General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWow. The gun nuts are already using the PA stabbing to push the "guns don't kill people" argument.
This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by azurnoir (a host of the General Discussion forum).
And not just over at FR, but even here on DU! I guess they missed the fact that (thankfully, so far), nobody was actually killed in the school stabbing.
I mean, I get that the statistical studies and the data aren't in the NRAs favor, so they have to rely on anecdotal evidence wherever they can find it, but are these people so dumb that they can't even pick an anecdote that actually fits their ideology?
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)
DanTex
(20,709 posts)and get our gun violence problem under control.
Hip_Flask
(233 posts)Simple A to B with no subtlety... 
DanTex
(20,709 posts)I think part of the problem is that gun nuts tend to be "rah-rah USA go" types that don't know much about the rest of the world.
laundry_queen
(8,646 posts)those kinds of laws only work where there are protected borders. Without protected borders, it is not difficult to move items into restricted areas. Common sense helps when you think out those little things. Subtlety indeed.
Hip_Flask
(233 posts)You guys are talking about a completely imaginary America that has secure borders, no 2nd Amendment, doesn't have 300 million guns already in the hands of the populace and doesn't have a long and ingrained history of gun ownership.
I was talking about America as it actually is.
Oops...
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)"You guys are talking about a completely imaginary America..."
As opposed to an absolutely real America in which a mere 11,000 firearm homicides are committed with intent and purpose... a rather small price some may say. 
Oops, indeed.
laundry_queen
(8,646 posts)wants gun control.
Hip_Flask
(233 posts)The reality is that gun rights are stronger and more expansive than before.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)is going to occur on any issue, guns or otherwise.
Something tells me you're not too upset by that situation.
yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)Not a gun law passed. Why?
DanTex
(20,709 posts)The stimulus, which effectively prevented a second great depression, ACA, and a lot more. Gun control wasn't part of the main agenda. You'll have to ask Obama why. A political calculation, no doubt. He needed all the political capital he could muster to get ACA through.
Go Vols
(5,902 posts)Its now legal to carry a gun into a National Park and on an Amtrak train,both passed in 2010.
yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)Sheesh such progressive bills.
Hip_Flask
(233 posts)I was referring to the state level where the majority of gun policy is made.
If there really was a mandate from the people for gun control they could have had it. Instead we saw what actually happened.
Most people are neutral to supportive of gun rights with the extremes at both sides pushing the debate.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Some states are expanding gun rights and outlawing abortion. Others are doing the opposite.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Circular arguments are fun!!!
joeglow3
(6,228 posts)I have see a lot of accusations of what you said. What I have seen is
1. People saying we should leave the politics of the weapon out and discuss mental health
2. People addressing comments like yours, saying we should at least wait a while before politicizing the victims of the attack.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024798370#post20
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024798370#post14
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)...and in line with joeglow3's first point above:
Feeling ineffective might tempt a person to lash out, but you are presumably an adult
and have no excuse.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)I don't think that it will come as too much surprise to most people here that there are a fair number of gun nuts and conservatives here whose posts are indistinguishable from what gets posted over at FR. But we'll see what the jury decides.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)Speaking of which, let us see if you have the courage of your convictions:
Name one- and show your work, as my math teachers used to say. Only then
will we
DanTex
(20,709 posts)alert on. As far as your quest for the elusive gun nuts, here is a starting point for you.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1172
You know, a fun experiment is to go back a few months in the gungeon, and see how many of the posters from back then have since been banned, and then for extra credit, try and match those old banned posters with the people who just signed up in the last few weeks.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)I find that rather refreshing- I actually prefer that sort of free-floating prejudice
preferable to insincere pleas for 'compromise' and naive proclamations
that gun control will come roaring back Real Soon Now. You lot
were so sure the New Jerusalem was at hand and the eebil gun nutz
were going to be thwarted once and for all...
DanTex
(20,709 posts)So, did you play the "banned gun troll game" like I said? It's pretty fun. If you had actually taken that math class you were talking about, you might even be able to estimate the expected lifetime of a DU gun troll. But then, if you had that level of mathematical ability, you probably wouldn't be pro-NRA to begin with.
As far as gun control coming back soon, I'm not optimistic, especially not with the GOP in control of congress, not much progressive legislation is going to get through, in any area.
And something tells me you're pretty happy about that.
beevul
(12,194 posts)Honest math means not being numerically selective.
Meaning, if you're going to include all guns and all gun owners into your legislation, and you have any intention of being honest, you include them into your math as well.
300 million + guns, 100 million+ gun owners.
You guys don't want to factor those into your "math", but boy howdy do you want to include them in your legislation.
Not exactly honest or forthright methodology.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)I see that your posts have resumed their usual level of factual accuracy- the first cite
is especially for you...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2125763
16. Newsflash: Not everyone that disagrees with you is NRA.
Believe it or not, the NRA is generally abhorred by most (including myself) posters in the Gungeon for
their obvious shilling for the Republicans.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/117277229
Well, *that* wasn't very surprising- the NRA has endorsed Mittens
It's official: the NRA is a Republican super-PAC with a gun club attached. Perhaps one of our resident NRA members can tell us how the NRA explained away his assault weapon ban in Massachusetts-
and if they are going to resign from what is now officially a GOP front.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2284372
25. I hate the NRA, but the Eddie Eagle program *is* better than nothing.
And nothing is exactly what the Bradys and VPC do. Shit, I'd respect the VPC and/or the Bradys
a lot more if they shamelessly cribbed from the EE syllabus:
If you see a gun
1. Don't touch it.
2. Get away from the gun and stay away from it.
3. Tell an adult.
Sound lessons are sound no matter who gives them, IMO.
You are, of course, free to embrace the genetic fallacy- but don't expect me to.
You may very well be the most long-lived self-appointed zampolit
to be found at DU, but like your fellow witchfinders/Inquisitors/politruks you
conflate your personal opinion with DU and/or Democratic Party policy...
DanTex
(20,709 posts)We got us a real pseudo-intellectual on our hands, Bubba!
LOL
Anyway, no, I don't think that all DU agrees with me. In fact, if you'll scroll up, you'll see that I actually pointed out that there are plenty of gun nuts and trolls that linger around here -- the opposite of what you accuse me of believing. It is true that there are some gun nuts who aren't in the NRA. In fact, there are some gun groups that are so extreme that they think the NRA is selling out to the liberals. Yeah, it gets pretty wacky out there.
beevul
(12,194 posts)Again, everyone who is evenly remotely pro-gun, is a "full on NRA pro-gun extremist" to people with views like yours.
That you haven't addressed this...is because you can't address it.
Theres no hiding from the truth.
The best you can do is ignore it, and pretend nobody noticed.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Some people are full-on NRA pro-gun extremists, some are not. I guess the idea now is you put words in my mouth, and then insist that I should "address" them.
Interesting strategy. A little different from your buddy there who instead likes to drop random buzzwords in italics, but both are pretty good I guess when it comes to hiding the fact that you don't have a logical argument.
beevul
(12,194 posts)Its how you act.
Heres an opportunity prove me wrong:
Is someone who supports current federal law but wants no additional laws an extremist in your view?
Not that you'd dare answer that directly...
DanTex
(20,709 posts)If you don't want universal background checks, then yes, absolutely. And this isn't just an opinion. Opposition to UBC is nutty just from a policy perspective, but that's not it. Polls show over 90% of the country is in favor, so opponents are in the 10% most extreme pro-gun people in the country.
Moreover, given that this is by far the most right-wing country in the world when it comes to gun policy, from an international perspective, this places opponents of UBC in a tiny sliver of pro-gun extremists that exist primarily on the right wing of the Republican Party of the US.
beevul
(12,194 posts)Ok, add to support for all current federal law, the support of UBC, but nothing more.
Still extremist?
DanTex
(20,709 posts)the way I would for opposition to UBC.
beevul
(12,194 posts)Then you should be asking people if they support UBC before freely throwing the label of "extremist" or any of the variants of it that you use, at people that disagree with you.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)For example, if someone believes that Fast and Furious was some kind of secret false flag thing to drum up support for gun control, that person is an extremist, even if they happen to support UBC. If someone thinks that gun control advocates are really just trying to impose liberal urban cultural values on rural conservatives, rather than actually trying to reduce gun violence, that is an extremist opinion. Etc.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)The "self-appointed" part is demonstrably true. You are not an admin, nor do
you host any forums or groups. You also freely describe other DUers as
"conservatives", "gun nuts", "Bubba(s)", "trolls", apparently for having the temerity
to disagree with you, thus the "witchfinder" and "bigot" bits. And when called on it,
you waffle.
It's only human to become embittered after failure. How you choose to act upon
it is entirely up to you...
DanTex
(20,709 posts)it makes you look like a pseudo-intellectual poser? I mean, you're not trying to impress me here, you're trying to impress a bunch of ignorant gun fanatics, so buzzword away. No excuses or rationalizations necessary!
DanTex
(20,709 posts)There we have the guy who signed the AWB, and the guy who tried to pass a second one, and yet the NRAers continue to insist that every single gun owner in America is onboard with their extremist agenda.
IveWornAHundredPants
(237 posts)
Skip Intro
(19,768 posts)
sarisataka
(22,701 posts)but since I am a nut http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024798370#post20 I guess I'll fall from the tree
You are exactly the person I am suggesting should sit back and reflect. Is it good that there are no deaths and hopefully will not be- of course. Yet to beath a sigh of relief and say "We sure dodged a bullet" (pun intended) is myopic at best.
You see 20 victims and say "What a good thing. None are dead"
I see 20 victims and say "How horrible. Thankfully none are dead."
That the attacker used a knife is better than had a gun been involved. Did the attacker choose a knife because they did not have access to a gun or for some other reason? According to some a gun can practically be picked up from common vending machines to hear how they describe the easy access. Yet if access is so easy, why was a gun not used?
That, however is getting away from my point. I find mass violence unacceptable whether by gun, knife, arson, bomb, baseball bat or rusty nail. I would like to see resources available and stigma of seeking help removed to troubled youths and adults are willing to get help rather than lash out in violence. If the root cause (violence) can be reduced, weapon access correspondingly is less important. If both measures are involved we should see a synergy that reduces our rates of homicide, assault and other violent crime.
If that makes me a nut- I willingly accept that label.
Now lest you twist my words here and accuse me of claiming guns for everyone, check my OP here http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172131377
I presented a form of this to my state rep (D) for possible legislation but unfortunately he said the time was not right, nor was there support for such measures.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)But in that other post, you were most certainly making the argument that we shouldn't focus on the weapon. Which is preposterous, in light of the obvious difference in lethality, and especially so in light of this recent incident.
The thing is, nobody is claiming that we shouldn't look at what causes people to lash out. The only people who are trying to restrict the argument are the pro-gun people, insisting that we talk about root causes to the exclusion of guns. I'm in favor of both. And since it is plainly obvious that many lives would be saved if violence were less lethal, then guns are a very important part of the equation.
Here's an analogy. If there's a horrific traffic accident, but many lives are saved by airbags, then it makes sense to say, hey, airbags are good. It makes no sense to say "see, accidents occur even with airbags, so let's focus instead on safer driving". That's not saying that we shouldn't also try to prevent accidents in other ways. But to say "the real problem is bad driving" and refuse to acknowledge that building safer cars is also important is just silly.
sarisataka
(22,701 posts)Your claim is many say guns are unimportant, we need to look elsewhere. I agree some, probably too many, do say that.
Yet I see many who take the position- if only there were no guns everything would be fine. I believe you agree this is equally false.
Unfortunately both look past the positives the other has to offer. Many who favor gun rights see no issue with various restrictions, as long as there are effective. What we see from the gun control side is if a person does not accept every proposed restriction they are labeled a nut (at best) and condone death and mayhem.
What the control side is missing out on is those who favor gun rights are often very well acquainted with the technology of guns. Talking point or not, several gun control initiatives have been failures due to a lack of understanding of the technology. A cooperative effort of gun control initiatives, back with support and help from knowledgeable gun owners would be extremely effective on the 'hardware' side of the violence equation. A pairing with goal oriented, rather than agenda driven, mental health professionals would be the 'software' counterpart to such an effort.
As it stand now, it is a "Your with us or against us" from both sides. Not all who favor GC are grabbers, but not every gun owner is individually responsible for every gun death. The cost of the culture war framing of the issue is the deaths and injury of innocents by more than just guns. The lack of action after Sandyhook is a shame borne by both sides.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)I see a lot of people saying things would be much better with fewer guns. In fact, the whole "things would be fine if __________" idea is pretty rare on any topic. I mean, even if we had no gun violence, there would still be income inequality, and environmental degradation, etc. To continue the air bag analogy, people advocating for air bags aren't in any way claiming that "everything would be fine" if we just had air bags, only that air bags could make things much better than they are, and the fact that there are other good things we could do shouldn't be used as an excuse to not install air bags. In the same way that the fact that there are other things we can do about homicide shouldn't be an excuse to ignore the elephant in the room which is guns.
On the other hand, I do see people saying that a gun is just a tool, and without guns there would be just as much killing but with other weapons, and so on. This, to me, is ridiculous. And this is why there isn't a "both sides do it" situation here.
Also, the "culture war" framing is largely the making of the gun lobby. It's part of the whole "persecuted conservative white Christian male". I know literally zero people in favor of gun control because they want to impose some lifestyle on others. If that were the case, you'd also see calls for restrictions on NASCAR and country music, which you don't.
Oh, and I apologize for calling you a nut. We've had plenty of productive conversations before.
sarisataka
(22,701 posts)I must forgive. Though my standard is to avoid pejorative terms I sometime fail to live up to that. 
No offense taken.
I cannot say where it became a culture war but you are correct. The radical gun lobby has taken the framework and ran with it; to give the devil his due, masterfully so.
Were some of us on both sides able to get together for a week end and hash things out I believe there would be more progress on the issues of guns and violence than has been accomplished in the last forty years. Unfortunately the wheels are run by Power and greased by Money- things those of us on the little end are sorely lacking 
HockeyMom
(14,337 posts)That is a key difference between the two weapons. Plus, the article said some of the students injured were from being trampled on. How many would have been dead from a gun? More difficult to run from a shooter than someone with a knife.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)what criminologist have said for decades now, which is that gun availability produces more lethal violence, because guns kill people much more easily than other weapons. And yet somehow the NRAers decide to seize upon this to try and argue the opposite. Truly bizarre.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)
Lex
(34,108 posts)
Oakenshield
(628 posts)My delusional past-time of playing soldier is more important than some thirty thousand annual deaths by gun-violence. Because freedom. 
B2G
(9,766 posts)Only in reverse.
The root cause of this violence is it what we need to address, not the vehicle for its delivery.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Arguing that we shouldn't address the lethality of the weapon is idiotic. Sure, address root causes. The thing is, in terms of overall levels of violence, the US isn't out of line with the rest of the developed world. The problem is, violence here too often involves guns, which is why our murder rate is so high.
Without the guns, a lot more people would be alive today.
Arguing that we shouldn't address the guns is equivalent to arguing that we shouldn't have air bags in cars, we should just address the root causes of bad driving.
kcr
(15,522 posts)For one thing, there is no one root cause of violence. Guns are a factor and they should be addressed.
But there is something going on with young males in our society. I don't know what, but it needs to be explored.
I don't know if it's violent video games, ADHD drugs or what. But it's obvious that a well adjusted person doesn't pick up a gun or a knife and start maiming people at random.
My point is that only focusing on the weapon used and not the motive behind it is a fruitless exercise in the long run.
kcr
(15,522 posts)The issues are related, but they aren't the same. Not everyone who is maladjusted will use a weapon to injure or murder someone. In fact, most won't. And ramping up focus on maladjusted individuals will not prevent all violent incidents. It isn't like it's a singular disease, with a virus that you figure out how to treat and once you do, bingo! No more violence! And it isn't as if it's a zero sum game at any rate. Whatever you do, focusing on one won't take away from the ability to focus on the other. You can't ignore the guns.
beevul
(12,194 posts)kcr
(15,522 posts)They discuss scientology? Oh wait, that's not what it is.
beevul
(12,194 posts)They have a long list of people blocked for less.
kcr
(15,522 posts)Because I wouldn't be talking about mental health the way an RKBA supporter would. "Focusing on mental health" for an RKBAer usually means something much different in the context of the discussion. That's why they get blocked. Besides, there already exists a mental health forum. Why wouldn't one go there to discuss that issue? Just because mental health isn't focused on in that group doesn't support the talking point that gun control advocates think mental health issues should never be addressed, ever.
beevul
(12,194 posts)We're getting a bit off track, you asked and I quote "Who makes that point that only weapons should be focused on, ever?"
I replied that there is a forum dedicated to that belief.
It says as much in their SOP.
I've answered your question honestly and truthfully, but you're unwilling to see it.
That's on you, not on me.
kcr
(15,522 posts)by insinuating the forum was dedicated to that belief, which is utter nonsense. Where does it say that in their SOP? It doesn't even mention mental health.
beevul
(12,194 posts)"Who makes that point that only weapons should be focused on, ever?"
The forum I linked to, concentrates ONLY weapons and controlling them, and that's all that can be talked about there.
Ever.
Their SOP says as much, and it is enforced in exactly that way.
I don't know about you, but when I see a forum dedicated only to discussing controlling the weapons, where discussing other aspects of violence is forbidden, I call that "Only focusing on weapons".
Maybe you have a different definition of "only".
kcr
(15,522 posts)Then, yes. But if we're speaking plain english, no. Because I'm afraid I don't buy the RKBA argument that it isn't guns that are the problem but mental health. Therefore I don't see the problem with focusing on gun control. And doing so doesn't mean one is anti-mental health. If anything, today's story in PA shows this. It's exactly why RKBAers want to jump on stories like this and distort and deflect. Anything to keep the focus off the fact that had a gun been in that student's hand, the outcome would have been different. The focus should be elswehere is their rallying cry.
"Who makes that point that only weapons should be focused on, ever?"
I can't help it if you don't like the answer.
kcr
(15,522 posts)Surely there must be some out there.
"Who makes that point that only weapons should be focused on, ever?"
Pointing out that theres a whole forum that acts to focus only on weapons in response to your question, is nothing that can be remotely construed as "out of context".
Nobody said the truth was comfortable.
Taking someone's statement and attributing a "face value" that person didn't mean.
beevul
(12,194 posts)If you can't be bothered to throw the ball in a such way that you know the person you're throwing it to can catch it, you have no business complaining at them for not catching it.
That's on you not on them.
Iverglas used to play that game far better than you do, and she made DU suck and was booted for it.
But what the hell, lets give this a try:
What exactly did you mean when you asked:
"Who makes that point that only weapons should be focused on, ever?"
kcr
(15,522 posts)Why ask when you can read the entire conversation that you butted into, because I wasn't responding to you in the first place. Normally I don't mind when other people interject of course, unless they're going to pull quotes out of context and then claim I have to consider how they're going to "catch it".
Common Sense Party
(14,139 posts)And sadly, yours is a sentiment that will be ignored around here.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)If your ADHD-addled, violent video game playing young male goes around stabbing people at school, his victims are much less likely to die than if he goes around shooting.
That result is not a "fruitless exercise".
oneofthe99
(712 posts)Also the student was running down hallways with a knife in each hand
stabbing and cutting anyone he could get near.
I don't think this has been reported on the news yet that the principle is the one who stopped him.
alcibiades_mystery
(36,437 posts)Probably both of them together apprehended this young man.
I suspect we'll hear more about how that cashed out shortly.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)And the War on Drugs ended drug addiction. And its great that making prostitution illegal has ended it. Obviously those successes are proof that banning guns will be effective.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Because banning alcohol didn't work, we also shouldn't try to ban kidnapping or insider trading. And who needs building codes or speed limits! I mean, people are going to do what they're going to do! Let's just have a free for all!
Hip_Flask
(233 posts)But it wasn't and so you dont...
The point is that stupid laws, such as the vast majority of those suggested by the gun prohibitionists,produce stupid resuts.
Most are ineffective, immoral and won't save lives... all while further infringing on the rights and freedoms that were enjoyed by the American populace up to this point.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)The thing is, gun control laws aren't stupid, and also, they have nothing to do with alcohol. But I'm anxiously awaiting the next brilliant NRA talking point.
Hip_Flask
(233 posts)... and give that one another swing.
If you'd like to be taken seriously, then come prepared and address the points made instead of having a ramble.
I'll check your work when you are done.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Aha, that's where the confusion started. OK, let me clear this up.
I don't have any illusion that you are going to deviate from the NRA script even once for the rest of your life. I don't harbor any fantasy that you will listen to reason rather than repeating GOP talking points. I don't think there is any more chance that you will
"take me seriously" than that Glenn Beck will understand that the earth is more than 6000 years old.
Hip_Flask
(233 posts)The exact reason that gun control has spectacularly failed across America can be found within your post.
You aren't interested in actually changing policy, saving lives or implementing positive change. You and yours prefer the righteousness of knowing how superior your way is and how good it makes you feel to be above the barbarians who can't comprehend your enlightened ways (all while depending on forces with guns for your security).
If you really think that the only people you are going against are Glen Beck clones who belive in a 6000 year old earth then you are sorely mistaken. The conversation is between millions of Americans of every party, age, ethnicity and income group, to include a significant portion of the Democratic party.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)more effectively advocate for gun control. Because, of course, the first person I would listen to is someone who would go to their grave opposing the very policies that I would like to see enacted.
What next, the Koch Brothers offering advice on how Democrats can enact climate change regulation?!?
Or maybe I should ask Westboro Baptist members how best to fight for LGBT rights!!
You'll understand if I don't take your "advice" seriously.
Hip_Flask
(233 posts)... and am capable of changing my mind if I see new information that merits it.
IOW, I am not so much a "full on NRA pro-gun extremist" but rather someone who pokes back at the juvenile, illogical, emotionally inflammatory and intellectually dishonest pile of crap that is the anti-gun movement.
It's offensive because it's so stupid. Doubly so because there really are legitimate points to be made but they are run over in the mad dash to get the next big circular firing squad.
Finally, by all means keep doing what your doing. It's worked out so well for the anti-gunners up to this point hasn't it? It's sure to stick one of these times....
Right...?
DanTex
(20,709 posts)This is from experience. Once people go off the deep end on this issue, they don't come back. The evidence is there, and if people want to deny it, then that's who they are. You're pretty much repeating all the standard NRA talking points, so at this point I truly think reaching you with logic on this issue would be as hard as explaining evolution to Glenn Beck.
But it is pretty amusing when pro-gun extremists try to pretend that what they really truly are trying to do is make gun control advocates more effective. BTW, you're far from the first person to play that angle...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1262314
Hip_Flask
(233 posts)This method has worked out so well for you and yours hasn't it?
DanTex
(20,709 posts)And it would also be insane to take the advice of a pro-gun extremist on how to change that.
Hip_Flask
(233 posts)DanTex
(20,709 posts)The whole trying to make a logically coherent argument thing really doesn't suit you.
Hip_Flask
(233 posts)Ramble on while not addressing any points made until the grown ups get tired of you and move on and allow you to gleefully declare "victory."
The world is a little less bright for the way you talk about serious issues that deserve real answers.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Hip_Flask
(233 posts)... and I use the word loosely in your case, in about 30 years when Americans are enjoying even more gun rights.
You'll sit and wonder how you could have lost so utterly and completely and then you'll remember that an anonymous dude on the Internet gave you all the answers and you decided to act like a child instead.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)for not having listened to you.
And I'm sure that will make you very happy.
Because, let's face it, that's what this is all about. It's not about tens of thousands of innocent lives. Don't talk about that. It's about sticking it to those liberal elitists with their high-falutin' hybrid cars and their lattes and their college professors and their organic vegetables and their weird music. Go on, cling to that gun.
beevul
(12,194 posts)Everyone who is pro-gun is a "full on NRA pro-gun extremist" to people what want restrictions on the level of other countries.
Someone who is content with current laws is a "full on NRA pro-gun extremist" in your view, yet while viewed objectively they are nothing of the sort.
That says more about your views than it does about theirs.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)In fact, just like the gun fanatics, they constantly whine about being demonized and about how they are the last defense against totalitarianism.
The difference being, the Koch Brothers aren't trying to pretend that they are really here to help Democrats enact progressive change. At least they're honest.
beevul
(12,194 posts)I note you don't disagree with what I said, you just pretend I didn't say it.
That only works for you.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)beevul
(12,194 posts)joeybee12
(56,177 posts)and in places in NV where prostitution is illegal, that is regulated.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)At least moreso than outright bans. And guns are already regulated, and statistics show that a ridiculously tiny number of guns/gun owners are involved in homicides. Could regulation be improved? Absolutely! But an outright ban would have the exact opposite effect... creating a vast, unregulated, black market.
shanemcg
(80 posts)I guess it's just "assault" knives though.
Just sayin'.
ebbie15644
(1,244 posts)although in a different district. I have been following it on twitter and they are actually using #franklinregional to push their pro gun agenda disgusting.
Arugula Latte
(50,566 posts)joeybee12
(56,177 posts)
etherealtruth
(22,165 posts)As tragic as this is (and it is) ... I am so thankful the perpetrator did not have a gun. Lives were likely spared.
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)
backscatter712
(26,357 posts)This time, the person gone postal only used a knife, and oh look, nobody's actually died.
If the attacker used an Uzi instead of a knife, there'd probably be at least a dozen fatalities.
Firepower matters.
Oh, but wait, we have to keep firearms unregulated and make sure crazy people can obtain them because FREEEEEEEEEDOOOOOM!!!!!111one.
coljam
(188 posts)firemen and any other government public service. Then they will have their utopia of privatizing the whole country schools included.
They want everyone to be responsible for their own protection so people like that jag off in florida can shoot anyone different i.e. (black) This society is real scary.
IronGate
(2,186 posts)but you are responsible for your own protection, police have no legal duty to protect individual citizens unless they're in police custody.
IOW, a cop can watch someone getting mugged and they have no legal duty to intervene, although I can't imagine any cop just standing by and watching it happen.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)VAWA would be a nice start, stopping the violence in our homes where some apparently learn. It is one more young white male who appears incapable of handling his emotions. Don't know what the answer should be but putting our heads in the sand and allowing NRA to promote guns without safety should be a start.
wryter2000
(47,940 posts)"But, but, but, some crazy guy in China stabbed some kids." They don't seem to realize they're making the exact point:
crazy + knife = no death
crazy + gun = death
Rex
(65,616 posts)was coming from the knife industry! Is there an NBA?
MO_Moderate
(377 posts)is that the people you hate do not live with the fear of 'lethal violence' that feeds your rhetoric. They rarely experience gun violence, despite almost everybody being armed. And, contrary to agenda driven "studies," they live in areas that have more guns per person, with pretty much no gun violence. Do you really expect them to willingly give up their rights because people who live in areas with fewer guns per person experience more gun violence?
We already have tons of gun regulations in the books, do you really think demeaning and condemning people will gain you support for your cause? I don't think so.
Learn to understand and respect our geographical and cultural differences, common sense will take over, and then maybe meaningful legislation can be had.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)doesn't affect them as much as it does problem for minorities and people in urban areas. And since they often dislike both minorities and people who live in cities, they're not too interested in being part of the solution. Particularly when conservative radio takes advantage of their general bitterness and anger, convincing them to cling to their gun as a way to stick it to the "liberal elites".
But, you see, this OP isn't an attempt to reach out to teabaggers that value their guns over all else. But your concern is noted.
MO_Moderate
(377 posts)It's not the NRA or those that your racist screed targets, that you need the support of. It's the average Joe and Jane who live life day to day. They're not brainwashed by "conservative radio" and they don't "cling to their gun," they cling to the rights they have had since they were born.
I don't mention this because your rant is the same tiresome one we hear over and over, or because I think we should reach out to Tea Party members. I mention it because tens of millions of these people you hate are Democrats and, since 2014 is a very important election, I am VERY concerned about where their vote will go.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)I'm flattered that you think that my posts on DU are reaching millions of people, but I think you overestimate my audience size.
Sure, the big tent game is great, and if I were a politician, I might have to play it. That's why Obama had to walk back his accurate comments about people clinging to guns and religion. But I don't. I can actually speak truthfully and candidly.
I don't know where you got your numbers from, but I truly doubt that there are tens of millions of gun nuts ready to vote Democratic if only we'd give up on background checks.
MO_Moderate
(377 posts)Spouting propaganda and misguided rhetoric is not being 'candid.'
You are wrong if you believe insulting and mistreating fellow Democrats can't have negative effects. It alienates them, human nature kicks in and they look to find where they fit in. I don't know about you, but I prefer not to lose votes by telling people they are nuts and murderers because they support the 2nd Amendment.
I didn't say there are tens of millions of pro 2nd Amendment people ready to vote Democratic, I said there are tens of millions of Democrats that support the 2nd Amendment and I don't want to lose a single one of their votes. The Party needs every single vote it can get.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)And you don't think that tossing around accusations of racism is "insulting and mistreating fellow Democrats"? Explain how that works.
I was insulting a group of people who is overwhelmingly right wing. Are there a few Democrats in there who think that "guns don't kill people" and that a stabbing with zero deaths is somehow evidence that without guns, there would still be just as many killings? Sure, I guess there are. There are probably also Democrats who believe that gay people will burn in hell. Or that global warming is a hoax.
But survey evidence shows that Democrats are overwhelmingly in favor of every gun control law that is under consideration. They are even in favor of laws that aren't, like licensing and registration. So I think that I'm in pretty safe territory here.
Skittles
(171,908 posts)GET WITH THE PROGRAM!
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)Trying to gin up a moral panic is fun- you get to express a lot of anger while
simultaneously proclaiming your superiority over Those People.
The problem for these culture warriors comes when it becomes necessary
to enlist the cooperation of those they've been insulting and belittling in
order to get what they purportedly want. Laying off the bile and spittle-flecked
rhetoric and instead attempting actual compromise is apparently too difficult
for some...
MO_Moderate
(377 posts)It's pretty sad to see that so many Democrats refuse to accept how important every right and every vote really is.
Hip_Flask
(233 posts)All of this is just preaching to the choir...
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Yes, the fact that those people will die is just fine. If they were worth saving, they would live in the nice parts of town.
Also, we know that per-capita gun ownership is the perfect metric to show where gun violence will happen, because so many people are shot every year in countries that have a low per-capita gun ownership.
You can always measure the effectiveness of laws by mass. Larger mass clearly indicates no more laws are required.
Alternatively, the fact that the recent mass shooters complied with those regulations might indicate the regulations need some tweaks.
Such as how unimportant the people are in those neighborhoods.
A modest proposal: You would probably be far more effective if instead of throwing away the poor as chaff, you actually proposed some "meaningful legislation".
MO_Moderate
(377 posts)"Yes, the fact that those people will die is just fine. If they were worth saving, they would live in the nice parts of town."
No, it isn't fine. But is the answer to work with them OR to call them names, force legislation onto them and piss them off?
"Also, we know that per-capita gun ownership is the perfect metric to show where gun violence will happen, because so many people are shot every year in countries that have a low per-capita gun ownership."
Then explain the basically zero gun violence in counties that have a high per-capita gun ownership.
"Alternatively, the fact that the recent mass shooters complied with those regulations might indicate the regulations need some tweaks."
Sensible, meaningful and effective "tweaks" can only come about when ALL are involved. Emotions and insinuations, such as your 'don't care about those people,' only hamper the process.
"Such as how unimportant the people are in those neighborhoods."
No, such as thinking those people in my neighborhoods are somehow less important than those neighborhoods.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)So apparently you missed that you are claiming their desire to own guns is more important than the lives of the poor.
Might wanna rethink that if you're going to base your argument on the need for empathy.
Your claim is low per-capita gun ownership means higher gun violence. If that's true, it's going to be true whether or not you're talking about counties or countries.
Which demonstrates that it's a really dumb metric to try and use to argue more guns = more safety. But the NRA has to cherry-pick its statistics where it can find them.
Hey, if you're going to argue that those people's lives are not worth giving up your guns, own it. Be proud of it. Piss on the corpses, for all I care.
But don't pull this "we all have to work together" passive-aggressive bullshit when you are ranking thousands of dead bodies as less important due to "geographic differences".
If you want sensible, meaningful and effective "tweaks", start proposing them. People will get onboard. Of course, that would mean you'd have to actually come up with some instead of hiding behind "you are all too mean!!!!".
The crux of your argument is those people in your neighborhood aren't dead. And the people in other neighborhoods who are dead are not as important as you and your neighbor's guns.
leftyohiolib
(5,917 posts)bowens43
(16,064 posts)
The Straight Story
(48,121 posts)Or that states like Alaska with a high percent of gun ownership are safer than DC with a lower percent?
Maybe the point people are trying to make to you is that you shouldn't judge the many by the few.
Whether it be Islam and terrorism or your fellow posters or Americans who own (or want the right to own) guns.
If people are 'nuts' for defending their rights than I am betting we have a lot of abortion nuts here. Gay marriage nuts. Etc.
Some folks love others having control over their lives and what they can and cannot do.
Call me a nut for not being real down with that if you like. Say I am a rw'er or libertarian because I believe in your body, your choice on many issues and I don't want the government dictating life choices to me and what I can drink, smoke, eat, buy.
I like having the choice to buy a gun if I ever choose to get one. You don't, and don't trust your fellow citizen even though 99+ percent of them that own guns don't harm others with them.
And folks call me a nut.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)journals. Unlike, say, some NRAer cherrypicking statistics and posting them on a gun blog.
The (obvious) difference between guns and abortion or gay marriage is that the last two don't cost tens of thousands of innocent lives every year. And, yes, people that value their "right" to unfettered access to guns without so much as a licence or a registration, over all the lives lost every year, those people are truly nuts.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)Different cause, same mindset...
DanTex
(20,709 posts)I know this must all be very complicated for you.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)You just have to keep reminding them that they don't get to dictate the
actions of others...
DanTex
(20,709 posts)What this tangent has to do with preventing tens of thousands of innocent lives being lost to guns every year is beyond me. But it is an interesting glimpse into what happens in a mind once the NRA propaganda has fully seized control.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)Especially if the true believers insist that they "know" that Their Way Is The True Way
while insisting that Satan's...err, the NRA's hand is behind every move to oppose them.
It's hardly an original insight, Eric Hoffer described it brilliantly in The True Believer:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_True_Believer
The True Believer, Chapter XIV, "Unifying Agents"
65
Hate
without belief in a devil. Usually, the strength of a mass movement is proportionate to the
vividness and tangibility of its devil...It is perhaps true that the insight and shrewdness
of the men that know how to set a mass movement in motion, or how to keep one going,
manifest themselves as much in knowing how to pick a worthy enemy as in knowing what
doctrine to emplace and what program to adopt.
It would seem this also applies to mass movements manqué...
DanTex
(20,709 posts)I'm not sure what religion has got to do with this, unless you're part of some religious cult that considers gun violence victims some kind of human sacrifice.
Which, come to think of it, would explain a lot in terms of the callous indifference to loss of life over in your corner. Is your obsession with buzzwords part of that cult thing? Hmm, we may be on to something...
The Straight Story
(48,121 posts)Tens of thousands? every year?
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Those peer reviewed studies that you hate have found that gun availability contributes significantly to both homicide and suicide.
The Straight Story
(48,121 posts)That will solve the problem.....
Hmmm UNLESS that is not what is causing the problem. Hunh, never really thought about that.
Maybe what people were pointing out with that knife attack is that the tool used is not the root of the problem and no matter what you ban or try to ban the core problem is not being addressed.
But hey, it feels good.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)I'm in favor of restricting gun availability in order to reduce the death toll from gun violence. If there's something else you want to propose, I'm all ears. But, most likely, whatever brilliant idea you have is not mutually exclusive with gun control, and is basically just a distraction to try and pretend that guns have nothing to do with gun violence.
And, yes, I know there are some idiots claiming that this knife attack -- in which nobody died -- somehow proves that there would still be just as many mass killings even without guns. That was the point of the OP. The NRAers can't even cherry pick their anecdotal evidence correctly.
beevul
(12,194 posts)I tend to view suicide as a personal choice, regardless of method. I always have. If people choose to end their own life, that's their choice and it is none of my business. Or yours.
So I tend to find it dishonest to include gun suicides as "gun violence".
DanTex
(20,709 posts)But regardless, most people think of suicides as tragic events, and believe that preventing suicides is worthy objective. I guess you aren't one of them.
beevul
(12,194 posts)At least you admit you "imagine" it.
No, I have held that belief far longer than my beliefs on the gun issue.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)The majority of people who attempt suicide with a not-instantly-lethal method change their mind.
Using a gun does not allow that. As a result, it's likely that the majority of those gun suicides would not "finish the job" if they were using other methods. So we probably should not exclude all of them.
EX500rider
(12,613 posts)
MicaelS
(8,747 posts)You harp on it in almost every post related to gun ownership. You use the same phrase about "cherry picking the data". You act as if we should live our lives to according to peer preview studies.
You made it your position quite clear a while back the pro-gun position is purely a Right Wing / Libertarian ideological position, such that apparently in your worldview, you can't be a Liberal / Progressive and be Pro-Gun.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=83659
All this is all very similar to the attitudes of right-wingers towards war, and also towards things like torture. In addition to glorifying violence as a solution to problems, it also involves a simplistic "good guys versus bad guys" view of the world in order to avoid any kind of moral ambiguity.
The pro-gun ideology also puts public safety at risk for some phony concept of "freedom". The idea that lax gun laws make us safer because criminals will be deterred by armed citizens is an Ayn Randian fantasy. The idea that it's worth suffering higher levels of homicide and gun violence as a society in order to provide individuals the right to try to defend themselves is perhaps not quite so crazy, but it certainly has libertarian underpinnings. If you just look at what is in the best interest of society, it makes no sense to have gun laws so lax that even with a gun, you are more likely to be murdered than a person without a gun in a low-gun country.
And finally, there is the denial of reality. I've had many discussions with people here in the Gungeon, all of whom seem convinced that every single gun violence researcher, that Harvard, Johns Hopkins, UCDavis, Duke, etc., and that the editorial boards of the peer reviewed journals are all somehow part of an anti-gun conspiracy. The refusal to accept empirical reality, the silly cherry-picking of data to defend an ideological agenda, and the general distrust of science is pretty much identical to what I've seen from global warming deniers. In fact, right now there is an OP presenting a non-peer-reviewed article, published in a right-wing law review, written by two pro-gun advocates who have no evident background in science or statistics, and which contains serious factual errors. The article is masquerading as a "Harvard study" and is receiving rave reviews from the pro-gunners.
Progressives on the whole are more scientifically literate than that. It is not a coincidence that people who would put climate at risk to preserve the "right" to pump CO2 into the atmosphere are the same people who can justify enduring epidemic levels of gun violence to preserve the "right" to virtually unfettered gun access
Those are your words.
So let me make something perfectly clear. When it comes to gun ownership or the RKBA I don't give a damn about any and all peer reviewed studies you trot out. They are approaching gun ownership as a Public Health issue, not an issue of personal freedom, because that is the only hope you have for getting the type of Gun Prohibitionism you want exacted in this country. You are not going to get what you want otherwise. And I, and other gun owners are not going to let our rights and freedoms be eroded in this manner.
Advocates of Public Health fail to impress me with many of their studies. This or that causes cancer, this or that prevents cancer. Don't eat that, eat this. Don't drink this or that, it cause cancer. According to these "advocates" almost everything is hazardous in some way. When I read about advocates of Public Health in "Progressive" nations like the UK, seriously advocated that all knives have rounded ends to prevent stabbing, it shows how outlandish their positions can become.
I fully accept Global Warming exists, so do not lump me and other Gun Owners with Global Warming Deniers because we refuse to accept the ideological driven data you spout about Gun Ownership. I am not going to let you or any other Advocate of Public Health tell me how to live in my personal life.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)it's one of those "worst except for all the alternatives" situations. And certainly, given the ease with which statistical evidence can be selectively and misleadingly presented (i.e. "cherry picked"
, I think it's advisable to give more credence to properly executed and peer reviewed statistical analyses, rather than just some random data someone posts on a gun blog. This isn't to say that peer review is infallible, or that non-peer reviewed analyses can't be insightful, even more so than peer reviewed studies on occasion, but it's good to have some kind of referee there to prevent descent into stupidity.
BTW, I stand by everything I said in that post.
Anyway, obviously you're not going to let any empirical data change your views about guns. But that doesn't have to mean that you have to toss out all peer reviewed studies or public health campaigns. In fact, public health is a very good thing. We're talking about things like vaccinations, car safety, prevention of STDs, etc., things that have nothing to do with guns.
MicaelS
(8,747 posts)Just some, but not all of them, related to Public Health. I fully accept the need for vaccination, auto safety, and prevention of STDs. That obesity is a problem in this country. That Climate Change exists.
I am a strong believer in science and the scientific method. I am an especially a big believer in Space Sciences. If I could increase NASA's budget by 10X, I would not hesitate.
But I also believe some researchers are in a publish or perish model, and whose main reason for publishing is to generate enough publicity so they can be assured of getting new funds for more research, with the whole thing being a never ending cycle. In other words, they are just like politicians who are obsessed with endlessly getting re-elected.
But you are entirely correct that I am not going to let any empirical data change my views about guns. As long as guns are legal, and I am mentally, physically and legally able to own them, and I choose to own them, I will do so. I will not be shamed, shunned, embarrassed, or guilt-tripped into not owning them. No amount of appeals to empathy, emotion or safety will sway me.
HockeyMom
(14,337 posts)I had that happen to me when I was working in a store. After stealing the cash, he started coming after me in the back of the store. I threw a hot steam iron at him, screaming. He could not stab, or rape, me if he couldn't get near me.
Now what could have happened if he had a gun instead? From that distance he could have shot and killed me. He couldn't would a KNIFE. I suppose the gunners would say that I should have been carrying. On my hip? Because I would have had to reach somewhere in that store to even get it. If he already had that gun draw, I would have had to be a lot FASTER than him to draw it.
As I said before, guns are far more lethal in situations like the OT, unless you think it is cowardly to run from somebody with a knife. Sounds like the SYG argument.
Hip_Flask
(233 posts)... and the range from which a knife was considered lethal.
I think it ended up being in the low 20s. I know that has been the LE standard in many places for a while now.
sarisataka
(22,701 posts)21 feet. At that distance or less, if your gun is holstered the knife attacker will reach you before you can fire.
We did some tactical drills of gun vs knife several years ago. The situation was gun in hand, and two shots needed to stop the attacker. Our results were the attacker could cover 12 feet before the second shot impacted.
Though not quite as deadly, any person trained in defense with firearms knows a knife armed attacker is no joke once it gets to close quarters.
frazzled
(18,402 posts)But then, we don't live in Opposite World, so it's a really stupid, backwards, and illogical argument.
Packerowner740
(676 posts)They are too predictable.
closeupready
(29,503 posts)Skittles
(171,908 posts)villager
(26,001 posts)Every workplace, bar, hospital, school, etc. -- everyone should be allowed to "pack" a knife, wherever and whenever they want, in case somebody else has one....
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)
gwheezie
(3,580 posts)even the pro gun folks would say thank god that kid didn't have a gun, it was bad enough with 2 knives
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)Discuss politics, issues, and current events. No posts about
Israel/Palestine, religion, guns, showbiz, or sports unless there is really big news. No conspiracy theories. No whining about DU.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=about&forum=1002