Hillary Clinton Speaks at Trayvon Martin Foundation, Calls Trump's Gun Policies 'Dangerous'

[riversedge]

Source: NBC



Hillary Clinton Speaks at Trayvon Martin Foundation, Calls Trump's Gun Policies 'Dangerous'
She delivered her remarks Saturday night in Fort Lauderdale


By Julie Pace


Donald Trump's gun policies are "not just way out there" but "dangerous" and would make America less safe, Hillary Clinton said Saturday.

"This is someone running to be president of the United States of America — a country facing a gun violence epidemic — and he's talking about more guns in our schools, he's talking about more hatred and division in our streets," the likely Democratic presidential nominee said of her presumptive Republican rival. "That's no way to keep us safe."



................................

Clinton spoke at a conference organized by the Trayvon Martin Foundation to help mothers whose children or other relatives have died from shootings. It was led by Sybrina Fulton, whose 17-year-old son, Trayvon Martin, was fatally shot by neighborhood watch volunteer George Zimmerman in 2012. She has campaigned with Clinton during the Democratic presidential primaries.



"The reason why I stand with her is because she first stood with me," Fulton said before introducing Clinton to more than 200 people packed inside a hotel banquet room.

Queen Thompson Brown, a Miami mother whose son was the victim of gun violence in 2006 and who has mentored Fulton, said she and others do not want to take away guns from Americans but hope to "promote common sense gun laws."



Clinton praised the courage of Fulton and others who had suffered the loss of loved ones to gun violence or while in police custody.

"We have a moral obligation to protect our children no matter what zip code they live in," she said.


.........................


Clinton repeated her pledge to fight the powerful National Rifle Association lobby, saying "we will not be silenced, we will not be intimidated." .....................

.....................

Read more: http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/national-international/Hillary-Clinton-Trayvon-Martin-Foundation-380381721.html

---

Joel Auerbach
Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton speaks at the Trayvon Martin Foundation’s “Circle of Mothers” Gala at the Embassy Suites Hotel on Saturday in Fort Lauderdale. (AP Photo/Joel Auerbach)



Hillary Clinton: Donald Trump’s views on guns are ‘dangerous’


9:18 p.m. Saturday, May 21, 2016

Story Highlights
About 230 attend Circle of Mothers event
Money raised for Trayvon Martin Foundation

FORT LAUDERDALE — Saying “I will not pander to the gun lobby,” Hillary Clinton told about 230 members of Circle of Mothers that Donald Trump’s views on guns would bring “more hate and division to our streets.”

Trump’s ideas “are not just way out there, they are dangerous,” Clinton said at a Saturday night fundraiser for the Trayvon Martin Foundation.

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/news/local/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-views-on-guns-are-dan/nrRNP/


................Clinton has called for tighter restrictions on guns. She has not called for eliminating the right of Americans to own guns.




Hillary Clinton: Donald Trump’s views on guns are ‘dangerous’ photo


..................Clinton said most members of the NRA, and most of the American public, support background checks for the purchase of a gun.

“I want to protect the rights of responsible gun owners,” Clinton said................

[ucrdem]

1. She's ready.

Watch out NRA.

[pipoman]

16. Ready for what?

There is little left that hasn't been asked and answered by the courts. There will be no "assault weapon ban", no gun bans of any kind, there will be no waiting periods, there will be no roll back of concealed carry, there will be no expansion of things which disqualify from ownership....it is a dead horse...

[askeptic]

27. I agree. Dabbling around the edges is pretty well done

And I think the NRA is a straw man in the context of Hillary's speech.

It's going to take a Constitutional Amendment or a re-interpretation by the Supreme court. Since it is a Constitutional right as interpreted by the Supreme Court that specifically includes the phrase "shall not be infringed", you can pass law after unConstitutional law, and they'll all get struck down. Just like the law in DC was struck down for having to have a "good reason". Would we really apply that kind of logic to our other rights? Hillary seems to think that people's Constitutional rights can be removed by getting secretly entered onto the no-fly list. How do you get on it? What judicial orders do they have? If people on the list are really terrorists, arrest them! Charge them. extrajudicial processes are complete BS in a constitutional democracy.

So when I see someone who understands these simple facts, I see someone who doesn't pander on this issue. seeking economic justice will accomplish way more than attacking gun owners

[Thinkingabout]

2. Trump is pandering to the NRA, now he brags about the number of guns he has.

Of course he tries to say Hillary is going to take away the guns and I bet there will be some fund raising by the NRA saying this lie.

[benEzra]

55. What if "the guns" are "assault weapons" and over-10-round magazines?

Those are "the guns" that gun owners are concerned about. You can't just threaten 50+ million people with prison for owning protruding rifle handgrips or post-1860 magazines and not expect some pushback, especially when rifles kill fewer people than bicycles. That stuff needs to be walked back, hard, IMO. The examples of Gore and Kerry vs. 2008 Obama should be instructive.

I was one of those who tried to influence the Kerry campaign in '04 to address the blind spots, but the campaign was too wrapped up in 1950's Field and Stream stereotypes to listen, and ended up pandering to caricatures instead of addressing real concerns.

[Thinkingabout]

57. Who is threatening anyone about guns except for those saying falsely "they gonna take your guns

Away"?

[benEzra]

60. Perhaps you haven't been following the gun control debate very closely,

but the #1 priority of the U.S. gun control lobby for the past 23 years has been to ban AR-15's and other small-caliber semiauto rifles, and all magazines holding over 10 rounds. A small handful of states (NY, CA, MD) have passed such bans, and their advocates promise to fight for them nationwide. I believe Senator Feinstein has introduced a ban bill every year for the past decade or two. Quite a few in the corporate media (and a few DLC'ers) have even gone so far as to endorse the "Australian model" of forced confiscation.

So, no, I don't think that concerns about rifle handgrip bans or over-10-round magazine bans are unfounded; I can link you to such laws already on the books in those states, and numerous bills filed at the Federal level to do just that.

And as I pointed out, Gore and Kerry both made banning "assault weapons" and over-10-round magazines a huge part of their campaigns, and it hurt them both badly among Dem and indie gun owners (Gore lost his own home state in '00 over that). And such ban proposals are even *less* popular now than they were then.

[Thinkingabout]

61. I have kept up with some, unable to discuss with those who are hard nosed believers there should

not be any gun restrictions so I do not engage. I have had several people tell me "they gonna take away your guns".

[benEzra]

62. I'm OK with some restrictions, and we do have quite a few.

I'm not OK with nonsensical restrictions that attack responsible ownership/use rather than misuse, and handgrip bans and magazine bans fall into that category, IMO.

[Thinkingabout]

63. Some people are not capable of having weapons in their possession, not everyone is capable of

driving. The Charleston shooter comes to mind, someone who was not capable of gun ownership.

[benEzra]

64. If gun control advocates would stop trying to ban the guns in people's gun safes,

and propose only laws narrowly tailored to address criminal misuse without hindering lawful ownership and use, then this issue would be a lot less controversial, I think.

[Thinkingabout]

66. I have ask before, what do we need to do in order to stop the gun violence, I have not

Seen a responsible answer yet.

[benEzra]

68. Well, we've reduced gun homicides by 50% and gun accidents by 95% already,

and our suicide rate is comparable to Australia's and most of Europe's, most years (and far below Japan's). But since you're speaking of "where do we go from here", I think that question is made a lot more complicated by the current Holy War against responsible gun ownership.

When I first started posting on DU back in 2004-2005, I (naively) floated a few proposals that I thought might could be a productive middle ground between gun owners and gun control advocates, such as universal background checks (with felony criminal penalties to prevent compiling a registry or other misuse), a tax credit for the purchase of UL-listed gun safes, etc. But in the past four years, I've seen compromises such as those I once advocated, as well as prior compromises by gun owners, wielded as weapons against the lawful and nonviolent. The result is mistrust of all such proposals by lawful gun owners, and I doubt that mistrust will abate until the fundamentalists currently running the gun control lobby are replaced by pragmatists who look for common ground instead of talking points and rhetorical cheap shots.

To me, it appears that the current leadership of the gun control movement isn't so much interested in reducing gun violence, as it is interested in criminalizing ownership by the nonviolent, at least those of the working class and middle class. When the people pushing "mandatory training" or "safe storage" or "universal background checks" are simultaneously talking about compiling registries, banning and confiscating the most popular guns, and outlawing self-defense, it undermines even some good-faith proposals that might have merit.

I think universal background checks might be do-able, still, but the proposals currently being pushed aren't about background checks so much as they are about registration and petty harassment (e.g. making it a crime to share a gun with your life partner even if they have a clean record, or to introduce new shooters to the shooting sports at anywhere but a formal range). And in the context of the current culture war, I see little interest on either side in crafting a compromise. Even my idea about a tax credit for gun safes would inevitably be twisted by the prohibitionists into a requirement that all guns be unloaded and locked away at all times, and in that environment no such proposals are really viable.

[Thinkingabout]

69. To be very honest, I used my guns as hunting assistances, I don't care how often I need to

register my gun. In most states they require hunting license, give tags for deer and alligators, etc, then what is the problem with registering the gun used in hunting them? Unless a person is not supposed to have a gun such as felons or those who would not pass a background check, where is the harassment? The story I hear from one of my neighbors was Obama was going to take away the guns, he hasn't. We still have 80 people a day dying from gun violence, we can do better.

[benEzra]

72. The problem with registration in the current environment

is that the same people pushing registration are simultaneously pushing bans and confiscation of the most popular civilian rifles, e.g. small-caliber semiautos like AR-15's, and bans/confiscation of over-10-round magazines. As long as gun control advocates are fighting to criminalize possession of various guns or magazines by the noncriminal and nonviolent, then registration will be seen as simply a means to that end.

A look at the legislative history of registration in the USA bears that out; pretty much the only thing gun registration of Title 1 guns has ever been used for in this country is eventual confiscation, such as NYC's registration and subsequent confiscation of "assault weapons" in the 1990s, California's post facto SKS confiscation and their recent moves toward over-10-round magazine confiscation, the litany of "assault weapon" and magazine confiscation bills introduced in Congress annually, the NY SAFE Act, etc. etc., so it's not a far-fetched concern. The gun control lobby has been fighting to take "assault weapons" and magazines from their lawful owners for over half my life, so providing them a list of who owns what in that context is certainly going to raise legitimate concerns.

FWIW, felons and others who can't legally possess guns are exempt from registration requirements, per the U.S. Supreme Court (Haynes v. U.S., 1968) under the Fifth Amendment. So the only people who can be prosecuted for failure to register a gun are people who aren't prohibited from possessing a gun.

[Thinkingabout]

73. As long as weapons like AR-15's and ones capable of 10 round and over are used in mass shootings

then there will be an effort to remove them. Those interested should get the owners under control and stop the mass shootings so the attention will not be placed on those weapons.

[benEzra]

74. What if we got mass shootings with rifles down to European levels?

Because that's where we're at right now. And *all* murders using modern-looking rifles average out to about 2 to 4 per state, per year (100-200 total) out of ~12,000 murders annually. The media plays up rifle murders and plays down handgun/shotgun murders because "ZOMG MENACE!!!" stories sell page views, but rifles of any type are not a significant crime problem in the United States and never have been.

Murder, by State and Type of Weapon, 2014 (FBI Uniform Crime Reports, 2014)

[font face="courier new"]Total murders...................... 11,961
Handguns............................ 5,562 (46.5%)
Firearms (type unknown)............. 2,052 (17.2%)
Clubs, rope, fire, etc.............. 1,610 (13.5%)
Knives and other cutting weapons.... 1,567 (13.1%)
Hands, fists, feet.................... 660 (5.5%)
Shotguns.............................. 262 (2.2%)
Rifles................................ 248 (2.1%) [/font] (including modern-looking rifles, traditional-looking rifles, and rimfires)

I'd encourage you to go to that FBI link and compare the Rifles column for each state to the other columns (including knives and fists/feet). The thing is, even if we got "assault weapon" murders down to zero, fundamentalists like Bloomberg and Watts would still be trying to outlaw them. Because they are also trying to ban large-caliber precision rifles, even though they have been used in exactly zero U.S. murders in the last 25 years.

But if you want to know where the "they want to take our guns" sentiment comes from, it's the "assault weapon" hysteria and magazine bans. AR-15's and over-10-round pistols are the most popular civilian firearms in the United States, and anyone advocating banning them is advocating taking tens of millions of guns and maybe half a billion magazines from 50+ million people, including me and tens of millions of other Dems and indies. Such bans are simply not going to happen outside of a few extremist states, but the mere attempt to enact them drives opposition to all gun control proposals. You can't say "no one is trying to take your guns" when in fact some very powerful 0.01%'ers are trying very, very hard to do just that, and have passed actual confiscatory bans in some states.

[Thinkingabout]

75. Here is a problem, yesterday in Houston a guy decided it was time to shoot his A-15, he shot at a

guy just sitting in a vehicle, he shot and killed one person, he shot at police vehicles, he shot at HPD helicopter flying overhead. This is a good reason why AR-15's are a problem, the people who possess them do not have control of their emotions and can not control their desire to shoot the weapon. This is why there is an effort to get the mass shootings stopped. He was killed but it does not bring back the guy who is dead. There could have been more killed, luckily either he was a poor shot or there wasn't anyone else around.

[benEzra]

76. The guy in Houston killed 1 person with a pistol and 0 people with an AR-15, yes?

"Here is a problem, yesterday in Houston a guy decided it was time to shoot his A-15, he shot at a guy just sitting in a vehicle, he shot and killed one person, he shot at police vehicles, he shot at HPD helicopter flying overhead. "

And he didn't kill *anybody* with an AR-15. He killed one person using a pistol. This proves that rifles are more misused than pistols, how?

I refer you back to the FBI Uniform Crime Reports, upthread. Rifles are the *least* misused of all weapons in this country. And handgrip shape doesn't affect likelihood of misuse.

"This is a good reason why AR-15's are a problem, the people who possess them do not have control of their emotions and can not control their desire to shoot the weapon."

"The people who possess them" are some of the least likely people in the country to misuse a gun. There are approximately 8000 murders with guns annually; AR-15's account for maybe 100, despite being the most popular civilian rifle in U.S. homes.

BTW, you're talking to one of "the people who possess them". I'm a competitive shooter, and there is a Rock River AR with a Wilson target barrel in my gun safe.

"This is why there is an effort to get the mass shootings stopped."

And turning the country into a police state in order to get rid of 20 million rifle handgrips that stick out, or confiscating up to a half a billion over-10-round magazines from 50+ million citizens, won't prevent a single death from mass shootings. Nor will restricting guns to 10- or 15-round magazines. The worst mass shooting in U.S. history (Virginia Tech) involved two small pistols and a backpack full of small magazines.

An AR-15 is a small-caliber (centerfire .22), non-automatic civilian rifle. Even if you waved a magic wand and caused all small-caliber rifles to disappear from the earth, you would not have affected mass shootings even in the slightest. And making it a felony to possess a protruding handgrip (which is all "assault weapon bans" would do) won't either.

[Thinkingabout]

77. The only reason why more did not die is because he missed, and even if the one died as a result of

Gun fire from a pistol it is still gun violence. I do not accept deaths or injuries from guns, zip, zilch, nada. I dont care what kind of weapon was used.

[benEzra]

78. If I am understanding you correctly, then...

you do in fact advocate taking some guns away from the innocent and nonviolent---even from tens of millions of households---in the name of public safety, if some minuscule percentage of guns are misused (and all are to some degree, though rifles like the AR-15 are less misused than shotguns and pistols).

You were wondering at the beginning of this conversation why gun owners feel that some people want to take their guns away. Well, there you go.

FWIW, I've passed an NC background check, Federal background check, FBI fingerprint check, mental health records check, attended mandatory gun training, and have 30 years' shooting experience, including shooting well under stress. I would respectfully suggest that taking my guns away would not improve public safety one iota. And it is precisely the attempt to take guns from the peaceable and nonviolent that drives such opposition to gun control proposals, and that has pushed U.S. gun sales to record levels in the past several years.

[Thinkingabout]

79. Did I say that, no.

[benEzra]

80. I apologize for misconstruing your position, then.

I took this comment as a defense of efforts to ban AR-15's, but I apparently misread your point:

"This is a good reason why AR-15's are a problem, the people who possess them do not have control of their emotions and can not control their desire to shoot the weapon. This is why there is an effort to get the mass shootings stopped."

I can thin of a few ways to address mass shootings, in terms of reducing motive and reward, addressing mental-health issues, making potential targets less vulnerable, and ensuring countervailing force is on site where large numbers of people are.

Where I disagree with the gun-control lobby is that I realize that we've already banned mass-area-effect weapons like machineguns and destructive devices, and that all that is left to ban are ordinary one-shot-at-a-time civilian small arms owned by millions of citizens. Those trying to "stop mass shootings" by outlawing civilian guns and common magazines are chasing a red herring, and perhaps do not realize just how counterproductive it is to threaten fifty million nonviolent and peaceable citizens with felonies for responsibly exercising a civil right.

[Thinkingabout]

81. There are many good sensible capable gun owners, there are some who

Will never be one of those. I ask again, why doesn't the good, sensible, capable gun owners realize we have a problem and work to stop the incapable people from having guns in their possession? We need sensible gun laws. When you say why prevent the good from having the weapons, I ask why the deaths and injured, where is their right to life, liberty and happiness? Why are the families of victims denied the ability to have their loved ones? Stop the deaths by gun violence and there will not be a problem.

[Old Union Guy]

3. I'd like to know more about the Trayvon Martin Foundation.

That caught my interest.

[riversedge]

25. ]Circle Of Mothers Restoration Weekend

I posted this earlier.....

http://trayvonmartinfoundation.org/circleofmothers/
Save The Date
Circle Of Mothers Restoration Weekend

May 20 - 22, 2016

Embassy Suites, 1100 SE 17th St, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316
Circle Of Mothers

Ms. Sybrina Fulton established the Circle of Mothers as a way to empower women who have experienced the loss of a child, especially due to gun violence. The Circle is supported by a network of individuals and companies with a unified vision of a world free of senseless killings. Members of this national network have dedicated their time and resources in assisting affected mothers reconcile, heal, empower, and fellowship toward personal restoration and ultimately community building.
Empowering Mother's of Gun Violence Victims
Leadership

Local chapters comprised of Support Mothers, who are charged with organizing interventions for affected mothers and their families.

Support

Providing financial, emotional and technical assistance to families affected by senseless gun violence through the Trayvon Martin Foundation’s Marion Evans Memorial Fund.

Guidance

Implementing strategic events and activities designed to reinforce healing, restoration, and support for affected mothers and their families across the United States.

Healing

Hosting an annual Circle of Mothers Restoration Weekend and National Conference to assist mothers in facilitating the healing process resulting in improved self-managing and coping skills.

[Old Union Guy]

31. Thanks. n/t

[daa]

4. This just isn't a vote getting issue

Ask Al Gore about W VA and his home state Tenn.

[SecularMotion]

7. That's a NRA myth

The Myth Of NRA Dominance Part III: Two Elections The NRA Did Not Win

And when one looks for actual evidence that the gun issue cost Gore more votes than it gained him, one comes up empty. Few scholars have performed a quantitative analysis of the role of guns in the vote of 2000, though one study examining a range of policy issues determined that the gun issue gave Gore a small advantage on election day. The argument from those who believe that the gun issue was decisive and worked against Gore usually amounts to little more than the fact that Gore lost some states where there are many pro-gun voters. This argument presumes that there were no areas in which Gore’s position on guns helped him win a state he might otherwise have lost. But Gore won swing states like Pennsylvania, Michigan, Minnesota and Iowa largely on his strength among urban and suburban voters, who are more likely to support restrictions on guns.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/02/22/430560/the-myth-of-nra-dominance-part-iii-two-elections-the-nra-did-not-win/

[daa]

44. Tell it to Al Gore - it cost him the presidency. No myth, fact. Nt

[rockfordfile]

33. As a Democratic voter of course it's a voting issue.

[stonecutter357]

5. K&R!

[greatlaurel]

6. Hillary Clinton is absolutely correct about the gun issue. Gun marketing brings death to all.

This is not just an issue for black families. Rural white young men are dying in record numbers from guns. The gun marketing schemes are bringing death to all. The gun industry does not care about their marks just their bottom line.

[pipoman]

17. where is this info?

" Rural white young men are dying in record numbers from guns."

I haven't read anything about any increase in that demographic....do you have a link?

[beastie boy]

20. Here you go:

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2015/03/the-growing-risk-of-suicide-in-rural-america/387313/

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/08/the-states-with-the-most-gun-laws-see-the-fewest-gun-related-deaths/448044/

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/magazine-features/guns-and-suicide-the-hidden-toll/

http://www.cfr.org/society-and-culture/us-gun-policy-global-comparisons/p29735

Enjoy the read!

[greatlaurel]

28. Here are some links. It would be more clear if the CDC had the funding to collect and analyze data.

http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2015/03/09/391830825/for-young-people-in-rural-areas-suicide-poses-a-growing-threat

"Suicide is the third leading cause of death for adolescents and young adults, and those who live in rural areas are especially at risk.

For young people between the ages of 10 and 24, the suicide rates in rural areas are nearly double those of urban areas, according to a study published Monday in JAMA Pediatrics. And that disparity is growing.

The study, which analyzed data from 1996-2010, also found over half of the young people who killed themselves during that time period themselves had used a gun. And the rates for suicide by firearm were especially high in rural areas — about three times the rates for urban areas."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2015/03/09/the-suicide-rate-for-young-people-is-much-higher-in-rural-areas/

http://www.bradycampaign.org/sites/default/files/Truth-About-Suicide-Guns.pdf

http://www.explainthatstuff.com/suicideinyoungpeople.html

"One simple explanation for the discrepancy is that men pick more violent methods of suicide and therefore succeed much more often than women, even though they make far fewer attempts: death by gunshot is the most common suicide method for men, while poisoning is the (much less effective) method chosen by most women. [12] (Having a gun in the home carries a "significantly greater risk" of someone using it to commit suicide, no matter what type of gun or how safely it's stored. [13])"

[CompanyFirstSergeant]

38. This is a suicide/mental health issue...

...as much, if not more than, a firearms issue.

The suicides I have known of (in my community) have all been hangings.

And I live in one of the highest per capita gun ownership counties in the US.

[pipoman]

43. suicide?

Has nothing to do with guns. People commit suicide for many reasons, nobody commits suicide because they have/see/own a gun...nobody. No, guns don't cause murder or suicide.

It is time to quit flogging this dead horse...hopefully this is just posturing for the tiny, vocal gun control contingent of the Democratic party and she will forget she ever said it during the general campaign...

[Spacedog1973]

45. Wrong

Its a well known fact that guns lead to more successful suicides. A moment of grief can become permanent when in possession of a gun. In countries and places where guns are not as freely available, people will use other means in an attempt to commit suicide. Often unsuccessfully, enabling support and recovery from the mindset that made them suicidal. A gun offers no second chance.

“Studies show that most attempters act on impulse, in moments of panic or despair. Once the acute feelings ease, 90 percent do not go on to die by suicide.”

David Hemenway, Ph.D., Professor of Health Policy

[pipoman]

46. Silly

"A moment of grief can become permanent when in possession of a gun."

It becomes permanent every single day not because of possession of a hank of rope, or a car, or a tall structure, or a hair dryer and tub of water, or perscription of pills, or.... you get the idea....it becomes permanent because of someone's desire to kill themselves.period.

Surviving a suicide attempt is a disaster a good share of the time...it isn't what it is cracked up to be....A good share of failed suicides are half-hearted attempts which are a cry for help...people who choose guns are serious about ending their lives..

Bottom line is that if all guns went away tomorrow the same people who are going to commit suicide attempt suicide...how about treating the cause? You cannot remove all of the tools or affect the numbers in any way by taking tools...

[Spacedog1973]

47. I'm not sharing my opinion only

But one backed up by statistics. Your theory is just an opinion. Try matching it to studies on the issue which tends to add weight to what as the saying goes about assholes and opinions = everyone has one.

[pipoman]

48. Explain the gun free suicide capital of the world...

No, the links are fantasies if gun controlers pretending to be scientific....

[Spacedog1973]

49. Not sure why you think it necessary to change the subject

We are discussing how gun use increases the suicide rate. Now you want to talk about a 'suicide capital of the world'. Did you think that what I meant was that the more guns = more suicides? So that the country with the most guns = the country with the most suicides and the country with the least guns would also be the country with the least suicides?

This black and white thinking is increasingly prevalent for some reason.

Let me spell it out - more guns = easier access to a tool that makes suicide successful. That should not be controversial. Why deny it? Its factual. This is statistics. Call it science if you want to.

Now, you are arguing that countries with higher guns or lower gun ownership, may have numbers that are dissimilar to my assertion. We are then venturing into different cultures with different values, - as one example; a person (from a different culture/Country) may commit suicide because he is unable to have children, or is homosexual, or is disabled. Either one of those issues make it almost impossible to function within the culture they are in. Having a firearm would also place that individual within a subset of their culture that is financially secure, that would mitigate disablement, or inability to have children or even homosexuality. There may also be things that are more easily accessible for a poor person to commit suicide than having a firearm, i.e jumping into a river, running into the forest with no provisions, overdosing on imported drugs..

My point is, when you try to move the argument to other countries, you then encounter variable that don't apply to the US, or some other western countries.

I did a brief check on the top rates of suicide and they are almost all, poor and developing countries or those that have experienced significant turmoil http://www.worldatlas.com/articles/countries-with-the-most-suicides-in-the-world.html. Obviously, comparing the US with developing countries is pointless.

Within the states (the area in which the conversation was supposed to be based upon) a combination of factors come into play as is elsewhere; Poverty has a high correlation with suicide (and the causes of poverty such as war) in addition to the ownership of firearms;

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

As in my previous comment, I used a link from Harvard. Although you may scoff at it, you won't have any information that would challenge its conclusions.

So there we are. Your opinion, vs my 'science'.

[pipoman]

50. Only the ridiculous believe

"gun use increases the suicide rate." The only groups saying any such thing is control groups. Nobody with a grasp on reality has said any such lie.

Let me spell it out - more guns = easier access to a tool that makes suicide successful.

Let me spell it out - failed suicides are brain damaged vegetable makers. Anyone who is intent on killing themselves will use a method known for success. Only the silly think the first move in reducing suicide is tool elimination....or that tool elimination is even vaguely plausible.

Guns have nothing to do with who or how many wish to commit suicide.

[Spacedog1973]

52. 'Only the' [fill in insult here] believe'

You said:

Only the ridiculous believe

This is like one of those ufo boards where people ridicule those with other views backed up by available evidence by stating that 'only (insult) believe' - and here you are. Congrats.

And then you go on to describe failed suicides as 'brain damaged vegetable makers' completely failing to understand the various ways in which people try to commit suicide unsuccessfully. This discounts bridge jumpers, wrist slashers, pill takers, car fume sniffers, - actually, I think the survivors of attempted suicides more than likley go on to lead successful and happy lives with no sign of clinical brain damage at all. But you don't have any information to back your assertion up. Naturally.

You said:

Only the silly think

Reducing tools that help in suicide reduce the risk of suicide by that tool. This is basic logic. If some people killed themselves with egg cups and you removes egg cups, there would be less suicides by egg cups. Denying this is, to use your words 'ridiculous and silly'.

'Tool elimination' is another goal post moved. Because its impossible to remove all guns, there is no point to this as an issue. This isn't even the same conversation. You may continue the argument of whether guns can be removed or not with someone who wishes to have that conversation.

You said:

Guns have nothing to do with who or how many wish to commit suicide.

And you would have nothing to get worked up about if that was true.

[pipoman]

54. Nice dodge....writing a book about nothing in response to facts...

Are you still claiming, "gun use increases the suicide rate"?

If so I will leave you in your fog of brady lies...

A good share of people who "attempt suicide" have absolutely no intention at all of accomplishing suicide. They use methods which are easy to miss with like OD, ineffective wrist slashing, etc. They are crying out for help, suffering from some mental illness, or attention grabbing. People who shoot themselves in the head intend to kill themselves every time, unlike those methods mentioned above.

The country with the highest suicide rate in the world is a gun free society. Zero are gun suicides. So yes, only complete idiots believe that removing one tool will have any effect at all on suicide numbers. Further, if an adult chooses to end their life, who are you to tell them they can't use the most effective tool to accomplish that?

Keep dreaming and pretending and maintaining status quo. Guns are not going anywhere, as long as that is true you and other gun control advocates can avoid the actual causes of murder and suicide.

[Spacedog1973]

58. You missed your own point

I agree that a lot of people attempting suicide are crying out for help and don't intend to die. It is also for many a momentary lapse in critical thinking, emotion taking sway over them for a period.

Guns make momentary lapses permanent. I've said this, I know you are not stupid enough to not know this by the way you switch subject, by your vitriolic attitude as you fight out from your corner.

But at the end of the day, you aren't really interested in a solution, nor care about facts. You just want your guns and fuck anyone else.

[Kang Colby]

65. You missed the point. Because you are wrong.

Suicide is rarely a spur of the moment decision. Generally speaking, suicides are thought out weeks in advance. That's not my opinion.

http://www.befrienders.org/warning-signs

[TeddyR]

59. Japan has a much higher suicide rate

Than the US yet almost no private guns.

[BootinUp]

8. K & R

[Omaha Steve]

9. Evolved again?

Paid for by Hillary Clinton for POTUS 2008

[TipTok]

12. Like a Pokémon or something...

Hillary Clinton used opinion polls...

It was super effective!

[Crepuscular]

10. Losing issue politically

Might be effective for raising some campaign funding but it will be a losing issue politically in battleground states like Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin & Michigan this fall.

Instead of just talking in generalities, which law specifically is she suggesting that would have prevented Trayvon Martins death?

[TipTok]

13. The controller crowd doesn't have any interest...

... In those sort of details

[madville]

32. There aren't any viable gun laws that would have prevented it

In Florida especially. Florida is not going to ban handguns or overturn their concealed carry laws anytime soon. The gun was legally owned and purchased. It fell under traditional self-defense laws so "stand-your-ground" wasn't an issue. There wasn't a way to prevent that tragedy through Constitutional gun laws is the answer to your question.

[Sunlei]

11. The NRA rose hand in hand with the KKK. Both 'Gangs' haven't done anything to benefit people.

[CompanyFirstSergeant]

34. That's nonsense.

The NRA was first formed to teach marksmanship skills.

America had always relied on a very small standing army and a large group of potential recruits (citizen/soldiers) who had very poor shooting skills.

[Uponthegears]

14. It would be nice

If Secretary Clinton could talk more about Trayvon Martin, Eric Garner, Michael Brown, Sandra Bland being the victims of institutional racism instead of the victim of guns.

Of course, that would require her to stand up against the tens of millions of white folks who believe that the justice system in this country is anything more than a perpetuation of the plantation system and that each of these VICTIMS lives were ended because that is exactly what the justice system is designed to do. THAT would require her to confront the fact that the bloodbath of gun violence in this country has more to do with the tens of millions of white folks who firmly believe the racist myth that they are at such risk from the imaginary hordes of "those people" roaming their suburban enclaves that they need to purchase a weapon for self protection.

All the waiting periods, background checks, assault weapons bans, etc. in the world are not going to erase the hundreds of millions of weapons introduced into the stream of commerce by people who have legally purchased them for no reason whatsoever other than their (perhaps even unrecognized) acceptance of the meme that they are at risk from "those people." They are Band-Aids covering the festering sores of a society infected with the disease of "us vs. those who have less than us"

When it comes to weapons and 90+% of America, ALL hands are the WRONG hands.

[CompanyFirstSergeant]

37. "When it comes to weapons and 90+% of America"

So you are saying that only 10 percent of the American people are somehow, according to your criteria, worthy of the ability to defend one self?

That the remainder are to be rendered defenseless?

"for no reason whatsoever"

You must be lucky, for you live in a crime free bubble.

I have news for you, the rest of us do not.

the bloodbath of gun violence in this country

Also a newsflash - crime has been dropping steadily since the 1990s, along with the increased availability of right-to carry laws in many states. Only a small handful of jurisdictions nationwide do not make concealed carry licenses available for regular citizens.

"us vs. those who have less than us"

Utter nonsense. Concealed handgun licensees have a lower violent crime rate than any demographic in the nation, including police officers.

They are of all walks of life, of all religions, nationalities, skin tones, etc. You would be surprised who is legally packing heat out there, and it's no more or less likely to be a white male than anyone else.

[Uponthegears]

39. Well you hit almost all the "self-defense" talking points in one post

Let's look at them

"the rest are to be rendered defenseless"

Well that certainly is dramatic, but what I said is that the risk of becoming victims of third-party violent crime faced by the white suburbanites who are LEGALLY introducing hundreds of millions of guns (mostly handguns) into the stream of commerce does not justify purchasing a weapon. Let me extend that remark just a bit. The risk that a white suburbanite will become the victim of violent crime at the hands of a third person is less than the risk that they will die as a result of gun suicide, gun accident, gun-facilitated domestic violence, combined with the additional risk that another person will die because a person has more-easily obtained a weapon for criminal purposes due to the fact of the increased availability of guns created by the increased supply of guns in the stream of commerce. That's a fact. Get over it. (Oh, in response to your absolutist straw man of the "crime free bubble, let me add that I am not saying suburbs are "crime free." I am saying that their crime rate is so low that their risk of non-natural death increases when they bring a gun home from the local gun shop.)

"crime has been dropping steadily with increased gun sales"

Another popular pro-self-protection meme. Unfortunately, the connection has proven not just false, but outright fraudulent. The book "More Guns Less Crime" has turned out to be the greatest example of political fiction in history. Crime rates have dropped for many reasons . . . the prevalence of carry laws is not one of them.

"utter nonsense"

Here's a little test, statistically, European countries with lax criminal laws, strict limitations on gun ownership AND an absence of an equivalent of the American slave trade and the still-persistent pernicious effects which continue to this day, have much lower murder rates (and, even though I will not get into the semantic of game gun aficionados like to pull when the subject comes up, lower violent crime rates) . . . with out using any racially-tinged terms like "homogenous societies" tell me why.

Finally, I have no problem with people who actually live where there is a REAL risk of violent crime buying guns for self-protection, BUT that isn't who is scarfing up weapons like they were Skittles. It's the same people who fled our cities, built white suburbs and schools, and sit in NEAR total safety lamenting how "those people" are out to rob and kill them.

[CompanyFirstSergeant]

40. White suburbanite...

What's with the white suburbanites???

Everyone is buying guns.

I was in Oklahoma, and stopped into a store in a mid-size city. Turned out to be a predominately black area, and guys were open carrying all over the place.

My wife finally broke me free of a group of guys - we would have chatted into all hours of the evening. Guns, holsters, bullets, we tried to cover all the usual topics in such a short time...

The suburbs are definitely not crime free (although I don't live in the suburbs) but my very rural county has as low a violent crime rate as many European nations we all admire.

We are AWASH IN GUNS up here. 7 guns per man, woman and child.

The only gun problems I am aware of are knucklehead suburbanites who do not carry every day shooting each other during hunting season, mostly out of a lack of familiarity with the firearms.

This is not Europe.

Like the old lady said when the Trooper asked why she had so many guns in her car..."Ma'am, what are you afraid of...?"

"I'm not afraid of a fucking thing."

[bulloney]

18. Trump told the NRA convention that Clinton wants to abolish the 2nd Amendment.

Of course, the cretins, knuckledraggers and mouth breathers at the event lapped it all up.

And the NRA, by endorsing Trump despite his spotty and inconsistent record on gun control, proves once again that the NRA is just a bunch of RW radicals who only endorse Republicans for POTUS and make shit up about the Democratic candidate to rile up their members.

By the way, I don't know anyone who has had their guns taken away despite NRA threats that Obama would do so. He only has about 7 months left in his presidency, so he better hurry up if it's true.

[CompanyFirstSergeant]

35. "cretins, knuckledraggers and mouth breathers"

How despicably nasty.

No, the NRA does not only endorse Republicans.

That is utter nonsense.

The NRA issues questionnaires to politicians about their views on many sub-issues in the 'gun control' debate.

This, along with their voting record (if they have held office) results in an NRA rating, and possibly an endorsement.

Many Democrats have been endorsed by the NRA.

Your post is offensively inaccurate.

[bulloney]

41. If you'd read my post, I said endorsements have only been for POTUS.

When was the last time the NRA endorsed a Democrat for POTUS?

[CompanyFirstSergeant]

42. I don't know.

But what I do know is that the 'banners' or ban-ners or whatever (the control people) always throw in those weird references.

Ya-hoo, gun-nuts, red necks, knucke draggers, extremists...etc, etc.

I have not seen ONE pro-gun person here on DU call a non-gun person a 'milquetoast' or a 'namby pamby' or a 'lily liver' or anything like that.

We just don't do that.

[billhicks76]

19. Yawn

Pandering opportunist who didn't hesitate to lock up hundreds of thousands of Trayvons for victimless crimes. You should lock this thread for excessive BS. Pathetic. Trying to exploit true suffering for political gain. Hillary doesn't give a crap and we all know it. Those of us with a conscience at least. She should go sip champagne with her best friends the Bush Family. And please don't whine because you're ignorant of their special relationship

[riversedge]

51. Your post is pathetic. Trump would love for you to post for him IMHO

[Democat]

53. You and Trump are both bashing the Democratic Party?

Meanwhile Clinton is speaking out against gun violence.

[The Wizard]

22. Why is Trump pandering to the Yahoos?

He's already got their votes. The NRA is probably "donating" to his campaign.

[riversedge]

26. networking is what he was doing there. And the free media last few days.

[Surya Gayatri]

23. Excellent OP. Thanks for posting. K & R.

[SidDithers]

29. DU rec...nt

Sid

[patsimp]

30. Was Bernie there to show his support for the black community and his support for gun control

[CompanyFirstSergeant]

36. Supporting the Black community

...and supporting gun control are two entirely different issues.

All human beings have the innate right to defend their lives and lives of loved ones.

Regardless of skin color.

[LannyDeVaney]

56. I saw the subject and though "Surely, this is an issue we can all agree on" ...

Well, obviously not. I guess hate trumps common sense and decency.

[Kang Colby]

67. I believe Hillary will tone down the anti-gun rhetoric prior to the GE.

She saw an opportunity to differentiate herself from Sanders and she took it. It's just smart politics.

Plus, as a true pro rights guy myself...Hillary's rhetoric helps us fundraise and sell firearms.

[Paladin]

70. So who are you voting for?

Extra points for an honest response.

[Kang Colby]

71. I voted for Clinton in the primary,

and will vote for her in the GE.

Overall, she is good for gun rights expansion and industry sales.