General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsDon't let the gun nuts frame the debate
I'm seeing it all over the place and it has to stop. They play the same old trick, and people, while well intentioned, are falling right into the trap. The fact is that they have nothing, and they know it. The "debate" on how to end gun violence is over, and has been over for decades. The statistics from the UK, Canada, Japan, Australia, and a multitude of other nations comparable to the U.S. are irrefutable, and it's high time we stop allowing the gun nuts to pretend that these other nations are somehow inherently less violent. That being said, don't fall into these traps.
-- The second amendment trap --
Gun nuts will quote it, talk about it's interpretation, the founding fathers' intentions, and god knows what else. The second amendment is irrelevant to the issue. It's just a law, and laws can be changed. That's what the word "amendment" means.
Gun nuts will also say repealing the second amendment is never going to happen, the majority support it, and blah blah blah. Again, it's completely irrelevant. Japan doesn't have one. Canada doesn't have one. The UK doesn't have one. America doesn't need one either. Fuck the second amendment.
-- The first and other amendment trap --
Gun nuts will talk about other rights in the constitution, and how dare you suggest repealing one of them, do you want to repeal all of them? This is the slippery slope logical fallacy. This is not about any of the other amendments. And like I already said above, it's not even really about the second amendment. It's about passing sane laws to reduce or even eliminate (yes, it's possible. See: Japan) gun violence. To pass those laws, you must repeal the second amendment. Stop letting them change the subject with this "it's my right" bullshit.
-- The Americans are not like the others trap --
Gun nuts will constantly try to convince you that Americans are just more violent than all those other nations that solved the gun violence problem. Yet this is completely false. Americans are not any more violent or any less violent than anyone else. What Americans do have, though, is the easiest access to deadly weapons than any other nation on Earth that has solved this problem.
Stop letting gun nuts talk about anything else and everything else except the very goddamn things that are killing people, up to and including video games, movies, mental health, violent history, "multiculturalism" (THAT one is a particularly vile dog whistle), drugs, gangs (another racist dog whistle), etc.
-- The criminals will get one anyway trap --
This is patently false. Criminals have a HELL of a time obtaining a gun in Japan. It's damn near impossible for them to find one, because anybody in Japan who does have a gun had to go through hoops upon hoops to ensure that they actually are "responsible gun owners". They have to take courses, pass tests, get background checked, be interviewed by the cops, have their family and neighbors interviewed to ensure that there is no history of domestic violence, financial troubles, psychological issues, have to store their guns properly, have to register them, are not allowed to sell them without transferring the registration, must report if the gun is stolen, or lost. Criminals in Japan do not use guns because it's hard for them to get them.
-- The criminals will use other things to kill anyway trap --
True enough. Tell that to the man in China who attacked school children with a knife on the same day Sandy Hook happened. Not a single fatality. Not a single one.
-- The guns are just tools trap --
Stop letting gun nuts call guns "tools". They're not tools. They're weapons.
Ultimately, gun nuts are just people who have been indoctrinated though childhood to have an obscene affection for deadly weapons. They just love their guns, and will stoop to any level to protect their misguided notion that they have some kind of "right" to have them, including ignoring the facts about other nations and consistently dodging the issue with the above traps.
Again, there is no debate here. The issue has been settled long ago. They can't say anything that will change that fact. You can walk around at night in any city in Japan and feel totally safe. Totally, completely safe. Nobody is going to shoot you there. How can a gun nut explain that without talking about Japan's strict gun laws? The answer is they can't, so they change the subject. Don't let them.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Just to add: one of the main reasons that there is no "gun debate" anywhere except for the US is that the US serves as a shining example to the rest of the world of what happens when you don't have adequate gun control laws. So anyone in, say, the UK who tries to argue that they should move towards US-style gun laws will simply get laughed at.
The whole "gun rights" ideology is pretty much restricted to right-wing Americans. And for the most part, we are talking about old, white, male, right-wing Americans.
Nevertheless, one slight disagreement. It is worth pointing out, I think, if only for the sake of historical accuracy, that the second amendment was never meant to deal with private use of firearms, but it was instead about fielding a militia. The colonists had had a bad experience with the British army -- one of the main reasons for the "taxation without representation" that precipitated the revolution was because Britain needed to support its army. Still, as you point out, it doesn't really matter, because laws can be changed, and regardless of how right-wingers want to misread the constitution, what remains pretty clear is that the gun proliferation in US society is a bad thing, which is costing us tens of thousands of lives every year plus injuries, monetary damage, trauma, etc.
etherealtruth
(22,165 posts)Thank you so much for taking the time to write this.
Welcome, welcome, welcome to DU!!!!
Mike Nelson
(10,943 posts)...and demand a WELL-REGULATED militia!
madokie
(51,076 posts)nt
GeorgeGist
(25,570 posts)
Uzair
(241 posts)
Progressive dog
(7,603 posts)
Bernardo de La Paz
(60,320 posts)
99Forever
(14,524 posts)
Robb
(39,665 posts)
Paladin
(32,354 posts)pintobean
(18,101 posts)for gun owners.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)They don't have trouble getting drugs here. Why will gun restrictions work like they do in Japan when drug restrictions don't?
The best estimate is that less than 3% of Japanese people have used illegal drugs of any sort, including marijuana. What's our drug use rate again?
Uzair
(241 posts)Oh wait, Canadians LOVE their pot. Love love love it. They have one seventh the amount of gun violence. How about the UK? Oh, right. Lots and lots and lots of drugs there too. And they're just as illegal in both those countries, too.
STOP CHANGING THE SUBJECT.
hack89
(39,181 posts)
lastlib
(28,264 posts)Either you're with the kids at Sandy Hook, or you're against them.
The sane people are with them, to prevent the next slaughter.
hack89
(39,181 posts)do you really think that gun owners support the murder of kids?
Neoma
(10,039 posts)lastlib
(28,264 posts)Paladin
(32,354 posts)....but Gun ACTIVISTS don't give a flying fuck about them. There's a huge divide between owners and activists---something I've pointed out repeatedly here at DU with very little evident effect.
hack89
(39,181 posts)in your day to day posting. You treat anyone that disagrees with you or says anything positive about guns as an "activist".
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)JohnnyBoots
(2,969 posts)scarlet 'G' as our avatars.
Paladin
(32,354 posts)hack89
(39,181 posts)you clearly have an anti-gun bias that you make no attempt to hide.
Paladin
(32,354 posts)
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)They were totally disconnected.
Pro-gun control people didn't, and maybe still don't, get it. The "gun nuts" do. Newtown had no effect on the gun control bill because even if the bill had passed, it would have had no effect on another Newtown happening or not. The guy's mother had legally purchased the guns, and she could have passed (and I think did pass) background checks. She trained her son in the use of firearms.
The bill that SHOULD have been proposed would have prevented Newtown. The banning of high count mags and the banning of assault weapons.
But the proposed bill was better than nothing, and presumably would've kept guns out of the hands of some straw purchasers and criminals.
onehandle
(51,122 posts)Many gun nuts and some here write off gang related gun violence as if the lives of those involved are 'less important' than the rest of us.
Now why would they think that? Wouldn't have anything to do with their skin color, would it?
Robb
(39,665 posts)But we mustn't call them racist, because some of their best friends are black, and there's this Hispanic guy at the gun club, etc. etc.
Union Scribe
(7,099 posts)madokie
(51,076 posts)Now does it?
Union Scribe
(7,099 posts)The 2nd amendment is not going to be repealed, and ignoring any other social factor besides the presence of guns as the OP explicitly advocates is dangerous recklessness. The OP doesn't present a single notion that could actually work in this country, it's all just brimstone rhetoric. Wasting time on wishful thinking takes away from the actual measures that need to be pursued.
otohara
(24,135 posts)any advice to deal with the scary bullies of our scary gun culture is welcome.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts) Pelican
(1,156 posts)... or the size of Montana or didn't have a culture that values subservience to authority...
Aside from that...
hootinholler
(26,451 posts)
Ron Green
(9,870 posts)and supplanted by his need to help build a more peaceful and courageous world.
Robb
(39,665 posts)JohnnyBoots
(2,969 posts)It reminds me that I need to call the guys at my local Habitat office and tell them I can't volunteer anymore since I'ma gun owner. Thanks for that, close call!
Ron Green
(9,870 posts)Maybe you're not a gun nut.
Crepuscular
(1,068 posts)it's funny that you neglected to mention that their suicide rate is almost double that of the US. Almost 2/3rds of the deaths related to guns in the US are due to suicide. The figures from Japan indicate that the absence of guns in a society has little to no impact on a persons ability to kill themselves, Japan demonstrates this amply, as they are successfully killing themselves at almost twice the rate as people in the US, are.
I guess in this case, framing the debate means leaving out inconvenient facts. 
DainBramaged
(39,191 posts)nice try cowboy, we aren't talking about suicides in Japan, we're talking about the idiotic gun laws here.
If you love your guns more than your children, you need more guns, it's simple!
Crepuscular
(1,068 posts)subscribe to the school of thought that using large numbers of emoticons is a reasonable substitute for including anything of substance in your post. 
Apparently you would be Ok with the US doubling the number of deaths by suicide, as long as the number of suicides resulting from firearms is reduced, no?
That would seem to indicate that your underlying concern is less about the actual deaths that result from guns and more about a visceral, unyielding hatred of certain inanimate objects.
DainBramaged
(39,191 posts)Here, watch a woman blow a chance at winning a Ferrari 458 'vert on the Price is Right. It has the same relevance as your gun talking points.
http://jalopnik.com/watch-this-woman-blow-winning-a-ferrari-458-on-the-pric-481329347
have a gunny day
Crepuscular
(1,068 posts)as you have just done, clearly they have lost the debate. Must suck to be on the losing side, knowing that your dreams of gun confiscation have crashed and burned.
DainBramaged
(39,191 posts)Here watch a real car run laps around your bullshit
And if you think this is about winning and losing, you folks lost the instant you signed up here because 99% of you are as progressive as molasses in winter.
Crepuscular
(1,068 posts)that highlights your frustration with the fact that your side is impotent to effect the kind of changes that you dream about. Good luck with that amendment repeal, you are going to need it!
DainBramaged
(39,191 posts)Long after you're gone from here to spout your gun shit elsewhere, I'll still be here.
Have a nice life loser, because I choose to life unharmed and unarmed.
Crepuscular
(1,068 posts)you also choose to life (sic) based on emotions and not logic, fallacies, not facts.
The deference between us is that you wish to tell others how they should choose to live their lives, while I'm happy to leave that decision up to them. You can choose to live your life however you want, unarmed, illogical, in fear of guns........... but it's kind of a shame that you don't allow others a similar right to choose.
geckosfeet
(9,644 posts)for this poster? The post provides relevant facts that seem germane to any reasoned decision making process on the topic of guns.
Uzair
(241 posts)If you want to talk about suicide rates, feel free. Start a thread about suicide, it's causes, etc. Talk about everyone: Japan, Canada, the UK, the US, everybody.
But right now? Right now, we're talking about GUNS.
Crepuscular
(1,068 posts)are suicides, the two topics, guns and suicide, are inextricably linked. You were the one who introduced Japan into the discussion, now you don't wan't to talk about it? 
You were suggesting that it would be a good thing if the US resembled Japan from a gun law standpoint, should we assume that you think that it would be a good thing if we also had a similar rate of suicides annually? You would be ok with another 40,000 or so Americans offing themselves every year, as long as guns were not involved?
Uzair
(241 posts)Pay attention. There's other countries to talk about here too. Japan has a SUICIDE problem. The causes are complex and, (here's the important part) not the subject we are currently talking about.
Crepuscular
(1,068 posts)as being non-relevant to the discussion of guns in America, then you should be equally willing to dismiss concerns over gun related suicides in this country. So the rate of gun related deaths in this country, for the purposes of this discussion, just fell by 60%.
Now, would you like to further break down those gun related deaths by category and discuss their relative impact in a country that has close to 300 million people? I suspect that you won't want to go there.
Union Scribe
(7,099 posts)Just like the OP.
hack89
(39,181 posts)The Japanese police have powers of search, seizure, arrest and interrogation that are unconstitutional in America.
JohnnyBoots
(2,969 posts)Japan's history is not as intertwined and ingrained with a firearms as America's is, guns brought us our independence, settled our frontiers, and saved the world from Adolf Hitler behind an M1 Garand. Guns are part of who we are as a nation. There's almost as many firearms as there are people in this country, 300 million. Trying fitting 300 million guns in England, Japan or non-outback Oz. I'd like to see how their gun control policies would work then. Guns in America are not going away, ever. Good luck with your paradigm shift. You can frame the debate anyway you want, it doesn't mean that anyone will take you seriously or even listen to you. Nice rant though.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)JohnnyBoots
(2,969 posts)Hoyt
(54,770 posts)I bet you carry a gun.
JohnnyBoots
(2,969 posts)I don't carry. Being the size of an NFL lineman helps. I know three people who have CCW's and they are all women. Why do you want to limit their right to self protection? Any firearms I own are locked up tight, as they should be.
Seriously though, if you don't like our laws here why do you not move to England or Oz? You're never going to ban guns in this country. You're better off chasing windmills.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Very few women acquire guns to bolster their "manliness," to intimidate, to fight the government, and worse. Very few women use guns to intimidate their spouses. Very few see guns as the answer to their crappy lives. Luckily, the vast majority of women don't resort to guns to protect themselves (although I can understand why a few might), because they are a little more resemble in assessing the threat and other ways to deal with them.
I think we need to change the perception of guns and those who covet them -- it's really that simple.
premium
(3,731 posts)don't acquire firearms to increase their "manliness" or to intimidate, or to fight the govt., and worse, most acquire firearms for a variety of reasons, self protection, hunting, sporting events, target shooting, etc.
You're consistently wrong about the majority of gun owners, unless of course, you can prove what you're claiming, right?
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)premium
(3,731 posts)For owning 2 firearms?
The Colt Python .357 I got for a hell of a price and the 12 ga. shotgun I bought for home defense, neither of which I have shot in about 10 years, which you know by now.
Now, I've answered your question, care to answer mine?
Do you have any evidence of what you say most gun owners have guns for?
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)premium
(3,731 posts)I guess we just have to take your word for it. 
marions ghost
(19,841 posts)--right, guns are part of the reason why we suck as a nation.
JohnnyBoots
(2,969 posts)Why do you hate America?
marions ghost
(19,841 posts)you would set her people free from the iron fist of the NRA.
Yahoos carrying guns around the Walmart parking lot or to political rallies-- gives me the opposite feeling of "love for America."
Don't get me to list the people I have personally known who have been killed or terrorized by guns in America--not to mention the mass killers that take a piece out of us all and make other countries think we are insane to put up with it. The daily death toll. The culture of fear actively promoted by the Corporates--the fear of your neighbors not to mention Armageddon. It's time for America to grow up and accept collective responsibility for this national disgrace. Instead Americans are wimps and just go buy a gun.
And then is the connection between gun culture and The Bogus Wars....
All this wears people down, makes them stressed and sick, infringes on our rights to public safely. It's not about hate--it's about tough love. About not pretending--pretending that this gun violence is not connected to the sickness and corruption at the core of our politics. It's extremely corrosive. Part of the past, not the future. This level of gun access and gun violence has no place in a civilized society.
JohnnyBoots
(2,969 posts)try to assimilate me into the collective all you want. I'll be busy protecting the Bill of Rights. You'll hate to read this, but the NRA is a civil rights organization. You just happen to disagree with them, so you are putting the 'Other' frame on them.
marions ghost
(19,841 posts)if you're an NRA supporter, you & I have nothing in common.
billh58
(6,655 posts)"You can frame the debate anyway you want, it doesn't mean that anyone will take you seriously or even listen to you. Nice rant though."
Except that it really applies to you and your Gungeon buddies Bubba. The American people are beginning to grow tired of your NRA "guns for fun and profit" bullshit, and the tide is turning. You, and your Gungeon buddies do NOT speak for ALL American gun owners, and many millions of them agree with the need for more gun regulation. Deal with it.
JohnnyBoots
(2,969 posts)How are your gun grabbing attempts working out for you? 'Guns for fun and profit' what does that even mean and I have no idea where you got that from. Guns are tools, plain and simple. If there is one thing gun owners love, it's regulation. Did you get this "fact" from the same place as your 90% poll? And why do you keep calling me Bubba? Is that supposed to be a slur against our Southern brothers and sisters, who I assume you think are evil gun owners? Please explain. If you're going to insult me, be a big boy and just be frank about it.
billh58
(6,655 posts)I know that you think you are bad-assed "Big Bubba," but when you presume to speak for ALL gun owners you can expect for people to call bullshit.
Now run on back to your Gungeon buddies and tell them how you really told those "grabbers" where to go...
JohnnyBoots
(2,969 posts)defend my point of view in general population. I'm not running anywhere. The Gun Grabbers are not able to do that, and they are the ones who retreat to their Ivory Tower to high five while shredding the Bill of Rights and not get called on it.
billh58
(6,655 posts)Can you wave your flag any harder Huckaberry?...
JohnnyBoots
(2,969 posts)Disprove anything written in the above post.
billh58
(6,655 posts)you and your Gungeon buddies provide all the proof of gun nuttery that's needed. It's almost relaxing to sit back and watch the "hair-on-fire" crowd running around and screaming about how the mean old Democrats are coming to take away their fucking guns.
You and the rest of the right-wing Gungeoneers are truly a sight to behold, and good for hours of fun entertainment. Keep it up, and don't forget to ramp up the indignation from time-to-time -- it adds to the story line. Tell Uncle Wayne I said hi, and to go fuck himself...
JohnnyBoots
(2,969 posts)and have resorted to name calling an insults because you can't debate the point or even disprove anything I said above. Typical grabber M.O. Nesxt time just tell me it's an NRA talking point and save yourself some time.
billh58
(6,655 posts)skirt up Bubba...
Progressive dog
(7,603 posts)but you have a strange take on who we are as a nation. The wars have always been fought by militias and armies, not by armed individualistic gun nuts.
I notice you left out the civil war part, where when one part of our culture went to war with another part and they used guns. Easy to forget I guess, since it only resulted in more American deaths than any other war.
There is nothing to brag about in having a violent culture and especially in deliberately aspiring to continue one.
As to the number of guns=can't take them away argument, that is just silly.
Believe it or not, some of us gun control people do not believe it is necessary to seize guns.
90% of American voters want background checks for ALL gun purchasers.
90% of American voters want background checks for ALL gun purchasers.
90% of American voters want background checks for ALL gun purchasers.
90% of American voters want background checks for ALL gun purchasers.
Did I tell you?
90% of American voters want background checks for ALL gun purchasers.
sandy78
(17 posts)The gun nuts cling to their precious guns but we will take them away eventually. I can't wait to see them cry.
We live in a civilized society now. The only people that should have guns are the government and police. If you want to protect yourself get a baseball bat and keep it under your bed. Time's are changing, gun nuts. This isn't 1776 anymore.
premium
(3,731 posts)sandy78
(17 posts)HappyMe
(20,277 posts)Where the hell is that money going to come from?
JohnnyBoots
(2,969 posts)How are you going to confiscate the other 299,400,000 guns. Chances are you'll be dodging lead from these American citizens who were made into criminals over night. So, what's your move now? You already started a civil war, so what's next Dear Leader?
laundry_queen
(8,646 posts)for simple lack of math comprehension. Use percentages dude, Australia's population is a *tad* lower than the US's. What percentage of guns were taken back? Dear leader, LOL, so alarmist. Australia and Canada etc etc are so oppressed and less free than Amurka! Total silliness. You sound scared to death. I suppose Kim Jong Un is waiting for that moment after the guns are bought back to oppress everyone in the US. LOLOLOL.
JohnnyBoots
(2,969 posts)countries have the Second Amendment, dude. You can't make anyone patricipate in a forced buy back (confiscation) with the Second Amendment in Amurka!. How are you going to get 2/3 of the states to vote to repeal the Second Amendment? You're not, so your fantasies of national gun confiscation are just that - fantasies- How do you like that math, dude?
laundry_queen
(8,646 posts)for your other amendments being repealed not on paper, but in action. And you fall for it. No wonder you're so unhinged.
JohnnyBoots
(2,969 posts)is a smokescreen and not worth the paper it is written on. Are you reading what you type?
laundry_queen
(8,646 posts)and it's pretty hysterical. I like how you link owning a piece of metal to other rights. Good for you! 
JohnnyBoots
(2,969 posts)but first, you have to repeal the 2A, how do you accomplish that, since it takes only 13 states to defeat any attempt at repeal?
I think you'll find it far less easy than you seem to believe.
Why would you have only the police or military armed? Doesn't that create the possibility of a police state?
DainBramaged
(39,191 posts)your precious
instead of trying to solve the problem all you worry about is who is going to take your precious away
premium
(3,731 posts)never going to happen, all I did was ask the poster to provide an answer as to how he would go about taking firearms away from citizens and then I asked him to clarify.
I challenge you to find just one of my posts where I was worried about my firearms being taken away.
I'll wait.
DainBramaged
(39,191 posts)i DON'T CARE
premium
(3,731 posts)If you didn't care, then why answer me at all?
DainBramaged
(39,191 posts)another gunnie on my ignore list.
I choose unarmed and unharmed
Merry Christmas
aikoaiko
(34,214 posts)Classic DB.
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)Independents who own firearms.
Millions of Democrats own firearms. As do independents.
When a Gallup poll was taken, here was the response:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/20098/gun-ownership-use-america.aspx
premium
(3,731 posts)more Dems. own firearms for protection against crime that the other 2 parties.
JohnnyBoots
(2,969 posts)are advocating for a civil war, don't you? The only way to "take them away eventualy" is armed consifscation. 'I don't agree with you and your Constitutional right, so I am sending in jack booted thugs to sieze your property', is a distinctly un-American mind set. Your attitude is what allows dictators to arise. Only the power elite should be armed, what's the worst that could happen? is not a responsible way of thinking.
You're right on one point though, no one needs 'A gun', a diverse portfolio of calibers is your best bet.
Robb
(39,665 posts)Why not simply wait for people to break the law, and then arrest and charge them -- like we do with nearly every other law?
Do we go door-to-door and seize refrigerators we suspect are leaking CFCs?
premium
(3,731 posts)but how long do you think that the party that passed that kind of legislation would remain in power? And how long would it take for that kind of law to be either ruled unconstitutional by the SC, or being repealed by the new Congress?
Quite truthfully, I'm not even worried that a ban on firearms will ever happen, hell, we can't even get a background check through the Congress.
Robb
(39,665 posts)premium
(3,731 posts)JohnnyBoots
(2,969 posts)of the Second. The only way gun owners would follow the law and not resist vigorously is if you can get 2/3's of the states to repeal the 2nd. That's never going to happen. You and your ilk are pissing away valuable political capital and alienating a lot of formerly solid straight ticket Dem voters.
Why are you so eager to turn law abiding citizens into criminals, what's next after that?
Seeking Serenity
(3,322 posts)Why not simply wait for people to break the law, and then arrest and charge them -- like we do with nearly every other law?
And people think we have too many people in prison/with criminal records NOW?
rl6214
(8,142 posts)Post how that works out for you.
hack89
(39,181 posts)premium
(3,731 posts)Are you going to attempt to take away the guns from 80 million+ citizens?
I would love to be a fly on the wall as you and your like minded comrades tried that.
Jenoch
(7,720 posts)about the 'gun debate'.
Do you have any solutions to the actual 'gun problem' in the U.S.?
The fact is that they have nothing, and they know it.
Nice one. What does that even mean? The second amendment and over 200 years of judicial rulings and legal writings is nothing? oooooooookkkkay.
gun nuts are just people who have been indoctrinated
Unlike the author of the level headed and objective analysis in the OP
It's about passing sane laws to reduce or even eliminate (yes, it's possible. See: Japan) gun violence
You mean eliminate guns. Just say it. This is the thing that pisses me off about the grabbers. It's always about reducing this and reducing that. What they really want to do is get rid of the guns but for some reason are afraid to come out and say - so they reframe their own thinking (I think it's called cognitive dissonance) to try and convince everyone that's it's all about reducing violence.
You can walk around at night in any city in Japan and feel totally safe. Totally, completely safe. Nobody is going to shoot you there.
And in a US city you feel otherwise?
Here are some facts:
2/3 of gun deaths are suicides. Of the remaining deaths, a very large percentage (between 60% and 80% depending on the source and year) are gang and drug related, much of it concentrated in major cities with very strict gun laws. If the goal is to save lives, it would be much more fruitful to attack the causes of violence (and depression in the case of suicides) than to focus on guns.
Also consider that 10 times as many people die from tobacco each year, than are killed by firearms. 40,000 people die from second hand smoke related causes.
Roughly 100 deaths due per year to mass shooting events. According to the Insurance Journal, 200 people were killed by hitting deer with their cars. That's more than double the number of mass murder deaths.
Yet mass shootings seem to be the most popular type of tragedy leveraged by the grabbers to get an emotional foothold. Gun owners and non-gun owners all agree that an untimely death is tragic. The loss of innocents due the rampaging of madmen is even more horrific. Thankfully these kinds of tragedies are extremely rare in our country. Again, if the goal is to save lives, it would be much more fruitful to attack the causes of violence and mental illness than to focus on guns. Focus on education, economy and health services.
To reiterate - the second amendment has over 200 years of judicial precedent and rulings associated with it. I see nothing in your "reframing" that nullifies any of it.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)some around here are deaf and blind to facts and live in fantasy land. Good response.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)They are free to post in all of the forums and groups without censorship and the quickly ban any view that does not meet their point of view in their group.
Robb
(39,665 posts)Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)believe guns are awesome so I would not do that. I do point out errors in some of the information put out here and advocate for some rules that would likely help with gun deaths but I do not support banning on features of a weapon or a limit of rounds under the original design of the weapon. Many pistols have 15-17 rounds and the AR-15 was designed for a 20 round magazine. I have no big issues with background checks but the devil is in the details. I would prefer a licensing system for different types of weapons.
JohnnyBoots
(2,969 posts)is what we should start calling that group. They need a place to post and not be challenged, because they can't support any of their arguements in the real world.
G_j
(40,569 posts)this sort of stupid comparison:
"According to the Insurance Journal, 200 people were killed by hitting deer with their cars. That's more than double the number of mass murder deaths."
facepalm
geckosfeet
(9,644 posts)G_j
(40,569 posts)died last year from old age, so what?
geckosfeet
(9,644 posts)Uzair
(241 posts)Did you just respond to the OP with every single trap? LOL
pintobean
(18,101 posts)
kudzu22
(1,273 posts)Can America make the same claim? How many of the mass shootings were by someone mentally ill?
Americans and Japanese ARE different.
Response to Uzair (Original post)
davidn3600 This message was self-deleted by its author.
davidn3600
(6,342 posts)This is not Japan. This is not Britain. This is not Australia. The idea that we can simply adopt those same laws here and think they will be equally successful and eliminate our violence is foolish.
America is a violent culture. With or without guns. Our movies glorify it. Our video games glorify it. Our military is big and powerful and seems to always be at war with someone. We watch football and cheer big hits. We watch Nascar while on the edge of our seats waiting for next big crash. We watch boxing, UFC, and other violent sports and cheer it on.
This is simply the way we live. It's our culture. And it is a violent one. Guns are not making us violent. A gun is a piece of metal. It doesn't have any special powers. It's a weapon, an instrument of violence. We can eliminate the weapon, but the violent culture will still be there. The culture is something people have to change within themselves. We can't pass a law to change that.
Also those laws work because those countries by design have a much stronger federal system. America is somewhat of a fractured Republic. Enforcement of the laws depend on the level of government the law was passed. In other words, we can ban guns on the federal level, and the state and local law enforcement is under no obligation to enforce that law. It would be up to the feds to enforce the ban. And they dont have the money or manpower to do that in a nation of this size. Our federal government is too weak to enforce that kind of law successfully. It'd be like marijuana. Even though it is banned federally....it's still on every street corner.
DainBramaged
(39,191 posts)too funny there goes another NA talking point
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)Any view different than some have here is just "another NRA talking point" That is the way to have an exchange of views and will work great in trying to persuade an individual to your viewpoint.
DainBramaged
(39,191 posts)Guns are death, ergo you folks love guns ergo you love death, any other argument is as valid as a poodle jogging
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)Much rather see a dog having fun in a large field running free and playing.
geckosfeet
(9,644 posts)Sophistry at a very low level.
But, I don't even know why I am engaging this - so I won't.
DainBramaged
(39,191 posts)this way you'll have meningful dialogue
beevul
(12,194 posts)In other words, it was never about having a "conversation"...
It was about giving a lecture.
In other news, water is wet.
DainBramaged
(39,191 posts)there is no conversation with your side. We want the carnage to stop, you only care about the guns.
End of discussion
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)have proposed solutions that would help stop the carnage and you just do not even acknowledge it, sorry to say. Better to get something done than piss and moan when you do not get your way and that many firearms owners think will make very little if no difference.
beevul
(12,194 posts)You are engaging in projection.
While transparent, it is projection none the less.
YOU are only interested in the guns.
If you and the gun control lobby were interested primarily in getting the carnage to stop, you and they would have addressed every single other way of reducing it with relatively little political cost or fight, and saved the hardest and most politically inexpedient thing - guns - for last. Not only has that not happened, but excuses are made left right and sideways, by posters like you, why not to do that, or why it can't be done.
That all by itself, shows quite clearly where your interest lies.
DainBramaged
(39,191 posts)Last edited Sat Apr 27, 2013, 07:04 PM - Edit history (1)
We (including me) have NO FUCKING say over any of this debate, we waste our time here verbally masturbating as if WE can decide a single bit of legislation, while the NRA hacks come here and try to change our minds. Nothing makes me laugh more than watching you folks twist yourselves inside out trying to 'win' debates, nothing. It's classic how foolish you all look.
It is also hilarious for all of you to put we and me into the discussion, because frankly, I don't give a shit about anyone who thinks guns are more important than children, which is why my ignore list is 50% gun nuts.
Go engage someone stupid, stop wasting my time, and quite frankly, the rest of our time.
Your attempts at conversation bore me to sleep.
Goodbye.
PS it's still horseshit, you can't make it taste better with supposed intellectual sugar coating.
beevul
(12,194 posts)"We (including me) have NO FUCKING say over any of this debate, we waste our time here verbally masturbating as if WE can decide a single bit of legislation, while the NRA hacks come here and try to change our minds. Nothing makes me laugh more than watching you folks twist yourselves inside out trying to 'win' debates, nothing. It's classic how foolish you all look."
Everyone that disagrees with you or anyone on your side of the issue here on DU, is an "nra hack", or "spouting nra talking points", and you and others like you have made it abundantly that this is the view you'll all actively try to promote.
I guess maybe it isn't completely obvious at this point, so I'll make it so:
Myself, and probably most of the pro-gun regulars on DU, don't likely give two shits how foolish people that can't debate the facts of an issue and resort to calling others "nra shills" and all the other slurs, think we are.
Now that we've dispensed with the pleasantries...
"It is also hilarious for all of you to put we and me into the discussion, because frankly, I don't give a shit about anyone who thinks guns are more important than children, which is why my ignore list is 50% gun nuts."
There is just nothing like seeing someone call bullshit on something I've said, and then provide further evidence that proves what I said, that they called bullshit on.
Exhibit A:
"anyone who thinks guns are more important than children".
Anyone that disagrees with you on any given proposal for regulation, qualifies as "someone who thinks guns are more important than children".
Of the two of us, only one of us seems to think that its one or the other.
That's an nra talking point, right?
The fact that you by your own words suggest that its one or the other shows that its about guns first for you.
That's an nra talking point too, right?
Like I said, you and many like you are not interested in any way, in a "conversation".
You wont settle for anything less than a lecture.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)We do not require a "SAFE haven" to go back to where all opposing views are banned. Most everyone I know here that has firearms has been more than willing to discus viewpoints with the opposing side without a lot of name calling and unlike some from the other side. I really like to dialog with people with other viewpoints, it just gets old sometimes with the name calling and saying everything typed is an NRA talking point.
DainBramaged
(39,191 posts)and never the powder shall mix.
Bye.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)we agree on getting an end to the carnage. I just think there are better and more effective ways. You just refuse to hear it. Do not care about more guns but your side is sure selling a lot of them.
davidn3600
(6,342 posts)Video games and movies are a reflection of our culture.
WE A VIOLENT CULTURE!
DainBramaged
(39,191 posts)I play DiablOIII with a friend from Australia, don't try to pass that tired old shit on me.
World of Warcraft has TEN MILLION SUBSCRIBERS worldwide,
get your facts straight.
Uzair
(241 posts)Oh, and the "guns are just tools" trap, too. Nice.
davidn3600
(6,342 posts)Just so you know.
If you want to ban guns because you are so damn sure it will end violence in America... do it. But Im just telling you I am 200% sure it won't work.
Uzair
(241 posts)What is it about the strict gun laws that have worked in every other country that makes you think they won't work in the U.S.? Could it be that you just like your guns and you're scared that they're going to be taken away from you? (Ignore for now that nobody said anything about outright banning guns).
You automatically lose when you can't address the issue at hand.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)
and rec'd. 
Captain Stern
(2,253 posts)They've turned the gun control debate into:
Freedom vs "They are trying to take all the guns"
When given that black and white choice, "Freedom" will win every single time....no matter how many people are getting killed with guns.
In my opinion, many folks that don't agree with the NRA are unintentionally complicit in helping them frame the debate this way. Whenever someone says "fuck the second amendment" or "no guns or bullets for anybody", the other side cracks a big smile.....because they know they are winning.
The iron was hot after the Aurora and Newton shootings.......that was the perfect time to enact some reasonable gun control measures at a federal level, but nothing happened. Nothing happened because the average American was led to believe that the choice came down to "Rights" vs "Start taking away all the guns". And as long as the debate is framed that way, the NRA will continue to win, no matter how many children get shot.
geckosfeet
(9,644 posts)Infrastructure build out to support a fifty state system and electronic data systems to support it 24x7. Who is going to pay for it?
Personally I believe that's where it fell down. I believe it would have passed if it was at all do-able without raising taxes.
Yes, yes, yes. Tax guns and ammo etc. We get it. But it didn't happen. We get that too.
Captain Stern
(2,253 posts)I don't think our politicians have a hard time spending money....as long as it's on something they like, and that they think their constituents like.
I know this is an anecdote, and not evidence, but I think it illustrates how a good portion of Americans viewed the failed gun control bill. A 'friend' on facebook posted something to the effect of: "We defeated gun control, now let's work on mental health control'. I think what they were trying to say is that they stopped the effort to take away guns from the good guys, and now we should be working on making sure the bad guys don't get guns.
Of course, they don't realize that's pretty much what the gun control bill was about......but in their minds it was about somebody coming to take away their rights. They simply didn't know any better.
geckosfeet
(9,644 posts)Union Scribe
(7,099 posts)
99Forever
(14,524 posts)They didn't "successfully frame the debate."
They bought the lawmakers.
Not the same thing.
Captain Stern
(2,253 posts)Perhaps money did change hands. It wouldn't surprise me at all.
But I think ultimately the lawmakers that voted against this bill wouldn't have done so if they thought it would cost them come election time. And I don't think their 'no' vote is going to cost most of them at all. A lot of people see their 'no' vote as sticking up for freedom and rights and such. A lot of the lawmakers that voted against the bill aren't going to hide from their vote...they're going to celebrate it. They are going to say they were protecting the Constitution and that they stopped the 'gun grabbers'......and they're going to get a lot of votes for saying that, even though it's bullshit.
aikoaiko
(34,214 posts)It is law that protects a civil liberty and you are free to try to repeal it, but given recent failures I'm confident that won't happen.
Your willful ignorance of how cultural differences can manifest itself in crime rates or other behavioral trends is bizarre.
And firearms are perfectly fine tools for self-defense.
Alva Goldbook
(149 posts)Then explain why Washington, D.C. was the murder capital of the world when it was illegal for anyone to own a gun there. What produced an 80.591% decrease in gun homicides in D.C.? It wasn't gun control. It had been illegal to own a gun in D.C. since 1976. What produced a 80% decrease in gun homicides was urban renewal. It was replacing ghettos with thriving business districts. Gun violence isn't produced by guns. Canada has guns, Sweden has guns. They don't have gun violence. Gun violence is produced by poverty, income inequality and societal decay. Australia isn't a good example. Yeh, there's no guns Down Under. Women are also 3 times more likely to be raped there compared to the US, and people are 4 times more likely to be assaulted.
It's about passing sane laws to reduce or even eliminate (yes, it's possible. See: Japan) gun violence. To pass those laws, you must repeal the second amendment. Stop letting them change the subject with this "it's my right" bullshit.
Madison actually bragged about the US having a 2nd amendment in Federalist #46, saying that other governments were "afraid to trust their people with guns". Federalist #46 is an interesting read. You should read it sometime. Of course, if you want to take away my right of self-defense, you're going to have to repeal the 2nd amendment. That will require 38 states to agree to that. Just for a reference, in 2008 Obama won 26 states. Good luck with that.
Americans are not any more violent than other nations. What we do have is an income inequality problem on par with freaking Zimbabwe. And when you have that, you have societal decay. And with societal decay, you have a whole host of problems, including gun violence, and violence in general. But you're wrong. It's easier to get a gun in Mexico than in the USA, despite that guns are pretty much illegal in Mexico.
The video games and movies thing is absurd, and if people had a modicum of understanding of psychology, they would realize that. Our history plays little into this as well. It's not multiculturalism either, or that we're a melting pot. But the Drug War is a big problem when it comes to guns. It, in part, contributes to the wealth inequality in our society. If we simply ended the Drug War, we could go a long way towards solving the problem of gun violence.
Does that mean that criminals are powerless if they don't have a gun? The primary purpose of gun ownership in this day and age is self-protection. Will eliminating 300 million guns from this country make us all safe from crazy violent people? I don't think so. You may not realize this, but people use guns all the time to protect themselves from crazy violent criminals. I could cite endless examples of this, but this one illustrates this point quite perfectly.
Wrong. I didn't grow up around guns. I never fired a gun until I was in my 30's. But after multiple break-ins in my neighborhood, including my next door neighbor, it was with a heavy heart that I decided I had no other choice but to protect myself and my family. And yes, the right of self-defense is an actual right. The right to own a gun is an actual right. Yes, the 2nd amendment really does exist.
Is it the fact that Japan doesn't have guns that makes them safe, or is it that in Japan, their cities don't look like this:
Yes, income inequality really does matter.
geckosfeet
(9,644 posts)billh58
(6,655 posts)bullshit again. Your spamming DU with this bullshit NRA propaganda has gone beyond laughable, it has become pathetic.
JohnnyBoots
(2,969 posts)spamming DU with 'shame bait'? A bit hypocritical.
bluedigger
(17,437 posts)Masterful reply.
Uzair
(241 posts)This one seems to be, by far, the most popular one.
Are you going to go on and on about everything else except the strict gun laws in all the other countries? Are you afraid of what you might be forced to conclude?
rl6214
(8,142 posts) Uzair
(241 posts)You have nothing.
rl6214
(8,142 posts)All your rhetoric and you are no closer to getting it repealed, talk about nothing. That's your entire argument...nothing.
billh58
(6,655 posts)You got the Gungeoneers all riled up, and they're swarming like angry bees. It's okay though, because they're really cute when they're angry and sputtering, "my rights! my rights!"
It's a very good thing that they only represent a very small percentage of American gun owners, although they tend to make ALL gun owners look bad. We Democrats can tell the difference however, and luckily the Gungeon dwellers give us a good look at the ugly underside of the NRA.
I love it when they make our job so easy -- don't you?
Uzair
(241 posts)And they just went ahead and said it anyway. The second amendment trap, the Americans are not like others trap, the guns are tools trap, it's all there. They have nothing, so they just repeat repeat repeat. Anything than to talk about how other countries' STRICT GUN LAWS have solved the problem.
billh58
(6,655 posts)Amazing how predictable they are, isn't it?
AndyA
(16,993 posts)An urban explorer I know has traveled all over the world documenting abandoned places. Someone mentioned he should go explore an old building here in the United States. He was interested, but couldn't find enough people to go with him. Later, someone mentioned that he'd done explorations overseas by himself.
He responded, "Safety is number one. The safety of the structure, as well as my personal safety. In Europe, it's safe to do this by yourself. In the United States, it's not.
When asked what the difference was, he said, "Too many gun nuts here. I walked in on some scrappers (stripping copper from abandoned buildings to sell) once, and had four guns pulled on me. I'm lucky I made it out of there with my life."
In his opinion, America is LESS SAFE due to the easy access to guns. It made sense to me.
Thanks for posting the OP, it's rare to read clarity on this subject here at DU sometimes.
pediatricmedic
(397 posts)1. Completely homogeneous culture.
2. Economic disparity much less.
3. Social Injustice much less.
4. Aggressive nature still limited from shame of WWII.
5. Suicide rate is pretty damn high anyway.
Other countries that would be bad examples would be countries like Norway or Sweden.(white people only countries)
Please cite countries with similar diversity(racial, social, economic) and population, or maybe you can't because there are none.
billh58
(6,655 posts)England, Germany, France, Holland, Denmark, and on, and on. All of these Western countries are as racially diversified as the USA, and have similar socioeconomic models. Coincidentally, all of them have much lower gun violence and gun death rates than the USA.
pediatricmedic
(397 posts)None of them have the diversity, economic disparity, or social injustice we have.
Germany, Holland, and Denmark are pretty homogeneous. England and France claim diversity, but are becoming rather intolerant and aren't dealing with populations as large as the US.
On economic disparity, the US is one of the WORST in the world. How could you ignore the difference between the 1% and the 99%?
How about the obvious social injustice of being a white man vs. a black man in the US compared to any other country.
Also please quit cherry picking one type of death vs. all types. Murder is murder, no matter what the method is, it is still wrong.
billh58
(6,655 posts)gun nuts and their positions on all things guns. The United States has the highest gun death and injury rate of ANY country in the civilized world -- by far. If you are implying that no other country in the world compares to the USA socially or economically, then I don't know how to help you with your delusions.
Bub bye Bubba...
Uzair
(241 posts)This is fucking hilarious. Also, the guns are just tools trap. (Murder is murder, doesn't matter the method? WE ARE TALKING ABOUT GUN VIOLENCE).
Can't you address the strict gun laws of these other countries? Are you afraid of what you might be forced to conclude?
pediatricmedic
(397 posts)I can conclude strict gun laws don't have a real positive or negative effect on violence.
I can conclude the source of violence is not guns, but other factors we are failing to address.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Guns are the reason we have a much higher homicide rate that Western Europe, Japan, Canada, etc. A fistfight does a lot less damage than a gunfight.
pediatricmedic
(397 posts)Your first statement that gun violence is more lethal is true and I agree with it. A violent altercation involving guns is more likely to result in a death then one without.
Your second statement assumes that guns are the driving force or root cause of violence. You are saying that the guns are the root cause of the violent altercation in the first place. Can you justify this?
DanTex
(20,709 posts)I'm saying that without guns, with the same amount of violence, there would be less deaths. Once you accept the fact that guns make violence more lethal, the conclusion that reducing guns will save lives is inescapable.
This can also be justified statistically, for example: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022745525
Events can have more than one cause. Maybe the "root cause" of a fight is that two people don't like each other, or that one of them cuts the other off in traffic, or sleeps with the other's spouse, etc. In these cases a gun can mean the difference between a bloody nose and a murder.
pediatricmedic
(397 posts)http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf
I really liked the post by Recursion, it's just math and doesn't care where you stand on the issue.
The second one is a pretty good read as well. It exposes some of the biases found in research of this type as well.
I think it is a false assumption that reducing guns will have any meaningful impact. The absence of guns will just make things bloodier and more personal. If two gangs are going to fight for drug turf, will it stop them if nobody has a gun? Maybe eliminating the incentive to have drug turf or gang in the first place may be a better way?
Anyway, I don't think we are going to agree. I think going after guns is about as productive as making coal a clean energy. You feel differently and that is ok.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)I'm not sure if you're aware, but that Kates Mauser "study" you say is a "good read" is a non-peer-reviewed article written by non-scientists, and published in a law review edited by right-wing Harvard Law Students. Among the many problems with it are actual data errors -- it's not to hard to get the conclusion you want when your data is false.
That particular article gets posted often enough by gun trolls that I keep this link handy.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/117283396#post50
And the first link is a blog entry by a right-winger who is also author of a book about the "anti-science left". As I pointed out in that other link, the peer reviewed research and the right-wing think tanks and gun blogs come to very different conclusions. Especially when dealing with a politically sensitive topic, it's important to distinguish actual science from propaganda.
And as a pediatrician, you should know this.
pediatricmedic
(397 posts)Even the peer reviewed stuff is that way. But that is a difference between social sciences and the hard sciences we have to deal with. It is also a reason we need a lot more studies to explore the dynamics of this.
X was shot with a gun. Yes, a gun was involved, but WHY was X shot in the first place? How can we prevent that from happening again.
These are the answers I want to find and eliminating guns alone doesn't do it.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Some things are not subjective, even in social sciences.
And, yes, eliminating guns actually does prevent people from getting shot. It doesn't prevent people from getting into fights, or committing crimes, but it prevents people from being killed.
The logic is pretty simple. Your odds of surviving a gunshot wound are much lower than a knife wound or blunt object wound.
Uzair
(241 posts)You care about your guns, and selfishly don't want to jump through some hoops so you can continue to have easy access to them. When it's pointed out to you that gun violence is either exponentially lower or essentially non existent in places that have strict gun laws, and all you can talk about is anything else besides the gun laws, your true intentions are showing.
30 children in China attacked with a knife on the same day as Sandy Hook and not one of them dead. And you want to pretend that you give a flying fuck about root causes of violence? Spare me.
pediatricmedic
(397 posts)Can you explain Mexico, Russia, and Kenya to me please? Very strict gun laws, different continents, and homicide rates 4 to 5 times higher.
I haven't picked up a gun in awhile, so I don't think I am overly concerned about having access or getting more, but nice try.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)
And there I was thinking that you were interested in an intellectually honest discussion.
pediatricmedic
(397 posts)They all have very strict gun laws and higher homicide rates. They have stable governments elected by their people as well. As someone else said, we can't view them as different from the US, or it's a trap.
Can you arbitrarily dismiss the data if it doesn't suit your purpose?
They represent 3 data points on the opposite side chosen at random. They have very strict gun laws, but something seems to have gone really wrong. In one case, it is probably the massive drug war supported by the US skewing things.
tritsofme
(19,900 posts)Is a tad more difficult than you think.
DainBramaged
(39,191 posts)let them all be gone all of them. NRA be damned
sandy78
(17 posts)Over 90% of America support gun control. The NRA only consists of 1 million people out of a 350 million population. We have the numbers on them.
Confiscation is coming. The gun nuts are getting nervous. No one needs a gun in this day and age. The 2nd amendment was meant for muskets, not full auto killing machines that are used to slaughter children.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)I think your numbers might be slightly off, I think its more like 4 million but still a very small percentage of the population and also a very small percentage of gun owners.
On point two, that will be difficult due to the constitution as how it is now interpreted and how are you going to pay fair value when you confiscate millions of firearms. You do know you have to do that right? And no fully automatic weapons were used in sandy hook. Just a semi-automatic rifle that has been in civilian use for some 40-50 years. And since the second amendment only covers muskets how is that quill pen or printing press working for you.
And once again welcome to the board and I hope you stay for a long time.
OOPS got my figures way wrong sorry, In 1995, the BATFE estimated that there were about 223 million firearms owned by individuals in the US. The number has increased since then.
Response to sandy78 (Reply #172)
Name removed Message auto-removed