This message was self-deleted by its author

[Agschmid]

This message was self-deleted by its author (Agschmid) on Mon Aug 31, 2015, 11:20 PM. When the original post in a discussion thread is self-deleted, the entire discussion thread is automatically locked so new replies cannot be posted.

[ryan_cats]

1. That is a compelling argument, I am convinced now. N/t.

[Agschmid]

3. Good, that was easy.

[ryan_cats]

5. Oh, Bravo...

Oh, Bravo, you're playing 3d Chess while I'm playing tic tac toe.

[libodem]

97. .

[Glassunion]

2. Oh my.

[WDIM]

4. There is NO reason for non-civilians to have them either.

Eom

[Agschmid]

8. I worded it a bit funny, but I agree.

[Bonhomme Richard]

52. Actually the miltary doesn't allow them to have them unless...

it is necessary.

[Agschmid]

68. Yup.

[Throd]

6. I'm glad you don't get to decide that for me.

[Agschmid]

9. It's too damn bad.

[cleanhippie]

45. For you.

[Agschmid]

47. Yes. And the people who are senselessly mustered by gunmen EVERY DAMN DAY.

And those gunmen... Use... GUNS.

[cleanhippie]

63. So you are really against criminals having guns?

Because 99% of the 125 million legal gun owners have never, ever shot or killed a another human.


You want to take away a legal Right because of something 1% is doing illegally?

[Agschmid]

71. I didn't actually call for the banning of all guns in the OP.

I'm open to suggestions on how to reduce gun violence, I don't see many.

[cleanhippie]

73. The what ARE you suggesting?

[Agschmid]

85. I'm suggesting us to have this conversation and take a stand...

Rather then sending an SOP alert every time this comes up.

[cleanhippie]

90. Then start the conversation, explaining WHY you feel a certain way.

Simply proclaiming something without substance is hardly a conversation starter; it's flamebait.


I'll get you started.

Since 99% of legal gun owners have never shot or killed another human, and never will, what do you propose that will reduce gun violence without curbing the Constitutional Rights of 125 million citizens that have never broken the law?

[cleanhippie]

148. Interesting how you've ignored every suggestion to start an actual conversation.

Along with ignoring hard facts. How surprising.

[Agschmid]

243. Says the guy who tried to shut down the debate with an SOP alert.

Yet you want "discussion"...

[cleanhippie]

338. A stand against what, exacty?

Crime? Sure, I'll stand against crime.


Just what, exactly, do you want to take a stand against?

[randys1]

326. I suggest read the 2nd in english, then do what it says by removing ALL guns to well

regulated militias

Then, THEN, we can discuss what to do next

[beevul]

333. False premise.

The bill of rights restricts only government, and authorizes nothing.

[cleanhippie]

339. Funny how most simply don't seem to understand that at all.

[beevul]

340. I know it. It is basic civics 101.

Very sad, really.

This used to be taught in school.

[cleanhippie]

342. Teaching facts somehow became political. Even right here on DU that is true.

Especially when it comes to this conversation (guns and the 2A); facts mean nothing, rhetoric means everything.

Case in point here ---> http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=7116002

How do you argue/debate with such rhetorical and substanceless nonsense? And this same nonsense is everywhere here.

[beevul]

343. By showing that it is what it is.

How do you argue/debate with such rhetorical and substanceless nonsense? And this same nonsense is everywhere here.

By showing that it is what it is, and staying well within the rules in doing so. They have nothing on the truth and the facts being expressed accurately within the rules.

Posts like that one, are meant to draw you into an argument, get you mad, and get you hidden. They're intended as a vehicle to suppress your disagreement.

Continue to stay relatively civil and within the rules in refuting them, and at some point they act like children whos toys wont do their bidding, and they get themselves banned for crossing the line, due to a lack of self control, like don lemon and so many others have.

It aint easy, but it works, and must be done.

[lancer78]

79. What about

the 241 people killed by alcohol each day according to the CDC? We really need to ban alcohol as it is 8 times deadlier then guns.

[Agschmid]

84. Is alcohol used to senselessly murder others?

Can it efficiently kill two people and seriously I just another person in under 5 seconds?

To some degree the answer to this could be yes, but drunk driving isn't the same as cold blooded murder IMO, although it's pretty close.

[lancer78]

93. you answered your own question.

[Agschmid]

95. I did, but also IMO they are't even on the same level.

[GummyBearz]

106. According to the state of california they are

If you kill someone while drunk driving its murder

[Agschmid]

114. Premeditation comes into it for me.

But test killing someone while drunk driving is absolutely a crime.

[Adrahil]

237. You're right. Alcohol kills WAY more people. nt

And if we count just drunking driving, the number of firearm murders and drunk driving deaths each year are comparable, according to the CDC.

Ban da Booze!

[Orrex]

324. Really? How many people are murdered annually by alcohol?

That is, in how many murders is alcohol the murder weapon? Not a contributing factor, but the actual weapon?

[Adrahil]

370. In 2013....

About 11,000 people were murdered with firearms. About 9,000 were killed in drink driving incidents. About 33,000 died overall from firearms-related incidents. About 88,000 died of alcohol-related incidents. Chrck out the CDC site.

Another note: every year about 41,000 people die due to exposure to send-hand smoke.

[Orrex]

371. You didn't answer my question

I specifically asked for the number of annual alcohol murders, and I specifically excluded deaths in which alcohol is a contributing factor. That means we're not discussing drunk driving nor "alcohol-related incidents."

Give me a precise number: in how many cases was alcohol used as the murder weapon?
How many mass-murders have we seen this year in which alcohol was the murder weapon?

While we're at it, in how may cases was second-hand smoke used as the murder weapon?


The comparison is not between murders-by-gun and deaths-by-anything-we-can-connect-to-alcohol. That is a false comparison put forth by those who would conveniently deny the all-too-convenient lethality of firearms.

[MicaelS]

248. And when 5 people get stabbed to death...

The reaction here was fucking crickets. Whereas if it they been shot, they would have dozens of threads.

That just proves it's all about guns as a totem of evil, not about people getting killed, just the WAY they get killed.

[beevul]

256. Yup. A picture is worth a thousand words.

[840high]

287. +1

[840high]

286. How do you plan to

take guns away from crooks?

[Archae]

7. Bull...shit.

I enjoy target practice with my brother-in-law.

This is just the "ban all dem gunz!" I see from people who really have no idea what they are yelling about.

And does anyone REALLY think banning handguns is going to stop criminals from getting and using them?

[Agschmid]

10. Reducing the overal ability of guns will absolutely reduce gun violence.

Unfortunately in Amercia there are guns everywhere, access is easy, WAY to easy.

[Archae]

16. The existing laws need to be better enforced.

But this will *ONLY* affect those who still follow the laws in the first place.
Criminals will still get any and every gun they want.

"Ban box cutters!"
"Ban knives!"
"Ban fireplace pokers!"
"Ban baseball bats!"
"Ban beer bottles!"
Ban (fill in the blank)

[Orrex]

25. BREAKING: 27 Slain in Brutal Fireplace Poker Rampage

[Agschmid]

29. Guns kill people quickly and efficiently...

They were designed to do just that.

Sure there will be other weapons but they don't have the same efficiency and kill rate... But hey why work to prevent something when we can just pretend people are killed by fire place pokers.

[Eleanors38]

54. Two kids pulled off a mass murder in OK couple of weeks ago.

Did you hear about it? Did you comment on it?

[Agschmid]

64. Yes.

Unfortunately due to SOP alerts we had to lock that thread...

Something about a "local story" weird huh?

[Eleanors38]

101. Really? The weapon was a knife. nt

[Orrex]

116. Link?

[Eleanors38]

162. I cannot reliably link on this pad, but Google Oklahoma Knife Slaying.

A July 28, 2015 CBS News story tops the list.

Whoosh! it went by on DU.

[Orrex]

194. Found it. Quite horrible.

Surely the National Knife Association hosted a huge rally immediately following this tragedy while funneling millions into the pockets of NKA-friendly members of Congress to ensure that no meaningful action is taken.

I know that RKBA-types cite the proportionately small number of gun crimes compared to overall gun ownership in the US of A. I'm guessing that knife ownership exceeds gun ownership by a factor of 1000, at least. As such, if a mass-shooting is statistically insignificant, a mass-knifing is even more so.


In other words, RKBA-ers can't use this incident to imply rhetorical equivalence between the danger of knives and the danger of guns.

[Eleanors38]

314. You're right. Some deaths are more equal than others.

On edit, about the time of the real and phony theater shootings, a family of eight (8) was murdered in Houston. Whoosh! went the story over the heads of DUers. And the weapon was indeed a gun! What could possibly have gone wrong? Like I said in the title. Some lives in a Houston ward are not as equal or spectacular (in a celebrity way) as others. Can you find this one?

[Orrex]

323. A spectacular murder will naturally draw more attention

That's human nature, to the point that it would be ridiculous to expect otherwise. A guy who breaks his leg falling out of his chair is not as interesting as a guy who suffers the same injury while falling off of a radio tower. Circumstances will necessarily affect the response.

It would be helpful to compile a list of newscasters and cameramen who were murdered live on-air by a disgruntled former coworker and (possible?) former romantic interest. Then we can see which of those received more attention, and we can explore the possible reasons.

Indeed, all deaths are not equal, and anyone who says otherwise is incorrect. If your parent or sibling dies tragically, you will be more profoundly affected than if a random, anonymous (to you) person dies in the suburbs of Zagreb.

[Eleanors38]

325. Hence my #314 addendum. I think it is established fact that MSM

is the only strong component in the gun control outlook. They mean to frame the "debate" how they have always framed it: A "Gun violence" spectacular, followed by a call for dialog on "Gun violence," followed by editorials calling for any number of dis-jointed bans and controls to curb "Gun violence." MSM will, of course, be the moderator.

[Orrex]

328. Still, it's important to consider the numbers

It has been asserted here that there are 300+ million guns in the US, and that gun violence is committed by a very small percentage of gun owners. I accept these assertions as fact.

However, I submit that the incidence of knife ownership in the US vastly outstrips the incidence of gun ownership. As such, any murder committed by a knife-wielding killer represents a much smaller percentage of knife owners. So if the RBKA crowd would have us believe that violent gun owners are statistically insignificant, then violent knife owners must be even more so. As such, it is rhetorically worthless to cite knife attacks as justification for gun ownership, or to suggest that non-gun weapons are just as dangerous as guns.

Here's something to consider:
The U.S. Is Officially Averaging More Than One Mass Shooting Every Day So Far in 2015

How many mass knifings have we seen in 2015?

[sarisataka]

163. Here is the LBN link

Police: 5 dead in Oklahoma; 2 teens taken into custody
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141154568

[friendly_iconoclast]

290. No one denouncing guns on *this* thread had anything to say on *that* thread

How very unsurprising...

[Eleanors38]

229. Someone had to clean up the Narrative©.

Or several, as it turns out. Small number of folks in elite positions will get you that.

[CreekDog]

225. says the guy with a gun as his screenname

[Eleanors38]

311. I do like Eleanor, how 'bout you?

[CreekDog]

337. then why is your screen name about her gun and not about her?

do you like her or do you like her gun, or do you like that she carried a gun?

i like her and what she stood for.

i don't really see how honoring one of her possessions (as your screenname does) actually honors her, her work or her legacy.

rather, it seems like a cute attempt to invoke a beloved figure here, while actually invoking a gun rather than the figure herself.

[Eleanors38]

350. I know I am in good hands with Eleanor.

"I carry a pistol, and I'm a fairly good shot."

Eleanor said that.

[Logical]

34. Stupid argument. Nt

[RichVRichV]

354. People keep saying that

And yet the world over there's a correlation between gun availability and gun violence.

The problem in this country is partially caused by availability and partially caused by culture. We have to look at both to truly solve the problem.

[Lizzie Poppet]

16. There are c. 350 million firearms already in civilian hands.

A goodly percentage of those are handguns. A ban on new sales and even a complete ban on civilian possession wouldn't change the fact that there will be handguns available to criminals for the foreseeable future.

[Agschmid]

22. Yah I don't support just a ban...

But hey I can't have everything I want.

[-none]

37. So yeah, let's do nothing.

That'll help right?

[Lizzie Poppet]

58. Nice straw man.

Hope it keeps the birds out of your garden...

[-none]

197. What do you suppose we do about all the gun deaths in this country?

If shooting up a First grade classroom full of 6th graders didn't do it, what will? Surely something can be done, don't you think? More guns obviously hasn't helped any. What do you suggest to bring the carnage under control?

[Lizzie Poppet]

219. I listed some ideas elsewhere in the thread. Here's a link:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=7111880

[-none]

234. That is a start, but only a start.

The sheer number of guns is itself a problem.
Maybe enforce the militia part, with mandatory monthly meetings and drills. Miss more than two meetings a given year and lose possession of your guns until you can attend at least 10 meeting in a year.

[hack89]

385. Too late. Heller says the RKBA is an individual right.

Last edited Mon Aug 31, 2015, 06:59 PM - Edit history (1)

so does the Democratic party platform and President Obama for that matter.

[-none]

386. Sorry, it is not too late to correct that mistake.

Too many people are dying because of that.

[Lizzie Poppet]

387. That will require amending the Constitution, though.

Assuming that it is unlikely in the extreme that a future SCOTUS will reverse Heller (violating stare decisis on such straightforward decisions virtually never happens), the only feasible way in which the rejected "collective right" interpretation will be established would be via a re-writing of the Second Amendment. There is no reason to believe that such a re-write in anywhere near occurring.

[-none]

388. No it will not take a rewriting of the 2nd Amendment.

Just reinterpret it in a sensible manner. Reversing one court decision is all it will take. A court decision got us in this mess, a court decision can fix it.
80+ percent of the people in this country want something done about the slaughter.

[Lizzie Poppet]

389. Suffice it to say I strongly disagree.

Without a re-writing, the structure of the 2nd Amendment is such that the "individual right" interpretation is the only one that makes linguistic sense. You are correct that a single court decision could change things (no reason to believe that the Justices are experts on linguistic analysis), but the combination of unwillingness to violate stare decisis and the linguistic issue make that unlikely.

I'd say that your estimate of 80% of the popuilation wanting something to be done about the slaughter is actually quite low. Virtually everyone wants this nation's homicide rate to continue to decline - it's still far too high. But gun control proposals vary radically in their likeliness to actually help achieve that end.

[hack89]

390. And just how do you propose to do that? nt

[-none]

391. With the help of 80 some percent of the American citizens that are fed up with the killings.

[hack89]

392. 80% of Americans do not want to repeal or radically change the 2A

they want better background checks to keep guns away from those that should not have them.

[CreekDog]

227. is your solution taking away birthright citizenship?

sounds like you've got some pretty poorly thought out positions on this and other issues.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027092058

[friendly_iconoclast]

291. Another strawman-Lizzie didn't post in that thread, or mention citizenship in theirs

Y'all seem to be getting a little desperate. Those smears not working the way they used to?

[CreekDog]

336. Lizzie most certainly did post a vote to restrict or eliminate birthright citizenship

read the poll again. you'll see that vote, unless they removed it.

and i imagine the main purpose in defending them is because they are one of your allies on guns, and guns are pretty much the only thing you post on here.

[CreekDog]

345. Yes, that poster removed their vote

they were a vote to end birthright citizenship when I posted in this thread.

so either they had an epiphany about birthright citizenship.

or they had an epiphany about admitting they were against it.

[Lizzie Poppet]

359. I seem to have attracted a stalker.

Pretty bizarre, to say the least. I have no idea what this person is on about, but for the record, I support birthright citizenship.

[Eleanors38]

41. We saw how that worked with booze, pot, anti-gay laws...

And like above, I'm glad you don't hrave that power over my "everyday" life. And you won't.

[Agschmid]

50. I will fight, and vote for someone who supports reform every day.

There is no need for people to be murdered that easily and efficiently.

But hey enjoy your guns.

[Eleanors38]

57. You are just what the doctor ordered...

for the other side.

[Agschmid]

62. When people are dying almost everyday I don't take sides.

I try to prevent senseless murder, by discussing policy, and working to elect politicians who agree with my point of view.

[lancer78]

80. What about the

241 people killed per day from alcohol?

[Agschmid]

87. That is also a bad thing.

I expanded on this answer up thread.

[TeddyR]

88. Guns aren't jumping off the couch and shooting people on their own

Guns are in fact inanimate objects. Here's an interesting (if slightly off-topic piece) from the Washington Post - http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/institutional-racism-isnt-killing-blacks-by-itself-it-is-the-enemy-within/2015/08/25/4b9f1d98-4b50-11e5-bfb9-9736d04fc8e4_story.html.

A quote from the piece:

People want a clear answer for what’s causing the homicides? It’s not illegal guns. It’s not the synthetic drug K2. It’s not “domestic” violence. It’s killers causing the killing — and a disproportionate number of those doing the killing are young black men between 18 and 29. They are deadly, reckless and irresponsible. They hide in our midst, growing ever more confident that you can get away with murder — especially when the victim is black.

[Eleanors38]

105. Oh, you have taken sides. But that's OK. I take them all the time.

[Agschmid]

111. Yes my side is "murder is bad"...

I expect to see you on my side.

[friendly_iconoclast]

293. ..and also apparently "murder via guns is worse":

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=7112038

Fortunately for all of us, the US murder rate is far below what it was.

We should all be working on making it even lower, not obsessing about means.

[Agschmid]

299. Yes murder is bad we should reduce it...

Not sure why anyone think I'm trying to argue otherwise?

Sort of a WTF moment?

[Eleanors38]

316. I am.

[Agschmid]

317. Good.

[Eleanors38]

108. Do so, but realize that controller/prohibitionist policies don't work.

Next week, dove season opens, and I Will enjoy one of my shotguns.

[Agschmid]

113. That does nothing for me.

Killing another living thing isn't how I get my jollies.

Shall I connect you with some great Afican Safari guides?

[Eleanors38]

318. Don't do safaris, but I respect the offer...

The goal of public policy is not to do something for some individual, it is to do something for the greater good. I don't brook prohibitionist policies which purport something for a greater good, but in reality are there to assuage feelings and private moralities. Those matters are best in the hands of "everyday" folks.

[beevul]

335. You wont mitigate guns in the wrong hands through regulating the right hands. N/t

[CreekDog]

224. do you use lead shot?

does that lead shot go into the environment when you do target practice?

[Lizzie Poppet]

11. There are, in fact, multiple reasons.

Some are more valid than others.

[Agschmid]

12. So what are they?

What do we need handguns for?

[Lizzie Poppet]

14. Need? You're moving the goalposts.

Your OP said nothing about "need."

[Agschmid]

19. Okay why should they have access to handguns...

No goal post moving.

[Lizzie Poppet]

27. As I said, countless reasons.

If you're asking which I consider to be good reasons, then those would include self-defense, recreation, collecting, etc. The first of those is, IMO, only a "good" reason when the person is willing to spend time at the range on a regular basis in order to achieve and maintain competence, have an effective method of securing the weapon, etc...

[Logical]

42. Lol, so what genius plan do you have for your silly last sentence? Nt

[Lizzie Poppet]

61. Hmmm...giggling and insults. Gee, this seems like a promising conversation.

I suppose it's too much to hope you're actually aware of the rich irony of your username...

Waste someone else's time, m'kay.

[Logical]

140. Just annoys me when people say shit with no idea what they really said. Nt

[the band leader]

55. Self defense.

[Agschmid]

59. It's not a valid reason, sure it helps but see the planned train massacre.

No guns except for the attempted murderer.

[the band leader]

78. It's a perfectly valid reason.

The train incident is completely irrelevant to this argument. It is a red herring in fact.

[Agschmid]

89. The prevention of murder of possibly hundreds by three unarmed guys is a red herring.

Got it.

[the band leader]

103. a weak red herring at that. self defense is a valid reason to own a handgun. period.

[Agschmid]

127. Funny I've never felt the need.

[Lizzie Poppet]

133. However, millions have.

I'm one of them: a physically small woman who lives alone.

[Agschmid]

137. Why a gun?

Why not pepper spray? Or a knife? What is it about a hand gun?

[cleanhippie]

151. Why not a gun?

You keep avoiding that question.


And it's very telling.

[Agschmid]

164. Because there a hundreds of NON lethal way to defend yourself.

And what's telling? I think I'm pretty clear on my position here.

[cleanhippie]

168. What do you propose to do about the 125 million legal gun owners that have never shot anyone

and never will.

What about their Rights? How do you make this fantasy into reality?

[Agschmid]

171. I proposed a few solutions up thread...

Lizzie Poppet added a few more good ones down thread.

[cleanhippie]

177. I've yet to see one from you at all.

Or at least anything that's realistic and considers that 99% of legal gun owners never have and never will shoot anyone.

You're proposing a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.

[Agschmid]

179. Gun violence doesn't exist?

Really that's what your going with?

[cleanhippie]

182. It doesn't from 99% of 125 million legal gun owners.

Or do you dispute that fact?

[Agschmid]

183. 67% of homicides are committed with guns.

Do you dispute that fact?

Look we aren't going to agree, that's pretty clear.

[cleanhippie]

186. Mostly by people who posess said gun illegally.

Don't ignore THAT fact.

What do you propose to do to curb gun violence? You've yet to answer that question.

[Agschmid]

188. I don't ignore that fact.

As I proposed up thread...

- Guns should be registered, people should have to pass background checks. Any gun found to be obtained illegally and used in a crime should be tracked to the original owner who should face consequences related to te crime.

Want to own a weapon? Be held responsible.

[cleanhippie]

196. Lol. And just how would that reduce gun crime since 99% of those owners don't commit a crime?

Again, you're proposing a solution for a problem that doesn't exist.

[Agschmid]

202. How do the people illegally obtain guns?

What's your solution to solve this?

[cleanhippie]

206. I support Universal background checks, severe penalties for crimes using guns, and better

mental health care and screening for those that need it.

What's yours?

[Agschmid]

208. Those work for me.

Thank you.

[cleanhippie]

211. So what are YOU doing to get this to happen?

Bloviating about no reason to own guns certainly isn't fostering change.

[Agschmid]

216. Election politicians who agree with me.

[cleanhippie]

226. Good luck with that.

Politicians that advocate restricting legal gun ownership generally get devastated at the polls.

[phylny]

289. I'd also add that gun owners should have to buy insurance.

It could be a big money maker for the NRA.

I hate guns. Hate hate hate.

[friendly_iconoclast]

292. Would it be better if they were committed with something else?

If not, work on reducing *all* homicides and stop blaming inanimate objects for human
agency.

[TeddyR]

351. If some criminal

Or pissed off ex-spouse attacks why do you think "non lethal" is the way to go? What is wrong with using lethal force against a person who attacks you? I live in NoVa and a few weeks ago some criminal stabbed and beat to death a young man on the metro train in DC in front of numerous people. Nobody helped the young man who was killed, and according to the news stories this is because everyone was too afraid to help, and the young man who was killed didn't have any means to protect himself. I would hope that if it was my son or daughter being assaulted during the middle of the day on public transportation that either he or she would have the means to protect themselves or someone would help, but maybe that's just me because I love my kids.

[truebluegreen]

266. Allow me

Myth #7: Guns make women safer.
Fact-check: In 2010, nearly 6 times more women were shot by husbands, boyfriends, and ex-partners than murdered by male strangers.
• A woman's chances of being killed by her abuser increase more than 5 times if he has access to a gun.
• One study found that women in states with higher gun ownership rates were 4.9 times more likely to be murdered by a gun than women in states with lower gun ownership rates.

I find that very telling.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/01/pro-gun-myths-fact-check
https://www.minnpost.com/second-opinion/2012/12/health-risk-having-gun-home
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17922-carrying-a-gun-increases-risk-of-getting-shot-and-killed/
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/03/26/1077930/-Statistics-Guns-and-Wishful-Thinking

They found that people who keep a gun in their home are almost twice as likely to die in a gun-related homicide, and that the risk was especially greater for women: women living in a home where there is a gun are almost three times more likely to die in a gun-related homicide than men similarly situated. The risk of killing oneself using a gun was almost 17 times greater for persons who live in a home where there is a gun, compared to those in homes without guns. (Wiebe D. Annals of Emergency Medicine. 2003; 41 71-82).

Sleep well.

[Agschmid]

268. Wow.

They found that people who keep a gun in their home are almost twice as likely to die in a gun-related homicide, and that the risk was especially greater for women: women living in a home where there is a gun are almost three times more likely to die in a gun-related homicide than men similarly situated. The risk of killing oneself using a gun was almost 17 times greater for persons who live in a home where there is a gun, compared to those in homes without guns.

[truebluegreen]

269. The statistics are out there, no matter how hard the NRA works to supress them.

[CreekDog]

346. It's really wild that you are so concerned about everyone having gun rights

while wanting to eliminate the right of babies born in this country to have US citizenship.

your priorities seem pretty out of whack.

[the band leader]

139. That is also irrelevant. Self defense is a valid reason to own a handgun. period.

[Agschmid]

141. Why a handgun?

Why not another non lethal device?

[the band leader]

161. because self defense is a valid reason for everyday civilians to own a handgun.

...in McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. ___, ___, 130 S. Ct. 3020, 3050 (2010), the Supreme Court held that the second amendment right recognized in Heller is fully applicable to the states through the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment. In so holding, the Court reiterated that “the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense” (id. at ___, 130 S. Ct. at 3026); that “individual self-defense is ‘the central component’ of the Second Amendment right” (emphasis in original) (id. at ___, 130 S. Ct. at 3036 (quoting Heller, 554 U.S. at 599)); and that “[s]elf-defense is a basic right, recognized by many legal systems from ancient times to the present day” (id. at ___, 130 S. Ct. at 3036).[21]

period.

[TeddyR]

352. Because if a criminal attacks

Why should the victim be concerned about using lethal force?

[Agschmid]

361. George Zimmerman said he was being attacked...

Just saying.

[maxsolomon]

13. Because you're afraid of other civilians with handguns?

I'm sure the Gungeon will be along shortly to cite the CDC on the millions of DGUs every year in America.

[Agschmid]

20. Is it okay that people get shot everyday for what...

What reason?

I'm not afraid, but this type of violence is PREVENTABLE and yet we do nothing a society.

[maxsolomon]

32. Let me clarify:

It is NOT ok, but Americans are so fucking scared that they "cling to their guns and religion" so they can sleep at night.

"Society" won't do anything. The massacres will continue, the gun sales will continue. The militia will not be regulated.

http://www.vox.com/2015/8/24/9183525/gun-violence-statistics

[zappaman]

124. Thank you for that link!

It's sickening but eye opening!

[Agschmid]

129. Good link.

[TupperHappy]

21. No need, you already did that (nt)

[Eleanors38]

48. Actually, now that we are back to an almost permanent Guns Discussion...

I wish I could "be along" even faster, okay?

The CDC at least a few hundred thousand Defensive Uses of firearms. Perhaps the controllers might want to retrieve/dust off some progressive solutions to the causes of violence instead of the usual culture war impulses and reactionary enemy-creation. How 'bout it?

[maxsolomon]

81. "violence", as broadly defined, is still on the decline in America.

But, if the cause of the disproportionate number of firearm deaths in our country is the sheer number of guns owned by the populace, then the simplest solution is less guns.

from these stats, that seems to be the case: http://www.vox.com/2015/8/24/9183525/gun-violence-statistics

Therefore, I'm not a "controller"; I'm a REGULATOR. Just like John Paul Stevens: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-five-extra-words-that-can-fix-the-second-amendment/2014/04/11/f8a19578-b8fa-11e3-96ae-f2c36d2b1245_story.html

I want to make ownership come with responsibilities. For instance, not letting criminals or toddlers get ahold of your arsenals.

[Eleanors38]

94. I have seen little evidence that gun deaths have risen. What are your numbers?

Deaths by firearms have always exceeded homicides by other means, I guess I don't get your point.

Your not a controller, I'm not an arsenal owner.

[maxsolomon]

128. I didn't say they'd risen.

I said they were disproportionate - to other "first world" nations.

[Eleanors38]

158. Well, I'm still missing your point as to how lessening the number of guns

will lower deaths by guns. There were some 19,000 "gun homicides" in 1969. Presently, both the population of this country and the number of guns have thundered up wards, yet "gun homicides" have dropped to somewhat over 11,000.

[maxsolomon]

170. Because you're being deliberately obtuse.

Fact: other western nations have less firearm deaths per capita.

Fact: other western nations have far less firearms owned per capita.

Now you're going to tell me Correlation does not equal Causation.

But sometimes it does.

Regardless, this is a moot exercise, because if there's one thing that's not changing in America, its gun owners thinking they're the smartest people in the country. Pew pew!

[Eleanors38]

178. Did Pew Research come up with your data?

[friendly_iconoclast]

294. Are homicides via gun somehow worse than homicides via other methods?

[TeddyR]

96. The "cause" isn't the "sheer number of guns"

If that were the case then gun murders would be increasing dramatically instead of declining and some large portion of those law-abiding gun owners (which includes about 99% of the gun owners) would be out there shooting people. The cause is criminals and killers.

On edit, I wanted to point out that I agree that we should work to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and make sure that people who own guns are familiar with the weapon and how to safely use it, store it, etc.

[maxsolomon]

134. Then explain the disproportionate level of firearm deaths between the US and, say, Switzerland

Are we just more violent as a people? More criminal? More mentally ill?

When all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.

[hack89]

246. All of the above

Last edited Thu Aug 27, 2015, 04:53 PM - Edit history (1)

Toss in concentrated urban poverty and a moronic war on drugs for good measure.

All of those countries have universal health care and a robust social safety net. We don't. Why don't we start there and address some root causes.

[Straw Man]

331. Explanation.

Then explain the disproportionate level of firearm deaths between the US and, say, Switzerland

Are we just more violent as a people?

Yes.

More criminal?

Yes.

More mentally ill?

No, but less likely to provide adequate treatment.

[maxsolomon]

376. Americans are not more criminal or violent than people in Europe or Japan

http://www.vox.com/2015/8/27/9217163/america-guns-europe

We just have more guns.

[Straw Man]

378. Come again?

They found, pretty definitively, that the conventional wisdom was wrong. "Rates of common property crimes in the United States are comparable to those reported in many other Western industrial nations, but rates of lethal violence in the United States are much higher," they write. "Violence is not a crime problem."

Violence is not a crime problem? Really? Have assault and murder been decriminalized? I must have missed that one.

Property crime rates are a red herring. Gang and drug-trade violence are the issue. Also the tendency to solve interpersonal conflict violently, with or without guns.

The book they're citing came out 15 years ago. Anything more recent to cite?

[maxsolomon]

384. This isn't rocket science:

CRIMES BECOME MORE VIOLENT IN AMERICA BECAUSE THERE ARE MORE GUNS.

Guns escalate the violence. An argument becomes a murder.

[Straw Man]

393. No, it isn't.

This isn't rocket science:

CRIMES BECOME MORE VIOLENT IN AMERICA BECAUSE THERE ARE MORE GUNS.

Guns escalate the violence. An argument becomes a murder.

An argument isn't a crime. Perhaps you meant to say "an assault."

People whose arguments turn into assaults are by definition very violent people, with or without guns. The question is what makes them that way. I would suggest desperation brought about by economic and social marginalization in a winner-take-all culture.

[Darb]

112. Do the fetishists have any solutions to those problems you mention?

Besides everyone carrying guns around?

[friendly_iconoclast]

295. Kindly link us to one of these 'fetishists' and their purported "solutions" you speak of...

I suspect I'd be able to transcribe the Encyclopedia Brittanica into cuneiform
before you do

[Eleanors38]

321. I have one. Stop calling people "fetishists." It's a beginning.

[GGJohn]

360. Here.

[linuxman]

15. Agreed.

Anyone engaging in self defense should be limited by their own strength and personal level of unarmed combat aptitude.

[safeinOhio]

23. 9 out 10 gun crimes involve handguns.

At least they should be licensed and registered. I own several guns including a 22 handgun and don't feel my rights would be, in any way, limited by licensing and registration.

[Agschmid]

24. Thank you.

I support that.

[Lizzie Poppet]

33. Indeed so...yet the focus is so often on "assault weapons."

Rifles are used in fewer murders per year than blunt instruments, but they do show up in mass shooting stats, and folks tend to focus on those (math is hard...). The vastly greater problem is handguns in the possession of violent criminals.

[Eleanors38]

53. My God, what happened to that evil-looking "assault weapon?"

That's the usual objet d'art which fascinates the controllers 'round here.

[Darb]

104. Ding, ding, cliche points, coming your way.

But you knew that. Do you get extra?

[Eleanors38]

310. I guess I have to wait for cliches coming my way from somewhere.

[laundry_queen]

244. You must not actually read the gun threads

handguns have been mentioned often as being a larger culprit.

[friendly_iconoclast]

297. An extremely noisy minority still bangs on (pun intended) about their "dangers"

And you are correct- handguns are far more used in crime than *any* sort of rifle

[Eleanors38]

309. Oh, but I have read. Been on DU for long?....

In other shootings where rifles have been used, the gun-of-the hour was -- voila' -- "assault weapons." Even in the Naval Yard shooting where MSM was all over itself reporting the gun man used an AR-15. Turns out it was a hoary Remington shotgun. Retractions at 11:00.

So, what do you want? A ban on ___________ , or ___________, or ___________?

[Agschmid]

312. I want a ban on guns...

I however am willing to come to a compromise... Are you?

[Straw Man]

332. Compromise?

What are you conceding, then?

Staking out an absolutist position and then backing off a bit isn't compromise. There have to be mutual concessions. What are you offering?

[Agschmid]

348. I can want a ban on guns...

That doesn't mean it's going to happen.

Typically in a negotiation people declare what they want and then they come to an agreement. But that doesn't mean I need to completely give up what I want, nor do you.

It's a no win, people with guns are afraid... Of what I'm not sure, but they feel the need to be armed and it seems that isn't going to change anytime soon.

My stance is I'm not a fan of senseless murder of any kind... And IMO reducing the number of hand guns will help that.

It's not really all that complicated.

[TeddyR]

353. I appreciate your honesty

And in a perfect world, where we could magic guns away, I'd support a ban on guns too.

[Straw Man]

356. You can want whatever you want.

You will never get anything even close to it. Your position is so extreme that it is off the scale of possible compromise. Furthermore, such extremism has very little popular support, and therefore you are not negotiating from a position of strength. Why should anyone want to negotiate with you?

Typically in a negotiation people declare what they want and then they come to an agreement. But that doesn't mean I need to completely give up what I want, nor do you.

OK. I would like shall-issue concealed carry with 50-state reciprocity. For that I would concede to universal background checks. That's what I call compromise.

If I were using your playbook, I would say that I want absolutely no restrictions on the purchasing or carrying of firearms. Then I would say that anything less than that represents "compromise." But I won't say that -- because I'm not an extremist, you see.

My stance is I'm not a fan of senseless murder of any kind...

Who is? That's a meaningless truism.

And IMO reducing the number of hand guns will help that.

IYO. In my opinion, legislation can only reduce the number of legal handguns, which won't have a noticeable effect on criminal gun violence, the bulk of which comes at the hands of "prohibited persons" with illegally-owned guns.

I've heard these trickle-down theories of gun availability before, and the fact is that it would take a total or near-total ban before any appreciable effect would be felt. As a course of action, that makes about as much sense as relocating the milk because the cat got into the dairy.

It's not really all that complicated.

You're very, very wrong.

[laundry_queen]

355. Longer than you. nt

[Logical]

26. Beyond fixing at this point. Nt

[ileus]

28. glad I'm not an everyday civilian.

[Agschmid]

31. I'll give you I worded that poorly.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

49. I've been a civilian every day ...

... since I was separated from the Army.

I'm happy to be an everyday civilian.

[EL34x4]

30. So what's your plan?

I often see "ban guns now!" posts on this forum but rarely, if ever, have I seen a well thought out plan as to how this will take place.

300+ million firearms in this country.

"Ban them!"

Ok, sure. How?

[Logical]

35. No way to stop shootings at this point. Nt

[ConservativeDemocrat]

36. Here's one idea

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[Agschmid]

39. Well they are slightly less efficient devices so I guess it's an improvement.

[Agschmid]

38. An outright ban will do nothing. At least at first.

- People who own guns must register them, lost guns used in crimes will have repercussions for the registered owner.
- Tax Gun sales, increase tax rates to deter purchases.
- Create a more stable economy so people don't need to hunt for food, if they can't afford food.
- Create large scale buy backs, create incentive programs to turn guns over. Once guns are turned over destroy them.
- Increase the consequences of gun violence, it's not a minor crime.

I'm sure there are more ideas.

[beevul]

122. Heres a novel idea. Focus on those that misuse them.

Heres a novel idea. Focus on those that misuse guns.

Leave the rest of us that don't the hell alone.

Start operating like that, and you might actually get some support.

[Agschmid]

123. I think that focus is already there...

Is it working?

That's up for debate.

[beevul]

125. Please note, the idea has 2 parts.

"leave the rest of us who aren't committing gun violence alone".

That's the second part.

[Agschmid]

126. I'd be more interested in what "good" gun owners...

Can do/suggest to help stop the almost daily violence.

[beevul]

130. No you wouldn't.

I just gave you a suggestion toward that end, and you ignored half of it.

[Agschmid]

136. You suggestion was "leave us alone"?

Or was it "it's not us it's them"...

As a "good" gun owner what policy would work? How can we reduce gun violence?

[beevul]

142. Focus on those that misuse guns.

Forget trying to keep guns away from misusers.

Try keeping misusers away from guns instead.

Leave those of us who aren't misusers alone.



Focusing on the gun, focuses on controlling 300+ million guns, with tens of millions that oppose such.

Focusing on the misuser, focuses instead on a relatively tiny handful of misusers, and would be opposed by pretty much nobody...except those that insist on focusing on the gun.

[Agschmid]

147. It's really hard to identify "misusers" before it's too late sometimes.

Some of this is already happening but clearly it doesn't work all the time.

[beevul]

152. Yeah, its hard to identify lots of people before they commit a crime.

Free societies work like that.

That's not a good reason to eliminate due process or engage in prior restraint.

[Agschmid]

156. You seem to be missing my point...

You keep suggesting to focus on misusers.

What you just said is exactly my point.

[beevul]

159. Your point would be valid, if GV offenders were generally first time offenders.

The problem with your point, is that the great majority of them are not.

So no, focusing on the offenders is not the problematic thing you portray it as.

[cleanhippie]

175. Every time someone points this out to him, he runs away.

Telling, isn't it?

[beevul]

180. It speaks to his/her intentions IMO.

As it does for every individual that can't tell the difference (or isn't interested in it) between the majority - 99+ percent of those that own guns and do not misuse them - and the relatively tiny handful that do.

[cleanhippie]

184. That the problem with those that hold an irrational fear of guns even in the face of facts

that contradict their entire premise.

[Agschmid]

187. I'm not afraid of them.

I just think they serve no purpose. Does it feel good to classify me I a group? I'm not trying to do that to you. I'm not calling you a name?

[cleanhippie]

189. Then what are you afraid of?

You have a better chance of getting struck by lightning, or drowning in your own bathtub, than you do of getting shot by a legal gun owner.

What IS your fear then?

[Agschmid]

190. I didn't say I was afraid of anything?

I'm not the one with the gun for self defense.

[cleanhippie]

192. "There is NO reason for everyday civilians to have handguns"

Except that there are. Many reasons.

Why do you fear everyday civilians possessing guns when they are less likely to shoot you that you are getting struck by lightning?

[Agschmid]

195. Again my reaction isn't fear.

It's more of a WTF.

[cleanhippie]

199. WTF is MY reaction to your baseless allegations.

Baseless in that you ignore the fact the 99% of everyday civilians that own guns never commit a crime.

Sure sounds like irrational fear to me.

[Agschmid]

201. 67% of murders are committed by guns.

Every time you quote the 99% you'll get that from me.

I acknowledge the fact that 99% of guns owners don't commit gun crimes, by my god man wouldn't it be nice if they did something to help reduce the amount of gun crime?

Wouldn't it be great if gun owners fought for background checks, fought to reduce the number of guns, enacted consequences for lost or stolen guns.

Instead they do nothing, time and time again.

[cleanhippie]

203. Did something like WHAT? What exaclty can legal gun owners that don't commit crimes DO

to reduce crime committed by criminals?


Do you want them to wave a magic wand or something?

[Agschmid]

205. Enact reforms that reduce gun violence.

Help create change.

[cleanhippie]

209. Reforms like WHAT? Empty rehetoric is just that; empty.

Good god, man, do something like WHAT?

[Agschmid]

210. Looks like the question just got answered.

[cleanhippie]

213. Huh?

[beevul]

218. Not even in the same ballpark.

67 percent of ten thousand versus 99 percent of 100 plus million.

[friendly_iconoclast]

298. Your attempt at 'forced teaming' is an obvious ploy

Gun owners have no incentive to work with prohibitionists

[Agschmid]

300. No one is saying I'm a Prohibitionist.

Another falsehood I got accused of in this thread...

People can't help themselves.

[friendly_iconoclast]

362. Sayeth you, in post #312 "I want a ban on guns"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=7115750

Textbook prohibitionism

[friendly_iconoclast]

372. "So I'm open to a compromise" What that is now extant are you willing to give up?

Because 'compromise' does not mean "one side does all the giving, and the other side
moderates its demands"

[Agschmid]

185. No it speaks to my upbringing.

And that I don't feel like I will need to kill someone to defend myself.

If anything it speaks to the safety and security of the city in which I live, and the policies of my pretty liberal state.

Sure Boston isn't perfect but I'm not living in fear everyday. And yes I'm a man, so I've got that going for me too... But even the women I know aren't carrying concealed weapons.

[beevul]

193. Wrong 'it'.

The 'it' being referred to here, is your refusal to acknowledge this:


That the great majority of people who commit gun violence are not first time offenders who blend in to the point of being undiscernable from everyone else.

That refusal IMO, speaks to your intentions, as it does for every individual that can't tell the difference (or isn't interested in it) between the majority - 99+ percent of those that own guns and do not misuse them - and the relatively tiny handful that do.

Dancing like the dancing you're engaging in, is generally indicative of being interested ONLY in gun control.

[Agschmid]

198. Okay what's solve?

I'm open to suggestions...

[beevul]

220. I've already given you suggestions. Somhow, I don't think you'll listen to them...

I've already given you suggestions. Somhow i don't think you'll listen to them any more this time, than you did the first time:



Forget trying to keep guns away from misusers.

Try keeping misusers away from guns instead.

Leave those of us who aren't misusers alone.



Focusing on the gun, focuses on controlling 300+ million guns, with tens of millions that oppose such.

Focusing on the misuser, focuses instead on a relatively tiny handful of misusers, and would be opposed by pretty much nobody...except those that insist on focusing on the gun.

Theres your suggestions, and they'd go a long way toward lowering the non-suicide portion of gun violence, because rank and file gun owners could get behind them instead of fighting you at every turn and winning.

[Agschmid]

301. How do misusers often get guns?

And what does "focus on them" mean? How do I know someone will be a misuser? Could we tell that the man yesterday would be a misuser... Before he uploaded a video of him killing 2 people?

I'm just not sure it really would work.

[beevul]

313. This has been discussed before.

And what does "focus on them" mean?

It means, that IF someone should not have a gun, that possibly, they should not be walking freely through a society in which guns are and will remain common.

How do I know someone will be a misuser?

Past behavior is a predictor of future behavior, far more often than not. Most people who commit gun violence tend not to completely law abiding and snap all the sudden, but instead fall into the repeat offender criminal camp.

Could we tell that the man yesterday would be a misuser... Before he uploaded a video of him killing 2 people?

Several people that he used to work for/with said they were scared of him.

I'm just not sure it really would work.

Well, we KNOW a background check law wouldn't have prevented it...since he passed one.

[Lizzie Poppet]

146. That's an excellent question, and I've lots of ideas.

Just a few:

* Perhaps the biggest step the nation could take in reducing gun-related violence is to end the idiotic, counterproductive "war on drugs." The FBI asserts that a significant percentage of violent crime in America, including homicide, is connected to the trade in illicit substances. Jerking the economic rug out from under the criminal gangs who perpetrate such a large number of gun crimes would be a huge, huge step.

* On a related note, continue to advance the cause of economic justice. Poverty and hopelessness breed violence, period.

* Enact universal background checks nationwide, accompanied by an expansion/upgrade of the NICS database used for the checks. This upgrade would include a larger number of diagnoses that constitute a mental-health-related disqualifying condition. It would also include stricter standards for the states' timely and complete uploading of information to the database. Lastly, make the database available (in a simple, secure manner) to individuals, to help raise the rate of compliance with universal checks.

* Mandate proper, effective security for civilian-owned weapons. It's not that expensive to obtain a decent gun safe, trigger locks, or other solutions (although I could see a subsidy for the poor...gun ownership mustn't become a "rich folks" thing).

* In places where no such laws exist, institute suspension/revocation of the right to possess weapons for persons accused/convicted of domestic violence (suspended rights if arrested and/or indicted, revocation upon conviction).

* Increase penalties for (and aggressively enforce the laws against) straw man purchases of firearms. Anyone who knowingly hands a firearm to a prohibited person needs to face serious penalties.

[Agschmid]

153. All good things, thank you.

[cleanhippie]

172. They can continue to not shoot or kill anyone.

What can YOU do, besides bloviate nonsense and deflect from your own lack of realistic ideas?

[Agschmid]

176. I didn't know that's what I was doing?

I was pretty sure I posted some ideas up thread, and then some people including a gun owner contributed some ideas as wel...

Thanks for the insult, I guess that's what you have left?

[Straw Man]

364. Ah, the "good ones" ...

I'd be more interested in what "good" gun owners...

Can do/suggest to help stop the almost daily violence.

OK. And I suppose that after that we can talk about what the "good Muslims" are going to do about all this terrorism.

[Agschmid]

365. I'm not the one who first used the term in this thread?

Maybe take it up with the person who started the trend?

Notice my quotes?

I think it's a bullshit term.

[Straw Man]

366. But you're the one ...

... who suggested that they have some unique obligation to solve the problem of criminal behavior. That's nonsense.

I have no objection to the concept of "good" gun owners; I just reject your formulation. Wasn't that clear from the analogy?

[Agschmid]

367. People who own guns should bear responsibility for actions taken with guns.

I don't own a gun never will, there is no chance my gun will get stolen, lost, etc... Since I don't own one.

People who own guns should have to face HEFTY fines if it's determined their lost or stolen guns were used in a crime.

I'd also like to get people who own guns involved in the process so that they could have input on the change we could make in how our society owns and uses guns on a daily basis.

[Straw Man]

368. Correction:

People who own guns should bear responsibility for actions taken with guns.

People who own guns should bear responsibility for actions taken with their guns. But they are no more responsible for the criminal acts of others than you are.

We are a violent society for a variety of reasons, both cultural and economic. Most proposed gun legislation will not even make a dent in this situation. Simplistic formulations beget simplistic -- and ineffective -- solutions.

[maxsolomon]

40. OP didn't say ban them.

Can you understand the frustration verging on despair that prompts such reactions?

It will take generations - decades - to get to a point where we:

1. Repeal the 2nd am.
2. Decide to actually enforce the 1st clause and regulate the militia well.

Until then, the terror will continue unabated, the suicides will continue unabated, and Gun Owners will just say
http://www.vox.com/2015/8/24/9183525/gun-violence-statistics

[Agschmid]

60. Yup.

Small steps would be nice, we don't even take those.

[Straw Man]

341. Changing your tune?

Small steps would be nice, we don't even take those.

I want a ban on guns...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027111217#post312

Small steps on the way to a ban? And yet we are told that the slippery slope doesn't exist.

Is that what you call compromise? Pardon my skepticism.

[jeepers]

99. Congress will never act to eliminate guns

There is too much money involved. The only way this could come about is with a national debate followed with a national referendum

[jonno99]

43. If 99.9 percent of gun owners act responsibly, why should they be penalized because of

the actions of the 0.1%


BTW - if the OP is true, what reason(s) could you provide that would justify either the police or the military having handguns?

[cleanhippie]

46. Funny, we never hear a good response to that question.

[Orrex]

56. Please clarify

If 99.9 percent of gun owners act responsibly, why should they be penalized because of the actions of the 0.1%?

Please clarify: How do you define "responsibly?" How do you define "penalized?"

BTW - if the OP is true, what reason(s) could you provide that would justify either the police or the military having handguns?

Please clarify: does your question apply to an idealized society, or to our society?

[jonno99]

83. Your DU position on RKBA is well established, and so I don't think any level of clarification

on my part would bring us closer to agreement.

IOW - I think we both know what it is I'm trying to say...

[Orrex]

100. We both know that you know that you don't have an answer.

[jonno99]

107. Thanks for the confirmation...nt

[Orrex]

115. Funny indeed.

We often see this complaint:

Funny, we never hear a good response to that question.

but when an attempt is made to answer that question, the gun-advocate back-pedals.

[jonno99]

155. I'm sorry - perhaps I missed your "attempt". If you are referring to your request for

"clarification", then my response stands - as I believe you know exactly what I meant.

So if you're just dying to provide a response, please tell how you propose to manage the 0.1% of problematic gun owners without disenfranchising, limiting, or otherwise restricting the rights of the responsible 99.9%

It might be helpful too if you could provide some other comparable product or activity where we experience similar rates of "irresponsibility" amongst the owners/participants - and how that problem was successfully mitigated...

[Orrex]

181. More back-pedaling.

Your question left you plenty of weasel-room with the terms "responsibly" and "penalized." As such, any answer I might provide could be negated by your equivocation. I hoped to pin you down on specific definitions in order to eliminate that possibility. This is a fundamental component of honest debate, in fact. Why do you resist it?

I also asked you to clarify your question:

BTW - if the OP is true, what reason(s) could you provide that would justify either the police or the military having handguns?

Does the question apply to our society or to an idealized society? Surely you recognize that each will require a different answer? Why would you decline to clarify?

So if you're just dying to provide a response, please tell how you propose to manage the 0.1% of problematic gun owners without disenfranchising, limiting, or otherwise restricting the rights of the responsible 99.9%

Repeating your question does not clarify your question.

It might be helpful too if you could provide some other comparable product or activity where we experience similar rates of "irresponsibility" amongst the owners/participants - and how that problem was successfully mitigated...

Please tell me why I should answer your thirds question before you've clarified either of your first two.

[jonno99]

200. You can choose to answer the questions or not. Have a little faith though that there

won't be any "weasling" or equivocation.

"responsibly" and "penalized" have generally understood definitions. If your use of these words differ from the norm, then please feel free to explain what meaning they hold for you.

I promise I'll be polite.

[Agschmid]

65. Again worded poorly.

[jonno99]

69. Fair enough. Have a good one!

[Don Lemon]

255. Yeah, yeah GUNS! Love my guns!!!

What the hell is wrong with you? Do you even care that 0.1% translates to 15 THOUSAND gun murders per year? Wait, let me answer my own question.

You don't want to be "penalized". Got it. You don't give a fuck.

[cleanhippie]

44. Hard to argue with such a well-supported, substanced position.

Oh, wait, I thought I was responding to a different post. Yours is the opposite of that.

[bettyellen]

51. agreed, before the lock

[Agschmid]

67. There will be no lock.

This is a story being covered by national news, the hosts should not lock this thread.

[bettyellen]

76. Ah, I have been away from the news a full day (dental surgery), just catching up.

[Eleanors38]

70. Oh, they'll let it hang around a while...

It's an almost de facto Gunz group. I've always contended that gun control is an elitist outlook; it certainly is not a grassroots movement. So as long as adherents to this view occupy high positions in bureaus, MSM, and major web sites, there is always more room for controller outlooks.

[Agschmid]

74. "Controllers"?

[Eleanors38]

82. Or controller/prohibitionists, if you like.

[Orrex]

121. Can we call gun-advocates "zealots/cultists" then?

If you get to pick propaganda labels for your opponents, it seems fair that they should get to choose yours.

[Lizzie Poppet]

131. The trick is to find non-pejorative shorthand.

"Gun control proponents" and "Second Amendment advocates" (and the countless detailed variations) are going to get truncated into a one-word shorthand...that's just human nature, linguistically. A key to having at least some chance of civil discussion of this matter is in finding shorthand that isn't pejorative, a situation notably similar to the abortion fight. I'm not sure what those terms might be, however...

[Orrex]

157. I agree--that was kind of my point.

"Controller/Prohibitionist" seem specifically chosen for their negative connotations. Even if they're not, then their connotation is pretty well unmistakable.

The debate is hopelessly mired by the NRA's bullshit, too, so that any reasonable position in favor of gun ownership is drowned out by Ol' Wayne's ranting. He portrays himself and his organization as Virtuous Crusaders for The Second Amendment, when in fact they're lobbyists for the gun industry.

[Eleanors38]

154. OH! that is irony when irony has lost its mettle!

"Zealots/cultists" is some of the mildest labeling I have seen in the Gungeon!

Have you seen the Gungeon threads which sought to merely List the invective? "Ammosexual," "LaPierre-sniffing," various allegiances with the KKK and GOP, "Bathing in the blood of ____________" might whet the appetite.

You wish to control and (if you could) prohibit guns as demonstrated by your posts. My description of those beliefs is measured, accurate and loaded with very little personal insult baggage. In short, the term controller/banner is defensible. But perhaps you can get a "hide," or perhaps get a DU owner to (ahem) prohibit the term. 'Couple weeks back, a "gun-advocate" used the term of art "hoplophobe," and was hidden. I don't know how that stacks up with some of the sewer-hole spew that is readily sanctioned by DU (most "gun-advocates" don't even bother to Alert anymore), but limiting one side's use of terminology has become something of DU high sport lately.

Incidentally, I and most gun-owners are not "gun-advocates," but defenders of 2A. So your pleasantly de-natured expression is in itself not accurate.

[lancer78]

91. Gun control used to be a conservative position.

How easily we forget that it was Ronald Reagan who signed the Mulford act in California which banned open carry because the black panthers were walking around the state capitol armed.

[Eleanors38]

98. I was in college when that happened...

And I saw and heard the hoop-la over Malcolm X's views toward guns and the necessity for self-defense. I thought his views on this were reasonable, then and now.

[still_one]

66. and how would you propose not only banning them, but enforcing it, and making it

Constitutional?

[Eleanors38]

72. That is actually a very good question.

[Agschmid]

77. Make this a national issue, and then elect politicians who support my point of view.

I can't do it alone, but I sure as heck can push my elected representatives to do something.

I posted some other ideas up thread.

[Lizzie Poppet]

119. That might get a ban enacted, but doesn't answer the enforcement issue.

Look to both New York State and Connecticut for examples of compliance with (and LEO enforcement of) laws the large majority of gun owners oppose.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

75. Agreed. K&R

[Boudica the Lyoness]

86. I HAVE A HAND GUN

AND I'M GOING TO FUCKING KEEP IT.

[Agschmid]

92. I don't, and I am going to fight everyday to reduce the amount of guns.

Notice no caps...

I'm not angry, you probably should be either. I'm not going to win... We have a pro-gun culture.

[TampaAnimusVortex]

150. Theres your answer.

Don't want a gun, don't buy one.
Don't want an abortion, don't have one.
Don't want drugs around you, don't do them.
Don't want gay marriage, don't get gay married.
Spare me the authoritarian spewing.

[Agschmid]

173. And to those people who didn't want to get murdered today?

Don't want to get murdered? Don't have a choice.

Sorry.

[TampaAnimusVortex]

223. Don't care...

I'll take the higher death rate over your Stalin-esqe prison camp of a world.

We could also reduce the death rate by making people eat their veggies, but I'm not going to play tin pot dictator and force people to do that either.

[Agschmid]

239. Wow.

[laundry_queen]

245. WTF. nt

[Adrahil]

238. And there are people today...

Who don't want to die of disease caused by second hand smoke.

Or

Who don't want to be killed by a drunk driver.

You can't make the world risk free.

[Agschmid]

240. No but you can significantly REDUCE the risk...

And that's happened with 2nd hand smoke, and drunk driving.

[Orrex]

102. SHOUTY-CAPS DENOTE REASONABLE ARGUMENT

[Agschmid]

117. They sure do...

[TeeYiYi]

232. "SHOUTY-CAPS"...

TYY

[Darb]

109. Don't shoot yourself or anyone else with it.

Either purposefully or accidentally. We want guys like you around.

[Lizzie Poppet]

118. As do I.

Three of them in fact: a home defense pistol, a more compact pistol for concealed carry, and a .22 "plinker" for recreational shooting. They're not going anywhere.

I'm small, even for a woman. While I'm pretty dang fit, I will never be strong, at least not comparatively. Firearms provide me at least a chance to employ a very effective means of applying mechanical advantage in a conflict with a bigger, stronger person. I will never give up that option...

[Agschmid]

174. Where do you live that you feel you need to have a concealed carry gun?

For protection.

WTF America?

[Lizzie Poppet]

230. It's not so much "where" and "how."

I live in Portland, Oregon, which is relatively safe as large cities in America go. Moreover, I seldom have reason to go to the outer southeast part of the city, where a rather strongly disproportionate amount of the violent crime occurs.

But I also live alone, and I'm a small female. Any woman has a pretty good chance of being the victim of an assault in her lifetime.

[Politicalboi]

110. Don't forget

If they take away our guns, only the criminals will have them, so we may as well do nothing.

Look at all the murders in Australia from criminals who have guns. See, it doesn't work.

[zappaman]

120. Kick and rec!

[Agschmid]

138. Start an OP let's see what happens.

[Brainstormy]

135. I completely agree. n/t

[Bonx]

160. I completely disagree.

That was easy.

[Ikonoklast]

143. LEO are civilians.

Maybe they would stop shooting innocent people.

[Agschmid]

145. Yup.

[Warpy]

144. Well, they do come in handy once in a while out west

when rattlesnakes come up on your deck, but that's about it. A hoe would work just about as well, either chopping the snake or pushing it off the deck, but shooting it to bits seems to be more cathartic for people afraid of snakes.

[Matrosov]

149. +1,000,000,000,000,000,000

[bluestateguy]

165. Elitist

nt

[Agschmid]

167. So preventing senseless murder when guns are used to commit a crime is elitist.

Noted.

[Rose Siding]

166. Over 33K dead Americans every year

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States

[Agschmid]

169. 67% of all homicides are committed with a gun.

[GGJohn]

252. I notice that you fail to mention that of those 33,000 firearm deaths,

2/3rds are suicides.

[RichVRichV]

357. Suicides should absolutely be discussed when looking at guns.

Not only do guns make up a large number of suicide attempts, they're also highly effective at it, much more so than many other means.

This is one of the areas where gun availability and mental health issues cross link.

[GGJohn]

358. Agreed!!!

This is where better funded mental health services would have a definite impact on firearm deaths.
I'll never forget, nor forgive Reagan for defunding health care and forcing the mental facilities to close and put all those souls out on the streets.

[NRaleighLiberal]

191. Agreed.

[Demeter]

204. Not in a "civilized" society

Unfortunately this nation is breaking down socially because economically it's also breaking down.

That changes things.

[Agschmid]

212. Yup.

[sarisataka]

207. It begs the question

'what is an everyday civilian'?

[Agschmid]

214. I worded that poorly...

I can expand upon that if you want.

[sarisataka]

217. I don't think it will help

it is just SSDD.

As a gun owner and instructor I support just about every control proposal short of bans or registration. To some that is too much, to others it isn't enough.

Despite the wording and that we probably don't fully see eye to eye, I think you meant well

[aikoaiko]

215. I have mine for self-defense, recreation, competition, hunting, and collecting.

There are five reasons.

You may not think they are good enough, but those are my reasons and they are good enough for me.

My handguns have not been used to kill or hurt any person.

[Enthusiast]

221. If the Democratic Party adopts that position we will lose in a huge way.

[ieoeja]

222. To address several pro-gun points made in this thread.

Won't stop criminals from getting guns.

It would certainly make it more difficult for them to get handguns. Most people do this thing called "following the law" even when they disagree with said law. It is a pretty safe guess that most people would turn in their handguns - there would have to be a monetary compensation in this - were handgun possession outlawed. So there would be fewer handguns in circulation for the criminals to get.

If you make handguns illegal, then only criminals will have handguns.

If only criminals have handguns, anyone found with a handgun is a criminal. That is why so many cities throughout US history banned the carrying of handguns. Concealed carry laws are particularly horrible. Cops can no longer act to prevent a crime by observing the tell-tale bulge of a handgun. They now have to wait for the crime to actually take place before they can act. Horribly stupid law.

I need a firearm in the country.

Maybe not literally "need", but having grown up on a farm I can certainly vouch for the usefulness of firearms in the country. On the other hand, I almost always used a rifle. On the few occasions where I did use a handgun (because for some unknown reason my dad insisted), I ended up wishing I had used a rifle instead.

And having lived most of my adult life in the city, I can equally vouch for the uselessness of firearms in the city. Last thing I want is my neighbor, whose house is about 3 and half feet from mine, using a firearm for anything. And, yes, that includes self defense. Every year several people get shot in this city by a bullet that entered the house from outside. The damn things do not belong in the city.

I used to have to argue the first point with the anti-gun crowd a lot. Now I spend far more time arguing the latter with the pro-gun crowd. They are now doing to the cities what we used to complain about the cities doing to the country.

[laundry_queen]

247. Excellent points. nt

[BainsBane]

228. Except SCOTUS says they can

Not only that, no state or municipality is allowed to ban handguns in its own jurisdiction. I hate it.

[samsingh]

231. agreed. i wouldn't say they should be banned - but the gun culture needs to be eliminated

[One_Life_To_Give]

233. Heller Decision pretty much ensures people will have access

Heller Decision pretty much ensures people will have access for the purpose of Self Defense. Unlikely any near term Supreme Court will try and directly overturn a previous SC ruling. So we are somewhat stuck with their being allowed in Private Residences. Background Checks and Training/Qualification requirements may be possible. Mandatory psych evals would require support from the Psych community that I have not observed and question if they would be willing.

[Hoyt]

235. My main concerns are the yahoos that strap guns on to walk down the street, or have more than just

a few at home for hunting, protection, fondling, or whatever they need. But, those few guns need to stay locked up and off the darn streets. We'll be better off when we pass Australian type gun laws, no matter how much the babies whine.

So-called assualt/tactical weapons are a tipoff to me that the gun owner is unbalanced.


Gun manufacturers know what turns their market on:





Gun yahoos are my main concern:

?w=400&h=225&crop=1

[BlueStater]

236. More of that "responsible gun owner" bullshit in this thread, I see.

You own a device specifically designed for and which serves no purpose other than to kill things. You put yourself and people you care about at a completely unnecessary risk. That's not fucking responsible.

[bluestateguy]

241. Well, you can't have my gun

And the Supreme Court says I have the right to have it.


District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) and McDonald v. Chicago (2010)

[bluestateguy]

242. Yes, I fully trust the men and women of law enforcement to protect me from criminals

Vomit.

[Statistical]

249. There is every reason and the right is protected

Held:
The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a
firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for
traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

...

The handgun ban violates the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban
on handgun possession .. amounts to a prohibition on an
entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the
lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny
the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this
prohibition would fail constitutional muster.

By even the most conservative estimates defensive gun usage prevents or stop 108,000 violent crimes a year (with many estimates at 10x that). Protection of self and others is a human right. The reality is that the number of firearms has nearly doubled in the last 20 years and the homicide rate has fallen by 59%, violent crime rate fallen by almost half, and the number of violent crimes involving a firearm have fallen 75%.

Restrictions which meet strict scrutiny are acceptable] but you waste your effort looking to do an end run around constitutional rights.

[roamer65]

250. As long as the police and military hafta give them up 2, I'm game.

Not gonna happen.

[BlueJazz]

251. I don't need a a gun because I'm not afraid to die.

[Agschmid]

258. Same.

[GP6971]

253. Going to start reading the thread now

but my guess is you got "some" pushback.

[Agschmid]

257. I did.

Some of it was fair, some not.

I'm sure I came off like a gun grabber which I'm not, but I certainly don't see the point to most handguns.

[GP6971]

270. I have a handgun, but only

because I was required to have one at the time (night supervisor of a high value commodity warehouse in a high crime area) they issued me this measly .38 special so I went out and got a used WW II 45. When I left the company I turned in their .38, but still have the 45. Still locked up the safe and have no idea what to do with it and haven't shot it in years. And really don't care to.

[Agschmid]

271. Ive used guns before, I lived in VT.

But I've never hunted I have no interest in taking another animals life, and I certainly don't feel like I (or obviously anyone else) really needs them.

I get it, my view may not be popular... but it's mine.

[CharlotteVale]

254. K&R

[seveneyes]

259. Yeah, rape victims shoud just lay back and enjoy it

Fuck the anti defense gestapo, we will not be victims...

[Agschmid]

261. Guns are not the ONLY form of defense.

But thanks for trying to paint me as pro rapists...

[seveneyes]

262. Guns work really well against rapist, muggers and other worthless fucks

None of which deserve to survive their actions.

[Agschmid]

263. As does pepper spray.

And rape whistles, and working to decrease our rape culture.

But hey guns are an easy solve I guess.

[Hoyt]

282. Not really. Well unless you pull your gun before they stick their gun in your belly. So how

do you identify a threat before they stick their gun against your head?

[LiberalElite]

260. I am strongly pro gun control but

IMO civilian gun ownership should be considered on a case-by-case basis. IMO depending on conditions where people live and/or their jobs/professions, some may have more need for a gun than others. As for myself, I have no need for a gun and when a good friend died and I was her sole heir, I left her gun (which was a gift from a relative) in the drawer where I found it for others to dispose of.

[Kilgore]

264. Don't agree. I carry a handgun most every day at work

You see I work by myself in very remote locations that have lots of rattlesnakes. It is not uncommon to kill a snake or two each week just to make my work area safe.

The preferred method by me and my coworkers is to use snake shot. If you are unfamiliar with It, here is a link;

http://www.cci-ammunition.com/products/detail.aspx?use=3&loadNo=0039

For many of us who choose to live the rural life, a gun is a tool.

Kilgore

[Recursion]

272. So carry a .410; that's what I did working on my grandfather's farm

Doubles as a club if you miss.

For many of us who choose to live the rural life, a gun is a tool.

True. After working on a farm as a teenager I associate guns with hot manual labor (this was west Texas) and lots of time spent cleaning them rather than doing whatever it was I wanted to do. (Enlisting in the Marines only reinforced that.) I've often thought the best way to remove the perceived glamor of guns would be to make teenagers spend a few hours every weekend cleaning one.

That said, the fact that something is a tool does not make it the best tool either for an individual or society. We banned yard darts, for Christ's sake. A long gun solves your need, and its availability has a much lower societal cost.

[Kilgore]

303. Not practical

For the same reason I carry a pocket knife and not a machete.

[Recursion]

305. I love my tactical machete (nt)

[Kilgore]

306. Are those ones that

are all black and scary looking?

[DashOneBravo]

329. +1

It's the high powered assault one.

[Kilgore]

347. Got it!

The one with the telescopic sights!!

[Hoyt]

275. Fine, leave it at home when you go to town, and keep it to a .22 or something similar.

[the band leader]

280. I carry a Glock 10mm automatic or a Smith and Wesson .357 magnum most days

I had to pull the .357 magnum once but thankfully the three bad guys that were about to rob and possibly kill my wife and I ran away as soon as they saw it so I didn't have to shoot anyone. I pretty much don't go anywhere without a concealed handgun anymore after that day though and why exactly should I? that would be my question for you Mr. Hoyt.

[Hoyt]

281. Aren't you special, and paranoid. The 95+% who can walk down the street without a gun, aren't

impressed by you. I suspect you would have been fine without a gun in you supposed life-or-death situation. If they had intended to hurt you, you never would have gotten your gun out of your pants. Who do you think you are fooling?

[the band leader]

283. It is not my intention to impress anyone.

You included. I'm actually more interested in personally letting you know that I really don't give a fuck what the 95% think. You included. you most especially. So I will continue to carry every day, every where I go and I will buy as many firearms as I want to and there isn't a god damned thing you can do about it. In fact I just offered a private individual $1,250 on another revolver.

[Hoyt]

284. Good for you. The angry white guys buy and carry most of the gunz nowadays.

BTW, such anger and gunz don't mix. Hope you have yours locked away.

[friendly_iconoclast]

296. I'm sure your interlocutor will give your unsolicted letters patent all due considertion

[Travis_0004]

319. The FBI might disagree with you

[Hoyt]

330. Murders and white guys arming up are two different things. Go to any gun show, or store, and

tell me what you see drooling over the gunz. Go to ranges that allow gun fanciers to pretend they are in urban warfare, what do you see" Look up famed instructor -- Massad Ayoob -- who teaches mostly white guys how to protect themselves from those folks Trump is using to attract votes from ignorant, racist, bigoted white folks.

[friendly_iconoclast]

373. You conflate "people I don't like doing things I don't like" with "criminal"

You also might want to work on that internalized racism...

[Hoyt]

374. Just truth. As a gunner, I suspect you know it's the truth, even if you don't want to admit it.

[friendly_iconoclast]

375. I own no guns, so your telepsychology is as faulty as your sociology

Your claim of "just truth" is mere Colonism:

"Sergeant Colon had a broad education. He´d been to the school of My Dad Always Said, the College of It Stands to Reason, and was now a postgraduate student at the University of What Some Bloke In the Pub Told Me."

Terry Pratchett, Jingo

[Hoyt]

377. Since you post often in the Gungeon, I guess you just like hanging out with them. You still

have enough interaction to know I am right.

[friendly_iconoclast]

381. One of the hosts of Gun Control Reform Activism posts in the Gungeon more often than I do

72% of their total posts vs. 35% of mine.

So much for the idea that hanging out in the Gungeon is a marker for right wingery...

[friendly_iconoclast]

383. Aside from 'being armed while lacking melanin', what crimes did those people commit?

[Agschmid]

315. You could do something progressive with that money...

Like donate to a homeless shelter, buy food for those who can't afford it, save it for your retirement, or hell donate to a political candidate...

And people like to call me a "gun-grabber" clear that can go either way.

[Recursion]

265. Handguns are the problem.

There are too many of them. They are too cheap. It's too easy to obtain them. It's too easy to obtain ammo for them. It's too common to see people carrying them in public. They greatly increase the risk of suicides and accidents.

About nine-tenths of gun homicides are with handguns. Virtually all gun suicides (which outnumber homicides two to one) are with handguns. The Constitutional argument for them is much weaker than for rifles (even in the military very few people get sidearms). They are very little use in the hypothetical provisional militia that argument is based on. They are of almost no use in hunting (there are hunting pistols, which are so specialized and expensive that they can probably be glossed over here). Target shooting is a sport, but pistols are much less popular than rifles or shotguns in that.

[Agschmid]

267. This.

There are too many of them. They are too cheap. It's too easy to obtain them. It's too easy to obtain ammo for them. It's too common to see people carrying them in public. They greatly increase the risk of suicides and accidents.

[romanic]

273. Tell that to everyday citizens in the "hood"

And they'd give you list of reasons OP. As someone who grew up in a low-income suburb of Detroit, a handgun equals protecting your family/property and could mean the difference between life and death for a victim.

[Agschmid]

274. Maybe we should work to get rid of the "hood" rather than arm it?

Novel idea, I know.

[romanic]

276. If you're not from that kind of background

Then you wouldn't understand. This country has done alot to combat poverty and guess what: there are still "hoods" out there.

[Agschmid]

277. You are making an assumption about me.

I lived in Philly for many years, right near 8th and Sansom. Trust me, lots of crime, and gun violence.

But still I just don't feel the need.

[romanic]

279. Then you should know that..

...taking away guns from licenced citizens in crime ridden areas won't lead to a drop in gun violence. Gangs won't drop their illegally gotten arms if the 2A get appealed.

[Agschmid]

302. So we should do nothing.

Got it.

I don't understand why people would assume I think gangs having handguns are okay...

[Lizzie Poppet]

278. Absolutely we should.

The rather significant majority of homicides in this country are, according to the FBI, related to the trade in illegal drugs and to gang activity. These activities tend to take place in areas afflicted with poverty (poverty breeds desperation and despair...which in turn breed violence). Economic justice lies at the core of any real effort to reduce violence.

[840high]

288. Yes and not just in the "hood".

[Bonobo]

304. Yup, if they like shooting for fun, buy a fucking nerf gun. nt

[Kablooie]

307. But special day civilians need them.

and every day's a special day at Thriftymart so civilian all need guns.

Indefatigable logic.

[aikoaiko]

308. And I don't think there is very much support for civilian handgun bans

http://www.gallup.com/poll/179045/less-half-americans-support-stricter-gun-laws.aspx?utm_source=Handgun%20Ban&utm_medium=search&utm_campaign=tiles

[Agschmid]

320. Like Bernie I don't do what polls tell me to do.

It's a good quality I think, don't want to end up like a weathervane.

[aikoaiko]

322. I don't think polls tell anyone what to do.

I was merely providing context to your declaration.

[HassleCat]

327. I can give you one

Some people apply for concealed carry permits, based on the fact they receive threats of violence. Also, handguns are firearms, just like long guns, and the right to own them is no different than the right to own an assault rifle or shotgun. I would never carry a gun, but I have several handguns I use for target shooting. Also, I'm not sure I want to create a state in which only the police have guns. OK, that's three reasons, all of which I believe are compelling, even though I'm guessing you don't.

[moondust]

334. Guns are necessary to keep the slaves from running away.

The threat of deadly force is a strong deterrent.

Oh wait, that was 250 years ago. Sorry.

[Agschmid]

349. Such as?

[John Poet]

369. Because too many Republicans have guns.

I think that's a reason.

Sorry, I'm not on board with widespread gun bans, and if Democrats ever try to go that route, it'll be bad news for the party.

I support reasonable controls, which doesn't necessarily include every piece of anti-gun legislation that has ever come down the pike-- but most of them.


Personally, I think the left should be better armed--- legally and with education on safety.

[GOLGO 13]

379. You, my state nor any law will take my property from me.

You all fail.

[Hoyt]

382. The old "Molon Labe" so popular with so-called law-abiding gunners.

http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--WUEgBw00--/c_fit,fl_progressive,q_80,w_636/ufjww5qcdrhgksaaovnh.jpg

[AlinPA]

380. Our neighbor's father is always packing a gun (or guns). He wears this vest all the time even in

hottest days of the year. My wife and I have seen his big pistols holstered inside his vest in the supermarket. We see him around his grandchildren and worry about an accident. Just watching him prowling around next door with this guns makes us afraid and we hope he doesn't "lose it" some day and start blasting away at someone. we avoid him.

[Agschmid]

394. Self deleting... I got my across.

Kinda can't believe the thread is still getting kicked.