sensible gun control

[lancer78]

In this country died the day Diane Feinstein opened her mouth and said "if it was up to me, America, turn them in".

The pro gun control group and the pro birth group are different sides of the same coin. They only care about the symptom and don't make ANY effort to cure the disease.

[Reiyuki]

1. Is either side going to budge?

I don't think there's going to much progress setting definitive ceilings to gun rights unless there are concessions made to set a definitive floor along with it.

What exactly that entails is anyone's best guess.

[lancer78]

4. just like

How the pro choice group does not trust the pro birth group to stop at a certain point in limiting abortion rights, the same goes for pro and anti gun groups.

And while we are fighting these battles, we cannot go forward.

[Reiyuki]

5. exactly

I guess it means we keep an eye out for persons/groups that are universally hated by both sides, because they may be the only ones able to change things.

[lapfog_1]

2. Diane Feinstein was a victim of gun violence

her good friend and the nation's first prominent openly gay city supervisor, Harvey Milk, was assassinated by another city supervisor.

Dianne Feinstein heard gunshots and called the police. She found Milk face down on the floor, shot five times, including twice in the head at close range. After identifying both bodies, Feinstein was shaking so badly she required support from the police chief.[115][note 10] It was she who announced to the press, "Today San Francisco has experienced a double tragedy of immense proportions. As President of the Board of Supervisors, it is my duty to inform you that both Mayor Moscone and Supervisor Harvey Milk have been shot and killed,"

so lets cut her a little slack here on this subject.

There are a lot of reasons I'm not fond of DiFi... but her stance on gun control isn't one of them.

[lancer78]

3. I can see her point of view

But those words have destroyed ANY chance of sensible gun control.

I lost family to a drunk driver, but if I had been in her position, I would not demand America to turn in its shot glasses.

[BreakfastClub]

6. What if there were virtually no laws against drinking and driving? nt

[Lee-Lee]

7. We tried the equivalent to "America, turn them in" I from 1920-1933

When we banned possession of alcohol for everybody using the justification that those who abuse it are too much a harm to others.

Didn't work out all that well.

With DUI we target the actual offenders and now and then the person who proved the alcohol if it's provable they acted illegally like serving a person they know was too intoxicated.


Gun control measures would be like telling every person who wants to buy alcohol yor going to be limited or denied in what you buy no matter how safe you are because other people drive drunk.

And like I said- we trained that already.

[Duckhunter935]

8. You saying there are virtually no lows on owning or purchasing a firearm?

There are thousands of state and federal regulations and laws. More than alcohol in fact.

[baldguy]

10. The number of laws don't matter, their effect does.

As long as there are roads from one state to another, it's the least restrictive laws that matter. And the most important laws - the ones that actually reduce gun deaths - aren't allowed to be passed at the federal level by the terrorist-loving NRA.

[Duckhunter935]

11. What laws do you want?

[baldguy]

12. Anything the NRA doesn't like.

[Lee-Lee]

14. No, what matters is they don't get enforced.

A person who buys a gun and resells it across state lines has already broken numerous Federal laws. If you don't bother enforcing them new laws won't matter.

If you think guns flowing from less restricte states to more restrictive states is a problem there are already more than adequate laws on the books to prosecute that. All it takes is the Department of Justice to say it is a priority and direct the BATFE and other Federal agencies to focus on it.

Hell, more than 80,000 people a war commit a felony attempting to illegally buy a firearms every year, and they don't do anything about it. Just send the person known to be illegally seeking to arm themselves back out on the street after they commit a felony.

[baldguy]

16. The terrorist-loving pro-gun lobby doesn't want existing laws enforced.

[Lee-Lee]

20. The Gun Lobhy has no control over where the DOJ chooses to focus enforcement and prosecutions

All it takes the President to direct that these laws are high priority for enforcement and prosecution.

Just like he set policy that immigration enforcement against dreamers was low priority and wouldn't be done, effectively giving them at least temporarily amnesty.

Right now what the lack- even drop in- enforcement of Federal gun laws has done is give people who are illegally buying or attempting to buy or straw buying or dealing without a license essentially a similar amnesty. They know the odds are nobody will enforce the law.

Meanwhile the BATFE diverts its efforts from gun crime to big sexy undercover operations and huge case building on things like motorcycle gangs that have little or nothing to do with gun crime and result in far fewer arrests and prosecutions than if they focused agents on the violations of law that happen daily out in the open that nobody bothers to go after.

[baldguy]

24. The terrorist-loving gun lobby controls the fascist GOP, the GOP controls Congress,

Congress controls the purse strings.

What you're doing is called "polishing a turd". No matter what you do you can't take away the stink.

[Lee-Lee]

32. Enforcement was just as bad when we controlled Congress and the purse strings

So no, we can blame a lot of things on a scumbag Congress but this isn't one of them.

In 2010 we held Congress and the BATFE was running on a Democraticly written budget.

Of 80,000+ people who committed a FEDERAL FELONY illegally attempting to buy a gun do you know how many were prosecuted?

44. 62 had charges brought and they dropped 18 of those cases leaving 44 prosecuted.

In 2010. When we controlled the budget and we controlled the White House, where we controlled the DOJ who set the policies.

Democrats have to own those numbers and that failure.

Sorry, but historical record shows that our party is just as bad and just as much to blame for not enforcing the laws. There was no scumbag Congress to blame it on in 2010.

This is part of our own house we need to get in order. Sticking your head in the sand about it and screaming "terrorist loving fascists" doesn't accomplish anything nor does pretending this problem isn't bigger than just a scumbag Congrss- that is if you are actually interested in real solutions instead of just wanting to yell that the other side is terrorist loving fascists to try and score political points.

[lancer78]

51. they are enforced

As I cannot buy a gun because of past mental issues.

[Lee-Lee]

53. Some are- many are not

Here is an example- if you were to walk in and try to buy a gun and you filled out the form stating you did not have a disqualifying mental health issue and were then blocked when they called for a background check- you would have committed a felony by signing the form saying you did not have a disqualifying history.

That happens more than 80,000 times a year- a known prohibited person is actively seeking to a acquire a firearm and commits a Federal Felony doing so.

Less than 100 of those are prosecuted. So a known prohibited person is known to actively be seeking a firearm and commits a crime and it is just ignored and they are left free and uninvestigated to go try and get one on the black market or in another illegal fashion.

When 80,000 felonies that are super easy to prove and prosecute, all involving people illegally trying to buy guns, go I prosecuted every year there is no way you can say the laws are enforced. Some are, some quite clearly are not.

[lancer78]

50. there are many laws

Determining who owns guns. I cannot own a gun because of past mental health issues. Gun control does work as shown by the reduction of gun murders since the early 80's.

[Eleanors38]

64. Your data is correct, though it is given little credence by the controllers...

I think the reason for the Big drop in gun homicides hasn't been studied and appreciated enough; even now well-educated people I talk to think "gun-crime" has been going up for years. They are somewhat shocked when they see the data. The antis just call it an NRAtalking point©.

I don't have the time now to discuss The Problem, but "debate," I believe, is completely miscast when couched in terms of guns and gun policy. That "debate," as one DUer said some 10 years ago is really a "culture war by proxy."

[Eleanors38]

63. And as with all elites, you can get a gun to carry. And she got one.

[oneshooter]

81. I believe that she acually got two.

one for a 38
one for a 22

guess which one she gave up.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

77. I agree with her, but would not say it out loud.

[scscholar]

78. But tRump has hinted he wants to do that.

He constantly insults people who drink as weak.

[baldguy]

9. At some point, at some level, that's what it will take.

There are people that have guns now that shouldn't have them. That's the disease. Those gun owners will either have to get rid of them voluntarily (unlikely), or those guns will have to be taken from them.

This country will never be free if the innocents these people are targeting (which is everyone) continue to live in fear for their lives.

[pipoman]

17. What you are pretending is that there is no 2nd Amendment

You will never see civil rights or liberties removed without due process. When (never) that happens the 10k annual "gun violence" deaths will be insignificant....

[baldguy]

22. Guns remove peoples' civil rights or liberties every day - by killing them.

Your gun is not more important than my life & liberty.

[pipoman]

23. Cars remove peoples civil rights or liberties every day - by killing them

[baldguy]

26. And the car manufacturers lobby & car owners lobby work diligently to make cars safer.

That's just the opposite of what the gun manufacturers & owners do.

Guns are not cars.

[pipoman]

29. Your right to drive to the liquor store don't outweigh my right to life...

No, you will not wish away or pretend away any civil liberties. As has been said before, freedom isn't free nor is a free society completely safe.

[baldguy]

31. No one is asking for perfect safety. Just to make it a little less stupidly dangerous.

Sacrificing 30,000+ innocent human beings a year to the gun gods of the terrorists in the NRA is just dumb.

[pipoman]

37. Just another fantasy

Pretending that 19k of the 20k who commit suicide annually wouldn't still be just aa dead from suicide with or without firearms...and the others would likely be severely damaged from a botched suicide...

A fantasy that in the absence of guns the 8k gang murders wouldn't happen.

No, presence a gun has never caused anyone to want to commit suicide or murder someone....

Bottom line is most of the 30k you mention would sumply happen by other means...then you would be clamoring to outlaw cooking knives like the UK to no effect...

[maxsolomon]

56. your 95% figure is hypothetical, right?

you're saying 95% of firearm suicides would just find another, far more difficult, far more painful, far more grisly way, requiring far more determination than pulling a trigger, and kill themselves anyway?

guns comprise 50% of all US suicides in a typical year. 20K/40K in 2014. i'll concede maybe half of them would find another way (10K went by suffocation), but you'll have to back up 95%. in my scenario, that's 10K fewer suicides a year, not 1K.

I have no idea what this means: "No, presence a gun has never caused anyone to want to commit suicide or murder someone.... "

in fact, the presence of a gun DOES cause people to contemplate suicide or murder, because it's easier.

[pipoman]

66. Nonsense

The process of committing suicide is nearly never (I'd say never, but nothing is never) spur of the moment. It is a process that takes days, weeks and months to come to. What is more "grizzly" than shooting ones self in the head? There are plenty of other options and in the absence of a gun every single person who is suicidal will still commit suicide. Not a single peraon says, "hey, I own a gun....I think I'll kill myself (or someone else)"...it just doesn't happen.

Most gang murders are targeted and they would still be targeted with or without guns.

I am by no means saying that in the absence of guns that some of the 30k suicides and murders wouldn't be spared. I am saying that all the bluster from those who try to use the 30k "gun violence deaths" is that 30k people would still be alive...nonsense. I'm saying that almost every suicide by gun would be replaced by a suicide by some other means. That the majority of the 10k non suicide deaths would occur with or without guns.

Several years ago I saw numbers on Australia and suicide was statistically unchanged after their gun control.

[maxsolomon]

73. Nonsense like your 95% guess? Or nonsense like your 1st paragraph?

I don't, and have never, contended that far fewer guns in the hands of the public would eliminate those 20K gun suicides. It would reduce them - by more than 5%. You're arguing that the gun is essentially never a factor in the decision to kill oneself.

Anecdotally, the 2 recent suicides I have known both killed themselves with firearms (handgun, rifle), and their families and friends had no idea they were contemplating it. That jibes with this article that I remember reading in 2013: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/10/sunday-review/suicide-with-no-warning.html

But here's contrasting research, though not exclusive to firearm suicides: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2597102/

So, you seem like a smart guy. Show me something that backs up your 1st paragraph's contention: "in the absence of a gun every single person who is suicidal will still commit suicide. Not a single person says, "hey, I own a gun....I think I'll kill myself (or someone else)"...it just doesn't happen."

The point is: absent quick and efficient means (a firearm in the home), suicidal impulses often pass.

[pipoman]

83. The family of my childhood friend's parents had no idea he would hang himself either..

Last edited Thu Jun 23, 2016, 09:28 PM - Edit history (1)

In fact, in most cases people don't think their loved ones are going to kill themselves....

And yes, I am saying people do not commit suicide because they own a gun. Those who funnel their exhaust into the car don't do it because they own a car, those who hang don't hang themselves because they own a rope...etc. etc...They all kill themselves deliberately with the most effective, or least repulsive method available....not because they have or see an effective method....

"The point is: absent quick and efficient means (a firearm in the home), suicidal impulses often pass."

I disagree completely. There are many, many people who "attempt suicide" with no intention what so ever of success. These people drive the relatively low success rates of pills, wrist cutting, and other cries for help. People who shoot themselves are not the cry for help, it is "I'm done"....just like hanging and jumping off of high structures. You're right it is a little easier than jumping or hanging...not enough to deter someone who is suicidal. The highest suicide rate in the world is a gun free nation.

Edit: of the 49 highest suicide rates in the world higher than the US, all but a few war torn nations are gun free. The US is 50th...yep, I believe the net suicide savings would be statistically insignificant if every gun disappeared tomorrow..

[maxsolomon]

87. well, let's just disappear every gun tomorrow then and we'll observe the effect on the suicide rate

i'll be happy to be wrong.

[pipoman]

86. From your link

"However, recent research has shown that although people who attempt suicide tend to be more impulsive than those who do not, the actual act of suicide is generally not done impulsively. Despite these findings, there unfortunately continues to be a widespread misconception that the majority of suicides, particularly in adolescents, are impulsive in the moment (e.g., Carey, 2008)."

Snip

"However, the fact that the vast majority of suicides are not “impulsive,” but rather usually the result of extensive planning...."

An interesting article...in a mobile format I have never seen before...

[lancer78]

91. Yes

Because the suicide rate in the US and the UK (where it is impossible to get a handgun) is virtually the same.

[Lee-Lee]

25. And they preserve civil rights every day too by protecting people

To have life and liberty the one most fundamental right that must be preserved is the right to self defense.

My gun won't impact yor life until the moment you try to forcibly remove my life or liberty.

[baldguy]

28. Guns harm many more people than they protect.

By having a gun in the home, gun owners are 20 times more likely to by killed by a gun.

[pipoman]

30. False memes don't help

And saying something like, "Guns harm many more people than they protect." dont make it so...

[baldguy]

33. Why don't we have the CDC do a study?

Oh, that's right! The terrorists in the NRA had their fascist GOP puppets make such studies illegal. Why do you think that is?

Because they would prove that guns harm many more people than they protect.

[pipoman]

40. There are plenty of studies and they are usually completed

From statistics compiled by the US government including the CDC, FBI, and other government sources...

[Lee-Lee]

42. Criminologists do studies all the time

The CDC doesn't anymore because they funded some horribly bad studies that resulted in bad statistics that some people fools ohh repeat to this day despite them long being discredited.

Like you just did above.

You want to know why the CDC got slapped down? Because when a badly flawed study was funded by them it gave soundbite lies like "a gun is 20 more times likely to hurt you" legs and a lot of people got mad that their tax dollars funded horribly biased and scientifically flawed studies that people still cite to this day unaware they are parroting lies.

People like you who parrot those BS numbers to this day as justification for new laws are why enough people got mad at the sloppy work funded by the CDC to shut it down.

[maxsolomon]

57. and yet RKBAs 'parrot' Kleck's BS 2.5 million DGU/year number to justify their fears

regularly on DU.

that's almost 7K per day! 1/130 americans using a gun to defend themselves EVERY YEAR. it's absurd on it's face - if it were so, America would be a hellscape of crime and despair. but if you need to believe something that bad...

maybe its' time to give the CDC a little leash, and not just to compile existing surveys such as Kleck's, like they did in 2013.

[Hoyt]

82. +1. Jeeesus, George Zimmerman murdering Trayvon Martin is considered a Defensive Gun Use

And a heck of a lot of so-called DGU weren't necessary. Just more gunner BS.

[hack89]

44. The CDC did a study on defensive gun use in 2013 at the direction of President Obama

Defensive Use of Guns

Defensive use of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence, although the exact number remains disputed (Cook and Ludwig, 1996; Kleck, 2001a). Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million (Kleck, 2001a), in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008 (BJS, 2010). On the other hand, some scholars point to a radically lower estimate of only 108,000 annual defensive uses based on the National Crime Victimization Survey (Cook et al., 1997). The variation in these numbers remains a controversy in the field. The estimate of 3 million defensive uses per year is based on an extrapolation from a small number of responses taken from more than 19 national surveys. The former estimate of 108,000 is difficult to interpret because respondents were not asked specifically about defensive gun use.

A different issue is whether defensive uses of guns, however numerous or rare they may be, are effective in preventing injury to the gun-wielding crime victim. Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was “used” by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies (Kleck, 1988; Kleck and DeLone, 1993; Southwick, 2000; Tark and Kleck, 2004). Effectiveness of defensive tactics, however, is likely to vary across types of victims, types of offenders, and circumstances of the crime, so further research is needed both to explore these contingencies and to confirm or discount earlier findings.

http://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/3#16

As you were saying?

[beevul]

74. Even the anti-gun VPC doesn't deny it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172191826


So why are you?

[Lee-Lee]

41. You know that meme about a gun in the home being more likely to harm was long ago discredited, right

I suspect you don't even know where the figure came from and are just mindlessly parroting something you heard that you like, so I will briefly educate you.

It came from a study by Dr Author Kellerman in 1993 that was never peer reviewed and was so bad it lead to the backlash against tax money being spent on these things.

It had many serious flaws- the most glaring was that the study was only down in 3 cherry picked counties- counties that had in them the cities of Memphis, Seattle and Cleveland. That means his study only included urban counties and in fact of the top 100 urban areas that size all were in the bottom half for crime danger. So he did a study only choosing high crime urban areas. This is a huge disparity because firearm ownership rates among law abiding households tend to drop in urban areas, while in many rural counties vertically every home has a gun. He chose counties where gun ownership rates are skewed way different than the national average.

He took numbers of homicides from police reports. That data is valid mostly, although he considers a person who entered another's home armed and shop someone to count as "having a gun in the home" and that's pretty bogus. Then to establish ownership rates he just sent researchers to people doors unannounced and had them ask if they had gun. Now this of problematic for many reasons, most notable being that most people in an area with bad crime rates are my going to tell some stranger if they have a gun.

They claimed they did a pilot study to see if people would answer honestly be going to homes "on record" with registered firearms. But none of those states had any kind of firearms registration laws at that time, and they never explained where this supposed "registration" data came from.

Kellermans study claimed for the areas they surveyed they got 35.8% of respondents to admit to having a firearm in the home, while the national average was 48% at that time. They found that 45% of homicide victims had a gun somewhere in the home. If own used their average it shows guns are a risk- but in one used the national average it would show a negative relationship.

There were more problems- he didn't count self defense unless it involves a person being shot, while most cases of defense uses of guns only require the gun be displayed and the intended victim show they are not defenseless to end the attack or potential account. The study population had rates of domestic violence, drug use, criminal activity and criminal history far higher than the general population, and many more problems.

Before you parrot "facts" you read online you should educate yourself so you don't look like a fool mindlessly repeating something that's long been proven false.

[Waldorf]

85. I'd suggest skipping going to the grocery store or mall then. You'll find that you have a higher

chance of being injured or killed driving on the roads than being shot by a total stranger.

[Lee-Lee]

13. Those words have been shown every time someone says "nobody is going to take your guns"

And speaking as a pro-gun Democrat who sees this from both sides you are entirely correct that her saying that really did polarize the pro gun side. in the 90's and 2000's she was presented as the leader of the pro gun control movement and her admission that confiscation was her desired outcome set the tone.

That one line is still hurting Democrats to this day.

I remember gun stores in the 90's having a TV and worn out VCR tape of this quote and every time someone said "they don't want your guns" they would play it. A whole lot of old school, "I vote Democrat because daddy Voted Democrat and Grandad voted Democrat" old school southern democrats shifted their votes thanks to seeing this kind of stuff.

https://m.

Because one of my jobs as a deputy was a firearms instructor I had to be NRA certified so the department paid my NRA membership. Believe me, this quote was all over everything election related they sent out in the 90's.

And that quote took hold in the days before YouTube and good search engines. It's worse now- hell I often see screenshots of DU where confiscation is talked about posted by pro-gun people every time someone says "nobody is talking about taking your guns".

[Vinca]

15. It worked for Australia.

[pipoman]

18. Australia doesn't have the US Constitution and Bill of Rights.

[Vinca]

19. It seems that makes them lucky. They don't have mass shootings anymore.

Our 2nd amendment was adequate until Scalia monkeyed with it in 2008. Now every Tom, Dick and lunatic can have guns, no questions asked. Before, "well regulated militia" meant something.

[pipoman]

21. Nothing changed. Exactly the same people could buy then as now.

The only people who think Australia is some sort of panacea are those who have never spent time there....

[Recursion]

27. Yes they do; they've had 3 since the new law

They were pretty big news, too. But, I know: once a meme gets embedded there's no killing it.

[Gabi Hayes]

35. memes like gun control=the loss of civil liberties?

those memes stick hard when they have the strongest lobby extant pushing them with all the money and media firepower that money can buy

[Recursion]

39. That's one I don't like either; I want 100% gun registration (or failing that at least for handguns)

Random mass shootings are a really bad lens to see the gun violence question through (~80 deaths per year vs ~12,000 for "normal" gun homicides). I'd much rather have a list of everyone who owns a handgun and severe legal penalties if you're caught with an unregistered one.

But anyways, my point remains that Australia has in fact had mass shootings since they restricted purchase of semi-automatic rifles (which shouldn't be that surprising, since the majority of mass shooters use... wait for it... handguns, which are the actual problem).

[hack89]

45. Felons and all others who can't legally own guns can't be required to register their guns.

Due to 5th Amendment issues - see Haynes v. United States.

As with many other 5th amendment cases, felons and others prohibited from possessing firearms could not be compelled to incriminate themselves through registration.[1][2] The National Firearms Act was amended after Haynes to make it apply only to those who could lawfully possess a firearm. This eliminated prosecution of prohibited persons, such as criminals, and cured the self-incrimination problem. In this new form, the new registration provision was upheld. The court held: " To eliminate the defects revealed by Haynes, Congress amended the Act so that only a possessor who lawfully makes, manufactures, or imports firearms can and must register them", United States v. Freed, 401 U.S. 601 (1971).[3] The original Haynes decision continues to block state prosecutions of criminals who fail to register guns as required by various state law gun registration schemes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haynes_v._United_States

The people you really want to not have guns can legally ignore any registration law.

And lets not forget that Adam Lanza's rifle was registered.

[Recursion]

47. And then they can be jailed for having unregistered guns

It's not that difficult. Agreed: the government cannot compel them to admit they own a gun. When they are caught with one, they can do a 15-year Federal sentence.

[hack89]

48. Except if one is willing to commit serious felonies like murder or drug distribution

Last edited Thu Jun 23, 2016, 04:21 PM - Edit history (1)

then being charged with owning an unregistered gun is not going to be a deterrent. Do you think Adam Lanza gave a shit about gun control laws?

There are three types of people using guns to kill:

1. Suicides.
2. Felons.
3. Crazy mass killers.

Registration is irrelevant to the first two and the third group doesn't care. How exactly is registration going to reduce gun deaths?

[sufrommich]

34. Yes,it's the democrats who are responsible for the lack

of sensible gun control,it may look painfully obvious that it's the republicans who are to blame,but someone on DU will find a way to blame democrats. This gets tiresome.

[Gabi Hayes]

38. you might like to see this: post #11

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027944754

[jmg257]

36. Of course DiFi was talking about "assault weapons", I bet she still says the same thing.

She is obviously smart about what the ban did re: grandfathering, and realized "better then nothing".

[Paladin]

43. THE DU GUN ENTHUSIASTS ARISE!!!!!!!

Everybody duck: we may have Diane Feinstein, but they've got Louie Gohmert!

[hack89]

46. Actually, the NRA gets more mileage out of Diane Feinstein

she has sold a lot of guns.

[hunter]

49. Gun love is disgusting, like smoking. It ought to be treated as a public health hazard.

It took a long time, but I don't have to tolerate smoking in restaurants any more. I can rent smoke free motel rooms in smoke free hotels.

Nobody praises anyone for being a "responsible" drunk driver these days. Why should I praise anyone for being a "responsible" gun owner? I see every gun lover as a potential terrorist, suicide, or tragic accident waiting to happen.

Piss on guns.

The second amendment is an ugly relic of the eighteenth century, just as slavery was. It's been used as a tool of oppression from the beginning. Call a bunch of fools patriots and they'll shoot anyone; Slaves, Indians, striking workers...

There's nothing sacred about the Constitution. It's a flawed document written by men.

[Eleanors38]

68. Hey hunter, the NRA is known for paying royalties for anti-gun cartoons for republishing.

[hunter]

75. What does the bad guy living in your head look like?

Do tell.

The NRA is bullshit, "self defense" is bullshit, the second amendment is bullshit.

Ronald Reagan was surrounded by well armed men trained to protect him. He still got shot, James Brady got shot, A Secret Service man got shot, and a cop got shot.

I don't have any bad guys living in my head, not even a few bad guys who have threatened me with violence, or done violence to me. Those are actually the last people on earth I'd want living in my head.

[Eleanors38]

80. Heh, you make light of that "dark side" philosophers have discussed for milinia.

You much have reached Nerve-ana!!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

52. And, the "cure for the disease" is???

[lancer78]

90. Doing something about

America's love for violence.

[mwrguy]

54. turning them all in IS sensible gun control

[hack89]

55. And unrealistic. nt

[LWolf]

58. Chuckles, is that you?

Somehow your post has me looking for my favorite sensible woodchuck.

Still, I'm interested in what you are saying, because I always want to look for sources, rather than symptoms.

Of course, more broadly speaking, EVERY source is human dysfunction. Therefore, using that, one must regulate guns because you aren't going to fucking cure the fucked up humans, and those fucked up humans make mistakes, act on impulses, and do stupid things, as well as being sucked into thinking that "believing" makes them right, and they have a right to do whatever their belief demands, regardless of the effect on others. And a single second with a gun can't be taken back.

No matter how hard they try, the xtian right is also never going to be able to create their utopian dream in which all women are controlled by men and all pregnancies are welcome.

We can encourage less human dysfunction by creating a healthier society; getting rid of the capitalist need for a stressed, hungry, downtrodden underclass would be a good start. Along with that, we can keep abortions legal, performed safely by medical doctors, along with making health care free and abundantly available, including contraceptives. We can strictly regulate guns, especially those whose whole purpose is to kill people.

[XRubicon]

59. No need to take guns from anyone or pass laws that ban any of them

All that is needed is a tax.

A very large tax on guns we want to discourage, like all semi automatics. I think 500% would work well.

This will kill the market and drive prices way up, law abiding citizens and criminals will need to pay a hefty price for their guns. I think I remember that a black market AR-15 in Australia runs something like $40K. Not many "bad" guys can afford that, so that puts to rest "only bad guys will have guns" argument.

A tax does not take the right to bear arms away, if you have the money you can buy one.

[friendly_iconoclast]

60. "if you have the money you can buy one." How classist- and unconstitutional

[XRubicon]

61. Nope.

Sorry, no gun for you.

Taxes are legal and there's nothing you or any court could do.

[friendly_iconoclast]

62. Your clever plan has already been tried, and was blocked by way of printer's ink:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minneapolis_Star_Tribune_Co._v._Commissioner

Minneapolis Star Tribune Company v. Commissioner, 460 U.S. 575 (1983), was an opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States overturning a use tax on paper and ink in excess of $100,000 consumed in any calendar year. The Minneapolis Star Tribune initially paid the tax and sued for a refund...

On its face, this ruling finds that state tax systems cannot treat the press differently from any other business without significant and substantial justification. The state of Minnesota demonstrated no such justification to impose a special tax on a select few newspaper publishers. Therefore, this tax was in violation of the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of the press.

Also see "poll tax"

[XRubicon]

65. Ever hear of the 1934 NFA?

It used a tax to virtually ban machine guns.


"The impetus for the National Firearms Act of 1934 was the gangland crime of the Prohibition era, such as the St. Valentine’s Day Massacre of 1929, and the attempted assassination of President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1933.[1][2]:824[3][4] Like the current National Firearms Act (NFA), the 1934 Act required NFA firearms to be registered and taxed. The $200 tax was quite prohibitive at the time (equivalent to $3,538 in 2015). With a few exceptions, the tax amount is unchanged.[3][4]

Originally, pistols and revolvers were to be regulated as strictly as machine guns; towards that end, cutting down a rifle or shotgun to circumvent the handgun restrictions by making a concealable weapon was taxed as strictly as a machine gun.[5]"

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



Try again, I'm sure you can head back to the club house and get some more tired NRA talking point.

[friendly_iconoclast]

67. Calling something an "NRA talking point" is a knee-jerk retort, not a counterargument

Aside from that- 1) How will you get your mooted tax passed, and
2) Why should only the well-off have guns?

[XRubicon]

69. 1. Easy to pass a tax law

No amendment needed. Your sacred right will be preserved.

2. I want less guns in circulation. A high tax will deliver that result. Probably drive gun makers out of bussiness once demand drops to a certain level. Of course you would still have a right to bear arms, if you can find a place to buy one.

[friendly_iconoclast]

72. With tens of millions of gun owners implacably opposed to it? Not very likely.

As I said elsewhere

Tl;dr version: The NRA is organized, its opponents are not, and unless and until they
do get organized to nearly the same level they will remain a source of political noise, not power

Gun prohis tend to be of the...



...temprament

[XRubicon]

76. Not sure you are keeping up with current events.

"Come senators, congressmen
Please heed the call
Don't stand in the doorway
Don't block up the hall
For he that gets hurt
Will be he who has stalled
There's a battle outside
And it is ragin'
It'll soon shake your windows
And rattle your walls
For the times they are a-changin'."

[friendly_iconoclast]

89. "Moral panic"- /ˈmôrəl/ /ˈpanik/

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

A moral panic is a feeling of fear spread among a large number of people that some evil threatens the well-being of society.[1][2] A Dictionary of Sociology defines a moral panic as "the process of arousing social concern over an issue – usually the work of moral entrepreneurs and the mass media."[3] The media are key players in the dissemination of moral indignation, even when they do not appear to be consciously engaged in crusading or muckraking. Simply reporting the facts can be enough to generate concern, anxiety, or panic.[4]:16

Examples include the belief in widespread abduction of children by predatory pedophiles,[5][6] belief in ritual abuse by satanic cults of women and children,[7] scaremongering of the spread of AIDS,[8] and the War on Drugs.[9]

[Eleanors38]

70. Hell, noting a big drop in "gun crime" is an NRAtalkingPoint®.

[friendly_iconoclast]

71. I've seen that happen when the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports showed that inconvenient truth

*Anything* can be an NRATalkingPoint® to a prohibitionist...

[Gabi Hayes]

79. guess what? eventually, like the color of everybody's skin becoming cocoa-like,

there will be no more guns in public hands (most likely resulting in plenty of blood spilled from all those cold, dead hands), thanks to the war on terror, and the insistence of some sort of assurance that the government protect us from terror maniacs and gun loons.

that's the price to be paid, and it's going to happen. neither the terrorists NOR the hundred round magazine lunatics are ever going to give up

obviously we have more to fear from a mass destruction event, but on a day to day basis, what poses more threat to the lives of the average citizen?

[friendly_iconoclast]

88. Was that intended to reply to the post I made?

If so, how do you plan on outlawing chemistry, metallurgy, and 3-D printing?

https://www.google.com/#q=homemade+guns+australia

[Matrosov]

84. Feinstein was correct

Turn them in, is the only sensible gun control.