I have been thinking on why Gun Owners are becoming increasingly defensive

[nadinbrzezinski]

again, looking at facts... sorry... I do not pull this out of thin air.

Gun owners are right now a large minority, but a minoroty nonetheless, in the United States. Most of the owners tend to be older and live in rural areas, both demographics are on the wane, so the percentage of gun owners has been trending down, and now it is around 33 percent nationally. No not me saying it, here from PEW.

Overall, about a third of all Americans with children under 18 at home have a gun in their household, including 34% of families with children younger than 12. That’s nearly identical to the share of childless adults or those with older children who have a firearm at home.

The new research also suggests a paradox: While blacks are significantly more likely than whites to be gun homicide victims, blacks are only about half as likely as whites to have a firearm in their home (41% vs. 19%). Hispanics are less likely than blacks to be gun homicide victims and half as likely as whites to have a gun at home (20%).

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/07/15/the-demographics-and-politics-of-gun-owning-households/

The data reveals other interesting points, More owners will live in the country side, but both rural populations and older populations are waning. There is more... the country is becoming MORE DIVERSE... so it is inevitable that this trend will continue and we will have l less and less actual gun owners. (The talking point of uncontrolled ownership is just not real). Now that does not mean that those who still have guns will not buy more. They in fact are buying more, so gun ownership is getting cncentrated... but this also means that as a GROUP the NRA is likely going to wane in their power to scare your legislator as years go by, and more regulations will be put in place. Why they are becoming more shrill and loud. They can read polls and statistics with the rest of us.

There is also a cultural change that is happening right under our noses, and has been going on for the least decade or so (my opinion it as already generational)... and it is just accelerating. This is going to become less and less acceptable to younger urban populations who's only contact with a gun, for real, is a first person shooter, or the side arm on the cop's holster. Otherwise these are strange devices that are to be feared (which gets in the way of rational policy making). With less people serving in the military that also helps with the cultural change and less acceptance of guns.


There are some tropes that the NRA uses, like the good guy with a gun... will stop crime... which is just as much a romantic view of gun ownership, as the everybody is armed and more people are buying them. The other, self defense against a violent society... well even that is starting to penetrate skulls, that we simply do not have the level of crime we used to have.

But if you are a member of a minority that is becoming less and less in numbers, I can certainly understand the thinking that they are under siege. Sooner or later, all those changes in laws and policies they are fighting, may come reality. It is a slow walk, but I might still see it.

Oh and no, I don't think the 2A will be repealed, but how the majority understands it might be far more in line with earlier eras when the individual right did not take center stage. That I can see, easy.

[LonePirate]

1. The behavior of gun owners mirrors the behavior of the Republican Party.

The numbers for both in decline so they have resorted to violent, extremist and defensive talk (and in some cases, actions) in order to remind everyone they still exist.

[GGJohn]

8. So you're accusing members here that are firearms owners of being just like the repukes?

What utter bullshit, you should be ashamed of yourself, your hatred is really getting out of control and clouding your judgment.

[LonePirate]

9. Some of the talk from the gunners here at DU certainly resembles the talk from Repubs.

[GGJohn]

10. More utter horseshit.

Just because we support the 2A doesn't make us like the repukes, go peddle that crap elsewhere.

[lobodons]

28. Bit defensive are we..??

You're kind of proving their point.

[GGJohn]

29. The bullshit is getting awful thick around here. eom.

[pablo_marmol]

98. He's not proving their point at all.

He's confronting the type of bigotry and hypocrisy that ruining our (Democratic Party) credibility and losing us elections.

[Squinch]

138. I don't see it as bigotry and hipocrisy. I see it as sane people who are appalled by

weekly massacres and by the gun hobbiests who enable those weekly massacres.

Tomato, tomahto, I guess.

[pablo_marmol]

148. "Tomato, tomahto, I guess."

Nope. More like one person believing that they're entitled to their own set of facts, and the other believing that nobody is.

FACT #1: The vast majority of gun violence is committed by those with extensive criminal backgrounds - NOT "hobbiests".

FACT #2: Only a very small fraction of the gun "population" is involved in mayhem. Try to get at the guns used by criminals by restricting guns to all, and you have an extremely serious 'needle in the haystack' problem.

FACT #3: Attempting to ban the most popular rifles in the nation based on the way they look rather than function is dishonest, moronic and politically devastating.

FACT #4: The overall crime rate - including gun violence - is 1/2 of what it was in 1993.

I could go on.......but what would be the point since gun rights supporting Dems are dealing with the factose intolerant.

[Squinch]

149. Fact: we have a massacre every week in the United States. Sometimes 2. Perpetrated by a gun humper.

None of your non sequiturs changes that. Or addresses it. And your hobby enables and finances a gun lobby that does everything in its power to prevent anything being done about it. It begins with the hobbiest, those guys -typical gun hobbiests - who can't have one or two guns, rather they needs 8 or 12. Because the lobby told them they needed it, and they, poor slobs, believed it.

[beevul]

150. So much nonsense.

Don't mind me ignoring the window dressing, and destroying your central point:

Or addresses it. And your hobby enables and finances a gun lobby that does everything in its power to prevent anything being done about it.

That right there, is untrue. You know its untrue, and everyone else knows its untrue.

Nobody, particularly the gun lobby, is stopping you or anyone else from looking at non-gun measures aimed at preventing gun violence. But then, that's the dirty little secret isn't it. The one you lot try to hide within your false premise. The mainliners in this anti-gun movement...originators of the 'if it saves just one life' talking point, wielders of the 'they love their guns more than they love kids' club, and general pointers of blame...aren't interested in any of it unless its gun centric. "Mental health is an nra talking point", is just a confirmation, if you think about it.

[Squinch]

151. "Non gun measures aimed at preventing gun violence"

Don't you ever get tired of yourself?

[beevul]

152. No, but I do get tired of your false claims.

Refuting them, not so much.

And I take great pleasure understanding that you responded with snark because its the best, and only thing you have left, since the facts are against you and all.

[pablo_marmol]

155. "None of your non sequiturs changes that."

Translation:

None of the accurate and honest data that you present will change my mind, given that I've chosen to swallow the nonsense spoon-fed me by willfully uneducated talking heads.

Fixed.

[randys1]

27. I used to assume a pro gun person was no better than a con, i was wrong...

I am still very much opposed to guns, but there are some good people here who are pro gun.

[GGJohn]

31. Thank you randys1.

I like to consider myself a solid progressive who responsibly owns and uses firearms, as I believe most firearm owners on this board are.

[greytdemocrat]

76. +1

And yes, I'm a gun owner.

[pablo_marmol]

97. Thanks for your integrity, randys1......and thanks in general. NT

[Duckhunter935]

127. thank you

[Eleanors38]

128. Thank you, and noted again.

(Watch out. You may become one of "those.&quot

[Hoyt]

36. I agree completely. It is astonishing to me how callous some Dems appear nowadays.

[randys1]

114. But they are our allies on so many other important issues. We have to come together somehow.

[Hoyt]

116. I'm not sure we can come to terms with the gun 1%ers. The majority who own a gun

or two for hunting and home defense, probably.

Fact is, most fervent gunners are right wing racists.

[randys1]

117. I am trying to understand it and I think it is culture. Someone has something as a big part

of their lives forever, they are older, usually and then we say we are going to maybe take them away.

Might be no different than threatening to take away their car.

I refuse to believe the liberal Democrats on this board who support gun rights are part of the con mess, hell, Thom Hartmann is a gun person.

There are at least two types of Democrats, far left like me and moderate, like most of our gun folks.

We have to work together, the alternative is giving power to the assholes.

(not implying only older people are gun advocates, but I do wonder if younger generations care less about them)

hoyt, surely a family member or friend of yours is a gun person, they are possibly also democrats, right?


having said all that, this was NYT today

It is a moral outrage and a national disgrace that civilians can legally purchase weapons designed specifically to kill people with brutal speed and efficiency. These are weapons of war, barely modified and deliberately marketed as tools of macho vigilantism and even insurrection.

[nadinbrzezinski]

119. Ding, dang, ding

[Hoyt]

120. Democrats I've known aren't pushing gunz and all the crud that go with them. Sorry.

I hear what you are saying, but we have to stop coddling those who think it is OK to carry guns in public, stockpile guns and ammo, shoot people like Zman, promote the gun culture to the next generation, profit off guns, discount the rest of society to preserve access to their next lethal weapons, and worse.

[nadinbrzezinski]

121. Due to work I know a few good democrats in my back ountry

they want very progressive policies like single health care, and to do something about immigration, They also do not want any gun laws that will infringe on their rights, and want CA to liberalize these laws.

Why? One reason, which seems silly to me... they want extended mags for the range (which are not CA legal) becuase it is quite a pain to have to reload magazines. And when they take their guns to visit family in AZ, they use those same extended mags which are legal in AZ. They borrow them.

They know what I think of this by the way. If I had my way.. .those magazines would be even less capacity. But there would be extended mags for RENT at the range.Because yes, I get it, it is a pain to reload those things.

Their kids, who also are good democrats, and live in the city... have told them, that they are not interested in either inheriting the ranch, or the gun collection. I suspect when the time comes they will keep the ranch as a vacation home and maybe a long gun for varmint hunting if at all. Mostly selling the ranch where it is... is not going to happen. (Not with the present drought and water issues).

So if you met them, and you told them they are troglodytes becuase they want those laws liberalized and are frustrated CA is getting more and more control happy... you are going to shut down the conversation on what you agree with them this fast. Hell, you are going to have no conversation at all about policy regarding guns.

We have pretty nice civilized discussions becuase I do not treat them as troglodytes... try it sometime. They are not fully convinced I am right regarding CA gun laws, but now they accept that their kids want nothing to do with the gun collection, which is not even that extensive and includes one gun that might be of historic value and has been passed down from father to son starting in the 1830s. Free clue, that thing has a serial number that is pretty much worn out. and if it completely goes away, unlike modern fire arms would not be a felony either.

Oh and yes, they USED to be NRA members, but as they put it, the NRA became too political for them.

[Hoyt]

122. Sorry, Nadin, but in my area of the country, gunz and racism are just too closely related.

[nadinbrzezinski]

123. You think my back country does not have a few racists?

You do not know my back country.

I am just telling you a fact. You are doing more damage to yourself and your causes than any good. And both sides digging heals will lead to ZERO POSSITIVE CHANGE and SHORT TERM, more damage.

[Hoyt]

129. I have never suggested an outright ban on gunz. A gun or two in the home

is not an issue. Anything more is an affront to a civilized society.

[nadinbrzezinski]

131. But you are the one also making blanket statemetns that gun owners are racists

Personally some policy changes I would like to see are ....

Small mags, if a state says you cannot have more than 5 rounds when hunting, that is the size you sell in the civilian market, 5 round mags

Close all the background loopholes... the gun show loophole, the private transfer loophole... all of them, and this has a LOT OF POPULAR support.

And yes, UNLESS you happen to inherit grand dad's collection, which might or might not be that extensive due to how far back it goes..buying more than 2 side arms for home defense, and a shotgun... maybe a rifle for hunting... should raise mental health concerns.

I have one exception... that I personally know, but he is a competitive shooter. He shoots in both the US and European circuits, and is hoping to make the US Olympic team. So he as competitive shooting weapons. Europe does not use the AR for that, but the US does... for example. So he needs two, custom made... expensive as hell, .223... cops are the other group that might have more than what most of us would consider normal. a side arm, an onion field, a third gun in case the other two should fail, a shotgun and an AR 15 or M-14 are not that uncommon.

To do that, where having 70 guns and 100 rifles, would trigger a 51-50 call we need to have a registry... yes I said the R word. and many, if not most, gun owners on both sides are against the R word. Why? They fear confiscation is next. And it might not pass constitutional muster either.

I also want smart gun technology, and smart gun technology that can be back fitted to guns already in the market. That will solve some of the issues with stolen guns. Yeah, pretty much, you steal my 40 cal, and it is a smart gun, good luck using it beyond a hammer. And those, like locks, should be mandatory.

Licensing is a good idea but will not pass constitutional muster. Insurance will not work for multiple reasons. (All legal) So we do have a particular constraint that will not go anywhere, (though that will change when, not if when Heller is revisited, it is Heller that has created a lot of this mess making more and more impossible to do things like deny CCWs)

[Hoyt]

133. I'm fine with that, but gunners - here and elsewhere - would freak out.

If you wish to coddle them nicely, I get that. I just don't have the patience for their anti-social behaviour and beliefs. Most of them would vote for the GOP if they thought a Democrat were supporting truly strict gun controls.

[nadinbrzezinski]

134. Yuo are the one using the term "gunner" which shuts down any useful discussion

period

Carry on. In some ways you go to a city council hearing, or write to congress the way you write here, and the people who could effect that change will also ignore you

[Hoyt]

135. I've been discussing this for over 40 years. Gunners are inveterate.

You can talk nicely till you are blue in the face, and will not come between guns and their paranoia/hatred. Yes, I realize there are some exceptions, but not many. You can write-off darn near all GOPer gunners, because they are too racist and right wing. You can probably write-off at least 50% of gunners who say they are Democrats -- many of them being today's incarnation of Dixiecrats.

[nadinbrzezinski]

136. And when you appraoch a policy maker

with statements like this, nothing will change. Oh they will politely listen and in CA hope the 3 minutes under the Brown Act pass quickly.

You are doing the same thing they are... creating the other

[Hoyt]

137. If you kiss their rear, nothing will change either. Heck, policy makers can't even

get universal background checks enacted.

[nadinbrzezinski]

139. Yet, at local levels pols are starting to challenge the NRA

re-read the OP carefully and slowly about a cultural change that is happening under our noses.

But if you want change to happen, you need to learn this shit, not create the other, and actually approach this as both a public health emergency, and a policy matter.

Using language such as "Gunners," I guarantee will get you nowhere and will just alienate others.

By the way, you are not going to convince gun owners who are hard core. They see themselves as a group under siege and are reacting as expected, They are indeed a group under siege. But guess what? That is a minority of gun owners. Most gun owners, who are NOT NRA members, or racist or afraid of their shadows agree with a lot of these prescriptions as well. You will alienate them and drive them from your side. And if you have not met them, it is becuase most of them are not that loud.

How do I know, background checks were wanted by 90 percent of people after Sandy Hook... what is the percentage of gun owners, 33 percent. So a MAJORITY of gun owners wanted background checks expanded. Wake up and smell that coffee.

[Hoyt]

140. Maybe in California, not in red states or even states like Vermont.

[nadinbrzezinski]

141. Would you like PA?

http://crossroads.newsworks.org/index.php/local/keystone-crossroads/77438-nra-sues-pennsylvania-cities-challenging-legality-of-local-gun-ordinances

And notice that even the courts are starting to

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jun/25/pennsylvania-court-rejects-law-on-municipal-gun-or/

I know not the best source but.

As to CA... there is a saying that as goes CA goes the nation.

[jack_krass]

159. "5 round mags"

I never understood this line of reasoning, and consider it a distraction. Being that an experienced shooter can reload a cartridge in a fraction of a second, the difference between 10 5 round mags, or 5 10 round mags or 2 25 round mags is practically meaningless.

[nadinbrzezinski]

161. Except that recent shootings like that of a congresswoman

were stopped by a person without a gun, during reloading.

And if the state says you cannot have more than umpty squat number of rounds for HUNTING, why the fucking hell do you need more in the magazine?

Isn't hunting the reason many gun owners give for owning hunting rifles? The AR is a hunting rifle. amirite?

[TeddyR]

82. Firearms laws are more permissive than ever

And more background checks for firearms purchases being performed than ever. So not sure why you think gun ownership is in decline. Perhaps just fantasy on your part I suppose.

[LonePirate]

83. The percentage of the populace owning guns is in decline. Not much dispute there.

Existing gun owners continue to buy their 624th and 625th guns, hence all of the background checks being performed. I'm guessing there are fewer gun owners who own a single gun than there are gun owners who own 10 or more.

[nadinbrzezinski]

87. Hell even just two guns

[TeddyR]

88. Stats dude

Stats. Show me some stats to support your point and I'll agree. But in any event, the simple fact is that gun laws are more permissive in almost every single state in the union. Open carry (which I don't like but is still more common), concealed carry, campus carry, shall-issue, etc. Almost every single state in the union has more permissive laws that comport with the Second Amendment than 20 years ago. And at the same time, gun murders are down dramatically over the last decade. In other words, more guns = fewer gun murders (that's at least one conclusion you could draw).

[nadinbrzezinski]

91. And there is a DIRECT relationship between more permissive gun laws

and more gun deaths



Moreover, the more guns less crime is not something I would hang my hat on... since MASS INCARCERATION and MASS INCAPACITATION, and the war on drugs has a lot more to do with this, as well as broken window policies adopted by many PDs, as well as much LOWER lead poisonings. in children. If more guns in the streets have any role, most experts agree (outside the NRA of course) that it is minor at best.

On the other hand the DIRECT relationship with more guns available and accidental deaths is clear, even with the efforts from the NRA to stop gun research.

Oh and here on Lead

In her state-by-state analysis, Reyes controls for other possible determinants of crime rates, including the unemployment rate and per capita income, the number of prisoners and police, gun laws, beer consumption, welfare generosity, the teen pregnancy rate, the population age distribution, and the effective abortion rate. The results suggest that a 10 percent increase in the grams of lead per gallon of gasoline leads to a 7.9 percent increase in violent crime. These results are subjected to a number of sensitivity tests, with particular attention paid to the importance of certain states, the possibility of a non-linear relationship, and the role of alternate lead measures.

Lead exposure does not appear to affect the murder rate though, a result the author finds “not entirely surprising” given that her analysis omitted the effects of gangs and crack and that it is possible that only substantial exposure to lead would lead to an extreme outcome like murder. Nor does lead exposure appear to affect non-violent property crime. Putting the pieces together, the data suggest that when violent crime rose 83 percent from 1972 to 1992, increases in lead exposure could have been responsible for anywhere from a 28 to 91 percent increase. The growth of prisons is estimated to have produced a 35 percent decrease in violent crime, while a 24 to 87 percent increase remains unexplained.

http://www.nber.org/digest/may08/w13097.html

[smirkymonkey]

108. Oh! What a shock! Look at the red states.

More proof that republicans are idiots.

[nadinbrzezinski]

111. This is not about being an idiot or not

this is also a direct correlation to more rural states. They will lag the rest of the country in less permissive laws, They also have MORE guns available and in circulation.

[smirkymonkey]

112. Yes, but it's still my claim that the stupid and uneducated cling more tightly

to their guns. Check out the stats on educated areas of the country and gun ownership.

[nadinbrzezinski]

113. You are assuming that my neighbors are well educated

and trust me, not necesarily. It is just have a different culture.

And I live in a large city as well.

What i believe is that there is a direct correlation between the size of a population and how easy it is to scare.

I live in a large city that would be (it is actually in the list by DHS as a primary target for terrorism, top ten, shit I get to read), and we just go about life whatever. So terror is just one of many other risks and threats that we all go though life and not ignore but not worry endlessly about. Go to a more rural area, where my brother lives in a red state for example, and you even hear the fear mongering working on the news.

And the tone of the conversation regarding terrorism... it is as if they were going to be attacked yesterday as well... and the same goes about everything else.

[smirkymonkey]

115. Yes, but for instance MA has a gun ownership rate of 12.6%

One of the most highly educated states in the nation. Compare that to many red states with high gun ownership/low levels of well educated people. I think you will see a correlation between levels of education and gun ownership. The red states are at 50% and higher.

[nadinbrzezinski]

118. As I said, I think it is population related

More than education.

And harping on people as ignorant idiots shuts the conversation down very fast.

People want this to change, park the emotion and judgement at home.

[friendly_iconoclast]

156. That was in 2007, the gun ownership rate is now at 18.98% Sources:

Population:
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/25000.html

divided by number of gun owners (all must be licensed in MA:

https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2015/04/20/gun-laws-tightened-mass-number-permits-spiked/KDbdE52Cvdf4xNfIL4r0hN/story.html

Overall, the number of active gun licenses of all types grew 5 percent, with a total of 355,272 in the state last year.

[nadinbrzezinski]

162. More GUNS are getting concentrated in LESS people

that is not an argument.

[friendly_iconoclast]

168. MA licenses *gun owners*, not guns- and the # of gun owners here has increased 50% since 2007

At least in Massachusetts (and Illinois, which has a similar licensing scheme)
"More GUNS are getting concentrated in LESS people" is an article of faith, not fact.

[nadinbrzezinski]

169. Except for statistics

nationally gun ownership is down from 50 percent to 33 percent. It is simple math, really.

[friendly_iconoclast]

170. What are the numbers from *other* states that license all gun owners, and make stats available?

Polls may or may not be accurate, but licensing statistics are usually reliable.
I daresay those numbers would be more indicative than phone poll results

[nadinbrzezinski]

171. I dare say we are seeing a cultural change

I also dare say none is getting rid of he second. Or confiscating guns but I also dare sav the interpretation of the 2nd is going to go back to a more traditional way and some bans will be upheld. Heck the people buying more guns are doing it out if a fear their favorite platform will be gone.

[friendly_iconoclast]

172. The cultural change in Massachusetts and Illinois is that there are more first-time gun owners,...

...not 'those that already have guns are buying more'. IOW, the number of *gun owners* has
increased in these two heavily Democratic states, which is verifiable thanks to state record-
keeping. The increase is especially striking in Massachusetts; there were half again as many
licensed gun owners in 2014 than there were in 2007

MA and IL may or may not be anomalous among states, but your reluctance to at least
acknowledge the situation in the two states is puzzling and slightly disappointing coming
from someone in the journalism business...

[nadinbrzezinski]

173. Ah personal attacks

I love 'em

[friendly_iconoclast]

174. Not an attack, an observation- what I claimed is empirically true, and was denied by you

When I expained why my original claim is correct (one *must* have a license to legally
own any gun in Massachusetts and Illinois, so the number of gun owners in both states is
confirmable by any researcher), you elided what was said and repeated a meme.

I'd find that disappointing in any journalist, especially one that is usually better
than average...

[nadinbrzezinski]

175. And you did engage in a personal attack

Which you now continue.

[friendly_iconoclast]

176. You were wrong, shown proof that you were wrong, and instead of acknowledging that...

...went off on a tangent. I'd find that disappointing in anyone.

[nadinbrzezinski]

177. And you engaged in a personal attack

These days I don't alert. They are acceptable on this site. I call attention to them.

I will look at your stats, when I get home. But I wil call out your personal attack as well

[beevul]

163. Higher rates, perhaps, but not "more gun deaths" across the boards.

The relationship depicted by your map, is to low population as much as it is to anything else, as this map shows:



Higher rates, perhaps, but not "more gun deaths" across the boards. Here is your map with gun homicide numbers for 2010 added by me from wikipedia. I could not find state specific gun suicides, but you can use double the number of gun homicides for an accurate ballpark figure:




'Rates' in this case, are very misleading.

[nadinbrzezinski]

165. There is a connection

Sorry.

More permissive laws lead to more accidental gun deaths. You can go argue with the National Academy of Pediatrics and the National Academy of Sciences. Once the research is directly done, this link will he even more clear. Which is a reason the modern NRA opposes opposes it. The 1920s
and 30s NRA would have wanted it and wrote partly the legislation that got automatics off the streets, as in machine guns

[beevul]

166. You were originally talking about 'accidental' gun deaths? N/T

[nadinbrzezinski]

167. Among them yes

The number of gun deaths, I know shocking, that I used is all deaths. That includes the largest bulk of them, which is not crime related, or mass shootings, but accidental.

It is number of deaths per 100.000,not number of crime related or homicide deaths. Those numbers are that much lower even in high ownership states. High crime is not longer a reality.

[nadinbrzezinski]

89. The percentage of the population that owns a gun is down

The number of people in that percentage that are buying more and more weapons is what is driving the increase in background checks.

So yes 33 percent of people own an increasing number of guns. And even that will have an economic limit as this population ages.

[840high]

94. pure BS

[world wide wally]

2. There is one minority that you left out

That would be the victims shot by "legal" guns.
I put "legal" in quotes because I can't think of any guns that are illegal.

[Snobblevitch]

4. The gun itself can be made illegal if the

serial number is filed down. A full automatic weapon made after 1986, or one smuggled in after 1986 would also be illegal. Otherwise, the gun isn't breaking a law, the person possessing it could be.

[nadinbrzezinski]

5. I can think of plenty of guns that are ilegal

for example

FULL AUTOMATIC fire arms, such as an M-16 or an AK-47, with a three way selector. For the record, what you can LEGALLY acquire in the store has this selector on the side.



This is the one on an M-16, which you cannot legally buy.



Study them carefully and learn the difference.

The short of it, the AR-15 can fire only one round every time to you pull the trigger. The M-16 can fire a 3 round burst, or fully automatic with the trigger pull. If you are going to even have an attempt at discussing how you are going to change laws, LEARN THE MOST BASIC OF THINGS of the issue at hand, and by the way... I am on your side. I am all for regulations. We don't have enough. But I have made a point to educate myself, and not make ludicrous statements.

Other weapons that you cannot LEGALLY own. A sawed off shut gun, blame the 1930s, you really cannot have a mortar... you really cannot own a mini gun in some states, some folks are carefully licensed and vetted and if you can show me the use of a browning machine gun, an M-16 in recent years in the commission of a crime, I will eat my hat.

The last incident that involved a FULLY AUTOMATIC weapon, regulated by the BATF, that I could find was in 1988, and that was by a law enforcement officer, who used a Mac 11. FYI officers, as in PD, under certain circumstances, are allowed to buy fully automatic weapons. Under the transfer of weapons to PD under the DoD 1030 program, many SWAT units have in their stock M-16 and M-4 Carbines, that should not be confused with the similarly looking AR 15s. Some are in such sorry states they don't really work.

There are more... but I fear there will not be any fruitful exchange or education happening here. I do highly recommend you just put the thread on the trash. I really do, or educate yourself Not becuase of the fans of guns. You are not going to convince them. But because you want solid policy you need to park the emotion at home, and LEARN this shit. Good policy comes from knowledge, not the gut.

[Snobblevitch]

18. The guns you mentioned can be legally owned by individuals.

It takes an extensive background check, a payment of $200, and the guns have to be federally registered in your name. A full auto gun coats thousands of dollers (usually $10,000+) because only those guns that were in the registry in 1986 are legal to own.

[nadinbrzezinski]

21. You mentioned the registry, which I did as well (1930s legacy law)

and I will challenge you to point to me the least time ANY of these FULLY AUTOMATIC weapons was used in the commission of a crime?

the BATF handles that... and it is quite a bit MORE COMPLICATED than $200 bucks and you know it.

[derby378]

23. At least one murder tied to a Dayton police officer with a legal MAC-10

He was using the gun to shake down drug dealers for cash when not in uniform. Finally, he shot one and got caught.

[nadinbrzezinski]

26. The same one I am talking about

1988... I will save you the search. He killed a police informant. And that was the LAST

[Snobblevitch]

43. I was just pointing out that NFA weapons are legal to own.

The only fairly recent crime using automatic weapons that I can recall is the 1997 North Hollywood bank robbery and subsequent shootout.

[nadinbrzezinski]

44. Alas they were AR 15

The last one was 1988 and involved an officer and a MAC-10

[Snobblevitch]

46. I'm pretty sure they were full auto.

They were illegally modified. A Norinco (Chinese AK), an HK, and a Bushmaster.

The cops had .39s and 9mm handguns and had to go to a gun store to get rifles.

[nadinbrzezinski]

50. And I am pretty much they were not

By the way, even if modified, add an enhancement to a serious crime, they were not subject to the BATF registry when bought. By this logic you are using add Riverside as of this Wendesday by the way.

[Snobblevitch]

57. Since both of the bank robbers were killed in the shootout.

I don't believe any charges were filed. Can you provide a link that describes the guns used in the North Hollywood shootout?

I'm not really quite. Ertain why we are having this exchange. Rifles of all kinds are rarely used in murders let alone full auto weapons.

The guns used in the SB shootings were not full-auto. At least I have not read or heard of authorities saying they were.

[nadinbrzezinski]

60. They are rarely used

And let me see. I know I heard this from officers who responded. The same that bought (authorized) AR 15 soon after.

Here

Listed as AR 15

http://www.imfdb.org/wiki/44_Minutes:_The_North_Hollywood_Shootout

[Snobblevitch]

63. Your replies to me are lacking in details.

I'm not a mind reader. What does your last sentence mean? For that matter, to what is your second sentence referring?

And yes, it is rare that full-auto weapons are used in crime.

[nadinbrzezinski]

64. Rifles are used iirc less than 5 percent of crimes

Automatic weapons haven't been used since 1988

Just gave you a link listing the weapons

ATF said these two tried, unsuccessfully, to modify them before Wensdesday

[Snobblevitch]

67. You are incredibly difficult to have an exchange with on DU.

We are in agreement with one exception. The North Hollywood shootout, look it up.

Do you always argue with those who agree with you, mostly?

[nadinbrzezinski]

69. The link I gave you

Is to the North Hollywood event.

And while they were illegally converted they are not covered under the BATF parameters. Which is the fracking point when bought they were not automatic weapons.

Have an excellent day. (And do add Riverside)

[Snobblevitch]

72. You are incredibly difficult to communicate with.

at least with the written word. Do you expect people to read your mind when you are talking to them?

I don't care if the guns used by the perps were in the BATF registry, they were full auto and used in the commission of a crime. I deal in facts.

What does this mean?

"And do add Riverside"

I have read some of your other posts and they do not seem to be lacking in details so the replies make sense, what's the deal?

[nadinbrzezinski]

73. Yes and a fact is that they were not in the registry

And the conversion is an enhancement, not a primary charge. They were not bought in automatic mode.

[Snobblevitch]

75. Once again, you confuse me.

What's your point? Why are you telling me this? Why aren't you answering my questions?

What charges were brought against the bank robbers in the North Hollywood shootout?

[nadinbrzezinski]

78. I am stating a general fact

If you buy a rifle and you convert it, it is a felony. If you use that in the Commision of a crime. It is an enhancement. You are correct. Somebody is indeed being dense here.

[Snobblevitch]

81. Why are you telling me this?

Of course it is illegal to convert a semi-auto to full auto.

You did not answer my other questions.

Full auto weapons are almost never used in crime. Rifles of any type are almost never used in murders.

Why are we having this exchange?

(Please answer my previous questions.)

[nadinbrzezinski]

92. I am done wiht you

have a good day.

Walls and circular arguments...

[Snobblevitch]

96. Circular arguements?

You are the definition of circular arguments. I am completely baffled at the exchange we had this evening.

[oneshooter]

132. North Hollywood shootout

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

https://www.google.com/search?q=north+hollywood+shootout+museum&biw=1920&bih=965&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&sqi=2&ved=0ahUKEwiGhIz-lsjJAhXjj4MKHWF_AS8QsAQIGw

[SpookyDem]

59. I think there has been something like 2 crimes commited with registered machine guns

There is also a tleast one defensive use between outlaw bikers and a guy in a pickup truck in the 80s

[nadinbrzezinski]

61. Good memory. The last was 1988

[world wide wally]

80. WtF is wrong with you?

Don't you fucking get it?
GUNS KILL PEOPLE

quit nit picking between automatic and semi automating for Christ's sake

These people meant to kill and their weapons made it more effective

Get a fucking grip!

[nadinbrzezinski]

86. Good policy comes from knowing this shit

Not emotion.

By the way most guns will kill paper targets and fruits, and game, not people. Most owners are not interested killing people. This emotional response from you will get like zero changes. And as things stand right now those differences do matter.

[madinmaryland]

3. I think your next to last sentence sums up what I believe will happen...

"but how the majority understands it might be far more in line with earlier eras when the individual right did not take center stage"

When I was growing up in Ohio in the 60's and 70's, the though of everyone having access to high power military grade weapons was unfathomable. If you wanted to have a concealed carry permit, you needed a damn good reason for it. Now it has been completely the opposite scenario.

[nadinbrzezinski]

6. When you were growing up in OH in the 60s and 70s

plenty of people had access and used high powered military grade weapons that did not look scary when they went hunting. the .308 bolt action is still used by snipers... and the M1 Garand was in wide spread use, and is actually MORE powerful than the .223 used the other day. It just was not black, and scary.

People did not think of those in these terms though, Partly because the more people get distant from guns, the more scary these things seem to be.

[Eleanors38]

130. The Remington Model 8, the Model 742 were high-powered rifles from...

1908 and 1960, respectively, and were designed for big woods hunting. They are considered much more powerful than the AK & AR clones usually referenced in gun threads here.

Of course, this is to say nothing of the Garande M1 semi auto rifle (obsolete for the military) which could be found in the deer woods for generations.

Semi-autos all.

[former9thward]

7. People on the losing side of history

always say their side will prevail in the end. 20 years, 30 years, 40 years from now -- "just wait and see, the people will see it our way!"

Your "poll" is BS. People would have to be very foolish to tell an anonymous stranger on the phone they have an expensive weapon in the house. Just what a burglar would want to know. "Oh and BTW we also have money hidden in a fake cereal box if you want to know that!"

As far as Blacks not owning guns the "poll" is really BS. When I lived and worked on the south side of Chicago I did not know a single black co-worker that did not have a gun. And these were middle class black workers who had nothing to do with the gang culture.

[nadinbrzezinski]

11. My data is supported by plenty of other data done by researchers on this

it is not a poll by the way.

And you are correct about the losing side of history. As less and less people actually own guns, the gun owners of America will become increasingly under siege. So you are correct. Just not on the conclusion.

[former9thward]

12. This is no research on gun ownership.

No way to track it -- which BTW is a constant complaint from those who wish to limit it. Background checks by the FBI for guns go up every year which is the best way of tracking gun ownership --- actual figures -- not phony research.

[nadinbrzezinski]

13. Alas while not perfect, thanks to the NRA, these ownership trends

are older than the actual ban on research.. this is a generational trend.

Live with it, or not, but urban populations tend to have a lot less guns... they do not feel they have a need for them, sorry.

Next I will hear from you is that crime rates (and those are indeed carefully tracked by the way) are not way dow, which they are, according to ARJIS. This is also registering and people feel NO NEED to buy guns. The world is not that scary any longer and urban crime is way down, even in areas of towns that are somewhat sketchy. This is especially the case with younger people. Also we have quite a bit of IMMIGRANTS who come from nations where there is not a tradition to own this shit, and they do not want to either. Riddle me this one, where are they settling? Oh yeah, URBAN AREAS.

As I said, as the current older rural population crashes, we are expecting to see this trend continue. And one of the demands from many of these younger urban folks, is to see RESEARCH into what happens with guns. I predict that will be the first major fight the NRA will actually lose. (And it cannot happen soon enough)

I guess you will also tell me the move from rural to urban areas is also a myth. We call this a perfect sociological storm.

[former9thward]

24. I am sure the people on the south side of Chicago

are comforted by the ivory tower telling them urban rime is "way down".

[nadinbrzezinski]

25. Ah yes, I was wondering how long you would say the word Chicago

you also do know why they have a problem, but whatever. (Free clue, has not one thing to do with strict laws in Chicago, but all to do with very lax rules in the surrounding areas)

But thanks for the talking point. And yes, EVEN CHICAGO is joining the NATIONAL TREND towards a decreasing crime rate. That is HARD DATA.

[former9thward]

74. Rahm, is that you?

[nadinbrzezinski]

79. Expected as well

[passiveporcupine]

37. It is in summer. You don't need the ivory tower to tell them that.

sorry...could. not. resist!

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

14. It reminds me of smokers thirty years ago

Something is rapidly becoming socially unacceptable among "normal" people and certain people are having trouble adapting to being outside of the mainstream.

I'm sure the men who were still pissing off their back porch a hundred years ago felt similarly ostracized.

I have inherited several guns, I didn't want them and I couldn't get the police or sheriff to take them from me. So I took them apart and dumped them into a milk carton full of plaster of paris and put them in the trash. I have provided the same service for several other friends finding themselves the proud owner of dad or grandpa's little penis extension. They just aren't part of our lives.

[nadinbrzezinski]

15. That is a good analogy

and my only recommendation is that next time you get one of these old guns... call a museum.

They will render them safe and add them to the exhibit if they happen to be rare. Some of these things do indeed belong in a museum.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

16. These were junk M1911 knockoffs

They had no value to anybody but a criminal in need of a disposable gun.

[nadinbrzezinski]

17. Then the local SO should have taken them

for the reason you stated.

I mentioned grandpa's gun, because some have indeed passed down a few generations.

One of my back country folks inherited the collection from an uncle... and one of the rifles was a Henry. Yeah... could have sold it at auction for a lot of money... he donated it to the local museum because he did not want that to even accidentally be misused.



So the thing is now at a museum. The rest of the collection was somewhat worthless, so he waited for the cards for guns by the SO's and turned them in.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

19. If someone brings me a musket from the Second Indian War I will do that

But so far it's just been the old pistol that dad or grandpa kept in his bedside table or glove compartment, so into the plaster they go.

[nadinbrzezinski]

30. Can you imagine trying to hold off a bank with this?

Thanks for the laugh

And that would definitely belong in a museum

[GGJohn]

32. Penis extension?

What the hell is it with you pro controller and sexual references to firearms.
I just don't get it.

[Hoyt]

39. It's not that hard to understand if you look objectively at those who are into guns and

don't take "penis extension" too literally. Gunz are often compensating for something, even if it's just lack of self-esteem, fear, fitting in with the boys, etc.

[beevul]

45. As if you're capable of looking objectively at folks who are into guns.

That may be the funniest thing I've ever seen you say.

[nadinbrzezinski]

52. Disagree

Especially when a lot of people (less than they yes to) hunt.

That is food on table and this is rather unhelpful to any policy discussion

[Hoyt]

66. I'm fine with someone who has a gun or two at home for hunting. That's not who is fueling

the arming up of America. Hunters are posting gun crud here, and elsewhere.

[GGJohn]

54. Hoyt, on the firearm issue,

I don't take anything you say seriously and have no respect for you as far as the firearm debate.

[pocoloco]

42. Projection

Psychological projection, also known as blame shifting, is a theory in psychology in which humans defend themselves against their own unpleasant impulses by denying their existence while attributing them to others

[Kang Colby]

20. Well, gun ownership appears to be about equal to

where it was forty years ago according to Gallup. Purchase permits are up in Illinois and Massachusetts, and concealed carry is also going through the roof across the nation. For some anecdotal data, head out to your local sporting goods retailer next Saturday. Hang around the gun counter and listen to the conversations. Lots of new people are out there buying their first firearm. Last Friday a national record was hit for NICS checks, and lots of FFLs are complaining about the wait times for phone in service at the moment.


http://www.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx

[nadinbrzezinski]

22. Even Gallup 50 percent does not equal 44 percent

Oh and here is the other graph you forgot



And on edit, look down. as of Oct of 2015 ownership is down to 41 percent and Gallup is considered to have a high number.



If we average their data, it is in the high 30s for them. Given how they do their surveys, which now they realize they have issues, yup landlines.

[B2G]

34. Gun ownership polls are worthless

A significant number of people will not answer honestly.

[Photographer]

47. Especially when they don't comply with your preconceptions.

[Kang Colby]

38. Notice, I said **about** equal to where it was

forty years ago. I think the margin of error with these surveys favors underrepresentation of gun ownership to a non negligible degree. Americans are more security conscious and are less likely to admit gun ownership to a stranger in my opinion. Firearms are understood to be targets for thieves. In 1972 gun ownership was reported at 43%, then in 2012 reported at 43%, in 1975 at 44% and in 2015 at 41%. Note, ownership was reported at 45% in 2011.

Following the Gun Control Act of 1968, I expect ownership levels to be lower. Generally speaking, gun purchases today are more heavily regulated than ever before. I notice you didn't comment on increases in purchase permits, which also supports my point.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/150353/self-reported-gun-ownership-highest-1993.aspx.

How do you explain this trend?



ON EDIT: How do I explain the trend you provided a graph for? Notice that support for more strict gun laws has significantly decreased over several decades. Ironically, that also supports my point.

[nadinbrzezinski]

143. 50 percent and 41 percent

are NOT within the margin of error, nor are they even close to the same. Giving you the benefit of the doubt and Pew is off, they are still dropping and nowhere close to where they were even 20 years ago. Given that even Gallup admits their methodology produces higher numbers due to an over reliance on land lines, I think Pew is closer by the way.

Ironically we are moving back towards stricter laws, and this is a cultural shift Hang on to your hat.

Though I understand why you need to hang to this illusion. But this is part of the normal see saw of politics in this country.

And the graph I provided actually shows support for MORE strict gun laws.

[Kang Colby]

146. Huh? Re-read my post. I'm citing forty year increments. n/t

[grasswire]

33. the local gun shop parking lot was JAMMED today

I thought about going in just to hang out for a bit and listen/watch. Then I thought better.

[nadinbrzezinski]

35. Yet

The national trends do not lie

[Kang Colby]

40. I agree.

With respect to ownership levels, one of the only polls you can find showing a long term decrease is the GSS poll. But then again, Tom Smith, the director for GSS is a gun control advocate. Is that a coincidence?

[branford]

41. For political purposes, national trends are not always the relevant or most important indicator.

Support for gun rights tends to be rural and regional, and accounts for why it's often part of the culture war.

Senators represent states, Congressman their own districts, etc.. For instance, it really doesn't matter much if CA, NY and IL generally become more anti-gun. One need only take a look at a current political map, wherein Republicans control the Senate, have their largest majority in the House in generations, and control the majority of state legislatures and governorships, to see the trajectory of gun control efforts absent a total sea change in American attitudes toward firearms.

[nadinbrzezinski]

51. But

National trends will change attitudes long term. And that is the point

[branford]

56. Not necessarily, and trends change.

For instance, support for gun rights actually increased a few months after Sandy Hook.

Besides constitutional barriers to gun control and strong regional and cultural attitudes, both nationally and at the state level, most firearm laws have actually liberalized, all while the number of firearms in circulation has steadily increased and violent crime rates substantially dropped. Assuming your claimed trends do indeed continue, it would appear to just foretell more national partisanship and division, not actual stricter gun control laws or policy.

[nadinbrzezinski]

65. And interpretations of rights also change

Though you did point a factoid on this. Every time we have a mass event we have a slight uptick of ownership. The general trend has been locked already for a generation. As younger folks mature this will only changed they somehow decide they need them

[branford]

70. Interpretations do indeed sometimes change,

although usually very slowly, and not always in the direction some want.

Stare Decisis is still a very powerful force, particularly in Supreme Court jurisprudence. The same legal rules and culture that keep abortion legal with a conservative SCOTUS are likely to maintain the individual gun rights and related reasoning of Heller and McDonald, particularly since these decisions are so recent.

As to what may happen to attitudes or law in 25 or 50 years, no one really knows. Maybe by then some ingenious inventor will create a Start Trek-like phaser that can be set to "stun," and all sides of the firearm debate can find common cause and compromise. A boy can dream...

[nadinbrzezinski]

71. Heller in the view of many experts

Did break precedent. Like CU and the Bush v Gore decision in 2000. We are living in a nice place for the court right now. I foresee challenges soon. As in a generation or so

[Photographer]

48. K&R

[deathrind]

49. This is definitely.

A generational issue and as the older demographic declines the changes needed will certainly come about which is sad because a lot more people will die if this time frame is how it plays out.

But it may not take a generation with the current pace of mass murder events that are happening. People are getting tired of seeing these events weekly in the news. Certainly not a critical mass yet but the ideology is shifting which is evident in the fact that a majority favor 100% BG checks for both private and commercial firearm sales a minority and the NRA are still winning on this issue but not or much longer. Especially if the NRA continues to hold pressers saying more guns is the answer after these events which just makes them look ridiculous.

I think you are correct in your thinking that the 2nd will not be repealed. But the 2nd says nothing about ammo so the door is wide open for regulations there and one congress person has already drafted a bill from that angle.

[Waldorf]

58. Ammuniton is part of the "Arms" in the 2nd.

[liberal N proud]

53. Many responses on this thread resemble those statistics.

[nadinbrzezinski]

62. You noticed that too

[liberal N proud]

103. You have to love it when people validate facts while arguing against them

[nadinbrzezinski]

106. It is anecdotal but amazing at the same time

[Logical]

55. Most I know and talk to are paranoid. At the range I would say 80% right wingers who hate Obama....

and think any day now they will need their guns. Have no idea how low the chance is.

[nadinbrzezinski]

68. There are those yes

Let me take a guess. Older and white? I am guessing based in the statistics I have been delving into.

[Logical]

84. You are 100% correct, but many younger ones pick it up from dad also. nt

[nadinbrzezinski]

93. Yeah, but many of the younger ones are not picking up on the hobby as much

as they used to. The trend seems pretty well established now. My best guess is that the floor for this will be in the mid 20s, to low 20s best case scenario. And yes, it is a pure WAG on my part without looking at some data we are not allowed to look at by the lovely NRA to be exact.

[krispos42]

77. Gun owners are constantly demanded to prove need.

"Why do you need X?"


Of course it sounds defensive! People (who will not be affected by laws they want to pass) keep trying to pass laws that take away options, time, money, opportunities, etc., from gun owners. Their stared intent is to change the culture, to make gun ownership unpopular like DUI and smoking and abortion. To put heavy regulatory burdens in place simply to discourage and punish. For the children, you see.

Of course, there is limited rational discussion of the merits of the proposals; even this minute there are people that think "assault weapons" should be banned and who are impervious to logical arguments about why past and current laws are stupid and ineffective.


Nobody is forcing or encouraging ANYONE to buy guns, but the opposite is quite true.

[nadinbrzezinski]

95. What I am poiting to you is not the need to prove need

Personally I could not care less if you think you need an AR 15 chambered for a .223 for example with all kinds of gadgets to go with it. Hey knock yourself silly, you want to spend more than the rifle is worth on a starlight scope capable of extremely low light? By all means. I really don't care. Though if I could snap it on the camera... might make for good astronomy as well. But I think the culture in general is becoming less and less tolerant of the general availably of guns. Part of it, as I explained, is that younger URBAN populations are not getting it, and there are many reasons for that. The changes have been undergoing for a while and it is a cultural change happening under our very noses. So when a single person asks, what the hell do you need a scary gun that looks like an assault rifle? Sooner or later that will translate to LESS permissive laws.

My hope is that when it does happen, the policy makers are driven by how these things work, not by how they look.

My personal view is that you really do not need an extended magazine to go hunting and the BLM agrees with me, as well as many states. So if you primarily use a weapon is for hunting, which by the way is great. too many white tail dears... and venison is tasty... in my view we really do not need 10 round clips. Or for that matter larger than those... which are allowed in some states. If states are putting a limit on 5 rounds, that is the maximum clip size we should have in the market for civilians. It is simple and makes this wonderful AR 15 magazine just about the size of what the Garand had.

And yes, it sucks to have to reload that thing so often when you go to the range. So my compromise is, you can have a longer sized mag to RENT at the range. So you can have fun, without having to reload so often... hell, who knows? Maybe have a few drums for rent... why the hell would I want that? No, not really. I do not like clearing jams.

But as more and more people start to get less and less tolerant and less and people actually have ever handled, let alone own any firearm... the winds of political change will start to blow. Will they change in heavily rural districts? Nope... I am not counting on that happening like ever. Will this happen in some red states that are majority rural? Nope. But it will happen. In fact, I would say that it is starting to happen at local levels where the NRA is FINALLY NOT GETTING THEIR WAY... and scaring pols to do whatever they want. And as more of those lower tier pols move to higher tier offices things are changing already.

[krispos42]

109. I think your hope for change is overblown.

As the population of the country is urbanizing, there is less hunting going on. I used to live in the rural Upper Midwest, and people in the small towns and cities out there hunt regularly as part of their daily life. Urban-based hunters, though, have to travel more and make more preparations. Hunting isn't something you do after work (or school) and before it gets dark; it's something you plan out for a weekend once or twice a season.


However, this also means that the urban-centered people are seeing guns not as tools of hunting but as tools of self-defense, that is, tactical guns. They are not shooting to put meat on the table, they're shooting to protect themselves. So the "Fudd gun" era of wood-stocked bolt-action guns with blind magazines is giving away to plastic-stocked semiautomatics with detachable magazines.

The demands of tactical use are different from hunting use. Hunting is far less dependent on repeat-shot times and magazine capacity and far more dependent on accuracy and bullet power. An AR-15 has the ability to work well in both situations, whereas the "Fudd" gun works well in only one situation.



Concealed-carry permits are going up, handgun sales are high. I think that what is happening this that lot of urban/suburban dwellers are handling guns now, but because it's "socially unacceptable" to a lot of people, they're keeping it within their population. Urban/suburban living doesn't lend to a lot of causal gun encounters, such as exists in more rural parts where you can see farmers and rangers with guns habitually as well as hunters.

[nadinbrzezinski]

110. The tools for self defense is not translatiing into more sales

to new owners. I needed to clarify, and the statistics and the trend are clear on this.

We have gone from 50 percent owning fire arms to 33 percent. I expect this to bottom up in the low 20s best case. But I do not expect even close to a majority of people to own guns at home ever again.

I stated in the OP why. We are undergoing a cultural change and less and less people are actually owning guns. They are owning MORE guns, but less owners nonetheless. The MAJORITY will (is actually) losing patience with this.

Also high crime rates is not a real thing anymore.

[krispos42]

144. You're probably right

I think high-20's would be the normal rate moving forward, but regardless, this is why rights must not be subject to the approval of the majority. At some point (we may have reached that point already) we're going to have people clamoring for specific gun-control laws that they are bamboozled into supporting because a) they are ignorant of guns, and b) they have no interest in educating themselves about guns because "gun nutz just have talking points", or they don't want to sully their souls with touching an icky icky mass-murder machine.

Take what Trump and his fellow candidates outgas about on a daily basis. It has no basis in fact, but he and they have people shitting themselves in fear over 10,000 Syrian Civil War refugees working their way through 18-24 months of background checks. These people don't want to be educated because they "know" Trump et. al. is "right". I work with some of these people; I hear it in the lunch room daily. Or how Mexicans are raping American women while transporting kilos of coke and meth across the border. And how Obama is a Muslim.

Yeah, really... they're all convinced he's a Muslim. In 2015.



The issue we're dealing with now is not a function of gun availability; the technology for random people (or small groups of terrorists) to walk into a soft target like a school and gun down a couple of dozen people has existed for about 140 years.

What we're dealing with now is a combination of blowback from Bush's invasion of Iraq in 2003 (terrorists attacking those that attack Muslims) and right-wing policies making working-class whites desperate and angry and blaming minorities and immigrants for their plight. "Stochastic terrorism" accurately defines the latter, and the RW noise machine is making a mint off of their fears.

These are the high-profile mass shootings with political overtones: Doctor Tiller's assassination, the church in South Carolina, the guy in Pittsburgh that ambushed 3 cops, the guy that shot up a UU church, the guy that crashed his plane into an IRS building, the couple that ambushed two cops in a Starbucks in Nevada, the guy that shot up the PP clinic in Colorado, and the couple that shot up San Bernardino. I'm probably missing several of them; it's been a shitty five years or so.

My fear is that it will build up to a frenzy during the current election cycle, which means we have 11 more months of madness and insanity.

[nadinbrzezinski]

145. People really need to ask why we are having these many mass shootings

they used to be rare (texas tower for example) now we have more than the days of the year.

Hell, as I type I am listening to what started as a possible active shooter in riverside. turns out it is a smash and grab at the local ben bridge. Large perimeter, dogs, civy evacuation...

Some of what we have had that our media (and government) refuses to classify as terrorism, and should, is RW motivated. You just pointed to Dr. Tiller's. Then there is the PP shooting last week, and Dylann Roof in Charlestown... as well as the guy who went and shot the Holocaust Museum. All these are acts of terrorism that the government refuses to call well, terrorism.

We have a report on RW terrorism that has been suppressed

And by the way, I am not for grabbing all guns... I want things that make sense, and actually would follow some laws... we have on the books already. I went over them, but even things like universal background checks are being resisted, incidentally... by the same RW that have done some of these acts.

This is not a coincidence.

And we have some nuts who are just going nuts... Adam Lanza for example.

So we must ask what the hell is going on in the culture? And this is the question many here (on both sides) really does not want to ask, what the hell is going on?

I predict we will get more, partly due to climate change, partly due to economic conditions, and my worst case, is that for example Texas will follow though and decide to leave the Union and we decide they need to stay... civil wars are not civil.

I also can foresee a change in how the USSC interprets the second. If anything... those laws are not static, and those cases are not static. Interpretations do change with conditions,

If we have that civil war though, the 2nd might not survive that event though, with likely the third.

[DonCoquixote]

85. True, but not for the obvious reasons

Last edited Sun Dec 6, 2015, 03:35 AM - Edit history (2)

warning, my answer will offend easily offended, this is a trigger warning.


The fact is, most working class people are being forcibly ripped from the idea that if you work hard and play by the rules, you will at least get something for your efforts. Whether it is at a Trump Rally, or a Clinton Rally, or yes, even a Bernie Sanders Rally, we have a culture that is not prepared for the fact that the old USA capitalism will not survive in our lifetime. Granted, the sort of Communist/Socialist stew favored by China or Russia is not all that healthy either, because all of us are going to run into the fact that even if we put on green sackcloth and ashes, the ecology of this world is about to head south. Nation after nation will find that the sort of l;ife they wanted to provide will not be anymore. Granted, there are people on right and left, from the Ted Nugents on the right, to the Derrick Jansens on the left who WANT THIS! They feel like destroying civilization will turn them and those like them into the sort of He man warrior poet kings they really were meant to be.

If this sounds a lot like Isis, you are right, if it sounds like Putin's Russia, you are also right, because what we have is a lethal intersection, a bunch of stupid myths about what it means to be a man, and men who will think that the solution is to double down on these ideas, because they only reason things went wrong is because they did not try hard enough! Hell, look at the bloody MRA types here, bitching about how they cannot get the work and "respect" their daddies did, while being totally blind to the fact that their daddies wimpy ivy league bosses simply did not figure out how to get rid of the unions and bank regulations that allowed Joe six-pack to have a few pennies, that would prevent them from stealing what little pennies they had. No, that had to wait for the next generation, even though, just as in earlier times, there were people getting marched off, but no one spoke up, so of course when they were found, no one spoke for them. Sorry to say, few on the left or right had any honest solutions, and many times, the left either acted like Ivy League idiots, or a bunch of Stalinist guards scolding the peasants as they beat them for their own good.

So what does this rant have to do with gun control. Simply put, many of the gun nuts do not WANT to convince people they are reasonable folk. Consciously, or even subconsciously , they see Civilization as the enemy, and like a reality show where someone starts a fight, they are looking for the one chance to show that if things get hairy, they will become the ass kicking good man with a gun that they wanted to be.

Again, when they howl that they really are not unreasonable people, what they want is for you to say that one things that "forces" them into proving that they can take what they want, how they want, as much as they want, and blow whoever objects out if the fucking way, which is the true promise of the american gun. They have been itching for a fight, the one that lets them blow away the illusions that we have based our civilization on.

Of course, the problem is, these son of freedom do nto see that if you really want a world without all this annoying civilization to save you, you get really week when the real conflicts arrive, when people get the skill that does not come from your dreams about yourself being shattered, but because your one choice was kill or die. Yes, I am talking a bit about Isis, but I am also talking of things to come that will make isis look like the bunch of spoiled rich boy toys they always were. Let me ask you this, when the waters rise, and the drinking water runs low, what the hell do you think One point three Billion Chinese will do to survive? You make this all of gun shoot, and you will be out of ammo and dead.

[nadinbrzezinski]

90. And that is a brilliant observation

Been reading into mass incarceration and the roles that also liberals posed. In the real big picture it's related to this. In a more granular way it would be hard to explain it.

[DonCoquixote]

99. Thanks

I know this became raw when i typed it, but the fact is, we are not only less civilized than we think, but there are some suckers who really do think that if they hit the end of civilization head on, they will somehow emerge as the new Vandals and Mongols. Oddly enough, those are often the same people who do not realize that no matter how much ammo they stockpile, the will be the first to die, just as civilization let them live lives that otherwise would have been, as Bertrand Russel put it "nasty brutish and short." Go to either a good old boy survivalist rally, or it's cousin, the "back to gaia that never was" and you will see that most of the people you talk to would be dead the minute they had dental trouble.

[valerief]

178. "...dead the minute they had dental trouble."

You raise some excellent points in your posts, but thanks for wrapping it up by making me laugh.

[DonCoquixote]

180. Thank you for reading

My inspiration came form Aristotle's old line about how "even a philosopher cannot bear toothache", but also from all the people who talked as if civilizations was all a mistake from day one, yet they often had glasses, dental work, insulin or heart surgery, yet talked about others because they were not at "one with nature."

[valerief]

181. I know just who you mean.

[DonCoquixote]

182. That was a bullseye

a William tell robin hood bullseye!

[world wide wally]

100. So, what is the difference between bullshit and absolute bullshit?

[nadinbrzezinski]

107. I know people like you

Last edited Sun Dec 6, 2015, 02:34 PM - Edit history (1)

They are regulars at the County Board and the city council. They are not even politely listened to any more.

[Turbineguy]

101. It's the desired effect of

NRA and Fox News propaganda.

[nadinbrzezinski]

105. That we have less people owning ?

The paranoia that goes with the same people buying even more guns is though

[JNelson6563]

102. Haven't there been record breaking gun sales

In recent years? It sure seems the numbers are increasing, not decreasing. Over 450,000 concealed weapons permits in Michigan. These aren't old people clinging to their guns and bibles out in the barn.

I find this data from Pew a bit hard to believe
.

Julie

[nadinbrzezinski]

104. To the same people

If you own 1 or 200 you still count in that 33 percent

[TexasBushwhacker]

147. They're like single women and cats

The more, the merrier!

[valerief]

179. Bingo! America's gun owners are candidates for the Hoarders teevee show. nt

[Rex]

124. Yeah some are worried enough that they start talking about the 'gun grabbers' as if it is Red vs Blu

team.

[nadinbrzezinski]

126. Yeah but quite a bit of the emotionally ladden

grab them, EVIL GUNZ posts are not going to help either, in the short term.

We have a few people who are regulars at the City Council and Board of Supers. Every meeting they harp on the same thing, over, and over and over and over and over and... welll you get the picture

There used to be SOME interaction with policy makers. Now... they just wait for the bell to ring that means they stop talking.

Hell, I no longer bother recording them either.

This is what is going to happen to the BAAANNNN THEM CREW... and the LET'S MAKE ALL LEGAL crew.

This only short circuits any real changes. On the bright side, only short term, The cultural change is happening.

[demtenjeep]

125. um nope

hubby and I are both CCW carriers and we are not old . We also live in one of the biggest cities and live downtown.

We grew up in a more "rural" community but since we have been married, we have always lived in urban areas. We like to hunt-have always had deer meat for sustenance especially in our young married lives. My children absolutely love deer roasts and jerky.

We both have jobs where we do not carry during the day, but we enjoy having the right to do so otherwise. We are not gun nuts, we do not think we will stop the next crime. We do, however, know we will be able to protect ourselves should the need ever arise. We also practice twice a month. We have been in defensive and safety classes. We know the dangers and risks.

So....

maybe more research?

[demtenjeep]

142. you really have no idea of any of this

and you can not lump all gun owners with the NRA .

one is separate from the other.

Unless you interview every single gun owner you can not be so absolute

[morningfog]

158. All gun owners are beneficiaries of the NRA.

[Eleanors38]

153. You confuse "defensiveness" with worry about Democratic Party viability. nt

[nadinbrzezinski]

154. Actually this has not one thing to do with political parties

[phylny]

157. Here's an example of some gun owners after a man was on the

loose in Virginia. He was a felon and was considered armed and dangerous.

Some people posted:

"See! More gun laws won't help us!"

"New gun laws and Obama taking away our guns can't fix this!"

"Doesn't this felon know he's not allowed to have a gun? See why new laws won't fix this?"

So I responded asking, where'd he get the guns? He stole them. Okay, I responded, so a responsible gun owner allowed this guy to get unsecured guns.

OH the uproar!

Guns will always be stolen.

Gun stores will always be robbed.

I'm not going to lock up my guns because someone might get them.

Why are you blaming gun owners instead of the criminal?

Okay, I said, this felon didn't steal the guns from ME, so what do gun lovers think will solve this problem? What do you who own guns think we can do to stop felons from getting guns? Because if you don't have a solution to this problem, either you don't care about innocent people being slaughtered every day in this country, or other adults will have to solve this problem without you whining about us "taking away" your precious guns. And can you answer without using insulting language?

C R I C K E T S.

I was at a home yesterday for an early intervention visit, and the Dad is refusing to have his child seen by a specialist because, and I quote, "With everything ISIS is doing here, I'm not letting some foreigner near my daughter." Mom's rolling her eyes an said quietly to me, "He's a really good doctor." Then Dad, as he's leaving, said to Mom, "A word to the wise, never go into the woods unarmed." I guess he got a gun, because five minutes later, I heard a gun shot. I asked, "Did he just shoot that gun?" Yup. "Is he legally allowed to have it?" No. "Did I just hear kids?" Yeah, that's the neighbor's kids. "Did he just shoot a gun in a neighborhood with kids and trailers all around?" Yeah, he's not supposed to do that.

What, gun lovers, do you propose we do? What?

[nadinbrzezinski]

160. I have talked to a lot of fun gun owners like that

then I have talked to a larger group, at least in my experience, that have their guns locked up, or with gun locks and only go shoot at a range, or when hunting.

This is my WAG on the issue, the ones we hear the most and are the loudest tend to be the really bad owners Oh the second group... if anybody mentions what they have is if they are going to go shoot to the range together and it is more the we will split the cost of the ammo.

Those people do not scare me one bit, and as I said, in my experience are the majority of owners.

But your example is a perfect example of why we need a registry, and why somebody who has 20 guns and 10 rifles should get a welfare check. (Unless they have a very good reason, like shooting for an olympic team and a few other circuits)

[B2G]

164. Maybe they started reading DU. nt