Why can't more people figure this out?

[Playinghardball]

[Arkansas Granny]

1. K&R.

[Just Saying]

2. To the greatest!

K & R

[kelliekat44]

39. It's PEOPLE with using GUNS that kill PEOPLE. nt

[cui bono]

112. Junkie guns! This is why the war on drugs must not end.

[daleanime]

3. K&R....

[aikoaiko]

4. Perhaps because so many of the anti-gun crowd has tried to ban them

Last edited Mon Jul 29, 2013, 08:06 PM - Edit history (1)

[Mojorabbit]

87. + a gazillion. nt

[BainsBane]

104. Who?

Name one piece of legislation ever put before congress that tried to ban all guns.

That NRA bullshit doesn't fly here. No one here is stupid enough to believe that propaganda.

[BainsBane]

103. Bullshit

That's pure NRA propaganda. "Democrats are taking my guns." Complete and absolute crap.

[aikoaiko]

105. I'll raise your bullshit with the AWB - Assault Weapons BAN

In the case of the AWB a gun ban means no longer being able to buy guns new in certain configurations.

You can't run from your own bullshit.

[BainsBane]

109. That wasn't a ban on all guns

and it never had a chance of passing. "Obama's coming for my guns. Obama is coming for my guns." Complete bullshit. Don't make the mistake of thinking people here are the idiots so persuaded by the NRA. You can't buy a nuclear bomb either. Does that mean anyone is banning your guns? What complete crap.


The sense of entitlement from gun cultists is truly astounding. If a senator tries to limit any type of weapons, they complain that the gubmit is taking their guns away. They believe they should have any and ever weapon they can dream of, and they could care less who dies as a result. It's all about them. Our right to life clearly means nothing compared to the gun nut's relentless desire to kill. SYG showed just how intent they are to legalize murder. It demonstrates that the gun cultists are at their core homicidal.

Rights that gun cultists don't care about and instead actively seek to undermine: the right to life, the right to free speech, the right to be free from racist murderers, the public's right to have access to information on gun violence, academic research and academic freedom, the right of doctors to ask patients about weapons in the home, the right of doctors to write down anything about guns, their fellow citizens right to due process, the right for black teenagers to walk down the street without being killed, the right not to be murdered by a paranoid gun totter. That is essentially anything that doesn't involve guns and killing.

[aikoaiko]

111. No one said it was a ban on all guns.

Don't make the mistake that you're not completely transparent in your desire to ban some firearms.

You back away now from the AWB because it was an utter failure AGAIN and it cost you the chance at less intrusive legislation.

It was anti-gun hubris that thought you could ban some guns again and now you're floating the spin that you don't want to ban guns.

Again, you're transparent.

[cui bono]

113. You said "ban them". You did not qualify it to be only assault weapons.

And the OP mentions "guns". Therefore when you said "them" your post referred to guns, not assault weapons. If you meant assault weapons you could have politely stated that's what you meant and corrected yourself.

You're entitled to your opinion but at least try to have a clear and honest discourse.

[aikoaiko]

118. You could be a little more honest about your goals

One doesn't have to qualify the statement with some if one is not playing games.

[Paladin]

127. And you couldn't be more transparent if you tried.

That's not a compliment, by the way.

[aikoaiko]

129. And what are you seeing?

So what are you seeing that I haven't been saying explicitly that makes you call me transparent?

[cui bono]

131. I don't think you know my goals. I'm not even talking about the issue,

I'm talking about how you misspoke and then replied as if you didn't.

If anyone's playing games, it's you in this discussion.

[WCLinolVir]

124. Transparent, said the glass. I can see right through you.

[aikoaiko]

126. Welcome to DU.

[MicaelS]

5. Except it's not PEOPLE, you're trying to ban is it?

It's guns.

If every gun in this country was somehow magically destroyed, and no new ones were every built, then people who wanted to hurt others would return to edged weapons. And the same exact people crying about guns would be crying about knives. Just like they did during the "switchblade" moral panic of the 50s and the 60s.

Some people simply refuse to accept the fact that it isn't guns or knives or clubs or whatever weapon is available that is the problem. It is bad, and yes EVIL, people that are the problem. People who want to hurt others with anything that comes to hand, including their fists.

It's much easier to blame and condemn an inanimate object, rather than accept the fact that all human beings are not inherently good and who just happen to be corrupted by a brainless, heartless, soulless object.

[ErikJ]

6. But accidents do happen too.

And a loaded gun is just an accident waiting to happen.

[MicaelS]

9. And I refuse to be punished for others' accidents.

Or misdeeds, or crimes.

[ErikJ]

11. The reality is youre more likely to punish yourself by having a gun.

The stats that the gun owner will more likely use the gun harming himself or family is staggering.

[MicaelS]

13. And that is my choice to make for myself.

Not yours to make for me. As a single man with no children, or pets, I fully understand the risks involved in owning guns.

And just in case you have sigs blocked or something let me repost mine here, so you clearly understand my position.

As long as guns are legal, and I may legally own them, am mentally and physically capable of using them properly and safely, I will do so. I will not be shamed, shunned, embarrassed or made to feel some sort of phony remorse into not owning guns. Not by anyone. Not for reason. If I ever reach the decision to not own guns, it will be solely on my own accord.

[ErikJ]

15. THe main problem is gun proliferation.

What kind of society would you want to live in? Japan where guns are far and few between or Somalia where there are no gun ownership laws and there are AK-47 stands on every corner of Mogadishu? The more guns a society has the more are going to eventually fall into the wrong hands.

[spin]

70. I agree and the attempt to pass the assault weapons ban caused the sale of firearms and ...

ammunition to absolutely skyrocket this year.

I had hopes that some much needed legislation would pass such as a universal background check, improvements to our NICS background check system, stronger enforcement and penalties to prevent the straw purchase and smuggling of firearms and efforts to take firearms from the criminal element.

Unfortunately Dianne Feinstein and the gun control movement decided to push for another useless assault weapons ban. I knew right then that any hopes for improvements in our gun control law at the federal level were doomed. There was absolutely no way that an assault weapons ban could pass in the Republican controlled House and was unlikely to pass in the Senate. I was right.

The NRA was able to publish a lot of propaganda and its membership increased dramatically. Gun manufacturers could not keep up with the demand for firearms and ammunition flew off the shelves in gun stores and Walmart. The push for the new assault weapons ban proved to be a bonanza for the gun and ammo manufacturers.

So our country is no safer today than it was before the tragic massacres we have lived through recently. We did nothing to close the "gun show loophole" or to stop the smuggling of guns to our inner city streets. We now have millions of new firearms in the hands of people, many who have little experience and training with these dangerous weapons. To top that off many gun owners have thousands and thousands of rounds stockpiled in their homes.

[mbperrin]

65. Except if you lose your cognitive abilities, you won't be able to make a good decision, will you?

Ayn Rand retired on Social Security, you know. You change.

[PADemD]

122. Just hope that you will never suffer from Dementia

Like this man who shot his own son.

Do you agree that someone with Dementia should not have access to guns?

http://articles.mcall.com/2012-10-30/news/mc-allentown-murder-east-allen-street-victim-20121030_1_allentown-man-shot-east-allentown-home-bb-gun

[NutmegYankee]

16. The problem is the stats mislead those not used to statistics.

The Vast majority of gun owners will never be hurt or hurt a member of the family. 5-500 times a really small number is still, a really small number.

[ErikJ]

21. From Personal experience I beg to differ

My sister's son was fooling around with a hunting rifle for the big weekend in their dining room. The gun went off and missed my sister's head by an inch.
My nephew got a pistol for Christmas from his girlfriend's Dad. He later used it to end his life when they broke up leaving a child too.
One of my buddies from grade school killed himself with his gun a few years ago when his award-winning designer house building business went bad during the 2008 housing crash. He was making a comeback from his failed video store empire which he had for 15 years.

[NutmegYankee]

26. Once again - statistics.

While your personal experience is tragic, that doesn't mean everyone will experience that set of events.

[GreenStormCloud]

99. Let me tell you my experience with guns.

I grew up with them. Every family that I knew also had guns. I never knew anybody who had an accident. I am now 67, have a CCW, know others with CCW, and do not personally know anybody while they have had an accident. None of my relatives or friends have been injured by guns that I know of, except one cousin-in-law who shot his own finger off, about 50 years ago.

I do know of gun misuses, but those were by folks who already had criminal records.

[Shankapotomus]

12. That is, of course,

unless one day you have no choice.

[NutmegYankee]

18. So I take it you believe people should be punished for the crimes of others?

[Shankapotomus]

23. Punish is a relative term

when it comes to guns. Modern weaponry has been punishing humanity for a long time. The argument that if we take away guns, people will just use knives is, to me, not particularly valid as a gun can do a lot more damage in much less time and at farther range than a knife. Last year there was a crazy in China that attack something like 12 school children with a knife. All of them survived.


And then there is the point that humanity as a whole would just be a lot better without guns. So I think there is even a valid argument for the gun never being allowed to be invented or produced. Does humanity really benefit from being able to kill that efficiently?

[NutmegYankee]

24. And you didn't answer the question.

[Shankapotomus]

28. I think I did

I mean, who is really punishing who here?

We're punishing ourselves, others and our children with guns.

I think it's a little obscene to suggest taking away people's guns is punishment when so many people have payed the ultimate price at the hands of guns.

Compared to that, I think the general public and possibly the police giving up access to guns is the least it can do.

[NutmegYankee]

32. Denial of civil rights is always a punishment.

You know what I think is obscene? Authoritarianism.

I support all civil liberties of American Citizens. Especially the 4th Amendment and it's inherent right to privacy, which is under constant siege today.

[Shankapotomus]

47. You certainly have a point

However, how would you solve the problem of gun violence?

[NutmegYankee]

51. Go after it's true root causes.

Gun violence is a symptom, not a cause. Our society is unfair, unjust, and unequal.

Why are cities so violent? Why are people in poverty, without living wage jobs? Why not ensure that everyone can get meaningful work where 40 hours always pays the bills? Why not engage in a massive jobs program in cities, rebuilding infrastructure and industry? Why allow systems where they are constantly discriminated against? Why do they have to live in food deserts and pay 2-3 times what we in rural areas do for food ( I can buy prepared food cheaper than they can, and it sure as shit ain't made locally). Why don't we have universal health care and affordable child care? Why do we pursue a war on drugs and criminalize mere use of a substance. Why not decriminalize it and set up treatment programs instead? Why don't we establish a true justice system so that people don't feel they need to resort to violence in the first place?

Accidents will always occur because some people are stupid. But I don't consider that violence. Education may help some. Any hunting license requires proof of a hunting safety course so we don't shoot an "orange" deer.

[Shankapotomus]

56. All that is certainly worth a try

And I think it would alleviate many forms of violence. How much? I don't know.

I thought I came across a statistic on DU that said accidental gun deaths out numbered gun deaths from self defense or something to that effect.

With that in mind, I have to wonder how effective taking all those measures, as important as they are, would ultimately be.

[NutmegYankee]

60. You choose to compare only one use.

Far more guns are used for sport or hunting than are used for self defense. I shoot at Olympics style target as a sport, and I now hunt for White tailed deer for food (they make some excellent burgers). Most uses never result in the death of a person. People scoff at "gun culture", but that culture often teaches proper handling and respect for firearms. Accidents are far less common among those who follow the basic rules of firearms, including never pointing the barrel at a person and always assuming the gun is loaded until it is confirmed it is not. And it's best taught from a young age to follow those rules, parent to child. One of my firearms has been passed down through 5 generations. Never once has there been an accident. But one has to guard against complacency, and so those standard steps are followed without deviation, every time!

[GreenStormCloud]

100. I take it you have invented a time machine?

How do you get around the grandfather paradox?

[Shankapotomus]

115. LOL

Not sure exactly where you meant to go with this. Just general snarkiness?

But okay.

[quakerboy]

38. Thats silly

We are all constantly punished for others accidents, misdeeds, and crimes.

Do you refuse to walk through the scanner/be patted down as you enter an airport? Only reason that's done is someone else's crimes

Do you refuse to shop in stores that raise their prices to cover theft? That's punishment for others crimes.

Do you follow the speed limit? If people didn't overstep safety and cause accidents, that wouldn't be necessary.

Do you pay for home owners/renters/car insurance? If everyone were safe, accident free, that wouldn't be needed. Punished for others mistakes again.

Etc. The examples go on an on. We live in society. We all regularly pay a price, are "punished", for the accidents, misdeeds, and crimes of other people in our society.

Truth be told, what you really have a problem with is 1 small facet of that, your gun(s) and your desire to have/use/whatever that particular piece of machinery. You may dislike other parts of it as well, but I would bet there are many(most) parts you are perfectly ok with, unless you happen to be a far right libertarian.

[Shankapotomus]

49. +1

Guess nobody has an answer to this one.

[NutmegYankee]

66. Some of your examples are incorrect

The TSA scanners are because of fear. Runaway fear after 9/11...

Most speed limits are based on physics and not because of screw ups. Sure, an individual car may handle higher speeds fine, but the law is based on the least capable street legal vehicle.

Insurance is to protect against the random events as well. A piece of equipment may burn out and start a fire through no fault of your own. A tree may be blown down by a storm or a tornado may rip your roof off. None are the fault of the homeowner/renter. I consider auto insurance protection for operation on the roads. It protects me from hit and run and covers any accidents I may cause. If you hate insurance, keep it in your garage.

[A Simple Game]

75. Why are his examples incorrect?

TSA scanners are because of fear? Yes, fear is correct, and what do you think the problem is with guns? And may I add justifiable fear, many times more people are killed by guns each year than the number of deaths resulting from the terrorist attack on 9/11.

Speed limits are based on physics, ok, you got this on partially right, but you seem to forget congestion and road conditions, and weather. Guns, well physics too, you don't use a high powered rifle for shooting frogs, and you don't use a pellet gun for hunting deer. Also why in some areas you can only use shotguns for big game, because of the number of hunters. There are many reasons, that's why they make many kinds and caliber of guns.

Insurance? Well I thought it was obvious that the type of insurance would be liability insurance, for a home or a car. For guns? Well I think mandatory liability insurance would be a good idea. Got a .22 caliber, your cost would be relatively low, got a high powered weapon, your cost would be higher. If you hate insurance, keep in in your gun vault.

[NutmegYankee]

80. *yawn*

There is no right to levy insurance on household property, like guns. Sure, if you want to conceal carry, I can see some insurance being required for that use only. As for insurance based on caliber, that's just foolish. A larger round makes hunting for game, like deer, far more humane.

[A Simple Game]

88. If you find the discussion too boring get of the thread.

As for no right to levy insurance, try not getting any for your car in New York. As for larger caliber being more humane, ask someone that has been shot by one.

Personally I think anyone would be a fool not to have liability insurance for a gun.

[NutmegYankee]

89. One gets tired by the same goofiness being trotted out.

And a car is not household property. Neither is a boat. Hence the registration for operation on roads or waterways. Guns are household property, just like power saws, drills, knives, and nail guns.

As for caliber, a .22 can be just as deadly as a .30-06. But only one is proper and legal for big game hunting.

One carries liability insurance for multiple purposes on their homeowners insurance. No insurance company anywhere however, covers intentional or willful acts.

[A Simple Game]

90. Who cares if a car is not household property? You are the only one calling it that.

I along with most people consider all of it to be personal property, unless there is joint or corporate ownership.

A .22 can be deadly, but as deadly as a 30-06? I doubt many would agree with you. I have shot both, there is little comparison, you should try them both some time, be careful not to shoot yourself in the foot. In lieu of that check your physics textbook.

I have no idea what your last statement is about. Diversion?

I get the impression you don't have liability insurance for guns. You should check into it, the NRA may be a good place for you to start, it may even come standard with membership. I am not sure as I will not join any organization that supports terrorists.

[NutmegYankee]

91. Household property is special subsection in law on personal property.

Under common law fee simple land holding, household property is not taxable, and hence cannot be made to require insurance. As for the rest, you obviously have no idea what you are talking about. You obviously do not read my posts.

You are being purposely obtuse. A .22LR is still deadly, and can kill and should always be respected. A hit to an artery or major organ/head will be fatal. My comment has always been that you can't hunt with a .22LR, at least not legally, hence charging based on caliber is a dumb idea. Furthermore, how many deaths are a result of .30-06? Likely few.

On liability insurance, no company issues it just for firearms. It is carried as a general rider on homeowners insurance, and covers many areas of liability, like slips on sidewalks or a backyard fire that gets out of hand. What it will never cover is willful illegal acts. My state, Connecticut, held a hearing on that and every insurance company in the state highlighted that no one will or would cover a purposeful act related to firearms. The main purpose by people wanting to require mandatory liability insurance has been to cover gun violence damage. But no company will cover that.

As you have demonstrated that you do not want a meaningful discussion, I'm done.

[A Simple Game]

94. Well at least you found out that it is all considered personal property.

And again why are you arguing against yourself, I never said anything but car insurance in New York state was mandatory. Reading comprehension is your friend.

Now do some research on different caliber guns.

Funny, I hunted legally with a .22 rifle for years, must be a state or regional thing. How much of a rabbit, squirrel, or frog is left after you shoot it with a 30-06?

30-06 is a common size for military assault rifles being equivalent to a 7.62 NATO shell so I think it may have caused a few deaths. The other smaller size is 5.45. The are two main reasons NATO went to the smaller size. One is less weight, allowing you to carry more ammunition. Two is that the smaller, being basically equivalent to the .22 caliber, is less lethal than the larger shell thus you are more likely to wound an enemy than kill him. When you wound a soldier you effectively remove two soldiers from the battlefield, the wounded and an attendant. But you knew all of that didn't you. So I don't think NATO agrees with your .22 as deadly as a 30-06 argument. A 30-06 just means a .30 caliber and the year 1906 for when the US military started using it. It's all in the inner tubes, google is your friend, or subscribe to a magazine like Field and Stream or Fur, Fish, and Game. I used to know the letter editor for Fur, Fish, and Game years ago in the '70s.

I have news for you, you were done before #91, you just didn't know it.

[NutmegYankee]

96. You hunted deer with a .22?

Because I mentioned deer when referring to hunting. And I'm well aware of the origins of .30-06. Nothing in that paragraph was new to me. 30.06 just happens to be one of the most popular deer hunting rounds in the USA. I don't want the deer to suffer, hence the choice of round for clean kill.

And where do you live that you shoot rabbits, squirrels, or frogs legally? And frogs, aren't they threatened in many places with extinction because of climate change/pollution?

[A Simple Game]

98. I'm sorry I can't read your mind.

If you were talking about deer hunting, I didn't get it from your statement on the legality of hunting with a .22

You said: My comment has always been that you can't hunt with a .22LR, at least not legally,
I said:Funny, I hunted legally with a .22 rifle for years, must be a state or regional thing.

So if you know the history of the 30-06 how can you justify this statement: Furthermore, how many deaths are a result of .30-06? Likely few.

But I will agree the 30-06 is a prolific and popular big game rifle as is the 30-30.

I live in New York state, sorry you can't hunt small game wherever you are. I know rabbits are still legal to hunt but as far as frogs are concerned, I'm not sure, haven't hunted them or any small game in years, maybe frogs are not legal anymore. Not sure if it was a requirement because of the richochet thing but we always used .22 shorts for frogs because that was all you needed. But this was just a diversion wasn't it, you almost slipped one past me.

So as long as you are still conversing, how about some answers? Seeing as you never hunted small game before, would you like to hazard a guess as to the remains of a rabbit or squirrel after being shot by a 30-06? You are right no matter what the legality and the fact that frog legs are delicious, we should leave them alone. Knowing the history of NATO rounds do you still stand by this statement: As for caliber, a .22 can be just as deadly as a .30-06.

[NutmegYankee]

101. You realize I'm discussing current events yes?

I was referring to current use of the .30-06, not it's past use as a military round in the M1 Garand and the 1903 Springfield. I stated .22 likely kills more as it is a common handgun round, and handguns are the vast majority of firearms deaths currently in the USA. As for deadly wrt .22LR, look up the deaths tally for the past decade. Does it have the power of a large hunting round? No. But it can kill people and should be treated no differently than any other round.

[A Simple Game]

106. Again, I can't read your mind. Is there such a thing as writing comprehension?

I must have missed this: I stated .22 likely kills more as it is a common handgun round, and handguns are the vast majority of firearms deaths currently in the USA.
Please point me to the post where you made that statement, I did a quick scan and couldn't find it, or any reference to handguns at all.

I do remember this one:As for caliber, a .22 can be just as deadly as a .30-06.
And this:As for caliber, a .22 can be just as deadly as a .30-06. But only one is proper and legal for big game hunting.
And this one:My comment has always been that you can't hunt with a .22LR, at least not legally,
But yes, people should be considered big game, although I have never seen it in the New York state hunting guide, probably not legal here. So in this new light I must agree, you can't legally hunt people with a .22LR in a pistol unless you have a double zero (00) license.

And for the last few posts I thought we were hunting deer and rabbits. Don't know where I got that idea.
Have you ever dug a pit for hunting? You seem pretty good at digging deep holes.

Going to bed soon, good night.

[NutmegYankee]

108. Nope, no need to dig holes

I just found another person to add to my ignore list.

Good night.

[A Simple Game]

130. Oh, I see, you already have a hole. You just jump into it on occasion.

Another badge? I shall wear it proudly.

[quakerboy]

92. Actually, no.

Why is there fear, runaway fear after 9/11? Peoples misdeeds and crimes. Not mine, nor that of anyone I am related to or know. Some stranger. But I still pay the price if I want to fly the not quite as friendly skies.

Most speed limits are not, in fact, based on physics. They are based on the fact that someone ran over a kid on a residential street, and now we all have to go 25 mph, whether we personally have great reflexes or not. They are based on accidents, and gas mileage, and other factors. Lowered speeds on corners are pretty much the only place where speed limits have any direct relation to "physics". The rest of the time, I am paying the price of others misdeeds and accidents

Much of the cost of insurance is caused by the need to insure against accidents and misdeeds. Especially with autos. That's why your car insurance costs vary drastically based on the type of car(especially the engine in it!), the expected drivers, and the region where it will be driven.

But your statement about the reason for car insurance illustrates my point. Due to the potential for misuse or accidents, we require people to get auto insurance to protect themselves and us for "operation on the road". In short, we are "punished" by the cost of this insurance because others before us have made mistakes. I could be wrong, but I would strongly suppose the first Fords on the road were not required to be insured, and that the drivers probably never gave it a thought.

I dont hate insurance. I dont hate speed limits (much). I dont even hate security at airports, though I would quibble about methods and efficacy. And I dont hate reasonable regulation of firearms.

[mbperrin]

67. Very well said. I'm going to use this in my government classes this year.

Thank you!

[jeff47]

17. That's a lovely story. Unfortunately, there's this pesky "reality" thing.

Your theory about similar levels of death from edged weapons has the minor problem of not happening in reality, when guns are actually banned. For an example, go take a gander at Australia.

It's much easier to blame and condemn an inanimate object, rather than accept the fact that all human beings are not inherently good and who just happen to be corrupted by a brainless, heartless, soulless object.

No, those of us looking for stricter gun regulations base it on the effectiveness of guns in the hands of those "evil" people. Give them knives and swords, and they will not be able to kill nearly so many.

[ErikJ]

29. Bottom Line: all things being equal, the more guns, the more deaths.

The gun makers wants to crank out as many guns as possible for profit. The more there are the more they end up in the wrong hands. The NRA likes this of course to sell more guns for self-defense from the millions of illegal guns out there. So round and round she goes.

[X_Digger]

33. Except.. that's not actually true.

Since 1998 when the NICS background check came online, there have been 170,000,000 more guns sold (at least- one NICS check can cover multiple guns). *

And during that same time, gun use in crime, guns used to murder, the rate of gun accidents- have all dropped. **







* http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics/reports/total-nics-background-checks-1998_2013_monthly_yearly_totals-033113.pdf
** http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/ucr (compare 1998 to 2012)
** http://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/index.html (compare fatal and non-fatal, all intents)

[ErikJ]

34. All things being equal I said.

I believe the prison population has tripled in that time also. And most of the guns sold now are going to collectors and hoarders. The actual number of gun owners is still declining. Those new guns will eventually find their way to the "bottom".

[X_Digger]

35. "all things being equal" means what, disregarding the actual facts?

Yes, if you disregard the increase in guns and the decrease in guns used in crime, etc, you can say that more guns = more death.

If I disregard my own eyes, I can say that the sky is polka-dotted with green stripes.

[ErikJ]

36. Obama's election drove gun sales to record levels.

With the Obama election the RW went in "Obama's gonna take yer gun" fearmongering. So gun owners went out and bought MORE guns. But these excess guns will eventually find their way into the wrong hands as they most often do. Then the number of deaths will catch up to the Obama -scare gun sales. Just give it time.

And I believe the number of mass shootings by these gun collectors has spiked in recent years. Not good. Its a form of terrorism. Nobody wants to go to the mall or movies if they perceive theyre going to get killed.

[X_Digger]

37. Check the NICS link above.. By 2007, there were 97,000,000 more guns

Almost 100 million more guns, and still gun use in crime, etc were down.

[ErikJ]

40. Patience my friend -patience

Cant you read my posts? The crime lags gun sales perhaps by a decade. Those millions of stock-piled guns are eventually going to wreak havoc.

[X_Digger]

43. Except.. that isn't true, either, hehe.

We only have estimates of ownership before NICS, but gun use in crime does not trend with ownership.

http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=4616

(Looks like the BJS has redesigned their site, so I can't pull up the actual tables quickly..)

Gun use in crime rose in the late 70's into the 80's, peaked in 1993/4 (depending on which crime you look at), and has been falling off since then.

Our homicide rate is half what it was in 1993.

[ErikJ]

45. And how much has the prison population increased?

All things being equal my friend, all things being equal.
And I would bet that gun accidents, suicides and mass shootings have increased by a lot.

[X_Digger]

50. Gun accident rates have fallen as well, check the WISQARS CDC link above. (both fatal and non-fatal)

'Mass' shooting? Depends on how you define it. If you're the FBI? You say the rate is flat. If you're Mother Jones? You claim it's up.

[ErikJ]

52. Again, the death rate will lag the buying rate by stockpilers.

and gunnuts. When they start to eventually make it out to on the "black market" expect all gun death rates to skyrocket.

[X_Digger]

54. Except it's been falling steadily, regardless of increasing sales.

The correlation you're grasping at? Doesn't line up with real numbers, either in the present or 10 years ago.

[ErikJ]

62. Gun deaths climbs during Republican presidencies, declines during Dems.

Notice the sharp increase during Reagan term who released lots of mentally ill people from institituions and when poverty increased. It peaked at 1993. During Clinton gun deaths went down and then started climbing again during Bush years. They now surpass traffic deaths. So poverty and hopelessness are the biggest factors in gun deaths besides there being millions of stolen and illegal guns in existence.

[X_Digger]

69. *cough*

Your own graph disproves your text. Why have raw numbers climbed from 2007 up? Or the drop from 1980 to 1984?

Changes in ownership (170,000,000+ since 1998) don't correlate to firearm deaths.

Not to mention that a better measure is *rate*, which is a much more accurate means of looking at a phenomenon over time in a population that increases or decreases.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States

[ErikJ]

71. Less people buying guns now. But more guns sold.

This means guns are being stockpiled which will one day end up in the wrong place to kill someone.

Thought experiment: Say you have a room of kids with zero guns and another room of kids with 2 loaded guns for each child. Which room do you think will have the most gun deaths?

[X_Digger]

72. We've been hearing the 'any day now' schtick for a long time.

I remember hearing it in 1989 when California was working on their version of the 'assault weapons ban'. Sales of the AR-15 and similar rifles went up, and the rate still dropped. Same after the '94 federal ban. Same chicken-little 'oooh, you just wait and see!' -- except it didn't happen then, either.

It hasn't correlated, illogical tautalogical thought experiments aside.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/150353/self-reported-gun-ownership-highest-1993.aspx

[ErikJ]

73. Japan vs USA then

Japan has almost zero guns in circulation vs the tens of millions in the US.

Gun deaths in Japan are almost zero.
Gun deaths in the US are 40,000 a year.

[X_Digger]

74. Toothpaste in tube vs toothpaste out of tube

And I'd be careful with that 40,000 30,000 number, especially when comparing to Japan.

About 60% of that 30,000 number (as of 2012 at least) is suicide.

Japan has a horrible suicide problem (almost twice our rate), but a larger problem is that many suicides are actually murders. Father loses his job, goes home and kills himself and 3 family members? Reported as 4 suicides. Police can't find the killer of a person found dead? Suicide.

Google "muri shinju". It's a morbidly fascinating cultural phenomenon. http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2013/02/03/national/japans-suicide-statistics-dont-tell-the-real-story/#.UfbZ7G2Qk1c


eta: Another interesting comparison? London vs New York in the 1880's before *either* country had substantive gun control. NYC's homicide rate was 5 times that of London.

eta2: Heck, our *non-gun* homicide rate is higher than many countries' *total* homicide rate.

[NutmegYankee]

78. Japan also has no tradition of regular people owning firearms.

After the Sengoku Jidai, the peasantry was systematically disarmed. Japan also was until recently an authoritarian society, ruled by warlords or emperors with a strong military. They went from a dictatorship like society to a semi-democratic one as a result of the systematic destruction of their country as a result of war.

We would be going in the opposite direction. Advocating the abolition of firearms ownership by American citizens is and will always be an extremely authoritarian and undemocratic position.

[ErikJ]

81. But it proves the point-the more guns, the more gun deaths. Proliferation is the problem. nt

[NutmegYankee]

82. Imagine if the government had a camera in every room of your home

There would probably be substantially less crime. But I don't want that kind of society.

[ErikJ]

84. Hyperbole. I have been thinking of getting a gun myself.

in case of total collapse of society. I'll need a one for hunting and self defense. Maybe a pistol and shot gun. But I'm too lazy and cheap to really get on it. Or maybe not scared enough yet.

[NutmegYankee]

85. It is your right as a citizen.

As for hunting, just get a bolt action rifle and practice with it at a range. That is unless you intend to hunt game birds with a shotgun (which takes a lot of practice).

And while I take it you were just in jest, if you are in any way serious, take a safety course. Ignorance, complacency, and arrogance (know it all attitude) are at the root of most gun accidents.

As for scared, that tends to be a stereotype. I sleep with only my screen door open in the summer, no locks, because I'm not afraid that someone is going to barge in. Statistically, it will most likely never happen to me. But you'd be amazed how many people religiously lock their doors when home.

[spin]

128. You are assuming that the General Social Survey (GSS) report...

is accurate.

Share of Homes With Guns Shows 4-Decade Decline
By SABRINA TAVERNISE and ROBERT GEBELOFF
Published: March 9, 2013

The share of American households with guns has declined over the past four decades, a national survey shows, with some of the most surprising drops in the South and the Western mountain states, where guns are deeply embedded in the culture.


***snip***

Measuring the level of gun ownership can be a vexing problem, with various recent national polls reporting rates between 35 percent and 52 percent. Responses can vary because the survey designs and the wording of questions differ.

***snip***

The center’s 2012 survey, conducted mostly in person but also by phone, involved interviews with about 2,000 people from March to September and had a margin of sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points.

Gallup, which asks a similar question but has a different survey design, shows a higher ownership rate and a more moderate decrease. No national survey tracks the number of guns within households.
(Ref: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/10/us/rate-of-gun-ownership-is-down-survey-shows.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0)

Gun control advocates love this survey because it offers the impression that fewer people own guns and therefore their approach is working.

Unfortunately they ignore the fact that many American citizens fear that the government plans to ban and confiscate all firearms. Therefore when contacted on the phone or in person, many people will simply deny that they own firearms. I believe that many bought their first firearm fearing that the government planned to set up a registration system and didn't want their names on it. If they bought that NRA propaganda then you can bet they would lie when asked if they owned firearms.

[xoom]

120. All things equal... Haha!

Is that the only way you can be right? If all things are equal? Thats not real life though...

[A Simple Game]

79. I also consider the courage factor. Guns give a coward courage, a knife not as much. n/t

[mbperrin]

63. And yet a gun is a far more deadly weapon that allows all those bad people

to kill far more good people than they could with

a knife,

a rock,

a lawn chair,

a fist.

If it were not so, the military would not be issued guns - they would be given other things that are more effective at killing people.

This is how you get 26 dead with a gun in Newtown, and on the same day, 20 injured by a knife attack in China with NO deaths.

[Zoeisright]

68. You win!

For the most fucking stupid post of the decade!!!

I'm amazed I have to say this, but guns, sparky, let people WITH guns KILL hundreds at a time. Knives, clubs, fists - not the same problem.

Christ on a fucking crutch.

[Rex]

77. The desperation by the gun crowd never ceases to amaze me.

He went right to the rightwing talking points, even though the OP stated this is about PEOPLE.

[Rex]

76. Way to completely miss the point on purpose.

No it IS people we are trying to ban or restrict. You have a problem with that or do you prefer the Wild West?

[Martin Eden]

93. 2 Things

Thing 1: It's very unlikely innocent bystanders would be killed in drive-by edged-weapon attacks.

Thing 2: Although some people (including in this forum) would like to see all guns banned, there is no chance for any legislation approaching the premise of your argument being passed ... nor was it suggested in the OP to which you responded.

[BainsBane]

107. No one is banning anything

Last edited Tue Jul 30, 2013, 12:06 AM - Edit history (1)

If all you have is Wayne LaPierre's bullshit talking points, why even bother? Do you really think that we are a bunch of illiterate imbeciles who don't follow the news and believe that kind of nonsense?

The only proposal was to stop new sales of assault rifles, and there was no chance of it passing thanks to your friends in the corporate gun lobby and the NRA that spread the same false propaganda you are doing right here. No one tried to ban all the guns that clearly mean so much more to gun nuts than their fellow citizens or human life. But that doesn't stop them from working hard to blame your fellow citizens from daring to exercise their rights to free speech, the part of the constitution the gun lobby and their lackeys are working so diligently to eliminate.

Provide proof of ONE bill proposed recently that sought to ban all guns. Go on. If it's so common you should have no trouble finding it.

I know full well the true danger is not simply guns; the danger is gun evangelists--those who value corporate profits and the machinery of death over human life. These are people who consistently lie to the American public in order to promote corporate profits, that push Stand Your Ground laws and shall issue concealed carry because they want nothing more to unload their guns on another person. The issue is the paranoids who shoot at the site of a black man because they can't wait to use their toys and have no regard for human life. Add to that those who dream of doing exactly what their hero Zimmerman did and fall all over themselves to defend any use of a gun on unarmed children. The problem is that part of this country lacks the basic humanity or compassion to care at all about the victims of gun violence, people who defend killers over victims. No, the problem isn't guns alone, it's gun nuts. We have the highest homicide rate in the first world because gun nuts simply do not care who lives and dies. They care only about their own property and their desire to kill. I have talked to enough of them to know they spend a great deal of time thinking about killing other human beings.

[cui bono]

114. Who is trying to ban all guns? n/t

[cvoogt]

123. So in a game of rock, paper, scissors

Let's instead say it's machine gun, Colt 44, switchblade. In that scenario there'd be no clear winner?
The clear difference between knives and guns is someone wanting just to hurt someone may wind up doing only that when using a knife, but could very easily kill someone when using a gun instead. And knives don't sit around with a bullet in their chamber. There is simply a lower threshold to serious injury or death with firearms as opposed to knives. I think you're grossly understating that difference. It's not just down to the people handling the weapons. In fact, I would argue that it takes a certain kind of person (a more determined one) to kill with a knife, yet many more (often cowards at heart) would feel comfortably doing so with a gun.

[msongs]

7. guns have one real purpose, to kill people. all other uses are just marking time until that happens

[ErikJ]

8. But, the more the guns, the more the deaths

whether they are law abiding or not. Drunken tempers flare, gun accidents, etc etc.

[Recursion]

10. People also want to ban guns with certain shapes

Though thankfully the party seems to be coalescing around the more sensible idea of regulating who has guns in the first place. Long may it continue.

[AtheistCrusader]

14. Actually one of the first on-target meme ads about this issue I have ever seen.

Nicely done.

[spin]

19. Well then stop talking about banning guns. ...

I see no problem with doing our best to insure that only honest, responsible, sane and well trained individuals own firearms. I have a major problem with another assault weapons ban or any program that would require honest gun owners to turn in some or all of their firearms.

Had the gun control advocates followed the ideas presented in the OP, we might have seen some major improvements to our existing gun laws today. Unfortunately they overreached and tried to get another assault weapons ban.

Now I realize that many will be greatly disturbed by my comments but I had great hope that we could make some real progress in our efforts to control guns.

For example I strongly supported universal background checks. I'm a gun owner and I refuse to sell any of my firearms to a person who:

1) I have not know personally for a year.

2) Is not a resident of Florida.

3) Does not have a Florida concealed weapons permit.

[boston bean]

42. the OP didn't mention banning guns.

did it? you have introduced it. Hell, stop using scare tactics against yourself. Guns will never be banned. So, get with the progressive program and talk about gun control, see, I didn't say gun ban. There is a difference, learn it.

[spin]

61. No it didn't mention gun bans but I distinctly remember the push for the assault weapons ban ...

earlier this year. That overreach totally poisoned the water for the changes I hoped to see in our gun control laws.

I'm sure that many, if not most, of the gun control groups would love to see another assault weapons ban and hope that it would be far stronger than the previous useless one.

The gun control movement is still trying its best to get assault weapons bans at the state levels. For example:

Assault weapons ban fails despite R.I. leaders’ support

By David Klepper | ASSOCIATED PRESS JULY 08, 2013

PROVIDENCE — After the deadly school massacre in Newtown, Conn., top Rhode Island leaders gathered to recommend ways to crack down on gun violence. Topping the list were proposals to ban semiautomatic assault weapons and high-capacity magazines.

The idea came from Governor Lincoln Chafee, House Speaker Gordon Fox, Senate President Teresa Paiva Weed, and Attorney General Peter Kilmartin and had the backing of the mayors of Providence, Pawtucket, and Central Falls.

Yet the gun control legislation was left to languish when lawmakers adjourned their 2013 session Wednesday. Other proposals to change the way handgun permits are awarded or to require gun owners to pay a $100-per-gun registration fee also failed after huge protest rallies at the State House.

Instead, lawmakers passed legislation that would increase jail time for carrying a stolen firearm while committing a violent crime. They also voted to make it illegal to possess a gun with a destroyed serial number.
http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2013/07/07/assault-weapons-ban-fizzles-general-assembly/cJjjwpgwLgt0J3EmAK6h9I/story.html

Waukegan Rejects Assault Weapons Ban
July 16, 2013 6:47 AM

WAUKEGAN, Ill. (STMW) – Waukegan declined to follow the lead of Highland Park and North Chicago on Monday, July 15, when the City Council voted unanimously against a proposed ban on assault weapons within its municipal limits.

Facing a state-mandated deadline for communities to adopt firearm regulations prior to the implementation of Illinois’ new concealed-carry law, the council voted to follow overall state statute on firearms and not enact any extra measures.

Second Ward Ald. Thomas Koncan, chairing a Public Safety Committee that unanimously recommended against an assault-weapons ban, said he looked at the issue as “whether we’re going to follow state law or whether we are going to have our own little kingdom and have our own laws regarding guns.”

“I believe (a ban) would set up the city of Waukegan for lawsuits and would do nothing to deter crime,” Koncan added, saying that “adding an assault-weapons ban in Waukegan would just create a patchwork around the state” with different laws in different communities.
http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2013/07/16/waukegan-rejects-assault-weapons-ban/

The gun control side of the debate has to realize that if we wish to see some real progress on this important issue we need to ban the use of the word "ban." It might be possible to pass gun bans at the state level but everyone that passes only reinforces the NRA position that banning and confiscation is the ultimate goal of the gun control groups. That will probably mean that many good Democrats could lose their seat in Congress at the midterms and be replaced by Republicans or even worse, Tea Baggers.

We may be largely in agreement but the problem is that many on the strong gun control side of the debate are still hoping to ban and confiscate firearms. This is counterproductive and has caused the sale of all firearms and ammunition to absolutely skyrocket in recent months. I may support gun rights but I really don't advocate that everybody in this nation should run out and buy a gun. Guns are not for everybody.

[Boom Sound 416]

20. perhaps because of the legislative push to hold gun makers accountable for crimes such as Sandy Hook

[libodem]

22. I'd recommend this a thousand times

If I could.

[Iggo]

25. Heheheh.

Nice.

[heaven05]

27. slap!

[ErikJ]

30. Bottom Line: Guns are exclusively killing machines. The more guns the more that must die.

The gun makers wants to crank out as many guns as possible for profit. The more there are the more they end up in the wrong hands. The NRA likes this of course to sell more guns for self-defense from the millions of illegal guns out there. So round and round she goes.

[cthulu2016]

31. Perhaps because it is silly and wrong?

Guns do kill people.

[Omnith]

41. Technically bullets kill people

That being said, guns are great equalizers. Since criminals have guns I also need one if I'm going to protect myself.

[ErikJ]

44. And round and round she goes.

The more guns in a society, the more guns fall into the wrong hands, so the more guns sold to protect yourself. Its an NRA DREAM come true.

[Omnith]

53. Given how many guns already exist in America, do think banning guns would take them out of

criminal's hands?

[ErikJ]

57. Yes, most criminals end up in jail/prison

where the gun would be confiscated.

[Omnith]

59. I appreciate the reply.

I would send a private message, but apparently I don't post enough. I guess time doesn't count for much, I've been a DU member for three years. I guess I should post more and read less. lol

[ErikJ]

64. Wow, didnt realize your few posts.

I wish I had more restraint. Somedays I procrastinate way too much posting at various sites. It can be maddening cuz I dont get things I need done.

[Major Nikon]

46. More gun nuts to protect us from the gun nuts

[midnight]

48. I like this message-thanks...

[B Calm]

55. K&R

[PowerToThePeople]

58. I do not agree.

Last edited Mon Jul 29, 2013, 10:54 PM - Edit history (2)

[freshwest]

83. Because they haven't experienced a state of waking consciousness in years?

[WillyT]

86. K & R !!!

[malokvale77]

95. That takes critical thinking...

In the words of some dumb f**k Texas politician, it undermines parental authority.

Yes, I'm pissed about the "people" allowed to own guns.

[blackspade]

97. The last part sums it up perfectly.

[NorthCarolina]

102. People kill people...true! Guns just make it a hellofalot easier and deadlier. nt

[ErikJ]

110. True. Like cars make it easier than walking. nt

[Cha]

116. Mahalo Play!

[napkinz]

117. nice!

K & R!

[GTurck]

119. It was the media....

who first used the term "gun ban" as I recall. Those of us with sense and a foot in the real world only said regulation. But gun ban gets people very upset and makes for news stories that sell more advertising so that is all that citizens remember. Regulate don't ban.

[Paladin]

121. And it's the NRA and pro-gun militants......

...who equate gun regulation with gun banning. Over and over and over again, to this very day. Don't lay the blame on "the media."

[WCLinolVir]

125. Is this a post designed to get all the gun fans on board?

[napkinz]

132. here's another ...