HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Justice & Public Safety » Gun Control & RKBA (Group) » Seattle Officials Aim for...

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 01:02 PM

 

Seattle Officials Aim for Gun-Law Changes

Amid the rash of gun violence that has occurred over the last few months, Seattle lawmakers find themselves searching for solutions.

“You can see that many of the shootings are related to a belief that it’s okay to carry a gun to solve a dispute,” said Seattle Mayor Mike McGinn in a recent press conference, following a May 30 shooting spree that took six lives.

http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/united-states/seattle-officials-aim-for-gun-law-changes-252309.html

92 replies, 11824 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 92 replies Author Time Post
Reply Seattle Officials Aim for Gun-Law Changes (Original post)
SecularMotion Jun 2012 OP
pscot Jun 2012 #1
krispos42 Jun 2012 #48
Major Hogwash Jun 2012 #69
krispos42 Jun 2012 #84
Major Hogwash Jun 2012 #88
hack89 Jun 2012 #2
Hoyt Jun 2012 #3
hack89 Jun 2012 #5
Starboard Tack Jun 2012 #10
hack89 Jun 2012 #16
Starboard Tack Jun 2012 #20
hack89 Jun 2012 #24
GreenStormCloud Jun 2012 #92
Hoyt Jun 2012 #4
hack89 Jun 2012 #6
Hoyt Jun 2012 #7
hack89 Jun 2012 #8
Hoyt Jun 2012 #12
hack89 Jun 2012 #15
PavePusher Jun 2012 #23
Hoyt Jun 2012 #60
PavePusher Jun 2012 #75
Meiko Jun 2012 #9
Hoyt Jun 2012 #14
friendly_iconoclast Jun 2012 #18
gejohnston Jun 2012 #29
friendly_iconoclast Jun 2012 #37
Hoyt Jun 2012 #61
oneshooter Jun 2012 #19
Hoyt Jun 2012 #63
friendly_iconoclast Jun 2012 #64
oneshooter Jun 2012 #66
Meiko Jun 2012 #25
Hoyt Jun 2012 #65
oneshooter Jun 2012 #67
Hoyt Jun 2012 #68
Clames Jun 2012 #83
Meiko Jun 2012 #79
Hoyt Jun 2012 #80
Trunk Monkey Jun 2012 #82
NewMoonTherian Jun 2012 #78
Hoyt Jun 2012 #81
NewMoonTherian Jun 2012 #85
Hoyt Jun 2012 #86
gejohnston Jun 2012 #87
NewMoonTherian Jun 2012 #89
Starboard Tack Jun 2012 #11
hack89 Jun 2012 #13
Starboard Tack Jun 2012 #17
hack89 Jun 2012 #22
bongbong Jun 2012 #26
hack89 Jun 2012 #31
friendly_iconoclast Jun 2012 #33
DanTex Jun 2012 #30
hack89 Jun 2012 #32
DanTex Jun 2012 #34
friendly_iconoclast Jun 2012 #36
DanTex Jun 2012 #39
friendly_iconoclast Jun 2012 #42
DanTex Jun 2012 #44
friendly_iconoclast Jun 2012 #62
Atypical Liberal Jun 2012 #71
hack89 Jun 2012 #38
DanTex Jun 2012 #40
hack89 Jun 2012 #41
DanTex Jun 2012 #43
hack89 Jun 2012 #45
DanTex Jun 2012 #46
hack89 Jun 2012 #47
DanTex Jun 2012 #49
hack89 Jun 2012 #50
DanTex Jun 2012 #52
hack89 Jun 2012 #53
DanTex Jun 2012 #54
hack89 Jun 2012 #57
DanTex Jun 2012 #59
hack89 Jun 2012 #70
friendly_iconoclast Jun 2012 #35
Spoonman Jun 2012 #91
sarisataka Jun 2012 #21
bongbong Jun 2012 #27
friendly_iconoclast Jun 2012 #28
sarisataka Jun 2012 #56
Hoyt Jun 2012 #72
gejohnston Jun 2012 #73
sarisataka Jun 2012 #76
gejohnston Jun 2012 #77
Tejas Jun 2012 #51
ileus Jun 2012 #55
jeepnstein Jun 2012 #90
TPaine7 Jun 2012 #58
AtheistCrusader Jun 2012 #74

Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 01:16 PM

1. I'm sure this brief moment of lucidity

will be shouted down by the gun fanatics.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pscot (Reply #1)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 07:12 PM

48. Yes, because knee-jerk reactions by a legislature always work out so well.

How's that Patriot Act working out for you?

95% of all homicide incidents have a single victim. The amount that have 6 victims is measured in per mil, not per cent, because it's so tiny.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Reply #48)

Sun Jun 17, 2012, 01:52 AM

69. Do you live in Seattle?

Or Washington state?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Hogwash (Reply #69)

Sun Jun 17, 2012, 06:57 PM

84. Nope. And I hope you're not going to get all regional on me. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to krispos42 (Reply #84)

Sun Jun 17, 2012, 09:42 PM

88. Empathy.

That's probably something you've never been accused of showing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 01:23 PM

2. Because we know that police always use their powers wisely

and have never used their power to discriminate against certain groups.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #2)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 01:33 PM

3. You planning on using your gun to fight against police discrimination? I advise against it.


Stawicki wasn't a policeman, neither was Loughner. Zimmerman thought he was, not unlike some who posted here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #3)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 01:45 PM

5. Police should not have the discretion to decide what civil liberties I can exercise

historically the police have been the greatest civil rights abusers in America.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #5)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 02:26 PM

10. Correct, they shouldn't.

But they should be around to make sure you don't over step and become one of those abusers yourself. Good luck.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #10)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 02:40 PM

16. So what do you suggest? Stop and frisk? Random searches?

warrant-less surveillance? Just how are the police going to keep us gun owners in line without resorting to illegal methods?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #16)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 04:14 PM

20. No, none of that. Absolutely not.

They should be there to lock up those, like Zimmerman, who cross the line. You want to play with guns, then be prepared to shoot someone or be shot and then prepare to be dead or locked up, because those are your more likely options.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #20)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 04:29 PM

24. So the status quo in other words? Sounds fine to me. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #20)

Mon Jun 18, 2012, 10:08 PM

92. You left out an option.

Neither dead nor locked up, but jutified and allowed to go on your way.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 01:37 PM

4. The mayor is exactly right. We need to change attitudes about guns.


The mayor said: “You can see that many of [the shootings] are related to a belief that it’s okay to carry a gun to solve a dispute.”

The gun culture starts teaching kids at a very early age just how great guns are. Never leave home without one and that you can Stand Your Ground and take no crap off _______________.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #4)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 01:46 PM

6. Yet such a tiny percentage of gun owners conceal carry

legally that is - lots of criminals carry in public. Too bad no law will ever change that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #6)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 01:55 PM

7. Plenty carry with out permits. All the SOBs I just mentioned were legally carrying right up until

Last edited Sat Jun 16, 2012, 02:33 PM - Edit history (1)


they decided to shoot unarmed, innocent people. How many others have used guns to intimidate people in public, spouses, homeless people looking for food, etc.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #7)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 01:59 PM

8. So what law will prevent this?

since laws don't stop criminals from being criminals?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #8)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 02:34 PM

12. Stop promoting more and more guns, particularly on the streets.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #12)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 02:38 PM

15. How does that impact the criminal use of guns?

why will criminals obey these laws and not others?

You need to be a little more specific.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #12)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 04:28 PM

23. Please point out where anyone is promoting criminal use of firearms, other than criminals. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PavePusher (Reply #23)

Sun Jun 17, 2012, 12:35 AM

60. When you buy a bunch of guns some of them eventually end up in criminal hands.

Or some guy new to toting uses it to intimidate others, threaten a spouse, leaves the dang things where kids can get to it, becomes a Zimmerman, pulls a Stawicki or Loughnor, or worse.

For all we know, all the so-called "responsible" gun owners may be packing and the next thousand will be folks who shouldn't be allowed around a gun, much less carrying them or promoting more guns, lax laws, SYG laws under which people think that if they carry a gun they don't have to take crud of anyone.

Whatever, attitudes need to change. Since its appears the gun culture is not rational with respect to type of gun, number of guns, or where the toter chooses to carry it, then government needs to keep them well regulated.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #60)

Sun Jun 17, 2012, 01:21 PM

75. "...some of them eventually end up in criminal hands."

 

So, just like any other object.

The rest of your post is simply unfactual hysterical hypotheticals, the same one you and your fellow travelers have been shreiking for years. Your prognostication is faulty, you should find a new gig.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #7)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 02:16 PM

9. So what current

 

laws need to be changed or altered.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Meiko (Reply #9)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 02:37 PM

14. Ones that allow folks to strut around with guns on the street, prepare their kids to strut, etc.


When guns are acceptable like cigarettes were years ago, more people smoke and pollute society. Laws need to be changed to restrict guns on the streets.

Also, people need to be prevented from buying certain types of guns and too many guns.

When guns become unacceptable, those who can't venture out without them will just fade into obscurity and society will be better for it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #14)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 03:54 PM

18. Doesn't seem to be working in Australia

 

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-05-24/customs-admits-illegal-gun-import-x-ray-blunder/4031190


Customs admits illegal gun import X-ray blunder

Posted May 24, 2012 14:08:16


Customs officials have revealed that their X-ray machines did not pick up more than 100 pistols that were illegally imported through a Sydney post office.

Police arrested four people in March over the Glock pistols that were allegedly posted from Germany to the Sylvania Waters Post Office.

Representatives from the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service were questioned about the case during a federal Estimates hearing in Canberra this morning.

At the time police said they had seized more than 200 handguns, but today's Estimates hearing was told about 122 pistols, triggers and magazines were sent by airmail.


Well, lets just declare an amnesty, and the guns will be turned in. They tried it a couple of years ago:

http://www.thecourier.com.au/blogs/the-rant/gun-amnesty-bit-of-a-misfire/1649124.aspx

Gun amnesty bit of a misfire

ANOTHER year, another gun amnesty. And yet another photo op involving an earnest police officer looking serious and concerned in front of a pile of firearms.

It looks such an important and effective exercise in community policing. Let’s get all these nasty (cue scary music) guns off the street.

Except, if I may borrow a phrase from the English lass at work, it’s bollocks.

The amnesty and previous gun buy-back schemes are, for all practical purposes, public relations exercises. The effect on violent crime rates would be negligible because the sort of person who might hand in an old rifle at the cop shop is not exactly the type of ‘‘person of interest’’ associated with violent crime.

That sad collection of museum pieces and rusty old .22s pictured in The Courier last week, looked sinister enough but hardly constituted a menace to society. You see, criminals will always find ways to get illegal firearms or explosives or whatever, when they want to.


Surprise, surprise. The commenter above was right: the criminals ignored it. From Wednesday:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-06-13/guns-john-rau-laws/4068264?section=sa

Gun amnesty alongside tougher SA laws

Legislation allowing for the jailing of people who illegally discharge guns has been introduced in the South Australian Parliament.

It is a response to cases including recent drive-by shootings in Adelaide.

SA Attorney-General John Rau said the bill creates a new offence of discharging a firearm without a lawful excuse.

Once the legislation passed, Mr Rau said a three-month amnesty would open for illegal weapons to be surrendered to police.

"The clear objective of this legislation is to put behind bars people who engage in any crime using firearms and to make any of these individuals who are in the habit of leaving home with guns in their vehicles or on their person to realise that if they are detected by the police they can expect to go to jail," he said...


Looks like SA is making these shootings double-super illegal. That's sure to stop them!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #18)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 05:00 PM

29. wait?

SA Attorney-General John Rau said the bill creates a new offence of discharging a firearm without a lawful excuse.
Isn't that the law in much of the uncivilized US of Florida?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #29)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 05:42 PM

37. No shit- I had to read that twice.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #18)

Sun Jun 17, 2012, 12:39 AM

61. Yep, our guns are polluting the world. Australia has smart gun laws.

And the tough people there seem to accept it, recognising it's good for society.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #14)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 04:01 PM

19. Well in your vast knowledge of firearms,what types and how many?

"Also, people need to be prevented from buying certain types of guns and too many guns. "

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oneshooter (Reply #19)

Sun Jun 17, 2012, 12:46 AM

63. Oneshooter, I would bet 75% of your guns would fall into unacceptable to a peaceful society.

I also suspect you'd suddenly find yourself with a lot of empty space - assuming of course that you are not one of those "law-abiding" gun folks who might not be so law-abiding if laws were tightened.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #63)

Sun Jun 17, 2012, 12:56 AM

64. Nice dodge. Why don't you answer the question instead?

 

I rather doubt you actually have the ability to peer into oneshooter's gun safe from a distance.
Even if (by some chance) you were depicted in the following book:

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #63)

Sun Jun 17, 2012, 01:22 AM

66. 75% of my collection is from the 1700's and 1800's

So you want to ban muzzle loaders, single shots and hunting rifles.

WAY TO GO!!!

Looser.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #14)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 04:38 PM

25. and how do you plan on doing

 

away with the second amendment...in addition how will you deal with the millions of guns already out there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Meiko (Reply #25)

Sun Jun 17, 2012, 01:20 AM

65. The millions of guns out there will double in 2 decades. Why allow that?

Plus older guns do deteriorate. Why keep adding to the pile/arsenal? Again, I'm not for totally banning ownership, just restricting the heck out of number in one's HOME.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #65)

Sun Jun 17, 2012, 01:23 AM

67. Then why have you called for a total ban?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oneshooter (Reply #67)

Sun Jun 17, 2012, 01:38 AM

68. Don't think I said that. I have said we'd be better off without guns, BUT

the gun culture couldn't handle it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oneshooter (Reply #67)

Sun Jun 17, 2012, 05:19 PM

83. He can't advocate for a total ban...

 

...since he refuses to give up his own collection such advocacy would be hypocritical.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #65)

Sun Jun 17, 2012, 02:32 PM

79. If properly

 

maintained/stored guns will last 100's of years. You can go to any gun show and see examples everyday that are 100-300 years old. Once the gun buying public gets wind that the Feds are going to slap ownership restrictions on gun owners there will be a buying spree. Instead of having 300 million guns you will have 350-400 million to deal with. As far as limiting the number of guns in a persons home, how are you going to do that? If I have a collection that contains 50 or more guns what are you going to do? confiscate them, require voluntary turn in.

All of these schemes look good on paper but are totally worthless in the real world.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Meiko (Reply #79)

Sun Jun 17, 2012, 02:47 PM

80. Good point. The gun culture always pushes the envelop without regard to society.

Not unlike the greedy rich. All they seem to care about is themselves and their beloved, almighty guns.

Indirectly still bite the bullet and discourage something to control guns in the future, notwithstanding the "greedy".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #65)

Sun Jun 17, 2012, 03:06 PM

82. Why allow that?

 

I imagine it would drive the prices down

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #14)

Sun Jun 17, 2012, 02:14 PM

78. In your opinion.

Society will be better in your opinion, because you don't like the idea of civilians carrying weapons.

And you want to accomplish your ideal society by banning an activity that doesn't present a threat to anyone.

It's fine that you have this goal, but it isn't progressive, and I'm going to fight against it.

I'm going to raise my children with the facts regarding guns, rather than a superstitious fear and hatred for them and the people who own them. I'll encourage my friends and neighbors to do that same.

Society, in my opinion, is not polluted by honest people taking reasonable action to protect themselves. It is polluted by violent people who prey on defenseless victims, and by arrogant people who abuse government power to keep honest people defenseless.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NewMoonTherian (Reply #78)

Sun Jun 17, 2012, 02:49 PM

81. Not the more "guns are progessive" junk again. I suppose more bombs are too?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #81)

Sun Jun 17, 2012, 07:38 PM

85. Guns aren't progressive.

Guns aren't anything. Guns are inert tools. Recognizing the right to own and responsibly use guns is progressive. Bombs... eh. I haven't taken enough interest to form an opinion on explosives regulations. Off the top of my head, I'd guess they're too strictly regulated, and many of the regulations are more a revenue engine than safety protocol. I'll do my homework and maybe we'll discuss it another time.

EDIT: When I say "own and responsibly use," I mean personal carry in public, open or concealed, to be included under that heading. My ideal situation would be nationwide Constitutional carry(implemented on a state-by-state basis, not federal), until such time as it can be demonstrated to cause a problem.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NewMoonTherian (Reply #85)

Sun Jun 17, 2012, 08:06 PM

86. Without a gun, Zimmerman would have remained in his car like the coward he is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #86)

Sun Jun 17, 2012, 08:10 PM

87. maybe, maybe not nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #86)

Mon Jun 18, 2012, 04:16 PM

89. So your argument...

is that the Zimmerman case(or your standard handful of cases) demonstrates a problem with allowing civilians to carry guns? Five or six anecdotes warrants universal civilian disarmament in public. That's as specious as saying the Columbine tragedy is a result of not allowing high schoolers to carry.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #6)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 02:29 PM

11. What stats do you have to back up that claim.

I think it is probably the opposite way around. I think very few criminals carry in public. Probably less that the so-called law abiders.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #11)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 02:36 PM

13. So all those gang related shootings in DC, LA, Chicago, Detroit, etc

they are not the result of a criminal population constantly armed and ready to use violence? OK.

Lets remember where the shootings are concentrated - poor urban areas with high crime, drugs and gangs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #13)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 03:53 PM

17. Those are inner city gangs, not your average criminal.

Your average criminal is a shoplifter or dime bag dope dealer. Your average violent criminal is a gang member directing his violence toward a rival gang member. So what motivates white bread America to carry guns around? Seems to me the reasons would be either wanting to emulate gang members, or confront them. Neither one is a good option. I can see no other logical reason, unless you have received some prior credible threat. Carrying a gun around will probably lead to somebody eventually getting hurt. Plus it is really bad karma. Think about it. If you ever think you have to use it, you'll probably be wrong, but still use it, in which case, the best outcome is you shoot somebody and the worst is you get shot. That's a big lose-lose situation. Just ask anyone who has shot another person.
All the rest of the justifications for carrying are hype and nonsense and disconnected from any semblance of reality.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #17)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 04:27 PM

22. Yet by every measurable standard

more guns in the hands of the public has not led to the problems that concern you. A 50% drop in murders and manslaughter cases since 1992 indicates that your concerns are imaginary. I refuse to surrender a civil liberty because of your irrational fears.

Emulating a gang member? How far much further in ridiculousness will the gun control movement sink before it disappears forever?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #22)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 04:51 PM

26. AGAIN?????

 

You're still insinuating that more guns = more safety?

You gun-religionists never give up, no matter how many times your religion's tenets are debunked.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bongbong (Reply #26)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 05:09 PM

31. You will not win by constantly lying about my views.

I am stating that more guns =/= more violence. Even you have to accept that fact.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bongbong (Reply #26)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 05:19 PM

33. AGAIN????? You're still insinuating people have said something they haven't?

 

A fisking is in order, methinks:

Yet by every measurable standard

more guns in the hands of the public has not led to the problems that concern you. A 50% drop in murders and manslaughter cases since 1992 indicates that your
concerns are imaginary. I refuse to surrender a civil liberty because of your irrational fears.


Care to explain why you believe "...more guns in the hands of the public has not led to the problems that concern you." is synonymous with
"more guns = more safety"? In some circles, 'nuance' apparently means 'the women my uncles just married'.
Even our late Canadian sophist wouldn't have tried that one. What I said a couple of years back still stands:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=340842&mesg_id=340895

We *used* to have the Dream Team of gun control advocates posting here....Nowadays, it's the Washington Generals.


The observer will note that in the linked thread, a poster accuses other DUers of saying things they did not actually say. When asked for examples,
they vacated the thread...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #22)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 05:06 PM

30. You remind me of those people who, every time there's a big snowstorm...

...loudly scream "SEE, THERE IS NO GLOBAL WARMING!!!!!!"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #30)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 05:11 PM

32. Well, I know that increased snow would be a sign of global warming

because I understand the facts and don't depend on emotion and hyperbole.

But what am I suppose to be seeing? Are you denying that more guns have not cause more violence in America?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #32)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 05:24 PM

34. Well, nice to know your denialism doesn't extend to areas other than gun violence.

If you are interested in some actual statistical analyses about the relationship between gun ownership and homicide, here are some links. Or you can just ignore the evidence, and keep your head buried in the sand, and insist that the fact that overall crime rates have dropped for reasons that have nothing to do with guns somehow disproves the extensive statistical data showing that more guns do in fact result in more homicide.

http://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu/faculty/dranove/htm/dranove/coursepages/Mgmt%20469/guns.pdf
http://home.uchicago.edu/~ludwigj/papers/JPubE_guns_2006FINAL.pdf

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #34)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 05:40 PM

36. About that "more guns do in fact result in more homicide."- Homicide rates have *fallen*.

 

A fact you rather artfully elided:


http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/preliminary-annual-ucr-jan-dec-2011


Preliminary Annual Uniform Crime Report, January-December, 2011

Preliminary figures indicate that, as a whole, law enforcement agencies throughout the nation reported a decrease of 4.0 percent in the number of violent crimes brought to their attention for 2011 when compared with figures reported for 2010. The violent crime category includes murder, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault. Collectively, the number of property crimes in the United States in 2011 decreased 0.8 percent when compared with data from 2010. Property crimes include burglary, larceny-theft, and motor vehicle theft. Arson is also a property crime, but data for arson are not included in property crime totals. Figures for 2011 indicate that arson decreased 5.0 percent when compared with 2010 figures.



The disinterested observer will note that the US violent crime and murder rates declined even as gun sales skyrocketed. So much for
the theory that it's the avaiability of guns that drives gun crime...

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/preliminary-annual-ucr-jan-dec-2011/data-tables/table-3


Table 3
January to December 2011

Percent Change for Consecutive Years


Years Violent crime Murder
2008/2007 -3.5 -4.4
2009/2008 -4.4 -10.0
2010/2009 -6.0 -4.2
2011/2010 -4.0 -1.9

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #36)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 05:53 PM

39. Did you read either of those studies? Or are you not interested in what actual social scientists...

...have to say about the issue.

I'm always curious about how statistically illiterate the NRA crowd really is. Are they really incapable of understanding that there are multiple factors that affect crime rates, so the fact that over a certain period of time gun sales and homicide rates moved in different directions doesn't disprove the fact that they are linked. For example, poverty rates increased in the 2000s, while crime rates dropped. Would you insist that that proves that there is no link between crime and poverty? I hope not.

Anyway, if you look at the data at a more granular level, at the state and county level, you find, as those studies did, that higher rates of gun ownership are in fact associated with higher rates of homicide, gun homicide specifically.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #39)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 06:22 PM

42. Not if what they claim isn't bourne out by statistical trends.

 

Which leads to an obvious question:

What makes Chicago's murder rate twice that of Houston's?

Both cities are of similar size- but Houston has far higher rates of gun ownership. I'd say poverty...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to friendly_iconoclast (Reply #42)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 06:31 PM

44. Lordy. There are a lot of factors that affect crime rates!

Is this really so confusing? If you look at the data in a systematic, professional way, the evidence shows that more guns lead to more homicide. If you cherry pick the data, you will always be able to find one city/state/region with more guns and less homicide than another.

I'll ask you again. Do you think the fact that poverty increased in the 2000s while crime dropped proves that poverty and crime aren't linked? If the answer is "yes", you need to get your head examined. If the answer is "no", you need to ask yourself why you jump to that exact same conclusion when "poverty" is replaced with "gun sales".

It seems to me that the only answer here is that you are ideologically rather than evidence-driven. You look at data that supports your ideology, and ignore the rest. And you aren't interested in any of the social science and statistical research, instead you substite your own cherry-picked homebrew "statistical analysis".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #44)

Sun Jun 17, 2012, 12:44 AM

62. Did the places with high gun ownership *not* go through the same reduction in crime+murder rates?

 

Or did they conform to the country as a whole? The latest study of the two you linked to was published in 2005- If they are valid, they should have shown an increase in gun crime in high gun ownership areas even after their publication dates.

A stroll through the FBI's various "Crime In The United States" reports should reveal the answer. They break down crime by stete, region, SMSA and incorporated cities, going back to the 1990s.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #44)

Sun Jun 17, 2012, 09:30 AM

71. No one denies that there are a lot of factors that affect crime rates.

 

No one denies that there are a lot of factors that affect crime rates.

And pro-gun people around here are usually careful to note that increased firearms in circulation does not necessarily relate to decreases in crime rates.

But what we do say is that the anti-gun mantra, that "more guns equals more crime", is almost certainly false.

The FBI just released it's latest preliminary data for crime statistics, and, once again, violent crime has declined.

http://www.fbi.gov/sandiego/press-releases/2012/fbi-releases-2011-preliminary-annual-uniform-crime-report

Murder is down about 2%, and violent crime about 5%, and rapes around 6%.

This is part of a decades-long trend. Over the same period of time sales of firearms and ammunition have skyrocketed.

So the idea that increased numbers of firearms in circulation cause crime seems to me to be unfounded.

I have read that one of the biggest reasons for the decline of crime rates was the huge push to incarcerate people starting with the high crime rates in the 1990s, mostly for drug-related crimes. This had the effect of taking a huge swaths of the community and putting them behind bars during their child-bearing years. As immoral and racially-biased as this practice was and is, it did have the consequence of taking a large portion of the most economically and socially disadvantaged portion of our society - and thus the portion probably more likely to turn to crime as a way out - out of circulation. And not only were they thus not able to commit more crimes, but they weren't able to have children. Or at least, they weren't having children in their prime crime-comitting years.

In any case, I hope we can agree that violent crime has decreased since 1990 while the number of firearms in circulation have increased.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #34)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 05:47 PM

38. So if gun ownership is down drastically

as evidenced by the equally drastic drop in gun violence, then what's your problem with the status quo? Fewer guns and less violence is what you wanted and according to your first link is exactly what you got. So since the status quo seems to be working just fine why are we fighting?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #38)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 06:04 PM

40. Gun ownership is not down drastically, it is down modestly.

My problem with the status quo is that we have rates of gun violence that are 5-10X higher than the rest of the developed world. The number of people killed by guns each year is greater than the number of Americans that have died in 9-11, Iraq, and Afghanistan combined. Every two years, guns kill as many Americans as died in Vietnam. In fact, even in the very worst year in Vietnam, the US only lost about half as many lives as we do every year to guns.

It seems to me that gun violence is the one area where it's OK to brush of 30,000 unnecessary deaths as "seems to be working fine".

Here's an analogy. According to wikipedia, in 1968, there were 16,600 US casualties in Vietnam. Then in 1969, there were "only" 11,600. Now, imagine if you tried to argue in 1969 that "Vietnam casualties are way down from last year, everything seems to be working fine, let's just keep the war the way it is". The point is that, in both cases, we are talking about many thousands of unnecessary deaths.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #40)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 06:10 PM

41. It is the drastic and steady decline that makes it ok

and it is not 30k deaths - suicides are a separate issue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #41)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 06:24 PM

43. It is still a huge number of unnecessary deaths.

You have some bizarre logic going. 30,000 needless deaths a year are OK because last year there were 31,000 needless deaths. To me, 30,000 needless deaths is 30,000 too many. Now, if there were some compelling reason why we should tolerate this level of death, that would be one thing.

For example, there are about 40,000 motor vehicle deaths every year. That's too many, but motor vehicles are an integral part of our society, so arguably we have reached some kind of balance between safety and transportation. But guns just aren't that important, certainly nothing like motor vehicles. And on top of that, a few basic policies like handgun registration could take a chunk out of the number of gun deaths without making much impact at all on the legitimate positive uses of guns.

Regarding suicides, the statistical evidence shows clearly that gun availability increases the rates of completed suicide, particularly among young people. This is because guns are an easy and lethal means to commit suicide.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #43)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 06:32 PM

45. What is.the exact number of gun murders last year?

let's talk.real numbers

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #45)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 06:48 PM

46. According to 2010 CDC data.

Looks like the firearm deaths break down like this:
600 accidental
19,308 suicide
11,015 homicide

So the total is a bit over 30,000.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr60/nvsr60_04.pdf

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #46)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 07:05 PM

47. Why the desire to pad your numbers?

gun violence is the issue.

Suicides are a public health issue addressed through better health care funding. Besides, what gun control law will stop suicides? You are not suggesting we ban private ownership of handguns and confiscate all guns in private hands? Because how do you preemptively prevent a suicidal person from using a gun?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #47)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 07:27 PM

49. What are you talking about?

I'm not padding any numbers. I cut and pasted them.

What you don't seem to get is that there are multiple causes for things. We could increase health care funding and also enact sane gun laws. We can end the drug war and also enact sane gun laws. It's not either-or.

Which gun laws would reduce suicide? Well, for starters, a handgun ban would obviously reduce suicides. Safe storage laws would reduce suicides. Any laws that reduce irresponsible gun ownership would have an effect of reducing suicide -- licensing and registration of handguns, for example. Waiting periods would likely reduce suicides.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #49)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 07:36 PM

50. So you want a ban on the private ownership of hand guns?

good luck with that. You are pretty detached from reality if you think that such a thing will ever happen in America.

Alcohol is a huge factor in suicides - and alcohol also kill many more people then guns do. I assume you want to ban the selling of alcohol as well? Because I can't imagine you are satisfied with how slowly alcohol related deaths are falling in America.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #50)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 07:51 PM

52. Lordy! Did I say that I was?

I said that a ban on handguns would reduce suicide, which it would. But that doesn't mean I'm necessarily in favor, nor do I think it will happen in America any time soon.

To me, a handgun ban is to gun policy what single-payer is to healthcare policy. It's in effect in several other countries, and it seems to work pretty well for them, but I'm not convinced that it's either necessary or appropriate in the US. And besides, as you point out, neither has any chance of getting through congress for the forseeable future.

But that doesn't mean they aren't worthy of discussing. I hope you wouldn't be so dismissive of someone who mentioned single payer in a discussion on healthcare policy. How about someone who thinks that inheritance taxes should be 75%? What about someone who thinks there should be a tax on carbon emissions to fight global warming? Really, even the idea of cutting subsidies for oil companies doesn't have much of a chance these days. But this is a Democratic forum, where people discuss all kinds of policy ideas even if they are further left than what has a realistic chance of passing through congress.

For the record, I'm not in favor of a handgun ban. I am in favor of licensing and registration of handguns, though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #52)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 07:57 PM

53. Because criminals will license and register their guns? Got it. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #53)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 08:08 PM

54. You seem to have trouble staying on topic.

Every new post from you is a different gun lobby talking point.

Anyway, licensing and registration would have several effects. One of them is to prevent the flow of guns that is diverted from lawful gun owners to criminal gun markets. In the US, almost all guns used by criminals start out in FFLs and are originally purchased by people who passed a background check. But most of the time, the original purchaser is not the same person who uses the gun in a crime. Instead, through one of several methods -- straw purchase, private sale on the unregulated secondary market, theft, etc. -- the become diverted and end up in the hands of criminals. The registration of guns would make it much more difficult on straw purchasers and gun traffickers. It would also make it easier for police to trace guns and figure out patterns of gun trafficking. It would also encourage lawful gun owners to take more precautions about how they store their guns, and who they lend or sell their guns to.

On top of that, the world isn't neatly divided into law-abiding citizens who never break the law, and criminals who never follow any laws. Many people fall somewhere in between, and licensing and registration would cut down on irresponsible gun ownership.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #54)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 10:01 PM

57. But what you want is impossible to achieve.

It will never get popular support, we can't afford it, and there will be widespread opposition and resistance. People would never register their guns - they would just keep them out sight. Or they will sell them to every wanna-be black marketer who sees a future fortune in unregistered guns.

You last paragraph show just how out of touch with reality you are - your entire scheme depends on the cooperation of those irresponsible people you want to keep guns from. They will just say "fuck the government" and keep their guns.

So tell me - after massive popular resistance to registration and after criminalizing a huge swath of the American population, what will be your next step?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #57)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 11:15 PM

59. You could make the same argument about single-payer healthcare.

I concede that a handgun ban is not realistic, but I don't agree about registration. I'm sure some gun nuts would be strongly resistant, but the polls I've seen suggest that most gun owners actually support handgun registration. Also, if it's true that most gun owners are law-abiding, as y'all like to keep pointing out over and over, that means that most gun owners would in fact register their handguns if that was the law.

You are making the mistake of believing that all gun owners are just as extremist as you are. In fact, the people who live in constant fear that the gubmint is coming for their guns are a loud, paranoid, and small minority.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #59)

Sun Jun 17, 2012, 09:14 AM

70. So with all these states liberalizing their gun laws

they are all going to do a 180 and support registration? And they will all fund and enforce these laws. If you ever needed proof as to how divorced from.social and political reality gun grabbers are your post is an excellent example.

How.many billions do you plan to spend on this scheme? Don't you think health is a bigger priority? It would save more lives and expanded mental health care will reduce those suicides that concern you so much.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #32)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 05:25 PM

35. The restrictionistas would rather lick a New York sidewalk than admit...

 

...more guns have not cause more violence in America. It's like watching a Romney supporter trying to explain the public statements he
made while he was running for governor in Massachusetts- the backing and filling, hemming and hawing is quite amusing...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DanTex (Reply #30)

Mon Jun 18, 2012, 04:49 PM

91. Good analogy......... had you thought it thru.......

 

Seattle's reaction is kind of like buying a $10k snow blower because you had a massive snow storm where it hasn't snowed once in the last 25 years.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Starboard Tack (Reply #11)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 04:20 PM

21. Not a direct answer to your question, but a good info graphic

Overall it seems to give evidence to both sides. Show a definite tend in which states are SYG.

"" border="0"

from http://www.readyholster.com/blog/stand-your-ground-gun-laws-infographic

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sarisataka (Reply #21)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 04:52 PM

27. Flashy graphic!

 

Doesn't prove a thing about guns, but it's flashy! Good to fool the gun-religionists.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bongbong (Reply #27)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 04:59 PM

28. It *is* flashy- but I notice you didn't actually refute any of it...

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bongbong (Reply #27)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 09:55 PM

56. Thank you, but I can't claim credit

Much like Columbus, I only discovered something that was already there and many knew about.

What specifically, may I ask, is in there "to fool the gun religionists"?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sarisataka (Reply #56)

Sun Jun 17, 2012, 10:42 AM

72. If nothing else it is produced by a company that makes money off "tactical" gun gear.

The probably cater to folks like this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #72)

Sun Jun 17, 2012, 11:20 AM

73. is that you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gejohnston (Reply #73)

Sun Jun 17, 2012, 01:23 PM

76. The truth comes out?



According to his patch, he is in a militia...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sarisataka (Reply #76)

Sun Jun 17, 2012, 01:25 PM

77. here all this time I thought

he was a high school kid making pen guns in his parent's basement. Do they have basements in Georgia?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #4)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 07:50 PM

51. Start with Seattle Police shooting homeless people?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 08:20 PM

55. Solve a dispute......SNorK!

Yeah that's the center of all their shootings.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ileus (Reply #55)

Mon Jun 18, 2012, 04:28 PM

90. When you can't take it to court, what else is a guy to do?

Some business transactions can't be handled in civil court.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Sat Jun 16, 2012, 10:02 PM

58. LOL!

 

The editorial writer should go tell that joke in Olympia...

For now, the issue of shall versus may is still unresolved, but Seattle lawmakers are also examining another issue


Olympia, not Seattle, made that decision.

Unresolved. Yeah, just like it's unresolved whether or not the Second Amendment is binding on the states.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SecularMotion (Original post)

Sun Jun 17, 2012, 11:36 AM

74. Gee, what happened to the article?

Paper realize it was written by a thundering moron?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread