Who Will Face Down the Gun Lobby?

[defendandprotect]

Who Will Face Down the Gun Lobby?
Apr 19, 2009

By E.J. Dionne

Excerpt . . .

Earlier this year, when Attorney General Eric Holder called for a renewal of the ban on assault weapons-he was only repeating the commitment Obama made during his presidential campaign-the response from a group of 65 pro-gun House Democrats was: No way

Their letter to Holder was absurd. “The gun-control community has intentionally misled many Americans into believing that these weapons are fully automatic machine guns. They are not. These firearms fire one shot for every pull of the trigger.” Doesn’t that make you feel better?

Those Democrats should sit down with Gov. Ed Rendell of Pennsylvania. “Time and time again, our police are finding themselves outgunned,” Rendell said in Harrisburg last week. “They are finding themselves with less firepower than the criminals they are trying to bring to justice.”

The Democratic governor told his own state’s legislators that if they didn’t support such a ban, “then don’t come to those memorial services” for the victims of gun violence. “It’s wrong,” he said. “It’s hypocritical.”

And why can’t we at least close the gun show loophole? Licensed arms dealers have to do background checks on people who buy guns. The rules don’t apply at gun shows that, as the Violence Policy Center put it, have become “Tupperware Parties for Criminals.”

But too many members of Congress are “petrified” by the gun lobby,

says Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, D-N.Y., a crusader for sane gun legislation ever since her husband was killed and her son paralyzed by a gunman on the Long Island Rail Road in 1993.

Family members of the victims of gun violence, she says, are mystified at Congress’ inability to pass even the most limited regulations. “Why can’t you just get this done?” she is asked. “What is it you don’t understand?”

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20090419_who_will_face_down_the_gun_lobby/

[villager]

1. NRA = teabaggers with inexplicable political clout

n/t

[quiller4]

27. Only 39% of the population supports expanding gun laws

The NRA has lots of company here. I'd like to see real enforcement of existing laws and adequate funding so that when a gun dealer does a NICS checks/he gets up-to-date information. People pass background checks who shouldn't because states are woefully behind on submitting data about felony convictions and involuntary committments for mental health treatment. Talk about a "Gun Show Loophole" is misleading. Background checks aren't required for any private sales. A percentage of private sales take place at gun shows but that is a relatively small percentage of total private sales. I'd like to see background checks required for all sales but when the NICS system is overwhelmed now we can hardly expand it without putting infrastructure improvements in place first.

[villager]

52. Let start with where we agree: How do we keep the NICS from being overwhelmed?

n/t

[MajorChode]

64. Who did that survey? The NRA?

Those numbers don't come close to reality. You'd best check Gallup.

[X_Digger]

73. He was quoting gallup..

http://www.gallup.com/poll/117361/Support-Gun-Control-Laws-Time-Lows.aspx

[MajorChode]

88. On what planet does "supports expanding gun laws" = "banning handguns"?

What he claimed and what that survey asked aren't even within a cab ride of each other.

Scroll down a bit on your own link.

[X_Digger]

89. Scroll down yourself.

Thus, as of last fall, Americans were evenly divided at 49% each over whether the laws covering the sale of firearms should be made stricter, or not. This contrasts with public opinion in the early 1990s, when the balance of opinion was more than 2 to 1 in favor of making gun laws more strict.

eta: Ahh, I see.. he typo'd 39 instead of 49

[MajorChode]

94. So you're a mindreader now?

How can you even pretend to know where he got his information or what he meant?

And how do you think the survey would go if people were asked more pointed questions? The results aren't even close. Back when John Hopkins was conducting opinion polls on such things the support was overwhelming for stricter gun control laws, even among gun owners.
http://www.jhsph.edu/gunpolicy/99_Summary_of_Findings.pdf

How do you think they survey would go if the people who actually have to live with gun violence (mostly the very poor) had a public relations machine that equaled the NRA?

[X_Digger]

96. No source? Okay, got source. Impugn the source! (with '99 article)

*sigh*

And how do you think the survey would go if people were asked more pointed questions?

You mean if it were a push poll with a goal in mind ahead of time? I'm sure you could get the results you want if you try hard enough.

How do you think they survey would go if the people who actually have to live with gun violence (mostly the very poor) had a public relations machine that equaled the NRA?

So if a push poll doesn't work, then just throw out polls altogether and blame their biased results on propaganda.

It never ends until you're right, no matter how much data presented, does it?

[MajorChode]

98. You have absolutely no clue what a "push poll" is

You should better educate yourself before you spew such nonsense.

Your ignorance was good for a chuckle so at least there's entertainment value involved.

[eqfan592]

381. The 39% number...

...comes from a CNN poll done recently. I read the article yesterday, but you can search for it yourself.

And I do know what a push poll is. It's time to accept that you are not in the majority here. This might be a good time to begin deprogramming yourself. It takes some time, given the skill with which the VPC and the Brady Campaign have brainwashed so many, but it can be done.

[X_Digger]

388. Doh, statistical beat me to it.. n/t

[eqfan592]

389. Thanks X-Digger :)

Though I didn't realize how old the post i replied to was. Sad, because the OP will likely never realize how wrong he/she was.

[Statistical]

382. That poll was from 1999. Gallup showed higher support for gun control in 1999 also.

According to Gallup poll support for more gun control was 66% in 1999 falling to just 49% this year.

Support in general has fallen 34% in a decade.
So likely support for individual proposals has fallen also.

Also a decade of exposure to CCW and the general lack of violence called by CCW permit holders has increased public support for CCW.
Not a single state in the last 2 decades has gone from "shall issue" to "may issue" while 27 states have gone fro either no issue or may issue to "shall issue".

[Statistical]

383. Generally good idea to back up stats.

It avoids the debacle in the above sub thread.

Poll: Fewer Americans support stricter gun control laws
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/08/gun.control.poll/index.html

[Katya Mullethov]

376. Completely explicable clout

And to a some , completely incomprehensible opinions .

[iverglas]

380. and this throwaway handful of words

was worth dredging up a 3-month old thread that already had hundreds of posts in it?



... only a handful of my own words and I still couldn't type 'em right ...

[Katya Mullethov]

392. Apparently........ it was

You type just fine .

[anonymous171]

2. Hopefully no one. Gun Control is a stupid issue. Ending the war on drugs will solve Mexico's problem

Increasing gun regulations won't do anything.

[L0oniX]

The criminals would love gun control ...that way they won't have to be conserned...

when they break into your house and kill your wife and kids.

[anonymous171]

11. So would the corporations. nt

[pocoloco]

14. So do repugs......

that is the quickest way to get one back in the White House.

[L0oniX]

16. Uhm no ...not prosecuting the torturers and going on with the wars will do that all on its own.

[Captain Hilts]

26. More men are killed by guns than "wife and kids." Regulate HANDguns. Not rifles. nt

[L0oniX]

71. How would go about getting the guns out of the hands of criminals?

[Captain Hilts]

72. Most crimes are committed with handguns. Cheap handguns. Regulate their sale and ownership.

It's no big secret folks buy a cheap gun to commit a crime, then toss it.

[L0oniX]

87. Itisn't just the cheap hand guns. Most of them will cost you at least $300.

I think all this anti-gun venting is going to only help to divide our party. I'll bet that at least 25% of the DU members own a gun of some sort. Some here are about to start accusing anyone here that is for gun self defense as being a troll repuke. Of course that's what the Dem party is good at ...dividing.

[Captain Hilts]

90. 'Cheap' is a realative term. You don't buy an expensive firearm to rob a 7/11. nt

[X_Digger]

91. Last time someone ran a poll in GD with 500+ responses..

..of those who responded, it was 51/49, IIRC.

[L0oniX]

106. Yea that's what I thought but wasn't sure.

[krispos42]

141. They buy a stolen, cheap handgun to commit crimes

Which automatically negates the proposed controls, because it was bought and (maybe) registered by somebody else who isn't a criminal or mentally unstable.



If the gun cost $700 new (a reasonable price) and it's stolen, then the street value can be almost anything simply because it cost the criminal selling the gun $0 to aquire it.


I understand they prefer revolvers because they don't leave casings behind if they are shot.

[eqfan592]

384. Banning "cheap" handguns is viewed as a style of class warfare...

...as well it should be. The poor have every right to self defense, and to deny them an effective means to do so by making all guns above their price range is simply wrong.

How about going after the root causes of crime instead?

[Statistical]

385. Not exactly true. Most violent crime involves no weapon.

Among crimes committed with firearms the majority (85% involve handguns).

However most crimes are committed with no firearm.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/tables/firearmnonfataltab.htm

All firearms are used in about 9% of violent crime.

[wolfgangmo]

217. I agree - regulate handguns

I grew up in Canada. They still teach rifle shooting in the basement of the elementary school. Canadians have lots of rifles, but few handguns. Thus less problems.

I know someone here will find anecdotal evidence of gun violence in Canada, but the weapons are coming from the US. If is our problem and it is time we started to fix it.

[TheWraith]

252. It's not that simple.

Point one, handguns are accepted as constitutionally protected in the US in a way that they aren't in Canada. See District of Columbia vs. Heller.

Two, we have ample evidence that handgun regulation--without changing the reasons for demand--doesn't change anything. New York State has some of the most stringent handgun laws in the country. We still had 800 gun murders in 2007, mostly with handguns. Case is the same for California. Simply regulating handguns doesn't get rid of gun crime any more than making tighter drug laws gets rid of drug use.

As I continue to tell anyone who'll listen to me, the first and foremost driver of gun violence in this country is poverty. Gangs, drugs, theft, all trace back to poverty. Do some serious work to reduce that, and we'll see gun violence go down.

[ZombieHorde]

278. still had 800 gun murders in 2007

How many in 2006,05, and 04?

[TheWraith]

305. A bit higher. 1007 in 2005, not sure about before that.

But murder rates have been dropping nationwide for the last 15 years or so.

[russ1943]

371. Not really.

gun crime quit declining about 10 years ago

Since 1999 murder rates quit dropping and have been pretty much stable since then. Likewise firearms murder rates.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/tables/guncrimetab.htm

[Statistical]

387. That is gun crime. The murder rate has gone down.

[maxsolomon]

263. typically, it is the husband who is more likely to kill his wife and kids

you're hyperbolizing or you're irrationally fearful.

[defendandprotect]

17. Regulation is nasty . . . look how de-regulation helped the economy -- !!!

[anonymous171]

21. Yep. We should regulate what common citizens can and cannot buy.

We should also regulate who common citizens can marry.

[defendandprotect]

32. Every other product is regulated . . .

and capitalism used to be regulated . . .

So should guns be regulated ---

[anonymous171]

33. Guns are already regulated. nt

[defendandprotect]

36. Not sufficiently. . . and GOP continues to work to make gun manufacturers immune

to prosecution ---

States are paying for woundings --- $35,000 or more each!!!

Let's transfer some of those costs and see how many people want to pay for a gun

which reflects those casualties and those costs!!!

[anonymous171]

37. Why should gun manufactures be liable for how their products are used?

Is Honda liable for how their cars are used? Can they be sued by someone who was hit by a Honda?

[defendandprotect]

41. When a gun is defective, the manufacturer should be liable. . .

[anonymous171]

42. Define "defective" nt

[defendandprotect]

48. Defective Gun Had Improper Design and No Childproofing Device

firearms and ammunition manufactured in the U.S. are not subject to any federal health and consumer safety oversight

Defective Gun Had Improper Design and No Childproofing Device
A settlement has been reached in a products liability lawsuit involving a defective gun. ... We believe that this is true only to a certain extent—consumer education ...www.braytonlaw.com/news/legalnews/050605_guns.htm - Cached

Defective Firearms Greater Threat than Thought
... Firearms and America's Unregulated Gun Industry," examines what is known about defective firearms, the gun industry's response to the problem, and suggests a ...usgovinfo.about.com/od/consumerawareness/a/badguns.htm - Cached

. . . unlike almost every other consumer product, firearms and ammunition manufactured in the U.S. are not subject to any federal health and consumer safety oversight? Fact is, no federal agency has the necessary authority to ensure that poorly made guns don't explode or unintentionally discharge when they are dropped or bumped.

It also addresses the gun industry's current push to inoculate itself from civil liability. The study was recently distributed by the Consumer Federation of America.

"The gun lobby maintains that unintentional shootings generally occur as a result of carelessness on the part of the gun owner," said Sue Peschin, CFA Firearms Project Director. "But while consumer education certainly plays an important role in injury prevention, no amount of user instruction can eliminate the risks associated with product defects in design or manufacture."

"To successfully reduce death and injury from defective firearms, the gun industry must be regulated for health and safety," continued Peschin. "At the very least, manufacturers should be required to recall, repair and refund consumers for products deemed defective. Absent health and safety regulation, defective firearms will continue to be a deadly threat to public safety."

"In the 109th Congress, the gun lobby will once again try to limit civil liability for injuries and deaths caused by industry negligence," said Peschin. "If successful, it will further erode consumer recourse and advance the gun industry's campaign to retain its unique exemption from responsibility. Ultimately, this dangerous dynamic can and must change. How many more firearm injuries and deaths it will take to spur this change remains to be seen."

[paulsby]

131. knives and bathtubs aint childproofed either

and fwiw, more kids drown (far more) than are killed by guns.

and i'm talking KIDS, not HCI's version of children which includes 19 yr old gangbangers.

[defendandprotect]

186. Hey, I've cut myself slicing onions . . . wow!

In that regard the entire nation is overarmed!!!

Adults also get hurt in bathrooms -- remember Neil Armstrong falling in his

bathroom?

Pool owners also carry home INSURANCE under which they can be sued . . .

Why should any children be killed by guns --- ?

and why should friends and family be the source of guns for criminals?

[paulsby]

225. no child

SHOULD be killed by guns, unless it was in lawful self-defense or defense of another.

however, the stats are such that accidental deaths of children via guns is exceptionally rare, has been going DOWN on a per capita basis since stats first started being kept, and isn't even top 5 in the list of causes of death for kids.

any death of a child (pool, gun, etc.) is a tragedy.

but we don't live in a perfect world.

we will have accidental deaths of all sorts and that will never go away.

[gorfle]

378. The problem here is the definition of "defective"

The whole "defective guns" thing is a red herring thrown out by the anti-gun crowd. The simple fact is that firearm manufactures issue safety recalls all the time:

http://www.ruger.com/recall.html

The simple truth is, however, that the anti-gun crowd considers any gun that fires a bullet to be "dangerously defective". Everyone plainly saw the back-door attempt at gun control through liability lawsuits for what it was, and so they got legislation passed to prevent it.

The simple fact is that firearms are weapons. They are designed to be dangerous. There is only so much safety you can design into a weapon designed to be reliably and quickly deployed before you compromise it's reliability and deployability. I'm sure the anti-gun crowd would not be happy with the safety features of a firearm until it was wrapped in duct tape, poured into a block of cement, and required a code to be transmitted from three separate law-enforcement agencies before it would go bang.

[jmg257]

43. I agree, there. Don't think they are immune for such damages.

"An Act

...To prohibit causes of action against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and importers of firearms or ammunition products, and their trade associations, for the harm solely caused by the criminal or unlawful misuse of firearm products or ammunition products by others when the product functioned as designed and intended...

This Act may be cited as the `Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act'.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS; PURPOSES.
(a) Findings- Congress finds the following:
(1) The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
(2) The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the rights of individuals, including those who are not members of a militia or engaged in military service or training, to keep and bear arms.
..."



Nothing in there about immunity from defective products.

[wolfgangmo]

218. Specious argument number 27

The old we can't hold gun manufacturers liable because we don't sue car companies.

Er. Yes, we do. If they produce products that are dangerous then they get sued. Also, they make some products that are not street safe. We keep those of racetracks. Got any more logical fallacies in your bag?

[jmg257]

39. There ya go - charge the perpetrators. 90% of homicide offenders in Chicago have criminal histories,

so why should Ruger or S&W be libel 'cause some criminal scumbag drug dealer or gang member decides to shoot someone?

Let those miscreants that COMMIT gun violence pay for the damage THEY do.

[defendandprotect]

44. Why should our states/citizens pay for gun violence -- $35,000 per wounding--????

And didn't Ashcroft prevent gun sale lists from being turned over after 9/11?

Who is law enforcement working for -- citizens or the NRA--???

[jmg257]

47. Don't think they should...did you miss the title? "charge the perpetrators".

Don't know about Ashcroft re: 9/11...what's the point?...What's it matter?


Law Enforcement works for the State.

[defendandprotect]

51. Evidently you don't understand who currently pays for gun violence . . . ???

And, evidently, you are also unaware of Ashcroft and the NRA coddling!

What's the point? What's the point of a fascist/GOP organization having a

terrorizing effect on Congress? And a GOP Attorney General?

Law enforcement doesn't work for state/citizens when GOP/NRA is controlling the agenda.

[jmg257]

54. I told you who SHOULD pay for gun violence, did you not understand 'perpetrators'?

And again, what is the issue with Ashcroft withholding gun lists after 9/11? I am not aware of the issue you are asking about, and not sure how/if that is related to our discussion.

The primary point of the NRA is to help keep secured rights for Americans, specifically the 2nd amendment. Wow - they are SO fascist! How dare they work & lobby to protect our freedoms!?!


Law enforcement certainly works for the state - enforcing the laws that are enumerated, and especially in supporting the Constitution(s). The NRA supports the Constitution, especially the 2nd amendment/the right to bear arms, so the agendas overlap.

[defendandprotect]

60. The discussion is about NRA and its "petrifying" influence on Congress . . .

and the GOP/NRA agenda . . .

BS on the NRA -- it's preventing regulation of guns and preventing the necessity

for gun owners to carry insurance on their weapons.

Again, the 2nd amendment has an opening clause which only works for NRA fascist agenda

IF IT IS IGNORED.

Law enforcement corrupted by GOP/NRA which we've seen for decades does not work for

either citizens or the states -- nor for police enforcement intended to protect

citizens . . . .

All of which is clearly spelled out for you in the Pennsylvania Governor's comments ---

The NRA supports violence and fearmongering and the GOP agenda ---

[jmg257]

69. IF the opening phrase was MORE relevant, then the people would have complete access

to full-auto weapons - M4s, M16s, M14s, etc. You know, those arms MOST suitable for an effective (well regulated) Militia duty, as upheld by the USSC in Miller.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,.."

Of course then, keeping and bearing those arms would also be mandatory/required/necessary, as many of the people would be in the 'organized' Militia.




The NRA supported the creation of the 1934 NFA Act which put the restrictions on machine guns, as well as short barrel rifles & short barrel shotguns in the first place.

They do NOT support however, the banning of numerous semi-auto rifles just because they look scary, or because they may have/had military applications or full-auto equivalents. I agree.

[defendandprotect]

180. What is the opening clause "relevant" to . . . ????

Are you saying that the NRA wants to stop at guns?

Of course not - they're looking to spread guns onto college campuses ---

probably invested in GOP/Bush wars!

If the Supremes were willing to appoint Bush for the GOP, they'd be happy to

give anything to the GOP/NRA --

probably including all the "M's" -- and tanks, as well!

And I'll go for it -- as long as owners of these arms carry INSURANCE.

[paulsby]

132. we pay for obesity too

it's an extremely expensive problem, and over 60% (according to the CDC) of health problems are related to diet and smoking.

so let's ban fatty food and cigarettes.

and monitor everybody's calories!

long live the nanny state

[defendandprotect]

181. Again, corporate greed and lack of educating the public . . .

however, someone's obesity doesn't kill another citizen -- !!!

Guns are funny that way . . . !!!

[paulsby]

221. guns don't kill other citzens's either

people who misuse them (or use them properly in self-defense or defense of others do)

also, spare me the "it's the corporations fault" crap about obesity

our obesity problem is largely the fault of those who won't stop stuffing their faces with junk.

[wolfgangmo]

219. more fallacies

Yes we pay for obesity.

The causes are largely in processed foods which can trigger genetic propensities for diabetes and other metabolic diseases. So would I like to see big agrabiz regulated until they are small enough to drag into a bathroom and drown in a tub? Yes.

It is not fatty foods, but rather processed empty nutrient food that are the problem, and yes, we should be doing something about them. Not to do so will put our food industries at a competitive disadvantage. Look at GM and Chrysler; coddled and protected for decades and now ... dead or dying. The EU and large parts of Asia already ban lots of US foods. This trend will increase until the only people eating frankenfoods are US.

It is not about banning anything, but rather providing incentives to behave responsibly. For example, gun owners could be required to have insurance which would be MUCH more expensive if your guns were not properly stored so they couldn't be stolen. My brother is a collector and you would need a tow truck to even budge his safe. And assuming you could open his safe, then you would need to get ammo out of another safe inside the safe. Plus all weapons are trigger guarded.

There are ways to do this that don't slow down any responsible person. We need to start somewhere. Why not?

[paulsby]

222. your fallacies

some nanny legislators already HAVE banned certain foods e.g. transfats, etc.

and obesity is plain and simple the fault of those who won't control THEIR own diets.

i am a competitive strength athlete, and i've had to make weight and monitor my bodyfat for over a decade (and i've been doing it my whole life just not for competitive strength sports).

it's not frigging rocket science.

it's not corporations fault. it is the fault of the individual who refuses to exercise personal responsibility.

fwiw, i had two double cheeseburgers yesterday. :)

[doctor jazz]

82. So it turns out you're more concerned with the monetary cost...and not so much for the

'innocent victims'.
How clever.

[defendandprotect]

187. We're here arguing for gun control because of the violence and murders . . .

the fact that our society/families suffer this violence and murder by gun --

including many in police officers families with domestic violence --

is primary -- but society as a whole is also paying a huge price in the secondary

expenses of paying for gun violence and damage to citizens by guns.


Btw, if costs are so irrelevant to gun-owners, how about they start paying for

some INSURANCE on those guns?

[krispos42]

144. Because it's part of law enforcement

Or should be start billing people for all emergency services? How about on a sliding scale based on body-mass index?


I'm sure the insurance companies would love a requirement to purchase their product.


There is no correlation between crime rates and gun ownership. We all pay the costs of crime, regardless of how it is perpetrated and what equipment is used.




And Ashcroft was following the law. In fact, IIRC the entries in the NICS was suppose to be destroyed after 90 days. Otherwise its gun registration.



Besides, if the government is going to take out a terrorist cell, do you really think their commander is going to say "No record of them buying guns; dismiss the SWAT team and send over a couple of uniforms to arrest them"?

[defendandprotect]

189. If we had Single Payer Health Care the reaction from the public would be immediate . . .

in calling for gun control --

$35,000 per wounding is an old figure, actually.

At any rate, we'd be starting with the other corporate pirates -- tobacco companies --

oil industry -- corporate polluters -- and general corporate greed in providing

harmful products.


Insurance companies also have to be reigned in for the pirate-like way they price and
sell insurance.

There certainly is a relationship between guns and death -- from the US to Iraq
and Afghanistan! Certainly guns aren't to play music with, or to knit a sweater.
They are manufactured to do harm.

Besides, if the government is going to take out a terrorist cell, do you really think their commander is going to say "No record of them buying guns; dismiss the SWAT team and send over a couple of uniforms to arrest them"?

Ashcroft was being as much of a NAZI as the NRA needed him to be even at the time of 9/11.
It pays well for the GOP/NRA.

[krispos42]

207. And that is exactly why the cons fear universal single-payer

If everybody is now involved in everybody else's health care it give the nanny-state people (the UK as an example) much more power over people's lives.


We're banning transfats. We're banning high-fructose corn syrup. We're putting a tax on fast food. We're outlawing rollerblading, ATVs, and motorcycles. We're banning smoking. We're lowering the speed limit to 35mph. All because, you know, "the people" are tired of paying for other people's irresponsability...


:shrug:



If we're going to have maximum freedom it means getting away from this "why should *I* pay for..." mentality. That's the mentality that the cons have, that private insurance is somehow "better" because they put everybody into a finely-defined risk pool and everybody (that can afford it, at least) pays their "fair" share.

[nadinbrzezinski]

224. On your list, corn syrup should be banned

from what the science is revealing and its place in... diabetes and obesity

But I am sure you'd not even look at that... and should have the corporate freedom to use whatever crap we can to lower production costs

That said, freedom has a cost... but not all guns belong in civies hand, nor can I eliminate all guns in the US... I think a snow ball has a better chance in hell

But having people buy insurance for legally obtained guns is not that crazy... just like having to insure your car ain't that nuts either

[rl6214]

282. Are we also going to hold the auto industry

responsible for evey auto death or the pool industry for every drowning or the knife indutry for every knifing.

[krispos42]

143. Guns are regulated

The NRA's Institue for Legislative Action (or whatever "ILA" stands for) has summaries of gun laws of all 50 states. The ATF has all relevent sections of state, county, and municiple laws that apply to guns. California is the most. Last time I checked they had 119,000 words in that state's code relevent to guns. Wyoming had like 3,200.


What you can own, when you can own it. How it must be stored, how and when you can transport it. Accessories prohibited, combinations of accessories prohibited, ammunition prohibited. Magazine size. Registration. Background checks. Private-transfer regulations. Waiting periods. Licensing requirements (I think in NYC you have to license your handgun to a particular room in your house). Proof-of-compentency requirements. Certification by the state DoJ for sale in that state. Magazine disconnects. Requirements for concealed-carry licenses. Where you can and can't carry concealed.



This is above and beyond the typical consumer-protection laws against mechanical failure or defective product.





The issue now facing us is that the right to keep and bear arms has been upheld as a constitutional, individual right. This means that all arms-related laws have to pass "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny">strict scrutiny", a higher standard that previously used for gun laws.



This will be sorting itself out for a decade or two, legally speaking.

[defendandprotect]

190. See post #42 above . . .

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5495902&mesg_id=5496474

[krispos42]

273. Thanks for the link

In the story, the gun did what it was designed to do: go off when you squeezed the trigger on a loaded chamber


The problem IMO is that an 8-year-old was playing with a loaded gun, not that the gun didn't have enough childproofing on it.


There is a limit to what you can do to make a gun childproof while retaining the gun's primary purpose: to shoot reliably and accurately in a violent confrontation under conditions of extreme duress.



However, gun designes and the demands and expectations of the gun buyer are constantly evolving. Nowadays, finding a semiautomatic handgun without a loaded-chamber indicator requires some work; most manufacturers have a little nub or bump that protrudes when a round is loaded. It's unobtrusive and cheap; however until a few years ago there was simply no demand for them.


A magazine disconnect is a more debatable topic. On the one hand it means that unloaded the magazine renders the gun vastly safer, even if there's a loaded round in the chamber (although it's not entirely safe). And there can be a tactical advantage so such a mechanism: if you're about to lose your handgun in a struggle, you can dump the magazine out to render the gun useless as a shooting tool while you continue your struggle hand-to-hand. On the other hand, if you drop a magazine during a reload or were not able to properly seat a magazine, that one round in the chamber is of absolutely no use to you whatsoever.

:shrug:

I think I'd prefer a magazine disconnect. With today's large-capacity magazines, if you need to reload you're probably in a situation more appropriate for a SWAT team anyway!

[one-eyed fat man]

296. go back a few years.........

Back when the Clinton Administration forced a deal with Smith and Wesson. Loaded chamber indicators, magazine disconnects and limited capacity were features gun control proponents were demanding,and the Federal government applied pressure by threatening to withhold contracts for law enforcement purchases.

That resulted in a generation of S&W pistols that included the 1000 series, the 1006, 1026, 1066, 1076, etc. The FBI used the Model 1076, and differed from the same gun offered to civilians in the fact that it did NOT have a magazine disconnect. The contract, was in fact, contingent upon elimination of the magazine disconnect.

Just like the mythical "smart gun" that won't fire unless held by someone with the secret magic decoder ring, law enforcement, i.e. the government, has exempted itself from having to suffer the inconvenience of features it mandates for the peons.

[Joe Fields]

79. they will not end the war on drugs.

If interested, I can expand on my theory.

[derby378]

3. "Who Will Face Down the Second Amendment?"

Dionne needs to get a grip. Interdict weapons smuggling across the border, yes, but leave our Constitutional rights alone. We've had enough of that nonsense from eight years of Bush/Cheney.

[anonymous171]

6. The real problem is that durn 4th Amendment if you ask me. nt

[jmg257]

20. Who cares? Violate it for Mexico!

[defendandprotect]

191. Right because US serves Mexico, not the other way around . . . !!!

Nah -- we didn't take their land --

We haven't prevented liberal government, land redistribution --

and most of all investment in JOBS in their own nation!!!

A bit of profit in all of that for the US, eh?

It's called "Harvesting Slave Labor" -- !!!

[defendandprotect]

19. And that silly opening clause . .. ???

[jmg257]

23. Doesn't apply to Mexico, they are not members of our Militias.

[anonymous171]

25. You know how hard it is to maintain a militia when you can't buy guns?

[jmg257]

34. They wouldn't be well regulated if they were not well armed. n/t

[derby378]

62. Please pay attention next time class is in session

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

[amborin]

137. our country is hijacked by the tiny NRA minority....wish someone had the balls to take on the NRA

[nadinbrzezinski]

4. 2,000 per day...

to be exact

[jmg257]

22. Illegal American guns in Mexico doing jobs Mexican guns won't. nt

[nadinbrzezinski]

84. The mexican gun industry is very small and controlled by the army

in fact, the main factory for ammo (for guns and pistols), is about five minutes from where my parents live

And no, it is not manned by civies, but by active duty army troops

[X_Digger]

78. Have a credible source for that?

You do realize that would be 730,000 guns per year, more than 1/5 the gun industry produces?

[nadinbrzezinski]

83. The mexican press to be exact

read it on Saturday in the paper... on the plane

That is the CURRENT flow

Does not mean that this CURRENT flow is sustainable or anything like that

[X_Digger]

92. Again, I asked for a CREDIBLE source *ducks*

A press release or a public statement is just that. (assuming the press release doesn't link to MX gov figures, etc.)

[nadinbrzezinski]

105. So the mexican press is not credible?

After seeing our news models ducking the presser of two presidents for missing blond or something like that, and the Spokesman for National Security (White House buddy) speaking of this as well to Aristegui on CNN Spanish, I fear I trust them a little more... how's your spanish by the way? I might be able to find the transcript for you

After all, seeing a REAL press do its job is refreshing

You keep thinking we have a free and fair, and chiefly credible press 'kay?

Free clue, we don't

[X_Digger]

107. No, I distrust talking heads & most pols..

Maybe 8 years of our press being asleep at the wheel through *'s lies has made me more cynical.

My spanish is terrible, but my wife's isn't. I tried to research that figure and I came up with two press releases that didn't list any sources.

A figure like that makes me suspicious, though. If the source is a government agency, how did they arrive at it? Did they catch X number of guns and extrapolate to get Y/day? There had to be assumptions made somewhere (otherwise, that'd mean they seized all the guns crossing the border- Yay!) If the source isn't a government agency, then how reliable is it? Was it testimony in exchange for a deal by some element of the criminal enterprise?

[nadinbrzezinski]

108. The mexican army has been capturing oodles of weapons

most traced to the US,,, admitted by both sides

And the National Security spokesman gave a hell of an interview to the CNN Spanish last Wednesday.

The kind we USED to have here... and it should have been either given subtitles or translated on CNN

I learned far more of what OUR guv'ment thinks from that, than I ever did from insert news model here

[X_Digger]

109. Here's a good read..

debunk's both the 90% claim as well as faux news' 17% claim..

http://www.factcheck.org/politics/counting_mexicos_guns.html

[nadinbrzezinski]

111. Given I have seen that traffic with my own eyes

and seen some stuff that has stayed off the news... sorry (and for good reason)

It is there

Why would BOTH governments also claim the 90% figure

Of course when you look at photos of guns captured... well the AR 15 and cousins are made in the US

The Barrett 50 Cal is made in the US

And so it goes

Now the AKs you might have a case, except that they've been traced to the US market

By the way, here is a free hint, not that the US press will cover this.... the security used during the visit last week... was up there with a warzone

Here is a hint, the cartels have the means and the intent, if ye get me drift

I know many muricans have a stake in not believing this is real. I understand.

The pressure for weapons control will not come from a virtual war down south... it will come from the same place it has every other time, US citizens tired of it...

[Raskolnik]

114. "Why would BOTH governments also claim the 90% figure"

Well, it would certainly behoove the Mexican government to pretend that its own army isn't supplying most of the arms to the cartels, and U.S. politicians citing the "90%" figure are almost certainly doing so as a part of an argument for increased gun control of some sort.

[nadinbrzezinski]

124. The cartels have yet to be captured with a FAL... fabrique nationale rifle

that is the standard issue rifle to the Mexican infantry

The standard issue side arm is a licensed 1911 .45

Try next time with a fact or two.

In fact, just in case you wonder, when Mexico chose to upgrade from the M-1 Garand, which they still have in the armories and still has to be captured from the cartels, to the Belgian rifle, chambered for the NATO round, instead of the M-16 that was a small scandal

[Raskolnik]

128. There isn't any reason to be rude.

You asked a question, I posited some reasons. I have given you no reason to post things like "Try next time with a fact or two."

[nadinbrzezinski]

130. I gave you a fact... they are issued FALS

Spec Ops have upgraded from the UZI to the other standard issue ... world wide, MP-5

And in a few cases, have the nice "foldable" weapon made by IMI

The M-16s (full auto) are found among some police forces, chiefly Federal Police

Local and state police who use AKs get those from CAPTURED weapons from the cartels

Hell, in Acapulco last week, one of the beauts they captured as a Tommy Gun (from a history perspective)

The paper who published and noted the story, said that it was traced to a stolen gun in virginia from a collector, who to his credit did report the stolen gun to the ATF... so there is a very small chance he might get it back...

Just giving some information, not being rude

[Irreverend IX]

177. Do you have any LINKS or DOCUMENTS to back up your claims?

The FAL is not a standard issue weapon for the Mexican military. The G3 and FX-05 are. If Mexican drug cartel fighters are being caught with M16s, it probably means that those weapons were smuggled up from one of the many Central American hellholes the US flooded with those rifles in the 70s and 80s.

Neither you or the Mexican government has provided any statistics indicating that a majority of the weapons used by Mexican drug cartels come from the US civilian market. You say you saw a picture of seized M16s and conclude that US civilians are supplying Mexico's gangs with weapons, when you have no hard data to back up that claim.

[nadinbrzezinski]

188. Go to wikipedia, funny thing happened on the way to the forum

FALS are issued to MPs, who did I see with FALs MILITARY POLICE

But I am sure you knew that.

And here you go

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

Assault Rifle
Regular Infantry
FX-05 5.56mm or 6.8mm assault rifle
Heckler & Koch G3 7.62mm assault rifle
Heckler & Koch G36 5.56mm assault rifle
IMI Galil 7.62 mm NATO assault rifle
IMI Tavor TAR-21 5.66 assault rifle<5>

Military Police
Heckler & Koch HK33 5.56mm assault rifle
FN FAL 7.62mm assault rifle
Heckler & Koch HK416 5.56mm assault rifle<6>
IMI Galil 7.62 mm NATO assault rifle
Special Forces
M4A1 5.56mm carbine
Heckler & Koch HK416 5.56mm assault rifle<7>
IMI Galil 7.62 mm NATO assault rifle
IMI Tavor TAR-21 5.66 assault rifle
FN SCAR-H 7.62mm assault rifle<8>
FN F2000 5.56mm assault rifle<9>

Ceremonial
Mondragón F-08 7 x 57 mm Mauser automatic rifle used for ceremonial occasions
Submachine guns

And let me add something else, I served side by side with these forces as a red cross medic... yes the Red Cross until the Chiapas mess was part of the reserves, and we were present in more than one shoot out... my first I was barely out of training, and oooh boy it was intense

Suffice it to say that this was the first time I saw the few Israeli Short landing and takeoff planes land to evac critically wounded troops

A few shoot outs under my belt


Any other questions?

[Irreverend IX]

202. MPs are a small part of the military.

You stated that FALs are the standard issue weapon for the Mexican military, when in fact the G3 and FX-05 are used by the vast majority of troops. And you still haven't posted any hard statistical evidence that civilians in the US are providing the majority of guns to Mexican drug cartels.

[nadinbrzezinski]

226. So they are not standard issue?

Ok, whatever.

We are done

I know in the mythology that most people live, this is not even possible, that our free market might have a smidgen to do with the mess down there

Have a good day

We've gone from not issued to MPs are a small part of the army, at least we made some progress

Oh and by the way, I didn't imagine them last week either

Nor did I imagine the rest of the crap

[dairydog91]

351. In your own words...

"...is the standard issue rifle to the Mexican infantry"

I've never seen evidence that it is. Certain groups may use it, but the average grunt has either an old G3 or one of the new FX-05 rifles. I see pictures of G3s in my morning paper, I see G3s on the evening news, and sometimes I see the new rifle (A G36 knockoff), but I've yet to see a FAL. The very article you linked to as proof shows that the FAL is a unique weapon to the military police, and that the Regular Infantry and Special Forces do not make use of it. Considering that the regular infantry often seem to be armed with G3s, it would be pretty foolish for other regular infantry to be armed with FALs (Incompatible mags, otherwise the guns fulfill the exact same battlefield role).

"msnbcmedia4.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photos/070514/070514_mexicodrug_hmed_2p.hmedium.jpg"

"msnbcmedia1.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photos/051026/051026_wilma_cancun_hmed_3p.h2.jpg"



Those rifles are clearly G3s. Look at 'em!

[solinvictus]

150. The Mexican Army...

..uses a contract produced Heckler & Koch G3 ( civilian model HK91 ) 7.62 NATO rifle. They may have FN-FAL's in stock, but the G3 is the main infantry weapon. And, for the record, many Kalashnikovs are sold to cartels via Hugo Chavez.

[nadinbrzezinski]

176. To be replaced by a domestically produced weapon

in the next two to three years

And wrong on the AKs, but whatever

And the FN FALS are used by mexican troops... I did not imagine them in the hands of MPs... I was down there last week

Of course, given who was in country last week we also got to see other toys... including the M-60s, the 50 cal HMGs, the 30 cal LMGs, you know the works

Oh and the Marines we saw, had the HK weapons by the by... and very heavy body armor

[X_Digger]

116. I think the 90% claim is not a lie per se..

Just a malaprop'd meme that has a life of its own, now.

The cynic in me asks, which is easier? Having a full auto AK thrown into the latest shipment of drugs for $200, or having someone cross the border, find someone else to legally purchase a semi-automatic version of the same weapon for $600, smuggle it back to MX..

*shrugs*

[nadinbrzezinski]

125. The weapons can and have been converted to full auto

by the way...

As I said I have seen it with my own eyes, well before it reached these levels

[X_Digger]

147. If by conversion, you mean..

taking out the receiver, fabricating a new one, acquiring / building full auto parts (might be easier in MX, not here), modifying the new receiver to accept full auto parts.. yah. And for that amount of effort you can build an AK from scratch. US weapons are specifically designed to not be easily convertible.

[nadinbrzezinski]

149. Damn it, conversion is NOT that difficult and ANY weapon can

I get it why nobody likes this subject in the states... I know, I get it

But it is

Highly illegal, but it is

Then again, if I am importing guns, legally or illegally obtained, breaking the law, what if I add conversion to the charges?

[X_Digger]

154. *sigh* facts just don't matter, do they..

If conversion were 'easy' then why doesn't it happen here? We've got more machine shops, more machinists, and a booming gun trade.

It's so rare, it's not even mentioned in DOJ gun stats. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/guic.pdf

[nadinbrzezinski]

173. Perhaps because it is a federal offense with a heavy penalty

and you are right, facts don't matter

Here is what I got so far

They want to regulate them toys because they look scary, laughable at multiple levels

But my current fav... they are lying I tell you since the Mexican Army is selling its M-16 to the drug dealers, never mind it issues FN-FALS to the troops

Here is a free clue, before the AW ban you could even buy conversion kits...

[X_Digger]

208. So much fail..

Try 1986's Hughes Amendment to the McClure-Volkmer Act which amended the 1968 Gun Control Act.

[jeepnstein]

295. Hooray!

We've finally found the one law that criminals obey. It's remarkable.

[rl6214]

284. Can't be done

Learn a little about firearms before making stupid statements.

[Edweird]

138. You expect me to give up MY rights becasue gun control failed in Mexico, just like everywhere else?

Not no, but HELL NO!

Gun control doesn't work.

The solution isn't MORE of what already isn't working. That is tragicomic, however nowhere near entertaining enough to give up my rights for.

[nadinbrzezinski]

152. If the US market didn't exist I guarantee

you would not have a virtual war in mexico

Of course if drugs were made legal... and you can guarantee that when the mexican government finally decides to legalize they will be once again, pressured by the US guv'ment not to go there

But lets not try to face part of reality

90 % of guns are flowing from the US...

It is a reality

So how exactly do you propose to stop this?

Or do you want it to stop when that war moves north.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

170. FACTCHECK.ORG disagrees with you.

http://www.factcheck.org/politics/counting_mexicos_guns.html

[defendandprotect]

192. Interesting -- and quite profitable for the murderous gun industry in America .. !

They're probably counting on the war moving North!!!

Think of all the new NRA memberships, as well -- !!!

[Edweird]

203. If Mexico had its house in order, there wouldn't be a 'vitrual war'.

If Mexico had its house in order we wouldn't have the immigration problems we are having.


As far as this 'war' moving north? That's laugh out loud funny. Wake me when you think it's happening.

[depakid]

164. Gun control works just fine in other nations

It's just that a small, highly vocal minority prefers high levels of violence and repeated mass shootings- not caring one lick about anyone else or the costs to society at large.

[nadinbrzezinski]

174. Hey nuclear superiority for neighborhood defense

:-(

[defendandprotect]

193. GOP/NRA agenda . . . fearmongering, violence . . .

great for profits/power . . .

[Edweird]

206. The only fearmongering going on here is by gun grabbers pushing their agenda.

[Edweird]

205. You call increased gun AND knife crime in the UK AFTER the ban 'just fine'?

You call the gun laws in Mexico 'just fine'?

You call the gun laws in Jamaica 'just fine'?

As far as 'the costs to society at large' that's based on selfish fearmongering. More people die in car crashes that are killed by firearms. EXPONENTIALLY more people are killed by heart disease than firearms. If 'the costs to society at large' were really your priority you'd go after the things that REALLY kill people, not the easy political target.

[rl6214]

285. If it is such a small minority

Why is the gun control majority not able to get its cun control measures passed?

Because they are really the minority?

[rl6214]

283. AMERICANS

Dickhead.

[vadawg]

5. as someone who carries 24/7 i got no problem with anyone carrying a gun as long as its legal

the problems we run into are when we have felons and mentally ill people carrying, but no way should the 2nd be infringed no more than the 1st amendment.

[jmg257]

7. Is the gun lobby keeping law enforcement from enforcing the laws on 'illegal' weapons?

There are quite a few laws that apply when American guns get smuggled into Mexico.


Otherwise, it wouldn't be 'illegal'.

[paulsby]

133. the gun lobby is no more at fault than the abortion lobby

they are both fighting for everybody's civil rights.

you don't like abortions? don't have one.

don't like guns? don't carry one.

[defendandprotect]

194. The murderous "pro-life" lobby was fighting for civil rights ......???

[paulsby]

223. well they see themselves

as fighting for the civil rights of the fetus.

imo, i don't believe a fetus has the civil right to live. that's why i am pro-choice.

but i was specifically referring to NARAL, the "abortion lobby" (to borrow the stupid term used against those fighting for our 2nd amendment rights). NARAL fights for our civil rights.

so does the NRA.

i respect them both

[polichick]

8. The gun lobby and AIPAC - two groups that don't give a shit about this country imo.

[jody]

9. Self-defense is a personal problem. When attacked & seconds count, police are minutes or hours away.

[anonymous171]

10. Don't forget that Police are good, unless they are tasering you or brutalizing you for no reason.

In which case police are evil brutes. Ah DU makes me laugh sometimes.

[defendandprotect]

24. And who might be attacking you, other than another armed citizens?????

However, you're supposedly safe in schools and courthouses . . .

and I guess taverns*, for now -- cause those places EXCLUDE guns!!!


* Well, at least in the Old West that they had that foresight!!!

"Check your gun with the bartender" --

[jody]

35. "who might be attacking you"? I'm delighted to educate you, see below.

H.R. 17: Citizens' Self-Defense Act of 2009

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

The Congress finds the following:

(1) Police cannot protect, and are not legally liable for failing to protect, individual citizens, as evidenced by the following:

(A) The courts have consistently ruled that the police do not have an obligation to protect individuals, only the public in general. For example, in Warren v. District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. App. 1981), the court stated: ‘ourts have without exception concluded that when a municipality or other governmental entity undertakes to furnish police services, it assumes a duty only to the public at large and not to individual members of the community.’.

(B) Former Florida Attorney General Jim Smith told Florida legislators that police responded to only 200,000 of 700,000 calls for help to Dade County authorities.

(C) The United States Department of Justice found that, in 1989, there were 168,881 crimes of violence for which police had not responded within 1 hour.

(2) Citizens frequently must use firearms to defend themselves, as evidenced by the following:

(A) Every year, more than 2,400,000 people in the United States use a gun to defend themselves against criminals--or more than 6,500 people a day. This means that, each year, firearms are used 60 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives.

(B) Of the 2,400,000 self-defense cases, more than 192,000 are by women defending themselves against sexual abuse.

(C) Of the 2,400,000 times citizens use their guns to defend themselves every year, 92 percent merely brandish their gun or fire a warning shot to scare off their attackers. Less than 8 percent of the time, does a citizen kill or wound his or her attacker.

(3) Law-abiding citizens, seeking only to provide for their families’ defense, are routinely prosecuted for brandishing or using a firearm in self-defense. For example:

(A) In 1986, Don Bennett of Oak Park, Illinois, was shot at by 2 men who had just stolen $1,200 in cash and jewelry from his suburban Chicago service station. The police arrested Bennett for violating Oak Park’s handgun ban. The police never caught the actual criminals.

(B) Ronald Biggs, a resident of Goldsboro, North Carolina, was arrested for shooting an intruder in 1990. Four men broke into Biggs’ residence one night, ransacked the home and then assaulted him with a baseball bat. When Biggs attempted to escape through the back door, the group chased him and Biggs turned and shot one of the assailants in the stomach. Biggs was arrested and charged with assault with a deadly weapon--a felony. His assailants were charged with misdemeanors.

(C) Don Campbell of Port Huron, Michigan, was arrested, jailed, and criminally charged after he shot a criminal assailant in 1991. The thief had broken into Campbell’s store and attacked him. The prosecutor plea-bargained with the assailant and planned to use him to testify against Campbell for felonious use of a firearm. Only after intense community pressure did the prosecutor finally drop the charges.

(4) The courts have granted immunity from prosecution to police officers who use firearms in the line of duty. Similarly, law-abiding citizens who use firearms to protect themselves, their families, and their homes against violent felons should not be subject to lawsuits by the violent felons who sought to victimize them.

[defendandprotect]

99. "The Russians are coming! The Russians are coming!" . . .!!!

[jody]

113. What is your point? n/t

[defendandprotect]

178. That you're reacting to right-wing fearmongering and

GOP/NRA propaganda ...

Violence breeds violence -- and it always will!

[jody]

213. Who will protect you if you are attacked by a criminal? n/t

[iverglas]

398. reacting?

Huh. That's one interpretation.

[rl6214]

286. Can't handle the facts

so you reply with stupidity.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

145. A criminal illegally possessing a weapon. duh.

[defendandprotect]

179. So you're frightened of someone carrying a gun?

I don't blame you --!!!

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

233. Not unless that person is illegally carrying a gun.

Even then they don't really frighten me, more of a concern than a fear. People typically don't see me as a good victim so I rarely have problems with criminals. If I did though I would consider getting a concealed carry permit.

David

[defendandprotect]

195. GOP/NRA has made "self-defense" a personal issue in America .. .

as they have reduced us to a "third world nation" status over generations --

while setting corporations free from responsibility and regualtion ---

and made sure that criminals now "out-gun" police enforcement!

By any chance, do you see that this is the way to higher profits, larger

memberships -- and an America more deeply violent?

[X_Digger]

209. 'self-defense' always was a personal issue.

Read the commentary in Heller and Nordyke. The second amendment only enumerates a pre-existing right present back as far as the english bill of rights.

[defendandprotect]

239. Only humans kill their own species . . . but until guns, it was slower . ..

sling shots, bow and arrows, poison --

the escalation of violence -- wars, especially, came with increased gun power.

What's a cannon except a large gun?

A missile, a large bullet?

[X_Digger]

254. Say what? 'only humans kill their own species'?

Read Jane Goodall's The Chimpanzees of Gombe: Patterns of Behavior. Chimps kill for sport, they even kill each other.

Wars without guns? Crusades, anyone? Research the huns and the visigoths. Violence and war are not a modern invention predicated on the development of the firearm.

eta: fix italics

[defendandprotect]

257. The animal kingdom does not fight to death within their own species . . .

and just as an aside, humans are the only species where the male has warred

on the female.

Yes, animals do fight and contest one another -- but not to the death.

[X_Digger]

260. No, seriously.. google is your friend.

top 4 results from 'chimpanzee murder' plugged into google.

http://www.nytimes.com/1988/03/13/books/love-and-murder-among-the-chimps.html

http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474976794596

http://www.physics.ohio-state.edu/~wilkins/writing/Assign/so/male-violence.html

http://www.primatefreedom.com/chimpanzees/index.html

Get over your myopic utopian idealism and join the rest of us in the real world.

Here's another gruesome collection..

http://myreality.churchofreality.org/index.php?showtopic=1758

[defendandprotect]

261. Unfortunately man is the most violent animal on the earth . .

Field studies in Tanzania illustrate how some chimps occasionally murder other chimps for no apparent survival-related reason.

Quite some time ago, human pollution and disease-causing behavior on the planet was noted to
be causing the extinction of other species.

Who knows how our behavior and destruction of nature may be effecting other animals --?

Again, man is the most violent and destructive of any species -- for no apparent reason ...

and the only species which wars on its other half.

Yes -- there are times when other species do kill females and their offspring.

But where is the overall war on nature among animals --?

Where is the behavior akin to that of China in killing off females?

Also keep in mind our acts of genocide against the Native American and other "pagans."

For murder, you can't beat the human male!

[X_Digger]

265. On amended points, agree. n/t

[guardian]

338. WRONG!

Get out of your own fantasy mind, and do some reading.

[derby378]

210. Then why is violent crime in Dallas still trending downward?

According to the Dallas Police Department, it's been doing so for six years now. And we have some most liberal laws on firearms in the nation.

Los Angeles, on the other hand...

[defendandprotect]

242. Maybe Tom DeLay was keeping the statistics . . .?

Let's see them . . .

[tammywammy]

248. Here they are for the first quarter this year

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/042109dnmetcrimestats.3d59192.html

[russ1943]

370. More gun enthusiasts made up distortions.

What a bunch of crap!

The article linked discusses speculation regarding overall crime (not violent crime), extrapolating the first three months of 2009 stating;

“If the trend continues, "it will be the sixth consecutive year of overall crime reduction”.

Latest complete stats available from FBI’s UCR are for 2007.

LosAngeles on the other hand; ……………………WHAT?

Maybe having some of the most liberal laws on firearms in the nation can be the reason that;
LA Has a lower violent crime rate than Dallas? Yes that’s true it does.
LA Has a lower murder rate than Dallas? Yes that’s true for 2000, 2001, 2003, 2005 & 2007. (maybe true for the other years also, but I didn’t bother to calculate). It should be noted that Murder rates have a stronger correlation to firearms than either overall crime or violent crime.

[defendandprotect]

255. "Our mantra has been drugs, guns and gangs" . . . they're crediting "rank and file" . .

"For the first three months of 2009, the city recorded significant reductions in business burglaries, which dropped more than 600 offenses compared with last year to 1,038.

Kunkle credited the city's move last year to tighten its ordinance regulating metal sales as well as lower copper and metal prices as being the biggest contributors to that reduction.

I'm guessing that these business robberies are usually not at gun point . . . and probably
are inside jobs?

Citywide, the city also has seen a nearly 15 percent reduction in residential burglaries.

Of course residential can end up being any thing - from robbery to assault to rape.
So that's good to see down.

However, they give credit to "leadership of department" and to cops on the beat . . .

"They're the ones out there who are pounding the beat and doing a great job,"

For first 3 months, MURDER is down by four fewer -- 36 murders already this year.

However they are also reporting that:

in years in past, about 75 percent of the city's murder victims were killed with handguns
"Our mantra has been drugs, guns and gangs," Kunkle said. "In our street shootings, we've seen dramatic decreases."

Whereas, they seem to be trying to rid the city of drugs, guns, gangs!!!!


*********************************************************************************

Therefore, if you don't want to be murdered in Dallas, avoid people with guns!!! ;)

So . . . if the Dallas police think this is credit to the GOP/NRA and more gun ownership
I don't see where they are saying that . . . ????






For the first three months of 2009, the city recorded a 10 percent reduction in murders ­ but as with all crime statistics, the totals are comparatively small early in the year. It's only four fewer murders, and there were 36 murders through the end of March.

Kunkle also told council members that in years in past, about 75 percent of the city's murder victims were killed with handguns. Currently, the percentage is about 60 percent, which officials see as a trend representing a lessening of street violence.

Murders in 2008 fell 15 percent to 170 ­ the fewest number since 1966.

"Our mantra has been drugs, guns and gangs," Kunkle said. "In our street shootings, we've seen dramatic decreases."

[tammywammy]

259. So he's was right

Violent crime has been down the last 6 consecutive years in Dallas. Also, while a small number they're down this year, compared to last year, and murder was down 15 percent in 2008, the lowest number of murder since 1966.

[defendandprotect]

264. Crime is down ... due to the Dallas police department's war on "drugs, GUNS, and gangs" . . . !!!

and the officials are crediting the "rank and file" . . . the cop on the beat . . .

I see no one crediting the NRA or even Evangelicals, for that matter -- !!!

The police make very clear what their method has been . . .

"Our mantra has been drugs, guns and gangs"

Credit goes to: "leadership of department" and to cops on the beat . . .

They also say this of Dallas murders, in general . . .

"75 percent of the city's murder victims were killed with handguns"

and that's why Dallas' Police Department is working to get rid of "guns."



Next time . . . try actually reading the post -- it works!

[tammywammy]

268. Actually that's an oversimplification of Chief Kunkle's goals for thie city

He's also increased the overall number of police officers on the street and is big into "community policing."

He's gotten more officers in areas that need them, like Oak Cliff.

And by guns, it's illegal guns that they're hunting down, not the regular upstanding citizen that legally own a gun. Besides, while a few democrats maybe stupid enough to push for the AWB, no one's going to ban handguns. But feel free to keep dreaming.

[defendandprotect]

313. Do you see anywhere in the article that GOP/NRA or "more legal guns" are credited --???

with the downturn?????

Of course not -- and what was said about the efforts was fully referred to in the
article.

Their conclusions as to who is to be credited, I've quoted -- in quotes.

And by guns, it's illegal guns that they're hunting down, not the regular upstanding citizen that legally own a gun.

Guns are a problem for most of society -- which they are confirming.

Officer Volpe wasn't much of an "upstanding" citizen when he sodomized Abner Louima ---
and the reports are he was snorting cocaine from the dashboard of his car before doing that.
Let's not be totally naive.

It's also generally acknowledged that police often use "throw down's" . . .

Congratulations to Dallas -- though it looks like they may just have squeezed a sausage in
pushing crime out to other areas....

Meanwhile, here are some statistics provided by another "no gun control" poster . . .

This is Totals: Murder, Rape, Aggravated Assault
with percentage of those crimes committed WITH FIREARMS ...
You will notice that they are increasing.

1999 1,341,586 25.2 15,533 65.2 409,670 39.9 916,383 18.0
2000 1,334,103 25.6 15,517 65.6 407,842 40.9 910,744 18.1
2001 1,346,120 26.4 15,980 69.5 422,921 42.0 907,219 18.3
2002 1,331,189 26.9 16,204 66.7 420,637 42.1 894,348 19.0
2003 1,287,826 27.0 16,503 66.9 413,402 41.8 857,921 19.1
2004 1,272,374 26.6 16,137 66.0 401,326 40.6 854,911 19.3
2005 1,296,761 28.4 16,692 68.0 417,122 42.1 862,947 21.0
2006 1,325,290 29.3 17,034 67.9 447,403 42.2 860,853 21.9

Source: FBI, Crime in the United States, annually.


and PS on this . . .

Besides, while a few democrats maybe stupid enough to push for the AWB, no one's going to ban handguns. But feel free to keep dreaming

I'm sure most of us -- and Governors and Mayors and other national officials -- and police --
will continue to try to ban the guns which are killing police which seem to be handguns.
As for Democrats, it seems that the NRA has intimidated/"petrified" many of them.
The NRA has been very successful at targetting "Democrats" which also works well for GOP
and their supporters.




Original article . . .
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/042109dnmetcrimestats.3d59192.html

[russ1943]

369. Not exactly.

NT

[jody]

236. Obviously you haven't read the constitutions of PA (1776) and VT (1777) who recognized the natural,

inherent, inalienable/unalienable right to keep and bear arms for defense of self.

Recently SCOTUS recognized those state constitutions and RKBA as a pre-existing right in the seminal case D.C. v. Heller.

SCOTUS says self-defense is a personal responsibility and arms, specifically firearms, are the most effective, efficient tool for self-defense.

[defendandprotect]

241. Evidently you haven't read what the Governor is saying about police being "out-gunned" . ..

by criminals -- read the thread --

Self-defense is a personal responsibility and to ease that burden and to create

a more peaceful society, we have police departments.

Lynching parties are also now out-of-date.

Again -- there is no guarantee of weapons which will insure your personal safety against

government. See Katrina.

[jody]

244. Please reread your #195 that is blatantly wrong as I pointed out by citing the PA & VT constitutions

How can you and I discuss the pros and cons of RKBA if you refuse to acknowledge facts and reply with unsupported assertions from the bowels of gun-grabber hysteria?

[defendandprotect]

246. You're ...

on ignore --

[jody]

247. That's an admission of defeat and desire to remain ignorant. Have a nice day. n/t

[rl6214]

287. Nice move

I'm taking my ball and going home. I don't like you anymore you big meanie.

[defendandprotect]

312. Thanks --

:)

[jmg257]

12. Yeah, forget American pro-rights groups! Let Mexican drug gangs dictate our laws!! n/t

[anonymous171]

13. Yeah I know! Fuck the ACLU as well. nt

[defendandprotect]

28. NRA is a right-wing propaganda machine for the GOP ---

Not much different from the murderious "pro-life" fanatics ---

Yeah -- let's do everything we can to keep Mexcian drug gangs armed -- !!!

Stop listening to the police, to Governors of states, to statistics,
and especially to families of victims ---

buy a gun and shoot someone today!!!

[anonymous171]

30. End the war on drugs and the Mexican drug gangs lose their funding.

Not only would that be way easier to do, it would also be Constitutionally sound, unlike some of your proposals.

[defendandprotect]

196. Let's do both . . . End the Drug War and stop the GOP/NRA . . .!!!

[jmg257]

31. Better - let's worry more about the secured rights of Americans then the drug gangs of Mexico.

Never justify your basic rights using statistics, they might not always agree with you.

[paulsby]

134. get your frigging facts straight

the police are FOR concealed carry.

COP-o-CRAT police ADMINISTRATORS like the IACP etc. aren't

guess which ones are political appointees.

i listen to street cops. i AM a street cop. we support the 2nd amendment in majority #'s.

cop-o-crat administrators don't cause they are political appointees

[defendandprotect]

197. International Police Chiefs Advocate More Gun Control ...

International Police Chiefs Advocate More Gun Control, Friday, September 21, 2007

By Randy Hall

(CNSNews.com) - An international organization of law enforcement executives has called on the U.S. government "to support strong and effective gun violence prevention policies" to reverse a two-year rise in violent crime.

However, a pro-gun advocate said the group's recommendations show that its members need to "shut up and do their jobs."

While introducing "Taking a Stand: Reducing Gun Violence in Our Communities" on Wednesday, Russell Laine, chief of the Algonquin, Ill., police department and second vice president of the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP), pointed to figures from the Federal Bureau of Justice Statistics that indicate lethal violence across the nation increased in both 2005 and 2006.

"It is simply unacceptable that in communities across America, more than 80 people a day are dying from gun violence," Laine stated while unveiling the 46-page report, which resulted from the Great Lakes Summit on Gun Violence held in Chicago earlier this year and sponsored, in part, by the Joyce Foundation.

"Every day, dedicated police officers put their lives on the line to protect their communities from

criminals who often outgun them,

but we can't do it alone," he said. "This is why we are calling on policymakers and the public to help us combat gun violence."

Also participating in the event was Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.), who called the IACP report "compelling" and "a clear call to action."

"Without further delay, Congress and the administration need to do our part by enacting concrete reforms that will reduce crime and protect the safety of police officers and all Americans," said Kennedy.

"In the northern part of my congressional district, there are more than 3,000 gang members, and all have relatively easy access to weapons," said Rep. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.). "We need to implement common-sense policies that will curb gun violence and reduce gang activity - making our communities safer and stronger."

The report makes 39 recommendations, which are divided into three areas: keeping communities safe; preventing and solving gun crime; and keeping police officers safe.

Specific proposals include:

- Requiring that all gun sales take place through federally licensed dealers;

- Enhancing the ability of law enforcement to use federal gun trace data to deter illegal trafficking;

- Removing all firearms and ammunition from batterers when law enforcement responds to domestic violence calls; and

- Mandating safe storage of firearms by private citizens.


Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, praised the report as a "clear road map from the nation's police chiefs of steps we can take now to combat gun violence."

"In this landmark report, police leaders are saying they are tired of the nation's gun policies being held hostage by the special interest gun lobby,"

Helmke said in a news release.


http://www.citizensforaconstitutionalrepublic.com/hall9-21-07.html

[paulsby]

220. exactly my point. thanks for confirming it. this is a poll of police CHIEFS not line officers

this is a poll of cop leaders, ie cop-o-crats.

here's a hint. management is often at odds with labor. shocking, i know.

that was my point

do you think a poll of CEO of automakers would reveal the same policy preferences as a poll of assembly line workers?

of course not.

i repeat. pimping a poll of cop-o-crats is not representative of what real cops believe.

duh

[defendandprotect]

237. And Governors are also making your point when they say that the police are "outgunned" . . .

by criminals . . .

I'll take the higher perspective of the Governor and their description of

what is actually happening on the streets --

[paulsby]

243. riiiiiight

because governors know more about police work than the actual cops who are doing it.

and fwiw, i agree that to some extent the criminals HAVE outstripped cops , outgunned them.

view for example, LAPD **before** the B of A bank robbery when patrol officers didn't have rifles.

i am all for giving police better arms.

but let's remember, so called "outgunned" police are dealing with crime where less than 3% of frigging gun crimes involve long guns AT ALL, let alone those nifty high power "outgunning" guns.

that's what made the B of A robbery unusual. hint: unusual.

[defendandprotect]

245. Governors know what is happening in their states because police report being "out-gunned" . . .

and fwiw, i agree that to some extent the criminals HAVE outstripped cops , outgunned them.

Thanks for the CONFIRMATION . . . !!!



view for example, LAPD **before** the B of A bank robbery when patrol officers didn't have rifles.

i am all for giving police better arms.

Right . . . let's give them machine guns and missiles --- how about that?



but let's remember, so called "outgunned" police are dealing with crime where less than 3% of frigging gun crimes involve long guns AT ALL, let alone those nifty high power "outgunning" guns.

that's what made the B of A robbery unusual. hint: unusual.


In fact, as far as I can see, the largest "bank heists" have been pulled by corrupt capitalists . . .

right wing money men -- same guns who want to keep this a violent society!

GOP/NRA . . . perfect together -- !!!

[paulsby]

253. i've studied police shootings. have you?

i am also a police firearmsinstructor.

the VAST majority of cops are shot with ubiquitous handguns like 9mm.

it's not an "outgunned issue"

however, polticians have fought PROPERLY arming police. look @ nypd who were amongst the last of agencies nationwide to get semiautos

restricting law abiding firearms owners is not the answer. i've been in shootouts, my best friend was shot and killed, etc.

NONE involved so called assault weapons.

EVERY one involved convicted felons who weren't even legally capable of carrying ANY gun.

have you read the doj report on officer involved shootings? of course not

u prefer grandstanding statist governor's rhetoric vs. facts

[defendandprotect]

256. Okay. . . I give up . .. I'll just take your NRA-gun-supporting unbiased word for it . . . !!!

But, just in case, let's get rid of the gun which are killing cops . . .

the VAST majority of cops are shot with ubiquitous handguns like 9mm.


Tell this to the Governor and PA . . . !!

it's not an "outgunned issue"

They'd misidentified their problem!


Re this . . .

however, polticians have fought PROPERLY arming police. look @ nypd who were amongst the last of agencies nationwide to get semiautos

Maybe you haven't noticed, but our police departments look like GESTAPO ...

and short of giving them missiles and tanks, what guns might we give our cops which
-- I'm sure the NRA is clearly saying -- criminals couldn't also get hold of?

Not clear on this . . .

restricting law abiding firearms owners is not the answer. i've been in shootouts, my best friend was shot and killed, etc.

Presume you tell everyone to arm themselves . . . why didn't he?


NONE involved so called assault weapons.

Good -- keep the assault weapons -- and let's get rid of all other guns . . .

in the sense that those who are permitted to carry them do so only for highly unusual reasons --

i.e., police officers and those carrying valuables or protecting them.


EVERY one involved convicted felons who weren't even legally capable of carrying ANY gun.

have you read the doj report on officer involved shootings? of course not

u prefer grandstanding statist governor's rhetoric vs. facts

I have read many reports of police officers and domestic violence -- of police officers and

suicides -- but the next time I see the Governor, I'll pass on your message!!

:eyes:

Meanwhile, I'm torn over which alliance has been more profitable for violent patriarchy

and the GOP . . . that with the Evangelicals or the NRA?

[paulsby]

262. im biased

towards civil rights, including the 2nd amendment...

and saving cops lives.

which are not mutually inconsistent.

again, you are woefully ignorant of dept. of justice reports on officer involved shootings. the FACTS are there.

FACT: the VAST majority of people who shoot/shoot at cops are ALREADY convicted felons, thus *any* firearm they merely possess is a felony.

so, how will laws prohibiting so called assault weapons stop THEM? they already are breaking the law.

FACT: the VAST majority of cop shootings involve suspects who are carrying garden variety handguns

FACT: the VAST majority of police shootings happen within a 7 yr distance, where long guns are not an issue

FACT: politicians HAVE repeatedly fought properly arming police. NYC comes to mind, as does LA where they refused to let officers carry rifles, for the rare BUT IMPORTANT cases where they need them

i prefer facts, and i prefer to advocate for civil rights.

you have shown you prefer neither

[defendandprotect]

266. If you want to save lives -- including those of police officers --

ban the guns that are killing them!


Check the Dallas statistics I was just discussing with someone else ...

You'll note that

75% of the murders in Dallas have been by gun!!!

And that the progress the city has made in reducing crime is credited to

their war on "drugs, guns and gangs."

Plus crediting the "rank and file" and the "cop on the beat" . . .

I see no credit given to the NRA or concealed weapons -- nor even Evangelicals!


You're biased towards NRA propaganda which hardly supports a violent-free and orderly
society --
nor honors the opening clause of the 2nd Amendment . . .

Just as an aside on this . . .

FACT: the VAST majority of people who shoot/shoot at cops are ALREADY convicted felons, thus *any* firearm they merely possess is a felony.

If all police officers believed that was infallible fact, what would their attitude toward
anyone they thought was wielding a gun be? And, as you might recall many of those "guns"
have turned out to be cell phones and wallets and the occasional "throw-down"--!!!

Again, keep your assault weapons and let's get rid of the guns actually killing cops!

FACT: the VAST majority of cop shootings involve suspects who are carrying garden variety handguns

What a coincidence . . . in Dallas, it's reported that 75% of the murders are committed by handgun!!!

Does that suggest any thing to you?


FACT: politicians HAVE repeatedly fought properly arming police. NYC comes to mind, as does LA where they refused to let officers carry rifles, for the rare BUT IMPORTANT cases where they need them

Where would you stop arming police? Would it be at grenades? Would it be machine guns?

Would it be missiles? Or bunker busters?

The police are not military -- they are intended to help keep the peace as public servants.

They are not intended to be a GESTAPO.


i prefer facts, and i prefer to advocate for civil rights.

you have shown you prefer neither

Sounds like an NRA line . . . however, the "civil rights" you want would turn America into

a shooting gallery. Therefore, let's have civil rights which benefit all of society --

and not just the GOP/NRA.

[paulsby]

267. you have made the erroneous assumption

that banning guns means criminals won't get guns.
we ban all sorts of drugs. wow, must be no drugs in this country!

first of all, banning guns would be unconstitutional. since you clearly aren't interested in people's constitutional rights, i realize that isn't a concern to you.

currently, there are over 200 millions guns in the US. if we banned them, how would we get them "off the streets" anyway? only one way. complete invasion of privacy in order to get guns.

"Where would you stop arming police? Would it be at grenades? Would it be machine guns?

Would it be missiles? Or bunker busters?

The police are not military -- they are intended to help keep the peace as public servants.

They are not intended to be a GESTAPO."

police need a distance weapon. you don't understand this. i do. im a firearms instructor. cities like LA and NYPD that prohibited their officers from carrying rifles meant that all they had was handguns. handguns are a compromise. we carry them because they are ... easily carryable. they are NOT accurate at long distance. that's where rifles come in.

a small # of police shooting incidents require a distance weapon. but when they happen, you NEED them.

you have shown me 3 things. one you don't care about people's civil rights. 2 you don't care about evidence or statistics, preferring rhetoric. 3 you are more interested in name calling and demonizing civil rights advocates like the NRA than discussing facts and solutions.

[defendandprotect]

277. You mean we're unconcerned with illegal guns? Too much to do to chase them down?

Yeah . . . I think we all have the Reagan-speak imprinted on our ears ---

that one and the "Welfare Queens" --- !!!

One of the reasons there is such a demand for illegal weapons is the Drug War!!!

Let's legalize drugs and see how the need for guns might fall . . .

It would certainly decrease overall violence.

Again . . . there are other opinions on the 2nd amendment, including that of a former

Supreme Court Justice who says the NRA take on it is a "scam" . . . I agree.

There is an opening clause which cannot be ignored --

And we can do as we did in the past . . . have people apply for permits for guns ---

for unusual circumstances. I'm not even sure that off-duty officers should carry guns.

People will willing turn in guns when they feel safe. Most of these gun-owners seem to

fear other people with guns! At any rate, guns will be turned in -- usually for a benefit

of some kind - no one's privacy has to be invaded.

police need a distance weapon. you don't understand this. i do. im a firearms instructor. cities like LA and NYPD that prohibited their officers from carrying rifles meant that all they had was handguns. handguns are a compromise. we carry them because they are ... easily carryable. they are NOT accurate at long distance. that's where rifles come in.

Police are now chasing criminals in cars thru the streets endangering citizens.
That was not previously allowed and is a crappy idea.
And, I'm sure that criminals also will decide they need a "distance weapon" . . . !!
Then what?
Even better how about a bazooka?
How about police shooting survivors of Katrina from helicopters?
Is that long-distance enough for you?

As for this . . .

you have shown me 3 things. one you don't care about people's civil rights. 2 you don't care about evidence or statistics, preferring rhetoric. 3 you are more interested in name calling and demonizing civil rights advocates like the NRA than discussing facts and solutions.

I think you're well aware that your arguments are not completely honest --
and nor are the NRA, nor the GOP's.

Yes . . . I very much care about civil rights and justice.
But, let's not pretend that I'm the only one giving you another interpretation of the 2nd Amendment!!!
You'd like to see it one way -- others see it another way.
You're certainly not a virgin in hearing that there are many who disagree with you.

Yes ... currently you can have faith in a right-wing Supreme Court -- Bush neo-cons who
will see things your way for now, but I have confidence that justice will prevail.

The NRA is a "civil rights advocate" .... PLEASE!!

The NRA is represents the most violent aspects of the GOP agenda --

This is getting boring -- I presume for both of us --

Other things to do --

[Iktomiwicasa]

308. Heh

"75% of the murders in Dallas have been by gun!!!"

Actually, 100% of murders have been by PEOPLE. Stop and think about that for a bit.

[remedy1]

15. Let's make it illegal...

...for Mexican nationals to buy weapons in the US. Oh, wait....

OK then, how about making it illegal for Americans to purchase weapons for Mexican nationals? Oh, wait...

Gee it sounds like some criminal activity is happening here...let's make some more laws so the criminals won't violate the current laws.

That ought to do it.

[anonymous171]

18. Yeah! It should be illegal to violate laws! That way no one will break them.

[defendandprotect]

29. No other democratic country has such "foolish, ineffectual gun regulations" as we do" --

No other democratic country in the world has the foolish, ineffectual gun regulations that we do. And unfortunately, what Obama said is probably true.

[friendly_iconoclast]

85. Mexico and Jamaica have much harsher gun laws

And way more violent crime and murder than the US does.

Sure you want to go there?

[defendandprotect]

198. From what we hear the drug war violence is moving North . . .

Mexico and Jamaica suffer poverty which creates crime --

Didn't Hillary Clinton just point out that it is America's desire for drugs

that creates this mess?

Legalize drugs/marijuana -- I've no problem with it.

But let's also enforce gun control laws -- and let's stop US from arming the

Mexican wars!

[paulsby]

135. switzerland and israel

both have tons of citizens with FULLY AUTOMATIC (oh noes) rifles in the general population.

care to compare their crime rate with ours? or englands?

[defendandprotect]

199. We are not Switzerland nor Israel . . .

Israel currently profiting from it's own brutal wars --

a very violent nation.

Switzerland also has luxurious health care for all citizens - the costs of

which amount to pretty much what America is spending on health care?

What would Switzerland give up first -- health care or guns?

[paulsby]

227. thank you for making my point

we are NOT switzerland or israel. nor are we england, canada, france, etc. (thank fucking god).

so the comparisons are specious, but the OP opened them up by making the comparison not me, with the implication that our gun laws and guns are the cause of our high homicide rate, which is not supported by evidence (correlation =/= causation).

so i brought up COUNTERexamples, to show how specious that logic is.

hth

[defendandprotect]

235. We are, in fact, more like Canada, France, England ---

and our past movement to a gun free society was indicative of that --

pre the GOP/NRA overturning.

Israel right now is under the control of religious fanatics --- hawks armed by

US beginning with Nixon, which has buried their liberal, peace-loving movement --

topped off with the assassination by gun of Prime Minister Rabin!

Which Netanyhu is suspected of being involved with, along with other Israeli right wing.

Switzerland is a small country which cannot be compared with US on most every level --

except, of course, in regard to health care where our costs PER PERSON are the same . . .

but they get LUXURIOUS health care for their money.

and your distortion of America's rule-by-gun reality is disingenuous ...

It is government officials -- Governors -- and police enforcement officials --

who are arguing that our gun laws are "insufficient" and "foolish" ---

[paulsby]

240. first of all

"police enforcement officials" are generally political appointees such as police chiefs who say just what their handlers (mayors etc.) want them to say.

REAL cops generally support concealed carry. i work as a cop in WA state, and my coworkers overwhelmingly support CCW.

again, the comparison is specious. we can draw comparisons AND contrasts with france, england, israel, switzerland all day long.

and the point remains. the comparison was specious.

i could just as easily say the two nations i am aware of with the highest suicide rates (sweden and japan) have INCREDIBLY strict handgun laws.

so therefore banning guns results in higher suicide. lol.

it DOES NOT NECESSARILY FOLLOW

fwiw, japanese americans also have a high suicide rate, but they happen to use guns a lot. why? because they are available. in japan, they use other means.

suggesting culture is a hell of a lot more important than availability of guns.

japanese americans also have very low crime rates, specifically violent crime, despite all our guns, and our "lax" gun laws. again, suggesting cultural differences.

we are NOT france, canada, england, or israel. that's my point.

the comparisons are nifty but they do not imply causation between our gun laws and guns and our crime rates

hth

[defendandprotect]

251. So you are in favor of "concealed" carry for our kids and granny--???

and if you bother to work that out in your mind ... the most violent win!!!

Bush was a political appointee of the Supreme Court . . . he supported GOP/NRA.
So did Ashcroft --

What about their opinions on guns . . . ? Tainted because they were "officials"?

REAL cops generally support concealed carry. i work as a cop in WA state, and my coworkers overwhelmingly support CCW.

So that every car they stop may have a gun in it . . . ?

:eyes:

[paulsby]

271. how hard is it for you to understand?

cops don't fear citizens who lawfully carry with CCW.

why?

because we know they are among the LEAST likely of all demographics to commit violent crime. they are right up there with mormon grandmas on the "scare" factor.

i've been a cop 20 yrs. i have dealt with TONS of people with CCW's. i have NEVER had one attack or assault me, let alone use a firearm against me.

and i deal with them ALL THE TIME.

this is a right to carry state.

the stats don't lie.

they have been posted here before.

if i pull somebody over, he says "i have a CCW and I'm carrying" and shows me his CCW i know that, statistically speaking, he is unlikely to be a risk to me.

[defendandprotect]

275. Is a cop a mindreader . . . ?

How does the police officer know who is actually in the car as he walks up to it --- ???

And what about police in unmarked cars frightening the noble gun carrying citizen?

Where do your statistics say that anything has improved in crime or violence DUE TO

THE GOP/NRA -- OR THEIR PUSH FOR CONCEALED WEAPONS?

if i pull somebody over, he says "i have a CCW and I'm carrying" and shows me his CCW i know that, statistically speaking, he is unlikely to be a risk to me.

Presumably then his CCW has a photo of him on it?

And, if it's not him, by the time you look at what the guy is showing you, what might happen?

Meanwhile, let's keep this straight -- this guy will be "carrying" because he fears

SOMEONE ELSE WITH A GUN!!!

[one-eyed fat man]

318. what a bozo

you keep telling a working cop he doesn't know what working cops think!

I don't know what century you're living in but, in most cases, by the time the cop gets out of his car he has already run your plate.

In most case he will already know if the make and model match the DMV database, who the owner is and if the owner has any wants, warrants or a CCW.

Hint: That computer looking gizmo by the radio next to the shotgun is not a GPS display to the closest donut shop.

[iverglas]

394. well, as long as we're dredging threads

I'll have to do the proper memorializing.



So long, remedy1. I never knew you at all!

A pity, given the high intellectualism of your post here ...

[remedy1]

38. BTW...there is NO "gun show loophole"...

It's a fallacy. It doesn't exist. It's bullshit rhetoric, just like "partial birth abortion".

Any dealer selling at any gun show is required to do a background check. It is the law. Period. The laws apply at a show just as they do at a store. There is no loophole.

"Tupperware parties for criminals"? Oh, please. That is so much inflammatory rhetoric.

The fact is that a 1997 Department of Justice survey of 3,959 prison inmates found that only 2% stated that they had bought a gun used in a crime from a gun show. The remaining 98% were obtained from other sources, in which the criminal had no direct connection with a gun show. The most common sources were family or friends.

There are thousands of laws that regulate the purchase, possession, and use of firearms.

How about we ENFORCE the ones that are on the books?

[defendandprotect]

45. So 98% of criminals get their guns from "family or friends" . . . !!!

And isn't that where kids who kill themselves also get them . . . ???

[remedy1]

46. Recently,

In my area 4 teenagers were (tragically) killed in an accident probably caused by speeding in a car owned by a parent.

Shall we ban cars?

We have laws pertaining to speed. The speed limit was ignored and an accident occurred. Whose fault was it?

[defendandprotect]

53. Do you pay INSURANCE COSTS for your car by any chance?

Are you trying to suggest that no one is held responsible for a car accident?

If someone else is hurt in your car as a passenger ---

or by your car as a pedestrial or in another car you hit ---

do you expect your INSURANCE to cover the costs????

Do we have safety belts in cars -- and should we have more regulation of cars which

are often RECALLED because of safety problems?

Do we have fines/penalties for disobeying our speed laws -- especially if there is
an accident?

Time to insist that gun owners INSURANCE their guns --!!


Proposed IL Law Would Force Gun Owners to Carry $1,000,000.00 of ...
Illinois State Representative Kenneth Dunkin (D-5th District) has proposed an anti gun law that would force gun owners to carry $1,000,000.00 of insurance.learnaboutguns.com/2009/02/20/proposed-il-law-would-force-gun-owners-to-carry... - 60k - Cached

and guess who's opposed to laws that gun owners have INSURANCE on their guns?

NRA-ILA :: Insurance Mandates for Gun Owners Are Against Second ...
... carry training | Outlaws will have guns | Nebraska: Lawmakers endorse guns for ... Beck on Fox News Channel on the new efforts to force gun owners to purchase ...www.nraila.org/Legislation/Read.aspx?ID=4626 - Cached

[remedy1]

63. Sure I do.

And I insure my guns and my liability when using them.

If a person is injured by a gun, and it is negligence, the owner is liable for civil damages.

What is your point?

[defendandprotect]

200. And NRA isn't fighting mandated gun-owner INSURANCE --????

Let's have insurance which covers the actual costs of a gun wounding --

[derby378]

232. What you're proposing is tantamount to a permit

In other words, no deal. Especially if it means having to deal with an insurance company that puts the bottom line over the public good.

[defendandprotect]

234. INSURANCE on guns is "insurance" -- not a permit -- !!!

Where is the "public good" in free-wheeling gun ownership --

If you want a gun, accept the full responsibility for it -- and

the too frequent damage done with guns.

[jmg257]

50. Most likely. You can never be too carefull with kids.

Happily the number who accidentally shoot themselves (or even another) is very low.

Around 100 total ages 1-16, #8 on the list of accidental deaths, behind poison, fire, MV accidents, drowning, etc.

[defendandprotect]

55. And if one of those "kids" was someone you loved and cared about . . .

how impressed would you be by those statistics . . . ???

Especially if it was your gun???

[jmg257]

59. I would be QUITE upset. But still impressed by the statistics, especially compared

to other causes of accidental death that no one gets all worked up over, and that are not used to try to justify infringements on secured rights.

Of course 1 accidental death is tragic, but with +/-300million guns and so few accidents - it really is pretty impressive.

[defendandprotect]

61. Well, then, you wouldn't "get worked up" over the child's death . . .

would you?

And you could take carry the statistics around with you keeping you safe and happy --

maybe even make a copy of the statistics for the parents???

I would be QUITE upset. But still impressed by the statistics, especially compared
to other causes of accidental death that no one gets all worked up over, and that are not used to try to justify infringements on secured rights.

Of course 1 accidental death is tragic, but with +/-300million guns and so few accidents - it really is pretty impressive.

And you'd label a child getting a hold of your gun and shooting himself with it an "accident" . . .

????

Way to go in hiding from reality!

[remedy1]

66. A child getting a weapon...

and shooting himself or anyone else is not an accident, it is negligence on the part of the owner of the gun.

There are many laws that deal with securing guns so that children cannot obtain them.

Children still do and the results can be lethal.

There are also laws that require safety devices for swimming pools to prevent child drownings.

Children still drown in pools.

[defendandprotect]

166. How many police officers have shot their wives and/or themselves ????

Just more statistics -- !!!

How many Iraqi/Afghanistanis are dead now -- how many American soldiers --

it's all the same drive for profit from weapons -- enriching the violent right!

[rl6214]

288. Aluminum foil a little tight there?

[defendandprotect]

167. dupe

[jmg257]

67. "Worked up"? Quite Upset, sad, distraught, etc. etc.

As I said upstream, I don't justify basic rights on statistics, they don't always agree with you. And would be NO sense in copying them for distraught upset parents. Don't think it would help, do you?

Hmmm...'accidental', 'accidental'. That works - 'unintentional' is also a good word to decribe accidental deaths, along with tragic, sad, upsetting (quite), etc. 'Careless' & 'negligent' would cover it well also in most, if not all situations with children.

[defendandprotect]

168. No I don't think statistics would be helpful to parents of a child killed by gunshot . . .

I think we have to make it a crime when a child gets ahold of a gun --

the owner should be held responsible. And all gun-owners should have to

carry INSURANCE covering any such "accidents."



I would be QUITE upset. But still impressed by the statistics, especially compared
to other causes of accidental death that no one gets all worked up over, and that are not used to try to justify infringements on secured rights.

Of course 1 accidental death is tragic, but with +/-300million guns and so few accidents - it really is pretty impressive.

[FudaFuda]

65. Gun haters aren't concerned with reducing the death rate or a safer society

Show them how DUI kills more people every day than guns - they don't care. Ban the guns.

Show them how drowning in swimming pools causes more accidental deaths for children than guns in the home - they don't care. Ban the guns.

Show them how shall-issue carry laws have resulted in a reduction of street robbery - they don't care. Ban the guns.


It's only banning guns that they care about. It doesn't matter what fact you have ready to demonstrate the futility, or even harm, that increased gun control represents - they will ignore it.

It doesn't matter that the weapons they want to ban (first) are a statistical blip in the totality of gun crime - they believe you can go to gunshows and buy machine guns, 'cop-killer' bullets, and grenades by the truckload.

It doesn't matter how well you demonstrate that the gun laws we have already enacted are not properly enforced - they will advocate for more laws rather than more enforcement of existing ones.

[defendandprotect]

171. What the public understands is that guns represent violence . . . and myth of safety ....

That's why society was freed from the burdens of everyone being armed long ago.

"Check your gun with the bartender" . . .

All of those lessons were learned long ago--

Further, we do hold drivers responsible for accidents and for reckless driving --

and for DUI's . . .

We also hold pool owners owners responsible in the sense of their carrying home

INSURANCE -- under which they can be sued for personal injury.

The NRA is fighting against being held responsible -- for defective guns/designs --

for defective ammunition -- and fighting against gun-owners being required to carry

INSURANCE in event of damage to others.

[FudaFuda]

182. wow, logical leap frog

----Further, we do hold drivers responsible for accidents and for reckless driving --

and for DUI's . . .----

yeah, but nothing's done before the fact to prevent drunk driving, i.e. there's no "DUI control." We hold criminals who unlawfully use firearms to kill or maim responsible too.

-----We also hold pool owners owners responsible in the sense of their carrying home

INSURANCE -- under which they can be sued for personal injury.-----

Insurance pays out to cover negligence, but not intentional acts (and particularly not to indemnify crime). If a child slips and falls into your pool and drowns, your homeowners' policy may cover you. But if you intentionally drown the child, your just a murderer.


What gun designs do you suggest are defective? The ones that allow bullets to come out the end of the barrel when the trigger is pulled? Maybe we should sue Ford and Chevy for making cars that can be driven by drunks. The liability, if any, belongs to the person with the finger on the trigger. If the use of a firearm is lawful, there are no damages to be paid and therefore nothing to insure against. If damage results from the negligent use of a firearm, or from negligently allowing a minor access to a firearm, the tortfeasor can be sued - there is nothing preventing that now, and the NRA doesn't lobby against that. If a firearm is used to commit a crime, like I said insurance doesn't indemnify that because it is an intentional crime.

What the NRA does lobby against is sueing firearms manufactuers for 'the totality of damage' caused by the use of firearms in crime, i.e. the Mayor Bloomberg type of lawsuit. Like I said, you might as well sue automakers for making cars that drunks can drive, or sue Ginsu for making knives.

[defendandprotect]

201. I guess the Drug War could carry on with bows and arrows . . . sling shots .. . ??

We have standards for cars/design --
not for guns or ammunition - which are often defective.

Like I said, you might as well sue automakers for making cars that drunks can drive, or sue Ginsu for making knives

We have checkpoints which look for drunk drivers --
and we may soon have cars which will not start if the driver is drunk. Why not?

In fact, it used to be illegal to have a switchblade knife -- and I presume you can't
carry one in school - or a courthouse/courtroom? Airlines?

Arming the entire nation isn't any smarter than militarizing the skies --

Guns are about doing harm to others and frequently do harm to the user or a loved one.

Leap-frogging? "Intentionally drowning the child" . . . who are you trying to kid ...
You or me?

Children who get ahold of guns is not an example of friends, families or acquaintances
trying to kill the child. But it is severe negligence on the part of the adult.

Why is the NRA fighting mandated INSURANCE for gun-owners?

Why is the GOP/NRA fighting law suits against gun manufacturers while also failing to
regulate gun manufacturing?


What the NRA does lobby against is sueing firearms manufactuers for 'the totality of damage' caused by the use of firearms in crime, i.e. the Mayor Bloomberg type of lawsuit. .

And the GOP/NRA themselves should be sued --- as well as the manufacturers for the damage
done. Could we have a Drug War without guns?

[Iktomiwicasa]

310. Well...

...we did try banning booze. That didn't work well, did it?

[X_Digger]

80. Yes, we should legislate based on emotion, not facts. n/t

[friendly_iconoclast]

86. The "Helen Lovejoy" and " typecasting" cards don't work on people who are aware you're using them

You might want to try another approach

[Thothmes]

126. the law applies to "licensed dealers". Private individuals

can carry a weapon into a gun show and sell it to another private individual without a requirement to do any record keeping or background checks. I have sold weapons at gun shows on occasion and have bought weapons from individuals at gun shows without any paperwork or background checks. This is the supposed "loophole".

[RaleighNCDUer]

40. How about, instead of any AW bans, a mandatory 90 day waiting

period upon buying a weapon? Any person with a lick of sense can plan his need for a weapon three months out. Want it for hunting season? Apply a hundred days before the season starts - that way you'll have it for ten days, to get the feel of it, before the actual need arises. Want it for target shooting? Those targets will still be there in three months. Really, actually need it for self defense? Get a waiver from the police/DA's office stating you have had the proper background checks and the 90 day waiting period is set aside.

This would virtually eliminate strawman purchases. It would allow time for proper background checks. It would eliminate hysteria buying - "OMG! there was a massacre three states away! I gotta get a gun, NOW!".

[derby378]

68. That's what we call "presumption of guilt"

Perform the instant background check, screw the waiting period. Federal law only mandates a minimum 60-day waiting period for full-auto and other NFA weapons. Leave the rest of us alone.

[scrinmaster]

74. I got my NFA silencer in under 60 days.

[RaleighNCDUer]

93. Instant background checks are, and always have been, bullshit.

An instant background check does not reveal if someone has had a domestic violence restraining order put on them yesterday. Or last week. Or in many cases, at all. Instant background check does not identify the mentally ill, the schizophrenic who went off his medications two weeks ago. Instant background checks do not identify who had just found out his wife is having an affair, or has just been fired.

The mass killings, where somebody has built up an arsenal over a matter of years, then unleashes it may get the most attention, but they are not the most common gun deaths. Most gun crimes committed by people with clean records are crimes of passion, and the guns used in those shootings are purchased for that specific purpose. A 90 day waiting period, for cooling off, would probably cut domestic shootings by 1/3. Do you REALLY need your gun tomorrow enough that 3000 fellow citizens have to die for it?

[Thothmes]

129. These shortcomings can be changed with congressional actions

Require federal reporting of restraining orders by granting jurisdictions within 24 hours of issue. Require anyone ajudged as mentally ill, schizophreneic, etc be reported within 24 hours by the authority making the original assessment of mental conditions. Nothing wrong with a 3-5 day waiting period.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

161. There were fewer than 600 "domestic" murders in 2007, there weren't 9000.

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/index.html

[one-eyed fat man]

332. why don't you blame grandstanding politicians?

you say, "An instant background check does not reveal if someone has had a domestic violence restraining order put on them yesterday. Or last week. Or in many cases, at all. Instant background check does not identify the mentally ill, the schizophrenic who went off his medications two weeks ago. Instant background checks do not identify who had just found out his wife is having an affair, or has just been fired."

And you know that a waiting period doesn't either. You might recall Janet Reno's Congressional testimony. Asked why the Justice Department had only prosecuted 12 people out of the 750,000 that tried to buy a gun and were "stopped" by the check. In her own words, "the Brady Law was symbolic, it was never intended to arrest people trying to buy a gun illegally." Imagine that, the attorney general saying the law was never intended to be used to arrest anyone breaking it.

Yet you know that there are career criminals, responsible for the bulk of violent crime back on the street faster than the cop can finish the arrest report. Why do you tolerate, worse keep electing, rosecutors who ROUTINELY DO NOT PROSECUTE felons in possession. Some thug is arrested on gun charges 13 times in 5 years and isn't inconvenienced by so much as an overnight stay in jail, yet the very prosecutor that let the scumbag loose to prey the city, is all over the TV, along with Governor Rendell, calling for more gun laws, she won't enforce any better then she has the ones on the books now! You worry the instant check doesn't catch everyone who got fired and might be a threat, but tolerate those who have proven repeatedly they would shoot you to rob you of a stick of gum be turned loose to keep doing it.

Catch & Release

Hell, guys who are on bail for murder getting arrested for murdering the witness to first murder and you think some magic gun law that would stop him.

[defendandprotect]

175. What's the hurry . . . ???

[Thothmes]

127. How would it eleminate "straw man purchases"

Bad guys can plan ahead too.

[paulsby]

136. how about a 90 day waiting period for letters to the editor

blog entries, etc?

makes about as much sense.

[dkofos]

49. The same people that will face down the corporate lobby.

That would be NOBODY!!

[defendandprotect]

57. Congress is "petrified" of NRA . . .

suggests that some in Congress might be happy to get out from

"under the gun" of the NRA, so to speak . . . !!!

Like other corporations running our government, the NRA is one of the most fascistic -- !!!

[scrinmaster]

75. How is the NRA fascist?

I'd love to hear you explain it.

[doctor jazz]

81. He obviously has no clue as to the meaning of 'fascism'

:eyes:

[defendandprotect]

183. NRA/GOP has been buying government and legislators and targetting

legislators who weren't pro-gun . . .

this has been going on for decades and presumably you approve?

The NRA isn't concerned about the Bill of Rights except as a way to exploit guns

and make profits -- increase their membership for profit.

It's an arm of the GOP as surely as the Christian right is . .

In fact, the GOP provided start-up funds for the Christian Coalition -- !!!

[virginia mountainman]

120. Congress is "petrified" of VOTERS that will throw them out...

Like 1994 .....

[defendandprotect]

184. Good year for GOP . . . are you celebrating?

Congress is "petrified" of being targetted by NRA/GOP "swiftboating" and

huge amounts of right-wing money being run against them!!!

I'm sure you've liked that, as well.

It's time the public woke up to the fascist nature of the GOP/NRA.

[leftofthedial]

56. I dunno.

Maybe the insurance lobby?

[slackmaster]

58. Utter bullshit

...Licensed arms dealers have to do background checks on people who buy guns. The rules don’t apply at gun shows...

That is simply a lie. The rules are the same regardless of where a transfer of a firearm occurs.

[X_Digger]

70. Gun show loophole?

Source of gun
Purchased----------13.9
-Retail--------------8.3
-Pawn Shop---------3.8
-Flea Market--------1.0
-Gun Show----------0.7
Friends / Family-----39.6
Street / Illegal------39.2

Only 13.9% of guns used in crimes are purchased via legal means. Only 0.7% happen at gun shows. In other words, less than one percent of guns used in crime come from gun shows.

source: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/fuo.pdf

So..

[MajorChode]

97. Survey of criminals in prison

Very scientific.

Even if you could believe that it only shows that a better tracking system is needed to find out where the guns are coming from and who is selling them.

Guns are virtually untraceable for the most part, which explains why the DOJ has to even ask the criminals themselves where their guns came from.

[X_Digger]

101. Better than mindreading or guessing.

The government can track the original non-mfg owner (via form 4473).

After that, it's foot work. I agree that NICS needs to be opened up to private individuals (by choice), but even that wouldn't be 100%. What other source of information would you suggest?

[MajorChode]

112. Yes, the form 4473 works great

They are stored in a shoe box in the gun dealer's closet.

All the government has to do is ask for the form. This assume of course that they can actually find the dealer, they are still alive, and the shoebox didn't get thrown away. Imagine if the police had to track down cars that way.

All that is needed is a simple nationwide database to track every single gun transaction from the classes of weapons that criminals commonly use. It would make prosecution of straw purchases extremely efficient. Practically every civilized country on earth has something to that effect except the US. The fact that we don't is testament to the NRA's ability to strike down any law or regulation that might have a meaningful effect on gun crime.

[X_Digger]

117. Go talk to a gun dealer..

Ask him how long it's been since the BATFE came in with a handheld scanner. It's a routine practice for BATFE agents to come in with a list of serial numbers from gun manufacturers and ask to see the corresponding firearm or 4473 for every one on the list. It's technically against the tihardt amendment to do so, but the BATFE does make copies of almost all 4473s.

It's an offense that includes jail time to destroy a 4473, and the bureau doesn't hesitate to prosecute. Funnily enough, doesn't happen as often as you seem to think.

[MajorChode]

119. I know lots of gun dealers and I've NEVER heard of any one of them having that done

Those forms may ONLY be copied if there's an active criminal investigation and even then they need a warrant. And even if it did happen anywhere nearly as often as you pretend it does, what on earth makes you think that is an effective system?

[X_Digger]

122. Big difference between 'may' and 'are'..

Honestly, I'm okay with anonymous firearm ownership, but letting those who wish to use NICS for private sales do so. Other than real estate, I can't think offhand of another piece of private property that requires registration. A title for a car doesn't have to be registered until you wish to drive it on public streets. A bill of sale / deed are all that are required for other properties.

[MajorChode]

123. You didn't answer the question

I suspect you won't.

[X_Digger]

151. You can't prove a negative..

There's no way to know how many criminals did not attempt to purchase a gun because they knew they wouldn't pass the check.

Nice try, but no cookie.

[MajorChode]

169. I didn't ask you to prove or disprove anything

I merely asked for your opinion. It was a simple question and you dodged it and continue to dodge it. But I suspected you wouldn't answer it and you didn't, so you fully met my expectation. Congratulations.

[defendandprotect]

185. Thanks for some meaningful info -- and I'll add INSURANCE to that . . .!!!

All the government has to do is ask for the form. This assume of course that they can actually find the dealer, they are still alive, and the shoebox didn't get thrown away. Imagine if the police had to track down cars that way.

All that is needed is a simple nationwide database to track every single gun transaction from the classes of weapons that criminals commonly use. It would make prosecution of straw purchases extremely efficient. Practically every civilized country on earth has something to that effect except the US. The fact that we don't is testament to the NRA's ability to strike down any law or regulation that might have a meaningful effect on gun crime.

[one-eyed fat man]

336. a little fact checking

http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/faq2.htm#c6

Here is what FFL have to provide the ATF when they give up their license, quit the business, or die.

"The records consist of the licensee's bound acquisition/disposition (A/D) records, ATF Forms 4473, ATF Forms 3310.4 (Report of Multiple Sale or Other Disposition of Pistols and Revolvers), ATF Forms 3310.11 (Federal Firearms Licensee Theft/Loss Report), records of transactions in semiautomatic assault weapons, records of importation (ATF Forms 6 and 6A), and law enforcement certification letters. If the licensee was granted a variance to use a computerized record-keeping system, the licensee is required to provide a complete printout of the entire A/D records."

Here is where they send it:

BUREAU OF ATF
ATF OUT-OF-BUSINESS RECORDS CENTER
244 NEEDY ROAD
MARTINSBURG, WV 24501

and this is what happens if they don't

"Failure to surrender required records is a felony and could result in the licensee being fined up to $250,000, imprisoned up to 5 years, or both. A licensee discontinuing business also must notify the Federal Firearms Licensing Center within 30 days."


While Congress has repeatedly prohibited a Federal gun registry, these records are scanned into a searchable computerized repository of records. (but it's not a database)

[scrinmaster]

76. Not only does gun control run contrary to the constitution,

it is a political loser. I'm sure the right would love Obama to try to pass another AWB, you can say goodbye to the house in 2010, and the White House in 2012.

[crimsonblue]

77. not going there

:popcorn:

[Raskolnik]

95. If gun shows are truly “Tupperware Parties for Criminals," why doesn't

Dionne cite the number of crimes committed using guns purchased at gun shows?

A sloppily written article by E.J. Dionne.

[Freddie Stubbs]

100. Let the Republicans do it

Their poll numbers are too high right now.

[walldude]

102. No one will. You can't win this.

There are too many liberals who believe that the right to keep and bear arms means you can keep a tank in your front yard. There will never be a large enough consensus to put any intelligent restrictions on gun control.
And forget the argument that when the constitution was written it took you 30 seconds to load and fire your weapon. It doesn't fly with pro-gun people. The right to keep and bear arms apparently means any arms. In their mind any limits posed are un-constitutional. And the shame of it is they would be right. The writers of the constitution didn't forsee weapons on the scale we have today.

[tammywammy]

103. I don't see anyone demanding for the 1934 firearms act to be overturned n/t

[walldude]

121. What does that have to do with what I said?

Not only that but it took me 60 seconds on google to find pages and pages of people wanting to repeal the act.

[derby378]

211. I'm okay with keeping the original 1934 NFA in place

I have my own reasons for keeping it in place - much of it having to do with labor relations. Before the NFA was passed, corporations often hired armed security guards to patrol the assembly lines with Thompson guns in order to further discourage union organizing. Either you let the unions buy unregistered machine guns and hope that our facories don't become abbatoirs, or you try an alternative approach that cools down heads on both sides of the table.

I do, however, want the 1986 ban on full-auto sales to civilians repealed. As long as the NFA is in place, there is no reason for a full-auto ban - and the circumstances under which that ban was passed are shaky at best. Let's just say that Charlie Rangel was dealing cards from the bottom of the pack.

[HarukaTheTrophyWife]

104. An idiot who wants to lose an election over a stupid issue

[ShareTheWoods]

110. Family members of victim survivors refuse to be disarmed

Face it, the anti-gunners will not be happy until every American is disarmed. They prefer to disarm Americans
by the boiling pot of frogs method and gun owners refuse to play that game again.

[barbtries]

115. i'm too timid to face down

DU on this issue. considering that it's hard to badmouth the folks in congress. reason just does not apply when it comes to debating the merits. all the stats in the world don't mean shit. must. have. guns.

[derby378]

212. I'd like to think you'd consider me gentle if we met face-to-face

Goofy, yes. Hyperactive at times, sure. But definitely not the violent type. Owning guns does not make a person violent.

[barbtries]

230. i don't doubt that.

by "face down" i meant engage in the argument. certainly as nice and gentle and progressive as both of us are, on this issue we're polarized. i didn't mean that it meant i felt physically threatened, just that i don't have the energy to take on the fight. i'm not going to change your mind; you're not going to change mine. that's how it is and i have accepted it.

peace :hippie:

[virginia mountainman]

118. Alright.....FACE ME DOWN......

I get sick of damn assholes trying to infringe on OUR CIVIL RIGHTS, and that McCarthy don't know half of what she talks about....Have you seen her on TV trying to explain why she wants too ban "that thing that goes up"? I bet she don't even know what an email is. But yet, people in here can quote her?? WTF IT UP WITH THAT SHIT?!?! ITS HER SIGNATURE LEGISLATION and she has NO IDEA WHAT SHE IS TALKING ABOUT.

Hell, lets all see the great mind at work...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ospNRk2uM3U

HOLY SHIT!!! Just watching that will make your IQ go down about 10 points, she is really showing that she WAS a Republican, not too long ago... O well, with people like her out in front of this "preconceived" issue, it damn certainly won't be going anywhere.

I come in here, to read posts by progressive, not POS Rethug "shit on the US Bill of Rights" bull shit... It gets older than hell, having to fight the GOP from fucking up the Bill of Rights, than out of the damn blue, we need to fight a damn REAR GUARD action against some in our own party, on the one part the damn rethugs don't try to fuck over TOO bad...

[doctor jazz]

140. No shit. Who needs enemies with friends like those?

I see posts on here by people who think self-defense is the manifestation of TRVE EVIL and these assholes claim to be progressive and Americans. Bullshit, they are neither.

[iverglas]

396. uh oh, another one bit the dust

I guess the administrators don't take well to users calling other users "assholes" and asserting that said users are "progressive" nor "American". (And hey, I wasn't even here at the time!)

Too bad. I would have liked to ask for the names so I could find these posts without having to read the whole blamed thread:

I see posts on here by people who think self-defense is the manifestation of TRVE EVIL

I hate being late to the party ...

[Paladin]

272. So Nice To Know That Somebody Like You Can Have As Many Guns As He Wants.

Stay the fuck out of my neighborhood, OK?

[virginia mountainman]

307. Only if you..

Stay the fuck out of my gun cabinet..... OK?

[krispos42]

139. Republicans would love to have Democrats pass stricter gun-control laws

In fact, if the Repubs were smart (and they are; they're great at getting elected, if nothing else) they'd be back-channeling as much money and influence as they could to the anti-gun lobby so they could sway public opinion and Congressional Democracts.

[ShareTheWoods]

142. McCarthy, D-N.Y

McCarthy? What a poor juxtaposition of a name and ideals.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

146. The Heller Decision is settled law.. Get over it.

[depakid]

148. Sorry to burst your bubble- but Heller decison has nothing to do with the issues in the OP

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

153. Come now you aren't that short sighted.

[depakid]

155. I've just read the case- and know what it says and doesn't say

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

156. Then why are you worried about facing down the gun lobby?

[depakid]

157. Just because a legislative body can enact legislation doesn't mean they have the politcal fortitude

Same applies to the financial industry, the filthy coal industry, health insurers, etc.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

158. Which legislation would you like them to enact?

[depakid]

160. My preference would be something resembling Australia's approach

but then, it's up to Americans to decide when enough is enough. On all sorts of issues.

Other nations have already reached their thresholds. Except with respect to coal. That'll my personal battleground in the years to come. You all get to deal with gun proliferation and and the lack of universal healthcare.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

162. The Heller decision wouldn't allow Australia's approach.

[depakid]

163. Not all of it- but a large number of things could easily be applied

and one day, I have no doubt that they will. Every society has its tipping points. Even America.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

165. Examples please?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

172. Come on now. What exactly would you do in the US that was done in Australia?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

274. 18 hours and still no reply, why is that?

[SteveM]

374. Emm, Fart-n-run? (nt)

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

159. E.J. Dionne is a liar. Licensed dealers are required to do backgrounds checks at gun shows.

[and-justice-for-all]

204. Some day, guns will disappear....

and it will not be a matter of choice, but necessity. Several generations from now, but they will disappear.

[Raskolnik]

231. I'm not at all certain of that.

First, guns are made of wood and metal and plastic. They last a long, long time. Short of committing the whole of the armed forces and the police to door-to-door confiscation, I'm not sure how you're going to rid the U.S., much less the world, of guns.

Second, what "necessity" do you think is going to arise in the next few generations that will precipitate the disappearance of guns?

[and-justice-for-all]

269. Seeing the future is not possible...

I am just hoping that someday, they will disappear.

[Raskolnik]

270. Well, that's not at all what your post indicated, but fair enough. n/t

[Iktomiwicasa]

311. Not a chance.

None. Zero. Zip.

[SteveM]

375. What do you think will replace them?

[Redneck Socialist]

214. Who will face down yet another journalist who has no idea what he's writing about?

<sigh>

[L0oniX]

215. YAwn ...another anti gun rant and a ploy to divide DU and the Dem party.

[Joe Steel]

291. Better to tear them down than to let them destroy America.

YAwn ...another anti gun rant and a ploy to divide DU and the Dem party.

Better to tear them down than to let them destroy America.

I encourage all progressives to withhold their votes from Democrats who don't support gun control. I don't care about gay rights. I don't care about abortion rights. Gun control is the single most-important issue facing us today. As long as America is a free-fire zone nothing else matters.

[TankLV]

216. Wow - the fucking indiot nut job gun nuts are an EMBARASSMENT to DU...

I sometimes think this place is freak republic...

it is soo sad, really...

[Raskolnik]

228. How so?

How does arguing for protecting a Constitutional right make one an EMBARASSMENT to DU?

[jody]

238. You are in the minority of DUers and Democrats and the phrase "this place is freak republic" is a

sour-grapes whine appropriate for a group of losers.

[bossy22]

280. its people like you

with that mentality that are an embarrassment to DU

[slackmaster]

293. You sound like a typical 13-year-old

Feeling chronically "embarrassed" about what you think is going on inside of other peoples' heads.

[cwcwmack]

229. explosive thread...

thumbs down on the anti-gun folks...

[TheWraith]

249. Not this crap again.

"Their letter to Holder was absurd.... Doesn’t that make you feel better?"

It should, because the point they're making is that, once you knock down the myth that these are automatic weapons (or can be converted to automatic, which they can't) then you're left with the fact that they're overpriced, underpowered deer rifles.

"Those Democrats should sit down with Gov. Ed Rendell of Pennsylvania. “Time and time again, our police are finding themselves outgunned,” Rendell said in Harrisburg last week. “They are finding themselves with less firepower than the criminals they are trying to bring to justice.”"

Then they're pretty poorly armed police, because the cops ARE allowed to have automatic weapons. By the way, two out of the three police officers killed in PA recently were killed by a standard pump-action shotgun. Which, if you talk to most police, you'll find out are the weapons they're most afraid of. A good vest can stop handguns and even some rifle rounds, but the scatter from a shotgun shell can find the unprotected spots in someone's armor.

"And why can’t we at least close the gun show loophole? Licensed arms dealers have to do background checks on people who buy guns. The rules don’t apply at gun shows that, as the Violence Policy Center put it, have become “Tupperware Parties for Criminals.”"

False in two different ways. Those rules DO apply at gun shows. Period. Licensed dealers have to perform a background check no matter where they sell. The only transactions that aren't covered are private sales, one person to another. And private sales at gun shows only account for 1% of all guns that find their way into criminal hands.

"But too many members of Congress are “petrified” by the gun lobby, says Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, D-N.Y., a crusader for sane gun legislation ever since her husband was killed and her son paralyzed by a gunman on the Long Island Rail Road in 1993."

Killed with a perfectly ordinary 9mm pistol, just like most crimes involving a gun use perfectly ordinary sorts of guns. 85% of all crimes involving a gun use handguns; only six percent use rifles of any kind, let alone "assault weapons." If you want to deal with gun crime, deal with straw purchasers and cleaning up the bugs in the NICS system that let through guys like the Virginia Tech shooter. Continuing this obsession with a handful of high-profile laws like the Assault Weapons Ban which have been proven NOT to reduce crime is just going to lose us seats come the mid-terms.

[No More Bushbots]

250. Fortunately for America and the Constitution

The anti-gun people are a very small minority of the American public and have no chance of influencing the laws of this country.
Its amazing that the same people that screamed bloody murder at the thought of their 4th Amendment rights being trampled by the Bushyt Misadministration now have no qualms with attempting to do the same with the 2nd Amendment.

[Joe Steel]

290. The Second Amendment isn't being trampled by gun-controllers.

The anti-gun people are a very small minority of the American public and have no chance of influencing the laws of this country. Its amazing that the same people that screamed bloody murder at the thought of their 4th Amendment rights being trampled by the Bushyt Misadministration now have no qualms with attempting to do the same with the 2nd Amendment.

The Second Amendment isn't being trampled by gun-controllers. It's being trampled by NRA stooges on the bench and in our legislatures. For over two hundred years the Second Amendment did what the Founders intended. Then the NRA bought enough legislators to write bad laws and pack the courts with pliant "jurists." Now we've got a political process which gives the NRA whatever it wants.

[jmg257]

299. 200+ years of securing the rights of the people, as intended. Let's not stop now! GO 2nd!

'The right of the people...shall not be infringed.'

'Being upheld {and incorporated!!!} in a court near you!'

[Caliman73]

314. What are you talking about?

You make no sense. What did the founders intend for the 2nd amendment to do that has been trampled by the NRA?

[aikoaiko]

258. Its not the gun lobby -- its the voters that are compelling politicians to avoid useless gun laws

As it turns out the misreported canard about 90% of guns used by Mexican gangs has been debunked. Only about 17% of the guns used in Mexican crime are from the US. Even if the US banned and confiscated every single gun, the majority of guns used in the Mexican gang wars would still be in use.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/elections/2009/04/02/myth-percent-guns-mexico-fraction-number-claimed/

[defendandprotect]

276. Because Obama is helpless to stop it . . . ????

and from what I hear VOTERS want gun control --

In fact, I think all of America is pretty sick to its stomach with GOP

and the NRA is closely identified with it.

Hard to know whether the GOP has benefitted more from its alliance with

Evangelicals or NRA?

[aikoaiko]

279. Support for more gun control is trending lower than ever.

See Gallup poll:http://www.gallup.com/poll/117361/Support-Gun-Control-Laws-Time-Lows.aspx

I'm sure Obama, Pelosi, and Reid (and other Democratic leaders) see the massive surge in gun and ammo sales as a potentially motivated voting block should more gun control that reduces law abiding folks 2nd amendment rights get passed.

Most people agree that steps should be taken to reduce criminal violence, but not the expense of law abiding folks' rights.

[spin]

281. "and from what I hear VOTERS want gun control --" That depends...

Check you this map on concealed carry in the United States.



It would seem that if the voters were truly devoted advocates of gun control, they would oppose people legally carrying concealed handguns. Obviously they don't as the "shall issue" movement caught fire in Florida in 1987. (note that Washington state in 1961 had "shall issue".) No states that have passed the Florida style concealed carry law have voted it out. Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concealed_carry_in_the_United_States

Polls may show that voters favor gun control but much might depend on how the poll questions were phrased.

For more than a decade, Gallup has also asked a standard question -- "Do you feel that the laws covering the sale of firearms should be made more strict, less strict or kept as they are now?"
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/parsing-the-polls/parsing-the-polls-gun-control.html

I would consider myself very pro-gun as I own a number of handguns that I use for target shooting and have a concealed carry permit.

If asked the Gallup poll question, I would reply that I feel the gun control laws should be more strict. I would like to see the current National Instant Criminal Background Check System improved as the current system doesn't have all the necessary records from the states as most states have not provided them to the Federal government.


U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Justice Programs
Bureau of Justice Statistics
The U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS)
is pleased to announce that it is seeking applications for funding under the 2009 National Instant
Criminal Background Check System Act Record Improvement Program (NARIP). This program
implements the grant provisions of the National Instant Criminal Background Check System
(NICS) Improvement Amendments Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-180) enacted on January 8, 2008.
The Act is intended to improve the records utilized by NICS by providing assistance to states
to improve the completeness, automation and transmittal of records to state and federal
systems. Such records include criminal history records, records of felony convictions, warrants,
records of protective orders, convictions for misdemeanors involving domestic violence and
stalking, records of mental health adjudications, and others, which may disqualify an individual
from possessing or receiving a firearm under federal law. Helping states to automate these
records will also reduce delays for law-abiding gun purchasers.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/narip09sol.pdf

And I would also personally like to see a system set up to enable and require a background check be completed on firearm purchases between private individuals. Many gun owners oppose such an idea, but I would feel much better if, when I sold a weapon, I could be certain that the buyer could pass a background check. Currently, I only sell to individuals I personally know who have concealed carry permits.

However, I oppose a reinstatement of the Assault Weapons Ban and am opposed to requirements to register firearms (not required in Florida and many other states). I also oppose gun control ideas such as micro stamping ammunition or high-tech personalized handguns that are designed to fire only if the owner personally pulls the trigger.

[Joe Steel]

289. Nothing is obvious except your error.

It would seem that if the voters were truly devoted advocates of gun control, they would oppose people legally carrying concealed handguns. Obviously they don't as the "shall issue" movement caught fire in Florida in 1987.

Nothing is obvious except your error.

In 1998 Missouri put a concealed gun referendum on the ballot. Missouri voters were asked if the wanted a concealed gun law. They didn and the proposition failed. No surprise. Polling indicated about 65% of Missouri voters didn't want their gun laws any looser than they were already. A few years later, the Missouri General Assembly passed a concealed gun law anyway.

Don't be confused. The NRA owns are state legislators. Our gun laws are no more restrictive than the NRA wants them to be.

[slackmaster]

292. What's "looser" about an objective, strict set of criteria for issuing concealed weapons permits?

Please explain what you mean. How is that any looser than having no system for issuing permits at all, which fails to address an important need of some citizens? How can you even compare the two in terms of looseness? It's apples and oranges.

It sounds like a big improvement in the responsiveness of government to me.

[Joe Steel]

302. It puts more guns on the streets.

It puts more guns on the streets. That's what I mean by looser.

[slackmaster]

306. Perhaps you have some concrete information to back up your inference that it's a bad idea

I'll grant that issuing weapons permits in an objective manner will result in more guns being carried legally than there were in the absence of such a system, but statistics to show that doing so is harmful to public safety would make a strong argument against it.

Right now, you have no facts on your side Joe.

[Joe Steel]

316. Seems clear to me.

I'll grant that issuing weapons permits in an objective manner will result in more guns being carried legally than there were in the absence of such a system, but statistics to show that doing so is harmful to public safety would make a strong argument against it.

Right now, you have no facts on your side Joe.

The US has more guns than any other first world country and has more deaths by gun shot. Logic tells us no one can die by gun shot in the absence of a gun.

Many guns, many deaths.

No guns, no deaths.

Seems clear to me.

[X_Digger]

317. Truism / tatuology

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

No cookie.

[Joe Steel]

321. Nonsense.

Nonsense.

[X_Digger]

323. Are you saying your post was not a tautology?

"Logic tells us no one can die by gun shot in the absence of a gun. "

Logic tells us that rhetorical device is called a tautology. "repetition of meaning, using different words to say the same thing twice."

If this is the depth of your debate skill, you need to try harder.

[Joe Steel]

325. Yes.

It was an observation.

[slackmaster]

319. Epic fail

Logic tells us no one can die by gun shot in the absence of a gun.

Gunshot is not the only way people are murdered. They were murdered in large numbers before firearms were invented.

Many guns, many deaths.

No guns, no deaths.

Both are easily disproved by obvious counterexamples.

I'll take that as an acknowledgement that over 25 years of shall-issue laws have not done any harm to public safety.

[Joe Steel]

322. Your obvious lack of ability...

Many guns, many deaths.

No guns, no deaths.

Both are easily disproved by obvious counterexamples.

While not conclusive, the implications are clear.

I'll take that as an acknowledgement that over 25 years of shall-issue laws have not done any harm to public safety.

Take it as anything you like. Your obvious lack of ability marks you as a hopeless case and hardly worth the effort to disabuse you.

[slackmaster]

334. Data talks, personal attacks walk

Your obvious lack of ability marks you as a hopeless case and hardly worth the effort to disabuse you.

I understand the difference between verifiable facts, and assumptions, speculation, and guesses.

Concealed-carry opponents have been saying for YEARS that adopting objective systems for issuing permits to qualified citizens would result in "blood running in the streets" and all other kinds of horrors.

Where is the blood, Joe?

[Joe Steel]

340. In the streets.

No one has ever proved loose gun laws haven't caused more death. Who's to say what the toll would be if gun laws hadn't been loosened.

[X_Digger]

341. CDC: No Proof Gun Laws Reduce Violence

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/10/03/national/main576422.shtml

The actual study..
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm

No, not exactly what you asserted, but it's hard to prove a negative.

[Joe Steel]

347. Controlled by Republicans.

At the time of your references, the CDC was controlled by Republicans.

Need I say more?

[X_Digger]

350. Tin foil hat a little tight there, Joe? n/t

[Joe Steel]

354. Nope.

Nope.

This article presents a case study of the political controversy in 1995 and 1996 between the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the National Rifle Association (NRA) over whether the CDC should conduct policy research on firearm-related violence as a public health issue. In 1996, largely as a result of the NRA's lobbying efforts, Congress curtailed the CDC's authority in addressing firearm violence as a public health problem by redirecting funding toward research on traumatic brain injuries. In essence, the CDC was relegated to the domain of compiling and reporting statistical nationwide data on firearm injuries and deaths. For its part, the NRA demonstrated its power and effectiveness as a single-issue interest group in mobilizing its resources to battle the CDC in the public arena. This study focuses on the strategies and tactics that the NRA used and explores reasons why the knowledge-driven model employed by the CDC did not allow the agency to expand its domain consensus.


Have Gun, Will Travel: The Dispute Between the CDC and the NRA on Firearm Violence as a Public Health Problem

[X_Digger]

356. *snort* haven't read the CDC study, have you?

Read up on the history of the authors of the study itself? No shills there. Koplan (the Clinton appointee) had initiated the study, and it was first submitted to and approved by him as one of his last acts. Gerberding came on in July 2002, just eight months before the study was released.

[Joe Steel]

364. The study's not the issue.

The study's not the issue. The issue is the Republican attempt to control the CDC's work. The NRA told Congress to stop the CDC and, apparently, they did.

[X_Digger]

367. Boogieman behind the door award!

Can't dispute the science, must be that boogieman, the NRA | GOP | gun industry!

[iverglas]

399. you claim to have read it, and STILL MISREPRESENT it?

CDC: No Proof Gun Laws Reduce Violence

False. FLAT OUT FALSE STATEMENT.

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm

The Task Force's review of firearms laws found insufficient evidence to determine whether the laws reviewed reduce (or increase) specific violent outcomes ... . ...

... In conclusion, the application of imperfect methods to imperfect data has commonly resulted in inconsistent and otherwise insufficient evidence with which to determine the effectiveness of firearms laws in modifying violent outcomes.

IMPERFECT DATA is not "no proof".

INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO DETERMINE is not "no proof".

The study was a STUDY OF STUDIES, not a study of data.


If I wake up in a windowless room and have no way of knowing the time, I don't know whether the sun is shining.

I have INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO DETERMINE whether the sun is shining.

If I said there was NO PROOF the sun was shining, I would be making a false statement. The fact that *I* have insufficient evidence of something DOES NOT MEAN that it is not true. If the sun were shining, there would be ample proof of that; the proof would simply not be available to me.


But hey. Don't let me stop you and your chums from perpetuating this falsehood.

[X_Digger]

400. *snort*

Only in your hair splitting realm, iverglas.

:eyes:

[iverglas]

401. yet another one

who thinks the world was born when s/he signed on to DU.

Let me assure you. There is no tiny corner of the gun militant agenda that has not had the light shone on it here, and no trick in the gun militant bag that has not been tried here many times over.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x131848#131881

There you will find a real live statistician, a moderator of this forum at the time, putting you straight. Note that it was not the first time he had done it. I add some emphases in an attempt to assist you.

Wickerman
Sat Nov-18-06 10:15 AM
Response to Reply #30

32. arrrgh

this study again. The entire article was a statement show that there is no way to make a determination of the effectiveness of any of the measures over any of the other measures as there is insufficient commonality of standards within the various studies.

Its a scientific study - its quite common to run such a study to point out that says we got nothing cause we have no adequate parallel measures. THAT is what this study is saying, see the sentence which follows your statement, which is nearly always excluded from folks who cite this quote when trying to inflate their argument:

(Note that insufficient evidence to determine effectiveness should not be interpreted as evidence of ineffectiveness.)

Wickerman
Sat Nov-18-06 03:52 PM
Response to Reply #34

35. I am saying that the study you cited says nothing about efficacy

of gun control, pro or con. They are saying the effect can't be measured due to the varying methods of measurement. For either side to use the study to trumpet their view is intellectually dishonest.

In conclusion, once again, the CDC added, however

Although the Task Force's systematic review of the existing literature on firearms laws found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of these laws in preventing violence, research should continue on the effectiveness of firearms laws as one approach to the prevention or reduction of firearms violence and firearms injury. Evaluation should include not only the laws reviewed here, but the broad array of other federal, state, and local laws.

Wickerman
Sat Nov-18-06 07:58 PM
Response to Reply #38

41. Jody, come on, we've been thru this before

this wasn't a study of individual method to determine effectiveness - the intent was to show all the laws had an impact. To determine one data set (or law, local or otherwise) was effective or ineffective was never the purpose of the study. In short, and again, they didn't determine the laws (or any laws) had no impact - they determined they couldn't make an accurate measure of the impact - in any direction.

Please feel free to spend some time trying to understand.

"Insufficient evidence to determine effectiveness" is not even "insufficient evidence of effectiveness".

If you want a course in statistical analysis, you're probably going to have to pay for one. If that's what you need in order to make true statements about things you read that involve statistical analysis, then that is what you are going to have to do. Either that, or just refrain from making (or regurgitating) false statements.

[X_Digger]

402. You're reading more into my reply..

I quoted the _title_ of the CBS News article, prefaced by the org who released it..

"No Proof Gun Laws Reduce Violence
U.S. Review Of 51 Published Studies Is Inconclusive

(AP) A sweeping federal review of the nation's gun control laws — including mandatory waiting periods and bans on certain weapons — found no proof such measures reduce firearm violence.

The review was conducted by a task force of scientists appointed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention."

If you have a problem with the title of the article, take it up with CBS News, not me.

I may be relatively new, but damn, you're lugging around a pile of baggage.

[iverglas]

403. yeah, eh?

I may be relatively new, but damn, you're lugging around a pile of baggage.

Things like truth, accurate information, informed comment ...


I quoted the _title_ of the CBS News article, prefaced by the org who released it..

So?

A CBS News report is nothing but a CBS News report. Why would anyone cite it for anything?

"No Proof Gun Laws Reduce Violence" is a MISREPRESENTATION of the study. Fin.

[X_Digger]

404. O great arbiter of truth, justice, sophistry, and the canuckian way..

.. you might want to have that hair trigger filed down. I'd be happy to debate whether or not 'results are inconclusive' = 'no proof' if you wish, but damn, you really shouldn't assume that because I quoted the _title_ of an article that I'm taking a certain position.

[iverglas]

405. Canuckistanian

Yeesh.

[slackmaster]

343. It's incumbent on the party making a claim to prove it, not the other way around

You know, the scientific method and all that.

Null hypothesis = Adopting objective standards for issuing CCW permits has no net effect on public safety.

Take it away, Joe.

[Joe Steel]

348. It's incumbent on the party making a claim to prove it...

It's incumbent on the party making a claim to prove it, not the other way around

Both are easily disproved by obvious counterexamples.

I'll take that as an acknowledgement that over 25 years of shall-issue laws have not done any harm to public safety.

Have at it.

You said it. Now you prove it.

[slackmaster]

357. I haven't made a claim of any kind of effect

You must not have taken any basic science classes in high school.

[aikoaiko]

320. "No guns, no deaths." yes, if there are no guns, we'll become immortal.

:applause:

[slackmaster]

335. And Joe Steel says I'M the one lacking ability.

:dunce:

[jmg257]

326. Clear as mud. Reports show 'shall issue laws' have no significant negative effect on gun deaths.

"An Evaluation of State Firearms Regulations and Homicide Suicide Rates", from a Univ of Pittsburgh group.
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/picrender.fcgi?artid=1730198&blobtype=pdf

Objective: To determine if any of five different state gun laws were associated with firearm mortality: (1)
‘‘shall issue’’ laws permitting an individual to carry a concealed weapon unless restricted by another
statute; (2) a minimum age of 21 years for handgun purchase; (3) a minimum age of 21 years for private
handgun possession; (4) one gun a month laws which restrict handgun purchase frequency; and (5) junk
gun laws which ban the sale of certain cheaply constructed handguns....


"Table 2 Homicides in States with a change in the law
Rates per 100,000...
Firearm Homicides {with shall issue law}: 5.00
Firearm Homicides {w/o shall issue law} : 5.90
All Homicides {rate with shall issue law} : 7.5
All homicides {rate w/o shall issue law} : 8.99"
...

"The observed homicide rate after passage of a ‘‘shall issue’’ law was lower
in the period without the law (table 2). However, after
adjusting for potential confounding and temporal trends in
homicide rates, when a ‘‘shall issue’’ law was present, the
rate of firearm homicides was greater than when it was not
present, RR 1.11 (95% CI 0.99 to 1.24), as was the rate for all
homicides, RR 1.07 (95% CI 0.98 to 1.17), although neither
was statistically significant (table 2)."
...

"Table 4 Suicides in States with a change in the law
Rates per 100,00...
Firearm Suicides {with shall issue law}: 9.70
Firearm Suicides {w/o shall issue law} : 10.20"
...

"No law was associated with a statistically significant
change in firearm suicide rates (table 4)."


edit: link added

[Joe Steel]

328. "(A) Univ of Pittsburgh group?"

"(A) Univ of Pittsburgh group?" Well, I guess that's conclusive.

[jmg257]

329. Take it up with them. Certainly not the NRA, are they?

Correspondence to:
Dr M R Rosengart,
University of Pittsburgh,
F1266.1, 200 Lothrop
Street, Pittsburgh, PA
15213, USA;
[e-mail]

Authors’ affiliations
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
M Rosengart, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA,
USA
P Cummings, A Nathens, F Rivara, Harborview Injury and Prevention
Research Center, Seattle, WA, USA
A Nathens, R Maier, Department of Surgery, Harborview Medical
Center, Seattle, WA, USA
P Cummings, F Rivara, Department of Epidemiology, University of
Washington, Seattle, WA, USA
P Heagerty, Department of Biostatistics, University of Washington,
Seattle, WA, USA
F Rivara, Department of Pediatrics, University of Washington, Seattle,
WA, USA
Competing interests: the authors declare no competing interests.

[Joe Steel]

330. Apparently not.

Take it up with them. Certainly not the NRA, are they?

Apparently not.

Conclusion: A "shall issue" law that eliminates most restrictions on carrying a concealed weapon may be associated with increased firearm homicide rates.

An evaluation of state firearm regulations and homicide and suicide death rates

[jmg257]

331. "MAY" being the key word, of course. They didn't increase rates, but, hey! - they could!...

if we try REAL hard...

"Conclusion: A "shall issue" law that eliminates most restrictions on carrying a concealed weapon may be associated with increased firearm homicide rates"

"The observed homicide rate after passage of a ‘‘shall issue’’ law was lower. However...

"Results: in the period without the law (table 2).When a ‘‘shall issue’’ law was present, the rate of firearm homicides was greater, RR 1.11 (95% confidence interval 0.99 to 1.24), than when the law was not present, as was the rate of all homicides, RR
1.08 (95% CI 0.98 to 1.17), although this was not statistically significant."


Firearm homicides
Rate
with law 5.00
Rate
without law 5.90

Firearm suicides
Rate
with law 9.70
Rate
without law 10.2

"No law was associated with a statistically significant
change in firearm suicide rates (table 4)."

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

337. A more fitting conclusion would be shall issue may reduce firearm homicide rates.

Since that's what actually happened.

[Joe Steel]

339. Says who?

I've seen claims of reduced crime rates but never of reduced homicide rates. Who has made that claim?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

342. The report in post 326.

[Joe Steel]

344. Nonsense. It says exactly the opposite:

Nonsense. It says exactly the opposite:

Little evidence was observed that any of the laws evaluated were associated with a significant reduction in either firearm homicide or firearm suicide rates.


An evaluation of state firearm regulations and homicide and suicide death rates.

Get it?

The shall issue laws were not associated with a reduction in gun death.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

352. There was a reduction. They just didn't find it statistically significant.

Look at the numbers it's not rocket science genius. 5.0 is less than 5.9 get it.


David

[Joe Steel]

355. What do you suppose the phrase "not statistically significant" means?

What do you suppose the phrase "not statistically significant" means?

[jmg257]

359. To clear this up, actual rates went down, their 'adjusted' rates were up, but not

"significantly".

The study was out to see if homicide/suicide rates went down because they felt that is what pro-gunners said (Lott et. al.), i.e. how they justified shall-issue laws being enacted.

This report showed it doesn't make a real difference one way or the other (at least once the lower rates are adjusted).

Other stats show the same thing. The amount of guns have increased significantly pretty much forever, yet crime has been steadily declining the last decade or so. Generally, sometimes crime rates go up, sometimes down. So there are more siginificant factors then the # of guns.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

362. Doesn't change the fact that there was a reduction.

[Joe Steel]

365. Yes it does.

The decrease could have been related to something other than studied behavior.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

366. I didn't say the decrease was from anything particular just that there was a decrease.

[jmg257]

300. Yeah, & Handgun Control Inc. lobbying had nothing to do with the measure being BARELY voted down.

"Proposition B in Missouri was a failed 1999 ballot measure that would have required local police authorities to issue concealed weapons permits to eligible citizens. It was contentious and failed narrowly, leading the Republican-controlled legislature to recognize the rights of citizens and approve similar legislation in 2003."

"Handgun Control, Inc., saw this as their test case before the elections in 2000 to exercise their political influence and lobbied hard to defeat the referendum"

They certainly ignored the 85% of police officers who favored right to carry.

"In a recent poll, more than eighty-five percent of our 1352 members favored Right-to-Carry.", Letter to St. Louis Police Chief Ron Henderson, from Sgt. John J. Johnson, President St. Louis Police Officers Association, 1/23/99."


The proposition was defeated by a narrow 3.3%. Not the 65% you mentioned.


"Proposition B gained 634,361 votes in favor (48.3%) and 678,256 votes against (51.7%), thus being defeated by a margin of 3.3%.


Controversy was present...

"The opposition conducted a poll of the ballot language which determined that 60% of the state would vote in favor of License to Carry. Outraged that the people might "speak wrong", the Governor's lawyer filed a suit with the Missouri Supreme Court to change the ballot language"

"Missouri's two US Attorneys are using the Justice Department's name and facilities to lobby against the state's concealed weapons ballot issue. Using official department letterhead, the attorneys, Edward Dowd and Stephen Hill, urged sheriffs and police chiefs across the state to rally resistance against Proposition B"

"advertisements used in the campaign were deceptive, particularly an opposition ad that implied Missourians would be allowed to carry Uzis that continued into 2000."

And not surprisingly, and quite correctly...

"In 2003, the Missouri General Assembly passed new laws to enable shall-issue permits."


from wiki...

[Joe Steel]

301. That's not what I said.

The proposition was defeated by a narrow 3.3%. Not the 65% you mentioned.

That's not what I said.

I was talking about polling before the election not the results of the election.

Polling before the election indicated a portion of the population wanted stricter gun laws and a portion were happy with them as they were. The total of the two segments was about 65%. That left about 35% of the population who wanted weaker guns laws.

[Joe Steel]

304. The Desperation of the NRA's Stooges

The opposition conducted a poll of the ballot language which determined that 60% of the state would vote in favor of License to Carry. Outraged that the people might "speak wrong", the Governor's lawyer filed a suit with the Missouri Supreme Court to change the ballot language"

"Missouri's two US Attorneys are using the Justice Department's name and facilities to lobby against the state's concealed weapons ballot issue. Using official department letterhead, the attorneys, Edward Dowd and Stephen Hill, urged sheriffs and police chiefs across the state to rally resistance against Proposition B"

To the extent this had any effect at all, the "controversy" served to do little more than illustrate the desperation of the NRA's stooges. Despite outspending the opposition by 10 to 1, flooding the state with advertising, training legions of zealots in distortion and forcing the election onto the lightly-voted April ballot, the NRA was unable to overcome the People's overwheliming opposition to concealed guns. As their impending defeat became more apparent, the NRA had little left but desperate tricks.

[jmg257]

324. "The people's overwhelming opposition.." 51.7% against is overwhelming??

:rofl:

[Joe Steel]

327. Under the circumstances, yes.

Under the circumstances, yes.

The NRA had the proposition put on the April ballot. Typically, the April ballot is used for municipal, school district, sewer district and similar issues. It is very lightly voted and the NRA was counting on that trend continuing. They wanted to "steal" a victory. The opposition voters turned out in record numbers, though, to overwhelm the expected high turn-out of gun nuts to say they didn't want concealed guns.

[spin]

309. Explain all the other states that have voted for "shall issue" CCW...

and why the voters in Missouri didn't rise up in anger and throw the CCW law out.

But the point that I'm trying to make is that polls on gun control may be misleading. Many responsible gun owners want stricter gun control laws to insure that criminals and the people with possibly dangerous mental problems are unable to legally purchase firearms. Some, like me, would like to see a requirement that private sales also require a background check.

We would like to see improvements in and the enforcement of existing laws. The responsible gun owner wants only honest and sane individuals to own and use firearms. We are opposed to the irresponsible or criminal use of the weapons that we own for sport or self defense.

So a poll that asks, "Do you favor stricter gun control laws?" without listing the specific measures, gives a false positive result. It does not mean that the people who replied "yes" favored an new AWB, registration of all firearms, or new flawed ideas such as micro stamping ammunition.

[Joe Steel]

315. The voters had already voted against concealed guns...

and why the voters in Missouri didn't rise up in anger and throw the CCW law out.

The voters had already voted against concealed guns only to have the General Assembly ignore their wishes. What more could the do?

...polls on gun control may be misleading.

While polls may be misleading, an election isn't. The voters said "no concealed guns." That wasn't good enough for the General Assembly. Apparently, they take their orders from the NRA.

[friendly_iconoclast]

345. Any result you don't like is because the NRA ordered it?

Repeated assertion isn't the same as evidence. Witness:

"Iraq has weapons of mass destruction"

"Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11"

See? Anyone can play!

[Joe Steel]

346. You should do some research on concealed gun legislation in Missouri.

You should do some research on concealed gun legislation in Missouri. In one case, the NRA ordered a legislator to pull his bill and he did.

[Pullo]

349. Where is the outcry revoke the CCW law, if it has proven so terrible?

Surely there should be outraged throngs of Missourians marching on the steps of the capitol building in Jefferson City then, no?

I guess its just easier to vilify the NRA.

[Joe Steel]

353. The Missouri House and Senate are controlled by Republicans.

The Missouri House and Senate are controlled by Republicans. The General Assembly is where good legislation goes to die.

[Pullo]

358. Sounds like Missouri could use some pro-RKBA Democratic candidates!

Thanks for verifying there doesn't seem to a significant public outcry over Missou's CCW law.

[Joe Steel]

361. You're not paying attention.

Thanks for verifying there doesn't seem to a significant public outcry over Missou's CCW law.

You're not paying attention. There's plenty of outcry. It just doesn't have any effect on the vermin in the General Assembly.

[Pullo]

363. Well, I am aware of efforts to further liberalize Missou's CCW law.....

.....does that count?

[Joe Steel]

368. If you're talking about extending the free fire law to schools...

If you're talking about extending the free fire law to schools, I guess it does.

[SteveM]

373. Advertised gun-free zones invite the "freest of fire"...

Surely, you must know that anyone with a gun who is bent on a schoolyard spectacular is not going to be deterred by the law. And just what do you think the message to such a killer is when you shout from the highest steeple that we are "gun-free?"

You should know that one of the Columbine killers had a conversation with his dad, just before he went on his trench-coat spree, over the advisability of the then-pending CCW legislation in Colorado. Both were opposed.

You think Dylan was fearful of the push back, or was he a secret member of the Violence Policy Center?

[jeepnstein]

294. Not me!

Golly, my friend, the Governor of Ohio has a good rating from the NRA. He's a Democrat to the bone. The swine who are using the 2nd Amendment as a wedge issue to drive gun owners from the Democrat Party have done more for the GOP than they'll ever admit.

We need to take this issue out of play, it's an individual right.

[gorfle]

297. No one will.

Their letter to Holder was absurd. “The gun-control community has intentionally misled many Americans into believing that these weapons are fully automatic machine guns. They are not. These firearms fire one shot for every pull of the trigger.” Doesn’t that make you feel better?

Actually, it does make me feel better. In fact, it makes me feel great to see that 65 DEMOCRATS have stepped up to to inform the AG that functionally, a civilian AK-47 is no different than a Ruger Mini-30. It's great to see the big "assault weapon" boogie man deflated and to see these weapons for what they really are - semi-automatic rifles.

And why can’t we at least close the gun show loophole? Licensed arms dealers have to do background checks on people who buy guns. The rules don’t apply at gun shows that, as the Violence Policy Center put it, have become “Tupperware Parties for Criminals.”

This is completely false.

First of all, the same rules that apply outside of gun shows apply inside of gun shows. So licensed arms dealers ARE required to do background checks at gun shows, just like they do outside of gun shows.

Second of all, gun shows are hardly "tupperware parties for criminals". As has been posted here, fewer than 1% of criminally-used firearms were acquired at gun shows. There just aren't that many private sellers at gun shows, which are overwhelmingly filled with federally-licensed DEALERS who are required to do background checks.

If I were a criminal looking to legitimately buy a firearm, I'd turn to my local newspaper long before I'd wait for the once-a-year local gun show to come to town.

But too many members of Congress are “petrified” by the gun lobby...

Hooray! This is precisely why I pay my NRA dues - to petrify my elected officials into voting in my interest.

Family members of the victims of gun violence, she says, are mystified at Congress’ inability to pass even the most limited regulations. “Why can’t you just get this done?” she is asked. “What is it you don’t understand?”

The can't get it done because they will get their asses voted out of office.

[benEzra]

298. Blah blah blah. If you were really concerned about violence as something more than an excuse

for the imposition of More Authority, you wouldn't be fighting to outlaw the most popular civilian rifles in America when only 3% of murders involve any type of rifle.

Criminal violence is just a convenient excuse for you to do what you want to the lawful and nonviolent. Just like Terrah! was to the Bush administration with regard to the Fourth Amendment; they wanted the power, and they found a way to justify it.

You want to address gun violence? Fine, there are common ground solutions to work toward that, IF you aren't obsessed with revoking the rights of the people who aren't the problem.

[captrobjmorgan]

303. M4s

“Time and time again, our police are finding themselves outgunned,” Rendell said in Harrisburg last week. “They are finding themselves with less firepower than the criminals they are trying to bring to justice.”

Check me if I am wrong, but LE can buy as many full auto or 3 round burst M4s as they want or need, the NFA and 1986 revision does NOT apply to LE or military new registrations

If you are outgunned, buy new guns....cause none of these laws are gonna take them from the people killing your officers

[yay]

333. But soon

Everyone will be carrying nuclear warheads in their back pocket and will use them when someone cuts them off1!!!11!!eleven!!

/failed OP logic.

[.45StayAlive]

360. Those who are against freedom and the right of self-defense continually "face down the gun lobby".

Who Will Face Down the Gun Lobby?

All those who are against freedom and the right of honest, law-abiding citizens to protect themselves from criminals, that's who.

[SteveM]

372. Go ahead. Face 'em down, but be sure to charge $ for your efforts...

My goodness, don't you realize that the gun-controllers have had since the 1960s to "make a market" for their beliefs, and all they have to show for it is lost elections and the expansion of Second Amendment rights? The reason no one wants to face them down is because they cannot sustain their arguments, their statistics, their view of the constitution. And most Americans know this by now.

The "modern" gun control movement (succeeding the older one designed to keep blacks, immigrants and other minorities from arming themselves) has suffered from the general expansion of civil rights from the 60s on up. (SEE: www.georgiacarry.org and do a local search for the Heller Brief.)

In my personal opinion, the "movement" we have now is based on a carry-over hatred of Southern white males (seen as the biggest transgressors of the rights of blacks and of women), having found the requisite thing to stigmatize: guns. Problem is, a third of civilian gun owners are women, and millions more gun-owners are minorities of some sort. Increasingly, the public knows this, so the appeal to smear whole groups of people is falling flat. It is not wholly the NRA's clout which gives pause. The gun-controllers no longer have much of an active constituency because their arguments are no longer believable.

But if you hate people, wars will always go on.

Really, E. J. should educate himself. Doesn't he have any political sense of the consequences of his wishes? Is he an unpaid lobbyist for the NRA? Then again, if it weren't for the mainstream media (the strongest remaining component of the gun-control lobby), the "movement" would collapse from lack of interest. Perhaps faster than MSM itself.

[aikoaiko]

377. This is why the anti-RKBA crowd will keep losing.. they forget the many millions who support RKBA

Its not just the folks at the NRA or the manufacturers. Supporting the RKBA is will of the majority of the people.

edited to add: I just realized this was an old thread.

[Tim01]

379. Radical left extremists "facing down" everybody else. nt

[benEzra]

386. Left, right, and center...

Barbara Boxer, Dianne Feinstein, Alberto Gonzales, William J. Bennett. Left, center, right, but they all share similar contempt for civilian gun ownership. Fortunately, they are in the minority on that.

[Xenotime]

390. NRA is holding America at gun point

[Tim01]

391. The NRA is nothing compared to the number of Americans who own guns.

The NRA is just an indicator of American gun owners. Even the very very lowest estimates say that for every NRA member there are 17 average American gun owners who are not NRA members. There is good reason to believe it is closer to 40 to 1.
The NRA is just a sort of a mouthpiece for a whole shitload of people who want other people to stay out of their lives.

[virginia mountainman]

393. Really??

LOL!!!!!

Do you even consider that gun owners VOTE??

[Glory89fan]

395. An anti-gun movement?

Though I doubt that such a movement will be powerful enough to stand up to the NRA-types.

[iverglas]

397. interesting choice of language, hm?

An anti-gun movement?

Not terminology most advocates of greater public oversight of access to firearms I've encountered tend to use ...



typo fixed