Silencing the Guns

[ellisonz]

March 26, 2012, 11:55 pm
By DREW WESTEN
Drew Westen is a professor of psychology at Emory University and the author of “The Political Brain: The Role of Emotion in Deciding the Fate of the Nation.”

When Gabrielle Giffords tendered her resignation from the House of Representatives to Speaker John Boehner because she did not feel she could continue to serve at her current level of disability, the entire House erupted in a rare moment of bipartisan unity, supporting their brave colleague who had survived a bullet through the brain at point-blank range.

That was not, however, the first bipartisan moment related to the attack on Gabby Giffords, nor would it be the last. In 2004, Congress let the assault weapons ban Bill Clinton had passed “sunset” despite overwhelming public support. That law limited the number of rounds of ammunition a shooter could fire before having to reload, and letting it die an untimely death allowed a mentally ill young man in Tucson to purchase a handgun with a 33-round magazine. Had the assault weapons ban remained in place, he may well have been able to shoot the congresswoman, but he would not have been able to empty his clip, killing 6 people and wounding 13 others, before being tackled to the ground.

That moment was followed by another bipartisan moment, when President Obama delivered a moving speech on Jan. 12 at the scene of the carnage in Tucson. In it, the president called on the nation to mourn not only the shooting of a beloved member of Congress but the lives of the people who died at the hands of Giffords’ assailant, including a 9-year-old girl and a federal judge. But on neither that national day of mourning nor on any day since has the president or the members of Congress, who are either too frightened or too corrupted by the National Rifle Association, honored Giffords or the memory of those who died in that massacre in Tucson in the most appropriate way: with a return to common sense, like reestablishing the assault weapons ban that might have saved their lives. Later in January, Representative Carolyn McCarthy and Senator Frank Lautenberg proposed legislation to outlaw high-capacity magazines; it has gone nowhere.

The first President Bush, unlike his swaggering son (who advocated the demise of a ban on assault weapons whose sole purpose is to hunt humans) showed political courage by publicly quitting the N.R.A. in disgust in 1995 when it began advocating ideas like its contention that citizens need military-style assault weapons to protect themselves against our own government (members, for example, of the National Guard). In colorful but paranoid language, it called law enforcement officers “jack-booted government thugs,” prompting the elder Bush to condemn the group for its disrespect for the law and those who defend it. Since then, it has successfully advocated for increasingly radical laws. One of them, of course, is Florida’s “stand your ground” law, which discourages de-escalation of potential firefights in public with predictable results, like the shooting death in Sanford, Fla., of Trayvon Martin.

More: The Awesome New York Times - A Paper That Only Rick Santorum Could Hate

[AH1Apache]

1. Apparently you don't have to be truthful

to get an article published
1. High capacity mags. were never banned, just the new production of them, those already in circulation were grandfathered in so there were still millions of them for sale, just more expensive.
2. Bush never advocated the demise of the false AWB, he said if it made it to his desk, he would sign it, the law died in the Congress.
The level of dishonesty in this article is breathtaking.

[rl6214]

2. You got the points I was going to make

But why do you really expect honesty from the anti-gun zealots?

[AH1Apache]

3. No ], not really

but we do have to call them on it.

[Loudly]

5. What about the facts concerning the Tucson shooting?

Was Loughner able to discharge a lot of rounds in rapid succession without reloading?

Did he kill 6 and wound 13?

Were a U.S. Congresswoman a federal judge and a 9 year old girl three of his victims?

Any of that true?

[AH1Apache]

6. And that has to do whatwith the out right lies printed in this article?

Do you think that this article is accurate?

[Johnny Rico]

9. Quiet, you. People died, so it's ok to make stuff up.

Ends and means and all that. <sarc>

[baldguy]

19. Was Loughner able to discharge a lot of rounds in rapid succession without reloading?

Did he kill 6 people and wound 13?

Were a U.S. Congresswoman, a federal judge, and a 9 year old girl three of his victims?

Any of that true? Or do you think that all was "made up"?

[AH1Apache]

21. And that has to do what with the lies in this article?

[baldguy]

22. What, you can't answer the questions honestly?

Because the truth would expose the fact that without access to extended clips, Loughner would not have been able to slaughter as many people as he did.

[AH1Apache]

24. I can reload a mag. in appox. 2-3 sec.

what makes you think that Loughner couldn't
Now care to address the dishonesty in the article?

[baldguy]

29. Your evasive answer proves that you're deliberately missing the point.

Thanks for playing.

[AH1Apache]

30. and you obviously don't want to

answer the lies in the article. Who's being evasive again?

[cleanhippie]

50. No, your non-sequitur proves that you are deliberately being obtuse.

[Loudly]

73. And in your dystopia, the community uses that 2-3 seconds

to shoot YOU.

Lovely civilization you're touting.

[AH1Apache]

75. Let's see

Retired Military, 4 combat tours under my belt in 2 different wars without a scratch, I think I know how to protect myself from getting shot.
What other rights would you like to get rid of S....s?

[Loudly]

76. Good grief.

You're boasting about your combat skills and your access to convenient murder.

Can you see society's vulnerability here?

We are as secure as the thin thread of your sanity from moment to moment.

We are as safe as whatever is going on in your head.

Am I to understand that you have killed before?

[PavePusher]

79. "I think I know how to protect myself" =/= "access to convenient murder"

But your conflation and foul implied accusation are noted.

[Loudly]

82. Protecting yourself means

knowing who needs killing and when?

And knowing how to keep anyone from stopping you?

I call that Extreme Prejudice.

[PavePusher]

88. You are the olny person saying this.

I call that Extreme Prejudice.

[Loudly]

91. I may be the only person saying it this clearly.

But it needs to be said and you need to see it.

Mister Zimmerman.

[gejohnston]

93. who does not seems not to be one of them

Besides, there is the thing called due process. Trial by media, who often gets key facts if not everything wrong, does not count. I'm not saying his self defense claim is legitimate, I'm just saying I doubt the media and police half of the time.

[PavePusher]

116. Do not call people names. n/t

[AH1Apache]

104. I sure hope you didn't hurt yourself reaching for that conclusion.

[gejohnston]

81. he is not the people you have to worry about

It is the nice kid in gang colors. IIRC, most murderers have criminal records. So do most of the victims. I understand machetes are the rage with Chicago gangsters lately because they think guns are for wimps.

[Loudly]

84. You can outrun a machete.

[gejohnston]

87. depends

me outrun an 18 year old sociopath? No. As any criminologist will tell you, not resisting or running puts you at greater risk. Since gangsters usually kill other gangsters, I no reason to fear either way. Since stray blades don't hit innocents, I see it as less worse thing.

[AH1Apache]

105. At my age, no I can't

So I use the 2 best tools available to me, my brain, and my legally concealed firearm which, BTW, has never shot or killed anyone.

[AH1Apache]

103. Here, let me set you straight

1. I was not boasting, just stating a fact, and your use of the phrase "access to convenient murder" is offensive as hell and you should apologize.

2. The only vulnerability to society is your desire to see lawful americans disarmed and left to the mercy of dirt bags,

3. Violent crime has been decreasing while gun ownership has increased, and before you jump all over me, no I am not saying more guns=less crime, I'm saying more guns does not mean more crime.

4. I am of sound mind and body even though I am 60+ y.o. so whatever is going on in my head is safe.

5. Whether or not I defended my self during my combat tours is really none of your business.
Have I answered you satisfactorily? If not, Oh Well.

[rl6214]

32. Learn the facts, they were still LEGAL to own.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

34. What you don't seem to realize....

...is that there isn't/wasn't a shortage of extended 'magazines'; nor was there a ban on the sale of them. The only ban was on the sale of NEW magazines over 10 round capacity to civilians. You can and always could buy all of the 30, 50... round mags you wanted as long as they were manufactured before September 1994.

[burf]

96. Because of the 31 round magazine, and its malfunction when

Loughner reloaded, he was then disarmed by a couple citizens.

From the Tucson News:

During the shooting, one woman grabbed a magazine away from the shooter as he was trying to reload. Dupnik stated that a spring on another ammunition magazine, with 31 rounds, that the shooter did manage to insert, then failed.

Dupnik also said the woman was shot as she was taking the magazine away. Two men were then able to subdue the shooter.

http://www.tucsonnewsnow.com/global/story.asp?s=13811346

There have been reports that the 31rd magazine in the Glock was prone to these malfunctions.

[rl6214]

31. The sunset of the AWB had absolutely nothing to do with any of that

The AWB banned the NEW manufacture of 'hi cap' magazines but any and all in circulation so to speak we sunsetted in and were therefore LEGAL.

That fact was ignored and lied about in the article.

[Johnny Rico]

36. Yes, that's true. Now back to the article...

Do you think the article is accurate?

[Oneka]

35. Here are some that are utterly false.

Had the assault weapons ban remained in place, he may well have been able to shoot the congresswoman, but he would not have been able to empty his clip, killing 6 people and wounding 13 others, before being tackled to the ground.

What in the 9 hells, does the AWB have to do with Laugher "emptying his clip" before being tackled?
Please explain the lack of truth Therein.
If you can.

[Callisto32]

52. We have a name for this:

"Non sequitur"

(The literary device, not the logical fallacy.)

[ellisonz]

10. A Couple Points

1. The point is that Loughner was able to walk into a store and just buy one over the counter, much less that they shouldn't be available for sale in general.
2. With a Republican Congress, that was as good as saying let it die, without the political blowback - case in point, he still has you confused. Do you really think Dubya supported the bill?

So besides the hysterics, and proving the authors point about phony political arguments, would you care to address this argument for re-engaging in the debate from a progressive perspective:

Beginning with a statement of principle both makes clear the speaker’s intent and inoculates against all the slippery-slope arguments used by the N.R.A. and the elected officials in its employ or fearful of its power: “My view on guns reflects one simple principle: that our gun laws should guarantee the rights and freedoms of all law-abiding Americans. That’s why I stand with the majority who believe in the right of law-abiding citizens to own guns to hunt or protect their families. And that’s why I stand with the majority who believe they have the right to send their kids to school and see them return home safely at night.” Versions of a message containing that principle win by over a 2:1 margin with independents, and they win in every region of the country, including in my own backyard, in the red clay of Georgia.

The ball is in your court, friend

[AH1Apache]

12. No, the point is

that the whole article is false and you are intelligent enough to know this.
The reason the Congress was controlled by the repukes is because of the AWB and if you don't believe me, just ask Bill Clinton who admitted it in his book, My Life.

[ellisonz]

13. Emotion and talking points.

Good job.

[AH1Apache]

14. Talking points?

So now the truth is talking points? Learn something new every day.

[ellisonz]

15. Yes.

That's a talking point. I've been through the entire argument about the 2000 election before and I do not wish to engage in it a length. Here's the logical counterargument, if the Clinton gun control measures were so damaging he should have lost the 1996 election but he didn't. The reason George W. Bush was elected and all this nonsense happened was because Ralph Nader undermined Gore enabling George W. Bush and the Republican members of the Supreme Court to steal it by stopping the vote in Florida. The End.

You just keep sporting that

[AH1Apache]

20. the anger towards Clinton had died down by 96 because the AWB

was no longer an issue the repukes could use against him because they now controlled the Congress and Clinton was a very popular president and he himself credited the passage of the AWB in 94 for the loss of the Congress, if you don't believe, read his book, where he flat out says it.

[TupperHappy]

25. plus the fact that the Repubs nominated Bob Dole.

Lets face it, he was the John McCain of the 1996 election.

And Dole himself said he was against repeal, so the AWB wasn't nearly as big a factor as it could have been.

[ellisonz]

27. Where have all the sensible Republicans gone...

...again, like with the Elder Bush, they're just playing politics. If I were to make one correction to the article it would be its overestimation of the gun lobbies influence - the elephant pulls the circus carriage, not the other way around.

[gejohnston]

33. easy answer

they were forced out by the Taliban West and the social Darwinists.

[spin]

95. This year Mitt Romney will run against Obama and lose ...

The Republicans love to run losers like Dole, McCain and now Romney. Romney is winning the race to become the Republican candidate because he has the money to run negative ads and the other candidates don't. Of course none of the other candidates could have a chance of beating Obama.

[Callisto32]

53. No.

"The whole article is false and you are intelligent enough to know it." Is NOT a talking point, it is a statement of what the poster believes to be objective fact, and both of his statements are subject to empirical review, so.....just sayin'.

The second statement was one of opinion, and an appeal to authority, granted that was a logical fallacy, but you don't get to ignore the first part, which is a legit point, because of it.

It is interesting that nobody will answer questions on this thread so AHEM:

YES, JARED LAUGHNER MANAGED TO SHOOT A BUNCH OF PEOPLE. <-- = Not in dispute

[Dr_Scholl]

4. "The Role of Emotion in Deciding the Fate of the Nation"

Oh the irony....

[Johnny Rico]

7. So you think we should liberalize laws regarding silencers? I must say, that's quite refreshi...

Um...never mind.

[ellisonz]

11. Really?

And people wonder why this country is in the ditch

[Johnny Rico]

37. What's wrong with people having silencers?

I would point out that in many parts of Europe, silencers can be purchased with little or no paperwork.

[ellisonz]

44. I'd imagine those parts of Europe generally have much stricter gun control. n/t

[Johnny Rico]

63. They certainly do...but in this particular respect (silencers) their laws are more rational.

Last edited Wed Mar 28, 2012, 12:49 PM - Edit history (1)

Do you actually have an objection to people being quiet when they shoot? If so, why?

[Common Sense Party]

65. So you can buy a silencer but not a gun?

That does not compute at all.

[Johnny Rico]

67. It depends on the country.

For instance, there are people who are prohibited here in the United States (felons) who are prohibited from possessing firearms, but they have every right to buy parts and accessories for them.

In Finland, one must own a firearm before being allowed to purchase a silencer for it, but otherwise there are no restrictions. In Norway, there appear to be no restrictions on silencers whatsoever.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suppressor#Europe

[oneshooter]

123. You"imagine"? Why according to you, you know EVERYTHING

about gun laws, because you studied them on the internutz! You don't need and practical, hands on experence!

Oh the shame!!!

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[ellisonz]

130. On to the ignore list you go...

It's a figure of speech dude...

[oneshooter]

133. AWWWWW poor baby. You make claims you can't back up.

And now you run and hide.

[gejohnston]

40. over our silencer regulations?

You may have a point. France and Finland, and Norway have the right idea on at least four things:
health care
public education funding
silencer regulations
top margin tax rate

Can we agree on those four?

[ellisonz]

45. That doesn't compute at all. n/t

[Callisto32]

54. Check your firmwear.

There should be some new algorithms out

[AH1Apache]

8. I don't understand why you post this article

You are obviously a very intelligent person so I've got to believe that you know the article is full of lies.

[virginia mountainman]

16. LOL total lack of reality..No mention of Fast and Furious.

— such as eliminating the gun-show loophole that allows the sale of military-grade weapons without background checks, and has led to the deaths of tens of thousands of Americans as well as Mexicans, whose drug cartels find the loophole extremely helpful.

LOL...

[DonP]

17. Now that's Funny!

Another "Cut and Paste" POV from an ill informed professor who's Grad Assistant did a horseshit job of researching for him. His favored subject is "Emotion in Politics", but doesn't know what he's talking about in this incident and gets the majority of the facts and history of the laws wrong.

And he's being cheered lustfully on by a bunch of "true believers" down here that sit around the coffee house and whine online about what they supposedly believe in. But ... never quite actually get around to doing anything.

There's the perfect and proven formula for achieveing ... absolutely nothing.

Now maybe another well informed someone will come along and lecture us all again on the danger of theose imported M1 Garands and Carbines from Korea being used as concealed carry weapons in urban areas.

You guys and your pet academics are a laugh riot.

[Glassunion]

18. Silencing the Guns

You need a special federal permit and a tax stamp for each one.

It can get expensive.

[Johnny Rico]

39. It can get expensive...tell me about it.

Recently got my first suppressor, an SWR Spectre. $500 for the can, and $200 for the tax stamp.

[oneshooter]

124. Yea they can. I'm looking at $650 for one.

Going to fit my next AR build in 300 whisper.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[burf]

23. There was a firefight at the

Trayvon Martin shooting? When did that "fact" come out?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

26. Just a few corrections

"...despite overwhelming public support." - If there was "overwhelming public support", it would have been renewed.

"That law limited the number of rounds of ammunition a shooter could fire before having to reload..." - No it didn't.

"...allowed a mentally ill young man in Tucson to purchase a handgun..." - This is unrelated to the AWB. Read something relevant:
http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org/downloads/pdf/maig_mimeo_revb.pdf

[X_Digger]

28. LAWL

'reasonable', 'assault weapons ban', 'sole purpose is to hunt humans'.

Does this guy have an act in vegas?

A moronic law that regulates firearms based on cosmetic features?

Go right ahead and try, you know what the result will be?



https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/204431.pdf

[div class='excerpt']AWs were used in only a small fraction of gun crimes prior to the ban: about 2%
according to most studies and no more than 8%. Most of the AWs used in crime
are assault pistols rather than assault rifles.
...
Should it be renewed, the ban’s effects on gun violence are likely to be small at
best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement. AWs were rarely used in
gun crimes even before the ban.

[Johnny Rico]

38. I'd be curious to see the sales figures for ARs from 2002-2011,

since everything I've seen indicates sales have skyrocketed.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

41. Production has ramped up as well

I am not a big fan of the AR-15/M-4 platform, but if you want reasonable parts and accessories, that is where you go. Same with magazines and ammo.

I spent some time shooting a SCAR recently. A little gagety and just silly expensive, but it does the job well.

[sarisataka]

42. Did I read that correctly?

From the article:

In the 2010 election cycle, the N.R.A. spent over $7 million in independent expenditure campaigns for and against specific candidates

Total raised for 2010 election: $1.27 billion
http://motherjones.com/politics/2010/09/incumbent-campaign-fundraising-advantage-congress

Let's see... $7mil, divide by $1.27 bil, mmm carry the 3....

The NRA accounts for .551% of all campaign funding.... That can't be right.... They most support Republicans so out of $638 mil raised by Republican candidates 1.115% of campaign funding. If all went to Republicans...

What is happening here? Isn't the NRA a money driven, election buying machine? While only accounting for less than one half of one percent of campaign money?

[ellisonz]

43. That's likely not including the final most expensive month...

Open Secrets has $7.2 million:

During the 2010 election cycle, the NRA spent more than $7.2 million on independent expenditures at the federal level -- messages that advocate for or against political candidates. These messages primarily supported Republican candidates or opposed Democratic candidates.

http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000000082

[sarisataka]

46. Sorry, I rounded

.556% of the total then.

opensecrets.org was one of the places I checked to verify my facts. I found nothing there to indicate their numbers are not the total expenditures for 2010.

I am not questioning the NRA's influence, just the commonly know 'fact' that it is their money that 'buys' votes. The numbers seem to indicate otherwise...

[ellisonz]

47. That's the one assertion I disagree with...

...The influence of the N.R.A in shaping elections is overstated:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/117215392
http://www.democraticunderground.com/117218901

[sarisataka]

48. Then why...

is the NRA the big bogeyman?
If it isn't the money and they don't really influence elections (contrary to what several posters claim) then why all the fuss? How are they getting all of this legislation passed?


It seems they should be a non-factor.

[ellisonz]

51. It's the collusion with the Republicans...

...and the radicalization of what was once an organization that actually did do some public good. In the big picture they're not important, but by being co-opted by the Republicans and their henchmen they've managed to obstruct progress and co-opt a reactionary political party. Now they're just pushing the most ridiculous weapons for the most people with the least questions asked. That's not responsible sporting, that's not responsible self-defense, and that's not responsible politics. If all the NRA did was stand up for sporting, gun safety, and the basic right to self-defense there would be no issue.

[sarisataka]

71. To continue being the devil's advocate...

being co-opted by the Republicans and their henchmen they've managed to obstruct progress and co-opt a reactionary political party

You mean they co-opted each other

My point is any MSM new report will usually open with the statement "The powerful NRA/Gun Lobby". Where is all this power coming from?
It is not money- other groups have more. I am sure Mayors Against Individuals (with) Guns could match the NRA money out of pocket. And if it is not electoral savvy then what does the NRA bring to the table that makes them so effective- or at least feared and blamed for every bad thing that happens with a gun.
If they have no power or influence then logically their agenda should go no where. Yet everyone complains it is all the NRA's fault...

[ellisonz]

72. I made my point concisely and clearly...

One addition: there's a lot of money at stake to keep the supply of guns rolling too. If you do not understand my point and wish to continue to not understand the insidious relationship I suggest opening your eyes to the reality that we probably have more guns in circulation than voters in a presidential election by a factor of two.

[sarisataka]

77. OK, I'll let you off the hook...

I do get the relationship and influence brokering that goes on. I am just pointing out it is not the pablum that is often spewed forth...


The fact that the Democratic Party has (generally) taken a leftist pro-gun control, or at least ambivalent, stance which has allowed the Republicans to form an alliance with the NRA. But not for the money...

The NRA 4 million(plus or minus) members, who tend to be active voters in addition to the non-member supporters and those who just owns guns is near 50% of the voting population. That is more than just a bag of chips to bring to the table. The fact that Republicans are more than willing to use fear and implausible doomsday scenarios to motivate this block is where I believe the influence lies.

Now let me say I do not support many of the NRA initiatives but being well informed about weaponry I can see through the B.S. put forth by the 'anti' crowd.
I believe the 2A recognizes an individual right, a person has the right to defend them self and a gun is a tool it is the operator who is responsible. It can be hard to find Democrats who agree with that.
Compound the above with the 'antis' Brady etc. who promote 'sane' laws. But they never quite get around to telling you what they are. You will get examples 'to start with' but not be given the end goals i.e. will 'gun control' stop short criminalizing gun ownership. Their elitism and willingness to overlook hypocrisy, e.g. Rosie needs a bodyguard to protect her from 'right wing gun nuts', does not give their side any credibility. At least the NRA is up front about their goals...

When an issue becomes so polarized, the undecided will tend to reach for the 'too much' side rather than the too 'little'. IMO

To counter this influence I believe the Dems should go to a more centrist position. Promote reasonable gun control measures while specifically recognizing and codifying RKBA and self defense. Stay away from Brady and the others as their reputation is irrevocably poisoned. This may allow the Dems to win over the many, like myself, gun owners who find both extremes unappealing. It would also pull in the NRA who would not promote the more radical end of their agenda to avoid alienating their moderate members who would have a third option to chose.

[ellisonz]

78. The Dems for the most part are in the centrist position....

The Republicans have just gone so far to the right and dragged so many with them that y'all are confused about who you're trying to fight. If you'd knock of all the paranoid slippery slope nonsense and look at what many are proposing you'd stop demonizing those who disagree with you.

[gejohnston]

80. the evidence shows that

the slippery slope is not paranoid nonsense. In order to get us to knock it off, need to distance themselves from extreme proposals like DC and Chicago. But, they don't.

[ellisonz]

89. Kinda like a Mexican stand-off no...

[sarisataka]

98. vive la difference!!!

oh wait, that's French

[sarisataka]

94. I am not sure how...

you go about dragging someone to a position they truly do not believe.

I do not believe I demonize anyone. Per the Brady Campaign:

4 star states- 1, CA
3 star states- 5
2 star states- 5 (even with Chicago, IL falls here)
1 star states- 8

that leaves 31 states graded with 0 stars...

Legislation they are promoting: Background checks (which the NRA strongly supports), assault weapons (made up term to describe cosmetic differences- automatic weapons, now that is a horse of a different color), micro stamping (doesn't work yet, questionable usefulness if it did), CCW (want reversed. Note my comment about the hypocrisy for the elite earlier), Hi-cap mags (I would be willing to negotiate on this one although I do believe when it was imposed before the complaint was people were buying larger "more lethal" calibers)
We are told Chicago, NYC, DC(formerly) and England are models we should emulate. It makes that slope look awfully slippery.

Shall Issue was the foot in the door and it was pushed as a response to the capricious May Issue that most states had. In CA where it is may issue we STILL see capriciousness in action. Well connected, rich, famous get permits easily; everyone else take your chances...

[ellisonz]

99. Look around...

The right-wing gun owners dominate the discussion - the amount of invective coming form them is toxic. They are killing whatever reasonable discussion could be had and that is their plan. The NRA supports background checks for new sales, but not if you want to buy a gun in a mall parking lot out of a trunk. The whole there is no such thing as assault weapons is the current political context is a lot whining about not much at all.

I for one think it's fucking ridiculous that you can't appreciate the argument against hi-capacity rounds. Thank you for proving my point that you are in fact unreasonable when it comes to this issue, and as a Californian I feel pretty safe without having all the yahoos walking around town with a gun on their hip. That isn't self-defense, that's paranoia and individual states should be free to make a determination about what regulations they want in that regard, at the same time, the irresponsible regulations of many states clearly is resulting in trans-state trafficking and that is a function of interstate commerce.

I honestly do not read about many murders happening where having a gun would have prevented anything in Los Angeles. The Chief of the Los Angeles Police Department Charlie Beck is opposed to it happening here and frankly I think it's for good reason. I'm sure the gun nuts will now come with their few examples and to that I simply say consider the cautionary tale of George Zimmerman.

[AH1Apache]

108. So let me get this straight

you think that states should be able to set their own regulations? You mean like if certain people can vote, if certain groups can marry. and so on and so forth.
The term "reasonable gun control" is code for lets see how far we can push gun control.
Ever wonder why we don't trust people like you when you say reasonable gun control?
Who do you think is responsible for awaking a sleeping giant? Here's a hint, AWB-1994

[sarisataka]

118. Acutaly what I said was

Hi-cap mags (I would be willing to negotiate on this one although I do believe when it was imposed before the complaint was people were buying larger "more lethal" calibers)

Not

I for one think it's fucking ridiculous that you can't appreciate the argument against hi-capacity rounds. Thank you for proving my point that you are in fact unreasonable when it comes to this issue

And I thought we were becoming friends

My point was when Hi-cap mags were limited (in a very ineffective way) the gun control crowd became upset that guns started being made smaller i.e. more concealable, and in larger calibers.
So assume Brady utopia- all hi-cap mags are banned, no grandfathering even*poof, gone*. Will the next tragedy require that a gun must be at least 15 inches long and weigh a minimum of 6 pounds? Or no caliber larger than a spitball?
Sliding the slope again.

individual states should be free to make a determination about what regulations they want in that regard

Um... isn't that what we have, you just don't like it?

irresponsible regulations of many states clearly is resulting in trans-state trafficking and that is a function of interstate commerce

Do you want the Congress that just passed HR 222 to step in and create a national standard?

I must bring up the irony that Brady, VPC... who have been screaming for national magazine limits, assault gun bans, FBI, NCIS, LMNOP background checks had a complete cow that HR 222 violates state rights.

Police chiefs=political appointees. They will mirror the mayors stance whether pro or anti.

I am sure you are aware of the NRA's Armed Citizen column which prints several self defense reports monthly with references to the news source so I won't bother you with other similar sites.

I simply say consider the cautionary tale of George Zimmerman.

Here we finally do agree. With rights come responsibilities and with abuse of rights there should follow consequences. If the law allows abuse without consequence it should be changed. That does not mean throw it out completely.

[gejohnston]

49. that certainly was the case in Ohio

http://cincinnati.com/blogs/politics/2010/06/14/nra-to-endorse-strickland/

[Callisto32]

55. HAHA.

.556

Just seems an appropriate number, given the current "gun culture" in the U.S.

[ileus]

56. Not all barrels are threaded...

[Remmah2]

61. That explains why some screws are loose.

No threads.

[DanTex]

57. Good article. And I see that the right-wing talking points have arrived right on cue!

Funny, every time someone posts something remotely sane about guns -- something that doesn't come from FOX or WorldNetDaily or WashingtonTimes -- we always seem to get a bunch of pro-gunners with <100 posts parroting NRA propaganda almost verbatim in response.

The disconnect between the Guns board and the rest of DU -- as well as the disconnect between pro-gunners and reality -- is pretty remarkable.

[gejohnston]

58. if the article was

historically accurate, he might have had some valid points.

[DanTex]

68. As far as I can tell, the "inaccuracy" amounts to failing to mention the loophole in...

...AWB that grandfathered pre-existing high-capacity magazines. But this doesn't change the point that high-capacity magazines should be banned -- something that pretty much 100% of sane people agree with -- there's no reason anyone needs a 30-round magazine except to kill a lot of people quickly.

But this is the usual NRAer game: find some technicality that was wrong, and use it as an excuse to dismiss valid arguments that are essentially unchanged by the omission. And I get it, if I were in NRAer, I'd much rather harp about failing to mention loopholes in the AWB than try to argue that high-capacity mags should be legal ("but it's my RIGHT! Do you also want to put a limit on the number of WORDS in a SENTENCE!"... lol)

Anyway, despite failing to mention this loophole in AWB, this is in fact a good article (and I don't agree with all of it), and it is far more factual than most anything I've seen pro-gunners post here (not too much of a surprise, since the pro-gunners' favorite sources tend to be owned by Rupert Murdoch for some odd reason -- OK, that's not quite fair. As far as I know, WorldNetDaily and TownHall are not owned by Murdoch).

For example, consider the recent work of fiction claiming to debunk the "myths" of gun control, written by professional climate change denier Larry Bell, and posted here not once but twice. The difference is that the pro-gun types like Larry Bell go way beyond just technical omissions that don't change to the main argument. The pro-gun lies, include pretending that the Brady Campaign has simply invented the fact that gun ownership has dropped, despite the fact that we both know this comes from GSS, universally considered the best source for gun ownership statistics by social scientists (including your friend). And then there's the claim that NCVS only counts DGUs "where a citizen kills a criminal, not when one is only wounded". This is not an omission it is an overt lie, and it makes a huge difference to the argument, because if that were true, it would be a valid reason to discount NCVS DGU statistics.

If you look at those two threads, you see a bunch of the usual pro-gunner suspects posting. And yet nobody sees fit to object to the lies or even acknowledge them. Including people like you, who know better.

Here's the thing. Presumably the DU pro-gunners represent the best and brightest of the lot, because whether or not you like to admit it, the vast majority of hardcore pro-gunners are right-wing nutjobs. So, given that even here on DU, the pro-gunners are almost universally jump all over technical inaccuracies to dismiss otherwise solid articles by credible sources, while ignoring over very blatant and central lies in pro-gun articles from right-wingers, what does that say about the intellectual and factual footing of the pro-gun ideology?

[gejohnston]

74. If you look up the word loophole,

you will find it was not a loophole. It was a grandfather clause.

Ummm I don't see anything quoting worldnetdaily or townhall. What pro gun lies for example? Can you point them out and provide evidence? Brady lies are easy to point out. Mostly on technical issues, but that is the centerpiece of much of their propaganda.

[DanTex]

97. Try a little harder ge...

If you really haven't seen links to WND or TownHall on this forum, you haven't been paying attention. Here, I'll save you some googling:
FoxNews (way too easy)
WashingtonTimes (also pretty easy)
WorldNetDaily (also pretty easy)
theblaze (glenn beck, a bit harder)
TownHall (definitely not as common as WND)
FreeRepublic (yes THE FR)!
Mike Vanderbeough from Sipsey Street
Right-wing law professor Eugene Volokh
Etc.

What do I win?

As far as "What pro gun lies for example?", well I'm glad you asked. As I wrote above...

For example, consider the recent work of fiction claiming to debunk the "myths" of gun control, written by professional climate change denier Larry Bell, and posted here not once but twice. The difference is that the pro-gun types like Larry Bell go way beyond just technical omissions that don't change to the main argument. The pro-gun lies, include pretending that the Brady Campaign has simply invented the fact that gun ownership has dropped, despite the fact that we both know this comes from GSS, universally considered the best source for gun ownership statistics by social scientists (including your friend). And then there's the claim that NCVS only counts DGUs "where a citizen kills a criminal, not when one is only wounded". This is not an omission it is an overt lie, and it makes a huge difference to the argument, because if that were true, it would be a valid reason to discount NCVS DGU statistics.

Are you going to ignore this again? Should I paste it again? OK, you win, one more time.

For example, consider the recent work of fiction claiming to debunk the "myths" of gun control, written by professional climate change denier Larry Bell, and posted here not once but twice. The difference is that the pro-gun types like Larry Bell go way beyond just technical omissions that don't change to the main argument. The pro-gun lies, include pretending that the Brady Campaign has simply invented the fact that gun ownership has dropped, despite the fact that we both know this comes from GSS, universally considered the best source for gun ownership statistics by social scientists (including your friend). And then there's the claim that NCVS only counts DGUs "where a citizen kills a criminal, not when one is only wounded". This is not an omission it is an overt lie, and it makes a huge difference to the argument, because if that were true, it would be a valid reason to discount NCVS DGU statistics.

Did you catch it that time, or did it flash by too quickly?

Like I said, the gun control "lies" you refer to are things like "a clip is not a magazine" or quibbling about the definition of a "loophole", things that have nothing to do with the substance of the argument. When it comes to the important facts: that the US has far more homicide and gun violence than any other developed country, that the number of people who die from gunshots in a single year comfortably exceeds the total number of Americans who died in 9-11, Iraq, and Afghanistan combined over the last decade, etc. gun control advocates are spot on.

There's a reason that scientists and credible and progressive media voices are on one side of this debate, and Glenn Beck and WorldNetDaily are on the other.

[gejohnston]

102. Here is one

can you dispute the facts? You can have the dueling scientists. Everyone can point out the flaws in each study. The ones you don't like and appear in criminology and law journals are also peer reviewed. They just don't do press releases.

that the US has far more homicide and gun violence than any other developed country, that the number of people who die from gunshots

post hoc ergo propter hoc. Since murder rates in the US and Canada follow cycles there is no evidence gun laws matter either way. If anything, increasing crime increases gun sales. I have yet to hear an explanation on why "development" matters.

Rather than measuring gun sales, compare number of ownership licences issued per capita in places like IL, or New York state. I don't know if anyone measured it.
I have a question, if gun ownership drops to 1950s levels, who cares? I don't. Even if your numbers are correct, that puts the US on par with Canada, Norway, and Serbia. It might put us behind Finland. It does not put us that far more than France and New Zealand.

some MDs and economists who indulge in sagecraft is on your side, not serious scientists. Serious scientists don't give a shit about ideology. If the results conflict with their hypothesis or ideology, they accept the evidence and deal with it. Progressive does not always mean credible. Blind obedience to ideology and conventional wisdom blunts critical thinking. Just look at Rush's fans. I take them all with a grain of salt. I think Thom Hartmann is right most of the time, not all of the time. To paraphrase Forest Gump: ideology and dishonesty go together like peas and carrots. They are all dishonest about something if it serves their purpose.
Glenn Beck is a self described rodeo clown who does not give a rat's ass about politics. He makes up red meat bullshit because there is money to be made. If he could make more money as a progressive, he would be a progressive. 100 years ago, WND would be running the anti gun propaganda. The cycle will switch again if we go back to the gilded age.

[DanTex]

106. I'll just keep posting it until you respond to it...

Sorry, no running away. The fact of the matter is, the "lies" of gun control side are technicalities and quibbles about the definition of a "loophole". But the lies of the pro-gunners are actual, well, lies:

For example, consider the recent work of fiction claiming to debunk the "myths" of gun control, written by professional climate change denier Larry Bell, and posted here not once but twice. The difference is that the pro-gun types like Larry Bell go way beyond just technical omissions that don't change to the main argument. The pro-gun lies, include pretending that the Brady Campaign has simply invented the fact that gun ownership has dropped, despite the fact that we both know this comes from GSS, universally considered the best source for gun ownership statistics by social scientists (including your friend). And then there's the claim that NCVS only counts DGUs "where a citizen kills a criminal, not when one is only wounded". This is not an omission it is an overt lie, and it makes a huge difference to the argument, because if that were true, it would be a valid reason to discount NCVS DGU statistics.

I know it may be uncomfortable for you to be confronted with such blatant lies from your fellow pro-gunners, particularly given that they were posted here twice, and they got high marks from many of the regulars, despite being full of obvious falsehoods and being written by someone whose main purpose in life is to deny science for the sake of right-wing lobbies.

I'll say it again:

Here's the thing. Presumably the DU pro-gunners represent the best and brightest of the lot, because whether or not you like to admit it, the vast majority of hardcore pro-gunners are right-wing nutjobs. So, given that even here on DU, the pro-gunners are almost universally jump all over technical inaccuracies to dismiss otherwise solid articles by credible sources, while ignoring over very blatant and central lies in pro-gun articles from right-wingers, what does that say about the intellectual and factual footing of the pro-gun ideology?

[gejohnston]

107. you were asking me a question?

So you found a couple of example. Back to your usual nonsense claiming bullshit to be fact. Copy and paste away. When you can't deal with substance, baffle with bullshit.
But since genetic fallacy is your thing, does it bother you that Fred Phelps is a registered Dem and has ran for office as one?
what you highlighted is, well, bullshit.

[DanTex]

115. So you concede that the Larry Bell article in Forbes was full of shit?

You should try to write more clearly. I think the answer is "yes". When you say "what you highlighted is, well, bullshit", I think you are agreeing with me that what Larry Bell said is bullshit. But maybe you're accusing me of saying bullshit. Could you clarify that?

OK. Now onto your "genetic fallacy" thing. Wrong!

Let's be very clear. The Larry Bell article isn't something I found out on the internet just to make pro-gunners look bad. It's not like I'm taking something Sarah Palin said and holding all pro-gunners responsible for it. Far from it.

What actually happened is the Larry Bell article was posted twice as an OP, and was received favorably by many of the usual pro-gunners here. And, as I pointed out, the Bell article isn't slightly wrong. We're not talking technicalities. We're talking complete oblivious to the existence of the GSS, and the the very basic facts about how NCVS works. Frankly, it is impossible to be knowledgeable about the gun debate and not immediately spot the obvious lies of the Bell article.

What conclusion is there to draw from this other than that pro-gunners here on DU are either oblivious or indifferent to facts?

And yet here we find the pro-gunners are nitpicking about marginally relevant technicalities and quibbling about the definition of "loophole", desperate to find some way to dismiss what is truly a quite moderate editorial on gun control as somehow being the work of a dishonest and badly misinformed gun-hater. And this from some of the very same people who so excitedly drank the Larry Bell Kool-Aid!!!

The double standard in terms of factual accuracy is breathtaking!

You really don't think this episode is indicative of the (lack of) intellectual integrity of the pro-gunner ideology?

[gejohnston]

117. since I did not read the article

I frankly don't know. I had no idea who Larry Bell is. He does not seem to be offering any Kool Aid.
I would not describe the OP in question as dishonest. That would assume he would know the facts and lie. I have no evidence of that. It is more accurate to say misinformed.
No one denies GSS's existence, but do raise reasonable questions on why they got the results they did. Pavepusher gave a couple of possible reasons. I call that critical thinking. Personally, I tend to think the fluctuation is people who buy a pistol and throw it in the sock drawer for 30 years, then grown kids discover it when mom and dad move to the nursing home.

Basic facts about NCVS? That could apply to you as well.
Since AWB involved a technical (really a cosmetic) regulation, technicalities are very relevant.

The double standard in terms of factual accuracy is breathtaking!

Glass houses?

You really don't think this episode is indicative of the (lack of) intellectual integrity of the pro-gunner ideology?

My Forest Gump paraphrase is consistent. Some are guilty of it more than others. So, are you going to admit the lack of intellectual integrity of the anti-gunner ideology?

[DanTex]

119. Disappointing.

And this, ladies and gentlemen, is the pro-gunner omerta in action. Rather than acknowledge out the obvious falsehoods and lies from a Forbes article from a fellow pro-gunner's OP, instead we get tap-dancing and equivocating.

It's funny how y'all get so nitpicky when it comes to a "clip" versus a "magazine", or the definition of a "loophole", but when it comes to very fundamental lies about DGUs and NCVS and the like, you start with the excuses and the "reasonable questions".

The Forbes article didn't raise "reasonable questions". There may be some other reasonable questions that can be asked about NCVS, but the Forbes OP didn't ask them, instead it made a bunch of obviously false statements. And yet, despite the obvious lies, it was posted twice as an OP, and received favorably by the pro-gunners here. Is there not anyone on the pro-gun side with a little intellectual integrity?

Too bad, really. You had a chance to say "look, I support gun rights, but this Forbes article is complete garbage, and even though it was posted by my fellow pro-gun DUer, I'm not going to sit here and make excuses for it. After all, if I'm going to criticize the Brady Bunch for misusing the term "loophole", I've gotta be consistent and at the very least call out any gross factual errors by people on my side".

But you didn't. Instead you "stood by your man". Such a shame...

[gejohnston]

125. I did not read the fucking article

I did not say anything about the Forbes article. I did not say the Forbes article raised any questions about anything. At least get that right.

Look, I support gun rights, but I did not read the fucking article. I'll tell you what, I'll read it. I'll give an honest opinion. Of course, if I point out it had something correct, don't whine about it.

But if you are going to whine about what I think you I said, when are you going to criticize the Brady Bunch dishonest use of every propaganda buzz word they invent? How about you being honest and saying "I support stricter gun laws, but Brady is dishonest about (you pick the topic)". Oh yeah, rural minorities own guns about the same as rural whites. At least where I have been.

[DanTex]

131. Hey, you asked me about examples of pro-gun lies.

I gave you not just any examples, but examples that were posted (twice) here on DU, and which were a big hit with many of the regular pro-gunners here.

And my point wasn't about Larry Bell as much as it was about the tendencies of pro-gunners here to lap up any piece of pro-gun propaganda no matter how obviously false it is. And the irony when the same people get all nitpicky about details like what "loophole" means.

[gejohnston]

135. so can you be honest about anti gun lies?

I bet not. In fact, you whine about technicalities when you are proven wrong. but hey, I'll do your work for you.

[PavePusher]

83. You are still confused on the issue of "loophole".

"specific construction of law" =/= "loophole"

[DanTex]

100. As one of the OP's of the Larry Bell article from Forbes...

...the fact that you don't even attempt to defend the false content of the article you posted is noted. Here, have another look.

For example, consider the recent work of fiction claiming to debunk the "myths" of gun control, written by professional climate change denier Larry Bell, and posted here not once but twice. The difference is that the pro-gun types like Larry Bell go way beyond just technical omissions that don't change to the main argument. The pro-gun lies, include pretending that the Brady Campaign has simply invented the fact that gun ownership has dropped, despite the fact that we both know this comes from GSS, universally considered the best source for gun ownership statistics by social scientists (including your friend). And then there's the claim that NCVS only counts DGUs "where a citizen kills a criminal, not when one is only wounded". This is not an omission it is an overt lie, and it makes a huge difference to the argument, because if that were true, it would be a valid reason to discount NCVS DGU statistics.

Wanna give it a shot? LOL. No I didn't think so.

It's OK, we already know: you (and other pro-gunners) will post any article, no matter how full of falsehoods, and no matter how much of a climate-denying right-wing nutjob the author is, as long as it supports the gun cause. And as much as you'd like to think that the more progressive articles on gun control, like this OP, are just as inaccurate as the right-wing crap that y'all link to, it just isn't true.

So that's why you are stuck playing word games and ignoring facts.

[pneutin]

101. It's obvious to everyone else but you...

...but since everyone else is probably tired of stating the obvious to the oblivious (you in this case), I'll volunteer. The reason you can't trust GSS and NCVS is because they are both operating under the shaky premise that the respondents to their surveys are telling the truth.

[DanTex]

111. LOL! You're new, so I'll cut you some slack...

So first off, the argument that Larry Bell made was not that people might be lying to NCVS. It was that NCVS only counts DGUs where someone actually got killed. If Larry Bell wanted to say that surveys are unreliable because people might lie to them, then he could have said that. He didn't. Instead he said something that was completely false. Also, Larry Bell didn't say "GSS is unreliable", he simply ignored GSS completely and insisted that there was no evidence supporting the claim that gun ownership was dropped.

So even if you are right about NCVS and GSS being unreliable, that still doesn't get Larry Bell off the hook for lying, nor does it excuse the bulk of the pro-gun DU community for enthusiastically backing the lies of a man best known for denying science. Nor does it mitigate the irony of these same people now criticizing a relatively moderate editorial on gun control for some technical inaccuracies that have little to do with the central arguments.

But, don't get me wrong, the argument you are making is not a good argument. It's actually a remarkably inane argument. It's just that it's a different inane argument than the one Larry Bell was making.

You see, the whole reason that pro-gunners like Larry Bell want to challenge NCVS data is in order to claim that another survey, a phone survey conducted by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, is a more accurate measure of DGUs. If you go with the argument that "respondents might lie", it also wipes out the Kleck DGU survey, that is probably the single most cited false statistic in the entire pro-gun arsenal (2M DGUs per year).

In fact, ironically, the very reason that Kleck's DGU estimate has been rejected many times over in peer-reviewed literature is precisely because external validity checks and close examination of DGU survey data indicate that DGU phone surveys like Kleck's result in a grossly exaggerated estimate of DGU prevalence, and that many (most in fact) self-claimed DGUs are not actually socially beneficial acts of self-defense. I'm sure you think you're the first person to ever imagine that people may lie in surveys, but actually social scientists have been aware of this for a long time, which is why they try as much as possible to refine the survey techniques and also to validate survey results with other sources of data.

Anyway, like I said, you're new to this, and obviously you have no idea what you are talking about, so I'll stop there. My advice would be to start out with a few "guns don't kill people"s, followed by some "if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns". Don't get into the pseudoscience until you've memorized the bumper stickers...

[PavePusher]

113. Really?

"external validity checks and close examination of DGU survey data indicate that DGU phone surveys like Kleck's result in a grossly exaggerated"

Cite, please.

[DanTex]

120. Yes, really.

This should get you started on the DGU debate.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=428987&mesg_id=436540
And then you can move on:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=459674&mesg_id=461816
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=459674&mesg_id=462480
There are links to several peer-reviewed studies cited in there (Cook-Ludwig, Hemenway, and McDowall).

The larger point, of course, is that the Larry Bell piece you posted is completely full of false statements that anyone with half a clue could recognize from a mile away. Kleck and his critics would all agree that NCVS most certainly does not only count DGUs where someone gets killed, as your source Larry Bell claims. Also, Kleck and his critics would also all be aware that the evidence that gun ownership has dropped comes from the General Social Survey, it's not just something the gun control lobby made up.

And these are not controversial items. Larry Bell is simply wrong.

So, while y'all like to nitpick about a "clip" versus a "magazine", and quibble about the definition of a "loophole", when it comes down to the important facts, the vast majority of pro-gunners like yourself either don't know or don't care about the truth.

Or maybe you have some other explanation of why you are able to so easily overlook the obvious falsehoods in the Forbes article, and then become such a stickler for technicalities and definitions when it comes to articles like this OP.

If so, I'd love to hear about it.

Tell me I'm wrong. Tell me you really hold pro-gun editorials like the Forbes article you posted to the same standards of truthfulness that you apply to pro-control editorials.

[pneutin]

122. LOL Reading comprehension is not your strong suit

You'll notice I never mentioned Larry Bell and his article. And having never read it, I am not too concerned with what his opinions are.

The reason NCVS is unreliable has been stated before. It was conducted by federal employees who identified themselves as working on behalf of the US Department of Justice. They never directly asked the respondents of the survey whether they used a gun for self-protection. Respondents were not obligated to reveal whether a firearm was involved, only if they did anything to protect themselves. Would I want to reveal to a law enforcement agency, which has a record of my name and address, certain facts about a situation which may open me to prosecution? Given these circumstances, NCVS (and GSS by extension) is at best a baseline under-estimation of the actual number of DGUs. Is it as much as Kleck's 2 million per year? I doubt it--if I had to guess, it's somewhere in between the 108,000 and 2,000,000 extremes.

I do give you points for your thinly veiled bias under the guise of sounding like you know what you're talking about. When it comes down to it though, you make a lot of noise and parade subjective bias as fact. For example, the claim that "many self-claimed DGUs are not actually socially beneficial acts of self-defense".

[sarisataka]

126. There have been even more surveys...

I have misplaced the site but not counting NCVS, and including Kleck there were fourteen. The range was from 800,000 to 2.5 million. Kleck's was the highest.
Should we compromise, throw out the high and low then average the rest? My money on over/under is over one million.

[DanTex]

128. Awwww... it's "reading comprehension" snark!

Who's that big snarky pro-gunner? Who's playing with the big kids now? It's pneutin! Yes you are!

You'll notice that I did mention the Larry Bell article. And you responded to me. If you choose to ignore my main point and go off on a tangent, that's your reading comprehension issue not mine. What I was actually talking about was the stark contrast between, on one hand, the pro-gunners' lapping up complete falsehoods and lies in the two OPs which posted the Larry Bell article from Forbes, and on the other hand quibbling about technicalities and the definition of a "loophole" right here. It gives insight into both the general cluelessness and also the intellectual dishonesty of the pro-gunner ideology.

Care to comment on that? Or is it all a bit too abstract for you.

As far as DGUs, frankly, I don't really feel at this moment like having that debate again with yet another pro-gunner who gets his/her information exclusively from gun blogs and isn't even aware of the literature not supporting the pro-gun point of view. For example, the Hemenway study that actually presented self-reported DGUs to a panel of judges and a panel of criminology students to determine if they were actually "defensive", and concluded that, as I pointed out, many (most) self-claimed DGUS are not actually socially beneficial acts of self defense. Never heard of that one, huh? Gee, I'm shocked. I guess that's why you must have thought that it was just me asserting my subjective bias...

LOL. Yet another clueless pro-gunner. Well, if you are actually interested in reading some of the studies that don't support your ideological bias, and educate yourself on this topic you can start here.

[PavePusher]

114. On gun ownership rates....

What evidence supports their claim of falling rates?

Is it due to population increase growing faster than new gun owners?

Are people discarding guns en masse somewhere?

What mechanism is used to support the assertion?

And how are they collecting their data?

[DanTex]

121. It comes from the General Social Survey.

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

Some people claim that GSS overstates the magnitude of the decline, but there is little doubt that there are less gun owners now per capita than 20-30 years ago.

It's not all that surprising, a lot of it is due to demographics (gun owners tend to be rural and white, which is becoming less common). Also, you don't need to have people discarding guns en masse for the ownership rate to decline. Because of deaths, if young people take up gun ownership at a rate lower than the older generation, then gun ownership rate goes down. And that's what's been happening.

[Dr_Scholl]

127. My problem with NORC and the University of Chicago

is that both are known for having a strong anti gun bias. Not to mention both are funded by the Joyce Foundation, the financial back bone of the gun control movement in this country.

Anyway, Gallup released a poll recently saying the exact opposite of the GSS. That being said, I don't trust polls very much, they're too easy to manipulate.

[DanTex]

129. LOL, now NORC has a strong anti-gun bias...

Just out of curiosity, how do you feel about global warming? Do you think it's an ivory tower conspiracy to hoard grant money and derail capitalism?

[Dr_Scholl]

134. Then maybe you can explain the difference.

Gallup-47%

GSS-32%

[Glassunion]

90. Nice fallacies.

I lost count

[ileus]

60. glad I have more than 100 posts...

[Johnny Rico]

64. You think the article is a "good" and "sane". Do you think it's accurate?

[AH1Apache]

66. Don't expect an answer

I've asked that several times and all I get is the 2 step and shuffle around the question.

[PavePusher]

85. Number od posts does not seem to correlate closely with factual accuracy....

So that little ad hominem is out the window.

[AH1Apache]

112. And we get anti gunner

parroting the same tired old talking points from VPC and the Brady Bunch.
The disconnect between anti-gunners and reality--is pretty remarkable.
See, I can do it also.

[beevul]

59. My, what a short memory gun grabbers have.

" In 2004, Congress let the assault weapons ban Bill Clinton had passed “sunset” despite overwhelming public support. That law limited the number of rounds of ammunition a shooter could fire before having to reload, and letting it die an untimely death allowed a mentally ill young man in Tucson to purchase a handgun with a 33-round magazine. Had the assault weapons ban remained in place, he may well have been able to shoot the congresswoman, but he would not have been able to empty his clip, killing 6 people and wounding 13 others, before being tackled to the ground."

In 2004 a PRO-GUN DEMOCRAT congress let the assault weapons ban Bill Clinton had passed “sunset”, after a ten year study into its effects.

Anyone that supports such a ban care to chime in about the results of that study?

I thought not.

"It’s no wonder that Democrats have backed off of even talking about guns since Clinton signed the Brady Bill and the assault weapons ban into law nearly two decades ago. The last thing you want to be armed with as an advocate of common sense are phrases like “gun control,” which makes a government-wary public and law-abiding gun-owners uneasy — and susceptible to tendentious “slippery slope” arguments about how “they want to take away your guns.”

Yeah, because nobody wants to take away anyones guns:

"In fact, the assault weapons ban will have no significant effect either on the crime rate or on personal security. Nonetheless, it is a good idea . . . . Its only real justification is not to reduce crime but to desensitize the public to the regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation." Charles Krauthammer

We're going to have to take one step at a time, and the first step is necessarily -- given the political realities -- going to be very modest. . . . e'll have to start working again to strengthen that law, and then again to strengthen the next law, and maybe again and again. Right now, though, we'd be satisfied not with half a loaf but with a slice. Our ultimate goal -- total control of handguns in the United States -- is going to take time. . . . The first problem is to slow down the number of handguns being produced and sold in this country. The second problem is to get handguns registered. The final problem is to make possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition-except for the military, police, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors-totally illegal.

Pete Shields, founder of Handgun Control, Inc. which is now the brady campaign

"Brady Bill is "the minimum step" that Congress should take to control handguns. "We need much stricter gun control, and eventually we should bar the ownership of handguns except in a few cases,"

Rep. William L. Clay D-St. Louis, Mo

I think you have to do it a step at a time and I think that is what the NRA is most concerned about, is that it will happen one very small step at a time, so that by the time people have "woken up" to what's happened, it's gone farther than what they feel the consensus of American citizens would be. But it does have to go one step at a time and the beginning of the banning of semi-assault military weapons, that are military weapons, not "household" weapons, is the first step."

Stockton, California Mayor Barbara Fass

"I shortly will introduce legislation banning the sale, manufacture or possession of handguns (with exceptions for law enforcement and licensed target clubs). . . . It is time to act. We cannot go on like this. Ban them!"

Sen. John H. Chafee R.-R.I., In View of Handguns' Effects, There's Only One Answer: A Ban, Minneapolis Star Tribune, June 15, 1992

""My staff and I right now are working on a comprehensive gun-control bill. We don't have all the details, but for instance, regulating the sale and purchase of bullets. Ultimately, I would like to see the manufacture and possession of handguns banned except for military and police use. But that's the endgame. And in the meantime, there are some specific things that we can do with legislation."

Bobby Rush; Democrat, U.S. House of Representatives, Chicago Tribune, Dec. 5, 1999

"Mr. Speaker, my bill prohibits the importation, exportation, manufacture, sale, purchase, transfer, receipt, possession, or transportation of handguns and handgun ammunition. It establishes a 6-month grace period for the turning in of handguns. It provides many exceptions for gun clubs, hunting clubs, gun collectors, and other people of that kind."

Rep. Major Owens (D-Brooklyn, N.Y.), 139 Cong. Rec. H9088 at H9094, Nov. 10, 1993

"I would like to dispute that. Truthfully. I know it's an amendment. I know it's in the Constitution. But you know what? Enough! I would like to say, I think there should be a law -- and I know this is extreme -- that no one can have a gun in the U.S. If you have a gun, you go to jail. Only the police should have guns."

Rosie Takes on the NRA, Ottawa Sun, April 29, 1999

"A gun-control movement worthy of the name would insist that President Clinton move beyond his proposals for controls -- such as expanding background checks at gun shows and stopping the import of high-capacity magazines -- and immediately call on Congress to pass far-reaching industry regulation like the Firearms Safety and Consumer Protection Act introduced by Senator Robert Torricelli, Democrat of New Jersey, and Representative Patrick Kennedy, Democrat of Rhode Island. Their measure would give the Treasury Department health and safety authority over the gun industry, and any rational regulator with that authority would ban handguns."

Josh Sugarmann (executive director of the Violence Policy Center, Dispense With the Half Steps and Ban Killing Machines, Houston Chronicle, Nov. 5, 1999

"We will never fully solve our nation's horrific problem of gun violence unless we ban the manufacture and sale of handguns and semiautomatic assault weapons."

Jeff Muchnick, Legislative Director, Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, Better Yet, Ban All Handguns, USA Today, Dec. 29, 1993

"The goal of CSGV is the orderly elimination of the private sale of handguns and assault weapons in the United States."

Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, http://www.csgv.org/content/coalition/coal_intro.html (visited June 20, 2000) (boldface added) ("The Coalition to Stop Gun Violence is composed of 44 civic, professional and religious organizations and 120,000 individual members that advocate for a ban on the sale and possession of handguns and assault weapons."

"Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal." U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno, December 1993

"We're bending the law as far as we can to ban an entirely new class of guns." Rahm Emmanuel

"We're going to hammer guns on the anvil of relentless legislative strategy! We're going to beat guns into submission!" Charles Schumer

"Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of all Americans to feel safe." Diane Feinstein

"I don't care about crime, I just want to get the guns." Howard Metzenbaum

"I am one who believes that as a first step the U.S. should move expeditiously to disarm the civilian population, other than police and security officers, of all handguns, pistols and revolvers ...no one should have a right to anonymous ownership or use of a gun." Dean Morris

"I do not believe in people owning guns. Guns should be owned only by the police and military. I am going to do everything I can to disarm this state." Michael Dukakis

"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them...'Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in,' I would have done it." Diane Feinstein

"No, we're not looking at how to control criminals ... we're talking about banning the AK-47 and semi-automatic guns." --U.S. Senator Howard Metzenbaum

"What good does it do to ban some guns? All guns should be banned." U.S. Senator Howard Metzanbaum, Democrat from Ohio


"Until we can ban all of them , then we might as well ban none." U.S. Senator Howard Metzenbaum, Senate Hearings 1993


"I'm not interested in getting a bill that deals with airport security... all I want to do is get at plastic guns." -U.S. Senator Howard Metzenbaum, 1993

"Nobody should be owning a gun which does not have a sporting purpose." Janet Reno

"We have to start with a ban on the manufacturing and import of handguns. From there we register the guns which are currently owned, and follow that with additional bans and acquisitions of handguns and rifles with no sporting purpose." Major Owens

"If it were up to me we'd ban them all." Mel Reynolds CNN's Crossfire, December 9, 1993

But we - the pro gun people - are just supposed to forget about all that right? And if we don't, were "Taking our marching orders from the NRA and the gun manufacturers", or buying into republican fear, right?

Yeah, I'm sure those people I quoted above were misquoted or just plain kidding.

"the gun-show loophole that allows the sale of military-grade weapons without background checks"

Oh, you mean the lack of federal jurisdiction over intrastate commerce, right?


"and has led to the deaths of tens of thousands of Americans as well as Mexicans whose drug cartels find the loophole extremely helpful."

Do you REALLY want to talk about "fast and furious"? Really? I think Perhaps the cartels find that smuggling weapons across the border with the BLESSING of the ATF, and ATF giving its agents explicit orders NOT TO INTERDICT, to be a godsend.

How about you, antis?

"Offered a message that speaks to their ambivalence, people readily recognize that a 33-round clip makes it virtually impossible to tackle a shooter until he has had time to kill 15 or 16 people."

Thank god cho didn't have a 33 round clip at VT...Oh, wait...

"“My view on guns reflects one simple principle: that our gun laws should guarantee the rights and freedoms of all law-abiding Americans. That’s why I stand with the majority who believe in the right of law-abiding citizens to own guns to hunt or protect their families. And that’s why I stand with the majority who believe they have the right to send their kids to school and see them return home safely at night.”

Yeah, that turd really went over well in the past. Its a flat out insult to pretent that wrapping it in a bow of a new and different color makes it any less of a turd, or any more palatable.

That message in slightly different wrapping made the anti-gun movement the monolithic political powerhouse it is today. Oh...wait...


You might try try...actually thinking about the untruths and general propaganda level of this, and other "pieces" like it, and how stupidly easy it is to refute it all, before posting excerpts of this drivel in the future...

[AH1Apache]

62. Well said.

[Atypical Liberal]

69. So many words for so little content.

Last edited Wed Mar 28, 2012, 12:22 PM - Edit history (1)

That was not, however, the first bipartisan moment related to the attack on Gabby Giffords, nor would it be the last. In 2004, Congress let the assault weapons ban Bill Clinton had passed “sunset” despite overwhelming public support. That law limited the number of rounds of ammunition a shooter could fire before having to reload, and letting it die an untimely death allowed a mentally ill young man in Tucson to purchase a handgun with a 33-round magazine. Had the assault weapons ban remained in place, he may well have been able to shoot the congresswoman, but he would not have been able to empty his clip, killing 6 people and wounding 13 others, before being tackled to the ground.

So we aren't even two paragraphs in before the author's lack of knowledge on firearm issues comes to light.

Jered Loughner committed his crime using a Glock 19 handgun with a 30-round magazine instead of the standard 15-round magazine it usually is equipped with. You can see what this looks like here:

This 30-round extended magazine was not affected by the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban. The Glock 19 was introduced in 2010, but will use Glock 17 magazines, which existed prior to the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban.

The 1994 AWB only banned the manufacture of new magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition. It specifically grandfathered in all existing magazines.

So it is unlikely that the Assault Weapons Ban would have impacted Loughner's choice of weapon at all.

Between the Giffords massacre and Martin’s death, we have seen more shootings and more bipartisan moments. Around the anniversary of the Tucson massacre that cut short the congressional career of an extraordinary woman — a woman I had come to know personally and adore in her five years in Congress — came two more mass killings. One occurred in Chardon High School in a small town in Ohio, as a 17-year-old opened fire on students with a Ruger .22-caliber semiautomatic with a capacity of 10 rounds. Fortunately the alleged shooter, T.J. Lane, didn’t have access to a gun with more firepower.

Here we see the author's true agenda revealed. Even weapons such as a .22-caliber target pistol, holding the hallowed 10-round-limit of ammunition, are unacceptable.

It's thus clear why there really is no room for negotiating with anti-gun folks. They won't be satisfied until everyone is left shooting flintlock muzzle loaders.

In the 2010 election cycle, the N.R.A. spent over $7 million in independent expenditure campaigns for and against specific candidates, and it has a remarkable record of success at taking out candidates and elected officials with the misfortune of being caught in its crosshairs.

Which is why I, and millions of other individuals, belong to the NRA and donate our money to make sure that our elected officials respect our rights.

Last year alone guns killed or wounded another 100,000 Americans; roughly 30,000 of them died.

Of course, you only arrive at that number when you include suicides. When you query WISQARS for violent firearm deaths excluding suicides, you see that that in reality only about 13,000 people were killed with firearms.

Anyone serious enough in their attempt to use a firearm to kill themselves is probably going to find a way to kill themselves no matter what. And in any case I'm not interested in having my rights restricted because of people who kill themselves.

But it’s not just money that prevents common-sense action on gun violence in America. Millions of Americans hunt, and a third of all households in the United States own a gun.

In other words, votes also prevent this "common-sense action".

Over the years in my capacity as a strategic messaging consultant, I’ve tested a range of messages on guns, and the messages that resonate with hunters and gun owners sound like this: “If you need an M-16 to hunt deer, you shouldn’t be anywhere near a damned gun,” or “If you’re hunting with an AK-47, you’re not bringing that meat home for dinner.” The first things responsible hunters teach are never to point a gun anywhere but up or down unless you mean to shoot, and where the safety is.

Of course, the second amendment is not about hunting. The second amendment is about preserving the security of free states. We aren't preserving it from the predations of deer. We are preserving it from other people. The second amendment is thus not about shooting animals for food, it's about shooting people who try and destroy the security of free states. The M-16 and AK-47 are state-of-the-art examples of weapons designed for just that purpose.

Of course the anti-gun folks like the author won't admit that. They want you to keep thinking about Bambi.

Edit to add:

And of course, this whole strategy ignores the fact that most gun owners aren't hunters. Pushing a gun-control agenda that tries to pacify hunters is doomed to fail.

The last thing you want to be armed with as an advocate of common sense are phrases like “gun control,” which makes a government-wary public and law-abiding gun-owners uneasy — and susceptible to tendentious “slippery slope” arguments about how “they want to take away your guns.”

Golly, what ever could make us all feel that way? Could it be when people, such as the author, bemoan killings with 10-round .22 target pistols that we wonder what their motivations might be?

Beginning with a statement of principle both makes clear the speaker’s intent and inoculates against all the slippery-slope arguments used by the N.R.A. and the elected officials in its employ or fearful of its power: “My view on guns reflects one simple principle: that our gun laws should guarantee the rights and freedoms of all law-abiding Americans. That’s why I stand with the majority who believe in the right of law-abiding citizens to own guns to hunt or protect their families. And that’s why I stand with the majority who believe they have the right to send their kids to school and see them return home safely at night.” Versions of a message containing that principle win by over a 2:1 margin with independents, and they win in every region of the country, including in my own backyard, in the red clay of Georgia.

Yeah, that's because you don't mention any details in that cute little sound-bite. When you start talking about what kinds of guns you want to leave those law-abiding citizens for hunting or protecting their families, suddenly the support dries up.

And of course this doesn't even touch the real motivation for the second amendment, which has nothing to do with hunting or family self-defense. When you start looking at the real motivation for the second amendment, and the appropriate firearms it is talking about - military-grade small arms appropriate for infantry use, now the gun-grabbers are in a real pickle.

[AH1Apache]

70. Wow

nice job of picking apart his article and revealing just how dishonest this author is.

[PavePusher]

86. Don't forget to add that AR and AK pattern rifles....

make excellent hunting weapons. That fact is often ignored.

[ileus]

92. That's my only goal for my new AR build.

223 isn't legal in Va, so I have to take my AR's to WV to deer hunt. This season I'm either going to have a 6.8 or a 300 blackout to hunt with.

[Remmah2]

110. You evil barrel shroud owner.

Buy an M1A.

[Remmah2]

109. AR platform has been the traditional CMP rifle for years. nt

nt

[friendly_iconoclast]

132. Anti-gun types are fond of making spree killers reload, aren't they?

I said it a year ago, and I'll say it again today:

friendly_iconoclast Sun Mar-13-11 05:45 PM
Response to Reply #3
6. Are victims of spree killers less dead if the maniac must reload?

I rather doubt it- the VT and Luby's massacres both had more dead than in Tuscon, and both shooters in those cases used
"O'Donnell Approved" magazines. We need to try and avoid 'solutions' that are simple, obvious- and wrong.