fits right in with their extreme minority view that they somehow have the authority and power to come into your personal life and make your personal decisions for you.

You will only be led down a road of bullshit should you respond to their childish games, especially with the one you're responding to. My advice is to not waste your time, because they're not here for discussion, they're here to disrupt it.

[Electric Monk]

262. "Childish games"? That's hilarious, coming from someone who was caught red-handed alert stalking

themselves to pretend you had an alert stalker making DU suck for you. You know, that whole "I like CjeekDgg" thing. I'm sure you remember.

[CreekDog]

255. Please tone down your paranoia, okay?

I'm not telling you what to do.

I'm telling others what you do.

[oneshooter]

260. Why, don't you believe that they can read for themselves?

You're like a talking head on TV, "Hi! I'm here to tell you what you just heard somebody else said."

[calimary]

90. THIS^^^^

"So if you are so concerned about keeping your guns, you should probably solve the problem before we do."

Indeed, jeff47. Agreed.

[Skip Intro]

33. +100. Excellent post! n/t

[LanternWaste]

30. No true Scottish gun owners...

"Nonetheless, bad people do bad things, regardless of the law. Restricting the rights of those who respect the law will not change that...."



No true Scottish gun owners...

[abelenkpe]

67. Secure your guns

Gun owners should be required by law to keep their guns locked and away from children. It would save so many lives. I don't understand why that's so difficult to accomplish.

[oneshooter]

76. With the exception of the one on my side, all of my firearms are locked up.

What else do you want me to do?

[IveWornAHundredPants]

140. You walk around with a gun?

Why would you want to do that? It sounds uncomfortable. How can you relax that way? I'm legitimately curious. Maybe you don't relax; maybe you sit rigidly in a cane chair all evening with your eyes darting back and forth and your hand hovering over the butt of your gun until it's time to go to bed. Sounds fun.

Here's what I would ask you to do, if I were going to ask you anything and if I thought you'd even consider doing it: change your mindset. Keep your locked up popguns, keep the one holstered at a jaunty angle on your hip, strap Chewbacca bandoliers across your chest for all I care and jump up and down like Yosemite Sam shooting holes in your ceiling. But while you're doing that, imagine there's a growing societal feeling that guns aren't all that cool or great or healthy or useful, just as with smoking. (Not that I care if you smoke either.) Imagine someone who would genuinely be baffled at why anyone not living in a war zone would want a gun with them at all times, and then be that person.

That would be my request, if I were to bother making one.

[oneshooter]

148. And that is part of the problem.

Why should I bother to tell anything to a condescending, insulting individual such as yourself. You need to change your mindset, by approaching me with that line of insulting bullshit you have marked yourself as a person who really doesn't care about anybody that doesn't think like you do.
And that is a very "progressive" attitude?

[IveWornAHundredPants]

150. When you end your posts with "What else do you want me to do?"

as if there's nothing you can do, as if you're not part of the problem, then you kind of invite it.

Buried within my line of insulting bullshit is a serious point. In saying "you're a part of the problem," I don't mean you're out shooting people or fantasizing about doing so. But the problem is one of attitude: the idea that guns are here and not only can nothing be done about that, nothing should be done about it, because that's just the way America is. That's the problem, and that's what you and your sneering "what do you want me to do?" are part of.

You clearly think it's normal to have a gun around you all the time. It isn't. That's neither here nor there, because "normal" isn't all it's cracked up to be, as most of us here know. But I don't think it's very healthy either, and that's why the dudes strapped to the teeth who are all "Huh? What are you looking at?" tend to get my hackles raised.

[Starboard Tack]

189. You are talking to someone who places more value on his tools than on human life.

Mind you, he's not the only one around here who thinks his shit is worth killing for. The reasoning being that if his tools are stolen, he will lose a few days work while replacing them and this might damage his reputation for being reliable. The tools are insured btw. Now, I think we all sympathize with someone who has anything stolen, but would we respect them more for shooting the thief?

[oneshooter]

196. I place a value on my tools, the thiefs decided that the value was too high for them.

They left, no shots were fired. Many of the jigs and tools that I use were made by me. They can be replaced, but not in a "day or two".
They pulled weapons first.
Apparently you own nothing that you consider of value.

[Starboard Tack]

212. I own nothing I'm prepared to kill for.

Your tools are insured, yet still worth killing for. Yes, they were armed, you say with knives. Did they attack you with those knives? Did they point them at you, or make to throw them at you?
BTW, I'm not saying I wouldn't have done the same as you, in that situation, except I couldn't because I wouldn't have been wearing a gun. My point here is, not that you did the right or wrong thing, but that you ran the risk of escalating a bad situation when you drew your weapon. Fortunately, it worked out well for all concerned. The other thing is, that instances such as yours are categorized as DGU's by people like Kleck.

[oneshooter]

225. Even your own life? n/t

[Starboard Tack]

232. My life I will defend and if necessary, kill to preserve.

Same with the lives of others, but not inanimate objects. If I were to kill someone over material goods, then I would no longer own my life, What is life without a soul?

[Hoyt]

203. Like gun toting, gun promotion, and gun profiteering are so progressive, oneshooter?

[oneshooter]

226. Again your personnel hatred of firearms and firearm owners colors your every post.

[lisby]

184. Why does this common sense from you engender such rage?

What you are saying is self-evident. And yet all the BS that rolls in about guns as poor innocent objects that, left to their own devices, would never, ever, ever hurt anyone. They'd really rather just have cake and tea, please. Or maybe get a makeover at the mall. They're just poor innocent guns, after all.

It's not like their entire purpose is to kill things, now is it?

[tavalon]

207. I know you've always felt this way, Will,

but isn't it amazing what looking into your beautiful child's eyes will do to make this a burning and personal issue?

For me, it became personal during my two years as an ER nurse. I've had brain's drip on my shoes. Most were not children but enough were that I will never own a gun. I've shot a gun, at a gun range, toward a paper zombie and found out I have killer aim. I put the gun down and walked away. If there comes a zombie apocalypse, I will rethink my choice. But as it stands now, I do not want guns near me or mine. Period.

And no, I don't buy the concept that guns kill people. People aiming and firing guns at people kill people.

I'm with Molly Ivins, let's ban guns and allow knives. It's much harder to do a huge amount of damage with knives and as an added bonus, it encourages physical fitness, because, after all, who is going to stand still to be knifed? They'll run and the knife wielder will run and physical fitness will abound.

I know we will only reign this in by slow increments, but if I were queen, I would gather them all up and melt 'em down. Exactly what the gun nuts are afraid of. Lucky for them, I'll never be queen.

[RetroLounge]

93. I like cjeekdog!

RL

[billh58]

12. I believe that the

right-wing (ALEC, the Koch Bros, the NRA, the Republican Party) has framed this battle the same way they framed the abortion fight. The terms "anti-gun," and "pro-gun" are meaningless but very effective in stirring up emotions on both sides of the argument. This reduces the issue to a very Republican "you're either with us, or you're against us" frame of argument and prevents compromise. The result is, at this point, a perception that "anti-gun" means the repeal of the Second Amendment, and "pro-gun" means total alignment with the NRA and a "cold-dead-hands" stance.

The correct framework for solving the gun violence epidemic in this nation should address the gun holder, AND the gun. The discussions should include qualifications for possession of a gun to include (among other factors) universal background checks for mental fitness, and any history of criminal or anti-social behavior. The type of weapons suitable for civilian use should be determined and agreed upon by reasonable persons from both sides of the argument, with a particular focus on handguns -- especially the concealed carry of handguns in the public venue.

The illegal possession and carry of guns under any circumstances should result in automatic jail time, and harsher penalties when guns are used in the commission of a crime (extended minimum sentences).

It's not the gun, it's the idiot with the gun. After we have begun to solve the gun violence problem in the USA, we can then work on knives, forks, axes, swords, swimming pools, etc. Automobile deaths are already being addressed and are falling, and gun deaths are forecast to exceed automobile deaths in just a couple of years.

[sked14]

14. "and gun deaths are forecast to exceed gun deaths in just a couple of years."

I think you meant to say the gun deaths are forecast to exceed automobile deaths in just a couple of years.
BTW, I liked your post and agree with it.

[billh58]

15. Thanks for the catch.

My auto proof-reader is on the blink today...

[lancer78]

205. Actually

The mentality of a gun banner and an abortion banner are exactly the same. Both want to ban the symptom, yet do nothing to cure the disease which causes the symptom in the first place.

[billh58]

208. There is that NRA lie

being swallowed hook, line, and sinker again. Unlike the right-wingers and abortion, Democrats do not want to "ban" guns, but instead we want to enact legislation aimed at reducing gun violence and making the acquisition of guns by those who shouldn't have them more difficult.

We want universal background checks and a national database that includes histories of mental incompetence, and criminal or other anti-social activity. Most Democrats advocate mandatory gun registration and licensing, along with a minimum amount of gun safety education. We advocate mandatory jail time for the possession and carry of illegal firearms, and extended sentences for the use of a gun during the commission of a crime. The same harsh penalties should be applied to anyone caught making a straw purchase for someone else (to exclude legitimate gifts).

So when you buy into the NRA lie that "Democrats want to confiscate your guns," you are supporting ALEC and the Koch Brothers in their efforts to flood this country with more and more illegal guns for pure profits, and for no other reason.

http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/Democratic_Party_Gun_Control.htm

[Tikki]

16. I'm just going to say it…The students died doing what the gun user loved most…using a gun to shoot..

children and young adults.

I wonder, sometimes, if gun owners, at some level, consider it an honor to shoot to kill and a honor to die
at the end of a gun barrel!!!


Tikki

[billh58]

17. To the die-hard

Second Amendment absolutist gun culture, it's the American Way, and the main reason we fought for independence.

[SCantiGOP]

34. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness

Not a coincidence they are in that order. Without life, the guarantees of the 1st, 2nd or whatever amendments are pretty irrelevant. I don't advocate taking handguns from law-abiding, sane citizens, and I don't advocate taking legitimate hunting rifles, but I would restrict and confiscate military type weapons.

[JDPriestly]

20. This.

"It is not the anti-gun people who are going to make this right. It is the pro-gun people who know better, who see this slaughter for what it is, who will make this right."

In Switzerland, nearly everyone has a gun. But you don't see the kind of gun violence there that you do here. Now, this is a challenge to those who like having guns, especially to conservatives who like guns: show us that American gun-owners can self-regulate how they use their guns.

After all, guns don't kill, people with guns kill.

[billh58]

32. You are correct that

"in Switzerland nearly everyone has a gun," but the ammunition is tightly controlled:

"Switzerland keeps only a small standing army, and relies much more heavily on its militia system for national defense. This means that most able-bodied civilian men of military age keep weapons at home in case of a national emergency. These weapons are fully automatic, military assault rifles, and by law they must be kept locked up. Their issue of 72 rounds of ammunition must be sealed, and it is strictly accounted for. This complicates their use for criminal purposes, in that they are difficult to conceal, and their use will be eventually discovered by the authorities."

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-switzerland.htm

Other interesting statistics at the link...

[JDPriestly]

35. Very interesting. Thanks.

[CreekDog]

214. And still, their gun death rate is higher than neighboring countries

The strict regulation is very effective yet guns are potent beyond almost anything.

[billh58]

215. Too true,

but it is still minuscule compared to the USA. It does, however, support the supposition that more guns inevitably equals more gun deaths.

[CreekDog]

236. Yes I agree with your posts

If you're going to have more guns, regulate more like Switzerland.

[lancer78]

206. Thats because

the Swiss are only allowed 20 rounds of ammunition to be in their possession, and are inspected regularly to make sure no rounds have been improperly shot.

[mnhtnbb]

29. If anyone ever gets a chance to see Mike Daisey perform his new show, The Story of the Gun,

I recommend it. It was commissioned by our UNC PlayMakers Repertory Company and premiered here.

http://www.broadwayworld.com/raleigh/article/BWW-Reviews-Daiseys-THE-STORY-OF-THE-GUN-is-a-Conversation-Starter-20140112

[L0oniX]

37. How do you get someone who doesn't want to feel like they need a gun...

to not have one? Insult them? Tell them to move to some peaceful country or another neighbourhood? Is there some way people can feel safe with just the cops to protect them? Hell ...the cops can be dangerous too. Countries that have banned guns have a lot more strong arm robberies and home robberies. Many gun owners do not love guns. Calling them "gun lovers" is not going to help. I don't know what the solution is but insulting people is not going to work and is not constructive. We are a militarized country. We have a long history of war. We have a long history of gun ownership. We have a media that in the past has glorified the use of guns and we still have a media that glorifies gun use. I wish there was a good way to stop the gun violence but the only solution is to settle for no guns. Criminals will still get them and use them and knives will be used and criminals with a lot of mussel and body size will commit strong arm robbery.

[Packerowner740]

162. You are not going to get anywhere with most of this group when it comes to name calling and insults

I have asked the sake question as you. What good does the name calling do but all I got was insults, accusations on parroting NRA talking points and accusations of being pro gun. One member even saying a number of times that I "own a number of guns if I remember correctly". When I challenged the person to show how/where I own guns he never produced any proof, (I don't own any guns by the way).

I believe in gun safety, there needs to be something done but I agree with you that the name calling and insults do no good.

[grantcart]

45. Rule Number One

Never try to reason to a person about their fetish.


Its like bringing a knife to a gun fight.

[wercal]

47. I like cars

But I don't like people who drive recklessly or drunk and endanger other people.

Still, even though some people abuse cars, I choose to continue driving one.

[Captain Stern]

113. 2 sentances. 1 great point.

Roughly, the same amount of people are killed each year by guns as are killed by automobiles.

I think that we could reduce the amount of deaths by automobile a great deal by enacting a national speed limit of 10mph. I don't think anyone would seriously argue that deaths caused by car accidents wouldn't drop a lot if cars couldn't go faster than 10 mph.

However, I don't want a national speed limit of 10 mph. My two hour drive to the beach with the existing speed limits would turn into a 12 hour drive. My 15 minute commute to work would turn into almost a 2 hour drive. I understand that not having a national speed limit of 10 mph will result in thousands of people dieing. I wish that wasn't true, and I certainly hope that it isn't me or any of my loved ones that die...but I'm willing to take my chances, because only being able to drive 10 mph would suck.

I feel the same way about guns. I don't own a gun..never have. But I don't have a problem with people that do own guns. It just doesn't bother me. I'm sure less people would die if there were no guns in this country, but I'm not for taking guns away from millions of people because 1% of them are irresponsible. I'm for regulating guns the same way we regulate vehicles (licensing, registration, etc)

[tiny elvis]

169. i keep two cars hidden under my coat

i am always ready for a shoot-by driving

[Martin Eden]

178. Imagine no guns. Then, imagine no cars.

All of a sudden, all the guns disappear; poof -- they're gone!
What negative impact would that have?
What positive impact would that have?

All of a sudden, all the cars disappear; poof -- they're gone!
What negative impact would that have?
What positive impact would that have?

This is an exercise in hypothetical thinking, but just as valid as arguing that cars are relevant in a debate about guns.

Personally, I think cars are just about the worst form of transportation we could have devised. Besides catastrophic injuries and deaths we spend astronomical sums of money buying cars, maintaining cars, insuring cars, on roads, on parking lots, on traffic police, on the courts, etc. The infrastructure for the automobile takes up vast amounts of real estate compared to modern light rail, and cars transform a huge volume finite energy resources into pollution and greenhouse gases.

I think we should have started replacing roads with a comprehensive public transportation system decades ago, but if all cars suddenly disappeared it would bring the economy to a halt because the other transportation options are inadequate for everyone's commute.

If all guns suddenly disappeared, I think there would be very little if any negative impact while the positives are very clear.

[cherokeeprogressive]

51. My gunz are kept in a safe. Always. Glad I could help.

I would add the safe is in a part of my house where children are not allowed.

[Warren Stupidity]

58. Good for you. Surely you would support laws requiring your excellent gun practices.

[cherokeeprogressive]

69. I do wholeheartedly, and have stated as much many times.

I also support universal background checks for every transfer of ownership, and have stated as much.

[Cali_Democrat]

74. Always in a safe, eh?

So you don't regularly keep a gun on your nightstand with a full mag and a round in the chamber?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022338549


...just when you're feeling a little more frightened than usual?

[cherokeeprogressive]

87. I was in the house alone. Dorner's truck was abandoned half a mile away.

My neighborhood is 90% weekend rentals and second homes, and was filled with LE all night.

Was this supposed to be a gotcha? Try harder.

[Cali_Democrat]

88. It's OK if you were home alone and scared.

Most gun owners are scared of their own shadow, but are afraid to admit. Some even pack heat when they go to the movies or go grocery shopping.

They won't admit to being scared cowards, but the evidence suggests otherwise.

At least you don't have that issue.

[cherokeeprogressive]

104. No, I don't have that issue.

And you've posted some stupid shit before, but your claim that "Most gun owners are scared of their own shadow" pretty much takes the cake.

You slay me. You really do.

[beevul]

112. How is it?

"Most gun owners are scared of their own shadow, but are afraid to admit."

How is it that you know so much about 80 + million people?

[cherokeeprogressive]

122. He was doing his level best to call me a coward without committing his marbles to the game.

It's how he rolls.

[seveneyes]

116. "Most gun owners are scared of their own shadow"

Link please. A source for this statement would be helpful.

[cherokeeprogressive]

123. See my post #122. n/t

[Skip Intro]

240. Second request for link. Hello? Cali_Democrat? You there?

You've been asked to back up your claim about "most gun owners."

There's been no reply.

So I second the request.

You're not just going to run and hide while everyone's looking, are you?

[Warren Stupidity]

180. Massively excellent find.

As usual, when the "reasonable progressive gungeoneer" pose is examined, it is all bullshit.

[cherokeeprogressive]

191. Massively. In fact, the two of you are so massively excellent, I can't posit how you manage to wrap

your arms around each other...

Suck on some of this bullshit:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2800675

I don't really expect a response though... because "it is all bullshit", right?

[Skip Intro]

239. They're Meta dead-enders playing a tired game.

Don't waste your time.

[Aldo Leopold]

54. It is not the anti-gun people who are going to make this right. It is the pro-gun people...

Money line.

Great piece of writing, as usual, Mr. Pitt.

[LittleBlue]

66. My gun is secure

While I don't love them (they are fun, though) it is nice to have some protection around the house.

The excerpt seems like a basic appeal to emotion. I'd rather not give that link a hit unless there is something genuinely worthy of consideration.

[MO_Moderate]

78. Man, internet "Democrats" sure are a lot different than real world Democrats

[red dog 1]

99. How so?

[NoGOPZone]

131. you would know nt

[aikoaiko]

85. Gun ownership practices haven't changed that much over 3-4 years

I wonder if kids are modeling after school shooters more after the huge increase in media coverage.

[RetroLounge]

98. Yeah, the gun has nothing to do with it. It's the media.

RL

[aikoaiko]

103. I didn't say that guns didn't have anything to do with the shootings.

Will is concerned about a trend over the last 3 -4 years and I wonder what he thinks is causing the increase.

Is that such a bad thing?

[RetroLounge]

107. MOAR GUNZ!

RL

[aikoaiko]

110. I love it.

You can't really do any better.

[HangOnKids]

164. Retro Can Do Much Better

It appears he does not want to waste it on you.

[CreekDog]

216. He gave as good as he got

Try harder next time.

[aikoaiko]

224. I don't have anything to prove.

How's that Federal gun control coming along?

[CreekDog]

235. It's going nowhere thank you very much

It pleases a minority here that no laws were changed as a result of the Newtown shootings.

[cherokeeprogressive]

124. I'm wondering what the spelling problem has to do with the discussion...

[Electric Monk]

129. lmgtfy

http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=moar+gunz

eg http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/01/29/standard-right-wing-propaganda-the-second-amendment-is-absolute-moar-gunz/

[billh58]

134. +100 n/t

[cherokeeprogressive]

135. So you're saying that if you heard someone say "More guns", your Mind's Eye would see "Moar gunz"?

How is it you can spell the things you hear in normal conversation, but not those two words?

I've actually made a conscious decision to use the word "gunz" rather than the traditional spelling so as to be sure all DUers know of what I write. Maybe I should start also substituting "moar" for more?

I would add that I've NEVER heard or read one single supporter of the Second Amendment make the argument that "MOAR GUNZ" was the answer... in those terms.

[Electric Monk]

139. Seriously? If you've never heard a 2nd Am supporter say that, you haven't been paying attention.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-cesca/nras-lapierre-moves-the-g_b_3998539.html

On Sunday's Meet the Press, host David Gregory welcomed talking bumper sticker and executive vice president of the National Rifle Association Wayne LaPierre for a brief one-on-one softball interview. If you've been following along with how each and every American gun massacre has played out over the last several years, you can probably predict exactly what LaPierre said. Why? Because these events have become as predictable as a Michael Bay movie: lots of loud noises, shouting, adrenaline and death, occurring precisely within a formulaic template.

Right on cue, LaPierre, reacting to the Navy Yard massacre, rolled out one of his most infamous bumper sticker slogans -- a slogan that's about as deep as the sticky paper on which it's printed:
"The whole country, David, knows the problem is there weren't enough good guys with guns. When the good guys with guns got there, it stopped. I mean, what really happened here, the mental health situation in the country is in complete breakdown." Uh, no. This represents a major glitch in the deadly screenplay, and, for the most part, David Gregory let the glitch roll on by.

LaPierre conceded that there were, in fact, around seven armed guards in Aaron Alexis' path. Six at the gate and one in the building who, LaPierre said, "ran toward the fire." What LaPierre didn't mention was that Alexis shot and killed that guard, and, apparently realizing he was out of shells for his Remingon 870 Express, absconded with the guard's 9mm semi-automatic Beretta handgun and proceeded to continue shooting. So to summarize in LaPierre's simplistic language, when the "bad guy with a gun" was confronted by a "good guy with a gun," the "good guy's" gun simply became the "bad guy's" gun. In other words, the shooting rampage might've ended right there were it not for the existence of the "good guy's" gun.

Whoops.

[cherokeeprogressive]

141. I must be blind. Could you point me to the "MOAR GUNS" part of that post?

I guess I'm missing something here. You're saying that if the gun manufacturers had made "MOAR GUNZ", somehow this wouldn't have happened?

Clue me in on your argument as if I'm stupid, because, well, I'm stupid. Remember, I'm a "gun owner", hence, stupid.

[Electric Monk]

143. Read the part in bold where LaPierre said "the problem is there weren't enough ... guns"

The "Moar Gunz" spelling is an internet meme that's been floating around for awhile, mocking the idea, in a lolcats sort of way.

Please don't try and say you've never heard of lolcats or icanhazcheezburger?

[cherokeeprogressive]

146. So in this case, the ellipsis is your friend... the quote WASN'T "there weren't enough guns".

Yeah, I don't play with internet memes, could give a fuck about sweet pics of cats (I have two) and cheeseburgers are for eating.

[Electric Monk]

147. I skipped that part because it's irrelevant, since the "good guys" gun ended in the "bad guys" hands

Wayne just wants moar gunz. Period.

[RetroLounge]

193. Well, it's a free country (mostly) so between cleaning and polishing your gun

you should continue to wonder a lot.

Let me know if you come up with anything...



RL

[dilby]

86. So let's say a Liberal gun owner agrees with your message.

Would you be ok with that person selling their guns to some random person who might be a right wing nut job just so they can make you feel safer by no longer owning a gun? Guns have a value and to expect someone to just destroy them or to trade them in for a $50 gift card is not going to happen. I don't own guns but I am more comfortable with a liberal owning them than some crazy nut who buys them off craigslist.

[hack89]

92. Righteous rant Nt

[Eleanors38]

106. Is the Guns Dogs forum the third place for guns, now?

Since GD is now -- once again -- the place to go for resumption all guns all the time, I will say to Mr. Pitts, that his sprawling smear of gun-owners suggests he is more attached to his gun-control culture war than with the welfare of kids in school.

He hasn't shown otherwise. Prove it, Mr. Pitts.

[WilliamPitt]

111. Did I post this thread?

Fail.

P.S. Get my name right, please.

[Electric Monk]

119. It would seem they'd rather you not write about it at all, anywhere, ever. It offends their

delicate sensibilities

[Skip Intro]

130. Will Pitt: "I was going to post this..."

http://election.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4383909

[Eleanors38]

136. Yeah, kind of drains the "moral" swamp of this OP.

So often folks get caught up in these battles over compassion and "caring," they become convinced they are on some kind of higher moral plane by condemning tens of millions of others to uncaring "Yous." Worse, it seems the peculiar pleasures of joining in an Obvious culture war are more important than any problems related to school shootings. Oh, they can condemn and question others, but as to their own priorities? None shall dare question.

But I will.

[HangOnKids]

165. Wow you are brave

[Eleanors38]

177. Some come hear to laugh, some come to hate. Compassion? Not so much.

[CreekDog]

219. You came here and criticized Will Pitt for my post here on DU

Real smart there, genius.

Or maybe you think gun posts on his own blog are against your rules.

[Eleanors38]

238. I knew Mr. Pitt wrote it, oh clever one; the fact you posted it...

is minor stuff.

If you wish to see my expanded remarks, go to the thread pertaining to the same OP, cross-posted in -- of all things! -- the Gun Control-RKBA group.

[CreekDog]

244. The only thing you aren't playing in this thread is "dumb"

You criticized Will Pitt for his column's presence in GD (or tried to make him seem responsible for what you consider, but others don't, a violation of the rules).

You criticized someone whom you couldn't even call the correct name, despite their name being in the subject line of the OP, despite being named the author of the column that *I* posted, despite you being here over many years, under many names, you couldn't even get the author of the article you criticize so heavily --correct.

You're so unserious about this criticism that it's not even worth reading.

How's Eleanor's gun, by the way? What was your favorite thing about her, or was it her "38"?

[Eleanors38]

246. You need to calm down & take less personal interest in me.

[Electric Monk]

251. I think CreekDog seems plenty calm, and is taking an appropriate amount of interest

in a single-issue poster.

I've noticed a pattern over the time I've been here, that the people who come here primarily for the gungeon tend to get pizza when they stray onto other issues. Funny, that

[Eleanors38]

253. Feel the love, you say? Is it real or is it Memorex?

I'll take mine with mushrooms and silicon.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

241. One gun worshiper stands alone. I like the whole solo cowboy self-aggrandizing thing.

But you didn't respond to the OP, which was entirely reasonable in its approach and content. Do you want to be reasonable, or are you planning on continuing with the questionin' cowpoke routine?

[Eleanors38]

247. Not into rodeos. Re-read the "piece:" Same ol' attack & smear.

You may be interested in my comments on the same cross-posted OP in Gun Control/RKBA. You can respond, if you wish, in any of the three (3) groups-forum now expanded for guns, though I am one of the approx. 30 banned from Bansalot. The other comments are worthy as well.

[CreekDog]

218. Hey get it right, he was going to post this but did not

Will Pitt's blog post has over 100 recommends. Your dishonest snarking of him almost none.

[CreekDog]

217. His screen name is in honor of Eleanor Roosevelt's gun

Eleanor's 38. Not in honor of her but in honor of the one thing he liked about her.

Interesting huh?

[Hoyt]

227. I agree, I was surprised to find gun related user names here. Seems odd.

[madinmaryland]

114. I see another of the gun-crazy culture warriors has rung in, who is more concerned about their gunz

rather than the lives of young children in school.

Thanks for joining DU, Ted Nugent.

[Skip Intro]

127. Oh brother. What a crock.

BS accusations and name-calling.

What is it you want to do to save "young children?" What? How would it work?

You'd save more young children banning cars.

Are you willing to give up your car to save children. Are you willing to fight to eliminate cars from the US (except for politicians and police of course) in order to save young children?

Hmmm?

[madinmaryland]

153. That's the problem, my friend. How do we deal with the issue

of 300 million guns that cannot take you to work, take your daughter to work, take you to the grocery store to buy necessities?

Unfortunately in the 1950's this country decided to embark on a system based on the automobile, which ruined all public transporation systems, so that is what we are stuck with. Of course the nra mantra would still be that people driving trains kill people....

Edited to add: The nra would still find someone or something to blame other than the guns or themselves for promoting and foisting their deadly policies on this country. Fucking sad.

[Skip Intro]

156. Sad discussion of this issue has been injected with such bullshit.

Sad people use the tragic deaths of children as marketing tools and fodder for insults.

Those demanding new restrictions/bans the loudest seem the least willing to even define the criminal problem they claim more laws will remedy. As we all know, criminals like to obey the law.

[madinmaryland]

159. Really?

You are referring to the nra who "use the tragic deaths of children as marketing tools and fodder for insults". That is all I can assume from your post.

I am sorry that you feel more of a connection to you gun(s) than you do with your fellow human beings. That is truly sad.

[Kingofalldems]

121. The name is Pitt.

[Skip Intro]

128. +100. n/t

[WillyT]

109. HUGE K & R !!! - Thank You !!!

[red dog 1]

117. + 1000

[red dog 1]

115. When assholes are outlawed, only outlaws will have assholes...

... makes as much sense as the NRA slogan, "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns."

It's the REPUBLICANS and the NRA leadership that spouts the falsehood:
"Obama wants to take our guns away"

President Obama is on record as saying he is for a new assault weapons ban; but is that the same thing as him "wanting to take guns away from law-abiding citizens"?

I don't think so.

In my opinion, it's only a minority of gun owners who oppose universal background checks, the closing of the gun show loophole, and a ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines.

Even a majority of NRA members are for universal background checks, (but not NRA leadership)

"74 percent of NRA members are for universal background checks."
http://www.politifact.com/texas/article/2013/apr/09/leffingwell-says-americans-nra-members-widely-supp/

Thanks CreekDog for posting ..and thanks also to William Rivers Pitt for his insightful essay.

[yeoman6987]

138. I am neutral on guns

I don't have one and don't care who does. The only thing I see is that places that are "NO GUN ZONES" are the places where these shootings are taking place. That is what nobody gets. Why is it that "Gun Free Zones" are targeted? I think that is a fair question and one that should be answered by both pro gun owners AND anti-gun supporters. If we make the United States a "No Gun Zone" will people follow the law??????

[Electric Monk]

142. Could it be the No Gun Zones are designated as such because they'd be likely rampage targets?

Your argument reminds me of Donna, here:

[Straw Man]

173. Could be.

Could it be the No Gun Zones are designated as such because they'd be likely rampage targets?

Because nothing deters a rampager like a "No Gun Zone" sign, right? Stops 'em every time.

[red dog 1]

176. "If we make the United States a 'No Gun Zone' will people follow the law?"

You indirectly answered your own question by saying
"The only thing I see is that places that are 'No Gun Zones' are the places where these shootings are taking place. That is was nobody gets..Why is it that 'Gun Free' zones are targeted?"

"If we make the United States a "Gun Free Zone" will people follow the law??????"

Of course not!

"The fact is that Americans are 20 times as likely to be killed by a gun than is someone from another developed country".(Max Fisher, Washington Post..December 14, 2012)

Google .."Chart:The US Has Far More Gun-Related Killings Than Any Other Developed Country"

[Doctor_J]

200. You mean like the Navy yard?

And you think that the way to stop school massacres is for everyone to have a gun on their person? Are you actually Wayne LaPete posting at DU?

[ErikJ]

144. Pretty elementary. The more guns in a society the higher the gun violence.

And the easier it is for the "bad guys" to get guns.

[friendly_iconoclast]

149. Then why has the murder rate in the US plummeted while the number of guns...

...has soared? You needn't believe me on this- just take a look at the FBI's
Uniform Crime Reports and their Crime in the United States publications:

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

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

Crime in the United States

An annual publication in which the FBI compiles the volume and rate of violent and property crime offenses for the nation and by state. Individual law enforcement agency data are also provided for those contributors supplying 12 months complete offense data. This report also includes arrest, clearance, and law enforcement employee data. Use the new online UCR Data Tool to research crime statistics for the nation, by state, and by individual law enforcement agency.

[ErikJ]

151. Gun Violence Study Links State Levels Of Gun Ownership And Homicide

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/13/gun-violence-study_n_3924063.html

A new study of gun violence published by the American Journal of Public Health found that states with greater levels of gun ownership tend to have higher rates of gun-related murder.

The study, conducted by Boston University professor Michael Siegel and coauthors Craig S. Ross and Charles King III, examines this relationship in all 50 states from 1981 to 2010. The researchers found that "for each percentage point increase in gun ownership, the firearm homicide rate increased by 0.9 percent."

The authors note that, though they can't prove a causal relationship between higher levels of gun ownership and homicide, "states with higher rates of gun ownership had disproportionately large numbers of deaths from firearm-related homicides."

Their findings echo past studies about the relationship between gun ownership and homicide, though Siegel, Ross and King look at the relationship over a larger window of time than previous research.

According to a fact sheet from the Harvard School of Public Health:

Our review of the academic literature found that a broad array of evidence indicates that gun availability is a risk factor for homicide, both in the United States and across high-income countries. Case-control studies, ecological time-series and cross-sectional studies indicate that in homes, cities, states and regions in the US, where there are more guns, both men and women are at higher risk for homicide, particularly firearm homicide.

[friendly_iconoclast]

152. They mention only gun homicides; do other types not matter?

And I liked this little gem:

The authors note that, though they can't prove a causal relationship between higher levels of gun ownership and homicide, "states with higher rates of gun ownership had disproportionately large numbers of deaths from firearm-related homicides."

The method makes no difference to the victim, and I've yet to see any evidence that
gun homicide has made anyone deader...

[flvegan]

155. What utter shit.

Don't get me wrong, I have mad love for Mr. Pitt, and we may seriously disagree here, but as posted...what utter shit.

I fail to see how the above emotional response to violence towards children has anything to do with someone like myself who legally owns "guns"

I fail to see how idiots raising violent offspring make this about me, via a tool.

I can't help but take offense, based on the writing that the following is geared towards anyone reading that has a gun:

"You.

Yes, you, who love your guns.

You."

Soooo, somehow my fault. Because "having" guns is "love" for them. I love broadbrush emotion, albeit unfounded and poorly directed.

I am disgusted, just as Mr. Pitt has directed. No life should be lost for the want of the taker of that life.

Let me know when you get there.

I'll say that again. Let me know when you get there. You want non-violence? Live it or fuck off shaming those of us that do, but might have a gun.

"Do something." Done. Buddhist vegan who won't be a victim. Has guns, never used against another. Your turn.

I'll wait...

[cherokeeprogressive]

170. You know he won't answer that. Nor will Geekdog. N/T

[Warren Stupidity]

198. It is about a gun culture that has gone horribly wrong.

Oddly none of our gungeoneers is an irresponsible lout who leaves loaded guns lying around, or so they say, but they apparently will fight to the death (with their gunz of course) to prevent any regulations that might possibly inconvenience those who do leave their gunz lying around, or make it at all difficult for anyone to purchase any sort of gunz at any time.

Your religion and your dietary habits are irrelevant.

[WilliamPitt]

201. Have you joined the NRA?

As a gun-owner, have you taken any steps to try and inject some sanity into America's gun culture?

In for a penny, in for a pound.

P.S. Mad love right back.

[flvegan]

237. I absolutely have not joined the NRA, and never will.

While I appreciate that my "voice might be heard" as a member and might take that organization down the path of sanity (your word), I'm not dumb enough to actually believe it, and I can't help fund what they do.

As a gun owner, I'm always on about being responsible. Take classes, know the law, don't be stupid. That last part, REALLY tough here in Florida. I'm not for open-carry. I'm an advocate for defense, not offense. As I live, I walk and talk nonviolence. I try to be a billboard of doing no harm.

I would protect my loved ones with my life, as I know you would as well. I just have a really kickass tool with which to do it. That's where it ends.

[Eleanors38]

248. "Are you now or have you ever been..." nt

[CreekDog]

257. I think the standards required to be a "legal" gun owner are too lax

I'm not against gun ownership...though I'm against the idea that widespread ownership of guns makes an individual or the community safer, but that's a philosophical and statistical observation, not a request that there be a law to stop gun ownership.

That said, the retired cop in the theater shooting was a legal gun owner.

Adam Lanza's mother was a legal gun owner.

Many people who have committed horrific crimes, many people who have committed suicide with guns have been legal gun owners.

There should simply be stronger restrictions and requirements to become a gun owner, to remain a gun owner and to add to one's ownership of firearms --as well as the regulation of ammunition.

There probably should be restrictions requiring guns be locked, especially if in a household where the non-owner has no right to own a gun themselves.

These are designed solely for killing, they should have regulations that are strong enough to restrict, without banning, these items that are very powerful and dangerous, though in their places, have a use and/or benefit.

One last thing, lead ammunition discharge into the environment needs to be dealt with, because it is a significant source of pollution. California has passed laws to reduce and ultimately ban the use of lead ammunition and this should be done throughout the country.

[Skittles]

160. gun nuts are the biggest cowards on the planet

Last edited Sat Jan 25, 2014, 03:14 AM - Edit history (2)

their paranoia is why their guns are RIGHT THERE and why they so often fall into the hands of children

[Packerowner740]

163. This comment is really useful in this discussion.

[Skittles]

166. I wasn't trying to be USEFUL

just making an observation regarding my UTTER DISGUST with the fucking GUN NUT COWARDS

[Packerowner740]

168. Yeah I can see that "I wasn't trying to be useful"

As I've posted before, calling gun owners "gun nuts" or "cowards" only makes the gun owners dig in and less willing to work towards a sensible solution to gun violence.

While we could be using the time to enact common sense gun legislation, some are using it to call names and insult the gun owners.

Makes a lot of sense to me.

[Skittles]

171. oh please

common sense is NOT a gun nut virtue

[Packerowner740]

172. Doubling down, good tactic

[Skittles]

174. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

good night; keep your security gun tight

over and out!!!

[Packerowner740]

175. "Keep your security gun tight"

another one of you huh?

Please post anything, ANYWHERE where I have said I own a gun, any gun.

I'm not gonna hold my breath waiting though because as I've said a number of times, and I ll say it very slowly because you seem to have a hard time comprehending.

I. DONT. OWN. ANY. GUNS.

[Eleanors38]

243. They won't believe you. They're creating new vistas of reality!

[davidthegnome]

161. I tend to stay out of these debates.

I tend to stay out of them because they lead, primarily, to a major head ache.

With that being said... I do not think that the problem we are having in this Country, is with gun owners in general. I believe that there are root causes of this violence, and I believe that they are primarily bullying - and anger. As a young boy, I was frequently bullied in school, I couldn't begin to describe how many times, or by how many people, or how very awful it was to live my young life as if I were in some kind of prison. Rather than getting angry and hating the children who made me miserable, I was more inclined to agree with them when they called me names. I'd internalize it - this led to a number of issues later in my life... but I am glad (a whole lot of therapy later) that I chose that route.

Other people do not internalize these feelings the same way. Other people will lash out with whatever they can. If all they have is a knife - they will use it. They will use guns. They would use their fists. They would use bricks. They would use bombs. They will take what they can get to strike back at those who are quite honestly ruining their lives through cruelty and taunting. In fact - they already use all of these things. Imagine what the bullied, angry child, denied a gun, might grow up to one day become.... there, perhaps, we see the root cause of so much of the terrible violence in our Counry.

Give a gun to a rational person, and they will probably keep it and use it rationally (if they use it at all). Give a gun to an angry child... or give them access to one... and, well, we are seeing the results.

If we really want to do something about these killings, then it is not only gun control that needs to be considered. It is how our children are treated - by other children, by teachers, by adults living in our communities. The golden rule is very simple - if we all lived by it, or even made more of an effort to... we could begin to make progress in stopping such acts of terrible violence and hatred.

Every so often, there seems to be some big media push to do something about bullying, but it never lasts very long. There is always something either more terrible, or some moronic celebrity obsession nonsense to replace it. Interesting though, when you consider that Justin Bieber (the young man who just got a DUI) is so taunted, so harassed, so very bullied by our media and pop culture that occasionally claim to want to fix things. In a reasonable Country - that young man would be either ignored, or given the treatment he needed, without so much rage, laughter, and general international mockery. (On Edit: Because I'm sure someone is going to point out, "Hey, Bieber is Canadian!" Yes... I know. As someone who lives right up on the border, I've been to Canada a number of times - Canada and the US have a great deal in common - idiotic media being among these things.)

The "bully problem" is everywhere within our culture. Some times it is very subtle - some times it is completely visible to everyone. Whatever the case may be - until we address THIS problem, I fear the school slayings will continue, regardless of the weapon used.

[Warren Stupidity]

181. In a society flooded with unregulated gunz a bully problem is a gun problem.

[Whisp]

234. That's it, what you said. n/t

[spanone]

182. K&r...

[oldhippie]

188. What an enlightening thread .....

I am so glad we can have enlightened, intellectual discussions on this topic in GD, with all points of view being rationally discussed and coming to consensus.

[factsarenotfair]

202. There's going to be a special report on kids and guns on ABC's 20/20 this Friday.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/video/young-guns-diane-sawyer-special-21694484

[Hoyt]

204. I plan on watching. Previews include daddies teaching their little kids to blast away with AR15s at

targets that resemble people. Daddies looked so proud, like watching their little kids ride a bike or something. NRA glad to see daddies indoctrinating next generation of gun fanciers.

[billh58]

213. Just like the KKK --

teach them young and indoctrinate them well.

[Eleanors38]

242. Your post is why few take gun control setiously. nt

[CreekDog]

258. your posts on this topic and your screen name honoring Eleanor Roosevelt's gun are why few

...take you seriously.

[Eleanors38]

259. Oh! Creekdog. We have to quit meeting like this.

[Chorophyll]

250. K&R

[mstinamotorcity2]

254. The rights of non- gun owners

will always be trumped by second amendment rights. Anytime they say FUCK Twenty children getting killed in Kindergarten and First grade, What does anybody think about your children?? They have no love. Point Blank. But if it was to happen to their darling precious one oh low and behold the world is a cruel place. The only person who benefits when they say we are coming to get your Guns is Weapons Manufacturers. They laugh and say silly ass people while driving to the bank.

[raouldukelives]

261. K&R Exactly like Wall St investors.

They don't mind funding ALEC, climate change deniers or profiting from the destruction of the last of our worlds wilderness. They are taking it all for themselves now and screw your children, screw kitty cats, screw doggies and every other animal that will be suffering into extinction because of their own short sighted and selfish needs. They love money more than taking care of the least among us. They prove it with every dollar invested and every hour logged in the service of Wall St.