Gun Control & RKBA
Related: About this forumGun Control Bill Shot down in monteplier
A push to ban assault weapons in Vermont has been shelved. Sen. Phil Baruth, D-Chittenden County, introduced the bill earlier this month. It would have banned assault-style weapons and capped the number of rounds in a magazine to five.
Baruth says he was inspired to write the bill after the Connecticut school shootings. But now he says there is not enough support in the Statehouse or among Vermonters to pass it.
http://www.wcax.com/story/20637428/gun-control-bill-shot-down-in-montpelier
_____________
Another Gun Control Bill Dead
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
MotherPetrie
(3,145 posts)Human welfare takes a back seat to gun cuddling.
Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)from all the shootings up there. Oh wait, that's not right, Vermont, despite having some of the least restrictive gun laws in the country, has very few murders. In fact according to the FBI, of the EIGHT murders Vermont had in 2011, only four were committed with a firearm.
MotherPetrie
(3,145 posts)But, as always, where the NRA is concerned, gun cuddling rules and human life be damned.
Lurks Often
(5,455 posts)Because your response to me makes absolutely no sense.
rl6214
(8,142 posts)Most juvenile posts don't
krispos42
(49,445 posts)They're tied at the bottom with Hawaii and New Hampshire and stuff.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)Keep up the good work!
spin
(17,493 posts)but that organization only has 4.5 million members.
The real power is in the hands of the 80 million gun owners and the voting age members of their families. For years some politicians and the media have done their best to get strong gun control legislation to pass and failed miserably. Rather than admit that they failed, the media and the politicians are looking for a boogeyman to blame. The NRA fits that bill nicely.
Here's the problem you face ...
Anti-gun protesters march on NRA
By KEVIN ROBILLARD | 12/17/12 2:26 PM EST
A group of 75 gun-control activists marched on the NRA’s Washington, D.C., headquarters on Monday, denouncing the organization with chants of “Shame on the NRA!” and deeming it responsible for the thousands of Americans who die each year as a result of gun violence.
http://www.politico.com/story/2012/12/anti-gun-protesters-march-on-nra-85186.html
Record Line Outside Austin Gun Show
Huge Success Despite City Council Attempt to Shut Down Gun Shows
Infowars.com
January 26, 2013
With gun shows across the country drawing record crowds, it’s no surprise to find lines of 500 people plus at a time waiting to get inside with thousands more at the Saxet Gun Show, taking place this January 26 & 27 at the Travis County Expo Center in Austin, Texas.
This despite the fact that the Austin City Council, along with various county entities, have moved to try to shut down gun shows and even ban them from taking place on private property.
http://www.infowars.com/record-lines-outside-austin-gun-show/
Gun show in Orange County attracts thousands of weapons buyers
January 27, 2013 | 9:36 am
***snip***
Eager to have the pick of the litter, enthusiasts began lining up as early as 3 a.m. Saturday at the Orange County Fairgrounds, taking shelter from the rain under umbrellas and jackets. When Bob Templeton, owner and president of Crossroads of the West Gun Shows -- which stages events year-round in four western states -- arrived at 7 a.m., he described the mood as "upbeat," as if people were in a "party mood."
Although prepared for a strong show, he expressed surprise at the staggering number of people who came in the early hours of event. Having originally estimated a turnout of 15,000 people spread across Saturday and Sunday, he said it's likely the event will be the organization's largest show in 38 years, attracting between 22,000 and 24,000 people....emphasis added
After selling 1,300 eight-foot tables to between 200 and 300 vendors and experiencing "tremendous" online ticket sales, this event is poised to surpass the Phoenix gun show, he added, which has historically been the nation's largest.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2013/01/gun-show-orange-county.html
MotherPetrie
(3,145 posts)spin
(17,493 posts)The NRA exists because of gun owners. If there were no gun owners there would be no NRA.
That night be your dream but unfortunately you need to realize that gun owners are not going to go away anytime soon. If you figured out a way to bankrupt the NRA and put them out of business they would be replaced but other pro-gun rights organizations such as the GOA which are often far more conservative than the NRA.
One of the recent landmark decisions by the Supreme Court was District of Columbia v. Heller in 2008. interestingly the NRA was not interested in supporting the plaintiff in this case.
A Breakdown of DC v. Heller
A Closer Look at the Court's Landmark Second Amendment Ruling
From Ben Garrett
Background of D.C. v. Heller
The plaintiff in D.C. v. Heller was Dick Anthony Heller, a licensed special police officer in D.C. Heller was issued, and carried, a handgun as part of his job, but federal law prevented him from owning a handgun in his District of Columbia home.
Heller had unsuccessfully sought the National Rifle Association’s help with a lawsuit to overturn the D.C. gun ban after learning of the plight of fellow D.C. resident Adrian Plesha. Plesha was convicted and sentenced to probation and 120 hours of community service after shooting and wounding a man who was burglarizing his home in 1997. Although the burglar admitted to the crime, handgun ownership had been illegal in D.C. since 1976.
Though Heller was unsuccessful in convincing the NRA to take up the case, he connected with Cato Institute scholar Robert Levy. Levy planned a self-financed lawsuit to overturn the D.C. gun ban and hand-selected six plaintiffs, including Heller, to challenge the law.
Heller and his five co-plaintiffs — software designer Shelly Parker, the Cato Institute’s Tom G. Palmer, mortgage broker Gillian St. Lawrence, USDA employee Tracey Ambeau and attorney George Lyon — filed their initial lawsuit in February 2003.
http://civilliberty.about.com/od/guncontrol/a/DC-v-Heller-Gun-Control-Case.htm
The NRA didn't play the big role in the second recent SCOTUS decision on gun control.
McDonald v. Chicago
Supreme Court Ruling Confirms Individual Right to Keep and Bear Arms
From Ben Garrett
In McDonald v. Chicago, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled for the first time that the right to keep and bear arms extends to individuals in each of the 50 U.S. states. The landmark, 5-4 decision came on the heels of the D.C. v. Heller decision in 2008, another resounding victory in the nation’s highest court for gun owners.
Background
Nearly two years to the day before the Supreme Court handed down its ruling in McDonald v. Chicago, the high court issued its most important Second Amendment-related ruling in 70 years. In D.C. v. Heller, the Supreme Court confirmed that the right to keep and bear arms extends to individuals in federal enclaves, such as Washington, D.C., but did not address the right of states to restrict individual gun ownership.
Shortly after the Heller decision, 76-year-old Chicago retiree Otis McDonald and three other plaintiffs — Adam Orlov and David and Colleen Lawson — were selected to challenge the Windy City’s 1982 law banning handgun possession. The case was organized by Alan Gura, the Virginia attorney who argued the Heller case.
After setbacks in trial court and in the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, the Second Amendment Foundation appealed the McDonald case to the U.S. Supreme Court. Arguments were heard on March 7, 2010, and the court’s ruling was issued June 28, 2010, reversing the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision and dealing a fatal blow to Chicago’s 28-year gun ban....emphasis added
http://civilliberty.about.com/od/guncontrol/a/McDonald-v-Chicago.htm
So while the NRA is a powerful lobbying group it could disappear tomorrow and it would still be hard to pass another assault weapons ban.
rl6214
(8,142 posts)
Historic NY
(40,139 posts)but how many more Newtowns will it take.
I'm a gun owner & I carry one for 31 yrs.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)iiibbb
(1,448 posts)continue to write emotional legislation, gun control will continue to lose momentum.
As long as gun control continues to discount the legitimate reason people have guns, and demean gun owners it will lose momentum.
As long as the likes of Feinstein and Cuomo lead the charge, they will counter most of the NRA's crazy.
bluerum
(6,109 posts)Good on them.
Puha Ekapi
(594 posts)...in a very liberal state. What's not to like?
Lizzie Poppet
(10,164 posts)...of why "one size fits all" gun laws are a stupid idea, frankly. Why should states like Vermont have to accept "fixes" for problems they don't have?
I'm far from a vehement "states rights" type (frankly, I'd like to see the current over-large number of states dissolved into regional polities...and make those independent nations...but that's a matter for another discussion). But there are clearly matters best left to the states to determine.
Oneka
(653 posts)I'm sure they have some really really good reasons to score Vermont so low.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,784 posts) 
jimmy the one
(2,844 posts)lurksoften: .. Vermont, despite having some of the least restrictive gun laws in the country, has very few murders. In fact according to the FBI, of the EIGHT murders Vermont had in 2011, only four were committed with a firearm.
Yeah, with all Vermont's 630,000 residents (only wyoming has fewer), it's about the population of washington DC, but DC has 5,000 people per sq mile, vermont has 65. DC is 100% urban, vermont 32%, it's largest city burlington with 40,000 could fit in a 3 mile by 3 mile section of DC's 90 square miles.
.. this is a specious argument you make, as has the nra for the past 50 years.
Vermont has 67 people per sq mile as it's population density, and is 32% urban. Vermont is also 98% white so has negligible racial tensions.
Hawaii, guncontrol, has a population density of 215, & is 89% urban (honolulu), 39% asian, 22% white, 10% islanders, racial tensions not much a factor either.
Violent crime is far more a problem in densely populated urban areas, & less so in sparsely populated states.
There is NO comparable 'gun control' state which fits the category of 'sparsely populated' state, while progun states have about 9. Guncontrol states will be more urban, which in itself lends to more crime.
----------- popu....... crime .. violcr.. murd
haw 2011 ..1,374,810.. 3,625.0.. 287.2 .. 1.2 -- 89% urban
ver 2011 ....... 626,431 ..2,444.2 ..135.2 .. 1.3 -- 32% urban
wiki: The state capital is Montpelier, which has a population of 7,855 and is the least populated state capital in the country. Vermont's most populous city is Burlington, with a 2010 population of 42,417, which makes it the least populous "largest city of a state" in the United States. Burlington's metropolitan area is 211,261
Actually, North Dakota used to have half the violent crime rate as vermont does, but what happened in that VERY PRO GUN state of north dakota, with shall issue concealed carry for decades & few guncontrol laws whatsoever?
Murder rates & violent crime rates in PRO GUN North Dakota have TRIPLED in the last 8 years:
N Dakota.. popu .... crime ... violcr... murder rates -- 53% urban
NDak: 2004 636,308-- 2,051.1--- 87.7-- -- 1.3
........... 2011 683,932-- 2,183.7-- 247.0-- --- 3.5
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/ndcrimn.htm
MORE GUNS MORE LIES
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,784 posts)That's what we're used to hearing from you. 
sylvi
(813 posts)Since the rates tripled even though by your own numbers the population only increased around 7.48%.
Clames
(2,038 posts)According to the data submitted by N. Dakota to the FBI's UCR.
http://www.ag.nd.gov/Reports/BCIReports/CrimeHomicide/CrimeHomicide.htm
2004
Polulation: 634,500
Total Crime Index (per 100,000): 1956.2
Violent Crime "": 583
2011
Polulation: 683,932
Total Crime Index (per 100,000): 2014.5
Violent Crime "": 1,353
So let's start off with stating your failure of checking your sources. Secondly, your abject failure of attempting to attribute the increase in violent crimes with a pro-gun attitude (when the data proves that actual firearms crimes have not increased with the rate of violent crime and have actually remained exceptionally flat in terms of absolute numbers going back to 1999). Homicides where firearms were involved from 1992-2011 accounted for ~42% of the 225 total in that 19 year period which is far below the national average. So much fail jimmy...
jimmy the one
(2,844 posts)clames: What a load of crap.
So let's start off with stating your failure of checking your sources.
.. my sources check out close enough with your northdakota source. I suspect you don't understand the difference between a crime index & a crime rate.
(Later after checking) As well, you cited a violent crime index total, whereas I cited a crime index total which included property crime as well; then you evidently compared these two different indexes, likely the cause of your misguided 'load of crap' remark.
My source (disaster center, which is a valid source & uses fbi stats), on it's *index* table for 2004 has 558 violcrimes compared to your nd.gov with 583.
For 2011 the gap a bit higher: disaster ctr violcrime index 1689, nd.gov 1353.
So you see, the underlying figures are not that far off for 2004, with a wider discrepancy for 2011, but not to warrant 'a load of crap' since the state might include later additions or crimes not included by fbi (dunno).
ndgov: 2004Pop:634,500 Total{VIOL}CrimeIndex: 1,956.2 ViolCrime 583
disctr: 2004 ...... 636,308 ..Index incl PropertyCr.. 13,051.............558
ndgov: 2011 Pop: 683,932 TotalCrimeIndex 2,014.5 ViolCrime "": 1,353
disctr: 2011......... 683,932 ..............................14,935 ...................1,689
13,778 ndgov , 2011 crime index offense TOTAL
dis ctr crime index total was 14,935, close enough for dotgov work.
clames ndgov violcr rate 91.9 2004
As dis ctr peggd the violcrime rate at 87.7 for 2004
So I fail to see any cohesive argument you make from citing ndgov figures.
clames: Secondly, your abject failure of attempting to attribute the increase in violent crimes with a pro-gun attitude
I never made such an actual argument - I simply said ndakota was PRO GUN, which it is - what about more guns less crime?; & I've noted elsewhere that since the mid 90's when most other states have seen dramatic declines in violent crime rates, north dakota, a shall issue state, has seen it's violent crime rate TRIPLE, which it has. I made no cause & effect correlation. Only in pro gun states has violent crime rates INCREASED last 20 yrs.
(Note Pro gun states Montana, WVa, & SDakota have also seen about doubling of their violcrime rates in same time period, pro gun pennsy & guncontrol hawaii have remained at parity)>
clames: (when the data proves that actual firearms crimes have not increased with the rate of violent crime and have actually remained exceptionally flat in terms of absolute numbers going back to 1999).
Pls copy & paste the table for this, I searched your ndgov site but could not find a table with firearms data.
I suppose an apology & retraction, or at least expounding on your theories further, is due, but hardly expected.
Clames
(2,038 posts)Only pro-gun states have seen increased crime? Proof or more bullshit stats? The latter for sure. Yes, the relevant tables of data are on the link I provided but you will actualy have to read those documents to see that. That's your homework assignment and we'll see how you do later this afternoon. Anything above a "D" would be nice.
jimmy the one
(2,844 posts)clames: I cited the relevant information.
Post it then - what you cited I have rebutted as being either nearly the same as disaster center, or a different statistic (total crime index vs. violent crime index).
You haven't shown anything so far, except what I rebutted as being similar stats.
North Dakota violent crime rate has tripled since the mid 90's, what I said before stands & you haven't disproven anything.
Only pro-gun states have seen increased crime?
That's correct; since the mid 90's when the dramatic overall decline in violent crime rates began to drop nationally from their highest levels ever, about 4 states, all pro gun, have seen increased violent crime rates. West Virginia, Montana, Dakotas.
Proof or more bullshit stats? The latter for sure .. Yes, the relevant tables of data are on the link I provided but you will actualy have to read those documents to see that.
That's your homework assignment and we'll see how you do later this afternoon. Anything above a "D" would be nice
Try to act like an adult, you're on a public forum/group. Except for guns, we are supposedly on the same voting side, democrats, left, liberals, etc..
As I said I checked ndgov (before) for 15 minutes & searched 'firearms' but only came up with two results, neither of which was a table nor anything usable in what you contended. And I scanned down the pdf file but didn't see anything relative to firearms; it's incumbent upon you, to demonstrate your points, I can't prove a negative.
Actually I think ndgov likely has more accurate crime stats than the disaster center which uses fbi stats, ndgov might have added more since it's 'in house', which fbi hadn't counted.
Clames
(2,038 posts)You aren't even grown up enough to do simple research... Searched firearms? How lazy of you. Try actually reading even a handful of the some 20-odd individual source documents in the link I provided you. Took me less than a minute to find this:
http://www.ag.nd.gov/Reports/BCIReports/CrimeHomicide/MURDER11.pdf
Table 6
Weapons of Homicide
North Dakota, 1992 - 2011
I'll even help you by totaling firearms homicides for each respective year. This doesn't specify if any of these deaths where justified in terms of self defense by LEO's or civilians. I'll let you plug the numbers into a spreadsheet and fit a trend line. So far you are getting a "F" because I'm having to do your homework for you...
1992 8
1993 10
1994 3
1995 4
1996 7
1997 1
1998 3
1999 5
2000 3
2001 5
2002 2
2003 11
2004 5
2005 3
2006 1
2007 4
2008 0
2009 6
2010 7
2011 6
That's correct; since the mid 90's when the dramatic overall decline in violent crime rates began to drop nationally from their highest levels ever, about 4 states, all pro gun, have seen increased violent crime rates. West Virginia, Montana, Dakotas.
No source to cite? Until you do all you have is more crap. So what about Texas, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Alabama, Vermont, and dozens of other pro-gun states? You specifically stated "only pro-gun states" but apparently failed to understand that singling out four doesn't make your argument.
jimmy the one
(2,844 posts)clames: You aren't even grown up enough to do simple research... Searched firearms? How lazy of you. Try actually reading even a handful of the some 20-odd individual source documents in the link I provided you.
I'm not about to waste hours researching something which is incumbent upon you to either prove or disprove; To suggest that I devote time to scouring some '20 odd' source documents, in search of god knows what, is no real argument. You tapdance, is all.
clames: So much fail jimmy ... So far you are getting a "F" because I'm having to do your homework for you
.. how immature, getting an f from you or the nra is a badge of courage & honor.
.. you still haven't proved diddly squat, it's hard to rebut when you haven't presented anything but confirmation or corroboration to what I posted, & I try to avoid rebutting ad hominem with ad hominem.
clames: (when the data proves that actual firearms crimes have not increased with the rate of violent crime and have actually remained exceptionally flat in terms of absolute numbers going back to 1999).
It's possible, pls post a table or stats which prove this; it really doesn't matter tho, both your ndgov & disaster ctr stats show that violent crime rates doubled to tripled from 2004 to 2011, which was my point to begin with.
And here to finish, what was your point in posting this? Stats which are similar to what disaster center statistics? Did you confuse index with rates? as appears so?
What a load of crap. According to the data submitted by N. Dakota to the FBI's UCR.
2004 Polulation: 634,500
Total Crime Index (per 100,000): 1956.2 ... Violent Crime "": 583
2011 Polulation: 683,932
Total Crime Index (per 100,000): 2014.5 ...Violent Crime "": 1,353
clames: No source to cite? Until you do all you have is more crap.
I posted a source, disaster center which uses fbi stats; go to the bottom of the north dakota link & you will find a full list of states which you can clickon. Funny how you expect me to weed thru YOUR pdf links, but can't find a list of states right under your nose.
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/ndcrimn.htm
So what about Texas, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Alabama, Vermont, and dozens of other pro-gun states? You specifically stated "only pro-gun states" but apparently failed to understand that singling out four doesn't make your argument
This is stupid; singling out the 4 states which had substantive increases in violent crime rates from mid 90s to now, was the point of my argument. More guns doesn't mean less crime, in those 4 states.
Clames
(2,038 posts)Complaining that it would take hours to skim through that information when it really only takes minutes is sad commentary on you but also proves why anti-gun folks have failed and continue to fail. Firearms are obviously not the issue in North Dakota as the information I cite proves.
Cynicus Emeritus
(172 posts)Those at point driving gun control are typically wealthy, influential, well educated city folk with private security details that do not know the difference between a butt or a forearm. They aren't concerned about self defense because they use their pocket change (or our taxes) to pay for their own.
1. Parents with firearms in their home need to be held accountable and charged with a felony if their children gain access. If their children are known to have serious emotional problems firearms need to be restricted from the home.
2. Gun free zones are magnets for these types of ultimate bullies. Bullies go after those who can't or won't fight back. Eliminate GFZ.
3. Mass shootings that get all the media attention are repeated many times over every day in urban areas and they get no media attention. Typically they are carried out by individuals or gangs with illegal firearms in cities with gun restrictions. Urban people need to deal with these problems and those in non-urban areas will deal with theirs.
4. Much more needs to be done on these high profile mass shootings related to studying the shooters and their behavior history, use of drugs, video violence and how it fits together instead of focusing on guns.
5. Mental health needs to be addressed and funded instead of giving it only lip service. Suicides are another huge problem.
6. American youth are angry seeing our once thriving society given to the 1% and to wars instead of providing education and opportunities for the rest.
7. Hollywood has profited enormously by promoting a culture of violence. It is especially harmful to those impressionable under 21. It is time they pay the price and be sued big time, not to make individuals or attorney's rich, but to help fund mental health improvements to fix mental type problems related to violence that they've created. It's time that there is payback for the many years that they've been criminalizing their copyright protection on violence.
iiibbb
(1,448 posts)Those at point driving gun control are typically wealthy, influential, well educated city folk with private security details that do not know the difference between a butt or a forearm. They aren't concerned about self defense because they use their pocket change (or our taxes) to pay for their own.
1. Parents with firearms in their home need to be held accountable and charged with a felony if their children gain access. If their children are known to have serious emotional problems firearms need to be restricted from the home.
By the same logic, shouldn't parents be liable for anything felonious that a child does because they've failed to prohibit access to anything? Should parent's be criminally liable when their kids drink and drive? They should be charged with a felony?
2. Gun free zones are magnets for these types of ultimate bullies. Bullies go after those who can't or won't fight back. Eliminate GFZ.
Yes. But I think it is naive to think that these people still wouldn't target schools. They are usually looking for an impact... shooting up schools gets their names everywhere.
3. Mass shootings that get all the media attention are repeated many times over every day in urban areas and they get no media attention. Typically they are carried out by individuals or gangs with illegal firearms in cities with gun restrictions. Urban people need to deal with these problems and those in non-urban areas will deal with theirs.
I think gun issues are unique to location. I like concealed handgun licenses because it establishes a base set of rules. In my old state laws varied by municipality even. Unlicensed you never knew if you were breaking a law in a new place - even passing through. The rules governing the permit preempted the rules of a town. So I trade my relative anonymity for flexibility by getting registered. I really don't understand why gun control hates carry permits so much. These people get trained, vetted, and register themselves. They are poster children for gun control proposals.
4. Much more needs to be done on these high profile mass shootings related to studying the shooters and their behavior history, use of drugs, video violence and how it fits together instead of focusing on guns.
I think what will be found is that they fit a group of people where only a smaller percentage actually follow through. Then the problem will be similar to the movie "minority report" or the "no fly list" where people get their names on lists with no real way to get them off.
5. Mental health needs to be addressed and funded instead of giving it only lip service. Suicides are another huge problem.
Subsidized. The right is talking about how it's people with mental issues. Now is a great time to get them to put money out for it.
6. American youth are angry seeing our once thriving society given to the 1% and to wars instead of providing education and opportunities for the rest.
On the one hand I feel for them. On the other, everyone's got problems. I teach at a university. I can tell you that a high proportion of kids have shit attitudes about work ethics and think they deserve a high-power job right out of school. So I am ambivalent about the youth's feelings. Nothing has been easy/automatic for me.
7. Hollywood has profited enormously by promoting a culture of violence. It is especially harmful to those impressionable under 21. It is time they pay the price and be sued big time, not to make individuals or attorney's rich, but to help fund mental health improvements to fix mental type problems related to violence that they've created. It's time that there is payback for the many years that they've been criminalizing their copyright protection on violence.
They need to own it a little.
Cynicus Emeritus
(172 posts)I appreciate your taking the time to reply with thoughtful comments.