Guns.

[Beregond2]

It has been eye-opening to me to realize how many presumed liberals on this site feel that they need a gun for protection. I don't care, so long as they keep them away from me. But it amazes me that people who are supposedly more rational than the opposition are so immune to facts in this area.

Here is a site with statistics that I hope will at least stimulate some thought about this. I know that some will immediately counter with skewed numbers from right-wing gun advocacy groups. All I can say to that is, why do people who would never listen to these people on any other issue give credence to them on this one?

http://www.guncontrol.ca/Content/TheCaseForGunControl.html#intl

[MercutioATC]

1. You DO realize that there are three types of lies....

Lies, damn lies, and statistics....my homage to Samuel Clemens.


My point is that "statistics" can "prove" whatever one wants them to. The fact is that gun ownership is not, and should never be considered, to be counter to Democratic values. Responsible gun ownership benefits all of us and, politically, it's a losing fight for anti-gun-rights Dems.

[Jack_DeLeon]

2. We are more rational and we use logic...

if you have ever studied any history you will see numerous examples where those without effective arms are left to the mercy of those with them.

If you cant see that then perhaps you arent the rational one.

[mvccd1000]

3. Don't we have a forum for this?

Oh, yeah - we do.

[hootinholler]

15. Indeed we do!

If enough of us hit the alert link the mods will know to move it there and help out the OP, since I'm sure it's just an oversight.

-Hoot

[The Straight Story]

4. Because so many of us have (or do) own guns and never used them to harm others

Not to mention, we already have laws against shooting other people (ie, we banned shooting people) - and has that helped us all that much???

[underseasurveyor]

9. WHAT? We banned shooting people?

Aw crap.. there goes my weekend

:spank:

[aikoaiko]

5. Great way to start a meaningful dialogue: My numbers are facts, yours are skewed.

:eyes:

[SteveM]

34. Yeah, striking out for the high ground from a coral reef (nt)

[SlipperySlope]

6. There is nothing about taking aways people's guns that is liberal or progressive.

Disarming civilians:

- Does nothing for reproductive freedom.
- Does not further universal health care.
- Doesn't educate our children.
- Does not further a green agenda.
- Doesn't promote civil rights.
- Won't shore up Social Security.

Disarming civilians:

- Makes them easier for future governments to control.

You are surprised that liberals can be gun owners? I find that personally insulting. Personally, I see being a gun owner as part of my social duty, no less than being willing to serve on a jury, pay my taxes, or vote in an election.

There are many, many, progressive and liberal members of the Democratic party who are deeply uncomfortable with the parties irrational leanings towards gun control.

[shireen]

7. gun ownership has nothing to do with being liberal or conservative

You're over-simplifying and stereotyping a complex issue.
- There are different grades of gun control, and unless you specify a context, there's not much to discuss or debate.
- Both sides can quote statistics till they're blue in the face. But not much attention goes into HOW the data was collected.
- Using words like "presumed liberal", "supposedly more rational than the opposition" and "some will immediately counter with skewed numbers from the right-wing gun advocacy groups" sounds like you're simply trying to provoke some unpleasant exchanges, not engage in constructive discussion.
- Us gun-totin' liberals have no desire whatsoever to come anywhere near you with our arsenals.
- How we choose to protect ourselves is none of your damned business.

It's been eye-opening how some people in DU love to pick a fight over guns. :eyes:

[alittlelark]

8. ......sigh........

[Perry Logan]

10. Guns are a public-health problem. Your "rights" end where they start hurting other people.

An excellent resource for gun stats is the Harvard Injury Research Control Center:
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hicrc/

At this site, you'll find study after study proving what most people intuitively know and which gun guys always deny: the dissemination of lethal weapons throughout a densely-populated, technological society causes untold death and destruction within that society.

The Second Amendment is an anachronism which should be removed from the Constitution. Privately-owned firearms are provably hazardous in a modern country.

A gun kept in the house vastly increases the likelihood of BOTH murder and suicide within that household. Privately-owned guns are a major source of guns for criminals.

And of course, thousands of children get blown away every year. Somehow, gun guys can know this and still sleep at night.

Better gun control can and does alleviate this public-health problem, and that's why most Americans want more gun control.

Contrary to what gun proponents will tell you, the violent crime rate in England plummeted after they cracked down on guns on the mid-90's. The gun guys used bad stats to "prove" the crime rate went up after gun control was tightened.

(As you've no doubt noticed, gun proponents tend to deep-fry their stats. They can always show you figures proving that guns are as nurturing as mother's milk. Apparently, if we just had a few more guns, we'd all live forever!)

Gun mayhem costs us hundreds of billions of dollars every year. I read an estimate that every American--gun owner or not--pays $500 every year to help clean up the mess that guns make. We're talking law enforcement expenses, property damage, medical expenses, insurance expenses, etc., etc.

This means that--under the guise of a constitutional right--the gun guys are letting the rest of us pay for their fun. They enjoy their guns, while those very guns injure our health, cost us a fortune, and endanger our children.

Of course they don't realize it. But gun owners in America are practicing a form of unauthorized socialism.

[bean fidhleir]

14. The lack of logic behind screeds like this is truly disturbing!

If you really claim to be a rational rather than rationalizing animal, ask yourself these questions: Why don't the rich shoot other people? Why does violence of all kinds vary inversely with wealth? Why does violence rise as the general economic situation worsens and drop again when it gets better?

Why do people refuse to think, and cling tightly to demonstrably false beliefs rather than change their minds? That's the most disturbing question of all. Are people really so fragile that they can't bring themselves to say "oops, I guess I was wrong about that"?

[SteveM]

38. Culture war and animosity is always the end product of prohibitionism...

I think Mr. Logan would rather keep this portal of "unauthorized" meanness open to satisfy his own spirit, rather than face the true causes of violence and crime: poverty, poor education, lousy family life, unemployment. These conditions take hard work and expense; Mr. Logan would rather take the easy way of banning an artifact, an action (like other forms of prohibition) doomed to failure and counter-productiveness.

[bossy22]

17. hmm

"The Second Amendment is an anachronism which should be removed from the Constitution. Privately-owned firearms are provably hazardous in a modern country."

hate to break it to yah, but its still there, which means its still the law of the land....just because you believe it should be removed does not make it a moot point in the eyes of the law

anyway that sets a great precedent- if you dont like a constitutional right- get rid of it...sounds like bush...the 4th amendment is too dangerous to have in these times of terrorism...lets get rid of it

[jmg257]

21. I will write you a check for all the damages my guns have caused, over 30 years worth.

Do you want the $0.00 to be made out to "cash"?


I can sleep Ok at night because I will not take responsibility for some ONE elses' evil or stupid BEHAVIOR.

Wow - how do you sleep at night, knowing 1000s and 1000s of kids die each year in car accidents? Or do you abhore motor vehicles? Hundreds and hundreds drown - do you reject swimming pools and 5 gallon pails?

You want to hold those actually responsible for THEIR ACTIONS - I am all for it. Holding others responsible for simply enjoying their rights? Not likely.

[gorfle]

23. On rights.

At this site, you'll find study after study proving what most people intuitively know and which gun guys always deny: the dissemination of lethal weapons throughout a densely-populated, technological society causes untold death and destruction within that society.

Actually, the death and destruction is quite well told, and the data has been presented here on numerous occasions.

Firearms are used in approximately 10,000 homicides annually.

There are an estimated 250,000,000 firearms in the United States, owned by some 40,000,000 to 80,000,000 people.

This means that every year only .004% - four hundredths of a percent - of firearms are involved in murders every year. And it means that only .025% - .0125% of firearm owners are involved in murders every year - less than three tenths of a percent.

When we consider other forms of firearm crime, such as armed robbery, assault, rape, etc., we can conclude that there are approximately 800,000 bad things done with firearms annually. This works out to about .32% of all firearms, and 2% - 1% of firearm owners.

This means that over 98% of firearm owners and over 99% of all firearms are not used to do bad things annually.

The Second Amendment is an anachronism which should be removed from the Constitution. Privately-owned firearms are provably hazardous in a modern country.

The founding fathers intended that the people always have a final redress to tyranny. In what way is this ideal an anachronism? No one disputes that privately-owned firearms are hazardous. What is disputed is is the essential liberty that they provide worth the safety you seek by eliminating the hazard?

A gun kept in the house vastly increases the likelihood of BOTH murder and suicide within that household. Privately-owned guns are a major source of guns for criminals.

And yet statistically these events hardly ever happen compared to the number of firearms in circulation.

And of course, thousands of children get blown away every year. Somehow, gun guys can know this and still sleep at night.

We sleep at night because we realize that over 98% of us aren't involved in blowing away children.

Gun mayhem costs us hundreds of billions of dollars every year. I read an estimate that every American--gun owner or not--pays $500 every year to help clean up the mess that guns make. We're talking law enforcement expenses, property damage, medical expenses, insurance expenses, etc., etc.

This means that--under the guise of a constitutional right--the gun guys are letting the rest of us pay for their fun. They enjoy their guns, while those very guns injure our health, cost us a fortune, and endanger our children.

Of course they don't realize it. But gun owners in America are practicing a form of unauthorized socialism.

How...progressive.

[jmg257]

27. Ahhh...The Harvard Injury Control Research Center...

Authors of brilliant studies like this one:

Household Firearm Ownership and Rates of Suicide Across the 50 United States

Summary:

"the hypothesis {is} that the availability of lethal means increases the rate of completed suicide." (well - duh! Harvard, huh?)

"Results: US residents of all ages and both sexes are more likely to die from suicide when they live in areas where more households contain firearms. A positive and significant association exists between levels of household firearm ownership and rates of firearm and overall suicide; rates of nonfirearm suicide were not associated with levels of household firearm ownership."

"Conclusion: Household firearm ownership levels are strongly associated with higher rates of suicide, consistent with the hypothesis that the availability of lethal means increases the rate of completed suicide."

Hmmm...
1) "A positive and significant association exists between levels of household firearm ownership and rates of firearm and overall suicide..."

Ok. BUT!!!...

2) "rates of NON-firearm suicide were NOT associated with levels of household firearm ownership"...

3) which means just and ONLY THIS: rates of firearm suicide were associated with levels of household firearm ownership (well - duh! again!)


WOW!!! - guns are lethal, and effective in killing one's self. AND, imagine this!!!...gun-related suicide is associated with gun-related households! OOOHHH!! Brilliant!!!

Who woulda thunk?...guns can be lethal (in fact, their lethality is one reason I own them - useless for defense otherwise, no?)

I think we could have saved them alot of money on this one.

Don't rely on HICRC for jack, except for anti-gun BS.


Here's an idea for a study of some REAL value - maybe they should concentrate on studying WHY people want to kill themselves? Since 16,400 will do so with guns, and another 15,700 will do so WITHOUT guns - seems much more effective then concentrating only on 1/2 the total.

[beevul]

28. What a mouthful.

"the dissemination of lethal weapons throughout a densely-populated, technological society causes untold death and destruction within that society."

Thats quite simple to counter. All the statistics you can come up with will not indicate that that the 280+ million firearms in the hands of the 80+ million people that own them are a problem on anything other than a microscopic scale.


"The Second Amendment is an anachronism which should be removed from the Constitution."

You're welcome to try, but expect heavy resistance. Just don't drag the Democratic Party down with you.

"A gun kept in the house vastly increases the likelihood of BOTH murder and suicide within that household."

And yet 80+ million households just don't have any murders or suicides happening within them. Exceptions to your rule perhaps?


"And of course, thousands of children get blown away every year. Somehow, gun guys can know this and still sleep at night."

I suppose it causes about the same amount of sleep deprivation on our part as the thousands that drown in swimming pools and are killed by drunk drivers does on your part.

"Better gun control can and does alleviate this public-health problem, and that's why most Americans want more gun control."


Examples and cites please, of both what "better gun control" can and does alleviate, and that "most Americans want more gun control".


"Gun mayhem costs us hundreds of billions of dollars every year. I read an estimate that every American--gun owner or not--pays $500 every year to help clean up the mess that guns make. We're talking law enforcement expenses, property damage, medical expenses, insurance expenses, etc., etc."

"This means that--under the guise of a constitutional right--the gun guys are letting the rest of us pay for their fun. They enjoy their guns, while those very guns injure our health, cost us a fortune, and endanger our children."


Yeah. And Americans pay more because of the fast food eaters, and the drunk drivers, and the swimming pool owners, etc, too. Whats your point?


On edit: I almost forgot:

"Your "rights" end where they start hurting other people."

No. The lawful exercise of my rights ends where and when it interferes with the lawful exercise of someone elses rights - directly in this case.

I am responsible for the actions of no one except that of my own and my children until they attain adulthood.

[Taitafalcon]

29. Guns

Rights in this country are thought to be inalienable until they impact another set of rights. Who and what has priority are issues left to the courts. But I can tell you that picking out your least favorite amendment from the constituion, labeling it as a anachronism is the beginning of a slippery slope. Where does it end...?

I for one have seen what this goverment has done with social security, taxes, wars of selection; excuse me if I don't let them mess with my right to defend myself when they can't or won't respond to my need - it's a judgement call. Soon my right to respond to your non-sensical writing here will be just as illegal for me as it will be for you to write it when we set the precedent of getting rid of legitament amendments that don't suit us.

It took 250 years of slavery to undo that abomination constitutionally. There are many rights that do us harm as a nation if we follow your thread out to its conclusion. Eating fatty foods, driving to school and work, allowing extended periods of no exercise.... No, I think you'd do best to do whatever legal things you do and let the rest of us do the same....

[SteveM]

37. Sorry, partner, your "public health" model is broken in a thousand pieces...

"Evidence was insufficient to determine the effectiveness of any of these (gun intervention) laws..." -- Center for Disease Control.

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwR/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm

[slackmaster]

39. Actually, violent crime is a public health problem

Guns are tools that are used both to prevent crime and to exacerbate it.

[Recursion]

62. I'm much more worried about the internal combustion engine

Get rid of all the cars and then we'll talk about the guns.

While you're at it, get rid of hormone-injected feedlot cattle; that's a bigger problem in my mind than guns.

[ccharles000]

11. I don't own a gun a most likely never will.

But if someone wants a gun if he/she does everything right(register,training)than I am OK with it.

[hack89]

12. We support the Democratic Party platform

concerning guns and the second amendment. Nothing to be ashamed of.

[old mark]

13. What exactly IS the Democratic party platform concerning guns?

I'm still trying to figure that out.

mark

[slackmaster]

19. Google is your friend

We will protect Americans' Second Amendment right to own firearms, and we will keep
guns out of the hands of criminals and terrorists by fighting gun crime, reauthorizing the assault weapons
ban, and closing the gun show loophole, as President Bush proposed and failed to do.

http://www.democrats.org/pdfs/2004platform.pdf

[maxidivine]

40. Too bad

The party leadership has to go and alienate 80 million of us like that. "assault weapons ban" and "gun show loophole" make me sick.

Every time one of those or a similiar phrases is used it's like a kick to the teeth of freedom.

[slackmaster]

60. Please join me in lobbying the party bosses to strike the AW clause

:hi:

[spin]

16. Less violence would lead to less demand for guns...

Drugs are a major problem in the United States. The "War on Drugs" has been and will continue to be a failure. Organized gangs derive profit from selling drugs and fight turf wars against other gangs. Firepower is important in these gang wars. Those who find themselves addicted to illegal drugs may resort to crime to finance their habit. Some method needs to be found to take the profit motive out of selling illegal drugs. Legalization of some drugs might be necessary.

The middle class of this country is rapidly disappearing. Soon we will live in a nation with the rich living in guarded enclaves and the poor living in ghettos. The difficulty of day to day survival in the poorer sections will lead to more violence. Angry, frustrated people will lash out in rage against a world they perceive as against them.

Elected officials of both parties appear to serve corporate masters rather than the public that put them in office. Unfortunately they also appear to be attempting to line their own pockets at the expense of their constituency.

Draconian "feel good" gun laws are often seen by liberal politicians as easy solution to the violence problem. The fact that extreme restrictive weapons laws do little to solve the root causes of violence is irrelevant. Passing or attempting to pass these laws will gain support from many voters and allow the politician to stay in office especially in the liberal areas of the nation. Other politicians from more conservative areas can retain their office by opposing gun control. In the end very little is accomplished. The issue will remain as a factor in future elections.

But if we can elect politicians who are brave and intelligent enough to attack the root causes of violence, we can reduce the demand for guns.

If only hunters, target shooters and collectors felt the need to spend money of firearms we would live a much better society.

[slackmaster]

18. As is the case for all other issues, I do my own thinking on the issue of gun ownership

I don't rely on any advocacy group for my thoughts.

[jmg257]

20. Nothing like counting on statistics to try to justify basic, secured rights.

Or to justify trying to infringe on them.

The problem with most statistics, they don't always support your argument. As in this case.

In this case, ALL statistics show that even though the number of guns in this country is ever increasing, violent & gun crime rates go down, and violent & gun crime rates go up - independently. I.E. There is no real correlation, because there are much more revelant causes then "guns" (for instance the number of 15-25 yr olds in society). Because .002% of the people will use a gun to commit a crime is NOT justification for undue restrictions on the rights of the other 99.98% of us.


PS Bullshit on your comments... that people who are supposedly more rational than the opposition are so immune to facts in this area...I know that some will immediately counter with skewed numbers from right-wing gun advocacy groups. All I can say to that is, why do people who would never listen to these people on any other issue give credence to them on this one?

I can produce plenty of stats from totally neutral and even gun-control sites that support the pro-gun argument. YOU want to have a meaningful dialog, don't start off with bullshit comments.

[jmg257]

30. Look ! Here's some now...

More guns, less crime..

This 1st from an anti-gun site...

The following chart shows the general climb of both the murder rate and firearm sales in the U.S.:
Murder rate (per 100,000) and firearm sales (millions of constant dollars),

Year--Mdr Rate--Firearm Sales (millions)
-----------------------------------------
1985--7.9--$1,548
1986--8.6--$1,647
1987--8.3--$1,667
1988--8.4--1,810
1989--8.7--1,777
1990--9.4--1,602
1991--9.8--1,859
1992--9.3--1,829
1993--9.5--2,095

"Since 1989, manufacturers and importers introduced an average of 3.5 million new guns into the U.S. market each year. By contrast, the U.S. resident population has grown an average of 2.7 million a year. That's roughly 800,000 extra guns a year. "
********************************


Now, they lazily, or more likely purposely, had NOT updated those figures since 1993. I wonder why? Probably because as gun sales continued to increase, crime rates steadly DECREASED:


YEAR-----TAX-----VC RATE----Mrd Rte---Murders---- Firearms
***---($,000)----(100K)-----(100K)------#----------%
-----------------------------------------------------------------
1992----139,652----757.7----9.3
1993----124,215----747.1----9.5
1994----139,990----713.6----9.0
1995----184,302----684.5----8.2
1996----157,816----636.6----7.4
1997----150,803----611.0----6.8-----15,837----67.7%
1998----158,383----567.6----6.3-----14,276----64.8%
1999----167,448----523.0----5.7-----13,011----65.2%
2000----197,840----506.5----5.5-----13,230----65.5%
2001----175,959----504.5----5.6-----14,061----63.22%
2002----205,025----494.4----5.6-----14,263----66.8%
2003----193,420----475.0----5.7-----14,465----66.9%
2004----214,987----465.5----5.5-----14,121----66%
2005----------------469.2----5.6-----16,692----68%
2006----------------473.5----5.7-----17,034----67.9%
*The violent crime rates have indeed gone up slightly again the last year or so, but seem to be decreasing again more recently.

NOTES: The TAX column represents total excise tax on firearms and ammo sales, when broken out, the best indicator of total gun sales. The crime figures are from the FBI, the TAX figures from BATF. Also, while the number of guns and gun owners has increased, the percentage of gun-owning Americans has decreased slightly the last few years.

Please notice that as firearms sales continue to rise, violent crime (VC) rates, and murder rates DROPPED steadily for 10 YEARS - 1994-2004.

Also notice that the percentage of firearms used by criminals to commit murder is basically unchanged, despite the anti-gun estimated "3.5 Million new guns every year".

"The 5-year trend (2006 compared with 2002) indicated that violent crime decreased 0.4 percent. For the 10-year trend (2006 compared with 1997) violent crime fell 13.3 percent."

[jmg257]

33. Hey! More non-skewed stats!, and from a NONright-wing-gun-group...

In the Summer of 1999, the New Haven Gun Project implemented several new strategies to attack violent gun crime in the City of New Haven.
The selection of strategies relied in significant part on extensive research into the specific nature and dimensions of incidents of murder, assault with a firearm, armed robbery, the unlawful firing of firearms and unlawful firearm possession. Data from this research, conducted by Spectrum Associates of Farmington, Connecticut, was presented to a wide array of law enforcement, government and community representatives in order to solicit ideas for strategies to reduce violent gun crimes and illegal gun possession. Some of the data presented included:

A large percentage of offenders and victims were 15-21 years of age.

Most offenders had serious criminal histories.

One fifth of offenders had been arrested for a prior gun offense, and three-fifths had a history of drug charges.

Over one third of the offenders were on probation at the time of the new gun-related offense.

Approximately one-third of offenders or victims associated with murders and armed assaults were members of neighborhood "groups" believed to be involved in other illegal activities.

[jmg257]

36. Uh oh - still more! And from an anti-gun publication...

"An evaluation of state firearms regulations and homicide suicide rates", from a Univ of Pittsburgh group.

While looking at gun laws, this study compares "homicide" and "firearm homicide" rates - NOT "murder" & "gun related murder", or other gun related crimes; they do mention the attempt to study "the benefits of shall issue laws enacted with the goal of curtailing fiream deaths"... OK, but I think shall-issue laws are/were enacted to give the people back the right to self-security, to help avoid letting the people be unwilling victims of violent criminals, etc.

BUT ANYWAY, from their study:

"Table 2: Homicides
Rates per 100,000...
Firearm Homicides {with shall issue law}: 5.00
Firearm Homicides {W/O shall issue law} : 5.90
All Homicides {rate with shall issue law} : 7.5
All homicides {rate W/O shall issue law} : 8.99

Summary Point 3::"A "shall issue" law that permits the carrying of a handgun in an unrestricted fashion MAY be associated with an increase in homicide rates.""

WHAT??? But the numbers...right there in your study...BOTH "w/ shall issue" homicide rates were lower...WTF???

And from

"Table 4 Suicides
Rates per 100,00...
Firearm Suicides {with shall issue law}: 9.70
Firearm Suicides {w/o shall issue law} : 10.20
All Suicides {rate with law} : 14.5
All Suicides {rate w/o law} :14.5

Summary point 4: "Little evidence was observed that any of the laws evaluated (they include legal age 21 laws) were associated with a significant reduction in either firearm homicide or firearm suicide rates.""

GREAT - not that is a real issue, but what about the fact that...
THE CHARTS - YOUR CHARTS - show a reduction in not only Firearm Homicides, but all homicides AND a reduction in firearm suicides with shall issue laws vs. w/o shall issue laws?


It sure is nice when the stats back up your arguments, but it may be necessary when reading such studies, to be sure the comments are backed up by the stats - otherwise THEY could be skewed.

[russ1943]

57. STATS

Can you provide a link or at least a title and date for the study you cite from a Univ of Pittsburgh group?
Thanks.

[WWFZD]

22. guns

Not everybody is Shakespeare and it's certainly not necessary to come up with a clever or a provocative topic in the guns forum or anywhere else. But "guns"?

[Indy Lurker]

24. It will take a while to correct all the errors on the linked site, but here's a start

The data is clear that there is a correlation between Gun ownership and gun homicide rates.


More guns = More gun death and injury

They got the first two statements right, but then they fall apart.


After all if it's a correlation, then it is also possible that

More gun death and injury = More Guns


After stating that it is a CORRELATION, they suddenly start talking as if it is a CAUSATION.

"The research has shown that when other factors are held constant, the gun death rises in proportion to the rate of gun ownership."

This is not true, or at least there is no evidence to support such a statement.

It could easily be that the rate of gun ownership rises in proportion to gun deaths.


They also stated:

Homicide of a family member is 2.7 times more likely to occur in a home with a firearm than in homes without guns.

Keeping one or more firearms was associated with a 4.8 fold increased risk of suicide in the home.

Again they are stating CAUSATION where only a CORRELATION exists.

It could also be:

People who are intent on killing a family member are 2.7 times more likely to have a gun around.

or

People who are intent on killing themselves are more likely to have a gun around.

The fact that they are indicating CAUSATION where only a CORRELATION exists in the first section shows that this document may not be reliable, but maybe you can indicate where I made an error in my analysis.


I can't speak for anyone else, but as for myself, I don't feel that I need a gun for protection any more than I need a fire extinguisher, air bags in my car, or a first aid kit with trauma dressings. I don't think I will need to use any of these items in the next 10 years. I also think if I do need one of these items and I don't have it the consequences could be tragic. I'm not looking for a bad guy around every corner anymore than I am looking for a fire in every trashcan. I simply want to be prepared with the best tools available for the job.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

25. Drive by posting.

Post stuff not correlated to the issue then never respond to any of the posts.

David

[beevul]

26. I'll tell you why.

"All I can say to that is, why do people who would never listen to these people on any other issue give credence to them on this one?"


Because this is what gun owners are up against:

The brady campain to prevent gun violence. Sounds innocent enough doesn't it?

Well, it just isn't so.


This is a group that has deliberately included adults in thier "statistics" to inflate them. No organization that has a legitimate intent to reduce gun violence would do such a thing.


This is a group that claims to want to prevent gun violence, yet gives grades on a per state basis based on how much they restrict guns rather than how high or low the level of gun crime/gun violence is in that state. Again, no organization that has a legitimate intent to reduce gun violence would do such a thing.


This is a group that claimed that civilian owned 50 caliber rifles which are esentially never used in crime could shoot down aircraft, which is a huge lie, and used that false rationale for stamping thier feet and screaming ban at the tops of thier lungs.

Again, no organization that has a legitimate intent to reduce gun violence would do such a thing.


This is a group that opposes concealed carry, even though police as a group are convicted of a larger number of crimes than CCW holders.

Once again, no organization that has a legitimate intent to reduce gun violence would do such a thing.


This is a group that claimed that "assault weapons" were the choice of criminals, in spite of the fact that ALL rifles - which 99 percent of so called "assault weapons" are - are used in less than 3 percent of all firearm homicides, and used that false rationale for stamping thier feet and screaming ban at the tops of thier lungs.

Once again, no organization that has a legitimate intent to reduce gun violence would do such a thing.




They may as well be "the brady campain to reduce guns", because 90 plus percent of the things they stump for are aimed squarely at doing just that.


And did I mention that they thought a republican would be a good fit as president of thier org?


I have said it many times in this post:

No organization that has a legitimate intent to reduce gun violence would go after legally owned guns, unless thats what they want gone. They aren't interested in reducing gun violence unless its through restrictive gun laws aimed at people who by and large aren't a problem in the first place.

Do they look at root causes of gun violence? No. They go after guns.

Do they bother investigating how much the "war on some drugs" effects gun violence? Of course not. Like good little republicans they never bring that up, and go after guns instead.

As far as they're concerned, its the guns, and that should put them at odds with anyone who values his or her rights where firearms ownership is concerned.


When a demographic like gun owners is faced with a group, such as the brady group, whos intentions are crystal clear in spite of thier stated intentions and misleading name, what do you think is going to happen?

[Howzit]

31. All liberals are armed by proxy

Even if you hate guns and choose not to own any, you rely on armed cops, security guards and the military to use force when required to maintain your security. Is it morally different to pay others to wield guns and risk their lives to protect yours, from doing it for yourself? Having someone else take risks to protect you does NOT make you morally superior in my opinion. Talking down to those that take responsibility for their own security just makes you sink lower.

[Beregond2]

32. A relevant link.

http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/factsheets/pdf/firearm_facts.pdf


As I have stated elsewhere, I have no desire to take away any law-abiding citizen's right to own a gun. I only want people to know the facts first.

[virginia mountainman]

35. Why are you posting republican...

..regurgipoop???

DU is a forum for progressives and liberals...NOT Republicans like Sara Brady and Paul Hemick....

Take your anti-bill of rights propaganda elsewhere..

EDIT:

It has been eye-opening to me to realize how many presumed liberals on this site feel that can use "information" from rethug websites to back their arguments up.

[iverglas]

42. why are you posting anti-Democratic Party propaganda?

Oh wait. I think I can answer that.

[maxidivine]

43. Doesn't fit iverglas model

of our democratic party, so it must be propaganda.

Shame on you!

[iverglas]

45. nice try

Doesn't fit model of Republican organization.

Republican organizations don't generally donate tens of thousands of their dollars (all but $500 or so of their dollars, most years) to Democratic Party candidates and political groupings.

Hell, even Sarah Brady donates her own money to Democrats -- like Ted Kennedy, for example. And the Republican that both the organization and the individual donate to -- Michael Castle:

http://www.ontheissues.org/House/Michael_Castle.htm
Rated F by the NRA, indicating a pro-gun control voting record. (Dec 2003)


Hell, Sarah and Paul are getting rich off those donations, eh?

http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=5426

Name ---------- Title ------- Compensation --- % of Expenses -- Compensation from Affiliates
Paul Helmke --- President ----- $70,592 ---------- 2.10% ----------- $47,062
Sarah Brady -- Chairman ------ $28,000 ---------- 0.83% ----------- $112,000


I make more than either one of them, myself.



Someone who repeatedly refers to the Brady Campaign website as "rethug websites" really needs to put his own money where his mouth is.

[virginia mountainman]

46. LOL....

I have many times...But, don't need to convince YOU of anything...

Alas...Your NOT a US Citizen...So frankly...

It does not concern you.

[iverglas]

47. My not a US citizen?

I dunno. I guess my not.

It certainly doesn't concern me what party sits in the White House and the Senate and the House of Thingies. Certainly doesn't. Republicans are no threat to moi. Nonononono. They just stay home and mind their own business, Republicans do. They never ever interfere in anybody else's.

And it very definitely doesn't concern anybody else either. Like Iraqis. Let's just hope they shut the fuck up, those Iraqis. None of their goddamned business who's President of the US. They'll have you to deal with if they utter a peep. I should go warn 'em.

[beevul]

51. Breaking: Iverglas's identity revealed!@!@!@!@!

You have finally slipped up. it was only a matter of time before you made the mistake of revealing a detail that would reveal for the DU world your true identity:

"I dunno. I guess my not."


Scroll down now if you want to know Iverglas's true Identity!!




































































Sorry, I couldn't resist!! :evilgrin:


On edit: For the humor impaired, this was done in jest, no insult is intended.

[iverglas]

52. damn

I'm pretty easily amused ... if I get the joke. What a pain, a joke on me and I don't get it.


I think that's a Star Wars character. If I puzzle, I might remember the name. I bet it talked funny. The Queen of pop culture, that's me ...


Star Wars characters. Dang, there were a lot of them ...
http://www.starwars.com/databank/character/

Google got it: "star wars" "talked funny". Jar Jar Binks -- "he was stupid and talked funny".


Har har Jar Jar. Har har, I get it.

Heh. Possibly says more than you first intended:

http://www.fortheretarded.com/?p=281

Yes, Jar Jar will probably go down in history as the worst character in all of Star Wars lore. After the first screening of the film, hundreds of people stood outside the theater talking about how annoying that little Gungan shithead was. And they were right. Jar Jar was annoying as fuck. I knew well in advance that he was going to be annoying as fuck, so the moment that his digitized ass walks in to frame I started to cringe. For the next two hours I squirmed in my seat every time he came on screen.

People hated Jar Jar. Anti-Jar Jar web sites popped up all over the net almost immediately. His action figures quickly became what toy collectors refer to as pegwarmers, cluttering toy shelves to the point that retailers were reluctant to order any additional toys from the line. He became the butt of jokes on Television and Movies. The backlash was amazing. I can’t possibly imagine how many times I heard people say, “Star Wars Ep 1 would have been great if not for Jar Jar!” A group of industrious armchair critics even went so far as to create the now-infamous “Phantom Edit”, where they removed the majority of Jar Jar’s scenes to make the movie better.

Which leads me to my point today. I have a theory, and the more I think of it, the more it makes sense: Jar Jar Binks was a mere distraction. He was a patsy. Nothing but a diversion from the real problems at hand. That’s all Jar Jar was intended to ever be. George Lucas knew that he had a stinker of a movie in his hands; so to avoid people relentlessly picking it apart, he threw Jar Jar in front of the firing squad as a bulletstopper. And considering the general consensus of “Jar Jar ruined Star Wars”, it looks like his mission was accomplished.

I'll be waiting for the iverglas action figures.


Of course, if I'm Jar Jar Binks, that would make "Your NOT a US Citizen" virginia mountainman ... well, let's just say: not Will Shakespeare.


http://www.geocities.com/rnseitz/Definition_of_IQ.html

Table 1 - Practical Significance of IQ

Below 30 ... Unemployable. Institutionalized.
89 to 100 ... 8th-Grade to 1-2 years of College. Clerk, teller, Walmart
100 to 111 ... 12th-Grade to College Degree. Police officer, machinist, sales
174 to 200 ... No limitations. Shakespeare, Goethe, Newton

[beevul]

54. You are correct...

"Heh. Possibly says more than you first intended"

Yeah. You are correct in that.


When you said "my not a US citizen", the first thing that came to mind, was (jar jar) binks raising his hands in surrender and proclaiming "my give up, my give up".



Perhaps not as funny as I had hoped, but definitely no offense intended, nor any comparison intended, beyond the similar use of language of course.

[iverglas]

55. ah

Okay, now I really get it.


:rofl:


Make a C3PO joke next. I might get that one. Oh, and Cardassian jokes. Them I'd get for sure.


Q. How many Cardassians does it take to change a light blub?
A. Three, because there are four lights!


Hahahahaha!


Now, if you want to propose marriage, you'll have to get moving. I'm arranging interviews in the near future.

[beevul]

56. I have no C3Po jokes, but...

I have no C3Po jokes, but, heres a little somethime you may enjoy:



Picard:
Mr. LaForge, have you had any success with your attempts at finding a weakness in the Borg? And Mr. Data, have you been able to access their command pathways?

Geordi:
Yes, Captain. In fact, we found the answer by searching through our archives on late Twentieth-century computing technology.



Geordi presses a key, and a logo appears on the computer screen.
Riker:
What the hell is Microsoft?

Data:
Allow me to explain. We will send this program, for some reason called Windows, through the Borg command pathways. Once inside their root command unit, it will begin consuming system resources at an unstoppable rate.

Picard:
But the Borg have the ability to adapt. Won't they alter their processing systems to increase their storage capacity?

Data:
Yes, Captain. But when Windows detects this, it creates a new version of itself known as an upgrade. The use of resources increases exponentially with each iteration. The Borg will not be able to adapt quickly enough. Eventually all of their processing ability will be taken over and none will be available for their normal operational functions.

Picard:
Excellent work. This is even better than that unsolvable geometric shape idea.



. . . . 15 Minutes Later . . .
Data:
Captain, we have successfully installed the Windows in the Borg's command unit. As expected, it immediately consumed 85% of all available resources. However, we have not received any confirmation of the expected upgrade.

Geordi:
Our scanners have picked up an increase in Borg storage and CPU capacity, but we still have no indication of an upgrade to compensate for their increase.

Picard:
Data, scan the history banks again and determine if there is something we have missed.

Data:
Sir, I believe there is a reason for the failure in the upgrade. Apparently the Borg have circumvented that part of the plan by not sending in their registration cards.

Riker:
Captain, we have no choice. Requesting permission to begin emergency escape sequence 3F!

Geordi:
Wait, Captain! Their CPU capacity has suddenly dropped to 0% !

Picard:
Data, what do your scanners show?

Data:
Apparently the Borg have found the internal Windows module named Solitaire, and it has used up all available CPU capacity.

Picard:
Lets wait and see how long this Solitaire can reduce their functionality.



. . . . Two Hours Pass . . .
Riker:
Geordi, what is the status of the Borg?

Geordi:
As expected, the Borg are attempting to re-engineer to compensate for increased CPU and storage demands, but each time they successfully increase resources I have setup our closest deep space monitor beacon to transmit more Windows modules from something called the Microsoft Fun-Pack.

Picard:
How much time will that buy us?

Data:
Current Borg solution rates allow me to predict an interest time span of 6 more hours.

Geordi:
Captain, another vessel has entered our sector.

Picard:
Identify.

Data:
It appears to have markings very similar to the Microsoft logo...



This is admiral Bill Gates of the Microsoft flagship MONOPOLY. We have positive confirmation of unregistered software in this sector. Surrender all assets and we can avoid any trouble. You have 10 seconds to comply.
Data:
The alien ship has just opened its forward hatches and released thousands of humanoid-shaped objects.

Picard:
Magnify forward viewer on the alien craft!

Riker:
My God, captain! Those are human beings floating straight toward the Borg ship - with no life support suits! How can they survive the tortures of deep space?!

Data:
I do not believe that those are humans, sir. If you will look closer I believe you will see that they are carrying something recognized by twenty-first century man as doeskin leather briefcases, and wearing Armani suits.



Riker and Picard, together : Lawyers!!
Geordi:
It can't be. All the Lawyers were rounded up and sent hurtling into the sun in 2017 during the Great Awakening.

Data:
True, but apparently some must have survived.

Riker:
They have surrounded the Borg ship and are covering it with all types of papers.

Data:
I believe that is known in ancient vernacular as red tape. It often proves fatal.

Riker:
They're tearing the Borg to pieces!

Picard:
Turn the monitors off, Data, I cant bear to watch. Even the Borg doesn't deserve such a gruesome death!


:evilgrin:

[beevul]

50. Since you brought up how much Sara gives to Democrats...

Since you brought up how much Sara gives to Democrats, how much money did brady and company give to these Democrats:

Jim webb John tester John dingell Brian Schweitzer Creigh Deeds Roscoe Reynolds Bill Richardson Phil Bredesen Brad Henry Dave Freudenthal Chet Culver


I looked but I couldn't find her giving anything to them.


"Hell, Sarah and Paul are getting rich off those donations, eh?"


Paul Helmke --- President ----- $70,592

70k for umm...doing and saying the things he does, and being the head of an org whos members by and large parrot his every word?

Must be a great gig if you can get it, and stomache it.

[iverglas]

53. another one I don't get

Since you brought up how much Sara gives to Democrats, how much money did brady and company give to these Democrats:

Jim webb John tester John dingell Brian Schweitzer Creigh Deeds Roscoe Reynolds Bill Richardson Phil Bredesen Brad Henry Dave Freudenthal Chet Culver


Should I know who they all are? Can I guess, say from the presence of Bill Richardson, that they parrot the NRA line?

I dunno ... does NARAL give money to anti-choice Democrats? Does the fact that an individual or organization gives money to particular candidates who support their goals and not to other candidates in the same party, like, mean something?


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x170835

virginia mountainman just doesn't seem to be able to back up his smears with anything at all, ever, does he?


Top NRA PAC-to-PAC donations, 2004:

http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/pac2pac.php?cycle=2004&cmte=C00053553

PAC Recipients ↓ Total ↓

2004 Joint State Victory Cmte $50,000
Republican National Cmte $30,000
National Republican Senatorial Cmte $30,000
National Republican Congressional Cmte $15,000
National Republican Congressional Cmte $15,000
US Smokeless Tobacco $9,950
Alliance for the West (Affiliate: Larry E. Craig (R-Idaho)) $9,900
Together for Our Majority (Affiliate: Thomas M. Reynolds (R-NY)) $8,450
Americans for a Republican Majority (Affiliate: Tom DeLay (R-Texas)) $8,000
Blue Dog PAC $7,950
Storm Chasers (Affiliate: Steve Buyer (R-Ind)) $7,450
New Republican Majority Fund (Affiliate: Trent Lott (R-Miss)) $5,000
Bluegrass Cmte (Affiliate: Mitch McConnell (R-Ky)) $5,000
Republican Party of Tennessee $5,000

Brady Campaign PAC-to-PAC donations, 2004:

PAC Recipients ↓ Total ↓

Cmte for a Democratic Majority (Affiliate: Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass)) $1,000
HILLPAC (Affiliate: Hillary Clinton (D-NY)) $250

And Brady Campaign donations to individual recipients, 2004:

House
Total to Democrats: $49,450
Total to Republicans: $500

Recipient ↓ Total ↓

Bean, Melissa (D-IL) $1,500
Cardoza, Dennis (D-CA) $1,000
Carnahan, Russ (D-MO) $1,000
Castle, Michael N (R-DE) $250
Cummings, Elijah E (D-MD) $250
DeGette, Diana (D-CO) $500
Hooley, Darlene (D-OR) $1,500
McCarthy, Carolyn (D-NY) $4,500
Miller, Brad (D-NC) $2,000
Moore, Dennis (D-KS) $6,500
Murphy, Lois (D-PA) $5,000
Romero, Richard M (D-NM) $5,000
Schrader, Virginia Waters (D-PA) $5,000
Schwartz, Allyson (D-PA) $2,500
Shays, Christopher (R-CT) $250
Snyder, Vic (D-AR) $1,000
Sullivan, James M (D-CT) $1,000
Thomas, David Jeffrey (D-CO) $5,000
Thompson, Bennie G (D-MS) $200
Wetterling, Patty (D-MN) $5,000
Wu, David (D-OR) $1,000

Senate
Total to Democrats: $31,000
Total to Republicans: $0

Recipient ↓ Total ↓

Boxer, Barbara (D-CA) $6,000
Daschle, Tom (D-SD) $6,000
Farmer, Nancy (D-MO) $5,000
Hoeffel, Joseph M (D-PA) $8,000
Murray, Patty (D-WA) $6,000

Presidential
Total to Democrats: $1,200
Total to Republicans: $0

Recipient ↓ Total ↓

Clark, Wesley (D) $1,200

I WANT TO SEE SOMEBODY BACK UP THE ALLEGATION that the Brady Campaign is a REPUBLICAN ORGANIZATION with something resembling facts.

[beevul]

41. See post 26. N/t.

[pipoman]

44. And hereare some stats from an actual government agency

The US Dept. of Justice Bureau of Justice Statistics

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm

Firearm-related crime has plummeted since 1993, then slightly increased in 2005.

Nonfatal firearm crime rates have declined since 1994, before increasing in 2005.

After 1996, less than 10% of nonfatal violent crimes involved firearm.

# According to the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) in 2005, 477,040 victims of violent crimes stated that they faced an offender with a firearm.

# Incidents involving a firearm represented 9% of the 4.7 million violent crimes of rape and sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated and simple assault in 2005.

# The FBI's Crime in the United States estimated that 66% of the 16,137 murders in 2004 were committed with firearms.

# From 1993 through 1997, less than 1% of serious nonfatal violent victimizations resulted in gunshot wounds.
# The number of gunshot wounds from assaults treated in hospital emergency departments fell from 64,100 in 1993 to 39,400 in 1997, a 39% decline.

According to the 1997 Survey of State Prison Inmates, among those possessing a gun, the source of the gun was from -

* a flea market or gun show for fewer than 2%
* a retail store or pawnshop for about 12%
* family, friends, a street buy, or an illegal source for 80%

* During the offense that brought them to prison, 15% of State inmates and 13% of Federal inmates carried a handgun, and about 2%, a military-style semiautomatic gun.
* On average, State inmates possessing a firearm received sentences of 18 years, while those without a weapon had an average sentence of 12 years.
* Among prisoners carrying a firearm during their crime, 40% of State inmates and 56% of Federal inmates received a sentence enhancement because of the firearm.

Sort of a different story, huh?

[pipoman]

48. Further

Just because the brady campaign calls something a "fact sheet" doesn't make it so. You should really look at the numbers yourself. They are out there check the links to the US Dept of Justice I posted. Getting "facts" from Brady is like getting your Iraq "facts" from this administration.

[beevul]

49. The brady bunch is many things, relivant is not one of them. N/T

[old mark]

58. Beregond2, you have the right to not own firearms.

I will continue to exercise my right to own and carry what ever I want.
I have "thought about it", I have been a gun owner for over 40 years, and I really resent the thoughtless snideness of your remarks.

If you feel to morally elevated to defend yourself with a firearm, that is your business and your choice, and I made my choice to do otherwise.

The gun control organizations are simply in it for the money, and they lie as a matter of course.
Your article is pretty devoid of "facts".

Even though I feel your choice not to own firearms is wrong, ignorant, and thoughtless, I respect your decision and I expect the same courtesy from you.

mark

[pipoman]

59. Beregond2...U still there???

Or are you just a bomb thrower?

[beevul]

61. It was a drive-by...

It was a drive-by using "assault sentences"...