NRA ‘Disappointed’ With Biden Meeting For Proposing Restrictions On Guns

[apnu]

Source: TPM Livewire

The National Rifle Association issued a statement following a meeting on gun violence with Vice President Joe Biden at the White House on Thursday, saying it was "disappointed" with how much the conversation focused on limiting the Second Amendment.

"We were disappointed with how little this meeting had to do with keeping our children safe and how much it had to do with an agenda to attack the Second Amendment," read the statement. "While claiming that no policy proposals would be “prejudged,” this Task Force spent most of its time on proposed restrictions on lawful firearms owners - honest, taxpaying, hardworking Americans."

"It is unfortunate that this Administration continues to insist on pushing failed solutions to our nation's most pressing problems," it continued. "We will not allow law-abiding gun owners to be blamed for the acts of criminals and madmen. Instead, we will now take our commitment and meaningful contributions to members of congress of both parties who are interested in having an honest conversation about what works - and what does not."


Read more: http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/nra-disappointed-with-biden-meeting-for-proposing-restrictions

---

Sounds like it was written before the meeting with Biden. Its too general.

[loyalkydem]

1. Translation: We didn't get what we wanted

[hamsterjill]

71. Exactly right.

And moreover, it means Biden's meeting was successful. Did anyone expect the NRA to agree with what was being proposed? Of course not.

[The Blue Flower]

2. 'Specifically, what 'failed solutions?'

Since the NRA has successfully blocked any and all attempts at a rational, responsible conversation, what's he talking about? He's also setting up the false framework of "keeping children safe vs. attacking the second amendment." The brain cells of these people must be very, very lonely floating up there in their skulls.

[Bandit]

16. If it is a "solution" how can it be failed?

[TinTX]

78. Brilliant

Not really...

[atreides1]

3. I like this part of their statement.

"We will not allow law-abiding gun owners to be blamed for the acts of criminals and madmen."

Yet a group of "law-abiding" gun owners in Wyoming are crafting a law that calls for the arrest and imprisonment of federal authorities who attempt to enforce federal gun laws in Wyoming.

So, at what point do they become criminals and madmen, these "law-abiding" gun owners in Wyoming?

[apnu]

7. They are already criminals and madmen in my book.

As far as I'm concerned these gun nuts are, well nuts. And the openly advocate bloody "revolution" against our elected government. That makes them traitors, which is worse than criminal.

[Drunken Irishman]

13. Thing is, Adam Lanza was a law-abiding citizen before he opened fire.

They almost always are, aren't they?

[hack89]

27. He was certainly a madman. nt

[awoke_in_2003]

63. But could he pass...

a psych eval. I own a few guns, and would be willing to undergo an null psych eval to keep them.

[gateley]

95. Seriously -- it just makes sense for EVERYBODY. If I were your next door

whack next door neighbor who "owned a few guns", would you feel more comfortable knowing I'd had a psych eval?

I'm not a gun owner, but totally support those of you who are. I don't see why asking for licensing/training is too much to ask. Years ago we could get drivers licenses without having taken Drivers Ed, but now it's a requirement (I think). I think that's reasonable.

Although it would be ideal if people were given a psych eval, not sure that will fly. I'd fear too much potential to let a tester's bias influence the outcome.

Not that you asked.

[TinTX]

97. The problem with licensing is that it creates a registry, and anything involving govt psych testing

is scary as hell... You would absolutely get test bias, particularly when the testers are on the payroll of those who want to dissuade gun ownership. I definitely don't want guns in the hands of crazy people, but psych evals opens the door to a scary can of worms as it relates to our civil liberties. I definitely agree that we need to have strong measures around checking on who is buying guns, but that can't come from Big Brother determining mental competency, and creating registries through licensing opens the door for confiscation when the political winds blow in the direction of those favoring disarmament...

[gateley]

99. I think the testing bias could work both ways --

anti-gun leaning testers deeming you unfit when you really are, pro-gun leaning testers deeming me fit when I should be locked up in a padded room.

The registry could be problematic, but I'd think it's a risk worth taking. I doubt the political winds would ever blow so far to attempt disarmament -- it would be political suicide.

[TinTX]

100. Don't be so sure...

It may seem like political suicide where we sit now, but the will certainly exists as you can see all over this board... Change doesn't typically come in seismic shifts- it tends to happen incrementally, so it is a slippery slope... And psych testing by the government freaks me in a big way regardless of the political leanings involved...

[gateley]

101. I have to agree on the government testing being frightening.

[gateley]

102. And welcome to DU, TinTX!

[TinTX]

108. Thanks for your hospitality!

[harmonicon]

145. What's wrong with a registry?

It is our right to vote, but we also have to register for that, and a record is taken if, when, and where we vote.

[awoke_in_2003]

123. Yeah, bias could be a problem...

as a country, though, we really have to figure where to go from here. I would start with closing the gun show loop hole and making it illegal to sell guns privately without a background check. There are guns shops everywhere that already are set up for this. Maybe they get paid a small fee to do it, and make their license dependent on performing these checks for private sales.

That guy in NY who set a house on fire then shot up the firemen was convicted of killing his grandmother with a hammer. He probably got his gun at a show or from someone he knew. Would this totally eliminate his ability to get a gun? No, but it would make it less likely.

[gateley]

125. I think the gun show loophole is a good step. Just caught the

end of a show on Current about American guns getting into Mexico. They had a little undercover clip at a gun show and I was ASTOUNDED to actually see these guys buy "assault" weapons easier than they could buy a pack of cigarettes.

And it's all totally legal.

[spin]

150. I don't oppose the idea of a "null psych eval" but I would need to know several things ...

before I could support it.

1) What would such an evaluation cost?

2) What qualifications would the person who ran the test be required to have?

3) Would this test apply to people considering buying a firearm or to all 80,000,000 gun owners in our nation?

4) How accurate are such tests? Would it have detected the shooters in the recent tragic massacres?

5) Would requiring a large number of people to obtain such an evaluation hamper our mental care system and make it even more ineffective than it is today?

I personally favor a card system that would require any individual to show a picture ID that proved he had attended a firearm safety course when he wished to buy ammo or a firearm. My idea would be even more effective if in order to get the card, the person would have to go through a background check and possibly a mental evaluation.

However I also feel that the process of obtaining such a card should not be so time consuming or expensive that It would discourage the lower middle class and the poor from owning a firearm for self defense if they chose. Such people often live in the crowded inner cities which are often also the most dangerous areas.

(I should point out that I am a gun owner in Florida and have a concealed weapons permit.)

[upaloopa]

4. Like gunners in general, intransigence is making

them irrelevant.
History is passing them by along with their members.
It's like they're riding on a tired old horse and trying to win the derby.

[TinTX]

77. This is a naive position

80 million gun owners is hardly a fringe element of our society...

[upaloopa]

80. Yeah, well watch and listen for a while.

Things are moving faster than you can adjust to I think. Your living in the past.

[TinTX]

87. That's an effective argument upaloopa

not really... I would engage you in a debate about it, but you are already showing yourself an unworthy opponent by resorting to the insult method... Can somebody else please do better?

[Politicub]

106. I believe Gabby Giffords' new organization is going to leave the NRA in the dust

She's a tough lady, and I would never want to take her on.

The NRA's influence has peaked at long last. LaPierre's sick bluster after the shooting was its jump the shark moment.

The only people who give them any kind of credence are the hated house republicans.

[TinTX]

109. I am not an NRA member, but they are not as extreme as is necessary to advance your argument....

Seriously, what makes them extreme. I expect I know your answer, but I want to understand the basis of your argument before I assume I know the answer...

[Politicub]

115. Are you really asking that question? Have you been paying attention?

Extreme meaning they don't support ANY curbs on high capacity magazines or assault weapons.

And don't parse my words. You know what I'm taking about.

[TinTX]

116. Why should we have curbs on high capacity magazines and ARs?

That would minimize our ability to effectively engage someone using one against us... Please see this post for an expanded explanation of my position.... http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=364899

[lark]

118. So guess now grenades are passe'?

Seriously, these types of arguments are abundant on DU right now and all of them are straw men. Name me one massacre prevented by someone else with a gun - there are zero! The more guns the more murders - period the end - everywhere in the entire world. Australia reduced their gun deaths dramatically by outlawing any assault rife, large magazines, concealed carry, have to be registered, have to take gun classes. We require this for driving a car, and most of us can't even support ourselves without these, why not do the same for guns?

[TinTX]

122. Not a straw man- the second ammendment is about distrust of government- not massacres

That would make your argument a straw man... We need to take steps to reign in these kinds of tragedies, but disarmament is not the solution. Again, please review this post for an expanded explanation. http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=364899. You are not responding to what I've said there. In brief 1) Bans won't work, 2) they present an unacceptable threat to our freedom. My linked post also addresses your Australia comparison... In short, it's an invalid comparison...

And as far as grenades and even heavier weapons, those would like be supplied by an insurrection in our military if we are going to debate based on that sort of extreme scenario.

[kestrel91316]

129. Use of guns by private citizens to deal with the government is

completely inappropriate and unacceptable in civilized society. We aren't in the Dark Ages anymore, as much as you and your little friends wish we were. Violence is not acceptable.

Grow up.

[TinTX]

140. I agree with your civilized society argument

But you are naive to think that's what we have. It's that kind of nativity that empowers the people you vote for to erode our liberty through an ever growing government. Your moral outrage over a society that would legalize weapons like these is well placed, but you are naive to think there is not good reason to keep the government at arm's length. History (very recent history even) tells us otherwise. I am saddened by it, but we are not where you want us to be as a society yet.

[Politicub]

134. I don't distrust government

In fact, the federal government tries to protect the rights of minorities and is close to protecting the rights of GLBT folk, and it doesn't matter where you live. It protects many from being at the mercy of mob rule. Because of the federal government millions of people will have access to health insurance.

I love my country - warts and all. There are some policies that I strongly disagree with, but it doesn't cross my mind to throw the baby out with the bath water. That's what it means to form a more perfect union. I believe what Dr. King said about justice and the arc of history.

But I believe you hate America. You don't love this country. The country you want - some kind of right wing paradise - is a myth. A fairy tale.

You believe the government is out to get you. I don't understand your worldview. The whole idea that you believe you need to protect yourself from our federal government is ludicrous.

[TinTX]

139. My worldview is based on a broad understanding of history

All I can do here is redirect you to my original comments because I've already addressed your points there. If you want to debunk my logic, take my position apart piece by piece with logic. The insulting shout me down approach does nothing but make you look illogical. Based on your rant above, I'm thinking you're gonna need some help from a better debater.

[Politicub]

152. You have no logic to "take down" as you say. You only have fear and paranoia.

There is nothing to argue and no argument that will free you from your fear of your own government.

[kestrel91316]

128. Watch your attitude. You're off to a crappy start.

[TinTX]

141. oh really?

Do you prefer to immerse yourself in group think? Perhaps you'd like to have me censored ? Maybe it's the instincts of someone like you that validate my point that we should not be chipping away at the Bill of Rights. Think about that a little instead of throwing out some pathetic threat or insult.

[Turborama]

81. That's a very disturbing statistic, and nothing to be proud of

And so is this...

The United States owns more guns per resident, at about 0.89, than any other nation in the world. The U.S. is almost half again the next two highest nations, Serbia and Yemen at about 0.55 and triple major European countries like France and Germany.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country

[TinTX]

82. I am not proud of it- it is what it is...

I am disgusted that humanity requires instruments of killing to keep ourselves safe from each other...

What do you propose to do to reconcile your stats posted here? Do you support confiscation?

[Turborama]

89. We don't NEED them "to keep ourselves safe from each other"

I don't have one and I feel perfectly safe.

These proposals would be a good start...

Bans and restrictions on certain types of weapons (to be decided) and buy-back/amnesty plans to compliment them.

Background checks and licenses for the sale of every single gun.

What do you propose?

Nothing, because we need them to keep ourselves safe from each other?

[TinTX]

91. We can't effectively get them rounded up, and the Founder's distrust of government was well placed..

I am definitely okay with strict background checks as I definitely want to dissuade firearms in the hands of criminals and crazy people. I am also okay with increased investment in mental healthcare. What I really wish we could do is quit whistling past the graveyard on the real issue which is people shooting at each other in inner cities. Why is there not more outrage from the left on this? To me, this is a tremendously unfortunate crisis of our society. I don't mean a crisis from the standpoint that it is a threat to me- as you said, you feel perfectly safe. I am guessing you don't live in a high crime area, and while I live in a central urban area, I don't live in a neighborhood where people are killing each other in the streets. That is happening here in my city though, and it is tragedy in my mind. Where is your outrage on the crisis these folks are faced with?

Stats show again and again and again that bans don't work. I am not sure if you are saying ban future sales or confiscation of everything, but either way, you are not going to address the central issue with any real substance via a ban. There are 300 million guns in this country, and the argument that you would just be preventing law abiding people from having guns is not a straw man argument by any stretch. It is a straw man argument to point to other countries as proof positive of yuor position as you did earlier because those countries don't have 300 million guns already in circulation, and they don't have the widespread culture of gun ownership we have here. Attempting bans simply will not work, and those efforts are unfortunately just a shortsighted effort to address a more fundamental problem.

The intent of the 2nd amendment is a check against despotism, and we have just come out of a century where 250 million+ people were murdered at the hands of their own government. Look what is happening in Syria as we debate this today. I would love to think we have graduated to everlasting freedom of tyranny, but to take such a position is dangerously naive given what I have just said. And even if we could somehow magically disarm the population, then we are absolutely exposed to greater restrictions on our liberties, likely starting with oppression of dissent. It is much easier to oppress somebody's fundamental rights when they won't be reaching for a rifle to resist it... Given this position, I am very adamantly opposed to any sort of registry, as I cannot imagine any benefit that provides aside from opening us up to confiscation when the political environment seems ripe for it... If you can see another benefit of a registry, please enlighten me...

[kestrel91316]

131. WE. DON'T. HAVE. DESPOTISM. YOU. FOOL..........and we weren't even close even under Bush,

as much as I hated the man.

You are making yourself sound like a paranoid idiot. The only people I fear anymore are gun nutters.

[kestrel91316]

130. I'm perfectly safe in one of our nation's largest cities and I have NEVER owned a gun.

I DO exercise some common sense in my daily activities and I carry pepper spray. I've never needed the pepper spray, either.

Take your RW talking points and go home.

[TinTX]

138. talking points- really?

Last edited Sat Jan 12, 2013, 03:15 AM - Edit history (1)

You've missed my point. Please have another look and try again. Claiming these are talking points implies I am simply trumpeting somebody else's logic. Pick my "talking points" apart and enlighten me. Name calling, dismissing me as paranoid or crazy, throwing out straw men arguments that skirt my point are not allowed else you are either intellectually dishonest or intellectually deficient in your position.

[thetonka]

103. And according to another Wiki referenced statistic

There are over 100 countries who have a higher homocide rate per 100,000 people than the US. If gun ownership is the problem, and the US has the highest per capita gun ownership, whats going on in those other countries?

Serious question, if the goal is to reduce violent crime and murder these statistics do not support the argument that gun ownership is a cause. Perhaps there is a another cause that is being ignored.

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

[TinTX]

107. That's what I wanna know...

I am not a Democrat (Libertarian). I am on this board to debate, and either 1) be enlightened that I am wrong, of 2) if I am not wrong, encourage the other posters to broaden their perspective so we can face the real issues and not a straw man...

[thetonka]

111. It makes me sad

that far to often effort is spent arguing over emotion and ideology instead of facts and reality. Both sides do it, and in the end the real problems get ignored as the debate victors celebrate, and the losers tuck their tail and run while the problem remains.

[TinTX]

113. And that's true on both the liberal and conservative sides depending on the issue...

Issues like gun control get debated from a position of emotion by liberals, while many conservatives debate from positions of emotion on issues like gay marriage, smoking pot or abortion... Usually the result is a position that cannot be defended on the basis of reason...

[kestrel91316]

132. Libertarians are just as bad as Republicans. You aren't going to last long here.

This is DEMOCRATIC Underground. Spewing RW (AND Libertarian) talking points like this is a TOS violation.

[Turborama]

136. Truth!

How they've managed to hang around this long is beyond me.

Evidence the jury system needs some serious tweaking, IMO.

[TinTX]

142. Are you kidding me?

It's a TOS violation to disagree with you? Well if I get tossed off of here for debating you, I hope some people here will take note of what that implies as it relates to the central point I've been making here. Why is it not a TOS violation to engage in all the name calling I see here. Hmmm sounds much like the oppression of dissent I am talking about. Be honest with yourselves and consider my point. I come here in hope of having someone show me a reasonable perspective on this issue, and I get a lot of verification around my concerns about your perspective instead.

[demwing]

149. Read up

if you agree, stay and follow the rules, particularly the bits about disruptive behavior.

Or not.

[lark]

119. I don't believe US has highest per capita guns.

Iraq, AFghanistan, Somalia all have MUCH higher rates of gun ownership. Don't think we want our country to be like that.

[thetonka]

121. Got proof?

[Turborama]

124. FACT: WHERE THERE ARE MORE GUNS THERE IS MORE HOMICIDE

Last edited Sat Jan 12, 2013, 01:47 AM - Edit history (1)

Source: http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/index.html

[kestrel91316]

127. 80 million is definitely a minority. We need to remind them of that little fact.

WE ARE SICK TO DEATH OF BEING BULLIED BY A NOISY MINORITY.

[TinTX]

143. Gallup polls

http://www.gallup.com/poll/159569/americans-stricter-gun-laws-oppose-bans.aspx?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=gallupnews&utm_campaign=syndication

[BlueNoteSpecial]

5. Awwww...I'm sure that Big Joe is just freakin' crestfallen.

[SoCalMusicLover]

6. This Was Written BEFORE Meeting

They were disappointed. Well, too bad. Typical Canned Response.

[BainsBane]

76. really?

[Hoyt]

8. I'm sorry Biden did not literally kick their lobbyists in the rearend.

[99th_Monkey]

9. Delighted to hear VP Biden didn't kiss NRA's over-weened intransigent ass ~nt

[Jennicut]

17. Joe has a long history of getting on their bad side.

Lifetime rating of an "F". Major force behnd the Crime Bill in the '90s. He is not afraid of their BS.

[Chorophyll]

10. Any day the NRA is "disappointed" is a good day.

Let's disappoint them off the face of the earth.

[Drum]

62. K&R for this post

simply true as I see it

[Scuba]

65. +1

[Tempest]

11. They poisoned the water before the meeting

They stated before the meeting gun control laws were not on the table as far as they were concerned.

[Archae]

12. The NRA is a sales group.

To sell as many guns as they can.

[DryRain]

14. Anyone that needs a gun to "protect themself" from others in America is...

obviously doing something or already thinking about something that is illegal.

Either you use your gun to hunt, shoot targets, or protect yourself when your life is directly and demonstrably threatened, or....

You are doing or thinking about something totally outside of the meaning of the Second Amendment, or you are delusional and crazy.

Take your pick, Americans!

[jody]

19. Agree 100%! Disarm the 810k+ LEO who always carry handguns. They are "delusional and crazy". nt

[DryRain]

22. You seem to have glossed over the "to protect themselves" part.

Law enforcement officers have earned and deserve that right. Perhaps you have never been one.

[jody]

26. I have a RIGHT to protect myself. LEO have a privilege granted by govt. and that govt. is not

obligated to protect me unless I'm in custody.

Case reopened and closed with finality.

[DryRain]

35. NO, You do NOT have that right, unless you have earned it, in a ...

WELL REGULATED MILITIA, please don't fuck up the language of the Second Amendment!

If you want to screw up the language, and ignore what is written there in that Constitution, you have a right to go to prison for treason.

[jody]

36. DryRain with 54 posts, I'll be nice and recommend you read SCOTUS decisions in DC v Heller and

McDonald v. Chicago and learn about the law of the land.

[DryRain]

49. You have put Jody on "full igore"

Full Ignore

Selecting this option prevents you from seeing another member. While logged in, you will not be able to see any of their posts or replies to their posts. This option includes Block Mail -- whether you are logged in or not, the member will not be able to send you DU Mail messages. You may use this option on an unlimited number of members.

Some people just do not have a conscience, nor a sense of how to debate. I found one here on DU tonight. I'm sure this person has been found so many times to lack logic, and back it up with faulty references to Supreme Court decisions from back before there were assault weapons. Some DU peope sound like mindless Republicans to me. But that's just the way I see it. They want their guns, it's like an addiction! Nothing less than their rights to own and operate a 100 fire assault weapon will satisfy them. These folks are Democrats? I don't hardly think so!

[TinTX]

86. I could have sworn there were assault rifles prior to 2008

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

[lark]

120. Thanks for the suggestion

It was implemented immediately!

[NickB79]

47. No right to self-defense?

Either you're just here to stir the shit, or you've lived in a bubble your entire life.

Even the most ardent critics of the 2nd Amendment have never made that wild a claim. Would you suggest I need to be a part of a well-regulated militia in order to defend myself from violence with a non-firearm weapon? How about a katana, or a baseball bat, or a well-trained guard dog? Can I use those to defend myself instead of a gun, or is that also not one of my rights?

[klyon]

98. welcome DryRain

I think I agree with you. The second amendment is about state militias (national guard today). Gun owners have a right to certain types of weapons because laws have not been passed to outlaw them. If the people decide to outlaw or require back ground checks or education to own a gun then that is the law and ignore it at your own risk.

[LanternWaste]

72. You certainly have a right to think you can protect yourself...

You certainly have a right to think you can protect yourself. Whether one is actually competent enough to do so when faced with relevant situations or not is probably just another cool internet story, bro.

[jody]

73. LanternWaste have a great day. nt

[NickB79]

46. I'm not sure what you're trying to say with this post

I used a gun in self-defense when I was 17, and I was most definitely not doing or thinking anything illegal at the time.

[DryRain]

48. You were doing something illegal at 17!

But your details are conveniently missing. How special !

[NickB79]

52. I'll give you all the details you want

I grew up in an emotionally abusive household. My mom and dad fought all the time, and the day before my senior year in high school was no different. Let's see, that would have made it the first week in Sept, 1997. We'd been baling hay and working around the farm all day, and we came inside to rest in the afternoon. I decided to grab my deer rifle from my parent's closet (legally owned, since it was a gift to me from my parents) and head out to the gravel pit in the woods to do some target practice (also legal since it was our property outside city limits), mainly to get away from the yelling. The arguments continued between my parents, and my dad snapped. He grabbed my mom by the throat and slammed her into a corner with both hands, attempting to choke her. My 14-yr old sister grabbed a coffee cup and broke it across the back of my dad's head. He let go of my mom and took a swing at her. He missed, but her and my 13-yr old brother ran to the bedroom where I was.

When I heard the screaming, I loaded a round into my gun. My sister and brother came running into the bedroom, and a few seconds later my dad kicked the door in. He stepped forward and screamed "I'm going to fucking kill you!" That's when I pointed my rifle at him. He took a few steps into the room, saw the gun, and froze. After a few seconds, he ran out of the room, past my mom on the phone with 911, and out to the barns.

It took 45 MINUTES before the police arrived, and while we waited the crazy fucker pulled the spark plugs from my mom's car as I stood by the front door with the gun. The cops listened to my mom's side, my dad's side, and threatened to arrest BOTH of them on domestic violence charges. You could actually see the bruises in the shape of my dad's fingers on my mom's throat. So, my mom declined to press charges and instead we packed up our clothes in garbage bags and moved in with my grandma instead.

After a month, my mom brought us back home to the farm. She told us she'd reconciled with my dad, and everything would be OK. The next year, I went to college. I received a call from my sister later that year telling me that my dad had beaten my mom again and that they were back living with my grandparents. After that, my mom finally left him.

So, what exactly did I do that was illegal?

[TinTX]

79. Thank you Nick for posting this inconvenient bit of reality

This poster cannot advance his/her position on the basis of reason, so reality has to be twisted to fit the argument... Additionally, that has to be augmented with personal insults and arrogantly dismissive positions that gloss over the inconvenient facts... Ultimately, as we have seen, above in this thread, he/she surrenders in the debate, blocks his/her opponent from the thread, and declares victory on the basis of his/her superior reasoning, which as I have pointed out, did not exist to begin with. How about a debate without the insults- I propose it cannot be done, because it will fail on the basis of reason alone...

[jpak]

15. Boo Fucking Hoo

Fuck the NRA.

yup

[jody]

18. Problem is no one has found evidence of the cause(s) of crime. Until then neither side has the high

ground and IMO that's critical.

Bottom line is no one knows what "CAUSES TRADITIONAL MURDER" and no one knows what causes anyone to "COMMIT HORRIFIC MASS-MURDER". See Reports and statistics for discussing the Right to Keep and Bear Arms for self-defense.

Until answers are found, then we're at a stand-off.

[geek tragedy]

21. Guns make it a lot easier to kill. Case closed. nt

[countryjake]

23. Wouldn't you agree that you think "that's critical"...

because you would rather NOT see any stricter gun regulation enacted in our country?

[jody]

24. You missed my point. The anti-RKBA crowd has no credible research that shows the number or type

of firearm causes murder.

Absent that research, it cannot show that banning some types of firearms reduces murders or mass-murders.

Obama and Holder control the type of data collected for the Uniform Crime Report.

Holder has been in office since 2009 and he has not added any new data elements to UCR that could help criminologists and other researchers test the hypothesis "Ho: Firearms don't cause crime" "Ha: Firearms cause crime".

Either they don't think that's important or they are not in touch with the problem.

[AndyA]

28. Half of all mass murders in America have occurred since the Assault Weapons Ban

expired. HALF!

Seems banning the weapons that became legal after the ban expired would be a good place to start, but it still won't be enough.

[jody]

33. Please publish your conclusions in a refereed journal and have it blessed by the

Task Force on Community Preventive Services and the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences and I'll listen to you.

See http://www.democraticunderground.com/117297122

[AndyA]

37. Bing is your friend.

There are LOTS of reputable sources for that data.

[jody]

38. Obviously you're way over your head. Goodbye nt

[AndyA]

39. Typical.

Don't like the answer, just leave an insult, it adds so much. Very mature.

[primavera]

68. Typical

The more data that piles up against gun nuts, the more they seek to wriggle out of its inescapable conclusions by reducing the number of sources they deem acceptable. Why not cut to the chase now and declare that the only source you will consider sufficiently authoritative on the subject is the Inuit Council on the Prevention and Treatment of Ice-Induced Hemorrhoids? It's highly doubtful that they will have investigated the topic of gun violence in America, so you guys should be safe from any of those pesky facts then.

[jody]

69. primavera please rebut the conclusions of the two major surveys of research on the topic, link below

http://www.democraticunderground.com/117297122

Insults and talk are cheap and worthless but solid research is invaluable.

So far no solid research on the hypotheses gun number or type cause crime has rejected the null.

[primavera]

74. "The two"?

Actually, you are referencing two surveys, neither of which produced a conclusion one way or the other. Both cite a lack of data, for which the NRA is chiefly responsible. The second study that you cite references specifically concealed carry permit holders, who represent a select group who have to undergo precisely the kind of rigorous scrutiny that gun control advocates have been calling for and that the NRA has been fighting. So the conclusions of "the two" authoritative studies you revere are that the NRA has successfully prevented data from being assembled that would conflict with their starting premises, and that there is no data to support a conclusion that a select group unrepresentative of gun owners as a whole, who have undergone rigorous background checks, contribute to murder rates. And based upon these weak conclusions, you are going to challenge any proposed gun control legislation. You might want to re-think that.

[Volaris]

88. What if there were a sort of round-about-way to get to the same result,

AND kill an extra bird with the same stone, so to speak?

What if, instead of banning OWNERSHIP of these types of weapons, we banned the manufacture of them (by Incorporated Entities) to all but Federal and some State Agencies, (and even then, only allowed the manufacture of them when a SPECIFIC order(s) for a SPECIFIC weapon(s) is placed, no "surplus" stores sitting around) and to licensed, regulated, and ATFE MONITORED Firing and Sport Shooting Ranges. If you want to OWN one, feel free to build the damned thing yourself out of spare and tinkered parts in your garage (but you would still have to register it, maybe as a collectible/"unique" type of firearm?)

If you simply want to SHOOT one of these weapons for training, target practice, or, for some, just the pure fun of it (I know, I know, but to each his own, that's kinda how we do things in this country) go to the local and licensed firing range, RENT ONE that stays locked up otherwise, and have all the fun you want with it.

The driving motivation for this line of reasoning is as follows: a Citizen has 2nd Amendment Rights. A CORPORATION sure as hell does NOT, and WHAT they do, WHAT they make and sell, and WHO they are allowed to sell those goods to can FOR-SURE be regulated, and since were talking about it, no actually, you don't REALLY have the "Right" to lobby Congress to change their minds EITHER. Go Fuck yourselves, America's Corporations.

When we start making the distinction between Corporate persons and ACTUAL Persons, the amount of shit we can get done (at least theoretically) never ceases to amaze me.

Share your thoughts?

[countryjake]

32. And you did not answer my question.

Who, exactly, benefits from arriving at this "stand-off" you speak of...the lawmakers attempting some common-sense gun regulation or the ever-so-in-touch gun lobby?

[jody]

34. I don't care about an answer to your question. I care about research that shows a cause & effect

relationship between number or type of firearm and rate of crime especially murder.

[groundloop]

45. How about 20 dead children...

The fact is that a madman can kill many many more innocent people with a firearm than without one.

There are any number of reasons a person will go on a rampage. The easy availability of firearms makes it a reality that person will kill multiple innocent victims when he snaps.

[countryjake]

50. Figures on gun ownership is all the research needed...

with the proliferation of gun sales in this country, just since the tragedy in Connecticut, I think that the notion of trying to connect firearms to crime is nothing more than a thwarting bluff that the gun lobby has always used to forestall and effectively prevent good gun regs that could ultimately make our nation safer and healthier for the majority of its citizens.

I am certainly not anti-RKBA, but my solutions to thinning out the gun enthusiasts, both the responsible, law-abiding ones and the gun-toting thugs, would be to tax the hell out of all of them.

Reach into the deep pockets of the gun dealers whose business it is to put even more firearms into circulation or the bug-eyed militia maniac who simply has to have the latest technical advance in fire-power, and then also wrap every purchase of the means to operate those modern "toys", the ammo, with appropriate luxury taxes. Specify that those special extraordinary taxes collected must be used to fund improved health programs, for care and treatment of victims of gun violence and also much-needed mental health services.

Maybe such new taxes could be a step toward helping provide that "research" the gun lobby so desperately thinks needs to be done. If a study is required to satisfy gun enthusiasts, maybe they should be the ones to pay for it?

[jody]

51. If figures are all that matter, then consider

Gun Control Legislation by CRS (Nov 14, 2012) reports

- from 1994 to 2007, firearm number [font color = ff0000 size = 4]increased[/font] from 192 million to 294 million.

- from 1994 to 2007, Firearms-Related Murder Rate [font color = ff0000 size = 4]decreased[/font] from 6.6 to 3.9.

[countryjake]

53. And an exorbitant ammo tax on that "294 million"

might just go a long way in even further decreasing any firearm-related casualties, if such taxes are directly tied to health programs in our nation, wouldn't you agree?

[jody]

54. What credible research shows taxing ammunition will reduce murders? nt

[countryjake]

55. Common sense; raise the cost, reduce gun proliferation.

(and I'd point out that you are the one who wishes to prolong enactment of effective gun regs by connecting gun ownership to crime stats.)

[jody]

56. Why do you insult me by alleging "prolong enactment"? Goodbye

[countryjake]

59. Because you refused to answer my very first question?

Sorry if you feel that I've jumped to certain conclusions here, but what else am I to suppose when you continue to propose that the "anti-RKBA" folk don't have any good relevant stats on the connection between firearms and murder?

I doubt that the average American cares much at this point about the relationship between gun ownership numbers (or even types of guns) and crime rates (even murder).

I do believe that many (including responsible firearm owners) have been awakened to the fact that we have quite a few gun-enthusiasts running around, bullying and braying on Capitol Hill, who care more about designating and defining their own constitutional rights than they care about the safety and health and constitutional promises guaranteed the rest of us.

so long

[bowens43]

64. well... there is undeniable evidence that all gun deaths in this country come from guns.....

it's not rocket science.

[jody]

66. Please provide link to "credible research that shows the number or type of firearm causes murder."

You might want to browse the two major surveys on the question at http://www.democraticunderground.com/117297122 before searching for something that doesn't exist.

[primavera]

67. Actually, the NRA has been suppressing research on gun violence for decades

See: http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/09/us/nra-gun-research/index.html?iref=obinsite

It's a bit disingenuous to obstruct research into gun violence and then complain that the state hasn't conducted sufficient research into the problem.

[alcibiades_mystery]

70. That is the ultimate dishonesty of the gun nut assholes: they suppress research with threats

Then say "I won't listen until you provide peer-reviewed research!" blah blah blah. The very research they have been working hard for 30 years to prevent from happening. In other words, they are dishonest assholes. This is not that different than what the cigarette companies did for years: intimidate, threaten, throw tantrums.

But their number is up, now.

[apnu]

25. That's a good point.

And I don't think anyone thinks gun control, alone, will solve the problem. Gun control is a small part of the problem. However these NRA people want to discuss the problem without talking about guns. That's impossible. Guns are an inescapable part of the current problem. Its guns that allows someone to easily commit mass murder. You can also accomplish mass-murder with explosives and toxins. However those two things are highly, and tightly regulated. Guns, at least in America, aren't.

Also, I haven't heard one person in our government proposing to repeal the 2nd amendment or take guns away from the people. The NRA has their panties in a wad over magazine capacity limits and the right to have military-grade weapons in civillian hands. No where is anybody trying to take their guns away. The 2nd amendment is still preserved, although I'm hard pressed to call any of these people a "well regulated militia" But they're still allowed to have and carry weapons. People are just saying you don't need an extended clip in your Sig.

And I'm not even going to get into the gun show loop hole.

We're only in a stand-off because there is a minority of Americans who are hysterical and obsessed about being armed with a firearm at all times of the day and who believe they only way to solve difficult problems is to shoot them. If those hysterical people would calm down and recognize that nobody's taking their guns away, or their right to own a firearm and use it legally, there would be no stand-off.

I live in the city of Chicago. We have a serious gun problem and a high murder rate. We also have a serious crime rate and have endured some nasty flash mobs, they were real popular a few summers ago. I have a small child at home, and though I'm over 6 feet tall, my wife is pretty small. We've never desired possessing a firearm of any kind. There was an assault across the street from my house this summer, its unclear if it was a mugging or attempted rape. But my neighbor had a rape whistle and used it, which woke me up and I went outside, armed only with a cell phone and responded, helping to scare the attacker away. Two other neighbors joined me. We stayed with the victim and patrolled the block until the police arrived, we did all this unarmed. And this is on the affluent, white, North Side.

My family and I protect ourselves and will exercise our right to protect ourselves to the fullest extent we are able. We're not that terrified that we have to hide behind a gun to be protected. We have plenty of reasons to desire a firearm, but we do not. We're confident enough in ourselves and training (my son and I are karateka) that we do not desire weapons.

[yorokmok]

29. "They're coming to take our guns away!"

is only a rallying cry. It is the way the NRA and gun huggers get like minded people to mobilize. It is a strawman.

[janx]

31. Yes, it is.

And the NRA has been using this fear mongering for decades to good effect. $$$

[Cosmocat]

57. Cause?

It is going to be a LONG time until we have the capacity to know as a science what every person on the planet thinks.

Until such time, it just might be a good idea to limit the carnage that the people who flip can do.

Only standoff here is those who have an absolute intransigence on any new regulation of firearms.

[jody]

58. Self-defense is a personal responsibility and individual's have a right to keep and bear arms to do

that job.

Government has no problem drafting people to defend it or society as a group but it has no obligation to defend an individual unless she/he is in custody.

Since government is not obligated to defend me, then I don't recognize its authority to deny me the right to defend my self.

[Cosmocat]

153. WTF

is talking about defending yourself?

What does that have to do with it?

[mwooldri]

114. I know this is circumstantial evidence but...

There is a marked difference in the number and the method of mass murders between the USA (very lax gun policy) and the UK (strict gun policy).

The statistics I have compiled below are sourced from Wikipedia but here's the summary.

1) In the last 20 years there have been 6 cases that could be classified as mass murder in the UK, Jersey, Guernsey & Isle of Man. 2 of these involved firearms. Total of 42 deaths in a mass murder event.

2) In the last 20 years there have been 61 cases that could be classified as mass murder in the USA. 53 cases involve a firearm. Total of 437 deaths

3) The UK population is 1/5th of the USA. Thus multiplying the UK statistics by 5 could be considered a fair comparison.

4) Thus the UK has :
a) half the mass-murder rate of the USA (6 x 5 = 30 for UK vs 61 for USA),
b) less than half the death rate ( 42 x 5 = 210 for UK vs 437 for US)
c) about the same deaths by school mass-murder: (17 x 5 = 102 for UK vs 108 for US)
d) half the number of school mass murder events than the USA (1 x 5 = 5 for UK vs 11 for USA)
e) much less death by firearm in a mass-murder (29 x 5 = 174 for UK vs 364 for US)
f) had no recorded workplace mass killing, even without a firearm.
g) a higher death rate in mass murder not by firearms compared to USA (13 x 5 = 65 vs 55 in US)

Thankfully mass murder events are rare - you're twice as likely to be struck dead by lightning than be killed in a mass murder spree.

Other figures - there's about 1 gun per person in the USA. In Canada, three people would have to share the same gun. In the UK, fifteen people would share the same gun.

But I think these figures reveal something: that America is definitely seen rightly as a violent, gun mad country... there are more deaths by firearms in the USA than anywhere else... and ready availability of firearms can co-relate to the number of mass-murder sprees.

This is why there *must* be some gun law enforcement going on and yes, stricter rules on getting a firearm. However I believe that who wants a gun for legitimate purposes should be able to have one... and people like me be denied a firearm (yes I have mental health issues, yes I am treated for it, yes I have displayed suicidal intents in the past).




------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Stats: UK Mass-Murder events from 1993 to present:

1996 - Dunblane - Thomas Hamilton - multiple handguns killed 17 and injured 15 at Dunblane Primary School.
1994 - Birmingham - David Cedric Morgan, mass knife attack - 0 dead, 15 injured. Mr Morgan currently serving life sentence.
2007 - Omagh, Northern Ireland - Arthur McElhill - killed 6 of his family and himself by setting house on fire (Familicide).
2010 - Cumbria - Derrick Bird - killing spree, 12 dead, 11 wounded, Mr Bird killed himself. Shotgun + bolt-action rifle.
2011 - St. Helier, Jersey - Damian Rzeszowski - 6 killed in familicide attack with knife, Damian serving six 30 year sentences.
2012 - Cardiff - Matthew Tvrdon - killed one and injured 13 in a hit-and-run with vehicle.

Stats: USA Mass Murders from 1993 to present:

School Massacres:
1998 - Jonesboro, AR - shooting @ Westside Middle - two students killed 5 people, 10 injured. Killers released @ age 21.
1998 - Springfield, OR - shooting @ Thurston High - Kip Kinkel killed 4, injured 18. Serving 111 yr sentence (no parole).
1999 - Columbine, CO - Shooting & Bombing @ Columbine High - killed 13, injured 32.
2001 - Red Lion, PA - Machete attack @ N Hopewell-Winterstown Elementary - William Michael Stankewicz injured 14.
2001 - Santee, CA - shooting @ Santana High - Charles Andrew Williams killed 2, injured 13. Serving life sentence.
2005 - Red Lake, MN - Shooting @ Red Lake Sr. High - Jeff Weise killed 9, injured 5, and shot himself.
2006 - Nickel Mines, PA - Shooting @ West Nickel Mines School - Charles Roberts killed 5, plus himself, and injured 5.
2007 - Blacksburg, VA - Shooting @ Virginia Tech - Seung-Hui Cho killed 31 plus himself, injured 17.
2008 - Dekalb, IL - Shooting @Northern IL Univ - Steven Phillip Kazmierczak killed 5, also himself, injured 18.
2012 - Oakland, CA - Shooting @ Oikos University - 7 dead, 3 injured. Killer in mental institution awaiting trial.
2012 - Newtown, CT - Shooting @ Sandy Ridge Elementary - 27 dead (including killer by suicide), 2 injured.

Mass murders/attacks or Rampage Killing:
1993 - Fayetteville, NC - Kenneth Junior French shot 4 people dead and injured 7 more. Currently incarcerated.
1993 - Garden City, NY - Colin Ferguson shot 6 people dead, and injured 19 more. Incarcerated.
1993 - San Francisco, CA - Gian Luigi Ferri - shot 8 people dead, injured 6 more. Killed himself.
1994 - Fairchild AFB, WA - Dean Allen Melberg shot 4 dead, injured 23 more. Serving a 315yr+ sentence.
1995 - New York, NY - Venerando Agas killed 1 person and injured 18 more by motor vehicle. Sentenced 20 yrs to life.
1995 - New York, NY and parts of NJ - Darnell Collins shot dead 7 people, injured 3 others. Collins shot by police.
1995 - New York, NY - Roland J Smith shot 7 people dead, injured 4 more - and set store on fire. He committed suicide.
1999 - Fort Worth, TX - Larry Ashbrook shot dead 7 people and injured 7 others before killing himself (church shooting)
2001 - Elgin, IL - Luther Casteel shot 2 people dead, injured another 16. Presently incarcerated.
2002 - Garfield NJ, and NYC - Ronald Popadich shot 1 person, killed 1 person and injured 23 more in vehicle hit & run.
2004 - Birchwood, WI - Chai Vang shot 5 people dead, injured 3 more (1 died from injuries). Incarcerated.
2005 - Brookfield, WI - Terry Ratzmann shot dead 7 people, injured 4 more before shooting himself. (church shooting)
2006 - Seattle, WA - Kyle Aaron Huff shot dead 6 people, injured 2 more, and shot himself dead.
2007 - Crandon, WI - Tyler James Peterson (off duty police officer) shot 6 people dead, injured 1 other, then shot himself.
2007 - Omaha, NE - Robert Hawkins shot dead 8 people, injured 6 more, shot himself.
2008 - Kirkwood, MO - Charles Lee Thornton shot dead 6 people, injured another before police shot him dead.
2008 - Alger, WA - Isaac Lee Zamora shot dead 6 people, injured 4 (some with a knife), currently serving life sentence.
2008 - Illinois & Missouri - Nicholas Troy Sheley allegedly shot dead 8 people, serving life sentence for 2 people he did kill.
2009 - Bridgeville, PA - George Sodini shot dead 3 people, injured 9 more, and shot himself dead.
2009 - Carthage, NC - Robert Stewart shot dead 8 people, injured 3. Serving life imprisonment.
2009 - Kinston & Samson AL - Michael Kenneth McLendon shot dead 10 people, injured 3 others, shot himself dead.
2009 - Binghamton, NY - Jiverly Antares Wong shot dead 13 people, injured 3 others, shot himself dead.
2011 - Carson City, NV - Eduardo Sencion shot dead 4 people, injured 7 others, shot himself dead.
2011 - Tucson, AZ - Jared Lee Loughner shot dead 6 people, injured 13 others (including US Rep Gabrielle Giffords).
2011 - Seal Beach, CA - Scott Evans Dekraai allegedly shot 8 people dead, injured another. He is awaiting trial.
2012 - Tuscaloosa, AL - Nathan Van Wilkins allegedly injured up to 18 people in a bar shooting. He is awaiting trial.
2012 - Aurora, CO - James Eagan Holmes allegedly killed 12 people, injured 58 in a movie theater. He is awaiting trial.

Workplace mass murders/attacks:
1999 - Stockbridge, GA - Mark O. Barton shot dead 12 people, injured 13 more, shot himself dead
1999 - Honolulu, HI - Byran Koji Uyesugi shot 7 people dead, presently serving life in prison.
2000 - Wakefield, MA - Michael McDermott shot dead 7 people, presently serving life in prison
2003 - Chicago, IL - Salvador Tapia shot dead 6 ex-coworkers, shot dead by law enforcement.
2003 - Meridian, MS - Douglas Williams shot at 14 co-workers, 8 died. He shot himself dead.
2006 - Goleta, CA - Jennifer San Marco killed her neighbour + 6 ex-coworkers with pistol before killing herself.
2010 - Manchester, CT - Omar Thornton shot dead 8 co-workers, injured 2, then shot himself dead.
2011 - Minneapolis, MN - Andrew John Engeldinger shot dead 6 ex-coworkers, injured 2, then shot himself dead.

Familicide:
1993 - Norwalk, IA - Rick Wayne Forsyth shot dead his family of 6. He is imprisoned for life.
1996 - Glendale, CA - Jorjik Avanesian killed his wife & 6 children in house fire. He is imprisoned for life.
1998 - Saint Paul, MN - Khoua Her strangled her six children. She is serving a 50 year sentence.
2000 - Ava, OH - Richard Pangle shot his wife and four of his children. He and his 10 yo son died in a house fire.
2000 - Martinsville, IN - Judy Kirby killed 7 people by driving the wrong way of a one-way road. Serving 215 yr sentence.
2001 - Sacramento, CA - Nikolay Soltys stabbed to death 6 of his family. He committed suicide in jail.
2004 - Fresno, CA - Marcus Wesson shot dead 9 family members. He is on Death Row.
2006 - Kansas City, MO - Hersel Isadore shot 5 people dead (4 family), wounding 1 (family), then shot himself.
2006 - Leola, PA - Jesse D. Wise killed 6 relatives by strangling and a homemade club. Serving life sentence.
2008 - Covino, CA - Bruce Jeffrey Pardo crashed a family party, killing 9 (plus himself) in combination of gunshot and arson.
2008 - Memphis, TN - Jessie L Dotson shot his brother, 3 relatives, and 2 strangers. He is on death row.
2009 - Naples, FL - Mesac Damas killed his wife and 5 children through knife wounds and strangulation.
2009 - Fayetteville, TN & Huntsville, AL - Jacob L Shaffer allegedly beat and strangled 6 people to death, including family.
2009 - Los Angeles, CA - Ervin A Lupoe shot his wife, 5 kids and then himself.
2010 - Appomatox, VA - Christopher Speight allegedly shot dead 8 people, including family. He is in a State Psychiatric Hospital.
2011 - Grapevine, TX - Aziz Yazdanpanah shot dead 6 family members, then shot himself dead.

[jody]

117. Thanks. Don't have an answer and neither does Biden's Gun Violence Commission yet! See thread at

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172102502

[Canoe52]

20. Poor little babys...

Now they'll take their toys and go home and pout...

[MotherPetrie]

30. Go fuck yourselves, NRA

[samsingh]

41. we're disappointed in the betrayals by the nra

[SoapBox]

42. NRA = Not Really Astute

Just now on Rev. Al's program.

[SoapBox]

44. p.s....oh ya, FUCK Off NRA!

Go to hell.

[choie]

43. any day that the nra is disappointed

is a good day.

[Zoeisright]

60. The NRA and other gun humpers can go fuck themselves.

At this point, I'm getting disappointed that more gun humpers aren't wounded with their little precious. It's taking too long.

[primavera]

61. "...interested in having an honest conversation about what works..."

I see. And what would this discussion be about? I've never heard the NRA once come up with any actual proposals for how to address gun violence. The only thing they ever have to contribute to the discussion is to deny that guns play any role in gun violence and to hurl misleading invective at anyone who tries to discuss gun violence. So a gun association wants to be part of a discussion in which they are unwilling to participate. So what, precisely, about guns do hey wish to discuss? Do they just want to get together with public officials, drink a few beers, and shoot the shit about how great hollow point ammo is? What? What they are clearly not interested in is having anything whatsoever to do with any discussion of gun violence. So why don't they just go home if they don't want to talk about it?

[and-justice-for-all]

75. Lobbying needs kicked off the hill...all of it...

the NRA and many others have their hands in way to deep. For one organization to wield such influence is revolting.

[LanternWaste]

83. Who would have ever thought a predominantly Caucasian, right-wing political action committee...

Well bless their little hearts. Who would have ever thought a predominantly Caucasian, right-wing political action committee would have been disappointed in a meeting with a black democrat sitting in the Oval Office...?

[olddad56]

84. Perhaps the NRA needs to change their acronym to the NARA.

The National Assault Rifle Association.

[bl968]

85. PR Speak translation

What they said, "We will not allow law-abiding gun owners to be blamed for the acts of criminals and madmen. Instead, we will now take our commitment and meaningful contributions to members of congress of both parties who are interested in having an honest conversation about what works - and what does not."

What they meant, "We are willing to talk to people who may be willing to take our bribes (campaign donations) to obstruct any meaningful reforms."

[ErikJ]

90. NRA's real agenda is to increase gun industry profitability nt

[DallasNE]

92. What Is He Talking About

"We will not allow law-abiding gun owners to be blamed for the acts of criminals and madmen".

Nearly all of the "madmen" have been law-abiding gun owners up to the point of their carnage when the sole purpose of their arsenal purchase was the carnage that took place shortly after the purchase of the now legal equipment.

As Tuscon showed us, limiting the rounds in a magazine has the real possibility for lessening the carnage. How? Well, the Tuscon shooter was taken down when he had to stop to put in a new magazine. Do the math. What would have happened if that pause would have happened after 10 rounds rather than after 30 rounds. He surely didn't miss with the last 20 rounds he fired, now did he?

[stevenmitchell]

112. Good point

Dallas you make a good point. Even if it is marginal, anything to slow down insanity is a positive step...

[Dogbert22]

93. Lead poisoning leads to gun craziness?

Last week we learned bout the correlation/causation of lead poisoning and crime rates/aggressive behavior....maybe we should investigate the mental status of gun lovers (in particular frequent hunters that eat their prey) and their blood lead levels; will frequent visits to gun ranges increase exposure to lead?

maybe we can measure the blood lead levels in potential gun buyers as a qualifier for purchase .... and provide medical treatments for people with elevated levels...and matching propaganda...like the anti-tobacco campaign that showed the dire consequences (cancer) of tobacco consumption..we can project gun lovers as potentially stupid with shorter life span due to lead contamination.. love for guns as medical condition/ mental illness..not covered by health insurance..anyway I see clear similarities between the tobacco and the gun/ weapons industry

[oldandhappy]

94. poor puppies

failed to fool anyone!

[gateley]

96. Good job, Joe!

[wvfem]

104. I think my computer was hacked by NRA

I just joined this site, and as a new member, I can't start a new topic. I was on a website where I criticized the NRA. I got an immediate response from someone who told me to "be careful." I asked him, "Why...are you threatening me?" Shortly after that my computer went dead completely. I couldn't revive it at all! I took it in for repairs, but that was unsuccessful. I bought a new computer,and since then, I'm reluctant to go on various news forums and make comments about the NRA.

[stevenmitchell]

110. It's doable

I don't know the circumstances pertaining to your computer but yes, I suppose that is possible. I generally don't think of the right as tech-savvy but depending on what site you were on and what protections you had on your computer, would determine the potential access that someone who have to cause you malice. Sorry to hear about your computer.

[Politicub]

105. My hate for the NRA knows no bounds

I'm glad we have them on the defensive. Finally.

Gabby Giffords' new organization is growing like wildfire, and donations to the Brady campaign are up.

We may be able to outspend them during the primaries. It would only take one election cycle to blunt any pull they once had.

[Democratopia]

126. It's time Democrats in power stood up to the NRA and told them where to go.

[supercats]

133. the administration needs to take down the NRA

They need to punish them and Cripple them so that they have no large voice in American society anymore. They are a danger and a disgrace to our citizens and our image throughout the world.

[Politicub]

135. If the NRA is disappointed it makes me happy

Biden won't take the NRA's shit.

[harmonicon]

144. It's my right to have nuclear-armed cruise missiles.

Until the government acknowledges that, I don't really care about however many bullets their "laws" say I can load into my personal killing device.

[Shadowflash]

146. Anything that disappoints the NRA works for me.

[tavalon]

147. If the NRA is disappointed, I feel hopeful

Those insaniacs need help.

[davidpdx]

148. My response to them is...

I'm disappointed you are still alive on this earth.

[TheGov97]

151. maybe, just maybe.........

VP Biden should take a look at the 2nd Amendment.