Vermonters support concealed carry permit for guns

[SecularMotion]

Vermont should require permits to carry a concealed weapon, according to more than half of voting Vermonters surveyed in a VTDigger/Castleton Polling Institute poll.

The poll found 57 percent of voters support changing Vermont’s concealed carry gun law. Thirty-nine percent do not and 4 percent declined to answer.

In Vermont, it is legal to carry a firearm openly or concealed without a permit. That law is one of several state statutes that make Vermont one of the most permissive states in the U.S. with respect to firearms.

Burlington voters earlier this year passed three local laws that restrict firearms ownership. The state Legislature opted not to approve those local laws this session.

http://vtdigger.org/2014/04/28/vtdiggercastleton-poll-vermonters-support-concealed-carry-permit-guns/

[Duckhunter935]

1. Must be the wild west up there

I read about the thousands of shootings every day in Vermont, not

And your comment on this is?

[geckosfeet]

2. True. Some of the lowest gun crime stats in the country.

Go figure. Virtually no regulation on sales and carry laws outside of federal laws.

My take is that it is largely determined by demographics and culture. A lot of long time family lines, rural communities, small population centers, and long history of liberal gun policy.

[DonP]

5. Gun control fans are desperate to point to some kind of "win"

Their state level victories last year are starting to take hits in court and bits and pieces are being tossed out. I think they are getting really desperate for some kind of "big win" that Bloomberg and his bought and paid for trained seals can point to as a return on his investment.

I don't think they'll be getting one though, especially with some tough mid terms coming up in red states.

FWIW, last week in Indianapolis Shannon Watts was doing and interview and was caught on camera at their NRA counter protest with her security detail and tinted window Chevy Suburbans in the background. Some local news woman asked if they were being paid to be there and if they were armed security. At that point she ended the interview and skedaddled. I'm trying to find the clip online. Maybe they'll put it in the Philosophical Cartoon section of Castle Bansalot?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

7. CB has cartoons????

Now there's some news for me.

[DonP]

8. It's what passes for deep thinking down there

I don't think they ever get much beyond name calling, penis jokes, cartoons and bumper stickers.

Well, that and coming to the Gungeon and then running to Skinner to whine about how mean everyone is to them outside of their own safe haven group.

In fact our resident "Cut & Paste artiste" is up there again today whining about how mean gun owners are to them.

[NYC_SKP]

20. Yes, indeed.

What you said.

[Logical]

12. What is wrong with requiring a license for CC? nt

[DonP]

13. Why fix something that isn't broken?

Vermont has gotten along fine without the need for legal hurdles on carrying concealed. They have one of the country's lowest crime rates and no significant violence issues I'm aware of. Three other states have gone the way of Vermont in the last few years and there don't seem to be any issues with carriers there either.

Why start something that nobody seems to need there? It will cost the taxpayers money, you never know who will wind up running what may appear to be a well meaning department to start with. Not everything benefits from government regulation.

[Logical]

14. I would rather know someone at least had some basic gun safety information and discuss....

what concealed carry means. And when you should and should not shoot. I know it was good information to hear.

It amazes me how the extreme gun rights people like you throw a fit on any possible suggestion of anything but constitutional carry.

I live in Kansas and before long I am sure we will be constitutional carry soon. This fucking GOP hell hole has passed multiple pro gun bills and does not give a shit about poor or sick people. Open Carry is available everywhere now. What a joke.

My brothers gun training class had people in it that should never hold a gun, much less carry it. Glad they did not pass the class.

[CTyankee]

9. As a fellow New Englander (former 2nd generation Texan, Nutmegger by informed choice), I agree

with your take. Vermont is no wild, wild west. Demographics and culture are huge factors. My family members who live there are highly educated, liberal, pro gun safety regulation and they live in what many people would say are idyllic surroundings.

VT is an outlier compared to other American states on this issue.

[gejohnston]

11. Actually, the wild wild west wasn't

wild at all.

pro gun safety regulation

which really means control, but Frank Luntz explained to Bloomberg found that the word "control" doesn't sell as well as "safety". That is also

The reason why Vermont never passed any gun control in the 1920s like most states (Wyoming restricted concealed carry in the 1880s after the Rock Springs Massacre. It was both anti Chinese and anti labor union.) because it was agricultural and homogeneous. Or to put it more bluntly, there were no Klansman or Pinkertons to protect.

[CTyankee]

15. "gun safety regulation" is the more precise term, isn't it?

Whatever, it looks like Vermont didn't have to do much on this issue. It is not much of a poster child for the likes of Sarah Palin and other right wing politicians.

VT is an outlier. Don't deny this. You can't. It is simply not Wyoming or North Dakota...please...

[gejohnston]

17. No it isn't any more than "death tax"

accurately describes the inheritance tax.

Whatever, it looks like Vermont didn't have to do much on this issue.

It didn't for the reasons I described.

It is not much of a poster child for the likes of Sarah Palin and other right wing politicians.

In the 1920s, it was the extreme right wing that supported gun control, primarily the KKK who lobbied for and got UBC in MI in 1925, NC in 1919, and MO in 1921. Florida banned open carry in 1893 because some white people had an issue with African American migrant workers open carrying pistols, which was not that unusual. That is why until the late 1960s most of the stricter laws were in the south with New York as an outlier. I must clarify one thing, I question the "right" and "left" wing paradigm. I think the terms are simply labels for the oligarchs to divide us. For example both hate Monsanto but if you buy heirloom seeds from an ad in Mother Earth News the "right" will call you a "commie hippie". If you happen to buy them at a gun show some on the "left" will label you as a "paranoid prepper." So, I don't really buy into the labels the media and ideologues try to sell.

VT is an outlier. Don't deny this. You can't. It is simply not Wyoming or North Dakota...please...

I didn't say it wasn't. I simply explained why it was.

From 1887-1994 Wyoming's concealed carry law was you needed a permit to conceal any fixed bladed knife, sword cane, sling shot (really), or pistol without a permit. US Carry claims that it was a "may issue" like CT. Actually it was a hybrid of an extremely limited "shall issue" and may issue. It was shall issue for these occupations listed in the statute (IIRC) private investigators, pharmacists, MDs, couriers valuables, and maybe a few others. Given that you are safer in the worst neighborhoods in Casper and Rock Springs than you are in the best neighborhoods in Chicago, (I still don't have to lock my doors at night, let alone keep any guns loaded.) it was kind of non issue. In fact, Wyoming Game Wardens didn't even carry guns until the 1980s. Imagine an LE approaching an vehicle unarmed knowing that the occupants of the car he stopped were. The only one shot or killed was by a commercial poacher in 1913. In the 1980s, the tie dye Kochs changed that. So, Wyoming liberalizing CCW was a solution in search of a problem. That said, since it had no negative effect, I have to question the reasonableness (compelling State interest) of the law to begin with.

[gejohnston]

23. partial retraction

"gun safety regulation" can be a more precise term when the law or regulation would unintentional discharge or keeping it from blowing up. The perfect example would be proof firing laws or requiring safeties and loaded chamber indicators. When it comes to those, both were in existence of commonly used without any legislation. In many ways, the gun industry is more responsible than the car industry. The US car industry kicked and screamed at the idea of air bags. The German government didn't require Walther to start putting loaded chamber indicators in the 1930s. They just did. Same with safeties.
However, banning ergonomic features of some rifles, magazine restrictions are still control, registration, licensing etc. are still control.

[Eleanors38]

3. Huge crime rate, shoot-outs never stop. 'strue.

I favor basic training for public-carry, so if VT wants to go that way, fine with me.

[Lizzie Poppet]

4. I'm sure they're desperate to stop the carnage.

Vermont's murder rate is way out of line with the American average.

Oh wait...it's out of line because it's far lower. Second-lowest, in fact. Awkward...

[CTyankee]

16. Of course it is lower. Have you ever looked at VT demographics?

[gejohnston]

18. ummmmmmmm

you have any idea how that sounds?

[CTyankee]

24. Your party is the winner in that department, not mine.

[gejohnston]

28. digging yourself deeper?

Your party is the winner in that department, not mine.

What are you saying? Which one is it?
You are saying that I'm Republican, which I'm not.
You could be a Republican throwing dead Dixicrats like Bull Conner in my face, as they sometimes do.

Hate to break it to you, but bigotry, including racism but especially antisemitism is very bi partisan.

[CTyankee]

30. Ah, you simply MUST send that little missive to my granddaughter whose bat mitzvah

I will be celebrating on June 14th. Or perhaps as sermon material to my stepdaughter, who was ordained a Reform rabbi one year ago and who now leads a congregation in Prescott, AZ. I'm sure they and other family members would be thrilled to know your insights...

[gejohnston]

32. and I'll share yours with my daughter's

coven.

[ileus]

42. You of course meant the democratic party...because that's what we all are here.

So are you saying you're a GOPer?

[CTyankee]

44. Oh, cute!

glad to hear you are here to support us! Now, do a better job...

[sarisataka]

48. You mean support

Like speaking against a certain billionaire running attack ads against Democrats and gun control groups that try and derail Democratic fundraising?

Or is that acceptable non-support?

[CTyankee]

50. If that is you, glad to hear it. I'd like to hear more from you, perhaps on non-gun-related topics

say, in GD. Are you game? I'd love to hear from you on other topics...truly...please engage freely...

[sarisataka]

51. Who else would I be?

I do visit GD, but bounce around a lot. I'm trying to get to more groups but I don't do many" me too" posts.

And yes that is my philosophy. I will not vote for a non-Dem who is against gun control any more than I would support a DINO blindly given a progressive choice that would caucus with Dems. GC is a 6th or 7th level concern.

I do support broad 2A interpretation but I also backed Sen. Wellstone. Go figure

[ileus]

49. I'm already doing the best job possible.

[Jenoch]

6. "Vermonters support concealed carry permit for guns"

Why would a gun need a CCW? is it going to walk around with another gun somehow concealed on it?

[Straw Man]

10. A classic case ...

... of a solution looking for a problem.

[Jenoch]

19. I'm actually in favor of an in-depth instruction class

for people who wish to acquire a CCW. Minnesota has an 8 hour class that includes a qualifying shoot. I have not taken the class to get a CCW, but members of my family has. Apparently a large portion of the classroom instruction has the instuctor explaining the shitstorm they will be in if they ever show their weapon, let alone fire it.

[russ1943]

21. Vermont gundeath rate is pretty high.

There were MANY states that have better (lower) death rates from injury by firearm, (gundeaths) than Vermont. In the US; 31,672 persons died by guns in 2010 a crude rate of 10.3 per 100,000. Vermont’s rate of 11.2 in addition to exceeding that national average of 10.3, was HIGHER than 27 other states, (a rate more than twice as high as either New York or New Jersey).

According to the most recent, May 8, 2013 National Vital Statistics Report Deaths: Final Data for 2010 http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr61/nvsr61_04.pdf

[gejohnston]

22. Like Wyoming,

almost all of which are suicides. Since Vermont has a high gun ownership rate, guns are often used just like Switzerland. Their gun death rate is almost exclusively suicides (In terms of gun ownership rate in Europe, they are third behind behind Norway and Finland. World wide, it is Finland, US, Norway, Canada, Switzerland according to the last UN study I saw. Oh that goes by number of households with at least one privately owned gun. If you throw in Swiss militia issue weapons, that changes things.) If Vermont's gun ownership rate were closer to Florida's or New York's, they would have more rope deaths.
Rural areas, regardless of country or gun ownership rate, have higher suicide rates than urban areas. While in important issue to deal with, requiring permits to carry concealed won't do anything to fix it because it has nothing to do with the problem. The only thing stricter gun laws would do is turn gun deaths into rope deaths. I don't call that progress.

That said, if the problem were exurbanites buying and carrying without training, resulting in people getting hurt, then it would be relevant. I went to a CCW class in Florida, out of curiosity. Half of the class were former New Yorkers didn't have the slightest clue how to open a revolver cylinder when it came to live fire part. Some redneck and I had to help instructor show these folks, one by one, where the cylinder release is.

[CTyankee]

25. Interesting that you mentioned Norway, a nation of gun lovers.

Go find out how the government regulates guns there. Yet that country has had only one mass gun shooting rampage and we have...uh...how many each year? Hmm...

[gejohnston]

27. I know exactly how the government regulates them there

they didn't have any before they, and other Europeans, started regulating them during the Red Scare either. Brazil and South Africa both have very strict gun laws, yet mass murders are even more common there. You didn't learn about logical fallacies in school? That one is called post hoc ergo propter hoc.

[CTyankee]

29. and it is interesting that during WW2 the Norwegians fought the Nazis bravely, with their guns and

on skis in some very treacherous and dangerous areas. They knew and fought oppression, in ways that our armchair domestic warriors will NEVER do. And yet after WW2 the Norwegians were willing, as a nation, to accept sane gun regulations that you would never accept. I am sure they are aghast at our American gun policies.

Brazil and South Africa were ravaged and exploited and their indigenous people murdered and decimated by disease brought by their conquerors. Hideous racism, poverty and imperialism inflicted some grievous wounds upon their people. Look at the results, yes, do.

It is one thing to yakk on about logical fallacies. It is another to willfully ignore history.

[gejohnston]

31. rifles on skies

on skis in some very treacherous and dangerous areas. They knew and fought oppression, in ways that our armchair domestic warriors will NEVER do. And yet after WW2 the Norwegians were willing, as a nation, to accept sane gun regulations that you would never accept. I am sure they are aghast at our American gun policies.

Actually, they are not aghast at our policies. They actually don't care for the most part. BTW, the Germans used registries to confiscate privately owned guns in the occupied countries. The Allies did the same as we invaded Germany. Resistance forces made their own guns, often the STEN sub machine gun, as did many Europeans, even ones with stricter laws. They just made theirs in bicycle shops and basements. Poland, Denmark, France were awash in basement made machine guns.

Brazil and South Africa were ravaged and exploited and their indigenous people murdered and decimated by disease brought by their conquerors. Hideous racism, poverty and imperialism inflicted some grievous wounds upon their people. Look at the results, yes, do.

which has what to do with guns? In case you haven't noticed, the same is true of US and Canada.

It is one thing to yakk on about logical fallacies. It is another to willfully ignore history.

I don't ignore history. You might know a little history, but I know military history much better than you, so please spare me.

[CTyankee]

33. You have kind of made my point.

IF the defense of our weak gun safety laws is that we must be armed with very little restrictions on our guns in order to defend ourselves against tyranny, well, those Europeans KNEW tyranny. Yet they, after the war, restricted guns in their own populations. They are constitutional democracies just as we are. They are governed by the consent of the governed. Yup, the same folks who made those guns in their basement as you allude.

As to the second point, do you think racism, poverty and exploitation of their people's natural resources have not caused grievous harm to their societies? I very much see that as a big part of their problems today.

[gejohnston]

34. not really

IF the defense of our weak gun safety laws is that we must be armed with very little restrictions on our guns in order to defend ourselves against tyranny, well, those Europeans KNEW tyranny.

I some ways our laws are stricter some ways not. They actually balance out. Those Europeans also are ruled by political and economic elites that control the media and feed them the same level of shit as our do. The elites, right or left, don't like having an armed masses. That is why gun control groups are astro turf top down organizations funded and ran by the likes of Bloomberg. MDA is a fiction created by Voxpop Public Relations LLC, headed by former Monsanto PR executive Shannon Watts. The thirty people who show up to protests are flown in and paid wages and per diem. If that is the best they can do, then "we as a people" have decided differently.

Yet they, after the war, restricted guns in their own populations. They are constitutional democracies just as we are. They are governed by the consent of the governed. Yup, the same folks who made those guns in their basement as you allude.

In some cases. It is actually more complex than that. People there are more differential to authority than we are. Our founders, and our culture, rejects that very concept because it was founded on the Enlightenment. Europe, Japan, or S Korea could not have produced a Thoreau.

As to the second point, do you think racism, poverty and exploitation of their people's natural resources have not caused grievous harm to their societies? I very much see that as a big part of their problems today

It certainly has.

[CTyankee]

35. News flash! People in western European democracies go to the polls and elect their leaders!

And could it be that the Europeans, drawing on their venerable history of actually producing the Enlightenment, have found a more rational way to conduct their society?

I would never disparage dear old Thoreau, nor his fine ideas. I do be believe, however, that he was greatly influenced by his study of that Enlightenment, where rational thought was prized and elevated.

[gejohnston]

52. even bigger news flash

so do we and you didn't contradict anything I said. Notice that I also said that their media is ran by the same elites as ours. BTW, I seriously doubt any of them would accept this as valid advice from a public safety director who has armed body guards.

And could it be that the Europeans, drawing on their venerable history of actually producing the Enlightenment, have found a more rational way to conduct their society?

Actually no. Their laws were and are largely from the Red Scares in the 1920s and 1970s. Canada's were fear of immigrants and Quebec separatism. There was nothing rational about them. Italy's current gun laws are largely the same ones imposed by Mussolini.
So, your point doesn't mesh with history especially since Europe has a very long history of democide, unless you mean disarming the police if some countries, including Norway.

I would never disparage dear old Thoreau, nor his fine ideas. I do be believe, however, that he was greatly influenced by his study of that Enlightenment, where rational thought was prized and elevated.

Rational thought, as in reason over tradition and dogma. Since I have yet to see any gun control argument that didn't emotionalism, juvenile name calling, or various logical fallacies, and dogmatic bullshit. IOW, if an argument isn't based on reason, it isn't rational. Rational doesn't mean "I like it" it means based on reason and logic alone.

[CTyankee]

58. well, it appears that Western European nations "grew up" with their thinking...the utter

catastrophe that was WW2 would, I reckon, wake up the nations that experienced it. Didn't the EU just get a Nobel Peace Prize a year or so ago? Or is the EU on the NRA hate list, "because freedom"?

http://ec.europa.eu/news/eu_explained/131120_en.htm

[gejohnston]

61. You would think the first one would have

Kissinger also got the Peace Prize, causing it to lose much of its credibility. I have no idea what the NRA thinks of the EU and I'm ot overly interested either.

[CTyankee]

63. Yup. Why bother?

[Straw Man]

36. You are sure?

And yet after WW2 the Norwegians were willing, as a nation, to accept sane gun regulations that you would never accept. I am sure they are aghast at our American gun policies.

Really? Do you correspond with Norwegian gun owners? I do, on firearms-related discussion boards. The rail against the restrictions they live under, and envy American gun owners for our relative freedom.

[CTyankee]

37. I guess there are some Norwegians who don't like the laws.

Certainly that madman Anders Breivik must have felt that way, altho due to restrictions on gun purchases it took him several years to obtain his weapons and he had to travel around Europe to get them.

And the Norwegian gun folks you correspond with are, I presume, citizens who can go to the polls and vote in new leaders, ones that are like minded. Nobody is stopping them.

[Straw Man]

39. No points for the slur.

I guess there are some Norwegians who don't like the laws.

Certainly that madman Anders Breivik must have felt that way, altho due to restrictions on gun purchases it took him several years to obtain his weapons and he had to travel around Europe to get them.

Very classy, dude. Never miss an opportunity to conflate law-abiding gun owners with psychotic mass killers. But your information is wrong. Breivik went to the Czech Republic hoping to buy full-auto weapons on the black market, but was unable to. He returned to Norway and used his legally registered weapons for his murder spree.

And the Norwegian gun folks you correspond with are, I presume, citizens who can go to the polls and vote in new leaders, ones that are like minded. Nobody is stopping them.

The thing is that they are in the minority, and don't have the advantage of a constitution that protects the relevant rights against the tyranny of the majority.

[CTyankee]

43. Well, Breivik's act DID happen, didn't it?

Yes, he did finally get his weaponry in Norway, but it wasn't easy, certainly not as easy as it is in this country.

And the fact still remains, Norway is a democracy, not a totalitarian state that restricts freedom. If the people you correspond with are so vocal, fine, they can seek out candidates for office that will change the existing laws and support them. Are you saying their democracy is deficient? If so, how? Do they have voter restriction laws (as we have in certain parts of our country) where gun advocates are discriminated against?

Look, the whole idea of a democracy is tolerance of dissent. Are dissident Norwegians (on the gun issue) mistreated, muzzled, voter disenfrancished? Are they punished, thrown in jail for their minority views, or otherwise sanctioned? I'm not hearing the "tyranny" part of you argument.

[Straw Man]

45. Which has fuck-all to do with average Norwegian gun owners.

Despite your efforts to lump them all in with psychotic killers.

Yes, he did finally get his weaponry in Norway, but it wasn't easy, certainly not as easy as it is in this country.

I'm sure the relatives of his victims are comforted by the fact that he suffered such inconvenience in his quest to murder their loved ones. Notice that it didn't prevent the tragedy, which, after all, is what gun control is supposed to do, right?

Where did I say that Norway was a totalitarian state?

I'm not hearing the "tyranny" part of you argument.

The "tyranny of the majority" is a concept in political science. I suggest you look it up.

[CTyankee]

47. well, this guy's act was significantly delayed due to the laws of his country...what have you got

against them?

As for Norway, it remains a democracy with lots of freedom for its people. You would have a problem there, for sure, but they apparently DON'T.

The "tyranny of the majority" is only salient when it is translated into laws limiting the freedom of people who don't agree with the majority and when they don't have equal status in voting rights. I really don't know how you get that in Norway. Is it just that the people don't agree with them in a democratic election? Do you have more evidence that the dissidents are being somehow discriminated against or their voice is being suppressed?

[hack89]

53. So if Sandy Hook was delayed 2 years, that would reflect well on our gun laws?

Interesting logic there.

[CTyankee]

55. The point is that they were trying to keep it from happening in the first place.

One loon slipped through. I don't think you necessarily throw up your hands and say "I give up."

[hack89]

57. So did CT - they had an AWB and registration.

no after the fact proposed law would have stopped Sandy Hook short of an outright ban.

What is needed is Norway's healthcare, not their gun.laws.

[CTyankee]

59. I have seen that NRA talking point! Right here during the debate on our state's gun laws.

Another yawn...

[hack89]

60. So you concede the point

no surprise.

That is the unanswerable question - what laws could have prevented Sandy Hook. I can understand your desire to dodge the issue once again.

[CTyankee]

62. It was already rebutted during debates on these bills...

feel free to look them up on the Google. Maybe you could search on the NRA and CT gun laws or something similar. Maybe the NRA newsletter didn't cover the rebuttals, so you missed them.

[hack89]

64. So you can't articulate your own thoughts?

don't worry - Bloomberg has created an organization to think.for.you. He will even campaign against those Dems that have the nerve to disagree with you. Have given him any money yet?

[CTyankee]

71. I know you are dying to refute all of this with your playbook and all that but...

I think limiting the capacity of ammunition magazines to 10 rounds is a good idea. Joe Biden talked about this when he spoke recently, I think upon the anniversary of Sandy Hook. Yes, I know they grandfathered owners of existing guns with higher capacity, but limited where they could have them (at home or while at a gun range) and requiring registering of them with the state. What I see as a helpful start you and the NRA envision jack booted thugs.

But there's another front that you have not mentioned: Obama's proposal to direct $10 million to fund scientific study of gun violence through the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Remember what happened the last time the CDC did a study and found that study that gun owners' homes had higher homicide rates. The NRA doesn't even want the issue STUDIED has lobbied against it successfully. What are the NRA talking points there? Do tell, so I can Google them and their "sources."

[hack89]

76. I support everything you mentioned

the only things I oppose are an AWB and registration

But then the things you mention will not stop mass shootings. But you knew that.

Are you going.support Bloomberg when he goes after incumbent Dems? Simple question.

[CTyankee]

77. Bloomberg doesn't do my thinking for me so I would have to say that I may support him but

on a case by case basis. I am capable of making up my own mind but I would have to see who he has in mind.

as for supporting everything i said, it seems to me that you don't support any of what I said. What about the 10 round limitation?

[hack89]

78. I support limits on high capacity mags

15 for rifles, the standard size mag for handguns.

I have posted my positions on gun control many times here - you don't have make them up.

So do.you will categorically reject any attempt by Bloombergto unseat progun Dem incumbents? I think we know what the answer - your hatred if guns seems a lot stronger than your loyalty to.the Democratic party.

[CTyankee]

79. glad to hear you have evloved somewhat at least.

I don't know why you just make stuff up about me and my loyalty to the Dem party. I guess it comforts you to think about my position the way you wish it to be.

I know you post on this issue many times in the gungeon. I never see you anywhere else, which is fine, it's a free country...but ultimately with you and other folks who seem to be here at DU for no other reason than gun control, frankly I get a little bored. well, more than a little...

[hack89]

84. I have always held those positions

I am a Dem that supports marriage equality, unions, abortion and damn near everything you support. I also like to shoot guns. You just need to be a little open minded and accept that there really are pro- gun Dems.

[CTyankee]

85. The positions you stated are fine. No problem. My problem is with this strange "I don't agree with

the NRA, but I agree with the NRA positions on "whatever"" that I find illogical. Why not just agree with the NRA and be done with it? It's a waste of my time and everyone else's on here's time to do anything else. Sorry to be so blunt, but I am being honest with you.

[hack89]

86. Why can't I take it one issue at a time like you do?

Don't you think it hypocritical that you demand that privilege yet deny it to me? The NRA supports an individual right to keep and bear arms. So does the president and the Democratic Party platform. Why should I oppose the NRA on this issue?

The NRA opposes UBCs and magazine limits - I support both. Why do you refuse to give me credit for that?

[CTyankee]

88. OK, here: because you always end up in the same place with these discussions.

Nothing can be done becuz. It's always "no can do." Ultimately, it's just hopeless.

I don't know about you, but to me this is not a creative way to discuss social/political problems in our culture today.

glad to hear you support UBC's and magazine limits. What are you doing about those issues, apart from arguing on DU with folks like me about the stuff you don't agree on?

[hack89]

89. I spend my time and money on more important issues

Like substance abuse and mental health issues - issues that more immediately effect my family.

I vote for Dems, all of which support gun control - you will have to be satisfied with that. After all, guns are not the most pressing issue facing America.

The reason we end up at the same place at DU is because of the more extreme anti-gun posters. When the conversation starts and ends with vile insults, accusations of racism and being right wing then what the hell do you expect? You don't want a reasonable discussion or otherwise you would be willing to meet me half way. But that does not interest you - you are just another cultural warrior who demands nothing less than capitulation. Grudging, condescending admittance that I am not all bad is the best you can do. Well guess what - it will take a lot more before I have enough respect for you and your views to willingly work with you.

[Straw Man]

54. "Significantly delayed?" Hallelujah!

A psychotic killer was "significantly delayed" in his mission of mass slaughter. Saints be praised!

well, this guy's act was significantly delayed due to the laws of his country...what have you got

against them?

Besides the fact that they put limitations on the freedoms of people who do no harm while being demonstrably useless in preventing horrific crimes, nothing really. Carry on impotently legislating!

The "tyranny of the majority" is only salient when it is translated into laws limiting the freedom of people who don't agree with the majority and when they don't have equal status in voting rights.

Wrong -- the "tyranny of the majority" is salient when the majority attempts to legislate its own perceived self-interest at the expense of the interests of a minority, even one with voting rights. You might say "Tough luck," but this is why certain rights are enshrined in the Constitution: to protect the minority interest against the vagaries and potential tyrannies of the popular will.

[CTyankee]

56. Ah, yes. The Google yields lots of "tyranny of the majority" comments by the NRA so

I see that you've gotten your talking points straight from the horse's mouth, so to speak...

yawn...

[Straw Man]

65. Could you cite one?

Ah, yes. The Google yields lots of "tyranny of the majority" comments by the NRA so

I see that you've gotten your talking points straight from the horse's mouth, so to speak...

In the first five pages of results, I see sources ranging from the Huffington Post to the Encyclopedia Britannica. I don't see anything sourced directly from the NRA, although some of the right-wing sources may quote them.

https://www.google.com/search?q=tyranny+of+the+majority&oq=tyranny+of+the+majority

In any case "NRA talking points" is merely a rhetorical tic employed to wriggle out of an untenable position. It indicates the inability to respond substantively to the issue at hand. I thought you were more capable than that.

Snore.

[CTyankee]

70. Don't know how you missed the one written by none other than Dear Leader Wayne LaPierre.

Your site search must have been very selective...and I do mean VERY...

[Straw Man]

73. Provide a link, please.

Don't know how you missed the one written by none other than Dear Leader Wayne LaPierre.

Your site search must have been very selective...and I do mean VERY...

I did a Google search on "tyranny of the majority." Please run the same search and tell me on which page you found this article.

Or perhaps you added "NRA" to your search terms? You know -- because you're arguing in good faith and all?

[CTyankee]

74. Hmm, what if one wanted to see the NRA's talking points and compare them to ones made here?

Ya know, just to see whose arguments line up to what the NRA says. Geez, how would one go about doing that?

[Straw Man]

75. Gee, do you think putting "NRA" in your search terms ...

... might bring up something by Wayne LaPierre? I do.

Try putting "tyranny of the majority" and "same-sex marriage" in a search. Can we reasonably conclude, from the results, that the former is a buzz-phrase of the gay-rights movement?

See how that works?

[CTyankee]

81. well, I wanted to see how the two "synched up."

I wondered whether the arguments here from pro-gunners who swear up and down they hate, hate, hate the NRA, are not members, never have been, were but quit, etc, were pretty much those of the NRA, which is an organization (movement is not quite the same so your analogy doesn't work quite right).

It seems logical to me that since the NRA has the funding to promote the buzz words/arguments/positions that the pro-gun folks here would probably get and read their stuff. That's fine, it's a free country. I have no problem with that. Just don't "pee on my ankle and tell me it's raining" as the saying goes...

[Straw Man]

82. Synchs up just as well with gay rights.

Do you have anything to say about that? Could it be that the phrase "tyranny of the majority" is used by a lot of different people for a lot of different circumstances? Could it be that its use by the NRA doesn't automatically make it devoid of merit as a concept? Unless, of course, you can only think in cartoons and catchphrases.

The attempt to discredit any particular line of argumentation by calling it an "NRA talking point" is nothing but a dodge. Is is an associational fallacy, and is devoid of rhetorical merit. The NRA may be wrong about many things, but that doesn't mean they are wrong about this. Voting away the rights of a minority is "tyranny of the majority," whether that minority is same-sex couples or gun owners.

If anybody is peeing on your ankle, it is you yourself.

[CTyankee]

83. Hey, it's fine with me if you shinny up to that argument. I'd make it too, if I were in your shoes.

And BTW, what do you have against the NRA? Why back off from an organization that largely agrees with you? I don't see folks on your side making all kinds of arguments AGAINST the NRA. Why are you so vehemently denying that? Doth the gentleman protest too much?

[Straw Man]

87. What shoes are those?

Hey, it's fine with me if you shinny up to that argument. I'd make it too, if I were in your shoes.

So would you care to address it? I'll wait until you're done blowing smoke.

And BTW, what do you have against the NRA? Why back off from an organization that largely agrees with you?

Largely agrees with whom? They stand up for the RKBA, but in so doing they throw their money at some candidates who oppose just about every other right that I value. My political beliefs are not monolithic. Is that a new concept for you?

What exactly am I "vehemently denying"? And why are you so eager to change the subject away from "tyranny of the majority"? Do you agree or disagree that it is a valid concept in certain contexts? Or is everyone that uses it merely an NRA stooge? Do you think that there are certain rights that should be protected even if they don't find favor with the majority?

[CTyankee]

90. I want to say this to you nicely.

This DU group is not my full time job. And it may surprise you to learn that I know all about the "tyranny of the majority." Enough to know that the concept applies to other issues as well. It just so happens that the NRA has picked it up. Fine, they're entitled, but if you think it is conferred upon your big issue especially, well, you'll get an argument.

I have several big interests at DU. Gun safety is one issue. I have others. And I really don't care if it IS your overriding passion; it is not mine. It's OK with me if you want to harangue here day in and day out about guns but some of us have other jobs, other interests, other issues. It's called life.

[Straw Man]

91. You can say it to me any way you want.

It doesn't change a thing.

I used the phrase "tyranny of the majority" without an inkling that it had ever been used by Wayne LaPierre or anyone associated with the NRA. You accused me of being an NRA stooge, following their "talking points," "marching orders," etc. This is a false innuendo. You based your accusation on my use of the phrase, and now you're back-pedaling. That much is clear.

If you don't wish to continue the discussion, that's your prerogative. It might surprise you to learn that I too have "other interests, other issues," so you can spare me the homilies about the meaning of "life."

[jimmy the one]

93. straw man contradictions

strawman: Could it be that the phrase "tyranny of the majority" is used by a lot of different people for a lot of different circumstances? Could it be that its use by the NRA doesn't automatically make it devoid of merit as a concept?

The point is whether ct Yankee's linking the nra with tyranny of majority term was valid.
You, strawman, used 'tyranny of the majority' #39 in a 'Norwegian gunfolk' context, & your google search of simply 'tyranny of the majority' is too broad a search to bring up gun topics or the nra, since it's more a constitutional term. By refining to 'tyranny of the majority guns ', most of the page refers (idiotically from rightwing sources) to gun rights as a protection therefrom.

https://www.google.com/search?q=tyranny+of+the+majority&oq=tyranny+of+the+majority#q=tyranny+of+the+majority+guns

ct yank wrote: the Norwegian gun folks you correspond with are, I presume....
strawman: The thing is that they are in the minority, and don't have the advantage of a constitution that protects the relevant rights against the tyranny of the majority.

As you see, you referred to 'Norwegian gun folk' as being a minority, & ''tyranny of the majority' was in a 'gunowner' context, & ct yankee was later referring in that context. So her use was valid.

Furthermore, here is a prior exchange betw you & ct yankee, with a ridiculous remark from you, in light of you calling Norwegian gun folk a minority.

ctyank:..after WW2 Norwegians were willing, as a nation, to accept sane gun regulations that you would never accept. I am sure they are aghast at our American gun policies.
strawman: Really? Do you correspond with Norwegian gun owners? I do, on firearms-related discussion boards. The{y} rail against the restrictions they live under, and envy American gun owners for our relative freedom.

Regarding norway as a nation, ctyankee was correct, while you cited, by your own admission a minority - Norwegian gun owners - seemingly up against a tyranny of the majority. So your challenge of ct yank is self contradictory.

[Straw Man]

94. Wrong again, Jimmy the Zero.

The issue wasn't whether the phrase could be linked to the NRA -- it was whether use of the phrase marks one as an NRA stooge, following their "talking points" and "marching orders," etc.

All your verbal contortions can't hide the fact that "tyranny of the majority" is a phrase in wide usage, not coined by or exclusively used by the NRA. Obviously any search using "NRA" or "guns" in the search terms will turn up results from the NRA and gun rights sites -- that's the way Google works, in case you hadn't noticed. The fact remains that the phrase is not NRA propaganda and its use does not make one an NRA stooge. The "talking points" and "marching orders" canard was just that: a lame canard. Your defense of it is equally lame.

[jimmy the one]

95. nra propagunda

strawman: The issue wasn't whether the phrase could be linked to the NRA -- it was whether use of the phrase marks one as an NRA stooge, following their "talking points" and "marching orders," etc.

You're tapdancing; The issue was whether ct yankee used the term 'tyranny of the majority' properly; she said it was used by the nra often, and since you had previously in this thread used 'tyranny of the majority' in referring to a minority of Norwegian gunfolk, in context her usage was proper as gun related.
The only one who used the term 'nra stooge' was YOU, she didn't call you that (that I saw).
You need to review the entire thread to see how you're contradicting yourself.

strrawman: All your verbal contortions can't hide the fact that "tyranny of the majority" is a phrase in wide usage, not coined by or exclusively used by the NRA.

That's essentially what I said, that it was moreso a broad constitutional term, but when YOU threw it in referring to a minority of Norwegian gunfolk, you refined it to a gunny or guncontrol context.

strawman: The fact remains that the phrase is not NRA propaganda and its use does not make one an NRA stooge. The "talking points" and "marching orders" canard was just that: a lame canard. Your defense of it is equally lame.

You used 'tyranny of the majority' in the same context as 'Norwegian gunfolk', as per below:
ct yank wrote: the Norwegian gun folks you correspond with are, I presume....
strawman: The thing is that they {Norwegian gunfolks} are in the minority, and don't have the advantage of a constitution that protects the relevant rights against the tyranny of the majority.

Abracadabra, observe nra propaganda:

lapierrre: It’s just a matter of time before this {Obama admin} “tyranny of the majority” makes the rule change applicable to Supreme Court nominations and legislation itself.
2 It is a “tipping point” all right, but one for American voters in the 2014 elections with gun owners at the forefront who plainly fear the unchecked lawlessness of the Obama administration and now the lawlessness of the “tyranny of the majority”—Obama’s willing minions in the U.S. Senate.
3 And {Jefferson} warned, “It creates a perpetual opportunity for ‘tyranny of the majority’ … one of the greatest threats to American democracy.”
http://www.nrapublications.org/index.php/16897/standing-guard-46/

BTW, I do indeed think you an nra stooge; I wonder, if that's a contradiction on my part?
Discuss.

[gejohnston]

96. La Pierre quoting Tocqueville and Adams thinking it is Jefferson

and certainly didn't come up with it on his own. Just because Straw Man, or anyone else, happened to have read such great works and can grasp the implications of the concepts mentioned is not the same as La Pierre being read what more literate people loaded in a teleprompter for him.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/23/opinion/23mon3.html?_r=0
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority
http://xroads.virginia.edu/~Hyper/DETOC/1_ch15.htm

[jimmy the one]

97. backslap falls flat

Johnston: La Pierre quoting Tocqueville and Adams thinking it is Jefferson and certainly didn't come up with it on his own.

No, actually it was my misattributing what lapierre quoted to Jefferson, whom lamar alexander was quoting. A minor oversight which has no bearing.

Johnston: Just because Straw Man, or anyone else, happened to have read such great works and can grasp the implications of the concepts mentioned is not the same as La Pierre being read what more literate people loaded in a teleprompter for him.

Moot point due the misattribution, and means diddly squat as to what's being argued;
You obviously haven't much a clue to what's being discussed Johnston, as the above remark is so tangential, simply a gun zealot trying to defend another gun zealot, falling flatter than a pancake.
But let's see if your conjecture is true, did the strawman really read such great works and can grasp the implications of the concepts mentioned ?

If you want to make relevant comments johnston, pls do proper background research into what is being discussed, so you won't come across as a boot polish. Thanks.

[gejohnston]

101. Adams not Jefferson

The phrase is actually older than any of them.
As for my supposed attribution, the fact that La Pierre may have read it from a teleprompter doesn't have to do with anything. Thom Hartman used the term several times in different cases. In a broader context:
http://www.thomhartmann.com/forum/2010/09/mills-tyranny-majority

But let's see if your conjecture is true, did the strawman really read such great works and can grasp the implications of the concepts mentioned ?

I believe that is more probable than either you or Wayne doing so.

[gejohnston]

104. post script

I first heard the term in civics class in the 1970s.

[Straw Man]

98. Don't you get dizzy ...

... with all that spinning?

You're tapdancing; The issue was whether ct yankee used the term 'tyranny of the majority' properly; she said it was used by the nra often, and since you had previously in this thread used 'tyranny of the majority' in referring to a minority of Norwegian gunfolk, in context her usage was proper as gun related.
The only one who used the term 'nra stooge' was YOU, she didn't call you that (that I saw).

Nope. That was not the issue. Please read carefully. The issue was this canard from CTyankee:

Ah, yes. The Google yields lots of "tyranny of the majority" comments by the NRA so

I see that you've gotten your talking points straight from the horse's mouth, so to speak...

The implication is as plain as day: that people using that phrase in reference to guns are tools (or "stooges," or whatever appellation one prefers) of the NRA, from whom they get their terminology, their "talking points." The fact of the matter is that the phrase as a political concept is apt to a discussion of protected rights vs. the majority will, in reference to guns or any other topic, whether one loves, hates, or has never even heard of the NRA.

Your score is still zero, Jimmy.

[jimmy the one]

100. prejudiced whackjobs

strawman:Nope. The issue was this canard from CTyankee:

ctyank: The Google yields lots of "tyranny of the majority" comments by the NRA so
I see that you've gotten your talking points straight from the horse's mouth, so to speak...

Where is the canard? The first part of what she said is true & the tailing obviously opinion, but the bigger point is, in context, she was referring back to your remark about Norwegian gunfolk & the tyranny of the majority.

strawman: The implication is clear to anyone of even average intelligence: that people using that phrase in reference to guns are tools (or "stooges," or whatever appellation one prefers) of the NRA. The fact of the matter is that the phrase as a political concept is apt to a discussion of protected rights vs. the majority will, in reference to guns or any other topic, whether one loves, hates, or has never even heard of the NRA.

I have way above average intelligence & it's plain as day you're deflecting onto some red herring to wiggle out of your faux pas.

Your score is still zero, Jimmy.

I don't go by what prejudiced gun zealots who can't keep proper score say.

[Straw Man]

102. Getting a bit venomous, are we?

prejudiced whackjobs

Temper, temper.

The Google yields lots of "tyranny of the majority" comments by the NRA so
I see that you've gotten your talking points straight from the horse's mouth, so to speak...

Where is the canard? The first part of what she said is true & the tailing obviously opinion, but the bigger point is, in context, she was referring back to your remark about Norwegian gunfolk & the tyranny of the majority.

Do you know what a "canard" is, Jimmy? I'll give you a hint: The suggestion that I would be unfamiliar with that phrase except as I was instructed in its use by my supposed mentors in the NRA is a canard.

I have way above average intelligence & it's plain as day you're deflecting onto some red herring to wiggle out of your faux pas.

Extremely debatable, Jimmy. What's the red herring? What's the faux pas? Everything I have said is true, as I have cited and demonstrated. I said that Norwegian gun owners suffered under the "tyranny of the majority," lacking protected rights. She said I was using "NRA talking points." I disputed that contention. I first heard that phrase while studying political science in college, and was unaware that Herr LaPierre had used until it was pointed out in this thread.

Your turn.

[jimmy the one]

105. straw man tells the whole half truth

straw man: Everything I have said is true, as I have cited and demonstrated.

Hardly; you've told the half truth, the whole half truth, & half the time the half truth.
Examples of your half truths & outright lies:

CY: this guy's act was significantly delayed due to the laws of his country...what have you got against them?
Strawman: Besides the fact that they put limitations on the freedoms of people who do no harm while being demonstrably useless in preventing horrific crimes, nothing really. Carry on impotently legislating!

That's 'demonstrably' a lie, since norwegian gun laws do indeed hinder horrific guncrime as we have in america. Breivik got his supermags from USA, which helped enable his massacre. And you speciously make 'limitations on freedoms of people who do no harm' sound as if this were some terrible crime against humanity, when it occurs everywhere & is a necessity of the world we live in.

strawman: In any case "NRA talking points" is merely a rhetorical tic employed to wriggle out of an untenable position. It indicates the inability to respond substantively to the issue at hand. I thought you were more capable than that.

She didn't use 'nra talking points' to wiggle out of an untenable position; she saw a walking talking quacking duck, & called it a duck, you, making a ridiculous specious argument.

strawman: The attempt to discredit any particular line of argumentation by calling it an "NRA talking point" is nothing but a dodge. Is is an associational fallacy, and is devoid of rhetorical merit. The NRA may be wrong about many things, but that doesn't mean they are wrong about this. Voting away the rights of a minority is "tyranny of the majority," whether that minority is same-sex couples or gun owners.

This is nuts; your norwegian minority - norwegian gunfolk - would be the tail wagging the dog, just as the nra blocked bg checks last year when it had near 90% support from american public. A democracy is majority rule, with concessions to the minority in important issues, not whether they can obtain hicap magazines or assault rifles easily. You are a rightwing clone on this, wanting to rule when you are in charge & rule when you are a minority. You post a nutty argument.

strawman: .. "tyranny of the majority" is a phrase in wide usage, not coined by or exclusively used by the NRA.. The fact remains that the phrase is not NRA propaganda and its use does not make one an NRA stooge.

Yes it is used by the nra & gun lobby as propaganda, it's how they blocked background checks using republican dupes in the senate.

strawman: I said that Norwegian gun owners suffered under the "tyranny of the majority," lacking protected rights. She said I was using "NRA talking points." I disputed that contention. I first heard that phrase while studying political science in college, and was unaware that Herr LaPierre had used until it was pointed out in this thread.

You make a very very stupid specious platonic argument; why don't you do the board a favor & try growing up a bit?

[Straw Man]

106. Clearly you don't understand the concept of protected rights.

And if you don't understand that, then it's no wonder that you don't understand "tyranny of the majority."

strawman: .. "tyranny of the majority" is a phrase in wide usage, not coined by or exclusively used by the NRA.. The fact remains that the phrase is not NRA propaganda and its use does not make one an NRA stooge.

Yes it is used by the nra & gun lobby as propaganda, it's how they blocked background checks using republican dupes in the senate.

Let me get this right: Because the NRA has used the phrase, then anyone who has used it is guilty of spreading NRA propaganda? Is that your contention? That would have come as quite a shock to my political science professor.

That's 'demonstrably' a lie, since norwegian gun laws do indeed hinder horrific guncrime as we have in america.

Really? They didn't hinder Breivik. That was my point, which apparently eluded you.

Breivik got his supermags from USA, which helped enable his massacre.

He did that to save money

http://www.midway.no/epages/MidwayNorge.sf/no_NO/?ObjectPath=/Shops/MidwayNorge/Products/710434AR

In any case, given the amount of time that he was able to roam the island unopposed, smaller magazines would have been no deterrent.

You make a very very stupid specious platonic argument; why don't you do the board a favor & try growing up a bit?

Perhaps you in your infinite wisdom could explain the flaw in my "platonic argument." Until you do, your entire post is the rhetorical equivalent of "Nyah nyah."

[clffrdjk]

103. "I have way above average intelligence"

Lol you are not nearly as smart as you think you are.

[jimmy the one]

66. strawman not up to speed on anders

straw man: Never miss an opportunity to conflate law-abiding gun owners with psychotic mass killers.

I didn't see exactly where she did that, but I do see you conflating in your above sentence, that her one reference applies to 'all'.

straw man: But your information is wrong. Breivik went to the Czech Republic hoping to buy full-auto weapons on the black market, but was unable to. He returned to Norway and used his legally registered weapons for his murder spree.

You apparently are not up to speed on anders breivik & his Norwegian massacre of over 70 people.

Anders Breivik, the right-wing “fundamentalist” charged with the terror attacks in Norway last week, purchased high-capacity gun clips from the United States... Breivik wrote in a 1,500-page manifesto that he bought 10 30-round ammunition clips for his .223 caliber rifle from an unnamed small U.S. supplier, which then in turn acquired the clips from other suppliers. Norway forbids the sale of clips for hunting rifles that hold more than three bullets, according to Norwegian newspaper Aftenposten.
Breivik wrote in his manifesto that while he could have purchased the high-capacity magazines in Sweden, they would have been significantly more expensive than ordering them from a U.S. supplier. He wrote that he spent $550 for the 10 clips..
http://thinkprogress.org/security/2011/07/28/282174/breivik-gun-clips-united-states/

I'm sure you're grateful for giving you this heads up, so I'll just say 'you're welcome', in advance.

[Straw Man]

72. Wrong and wrong.

Norway forbids the sale of clips for hunting rifles that hold more than three bullets, according to Norwegian newspaper Aftenposten.

This is either an error or a mistranslation. It confuses a hunting regulation with a magazine ban. See below.

For moose, red deer and roe deer, it is forbidden to use a semi-automatic rifle with more than
three cartridges in the magazine and one in the chamber. For other species of game, use of a
semi-automatic rifle with more than two cartridges in the magazine and one in the chamber is
prohibited.

http://www.njff.no/portal/pls/portal/docs/1/80270.PDF

Certainly the hunting regulation wouldn't have to spell out this limitation if magazines greater than this capacity were illegal to sell or possess.

I repeat: Breivik purchased and owned his weapons legally in Norway. The law that was violated in his purchase of the magazines for his rifle was a US export restriction that requires a license for export of firearms or parts thereof in excess of $100 in value.

I'm sure you're grateful for giving you this heads up, so I'll just say 'you're welcome', in advance.

No thank you. Your information, as usual, is wrong.

[Lizzie Poppet]

26. But their murder rate is the second-lowest.

Which makes gejohnson's assertion that the higher gun death numbers are suicides very likely.

[geckosfeet]

38. Hmm. According a Kaiser family report, the rate is exactly 10.3 per 100,000 for Vermont.

Number of Deaths Due to Injury by Firearms per 100,000 Population

That makes it the 22nd lowest in the country (28 states higher rates). This despite many of those 28 states have far more stringent gun control regulation - which is not hard to do since VT has virtually nothing but federal regulation.

Interestingly, NH, CT, CA, NY and MA are all substantially lower.

[SQUEE]

40. And how many are from violence?

Reading the crirteria, it includes suicides as well as justifiable defence.

Causes of death attributable to firearm mortality include ICD-10 Codes W32-W34, Accidental discharge of firearm; Codes X72-X74, Intentional self-harm by firearm; X93-X95, Assault by firearm; Y22-Y24, Firearm discharge, undetermined intent; and Y35, Legal intervention involving firearm discharge.

[geckosfeet]

46. True. Same for all others states in the study.

The absolute numbers would be substantially lower but the relative values (rankings) would probably change little if at all if deaths from the various causes were filtered.

[russ1943]

68. There's rate and there's age adjusted rate.

The figures I used and linked were from an original Government source. You will notice if you read my post carefully I used the word “CRUDE” rate. The secondary KFF source you’ve referenced is probably using the same primary sourced data but appears to be using the age adjusted rate. I’m occasionally wrong but I make every effort to use accurate data.
Vermont 2010 injury by firearms deaths, rate per 100,000: 11.2
Vermont 2010 injury by firearms deaths, age adjusted rate per 100,000: 10.3
United States 2010 injury by firearms deaths, rate per 100,000 10.3
United States 2010 injury by firearms deaths, age adjusted rate per 100,000 10.1
An explanation of how they calculate age adjusted rate can be found in the Technical Notes section of the National Vital Statistics Reports I referenced in my prior post http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr61/nvsr61_04.pdf

[jimmy the one]

99. Quick Lesson on vermont

That makes it the 22nd lowest in the country (28 states higher rates). This despite many of those 28 states have far more stringent gun control regulation - which is not hard to do since VT has virtually nothing but federal regulation.

Oh barf, you people need directions to make simple pie?
.. Vermont's largest city is Burlington with ~40,000 which would fit in a square mile of new York city (NYC is 7 million, or 6.96 million more than burlington); Vermont population is 625,000 people, smaller than about 30 separate large US cities; Vermont is 95% white, 1% black so no racial disparity, has a population density of 68 per sq mile (new York city's is ~30,000).
You generally CANNOT compare small populated rural states with larger states with high urbanity, sheesh.

Burlington is the largest city in the State of Vermont ... Burlington had a population of 42,417 at the 2010 census

[ileus]

41. They must be having a bunch of problems with the law as it is now.

danger! danger!

[Logical]

80. Or think some basic CC information is a good idea. nt

[jimmy the one]

67. public did not support shall issue ccw

The poll found 57 percent of voters support changing Vermont’s concealed carry gun law. Thirty-nine percent do not and 4 percent declined to answer.

This is not surprising to me, since no reputable poll I ever saw supported any states shall issue ccw bill prior to it being passed by their state, & this goes back to the 70's (after passage some polls showed parity);
.. usually shall issue ccw got rammed thru by republican legislators against a majority of public opposition.
.. of course, Vermont would seek to 'upgrade' to shall issue in this regard, since it has no permitting whatsoever at present.

[gejohnston]

69. This is not surprising to me, since no reputable poll I ever saw supported any states shall issue

Since the opinions were based on being bombarded by disinformation campaigns by the HCI, Brady etc (and MSM giving free advertising), you have to ask about value of the opinions. I also would like to see the questions. What astounds me is that Brady et al used the same canards in each state after being proven wrong each time.
Since we are talking about equal protection under the law, and giving a cop arbitrary power, polls shouldn't have an bearing at all.

[hack89]

92. It is a moot point after Heller and Peruta

Shall issue CCW is now the law of the land.