HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » BainsBane » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 ... 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Next »


Profile Information

Gender: Do not display
Member since: Sat Sep 15, 2012, 01:49 PM
Number of posts: 31,462

Journal Archives

Seems a logical conclusion to me

They advance policies that result in the highest homicide rate in the First World.
They simply refuse to acknowledge the consequences of gun proliferation.
It's like being a neocon cheer leading for war and pretending that casualties are totally unrelated. You all have blocked yourself off from the results of the policies you work toward, I suppose as I way to keep looking yourselves in the mirror. Meanwhile, the rest of us the country pays for that disassociation from reality.

Murder rate in Mexico


You'll need to click on "show" to open up data by state.

Chihuahua (the state in which Juarez is located) does indeed have the highest murder rate in Mexico. It's a horrifying rate. The highest rates in general are along the border and in Northern Mexico, which shows the correlation in violence between drug trafficking to feed American demand. The much higher murder rates in Chihuahua, Sinoloa, Durango, and Gurerro as opposed to the Yucatan and Queretaro show that your entire argument about gun bans as responsible is untenable. Most of the guns are in the drug areas along the border and in places like Sinaloa where cartels control territory enabling them to transport drugs to the US.

Indisputable proof

The number one factor influencing violent crime

Is the percentage of young males in the population, a criminologist told me. Crime rates have gone down as the birth rate has dropped.

Your link to concealed carry is wishful thinking without any empirical base. It's nice for the multi-billion dollar corporate gun lobby to provide such snazzy graphics though.

For the ultimate D&D fan


For sale on ebay. I kid you not.

New Concealed Carry poll

The whole geographical distinction became a clusterfuck. No one agrees on what a city, suburb, or even a corn field is, so I'm creating a new poll that doesn't require you to clarify where you live.

Do you support concealed carry: No concealed carry, universal concealed carry, shall issue concealed carry, or may issue concealed carry. Definitions are provided near the end of this entry in Wikipedia. Look for the chart. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concealed_carry_in_the_United_States

Stop Lying to yourself About Being That “Good Guy With A Gun” by STEVE MARMEL

“It takes a good guy with a gun to stop a bad guy with a gun.”
Yeah, see that’s why my taxes pay for cops. Actual, ideally well-trained individuals that want to shut a bad guy down with as little collateral damage as possible. Or soldiers! Or the national guard.

I mean, there are tons of places you can be what society considers “A good guy with a gun.”

Let me share something that will make you sad if you believe that first sentence: With 99.9% certainty, I can say there is very little chance you will ever, ever save the day drawing your gun on a “bad guy.” (*caveats for the rare moments it happens.)
You will never be the hero in a story like that unless it’s just you day dreaming as you are shooting tin cans off a fence or targets at a range.
You’re never going to get a badge from the NRA that lauds your courage under pressure.

This is why there are so many more stories about mass-shootings and people accidentally getting shot than a person who happened to have a gun and happened to stop a crime. And you know that. So stop boring us with that justification.

You know in your heart you’ll never be that guy who pulls out a gun to save the day.You’re not the Lone Ranger. You’re not Dirty Harry. You’re not John McClane. You’re just a guy who likes guns and that’s more important to you than anything, including the possibility that mentally ill or dangerous people could kill a lot of people with the same gun you love to hold and look at dreamily.

So just own that. You might never be a hero, but at least you won’t be delusional and you won’t be lying to yourself anymore.


Gun interests WANT criminals to have guns

The gun lobby worked diligently to defeat background checks so that criminals and drug cartels have ready access to guns. Individual gun proponents, in their turn, lobby to extend concealed carry into cities, thousands of miles away from where they live. With concealed carry, "legal gun owners" have the ability to shoot teen age boys when their music is too loud. They can respond to the theft of a briefcase by killing the thief. If they see a suspicious African-American boy with a can of ice tea and a bag of Skittles, they can kill him on site. These are rights gun proponents assiduously work for.

Then if a shooting occurs, they assume the shooter wasn't a "legal" gun owner. Yet they oppose background checks. The NRA lobbied to defeat universal background checks, so that there will be no distinction between legal and illegal gun owners. Some who pretended to be for background checks celebrated their defeat. The defeat also provided an opportunity for them to blame Americans for daring to exercise their free speech rights in calling for an assault weapons ban. The gun forces despise free speech, which is why the gun lobby has worked to impose gag rules around the nation to make it illegal to speak out against gun proliferation, document gun violence, or engage in research on guns. Stopping background checks enables them to pretend shootings are carried out by "illegal guns owners," when the absence of universal background checks, licensing, and registration means there is no real distinction between a legal and an illegal gun owner. Gun proponents have worked hard to ensure felons can simply purchase firearms at gun shows, online, or through private parties. That is the situation they want. The right of those with felonies or those without felonies to kill at will is more important than our right to life.

Meanwhile, gun proponents wring their hands over voluntary buy back programs in cities. The idea that some people would by their own choice give up their guns is for gun zealots, a travesty. They laments the fact that a few guns wont' be put to proper use, that is in shootouts in cities like mine, where they destroy property and kill bystanders. Guns are designed to kill. The idea that people might not choose to no longer own guns disgusts them. Buy backs are entirely voluntary, but they disgust gun proponents. Gun violence, however, does not concern gun proponents. Human life isn't worth considering, especially it is people of color, women, and children who are victims of gun violence. Our lives are completely insignificant in comparison to the gun zealots desire to see as many guns in circulation on city streets, where they are used for maximum lethality.

Even war mongers have the capacity to express sorrow at the life of soldiers killed in foreign exploits. But when it comes to victims of the domestic war wrought by gun policy, proponents can't even pretend to express any concern about victims. Villainization of the Sandyhook families exemplifies that best of all. Anyone who actually feels anything at the loss of life due to violence is deemed "too emotional" to have credence in the gun debate. If I object to shootouts in front of my house and express concern over danger to my life, I'm called "too emotional." "Rational" people don't care who dies. All they care about is making sure as many guns as possible are out and about on city streets. Guns matter more than human life to these people. Whether we live or die is entirely inconsequential. They give more thought to their morning cup of coffee. So when we work to reform gun policy, we are up against some of the most powerful corporate interests in the nation and their supporters for whom human life is trivial. This makes our struggle daunting, but all the more important.

When Men Hate Women: Femicide in Ciudad Juarez

The border area between El Paso, TX and Ciudad Juarez is the site of the most prolific wave of serial killing in modern history. Juarez exemplifies just how deadly misogyny is. Lest you think this is something that can be blamed entirely on Mexico, understand this is a border area where people travel back and forth. The killers might just as easily be Americans as Mexicans, or even both.

Edit: Some sources say up to 4000 women have been killed. This entry is courtesy of Squinch:

"Between the years of 1993 and 2003 in Juárez there had been over 4000 feminicides which have attracted wide attention. Bodies were often dumped in ditches or vacant lots. Grassroots organizations in the region reported an additional 400 women as missing. Despite pressure to catch the killers and a roundup of some suspects, few believe the true culprits were found"


For the last dozen years, fronteriz@s (border people) in the Ciudad Juárez-El Paso metropolitan area have heard shocking reports about women-killing, known as femicide (or in Mexico, feminicidio). About one of every three of the 370 women murdered since 1993 was a young teen who died as a result of grotesque, sexualized torture, according to non-governmental organization (NGO) lists, official reports and Amnesty International’s 2003 monograph, Intolerable Killings. The young women were raped and mutilated, and their bodies dumped in the desert periphery or on city streets. Since 1993, about thirty women have been murdered annually in the Juárez metropolitan area of more than two million people. Even higher rates of homicide exist among Juárez males: more than 200 men are murdered each year, though not tortured sexually.

There is more to this story and its tragedies than the victims, the violence and the eventual demonization of Mexico’s fifth largest city. Mothers of the murdered daughters began to organize in the 1990s, and their efforts have inspired many human rights and feminist activists, as well as some ordinary citizens, to raise awareness about violence against women and about public insecurity generally. Although the mothers have not obtained justice for their daughters, civil society activism is leading toward deeper democracy and a more genuine “rule of law” on the border.



Click through to YouTube to see the entire documentary. Video 1 gets stuck near the end, but if you click through to video 2 at that point, the videos automatically load in sequence.

"Lecturing" as a sexist trope

When I point out that referring to 95% of women as "disgusting" as hateful, I'm accused of lecturing. When another member responds with personal insults, a juror notes that my lectures are tiresome and that I even lecture the administrators by raising a point in ATA. http://www.democraticunderground.com/12592109 Countless others raise issues in ATA, and men who have raised similar concerns about pro-gun proliferation talking points are not accused of "lecturing."

How many times have feminists and women more broadly been accused of lecturing when they make a point? Men are able to say whatever they want and are confronted on the content of their posts. Women's concerns are dismissed as "lecturing" for even having the nerve to voice their views because clearly those making that charge think we have no right to express ourselves. So observers out there, the next time you accuse a woman of lecturing, be aware that we know what you really mean is "You're a woman and you need to keep your mouth shut." This will come as no surprise to those who make such comments, since they know full well what they mean. The fact that a few other women make this same charge changes nothing because there is a great deal of internalized sexism and misogyny.

Lastly, imagine what would happen if someone called "disgusting" the behavior or any group of people on the planet other than women? We all know the answer to that.

Why we need public education

Last one. I promise.
Go to Page: « Prev 1 ... 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Next »