Culture Of Life: Hypocrisy Seen on Guns

[Dr Ron]

The right quotes the culture of right to claim the high road in the Schiavo case, but people are beginning to see the hypocrisy, such as when they oppose a culture of life in gun control. For example, Ron Brownstein points this out in the LA Times today when he shows it is more a case of Republicans going along with two of their core constituencies for votes.

I have more on this at Light Up the Darkness. (As my story violates DU rules for amount of quotation from article, I'll place the link to my post rather than copying it here):

http://www.lightupthedarkness.org/blog/?view=plink&id=615

[Mary in KC]

1. Guns and Life don't go together very well.

But I really get hit when I express anti-gun values. Guns don't kill children. Other children with guns kill children!

[Silverhair]

3. Would you let children drive?

Like any tool, and they are a tool, guns must be used correctly. After all, you don't give the car keys to a 7 year old and tell him to run to the store for you.

[tubbacheez]

8. Weak analogy. Most shootings are not accidental...

... in that the shooter did made a deliberate act to fire a loaded weapon in the direction of the shootee, whereas most car crash injuries and deaths are accidental in the sense that the driver generally did not deliberately ram the other party.




Just pointing out a weakness in the argument.

I myself am fairly gun-neutral. They're a big part of the American experience, whether we want them to be or not.






I do think that our cultural inability to settle (or even our macho de-emphasis on settling) differences without violence has killed more people that guns, knives, clubs, and fists combined.

[Silverhair]

11. Exact analogy.

Please pay attention to the converstaion in the thread.

The poster I was responding to said: "Other children with guns kill children!"

In that context, my analogy was exact.

You broadened it beyond the context.

[tubbacheez]

15. Even in a narrow context of children actors...

... and there are occassional cases of underage driving that resulted in death or bodily injury... the reasoning is far from exact.






Does a child driver hold the intent to run into a victim, at the time of the crash? In the majority of cases, the answer is no.

The typical state of mind is one of joyriding or perhaps transportation. The risk of injury to another is subservient to other purposes.






Does a child shooter hold the intent to put a bullet into a victim, at the time of the shooting? In the majority of cases, the answer is yes.

The typical state of mind is not novelty or any practical task. The risk of injury to another is the primary purpose of firing the gun at the person.






(An exception is the case of pure accidents, but that scenario does not apply to the recent Red Lake story.)

[kerrygoddess]

12. It's not as if...

The young man in Minn was given the guns by his grandfather so I disagree.

Yes, guns are tools, but all too often they end up in the wrong hands, not because they are given like car keys but because those who own them do not keep them properly stored so that kids can't get at them.

[sendero]

43. And we have laws...

... covering that as it should be.

I don't find the gun issue remotely analogous to the Shiavo issue, if anything it provides another corrollary.

We can't help that people misuse guns any more than we can bring Ms. Schiavo back to life.

[billbuckhead]

4. The GOP-NRA deathcult's brownshirt footsoldiers are gunwackos

Ask Tom DeLay, he's their spokeswhore.

[Silverhair]

2. No hypocrisy on guns.

I want to have guns to be able to protect MY LIFE and MY FAMILIES' LIVES if it come down to it. That is a pro-life stance. I am solidly pro my life & my families' lives.

The gun grabbers always point to the people killed with guns, and always ignore the far greater number who have used guns to protect themselves.

I personally know several people who have used guns to protect themselves from random violent crime. In each case no shots were fired as the would be attacker immediately remembered very urgent business elsewhere. One guy that had just climed in a window did a backwards dive out the same window, landing on his head on the ground outside.

Since no shots were fired, none of those cases will ever show up in any statistical study of gun use. Further, some of those cases were not reported to the police as the defender considered it useless to do so.

[billbuckhead]

5. Can one measure how many people are terrorized by guns?

The wife with the abusive husband. The neighbors afraid to have their kids playing in the streets. The children sexually molested but afraid to tell because the molester threatens them with guns.

[skippythwndrdog]

21. Inanimate object terrorizes...film at 11.

I would think that the terrorizing would be done by a person.

[Mass]

35. It does

when people insists to let their weapons within reach of kids or because I want to feel safe in a restaurant in Texas without having to think that somebody is going to take the law into his own hands and start shooting because he feels threatened.

Except if the person is perfectly trained, it is just dangerous and only adds to the danger a criminal causes.

[MrBenchley]

6. It's always interesting to see how many gun owners

daydream about shooting other people...and it's also funny that they never seem called upon to ask pro-gun politicans to alleviate crime with better jobs, more police, etc.

"Since no shots were fired, none of those cases will ever show up in any statistical study of gun use. Further, some of those cases were not reported to the police as the defender considered it useless to do so."
So much for that law-abiding gun owner crap. <sarcasm>Why would anybody want to report an attempted crime...especially one in which the prospective victim felt threatened? <sarcasm>

I personally know people who own guns who would tell any lie, no matter how preposterous, to justify their popgun fetish.

[Silverhair]

16. I do NOT daydream about shooting people.

I am a Vietnam veteran. I know what shooting someone involves. I don't want a civilian version of PTSD. Nor do I want the lifetime memories that go with it after the trauma dulls. In fact, if a burglar came into our house, I WOULD NOT go after him. I would stay in the bedroom with my wife and call 911, while keeping the door covered with the gun. One real good reason for not going after him is that he might win the shootout. That's a very high chance to take to protect mere property.

I can give you a good reason for not calling the police after a defensive display. It can be real difficult to prove the need. I will give an example of one case:

My coworker was a black guy in South Louisiana. During a time of local racial tension, he was in his car waiting in line to drive onto the ferry to cross the river. The landing was in a white area. The pickup in front of him had a KKK sticker on it. (Some Klan member boast of their membership.) The two guys in the pickup got out of the pickup and with arrogant attitudes began to walk up to his car. He placed a .38 where it was visible on the dash. They turned and went back to the pickup and left him alone. No police report.

What did they intend to do to him? He didn't want to find out. It was his judgment call that they meant him harm. If he had called the police - what laws had the guys broken? None.

Defensive displays are made when a reasonable person would feel threatened, but BEFORE a crime has been committed. At that point, you don't have anything to go to the cops with. Even if you make a report and the guy is caught he can't be charged with anything.

[MrBenchley]

52. Didn't say YOU did.

But I doubt that when folks like the Texas GOP or the NRA talk about "self defense," there's much doubt about who they're planning to plug. And it's amazing how close to the surface with many gun nuts some sort of "I need my gun for the glorious revolution" fantasy is.

"I will give an example of one case."
And I'll give an example of a fuckwit who got mugged and shot in the ass by the assailants with his own gun.

I don't know many reasonable people who run around heeled, to start with.

[Silverhair]

62. Lots of DUers talk about having guns for a revolution too.

Lots of people here have a "Red Dawn" fantasy. Like their pistol will do any good against a tank. And what will they do when they run out of ammo?

Revolution fantasy is stupid, and it is a stupidity shared by the extremists on both sides.

[MrBenchley]

71. Yeah, they do....

And lots of gun nuts toddle in here to try to disrupt the board. They even boast about it in their on-line cesspools.

"Revolution fantasy is stupid"
No argument here.

[Dr Ron]

9. Self Defense and Gun Control Are Not In Opposition

Controlling guns to protect against episodes such as happened in Minn does not restrict your ability to have a gun for self defense.

For example, proposals for smart guns would still allow you, and anyone else you designate, to shoot the gun, but nobody else would be able to. This would also protect you from the situation which often happens when people have guns in the home--a burgler gets the gun first and uses it against the home owner.

Similarly, efforts to restrict ownership of assualt weapons and do background checks on people buying guns would not prevent you from buying a gun for self defense, but could protect others from gun violence.

[Silverhair]

14. Mistakes in your argument.

Genuine assault weapons have been very tightly regulated since 1934. The so-called assault weapons ban merely banned guns that had a military look to them, and banned large capacity magazines. Who has been killed by such items as: barrel shrouds, (NOT silencer. A shroud protects the hands if the barrel is hot.)flash suppressor, bayonet lug, pistol type grip on a rifle, etc.

Please define what you mean by "smart weapons". Do you mean some sort of computer chips that is going to recognize my hand on the handle and no one else. That would be very expensive and would place self defense out of the reach of poor people. Further, they would add relibility problems to self defense guns. The last thing I would want would be for my gun's computer to crash while I was in a self defense situation.

"The burglar will use you gun on you" is a very old gungrabber canard. Most burglars that commit hot burglaries are already armed and don't need to find your gun so they can be armed.

[Dr Ron]

18. Effective gun control is possible

There were certainly problems with the recent assault weapons law which expired. that does not mean it isn't possible to write a better law.

Work is being done by gun manufacturers on smart guns, and it doesn't appear that this will make them too expensive, considering their tremendous safety value. It is worth spending more if it protects from gun violence.

[Silverhair]

19. The biggest source of genuine AK-47s is Africa.

In Africa real AK-47 (That's the kind with full auto capability.) cost about $25. There is a smuggling market for them in the US. The black market doesn't really care about any gun laws that you may have.

I don't trust "smart guns".

[Dr Ron]

20. Proving the point

You are really just proving the point of those of us who dismiss arguments such as yours.

You clearly had no knowledge of smart guns before this discussion, yet dismiss them by just saying you don't trust them. Previously you object to the cost without any information re cost.

Owning a gun entails responsibility. If the technology for smart guns comes to market, then that is a fair cost to pass on to those who want to own guns in order to protect potential victims from death from guns which are misused.

Sure guns will still come over the black market, but plenty are also purchased at stores and gun shows. Not every high school student who wants to blow away his class mates has access to black market guns from Africa.

[Dr Ron]

23. More on smart guns

http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=139&subid=271&contentid=3572

Needless to say, there are also tons of sites from the NRA opposing the technology.

[Silverhair]

34. You expect me to trust a gun with a 20% failure rate in an emergency???

From your own linked site:

"The New Jersey Institute of Technology (NJIT) found that the risk is relatively minimal. In the case of the fingerprint coding, for example, the NJIT found a success rate of 80 percent"

That means it fails 20% of the time. NO THANKS

[Dr Ron]

38. Still being worked on

Your argument is bull. You were against the idea before findling any facts--you are certainly not basing you objection on any specific facts.

The technology is still being worked on. This doesn't mean that the final product will have a 20% failure rate.

[Silverhair]

30. About Smart Guns.

That is what your smart gun argument will mean in fact. You have to be talking about some fancy technology if the gun will recognize me only, or those on an authorized list. That won't be cheap nor will they be well accepted.

As of right now, smart guns don't exist. To gain acceptance they would have to be:

a. Easy to use in an emergency. Under stress you might forget that special way it has to be held to ensure that it can read who is holding it.

b. Fast. If the gun takes a couple of seconds to approve you, that may be too long. That gives an attacker plenty of time to close with and kill you.

c. Reliable. Every added bit of complexity in any machine is something else that can go wrong, usually at the most critical moment.

Colt tried to develop one (Called the iColt) using a RFID reciever and a wristband that the user would wear. It failed to be reliable and was dropped. S&W is working on one that reads fingerprints, but what if your hands are dirty, or you are wearing gloves (Winter - cold weather) or if you don't hold the gun jjjuuuusssstttt right, and how much processing time does it take? Smart Links is trying, but their gun also has to be held perfectly. That might be hard to do is you are real scared at the moment. SIG (My own home gun is a SIG) is trying to make one that has to have a combination punched it to authorize it. (Owner to crook: "Wait a bit while I punch in the PIN number. Could you shine your flashlight here so I can see the keypad better?") Fulton Arms is trying the magnetic keyring bit. Not really secure as all a criminal has to do after he has stolen it is to tape a magnet to his finger.

(Isn't the internet great? Able to do research on almost any topic in minutes.)

Finally, how long would it be until criminals learned how to defeat the smart gun and make a dumb gun out of it? While many criminals are indeed stupid, some are very smart.

The person that can only afford an RG for their home defense gun will definately not be able to even think of one of your smart guns. Of course, you probably believe that guns are not needed at all for anyone's defense.

Or maybe you think that we should be well behaved victims for the criminal and then file police reports afterwards. I prefer NOT to be a victim.

BTW, far more children die of pools, bike accidents, choking, so perhaps you should be more concerned about those if your concern is for preventing child deaths.

[Dr Ron]

37. Looks like more knee jerk reaction

Yes the internet is great--you can easily get lots of crack pot arguments in mlinutes.

None of this makes a particularly strong argument. It just shows that people will search to find any excuse to prevent any form of control to save lives.

Ownership of guns entails a degree of responsibility.

[Silverhair]

40. Hmmmm. So you make a variation of ad hominum attack when you lose?

You did NOT counter any of my arguments. To call them crackpot shows you own weakness.

If a smart device is to gain acceptance it will have to be easy to use, fast to use, and super reliable, and also cheap. If it isn't, the public will reject it.

Expect for the people who think you should greet violent criminals with flowers.

[Dr Ron]

46. No point in going through all

The point is that you are rejecting the possibility of meaningful gun regulations in light of a demonstrated problem. Thanks to the NRA there will always be counter arguments to any proposal.

The question is not the merits of any specific proposal but whether one is willing to be responsible and work towards finding an effective solution rather than rejecting all possible solutions without considering them

Nobody is saying to greet violent criminals with flowers. It is stated multiple times in this thread that we accept the right of people to own guns for self defense.

[Silverhair]

58. Yet you try to make gun ownership so difficult.

You want to make them expensive, eliminating poor people from the ability to have tools of self defense. The RG company is a particular target of the gungrabber crowd.

You oppose providing a legal shield for gun companies that already obey ALL existing laws so they will not be harassed by personal injury lawsuits when a gun is misused. The expressed hope of the gungrabber crowd is to make it so expensive to make guns due to the volume of lawsuits that they will be forced out of business, or to sell only to the gov't.

You want the guns to have be stored in locked boxes with locks on the gun itself and the ammo in a separate place, thereby making them impossible to use for home defense.

You wanted to eliminate a class of guns simply because they looked like military guns. (So called assault weapons.)

Somebody has posted on DU trying to scare the public about a .50 rifle. Their posted picture showed an airliner in the crosshairs, implying that it could be brought down by the rifle. (Real world - It would take a super, super lucky shot to hit a critical spot. If such a spot even exists on an airliner.) The thinks they posted that it could do can also be done by a .30 rifle too.

And then there was the campaign against the Glock pistol some years ago. It had a plastic frame, but the slide and other parts were metals. The gungrabbers told lots of lies about the Glock, saying that it was all-plastic, could not be detected by airport scanners, and claiming that Lybia had ordered hundreds of them. As if that was supposed to make it some kind of terrorist special.

I remember the howl over laser sights on guns. The complaint was that the beam posed a danger to a criminal's eyes as you might shine the beam in his eye as you used the red dot to aim the gun at him.

In some cities you have managed to get handguns outlawed completely. But it did nothing for the crime rate in those cities.

In the states that have broadened their concealed carry laws, you howled that it would lead to an old west mentality. The laws passed and it didn't lead to that. Instead the rates for some types of crime went down. Yet, if another state starts to broaden it's same laws, the same howls still go up, even though it has been shown to work in the states it has been tried in.

Your side misstates laws that came help citizens to defend themselves. Look at the thread here on DU that calls a law the, "Shoot First, Ask Questions Later" law. The law does nothing of the sort. It does give greater protection to the legal use of a gun away from the home. (I hope you know that it is possible to be a crime victim away from home.)

So you can understand why I react with such skepticism when the gungrabber crowd proposes anything.

[Dr Ron]

63. Doesn't have to be difficult

It is possible to have controls which reduce the problems from guns without necessarily making it difficult to own them--as long as you don't consider any regulations too difficult.

[Silverhair]

70. It is the cumulative effect.

I am in favor of some regulations. In another post I stated that I think all gun owners should have a mandatory training course, just like we have divers liscenses.

But the cumulative effect of all the laws that the gungrabber crowd wants is so great as to all but eliminate them. And they always want more laws.

[Dr Ron]

83. Obviously can't have all the laws

Numerous ideas have been under consideration. Obvioulsy if all are used simultaneously it could be too much. We need to find what is effective to be worth any extra expense and difficulties for gun owners. I'm glad you recognize that some degree of regulation is needed, even if a mandatory training course does make it more difficult to obtain a gun.

[Silverhair]

89. Mandatory training makes it more difficult to legally drive a car.

But it is needed. No argument there. And there does need to be some regulations on guns. But so much of what the anti-gun group proposes shows so little knowledge of how guns actually work and how they are actually used in defensive situations.

Their soulmates in Australia have managed to make the private ownership of guns illegal. I am sure the violent criminals rushed to turn their guns in, just as they respect other laws. I don't want that to happen here, so I fight against it.

My way of fighting it is to argue for guns here at DU. My only other way of fighting for guns would be to vote Republican, and I don't decide my vote on single issue politics. However, I do know people for who that is a major issue.

[Dr Ron]

138. Not a question of regulations, but which regulations

It looks, from this and some of your other comments, that our views are not really that far apart. I think much of the problem is from the intentional polarization caused by the NRA and Republicans.

I agree that making private ownership of guns would be a mistake, and that bad regulations are a mistake.

Part of the mistake is political. it is not that more people disagree with gun control, but that those who oppose it are much more likely to vote based upon this.

It is unfortuante that the NRA has taken the approach of seeing any regulation as bad and as step towards banning ownership of guns. This might be making the problem worse. Ideally it would be gun owners, who are most knowlegeable about the issue, who have a key role in suggesting legislation.

It could very well be true that much of the previous legislation was bad. This does not mean that it is not possible to come up with regulations which decrease the risk of gun violence while not putting unreasonable obstacles on gun ownership. That's partially while I am interested in new approaches like smart guns. Maybe they will never work, but the idea is good if further work will get the bugs out of the system. The NRA has opposed them from the start, and I have no doubt that they would oppose them even if they were 100% effective and added no extra cost to the guns.

[Silverhair]

140. We probably aren't that far apart.

My emphasis would be on regulating people who own guns, rather than regulating the object itself. See my post about "A proposal..." toward the end of the thread. Remember, I am not laying out a detailed plan, but some general thoughts in that post.

Part of the problem are the extremists on both sides.

If smart guns could indeed be made to meet the citeria that I listed, and the increase in cost were reasonable, then that could be an added option.

Another part of the problem is that so many of the laws are pushed by people who know very little about how guns actually work, or about what actually happens in the defensive use of a gun.

And then there are the differences between the different parts of the country, or even between parts of the same city. It is a lot different if you live in a rural area, or a guarded apartment, or in a project in a major city.

[skippythwndrdog]

25. Do you know what an "assault weapon" is?

It would seem that you are parroting the Reich Wing Sarah Brady. Frankly, "assault weapons" are particularly useful for home defense.

[Mass]

28. Reich Wing??

Sorry, can we talk about the Reich Wing NRA rather!

[MrBenchley]

36. Of all the gun nut hooey around

this "nobody knows what assault weapons are" migfht be the most tedious and least honest.

By the way, Ivergals, who frequents the gungeon here, once went to the trouble of correlating donations. The politicans Sarah Brady and other gun control groups give money to are also pro-reproductive choice, pro workers' rights, and pro-environment.

By contrast, the gun lobby gives its money to some of the scummiest specimens in public life.

[Mass]

10. Gun control is not forbidding guns

It is making sure that the person who has a gun is able to keep it and to use it without being dangerous to others.

The problem is that some people are just unreasonnable. A couple weeks ago, a woman in TX let a gun in her purse, loaded and ready to shoot. Her 4 year old took the gun and shoot at her 2 year old and killed her. I would imagine a minimum of education on the subject would have avoided this catastrophy.

Nobody can drive a car without passing a license that makes sure you know the rules and are able to drive. Why is it not the case for weapons?

[kerrygoddess]

13. Great! Smart Gun Control does not say you can't have them!

We live in a different time, Silverhair. One where all too often we hear of kids killing kids with guns. There are random gang shootings in L.A. on a weekly basis. Many not on school grounds but just outside.

My father had a pistol and shotgun and I totally respect the 2nd ammenment but many don't get that if you have guns you have to make sure that someone else can't get at them and use them.

Furthermore, there are occassions that gun owners attempt use their guns for self-defense and the perpetrator manages to get a hold of the gun and kill the gun owner.

And some who use their guns for self defense end up being charged with crimes for doing so.

[mhr]

115. When The Brown Shirts Come For Me I Intend To Fight

eom

[primavera]

137. How do you know then that their lives needed defending?

Do you know that the people against whom these guns were used were in fact about to harm anyone? Simply because I point a gun at someone who then flees doesn't mean I've protected myself from anything if there was never any intent or capacity on the part of the other person to cause me any injury from which I needed to protect myself. Why not bolster your statistics by going to a crowded public square and pointing a gun at everyone there? Then you can claim another hundred or so cases of a gun "protecting" you from... what was it again you were protecting yourself from?

[MrBenchley]

7. Remember, the same bunch put assault weapons back in stores

They fight to keep the gun show loophole yawning wide open so that criminals and lunatics can but guns without background checks, and are currently trying to prevent vicitms of gun violence from suing the gun dealers, distributors and manufacturers who act irresponsibly.

And of course, when it comes to dumping toxins in air and water, torturing prisoners, or preventing Americans from universal healthcare, the same bunch are in the forefront, fighting for pollution, Gestapo tactics and HMO profits.

[skippythwndrdog]

26. Do you know what an "assault weapon" is?

Tell me, Bench,

How does a flash-reducing device make a gun evil?

How do screw threads make it evil?

How does an adjustable stock make it evil?

The whole gun-ban/control crowd has nothing but lies and anti-freedom leanings to go on.

[MrBenchley]

32. Yes I do, skippy...

assault weapons are what nutless fuckwits cream their jeans over.

[Dr Ron]

17. Related article in LA Times

The LA Times also has an article on how this contradicts the Republican's opposition ot judicial activiism. I updated the post on LUTD with that link.

[skippythwndrdog]

22. I am pro-gun rights, because I respect life.

I own guns to save my own life, and the lives of my family, if it becomes necessary. I preserving innocent life means destroying the life of an attacker, that is fine.

I am a Catholic. I am pro-life in all respects. I oppose the deaty penalty (an admittedly new development), I oppose abortion, I oppose the killing of Shiavo. I support the defense of innocent life.

[Dr Ron]

24. We've already refuted this argument

Gun control does not prevent you from owning guns to protect you or your family. See discussion above.

[skippythwndrdog]

27. Bull. You've done nothing of the sort.

[Dr Ron]

31. Yes, see above posts

There is absolutely no contradiction between gun control and allowing people to have guns for personal protection.

[Mass]

50. Which is why gun controls are necessary.

[Mass]

39. Interesting statistics

Violent crimes statistics are much higher in this country than in Europe where gun control is much stricter. Your argument about the security of your family is proven false by facts. The absence of serious gun control is just promoting a culture of violence, the same one we have on TV and that seems a lot less dangerous to the RW fringe than Janet Jackson's breast.

[Silverhair]

42. What about Switzerland?

Every able bodied male is required to be in their military reserve and is issued and required to keep a real, genuine assualt rifle (Capable of full auto fire.) and a combat load of ammo at his home. They also have a much lower violence rate that we do.

Could you see the gungrabber crowd if the US tried to do that? Issue an M-16 & hundreds of rounds to every male in every household?
There would not be enough Prozac in the nation to calm them down.

No, I do not wish for that, but it does provide a real world counter example to your statement.

[Mass]

44. Yes

And they are taught how to use it, keep it safe, and keep it under lock. In addition, they give tests to people before they give them these weapons, so that they dont give them to unstable people.

In addition, Switzerland does not have the culture of violence this country has, on the contrary.

[Silverhair]

48. So the gun isn't the cause, it's the people.

So you agree, "Guns don't kill people. People kill people."

[Mass]

51. Which is why training and licensing are necessary.

[Silverhair]

61. I have NO OBJECTION to mandatory training.

However, I would want the training to be reasonable. I would not want the bar to be set so high that it would all but exclude the ordinary citizen from being able to meet it.

Lots of people do have guns that don't know how to use them and are a danger to everybody, including themselves.

I view that as I do driver's licenses.

[MrBenchley]

53. I wonder why gun nuts don't move to Switzerland en masse...

"Every able bodied male is required to be in their military reserve and is issued and required to keep a real, genuine assualt rifle (Capable of full auto fire.) and a combat load of ammo at his home. "
And all of those guns are registered. And each round of ammunition has to be accounted for in writing. And handguns are almost impossible to own legally. I'll take that level of gun control any day.

On the other hand, Somalia has next to no gun control, and lots and lots of guns too.

[PittLib]

59. I would be interested in further research ...

Economics, in particular. Contrast Switzerland and America in terms of diversity, religion and economic divide. The social and cultural climate influence violence and crime greatly.

[Silverhair]

64. Obviously, those are the things that make the difference.

The presence or abscence of guns is not the key factor.

Here in America, the criminals already are well armed. Passing gungrabber laws will only disarm me, not them.

[PittLib]

82. I'm not really sure what you mean by "gungrabber laws"...

I hate guns*, but would never deny one's right to them. I simply advocate responsible ownership. I would think that would help differentiate law abiding citizens exercizing their rights from the criminals you speak of. It would offer a certain amount of protection under the law, whereas enable starker punishment of those who obtain weapons illegally. Naive, perhaps ... but given the current social and economic climate (due in large part to this administration), I feel that a gun free-for-all is dangerous ... particularly when based on paranoia.

*There is nothing quite like having a .45(?) caliber slug rip through your living room wall and imbed 5 feet from where you are sitting.

[sandnsea]

29. Just because they yell 2nd Amendment

doesn't mean they're willing to die to uphold the Constitution.

[Dr Ron]

33. Unfortunately they aren't aware of the rest of the Bill of Rights

or the rest of the Constitution.

The 2nd Ammendment arguments are unclear in light of the ambiguity. I'd have much more respect for those who try to use the 2nd Ammendment to prevent any form of gun control if they showed respect for other aspects of the Constitution rather than picking and chosing the parts they that help their arguments.

[Guaranteed]

85. I'm a member of the ACLU.

The 1st Amendment comes first. The 2nd is then there to protect that.

And who is arguing that there should be no regulation whatsoever for guns that isn't a total nut? NO ONE here is arguing that, that I can see.

In any case, the importance of the 2nd Amendment in a strong democracy is pretty obvious. Look at this part of the Declaration of Independence:

"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

along with the 2nd Amendment:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, ***the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.***"

The intention of our founding fathers is clear.

This government belongs to the people. The people, therefore, need to have the power to take back that government if it begins to get too self-indulgent. That would take some firepower. That's the idea. That's democracy.

It wouldn't take artillery or bombers or missiles. But it would take some firepower, and in order to protect our democracy we have to err on that side.

[MrBenchley]

54. For that matter...

No court anywhere has looked at a case involving the second amendment and said there's anything but a collective right to bear arms in a state militia, of the sort that's now evolved into the National Guard.

The closest the gun lobby has gotten to its wet dream is the Emerson case, in which the most right wing circuit court in the country shoehorned a bunch of NRA propaganda into the marginalia of a case that they ruled did NOT involve the Second Amendment. And the court STILL took away Emerson's guns.

[sandnsea]

57. You miss the point

It's their frame. They holler 2nd Amendment to convince the voters they will die for the Constitution. They fight for the unborn and Terri Schiavo to convince people they care about the most vulnerable, all the sick, poor and disabled. They fight against regulation to convince voters they're removing the frustrating regulations the individual has to deal with, when the only regulation they're really removing is corporate regulation.

It goes along with what JohnnyCougar said yesterday. Stop arguing facts and start arguing impressions. The 2nd Amendment allows them to give the impression they're the party of the constitution, when nothing could be further from the truth.

[MrBenchley]

68. I'm not missing any point...

"Stop arguing facts and start arguing impressions."
Hey, if you want faith-based gibberish with no relation to the real world, there's a party already happily ladling that out. But to try to pretend that facts are meaningless is ridiculous.

[sandnsea]

80. That's worked so well

I want to talk with whatever words that people are able to hear.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3331454

[MrBenchley]

112. Again, if all you weant is to fool the simple-minded

and throw up smokescreens, the GOP is already doing that. And they're pro-gun too!

Of course, they're also the scum of the earth.

[Mass]

41. Not culture of life, culture of violence

Listen to the arguments used in this case. These are the same used during the campaign. Violent verbal assaults against your ennemy. Same thing for abortion foes.

These people are promoting a culture of violence, the same culture that we saw in incidents in Abu Graib, the same one we see every day on TV and that does not seem to disturb them at all.

They instill it in children teaching them how to use firearms at a very young age. They make heroes of criminal and violent policemen on TV.

Dont be surprised some kids jump the gun when they are in a difficult situation as they have been taught that a gun solves everything.

[Silverhair]

45. Teaching PROPER firearms use to children is a GOOD thing.

In fact, I will be helping teach some boys the right way to use guns and gun safety next month at a campout. No, I am not talking about realtives either.

I was taught how to shoot and how to hunt as a boy. Dad gave me a shotgun at age 11. I still have it, although I haven't fired it in about 25 years.

[Dr Ron]

47. At least something we agree on

No question that teaching proper firearms use is a good thing. I'm glad you will be doing such teaching.

[Mass]

49. Well I disagree

and prefer that my kids stay away from weapons. I want them to understand that firearms are dangerous, though I guess my youngest now understands as one of his classmates (8) was hurt by one of his cousins with a weapon the father had kept loaded and unlocked, which is why I think a serious education should be required before anybody can buy and own a firearm.

[sandnsea]

55. Gun safety classes could help that

Maybe, just maybe, the reason murder rates are lower in rural areas is because almost every male has had a gun course by the time they're 16, if not 12 or 14. Maybe we could look to see if there's difference in the way these gun courses are taught in Maine and Louisiana. You don't keep your kids away from cars or swimming pools, you teach them to drive and swim. It's possible that evaluating hunter safety programs could help identify attitudes that lead to gun murders in some places and not in others. I'm for looking at anything that can help stop gun violence.

[Mass]

78. I agree with that.

but my kids are living in greater Boston, so we dont hunt and I certainly dont see any reason for us to teach them how to use a weapon or even for us to own a gun.

I grew up in a rural area and understand that people want to hunt. However, I think that much more severe controls and a more solid education should be given before somebody can buy a firearm and dont think a kid should own his own weapon or to use one without adult supervision.

[sandnsea]

81. If I lived in greater Boston

I would be even more likely to teach my sons about guns. Out here in the sticks, when they come across a kid with a gun, the kid is likely to know how to use it safely. In Boston, it's likely the kid won't. If YOUR kid has the kind of respect for guns BullGooseLooney just posted about, then YOUR kid will be less likely to end up dead. And maybe save a few other lives as well.

If anybody should understand that rules without explanation are worthless, it's liberals. That's why we advocate communication as the primary tool parents should use in raising kids. Except when it comes to guns?? Makes no sense.

[Guaranteed]

79. You know, it's a lot like sex education.

Guns are out there. It's best that you teach them to respect firearms, instead of keeping them ignorant about them. It's important to show them how powerful, exactly, these things are. Becoming familiar with how they work and actually using them is a good way to do that.

It's like when I was in Boy Scouts. We went shooting, and the Scoutmaster was UNBELIEVABLY stern about the handling of the rifles- as he should have been. I still remember what he said to us, before even letting us handle them: "The second you don't respect this rifle, it kills you."

[sendero]

56. More of this...

... this argument tires me but for pete's sake.

You folks who think that "gun control" can solve any problem whatsoever amuse and amaze me. How about "pot control", how is that working out? How is "meth control", "cocaine control", "heroin control" working out?

People are going to do certain things that they feel is their own business and their own right and doesn't hurt anyone else. You can pass laws until your tiny brains freeze, it isn't going to change one goddamn thing on the ground.

This stupid issue is costing us votes and giving us nothing in return. People who want stringent controls on gun ownership are out of the mainstream of American public opinion and should get a clue.

The biggest political cliche of all time is absolutely true "if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns". It's actually a double entendre also.

[sandnsea]

60. false argument out of the gate

"can solve any problem whatsoever"

Jesus Christ, Himself, couldn't solve every problem on the planet when He was right here on earth. If you believe in that sort of thing. Nobody ever claimed that one solution would solve a problem completely.

It's a false, right wing, bullshit, lie to convince you that Republcians are the Constitution Party.

[sendero]

77. That is my argument..

... originated in my mind. I don't pollute my thoughts too much with what passes for thinking of the right wing.

Maybe I can say it another way. People wish to solve problems with laws that cannot be solved with laws. As I've said, reasonable laws are generally well recieved, but when you even talk of a law that hints of making gun ownership difficult or expensive, people are resistant and I don't blame them.

The Democratic party is supposed to be about RIGHTS. Civil rights, human rights. You can't claim that mantle and then say "oh well, not that right and have any credibility. And you cannot punish a whole group of people because of what some might do.

[sandnsea]

87. false arguments

First of all, polls show time and time again that the vast majority of people DO support gun regulation laws. No matter how many times you stick that fact in the face of the gun groupies, they just toss it aside and repeat the lie that people don't want gun laws.

Second, we enact safety laws that whole groups of people have to obey because of what some might do all the time. I have to take a driving test because some other nut might drive without really knowing how. Freedom to travel used to be a right, by the way. The very fact that we have public roads and waterways is based on the freedom to travel. Nobody ever suggested it was a privilege to own a horse and ride it. Cars created unique safety hazards and we responded.

I really do not understand the obsession some people have with guns. That is really the root of it and it has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment or anything else. People didn't have this obsession back in the 50's and 60's, people expected gun regulation. Hunter safety programs were implemented to keep people alive, nobody thought for a second it was a violation of civil rights.

Again, just because Republicans scream 2nd Amendment doesn't mean they're going to die for the Constitution. Anybody who believes that has been duped by the noise machine, plain and simple.

[Silverhair]

91. Yes, there WAS that problem in the 50s & 60s.

I remember the debates back then, and the people that wanted to take the guns away.

[sandnsea]

97. Okeedoke

I don't even remember seeing a gun back in the 60's, people kept them locked up because they were hunting tools. I don't even remember it being a political debate.

[MrBenchley]

111. In fact, guns didn't become a hot issue until the 1970s

when the right needed new code words because it couldn't use the language of Jim Crow openly...

"Guns entered national politics in the 1970s. What is called the gun rights movement sprang into motion against a waning civil rights movement and a growing push for women's rights. One organizer of gun rights from the early '70s put it bluntly when I interviewed him. Conservatives were taking a beating. Something was needed to "reverse the flow in the pipes" of the civil rights movement. The social movements based on the rights of women and minorities had bolstered the Democratic Party. Conservatives who had fought against the gains of civil rights and the Equal Rights Amendment needed to counter. Enter the gun.
And when the gun spoke, it championed the cause of conservative and libertarian America. A proxy politics, the gun rights movement is a potent reaction to the social and political agendas of what is perceived as "liberal America." It takes aim at a range of social solutions for crime, international conflict and personal security. In America, the gun has become a litmus test for political beliefs.
The beginnings of this movement were quiet. In the early '70s, the Young Americans for Freedom, a conservative political organization, started the Student's Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. From it sprang the Second Amendment Foundation and then Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. In those groups a righteous cause and a political vision was born. Guns began their career as key props in a changing political theater. "

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/176458_focus06.html

[Silverhair]

118. I remember the times, so I don't need quotes.

And I remember that it was already an issue. It has heated up more, but it started back then. And calling it a racial issue is pure BS. It is about owning guns - period.

[MrBenchley]

127. I remember them too...

And it certainly is a racial issue...it even borrows the same terminology and has most of the same suspects.

"It is about owning guns - period."
Rubbish.

[sendero]

95. tired arguments...

... nobody argues you have the right to drive a car without proving you have certain qualifications.

nobody minds that with guns either. What they DO mind is silly feel-good legislation and legislation that assumes that there is something wrong with wanting to own a reasonable gun.

for the sake of argument, I consider just about anything except a fully automatic weapon to be reasonable.

BTW - I'm anything but a gun nut. I own a few guns, most of which I have acquired over the last few years when I got some land in the country.

[sandnsea]

99. So you support gun regulation

See there, I told you most people support it. Even you do.

But for whatever bizarre reason, when the discussion goes to what the regulation will be, gun nuts shut down and go into NRA 2nd Amendment mode.

You opened the door to the use of the word gun nut, btw.

[sendero]

100. It doesn't...

.... bother me if you think I'm a "gun nut". I'm a nut, but not of the gun variety :)

Yes, I support reasonable gun regulation, and most people do. but there is a fundamental belief among many Americans that gun ownership is a fundamental right and a bulwark, if only symbolic, against government tyranny.

no doubt these folks thought the tyranny was coming from the left, but many are seeing it coming from the right. I think everyone should own a gun, because that's the best way to ensure that it doesn't come down to that someday.

BTW - I'm not much of a fan of the NRA. Their knee-jerk alarmist reactions to every proposal is tiring, and they continually play the "they're trying to take away your guns" card, and usually that is simply bogus.

[sandnsea]

102. Then we completely agree

And I have no friggin' idea what we're arguing about.

We could move on to who is the bigger nut. :)

[sendero]

109. Me..

.... you'd have no chance whatsoever at winning that one :)

So we are in violent agreement. I hate when that happens :evilgrin:

[sandnsea]

113. Oh, don't count on it

I must have the last word, I MUST I MUST :freak:

[sendero]

114. You shall..

... be denied!

[Silverhair]

66. It was gun control cost Ann Richards the governship against Bush.

Texans wanted an expanded concealed carry law. She was against it. Next election, she was out and Bush was in. The law was then passed & he signed it.

[sendero]

74. And despite the dire predictions..

... of the naysayers, the law has worked out pretty well. I don't know of any incidents that were attributed to that law (I'm not saying there haven't been any, just not well publicized cuz I live here).

There was that case where the delivery driver go shot as he tried to pull someone from a vehicle to beat the shit out of him, the grand jury and I agreed, it was sad but justifiable.

[MrBenchley]

76. But there was no big rush to get concealed carry....

There are still only a relative handful of Texans toting popguns in their pants, and they haven't done anything to cut down crime there...in fact, they've INCREASED it...


"Using data from the Texas Department of Public Safety, the Violence Policy Center found that Texas concealed handgun license holders were arrested for a total of 3,370 crimes between January 1, 1996 and April 30, 2000, including very serious violent offenses like murder, rape, sexual assault, and weapons-related crimes. An analysis of the Texas data also reveals that, between 1996 to 1999, Texas CCW permit holders were arrested for weapon-related offenses at a rate that was 66% higher than that of the general population of Texas. "

http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/research/?page=incident&menu=gvr

"...Texas concealed handgun license holders have been arrested 2,080 times since a law making the permits easier to obtain went into effect—an average of nearly two arrests every day during that time.
Crimes for which license holders were arrested include:
* 15 charges of murder or attempted murder
* 6 charges of kidnapping or false imprisonment
* 28 charges of rape or sexual assault
* 103 charges of assault or aggravated assault with a deadly weapon
* 442 charges of driving while intoxicated
* 30 charges of indecency with children
* 140 drug-related charges
* 70 charges of sexual misconduct"

http://www.vpc.org/press/9903ltk2.htm

I'd love to see the objective evidence that it was gun control, and not, say reproductive choice that beat Ann Richards. For that matter, Chimpy spent more to beat Richards as governor of Texas than Bill Clinton spent to be elected president of all 50 states.

[Silverhair]

86. Interesting that you don't list instances of guns used in defense.

Remember, if the mere display of a gun stops an attack from happening that would have happened otherwise, then that is a valid defensive use of the handgun, even if no shots are fired. Of course the Brady outfit is for the total elimination of handguns from private ownership anyway, so it is to be expected that they would not list any defensive uses of guns.

I don't feel like googling to find some stats on it, especially since a lot of defensive displays are never reported.

[MrBenchley]

90. I don't list UFO sightings either....

"if the mere display of a gun stops an attack from happening that would have happened otherwise, then that is a valid defensive use of the handgun"
And if frogs had waterproof asses, the swamp wouldn't stink.

[Silverhair]

94. Are you saying that guns have never deterred an attack? NT

[MrBenchley]

110. I think it happens every once in a blue moon

and that it's next to meaningless compared to the damage guns cause to the social fabric.

[Silverhair]

117. Then we profoundly disagree.

I know several people who have used the presentation of a gun to stop an attack, and I have done it myself - once. But once is enough to justify the purchase and maintenance of one for my lifetime for me.

The problem is in getting accurate statistics as it isn't something that people who have done it talk about a lot.

Since you see it as extremely rare, then you see the damage done by criminals with guns as the most severe. You do not see the lives saved by armed citizens as being of a significant number and are willing to sacrifice those lives for what you think as the greater good.

I see the lives and damaged saved by the armed citizen as being of a far higher number, enough to outweigh the damage done by criminals with guns.

Further, you speak of guns doing the damage, as if the gun were alive, instead of bad people using guns to do damage. That is also a profound difference.

[MrBenchley]

128. Yeah we do....

"t isn't something that people who have done it talk about a lot."
On the contrary...gun nuts are full of this "I know somebody" crap....

"You do not see the lives saved by armed citizens as being of a significant number"
Nor is there the slightest evidence that there is such a number. There are usually a couple hundred cases of justifiable homicide in a given year, and they're almost always law enforcement personnel.

"you speak of guns doing the damage, as if the gun were alive, instead of bad people using guns to do damage"
And you speak of guns as if they're a holy fetish object, instead of the public menace they are.

[Silverhair]

136. You are leaving out a huge group of events.

""You do not see the lives saved by armed citizens as being of a significant number"
Nor is there the slightest evidence that there is such a number. There are usually a couple hundred cases of justifiable homicide in a given year, and they're almost always law enforcement personnel."

So you only count a gun as saving lives if the criminal is dead? So according to you, if someone is climbing in a window at 3AM and stops and runs away because he saw an armed resident, then that doesn't count as the firearm having saved anyone.

By leaving out the class of events in which a gun is displayed but not fired due to the crook running away, (Shooting a fleeing criminal is NOT legal, nor is it moral.)then you are naturally going to produce biased results.

That is very poor analysis, but then your are beginning with the conclusion and massaging the data to fit your agenda.

[MrBenchley]

139. That IS rich...

"your are beginning with the conclusion and massaging the data to fit your agenda"
WHAT data? You're the one who announced you couldn't produce any figures ot back up these wild-eyed claims. You not only have a preposterous conclusion, but you've got nothing to back it up as well except fantasy.

"So you only count a gun as saving lives if the criminal is dead?"
So of all these cases of "self-defense" a trigger is NEVER pulled? Sure sounds like these threatened crimes aren't crimes at all.

"if someone is climbing in a window at 3AM and stops and runs away because he saw an armed resident"
Sounds more like somebody heard a noise at 3AM, waves his popgun around, and then beats his meat about being another Chuck Norris. But it's nice to know that "law abiding responsible" gun owners don't report attempted break-ins...

[Firethorn]

131. No rush? 1.6% of the population? Well, it is lower than South Dakota.

Sure, some have been arrested. But you fail to give some important facts, like just how many Texans have CCW permits. Your 'handful' is around 1.6% of the population. (South Dakota wins at 7.45%)

http://www.tsra.com/arrests.htm

Thus, with "Almost 2 percent" of the population having a permit, does an arrest rate of "2 a day" seem excessive? It's seven times lower than the general population!

Texas CCW permit holders were arrested for weapon-related offenses at a rate that was 66% higher than that of the general population of Texas. "

Now here's a mealy wording. "Weapon related offenses". This includes everything where a firearm makes an appearance. Dirty little secret. Texas policy back then was to arrest any CCW holder who had to use his or her weapon. Heck, even accidentally flashing(showing the weapon, or it's imprint on a shirt when you bend over) is illegal. When you look at the conviction rates, they were much lower than for normal citizens, the CCW holders were frequently found innocent. Most of the rest is forgetful permit holders who wandered into the numerous 'no carry areas'.

[MrBenchley]

134. Thanks for making my point...

It's ludicrous to the point of near insanity to describe a program that less than 2% of the population want as "popular"...

"with "Almost 2 percent" of the population having a permit, does an arrest rate of "2 a day" seem excessive?"
Yeah, it does...especially considering that the gun lobby assured the public that ONLY "law-abiding responsible gun owners" would get permits.

"Most of the rest is forgetful permit holders who wandered into the numerous 'no carry areas'."
<sarcasm>Jeeze, there's the sort of people who ought to be wandering around with popguns in their pants...</sarcasm>

[Dr Ron]

67. Problems with current laws don't mean there should be no laws

True, the current "war on drugs" is bad policy. Does that mean that heroin should be legal for everyone, even kids? Unless you think that, you are agreeing to some form of "heroin control." Same applies to gun control.

We don't want to outlaw guns, and supporting rational controls is not out of the mainstream of American opinion.

[sendero]

73. Well - the devil is in the details...

... I do support "rational" controls. I support background checks, as we have right now. I don't mind reasonable (3 days) waiting periods on handgun purchases.

The Assault Weapons Ban was ludicrous, and it cost us a lot of political capital and gained us nothing.

[Dr Ron]

84. Agree--some regulations good, some aren't

The assault weapons law did have problems. Note that the Democrats did give up on it when it expired.

[Silverhair]

96. Yes, but the Democrats are saddled with the blame for it.

It was our party that pushed it. And look at the howl here on DU when it expired, and all the liberal columnists that screamed about the expiration. So we are stuck with the gungrabber label.

[LSK]

65. Culture of Life means the Braindead and unborn ONLY

The living need not apply.

[Leilani]

69. Hypocrisy on both sides!

Dems don't want me to have guns or smoke, yet they are in favor of abortion & gay rights.

Repubs will allow me to smoke & have a gun, yet don't want me to be able to have an abortion or choose my partner.

I say, stay away from my body, my bedroom, my house, my privacy.

[Silverhair]

72. Applause !!!! NT

[Guaranteed]

75. YES. Jesus. nt

[sandnsea]

88. You can have guns and smoke

I never saw a Dem propose a constitutional amendment banning guns and smoking.

Such bullshit arguments coming from Democrats and we wonder why we lose.

[Silverhair]

93. But it IS from our party that increasing restrictions on them come from.

Sorry, but that is fact. It is from Democrats that various laws on smoking are put forward. And it is to the Democrats that the gungrabbers look to for legislative help.

[sandnsea]

103. "Democrats saddled with the blame"

And there you go helping by using words like gun grabber.

Democrats should stop advocating sensible laws because it makes a right winger uncomfortable? I thought we were supposed to stop bending over for them. :shrug:

[Silverhair]

119. The laws the gungrabbers in our party want are NOT sensible. NT

[Leilani]

98. Not a Bullshit argument

And WE wonder why we lose.

It was liberals who decided smoking was worse than murder. Elliot Spitzer has just worked out an agreement with ALL credit card companies to stop Indian tribes from selling smokes on the internet.
And they are going after people for back taxes. Talk about Big Brother!

So much for Sovereign Indian Nations.

Liberals are behind ALL the gun shit, which has CONSISTENTLY lost votes for Dems in red states. I have lived in rural areas where you hunt to eat, & the police are 60 miles away.

I don't see ANYTHING in the Constitution about abortion, gay rights, etc., but we have the 2nd Amendment. And the Founding Fathers had a fear of the tyranny of the govt.

It is not up to EITHER side to determine my personal decisions.

PS: Goose hunting photo ops don't cut it.

[sandnsea]

101. Who is fighting for the Constitution now?

Don't give me that tyranny of the government protect the constitution line. Again, just because gun nuts scream 2nd Amendment, it doesn't mean they will really die for ALL of the Constitution.

Gun regulation hasn't lost Democrat's votes. People support gun regulation, even in rural areas. They certainly do in the rural areas that I've lived in since 1980. That stupid 2nd Amendment NRA right wing lobby lie has lost Democrats votes. And Democrats who are stupid enough to believe it.

Nobody likes taxes, not cigaette taxes, or alcohol, gasoline, or any other tax. It isn't a liberal conspiracy to make your life miserable though.

[Leilani]

105. The problem I have with you is that YOU determine

what makes me a "good Dem." I'm still free to my opinions, as much as you may dislike that. I don't attack people personally for what they believe.

The tobacco issue is more than an argument about smoking. People all over the South grew tobacco to supplement their low wages. Indian tribes, because they are sovereign, sold tobacco to raise money, & after what the govt has done to them, they could certainly use the income. Therefore huge groups of people are losing their livelihood
because of the gov'ts interference.

I've paid more in taxes on cigs than healthcare will require in 3 lifetimes. But I'd like to see the sales benefit someone other the govt.

And if I keep getting threats from the thought police, I may take a hike, along with millions of other folks who got fed up. God knows I had to hold my nose to vote last time around.

[sandnsea]

106. So you're a single issue smoking voter

Is that it?

People are free to have whatever opinion they want. But don't be surprised or disappointed when you advocate Republican opinions and Republicans win. There's more than one way to be repug-lite. I'm tired of people who put blinders on when it comes to their pet issues, but refuse to recognize that what they rail against might be just as important to another Democrat. Which in no way means I'm determining who is and isn't a "good Dem", only that ALL Dems should be respected, even Joe Lieberman. (But maybe not Zell Miller)

[Leilani]

107. You continue to insult my intelligence.

I was merely trying to explain that actions have reactions.

Your consistent pigeon-holing me into your own little box of beliefs &
stands, files me along with Joe Lieberman, a man I detest.

Just leave me alone, & get on to lecturing someone else, who needs your advice on what to believe.

[sandnsea]

108. The exact opposite

I said Democrats need to stop pigeon-holing themselves and accept that there are many beliefs and opinions in this party. But that the way we talk about those beliefs has been helping Republicans more than its been helping ourselves. I get just as angry when Lieberman talks in a way that ignores Democrats who don't believe the way he does. It's a two-way street.

How you can interpret that as putting you in the same box as Joe Lieberman is beyond me.

[Silverhair]

120. Self delete. Accidental duplicate.

[montana500]

92. drop the gun control, folks. We will never win the House again

gun control in the cities, but locally. Nothing else.

[sandnsea]

104. Rural people care about gun deaths

I can't imagine anything that would make a rural person feel worse than to find out their gun was stolen and used to kill a little kid. All we have to do is appeal to their better angels in helping keep guns out of the hands of criminals and locked up where they can't be stolen. I have lived in rural America my entire adult life and I know these people are not selfish gun nut assholes.

[Sparkly]

116. I think it's more than their better angels, actually

Would you be against Child Access Prevention laws that hold adults responsible if they were negligent in storing a gun, and a child took it and injured someone with it?

What if accidents could be prevented with manufacturing standards?

Or laws requiring gun owners to know how to use and store guns?

Or laws holding gun dealers responsible if they didn't secure guns in their shop to a given, reasonable standard, and they were stolen and used criminally?

I think any of those are worth consideration.

[Firethorn]

122. Gun education may help...

Would you be against Child Access Prevention laws that hold adults responsible if they were negligent in storing a gun, and a child took it and injured someone with it?

It depends a bit on your definition of "child" and "negligent", but yes. For example, if my (theoretical) 16 year old son took a crowbar/torch to my locked gun cabinet, would I be considered liable under the law?

What if accidents could be prevented with manufacturing standards?

What's your definition of a manufacturing standard? Gun companies have been succesfully sued when the firearm fails or explodes. This is very rare. However, there have been cases where people have sued, saying that 'this firearm is defective' because it requires the safety to be off to be unloaded. Little mention is made of the fact that the person handling the firearm pulled the trigger with the safety off. Many 'safety features' that people who obtain firearms for self-defense consider detriments/safety hazards, not safety features. For example, the magazine disconnect, which renders the firearm unable to fire without a magazine inserted. The problem with this is the tatical combat reload. This is where, having expended some number of rounds, but being in a time of momentary safety, you swap out the magazine. There is still a round in the chamber. This means that I still have one shot before insertion of the new magazine, in case I was incorrect about the situation being safe. Also, many of these 'features' increase the complexity of the gun, thus reducing it's reliability while increasing it's cost.

I have a CZ75BD pistol. If you look it up, it's a semi-automatic handgun with a hammer release instead of a manual safety, no magazine disconnect, etc. It does have a number of internal safeties to ensure that a round will not fire unless the trigger is pulled. On the other hand, it is also extremely reliable in firing a round and chambering the next one when the trigger is pulled. I follow the 4 rules of gun safety with it. I have actually been taught to not rely on any mechanical safety, because they can fail. The mass between your ears is the best safety you can have. Please note that with some differences(mine tends to be more forgiving on ammo selection), it's essentially identical in function to the standard Glock, which also doesn't have a manual safety.

Or laws requiring gun owners to know how to use and store guns?

You can get into the case here where they simply increase the requirements until nobody can pass. I prefer the proposed Arizona model, where they make gun safety(to include firing) a public school class.

Or laws holding gun dealers responsible if they didn't secure guns in their shop to a given, reasonable standard, and they were stolen and used criminally?

Again, what's your definition of reasonable and mine are probably two different matters. I agree with you, in moderation. At the same time, are you going to hold a car dealer responsible to some extent if a crook steals a car off the lot and commits vehicular homicide with it?

Besides, accidental gun deaths have been declining for decades. Like what was said earlier, a 1% decline in drownings would save more lives than a 10% reduction in shooting deaths.

4 Rules of Gun Safety:
1: A firearm is always loaded.
2: never point your firearm at anything you aren't willing to destroy
3: keep your finger off the trigger until you're ready to fire'
4: Be aware of your target and what's behind it.

Think about these four rules for a minute. How many have to be violated for you to shoot your friend by accident?

I'll tell you what, drop all firearms legislation since the early 50's except for:
brady background check
institute firearms safety training in schools because you never know, like with pill bottles, when one will be found laying outside.
Storage requirements for dealers will be tightened up a bit(I'm thinking shatterproof windows and force-resistant doors).
You'll be held liable for manslaughter if a child(12-) gets ahold of your gun and hurts himself or another with it.
Gun manufacturers are held to the same safety requirements as makers of other tools. It malfunctions and hurts somebody, they(or relatives) can sue.
Happy?

[montana500]

124. sorry, no new gun laws. Bad, bad bad.

We lost congress and recent prez elections because federal gun laws. The #1 reason we are losing huge chunks of union votes is because of federal gun laws.

MAke gun control a local city issue, and push for educational programs and gun safety programs.

[MrBenchley]

133. What a ludicrous argument in every way...

pResident Dumfuk and his GOP gang had to publicly pretend to be for gun control to fool moderate voters.

It's hilarious to hear that the sort of bigoted humhole who rejects every aspect of the Democratic program will accept it happily if we announce he can play with his popgun and to hell with public safety.

[Silverhair]

126. Already done.

"Would you be against Child Access Prevention laws that hold adults responsible if they were negligent in storing a gun, and a child took it and injured someone with it?"

Parents are already responsible for the actions of their children

"What if accidents could be prevented with manufacturing standards?"

They are already safe with proper use. Adding anything else will interfer with the ability to easily, quickly, and reliably use the gun in an emergency.

"Or laws requiring gun owners to know how to use and store guns?"

I don't mind the idea of having a basic gun owners liscense, as long as it isn't used as a tool to deny gun ownership to ordinary citizens.

"Or laws holding gun dealers responsible if they didn't secure guns in their shop to a given, reasonable standard, and they were stolen and used criminally?"

Unneeded. Do you think gun shop owners want their guns stolen? They know already that they are a high crime target and already take strong precautions. Robbery of a gun shop is very rare.

[Silverhair]

121. A proposal that may satisfy both sides, except for extremists.

You know the gun nut saying: "Guns don't kill people. People kill people." And the gungrabbers response of: "Yeah, but they use guns to do it with."

My gripe against the gungrabbers is that they want to make my life more difficult by attacking guns themselves and that this has no effect on criminals. Their gripe with me is that they think I don't want any gun control at all.

It is definitely true that owning any kind of firearm, even an antique involves certain serious responsibilities. And all of us probably know somebody who should not be allowed to have any gun, and others that are extremely poorly informed about them and have them anyway.

So I propose a series of gun ownership licenses. The lowest level would be basic ownership and would apply to long guns (Rifles & shotguns) only. For that level they would have to take a basic course and pass a test on gun safety and on legal use of a gun in self defense. Also a basic background check. The course should be cheap enough and basic enough that it would not be a barrier to gun ownership. As a person wanted to move up in levels they would take the appropriate courses. Suggested levels would be:

Basic ownership - long guns

Handgun ownership - Any type of handgun

Concealed Carry - Needs deeper background check, and has to demonstrate proficiency in the use of the gun.

Concealed Carry - Level II - This would be law enforcement affiliated, although not actually an officer. Would be able to carry concealed even in many areas where they normally can't be carried. Would be able to buy full auto with some restrictions.

Law Enforcement - Self explanatory, no restrictions

In each class you would be able to buy whatever you wanted that was legal for that class. With each class would go extra responsibilities.

The emphasis would be on people instead of an inanimate object. An ordinary citizen of ordinary intelligence and a clean record should have no difficulty going up to Concealed Carry level one.

Obviously, in a few sentences one can't make a full plan, but that is enough to see the general thrust of the idea. It think it is a type of gun control that both sides could get along with.

What do the readers think?

[Firethorn]

123. Suggested modifications.

Hmmm...

Basic Ownership level should be public education level. That way you hopefully avoid accidents like where the babysitter held the handgun, including the trigger, and while trying to unload it, took it off safety while pointing it at his charge. I mean, it's on safe, it wasn't accessible to the kid (placed too high), why did you feel the need to unload an unfamiliar weapon? While being totally ignorant of where the barrel was pointing?

Also, I'd want Lvl II to be accessible to the ordinary (clean background) citizen.

I'd also have a modifications for the civilians who want full-autos. Maybe make it a mod, like commercial drivers license or motorcycle endorsement.

So you'd have:
Rifle/shotgun, handgun.
Endorsements:
Lvl I/II concealed carry
Full Auto

[Silverhair]

125. Everything open for discussion.

I have some problems with the full auto thing. Anyway, it wasn't be to be a specific plan but a very general outline that I think would work.

Having part of it as basic education, kind of like driver's education is a good idea. A few hours of gun safety in school sound decent. Have them handle the types of guns and know how to unload them and make them safe. That part I can get behind.

[MrBenchley]

129. My gripe about gun nuts

is that they routinely babble right wing propaganda, as if their brains had stopped working...

"My gripe against the gungrabbers"
Tell us please...WHO are these gun grabbers? John Kerry? Charles Schumer?

[Firethorn]

130. Gun grabber names?

Dianne Feinstein, Barbara Boxer, John Kerry, and Edward Kennedy are the big names. Notice a trend?

Feinstein is the biggest name recalled as a 'gun-grabber'. Of course, her statement explains why- "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them, Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in, I would have done it."

Boxer makes a close second because she sponsors most anti-gun legislation.

Kerry makes the list simply because he has a history of voting yes for every gun control measure, and actually flew in while campaigning for president to vote for the AWB ban amendment to a piece of legislature.

Edward Kennedy because he wants to ban all cartridges capable of penetrating police level vests, including rifle cartridges. While the proposed legislation made comments about ammunition marketed as AP, or specifically designed for it, he actually mentioned the .30-30 cartridge. Just to let you know, the .30-30 was never a military round, is one of the lightest .30 caliber rounds, and is actually one of the original smokeless powder rounds. It's considered a good deer rifle out to moderate range. The round will go through a level 2 vest like a knife through butter. Of course, any center fire rifle cartridge will go through a lvl 2 vest. It takes at least a level 3 with plates to stop even the lighter rifle calibers. Remember the bulky vests worn by the troops in Iraq? Those are level 4 vests, and they weigh 29 pounds. A little heavy for normal police work.

[MrBenchley]

132. Yes, I do notice a trend...

Dianne Feinstein, Barbara Boxer, John Kerry, and Edward Kennedy are liberals who are also in favor of economic justice, workers' rights, reproductive choice, environmental regulation, diversity and tolerance, public education, etc. etc. etc. So of course gun nuts hate them with a white hot passion.

"Feinstein is the biggest name recalled as a 'gun-grabber'. Of course, her statement explains why- "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them, Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in, I would have done it.""
And she was talking about assault weapons. And most Americans agree with her statement--even the GOP knew it was political suicide to come out and say they thought these public menaces should be on the market.

"Kerry makes the list simply because he has a history of voting yes for every gun control measure, and actually flew in while campaigning for president to vote for the AWB ban amendment to a piece of legislature."

By the way, want to tell us what legislature that was? It was the disgraceful "Get Away With Murder" bill that would have protected the gun industry against lawsuits by the victims of gun violence.

Another amusing anecdote that shows how dishonest the gun lobby and its sycophants are: Besides the AWB ban amendment, Democrats also attached a "close the gun show loophole" amendment, another bit of regulation Americans overwhelmingly support.

And despite years of effort and millions of dollars of propaganda by the gun lobby announcing that the AWB "does nothing" and that "there is no gun show loophole," when those provisions were passed, the NRA ordered Republicans to scuttle the bill rahter than risk banning assault weapons and closing the gun show loophole. Thus demonstrating what dishonest pieces of crap they are.

And despite all the horseshit about gun lovers being lovers of freedom, the Republicans turned on a dime when the NRA ordered them to. Mao's Red Guard couldn't have obeyed with more lockstep precision and urgency.

[Firethorn]

141. Why are they against private firearm ownership?

Again, what is an assault weapon?

Here's a question for you:

Is a M-16, the rifle that the US Military uses most often, considered an 'assault weapon'?

-Answer: Actually, as a select fire rifle, by the AWB, the M-16 is NOT considered an Assault Weapon. It is an Assault rifle, the definition of which is a select fire rifle designed to be fired from the shoulder, firing an intermediate cartridge (IE a weak one). There is no real practical difference between an 'assault weapon' and any other semi-auto.

Can you explain, just what the 'gun show loophole' is?

And yes, I want to own my own assault rifle.

Dianne Feinstein, Barbara Boxer, John Kerry, and Edward Kennedy are liberals who are also in favor of economic justice, workers' rights, reproductive choice, environmental regulation, diversity and tolerance, public education, etc. etc. etc. So of course gun nuts hate them with a white hot passion.

Then why are they against firearm ownership? I'm for those things as well, so why the sudden flip on gun rights? Though what the heck is 'economic justice'? And, no, gun owners don't hate them for that. They hate them because they see them trying to take their guns away.

As for letting the gun manufacturers get away with murder, how about suing Ford, GM and such for drunk driving deaths? Both are about as relevant.

[MrBenchley]

142. Again, why don't you find out what they actually say

instead of mindlessly repeating right wing gibberish?

"Again, what is an assault weapon?"
Gee, if you don't know, what do you care?


"There is no real practical difference between an 'assault weapon' and any other semi-auto."
If that were true, gun nuts wouldn't be endlessly creaming their jeans over assault weapons. The gun lobby wouldn't have scuttled their own immunity bill if that were true.

"I'm for those things as well"
ARE you? Funny then that you seem to put your popgun ahead of those much more important issues.

"And, no, gun owners don't hate them for that. "
Sez you. Try checking out one of the on-line gun owners forums, which are right wing cesspools.

"As for letting the gun manufacturers get away with murder, how about suing Ford, GM and such for drunk driving deaths? "
And yet we don't see the car manufacturers trying to get special immunity....

[MrBenchley]

135. A Bit More Hypocrisy on Guns from the "Culture of Life"

"SHOT: Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld criticized the Venezuelan government's plan to buy 100,000 assault rifles from Russia, saying that it could further destabilize an already tumultuous region. "I can't imagine what's going to happen to 100,000 AK-47's.... I can't imagine why Venezuela needs 100,000 AK-47's... I just hope that, personally hope, that it doesn't happen... I can't imagine that if it did happen, that it would be good for the hemisphere."

CHASER: Bush promised in 2000 that he would sign an extension of the assault weapon ban, but never pressed Congress to send him a bill and its Republican leaders never did."

http://dcinsidescoop.blogspot.com/2005/03/rumsfeld-concerned-about-assault.html