Gun Control & RKBA
Related: About this forumHow ironic the DU members, who tend to HATE gun toters, are now defending the gun toting mom!
So the DU is defending the gun toting mom, as am I, because she fired a warning shot to stop her abusive husband. I think she was trying to scare him. I understand her logic.
But she was a gun toter. Which this forum tends to HATE. And insult. And make fun of.
It just amazes me they are defending her gun toting. What an amazing twist! Double standard I guess.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)It is ironic, but ideology and hypocrisy go together like peas and carrots.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)And dense. Which means you have an agenda. A poorly concocted and illogical agenda for DU. Might fly at freeperville, tho?
Anyway, 20 years for a warning shot is ridiculous and you should know that. That's what, imo, DUers think. Why don't you? If you did think that way, isn't that what your OP would state?
ProgressiveProfessor
(22,144 posts)The OP is pointing out the hypocrisy of some of the anti gun crowd that are active in this group. It is indeed amusing.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)It is a broad brush attack against a whole group of people using an illogical and dense thought pattern. IOW, FAIL!
You use a smaller brush - "some" - but still is illogical and dense all the same. Do you do that to make yourself feel better, or what?
Logical
(22,457 posts)RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)She should not have gotten a 20 year sentence, right?
Logical
(22,457 posts)RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)You have the moniker "Logical" why do you act so illogical?
I am just going to ignore you until such time as you become logical.
That's a logical stance, right?
Logical
(22,457 posts)GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)Control-Z
(15,682 posts)not of had. Geez.
Logical
(22,457 posts)Last edited Sat May 12, 2012, 07:00 PM - Edit history (1)
You've pissed me off. My reply is at the bottom of the thread.
I'm sure you will get around to reading, if not responding, to it eventually.
Clames
(2,038 posts)...before asking others to use a smaller brush. Forget the mop, you should stop using the bucket.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)What I think, and I think most DUers and progressives generally agree with is:
A) gun laws in the US should be tighter, because it would save lives.
B) 20 years for a warning shot at an abusive husband is too much.
I don't see any contradiction.
I do see yet another situation that would have turned out better without a gun.
Logical
(22,457 posts)A. What does "gun laws should be tighter" mean? This will be interesting.
B. The Anti's think guns are evil. Why is 20 years too much? Why did she need a gun?
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Logical
(22,457 posts)DanTex
(20,709 posts)You want to paint supporters of gun control as irrational "Anti's" who hate guns. And that's why you ignored my point: believing we need tighter gun laws, and thinking 20 years is too much for a warning shot at an abusive husband, are in no way inconsistent.
Do you care to address it this time around? This should be interesting...
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)brandishing and assault. Her jail term was typical for Florida, mandatory min. etc. Not saying I agree with it, just saying what seems to be the case. Warning shots are usually a bad idea for a number of reasons, like the bullet hitting an innocent someplace else.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/10-20-Life
Her life was in danger, she should have just shot him.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)The fact that it's a mandatory minimum doesn't mean it's a just penalty. And my main point is that thinking 20 years is excessive is in no way inconsistent with thinking we need tighter gun laws.
I agree that warning shots are usually a bad idea. In fact, a loaded gun outside of a shooting range or hunting grounds is usually a bad idea...
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)Last edited Sat May 12, 2012, 09:17 PM - Edit history (1)
I am against all mandatory minimum laws as a rule. I think it should have been written off as self defense the same as if she aimed it and he became wiser.
Logical
(22,457 posts)do you plan on tightening gun laws? Details please.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Being in favor of tighter gun laws is not inconsistent with thinking 20 years is too long a sentence. That's all I'm trying to say.
In your OP, you accused "Antis" of a double standard. I'm saying this is nonsense. And rather than defend the accusation in the OP, you're changing the subject, asking me for a detailed policy proposal. But this OP isn't about gun policy.
You're running away from your OP. You don't actually have any intelligent point to make, you just want to insult "Antis".
Logical
(22,457 posts)Most anti-gun people here complain about gun toters and people having the need to carry a gun. But this Woman did both. She carried a gun and toted it.
Very seldom if ever do the anti-gun crowd admit guns have a purpose in the hands of citizens.
But in this case they seem to think this woman was justified. Not just sentenced too long but had a reason to use the gun.
Now, lets here your plan for gun control. Or do you not really have anything?
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)spin
(17,493 posts)and in that sense I might agree that such laws should be "tighter".
For example, I agree with President Obama's views on gun control ...
President Obama: We must seek agreement on gun reforms
President Barack Obama Special To The Arizona Daily Star | Posted: Sunday, March 13, 2011 12:00 am
***snip***
First, we should begin by enforcing laws that are already on the books. The National Instant Criminal Background Check System is the filter that's supposed to stop the wrong people from getting their hands on a gun. Bipartisan legislation four years ago was supposed to strengthen this system, but it hasn't been properly implemented. It relies on data supplied by states - but that data is often incomplete and inadequate. We must do better.
Second, we should in fact reward the states that provide the best data - and therefore do the most to protect our citizens.
Third, we should make the system faster and nimbler. We should provide an instant, accurate, comprehensive and consistent system for background checks to sellers who want to do the right thing, and make sure that criminals can't escape it.
***snip***
But I have more faith in the American people than that. Most gun-control advocates know that most gun owners are responsible citizens. Most gun owners know that the word "commonsense" isn't a code word for "confiscation." And none of us should be willing to remain passive in the face of violence or resigned to watching helplessly as another rampage unfolds on television.
Read more: http://azstarnet.com/news/opinion/mailbag/president-obama-we-must-seek-agreement-on-gun-reforms/article_011e7118-8951-5206-a878-39bfbc9dc89d.html#ixzz1ugvGWsad
I suspect that you wish to impose far more restrictions than what President Obama has suggested.
Perhaps you could list the improvements that you would like to see implemented.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Also limits on magazine capacities. But, honestly, I don't know exactly what the "right" gun laws are. I know that the current laws aren't strong enough -- this is pretty obvious. And I know that every other developed nation besides the US is doing a much better job than we are.
The problem is that the gun policy in the US is basically driven by the right-wing crazies at the NRA, rather than any kind of rational concern for public safety.
hack89
(39,171 posts)what has been the actual impact historic levels of gun ownership? What has changed in the past 30 years that requires tighter gun laws?
DanTex
(20,709 posts)And it's obvious because we have far more gun violence than any other developed nation. We can do better.
hack89
(39,171 posts)Isn't that what has happened?
DanTex
(20,709 posts)hack89
(39,171 posts)or that gun control laws have nothing to do with reducing gun violence?
You can be honest - you just don't trust your fellow Americans. You don't care about stats and rates and trends. What ever they are and where ever they are heading is irrelevant. More control is all you care about.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)spin
(17,493 posts)Firearm registration in Canada has proved to be a failure. If it doesn't work in Canada, why would we want to try it in the United States? The only reason I can see is to harass honest gun owners.
Long Gun Registry scrapped: Bill C-19 becomes law
4/13/2012
Selkirk, Manitoba-James Bezan, Member of Parliament for Selkirk-Interlake, made the following statement after the Senate passed Bill C-19, Ending the Long Gun Registry Act and was proclaimed into law:
I am proud to say that after 17 years of the discriminatory and unfair long-gun registry has finally come to an end. Our Conservative government has always stood with law-abiding Canadians and never believed in making honest farmers, hunters and rural Canadians into criminals. Id like to extend my gratitude to the Senate for passing this legislation."
"Our government will continue to uphold our commitment to effective gun control measures that keep firearms out of the hands of criminals and off our streets. We have successfully introduced legislation that fights gang crime, drug crime, violent and repeat offenders. Our reforms are concrete steps to tackle real crime and real criminals.
***snip***
"The Government will begin implementation of the legislation. Long-gun owners will no longer be required to register their firearms, and the process of destroying the data in the registry related to non-restricted firearms will begin as soon as feasible."
http://www.jamesbezan.com/news.asp?newsID=2094
You other idea of limiting magazine size also would accomplish little as with practice an individual can swap out a magazine in less than 2 seconds. In fact, high capacity magazines often cause firearms to jam where smaller magazines feed far more reliably.
While it is true that the NRA sponsors many many gun laws that those who oppose firearm ownership disagree with, it should be pointed out that if the majority of citizens disliked the laws they could elect representatives who would repeal them. Name just one state that has repealed "shall issue" concealed carry, castle doctrine, stand your ground or take your gun to work laws after they were passed.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)What next, a Michelle Bachman press release about how we should ban gay marriage? A Paul Ryan press release about how we need to privatize social security?
spin
(17,493 posts)However the fact remains that gun registration in Canada has been repealed.
Long gun data loss will hurt investigations, RCMP says
Registry loss could hamper international treaty compliance, document says
The Canadian Press
Posted: Apr 13, 2012 8:33 AM ET
Last Updated: Apr 13, 2012 10:54 AM ET
As it prepares to destroy millions of long gun records, the RCMP says the Conservative government's decision to scrap the registry will make it tougher to trace firearms used to commit crimes.
The process that will lead to deletion of rifle and shotgun records in the registry is under way with the exception of Quebec files at the centre of a court action, said Cpl. Laurence Trottier, an RCMP spokeswoman.
***snip***
Recently passed legislation ended registration of most long guns and directed the RCMP to permanently destroy more than seven million files on firearm ownership. This includes deletion of computer files as well as any relevant paper records.emphasis added
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/story/2012/04/13/police-long-gun-registry-destruction-data.html
The fact remains that your idea of gun registration failed in Canada. Why would it work in the United States?
DanTex
(20,709 posts)First of all, registration was only repealed for long guns. Handguns are still very tightly regulated in Canada, and my understanding is that you still need a licence for a handgun, and handguns still must be registered (someone correct me if I'm wrong). And, the handgun laws in Canada have been very successful. Gun violence in Canada is much lower than in the US.
Also, the fact that the long gun registry was repealed doesn't mean it was a failure. In fact, as this last article you cited points out, "the RCMP says the Conservative government's decision to scrap the registry will make it tougher to trace firearms used to commit crimes". Apparently the RCMP disagrees with you and the Conservative party on this.
Am I understanding this right:
1) Canada has different gun laws than the US, like registration of handguns.
2) Canada has less gun violence than the US.
3) THEREFORE, Canadian gun laws have been successful as they account for the difference.
Really?!!!
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)there are three types. Unrestricted, restricted, and prohibited. There is also a minor's permit that allows 12-18 year olds to possess (but not buy. Must be 18 to buy long guns or handguns) unrestricted guns and buy rifle and shotgun ammunition.
Ending the registry was only about unrestricted long guns, but not restricted long guns.
All restricted and prohibited firearms are still registered (or rather, are required to be). Most handguns and some rifles are restricted.
Prohibited are guns that have been banned but grandfathered, like pre 1977 machine guns for example.
Their handgun violence was just as low before the 1934 handgun registry. Their machine gun violence was just as low before their 1952 machine gun registry (according to Canadian gun collectors I know, it seems their machine gun laws were laxer than ours until 1977.) A long gun registry existed from 1940-1946.
As for the RCMP flack, how many guns were actually traced, and given the level of non compliance, did it really work that well?
Clames
(2,038 posts)Which is absolute and total crap. There was nothing in the legislation that made it easier in the first place.
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)Cho's magazines were all standadrd mags as was the Luby's shooter. They simply quickly swapped mags when they were empty. Large capacity mags have a tendency to jam. Multiple standard mags are much more reliable. I would rather a criminal us less reliable gear.
What does registration accomplish? Registration lists have been transformed into confiscation lists in New York and in California, so you will have a hard time getting firearms owners to trust you with such a list.
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)bend the facts to suit their emotions. Never let the facts get in the way of a good rant.
richmwill
(1,326 posts)I know that makes me a minority here, but as long as they're used responsibly I have no issue with them.
spin
(17,493 posts)Plenty of Democrats support the Second Amendment and while some favor far more restrictions on gun ownership than we have today, I don't believe that many actually "hate" gun owners.
You probably would be in the minority of DU posters if you truly hate gun owners.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)That's just a straw argument presented by the NRA crowd. Most DUers and progressives do support stronger gun laws, which the NRA crowd construes as "bigotry" and "hatred" towards gun owners.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)but I would not say "nobody". I can think of a couple around here. I view negative stereotypes as expressing bigotry.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Does that bother you much?
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)I have seen fewer negative stereotypes of "antis". Bigotry in all forms bother me, but some on both sides read from absurd talking points. The pros on the right do it, but not so much pros on the left. Antis on the left and right both do it. I will say right wing antis are more racist.
Define sane. I think Czech Republic and Bulgaria laws are more sane than DC. Vermont and Wyoming must have sane gun laws because of their low murder rate.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)According to your definition, negative stereotypes express bigotry. And yet, I've never see you chide a pro-gunner for suggesting that "antis" are against "freedom" or "civil rights", an obviously negative stereotype. In fact, if you look upthread, you'll see me being accused of "not trusting my fellow Americans" and that "more control is all (I) want", another common negative stereotype of "antis", that they aren't sincere about their concern for saving lives and just want to control people.
And the OP suggests that antis "HATE" guns -- a stereotype which is clearly negative, as it implies irrationality and meanness.
Looks to me like you're only concerned about faux bigotry when it's aligned with certain political viewpoints.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)Control-Z
(15,682 posts)ridiculous OP ever written on DU3.
A terrible self defense law in the first place, does not apply when it is an abusive man who threatens to kill a woman/his wife/girlfriend/baby mama and she defends herself, actually just warns that she will, and hurts no one but she is sentenced to 20 years in prison? And let's not forget her skin color. This law, that is in place as a self defense mechanism, only applies to men with the approved skin color?
Are you joking? Or just trying to start a fight? The only double standard here involves gender and race. Let me guess? You're a gun toting dude?
Every DU member should be up in arms (pardon the expression) over this misogynistic, racist attack on a woman, defenseless in her own home with no laws in place to protect her. As should every gun nut who packs a gun and defends these stand your ground laws. If you're not you don't belong here.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)In this case, if she shot him instead of firing a warning shot, she might have been OK. If nothing else, there would be one less misogynistic asshole in the world.
Warning shots are illegal for various reason. One being if you have the luxury of firing one, the threat was not that great. Legally, it becomes assault and brandishing. If the bad guy backs off before you pull the trigger or just from seeing the laser spot touching him, great. If you pull the trigger, it should only be at the target needs to be hit. On the more utilitarian level, warning shots in the air can land on innocents miles away, which is why I supported the one bill Scott signed cracking down on dumb assess who shoot in the air on New Years.
Control-Z
(15,682 posts)should have shot the bastard. As you put it: "If nothing else, there would be one less misogynistic asshole in the world."
is yet another law that fails to protect women. There is not a soul who believes she was shooting in the air for fun.
And I believe most women think a bit differently than gun loving men, especially abused women. She probably weighed all the options in a split second and made the decision to try to save all their lives by firing the warning shot to let him know she was serious. I don't know many women who would just shoot the man who fathered their child if trying something less violent/permanent might decompress the situation. Again, I repeat, especially when it comes to abused women.
When we've been battered so many prior times and lived through it, there are always questions. How bad will it be this time? Will this be the time he actually succeeds and kills me? Or will he only crack my skull open like he did the last time? It took my first husband actually hitting my little baby's hands (because she was in my arms holding me tight and there was no way to turn without exposing some part of her) for me to run out the door and get away on a plane. Had there been a gun? I don't know that I could have shot him for threatening just me. For my daughter, quite probably. But if I thought a warning shot would save us all, no matter what the laws, I would probably have tried it.
How ridiculous is it to even think I should kill someone when there might be a safer option? Besides, most of the women I've heard about, who do kill their abusers, end up with long prison sentences. It's a lose/lose for most women. And for minority women it seems they lose every time.
Stand Your ground laws are for men with the right skin tone.
For most everyone else they're more like Stand No Chance laws.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)Duty to Retreat laws were no better as far as discrimination goes. It does remove the option. SYG does not make it illegal to retreat.
Where I grew up (as soon as I can convince the wife, I'll be going back to) both men and women like guns and hunting etc to the same degree.
Control-Z
(15,682 posts)this has nothing to do with liking guns for sport/hunting.
Unless hunting and/or intimidating people happens to be your (not yours, personally) sport.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)Control-Z
(15,682 posts)civil, conversation. Thanks for that.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)She was not the "gun toting mom" the OP tries to make her out to be.
Johnny Rico
(1,438 posts)This should normally involve a double-tap to the center of mass.