People on here should not be allowed to advocate for health care reform

[HopeAgain]

unless they understand our healthcare delivery systems in much greater detail. Accountable care organizations, Medicare conditions of participation, MIPs, EHR, and all the rest. Details matter. The fact that people are dying without adequate healthcare is not relevant to the discussion.

And in case you miss it, this is aimed at the gunsplainers and this is

[Abnredleg]

1. The problem isn't advocacy

It's writing policy, and I'm sure we would want subject matter experts to write our healthcare legislation..

[HopeAgain]

2. Then lets tell our legislators to ban assault weapons

and let them figure out the details of the regulation. I've yet to hear a single gunsplainer say yes, there are guns, currently legal, that should be banned.

[Abnredleg]

5. There are guns currently legal that need to be banned

Now - which guns?

[HopeAgain]

6. Instead of just saying its complicated

why dont those with knowledge lead the way? The federal government regulates things far more complicated than munitions.

If you know guns, tell us what guns should be banned. I honestly don't see the same level of obfuscation with other progressive issues on here.

[Abnredleg]

9. It depends on where the destination is

Too many progressives want to ban all weapons so why should supporters of less restrictive gun control assist them? It's the "it's a good first step" problem. Most gun supporters agree with proposals such as UBC for all sales or limits on sizes of magazines but why would they support progressives if the ultimate result of their cooperation is the loss of their guns?

Edit: And it is complicated - politically, socially and technically. You want simple solutions to complex issues and that won't work. And banning weapons is not a simple solution - it alleviates the issue of dealing with technology but not the other problems

[flamin lib]

12. Really? Too many progressives? All guns?

And too many gunsplaiers have their heads so far up their ass they actually believe that NRA shit. That means that we can't rely on them for reasoned discussion.

That leaves us to fix the problem without them.

[Abnredleg]

23. Yes - you hear it often

More typically, they propose only allowing a type of weapon that will make illegal almost all weapons. They can then piously claim that they made a great concession, and when you point out the problems they go into their rant about "gunsplaining". It's the equivalent of men deciding women's reproductive heath policy.

Guns are a complicated issue, there is a technical component to it, and if you don't take that into account then the result will be bad legislation. The mess that was the AWB should serve as clear warning to all of us on what happens when you ignore the underlying technology.

[flamin lib]

32. Okay. I know guns. Their history and evolution. Have had a FFL

(C&R now lapsed). Have had military training including long range marksmanship. During the Vietnam Moritorium even had a code name. Had a slot on the First Army Area rifle team.

I know guns.

I also know that the NRA position of "not one inch" echoed by the muzzle falating gun advocates right here on DU is the single reason the US is the number one wealthy industrialized country for gun violence in general and mass shootings in particular. If you wish to take that personally I won't try to consloie you.

All this informs my opinion that the ONLY SOLUTION to gun violence in the US is the Austria Solution. Ban all guns that can be fired rapidly including all semi auto, pump action and lever action fire arms.

That simplify the issue for you?

[Abnredleg]

34. No Need to Consol Me

Words are just words.

As to my position, it's not "not one inch". You would probably agree with 90% of my position - I just think that your final step is unworkable. Would you be willing to work with someone like me to achieve 90% of your goals, or do I fail your litmus test? Gun control will live or die in the political arena, and you need to recruit allies and create coalitions to succeed. I would work with you to achieve UCB, magazine limits, training requirements and a host of other things, but you're not exactly making it easy, are you?

[flamin lib]

46. I do not believe you. Until my comments hit at the core of your

"Progressives are too ignorant to legislate" your posts in this thread have only attacked the idea that legislation can be written.

The Austrian solution worked. Don't tell me that our "gun culture" is too deeply ingrained. Australia was a prison colony for fuck sake.

31% of households have guns. Of that 31% more than half support a semi auto ban. So less than 15% of the entire country is preventing such a ban.

It passed in Australia, it worked there. Don't piss on my shoes and tell me its raining.

If you are sincere don't negotiate with me. Negotiate with that tiny minority preventing meaningful change.

[Abnredleg]

58. It Can be Written

Last edited Thu Mar 1, 2018, 03:08 PM - Edit history (1)

I'm arguing that, based on my experiences with legislation, that it needs to incremental, and that eventually we can get effective gun control. What I don't think is possible is going for something as broad as they did in Australia is at all possible in one fell swoop. UCBs, magazine sizes and age limits are broadly popular and are achievable as a first step - broad sweeping bans are hugely unpopular and will not pass. As to number of households, a lot of gun support comes from non-gun owners who either are supportive of individual rights or are using guns as a proxy to fight the cultural and political wars in a different arena.

[kcr]

68. Eventually we can get gun control. It will never happen if we don't fight like hell for it.

Our deadlocked political system makes sweeping change difficult, but not because liberals and gun control advocates want too much. Change happens in our system when we keep applying pressure. That's how we got healthcare reform. You don't scale back, you press harder.

[Abnredleg]

71. You're Absolutely Right

the current stalemate will slowly break as the boomers die and the younger generations step up their participation in the political process. You have to keep the issue in front of new voters so they make good decisions.

[Squinch]

81. Beautiful!

Great point about the percentage. Should be an OP.

[dbackjon]

42. Bull crap. There a few that do that

Vast majority are fine with shotguns, non-assault rifles, handguns, etc.

[EffieBlack]

62. They're not saying "it's complicated."

They're saying "It's too complicated for YOU" so you need to stay out of the conversation.

And then they go back to not having any conversation at all because that's really the point.

[ret5hd]

3. Then ya'll get off your asses and help them write something effective...

'cause all I ever hear ya'll saying is "NO!".

[Abnredleg]

4. Or you can educate yourself

and help them write it. That way it will meet your needs.

[ret5hd]

8. It won't matter. Ya'll will always be "NO!".

[Abnredleg]

11. And Ya'll will always be "Take"

[flamin lib]

13. Because you always say NO.

[Paleologue]

16. Yep, Obama did nothing

but take your guns for 8 years. Or so the gun-humpers would have us believe.

[Abnredleg]

19. I don't own any guns

I work in government, have an appreciation of how the legislative process works, and understand how incredibly hard it is to push policy. I suspect we agree on most things dealing with gun control but our approaches are very different. Compromise and incrementalism is the only way to move this ball forward, and insulting people who disagree with your approach doesn't create the allies necessary to make progress. You will have to convince at least some gun supporters of your positions if they are to vote in the legislators needed to pass gun control, and your behavior will just drive them away.

[Paleologue]

21. When people like you falsely claim

that "libruls" want to "take" everyone's guns, whose agenda does that advance, other than right-wing gunhumpers?

[Abnredleg]

24. When progressives

make gun control proposals that amount to confiscation, whose agenda does that advance other than right-wing partisans.? Gun control has been a disaster for our party and created many lost opportunities for us. We need a more moderate, incremental approach that will allow us to recruit the necessary number of gun supporters to win elections.

Oh, and I do considered myself a liberal.

[Paleologue]

28. Why don't you answer my question?

I automatically distrust the motives and intellectual honesty of people who dodge direct questions.

Nobody here believes for a minute that gunhumpers like you are interested in compromise of any kind.

[Abnredleg]

39. I didn't intend to make a blanket statement

about liberals since I consider myself a liberal democrat and obviously our viewpoints are very different. It is true that the Democrat's platform for the past few campaigns state that the right to bear arms is an individual right, something that President Obama has stated several times, so obviously as democrats we support the right of all Americans to own weapons. There are, however, many on this site that would impose restrictions on that right that are tantamount to a ban.

I apologize for any lack of clarity

[AtheistCrusader]

29. It plays right into the right wing's hands.

The proposed legislation today is the juiciest red meat the far right could have hoped for. We will not hear the end of it.

[Sophia4]

50. Gun fanatics always emphasize the guns.

But the real issue is the grief, the sorrow, the lost children.

The real issue is unnecessary deaths.

If we focus on the deaths, on the pain of the families who "survive" if we can call it that, then we get the right perspective.

It is not a matter of depriving people of guns. It is a matter of saving lives, of protecting the innocent.

Let's focus on what matters.

Whether someone gets a thrill and feels powerful with a gun is not very important.

What is important is saving lives, saving families.

My father was a minister. He used to say based on his experience counseling families, that the worst pain in the world is the loss of a child. Marriages fail, people fall apart and cannot be healed after the loss of their child.

Guns cause children (and others) to die needlessly.

The focus in the gun conversation should be not on the sorrow of the gun-sick fanatics when their guns are taken away or made harder to get, but on saving lives and protecting the innocent who DIE from guns.

[femmedem]

83. I'm really enjoying your posts

even though I do support an assault weapons ban.

I also believe we probably will get there incrementally, as we did with same sex marriage and are in the process of doing with legalization of marijuana.

It's a pleasure to hear someone argue calmly and intelligently even if we don't agree 100%. And you are assuredly correct that we drive away potential allies with name-calling and an unwillingness to hear the other side of an argument.

For what it's worth, I'm about as liberal as they come, but I've also worked in government.

[LanternWaste]

20. You certainly make many creative allegations.

You certainly make many creative allegations.

[Abnredleg]

26. Not really

There is a lot of frustration and anger and it is bringing out the worst in the controllers. Anger that just makes it harder to create the necessary alliances to advance legislation.

[justhanginon]

43. Yes, and given the recent gun related massacre in Parkland Florida

there is certainly no reason why any rational thinking person would be frustrated and angry. No reason at all!

[Abnredleg]

57. I understand completely

I think part of the problem is how people deal with situations like this. I'm an introverted IT geek, and once I get past the initial shock I go into analysis mode, trying to figure out solutions and the pathway to that solution. Anger then becomes an obstacle to clear thinking (I'm speaking strictly of myself here). I'm not an overly emotionally demonstrative person but that doesn't mean I don't care. If I reject a proposal you might make, it's because I don't think it will be effective, not that I'm indifferent to the death of children.

[justhanginon]

59. Fair enough! I tend to be an emotional person but not

to the point of irrationality however when every time anything is proposed in this joke of a congress it is immediately rejected even before it is brought to the floor for a vote as they are doing even now. The same old crap excuses time after time when you know the reality is that they have been bought off by the GD gun lobby.
MEANWHILE PEOPLE ARE DYING DAILY FROM GD GUN VIOLENCE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Abnredleg]

60. I Place My Hopes On The Next Generation

[kcr]

69. You bet your ass we will. Because that's how it works.

Don't like it? Work to change the system. You can thank our system of government designed for deadlock rather than consensus and compromise. Nothing happens unless huge amounts of pressure are applied.

[HopeAgain]

7. My point exactly...

[LanternWaste]

22. Who is arguing otherwise? No one.

"we would want subject matter experts to write our healthcare legislation..."
Who is arguing otherwise? No one.

Why then argue a point no one is making if not to better validate your own narrative?

Of course, you could point to a post indicating the sentiment "I don't want experts to be involved in legislation..." to support your assertion. But I doubt that's going to happen.

[elmac]

10. New commercial on local TV

claiming its selling new health insurance do to law changes, not overpriced Obama care insurance. Its a sick capitalistic country we live in now and lying to consumers is A okay.

[el_bryanto]

14. It is an an interesting argument

On the one hand I think that knowing more makes your argument stronger; on the other hand expecting only experts to be allowed to speak does kind of limit the discussions - particularly when it comes to guns when those who are experts on firearms tend to be in favor of a lot of firearms.

Bryant

[SHRED]

15. Why not make it real simple?

Hunting rifles and a select few handguns for personal protection with documented need only.

[Shrek]

27. Why restrict hunting to rifles?

Birds cannot be effectively hunted with rifles and it fact it would be dangerous to do so. Shotguns are much more suitable.

[AtheistCrusader]

17. If you're going to say X element of the health care industry should be illegal

You should be able to offer a credible explanation of what X is, why it matters, and what effects outlawing it will have.

So, I accept your standard, as it is implemented on gun issues, and look forward to vigorous and informed discussions in the future on both topics.

[HopeAgain]

18. It matters because...

guns like AR15s can kill too many people too quickly. It matters because high velocity munitions tear up the insides of people so they can't be saved. It matters because they can shoot too many people without reloading.

Is it really that complicated?

[AtheistCrusader]

25. It is complicated.

For reasons you are clearly not aware of, just in how you phrased that.

Please understand this.

EVERY rifle round will 'tear up' humans. The .223 from an AR-15 is FUCKING PISSWEAK. Please understand that. When people say 'oh, keep your hunting rifle', you're talking about the same .223 that isn't legal for deer hunting in most of America, because it is too WEAK to kill a deer. In my state, .240 is the legal minimum for anything bigger than a coyote. The military is constantly debating upgrading the current rifles they use to 6.5 or going all the way back to .308 NATO, because they are fighting ~250lb deer that sometimes wear armor, and shoot back, and .223 is just not what you described it as. (Caveat, civilians can use hollow-point and military are limited by treaty to FMJ Ball, and that DOES produce a wound characteristic difference, granted.)

When you say it can kill too many people too quickly, that's an arbitrary line in the sand, and ANY semi-auto can meet or exceed it. So what do we use? Cyclic rate? Anything that can pump through >500 rounds per minute? Nevermind that if you tried, the AR-15 would catch on FIRE. Do we ban all semi-autos? Do you have any idea at all how many firearms, how many gun owners, liberal and conservative that might be?


And on the effectiveness, It's like I'm stuck in the maddening position of trying to explain why a particular thing that is POPULAR, isn't the most EFFECTIVE, yet I have to keep in mind that I don't want to help people who actually want to inflict damage with these things, find the more effective weapons to do it with.

To put it another way, as the father of an 8 year old in the third grade, who attends a public school whose physical security is middling at best... It is important to me that people understand WHY the AR-15 is commonly used for this purpose, and how to target the behavior, because the last thing I want is some fuckwit nutbag unable to obtain an AR-15, and instead grabbing a SCAR-H or an AR-10 or any other number of functionally identical rifles in a bigger caliber, and shooting up some place with that instead.

.233 isn't a magic death ray. Contrary to popular commentary these days, it was not designed to shred humans. It is a compromise on power, and weight, because when troops have to slog through Vietnam and Korea, they have to have all the ammo they need in a firefight ON them. They had to CARRY it. More rounds means better odds in the fight. Shitbag walking from his car to a school doesn't have to worry so much about weight. You do NOT want one of these people selecting .308 instead, bad as .223 is, the reality could be a LOT worse.

To put another way, nobody who knew they were going into a gunfight in the next five minutes, would grab an AR-15 off the shelf, when there's an AR-10 sitting next to it. Nobody grabs a SCAR-L over a SCAR-H. Nobody grabs an AR-15 over a FN-FAL.

For a culture so steeped in guns, there's a vast culture of ignorance around firearms, and it has upsides and downsides. By all means, let's work on regulations, but please do some research so you can begin with the end in mind. Guns 'like AR's' aren't the problem, without indicting any semi-auto with a detachable magazine ever made, sold, or imported.

[HopeAgain]

31. So you don't want to ban any guns?

Yes or no?

By the way:

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/02/what-i-saw-treating-the-victims-from-parkland-should-change-the-debate-on-guns/553937/

[AtheistCrusader]

33. I read that article.

You would not want to see the same article if the shooter had used an AR-10.


I'll answer your question slightly differently. If we're going to ban some guns, we need to ban a scope of features. To meaningfully restrict the two indicators you highlighted (power and firing rate) we basically need to do all semi-auto long guns. Possibly all semi-auto handguns, if you think back to Virginia Tech.


Speaking to power only, there is no cartridge sufficiently weak enough to be fired at humans and be less problematic from a murder/death standpoint. SO maybe we do need to ban them all. I don't personally like that answer, but if that's a conversation we need to have, then lets have it. 'Lets ban AR-15's' is counter-productive and will not increase public safety in any meaningful way, AND it will harm our ability to explore meaningful regulation in the future.

As Bill Clinton noted after his mid-terms due to the passage of the CAWB and the fallout from that, it may further erode our ability to pass legislation AT ALL.

[HopeAgain]

36. This is a crucial discussion but we need a starting place

and "it is too complicated" is a bad starting place for any action on any subject. It is defeatism (unless of course the real motive is to avoid bans).

I believe this battle will also serve a dual purpose... this may be the issue that mobilizes the younger progressives and helps us make big gains in the midterms. I just read Emma González has more twitter followers than the NRA and Dana Loesche. I hope the Democrats do a better job of supporting them than we did with Occupy and Black Lives Matter.

[AtheistCrusader]

41. Well, in my defense, I said 'its complicated', not 'it's too complicated'.

But to have a meaningful conversation with people on the right, we need to come to the table with our shit in order. With facts. Otherwise, of course it's going to devolve into a shouting match.

Here's the key, in the middle, there's a vast swath of gun owners that are reasonable people. They can be moved. They can be convinced. But there will be none of that while the two extremes on the far right and left are doing hyperbolic shouting matches.



Think of leadership. Think of the Obama administration. Calm, competent, constant pressure on issues, with facts. Not once did he go hyperbolic. Very few factual errors or grey areas. Now we have conservatives that will fight to KEEP the ACA provisions in some cases. What a strange world, right?


Younger progressives will help, but we also need moderates, specifically gun-owning moderates to abandon the NRA/friends.

[AtheistCrusader]

35. Here's another element to the issue.

This is a sales deal I saw linked off a Reddit thread this morning. For $800 you get a shotgun, and basically as freebie shit stuffed in the box, the 'firearm' component of the AR-15. Not one. You get FIVE of them. They're basically packing peanuts at this point.

So when people say there are 9 -10 million AR's already in circulation, that's production rifles. Not lowers. They're selling these things like candy right now.

http://palmettostatearmory.com/kel-tec-ksg-nfa-ready-12ga-shotgun-five-5-psa-ar-15-safe-fire-lowers.html?trk_msg=Q5D75IVDVMRK760R0L8IOVF6JS&trk_contact=BKVFL9B74B6OSV50MSQE8348LG&trk_sid=KEEPGPI6OHED93QUFAS4IN2TEK&utm_source=Listrak&utm_medium=email&utm_term=http%3a%2f%2fpalmettostatearmory.com%2fkel-tec-ksg-nfa-ready-12ga-shotgun-five-5-psa-ar-15-safe-fire-lowers.html&utm_campaign=Daily+Deal+Email&utm_content=11%3a00+Email

How the fuck are we supposed to un-do that?

[HopeAgain]

37. We have to start somewhere...

The whole regulatory taking issue is a NRA smokescreen, by the way, and that is closer to my area of expertise.

[Sophia4]

40. Make taking certain equipment out of your house into the public a felony, and anyone doing it and

getting caught has committed that felony.

That way a person can own a prohibited gun if they already have it and either turn it in to the police to be destroyed or keep it, but never use it anywhere outside of the place they keep it.

It would be legal to possess a weapon in your home for self-protection but not take it outside of your home.

[AtheistCrusader]

49. That might cut down on some crimes.

Burglars and whatnot usually don't carry because of mandatory minimums and sentencing requirements when they involve a firearm in their shenanigans...

but how does this help with the complete and utter page-fault/crash/broken people that are going out to kill as many people as they can before they are stopped? What does that sort of person care for a felony charge?

That's what we primarily want to target right. Dividends to be gained elsewhere, but something that halts mass shooters is the prime mover at the moment right?


I'm not entirely against regulations as I have mentioned. The NFA registry was really successful, overall. Very few crimes have been committed since its inception, with weapons registered under that system. I suggest exploring it as an option for all semi-auto firearms.

[Sophia4]

51. First, we keep our eye on the real goal here -- protecting lives.

Then we train police to watch for the cases in which guns are required to be kept.

We require that every gun have a small inserted chip that registers on a equipment police have in their cars if the gun is taken out of the case. That chip can be disabled only by certain equipment at locations at which guns are permitted to be used.

If the police equipment that reacts to the presence of a chip is alerted, the police know that an unauthorized gun is within a certain number of feet of the police car.

If a gun is taken out of the required case in any location or carried free of the case in any location in which it is not permitted, police are alerted.

Schools, churches, malls, other public places could also have the gun detection device.

Most gun deaths outside the home would be stopped. It would make carrying a gun much less likely.

Very few people would be exempted from the requirement to keep their guns locked in a case outside the home. The case would be very heavy.

Remember always. This is about saving lives and sorrow.

I do think people should be able to hunt. I like venison, love it in fact. But if hunting means that guns are available for people who want to shoot other people, I can do without venison.

[AtheistCrusader]

52. Big fan of Venison as well.

Like you, I'd give it up in an instant if it saved lives.


From an engineering standpoint, what you describe isn't very compatible with older firearms. That's not necessarily a reason not to explore it with new firearms, but keep in mind, some will view that as a cynical ploy by the gun industry to increase sales...

At least, it's cropped up before in smart gun sales/requirements threads.

[Sophia4]

74. If it saves lives, even a few, it is worth it.

Every life lost leaves traumatized family and friend living in our society with their grief.

Every killing hurts all of us. And we have had too many killings in recent years.

[AtheistCrusader]

53. What if, instead of a chip inside the gun

an electronic sabot or collar that fits around the gun's action. Basically rendering it useless, or causing it to yelp for assistance when damaged/forced.

Not going to catch everything, but it will get your casual gun-case smash/grab type shooter. It would also be something that could be retrieved by police in the event of a disqualification like being adjudicated mentally unsound, or picking up a misdemeanor Domestic Violence conviction or a DV-related restraining order...

[Sailor65x1]

55. This kind of technology was floated

Some time back. Unfortunately, tin foil hats, so to speak, work even better for guns than for human heads. The RF technology you're writing about, while a very creative idea in terms of accountability, is too easily defeated to work.

[Sophia4]

73. Make it a felony to use a gujn without the technology. That would make police work

much easier. Should a person walk around with a gun that is in violation of the regulation requiring the technology, the police can arrest the person before that person kills someone.

It would not work all the time, but I would bet that these killers go out with their gun at least once if not several times just to see how it "feels" before they kill anyone. And because of that, the technology would deter a lot of killers and save a lot of lives.

The cost of installing the technology would deter a lot of gun purchases.

[Sailor65x1]

79. Conceptually you have a decent idea

But what I was trying to say is that wrapping the gun in tin foil very effectively mutes its ability to communicate with the detectors. The police simply couldn't see it.

[Sophia4]

80. Then banning certain guns altogether is the only answer.

I hate to say that, but saving lives is the most important thing here.

Another choice is to require every gun to be insured enough to cover the costs of all the healthcare, lifelong disability costs, funeral costs, etc., prison costs for those serving time for gun violations, of all who are killed by guns or convicted of gun-related crimes including assaults and threats in which no one is actually injured by a gun.

[Sophia4]

44. It would be much simpler to require that all guns be kept in locked boxes in homes or

in cars until the owner reaches specific locations for target practice or hunting. Anyone found with a gun that is accessible and not in a locked box has committed a felony.

That would insure that anyone riding in a car or walking down the street or entering a building with a gun that is not in a locked box, anyone in a hotel room with a gun that is not in a locked box, can be arrested on a felony charge.

Yet people can keep their guns in their homes and in the locked box. If they are found with a gun that is not in the locked box, they are in trouble.

And make the locked box very heavy so that people will not take them into schools or churches or hotels or other places. Make the locked boxes very visible and nearly impossible to carry.

That satisfies the Second Amendment but insures that people will not legally carry their guns around without being noticed.

It also bypasses all the jargon about guns.

I could impress you with my knowledge of Beethoven's Third Symphony, the harmony, the themes, the color, the reason it sounds so great, etc. or with knitting details, how to knit lace, knitting needle sizes, etc. or with information about any of the many areas of life in which I have expertise, but you probably just want to hear the music or wear the sweater or scarf.

There are two easy ways to deal with the gun problem, the shootings, the killings, the senseless and very painful deaths. One is to make gun ownership nearly impossible; the other is to make gun transport and carrying nearly impossible.

The alternative is to simply give in to the gun fanatics and understand that they, not we, are in charge and can kill us or our children, our friends, our parents, our neighbors any time they want with a wide variety of subtly different instruments of death and laugh at us for not being able to distinguish between all the levers and gears as they do it.

At the least, we should require every gun owner to buy insurance for every gun to pay for the cost in lives and damages and medical expenses that guns cost our society -- just as we do for cars. We should include in the cost of that insurance the cost of room and board in prison for all who end up incarcerated due to crimes associated with the use of a gun.

[Sophia4]

48. If you listen to the Rolling Stones or Mozart, you should be able to transcribe every

note and explain the keys, the modulations, the chords, the tuning, the fingering, the . . . .

No. People are dying due to the fanaticism of gun advocates.

The terrible anguish and pain of the survivors of the young, the children who die every day in gun accidents and gun crimes is all we need to understand.

Possessing a gun should be legal, but holding a gun in one's hand should be legal only in certain places and certain times.

Having a gun in any public place should be a felony. And we should make it nearly impossible to carry a gun anywhere.

We may not be able to make possession of a gun a felony, but we sure can make carrying a gun without a permit (that is hard to get) a felony.

[niyad]

30. and I will ask every single puke invading women's autonomous rights to draw, label

and explain the female reproductive system.

[Sophia4]

38. Thank you.

Let's keep the focus on those who die due to guns, those who would be alive today if we put limits on gun ownership and use, and on the survivors, those who remember every day the life they lost due to a gun.

My mother died a few years ago at the age of 97. There is never a day that I don't think of her.

I cannot imagine the pain of losing a child.

How can gun owners, gun sellers, gun manufacturers, gun users be so heartless, so cold to the pain and suffering of others?

[Ferrets are Cool]

45. Please people...I beg you, don't give these Russian bots the time of day on OUR forum...No

this is not AT ALL directed at the OP, but rather the gunsplainer that took over this thread.

[Abnredleg]

63. Comrade

I don't even speak Russian

[Ferrets are Cool]

64. Interesting how you knew who I was talking about though.

[Abnredleg]

65. It Wasn't Hard to Figure Out

given the number of my posts on this thread. And it was no surprise you posted what you did - bringing up botnets when losing control of an argument is the new Godwin's Law for DU.

I'm a life-long Democrat - this is my forum as well and I will stay here and speak my piece as is my right. They're only words so no harm is done.

[Squinch]

78. THIS. The arguments being used by the referenced poster are from the NRA troll script.

The poster's sole aim is to drown the thread in gun humper minutiae and leave everyone believing that gun reform is impossible.

Gun reform has been done quite successfully everywhere in the world but here. There are about a dozen gun control measures which are supported by about 75% of the American public. If they were passed tomorrow, they would make an enormous difference.

DO NOT ENGAGE WITH THE TROLLS! DO NOT ANSWER ANY QUESTION THAT BEGINS WITH "Exactly how...?" or "Exactly which...?"

We don't have to be the Senate reconciliation committee. We DO have to be responsible citizens demanding action to protect the lives of our children.

[mac56]

47. K & R

Beware the gun nerds.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100210274331

[Freelancer]

54. Not sarcasm! The wheel, the rack, "The Apprentice" -- anything but that. -nt

[Jim Lane]

56. There's another reason it shouldn't be allowed

There is disagreement within the Democratic Party about health care reform. All disagreements within the Democratic Party should be ruthlessly suppressed. Absolutely no one should be allowed to disagree with any Democrat about anything whatsoever. Because Trump.

When I saw your subject line, I expected the foregoing but I approve of yours as well.

[MarvinGardens]

61. On guns, we should be anti-intellectual?

I'm not a gun expert. But suppose there was a thread advocating the ban of a chemical that was alleged to be a health hazard. And suppose I answered the thread with some expertise in chemistry, explaining all the complications that would arise from a blanket ban on said chemical, and proposing some alternative approaches to mitigate the hazard. Would I be "chemsplaining"?

Are the physicians who offer their informed opinions on here "medsplaining"?

Are the attorneys "lawsplaining"?

I understand that what you are implying is that gun experts on here give their expertise in order to shut down debate with "it's complicated". But if they are on here identifying as Democrats, I do not think we should assume bad faith. The term "gunsplainer" will also shut down meaningful conversations.

[HopeAgain]

67. I'm not anti-intellectual at all

But I repeatedly see a tactic here of trying to divert the issue away from banning guns. If if someone starts out with "I am against banning guns", then they are honest and I respect that. But if they start saying by saying I don't understand muzzle velocity and clip size etc., etc., without admitting they are against guns in the first place, that is merely a tactic, especially when they are responding to people who are just calling for action.

[MarvinGardens]

72. That is reasonable, thank you. (nt)

[kcr]

70. Oh, should we? Do you think? I wonder.

Oh wait, never mind. I don't wonder. Because it isn't at all obvious what they're doing Please.

[treestar]

76. If they truly explained

rather than just saying "you don't know enough about guns" - it really seems aimed at our use of terms like automatic, semi=automatic, assault weapon, etc. I wonder even if they agree what constitutes those things.

[Fred Sanders]

77. How about Russkiesplaining, lot of that going around...hard to seperate from the genuine gunners.

[MarvinGardens]

82. The Russian trolls are probably playing both sides.

Given that the point of the Russian trolls is to stir things up, I'd guess those taking the most extreme positions on either side are more likely to be trolls.

[IronLionZion]

66. It would be sweet to block conservatives out of every vote for reform

since they don't understand most issues. This is true for tax cuts, environmental regulations, trade deals, and everything else.

[treestar]

75. All we need to know is that they kill people

If they can kill more than one person in ten seconds, they should be banned.