The well-regulated militia.

[kpete]

[Squinch]

1. They left out the "responsible gun owner" with the three-year-old who keeps his gun under his pillow

[Duckhunter935]

2. That would not be responsible

Please publicise projectchildsafe.org for free Gun locks and the Eddie Eagle program for sharing age appropriate firearms safety. "See a gun don't touch, run and get an adult"

[Squinch]

3. It's a start, but the "responsible gun owner" who keeps his gun under his pillow, who doesn't

even take the precaution of putting his gun on a high shelf, is not likely to get a gun lock.

And forgive me, but the Eddie Eagle program sounds suspiciously like, "Just say no."

But I will spread that around because at this point, due to the fact that gun hobbiests so successfully enable and finance the mayhem brought by the NRA and gun lobbies, we have so little else.

[Duckhunter935]

5. Then please don't lie and say

Responsible gun owner when clearly they are not, however most of the 80-100 million firearms owners are.

Sorry to say I do not believe you will publicise this in your posts, it does not fit your narrative.

[Squinch]

9. OK then, I won't. And every "responsible gun owner" is "responsible" until he is not.

I really think the measures you are talking about are a ridiculous under-response anyway.

I think that you guys see that there is true rage out there and you are trying to provide some panacea. It's just another NRA scheme.

[Duckhunter935]

10. No, we are for actual firearms safety that works

I hope when I publicise those it might save at least one life. It amazes me you are against common sense firearms safety measures.

[Squinch]

13. You make me laugh.

[Straw Man]

117. You've got it backwards.

And forgive me, but the Eddie Eagle program sounds suspiciously like, "Just say no."

The people who oppose the Eddie the Eagle program because it "legitimizes" firearms ownership are like those who oppose needle exchanges and condom distribution to teen because they "legitimize" drug use and sexual activity.

Prohibitionism: the credo that steadfastly opposes the good in a quest for the perfect.

[Squinch]

122. Do reread my post and if you care to, respond to it and not the argument in your head.

[Straw Man]

127. I read your post -- once was enough.

Gun locks are obviously preferable to merely saying "Don't touch," but there is absolutely no reason to attack programs designed to teach children safe behavior in the presence of guns.

And yet you do. Prohibitionism will out.

[Thor_MN]

119. Eddie Eagle? The joke that requires more paperwork than buying a gun? OK.

[Squinch]

123. I had not been familiar with "Eddie Eagle" but somehow knew that it would turn out to

be complete bullshit. Thank you for this.

And this is what people on DU are advocating. Amazing.

[MillennialDem]

8. Dunning Kruger and craziness dictate that you can't know when you're

irresponsible.

Not that it is a "general you" and not a "specific you".

[pangaia]

12. What is " age appropriate firearms safety.?"

[Duckhunter935]

16. Self explanatory

See a gun, do not touch. Run away and get an adult. For younger children. I do not see how anyone can be against that. I think basic firearms safety should also be part of school curriculum. Of course parents can opt out just like sex Ed.

[pangaia]

23. I would prefer putting the money into music programs.

[Duckhunter935]

24. That's your choice

Then don't complain when this small thing that may have helped is not done. It does show how much some are for actual gun safety. I say we should fund both.

[pangaia]

25. I still prefer the money only be spent on music for kids.

[Eleanors38]

106. Some issues are more equal than others?

[haele]

83. Problem with projectchildsafe is the assumption of maturity of the child.

Most of the toddler incidents we hear about are 2 and 3 year olds. My almost 5 year old granddaughter may be considered precocious, but at 2 to almost 4 years of age, she had problems with rules. "Don't touch" and "run and get an adult" are more like suggestions, if she remembered them. Cause and effect still is a difficult concept for her to understand 100% of the time.
And with TV and video games, picking up and pointing a gun can be normalized in a very young child's mind before "don't touch the gun because it's dangerous" will be. Sure, Mommy and Daddy will yell if they see you touch the gun up and that teaches you it's dangerous when you're 3 years old, but if Mommy and Daddy don't see you touch it, it's as much a play toy as their keys, cufflinks, or other nifty stuff you find on the dresser when going exploring with friends.

I have a strong memory of playing at a friend's house after pre-school during the period where I was 4 or 5, and her showing us all the fun stuff in the drawers of her parent's bedroom while the mom was out with the laundry or something. Including pulling out and playing with something big, long, pink and round that buzzed - that was a big laugh for the four of us. Lucky it wasn't a gun. Of course, playing with a vibrator is much more fun than playing with a gun.
And toddlers finding guns or knives and hurting themselves, friends/other family members, or pets occurred pretty near every year even during the supposedly golden era where children were seen, not heard, and fearfully responsible by not touching anything "Daddy" didn't want them to touch from a very early age on (or they risked the belt, in most cases).

An unsecured gun - you can "just tell" a 3 or 4 year old not to touch it until you're blue in the face, and there's still a good 30 - 40% chance they'll try to touch it when you aren't watching if they have a chance. It's something you're interested in, and that's very attractive.
For many kids, unless they directly experience the hurt or the breakage, danger in the real world with real consequences is a foreign concept. Like puppies, they're more concerned with being yelled at than being safe.

Project Childsafe is a reasonable for a 6 to 8 year old. Prior to that age...well, it all depends on how mature the sense of reality is for the child. But ultimately, leaving it to the child to "learn" and "understand" gun safety is not the most effective way of keeping children safe in a household with guns.

Haele

[Duckhunter935]

84. Do some research

That program is for free Gun locks that make a weapon harmless as a round can not be loaded into the chamber. It would help all ages and even some adults.

[haele]

88. Excuse me, but that was not the program you were describing on your post.

If the gun locks are part of the program, I am more comfortable about it.

I do not at all feel comfortable with the Eddie Eagle "See a Gun, Run - unless you take our firearms safety courses" program. I've been through the damn thing as it was in the 60's as a child, because my father thought it was important as he had an airgun locked away up in the closet. However, after observing that program, he just decided it was easier to get rid of the damn thing rather than risk me or my brother - or our friends - being typical children. Trying to suggest children have the same amount of personal safety sense as an adult should is ludicrous, especially if one is trying to raise children that are curious and have some initiative to better themselves.

This is a problem that a lot of posters on both sides of gun control. I know that to quite a few people, I'll be in the wrong because I'm not lockstep. Not with the "Everyone who wants a gun really needs a gun" or the "take them all and melt them down" faction.
I guess my problem is that I believe being reasonable means using reason as a tool, not a weapon. The give and take of ideas to present an optimal result for everyone (no matter what I personally believe), instead of a one-sided all or nothing result. Otherwise, it's"Team Gun Humper v Team Gun grabber". And people will continue to get firearms when they really aren't competent enough to handle the firearm safely.

Haele

[Eleanors38]

105. Yet, childhood gun accident deaths have fallen drastically...

Perhaps nearly 40,000,000 distributed breach blocks and trigger blocks have something to do with that, not to mention safes and lock boxes purchased. Above all, children should be instructed on firearms use (if they and their parents agree to such).

[Hoppy]

43. Nancy Reagan wasn't three years old.

[Squinch]

58. The eagle flies at midnight.

[Hoppy]

73. Google Nancy Reagan in White House with pistol

[Squinch]

81. No thanks. If you want to say something about Nancy Reagan then say it.

[baldguy]

4. And the solution to gun violence is to have more guns and more violence.

Such is America held hostage by RW fear & stupidity.

[MillennialDem]

21. I have to believe

that anyone who thinks that should be labeled clinically insane.

We can argue about the merits of whether or not the "freedom" to own guns is worth the cost, but if you think guns prevent violence (on a macro level) you're out of touch with reality.

[baldguy]

22. That's about the size of it. Look at the arguments opposing reasonable gun restrictions.

Last edited Sun Jun 26, 2016, 05:59 PM - Edit history (1)

Their whole shtick is to take a group of ignorant, fearful people (gun owners), make them more ignorant & more fearful, then give them as many deadly weapons as they can afford & make sure they have access to more.

[hack89]

27. Except gun violence has been falling for 20 years

By your logic there must be fewer guns.

[baldguy]

28. By your logic that means guns are no longer necessary.

Next you're going to say "No, the reason for the decline is because more gunz!", in spite of the fact that we have better gun control laws (which need to be nationalized to be more effective) and better policing (ditto) - both of which the more gunz! crowd fights tooth & nail against.

See, the problem with using that NRA talking point is that it defeats the NRA's primary reason to exist - which is to sell more guns. The dead children are just a side benefit for them.

[hack89]

29. There is no direct link between number of guns and rates of gun violence

All we can say with certainty is that more guns did not lead to more gun violence. We don't know why gun violence fell - it is not a simple matter.

[baldguy]

30. Which of course is a RW NRA lie.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/01/pro-gun-myths-fact-check

People with access to more guns tend to kill more people—with guns. States with higher gun ownership rates have higher gun murder rates—as much as 114 percent higher than states with lower gun ownership rates.
• A recent study looking at 30 years of homicide data found that for every one percent increase in a state's gun ownership rate, there is a nearly one percent increase in its firearm homicide rate.
• Gun death rates are generally lower in states with restrictions such as safe-storage requirements or assault-weapons bans.

[hack89]

31. Are you saying gun violence hasn't fallen nation wide?

Even as the number of guns sky rocketed? We cut our murder and manslaughter rates in half. How do you explain that?

[hack89]

32. A lot of states with high suicide rates skewing that chart

But you knew that.

[baldguy]

33. Are you trying to argue that suicides aren't violent, or that they somehow don't matter?

That's another RW NRA lie. They're included because they do matter, and they are violent.

But you knew that, even though you lack compassion for those gun victims.

[hack89]

38. Did suicide rates increase as gun ownership increased?

Let's remember what we are talking about. Stop moving the goal posts.

suicide is an individual choice.

[pinboy3niner]

39. Suicides are part of the public health gun problem, whether you and the NRA like it or not

[hack89]

40. And the topic we are discussing is whether gun deaths increased

As gun ownership increased. Care to comment?

Suicide is a mental health problem. We need better health care. I also have no problem with mental health professionals having a means to report patients who are a potential danger to themselves or others so their guns can be temporarily removed.

[pinboy3niner]

48. Why do you count only gun deaths but not injuries?

There seems to be a tendency to think that the injured recover quickly and are just fine.

As you may know, I was hit by AK fire in Vietnam. The bullet entered midway between my nose and upper lip, blew out half my jaw and teeth, then hit my shoulder. I was peppered with secondary shrapnel that included bullet fragments and fragments of my lower jawbone and teeth.

I was hospitalized for 18 months as I went through many operations. The biggest one was rebuilding my left mandible with an experimental bone graft, but there were others like the one to lower the floor of my mouth. The initial treatment in Vietnam was simply debriding the wound, stitching the exit wound (from the corner of my mouth 6" down my neck), the 2 stitches for my entrance wound, and stitching down my tongue to cover the intraoral wound.

Years later I had to have everything re-done over a couple of years in another series of operations when the original bone graft failed.

There would be no point in my telling you about my combat wounds if the same thing were not happening to ordinary people in America because of both handguns and "assault-style" weapons. Civilian gunshot victims here often are affected just like soldiers wounded in combat.

And the crap about civilian assault weapons being different because they lack a selector switch to fire on automatic is a cruel joke. I got hit by an assault weapon fired in semi-automatic mode.

Fuck the NRA talking points about assault weapons or suicides or anything else. It's all about gun manufacturers making more profits and the victims--both the dead and the injured--paying the terrible price.

[hack89]

51. Ok. nt

[pinboy3niner]

52. Well, that was educational. nt

[hack89]

53. Too much anger.

Not worth the effort.

[pinboy3niner]

54. You call that anger?

More like an informed and cool-headed look at what is happening in our country.

[hack89]

55. You and I most likely agree on most gun control proposals

the only two I reject out of hand are AWBs and registration. Licensing, universal background checks, training and storage requirements, harsher restrictions on domestic violence offenders - there is a lot of common ground between us.

But I will not back down from broad brush smears of gun owners as callous, pre-criminals indifferent to death. And I will challenge ignorance about guns whenever I see it - if you want to restrict my civil rights then I demand you do it from a position of knowledge and not from a position of perceived moral superiority and contempt. For like it or not, you need my support to pass the laws you want. I am will to work with you as an equal partner.

[easttexaslefty]

86. Not always.

There are also impulsive suicides by gun.

[hack89]

87. So perhaps a waiting period at purchase.

no real problem with that.

[baldguy]

41. Yes

Gun prevalence and suicide rank by state

The nine states that rank lowest in terms of gun prevalence are the very same nine that rank lowest for suicide rates. Similarly, the three states top-ranked for gun prevalence can be found among the four states ranking highest for suicide rates.





https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/magazine/spr08gunprevalence/

And you're the one that brought suicide into the discussion. Look at the OP and let's talk about moving goalposts.

[hack89]

45. So now showed the rates from 20 years ago

Did the rates go up or down? Did gun violence go up or down. A simple question you refuse to answer.

[baldguy]

49. The goalposts you moved have been addressed.

Time for you to admit that your NRA-backed talking points are bullshit and your lack of compassion for gun victims is unconscionable.

[hack89]

50. " More guns and more violence "

Your words - you need to own them.

[baldguy]

59. Reading comprehension is a skill that produces endless dividends. Perhaps you should cultivate it.

America held hostage by RW fear & stupidity that says the solution to gun violence is to have more guns and more violence.

That's what your friends at the NRA say anyway.

[hack89]

60. The NRA does not say we need more violence. I think you just made that up.

That's fine - so we do agree that gun violence dropped over the past 20 years even as the number of guns skyrocketed?

[Downtown Hound]

64. You fail to acknowledge that the crack wars of the 80's and early 90's

were a huge part of the gun violence problem back then, and one of the main reasons why gun violence went down was because the wars largely ended. The turfs got settled, and many of the players involved either got killed or ended up in jail. The rest of America is still very violent, and still has much higher rates of gun violence than other developed nations that have more gun control. Also, most states that have gun control tend to have lower rates of gun violence than those that don't. Also, much as ammosexuals love to say Clinton's assault weapons ban did no good, it happened right about the time gun violence started going down. And now that it's expired, guess what? Gun violence is going back up again and it seems like every other week we have a gun massacre.

So tell me another one.

[hack89]

66. But don't we have many more guns now than we did in 1990?

I thought more guns = more violence? Yet gun violence actually decreased over time.

How could the AWB stop gun violence when AR-15 production actually peaked during the AWB? You keep forgetting that Adam Lanza's AR-15 was legal during the AWB .

[Downtown Hound]

74. More guns does equal more gun violence

Which is why the U.S. has way more than nations with gun control. That's the simple fact that ammosexuals love to try and spin their way out of. there are a whole host of reason as to why crime (which includes gun violence) went down starting in the 90's. But the simple fact remains that the U.S. still has astronomically high levels of gun violence compared to other developed nations. And I have never head an ammosexual adequately explain that one.

[hack89]

76. But gun violence didn't increase

As more guns entered circulation. It would appear that the actual number of guns in circulation is not directly linked to gun violence rates. Or they would rise and fall together instead of moving in opposite directions.

[Downtown Hound]

79. First of all, let me just call bullshit on you repeated assertion that more guns are entering

circulation. They aren't.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/10/us/rate-of-gun-ownership-is-down-survey-shows.html?_r=0

More guns maybe are being sold (or they may not be, don't have the data but it's irrelevant either way), but they're being sold to people who already own guns and are simply buying more. Coincidentally this trend started right around the time right wing loonies started spreading propaganda about how the Federal guv'n'ment was coming with the United Nations black helicopters to take their guns and turn them all into queers. Today it's fashionable among ammosexuals to not just own one gun but a whole arsenal. That does NOT mean more Americans have guns. They don't. The amount of American homes with a gun in them has been steadily declining for four decades. Read the article. It means that there are more guns concentrated in the hands of a smaller percentage of people.

And then when you couple it with the fact that every time people call for any kind of gun control, even something as common sense as expanded background checks, the NRA tells all their peeps that a ban on ALL guns is imminent, so they all rush out and buy as many guns as possible. Again, it doesn't means more people have guns, it means more guns in the hands of a few. It also explains higher gun sales. But that does not mean there are more people out there with guns. It means that there are some people out there who have a shitload of guns.

Second of all, even if what you said was true, even if there were way more guns now than there were a few decades ago and yet gun violence was less than it was 30 years ago, YOU STILL HAVE NOT ADDRESSED THE FACT that the U.S. still has way more gun violence than countries with gun control. Basically what you're saying is that because we've gone from astronomically high rates of gun homicides during the crack wars of the 80's and early 90's to just having really high rates of gun violence today, that that means that guns play no part in the violence.

That, sir, is pure and complete bullshit.

[beevul]

113. Yours is the assertion that is bullshit.

Record Gun Sales Continue Through May

Thirteen straight months of gun sales records

BY: Stephen Gutowski

June 6, 2016 1:10 pm

The month of May saw yet another gun-related background check record making it the 13th month to see an all time high.

The FBI completed a record 1,870,000 checks through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, or NICS, this May, according to an agency report. That’s almost 300,000 more checks than May of 2015, which set a record at the time.

It is also nearly a million more checks than May 2008.

May was also the first month in 2016 that did not break two million checks as the gun industry enters a seasonal lull in sales. The numbers remain on pace to set another yearly record, however.

http://freebeacon.com/issues/record-gun-sales-continue-may/#

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172195219

The amount of American homes with a gun in them has been steadily declining for four decades. Read the article. It means that there are more guns concentrated in the hands of a smaller percentage of people.

Laughable. The amount of American homes that identify as having a gun in them has been steadily declining for four decades.

That doesn't mean that "The amount of American homes with a gun in them has been steadily declining" at all.

Plus, theres the new FOID cards issued in Illinois to every NEW gun owner, which disprove your theory.

[Downtown Hound]

114. This poll was conducted in the same way that political polls are done

So I'm far more likely to take it's word over yours. Plus, Illinois is one blue state out of 50. Do they do that in every state? That, and, nothing in anything you posted does a comparison with per capita gun ownership base on population size compared with rates 40 years ago. Even if more guns are being sold, the population is much bigger now than it was 40 years ago, so that is not proof of greater gun ownership relative to the population.

Also, gun homicides have been going up for the last few years. So if what you're saying is correct, and for the past few years gun ownership has been increasing, guess what? So has gun violence. Here's another article backing up what I said, so I can safely say that it is not laughable:

http://heedinggodscall.org/content/pfctoolkit-10

"The US has an estimated 283 million guns in civilian hands

Each year about 4.5 million firearms, including approximately 2 million handguns, are sold in the United States

An estimated 2 million second hand firearms are sold each year

The percentage of American households with a gun has been steadily declining (high of 54% in 1977 to 33% in 2009)

The average number of guns per owner has increased from 4.1 in 1994 to 6.9 in 2004.

More than 30,000 people are killed by firearms each year in this country

More than 30 people are shot and murdered each day

1/2 of them are between the ages of 18 and 35

1/3 of them are under the age of 20

Homicide is the second leading cause of death among 15-24 year-olds

And the primary cause of death among African Americans of that age group

Gun Homicides (average annually):

Less than 50: Japan

Less than 150: Germany, Italy, France, etc.

Less than 200: Canada

More than 10,000: USA"

So guess what? You don't know your ass from a hold in the ground. Have a nice day.

[beevul]

116. Meh.

This poll was conducted in the same way that political polls are done. So I'm far more likely to take it's word over yours.

If only you would. The poll indicates how people respond. That's its word. Whether those responses can be reasonably believed is another matter. You don't just do the first, you do both.

Plus, Illinois is one blue state out of 50. Do they do that in every state?

Yes, gun control utopia Illinois is the only state where new gun owners are popping up, they're responsible for all the record gun sales.

The rest of your rant, the assertions that can't possibly be known and the irrelevant statistics and the conclusion you draw from them aren't worthy of further comment.

[Downtown Hound]

120. Ah I see. When a poll doesn't go your way, pretend everybody who answered is lying

And go out and buy more AR-15's and single handedly decreasy gun violence everywhere. Go beevul!

Everytime beevul buys and AR-15, an angel gets its wings, and gun violence magically goes down.

[beevul]

130. Not at all.

Ah I see. When a poll doesn't go your way, pretend everybody who answered is lying

Not at all. I just tend to bounce such polls off common sense a bit, and you do not.

And go out and buy more AR-15's and single handedly decreasy gun violence everywhere. Go beevul!

Everytime beevul buys and AR-15, an angel gets its wings, and gun violence magically goes down.

Ah I see. When a poster doesn't agree with you, pretend they buy and own an AR-15.

Yawn.

For what its worth, Carnac, I don't own an AR-15, nor any so called 'assault weapons', nor any 'military style' weapons, and haven't bought a gun in over ten years now.

[Eleanors38]

107. Sorry, bald: Guns in circulation up. Gun violence down. nt

[Downtown Hound]

115. Sorry Elenors, overall amount of homes with guns way down

Amount of guns owned by individuals way up. There's a big difference.

[Eleanors38]

121. You may recall: "More guns = more crime" was and is the mantra of controllers...

and has been for many years. The piss-poor logic being more guns in circulation will somehow mean crime will go up. That was the standard set by controllers.

The number of gun-owners has remained rather constant by most polling, with some indication that the number is rising, over the last several years. More salient are some of the theories for Falling Crime put forth by the Freakonomics guys: Legalized abortion has cut back on populations which theretofore were associated with crime, aging populations, far better tracking of violence-prone criminals who are released and subsequent long sentences which keep them out of the population, etc. Frankly I agree with the CDC when it said that no gun-intervention strategy has shown itself effective in lowering crime/gun violence, and this includes John Lott's notion that more guns = less crime.

You may be interested in the Gallup survey which showed the fastest-rising demographics in gun ownership were women and self-described Democrats, while Republicans remained constant.

[easttexaslefty]

85. Yes, they do.

I recommend you check out
www.afsp.org

[uponit7771]

34. suicide is violence

[hack89]

37. Suicide is a choice.

It is also a mental health issue.

[uponit7771]

42. True, its a violent choice made by people who have mental issues... violent

[hack89]

46. So identify and disarm people with mental health issues

Who are potentially dangerous to themselves or others. Give doctors a means to report them.

[Crunchy Frog]

61. Yeah! Way to stand up for those civil liberties.

:

[hack89]

62. If we have to restrict civil liberities to make us all safe

might as well keep the number of people affected as low as possible, correct?

I personally would rather expand civil liberties but I guess that is not allowed when talking about guns.

[Downtown Hound]

65. To civil liberties extend to those that want to live in a safe, violence-free country?

Or are the so called civil liberties of gun owners the only ones that matter?

[hack89]

67. Of course a balance has to be found.

the 2A certainly allows for strict gun control. It just has to be constitutional.

[Downtown Hound]

75. So is a ban on semi-automatic rifles unconstitutional to you?

And if so, why?

[hack89]

78. Perfectly constitutional

I just don't support one.

[Downtown Hound]

80. Then do me a favor, never tell me or anybody else that you love your country

or you are a proud American again. Because you are perfectly willing to stand by as thousands of American lives are cut short and even more American family members are traumatized and broken by gun violence every year, just so you and a handful of others can amuse yourselves with guns that were never meant with civilians.

Shameful and disgraceful. Sorry, but I'm done being nice to those that want to continue this madness. And that's exactly what it is, madness. Shame on you for being a part of it. If I had my way, people like you would be made to do volunteer work for five years tending to families who have lost their loved ones in gun massacres, so you can see firsthand the devastation caused by your beliefs.

[hack89]

82. That's nice.

I don't care what you think. No point trying to discuss anything important with someone so single minded and full of hate. I have better things to do.

[Downtown Hound]

89. Like run away and not answer any of the challenges I gave you

Go stroke your AR-15. It'll make you feel better.

[hack89]

90. The irony here is that you and I most likely agree on most gun control issues

Last edited Wed Jun 29, 2016, 06:18 AM - Edit history (1)

the only two I reject out of hand are AWBs and registration. Licensing, universal background checks, training and storage requirements, harsher restrictions on domestic violence offenders - there is a lot of common ground between us.

But I will not back down from broad brush smears of gun owners as callous, pre-criminals indifferent to death. And I will challenge ignorance about guns whenever I see it - if you want to restrict my civil rights then I demand you do it from a position of knowledge and not from a position of perceived moral superiority and contempt. For like it or not, you need my support to pass the laws you want. I am willing to work with you as an equal partner.

[Downtown Hound]

92. If you don't support taking military style weapons off the street, then no, we are not on the same

side.

[hack89]

93. Then you will continue to lose

But then, for you it is all about that warm tingly feeling of moral superiority isn't it? You can't be bothered with the necessary dirty work and working with people you disagree with needed to actually accomplish something. Insults are easier, aren't they?

[Downtown Hound]

94. Actually I don't need to work with you

You greatly overestimate your importance. A majority of Americans support an assault weapons ban. All we need to do is sweep the Republicans from power and undo the gerrymandering they've done, and it will happen without you.

I've long since given up trying to work with gun nuts. If thousands of dead corpses doesn't convince you, words won't. The bottom line is you care more about your gun than your fellow citizen's lives. So yeah, damn right I feel morally superior to you. But don't think that gives me a warm feeling inside. Rather, it makes me sad and angry that so many people out there are so selfish and cowardly and stupid that they value their guns more than human life or a just society. And yes, I include you in that. Have a nice day.

[hack89]

95. Another gun control advocate disconnected from reality once again

Gallup has been polling support for an AWB for decades. Public support oscillates around 50% support in a narrow band. There has not been a significant ground wave of support for AWBs.

Let me give you a concrete example. I live in Rhode Island - a reliably blue state where the Democrats have an overwhelming majority in the state legislature. Two weeks ago they rejected an AWB with little debate - just like they do nearly every year. And yet the public doesn't seem to mind. So sweeping out the repukes and undoing gerrymandering will still not bring an AWB to Rhode Island.

Have a nice day yourself.

[Downtown Hound]

96. Must have got that info from the same place you got your info saying that gun ownership

has grown dramatically in the last 30 years (it hasn't). Support for an assault weapons ban: 57% according to one of the latest polls. Maybe you should stop reading your N.R.A. pamphlets as if they're gospel.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/06/15/something-might-be-changing-after-orlando-americans-suddenly-want-to-ban-assault-weapons/


Even though virtually all your so-called information is horsehsit, which I have proven many times over, I'll do my best to re-connect myself to reality, Mr. Availability of Guns Has Nothing To Do With Mass Gun Violence In the U.S. And watch, as more and more of these massacres keep happening, which they will, thanks to folks like you, that support is only going to go up over time. You'll see.

Stroke that AR-15 while you can. Because one day a ban is coming.

[hack89]

97. Your post echoes what I said

Support for AWBs varies around 50%. 57% is not overwhelming support - it is certainly not some mandate to pass an AWB. It certainly ignores the basic reality that we don't hold national referendums so how that 57% is distributed nationally is critically iimportant

[Downtown Hound]

98. Acutally it's not

A Democratic majority in Congress and a Democratic president could very easily get an AW ban passed. That would happen on a national level. And like I said, as more and more of these massacres keep happening, support for a ban is only going to go up.

Tick tock, tick tock.

[hack89]

99. Forget Sandy Hook?

Senate Dems killed the AWB to protect incumbents in pro- gun states.

And don't forget - a national AWB will not be retroactive . Not even Diane Feinstein wants to make actual possession illegal. They would simply ban manufacturing and sales. If it was ever to pass I would still have my rifles.

[Downtown Hound]

100. Eventually people are going to grow tired of these massacres and demand action

Mark my words.

[hack89]

103. "Just you wait" - the motto for gun control for 30 years and counting . nt

[Downtown Hound]

110. During which time nearly half a million Americans have been killed by guns.

Good job.

[hack89]

111. During which we cut gun deaths rates in half. nt

[Downtown Hound]

112. Gun nuts did that? LOL.

Or maybe the fact that less homes own a gun now than at any time in the last 40 years? You guys gonna cure cancer next?

[Straw Man]

118. Good thing ...

... that we're not governed by plebiscite.

Support for an assault weapons ban: 57% according to one of the latest polls. Maybe you should stop reading your N.R.A. pamphlets as if they're gospel.

And six months ago it was 45%.

http://www.pollingreport.com/guns.htm

The December 2015 poll was taken a little over a week after the San Bernardino shootings.

Overall public support for an AWB is down from 80% in 1994.


http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/now-oppose-assault-weapons-ban-doubts-stopping-lone/story?id=35778846

So how do we proceed? Ban them every time support goes over 50% and rescind the ban every time it goes under? I mean, seeing as we're putting so much faith in the polling and all ...

[Hoppy]

44. Isn't the annual number of U.S. gun deaths now equal to annual car deaths?

[hack89]

47. Yes - they have dropped that much

Once we figure out how to put a significant dent in our suicide rate it will drop even further. 60% of gun deaths are suicides.

[Dem2]

56. Not true

It's been rising the past few years.

Since you posted a gun-nut and an untruth to boot, welcome to ignore - clearly you can't be reasoned with.

[hack89]

57. That's nice. nt

[Francis Booth]

70. The only solution to gun violence is to confiscate every single gun, and make sure

that no gun ever enters our borders again.

I'm willing to listen to any proposal on how to accomplish this.

[Wayburn]

104. Can you list one single country that has been able to do this?

One country that has been able to eliminate all guns, drugs or anything for that matter.

[Photographer]

6. k&r x 100

[Martin Eden]

7. They are regulated only of they stay on their meds.

Or eat prunes.

[FairWinds]

11. Hey Mr. Kpete . .

toon needs another figure - for those whose guns are a part of
their personal identity and sense of self worth.

They are scary, and there are lots of them out there.

[hunter]

15. Ain't that the truth...

[Francis Booth]

68. Over 100,000,000 Americans own guns. Scary, huh?

Although I think it's a bit silly to lump in 100,000,000 of my fellow citizens in with ISIS.

[NaturalHigh]

102. They don't like inconvenient facts.

It comforts me to know that most Americans favor 2nd Amendment rights and that the anti-gun crowd here on DU is far to the left of the mainstream.

[paleotn]

14. I don't think....

...that's quite what our all wise and omniscient founding fathers had in mind. Ooops.

Which brings me to another, related peeve of mine....founder worship. Particularly on the Right. Brilliant men in many ways, most of them, but they weren't gods for christ sake. We have brilliant, well meaning people today who occasionally fuck up. It is the human condition. Originalists make me want to puke.

[hunter]

17. For many of these men it was about keeping the tools of oppression available.

A "militia" is something they might need if the slaves, workers, Indians, or other oppressed people started making trouble.

Black people and Indians "exercising their second amendment rights" didn't live long.

They still don't.

[Squinch]

19. Yep. The disaffected white man's last bastion of power over the rest of us. A toy to protect his ego

[Francis Booth]

69. I would argue that during the Civil Rights era, black Americans arming themselves

saved a lot of lives. Black lives, people who were being threatened by white southern bigots. Those good old boys stepped back a bit when blacks took up arms.

[Eleanors38]

108. Did you leave out women who are armed by accident?

[Squinch]

20. Jefferson was a slave-holding pedophile who couldn't manage his own money much less the country's

and who took most of his good ideas from Madison.

Also, he was a big detractor of my man Hamilton. No one puts Alexander in the corner!

[Sancho]

18. The cartoon makes the point: don't regulate guns...regulate PEOPLE who should not have guns.

There will be new types of "guns", and some new ones may not be easy to call "arms". At any rate, we need to prevent potentially dangerous people from easy access to gun possession.

Some types of "arms" will intimately be banned except for the military, but that will be too little, too late. Waiting until after someone has committed a crime or been declared insane (rarely happens anyway) is also irrationally too late.

The obvious gate-keeper is a license to possess, buy, or use guns! There would be no need for a clerk at K-Mart to take a worthless paper application and put it in the drawer while handing over guns to clearly dangerous people. I have my version of a license - but different states, new research, new safety devices, etc. would change or modify the specifics of a license.

A PERSONAL license would provide an opportunity to screen dangerous people, prevent easy sales and possession, and ensure basic training. Just like an extended version of the current "permits" that many states already; but with realistic components that would actually prevent some deaths (not all, but many).

---------------
People Control, Not Gun Control

This is my generic response to gun threads where people are shot and killed by the dumb or criminal possession of guns. For the record, I grew up in the South and on military bases. I was taught about firearms as a child, and I grew up hunting, was a member of the NRA, and I still own guns. In the 70’s, I dropped out of the NRA because they become more radical and less interested in safety and training. Some personal experiences where people I know were involved in shootings caused me to realize that anyone could obtain and posses a gun no matter how illogical it was for them to have a gun. Also, easy access to more powerful guns, guns in the hands of children, and guns that weren’t secured are out of control in our society. As such, here’s what I now think ought to be the requirements to possess a gun. I’m not debating the legal language, I just think it’s the reasonable way to stop the shootings. Notice, none of this restricts the type of guns sold. This is aimed at the people who shoot others, because it’s clear that they should never have had a gun.

1.) Anyone in possession of a gun (whether they own it or not) should have a regularly renewed license. If you want to call it a permit, certificate, or something else that's fine.
2.) To get a license, you should have a background check, and be examined by a professional for emotional and mental stability appropriate for gun possession. It might be appropriate to require that examination to be accompanied by references from family, friends, employers, etc. This check is not to subject you to a mental health diagnosis, just check on your superficial and apparent gun-worthyness.
3.) To get the license, you should be required to take a safety course and pass a test appropriate to the type of gun you want to use.
4.) To get a license, you should be over 21. Under 21, you could only use a gun under direct supervision of a licensed person and after obtaining a learner’s license. Your license might be restricted if you have children or criminals or other unsafe people living in your home. (If you want to argue 18 or 25 or some other age, fine. 21 makes sense to me.)
5.) If you possess a gun, you would have to carry a liability insurance policy specifically for gun ownership - and likely you would have to provide proof of appropriate storage, security, and whatever statistical reasons that emerge that would drive the costs and ability to get insurance.
6.) You could not purchase a gun or ammunition without a license, and purchases would have a waiting period.
7.) If you possess a gun without a license, you go to jail, the gun is impounded, and a judge will have to let you go (just like a DUI).
8.) No one should carry an unsecured gun (except in a locked case, unloaded) when outside of home. Guns should be secure when transporting to a shooting event without demonstrating a special need. Their license should indicate training and special carry circumstances beyond recreational shooting (security guard, etc.). If you are carrying your gun while under the influence of drugs or alcohol, you lose your gun and license.
9.) If you buy, sell, give away, or inherit a gun, your license information should be recorded.
10.) If you accidentally discharge your gun, commit a crime, get referred by a mental health professional, are served a restraining order, etc., you should lose your license and guns until reinstated by a serious relicensing process.

Most of you know that a license is no big deal. Besides a driver’s license you need a license to fish, operate a boat, or many other activities. I realize these differ by state, but that is not a reason to let anyone without a bit of sense pack a semiautomatic weapon in public, on the roads, and in schools. I think we need to make it much harder for some people to have guns.

[pablo_marmol]

71. "The cartoon makes the point: don't regulate guns...regulate PEOPLE who should not have guns."

And I doubt the OP even picked up on that. LOL! The cartoon essentially argues against "gun control" when it comes right down to it.

[Gothmog]

26. Great cartoon

[Skittles]

35. gun humping cowards

they are an embarrassment to America

[Duckhunter935]

77. All you have is insults

Lol. That helps I guess.

[Squinch]

124. Whereas you have Eddie Eagle!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=7971617

[Duckhunter935]

125. Indeed, as I am for gun safety

I and that is a good program. I am also for projectchildsafe.org. Are you?

[Squinch]

126. No. It is an NRA program specifically designed NOT to be a good program, and you are shilling it.

[Duckhunter935]

128. so what is wrong with

teaching If you see a gun, do not touch it, run and get an adult?

[oneshooter]

129. What is "not good" about it? n/t

[NaturalHigh]

101. Of course you use that phrase to describe anyone who owns a firearm.

That's just one reason you're not to be taken seriously. Then there are all the posts about all the ass you're going to kick.

[npk]

36. They always leave out the "regulated" part

The gun nuts have selective reading skills.

[Crunchy Frog]

63. Apparently, that just means the equipment runs smoothly and

Doesn't jam.

At least that's what I've been told here on DU. As long as the guns are running properly, the militia is "regulated".

[Rex]

91. No doubt that cartoon causes a lot of issues with a certain crowd.

Thank goodness DU keeps them in a group far away from public light.

[Eleanors38]

109. Hear the NRA pays royalties for these 'toons. For republishing.

Rex. Right here, as always.