HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » benEzra » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next »

benEzra

Profile Information

Gender: Male
Hometown: Eastern North Carolina
Home country: United States
Current location: Eastern NC
Member since: Wed Dec 1, 2004, 04:09 PM
Number of posts: 12,148

Journal Archives

"Tens of thousands" aren't killed by the guns you want to ban; less than 150 are.

And of those, not a single one would be saved by requiring rifles to have stocks like this:

[img][/img]
http://www.ruger.com/products/mini14RanchRifle/specSheets/5802.html

instead of like this:


https://www.remington.com/rifles/modern-sporting/model-r-15/model-r-15-vtr-predator-moe-16-1/2

or like this:


http://www.ruger.com/products/sr22Rifle/specSheets/11134.html

Nor would any lives be saved by declaring common magazines verboten.

Nor would any lives be saved by telling carry license holders that we can't carry in restaurants with wine lists, or whatever.

Stuff like that isn't about preventing violence. Not in the slightest.

Yep, there is. There is also a temporary forum for discussing things that hurt Dems last month...

which would be this forum.

I live in North Carolina, which was a notable swing state this election. Perhaps you've heard of it.

The gun issue was big here in 2016. And 2014, when Hagan lost her Senate seat over it. I grew up here, though I lived in Florida for a decade in between, and I have some passing familiarity with both states...

This is *exactly* the type of misunderstanding that is so harmful to Dems on this issue.

Do you personally want to possess military-style weaponry for home use? Expecting an invasion from some place? Belong to the National Guard? (If I understand the situation correctly, the State National Guards all keep their weaponry in armories, as do the various military services, not in homes.)

This is *exactly* the type of misunderstanding that is so harmful to Dems on this issue; I am talking about the most common civilian (NFA Title 1, non-automatic) rifles in U.S. homes.

AR-15's are legal for civilians to own in Canada, most of Europe, and New Zealand, and are no more and no less "military-style" than a Winchester Model 70 bolt-action or a Winchester 1866 lever-action. The fact that they are restricted in CA/NY/MA, the UK, and Australia doesn't mean that they aren't mainstream civilian guns.

And no, I'm a competitive shooter in local USPSA-sanctioned matches and derivatives. I shoot a civilian non-automatic Rock River LAR-15, made in Illinois. Like most AR's, mine is a centerfire .22 (.223 Remington)---low-powered, low recoil, and supremely accurate.

The National Guard uses NFA Title 2 restricted machineguns like the M16, which would be a 10-year Federal felony for me (or you) to possess without proper authorization.

As for California, where you correctly surmise I live

You live in a state whose laws match your beliefs. That works for you.

Just please stop trying to impose your laws on the ~43 states that have explicitly rejected them over and over and over and over----if for no other reason than that it hurts Dems nationwide.

FWIW, rifles are the *least* misused category of weapon in the United States; many states have no rifle homicides at all in any given year, and most are in the single digits.

Murder, by State, Types of Weapons, 2015

[font face="courier new"]Total murders...................... 13,455
Handguns............................ 6,447 (47.9%)
Firearms (type unknown)............. 2,648 (19.7%)
Clubs, rope, fire, etc.............. 1,671 (12.4%)
Knives and other cutting weapons.... 1,544 (11.5%)
Hands, fists, feet.................... 624 (4.6%)
Shotguns.............................. 269 (2.0%)
Rifles................................ 252 (1.9%) [/font]


I could go on. I'm not trying to disarm everyone in the country.

If you're trying to take CA-banned rifles and CA-banned magazines from the 60+ million people who own them nationwide, then you are trying to disarm the majority of gun owners, to that degree.

About 20% of gun owners hunt; 80% don't. Many hunters also own nonhunting guns that the gun control lobby wishes to criminalize. And for those in the NY/CA bubble who are wondering how any Dem or indie could possibly sit this one out, there is one of many explanations for it.

That was understood as pandering to the zealots; he made no real moves against gun owners.

The indiscriminate, hate-filled exploitation of the tragedy at Sandy Hook was when the "banic" occurred, when store shelves were cleared of ammo and AR production backlogged for a year, and when the die was cast for the loss of the Senate in 2014. And I would say that it wasn't Obama who was really responsible for it; it was mostly the corporate media (hate sells, via rageclicks and rage-shares on social media), plus a few hateful sound bites and draconian legislative proposals from a small set of Senate and House members, but mostly gun control activists on social media---and of course the NY SAFE Act. All I remember Obama actually doing was to express his dislike for people owning modern-looking guns, and much later the BATFE floating a half-baked proposal to ban M855 ammo that was later withdrawn as unworkable; the rest was basically restating and pledging to enforce existing law.

And the NRA is ~5 million members, compared to 12-15 million carry license holders, ~25-30 million "assault weapon" owners, ~60 million "high capacity magazine" owners, and ~100 million gun owners. What the NRA thinks, says, or does is not nearly as important to grassroots gun rights activism as gun-control activists seem to think.

You do realize I'm not an NRA member, right?

Were the NRA to disappear tomorrow, the gun control landscape wouldn't change in the slightest. You'd still run squarely against the fact that tens of millions of engaged, thoughtful, and highly motivated Americans own guns, and will keep them. You can accept that fact and look for common ground with the people you seem to hate but (realistically) have to coexist with, or the party can keep supporting useless, offensive crap like handgrip and magazine bans and carry-license harassment, and keep getting the same pushback.

The Third Way has been pushing to outlaw rifle handgrips for a frakking quarter century now, and so far they have achieved:

-- Mostly-ignored cosmetic bans in ~7 states, despite extreme penalties;
-- Record gun and ammo sales nearly every year for the last two decades;
-- Modern-looking rifles now dominate rifle ownership and the shooting sports;
-- Half a billion over-10-round magazines in U.S. homes;
-- Republican control of most state legislatures;
-- Republican control of the House and Senate;
-- President Trump.

Quite a track record. On the upside, rifle violence is now at historic lows...

I'm not a Repub, and legislating rifle stock shape doesn't prevent suicides.

Neither does mandating pre-1860s magazine capacities, or restricting licensed carry in restaurants with wine lists, all of which are complete non-issues.

So I ask again: Why the intense focus on harassing the peaceable and nonviolent, rather than addressing the actual problem areas? Namely, drug prohibition fueled violence, and people without pain management, mental health care, or hope?

I'll also point out that discouraging/barring gun owners from getting counseling for depression, or stigmatizing depression with felony-class criminal penalties like rights revocation, would *increase* suicides, not decrease it.

If carry prohibitions were limited to actual carry while at a bar/drinking, or carry while impaired,

then they wouldn't be controversial. The showdown comes when gun control advocates want prohibit carry by nondrinkers in restaurants with wine lists (or all restaurants, or all stores, or all churches, or whatever), and that is irrational and counterproductive.

Here in NC, it is illegal to carry while drinking, but you can carry in restaurants with wine lists (we had to fight the fundamentalists tooth and nail to get that changed). In Florida, it is illegal to carry in a an actual bar (e.g., an establishment that derives most of its income from alcohol sales), or at a bar in a restaurant with a bar.

Once again, it comes down to nuance, rather than fundamentalist attempts at prohibition. There is common ground if you look for it.

Guns in schools, guns in nursing homes, guns in day care centers, shoot first/stand your ground: all are stupid permissions.

Guns in schools: The biggest issue there whether to make it a felony to pick up your kid from school if you have a carry license, even if you don't get out of the car; such laws are irrational and counterproductive. Here in NC, the rule is that you stay in the car; I don't see protests in the street over it. As to guns actually *in* the school, if you are talking about by trained, vetted school staff, I don't see the problem; we already allow that with SRO's, and it often saves lives in the unlikely event of an attack; if you're concerned about training and quals, let's discuss training and quals.

Guns in nursing homes. When I used to go visit my grandmother in her nursing home before she passed away this year, I probably was carrying. I certainly don't see any rational basis for drawing the gun in the parking lot to stash it in the car, any more than I'd take out my Swiss Army Knife to stash it in the car before going to see her. It's not like I was walking into a prison; it was her home.

Guns in day care centers. Where, and under what circumstances? Parents dropping off their kids? I haven't seen this one.

Stand your Ground laws. Ummm, you do realize that two thirds or more of the USA, including your gun-ban utopia of California, are "Stand Your Ground" states by case law, yes? Florida got in the news about it only because it was an oddball that *wasn't* Stand Your Ground, and changed its law to match that of most states after some high-profile malicious prosecutions of victims.

"Shoot first." You are only allowed to shoot if you are in actual imminent, unlawful danger of death or serious bodily harm, or a forcible felony, as would be perceived by a reasonable person in that situation; if you are, there is no requirement to wait to be shot or stabbed first, and this is the case in all 50 states. In almost all states, there is also a presumption of justifiability if you are the victim of a unlawful home invasion (or in some states, an unlawful carjacking); that rule predates the NRA by centuries, being one of the foundations of Western case law. It is called the "Castle Doctrine" for a reason.

And, all this circles back to the bigger question: Why are you so intent on going after trained, vetted, and licensed people with squeaky clean records who are lawfully carrying in restaurants, or while picking up their kids from school, when approximately zero murders per year out of 13,500 involve those circumstances?

The overwhelming majority of murders occur in the course of prohibition-funded criminal enterprise, and the majority of gun deaths are suicides by people who need access to pain management, mental health care, or hope, not jail. Going after licensed carry, rifle handgrips, post-1860 magazines, etc. does *nothing* to address any of that.

Well, you could go after misuse, rather than responsible ownership.

The problem is that the DC/NY policy setters are doing exactly the opposite.

How much of LA's gun violence is caused by criminal enterprises funded by drug prohibition, vs. how much is carried out by working-class and middle-class families with clean records? In Chicago, over 90% of murderers (and ca. 50% of victims) have prior crimes on their record, and probably less than two thousand criminals are responsible for almost all of the violence.

Less than 2% of murders involve any kind of rifle, so why is the party throwing away election after election (both high level and downballot) trying to legislate rifle handgrip shape? Carry license holders have something like 1/10th the violent crime rate of the population at large, and less than half that of the *police*. Why spend so much political capital going after them? Such measures are not only useless at preventing violence, they are worse than useless; they tie up police resources going after the nonviolent, they destroy lives, and they destroy any chance for common-ground measures that might actually help address misuse without restricting rights.

There is common ground to be found. Things that come to mind right off:

End drug prohibition, make it a medical issue rather than a criminal one, and take away the profits that fund the cartels and gangs. (Is everyone too ignorant of U.S. history to remember the lessons of alcohol prohibition?) Then take all the law enforcement resources you free up, and get back to community policing and the Peelian basics.

When you catch violent criminals with guns, actually prosecute them, instead of plea-bargaining the gun charges away; as it stands now, the innocent homeowner who accidentally runs afoul of some arcane gun law is the *only* person likely to get a decade-long sentence on a gun charge, because they don't have other charges to plead to and don't have criminal higher-ups to testify against.

Accidents are already at historic lows. If you want to help discourage the few that still happen, how about a tax credit for UL-listed gun safes; as long as there is NO coercive angle, it would be a benefit and would probably be well received, and would help reduce both accidents and theft.

Work out a common-ground way to do universal background checks *without* hassle or registration. That does not mean forcing all private transfers through a FFL or third party.

There are undoubtedly other areas of common ground to be found as well, but to find them, you have to understand the basics of the issue, and most of the leadership in the DC/NY/CA bubble don't even begin to comprehend it.

Thank you!! I was looking for your post in the old DU archives, but wasn't able to find it.

Excellent post, and very relevant then and now.

So what happens if you get your wish?

It is part of a constellation of issues, that Dems should double-down on, IMO, which appeal to metro voters and metro identity, the way the NRA (and other rw groups) appeal to rural identity.

So what happens if you get your wish?

Let's say you magically manage to pass a law making 60+ million citizens, and a 20-25% of registered Dems and indies, felons for refusing to submit to your enlightened urban beliefs on icky rifle handgrips that stick out, or post-1860s magazines, or whatever. They salute you with a carefully chosen finger, and keep on living their lives as they choose. Then what?

The Third Way is so out of touch on the issue that the NY SAFE Act got an estimated 90% noncompliance rate in deep-blue New York, even though the law makes simple possession of a loaded magazine a Class D felony. How do you think such laws would play in Ohio, Maine, New Hampshire, Colorado, or Tennessee? Even *Canada* has rejected NY/CA style bans, for Pete's sake.

Meanwhile, I think you greatly underestimate the number of urban Dems and independents who own guns and enjoy shooting, and greatly overestimate the support for taking away personal choice on the issue. New York City, Chicago, and SoCal are not the only urban areas in the whole country; I dare say that a whole lot of Dems/Indies in Austin, Denver, Charlotte, or St. Louis who would raise a hell of a lot of objection if you try to ban their guns. You would, in fact, see pretty much the same pushback at the polls you are seeing right now, just more so.

The United States is a free country; as such, its institutions are not structured to enable 51% of the population to rule the other 49% with an iron fist, and that does not change if you manage to make it 60/40 or even 70/30. Peaceful coexistence is the *only* path forward, and that means taking a pro-choice position on some deeply personal issues like gun ownership or abortion, and agree to live and let live. You can vigorously target gun misuse without controversy, but when you cross the line and start infringing on responsible ownership/use (especially of the least-misused guns), you will get pushback at the polls.

So you don't, in fact, want to ban AR-15's and over-10-round magazines?

...the Yosemite Sams in the South and rural areas count for more than the most populous state in the nation, and they are willing to believe any amount of shit if it starts with Wayne LaPierre saying "The gubmit is gonna take your guns away."

So you don't, in fact, want to ban AR-15's and over-10-round magazines? You do realize that "our guns" are predominantly those that the activists wish to criminalize, yes?

Claiming that nobody wants to ban the most popular guns is not ludicrous, but transparently ludicrous. Demands for such bans are right there in the DC-Beltway-authored party platform, put there in the '90s after the Third Way authoritarians hijacked the issue. Such bans are law in New York, California, and a couple other states, and gun control activists have pushed legislation to do so nationwide. And many of them have praised Australia's ban on pump shotguns and most rifles.

Thing is, in California, you *have* your gun-ban utopia; so does New York. A Canadian citizen could travel to either CA or NY with Canada-legal rifles and magazines and get decades to life in prison for mere *possession* of same. You are literally trying to pass gun bans in the U.S. Midwest, South, Southwest, and rural New England that have been rejected by Canada and much of Europe, and you don't think the DC/NY leadership is out of touch on the issue?
Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next »