Jason Alexander long twit on Assault Weapons

[Ichingcarpenter]

I'd like to preface this long tweet by saying that my passion comes from my deepest sympathy and shared sorrow with yesterday's victims and with the utmost respect for the people and the police/fire/medical/political forces of Aurora and all who seek to comfort and aid these victims.

This morning, I made a comment about how I do not understand people who support public ownership of assault style weapons like the AR-15 used in the Colorado massacre. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AR-15

That comment, has of course, inspired a lot of feedback. There have been many tweets of agreement and sympathy but many, many more that have been challenging at the least, hostile and vitriolic at the worst.

Clearly, the angry, threatened and threatening, hostile comments are coming from gun owners and gun advocates. Despite these massacres recurring and despite the 100,000 Americans that die every year due to domestic gun violence - these people see no value to even considering some kind of control as to what kinds of weapons are put in civilian hands.

Many of them cite patriotism as their reason - true patriots support the Constitution adamantly and wholly. Constitution says citizens have the right to bear arms in order to maintain organized militias. I'm no constitutional scholar so here it is from the document itself:

As passed by the Congress:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State:
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

So the patriots are correct, gun ownership is in the constitution - if you're in a well-regulated militia. Let's see what no less a statesman than Alexander Hamilton had to say about a militia:

"A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss."

Or from Merriam-Webster dictionary:
Definition of MILITIA
1
a : a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency
b : a body of citizens organized for military service
2
: the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service

The advocates of guns who claim patriotism and the rights of the 2nd Amendment - are they in well-regulated militias? For the vast majority - the answer is no.

Then I get messages from seemingly decent and intelligent people who offer things like: @BrooklynAvi: Guns should only be banned if violent crimes committed with tomatoes means we should ban tomatoes. OR @nysportsguys1: Drunk drivers kill, should we ban fast cars?

I'm hoping that right after they hit send, they take a deep breath and realize that those arguments are completely specious. I believe tomatoes and cars have purposes other than killing. What purpose does an AR-15 serve to a sportsman that a more standard hunting rifle does not serve? Let's see - does it fire more rounds without reload? Yes. Does it fire farther and more accurately? Yes. Does it accommodate a more lethal payload? Yes. So basically, the purpose of an assault style weapon is to kill more stuff, more fully, faster and from further away. To achieve maximum lethality. Hardly the primary purpose of tomatoes and sports cars.

Then there are the tweets from the extreme right - these are the folk who believe our government has been corrupted and stolen and that the forces of evil are at play, planning to take over this nation and these folk are going to fight back and take a stand. And any moron like me who doesn't see it should...
a. be labeled a moron
b. shut the fuck up
c. be removed

And amazingly, I have some minor agreement with these folks. I believe there are evil forces at play in our government. But I call them corporatists. I call them absolutists. I call them the kind of ideologues from both sides, but mostly from the far right who swear allegiance to unelected officials that regardless of national need or global conditions, are never to levy a tax. That they are never to compromise or seek solutions with the other side. That are to obstruct every possible act of governance, even the ones they support or initiate. Whose political and social goal is to marginalize the other side, vilify and isolate them with the hope that they will surrender, go away or die out.

These people believe that the US government is eventually going to go street by street and enslave our citizens. Now as long as that is only happening to liberals, homosexuals and democrats - no problem. But if they try it with anyone else - it's going to be arms-ageddon and these committed, God-fearing, brave souls will then use their military-esque arsenal to show the forces of our corrupt government whats-what. These people think they meet the definition of a "militia". They don't. At least not the constitutional one. And, if it should actually come to such an unthinkable reality, these people believe they would win. That's why they have to "take our country back". From who? From anyone who doesn't think like them or see the world like them. They hold the only truth, everyone else is dangerous. Ever meet a terrorist that doesn't believe that? Just asking.

Then there are the folks who write that if everyone in Colorado had a weapon, this maniac would have been stopped. Perhaps. But I do believe that the element of surprise, tear gas and head to toe kevlar protection might have given him a distinct edge. Not only that, but a crowd of people firing away in a chaotic arena without training or planning - I tend to think that scenario could produce even more victims.

Lastly, there are these well-intended realists that say that people like this evil animal would get these weapons even if we regulated them. And they may be right. But he wouldn't have strolled down the road to Kmart and picked them up. Regulated, he would have had to go to illegal sources - sources that could possibly be traced, watched, overseen. Or he would have to go deeper online and those transactions could be monitored. "Hm, some guy in Aurora is buying guns, tons of ammo and kevlar - plus bomb-making ingredients and tear gas. Maybe we should check that out."

But that won't happen as long as all that activity is legal and unrestricted.

I have been reading on and off as advocates for these weapons make their excuses all day long. Guns don't kill - people do. Well if that's correct, I go with @BrooklynAvi, let them kill with tomatoes. Let them bring baseball bats, knives, even machetes --- a mob can deal with that.

There is no excuse for the propagation of these weapons. They are not guaranteed or protected by our constitution. If they were, then we could all run out and purchase a tank, a grenade launcher, a bazooka, a SCUD missile and a nuclear warhead. We could stockpile napalm and chemical weapons and bomb-making materials in our cellars under our guise of being a militia.

These weapons are military weapons. They belong in accountable hands, controlled hands and trained hands. They should not be in the hands of private citizens to be used against police, neighborhood intruders or people who don't agree with you. These are the weapons that maniacs acquire to wreak murder and mayhem on innocents. They are not the same as handguns to help homeowners protect themselves from intruders. They are not the same as hunting rifles or sporting rifles. These weapons are designed for harm and death on big scales.

SO WHY DO YOU CONTINUE TO SUPPORT THEM? WHY DO YOU NOT, AT LEAST, AGREE TO SIT WITH REASONABLE PEOPLE FROM BOTH SIDES AND ASK HARD QUESTIONS AND LOOK AT HARD STATISTICS AND POSSIBLY MAKE SOME COMPROMISES FOR THE GREATER GOOD? SO THAT MOTHERS AND FATHERS AND CHILDREN ARE NOT SLAUGHTERED QUITE SO EASILY BY THESE MONSTERS? HOW CAN IT HURT TO STOP DEFENDING THESE THINGS AND AT LEAST CONSIDER HOW WE CAN ALL WORK TO TRY TO PREVENT ANOTHER DAY LIKE YESTERDAY?

We will not prevent every tragedy. We cannot stop every maniac. But we certainly have done ourselves no good by allowing these particular weapons to be acquired freely by just about anyone.

I'll say it plainly - if someone wants these weapons, they intend to use them. And if they are willing to force others to "pry it from my cold, dead hand", then they are probably planning on using them on people.

So, sorry those of you who tell me I'm an actor, or a has-been or an idiot or a commie or a liberal and that I should shut up. You can not watch my stuff, you can unfollow and you can call me all the names you like. I may even share some of them with my global audience so everyone can get a little taste of who you are.

But this is not the time for reasonable people, on both sides of this issue, to be silent. We owe it to the people whose lives were ended and ruined yesterday to insist on a real discussion and hopefully on some real action.

In conclusion, whoever you are and wherever you stand on this issue, I hope you have the joy of family with you today. Hold onto them and love them as best you can. Tell them what they mean to you. Yesterday, a whole bunch of them went to the movies and tonight their families are without them. Every day is precious. Every life is precious. Take care. Be well. Be safe. God bless.

Jason Alexander

the number is changed new.

Correction all: the 100,000 guns deaths should be 100,000 incidents of death or injury with guns per annum. My bad. Number still sucks."

http://twitter.com/ijasonalexander/status/226879330377146369


But is not change the thought.




link added plus ..... this is a public twit....no copy write problem



http://www.twitlonger.com/show/if2nht

[Logical]

1. "despite the 100,000 Americans that die every year due to domestic gun violence" is not true!

10,000 a year Jason. Jesus people, get the basic facts correct.

[ileus]

2. I'm sure he believes every word he wrote...

[Ichingcarpenter]

6. I'm glad you are happy with 10,000

when ONE is too many

[Logical]

9. I am not happy with ONE. But bullshit lies to make a point does not help matters. get it?

[paparush]

20. When is a typo == bullshit lie?

C'mon dude. Calm down.

[slackmaster]

27. A "typo" is a bullshit lie when it goes uncorrected and gets intentionally propagated to copies

This is the Web, not ink on paper. Correcting an error, once it's pointed out to the author or last editor, takes only a few seconds.

[otohara]

38. Soon We'll Reach 100,000 Deaths Per Year

calm down.

[slackmaster]

39. With rates of violent crime of all kinds going down, it's going to be a long wait

[otohara]

75. Patience Grasshopper

we'll get there with help from The NRA.

I was watching an NRA infomercial last night called The Secret War On Guns - designed to get more paranoid freaks to run to their nearest Walmart to purchase another gun. They call POTUS treasonous many times - among other names. Entertaining propaganda for the wingnuts among us, yet dangerous IMO. It was scary, scary shit!

[slackmaster]

78. It sounds like you WANT that to happen

I'll be happy if present trends continue.

[AlbertCat]

92. I'll be happy if present trends continue.

I'm sure it will... because gun ownership obviously has little to do with it. There is no correlation.

But I bet if there was sensible ownership restrictions, the trend would accelerate.

[Atypical Liberal]

191. Yeah, we've heard that before.

Back in 1987, when the trend to legalize CCW started, we all heard the chicken little's exclaiming that the sky was falling and that "there would be blood in the streets".

Now every state in the Union allows CCW except for 2.

The sky never fell. In fact, violent crime has declined nearly every year since then. We are now at 1960's levels of violent crime.

No one claims there is correlation between the ever-more-liberal firearm laws and the decrease in crime.

But the claim by the anti-gun folks that more guns would cause more crime has not happened.

[A Simple Game]

57. It does matter, where did you get 10,000?

What I have seen is far more than that.

[Logical]

96. Well, you are wrong. Simple to find. Where is your wrong link??

[iamthebandfanman]

133. 100,000 SHOT

every year, not killed. that was easy to find too.

Guess your link didnt mention that.


one would hope this was an error done on accident, not purpose.
altho, im sure jason is in his car coming to take your gun away right now.. so you might wanna find your nearest nutjob neighbor and get in his ANti FEma bunker.

[Logical]

135. LOL, minor error. Dead / Wounded close enough.

[A Simple Game]

143. I didn't think you could prove the 10,000 number.

I don't know what a wrong link is but here is a right? link.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070519115058AATuck2

Here's another. Click on the arrow next to Overview.

http://bradycampaign.org/facts/gunviolence/

[Logical]

154. Jesus, WTF is wrong with you. Once again you let Brady make you look foolish.....

Brady is pulling old data Einstein.

See this link, look for the words "Total Firearms" see the number of 8775. Then reply and apologize!

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10shrtbl08.xls

[A Simple Game]

168. Well one of us looks foolish. You're talking about homicides while

the rest of us are talking about domestic gun violence. I'm sure it's just a mistake because you didn't really know what we were talking about, don't let it bother you, happens to all of us at times.

But your calling me names made me recheck to see what was going on. Below is your post #1

"despite the 100,000 Americans that die every year due to domestic gun violence" is not true!

10,000 a year Jason. Jesus people, get the basic facts correct.

Yes people, lets get the basic facts correct. You appear to be talking about two different things and assume they are the same.

I expect no apology.

[Logical]

170. LOL, you like looking foolish? You said I could not prove the 10,000 number and I did.....

you are really not very good at backing up anything you post.

[A Simple Game]

178. I shouldn't have to do this, after all it was your post.

Post #1 which may have been written by a different Logical, if so accept my apology.

1. "despite the 100,000 Americans that die every year due to domestic gun violence" is not true!

10,000 a year Jason. Jesus people, get the basic facts correct.

Please note the bold(which was mine), you knew the subject was domestic gun violence yet you quote a number from a page listing homicides. Domestic gun violence is more than just homicides.

You were right that the number quoted was wrong because it was deaths and injuries combined, but you should know by now that your number is also wrong in that it only includes homicides. The actual number is near 30,000 deaths.

It was your own post, don't you understand it?

[Atypical Liberal]

193. Again, the OP is not just about domestic gun violence, but DEATHS due to domestic gun violence.

There are approximately 30,000 firearm-related deaths from all causes in the United States each year.

http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_us.html

[Atypical Liberal]

192. You missed a word. "die".

"despite the 100,000 Americans that die every year due to domestic gun violence" is not true!

This is not true.

About 30,000 people die in the United States from firearms every year, from all intents, from homicide to legal intervention to suicide.

You can query this yourself.

http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_us.html

[A Simple Game]

209. I know how many die each year. That is not my quote.

Thanks for the help anyway.

[kellytore]

152. It was probably a typo. But his essay is excellent.

[Logical]

171. I assume it was a typo and glad he corrected it. n-t

[99Forever]

24. This is what the morally bankrupt do.

Can't speak to the entire subject? Make like a freeper and make big deal out of some minor either typo or unintentional error.


Fuck the NRA.

[abelenkpe]

32. +1000 thank you! Nt

[joeybee12]

91. Exactly, he gun nuts have found their error...

So, since it's one error and the rest is correct and logical, the whole thing gets thrown out because they love their klling thingies.

[calimary]

222. Sigh - there they go again.

Hanging with all hysteria turned up on high, on a technicality, in order to deflect any talk about the well-regulated part of the Second Amendment. You'd think ONE of them on the "don't touch my flame-thrower or my right to arm up to the tactical nukes level if I damn well feel like it" side would take a leadership position that was truly meaningful, and figure out a way to get these damn weapons of gone-in-60-seconds mass death out of civilian hands.

I hear the arguments again and again and again. They mean nothing to me and they only convince me of the closed-mindedness and pig-headedness on the one side. They blather on because they do so love their killing thingies. I yearn for the day when ONE of these folks comes to his or her senses and has the courage to take a leadership position for truly responsible gun ownership and the restriction of obscenely, ridiculously murderous instruments like these. DO NOT carry on with me about how "oh those are illegal, you can't buy guns like that." Well, THIS guy did. Don't tell me they're not obtainable. THIS guy got one. And don't tell me "oh THAT gun wasn't the right kind," or "oh this one doesn't count" or "this one had a doodad here or a thingamajigger there that was adapted and blah-blah-blah so it doesn't really apply to this case" or some other damn technicality or fine print that lets you escape all civic responsibility to your fellow man, or that the Second Amendment entitles you to own anything that mows any masses of people down in less than a minute JUST BECAUSE it's your divine right, somehow. It's always some fine-pointed technicality about why the founders' discussions about muskets and blunderbusses means that, lo these many years later, you have the sanctity of owning mass-murder machines. TWELVE people, including an innocent six-year-old girl, paid with their lives for this guy's wonderful, marvelous "freedom" to own mass-murder machines FAR beyond a simple handgun or even a basic rifle that's more than enough to hold off a home-invasion robber.

To the gun defenders - WHEN IS ENOUGH ENOUGH? When will these continuing massacres, to the point of an epidemic, finally reach the TOO-MUCH point for YOU, too? Or will life still always remain less valuable than gun ownership? Is that the dilemma we're cursed and doomed with, here in America, in perpetuity? Are we all condemned to be hostages to the NRA for all eternity? Is that our fate in this country? Is THAT what America is?

I know I'll get flamed for this. I certainly have been piled on for speaking out like this in other threads. Well, too bad. So be it. I could respectfully suggest that you save your breath. Please don't bother wasting it on the likes of me. NOTHING will change my mind or convince me to see your point. NOTHING. Not after this. Something just snapped in me, over this one, guys. You can argue about your gun rights til you pass out. I can't hear you anymore. Not after this. I think this was one too many gun schmucks who just kicked every last one of your arguments out from under you. Your argument is with guys like James Holmes who just peed all over your gun parade, not with me. Sorry, but that's how I feel. Go ahead and dump on me all you like for wanting to deny you your "freedoms." Somehow I just don't believe the founders of this country imagined protecting the freedom to own mass-murder weapons. Simple firearms, okay. Muskets and blunderbusses okay. That's what they wrote the Second Amendment about. Weapons that targeted one victim at a time, not dozens in less than a minute. I think the founding fathers and mothers would be HORRIFIED to see their words taken to such extremes in this modern day. In my opinion NO ONE in the civilian world is entitled to own weapons and ammo like this - that are designed for one thing and one thing only, mass murder in a mere few seconds. There's NO legitimate reason that I can see.

Have at it. Pick me apart if it makes you feel better or somehow morally justified. Condemn me for wanting to deny you a "freedom " that, in all seriousness, I firmly believe NO ONE is entitled to have, ESPECIALLY after this. You won't change my mind.

[Rainngirl]

226. I'm with you!

I snapped, too. This was the last straw for me. How freaking many more massacres do we have to experience just so these assholes can keep their ridiculous firearms made specifically for killing people. There is no other way to look at it! I had someone tell me in a Facebook argument that "many of us have assault rifles..." and I'm thinking REALLY? How small is your penis that you have to have something like this in your arsenal. His whole excuse for wanting to have one is "it's fun to shoot." My thinking was, what if he snaps someday or falls into depression? What if his house is burglarized and scumbags get their hands on his guns? I just don't get why they can't be a little better regulated or banned altogether. NO ONE NEEDS AN ASSAULT RIFLE UNLESS THEY ARE PLANNING A MASS KILLING!

[calimary]

227. Exactly. NO ONE needs an assault rifle unless they're planning a mass killing.

And maybe part of the answer, or the counter-strategy should be - PUT THEM ON THE DEFENSIVE. "Oh, I see. You planning your own mass murder then." Like LBJ did with the enemy he faced - MAKE 'EM DENY IT.

I'd put that accusation out there as hard and as often as I could if I were in that arena. And straight into their faces. "So you're getting ready for a copycat massacre? That's the only purpose for the existence of the kinds of firepower like you want so damn badly."

And something else, Rainngirl - I, too, go directly to that other thought, with these wannabe Wyatt Earps: "Overcompensating much?" That's the first thing that comes to my mind! Every time! They're obviously trying to get around their own - um - shortcomings. How else would you explain it, in the deepest psychological terms? Obviously what they've got, themselves, isn't enough for 'em, for whatever "statements" they seem adamant about making. I saw a post a couple of days ago - I forget if it was here or Daily Kos or Think Progress or somewhere - in which the writer ran down a list, a VERY LONG list, of all the shootings that snuffed out more than one life. And it was, I think, just within the last few years. I forgot the time frame. But EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THE GUNMEN was just that. Male. Except in a single case where it was a gunwoman. The ratio was something like several dozen to one. It was BEYOND lopsided. Ridiculously lopsided. EVERY MASS KILLER who did it with guns, time after time after time after time after time after time, example after example after example after example after example, was male, except for ONE.

Seems to me that such a glaring fact should be instructive for people.

Frankly, I just don't even want to hear from these people anymore. Not a bit interested. Heard it already, WAY more times than I care to, and it never made sense to me before, and it certainly doesn't make any more sense to me now. These people are just tiresome. And they better start figuring out how to compromise with the rest of us - because NOTHING stays the same.

True enough, maybe everybody in power on our side is afraid of the NRA. Maybe our Dems are all spineless regarding standing up to the gun lobby. Maybe it is more powerful than a locomotive and able to leap tall buildings with a single bullet (or a barrage from a 100-shot magazine). Maybe the gun lobby and gun nuts do trump every other right and safeguard on the books. Maybe their right to be able to kill is far more sacrosanct than even the right to life they cling to so religiously. But NOTHING lasts forever. There's been plenty of speculation here and elsewhere that - at the rate we're going with this wanton gun obsession - there likely will someday come a massacre that just tips the whole weight of public opinion back to the side of reason and anti-hyperbolic hyperventilating and hysterics. It won't be just you and me who've had enough, and in whom something snaps. It'll be huge swaths of the American people who just finally will have had enough. And even all the hundreds of millions of dollars at the NRA's command won't make a damn bit of difference. And we'll finally have some gun regulations and gun ownership restrictions with real teeth in them. Bought and paid for by the blood of dozens more innocent men, women, and children. At the rate we're going with this madness, there may indeed come a point when it's even too much for the gun nuts anymore.

If nothing else, they might be forced to compromise in a case like that - for no other reason than not wanting to look bad, or too blood-thirsty. I hope to God that day never comes, but I'm not optimistic. I heard another statistic quoted on Stephanie Miller's show this morning that spoke of the massacre rate dropping by 60% during the years when the assault weapons ban was in place. Once it was allowed to expire, the numbers went back to hell again.

[4th law of robotics]

25. Inflating the statistics by an order of magnitude

is not cool.

If one is two many and getting the stats right doesn't matter why not just say it's 100,000,000 killed every year?

The cause is all that matters, facts are unnecessary.

[indigoth]

41. and so,

should we discount your entire stance because you don't know how to spell "too", and you write "two" instead?

that sort of thing is EXACTLY what you are doing.

[4th law of robotics]

45. Nice try at deflection

one is a typo that does not change the overall meaning.

The other is an inflated statistic that does radically alter what is being discussed.

Are you honestly ok with lying about these stats to prove a point?

[DrDan]

61. you can substantiate "lying"? . . . you know he was "lying"?

that would mean the error was intentional.

of course not - you're goal is simple - discredit the post by any means possible.

[4th law of robotics]

63. I've seen it enough to know

people like this intentionally misuse statistics.

Also "you're"?

/since we're being all nitpicky.

[DrDan]

66. so your justified in accusing him of lying . . . gotcha

(yes - I know it is "you're" . . . couldn't resist)

[Pizz]

79. Perfect

Again, Perfect!

[LiberalLovinLug]

146. "one is two"

What??????

You are way off. I think I'll discount your entire contribution to this discussion.

[4th law of robotics]

153. The argument isn't whether typos discredit an entire argument

but rather if inflating statistics does.

I thought I made that clear in my second post but apparently some people have a hard time understanding these things.

[demwing]

156. Yes, that is the argument

you have no proof of a lie, only the mumblings in your mind

[4th law of robotics]

158. He made a statement that was factually untrue

yes or no?

[demwing]

161. factually untrue =/= intentionally untrue

It doesn't matter whether it was untrue, it matters whether it was a lie.

You made the accusation, where's your proof?

[4th law of robotics]

162. Proof that someone is lying?

Ok, he said something, it was untrue.

Given the nature of the topic it seems unlikely he just hit the zero key an extra time.

Look I get it; you feel the need to defend anyone who supports The Cause.

But maybe consider something: if it requires lying perhaps you're on the wrong side?

[demwing]

185. "Given the nature of the topic"

You mean a topic through which people feel justified in making wild claims that they can't support?

That kind of topic?

[LiberalLovinLug]

165. If "inflating statistics" was not purposeful....

...then NO, it DOES NOT discredit the entire argument.

unless you think Alexander would intentionally lie by inflating his statistics in a public forum where it is easily refuted? You think he is that stupid?

or do you think it might just be possible that he got the statistic of 100,000 Americans killed or wounded with firearms mixed up with just the death count?



So I wonder.....if that stat of firearm deaths WAS 100,000....would you have a different opinion on an assault weapons ban?

[JDPriestly]

157. These facts are tried and tested and put our problem in perspective.

U.S. homicide rates are 6.9 times higher than rates in 22 other populous high-income countries combined, despite similar non-lethal crime and violence rates. The firearm homicide rate in the U.S. is 19.5 times higher (Richardson, p.1).

Among 23 populous, high-income countries, 80% of all firearm deaths occurred in the United States (Richardson, p. 1).

Gun violence impacts society in countless ways: medical costs, costs of the criminal justice system, security precautions such as metal detectors, and reductions in quality of life because of fear of gun violence. These impacts are estimated to cost U.S. citizens $100 billion annually (Cook, 2000).

http://bradycampaign.org/facts/gunviolence/

Those who love their guns should be more worried about these statistics than the rest of the country. Most people have a very moderate view on guns. Most of us don't spend much time thinking about guns or issues concerning guns. In fact the only time I think about them is when there is a major tragedy such as the Aurora theater or (as has been happening every week or two in my neighborhood) a gun shooting/killing near my home.

Therefore, it is up to the NRA and those who love guns and think about them a lot to take responsibility for what goes wrong.

I remember back in the 1950s. After every holiday weekend, we had to listen to the report on deaths on the highways. Thanks to Ralph Nader and a lot of good design engineers and creative people, we now drive autos that are comparatively safe. Fatal accidents still happen, and they are always tragic events, but they are not nearly as common.

It took a lot of effort on the part of responsible citizens to bring a reluctant automobile industry to its senses and require them to install safety features in cars.

Gun enthusiasts. If you love your guns, this is your problem. People, even those of us who are not overly averse to guns, will reach a tipping point. If you want to keep your guns, you have to take the initiative on gun safety and on keeping guns out of the hands of the irresponsible or dangerous minority of citizens. Most of us don't really care one way or another.

Get off your defensive, not-my-fault horses. We know you didn't do the shooting. We know you are responsible. But, you have an interest in changing these terrible statistics. Western Europe has lots of hunters, lots of guns, but we don't see so much gun-abuse. It's your job to figure out why we have this problem in the US and, if you really care about your gun rights, doing something about it.

It's up to you. You can't expect the rest of us, the majority of us who do not own guns or, if we do, would be perfectly OK without them, to carry your water. The challenge is yours.

[Atypical Liberal]

194. Well Jesus Christ, violence has gone down every year for decades!

It's your job to figure out why we have this problem in the US and, if you really care about your gun rights, doing something about it.

Jesus Christ, violent crime has gone down for decades, and is at 1960's levels. What the hell else do you want us to do?

But even if this were not so, I'm not going to allow my Constitutional rights to be infringed because of the actions of criminals, no matter how many crimes they commit. I'm not going to be held responsible for the actions of others.

[JDPriestly]

212. OK. No problem. Now what do you think that our society could do to end these massacres?

Other violent crime has gone down, but we continue to have these strange shooting sprees. We aren't having knifing sprees or poisoning sprees. (Knifing sprees usually end with the first victim. We had poisoning sprees and off-the-counter medication manufacturers responded with better packaging.) So, how are gun manufacturers, enthusiasts going to respond to this crisis?

How are you going to protect your Constitutional right to own a gun from those who abuse that right?

[Atypical Liberal]

223. Just how low is the bar going to be set that I have to meet?

Yes, violent crime is going down, and it has done so for decades, despite record numbers of firearms in circulation.

There have been 6 mass shootings since 1991. That is one every 3.5 years on average.

How much lower can I be held responsible for making it?

[JDPriestly]

224. Let's get our gun violence down to the level of other developed countries.

[Atypical Liberal]

225. That will never happen without restricting our firearm ownership rights to that of other countries.

I'll take the freedom over the safety.

As Benjamin Franklin said, "Those who would forsake essential liberty to gain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

[calimary]

196. Excellent post, JDPriestly!

Especially here:

"Gun enthusiasts. If you love your guns, this is your problem. People, even those of us who are not overly averse to guns, will reach a tipping point."

This can indeed happen. Reaching a "tipping point." Definitely. As a matter of fact I happen to know someone who just reached a tipping point with the Aurora CO massacre. Me.

[Travis_0004]

211. You are more likely to be killed by a drunk driver than by a firearm

Madd says 10,228 people died in drunk driving crashes in 2010.

The FBI says there were 8,775 murders with firearms in 2010.

So, you want to save lives by banning firearms. Do you also support banning alcohol, even if it saves just one life?

[druidity33]

214. i wonder...

how many of those murders were committed by people who were drunk.

[larkrake]

8. it is probably at least 100,000 worldwide

[Logical]

10. He said "100,000 Americans"

[progressivebydesign]

130. 100k people in America are KILLED or WOUNDED by guns each year.

He forgot the "wounded" part. And of those wounded, I have a feeling that their lives are forever destroyed, or they're paralyzed, or will die early. there..

[Logical]

134. I agree!

[tridim]

16. Phew, thank jebus it's only 10 thousand dead Americans per year.

[Logical]

97. You sound like Fix News being OK with wrong stats. Congrats!

[girl gone mad]

150. So if it were 100,000 dead you would support stricter gun laws, right?

[Logical]

151. I am in favor of them now. Please list ONE that would have stopped this shooting. n-t

[Logical]

98. Nice try, murders are under 10,000. Sucides make up the rest. Keep trying.

[Zoeisright]

118. Do you have any idea how ridiculous your post sounds?

Good God.

[Logical]

137. Only you would think murders and suicides are the same. Do you understand how stupid that sounds?

[Logical]

176. so you are going to blame guns for people killing themselves? n-t

[drm604]

51. Does that one mistake really make any difference to his point?

[calimary]

198. So sadly true. ONE is too many.

I love this essay by Jason Alexander. I really love it. Had no idea he was this articulate, and obviously has thought a lot about this whole issue. Gives me a whole new respect for him.

[Logical]

99. I didn't say it did. Bug misleading is still misleading!

[greyl]

124. Your bugs were mislead, but not mine.

The figure doesn't change the meaning of the long tweet in the least(to me). It is an essay, not a mathematical proof.

Logical: I didn't say it did. Bug misleading is still misleading!

[AtheistCrusader]

177. Rife with errors.

Maybe, you could ASK someone who IS familiar with firearms, their use, their legal history, and have them proof your 'essay' before posting it?

That would make it more useful. (And a lot shorter)

[RC]

216. Sure and the Republicans need to check the Democrats political ads for accuracy before they are run.

That would also make the ads more useful. (And a lot shorter)

[AtheistCrusader]

218. False dichotomy.

Our ads aren't full of literal and blatant errors (Pretty rare anyway), and not all people who are familiar with guns are politically hostile to Democrats.

It's about accuracy. (The OP has none)

[RC]

219. The dichotomy is accurate. It fits all too well.

The OP only had one error, an extra '0'. The rest of the OP was basically ignored by the gun crowd.

[AtheistCrusader]

220. Perhaps you should read the thread.

There are quite a few errors in it. Least of which the error you mentioned.

[progressivebydesign]

127. no but it's sure brought out the true colors of some DUers here.

very interesting to watch them go apeshit on these posts. Very revealing.

[AtheistCrusader]

183. Yeah, funny how some of us care about accuracy and truth.

[grantcart]

70. You are correct, that the statistics he cited were in error.

Here are the correct statistics;

The majority of gun-related deaths in the United States are suicides,[5] with 17,352 (55.6%) of the total 31,224 firearm-related deaths in 2007 due to suicide, while 12,632 (40.5%) were homicide deaths.[6]

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


Now that we have corrected the statistics (maybe Jason added a zero), let's continue.

Since you selected only that one point of the tweet and none of the others, the readers will have to assume that you have no argument or facts for the rest of the tweet and simple hoped that by isolating a single factoid that you would defeat an argument that was, except for the clear statistical error (which might have been a typo) very tightly argued and well researched.

For example;

I assume that you cannot cite a similar historical source to Hamilton that is going to argue that a "well ordered Militia" is meant to cover you having the right to defend yourself in a home invasion.

I would argue that you have the right to bear arms under the same rights that women have to control their own body. Its part of a larger historical tradition in the US and falls within the concept of maximizing individual rights in the US. That doesn't mean, however, that some cities and some states don't have the right to put in reasonable controls, like prohibiting machine guns.

It probably is a right that you have, not just a second ammendment right. The fact that people who are reasonable on other issues still cling to this canard speaks to an almost religious fervor on the issue, which frankly, also undermines your other arguments in the same way that you think that Alexander's mistaken statistic appears to undermine his. People think that if they can be this mistaken and ridiculous about what a 'well ordered militia' is then how mistaken and ridiculous are they on the rest of the argument.

For whatever 'right' (and I am conceding abroader non 2nd rights do exist) you do have to responsibly own and use a firearm the following questions remain everyone agrees that the state has a reasonable right to some degree of control in either the way that it was purchased or the level of munitions that are covered.

Let's also skip a lot of time and accept the NRA's line that there are enough laws already on the books and if they were enforced the people who should not have weapons would not have them.

This is your strongest argument "its not simply an issue of the 2nd ammendment and enforcement of existing laws would achieve more than passing new laws, which if they are not enforced, would have little impact anyway".

I have the following questions;

1) What is it about your guns that impassions you to the point that you would make the ridiculous argument that (which you do) that 100,000 deaths would be significant but it is only 17,352 and therefore not significant.

2) If we accept the NRA's argument that we have enough laws and most of them are not effectively enforced (and I believe that they are probably right on this) then why do you join in such common cause with the NRA in their efforts to undermine those efforts. The restrictions that the NRA has gotten passed that restrict the government from using databases to enforce these laws reveals the fundamental intellectual dishonesty of the NRA and all those that embrace their radical agenda.

3) Does it bother you that in the midst of a terrible tragedy that you rush not to find some possible common cause with the Jason Alexander's of the world, and here I would be flattered if you would add me to that list, while still asserting your right to responsibly own your own firearm? You do realize that you are identifying yourself with some of the most reactionary forces in our country. I believe that there are Democrats who are also responsible gun owners. They may have good reasons for it. If I were Trevor Martin's parents right now I would be enrolling all of my children into gun classes and equipping them to own a firearm.

I just don't think that there are any progressive gun owners who would rush to a thread like this and hope to defeat a very sensible argument over a very obvious statistical mistype, or mistake.

How exactly does a progressive gun owner defend the NRA's successful campaign to gut the effectiveness of law enforcement to enforce reasonable laws by not allowing them to use a computer to do it?

[rosesaylavee]

114. We are so used to citing Wikipedia ... I like that source but look what I found

On the wikipedia page it states:

There were 52,447 deliberate and 23,237 accidental non-fatal gunshot injuries in the United States during 2000.[4]

The source it takes those figures from is the CDC's Wisqars reports. In reviewing that site, found out that only 16 states currently report on violent firearm deaths.

My source for that is this page: http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/wisqars/nvdrs/DataElements-ReportOptions.htm#states which I found when trying to get a report on violent fire arm deaths from this page: http://wisqars.cdc.gov:8080/nvdrs/nvdrsDisplay.jsp

I wasn't able to get a report to print ... probably I am doing something wrong but just thought I would point out that statistics are a funny thing. Before we assume that the 100,000 number is wrong, let's find out the source of the 10,000 figure. How was that determined?

I know you weren't questioning it grantcart but I know you are great with statistics and may be able to figure this out faster than me... or most of us here.

Thanks,

rosesaylavee

[liberalmike27]

74. Maybe he added in South

And Central America.

I was surprised to see yesterday on a list, that Brazil had more gun deaths.

That said, even if NRA is making calls acting like Obama has been passing a slew of gun laws, when he's only passed on pro-gun law so far, and done NOTHING at all against guns, I don't think this is the time. We've got bigger fish to fry. You can't do anything when you lose all houses of government, and make the SC even worse.

When we get 60 or 65 Senators, the House, and the president, it'll be time to do a lot of things, fix our electoral system, getting rid of corporate and big money, making the max contribution $100, not allowing legeslators become lobbyists, raising taxes on the rich, especially that 15% rate, them maybe a sensible cut-off point for guns.

Guy writes a good "longertwit" (funny). I like the point about a "militia." It isn't like this guy was a member of a well-regulated militia. Certainly there should be a point in weaponry people should not have, and huge clips and assault weapons are well above that point.

If you are so paranoid that you think you need one of these, you should spend the thousands of dollars on some therapy instead.

[DCBob]

81. Bradycampaign: Almost 100,000 people in America are shot each year.

IN ONE YEAR (all ages) -- Almost 100,000 people in America are shot in murders, assaults, suicides, accidents, or by police intervention.

http://bradycampaign.org/xshare/Facts/Gun_Death_and_Injury_Stat_Sheet_2008__2009_FINAL.pdf

[Logical]

101. WTF, read his damn quote. "100,000 Americans die each year". unbelievable.

[DCBob]

110. WTF?? I didnt say his quote was correct. Can't you read??.. unbelievable.

However, I suspect that is what he meant and just got it wrong. He made a mistake and Im sure he will correct it. Im sure he didnt do it on purpose.

Chill out.

[Scootaloo]

163. Logical is being irrational

Poor little guy seems to have lost the safe, insulated echo chamber of the RKBA forum, and is lashing out in fear due to strange and harsh new surroundings.

[Pizz]

82. Yea, 10 thousand ain't bad as long as one of those 10,000 isn't anyone I care about.

[xxqqqzme]

89. I knew that number was incorrect

as I read the piece. But for it to be the very first post in reply to this intelligent, thoughtful discourse is just stunning.

THAT is all you saw in this piece - a lie! I find it very sad your indignity is reserved for a lie and not the thousands of lives shattered, and/or destroyed, by gun violence every year.

[progressivebydesign]

132. Over 100k Americans are killed OR wounded each year in America.

Okay? Got it? He didn't include the "wounded" part. Any of the folks who are jumping on that sentence in his statement, willing to say that being shot and not dying is okay? Because most gunshot victims die prematurely, often disabled or paralyzed.

Wasn't hard to look up the stats. On any given year, 276-300 Americans each day are shot.. some die, some don't. It's still unacceptable, considering other countries with sane gun laws, have 300 deaths a year.

[xxqqqzme]

187. OK, OK.

Why attack me? I agree

[rawtribe]

90. Correction

https://twitter.com/ijasonalexander/status/226879330377146369

Correction all: the 100,000 guns deaths should be 100,000 incidents of death or injury with guns per annum. My bad. Number still sucks.

[Logical]

102. Good for him. And I agree the numbers still suck.

[progressivebydesign]

123. 100k are killed or wounded, suicided. Does that make you happier? n/t

[PatrynXX]

164. wow

thats gotta be the dumbest response ever. oh 10,000 not 100,000. think you need a jedi mind trick and go home and rethink your life...

[pasto76]

179. small potatoes compared to the rest of his article. Weird you focus on that

10,000 is still 10x the number of any other country.

[Logical]

181. You sound like fox news. 10,000, 100,000, 1 million, who cares.

[xchrom]

3. du rec. nt

[BumRushDaShow]

4. Wow.

And I thought a tweet was limited to 140 characters.

I heart Jason the Trekkie!

[slackmaster]

5. DU Rec for Pompous Assery. I stopped taking it seriously at "100,000."

Last edited Sun Jul 22, 2012, 10:40 AM - Edit history (1)

[greyl]

120. 100,000 incidents of death or injury with guns per annum in the USA.

Carry on.

[hack89]

7. Outrage built upon a huge lie

100,000 gun deaths a year? That's where I stopped reading.

[greyl]

119. He corrected the figure, which was really like the difference between purple and maroon to me.

The overall meaning of the points he made wasn't affected at all by the erroneous figure.

"Correction all: the 100,000 guns deaths should be 100,000 incidents of death or injury with guns per annum."
http://www.twitlonger.com/show/if2nht

Plus, AFAIK, you aren't in a militia.

[hack89]

126. I agree with President Obama that the 2A supports an individual right. Take it up with him. nt

[greyl]

138. The overall meaning of the points he made wasn't affected at all by the erroneous figure.

That was my main point; that you were missing the point.

[hack89]

140. Besides the fact that his screed has no basis in actual history

and is not supported by many legal scholars (including the president) you mean?

[greyl]

228. Not this part:

"We will not prevent every tragedy. We cannot stop every maniac. But we certainly have done ourselves no good by allowing these particular weapons to be acquired freely by just about anyone."

[hack89]

229. The same could be said about knives and baseball bats

considering they are used more often to murder people than "assault weapons".

That is why an AWB is pure security theater - it would have no discernible impact on public safety. We learned that from the first AWB.

The United States Department of Justice National Institute of Justice found should the ban be renewed, its effects on gun violence would likely be small, and perhaps too small for reliable measurement, because rifles in general, including rifles referred to as "assault rifles" or "assault weapons", are rarely used in gun crimes.[9]

That study by Christopher S. Koper, Daniel J. Woods, and Jeffrey A. Roth of the Jerry Lee Center of Criminology, University of Pennsylvania found no statistically significant evidence that neither the assault weapons ban nor the ban on magazines holding more than 10 bullets had reduced gun murders.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban#Effect_on_crime

[greyl]

230. Anything can be said about anything, but what you suggest is very dumb. nt

[hack89]

231. I made no suggestion

I just commented on a ill informed anti-gun screed. That's all.

[greyl]

232. You suggested a false equivalency (popular lately.)

[hack89]

233. Just putting the real threat in perspective

if saving lives is the concern why start at the bottom of the list when it come to potential murder weapons

[greyl]

234. Would you like to start somewhere, or not start at all? nt

[hack89]

235. The real question is whether to start with something effective

or to repeat a policy that was proven to be a failure.

Just so we are clear, this is my solution to gun violence:

1. Decriminalize drugs and treat it as a public health problem. It will remove the financial incentive that drives so much crime.

2. Empty the prisons of non-violent drug offenders. It will save billions that can be spent on education, health care and social services.

3. Focus the justice system on like a laser on violent crime. Use a gun in committing a crime and go to prison for a very long time.

4. Single payer health care with mental health coverage.

I don't advocate doing nothing. I advocate doing something different.

[LiberalLovinLug]

147. "outrage built upon a huge lie"

Were you looking in a mirror when you wrote this?

ie. Your overblown outrage based on you lying to yourself that Alexander purposely altered one statistic (on a public forum where he would have known he would be quickly called out for it)

[hack89]

148. Not outrage - just amusement

I enjoy the overwrought histrionics.

[LiberalLovinLug]

167. Yeah its a laugh riot

[hack89]

172. The shooting was an indescribable tragedy

the smug over the top hyperbole as people take advantage of it to push political agendas is amusing

[LiberalLovinLug]

221. Once again...

[Owl]

11. Fantastic! A hearty DU rec! nt

[Ichingcarpenter]

12. I notice the usual suspects don't address the other things said vs ONE point.

but that's to be expected.

[Logical]

14. Well, when he starts off like Fox News with 100,000 deaths a year, I question the rest.

[Ichingcarpenter]

17. Quantum physics does not explain nor explore what makes consciousness

I question quantum physics.

[Johnny Rico]

18. The usual suspects have been addressing them in the hundreds of other threads on the subject.

This is a rather glaring error, so it's not surprising that it's being pointed out.

[shadowrider]

13. "this is a public twit"..Exactly correct n/t

[Johnny Rico]

15. Hm...his figures are only off by a factor of 1,000% or so!

I like how he switches to all caps toward the end for an entire paragraph. That makes his argument much more persuasive.

[greyl]

117. AFAIK, you aren't in a militia. nt

[Johnny Rico]

128. The reserve militia, as per the Reserve Militia Act of 1903:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_%28United_States%29

The reserve militia or unorganized militia, also created by the Militia Act of 1903 which presently consist of every able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age who are not members of the National Guard or Naval Militia. (that is, anyone who would be eligible for a draft).

Were it up to me, I would update this to include women as well, of course.

[greyl]

136. Lol. I guess you'll just have to tolerate Jason's deadly 1st Amendment right. nt

[Johnny Rico]

142. Not a problem. I'm very tolerant.

More so than most on this board, I would dare say...

[Walk away]

19. Well, considering the bullshit statistics the NRA feeds it's gun loving fans....

times 10 the number of deaths is small payback! As to the people who find no value in this OP. It's about you so I am not surprised!

[NRaleighLiberal]

21. brilliant - k and r. n/t

[Kaleva]

22. The AR-15 is the same as any other standard semi-automatic hunting rifle

"What purpose does an AR-15 serve to a sportsman that a more standard hunting rifle does not serve? Let's see - does it fire more rounds without reload? Yes. Does it fire farther and more accurately? Yes. Does it accommodate a more lethal payload? Yes. So basically, the purpose of an assault style weapon is to kill more stuff, more fully, faster and from further away. "

Breaking down the comments above:

"Let's see - does it fire more rounds without reload?"

That's a function of the magazine and not the rifle itself. An Ar-15 equipped with a hunting legal (in Michigan) 5 round mag can only fire 5 rounds before having to reload.

"Does it fire farther and more accurately? "

That depends on what caliber round the gun fires. An AR-15 or any other semi-auto that shoots a .308 round is more accurate and more lethal at longer ranges then an AR-15 or any other semi-auto that fires the .223 round.

"Does it accommodate a more lethal payload?"

Not sure what he's referring to here. Is he talking about the .223 round ( a very common small game round) itself or is he talking about the fact that the AR-15 has a detachable magazine (like a whole bunch of "standard" semi-automatic hunting rifles have) and thus can quickly be reloaded or equipped with high capacity magazines?

[Johnny Rico]

23. Just going to show that Alexander, like so many others on this subject, have virtually no knowledge

of the topic they are talking about.

[slackmaster]

29. Yes, and the expired "AW" ban was a result of ignorant people writing a law

I'll keep my heat-seeking bullets and shoulder thing that goes up.

[Kaleva]

31. And some folks here were very much against expanding the SOP of the gungeon...

to allow discussions about guns and how they work.

[xtraxritical]

42. You so called "experts" scare the hell out of me. Go find somewhere to hang out besides here.

[Johnny Rico]

44. No.

Now what?

[Warren Stupidity]

26. The typo brought out the short list of gungeoneers like flies to honey.

You all have blood on your hands.

[Ichingcarpenter]

28. They are oiling the barrels of their guns right now

to make sure there is no rust........and it explodes properly.

Man.... that sounds Freudian.

[slackmaster]

30. And the usual gang of rabid gun ban promoters

[morningfog]

83. Easy way to fill my ignore list.

I QUIT READING AT 100,000 !111!1!1 Garbraggga

[booley]

201. and Obama said he went to 57 states

.. but god forbid we accept it a s a typo and move on.

Except we did. And we got annoyed at freepers who carried on about Obama and his 57 states, using it ignore everything else he said. We recognized it as a stupid tactic to distract from the real issues.

Yet here you are doing this now with this.

Even if Alexander had not added that extra zero, his argument is still valid.

and this is why rational discussions about guns is impossible. You already made up your mind. You don't care what anyone else may think.

[morningfog]

202. I agree with Alexander and the OP.

I am adding those who "quit reading after 100,000" to my RW/NRA/gun nut ignore list.

[booley]

210. ok

sorry I misunderstood

[PatrynXX]

166. cleaarly

oops a tiepo. o there's another one. I've gotten stupid shit comments because I'm on the web and I can't hit edit sometimes on posts. Like on Huffpo. yahoo also. Very bloody annoying. sent a reply to Bree Olson (the former pornstar) who was celebrating all the good O Canada was and I said it gave us William Shatner and Anna Paquin too and she said Anna Paquin is from New Zealand. I actually apologized for the shit she got from Canada for that reply Like okay not everyone knows Anna is from Canada. Technically speaking Keisha Castle Hughes is from Australia not New Zealand and technically Emma Watson is French as she was born in France. Like hello. It's a typo.... I have no idea if he can edit the post as is or has to delete the whole post.. Bree deleted the post. I'd hoped TMZ didn't pick up on it because she has a horrid temper.

Seriously either this thread needs to be removed. the post edited or the reply removed. Because it's bring some violent responses here that are not like DU.

Like coool down (sp) get a gripe. if any shiites are offended don't say shit. Translation on products fuck things up too...

[aikoaiko]

33. If I could chat with Jason Alexander, I would ask him where the compromise is?

What is he, as a gun restrictionist, gun owners if it is true that he wants to compromise on gun laws?

Where I come from compromise is a give and take exercise where BOTH parties give and take equally.

Did he really mean compromise? Probably not.

I don't know what the compromise would be given that the last Assault Weapons Ban covered very popular (in terms of numbers) rifles, shotguns, and pistols.

Again, it was Jason Alexander who used the phrase compromise. Any of the people applauding his tweet want to pick up where he left off?

A reauthorized Asssault Weapons Ban would not stop the killing in Aurora any more than it did in Columbine.

[ananda]

34. Per A. Pope

This is what should be "oft thought but ne'er so well expressed." Thank you, Jason Alexander!

[abelenkpe]

35. 10,000 a year!

Gun nuts are A OK with 10,000 innocent people dying a year in the US so they can own their idiotic unnecessary killing machines. Long live America where mentally deranged d student idiots can easily own a gun and carry it to protests, parks, theaters and on trips to the grocery store. A nation of paranoid wannabe vigilantes. Makes me feel safe.

Gun nuts will respond to this thread only to point out that one mistake and never touch the rest of it. 10,000 is OK with them. More than the amount of our soldiers to die in Iraq for the entire time we've been there. More than those lost in 911. A year! So that gun ownership isn't regulated.

[DrDan]

76. of the 10,000 8 per day are children/teens. Sad . . . but that also appears to be within acceptable

limits to some.

[Ikonoklast]

113. No one I know or love, so it's all good.

Lack of empathy is almost total in certain segments of our society; usually associated with Authoritarian thinking patterns.

We see examples of it in this thread.

[Beringia]

36. that was great

[bakpakr]

37. My gun control soultion

First off I will do whatever it legally takes up to giving up my life to ensure that everyone's right to have guns is upheld.

That being said. If you want a assault rifle fine go get one heck get 100 I will even drive you to the gun shop. But once you pass all the checks and get that shiny new assault rifle in your hands the next stop you WILL make is to the either privately run and highly government overseen or the police run arms room to store that weapon. There it will remain for the rest of it's life except for times it is signed out for your use.

All weapons owned except for one will be stored in an arms room and you may sign any of your owned weapons out at your leisure.

You may keep one weapon in you possession at all times. You only need one to defend yourself and those around you.

[Kaleva]

40. Some of what you said is alread in effect

" But once you pass all the checks and get that shiny new assault rifle in your hands the next stop you WILL make is to the either privately run and highly government overseen or the police run arms room to store that weapon. "

An assault rifle is a class III weapon and as such, is already very highly regulated.

They are also pretty damn expensive. I've seen ads for AK-74Ms in excellent condition going for $16k to $20k.

Here's a site that lists a couple of assault rifles for sale. One is going for $10k while another is going for $26K

http://www.westernfirearms.com/wfc/m16

[ananda]

43. Ermm..

Did Holmes make that next stop?
Did he have any difficulty getting assault weapons
and dangerous explosives?
Was Holmes use of these arms regulated in any way?

No.

[Kaleva]

50. Assault weapons and assault rifles are not the same thing

I was responding to the posters opinion on how to handle assault rifles.

[ananda]

59. There is no reason for any private individual to own an assault weapon.

None

[Kaleva]

68. What defines an assault weapon in your opinion?

The appearance?

The magazine capacity? (Which is a separate issue from the weapon itself)

The ability to fire one round for each pull of the trigger?

[Clames]

195. I have a reason.

Putting little holes in a piece of paper at distance.


Fun.

[Tejas]

203. YUP, no need for Corvettes either!

NONE!

[Johnny Rico]

46. An AK74M would go for a tenth of that price in a free market.

Lousy '86 Machine Gun Ban...

[Kaleva]

49. It is the 1986 ban that has driven the prices up.

[Johnny Rico]

55. By a factor of about 1000%.

[Red Knight]

48. I don't care what the gun nuts think

I stop reading their pointless posts as soon as they pick at 100,000 vs. 10,000------as if it makes one damn bit of difference if your family member is one of the 10,000.

There is a sickness in this country--a paranoia and a culture of violence that we embrace.

Jason Alexander is right. Make it harder to get these kinds of weapons. Let them come in with a bat or a knife.

This country is insane.

[Tejas]

204. People under 25 should not be allowed to operate a motor vehicle.

[Historyprof77132]

52. I've got a question for gun owners (If you are here)

If you think that it is reasonable exercise of someone's "right to bear arms" to be able to buy two glocks, a shotgun, an AR-15 with a 100-round drum, and 6,000 rounds of ammunition, then what do you consider unreasonable? I argued with 15 people yesterday and the answers I got were astounding, I thought I would try it here.

[Red Knight]

53. Excellent question

They always argue that if we even allow a little regulation or control there will soon be no guns.

But is there ANY limit they'd accept?

[slackmaster]

58. I think the line was drawn correctly in 1934 with the National Firearms Act

Machineguns, explosive devices, short-barreled shotguns and rifles, and certain other weapons like smooth-bored pistols are strictly regulated. Some states ban private ownership of one or more of those categories outright. The federal government implemented the NFA as a tax law and did not prohibit people from owning those things.

[Red Knight]

67. That's no ban

It's a tax.

So anything goes in terms of what you can legally obtain--as long as you pay a tax?

[slackmaster]

69. How many crimes have been committed with legally owned machineguns since 1934?

I believe the factual answer to that question is two.

So anything goes in terms of what you can legally obtain--as long as you pay a tax?

Tax, federal paperwork, background check, registration, and sign-off of local chief law enforcement officer.

And states can make it extremely difficult, as it is here in California (i.e. a de facto ban), or even prohibit them completely. There is no way for a private citizen to own a machinegun in Kansas or the state of Washington, for example.

Why ban something when something that isn't a ban works just as well?

[Red Knight]

77. So Large Capacity Magazines are fine to sell?

This is for nothing but killing large numbers of people.

[slackmaster]

80. I don't have a dog in that fight. My state has limited capacity to 10.

Why 10 and not 12, 15, 17, or 20, I can't say. It's an arbitrary number.

One very popular collectable historic rifle is the US M1 Carbine. The standard-issue magazine for that weapon holds 15 rounds. Tens of millions of those magazines were manufactured. I bought about a dozen of them, unused and still wrapped in wax paper, before the 10-round limit went into effect in California.

I know of only two crimes in which an M1 Carbine was used: Charles Whitman's shooting spree from the UTA tower in Austin, Texas, and the robbery of Hibernia Bank in San Francisco in 1974 by the Symbionese Liberation Army.

Here is a grainy photo of Patty Hearst wielding an M1 Carbine:

[spin]

115. Perhaps fortuantely the 100 round drum magazine that Holmes used on the AR-15 ...

caused his weapon to jam.

AP source: Assault rifle used in Colo. theater shooting jammed, forced suspect to use gun
By Associated Press, Updated: Sunday, July 22, 2:43 AM

WASHINGTON — A federal law enforcement official says the semi-automatic assault rifle used in the deadly Colorado movie theater shooting jammed during the attack.

The official said late Saturday the rifle had a high-capacity ammunition magazine which, based on witness accounts and evidence collected at the scene, apparently jammed. The rifle’s malfunction then forced the suspected shooter, James Holmes, to switch to another weapon.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/ap-source-assault-rifle-used-in-colo-theater-shooting-jammed-forced-suspect-to-use-gun/2012/07/22/gJQAFEMZ1W_story.html

Remember that Seung-Hui Cho used 10 round magazines in the "Virginia Tech massacre." He tragically killed more people than Holmes.

Seung-Hui Cho

Seung-Hui Cho[1] (play /ˌtʃoʊ sʌŋˈhiː/; January 18, 1984 – April 16, 2007) was a senior-level undergraduate student at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University who killed 32 people and wounded 25 others on April 16, 2007, in the shooting rampage which came to be known as the "Virginia Tech massacre."[2][3] Cho later committed suicide after law enforcement officers breached the doors of the building where the majority of the shooting had taken place. Cho's body is buried in Fairfax, Virginia. Born in South Korea, Cho arrived in the United States at the age of 8 with his family. He became a US permanent resident as a South Korean national.[4][5][6] In middle school, he was diagnosed with a severe anxiety disorder known as selective mutism, as well as major depressive disorder.[7] After this diagnosis he began receiving treatment and continued to receive therapy and special education support until his junior year of high school. During Cho's last two years at Virginia Tech, several instances of his abnormal behavior, as well as plays and other writings he submitted containing references to violence, caused concern among teachers and classmates.

***snip***

Weapons

During February and March 2007, Cho began purchasing the weapons that he later used during the killings. On February 9, 2007, Cho purchased his first handgun, a .22 caliber Walther P22 semi-automatic pistol, from TGSCOM Inc., a federally licensed firearms dealer based in Green Bay, Wisconsin and the operator of the website through which Cho ordered the gun.[72][73][74][75] TGSCOM Inc. shipped the Walther P22 to JND Pawnbrokers in Blacksburg, Virginia, where Cho completed the legally required background check for the purchase transaction and took possession of the handgun.[76] Cho bought a second handgun, a 9mm Glock 19 semiautomatic pistol, on March 13, 2007 from Roanoke Firearms, a licensed gun dealer located in Roanoke, Virginia.[72][7

***snip***

On March 22, 2007, Cho purchased two 10-round magazines for the Walther P22 pistol through eBay from Elk Ridge Shooting Supplies in Idaho.[81] Based on a preliminary computer forensics examination of Cho's eBay purchase records, investigators suspected that Cho may have purchased an additional 10-round magazine on March 23, 2007 from another eBay seller who sold gun accessories.[82]
...emphasis added
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seung-Hui_Cho#Weapons

I personally see little reason to use high capacity magazines and have never owned a magazine that held over 10 rounds. While I am target shooting I only load 5 rounds in a magazine. I personally prefer revolvers to semi-auto pistols but I do own two target grade .22 caliber pistols and three .45 auto pistols.

[Paladin]

86. A Perfect Example Of Gun Control Working. Have A Nice Day. (nt)

[Kaleva]

72. How about the 1986 ban?

Which prohibited the importation and domestic production of assault rifles and machine guns after the law went into effect.

[Historyprof77132]

93. So you think it is acceptable for a private citizen to be more armed than the police?

[slackmaster]

100. It's a whole lot easier for police to get weapons covered by the NFA than it is for non-police

Your question makes no sense to me. Maybe I haven't interpreted it correctly.

[Historyprof77132]

109. My question was where do gun owners draw the line for an unacceptable

Excersize of their 2nd Amendment rights? They don't like AR bans, ammunition bans, or high capacity mag bands, do what is acceptable gun control?

[slackmaster]

111. I already gave a very specific and clear answer in reply #58

[Historyprof77132]

122. Oh, I see it now

But obviously these regulations are not enough since in every case these shooters are able to legally stockpile arsenals prior to their rampages.

[Kaleva]

65. I don't have an issue with restrictions on high capacity magazines

The .223 caliber AR-15 with a 5 round magazine is an excellent, but pricey, small game hunting rifle. A .308 caliber AR-15 would be very good for larger game such as deer.

In the past, I've argued that a reasonable, IMO, requirement that must be met before anyone can purchase a gun or even ammo is that they first have to go thru a background check and successfully complete a safety course applicable to the kind of gun they wish to purchase. Be it handgun, shotgun or rifle. Then one will be issued a permit which they have to show in order to purchase a gun or ammo and must have on hand when carrying or transporting. Every five years a refresher course must be completed and another background check be done in order to renew the permit.

[Historyprof77132]

94. I'll ask you the same question I asked a friend

why not ban assault rifles again, which would help keep these things from crazy people, and you just hunt with an ordinary rifle? Must you have your AR-15? My friend had no answer.

[Kaleva]

104. You are asking for the ban on any semi-auto rifle that has a detachable magazine.

Banning the AR-15 does nothing about the many hundreds of thousand if not millions of other semi-autos that can be equipped with high capacity magazines. It would be a political impossibility to pass a law that would require such a large number of gun owners to turn in their guns.

It would be easier, and just as effective, to put a ban on the so-called high capacity magazines with no exceptions such as grandfater clauses.

[Historyprof77132]

125. Why not place a ban on both ARs and high capacity mags?

There is no reasons for civilians to have either.

[Kaleva]

139. An AR-15 with a 5 round mag is functionally no different then any other semi-auto with a 5 rnd mag.

You'd be banning it for its appearance only.

A son-in-law bought one last year and I liked it's lightness and especially liked the adjustable butt stock. I could never afford such a gun ( I have two military surplus bolt action Mosin-Nagant M91/30s) but if someone gave me one, I wouldn't hesitate to accept it.

[Historyprof77132]

141. I see your point

I guess my position would be more effective if you banned all semi-auto weapons. The practical use for any semi-auto weapon is questionable.

[Kaleva]

144. That's about the only way you could do it.

A complete ban on all handguns, rifles and shotguns that are semi-automatics (one shot fired for each pull of the trigger). Banning guns based on appearance does nothing about the other guns that are just as deadly but look more like regular hunting rifles.

[spin]

106. I personally see little use for a 100-round drum magazine ...

mainly because extreme high capacity mags tend to jam and I hate when this happens. In fact that's why I largely prefer revolvers and bolt action rifles to semi-auto firearms. Most of the shooters that I know prefer semi-auto handguns and many own semi-auto rifles.

Perhaps this style magazine was the reason that more people were not killed by Holmes.

James Holmes' Gun Jammed During Aurora Attack, Official Says
By ALICIA A. CALDWELL 07/22/12 02:42 AM ET

WASHINGTON -- A federal law enforcement official says the semi-automatic assault rifle used in the deadly Colorado movie theater shooting jammed during the attack.

The official said late Saturday the rifle had a high-capacity ammunition magazine which, based on witness accounts and evidence collected at the scene, apparently jammed. The rifle's malfunction then forced the suspected shooter, James Holmes, to switch to another weapon.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/22/james-holmes-gun-jammed-aurora-colorado-dark-knight-shooting_n_1692690.html

I do own two target grade .22 caliber semi-auto pistols and three 1911 style .45 auto pistols as well as a number of revolvers in .22, .38, .38/.357mag, 9mm, .45acp, and .44 magnum, a double barreled coach gun and a couple of bolt action rifles. This small collection of firearms was gathered during over 40 years of shooting.

I do know a number of people who own as large a collection as I do of firearms and in fact many of those I know own far more. Of course my circle of friends are largely regular shooters who have been shooting for years.

Glock makes a large variety of handguns in different calibers and while I personally think Glocks are ugly they are reliable, accurate and easy to clean. Some Glocks are suited to target shooting with 6" barrels and some are more compact and suitable for concealed carry such as the "Baby" Glocks. Therefore it is not unusual for an individual to own two or more Glocks.

Shooters often buy ammo in bulk. Target shooters often shoot tens of thousands of rounds in a year. If you go to the range once a week for a year and shoot only 100 rounds each time, that would be 5200 rounds per year. I often went twice a week and fired around 150 rounds of ammo each time. I was never a competitive shooter who shot in matches and such people often shoot far more rounds than I did. Of course handgun shooters usually shoot far more rounds per session than rifle shooters.

Practicing on the range with live ammo is also important. Most small-town competitive shooters that win matches are shooting 500 to 3000 rounds a month in practice, some many more. This obviously can be expensive, so most competitive shooters reload their own ammunition. With my progressive reloader I am able to reload about 500 rounds per hour at a cost of about $6.60 per box of 50 in .45ACP. This means that for $100 a month, I can shoot about 750 rounds rather than 200 to 250 rounds of factory ammunition. This is not enough to make me a competition winner, but it makes me much better than the 98% of pistol owners that shoot less than 50 rounds a year. Brian Enos’ website offers excellent advice for those considering the purchase of reloading equipment. I know him to be fair & honest; he will not advise you to buy junk you don’t need.
http://www.usacarry.com/tips-for-beginning-competitive-pistol-shooting/

I see no problem with owning a semi-auto rifle even if it is black and looks evil. I may decided to buy an AR-10 in .308 if I more to a more rural area. Feral hogs are a problem in Florida but wild pork can be quite tasty if prepared properly.

What might seem as totally unreasonable to the average citizen who knows little about the shooting sports would not be considered so by many if not most members of the shooting culture. It's a lot like asking a person who loves cars why he would wish to take a car and modify it so it has far more power as how fast can he legally drive, Or asking him why he would wish to own several different cars when he can only drive one at a time.

[DrDan]

54. GO JASON!!!!!!!!! I am a fan renewed! Proud to be rec #68!

[alarimer]

56. People with a fetish for guns disturb me.

Man-children with little dicks using guns as a compensation.

They are like frightened babies seeing danger behind every tree. I fucking hate gun nuts. I hate guns too. In my heart, I want them all banned, but would settle for banning all guns like the type used by this guy. NO ONE needs one of those, whose only purpose is to kill people.

So fuck you NRA. Fuck you gun nuts.

[-..__...]

60. I'm sitting on the fence on this one...

I want to hear/read what Cosmo Kramer has to say about the issue; then I'll decide if more regulation is needed or not.

[ananda]

64. LOL

nt

[Spazito]

62. Well said, Mr. Alexander

Well said!

[JonLP24]

71. If he wants to understand why I do

because the AR-15 is scary looking and scary sounding. I'm not against the AR-15 because there are more powerful weapons out there such as "standard hunting rifles".

[RC]

217. The AR-15 looks like it has been dipped in testosterone compared to a normal semi-auto and

that fact alone attracts a certain mind set that we'd all be better off if they didn't have access to these 'assault' weapons the first place.
The looks are the real problem with "assault" rifles. They are so much more macho looking than the usual, run of the mill hunting rifles firing the same ammunition.
The looks of the assault rifles are what attracts the Rambo and Dirty Harry types and others with their fantasies of being a hero in unrealistic situations. Standard rifles are too common and boring looking to be able save the day in their flightful and/or paranoid fantasies.

[Ichingcarpenter]

84. When I grew up ..... I learned to make Zip Guns

in a rough neighborhood. To Be clear, I'm a crack shot even at my age.
The point with Zip guns .....guns made specifically for killing people will find a way.
The AR 15...... is a better killing machine for specifically killing humans.

Nam, taught me that but it was a M16.that killed my childhood friend
on the early model

I've hunted the first 1/4 of my life, for food and learning from my Dad who had to hunt for food during the Great Depression... Wild Squirrels were what he hunted for his family with a 22.Deer and Elk are easier with a scope but not with a Black powder 50. I finally went to a bow until I quit and took up major fishing in the Gulf.......Now I'm just an old fart.


I feel I need to be in an Army or Militia.like the Swiss to own an so called Semi automatic, Assault Weapon in my home.

UNLESS YOU WANT A REVOLUTION, and believe as Chairman Mao said



Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/m/maotsetun137206.html

Or as Lennon said


: You say you want a revolution, well, you know, we all want to change the world... But when you talk about destruction, don't you know that you ...,,


later on Chairman Mao, he refutes.





We can do better.




I do wish we had a democratic neighborhood MILITIA, that went from the grass roots and the Pentagon, but they gave us assault weapons or as RONALD REAGAN PUT IT



Ronald Reagan champions a compassionate campaign to resupply the freedom fighters in Nicaragua with machine guns, C-4 plastic explosives, and other humanitarian weapons that they so desperately need in their struggle against literacy, teachers, health clinics and agricultural co-operatives.










Well we still have ...... Shit...... that we can put in the Bank

You can Bank on that.




Man..... do those terms have new meaning



as does the dialogue that is happening here.
.

[fascisthunter]

85. Gun Nuts are brainwashed Paranoid Fanatics

K&R (nt)

[The Midway Rebel]

88. k&r

Kicked so everybody watch the hard logic of some DU'ers as they freak the fuck out over a zero.

[Arugula Latte]

95. Good job, Jason. Wish there were more like you.

[Ruby the Liberal]

103. Excellent. k&r

[DontTreadOnMe]

105. I support Jason

Fuck the NRA

[YvonneCa]

107. EXCELLENT. Glad he is speaking out...

...publicly.

[piperpibroch]

108. It's a mad mad mad mad world ...

us....that's the place to start.

[thelordofhell]

112. handguns are worse than assault rifles

[Kalidurga]

116. 100,000 injured or killed by firearms.

No the death total isn't 100,000 true. But it is easy when you are writing to get stats a bit mixed up. IMO it was an unintentional error. This stat means almost everyone knows someone who was either killed or injured by a gun. I have known at least 3 people killed or injured by guns. 2 killed and one injured. The one that was injured was a suicide attempt that failed, he ended up paralyzed from the neck down and has to live in a nursing home for the rest of his life. One of the dead was a 3 year old shot by his 7 year old brother when he found his dad's gun and was playing with it. The other was a homicide(very likely) yet ruled suicide by the local yokels he was in his 30's and involved in some dispute over raccoon pelts (for those that don't know back in the day they were worth 30 bucks a pelt and this guy was possibly murdered for several, can't remember how many).

Anyway here is the link with the 100,000 stat

http://bradycampaign.org/facts/gunviolence/

I am in my late 40's so I hope I don't have to hear about any other people in my community or my family that have been killed or injured by guns. The fact people can still argue for individual ownership of guns in the face of these statistics says more to me about the ugly underbelly of gun defenders than I want to know.

[progressivebydesign]

121. it always seemed to me that they were talking about the National Guard or something like that.

but the NRA aka gun lobby uses it to cherry pick for their own financial gain. The way right wing christians cherry pick the bible.

The UK has it right.. their gun laws are sane, and allow for a gun to protect your home.
Handguns are made for one thing.. killing people, and assault rifles are made for one thing, killing people.

[iamthebandfanman]

129. 100,000 are SHOT every year

not killed.

thats the statistic he was using.

[freshwest]

131. I didn't know he was political. Thanks for this thread.

[mzmolly]

145. Typo aside, that was very well

Last edited Sun Jul 22, 2012, 04:21 PM - Edit history (1)

said.

K and R.

[taught_me_patience]

149. Jason has stated my sentiments

only 1000x more eloquently. I thank him for speaking out and I'm now an even bigger fan.

[YvonneCa]

184. Same here...

...

[LiberalLovinLug]

155. We need Klaatu and GORT

to come down and immediately make all guns useless. Gather them all up and destroy them.

I suspect the gun nuts would be the ones blubbering in fear that their blankies are gone. The ones that don't rely on some external "fire stick" to feel secure as a human being would do just fine.

[FourScore]

159. Perfect. He said it all just perfectly. m/t

[amb123]

160. So he got the 100,000 dead wrong.

The rest of his rant is right.

[AtheistCrusader]

182. He got a HELL of a lot more than that wrong.

.223 is not more lethal than .308. There are several reasons the military stepped DOWN from .30 caliber weapons, to .22 caliber.

1. It is more accurate at longer ranges than the soviet .30 caliber weapons. Meaning we could engage them at greater distances.
2. A dead soldier is one guy out of combat. A wounded soldier is 3 or more soldiers out of combat.
3. .223 weighs less, so the soldier can carry more of it into battle.

There are additional reasons.


If this theater shooting asshole had used an AK-47, firing 7.62x39mm, instead of 5.56x49mm, the dead/injured numbers might have been inverted.

This weapon is NOT more lethal. We're lucky the shooter didn't use an AR-10, which fires 7.62x51mm.

[MontecaR]

188. We would have been luckier if he had used tomatoes.

[AtheistCrusader]

189. Fair enough.

[Tejas]

207. 300,000 were electrocuted by toasters

280,000 were children under 16 years of age, children under the age of 16 should not be allowed near toasters.

[locks]

169. my suffering neighbors in Colorado

I read the long, reasonable, and well-thought out tweet by Jason and hoped it might elicit some interesting responses from the good DU people. Then I read the responses and was truly shocked at the level of the discussion. And I realized why most victims and their families in preventable tragedies rarely stand up and say "Never Again". I lost my dear 25 year-old son in a small plane crash. My family sued the manufacturers of the plane after we learned that they knew of a design flaw in the engine that had caused other "accidents." We never thought "If you pay us we will keep quiet" or "If the FAA makes them fix these planes all planes will be grounded." We said: "Fix this-- so no one else will have to suffer as we have suffered." Our neighbors in Aurora and around the nation need to say: "Don't let our children die in vain; change and enforce gun laws and regulations. " But despite the thousands of gun accidents and murders, we all know we have no chance of being heard by our local, state, or federal government above the screaming of gunlovers and the "free speech" money of the NRA.

[AtheistCrusader]

180. This is full of the most ignorant shit ever.

"I'm hoping that right after they hit send, they take a deep breath and realize that those arguments are completely specious. I believe tomatoes and cars have purposes other than killing. What purpose does an AR-15 serve to a sportsman that a more standard hunting rifle does not serve? Let's see - does it fire more rounds without reload? Yes. Does it fire farther and more accurately? Yes. Does it accommodate a more lethal payload? Yes. So basically, the purpose of an assault style weapon is to kill more stuff, more fully, faster and from further away. To achieve maximum lethality. Hardly the primary purpose of tomatoes and sports cars."

Groan. The AR-15 fires .223. It is not MORE lethal than the rifles it replaced. It replace, in common use, weapons that fire .308. They sacrificed killing power for accuracy, and weight. The ammo weighs less, so a soldier can carry it further. It is also very accurate, because it fires at a much higher velocity than the .30 caliber soviet weapons it was designed to counter.

As for lethality, holy shit are you ignorant. It isn't even legal for use to hunt deer (you know, animals that weigh between 200-300lbs, about as much as an adult human) because it cannot reliably and humanely kill a deer? The DC Sniper shot a 10 year old in the chest with it. If he'd been using the ACTUALLY more lethal predecessor to the AR-15, or MORE LETHAL successor to the M1, the AR-10, which also fires .308, that kid would have been dead right there. Forget the hospital. Dead.


Why is it so impossible for you to do any research before making up all this bullshit?

[derby378]

186. My own counter to Jason's arguments can be found here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002995425

[Atypical Liberal]

190. It hits all the usual incorrect anti-gun talking points.

Despite these massacres recurring and despite the 100,000 Americans that die every year due to domestic gun violence - these people see no value to even considering some kind of control as to what kinds of weapons are put in civilian hands.

Of course, this number also includes suicides. I think it is disingenuous to include suicides, as people who are committed enough to commit suicide with a firearm are probably going to find a way no matter what. Moreover, if someone wants to kill themselves, that is up to them. I'm not going to tolerate restrictions on my rights because of choices people make for themselves. Just like I do not advocate prohibition on drugs or alcohol, even though some people harm themselves with these things - that is a choice for adults to make for themselves, and we should not prohibit others from responsibly using them just because a few do not.

When you look at homicides, there are around 10,000 - 13,000 homicides annually using firearms in the United States.

When you look at homicides involving rifles, all rifles, not just "assault" rifles, there are only about 300 such homicides in the United States every year. This is half as many as are killed using hands and feet.

It's tragic, but hardly an excuse to go putting restrictions on the most popular center-fire target rifle in the United States (the AR-15).

So the patriots are correct, gun ownership is in the constitution - if you're in a well-regulated militia.

Clearly incorrect.

First of all, the second amendment merely indicates that service in a well-regulated militia is a reason to own firearms. It does not say that it is the only reason to own them.

It is like saying, "I am out of bread; I am going to the store." This does not mean that the only reason I am going to the store is to buy bread. Nor does it mean that I may not go to the store at other times to buy other things. Nor does it mean that stores only sell bread.

Second of all, the Dick Act of 1903 created both the Organized Militia and the Unorganized Militia. Every able-bodied man aged 17-45 not in the Organized Militia is in the Unorganized militia. It's sexist and ageist, but such was the era over a decade before women had the right to vote.

Finally, all nine supreme court justices agreed that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right irrespective of membership in a militia.

What purpose does an AR-15 serve to a sportsman that a more standard hunting rifle does not serve? Let's see - does it fire more rounds without reload? Yes. Does it fire farther and more accurately? Yes. Does it accommodate a more lethal payload? Yes. So basically, the purpose of an assault style weapon is to kill more stuff, more fully, faster and from further away. To achieve maximum lethality.

Here the author shows his lack of familiarity with firearms.

The AR-15 in its standard 5.56mm (or .223 caliber) is not a particularly powerful round compared to many battle rifle rounds that preceded and followed its development. To be sure, the AR-15 is now available in a variety of different calibers, from the diminutive and ancient .22LR, to 9mm, to 5.56mm, to .223, to 7mm, to .308. Some are more powerful than others.

But there are standard semi-automatic hunting rifles that shoot the exact same ammunition in the exact same fashion, with the exact same ballistic performance.

There are also standard semi-automatic hunting rifles that shoot more more powerful rounds.

The most distinguishing features of the AR-15 is that it is based on a platform that was optimized for the harsh conditions of a battlefield, and that it can accept high-capacity magazines appropriate for warfare.

Now as long as that is only happening to liberals, homosexuals and democrats - no problem. But if they try it with anyone else - it's going to be arms-ageddon and these committed, God-fearing, brave souls will then use their military-esque arsenal to show the forces of our corrupt government whats-what.

The next standard talking point is the usual variation of "armed resistance is no longer possible" and/or "we will never need to rebel against our government".

But as the author admits, our government is clearly already being corrupted, perhaps beyond the point of no return, by corporate and wealthy interests. Since 9/11, our government has radically infringed on the rights of US citizens. From suspension of habeus corpus, to pervasive domestic surveillance, to torture, to extraordinary rendition (to enable torture), to outright assassination of US citizens, we are easily on the road closer to tyranny than away from it.

Now with the advent of Citizens United, we have the wholesale selling of speech to those with the most money, and as the middle class dwindles, so will its voice. Our government is responding less and less to the interests of regular Americans as it tailors policies favorable to those with the most financial pull.

So anyone who can think that they live in the epitome of representative government and will forevermore have the luxury of a government beholden to the interests of its people is beyond naive. They are just ignorant of our present situation and of history in general.

The other talking point is that armed rebellion is impossible against the US military. I would simply point out that the United States has lost or quit every military engagement it has fought in the last 65 years. And this was with a voluntary military that largely did not affect average Americans and did not cause economic devastation and erosion of its tax base at home. Civil War would be drastically different. And please note that I am not some Red Dawn worshiper who thinks that Civil War would be some pleasant opportunity to scream "Wolverines" and fight the bad guys. It would be the destruction of our entire way of life for generations.

Then there are the folks who write that if everyone in Colorado had a weapon, this maniac would have been stopped. Perhaps. But I do believe that the element of surprise, tear gas and head to toe kevlar protection might have given him a distinct edge. Not only that, but a crowd of people firing away in a chaotic arena without training or planning - I tend to think that scenario could produce even more victims.

This is the common theme that armed citizens can't stop such tragedies, or that their would be blue-on-blue friendly fire.

The author is right in that when someone meticulously plans such an assault, the odds are very much in their favor. But the fact also is that in just about every mass shooting event in the history of the United States, the shooting was stopped when people with guns made the shooter stop. Usually it is police, but it's not the badges nor the uniforms that make the shooter stop - it is their guns that make the shooter stop.

And given that, I'll take anyone, police officer or civilian, who is heroic enough to be that man with a gun that stops such crimes in their tracks.

The fear of friendly fire, while a possibility, smacks very much of the old "there will be blood in the streets" we heard back before concealed carry became the law of almost the entire land. It never happened. Events like this are very rare, but when they happen, usually it's pretty obvious who the bad guy is.

Here is an example that happened just a week ago:

Two armed robbers attempted to rob an internet cafe in Florida. A CCW holder was present and fired on the criminals, striking them and causing them to flee. It's pretty obvious, even with the poor video quality, who the bad guys were, and who the good guy was.

Is it always going to be clear-cut? Of course not. Is it going to be clear in a dark, smoke-filled theater? Of course not. Should we discount the concealed carry of firearm by civilians because sometimes they might be powerless in spite of being armed? Of course not.

There is no excuse for the propagation of these weapons. They are not guaranteed or protected by our constitution. If they were, then we could all run out and purchase a tank, a grenade launcher, a bazooka, a SCUD missile and a nuclear warhead. We could stockpile napalm and chemical weapons and bomb-making materials in our cellars under our guise of being a militia.

Ah, the old "nukes for everyone" canard.

Just about everyone, particularly pro-gun people, agree that the second amendment is about small arms appropriate for infantry use. They are not about explosives, weapons of mass destruction, crew-served weaponry, or other indiscriminate weapons.

The "nukes for everyone" is a classic red herring.

No one is advocating nukes for everyone.

These weapons are military weapons. They belong in accountable hands, controlled hands and trained hands. They should not be in the hands of private citizens to be used against police, neighborhood intruders or people who don't agree with you. These are the weapons that maniacs acquire to wreak murder and mayhem on innocents. They are not the same as handguns to help homeowners protect themselves from intruders. They are not the same as hunting rifles or sporting rifles. These weapons are designed for harm and death on big scales.

Yes, these are military weapons, and that is precisely the kind of weapon that the second amendment is protecting. If the people are to serve in militias to insure the security of free states, that means killing people who would threaten the security of free states. That means military weaponry. The second amendment is not about hunting or sporting firearms.

But aside from that, the author is just plane wrong. All rifles, let alone assault rifles, cause far less harm every year than the handguns the author admits homeowners use to protect themselves from intruders. In fact, all rifles, let alone assault rifles, only account for about 300 homicides annually in the US. Hands and feet kill twice as many people.

SO WHY DO YOU CONTINUE TO SUPPORT THEM? WHY DO YOU NOT, AT LEAST, AGREE TO SIT WITH REASONABLE PEOPLE FROM BOTH SIDES AND ASK HARD QUESTIONS AND LOOK AT HARD STATISTICS AND POSSIBLY MAKE SOME COMPROMISES FOR THE GREATER GOOD? SO THAT MOTHERS AND FATHERS AND CHILDREN ARE NOT SLAUGHTERED QUITE SO EASILY BY THESE MONSTERS? HOW CAN IT HURT TO STOP DEFENDING THESE THINGS AND AT LEAST CONSIDER HOW WE CAN ALL WORK TO TRY TO PREVENT ANOTHER DAY LIKE YESTERDAY?

Indeed! Let's look at those hard statistics that I quoted from the FBI above. About 300 people are murdered using rifles of all kinds every year. Yet the AR15 is the most popular center-fire target rifle in the country, owned by tens of millions of people. It is not fair to punish the 99% of firearm owners over the actions of 300 people.

I'll say it plainly - if someone wants these weapons, they intend to use them. And if they are willing to force others to "pry it from my cold, dead hand", then they are probably planning on using them on people.

Oh Jesus Christ. I own three generations of my family's firearms. None of them has ever been used for violence against people. Many of them have been used for hunting, particularly when my family was poor and it was the primary way of securing meat. By me, my firearms have only ever been used for target shooting and, rarely, hunting.

I most certainly have bought firearms specifically for shooting people - a handgun and an assault rifle. I bought them so that I could defend my property and my family should the need arise. This does not mean that I "intend" to use them, any more than I intend to use my seat belts, my spare tires, my fire extinguishers, or my smoke detectors. They are tools that I buy hoping I never have to use them, but guarding against the possibility that I might have to use them.

The primary thing I purchase my firearms for is for target shooting, and I shoot competitively on a shooting team.

[eridani]

197. Explain why you think you have the right to a bazooka or an RPG n/t

[Atypical Liberal]

199. I have already explained that I do not think that.

As I have said in numerous posts, it is generally understood, especially by pro-gun people, that the right to keep and bear arms is speaking about small arms appropriate for infantry use. It does not speak to explosives, weapons of mass destruction, or other indiscriminate weaponry.

[eridani]

200. So, AR 15s, but no M-16s? n/t

[Kaleva]

205. M-16s are legal to own.

You might have to pay about $25,000.00 to get one but they are legal.

[Atypical Liberal]

206. I'm OK with that.

I'm OK with that, for two reasons:

1) Machine guns are generally suppression weapons. They are used to keep an enemy pinned down while other troops try to flank them. This is not possible in asymmetrical warfare. It will be impossible for civilians to pin down government forces. Government forces will simply withdraw defensively and call in artillery or air support.

2) Semi-automatic weaponry is sufficient to allow an insurgency to gain access to heavier weaponry.

That said, I think machine guns should be purchasable as they are today with an extensive background check, and I think the machine gun registry should be reopened.

[squicked]

213. videos like that make me glad that I have a cc permit

But I truly wonder would the Aurora shooter have walked into the theater knowing that everyone still carried a gun at his or her side. Living in a supposedly peaceful, safe society has left many of us vulnerable especially at a time when many states are cutting back on their police protection.

[Hoyt]

208. Makes a lot of sense to me.

[krispos42]

215. "Regular" hunting rifles were military weapons 70 years ago

Would Jason Alexander be advocating that, in say 1930, that only the military should have bolt-action rifles and civilians should be using muzzleloaders?