I think this paragraph from The New Yorker really sums up the gun control debate here on DU

[Electric Monk]

The underlying politics of gun control has always been the same: the majority of Americans agree that there should be limits and controls on the manufacture and sale and ownership of weapons intended only to kill en masse, while a small minority feels, with a fanatic passion, that there shouldn’t. In a process familiar to any student of society, the majority of people in favor of gun sanity care about a lot of other things, too, and think about them far more often; the gun crazy think about guns all the time, and vote on the issue with fanatic intensity.

http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/newtown-lawsuit-moral-work-gun-control

[tradewinds]

1. Yes, Then you. Apply "fox"style math.

Loudest> actual majority.

[kioa]

27. We tested what the actual majority thought little more than a month ago.

Thanks to gun controllers the Democratic Party lost the Senate, lost seats in the House & left more State Legislatures in GOP control that at any time since the Great Depression.

The only thing that article from the New Yorker illustrates is how out of touch the authoritarian control freaks from the coasts truly are.

[tradewinds]

33. Right <30% voter turnout. Good analogy.

Fail.

Right, in your dillusioned mind it was all do to gun controllers. Your simple life revolves around guns. Guns are all you have or ever will have, so of course you defend them with such unwarranted vigor.
Sad simple, dangerous minds.

[kioa]

36. Gun Control was the only issue that led to recalls (3 of them)

Trying to argue that gun control didn't have an effect on the elections is ludicrous.

As for the low turnout; You mean promising the electorate that they will have rights taken away from them didn't convince them to come out and vote?
Shocking.
Truly shocking.

Winners have results.
Losers have excuses.

Authoritarian guncontrollers wanted the last election.
They got it.
Now they can live with the consequences and be relegated to irrelevancy.

[tblue]

41. You must be happy that they lost.

Your side won. Good for you. Y'all showed them pesky authoritarian gun controllers.

[kioa]

42. Happy? No. I want the Democratic Party to be a national party.

Gun control makes the Democratic Party a coastal regional party.

The GOP is a southern based party. The Democratic Party is a coastal (particularly NE) party.
The party that manages to not alienate the Midwest & Mountain West is the party that controls the nation.
Gun Control beyond any reasonable doubt gets the party crushed particularly in these areas.

That said, I am glad to have my party back from the attempted take over by the coastal authoritarian control freaks.
I prefer my party to protect rights & have a broad & liberal outlook on individual rights; not the soda banning, gun banning, stop and frisk nonsense of Mayor Bloomberg & Co.

[pablo_marmol]

173. +1,000,000,000 NT

[Electric Monk]

187. (psst! The gunthusiast that you're high-fiving got PPRd...)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=318755&sub=trans

[pablo_marmol]

191. Seems as though his "crime" was caring about how dishonesty

w/regard to the gun restriction/gun rights debate hurts Democrats. Wow. I think he's off the mark in terms of the extent of the damage, but this person sure didn't strike me as a troll.

[Shamash]

43. Nope

I'm a liberal. My side lost. And it lost because of irrational screamers who forgot that they were members of the party and the President who have explicitly stated that individual firearm ownership is a right.

Just so we can put the gun control position in perspective, Gabrielle Giffords still owns and still shoots a high-capacity, semi-auto pistol which would currently be illegal to buy in or transport to New York or Connecticut. Which places many here on DU in the position of not just opposing the President and the Democratic Party platform, but insulting the beliefs of a liberal victim of a mass shooting with her own gun control organization.

So if your position is so extreme that you are throwing Gabrielle Giffords under the bus, I don't think you have much claim to representing the mainstream of either Democrats or the country in general and should not be surprised if that position costs you (and me) elections.

You're stinking up my party and I really wish you would go elsewhere.

[pablo_marmol]

174. Exactly. Thank you very much. NT

[ileus]

2. Thing is those weapons designed only to kill aren't available to the public

Last edited Sat Jan 3, 2015, 11:33 PM - Edit history (1)

That whole kill en masse thing belongs to the military and their billion dollar a plane budget.


Most of us civilians don't have any use for machines that kill.

[Duckhunter935]

4. facts really do not matter

if your mind is that closed

[NJCher]

5. I'll be the first to say

that I don't understand it.

Most of us civilians don't have any use for machines that kill.

I don't think about guns. I don't feel the need for one. If I saw one on someone in daily life, it would creep me out beyond belief.

Yet there are, as stated in the OP, people who think of them all the time. A good example is that woman who was shot by her 2-year old in Idaho. It is just unimaginable to me that someone could be as academically accomplished as she, have a full life, with children and job, and still be thinking about guns.

There's something here that I'm missing; I just don't know what.

.
Cher

[ileus]

6. So guns are only for dumb people...

[NJCher]

49. I didn't exactly say that

More what I said is that people with a broad education, depth, and involvement in life are probably not going to be too attracted to guns.

It might have something to do with IQ--I'm not sure.

Would you happen to know of well-known intellectuals, accomplished people, who have an interest in guns? Who are gun aficionados, who go out shooting, etc.?


Cher

[GGJohn]

50. Wow!!!!

You come across as some sort of elitist.
Gun ownership might have something to do with IQ?
Well, let's see, there's Pres. Obama, Rachael Maddow, Ed Shultz, Pres. Clinton, VP Biden, Charles Schumer, Bill Richardson, etc.
Need I go on?

Linked to IQ indeed.

[ileus]

64. Those folks just fake it for votes....no serious intellectual would touch a firearm.

[NJCher]

94. yeah

because none of those people you cite, with the possible exception of Rachel Maddow, are really gun enthusiasts. They're politicians (not intellectuals), just pandering for votes. If they really were gun enthusiasts (I'm being kind here), you'd see a whole lot more evidence of how they spend their time with guns.

Anyone else on your list? Also, when I have time, I'll check into how much time Rachel Maddow really spends at the shooting range. I'll keep you posted.


Cher

[GGJohn]

95. Well, let's just pick your statement apart.

Bill Clinton, John Kerry, Bill Richardson, Big Ed Shultz, Charles Schumar, Joe Biden are all life long hunters, Rachael shoots competitively, Whoopie Goldberg is an NRA member as is Michael Moore.

Linking IQ with firearm ownership is a bigoted statement.

[gejohnston]

53. I can list a few

Maya Angelou, Jerry Brown (he owns a couple of target pistols), Gabby Giffords (and her husband), the shooting team of any major college (including Harvard's), Rachal Maddow (she rents at a public range in Manhattan, but doesn't own on her own. In fact, her and her partner's first date was at a shooting range where Susan's NRA member sister is a member.), Eric Clapton (collects antique guns), Hemenway, James Earl Jones (NRA member), Whoopi Goldberg (NRA member), Ed Shultz
Those are just the well known liberals off the top of my head. That is before we get to the well educated conservatives who are also well known and accomplished people I know, that you probably wouldn't.

No, it doesn't have anything to do with IQ.

[sarisataka]

54. You can include

Angelina Jolie the UNHCR Ambassador, Special Envoy to High Commissioner António Guterres, co-chairs Kids in Need of Defense (KIND), since the founding of the Clinton Global Initiative, Jolie has co-chaired the Education Partnership for Children of Conflict has received multiple awards and recognition from humanitarian organizations.
She also supports causes such as: Abuse, Adoption, Fostering, Orphans, AIDS & HIV, At-Risk/Disadvantaged Youths, Cancer, Children, Creative Arts, Disaster Relief, Economic/Business Support, Education, Environment, Health, Homelessness, Human Rights, Hunger, Literacy, Miscellaneous, Peace, Poverty, Rape/Sexual Abuse, Refugees, Slavery & Human Trafficking, Water, Weapons Reduction...
And enjoys a private gun range that was a gift from her husband, another gun owner, Brad Pitt.

Gun ownership does not require a specific IQ or political belief.

[NJCher]

104. Maya Angelou is the only one who would qualify as an intellectual

out of that group (with the possible exception of Rachel, and I have not yet researched the depth of her interest in shooting and guns). Hemingway was a creative and was a "man's man" as part of his persona. It was another time, before humans practically wiped out the wild game of Africa. He and his family are generally acknowledged to be mentally maladjusted.

I will research both Angelou and Maddow to see if you are correct. I kind of doubt it. Even if I gave you those, you'd still have only two, and those could be chalked up to anomalies.

Sorry, but wallowing in instruments of death is not something that people with humanistic ideals in life do. It's sad and it's sick.



Cher

[GGJohn]

106. You just keep digging yourself deeper and deeper with your elitist bullshit.

[gejohnston]

118. kind of moved the goal posts didn't you?

First you said:

More what I said is that people with a broad education, depth, and involvement in life are probably not going to be too attracted to guns.

That is a different discussion for another place, and what does any of that have to do with "humanistic ideals"?
and

Yet there are, as stated in the OP, people who think of them all the time. A good example is that woman who was shot by her 2-year old in Idaho. It is just unimaginable to me that someone could be as academically accomplished as she, have a full life, with children and job, and still be thinking about guns.

All of those people have full lives, a job, many with children, and formally (or informally in the case of educated. I did not say they were intellectuals. You moved the goal posts to intellectuals. No, Maddow is not an intellectual. Everything I related about Maddow, she said on her show. Angelou described her gun ownership a couple of interviews, one with Time.

As for the woman in Idaho, she grew up with guns and hunting. Why would she lose that interest after going to school? What does your opinion of guns have anything to do with anyone elses?

[Fred Sanders]

125. The folks who claim the last election was lost due to gun control shows you how much they have guns

on the brain...constantly they see the world through the narrow lens of a sniper scope.

[Duckhunter935]

126. care to answer many of the questions asked of you in these posts?

It would be the polite thing to do.

[Fred Sanders]

128. When you have guns on the brain there is no point debating, arguing I am good with.

You like my analogy? Pretty good, hey?

[Duckhunter935]

130. Another none answer

Par for the course.

[petronius]

109. Hemenway? Probably not...

(I know who you meant, just thought the typo was funny...)

[ileus]

63. I know a whole hospital of them.

From the CEO and several docs all the way down to the maintenance guys.

I can give you names of at least 5 or 6 millionaires (all own their own businesses) outside of the hospital that enjoy firearms.

Well known outside our area, or intellectuals probably not, but accomplished beyond a shadow of a doubt.

[NJCher]

105. Why am I arguing this point with

people who don't even know what an intellectual is?

Clue: intellectuals are people like Noam Chomsky.

That will be my last post on this topic. Not wasting another moment of my time with it.



Cher

[GGJohn]

107. So now we're just a bunch of country bumpkins?

Your ignorance is really showing through.

[DonP]

108. Let me guess?

Intellectuals = People who you think are just like you

What a steaming heap of condescending, elitist crapola.

[Straw Man]

110. Point?

Why am I arguing this point with

people who don't even know what an intellectual is?

Clue: intellectuals are people like Noam Chomsky.

How about Gore Vidal? Tennessee Williams? Or are theater folk déclassé?

JFK was obviously just pandering for the votes, of course.



--http://www.kwls.org/littoral/gore_vidal_tennessee_williams/

I know what an intellectual is. I also know what a faux-progressive elitist is.

[Eleanors38]

188. Tennessee Williams won that match by a mile! nt

[ileus]

112. Of course only Intellectuals are accomplished.

Not a 485,000 dollar a year CEO...he's just slumming with the commoners.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

114. "That will be my last post on this topic."

Golly. I would have thought a jen-yu-whine int'lectual would be able to readily defend their arguments to a successful conclusion.

I guess I don't know as much 'bout int'lectuals as I thought.

[Lurks Often]

98. What ignorant nonsense

I know engineers, lawyers, nurses & EMT's who own guns and shoot competitively.

How about Eleanor Roosevelt or Teddy Roosevelt or did they lack "a broad education, depth, and involvement in life"?

[ileus]

113. Those folks aren't bonafide accomplished...

[Brickbat]

119. "Who go out shooting, etc.?"

[spin]

131. Much may depend on where you live. There are gun friendly states and ...

gun unfriendly states.

I live in Florida which is considered a gun friendly state. I worked in a highly technical industry where most of my co-workers were college graduates or tech school graduates. Gun ownership was quite common and many of my co-workers had concealed weapons permits. (To be fair engineers and technicians are more likely to be interested in firearms and the shooting sports than say college professors.)

However I practiced shooting at an indoor pistol range. Among the regular shooters were doctors, lawyers, engineers, technicians, nurses, preachers, carpenters and business owners. One or two of the members were millionaires, most were middle or upper middle class and a few were receiving disability.

It's a common misconception that gun owners are poorly educated red necks. That may be because pictures of gun owners shooting on the range rarely show them wearing a suit and tie. Put a high rpiced lawyer in jeans and a flannel shirt and he can easily look like a country bumpkin.

Gun owners are a very diverse group and all segments and professions are well represented.

[kioa]

37. If you don't feel the need for guns, that's your Right.

Just let everyone else have that same right to choose for themselves.

Your fear of guns is based in ignorance.
Guns aren't scary.
That's why the states with more guns per capita (and thus, less ignorance of guns) are the same places that has the least support for gun control.

[ileus]

65. you must be a dumb knuckledragging gun owner....

Just kidding of course.

[meathead]

111. Here's something

I spent approximately 40 days hunting this fall. Not a single person was injured while using various loaded firearms over hundreds of hours. All that was in the company of dozens of other armed hunters. A sprained ankle was the only injury I've seen this fall......

[CreekDog]

149. that's not an impressive statistic

nobody injured in hundreds of hours of using firearms.

if that were applied to airplanes or cars, it would be a disaster if that's as good as the stats got.

[Big_Mike]

168. Well, let's expand a little

Consider that there are hundreds of thousands of hunters out going after deer, elk, game birds, etc., every year across America. Once in a great while, you hear of a hunting accident. I would say that statistic means something, wouldn't you?

[Veganstein]

155. I would submit to you...

That having a family and a fulfilling life are exactly the kind of thing that might compel a person to consider carrying a gun.

Of course, those same things should compel a person to better secure that gun too.

[Fred Sanders]

71. No civilian has much use for machines made to kill, guns, thank you for acknowledging that.

The civilians still have 300 million to the military/police of 4 million, but they need them.

[Starboard Tack]

86. Oh really?

That thing you carry everywhere isn't designed to kill more than one person? Phew! That's a relief.
And that double tap you like to talk about, that isn't meant to kill either, right? Just a little reminder for those who might mess with you at Walmart.

[ileus]

93. Nope...it's designed to protect/save lives.

Hey....you want to post the link where I wrote about a double tap???

I'll be waiting....a really long time.

[Starboard Tack]

97. Lemme think now...

Ah yes, it was when you were bragging about your kids and buying them guns for all the family fun stuff you guys do with your guns and how you'd decided, being such a responsible parent 'n'all, not to teach your little boy how to double tap, yet.

[ileus]

101. Now now....lying is a sin.

link...

You shouldn't try to lie to me about me...that's just silly.

[Starboard Tack]

117. You calling me a liar? So these are not your words?

Is it even a number of reliable rounds as opposed to getting to know the firearm to where it's an extension of your arm? Double taps become second nature, every round within reason right on target.

Or this

You have to train the way you fight.

punching holes is for the whole family to enjoy, even my 9yo son can target shoot with my 45. Does he practice tactical reloads, or clearing jams? No...

As we're walking around the parking lot of Target does he access those around him? No.

Does he practice double taps? No.

Does he practice engaging multiple targets quickly? Not so much...


Keeping all your rounds in the 10 ring at 7-10 yards is just one aspect of CC. There's so much more to CC than just punching a hole in a target.

We need to start a Tactics and Taining thread where we can share our knowledge and tips for concerned citizens that carry.

[Duckhunter935]

3. not very factual

The lawsuit is discouraging because the death-by-gun lobby has successfully advocated for legislative prophylactics that prevent gunmakers, almost uniquely among American manufacturers, from ever being held responsible for the deaths that their products cause. If a carmaker made a car that was known to be wildly unsafe, and then advertised it as unsafe, liabilities would result. The gun lobby is, or believes itself to be, immune. Some experts have outlined legal principles that might let sanity triumph, but it is hard to think it will. (Right-wing judges tend, these days, to be more creative than liberal ones in creating legal precedents that no one ever before imagined possible.)

The law is that way because of frivolous SLAPP suits against the manufacturers that the plaintiffs knew they would not win but were filed to bankrupt the firearms manufacturers.

Firearms manufacturers can and have been sued for unsafe products. If all warnings are heeded a modern firearm is safe if used as intended. Misuse is not a cause to sue the manufacturer. If someone stole my car, mowed down a bunch of people is the car maker responsible?

They would be better to sue the state as they are the ones that allowed that rifle to be sold in their state. They can even sue the seller but it was legally sold and all background checks were performed and passed, so what do you sue them for?

[NYC_SKP]

7. The author disqualifies himself the moment he uses terms like "fanatic", "gun crazy", and the like.

Further, he fails miserably by using that same old specious claim that the majority of Americans feel a certain way, and what that way is, and then lumps all others together into a group defined by people who would what, want no laws whatsoever?

That's just mad ranting.

In truth, the majority of American agree that there should be limits and controls not just of "weapons intended only to kill en masse" (what that means the hack won't say), but of all guns.
Hardly anyone wants guns to be made, sold, and possessed without some restrictions.
Thus, it's a waste of otherwise useful space in a fairly good magazine.
The author is an stupid ass.

Then, he goes on to describe these boogie men, "the gun crazy think about guns all the time", which is simply stupid and narrow minded and kind of pointless. There are few nuts out there, no doubt about it, but they don't wield enough power to have much influence. The folks who resist overreaching gun control are among that first larger group, that majority, and they know better than to give up their rights for a false sense of security.

As to your assertion that the paragraph you cite somehow sums up the debate on DU, I'm sure you don't mean to say that RKBA supporters are like that second group, do you?

I have held you in higher esteem than the author, so I don't think you mean that.

...

[Duckhunter935]

10. Bravo, I could not have stated it better than you just did

Thank you so much for posting that.

[CreekDog]

150. are you saying that fanatics of any kind do not exist?

or are you saying that fanatics do exist but no gun fanatics exist?

[NYC_SKP]

153. CreekDoggieDogg!

What is happening, bro?

Dude, I just saw two dolphins out my window.

It's not unusual to see them but it's the first time I've seen them inside a breaking wave, like this only there were two:



As to your question about fanatics.
The author is a liar, the writing bears this out. No citizen is capable of knowing what is in the minds of voters: it's impossible and impractical, yet the idiot can make a statement like the one below, which is impossible to state with any reliability, so the whole thing is shit journalism.

the gun crazy think about guns all the time, and vote on the issue with fanatic intensity.

The whales are running, you should come to the coast and maybe see a humpback or grey, even the orcas are out and about.

[NYC_SKP]

157. OPS: Gun fanatics exist, yes, as do gun control fanatics.

I never meant to suggest that there aren't gun fanatics, it's just that the author disqualifies himself as a serious journalist and exposes himself as a fanatic.

Which is kind of funny.

[Shamash]

8. All this talk about the selfless morality of gun control advocates

almost made me forget that the people who wrote Connecticut's assault weapon ban specifically wrote into the legislation that it was a-okay to keep manufacturing them in Connecticut and keep exporting them to other states. And this was not some amendment added at the last second by Republicans. Connecticut: We hate assault weapons but we'll gladly let people make them, sell them to your state and keep the tax revenues for ourselves.

But then I remembered that we already have limits and controls on the manufacture and sale and ownership of weapons and that as those limits have gotten increasingly tight over the past several decades there has not been a corresponding drop in firearms homicides.

United States firearm homicide rate (from FBI Uniform Crime Report for the appropriate year)
2010: 2.8 per 100,000 people
1950: 1.7 per 100,000 people

There are two things to take away from these figures:
1) In 1950 "assault weapons" could be ordered through the mail with no background check...legally (period advertising scans posted elsewhere on DU for those who don't believe this)
2) The 1950 figure is all homicides, while the higher 2010 figure is only firearm homicides. So the actual firearm homicide rate in 1950 was even lower.

So, could someone (preferably an expert like a commenter in the New Yorker) help me out and tell me the exact benefits we have reaped over the past 60 years from background checks, purchase limits, bans and so on, because my gun-addled layperson's mind is failing to see a positive correlation in terms of lives saved by the stricter regulation that accompanied the Gun Control Act of 1968, the Assault Weapon Ban of 1994, the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act and so on.

[BigAlanMac]

16. I don't think your numbers are correct.

Not to be too picky, but you're putting out very bad info. According to the DOJ via FBI and BJS, the homicide rate in 1950 was 4.6 and today its 4.7.

If you were was smart, you would have put the real stats out there, which shows that during the height of the gun bans and during the time of tightest restrictions, the homicide rate sky rocketed to 10.2 in 1980 and didn't start to drop significantly until the AWB expired and pro-gun legislation started being passed in the late 90's and early 2000's.

[Shamash]

20. If you can show me where I am wrong, I'll correct it

I took those figures from the FBI Uniform Crime Report for 2010 web site last night, and from a scanned hardcopy of the 1950 Uniform Crime Report, and cross-referenced it with US Census counts for those years to get the "per 100,000" rates. The reason I could only use the overall homicide rate in 1950 is that the 1950 report did not break it down into the cause of death.

expanded homicide table 8: 8,775 firearm homicides
US population 2010: 308,745,538
which gives 1 firearm homicide per 35,148 people, or 2.8 per 100,000

1950 UCR: urban homicides: 1,644, rural homicides: 947
US population 1950: 150,697,361
which gives 1 homicide per 58,162 people, or 1.7 per 100,000

I admit to being at the mercy of my sources, but I do strive to find primary sources whenever possible. I did not pick the height of the firearm homicide rates because cherry picking to support a hypothesis that is otherwise untenable is what they do.

To add to my own reference library and to examine the reason for the differences in stats, can you provide links for where you got your figures from? Are you sure the 4.7 per 100,000 figure for 2010 is homicides and does not include manslaughter or other non-negligent deaths, because my figures were strictly for homicides.

Regardless, you are correct that the point stands. Whether the 1950 figure is lower or about the same as 2010, despite huge differences in the level of gun control, it is difficult to argue that gun control has made any difference.

[gejohnston]

22. correction

is homicides and does not include manslaughter or other non-negligent deaths, because my figures were strictly for homicides.

homicide is taking the life of a human, not necessarily murder. All murders are homicides, but not all homicides are murders. If it says "homicide" it includes manslaughter, murder, unavoidable accidents (excusable homicide) and justifiable homicide (defense of self and others).

[Shamash]

23. correction correction?

The FBI definition from the links considers non-negligent deaths separate from homicides and has separate totals for accidents, manslaughter and justifiable homicide (and adding these in any combination to my previous figures does not alter the conclusion reached).

If as you suggest, we listed all actions resulting in loss of life as a homicide we would count every motor vehicle death in in this country as a "homicide" and we would also count every self-inflicted loss of life as a "homicide". The former would not clarify the issue for either side in a gun control context and the latter would probably (pun intended) shoot gun control advocates in the foot, since it would instantly make Japan's "homicide rate" skyrocket to more than that of the United States (Japan's suicide rate per 100,000 (21.4) exceeds the United States' suicide rate (12.5) plus our murder rate (4.7, if you use the high number suggested elsewhere). Ditto for South Korea, which also has negligible firearms ownership and an even higher suicide rate than Japan.

The FBI, whether correctly or not, uses "homicide" as synonymous with "murder" (probably because they did not feel like saying "intentional homicide on someone other than yourself" every time), as the following cut & paste from the UCR page illustrates: "The Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program of the FBI collects supplementary homicide data that provide the age, sex, and race of the murder victim and offender." In this sentence, a "homicide" is assumed to result in a "murder victim".

Last, many dictionaries include "murder" as an alternate acceptable meaning for the term "homicide". From dictionary.com:

homicide: noun
1.the killing of one human being by another.
2.a person who kills another; murderer.

[gejohnston]

24. I haven't looked at the UCR lately

shoot gun control advocates in the foot, since it would instantly make Japan's "homicide rate" skyrocket to more than that of the United States (Japan's suicide rate per 100,000 (21.4) exceeds the United States' suicide rate (12.5) plus our murder rate (4.7, if you use the high number suggested elsewhere). Ditto for South Korea, which also has negligible firearms ownership and an even higher suicide rate than Japan.

If you wanted to shoot gun control advocates in the foot, just look at countries that have almost no legal gun ownership and have higher murder rates. Russia, Mexico, USVI, Brazil, Belize, etc come to mind.
Japan and suicide. Suicide/murders are not that unusual, and all are listed as suicides. (guy kills wife and three kids before offing himself, all are reported as suicides) Cold cases are often written off as suicides. If they counted murders and suicides the same as our, perhaps it would be.

[Shamash]

25. Copy the links I provided

I don't care if a person is pro- or anti- on this or any other issue, you will seldom go wrong by having more factual information as opposed to less.

If you wanted to shoot gun control advocates in the foot, just look at countries that have almost no legal gun ownership and have higher murder rates. Russia, Mexico, USVI, Brazil, Belize, etc come to mind.

I believe I did that elsewhere in this thread...

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

21. Not accepting change...

...in either the political or meteorological climate is a sign of an ideological problem.

[hack89]

9. So gun control advocates have neither the passion nor the votes

are you hoping that a republican billionaire's money will make up for it?

[unrepentant progress]

11. Not true now

Has never been true at any point in American history. I'll say this again -- the modern gun control movement was birthed by Ronald Reagan because he was afraid of black men with guns. Prior to that people weren't overly concerned about guns except for handguns which were seen as a problem even back in the days of the Wild West. The solution was to ban their sale altogether, or make licensing extremely strict and prohibitive. Anything else though was hardly controlled at all. People really need to stop abusing history to justify their beliefs or actions in the present. It's a fool's game, and almost as bad as abusing religion.

[BrotherIvan]

12. Agreed

And they're all here telling you gun control is impossible and dead kids are the price for their freedom.

[NYC_SKP]

13. Not really. Gun control is possible, it's already here. And we do this for your children and theirs

Guns are already controlled, with most Americans liking things just as they are.

We want more consistent control, but we don't want silly bans. Most people agree.

And we do this not for our freedom but for future generations.

Your kids and their kids.

[BrotherIvan]

14. That delusion is killing Americans

[hack89]

17. What gun control will eliminate suicides?

because two thirds of those deaths are suicides.

[Duckhunter935]

31. he will not answer

that great question

[tradewinds]

34. Most of them.yes. Gun control can greatly reduce suicides.

To imply otherwise is being very obtuse.

[hack89]

35. Care to give some details?

common gun control laws like registration, background checks, and AWBs have no impact due the demographics of suicide and the types of guns used.

By gun control do you mean "banning handguns"?

[Duckhunter935]

39. I would like to see those

details also. I am sure they will be explained by the poster here very soon and in detail.

[tradewinds]

56. ..

[Fred Sanders]

67. About as much detail as they deserve for their never ending demands for proof and links....

[tradewinds]

72. Ya, like all those folks who shot themselves would just find another way.

Obtuse, indeed. Maybe our new Surgeon General can compile the data that the gunners fear so much.

[sarisataka]

77. been there, done that

got the report to prove it
http://www.nap.edu/catalog/18319/priorities-for-research-to-reduce-the-threat-of-firearm-related-violence

or are you meaning you want only reports that say what you want them to say?

[Fred Sanders]

79. Well, this is their "safe haven" from the rest of DU, you would think that would give them a clue...

[Electric Monk]

80. GC&RKBA is not a safe haven, while GCRA is. See each "about this group".

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=about&forum=1172
Gun Control & RKBA (Group): About This Group
Statement of Purpose

Discuss gun politics, gun control laws, the Second Amendment, the use of firearms for self-defense, and the use of firearms to commit crime and violence.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=about&forum=1262
Gun Control Reform Activism (Group): About This Group
Statement of Purpose

Discuss how to enact progressive gun control reform in a supportive environment. The group serves as a safe haven in which to mobilize supporters in support of measures reducing gun violence by changing laws, culture and practice at the municipal, state, and federal levels. While there is no single solution to the tragic epidemic of gun violence, members agree that more guns are not the solution to gun violence, and are expected to be supportive of the policies of progressive gun control reform organizations.

[Fred Sanders]

81. I meant safe heaven for the gun control opposers.

[hack89]

82. Who here opposes gun control?

you really mean "people who don't agree with me 100%"

[Fred Sanders]

83. What gun control measures do you fully support?

I fully support the full agenda of all the Bloomberg funded groups, all of them, and fully support all the bills presented in the Senate, background checks, restricted magazines, bringing back the the old assault weapons ban, increased jail time for violations, making all firearms traceable, etc., and a nationally organized gun amnesty for folks to return unwanted firearms.

For starters.

[hack89]

84. Everything except AWB and registration Nt

[gejohnston]

85. and a nationally organized gun amnesty for folks to return unwanted firearms.

Return them to who, the manufacturers? Can't return them to the police or government, since (with few exceptions) they didn't own them to begin with.

[Duckhunter935]

88. cool so criminals

can turn in there guns when they are done with them with no repercussions.

[GGJohn]

90. Really?

What safe haven would that be?

[Duckhunter935]

99. and how does that work

or are you going to move the goalposts again?

Just admit you are wrong, since this group does not block dissent.

[beevul]

138. Hey EM, I feel I have a duty to report this to you.

I was browsing over there, not posting mind you, and came across one of your more strident members telling someone "Please read the SOP for this group and try to comply", because they weren't discussing "how to enact progressive gun control reform in a supportive environment". The poster that was told to comply was subsequently blocked for noncompliance with the SOP.


I just found a whole thread over there, that has nothing to do with discussing "how to enact progressive gun control reform in a supportive environment." Maybe you can point it out to the host and see to it that the person that posted this thread gets told "Please read the SOP for this group and try to comply", and perhaps block that poster if they don't.

Show us all how even handed you are.

Heres the thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12627837


Thanks in advance for doing the right thing.

[Electric Monk]

139. It's about gun trolls on DU, so it's about discussing gun control reform in a supportive environment

nice try though

[beevul]

140. I somehow doubt you read the SOP that loosely for everyone.

On second thought, it might serve as an elegant example to link to, of someone telling you to abide by your own sop (and rightfully so), and being blocked by you for it.

[Electric Monk]

141. If anything, its a bit meta, but GCRA doesn't have a hard and fast rule about meta threads

so its up to the discretion of the host(s).

[beevul]

142. Other than the SOP which you otherwise, zealously enforce.

I'm still searching for the part that authorizes meta.

Or is that just you?

One might just come to the conclusion that this is yet another example of "rules for thee but not for me", which is so commonplace amongst more vocal "strict gun control" advocates.

As I said in another thread:

Scratch an anti-gunner, and routinely, you uncover a hypocrite willing ready and able to chastise the other side for doing X, while turning a blind eye to people from their own side of the issue doing that very same X.

Me, I'd say that goes double for the ones in positions of power or authority, even minor ones.

[Electric Monk]

143. Would you like me to call you a whaaambulance? That Group is not yours, nor is it for you. nt

[beevul]

144. And I'm not posting there nor have I.

That doesn't mean I don't get to point out hypocrisy when I see it, particularly by you, the host of that vaunted group, who enforces strict adherence to your SOP by some, but not others or even yourself.

Animal farm much EM?


If its uncomfortable having your hypocrisy pointed out, you'll have better luck trying not to engage in hypocrisy, than you will shutting me up, because in THIS group, you don't get to silence pro-gun posters for being pro-gun with the push of a button, like you'd like to.

[Electric Monk]

145. You are like a Catholic trying to control what can be posted in the Atheists Group.

It is simply not your business.

I think your real issue is that you don't want any more DUers to see those ar15.com links than already have so far. You are upset my thread made it to the Greatest page and has had nothing but a positive response from other Group members.

[beevul]

146. Nonsense. Complete and utter nonsense.

"You are like a Catholic trying to control what can be posted in the Atheists Group."

And you guys are like a group POSING as people who are trying to control what gets posted, when you're far more concerned with WHO is doing the posting, than what is being posted.

I'm pointing out, that you in that group selectively interpret and enforce your own SOP, with deliberate bias.

Would you like an example?

Or would you like to simply admit to it.

[Electric Monk]

147. You are like a Catholic trying to control what can be posted in the Atheists Group, indeed.

Your opinion on this subject will get all the respect that a Catholic, Protestant, Baptist, Jew, or Muslim trying to control what gets posted in the Atheists Group would, which is none. You can save yourself any more typing on this subject, you are tilting at windmills. Good bye.

[beevul]

148. Says the host of the forum with all the blocked members. N/T

[Duckhunter935]

87. we do not require one

please quit telling untruths and correct your post

This group allows open discussion, while the other group that is a "safe haven" does not.

compare the blocks

Gun Control & RKBA

Blocked members
1 Hoyt
2 notrightatall

Gun Control Reform Activism

Blocked members
1 hack89
2 Eleanors38
3 Crepuscular
4 Bay Boy
5 ManiacJoe
6 bossy22
7 Straw Man
8 oneshooter
9 Duckhunter935
10 friendly_iconoclast
11 rrneck
12 customerserviceguy
13 ProgressiveProfessor
14 sarisataka
15 appal_jack
16 Travis_0004
17 geckosfeet
18 Hangingon
19 NYC_SKP
20 Jenoch
21 spin
22 shedevil69taz
23 SoutherDem
24 Lurks Often
25 ileus
26 Recursion
27 SQUEE
28 MO_Moderate
29 S_B_Jackson
30 HALO141
31 Jgarrick
32 Valakut
33 arst1
34 Nuclear Unicorn
35 TupperHappy
36 pipoman
37 yeoman6987
38 Laelth
39 IronGate
40 VScott

I think as soon as they get an active host they will add to that list as right now they can not do to both hosts disappearing.

[pablo_marmol]

171. And consider that the list would be **MUCH** longer if so many of us

didn't consider that group such a pathetic waste of time, and knew that we'd be banned almost immediately upon posting.

[Duckhunter935]

76. at least some of us

actually give links and proof.

It just proves the point that what you have stated on more than one occasion is just not true. I have apologized when I have made a mistake but I see some here just do not give a common courtesy like that to others.

Your silence in other threads speaks volumes.

[GGJohn]

89. Yeah, when people like you make wild accusations, then we do ask for links and proof,

something you never provide, instead, if the issue isn't going your way, you run away.

[Duckhunter935]

100. I have noticed it a few times

I expect this time will be the same

[branford]

38. The entire nation of Japan is evidence to the contrary. nt

[jeff47]

55. Other suicide methods have a lower success rate.

Usually by giving the person a chance to change their mind. For example, you've still got time to call 911 if you slit your wrists.

So theoretically, reducing access to guns would mean more people attempting suicide would fail to "finish the job".

Would it? No idea. Anyone got the statistics for Australia handy?

[gejohnston]

57. in Australia

gun ownership rate is the same as before the National Firearms Agreement. While suicide by gun did go down after the NFA, the suicide rate did not. From what I read, there is no evidence of one having anything to do with the other beyond coincidence. Before the NFA each Australian state had laws that varied kind of like ours (they didn't have federal laws, and really still don't. The states were blackmailed to passing NFA, just like our "national" drinking age.) NSW had the strictest gun laws and Tasmania was the most liberal (but still had licensing and registration).
http://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1736501,00.html

While theoretically true, not how it really works. Those who slice their wrists are crying for help, but don't want to die. Someone who uses a gun, rope, bridge etc. are serious.

[hack89]

58. Look at the gun suicide demographic

primarily middle aged white guys. The demographic that usually has no problems passing the legal requirements for gun ownership.

So exactly what laws would you pass to reduce access to guns for this group?

[jeff47]

61. You'd probably take a chunk out with mental health screening

People who reach the point of suicide often have a mental health history that could preclude them from gun ownership. That would also require better access to mental health care though. Our current system doesn't do a good enough job for this to work well.

Otherwise, the only mechanism would by the general reduction in availability. If it's harder to find a place to buy a gun, it's harder to use it for suicide. Meanwhile, there's knives already in the kitchen and rope already in the garage.

Again, no idea if strict gun laws would actually have such an effect in reality. And frankly suicide prevention isn't terribly motivating from the gun control side.

[sarisataka]

60. Here

http://www.conversationsmatter.com.au

http://www.gunsandcrime.org/

[BigAlanMac]

62. Many years ago

I was in hospital with a USAF airman that stuck a .22 pistol muzzle in his mouth, pulled the trigger, and MISSED!
The bullet his and shattered a tooth and ended up lodged near his spine. Not even any nerve damage.

[Fred Sanders]

68. Really? I was in the bed next to the same guy. He never walked again.

[GGJohn]

91. Yeah, sure you were.

[Fred Sanders]

74. Eliminating suicides would require eliminating depression, you got the answer to eliminating

depression, I would like a link and proof.

Reducing suciide by not making a killing machine easy to get would help, it is only common sense.

[hack89]

75. So let's hear your detailed plan. Nt

[CreekDog]

151. you're saying that for gun control to be successful

all suicides of any kind must be eliminated or gun control is 100% failure?

obviously not trying to have a productive discussion.

[hack89]

154. No - don't think that at all. No law is perfect.

Do you think preventing a single suicide justifies any gun control measure?

[CreekDog]

156. you said "eliminate suicides"

if that's not what you mean, how about not saying it?

I guess I caught you in a strawman argument, which is the energy source of the RKBA group.

[hack89]

158. Ok. No gun control law can significantly reduced the numbers of suicides

short of an outright ban and confiscation.

Happy now?

What energy drives Bansalot? It is moribund - is that why you come here? To start a fight and bathe in that righteous moral indignation that drives you? To pick up on that energy that petty rudeness creates?

[Shamash]

19. I like that comparison

If you compare the US to some of the world's richest nations. Note that we're not comparing nations based on their gun control policies, but by their wealth. And then apparently only some of them. Seems kind of odd to narrow the list that way if gun control is supposed to be the most important factor.

So, I wonder why the list you posted is so specific? Could it be that I could make a list with those exact same qualifiers and say the opposite? Yes, I can name several countries that are richer than the Czech Republic and have stricter gun control than the US and have a higher gun death rate.

Brazil, Mexico, South Africa, Columbia and Venezuela are all wealthier than the Czech Republic in terms of GDP and have stricter gun control and higher firearm death rates than the US.

Oh, and FYI? The Czech Republic has a long tradition of firearm ownership, sport shooting is the third most popular sport in the country, concealed carry is allowed, and high-capacity semi-autos are allowed. So even with your list, the Czech Republic has more lax gun control than any nation above it except the United States, and a lower gun death rate.

"The right to defend oneself against a physical threat is a universally recognized principle in all legal systems, provided
(generally speaking) that the threat is ‘immediate’ and the response is ‘necessary’ and ‘proportionate’". - Small Arms Survey(Geneva), 2011

[randys1]

26. Maybe we just need more guns, already we are the highest gun ownership per capita

but maybe that isnt enough

[GGJohn]

29. Maybe we do.

Violent crime has been dropping while firearm ownership has skyrocketed.
But I'm not equating firearm ownership with falling violent crime, far from it, there's other factors involved.

[Fred Sanders]

44. To protect folks from so many guns, we need MORE guns...the logical fail is painful.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

51. More than 85% of sexual assauts are by an unarmed attacker.

Of the remaining 15% less than a third of them (~5%) are armed with a gun.

If a woman who chooses to arm herself is attacked by a would-be rapist she has ~5% of meeting her attacker on equal terms. In every other case she will possess the advantage.

Most people would consider that a good thing. How about you?

[pablo_marmol]

15. No.......no it doesn't.

For all of the reasons elegantly stated in post #7.

Also, the paragraph doesn't state the fact that the 2A supporters know what they're talking about, while those who support restriction are excruciatingly ignorant on all matters relating to gun violence, gun laws, firearm design etc.

[hack89]

18. You have shown yourself fit to moderate Bansalot

coming over here to make your bones by tossing your supporters some red meat?

[branford]

28. I almost stopped reading this piece of agitprop when in the beginning of the second paragraph

Last edited Sun Jan 4, 2015, 02:21 PM - Edit history (1)

the author wrote, "The filed complaint—the numbered paragraphs give it an oddly religious feeling, like theses nailed to a church door . . "

I'm a trial attorney, and I didn't know whether to laugh or cry. All legal complaints have numbered paragraphs. The organization and form of complaints normally engender a yawn by the general public, not a near religious experience akin to the beginnings of the Reformation. I wonder if the author felt similarly moved and pious when he read the lawsuits challenging the PPACA or its birth control mandate. The remainder of much of the article and the complaint itself is further filled with matters of faith rather than inconvenient facts, broader legal analysis and hardcore democratic political realities.

The article is little more than a sermon to other gun control true believers with the NRA cast as the tempting devil, and is hardly a jumping-off point for a good-faith discussion of gun control and rights.

[Shamash]

30. Applause! Well said, sir.

[NYC_SKP]

32. Indeed, it makes our case like most other unsubstantive anti-gun articles posted hereabouts.

I'm kind of disappointed in the New Yorker, though.

[Duckhunter935]

40. Thank you, kind sir

[Fred Sanders]

45. No need to cast the NRA as the "tempting" devil, whatever that means, the NRA does that well all

by itself.

Defending the NRA on a progressive site and pretending to be in the majority makes this group very special.

[friendly_iconoclast]

47. "Defense of the NRA" in this group has been largely in *your* posts recently

Said 'defense' usually consists of an evidence-free claim by you
that other posters are somehow supporting the NRA.

It's obvious- "The NRA" is no different than "Satan" for your sort, so it's not a bit
surprising that your screeds are no different in tone than that of the nuttier sort
of religious fundamentalists...

[sarisataka]

66. Do give Fred credit

for being the voice of reason (I can't believe I actually am saying that) in the discussion about what GCRA would like to see happen to us "Murder Advocates"

****
1. Perhaps we should all get behind open carry of handguns. Might thin the herd a little . . . . nt

****
3. I totally agree.
Might give the rest of us a chance to clear the decks before the tangling begins.

Fred Sanders
5. Ridding them of their killing machines would be as effective, and more humane, without all the
collateral damage.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12627619

Someday he may disavow these:

2. I have often wondered about that, it should be assumed that they are potential terrorists

Maybe if a few of these jackasses get taken down maybe some of the others stop being such assholes.

Gun owners in general are cowards, one or two times should be enough to have them cowering under their bed.

9. Takes mere seconds to un-sling and shoot.

I say shoot them on sight , just to be safe. No sane person would carry a rifle around a grocery store. Only the insane and the criminally motivated. So, again, I say shoot them on sight, let their bodies rot in the streets as a message to other hell-bent gunners.

Nothing but good could come of this.

10. Nonsense.

That gun can be readied and fired in only seconds. Best to just shoot them.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025861647

[Fred Sanders]

69. What are you going on about now, spending time concocting a web of rather creepy guilt by

association...I am flattered.

[sarisataka]

73. Guilt by association...

Good for the goose, good for the gander- yes?

I merely noted that on the same day gungeon posters were named as murder advocates, another thread in GCRA toyed with the fantasy of gun owners murdering each other off. You stepped up to suggest that might be an inappropriate course of action.

I would like to see a few more of those who claim to be against gun violence speak up when summary execution is suggested as a way to remove guns from society.

IIRC, long before John Crawford lll, a noted gun control proponent here stated the opinion open carriers needed to have the cops called on them and then dealt with "extreme prejudice"...

[GGJohn]

48. Who here is defending the NRA?

You keep claiming that but when asked to provide links, you tend to disappear.

[Duckhunter935]

52. I know I have asked many times

you are very correct he throws that out and when called on it runs away from the post as fast as possible.

Tends to show how true that statement really is by default. If I did not know any better I would think he knows it is untrue.

[branford]

59. Thank you for proving my point about the article and those individuals

who read it as unquestioned gospel.

Also, did you actually read the article? As with many gun control pieces, it assumes a single organization of a few million paying members out of tens of millions of lawful gun owners and with hundreds of millions of guns is somehow all powerful, totally evil, and control the levers of government everywhere.

Constantly referencing the NRA in gun control and gun rights discussions is just intellectually lazy, and amounts to little more that a distracting and emotive bogeyman when facts and political trends do not support your views.

[Fred Sanders]

70. The NRA is not evil, the men who run it are. Wayne Lapierre....need I say more?

[branford]

78. Yes, you need to say more . . .

Last edited Sun Jan 4, 2015, 11:08 PM - Edit history (1)

Are you suggesting that the NRA board wasn't properly or democratically elected by its members or it doesn't represent their views.

And "evil" is a lazy term that is not defined as "those who really, really disagree with."

As an aside, do you realize that the Heller and McDonald cases, the biggest recent wins for gun rights, were not a product of the NRA. Rather, they reflected the efforts of the Second Amendment Foundation, who engage in virtually no political advocacy or lobbying, choosing instead to stick to court cases, an area where they have repeatedly been successful.

[friendly_iconoclast]

46. It certainly does- it is an excellent example of 'false consensus effect' in action

Your choice of it was perhaps more apt than you imagined, but illuminating nonetheless.

And not in a flattering way to your side of the issue...

[krispos42]

92. The fundamental truth of "tactical" guns

is that any gun optimized for self-defense is also optimized for offense, and vice versa.

There is no getting away from this fact. Any feature you can add to a gun to make it work better when trouble is smashing in a window in your house will also make it work better when some nutjob or overstressed worker decides that mass murder is the answer.

There. Is. No. Way. Around. This. Fact.

Period.


Semiautomatic long gun versus a pump, bolt, or lever gun? Semiautomatic works better for both defense and offense.

Detachable magazine? Ditto.

Full-capacity magazines? Ditto.

Gun-mounted high-intensity tactical light? Ditto.

Gun-mounted laser sight? Ditto.

Holographic/red dot close-quarters sight? Ditto.

Matte-black finish? Ditto.

Flash suppressor? Ditto.

Protruding pistol grip? Ditto, with the caveat that it's personal preference.

Telescoping/folding buttstock? Ditto, with the caveat that these are also useful for pretty much all long guns regardless of purpose.

Bayonet mounting lugs? Ditto, rare as they may be.



This is why, in countries like Australia, guns optimized for self-defense are not legal anymore. Self-defense is not a valid reason for the government to grant the privilege of gun ownership, and thus guns optimized for that purpose are outlawed. No handguns, and no semiautomatic rifles or shotguns.

[Shamash]

96. Let's examine that statement

I could dismantle pretty much everything you said, but let's just hit the high point:

Do you feel that self-defense, protecting your own life against an unwarranted attack, is a fundamental human right? If so, then explain why denying a weaker or frailer person like my gray-haired self the ability to effectively act in self-defense against a larger or stronger attacker (or multiple attackers) is a liberal attitude. On the other hand, if you believe that self-defense is not a fundamental human right, then you should be honest and run your anti-gun campaign on that premise:

"We want to take away your so-called right to protect yourself."

A right to self-defense is useless unless you are allowed an effective means to do so, and it is your argument that these features make a firearm more effective in that role.

As a heads-up, once you adequately explain/defend your position on this item, we can move on to the number of murders and mass murders committed with a rifle-mounted bayonet and see if the number of offensive uses warrants the ban you seek.

[krispos42]

102. Welcome to DU

I trust you'll have an entertaining time here in the Gungeon, as it is nicknamed with varying amounts of glee. I can virtually guarantee you that you will NOT have an entertaining time in Gun Control Reform Activism, nicknamed "Castle Bans-a-lot".

Anyway, I'm pleased to inform you that I am pro-gun and against useless, pandering laws like assault-weapon bans and magazine limits. A quick check of my posts here, including the one pinned to the top of this Group analyzing the 25 worst mass shootings, should quickly validate my positions to you.

My point in the post you're replying to is that, because we have a RIGHT to own guns, and not a privilege extended arbitrarily by the government, then we also have the right to own guns without having to justify either the purchase or the reason to the government, and that we can have the guns configured as we feel fit (within the broad framework of the 1934 National Firearms Act).

Nations like Australia extend the right to own guns to its citizens only for valid reasons, and only guns that can be used for those valid reasons. These reasons do not include self-defense and thus they can ban a wide swath of guns as having "no valid reason" to be legal.

I've noticed that gun-control states that have strict limits on firearms also have strict limits on non-lethal and muscle-driven self-defense weapons as well. In some of those states, getting a Taser or pepper spray is very difficult, knives are limited in size, and other self-defense weapons such as brass knuckles are outlawed.

[Shamash]

115. Amusingly wrong

Last edited Mon Jan 5, 2015, 10:18 AM - Edit history (1)

I've been here for years. I've just taken to tweaking twits here recently. I was for quite a while the co-host of the RKBA group on Kos, but had to throw my hands in the air and go cold turkey from the site due to the irrational bigotry and outright hostility towards gun owners there. The co-host of the leading anti-gun group at Kos has the stated position that Revolutionary War muskets fired several times too fast for any weapon civilians should be allowed to own, and is seen as a reasonable gun control advocate. Simply for holding a position on the 2nd that matches that of the Democratic Party and President I have been called by my fellow liberals an NRA stooge, kindergarden killer, accessory to murder and a delusional paranoid. It was quite literally bad for my aging blood pressure, and I'll probably leave here soon since it seems people like Fred Sanders are the leading intellectual lights of liberal gun control at DU and people like you are the best pro-gun liberals have to offer. So feel free to have the last word on the issue.

And I'm quite sure I would be blocked over at GCRA, as their ability to respond rationally to criticisms based on logic, fact or liberal philosophy is as negligible as it is over at Kos. (edit: as Fred Sanders, on cue, immediately demonstrates in the comment directly below).

I too believe in certain aspects of gun control, particularly training and legal knowledge requirements just as for any other hazardous technology. I also am a fan of the recent efforts by the Hartford police in curbing firearm murders, efforts which were both hugely successful and which did not involve banning anything on your list.

I am pro-gun and against useless, pandering laws like assault-weapon bans and magazine limits

I am interested to hear how this interacts with your comment above, since the qualities that have been used to legally define an "assault weapon" are the ones you both a) think should cause a weapon to be banned and yet b) you simultaneously oppose useless, pandering laws like "assault weapon bans". Your answer should be interesting and will go a long way towards explaining why you and Fred Sanders are never seen in the same room at the same time...

Your arguments in the post I responded to were fundamentally flawed in both a liberal and a logical sense. First, assuming that because some members of Group A are a hazard we should restrict all members of Group A is the exact same reason we have racial profiling. More specifically, your assumption that because some items in Group B are misused that all such items should be more tightly restricted would make you fit right in as a supporter of the War on (some) Drugs. And of course, make you a supporter of nude body scans and such at the airport to make sure folks are not carrying "restricted items" (seriously, they found a pack of matches and a lighter in my carryon at Logan last year (returning from a camping trip) and I had to give up one of them because having both would have been too much of a danger).

Since you are here at DU, I hope you hold to none of these absurd laws based on inaccurate stereotypes and ignorant fear. If for nothing other than the practical reason that the chance an average white gun owner will murder someone with a gun is substantially less than the chance the average black male will stab someone to death. No fauxtrage please, it is an accurate assessment of the per capita risk for these two demographics. I simply do not support preventative restrictions of either group (nor the supergroups of whites, blacks, people, gun owners, or knife owners) because of the bad conduct of individuals. The comparison is merely a pointed and very politically incorrect one to see if a person's position is genuinely based on the idea of stopping weapon-based murders, or is just a biased attitude against a specific weapon. Or as the history of gun control demonstrates, gun control laws have been due to bias against a particular race.

Second, your post is making the argument that the qualities people use to define an "assault rifle" make it suited for mass murder ("make it work better when some nutjob or overstressed worker decides that mass murder is the answer.&quot , and this justifies the restriction. From a practical standpoint, all of the proposed restrictions will cost significant political capital for gun control advocates and possible political backlash against Democrats, as has already been witnessed in Colorado. Additionally, murders with "assault rifles" are the least common type of firearm murder, and mass murders are in turn the least likely type of firearm murder (murders where large numbers of shots are fired (pistol or rifle) are the second least likely). So, this political capital would be spent on restrictions that are empirically guaranteed to save the fewest number of lives.

Third, in the places where things that you suggest have been implemented, they have been implemented badly. Your CT assault weapon ban legally defines as an "assault weapon" any part that can be added to a legal weapon to make it an assault weapon. So, the Democrats who wrote, passed and signed that law have set themselves up as the party that created a mandatory 2 year prison sentence for importing a plastic pistol grip, bayonet lug or flash hider (6 years if you give one to a minor, and add some time if you had it concealed in a pocket). Thanks to the miracle of the Internet, you have an infinite amount of space below to explain how that is a win for the Democratic party that will cement the support of the >30% of Democrats who are gun owners. Among its other travesties the CT law also defines multi-thousand dollar Olympic target pistols as prohibited "assault weapons" (its weight plus magazine that is outside the pistol grip), and interestingly enough, so do you (detatchable magazine, matte-black finish).

Fourth, weapons with many those characteristics (obviously not lasers) have been around for a century or more (semi-auto pistols with large detachable magazines date back to the 1890's) and the US murder rate with them was lower (or the same) with the negligible restrictions of 1950 than it is today. Similarly, Switzerland and other nations like the Czech Republic allow such weapons and both have overall homicide rates far lower than the US, implying the problem is not one of accessibility, but of culture. Refer back to Prohibition and the War on Drugs to see the laudable success rates of policies that ban objects without making an equally serious attempt to alter the culture behind them (not to mention the violent criminal markets that rose to prominence because of those bans). Then examine your position and other poorly thought out GC positions here at DU and see how many of them even admit there are larger cultural issues, let alone make substantive suggestions on that aspect of the problem.

Last, arguments like "banning bayonet mounts" stagger the imagination in terms of how poorly they are thought out, leaving me to believe your post was more emotional than practical, which again, does neither Gun Control & RKBA, gun control advocates nor liberals in general a good turn, making the post a trifecta of uselessness. And despite your pro-gun status and hosting Gun Control & RKBA, you honestly don't seem to know crap about actual firearms and even less about the history of the technology and weapon laws (or if you do, you are not showing it). So when it comes to your posts, perhaps you should dial back on quantity and work more on quality.

[krispos42]

121. You know what's funny?

Clowns.



You know what else is funny?

[div class=excerpt style=background:#FFE4E1]I am interested to hear how this interacts with your comment above, since the qualities that have been used to legally define an "assault weapon" are the ones you both a) think should cause a weapon to be banned and yet b) you simultaneously oppose useless, pandering laws like "assault weapon bans".

It's funny because I never said item "a" on your list. Your belief that I did also creates a fictional paradox.

I pointed out a fundamental truth that we have to live with, that any gun that is optimized for self-defense is also effective for offense. I pointed out a second fundamental truth; namely, that other countries the gun-control proponents look to for inspiration and as examples have removed self-defense, and thus guns more optimal for self-defense, as a legitimate reason for being allowed to own a gun.

You seem to be of the belief that because I understand the reasoning of, say, Australia's Parliament I also support their actions.

That is incorrect. Sorry to burst your bubble.

This deflates your "first" argument, your "second" argument, your "third" argument, and your "fourth" argument, as they all flow from an opinion that I did not state but that you assigned to me due to a moderately understandable confusion about my stance on the relevant issues.

Your "last" paragraph follows in a similar vein, except you manage to throw in a few more aggressive insults to me than in your previous paragraphs.

Is there anything else I can clarify for you?

[Fred Sanders]

116. They just will not admit that guns are designed and intended to be used as killing machines....after

that set in concrete mindset no amount of logic can penetrate. Then the issue of "harmless weapons", an oxymoron if I ever heard one, will become wrapped in the second amendment and
American exceptionalism, as of course America is always right, even hundreds of years ago when this antiquated amendment was added to meet the times.

So the notion that one would restrict these inamiate objects that kill only in the hands of the odd "irresponsible" gun owner, like a mother with a handgun in her purse at Walmart with her 5 children shot dead by a 2 year old, falls on deaf ears and closed minds.

Then comes the faux comparisons to all forms of death by other means, again blind to the fact that a gun is a killing machine and not much else is.

My favorite is the "I am hunting up some food for my family"' that one cracks me up every time.

Or self defence is required, because the solution to too many guns is of course just more guns.

And even mention the fact that their "liberal" positions and deflections, all of them, conflict directly and squarely with the mindless positions of the paranoid and gloom and doom NRA and it will be a flurry of deflection the likes of which will amaze you.

The NRA Avoidance Syndrome is still my favorite, there is no defence to defending the NRA and still insisting the Democratic Party position is not much different than the NRA, but they do try anyway, it is pandamonia.

Wayne Lapierre and "liberal" gun folk....sitting in a tree.....

[friendly_iconoclast]

120. Your "NRA" (or rather, your perception of it) is no different than Jack Van Impe's "Satan"...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Van_Impe

...or Rick Wiles' "Marxist communist revolutionaries":

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6035620

"Rick Wiles: Gays, Secular Jews And Obama Jews Will Destroy America"

While you have every right to post here (within DU's rules, of course), the rest
of us are under no obligation to treat your religious pronunciations as anything
other than what they are...

[krispos42]

122. Many guns are designed and optimized to be used against people

Of course they are. That is what self defense with a gun means... killing (or trying to kill) with a gun a person that is attacking you or your family.

Obviously a gun, like any other inanimate tool, has different configurations for different uses. Different designs, different accessories, and different chamberings serve to optimize guns for various tasks.

I would not want to defend my home with a bolt-action hunting rifle if I had a handgun available, nor would I want to go hunting with a handgun when I had a bolt-action rifle closet. Whether I'm hunting or confronting an attacker, you're damn straight I want an effective "killing machine".

In the case of self-defense, it doesn't even matter if the attacker has a gun; this is survival, not an organized sporting event. I'm not interested in fairness and I won't delude myself into thinking my attacker is either; my goal, if the attacker forces me to act, is to inflict disabling force into my attacker as quickly as possible while avoiding getting hurt.

[Fred Sanders]

123. Killing machine is to inamiate object as nuclear bomb is to hunk of metal.

"Harmless weapon", "inanimate object"......cracks me up every time.

[Duckhunter935]

127. care to answer a question or questions?

[Chemisse]

103. There is a group who would outlaw guns for general use altogether.

The existence of people who voice that opinion helps to further polarize the issue, fueling the flames of those who fear that the government will take away their guns.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

124. That's a lot of words just to say, "I'm smart and everyone who disagrees with me is dumb --and evil"

[Matrosov]

132. Perfect

In fact, the gun crazy care about guns so much, the subject of firearms is the one and only reason some DU members registered and visit here in the first place. It's a poorly kept secret that this site is regularly visited by members of the big firearms sites like AR15.com and The Firing Line for trolling purposes

[GGJohn]

133. Link?

[petronius]

134. I'm not sure how common it is any more--trolling patterns do seem to have

changed over the years--but in the past, semi-organized troll influxes were pretty common. Arfcom and THR were certainly sources.

Do a turn on MIRT sometime, when you're at leisure; it's eye-opening and occasionally entertaining...

[GGJohn]

135. Thanks for the information.

A turn on MIRT? I think not, I don't really need the aggravation in my life. LOL.

[Matrosov]

136. Here are some

Here is an example from AR15.com It is a bit older, but it has some interesting admissions:

http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/1135093_index.html

A more recent one, with some admissions that their trolls like to start infighting here:

http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/1556486_index.html

[GGJohn]

137. Thanks.

Interesting.
But on the flip side, I'm sure it's done on conservative sites also.
It's just all so ridiculous, on both sides of the aisle.

[hack89]

159. So what ultra liberal gun grabber do you think they were?

Bet you they were welcomed with open arms in Bansalot

[friendly_iconoclast]

161. I think *some* of the "ULGG" sorts may be trolling-it's a hard question, For Sure

[ManiacJoe]

160. Those links are years old.

[Electric Monk]

162. It's a long term problem, not just a flash in the pan. It's naive to think it's not still happening.

Of course, that's what they'd *want* us to think

[daleanime]

152. K&R....

[Electric Monk]

163. kicking this for the gun nuts, because I know they won't like being reminded that they are gun nuts.

nt

[friendly_iconoclast]

164. I love the smell of cheap stereotyping and self-righteousness in the morning

It smells like...gun control advocacy.

[Straw Man]

165. Did you have anything to add?

No? I didn't think so.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

166. Slow day down in the whine cellar?

[Duckhunter935]

167. must be

Every post here ups the count of his favorite group. The group he hosts, not so much.

[Eleanors38]

189. Culture war still smells like a skidmark, even if a NYer writer indulges. nt

[benEzra]

169. There *are* limits on "weapons intended only to kill en masse".

Last edited Thu Mar 5, 2015, 12:08 AM - Edit history (2)

Your error is in the assumption that non-automatic civilian centerfire .22's and short .30's are such weapons, when they clearly and demonstrably are not.

Possession of any automatic weapon, any howitzer, any bomb, any WMD, any missile with an explosive payload, etc. is extremely tightly controlled, as you well know. Whereas the civilian guns you are pontificating about are merely the most popular variants of the least misused weapons in the United States.

Murder by State and Type of Weapon, 2013 (FBI)

[NaturalHigh]

170. Cool story bro.

Well, not really. It's pretty much just more of the same paranoid fantasy I so often read from the gun-ban crowd.

[pablo_marmol]

172. "I think this paragraph.........." LOL! Of course you would!

But the unsurprising fact of the matter is that an award-winning liberal criminologist thinks differently, and sums things up with integrity rather than lies. How can there be honest debate when the media & "scholars" aren't giving the public the truth?!

"Reviews or summaries of the research literature on guns and violence are so persistently and severely misleading that it is important that readers be armed with the intellectual tools for recognizing some of the ways in which the evidence can be misrepresented, so that they may recognize for themselves the practices when they come across them. Because these sorts of distortions reflect the biases of the reviewer/summarizer -- and the biases of scholars who study guns and violence are predominantly procontrol -- the distortions in literature reviews are predominantly procontrol (Tonso 1983). Consequently, this chapter may seem lopsided, but it accurately reflects the relative balance of pro- and anticontrol sentiments among academic scholars. If gun dealers and manufacturers published scholarly reviews of the guns-violence literature, the direction of the distortions would undoubtedly be very different."

(emphasis added)

p. 31 "Targeting Guns" by Gary Kleck

[Electric Monk]

175. Kleck? Yeah, no bias there, LOL, and what does your quote even have to do with the OP?

http://vacps.org/public-policy/the-contradictions-of-kleck

[pablo_marmol]

176. And of course Kleck has responded to his critics, but you'll never read his rebuttals.

Nor are you even aware that they exist, because you aren't interested in the truth.

The fact of the matter is that Kleck's critics haven't responded to his counters. Why do they need to? The media is in the bag for authoritarian control freaks -- their political purposes are served the moment their lies are printed!

And of course you're unfamiliar with the work of liberal criminologists James Wright and Peter Rossi, among others, otherwise you would have realized how transparently dishonest your "rebuttal" with a cheap genetic fallacy actually was.

[Electric Monk]

179. Ok, lets try something more recent

This is starting to feel like a grade-school playground. "My debunking can beat up your debunking! " "Your source is biased!" "No, YOUR source is biased more!" etc...

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/02/26/nras-media-misinformation-series-pushes-systemi/192799


You guys are proving the point from the OP, ironically, that it's a relatively small group that are totally obsessed with guns, while for most people it's one concern among many.

Oh, and please do tell me some more how you never use NRA talking points

[pablo_marmol]

181. "This is starting to feel like a grade-school playground."

Nonsense.......because only one of us is behaving like a grade-schooler. And that person would be you.

What does it say about your interest in the truth when you won't even begin to consider what a liberal criminologist who has won the highest honor that the American Society of Criminology offers, and two other liberal criminologists who were appointed by Jimmy Carter to research gun control and found it utterly lacking in merit?

And you have the gall to insinuate that my quotes from true blue liberals represent "NRA talking points"?! Wow. That's truly scraping the bottom of the barrel.

"My debunking can beat up your debunking!"

Credentials matter. Your implication that the media matters author (and the other) is as qualified to speak on the subject of gun violence as Kleck, Wright and Rossi is just pathetic.

Done wasting my time with you at this point buster.

[Electric Monk]

184. Thanks for further proving my point with your "I know you are, but what am I?"

because only one of us is behaving like a grade-schooler. And that person would be you.

You forgot to include Mary Rosh in your list of expert pro-gun researchers

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal-a/2012_04/gun_policy_fraudster_john_lott036987.php

[pablo_marmol]

185. You have never, and will never here me quote John Lott.

So keep you dishonesty flowing......you're only hurting your own cred.

There --- you got me to respond by lying about me. Pleased with yourself?

[pablo_marmol]

186. "I know you are, but what am I?"

I cite the work of highly credentialed liberal criminologists, while you cite the work of completely uncredentialed and willfully ignorant media bloviators......then foolishly claim a false equivalency by stating that I'm playing "I know you are, but what am I?" LOL!

Here's some "NRA talking points" for you:

http://www.amazon.com/Under-Gun-Weapons-Violence-America/dp/0202303063/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1425783536&sr=1-1&keywords=under+the+gun+wright+rossi

http://www.amazon.com/Restricting-Handguns-Liberal-Skeptics-Speak/dp/0884270343/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1425783573&sr=1-1&keywords=the+liberal+skeptics+speak+out

http://www.amazon.com/Targeting-Guns-Firearms-Control-Institutions/dp/0202305694/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1425783714&sr=1-1&keywords=targeting+guns+kleck

And here's Kleck in person......yeah --- he really comes across as "a biased NRA yahoo"

Who do you think you're fooling?



Bye bye!

[friendly_iconoclast]

182. Chanting "NRA talking point(s)" is neither a rebuttal nor a saving throw

It is an associational fallacy. Denouncing ideas because of who has espoused them is foolish, as see:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8626909

Rupert Murdoch, Bloomberg Lobby For Immigration Reform, Path To 'Legal Status' For Illegal Immigrants

NEW YORK (AP)— Chief executives of several major corporations, including Hewlett-Packard, Boeing, Disney and News Corp., are joining Mayor Michael Bloomberg to form a coalition advocating for immigration reform – including a path to legal status for all undocumented immigrants now in the United States.

The group includes several other big-city mayors and calls itself the Partnership for a New American Economy. It seeks to reframe immigration reform as the solution to repairing and stimulating the economy.

Bloomberg and Rupert Murdoch, chairman and CEO of News Corp., appeared together Thursday on Fox News to discuss the effort.

"We're just going to keep the pressure on the congressmen," Murdoch said. "I think we can show to the public the benefits of having migrants and the jobs that go with them."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=65609

Ted Kennedy allied with William Koch to oppose a windpower project.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/04/29/cape.wind.ceo.profile/index.html

Gordon's opponents have come from the left and right. They have ranged from one of the most powerful senators in the nation's history -- the late Sen. Ted Kennedy -- to billionaire fossil fuel heavyweight William Koch. "I'm for wind energy," Kennedy famously said. "But we ought to do it right." The Kennedy compound in Hyannis Port will have a view of the 130 wind turbines, located several miles from the shore.

Koch, founder of the Oxbow Group and a resident of the Cape, sits on the board of Gordon's nemesis, the Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound. He's reportedly contributed more than $1.5 million to try to stop Cape Wind. Koch and his Oxbow Group have accused Gordon of duping the region, saying the Cape had better prepare for skyrocketing electricity prices. The price per kilowatt hour offshore is far higher than on land.

"This will only benefit one individual, and that's the developer himself, Jim Gordon," said Brad Goldstein, Koch's chief spokesman. "Jim Gordon can try to wrap himself around wind all he wants. That dog will not hunt here."

[pablo_marmol]

183. "You guys are proving the point from the OP, ironically, that it's a relatively small group

that are totally obsessed with guns, while for most people it's one concern among many.

!) Your silly but predictable misrepresentation notwithstanding, what we are actually "obsessed with" are correcting the lies of the pro-control brigade.

2) You seem to be overlooking the fact that you're spending as much time on this forum than many of us are, and much more than some! So just how sane is this critique?

[gejohnston]

177. bias?

your source that claims the contradictions is biased. If there these contradictions, why didn't they come out in peer review? If these contradictions really existed, why did the American Society of Criminology award him with the Michael J. Hindelang Award from the resulting book? Read it for yourself and see if you can find the contradictions.
http://www.amazon.com/Point-Blank-Guns-Violence-America/dp/020230762X

Read what Kleck has to say in Politico
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/02/defensive-gun-ownership-gary-kleck-response-115082.html#.VPus5HVGh5S

[Duckhunter935]

178. a rebuttal to your OP

is fine to post. You are trying to censor posts again, This is not your group so you can not do that unfortunately.

Did you get my PM? Do you care to send a response or are you going to not answer that simple question either. I thought you actually might as it is not in the open and I already gave you my word the answer would be between us only.