Can the NRA be Beaten by an Empowered Lobby of Community Safety Advocates?

[billbuckhead]

Can the NRA be Beaten by an Empowered Lobby of community Safety Advocates? Looking to California, As One Example, the Answer is Yes.


In an October 21st Los Angeles Times (LAT) analysis of “winners and losers” in the last California legislative session, it was interesting to examine who ended up defeated and who ended up in the winner’s column.

As far as the environment, it’s worth noting, according to the LAT, “Winner: The Sierra Club. Some 72% of its 25 priority bills became law.” That’s quite a streak for the Sierra Club.

The LA Times losers list is not long, but there is one noteworthy organization that does not usually appear in such company: the National Rifle Association.

“Loser: The National Rifle Assn. Last year, it was a ban on .50-caliber sniper rifles. This year, it's requiring ‘microstamping’ technology on every semiautomatic pistol sold in California, beginning in 2010.”

Oh, dear me, if California is a trendsetter for America, the NRA might be seeing the writing on the wall.

No, the NRA’s day as a mythical powerhouse is not yet over. But with the number of gun owners and white male “gun enthusiasts” in decline, we can only take heart from the developments in California and hope their power has crested.
--------------snip------------------------
<http://www.gunguys.com/>
<http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-op-whalen21oct21,1,1178836.story?coll=la-news-comment>

As a white guy myself from a rural background, it's heartbreaking to see those who fall for the gun pushers salespitches. The gun lobby and it's sad minions like to talk about how much crime guns prevent but the truth is that there are less than 200 jusitifiable homicides per year in the USA with gun vs 4 times as many men kill their significant others. The gun pushers bring up unprovable statistics about how crime guns prevent but consider how much crime and terror goes with guns that is never reported? What about the millions of American women tormented and imprisoned by their men's guns and the gun culture that gives support to these lost men?

Once again, it's another issue that progressives must hope that California and the other more advanced states will pull the more backwards states into a more civilized world.

[AlinPA]

1. I have heard local sportsmen's clubs complaining that young people are not

interested in guns and shooting as much as they would like. They are pushing "outdoor events" at their clubs (W. PA) to try to get kids interested in guns.

[Didereaux]

2. Yeah, lets piss off some potential voters....

Okay, lets push every far left issue that we can dig up, BEFORE the elections, that way we will never be faced with actually enacting some of them because we will never be elected! Yippeee!!!!

[billbuckhead]

4. Aren't Arnie and Bloomie very successful moderate Republicans?

Sure seems like reality is saying stronger gun regs are a moderate bipartisan issue whatever myths the gun pushers propagandize. :shrug:

[derby378]

5. I wouldn't want either of them as governor of my state, much less POTUS

And calling any state that disagrees with California "backwards?" My God, California is lurching from drought, forest fires, and plenty of gun violence despite extremely harsh gun-control laws.

[billbuckhead]

6. Either would be huge improvement over Rick Perry

Even Molly Ivans said Texxxas was a third world country.

[derby378]

8. I loved Molly, too, but it's time to move on...

She's was a great humorist, but her own opinion of Texas is just that.

[Paladin]

85. Molly Ivins, Dismissed As A "Great Humorist"?

Got any clueless, shitty remarks to make about Ann Richards, while you're at it?

Glad you're ready to "move on." Drop your Texas Democrat credentials off at the door......

[derby378]

95. My, but you're so sensitive!

To think that I'm trying to "dismiss" her is just - well, WRONG. But you also found her political musings to be humorous, did you not? Including the one of that Longview Republican who tried hiding from the law in a speaker cabinet?

[Paladin]

114. If I'm "Sensitive," I Come By It Honestly

I was privileged to meet and talk with Molly Ivins several times over the years, starting during my undergrad days at UT. That was back when she was with the "Texas Observer." I've read everything she ever wrote, all her books are in my library at home; I never missed one of her TV appearances, if at all possible. And I damned sure lost any notion that she was just a "great humorist" a few decades ago. Funny? Oh, she was funny, alright; better than Will Rogers, in my opinion. But above all she was a powerful and incisive political force, vociferously expressing and defending liberal policies and making a difference. She taught us the value of straight-out, undiluted anger as a political weapon---what a shame that our party isn't showing more of it these days. Maybe most important of all to me as a fifth-generation Texan, she made my state look good, at a time when a lot of people dismissed all Texans as a bunch of right-wing, gun-crazed, knuckle-dragging death penalty junkies(an opinion reflected to this day here in DU, unfortunately). She may have referred to Texas as a "third world country," but nobody could ever question her deep and abiding love for the Lone Star State.

Is all of this sinking in a little? Or do you still just want to "move on"? I'll move on with you, but you'll have to present me with a political and human resource half as good as Molly Ivins to make it worthwhile. I'm not holding my breath......

[derby378]

115. My wife felt the same way about Molly...

...but she never had the chance to meet Molly until we went to DemocracyFest in Austin back in 2005. It was unbearably hot and humid down there, but we were just so happy to be down there and meet some of our fellow DUers and maybe even learn something. Molly was in the tent on Saturday morning with Jim Hightower, and I convinced ginbarn that if we could just catch her right after the speech ended, maybe they could have a few words together. Sure enough, Molly was happy to meet ginbarn (and vice versa), and I snapped a quick picture of the two of them beaming at the camera before a mob of devoted fans descended on Molly. This was just before her cancer came back for the last time.

I've always seen Molly as a humorist, but there's nothing wrong with that at all. Sometimes humor is a weapon more powerful than any gun, any tank, any plane. She was an incisive political force in no small part because she had such a talent for humor. I appreciate Garrison Keillor for largely the same reasons I appreciated Molly Ivins.

That said, I can still say that she was wrong about gun control, as it delivered control of Congress into the hands of Republicans in 1994, and you and I both know how that turned out for America.

[billbuckhead]

100. Good catch! Like a Klingon cruiser losing it's cloaking shield for a second.

I sincerely doubt that the gun pusherss have near the strength they say, especially non-Republican and reichwing posters on the internet. Not accusing anyone in particular............

[billbuckhead]

99. There was no real answer from gunners to these progun Repubs kicking Dem butts

The gun lobby and it's minions always take all this undeserved claims about electoral strength, yet here are Republicans winning Dem states on gun control platforms. :shrug:

[Richard Steele]

12. Bill would rather see permanent one-party Repub rule, than have a rational discussion of gun laws.

He's a broken-record zealot; he thinks all guns are bad, and
that's all he cares about.

Never mind that about half of all Democrats are gun owners;
Bill is on a mission that no facts or logic can distract him from!

I've never met anyone who actually fits the CARICATURE of
"lunatic-fringe far-left gun-grabber" that the FReepers
are so fond of demonizing...but Bill seems DETERMINED to
live up to those expectations, I tellyawhut!

[qdemn7]

15. billbuckethead is on a Holy Moral Crusade

The Evidence

If gun freaks would see reason then America would be a reasonable nation. Balls in your court bud, you don't get real liberal government without stronger weapons laws, it's that way around the world. Give up on virtually unlimited gun rights or embrace fascism. I can stand RepuKKKes predatory economic policies, it's the lack of morality in America I can't stand and I see America's gun regulations and cultural norms about guns as issue number one. I don't think we would be in Iraq or generally on the road to hell without out the NRA and our gun culture conning Americans into thinking guns/weapons are the best solution to most problems. You guys real solution is a lock down society with metal detectors and kevlar everywhere with police patrolling with M-16's and driving armored cars. That's the logical end of the domestic gun lobby arms race, they'll make profits coming and going.

You don't argue with religious fanatics and expect rational thinking.

[Richard Steele]

16. Yup. He's a real buckhead, all right. Thanks for that link. nm

[billbuckhead]

31. So Al Gore was right about everything except guns?

Maybe irony is dead to a certain part of society.

[Richard Steele]

80. Al Gore doesn't support you. Bill. Don't try to drag his name into your foam-flecked zealotry.

nm

[billbuckhead]

101. I'm dragging Al Gore into a gun debate??????????????

Next I'll be accused of dragging Michael Moore into the gun debate.

[benEzra]

21. "Throw them out of our families, workplaces, places of worship and elected offices..."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1008409&mesg_id=1008780

(billbuckhead)

It's time to withhold our love, respect and money from the gun crowd till they scream uncle loud and clear. Throw them out of our families, workplaces, places of worship and elected offices...

...which, of course, would hand Congress back to the repubs, since without pro-gun Dems, the House and Senate are red, not blue.

Don't forget that it was PRO-GUN DEMS who retook the Senate in '06, after the party leadership finally dropped the ban-more-guns thing.

Ditto for a lot of state governments, including that of my own state (NC), which is run by Dems who are pro-choice on guns.


----------------------
Dems and the Gun Issue - Now What? (written in '04, largely vindicated in '06, IMO)

The Conservative Roots of U.S. Gun Control

[billbuckhead]

26. Heston Suggests `Lynching' As Appropriate Response to Al Gore's Gun Policy

Beating Al Gore was the gun lobby's greatest acheivement (Actually gun pimps and x-tian fanatics just gave a cover story for voting corruption in Florida, Tennessee, Ohio, etc). Really something for gun worshippers to brag about. Virtually every truly liberal nation, state and city has passed strong gun regulations.

Furthermore these gun pimping DINO's are just as bad a Republicans 90% of the time and some are actually worse at critical moments like NRA Dem posterchild Zell Miller.

[Wiley50]

35. One-Trick Pony, Eh? n/t

[billbuckhead]

28. Just a fact, the NRA was founded so that our soldiers would be better shots

"Dismayed by the lack of marksmanship shown by their troops, Union veterans Col. William C. Church and Gen. George Wingate formed the National Rifle Association in 1871. The primary goal of the association would be to "promote and encourage rifle shooting on a scientific basis," according to a magazine editorial written by Church.
After being granted a charter by the state of New York on November 17, 1871, the NRA was founded. Civil War Gen. Ambrose Burnside, who was also the former governor of Rhode Island and a U.S. Senator, became the fledgling NRA's first president.

An important facet of the NRA's creation was the development of a practice ground. In 1872, with financial help from New York state, a site on Long Island, the Creed Farm, was purchased for the purpose of building a rifle range. Named Creedmoor, the range opened a year later, and it was there that the first annual matches were held.

Political opposition to the promotion of marksmanship in New York forced the NRA to find a new home for its range. In 1892, Creedmoor was deeded back to the state and NRA's matches moved to Sea Girt, New Jersey."
http://www.nrahq.org/history.asp

[benEzra]

33. Yes.

Promotion of civilian marksmanship was seen as having a positive influence on national security--Union marksmanship and gun handling was abysmal during the Civil War, one reason the war dragged on as long as it did--and it served us well in WWI and WWII when a lot of those civilians were drafted. You do realize the NRA's original purpose was to promote marksmanship training and competition among civilians, not enlisted military, since we had a draft-based system back then, yes? The name "Creedmoor" lives on in the nomenclature of long-range target shooting (sights, shooting positions, etc.).

That's still a primary purpose of the NRA proper (as opposed to the NRA-ILA, the legislative advocacy organization that a lot of people think of when they hear "NRA"). FWIW, the annual matches are still held.

[billbuckhead]

41. It gives Americans a mistaken idea that they can outshoot our way to victory

So we cheer like it's our football team when "shock and awe" other nations with weapons and marksmenship.

[qdemn7]

34. Extremely true

And the NRA would have been perfectly fine to REMAIN a marksmanship / hunting organization. However, a little thing like the Gun Control Act of 1968 and it's bastard offspring is the why the NRA became a political organization. Most gun owners would be perfectly happy to not have to engage in constant political warfare to maintain their RKBA.

It could be said Gun Grabbers have shot themselves in the foot by creating enemies where none existed. But then Moral Crusaders have never let anything like reality get in the way of their Moral Panics.

Moral panic is a sociological term, coined by Stanley Cohen, meaning a reaction by a group of people based on the false or exaggerated perception that some cultural behavior or group, frequently a minority group or a subculture, is dangerously deviant and poses a menace to society. It has also been more broadly defined as an "episode, condition, person or group of persons" that has in recent times been "defined as a threat to societal values and interests." They are byproducts of controversies that produce arguments and social tension, or aren't easily discussed as some of these moral panics are taboo to many people. Characterization of the group reaction as a moral panic requires a presumption that the group's perceptions are unfounded or exaggerated.

These reactions are often fueled by media coverage or propaganda around a social issue, although semi-spontaneous moral panics do occur. Mass hysteria can be an element in these movements, but moral panic is different from mass hysteria in that a moral panic is specifically framed in terms of morality and is usually expressed as outrage rather than fear. Moral panics (as defined by Cohen) revolve around a perceived threat to a value or norm held by a society normally stimulated by glorification within the mass media or 'folk legend' within societies. Panics have a number of outcomes, with one being the certification to the players within the panic that what they are doing appears to warrant observation by mass media and therefore may push them further into the activities that led to the original feeling of moral panic.

I say the above quote fits the belief system you have espoused perfectly.

[billbuckhead]

42. 1968, just when the civil rights movement was threatening white supremecy

No coincidence. The whole sorry "gun rights" movement has always been a big part of the reichwing "southern strategy", a fig leaf to hide racism.

[NickB79]

45. And it's no coincidence that most gun laws started as Jim Crow laws

Or did you forget that part too? Amazing that Heston actually marched in support of civil rights in the 1960's, despite apparently being a racist white supremest as you believe.

[billbuckhead]

51. Defending nutjob Heston? Ever read his speeches?

Are you an angry white hetro x-tian male? Yeah, gun control is so racist that the NAACP, Congressional Black Caucus, Bill Cosby, Oprah, and virtually every decnt person in America are on the NRA enemies list.
<http://www.nrablacklist.com/>

"Mainstream America is depending on you—counting on you—to draw your sword and fight for them. These people have precious little time or resources to battle misguided Cinderella attitudes, the fringe propaganda of the homosexual coalition, the feminists who preach that it's a divine duty for women to hate men, blacks who raise a militant fist with one hand while they seek preference with the other, and all the New-Age apologists for juvenile crime, who see roving gangs as a means of youthful expression, sex as a means of adolescent merchandising, violence as a form of entertainment for impressionable minds, and gun bans as a means to lord-knows-what. We've reached that point in time when our national social policy originates on Oprah. I say it's time to pull the plug."
<http://www.vpc.org/nrainfo/speech.html>

[NickB79]

63. I'd defend 1960's Heston, not modern-day Heston

Today, the man is old, angry, and senile. He has said some pretty vile things in the past couple of decades. However, he DID march with civil rights activists in the 1960's, so it's hard to play the "scared white man" card during that time period.

BTW, would you agree or not that most gun laws in this country started as racist Jim Crow laws? You kind of, well, completely ignored the main point of my previous post.

[krispos42]

48. Not only that, but the US government set up a program to arm citizens...

...with military-surplus firearms. It's called the Civilian Marksmanship Program, and it is still around. They sell surplus rifles from World Wars I and II to qualified citizens. M1903 Springfields, M1 Garands, and M1 Carbines are currently for sale for a few hundred dollars.

Incidently, the last two would be considred "deadly assault weapons" and banned under the proposed HR1022 legislation.

http://www.odcmp.com/

[Mountainman]

71. There is craziness on both sides of this issue. I know people who swore all liberals

want to take away their guns and can prove it. Then there are those liberals who do want to take away their guns. If reason ever won out here this would never be the political hot potato it is.

In my opinion the left shoots itself in the foot on this issue. No pun intended.

[-..__...]

3. Dude... it's California. What else would you expect?

"Oh, dear me, if California is a trendsetter for America, the NRA might be seeing the writing on the wall."

The Brady Campaign seems to think so...

In 1999, however, the bellwether state California passed the nation's toughest ban on assault weapons with overwhelming public support. With your support, other states' legislatures can be convinced to emulate California and pass laws that will further reduce the availability and use of semiautomatic, military-style assault weapons in America.

bell·wether (bel′we′ər)

noun

1. a male sheep, usually wearing a bell, that leads the flock
2. a leader, esp. of a sheeplike crowd
3. anything suggesting the general tendency or direction of events, style, etc

http://www.yourdictionary.com/bellwether

:rofl:

[billbuckhead]

7. Yeah, like the "red" states aren't the sheeplike states

Most of these gun friendly states and areas are known to backward.

[benEzra]

10. You mean like Vermont? Minnesota? Oregon? Washington?

Most of these gun friendly states and areas are known to backward.

You mean like Vermont? Minnesota? Oregon? Washington?

The number of NON gun friendly states in this country, you can count on your fingers. California, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Illinois, Maryland, Connecticut, Hawaii. Possibly one or two others, I'm not sure. All the others are gun friendly, including most of the blue states.

And the number of states with California-style gun bans like you want, you can count on exactly one finger...

[Beerboy]

14. As everyone knows by now, guns don't kill people,

smokers do.:P There's some kind of weird dis-connect where the various and several State govt's are issuing way more CCW permits, but cracking down on private property owners who invite people who smoke cigarettes who stop in and buy their beer and just sneak a smoke real quick.
Hopefully one day soon, it'll be legal to tazer drunk smokers outside their bars. If any has a gun, they immediately surrender their CCW if drinking.
I nominate a Nobel Prize for 2008 to the genius who invented the Taser.:D

[billbuckhead]

23. Those are also pretty backward states compared to California, New York, Massachussetts

Try again, how about world leaders in quality of life like Japan, Ireland, Netherlands, New Zealand, Sweden..........

Make love to your black rifle while you can:thumbsdown:

[benEzra]

25. You're sick...

Those are also pretty backward states compared to California, New York, Massachussetts

Vermont is backward? The Green Northwest is backward? Minnesota is backward?

And you don't see why gun-ban fundamentalism is so alienating to most of America...

FWIW, my wife is originally from Cambridge, and we get back up there now and then, both to visit family and to take our son to Boston Children's. Once while we were up there, I was shocked to find out that it's actually against the law in Massachusetts for the local grocery store to open on Sunday. Yes, Massachusetts still has Puritanical Blue Laws...even the South ditched those decades ago...

You also cherry-picked your country examples; the quality of life in Switzerland, France, Germany, Finland, and Belgium is, by all accounts, pretty good, and they are downright pro-gun by your standards. Yes, you can own "black rifles" in France...

Make love to your black rifle while you can

You're sick.

[billbuckhead]

27. Vermont is a nice rural county

What's wrong with being closed on Sundays? Much of Europe is similar. Something about family values.

[benEzra]

9. The NRA, maybe. 60 to 80 million voters who own stuff you want to ban, no.

the "assault weapon" bait-and-switch was a flop nationwide, if you haven't noticed. Turns out that fighting to outlaw the most popular small-caliber target and defensive rifles in America tended to cost votes among those who lawfully and responsibly own them...

California's draconian ban on rifles with handgrips that stick out was passed, when, the 1990's? How many states have followed suit with a California-style ban?

NONE, as far as I am aware. Not Massachusetts, not even New Jersey, for crying out loud. Never mind states where gun ownership is far more widespread. There are a few states that copied the Feinstein bait-and-switch (which, of course, didn't actually ban any guns, just restricted the number of Evil Features (TM) any one gun could have, like a protruding handgrip or a stock that adjusts for length). But you can own an AR-15 or civilian AK lookalike in every state except California, so it looks like the "trend" you are trying to cite is in the other direction, i.e. rejection of the bans you are so militant about. Of course, you can own AR-15's in Europe, too...they seem to be rather popular in France, chambered in .222 Remington instead of .223...

According to Remington's ammunition division, one in three centerfire rifle rounds Remington sells is .223. Yet, despite their popularity, rifles are very rarely misused, contrary to your "black rifles are the end of the world" talking points...

2005 data:
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_20.html
Total murders............................14,860.....100.00%
Handguns..................................7,543......50.76%
Other weapons (non firearm, non edged)....1,954......13.15%
Edged weapons.............................1,914......12.88%
Firearms (type unknown)...................1,598......10.75%
Shotguns....................................517.......3.48%
Hands, fists, feet, etc.....................892.......6.00%
Rifles......................................442.......2.97%

2006 data:
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/data/table_20.html
Total murders............................14,990.....100.00%
Handguns..................................7,795......52.00%
Other weapons (non firearm, non edged)....2,158......14.40%
Edged weapons.............................1,822......12.15%
Firearms (type unknown)...................1,465.......9.77%
Shotguns....................................481.......3.21%
Hands, fists, feet, etc.....................833.......5.56%
Rifles......................................436.......2.91%

Note that that percentage is for all rifles combined. Tell me again how small-caliber rifles with modern styling are such a crime problem in the United States...

[mvccd1000]

11. Nice post! I like those numbers, too.

You're twice as likely to be beaten to death with hands or feet than killed with a rifle, but these hysterical nuts want to ban the rifles because they "look scary!"

[billbuckhead]

29. No because they are used to commit crimes like the beltway snipers

Like shooting through the windows of a club from a distance to kill your estranged woman. This rifle using coward would have had a hard time beating his wife to death front of a large crowd. An don't forget the beltway snipers.

[Sanctified]

49. I thought firearms were already illegal in Washington?

[Beerboy]

13. Well now that CA is actually on fire,

it's a damn good thing to know it might be far worse than it actually is; there aren't crates of .50 cal. ammo laying about all higgledy-piggledy.

[krispos42]

17. Ah, yes, Californa.. the crime-free land of peace.

Man, I can't believe how much crime and murder went down since California banned the sale and importation of $3,000, 20-pound, 4-foot long rifles last year.

Whew! It went from zero homicides with a .50 BMG rifle to ZERO homicies with a .50 BMG rifle! The lowest it's ever been! Except for the preceeding 80 years, of course, which were also zero.

Hmmm, I guess maybe I'm figuring wrong. Looks like an 80-way tie for first place. My bad.



Well, at least they have the microstamping law now. Thank GOD career felons use their own properly-purchased firearms to commit crimes, firing pins can never wear out or be replaced, and the crimnals don't know about revolvers! Otherwise this just might be giant waste of taxpayer money and government and police resources!

...the truth is that there are less than 200 jusitifiable homicides per year in the USA...

Ah, so only 200 crimes were prevented with guns last year? Well, flaming Pintos, Batman! All the hundreds of thousands of heavily-armed cops in the entire You Ess of Ay only managed to kill 400 people last year! That means that the vast majority of policemen spent the entire year sitting in a squad car without stopping a single crime or catching a single criminal! What a HUGE waste of taxpayer's money!

...vs 4 times as many men kill their significant others.

Apple, meet orange.

The gun pushers bring up unprovable statistics about how crime guns prevent but consider how much crime and terror goes with guns that is never reported?

Yeah, a major research project by a major university is just so much hogwash. The information from that study further studied and refined by other academics? More hogwash. And apparantly, in your universe, tons of crime and terror go unreported but every single case of defensive gun use is? Or maybe it isn't because it's "unprovable"?

What about the millions of American women tormented and imprisoned by their men's guns and the gun culture that gives support to these lost men?

Ah, I see. Only wife-beaters own guns. And gun owners have this massive misogynistic sexist organization where we get together on the third Sunday of every month and discuss the proper way to rape our wives, screw with their brains, and how to hit then without leaving marks. Of course, it's all because gun-owners have tiny tiny dicks, so they have to compensate with big shiny metal penises!



But Bill, you KNOW what I'm waiting for... c'mon. Post it. You know I'm just QUIVERING here, waiting for you to post it. C'mon. Do it. Do it. You know you want to...

[benEzra]

39. Post of the day... (n/t)

[billbuckhead]

43. So how many women are threatened by gun owning men every day?

Millions.

As far as cops, they don't have as many guns as "gun enthusiasts" so they have less opportunities.

BTW, that is one of the saddest flag pictures I've ever seen. That see through effect reeks of poor quality and lack of strength. The flag must have been made in China.

[krispos42]

46. How many woman are threatened by jeans-owning men every day?

Millions.

Here, just make a list...

"How many woman are threatened by ________-owning men every day?"

TV
computer
knife
chair
bookshelf
lamp
boot
PlayStation
clock
oven
underwear
picture
camera
PC
power tool


And now you're picking on my flag picture? On the genuine, cotton, American-made flag that had seen is way through a dozen or more years of daily use, burning in the 15-hours days of unrelenting sunlight that is summertime in South Dakota?

Here's a picture of my cat. Have at her.

[billbuckhead]

52. One is supposed to burn deteriorated flags

Wonder how many women are killed by blue jeans?

[krispos42]

61. No rips, no tears.

The colors were faded a little, that's all.


Probably more women are killed by men wearing jeans than by men using guns.

[spoony]

18. Where does that 200 number come from?

[benEzra]

19. Probably here:

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_14.html

241 justifiable homicides by non-law-enforcement civilians, 195 by firearm.

Note, though, that a case of self-defense that was initially charged as nonnegligent manslaughter or 2nd-degree murder, but which was later ruled self-defense, may show up in the Murder table rather than in the Justifiable Homicide table, since IIRC a lot of states report UCR data from initial police reports, not trial outcomes. So the actual rate of fatal self-defense shootings may be somewhat higher.

Also consider that a majority of self-defense shootings do not result in the death of the attacker, and per Kleck et al, well over 99% of successful defensive gun uses do not involve involve shots fired.

[spoony]

22. Interesting, thanks

[billbuckhead]

24. Versus how many women killed by their husbands/boyfriends?

And how many gunowners SUCCESSFULLY terrorize their family, neighbors, co-workers everyday without generating any police reports? Millions every day? One man's defense is often another's offense, at least in their own minds.

Real success for America as far as guns are concerned would be getting out of last place among advanced nations in murder, gun crime, children and young people killed by guns, prison population, ad nauseum
<http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_wit_fir_percap-crime-murders-firearms-per-capita>
<http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_gun_vio_hom_ove_hom_rat_per_100_pop-rate-per-100-000-pop>

[NickB79]

47. Off the top of my head, I can count two women saved by the use of a gun

My mom and my sister, who were almost killed by my dad.

[mvccd1000]

58. Terrorize?

If someone is terrorized by the sight of a law-abiding citizen carrying a gun in a legal manner, I would suggest that that person seek mental help. What other constitutional protections terrify them?

When my family or girlfriend sees me carrying, I generally get asked when I will take them shooting. When my neighbors see me carrying, they often ask what kind of pistol I have, how much they would have to spend to get one, or where I go to shoot it.

My co-workers don't see it, as I carry concealed. :)

[billbuckhead]

67. What are you scared of that you are a slave to a gun?

Do you take your gun to bed with you?

Will your gun be buried with you?

[mvccd1000]

77. What am I scared of? Losing my rights to the irrational fears of others.

What comes next after you take away my 2nd Amendment rights? The 1st?

[billbuckhead]

108. The rotting 2nd amendment will still be standing after all others gone

It's obviously no threat to this fascist administration.

[mvccd1000]

109. I would hope so - that's the one that makes the others possible. nt

[billbuckhead]

117. It's laughable to say that guns make men free

The 2nd amendment is so impotent fighting domestic fascism that the most fascist government in US history promoted the gun lobby's warped distortion of the second amendment. If guns made men free, Afghanistan would be the freest place on earth and the EU and Oceania would be gulags.

[spoony]

83. Millions every day???

What depth of your arse did you pull that from?

[benEzra]

92. From this guy...

[billbuckhead]

118. What percent of marriages do you think are abusive?

And in how many of those relationships does someone threaten to shoot someone?

[KG]

20. well, it sure would be nice.

[KitchenWitch]

30. Not until true campaign finance reform is enacted.

[billbuckhead]

32. Or an investigation of the Norquist-neoCON Rifle Association

This gun pimping outfit is far to close to KKKarl Rove not to be chalk full of the most vile corruption.

[benEzra]

36. The Bulwer-Lytton people called; they want their writing back.

This gun pimping outfit is far to close to KKKarl Rove not to be chalk full of the most vile corruption.

That's "chock full," not "chalk full"; if you're going to use purple prose in a fundamentalist voce, at least get the idioms straight.

"Inceptis grauibus plerumque et magna professis purpureus, late qui splendeat, unus et alter
adsuitur pannus, cum lucus et ara Dianae et properantis aquae per amoenos ambitus agros
aut flumen Rhenum aut pluuius describitur arcus; sed nunc non erat his locus."

--Qunintus Horatius Flaccus, Ars Poetica

But as I've said elsewhere, it's not the fossilized NRA, top heavy and stuck in the Old Media paradigm, that you need to worry about; it's the 60 to 80 million people of voting age--including tens of millions of Dems and indies--who own stuff you want to outlaw, that are your real problem.

Look, I understand that you strongly dislike civilian gun ownership and wish it would go away, and you have given some indications as to why. I respect that, even if I disagree with you on the issue. But your demonization of those of us who choose to own guns as comic-book villains...I think you have a very mistaken impression of those of us with whom you disagree.

[billbuckhead]

40. The US gun culture demonizes itself everyday on the evening news

As white male voting power fades so will the gun culture. I know all about who I blame for many of America's largest problems. <http://www.boingboing.net/2006/12/26/in-case-you-missed-i.html>

[mvccd1000]

59. Actually that would be the US criminal culture you see on the news.

You know, those people who break any laws, whether they be firearms laws, assault laws, theft laws, etc.

Notice that most of them are ALREADY breaking the law by possessing firearms, and then they continue to break other laws by stealing, robbing, raping, and killing?

Please explain how taking my gun away will stop some junkie from robbing you at the ATM.

[billbuckhead]

68. Gun owners are all choir boys till they pull the trigger

"Statistically, the United States is not a particularly violent society. Although gun proponents like to compare this country with hot spots like Colombia, Mexico, and Estonia (making America appear a truly peaceable kingdom), a more relevant comparison is against other high-income, industrialized nations. The percentage of the U.S. population victimized in 2000 by crimes like assault, car theft, burglary, robbery, and sexual incidents is about average for 17 industrialized countries, and lower on many indices than Canada, Australia, or New Zealand.

"The only thing that jumps out is lethal violence," Hemenway says. Violence, pace H. Rap Brown, is not "as American as cherry pie," but American violence does tend to end in death. The reason, plain and simple, is guns. We own more guns per capita than any other high-income country—maybe even more than one gun for every man, woman, and child in the country. A 1994 survey numbered the U.S. gun supply at more than 200 million in a population then numbered at 262 million, and currently about 35 percent of American households have guns. (These figures count only civilian guns; Switzerland, for example, has plenty of military weapons per capita.)

"It's not as if a 19-year-old in the United States is more evil than a 19-year-old in Australia—there's no evidence for that," Hemenway explains. "But a 19-year-old in America can very easily get a pistol. That's very hard to do in Australia. So when there's a bar fight in Australia, somebody gets punched out or hit with a beer bottle. Here, they get shot."

In general, guns don't induce people to commit crimes. "What guns do is make crimes lethal," says Hemenway. They also make suicide attempts lethal: about 60 percent of suicides in America involve guns. "If you try to kill yourself with drugs, there's a 2 to 3 percent chance of dying," he explains. "With guns, the chance is 90 percent.""
------------snip-------------------
<http://www.harvardmagazine.com/on-line/090433.html>

The gun pimps need to create a criminal class to justify their ownership of guns, just like the miltary industrial complex needs to create phantom enemies to justify their endless arms race.

[benEzra]

69. Your man Bloomberg says that 90% of shooters in NYC had prior criminal records...

and Hemenway's little office is funded by the same Wizard of Oz that funds the VPC, gunguys.com, and paid the IACP to publish a ghostwritten press release under the IACP imprimatur.

The invocation of suicide as a reason to ban guns is really reaching, since the U.S. suicide rate is lower than that of most countries with stricter gun control.

The gun pimps need to create a criminal class to justify their ownership of guns

No, the War On Non-Approved Herbs is largely behind whatever "criminal class" we have, just as alcohol prohibition was in the 1920's and early 1930's.

[billbuckhead]

76. You've watched reefer madness too many times

Crystal meth is what fuels violent and stupid crime especially when mixed with guns.

[benEzra]

84. And what created the crystal meth market? The banning of softer drugs did.

Just like the banning of beer by the Volstead act shifted the market toward hard distilled beverages (sometimes tainted with methanol), because if you have to smuggle it anyway, you might as well smuggle something serious, right?

If cannabinoids were legalized and some of the other drugs decriminalized and shifted to a treatment-based model, I am convinced that criminal violence would decline by 50% to 90% over the following decade. And I've never even used pot (heck, I don't even smoke or drink), and I used to be a convinced anti-drug warrior; but it has become abundantly clear to me that Prohibition does not work in this country.

[billbuckhead]

87. What createed the demand for meth was meth

Marijuana and Meth aren't substitutes for each other.

[benEzra]

89. Then why wasn't meth such a huge problem in the '60s, '70s, and '80s?

It was around, it was known, but it was the Reagan-era crackdown on cannabinoids and club drugs (continued to this day) has pushed the market toward meth. Meth wasn't invented in the '90s, you know (it was invented in 1919 and was available by prescription beginning in the 1940's and 1950's). Meth didn't really take off as a drug of abuse in the U.S. until the early to mid '80s, when Reagan made it profitable and convenient relative to softer but harder-to-synthesize drugs like MDMA/Ecstasy (3,4-methylenedioxy-N-methylamphetamine). Currently, 9 out of every 10 drug-enforcement dollars we spend in this country are spent fighting pot, IIRC.

In my opinion, there is absolutely no excuse for cannabinoids being Schedule I drugs, when even opiates are Schedule II and available by prescription. FWIW, my son has had a LOT of morphine, and even went through full-blown, cold-turkey withdrawal at age 4 (couldn't do the taper-and-methadone thing that time, for various reasons), but the DEA sends guys with machineguns and military garb to stop the medicinal use of an herb that is less dangerous than beer and cigarettes. Our drug-related crime problem is merely Prohibition, Reloaded. Gun crime went way up after the Volstead Act and dropped precipitiously after its repeal, despite the Depression.

I gather from your posts that you are an advocate of a Reaganesque drug policy? I used to be. But the facts point in the other direction; Prohibition is NOT working.

[billbuckhead]

98. It was. Ever hear the term "speed kills" from the sixties?

I guess you don't watch the History Channel? It just lately that rural whites have gone ga-ga over this drug. It's only now speed has spread to exurbia that rednecks have noticed.

[FyurFly]

62. I take someone new shooting every week..

and most new shooters I take are NOT white. Good luck with your crusade Bill, you should really sit down with a mental health professional though. If you were a victim of violent crime, I sympathize. If you live in a high crime area perhaps you should consider a CCW or a new AR15 for home defense :)

[benEzra]

70. He lives in a VERY wealthy community (Buckhead) in a very pro-gun state. (n/t)

[Paladin]

86. Punch "NRA Comic Book" Into Google.....

...and look over the results to get a full grasp of what the NRA really thinks of liberals in general and Democrats in particular. Something to keep in mind when our resident gun militants come around with their little tap dance, trying their best to cram a hyper-right wing firearms policy down our throats......

[billbuckhead]

104. Pictures speak louder than words

Actions even louder. When one goes to gun pusher sites on the web, 99% of the time these "liberal" progun posters aren't debating with the other gun "enthusiasts", they're circle jerking around the campfire about conning liberals.

[Paladin]

111. And To Think That Our Resident DU Gun Militants.....

....continue to insist that the NRA is just another single issue lobbying group, a group that would be glad to support Democrats if we'd just crater completely and accept their firearms policy. This "comic book" should be the repeated and permanent respose to such idiotic claims. The NRA is in fact a powerful adjunct of the Republican Party, and the hatred borne by its leadership and members for Democrats is virtually unlimited.

(Looking forward to the standard "It's all the Democrats' fault" responses from our gun rights cadre.)

[benEzra]

116. The NRA is largely irrelevant, IMHO.

They are a top-heavy, Old Media organization stuck in a pre-Internet paradigm, just like the ban-more-guns lobby is (except at least the NRA is primarily member funded rather than corporate or foundation funded). The NRA spends most of its money on the staffs of its country-club executives, AFAIK (you do know the NRA-ILA is the lobbying organization, not the "regular" NRA).

Were the NRA to close its doors tomorrow, the dynamics of the gun issue would not significantly change. Your problem is still the tens of millions of voters who own stuff the VPC and Bradyites want to ban, and the disappearance of the NRA wouldn't do a damn thing to change that. The NRA loves its image as the big elephant in the room, but the real power on the gun issue are the grassroots gun owners, many of whom are Dems and indies--which is why an NRA endorsement of George Macacawitz Allen didn't stop him from being defeated by pro-gun Dem Jim Webb, who had the same A rating on the issue and was more appealing on other issues.

Yes, the NRA is too partisan, and leans heavily repub at the national level (though not the state level, at least here in NC). Yes, their rhetoric is over-the-top, yes, they often arrive after the grassroots and then claim the credit, and yes, the NRA executive staff is overpaid, too country-club-ish, and not in close touch with most working-class gun owners.

All of which doesn't change the fact that banning the most popular civilian target rifles in America, over-5-round shotguns, and over-10-round pistols and rifles is political suicide, regardless of what the NRA stands on the issue.

----------------------
The Conservative Roots of U.S. Gun Control

Dems and the Gun Issue - Now What? (written in '04, largely vindicated in '06, IMO)

[SlowDownFast]

37. No thanks, Buhwheat. I like my guns.

I'm a born and bred Democrat/liberal who's a card carrying member of both the NRA and ACLU.

[cgrindley]

97. I like my guns too

and I'm also a member of the NRA.

NOTE to the rest of you: go ahead, further alienate the traditional democratic voter. It worked really well these last 8 years, didn't it?

[ileus]

38. So if from your POV if you're not killing someone a "gun" has no purpose?

LOL You're sofa king funny...

[Irreverend IX]

44. Bill, is there any particular reason for your searing hatred of guns?

Come on, you can tell us. There's no judgment here. It isn't healthy to direct so much rage at an inanimate piece of metal, you know.

[qdemn7]

50. Because he's a Holy Crusader

See my post #15 earlier in this thread.

[benEzra]

53. He doesn't hate guns so much as he hates us Sinners who own them, IMHO.

And I notice his hatred seems to be limited to those who lawfully and responsibly own guns. I have rarely seen him criticize criminals who own them in violation of the law, and certainly not with the venom that he reserves for the noncriminal and nonviolent.

I may be completely off-base here, but from some things he has alluded to in the past, I think he was victimized directly or indirectly by a particular gun-wielding criminal loser a few years ago, and those who disagree with him on the gun issue are a convenient proxy for him to vent the anger and hatred he can't vent toward that guy for various reasons. Or, I may be completely wrong, and this is just a pet issue that he has no direct connection with.

I don't know if this applies to bill or not, but as I've mentioned elsewhere, it appears to me that a lot of prominent gun-control activists on the national stage are people who have both been impacted by criminal violence, and have NOT been particularly exposed to the positive side of gun ownership, even though the latter is overwhelmingly more common. I think to some degree, some people come to see “guns” as the entity who victimized them, and see gun control as a way to lash out at that enemy. That victimization by people misusing guns also taints their view of lawful gun owners, I think, that we must somehow be either ignorant, or evil, or some selfish mixture of the two, possibly with some sort of sexual deviancy thrown in (because some of those victimized see guns as sexualized power objects, as bill does), hence the fundamentalist, moralistic approach.

[billbuckhead]

55. "Positive side of gun ownership" Things like "gun porn"?

:rofl: I'm not the one who coined the term "gun porn".

[benEzra]

57. As I have posted elsewhere...

...like most semi-rural thirtysomething people I know, I grew up with guns, learned the rules of gun safety and marksmanship while still in elementary school, wandered the woods with a BB gun by age 10 (not hunting, just plinking), was shooting .22’s regularly at 16, owned a semiautomatic .223 carbine and 30-round magazine at age 18 and a handgun at age 21, and obtained a carry license at 26 or 27. I shoot recreationally and competitively (IPSC pistol and carbine) with my civilian “AK”. My wife, from New England, is a shooter who owns a Glock and an SKS. My sister (a professional engineer who graduated with degrees in mathematics and engineering from N.C. State) is an avid shooter. Most of my coworkers and friends are shooters. Pretty much everyone I know owns guns, and no one I know personally has ever been murdered, or participated in one. I’m 37 years old, I’ve never participated in so much as a fistfight outside of martial arts classes, and I would never even think about hurting an innocent person.

Like most of the population at large, most gun owners haven’t experienced guns as a tool of oppression, but as a tool of liberation and a symbol of freedom and camaraderie; some (like my dad) have actually had “saves” with guns, but for most of us, guns and skill with them are a well-practiced martial art, a tool of personal security, a symbol and tangible reminder of political and personal freedom, a Zen-like discipline, a fun hobby, and a locus of camaraderie that crosses political, social, and ethnic lines.

It’s not “any and all guns” that are involved in criminal mayhem; it’s actually a tiny subset of guns, mostly illegally possessed handguns, in the hands of a violent few. And in fairness, it’s not all gun-control activists that dream up creative deceptions to try to outlaw our most valued possessions, either. I think most of us on our respective sides are not as far apart as our legislative positions on the issue would appear to make us; I think we just have a huge knowledge and communication gap (on both sides).

There IS common ground to be found on the issue. The bedrock of that common ground is, NOBODY wants to see criminals misusing any guns. People who hurt other people piss me off just as much as they piss you off. We all agree that bad guys shouldn’t have them. The disagreement comes in when people on your side of the issue decide to slap sweeping restrictions (the “assault weapon” bait-and-switch, handgun bans, pre-1861 capacity limits) on the law-abiding in order to affect the bad guys (so you hope), and we respond by opposing all new restrictions if that's the only way to avoid having wrongheaded restrictions slapped on the good guys. Hence the impasse.

[billbuckhead]

72. It's too hard and far too costly for society to figure out who the bad guys are

Your hobby is not worth the cost lives or tax money. Further widespread gun availibilty causes a loss of freedom to the rest of society which is the vast majority of Americans, especially the vast majority of liberals, women and minorities. I value the lives of our young people more than your passion to blow holes in paper targets. I value all the people terrorized by people with guns and the untold cost this has on our quality of life. I agree with the Japanese notion that Americans who own gun are self centered and don't care about how this gun culture causes alienation, supercharges violence and generally weakens a society.

As far as guns as protection, it's a ludicrous notion that today's gun owners could fight the government or even professional criminals. Odd's are that a gun in the home causes at least as much danger to the occupants as to bad guys. If guns are so good at stopping crime why are they stolen at the rate of over 300,000 per year?

"The U.S. Department of Justice did a study of handgun crimes over the period 1987-92. You can find it online at here. According to the report, about 83,000 crime victims a year used their guns to defend themselves against criminals. Yet there were an average of 341,000 incidents of firearm theft per year.
The Department of Justice didn't count guns stolen, just incidences of theft. Therefore the number of guns stolen is almost certainly higher. But let's assume that only one gun was stolen in each of those 341,000 incidents. This means that if you own a gun, you are over four times more likely to have it stolen by a criminal than to use it to deter a crime. If your gun is stolen it will certainly have a more active career than the one you'd have given it. Your one incident of theft will make possible dozens, maybe hundreds, of violent crimes.
Given those odds, the idea of arming the population seems like a losing proposition."

<http://www.mediatransparency.org/personprofile.php?personID=56>

[derby378]

74. The Second Amendment is not "too hard" or "too costly"

Trying to scare potential gun owners with the spectre of theft is like trying to scare potential automobile owners with the same thing. If you buy a car, someone's gonna want to steal it, maybe plow it into a bunch of children on their way to school - so it's best to just take the bus instead.

[billbuckhead]

75. "People use cars all day, every day—and 'motor vehicles' include trucks. How many of us use guns?"

"Gun deaths fall into three categories: homicides, suicides, and accidental killings. In 2001, about 30,000 people died from gunfire in the United States. Set this against the 43,000 annual deaths from motor-vehicle accidents to recognize what startling carnage comes out of a barrel. The comparison is especially telling because cars "are a way of life," as Hemenway explains. "People use cars all day, every day—and 'motor vehicles' include trucks. How many of us use guns?""
----------snip-----------
<http://www.harvardmagazine.com/on-line/090433.html>

[derby378]

90. That author forgot category number four...

Self-defense. We've had four legitimate self-defense shootings in the past two weeks down here in North Texas.

[krispos42]

82. The vast majority of liberals, women, and minorities?

What loss of freedom are you talking about? Are gun-owners out there using force of arms to prevent women from having abortions? Minorities from voting? Liberals from free speech?

And what proof do you have that somehow removing the guns will make the problems you quote better? What makes you thinks that crime will go down? That murder will go down? That husbands won't beat or kill their wives?

They tried it in England, and it didn't work. The homicide rate is at or near 40-year highs, inexorably creaping upwards. Crime is up. Armed robberies, muggings, etc. Or if not up, then not down after the UK's virtually-complete, no-exceptions, no-grandfathering bans on handguns and 'assault weapons'. And during the same time period, public-area surveillence really took off, with some 400,000 police-monitored video cameras in the London metro area alone and some 4.4 million nationwide.

Yeah, GUN murders are down. And if the UK tomorrow banned the ownership of blue cars, I'm pretty sure the number of pedestrians crushed by blue cars would drop to just about zero. I'd be pissed if some politician claimed how much "progress" we were making in saving pedestrians' lives, though.

As to the 83,000 defensive gun uses annually...

Why is the NCVS an unacceptable estimate of annual DGU's? Dr. Kleck states, "Equally important, those who take the NCVS-based estimates seriously have consistently ignored the most pronounced limitations of the NCVS for estimating DGU frequency. The NCVS is a non-anonymous national survey conducted by a branch of the federal government, the U.S. Bureau of the Census. Interviewers identify themselves to respondents as federal government employees, even displaying, in face-to-face contacts, an identification card with a badge. Respondents are told that the interviews are being conducted on behalf of the U.S. Department of Justice, the law enforcement branch of the federal government. As a preliminary to asking questions about crime victimization experiences, interviewers establish the address, telephone number, and full names of all occupants, age twelve and over, in each household they contact. In short, it is made very clear to respondents that they are, in effect, speaking to a law enforcement arm of the federal government, whose employees know exactly who the respondents and their family members are, where they live, and how they can be recontacted."

"It is not hard for gun-using victims interviewed in the NCVS to withhold information about their use of a gun, especially since they are never directly asked whether they used a gun for self-protection. They are asked only general questions about whether they did anything to protect themselves. In short, respondents are merely give the opportunity to volunteer the information that they have used a gun defensively. All it takes for a respondents to conceal a DGU is to simply refrain from mentioning it, i.e., to leave it out of what may be an otherwise accurate and complete account of the crime incident."

"...88% of the violent crimes which respondents reported to NCVS interviewers in 1992 were committed away from the victim's home, i.e., in a location where it would ordinarily be a crime for the victim to even possess a gun, never mind use it defensively. Because the question about location is asked before the self-protection questions, the typical violent crime victim R has already committed himself to having been victimized in a public place before being asked what he or she did for self-protection. In short, Rs usually could not mention their defensive use of a gun without, in effect, confessing to a crime to a federal government employee."

Kleck concludes his criticism of the NCVS saying it "was not designed to estimate how often people resist crime using a gun. It was designed primarily to estimate national victimization levels; it incidentally happens to include a few self-protection questions which include response categories covering resistance with a gun. Its survey instrument has been carefully refined and evaluated over the years to do as good a job as possible in getting people to report illegal things which other people have done to them. This is the exact opposite of the task which faces anyone trying to get good DGU estimates--to get people to admit controversial and possibly illegal things which the Rs themselves have done. Therefore, it is neither surprising, nor a reflection on the survey's designers, to note that the NCVS is singularly ill-suited for estimating the prevalence or incidence of DGU. It is not credible to regard this survey as an acceptable basis for establishing, in even the roughest way, how often Americans use guns for self-protection."

(Source: Gary, Kleck and Marc Gertz, "Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun," Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 1995, Vol. 86 No. 1.)

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdguse.html

[billbuckhead]

103. American's don't have the freedom to move around their nation as freely as

Europeans, Canadian, Aussies, Kiwi's, because of fear of guns. Foreigners don't want to travel here as much as safer places.

Gary Kleck is a hoax just like John"American Enterprise Institute Professional Liar" Lott. Come on........ telephone surveys?

[krispos42]

106. You do realize that in the last decade or so, things have improved markedly, right?

If people don't want to come here, it's because our President has tarnished our world image so.

And what's wrong with telephone surveys? It's generally how things get done here in the US regarding opinions.

And I neither read nor quote John Lott.

[billbuckhead]

107. And now they're getting far worse in the last couple of years

High profile gun crimes scare tourists away.

[krispos42]

110. You're trying to determine a long-term trend based on 2 data points

We've had this discussion before

[Retired AF Dem]

112. Bill why didn't you mention England?

They have preatty much banned guns, must be safe to travel there.

[billbuckhead]

119. UK has 3 times less homicide rate than the USA and gun crowd say that's worse

Only the deranged or dishonest can tell someone that the system that has constantly produced worse results for decades is the better system. Imagine a traveling salesman tells you his product is better because it's improving at a fast rate even though it's 3 times worse. That's the snake oil the gun crowd is trying to sell. Here is the comparison.

<http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita>

[NickB79]

64. Well, as I've posted numerous times here on DU

One positive side of gun ownership is that myself, my mother, my brother and my sister are still alive today. Today, my mom is back together with her old flame from high school who treats her better than my father ever did, my sister is happily married and expecting her first child next spring, my brother has an adorable 2-yr old little girl that will make your heart melt, and I have a good job, a college degree and a loving girlfriend.

Yeah, those are some of the positive sides of gun ownership, I'd say.

You see, I'm one of those gun-owning Democrats who have used a gun in self-defense that you apparently think are as real as unicorns and fairies.

[billbuckhead]

54. Personal experience with gun "enthusiasts" and their victims

Hell, it's more dead Americans than in all our wars so there are plenty of victims. Even today we lose more Americans to gunplay than the war in Iraq?

[benEzra]

56. And every day, we lose more Americans to alcohol than to guns.

It's not about abstract statistics; it's personal. For you as it is for me.

[billbuckhead]

65. Some in my family are reformed gun enthusiasts, they outgrew it

Maybe some day you will.

[derby378]

73. Flintlocks are for 17th-century colonials, Bill

We're up to semi-automatics now. See, we're evolving.

Might as well try to shut Pandora's box...

[mvccd1000]

78. Some in my family are just growing into it - in their 50s.

Eyes finally opened. :)

[mvccd1000]

60. It's not the gun enthusiasts you need to worry about. It's the crime enthusiasts.

Look up some statistics from your state on crimes committed by CCW holders. That group commits far fewer crimes - of any type - than the population in general.

You'd actually be safer sitting in a room full of armed CCW holders than you would sitting in a room with a random cross-sampling of the population in general.

Why do you insist on projecting criminal attributes onto law-abiding people?

[billbuckhead]

66. Yeah, like when NRA whore Bob Barr accidently shot off a gun at a fundraiser

Yeah, they're all law abiding till they shoot somebody.

[mvccd1000]

79. Newsflash: EVERYBODY is law-abiding until they break a law.

That's the way the world works.

So, since you seem to think all gun owners are going to shoot somebody at some point, I guess I can use the same logic: Every person I see on the street is going to rob me at some point.

Good thing the constitution protects my right to protect myself.

As for you, feel free to use the police for your protection. You see the news story today about the Canadian lady who called 911 and had the police show up 19 hours later? Certainly inspires trust and confidence in my soul.....

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/1025911-25-ODD.html#comments

(Edited to include a link to the story.)

[FyurFly]

94. Bill, are you really George Soros?

Seriously. :puke:

[billbuckhead]

102. George Soros is a personal hero of mine.

He destroyed Maggie Thatcher's government without firing a shot. No one contributes more to small (d)emocracy than Soros. That why the gun pushers hate George so much. Nothing more frightening to the gun lobby than fair elections and referendums.

[Retired AF Dem]

81. The gun owning public has

been doing a much better job on defending gun rights than the NRA has lately. One gun writer not writing and one anti News Reporter not reporting anymore. I have to go to work but will find links when I get home. Blogs and "comment on this story" posts have been very effective tools for pro gun folks that most likely don't belong to your hated NRA.

[mvccd1000]

88. Good point. I've never given a dime to the NRA, or even

visited their website. I read the papers, visit the Arizona Citizen's Defense League website (which tracks bills that have the potential to affect gun rights), and write to my legislators independently.

The NRA does not speak for me, and I am not a part of them. I'm just a citizen who is willing to take responsibility for his own protection. (After all, you can't always count on the police showing up during the first 19 hours after you call 911: http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/1025911-25-ODD.html#comments )

[derby378]

96. You might want to check these links out...

http://www.a2dems.net
http://www.progunprogressive.com

There's more, including the Blue Steel Democrats of Oregon.

[librechik]

91. Yes. But then they lie low for awhile, say a generation, then they change the name

and creep back slowly to prominence--or at least back into the footnotes of RW position papers. Practically nobody is interested in looking into the forgotten history, so they are seamlessly returned to the hegemony.

Witness the KKK. David Duke is still around, with a differently-named organization and a slicker, quieter approach. Works even better than lynching to a certain extent.

Although he went back too early, I think--He doesn't have the success of David Horowitz. He used to be a crazed commie freak, then he rehabilitated himself. Now he's an influential pundit in a suit.

Whack-a-mole for evil geniuses.

[WGS]

93. I am still trying

to figure out why California banned the .50 bmg????????

[mvccd1000]

105. So is everyone else with....

.... a brain. Talk about "feel-good" legislature that made no sense whatsoever. Somebody was exercising some neuroses.

[Retired AF Dem]

113. Economics

Whenever .50 bmg was mentioned everyone would shit their panties. It was getting damn expensive getting those shit stains out of their panties all the time. The most economical thing to do was to ban the .50. (In private the laundry detergent and bleach manufacturers hate the .50 bmg ban)