California gun purchases nearing record

[alp227]

Source: San Francisco Chronicle

Californians just can't get enough guns and are on a pace to set a new annual record for the number purchased legally.

Experts with the state Department of Justice predict 725,000 rifle, pistols and shotguns will be bought in 2012, more than twice the number purchased in 2005 when 344,847 were acquired.

Over the last decade, annual purchases have been on a steady increase each year despite a lackluster economy and a dramatic drop in crime.

The state doesn't record the personal history of those who purchase guns, nor their reasons for buying them, and so it's hard to pinpoint a reason for the increase, experts say.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/California-gun-purchases-nearing-record-3739037.php

[Edweird]

1. Ya think it might have something to do with Obama's gun control comments?

[NYC_SKP]

3. "Obama: New Gun Laws Not on the Agenda

The White House signaled Thursday that President Barack Obama would not be seeking new gun control laws in the aftermath of the mass shooting at a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado. But press secretary Jay Carney said Obama would try to find ways to work around the "stalemate" in Congress to keep firearms out of the wrong hands.

During a brief photo-op with his Cabinet, Obama himself sidestepped a reporter's question about how he would proceed without seeking new legislation.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/white-house-plays-down-prospect-gun-laws-224057070.html

So, nope.

[Mojorabbit]

4. I thought he just made a speech saying he might consider it? nt

[NYC_SKP]

5. I heard him say that AR15s ought not to be on the street or in the hands of criminals.

But nothing I heard him say suggested anything about new legislation.

Closer or more thorough background checks, yes.

[4th law of robotics]

22. AK-47s

he said AK-47s specifically.

[NYC_SKP]

50. Ah, thanks...

Big difference! Most if not all AKs are full auto, no?

[sarisataka]

63. Nope

Just like the AR-15 is a semiauto version of the M-16 there are a variety of semiauto variants of the AK

[PavePusher]

76. Not in the U.S. n/t

[4th law of robotics]

128. Not my area of expertise, but

I think the semi-automatic version is called the Saiga. Whereas the AK-47 has to have an automatic setting as well as semi-auto.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AK-47

[Ash_F]

132. The Saiga rifle is one of many AK type weapons.

The Saiga is made by the original company but there are many knock-offs made by other companies. Gun snobs are going to jump on me but there is really not a practical difference between any semi-automatic rifle be it a AK-type or AR-type. They all generally do the same thing and have about the same destructive power(a lot).

Except in a few states, you can still buy automatic rifles as well as machine guns in the US. They just can not be manufactured for civilian use anymore(since 1986) and require a strict FBI background check and approval from local police. You can even own grenades and rockets under these standards.

[slackmaster]

34. There is a lot of room for improvement in the execution of background checks without any new laws

Some states are known to be delinquent in reporting of mental incompetence adjudications, domestic violence convictions, and other events that disqualify a person from acquiring firearms.

The NICS background check system works pretty well, but by law it is available only to (federally licensed, i.e. all) gun dealers and not to unlicensed individuals who wish to sell used firearms. Most people would not knowingly provide a weapon to a prohibited person, but there is no proper way to determine who is known to be prohibited.

[NYC_SKP]

48. This sounds like an opportunity for improvement that doesn't require an act of Congress.

But I'm no expert...

[TheWraith]

8. He made some vague, "not ruling anything out" comments.

Which is best, it placates the few people who want that sort of thing while not pissing off the 75% of the public that doesn't support it.

[bongbong]

26. Really?

> 75% of the public that doesn't support it.

As the gun-relgionists love to say, "PROVE IT!"

[SoCalMusicLover]

18. Promises..

Just like he'll consider raising taxes on the wealthy, and loosening restrictions on medical marijuana.

I'm sure he will get right on it.

[Edweird]

11. Ah. Been running around all day and headn't heard that.

Nonetheless, I can see how his other comments might have given people the impression that something might be coming down the pike. And then there's the whole public option/individual mandate thing... so... The RW'ers have been convinced he was going to do it no matter what.

[sarisataka]

64. Unfortunately...

That is what the NRA babbles on about. That Obama will"go around" Congress and enact gun control by executive order.
I expect to hear that this statement "proves" they are right, gun owners need to mobilize, send money now...

[-..__...]

70. NRA?....

Who needs the NRA to scare people when the media is doing a bang-up job doing just that...

Add ""gun control"" section to my Google News homepage
Search Results

1.
On Gun Control and Prohibition
?
New York Times (blog) - 1 day ago
Pondering what a real crackdown on guns actually would require.
Opinion: Gun control an issue whose name politicians dare not speak? Philadelphia Inquirer
In-Depth: Losing On Gun Control? Huffington Post
Blog: Gun control after Colorado shooting, Obama's stance and more [AM ...? Washington Post (blog)
Los Angeles Times - msnbc.com (blog)

all 3260 news articles »

Why gun control isn'ta lost cause
?
Washington Post - 3 hours ago
The gun lobby dramatically outspends gun-control advocates and has a long record of successfully opposing politicians who cross it. Still, even a heavyweight ...
Opinion: Candidates Cower on Gun Control? New York Times
In-Depth: Obama, Romney discuss gun control issues in wake of theater ...? Boston Herald
Blog: Obama focused on gun control short of new laws? Politico (blog)
Fox News - Christian Science Monitor

all 1227 news articles »


Gun control debate about to go international
?
CBS News - 2 days ago
A draft U.N. treaty to regulate global arms trade comes under fire; U.S. insists it protect Second Amendment rights.
Int'l gun control lobby sets sights on ammo, 2A at United Nations? Examiner.com
Mailbag: The UN and gun control? Albany Democrat Herald

all 969 news articles »


Gun control needs more followers
?
New York Daily News - 10 hours ago
Winkler: The horrific “Dark Knight” shooting has sparked calls for leadership on gun control. With the enactment of new restrictions unlikely, Mayor Bloomberg, ...
Highly Cited: Bloomberg presses Obama, Romney on gun control? Politico
In-Depth: Senate rivals divided on guns? Boston.com
Bloomberg suggests police go on strike in appeal for gun control ...? Fox News
Examiner.com

all 95 news articles »

Gun Control Still Unpopular on Talk Radio in Wake of Aurora Shooting
?
Huffington Post (blog) - 2 days ago
You'll be happy to know lunacy hasn't been the norm on the conservative airwaves since the shooting. The response, especially among local conservative talk show ...
Apathy, not gun control? Daily American Online

all 1935 news articles »

And that doesn't even include all TV, cable, radio, blogging, small home town newspapers raising the issue or possibility of more gun control legislation.

[polichick]

6. Sure, the "don't take my gun" crowd is showing its paranoia.

[LanternWaste]

25. Less to do with Pres Obama, more to due with the Aurora mass-killing I would think...

Seeing as how the number of firearms purchased spike in the two days following the Aurora mass-killing, yet prior to Pres. Obama referencing any alleged changes, I'd hazard the upswing in weapon purchases are less due to the Pres. and rather more due to good advertising vis-a-vis the Aurora mass-killing (as the old Madison Avenue truism seems valid-- any advertising is good advertising.... and weapon manufacturers received a LOT of round-the-clock advertising from Holmes' little escapade)

[primavera]

93. Precisely so

Every time there's another shooting spree, Americans go ape shit wanting to get in on the action. I'm beginning to wonder whether gun dealerships don't sponsor these massacres as a way to boost sales.

[fascisthunter]

2. wonderful... don't y'all feel safer?

waiting for sociopath to defend gun proliferation in the US. Yes, let's set up a perfect storm for your right wing agenda to over-throw America. And yes, that is exactly what I have heard first hand, not on DU, though. But let me say their talking points are the same.

[TheWraith]

9. Given that more guns don't cause more crime, I certainly don't feel less safe.

Over the last 20 years, when guns have increased in the US by 100 million, crime has gone down by a third. The premise that more guns are a danger to the public isn't scientifically defensible.

[bongbong]

27. Really?

> iven that more guns don't cause more crime,

False. BLATANTLY false.

[former9thward]

44. If false then you should be able to prove it.

[bongbong]

53. More laughs

Can't prove a negative.

Most people over the age of 5 understand this.

[former9thward]

57. You haven't added one fact to this discussion.

All of your posts have been insults. That is all you have. And that says it all.

[bongbong]

60. Wrong as always

I pointed out the false claim about guns.

So you're wrong. That is all you have. And that says it all.

[former9thward]

62. You made a baseless assertion.

Provided no facts whatsoever to back you up. But when you don't have any you have to do what you have to do.

[bongbong]

65. Still wrong, batting 1000

You don't quit do you?

Here was the original post I responded to:

"Over the last 20 years, when guns have increased in the US by 100 million, crime has gone down by a third. The premise that more guns are a danger to the public isn't scientifically defensible. "

I pointed out that this was blatantly false - because the statement "The premise that more guns are a danger to the public isn't scientifically defensible" is not provable. One needs to understand logic and statistics. After that it is obvious that the original claim cannot be supported because, among other things, there are too many variables.

Sometimes it seems like I am teaching junior high school when replying to gun-relgionists. Just a coincidence, probably.

[former9thward]

68. The amount of guns has gone up and crime has gone down.

If more guns were a danger then there would be reams of statistics to prove than. You can't provide any. It is true that more guns are not the only reason crime has gone down. How much it has contributed to that decrease is debatable. But that is not what the poster said. He said more guns does not mean it is more dangerous to people. If that was not true then crime would have gone up.

I have a feeling I am replying to someone who is in junior high. Go outside and play before summer vacation ends.

[bongbong]

71. You'll never get it

Obviously you never studied logic or statistics, and it looks like you don't want to learn about even the rudiments of them.

You make completely unsupported, sweeping assertions. No logic, no evidence. Just breathtaking.

And when I point out how there is no logical basis for another poster's assertion, you don't understand it.

I advise you to try to find a community college in your town and look for a class on logic or statistics.

[NickB79]

117. I've taken philosophy and college-level biostatistics for my degree. Try me

While you're the one making unsupported claims all over this thread. See post #51; violent crime is at it's lowest levels since 1963, including gun crimes. All you have is to say that maybe it would be even lower if there weren't so many guns on the streets, which is possible but completely unprovable. All we can say with the evidence at hand is that adding millions more guns to the US didn't cause gun crimes to increase. Yet you're the one admonishing people about proving a negative? Wow.

[bongbong]

120. OK

My explanation is clear. You can't take every other variable out of the equation and say that the only variable is "number of guns". I've also explained it many times before in previous threads to the same posters who are repeating their falsehoods.

> All you have is to say that maybe it would be even lower if there weren't so many guns on the streets, which is possible but completely unprovable.

Right. Exactly. When gun-religionists try to make the claim "more guns = more safety", I have to point out their mistake.

> All we can say with the evidence at hand is that adding millions more guns to the US didn't cause gun crimes to increase.

WRONG WRONG WRONG. I can't believe the obvious error in logic is consistently missed by gun-relgionists. And you just contradicted yourself as well.

Get a refund for the classes you took.

[NickB79]

124. Point out where anyone in this thread said "more guns = more safety"

You can't because no one has said such a thing. You've built up a nice strawman to beat up, but that's all you've got. What people in this thread have said consistently is "more guns does NOT equal more crime", which is not the same thing as "more guns = more safety."

As for my supposed contradiction, where is it? Gun crimes HAVEN'T increased. As an absolute number and as per capita numbers, they've both DECLINED in the past 20 years.

I'm not the one in need of a refund here.

[bongbong]

125. Reading comprehension

> Point out where anyone in this thread said "more guns = more safety"

Start with post #9.

> is "more guns does NOT equal more crime", which is not the same thing as "more guns = more safety."

"More guns = more safety" is my shorthand for any of the dozens of illogical & impaired "arguments" (AKA NRA Talking Points) (AKA NRA Big Lies) on that theme that gun-relgionists like to post over & over to try to gain acceptance for their Precious. Sometimes gun-relgionists just like to take the subtle route, implying without stating directly that "more guns = more safety".

If you use Venn Diagrams or another elementary logic tool you can see that the two statements that you claim are different are actually the same. Get a refund.

> As for my supposed contradiction, where is it?

Your statement 1: "All you have is to say that maybe it would be even lower if there weren't so many guns on the streets, which is possible but completely unprovable."

Your statement 2: "All we can say with the evidence at hand is that adding millions more guns to the US didn't cause gun crimes to increase."

I can prove contradiction if #2 is inconsistent with #1. Could #1 be true if #2 was true? Could you both add millions of guns to the street and actually CAUSE, instead of NOT CAUSE (your secondary premise in #2) crimes to go down? That is all it would take to prove a contradiction - does #1 support the conclusion that adding millions of guns to the street CAUSES (or COULD CAUSE) crime to go up?

Well, by golly, yes it does. QED. You contradicted yourself.


Maybe you should pay ME for the logic class I just gave you.

(And before you or any other gun-relgionist asks, my teaching rates are very high, and I don't take barter, like "I can give you a buncha guns that will mow down dozens of thugs (wink wink) in a second if you just share some of that book larnin' with me!&quot

[bongbong]

73. Secondly

You said:

> How much it has contributed to that decrease is debatable. But that is not what the poster said. He said more guns does not mean it is more dangerous to people.

WOW! It is EXACTLY what the poster said.

> He said more guns does not mean it is more dangerous to people.
vs.
> How much it has contributed to that decrease is debatable.

Same thing, differing only in quantity (not in quality).

Add "reading comprehension" to the classes to take at that community college.

[Llewlladdwr]

126. "Can't prove a negative"

I don't think you really understand what this means.

Proving a statement false is not the same as proving a negative.

For instance If I make the statement "This animal is a cat" and you point out that no, it's actually a dog, and upon examination the animal in question does indeed turn out to be a dog, then you've proven me wrong.

[bongbong]

127. Wrongo

See posts 120, 124, and 125 for more elucidation of my point.

I'm not going to repeat myself for every gun-relgionist who doesn't understand logic.

[Clames]

141. You can't even find "logic" in the dictionary.

But if you ever do there would be the phrase "antonym: see bongbong on DU"

[bongbong]

142. Usual crap

Yeah, that's the ticket. When I demonstrate the lack of logic from the gun-relgionists, just toss out the usual (tired & non-witty) insult.

Be sure to declare "VICTORY!"

[Clames]

144. Let everyone know when you demonstrate anything...

...more than grade school insults. Must be pocketing a check from the Brady Campaign or some other gun-control extremist group for as much as you are doing to wear out their memes.

[hack89]

46. So you deny that every category of violent crime has been steadily falling for decades? Really. nt

[bongbong]

52. Really?

And you're trying to attribute that to guns? PROVE IT. Make sure you take every other variable out of the equation.

[hack89]

54. Crime did not go down because of more guns - we have had this conversation before, remember?

the point was that more guns did not create more crime. Do you deny that?

[bongbong]

55. You need memory pills

> the point was that more guns did not create more crime. Do you deny that?

I refuted you several times. Are you the same guy or a sock puppet? Wow, dense dense dense.

Here, I'll walk you thru it again. I PROMISE to type really slowly so you get it.

T-H-E-R-E C-O-U-L-D B-E O-T-H-E-R F-A-C-T-O-R-S T-H-A-T R-E-D-U-C-E-D C-R-I-M-E E-V-E-N M-O-R-E T-H-A-N W-H-A-T H-A-P-P-E-N-E-D. G-U-N-S C-O-U-L-D H-A-V-E M-A-D-E I-T W-O-R-S-E.

If you don't understand that, I can't help you. If you don't, I would seriously ask if the local community college had classes in basic logic if I was you.

[hack89]

56. Except you could not provide a single fact to make your point.

there are reams of data on crime - show me a single thing that would indicate that guns made something worst. A simple challenge. Show me something that went up due to guns.

Here - I will even show you where to find those facts:

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

[bongbong]

61. Logic

> show me a single thing that would indicate that guns made something worst.

How about murders with guns? Or do you deny them now? Will I have to prove that a gun murdered somebody?

Really look into those community college classes on logic. It would help you out a lot!

[hack89]

69. But murders with guns went down. Is that making things worst? Interesting logic there. nt

[bongbong]

74. Repeat

> But murders with guns went down. Is that making things worst? Interesting logic there.

Yeah, interesting because the murder rate might've gone down even more than it did without guns around.

I'm just repeating the same truth to you for the 1000th time (it seems) now. If you don't understand it yet, well, good luck.

[hack89]

75. So not going down more = getting worse? Really. nt

[Scootaloo]

102. Don't the gun stufffers ignore the same fact?

I mean one of the main arguments they present is "I need to protect myself from all the awful people because the world is going to hell in a handbasket!"

I guess facts don't matter when your life revolves around the absolute certainly that <dogwhistle>thugs</dogwhistle> are going to attack you and invade your home and rape your wife and daughters and parakeets at least twice a week.

[hack89]

103. I shoot purely for recreation

my entire family competes in competitive target shooting - when we are not at the range our weapons are locked up.

I don't need guns to be safe - I am fortunate to live in a safe area. I will not, however, deny the right to self protection to those that live in more dangerous areas.

[X_Digger]

131. Just for you..

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics/reports/070512_1998_2012_monthly_yearly_totals.pdf

+150,000,000 NICS checks (which could be more than one gun) since 1998.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States (citing FBI & BJS)

The year 2010 was overall the safest year in almost forty years. The recent overall decrease has reflected upon all significant types of crime, with all violent and property crimes having decreased and reached an all-time low. The homicide rate in particular has decreased 51% between its record high point in 1991 and 2010.

[bongbong]

136. LOL

You still don't understand correlation doesn't equal causation.

Too funny.

[X_Digger]

139. Had I asserted it did, then you'd have a point.

But since I didn't, you have none.

There is no correlation- one doesn't track with the other, nor track the inverse.

Since there's no correlation, it would be asinine to assert causation.

[uh clem]

42. That is..

...simply not true. Check the crime statistics.

[former9thward]

45. What crime statistics?

If it is "simply not true" then you should be able to post a link quite easily. This is the internet afterall.

[hack89]

47. Here are the FBI stats - make your case.

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

[NickB79]

51. Yes, let's do that. Lowest crime rates since 1963

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2012/0109/US-crime-rate-at-lowest-point-in-decades.-Why-America-is-safer-now

The last time the crime rate for serious crime – murder, rape, robbery, assault – fell to these levels, gasoline cost 29 cents a gallon and the average income for a working American was $5,807.

That was 1963.

In the past 20 years, for instance, the murder rate in the United States has dropped by almost half, from 9.8 per 100,000 people in 1991 to 5.0 in 2009. Meanwhile, robberies were down 10 percent in 2010 from the year before and 8 percent in 2009.

And in the meantime, we've seen tens of MILLIONS of new guns sold, including millions upon millions of semi-automatic rifles like the AR-15.

Your serve.

[primavera]

95. Strangely enough, not at all

I can't understand why making a population that demonstrates on a daily basis its inability to use guns responsibly even more heavily armed than they already are wouldn't make me feel safer. But you know us silly liberals, what do we know?

[TheWraith]

7. A friend of mine here in NY is getting ready to purchase both a shotgun and a handgun.

The shotgun to fill in at home until she's allowed by the state to purchase the handgun. Which, with our laws, could be as much as 15 months from now, and certainly not less than five or six, what with our 100 year old "let's disarm the Italians" law in her way. She's got a good reason though--a soon-to-be-ex husband who's already tried once to kill her.

[onehandle]

10. Paranoid Lunatics. nt

[Eddie Rek]

12. way to generalize there buddy

Really? Paranoid lunatics? Geez

[onehandle]

13. Additionally...

[The Straight Story]

16. Let's start a new one for women that buy guns

They have small tits and loose vaginas.

There, now make sure you use that with a pic if the person buying a gun is female (and btw, women DO buy guns, something you apparently were not aware of with your taunt).

[lunatica]

21. Why start a new one when everyone knows women buy guns because

they have penis envy



Everyone's got penis on the brain, in one way or other.

LOL!

[onehandle]

35. Thanks. I didn't feel comfortable mentioning that.

Having a penis and all...

[smirkymonkey]

118. I haven't seen that one before, but it's extremely funny - my sentiments exactly!

[BuddhaGirl]

32. +1000

[booley]

14. of course it's because Obama is going to ban guns

it doesn't matter if Obama ever actually proposes such a thing.

It doesn't matter what Obama has done to limit guns before (which btw is nothing)

It doesn't matter if gun rights have been shrinking (hint.. they have not. They've been expanded under Obama)

All that matters is Obama hates guns and wants to ban them and put gun owners in death camps where they will be forcibly gay married to a muslim atheist.

Ask any republican.

[former9thward]

49. I agree Obama has done nothing to restrict gun ownership.

But how has he expanded them?

[booley]

134. here ya go

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505267_162-57477652/major-garrett-obama-has-expanded-not-reduced-gun-rights/

[former9thward]

135. That was not really the Obama administration.

That was a credit card bill and Coburn inserted the national park gun carry as an amendment to the bill. It was passed by Congress and Obama decided the benefits of the credit card law out-weighed the gun amendment so it was signed.

[booley]

137. But Obama did sign it

he could have vetoed it.

[former9thward]

138. Yes and you are right I had forgotten about the national park gun carry.

[primavera]

97. The bigger the lie...

... the more likely Republicans are to believe it. It's a trick they learned from their nazi brothers in arms.

[TouchOfGray]

15. Annual purchases have been on a steady increase each year

despite a lackluster economy and a dramatic drop in crime.

You have to wonder if the Chronicle even realizes what it just printed.
How ironic, increased gun ownership leads to less crime.

I'll bet it would lead to less shitting on the escalators too if a few people would show up armed down there.

[bongbong]

29. Really?

> How ironic, increased gun ownership leads to less crime.

You can reach this conclusion only if you use the logic of a small child.

[PavePusher]

77. You'd have to study hard to reach that aspiration. Good luck. n/t

[bongbong]

89. Read

I'm not going to repeat my explanation, but my point is explained in other posts by me on this thread.

If you don't understand the mis-logic or the statistical falsehoods involved in believing your original premise, well, I can't do anything about that.

[Grassy Knoll]

17. When Top Ramen is Outlawed ......

only outlaws will have top ramen.

[smirkymonkey]

119. That's not funny - my great uncle was smothered by Top Ramen.

[Odin2005]

19. Anyone else think it's pathetic that the first response of gun nuts after a shooting...

...is to buy more guns and ammo?

[lunatica]

20. I'd call it an arms race

It's the bunker mentality. Get more guns than the other person who might use their guns on you. Then that person will run out and get more guns than you have.

[polichick]

23. Yep, pathetic and very sad.

[PavePusher]

78. Yeah, no-one should buy tools for self-defense...

immediately after nationally televised proof that it's possible to have a need for them.

[primavera]

98. Raises hand

Yep, I do.

[dixiegrrrrl]

24. Wait a sec...couple of things:

Article is reporting a DOJ estimate of number of gun buyers, not actual number.

Even accounting for the number of un-tracked guns, and the number of hunters ( rifles, shotguns)
that is a small % of the total state pop. of 37 million.( census report of 2010 and 2011).

tho I do wonder how many Ak47s and other "big" guns have been bought.....

[slackmaster]

31. It's an estimate because we're only a little over half way through the year

The figure is probably very accurate because the DoJ in California tracks ALL sales that pass through dealers, which by law includes most sales of used firearms among private individuals.

The only figures they can't provide are (legal) undocumented transfers of curio or relic long guns, acquisitions from other states by licensed collectors (like me), and illegal acquisitions.

tho I do wonder how many Ak47s and other "big" guns have been bought.....

I take it you have never seen an AK-47, AKM, or similar weapon up close. You might be very surprised.

The Kalashnikov type rifles are actually rather small. Besides being inexpensive to manufacture, rugged, and relatively reliable they were designed to be easily handled by young Soviet soldiers after World War II, which due to the war's massive depletion of the USSR's male population included a very large number of young women.

[dixiegrrrrl]

36. I used the word "big" incorrectly.

I think I meant rapid fire or whatever term is used.


Admittedly, my knowledge of guns is limited and outdated, have not used one since I was a pre-teen, shooting for rabbits and deer. Back then, where I lived, licenses were not an issue, and most country kids had use of a .22 or,
with adult supervising, a shotgun.

[slackmaster]

28. I have a dental issue and can't afford any firearms this year

Last edited Fri Jul 27, 2012, 04:37 PM - Edit history (1)

Having a full set of teeth is more important to me than buying firearms just because a few well-meaning but misguided fanatics want to further limit my choices.

[bongbong]

30. Ironic

> aving a full set of teeth is more important to me than buying firearms

Ironic since some of the most gun-laden gun-religionists in America have missing teeth (to match their mullets)

[slackmaster]

33. It's always uplifting to see such a negative stereotype with no facts to back it up posted on DU

[bongbong]

37. Yeah!

> 's always uplifting to see such a negative stereotype with no facts to back it up posted on DU

And it's always uplifting to see such a lack of clear thinking on the part of gun-relgionists.

For the less-inspired among us, for your post to have any truth would require that there be not ONE SINGLE instance of a mullet-wearing, tooth-challenged gun-nut in America.



This post has been a service of Reading Comprehension Helpers, Inc.

[slackmaster]

38. One example wouldn't qualify as "since some of the most"

Whatever you meant by that.

But your true intent is clear - De-humanization through baseless insults.

[bongbong]

39. More laughs

> One example wouldn't qualify as "since some of the most"

Oh, yeah, you're right. I'd need TWO examples.



> De-humanization through baseless insults.

Ah, the ever-so-sensitive, but "tough as nails!", gun-relgionist. Just like Tom Tomorrow pointed out so succinctly in his toon.

[slackmaster]

40. It's clear that you have no interest in anything resembling a civil dialogue

You smug, authoritarian gun prohibitionists all sound alike.

[bongbong]

41. Now more irony to go along with the laughs

> t's clear that you have no interest in anything resembling a civil dialogue

followed by

> You smug, authoritarian gun prohibitionists all sound alike.

GREAT STUFF! You should audition for Leno's show.

[Blue_Tires]

58. not cool, man...

That doesn't help the discussion any more than the tie-dyed, peacenik pacifist hippie pinko stereotype...

[bongbong]

59. Huh

> That doesn't help the discussion any more than the tie-dyed, peacenik pacifist hippie pinko stereotype

People that fit both stereotypes exist. Frankly puzzled by your post. Do you have a point?

[sarisataka]

66. Shoe...

welcome to the other foot

And so on

[bongbong]

67. Grab for the gusto

Pink ordeals dance on green insects.

[PavePusher]

79. Let your bigotry-flag fly. Good luck with that. n/t

[slackmaster]

80. And of course not hint of EMPATHY for a fellow DUer who is having an expensive dental issue

But who would expect that from someone with a bigoted attitude?

[bongbong]

82. Forgive me

I was too busy honoring the memory of the people mowed down by those "harmless" guns in Denver.

[Bertha Venation]

84. By stereotyping people you don't know?

Right.

[bongbong]

86. Yow

How is it "stereotyping" to point out that folks like this exist? Do you think they DON'T exist???

YOW!

[bongbong]

81. LOL

How is it bigotry? My post was 100% neutral.

Did I say ONE WORD negative or positive about the gun-nuts? All I said is they exist, which of course they do (at least two of them There are bumper stickers that say things like "I'm proud to be a redneck" and the like, so I probably even complimented some of them.

Hilarious. Classic. Too funny! Gun-relgionists looking for something, ANYTHING, to pounce on.

And failing.

x 1000000

[Bertha Venation]

83. I can't believe that this has been allowed to stand.

It's bigoted crap.

[bongbong]

85. LOL

How is it bigotry? My post was 100% neutral.

Did I say ONE WORD negative or positive about the gun-nuts? All I said is they exist, which of course they do. There are bumper stickers that say things like "I'm proud to be a redneck", "I'm proud to be a gun-nut", and the like, so I probably even complimented some of them.

[Bertha Venation]

87. You used a stereotype and painted broadly with a paint gun.

By doing so you did say negative things about them. Rednecks* are not all gun lovers. Not all rednecks have missing teeth. Not all gun lovers have missing teeth. And then there is the remark about the mullets. People with missing teeth and people with mullets are largely made fun of here, lately by you. Do you judge liberals as harshly? Is a liberal man with missing teeth and a mullet just as ignorant as you portray "gun-nuts"?**

* I married a beautiful, intelligent, sophisticated redneck.

** Which is not to say that liberals are not also gun owners.

(Reality check question for the others on this thread: am I feeding a troll?)

[bongbong]

90. LOL

> Rednecks* are not all gun lovers. Not all rednecks have missing teeth. Not all gun lovers have missing teeth. And then there is the remark about the mullets. People with missing teeth and people with mullets are largely made fun of here, lately by you. Do you judge liberals as harshly? Is a liberal man with missing teeth and a mullet just as ignorant as you portray "gun-nuts"?**

If I had said any of the things you just claimed I did, you'd have a point. But since I didn't, well, enjoy posting your Strawmen.

[Bertha Venation]

94. I'm not very good at debate, nor am I good at articulating my thoughts.

But there is an element of truth in what I say about your post, and you know it. You're being disingenuous.

I'm glad I've been able to entertain you. I'm done now.

[bongbong]

100. OK

> But there is an element of truth in what I say about your post, and you know it. You're being disingenuous.

No, not at all. What person X finds bad, person Y will find wonderful. As I said, a lot of folks would be downright grinning and proud of matching the description I posted.

I find it better to read a post, understand and respond (if I feel like it) to the words, and not try to project or inject my own thoughts onto it. The words stand by themselves. Saves a lot of hot and heavy anger.

> I'm glad I've been able to entertain you. I'm done now.

I wasn't laughing at you, I was laughing at the idea you posted. Try not to take Internet chatboards too personally; you'll save yourself a lot of grief.

[slackmaster]

88. It's every bit as bigoted as saying that black people sink in water, or that French people all stink

But this is DU, where some double standards are accepted.

[Bertha Venation]

91. Clearly, slackmaster

It's irritating, to say the least.

The jury got this one wrong.

[bongbong]

92. LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL

> The jury got this one wrong.

HILARIOUS!

The ever-so-sensitive, but "tough guy", gun-relgionists alerted on this. TOO FUNNY!!!!!!!!!!

Tom Tomorrow is a genius.

[bongbong]

114. LOL

> It's every bit as bigoted as saying that black people sink in water, or that French people all stink

Yeah, because owning a gun is the same kind of thing as skin color or nationality. You're born with a gun in your hand and can't change it.



Good luck with your toothy problem. Always good to nip those problems early because of the danger of an infection working its way into the brain. Almost lost a GF years ago to that; she was at a party when it happened, and it just so happened a nurse was at the same party, realized the seriousness, and rushed her to the hospital.

[PavePusher]

96. Every once in a while, a few of us check what the limits are when it comes to firearms discussion:

At Fri Jul 27, 2012, 01:35 PM you sent an alert on the following post:

Ironic
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=178079

REASON FOR ALERT:

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. (See <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus#communitystandards" target="_blank">Community Standards</a>.)

YOUR COMMENTS:

Abusive, bigotted stereotyping.

JURY RESULTS

A randomly-selected Jury of DU members completed their review of this alert at Fri Jul 27, 2012, 01:44 PM, and voted 2-4 to LEAVE IT ALONE.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT and said: DU has enough problems without allowing such bigoted crap to stand. Nuke it.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Thread is full of stereotyping. Poster is an obvious troll.

Thank you.

Apparently, when it comes to bigotry against gun owners, the limits are pretty far out there. Sad, but it's the reality we deal with here.

[bongbong]

105. LOL

> Apparently, when it comes to bigotry against gun owners, the limits are pretty far out there. Sad, but it's the reality we deal with here.

Do gun-relgionists go to school to learn how to construct such elaborate Strawmen?

[slackmaster]

111. I doubt that anyone takes bongbong seriously at this point

Evil Clown is very quick with a joke, but his jests always have a barb. He has little patience for in-depth discussions and will often disrupt exchanges between serious forum participants by introducing irrelevant topics, fatuous quips, and offhand comments. His greatest thrill is to taunt and humiliate weaker or more plodding Warriors with his snappy ripostes. Not a particularly powerful Warrior, Evil Clown will attempt to avoid defeat by accusing his attacker of having no sense of humor.

http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/evilclown.htm

[bongbong]

115. I'm a BAD BOY

Evil Clown? I thought that was the mass-murderer gun-nut in Denver. There is evidence he was modeling his behavior after the Joker.



Yeah, I'm a BIG BAD OLD MEANIE!

I like the posts from gun-relgionists that attack me personally after I merely attack their ideas. Not to say I'm above insults, but you'll find I post them only after I get one from somebody else. I'm not one of those "spineless wimpy Liberals" that the right-wing fantasizes about.

[PavePusher]

116. Good ID on that one. n/t

[Missycim]

122. If I had made a broad brush statement against African Americans like he made against gun owners

I'd be rightly banned, but I guess double standards are out in full force if you are against RKBA.

[PavePusher]

123. Indeed they are. You get used to it, but it's nice to kick back occasionally.

And welcome to D.U.!!

[LanternWaste]

130. I s'pose we hold our own cows sacred, and those of others as simply more sirloin for the grill...

I've heard the same thing about Christians in the religion forum. I s'pose we often hold our own cows sacred, and those of others as simply more sirloin for the grill...

Yet in the end, we at least have a sense of manufactured and melodramatic martyrdom to keep us comfortable.

[primavera]

99. You already have an arsenal...

... sufficient to inspire the envy of any National Guard unit in the country. I think it's safe to say that you need a full set of teeth more than you need yet another gun at this stage.

[slackmaster]

101. You can call it chopped liver if you prefer. I call it a collection. It's an investment.

Part of my retirement savings.

I think it's safe to say that you need a full set of teeth more than you need yet another gun at this stage.

I need more guns in the same way I need more shares of stock, or more municipal bonds. They're the same class of things to me. I can't buy any more of any of those things until I get my dentition back in order.

I made it 54 years with all of my natural teeth including wisdom teeth. Now I am more glad than ever that I have taken good care of them. It's unfortunate that I lost a molar but it served me will for about 48 years, and I am fortunate to have kept it until a time when very good prosthetic implants are available at a price that I actually can afford.

[primavera]

106. Doesn't sound fun

I hope the procedure goes well and with minimum pain.

[slackmaster]

108. The extraction wasn't as bad as I expected. Here's an animation of what I'm in for at next stage...

In my case it's the first molar on the upper right. It was always one of my favorite teeth. I miss it, but I don't miss the abscess. That was pretty uncomfortable.

[primavera]

110. Oh, fuck me.

Damn, slackmaster, I'm so sorry! Are you sure it you really need to have that molar replaced after all? I think I might consider gumming my food for the rest of my life to avoid that.

[slackmaster]

112. I think the bone-drilling, reaming, and tapping part is done under general anesthesia

Either way I'll take my mom there with me.

[primavera]

113. I would bloody well hope so

Even so, though... Good luck, my man.

[uh clem]

43. This is bad news.

n/m

[-..__...]

72. I'll say...

I anticipate prices to go up and shortages/back orders of a lot of firearms related products... magazines, ammo, etc.

[crimson77]

104. I lived in LA county, your stupid if you don't have a gun.

[slackmaster]

107. I have a few friends in Hollywood and West Hollywood who came to that very conclusion in 1992

[crimson77]

109. I lived there in 2001.....

West LA is fine, you go down a few blocks and it's like beirut. The thing that makes me sad is that California is such a great state, but man there are some fucked up parts.

[Kablooie]

133. I'm lucky to live in a little known corner of LA County that no one bothers.

Very low crime in our area.
And my town controls all the robotic space missions too.
It's where all those great photos of galaxies come from.

[crimson77]

140. Pasadena or San Mateo?

I though about moving back, I came to realize I am an east coast guy.

[Kablooie]

143. La Canada Flintridge. Near Pasadena.

I've lived in the LA area since I was 3 so I'm not an east coast guy.

[crimson77]

145. Is it as nice as San Marino?

[Kablooie]

146. It has more of a small town feel in the mountain foothills.

There are some large mansions but most of the houses are average size.
It is the entrance to the Angeles National Forest but also only a 20 minute drive to downtown Los Angeles.
The best of both worlds.

[may3rd]

121. ...They say the west coast is the nations trend setter

what do they see over the horizon as fashionably "in" ?